stripped her quite naked and in this condition forced her to walk a couple of miles, from which exposure she contracted a chill which resulted in her death some seven months later. After his liberation Edmundson found himself reduced to comparative poverty, besides being the object of much persecution, but he nevertheless managed to travel to the various meeting-places and reconstruct the societies which had been dispersed by the rebellion. In 1691 he attended the yearly meeting of the quakers in London, and during his absence his wife died. In 1695 Edmundson spent a considerable time in Dublin opposing an act the Irish clergy were endeavouring to obtain to enable them to recover their tithes in the temporal courts. His agitation met with moderate success. After spending two years in visiting the various meetings in England and Ireland he married Mary Strangman, a quakeress of Mountmellis, and a few weeks later was the leader of a deputation to the lords justices to oppose several laws relating to the collection of tithes. From this time his health broke down, and his ministerial journeys were only performed at the cost of much pain, but he nevertheless continued actively engaged in the work of the society until 1711. In June of the following year he was present at the Dublin yearly meeting, and on his return home was taken ill and died, after extreme suffering, on 8 Nov. 1712. He was buried in the quaker burial-ground at Tineel, near his residence. Edmundson was a man of earnest piety, sound common sense, and unusual self-denial, besides which he was charitable to a fault and possessed considerable, although rough, eloquence. His 'Journal' and other works are written in a simple, unaffected way which make them very pleasant reading, and they are still among the most popular works on quakerism. His principal writings are: 1. 'A Letter of Examination to all you who have assumed the Place of Shepherds, Herdsmen, and Overseers of the Flocks of People,' 1672. 2. 'An Answer to the Clergy's Petition to King James,' 1688. 3. An Epistle containing wholesome Advice and Counsel to all Friends,' 1701. 4. 'A Journal of the Life, Travels, Sufferings, and Labours of Love in the Work of the Ministry of that Worthy Elder, William Edmundson,' 1715. The last has been frequently reprinted in England and Ame rica. [Besse's Sufferings, &c., of the Quakers; Bickley's George Fox and the Early Quakers; Swarthmore MS.; George Fox's Journal (ed. 1763); Rutty's History of the Quakers in Ireland; Sewel's History of the Rise, &c., of the Society of Friends; Smith's Catalogue of Friends' Books.] A. C. B. EDNYVED, surnamed VYCHAN(Vaughan) i.e. the Little (f. 1230-1240), statesman and warrior, seems to have been the most trusted counsellor of Llewelyn ab Iorwerth [q. v. In 1231 he signed a truce between Henry III and Llewelyn (Fadera, i. 201), and in 1232 signs, as Llewelyn's seneschal (ib. 208), a convention between the Welsh prince and his overlord. Again in 1238 his name is attached to similar documents (ib. 236). In 1240 and 1241 he appears acting as a negotiator for Davydd [q. v.], the successor of Llewelyn, though in 1241 another Welsh magnate, named Tewdwr, appears acting as seneschal to the new prince (ib. 241). His activity culminates in his taking part in the important treaty apud Alnetum' near St. Asaph in 1241 (MATT. PARIS, ed. Luard, iv. 322). In legendary history Ednyved is very famous, and stories are told how he slew three English chiefs in a hard fight, and was consequently allowed by Llewelyn to bear as his arms three Englishmen's heads couped.' He is still more famous with the genealogists. Himself of most noble descent, he became the ancestor of many leading Welsh families, and among them of the house of Tudor. He is said to have married, first, Gwenllian, daughter of the Lord Rhys of South Wales, and, secondly, the daughter of Llywerch ab Bran. By each of these ladies he had numerous offspring (DwNN, Heraldic Visitations of Wales, i.199, ii. 101, 144). One of his sons, Howel, was bishop of St. Asaph between 1240 and 1247. Another, Goronwy, is commemorated by elegies of Bleddyn Vardd and Prydydd Bychan. Ednyved himself is the subject of an elegy of Elidyr Sais (Myryrian Archaiology of Wales, i. 346, 369, 390). [Authorities cited in text.] T. F. T. EDRED or EADRED (d. 955), king of the English, youngest son of Eadward the elder and Eadgifu, was chosen in 946 to succeed his brother Eadmund, whose two sons were too young to reign, and was crowned by Archbishop Oda at Kingston on Sunday 16 Aug. He must have been young when he came to the throne, for Eadmund was only twenty-four at his death. At his coronation he received the submission of the Northumbrians, the Northmen, the Welsh, and the Scots (4.-S. Chron.; FLOR. WIG.; KEMBLE, Codex Dipl. 411). During his whole reign he was afflicted with a grievous sickness (B., Memorials of St. Dunstan, 31), and the government appears to have been carried on for the most part by his mother by Ethelstan, the powerful ealdorman of East Anglia, and the party that followed him [see under DUNSTAN]. Eadred was a religious man, and was deeply attached to Dunstan. He died at Frome, Somersetshire, on 23 Nov. 955, and was buried by Dunstan in the old minster at Winchester. There is no mention of any wife or child of his. 286-93.] Eadgifu, and his minister the abbot Dunstan [q. v.] At the same time, in spite of his illhealth, the king was not inactive. In 947 he went into Northumbria, and at Tadcaster received the submission of Wulfstan, archbishop of York, and the Northumbrian'witan.' They did not long remain faithful to their oaths, for they revolted from him, and received Eric, a northman, as their king. Ead[Anglo-Saxon Chron. sub ann.; Florence of red attempted to force them to return to Worcester (Engl. Hist. Soc.), i. 134-6; Vita auctheir allegiance, harried Northumbria, and tore B., Memorials of St. Dunstan (Rolls Ser.), burnt Ripon. As he returned the north- 29, 31; William of Malmesbury's Gesta Regum men of York cut off the rear of his army at (Engl. Hist. Soc.), i. 232; Symeon of Durham, Chesterford. In great wrath he declared Mon. Hist. Brit., p. 687; Kemble's Codex Dipl. ii. that he would destroy the land, but the 311-35; Vigfusson and Powell's Corpus PoetiNorthumbrians, who had grown dissatisfied cum Boreale, i. 259, ii. 489; Robertson's Historiwith Eric, forsook him, and in 949 again sub-cal Essays, 197; Green's Conquest of England, mitted to the West-Saxon king (KEMBLE, W. H. Codex Dipl. 424). Eadred now appears to EDRIC or EADRIC, STREONA (d. have made Oswulf high-reeve of Bamborough 1017), ealdorman of the Mercians, the son of and earl (ib. 426, 427). Then we are told a certain Ethelric, was a man of ignoble (A.-S. Chron.) that Anlaf came to Northum- birth, and was perhaps the Eadric whom bria, and he probably ruled as Eadred's under- Archbishop Oswald describes as his thegn in king. The Northumbrians, however, again a charter of 988, and to whom he grants plotted a revolt in 952, and Wulfstan, who land belonging to the church of Worcester, acted almost as a national leader, was caught and may with more certainty be supposed to by Eadred and imprisoned at Jedburgh. This be the thegn Eadric who attests a charter of year the king slew many of the inhabitants Æthelred in 1001 (KEMBLE, Codex Dipl. of Thetford because they had slain the abbot 666, 705). The name Streona (FLOR. WIG. Ealdhelm. In spite of the imprisonment of 1006) is usually (LAPPENBERG; FREEMAN; the archbishop the Northumbrian plot was PoWELL; GREEN) held to be a nickname decarried out, and Eric Bloodaxe, son of Harold rived from Eadric's greediness after wealth, Fairhair of Norway, landed, and was chosen and to signify the 'Gainer' or 'Grasper.' An king (Corpus Poeticum Boreale, i. 259, ii. attempt has been made to prove that this is 489; A.-S. Chron. ; GREEN, Conquest of Eng- not the case, that 'Streona' has nothing to land, 290, following ROBERTSON, Essays, 197, do with acquisitiveness, and that it is not a who was misled by a confused passage in nickname, but a second proper full name Adam of Bremen, ii. 22, makes this Norwe- (Academy, 11 July 1886, p. 29). The Englishgian king Eric Hiring, the son of Harold born Orderic, however, no doubt knew what Blaatand. It would seem that the Eric the name meant when he wrote 'cognomento elected in 947 was other than this Eric Streone, id est acquisitor' (506). This, howBloodaxe). Eric Bloodaxe reigned in the ever, has been denied, and his explanation north until 954. During this time there has been described as an 'erroneous surmise' was probably war between him and Eadred. (ib. 4 June 1887, p. 397). The history of At last he was driven from the throne, and Eadric's career is full of difficulties. Chronislain by Anlaf (LAING, Sea Kings, i. 318). clers and historians of the twelfth century Then Eadric let Wulfstan out of prison, and describe him as guilty of an unequalled series gave him the see of Dorchester, for he would of treacheries and other crimes. The 'Anglonot trust him again at York. The people of Saxon Chronicle' is silent as to some of these the north now returned to their obedience to evil deeds, while it speaks plainly of others, Eadred, and he committed Northumbria to and even in reading the chronicle some alOswulf as an earldom. This step was the lowance should perhaps be made for the readibeginning of a new policy, which was after-ness with which men of a defeated and conwards pursued with signal success by Eadgar and Dunstan: the Danes were allowed to keep their own customs and live under their own earls, and being thus freed from interference they became peaceable, and finally good subjects of the West-Saxon king. The queen-mother and Dunstan, who held the office of treasurer, seem to have been upheld quered people set down their disasters to the treachery of one or more of their leaders. In one case at least Eadric has been accused unjustly, in others his guilt may fairly be questioned, the evidence is insufficient or contradictory, or the crime attributed to him is in itself unlikely, but even so enough will remain to prove that he was false and unscru pulous. William of Malmesbury represents Eadric as taking a leading part in the massacre of the Danes in 1002, a story that may at once be dismissed as resting solely on his assertion (Gesta Regum, ii. 177). Eadric first appears in a chronicle in 1006, when it is said that he invited Ælfhelm, earl of Northumbria, to be his guest at Shrewsbury, entertained him two or three days, and then went hunting with him, and that when the earl was separated from the rest of the party, he caused the town executioner (or a butcher? carnifex) named Porthund to slay him. This incident is told only by Florence, who is scarcely so safe an authority for the eleventh century as for earlier times; it sounds legendary, and it is difficult to see how it was that Eadric was entertaining guests at Shrewsbury; he was not yet ealdorman of the Mercians (Norman Conquest, i. 356). He was made ealdorman of the Mercians in 1007, and by 1009 had married Eadgyth, one of the daughters of King Ethelred; the two events are of course to be connected. It was then due to the personal liking the king had for him that this man of mean birth was thus raised to a position of wealth and power which made him almost an independent prince in middle England. He was endued with a crafty wit and a persuasive tongue (FLOR. WIG.) It is not unlikely that he rose by the downfall of a thegn named Wulfgeat, who seems to have been his predecessor in the royal favour (Norman Conquest, i. 355). acted treacherously. His treachery on this and similar occasions was probably of a special kind. As a Mercian, and as ealdorman of the Mercians, he would not be disturbed by any ravages the Danes might make in Wessex. His great aim must have been to keep them out of Mercia, and he may well have considered that this would be best accomplished by abstaining from exciting their feelings of revenge by inflicting a defeat upon them, which, however signal, would certainly not have put an end to their invasions. In 1011, during a short period of peace with the Danes, which was obtained by a heavy payment, Eadric made an expedition into South Wales. and desolated St. David's (Brut y Tywysogion, 1011; Annales Menevenses,1011). This expedition was no doubt undertaken to secure the Mercian border against attack, for the success of the Danes must have tempted the Welsh to make forays (GREEN). Osbern, in relating the sack of Canterbury by the Danes in the September of this year, represents Eadric as allied with Thurkill, and as joining in the siege of the city. This story may safely be rejected as fabulous (Anglia Sacra, ii. 132; Norman Conquest, i. 385). Nor is any importance to be attached to the assertion of the St. Albans compiler that he accompanied Ethelred in his flight from England in 1013 (WENDOVER, i. 448). At the meeting of the witan' in Oxford in 1015, Eadric invited Sigeferth and Morkere, the chief thegns of the Danish confederacy of the 'Seven Boroughs,' into his chamber, and Eadric's six brothers to some extent shared there had them treacherously slain (A.