Edward the Martyr

DESCRIPTION: Song(?) in Old English. In 978, King Edward is killed at Corfe. He is buried without honors. "Men murdered him, but God exalted him." He is now a saint, and people pray to him. The counsels of those who murdered him failed.
AUTHOR: unknown
EARLIEST DATE: c. 979 (Peterborough Manuscript of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle)
KEYWORDS: homicide royalty burial MiddleEnglish
HISTORICAL REFERENCES:
c. 978 - Assassination of Edward "the Martyr"
FOUND IN: Britain(England)
REFERENCES (2 citations):
ADDITIONAL: Michael Swanton, translator and editor,: _The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, 1996 (I use the 1998 Routledge edition), p. 123, (no title) (a translation into prose)
G.N. Garmonsworthy, translator and editor, _The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, 1953; new edition, Everyman, 1972, p. 123, (no title) (a translation into verse)
CROSS-REFERENCES:
cf. "Judas" [Child 23] (subject: The Earliest English Ballad) and references there
NOTES [3424 words]: Many attempts have been made over the years to locate the "earliest English ballad." F. J. Child's candidate was "Judas" (Child 23), which at least had the virtues of being in roughly the right form and of having a plot and of being only slightly older than other examples of the type. Gummere came up with another candidate, "Merie Sungen the Muneches Bennen Ely (Merry Sang the Monks of Ely)." Others have sort of hinted at the song of Bannockburn, "Maidens of England, Sair May Ye Mourn."
I think, though, that this instance takes the prize. CHEL1, pp. 138-139, says of a poem found in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, "The murder of Edward son of Edgar, at Corfesgeat, is related in a peculiarly distinctive poem, which is quite clearly in sung verse, and shows traces of strophic arrangement. Some lines, possibly, show the earliest English seven-beat verse [i.e. ballad couplets].... Probably the chronicler took a popular ballad or ballads, broke it up, and attempted to destroy its sing-song character by the addition of end verses."
CHEL1 does not identify the source of this alleged ballad-like piece, but discusses it in the context of poems transcribed into the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Most of these appear to be in alliterative lines, but this one is described in ballad terms. The description of the content makes it seem certain that, despite CHEL1's lack of a citation, the item referred to is the elegy on Edward the Martyr found under the year 979 [error for 978] in the Peterborough ("E") copy of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
To understand the context, it is important to know what the Chronicle is. In the late ninth century, King Alfred the Great had assembled some records of English history and had them written out (in Old English rather than Latin so that ordinary people could understand it). He then caused various abbeys and monasteries to record copies, and thereafter to maintain the chronicle year by year. Thus there were independent copies at various places, typically referred to by letter, e.g. the A copy from Winchester, the B and C copies from Abingdon, the D copy from Worcester, the E copy from Peterborough. These were sometimes copied, and occasionally compared, so one might fight the same material in multiple copies for a few years, then each copy would go its way. None of the manuscripts was really a continuous history -- most monasteries wrote just a line or two about each year, and sometimes they just stopped writing altogether -- but collectively they are our main source for the history of the period, and often they would pull in material from other sources.
It is not unlikely that this is one of those pulled-in pieces. This particular one is from the E manuscript of the Chronicle, from Peterborough. Garmonsway, p. 123, gives the opening part of the "poem" as follows:
No worse deed for the English ever was done
Than this was,
Since first they came to the land of Britain.
Men murdered him, but God exalted him;
In life he was an earthly king,
But after death he is now a heavenly saint.
His earthly kinsmen would not avenge him,
Yet his Heavenly Father has amply avenged him.
The ending makes Edward's holy status clear:
They now humbly bend the knee to his dead bones.
Now can we perceive the wisdom of men,
Their deliberations and their plots,
Are as nought against God's purpose.
(As Dorothy Whitelock once commented, the quality of the poetry in the Chronicle made one 'glad that the chroniclers mainly used prose'"; Lavelle, p. 27).
