and its results. Let us now turn to that given by the anonymous author of the "Acts of King Stephen." It relates that, on Henry's landing, he took no brilliant enterprise in hand, but wasted his time in sloth and negligence; that he was repulsed with disgrace from Cricklade and Bourton, the only places he is said to have attacked; and that his army, unnerved and enfeebled by their disasters, at length disbanded. We are then informed that the young duke, worn out with shame and distress, applied to his mother, the Countess of Anjou, whose treasury being exhausted, she had no means of supplying his pressing necessities. He also, it is said, had recourse to his uncle, the Earl of Gloucester-who, according to all other accounts, died before his nephew's expedition-but he, we are told, was too fond of his money-bags, and chose to reserve them for his own occasions. In this dilemma the young duke applied to King Stephen, his cousin, who generously supplied the wants of his greatest enemy. This noble trait is perhaps not inconsistent with Stephen's general character, but, to say nothing of the anachronism respecting the Earl of Gloucester, and the improbability of the conduct attributed to so faithful an adherent to the cause of his sister and nephew, the account given of the young duke's pusillanimity and negligence is as much at variance with the personal history of that gallant and indefatigable prince, afterwards Henry II., as it is with Huntingdon's account of these transactions. Nor can it be understood how, with the ruined fortunes here described, Henry was shortly afterwards able to establish his right to the throne, as it is an undisputed fact that he did. Our anonymous author's account of the closing scenes of Stephen's reign, of which we are deprived by the ravages of time, may have thrown some light on the inconsistency of the two statements, and it is just possible that his description of Henry's failure and distress may refer to some previous unsuccessful enterprise of the young prince, which Henry of Huntingdon and all the other chroniclers have passed over in silence. But this is by no means probable, and the reasonable conclusion appears to be, that the present is one of those not uncommon cases in which writers, whose general truth and honesty cannot be questioned, are occasionally found to differ, not only in their details of minute circumstances, but in their narratives of facts which might seem to have been sufficiently notorious. March 5, 1853. HENRY OF HUNTINGDON'S PREFACE. TO ALEXANDER BISHOP OF LINCOLN'. As the pursuit of learning in all its branches affords, according to my way of thinking, the sweetest earthly mitigation of trouble and consolation in grief, so I consider that precedence must be assigned to History, as both the most delightful of studies and the one which is invested with the noblest and brightest prerogatives. Indeed, there is nothing in this world more excellent than accurately to investigate The Alexander de Blois was preferred to the see of Lincoln by Henry I. A.D. 1123, on the recommendation of his uncle Roger, bishop of Salisbury, the king's powerful and trusted minister. After Henry's death, the two bishops were suspected of secretly favouring the cause of his right heirs against the usurper, and Stephen, taking umbrage at their erecting strong castles on their estates, caused them to be suddenly arrested and severely treated. bishops were thus compelled to surrender their fortresses, including the stately castle of Newark, which Bishop Alexander had erected. They severely resented this harsh treatment, though Bishop Alexander was afterwards apparently reconciled to Stephen's government, and took a distinguished part in public affairs, as he had also done in the latter part of Henry's reign. His biographers state that he was justiciary of all England and Papal Legate, but it would appear that what Huntingdon says of the uncle, the Bishop of Salisbury, has been inadvertently applied to the nephew. Alexander de Blois went twice to Rome where he displayed so much munificence, that at that court he was called "The Magnificent." He also visited his friend Pope Eugenius IX. in France in the month of August, 1147, and died the following year, of a fever caught during his journey from the extraordinary heat of the summer. He was buried in the cathedral at Lincoln, which having been injured or destroyed by fire, he had restored to more than its former magnificence. His general munificence was great, and, according to the usage of the times, the episcopal establishment was splendid and sumptuous, and he was more engaged in civil affairs than befitted his ecclesiastical functions. But Henry of Huntingdon informs us that he was an excellent bishop, and much beloved and revered by his clergy and people. See his character drawn by our historian, pp. 284, 285, and 316. It is copied implicitly by Roger de Hoveden. That the bishop did not neglect the culture of literature may be inferred from his suggestions to our author, which were the basis of the following History. and trace out the course of worldly affairs. For where is exhibited in a more lively manner the grandeur of heroic men, the wisdom of the prudent, the uprightness of the just, and the moderation of the temperate, than in the series of actions which history records? We find Horace suggesting this, when speaking in praise of Homer's story, he says: "His works the beautiful and base contain,- Crantor, indeed, and Chrysippus composed laboured treatises on moral philosophy, while Homer unfolds, as it were in a play, the character of Agamemnon for maganinmity, of Nestor for prudence, of Menelaus for uprightness, and on the other hand portrays the vastness of Ajax, the feebleness of Priam, the wrath of Achilles, and the fraud of Paris; setting forth in his narrative what is virtuous and what is profitable, better than is done in the disquisitions of philosophers. But why should I dwell on profane literature? See how sacred history teaches morals; while it attributes faithfulness to Abraham, fortitude to Moses, forbearance to Jacob, wisdom to Joseph; and while, on the contrary, it sets forth the injustice of Ahab, the weakness of Oziah, the recklessness of Manasseh, the folly of Roboam. O God of mercy, what an effulgence was shed on humility, when holy Moses, after joining with his brother in an offering of sweet-smelling incense to God, his protector and avenger, threw himself into the midst of a terrible danger", and when he shed tears for Miriam", who spoke scornfully of him, and was ever interceding for those who were malignant against him! How brightly shone the light of humanity when David, assailed and grievously tried by the curses, the insults, and 1 Epistles, Book i. Ep. 1. 2 Two of the MSS. read speculo, instead of spectaculo. The version would then be " displays as in a mirror." I have followed the reading given by Petrie as well as by Savile. 3 Numb. xvi. 46. 3 The MSS. and printed editions read " Maria," clearly an error of the transcribers; see Numb. xii. 13. |