Scan barcode
A review by jesswalsh
The Private Lives of the Saints: Power, Passion and Politics in Anglo-Saxon England by Janina Ramírez
2.0
Sadly, the choice by the author to ignore the Eastern Christians and therefore to retrospectively apply a medieval/modern idea of a ‘Pope’ and Catholic Church to pre-schism Europe is fundamentally undermining to the rest of the book.
For example, when describing how Christianity flowed along the secular, bureaucratic arms of the Roman Empire, the author says ‘just as the Emperor had to maintain control over his subjects from Hadrian’s Wall to Syria, so the Pope had to maintain orthodoxy and order between cities the length and breadth of Europe and beyond.’ This is terrible history! First of all, the emperor very much retained the right and power to determine and enforce orthodoxy. That was kind of the point of the council of Nicaea babe.
On top of that, early Roman Christianity was meant to be a case of shared primacy of the 5 patriarchs. Although the ‘pontiff’ based in Rome often claimed supremacy, it was as a first among equals and was certainly not widely accepted. For long stretches of time after the fall of the western empire, the new settlers (Goths, Vandals etc) were very comfortable ignoring the Roman patriarch, given they mostly adhered to the Arian heresy and so chose not to involve themselves in Catholic councils.
Following Justinian’s re-conquest of much of Italy, too, the patriarch of Rome was very much under the protection and behest of the emperor in Constantinople. It was only later, when the Byzantines lost control of their Italian holdings and the Eastern patriarchs were suddenly stripped of power after the Islamic expansion, that the Pope was able to lever his spiritual power into some tangible independent power by eventually throwing himself behind Charlemagne.
Even when the author acknowledges the very different state of Rome and her patriarch during the given time frame, such as when calling Gregory the Great ‘head of a beleaguered, small church in a rotten and run down city, with little in the way of wealth and power’, the crucial elements are still overlooked. Gregory wasn’t just a poor Pope, he was very much the poorest of 5 patriarchs (Pope not an official title yet, and wouldn’t be for some time) and required Byzantine Imperial approval in order to be consecrated. He was a bit player in the grand scheme of Christianity at the time, having spent time in Constantinople as part of a Roman embassy where he managed to piss off the other Patriarchs.
The context of his attempts to convert Britain and purge the Arian heresy to bring as much of the old western empire under nominal Roman leadership is completely missing in the author’s treatment. His actions are said to be about creating a Holy Roman Empire ‘against the ever-burgeoning power of the Eastern Church’. This is so… wrong. At this point, the East is the ONLY church, and Gregory exists at the behest of the head honcho of that church - the Byzantine Emperor. Gregory was like a district manager in a huge international corporation.
That quote really sums up the author’s struggle to sensibly represent the situation. It presents the case as though the papacy existed and was fighting to hold off Eastern Orthodoxy. Gregory’s actions are painted in this light, as though gathering allies. The reality is he fought with every scrap to get on anywhere near the same level the Eastern patriarchs were already on. He couldn’t get as far as allies, it was about establishing a power base in the first place. It’s so hard to take any analysis of Christianity or the early formations of such in converted lands seriously when the bare facts and realities are so overlooked.
Ultimately, the application of a post-HRE papal sense of power and primacy to the actual Empire/late antique era is incongruous at best. I get why a narrowly focused set of case studies could be seen not to have the scope to discuss the creation of the medieval papacy, but if that’s the case just don’t bring it up! Better to leave a gap than be wrong.
There are couple of other smaller issues; the author gets their dates messed up and positions Gregory as a champion of imagery ‘at a time when iconoclasm was sweeping away depictions of God, Christ, Mary and the saints in the Eastern Church’. No! You’re more than a hundred years early there. Another minor irritation is the repeated use of the word race when the author means ethnicity or ethnic group.
For example, when describing how Christianity flowed along the secular, bureaucratic arms of the Roman Empire, the author says ‘just as the Emperor had to maintain control over his subjects from Hadrian’s Wall to Syria, so the Pope had to maintain orthodoxy and order between cities the length and breadth of Europe and beyond.’ This is terrible history! First of all, the emperor very much retained the right and power to determine and enforce orthodoxy. That was kind of the point of the council of Nicaea babe.
On top of that, early Roman Christianity was meant to be a case of shared primacy of the 5 patriarchs. Although the ‘pontiff’ based in Rome often claimed supremacy, it was as a first among equals and was certainly not widely accepted. For long stretches of time after the fall of the western empire, the new settlers (Goths, Vandals etc) were very comfortable ignoring the Roman patriarch, given they mostly adhered to the Arian heresy and so chose not to involve themselves in Catholic councils.
Following Justinian’s re-conquest of much of Italy, too, the patriarch of Rome was very much under the protection and behest of the emperor in Constantinople. It was only later, when the Byzantines lost control of their Italian holdings and the Eastern patriarchs were suddenly stripped of power after the Islamic expansion, that the Pope was able to lever his spiritual power into some tangible independent power by eventually throwing himself behind Charlemagne.
Even when the author acknowledges the very different state of Rome and her patriarch during the given time frame, such as when calling Gregory the Great ‘head of a beleaguered, small church in a rotten and run down city, with little in the way of wealth and power’, the crucial elements are still overlooked. Gregory wasn’t just a poor Pope, he was very much the poorest of 5 patriarchs (Pope not an official title yet, and wouldn’t be for some time) and required Byzantine Imperial approval in order to be consecrated. He was a bit player in the grand scheme of Christianity at the time, having spent time in Constantinople as part of a Roman embassy where he managed to piss off the other Patriarchs.
The context of his attempts to convert Britain and purge the Arian heresy to bring as much of the old western empire under nominal Roman leadership is completely missing in the author’s treatment. His actions are said to be about creating a Holy Roman Empire ‘against the ever-burgeoning power of the Eastern Church’. This is so… wrong. At this point, the East is the ONLY church, and Gregory exists at the behest of the head honcho of that church - the Byzantine Emperor. Gregory was like a district manager in a huge international corporation.
That quote really sums up the author’s struggle to sensibly represent the situation. It presents the case as though the papacy existed and was fighting to hold off Eastern Orthodoxy. Gregory’s actions are painted in this light, as though gathering allies. The reality is he fought with every scrap to get on anywhere near the same level the Eastern patriarchs were already on. He couldn’t get as far as allies, it was about establishing a power base in the first place. It’s so hard to take any analysis of Christianity or the early formations of such in converted lands seriously when the bare facts and realities are so overlooked.
Ultimately, the application of a post-HRE papal sense of power and primacy to the actual Empire/late antique era is incongruous at best. I get why a narrowly focused set of case studies could be seen not to have the scope to discuss the creation of the medieval papacy, but if that’s the case just don’t bring it up! Better to leave a gap than be wrong.
There are couple of other smaller issues; the author gets their dates messed up and positions Gregory as a champion of imagery ‘at a time when iconoclasm was sweeping away depictions of God, Christ, Mary and the saints in the Eastern Church’. No! You’re more than a hundred years early there. Another minor irritation is the repeated use of the word race when the author means ethnicity or ethnic group.