[72]See previously, chapter iv.p. 40, foot-note.[73]The derivation of Leap as given in the text is very doubtful.—errata[74]At the date of the Dauphin’s leaving England, William de Vernon was dead, which makes his embarkation at Leap less probable. Neither Roger of Wendover (vol. iv. p. 32. Ed. Coxe), nor Walter Hemingburgh (vol. i. p. 259. Ed. Hamilton), nor Ralph Coggeshale (Chronicon, Anglicanum Bouquet Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France, tom. xviii. p. 113 C.), nor theChronicon Turonense(in theVeterum Scriptorum Amplissima Collectioof Martène and Durand, tom. v. p. 1059 B), nor Rymer’sFœdera(“De salvo conductu Domini Ludovici,” tom. i. p. 222), say anything of the place of embarkation.[75]I believe on that of the Oglander MSS. in the possession of the Earl of Yarborough, but which I have never seen. Neither theIter Carolinum, Herbert’sMemoirs(London, 1572, p. 38), Huntington’s account (same volume, p. 160), Berkeley’sMemoirs(second edition, 1702, p. 65),The Ashburnham Narrative(London, 1830, vol. ii. p. 119), nor Whalley’s letter in Peck’sDesiderata Curiosa(tom. ii., lib. ix., pp. 374, 375), nor Hammond’s, in Rushworth’sCollection(part iv., vol. ii., p. 874), mention the place, though the latter would seem to indicate that the King sailed direct from Tichfield to Cowes. Ashburnham and Berkeley had, we know from Berkeley (Memoirs, same edition as before, p. 57) and Ludlow (Memoirs, 1771, p. 93), previously gone by Lymington to the Island.[76]The road is marked in the map which accompanies Dr. Guest’s paper on “The Belgic Ditches.”The Archæological Journal, vol. viii. p. 143.[77]As the passage is so important, I give it in full:—Ἀποτυποῦντες δ’ εἰς ἀστραγάλων ῥυθμοὺς κομίζουσιν εἴς τινα νῆσον προκειμένην μὲν τῆς Βρεττανικῆς, ὀνομαζομένην δὲ Ἴκτιν. κατὰ γὰρ τὰς ἀμπώτεις ἀναξηραινομένου τοῦ μεταξὺ τόπου ταῖς ἁμάξαις εἰς ταύτην κομίζουσι δαψιλῆ τὸν καττίτερον. Ἴδιον δέ τι συμβαίνει περὶ τὰς πλησίον νήσους τὰς μεταξὺ κειμένας τῆς τε Εὐρώπης καὶ τῆς Βρεττανικῆς. Κατὰ μὲν γὰρ τὰς πλημμυρίδας τοῦ μεταξὺ πόρου πληρουμένου νῆσοι φαίνονται, κατὰ δὲ τὰς ἀμπώτεις ἀποῤῥεούσης τῆς θαλάττης καὶ πολὺν τόπον ἀναξηραινούσης θεωροῦνται χεῤῥόνησοι.—Lib. v., cap. xxii., vol. i., p. 438. Ed. Dindorf. Leipsic, 1828-31. Pliny, as Wesseling remarks, in his note on this passage, quoted by Dindorf, vol. iv. p. 421, by some mistake, makes the Isle of Wight (Mictis) six days’ sail from England. See Sir G. C. Lewis’sAstronomy of the Ancients, chap. viii., sect. iii. p. 453.[78]As before, sect. iv. p. 462.[79]The South-Western Parts of Hampshire, vol. ii. pp. 5, 6, 1793.[80]For an account of the barrows on Beaulieu Heath, see ch. xvii.[81]Dugdale’sMonasticon Anglicanum. Ed 1825, vol. v., p. 682. Num. ii. SeeChronica de Kirkstall. Brit. Mus. Cott. MSS. Domitian. A. xii., ff. 85, 86. The cause of John’s enmity against the Cistercian Order may be gathered from Ralph Coggeshale,Chronicon Anglicanum, as before in Bouquet,Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France, tom. xviii. pp. 90, 91.[82]Carta Fundationis per Regem Johannem, given in Dugdale (Ed. 1825, vol. v. p. 683); andConfirmacio Regis Edwardi tertii super cartas Regis Johannis, Brit. Mus., Bib. Cott. Nero, A. xii., No. v., ff. 8-15, quoted in Warner (South-West Parts of Hampshire, vol. ii., Appendix, pp. 7-14). There are, however, no less than three dates given for its foundation. TheAnnals of Parcolude, according to Tanner (Notitia Monastica, Ed. Nasmyth, Hampshire, No. vi. foot-noteh), say 1201, which is manifestly wrong; whilst John of Oxnede, better known as the chronicler of St. Benet’s Abbey at Hulme (Chronica.Ed. Ellis, p. 107), with theChronicon de Hayles et Aberconwey(Brit. Mus., Harl. MS., No. 3725, f. 10), and Matthew Paris, according to Dugdale, say respectively 1204 and 1205, though I have not been able to verify the last reference.[83]Roger of Wendover.English Historical Society. Ed. Coxe, vol. iii. p. 344.[84]See the previous chapter, pp.57,58, foot-note.[85]Curiously enough, as Warner remarks (vol. i. 267), Matthew Paris gives two dates for the dedication, the first 1246 (Hist. Angl., tom. i. p. 710, Ed. Wats., London, 1640); and the second (p. 770) 1249; not, however, 1250, as Warner says, and who, followed by all later writers, totally misunderstands the passage, which means that, although the abbot spent so large a sum, yet the King would not remit him the fine he had incurred by trespass in the Forest,—“Nec tamen idcirco aliquatenus pepercit rex, quin maximum censum solveret illi pro transgressione quam dicebatur regi fecisse in occupatione Forestæ.”[86]See Matthew Paris, in praise of the Cistercian Order. Same edition as before, tom. i. p. 916.[87]Not Margaret of Anjou, as the common accounts say, who, landing at Weymouth, took refuge at Cerne Abbey. SeeHistorie of the Arrival of Edward IV. in England, pp. 22, 23, printed for the Camden Society, 1838; and Hollinshed’sChronicles, vol. iii. p. 685; andSpeed, B. ix. p. 866. Hall, however (The Union of the Families of Lancaster and York, p. 219), with Grafton, in his prose continuation of Hardyng (Ed. Ellis, 1812, p. 457), says it was to Beaulieu that Margaret fled. But they are evidently mistaken, as Speed and Hollinshed, and the explicit and circumstantial narrative of the author of theHistorie, show.[88]The following list of books at Beaulieu, taken by Leland (Collect. de Rebus Brit., vol. iv. p. 149), just before the dissolution, will show what was in those days an average ecclesiastical library:—“Eadmerus de Vitâ Anselmi, et Vitâ Wilfridi Episcopi.Stephanus super Ecclesiasticum, Libros Regum, et Parabolas Salomonis.Joannes Abbas de Fordâ super Cantica Canticorum.Damascenus de Gestis Barlaam eremitæ, et Josaphat regis Indiæ.Libellus Candidi Ariani” (most probably theDe Generatione Divinâ). “Libellus Victorini, rhetoris, contra Candidum” (theConfutatorium Candidi Ariani, written against the preceding work). “Tres libri Claudiani de Statu Animæ ad Sidonium Apollinarem.Gislebertus super Epistolas Pauli. Prosper de Vitâ contemplativâ et activâ.”[89]Ellis’s Letters, second series, vol. ii. p. 87. For Henry VIII.’s enforcement of Wolsey’s levies on Beaulieu, seeState Papers, vol. i., part ii., p. 383.[90]Accounts of this palace—probably, as Mr. Walcott says, the King’s hunting lodge—may be found in theProceedings of the Archæological Institute, 1846, p. 32, and the Rev. Makenzie Walcott’sChurch and Conventual Arrangement, p. 115.[91]Her remains were lately discovered near the high altar, with part of the inscription on her gravestone. (See the Rev. F. W. Baker’s account in theGentleman’s Magazine, vol. ccxiv. p. 63.) A carved head with a crown in the refectory preserves the memory of her husband, crowned at Aix-la-Chapelle King of the Romans, and whose heart was buried, in a marble vase, beside his wife. (Leland, as before, iv. 149.) Tradition says that Eleanor of Acquitaine was also buried here, but she lies with her husband at Fontevraud.[92]Warner (vol. i. 255) mentions that in his time there was still brandy in the steward’s cellars made from the vines growing on the spot.Domesdaygives several entries of wines (see Ellis’sIntroduction, vol. i. pp. 116, 117), though none in the Forest district. But the term ‘Vineyards’ is still frequently found hereabouts as the name of fields generally marked by a southern slope, as at Beckley and Hern, near Christchurch, showing how common formerly was the cultivation of the vine, first introduced into England by the Romans.[93]In Brit. Mus., Harl. MS. 892, f. 40b, is an extract from a most interesting letter written in 1648, describing the state of the refectory, which seems, with the exception of the alterations made in 1746, to have been much the same as at present.[94]Corrected from “the injunction which the Bishop of Hippo gives to the canons of his own order”—errata[95]Quoted from Dugdale’sMonasticon Anglicanum, by Warner, vol. i. p. 249.[96]It is pleasant to have to add that the present noble owner, the Duke of Buccleuch, has shown not only good taste and judgment in the restoration of the guest-house and the excavation of the church, but a wise liberality in throwing the grounds open to the public.