increase the doubts which on other grounds surround the story. The date
commonly assigned is that adopted by Camden, 1189, the last year of King
Henry's reign. Leland gives the date as 1191, in which he is followed by
Hume, in the reign of Richard I. Giraldus, who represents himself as an
eye-witness, and is necessarily the earliest authority, does not give the
year, but indicates the time within certain limits. He states that the
grave was opened by order of Henry II. during the rule of the Abbot Henry.
This Abbot was apparently Henry de Blois, the grandson of the Conqueror
and the brother of King Stephen; Henry II. was therefore his first cousin
once removed. It has been supposed that the consanguinity may have
disposed the Abbot to gratify the king by finding what he wanted. Henry de
Blois was the 37th Abbot. He was appointed in 1126, in the time of Henry
I., and died in 1171, in that of Henry II. In the year 1129, three years
after his appointment to Glastonbury, this Abbot became, according to
Leland, also Bishop of Winchester. Giraldus tells us that the discovery
took place before the Abbot became Bishop. If that were so the remains
were found not later than 1129, in the reign of Henry I., not in that of
Henry II., as Giraldus represents. Giraldus himself was not born until
1147, or 1150 (both dates are assigned); so it is evident that a large
error has come in with regard to the date of the disentombment, in
reference to the appointment of the Abbot to the bishopric. Putting aside
this contradiction as possibly due to some mistake in the ecclesiastical
records, we at any rate cannot doubt, if any credit is to be attached to
Giraldus, that the exhumation took place, if at all, in the time of Henry
de Blois, who died in 1171. This is inconsistent with the dates 1189 and
1191 which are respectively assigned to the event. Thus three Kings are
presented as contemporary with the finding of Arthur's grave, while two
Abbots and a _locum tenens_ offer themselves as immediately concerned in
the transaction. For in the last year of the reign of Henry II., in which
according to one account the grave was opened, there was no Abbot of
Glastonbury, the King from the year 1178 until his death in 1189 having
retained the Abbey in his own hands and administered it by means of a
subordinate. Thus in 1189, the date authoritatively assigned for the
concurrence of the Abbot and the King, there was no Abbot and the King was
approaching his end. In the year 1191 Richard I. and the 39th Abbot bore
sway. Like the Abbot of royal blood, he was named Henry (which may have
led to confusion), one Henry de Saliaco, but he does not supply the
requirements of the case if we are to believe that King Henry was the
instigator and his sacerdotal kinsman the agent. Thus the whole story is
beset with doubts. This much may be believed: in the time probably of
Henry II. the bones of Arthur were sought for; two skeletons were found
where skeletons most do congregate, which with judicious exaggeration and
some invention were made to come up to what was demanded of the remains of
the warrior and his beautiful consort; these were re-interred under the
names of Arthur and Guenevere, and about 100 years later were honestly
accepted as such by Edward and Eleanor.
[20] _History of the Deanery of Trigg Minor_, by Sir John Maclean, vol.
iii. p. 194.
[21] Among the more noticeable particulars in the buildings, both on the
island and the mainland, especially on the island, are the numerous holes
in the walls. These have given rise to much remark and speculation; by
some they have been inconsiderately interpreted as arrow holes. It is
sufficiently obvious that they once gave lodgment to the beams which
formed the scaffolding employed in the construction of the walls. The
orifices are rectangular, about 7 inches × 6 or 6 inches × 5. The passages
in connection with them are horizontal and give no scope for the
adjustment of the weapon; many of them have no exits, but come to an end
against rock or masonry. The holes are generally arranged so that several
are on the same level. Similar holes for the same purpose are not uncommon
in the neighbourhood, and may be seen in the Vicarage wall. I am indebted
to Colonel Mead, of the Royal Engineers, for the self-evident explanation
which I have adopted.
[22] A similar projecting course is to be seen on a wall which cuts off
the neighbouring peninsula of the Willapark from the mainland. This wall,
though ancient and probably defensive, cannot be supposed to be Roman or
to show Roman methods.
[23] Rickman's _Gothic Architecture_.
[24] I insert the description of Tintagel Castle as given in _The High
History of the Holy Grail_, a French romance of the thirteenth century:
'They (_i.e._ Arthur, Lancelot and Gawain) came into a very different
land, scarce inhabited of any folk, and found a little castle in a combe.
They came thitherward and saw that the enclosure of the castle was fallen
down into an abysm, so that none might approach it on that side, but it
had a right fair gateway and a door tall and wide, whereby they entered.
They beheld a chapel that was right fair and rich, and below was a great
ancient hall. They saw a priest appear in the middle of the castle, bald
and old, that had come forth of the chapel. They are come thither and
alighted, and asked the priest what the castle was, and he told them it
was the great Tintagel. "And how is the ground all caved in about the
castle?" The priest then relates the death of Gorlois and the
transfiguration of Uther, "so that he begat King Arthur in a great hall
that was next to the enclosure there, where this abysm is. And for this
sin hath the ground sunken in on this wise." He cometh then with them
toward the chapel, that was right fair and had a right rich sepulchre
therein. "Lords, in this sepulchre was placed the body of Merlin, but
never mought it be set inside the chapel, wherefore perforce it remained
outside. And know of very truth that the body lieth not within the
sepulchre, for so soon as it was set therein it was taken out and snatched
away, either in God's behalf or the Enemy's, but which we know not."' _The
High History of the Holy Grail_, by Master Blihis (1200-1250), translated
by Sebastian Evans, vol. ii., p. 75.
If we may suppose, as probably we may, that Master Blihis describes the
castle as it was in his own time, though affecting to adapt his
description to that of King Arthur, we may infer that in the thirteenth
century when the existing castle was comparatively new it had already
begun to suffer from the encroachments of the sea.
[25] In connection with the identification of Damelioc Castle, I have to
acknowledge my obligation to the Director-General of the Ordnance Survey,
and to Staff-Surgeon Trevan, of Bideford.
[26] See Gilbert's _History of Cornwall_, 1838, vol. i. p. 328, vol. iv.
p. 94.
[27] These measurements and others relating to the camps are only to be
taken as approximate, the horizontal distances were measured by pacing,
the heights by the eye. They will serve to give a generally correct
impression, though not made with the accuracy of a land-surveyor. This may
be found in the Ordnance maps which are attached.
[28] _The Arthurian Legend_, by Professor Rhys, pp. 15 and 38.
[29] _The Arthurian Legend_, by Professor Rhys, pp. 129 and 132.