What do you think?
Rate this book
The Coming of Christianity to Anglo-Saxon England
The Coming of Christianity to Anglo-Saxon England is more than a general account of the conversion of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. It is a probing study of the way in which Christianity was fashioned in England, giving full weight to the variety of wealth of the traditions that contributed to early Anglo-Saxon Christianity. It is also a study in the process of Christianization, as it was carried out by churchmen who, according to Mayr-Harting, prepared themselves by prayer and study and travel as well as by social awareness to Christianize their world.
For this edition, the author has added a new preface in which he reconsiders some of his earlier conclusions and addresses recent developments in the scholarship. In a completely new chapter, Mayr-Harting appraises the work of Boniface of Devon, the greatest missionary of the early Middle Ages whom he calls the "Mirror of English History." Mayr-Harting thereby extends his account of early Anglo-Saxon Christianity from the Gregorian mission of the late sixth century up to the eighth-century English mission to the Continent, perhaps the crowning achievement of early English history.
For this edition, the author has added a new preface in which he reconsiders some of his earlier conclusions and addresses recent developments in the scholarship. In a completely new chapter, Mayr-Harting appraises the work of Boniface of Devon, the greatest missionary of the early Middle Ages whom he calls the "Mirror of English History." Mayr-Harting thereby extends his account of early Anglo-Saxon Christianity from the Gregorian mission of the late sixth century up to the eighth-century English mission to the Continent, perhaps the crowning achievement of early English history.
344 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1991
4 people are currently reading
98 people want to read
About the author
Henry Mayr-Harting
17 books6 followersHenry Maria Robert Egmont Mayr-Harting, historian who specialised in the church history of England and Germany. During his career he taught at Oxford and Liverpool universities. Fellow of the British Academy and a Corresponding Member of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
July 9, 2019
The book brought alive for me a period of history which has always been a bit of a blur. The various people who played a part in this story, whether Kings, Popes, Bishops, Monks et al are shown to us here. Many cultures and influences, some more expected than others, fuse to create the brand of Christianity as it evolved within Anglo Saxon England and which we have today. This included assimilation of some pagan practices and associations. Some of the monks were not above a furtive glimpse at pagan stories, especially at Christmas it seems!
The depth and range of knowledge back then (1400 years ago) is mind blowing. Influences sourced from various parts of the globe – in the seventh century! Mayr-Harting led me more than once to the Etymologies of (Bishop) Isidore of Seville compiled c615-c630 which I’m now dipping into and realising how small our world was, even then.
I loved the chapter on Northumbrian monasticism (by coincidence read whilst I was staying in the north). Influential personalities are brought to life by the author. His appreciation of Bede, Cuthbert, Gregory the Great, Aidan, Theodore (of Tarsus, like St Paul), Archbishop of Canterbury is impressive. Nor does he forget Wilfred, Boniface, Hilda, Colman, Egbert, Edwin, Oswald, Oswin…………. and many more. “Bede’s great strength was in this sphere where doctrine and the practical life of the Christian met……………..With Bede (c672-735) we have moved decisively into the Middle Ages.”
I found the ending disappointing and it felt rushed. In my opinion, the English missionary activity on the continent from Boniface and others might have been better dealt with in an afterword to the book, given its title. But I recommend it and will be keeping it by me for reference. 4*
The depth and range of knowledge back then (1400 years ago) is mind blowing. Influences sourced from various parts of the globe – in the seventh century! Mayr-Harting led me more than once to the Etymologies of (Bishop) Isidore of Seville compiled c615-c630 which I’m now dipping into and realising how small our world was, even then.
I loved the chapter on Northumbrian monasticism (by coincidence read whilst I was staying in the north). Influential personalities are brought to life by the author. His appreciation of Bede, Cuthbert, Gregory the Great, Aidan, Theodore (of Tarsus, like St Paul), Archbishop of Canterbury is impressive. Nor does he forget Wilfred, Boniface, Hilda, Colman, Egbert, Edwin, Oswald, Oswin…………. and many more. “Bede’s great strength was in this sphere where doctrine and the practical life of the Christian met……………..With Bede (c672-735) we have moved decisively into the Middle Ages.”
