MASTER WACE

Mr Freeman Mr Archer
Of the array of the shield-wall we have often heard already as at Maldon, but it is at Senlac that we get the fullest descriptions of it, all the better for coming in the mouths of enemies. Wace gives his description, 12941:—(Norm. Conq., iii. 763). Now, there are six distinct objections to translating this passage [of Wace] as if it referred to a shield-wall. These objections are, of course, of unequal value; but some of them would, by themselves, suffice to overthrow such a theory (Cont. Rev., 349).

In discussing Mr Freeman's treatment of the great battle, we saw that the only passage he vouched for the existence of a palisade[1] consisted of certain lines from Wace's Roman de Rou, which he ultimately declared to be, on the contrary, a description of 'the array of the shield-wall'.[2] The question, therefore, as to their meaning—on which my critics have throughout endeavoured to represent the controversy as turning—did not even arise so far as Mr Freeman was concerned. Still less had I occasion to discuss the authority of Wace, Mr Freeman's explicit verdict on the lines (iii. 763-4) having removed them, as concerns his own narrative, from the sphere of controversy.

The case, however, is at once altered when Mr Archer insists on ignoring Mr Freeman's words, and makes an independent examination of the lines, quoting also other passages which were not vouched by Mr Freeman, as proving 'beyond the shadow of a doubt that Wace did mean to represent the English at Hastings as fighting behind a palisade'.[3] So long as I make it clearly understood that this question in no way affects the controversy as to Mr Freeman, I am quite willing to discuss the question thus raised by Mr Archer.

It is most naturally treated under these three heads:

(1) Did Wace believe and assert that there was a palisade?

(2) If so, what weight ought to be attached to his authority?

(3) If we reject it, can we explain how his mistake arose?

WACE'S MEANING

I have elsewhere[4] discussed 'the disputed passage' (supra, p. 267), and agreed with Mr Archer that there are 'four views which have been suggested' as to its meaning.[5] Two of them, I there showed, were successively held by Mr Freeman, and the two others successively advanced by Mr Archer. When I add (anticipating) that, according to M. Paris, 'le passage de Wace présente quelque obscurité',[6] and that M. Meyer introduced yet another element of doubt in a special kind of shield ('de grands écus') not previously suggested, it will be obvious, quite apart from any opinion of my own, that the passage presents difficulties.

So long as I only dealt with Mr Freeman's work, I found on his admission that the passage described the shield-wall.[7] Now that we are leaving his work aside, I fall back on my own conclusion, namely, that the passage is with equal difficulty referred either to a palisade or to a shield-wall. The word 'escuz', it will be seen, occurs twice in the passage. Mr Archer held, at first, that in neither case did it mean real 'shields',[8] but he afterwards assigned that meaning to the second of the two 'escuz', while still rendering the first 'in a metaphorical sense'.[9] It is obvious that when Mr Freeman took the lines to describe 'the array of the shield-wall', he must have done so on the ground that 'escuz' meant 'shields'. That is my own contention. While fully recognizing the obstacles to translating 'the disputed passage' as if it referred throughout to a shield-wall, I maintain that 'escu' means shield, as a term 'which is one of the commonest in Wace' and invariably means shield.[10]

But to cut short a long story, it was decided by Mr Gardiner to settle this issue by submitting the disputed passage to the verdict of MM. Gaston Paris and Paul Meyer. In spite of my protest, this was done without my articles and my solution of the problem[11] being laid before them at the same time. A snap verdict was thus secured before they had seen the evidence. I am sure that Mr Gardiner must have thought this fair, and editors, we know, cannot err; but it seems to me quite possible that these distinguished French scholars were not familiar with the shield-wall, an Old English tactic, and were not aware that this information was the great feature of the battle. Had all this, as I wished, been duly set before them, their verdict would, of course, have carried much greater weight.

