We are perhaps guilty of an error, in classing with the fabulous part of his history the discovery of Arthur's tomb : a circumstance which Mr Whittaker considers as, of itself, an irrefragable proof of that warrior's ex istence. In the year 1189, Henry II. on hearing, when in that quarter, that Arthur was buried between the two obelisks at GIastonbury,,ordered the abbot of the place to search the grave. At the depth of seven feet, a large tombstone was discovered, and beneath it a leaden cross ; on the upper side of which was the, following very explicit inscription : Hic jacet sepultus inclitus rex .Irthurns in in.sula .doullonia ; CUM Weneveria uxorc sua ecunda. " Here lies buried the renowned king Ar thur, in the isle of Avalon ; with Guenevir his second consort." On the search being continued nine feet lower, the rough trunk of an oak appeared ; in the ca vity of which was contained the body of king Arthur ; and beside it lay the only remains of Guenevir, her fine yellow hair, all braided and ornamented with exquisite art. The bones of the chief were large ; for the tibia alone exceeded that of the tallest man by three fingers in length. On his head were still visible the traces of ten wounds, nine of which had been healed ; but the fa tal tenth, all unclosed, remained a hideous gash. These oval remains, which had lain near 700 years in the earth, were removed, by order of Henry, to the church ; where they were put into a magnificent shrine, and oc casionally exhibited to the marvelling pilgrim. An ac count of the whole matter was hung up in the abbey, at tested and authenticated with all due formality.
That the grave was searched, and some relics obtain ed, cannot for a moment be a matter of doubt ; for Giral dos Cambrensis, who had the whole relation from his friend the abbot, examined the bones, and read the in scription. Leland also, the great antiquary, was favour
ed, at a subsequent period, with a sight of the same antiquities, which, he says, he handled with great won der and satisfaction. It strikes us, however, that the monks, all along, discovered too much eagerness to have the reputation of possessing the relics. The abbot first solicited the royal attention to the tomb ; confirm ing the tradition, by an appeal to the records of the ab bey. Who can believe that these records were genu ine ? The truth is, that Glastonbury abbey, as may be seen in Mahnsbury, was the most complete storehouse in the world of bones and saints ; aspiring to the honour of possessing whatever was venerable of royal and holy relics ; and contending with Scotland and Ireland for the bones of St Patrick ! From all these precious possessions the monks derived vast reputation, and some profit. The obelisks were undoubtedly ancient in the days of Giral dus, for the inscriptions were not legible ; but, if we may judge from the few words which have been pre served, they were not British but Saxon. But the most suspicious circumstance of all is the cross, inscribed with characters of a Gothic form. The inscription, it must be confessed, is wonderfully explicit and topogra phical. It is indeed an epitaph, not so much on the king, as on the place : it records not only who lies be low in the ground ; but where that ground itself lies: its meaning is not, " Here lies King Arthur ;" but this, "At Glastonbury abbey, the only true repository of kings and saints, may be seen the wonderful skeleton of King Ar thur." See Nennii Hist. Britonum, c. 62, 63, 64. Gil dm Hist. c. 26. Galfridus Monumutcnsis de gestis Re gum, 1. 7. WM. Malmesbur. De .:intiquit. Eccl. Glast. Prisei Defensio, p. 109, et infra. Buchanaui Hist. 1. 5. c. 22. Whittaker's Hist. of Manchester, v. 2. (E)