This post contains my first serious attempt of applying the philosophy of history to an undergraduate essay question. The title was ‘how appropriate is it to characterize the Barbarian histories you have studied as national records? Discuss using two or three examples.’ My response to this was to identify the difference between a ‘history’ and a ‘record’ and then use the ideas of Hayden White to more fully address the question. This essay was written during the Autumn of second-year, a time where I was deeply interested in the works of Hayden White. My views on his ideas have shifted a lot since then, but this essay marked an important transition for me, in terms of how I began to bring thoughts, that initially may appear semi-disparate, together.

It is inappropriate to characterise Barbarian histories as national records because there is a difference between a ‘record’ and a ‘history’. A ‘record’ is a statement of fact, like an event happening. ‘History’ goes beyond this by having interpretation and narration. My assertion is the ‘national’ element in Barbarian texts occurs on the interpretative level and it is impossible for a record by itself to have any ‘national’ meaning beyond how the historian interprets it. I argue that medieval historians similarly to modern historians went through the process outlined in Hayden White’s Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe (1973) of turning the unprocessed historical record into a comprehensible form. This will be done by examining Bede’s Ecclesiastical History (731) and Paul the Deacon’s History of the Lombards (787-796). Firstly, by showing how records or factual statements in these texts by themselves cannot be termed ‘national’. I then show how the authors’ interpretation was shaped by their sources and personal circumstances, affecting how they changed records into a form with a ‘national’ point of view. Finally, I ask how do Bede and Paul give meaning to their works or how do their works become ‘national’? This argument requires us to define ‘national’, it forms a major part of it. This has never been easy for the modern scholar and it brings many presumptions. As Bede and Paul had very different ideas regarding what a nation was, I aim to keep my definition fairly flexible. However, some clarity is necessary and in the context of this discussion it refers to a perception of shared heritage based on factors like ethnicity, customs and kingship.

Paul the Deacon’s History of the Lombards is not a ‘national’ record it goes beyond stating facts. A passage from Book 1, Chapter XIV as proves this. Paul states ‘Meanwhile, the leaders Ibor and Aio, who had conducted the Langobards from Scandinavia and had ruled then up to this time, being dead, the Langobards unwilling to remain longer under mere chiefs (dukes) ordained a king for themselves like other nations. Therefore, Agelund the son of Aio first reigned over them.’ This passage is split into both record and interpretation. The passing of Ibor and Aio and the election of Agelund as King are facts and as such these statements are a record of events. However, Paul goes beyond this by making decisions about the events. He states that the decision to ordain a king was made because they were no longer willing to remains chiefs and wanted a king like other nations. It is with this part of the passage that Paul is making an interpretation of events and so it begins to constitute a history rather than a record. It suggests he believes kingship and nationhood are closely related. Therefore, the association with nationality only enters on the historical level of the text.

Bullough has argued that parts of Book III of Paul’s History are like the Chronicles written by Marius of Aventicum, also highlighting that the entirety of two chapters are Pope Gregory I’s letters to Queen Theudelina, King Agiulf and Archis of Benevento. This suggests that portions of Paul’s History are simply records, without interpretation. I do not argue that the History of the Lombards is structurally consistent, however it is impossible to deny it does have interpretation as shown above. The inclusion of these sources show us how Paul went through a process similar to modern historians of making sense and giving meaning to any records or events he could establish from them. When Paul’s History does change format, like in Book III, it does not become a record. He is instead showing the sources from which he derived his interpretations in the rest of the book, believing they support the conclusions he is making

Bede’s Ecclesiastical History is similar to Paul’s History as it goes beyond statements that can be proven true and false by having interpretation and therefore cannot be termed a national ‘record’. This is seen in Book 1 where he describes Ethelfrid, King of the Northumbrians and his campaigns against the Irish. In this several points can be established or disproven. Whether Ethelfrid overran a greater area than any other ealdorman or King and whether he exterminated or enslaved the inhabitants. However, Bede interprets these events stating that ‘he ravaged the Britons more cruelly than all other English leaders’ and ‘of course he was ignorant of true religion’. Once again, it is when Bede tries to explain the events and therefore write history, that the text acquires ‘national’ characteristics. This is done by showing how Englishness is defined by the faith. By acting cruelly, Ethelrid is deviating from religious norms and therefore is different from other English rulers.

