Eadsige

ON ST. EADSIGE, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY IN ENGLAND,

ABOUT THE YEAR 1054.

HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.

Eadsige or Eadsinus, archbishop of Canterbury. (S.)

BY R. D. B.

§ Sole. On the cult of St. Eadsige. He is created archbishop of Canterbury. He goes to Rome. He enjoys the closest friendship with St. Edward the Confessor. On his assistants and the year of his death.

St. Eadsige, whose cult is very ancient, Not a few archbishops of Canterbury, or of Dorobernia, enrolled in the list of the saints, are venerated by the ancient British church; among whom is St. Eadsige, otherwise Edsius, Edsi, Edscius, Edgius, Eudsi, Eadsinus. We shall call him Eadsius, because he himself mostly

gives himself this name in the diplomas. The memory of this most pious man is kept at the 27th day of October in the English Martyrology Alford, Annales Ecclesiae Anglicanae, vol. III, Index of the Saints of England., as also in Lingard's Calendar (compiled from the Sarum, York and Durham missals, or also from Wilson's Martyrology and Capgrave's Nova Legenda Angliae), in these words: "Eadsinus, bishop and confessor" Nicolas, The Chronology of History, p. 113. Compare ibid., p. 97 f.. Likewise in Ferrari's Catalogue of the Saints who are not in the Roman Martyrology, at the 29th day of October, is read: "In England, of St. Eadsinus, bishop of Canterbury"; on which day, in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, he is said to have departed from the living. Ferrari is followed by Richard Challoner, vicar apostolic of London A Memorial of ancient British Piety, p. 151., likewise saying at the 29th day of October: "At Canterbury, the deposition of the holy archbishop Eadsinus, in the year 1050." Richard Smith also reckons him among the blessed and the saints who, in the time of Canute the Bold, shone with holiness in England Flores Historiae eccles. gentis Anglorum, book III, ch. XVIII, p. 223.. But at what time St. Eadsige began to be honoured with the cult of the saints is hard to say, since those few hagiological monuments of England which survive are silent about St. Eadsige. This veneration, however, seems to be traced back to remote times; for the modern Parker [De Antiquitate Britannicae Ecclesiae, ch. XXX, p. 44 and at the end, edition of 1729.], whose work on the ancient sacred affairs of England was first published in the year 1572, and then in the years 1605 and 1729, thinks that he was placed among the saints by St. Edward the Confessor, his friend. Parker's opinions were accepted in the years 1604 and 1616 by Godwin [De Praesulibus Angliae Commentarius, p. 79. Compare the Preface, edition of 1616.], the modern bishop of Llandaff, to whose words Richardson added no correction when he saw to the third edition of that work in the year 1743.

[2] and of whom several writers have spoken, Among the ancient writers of England none committed to writing the Life of St. Eadsige, who flourished in the middle of the eleventh century. He is nevertheless mentioned, in the twelfth century, by Ingulf, abbot of Crowland, Henry of Huntingdon, Florence of Worcester, William of Malmesbury. Likewise in the thirteenth century by Roger of Hoveden, Walter of Coventry, Ralph de Diceto, and others in Wharton's Anglia sacra, and also Matthew Paris, John of Oxenedes, Bartholomew Cotton. Similarly in the fourteenth century by Stephen Birchington and Ranulf Higden. To these add the writers of the fifteenth century Capgrave and Thomas Walsingham and many others. Before all these shone the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, compiled by several writers, and whose anonymous author for the time of St. Eadsige, a most weighty man, lived in the eleventh century. Nor can we fail to warn the reader that these writers who have treated of the holy archbishop, although they indicate almost the same sequence of events, nevertheless used a chronology differing by two or three years, unless you except the years in which he was created archbishop and crowned the kings Harthacnut and St. Edward. This dissimilar marking of the times is greatly to be regretted, since, the year of his death excepted, about which there is certainty, it does not seem possible to correct it for want of some entirely trustworthy chronological table. The same is to be said both of the editor of Thomas Chesterfield, canon of Lichfield, who discoursed on the succession of the archbishops of Canterbury at the end of the seventeenth century Wharton, Anglia sacra, vol. I, p. 106., and of Richard Smith, archbishop of Chalcedon in the seventeenth century, or also of the moderns Parker, Godwin and Walter Hook Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury, vol. I, p. 489 ff., each of whom wrote brief notices of St. Eadsige.

