of the little skill I possess in antiquarian researches: nor should I now have ventured to assert my opinion against one so much my superior both in years and knowledge as Mr. P. did not that gentleman's mis-information, and Ins mis-statement of facts, arising probably from that cause, render some answer indispensably necessary. Mr. P. informs us, that, "in digging a foundation for a house of correction, on the spot where the old abbey stood, a vault was discovered, the only one there, and which was of curious workmanship; that in the vault was a leaden coffin almost devoured by time; that a perfect skeleton was contained therein, which undoubtedly was the king's, from the distinguished appearance of the coffin, and the vault in which it was interred, and more particularly from several fragments of rotten leather found in the coffin, the body of that king being said to have been wrapped in tanned oxhides." If it should be proved that these assertions of Mr. P. are well-founded, and that it really was the body of the king, no one, I trust, will hesitate to join with him in condemning the sacrilege he mentions; but if, on the contrary, it should appear that there is every reason to believe them groundless, there will be little need for those lamentations which Mr. P. has so liberally poured forth. A leaden coffin was indeed dug up about eighteen inches beneath the surface. But no appearance whatever of a vault was discovered. I was myself at Reading a few days after, and saw the spot where it was taken up. The whole breadth of the chasm could not be more than two feet, and there was nothing which could lead to a supposition that there ever had been a vault. This intelligence is confirmed by a friend, who was himself a spectator, and who has since, at my request, made particular inquiries on the spot. As Mr. P. has adduced the vault as an argument that it really was the body of Henry I. if no vault was discovered, the argument will at least be of equal force, that it was not his body. All writers agree that he was buried with great state. "Corpus regium de Normannia ad Radingum allatum est, et aromatibus conditum, et post tres menses solenniter in eadem ecclesia, quam ipse a fundamentis construxerat, venerabilem sepulturam, quam vivus posuit, præsente rege Stephano cum multis magnatibus, accepit." Matth. Westminst. p. 35. fol. Lond. 1570. "Cadaver regis apud Radingum, in ecclesia, quam ipse fundaverat, regaliter est sepultum, præsentibus archiepiscopis, episcopis, et magnatibus regni." Math. Paris. p. 74, ed. Wats. Lond. 1640. Corpus deportatur ad Redyngium oppidum, magnaque 66 funerali pompa sepulturæ datur." Polydore Vergil, p. 193, ed. Basil. 1534. It is not therefore improbable, as so much ceremony was used in his funeral, that it should be extended also to the place, and that he should be laid in something better than a common grave, especially as we find mention made of his tomb Pat. 21 Ric. II. p. 3. m. 16, "confirm. libertatum, modo abbas intra unum annum honeste repararet tumbam et imaginem regis Henrici fundatoris ibidem humati." Tann. Notitia Monastica, p. 15. Lond. 1744. There is another circumstance which makes still more against it. He is said, by writers of good authority, to have been buried in the church. "His bodie was conveied into England, and buried at Reading, within the abbey church which he had founded." Holinsh. Chron. vol. III. p. 45. "This town king Henry I. most stately beautified with a rich monastery, where, in the collegiate church of the abbey, himself and queene (who both lay veiled and crowned,) with their daughter Maud the empresse, called the lady of England, were interred, as the private history of the place avoucheth, though others bestow the bodies of these two queenes elsewhere." Speed's Theatre of the Empire of Great Britain, p. 27, ed. Lond. 1614. One writer specifies the spot as before the altar: "Corpus itaque Radingas de latum cum honore debito in ipsa ecclesia ante altare sepultum est." Gervase of Cant. v. Historia Angliæ Scriptores Decem. p. 1340, ed. Lond. 1652. From these evidences, and from other conclusions, there appears every reason to believe that he was buried there. Now, by the plan of this church, ingeniously and accurately traced by sir Henry Englefield, bart, v. Archæologia, vol. VI. p. 61, it appears, that the extreme boundary on the eastern side is at the distance of about 180 feet from the piece of wall, against which a small house is built. The distance of the spot where the coffin was dug up from the abovementioned piece of wall is about 240 feet towards the east, and about 24 towards the south, which can never have been within the limits of the church. The account of the fragments of rotten leather, I own, stumbled me much. I found your correspondent's information, that Henry I. was wrapped in tanned ox-hides, confirmed by almost every writer who has mentioned his death.. This appeared to carry much weight with it, and, of circumstantial evidences, was indeed one of the strongest that could be adduced. I accordingly applied to a friend on the VOL I K spot to send me the most minute intelligence with respect to the leather; and from his letter, which is now before me, it is plain they can have no authority in the present question. I will give you his own words: "So far from the pieces of leather giving an indication of its being Henry I. that the plumber assured me those pieces were the remnants of an old slipper, which though perfect when discovered, crumbled to pieces as soon as touched, and left nothing of its shape and form but the stitches, which were very discernible." His account of the coffin is, that it was about eight feet long, seven inches high, roofed at the top, the ridge fluted, and remarkably thick with lead; that the lid was ornamented with a few studs in forin of diamonds; that there was an inscription in brass, which