34

HENRY THE FIRST.

IF the praise of friendly monks is a true certificate of goodness and greatness, there can be no question as to the character of Henry the First. Their panegyric is as absolute as in the case of his brother Rufus their condemnation is downright. The Anglo-Saxon chronicler, whose sympathies are divided between the common people and the Church, sums up the character of King Henry in the following emphatic words: A good man he was, and there was great awe of him. No man dared misdo against another in his time. He made peace for man and beast. Whoso bore his burthen of gold and silver, no man dared say to him aught but good.' The Monk of Malmesbury is more discriminating in his praise, but not less decided. He was active,' he says, 'in providing what would be beneficial to his empire; firm in defending it; abstinent from war, as far as he could with honour, but when he had determined no longer to forbear, a most severe requiter of injuries, dissipating every opposing danger by the energy of his courage; constant in enmity or in affec

tion towards all; giving too much indulgence to the tide of anger in the one, gratifying his royal magnanimity in the other; depressing his enemies, indeed, even to despair, and exalting his friends and dependents to an enviable condition. For philosophy propounds this to be the first or greatest concern of a good King,

To spare the suppliant, but beat down the proud.

Inflexible in the administration of justice, he ruled the people with moderation, the nobility with condescension. Seeking after robbers and counterfeiters with the greatest diligence, and punishing them when discovered, neither was he by any means negligent in matters of lesser importance.

In

the beginning of his reign, that he might awe the delinquents by the terror of example, he was most inclined to punish by deprivation of limb; afterwards by mulct. Thus, in consequence of the rectitude of his conduct, as is natural to men, he was venerated by the nobility, and beloved by the common people. . . Nor, indeed, was he ever singled out for the attack of treachery, by reason of the rebellion of any of his nobles, through means of his attendants, except once. With this exception, secure during his whole life, the minds of all were restrained by fear, their conversation by regard for him. He was of middle stature, exceeding the diminutive, but exceeded by the very tall; his hair was

black, but scanty near the forehead; his eyes mildly bright; his chest brawny; his body fleshy; he was facetious in proper season, nor did multiplicity of business cause him to be less pleasant when he mixed in society. Not prone to personal combat, he verified the saying of Scipio Africanus, 'My mother bore me a commander, not a soldier;' wherefore he was inferior in wisdom to no King of modern time, and as I may almost say, he clearly surpassed all his predecessors in England, and preferred contending by counsel rather than by the sword. If he could, he conquered without bloodshed; if it was unavoidable, with as little as possible. He was free during his whole life from impure desires, for as we have learned from those who were well informed, he was led by female blandishments, not for the gratification of an intimacy, but for the sake of issue. . . . in this respect the master of his natural inclinations, not the passive slave of lust. He was plain in his diet, rather satisfying the calls of hunger than surfeiting himself by variety of delicacies. He never drank but to allay thirst; execrating the least departure from temperance, both in himself and in those about him. . . . His eloquence was rather unpremeditated than laboured; not rapid, but deliberate. His piety towards God is laudable, for he built monasteries in England and in Normandy.' Henry of Huntingdon, writing towards the close of the reign of Stephen, gives us an impartial summary

of the public opinion respecting King Henry at his death, and a plausible explanation of the change which subsequent events wrought in this estimate. 'On the death of the great King Henry, his character was freely canvassed by the people, as is usual after men are dead. Some contended that he

was eminently distinguished for three brilliant gifts. These were,-great sagacity, for his counsels were profound, his foresight keen, and his eloquence commanding; success in war, for, besides other splendid achievements, he was victorious over the King of France; and wealth, in which he far surpassed all his predecessors. Others, however taking a different view, attributed to him three gross vices,―avarice, as, though his wealth was great, in imitation of his progenitors he impoverished the people by taxes and exactions, entangling them in the toils of informers; cruelty, in that he plucked out the eyes of his prisoner, the Earl of Mortain, in his captivity, though the horrid deed was unknown until death revealed the King's secrets; and they mentioned other instances of which I will say nothing; and wantonness, for, like Solomon, he was perpetually enslaved by female seductions. Such remarks were freely bruited abroad. But in the troublesome times which succeeded from the atrocities of the Normans, whatever King Henry had done, either despotically or in the regular exercise of his royal authority, appeared, in comparison, most excellent.'

When, with these contemporary estimates before our eyes, we approach the consideration of the character of Henry, one of the first things which will strike us is that caution, the quality which in the Conqueror blended with and controlled his naturally fierce and fiery temper, was in his youngest son exalted into the leading characteristic, to which all other considerations, however influential in their various degrees, gave place. This was indeed the very backbone running through the whole of Henry's character, and to which every part of it had some reference. His mind was one of considerable breadth, and his caution ranged through every grade of the quality, from the wisest foresight and painful selfdenial down to actual physical and moral timidity, and was exemplified in corresponding varieties of policy, from sagacious watchfulness and well-timed action down to low and deceitful cunning. This predominating characteristic led to curious inconsistencies in his conduct. Not only the necessities of his early career and actual position, but the consciousness of possessing greater mental gifts, and deeper insight into men than most of those among whom he lived, should have tended to make him self-reliant and self-assured. Yet, on the other hand, his very foresight and intuition as to men and human contingencies made him ever, under the impulse of the over-ruling feeling, anxious to excess as to possibilities, and self-distrustful as to his