[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),