![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Oct. 7th, 2008 05:21 pmI HATE, HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE the fucking Sermo Lupi ad Anglos. Can I just say again: I HATE IT. I hate it and its horrible contradictoriness and I hate the fact that I thought I'd made an argument but I'd actually made two contradictory arguments, and I hate the fact that once I thought I was done with it I saw the Bocera and he pointed out all these other contradictory bits. And I HATE HATE HATE the fact that the argument I really really want to make I cannot possibly prove.
What I can apparently prove is that on the 16th of Febuary 1014 Wulfstan, Archbishop of York, ordained a bishop of London, while the current bishop of London was bishop of London but in exile with king AEthelred. ONB, the Archbishop of York shouldn't be ordaining a bishop of London! (Although he could be doing so in his capacity as bishop of Worcester, I suppose.) TWO, a bishop who ordains a new bishop of London clearly doesn't expect the old one to be returning any time soon, and therefore is not about to advocate the recall of King AEthelred.
Except that apparently *this* Bishop did, turning around the next day (if Wilcox is right, at least) and declaring that it's a terrible sin to expel your lord, living, from the land. And the synod and witan, who had gathered for the ordination of a new bishop, all suddenly agreed with him.
I FUCKING HATE IT.
I *want* to agree with Ian Howard, who is a historian not bothered by minor details of literary interpretation, and say Wulfstan certainly did not support the return of AEthelred because that would be a stupid thing to say in York in February 1014. I want to say AEthelred *invaded*, rather than was recalled.
That is what the history would say. Unfortunately the literature says the opposite. I swear there is a way, somewhere, that the SL can be rereaad. But I can't find it right now and it makes me crankypants.
What I can apparently prove is that on the 16th of Febuary 1014 Wulfstan, Archbishop of York, ordained a bishop of London, while the current bishop of London was bishop of London but in exile with king AEthelred. ONB, the Archbishop of York shouldn't be ordaining a bishop of London! (Although he could be doing so in his capacity as bishop of Worcester, I suppose.) TWO, a bishop who ordains a new bishop of London clearly doesn't expect the old one to be returning any time soon, and therefore is not about to advocate the recall of King AEthelred.
Except that apparently *this* Bishop did, turning around the next day (if Wilcox is right, at least) and declaring that it's a terrible sin to expel your lord, living, from the land. And the synod and witan, who had gathered for the ordination of a new bishop, all suddenly agreed with him.
I FUCKING HATE IT.
I *want* to agree with Ian Howard, who is a historian not bothered by minor details of literary interpretation, and say Wulfstan certainly did not support the return of AEthelred because that would be a stupid thing to say in York in February 1014. I want to say AEthelred *invaded*, rather than was recalled.
That is what the history would say. Unfortunately the literature says the opposite. I swear there is a way, somewhere, that the SL can be rereaad. But I can't find it right now and it makes me crankypants.