been barren, the touch of Eadward changed her into a joyful mother of children. But here William of Malmesbury again helps us. He is a full believer in Eadward's miraculous power, but he again (ii. 222) lets us see that there were two opinions on the subject. Some people affirmed that Eadward cured the evil, not by virtue of his holiness, but by virtue of his royal descent; "Nostro tempore quidam falsam insumunt operam, qui asseverant istius morbi curationem non ex sanctitate, sed ex regalis prosapiæ hæreditate fluxisse." So others at a later time, as Peter of Blois (ep. 150, vol. ii. p. 82 Giles), held that the Kings of England possessed the gift by virtue of their royal unction. William argues against such views, but by so doing he proves that Eadward's claims to holiness and miraculous power were still a moot point in his time. Besides this official kind of miracle, Eadward, according to his Biographer, wrought other wonderful works. A blind man was cured by the water in which the King had washed (429), and several cures were wrought at his tomb (435). One is almost tempted to suspect that these stories are interpolations, but there is no need for the supposition. An interpolator would surely have taken care to insert the more famous stories of the ring and of the Seven Sleepers, of which the Biographer tells us nothing. We must remember how men then, and for ages afterwards, instead of being surprised at miracles, looked for them. We must not forget that Queen Anne touched for the evil as well as King Eadward; we must remember that alleged miracles were wrought by the blood, not only of Thomas of London and Simon of Montfort, but also of Charles the First. William of Malmesbury, evidently with the Biographer before him, enlarges greatly on Eadward's miraculous and prophetic powers (ii. 220-227), adding to the stories in the Life the vision of the Seven Sleepers (see above, p. 507). But the main disseminator of legendary lore about Eadward was Osbern or Osbert of Clare, Prior of Westminster, who made the first attempt to procure his formal canonization (see vol. iii. p. 33), and who wrote a book on his life and miracles (Introduction to M. H. B. 16; Luard, Preface, XXV.; Hardy's Catalogue of British History, i. 637, 642). His work has never been printed, but it forms the groundwork of the well-known Life by Ethelred of Rievaux, printed in the Decem THE LEGENDARY HISTORY OF EADWARD. 525 Scriptores, and a collection of his letters, dealing largely with Eadward's merits and claim to canonization, was printed at Brussels in 1846 together with the letters of Herbert de Losingâ. As Æthelred's Life was founded on that of Osbert, so his own work became the groundwork of the French Life printed by Mr. Luard, which however adds many particulars which are not to be found in Æthelred. Both these biographies are truly wonderful productions. Of the French writer I have already given a specimen in vol. i. p. 771. Perhaps his grandest achievement is to make Godwine kill Eadmund Ironside (p. 47. v. 775). Both he and the Abbot of Rievaux agree in describing King Ethelred as a mighty warrior, fighting manfully against the Danes. He is "Rex strenuissimus," "gloriosus Rex" (X Scriptt. 372; cf. the Abbot's Genealogia Regum, 362, 363), and in the French Life (v. 131) we read "Li rois Aedgard avoit un fiz Edelred k'out non, bon justisers, In short, for historical purposes, the French Life is absolutely worthless, and Ethelred himself, though often preserving little authentic touches, must be used with the greatest caution. It is plain that he, or rather Osbert whom he follows, drew largely from the contemporary Biographer. In some cases rhetorical expressions in the authentic Life seem, in the hands of the professed hagiographers, to have grown into legendary facts. Thus the Biographer tells us (393, 394) that, when Emma was with child of Eadward, popular expectation looked forward to the birth of a future King, and that, when the child was born, he was at once seen to be worthy to reign; "Antiqui Regis Ethelredi regiâ conjuge utero gravidâ, in ejus partûs sobole si masculus prodiret, omnis conjurat patria, in eo se dominum exspectare et Regem.. .. Natus ergo puer dignus præmonstratur patriæ sacramento, qui quandoque paterni sullimaretur solio." This, in another and more rhetorical passage (428), swells into "Felicissimæ mentionis Rex Edwardus ante natalis sui diem Deo est electus, unde ad regnum non tam ab hominibus quam, ut supra diximus, divinitus est consecratus." this is quite possible in a sense. That is to say, men may have speculated on the possibility of a son of Emma supplanting the children of the first Ælfgifu, just as Æthelred himself had sup All planted his brother Eadward. In Ethelred of Rievaux (X Scriptt. 372) the rhetoric of the Biographer grows into a regular election of the unborn babe. He is, after much deliberation, chosen by all the people ("magnus episcoporum procerumque conventus, magnus plebisque vulgique concursus "), in preference alike to his halfbrother Eadmund Ironside and to his own brother Alfred, who is erroneously supposed to be the elder of the two. A Norman Chronicler goes a step further. The historian of Saint Wandrille (Chron. Fontanellense, ap. D'Achery, ii. 286) describes Eadward as being not only elected but crowned in his childhood (“Eguvardus, qui prior natu erat, tener admodum et in puerilibus adhuc annis constitutus Rex, jubente patre et favente populo terræ unctus est et consecratus"). Here the command of Ethelred comes first; the will of the people is something quite secondary. In the time of the French biographer, popular election of Kings was an idea which had altogether gone out of date, and which was not likely to be acceptable at the Court of Henry the Third. The story is left out accordingly. No feature in the legendary history of Eadward