User talk:Mike Christie/Raedwald draft

Hiya Mike, hope you find this. If you will permit, I would like to take your opening paragraph (as a start) and set it out line by line, and ask some questions about each statement. This is without any prejudice, but just asking you to justify the statements. Then the points can be discussed. Okay? Like this, for instance:

Rædwald (also Raedwald or Redwald) (died c. 624) was King of the East Angles.

1. Does the spelling Raedwald or Redwald occur in any ancient text, or only in modern usage? If not in any ancient text, should the variant form be shown here?

He probably became king in c. 599, and was initially under the overlordship of Æthelberht of Kent, one of the dominant kings of his age.

2. Why call AEthelberht 'one of the dominant kings of his age'. If R was under his overlordship, then AEthelberht was dominant over him, which is what matters. If you wish to qualify or describe AEthelberht's power in a wider sense, then presumably you should refer to Bede's statement that he was the next to exercise imperium after Ceawlin of Wessex (following Ceawlin's return home in disgust following the battle of Fethan leag)? I would suggest that the final clause 'one of the...' is unnecessary extra verbiage, because AEthelberht's power is described in the article on AEthelberht, and the fact that he was dominant is already shown by Raedwald's initial subordination to him.

Some time before 605 he was converted to Christianity at Æthelberht's court, though he continued to maintain a pagan temple.

3. 'Some time before 605'. This date is not actually stated in the source (Bede). What Bede actually says is: 'Et quidem pater eius Reduald iamdudum in Cantia sacramentis Christianae fidei inbutus est, sed frustra;' - 'And indeed his father Raedwald long before in Kent was initiated in the sacraments of the Christian faith, but in vain.' 'Long before' refers to the time of the conversion of Eorpwald at the instigation of Edwin, which must follow Edwin's conversion of c626, and must precede the 3-year interregnum brought on by Eorpwald's assassination, and the arrivals of Sigebert and Felix, not later than c. 630 (because the dates of the first three bishops of the East Angles, Felix Thomas and Berhtgisl, amount to 17+5+17, which is 39 years, or at very least 37 allowing two overlapping years, and these have to be fitted in before c669-70, when Theodore appoints Bisi to Dommoc. Therefore Eorpwald's baptism is c627, give or take a year, and Raedwald's baptism was 'long before' that (iamdudum). The two other main pointers are (i) that Paulinus appears to have been at Raedwald's court during the exile there of Edwin, because the Whitby Life of Gregory tells a similar story to that told by Bede, but makes it clear that Bede's 'nocturnal stranger' is Paulinus. He is (in the story) evidently privy to the deliberations of Raedwald, and so must be there with his consent, and (ii) that after the death of AEthelberht, c616 it was necessary for the Canterbury missionaries to convert his son Eadbald, so it is unlikely that Raedwald's baptism and conversion dates to after his victory at the River Idle in c616, but it need not necessarily have been long before. The possibility that Augustine dedicated a church at Cratendune near Ely is suggestive (as I argue in my book which you cite) and if he did the date must be pre-c605: but Ely was not then definitely part of the East Anglian patrimony, for it only became so with the marriage of Etheldreda to Tondberht possibly c660, as Bede says that it was after this always part of East Anglia (and so, presumably, not always before this). The most we can say with much confidence, therefore is that Raedwald was probably baptized in the lifetime (and at the invitation) of AEthelberht (who in that case must have been his baptismal sponsor), and that therefore the likely timeframe is between 600 and 616. The rest is an elaborate inference, though the term 'inbutus sacramentis' must mean at least that he received the Eucharist and was baptized. (These are the two most primary sacraments).

4. 'he continued to maintain a pagan temple.' How many pagan temples do you know that contain a Christian altar? Because we are from a Christian tradition, we see a Christian church with a pagan altar in it (apparently one that was reinstated, for he made a decision, and was persuaded to go back on it by his wife and certain perverse teachers) - we see this as a not-sufficiently Christian arrangement, and so call it (as you do) that he 'continued to maintain a pagan temple'. but it was not - it was something else - in eodem fano (in the selfsame temple) et altare haberet ad sacrificium Christi (he had an altar for the sacrifice of Christ, i.e. the Eucharist) et arulam ad victimas demoniorum (and a small altar (arula) for the victims of demons). Of course from Bede's point of view this is an obscene compromise, but he does not say that Raedwald made those sacrifices to demons, but only that he had an altar for the purpose within the same temple (the word 'fanum' in latin, for which we are using the OED equivalent to the English poetic 'fane', a temple, in fact in latin has a slightly wider meaning of a sanctuary or any place dedicated to a deity by forms of consecration (White's latin-English Dictionary 1924)). In my book (which you cite) I have taken a point of view that Raedwald remained Christian in intention at least, but was forced to this compromise by his household, and only thereby kept their loyalty. That he did keep their loyalty is shown by the fact that he was able to wield supreme authority between 616 and 624. I present the view that his decision to protect Edwin and attack Ethelfrith is tied to the advice of Paulinus (as told in Bede's version of the story), and is therefore part of his own perceived duty as a converted Christian, to promote the future conversion of Northumbria through Edwin, forseeing that by his conquest of Northumbria and patronage of Edwin, Edwin should in due course follow him as Overlord. This became even more likely because his own heir Raegenhere was killed in the battle, so that both psychologically and in personal authority Edwin became the substitute heir. But that is my argument, not proven historical fact. It seems to me to fit the circumstances, and that's what I think happened, but another historian could present a different view. But to call a sanctuary containing a Christian altar, with a little altar for demons on the side (at his wife's insistence), 'maintaining a pagan temple' seems a rather emphatic expression for a somewhat indiscreet compromise. The Christian altar would have desecrated the pagan meaning of the other just as much as vice-versa. The term 'pagan' is usually used to refer to a system of belief, but this is not so much a system as a political solution perhaps.

5. Finally, This is the opening three sentences of the WIKIPEDIA article on Raedwald. According to Wikipedia policy, it should (preferably within the first sentence) contain a clear and concise statement of who the guy is. But all we have got so far, in THREE sentences, is that he was (a) King of East Angles, (b) started ruling c599 under dominion of AEthelberht and (c) was converted but continued to maintain a pagan temple. No mention of his Imperium, his Overlordship, his title Rex Anglorum (specified by Bede), the duration of his reign, the extent of his power, his conquest of Northumbrian opposition, etc etc etc.

In my opinion that is extremely weak stuff to introduce this guy (though you may think he is not very important of course...) May I contrast it with what I wrote in order to show how my opening three sentences contain stronger and more complete information:

"Raedwald, son of Tytila, was King of the East Angles from c 600 AD until his death in c 624 AD. From c 616 he became the most powerful of the English rulers south of the River Humber, and by military action installed a Northumbrian ruler acquiescent to his authority. He was the first East Anglian ruler to receive Christian teaching and baptism (from the Canterbury mission), and helped to ensure its survival during the apostasy of Essex and Kent."

You may disagree that he helped to ensure its survival during the apostasy of Essex and Kent, but if you do you will be disagreeing with the published opinion of several respected authorities, and would need to cite references to support both possible views. I don't think the rest of it is disputed.

Now I would like it if you would say why you want to replace it with your version. What do you find objectionable in what I have written, and why do you wish to take so much information out of the opening statement? Dr Steven Plunkett 00:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)