[3] he was first chaplain of King Cnut, Concerning the birth of the holy man there is deep silence among the historians. Nor is there much more about the offices which he held before he was taken up as archbishop of Canterbury in the year 1038. It is gathered, however, from several ancient writers, though they narrate the matter in different ways, that he held the office of royal chaplain. We read, indeed, in a diploma published by Kemble that he was chaplain of King Cnut and Queen Emma Codex diplomaticus, vol. IV, p. 37., and on the other hand in the books of Roger of Hoveden Chronicon, vol. I, part I, p. 90, Stubbs's edition., Ralph de Diceto Opp. Hist., vol. I, Abbrev. Historic., p. 183, Stubbs's edition., Ranulf Higden Polychronicon in Gale, p. 276. and many others, that he was advanced to this dignity under Harold, son of Cnut; with whom Florence of Worcester Monumenta Hist. Britann., p. 599. and the author of the Rochester Catalogue In Wharton, Anglia sacra, vol. I, p. 86. of the archbishops of Canterbury seem to agree, saying that St. Eadsige in the year 1038, namely in the reign of Harold, was made archbishop of Canterbury from being the king's chaplain. Taking a different way, Bartholomew Cotton Hist. Angliae; de Archiep. etc., p. 363, Luard's edition. writes that he was chaplain of King Harthacnut. But the first place must be granted to the diploma, since it is a contemporary and entirely genuine document, while the others, as is known, not rarely teem with chronological errors in relating the memorable events of the eleventh century. And indeed that in this place the times of Harold have been taken for the times of Cnut, his father, appears the more beyond doubt because otherwise Bl. Eadsige would be represented as having been at once the king's chaplain and assistant bishop of Bl. Æthelnoth (for that he held this office we shall see below); which offices, since the royal chaplains were not subject to the bishop of the place Acta SS., vol. XII of October, p. 654 ff., do not seem to have been filled by one and the same man. Hence it seems we must judge that Bl. Eadsige before his episcopate presided over the chapel of King Cnut, not of King Harold. We pass over Bartholomew's opinion as less credible; for Harthacnut obtained the sceptre of England only after Bl. Eadsige, on the death of Bl. Æthelnoth, had been his successor for two years; and therefore it is not probable that Bl. Eadsige was his chaplain. This office of chaplain was indeed not to be despised in those times; for the king's chaplain governed under his care and disposition the whole clergy of the palace, which was certainly very numerous [Hincmar, Opp. vol. I, letter to the Nobles, col. 998, Migne edition; Acta SS., vol. XII of October, p. 656.]. Nor are the learned unaware that this is the opinion of Hincmar speaking of the chaplains of the kings of the Franks of his time. But that this also obtained in England, even in the eleventh century, is gathered from the learned discussions of Du Cange Glossarium Latinitatis, under Capellanus., Thomassin Discipline de l'Église, Part I, book III, ch. 36, no. 8, col. 1609. and Giuseppe Caraffa De Capella regis Utriusque Siciliae, ch. I, p. 16; ch. IV, p. 135., a Roman priest, on royal chapels. Such was the condition of Bl. Eadsige when he was called to higher things.

[4] but not bishop of Winchester, But what those higher things were, not all relate in the same way. For some report that he was first bishop of Winchester, others bishop designate to succeed Bl. Æthelnoth, others bishop of St. Martin's. The first opinion is to be utterly rejected, since its authors Ralph de Diceto In Wharton, vol. II, p. 683. and Bartholomew Cotton Hist. Angliae, p. 363., and their modern followers Parker De Antiq. Britan. Ecclesiae, p. 96. and Godwin De Praesulibus Angliae, p. 79., have manifestly slipped into error, deceived perhaps by the likeness of names. For we read in William of Malmesbury Gesta Pontif. Angl., p. 172., Thomas Rudborne Thomas Rudborne in Wharton, vol. I, p. 227. Compare vol. II, p. 221. and partly in Roger of Hoveden Roger of Hoveden, vol. I, at the year 1032, p. 89., or also Simeon of Durham Simeon of Durham, De gestis regum Angliae, in Twysden, vol. I, col. 178. and Matthew Paris Chronica majora, vol. I, p. 493., that Elfsius (whose name does not differ much from Edsius or Eadsius) was created bishop of Winchester about the year 1014, and obtained as successor in the year 1032 or 1033 Elwinus or Alwinus, who had not yet left his episcopal see in the year 1047. Hence it is clear that St. Eadsige did not occupy the see of Winchester, since he ascended the see of Canterbury in the year 1038, St. Æthelnoth having died and Bishop Elwinus being alive, as the Anglo-Saxon chronicler, Florence of Worcester, Henry of Huntingdon and almost all the other writers have handed down to posterity. From which statements we rightly conclude that St. Eadsige governed the church of Winchester neither before nor after the year 1038, and therefore that the opinion of Ralph and Bartholomew is nothing but an error.

[5] but bishop designate of Canterbury about the year 1042. The other statement, that St. Eadsige was designated by Cnut in the year 1032 to succeed Bl. Æthelnoth immediately after his death, is not obscurely conjectured from the course of events and from several royal diplomas Kemble, Codex diplomaticus, no. 1327, year 1032., although it is nowhere indicated in plain words. But before Cnut's wishes could be met, no small obstacle had to be overcome. For it was the accepted usage at Canterbury that no one should be received to the insignia of this church unless he had first been trained in the monastic disciplines. Such was not Bl. Eadsige, being up to then a secular priest. Wherefore the blessed man, with the full approval of St. Æthelnoth and Cnut, lest he should give anyone occasion for complaints, asked and obtained to be admitted among the monks of the monastery of Christ at Canterbury, imitating Bl. Oda, archbishop of the same city in the middle of the tenth century. Now Bl. Oda, a secular priest, then bishop of Winchester, when he had been elected archbishop of Canterbury by King Æthelstan, and was unwilling to be called the first prelate of that see who had not previously followed the monastic institutes, betook himself to the monastery of Fleury among the Gauls; whence, after receiving the monastic habit, he returned to England, and without anyone's envy was set over the primatial church of Canterbury [Acta SS., vol. II of July, p. 64; Langebek, Scriptt. Rerum Danicarum, vol. II, p. 406. Will. Malmesb., De Pontif. Anglis, p. 21.]. Almost the same was done by Bl. Eadsige, who was made a monk in the monastery of Christ, as we gather from several entirely genuine diplomas Kemble, vol. VI, no. 1327; vol. IV, no. 745..

[6] Hence he becomes a monk, with the approval of Cnut and Bl. Æthelnoth. The benevolence of the monks of Canterbury towards Bl. Eadsige pleased Cnut not a little; of which there is testimony in a charter written in Saxon, by which King Cnut "granted that land which is called Folkestone to the church of Christ at Canterbury, when Eadsinus his priest was made a monk there; on this condition, namely, that the same Eadsinus the monk should have that land as long as he lived, on account of the obedience with which he served the king well. And he cannot give away the same land, nor sell it, nor by words

forfeit it, nor alienate it from the same church of Christ; but after his death let the land go into the lordship of the convent which shall then be serving the church of Christ, with sake and soke, and with all the things which formerly belonged to the same land; since the king's barons told him that the same land once belonged to the church of Christ in the days of King Athelstan and Archbishop Oda, and had been taken away from the right of the same church with great injustice. Now therefore he grants this land to the church of Christ for the eternal redemption of his soul…" To this diploma there set their names Ælfsige, bishop of Winchester, Ægelric, bishop of the South Saxons, Ælmer, abbot of St. Augustine's, Walnoth, abbot of Westminster, Ælfwine, abbot of the New Minster, Wulfsi, abbot at Portesige. No other indication of the date of this charter is added except: "Given in Surrey at Kingston, on the day of Pentecost" Ibid., vol. VI, no. 1327.. But that it was not written after the year 1032 we gather from the fact that Ælfsige, bishop of Winchester, who died in the year 1032 Le Neve, Fasti ecclesiae Anglicanae, vol. III, p. 6, Duffus Hardy's edition., was present as witness to the king. With the same intention King Cnut gave to Bl. Eadsige, his priest or chaplain, when he put on the monastic habit, the lands of Appledore, Werhon, Berwick, Palstre and Wichtriceslam, on condition that after his death and that of a certain Eadwin they should belong to the church of Christ at Canterbury Codex diplomaticus, vol. VI, no. 745, p. 37.. This donation, although in the charter presently to be described it bears the year 1035, Gervase nevertheless reports to have been made in the year 1032 [Charters relating to the Church of Christ at Canterbury, in the Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. I, p. 97.], who also wrongly ties the gift of the land of Folkestone to the year 1038. From these diplomas, therefore, it follows that Bl. Eadsige took up the monastic life not after the year 1032, or rather in that very year 1032, provided that Gervase wrote the truth.

