Was Bede English?

[Crispvs]

"Yes but, in what way was Bede "English"?"

I would be keen to know in which way he was *not* English.

"Do you actually share anything in common with him?"

That was exactly the point. Aside from and enjoyment of history there is probably very little Bede and I would share in common, but still, he was English and so am I.

Crispvs

[SigniferOne]

"Yes but, in what way was Bede "English"?"

I would be keen to know in which way he was *not* English.

Well it's a curious definitional issue. But don't you think that logical rules require the proof of a positive? It's impossible to prove negatives, pink elephants, or non-Englishness. What is it that you think makes Bede English, a statement you've made in the affirmative and thus carry the onus of clarifying your reasons for. I mean, he was even pre-William, there is nothing British about him. Unless you are prepared to think that the pre-Roman Gauls were British, and some primordial prehistoric people which they displaced were British originally too, ad infinitum.

The whole concept of what "British" means is under question here, and I'm not prepared to accept things other than the contents of our minds in a cultural definition. This reason is precisely why William has always been considered the beginning of Britishness in all the old "History of..." books, because he brought the first original scraps of the British contents of mind with him.

Same with the Romans by the way. Prior to the 8th century BC there were no Romans in Italy, not even primordial natives who had lived on the Palatine or the Quirinal for centuries. If that's the case, that means that in the future there would no longer be "Romans" in exactly the same way, though there'd be a a people still living on the peninsula, and live on it for centuries into the future.

[Crispvs]

To be honest I don't see any reason why William should be thought of as the beginning of 'Britishness'. I believe some writers in the nineteenth century subscribed to that view, but much of William the Conqueror's system was inherited from the English he had conquered and unltimately the Normans stopped speaking French and adopted English, the language of the land they were by then part of. This however, is a distraction. 'Britishness' is not the same as 'Englishness'.

The English originally came to Britain from the continent during the migration period as a (probably reasonably culturally homogenous) mixture of Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians and established England within Britain. Initially England was divided into several kingdoms but as time went on these were gradually united into a unified England. The English have never occupied the whole of Britain and have always had to share it with both earlier British peoples such as the Welsh and Cornish and later British peoples such as the Scots. Bede was English because he spoke English, had grown up in England and was decended from Germanic stock. He was also British in the sense of being someone who had grown up in the British Isles but he was not British in the sense that the Ancient Britains were (i.e. Romano-Celtic). Unlike the Franks in France or the Visigoths in Spain, his people had largely displaced the Romano-Britains, who had had to move steady west.

Not to consider Bede to be English is to apply an almost impossibly narrow definition to nationality and culture. I would contend that the same applies to the late Romans and even 'Sub-Romans' when comparing them to 'Classical' Rome.

Crispvs

[SigniferOne]

much of William the Conqueror's system was inherited from the English he had conquered and unltimately the Normans stopped speaking French and adopted English, the language of the land they were by then part of.

Surely no, most of the "content" words in the English language are actually French, as you must know; the old English remains only in the "skeleton" which links the content words together. Just this sentence that I've typed here illustrates this: English words are the skeletal constructives: "in", "the", "while". All of the words that actually mean something, "remain", "word", "language", "content" are French, or Latin. The conceptual contents of the English language have none but William the Conqueror as their father.

Bede was English because he spoke English, had grown up in England and was decended from Germanic stock.

Actually you prove my point, that he did not speak English (in how you understand the term). He spoke a Germanic language the contents and mental orientation of which are entirely alien to yours.

He was also British in the sense of being someone who had grown up in the British Isles but he was not British in the sense that the Ancient Britains were (i.e. Romano-Celtic). Unlike the Franks in France or the Visigoths in Spain, his people had largely displaced the Romano-Britains, who had had to move steady west.

Not to consider Bede to be English is to apply an almost impossibly narrow definition to nationality and culture.