But having said this much, I frankly admit that their verdict is in favour of Mr Archer's contention, and, so far as the first 'escuz' is concerned, against my own.[12] They may not agree in detail with each other, or with either of Mr Archer's views, but, on the broad issue, he has a perfect right to claim that their verdict is for him so long as he does not pretend that it also confirms 'Mr Freeman's interpretation', by ignoring the historian's own latest and explicit words.[13] It must also be remembered that this admission in no way diminishes the obscurity of the passage, which, as we have seen, is beyond dispute, and which forms an important element in my own solution of the problem.[14]

Having now shown how the matter stands with regard to 'the disputed passage', I need not linger over those which Mr Freeman ignored, and which Mr Archer adduced to strengthen his views as to the main passage. I have dealt with these elsewhere,[15] and need here only refer to ll. 8585-90, because that passage raises a point of historical interest quite apart from personal controversy. I have maintained that it can only be accepted at the cost of 'throwing over Mr Freeman's conception of the battle',[16] and have proved, by quoting his own words, that he placed the standard with Harold at his foot 'in the very forefront of the fight'.[17] I do not say that he was right in doing so: he was, I think, very probably wrong, and was influenced here, as elsewhere, by his dramatic treatment of Harold. But as this can only be matter of opinion, I have not challenged his view; I only say that those who accept it cannot consistently appeal to a passage in Wace which places the standard in the rear of the English host.

WACE'S AUTHORITY

Assuming then, for the sake of argument, that Wace mentions a defence of some kind,[18] even though not consistently[19] in front of the English troops, let us see whether his statement is corroborated, whether it is in harmony with the other evidence, and whether, if it is neither corroborated nor in such agreement, his authority is sufficient, nevertheless, to warrant its acceptance.

As to corroboration, Mr Archer undertook 'to produce corroborative evidence from other sources';[20] but this at once dwindled down to one line—'tending in the same direction'[21]— from Benoît de St Maur, who does not even mention a palisade.[22] There is therefore, on his own showing, not a shred of corroborative evidence.

As to the second point, I may refer to my arguments against the palisade,[23] where I showed that none of our authorities is here in agreement with Wace.

We come, therefore, to our third point, namely, the weight to which Wace's testimony, when standing alone, is entitled. Here, as elsewhere, I adhere to my position. As I have written in the Quarterly Review:

Even if Wace, clearly and consistently, mentioned a palisade throughout his account of the battle, we should certainly reject the statement of a witness, writing a century after it, when we find him at variance with every authority (for that is our point), just as Mr Freeman rejected the bridge at Varaville,[24] or the 'falsehood' of the burning of the ships, or the 'blunder' of making the Duke land at Hastings, or his anachronisms, or his chronology. For, 'of course', in the Professor's own words, 'whenever he [Wace] departs from contemporary authority, and merely sets down floating traditions nearly a hundred years after the latest events which he records, his statements need to be very carefully weighed'.[25]

Let me specially lay stress upon the points on which, when Wace and the Tapestry differ, the preference is given by Mr Freeman himself to the Tapestry as against Wace:

Had the tapestry been a work of later date, it is hardly possible that it could have given the simple and truthful account of these matters which it does give. A work of the twelfth or thirteenth century[26] would have brought in, as even honest Wace does in some degree, the notions of the twelfth or thirteenth century. One cannot conceive an artist of the time of Henry II, still less an artist later than the French conquest of Normandy, agreeing so remarkably with the authentic writings of the eleventh century (iii. 573).

[In the Tapestry] every antiquarian detail is accurate—the lack of armour on the horses (iii. 574). [But] Wace speaks of the horse of William fitz Osbern as 'all covered with iron' (iii. 570).

Wace again, is 'hardly accurate' (iii. 765), we read, as to the English weapons, because he differs from the Tapestry. As to Harold's wound, 'Wace places it too early in the battle' (iii. 497); Mr Freeman follows the Tapestry. As to the landing of the Normans at Pevensey:

Venit ad Pevenesæ, says the Tapestry ... Wace ... altogether reverses the geography, making the army land at Hastings, and go to Pevensey afterwards' (iii. 402).

As to the 'Mora', the Duke's ship, the Tapestry shows 'the child with his horn'; Wace describes him 'Saete et arc tendu portant'. Mr Freeman adopts the 'horn' (iii. 382). Harold, says Mr Freeman, was imprisoned at Beaurain.

This is quite plain from the Tapestry: 'Dux eum ad Belrem et ibi eum tenuit'. Wace says, 'A Abevile l'ont mené....' This I conceive to arise from a misconception of the words of William of Jumièges (iii. 224).

This illustrates, I would remind Mr Archer, the difference between a primary authority and a mere late compiler.

