=Source.=--Henry of Huntingdon, _Historia Anglorum_, ed. Arnold, p.
253. (Rolls Series.)
In the thirty-fifth year King Henry stayed continuously in Normandy,
and though destined never to return, he often purposed to return to
England; but his daughter detained him through constant quarrels
arising from many causes by her intrigues between the king and the
count of Anjou. These vexations irritated the king to anger and
bitterness, which resulted, some say, in a natural torpor, and
afterwards, it is thought, caused his death. At any rate, on his return
from hunting at St. Denis in the Forêt des Lions, he ate a dish of
lampreys, of which he was always fond, though they always disagreed
with him. A physician had forbidden him to eat them, but the king
ignored his sound advice on the poet’s principles--
“Ever we strive against the law,
And love to taste forbidden fruit.”
So this meal brought on an evil humour and was followed by the old
violent symptoms, which resulted in a complete collapse, his aged
frame sinking into a deadly lethargy, the natural struggle of his
constitution provoked an acute fever in the effort to throw off the
poison in his system, but his powers of resistance failing, the great
king died on 1 December after a reign of thirty-five years and three
months....
On the death of the great king Henry, his character was freely
discussed by the people, as is usual in the case of the departed.
Some asserted that three splendid gifts especially distinguished him;
supreme wisdom, for he was profound in counsel, acutely farseeing
and brilliant in speech; success in war, for apart from other famous
exploits he overcame the king of France in battle; and wealth, in
which he far surpassed all his predecessors. Others, however, took a
different point of view, and urged that he was tainted by three vices;
avarice, because, like all his house, though rich, he impoverished the
poor with taxes and exactions, and snared them in the toils of the
informer; cruelty also, because he put out the eyes of his kinsman,
the count of Moretuil, when in captivity (this horrible crime could
not be known until death laid bare the king’s secret acts), and other
instances also were alleged, of which I say nothing; and excess
also.... Such was the common division of opinion. But in the terrible
time that followed, amid the savage anarchy of the Norman traitors,
all that Henry had done, whether as king or despot, seemed more than
excellent in comparison with worse evil.