Promoting Physical Activity And Health In The Classroom 1st Edition Pangrazi Test Bank

Promoting Physical Activity And Health

In The Classroom 1st Edition Pangrazi
Test Bank
Visit to get the accurate and complete content:

https://testbankfan.com/download/promoting-physical-activity-and-health-in-the-classr
oom-1st-edition-pangrazi-test-bank/

Visit TestBankFan.com to get complete for all chapters

Promoting Physical Activity And Health In The Classroom 1st Edition Pangrazi Test Bank

Promoting Physical Activity and Health in the Classroom (Pangrazi)

Chapter 3

Teaching Physical Activities Safely and Effectively

Multiple Choice Questions

1) When preparing the space for physical activity, all of the following should be considered EXCEPT
A) predetermining size of the instructional space.
B) planning for the appropriate amount and type of equipment.
C) distributing equipment effectively.
D) using standard-sized equipment and apparatus.

Answer: D
Diff: 1
Page Ref: 58-60
Skill: Factual

2) Which of the following factors should be taken into consideration when determining instructional
space needs?
A) Skills being taught, teacher's ability to manage, and availability of space
B) Skills being taught, teacher's ability to manage, and amount of instruction needed
C) Skills being taught, amount of instruction needed, and amount of equipment available
D) Teacher's ability to manage, amount of instruction needed, and amount of equipment available

Answer: B
Diff: 1
Page Ref: 58-59
Skill: Factual

3) All of the following are ideas for delineating the instructional space EXCEPT
A) telling the students not to run past an imaginary line.
B) setting a cone at each corner.
C) using chalk lines on pavement.
D) designating natural boundaries such as trees or fences on the school grounds.

Answer: A
Diff: 1
Page Ref: 58-59
Skill: Factual

1
Copyright © 2009 Pearson Education Inc

Visit TestBankFan.com to get complete for all chapters

4) Which of the following physical activities would be appropriate for teaching kicking skills to a class of
25 students with five soccer balls and 20 cones?
A) Two kicking stations for half of the students and a game with minimal equipment for the other half
B) Dribbling relays with five lines of five students each
C) Soccer game with one ball and all students
D) Two soccer games with one ball and half the students playing on each field

Answer: A
Diff: 3
Page Ref: 59-60
Skill: Applied

5) The best way to distribute equipment is to

A) have students go one at a time to retrieve it from the bag.
B) place it around the perimeter of the area.
C) tell students to grab a piece of equipment from the bag all at once.
D) hand out the equipment to each student one at a time.

Answer: B
Diff: 2
Page Ref: 60
Skill: Conceptual

6) ________ are all aspects of promoting a safe environment for physical activity.
A) Practicing safety rules, properly supervising, and making sure there is enough equipment
B) Practicing safety rules, properly supervising, and providing appropriate instruction
C) Practicing safety rules, providing adequate instruction, and making students do push-ups for
inappropriate behavior
D) Practicing safety rules, providing adequate instruction, and making sure there is enough equipment

Answer: B
Diff: 1
Page Ref: 61-66
Skill: Factual

7) With regard to safety rules for physical activity, what should teachers do to ensure that students
understand?
A) Have students create rules.
B) Wait until a student breaks the rule and use him or her as an example.
C) Create the rules and share them with students.
D) Write down rules, communicate them to students, and allow students to practice.

Answer: D
Diff: 1
Page Ref: 61
Skill: Factual

2
Copyright © 2009 Pearson Education Inc
8) The National Program for Playground Safety found that the average ratio of supervisors to students on
the playground was ________.
A) 1:25
B) 1:50
C) 1:100
D) 1:200

Answer: B
Diff: 1
Page Ref: 62
Skill: Factual

9) Which of the following is NOT a recommendation to ensure that adequate supervision of physical
activity occurs?
A) The supervisor must stand in the center of the class.
B) The supervisor must be able to see and hear all students.
C) Supervision procedures must be preplanned and incorporated into daily lessons.
D) The supervisor must have an adequate replacement before leaving the students.

Answer: A
Diff: 1
Page Ref: 61-63
Skill: Factual

10) To ensure safe instruction, teachers should

A) make it clear to students that the choice to participate belongs to them.
B) make all students participate so they will accumulate physical activity.
C) make a student participate if it appears that he or she is faking an injury.
D) only use equipment that is made of a foam-like material.

Answer: A
Diff: 2
Page Ref: 64
Skill: Conceptual

11) Which of the following is NOT a consequence of using physical activity as punishment?
A) Students may associate physical activity with misbehavior.
B) Students may associate physical activity with accomplishment.
C) Students may associate physical activity with shame.
D) Students may become injured or ill as a result.

Answer: B
Diff: 1
Page Ref: 65-66

3
Copyright © 2009 Pearson Education Inc
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 POPE JOAN.
a. d. 855.

Is it true that a woman succeeded in deceiving her cotemporaries to

the extent of elevating herself to the pontifical throne?
Did a catastrophe ensue which afforded a proof of her sex as
unexpected as indisputable?
If there is no foundation for this tale, how comes it that it has been so
long accepted as authentic by writers whose attachment to the
Roman church is perfectly sincere?
Such are the questions that we here propose to ourselves, and
which have been recently treated by two Dutch literati, Mr. N. C. Kist,
professor at the university of Leyden, in a work published in 1845;
and Mr. J. H. Wensing, professor at the seminary of Warmond, who
has written a refutation of Mr. Kist’s work in a thick volume of more
than 600 pages, printed at the Hague.
I will proceed to give a brief sketch of the circumstances as
presented to us by reliable authors.
After the death of Leo IV., in the year 855, the Roman people
proceeded, according to the custom of that period, to the nomination
of a sovereign pontiff. The choice fell upon a foreigner who had for
some years been resident in the eternal city. He was held in high
repute, as well for his virtues as for his talents. This stranger was a
woman of English origin, born in Germany, who had studied in
France and Greece, and who in the disguise of a man had baffled all
detection. Raised to the pontifical throne, she assumed the name of
John VIII., and governed with exemplary wisdom, but in private life
was guilty of irregularities which resulted in pregnancy. She
endeavoured to conceal her situation, but on the occasion of a great
religious festival she was seized with sudden pains in the midst of a
procession, and, to the astonishment and consternation of the
crowd, gave birth to a child who instantly expired. The mother herself
died upon the spot, succumbing to the effects of pain, terror, and
shame.
This is the most widely spread version; it has however been asserted
that the female pope, “la papesse,” survived her mischance, and
ended her days in a dungeon.
Anastatius, deacon and librarian of the Roman church, was living at
this period, and collected numerous materials for a history of the
sovereign pontiffs. He composed a series of their biographies under
the title of “Liber Pontificalis,” and affirms that he was present at the
election of the Popes from Sergius III. to John VIII., that is to say
from 844 to 882. He must then have been a witness to the
catastrophe of Joan. Now he makes no mention of it, but, in his
work, Pope Benedictus III. follows immediately after Leo IV. An
occurrence of so extraordinary a nature must necessarily have
struck him. It has indeed been pretended that he did make mention
of it, but that his account was suppressed by defenders of the
church, and that in some manuscripts it is still to be found.
Nevertheless these manuscripts, very scarce and incorrect, only
contain one phrase to the purpose, which is met with for the first time
in the writings of the 14th century. It is moreover accompanied by an
expression of doubt (ut dicitur) and there is at the present time
scarcely any enlightened critic but would regard it as an interpolation
of the copyist.
The silence of Anastatius admits therefore of but one interpretation.
It is not until two hundred years after the alleged date of the event
that the first mention of it is found in the Chronicon of Marianus
Scotus, who was born in Scotland in 1028, and died at Mayence in
1086. He says: “Joan, a female, succeeded Pope Leo IV. during two
years, five months, and four days.” A contemporary of Marianus
Scotus, Godfrey of Viterbo, made a list of the sovereign pontiffs, in
which we read between Leo IV. and Benedict III., “Papissa Joanna
non numeratur” (the female Pope does not count).
We must come to the 13th century to find in the Chronicon of
Martinus Polonus, Bishop of Cosenza in Calabria, some particulars
respecting the female Pope Joan.[18] At this period a belief in the
truth of her existence is spread abroad, and the evidences become
more numerous, but they are little else but repetitions and hear-says;
no details of any weight are given.
David Blondel,[19] although a Protestant clergyman, treated the story
of Pope Joan as a fable. The English bishop John Burnet is of the
same opinion, as well as Cave, a celebrated English scholar. Several
other learned men have amply refuted this ancient tradition. Many
have thought to sustain the romance of Marianus against the doubt
excited by a silence of more than 200 years, by asserting that the
authors who lived from the year 855 to 1050, refrained from making
any mention of the story on account of the shame it occasioned
them; and that they preferred to change the order of succession of
the Popes by a constrained silence, rather than contribute, by the
enunciation of an odious truth, to the preservation of the execrable
memory of the woman who had dishonoured the papal chair. But
how is it possible to reconcile this with the other part of the same
story, that the Roman court was so indignant at the scandal, that, to
prevent a repetition of it, they perpetuated its remembrance by the
erection of a statue, and the prohibition of all processions from
passing through the street where the event had happened. What
shadow of truth can exist in things so totally contradictory?
Moreover, Joseph Garampi[20] has proved beyond dispute, that
between the death of Leo IV. and the nomination of Benedict III.,
there was no interval in which to place Pope Joan, and the most
virulent antagonists of the court of Rome make no mention of her.
In 991 Arnolphus, bishop of Orleans, addressed to a council held at
Reims, a discourse in which he vehemently attacked the excesses
and turpitudes of which Rome was guilty. Not a word, however, was
said on the subject of Joan. The patriarch of Constantinople,
Phocius, who was the author of the schism which still divides the
Greek and Latin churches, and who died in 890, says nothing
respecting her.
The Greeks, who after him maintained eager controversies against
Rome, are silent respecting Joan.
It is clear that the author who first speaks of this event, after a lapse
of two centuries, is not worthy of credit, and that those who, after
him, related the same thing, have copied from one another, without
due examination.
Whilst rejecting as apocryphal the legend under our consideration,
some writers have at the same time sought to explain its origin.
The Jesuit Papebroch, one of the most industrious editors of the
Acta Sanctorum, thinks that the name “papesse” was given to John
VII., because he shewed extreme weakness of character in the
exercise of his functions.
The Cardinal Baronius starts an hypothesis of the same kind, but this
conjecture is somewhat far-fetched.
A chronicle inserted in the collection of Muratori, Rerum Italicarum
Scriptores, contains an anecdote that has some analogy with our
subject.
A patriarch of Constantinople had a niece to whom he was much
attached. He disguised her in male attire and made her pass for a
man. At his death he recommended her to his clergy, without
divulging the secret of her sex. She was very learned and virtuous,
and was elected Patriarch. She remained eighteen months on the
throne, but the Prince of Benevent, having become acquainted with
the truth, denounced the fraud at Constantinople, and the
patriarchess was immediately expelled.
This anecdote was very generally reported and credited in Italy in the
11th century, for Pope Leo IX., in a letter of 1053, written to the
Patriarch of Constantinople, expresses himself thus:—
“Public report asserts as an undeniable fact, that in defiance of the
canons of the first council of Nice, you Greeks have raised to the
pontifical throne, eunuchs, and even a woman.”
At this period Rome had not yet begun to occupy herself with the
legend of Joan, which was scarcely spread abroad in Germany. If in
the East there had been any idea of the scandal of the female Pope,
which was afterwards so prevalent, the reproach of Leo IX. would
undoubtedly have been turned against himself.
We give another explanation: “The strangest stories have always
their foundation in some truth,” says Onuphrius Panvinius, in his
notes upon Platina: “I think that this fable of the woman Joan takes
its origin from the immoral life of Pope John XII., who had many
concubines, and amongst others Joan, who exercised such an
empire over him that for some time it might be said it was she who
governed. Hence it is that she was surnamed “papesse,” and this
saying, taken up by ignorant writers and amplified by time, has given
birth to the story which has had such wide circulation.
We find in the history of the Bishop of Cremona, Luitprand,[21] that
the love of John XII. for his concubine Joan went so far that he gave
her entire cities, that he despoiled the church of St. Peter of crosses
and of golden chalices in order to lay them at her feet; and we are
told that she died in childbed.
This death is a remarkable circumstance. In it we may trace the
source of the most striking event in the story of Pope Joan.
 ABELARD AND ELOISA.
a. d. 1140.

We had already collected many notes with the intention of

examining critically the celebrated history of these two lovers of the
12th century, when we read an article by Mr. F. W. Rowsell in the St.
James’s Magazine for October 1864, in which he gives a sketch of
the lives of both of them. The writer has succeeded in condensing
into half a dozen very amusing pages a complete résumé of the
leading events in their history; only he has followed the commonly
received opinion held by many English and French historians who
have taken up the subject, and he does not enter into a critical
examination of several points at issue.
Everybody knows how great an attraction the monument erected to
the memory of Eloisa and Abelard is to the crowds who visit the
cemetery of Père la Chaise, recalling to their minds the letters full of
love and passion written by Eloisa, which have elicited so many
imitations both in prose and verse in England and in France.
The history of the two lovers being true as a whole, we are far from
wishing to take away from the sympathy that their constancy and
hapless love so well deserve. Our only object is to separate the true
from the false, and to show that the celebrated letters imputed to
Eloisa were not written by her at all, and that the tomb in Père la
Chaise is altogether a modern construction.
Abelard, born in 1079, died in 1164, and Eloisa survived him
upwards of twenty years, dying in 1184.
The works and correspondence of Abelard were published for the
first time in 1616 by the learned Duchesne, and we therein find three
letters from Eloisa to Abelard and four from Abelard to Eloisa. These
are the letters on which Pope, in England, and Dorat, Mercier,
Saurin, Colardeau, &c., in France, founded their poems.
Out of these seven letters, four only can strictly be termed the
amatory correspondence of the two lovers. The remainder, and
those that have been brought to light and published in later years,
are pious effusions which contain no trace whatever of those
passionate emotions which pervaded the four other letters. We must
remind the reader that the oldest manuscript existing of these
epistles is nothing more than an alleged copy of the originals made
one hundred years after the death of Eloisa. It is preserved in the
library of the town of Troyes, and belongs to the latter half of the 13th
century.
A modern French historian, M. Henri Martin, having written some
pages in a melodramatic style on these letters of Eloisa, a critic, M.
de Larroque,[22] pointed out to him the error into which he had fallen,
they having evidently been composed some years after the death of
the heroine.
The learned Orelli published in 4ᵗᵒ at Zurich, in 1841, what may be
termed the memoirs of Abelard, entitled, Historia Calamitatum: also
the seven letters of the two lovers.
In the preface to this work, Orelli declares, that on many grounds he
believes that these letters, so different from such as might have been
expected from Eloisa, were never written by her. The grounds, which
Orelli omits to state, are supplied by M. Lalanne in “La
Correspondance Littéraire” of the 5th December 1856.
In order to arrive at a clear perception of the improbabilities and
contradictions contained in these epistles, all the bearings of the
case should be kept well in mind.
In the Historia Calamitatum, Abelard opens his heart to a friend who
is in affliction and whom he endeavours to console by drawing a
counter picture of his own misery. The writer relates his life from his
birth; his struggles and his theological triumphs; his passion for
Eloisa, the vengeance of Fulbert, her uncle, the canon of Paris; his
wandering life since he assumed the cowl in the abbey of St. Denis;
the foundation of the convent of the Paraclete, where he received
Eloisa and the nuns of the convent of Argenteuil; and lastly his
nomination as Abbé of the monastery of St. Gildas, where the monks
more than once conspired against his life.
This is about the only document we possess regarding the life of
Abelard, for it is remarkable that the contemporary writers are
singularly concise in all that concerns him. Otho, bishop of
Freisingen, who died in 1158, is the only one who makes even an
allusion to the vengeance of Fulbert; and he expresses himself so
vaguely that his meaning would be incomprehensible were we not
able to explain it by the help of the Historia Calamitatum.
According to these memoirs, Abelard was thirty-seven or thirty-eight
years of age when he became enamoured of Eloisa, who was then
sixteen or seventeen years old. He introduced himself into the
household of the Canon Fulbert, was appointed professor to the
young girl, and soon became domesticated in the family. Eloisa,
becoming soon after pregnant, fled to Brittany, where she gave birth
to a son. She afterwards returned to Paris, and after frequent
negotiations between Fulbert and Abelard, the lovers were at length
married, but the marriage was kept secret.
The rest is known. Abelard, fearfully mutilated, became a monk in
the abbey of St. Denis, and at his bidding, to which she was ever
entirely submissive, Eloisa took the veil in the convent of Argenteuil.
These events occupied about the space of two years, and bring us to
1118 or 1119.
In a council held in Paris ten years later (1129) a decree was passed
expelling Eloisa and the other nuns from the convent of Argenteuil,
which the Abbé Suger had claimed as being a dependance of the
Abbaye de St. Denis.[23]
This expulsion coming to the ears of Abelard, he offered the nuns an
asylum in the Paraclete, which he had lately founded, and which he
soon after made over to them as a gift.
Pope Innocent II. confirmed this gift in 1131. Abelard speaks further,
in his Historia Calamitatum, of events befalling a year later, and of
his return to the abbey of St. Gildas. We see therefore that this
memoir, written with much care and attention, cannot have been
published before 1133, and perhaps even long after that. Abelard
was then in his fifty-fourth year and Eloisa in her thirty-second or
thirty-third. About fourteen years had elapsed since both had
embraced the monastic life: in the meanwhile they had met and had
spent more or less time together in the Paraclete between 1129 and
1132.
Let us now enquire if the subject matter contained in these seven
letters, all of which were written after the latter date (a fact that
should be carefully noted) agrees with that which has preceded.
The amorous correspondence of the lovers is confined to four letters.
The first is written by Eloisa. She says, that if she writes to Abelard
at all, it is that she has by accident seen the Historia Calamitatum;
and in order to convince him that she has read it, she touches briefly
on each circumstance recorded in it, every one of which must have
been only too familiar to them both.
Does the reader think this a natural or a probable style of
commencement? Does it not denote something artificial in the
composition? Farther on she complains that Abelard has forsaken
her: “her to whom the name of mistress was dearer than that of wife,
however sacred this latter tie might be.”[24]
And finally she adds: “Only tell me if you can, why, since we have
taken the monastic vows, which you alone desired, you have so
neglected and forgotten me that I have neither been blessed by your
presence nor consoled by a single letter in your absence. Answer
me, I beseech you, if you can, or I may myself be tempted to tell you
what I think, and what all the world suspects.”[25]
This letter, full of passionate reproach, contains contradictions and
improbabilities perceptible to all who have read that which has
preceded.
Let us first call attention to the style, which is hardly to be explained.
The passionate expressions of Eloisa would have been quite natural
in the first years that followed her separation from Abelard, but
fourteen years had elapsed—fourteen years of monastic life to both
one and the other.
She appeals to a man of fifty-four years of age, cut off for the space
of fourteen years from all intercourse with her, worn out by his
theological contests, his wandering life, and the persecutions of
which he had been the victim; and who prays only, according to his
own letters, “for eternal rest in the world to come.” But nothing
checks the flow of her passion, which she pours out with a
vehemence the more remarkable as proceeding from a woman of
whom Abelard had not long since written, in his Historia
Calamitatum: “All are alike struck by her piety in the convent, her
wisdom, and her incomparable gentleness and patience under the
trials of life. She is seldom to be seen, but lives in the solitude of her
cell, the better to apply herself to prayer and holy meditation.”
But the continuation seems even more incomprehensible.
Admitting, which is somewhat difficult, that Eloisa had not seen
Abelard since his severe affliction until his reception of her in the
Paraclete in 1129, on her expulsion from Argenteuil, is it at all certain
that they did meet then, and that moreover the frequency of their
interviews gave rise to scandalous reports which obliged them again
to separate? How then can Eloisa complain that since their entrance
upon a religious life (that is to say since 1119) she has “neither
rejoiced in his presence, nor been consoled by his letters?” And she
wrote this in 1133 or 1134! It is incredible that these lines should
have been penned by her.
The second letter of Eloisa is not less ardent than the first. She
mourns in eloquent language over the cold tone of sadness
