for which he claimed 'a right to ask' me[1]—would be to demonstrate his own errors, his infinitely worse inaccuracy. There are cases in which his carelessness produces sheer nonsense. For instance, after expressing at the outset surprise 'that no one has hitherto attempted to seriously write a history of so well known a building as Norwich Castle', we find in the chapter on 'The Fabric and Repairs' this piece of serious history:[2]
1350. Norwich to send 60 armed men to Norwich (Foedera).
On the opposite page we find my own Geoffrey de Mandeville cited for the allegation that 'Ralph de Belphago (Bella fago) appears as sheriff temp. Hy. I (1100–54)', although I do not name the reign or imagine that Henry died in '1154'! More serious is the allegation in what Mr. Rye terms his 'Chapter VIII'.[3] This 'chapter' is wholly devoted to an attack upon my paper on 'The Early Sheriffs of Norfolk' in the pages of this Review.[4] He there deliberately charges me with having 'omitted' in my paper the name of Robert Fitz Walter, although I name him (as sheriff) more than a dozen times in all.[5] How is one to deal with charges that are at absolute variance with fact? Mr. Rye's persistence in this practice is shown in his next sentence, where he states that 'the entry in the Ramsey cartulary[6] shows that his [i.e. Robert Fitz Walter's] date must have been at least eight years earlier than Dr. Round guessed [sic] it'. I do not 'guess' my facts: I leave that to Mr. Rye. The reader will find, on referring to my paper,[7] that I cite the Pipe Roll of 1130[8] as proving the date at which Robert went out of office (namely Michaelmas 1129[9]).
It is difficult to speak in temperate language of the direct misstatements in Mr. Rye's charges or of the patronizing fashion in which he puts them forward. There are cases in which they only need to be printed opposite the facts. Here, for instance, is his definite charge that I have omitted the names of sheriffs whom my paper duly mentions.
- ↑ Ibid.
- ↑ p. 16.
- ↑ pp. 28–9.
- ↑ Ante (October 1920), xxxv. 481 ff.
- ↑ pp. 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 488. I mentioned at the very outset (p. 481) the tenure of the shrievalty by this Robert and his sons, and gave a reference to the paper in which I had dealt with them more fully.
- ↑ i.e. vol. i, pp. 148–9, where the document of '1114–23', relied on by Mr. Rye, had been duly quoted by me (ante, xxxv. 481, n. 2).
- ↑ p. 483.
- ↑ And the Deputy Keeper's 31st Report.
- ↑ Dr. Jessopp, as I there showed, wrongly named him as sheriff in '1131'; I have given examples of this mistake in my article on 'Early Pipe Rolls' (ante, xxxvi. 329). Evidently Mr. Rye obtains his phrase 'at least eight years' by deducting 1123 from '1131'. Obviously Robert might have been sheriff not only in 1128–9, but some years earlier as well.
