Saint Edouard le Confesseur
Roi d'Angleterre (✝ 1066)
Martyrologe romain
Interior of Canterbury Cathedral
Canonisé en 1161, fête en 1680.
SOURCE : http://www.introibo.fr/13-10-St-Edouard-roi-et-confesseur
Roi d'Angleterre (+ 1066)
SOURCE : http://jubilatedeo.centerblog.net/6125273-Saint-Edouard-le-Confesseur?ii=1
Anonimo inglese o francese, Dittico Wilton, 1395-99
ca. 03 Edoardo il confessore, National Gallery
13
October (translation of his relics)
Profile
Born a prince,
the son of King Ethelred
II and Queen Emma;
half-brother to King Edmund
Ironside and King Hardicanute.
When his father was
unseated by Danish invasion.
Edward and his brother were sent to Denmark to
be quietly killed,
but the officer in charge took pity on the boys,
and sent them to Sweden,
and from there they went to the King of Hungary to
be raised and educated.
Edward’s interests were in things religious. When grown, the brothers moved to
Normandy and waited their chance to return to England.
In 1035 Edward
and Alfred tried to regain the crown of England,
but they were turned back, Alfred was killed,
and Edward returned to Normandy. He returned to England again
in 1042,
and was chosen king by
acclamation, ascending the throne on 3 April.
Edward gained a reputation as just and worthy of the kingship,
and the people of England supported
him.
During his reign Edward repulsed invasion, helped
restore the King of Scotland to
his throne, remitted unjust taxes, and was noted for his generosity to
the poor and
strangers, and for his piety and love of God.
He married to
satisfy his people, but he and the queen remained
chaste. Reported to have the power to heal by
touch. Built churches, including Westminster Abbey.
Born
1003 at
Islip, Oxford, England
5
January 1066 of
natural causes
interred at the Abbey of Saint Thomas
Becket
body incorrupt
carrying a sick man
on his shoulders
curing a leper
elderly king offering
a ring or coin to Saint John who
is disguised as a beggar
SOURCE : https://catholicsaints.info/saint-edward-the-confessor/
Yielding to the entreaty of his nobles, he accepted as his consort the virtuous Editha, Earl Godwin's daughter. Having, however, made a vow of chastity, he first required her agreement to live with him only as a sister. As he could not leave his kingdom without injury to his people, the making of a pilgrimage to St. Peter's tomb, to which he had bound himself, was commuted by the pope into the rebuilding at Westminster of St. Peter's abbey, the dedication of which took place but a week before his death, and in which he was buried. St. Edward was the first King of England to touch for the "king's evil", many sufferers from the disease were cured by him. He was canonized by Alexander III in 1161. His feast is kept on the 13th of October, his incorrupt body having been solemnly translated on that day in 1163 by St. Thomas of Canterbury in the presence of King Henry II.
Phillips, George. "St. Edward the Confessor." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 14 Oct. 2015 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05322a.htm>.
St. Edward the Confessor
SOURCE : http://www.ucatholic.com/saints/saint-edward-the-confessor/
SOURCE : http://www.saintpatrickdc.org/ss/1013.shtml
October 13
St. Edward, King and Confessor
From William of Malmesbury, (de Reg. Angl. 2, c. 13,)
whom Sir H. Saville calls the best historian of our nation, and who wrote in
1140; Matthew of Westminster, or whoever compiled the Flores Hist. Angl. from
Matthew Paris, &c.; the life of St. Edward, C. written by St. Aëlred, abbot
of Rieval, who died in 1166, of which work the most complete and accurate
edition is that of Roger Twysden, (inter 10 Angl. Scriptores, Londini, an.
1652, t. 1, p. 370.) An accurate account of his death is given by Sulcard, a
monk of Westminster, in the reign of the Conqueror, who wrote, by order of his
abbot, Vitalis, a short history, (De Constructione Westmonasterii,) of which
two beautiful MS. copies were lent me from the Cotton Library, and the archives
of Westminster. See also Ingulphus, published by Gale, Brompton by Twysden,
Knyghton, ibid. Hoveden and Matt. Paris, ad an. 1066. Harpsfield, Sæc. xi. c.
3. Likewise the historians of Normandy, Odericus Vitalis in Hist. Normann.
Gulielmus Pictav. de Gestis Gul. Ducis, &c. The Letter of Innocent II. on
the Canoniz. of St. Edw. an. 1138, ap. Wilk. Conc. Br. t. 1, p. 419; the bull
of Alexander III. ibid. p. 434; that of Greg. IX. in 1227; and Rymer’s Fœdera,
t. 1, p. 297.
A.D. 1066.
GOD often gives bad princes in his wrath; but in a
good king he bestoweth a great public blessing on a nation. A wise king is
the upholding of his people. 1 As
the judge of the people is himself, so are his officers: and what manner of man
the ruler of the city is, such also are they that dwell therein. An unwise king
destroyeth his people; but through the prudence of them that are in authority,
the city shall be inhabited. 2 The
happiness of the reign of St. Edward the Confessor is itself a panegyric of his
virtue. This prince was son of King Ethelred II. who left by Elgiva, his first
wife, Edmund Ironside, who was his successor; and, by his second wife, Emma,
daughter to Richard I. and sister to Richard II. the third and fourth Dukes of
Normandy, he had Alfred and Edward. In his unhappy and weak reign, the Danes,
who from the time of King Athelstan had, for about sixty years, left this
island unmolested, committed in all parts of it most horrible ravages. To redeem
the country from these vexations, Ethelred engaged to pay them a tax, called
Danegelt, of forty thousand pounds a-year, which was raised at the rate of
twelve pence upon each hide of land, or as much as could be tilled with one
plough in a year. Swein or Sweno, King of the Danes, conquered all England soon
after, in 1015; but died the same year, leaving here his son Knute or Canute.
Ethelred, who had fled into Normandy, returned upon his death and recovered his
kingdom; but, dying in 1016, left Mercia and some other parts in the hands of
the Danes. Edmund Ironside, after several battles, came to an agreement, which
was concluded in the isle Alney, in the Severn, near Gloucester, by which he
consented to divide the kingdom with Canute, yielding up to him the kingdoms of
Mercia, Northumberland, and the East-Angles. Shortly after, he was
treacherously assassinated by the contrivance of Edric Strean, a Dane, Count of
Mercia, on whom he had bestowed the greatest favours, and by whom he had been
before often betrayed.
Canute took this opportunity to seize the whole
kingdom, and ordered the late king’s two infant sons, Edmund and Edward, to be
conveyed into Denmark, there to be privately made away with. The officer who
conducted them was moved to compassion, and carried them into Sweden, where the
king sent them to his cousin Solomon, king of Hungary. When they were grown up,
Solomon gave in marriage to Edmund one of his own daughters, and to Edward his
sister-in-law Agatha. Emma was retired with her two sons, Alfred and Edward,
into Normandy. Canute demanded her of her brother, Duke Richard, in marriage,
and his request was agreed to. But the two princes remained in Normandy, where
Richard II. was succeeded, 1026, by his son Richard III. He reigned only one
year, and by his death his brother Robert became duke of Normandy, who, at his
death left no other issue than a bastard, known afterwards by the name of William
the Conqueror. Canute reigned in England nineteen years, and was magnificent,
liberal, valiant, and religious, though no virtues could excuse his ambition.