I found the ending disappointing and it felt rushed. In my opinion, the English missionary activity on the continent from Boniface and others might have been better dealt with in an afterword to the book, given its title. But I recommend it and will be keeping it by me for reference. 4*
August 20, 2025
This is the fourth book that I’ve read in my quest to find an answer to this deceptively simple question: after the Romans withdrew from Brittania, how and why did the words “England” and “English” evolve from the Angles instead of equivalent words from the Saxons, Jutes or Frisians?
Some background information will help explain why I chose to read this book, which was completely rewarding. The other three books led me to this one in order to close a gap in my research. I've reviewed them separately here on Goodreads. In the order that I read them, they are:
• Morris’ The Anglo-Saxons
• Bragg’s The Adventure of English
• Mugglestone’s The Oxford History of English
This timeline principally comes from Muggleston’s book, with some additions from the other three:
c.45 B.C. ~ c.410 A.D. – Romans conquer and occupy their colony, Brittania.
c.410 – Collapse of Roman Empire; Romans leave Brittania.
449 – Traditional date for the invasion of Britain by the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians.
587 – Augustine lands in Kent and establishes his base in Canterbury on a mission from Pope Gregory I to Christianize the Anglo-Saxons, according to Mayr-Harting; brought Roman alphabet and script, enabling Old English to be written later.
c.599-c.624 – Reign of Redwald, King of East Anglia; baptized sometime before 605; only East Anglian king to become an overlord (with a lesser nearby King(s) subservient to him), according to Mayr-Harting.
601 – Augustine becomes the first Archbishop of Canterbury, according to Mayr-Harting.
632-655 – Reign of Penda, King of Mercia; considered the last pagan king in mainland England, along with King Arwald of the Isle of Wight, who died in 686, according to Mayr-Harting.
664 – Synod of Whitby.
c.700 – First surviving written evidence of Old English.
731 – Bede completes his Ecclesiastical History of the English People (in Latin).
757-786 – Reign of Cynewulf, King of Wessex.
757 (-96) – Reign of Offa, King of Mercia.
Late 700s – According to Morris, the peoples of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms regard themselves as a single ethnic group and were using Angli as a general term to describe all Germanic-speaking peoples in Britain.
780s – Period of Scandinavian invasion begins.
793-795 – Sacking of the monasteries at Lindisfarne, Jarrow, and Iona by Scandinavian invaders.
870s – Scandinavian settlement in England.
871 (-99) – Reign of Alfred, King of Wessex; produced vernacular manuscripts; in his translation of Gregory’s Pastoral Care, the word “Englisc” appears in the preface, describing the language, according to Bragg. Succeeded by Edward the Elder.
878 – Battle of Edington, in which Alfred triumphs over Vikings and agrees on areas of Scandinavian settlement (later known as the “Danelaw).
894 – Birth of Althelstan in Wessex.
899 – Death of Alfred (later known as Alfred the Great).
927-939 – Reign of Althelstan, first King of England; he succeeded Edward the Elder.
978-1016 – According to Morris, sometime in this period, the term “Engla-Lande” was first used in writing.
From Mayr-Harting’s book, I learned that the Romans used Saxon mercenaries to help them control Brittania. “Saxons were settled in this Island by the Romans at least as early as the fourth century. They were confederate soldiers, brought in to cope with the growing threat of the Picts from the North or the sea-raids of their fellow barbarians from the Continent who were on the move in search of lands. When not at war these confederates were farmers, and so they were settled in lands just outside the fortified towns of eastern Britain such as York or Caistor in Norfolk, or just off Roman roads which linked the towns. Even after the withdrawal of Roman forces and the official Roman political presence in 410, Romano-British tribal rulers kept going with this help for nearly half a century. But the help got out of hand, the Saxons revolted, and the second half of the fifth century saw a period of uncontrollable settlement by the confederates and their continental brethren [emphasis added], which penetrated to the heart of the island and which finally wiped out the cultural and political life of Roman Britain.” He adds that the masses who came during the Migration Period were mostly peasant farmers. Elsewhere, I have read that estimates of the total number of immigrants range from 20,000 to 200,000.
