CONCERNING SAINT ALCMUND, MARTYR, AT CHESTER AND SHREWSBURY IN ENGLAND,
YEAR 800.
HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.
Alcmund, Martyr, at Chester and Shrewsbury in England (S.)
[1] The kingdom of the Northumbrians in the latter
part of the eighth century was entangled in various
tragedies of its Kings, filled with compassion
and the indignity of events and times.
Before them had lived the holy
Kings Ceolwulf, many Kings of the Northumbrians either expelled or killed, and his successor Egbert, both having left their
kingdom and begun the monastic life among the monks of Lindisfarne,
Ceolwulf in the year 737, Egbert in the year
758. To him then succeeded his son Osulf, who held the kingdom for one year, lost it, and perished, wickedly
killed by his own household on the ninth before the Calends of August. In the following year, therefore, 759,
Ethelwald, who is also called Mollo, began to reign on the Nones
of August. But in the year 765, Ethelwald lost the kingdom
of the Northumbrians on the third before the Calends of November,
and Alcred, sprung from the lineage of Ida, the first King of this nation,
as some say, succeeded to the throne, and
in the year 768, King Alcred took Queen Osgearnan, King Alcred, father of Saint Alcmund, expelled in the year 774,
from whom he begot Osred, afterward King, and Alcmund,
of whose martyrdom, feast day, and veneration we must here
treat. Their parent, King Alcred, therefore, in the year
774, by the counsel and consent of all his people,
destitute of the company of the royal household and
Princes, exchanged the majesty of his rule for exile.
He withdrew first
to the city of Bamburgh, afterward to the King of the Picts, named
Cinaed, with a few companions in his flight.
Ethelred also, the son of Ethelwald, received the kingdom in his place,
but in the year 779, when he was expelled and driven into exile,
Elfwald, the son of the above-mentioned King Osulf, received the kingdom
of the Northumbrians. He was a pious and just King. But
when a conspiracy was formed by his patrician, named Sicgan,
he was killed on the ninth before the Calends of October in the year 788,
and after his burial Osred, the son of Alcred and brother
of Saint Alcmund, reigned. But in the year 790, circumvented by the treachery of his Princes, as was King Osred, brother of Saint Alcmund, in the year 790, and captured and deprived of his kingdom, he was tonsured
in the city of York, and afterward
was compelled by necessity to seek exile. But Ethelred, freed from exile,
was again enthroned on the royal seat, by whom in the year
791 the sons of King Elfwald, Oelf and Oelfwine, were taken
from the city of York and led away from the principal church by
false promises, and were miserably slain.
And in the following year, Osred, formerly King, brother of Saint Alcmund,
was killed by order of King Ethelred, killed in the year 792, on the eighteenth before the Calends
of October. And he was buried in the monastery of Jarrow at the mouth of the river
Tyne.
[2] But Ethelred himself, the King, was also killed in the year 796
on the fourteenth before the Calends of May. And Osbald the patrician
was established in the kingdom by certain Princes of that nation, King Eardulf created in the year 796: and after twenty-seven days was destitute of the company of the entire royal household and
Princes, put to flight and expelled from the kingdom,
and withdrew to the island of Lindisfarne
with a few, and thence reached the King of the Picts by ship
with some of the Brethren. Then Eardulf,
the son of Eardulf or Earnulf, was called from exile and raised
to the royal insignia, and consecrated on the seventh before the Calends of June;
by whose command Saint Alcmund was killed. Against this
King in the year 798 a conspiracy was formed by the murderers
of King Ethelred; Duke Wada had begun war,
and when very many on both sides were slain,
Duke Wada and his men were turned to flight, and King Eardulf
royally won the victory over his enemies. Thus far
nearly all things have been drawn from Simeon of Durham's Deeds of the English Kings, and most of these same things are read in the same words
in Hoveden in the first part of his Annals. Concerning these same Kings,
Turgot of Durham writes conforming things in Book 2 of his History
of the Church of Durham, chapters 4 and 5. Turgot is the earliest of the rest;
we treat of him more fully in the history of the Translation of Saint
Cuthbert on March 20. From him we supplement the remaining Kings of the Northumbrians,
of whom he relates the following: When Eardulf was driven from the province
in the tenth year of his reign, to whom ten others succeeded, Aelfwold held it
for two years, then Eanred, the son of King Eardulf,
reigned for thirty-three years. Eanred was succeeded by
his son Ethelred; when he was killed, Osbertus succeeded to the kingdom
around the year 850. But when he was driven out around the year
862, Aella succeeded; and both he and Osbertus, reconciled
during the irruption of the Danes, in the year 867,
on the twelfth before the Calends of April, fell in battle. When they
were killed, the Danes established Egbert as King; Simeon of Durham treats of
these three in the said year 876,
and asserts that Egbert reigned beyond the Tyne for six years, and dying in the year
873 -- having been expelled -- had as his successor
Resig, who reigned for three years; when he died, in the year
876, a second Egbert reigned
beyond the river Tyne, until the year 926, and in the year 883 Guthred,
the son of Hardecnut, succeeded him and reigned over York,
dying in the year 894. Afterward, from the Danes
Sihtric reigned, dying in the year 926, whose
kingdom, when his son Guthferth was expelled, King Athelstan
added to his own dominion. So says Simeon of Durham.
