tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post2431508484689795232..comments2023-11-29T07:39:34.401+00:00Comments on Carla Nayland Historical Fiction: A Bishop of Chester?Carlahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11901028520813891575noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-29192520489173369642009-06-12T17:03:42.021+01:002009-06-12T17:03:42.021+01:00No idea. Honey tends to be expensive so that may ...No idea. Honey tends to be expensive so that may well be a reason for the decline of mead, or it may just be fashion.Carlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11901028520813891575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-78151842270737948112009-06-12T15:43:24.045+01:002009-06-12T15:43:24.045+01:00I figured it must be strong stuff! Curious that it...I figured it must be strong stuff! Curious that it has fallen almost completely out of use. Either it is expensive to make or it is rotgut. (Grossly sweet, maybe?)<br /><br />Everyone has heard of it, more or less, and you'd think the 'barbarian' connotation would be a positive selling point in dude/lad culture!Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-83751291433635012232009-06-12T12:49:32.713+01:002009-06-12T12:49:32.713+01:00Indeed, it doesn't matter what people were dri...Indeed, it doesn't matter what people were drinking, the point is that once there was power and wealth and luxury here and now it's gone. <br /><br />Mead can be fairly potent stuff :-) Sometimes more like a fortified wine than an ordinary wine. Sharon Penman has Eleanor de Montfort (Ellen) make a similar comment in <i>The Reckoning</i>.Carlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11901028520813891575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-17232877236674099972009-06-10T16:23:35.718+01:002009-06-10T16:23:35.718+01:00Really we're saying the same thing, I think. o...Really we're saying the same thing, I think. <i>order, prosperity, society. Civilisation, if you like, as opposed to chaos, cold, hunger, misery</i> is exactly what I took from his imagery.<br /><br />Wine vs mead matters only in modern stereotype - Romans getting drunk on wine are civilized (if perhaps growing decadent by the moment), but anyone getting drunk on mead, especially in a 'mead hall,' is by definition a barbarian.<br /><br />Family story about my parents when young adults attending a church (!) party where someone had made some mead. After drinking it, a partygoer remarked, 'No wonder they were always slaying dragons!' :-)Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-66684578391848991142009-06-10T11:20:23.469+01:002009-06-10T11:20:23.469+01:00Mead and the mead-hall had a deeper significance t...Mead and the mead-hall had a deeper significance than the fuel and location for a party; they symbolised order, prosperity, society. Civilisation, if you like, as opposed to chaos, cold, hunger, misery. When the poet pictures the ruins as the remains of a mead-hall, I'd say he's meditating on the transience of human life and human works, rather like Bede's sparrow story.Carlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11901028520813891575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-74224858281925723602009-06-09T17:13:12.466+01:002009-06-09T17:13:12.466+01:00Yes, I did read it because of this discussion, and...Yes, I did read it because of this discussion, and so far as I can recall hadn't previously seen the comparison to Ozymandias. <br /><br />I haven't exactly delved deeply into the modern commentary, but the potted bit that sticks in my mind is the implication that the author couldn't have known a thing about Romans because he pictures the people who lived there as drinking mead. Which strikes me as saying more about the author's (and audience's) assumptions about party drinks than what he knew or didn't know about Romans.<br /><br />Speaking of drinks, today's LA Times has a piece about how pubs are dying out in rural England. :-(Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-14190716909427432622009-06-09T13:12:10.874+01:002009-06-09T13:12:10.874+01:00If you read The Ruin as a result of this discussio...If you read <i>The Ruin</i> as a result of this discussion, I'm delighted! Old English poetry is more thoughtful and sophisticated than some of its modern "commentary". <br /><br />When I first read <i>The Ruin</i>, I thought of <i>Ozymandias</i> as well. Have I said that somewhere, or did you come to the same conclusion independently?Carlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11901028520813891575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-58717620473909061832009-06-07T17:22:43.353+01:002009-06-07T17:22:43.353+01:00'Barbarian splendor,' LOL.
