> ...After this discussion (writes Ingegerd) I have changed my perception of
>the Christian church as being in a position to impose very much at all in the
>early stages. Instead, I now think that the early church (at least in Norway)
>had to rely rather heavily on existing 'power' structures, including leading
>families, which is why the earliest churches were erected on their farms, thus
>continuing the ritual associations of certain places.
Ingegard's hypothesis raises the possibility (insofar as Norwegian practice may
be taken as reflecting more widely-spread conventions in north-western Europe)
of a deeper, cultural reason for the insular Anglo-Saxon family monasteries
of the conversion period which Bede so much disliked than those usually
advanced. It also offers another justification for comparing these family
institutions with heritable monastic communities in Wales, and similar dynastic
links in Ireland. (See Blair and Sharpe [eds.], _Pastoral Care Before the
Parish_. Was Penda's kin (to take just one example) really so virtuous that no
fewer than three-dozen 'saints' were counted among his direct and collateral
descendents?
One supplementary question, please, Ingegerd, about the central farms/ritual
centres. Do you only count cases with all, or a minimum number of diagnostic
features, or is one feature sufficient for inclusion in the list?
Graham Jones
Leicester
PS: Can I use the first week of the New Year as the occasion to say what a
wonderfully good-natured and generous List this is. Not a week goes by that I
don't learn something (I could, probably should have written 'day'). Hardly a
month goes by but some kind soul goes out of their way to help me. May the
saints smile on you all this year.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|