Charles arrived on the first of November, and the first Sunday of the month was the fifth.  He differs from the concurrent testimony of other historians in making the affianced bride of Buondelmonte dei Buondelmonti a Giantruffetti instead of an Amidei, and the Bishop of Arezzo a Pazzi instead of an Ubertini.  He reckons the Arti at twenty-four, whereas they numbered twenty-one.  He places the Coronation of Henry VII. in August, instead of in June, 1312.  He seems to refer to the Palace of the Signory, which could not have been built at the date in question.  He asserts that a member of the Benivieni family was killed by one of the Galligai, whereas the murderer was of the blood of the Galli.  He represents himself as having been the first Gonfalonier of Justice who destroyed the houses of rebellious nobles, while Baldo de’ Ruffoli, who held the office before him, had previously carried out the Ordinances.  Speaking of Guido Cavalcanti about the year 1300, he calls him ‘uno giovane gentile’; and yet Guido had married the daughter of Farinata degli Uberti in 1266, and certainly did not survive 1300 more than a few months.  The peace with Pisa, which was concluded during Compagni’s tenure of the Gonfalonierate, is not mentioned, though this must have been one of the most important public events with which he was concerned.  Chronology is hopelessly and inextricably confused; while inaccuracies and difficulties of the kind described abound on every page of the ‘Chronicle,’ rendering the labor of its last commentator and defender one of no small difficulty.  The third group of arguments assails the language of the ‘Chronicle’ and its MS. authority.  Fanfani, who showed more zeal than courtesy in his destructive criticism, undertook to prove that Dino’s style in general is not distinguished for the ‘purity, simplicity, and propriety’ of the trecento[3]; that it abounds in expressions of a later period, such as armata for oste, marciare for andare, accio for acciocche, onde for affinche; that numerous imitations of Dante can be traced in it; and that to an acute student of early Italian prose its palpable quattrocentismo is only slightly veiled by a persistent affectation of fourteenth-century archaism.  This argument from style seems the strongest that can be brought against the genuineness of the ‘Chronicle’; for while it is possible that Dino may have made innumerable blunders about the events in which he took a part, it is incredible that he should have anticipated the growth of Italian by at least a century.  Yet judges no less competent than Fanfani in this matter of style, and far more trustworthy as witnesses, Vincenzo Nannucci, Gino Capponi, Isidoro del Lungo, are of opinion that Dino’s ‘Chronicle’ is a masterpiece of Italian fourteenth-century prose; and till Italian experts are agreed, foreign critics must suspend their judgment.  The analysis of style receives a different