Some may argue comparing Bede and Paul the Deacon to the process modern historians go through, transforming record into history, is anachronistic. It is true they did not write with the empirical concerns of the historical discipline that developed in the nineteenth century. However, this is not a problem. White himself stated that before the nineteenth century that history was primarily rhetorical rather than empirical, but also noted the importance ‘truth’ still had in rhetoric. Rather the difference was in the way they treated their sources. Roger Ray has persuasively argued that Bede respected truth, but left responsibility for it to his sources. Naturally, Bede and Paul did not look at their sources through the lens of modern source criticism. However, they still went through the process that the modern historian goes through of trying to explain what the sources are telling them. Simply, Bede and Paul’s interpretations were more significantly influenced by the presumptions they brought to their sources, which often meant that their histories had ‘national’ characteristics.

Bede’s transformation of records into ‘national’ history was influenced by the sources he interpreted. Kirby argues Bede’s world view was shaped by the monasteries he was in contact with. Higham has also shown the importance of oral sources. I build on this by arguing they shaped the ‘national’ characteristics of his history. Bede’s preface lists his sources detailing the wide number of clergymen he obtained oral history from, like Bishop Daniel of the West Saxons and from the Church of Canterbury. From a wide geographic area they clearly show how Bede in Northumbria was connected to large parts of England. However, the connections were entirely through religious institutions. As shown Bede, closely connects Englishness to the ‘true’ Catholic faith. Consequently, he gained from his sources a viewpoint which emphasises the unity of England through its faith. This interpretation does not reflect reality. There were large numbers of British people living in Bernicia when the text was composed. However, this is missed because Bede’s oral sources are only Catholic and based off his religious network.

Bede consulted many written texts while writing and these likewise shaped the national characteristics of his history. Scholars have noted the influence of Church histories and the Church fathers on Bede. Markus highlighted the particular influence of Eusebius’s Universal History. These texts again presented Bede with a theme of unity through faith, linking back to the idea that this is what unites the English.

Paul the Deacon’s transformation of record into ‘national’ history was affected by the personal circumstances he wrote in. I have avoided discussing the ethnogenesis debate regarding early medieval ethnicity as I have been concerned with how Bede and Paul made national interpretations rather than if they contain evidence of ethnicity, which the debate centres on. However, when trying to understand how Paul makes a ‘national’ interpretation it becomes important. The Vienna School would look for identity forming processes in Paul. Goffart argues that Paul’s History was written within a specific literary context to encourage Grimoald III of Benevento to cultivate good relations with the Franks and this explains the national element in it. These are not contrary when explaining how Paul’s interpretation of the past had national characteristics.

Following the Carolingian conquest, not all Lombard elites were excluded from power. Paul the Deacon therefore wrote in a context where two traditions of government co-existed. Therefore, while Mckitterick and Goffart have highlighted the importance of encouraging co-existence with the Franks. I argue they do not contradict with the idea that ‘national’ identity forming processes are present in Paul. This is because he associates nationality with kingship and therefore government. Likewise, for the Vienna School the presence of these processes is still influenced by Paul’s specific context following the conquest. Therefore, when Paul is transforming records into ‘national’ history he is shaped both by the context he wrote in and current ideas in Lombard society regarding nationality.

So far, I have discussed how Bede and Paul texts only become ‘national’ on the historical level and how their sources and personal circumstances shaped them. Now, I will explain how they approach the question ‘what does their work add up to?’ or ‘what does it mean?’. White posited this could be seen by three forms of explanation: the different types of plots, arguments and ideologies found in historical works. These cannot be applied to medieval texts without adaptation, nevertheless they are still useful when trying to understand how Paul and Bede explained their national interpretations.

