Talk:Synod of Whitby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Synod of Whitby was an important alleged synod" Alleged? Alleged because it didn't get mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle? What's the doubt here that's so well-founded that the definition is undercut with "alleged."? --Wetman 11:23, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Both actually - as it says at the end, Bede is the sole source, unusual for synods of the time. No letters to/from the Pope, no mention in saints' lives, etc. "alleged" is probably not a good choice of word - "a synod described by Bede as having occurred" or some such would be better. We simply have no way to know if this was a big event, or if Bede embellished what was basically a hallway argument. Stan 14:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Incredulity in the use of sources doesn't constitute factual basis. If you can show that historians believe Bede to be independent of Eddius and not an inventor out of whole cloth then I will cede the floor to you. He has been accussed of putting many speeches fully formed in the mouths of people who said no such things. Not an uncommon event in his time period, but one that should give you pause in accepting whatever he says as fact. Wjhonson 21:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The gist of Bede's story - that the Romano-Frankish side won on the questions of calculating the date of Easter and the correct style of the tonsure - is clearly true. The rest - who said what, whether it was a real synod (hmm, it clearly wasn't, where are the Papal records ?) or just a meeting - is Bede's interpretation. The "Consequences" section needs fixed up. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd even go that far. It seems that Bede merely picked up what Eddius had said and embellished it with long speeches. I'm trying to find an online source for Eddius but no luck so far :) Maybe someone knows of one. Wjhonson 17:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The accounts aren't that different. Bede's is longer, but includes details which suggest he had a longer account, or that Eddi reduced his (i.e. Bede mentions the presence of James the Deacon, who would surely have been there). The speeches, of course, are what Eddi and Bede would have liked people to say, rather than what they did say. The actual arguments weren't new, especially not on the dating of Easter. I think the translation of Eddi's work is copyrighted still, the Latin isn't on the internet anywhere that I can see. It's included in the Penguin Age of Bede. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm sure there must be an older translation of Eddius that has fallen out of copyright. It just may not be online anywhere yet. Wjhonson 00:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Right enough. The British Library catalogue shows an 1878 translation by "S.W." (possibly one Susanna Warren who wrote for the SPCK as the catalogue shows other books by an S.W. on religious themes in the 1870s). Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)