Dying in 1036, he left Norway to his eldest son, Sweno, England to his son
Harold, and Denmark to his son Hardicanute, whom he had by Emma. The two Saxon
princes, Alfred and Edward, came over from Normandy to see their mother at
Winchester. Godwin, duke or general of West-Sex, who had been the chief
instrument in establishing Harold’s interest in that part of England, agreed
with the king that the two princes should be invited to court, in order to be
secretly made away with. Emma was startled at this message, which was sent to
them at Winchester, and was apprehensive of a snare; she therefore contrived to
send only Alfred, and, upon some pretences, to keep Edward with her. Godwin met
Alfred at Guilford, where the young prince was seized, put first into the
castle, and thence conducted to Ely, where his eyes were pulled out: he was
shut up in a monastery, and died a few days after. Edward made haste back into
Normandy, and Emma retired to the Count of Flanders, and lived at Bruges. King
Harold dying in winter, 1039, her son Hardicanute landed in England with forty
Danish ships, and was acknowledged king. Prince Edward came from Normandy, and
was received by him with honour. At his request Count Godwin was brought to his
trial for the murder of Prince Alfred; but was acquitted upon his making oath
that he was not privy to his death. Hardicanute, an unworthy prince, died
suddenly at the marriage entertainment of a certain Dane at Lambeth, in the
third year of his reign, 1041. Sweno, another son of Canutus, was still living,
and king of Norway; but the oppressions which the English had groaned under for
many years, inspired them with a vigorous resolution of restoring the crown to
their own princes. The calamities of the most furious war, and the want of
power to make any resistance, had obliged them to bear the Danish
yoke forty-four years. But they were harassed beyond expression under three or
rather four Danish kings (including Sweno) with continual cruel exactions; and
so great was the tyranny of these masters, that if any Englishman met any Dane
upon a bridge, he durst not go over it till the Dane had passed first; and
whoever did not respectfully salute a Dane on the road, was severely punished
on the spot. On the other side, the virtues of Prince Edward silenced even the
enemies of his family, and the voice of the whole kingdom was unanimous in demanding
that he should be placed upon the throne of his ancestors. Leofric, earl of
Mercia, Siward, earl of Northumberland, and Godwin, earl of Kent and governor
of the whole kingdom of West-Sex, were the leading men in this resolution, and
were the most powerful persons in the nation. 3
St. Edward was nursed in the wholesome school of
adversity, the mistress of all virtues to those who make a right use of it. The
heart of the young prince seemed almost naturally weaned from the world by an
early feeling experience of its falsehood, deceitfulness, and miseries. This
also led him to seek comfort in the only true channel; which is virtue and the
divine love. Though educated in the palace of the Duke of Normandy, he was
always an enemy to vanity, pleasure, and pride; so diligently did he fortify
his mind against the contagion of a court in which these vices reigned. The
arms by which he triumphed over them were, at the same time, the means by which
he grounded his heart in the rooted habits of the contrary virtues. From his
infancy it was his delight to pray much, to assist as often as possible at the
divine sacrifice of the altar, to visit churches and monasteries, and converse
with the most holy and perfect among the servants of God. He was modest in his
comportment, and sparing in his words; not out of ignorance or slowness of
parts, for all historians assure us, that in wisdom and gravity he much
surpassed his years; but out of sincere humility, love of recollection, and just
apprehension of the snares and dangers of too great forwardness and volubility
of speech. His character from his youth was the aggregate of all Christian and
moral virtues; but that which particularly distinguished him was an
incomparable mildness and sweetness of temper; the fruit of the
most sincere humility, and tender universal charity. By this test of genuine
virtue, and mark of the spirit of our divine Redeemer, it manifestly appeared
how perfectly the saint was dead to himself. Ambition could find no place in a
heart crucified to the world, and to all the false interests of the passions.
He had learned in the school of Christ how empty, how false all worldly honours
are, how heavy their burden is, and how grievous the charge that attends them.
If, where a person has no other aim in them but what is directed to the honour
of God, and the utility of others, they may be lawful and holy; it is a certain
principle in morality that it is a most fatal and criminal passion for a person
to rest in them, or to love them for themselves, or to seek or please himself
in them. A man must be grounded in perfect humility, and has need of an
extraordinary strength and grace to bear the weight of honour, and not suffer
his heart to cleave to it. The height of dignity exposes souls to great
dangers, as the highest trees are assailed by the greatest storms. So that a
much greater virtue is required to command than to obey; and a Christian ought
to learn from the example which Christ has set us, that it is often the safest
way to endeavour to fly such posts; and that no one ought to receive a place of
honour, without being well assured that it is the will of God that calls him to
it, and without being resolved to live upon that pinnacle always in fear and
trembling, by having constantly the weight of his obligations, and the fear of
the divine judgments before his eyes. Those who open a door to any secret
ambition in their hearts, are justly abandoned by God, who says of them: The
kings have reigned, but not by me: they have been princes, and I knew it not. 4 St.
Edward was called to the crown by the right door, and placed by God on the
throne of his ancestors, and had no views but to the advancement of the divine
honour, and to the comfort and relief of a distressed people. So far was he
from the least spark of ambition, that he declared he would by no means accept
the greatest monarchy, if it were to cost the blood of a single man. The very
enemies of the royal family rejoiced to see Edward seated on the throne. All
were most desirous, after so much tyranny, wars, and bloodshed, to have a saint
for king, in whom piety, justice, universal benevolence, and goodness would
reign, and direct all public councils. With the incredible joy of the whole
kingdom he was anointed and crowned on Easter day in 1042, being about forty
years old.
Though he ascended the throne in the most difficult
times of distraction and commotions, both foreign and domestic, and by his
piety and simplicity might seem fitter for a cloister than such a crown, yet
never was any reign more happy. The very Danes that were settled in England,
loved, respected, and feared his name; and to him it was owing, that though
they had looked upon England as their own by a pretended right of conquest, and
though they were so numerous as to be able to hold the whole nation in the most
barbarous subjection for forty years past, and filled the kingdoms of
Northumberland, Mercia, and the East-Angles with their colonies, yet they made
not the least opposition or disturbance, and from that time were never more
mentioned in England. It is certain, from the silence of all our historians,
that no massacre was made of them by the English in the reign of St. Edward, as
Pontanus, the Danish historian pretends. Such an attempt could not but have
been as dangerous as it would have been barbarous and unjust, and must have
made a much greater noise than that which happened under Ethelred II. when
their power and numbers were much less. Nor is it to be doubted but, mingling
with the English, they became incorporated with them; except some who might,
from time to time, return into their own country. Sweno, king of Norway, son of
Canute the Great, equipped a fleet to invade England. Edward put his kingdom in
a good posture to repulse him, and sent Gulinda, a niece of Canute’s, into
Denmark, lest, by staying in England, she might favour the invasion. In the
mean time another Sweno, king of Denmark, made an irruption into Norway, which
obliged the Norwegian to lay aside his expedition against England; and he was
soon after dethroned by Magnus, the son of Olaus the Martyr, whom Canute the
Great had stripped of Norway. In 1046, certain Danish pirates, in twenty-five
vessels, landed first at Sandwich, then on the coasts of Essex; but the
vigilance of Godwin, Leofric, and Siward obliged them to leave this island in
peace; nor did they ever return again. This happened a little above two hundred
years after their first invasion, in the reign of Egbert, about the year 830. 5
The only war the saint ever undertook was to restore
Malcolm, king of Scotland, to which a glorious victory immediately put an end;
and we have seen that the only attempt which was ever formed against him by the
Danes failed of itself. At home Earl Godwin, and some other ambitious spirits,
complained he kept several Normans, whom he had brought over with him, about
his person. But the holy king with great prudence brought them to reason, or
obliged them to leave his dominions for a time, without bloodshed; so that the
little clouds which began to gather in his time, were immediately scattered
without embroiling the state. A sensible proof how formidable the affection of
a whole people renders a prince, and how great a happiness it is to a nation
when a king who is truly the father of his subjects, reigns in their hearts.
The example of St. Edward’s virtues had a powerful influence over many that
were about his person in teaching them to curb their passions. It is frequently
the ambition of sovereigns which awakens that of their subjects; and a love of
riches sharpens a violent love of vanity and luxury, and produces pride, which
passions break forth in various vices, which weaken, undermine, and destroy a
state. No prince ever gave stronger or more constant proofs than St. Edward of
a heart entirely free from that canker. He seemed to have no other desire than
to see his people happy, and to ease their burdens; and no prince seems ever to
have surpassed him in his compassion for the necessities of others. Having no
inordinate passions to feed, he knew no other use of money than to answer the
obligations of justice, to recompense the services of those that deserved well
of the state, and to extend his liberality to monasteries and churches, and,
above all, to the poor. He delighted much in religious foundations, by which
the divine service and praises might be perpetuated on earth to the end of
time; but he would never think of plundering his people to raise these public structures,
or to satisfy his profuse alms. His own royal patrimony sufficed for all. At
that time kings had their estates; taxes were not raised except in time of war
or on other extraordinary emergencies. 6 St.
Edward never found himself under any necessity of having recourse to such
burdensome methods. He remitted the Danegelt, which in his father’s time had
been paid to the Danish fleet, and had been ever after paid into the royal
exchequer. On a certain occasion the lords of the kingdom understanding that
the king’s exchequer had been exhausted by his excessive alms, raised upon
their vassals a large sum, unknown to him, and one Christmas begged his majesty
to accept that free present of his grateful subjects to clothe his soldiers,
and defray other public expenses. St. Edward, surprised to see such a heap of
money gathered into his exchequer, returned his thanks to his affectionate
subjects, but expressed a great abhorrence of what he called a pillaging of the
poor, and commanded that it should be returned every farthing to those that had
given it. His great alms and actions of pious liberality showed what the sole
retrenching of luxury and superfluity may do. His whole deportment showed how
much he was master of himself. He was never morose, never appeared transported
with anger, puffed up with vanity, or fond of pleasure. His conversation was
agreeable, and accompanied with a certain majesty; and he delighted much to
speak of God and spiritual things.