pervading the answer sent to her by Abelard. She reverts at some
length to the cruel cause of their separation, and deplores her
misfortune in such unequivocal terms, that we think it better to give
her words in their original latin. “Difficillimum est a desideriis
maximarum voluptatum avellere animum. ... In tantum vero illæ
quæs pariter exercuimus amantium voluptates dulces mihi fuerunt ut
nec displicere mihi nunc, nec a memoria labi possint.
“Quocumque loco me vertam, semper se oculis meis cum suis
ingerunt desideriis. Nec etiam dormienti suis illusionibus parcunt.
Inter ipsa missarum solemnio, obscæna earum voluptatum
fustasmata ita sibi penitus miserrimam captivant animam ut
turpitudinibus illis magis quam orationi vacem. Quæ cum
ingemiscere debeam de commissis, suspiro potius de amissis; nec
solum quæ egimus, sed loca pariter et tempora in quibus hæc
egimus ita tecum nostro infixa sunt animo, ut in ipsis omnia tecum
agam, nec dormiens etiam ab his quiescam. Nonnunquam et ipso
motu corporis, animi mei cogitationes deprehenduntur, nec a verbis
temperant improvisis ... castam me prædicant qui non
deprehenderunt hypocritam.”[26]...
These expressions, scarcely equalled by the delirium of Sappho,
succeed at length in rekindling the expiring passion of Abelard. He
replies by quotations from Virgil, from Lucanus, and by passages
from the Song of Solomon. To convince her that their sorrows are not
unmerited, he reminds her on his side of their past pleasures, and
among others, of a sacrilegious interview held in the refectory of the
convent of Argenteuil, where he had visited her in secret.
He then, and more than once, enlarges in praise of eunuchs, and
ends by enclosing a prayer he has composed for her and for himself.
This closes the amorous correspondence, for in the next letter Eloisa
declares her resolution, to which she remains firm, of putting a
restraint on the ardour of her feelings, although she cannot at the
same time refrain from quoting some equivocal lines from Ovid’s Art
of Love.
We must here once more ask whether, circumstanced as these two
lovers were, and taking into consideration the piety and resignation
apparent in all the writings of Abelard, he being at the time fifty-four
years of age, and Eloisa thirty-three—and after fourteen years’
separation, it is credible or possible that the letters we have quoted,
letters in which all modesty is laid aside, should have been written by
Eloisa? Allowing that she had preserved Abelard’s correspondence,
is it easy to suppose that Abelard, continually moving from place to
place, should have preserved hers to the day of his death, so that
their letters might eventually be brought together?—letters, too,
breathing an ardour so compromising to the reputation of both?
Is it likely that Eloisa should have kept copies of her own letters, the
perusal of which, it must be confessed would not have tended to the
edification of the nuns?
Remember also that all these events occurred in the first half of the
12th century, in an age when it was very unusual to make collections
of any correspondence of an amorous nature.
We can then only arrive at the same conclusion as Messieurs
Lalanne, Orelli, Ch. Barthélemy, and others, viz. that the
correspondence which has given such renown to the names of
Abelard and Eloisa as lovers, is in all probability apocryphal.
M. Ludovic Lalanne has another supposition, which is curious, and
which appears to us not to be impossible:
“These letters,” says he, “are evidently very laboured. The
circumstances follow each other with great regularity, and the
vehement emotions that are traceable throughout, do not in any wise
interfere with the methodical march of the whole. The length of the
letters, and the learned quotations in them from the Bible, from the
fathers of the church, and from pagan authors, all seem to indicate
that they were composed with a purpose and with art, and were by
no means the production of a hasty pen. Eloisa, we must remember,
was a woman of letters, and a reputation for learning was of great
value in her eyes. Did she, who survived her lover upwards of twenty
years, wish to bequeath to posterity the memory of their misfortunes,
by herself arranging and digesting at a later period, so as to form a
literary composition, the letters that at divers times she had written
and received? Or has perhaps a more eloquent and experienced
pen undertaken the task? These are questions difficult to resolve.
Anyhow, the oldest manuscript of this correspondence with which we
are acquainted, is upwards of a hundred years posterior to the death
of Eloisa. It is, as we have already said, the manuscript of the library
of the town of Troyes.”
Let us now proceed to examine the authority for the so-called tomb
of these lovers in the cemetery of Père la Chaise.
Two learned archæologists will enlighten us on the subject. Monsieur
Lenoir,[27] in his Musée des Monuments français, and Monsieur de
Guilhermy, in an article of the Annales Archéologiques de Didron for
1846.
During the French Revolution of 1792, the convent of the Paraclete,
founded by Abelard, was sold. In order to protect the remains of the
lovers from desecration, which was too common in those days, some
worthy inhabitants of Nogent-sur-Seine, took possession of the
coffins and deposited them in the church of that town. Seven years
later M. Lenoir obtained the permission of the minister to transfer
these remains to Paris, and it occurred to him at the same time, that
it would be expedient to enclose them in a tomb of the period in
which the lovers had lived. He was told that in the chapel of the
infirmary of Saint Marcel-les-Chalons, Peter the Venerable had
erected a monument to Abelard. Several denied this fact; but be that
as it may, Monsieur Lenoir obtained possession of part of this
monument, which had been purchased by a physician of the town in
order to save it from destruction. M. Lenoir then constructed a
monument with the fragments of a chapel of the abbey of St. Denis,
and, as he tells us, placed the sarcophagus, which was of the style
of architecture in vogue in the 12th century, in a room of the museum
entrusted to his care.
The following information given by M. de Guilhermy[28] will show us
how far M. Lenoir succeeded in his architectural device, and how far
the sarcophagus contains the actual remains of Abelard and Eloisa:
“How many illusions,” says M. de Guilhermy, “would vanish into thin
air if the pilgrims who came to visit the shrine of these celebrated
lovers in the cemetery of Père la Chaise only knew, that in the
construction of the sepulchral chapel there is not one single stone
from the abbey of the Paraclete. The pillars, the capitals, the rose-
works, which decorate the facings of the tomb belonged to the abbey
of St. Denis. It does not require a very practised eye to discover that
the sculptures are not in harmony, and were never intended to form
a whole. It was the former director of the Musée des Monuments
Français, who conceived the idea of putting together some
fragments placed at his disposal, and with these to erect a
monument worthy of receiving the bones of the two illustrious lovers
of the 12th century.
“A wooden case sealed with the republican seal of the municipality of
Nogent-sur-Seine, carried to Paris in 1799 the remains which were
taken out of the grave in the Paraclete; but before depositing them in
their new asylum, it was thought necessary to satisfy the amateurs of
relics of this nature. The republicans opened the box, and all that
was left of the bodies after a period of six hundred years was stolen
out of it.” M. de Guilhermy says that: “Actually a tooth of Eloisa was
offered for sale at the time. At any rate it was in the following manner
that the tomb of Abelard was completed. A bas-relief which
represented the funeral procession of Louis, the eldest son of Louis
IX. of France, was taken from St. Denis, and it was decided that for
the future this piece of sculpture should do duty for the mausoleum
of Abelard. Two medallions, the work of a second-rate artist of the
16th century, represented Abelard with curled mustachios, and
Eloisa under the form of a half-naked woman.”
“But this is not all. On the sarcophagus are two recumbent figures.
One is draped in priestly robes and was purloined from one of the
numerous cloisters demolished in Paris; the other is the statue of
some noble lady in the costume and style befitting the 14th century,
which once reclined on a tomb in the chapel of St. Jean de Beauvais
in Paris.”
It is as well to recall such details as these in order to expose errors
which, unless refuted, would from their long standing end by being
accepted as truths. But after reading all the circumstances narrated
above, can it be believed that Monsieur Guizot, who is so well
acquainted with the real facts, or who at any rate ought to be
acquainted with them, should, in order to gratify the public taste for
sentiment, write as follows in the preface to a translation of the
letters of Abelard and Eloisa:[29]
“Vingt-et-un ans après la mort d’Abailard, c’est-à-dire en 1163, agée
de 63 ans, Héloïse descendit dans le même tombeau. Ils y reposent
encore l’un et l’autre, après six cent soixante-quinze ans, et tous les
jours de fraiches couronnes, déposées par des mains inconnues,
attestent pour les deux morts la sympathie sans cesse renaissante
des générations qui se succèdent!”
It would be difficult to find a more inflated style with which to
decorate an historical error.
 WILLIAM TELL.
a. d. 1307.