When I read &...'Barbarian splendor,' LOL. <br /><br />When I read 'The Ruin' in course of this discussion I was most struck by how thoughtful and sophisticated it is. The thumbnail descriptions I'd read had not led me to expect that. They gave the impression that the poem was pretty, but was written by an ignorant, mead swilling barbarian who thought the ruins were also built by mead swilling barbarians.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-62651889232549272972009-06-07T11:17:51.655+01:002009-06-07T11:17:51.655+01:00Oh, undoubtedly. Fashion snobbery never changes :...Oh, undoubtedly. Fashion snobbery never changes :-) And not just the Romano-British, either. I wish I had a penny for every time I've seen the phrase "barbarian splendour" attached to the Sutton Hoo jewellery.Carlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11901028520813891575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-1144377943041295512009-06-06T23:02:43.632+01:002009-06-06T23:02:43.632+01:00And however beautiful and finely made, no doubt th...And however beautiful and finely made, no doubt they were 'barbarian' in Romano-British eyes.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-45058504388717751692009-06-06T21:53:19.597+01:002009-06-06T21:53:19.597+01:00Yes, clothing and personal items like jewellery an...Yes, clothing and personal items like jewellery and belt buckles. These are the markers that turn up in the archaeological record (unlike language, unfortunately). Brooches are among the key items for recognising and dating 'Anglo-Saxon' graves, as fashions seem to have varied by region and evolved at a quite a pace over time.Carlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11901028520813891575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-88604137298622690902009-06-04T19:59:42.513+01:002009-06-04T19:59:42.513+01:00Definitely a topic for another thread!
I imagine ...Definitely a topic for another thread!<br /><br />I imagine language would be the big driver in Britain, with a boost from things like clothing. Maybe in Italy 'Germanic barbarian' auxiliaries looked physically different on average from Italians, but hardly in Britain. Where the owners of those villas, who presumably mostly looked like British people, nevertheless likely thought of themselves as Roman, till eventually they didn't anymore.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-17133621963327745632009-06-04T11:35:04.922+01:002009-06-04T11:35:04.922+01:00I expect that was the case. The new dynasty of No...I expect that was the case. The new dynasty of Northumbria in the early 8th century claimed descent from King Ida of Bernicia (c. 547) and one of his concubines - I bet that couldn't be checked!<br /><br />Ethnic identity - now that really is a big subject, and one for another thread! Drawing a distinction between "real people", i.e. us, and "that other lot" seems to be characteristic of Homo sapiens, which seems to like defining in-groups and out-groups. Whether it needs an actual tradition or can invent one to suit is open to question. <br /><br />My guess is that language would probably have been an important ethnic marker. There's no convenient physical characteristic like skin colour to use, after all, and it's not as if DNA testing had been invented :-) It's also noticeable that regional accents, mixed up with class accents, are still recognisable and still important in Britain even now. That may have very deep roots indeed.Carlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11901028520813891575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-27429265915143636342009-06-03T19:50:48.484+01:002009-06-03T19:50:48.484+01:00I can easily imagine that northern 'Cymru'...I can easily imagine that northern 'Cymru' elites fled to Gwynedd as the northern kingdoms collapsed, and intermarried with the local elite. And given the small size of these early kingdoms, I imagine pretty much any aristo could claim a royal connection - especially going back a few generations, and given no way to check. :-)<br /><br />'Backstory' was perhaps too strong a term. As you say there is a discontinuity, evidently in the 6th century. But some memory or tradition of a former Britain was preserved, and used to draw a distinction between real people and those English pig-dogs. <br /><br />Lurking under this whole discussion is how 'ethnic' identities were created and defined. Surely it was mainly if not exclusively along linguistic lines, especially the languages of elites.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-27761802149623666422009-06-02T16:31:35.282+01:002009-06-02T16:31:35.282+01:00If history were written by the victors, we really ...If history were written by the victors, we really ought to have an account of Badon written by Arthur :-)<br /><br />HB says in its text that it was written in 829 or 830. It's usually ascribed to the court of Merfyn the Freckled, King of Gwynedd. Merfyn was highly successful and married the sister of the king of Powys, through which connection his sons and grandsons ended up ruling Powys as well as Gwynedd (and parts of what's now South Wales as well, so they came pretty close to being rulers of the whole of what's now Wales). I imagine, though I don't know, that the pre-eminence of Gwynedd among the Welsh princedoms in Llewellyn Fawr's time has its roots in Merfyn and his dynasty. So, yes, HB was