my contention that his 'Chronicle' is 'in part untrustworthy'.[1] He himself has to admit that its two salient episodes—the embassy of Hubert de Rye to Edward and the tale that William II 'by Eudo's zeal and energy is chosen consecrated and confirmed king in England', or that Eudo was 'the instrument of placing William II on the throne'[2]—are wholly without corroboration.[3] Of the former he writes that 'there is no direct evidence for or against the statement'[4]; of William II's accession he can only urge that 'though the business is generally ascribed to Lanfranc, it is not unreasonable to suppose Eudo had a hand in it'.[5] In other words it is a mere guess.[6]
Mr. Rye, however, insists on the 'attackers' of the legend supplying more than proof that there is no corroboration of his Chronicle's chief statements; he claims that those who reject its evidence must convict it of error. I must here explain that he seems unable to understand the position of those critics who—like myself and others—endeavour 'to disentangle facts from fiction'.[7] To myself Mr. Rye attributes five comments on the 'Chronicle', which he carefully numbers, which he places within quotation marks, and to each of which he is careful to append the reference. He then proceeds as follows:
Freeman is dead, but I think I have a right to ask the survivor of the two attackers to give some further and better particulars in support of his five definite remarks just quoted.[8]
Those who are not familiar with Mr. Rye's productions will doubtless be surprised to learn that, of these 'five' comments, one (no. 2) is actually not by me, but by Mr. R. C. Fowler, who has made a special study of monastic history; three are inaccurately quoted,[9] and in three cases out of the five the reference is wrong![10] Lastly, incredible though it may seem, I am charged with two 'remarks' which are one and the same.[11] Yet it is
- ↑ p. 37 a.
- ↑ pp. 34 a, 38 b.
- ↑ For I have disproved the allegations that Ash was granted by Edward to Hubert, that 'besides Ash, Eudo held other possessions in England before the Conquest', and that 'he had sat on a Commission with William de Pont de l'Arche in 1072'.
- ↑ p. 40 b.
- ↑ p. 39a.
- ↑ Nevertheless Mr. Rye professes 'to tabulate all the important statements made in it (except the miracle), and place under each head the independent facts (sic) which corroborate it' (p. 38 a). With these facts I have dealt in the text.
- ↑ Victoria County History, Essex, i. 347.
- ↑ p. 37 a.
- ↑ e.g. my 'foundation histories' is quoted as 'foundation charters'.
- ↑ Viz. 'ii, p. 13' for ii, p. 93 (in no. 2); 'Id. p. 347' for 'i, p. 347' (in no. 3); 'p. 347' for 'i, p. 347'.
- ↑
'Eudo's life is so embellished in the Chronicle that it is difficult to distinguish [sic] fact from fiction (Id. p. 347).'
(3)
'The story of his (Eudo's) life is so embellished in the Chronicle of the House founded by him that it is difficult to disentangle fact from fiction. … p. 347.'(5)
