I don't have a woman per se (unless it is Gerda Lerner!!!...so guess I do) but erasing women from history… This is why Gerda learner had to write a whole separate book, entitled “creation of Feminine consciousness” after she wrote “creation of patriarchy”. In fact, that was actually her first book she wanted to write, but couldn’t until she wrote “creation of patriarchy”. Why? Because she couldn’t find consistent women’s history throughout the ages. She proved that women had to start over from scratch constantly to recreate their history in order to see themselves in it, and thus as an active participant in the world. One has to ask why would erasing women from history be necessary for the patriarchy? Answering that question might help you wake up. Next week on my YouTube channel, I will be releasing a video about how history is made and it’s vital that we understand IT IS made and not just coming out of the thin air. It’s more about probability than facts as we are seen in real time witht his DEI erasure thang.
Another woman I am "rewriting into history" (because I feel this is what we will have to do to spark our imagination about women in HERstory back alive) via my fictional book is Mary Magdalene. She is going to have a deep back story centering around the story of Inannana and the women who carried the Genetrix ("the Ancestress" Creation STory in my book) in secret until the time of Mary Magdalene. In my book, she is the Christ -- teaching Jesus how to "love the neighborh, sinner, prostitute and tax collector" that biblical historical scholars still are not sure where he got that message from (why from a WOMAN but of course) ;-)!
'Women had to start over from scratch constantly to recreate their history': YES! Isn't it sad that this is the case for so many wonderful women who lived in the past? We can't just open up history books to find out what others have said about them because they're not there; no one's writing about them. Thankfully, I do think that's beginning to change - but only beginning. It certainly hasn't become standard practice yet. Grateful for people like you highlighting the ongoing impact of the erasure of women from history!
Yea “good ol’ patriarchy” is conitnuing to wipe us out even as we speak. have you e-met @Lorissa Rinehart? She writes about women in more modern times at Female Body Politic. Have you found other women writing about women across other times in history?
I absolutely want to join this conversation. Some years ago I came across 2 sentences that mentioned Isabelle d'Angouleme, the 2nd wife of King John. She lived some 600 years after Berta, and was widely reviled in the chronicles. I have written an historical novel trying to unearth her life by digging into details that are knowable about 1200 England and France. She lived in turbulent times - wars and power struggles with the pope culminating in the Magna Carta. If John was a besotted with her as the chronicles suggest, she surely had some influence.
Sharon Bennett Connolly, Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, blurbed the novel as "a stunning recreation..." which made me feel like I had succeeded. Of course, In creating her world, I had all the info I wanted about the men, but had to extrapolate it for her and the women surrounding her. If you're interested, the novel is Behold the Bird in Flight, coming in June but you can preorder now. (I hope I've not embarrassed myself by this bit of promotion...).
I'll be following this thread closely. Thanks for starting it!
Your novel sounds fascinating! I will definitely look it up. And closer to the time I'd love to interview you about it, perhaps to coincide with the launch.
And, I mean, having Sharon Bennett Connolly's endorsement is absolutely succeeding! I'd say you've hit the jackpot!
Oh, thank you for the offer. I'd love for you to interview me. I kinda thought Sharon's blurb be important (I met her on FB). Her recent books have had terrific success. Well deserved, I'd add...
A great start to an exciting new series, Holly. Lovely to meet you, and now, by extension, Bertha. And hear, hear to this: 'Let’s work hard to bring these women out of their husbands’ shadows - and allow their stories to shine on their own merit.'
This is fascinating! I'm beginning my journey through history so I don't have a name to contribute, but I am excited to learn more as this series continues!
I'm looking forward to reading more - love your focus! Yes, women as mere appendages to their male relatives-?! Sigh. 🙄 I'm a genealogist and have a 2nd great grandmother from NY whose husband was quite well known in the frontier of northwest Washington state development. Her long obituaries in two different newspapers mention only her married name & her age, and then gives effusive details about her husband... Not very different, eh?
Thanks for joining us, Celia! That's so sad, though, to hear about the erasure of your great-grandmother's story in the newspapers. I wasn't able to fit it into this essay, but there was a similar treatment of Bertha in Marc Morris' history: the pages that he listed in his index reference for her actually discussed her husband!
There's so many great woman in history! And let's face it, behind every great man, is a great mother that raised and brought him into the world! Shout out to all the amazing Mum's 👏
Hooray for amazing mums! I do often think about the fact that all the so-called 'great men' of history wouldn't even have existed if it hadn't have been for the women that grew and gave birth to them...
Reading what you said here about Bertha sparks off a latent thought/insight I've had bugging me for a while now, which is finally able to be put into words. And I think it is relevant to your view of Bertha, and the fact that she has been played down as 'the wife' (and nothing more) in this conversion story, especially as it relates to Augustine.
See, what has always bugged me is the idea that these missionaries (and other 'Christians' like Bertha) were able to succeed with their 'conversions' simply by winning some kind of pseudo-philosophical/theological argument allegedly demonstrating that 'Christianity' is the one true religion and 'your paganism is rubbish'. This is, when you think about it, utter rot. Leaving aside the psycho-social aspect that paganism is as much about ancestor-worship and long-embedded cultural identity, and thus exceptionally resilient and resistant to 'foreign ideas' (hence 'the unruly Britons' meme of the day), and 'Christianity' is almost abstract and without feeling, in that sense, and thus could never win any arguments like that, we also have the fact that all these histories were not just written 'by men' - they were written 'by Christian men', whose primary objective was to reinforce this idea of 'conversion simply by virtue of the superiority of Christianity as a religion'. So there is another propaganda aspect here which is a corollary to the patriarchy (women have a far greater and respected role to play in paganism, remember).
Thus, if we remove the idea that these pagans were converted by argument, then what remains - well, political advancement, political and diplomatic intrigue. That point about 'husband from Kent' - i.e. the Kentish man is beneath the Frankish royal family. So even a minor princess is above him. Thus, from the Franks' point of view, that marriage is the first step in acquiring an ally across the channel (and possibly territory, via the children), by enabling Mr. Kent to do a bit of social climbing, as well as have himself a powerful ally against any rivals in Britain. The conversion is the next step in these political alliances and probably contained a lot of bribery and connections (including lucrative trade deals with the Southern Europeans).
But this obviously means that Bertha was more important than her husband and her husband would've known this. Thus I can well imagine some of the conversations the two of them would've had, which would not have been about silly old religion. And choosing her to soften him up to the alliance, introduce him to Frankish ways, teach him about the intricacies of continental politics and trade and how this new Roman papacy thing works in devious political practice, well, that takes an exceptionally bright, well educated, well-spoken, and intelligent young woman, that does. As such, she must've been really something.
Likewise, if the only conversations they ever had were about 'Christianity and how oh so wonderful it is', then you'd have thought 10-20 years of this (nagging?!!) would've converted the guy before Augustine arrived. I suspect that SHE already won him over in this distinctly political manner, and THAT'S the trigger for Augustine to come over and seal the deal.
Obviously, those historians would NEVER write that story. Because it completely undermines the idea that 'Christianity' itself is some kind of source of ultimate truth that no heathen can resist. Augustine wasn't some innocent missionary. He was a cunning diplomat. Some might call him a subversive.
I'm not surprised a lot of those subversives ended up being 'martyred' for their espionage activities...
Anyway - if my suspicions are correct, then this makes me respect young Bertha even more...
Rosalind Franklin. Her skill in x-ray refraction led to the discovery of the double helix. Unrecognized by Nobel (actually twice), while Watson and Crick and Klug took credit for her pioneering research.
I don't have a woman per se (unless it is Gerda Lerner!!!...so guess I do) but erasing women from history… This is why Gerda learner had to write a whole separate book, entitled “creation of Feminine consciousness” after she wrote “creation of patriarchy”. In fact, that was actually her first book she wanted to write, but couldn’t until she wrote “creation of patriarchy”. Why? Because she couldn’t find consistent women’s history throughout the ages. She proved that women had to start over from scratch constantly to recreate their history in order to see themselves in it, and thus as an active participant in the world. One has to ask why would erasing women from history be necessary for the patriarchy? Answering that question might help you wake up. Next week on my YouTube channel, I will be releasing a video about how history is made and it’s vital that we understand IT IS made and not just coming out of the thin air. It’s more about probability than facts as we are seen in real time witht his DEI erasure thang.