To these examples I may add Wace's mention of Harold's vizor (ventaille). Mr Freeman pointed out the superior accuracy of the Tapestry in 'the nose-pieces' (iii. 574), and observed that 'the vizor' was a much later introduction (iii. 497).[27] Here again we see the soundness of Mr Freeman's view that Wace could not help introducing 'the notions' of his own time into his account of the battle. Miss Norgate admits that he 'transferred to his mythical battles the colouring of the actual battles of his own day', but urges that these narratives illustrate the 'warfare of Wace's own ... contemporaries'.[28] Quite so. But the battle of Hastings belonged to an older and obsolete style of warfare. That is what his champions always forget. If Miss Norgate's argument has any meaning, it is that the men who fought in that battle were 'Wace's own contemporaries'.

But, even where Wace's authority is in actual agreement with the Tapestry, Mr Freeman did not hesitate to reject, or rather, ignore it, as we saw in the matter of the fosse disaster.

As to Wace's sources of information, and the prima facie evidence for his authority, a question of considerable interest is raised. Mr Archer discusses it from his own standpoint.[29] On Wace's life, age and work, facts are few and speculations many. These have been collected and patiently sifted in Andresen's great work, with the following result:

Wace was certainly living not merely in 1170,[30] but in 1174, for he alludes to the siege of Rouen (August 1174) in his epilogue to the second part of the 'Roman'.[31] It is admitted on all hands, though Mr Archer does not mention it, that he did not even begin the third part till after the coronation of the younger Henry (June 14, 1170).[32] Allowing for its great length, he cannot have come to his account of the battle at the very earliest till 1171, 105 years after the event. For my part, I think that it was probably written even some years later. But imagine in any case an Englishman, ignorant of Belgium, writing an account of Waterloo, mainly from oral tradition, in 1920.

Mr Archer contends that Wace was born 'probably between the years 1100 and 1110' (ante, p. 31). Andresen holds that the earliest date we can venture to assign is 1110,[33] forty-four years after the battle. Special stress is laid by Mr Archer on Wace's oral information:

He had seen and talked with many men who recollected things anterior to Hastings and the Hastings campaign. Among his informants for this latter was his own father, then, we may suppose, a well-grown lad, if not an actual participator in the fight (ante, p. 32).

'We may suppose'—where all is supposition—exactly the contrary. If Wace was born, as we may safely say, more than forty years after the battle, 'we may suppose' that his father was not even born before it. All this talk about Wace's father is based on ll. 6445-7, of which Andresen truly remarks, 'Die Verse "Mais co oi dire a mon pere, Bien m'en souient mais Vaslet ere, Que set cenz nes, quatre meins, furent", u.s.w., sind viel zu unbestimmt gehalten, so dass wir aus ihnen streng genommen nicht einmal entnehmen können, ob der Vater im Jahre 1066 schon auf der Welt war oder nicht' (p. lxx). I venture to take my own case. Born within forty years of Waterloo, I can say with Wace that I remember my father telling me, as a boy, stories of the battle. But he was born after it. The information was second-hand. Over and over again does Mr Archer lay stress on the fact (ut supra) that Wace gives us 'the reminiscences of the old heroes who fought at Hastings as no one else has cared to do'.[34] I must insist that Wace himself nowhere mentions having seen or spoken to them. He does mention having seen men who remembered the great comet (Mr Archer italicizes the lines[35]); but this exactly confirms my point. For when Wace had seen eyewitnesses he was careful, we see, to mention the fact. Men would remember the comet, though little children at the time. One of my own very earliest recollections is that of a great comet, even though it did not create the sensation of the comet in 1066. Wace had talked with those who had been children, not with those who had been fighting men, in 1066.

I need only invite attention to one more point. Mr Archer assures us that 'Wace is a very sober writer', with 'something of the shrewd scepticism' of modern scholars.[36] What shall we say then, of his long story (ll. 7005-100) of the night visit, by Harold and Gyrth, to the Norman camp, to which Mr Archer appeals as evidence for the lices (l. 7010)? 'Nothing,' replies Mr Freeman (iii. 449), 'could be less trustworthy.... No power short of divination could have revealed it.'[37] Mr Archer tells us he has only space for one instance[38] of Wace's conscientiousness. That instance is his story of the negotiation between William and Baldwin of Flanders on the eve of the Conquest. Of this story Mr Freeman writes:

Of the intercourse between William and Baldwin in his character of sovereign of Flanders Wace has a tale which strikes me as so purely legendary that I did not venture to introduce it into the text.... The whole story seems quite inconsistent with the real relations between William and Baldwin (iii. 718-19).

Comment is superfluous.

