Note 31 — PART II HISTORICAL STUDIES

Mr Archer might well seek to avoid the Bayeux Tapestry, for its evidence is dead against him, and he cannot explain it away. His first attempt was a brief allusion, accepting its authority without question, but suggesting that it might represent that part of the line where the barricade was absent.31 Of this suggestion I at once disposed by showing that it is 'not only absolutely without foundation, but is directly opposed to Mr Freeman's theory, and, indeed, to his express statements'.32 Forced to drop this explanation, my opponent, in his next article, fell back on the desperate device of repudiating the authority of the Tapestry,33 'the most authentic record' of the battle according to the late Professor, who was never weary of insisting on its 'paramount importance'. On my showing, beyond the possibility of question, that this amounted to rejecting everything that Mr Freeman had written on the subject,34 Mr Archer once more shifts his tactics, and now writes thus: