I agree with all of your points (especially in the footnotes) about the writing of history (I'm equally against *that* kind of feminism!) being repetitive and overly political rather than proper living social history.
I think I would have a different interpretation of the Augustine story and Bede's hagiography there, though. I don't think we can ignore the idea that this is in large part what we would now call 'propaganda'. You kind of hint at it when you say it's about 'God' giving Augustine strength/courage. But it's also about falsely portraying the pre-Christian British (the 'unruly Britons') in the worst possible light ('barbarian' etc.) who could 'only' be saved by (Roman) Christianity. In my - admittedly pagan prejudiced - view, Augustine (or his pope) did not have a noble mission - it was about bringing Britain under the subjugation of Rome - ironically, a distinctly 'patriarchal' system.
I'm also showing my bias here when I say I think the real and better Arthurian story is one I prefer, about the Celts introducing the Anglo-Saxon pagans to a more spiritual, earthy, magical version of Christianity (what I would also see as more akin to the 'original' spiritual version of Christianity). And then that, too, ends up being rewritten as a distinctly macho chivalric romance.
So I do think it's time to tell these stories from a different perspective. It's why I love what you're doing!
Yes I totally agree with your point about propaganda - and it’s a really important one to bring to the conversation. Bede definitely propagates a kind of ‘Roman Christianity saving the Britons from their savagery’ narrative, which I don’t think accurately reflects what actually happened, and I too can’t help but think that there were desires for subjugation too (although the papacy wasn’t yet as powerful as it would become at a later date).
I very nearly ended up doing academic research on the interplay between British and Roman Christianity, because what was going on in the west was very different to what was going on in the east. And then it seems all very different to what Bede reported.
It’s a shame, in a way, that his narrative is really the only one to have survived, because it really colours our view of this time. As you say, it’s time we start telling these different stories!
That kind of academic research you nearly did is exactly right up my street! I am completely fascinated by the period of British history from, say, Boudicca up to the end of the 7th century that you're studying. I was talking with my other half only just earlier that I think the experience of early Christians in Roman Britannia was very different to the experience of those in Rome, if we are to believe most of the accounts. So whilst Christians in Rome may have been 'thrown to the lions', being perceived as 'subversive', over in Britannia we have no record whatsoever of persecution, but rather archaeological evidence suggesting that earliest form of Christianity lived side by side with all the other pagan cults, where it would have been probably perceived as 'just another mystery cult'.
I love the speculative idea about 'did those feet in ancient times' - as I was thinking in order to escape persecution in Rome maybe the genuine earliest followers of Christ did indeed come to Britain where they were safe, which is an interesting hypothesis about how 'Celtic' Christianity came to be, which is, or was, quite distinctive and definitely had a lot of pagan to it. St. Brigid, for example, is a very interesting originally pagan figure well predating St. Patrick.
I know the dating of the so-called first Christian 'martyr' St. Alban is disputed, but we seem to be talking late 2nd century to mid-to-late 3rd, meaning no Christian martyrs for at least 100-150 years after the arrival of Christianity. And if I remember correctly St. Alban wasn't so much as martyred for his faith, but because he got into some quarrel with the local Roman bigwig.
So yes - I totally agree that it's such a shame we mostly only have Bede to go on because in order to really confirm or discount the hypothesis about the difference between British and Roman Christianity we do need different accounts. Having said that, we can 'infer' - and especially from the fact that the papacy in Rome felt the need to send 'missionaries' (or read: 'subversives'!) to Britain. If there was no difference, no need to send people to civilise them...
In another life I would definitely spend my entire life as an obscure academic with my head buried in all this stuff!
I could talk for days about all this! It is just one of my most favourite subjects, and one of the reasons why I love this period. It’s all so speculative because of the nature of the sources, and I think that leaves room for just endless creativity as we work through different hypotheses for what went on and how people wrote about it. It’s fascinating!
Thanks for the conversation: I’ve loved it (like, genuinely - no one IRL talks about these things with me! 🤣) and hope to chat more things medieval history with you soon!
I agree with all of your points (especially in the footnotes) about the writing of history (I'm equally against *that* kind of feminism!) being repetitive and overly political rather than proper living social history.
I think I would have a different interpretation of the Augustine story and Bede's hagiography there, though. I don't think we can ignore the idea that this is in large part what we would now call 'propaganda'. You kind of hint at it when you say it's about 'God' giving Augustine strength/courage. But it's also about falsely portraying the pre-Christian British (the 'unruly Britons') in the worst possible light ('barbarian' etc.) who could 'only' be saved by (Roman) Christianity. In my - admittedly pagan prejudiced - view, Augustine (or his pope) did not have a noble mission - it was about bringing Britain under the subjugation of Rome - ironically, a distinctly 'patriarchal' system.
I'm also showing my bias here when I say I think the real and better Arthurian story is one I prefer, about the Celts introducing the Anglo-Saxon pagans to a more spiritual, earthy, magical version of Christianity (what I would also see as more akin to the 'original' spiritual version of Christianity). And then that, too, ends up being rewritten as a distinctly macho chivalric romance.
So I do think it's time to tell these stories from a different perspective. It's why I love what you're doing!
Yes I totally agree with your point about propaganda - and it’s a really important one to bring to the conversation. Bede definitely propagates a kind of ‘Roman Christianity saving the Britons from their savagery’ narrative, which I don’t think accurately reflects what actually happened, and I too can’t help but think that there were desires for subjugation too (although the papacy wasn’t yet as powerful as it would become at a later date).
I very nearly ended up doing academic research on the interplay between British and Roman Christianity, because what was going on in the west was very different to what was going on in the east. And then it seems all very different to what Bede reported.
It’s a shame, in a way, that his narrative is really the only one to have survived, because it really colours our view of this time. As you say, it’s time we start telling these different stories!
That kind of academic research you nearly did is exactly right up my street! I am completely fascinated by the period of British history from, say, Boudicca up to the end of the 7th century that you're studying. I was talking with my other half only just earlier that I think the experience of early Christians in Roman Britannia was very different to the experience of those in Rome, if we are to believe most of the accounts. So whilst Christians in Rome may have been 'thrown to the lions', being perceived as 'subversive', over in Britannia we have no record whatsoever of persecution, but rather archaeological evidence suggesting that earliest form of Christianity lived side by side with all the other pagan cults, where it would have been probably perceived as 'just another mystery cult'.
I love the speculative idea about 'did those feet in ancient times' - as I was thinking in order to escape persecution in Rome maybe the genuine earliest followers of Christ did indeed come to Britain where they were safe, which is an interesting hypothesis about how 'Celtic' Christianity came to be, which is, or was, quite distinctive and definitely had a lot of pagan to it. St. Brigid, for example, is a very interesting originally pagan figure well predating St. Patrick.
I know the dating of the so-called first Christian 'martyr' St. Alban is disputed, but we seem to be talking late 2nd century to mid-to-late 3rd, meaning no Christian martyrs for at least 100-150 years after the arrival of Christianity. And if I remember correctly St. Alban wasn't so much as martyred for his faith, but because he got into some quarrel with the local Roman bigwig.
So yes - I totally agree that it's such a shame we mostly only have Bede to go on because in order to really confirm or discount the hypothesis about the difference between British and Roman Christianity we do need different accounts. Having said that, we can 'infer' - and especially from the fact that the papacy in Rome felt the need to send 'missionaries' (or read: 'subversives'!) to Britain. If there was no difference, no need to send people to civilise them...
In another life I would definitely spend my entire life as an obscure academic with my head buried in all this stuff!
I could talk for days about all this! It is just one of my most favourite subjects, and one of the reasons why I love this period. It’s all so speculative because of the nature of the sources, and I think that leaves room for just endless creativity as we work through different hypotheses for what went on and how people wrote about it. It’s fascinating!
Thanks for the conversation: I’ve loved it (like, genuinely - no one IRL talks about these things with me! 🤣) and hope to chat more things medieval history with you soon!