Having now shown that Wace's evidence is not corroborated, is not in accordance with that of contemporary witnesses, and cannot on the sound canons of criticism recognized by Mr Freeman himself, be accepted under these circumstances, I propose to show that my case can be carried further still, and that I can even trace to its origin the confused statement in his 'disputed passage' which is said to describe a palisade or defence of some sort or other.

WACE AND HIS SOURCES[39]

In studying the authorities for the Battle of Hastings, I was led to a conclusion which, so far as I know, had never occurred to any one. It is that William of Malmesbury's 'Gesta Regum' was among the sources used by Wace. Neither in Korting's elaborate treatise, 'Ueber die Quellen des Roman de Rou', nor in Andresen's notes to his well-known edition of the 'Roman' (ii. 708), can I find any suggestion to this effect. Dr Stubbs, in his edition of the 'Gesta Regum', dwells on the popularity of the work both at home and abroad, but does not include Wace among the writers who availed themselves of it; and the late Mr Freeman, though frequently compelled to notice the agreement between Wace and William, never thought, it appears, of suggesting the theory of derivation; indeed, he speaks of the two writers as independent witnesses, when dealing with one of these coincidences.[40] The more one studies Wace, the more evident it becomes that the 'Roman' requires to be used with the greatest caution. Based on a congeries of authorities, on tradition, and occasionally of course, on the poetic invention of the trouveur it presents a whole in which it is almost impossible to disentangle the various sources of the narrative. Before dealing with the passage which led me to believe that the 'Gesta Regum' must have been known to Wace, I will glance at some other coincidences. We have first the alleged landing of William at Hastings instead of Pevensey. On this Mr Freeman observed:

Venit ad Pevenesæ, says the Tapestry. So William of Poitiers and William of Jumièges. William of Malmesbury says carelessly, Placido cursu Hastingas appulerunt. So Wace, who altogether reverses the geography, making the army land at Hastings and go to Pevensey afterwards.[41]

Here William of Malmesbury, who was probably using 'Hastingas' as loosely as when he applied that term to Battle, appears to be responsible for the mistake of Wace, who may have tried to harmonize him with William of Jumièges by making the Normans proceed to Pevensey after having landed. Take again the hotly disputed burial of Harold at Waltham. On this question Mr Freeman writes:

William of Malmesbury, after saying that the body was given to Gytha, adds acceptum itaque apud Waltham sepelivit.... Wace had evidently heard two or three stories, and, with his usual discretion, he avoided committing himself, but he distinctly asserts a burial at Waltham.[42]

This, then, is another coincidence between the two writers, while, as before, Wace found himself in the presence of a conflict of authorities. On yet another difficult point, the accession of Harold, I see a marked agreement, though Mr Freeman did not. Harold, according to William of Malmesbury, extorta a principibus fide, arripuit diadema, and diademate fastigiatus, nihil de pactis inter se et Willelmum cogitabat. Wace's version runs:

Heraut ki ert manant è forz

Se fist énoindre è coroner;

Unkes al duc n'en volt parler,

Homages prist è féeltez

Des plus riches è des ainz nes.

Not only is the attitude of Wace and William towards Harold's action here virtually identical, but the mention of his exaction of homage seems special to them both.

The passages, however, on which I would specially rest my case are those in which these two writers describe the visit of Harold's spies to the Norman camp before the battle of Hastings. This legend is peculiar to William of Malmesbury and Wace, and though it may be suggested that they had heard it independently, the correspondence—it will, I think, be admitted—is too close to admit of that solution.

I print these passages side by side:

