Note 145 — PART II HISTORICAL STUDIES

But, as I foresaw, in his eagerness to prove, at least, the existence of a palisade, my critic was soon reduced to impugning Mr Freeman's own supreme authority, and at last to throwing over Mr Freeman himself. 'Incidit in Scyllam cupiens vitare Charybdim.' Sneering145 at what the historian termed his 'highest', his 'primary' authority, that 'precious monument', the Bayeux Tapestry—merely because it will not square with his views—he rejects utterly Mr Freeman's theory as to its date and origin,146 and substitutes one which the Professor described as 'utterly inconceivable'.147 He has further informed us that 'common sense' tells him that the English axemen cannot possibly have fought 'in the close array of the shield-wall', as Mr Freeman says they did.148 And then he finally demolishes Mr Freeman's 'conception of the battle' by dismissing 'an imaginary shield-wall',149 and assuring us that the absurd vision of 'an extended shield-wall vanishes like smoke'.150