[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 the
Chronicon Turonense (in the
Veterum Scriptorum
Amplissima Collectio of Martène and Durand, tom. v. p. 1059 B), nor
Rymer’s
Fœdera (“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 the
Iter Carolinum,
Herbert’s
Memoirs (London, 1572, p. 38), Huntington’s account (same
volume, p. 160), Berkeley’s
Memoirs (second edition, 1702, p. 65),
The
Ashburnham Narrative (London, 1830, vol. ii. p. 119), nor Whalley’s letter
in Peck’s
Desiderata Curiosa (tom. ii., lib. ix., pp. 374, 375), nor Hammond’s,
in Rushworth’s
Collection (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’s
Astronomy 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’s
Monasticon Anglicanum. Ed 1825, vol. v., p. 682. Num. ii.
See
Chronica 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); and
Confirmacio 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. The
Annals of Parcolude, according to Tanner (
Notitia Monastica, Ed. Nasmyth,
Hampshire, No. vi. foot-note
h), 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 the
Chronicon 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. See
Historie of the Arrival of
Edward IV. in England, pp. 22, 23, printed for the Camden Society, 1838;
and Hollinshed’s
Chronicles, vol. iii. p. 685; and
Speed, 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 the
Historie, 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 the
De Generatione Divinâ).
“
Libellus Victorini, rhetoris, contra Candidum” (the
Confutatorium 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, see
State 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 the
Proceedings of the Archæological
Institute, 1846, p. 32, and the Rev. Makenzie Walcott’s
Church 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
the
Gentleman’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.
Domesday
gives several entries of wines (see Ellis’s
Introduction, 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. 40
b, 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’s
Monasticon 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’s
Glossary of Architecture is 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. 20
a 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’s
Fragmenta 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 his
Romaunt 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.
[107]The word is from the French
merise. 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 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
the Cod. 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
word lindecole, 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 in
Domesday (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’s
Fragmenta 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]The
Chronicle. 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. The
Chronicle and 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’s
Scriptores 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 in
Roger 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’s
Historian Anglicanæ Scriptores Decem,
p. 225), as, too, Walter de Hemingburgh (Ed. Hamilton, vol. i. p. 33),
and Roger Hoveden (
Annalium Pars Prior, in Saville’s
Rerum 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 of
Ingulph (Gales’s
Rerum 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 his
Itinerary (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 in
Domesday. 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’s
History of England under the Norman
Kings, pp. 266-8; and Sharon Turner’s
History 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’s
Anglica 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. (in
Migne, 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 his
Topographical 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 his
Chronicle, 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’s
Anglia 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’s
Anglia Sacra, tom. i. p. 295).
As The Chronicle impressively 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’s
Anglia 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 his
Glossarium Antiquitatum Britannicarum,
Ed. 1719, p. 12, entirely misquotes Alanus de Insulis (see
Prophetica
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 of
alga, probably either Palmella cruenta or Hæmatococcus sanguineus.
Eadmer, with some others, in his Historia 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 his Life 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’s Anglia 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’s
Anglia 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.”
[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).
[144]For some account of the contents of these barrows and potteries,
see chapters
xvii. and
xviii.
[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, the
Testa 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 15
s. and 1,250 eels,
and at Burgate (Borgate) the mill paid 10
s. and 1,000 eels, whilst at
Ibbesley (Tibeslei) the rental was only 10
s. 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
the
Gentleman’s Magazine for 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.