In the United States the title “university” is used indiscriminately of institutions which are in reality universities, of institutions which are colleges, and of institutions which are so ill-equipped as not to take rank withThe universities.good secondary schools. Only time and a greatly increased capacity to distinguish the various types of higher schools will remedy this error. Putting aside tentative and unsuccessful attempts to develop genuine university instruction much earlier, it may safely be said that the opening of the Johns Hopkins University at Baltimore in 1876 began the present movement to organize carefully advanced study and research, requiring a college education of those who wish to enter upon it. This is university instruction properly so called, and though found elsewhere, it is given chiefly at fourteen institutions: California University, Catholic University of America, Chicago University, Clark University, Columbia University, Cornell University, Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University, Michigan University, Pennsylvania University, Princeton University, Leland Stanford Jr. University, Wisconsin University and Yale University. All of these institutions, except the Catholic University of America, are also colleges. The combination of collegiate and university instruction under one corporation and one executive administration is distinctive of higher education in the United States, and its chief source of strength. The crowning honour of the university student is the degree of Ph.D., although that of A.M.—obtainable in less time and much easier conditions—is also sought. The minimum period of study accepted for the degree of Ph.D. is two years after obtaining the bachelor’s degree; but in practice, three, and even four, years of study are found necessary. In addition to carrying on an investigation in the field of his main subject of study, the candidate for the degree of Ph.D. is usually required to pass examinations on one or two subordinate subjects, to possess a reading knowledge of French and German (often of Latin as well), and to submit—usually in printed form—the dissertation which embodies the results of his researches. The methods of instruction in the universities are the lecture, discussion and work in laboratory or seminary—the latter transplanted from the German universities. The degree of Master of Arts is conferred upon students who, after one year of university residence and study, pass certain prescribed examinations. This degree, like those of D.D., S.T.D. and LL.D., is often conferred by colleges and universities as a purely honorary distinction. The degree of Ph.D. is not so conferred any longer by the best universities. Not a few of the universities maintain schools of law and medicine. Harvard and Yale universities maintain schools of theology as well. The learned publications issued by the universities, or under the direction of university professors, are of great importance, and constitute an imposing body of scientific literature. The national and state governments make increasing use of university officials for public service requiring special training or expert knowledge. In 1871-1872 there were only 198 resident graduate (or university) students in the United States. In 1887 this number had risen to 1237, and in 1897 to 4392. These figures are exclusive of professional students, and include only those who are studying in what would be called, in Germany, the philosophical faculty. (See alsoUniversities.)
Most extensive provision is made in America for professional, technical and special education of all kinds, and for the care and training of the dependent and defective classes (seeBlindnessandDeaf and Dumb), as well as for the education of the Indian (seeIndians, North American), and—in the Southern states—of the negro (q.v.).
(N. M. B.)
Statistics.—Details as to education in each state of the American Union are given in the articles under state headings. But a more comprehensive view may be obtained here from the general statistics. The introduction to the statistical tables in vol. ii. of the Commissioner of Education’s Report for 1907 may usefully be quoted. Mr Edward L. Thorndike, of the Teachers’ College, Columbia University, there summarizes the national account as follows:—
“We use in formal school education a material plant valued at from twelve to thirteen hundred million dollars, the labour of 550,000 teachers or other educational officers, and more or less of the time of some eighteen million students.... We pay for the labour of these teachers, many of whom work for only part of the normal city-school year, about $300,000,000. We pay for fuel, light, janitorial services, repairs, depreciation of books, school supplies, insurance and the like, about $90,000,000. For depreciation of the plant not so charged we should properly provide during the year a sinking fund of perhaps $25,000,000. Adding an interest charge of 5% on the investment in the plant, our annual bill for formal school education comes to over $475,000,000. Additions to the plant were made [in 1906-1907] to the extent of from ninety to a hundred million dollars. As a partial estimate of the returns from this investment we may take the number of students whose education has been carried to a specified standard of accomplishment and power. Thus I estimate that, in 1907, 3000 students reached the standard denoted by three years or more of academic, technical or professional study in advance of a reputable college degree; that 25,000 students reached the standard denoted by at least three and not over four years of such study in advance of a four-year high-school course; than an eighth of a million students reached the standard denoted by at least three and not over four years of study in advance of an eight-year elementary-school course; and that three-quarters of a million students reached the standard of completion of an elementary-school course of seven or eight years or its equivalent.... Roughly, nine-tenths of elementary education and the education of teachers, over two-thirds of secondary education, and over a third of college and higher technical education are provided and controlled by the public. Professional education, other than the training of teachers and engineers, is still largely a function of private provision and control.“The following rough comparison may serve to define further the status of education in the country at large. The plant used for formal education is valued at 1% of our entire national wealth, or twice the value of our telephone systems, or ten times the value of our Pullman and private cars, or one-tenth the value of our railroads. The number of teachers is approximately that of the clergymen, engineers, lawyers and physicians together, five times that of the regular army and navy, and about twice that of the saloon-keepers and bar-tenders and their assistants. The annual expenditure for education, exclusive of additions to the plant, is somewhat over twice the expenditure for the war and navy departments of the national government. It is three and a half times the expenditure of the national government in 1907 for pensions. It is about one and a fourth times the cost (New York wholesale prices) of the sugar and coffee we consume annually.”
“We use in formal school education a material plant valued at from twelve to thirteen hundred million dollars, the labour of 550,000 teachers or other educational officers, and more or less of the time of some eighteen million students.... We pay for the labour of these teachers, many of whom work for only part of the normal city-school year, about $300,000,000. We pay for fuel, light, janitorial services, repairs, depreciation of books, school supplies, insurance and the like, about $90,000,000. For depreciation of the plant not so charged we should properly provide during the year a sinking fund of perhaps $25,000,000. Adding an interest charge of 5% on the investment in the plant, our annual bill for formal school education comes to over $475,000,000. Additions to the plant were made [in 1906-1907] to the extent of from ninety to a hundred million dollars. As a partial estimate of the returns from this investment we may take the number of students whose education has been carried to a specified standard of accomplishment and power. Thus I estimate that, in 1907, 3000 students reached the standard denoted by three years or more of academic, technical or professional study in advance of a reputable college degree; that 25,000 students reached the standard denoted by at least three and not over four years of such study in advance of a four-year high-school course; than an eighth of a million students reached the standard denoted by at least three and not over four years of study in advance of an eight-year elementary-school course; and that three-quarters of a million students reached the standard of completion of an elementary-school course of seven or eight years or its equivalent.... Roughly, nine-tenths of elementary education and the education of teachers, over two-thirds of secondary education, and over a third of college and higher technical education are provided and controlled by the public. Professional education, other than the training of teachers and engineers, is still largely a function of private provision and control.