William of Malmesbury Wace
Premisit tamen qui numerum hostium et vires specularentur.
Quos intra castra deprehensos Willelmus circum tentoria duci, moxque, largis eduliis pastos, domino incolumes remitti jubet.
Redeuntes percunctatur Haroldus quid rerum apportent: illi, verbis amplissimis ductoris magnificam confidentiam prosecuti, serio addiderunt pene omnes in exercitu illo presbyteros videri, quod totam faciem cum utroque labio rasam haberent; ... subrisit rex fatuitatem referentinum, lepido insecutus cachinno, quia non essent presbyteri, sed milites validi, armis invicti. (§ 239) 		Heraut enveia dous espies Por espier quels compagnies E quanz barons e quanz armez Aueit li dus od sei menez. Ia esteient a l'ost uenu, Quant il furent aparceu A Guillaume furent mene, Forment furent espoente. Mais quant il sout que il quereient E que ses genz esmer ueneient, Par tos les tres les fist mener E tote l'ost lor fist mostrer; Bien les fist paistre e abeurer, Pois les laissa quites aler, Nes volt laidir ne destorber. Quant il vindrent a lor seignor, Del duc distrent mult grant enor. Un des Engleis, qui out veuz Les Normans toz res e tonduz, Quida que tuit proueire fussent E que messes chanter peussent, Kar tuit erent tondu e res, Ne lor esteit guernon remes. Cil dist a Heraut que li dus Aueit od sei proueies plus Que chevaliers ne altre gent; De co se merueillout forment Que tuit erent res e tondu. E Heraut li a respondu Que co sunt cheualiers uaillanz, Hardi e proz e combatanz. 'N'ont mie barbes ne guernons,' Co dist Heraut, 'com nos auons.' (ll. 7101-34)

The story is just one of those that William of Malmesbury would have picked up, and Wace has simply, in metrical paraphrase, transferred it from his pages to his own.

Yet another story, on which Mr Freeman looked with some just suspicion, is common to these two writers, and virtually to them alone. It is that of 'the contrast between the way in which the night before the battle was spent by the Normans and the English' (iii. 760). Wace, says Mr Freeman, 'gives us the same account' as William 'in more detail', while William 'gives us a shorter account'. I here again append the passages side by side, insisting on the fact mentioned by Mr Freeman, that Wace expands the story 'in more detail':

Itaque utrinque animosi duces disponunt acies.... Angli, ut accepimus, totam noctem insompnem cantibus potibusque ducentes.
. . . . .
Contra Normanni, nocte tota confessioni peccatorum vacantes, mane Dominico corpore communicarunt. (§§ 241, 242) 		Quant la bataille dut ioster, La noit auant, c'oi conter, Furent Engleis forment haitie Mult riant e mult enueisie. Tote noit maingierent e burent, Onques la noit en lit ne jurent. Mult les veissiez demener, Treper e saillir e chanter. . . . . . E li Normant e li Franceis Tote noit firent oreisons E furent en afflictions. De lor pechiez confes se firent, As proueires les regehirent, E qui nen out proueires pres, À son ueisin se fist confes. . . . . . Quant les messes furent chantees, Qui bien matin furent finees.... (ll. 7349-56, 7362-8, 7407-8)

This brings me to my destination, namely, § 241 of the 'Gesta Regum'. We may divide this section into three successive parts: (1) the description of the way in which the English spent the night—which is repeated, we have seen, by Wace; (2) the array of the English, with which I shall deal below; (3) the dismounting of Harold at the foot of the standard. I here subjoin the parallels for the third, calling special attention to the phrases, 'd'or e de pierres (auro et lapidibus)' and 'Guil. pois cele victoire Le fist porter a l'apostoire (post victorium papae misit Willelmus).'

Rex ipse pedes juxta vexillum stabat cum fratribus, ut, in commune periculo aequato, nemo de fuga cogitaret. Vexillum illud post victoriam papae misit Willelmus, quod erat in hominis pugnantis figura, auro et lapidibus arte sumptuosa intextum. Quant Heraut out tot apreste E co qu'il uolt out commande Enmi les Engleis est uenuz, Lez l'estandart est descenduz Lewine e Guert furent od lui Frere Heraut furent andui, Assez out barons enuiron; Heraut fu lez son gonfanon. Li gonfanon fu mult vaillanz, D'or e de pierres reluissanz. Guill. pois cele victoire Le fist porter a l'apostoire, Por mostrer e metre en memoire Son grant conquest e sa grant gloire. (ll. 7853-66)

The only part of § 241 which remains to be dealt with is the second. The two passages run thus:

Pedites omnes cum bipennibus conserta ante se scutorum testudine, impenetrabilem cuneum faciunt; quod profecto illis ea die saluti fuisset, nisi Normanni, simulata fuga more suo confertos manipulos laxassent. (§ 241) Geldons engleis haches portoent E gisarmes qui bien trenchoent Fait orent deuant els escuz De fenestres e d'altres fuz, Deuant els les orent leuez, Comme cleies joinz e serrez; Fait en orent deuant closture, N'i laissierent nule iointure, Par onc Normant entr'els venist Qui desconfire les volsist. D'escuz e d'ais s'auironoent, Issi deffendre se quidoent; Et s'il se fussent bien tenu, Ia ne fussent le ior uencu. (ll. 7813-26)