[7] He seems also to have been bishop of St. Martin's There is also a third opinion, put forward by William Somner The antiquities of Canterbury, edition of 1703, p. 152., writer on the affairs of Canterbury, to which others too Hook, Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury, vol. I, p. 489. adhere entirely: namely, that Bl. Eadsige was created by Bl. Æthelnoth bishop of the Canterbury church of St. Martin, granted of old by King Ethelbert and Queen Bertha to St. Augustine. Nor is this said absurdly, since Somner had in his hands an ancient document in which these words occur: "In the year 1035 King Canute gave to Eadsinus, bishop of St. Martin's, which church is situated outside Dorobernia on the east, Appledore, Palstre and Witrictia, for the use of the church of Christ of Dorobernia, freely as Adesham." Another English writer adds Ibid. that this was Cnut's will, that Bl. Æthelnoth, then advanced in age, should have an excellent auxiliary; and that this greatly pleased the holy old man and was done in the year 1035. The origins and offices of the Canterbury bishops of St. Martin's become known to us from two documents that are not very ancient; but although they are of a later age, they are by no means to be despised, as being very probably drawn from much older sources. The former Wharton brought out of the Cottonian Library, Tib. c. 9, and made public [Anglia sacra, vol. I, p. 150. Compare Monum. Hist. Britann., p. 131, note; Le Neve, Fasti Ecclesiae Britannicae, vol. I, p. 35, note.], and gave it the name Fragment on the Institution of the Archdeaconry of Canterbury. "From the time," it begins, "of blessed Augustine, first archbishop of Canterbury, to the time of Archbishop Lanfranc of good memory, for 462 years there was no archdeacon in the city or diocese of Canterbury. But from the time of the blessed archbishop Theodore, who was sixth from blessed Augustine, until the time of the aforesaid Lanfranc, there was in the church of St. Martin in the suburb of Canterbury a certain bishop, ordained by St. Theodore by the authority of Pope Vitalian, who throughout the city and diocese of Canterbury acted in the archbishop's place in celebrating ordinations, consecrating churches and confirming children, and performing the other pontifical offices in his absence. The same bishop also exercised every kind of jurisdiction in the city and diocese of Canterbury, the see being filled, by the authority of the archbishop in his absence; and, the see being vacant, throughout the whole province by the authority of the chapter, for 399 years, until the time of the aforesaid Lanfranc. Afterwards, in the time of the aforesaid Archbishop Lanfranc, the aforesaid bishop died. But the same archbishop did not decide to substitute another…"

[8] at Canterbury. The later document, in which the fortunes of this episcopate of St. Martin's, and therefore the offices of Bl. Eadsige, are narrated, was excerpted from the Annals of a certain monk of Rochester by Dr. James, who died in the year 1629. His manuscript codex, now of the Bodleian Cottonian Library Codex XXVIII, fol. 131., copied out by himself, was most kindly communicated to me by the Rev. Father Joseph Stevenson, formerly keeper of the British Museum, now a member of our Society. It is couched in these words: "The bishop of St. Martin's at Canterbury. Outside the city, in the eastern part, is the church of blessed Martin, where the episcopal see was; which bishop always remained at home or in the county, and acted in all things in the place of the archbishop, who frequented the king's court. He took into his service monks from the church of Dorobernia, being himself a monk. He celebrated the solemnities in the metropolitan see, and so returned to his own. He performed the office of archdeacon over the clerics who belonged to the archbishop; those who were on the lands of the monks the prior of the church, whom they call dean, looked after, rebuked, corrected. In his own churches he placed those to be placed, deposed those to be deposed, and held his own chapters for himself. In synods he and the bishop sat in equal array, and decided equally what they had heard. When anyone offered a pledge for doing right, he to whom it belonged received both it and the amends. The course of this custom lasted until the times of the Normans. The last prelate of this bishop was Godwin [Compare the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle at the year 1061, in Monumenta Hist. Britannicae, p. 457.], in whose place Lanfranc ordained a certain cleric of his own as archdeacon; which he grieved vehemently before his death to have done." But if anyone should ask of us whether the blessed man was elected successor of Bl. Æthelnoth before or after he entered upon the episcopate of St. Martin's, I should answer that this is not clear; that I suspect, however, on account of various circumstances, that Bl. Eadsige entered upon both offices at the same time, to which by ancestral right only monks might be called.