[97]In Parker’sGlossary of Architectureis given a list of some of these old barns. Vol. i. pp. 240, 241.[98]Some curious leaden pipes, soldered only on one side, were dug up close by, which are worth seeing, as they show how late the process of running hollow lead pipes was invented. The earthenware pipes found with them are as good as any which are now made. At Otterwood Farm, on the other side of the Exe, pavement and tiles have also been discovered.[99]The chapel was standing in Warner’s time.South-Western Parts of Hampshire, vol. i. pp. 232, 233.[100]In Brit. Mus., Bib. Cott., Nero, A. xii., No. vii. f. 20a b, is a copy of a Bull from Alexander I., giving permission to all the Cistercian Houses to hold service at their granges.[101]Even Layton saw their kindness, and pleaded for the poor wretches whom they had protected. Letter regarding Beaulieu Sanctuary from Layton to Cromwell,Ellis’s Letters, third series, vol. iii. pp. 72, 73.[102]Blount’sFragmenta Antiquitatis. Ed. Beckwith, p. 80, 1815.Testa de Nevill, p. 235 a (118). We know, however, that our forefathers, long before this, possessed beds, or rather cots, hung round with rich embroidered canopies. For their general love, too, of comfort and personal ornament and dress, we need go no further than to Chaucer’s description of “Richesse,” in hisRomaunt of the Rose. Englishmen, however, were still then, as now, ever ready to lead a rough life if necessary, and to make their toil their pleasure.[103]In that portion of it which comes under the title of “In Forestâ et circa eam.” See chap. iii.p. 31.[104]All over England did the church towers serve as landmarks, alike in the fen and forest districts. Lincolnshire and Yorkshire can show plenty of such steeples. At St. Michael’s at York, to this hour, I believe, at six every morning, is rung the bell whose sound used to guide the traveller through the great forest of Galtres; whilst at All Saints, in the Pavement, in the same city, is shown the lantern, which every night used to serve as a beacon.[105]The following measurements may have some interest, and can be compared with those of the oaks and beeches in the Forest, given in chap. ii.p. 16, foot-note:—Circumference of the oak, twenty-two feet eight inches. Yew, seventeen feet. An enormous yew, completely hollow, however, stands in Breamore churchyard, measuring twenty-three feet four inches. There are certainly no yews in the Forest so large as these; and their evidence would further show that at all events the Conqueror did not destroy the churchyards. As here, too, there remains some Norman work in the doorway of Breamore church.[106]For some account of these barrows, seechapter xvii.[107]The word is from the Frenchmerise. At Wood Green, in the northern part of the Forest, a “merry fair” of these half-wild cherries is held once a week during the season, probably similar to that of which Gower sung.[108]An objection, that the lime-tree was not known so early in England, has been taken to this derivation. This is certainly a mistake. In that fine song of the Battle of Brunanburh, we find—“Bordweal clufanHeowan heaþolindeHamora lafan.”(The Chronicle.Ed. Thorpe. Vol. i. p. 200.)The “geolwe lind” was sung of in many a battle-piece. Again, as Kemble notices (The Saxons in England, vol. i., Appendix A, p. 480), we read in theCod. Dip., No. 1317, of a marked linden-tree. (See, also, same volume, book i., chap. ii., p. 53, foot-note.) Then, too, we have the Old-English wordlindecole, the tree being noted for making good charcoal, as both it and the dog-wood are to this day. Any “Anglo-Saxon” dictionary will correct this notion, and names of places, similarly compounded, are common throughout England.[109]The entry inDomesday(facsimile of the part relating to Hampshire, photo-zincographed at the Ordnance Survey, 1861, p. iv. a) is as follows:—“In Bovere Hundredo. Ipse Rex tenet Linhest. Jacuit in Ambresberie de firmâ Regis. Tunc, se defendebat pro ij hidis. Modo, Herbertus forestarius ex his ij hidis unam virgatam (tenet), et pro tanto geldat; aliæ sunt in forestâ. Ibi modo nichil, nisi ij bordarii. Valet x solidos. Tempore Regis Edwardi valuit vi. libras.” It is worth noticing that Lyndhurst is here put by itself, and not with Brockenhurst and Minestead, and other neighbouring places under “In Novâ Forestâ et circa eam;” a clear proof, which might be gathered from other entries, that the survey was not completed.[110]Blount’sFragmenta Antiquitatis. Ed. Beckwith, p. 183. 1815. Here the place is called Lindeshull.[111]Let me especially call attention to the exquisite carving of some thorns and convolvuluses in the chancel. It is a sad pity that this part of the church should be disfigured by glaring theatrical candlesticks and coarse gaudy Birmingham candelabra.[112]I have only seen but the slightest portion of this fresco, so that it is impossible to properly judge of even the merits of this part. No criticism is true which does not consider a work of Art as a whole. At present, the angel with outstretched hands, full of nervous power and feeling, seems to me very admirable, though the position and meaning of the cloaked and clinging figure below is, at the first glance, difficult to make out; but this will doubtless, as the picture proceeds, become clear. The richness, however, of the colouring can even now be seen under the enormous disadvantage of being placed beneath the strong white glare of light which pours in from the east window. Further, Mr. Leighton must be praised for his boldness in breaking through the old conventionalities of Art, and giving us here the owl as a symbol of sloth, and the wretchedness it produces.[113]Herbert’s Memoirs of Charles I., p. 95.[114]William of Malmesbury:Gesta Regum Anglorum. Ed. Hardy, tom. ii., lib. iv., sect. 333, p. 508.[115]Vitalis:Historia Eccl., pars. iii., lib. x., cap. xii., in Migne:Patrologiæ Cursus, tom. clxxxviii. pp. 751, 752; where occurs (pp. 750, 751) a most remarkable sermon, on the wrongs and woes of England, preached at St. Peter’s Abbey, Shrewsbury, on St. Peter’s Day, by Fulchered, first abbot of Shrewsbury, a man evidently of high purpose, ending with these ominous words:—“The bow of God’s vengeance is bent against the wicked. The arrow, swift to wound, is already drawn out of the quiver. Soon will the blow be struck; but the man who is wise to amend will avoid it.” Surely this is more than a general denunciation. On the very next day William the Red falls.[116]Malmesbury, as before quoted, p. 509. Vitalis, however, in Migne, as before, p. 751, says there were some others.[117]William of Malmesbury says nothing about the tree, from which nearly all modern historians represent the arrow as glancing. Vitalis, as before, p. 751, expressly states that it rebounded from the back of a beast of chase (fera), apparently, by the mention of bristles (setæ), a wild-boar. Matthew Paris (Ed. Wats., tom. i. p. 54) first mentions the tree, but his narrative is doubtful.[118]Malmesbury, as before, p. 509. The additions that it was a charcoal-cart, as also the owner’s name, are merely traditional.[119]TheChronicle. Ed. Thorpe, vol. i. p. 364.