Scan barcode
woolfardis's review against another edition
4.0
It depends on why you read this. Historically it's extremely important. Reference-wise, it's a huge help, not only for religious things but the time-period itself in English history. Literature-wise it's not the best thing you can spend your time on and if you're on it for escapism then you're an idiot and you need to get off your phone and go outside and hug a tree.
quoththegirl's review against another edition
2.0
Bede, an English monk, finished the History in 731 AD, and he’s generally considered to be the first English historian. He wrote in Latin, of course, but my Latin is NOT up to that kind of challenge, so I’m reading a translation. It’s no page-turner; most ecclesiastical writings from the 8th century aren’t, I expect. But it is intriguing for those with an interest in British history. Bede definitely has his biases. He was quite the Pope Gregory fanboy, and in the book he copies many of the pope’s letters in their entirety. Amusingly enough, one of the main heresies encountered again and again throughout several hundred years, and one that Bede takes very solemnly, is keeping Easter on different days. Folks got into huge arguments about this, accusing one another of heinous apostasy. Whole chapters are dedicated to this. I got a kick out of Bede’s chastisement of the younger “generation of apathy,” and I also chuckled when Bede records a letter from 601 AD in which the author is convinced the end of the world and Christ’s return are coming very soon. We haven’t really changed: we still get bees in our bonnets over minor issues, think that the end of civilization is obviously nigh due to the degenerate times we live in, and think that the younger generation is going to pot.
grllopez's review against another edition
3.0
celbl8o's review against another edition
4.0
I enjoyed Bede a lot more than I thought that I would. I know only the bare minimum about who Bede was but I think I would be very interested in trying to learn more about him.
It's hard to tell how much faith we can put in Bede's ecclesiastical history but it's certain that it's an important work. If nothing else, it tells us a lot about what Bede thought and believed. This in and of itself is very interesting and provides a pretty decent look at a lot of trends within Catholicism that would be prominent in the Medieval period.
It's hard to tell how much faith we can put in Bede's ecclesiastical history but it's certain that it's an important work. If nothing else, it tells us a lot about what Bede thought and believed. This in and of itself is very interesting and provides a pretty decent look at a lot of trends within Catholicism that would be prominent in the Medieval period.
notwellread's review against another edition
3.0
For a dry early history of the Mediaeval church, this ended up having a pretty trippy (or should I say, 'mystic') ending (and some other odd parts, too). There were a lot of strange lists and bibliographies at the end of my text, but I’m not sure if this is universal.
In terms of the book as a whole, however, it’s certainly an important historical source (like Herodotus and Thucydides, both of whom I went over recently) but I’m not sure it has much value as a text for the uninformed reader. For myself, although I’ve studied Mediaeval history in the past, particularly that of the church (and used Bede as a major source for this) I felt like reading Bede’s whole text wasn’t particularly engaging save the odd strange detail or phenomenon, and I wasn’t always sure how seriously I should take the actual contents of the text, particularly the more dubious-seeming anecdotes. I didn’t feel I came out of it knowing much more about the early church itself, and I wasn’t sure what information I had received was or wasn’t reliable, so I may have to revisit this with the aid of a commentary.
I enjoyed revisiting the Mediaeval period, and certainly find myself missing it a lot, so I would like to read more surviving texts from the time in future, but I wonder if in this case I would have had a better time with a modern history of the church. Unlike Herodotus, I don’t have enough detailed background knowledge to know which parts of his narrative are accurate and which are myth (since the period I focused on when studying history was a few centuries later), and it’s not always obvious how reliable the information he gives the reader is. Again, like Herodotus, he may very well be a great and highly influential historian even if the information he gives out is not accurate (though unfortunately there is very little with which to compare Bede’s work when we don’t have the sources he used and don’t have all that much to go on in the archaeological record either). I’m not sure I would recommend it for recreational reading, and for educational purposes it should probably be met with some modern commentary or other accompaniment, but for myself it seems I will have to soldier on if I want proper clarification on the subject and period.
In terms of the book as a whole, however, it’s certainly an important historical source (like Herodotus and Thucydides, both of whom I went over recently) but I’m not sure it has much value as a text for the uninformed reader. For myself, although I’ve studied Mediaeval history in the past, particularly that of the church (and used Bede as a major source for this) I felt like reading Bede’s whole text wasn’t particularly engaging save the odd strange detail or phenomenon, and I wasn’t always sure how seriously I should take the actual contents of the text, particularly the more dubious-seeming anecdotes. I didn’t feel I came out of it knowing much more about the early church itself, and I wasn’t sure what information I had received was or wasn’t reliable, so I may have to revisit this with the aid of a commentary.