“The following rough comparison may serve to define further the status of education in the country at large. The plant used for formal education is valued at 1% of our entire national wealth, or twice the value of our telephone systems, or ten times the value of our Pullman and private cars, or one-tenth the value of our railroads. The number of teachers is approximately that of the clergymen, engineers, lawyers and physicians together, five times that of the regular army and navy, and about twice that of the saloon-keepers and bar-tenders and their assistants. The annual expenditure for education, exclusive of additions to the plant, is somewhat over twice the expenditure for the war and navy departments of the national government. It is three and a half times the expenditure of the national government in 1907 for pensions. It is about one and a fourth times the cost (New York wholesale prices) of the sugar and coffee we consume annually.”
The above comparison indicates perhaps, not inadequately, the “business” conception of the value of education prevailing in the United States, where its practical advantages are realized as in no other country, not even Germany.
From the same report the following statistics may be cited for 1906-1907.
Common Schools (including Elementary and Secondary Public Schools only).Total number of pupils of all ages16,820,3865Average number of days schools open151.2Average number of days attended by each pupil106.2Number of male teachers105,773Number of female teachers369,465Number of school houses259,115Average monthly wage of male teachers$56.10Average monthly wage of female teachers$43.67Value of all school property$843,309,410Income from permanent funds and rents$16,579,551Income from State taxes$46,281,501Income from local taxes$230,424,554Income from other sources$50,317,132Expenditure on sites, buildings, furniture, libraries and apparatus$65,817,870Expenditure on salaries$196,980,919Expenditure on other purposes$67,882,012Expenditure per head of population$3.90Expenditure per pupil$27.98The Bureau of Education in 1907 received reports from 606 universities, colleges and technological schools; they had a teaching force of 24,679, and an enrolment of 293,343 students. The number of public and private normal schools reporting was 259, with an enrolment of 70,439 students in the regular training courses for teachers, 12,541 graduates and 3660 instructors. There were 148 manual and industrial training schools (independently of the manual training taught in the public schools and in 66 Indian schools), with 1692 teachers and an enrolment of 68,427 students; and 445 independent commercial and business schools, with 2856 instructors and 137,364 students.(X.)Bibliography.—For the study of education as an aspect of religious, social, moral and intellectual development, the material is practically inexhaustible, and much of the most valuable does not treat specifically of the education given in schools and colleges. The most useful guide is E.P. Cubberley’sSyllabus of Lectures on the History of Education(1902), which consists of an analytic outline of topics with copious and detailed references to authorities. See also W.S. Monroe’sBibliography of Education(1897). The best general history in English is P. Monroe’sText-Book in the History of Education(1905), which, like Davidson’s much brieferHistory of Education, treats the subject broadly and in relation to other aspects of life. Williams’sHistory of Ancient, Medieval, and Modern Educationis a useful statement of the main facts of educational progress taken somewhat by itself. In German the standard work is K.A. Schmid’sGeschichte der Erziehung, a comprehensive and detailed treatment in which each period is dealt with by a specialist. Ziegler’sGeschichte der Pädagogikis a good short history. In French, Letourneau’sL’Évolution de l’éducationis especially good on ancient and non-European education. Draper’sIntellectual Development of Europeis vigorous and interesting, but marred by its depreciation of the work of the Church. Guizot’sHistory of Civilizationis still of value, as are parts of Hallam’sLiterary History. Lecky’sHistory of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe, and Buckle’sHistory of Civilizationin England, contain much that is of value. The best encyclopaedias are W. Rein’sEncyklopädisches Handbuch der Pädagogik, and F. Buisson’sDictionnaire de pédagogie, première partie. Sir Henry Craik’sThe State and Education(1883) is an excellent text-book on national education.Of books dealing with special periods and topics, S. Laurie’sHistorical Sketch of Pre-Christian Education, Freeman’sSchools of Hellas, Girard’sL’Éducation athénienne au Veet au IVesiècle avantJ.-C., Davidson’sEducation of the Greek People, Mahaffy’sOld Greek EducationandGreek Life and Thought, Nettleship’s article on “Education in Plato’s Republic” inHellenica, Capes’sUniversity Life in Athens, Hobhouse’sTheory and Practice of Ancient Education, Grasberger’sErziehung und Unterricht im classischen Alterthum, Wilkin’sRoman Education, and Clarke’sEducation of Children at Rome, are valuable for classical times.For the somewhat obscure transition centuries there is much of value in Taylor’sClassical Heritage of the Middle Ages, Dill’sRoman Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire, especially the chapter on “Culture in the 4th and 5th centuries,” Boissier’sLa Fin du paganisme, and Hatch’sInfluence of Greek Thought upon the Christian Church.The best general account of medieval education is in Drane’sChristian Schools and Scholars; and J.B. Mullinger’sSchools of Charles the Greattreats well of the Carolingian Revival. G.B. Adams’sCivilization during the Middle Agesis excellent; and Sandys’sHistory of Classical Scholarshipis a valuable book of reference. On the scholastic philosophy Turner’sHistory of Philosophy, and Hauréau’sHistoire de la philosophie scolastique, are useful. Medieval schools are described in Furnivall’s preface toThe Babees Book, which deals with “Education in Early England,” and in Leach’sOld Yorkshire SchoolsandHistory of Winchester College. The most important books on the universities are Rashdall’sUniversities of Europe in the Middle Ages, Jourdain’sHistoire de l’université de Paris aux XVIIeet XVIIIesiècles, Lyte’sHistory of the University of Oxford to 1530, and Mullinger’sHistory of the University of Cambridge to the Accession of Charles I.Paulsen’sGeschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts auf den deutschen Schulen und Universitätenis the best history of education in Germany.On the Renaissance in Italy, Villari’s Introduction to hisLife and Times of Machiavelli, and Burckhardt’sDie Kultur der Renaissance in Italien(translated into English), are of the first importance. Other valuable books are the first volume of theCambridge Modern Historyand Symonds’s great work onThe Renaissance in Italy, especially the volume onThe Revival of Learning. Dealing more specifically with education are Woodward’s excellent monographs onEducation during the Renaissance,Vittorino da FeltreandErasmus. Janssen’sGeschichte des deutschen Volkes(translated into English) gives a good account of the social and intellectual condition of Germany in the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries. Christie’sLife of Étienne Doletis of value for the Renaissance in France. For the movement in England Seebohm’sOxford Reformers, Gasquet’sEve of the Reformation in England, Einstein’sThe Italian Renaissance in England, and Leach’sEnglish Schools at the Reformation, 1546-1548, are particularly important.For later times the material is chiefly in the form of monographs, of which the following, among others, are of value: Adamson’sPioneers of Modern Education, Laas’sDie Pädagogik des Johannes Sturm, Beard’sPort Royal, vol. ii., Kuno Fischer’sFr. Bacon und seine Nachfolger, Laurie’sJohn Amos Comenius, Morley’sRousseau, Pinloche’sLa Réforme de l’éducation en Allemagne au dix-huitième siècle, Biedermann’sDeutschlands geistige, sittliche, und gesellige Zustände im XVIII. Jahrhundert.For the 19th century and after, the best sources of information are the official Reports, such as those of the Royal Commissions on the English Universities, the Public Schools, and the other English secondary schools; the “Special Reports,” issued by the English Board of Education; the encyclopaedic annual Reports of the American Commissioner of Education (dealing not only with the United States, but with progress in other countries); monographs in the FrenchMusée pédagogique, and various German Reports.For education in the United States, see also Boone’sHistory of Education in U.S.A.(1889); N.M. Butler (editor),Education in the U.S.A.(1900), a series of monographs prepared for the Paris Exposition; E.G. Dexter’sHistory of Education in the United States(1904); and theProceedingsof the National Educational Association.On the leading writers on education the monographs in the Great Educator Series are useful, and editions and translations of the best known of these writers are available. The greatest systematic collection is theMonumenta Germaniae paedagogica. On the development of the means of education, Montmorency’s two books onState Intervention in English Education from the Earliest Times to 1833, andThe Progress of Education in England, Balfour’sEducational Systems of Great Britain and Ireland, Allain’sL’Instruction primaire en France avant la Révolution, Lantoine’sHistoire de l’enseignement secondaire en France au XVIIIeet au début du XVIIIesiècle, and Konrad Fischer’sGeschichte des deutschen Volkschullehrerstands, may be mentioned.
Common Schools (including Elementary and Secondary Public Schools only).
The Bureau of Education in 1907 received reports from 606 universities, colleges and technological schools; they had a teaching force of 24,679, and an enrolment of 293,343 students. The number of public and private normal schools reporting was 259, with an enrolment of 70,439 students in the regular training courses for teachers, 12,541 graduates and 3660 instructors. There were 148 manual and industrial training schools (independently of the manual training taught in the public schools and in 66 Indian schools), with 1692 teachers and an enrolment of 68,427 students; and 445 independent commercial and business schools, with 2856 instructors and 137,364 students.
(X.)
Bibliography.—For the study of education as an aspect of religious, social, moral and intellectual development, the material is practically inexhaustible, and much of the most valuable does not treat specifically of the education given in schools and colleges. The most useful guide is E.P. Cubberley’sSyllabus of Lectures on the History of Education(1902), which consists of an analytic outline of topics with copious and detailed references to authorities. See also W.S. Monroe’sBibliography of Education(1897). The best general history in English is P. Monroe’sText-Book in the History of Education(1905), which, like Davidson’s much brieferHistory of Education, treats the subject broadly and in relation to other aspects of life. Williams’sHistory of Ancient, Medieval, and Modern Educationis a useful statement of the main facts of educational progress taken somewhat by itself. In German the standard work is K.A. Schmid’sGeschichte der Erziehung, a comprehensive and detailed treatment in which each period is dealt with by a specialist. Ziegler’sGeschichte der Pädagogikis a good short history. In French, Letourneau’sL’Évolution de l’éducationis especially good on ancient and non-European education. Draper’sIntellectual Development of Europeis vigorous and interesting, but marred by its depreciation of the work of the Church. Guizot’sHistory of Civilizationis still of value, as are parts of Hallam’sLiterary History. Lecky’sHistory of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe, and Buckle’sHistory of Civilizationin England, contain much that is of value. The best encyclopaedias are W. Rein’sEncyklopädisches Handbuch der Pädagogik, and F. Buisson’sDictionnaire de pédagogie, première partie. Sir Henry Craik’sThe State and Education(1883) is an excellent text-book on national education.
Of books dealing with special periods and topics, S. Laurie’sHistorical Sketch of Pre-Christian Education, Freeman’sSchools of Hellas, Girard’sL’Éducation athénienne au Veet au IVesiècle avantJ.-C., Davidson’sEducation of the Greek People, Mahaffy’sOld Greek EducationandGreek Life and Thought, Nettleship’s article on “Education in Plato’s Republic” inHellenica, Capes’sUniversity Life in Athens, Hobhouse’sTheory and Practice of Ancient Education, Grasberger’sErziehung und Unterricht im classischen Alterthum, Wilkin’sRoman Education, and Clarke’sEducation of Children at Rome, are valuable for classical times.
For the somewhat obscure transition centuries there is much of value in Taylor’sClassical Heritage of the Middle Ages, Dill’sRoman Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire, especially the chapter on “Culture in the 4th and 5th centuries,” Boissier’sLa Fin du paganisme, and Hatch’sInfluence of Greek Thought upon the Christian Church.
The best general account of medieval education is in Drane’sChristian Schools and Scholars; and J.B. Mullinger’sSchools of Charles the Greattreats well of the Carolingian Revival. G.B. Adams’sCivilization during the Middle Agesis excellent; and Sandys’sHistory of Classical Scholarshipis a valuable book of reference. On the scholastic philosophy Turner’sHistory of Philosophy, and Hauréau’sHistoire de la philosophie scolastique, are useful. Medieval schools are described in Furnivall’s preface toThe Babees Book, which deals with “Education in Early England,” and in Leach’sOld Yorkshire SchoolsandHistory of Winchester College. The most important books on the universities are Rashdall’sUniversities of Europe in the Middle Ages, Jourdain’sHistoire de l’université de Paris aux XVIIeet XVIIIesiècles, Lyte’sHistory of the University of Oxford to 1530, and Mullinger’sHistory of the University of Cambridge to the Accession of Charles I.Paulsen’sGeschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts auf den deutschen Schulen und Universitätenis the best history of education in Germany.
On the Renaissance in Italy, Villari’s Introduction to hisLife and Times of Machiavelli, and Burckhardt’sDie Kultur der Renaissance in Italien(translated into English), are of the first importance. Other valuable books are the first volume of theCambridge Modern Historyand Symonds’s great work onThe Renaissance in Italy, especially the volume onThe Revival of Learning. Dealing more specifically with education are Woodward’s excellent monographs onEducation during the Renaissance,Vittorino da FeltreandErasmus. Janssen’sGeschichte des deutschen Volkes(translated into English) gives a good account of the social and intellectual condition of Germany in the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries. Christie’sLife of Étienne Doletis of value for the Renaissance in France. For the movement in England Seebohm’sOxford Reformers, Gasquet’sEve of the Reformation in England, Einstein’sThe Italian Renaissance in England, and Leach’sEnglish Schools at the Reformation, 1546-1548, are particularly important.
For later times the material is chiefly in the form of monographs, of which the following, among others, are of value: Adamson’sPioneers of Modern Education, Laas’sDie Pädagogik des Johannes Sturm, Beard’sPort Royal, vol. ii., Kuno Fischer’sFr. Bacon und seine Nachfolger, Laurie’sJohn Amos Comenius, Morley’sRousseau, Pinloche’sLa Réforme de l’éducation en Allemagne au dix-huitième siècle, Biedermann’sDeutschlands geistige, sittliche, und gesellige Zustände im XVIII. Jahrhundert.
For the 19th century and after, the best sources of information are the official Reports, such as those of the Royal Commissions on the English Universities, the Public Schools, and the other English secondary schools; the “Special Reports,” issued by the English Board of Education; the encyclopaedic annual Reports of the American Commissioner of Education (dealing not only with the United States, but with progress in other countries); monographs in the FrenchMusée pédagogique, and various German Reports.
For education in the United States, see also Boone’sHistory of Education in U.S.A.(1889); N.M. Butler (editor),Education in the U.S.A.(1900), a series of monographs prepared for the Paris Exposition; E.G. Dexter’sHistory of Education in the United States(1904); and theProceedingsof the National Educational Association.
On the leading writers on education the monographs in the Great Educator Series are useful, and editions and translations of the best known of these writers are available. The greatest systematic collection is theMonumenta Germaniae paedagogica. On the development of the means of education, Montmorency’s two books onState Intervention in English Education from the Earliest Times to 1833, andThe Progress of Education in England, Balfour’sEducational Systems of Great Britain and Ireland, Allain’sL’Instruction primaire en France avant la Révolution, Lantoine’sHistoire de l’enseignement secondaire en France au XVIIIeet au début du XVIIIesiècle, and Konrad Fischer’sGeschichte des deutschen Volkschullehrerstands, may be mentioned.
(J. Wn.)
1For the evolution of the school as such from early times seeSchools.2See especiallyDas öffentliche Unterrichtswesen Deutschlands, by Dr Paul Stötzner (Leipzig, 1901).3A valuable bibliography of Mr Harris’s contributions to educational literature is given in the Report of the Commissioner of Education for 1907 (Washington, 1908).4See especially the second Annual Report of the President of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (pp. 76-80), quoted in the Report for 1907 of the Commissioner of Education.5In private schools there were also 1,304,547 pupils.
1For the evolution of the school as such from early times seeSchools.
2See especiallyDas öffentliche Unterrichtswesen Deutschlands, by Dr Paul Stötzner (Leipzig, 1901).
3A valuable bibliography of Mr Harris’s contributions to educational literature is given in the Report of the Commissioner of Education for 1907 (Washington, 1908).
4See especially the second Annual Report of the President of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (pp. 76-80), quoted in the Report for 1907 of the Commissioner of Education.
5In private schools there were also 1,304,547 pupils.
EDWARD,“The Elder” (d. 924), king of the Angles and Saxons, was the second son of Alfred the Great, and with his sister Æthelflæd was carefully educated at the court of his father. During his father’s lifetime he took an active part in the campaigns against the Danes, especially in that of 894, and as early as 898 he signs a charter as “rex,” showing that he was definitely associated with his father in the kingship. He succeeded his father in October 899,1but not without opposition. The Ætheling Æthelwold, son of Alfred’s elder brother Æthelred, seized Wimborne and Christchurch. Edward advanced against him, and Æthelwold took refuge among the Danes in Northumbria. In 904 Æthelwold landed in Essex, and in the next year he enticed the East Anglian Danes to revolt. They ravaged all southern Mercia and, in spite of Edward’s activity, returned home victorious, though Æthelwold fell in the battle of the Holme. In 905 or 906 Edward made a peace with the East Anglian and Northumbrian Danes at “Yttingaford,” near Linslade in Buckinghamshire, perhaps the peace known as “the Laws of Edward and Guthrum.” In 909 and 910 fresh campaigns took place owing to southerly raids by the Danes, and victories were won at Tettenhall and Wednesfield in Staffordshire.2From 907 onwards Edward and his sister Æthelflæd,the Lady of the Mercians, were busy strengthening their hold on Mercia and Wessex. Forts were built at Lincoln (907), “Bremesbyrig” (910), “Scergeat” and Bridgenorth (912), and when in the year 911 Æthelflæd’s husband Æthelred died, Edward took over from Mercia the government of London and Oxford, with the lands belonging to them,i.e.probably Oxfordshire and Middlesex. The policy of constructing “burhs” or fortified towns was continued. Hertford was fortified in 911, Witham in 912, while Æthelflæd fortified Cherbury in Shropshire, “Weardbyrig” and Runcorn (all in 915). In 913 the Danes in Eastern Mercia gave considerable trouble, and in 914 a fresh horde of pirates, coming from Brittany, sailed up the Severn. They raided southern Wales, but were hemmed in by the English forces and besieged until they promised to leave the king’s territory. Edward watched the southern shores of the Bristol Channel so carefully that the Danes failed to secure a hold there, and were ultimately forced to sail to Ireland. In the same year Edward fortified Buckingham and received the submission of the jarls and chief men of Bedford. In 915 he fortified Bedford itself, Maldon in 916, and Towcester and “Wigingamere” in 917. In the last-mentioned year Edward captured and destroyed the Danish stronghold of Tempsford, and later in the year he took Colchester. An attack by the Danes on Maldon failed, and in 915 Edward went to Passenham and received the submission of the men of the “borough” of Northampton. The Danish strongholds of Huntingdon and Colchester were now restored and repaired, and Edward received the submission of the whole of the East Anglian Danes. Before midsummer of this year Edward had fortified Stamford, and on the death of his sister he received the submission of the Mercians at Tamworth. There also three kings of the North Welsh took Edward as their lord. Nottingham was now fortified; Thelwall in Cheshire (919) and Manchester soon followed; Nottingham was strengthened by a second fort; Bakewell was fortified and garrisoned, and then came the greatest triumph of Edward’s reign. He was “chosen as father and lord” by the Scottish king and nation, by Rægenald, the Norwegian king of Northumbria, by Ealdred of Bamborough, and by the English, Danes or Norwegians in Northumbria, and by the Strathclyde Welsh.
With the conclusion of his wars Edward’s activity ceased, and we hear no more of him until in 924 he died at Farndon in Cheshire and was buried in the “New Minster” at Winchester. He was thrice married: (1) to Ecgwyn, a lady of rank, by whom he had a son Æthelstan, who succeeded him, and a daughter Eadgyth, who married Sihtric of Northumbria in 924. This marriage was probably an irregular one. (2) To Ælflæd, by whom he had two sons—Ælfweard, who died a fortnight after his father, and Eadwine, who was drowned in 933—and six daughters, Æthelflæd and Æthelhild nuns, and four others (seeÆthelstan). (3) To Eadgifu, the mother of Kings Edmund and Edred, and of two daughters.
Authorities.—Anglo-Saxon Chronicle(ed. Plummer and Earle, Oxford); Florence of Worcester (Mon. Hist. Brit.); William of Malmesbury,Gesta regum(Rolls Series); Simeon of Durham (Rolls Series); Ethelweard (Mon. Hist. Brit.); Birch,Cartularium Saxonicum, Nos. 588-635;D.N.B., s.v.
Authorities.—Anglo-Saxon Chronicle(ed. Plummer and Earle, Oxford); Florence of Worcester (Mon. Hist. Brit.); William of Malmesbury,Gesta regum(Rolls Series); Simeon of Durham (Rolls Series); Ethelweard (Mon. Hist. Brit.); Birch,Cartularium Saxonicum, Nos. 588-635;D.N.B., s.v.
(A. Mw.)
1See Stevenson’s article inEng. Hist. Rev.vol. xiii. pp. 71-77. The whole chronology of this reign is very difficult and certainly is often impossible of attainment.2It is possible that these battles are one and the same; the places are within 2 to 3 m. of each other.
1See Stevenson’s article inEng. Hist. Rev.vol. xiii. pp. 71-77. The whole chronology of this reign is very difficult and certainly is often impossible of attainment.
2It is possible that these battles are one and the same; the places are within 2 to 3 m. of each other.
EDWARD,“The Martyr” (c.926-978), king of the English, was the son of Edgar by his wife Æthelflæd. Edward’s brief reign was marked by an anti-monastic reaction. Ælfhere, earl of Mercia, once more expelled many of the monks whom Bishop Æthelwold had installed. There seems also to have been some change in administrative policy, perhaps with regard to the Danes, for Earl Oslac, whom Edgar had appointed to Northumbria, was driven from his province. In ecclesiastical matters there were two parties in the kingdom, the monastic, which had its chief hold in Essex and East Anglia, and the anti-monastic, led by Ælfhere of Mercia. Conferences were held at Kirtlington in Oxfordshire and at Calne in Wiltshire in 977 and 978, but nothing definite seems to have been decided. On the 18th of March 978 Edward’s reign was suddenly cut short by his assassination at Corfe Castle in Dorsetshire. The crime was probably inspired by his stepmother, Ælfthryth, who was anxious to secure the succession of her son Ælthelred. The body was hastily interred at Wareham and remained there till 980, when Archbishop Dunstan and Ælfhere of Mercia united in transferring it with great ceremony to Shaftesbury. Edward seems to have been personally popular, and the poem on his death in the chronicle calls his murder the worst deed in English history. Very shortly after his death he was popularly esteemed to be both saint and martyr.
SeeSaxon Chronicle;Vita S. Oswaldi(Hist. of Ch. of York, Rolls Series);Memorials of St Dunstan(ed. Stubbs, Rolls Series).
SeeSaxon Chronicle;Vita S. Oswaldi(Hist. of Ch. of York, Rolls Series);Memorials of St Dunstan(ed. Stubbs, Rolls Series).
(A. Mw.)
EDWARD,“The Confessor” (d. 1066), so called on account of his reputation for sanctity, king of the English, was the son of Æthelred II. and Emma, daughter of Richard, duke of Normandy, and was born at Islip in Oxfordshire. On the recognition of Sweyn as king of England in 1013, Æthelred, with his wife and family, took refuge in Normandy, and Edward continued to reside at the Norman court until he was recalled in 1041 by Hardicanute. He appears to have been formally recognized as heir to the throne, if not actually associated in the kingship, and on the death of Hardicanute in 1042 “all folk received him to be king,” though his actual coronation was delayed until Easter 1043. A few months later Edward, in conjunction with the three great earls of the kingdom, made a raid on the queen-mother Ælfgifu, or Emma, seized all her possessions and compelled her to live in retirement.
In the earlier years of the reign the influence of Earl Godwine was predominant, though not unopposed. His daughter Edith or Eadgyth became Edward’s queen in 1045. But the king’s personal tastes inclined much more to foreigners than to Englishmen, and he fell more and more into the hands of favourites from beyond the sea. Between Godwine, representing the spirit of nationalism, and these favourites (especially their leader Robert of Jumièges, successively bishop of London and archbishop of Canterbury) there was war to the knife. In 1046 Magnus, king of Norway, who had succeeded Hardicanute in Denmark and claimed to succeed him in England as well, threatened an invasion, but the necessity of defending Denmark against his rival Sweyn Estrithson prevented him from carrying it into effect. In 1049, Godwine’s son Sweyn, who had been outlawed for the seduction of the abbess of Leominster, returned and demanded his restoration. This was refused and Sweyn returned into exile, but not before he had with foulest treachery murdered his young kinsman Beorn. He was, however, inlawed next year. The influence of Godwine, already shaken, received a severe blow in 1051 in the appointment of Robert of Jumièges to the archbishopric of Canterbury, and the same year saw the triumph of the foreigners for the moment complete. Edward, indignant at the resistance offered by the men of Dover to the insolence of his brother-in-law Eustace of Boulogne and his French followers, ordered Godwine to punish the town. Godwine refused. The king at the prompting of the archbishop then summoned a meeting of the witan, at which the old charge against Godwine of complicity in the murder of the Ætheling Alfred was to be revived. About the same time came news of a fresh outrage by the foreigners. Godwine gathered his forces and demanded redress, while the earls Leofric of Mercia and Siward of Northumbria hastened to the side of the king. Civil war seemed imminent, but at length a compromise was effected by which the matter was referred to a meeting of the witan to be held at London. At the appointed time Godwine presented himself at Southwark. But his followers were rapidly deserting him, nor would the king give hostages for his security. Alarmed for his safety, he fled to Flanders, while his son Harold went to Ireland. But their exile was brief. The tale of Godwine excited universal sympathy, for it was realized that he represented the cause of national independence. Encouraged by assurances from England, he sailed thither, and joining forces with Harold sailed along the south coast and up the Thames. The king would have resisted but found no support. Yielding to circumstances, he allowed himself to be reconciled, and Godwine and his house were restored to their old position. The queen at the same time was brought back from the monastery of Wherwell, whither she had been despatched after her father’s flight. The foreigners hadalready ignominiously fled the country, and henceforth the influence of Godwine, and, after his death, of Harold, was supreme. In 1063 Harold made a great expedition into Wales, in which he crushed the power of King Gruffyd, who was killed by his own people. But despite his prowess and his power, he was the minister of the king rather than his personal favourite. This latter position belonged to his younger brother Tostig, who on the death of Siward in 1055 was appointed earl of Northumbria. Here his severity and arbitrary temper rendered him intensely unpopular, and in 1065 his subjects broke into revolt. They elected Morkere as their earl, then marching south demanded Tostig’s banishment. Edward desired to crush the revolt by force of arms, but he was overborne and forced to submit. The election of Morkere was recognized, and Tostig went into exile. Intensely mortified at this humiliation, the king fell sick, and henceforth his health failed rapidly. He was unable to gratify his intense desire to be present at the consecration of his new abbey of Westminster, the foundation of which had been the chief interest of his closing years, and on the 5th of January 1066 he died.
The virtues of Edward were monkish rather than kingly. In the qualities of a ruler he was conspicuously deficient; always dependent on others, he ever inclined to the unworthier master. But the charm of his character for the monastic biographer, and the natural tendency to glorify the days before the Norman oppression began, combined to cast about his figure a halo which had not attached to it in life. Allowed to keep her property by William the Conqueror, his widow, Edith, passed the remainder of her life at Winchester, dying on the 19th of December 1075.
Sources.—A number of lives of Edward are brought together in a volume of the Rolls Series entitledLives of Edward the Confessor, and edited by Dr H.R. Luard (London, 1858). Of these by far the most valuable is the contemporaryVita Edwardi, which would appear from internal evidence to have been written by an unknown writer soon after the Norman Conquest—some time between 1066 and 1074. The other chief authorities for the reign are (1) theSaxon Chronicle, (C. Plummer, Oxford, 1892-1899); (2)Florence of Worcester, ed. B. Thorpe, English Historical Society (London, 1848-1849). Reference may also be made to J.M. Kemble,Codex diplomaticus aevi Saxonici(London, 1839-1848).
Sources.—A number of lives of Edward are brought together in a volume of the Rolls Series entitledLives of Edward the Confessor, and edited by Dr H.R. Luard (London, 1858). Of these by far the most valuable is the contemporaryVita Edwardi, which would appear from internal evidence to have been written by an unknown writer soon after the Norman Conquest—some time between 1066 and 1074. The other chief authorities for the reign are (1) theSaxon Chronicle, (C. Plummer, Oxford, 1892-1899); (2)Florence of Worcester, ed. B. Thorpe, English Historical Society (London, 1848-1849). Reference may also be made to J.M. Kemble,Codex diplomaticus aevi Saxonici(London, 1839-1848).
(C. S. P.*)
EDWARD I.(1239-1307), king of England, born at Westminster on the 17th of June 1239, was the eldest son of Henry III. and Eleanor of Provence. He was baptized Edward after Edward the Confessor, for whom Henry had special veneration, and among his godfathers was Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester, his aunt Eleanor’s husband. His political career begins when the conclusion of a treaty with Alphonso X. of Castile, by which he was to marry the Spanish king’s half sister Eleanor, necessitated the conferring on him of an adequate establishment. His father granted him the duchy of Gascony, the earldom of Chester, the king’s lands in Wales and much else. The provision made was so liberal that Henry’s subjects declared he was left no better than a mutilated king. In May 1254 Edward went to Gascony to take possession of his inheritance. He then crossed the Pyrenees, and in October was dubbed knight by Alphonso and married to Eleanor at the Cistercian convent of Las Huelgas, near Burgos. He remained in Gascony till November 1255, but his father was too jealous to allow him a free hand in its administration. After his return, the attempts of his agents to establish English laws in his Welsh possessions brought Edward into hostile relations with the Welsh. Here also his father would give him no help, and his first campaign brought him little result. Edward became extremely unpopular through his association with his Lusignan kinsfolk, his pride and violence, and the disorders of his household. In 1258 his strenuous opposition to the Provisions of Oxford further weakened his position, but, after the banishment of the foreigners, he began to take up a wiser line. In 1259 he led the young nobles who insisted that the triumphant oligarchy should carry out the reforms to which it was pledged. For a moment it looked as if Edward and Leicester might make common cause, but Edward remained an enemy of Montfort, though he strove to infuse his father’s party with a more liberal and national spirit. He was the soul of the reconstituted royalist party formed about 1263. In 1264 he took a prominent part in the fighting between the king and the barons. At the battle of Lewes his rash pursuit of the Londoners contributed to his father’s defeat. Two days later Edward surrendered to Leicester as a hostage for the good behaviour of his allies. He was forced to give up his earldom of Chester to Leicester, but at Whitsuntide 1265 he escaped from his custodians, and joined the lords of the Welsh march who were still in arms. With their aid he defeated and slew Leicester at Evesham on the 4th of August 1265.
For the rest of Henry III.’s reign Edward controlled his father’s policy and appropriated enough of Leicester’s ideals to make the royalist restoration no mere reaction. So peaceful became the outlook of affairs that in 1268 Edward took the cross, hoping to join the new crusade of St Louis. Want of money delayed his departure till 1270, by which time St Louis was dead, and a truce concluded with the infidel. Refusing to be a party to such treason to Christendom, Edward went with his personal followers to Acre, where he abode from May 1271 to August 1272. Despite his energy and valour he could do little to prop up the decaying crusading kingdom and he narrowly escaped assassination. At last the declining health of his father induced him to return to the West. He learned in Sicily the death of Henry III. on the 16th of November 1272. On the 20th of November, the day of Henry’s funeral, he was recognized as king by the English barons, and from that day his regnal years were subsequently computed. Affairs in England were so peaceful that Edward did not hurry home. After a slow journey through Italy and France he did homage to his cousin Philip III. at Paris, on the 26th of July 1273. He then went to Gascony, where he stayed nearly a year. At last he landed at Dover on the 2nd of August 1274, and was crowned at Westminster on the 18th of the same month.
Edward was thirty-five years old when he became king, and the rude schooling of his youth had developed his character and suggested the main lines of the policy which he was to carry out as monarch. He was a tall, well-proportioned and handsome man, extravagantly devoted to military exercises, tournaments and the rougher and more dangerous forms of hunting. He had learned to restrain the hot temper of his youth, and was proud of his love of justice and strict regard to his plighted word. His domestic life was unstained, he was devoted to his friends, and loyal to his subordinates. Without any great originality either as soldier or statesman, he was competent enough to appropriate the best ideas of the time and make them his own. His defects were a hardness of disposition which sometimes approached cruelty and a narrow and pedantic temper, which caused him to regard the letter rather than the spirit of his promises. His effectiveness and love of strong government stand in strong contrast to his father’s weakness. Though he loved power, and never willingly surrendered it, he saw that to be successful he must make his policy popular. Thus he continued the system which Montfort had formed with the object of restraining the monarchy, because he saw in a close alliance with his people the best means of consolidating the power of the crown.
The first years of Edward’s reign were mainly occupied by his efforts to establish a really effective administration. In carrying out this task he derived great help from his chancellor, Robert Burnell, bishop of Bath and Wells. Administrative reform soon involved legislation, and from 1275 to 1290 nearly every year was marked by an important law. Few of these contained anything that was very new or original. They rather illustrate that policy which caused Dr Stubbs to describe his reign as a “period of definition.” Yet the results of his conservative legislation were almost revolutionary. In particular he left the impress of his policy on the land laws of England, notably by the clauseDe Donisof the Westminster statute of 1285, and the statuteQuia Emptoresof 1290. The general effect of his work was to eliminate feudalism from political life. At first he aimed at abolishing all franchises whose holders could not produce written warranty for them. This was the policy of the statute of Gloucester of 1278, but the baronial opposition was so resolute that Edward was forced to permit many immunities to remain. Though the most orthodox of churchmen, his dislikeof authority not emanating from himself threatened to involve him in constant conflict with the Church, and notably with John Peckham, the Franciscan friar, who was archbishop of Canterbury from 1279 to 1292. The statute of Mortmain of 1279, which forbade the further grant of lands to ecclesiastical corporations without the royal consent, and the writCircumspecte Agatisof 1285, which limited the church courts to strictly ecclesiastical business, both provoked strong clerical opposition. However, Peckham gave way to some extent, and Edward prudently acquiesced in many clerical assumptions which he disliked. He was strong enough to refuse to pay the tribute to Rome which John had promised, and his reign saw the end of that papal overlordship over England which had greatly complicated the situation under his father.
Besides administration and legislation, the other great event of the first fifteen years of Edward’s reign was the conquest of the principality of Wales. It was part of Edward’s policy of reconciliation after the battle of Evesham that in the treaty of Shrewsbury of 1267 he had fully recognized the great position which Llewelyn ab Gruffyd, prince of Wales, had gained as the ally of Simon de Montfort. However, Llewelyn’s early successes had blinded the Welsh prince to the limitations of his power, and he profited by Edward’s early absences from England to delay in performing his feudal obligations to the new king. Even after Edward’s return Llewelyn continued to evade doing homage. At last Edward lost patience, and in 1277 invaded north Wales. He conducted his campaign like a great siege, blocking all the avenues to Snowdon, and forcing Llewelyn to surrender from lack of supplies. He thereupon reduced the Welsh prince to the position of a petty north Welsh chieftain strictly dependent on the English. For the next five years Edward did his best to set up the English system of government in the ceded districts. The Welsh resentment of this soon gave Llewelyn another chance, and compelled Edward to devote the years 1282-1283 to completing his conquest. In 1284 he issued the statute of Wales, which provided for a scheme for the future government of the principality. Edward is often called the conqueror of Wales, but in truth he only effected the conquest of Llewelyn’s dominions. The march of Wales was only indirectly affected by his legislation, and remained subject to its feudal marcher lords until the 16th century.
Edward was very careful in his foreign policy. Though preserving nominal peace with his cousin Philip III. of France, his relations with that country were constantly strained. After Philip III.’s death in 1285, Edward crossed the Channel in 1286, to perform homage to his successor, Philip the Fair. He remained abroad till 1289, busied in attempts to improve the administration of Gascony, and making repeated and finally successful efforts to end by his mediation the still continuing struggle between the houses of Anjou and Aragon. His long absence threw the government of England into confusion, and on his return in 1289 he was compelled to dismiss most of his judges and ministers for corruption. In 1290 he expelled all Jews from England.
The affairs of Scotland furnished Edward with his chief preoccupation for the rest of his reign. After the death of Alexander III., in 1286, Scotland was governed in the name of his granddaughter Margaret, the Maid of Norway. The English king had suggested that Edward of Carnarvon, his eldest surviving son, should marry the little queen of Scots, and thus bring about the union of the two countries. Unluckily the death of Margaret in 1290 frustrated the scheme. The Scottish throne was now disputed by many claimants, and the Scots asked Edward to arbitrate between them. Edward accepted the position, but insisted that, before he acted, the Scots should recognize him as their overlord. The claimants set the example of submission, and soon the chief Scots nobles followed. Thereupon Edward undertook the arbitration, and in 1292 adjudged the throne to John Baliol. The new king did homage to Edward, but his subjects soon began to resent the claims of jurisdiction over Scotland, which Edward declared were the natural results of his feudal supremacy. At last the Scots deprived John of nearly all his power, repudiated Edward’s claims, and made an alliance with the French. During the years of the Scottish arbitration Edward had slowly been drifting into war with France. The chronic difficulties caused by French attempts to confine Edward’s power in Gascony were now accentuated by the quarrels between the sailors and merchants of the two countries. In 1293 Edward was persuaded by his brother, Edmund, earl of Lancaster, to yield up Gascony temporarily to Philip the Fair. But Philip refused to restore the duchy, and Edward, seeing that he had been tricked, declared war against France, at the very moment when the Scottish resistance gave the French a firm ally in Britain. To make matters worse, the Welsh rose in rebellion. It was therefore quite impossible for Edward to recover Gascony.
The most critical years of Edward’s reign now began. He saw that he could only meet his difficulties by throwing himself on the support of his own subjects, and convoked, in 1295, a representative parliament of the three estates, which has been called in later times the Model Parliament, because it first illustrated the type which was to be perpetuated in all subsequent parliaments. “What touches all,” ran Edward’s writ of summons, “should be approved of all, and it is also clear that common dangers should be met by measures agreed upon in common.” The parliamentary constitution of England was established as the result of Edward’s action.
Secure of his subjects’ allegiance, Edward put down the Welsh revolt, and conquered Scotland in 1296. When quiet was restored to Britain, he hoped to throw all his energy into the recovery of Gascony, but new troubles arose at home which once more diverted him from his supreme purpose. Led by Archbishop Winchelsea, Peckham’s successor, the clergy refused to pay taxes in obedience to the bull of Pope Boniface VIII., calledClericis Laicos. Edward declared that if the clergy would not contribute to support the state, the state could afford them no protection. But the clerical opposition was soon joined by a baronial opposition. Headed by the earls of Hereford and Norfolk, many of the barons declined to join in an expedition to Gascony, and Edward was forced to sail to the French war, leaving them behind. Thereupon the recalcitrant barons forced upon the regency a fresh confirmation of the charters, to which new articles were added, safeguarding the people from arbitrary taxation. Edward at Ghent reluctantly accepted thisConfirmatio Cariarum, but even his submission did not end the crisis. In the same year (1297), all Scotland rose in revolt under the popular hero William Wallace, and next year (1298), Edward was forced to undertake its reconquest. The battle of Falkirk, won on the 22nd of July, was the greatest of Edward’s military triumphs; but, though it destroyed the power of Wallace, it did not put an end to Scottish resistance. Bitter experience taught Edward that he could not fight the French and the Scots at the same time, and in 1299 he made peace with Philip, and, Eleanor having died in November 1290, he married the French king’s sister Margaret (c.1282-1318), and some years later obtained the restitution of Gascony. In the same spirit he strove to destroy the clerical and baronial opposition. He did not succeed in the former task until a complacent pope arose in his own subject, Clement V., who abandoned Winchelsea to his anger, and suffered the archbishop to be driven into exile. The baronial leaders could not be wholly overthrown by force, and Edward was compelled to make them fresh concessions.
It was not until 1303 that Edward was able to undertake seriously the conquest of Scotland. By 1305 the land was subdued, and Wallace beheaded as a traitor. But Edward had hardly organized the government of his new conquest when a fresh revolt broke out under Robert Bruce, grandson of the chief rival of Baliol in 1290. Bruce was soon crowned king of Scots, and at the age of seventy Edward had to face the prospect of conquering Scotland for the third time. He resolved to take the field in person; but the effort was too great, and on the 7th of July 1307 he died at Burgh-on-Sands, near Carlisle. His death destroyed the last faint hope of conquering Scotland, and showed that the chief ambition of his life was a failure. Yet his conquest of Wales, his legislation, his triumph over his barons, his ecclesiastics, and the greatest of French medieval kingsindicate the strength and permanence of his work. He was buried at Westminster under a plain slab on which was inscribedEdwardus primus Scottorum malleus hic est. Pactum serva.
By Eleanor of Castile Edward had four sons, his successor Edward II. and three who died young, and nine daughters, including Joan, or Joanna (1272-1307), the wife of Gilbert de Clare, earl of Gloucester (d. 1295), and then of Ralph de Monthermer; Margaret (1275-1318), the wife of John II., duke of Brabant; and Eleanor (1282-1316), who married John I., count of Holland, and then Humphrey Bohun, earl of Hereford (d. 1322). By Margaret of France the king had two sons: Thomas of Brotherton, earl of Norfolk, and Edmund of Woodstock, earl of Kent.