Another woman I am "rewriting into history" (because I feel this is what we will have to do to spark our imagination about women in HERstory back alive) via my fictional book is Mary Magdalene. She is going to have a deep back story centering around the story of Inannana and the women who carried the Genetrix ("the Ancestress" Creation STory in my book) in secret until the time of Mary Magdalene. In my book, she is the Christ -- teaching Jesus how to "love the neighborh, sinner, prostitute and tax collector" that biblical historical scholars still are not sure where he got that message from (why from a WOMAN but of course) ;-)!
'Women had to start over from scratch constantly to recreate their history': YES! Isn't it sad that this is the case for so many wonderful women who lived in the past? We can't just open up history books to find out what others have said about them because they're not there; no one's writing about them. Thankfully, I do think that's beginning to change - but only beginning. It certainly hasn't become standard practice yet. Grateful for people like you highlighting the ongoing impact of the erasure of women from history!
Yea “good ol’ patriarchy” is conitnuing to wipe us out even as we speak. have you e-met @Lorissa Rinehart? She writes about women in more modern times at Female Body Politic. Have you found other women writing about women across other times in history?
I absolutely want to join this conversation. Some years ago I came across 2 sentences that mentioned Isabelle d'Angouleme, the 2nd wife of King John. She lived some 600 years after Berta, and was widely reviled in the chronicles. I have written an historical novel trying to unearth her life by digging into details that are knowable about 1200 England and France. She lived in turbulent times - wars and power struggles with the pope culminating in the Magna Carta. If John was a besotted with her as the chronicles suggest, she surely had some influence.
Sharon Bennett Connolly, Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, blurbed the novel as "a stunning recreation..." which made me feel like I had succeeded. Of course, In creating her world, I had all the info I wanted about the men, but had to extrapolate it for her and the women surrounding her. If you're interested, the novel is Behold the Bird in Flight, coming in June but you can preorder now. (I hope I've not embarrassed myself by this bit of promotion...).
I'll be following this thread closely. Thanks for starting it!
Your novel sounds fascinating! I will definitely look it up. And closer to the time I'd love to interview you about it, perhaps to coincide with the launch.
And, I mean, having Sharon Bennett Connolly's endorsement is absolutely succeeding! I'd say you've hit the jackpot!
Oh, thank you for the offer. I'd love for you to interview me. I kinda thought Sharon's blurb be important (I met her on FB). Her recent books have had terrific success. Well deserved, I'd add...
How exciting for you! It sounds like a winner.
A great start to an exciting new series, Holly. Lovely to meet you, and now, by extension, Bertha. And hear, hear to this: 'Let’s work hard to bring these women out of their husbands’ shadows - and allow their stories to shine on their own merit.'
Here's my take on political economist Mary Paley Marshall, whose husband got all the credit for their jointly written books.
https://akennedysmith.substack.com/p/how-to-use-a-library-dc7
Thanks for sharing, Ann! I absolutely will look this up.
Good! Your post has reminded me to remove the paywall (and highlight other overshadowed women during what’s left of this month).
Brilliant, Holly. I think it's completely valid to infer more about women who haven't so much been written out of history as never written in.
Thanks Anna!
One should always take one's bishop to Kent. 'Tis a godless place.
This is fascinating! I'm beginning my journey through history so I don't have a name to contribute, but I am excited to learn more as this series continues!
I’m so glad you enjoyed it, and can’t wait to share future essays with you! ✨
I'm looking forward to reading more - love your focus! Yes, women as mere appendages to their male relatives-?! Sigh. 🙄 I'm a genealogist and have a 2nd great grandmother from NY whose husband was quite well known in the frontier of northwest Washington state development. Her long obituaries in two different newspapers mention only her married name & her age, and then gives effusive details about her husband... Not very different, eh?