Linguistically (pre-Norman) he has nothing in common with you; ethnically (pre-Frankish) he has little in common with you; culturally he has manifestly nothing in common with you. There is nothing that you and him have in common. Your sole classification of him as English or British is that he seems to have resided in the British Isles, by which standard the Celts were British too; and the original natives they displaced were British too; and the primordial prehistoric inhabitants they displaced were British too. The alternative to this is identifying cultures by the mental contents, by which standard you and Bede would have as much in common as you would with a Martian. The beginnings of "you" as a person in language and culture and everything else begins with William and the mental contents that he had brought with him; which were manifestly non-Bedian, and much more manifestly "yours".

[muskitear]

"Yes but, in what way was Bede "English"?"

I would be keen to know in which way he was *not* English.

"Do you actually share anything in common with him?"

That was exactly the point. Aside from and enjoyment of history there is probably very little Bede and I would share in common, but still, he was English and so am I.

Crispvs

No he was a Jordy

[Robert Vermaat]

much of William the Conqueror's system was inherited from the English he had conquered and unltimately the Normans stopped speaking French and adopted English, the language of the land they were by then part of.

Surely no, most of the "content" words in the English language are actually French, as you must know; the old English remains only in the "skeleton" which links the content words together. Just this sentence that I've typed here illustrates this: English words are the skeletal constructives: "in", "the", "while". All of the words that actually mean something, "remain", "word", "language", "content" are French, or Latin. The conceptual contents of the English language have none but William the Conqueror as their father.

Is that correct? Words like "sheep", "ship", "knight"etc. all do mean something and still are Anglo-Saxon rather than French, are they? I'm afraid you are overstating your point quite a bit!

Bede was English because he spoke English, had grown up in England and was decended from Germanic stock.

Actually you prove my point, that he did not speak English (in how you understand the term). He spoke a Germanic language the contents and mental orientation of which are entirely alien to yours.

Again you're a bit overreacting. Sure, Middle English is not often heard these days in the High Street, and if you're Dutch or German you'd be able to understand more of it, but to call it 'entirey alien'? Bede wasn't exactly from Mars, you know!

Linguistically (pre-Norman) he has nothing in common with you;

See above, I don't agree with that.

ethnically (pre-Frankish) he has little in common with you;

Well that's just incorrect, as several studies over the past decade have amply proven. I repeat - Bede did not come from Mars. He probably left no offspring :wink: but ethnically he did not differ much from many Englishmen today.

culturally he has manifestly nothing in common with you.

Bede had a concept of 'England' that may not have been quite the view of a nation that modern Englishmen have, and of the British Empire he could not know anything. But he had a sense of who he considered to be "English'', which does not differ much from whom modern Englishmen consider to be their ancestoprs. Also, as we can consider religion to be part of culture (back then more than today), I would say that if you're an English Christian you'd have a LOT in common with Bede.

[Matthew Amt]

Surely no, most of the "content" words in the English language are actually French, as you must know; the old English remains only in the "skeleton" which links the content words together.

Huh, not from what I learned in school. Cow is Old English, while beef is French. Same with pig/pork, sheep/mutton, and a few other things. Shirt and skirt are from the same Old English word. The Normans only laid a patina of Frenchness on the upper class, leaving most lower class stuff with far less influence.

Your sole classification of him as English or British is that he seems to have resided in the British Isles, by which standard the Celts were British too; and the original natives they displaced were British too

But according to the Romans who were there, the people inhabiting Britain were called Britons. While they clearly had a Celtic language and at least a Celtic-influenced culture, the ancients never refered to them as "Celts". We don't actually know if there was a Celtic migration into Britain, or if it was some other cultural spread (or just a conquest of the upper class, as in 1066). (Mind you, I don't object to the concept of Celtic migration, the experts just seem to go back and forth on the issue!)

Seems odd to me to say that a modern Englishman has no relation to an ancient one. Anyone see that show on Cheddar Man, the 9000 year old skeleton who turns out to be related to a local school teacher?

Matthew

[sonic]

Shirt and skirt are from the same Old English word.
Matthew

Yes they are, and the difference is because of the introduction of Norse influence during the Viking invasions, not with the French.

I actually think that Bede was English, and so am I. Bede was a descendant of the 'Angles, Saxons, Jutes' etc that arrived in England. His attitudes and perceptions were based upon the fundamental premise that he was English and had inherited this from his forefathers.

