It may be worth while to add that Herbert of Bosham, who was not an eye-witness of the scene — for he had left Canterbury a few days before — but was usually well informed, agrees in the main with this order of things. Then followed the stroke of Le Breton, and the act of Hugh of Horsea. But when Richard le Breton saw him thus beaten down, and Ij'ing all outstretched upon the pavement, he struck him a pound into the bargain on the other blows, so that Ins siecttered brand broke in two upon the stone. It may be that he had bethought himsehf, and in this way was keeping himself from his crime.... Me B quant Richarz h Brez ie \i.t si abatu, E BUT le pavement gesir tut estendu, Un poi en bescoz l a des autres cops fern, K'a la piere a brisie en dons sun brant molu. Huge de More^-ille esteit ultre comz; Chaciiout le pneple arere, ki esteit survennz; Cremi ke ] arcevesques ne lur fust dime tx Auz. He saw Fitzurse first brandish his sword over St Thomas's head — which may have been the movement that displaced the cap — and then spring suddenly at him and strike.
The second blow was struck, almost at the same moment, by Fitzurse, but failed to bring St Thomas down.
If we may now attempt to discern the facts contained in these confused narratives, the following points seem to be fairly certain. WTiether the striker was Fitzurse or de Tracy, the main force of it was spent on Edward Grim, and it did little injury to the archbishop. If life was not already extinct, it must have been at the last flicker, and the stroke, if it touched him at all, could have done him as little harm as the first, for the violent contact with the floor must have warded it off from the prostrate man.
It is no great wonder that there are such discrepancies in the accounts, when we consider, not only the extreme agitation of the scene, but the darkness which must have prevailed at that ' Hinc inde feriunt et referiunt, feriunt inquam et referiunt, donee coronam capitis separarunt a capita. The day, it will be re- membered, was December 29, and the hour that of the later evensong.
WTien we turn to Benedict, we must bear in mind that his narrative is not continuous, and that it has necessarily been to some extent adapted in order to work in with the rest of the narratives of the Qiiadrilogus. A passage from William precedes these words in the Quadriiogiis, referring to William de Tracy, and it may be assumed that Benedict agreed with William of Canterbury (and Grim) that it was Reginald's sword that was first flourished over the saint's head.
He then mentions the outiage of Hugh, of which, following a system of comparison -with the passion of our Lord, he makes a fifth wound, answering to that which pierced the heart of our Lord after death. '" would imply that it was not Reginald who laid hold of Thomas and struck off his cap.
TOKYO : MARUZEN KABUSHIKI-KAISHA ALL RIGHTS KESERVF. CANON OF CANTERBURY CAMBRIDGE AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS 1920 TO THE HONOURED MEMORY OF TWO FORMER OCCUPANTS OF MY STALL ARTHUR PENRHYN STANLEY AND JAMES CRAIGIE ROBERTSON WHO LABOURED UPON THE MEMORIALS OF ST THOMAS PREFACE HIS GRACE the present Archbishop of Canterbury some time ago expressed to me the wish that I would put together the documents bearing on the ques- tion whether the bones disco\"ered in 1888 were those of his great predecessor or not. The next blow brought the archbishop to the ground.