In Anglo-Saxon Attitudes , J.A. Hilton provides a succinct summary of the evolving views of the Anglo-Saxon people and culture, from the Renaissance to the present day. These ancient English people have, Hilton observes, been exalted for their advanced culture and vilified for their barbarism; used to connect the English nation to Germany and Scandinavia, or with the island's earlier Celtic occupants; seen as a primitive justification for Protestantism, Catholicism, or neo-paganism. However, in all cases the re-envisioning of the Anglo-Saxon language and culture constitutes part of defining or re-inventing English national identity: "Despite its occasional negative aspects, it remains a positive source for expressing the identity not only of the English in this island but also their children throughout the world" (52).
Nonetheless, whether an age views Anglo-Saxons as brutal conquerors (the Enlightenment), triumphant survivors of Norman rule (the Renaissance and, indeed, most popular and intellectual movements except for the Enlightenment) or great conciliators (the Romantic age), Hilton finds them always lauded as the source and justification of democratic process and rule during its slow re- emergence after the Conquest.
While Hilton's survey thus provides a brief--though, given its length, quite informational--starting point for each type of "Anglo-Saxonism," for readers wishing to delve further into them, it certainly offers no in-depth insights. Moreover, his claim that Anglo-Saxon Attitudes is "a book about books about Anglo-Saxons" (7) is never quite borne out, for while he mentions a handful of such texts during his narrative, rarely does he go beyond superficial acknowledgement. Thus, this short history is best suited as an undergraduate reference (for which it would serve quite admirably) or a quick overview for scholars whose fields are far removed. Its readability, helped by a complete absence of specialized vocabulary, assists in both purposes, although occasionally the book evinces particular hobby-horses of the author in odd places. Indeed, the two-page appendix on "Democratic Process" seems somewhat out of place and, offering definitions of such terms as "agenda," "resolution," and "quorum," borders on the facile.
In the same vein, following the appendix, Anglo-Saxon Attitudes presents a brief (13 entry) annotated bibliography of Anglo-Saxon history, language, and literature primers, complete with a reference to the present book and a description of a set of illustrated "Rune Cards." The fact that the detailed ordering information from the publisher immediately follows and takes as much space as the average description suggests that the paucity of texts treated derives from the desire to sell to readers, which outweighs the desire to adequately cover scholarly research.
Indeed, such a suspicion is further bolstered by the glaring omission of some many major texts in the field. Perhaps the author is unaware that "Anglo-Saxonism" is part of the greater practice of medievalism, or that a scholarly organization (Studies in Medievalism, recently renamed the International Society for the Study of Medievalism) has existed for three decades. Whatever the case, Hilton makes no reference to it or to the annual book series and other publications it produces. Even with regard to individual scholars, the book completely ignores some heavy hitters. Where, for example, are references to Tom Shippey or Verlyn Flieger's landmark texts in the discussion of studies of J.R.R. Tolkien? To Helen Damico or Jane Chance in Hilton's (very) brief nod to the place of Anglo-Saxon women? To Michael Alexander's standard histories of Anglo-Saxon culture and literature? To studies by Clare Simmons or Andrew Wawn of nineteenth-century attitudes towards the Scandinavians and the Anglo-Saxons?
Overall, Anglo-Saxon Attitudes , while providing a fine, if superficial, introduction for the non-expert to the changing image of the Anglo-Saxon culture over time, fails to satisfy. It, perhaps necessarily so for its purpose, oversimplifies while it ignores major recent scholarship. In any event, it does not live up to its title or its stated intent.