Page:English Historical Review Volume 37.djvu/28

20 St. John's Abbey, 'his wife Rohaisia the second, Gilbert the Earl [sic] brother of Rohaisia, the third', &c., in 1097. Now it is absolutely certain that this Gilbert (son of Richard Fitz Gilbert, the Domesday head of the house) was neither an English earl nor a Norman comte and was not styled comes. The 'Chronicle', Mr. Rye observes, states 'that Eudo married Rohaisia, daughter of Richard, son of Earl Gilbert de Clare'. Here it is not his 'Chronicle' but his own dreadful confusion that is responsible for the error: nowhere, so far as I know, has it ever been suggested that the father of the Domesday Richard was styled ' Earl Gilbert de Clare '. In his eagerness to convict others of error Mr. Rye plunges into hopeless confusion; on p. 41 b he asserts that I have been led into 'extraordinary error by Freeman's vague denunciations and Dugdale's error in … saying that Eudo married Rohaisia Giffard'. Yet, side by side with this statement, he admits that I have 'pointed out' Dugdale's error. Finally, Mr. Rye actually observes that—

"It may be as well to clear up here a passage in Feudal England, p. 575, referring to the Clare pedigree. Round states that, &c., &c. … To save confusion it may be well to point out that this Rohesia who married Geoffrey de Mandeville must not be confused with her kinswoman of the same name who also married the first Geoffrey de Mandeville [!]."

I must here enter a most energetic protest against Mr. Rye, of all men, claiming 'to save confusion' in the minds of my readers by comments which reduce the facts to unintelligible nonsense.

Satis superque. In order to 'vindicate' this 'Chronicle', which glorifies the house of Rye, Mr. Rye hurls reckless charges at the late Mr. Freeman, whose errors, however numerous they may be, are far exceeded by his own. Even in this short treatise, when denouncing 'Freeman's inaccuracies' as 'almost innumerable', he selects 'his amazing statement' about the Jews in England as proof that 'he did not know' that such names as 'Manasses' and 'Samson' are found in Domesday. From this we learn that his critic has not heard of the names borne by the counts of Guînes or the house of Biset, and that even the famous Abbot Samson would be taken by him for a Jew. On the subject