[120]Vitalis, as before, p. 752. Neither William of Malmesbury nor Vitalis, who go into details, mentions the spot where the King was killed. TheChronicleand Florence of Worcester most briefly relate the accident, though Florence adds that William fell where his father had destroyed a chapel. (Ed. Thorpe, vol. ii. p. 45). Henry of Huntingdon (Historiarum, lib. vii., in Saville’sScriptores Rerum Anglicarum, p. 378) says but little more, dwelling only on the King’s wickedness and the supernatural appearance of blood. Matthew Paris brings a bishop on the scene, as explaining another dream of the King’s, and gives the King’s speech of “trahe arcum, diabole” to Tiril, which has a certain mad humour about it, as also the incident of the tree, and the apparition of a goat (Hist. Major. Angl.Ed. Wats., pp. 53, 54), which are not to be found inRoger of Wendover(Flores Hist.Ed. Coxe, tom. ii., pp. 157-59), and therefore open to the strongest suspicion. Matthew of Westminster (Flores Hist.Ed. 1601, p. 235) follows, in most of his details, William of Malmesbury. Simon of Durham (De Gestis Regum Anglorum, in Twysden’sHistorian Anglicanæ Scriptores Decem, p. 225), as, too, Walter de Hemingburgh (Ed. Hamilton, vol. i. p. 33), and Roger Hoveden (Annalium Pars Prior, in Saville’sRerum Anglicarum Scriptores, pp. 467, 468), copy Florence of Worcester. So, too, in various ways, with all the later writers, who had access to no new sources of information. Peter Blois, however, in his continuation ofIngulph(Gales’sRerum Anglicarum Scriptores, tom. i. pp. 110, 111; Oxford, 1684) is more vivid, and adds that the dogs were chasing the stags up a hill; but his whole book is very doubtful, and his account in this particular instance is irreconcilable with the others. Gaimar (L’Estorie des Engles.Ed. Wright. Caxton Society, pp. 217-224), who says that the King was hunting near Brockenhurst (Brokehest), gives a still more detailed account, but we are met by the same difficulties. Of later writers, Leland, in hisItinerary(vol. vi. f. 100, p. 88) states that the King fell at Thorougham, where in his time there was still a chapel standing, evidently meaning Fritham, called Truham inDomesday. Gilpin (Forest Scenery, vol. i. p. 166) mentions a similar tradition; so that there is a very reasonable doubt as to the spot itself being where the Stone stands, especially since, with the exception of the vague remark of Florence, none of the best Chroniclers say one word about the place. Thierry, in many minor particulars, follows Knyghton, whose authority is of little value, and I have therefore omitted all reference to him.[121]Very much against my inclination, I give a sketch of the iron case of the Stone, which the artist has certainly succeeded in making as beautiful as it is possible to do. The public would not, I know, think the book complete without it. It stands, however, rather as a monument of the habit of that English public, who imagine that their eyes are at their fingers’ ends, and of a taste which is on a par with that of the designer of the post-office pillar-boxes, than of the Red King’s death, for the spot where he fell is, as we have seen from the previous note, by no means certain. We must, too, remember that there is no mention made by the Chroniclers of Castle Malwood, but the context in Vitalis, as also the late hour mentioned by Malmesbury when William went out to hunt, show that he was at the time staying somewhere in the Forest.[122]See, as before, Lappenberg’sHistory of England under the Norman Kings, pp. 266-8; and Sharon Turner’sHistory of England during the Middle Ages, vol. iv. pp. 166-8.[123]“Tabidi aëris nebulâ” are the words of William of Malmesbury. (Gesta Regum Anglorum.Ed. Hardy, tom. ii., lib. iii., sect. 275, pp. 454, 455.)[124]Gul. Gemeticensis de Ducibus Normannorum, lib. vii., cap. ix. To be found in Camden’sAnglica Scripta, p. 674.[125]This seems to be the meaning of a not very clear passage in William of Malmesbury. Same edition as before, p. 455. Vitalis, however,Historia Ecclesiastica, pars 3, lib. x., cap. xi. (inMigne, Patrologiæ Cursus Completus, tom. clxxxviii. pp. 748, 749), says he was shot by a knight, who expiated the deed by retiring to a monastery, and speaks in high terms both of him and his brother William, who fell in one of the Crusades.[126]Ed. Thorpe, vol. ii. p. 45. Lewis, in hisTopographical Remarks on the New Forest, pp. 57-62, is hopelessly wrong with regard to Richard, the son of Robert, a grandson of the Conqueror, whom he calls Henry, and confounds at p. 62 with his uncle; and makes both William of Malmesbury and Baker (see hisChronicle, p. 37, Ed. 1730) say quite the reverse of what they write.[127]As I am not writing a History of England during this period, my space will not permit me to enter into those details which, when viewed collectively, carry so much weight in an argument; but at all events, it will be well for some of my readers to bear in mind the character of William II., who in a recent work has lately been elevated into a hero. Without any of his father’s ability or power of statesmanship, he inherited all his vices, which he so improved that they became rather his own. From having no occupation for his mind, he sank more and more into licentiousness and lust. (“Omni se immunditiâ deturpabat,” is the strong expression of John of Salisbury.Life of Anselm, part ii. ch. vii., in Wharton’sAnglia Sacra, tom. ii. p. 163. See, also, Suger,Vita Lud. Grossi Regis, cap. i., in Bouquet:Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France, tom. xii. p. 12. D. E.) Being lustful, he naturally became cruel; not as his father was, on, at least, the plea of necessity, but that he might enjoy a cultivated pleasure in gloating over the sufferings of others. From being cruel, too, he became, in its worst sense, an infidel; not from any pious scruple or deep conviction, but simply that he might indulge his passions. (See that fearful story of the trial of forty Englishmen told in Eadmer:Hist. Nov., lib. ii., p. 48, Ed. 1633, which illustrates in a twofold manner both his cruelty and his atheism.)To a total want of eloquence he joined the most inveterate habit of stammering, so that, when angry, he could barely speak. His physical appearance, too, well harmonized with his moral and mental deformities. His description reads rather like that of a fiend than of a man. Possessing enormous strength, he was small, thick-set, and ill-shaped, having a large stomach. His face was redder than his hair, and his eyes of two different colours. His vices were, in fact, branded on his face. (Malmesbury, Ed. Hardy, tom. ii., lib. iv., sect. 321, p. 504, whom I have literally translated.)Let us look, too, at the events of his reign. Crime after crime crowds upon us. His first act was to imprison those whom his father had set free. He loaded the Forest Laws with fresh horrors. Impartial in his cruelty, he plundered both castle and monastery (The Chronicle. Ed. Thorpe, vol. i. p. 364). He burnt out the eyes of the inhabitants of Canterbury, who had taken the part of the monks of St Augustin’s. At the very mention of his approach the people fled (Eadmer:Hist. Nov., lib. iv. p. 94). Unable himself to be everywhere, his favourites, Robert d’Ouilly harried the middle, and Odineau d’Omfreville the north of England; whilst his Minister, Ralph Flambard, committed such excesses that the people prayed for death as their only deliverance (Annal. Eccles. Winton., in Wharton’sAnglia Sacra, tom. i. p. 295).AsThe Chronicleimpressively says, “In his days all right fell, and all wrong in the sight of God and of the world rose.” Norman and English, friend and foe, priest and layman, were united by one common bond of hatred against the tyrant. It could only be expected that as his life was, so his death would be; that he would be betrayed by his companions, and in his utmost need deserted by his friends.[128]Eadmer:Vita Anselmi, Ed. Paris, 1721, p. 23. John of Salisbury:Vita Anselmi, cap. xi.; in Wharton’sAnglia Sacra, tom. ii. p. 169. William of Malmesbury: Ed. Hardy, vol. ii., b. iv., sect. 332, p. 507; and Roger of Wendover, Ed. Coxe, vol. ii. pp. 159, 160.[129]Vitalis:Historia Ecclesiastica, pars 3, lib. x.; in Migne,Patrologiæ Cursus Completus, tom. clxxxviii., pp. 750 D, 751 A. See previously,p. 94, foot-note.[130]Eadmer:Vita Anselmi, Ed. Paris, 1721, p. 6.