St. Edward had conceived from his youth the greatest
esteem and love for the precious treasure of purity, and preserved this virtue
both in mind and body without stain. St. Aëlred testifies, that, in his youth,
through the warmth of his constitution, the subtle artifices of the devil, and
the liberties of a court in which he lived a stranger, he sustained violent
assaults; but resisted this enemy so manfully, that in all his battles he was
gloriously triumphant. Humility, a life of prayer and mortification, a diligent
flight of all dangerous occasions, and the practice of all manner of good works
were the weapons by which he diligently armed himself against these
temptations. Bearing always in mind that, A man’s enemies are those of his
own household, he chastised his body by an abstemious life in the midst of
dainties; for to pamper it on such occasions is as if, when a house is on fire,
a man should throw dry wood on the flames. He watched all the avenues of his
soul, keeping his eyes and his other senses under the strictest restraint, and
an habitual government, that they should never steal any unguarded glances or
other dangerous liberties; and he shunned all superfluous converse with persons
of the other sex, from which at least the secret corners of the heart contract
something which impairs that perfection of purity, by which the affections are
entirely shut up against all creatures, and rendered fit to invite the embraces
of the heavenly spouse. His triumph seemed, by rooted victorious habits both of
purity and of humility, and those other virtues by which it is preserved, to be
become easy and secure, when, being placed on the throne, he was entreated both
by his nobility and people to take a royal consort. Earl Godwin, whose
immoderate power and wealth seemed to raise him above the level of his
fellow-subjects, moved every engine to make the choice fall upon his daughter
Edgitha, a lady totally unlike her father, being most remarkably virtuous and
abstemious; for beauty, understanding, and all accomplishments, she was the
miracle of her sex. Edward seeing that reading, studying, and devotion were her
whole delight, hoped she would be easily engaged to become his wife upon
condition always to live in holy virginity, in imitation of the mother of God
and St. Joseph; it not being in his power otherwise to marry, he having long
ago consecrated himself to God by a vow of perpetual chastity, as St. Aëlred
assures us. The good king earnestly recommended the matter to God, joining much
fasting and almsdeeds to devout prayer, before he disclosed his purpose to the
virgin. She readily assented to his religious desire, so that, being joined
together in holy wedlock, they always lived as brother and sister, and their
example was afterwards imitated by St. Henry and St. Elzear. To ascribe this
resolution of St. Edward to an aversion to earl Godwin, is a slander repugnant
to the original writers of St. Edward’s history, and to the character of his
virtue, with which so strange a resentment, and so unjust a treatment of a
virtuous lady whom he had made his queen, would have been very inconsistent.
Godwin was the richest and greatest subject in the realm; Canute had made him
general of his army, and earl of Kent, and had given him in marriage, not his
sister, as Tyrrel and some others mistake, but his sister-in-law, or the sister
of count Ulpho, his brother-in-law, as Pontanus calls her. He was afterwards
high-treasurer, and duke of West-Sex, that is, general of the army in all the
provinces that lay south of Mercia, then called West-Sex. That part of his
estate in Kent which was overflowed by the sea, retains from him the name of
Godwin sands. An unbounded ambition made him often trample on the most sacred
laws, divine and human. Swein, his youngest son, being convicted of having
offered violence to a nun, was banished by St. Edward into Denmark, but
pardoned some years after. Godwin, for repeated disobedience and treasons, was
himself outlawed, unless he appeared according to a summons sent him before the
king at Gloucester, who had assembled there an army under the earls Leofric and
Siward. Godwin refused to stand his trial, and returning from Flanders, whither
he had first fled, marched with an armed force towards the king. But Edward,
whose army was much superior in strength, through the mediation of certain
friends, pardoned him in 1053, and restored him to his estates and dignity.
During the rebellion of Godwin it was judged necessary that the queen his
daughter should be confined in the nunnery of Warewell, lest her dignity might
be made use of to encourage or give countenance to the vassals and friends of
the earl. 7 Notwithstanding
this precaution of state prudence, from the regard which St. Edward showed to
his queen even after the death of earl Godwin, and when the king lay at the
point of death, it is evident that they had for each other the most affectionate
and sincere esteem, and tender chaste love.
Many actions of kings, in public trials and certain
affairs of state, are rather the actions of their counsel than their own. This
is sometimes necessary that no room be left to suspect that scandalous public
crimes are by an unjust connivance passed over with impunity, or that any
essential part of the duties and protection which a prince owes his people, is
neglected. This accounts, in some measure, for the good king’s behaviour
towards his mother, in the famous trial which she underwent. The fact is
related by Brompton, 8 Knyghton, 9 Harpsfield,
and others, though no mention is made of it by Ingulphus or any others who
lived nearest the time. Certain wicked men who desired to engross alone the
confidence of the king, and the entire administration of the government, set
their wits to work to invent some wicked plot for ruining the queen-mother in
the opinion of the king. Ambition puts on every shape to obtain its ends, and
often suffers more for the devil than would gain a high crown in heaven. These
courtiers could play the hypocrites, and had no hopes of surprising the
religious king but under some pretence of piety. Queen Emma often saw Alwin,
the pious bishop of Winchester, by whose advice she governed her conscience.
She was therefore accused of having had criminal conversation with him. Her
chastity must have been very perfect and very wary, that calumny itself could
find no other but so holy a man to fasten upon. Robert, archbishop of
Canterbury, formerly abbot of Jumiege, whom Edward had brought over with him
from Normandy, was drawn into a persuasion of her guilt. Her enemies loaded
her, moreover, with invectives and accusations for having consented, not only
to marry Canute, the enemy of her former husband’s family, but also to have
favoured Hardicanute, to the prejudice of the right of her children by her
first husband, and of the whole Saxon line, to whose exclusion from all share
in the kingdom she consented in the articles of this second marriage, agreeing
that the crown of all England should be settled on her issue by Canute; though
Canute himself altered this settlement by will, so far as to leave only Denmark
to Hardicanute, and England to Harold, whom he had by a former wife or
concubine: for he looked upon his possession of England as founded in the right
of conquest. The law of nations allows this to give a title when it is in
itself just, or the fruit of a just and necessary war, which a prince
undertakes after all other ways of doing justice to his people and crown had
been tried and failed, and which he always carried on in the dispositions of
peace the moment he could obtain the just rights he was obliged to pursue by
that violent method. But Canute’s possession, especially of West-Sex, (under
which name was then comprised also Sussex and whatever lying on the south side
of the Thames was, by Canute’s partition, left to the English Saxons) was an
unjust usurpation; and, for Emma voluntarily to concur to the exclusion of the
rightful heirs, was an inexcusable and unnatural step, for which only her
repentance could atone. To this charge, however, Edward seemed altogether
insensible; and perhaps never was any man more remarkably so, even toward
strangers, with regard to private or personal injuries. The accusation of sacrilege
and incontinency disturbed him, and filled him with horror and grief beyond
measure, being, on the one side, unwilling to believe so atrocious a crime,
and, on the other, afraid of conniving at such a scandal. He therefore suffered
the bishops to take cognizance of the cause in an assembly which they held at
Winchester; and, in the mean time, the bishop was confined in that city, and
Emma in the royal nunnery of Warewell in Hampshire. In the synod several
bishops wished, to the king’s great satisfaction, that the cause might be
dropped: but the archbishop of Canterbury insisted so warmly on the enormity of
the scandal, and the necessity and obligation of penance and a public
reparation, that the synod was worked up to the severest resolutions. The injured
queen could only have recourse to God, like another Susanna, against the malice
of her perjured accusers, and, in proof of her innocence, trusting in him who
is the protector of the oppressed, offered herself to the trial of Ordeal. 10 Accordingly,
after the night had been spent in imploring the divine protection through the
intercession of St. Swithin, Queen Emma walked blindfold and barefoot over nine
red-hot ploughshares, laid in St. Swithin’s church in Winchester, without
receiving the least hurt, so that when she was gone over them she asked how far
she was from her purgation? Upon which her eyes were uncovered, and looking
behind her upon the ploughshares which she had passed over, she burst into
praises of God for her wonderful deliverance. 11 The
king, who, anxious for the event, had not ceased all this while earnestly to
recommend it to God, seeing this testimony of heaven in favour of the innocence
of his dear mother, full of gratitude to her deliverer, cast himself at her
feet, begged pardon for his fault of credulity, and in satisfaction received
the discipline from two bishops who were present. In acknowledgment for this
miraculous favour he bestowed on the church of St. Swithin at Winchester, the
isle of Portland and three manors: queen Emma gave to it nine manors, and
bishop Alwyn nine others according to the number of ploughshares, which were
kept as a memorial in that monastery. The archbishop Robert returned to
Normandy, and retired to his monastery of Jumiege, after having, first, in
penance, performed a pilgrimage to St. Peter’s tomb at Rome. The king commanded
all his mother’s goods and estates which had been seized, to be restored to
her. She afterwards died at Winchester in 1052.