I enjoyed revisiting the Mediaeval period, and certainly find myself missing it a lot, so I would like to read more surviving texts from the time in future, but I wonder if in this case I would have had a better time with a modern history of the church. Unlike Herodotus, I don’t have enough detailed background knowledge to know which parts of his narrative are accurate and which are myth (since the period I focused on when studying history was a few centuries later), and it’s not always obvious how reliable the information he gives the reader is. Again, like Herodotus, he may very well be a great and highly influential historian even if the information he gives out is not accurate (though unfortunately there is very little with which to compare Bede’s work when we don’t have the sources he used and don’t have all that much to go on in the archaeological record either). I’m not sure I would recommend it for recreational reading, and for educational purposes it should probably be met with some modern commentary or other accompaniment, but for myself it seems I will have to soldier on if I want proper clarification on the subject and period.
shellys's review against another edition
4.0
One of the most startling features of this book was the importance of Easter and tonsure. This is a perfect example of how the burning issue of the day seems so foreign to people of other eras.
I was also struck at how clearly ideas that later define colonialism are present such as "civilizing" people and giving presents of land (complete with serfs) as gifts.
This is a difficult book to rate - as a window into another time, 5 stars. As a history book by today's standards, maybe 3. As something to study in preparation for a journey to England or to learn of people to research further, 5 stars. As a book I "enjoyed", maybe 3 stars.
I suspect this book grows on you as you read it more.
I was also struck at how clearly ideas that later define colonialism are present such as "civilizing" people and giving presents of land (complete with serfs) as gifts.
This is a difficult book to rate - as a window into another time, 5 stars. As a history book by today's standards, maybe 3. As something to study in preparation for a journey to England or to learn of people to research further, 5 stars. As a book I "enjoyed", maybe 3 stars.
I suspect this book grows on you as you read it more.
deborahrosegreen's review against another edition
3.0
I know a few other people have said this but whether or not I'd recommend it would be based on why you want to read it. It's historically and theologically relevant and I read it as research for a book I'm writing. There are some fantastic stories hidden amongst the facts if you can get past the drone of information. Bede is very opinionated and more aggressive than the Bible. I'm glad I read it.
doug_whatzup's review against another edition
3.0
I’ve never quite figured out Easter. Oh, I understand that it follows Passover because that’s why Christ rode the donkey into Jerusalem on what we now know as Palm Sunday and that He was crucified the following Friday and rose again three days later on Sunday. That part’s easy. It’s figuring out when Easter falls each year that’s confusing. Sometimes it’s in March, other times in April. Hell, it could occasionally fall in May so far as I know.
If you have the patience to wade through about 380 pages of Bede’s ‘Ecclesiastical History of the English People,’ Abbot Ceolfrid will explain it all to you. Well, he’s actually explaining it to some Pictish king named Nichtin, who must have been a lot smarter than I am because Nichtin understood it completely and altered his religious observances accordingly. Me, I’m as confused as I ever was.
If Bede is to be taken at his word (and why wouldn’t he be?) the correct timing of Easter was the most pressing problem of his day, as his ‘Ecclesiastical History of the English People’ documents one instance after another of attempts to bring derelict Easter celebrants into line. Of course, the Irish were the worst offenders. Why is it always the Irish?
At any rate, between nailing down Easter and the weird propensity for the corpses of saintly clergy to be miraculously uncorrupted upon their oddly frequent exhumations, one has to wonder what kind of guy Bede really was. Two words come to my mind: obsessive and credulous.
If you’re considering reading ‘Ecclesiastical History of the English People’ in order to further your understanding of early British history, well, this probably isn’t the way to go about it. On the other hand, if you’re trying to figure out when is the appropriate time to celebrate Easter … on second though, forget that too.
If you have the patience to wade through about 380 pages of Bede’s ‘Ecclesiastical History of the English People,’ Abbot Ceolfrid will explain it all to you. Well, he’s actually explaining it to some Pictish king named Nichtin, who must have been a lot smarter than I am because Nichtin understood it completely and altered his religious observances accordingly. Me, I’m as confused as I ever was.
If Bede is to be taken at his word (and why wouldn’t he be?) the correct timing of Easter was the most pressing problem of his day, as his ‘Ecclesiastical History of the English People’ documents one instance after another of attempts to bring derelict Easter celebrants into line. Of course, the Irish were the worst offenders. Why is it always the Irish?
At any rate, between nailing down Easter and the weird propensity for the corpses of saintly clergy to be miraculously uncorrupted upon their oddly frequent exhumations, one has to wonder what kind of guy Bede really was. Two words come to my mind: obsessive and credulous.
If you’re considering reading ‘Ecclesiastical History of the English People’ in order to further your understanding of early British history, well, this probably isn’t the way to go about it. On the other hand, if you’re trying to figure out when is the appropriate time to celebrate Easter … on second though, forget that too.