Thanks for joining us, Celia! That's so sad, though, to hear about the erasure of your great-grandmother's story in the newspapers. I wasn't able to fit it into this essay, but there was a similar treatment of Bertha in Marc Morris' history: the pages that he listed in his index reference for her actually discussed her husband!
There's so many great woman in history! And let's face it, behind every great man, is a great mother that raised and brought him into the world! Shout out to all the amazing Mum's 👏
Hooray for amazing mums! I do often think about the fact that all the so-called 'great men' of history wouldn't even have existed if it hadn't have been for the women that grew and gave birth to them...
Or the old cliche the woman behind the throne... Wife - or mother
Reading what you said here about Bertha sparks off a latent thought/insight I've had bugging me for a while now, which is finally able to be put into words. And I think it is relevant to your view of Bertha, and the fact that she has been played down as 'the wife' (and nothing more) in this conversion story, especially as it relates to Augustine.
See, what has always bugged me is the idea that these missionaries (and other 'Christians' like Bertha) were able to succeed with their 'conversions' simply by winning some kind of pseudo-philosophical/theological argument allegedly demonstrating that 'Christianity' is the one true religion and 'your paganism is rubbish'. This is, when you think about it, utter rot. Leaving aside the psycho-social aspect that paganism is as much about ancestor-worship and long-embedded cultural identity, and thus exceptionally resilient and resistant to 'foreign ideas' (hence 'the unruly Britons' meme of the day), and 'Christianity' is almost abstract and without feeling, in that sense, and thus could never win any arguments like that, we also have the fact that all these histories were not just written 'by men' - they were written 'by Christian men', whose primary objective was to reinforce this idea of 'conversion simply by virtue of the superiority of Christianity as a religion'. So there is another propaganda aspect here which is a corollary to the patriarchy (women have a far greater and respected role to play in paganism, remember).
Thus, if we remove the idea that these pagans were converted by argument, then what remains - well, political advancement, political and diplomatic intrigue. That point about 'husband from Kent' - i.e. the Kentish man is beneath the Frankish royal family. So even a minor princess is above him. Thus, from the Franks' point of view, that marriage is the first step in acquiring an ally across the channel (and possibly territory, via the children), by enabling Mr. Kent to do a bit of social climbing, as well as have himself a powerful ally against any rivals in Britain. The conversion is the next step in these political alliances and probably contained a lot of bribery and connections (including lucrative trade deals with the Southern Europeans).
But this obviously means that Bertha was more important than her husband and her husband would've known this. Thus I can well imagine some of the conversations the two of them would've had, which would not have been about silly old religion. And choosing her to soften him up to the alliance, introduce him to Frankish ways, teach him about the intricacies of continental politics and trade and how this new Roman papacy thing works in devious political practice, well, that takes an exceptionally bright, well educated, well-spoken, and intelligent young woman, that does. As such, she must've been really something.
Likewise, if the only conversations they ever had were about 'Christianity and how oh so wonderful it is', then you'd have thought 10-20 years of this (nagging?!!) would've converted the guy before Augustine arrived. I suspect that SHE already won him over in this distinctly political manner, and THAT'S the trigger for Augustine to come over and seal the deal.
Obviously, those historians would NEVER write that story. Because it completely undermines the idea that 'Christianity' itself is some kind of source of ultimate truth that no heathen can resist. Augustine wasn't some innocent missionary. He was a cunning diplomat. Some might call him a subversive.
I'm not surprised a lot of those subversives ended up being 'martyred' for their espionage activities...
Anyway - if my suspicions are correct, then this makes me respect young Bertha even more...
P.S. I would imagine she was damn sexy as hell in the bedroom too for good measure. And they'd definitely never mention that in their histories.
Rosalind Franklin. Her skill in x-ray refraction led to the discovery of the double helix. Unrecognized by Nobel (actually twice), while Watson and Crick and Klug took credit for her pioneering research.