Mr Freeman, of course, observed the parallel, but, oddly enough, missed the point. He first quoted the lines from Wace, and then immediately added, 'So William of Malmesbury' (iii. 764), thus reversing the natural order. The word that really gave me the clue was the escuz of Wace. It was obvious, I held, that, here as elsewhere,[43] it must mean 'shield'; and Mr Freeman consequently saw in the passage an undoubted description of the 'shield-wall' (iii. 763). Moreover, the phrase lever escuz is, in Wace, a familiar one, describing preparation for action, thus, for instance:

Mult ueissiez Engleis fremir

· · · · ·

Armes saisir, escuz leuer.

(ll. 8030, 8033)

On the other hand, there are, in spite of Mr Freeman, undoubted difficulties in rendering the passage as a description of the 'shield-wall', just as there are in taking escuz to mean 'barricades' (iii. 471). The result was that, perhaps unconsciously, Mr Freeman gave the passage, in succession, two contradictory renderings (iii. 471, 763). Now, starting from the fact that the disputed passage supported, and also opposed both renderings, I arrived at the conclusion that it must represent some confusion of Wace's own. He had, evidently, himself no clear idea of what he was describing. But the whole confusion is at once accounted for if we admit him to have here also followed William of Malmesbury. His escuz—otherwise impossible to explain—faithfully renders the scuta of William, while the latter's testudo, though strictly accurate, clearly led him astray. The fact is that William of Malmesbury must have been quite familiar with the 'shield-wall', if indeed he had seen the fyrd actually forming it.[44] Wace, on the contrary, living later, and in Normandy instead of England, cannot have seen, or even understood, this famous formation, with which his cavalry fight of the twelfth century had nothing in common. It is natural therefore that his version should betray some confusion, though his Fait en orent deuant closture clearly renders William of Malmesbury's conserta ante se scutorum testudine. There is no question as to William's meaning, for a testudo of shields is excellent Latin for the shield-wall formed by the Romans against a flight of arrows. Moreover, the construction of William's Latin (conserta) accounts for that use by Wace of the pluperfect tense on which stress has been laid as proof that the passage must describe a 'barricade'.[45] That Wace could, occasionally, be led astray by misunderstanding his authority, is shown by his taking Harold to Abbeville, after his capture on the French coast, a statement which arose, in Mr Freeman's opinion, 'from a misconception of the words of William of Jumièges (iii. 224)'. No one, I think, can read dispassionately the extracts I have printed side by side, without accepting the explanation I offer of this disputed passage in Wace, namely, that it is nothing but a metrical, elaborate, and somewhat confused paraphrase of the words of William of Malmesbury.

Passing from William of Malmesbury to the Bayeux Tapestry, we find a general recognition of the difficulty of determining Wace's knowledge of it. I can only, like others, leave the point undecided. On the other hand, his narrative, as a whole, does not follow the Tapestry; on the other, it is hard to believe that the writer of ll. 8103-38 had not seen that famous work. His description of the scene is marvellously exact, and the Tapestry phrase, in which Odo confortat pueros—often a subject of discussion—is at once explained by his making the pueri whom Odo 'comforted' to be—

Vaslez, qui al herneis esteient

E le herneis garder deueient.

Of these varlets in charge of the 'harness' he had already spoken (ll. 7963-7). The difficulty of accounting for Wace, as a canon of Bayeux, being unacquainted with the Tapestry is, of course, obvious. But in any case he cannot have used it, as we do ourselves, among his foremost authorities.

In discussing his use of William of Jumièges, we stand on much surer ground. It certainly strikes one as strange that in mentioning the obvious error by which Wace makes Harold receive his wound in the eye early in the fight (l. 8185), before the great feigned flight, Mr Freeman does not suggest its derivation from William of Jumièges, though he proceeds to add (p. 771):

I need hardly stop to refute the strange mistake of William of Jumièges, followed by Orderic: 'Heraldus ipse in primo militum progressu ['Congressu', Ord.] vulneribus letaliter confossus occubuit'.

But a worse instance of the contradictions involved by the patchwork and secondary character of Wace's narrative is found in his statement as to Harold's arrival on the field of battle. 'Wace,' says Mr Freeman, 'makes the English reach Senlac on Thursday night' (p. 441). So he does, even adding that Harold

fist son estandart drecier

Et fist son gonfanon fichier

Iloc tot dreit ou l'abeie

De la Bataille est establie.

