| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
 |
|
| Does Bede specifically mention Gildas as his source? Or is it assumed from the fact that Gildas generally agrees with Bede but predates him, therefore Bede copied Gildas...... I doubt if he wrote up his sources in a bibliography..... |
Yes Bede does reference Gildas in his writing and more interestingly he makes a distinction between the Saxons and the English.
In the meantime, in Britain, there was some respite from foreign, but not from civil war. There still remained the ruins of cities destroyed by the enemy, and abandoned; and the natives, who had escaped the enemy, now fought against each other. However, the kings, priests, private men, and the nobility, still remembering the late calamities and slaughters, in some measure kept within bounds; but when these died, and another generation succeeded, which knew nothing of those times, and was only acquainted with the present peaceable state of things, all the bonds of sincerity and justice were so entirely broken, that there was not only no trace of them remaining, but few persons seemed to be aware that such virtues had ever existed. Among other most wicked actions, not to be expressed, which their own historian, Gildas, mournfully takes notice of, they added this that they never preached the faith to the Saxons, or English, who dwelt amongst them; however, the goodness of God did not forsake his people whom He foreknew, but sent to the aforesaid nation much more worthy preachers, to bring it to the faith. Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation: Book 1 Chapter 22
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Does Bede quote any other British historians? I ask because, if not, we have the curious situation of having the only known Anglo-Saxon historian quoting the only known Romano-British historian. Pretty amazing really that two such singular voices should not only have found each other but us as well. How blessed, how lucky we are with our historical sources.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
| Does Bede quote any other British historians? I ask because, if not, we have the curious situation of having the only known Anglo-Saxon historian quoting the only known Romano-British historian. Pretty amazing really that two such singular voices should not only have found each other but us as well. How blessed, how lucky we are with our historical sources. |
Bede in his Preface acknowledges the following Church figures as his sources for parts of his History:
Abbot Albinus; Archbishop Theodore; Abbot Adrian; Nothelm, priest of the Church of London. Daniel, Bishop of the West Saxons; Abbot Esius; the prelate Cunebert;
Thus, from the beginning of this volume to the time when the English nation received the faith of Christ, have we collected the writings of our predecessors and from them gathered matter for our history; but from that time till the present, what was transacted in Church of Canterbury, by the disciples of St. Gregory or their successors, and under what kings the same happened, has been conveyed to us by Nothelm through the industry of the aforesaid Abbot Albinus.
They also partly informed me by what bishops and under what kings the provinces of the East and West Saxons, as also of the East Angles, and of the Northumbrians, received the faith of Christ. In short I was chiefly encouraged to undertake this work by the persuasions of the same Albinus. In like manner, Daniel, the most reverend Bishop of the West Saxons, who is still living, communicated to me in writing some things relating to the Ecclesiastical History of that province, and the next adjoining to it of the South Saxons, as also of the Isle of Wight. But now, by the pious ministry of Cedd and Ceadda, the province of the Mercians was brought to the faith of Christ, which they knew not before, and how that of the East Saxons recovered the same, after having expelled it, and how those fathers lived and died, we learned from the brethren of the monastery, which was built by them, and is called Lastingham
What ecclesiastical transactions took place in the province of the East Angles, was partly made known to us from the writings and tradition of our ancestors, and partly by relation of the most reverend Abbot Esius.
What was done towards promoting the faith, and what was the sacerdotal succession in the province of Lindsey, we had either from the letters of the most reverend prelate Cunebert, or by word of mouth from other persons of good credit.
But what was done in the Church throughout the province of the Northumbians, from the time when they received the faith of Christ till this present, I received not from any particular author, but by the faithful testimony of innumerable witnesses, who might know or remember the same, besides what I had of my own knowledge.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
So...no historians then.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
Can't really say.
Who is a historian anyway?
Nothelm was an archbishop of Canterbury with access to the Vatican library and presumably records from Imperial Roman times. Was he just a chronicler or a researcher or just passing on historical information to Bede?
Who can say?
The others mentioned were also chroniclers of their respective domains, Sussex, Wessex, Northumbria etc.
What records from this period have survived other than Bede and Gildas?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I was being whimsical...Gildas was a churchman. However your point about contemporaneous records is important. One day somebody is going to point out that historians' accounts are not records. Of course, stictly speaking, this would end the whole of history before about 1300 AD but even so it is time that historians woke up to the fact that an abbot is not a historian. True, they are always warning us about abbots (and Gildas) being propagandists and to take that into account but they never concede that an abbot can be an anti-historian. Or might never have existed at all. Because there is no way to tell a propagandist from a witting liar this really would mean the end of history before c 1300 AD.
The parallel with art provenancing is inescapable. Everybody knows there are eighty-seven Van Klotts in art galleries and museums around the world and that he only made thirty-three paintings in his lifetime but everybody also knows that all eighty-seven would have to be thrown out if 'doubt' was allowed to be the benchmark. The only difference between art and history is that the art-world is a business so tends to know the facts and ignores them when necessary. History is not a business so tends not to know the facts and doesn't have to get its fingers dirty.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pulp History
In: Wales
|
|
|
|
" they never preached the faith to the Saxons, or English, who dwelt amongst them; "
Is he distinguishing BETWEEN Saxons and English, OR is he saying that Saxons are also called English??
