Of making of mistakes there is no end. Am I not competent to say this, having made so many myself ? But luckily not many have yet been found out, for people don't often verify their own references, let alone yours.[1]
It is, no doubt, perfectly true that historians cannot be expected to test his statements in detail; but on this he has, here at last, relied once too often. When he boasts that no one has ventured to answer his defence of the 'Chronicle' in 1871,[2] his fatal rashness betrays him: when he asserts, of Freeman's rejection of the 'Eudo' legend, that 'further consideration (and possibly a perusal of my article in defence of the Chronicle, printed in 1871) seems to have changed his opinion once more',[3] his assertion is contrary to fact.
It is simply and absolutely untrue (1) 'that Freeman, before he died, practically withdrew his case against the Chronicle';[4] (2) that 'he trims and modifies his opinion' of it 'very greatly';[5] (3) that the Chronicle's statement[6] that at 'a great assembly of nobles' in Normandy 'the Duke finds only Hubert [de Rye] willing to perform the embassy' is 'confirmed by Freeman himself';[7] (4) that Freeman 'overlooked' the Domesday entry as to Ash; (5) that 'this terrible error of Freeman arose because he … did not trouble to look up the entry in the text itself'; (6) that 'it was unaccountably omitted' in 'Ellis's Domesday (ii. 250)';[8] (7) that Eudo 'sat on a commission with ' William de Pont de l'Arche in 1072, as Mr. Rye claims to have discovered; (8) 'that besides Ash, Eudo held other possessions in England before the Conquest'.[9] This last is perhaps the worst case of all: it illustrates to perfection Mr. Rye's methods. The extremely definite statement in his 'Chronicle' that Edward gave to Hubert 'his mansion in Essce' (the Hampshire Ash)[10] is of the utmost importance as a test of its veracity. It seems to be, if true, the only evidence that supports Hubert's alleged embassy. Mr. Rye, accordingly, charges Freeman here with a 'terrible error' and Ellis with 'unaccountably' omitting the Domesday evidence confirming the gift;[11] he falsely adds that 'Freeman seems later to have found out his own mistake' (ibid.). As a matter of fact, far
- ↑ Norfolk Songs, Stories, and Sayings (1897), p. 92.
- ↑ 'No answer appearing to my defence' (p. 36 b).
- ↑ p. 39 a.
- ↑ p. 37 b.
- ↑ p. 37 a.
- ↑ 33 a.
- ↑ p. 40 b. What Mr. Rye has to prove is that this assembly was held and that Hubert took his alleged action at it. The events at Guildford long before (i.e. in 1036) are not denied, but do not in any way confirm the tale of Hubert's action at this alleged assembly.
- ↑ What Mr. Rye here means is Ellis's 'Introduction' to Domesday; but the reference (ii. 250) is wrong, and the alleged omission is an unfounded charge.
- ↑ p. 44 a; cf. p. 51 a.
- ↑ p. 38 a.
- ↑ p. 40 b