written and maintained when Gwynedd was successful and thriving. Merfyn's claim to Gwynedd came through his mother (he wasn't a direct descendant in the male line), so he probably had more reason than most to want to record (or construct) a suitable history. Merfyn is supposed to have family connections with 'Manau Gododdin', somewhere in what was at the time north-east Northumbria and is now south-east Scotland, which was the traditional home of Cunedda, the (legendary?) founder of Gwynedd. If correct, this would account for HB being full of stuff about the history of what's now northern England and southern Scotland, as this would have been of relevance to Merfyn's immediate forbears. Some people suggest that the Cunedda migration story was invented lock, stock and barrel for Merfyn, together with matching genealogies, as a way of claiming that this incomer from the distant north had a dynastic right to Gwynedd. Myself, I think a complete fabrication would have been tricky, but building up an existing shadowy tradition would be entirely plausible. It's a lot easier to make political spin stick if there's a grain of truth in it. Apply large caveat that Merfyn is 300 years later than my main period of interest so I don't know that much about him in detail.<br /><br />The Matter of Britain, i.e. all the Arthur legends, don't seem to have been used as backstory by any of the medieval Welsh kings. None of them claim to be descended from Arthur. The founder figure of Gwynedd is Cunedda, who has nothing to do with Arthur in any legend I know of, and the founder figure of Powys is Cadell, who is supposed to have been given his authority by St Germanus and again has nothing to do with Arthur. Clearly the legends of Arthur were remembered and told in medieval Wales, since he turns up in stories like Culhwch and Olwen and is all over the Triads, not to mention in HB itself, but nobody went round claiming to be reviving his government or his authority. You can say that shows he was legendary (and many people have, and they have a point), or you can say that it indicates that his family origin and/or his political base wasn't in the lands that became medieval Wales.<br /><br />Another wrinkle re HB and 'history written by the victors'. Merfyn was a highly successful king in Gwynedd at the time of HB's composition. If I'm correct that regional and family identity is what counted, then Merfyn's territory and people may have considered the conflict between Vortigern and Hengist in HB to be nothing much to do with them, except perhaps as a dire warning to have nothing to do with perfidious Saxons, and not regarded themselves as part of the losing side. <br /><br />(Does the phrase 'can of worms' come to mind?)Carlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11901028520813891575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-75505105088606922242009-06-02T15:43:15.176+01:002009-06-02T15:43:15.176+01:00The HB seems a partial exception to the familiar r...The HB seems a partial exception to the familiar rule that the winners write the history. Only partial, because I somewhat gather that the tragic (from HB's perspective) 'matter of Britain' is sort of a back story to Gwynedd, presumably thriving and successful at the time.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-53199270229245847892009-06-02T11:51:26.828+01:002009-06-02T11:51:26.828+01:00Yes, Hengist, Horsa and Vortigern are all actors i...Yes, Hengist, Horsa and Vortigern are all actors in the same story. Gildas tells a condensed version of what is clearly the same story, referring to a "proud tyrant" who invited Saxon mercenaries, but doesn't name any names. (Gildas names very few names; Aurelius Ambrosius is the only person named from this approximate period at all). Bede repeats Gildas, with the addition of the names of Hengist and Horsa which he evidently knew from somewhere else. The ASC version is lifted more or less wholesale from Bede. HB's version is much fuller, which may reflect access to lost source material, a more narrative saga style of writing (as opposed to the ASC's condensed annals format), more years/opportunity/inclination for vivid imaginations to get to work, or any combination thereof.<br /><br />The ASC was probably written down at the court of Alfred the Great in late ninth-century Wessex, by which time all the other royal dynasties were extinct owing to internecine squabbles or the Danes or both. Sussex and the Isle of Wight were part of Wessex by then, as was Kent, so those were all of at least passing interest to the ASC's patrons. Aelle of Sussex gets a mention in Bede (as the first in his list of Bretwaldas), so that would be another reason to include his legend. The ASC chronicler(s) clearly had little interest in, or knowledge of, the development of the Deira/Bernicia/Northumbria dynasties because they have mixed up Deiran and Bernician kings into a single line and made a right mess of the chronology as a result, saying that Aelle of Deira died in 588 when Bede (in On the Reckoning of Time, so not his most famous