Page:English Historical Review Volume 37.djvu/23

1922 my contention that his 'Chronicle' is 'in part untrustworthy'. 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' —are wholly without corroboration. Of the former he writes that 'there is no direct evidence for or against the statement' ; 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'. In other words it is a mere guess.

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'. 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."

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, and in three cases out of the five the reference is wrong! Lastly, incredible though it may seem, I am charged with two 'remarks' which are one and the same. Yet it is