(ll. 6985-8)

But Mr Freeman must have overlooked the very significant fact that when the battle is about to begin, Wace tells a different story, and makes Harold only occupy the battlefield on the Saturday morning:

Heraut sout que Normant vendreient

E que par main se combatreient:

Un champ out par matin porpris,

Ou il a toz ses Engleis mis.

Par matin les fist toz armer

E a bataille conreer.

(ll. 7768-72)

I have little doubt that he here follows William of Jumièges: '[Heraldus] in campo belli apparuit mane', and that he was thus led to contradict himself.

Mr Freeman had a weakness for Wace, and did not conceal it: he insisted on the poet's 'honesty'. But 'honesty' is not knowledge; and in dealing with the battle, it is not allowable to slur over Wace's imperfect knowledge. Mr Freeman admits that 'probably he did not know the ground, and did not take in the distance between Hastings and Battle' (p. 762). But he charitably suggests that 'it is possible that when he says "en un tertre s'estut li dus" he meant the hill of Telham, only without any notion of its distance from Hastings'. But, in spite of this attempt to smooth over the discrepancy, it is impossible to reconcile Wace's narrative with that of Mr Freeman. The latter makes the duke deliver his speech at Hastings, and then march with his knights to Telham, and there arm. But Wace imagined that they armed in their quarters at Hastings ('Issi sunt as tentes ale'), and straightway fought. The events immediately preceding the battle are far more doubtful and difficult to determine than could be imagined from Mr Freeman's narrative, but I must confine myself to Wace's version. I have shown that his account is not consistent as to the movements of Harold, while as to the topography, 'his primary blunder', as Mr Freeman terms it, 'of reversing the geographical order, by making William land at Hastings and thence go to Pevensey', together with his obvious ignorance of the character and position of the battlefield, must, of course, lower our opinion of his accuracy, and of the value of the oral tradition at his disposal.

To rely 'mainly'[46] on such a writer, in preference to the original authorities he confused, or to follow him when, in Mr Freeman's words, he actually 'departs from contemporary authority, and merely sets down floating traditions nearly a hundred years after the latest events which he records'—betrays the absence of a critical faculty, or the consciousness of a hopeless cause.

[1] Dismissing ut supra the 'fosse' passage, which neither mentions nor implies it, together with the passage from Henry of Huntingdon.

[2] Norm. Conq., iii. 763-4. I have shown in the English Historical Review (ix. 225) that he meant here by the shield-wall 'exactly what he meant by it elsewhere', a shield-wall and nothing else.

[3] Cont. Rev., 344.

[4] English Historical Review, ix. 231-40.

[5] English Historical Review, ix. 2.

[6] Ibid., 260.

[7] Norm. Conq., iii. 763-4.

[8] Cont. Rev., p. 348.

[9] English Historical Review, ix. 17-20.

[10] I explained, in one of my replies to Mr Archer, that this statement applied only to its usage 'in Wace' (Academy, September 16, 1893), but, characteristically, he has not hesitated to suppress this explanation, and renew his sneers at my knowledge of 'Old French', on the ground of a statement which, I had explained, was not my meaning (English Historical Review, ix. 604). It is difficult to describe such devices as these.

Common as the word is in Wace, I have never found any other instance of its use (i.e. by him) in a metaphorical sense, nor, if there is one, has Mr Archer attempted to produce it.

[11] Infra, pp. 313-18.

[12] English Historical Review, ix. 260.

[13] Norm. Conq., iii. 736-7.

[14] The word 'fenestres', for instance, which Mr Archer first rendered 'ash', out of deference to Mr Freeman and his predecessors, but subsequently 'windows' (English Historical Review, ix. 18), is either a corruption or quite inexplicable. 'If it pleases Mr Archer,' as I wrote (Ibid., 236), 'to construct a barricade, of which "windows" are the chief ingredient, on an uninhabited Sussex down, in 1066, he is perfectly welcome to do so.' I may add that the rendering adopted by the two French scholars does not in the least alter my view as to the improbability, or rather absurdity, of the suggestion.

[15] Ibid., ix. 244.

[16] Q.R., July 1893, p. 95.