[131]Baxter, in his Preface to hisGlossarium Antiquitatum Britannicarum, Ed. 1719, p. 12, entirely misquotes Alanus de Insulis (seeProphetica Anglicana Merlini Ambrosii cum septem libris explanationum Alani de Insulis. Frankfort, 1603. Lib. ii. pp. 68, 69), and completely misunderstands the passage. Alanus, however (p. 69), seems to have no doubt that the King fell by treachery,—“spiculo invidiæ,” as was foretold by Merlin, though he gives no other reason; and which by itself, resting on nothing further, would carry no weight. His account, though, of the general detestation of the Red King immediately before his death, as also the conversation of Hugh, Abbot of Cluny, with Anselm (p. 68), is very suggestive, especially by the way in which it is introduced. Alanus must have possessed far too shrewd an intellect to have believed in Merlin; though it might have suited his purpose to have appeared to have so done, as a veil and a blind, so that he might better say what his high position and authority would not in any other form have well permitted, but which still give to many points, as here, enormous significance and weight.Besides Gaimar and Alanus, Nicander Nucius also hints at treachery (Second Book of Travels, published by the Camden Society, pp. 34, 35), but his account is too vague to be of any service. We should, however, constantly bear in mind, with Lappenberg, that the best authority,The Chronicle, simply relates that the King was shot at the chase by one of his friends, without any allusion to an accident. Not one word or fact else is given, except the appearance of a pool of blood in Berkshire (at Finchhamstead, according to William of Malmesbury), which we know, from other sources, was supposed to foretell some calamity, and which phenomenon science now resolves into merely some species ofalga, probably eitherPalmella cruentaorHæmatococcus sanguineus. Eadmer, with some others, in hisHistoria Novorum, lib. ii. (Migne:Patrologiæ Cursus Completus, tom. clix. p. 422 B) mentions a report, prevalent at the time, that the King accidentally stumbled on an arrow. Then follows, in the very next book (Migne, as before, p. 423 B), a singular passage, to be found also in hisLife of Anselm, book ii. ch. vi. (Migne, as before, tom. clviii. p. 108 D), where, on the news of the Red King’s death, Anselm bursts into tears, and, with sobs, cries, “Quod si hoc efficere posset, multo magis eligeret se ipsum corpore, quam illud, sicut erat, mortuum esse.” Whether this wish sprang from the effects of some pangs of conscience as to William’s death, or from an honourable feeling of natural emotion under the circumstances, as suggested by Sharon Turner, it is hard to determine. From John of Salisbury (Vita Anselmi, pars ii., cap. xi., in Wharton’sAnglia Sacra, tom. ii. p. 169), it would seem that Anselm thought that he was the direct cause, through God, of his death. Wace, quoted by Sharon Turner (vol. iv. p. 169), says that a woman prophesied to Henry his speedy accession to the throne; but I am not inclined to put any faith in this story, especially as Wace’s account is in poetry, where a prophetical speech might after the event be given dramatically true, without being so historically. The same criticism must be applied to the still more detailed account of Gaimar, who vaguely accuses Tiril of conspiracy. No one, however, was likely to declare, for so many reasons, that the King was murdered. We must not expect such a statement, or even look for it in the Chroniclers; we must seek for it in the contradictions, and absurdities, and prophecies which have gathered round the event.[132]Let no one be startled at the fact of ecclesiastics being assassins. We have on record during this very reign the deliberate confessions by monks of plots to murder their abbots, deeming they were doing God a service. We must further keep steadily in mind that prelates then united in their own persons both sacred and military offices. How much Henry was under the influence of the monasteries his marriage and his various appointments show. Their power was enormous. In fact, I believe that the Conqueror owed his success as much to them as Rufus his death, and Henry his crown.[133]At the time of his death he held in his hand the archbishopric of Canterbury, the bishoprics of Winchester and Salisbury, besides eleven abbacies, all let out to rent.The Chronicle. Ed. Thorpe, vol. i. p. 364.[134]The Chronicle. Ed. Thorpe, vol. i. p. 356.[135]William of Malmesbury, Ed. Hardy, tom. ii., lib. iv., sect. 306, p. 488.[136]The same, tom. ii., lib. iv., sect. 319, p. 502.[137]The Chronicle. Ed. Thorpe, vol. i. p. 362.[138]Suger:Vita Lud. Grossi Regis, cap. i. (to be found, as before, in Bouquet, tom. xii. p. 12 E.) See, also, John of Salisbury:Vita Anselmi; Migne:Patrologiæ Cursus Completus, tom. cxcix., cap. xii., p. 1031 B.; or, as before, in Wharton’sAnglia Sacra, tom. ii. p. 170.[139]Quoted by Sharon Turner:History of England, vol. iv. p. 167. See, as before, Migne: tom. cxcix., cap. xii., p. 1031 B.[140]The word, however, is going out of use, and is more generally now softened into hill. We meet with it in the perambulation of the Forest made in the twenty-second year of Charles II.—“The same hedge reaches Barnfarn from the right hand, right by Helclose, as far as to a certain corner called Hell Corner.”[141]For the geology of this part of the Forest seechapter xx.[142]Testa de Nevill, p. 237 b. 130. See, also, p. 235 b. (118). Throughout the Forest, as we have seen at Lyndhurst and Brockenhurst, were similar feudal tenures. Some held their lands, as the heirs of Cobbe, at Eling, by finding 50; and others, again, as Richard de Baudet, at Redbridge, 100 arrows.Testa de Nevill, as in the first reference; and p. 238 a. (132).[143]See previous chapter,p. 96, foot-note.[144]For some account of the contents of these barrows and potteries, see chaptersxvii.andxviii.[145]Lewis:Topographical Remarks on the New Forest, p. 80, foot-note. I have not, however, been able to find his authority. A tradition of the sort lingers in the neighbourhood. Blount (Fragmenta Antiquitatis, Ed. Beckwith, p. 115. 1815) says that Richard Carevile held here six librates a year of land in chief of Edward I., by finding a sergeant-at-arms for forty days every year in the King’s army. See, also, theTesta de Nevill, p. 231 (101), No. 3.[146]Dugdale:Monasticon Anglicanum, Ed. 1830, vol. vi., part ii., p. 761. Leland, however (Itin., vol. iii., f. 72, p. 88, Ed. Hearne), says it was given to King’s College, Cambridge.[147]The Chronicle. Ed. Thorpe, vol. i. p. 26.Florence of Worcester, Ed. Thorpe, vol. i. p. 4.[148]Same edition as before, p. iv. a. Its manor then belonged to that of Rockbourne, and was held in demesne by the Conqueror, as it had also been by Edward the Confessor. Two hydes and a half, and a wood capable of supporting fifty swine, were taken into the Forest. From the mention of a priest (presbyter), who received twenty shillings from some land in the Isle of Wight, there may have been, though by no means necessarily, a church, situated, as the old yew would perhaps show, in the present churchyard, and of which the Norman doorway may be the last remains.The Valley of the Avon, as was mentioned in chapter v.,p. 51, foot-note, appears from its nature to have been, with the exception of the east coast, the most flourishing district of any in the neighbourhood of the Forest. It is worth, however, noticing that many of its mills were rented not only by a money value, but by the additional payment of so many eels. Thus at Charford (Cerdeford) the mill is rented at 15s.and 1,250 eels, and at Burgate (Borgate) the mill paid 10s.and 1,000 eels, whilst at Ibbesley (Tibeslei) the rental was only 10s.and 700 eels (Domesday, as before, pp. xix. a, iv. b, xviii. a). The latter place had two hydes, and Burgate its woods and pasture, which maintained forty hogs, taken into the Forest; but Charford with its ninety-one acres of meadow-land, seems not to have been afforested, which, taken with other instances, shows that the best land was, as a rule, spared.[149]In theGentleman’s Magazinefor 1828, vol. 98, part, ii., p. 17, is a sketch of the house, taken fifty years ago, which, with the exception of some parts now pulled down, much resembles its present condition.[150]Monmouth, like a second Warbeck, was in all probability on his way through the Forest to Lymington, where Dore, the mayor, had raised for him a troop of men, and would assist him to embark. At Axminster, in Dorsetshire, there is a local MS. record, “Ecclesiastica, or the Book of Remembrance,” made by some member of the Axminster Independent Chapel, of the sufferings of Monmouth’s followers, which appears to have been unknown to Macaulay.
[72]See previously, chapter iv.p. 40, foot-note.
