XXVI.-BECKET'S VESTMENTS AT SENS (p. 199). "The length of the vestments," says Professor Stanley, "confirms the account of his great stature. On the feast of 'St. Thomas,' till very recently, they were worn for that one day by the officiating priest. The tallest priest was always selected, and even then it was necessary to pin them up" (Hist. Mem. of Canterbury, 181, ed. 3). But, although the age of the vestments seems to be undisputed, their great length might rather suggest a doubt whether they belonged to Becket; for, while he is said to have been "statura procerus" (Fitzst. 185), and Herbert even speaks of his "proceritatem egregiam" (vii. 165), there is nothing, that I am aware of, in the old writers to suggest the idea that his height was so extraordinary as to render these articles suitable for him. (The Sens tradition is that he was 6 feet 4 inches, French, in height-equal to 6 feet 7 inches English.) There is, however, a passage in a letter of Peter of La Celle to John of Salisbury, which, if it relate to Becket's chasuble, would seem to imply that he wore one of disproportionate size-"Quasi de magnitudine cassula tunc archiepiscopi Thomæ, nunc pretiosissimi martyris, conquerebar[?] ubi posset reperiri" (Ep. 124, Patrol. ccii.); but I do not pretend to understand this, and cassula may possibly mean a reliquary or shrine. (See Ducange, s. v.) Mr. Shaw supposes that "the zeal of his admirers" may have made a very common mistake as to some of these vestments, in attributing them to St. Thomas of Canterbury; but that, "with regard to many of them, it is probable that the tradition is correct." (Dresses and Decorations of the Middle Ages, vol. i.) As to the history of them, M. Chaillou des Barres states that they were discovered in 1523 in an ancient house in the cathedral cloister. (L'Abbaye de Pontigny, 63.) But how were they known to have belonged to Becket? XXVII. BECKET AND THE ABBOT OF ST. ALBAN'S (p. 261). The contemporary documents give no hint that Becket proceeded beyond Southwark after being charged to return to Canterbury; and we are left to judge whether Matthew Paris has here presented us with an authentic tradition preserved in the monastery of St. Alban's, or with a fiction invented for the glory of that house. The less favourable supposition seems to be the more likely; for not only is the silence of Becket's contemporaries a ground of presumption against the story, but it does not appear in the older chronicles of St. Alban's itself-being one of the passages interpolated into the text of Roger Wendover by Matthew Paris, whose unscrupulousness in such matters is notorious. (See Pauli, 882.) The variations between Matthew's two narratives are not in favour of his general truth; and the manner in which, in one of them, he mixes up the Abbot's alleged expedition to Woodstock with that of Richard of St. Martin's, brings him into something like a direct contradiction of the earlier writers. XXVIII.-HUGH MAUCLERC (p. 282). "An accursed man, Hugh of Horsea, known by the appellation of the Ill Clerk," says Southey (Book of the Church, ed. 4, p. 143), apparently following Fuller, who speaks of him as "an officer of the church, called Hugh, the Ill Clerk" (i. 316, ed. Nichols). But Malus Clericus was evidently a surname-Malclerc (Garnier, 151) or Mauclerc (ib. 146); "Hugo, re et nomine Malus Clericus appellatus," Gervas. 1416; "Malus Clericus, Gallicè Mauclerc," Ducange, s. v.). Walter Mauclerc was a judge, and Bishop of Carlisle, in the reign of John (Godwin de Præsul. 763; Foss, ii. 404); and it is probably the same name which has in later times taken the form of Mockler— perhaps, too, that of Manclarke. Benedict of Peterborough (S. T. C. ii. 66; Vita Henr. II. 12) ascribes the scattering of the Archbishop's brains to the fourth knight (De Morville), whom he also describes as the one whose sword was broken, and as having been instigated by the reproach of one of his companions on account of his backwardness to strike; and this statement is copied by Hoveden (298-9) and by the author of a "Passion" (in S. T. C. ii. 145). Herbert says that, "ut dicebatur," it was Robert de Broc (vii. 345). M. Thierry quotes (iii. 190) from some Latin verses in Hearne's appendix to William of Newburgh (p. 723, Oxon. 1719): "Willelmus Maltret percussit cum pede sanctum The historian, however, appears to overrate the value of this as a confirmation of his Saxon theory: for (1) the incident most likely never occurred in the manner described. The most authentic writers do not mention any other insult to the lifeless body than that which is related in the text; and this was probably the foundation of the verses, in which the name of the actor, his act, and his words, are all altered. (2.) There was no insurrection, Saxon or other, which could have given occasion for such a speech. (3.) Even if the versifier's story were true, it would be absurd to lay any especial stress on the sense of the word Angligenas- brought in, as it evidently is, for the sake of the metre. And (4.) the verses are altogether of such a character that it is absurd to treat them as any authority. XXIX.