… and it came to my attention that it is the Feast of the Venerable Bede, and that demands acknowledgment! (What, you don’t use daily Mass as your saints’ calendar too?)
Bede is a Doctor of the Church (declared by Leo XIII in 1899), a monk who lived in England from about 673 to 735, during the tumultuous period that is quite properly referred to as the Dark Ages (distinct from the Middle Ages, which came later and were not dark at all, except to certain secular minds). Besides being called “Venerable,” Bede is also referred to by the title “Father of English History,” since he wrote what was essentially the first history of the English people.
Bede has three claims on my attention. In the first place, as an Anglophile, I can’t very well ignore … well, the Father of English History. The fact that the Father was also a monk, with the fascinating handle “Venerable” (he as never been canonized—though now that they’re making Hildegard official, maybe he’ll be next?) makes it that much better.
Second, as an Arthurian buff, I have a bit of a grudge against Bede for failing to mention King Arthur in his history. Of course, Bede was borrowing that part of his work from Gildas, who may have had had it in for Arthur (or whatever his real name was); but still … how amazing would it have been if Bede had had the data necessary to write about the legendary king? It would be like … I don’t know … St. Thomas à Becket doing Robin Hood! St. Thomas More doing Richard III! (Oh, wait, that actually happened … hm …)
Finally—and this was what warmed by heart to Bede when I was first getting to know him—it is said of him that, despite all his considerable learning, his favorite prayer was the simple doxology;
Glory be to the Father,
and to the Son,
and to the Holy Ghost;
As it was in the beginning,
is now, and ever shall be,
World without end.
Amen.
I thought Bede was canonized sometime in the 1930s? His title of Venerable seems to be stuck though, it doesn’t feel right to say “St. Bede” when “the Venerable Bede” rolls off the tongue so well. 🙂
Hm. I could be wrong; perhaps he is officially canonized. My understanding, though, was that he was venerated as a saint by the local church (in much the same way as Hildegard was) without ever going through the official process in Rome. FWIW, Pope Benedict refers to him as a saint (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090218_en.html). Wish I could find the 1899 declaration Leo XIII gave in naming him a doctor–there might be something concrete in there …
But yes, “the Venerable Bede” does have a nice mellifluous rhythm to it regardless!
Perhaps he did not write about the good King Arthur because he did not exist? I could be wrong but I thought most historians considered him a legend, or at the very most some celtic lord who fought the battle of Badon Hill. At least that is what I had been taught.
Though it would be wonderful if he really existed! Even better were he like the figure of legend!
Yes, RC, you’re right. Ditto with Robin Hood. I was being somewhat tongue in cheek in speaking of my “grudge”!