work) clearly says that Aelle was king in 597 when Augustine's mission arrived. This is consistent with your suggestion that the ASC focused on the Wessex kings, which is what we'd expect both for reasons of political patronage (you write up the ancestors of the guy who's paying you) and likely access to source material (a Wessex chronicler is more likely to have records from Wessex and Wessex sub-kingdoms in his library than records from kingdoms hundreds of miles away).Carlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11901028520813891575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-81959468439053936442009-06-02T03:07:48.422+01:002009-06-02T03:07:48.422+01:00It sounds like most of the surviving early English...It sounds like most of the surviving early English references were southern. (?) Weren't Hengist and Horsa mixed up in the Vortigern thing? That would explain why the HB remembers them. (Are they even in Gildas?)<br /><br />And about the ASC, weren't its versions largely compiled after the Wessex line was dominant? I don't know if that would explain who got covered and who didn't, but I vaguely guess it might.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-81010378309042329042009-06-01T21:56:11.840+01:002009-06-01T21:56:11.840+01:00There are foundation stories for Kent (Hengist and...There are foundation stories for Kent (Hengist and Horsa, Historia Brittonum (HB) and Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (ASC)), Sussex (Aelle and his three sons (ASC), ceded by Vortigern (HB)), Wessex (Cerdic and Cynric, ASC), Isle of Wight (Stuf and Wihtgar, ASC) and Bernicia (Octha and Ebissa, HB). The Hengist and Horsa story is by far the most detailed, and the others in HB are offshoots of it. The ones in the ASC are of the "X came with his sons in N ships and landed at a place called X-something" format, as is usual for the ASC's condensed style. Nothing for the origin of East Anglia, Mercia, Lindsey, Deira or any sub-units that might have made up parts of them. There are genealogies for them, but those are just name lists with no foundation legend attached. Bede's history mentions some of their kings starting around 600 AD or so, e.g. Penda of Mercia, Raedwald of East Anglia, when they encountered the Christian Northumbrian kings who are the focus of his account, but not in their own right.Carlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11901028520813891575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-27824014198783887802009-05-31T20:04:07.714+01:002009-05-31T20:04:07.714+01:00Curious about Mercia. What early English kingdoms ...Curious about Mercia. What early English kingdoms <I>do</I> we have surviving legends/traditions about? <br /><br />Your remarks on what local elites were interested in hearing about seems entirely likely. Popular traditional heroes (e.g. Arthur) might be retrospectively linked to royal lines whether there was any real connection or not, but this wouldn't extend to the local traditions of unconnected kingdoms.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-32619476008998868972009-05-31T09:56:20.071+01:002009-05-31T09:56:20.071+01:00It's worth noting that there are no early traditio...It's worth noting that there are no early traditions whatsoever from the kingdom of Mercia. No foundation legend, no stories about early heroes and kings like Penda, hardly anything even about Offa himself. I can't believe stories and sagas didn't exist, but for whatever reason none of them have come down to us. I daresay the Norse invasions and the Dissoluton between them made a fair job of trashing any monastic records. Any tales about Wroxeter might well have vanished into oblivion along with tales of Penda.<br /><br />Stories about the rulers of Wroxeter may never have been on the radar of kingdoms in what is now Wales. My feeling is that regional identities counted for much more than 'national' or 'ethnic' ones. So the royal court of Gwynedd had an interest in, and a reason to preserve, tales about their own distant ancestors such as Maelgwn Gwynedd and Cunedda, but they had no particular reason to be interested in stories about distant ancestors in other kingdoms with which their dynasty had no direct connection.Carlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11901028520813891575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-51102958906339386622009-05-29T20:18:29.518+01:002009-05-29T20:18:29.518+01:00Yeah, a frontier territory could have bounced back...Yeah, a frontier territory could have bounced back and forth. Alsace-Lorraine, indeed! We don't know when the Welsh triads and such were first composed, only when they were set down. But my (sheer!) guess is that if Wroxeter fell off the radar of Welsh elites before 800, local folklore would more likely miss being incorporated into legend cycles that would encourage its preservation. <br /><br />Compare to South Cadbury. It isn't recorded as 'Arthurian' till the 16th century, but it remained in the Britosphere well after the Arthurian tradition was established, so local folklore had something to hang its hat on, so to speak.