On 04/07/2025 5:52 am, taf wrote:
. . .> And while I am at it, I think I owe Hudson an apology, as I
now realize
I had two researchers crossed in my head - it was Alf Smyth who I was thinking of that accepted the Ragnar Lothbrok traditions as authentic history.I don't know Hudson's view. He did still deserve being taken to
task for cherry-picking the Wallingford chronicle.
I find myself having similar opinions about the work of Benjamin Hudson
and the late Alfred P. Smyth, both of whose work I occasionally admire
but more often find questionable. Both have made some important
original contributions to the early medieval history of northwestern
Europe (for example, Smyth on the early Irish annals, Hudson on the often-retitled Chronicle of the kings of Alba / Old Scottish Chronicle),
but there are too many times they have annoyed me with careless
conclusions based on low quality sources or too little evidence.
Hudson's book "Viking pirates and Christian princes. Dynasty, religion,
and empire in the north Atlantic" was reviewed favorably by Jonathan
Shepard in "The Journal of Ecclesiastical History" 59 (2008): 108-110,
and negatively by Alex Woolf in "Early Medieval Europe" 14 (2006):
515-517. This shows how different two reviews of the same book can be
when the areas of specialization of the reviewers are very different.
Shepard is a historian who specializes in the early medieval history of
Russia, the Byzantine Empire, and the Caucasus (which I know because I
looked it up on Wikipedia today). Alex Woolf is a historian who
specializes in the early medieval history of Ireland, Britain, and
Scandinavia (whose name as an author of a book or journal article will
pretty much guarantee that I will read it if I can get a copy). Any
guesses as to which reviewer was more familiar with the material? As
for Shepard (with whom I am familiar only through this review), he might
be a perfectly respectable historian in his own field of research, but I
felt that some of the statements in his review were too quick to accept
dubious conclusions by Hudson, suggesting that the reviewer had
insufficient familiarity with research in the area. Although it has
been years (decades?) since I read Hudson's book, Woolf's review fits
well with my own memory of the reservations I had about the book.
As an interesting side-note, Hudson's earlier book "Kings of Celtic
Scotland" was reviewed quite harshly by Alfred P. Smyth in "The English Historical Review" 112 (1997): 426-427.
Stewart Baldwin
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)