Rohini Jayatilaka

As a member of the International Society of Anglo-Saxonists ( isas) for nearly three decades – I became a life member shortly after I joined as a postgraduate student – I have been observing with utter dismay the debate about nomenclature. Many AngloSaxon scholars, including myself, have not wished to enter the debate on the public isas forum, since the few who have argued for the relevance of the term in an intellectual context have been soundly pilloried. “Anglo-Saxon” should remain a valid and succinct term to describe England from the departure of the Romans in the fifth century until the Norman Conquest of 1066. It encapsulates a specific period in England’s history, as Merovingian or Carolingian do in Europe.

I came to Anglo-Saxon studies by a circuitous route. I was born and brought up in the former British colony of Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), of Sinhalese and Irish parentage, and since the island had been ruled by colonial powers for several centuries I was fortunate enough to be steeped in a very mixed cultural heritage from birth. I went through a British-style educational system and grew up appreciating the value of history in shaping a nation and its people. In the mid-1970s my family moved to America due to Sri Lanka’s political upheaval, where I completed my undergraduate degree and began postgraduate studies. Inspiring tutors piqued my interest in early European medieval history and archaeology. My long interest in Buddhist monasticism in Sri Lanka stimulated my interest in the Benedictine Rule in Anglo-Saxon England, and England seemed the obvious place to complete my postgraduate work.

I have since worked with colleagues from a wide range of backgrounds and countries: England, Ireland, Scotland, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Italy, Switzerland, Hungary, Romania, India, Japan, Australia, Canada, America, to name but a few. We have one important thing in common behind our diversity: we are all interested in the intellectual, cultural or historical study of AngloSaxon England. Many are members of the “International” Society of AngloSaxonists. Studies of England are not “owned” by any particular group. An insular American-based perspective only serves to feed the very biases that the discussion has raised. In my long career, nobody has ever suggested that it is odd for me to be doing AngloSaxon studies.

Racist connotations attached to “Anglo-Saxon” anywhere in the world are deplorable and should be condemned outright. But surely racism is based on ignorance, and should be countered through education, not by forcing a society of scholars to change its name? And what is to become of the names of projects such as the Sources of Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture or Fontes AngloSaxonici? Or of publications such as the peer-reviewed journal Anglo-Saxon England? White supremacists in Britain call themselves the English Defence League: are we to proscribe “English”? It is a sad statement when educators in any field bow to the demands of the ignorant.

Rohini Jayatilaka is an affiliated scholar at the Faculty of English, University of Oxford