Neither Mayr-Harting nor the others answered my question. So, I am now ready to do so. But before I do, let me first comment on the matter and then let me walk through some alternatives that lead to my conclusion.
To emerge from among the common Anglo-Saxon peoples as the common name they used to call themselves (English) and the language they spoke (English) in the land they shared (England), the Anglis must have stood out in some way. They had to show leadership, dominance, excellence in some outstanding way to deserve and acquire a name which both unified and applied to all those numerous, original tribes, which led to the several diverse kingdoms, which led to one country. The Anglis had to be Number One at something to cause the people to adopt it as their national identity. Again, I ask, what was that prime characteristic, accomplishment, or event(s) that led to Algli, Englisc, Engla-lande, English, and England?
Was it military power? No. The tribes did push the Britons farther west as they settled along the east coast and moved inland during the massive Migration Period. The Angles settled in East Anglia and developed into a kingdom. But they were no significant military power. Indeed, they were frequently conquered by others, including the Mercians, West Saxons (Wessex), and Danes. They produced only one minor overlord, King Redwald, who reigned for only about 25 years. Kings Cynewulf, Offa, Penda, Alfred, Edward the Elder, and Althelstan were far more influential in the formation of a unified nation.
Was it political and diplomatic skill and success? No. Sometimes in history, a leader emerges because of these characteristics—a type of mediator or arbitrator who settles disputes among enemies and then emerges through prestige as their new leader. But in this period of history, that’s not how it happened. Kings had to lead in battle, and if they lost and/or died, the conqueror ruled. And when a king died in peacetime, the nearest (or most powerful) relative succeeded. The terms “English” and “England” did not emerge because the Anglis had this kind of skill and success; indeed, in this period, no one ever had the opportunity to play such a role.
Was it religious persuasion and acceptance? No. As Mayr-Harding says, East Anglia was pagan until after Augustine started converting kings, nobles and aristocrats. Even after certain kings accepted Christianity and were baptized, they continued for several generations afterwards to practice some aspects of paganism. It took even longer for the populace to accept Christianity. East Anglia was never the center of learning, knowledge, scholarship, and spirituality—those honors went to Iona, Wearmouth/Jarrow, Lindisfarne, Malmesbury, and Canterbury. There was no Archbishop in East Anglia. There was only one Bishop until Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, divided the one existing diocese into two: Norfolk and Suffolk (Elmham and Dunwich) in about 664.
Was it wealth through trade or something else? No. None of the books I’ve read mention East Anglia’s wealth. One mentions some trade through Ipswich with the continent, but it was probably no more, or perhaps even less, than other ports along the island’s coast. But dwarfing every other port in international trade and wealth was London.
Did it occupy and hold large lands of strategic location and importance? No. Just look at the maps. It was located between north and south coastline, but Northumbria, Mercia, and Wessex swamp East Anglia in size and historical significance.
Was there an event or series of events that led to dominance? No. There was no significant battle (like the Battle of Hastings in 1066) that established the Anglis as rulers of all. There was no summit meeting(s) that produced a universally accepted agreement saying we’re English, we live in England, we speak English, and we are ruled by Englishmen from East Anglia.
In short, the Angli appear to have had no superior strength. And if none of the above caused the derivatives of their name to become the national identity and language, then what did? We must pull Occam’s Razor out of the cupboard to pry open the hard shell and find the pearl inside.
