The manœuvre is elaborately described by Wace (ll. 3491-514) in a passage which ought to be compared, in places, with that on the great 'feinte fuie' itself (ll. 8203-70).
He carefully distinguishes the two parties essential to the stratagem:[134]
Partie pristrent des Normanz,
Des forz e des mielz cumbatanz,
. . . . .
Puis pristrent une autre partie, etc., etc.
The latter detachment turned in flight and decoyed some of the leading Frenchmen past the spot where the ambush was laid. Then, facing round, they caught their rash pursuers 'between two fires'. I have shown above, from the 'precise statement' which is found in the 'Battle Chronicle', that the great manœuvre which deceived the English was a similarly combined one. Mr Freeman, completely missing this point, makes the Norman 'division', which did not take part in the flight 'ride up the hill' (p. 490), where its slopes were deserted, whereas, on the contrary, they thrust themselves between the pursuers and the hill, and then charged on their rear, riding, of course, not on to, but away from the hill.
So close is the Arques parallel that in Wace we find the same words occurring in both cases:
| A cels kis alouent chazant E quis alouent leidissant Sunt enmi le vis tresturne, E Franceis sunt a els mesdle (ll. 3501-4); | Engleis les aloent gabant E de paroles laidissant . . . . Torne lor sunt enmi le vis . . . . E as Engleis entremesler (ll. 8241-2, 8262-4); |
while William of Malmesbury describes the French king as thus 'astutia insidiis exceptus', just as he describes Harold, in turn as thus 'astutiâ Willelmi circumventus'. Mr Freeman quoted both passages, yet failed to note the parallel.