fills a more prominent position in hagiography, none has won him more admiration from hagiographers, than the terms on which he is said to have lived with his wife. It is certain that, at a time when it was especially needful to provide direct heirs to the Crown, the marriage of Eadward and Eadgyth was childless. Eadward's monastic admirers attribute this fact to the resolution of Eadward, shared, according to some writers, by Eadgyth also, to devote himself to a life of perpetual virginity. When we come to examine the evidence, we shall find that this is one of those cases in which each later writer knows more than the writers before him. The earliest statements which have any bearing on the subject, though consistent with the monastic theory, do not necessarily imply it, and there are indications which look the other way. The tale grows as it is handed down from one panegyrist to another, in a way which naturally awakens suspicion. And when we consider the portrait of Eadward which is given us, his personal appearance, his personal temperament, and most of his tastes, we shall perhaps be led to guess that the unfruitfulness of Eadward's marriage was owing neither to any religious impediment nor yet to barrenness on the THE LEGENDARY HISTORY OF EADWARD. 527 part of a daughter of Godwine. The story is probably due to a very natural process. The fact of Eadgyth's childlessness was explained by her husband's admirers in the way which, to their monastic imaginations, seemed most honourable to him, and details of course grew in the usual fashion. Let us now look through the evidence. Florence and the prose text of the Chronicles are silent on the subject. The poem in the Abingdon and Worcester Chronicles says that Eadward was "Kyninge cystum gód, Clane and milde, But surely this is no more than might be said of any man who was chaste before marriage and faithful to his wife afterwards. The Biographer has several passages which may be thought to bear on the subject. He says (428) that Eadward "consecrationis dignitatem sanctam conservans castimonia, omnem vitam agebat Deo dicatam in verâ innocentiâ." This again need not mean anything more than the words of the poem. In the account of Bishop Brihthold's vision (394), Saint Peter is seen to crown Eadward and "cœlibem ei vitam designare." One might say that this is vision and not history, but the vision would of course be devised so as to fit in with what was held to be the history. But, strange as it may seem, the word cœlebs does not imply either virginity or single life. The Biographer uses it (409; see above, p. 382) to express the conjugal fidelity of Tostig, who was undoubtedly the father of children; and William of Malmesbury (iii. 273) speaks of the "cœlibatus antiquus" of the Great William with exactly the same meaning. Elsewhere (p. 429) Eadward is called "columbinæ puritatis Rex," a phrase which may mean anything, but in the passage in which it occurs there is no special mention of chastity. Lastly, Eadward (433) on his death-bed is made to say of Eadgyth, " Obsequuta est mihi devote, et lateri meo semper propius adstitit in loco carissimæ filiæ." But this is surely no more than might be said by any maundering old man of a wife much younger than himself. One is half tempted to quote the words of Ovid, Metam. x. 467 ; "Forsitan ætatis quoque nomine, Filia, dicat," and we may bring an exact parallel in the language addressed by Jacqueline of Hainault to her husband Duke Humfrey (Monstrelet, ii. 24, ed. 1595). She calls him "tresredouté seigneur et pere," "treshonnoré seigneur et pere," and calls herself " vostre dolente et tresaymée fille." (See Stevenson, Wars in France, i. lv.) In none of these passages is there any direct assertion of any vow or of any practice of virginity on the part of Eadward. His chastity is undoubtedly praised. But the language in which it is praised does not necessarily imply anything more than might be said with equal truth of any faithful husband. If the Biographer had any idea of the religious virginity of his hero and heroine, he would surely have expressed himself more distinctly. He would hardly have called Eadgyth "tors ejus consocia" (418), without some sort of qualification. If any one should say that the Biographer's work is dedicated to Eadgyth herself, and that he would not enlarge to her on such a subject, he is looking at the matter with the feelings of our own age. The age of Eadward felt quite differently on such points. The panegyrists of Queens like Pulcheria and Æthelthryth took care that the light of those saintly ladies should in no case be hidden under a bushel. On the whole, I am inclined to think that the expressions of the Biographer, looked at critically, rather tell against the monastic theory. But such ambiguous expressions may well contain the germ of the legend. One or two other points may be mentioned. Eadward is said (see above, p. 520) to have made an agreement with Swegen Estrithson, by which the Danish prince was to succeed to the English Crown, "vel si filios susceperit." Such an agreement, or even any general belief in the existence of such an agreement, is inconsistent with such a vow on Eadward's part as the monastic writers pretend. And the language of more than one writer seems inconsistent with any general belief in such a vow. William of Jumièges (vii. 31) speaks of Eadward as "disponente Deo successione prolis carens." William of Malmesbury again (ii. 228), in an unguarded moment, when he is discussing the policy of the King and not the merits of the saint, says that Eadward sent for the Ætheling from Hungary, "quod ipse non susceperat liberos." And Eadward himself, if it be Eadward who speaks in the Westminster charters, gives as his reason for not going in person to Rome, that the royal race would be jeoparded in his person, "maxime quod nullum habebam |