I would note that this can hardly be contemporary with the events in the song, since it would take at least some time for Edward's cult to arise. Slight additional evidence that it is not contemporary is supplied, indirectly, by the fact that other versions of the Chronicle omit it; the fact that this poem didn't make it into the other versions hints that it was added after any comparisons among the surviving copies. Note also that it had the year wrong!
Also, although printed as poetry, this hardly looks like a ballad to me! To which I would add that Swanton, p. 123, prints the account of Edward in prose. By contrast, on p. 118 he prints an elegy on Edward the Martyr's father Edgar in poetry. Similarly, Anderson, pp. 177-178, looks at poems of history in the Chronicle and other sources, and lists the Edgar poems and others -- but not the story of Edward the Martyr. My several books of Anglo-Saxon poetry all omit it, although none of them is intended to be comprehensive. Bottom line: This not only doesn't appear to be a ballad, but odds are that it isn't a song!
And while CHEL1 sees rhyming in this piece, which is apparently why it labels it a ballad, there are several other pieces in one or another version of the Chronicle which are thought to have been songs, and many of them predate the reign of Edward. Perhaps the earliest example,, "The Battle of Brunanburh," comes from the year 937; Kennedy's translation (p.159) opens
Æthelstan King, lord of eorls [earls],
Ring-bestower, and also his brother,
Edmund Ætheling [royal prince], won with the sword-edge
Lifelong glory in battle at Brunanburh....
This is alliterative rather than in couplets, but it is found in most copies of the Chronicle, not just one. Garmonsway's version starts on p. 106, as does Swanton's (the two, because they are organized based on the same parallel edition of the Old English text, have a mostly-parallel pagination). As far as I know, everyone agrees that "Brunanburh" is a poem, and it's about an actual historical event. Based on Garmonsway, at least, it is the earliest poetic work in the Chronicle. If anything from the Old English period deserves to be called "The Earliest English Ballad," it would seem to have a stronger claim.
Additional poems follow in various editions of the Chronicle, although Garmonsway prints more items as poetry than does Swanton. Garmonsway, p. 110, has this item for the year 942, from -A- and D:
In this year king Edmund, lord of the English [the half-brother of Æthelstan)
Guardian of kinsmen, loved doer of deeds, conquered Mercia....
(Swanton, p. 110, also prints this as poetry, but with different line breaks).
For 959, the E text of the Chronicle has this about the beginning of the reign of Edgar the father of Edward the Martyr (Garmonsway, p. 114; Swanton, p. 114, again prints as prose -- and translates a bit differently):
His [i.e. Edgar's] reign was prosperous, and God granted him
To live his days in piece: he did his duty....
The -A- version of the Chronicle has a different Edgar poem printed under the year 973, which both Garmonsway, p. 118, and Swanton, p. 118, print as poetry; I'll give the opening lines of Swanton's version this time:
Here, Edgar, ruler of the English,
was consecrated as king in a great assembly
in the ancient town of Ache-man's city....
Two years later (i.e. 975), -A- has a poem about Edgar's death (which makes me wonder if the Chronicle didn't have its own poet writing pieces about Edgar); text on p. 118 of Garmonsway. This is another instance where Swanton, p. 118, also prints as poetry, so here is the opening according to Swanton:
Here Edgar, king of the English,
ended earthty pleasures; he chose another light....
Interestingly, the E version of the Chronicle also has a report on Edgar's death; Garmonsway, p. 119, prints it as poetry but Swanton, p. 119, prints as prose although he says it include "poetic rhetoric." It looks a bit like a less-well-done version of the text in -A-. (The D version, on p. 121 of Garmonsway and Swantpn, is the same as E's). Given that the accounts are similar but not identical, might there have been oral tradition involved, which damaged the poetry?
