When the Western Roman Empire finally eroded away in 476 A.C.E., the bureaucratic leadership, engineering, architecture and learning that had characterized the western world faded with it. So much remains unknown from the following centuries because so few were capable of recording it, as the need for learning agriculture and warfare superseded that of reading and writing. Yet reading and writing survived through the last standing institution of the old regime: the church.
Even after the teachings of Christ had been the official religion of Rome for over a century, the practices, rules and even the very structure of Christianity were not fully recognized or coherent. Nevertheless, the early Catholic church survived, and to further their understanding of the gospel, as well as continuing to spread the holy message to the world, the priests and monks continued to read, copy and write. Our perspective of the Early Medieval period, therefore, comes from the point of view of the contemporary holy men. In regards to Britain at this time, our best sources come from the early British saints.
Christianity found a stronghold in the British Isles, even when the pagan Anglo-Saxons came to be the dominant power. Southern Britain and Wales alone recognized hundreds of Christian rulers, martyrs and holy men as saints, including the venerated Dyfrig, Iltyd, Samson, and Cadoc. In fact, according to tradition, Ireland owes its strong Christian identity to the early Brythonic church, thanks to the missionary work of a faithful Briton named Patrick. None of these saints, however, are as intriguing, informative while at the same time frustrating as St. Gildas.
St. Gildas lived and preached in Britain during the 6th Century, before the completion of the Anglo-Saxon settlement. That much is known, and little else. A Life of St. Gildas was written by Caradoc of Llancarfan in the 12th Century, and ties in his life with the early years of Arthur, but this is a later, fanciful creation. What little we know of Gildas, and of 6th Century Britain, comes mainly from his own writings, namely his De Excidio et Conquestu Britannaie (On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain). Its content deals mainly with the sinful and destructive nature Gildas believes Britain and her kings have begun sinking into, but also includes a brief history of Britain, namely the invasions and "groans" that the island suffered during and after the Roman withdrawal. Of great concern is chapter 26, describing the British defensive against the Saxons. "ex eo tempore nunc ciues, nunc hostes, uincebant, ut in ista gente experietur dominus solito more praesentem israelem, utrum diligat eum an non: usque ad annum obsessionis badonici montis, nouissimaeque ferme de furciferis non minimae stragis, quique quadragesimus quartus (ut noui) orditur annus mense iam uno emenso, qui et meae natiuitatis est"/"After this, sometimes our countrymen, sometimes the enemy, won the field, to the end that our Lord might this land try after his accustomed manner these his Israelites, whether they loved him or not, until the year of the siege of Badon Hill, when took place also the last almost, though not the least slaughter of our cruel foes, which was (as I am sure) forty-four years and one month, and also the time of my own nativity" (Gildas, DEB, Ch.26). This account is the primary evidence for the Battle of Badon, and it is the only contemporary evidence. The account establishes that it was a siege, though which side was the besieged is not made clear, and it was the battle that ultimately tipped the balance in favor of the Britons, at least for the moment.
There are, however, several problems with Gildas' account. Firstly, his account does not always coincide with the archaeological evidence. Some of the content can not be verified, while other points conflict with other sources. This may be due to the fact that while Gildas was obviously educated, he was not a historian, nor was it his intention to write a detailed history of the Britons. His main intent was the epistle, a tirade against the iniquities of the Britons and the local kings of the time.
The second problem with Gildas as a source for the Battle of Badon is that while it does prove that the battle occurred, it does not say where the battle occurred. The result is that a number of locations have been put forward, but no solid evidence has been found to verify any of the proposals. Given that Gildas' account implies that the Britons defeated the Saxons at Badon, the battle most likely occurred in the south. The likeliest suggestions in this region range from Bath, Badbury Rings and Badbury/Liddington Castle.
The largest conundrum that Gildas' source causes is that although Gildas names Badon and describes the Britain that Arthur would have lived in, but Gildas does not name Arthur at all, nor does he name the victor at Badon. On the other hand, Gildas names very few people in his epistle, save for five kings he describes as sin-ridden tyrants. The only figure that he names in a positive light is Ambrosius Aurelianus, whom Gildas credits as the head of the Briton resistance. Gildas describes him as one of the last of the Romans in Britain, as a modest man, whose parents "who for their merit were adorned with the purple" (DEB 24), most likely meaning that they were members of a roman senatorial family. Gildas describes him as either a "modest man" or "a man of unassuming character" (DEB 24), depending on the translation. In other words, Gildas admired this man, whom he gives the Roman title of "duce" (DEB 24) or "dux" in the original Latin. While Gildas does not openly connect him with the Badon victory, many modern researchers credit him as the commander at the conflict.
While no one can determine from the text, where the Battle of Badon occurred, nor the identity of the victor, Gildas does give some elusive hints as to when the battle took place. What evidence we have pinpoints the battle somewhere between the last decade of the 5th Century and the first two of the 6th. Gildas states elusively that the battle was fought 44 years and one month before his writing, coinciding with his birth. Given that the battle occurred around 500, the traditional year for DEB is usually pinpointed between 544 and 547, the last years of the reign of Maelgwyn Gwynedd, who traditionally died of plague in 547. However, further study, as demonstrated by this article by Robert Vermaat, the epistle was probably written many years earlier. This is supported by conclusions reached by Dr. David Dumville ("The West Saxon Genealogical Regnal Lists", 1989) and Mike Ashley ("The Mammoth Book of British Kings and Queens") suggests some time between 535 and 537. This would place the battle and Gildas' birth between 490 and 493.
In the end, Gildas' text provides just as many answers as it does questions. While many scholars use it as fuel to their argument that king Arthur never existed, countless others point out that aside from Ambrosius, the epistle only names those that Gildas wishes to berate and rebuke, hinting that if there was a real Arthur at the time, Gildas theoretically may have not had any reason to call him out. The hard truth, however, is that Gildas offers no solid proof for the existence of Arthur, save for verifying the historical battle that the Arthur figure may have been present at.
Here are some links to Gildas's DEB.
http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/arthist/vortigernquotesgil.htm-Robert Vermaat's site, with original Latin text and English translation
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/gildas-full.html-J.A. Giles translation, with some liberties taken
No comments:
Post a Comment