Ronald Hutton has written several excellent books on the history of paganism in the British Isles and made an excellent argument about the end of paganism in the British Isles before the year 1000 and against any notion that paganism persisted as an underground religion up to the present. After reading his books I was left with the overall impression that there is nothing left which we can accurately attribute to the pre-Christian religion. His arguments are well researched and presented with a very persuasive manor. Despite this I am not completely convinced his arguments are as overwhelmingly convincing as he makes them seem in his text. I am interested if anyone else feels there is room for argument or are his conclusions as final as he suggests in his text.
I present an example from his recent book Pagan Briton when he discusses the writing of Gildas. "The third author is Gildas...What is highly significant is that he never included paganism among the misdeeds of the people whom he condemned, faulting them instead for moral offences such as greed, worldliness, marital misconduct, the murder of political rivals, and attacks on fellow Britons. Indeed He explicitly considers paganism to b dead in his society, its memorial consisting only of the icons of he Romano-British deities, still visible within and without the ruined cities, He recalled that his compatriots had once worshipped divine powers inherent in the natural world, but stated proudly that in his time they regarded that world merely as created for the use of Humans.
After reading three different translations of the Latin texts of Gildas ( I cannot read Latin) I cannot completely agree with this conclusion. In the writing of Gildas he states that he was going to omit any reference to the subjects of pre-Christian beliefs which the Britons had in common with the whole human race and calls them just errors including forms of old idolatry along with superstitious honors paid to rivers, mountains, and lakes. Omitting the discussion is not the same as saying paganism to be dead. Gildas writes "This island, of proud neck and mind, since it was first inhabited, is ungratefully rebelling, now against God, at other times against fellow citizens, sometimes even against the kings over the sea and their subjects." From this he is stating there people rebelling against God at this time. There were people in the area which still had pagan beliefs from what I understand but Gildas does not want to discuss the religious beliefs. That different that Hutton's statement that he explicitly considered paganism to be dead in this his society. This is one example and there are other things I have started to question as I learn more but would be interested if anyone else has an thoughts on this.
I present an example from his recent book Pagan Briton when he discusses the writing of Gildas. "The third author is Gildas...What is highly significant is that he never included paganism among the misdeeds of the people whom he condemned, faulting them instead for moral offences such as greed, worldliness, marital misconduct, the murder of political rivals, and attacks on fellow Britons. Indeed He explicitly considers paganism to b dead in his society, its memorial consisting only of the icons of he Romano-British deities, still visible within and without the ruined cities, He recalled that his compatriots had once worshipped divine powers inherent in the natural world, but stated proudly that in his time they regarded that world merely as created for the use of Humans.
After reading three different translations of the Latin texts of Gildas ( I cannot read Latin) I cannot completely agree with this conclusion. In the writing of Gildas he states that he was going to omit any reference to the subjects of pre-Christian beliefs which the Britons had in common with the whole human race and calls them just errors including forms of old idolatry along with superstitious honors paid to rivers, mountains, and lakes. Omitting the discussion is not the same as saying paganism to be dead. Gildas writes "This island, of proud neck and mind, since it was first inhabited, is ungratefully rebelling, now against God, at other times against fellow citizens, sometimes even against the kings over the sea and their subjects." From this he is stating there people rebelling against God at this time. There were people in the area which still had pagan beliefs from what I understand but Gildas does not want to discuss the religious beliefs. That different that Hutton's statement that he explicitly considered paganism to be dead in this his society. This is one example and there are other things I have started to question as I learn more but would be interested if anyone else has an thoughts on this.
Comment