Occam’s Razor states that "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.” William of Occam, a 14th century English philosopher and theologian, wrote this in Latin, and it is also known as the Principle (or Law) of Parsimony. It is a method of problem-solving and decision-making. In widespread layman’s language, it states that "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one."
My theory is simple: The Angles were the first tribe to start the mass migration in about 449 to Brittania after the Romans had departed. They settled en masse before the others did. Then the mass of Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians followed. It became a “Me, too” movement—"Let’s get out of here and go live in Angli-Land."
Seriously, that’s my story, and I’m stickin’ to it until someone else proves it wrong and proposes a more reasonable theory.
Some background information will help explain why I chose to read this book, which was completely rewarding. The other three books led me to this one in order to close a gap in my research. I've reviewed them separately here on Goodreads. In the order that I read them, they are:
• Morris’ The Anglo-Saxons
• Bragg’s The Adventure of English
• Mugglestone’s The Oxford History of English
This timeline principally comes from Muggleston’s book, with some additions from the other three:
c.45 B.C. ~ c.410 A.D. – Romans conquer and occupy their colony, Brittania.
c.410 – Collapse of Roman Empire; Romans leave Brittania.
449 – Traditional date for the invasion of Britain by the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians.
587 – Augustine lands in Kent and establishes his base in Canterbury on a mission from Pope Gregory I to Christianize the Anglo-Saxons, according to Mayr-Harting; brought Roman alphabet and script, enabling Old English to be written later.
c.599-c.624 – Reign of Redwald, King of East Anglia; baptized sometime before 605; only East Anglian king to become an overlord (with a lesser nearby King(s) subservient to him), according to Mayr-Harting.
601 – Augustine becomes the first Archbishop of Canterbury, according to Mayr-Harting.
632-655 – Reign of Penda, King of Mercia; considered the last pagan king in mainland England, along with King Arwald of the Isle of Wight, who died in 686, according to Mayr-Harting.
664 – Synod of Whitby.
c.700 – First surviving written evidence of Old English.
731 – Bede completes his Ecclesiastical History of the English People (in Latin).
757-786 – Reign of Cynewulf, King of Wessex.
757 (-96) – Reign of Offa, King of Mercia.
Late 700s – According to Morris, the peoples of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms regard themselves as a single ethnic group and were using Angli as a general term to describe all Germanic-speaking peoples in Britain.
780s – Period of Scandinavian invasion begins.
793-795 – Sacking of the monasteries at Lindisfarne, Jarrow, and Iona by Scandinavian invaders.
870s – Scandinavian settlement in England.
871 (-99) – Reign of Alfred, King of Wessex; produced vernacular manuscripts; in his translation of Gregory’s Pastoral Care, the word “Englisc” appears in the preface, describing the language, according to Bragg. Succeeded by Edward the Elder.
878 – Battle of Edington, in which Alfred triumphs over Vikings and agrees on areas of Scandinavian settlement (later known as the “Danelaw).
894 – Birth of Althelstan in Wessex.
899 – Death of Alfred (later known as Alfred the Great).
927-939 – Reign of Althelstan, first King of England; he succeeded Edward the Elder.
978-1016 – According to Morris, sometime in this period, the term “Engla-Lande” was first used in writing.
From Mayr-Harting’s book, I learned that the Romans used Saxon mercenaries to help them control Brittania. “Saxons were settled in this Island by the Romans at least as early as the fourth century. They were confederate soldiers, brought in to cope with the growing threat of the Picts from the North or the sea-raids of their fellow barbarians from the Continent who were on the move in search of lands. When not at war these confederates were farmers, and so they were settled in lands just outside the fortified towns of eastern Britain such as York or Caistor in Norfolk, or just off Roman roads which linked the towns. Even after the withdrawal of Roman forces and the official Roman political presence in 410, Romano-British tribal rulers kept going with this help for nearly half a century. But the help got out of hand, the Saxons revolted, and the second half of the fifth century saw a period of uncontrollable settlement by the confederates and their continental brethren [emphasis added], which penetrated to the heart of the island and which finally wiped out the cultural and political life of Roman Britain.” He adds that the masses who came during the Migration Period were mostly peasant farmers. Elsewhere, I have read that estimates of the total number of immigrants range from 20,000 to 200,000.