Formerly an historical fact needed only the authority of tradition

to be generally received and duly established; but in the present day
the critic is not so easily satisfied, and insists upon proof as a basis
for his belief.
In the field of history we meet with many contested points, but it is
rare to find an error persistently maintained during five hundred
years, in spite of the refutation of innumerable authors.
This is the case with the tale of William Tell, which is nothing more
nor less than a northern saga that has been adopted and repeated
from generation to generation.
The revolution which took place in Switzerland in 1307 gave rise to
the legend of the Swiss hero, and, from that time to the present,
writers have continually endeavoured to expose its unsound basis,
but the public, equally pertinacious, have insisted on believing in its
truth.
The study of historical and popular legends is the study of a peculiar
phase of the human mind, and is one of the aspects under which the
history of a people should be considered.
All epochs of ignorance or superstition have been remarkable for a
strong belief in the marvellous. The object of belief may vary, but the
disposition to believe is the same.
In order to place the history of William Tell as clearly as possible
before the reader, let us in the first place turn to the writings of the
old Swiss chroniclers. Conrad Justinger, who died in 1426, is one of
the most ancient. He was chancellor of the city of Bern, and the
composition of a chronicle of this canton was committed to him. It
does not extend beyond the year 1421.
Melchior Russ, registrar at Lucerne in 1476, copies word for word in
his chronicle the narrative of Conrad Justinger concerning the
political state of the Waldstätten, their disputes with the Hapsburg
dynasty, and the insurrection of the country.
The Bernese chronicler attributes the insurrection of the Alpine
peasantry to the services required and the heavy burdens imposed
upon them by the house of Hapsburg, and to the ill-treatment the
men, women, and girls endured from the governors of the country. In
support of this accusation Melchior Russ cites an example; he says:
“William Tell was forced by the seneschal to hit with an arrow an
apple placed on the head of his own son, failing in which, he himself
was to be put to death.” It is here that Russ takes up the narrative of
Justinger, and continues the history of Tell in a chapter entitled:
“Adventure of Tell on the Lake.”
“Tell resolved to avenge himself of the cruel and unjust treatment he
had long endured from the governor and the magistrates. He went
into the canton of Uri, assembled the commune, and told them with
sobs of emotion of the tyranny and persecution to which he was
every day exposed. His complaints coming to the ears of the
governor, he ordered Tell to be seized, to be bound hand and foot,
and to be carried in a boat to a fortified castle situated in the centre
of the lake. During the passage across a violent tempest arose, and
all on board, giving themselves up for lost, began to implore the aid
of God and of the saints. It was suggested to the governor that Tell,
being vigorous and skilled in nautical matters, was the only one likely
to help them out of their danger. Aware of their imminent peril, the
governor promised that Tell’s life should be spared if he succeeded
in landing all the passengers in safety. On his promising to do so he
was set free, and manœuvred so well that he steered close to a flat
rock, snatched up his cross-bow, leapt ashore at one bound, and,
aiming at the governor, shot him dead. The crew were home away in
the boat, which Tell had quickly pushed off from the shore, and he
regained the interior, where he continued to excite the people to
rebellion and to revolt.”
We will now quote from Peterman Etterlein, another chronicler,
whose work was first published at Bâle in 1507:
“Now it happened one day that the seneschal (or governor), named
Gressler (or Gessler), came to the canton of Uri, and ordered a pole
to be fixed on a spot much frequented by the people. A hat was
placed on the top of the pole, and a decree was published
commanding every passer-by to do homage to the hat as if the
governor himself stood there in person. Now there was in the canton
a worthy man named William Tell, who had secretly conspired with
Stöffacher and his companions. This man passed and repassed
several times in front of the pole and the hat without saluting them.
The official on guard reported the circumstance to his master, who,
when he became acquainted with this act of insubordination,
summoned Tell to his presence, and demanded the reason of his
disobedience. “My good Lord,” said Tell, “I could not imagine that
your Grace would attach so much importance to a salute; pardon me
this fault, therefore, and impute it to my thoughtlessness. Now
William Tell was the most skilful crossbowman that it was possible to
find, and he had pretty children whom he tenderly loved. The
governor said to him: ‘It is reported that thou art a celebrated archer;
thou shalt give me a proof of thy skill in bringing down with thine
arrow an apple placed on the head of one of thy children. If thou dost
not hit it at the first trial it shall cost thee thy life.’
“It was in vain that Tell remonstrated with the governor; he refused to
relent, and he himself placed the apple on the head of the child.
Thus driven by hard necessity, Tell first took an arrow which he slipt
under his doublet, and then took another which he fitted to his bow.
Having prayed to God and to the holy Virgin to direct his arm and to
save his son, he brought down the apple without wounding the child.
The governor had perceived that he concealed the first arrow, and
questioned him as to his reason for so doing, and after much
hesitation on the one part and terrible menaces on the other, Tell
confessed that if he had struck his child, he should have shot the
governor with the second arrow. Well, replied Gessler, I have
promised thee thy life and I will keep my word, but since I am
acquainted with thy evil intentions, I will confine thee in a place
where thou wilt never see the sun nor the moon, and where thou wilt
no longer have it in thy power to attempt my life. He immediately
ordered his attendants to seize Tell, and he embarked with them and
the prisoner for his castle of Küssenach, where he resolved to shut
up his victim in a dark tower. Tell’s arms were placed in the stern of
the boat, close to the governor.”
As in the preceding narrative, a storm arises, and Tell, to whom the
care of the vessel is confided, leaps upon a rock, lies in ambush in a
hollow through which the governor must pass to reach his castle,
and kills him with an arrow from his bow.
The other chroniclers have followed the same story, sometimes
modifying it and at others subjecting it to a critical examination. Now
there are four different views existing of this tradition of William Tell.
The first admits the authenticity of the legend in all its details, as it is
believed in the canton of Uri.
The second admits the existence of Tell, his refusal to do homage to
the hat, his voyage on the lake, and the tragical end of Gessler; but it
rejects the story of the apple.
According to the third view, William Tell is believed to have existed
and to have made himself remarkable by some daring exploit; but
this exploit was not connected with the plans of the conspirators, and
consequently exercised no influence over the formation of the Swiss
confederation.
The fourth view supposes the tradition of William Tell to be a mere
fable, an afterthought, unworthy of being inserted in any history of
Switzerland.
We know of no chronicle anterior to those of Melchior Russ and
Petermann Etterlein that records the events of which the tradition of
William Tell is composed. And so great a difference is perceptible
between the two histories, that it would be presumption to maintain
that the one emanates from the other, or that they have been drawn
from a common source.
However it is far from being the fact that all the historical works
written by the cotemporaries of this hero have been destroyed or
buried in oblivion. Freudenberger, in his Danish Fable, has cited
several of them. Franz Guillimann, in his work De rebus Helveticis,
published at Fribourg in 1598, inserted the history of William Tell,
although he regarded it as a mixture of fiction and probable facts, or
rather as a conventional truth that does not bear examination; for he
casts a doubt upon the very existence of the personage whose
memory the Swiss people honour as their liberator.
In one of his letters, addressed to Goldast, 27th March 1607, he
writes thus: “You ask me what I think of the history of William Tell:
here is my answer. Although in my Helvetian Antiquities I have
yielded to the popular belief in introducing certain details connected
with that tale, still when I look more closely into it, the whole thing
appears to me to be a pure fable; and that which confirms me in my
opinion is, that up to this time I have never met with any writer
anterior to the 15th century who alludes to any such history. It
appears to me that all the circumstances have been invented to
foment the hatred of the confederate states against Austria. I could
produce my reasons for supposing this story of Tell to be a
