the Castellan of 1074, granted the Constableship by the following charter which', says Mr. Rye, 'I translate from the copy set out' by him.[1] He has, however, to admit that the petition he had found 'is undated',[2] and, on another page,[3] he assigns to it a third date, viz. 'before 1166'. Later we are given a fourth date. Mr. Rye there asserts that Hubert's alleged constableship of the castle 'is most strongly corroborated by the fact [sic] Henry de Rye, probably before 1158–9 and certainly before his death in 1166, gave the castellanship to Hubert de Bavant', adding that this 'grant bore no fruit,[4] … but the document remains as evidence'. Such is Mr. Rye's idea of 'the strongest possible evidence' and most strong corroboration.
In the meanwhile Mr. Dukinfield Astley had issued, in 1901, the Latin text of the tale, followed by an English translation.[5] Mr. Rye tells us that his own version is 'reprinted by permission, with a few slight emendations', from this translation. He does not, I observe, mention Mr. Astley's very sensible suggestion that 'it is perhaps a laudatory account of the founder written by some monk of the abbey'.[6] As a matter of fact, it does glorify 'Eudo', the pious founder, his wife, Rohese, and his father Hubert (de Rye); this, indeed, seems to be its chief purpose. As I observed at the outset, we have always to be on our guard against the laudatory narratives concerning the founder or foundation of a religious house: they are more responsible for error than even spurious charters or the transcripts thereof. Mr. Rye, however, asserts, in his wrath, that
Dr. Round's well-known aversion to all Monastic Chronicles and genealogies (which seem to act on him as red rags would to [sic] bulls) renders him incapable to [sic] believe the very definite statement, &c. (p. 49).
It was, Mr. Rye tells us, in 1871 that 'the reliability of this Chronicle was first attacked', and 'was at once defended' by himself. He continues thus:
Both Prof. Freeman and Dr. Round also about this time seems to have taken a very unreasoning and determined prejudice against this document.The quasi-literary partnership of the two men on the subject was not of long duration.[7]… … … … … … … … … …
- ↑ p. 19. Mr. Rye does not 'set out' the charter, but gives a brief abstract (which reads strangely) of its purport and witnesses in English.
- ↑ p. 20.
- ↑ p. 24.
- ↑ p. 39. This, indeed, is obvious from his own list of the castellans (pp. 17–20).
- ↑ See Essex Arch. Trans, viii. 120–35.
- ↑ Ibid. p. 120. I am not sure whether this suggestion was made by Mr. Astley or taken by him from the official 'Catalogue of Romances', which he consulted for a description of the manuscript.
- ↑ pp. 36 b, 37 a.
