authenticity of the Colchester Chronicle.'[1] There was never but one edition of William Rufus!
I have here selected this example of Mr. Rye's methods because it will hardly be considered necessary that I should give more. No historian, I think, will doubt that I have settled once for all the question of the authenticity of this wild narrative and of Freeman's attitude towards it. In (1) his Norman Conquest, in (2) his William Rufus, and in (3) his English Towns and Districts that is to say, down to 1883 he continuously denounced the authenticity of the tale, finally (1882–3) denouncing the exploits of Hubert and Eudo de Rye therein as 'legend', as 'wholly mythical', as 'pure fiction', as 'simply taking their place among the Norman legends of the Conquest'. The 'legend of Eudo Dapifer' is laid to rest at last.
J. H. Round.
- ↑ p. 38 b. The two passages which he here cites are taken (the reader will discover) from William Rufus, ii. 463, but the name of that work is omitted.
