Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 16.djvu/412

 ‘All the flower of the English race’ perished in the battle (A.-S. Chron.)

After this defeat Eadmund went into Gloucestershire, and there for the seventh time began to gather a fresh force. Cnut followed him, and though Eadmund was anxious to make another attack upon the enemy, Eadric and other nobles refused to allow him to do so, and arranged that the kings should hold a conference and divide the kingdom between them. This conference, which was held on an island of the Severn, called Olney, has by Henry of Huntingdon and other later writers been turned into a single combat. As the whole story is imaginary, the only detail worth noticing here is the tradition that Eadmund was a man of great size, far larger than the Danish king (Gesta Regum, ii. 180; for other accounts of this supposed combat see, p. 185, , De Nugis, p. 204; Flores Hist. i. 407). The meeting of the kings was peaceful, a division of the kingdom was agreed upon; Eadmund was to be king over the south of the land and apparently to have the headship, Cnut was to reign over the north [see under ]. It seems probable that it was arranged that, whichever survived the other should become sole king (Knytlinga Saga, c. 16; see under ). Very shortly after this meeting Eadmund died, on 30 Nov. 1016, at London, or less probably at Oxford (, followed by the St. Albans compiler; the statement of Florence is accepted by Dr. Freeman, while Mr. Parker, in his Early History of Oxford, argues that Oxford must be held to be the place of Eadmund's death; his strongest argument is met in Norman Conquest, 3rd ed. i. 714). The cause of his death is left uncertain by the chronicle writers, and Florence; the author of the ‘Encomium Emmæ’ (p. 22) implies that it was natural. William of Malmesbury says that it was doubtful, but that it was rumoured that Eadric, in the hope of gaining Cnut's favour, bribed two chamberlains to slay him, and adds the supposed manner in which the crime was carried out: ‘Ejus [Edrici] consilio ferreum uncum, ad naturæ requisita sedenti, in locis posterioribus adegisse’ (Gesta Regum, ii. 180). Henry of Huntingdon makes a son of Eadric the actual perpetrator of the deed, of which he gives much the same account. Later writers ascribe the murder to Eadric. Among these ‘Brompton’ tells the oddest story, for he makes out that the king was slain by Eadric by mechanical means, being shot by the image of an archer that discharged an arrow when it was touched (col. 996). Of foreign authorities, the ‘Knytlinga Saga’ (c. 16) says that Eadmund was killed by his foster-brother Eadric, who was bribed by Cnut; in the ‘Lives of the Kings’ (, ii. 21) it is said that he was slain by Eadric, but Cnut is not mentioned; Saxo (p. 193), while relating that the murder was done by certain men who hoped to please Cnut by it, adds that some believed that Cnut himself had secretly ordered it; Adam of Bremen (ii. 51) says that he was taken off by poison. Dr. Freeman, who discusses the subject fully (Norman Conquest, i. 398, 711 sq.), inclines to the belief that his death was due to natural causes. The matter must of course be left undecided. In the face of the vigour he had lately shown at Ashington it is impossible to accept the statement that ‘the strain and failure of his seven months' reign proved fatal to the young king’ (Conquest of England, p. 418). His death happened opportunely for Cnut, but there does not seem sufficient evidence to attribute it to him [see ]. On the other hand, unless we are to believe that it was caused by sudden sickness, it certainly seems highly probable that it was the work of Eadric. Eadmund was buried with his grandfather Eadgar at Glastonbury, before the high altar (De Antiq. Glast. ed. Gale, iii. 306). He left two sons, Eadmund and Eadward.

[Anglo-Saxon Chron. (Rolls Ser.); Florence of Worcester (Engl. Hist. Soc.); Henry of Huntingdon (Rolls Ser.); William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum (Engl. Hist. Soc.), De Antiq. Glast. (Gale); Ailred [Æthelred] of Rievaux, Bromton, Twysden; Ralph of Diceto (Rolls Ser.); Flores Hist. (Wendover) (Engl. Hist. Soc.); Thietmar's Mon. Hist. Germ. iii. (Pertz); Gaimar, Mon. Hist. Brit.; Encomium Emmæ, Adam of Bremen, Pertz in usum Schol.; Knytlinga Saga, Antiq. Celto-Scandinavicæ (Johnstone); Saxo (Stephanius); Sea Kings (Laing); Vigfusson and Powell's Corpus Poet. Boreale; Kemble's Codex Dipl. iii. 369; Freeman's Norman Conquest, i. 3rd ed.; Green's Conquest of England; Parker's Early Hist. of Oxford (Oxf. Hist. Soc.)]  EDMUND (RICH), (1170?–1240), archbishop of Canterbury, was born on St. Edmund's day (20 Nov.), probably between 1170 and 1175. No exact dates can be assigned until his appointment to Canterbury. He read lectures in arts for six years, and among his pupils during this time was Walter Gray, afterwards archbishop of York, who was appointed chancellor 2 Oct. 1205. From this it is evident that he was teaching in Oxford before 1205; and if Gray was attending his classes about 1200, he can hardly have been born later than 1175. As, however, Walter Gray was rejected by the monks of