e's positions are all of a _negative_ character; and that,
according to the strict rules of logic, it must not be admitted, that
because such and such writers have _not_ noticed a circumstance,
therefore that circumstance or event cannot have taken place. The
first two grounds of objection have, I think, been fairly set aside by
Mr. Amyot. As to the third objection, Mr. A. remarks--"But it seems
that Wace has not only _not_ quoted the tapestry, but has varied
from it in a manner which proves that he had never seen it. The
instances given of this variation are, however, a little unfortunate.
The first of them is very unimportant, for the difference merely
consists in placing a figure at the _stern_ instead of the
_prow_ of a ship, and in giving him a bow instead of a trumpet.
From an authority quoted by the Abbe himself, it appears that, with
regard to this latter fact, the Tapestry was right, and Wace was
wrong; and thus an argument is unintentionally furnished in favour of
the superior antiquity of the Tapestry. The second instance of
variation, namely, that relating to Taillefer's sword, may be easily
dismissed; since, after all, it now appears, from Mr. Stothard's
examination, that neither Taillefer nor his sword is to be found in
the Tapestry," &c. But it is chiefly from the names of AELFGYVA and
WADARD, inscribed over some of the figures, that I apprehend the
conclusion in favour of the Tapestry's being nearly a contemporaneous
production, may be safely drawn.

It is quite clear that these names belong to persons living when the
work was in progress, or within the recollection of the workers, and
that they were attached to persons of some particular note or
celebrity, or rather perhaps of _local_ importance. An
eyewitness, or a contemporary only would have introduced them. They
would not have lived in the memory of a person, whether mechanic or
historian, who lived a _century_ after the event. No antiquary
has yet fairly appropriated these names, and more especially the
second. It follows therefore that they would not have been introduced
had they not been in existence at the time; and in confirmation of
that of WADARD, it seems that Mr. Henry Ellis (Secretary of the
Society of Antiquaries) "confirmed Mr. Amyot's conjecture on that
subject, by the references with which he furnis