The following year was remarkable for the death of
Earl Godwin, who fell down dead whilst he was at supper with the king at
Winchester, 12 or,
according to Brompton, 13 at
Windsor, in 1053. Ralph of Disse, Brompton, and others say, that, thinking the
king still harboured a suspicion of his having been the contriver of his
brother Alfred’s death, he wished that if he was guilty he might never swallow
a morsel of meat which he was putting into his mouth; and that he was choked
with it. This circumstance, however, is not mentioned by Ingulf, who wrote soon
after. Harold succeeded his father Godwin in the earldom of Kent, and in his
other dignities. 14 Griffith,
prince of South Wales, having made inroads into Herefordshire, the king ordered
Harold to curb him, which he executed. This Griffith some years after was taken
prisoner, and put to death by Griffith-ap-Shewelyn, King or Prince of North
Wales, who sent his head to Harold, and presents to King Edward, who was so
generous as to bestow the kingdom of the former which his troops had conquered,
on the late prince’s two brothers, Blechgent and Rithwalag, who swore
allegiance to Edward. 15 In
1058 the king suffered a great loss by the death of the pious and most valiant
Earl Siward. So great was this soldier’s passion for arms that in his agony he
regretted as a misfortune his dying on his bed like a cow, and calling for his
armour, expired as soon as he had it on. The year before, by the king’s orders,
he had led an army into Scotland, with which he discomfited the usurper
Macbeth, and restored Malcolm III. to the throne. In this war, upon receiving news
that his son was killed in the battle against Macbeth, he only asked whether he
was wounded before or behind, and being assured that he fell fighting
valiantly, and was wounded before, he comforted himself, saying, he wished not
a more glorious death for his son or himself. 16 It
is rare for so strong an inclination to arms to be under the influence and
direction of virtue; which, however, was the character of this brave soldier.
He was buried in the monastery of Saint Mary at York. 17 The
earldom of Northumberland was given first to Tosti, a son of the late Earl
Godwin; and he being soon after banished for his oppressions and crimes, to
Morkard, a grandson of Leofric, Earl of Mercia or Chester. The death of Siward
was followed by that of Leofric, who was the most prudent and religious
counsellor of St. Edward, being for his wisdom, the Nestor of his age, and by
his piety a perfect model of Christian perfection. His immense charities to the
poor, the great number of churches which he repaired or built, and the great
monastery which he founded at Coventry, were public monuments of his zeal and
beneficence, which virtues were proved genuine by his sincere humility and
devotion. The exemptions and privileges which his pious and charitable lady
Godiva obtained of him for the city of Coventry, have commended their memory to
the latest posterity in those parts. 18 In
the pious and wise counsels of this great man, St. Edward, who most frequently
resided at Islip, found his greatest comfort and support. His son Alfgar was
made Duke of Mercia, but fell short of his father’s reputation.
The laws framed by St. Edward were the fruit of his
wisdom, and that of his counsellors. Under the heptarchy King Ethelbert in 602,
and King Wihtred in 696, published laws, or dooms for the kingdom of Kent; Ina
in 693 for West-Sex, and Offa, about the year 790, for the Mercians. 19 After
the union of the heptarchy, from these former laws Alfred formed a new short
code in 877: Athelstan, Edmund, Edgar, and Ethelred did the like. Canute added
several new laws. Guthrun, the Danish king, who was baptized, and made an
alliance with King Alfred, published with him laws for the Danes who then ruled
the East-Angles and Northumbrians. Edward the Confessor reduced all these laws
into one body, with amendments and additions; which code from this time became
common to all England, under the name of Edward the Confessor’s Laws, by which
title they are distinguished from the posterior laws of the Norman kings; they
are still in force as part of the common law of England, unless in things
altered by later statutes: 20 they
consisted in short positive precepts, in which judges kept close to the words
of the law, being not reasoned away either by the judges or advocates, says Mr.
Gurdon. In them punishments were very mild; scarcely any crimes were capital,
and amercements and fines were certain, determined by the laws, not inflicted
at the will and pleasure of the judges. The public peace and tranquillity were
maintained, and every one’s private property secured; not by the rigour of the
laws, but by the severity and diligence with which they were executed, and
justice administered. Whence Mr. Gurdon says: 21 This
king’s religious and just administration was as much or more valued by the
people than the text of the laws.” It is the remark of the same ingenious
author in another place: 22 “Edward
the Confessor, that great and good legislator, reigned in the hearts of his
people. The love, harmony, and good agreement between him and the great council
of the nation, 23 produced
such a happiness as to be the measure of the people’s desires in all succeeding
reigns; the law and government of King Edward being petitioned for, and strenuously
contended for, by the English and Norman barons.” The saint’s historians
relate, as an instance of his extreme lenity and goodness, that as he seemed
one day asleep in his chamber, he saw a servant boy come twice and steal a
considerable quantity of money out of a great sum which Hugoline, the keeper of
his privy purse, had left exposed: and that when the boy came a third time, he
only bade him take care, for Hugoline was coming, who, if he caught him, would
have him severely whipped, and he would lose his booty. When Hugoline came in,
and burst into a rage for the loss, the king bade him be easy, for the person
who had taken the money wanted it more than they did. Some moderns censure this
action. But we must observe that the king, doubtless, took all care that the
thief should be made sensible of his sin, and did not imagine he would return
to the theft; also that he regarded it merely as a personal injury which he was
always ready to forgive; and that this single private instance of such a pardon
was not imprudent, or would have any influence on the administration of public
justice. Saints are always inclined to pardon personal injuries; and in these
cases easily persuade themselves that lenity may be used without offending
against prudence. No prince seems to have understood better than St. Edward
what he owed to the protection of his people, to the laws, and to public
justice; in administering which, he walked in the steps of the great King
Alfred, and proposed to himself as a model his severity in inspecting into the
conduct of his judges. William the Bastard, Duke of Normandy, came into
England, to pay a visit to the king his cousin in 1052, the year before
Godwin’s death. 24
St. Edward during his exile in Normandy had made a vow
to perform a pilgrimage to St. Peter’s tomb at Rome, if God should be pleased
ever to put an end to the misfortunes of his family. When he was settled on the
throne he began to prepare suitable gifts and offerings to make to the altar of
the apostle, and to put things in order for his journey. For this purpose he
held a great council, in which he declared his vow, and the obligation he lay
under of returning thanks in the best manner he was able to the divine
clemency, propounded the best methods to be taken for securing commerce and the
public peace, and affectionately commended all his dear subjects to the divine
mercy and protection. The whole assembly of the governors and chief men of the
provinces made strong expostulations against his design. They commended his
devotion, but with tears represented to him that the kingdom would be left
exposed to domestic divisions and to foreign enemies; and had already before
their eyes slaughters, civil wars, armies of fierce Danes, and every other
calamity. The king was moved by their entreaties and reasons, and consented
that the matter should be referred to Leo IX. who then sat in St. Peter’s
chair. Aëlred, Archbishop of York, and Herman, Bishop of Winchester, with two
abbots, were despatched to Rome on this errand.
The pope, considering the impossibility of the king’s
leaving his dominions exposed to such grievous dangers and calamities,
dispensed with his vow upon condition that, by way of commutation, he should
give to the poor the sum he would have expended in his journey, and should
moreover build or repair and endow a monastery in honour of St. Peter. King
Edward having received this brief, after due deliberation, pitched upon a spot
where to erect this royal abbey. Sebert, king of the East-Angles, nephew to St.
Ethelbert, upon his conversion, founded the cathedral of St. Paul’s in London,
and also, according to Sulcard, without the walls on the west of that city, a
monastery in honour of St. Peter, called Thorney, where a temple of Apollo is
said to have stood in the time of the Romans, and to have been thrown down by
an earthquake. But, from the silence of Bede, Mr. Widmore thinks this little
monastery was built something later, and by some private person. It is first
mentioned in a charter of King Offa, in 785. This monastery was called Thorney,
and being destroyed by the Danes, was restored by King Edgar. St. Edward,
invited by the situation and other circumstances, repaired and endowed the same
in a most magnificent manner out of his own patrimony, and obtained of Pope
Nicholas II. the most ample exemptions and privileges for it dated in 1059. 25 From
its situation it was called Westminster, and is famous for the coronation of
our kings, and the burial of great persons, and was, at the dissolution, the
richest abbey in England. William of Malmesbury, 26 St.
Aëlred, Brompton, and others relate, that St. Edward, whilst he resided in a
palace near this church, cured an Irishman named Gillemichel, who was entirely
a cripple, and was covered with running sores. The king carried him on his
back, and set him down sound, though Sulcard takes no notice of this miracle.
The same historians mention, that a certain woman had a swelling in her neck,
under her chin, full of corruption and exhaling a noisome smell. Being
admonished in a dream, she addressed herself to the king for his blessing. St.
Edward washed the ulcerous sore and blessed it with the sign of the cross;
after which the sore burst, and cleansed itself, and the patient was healed.
Malmesbury adds, that it was the constant report of such as well knew the life
of Edward, that he had healed many of the same disease whilst he lived in
Normandy. Hence was derived the custom of our kings touching for the cure of
that species of scrophulous tumour called the king’s-evil. Peter of Blois, in
1180, wrote in a letter from the court of Henry II. that the king had touched
persons in this manner. 27 In
the records of the Tower it appears, that in 1272, Edward I. gave gold medals
to those whom he had touched for this distemper, as Mr. Becket acknowledges.