Does Saxon have any link with the Latin 'saxum' (Stone)??
_________________
Question everything!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| Is he distinguishing BETWEEN Saxons and English, OR is he saying that Saxons are also called English?? |
If he wanted to differentiate one group from the other he should have written "neither... nor...." but then Bede was probably just as unreliable a grammarian as he was a "historian".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Does Saxon have any link with the Latin 'saxum' (Stone)?? |
From memory of a long-gone controversy, I think it turned out that there was some confusion (ancient or modern) between rock, rock-salt and salt. The modern trade-name of Saxa Salt (that was the one that had on the tin a pic of a little boy trying to put salt on the bird's tail...now can anyone throw light on that interestingly mysterious motif?) was what started the whole "Were the Saxons originally salt-traders?" thread..
Which reminds me, their chief rival was Cerebos Salt...is that referring to two-headed dogs and if not, why not?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
The validity of Bede's writings was hotly debated over on the Time Team thread - for example, Dan, aka Innocent Bystander, wrote:
quote:
it has already been stated that Bede's languages are all accounted for |
Unfortunately, they have been accounted for in accordance with the prevailing paradigm. But if the other considerations are overwhelming and we must establish MJ Harper's paradigm, then we must say "there is something wrong with Bede's evidence," even if we don't know what.
We would say things like
• "there wasn't the subtle appreciation for the relationships between languages that we take for granted now"; or
• "the ruling classes took no notice of the peasant classes anyway and Bede was only talking about the powerful factions: there is a genuine sense in which English was not in use at that time"; or
• "the oldest extant manuscripts are hundreds of years older than the text claims to be, so they are necessarily susceptible to interference"; or
• "how peoples and their languages get names from each other is confusing enough as it is and it possible that one the languages listed was English by another name"; or
• "there's something funny about written Anglo-Saxon appearing on the scene after Bede anyway"; or
• "historians second-guess Bede's agenda all the time anyway so this is something we can dismiss" or
• "Bede is plainly wrong, for an unknown reason"; or ...
That is, Bede can be explained away if necessary. But that is precisely what academe does on the basis that the paradigm is self-evidently true all the time anyway (leading to "English must have been introduced via such-and-such means", "the written language must have lagged the spoken by 2 or 3 centuries", "the later ASC scribes must have switched to the colloquial language" and so on) so there is nothing new here. That's why I think Bede, as the sole piece of evidence offered so far, can be left on one side. So far, there is nothing to reinforce it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
| Which reminds me, their chief rival was Cerebos Salt...is that referring to two-headed dogs and if not, why not? |
Sorry Mick but it's a three headed dog and it's called Cerberus not Cerebos.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| Which reminds me, their chief rival was Cerebos Salt...is that referring to two-headed dogs and if not, why not? |
Sorry Mick but it's a three headed dog and it's called Cerberus not Cerebos. |
I think I read that Cerebos (which owns the Saxa brand now) was taken from Ceres/cereal and os, bone. Sounds more like phosphate fertiliser than table salt, but that may be where they began.
I don't know the official explanation for the boy salting the chicken while it's still alive {Before my time.}, but it looks like he's learned that Cerebos salt and chickens go together regardless, or they're so good together he just can't wait.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pulp History
In: Wales
|
|
|
|
Regarding the Anglo Saxon Chronicle.........
How come the writers of the Chronicle can get names for places correct in the indigenous language - ie.
"A.D. 490. This year Ella and Cissa besieged the city of Andred,
and slew all that were therein; nor was one Briten left there
afterwards." - Wiki says "The Forest of Andred or Andredswald is an alternative name for the Weald in southern England and refers to the ancient woodland which once stretched from 'Andred' - the Roman fort of Anderitum, now more commonly known as Pevensey Castle - to the Hampshire-Dorset border and would have included what is now the New Forest. It is believed that the forest would have been known by ancient Britons as Coed Andred (coed being the Brythonic word for forest) and by Romans as Silva Anderida"
BUT in EARLIER and other entries placenames are described as being Anglo Saxon??? ie.
Crayford, Aylesford, Ipwinesfleet (Swinefleet??), Portsmouth..... are we to believe that some places were IMMEDIATELY renamed, but others were referred to in their original form?
Sarum is another they got RIGHT, leaving the name intact to give us Salisbury, allegedly!!
_________________
Question everything!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
| I don't know the official explanation for the boy salting the chicken while it's still alive {Before my time.}, but it looks like he's learned that Cerebos salt and chickens go together regardless, or they're so good together he just can't wait. |
It appears in old tales supposedly of Scandinavian origin that if you put salt on a bird's tail it won't fly away.
And this from: Redgauntlet by Sir Walter Scott
And secondly, his intelligence is so good, that were you coming near him with soldiers, or constables, or the like, I shall answer for it, you will never lay salt on his tail.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| It appears in old tales supposedly of Scandinavian origin that if you put salt on a bird's tail it won't fly away. |
This belief may explain why we're supposed to throw salt over our shoulder (the left shoulder?) for luck.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
