His Anachronism and Errors 405 cannot conceive an artist of the time of Henry II., still less an artist later than the French conquest of Normandy, agreeing so remarkably with the authentic writings of the eleventh century (iii. 573). [In the Tapestry] every antiquarian detail is accurate—the lack of armour on the horses (iii. 574). [But] Wace speaks of the horse of William Fitz-Osbern as "all covered with iron" (iii. 570). Wace, again, is "hardly accurate” (iš. 765), we read, as to the English weapons, because he differs from the Tapestry. As to Harold's wound, "Wace places it too early in the battle" (iii. 497); Mr. Freeman follows the Tapestry. As to the landing of the Normans at Pevensey Venit ad Pevenesa, says the Tapestry Wace . . . altogether reverses the geography, making the army land at Hastings, and go to Pevensey afterwards" (iii. 402). As to the "Mora," the Duke's ship, the Tapestry shows "the child with his horn"; Wace describes him "Saete et arc tendu portant." Mr. Freeman adopts the "horn" (iii. 382). Harold, says Mr. Freeman, was imprisoned at Beaurain. This is quite plain from the Tapestry: "Dux eum ad Belrem et ibi eum tenuit." Wace says, "A Abevile l'ont mené . . This I conceive to arise from a misconception of the words of William of Jumièges (iii. 224). This illustrates, I would remind Mr. Archer, the difference between a primary authority and a mere late compiler. To these examples I may add Wace's mention of Harold's vizor (ventaille). Mr. Freeman pointed out the superior accuracy of the Tapestry in "the nose-pieces" (iii. 574), and observed that "the vizor" was a much later introduction (iii. 497).*7 Here again we see the soundness of 27 We have, I suspect, a similar instance in Wace's gisarmes (11. 7794, 7814, 8328, 8332, 8342, 8587, 8629, 8656). An excellent vindication of the Bayeux Tapestry-oddly enough overlooked by Mr. Freemannamely, M. Delauney's "Origine de la Tapisserie de Bayeux prouvée Mr. Freeman's view that Wace could not help introducing "the notions" of his own time into his account of the battle. Miss Norgate admits that he "transferred to his mythical battles the colouring of the actual battles of his own day," but urges that these narratives illustrate the "warfare of Wace's own . . . contemporaries." contemporaries."" Quite So. But the battle of Hastings belonged to an older and obsolete style of warfare. That is what his champions always forget. If Miss Norgate's argument has any meaning, it is that the men who fought in that battle were "Wace's own contemporaries." But, even where Wace's authority is in actual agreement with the Tapestry, Mr. Freeman did not hesitate to reject, or rather, ignore it, as we saw in the matter of the fosse disaster. As to Wace's sources of information, and the prima facie evidence for his authority, a question of considerable interest is raised. Mr. Archer discusses it from his own par elle-même" (Caen, 1824)-discusses the weapons, the author observing: "La hache d'armes ressemble à celle de nos sapeurs ; celle des temps postérieurs au xie siècle à, dans les monuments, une espèce de petite lance au-dessus de la douille du côté opposé au tranchant" (see Jubinal, La Tapisserie de Bayeux, p. 17). This exactly describes the true gisarme, a later introduction. So again, Wace makes the chevalier who has hurried from Hastings exclaim to Harold "Un chastel i ont ia ferme De breteschese de fosse" (11. 6717-8), whereas bretasches of course were impossible at the time. One is re minded of the description, by Piramus, of the coming of the English, when "over the broad sea Britain they sought": "Leuent bresteches od kernels, Ke cuntrevalent bons chastels, Les cernent, si funt riulez Del quer des cheygnes, forze e halz, Ki ne criement sieges ne asalz." (Vie Seint Edmund le Rey, II. 228-33). 28 E.H.R., ix. 66. A mere Late Compiler 407 standpoint.29 On Wace's life, age and work, facts are few and speculations many. These have been collected and : patiently sifted in Andresen's great work, with the following result: 82 Wace was certainly living not merely in 1170,80 but in 1174, for he alludes to the siege of Rouen (August, 1174) in his epilogue to the second part of the "Roman." 