[73]The derivation of Leap as given in the text is very doubtful.—errata
[74]At the date of the Dauphin’s leaving England, William de Vernon was dead, which makes his embarkation at Leap less probable. Neither Roger of Wendover (vol. iv. p. 32. Ed. Coxe), nor Walter Hemingburgh (vol. i. p. 259. Ed. Hamilton), nor Ralph Coggeshale (Chronicon, Anglicanum Bouquet Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France, tom. xviii. p. 113 C.), nor theChronicon Turonense(in theVeterum Scriptorum Amplissima Collectioof Martène and Durand, tom. v. p. 1059 B), nor Rymer’sFœdera(“De salvo conductu Domini Ludovici,” tom. i. p. 222), say anything of the place of embarkation.
[75]I believe on that of the Oglander MSS. in the possession of the Earl of Yarborough, but which I have never seen. Neither theIter Carolinum, Herbert’sMemoirs(London, 1572, p. 38), Huntington’s account (same volume, p. 160), Berkeley’sMemoirs(second edition, 1702, p. 65),The Ashburnham Narrative(London, 1830, vol. ii. p. 119), nor Whalley’s letter in Peck’sDesiderata Curiosa(tom. ii., lib. ix., pp. 374, 375), nor Hammond’s, in Rushworth’sCollection(part iv., vol. ii., p. 874), mention the place, though the latter would seem to indicate that the King sailed direct from Tichfield to Cowes. Ashburnham and Berkeley had, we know from Berkeley (Memoirs, same edition as before, p. 57) and Ludlow (Memoirs, 1771, p. 93), previously gone by Lymington to the Island.
[76]The road is marked in the map which accompanies Dr. Guest’s paper on “The Belgic Ditches.”The Archæological Journal, vol. viii. p. 143.
[77]As the passage is so important, I give it in full:—Ἀποτυποῦντες δ’ εἰς ἀστραγάλων ῥυθμοὺς κομίζουσιν εἴς τινα νῆσον προκειμένην μὲν τῆς Βρεττανικῆς, ὀνομαζομένην δὲ Ἴκτιν. κατὰ γὰρ τὰς ἀμπώτεις ἀναξηραινομένου τοῦ μεταξὺ τόπου ταῖς ἁμάξαις εἰς ταύτην κομίζουσι δαψιλῆ τὸν καττίτερον. Ἴδιον δέ τι συμβαίνει περὶ τὰς πλησίον νήσους τὰς μεταξὺ κειμένας τῆς τε Εὐρώπης καὶ τῆς Βρεττανικῆς. Κατὰ μὲν γὰρ τὰς πλημμυρίδας τοῦ μεταξὺ πόρου πληρουμένου νῆσοι φαίνονται, κατὰ δὲ τὰς ἀμπώτεις ἀποῤῥεούσης τῆς θαλάττης καὶ πολὺν τόπον ἀναξηραινούσης θεωροῦνται χεῤῥόνησοι.—Lib. v., cap. xxii., vol. i., p. 438. Ed. Dindorf. Leipsic, 1828-31. Pliny, as Wesseling remarks, in his note on this passage, quoted by Dindorf, vol. iv. p. 421, by some mistake, makes the Isle of Wight (Mictis) six days’ sail from England. See Sir G. C. Lewis’sAstronomy of the Ancients, chap. viii., sect. iii. p. 453.
[78]As before, sect. iv. p. 462.
[79]The South-Western Parts of Hampshire, vol. ii. pp. 5, 6, 1793.
[80]For an account of the barrows on Beaulieu Heath, see ch. xvii.
[81]Dugdale’sMonasticon Anglicanum. Ed 1825, vol. v., p. 682. Num. ii. SeeChronica de Kirkstall. Brit. Mus. Cott. MSS. Domitian. A. xii., ff. 85, 86. The cause of John’s enmity against the Cistercian Order may be gathered from Ralph Coggeshale,Chronicon Anglicanum, as before in Bouquet,Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France, tom. xviii. pp. 90, 91.
[82]Carta Fundationis per Regem Johannem, given in Dugdale (Ed. 1825, vol. v. p. 683); andConfirmacio Regis Edwardi tertii super cartas Regis Johannis, Brit. Mus., Bib. Cott. Nero, A. xii., No. v., ff. 8-15, quoted in Warner (South-West Parts of Hampshire, vol. ii., Appendix, pp. 7-14). There are, however, no less than three dates given for its foundation. TheAnnals of Parcolude, according to Tanner (Notitia Monastica, Ed. Nasmyth, Hampshire, No. vi. foot-noteh), say 1201, which is manifestly wrong; whilst John of Oxnede, better known as the chronicler of St. Benet’s Abbey at Hulme (Chronica.Ed. Ellis, p. 107), with theChronicon de Hayles et Aberconwey(Brit. Mus., Harl. MS., No. 3725, f. 10), and Matthew Paris, according to Dugdale, say respectively 1204 and 1205, though I have not been able to verify the last reference.
[83]Roger of Wendover.English Historical Society. Ed. Coxe, vol. iii. p. 344.
[84]See the previous chapter, pp.57,58, foot-note.
[85]Curiously enough, as Warner remarks (vol. i. 267), Matthew Paris gives two dates for the dedication, the first 1246 (Hist. Angl., tom. i. p. 710, Ed. Wats., London, 1640); and the second (p. 770) 1249; not, however, 1250, as Warner says, and who, followed by all later writers, totally misunderstands the passage, which means that, although the abbot spent so large a sum, yet the King would not remit him the fine he had incurred by trespass in the Forest,—“Nec tamen idcirco aliquatenus pepercit rex, quin maximum censum solveret illi pro transgressione quam dicebatur regi fecisse in occupatione Forestæ.”
[86]See Matthew Paris, in praise of the Cistercian Order. Same edition as before, tom. i. p. 916.
[87]Not Margaret of Anjou, as the common accounts say, who, landing at Weymouth, took refuge at Cerne Abbey. SeeHistorie of the Arrival of Edward IV. in England, pp. 22, 23, printed for the Camden Society, 1838; and Hollinshed’sChronicles, vol. iii. p. 685; andSpeed, B. ix. p. 866. Hall, however (The Union of the Families of Lancaster and York, p. 219), with Grafton, in his prose continuation of Hardyng (Ed. Ellis, 1812, p. 457), says it was to Beaulieu that Margaret fled. But they are evidently mistaken, as Speed and Hollinshed, and the explicit and circumstantial narrative of the author of theHistorie, show.
[88]The following list of books at Beaulieu, taken by Leland (Collect. de Rebus Brit., vol. iv. p. 149), just before the dissolution, will show what was in those days an average ecclesiastical library:—“Eadmerus de Vitâ Anselmi, et Vitâ Wilfridi Episcopi.Stephanus super Ecclesiasticum, Libros Regum, et Parabolas Salomonis.Joannes Abbas de Fordâ super Cantica Canticorum.Damascenus de Gestis Barlaam eremitæ, et Josaphat regis Indiæ.Libellus Candidi Ariani” (most probably theDe Generatione Divinâ). “Libellus Victorini, rhetoris, contra Candidum” (theConfutatorium Candidi Ariani, written against the preceding work). “Tres libri Claudiani de Statu Animæ ad Sidonium Apollinarem.Gislebertus super Epistolas Pauli. Prosper de Vitâ contemplativâ et activâ.”
[89]Ellis’s Letters, second series, vol. ii. p. 87. For Henry VIII.’s enforcement of Wolsey’s levies on Beaulieu, seeState Papers, vol. i., part ii., p. 383.
[90]Accounts of this palace—probably, as Mr. Walcott says, the King’s hunting lodge—may be found in theProceedings of the Archæological Institute, 1846, p. 32, and the Rev. Makenzie Walcott’sChurch and Conventual Arrangement, p. 115.
[91]Her remains were lately discovered near the high altar, with part of the inscription on her gravestone. (See the Rev. F. W. Baker’s account in theGentleman’s Magazine, vol. ccxiv. p. 63.) A carved head with a crown in the refectory preserves the memory of her husband, crowned at Aix-la-Chapelle King of the Romans, and whose heart was buried, in a marble vase, beside his wife. (Leland, as before, iv. 149.) Tradition says that Eleanor of Acquitaine was also buried here, but she lies with her husband at Fontevraud.