I am English. I live in the same country and share the same cultural attitudes and perceptions as passed on by my ancestors, who were English.

If Bede were to return to life he would not understand anything that is happening today. It is also clear that both Bede and myself would be unable to communicate as our language and cultural identity are separated.

However, that identity is shared: my 'Englishness' is a direct inheritance from the time of Bede. Both the invasions of the Vikings and the Normans altered the cultural identity, yet the base identity remained the same. Our rulers, although speaking French after 1066, were still the accepted inheritors of the English kings of the first millenium. Over time they were absorbed by us, not vice versa. King John is not recognised for the important figure he actually was. He was the first Norman ruler to learn English. After his loss of the Angevin territories in France it became clear that French linguistic influence would fade and English be triumphamt.

I would suggest that if this is compared to the Roman empire in the West a similar pattern emerges, leading to the conclusion that the French, the Spanish, the Italians etc., who are speaking 'Romance' languages, are continuing the Roman empire. This is slightly different, however. Over the course of the last 1,500 years their culture and society has been altered by the influx of barbarians to where there are few links to their 'Imperial' past.

Is this a reasonable assumption, or am I biased in favour of the English?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Seems odd to me to say that a modern Englishman has no relation to an ancient one. Anyone see that show on Cheddar Man, the 9000 year old skeleton who turns out to be related to a local school teacher?

As odd as those who propound the idea that modern greeks are not related to ancient greeks, romans to Romans etc....

[fasta]

We don't know what ethnic background Bede had as no one has been able to test it as far as I know.

He was in favour of the "Anglo-Saxon" ruling class which few could argue against.

[Crispvs]

Actually, I think if you check Bede's own writing he refers to his people as 'English' throughout. The term 'Anglo-Saxon' is a nineteenth century coining. As far as Bede was concerned, all of the germanic decended people in Britain were English, even if some of them might also sometimes be called Jutes or Saxons. Their cultural sphere defined the country which was England, even though in his time it was still divided into several warring kingdoms.

Crispvs

[PhilusEstilius]

I think Bede was like all us Geordies he was Danish, but he Wadnt Gan Yem he liked it here in Gods country which is where he lived in the North.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

:lol: :lol:

[fasta]

Actually, I think if you check Bede's own writing he refers to his people as 'English' throughout. The term 'Anglo-Saxon' is a nineteenth century coining. As far as Bede was concerned, all of the germanic decended people in Britain were English, even if some of them might also sometimes be called Jutes or Saxons. Their cultural sphere defined the country which was England, even though in his time it was still divided into several warring kingdoms.

Crispvs

But was he saying that because he wanted to be part of that elite?(which wouldn't be unreasonable in those times),did he just believe it because he didn't know any difference?.Or was he of Germanic origin?.Maybe he was ,I don't claim to know the true answer on this one.

If we followed that line we would conclude that everyone in England was "English" which we are learning isn't true or ever have been no matter what writers of the time and later suggested.

Because he wrote it doesn't make it a fact.I've a 7thC "Anglo" name but DNA tests I've been involved with show no "Anglo-Saxon" origin but I was brought up in an "English" culture. To anyone outside Britain I'm as "English" as they come.

A form of Germanic culture became dominant in the vast part of the Island up to recent times but like the period we study something similar happened under Rome.Many claimed Roman decent to fit better into the ruling culture and it was encourage for all free(then later all men) in the Empire to see themselves as Romans not from their tribes or former nations.

Unless we could prove Bedes origins he could be Irish,Germanic,from river boatman via Iraq etc but as he is one of the few written links to that interesting period, we still have to use his works.

Does it matter what he was?

Any work which could be checked by a ruling house would most likely be a biased in their chosen point of view anyway.

I could of course be wrong.

[PhilusEstilius]

When we look at it Bede was living in the most powerfull Kingdom in the land, that was Northumbria and as far as Williams' Doomsday Book is concerned Northumbria does not feature in it. When at times people hear my true accent they ask if I am Scots, however I do not lay claim to that and nor to English I like to consider myself as British. Infact even more so in recent times as there appears to be this silly movement towards being English or Scottish on both sides, when will people learn to remember that Britain has another word infront of it.