-PLACE OF BECKET'S DEATH (p. 291). The popular story (which has, I believe, been universally followed by painters who have treated the subject) represents Becket as having been murdered at the altar. Some say the high altar; others, with a greater appearance of precision, the altar of St. Benedict; Trivet (p. 67) that of St. Denys. That the fact was otherwise need not be argued, after what has been said by Professors Willis (pp. 41, 140) and Stanley. But it may be worth while to point out how early this feature was introduced into the story. John of Salisbury, who, although he had not the courage to stand by his master, was probably in some part of the cathedral while the murder took place, in writing, only a few days after the event, says that the martyr suffered "before Christ's altar" (Ep. 304). About the same time an anonymous writer tells the Pope that the murderers set on him "ante altare" (S. T. C., vi. 304); and Theobald, Count of Blois-" Effusus est sanguis justus ubi nostræ viaticum salutis solebat immolari " (S. T. C., iv. 212). William of Newburgh—“ Sacerdotum magnum, stantem ad orationem ante venerandum altare, peremerunt" (ii. 25, p. 156). The Lambeth biographer-" Ante altare" (123). Fitzstephen, however, has "secus aram" (i. 303), which is not quite fairly rendered in Mr. Froude's volume, “before the altar" (p. 557); and in some of the old writers, while there are general expressions which seem to countenance the common story, these are corrected by more particular statements; thus, Diceto has "coram altari," and afterwards " a dextris altaris S. Benedicti" (555–6). An altar was afterwards erected in honour of " St. Thomas," immediately behind the spot on which the "martyrdom " took place (see Erasmus, ed. Nichols, 113, and Stanley on "the Shrine of Becket"); but at the time of the murder, the altar of St. Benedict stood, not on the site of that later erection, but in a small chapel to the north of it. A flagstone of peculiar appearance is usually shown as that on which the Archbishop died; and "that the spot so marked is precisely the place where Becket fell, is proved by its exact accordance with the localities so minutely described in the several narratives" (Stanley, 78). But the identity of the stone itself is questionable, inasmuch as the Peterborough Chronicle states that Benedict, on being promoted from the priory of Christchurch, Canterbury, to the abbacy of Peterborough, carried off with him the stones on which the martyr's blood had been shed, and made them into two altars for his new church (Chron. Petrib. ap. Sparke). And the story now commonly told-that, where a small square piece is inserted, the original stone was cut out and sent to Rome as a relic-is much more than questionable. As a tradition, it appears to have originated within the present century, inasmuch as it is not mentioned by Hasted (A.D. 1799), nor by any of the earlier topographers, some of whom (as Somner, Battely, and Gostling) were specially connected with the cathedral, and, therefore, could hardly have failed to know the story, if it had been current in their days, or to record it, if it had been known to them. No such relic as that in question has ever been discovered at Rome, although diligent inquiry has been made (Stanley, 78), and although at Sta. Maria Maggiore and elsewhere relics of St. Thomas are exhibited. And the passage of Baronius, which has been referred to by Mr. Morris (390) and others as evidence that "the cardinal legates, Albert and Theodwin, brought back with them [to Rome] a portion of the pavement," in reality gives no countenance to the statement; for the historian's words are" Intulerunt in urbem sacra pignora novi Martyris, nempe quod super ecclesiæ pavimentum respersum fuerat ejus capitis cerebrum, necnon ejus tunicam," &c., 1172, 12. |