Freggyragh Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 It is strange that England chose a Middle Eastern Roman soldier (don't tell the EDL but he was from somewhere in or near the modern Syria/Palestine area) as a saint. The early saints had fairly sizeable cults attached to them throughout Europe, long before anything like a genuine sense of nationality or nationhood emerged so people tended to venerate a saint based on qualities other than ethnic or cultural grouping. St George has always been a popular figure in England, so I imagine it would be a combination of that and the significance and appeal of having a saint associated with soldiering and war as a patron during troubled times. But he only got his own dedicated day in 1415. Besides, there's more glamour in St George than in some Northumbrian monk who wrote a few books and then popped his clogs. One way of viewing it is as the English being pragmatic in recognising that domestic and later saints tend to be a bit rubbish: if you're going to worship someone as a quasi-historical demi-god, you might as well choose someone rumoured to have bumped off a dragon, rather than a British pest control officer like St Patrick, or a disturbed individuall like Brigid of Sweden (basically a boring, Scandinavian Joan of Arc whose life was about as exciting and inspiring as a parsnip). Banishing snakes for eternity is a far more impresive bit of pest control in my eyes than slaying one dragon. The Scots kind of got the whole patron saint game by choosing a high status one like St Andrew (even if he was one of the more boring apostles). On the other hand, the Welsh and Cornish made the same mistake as did the Irish in venerating the first old duffer to teach them shame and the joys of joylessness for no apparent greater reason than he was familiar to them. Basically, the Welsh, Cornish and Irish chose their patron saints like we vote in our MHKs, whilst the Scots and English, and even the Bretons had a bit more ambition and sheer cheek. We on the other hand just half heartedly imitated our neighbours (Patrick, and the even more inexplicable and dreary Columba) before getting bored with all the nonsense and going to watch the races instead, which might very well be the best of all attitudes to have towards patron saints Agreed, but we certainly don't want to lose Mayday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guzzi Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 I'm completely convinced Freggyragh. Keep Beltane special! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 One of the important 'quarters' in the year marking the seasons, I would much prefer we kept it as it is. Mayday Wiki Reading the Wiki - it states that it wasn't an actual bank holiday in the UK until 1978 (learn something new every day!) - I think this date works well - if it ain't broke - it don't need fixing.. Er - how is 1 May a quarter day, or a day marking a season? Spring starts on the equinox, 21 March or thereabouts, summer on the solstice, 21 June give or take a day. Michaelmas is 29 September, Christmas is 25 December, Lady Day is 25 March, the other being midsummer day on the solstice. Samhain 31st October Yule 21st December Imbolc 2nd February Ostara 21st March Beltane 1st May Litha 21st June Lammas 1st August Mabon 21st September Keep May Day. It's a great pagan celebration for the workers. Cameron will regret this idea when right-wing English extremists start marauding about waving the flag of St George and attacking immigrants to celebrate their national day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Anyway, I'm looking forward to St Pancakes day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 But he only got his own dedicated day in 1415. Sure, but if he still had a large degree of popularity entrenched amongst the populace, then he was the obvious choice. Remember, the hundred year's war is entering its final phase, Spain and Portugal are beginning to expand, Scandinavia was united, a primitive nationalism was beginning to emerge across Europe, and the renaissance was under full swing. Europe in the early 15 century had a sense that a new age was dawning. In such an age, who better to argue the cause in Heaven for an ambitious nation (the original role of the patron saints) at such times than a pominant military saint, and especially one associated with the Roman legions. He may not have been English, but he was already popular, summed up England's idealised view of itself, and I doubt it mattered at such an early point in the development nationalism. Plus I would imagine that the early saints were regarded as belonging to no particular nation, having transcended their Earthly origins - the English were just doing what the Scots did with St Andrew, or the ever ambitious French did in selecting the Virgin Mary (along with all their other patron saints). Banishing snakes for eternity is a far more impresive bit of pest control in my eyes than slaying one dragon. Depends on how big the dragon was. Had there been snakes in Ireland, St Patrick could have just turned up with a bag of mongooses and let them run wild, or just swept the reptiles, who were no doubt stricken with lethargy given the inclement climate of Ireland, into the sea with a big broom. Also, a patron saint has to be seen a means to embody and project your view of yourself as a people. With St George the English were basically strutting: George is a soldier, embodied the chivalric ideals of the time, smacked a dragon into next week armed only with a plank with a nail through it, and was venerated throughout the Easter and Western Roman Empire and later much of Europe. England was saying: "Here's a hard nut who embodies the new European age, a holy warrior known throughout the Christian World. He's our patron saint because he understands us and we are the inheritors of his legacy". Ireland et al, by contrast, chose then relatively unknown local preachers (canonization being a regional matter back then) who happened to do them a favour: the image portrayed being an inward looking and modest one of gratitude for a good turn Not that there's anything fundamentally wrong with either route: Both approaches make sense given the two nations' attitudes during the time they chose their patron saints. England viewed itself as fully a part of the European transformation going on at the time and so were looking towards the future; it's violent rivalry with France and aspirations of being a power futher influencing its decision. Ireland on the other hand was and had been for the past four centuries a small, divided nation which had been reduced to a varying state of vassaldom to the rulers of England, being reduced to a backwater (in the context of Europe as a whole). Arguably at that point the most glorious period in Irish History was well and truly over, so in St Patrick they were harkening back to those days of the early Christian period where Irish scholarship flourished and the country had some kind of semblance of unity under the Ui Niells Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Depends on how big the dragon was. Had there been snakes in Ireland, St Patrick could have just turned up with a bag of mongooses and let them run wild, Gef's Day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted March 8, 2011 Author Share Posted March 8, 2011 4th May is the feast of St. Judas Cyriacus. It seems appropriate, but I can't think why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.