Neither Mayr-Harting nor the others answered my question. So, I am now ready to do so. But before I do, let me first comment on the matter and then let me walk through some alternatives that lead to my conclusion.
To emerge from among the common Anglo-Saxon peoples as the common name they used to call themselves (English) and the language they spoke (English) in the land they shared (England), the Anglis must have stood out in some way. They had to show leadership, dominance, excellence in some outstanding way to deserve and acquire a name which both unified and applied to all those numerous, original tribes, which led to the several diverse kingdoms, which led to one country. The Anglis had to be Number One at something to cause the people to adopt it as their national identity. Again, I ask, what was that prime characteristic, accomplishment, or event(s) that led to Algli, Englisc, Engla-lande, English, and England?
Was it military power? No. The tribes did push the Britons farther west as they settled along the east coast and moved inland during the massive Migration Period. The Angles settled in East Anglia and developed into a kingdom. But they were no significant military power. Indeed, they were frequently conquered by others, including the Mercians, West Saxons (Wessex), and Danes. They produced only one minor overlord, King Redwald, who reigned for only about 25 years. Kings Cynewulf, Offa, Penda, Alfred, Edward the Elder, and Althelstan were far more influential in the formation of a unified nation.
Was it political and diplomatic skill and success? No. Sometimes in history, a leader emerges because of these characteristics—a type of mediator or arbitrator who settles disputes among enemies and then emerges through prestige as their new leader. But in this period of history, that’s not how it happened. Kings had to lead in battle, and if they lost and/or died, the conqueror ruled. And when a king died in peacetime, the nearest (or most powerful) relative succeeded. The terms “English” and “England” did not emerge because the Anglis had this kind of skill and success; indeed, in this period, no one ever had the opportunity to play such a role.
Was it religious persuasion and acceptance? No. As Mayr-Harding says, East Anglia was pagan until after Augustine started converting kings, nobles and aristocrats. Even after certain kings accepted Christianity and were baptized, they continued for several generations afterwards to practice some aspects of paganism. It took even longer for the populace to accept Christianity. East Anglia was never the center of learning, knowledge, scholarship, and spirituality—those honors went to Iona, Wearmouth/Jarrow, Lindisfarne, Malmesbury, and Canterbury. There was no Archbishop in East Anglia. There was only one Bishop until Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, divided the one existing diocese into two: Norfolk and Suffolk (Elmham and Dunwich) in about 664.
Was it wealth through trade or something else? No. None of the books I’ve read mention East Anglia’s wealth. One mentions some trade through Ipswich with the continent, but it was probably no more, or perhaps even less, than other ports along the island’s coast. But dwarfing every other port in international trade and wealth was London.
Did it occupy and hold large lands of strategic location and importance? No. Just look at the maps. It was located between north and south coastline, but Northumbria, Mercia, and Wessex swamp East Anglia in size and historical significance.
Was there an event or series of events that led to dominance? No. There was no significant battle (like the Battle of Hastings in 1066) that established the Anglis as rulers of all. There was no summit meeting(s) that produced a universally accepted agreement saying we’re English, we live in England, we speak English, and we are ruled by Englishmen from East Anglia.
In short, the Angli appear to have had no superior strength. And if none of the above caused the derivatives of their name to become the national identity and language, then what did? We must pull Occam’s Razor out of the cupboard to pry open the hard shell and find the pearl inside.
Occam’s Razor states that "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.” William of Occam, a 14th century English philosopher and theologian, wrote this in Latin, and it is also known as the Principle (or Law) of Parsimony. It is a method of problem-solving and decision-making. In widespread layman’s language, it states that "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one."