Bede explained making the English ‘nation’ parallel to the Catholic Church in Britain, by making the English God’s assigned people in reconciling the rest of Britain and its Celtic Christianity with the true faith. Book 1 states that Britain despite having multiple languages it is united by the fifth Latin and its search for God’s truth. Bede also uses Gildas as a source describing the chaos before the English were converted, but notes ‘God did not abandon the people, he had chosen the English’. My assertion is that we can understand how Bede explained the meaning of the national characteristics of his work by comparing them to some of White’s forms of explanation. It has a comic plot in that the British and Catholic Church are reconciled through the English. To White this plot represented a temporary reconciliation of opposing forces for which society is better. A formist argument is integrative and sees historical units as part of a greater whole. I argue Bede’s History is also integrative when regarding religion and the English are again the main cause behind this. Bede’s ideology is equivalent to White’s ideology of ‘Conservatism’ in that he views the Church at the best current state it can be, within the limitations of the Fall due to the English’s role as God’s chosen people.

Paul explained the ‘national’ characteristics of his work through exploring the relationship between the Lombards and Kingship. According to White a mechanistic argument is reductive and look for single laws that govern history. Paul’s History is like this because it ties the fate of the Lombards directly to the monarchy, the nation and king are the same. Consequently, Paul’s plot is tragic, as the Lombard monarchy is conquered by the Carolingians, but temporary reconciliation is achieved through the persistence of Lombard elites. His ideology is like Bede and is Conservative because it is unrealistic for the Lombard nation to return to its former glory and it must accept its current situation under the Carolingians.

Modern historians often separate themselves from their medieval counterparts, due to scepticism over the truthfulness of their aims. However, this essay has shown in many ways they went through a similar process. As I have shown Bede and Paul’s texts were not ‘national’ on the level of record, but when they went through the process of interpreting and making judgements about their data, they were going through similar motions to what a modern historian does. History prior to the nineteenth century was not identical to the discipline that developed thereafter. However, I do believe that by comparing the process of historical writing, we as historians do every day, to those in the past, may help us understand our medieval counterparts more and how they transformed unprocessed records into ‘national’ histories.

Bibliography:

Primary Sources:

Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica (731) translated by Leo Sherley-Price in Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Penguin: London, 1990.

Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum (787-796) translated by William D. Fulke in History of the Lombards. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1974

Secondary Sources:

Bullough, Donald. “Ethnic History and the Carolingians: An Alternative Reading of Paul the Deacon.” In The Inheritance of Historiography, 350-900, edited by Christopher. J. Holdsworth and Timothy P. Wiseman, 85-106. Exeter: University of Exeter, 1986.

Cowdrey, Herbert Edward John. “Bede and the ‘English People’.” Journal of Religious History 11, no. 4 (1981): 501-23.

Gillett, Andrew. “Ethnogenesis: A Contested Model of Early Medieval Europe.” History Compass 4, no. 2 (2006): 241-60.

Goffart, Walter. A. The Narrators of Barbarian History (A.D. 550-800): Jordanes, Gregory of Tours, Bede, and Paul the Deacon.  New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1988.

Higham, N. J. Bede as an Oral Historian. Newcastle: Bealim Signs, 2011.

Kirby, David. “Bede’s Native Sources for the Historia Ecclesiastica.”Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 48 (1966): 341-371.

Markus, Robert A. Bede and the Tradition of Ecclesiastical Historiography. Jarrow on Tyne: St Paul’s Rectory, 1975.

McKitterick, Rosamond. “Paul the Deacon and the Franks.” Early Medieval Europe 8, no. 3 (1999): 319-39.

Pohl, Walter. “Gens ipsa peribit. Kingdom and Identity After the End of Lombard Rule.” In 774, ipotesi su una transizione: Atti del seminario di Poggibonsi, 16-18 febbraio 2006, 67-78. Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2008.

Ray, Roger. “Bede’s Vera Lex Historiae.” Speculum 55, no. 1 (1980): 1-21.

———. “Who Did Bede Think He Was?”. In Innovation and Tradition in the Writings of the Venerable Bede, edited by Scott DeGregorio, 11-37. Morgantown: West Virginia University Press, 2006.

White, Hayden. Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-century Europe.  Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973.

———. Tropics of Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism.  Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978.