-S. his elevation. One of them, named Brihtric, Chron.; FLOR. WIG., and later writers); the described by Florence as deceitful, ambitious, story told by William of Malmesbury (Gesta and proud, had a quarrel with Wulfnoth, Regum, ii. 179) of the burning of the thegns' child of the South-Saxons, which caused the followers in the tower of St. Frideswide's is dispersion of the great fleet raised against due to a confusion between this incident and the Danes in 1008. While Florence repre- an actual occurrence which took place dursents Brihtric as wholly to blame in the mat-ing the massacre of 1002 (PARKER, 146, 154). ter, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,' though it passes no judgment on either of the disputants, makes it evident that Wulfnoth was by no means a man whose innocence is to be lightly assumed. After the dispersion of the English fleet Thurkill's army, which had now taken up its permanent quarters in the Isle of Wight, plundered the southern shires at its will. At last Ethelred gathered an army and got between the Danes and their ships. The people were ready to fight, but Eadric prevented them 'as it ever yet had been' (A.-S. Chron. 1009). Florence improves on the simple words of the 'Chronicle,' and dwells on the artifices and eloquence with which the ealdorman used to restrain the army from attacking the enemy. It is evident that the chronicler considered that Eadric The guilt of the assassination must rest on others as well as Eadric; the king evidently approved of it, and it is probable that the witan' did so. We do not know whether the thegns were held to be concerned in any conspiracy; if so, there was nothing strange in their punishment by what we should consider an act of private violence rather than by a judicial execution. At the same time Eadric's treachery, and his disregard of the obligations of hospitality, evidently shocked the feelings of the age. The marriage of the etheling Eadmund with the widow of Sigeferth, and the establishment of his power in the Danish district, must have been regarded with jealousy by Eadric as likely to weaken his own position, and this feeling may perhaps explain some parts of the ealdorman's conduct, which taken by themselves are altogether inexplicable. Nor is it too much to assume that Ethelred's ineffectual opposition to his son's marriage was offered in the interest of the favourite. Danes in their place of refuge, and to lead his army into Essex. The chronicler declares that his counsel was evil, and so very likely it was. Florence says that he deceived the king, but it is difficult to see what room When Cnut invaded England in the there was for deceit in the matter. Eadmund summer of the same year, Eadric raised an was able to act upon his own judgment, and army and joined forces with Eadmund. A whether he agreed with Eadric or allowed quarrel broke out between them. Eadric himself to be swayed by advice which he did is said to have endeavoured to betray the not approve of, the responsibility must rest ætheling (A.-S. Chron.; by Florence to have on him. While Eadric may have intentiontried to slay him), and the two leaders parted ally given him evil counsel, he may, on the company. Ethelred was now lying dange- other hand, have advised him as he thought rously ill at Corsham, and the succession of best; anyway, Eadmund must have known Eadmund would have been followed by the exactly what his chances of success were, and it ruin of Eadric, who accordingly made alliance is quite possible that they were not so great with Cnut, and joined him with forty ships, as the chronicler believed. At the battle of the remains probably of Thurkill's fleet (Nor- Assandun or Ashington in Essex, Eadric led man Conquest, i. 414). Cnut now received the men of Herefordshire and other forces the submission of the West-Saxons, and raised from Mercia. He and his men were the first forces from them, while Eadmund's marriage to flee: he did as he had often done before; had made him powerful in the north. This first began the flight with the men of Worexplains the conduct of Eadric, who, early incestershire and Herefordshire, and so betrayed 1016, marched with Cnut into Mercia; he his royal lord and all the people of the Engwished to strike at the seat of the theling's lish kin' (4.-S. Chron.) The 'Encomiast' power. The allied army met with no resis-represents him as fleeing before the battle tance; Earl Uht red submitted to Cnut, and was assassinated. This murder, which is attributed to Eadric's counsel (A.-S. Chron. 1016), was really the result of an old Northumbrian feud (SYMEON, 80; Norman Conquest, i. 416). Ethelred was now dead, Cnut and Eadmund were each recognised as king in different parts of the kingdom, and the Danish | king's army was largely composed of Englishmen. Eadric no doubt shared in its various movements during the first half of this year. His presence at the battle of Sherston in Wiltshire in July is specially recorded. It is said that, seeing that Eadmund's army was getting the better of the army of Cnut, he cut off the head of a man who was like Eadmund, and holding it aloft cried aloud to the English army to flee, for their king was dead (FLOR. WIG.) This story is not in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,' and may or may not be true. It evidently comes from some ballad which was used by Henry of Huntingdon in writing his account of the battle of Assandun; he represents Eadric as using this stratagem at Assandun, and gives the very words he is said to have shouted, 'Flet Engle, flet Engle, ded is Edmund' (756). William of Malmesbury follows Florence. Later in the year Eadric, impressed, we are told, by the gallant resistance of Eadmund, was reconciled to him and owned him as his royal lord' (FLOR. WIG.) At the moment when Eadmund's success was at its height, and he had driven the army of Cnut into Sheppey, Eadric met him at Aylesford and persuaded him to forbear attacking the VOL. XVI. began, and mentions, though with doubt, the belief that he had secretly promised the Danes to desert Eadmund (Encomium Emmæ, ii. 9). Florence says that Cnut's army was getting worsted until Eadric, according to a previous arrangement with the Danish king, fled with all his men. Henry of Huntingdon gives the Sherston story of the false assertion of Eadmund's death as happening at Assandun, and the Ramsey historian (c. 72) combines the stories of the two battles, asserting that Eadric was the first to flee, and that he called out as he fled that Eadmund was slain. The fact of his flight is certain, and it may fairly be assumed that he acted a traitor's part. In common with the other nobles of the land he wished to bring the war to an end, and was foremost in proposing a reconciliation and a division of the kingdom between the two kings at Olney in Gloucestershire (Enc. Emme, ii. 12). Very shortly after this meeting, on 30 Nov., Eadmund died at London (A.-S. Chron.; FLOR. WIG.) His death is ascribed to Eadric by Scandinavian historians, by William of Malmesbury, and by other later English writers. That his death was sudden is certain, that it was violent may fairly be inferred, and that Eadric, his old enemy, had a hand in it seems probable [on this subject see under EDMUND IRONSIDE]. According to Henry of Huntingdon the deed was actually done by Eadric's son; Eadric came before Cnut and hailed him as sole king, and Cnut forthwith had him slain for his treachery. This is mere legend, and its connec E E tion with David's behaviour when he was told of the death of Saul is obvious. In 1017 Eadric is said to have advised Cnut to put Eadward's two sons to death; but his advice, if he ever gave it, was not followed (FLOR. WIG.) He was, we are told, consulted by Cnut as to the best means of procuring the death of the ætheling Eadwig; he said that he knew a man who would slay him, a noble named Ethelward. Cnut applied to Ethelward, but he would not slay the ætheling, though to content the king he promised that he would do so (ib.) This story is also doubtful [see under EDWY, ætheling]. Eadric was again given the earldom of Mercia, but when he was in London the following Christmas he was slain in the palace by the king's orders, | very rightly' (A.-S. Chron.), because Cnut feared that he might act as treacherously towards him as he had acted to his former lords, Æthelred and Eadmund (Enc. Emma, ii. 15). His body was thrown over the wall of the city, and was left unburied (FLOR. WIG.) [Every recorded incident in Eadric's life has been treated exhaustively by Dr. Freeman in his Norman Conquest, i. 3rd ed. passim. In the present article Florence of Worcester has been followed less closely than in the professor's work. J. R. Green's Conquest of England, 399-418, contains a defence of Eadric, which is ingenious rather than critical. Anglo-Saxon Chron. an. 1007-17; Florence of Worcester, i. 159-82 (Engl. Hist. Soc.); Encomium Emma, ii. c. 9, 12, 15, Pertz; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 752-7, Mon. Hist. Brit.; Symeon of Durham, Twysden, cols. 81, 166-76; William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum, i. 267, 297-305 (Engl. Hist. Soc.); Roger of Wendover, i. 448 (Engl. Hist. Soc.); Annales Menevenses, Anglia Sacra, ii. 648; Brut y Tywysogion, Mon. Hist. Brit. p. 851; Orderic, p. 506, Duchesne; Kemble's Codex Dipl. iii. 241, 317; Parker's Early History of Oxford, pp. 146, 150 160, 266 (Oxford Hist. Soc.)] W. H. EDRIC or EADRIC (f. 1067), called the WILD (cognomento Silvaticus, FLOR. WIG.; Guilda, id est Silvaticus,ORDERIC; Salvage, Domesday), and described by the title of CHILD (A.-S. Chron., 1067), the son of Ælfric, brother of Eadric or Edric Streona [q. v.], was a powerful thegn, who in the time of Eadward the Confessor held lands in Herefordshire and Shropshire. Along with the lords of middle and northern England he submitted to the conqueror at Barking, but in August 1067 joined with the Welsh kings Bleddyn and Rhiwallon in making war on the Normans in Herefordshire, wasted the country as far as the Lugg, and did much mischief to the garrison of Hereford Castle. He kept the western march in a state of insurrection, and in 1069, in alliance with the Welsh and the men of Chester, besieged Shrewsbury and burnt the town. In the summer of the next year, after the Danish fleet had sailed away, Eadric submitted to William, and appears to have become one of his personal followers, for in August 1072 he accompanied the king on his expedition against Scotland. The story that he held Wigmore Castle against Ralph of Mortemar and was condemned by William to perpetual imprisonment is untrue. [Orderic, Duchesne, 506, 514; Florence of Worcester, ii. 2, 7, 9 (Engl. Hist. Soc.); A.-S. Chron., 1067; Dugdale's Monasticon, vi. 349; Freeman's Norman Conquest, iv. 21, 64, 110, 514, 738–40.] W. H. EDRIDGE, HENRY(1769–1821), miniature-painter, born at Paddington in August 1769, was son of a tradesman in St. James's, Westminster. He was educated first by his mother, and afterwards in a school at Acton. He was articled at the age of fifteen to William Pether, the engraver in mezzotinto. Following his inclinations, he spent much of his apprenticeship in drawing portraits, and at its close studied at the Royal Academy, and attracted the notice of Sir Joshua Reynolds. He commenced to paint portraits, and practised first in Dufour's Place, Golden Square, and afterwards in Margaret Street. His success soon enabled him to purchase a cottage at Hanwell. In 1789 he made the acquaintance of Thomas Hearne, and began to sketch landscape in company with and in the style of that artist, although he adhered to his portrait-painting. In 1814 he became a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, and in 1820 an associate of the Royal Academy. In 1817 and 1819 he visited France, and made several drawings at Rouen and other towns in Normandy. He died in Margaret Street, Cavendish Square, on 23 April 1821, and was buried at Bushey. Edridge's early portraits were mostly executed with black-lead pencil, and afterwards he added a little flesh colour or tint to the faces. The following likenesses are in the British Museum: the artist himself, Lord Loughborough, Lady Cawdor, F. Bartolozzi, O. Humphry, R.A., T. Cheesman, William Smith, T. Stothard, R.A., James Heath, A.E., W. Byrne, E. F. Burney, R. Corbould, B. J. Pouncey, T. Hearne, W. Woollett, and J. Nollekens. To these portraits should be added the following architectural studies: 'L'Abbaye des Dames de la Trinité, Caen,' 23 July 1819; La Tour de la Grosse Horloge, Evreux,' 4 Aug. 1819; and 'Bayeux,' 25 July 1819. [Redgrave's Dict. of Artists; Literary Gazette (1821), p. 333.] L. F. |