My theory is simple: The Angles were the first tribe to start the mass migration in about 449 to Brittania after the Romans had departed. They settled en masse before the others did. Then the mass of Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians followed. It became a “Me, too” movement—"Let’s get out of here and go live in Angli-Land."
Seriously, that’s my story, and I’m stickin’ to it until someone else proves it wrong and proposes a more reasonable theory.
October 11, 2018
Excellent history if you do not know who Wilfrid is or Aldhelm, you need to read this book to know about the Anglo-Saxon Church!
Want to read
March 21, 2022discussion of intermingling traditions (106)
discussion of Bangor (163)
discussion of differing traditions (181)
discussion of Bangor (163)
discussion of differing traditions (181)
May 23, 2018
Updating this to Read so it STOPS appearing on my screens as Currently Reading. I ain't ever gonna go beyond p. 136.
136 of 276 (excl. Refs & Index) and time to say something because it's likely to stay on my Currently Reading shelf for ever more.
This is mostly a vanity post, unlikely to interest anyone but myself.
This was a 'serious' purchase from a pilgrimage through literary Charing Cross and ending up in Museum Street, London. I really wanted find out about Anglo-Saxon paganism, but actually already had the only books written on it(?!), so I got this scholarly consolation prize book, to glean what I could studying paganism's opposition.
"Ah yes, dear old Mayr-Harting," said the bookshop lady, who in a widely eclectic shop proved to know exactly this subject area.
So I bought it, £20 quid second-hand (mercifully lacking the garish yellow dust-jacket), and it graced my shelves looking sombre and brainy for two decades.
Finally attempting to give it a proper read, I was not expecting a bundle of laughs, but I was still disappointed. I was surprised to recognise the tone after a while -- it read like my own semi-scholarly attempts at articles in specialist interest magazines when the real evidence was frankly too scant, or not sufficiently convincing. Apart from Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle -- which he wasn't going to just trot out, either verbatim or commentaried, that being presumably already done elsewhere -- there seems to be nothing else to go on! And the personal insights of the longstanding scholar in the area are... basically lacking.
So unsurprisingly a complete loss on the (Replacement of) Paganism in Anglo-Saxon England.
More surprisingly not very informative on The Coming of Christianity to Anglo-Saxon England either.
To be revisited... if history-tourism inspires or renews curiosity such that reading on might have an especial relevance.
136 of 276 (excl. Refs & Index) and time to say something because it's likely to stay on my Currently Reading shelf for ever more.
This is mostly a vanity post, unlikely to interest anyone but myself.
This was a 'serious' purchase from a pilgrimage through literary Charing Cross and ending up in Museum Street, London. I really wanted find out about Anglo-Saxon paganism, but actually already had the only books written on it(?!), so I got this scholarly consolation prize book, to glean what I could studying paganism's opposition.
"Ah yes, dear old Mayr-Harting," said the bookshop lady, who in a widely eclectic shop proved to know exactly this subject area.
So I bought it, £20 quid second-hand (mercifully lacking the garish yellow dust-jacket), and it graced my shelves looking sombre and brainy for two decades.
Finally attempting to give it a proper read, I was not expecting a bundle of laughs, but I was still disappointed. I was surprised to recognise the tone after a while -- it read like my own semi-scholarly attempts at articles in specialist interest magazines when the real evidence was frankly too scant, or not sufficiently convincing. Apart from Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle -- which he wasn't going to just trot out, either verbatim or commentaried, that being presumably already done elsewhere -- there seems to be nothing else to go on! And the personal insights of the longstanding scholar in the area are... basically lacking.
So unsurprisingly a complete loss on the (Replacement of) Paganism in Anglo-Saxon England.
More surprisingly not very informative on The Coming of Christianity to Anglo-Saxon England either.
To be revisited... if history-tourism inspires or renews curiosity such that reading on might have an especial relevance.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews