on Tiril, but Tiril certainly did not shoot the arrow. We have his own most solemn declaration to various people, and especially, not once but often, to Suger, the well-known Abbot of St. Denis, when he had nothing to gain or lose, that he had on the day of the King's death not only not entered that part of the Forest, but had not so much as even seen him.[1]
Tiril, however, was certainly implicated in the plot. His haste to leave the country arose, probably, not so much from a wish to escape as to convey the news of the success to Normandy: and popular tradition mistaking the cause, with its usual inaccuracy, fixed on the wrong person as the assassin. In after years, however, from some scruple of conscience, he expiated his share in the murder by a pilgrimage to the Holy Land.
Who shot the fatal arrow we know not, and, perhaps, shall never know. We must not expect to get truth in history,—only, at the best, some faint glimmering. All is here confusion and darkness. John of Salisbury, who lived about the middle of the twelfth century, says it was as little known who killed the King as who slew Julian the Apostate.[2] The very spot where he fell is doubtful. One thing, however, seems certain, that he was slain, not, as the Chroniclers say, because his father made the New Forest, but through his own cruelties and excesses, by which he outraged both friend and foe.
- ↑ Suger: Vita Lud. Grossi Regis, cap. i (to be found, as before, in Bouquet, tom. xii. p. 12 E.) See, also, John of Salisbury: Vita Anselmi; Migne: Patrologiæ Cursus Completus, tom, cxcix., cap. xii., p. 1031 B.; or, as before, in Wharton's Anglia Sacra, tom. ii. p. 170.
- ↑ Quoted by Sharon Turner: History of England, vol. iv. p. 167. See, as before, Migne: tom, cxcix., cap. xii., p. 1031 B.