[9] He is created archbishop of Canterbury and goes to Rome to receive the pallium. After Bl. Eadsige had discharged these most weighty offices, he was appointed bishop of Canterbury on the death of Bl. Æthelnoth in the year 1038. So the Anglo-Saxon Chronographer Ibid., p. 432., whom Florence of Worcester Ibid., Chronica, p. 599., Henry of Huntingdon Ibid., Hist. Angliae, book VI, p. 758., Walter of Coventry Memoriale, vol. I, p. 55, Stubbs's edition., Roger of Hoveden Chronica, vol. I, p. 90., Matthew Paris Chronica Majora, vol. I, p. 512, Luard's edition. and others follow. Nor does Ralph de Diceto disagree Abbreviationes Chronicorum, vol. I, p. 183. in writing the year 1039; for he seems to follow the year of the Incarnation of Christ, the others on the contrary the year of his Nativity, or the solar year. Two years after taking up his office, namely in the year 1040, St. Eadsige, as is stated in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, set out for Rome. The cause of this journey, not indicated by the writer, was beyond doubt the wish to obtain the pallium of metropolitans. For the ecclesiastical discipline of that age, confirmed by usage and ancient tradition, was such that metropolitans had to visit the threshold of the apostles within the first three months of their prelacy, and there ask for and receive from the Roman Pontiff the pallium, the chief insignia of their dignity; or, if they did not do so, they remained deprived of it as long as they had not fulfilled the law. Witness to this was St. Gregory VII in letters written before Epistolae extra Registrum vagantes, letter to Lanfranc, Migne edition, col. 734. and during his pontificate [Registrum, book I, letter 24 to Bruno, bishop of Verona, col. 308; book IX, letter 1 to William of Rouen, col. 603.], no less than St. Ivo of Chartres Opp. vol. I, letter 250 to Pope Paschal, cols. 256, 415, Migne edition., St. Anselm of Canterbury Opp. vol. II, letters book III, letter 24, col. 55, Migne edition. and St. Peter Damian Opp. vol. I, letters book VII, letter 4, col. 442, Migne edition.. And since this law had been made to bind all the churches of the whole world more closely to the Roman See [Liber Diurnus, no. 47, p. 85; Ibid., Garnier, Diss. de pallii usu, p. 343, de Rozière's edition.], metropolitans abstaining from the Roman journey were severely forbidden to adorn themselves with the pallium of their predecessor, as is gathered from the council of Winchester [Labbe, Conc. vol. IX, col. 1202. Compare Ralph de Diceto, in Wharton, vol. II, p. 684.], celebrated twenty years after St. Eadsige. These things show sufficiently that St. Eadsige, being most obedient to the Roman Church, went to it, after the example of his predecessors Wharton, vol. II, p. 678 ff., especially SS. Dunstan [Acta SS., vol. IV of May, p. 355; Florence of Worcester, in Monum. Britan., p. 576; Memorials of S. Dunstan, pp. 38, 107, 199, 295, 339, Stubbs's edition, 1874.], Ælfheah Will. Malmesb., book I, p. 170. Wharton, vol. I, p. 87. and Æthelnoth Anglo-Saxon Chronicle at the year 1022, and others., for the sake of obtaining the pallium. If at any time the pallium was granted to metropolitans who did not meet the Roman pontiff but declared their reason in whatever way [Ruinart, de Pallio Arch., ch. XVII (Ouvrages posthumes de Mabillon et Ruinart, vol. II, p. 503). Compare Garnier, loc. cit.], as SS. Anselm Will. Malm., book I, pp. 86 and 89. and Ralph Ibid., p. 128., archbishops of Canterbury, did, this very singular privilege, which the holy See granted on account of the iniquity of the times, is a manifest demonstration of that law having been made. Hence St. Eadsige, who venerated the threshold of the apostles only in the year 1040, and did not send legates there with the Roman Pontiff's leave, did not have the faculty of wearing the pallium for two years. Nor did he go to Rome twice, once at the end of the year 1038 or the beginning of 1039, to ask for the pallium by ecclesiastical law within the first three months of his office, and again to comply with another law or custom, by which metropolitans, even those granted the pallium, were ordered to betake themselves to Rome whenever a new pontiff ascended the chair of St. Peter

St. Gregory VII, letters book VI, letter to Lanfranc, p. 535.. For this is hardly probable, since the Anglo-Saxon chronographer mentions only one Roman journey of St. Eadsige; and then, when the holy man was created archbishop, Benedict IX had been occupying the Roman See for five years, and was first driven from it only in the year 1044. Wherefore the holy archbishop of Canterbury did not undertake the Roman journey to greet Benedict IX as a new pontiff, but to ask of him the pallium of metropolitans. I confess, however, that I am not a little troubled because the author of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is silent as to why St. Eadsige, otherwise most observant of the holy canons, setting aside the ecclesiastical law of that age, did not ask Benedict IX for the pallium before the fourth month of his episcopate. Whether there is an error in that writer, who is certainly less than trustworthy in chronology, seems impossible to say. But Wharton certainly erred Anglia Sacra, vol. II, p. 683., following the example of Ralph de Diceto Ibid., vol. I, p. 87., in reporting that St. Eadsige was honoured with the pallium by Alexander II, who began his pontificate only in the year 1061.

[10] He crowns the kings Harthacnut and St. Edward. The Roman pontiffs, it is true, likewise granted the pallium to the archbishops of York, but, the Holy See so willing it, their see was much less illustrious than that of Canterbury, to which, from remote times to our own age, by right or by custom, the office of crowning the kings of England has belonged [Compare Memorials of S. Dunstan, pp. 61, 114, 215, 309, 343; Thomas Walsingham, Hist. Anglic., vol. I, year 1274, p. 13; year 1308, p. 121; year 1377, p. 333, London edition, 1863; Caraffa, p. 243; Barth. Cotton, p. 49.]. Hence the kings of England Harthacnut and St. Edward, and, if credit is given to Walter Hook Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury, vol. I, p. 491., Harold, were girded with the royal crown by St. Eadsige. But of Harold we shall dispute more fully below in the Historical Commentary on St. Æthelnoth. Of Harthacnut, Matthew Paris Chronica majora, vol. I, p. 513, Luard's edition. and Matthew of Westminster Flores Histor., p. 210. write: "In midsummer (of the year 1040, King Harold having died) he came into England and, gladly received by all, was consecrated king by Eadsige, archbishop of Canterbury." This solemnity is also recorded by Richard of Cirencester Speculum Histor., vol. II, p. 188. and other writers. When he died, in the year 1042, his successor St. Edward the Confessor landed in England and, no less than his predecessors, was anointed king by Bl. Eadsige. For "the nobles of England," says Henry of Huntingdon Monum. Histor. Britan., p. 759., "sent messengers and hostages into Normandy for Edward the younger, bidding him bring very few Normans with him, and they would most faithfully establish him as king. Edward obeyed and came into England with a few, and was elected king by all the people, and was consecrated by Archbishop Eadsige at Winchester on Easter day of the following year." Florence of Worcester Ibid., Chronica, p. 601. and Roger of Hoveden Chronica, p. 93. agree with Henry, saying: "In the year 1043 Edward was anointed king at Winchester on Easter day, the third day before the Nones of April, by the archprelates Eadsige of Dorobernia and Ælfric of York, and by the other prelates of almost all England." The same solemnity is recorded by the author of the Peterborough Chronicle Chronica, p. 46., adding that it was performed in the presence not only of the archbishops and the other bishops, but also of almost all the prelates and nobles of the realm. In the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle we read: "In the year 1042 Eadsige consecrated him (Edward), and before all the people instructed him rightly, and admonished him well for his own good and that of all the people" In Monum. Britann., p. 434.. Nor need we dispute at greater length about the anointing of the kings of the English. But if the reader wishes to survey the ancient rite used in crowning the kings of England, let him consult Roger of Hoveden Chronica, vol. III, p. 8 ff. and Matthew Paris Hist. Anglorum, vol. II, p. 6 and vol. III, p. 209, Madden's edition., who described with what solemnities Richard I was anointed king of England by Baldwin, archbishop of Canterbury, according to the ancient rite, in the year 1189. On this matter Lingard has gathered much [History and antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church, vol. II, ch. VIII, p. 26 f.; ibid., note B, p. 335.].

[11] He takes to himself as assistant Siward, Meanwhile Bl. Eadsige, who had raised such great hope of himself, seized by illness, could not but lay the burden of the prelacy, at least in part, upon another in the first years of his pontificate. For the almost contemporary writer of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says: "In the year 1044. In this year Archbishop Eadsige gave up (his) bishopric on account of his bodily infirmity, and consecrated to his bishopric Siward, abbot of Abingdon, with the king's leave and encouragement, and that of Earl Godwin. The matter was known to few until it was done, because the archbishop thought that someone else would either obtain or buy (that bishopric) who would be less faithful and less pleasing to him, if it became known to many" Monumenta historica, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, p. 435.. With the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle agree Henry of Huntingdon Ibid., p. 759. and several others Barth. Cotton, Hist. Angl., book on the archbishops etc. of England, p. 362.. Moreover, in the years 1045 and 1046, Bl. Eadsige and Siward themselves left testimony of this matter, appending their subscription to several diplomas of St. Edward in these or similar words: "† I, Eatsinus, archbishop of the church of Dorobernia, have confirmed this donation" Kemble, Codex diplom., vol. IV, pp. 101, 113, etc.. Likewise: "† I, Siward, archbishop, have joyfully impressed the triumphal trophy of the holy cross on this royal gift" Ibid., pp. 96, 103, 105, 109.. What standing Bl. Eadsige gave Siward is clear enough from the statements of the writers, although at first sight they seem to conflict with one another. For Siward names himself archbishop, yet with no see indicated; but on the other hand Florence of Worcester calls him "chorepiscopus of the archbishop of Dorobernia" Monum. Britann., p. 603., William of Malmesbury "successor designate" Gesta Pontif. Angl., book I, p. 34, edition of 1870., the Lambeth interpolator of Florence, a writer of the end of the twelfth century or the beginning of the thirteenth, "governing in the archbishop's place" Monum. Britann., p. 603; compare p. 86., Matthew Paris [Chronica Majora, vol. I, p. 519, Luard's edition; compare Wharton, Anglia sacra, vol. I, p. 791.], copied by Matthew of Westminster Flores Histor., p. 213., "vicar of Eadsige, archbishop of Canterbury," and others in a similar manner. Hence I judge that he was not a chorepiscopus in the manner in which many are recorded to have been in the fifth century and the following ones; since these, mostly lacking the episcopal dignity, were the assistants of the prelates of the churches, even of those enjoying the best of health, almost like the vicars general of the bishops of our age; whereas Siward was adorned with the episcopal dignity. Nor do I think that he discharged the office of a suffragan bishop, as afterwards, when the wars of the crusaders were over, did a great many titular bishops of the Latin eastern sees, who performed the episcopal functions in the more distinguished dioceses throughout almost all Europe Thomassin, Discipl. de l'Église, vol. I, book I, ch. 27, col. 195.; for these were not designated to occupy at some time the place of the ordinary bishop. Rather, my mind is that Siward was an assistant bishop, after the manner of the suffragan bishops to whom today, by papal decree, belongs the right of succeeding a prelate labouring under old age or ill health. We have taken no account of the opinion of Walter Hook Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury, vol. I, p. 490., who thinks that Siward was consecrated bishop of Uppsala; since the older writers are silent on this matter, and the Siward who is reckoned by Messenius Scondia illustrata, vol. I, p. 97. and Rhyzelius Episcoposcopia, p. 26. among the bishops of Uppsala lived in the year 1141, almost a century after St. Eadsige, and was therefore another than Siward of Abingdon.

