Note 135 — PART II HISTORICAL STUDIES

I speak, it will be seen, of 'the relief of Arques'. As my critic so rashly assumed that in my original article I exhausted Mr Freeman's errors,135 I may point out that this subject introduces us, at once, to fresh ones. Our author, for instance, held that Arques was not relieved. Let us see. We are first rightly told, on the authority of William of Poitiers, that the Duke blockaded the stronghold (munitio) by erecting a castellum at its foot (p. 128). On the next page we are told that the latter was 'a wooden tower'—which is precisely what it was not—and that it 'is described as a munitio' by William of Poitiers, whereas that term, as we have just seen, denoted, on the contrary, the rebel stronghold itself. Then we are told that the French king marched to the relief of the rebels, bringing with him 'a good stock of provisions, of corn, and of wine' for the purpose, but 'was far from being successful in his enterprise' (p. 131). In fact, he 'went home, having done nothing towards the immediate object of his journey—the relief of the besieged' (p. 137). Mr Freeman added in a note: 'So I understand the not very clear statement of William of Poitiers that the King went away.' Now, William's statement (which is quoted by him) is absolutely clear: