The Anglo-Saxons: A History of the Beginnings of England - Marc Morris

[p.falk]

On the old board there was a thread dedicated to this book. I wish I could remember who originally suggested it to me. This is my 2nd reading of it.

Simply a fascinating book. I read Marc Morris' book on the Norman Conquest and that too... all praise to the author for his handling of the material.


Morris, though having no truck with Christianity nor an axe to grind either, handles Church politics in 7th century England in a way that is very informative while not needlessly heaping personal disdain for some of the arcane happenings within the Church.

Though there are scandalous activities, bishops trying to undermine other bishops, bishops trying to curry favor with kings and accruing power comparable to some kings... for example: St. Wilfrid - apparently having an entourage of warriors that he could send some of his warriors on missions of protection while still having enough near him for protection.

But through all of this, one should be taken aback by how clement many of the bishops are. How driven by principle and settling disputes synodally they behave (even those wooed by the fruits of this side of the veil). St. Wilfrid, though many times portrayed as a hungry power grabber (and maybe he truly was)... he also seems concerned with the souls of pagans as when he was stuck in pagan Frisia during the winter of 678, he plead the Frisian king to allow him to preach and convert souls.

Doing this all the while there's a very real threat on his life. St Wilfrid meddled with Frankish politics when he helped bring Dagobert II out of exile, which led to Dagobert II becoming king of the Franks.

[p.falk]

Another interesting point covered is the difference and disputing between the more Irish form of Catholicism vs the more Roman form.

This is a topic that was covered by Thomas Cahill in "How the Irish Saved Civilization". Cahill was more of an inflammatory firebrand in his book than Morris (the non-Christian) is in this book.

Differences between the Irish and Roman "view" involving how the monasteries should be peopled, the type of tonsure, and the dating of the Easter celebration(to name some of the topics).
St. Colman representing the Irish side and St. Wilfrid asked to argue for the Roman side. Apparently Wilfrid was vastly more eloquent (according to both Simon of Ripon and Bede), though Bede states he was also more supercilious and insulting to the Irish practices. But it all eventually settled on Wilfrid "Thou art Peter, and on this Rock I will build my Church".

King Oswiu who was overseeing the debate (somewhat like Constantine during the Arian debates) asked both sides if this quote was actually said from Christ, Colman stated it was and King Oswiu determined that that concluded the issue - the Irish practices would make way for the Roman practices.

[Riverboat]

This is a topic that was covered by Thomas Cahill in "How the Irish Saved Civilization". Cahill was more of an inflammatory firebrand in his book than Morris (the non-Christian) is in this book.

You'll have to point out examples of Cahill's firebrandery. I've read it twice and I don't recall being put off by anything.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Cahill's later books are more obviously problematic. It's been awhile since I read any of them, but IIRC (always open to question), he leans into Modernist ideas.

[p.falk]

This is a topic that was covered by Thomas Cahill in "How the Irish Saved Civilization". Cahill was more of an inflammatory firebrand in his book than Morris (the non-Christian) is in this book.

You'll have to point out examples of Cahill's firebrandery. I've read it twice and I don't recall being put off by anything.

I'll search through the book and find those.

I might be acting too much of a firebrand toward Cahill, but I do remember him making it explicit that he did not prefer the more Roman expression of Catholicism in England and much preferred the Irish expression personified in Saints Columba and Aidan. With Cahill being quite critical of the Roman "moralizing". I found this quote online:

"How different might Catholicism be today if it had been taken over by the easy Irish sympathy between churchmen and laymen and the easy Irish attitude toward diversity, authority, the role of women, and the relative unimportance of sexual mores."

And I cannot recall the name of the saint, but Cahill strongly indicates that abortion is not that bad and points to an example in which Christ or Mary visited a woman and "removed" her unwanted pregnancy.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

This is the sort of thing I had in mind.

[p.falk]

Morris writes of St. Wilfrid:

Any assessment of Wilfrid has to acknowledge the enormous impact of his extraordinary life. Arguably no other person, not even Augustine or Theodore, did more to shape the course of Christianity in Britain during its first century. He was born into a world that was still overwhelmingly pagan, at a time when the Roman mission was in crisis and the Celtic mission was barely underway. Raised in the Irish tradition, he rebelled against it and became Rome's most determined champion, seeking to eradicate what he came to regard as Celtic heresy.

But Morris also states:

... how many thousands died as a result of the wars of conquest that were unleashed with Wilfrid's blessing, or resisting his campaigns of forced conversion? How many careers of pious men and women did he ruin in pursuit of doctrinal purity and personal vendettas? Wilfrid's impact was undoubtedly great, but to achieve it he committed many terrible deeds.

Regarding the "war of conquest"... he's referring to Wilfrid's apparently blessing of warrior king Caedwalla who invaded the Isle of Wight;

...intending 'to wipe out all the natives with merciless slaughter, and to replace them with people from his own kingdom

The inhabitant of the Isle of Wight were pagan and Wilfrid gave his blessing take 'em out.

[p.falk]

I like this passage from the book. It mentions how as the Saxons replaced the Britons a new threat may similarly displace the Saxons:

In a letter to the people of Kent, written in 797, he (Alcuin of York) referred to the 'Ruin of Britain', written by Gildas almost three centuries earlier. The Britons, he reminded his readers, had once enjoyed God's favour, but lost it through sinfulness and fighting among themselves. As a result they had been punished by the invasion of the Anglo-Saxons. Alcuin saw this happening again, for God was now scourging the English (Angli) in exactly the same way.

"Behold, a thing never heard of before," (Alcuin) warned, "A pagan people habitually makes pirate raids on our shores."

And now comes into focus the growing attacks of the Vikings.

[p.falk]

Portents of calamity:

In the early months of 793, the people of Northumbria were terrified by a series of evil omens. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, drawing on an earlier set of northern annals that are now lost, there were great gales, flashes of lightning, 'and fiery dragons were seen flying in the air' - an illusion perhaps created by the Northern Lights, which can sometimes be seen in the Northumbrian sky. In a letter written that same year, Alcuin of York reported that, during Lent, the cathedral in his home city had been showered with rain the colour of blood. These signs in the heavens were seen as a warning of dire things to come, and sure enough, in the spring the kingdom was afflicted by a terrible famine.

But that was only the beginning, on 8 June, a band of what the Chronicle calls "heathen men" landed their ships on the island of Lindisfarne, plundered the monastery there, and slaughtered many of the monks.