fabrication; but why should we waste time on such a subject?”
Here then we have a respectable historian, the author of a learned
work on the antiquities of Switzerland, confessing himself obliged to
admit an error because it is popular! Perhaps also, in his own
interest, it was safer to do so, for a few years later (in 1760) Uriel
Freudenberger created a terrible disturbance in Bern by publishing a
small volume in Latin entitled William Tell, a Danish Fable, which
was by many attributed to Emmanuel Haller. The canton of Uri
condemned the author to be burned with his book, and on the 14th
of June in the same year it addressed a very urgent letter to the
other cantons, advising them to pass a like sentence.
The work of Freudenberger having been burnt, the copies became
extremely scarce, but it was reprinted in Breyer’s Historical
Magazine, Vol. I. p. 325. The same text was also reproduced—but
only in order to be partially refuted—in the work of Hisely, published
at Delft in 1826 under the title: “Of William Tell and the Swiss
Revolution of 1307; or the history of the early cantons up to the
treaty of Brunnen in 1315.”
In the latter half of the 17th century, a writer as eminent as Guilliman,
J. H. Rahn, after recording in his chronicle the history of Tell
according to the tradition, explains his reasons for regarding it as
fabulous, or at least as open to suspicion.
Later still, another writer, Isaac Christ. Iselin, in his large historical
dictionary (Historisches und geographisches allgemeines Lexicon,
Basel 1727, in folio) says, that although several authors cite this
story, it is nevertheless open to doubt, because 1) the ancient
annalists are silent on the subject, and 2) because Olaus Magnus
has related the same adventure of a certain Toko, in the reign of
Harold king of Denmark. There is so great a similarity between the
two stories that it is impossible to avoid supposing that one has been
copied from the other.
Two important publications express themselves in a still more
positive manner. In the chronicle of Melchior Russ, edited by
Schneller of Lucerne, the editor, in learned notes, conveys serious
doubts upon the story and even upon the very existence of William
Tell. These doubts acquire a fresh importance from the collection of
documents published in 1835 by Kopp, a man of letters, who shows
how slight is the foundation for the tradition which makes Tell the
avenger of oppressed liberty. It will be seen that the Swiss writers of
the 15th and 16th centuries, far from being agreed as to the time at
which Tell is said to have signalised himself by an act of heroism,
refer this event, on the contrary, to different periods, and separate
the two extremes of the dates by a space of forty years. Kopp
renders the story of the apple still more doubtful, by the positive
assurance that the administration of Küssenach was never in the
hands of a Gessler. This assertion is founded on the charters, which
denote the uninterrupted succession of the administrators of
Küssenach during the century in which the incident in question is
said to have taken place. The notes of M. Kopp contain precise
indications which shake the basis upon which rests the history of
William Tell, and threaten to overthrow it.
Thus, in resuming, we see that the most ancient work which makes
any mention of the adventures of William Tell is the chronicle of
Melchior Russ junior, written at the end of the 15th century. Hence it
follows that this story was not known until two centuries after the
event (1296 to 1482), and that the chronicles of the middle ages, so
eager after extraordinary facts and interesting news, were entirely
ignorant of it. Indeed, Hammerlin and Faber, writers of the 15th
century, and Mutius a chronicler at the beginning of the 16th century,
narrate in detail the tyrannical conduct of Austria, which they
consider as the principal cause of the insurrection of the Swiss
people; but not one of them speaks of a Tell or of a William, neither
of the story of the apple, nor of the tragical end of Gessler. Moreover,
we possess the work of a contemporary of William Tell, Jean de
Winterthür, whose chronicle is one of the best of the 14th century. He
recounts the details of the war which the herdsmen of the Alps
waged against Austria. He describes with remarkable precision the
battle of Morgarten, the particulars of which he had gathered from
the lips of his father, an eye-witness of it. He says, that on the
evening of that day so fatal to Austria, he saw the Duke Leopold
arrive in flight, pallid and half-dead with fright. Jean de Winterthür
also tells us that the heroes of Morgarten instituted, on the very day
of their victory, a solemn festival to perpetuate the remembrance of
it. But this chronicler, who knew so much, and who was so fond of
relating even fabulous histories, has made no mention whatever of
the deeds of William Tell! How is it possible to conceive that the
above-named authors could unanimously pass over in silence the
historical fact attributed to William Tell, a fact accompanied by
circumstances so remarkable that they must have made a strong
impression on every mind? The love of the marvellous is a
characteristic trait of the middle-ages, and yet the poetical story of
William Tell has left no vestige in the annals of his cotemporaries! It
does not appear in the chronicle of Zürich of 1479, where even the
name of William Tell is not cited. What must be inferred from this
silence?
If we proceed to examine the circumstances as they are related by
those who have written of William Tell, we shall find the authors at
variance in their details; contradicting themselves in their chronology
and in the names of the places where they assert the facts to have
occurred.
In 1836 the professors of philosophy at the university of Heidelberg
proposed the following subject for literary composition: “To examine
with greater care than Messieurs Kopp and Ideler have done, into
the origin of the Swiss confederation and into the details given
respecting Gessler and Tell, and to estimate the sources whence
these details have come down to us.” The university received in
answer to this proposition a memoir which obtained a prize, and
which was published by the author, Ludwig Häusser, in 1840.
Of all the works that have appeared on this subject this is the most
complete and the most valuable. To a great acquaintance with the
historical literature of Switzerland, M. Häusser unites that spirit of
criticism without which it is impossible to distinguish truth from fiction.
The following are the conclusions arrived at by M. Häusser from his
researches. 1) There is nothing to justify the historical importance
that is commonly attached to William Tell. He has no right to the title
of deliverer of Switzerland, seeing that he took no active part in the
freedom of the Waldstätter. 2) The existence of a Swiss named
William Tell is without doubt. It is probable that this man made
himself remarkable by some bold exploit, but one not in any way
connected with the history of the confederation. 3) As for the tradition
as it is preserved in ballads and chronicles, it is only supported by
such evidence as is unworthy of credit. It is easy to demonstrate that
the particulars related in this tradition are not authentic, and that they
are pure inventions of the imagination. In short, the story of the apple
shot from the head of the child is of Scandinavian origin.
Monsieur J. Hisely has summed up the whole discussion on the
subject of William Tell in his Recherches Critiques, published at
Lausanne in 1843.
In the historico-critical treatise of Julius Ludwig Ideler (Berlin 1836),
the author says that there exists no record of incontestable
authenticity referring to the romantic incident of Tell’s life. The chapel
near Flüelen, on the borders of the lake, was only constructed in
1388: the chapel at Burglen, on the spot where Tell’s house formerly
stood, dates back to the same time, and there is no written
document to prove that they were built to commemorate any share
taken by Tell in the emancipation of Switzerland.
The stone fountain at Altdorf[30] which bore the name of Tell, and
above which was seen the statue of Tell, and of his son with an
apple placed upon his head, was only constructed in 1786, when the
tradition had already been singularly shaken by critical researches.
Ideler adds, that Tell’s lime-tree in the centre of the market place at
Altdorf (Tellenlinde), and his crossbow preserved in the arsenal at
Zürich, are not more valid proofs than the pieces of the true cross
which are exhibited in a thousand places, or the handkerchief of St.
Veronica, that is said to be the real original.
A critic whom it is also important to read on this question, is Hisely, in
his investigations into the sources whence the Swiss writers have
drawn the history of William Tell. He explains at length the reasons
that make him consider the absolute silence of Jean de Winterthür
and of Conrad Justinger as an inexplicable enigma.
Hisely has pursued his researches without being prejudiced for or
against the popular faith, but the result tends to show how little
foundation there is for the story.
In conclusion we will cite the legends analogous to the circumstance
of the apple shot in twain by William Tell.