[12] who withdraws when sick. But St. Eadsige could use the work of his assistant only for a short time. For the writer of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reports at the year 1046: "In this … year Bishop Siward departed"; to which expression the continuator of Florence of Worcester added his vote Wharton, vol. I, p. 167.. Nor do these men adduce any other reason for this withdrawal than the infirm health of Siward; for we read in the excellent edition of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle of the year 1848 that Siward took this resolution on account of infirm health and betook himself to Abingdon Monumenta Brit., p. 438.; likewise in the continuator of Florence of Worcester: "In the year 1049 … Siward, governing in the archbishop's place, seized by sickness, is carried sick from Kent to Abingdon, and, held to his bed there for two months, is led from this life sick, and is buried there" Ibid., p. 603.. But we find this business in entirely different words in the books of William of Malmesbury. "Not long after the sacred anointing of the king," he says, "having contracted an incurable disease, he (St. Eadsige) withdrew from power living and willing, having first treated in more secret counsel with the king and the earl (Godwin) that Siward, abbot of Abingdon, should succeed him. But since that man, ungrateful towards the very one who had conferred the honour, defrauded the sick man even of necessary food, the already designated successor was cast out, and the bishopric of Rochester was given him, to lighten his shame and console his loss. Then the king created Robert, whom from a monk of Jumièges he had made bishop of London, archbishop … recompensing with a most ample reward the benefits once bestowed on himself by him when he was an exile in Normandy" Gesta Pontificum Anglorum, book I, p. 34, edition of 1870.. This opinion of William of Malmesbury was admitted by Thomas Rudborne In Wharton, vol. I, p. 237 f., almost copying his words.

[13] Concerning which withdrawal errors are reported in historical books. But no credit is to be given to this narration; for besides the fact that other ancient writers of the same twelfth century are silent about Siward's ungrateful mind, it is manifest that William took another Siward for Siward of Abingdon. For Florence of Worcester relates Monum. hist. Britann., p. 603. that Siward, chorepiscopus of the archbishop of Dorobernia, died the year before St. Eadsige and was buried at Abingdon. Henry of Huntingdon agrees with the Worcester writer Ibid., p. 759.; likewise the author of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle relates that Siward, abbot of the church of Christ, was consecrated bishop of Rochester in the year 1058 by Stigand, the second archbishop of Dorobernia after St. Eadsige Ibid., p. 457.: which things entirely conflict with William's statements. Wherefore we judge that William either slipped into error, or, as has happened several times elsewhere [Pagi, Critice, vol. XIII, year 778, no. 12; vol. XV, year 894, nos. 8, 10, 11; vol. XVI, year

1027, no. 5; vol. XVII, year 1069, no. 4; vol. XVIII, year 1098, no. 2], has been interpolated in this place. These our statements seem sufficient to refute the moderns Parker Antiquitates Britannicae, p. 96. and Godwin De Praesulibus Angliae, loc. cit., who transferred William's error into their books Compare the Canon of Lichfield, in Wharton, vol. I, pp. 107 and 238.. Nor have there been lacking more recent writers who, on account of the words of William of Malmesbury adduced above, have supposed that Robert of Jumièges, bishop of London, was substituted as assistant of St. Eadsige when Siward returned to Abingdon. But I do not think that one should go over to this opinion. For the author of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle Monum. Britann., p. 437. not only writes that St. Eadsige took up the whole archiepiscopate again after the departure of Siward, but the same man Ibid., pp. 442 and 451., no less than Florence of Worcester Ibid., pp. 604 and 606., Henry of Huntingdon Ibid., p. 759. and others Matthew Paris, Chronica majora at the year 1050, p. 213., relate that Robert passed from the see of London to that of Canterbury after the death of St. Eadsige; and, expelled from it shortly afterwards, he obtained Stigand as successor.

