The Ironic Death of King Edmund

published in Withowinde issue 187 Autumn 2018 pp.38-39 (1200 words)

The interesting article by Ian Holt in the last edition of Wiðowinde has prompted these
additional reflections on the death of king Edmund, with some added context which I hope
will prove just as interesting. First, a comparison of the different texts of the Anglo Saxon
Chronicle explains the sometimes vague or conflicting accounts of Edmund's death in the
history books (see, for example, Swanton 2000). Secondly, the surviving written laws of
Edmund provide an indirect insight into his character which in turn gives a sense of irony to
the manner of his death. These were edited and translated by Robertson 1925, and are
available as a facsimile re-print by Llanerch Press in "Part 1 Edmund to Canute" (although
beware - the notes are at the end of "Part 2 William I to Henry I").

The so-called "Anglo Saxon Chronicle" is, of course, made up of several versions which were
produced by different monastic centres, and which are now denominated by the letters A
through to F (H is a fragment covering 1113-1114). Although they all share a certain core of
information, there are often significant differences in the facts or opinions which are set out,
sometimes because of the interests of the particular author, but sometimes because of
additional information which was available to him. So, Edmund's age at his accession is
stated as 18 in the Winchester recension (A), but not elsewhere. There seems no reason to
doubt it, however; it was probably just a fact which was of no especial interest to the other
authors. Secondly, his death is recorded in the Worcester version (D) as stabbing by "Liofa",
but simply as stabbing in the Peterborough version (E) and with no particular cause at all in
version A. It is perhaps significant that version D states that it was "widely known how he
ended his days" (translation Swanton 2000 p.112) which might explain why there is no
specific mention in the other versions. Why waste time and space on something which
everybody knows anyway? "In this year President Kennedy was killed". Why bother to add
"he was shot in the head while a passenger in an open-top car in a calvacade in Dallas"? The
story that Edmund was defending his steward against a violent thief comes not directly from
one of these versions of the Anglo Saxon Chronicle, but from the Chronicle of John
("Florence") of Worcester (see for example Darlington & McGurk 1995). Although John was
writing in the early eleventh century, he was almost certainly using a version of the Anglo
Saxon Chronicle which is now lost to us. Where it is possible to check other facts which he
provides, his Chronicle proves accurate. A similar tale, but a little more confused, was
recounted a few years later by William of Malmesbury in his “Gesta Regum Anglorum”.
Liofa is now an exiled robber who has returned clandestinely, somehow found a place at a
banquet presided over by Edmund, who recognizes him, grabs him by the hair and wrestles
him to the ground. Unfortunately Liofa pulls a knife and stabs him. William adds that Liofa
was then torn apart by the other guests, which might suggest that his version has been
embroidered somewhat!

Finally, although Edmund might have been the first king to inherit a kingdom of England, the
different versions of the Anglo Saxon Chronicle are full of accounts of Edmund's military
activity in order to try to preserve the unity of the kingdom, and this might have contributed to
his problems with public disorder, which was a focus of his written laws. It is also notable
that trouble flared up again after his death, so that Eadred (his brother and immediate
successor) had to re-conquer parts of the realm, Northumbria in particular (see A 946, Stenton
1971 pp.360-361). As for his earlier involvement in the battle at Brunanburh, apart from the
famous poem, the Canterbury version (F) states that the army was led by Aethelstan and
Edmund together, which adds some weight to the theory that he was an active warrior even
then, and the poem was not merely hagiography.

A major source for Edmund's life is his written laws, and these add some ironic colour to the
circumstances of his death. There are three sets known to us, usually cited as "I Em" etc.
(Wormald 1999 pp.308-309). I Em and II Em survived in both the Textus Roffensis and MS
383 at Corpus Christi College Cambridge, both early twelfth century but reasonably reliable
texts. Indeed, I Em is also set out in part in manuscripts of archbishop Wulfstan dating from
around 1008. III Em is only in Latin, in the text known as "Quadripartitus". This also dates
from the early twelfth century and is a compilation of Anglo Saxon texts translated into Latin,
albeit of dubious accuracy as the author was not a native English speaker.

Not surprisingly, in view of the military action which seemed to be dominating his reign,
Edmund's laws have a common theme of the need to preserve public order but also an
emphasis on the status of the king in many different ways, which perhaps indicates the
authoritarian side of Edmund's character (Wormald 1999 p.312). So although I Em mainly
concerns church matters, it contains a provision sanctifying the person of the king by
forbidding a killer from entering his presence unless he has undergone proper penance. II Em
repeats this in secular terms, and also includes a mini-code restricting blood-feuds, again with
the king at the centre of the process. III Em begins with a lengthy general statement about the
need to combat public disorder but links this to an oath of fidelity to the king. As a whole, his
written laws show a determination to establish royal authority as the central pillar of the
kingdom, and allegiance to the king as underpinning law and order. In the light of all this,
and other provisions which attempt to clamp down on theft, it is ironic that Edmund should
have met his death at the hands of a violent thief who had evaded the security protecting the
king and showed scant respect for the royal person. If the story recounted by John of
Worcester was true and Edmund was killed while involving himself bravely but voluntarily in
the violence, perhaps it also symbolized the public disorder which was a by-product of his
military activities. But unfortunately that was not the sort of image of himself which Edmund
would have wished to hand down to posterity.

References

R. R. Darlington & P. McGurk, "The Chronicle of John of Worcester" (Oxford: Clarendon

Press 1995)

A. J. Robertson, "The Laws of the Kings of England from Edmund to Henry I" (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press 1925) (re-printed by Llanerch Press as "Part 1 Edmund to
Canute")
F. M. Stenton, "Anglo-Saxon England" (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1971)

M. Swanton, "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles" (London: Phoenix Press 2000)

William of Malmesbury, "Gesta Regum Anglorum" (translated J.A. Giles, London 1847)

P. Wormald, "The Making of English Law: King Alfred to the Twelfth Century" (Oxford:
Blackwell 1999)