Even though Edward the Martyr reigned only three to five years, Garmonsway, p. 121, has an earlier Edward the Martyr poem, for the year 975, on p.121 (which Swanton, p. 121, again prints as prose):
In his days, on account of his youth,
God's adversaries broke God's laws.
After this and the poem on the Martyr's murder, there is a long pause before the next poetic entry. In the year 1011, there is an entry on the Danes martyring archbishop Ælfheah; the E Chronicle has a description which Garmonsway, p. 142, regards as poetry but Swanton does not:
Then was he a captive, he who had been
The head of England and of Christendom....
On p. 158, for the year 1034, Garmonsway prints part of the C chronicle, about the murder of the royal prince Alfred, as poetry, and Swanton, p. 158, also treats it as poetry:
But then Godwine stopped him, and set him in captivity,
and drove off his companions, and some variously killed....
Ronay, pp. 47, 137, has this one about the return of "Edward the Exile" to England in 1057, from D:
Here came Edward Aetheling [i.e. member of the royal family]
To Engla-land;
He was King Edwards's
Brother's son [that is, the nephew of the reigning king, Edward the Confessor, although in fact he was son of Edward's half-brother:]
Edmund King
Who Ironside was called....
Garmonsway has it on pp. 187-188 and also prints it as verse (though with longer lines than Ronay); Swanton, who also prints it on pp. 187-188, says the first part is marked by "poetic rhetoric" but prints it as prose.
Ronay gives the ending on p. 138, which says, mysteriously, that Edward's life "ended" upon arrival in England. There is no information about what happened to him, and he was forty or so, an age at which many in his family had died, but Ronay seems to think he was murdered. If so, the item might be another very early murder ballad. However, Barlow, p. 217, says however that the chronicler "does not hint at four play." Others are less certain either way OxfordCompanion, p. 337, calls the text "laconic and possibly sinister," StentonEtAl, p. 571, believes that there were "intrigues" about Edward's return to England but does not call it murder.
In 1065, both C and D had an item on the death of Edward the Confessor (which actually took place in 1066 by modern reckoning, but it was before Old New Year, March 25). Both Garmonsway, pp. 192-103, and Swanton, pp. 192-193, regard it as alliterative poetry:
Now did King Edward, Lord of the English,
Send his righteous soul to Christ....
That brings us to the Norman Conquest, after which everything was different (since the Normans brought, among other things, a new language and rhymed verse), but we might perhaps add one more item, from 1067 in the D Chronicle, about the marriage of Margaret sister of Edgar the Atheling to that dirty old man Malcolm III of Scotland. Garmonsway, p. 201, considers it poetry; Swanton does not -- but it sounds a bit like certain much more recent songs:
She swore she would be no man's bride,
Nor his, should the Celestial Mercy so ordain....
Thus CHEL1's contention that the tale of Edward is poetry is dubious, and it is even more doubtful that it is the earliest example of whatever-it-is. And it is, of course, in Old English; almost other song claimed as a ballad is in either Middle English or Modern English. Even if "Edward the Martyr" is indeed regarded as poetry, I doubt it can be considered the earliest ballad. But better to put it in with warning notices than leave it out....
As for the historical situation in the song (?), it is complex. The Viking invasions of England of the late ninth century had been fought off by Alfred the Great (Brooke, pp. 107-111), and in the half-century after his death, Alfred's sons and grandsons had expanded the kingdom of Wessex -- the only Anglo-Saxon kingdom to survive the raids -- to cover most of what we now call England (Brooke, pp. 117-118).
Unfortunately, the descendants of Alfred proved rather short-lived -- Alfred himself had died at age fifty (Brooke, p. 116), and five kings reigned between Alfred's death in about 900 and the accession of King Edgar in 959 (see the genealogy on p. 211 of Brooke). Edgar himself reigned only from 959 to 975 -- and was only about 32 when he died suddenly (indeed, Brooke, p. 128, believes he was not yet thirty).
And he had had at least two wives, and probably three. By the first, Æthelflæd he had had a son, Edward, who was probably born in the period 959-962 (Roach, pp. 53-54), so he was probably around twelve when is father died, although this is uncertain (some would make him perhaps two years older than that). "What became of [Æthelflæd] is unclear; it is conceivable that Edgar dissolved the marriage in favour of a more advantageous match... however, it is equally possible that she passed away in the early 960s (Roach, pp. 43-44).
Wife #2, Wulfthryth, didn't last long in Edgar's life; he put her away quickly, if indeed he ever formally married her (Roach, p. 44). They had no sons, and Edgar put her in a convent at Wilton (making it sound good by making her abbess) but their daughter, Eadgyth/Edith, became a famous saint. (Hindley, p. 277).
In 964 (StentonEtAl, p. 372) or 965 (Swanton, p. 119), Edgar had married as his third (?) wife Aelfthryth (called "Elfrida" by Fetherling, p. 136), whose "family was amongst the most powerful in southern England" (Roach, p. 45). (The Chronicle says the year was 965, but a charter says they were already married in 964; Roach, p. 48.) Interestingly, she had had a previous husband herself -- very rare for royal spouses. All this re-marrying probably produced some doubt on the legitimacy of their children (Hindley, pp. 276-277), but Aelfthryth clearly didn't consider herself in any way inferior. From the start, she seems to have been a more important figure than Edgar's previous wives, owning land and witnessing documents; she seems to have regarded herself as a true queen, not just the wife of the king (Roach, p. 49), which was the title borne by many consorts at the time. Indeed, Lavelle, p. 30, argues that she was actually *crowned* queen, which was rare, perhaps without precedent in England; certainly it would seem to make her more important than previous wives.
She apparently bore Edgar two sons, Edmund, who died in 970 (Swanton, p. 119) and Æthelred/Ethelred -- the future Ethelred II Unraed (whose nickname should be rendered something like "redeless," i.e., unadvised, un-counseled, but has been cleverly if unfairly rendered "the Unready"). Roach, p. 42, thinks Ethelred was born in 966 (meaning that Edmund must have been slightly older still). Ethelred cannot have been more than ten and may well have been only six or seven when his father Edgar died (StentonEtAl, p. 372); Roach's birth date would make him eight or nine in 975.
The designations used for the sons is interesting. On one charter, Edmund (the full brother of Ethelred who died young) signs before his older half-brother Edward, and Edmund is designated "legitimate son" of Edgar, while Edward is simply said to be "begotten by" Edgar (Roach, p. 54; Lavelle, pp. 35-36). Was Edgar trying to fiddle with the succession by making his sons by Aelfthryth the legitimate heirs? Lavelle, p. 335, seems to think so.
Edward -- the second English king of that name, following Edward the Elder -- succeeded Edgar smoothly enough (in 973 or 975, depending on the source consulted; Roach, 61, dates it to 975 without even mentioning other dates, but Lavelle, p. 149, dates it 973). Probably, though, there was some discussion among the nobles before this was decided; it is evident that Ethelred had many supporters who felt that he ought to be King. Or at least who wanted a King who was more under their thumb (StentonEtAl, p. 372). Some had apparently argued, when Edgar died, that Ethelred had the quieter temper and should be preferred on that basis (Roach, pp. 61-62) -- though how they could know what a nine-year-old's temper would be like as an adult is beyond me. Lavelle, p. 141 n. 31, says that what is claimed to be the skeleton of Edward has an elongated head, which might be attributable to a hyperactive thyroid, which might cause irritability and excitability. Hyperthyroidism can indeed cause irritability, but all of this must be considered speculative given that we can't even prove that the body is Edward's!)
According to Hindley, p. 289, Archbishop Dunstan of Canterbury supported Edward, but the earls were divided. One might suspect that, whatever the princes' official titles at the time Edgar died, the Witan (the group of nobles who made the final decision about who would be king) chose Edward because he was old enough to perform some kingly functions and Ethelred certainly was not.