[14] St. Eadsige received and bestowed gifts. Nor do the historians seem to have committed to writing other deeds of St. Eadsige, if you except both the dedication to God of the monastery of Coventry, in the year 1043 Wharton, vol. I, p. 463., and the consecration of Wulfric, abbot of St. Augustine's at Canterbury Chronicle of Will. Thorne, in Twysden, col. 1784., and certain gifts either received or bestowed by him. For King Cnut gave several lands to the blessed man, whom he treated as a very close friend; the diploma of this munificence we have shown above, and therefore it is by no means to be reviewed in this place. On the other hand, the holy prelate bestowed on the monastery of St. Augustine at Canterbury the land of Littlebourne, previously given to him by the king Kemble, Codex Diplom., vol. VI, no. 1333.; likewise in the year of the Lord 1045 "five acres of land outside Ridingate, and one meadow belonging to the aforesaid land, on this condition interposed, that the monks of St. Augustine's should have a special memory of him in their prayers" Will. Thorne, in Twysden, col. 1784.. Then in the year 1048 "this same Eadsinus also gave two chalices of silver gilt. He also gave a hundred marks for the building of the tower of the church, and a glossed psalter, which was chained to the altar of St. Gregory" [Ibid., col. 2247, col. 1784; Thomas of Elmham, Hist. monasterii S. Aug. Cantuar., p. 26, Hardwick's edition.]. At the intercession of the blessed man, too, King Harold restored to the church of Christ the port of Sandwich, which he had taken away Monasticon Anglicanum, vol. I, p. 108., although King Cnut had given it as a gift to the monks of that monastery in the year of the Lord's Incarnation 1023 Kemble, Codex diplomaticus, vol. IV, p. 21..

[15] St. Eadsige dies. At length St. Eadsige departed from this earth at the end of the month of October in the year of the Lord's Incarnation 1054 or 1055, or of the Lord's Nativity 1053 or 1054. The 29th of October is indicated as the day of his death in the Anglo-Saxon and Peterborough chronicles, or also in the Canterbury Obituary In Wharton, vol. I, p. 791.. In other obituaries, however, he is said to have died on the 27th of September Ibid., 790., or also on the 30th of October Ibid., p. 55.. It seems we must judge that the 5th day before the Kalends of October, or the 27th of September, is a slip of the pen. That he entered upon the way of all flesh in the year 1054 or 1055 we gather from the diplomas to which the blessed bishop set his name. For in the former year he approved a certain donation of St. Edward in these words: "† I, Eadsius, archbishop of the church of Dorobernia, have subscribed the gift of the same king (Edward) with the seal of the holy cross" Codex Diplomaticus Angliae, vol. IV, p. 134.. This formula, or a similar one, he often used. But in the later year he already had his second successor, Stigand, who ratified another donation of St. Edward, writing: "† I, Stigand, archbishop, have confirmed the king's gift" Ibid., p. 136.. Since these historical documents are in the highest degree genuine and certain, it must be held, first, that St. Eadsige died not before the year 1054 nor after the year 1055; then, that Florence of Worcester, Henry of Huntingdon, Matthew of Westminster, Roger of Hoveden, John of Oxenedes and the author of the Peterborough Chronicle have fallen into manifest error, all of whom tie his death to the year 1050, using these same words: "In the year 1050 Eadsige, archbishop of Dorobernia, died." No less does the writer of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle depart from the truth when he says: "In the year 1047. In this very year Archbishop Eadsige departed on the fourth day before the Kalends of November" Monum. Britan., p. 442. Compare Wharton, vol. II, p. 791.. To these writers, certainly very respectable men, St. Eadsige himself and Stigand, subscribing the diplomas, are to be preferred; and therefore it must be said that the holy archbishop departed to heaven either in the year of the Incarnation 1054 or 1055. In this historical commentary we have neglected the statement of Walter Hook, who indicates that Bl. Eadsige was a courtier bishop. If that had been true, St. Edward, eager not for the praises of men but for the divine glory, would not have shown himself so benevolent towards him. We would not accuse Walter of error if he had written that Bl. Eadsige took to himself the Pauline axiom: "I am made all things to all men, that I might save all."