I have been offline for a while due to server
problems, so missed most of this discussion. To
address the latest question:
As Anselm pointed out, the chief reason one finds so
many "Scoti" in Germany is because that happened to
be an area with a large number of houses founded by
Irish/Scottish monks (as well as Anglo-Saxon). To
take it a step further back into the 5th and 6th
centuries, when the Irish monks set out on
peregrinatio they specifically looked for difficult
and unconverted places, and one of these of course
was the Central European area. I don't recall all
the details at the moment, but St Gall's in modern
Swizterland was an Irish foundation and several
houses in southern Germany were founded by monks of
this house.
> Secondly, there is a long-standing confusion in the
European mind (especially if it it thinking in Latin)
between Scoti = people from Ireland and Scoti =
people from Scotland.
Duns Scotus Eriugena is a good case in point....was
he Irish or Scottish? Although I'm not certain that
the continentals of the early Medieval period were
aware of the distinction, or cared. The "confusion"
is ours, I think, because for them there was no
difference.
To ask my own question: In the secondary material on
the subject it is frequently stated that for some
church leaders on the continent had disparaging
remarks to make about the "Scoti". What I've found
so far however, doesn't make sense, quite. That is:
I find that some folks had major problems with
Columbanus, but these remarks seem to be toward
Columbanus specifically, not Irish monks generally.
Same with Patrick. And of course I'm familiar with
Bede's discussion of the Synod of Whitby(?) and the
points of contention. But I've yet to find
statements in primary sources to support the claim
that the Irish monks were not well received. Any
pointers?
Larry Swain
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|