A REPLY

TO THE

OBSERVATIONS

OP THE

EDINBURGH REVIEW,

ON THE

ANGLO-SAXON ANTIQUITIES.

BY THE

REV. JOHN LINGARD,

AUTHOR OF ANTIQUITIES OF THE ANGLO-SAXON CHURCH.

LONDON.

A REPLY,

&c. &c.

ONE of the articles in the last number of the Edinburgh review, is a critique on the "Antiquities of the AngloSaxon church." It is not my intention to enter into any discussion with the reviewer respecting the unfair and disingenuous conduct," which it has pleased him to attribute to the author; though such a charge comes with a bad grace from one, who has studiously withheld from the knowledge of his readers every authority, on which my narrative was founded. But his contradictory statements as to the events which occurred in the reign of Edwy, have induced me to examine every known document connected with the subject: and I have been prevailed on to communicate the result of my inquiries with the hope that they may in some measure elucidate a very obscure period of our history.

It is acknowledged by the reviewer that, "of the romantic story of Edwy and Elgiva," told by Hume and other modern writers, "little remains that is deserving of credit:" that the woman, who is the heroine of the tale, "was the mistress, not the wife of Edwy." On this subject, however, I must solicit attention to the testimony of two ancient

historians; both because they are very circumstantial in their narratives, and have seldom been consulted by later writers. The first is the contemporary biographer of Archbishop Dunstan. Of his name we are ignorant, as he has only prefixed to his work the initial letter B: but he wrote about fifteen years after the death of Dunstan, and dedicated his work to Archbishop Elfric. It is extant in manuscript in the Cotton library, Cleop. B. 13, and has been published by the Bollandists, Tom. IV, Maii, p. 344. After mentioning the accession of Edwy, he proceeds thus: "Huic quædam, licet natione præcelsa, inepta tamen mulier, cum adulta filia per nefandum familiaritatis lenocinium sectando inhærebat: eotenus scilicet, quo sese vel etiam natam suam sub conjugali titulo illi innectendo sociaret. Quas ille, ut aiunt, alternatim, quod jam pudet dicere, turpi palpatu, et absque pudore utriusque libidinose tractavit. Cum tempore statuto ab universis Anglorum principibus communi electione ungeretur et consecraretur in regem, die eodem post regale sacræ institutionis unguentum repente prosiluit lascivus, linquens læta convivia et decibiles optimatum suorum consessiones, ad prædictum scelus lenocinii (ad prædictum luparum palpamentum. Apud Bol. p. 353.)" The optimates were offended, and after some debate Dunstan and Kynsey were chosen, "qui omnium jussis obtemperantes regem volentem vel nolentem reducerent ad relictam sedem. Ingressi juxta principum suorum præcepta, invenerunt regiam coronam, quæ miro metallo auri et argenti, gemmarumque vario nitore conserta splendebat, procul a capite ad terram usque negligenter avulsam, ipsumque more maligno inter utrasque velut in vili suillorum volutás bro creberrime volutantem." After entreating him in vain to return, "Dunstanus primum increpitans mulierum ineps tias, manu sua, dum nollet exsurgere, extraxit eum de moe chali ganearum accubitu, impositoque diademate duxit eum

secum, licet vi a mulieribus raptum, ad regale consortium. Tunc eadem Æthelgiva, sic erat nomen ignominiosæ mulieris, inanes orbes oculorum contra venerandum abbatem ferventi furore retorsit, &c." MS. Cleop. 76. Mr. Turner, who had consulted this writer, is unwilling to give credit to the indecent circumstances here mentioned, because "they are introduced with a suspicious ut aiunt;" but it is plain that the ut aiunt refers to the reports circulated before the king's coronation-of the transactions, which took place on the day of that ceremony, he speaks without doubt or qualification.

The second authority, to which I request the reader's attention, is that of Eadmer, who wrote about the year 1100. Wharton has inserted much of his life of Archbishop Dunstan in the second volume of Anglia Sacra: but he has omitted whatever regards the time previous to the accession of Edgar. This omission may be supplied from Surius, who in 1618 published the whole work, Coloniæ Agrippinæ, under the name of Osbert. I shall transcribe from Eadmer the passage relating to Edwy's coronation, as it probably may not be accessible to many of your readers. "Erat mulier quædam ex magna et alta progenie nata, filiam adultam habens. Hæ præfatæ regi Edvino assidue adhærebant, suis blanditiis et nutibus illecebrosis pro viribus operam dantes, quatenus unam illarum sibi in conjugium copularet. Ad quas ille impudico illiciti amoris desiderio fervens, indecenti amplexu nunc hanc nunc illam, neutrius adspectum in hoc erubescens, destringebat. Die quo ipse in regem est consecratus, a loco convivii, in quo cum archiepiscopis, episcopis, abbatibus, totiusque regni principibus sedebat, jam pransus exilit, et relictis omnibus in cameram, ubi præfatæ mulieres erant, solus secedit, capitique corona sublata, se inter illas medium jecit. Quod optimates agnoscentes oppido indignati sunt." At their unanimous request