[40] I wish, as I have done throughout, to make it absolutely clear that I am here concerned only with Mr Freeman's rendering of Wace. If we are to go outside that rendering and discuss Wace de novo, it is best to do so in a fresh section. This I hope to do below, when I shall discuss the question of his authority (which has not yet arisen), and shall also propound my own explanation of the now famous disputed passage.
[41] In my first article (Quarterly Review, July 1892, pp. 15-16) I pointed out that the great weight attached to Mr Freeman's statements had of course 'secured universal acceptance' for the palisade, and that it figures 'now in every history'. Mr Archer, in his latest paper, refers to these remarks (English Historical Review, ix. 602) and triumphantly charges me with self-contradiction in having myself once accepted it, like every one else. He refers to an incidental allusion by me in the Dictionary of National Biography so many years ago that I was unaware of its existence. I am particularly glad to be reminded of the fact that I did allude, in early days, to the 'palisade' and to 'Senlac', for it emphasizes the very point of my case, namely, that that mischievous superstition of Mr Freeman's unfailing accuracy must be ruthlessly destroyed lest others should be taught, as I was, to accept his authority as supreme.
My opponent writes:
'Mr Round ... in direct contradiction to the Quarterly reviewer, has found for it [the palisade] an authority in William of Poitiers, and has gone far beyond Mr Freeman himself in giving us the name of the man who first broke it down.'
How has Mr Archer produced the alleged 'contradiction'? He has taken a passage from my notice of Robert de Beaumont, written years before I had made any independent investigation of the Battle of Hastings, and when I thought, like the rest of the world, that I might, here at any rate, safely follow Mr Freeman, when it was only a matter of a passing allusion to the fight. The following parallel passages will prove, beyond the shadow of doubt, that I here merely followed Mr Freeman, accepting his own authority—William of Poitiers—for the incident. Any one in my place would have done the same. But Mr Archer asserts that, on the contrary, I went 'far beyond Mr Freeman himself in giving us the name of the man who first broke it down'. Let us see if this definite statement is true:
| Mr Freeman | My Article |
|---|---|
| The new castle was placed in the keeping of Henry, the younger son of Roger of Beaumont. A great estate in the shire also fell to Henry's elder brother, Robert, Count of Melent, who, at the head of the French auxiliaries, had been the first to break down the English palisade at Senlac—Norman Conquest, iv. [1871] 191-2. See also iii. 486, and Will. Rufus, i. 185, ii. 135, 402. | Of these [sons] Robert fought at Senlac ... [and] was the first to break down the English palisade ... he was rewarded with large grants in Warwickshire, and Warwick Castle was entrusted to his brother Henry—Dict. Nat. Biog., iv. 64. (Mr Freeman's works, of course, are given among the authorities for the article.) |
So much for Mr Archer's assertion that I made an independent statement not found in Mr Freeman's pages. It is obviously impossible to conduct a controversy with an opponent who does not restrict himself to fact.
[42] William the Conqueror (1888), p. 90.
[43] 'Had they done so, they must have been set so close that they could not have used their weapons with any freedom' (Cont. Rev., p. 346).
[44] Short History, p. 79.