Queen Elizabeth laid aside the sign of the cross in the ceremony, in which she
was imitated by the three succeeding kings, though they all continued the
practice; and Charles I. in 1650, by a pompous proclamation, invited all who
stood in need of it, to repair to him, that they might be made partakers of the
heavenly gift. 28King
Edward resided sometimes at Winchester, sometimes at Windsor or at London; but
most ordinarily at Islip, in Oxfordshire, where he was born. 29 Formerly
noblemen lived on their estates amidst their tenants and vassals, and only
repaired to court on certain great festivals, or when called by the king upon
extraordinary occasions. Christmas being one of the chief feasts on which the
nobility waited on the king, St. Edward, when the buildings were finished,
chose that solemnity for the dedication of the new church at Westminster. The
ceremony was performed with great devotion and the utmost pomp, the bishop and
nobility of the whole kingdom assisting thereat, as Sulcard testifies. The king
signed the charter of the foundation, and of the immunities and privileges
granted to this church, to which were annexed the most dreadful spiritual
comminations against those who should ever presume to infringe the same. 30 Next
to the prince of the apostles this holy king had a singular devotion to St.
John Evangelist, the great model of holy purity and divine charity; and it is
related in his life, that he was forewarned by that glorious Evangelist of his
approaching dissolution, in recompense of his religious devotion, in never
refusing any just and reasonable request that was made him for the sake, or in
the name of that saint. The pious king, by his munificent foundation hoped to
erect a standing monument of his zeal for the divine honour, and of his
devotion to the holy apostle St. Peter, and to establish a seminary of
terrestrial angels, by whom a perpetual holocaust of divine praise and love
might be paid to God with chaste affections disengaged from the world, and all
earthly things, for all succeeding ages, when he should be no longer on earth
to praise God here himself: also by the fervour of many pious servants of God
he desired to supply the defects and imperfection of his own devotion in the
divine love and service. At the same time he renewed with the utmost fervour
the entire oblation, which he had never failed all his life continually to make
of his heart, and of all that he had or was to the divine glory, begging he
might be made, through the divine mercy, an eternal sacrifice of love. In these
dispositions, he sung with holy Simeon: Lord, now lettest thou thy servant
depart in peace. Being taken ill before the ceremony of the dedication was
over, he hastened the same and continued to assist at it to the end. He then
betook himself to his bed, and by the most perfect exercises of devotion and
the sacraments of the church, prepared himself for his passage to eternity. In
his last moments, seeing his nobles all bathed in tears round his bed, and his
affectionate and virtuous queen sobbing more vehemently and weeping more
bitterly than the rest, he said to her with great tenderness: “Weep not, my
dear daughter; I shall not die, but shall live. Departing from the land of the
dying, I hope to see the good things of the Lord in the land of the living.” 31 Commending
her to her brother Harold, and certain other lords, he declared he left her an
untouched virgin. 32 He
calmly expired on the 5th of January, in 1066, having reigned twenty-three
years, six months, and twenty-seven days, in the sixty-fourth year of his age.
Never was king more sincerely or more justly regretted by his subjects; and to
see the happiness of the good Confessor’s reign revived, was the constant and
highest object of all the temporal wishes of their posterity for many
succeeding ages. William the Conqueror, who ascended the throne in October the
same year St. Edward died, caused his coffin to be enclosed in a rich case of
gold and silver. His queen Edgitha survived the saint many years. Ingulf, a
learned Norman monk, whom the Conqueror made abbot of Croyland, and who was
intimately acquainted with her, very much extols her learning, humility, invincible
meekness, and extensive goodness towards all ranks. 33 All
our historians give her the same great and amiable character. Whence Speed
calls her a lady of incomparable piety. When she lay on her death-bed, she
assured upon oath many that were present, that she had lived with the king
Edward only as sister, and died a maid. 34 By
the Conqueror’s order she was buried by St. Edward, and her coffin was covered
with plates of silver and gold. 35 In
1102, the body of St. Edward was found entire, the limbs flexible, and the
clothes fresh. Soon after a certain Norman, whose name was Ralph, and who was
an entire cripple, recovered the use of his limbs by praying at his tomb, and
six blind men were restored in like manner to their sight; which miracles, with
some others, being duly proved, the saint was canonized by Alexander III. in
1161, 36 and
his festival began to be kept on the 5th of January. Two years after, a solemn
translation of his body (which was found incorrupt, and in the same condition
as formerly) was performed by St. Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury, in presence
of King Henry II. and many persons of distinction on the 13th of October; on
which day his principal festival is now kept. The national council of Oxford,
1222, commanded his feast to be kept in England a holyday. Out of respect to
the memory of St. Edward, the kings of England to this day, at their
coronation, receive his crown, and put on his dalmatic and maniple, as a part
of the royal robes, though even the crown has been since changed, and now only
bears St. Edward’s name, being made in imitation of his. 37
St. Edward was a saint in the midst of a court, and in
a degenerate age. Such an example must convince us, that for any to impute
their want of a Christian spirit and virtue to the circumstances of their state
or situation, is a false and foolish pretence: a proof of which is, that if
these were changed, they would still remain the same persons. The fault lies
altogether in their own sloth and passions. One who is truly in earnest, makes
dangers and difficulties a motive of greater vigilance, application, and
fervour, and even converts them into the means of his greater sanctification.
Temperance and mortification may be practised, the spirit of true devotion
acquired, and all virtues exercised by the divine grace, even in an heroic
degree, where a desire and resolution does not fall short. From obstacles and
contradictions themselves the greatest advantages may be reaped: by them
patience, meekness, humility, and charity are perfected, and the soul is
continually awaked, and quickened, into a lively sense of her duty to God.
Note
2. Ecclus. x. 2, 3. [back]
Note
3. Edward, the son of Edmund Ironside, nephew to St. Edward the
Confessor, was the next heir of the Saxon line; whence some modern English
condemn the accession of the Confessor, who certainly could derive no right
from the unjust Danish conquest, as Bedford, or whoever was the author of the
book entitled Hereditary Rights, &c., pretends. But it is evident from Mr.
Earberry (Occasional Historian, n. 4,) that during the reign of the English
Saxons, when the next heir was esteemed by the states unfit in dangerous or
difficult times, the king’s thanes advanced another son or brother of the
deceased king, so as never to take one that was not of his family. Often, if
the heir was a minor, an uncle was made king; and, upon the uncle’s death,
though he left issue, the crown reverted to the former heir, or his children,
as the very inspection of a table of their succession shows. (See Mr. Squire’s
Diss. on the English Saxon Government, an. 1753.) Cerdic, founder of the
kingdom of the West-Saxons, in 495, from whom the Confessor descended, was the
tenth from Woden, according to the Saxon Chronicle, published by Bishop Gibson,
from an original copy which formerly belonged to the abbey of Peterborough, was
given by Archbishop Laud to the Bodleian library at Oxford, and is more correct
than the copies in the Cotton library, and at Cambridge, made use of by Wheloc.
This most valuable chronicle derives also the pedigrees of Hengist and his
successors in Kent, and of the kings of Mercia and Northumberland, from
Woden, whom Bede calls the father of the royal Saxon
lineage in England, or of the chief kings in the heptarchy; he must have
preceded the reign of Dioclesian. Some take him to have been the great god of
this name honoured by the Saxons; others a mighty king who bore the name of
that false god. That the regal succession in the heptarchy was hereditary, and
when interrupted, again restored, is manifest from the above chronicle. The
Norman carried so high his claim of conquest, as to set himself above all
established laws and rights, and to exclude his son Robert from the crown; but
the succession was deemed hereditary, after Stephen at least. The unanimous
sense and approbation of the whole nation, and of all foreign states, in the
succession of St. Edward, demonstrates the legality of the proceedings by which
he was called to the crown; which no one, either at home or abroad, ever
thought of calling in question; so clear was the law or custom in that case.
The posture of affairs then required that the throne should be immediately
filled before a Dane should step into it. Edward Atheling was absent at a great
distance, and unequal to the difficulties of the state; nor could matters be
brought to bear that his arrival could be waited for. St. Edward afterwards
sent for him with his whole family, in 1054, and treated him as his heir; and
after that prince’s death, behaved towards his son Edgar in the same manner,
who was also styled by him Atheling or Adeling. The Greek title Clyto, or
Illustrious, given to the prince royal by our ancestors, was by them changed
into the Saxon word Atheling, from Adel, Noble, the termination ing signified
a person’s descent, as Malmesbury takes notice. (l. 1, de Reg. c. 3.) Thus
Edgaring was the son of Edgar; and in France, Meroving and Carloving, son
of Meroveus and Charles.