ENDRIDE PANSA, OR THE SPLAY-FOOTED.

(A LEGEND OF THE 10TH CENTURY.)
The king of Norway went to pay a visit to Endride, a young pagan
whom he wished to convert to Christianity. After they had drank
together, and before setting out for the chase, the king said to
Endride: “I wish to see which of us two is the best marksman.” “I
consent,” said Endride. They entered a neighbouring forest. The king
took off his cloak, fixed a long piece of wood in the ground at a
considerable distance, which was to serve as a mark to the two
archers. He then bent his bow and aimed so accurately that the
arrow hit the top of the wood and remained fixed in it. All the
spectators were in admiration at the dexterity of the king. Endride at
first asked to be excused from shooting; but the king refused, and
Endride, being forced to obey, shot, and planted his arrow in that of
the king, so that they were embedded the one in the other. The king,
evidently piqued, said to Endride: “In truth thy skill is remarkable, but
this trial is not decisive. Let thy sister’s son be brought, on whom
thou hast once said all thy affections are concentrated. Let him serve
as a mark for us, and let one of the chessmen be placed upon the
head of the child.” The boy was brought and fastened to a stake.
“We are going,” said the king to his rival, “to bring down this
chessman from the head of the child without hurting him.” “Make the
trial, if such is your good pleasure,” replied Endride; “but if you touch
the boy, I will avenge him.”
The king ordered the eyes of the child to be bandaged, made the
sign of the cross, and blessed the point of the arrow before shooting.
The countenance of Endride became flushed with emotion. The dart
flew, and the historian Thormod Torfæus, who recites the fact, adds
that Olaf shot off the chessman without doing the least injury to the
child.
The saga goes on to relate that Endride, overcome with admiration
at the skill of the king, yielded to his wishes, was baptised and was
received as a welcome guest at the court of Olaf.

ADVENTURES OF HEMING.
Harold Hardrade, king of Norway (1047-1066), went one day to visit
Aslak, a rich peasant of the isle of Torg, which forms part of the
group of the islands of Heligoland, and made acquaintance with
Heming, son of the opulent islander. Aslak, who distrusted his guest,
sought to get rid of him as soon as possible; he came therefore at
the end of the second day to tell Harold that his vessel was ready to
sail. But the king replied, that he intended to pass yet another day on
the island. He then betook himself to the forest, there to contend for
the honour of victory in shooting with the crossbow. Although Harold
was a skilful archer, he could not equal his rival. Irritated, and
desirous to avenge this affront, the king ordered Heming, under pain
of death, to hit with his arrow a nut placed upon the head of his
brother Biörn. At first Heming refused to obey so barbarous an order;
but, yielding at length to the entreaties of his brother, he begged the
king to place himself by the side of Biörn, in order to ascertain the
result of the trial. But Harold made Odd Ofeigsön take that place,
and he himself remained close to Heming. The latter, having made
the sign of the cross and invoked the vengeance of heaven upon the
oppressor, drew his bow and shot the nut placed on the head of
Biörn.
The saga relates that the tyranny of Harold excited the islanders to
revolt, and that Heming, having taken refuge in England, was
present in the English army at the battle of Standfordbridge in 1066.
The Norwegian king, at the first shock of the two armies, was struck
by an arrow that pierced his throat.

ADVENTURE OF PALNATOKE, OR TOKO.

