The Character of William 11. 99 



extreme improbability, but the contradictory statements in both 

 cases, which will not, of course, increase the value of the same 

 evidence concerning Eufus.* 



And now we will examine the version of his death. History 

 is at all times subjective enough, but becomes far more so when 



confounds at p. 62 with his uncle; and makes both William of IMalmesbury 

 and Baker (see his Chronicle, p. 37, Ed. 1730) say quite the reverse of 

 what they write. 



* As I am not writing a History of England during this period, my 

 space will not permit me to enter into those details which, when viewed 

 collectively, carry so much weight in an argument , but at all events, it will 

 be well for some of my readers to bear in mind the character of William II., 

 who in a recent work has lately been elevated into a hero. Without any 

 of his father's ability or power of statesmanship, he inherited all his vices, 

 which he so improved that they became rather his own. From having no 

 occupation for his mind, he sank more and more into licentiousness and 

 lust. (" Omni se immunditia deturpabat," is the strong expression of Jolin 

 of Salisbury. Life of Anselm, part ii. ch. vii., in Wharton's Anglia Sacra, 

 tom. ii. p. 163. See, also, Suger, VitaLud. Grossi Regis, cap. i., in Bouquet.- 

 Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France, tom. xii. p. 12. D. E.) 

 Being lustful, he naturally became cruel ; not as his father was, on, at least, 

 the plea of necessity, but that he might enjoy a cultivated pleasure in gloat- 

 ing over the sufferings of others. From being cruel, too, he became, in its 

 worst sense, an infidel ; not from any pious scruple or deep c(mviction, but 

 simply that he might indulge his passions. (See that fearful story of tlie 

 trial of forty Englishmen told in Eadmer : Hist. Nov., lib. ii., p. 48, 

 Ed. 1633, which illustrates in a twofold manner both his cruelty and his 

 atheism.) 



To a total want of eloquence he joined the most inveterate habit of 

 stammering, so that, when angry, he could barely speak. Ilis i)hysical 

 appearance, too, well harmonized with his moral and mental deformities. 

 His description reads rather like that of a fiend than of a man. Possessing 

 enormous strength, he was sniaii, tliick-set, and ill-shaped, having a large 

 stomach. His face was redder than his hair, and his eyes of two different 

 colours. His vices were, in fact, branded on his face. (Malmesbiiry, 

 Ed. Hardy, tom. ii., lib. iv., sect. 321, p. 504, whom I have literally 

 translated.) l^^^ 



O 2 