The spelling of our saint’s name was altered upon his
accession to the throne; till that time it is constantly spelled in the Saxon
Chronicle Eadward, even two years before; but in 1042, Edward, which is
observable also in his coins; though Eadmund and Eadward are found in later
MSS. This is one of the arguments by which Bishop Gibson (pref.) shows this
chronicle to have been one of the public registers which were written by
persons deputed to record all transactions of the times, and preserved in the
royal monasteries, as the Scoti-chronicon informs us. The Saxon Chronicle ends
in 1154. On it see Nicolson’s English Historical Library, p. 114. [back]
Note 5. For this deliverance from the Danes the festival of Hoctide or Houghtide, is thought to have formerly been kept in England as a day of rejoicing on the 8th of June, or on the Wednesday on which Hardicanute died. It was celebrated with dancing and drawing cords across the highway, to stop people till they paid some money. See John Rouse, De Regibus Angliæ ed. Hearne. [back]
Note
6. Impositions of taxes were made regular in the reigns of Edward III.
in England, and Philip of Valois in France. See in the ingenious History of
Taxes the gradual progress that has been made in them. The great estates of the
crown have been, for the greatest part, alienated. [back]
Note
7. From this circumstance some moderns falsely pretend that the king
had an aversion to his queen. Whereas the historians who wrote nearest that
time, assure us that he always treated her as queen, and with the highest
regard and tenderness, no way imputing to her the crimes of her father. This
short removal of her person from court was an action of state prudence, the
circumstances of which cannot be known at this distance of time; nor can we
judge better of it than from the known characters of those who were the authors
of it. No sooner was her father pardoned but she was recalled to court, and all
respect shown her, as formerly. Had there been any coldness between her and the
king he would have certainly treated her otherwise. He pardoned the father
perhaps as much on her account as out of motives of clemency. Leofric and
Siward were an overmatch for Godwin in power, and the weakness of his efforts
in this rebellion shows his attempt to have been no less rash than wicked, in
which his own vassals would probably have forsaken him. Leofric and Siward were
both persons eminent for virtue and prudence, the former, one of the wisest,
most munificent, and religious statesmen, the latter, one of the bravest and
most experienced soldiers this island ever produced. When Swein or Sueno,
Godwin’s son, had offered violence to a nun in 1046, the father’s power was not
sufficient to protect him; though, after he had been long an exile in Denmark,
the father being supported by the joint supplications of Leofric and others
that were at the head of affairs, obtained his pardon. But, for a murder of
Count Beorn, his kinsman, he was afterwards obliged to go on a pilgrimage to
Jerusalem, and from Milan thither barefoot. He died in Lycia on his
return, in 1052. [back]
Note
8. Chron. inter 10 Scriptor. [back]
Note 9. De Eventibus Angliæ, ib. t. 2, p. 2329. [back]
Note 10. Ordeal is derived from the Saxon Or, Great, and Deal, Judgment. (See John Stiernhook, l, 1, de Jure Sueonum Vetusto, c. 8; Hicks, Dissertatio Epistol. p. 149; also Spelman and Du Cange’s Glossaries, both in the new edit.) This trial was instituted to come at the truth of facts not sufficiently proved. First, the person accused purged himself by oath, if the judge and accuser admitted him to oath, and thought this satisfactory; sometimes this oath was confirmed by twelve others called Compurgators, who swore they believed it true. In trials where the oath was not admitted, the great purgation was ordered: this was of three sorts: the first, by red-hot iron (which the person accused held in his hand or walked over barefoot); the second by boiling water, into which a person dipped his hand as far as the wrist or elbow to take out a stone; the third, by cold water, or swimming persons, which practice was chiefly used in pretending to discover wizards and witches; and whereas it was originally employed only by judges, it became in the reigns of James I. and the two Charles’s, in frequent use among the common people. (See the notes on Hudibras, and Hutcheson against Witchcraft.) By the MS. history of miracles performed at the shrine of St. Thomas of Canterbury, written in the reign of Henry II. it appears that the king’s foresters and other officers and country judges, at that time frequently made use of this trial of water in examining criminals. On the prayers, fasts, &c. that preceded and accompanied the administration of Ordeal trials, see various forms transcribed from Textus Roffens, in the end of the Fasciculus Rerum, published by Mr. Brown. Such trials are allowed by the laws of King Edgar, c. 24, 62, and his successors to the end of the Conqueror’s reign; though Agobard, the learned archbishop of Lyons, who died in 840, and is honoured at Lyons among the saints on the 6th of June, wrote a book Against the Judgments of God, wherein he proves such trials to be tempting God, and contrary to his law, and to the precepts of charity. See his works published by Baluze. (t. 1, p. 301.) These trials were condemned by the council of Worms in 829. See on them Baluze, (Capitul. Regum Franc. t. 2, pp. 639, 654; Goldast. Constit. Imper. t. 2, p. 301,) and chiefly Dom Bernard Pez. (Anecdotorum Thesaurus Novus, Augustæ Vindelic, an. 1721, t. 2, part 2, pp. 635, 648.) Alexander II. formerly the Conqueror’s own ghostly father, absolutely forbade them by a decree extant. (Causa 2, quæst. 5, c. 7.) A council at Mentz, in 847, having enjoined the ordeal of plough-shares to suspected servants, Pope Stephen V. condemned it in an epistle to the Bishop of Mentz. (Causa 2, quæst. 5, c. 20.) All such trials were before condemned by St. Gregory the Great. (Cap. Mennam. c. 2, qu. 5.) Such practices, for which there is no warrant of a divine institution, or promise of a supernatural interposition, are superstitious and tempting God. They sprung up among the northern nations, but were condemned by the see of Rome whenever any notice of them reached it. The first legal prohibition of Ordeal, mentioned by Sir H. Spelman in England, is in a letter from King Henry III. to his justices itinerant in the north, in the third year of his reign: some great lawyers say it was suppressed by act of parliament that year. (See Johnson’s English Canons, an. 1065.) A purgation by oath was called in law Legal Purgation; that of Ordeal Vulgar Purgation. (See Gonzales in Decretales.) Where these trials prevailed by the sanction of certain particular bishops, examples are recorded of God favouring the simplicity and piety of some persons with a miraculous protection of the innocent. Of this, amongst others, a remarkable instance is recorded in the monk Peter, surnamed Igneus, at Florence, in 1067. See Macquer, Fleury, &c. l. 61, n. 27, p. 183, t. 13.)
Purgations by single combats of the accuser and the
accused person were instituted by the Burgundians, introduced in England by the
Conqueror, and continued later than Henry III. though always condemned at
Rome. See Gerdil. Tr. des Combats Singuliers, c. 11, 71. 167. [back]
Note
11. Brompton, Knyghton, Tho. Rudborne, &c. See Harpsfield, Parker,
in vit. Roberti archiep. Alford ad an. 1047. [back]
Note
12. Ralph of Disse, in chron. p. 476, &c. [back]
Note 14. Such dignities were at that time titles of high offices and governments. The Roman emperors had in their courts, besides several great officers of the state, certain select noblemen who were called the Companions of the Emperor, Comites imperatoris. Suetonius mentions them as early as the reign of Tiberius. Constantine the Great, having formed the government of the empire upon a new model, gave to many officers of his court the title of Count, as the Count of the privy purse, of the stable, &c. also to many governors abroad, as the Count of the East. &c. Those who had the command of the armies in a certain country were called dukes or generals, as the Duke of Egypt. Pepin, Charlemagne, and all the other Carlovignian princes, gave these titles, though at first very rarely, to some whom they vested with a limited and dependent kind of sovereignty in some country. Thus Charlemagne created a duke of Bavaria. Feudatory laws were unknown to the world till framed by the Lombards in Italy, the first authors of feudatory lands and principalities. Pepin and Charlemagne began to introduce something of them in Germany and France, where they were afterwards exceedingly multiplied in the reigns of weak princes, and by various accidents. The emperor Otho I. instituted the title of count, duke, &c. which till then had denoted high posts of command and jurisdiction, to be frequently borne merely as badges of honour, and to be hereditary in illustrious families: which example was immediately copied in France and other kingdoms.
In England, the Saxon title and office of ealderman of
a country was changed in the ninth age into the Danish title of Earl: which
office was of its own nature merely civil; the military governor or general of
the army was called by the Saxons, Heartogh; which title is given to
Hengist, &c. in the Saxon Chronicle, and was afterwards exchanged for that
of duke. On these earls or viceroys sometimes a kind of limited sovereignty was
conferred. Such was bestowed by Alfred on his son-in-law Ethelred, Ealderman or
earl of Mercia, as William of Malmesbury testifies. A homage being reserved to
the king, these provinces were still regarded as members or districts of the
kingdom, though such earls were a kind of petty kings. Under our Norman kings
such sovereign earldoms or duchies were distinguished amongst us by the epithet
of Palatines.