[92]Warner (vol. i. 255) mentions that in his time there was still brandy in the steward’s cellars made from the vines growing on the spot.Domesdaygives several entries of wines (see Ellis’sIntroduction, vol. i. pp. 116, 117), though none in the Forest district. But the term ‘Vineyards’ is still frequently found hereabouts as the name of fields generally marked by a southern slope, as at Beckley and Hern, near Christchurch, showing how common formerly was the cultivation of the vine, first introduced into England by the Romans.
[93]In Brit. Mus., Harl. MS. 892, f. 40b, is an extract from a most interesting letter written in 1648, describing the state of the refectory, which seems, with the exception of the alterations made in 1746, to have been much the same as at present.
[94]Corrected from “the injunction which the Bishop of Hippo gives to the canons of his own order”—errata
[95]Quoted from Dugdale’sMonasticon Anglicanum, by Warner, vol. i. p. 249.
[96]It is pleasant to have to add that the present noble owner, the Duke of Buccleuch, has shown not only good taste and judgment in the restoration of the guest-house and the excavation of the church, but a wise liberality in throwing the grounds open to the public.
[97]In Parker’sGlossary of Architectureis given a list of some of these old barns. Vol. i. pp. 240, 241.
[98]Some curious leaden pipes, soldered only on one side, were dug up close by, which are worth seeing, as they show how late the process of running hollow lead pipes was invented. The earthenware pipes found with them are as good as any which are now made. At Otterwood Farm, on the other side of the Exe, pavement and tiles have also been discovered.
[99]The chapel was standing in Warner’s time.South-Western Parts of Hampshire, vol. i. pp. 232, 233.
[100]In Brit. Mus., Bib. Cott., Nero, A. xii., No. vii. f. 20a b, is a copy of a Bull from Alexander I., giving permission to all the Cistercian Houses to hold service at their granges.
[101]Even Layton saw their kindness, and pleaded for the poor wretches whom they had protected. Letter regarding Beaulieu Sanctuary from Layton to Cromwell,Ellis’s Letters, third series, vol. iii. pp. 72, 73.
[102]Blount’sFragmenta Antiquitatis. Ed. Beckwith, p. 80, 1815.Testa de Nevill, p. 235 a (118). We know, however, that our forefathers, long before this, possessed beds, or rather cots, hung round with rich embroidered canopies. For their general love, too, of comfort and personal ornament and dress, we need go no further than to Chaucer’s description of “Richesse,” in hisRomaunt of the Rose. Englishmen, however, were still then, as now, ever ready to lead a rough life if necessary, and to make their toil their pleasure.
[103]In that portion of it which comes under the title of “In Forestâ et circa eam.” See chap. iii.p. 31.
[104]All over England did the church towers serve as landmarks, alike in the fen and forest districts. Lincolnshire and Yorkshire can show plenty of such steeples. At St. Michael’s at York, to this hour, I believe, at six every morning, is rung the bell whose sound used to guide the traveller through the great forest of Galtres; whilst at All Saints, in the Pavement, in the same city, is shown the lantern, which every night used to serve as a beacon.
[105]The following measurements may have some interest, and can be compared with those of the oaks and beeches in the Forest, given in chap. ii.p. 16, foot-note:—Circumference of the oak, twenty-two feet eight inches. Yew, seventeen feet. An enormous yew, completely hollow, however, stands in Breamore churchyard, measuring twenty-three feet four inches. There are certainly no yews in the Forest so large as these; and their evidence would further show that at all events the Conqueror did not destroy the churchyards. As here, too, there remains some Norman work in the doorway of Breamore church.
[106]For some account of these barrows, seechapter xvii.
[107]The word is from the Frenchmerise. At Wood Green, in the northern part of the Forest, a “merry fair” of these half-wild cherries is held once a week during the season, probably similar to that of which Gower sung.
[108]An objection, that the lime-tree was not known so early in England, has been taken to this derivation. This is certainly a mistake. In that fine song of the Battle of Brunanburh, we find—
“Bordweal clufanHeowan heaþolindeHamora lafan.”(The Chronicle.Ed. Thorpe. Vol. i. p. 200.)
“Bordweal clufan
Heowan heaþolinde
Hamora lafan.”
(The Chronicle.Ed. Thorpe. Vol. i. p. 200.)
The “geolwe lind” was sung of in many a battle-piece. Again, as Kemble notices (The Saxons in England, vol. i., Appendix A, p. 480), we read in theCod. Dip., No. 1317, of a marked linden-tree. (See, also, same volume, book i., chap. ii., p. 53, foot-note.) Then, too, we have the Old-English wordlindecole, the tree being noted for making good charcoal, as both it and the dog-wood are to this day. Any “Anglo-Saxon” dictionary will correct this notion, and names of places, similarly compounded, are common throughout England.
[109]The entry inDomesday(facsimile of the part relating to Hampshire, photo-zincographed at the Ordnance Survey, 1861, p. iv. a) is as follows:—“In Bovere Hundredo. Ipse Rex tenet Linhest. Jacuit in Ambresberie de firmâ Regis. Tunc, se defendebat pro ij hidis. Modo, Herbertus forestarius ex his ij hidis unam virgatam (tenet), et pro tanto geldat; aliæ sunt in forestâ. Ibi modo nichil, nisi ij bordarii. Valet x solidos. Tempore Regis Edwardi valuit vi. libras.” It is worth noticing that Lyndhurst is here put by itself, and not with Brockenhurst and Minestead, and other neighbouring places under “In Novâ Forestâ et circa eam;” a clear proof, which might be gathered from other entries, that the survey was not completed.
[110]Blount’sFragmenta Antiquitatis. Ed. Beckwith, p. 183. 1815. Here the place is called Lindeshull.
[111]Let me especially call attention to the exquisite carving of some thorns and convolvuluses in the chancel. It is a sad pity that this part of the church should be disfigured by glaring theatrical candlesticks and coarse gaudy Birmingham candelabra.
[112]I have only seen but the slightest portion of this fresco, so that it is impossible to properly judge of even the merits of this part. No criticism is true which does not consider a work of Art as a whole. At present, the angel with outstretched hands, full of nervous power and feeling, seems to me very admirable, though the position and meaning of the cloaked and clinging figure below is, at the first glance, difficult to make out; but this will doubtless, as the picture proceeds, become clear. The richness, however, of the colouring can even now be seen under the enormous disadvantage of being placed beneath the strong white glare of light which pours in from the east window. Further, Mr. Leighton must be praised for his boldness in breaking through the old conventionalities of Art, and giving us here the owl as a symbol of sloth, and the wretchedness it produces.
[113]Herbert’s Memoirs of Charles I., p. 95.
[114]William of Malmesbury:Gesta Regum Anglorum. Ed. Hardy, tom. ii., lib. iv., sect. 333, p. 508.
[115]Vitalis:Historia Eccl., pars. iii., lib. x., cap. xii., in Migne:Patrologiæ Cursus, tom. clxxxviii. pp. 751, 752; where occurs (pp. 750, 751) a most remarkable sermon, on the wrongs and woes of England, preached at St. Peter’s Abbey, Shrewsbury, on St. Peter’s Day, by Fulchered, first abbot of Shrewsbury, a man evidently of high purpose, ending with these ominous words:—“The bow of God’s vengeance is bent against the wicked. The arrow, swift to wound, is already drawn out of the quiver. Soon will the blow be struck; but the man who is wise to amend will avoid it.” Surely this is more than a general denunciation. On the very next day William the Red falls.
[116]Malmesbury, as before quoted, p. 509. Vitalis, however, in Migne, as before, p. 751, says there were some others.
[117]William of Malmesbury says nothing about the tree, from which nearly all modern historians represent the arrow as glancing. Vitalis, as before, p. 751, expressly states that it rebounded from the back of a beast of chase (fera), apparently, by the mention of bristles (setæ), a wild-boar. Matthew Paris (Ed. Wats., tom. i. p. 54) first mentions the tree, but his narrative is doubtful.
[118]Malmesbury, as before, p. 509. The additions that it was a charcoal-cart, as also the owner’s name, are merely traditional.
[119]TheChronicle. Ed. Thorpe, vol. i. p. 364.