This legend is to be found in the History of Denmark by Saxo
Grammaticus. He has drawn his recitals from oral tradition and
ancient ballads. This author died in 1204. It appears that the
adventure of Toko must have taken place under the reign of Harold
of the Black Tooth; that is to say about 950.
A certain Toko, attached for some time to the service of the king, had
excited the jealousy of his companions in arms by his valour and his
exploits. One day, during a banquet, Toko boasted that with the first
flight of his arrow he would bring down from a distance an apple
placed on the end of a staff. His curious companions related the
circumstance to the king, adding to it remarks insulting to himself.
Harold, whose wicked disposition was irritated by the discourse of
his flatterers, ordered Toko to perform what he had boasted himself
capable of doing, taking for a mark an apple placed on the head of
his child. He added, that if he did not succeed on the first attempt,
his vanity should cost him his life. The imminence of the danger
strengthened the courage of Toko. After placing his child, the intrepid
warrior impressed upon him the necessity of remaining motionless
when he should hear the hissing of the arrow; and, having taken the
measures dictated by prudence, he made him turn his head aside,
lest he should be frightened at the sight of the weapon his father was
aiming at him. Then Toko took three arrows, fixed one in his bow,
and hit the apple at the first trial. The king asking Toko what he had
intended to do with the two remaining arrows, the archer replied: “If
my arm had failed me, the second arrow should have pierced thy
heart, and the third, that of the first audacious man who dared to
advance a step.” The king, concealing his resentment, subjected
Toko to other trials, and he, cursing Harold, sought out Svend, the
son of Harold, who was arming to make war against his father. One
day, having surprised the king behind a bush, he revenged himself
for all the outrages he had endured, by letting fly at him an arrow
which inflicted a mortal wound.
Olaüs Magnus also relates this story, which is not surprising, seeing
that he has sometimes copied word for word from Saxo
Grammaticus. He confesses, moreover, that he has borrowed from
his predecessor.

ADVENTURES OF EGIL.
If from Scandinavia we pass into Iceland, we there find the legend of
the apple transmitted to us by the Vilkina-Saga, in the 14th century.
Once upon a time, Egil, the brother of Veland the smith, came to the
court of king Nidung. Egil excelled in the art of handling the bow and
the crossbow. His address excited admiration throughout the
country. The king Nidung gave Egil a good reception, and put his
skill more than once to the proof. After having exhausted all the
resources of his imagination, he took it into his head to have an
apple placed upon the head of the son of Egil. “From where thou
standest,” said he to the archer, “thou must shoot down this apple.”
Egil took an arrow from his quiver, tried its point, and laid it by his
side. He then took a second arrow, rested it on the string of his bow,
took aim, and struck the apple in such a manner that the arrow and
the apple both fell to the ground. This trial of skill still lives in the
memory of the people. King Nidung then asked Egil why he had
taken two arrows, since he had been ordered to hit the apple at one
trial. “Sire,” replied Egil, “I will tell you the truth, whatever may be the
consequence. This arrow was destined for you, if I had wounded my
son.” The king admired the frankness of this reply, and was not
offended by it, acknowledging the cruelty of the order he had given.
All the spectators agreed that it was the speech of a worthy and
brave man.

ADVENTURE OF WILLIAM OF
CLOUDESLY.
The large forests of England were for many years formidable to the
Normans. They were inhabited by the last remnants of the Saxon
armies, who still disputing the conquest, persisted in leading a life
opposed to the laws of the invader. Every where driven out, pursued,
hunted like wild beasts, they here, favoured by the shelter of the
forests, had been able to maintain themselves in force, under a sort
of military organisation.
Among the chief outlaws, Adam Bel, Clym of the Clough, and
William of Cloudesly, were not the least celebrated. Bound together
by the same destiny, they had taken an oath of fraternity, as was
customary in the 12th century. Adam and Clym were not married, but
William had a wife and three children, whom he had left at Carlisle.
One day he resolved to visit them. He set off in spite of the counsels
of his companions, and arrived at night in the city: but being
recognised by an old woman, he was denounced to the magistrate,
his house was surrounded, he was made prisoner, and a gallows
was erected in the market-place on which to hang him. A young
swine-herd informed Adam and Clym of the fate of their brother in
arms. The sentence was about to be executed, when the two friends
of the condemned man appeared in the market-place, and a
sanguinary combat ensued, which terminated in the delivery of the
prisoner. The three outlaws, however, worn out at length with their
wandering life, decided upon making their submission. They arrived
in London with the eldest son of William of Cloudesly, entered the
king’s palace without uttering a word to any one, proceeded into the
hall, and, kneeling on one knee, raised their hands and said. “Sire,
deign to pardon us.” “What are your names?” demanded the king.
“Adam Bel, Clym of the Clough, and William of Cloudesly.” “Ah, you
are then those brigands of whom I have heard? I swear to God, you
shall all three be hung!” They were immediately arrested by the
king’s order; but the queen, moved by the unhappy fate of these
three men who had voluntarily surrendered themselves, interceded
for them and obtained their pardon, but on condition that they should
be victorious in a shooting match with the king’s archers.
Two branches of a hazel tree were fixed in the ground in a field at a
distance of twenty times twenty paces. None of the king’s men at
arms could hit this mark. “I will try,” said William, and he bent his bow
and took so true an aim that the arrow split the branch. “Thou art the
best archer that I have seen in the whole course of my life,” said the
astonished king. “To please my sovereign lord,” said William, “I
would do something still more surprising. I have a son of the age of
seven years: I love this son with an extreme tenderness: I will attach
him to a post in the presence of every one, I will place an apple upon
his head, and at the distance of a hundred and twenty paces I will
pierce the apple without wounding the child.” “I take thee at thy
word,” said the king; “but if thou failest, thou shalt be hung.” “What I
have promised,” said William, “I will perform.” He fixed a stake in the
ground, fastened his son to it, and, having made him turn away his
head, placed the apple upon it. After taking these precautions,
William went to a distance of a hundred and twenty paces, bent his
bow, besought all present to keep strict silence, and let fly the arrow,
which pierced the apple without touching the child. “God preserve
me from ever serving as an aim to thee!” exclaimed the king. The
skilful archer, his brethren in arms, and his wife and children, were
conducted to the court, where the king and queen loaded them with
favours.
This trial of skill of William of Cloudesly still dwells in the memory of
the people. Several English poets make mention of the fact, and the
old English ballad has furnished Sir Walter Scott with many
particulars of the scene of the archery meeting in Ivanhoe.
Let us here conclude, only making the remark, that at the end of the
Recherches critiques sur l’histoire de Guillaume Tell, by J. J. Hisely,
this author has quoted the documents, so called authentic, which the
supporters of this story have published; and he has also made
mention of the chapel built on the Lake of Lucerne, to the memory it
is said, of William Tell.
Hisely also shows that none of these alleged proofs stand the test of
strict examination, and that some of the documents are even
forgeries.