Page:English Historical Review Volume 37.djvu/35

1922 Rufus, instead of appearing 'about' 1871, was not published till several years after the Norman Conquest, namely in 1882.

The point on which one has to insist is that instead of withdrawing his rejection of the 'Chronicle', as Mr. Rye alleges, Freeman, on the contrary, denounced it even more vigorously in his William Rufus (1882) than in his Norman Conquest. Mr. Rye contrives to give the opposite impression by first quoting from the former work, though carefully abstaining from giving its date or even its name. He then asserts that 'later on, as will be seen in the following pages, he trims and modifies this opinion very greatly'. This is not only contrary to fact but obviously impossible, as the dates of his works show. In 1885 the late Mr. Chester Waters wrote of the 'Chronicle' that he was 'the first to expose its untrustworthy and unhistorical character', and that he had 'maintained in 1871 that it was not to be relied on', being 'a discredited authority'. Mr. Rye's mental confusion is so absolutely hopeless that he cannot even quote accurately his own 'Chronicle'. For instance, he sets himself 'to tabulate all the important statements made in it', with 'the independent facts which corroborate' each of them. The third of these is 'that the intermediary requesting Edward [sic] to send a message was a merchant called Goscelin, of Winchester'. What the 'Chronicle' does state is that Edward took the initiative by sending this Goscelin to William! As to the alleged corroboration of this important statement, Mr. Rye finds it in the Domesday proof that 'there was a Gozelin who held much property in Hants, and a Goscelinus also held in Norfolk'. As to the only 'important' statement, namely