In the post below "Oxford Medieval Texts", I noticed that the Carmen de Hastingae Proelio edition listed is the older Morton and Muntz of 1972. There is a much newer edition (1999) by Frank Barlow, which I am currently doing my best to obtain: I have tried three other sources on the Internet: each has replied that they are currently out of stock. My latest attempt (ironically, why did I not go here first ?), is Oxford Press, the source. Thus far (a week it's been), they have not replied one way or t'other: so I am still in a state of apprehension as to whether or not Barlow's new edition is sold out or not. If not, then in a few more weeks I should have my own copy and can get busy making comparisons with the Morton and Muntz (1972) edition.

It is my understanding that up till fairly recently, the Carmen was held in some disrepute by leading scholars: being viewed (since the denouncements of R. H. C. Davis) by no less a person than the late R. Allen Brown (et al) as a 12th century creation, ergo, not to be trusted, and certainly no longer to be viewed as an original source. I spent a fair amount of time comparing the work with William of Poitier's Gesta Willelmi, and came to the conclusion that the Carmen predates the Gesta based on augmentation evidence alone. I have always believed that the Carmen was an original source for the battle of Hastings story. But I am very interested in Barlow's edition. And I am interested in getting anyone else's opinion on this topic of authenticity: and whether or not Barlow's edtion in fact lays to rest the critics' arguments that the Carmen is not an original source.