Lavelle, p. 39, suggests that a compromise was made under which Edward was made king but that Ethelred was declared his heir *even should Edward have sons of his own*. Such an arrangement of course would never have worked -- Edward would surely have found a way to change it if he had sons -- but it might be indicative of the politics of the succession.
The early years of Edward's reign seem to have been unsettled, with famines and civil strife and several monasteries sacked (Swanton, p. 121), plus there was a comet that was viewed as a portent (Roach, p. 61, or note the song quoted above).
On March 18, 978 (a few scholars think the year was actually 979; Roach, p. 73), King Edward came to visit his half-brother and stepmother at Corfe (StentonEtAl, p. 373; Roach, p. 73). Exactly what happened next is unclear. Some sources say he was killed while hunting, but the earliest sources say he was mobbed in the castle and murdered (Lavelle, p. 41). It is hard to believe that Ethelred had anything to do with it -- after all, he was still only twelve or so, possibly younger. Possibly his mother was in on the planning; possibly not (Fetherling, p. 136, blames it entirely on her, but he seems to be the only one who is certain). According to Hole, p. 150, the first chronicler to connect her with the murder lived some seven decades later, in the reign of William the Conqueror. Similarly, Roach, p. 74, says that all the early histories leave the conspirators anonymous; "The first to implicate the queen is the Latin Passion of Edward, written in the late eleventh century by the prolific Goscelin of St-Bertin, and this set the tone for later narratives." Roach, p. 82, points out that she had an important part in the regency over Ethelred, which he argues means that her reputation can't have been too bad at the time. What is certain is that, while at Corfe, King Edward was attacked and killed, then buried in unconsecrated ground (Brooke, p. 129).
What was alleged to be his body was later discovered because miracles were taking place there (Hole, p. 151).
Because Edward had no son, his half-brother Ethelred became the new King -- but a king under a cloud (StentonEtAl, p. 373), whose reign would see a disastrous resumption of the Danish invasions; Ethelred would be overthrown in 1013, restored in 1014, and might have been overthrown again in 1016 had he not himself died. It was later reported that St. Dunstan, who crowned Ethelred, spoke words of ill omen at the time (Hole, p. 151, although Roach, p. 6, points out that this was from a significantly later account intended to glorify Dunstan and diminish Ethered).
Edward's murderers were never punished and seem not to have been publicly identified. But Roach, p. 173, thinks Ethelred helped promote his half-brother's cult -- perhaps under pressure; Edward's translation to a new grave, and the foundation of associated orders, took place around 1000, when the Viking raids were becoming extreme. Many saints were getting upgrades at the time, probably because people wanted them to intercede, and by supporting Edward's cult, Ethelred could try to deflect the blame that he faced from Edward's partisans plus he might hope for a little extra intercession. Roach, p. 244, says that the first official reference to the cult was in 1001, in one of Ethelred's charters.
There seem to have been questions about King Edward's character before he took the throne (StentonEtAl, p. 372) -- but not after (Roach, p. 169, compares him to the Holy Innocents slaughtered by Herod: they hadn't done anything to justify sainthood, but their deaths sanctified them). Especially not when King Ethelred proved such a disaster. Soon Edward became Edward the Martyr. Miracles were reported at his tomb -- the first being reported around 990, according to Byrthferth of Ramsey (Roach, p. 169). He came to be regarded as a saint; his feast day is March 18 (DictSaints, p. 75), and the great Plantagenet kings, Edward I and his successors, were named for him. Hence, presumably the work of praise in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. - RBW
BibliographyLast updated in version 6.3
File: ASCEp123

Go to the Ballad Search form
Go to the Ballad Index Song List

Go to the Ballad Index Instructions
Go to the Ballad Index Bibliography or Discography

The Ballad Index Copyright 2024 by Robert B. Waltz and David G. Engle.