at Norwich and the names of its commanders, ignoring his precious 'Chronicle's' statement that Hubert de Rye was left in charge. It is impossible to reconcile the two conflicting statements; Mr. Rye, therefore, follows the 'Chronicle' and deliberately ignores the contemporary writers.[1]
2. As with Norwich so with Nottingham. Orderic, who was a contemporary chronicler, and the value of whose evidence, Freeman writes, is here 'constantly increasing', states that early in William's reign, 'Rex Snotingheham castrum construxit et Guillelmo Peverello commendavit'. Freeman, therefore, tells us that 'the command of the new fortress was placed in the safe hands of William Peverel'.[2] Mrs. Armitage, similarly, following Orderic's statement, asserts that William, who built the castle, 'committed it to the keeping of William Peverel'.[3] But, alas! Mr. Rye's 'Chronicle', on the contrary, informs us that to Eudo's brother, Ralf, 'was committed the custody of the castle and the county of Nottingham',[4] as to another brother, Hubert, 'was committed the tower of Norwich'.[5] Mr. Rye, who shows himself so familiar with the works of Freeman and Mrs. Armitage, must have been well aware of this most inconvenient evidence: drastic treatment was here required. 'To enable the reader', in his own words, 'to judge how unfair and unreliable are the objections taken against the Chronicle',[6] he merely suppresses or ignores Orderic's definite statement and leaves the reader to infer that he has completely disposed of all 'objections taken against it', although its 'statements were in the first instance strenuously denied by Freeman'.[7]
3. There is no better established fact at the time than that the Conqueror died at Rouen (9 September 1087),[8] though his corpse was taken to Caen for burial.[9] The 'Chronicle', however, definitely asserts that William 'died at Caen'.[10] Mr. Rye repeats this statement[11] and coolly ignores the evidence of the authentic chroniclers, on whom Freeman relied. This alone should be sufficient to condemn his 'Chronicle' and his methods.
4. According to the 'Chronicle' Eudo laid the first stone of
- ↑ His claim that Robert Malet's presence is a 'corroboration' of the statement in the 'Chronicle' will be found on pp. 39–40. It is contrary to fact that Henry de Rye's mother was fined in 1120 because he had 'sided with Robert of Normandy'.
- ↑ Norman Conquest (1871), iv. 200.
- ↑ Early Norman Castles, p. 176.
- ↑ 'cui commissa est custodia castelli et comitatus Notingeham.'
- ↑ pp. 33 b, 39 a, b.
- ↑ p. 38 a.
- ↑ p. 39 a.
- ↑ See Norman Conquest (1871), iv. 704–12.
- ↑ Ibid. pp. 714–21.
- ↑ p. 34 a.
- ↑ p. 38 b: 'William I died at Caen.' It is worth noting that William of Malmesbury speaks of the Conqueror as 'ultima valetudine decumbente', a word which seems to have suggested the Chronicle's 'decumbente rege Willelmo apud Cadomum'.
