SAINTED KINGS INCORRUPTIBLE.
In the Appendix to Evelyn's interesting Diary (last edition, 1850), your readers may recollect there is a note upon the "unexpected finding the crucifix and gold chain of that pious prince, St. Edward the Confessor." The note contains an extract from the narrative of the circumstances attending the finding of those relics by "Charles Taylour, Gent." (or, Henry Keepe—the writer's correct name). It appears from that account, that when, in 1163, Thomas à Becket obtained a canonisation of the king, and the coffin was opened, the body was found uncorrupted; and that, 136 years after William I. had commanded the coffin to be enshrined, when the abbot resolved to inspect the body, then likewise "said to be incorruptible," he found it so, "being perfect, the limbs flexible," &c.
A curious parallel to this presented itself recently to one in the course of a reference to the 2nd volume of Mr. W. B. MacCabe's curious and laborious Catholic History of England. [En passant, allow me to express the hope, in which I well know many sympathise, that the long-promised third volume, bringing the history down to the accession of William the Conqueror, will ere long appear. The work gives in a well-arranged form so much that is curious in our early national records, that it would be a matter of regret that it should not be completed. It is a great pity indeed that the author's original plan, to carry the history down to the Reformation, should have been abandoned.] After describing the burial of Edgar (also a "Confessor," as well as St. Edward), it is stated that "in the year 1052, upon his tomb being opened by the Abbot Eilward, his body was found perfectly free from the slightest stain of corruption;" and that upon the body being "profanely hacked," in order to make it fit the receptacle prepared for it, "torrents of blood burst from the king's corpse." (W. Malmsb. Ges. Reg. Ang.) This, be it remembered, was eighty-seven years after burial. The body was afterwards deposited in a shrine. Are there other examples mentioned by the chroniclers of the incorruptibility of saintly kings? Both Edward and Edgar were, it should be recollected, good friends to the monks. William of Malmsbury, in the course of his eulogium upon Edgar, mentions the important fact that the monarch not only gave—
"Templa Deo,"
but also—
"Templis Monachos, Monachis dedit agros."
Were not these strong reasons why the king should remain uncorrupted, at all events in the memory, and also the records, of the brotherhood?
J. J. S.