<br /><br />My oops about which synod Bede was discussing!Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-75636875031239494962009-05-29T18:52:14.667+01:002009-05-29T18:52:14.667+01:00Good question. Presumably before 780 or so when O...Good question. Presumably before 780 or so when Offa of Mercia built Offa's Dyke (Wroxeter is well to the Mercian side of the Dyke). Presumably after 642, if the Cynddylan poetry relates to Wroxeter, as the poetry describes Cynddylan as allied with Penda of Mercia at the battle of Maes Cogwy in 642. <br />It might not have been a point event, of course - the area might have been independent, part of Powys or part of Mercia by turns at different times as the fortunes of war and diplomacy dictated. (Think of Alsace-Lorraine. When did it become French? Er - which time?). Also, if the local ruler was 'British' but answered to an 'English' overking, does the area count as British or English? If you're the English overking tallying up your tribute you probably think it's English, but if you live there and British law and custom is applied by a guy who speaks British, you probably think it's British - and both of you are equally right.<br /><br />It was Bede's description of this same Synod at Chester that we were discussing last time. He gives the Brittonic bishops some sort of rational reason for refusing to accept Augustine's authority, rather than just dismissing them out of hand.Carlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11901028520813891575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-427505093715564232009-05-29T17:21:18.120+01:002009-05-29T17:21:18.120+01:00When did the area around Wroxeter go from being 'B...When did the area around Wroxeter go from being 'British' to 'English?' The early English had no interest in the Arthurian cycle, for natural reasons. And if the poem 'The Ruin' is anything to go by, they didn't try to associate ruins with their own heroic tradition. Instead the poet takes a lost-civilization view - a bit of Ozymandias, a bit of Gibbon. Which comes off as very, well, English. :-)<br /><br />Bede's comment on name accuracy puts me in mind of another discussion we had, about how he provided evidence to challenge his own interpretation of Whitby.<br /><br />Given the almost complete lack of evidence, you guess about bishops seems as good as any!Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19922276.post-50767867021831463442009-05-29T13:06:17.672+01:002009-05-29T13:06:17.672+01:00That's a more poetic version than the one I know: ...That's a more poetic version than the one I know: "many a beautiful theory has been slain by an ugly fact". However, there aren't that many facts in early medieval Britain, so it's one of the safer habitats for beautiful theories. Yours could still stand up if we say that the visible Roman remains were clearly identified as "Roman" and required no further explanation, and that the post-Roman buildings disappeared and their owner was forgotten. I'm stretching a point a bit here :-)<br /><br />Good question. An expert in early medieval linguistics would be needed for a definitive answer. My guess is that the Brittonic form "Caerlegion" clearly preserves the Latin "Legionis" with hardly any alteration, whereas the Old English "Lega-" has mangled it a bit. BTW, I think it's rather attractive of Bede to go out of his way to say that the Brittonic name is more correct than the one used by his fellow countrymen. <br /><br />Three bishops from Britain (from York, London and a garbled name that's perhaps most likely to be Lincoln) attended the Council of Arles in 314, and three turned up at the Council of Ariminum (Rimini) in 353 and accepted the Emperor's hospitality for their travel and subsistence costs. So at least three in the early-mid 4th century. I doubt that was the full set, as one would expect somebody to stay and run church affairs in Britain while the top brass travelled to the South of France and Italy, but there's no list so we don't know how many there were in total. And the number might have gone up (as Christianity became more popular) or down (as the economy declined and/or got taken over by non-Christian Germanic elites) over the next couple of centuries. I can imagine every little early medieval Brittonic kingdom wanting its own bishop, just so that their priests didn't answer to somebody else's bishop, for example.<br /><br />The Synod of Arles complained about the practice of bishops ordaining other bishops all by themselves, and said that a bishop should be ordained by at least three other bishops and preferably seven. So assuming the British church followed that rule, they could have ordained extra bishops amongst themselves provided at least three existing bishops agreed, and they didn't have to get permission from an outside authority. So if they thought a group of rural churches needed a bishop they could have created one, I think.Carlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11901028520813891575noreply@blogger.com