sign in sign up
<<
Home , Aldfrith of Northumbria, Clare Stancliffe, Lindisfarne, Oswiu, Synod of Whitby, Whitby

chapter 2 The Irish Tradition in after the of

Clare Stancliffe

It has long been known that although the Synod of Whit- about the formation and continuing development of the by in 664 abolished the Northumbrian church’s direct de- Northumbrian church as a whole during the crucial peri- pendence on , it did not end contacts between od that runs from 664 to 735, often regarded as its ‘golden Northumbria and . Hitherto, however, the subject age’. has often been treated in just those terms: as a matter of The historical context for our topic is provided by the tracing contacts.1 When scholars have gone further, they in 664 and the ongoing struggle between have tended to focus on such matters as Irish influence on and the tradition of that followed it. script, art, and scholarship, or on individual Christian We will therefore begin with a brief look at this, together practices for which Irish ancestry could be claimed. The with the question of whether it is possible to isolate and present chapter, while not neglecting some, at least, of identify an ‘Irish’ tradition. Interestingly these issues are these topics, shifts the focus to include the organisational related, as the Wilfridian and the Bedan depictions of – structures of the church (Parts i and ii). At the same time and attitudes towards – ‘Irish’ tradition are not identical, it builds on recent scholarship to gain greater precision as and both diverge in various respects from our own twenty- to the whereabouts and the nature of Northumbrian / first century perception. The Irish tradition that I shall fo- Irish interaction (Part iii). This enables us to reformulate cus on thereafter rests on my own reading of the evidence, the topic as one where the old contrasts between Roman rather than on those passages in Stephen and which and Irish, and to some extent between Irish teachers and explicitly flag up ‘Irish’ practices. The artificial nature of Northumbrian students, are superseded. The chapter also such passages, with their implied or stated contrast lying examines (in Part iv) a small sample of Northumbrian between ‘Irish’ and ‘Roman’, has become apparent thanks churches to assess continuing Irish influence during the to recent scholarship.2 The historical reality was more two generations following Whitby (en route identifying complex, and more interesting, as we shall see. the presence of an additional Irish text there, which had not previously been known to circulate in Anglo-Saxon ). The conclusion reached runs counter to what i Whitby, Its Aftermath, and the Identification one would expect from the main narrative sources, Bede’s of an Irish Tradition Ecclesiastical History and Stephen’s Life of St Wilfrid, which currently provide the basis for scholars’ views. Inevitably, On the face of it, investigating the survival (or otherwise) there will be imperfections in such a wide-ranging survey of Irish practices and traditions in the Northumbrian that deals briefly with complex issues on the basis of inad- church after the Synod of Whitby would appear straight- equate sources. My hope is that, despite these, it will not forward in theory, even if difficult to carry out because of only provide a more accurate context for the Lindisfarne gaps in the evidence. The effective evangelisation of Nor- , but that it will also stimulate us to think anew thumbria had been the work of Columban missionaries about the nature, intensity, and duration of Irish / Nor- from Iona, led in the first instance by Aidan (d. 651); and thumbrian interaction, about the engagement in this of they would naturally have instituted the practices that Wilfrid’s foundations as well as Lindisfarne, and thus they were already accustomed to in their own . At the Synod of Whitby in 664, however, King had 1 Excellent instances are Kathleen Hughes, ‘Evidence for contacts be- declared himself in favour of the practice advocat- tween the churches of the Irish and English from the Synod of ed by Wilfrid as being that ‘of the Apostolic See and of al- Whitby to the ’, England before the Conquest: Studies in most the whole world’,3 rather than that advocated by his primary sources presented to Dorothy Whitelock, ed. P. Clemoes and K. Hughes (Cambridge, 1971), 49–67, and Fiona Edmonds, ‘The Prac- 2 See M.E. Hoenicke Moore, ‘Bede’s Devotion to : The Periphery ticalities of Communication between Northumbrian and Irish defining the Center’, Bède le Vénérable entre tradition et postérité, ed. Churches, c. 635–735’, Anglo-Saxon / Irish Relations before the Vi- S. Lebecq, M. Perrin and O. Szerwiniack (Lille, n.d.), 199–208. kings, ed. J. Graham-Campbell and M. Ryan (Oxford, 2009), 129–47. 3 Stephen, vw, Ch. 10.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi 10.1163/9789004337848_003 20 Stancliffe

Ionan appointed , Colmán. Since Colmán was un- Easter practice as Quartodeciman heretics, and so refused able to accept such a change without explicit approval to have anything to do with them or their tainted tradi- from Iona, he returned there with all his Irish monks and tions, many of those who stayed behind were willing to thirty of his English ones who likewise refused to accept accept Dionysian Easter practice for themselves, but re- the decision made at Whitby.4 In addition to Easter, the fused to regard their erstwhile comrades as ‘heretics’, and shape of the was a matter of dispute, with the so- saw no reason to break off all relations with them. This called Petrine tonsure now replacing that traditional on ‘middle party’ included people linked to Aidan and his Iona. Apart from this, however, Bede implies that every- disciples, and to his foundation of Lindisfarne, such as thing else carried on much as before, with Eata, trained Hild of Whitby, Chad, Eata, and . It is also the from boyhood under Aidan, taking over as of Lindis- view reflected in Bede’s Ecclesiastical History.6 farne.5 True, the see was switched from Lindisfarne to This new understanding is very pertinent to the matter , but Tuda, an Englishman trained and consecrated in in hand, as it means that after Whitby the pendulum southern Ireland was initially appointed bishop, and later swung between Wilfrid’s views and those of Lindisfarne; Lindisfarne regained its status as an when and at first glance it seems likely that attitudes to Irish tra- the huge of Northumbria was divided. The ques- ditions will have varied accordingly. Wilfrid’s views were tion would then be one of how the Irish traditions fared in dominant during his years as bishop of York, 669–678. In a world that saw considerable continuity in the Northum- 678 he was replaced by two ‘middle party’ , brian church, but with closer links also being established Whitby- ­trained Bosa at York, and Lindisfarne-trained Eata with and Rome through such figures as Wilfrid and at . In 685, the Northumbrian King Ecgfrith was (d. 689). killed in battle in Pictland, and his successor was his half- Modern scholarship, however, brings corrections and brother, King Aldfrith. Aldfrith was regarded by Bede as an complexity to this traditional understanding. Even in the illegitimate son of Oswiu, born of a liaison between Oswiu matter of Easter practice, it was not in reality a question of and an Uí Néill princess, Fín; and he was a pupil of Adom- an Irish and British tradition versus a continental or Ro- nán, .7 He was thus well placed to mend rela- man one. Rather, there were two different Easter practices tions with Iona, but the ecclesiastical politics of his early in use on the Continent in the seventh century, and, after reign are confusing. At Archbishop Theodore’s behest, he 632, two (and eventually three) different Easter practices allowed Wilfrid back as bishop in 686, but Stephen paints in use in Ireland. Further, this sketch glosses over the con- a picture of alternating peace and discord between Wil- siderable and ongoing disagreement within the Northum- frid and the king until, after five years, Wilfrid departed brian church that followed on from the Synod of Whitby. once more into exile; he may in reality have spent part Whereas Bede, as we have seen, passes lightly over this, even of that five years in exile, as he is found witnessing Stephen’s Life of St Wilfrid implies that differences within charters in the south of England c. 687–8.8 In all events, the Northumbrian church continued at least until peace Aldfrith clearly remained on excellent terms with Adom- was patched up between Wilfrid and his opponents in nán: he received him twice at court, and on the first occa- 706, and arguably beyond. According to Thomas Charles- sion agreed to Adomnán’s request to free Irish hostages Edwards’ convincing reconstruction of events, the Synod seized by his predecessor, Ecgfrith. He further showed his of Whitby resulted not so much in the exodus of the die- appreciation for Adomnán’s gift of a book he had written, hard adherents of the British and Irish Easter and the una- De locis sanctis, by circulating it widely.9 A letter written nimity of everyone else in Northumbria, but rather in the by , abbot of Wearmouth-, tells us that exodus of the diehards and also a division between those Adomnán had also visited that monastery and that the who stayed behind, arising from how they regarded adher- two had had friendly conversations together. As a ents of the traditional British and Irish Easter. All those who stayed behind accepted the Easter practice advocat- 6 Charles-Edwards, eci, pp. 317–21; , Bede, Wilfrid, and ed at Whitby by Wilfrid, that is, presumably, Dionysian the Irish, Jarrow Lecture (Jarrow, 2003). Easter practice. But whereas Wilfrid and his followers re- 7 C.A. Ireland, Old Irish Wisdom attributed to : garded those who kept the traditional British and Irish an edition of Bríathra Flainn Fhína maic Ossu (Tempe, Arizona, 1999), pp. 52–4. 8 Stephen, vw Chs. 43–45; Catherine Cubitt, ‘St Wilfrid: A Man for his 4 Bede, he III.26 and IV.4. Times’, Wilfrid: Abbot, Bishop, , ed. N.J. Higham (Donington, 5 he III.26 and IV.12. Cf. Alan Thacker, ‘Bede and the Irish’, Beda Ven- 2013), 311–47, at pp. 315–6, 331–3, 345–6. erabilis: Historian, Monk & Northumbrian, ed. L.A.J.R. Houwen and 9 he V.15, but note Jean-Michel Picard, ‘Bede, Adomnán, and the A.A. MacDonald (Groningen, 1996), 31–59 at p. 46. Writing of History’, Peritia 3 (1984), 50–70, esp. pp. 60–3.