The kings of France of the third race made several
governments hereditary under the title of Counties, &c. reserving to the
crown some homage or acknowledgment as for fiefs. The Normans introduced
hereditary titles of honour in England, substituting barons instead of king’s
thanes, who long held capital estates and vassalages in fee. Earls and dukes
frequently retained long after this some jurisdiction in the counties which
gave them their honours. I have had in my possession an original MS. ordinance
of John Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury, in which, by an act which is called
perpetual, he commands that every musician who shall play on any instrument
within the limits of his county of Salop, shall pay a small sum to a certain
chapel of our Lady, under pain of forfeiting their instruments, with other
ordinances of the like nature. This pious and excellent nobleman was killed at
Northampton fighting for Henry VI. in 1460, and was buried in St. Mary’s chapel
in the church of St. Cuthbert at Worksop, as is mentioned by Rob. Glover (in
Geneal. istorum Comitum) and Thoreton in his Nottinghamshire. See Selden, On
Titles of Honour, Op. vol. 2. Also, Janus Anglorum, On English Distinctions of
Honour, vol. 3, and Spelman’s Glossary, ed. noviss.
The title of Dominus appeared at first so insolent and
haughty that Augustus and Tiberius would not allow it to be given them.
Caligula first assumed it. Shortly after it was given, not only to emperors,
but likewise to all governors and courtiers. In France it was long given only
to kings; and the epithet of Senior to noblemen, equivalent to the English
Ealderman. From Dominus was derived Dam, which in France was long used only of
God and the king. At length it became common to all noblemen: but for some ages
has been reserved to the female sex. From Senior came Seigneur, Sieur, Sire,
and Messire. In the reigns of Lewis XII. and Francis I. in France Sire was a
vulgar title; whence our English Sir. Sire since that time has been
appropriated to the French kings. The Franks for many ages took no titles but
the names of their manors or residence, as of Herstal, &c. See Glatigny,
Œuvres Posthumes.—Discours sur les Titres d’Honneur. Paris, 1757. [back]
Note
15. See Echard’s Hist. of Engl. t. 1, p. 122, and Percy Enderbie’s
British and Welch History, p. 215. [back]
Note
16. Brompton in Chron. [back]
Note
18. See Brompton in Chron. and Dugdale’s Warwickshire by Lye. [back]
Note
19. See these laws extant in Sir H. Spelman’s Concilia Brit. in
Lambard, Saxon Leg. more correct in Wilkins, Conc. M. Britann. See also Hicks,
Diss. Epist. Wheloc, and Johnson’s Canons. [back]
Note
20. The laws of Edward the Confessor were with great solemnity
confirmed by William the Conqueror in the fourth year of his reign. (Conc. t.
9, p. 1020, 1024.) These are comprised in twenty-two articles. It appears by
the partiality shown to the Normans that certain clauses were added by him.
Ingulf, at the end of his history of Croyland, has inserted fifty other laws of
the Confessor, merely civil, which are published by Selden. (Not. in Eadmer,
Hist. Novor. p. 116, 123.) These were also ratified by the Conqueror, who, as
Eadmer testifies, (Hist. Novor. l. 1, p. 29,) afterwards introduced in England
many Norman laws, though they are not now to be distinguished from those of his
successors. Sir Thomas Craig, in his celebrated Jus Feudale, observes that the
principal statutes of the English law are borrowed from the usages of France,
and principally of Normandy. (See Journ. des Scav. 1716, p. 634.) The Conqueror
caused those of the Confessor to be translated into French, in which language
he would have causes pleaded. For the Normans were at that time become French
both by their language and manners.
The great survey of all the lands, castles, &c. in
England was made by the Conqueror in the eighteenth or twentieth year of his
reign, and two authentic copies drawn, one of which was lodged in the archives
at Westminster, the other at Winchester cathedral, as Tho. Rudborne informs us.
(Angl. sacra, t. 1, p. 259.) This register or survey, called by the English The
Red Book, or more frequently Dooms-day Book, often quotes the usages and survey
of Edward the Confessor, as appears from the curious and interesting extract of
English Saxon customs copied from this MS. by Mr. Gale. (Angl. Script. 15, t.
2, p. 759.) Alfred first made a general survey, but this only comprised Shires,
Hundreds, and Tenths or Tythings. The survey of the Confessor perhaps was of
this nature. That of the Conqueror was made with the utmost rigour and such
minute accuracy, that there was not a hyde of land, (about sixty-four acres)
the yearly revenue or rent whereof, and the name of the proprietors which were
not enregistered, with the meadows, arable land, forests, rivers, number of
cattle, and of the inhabitants in towns and villages, &c. [back]
Note
21. History of the Parliament, t. 1, p. 47. [back]
Note
23. The Wittena-Gemot or Mycel Synod, that is, Council of the Wites,
or Great Council, was the assembly of the States of the Nation. How far its
authority extended, or of what persons it was composed, is much controverted.
Its name, derived from the Wites, seems only to imply the great thanes or lords
and governors; yet Ina, Egbert, Alfred, Edgar, Canute, &c. in their
charters and laws mention the permission, approbation, and consent of the
people; which some take for an argument in favour of the commons having had a
share in the great assembly of the nation. The Conqueror had certainly no
council by which he could be controlled in anything. Nevertheless the ancient
statutes concerning the holding the parliament in England, ascribed in the
preface to Edward the Confessor, are there said to have been corrected and
approved by the Conqueror. In them is regulated the manner of assembling this
court in twenty-five articles; but it seems not to be doubted but several of
them are added in posterior reigns after the Conqueror. They are extant in
D’Achery’s Spicilegium, t. 12, p. 557. Though the name of Parliament was new
and French, this court was looked upon in the wars of the barons as a
restoration of the great council of the nation under the English Saxons, though
doubtless the form was considerably altered. And the little mention that is
made of this Wittena-Gemot in the Saxon Chronicle, seems to indicate that its
transactions were not then so famous. As to the other chief English Saxon
courts, the Shire-Gemot or Folk-Mote was held twice a year to determine the
causes of the county. In it the bishop and the ealderman presided; in the
absence of the former, an ecclesiastical deputy of the latter, the high
sheriff, held their places. The Conqueror excused the bishops from assisting at
this court; but they had their own court for ecclesiastical matters. Every
thane of the first class had a court, in which he determined matters relating
to his vassals. This was the original of the Court Baron under the Normans,
though causes which were formerly tried here, for near three hundred years, are
reserved to the king’s courts; and those which were judged by the ealderman, or
earl, or his sheriff, &c. are long since determined by itinerant royal
judges. The king presided in his own court, and in his absence the chancellor:
to this lay appeals from all Shire-Gemots, &c. In this court Alfred
condemned to death forty-four judges of inferior courts, convicted of neglect
in the administration of justice; though mild in his laws he was rigid in their
execution. To this council of the king succeeded the court of King’s Bench, and
Common Pleas. See Lambard, On the laws of the ancient English, Selden, Spelman,
Somner, Drake, and particularly Squires. [back]
Note
24. The Norman historians pretend that St. Edward, some say on that
occasion, others before he was king, promised to settle upon him the kingdom of
England; others say, he gave it him by will. But the whole seems a Norman
fiction to abate the national prejudices against the Conqueror. Why was no such
will or promise ever produced? How could Edward pretend to make an
unprecedented alteration in the settlement: and this without so much as laying
it before the council of the nation? On the Contrary, he certainly called over
his nephew Edward as his heir, in 1057, and thought of no other till Edward’s
death, which happened the same year, as our best historians agree. After his
death he treated Edgar with the greatest affection and distinction with no
other view; gave him the title of Etheling or Edeling, appropriated to the heir
of the crown, or at least to princes of the blood, says Speed. Brompton writes
that “he loved Edgar as if he had been his own son, and thought to leave him
the heir of England.” (inter 10 Scriptor. p. 946.) The manner in which the same
author mentions the disappointment of Edgar, and those who favoured his just
cause by the usurpation of Harold, and again by the conquest of the Norman,
evinces the same. (p. 957, 961.) St. Aëlred (alias Ethelred) shows clearly this
to have been the intention of St. Edward. (l. de Geneal. Regum Angliæ inter 10
Scriptor. t. 1, p. 366.) The same may be clearly proved from Turgot, (who lived
then in England, was afterwards bishop of St. Andrew’s in Scotland, and died at
Durham in 1115,) also from Fordun, and even from the inconsistent authors who
seem to give most credit to this idle pretension of the Norman, who himself
relied on no other title than that of conquest. Harold indeed, when at sea he
was driven accidentally on the coast of France, and was conducted to the duke,
promised him his interest to set the crown on his head. Whence the
guilt of perjury was complicated with his usurpation. [back]
Note
25. Westminster Abbey was last of all rebuilt in the reign of Henry
III. (Widmore, p. 9 and 42.) Sir Christopher Wren complains, that the Norman
architects, who had been accustomed to work the soft Caen stone, chose here
soft stone, like that of Rigate in Surry, which takes in water, and when
frozen, scales off; whereas good stone, like that of Burford in Oxfordshire,
gathers a crust, and defends itself. Hence these walls are much decayed and the
stones fall off in great scales. Even in Henry the Seventh’s chapel, almost the
finest Gothic piece of architecture in the world, the tender Caen stone is
already eaten by the weather. For the vicissitude of heat and cold, drought and
moisture, rots materials; whereas timber will bear constant moisture or cold;
otherwise Venice and Amsterdam would fall. See Mr. Widmore’s History of
Westminster Abbey in 1751: also his inquiry into the first foundation. This
monastery was converted by Henry VIII. into a collegiate church of canons, and
in 1541 into an episcopal see, Thomas Thurley being the short-lived only
bishop. Queen Mary restored this abbey to the monks: Queen Elizabeth, in 1560,
made it a collegiate church, with a dean and twelve prebendaries, besides a
great school, with forty king’s or queen’s scholars. See Dugdale’s Monastic. t.