[120]Vitalis, as before, p. 752. Neither William of Malmesbury nor Vitalis, who go into details, mentions the spot where the King was killed. TheChronicleand Florence of Worcester most briefly relate the accident, though Florence adds that William fell where his father had destroyed a chapel. (Ed. Thorpe, vol. ii. p. 45). Henry of Huntingdon (Historiarum, lib. vii., in Saville’sScriptores Rerum Anglicarum, p. 378) says but little more, dwelling only on the King’s wickedness and the supernatural appearance of blood. Matthew Paris brings a bishop on the scene, as explaining another dream of the King’s, and gives the King’s speech of “trahe arcum, diabole” to Tiril, which has a certain mad humour about it, as also the incident of the tree, and the apparition of a goat (Hist. Major. Angl.Ed. Wats., pp. 53, 54), which are not to be found inRoger of Wendover(Flores Hist.Ed. Coxe, tom. ii., pp. 157-59), and therefore open to the strongest suspicion. Matthew of Westminster (Flores Hist.Ed. 1601, p. 235) follows, in most of his details, William of Malmesbury. Simon of Durham (De Gestis Regum Anglorum, in Twysden’sHistorian Anglicanæ Scriptores Decem, p. 225), as, too, Walter de Hemingburgh (Ed. Hamilton, vol. i. p. 33), and Roger Hoveden (Annalium Pars Prior, in Saville’sRerum Anglicarum Scriptores, pp. 467, 468), copy Florence of Worcester. So, too, in various ways, with all the later writers, who had access to no new sources of information. Peter Blois, however, in his continuation ofIngulph(Gales’sRerum Anglicarum Scriptores, tom. i. pp. 110, 111; Oxford, 1684) is more vivid, and adds that the dogs were chasing the stags up a hill; but his whole book is very doubtful, and his account in this particular instance is irreconcilable with the others. Gaimar (L’Estorie des Engles.Ed. Wright. Caxton Society, pp. 217-224), who says that the King was hunting near Brockenhurst (Brokehest), gives a still more detailed account, but we are met by the same difficulties. Of later writers, Leland, in hisItinerary(vol. vi. f. 100, p. 88) states that the King fell at Thorougham, where in his time there was still a chapel standing, evidently meaning Fritham, called Truham inDomesday. Gilpin (Forest Scenery, vol. i. p. 166) mentions a similar tradition; so that there is a very reasonable doubt as to the spot itself being where the Stone stands, especially since, with the exception of the vague remark of Florence, none of the best Chroniclers say one word about the place. Thierry, in many minor particulars, follows Knyghton, whose authority is of little value, and I have therefore omitted all reference to him.
[121]Very much against my inclination, I give a sketch of the iron case of the Stone, which the artist has certainly succeeded in making as beautiful as it is possible to do. The public would not, I know, think the book complete without it. It stands, however, rather as a monument of the habit of that English public, who imagine that their eyes are at their fingers’ ends, and of a taste which is on a par with that of the designer of the post-office pillar-boxes, than of the Red King’s death, for the spot where he fell is, as we have seen from the previous note, by no means certain. We must, too, remember that there is no mention made by the Chroniclers of Castle Malwood, but the context in Vitalis, as also the late hour mentioned by Malmesbury when William went out to hunt, show that he was at the time staying somewhere in the Forest.
[122]See, as before, Lappenberg’sHistory of England under the Norman Kings, pp. 266-8; and Sharon Turner’sHistory of England during the Middle Ages, vol. iv. pp. 166-8.
[123]“Tabidi aëris nebulâ” are the words of William of Malmesbury. (Gesta Regum Anglorum.Ed. Hardy, tom. ii., lib. iii., sect. 275, pp. 454, 455.)
[124]Gul. Gemeticensis de Ducibus Normannorum, lib. vii., cap. ix. To be found in Camden’sAnglica Scripta, p. 674.
[125]This seems to be the meaning of a not very clear passage in William of Malmesbury. Same edition as before, p. 455. Vitalis, however,Historia Ecclesiastica, pars 3, lib. x., cap. xi. (inMigne, Patrologiæ Cursus Completus, tom. clxxxviii. pp. 748, 749), says he was shot by a knight, who expiated the deed by retiring to a monastery, and speaks in high terms both of him and his brother William, who fell in one of the Crusades.
[126]Ed. Thorpe, vol. ii. p. 45. Lewis, in hisTopographical Remarks on the New Forest, pp. 57-62, is hopelessly wrong with regard to Richard, the son of Robert, a grandson of the Conqueror, whom he calls Henry, and confounds at p. 62 with his uncle; and makes both William of Malmesbury and Baker (see hisChronicle, p. 37, Ed. 1730) say quite the reverse of what they write.
[127]As I am not writing a History of England during this period, my space will not permit me to enter into those details which, when viewed collectively, carry so much weight in an argument; but at all events, it will be well for some of my readers to bear in mind the character of William II., who in a recent work has lately been elevated into a hero. Without any of his father’s ability or power of statesmanship, he inherited all his vices, which he so improved that they became rather his own. From having no occupation for his mind, he sank more and more into licentiousness and lust. (“Omni se immunditiâ deturpabat,” is the strong expression of John of Salisbury.Life of Anselm, part ii. ch. vii., in Wharton’sAnglia Sacra, tom. ii. p. 163. See, also, Suger,Vita Lud. Grossi Regis, cap. i., in Bouquet:Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France, tom. xii. p. 12. D. E.) Being lustful, he naturally became cruel; not as his father was, on, at least, the plea of necessity, but that he might enjoy a cultivated pleasure in gloating over the sufferings of others. From being cruel, too, he became, in its worst sense, an infidel; not from any pious scruple or deep conviction, but simply that he might indulge his passions. (See that fearful story of the trial of forty Englishmen told in Eadmer:Hist. Nov., lib. ii., p. 48, Ed. 1633, which illustrates in a twofold manner both his cruelty and his atheism.)
To a total want of eloquence he joined the most inveterate habit of stammering, so that, when angry, he could barely speak. His physical appearance, too, well harmonized with his moral and mental deformities. His description reads rather like that of a fiend than of a man. Possessing enormous strength, he was small, thick-set, and ill-shaped, having a large stomach. His face was redder than his hair, and his eyes of two different colours. His vices were, in fact, branded on his face. (Malmesbury, Ed. Hardy, tom. ii., lib. iv., sect. 321, p. 504, whom I have literally translated.)
Let us look, too, at the events of his reign. Crime after crime crowds upon us. His first act was to imprison those whom his father had set free. He loaded the Forest Laws with fresh horrors. Impartial in his cruelty, he plundered both castle and monastery (The Chronicle. Ed. Thorpe, vol. i. p. 364). He burnt out the eyes of the inhabitants of Canterbury, who had taken the part of the monks of St Augustin’s. At the very mention of his approach the people fled (Eadmer:Hist. Nov., lib. iv. p. 94). Unable himself to be everywhere, his favourites, Robert d’Ouilly harried the middle, and Odineau d’Omfreville the north of England; whilst his Minister, Ralph Flambard, committed such excesses that the people prayed for death as their only deliverance (Annal. Eccles. Winton., in Wharton’sAnglia Sacra, tom. i. p. 295).
AsThe Chronicleimpressively says, “In his days all right fell, and all wrong in the sight of God and of the world rose.” Norman and English, friend and foe, priest and layman, were united by one common bond of hatred against the tyrant. It could only be expected that as his life was, so his death would be; that he would be betrayed by his companions, and in his utmost need deserted by his friends.
[128]Eadmer:Vita Anselmi, Ed. Paris, 1721, p. 23. John of Salisbury:Vita Anselmi, cap. xi.; in Wharton’sAnglia Sacra, tom. ii. p. 169. William of Malmesbury: Ed. Hardy, vol. ii., b. iv., sect. 332, p. 507; and Roger of Wendover, Ed. Coxe, vol. ii. pp. 159, 160.
[129]Vitalis:Historia Ecclesiastica, pars 3, lib. x.; in Migne,Patrologiæ Cursus Completus, tom. clxxxviii., pp. 750 D, 751 A. See previously,p. 94, foot-note.
[130]Eadmer:Vita Anselmi, Ed. Paris, 1721, p. 6.