[3] On the other hand, William of Malmesbury, in Book 1 of the Deeds of the English Kings,
chapter 3, establishes Ethelred, killed in the year 1296 [sic], as the last King of the Northumbrians, Malmesbury omitted twelve Kings: by whose command King Osred,
brother of Saint Alcmund, had been slain. "After Ethelred,"
he says, "no one dared to ascend to the throne, while
each one feared for himself the fate of his predecessors, and preferred
to live safely in inglorious ease rather than to reign
hanging in uncertain peril; for most of the Kings of the Northumbrians
had departed life by what was almost a familiar death." "Thus, with the ruler ceasing,
for thirty-three years that province was an object of mockery and prey
to its neighbors... When those thirty-three years had passed,
King Egbert obtained this region in the year of the Lord's Incarnation
827." So he says, with an enormous error of a hundred and
more years, during which there were proper Kings of the Northumbrians; and he wrongly says the kingdom was added to the Saxons in the year 827, whence it is not surprising that little can often be known about others,
even Saints. It was not, therefore, Egbert, King of the West
Saxons, who joined this kingdom to the rest, but his great-grandson
Athelstan; nor before Egbert was there any interregnum
of thirty-three years, but other Kings continuously succeeded their predecessors,
and among them, as has already been said, Eardulf
was reigning in the year 800.
[4] Saint Alcmund was killed by order of King Eardulf: son of Alcred. With these points established, we gather the meager gleanings that remain
about Saint Alcmund amid so many irruptions of the Danes; and first,
Simeon of Durham, at the said year 800, relates the following:
"In the same year Alcmund, the son of King Alcred, as some say,
was seized by the supporters of King Eardulf,
and by his command, together with his fellow fugitives, was slain."
These things the Worcester chronicler indicates briefly thus: "Alcmund,
the son of Alcred, King of the Northumbrians, is killed." And
earlier, at the year 765, he treats of the father in these words:
"Mollo relinquished the kingdom of the Northumbrians,
and Alcred, the son of Eanwine, succeeded, who was the son of Birnhorm,
who was the son of Bosa, by others called Alcred's who was the son of Bleocmann, who was the son of
Ailric, who was the son of Ida." But the Westminster chronicler, at the said
year 765, calls the father King Ealred, the great-great-grandson
of King Ida, Ealred's, and says he reigned eight years; and at the year
873: "Ealdred," he says, "King of the Northumbrians,
departing this life, had Ethelred as his successor."
But that he went into exile has been shown above. Concerning
the death of Saint Alcmund, the same Westminster chronicler has the following at the
year 800: "In which year also Alcmund, the son
of King Ealdred, was seized by the supporters of King Eardulf of the Northumbrians, Ealdred's, and by his command, together with his fellow
fugitives, was slain." Ranulph of Chester, in his Polychronicon,
which we have in manuscript, Book 5, chapter 25, has the following: "Mollo, King of the Northumbrians, relinquished the kingdom. Alcred succeeded him for nine years, and that Alcred had two sons: Osfred (by others called Osred), who reigned in the third place after him, and Saint Alcmund, Alcred's, who was afterward killed in a battle of the Mercians against the West Saxons."