1, p. 55. Stow’s Survey of London and Westminster, from p. 497 to 525. Also
Maitland, Tanner’s Notitia Monastic. Widmore’s History of Westminster Abbey, in
1751. On the profanations committed by the fanatics in this church, see
Appendix to the Antiquities of Westminster Abbey, p. 6.
King Edward the Confessor also bestowed several
estates on the episcopal see of Exeter, which he erected, or rather translated
from Crediton and Cornwall, which two sees he united; and upon the death of
Lewin, who was bishop of them both, he nominated Leofric first bishop of
Exeter, in 1044, that these churches might not be exposed to the insults of
pirates. See part of this king’s charter for the erection of this see in
Leland’s Itinerary, t. 3, p. 49, 51, 53. [back]Note
26. L. 2, de Reg. c. 13. [back]
Note
27. Petr. Bles. ep. 150, ad Clericos, Aulæ regiæ, p. 235, n. 6. See
Alford, Annal. ad an. 1062. [back]
Note
28. That the kings of France cure the Strumæ or King’s evil, by their
touch with the sign of the cross, is confidently affirmed by the bold critic
Dr. Thiers, (Tr. des Superstitions, l. 6, c. 4, p. 106,) though he calls the
like notion of the seventh son a vulgar error, (ib. p. 107,) which is confirmed
by the author of the Remarks, (ib.) in the Dutch edition. Guibert of Nogent, in
1100, (l. 1, de Pignor. Sanct. c. 1, p. 331,) tells us, that King Lewis the Big
cured the Strumæ by his touch with the sign of the cross, which it seems he had
often seen him do. He adds, that this king’s father, Philip, lost that
privilege by his crimes; and that he knows that the King of England attempted
nothing of that kind. But herein a foreigner may have been mistaken. William of
Nangis says, that St. Lewis first used the sign of the cross in touching such
diseased persons; but it appears from Guibert that he only restored the use of
it. Pope Boniface VIII. in his bull for the canonization of St. Lewis, says:
“Among other miracles, he conferred the benefit of health upon those that were
afflicted with the king’s-evil.” Philip of Valois cured fourteen hundred of
these patients. Francis I. touched for this distemper at Bologna, in presence
of the pope, in 1515, and whilst he was prisoner in Spain. No one pretends that
all that are touched are cured; for several are touched more than once, as F.
Le Brun remarks, who maintains this privilege to be miraculous. (Hist. Critique
des Superstitions, l. 4.) Patritius Armachanus, (that is, Jansenius of Ipres,)
in his furious invective against the French, entitled Mars Gallicus,
acknowledges this privilege in their kings. In England, the learned Bradwardin
confidently ascribes this privilege to Edward III. (De Causa Dei, fol. 39.)
Since the revolution, only Queen Anne has touched for this distemper. Brompton,
in 1198, is said to be the first author who openly derives this gift from St.
Edward the Confessor. [back]
Note
29. Mr. Hearne, our most learned and inquisitive antiquarian, in his
edition of Leland’s Itinerary, takes notice that the palace of St. Edward at
Islip stood on the north-east side, in a place still called Court Close, where
the remains of a moat, though filled up, are still visible. At some distance
stood his chapel, still in being, though employed to a profane use. The font in
which St. Edward was baptized at Islip, is shown in the gardens of the late Sir
George Brown, at Kiddington. [back]
Note 30. The learned Dr. Hickes (in Dissert. epist. p. 64,) pretends that Edward the Confessor was the first king of England who used a seal in his charters, such as we find in his charter given to Westminster Abbey, kept among the archives of that church, and on one of his diplomas shown in the monastery of St. Denys near Paris. This is the origin of the broad seal in England. Montfaucon exhibits three or four rough seals found on some of the charters of the Merovingian kings, the oldest of which is one of Theodoric I. (Antiq. de la Monarchie Françoise, t. 1, p. 191.) The ancient kings of Persia and Media had their seals. (Dan. vi. 17; xiv. 13, 16; Esther iii. 10.) They are also mentioned by profane authors. The Benedictins in their new French Diplomatique (t. 4, p. 100, &c.) present us the prints of the heads or seals of all the ancient kings of France, from Childeric, father of Clovis; of the German emperors and kings from Charlemagne, especially from St. Henry II. in the eleventh century, in imitation of the emperors of Constantinople; of the kings of Denmark, Bohemia, Hungary, &c. from the twelfth century. These authors prove against Hickes, Dugdale, (in his Antiq. of Warwickshire,) &c. that seals were used by the kings of England before St. Edward, Ethelbert, Edgar, St. Dunstan, even Offa during the heptarchy. St. Edward brought the more frequent use of the royal seal from France; yet he often gave charters attested by the subscription of many illustrious witnesses, with a cross to each name, without any royal seal; which was the ancient custom, and continued sometimes to be used even after the Conquest. Menage and the editors of the new Latin Glossary of Du Cange, (t. 6, p. 487,) by a gross mistake attribute to the Conqueror the first use of the royal seal in England. He only made it more solemn and common. Ingulphus, (p. 901,) the Annals of Burton, (p. 246,) &c. are to be understood that seals were not used by particulars before the Conquest: but they do not comprise the court: hence we learn the sense of that common assertion of our historians and lawyers that St. Edward was the first institutor of the broad seal.
At first kings used for their seal their own image on
horseback: afterwards great men used their arms, when these became settled and
hereditary. About the time of Edward III. seals became common among all the
gentry. Nisbet and Mackenzie observe that they served in deeds without the
subscription of any name till this was ordered in Scotland by James V. in 1540;
and about the same time in England. See Bigland’s Observations on
Parochial Registers, p. 81. [back]Note
31. Brompton in Chronic. p. 950. [back]
Note
32. St. Edward, in his last illness, gave a ring which he wore to the
Abbot of Westminster, as William Caxton, in the reign of Henry VI. relates in
his MS. Chronicle of England. It is said, in the life of the saint, to have
been brought to the king by a pilgrim, as an assurance of his death being at
hand, given in a vision by St. John Evangelist, though this circumstance was
unknown to Sulcard. This ring of St. Edward’s was kept some time in Westminster
Abbey, as a relic of the saint, and applied for curing the falling-sickness. In
imitation of this, the succeeding kings were accustomed to bless rings on
Good-Friday against the the cramp and the falling-sickness, till the change of
religion. See Polydore Virgil, (Hist. l. 8,) Harpsfield. (Sæc. 11, c. 3.) The
late king at arms, the learned and ingenious Mr. Anstis, (Rules of the Gart. t.
2, p. 223,) proves the custom of our kings blessing these rings on Good-Friday
from John of Ipres, in the reign of Edward III. and from several MS. accounts
of the comptrollers of the king’s household. In the chapel of Havering (so
called from having this ring) in the parish of Horn-Church, near Rumford, in
Essex, (once a hunting seat of the king’s,) was kept till the dissolution of
abbeys, the ring given by the pilgrim to St. Edward; which Mr. Weaver says he
saw represented in a window of Rumford church. The miracles chiefly produced
for the canonization of St. Edward, were wrought after his death, but long
before the reign of Henry II., not then trumped up to serve that
occasion. [back]
Note
34. Malmesb. l. 2, Reg. c. 19. [back]
Note 35. Underneath St. Edward’s chapel was buried, without any monument or inscription, Maud, the most holy Queen of England, daughter to St. Margaret, and wife to Henry I. and mother to the Empress Maud, married to the Emperor Henry V. and mother of our Henry II. Queen Maud walked to church every day in Lent bare-foot and bare-legged, wearing a garment of sackcloth; she likewise washed and kissed the feet of the poorest persons, and gave them alms. The priory of Christ Church without Aldgate, and the hospital of St. Giles in the Fields were founded by her. [back]
Note 36. See Baron. ad eum ann. Alford, Annal. t. 4, p. 101. [back]
Note
37. Watts in Glossario M. Parisii, p. 282, and the Account of the
Regalia. [back]
Rev. Alban Butler (1711–73). Volume X:
October. The Lives of the Saints. 1866.