31 It is admitted on all hands, though Mr. Archer does not mention it, that he did not even begin the third part till after the coronation of the younger Henry (June 14, 1170). Allowing for its great length, he cannot have come to his account of the battle at the very earliest till 1171, 105 years after the event. For my part, I think that it was probably written even some years later. But imagine in any case an Englishman, ignorant of Belgium, writing an account of Waterloo, mainly from oral tradition, in 1920. Mr. Archer contends that Wace was born "probably between the years 1100 and 1110" (ante, p. 31). Andresen holds that the earliest date we can venture to assign is 1110, forty-four years after the battle. Special stress is laid by Mr. Archer on Wace's oral information : 83 He had seen and talked with many men who recollected things anterior to Hastings and the Hastings campaign. Among his informants for this latter was his own father, then, we may suppose, a well-grown lad, if not an actual participator in the fight (ante, p. 32). "We may suppose "-where all is supposition-exactly the contrary. If Wace was born, as we may safely say, more than forty years after the battle, "we may suppose av Ib., 31-7, 17-18, and throughout his paper. 80 E H.R., ix. 32. 31 "Al siege de Rouen le quidierent gaber" (1. 62). 32" Demn nicht etwa am Schlusse, sondern gleich zu Anfang des genannten Theiles" (l. 179) "spricht er von den drei Königen Heinrich die er gesehen und gekannt" (p. xciv.). 88 "Nimmt man das Jahr 1110 als Geburtsjahr des Dichters an," etc. (p. xciv.). that his father was not even born before it. All this taik about Wace's father is based on 11. 6445-7, of which Andresen truly remarks, "Die Verse 'Mais co oi dire a mon pere, Bien m'en souient mais Vaslet ere, Que set cenz res, quatre meins, furent,' u.s.w., sind viel zu unbestimmt gehalten, so dass wir aus ihnen streng genommen nicht einmal entnehmen können, ob der Vater im Jahre 1066 schon auf der Welt war oder nicht" (p. lxx). I venture to take my own case. Born within forty years of Waterloo, I can say with Wace that I remember my father telling me, as a boy, stories of the battle. But he was born after it. The information was second-hand. Over and over again does Mr. Archer lay stress on the fact (ut supra) that Wace gives us "the reminiscences of the old heroes who fought at Hastings as no one else has cared to do." " I must insist that Wace himself nowhere mentions having seen or spoken to them. He does mention having seen men who remembered the great comet (Mr. Archer italicises the lines); but this exactly confirms my point. For when Wace had seen eye-witnesses he was careful, we see, to mention the fact. Men would remember the comet, though little children at the time. One of my own very earliest recollections is that of a great comet, even though it did not create the sensation of the comet in 1066. Wace had talked with those who had been children, not with those who had been fighting men, in 1066. I need only invite attention to one more point. Mr. Archer assures us that "Wace is a very sober writer," with "something of the shrewd scepticism" of modern scholars.86 What shall we say then, of his long story (11. 7005-7100) of the night visit, by Harold and Gyrth, to the Norman camp, to which Mr. Archer appeals as evidence 84 E.H.R., ix. 33. It need scarcely be said that these "old heroes" would be found rather in England than in Normandy. His Weak Authority 409 for the lices (1. 7010)? Nothing," replies Mr. Freeman (iii. 449), "could be less trustworthy. No power short of divination could have revealed it." "7 Mr. Archer tells us he has only space for one instance of Wace's conscientiousness. That instance is his story of the negotiation between William and Baldwin of Flanders on the eve of the Conquest. Of this story Mr. Freeman writes: Of the intercourse between William and Baldwin in his character of sovereign of Flanders Wace has a tale which strikes me as so purely legendary that I did not venture to introduce it into the text The whole story seems quite inconsistent with the real relations between William and Baldwin (iii. 718-9). Comment is superfluous. Having now shown that Wace's evidence is not corroborated, is not in accordance with that of contemporary witnesses, and cannot on the sound canons of criticism recognised by Mr. Freeman himself, be accepted under these circumstances, I propose to show that my case can be carried further still, and that I can even trace to its origin the confused statement in his "disputed passage" which is said to describe a palisade or defence of some sort or other. WACE AND HIS SOURCES." 39 In studying the authorities for the Battle of Hastings, I was led to a conclusion which, so far as I know, had never occurred to any one. It is that William of Malmesbury's "Gesta Regum" was among the sources used by Wace. Neither in Korting's elaborate treatise, "Ueber die Quellen des Roman de Rou," nor in Andresen's notes to his wellknown edition of the "Roman" (ii. 708), can I find any 87 Compare his scornful rejection (iii. 469-71) of Wace's tales in 11. 7875-7950. 39 Reprinted from the English Historical Review, October, 1893. |