[131]Baxter, in his Preface to hisGlossarium Antiquitatum Britannicarum, Ed. 1719, p. 12, entirely misquotes Alanus de Insulis (seeProphetica Anglicana Merlini Ambrosii cum septem libris explanationum Alani de Insulis. Frankfort, 1603. Lib. ii. pp. 68, 69), and completely misunderstands the passage. Alanus, however (p. 69), seems to have no doubt that the King fell by treachery,—“spiculo invidiæ,” as was foretold by Merlin, though he gives no other reason; and which by itself, resting on nothing further, would carry no weight. His account, though, of the general detestation of the Red King immediately before his death, as also the conversation of Hugh, Abbot of Cluny, with Anselm (p. 68), is very suggestive, especially by the way in which it is introduced. Alanus must have possessed far too shrewd an intellect to have believed in Merlin; though it might have suited his purpose to have appeared to have so done, as a veil and a blind, so that he might better say what his high position and authority would not in any other form have well permitted, but which still give to many points, as here, enormous significance and weight.
Besides Gaimar and Alanus, Nicander Nucius also hints at treachery (Second Book of Travels, published by the Camden Society, pp. 34, 35), but his account is too vague to be of any service. We should, however, constantly bear in mind, with Lappenberg, that the best authority,The Chronicle, simply relates that the King was shot at the chase by one of his friends, without any allusion to an accident. Not one word or fact else is given, except the appearance of a pool of blood in Berkshire (at Finchhamstead, according to William of Malmesbury), which we know, from other sources, was supposed to foretell some calamity, and which phenomenon science now resolves into merely some species ofalga, probably eitherPalmella cruentaorHæmatococcus sanguineus. Eadmer, with some others, in hisHistoria Novorum, lib. ii. (Migne:Patrologiæ Cursus Completus, tom. clix. p. 422 B) mentions a report, prevalent at the time, that the King accidentally stumbled on an arrow. Then follows, in the very next book (Migne, as before, p. 423 B), a singular passage, to be found also in hisLife of Anselm, book ii. ch. vi. (Migne, as before, tom. clviii. p. 108 D), where, on the news of the Red King’s death, Anselm bursts into tears, and, with sobs, cries, “Quod si hoc efficere posset, multo magis eligeret se ipsum corpore, quam illud, sicut erat, mortuum esse.” Whether this wish sprang from the effects of some pangs of conscience as to William’s death, or from an honourable feeling of natural emotion under the circumstances, as suggested by Sharon Turner, it is hard to determine. From John of Salisbury (Vita Anselmi, pars ii., cap. xi., in Wharton’sAnglia Sacra, tom. ii. p. 169), it would seem that Anselm thought that he was the direct cause, through God, of his death. Wace, quoted by Sharon Turner (vol. iv. p. 169), says that a woman prophesied to Henry his speedy accession to the throne; but I am not inclined to put any faith in this story, especially as Wace’s account is in poetry, where a prophetical speech might after the event be given dramatically true, without being so historically. The same criticism must be applied to the still more detailed account of Gaimar, who vaguely accuses Tiril of conspiracy. No one, however, was likely to declare, for so many reasons, that the King was murdered. We must not expect such a statement, or even look for it in the Chroniclers; we must seek for it in the contradictions, and absurdities, and prophecies which have gathered round the event.
[132]Let no one be startled at the fact of ecclesiastics being assassins. We have on record during this very reign the deliberate confessions by monks of plots to murder their abbots, deeming they were doing God a service. We must further keep steadily in mind that prelates then united in their own persons both sacred and military offices. How much Henry was under the influence of the monasteries his marriage and his various appointments show. Their power was enormous. In fact, I believe that the Conqueror owed his success as much to them as Rufus his death, and Henry his crown.
[133]At the time of his death he held in his hand the archbishopric of Canterbury, the bishoprics of Winchester and Salisbury, besides eleven abbacies, all let out to rent.The Chronicle. Ed. Thorpe, vol. i. p. 364.
[134]The Chronicle. Ed. Thorpe, vol. i. p. 356.
[135]William of Malmesbury, Ed. Hardy, tom. ii., lib. iv., sect. 306, p. 488.
[136]The same, tom. ii., lib. iv., sect. 319, p. 502.
[137]The Chronicle. Ed. Thorpe, vol. i. p. 362.
[138]Suger:Vita Lud. Grossi Regis, cap. i. (to be found, as before, in Bouquet, tom. xii. p. 12 E.) See, also, John of Salisbury:Vita Anselmi; Migne:Patrologiæ Cursus Completus, tom. cxcix., cap. xii., p. 1031 B.; or, as before, in Wharton’sAnglia Sacra, tom. ii. p. 170.
[139]Quoted by Sharon Turner:History of England, vol. iv. p. 167. See, as before, Migne: tom. cxcix., cap. xii., p. 1031 B.
[140]The word, however, is going out of use, and is more generally now softened into hill. We meet with it in the perambulation of the Forest made in the twenty-second year of Charles II.—“The same hedge reaches Barnfarn from the right hand, right by Helclose, as far as to a certain corner called Hell Corner.”
[141]For the geology of this part of the Forest seechapter xx.
[142]Testa de Nevill, p. 237 b. 130. See, also, p. 235 b. (118). Throughout the Forest, as we have seen at Lyndhurst and Brockenhurst, were similar feudal tenures. Some held their lands, as the heirs of Cobbe, at Eling, by finding 50; and others, again, as Richard de Baudet, at Redbridge, 100 arrows.Testa de Nevill, as in the first reference; and p. 238 a. (132).
[143]See previous chapter,p. 96, foot-note.
[144]For some account of the contents of these barrows and potteries, see chaptersxvii.andxviii.
[145]Lewis:Topographical Remarks on the New Forest, p. 80, foot-note. I have not, however, been able to find his authority. A tradition of the sort lingers in the neighbourhood. Blount (Fragmenta Antiquitatis, Ed. Beckwith, p. 115. 1815) says that Richard Carevile held here six librates a year of land in chief of Edward I., by finding a sergeant-at-arms for forty days every year in the King’s army. See, also, theTesta de Nevill, p. 231 (101), No. 3.
[146]Dugdale:Monasticon Anglicanum, Ed. 1830, vol. vi., part ii., p. 761. Leland, however (Itin., vol. iii., f. 72, p. 88, Ed. Hearne), says it was given to King’s College, Cambridge.
[147]The Chronicle. Ed. Thorpe, vol. i. p. 26.Florence of Worcester, Ed. Thorpe, vol. i. p. 4.
[148]Same edition as before, p. iv. a. Its manor then belonged to that of Rockbourne, and was held in demesne by the Conqueror, as it had also been by Edward the Confessor. Two hydes and a half, and a wood capable of supporting fifty swine, were taken into the Forest. From the mention of a priest (presbyter), who received twenty shillings from some land in the Isle of Wight, there may have been, though by no means necessarily, a church, situated, as the old yew would perhaps show, in the present churchyard, and of which the Norman doorway may be the last remains.
The Valley of the Avon, as was mentioned in chapter v.,p. 51, foot-note, appears from its nature to have been, with the exception of the east coast, the most flourishing district of any in the neighbourhood of the Forest. It is worth, however, noticing that many of its mills were rented not only by a money value, but by the additional payment of so many eels. Thus at Charford (Cerdeford) the mill is rented at 15s.and 1,250 eels, and at Burgate (Borgate) the mill paid 10s.and 1,000 eels, whilst at Ibbesley (Tibeslei) the rental was only 10s.and 700 eels (Domesday, as before, pp. xix. a, iv. b, xviii. a). The latter place had two hydes, and Burgate its woods and pasture, which maintained forty hogs, taken into the Forest; but Charford with its ninety-one acres of meadow-land, seems not to have been afforested, which, taken with other instances, shows that the best land was, as a rule, spared.
[149]In theGentleman’s Magazinefor 1828, vol. 98, part, ii., p. 17, is a sketch of the house, taken fifty years ago, which, with the exception of some parts now pulled down, much resembles its present condition.
[150]Monmouth, like a second Warbeck, was in all probability on his way through the Forest to Lymington, where Dore, the mayor, had raised for him a troop of men, and would assist him to embark. At Axminster, in Dorsetshire, there is a local MS. record, “Ecclesiastica, or the Book of Remembrance,” made by some member of the Axminster Independent Chapel, of the sufferings of Monmouth’s followers, which appears to have been unknown to Macaulay.