[5] The Polychronicon as cited is quoted by Harpsfield in his History of the English Church, century 8, chapter 21: he did not fall in battle. "His son (that is, Ethelbert's) was Alcmund, who, when he had come to the aid of Ethelmund, sub-king of the Mercians, fighting in battle against the Wiltshire men, who were a people of the West Saxons, was there slain." Harpsfield assumed this more easily from the Chester chronicler, who, following Malmesbury, had written that the Northumbrians at that time lived without a King and were afterward subjected to King Egbert. Moreover, he makes Alcmund the son of King Ethelred, by whom we have said his brother Osred was killed, not of Alcred, whom he had called Alcred. Therefore, he was not killed in battle, but was seized by the command of King Eardulf, and unjustly slain, perhaps because he was the son of King Alcred and the legitimate heir to the kingdom.
[6] Concerning his veneration, Harpsfield adds the following: "His body was interred at Whitchurch, the body held in veneration, at Derby, then reburied at Derby, where a church was built in his memory, which is celebrated on account of the miracles wrought by him there after his death." In the English Martyrology at March 19 the following is found: miracles, "At Derby, the feast of Saint Alcmund, Martyr, who was the son of Alcred, King of Northumbria, wickedly killed by the Danes in battle against Wolstan, Duke of Wiltshire. His body immediately began to shine with miracles; wherefore it was translated to Derby and buried with great veneration, a church where afterward an excellent church erected in his honor still stands today at Derby, at Derby, commonly called Saint Alcmund's, to which very many pilgrims formerly used to come on account of the miracles performed there. He suffered around the year of Christ 800. At Shrewsbury also, another church of notable form, surviving to this very day, is seen, dedicated in his name." and Shrewsbury: These are most well-known cities, the capitals of their respective provinces or counties, Derby and Shropshire. But whence did Wilson, the author of this Martyrology, draw the claim that Saint Alcmund was killed by the Danes? Perhaps because he believed him to be the son of Alcred, not Alcred, he was not killed by the Danes, he supposed that the reference was to Alfred, the most famous King of the West Saxons, whose Acts were written by Asser of St. David's, who is cited -- I know not by what error -- with the Chester chronicler in the margin of the page in Harpsfield, where he treats of the death of Saint Alcmund, and the year 801 is alleged, although Asser began his history from the year 849, in which Alfred of Wessex was born. Of him we treat more fully on March 20, in connection with the Translation of the body of Saint Cuthbert; and his victories against the Danes are related there.
[7] But what is said about the battle of Wolstan is thus related at the year 800 by the Worcester chronicler: nor in a battle of the Mercians. "In the same year it happened that Duke Ethelmund went forth from Mercia with his men and crossed the ford which in the English language is called Kempsford; when his approach was learned, the Duke of the Wiltshire men, Weolhstan, marched with the Wiltshire men against him. And when a fierce battle was joined, many on both sides fell, and both Dukes fell slain; but the Wiltshire men had the victory." So it reads there, without any mention of the Danes, who were not even raiding anywhere in England at this time. Moreover, that battle in no way pertains to Saint Alcmund. For it should be noted that four things are narrated by the Worcester chronicler at the said year 800, which are plainly unrelated to each other: the first concerns Charlemagne's journey to Rome and his winter spent in the City; the second concerns the death of Brihtric, King of the West Saxons, and the succession of Egbert. These are followed by the battle already mentioned, and in the last place is reported the killing of Alcmund, son of King Alcred of the Northumbrians, whom Simeon of Durham and the Westminster chronicler report was killed by the command of King Eardulf of the Northumbrians. The same Ferrarius inscribed him in his General Catalogue of the Saints in these words: "In England, of Saint Alcmund, Martyr." In what sense he is considered a Martyr. Moreover, what we said on March 18, in connection with the Life of Saint Edward, King and Martyr, who was unjustly killed by the command of his stepmother, concerning the term "martyrdom" taken in a broad sense, seems to be applicable to this Saint and can be read there.
[8] Alford, in his Index of the Saints of England at the end of the third volume of his Annals of the English Church, has the following: "Almund, at what age he was killed, a royal boy and Martyr, was the son of Alcred, King of Northumbria. When his parent was expelled from the kingdom, he was driven from life. He is venerated as a Saint and proven by miracles. Two churches are built for the Martyr. He is honored on March 19." The year 800 is cited in the said Annals and the number 16. But either through the carelessness of the printer or for another reason, everything after number 8 has been omitted. He establishes with us that the father Alcred was expelled from the kingdom in the year 774; but Alcmund, twenty-six years having elapsed afterward, was slain not as a boy, but as a man of about thirty years.