I speak, it will be seen, of 'the relief of Arques'. As my critic so rashly assumed that in my original article I exhausted Mr Freeman's errors,[135] I may point out that this subject introduces us, at once, to fresh ones. Our author, for instance, held that Arques was not relieved. Let us see. We are first rightly told, on the authority of William of Poitiers, that the Duke blockaded the stronghold (munitio) by erecting a castellum at its foot (p. 128). On the next page we are told that the latter was 'a wooden tower'—which is precisely what it was not—and that it 'is described as a munitio' by William of Poitiers, whereas that term, as we have just seen, denoted, on the contrary, the rebel stronghold itself. Then we are told that the French king marched to the relief of the rebels, bringing with him 'a good stock of provisions, of corn, and of wine' for the purpose, but 'was far from being successful in his enterprise' (p. 131). In fact, he 'went home, having done nothing towards the immediate object of his journey—the relief of the besieged' (p. 137). Mr Freeman added in a note: 'So I understand the not very clear statement of William of Poitiers that the King went away.' Now, William's statement (which is quoted by him) is absolutely clear:
Perveniens tamen quo ire intenderat, Rex exacerbatissimis animis summâ vi præsidium attentavit: Willelmum ab ærumnis uti eriperet, pariter decrementum sui, stragem suorum vindicaret.
The King, that is, in spite of the ambush, reached his destination (the blockaded stronghold) and then furiously attacked the castellum below, with the double object of raising the blockade and of avenging the death of his followers. Wace is, if possible, even more explicit. After describing the affair of the ambush, he proceeds thus:
Les somiers fist apareilier,
La garisun prendre e chargier,
À la tur d'Arches fist porter,
Il meisme fu al mener (II. ll. 3519-22).
Arques, therefore, was duly relieved; the blockading party being only strong enough to defend, when attacked, its own castellum.
We will certainly not say of Mr Freeman that he had not read his Wace 'with common care'—to quote from his criticism on Professor Pearson—but really, when more suo he corrected ex cathedrâ the faults of others, he might at least have made sure of his facts. We will take (from the narrative of the Battle of Hastings) the case of the knighting of Harold on the eve of the Breton war:
| Wace | Mr Freeman |
|---|---|
| E Heraut out iloc geu, E par la Lande fu passez, Quant il fu duc amenez, Qui a Aurenches donc esteit E en Bretaigne aler deueit, La le fist li dus chevalier [ll. 13720-5]. | Mr Planché says that Wace lays the scene at Avranches. He probably refers to the Roman de Rou, 13723, but the knighthood is not there spoken of (p. 229). |