was sent to the Antiquarian Society, undistinguishable except the two initial letters, which the plumber does not now recollect. He further adds, that the skull was examined by a very skilful and experienced surgeon of Reading, who gave it as his opinion, that it was of a young person under thirty years of age; and that the plumber assured him he had not the least idea that it could be the coffin of Henry I. from the state of the lead, which was cast in the modern manner, as they had not at that time attained to so great perfection in casting it. There seems, therefore, every reason to suppose that it was not the body of Henry I. It is probable he was buried in a vault; but no vault was here discovered the spot where the coffin was found by no means agrees with the place of his burial, mentioned by historians; the fragments of rotten leather, the only argument which seemed to be of weight, are proved to have no authority: and, from other appearances, there are evident marks both of a later date, and of a younger person. Perhaps also the length of the coffin may be some proof against it, as Henry is said to have been of middling stature. But there is another circumstance, which, if true, will put the matter past all doubt. It is expressly said by Sandford, that at the Reformation, his tomb was destroyed, and his bones thrown out; "But well might the memory thereof (his monument) perish, and be buried in the rubbish of oblivion, when the bones of this prince could not enjoy repose in his grave (not more happy in a quiet sepulchre than the two Norman Williams, his father and brother,) but were (upon the suppression of the religious houses in the reign of king Henry VIII.) thrown out, to make room for a stable of horses, and the whole monastery converted to a dwellinghouse. He then quotes these verses, which are also in Camden, "Hæccine sed pietas? heu! dira piacula, primum Auri sacra fames, regum metuenda sepulchris." Sandford's Geneal. Hist. p. 28, Lond. 1683. Camden p. 143, ed. Gibson, Lond. 1695. We know how the intolerant zeal of the reformers operated, when the most stately abbies, and the most venerable remains of ancient architecture, were laid without distinction in the general ruin. The abbey of Reading in particular bears marks of the most unwearied industry employed in its destruction. One of the principal charges against the duke of Somerset, under whom others relate this abbey was destroyed, is his fury in the demolition of tombs. Several writers expressly confirm the fact of the demolition of that of Henry I. It is not, therefore, probable that the rage of the destroyers would stop here; that they would spare the bones of him whose tomb they were demolishing, and whose edifices they were levelling in the dust. In discoveries like the present, where any thing curious is expected, it is impossible to restrain the minds of the common people, who will infallibly take those steps by which most money may be obtained. It is not therefore wonderful if many of the bones were taken away, with the hopes of selling them as valuable remains, and the coffin immediately disposed of. Your correspondent, however, may rest satisfied with this assurance, that, as soon as the thing was known, there was an immediate order from the mayor that no bones should be carried away, and that they were most of them peaceably deposited again with the rest that were dug up. As to the coffin, as it had nothing remarkable in it, its loss is not much to be lamented. The end of all antiquities seems to be, by collecting the remains of our ancestors, to obtain more certain information concerning them, to mark their progress in arts and science, and, by an attentive survey of their productions, to strike out improvements for the benefit of the living. Those an tiquities, therefore, which are regarded merely for their antiquity, are of little intrinsic value. If they elucidate no point in history, if they tend not to ascertain the state of ancient manners or of ancient art, mankind will be little the better for them. They may at first be regarded with some degree of enthusiasm; but that will be confined to the antiquary himself, and with him it will soon subside, when the mind is at leisure to consider their uselessness. I readily agree with your correspondent in his encomiums on the late Mr. Spicer; but he is much mistaken if he thinks there are not still many gentlemen in Reading, who would be equally active in preventing any thing that bore the appearance of the sacrilege he mentions. Mr. P. is guilty of a little mistake in mentioning Henry the First's death as on the second of September. He will find it corrected in the note at the bottom of page 199, vol. I. of Rapin, ed. Lond. 1732. John Brompton, Matthew of Paris, Henry of Huntingdon, and Roger Hoveden, say December the first; Matthew of Westminster, and Gervase of Canterbury, Dec. 2. The fact is, he died at midnight, Dec. 1, which might easily occasion this variation. “Calendas Decembris qua nocte decessit." William of Malmsbury. Vide Rerum Angl. Script. post Bedam, p. 100, ed Lond. 1596. 1786, January. Yours, &c. JUVENIS. XXI. The Testimony of Clement Maydestone, that the Body of King Henry IV. was thrown into the Thames, and not buried at Canterbury. Translated from a Latin Manuscript in the Library of Bene't-College, Cambridge. THIRTY days after the death of Henry IV,* one of his domestics came to the house of the Holy Trinity, in Hounslow, and dined there. And as the by-standers were talking at dinner-time of that king's irreproachable morals, this man said to a certain esquire, named Thomas Maydestone, then sitting at table, "Whether he was a good man or not, God knows; but of this I am certain, that when his corpse was carried from Westminster towards Canterbury, in a small vessel, in order to be buried there, I and two more, threw *Henry IV. died Sept. 14 1412. |