[17] English Historical Review, ix. 251-3. I was careful to add that 'if it be claimed that his text is contradictory, this would but prove further how confused his mind really was as to the battle' (p. 252). Mr Archer, as I anticipated, now prints, as a conclusive reply (Ibid., ix. 603), words which look the other way, ignoring, as usual, the quotations on which I explicitly relied. He has thereby, as I said, only proved how confused, here as elsewhere, Mr Freeman's conception was.

[18] Mr Archer now prefers to leave its details doubtful (English Historical Review, ix. 606).

[19] As I have shown in Ibid., ix. 244-5.

[20] Cont. Rev., 344.

[21] Ibid., 346.

[22] I have shown (Academy, September 16, 1893) by reference to Godefroi and Michel that either Mr Archer or they must here have been ignorant of Old French. The former alternative seems to be accepted.

[23] Supra, pp. 269-70.

[24] The case of the battle of Varaville, in 1058, is precisely similar in this respect to that of the Battle of Hastings. Of the former Mr Freeman writes: 'Wace alone speaks, throughout his narrative, of a bridge. All the other writers speak only of a ford' (iii. 173). Now Wace's authority was better for this, the earlier battle, because, says Mr Freeman, he knew the ground. Yet the Professor did not hesitate to reject his 'bridge'. So again, in 'the campaign of Hastings', Mr Freeman rejects 'the falsehood of the story of William burning his ships, of which the first traces appear in Wace' (iii. 408). So much for placing our reliance upon Wace, when he stands alone.

[25] Q.R., July 1893, p. 96.

[26] Mr Archer's limit is 1066-1210.

[27] We have, I suspect, a similar instance, in Wace's gisarmes (ll. 7794, 7814, 8328, 8332, 8342, 8587, 8629, 8656). An excellent vindication of the Bayeux Tapestry—oddly enough overlooked by Mr Freeman—namely, M. Delauney's 'Origine de la Tapisserie de Bayeux prouvée par elle-même' (Caen, 1824)—discusses the weapons, the author observing: 'La hache d'armes ressemble à celle de nos sapeurs; celle des temps postèrieurs au xie siècle à, dans les monuments, une espèce de petite lance au-dessus de la douille du côté opposé au tranchant' (see Jubinal, La Tapisserie de Bayeux, p. 17). This exactly describes the true gisarme, a later introduction. So again, Wace makes the chevalier who has hurried from Hastings exclaim to Harold:

'Un chastel i ont ia ferme

De breteschese de fosse' (ll. 6717-8),

whereas bretasches of course were impossible at the time. One is reminded of the description, by Piramus, of the coming of the English, when 'over the broad sea Britain they sought':

'Leuent bresteches od kernels,

Ke cuntrevalent bons chastels,

De herituns [? hericuns] e de paliz

Les cernent, si funt riulez

Del quer des cheygnes, forze e halz,

Ki ne criement sieges ne asalz.'

(Vie Seint Edmund le Rey, ll. 228-33.)

[28] English Historical Review, ix. 66.

[29] Ibid., 31-7, 17-18, and throughout his paper.

[30] Ibid., ix. 32.

[31] 'Al siege de Rouen le quidierent gaber' (l. 62).

[32] 'Demn nicht etwa am Schlusse, sondern gleich zu Anfang des genannten Theiles' (l. 179) 'spricht er von den drei Königen Heinrich die er gesehen und gekannt' (p. xciv).

[33] 'Nimmt man das Jahr 1110 als Geburtsjahr des Dichters an', etc. (p. xciv).

[34] English Historical Review, ix. 33. It need scarcely be said that these 'old heroes' would be found rather in England than in Normandy.

[35] Ibid., ix. 17.

'Assez vi homes qui la virent,

Qui ainz e pois longues vesquirent.'

[36] Ibid., ix. 33.

[37] Compare his scornful rejection (iii. 469-71) of Wace's tales in ll. 7875-950.

[38] English Historical Review, ix. 34.

[39] Reprinted from Ibid., October 1893.

[40] Norm. Conq., iii. 783.

[41] iii. 402, note 2.

[42] iii. 782.

[43] I mean, as I explained above, elsewhere in Wace.

[44] He describes, as Mr Freeman observed, King Henry bidding the English 'meet the charge of the Norman knights by standing firm in the array of the ancient shield-wall' (William Rufus, ii. 411).

[45] Cont. Rev., March 1893, p. 351.

[46] 'It is upon Wace that we shall mainly rely.' Cont. Rev., p. 344.