A few thoughts on Gildas and Bede
In the mid 500's, a monk-historian by the name of Gildas put down his thoughts on five British Kings in a work called De excidio et conquestu Britanniae (On the Destruction and Conquest of Britain) sometimes shortened to "The Ruin of Britain". This work, intended as more of a sermon than a history, claims that the invasion of the Saxons and the fall of Britain was due to the sins of the British people. There are a few things of note that are of interest to Arthurian scholars that occur in this work. First, this is the earliest surviving mention of the Battle of Mount Badon, the battle whose victory is later attributed to Arthur. Secondly, this is a major source for information regarding the Saxon invasion and Gildas attributes resistance leadership to an individual by the name of Ambrosius Aurelianus. Lastly, Gildas does not mention Arthur, the supposed victor of "Badon Hill," at all.
This lack of mention of Arthur is a major point of contest among historians arguing for or against the historicity of Arthur. If Gildas didn't mention him then Arthur didn't exist, some would argue, especially when Gildas talks of the battle Arthur was supposed to have won. Others would counter that Arthur was already famous and didn't bear mentioning especially if you take into account the last lines of the book which say "...(the bretons) despise the harmless and humble, but exalt to the stars, so far as they can, their military companions, bloody, proud and murderous men, adulterers and enemies of God - if chance, as they say, so allows: men who should have been rooted out vigorously, name and all." What this says, essentially, is that the British military men that others celebrate deserve to have their names stricken from history. That is a pretty harsh statement coming from a self proclaimed historian. A later historian, Caradoc of Llancarfan, writes in his "Life of St. Gildas" that Gildas had some antipathy towards Arthur because he had killed his brother Hueil. So, this seems to be a reasonable argument as well. Either way, Gildas works remains an important source, and would be used as a reference by later writers and historians who slowly develop the Arthur legend.
I do not feel you need to read Gildas, because it does not directly speak of Arthur, but I do believe you should remember these four points.
Now Let's move on to Bede. Bede, also known as The Venerable Bede, shows a similar situation as that of Gildas in several ways. In 673, about 100 years after the death of Gildas, Bede was born into what appears to be an affluent family much like Gildas himself. He was moved into the church for education, and like Gildas, pursued a life within the church as a monk. He was, however, a much more prolific writer than Gildas, producing over 60 works in his lifetime. The work he is most famous for is his five volume "History of the English Church and People" (Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum). In his five volume History, he discusses the history of Britain with a focus on its christianization. For our purposes we want to examine Arthur's time period, and exactly like Gildas, he does not mention him at all. It has been shown that Bede relied on Gildas's Conquest for that time period. Bede does, however, provide some new information. He names the Breton king that invited the Saxons as Vortigern and the leaders of Saxons as Hengist and Horsa.
It will not be necessary to read this either, because it does not discuss Arthur, but you should take away these few points.
I do not feel you need to read Gildas, because it does not directly speak of Arthur, but I do believe you should remember these four points.
- 1st known mention of the battle of Mount Badon "Badon Hill"
- Early source regarding the Saxon invasion.
- Ambrosius Aurelianus is mentioned as a resistance leader but Arthur is not mentioned at all.
- The lack of Arthur's mention may be deliberate.
Now Let's move on to Bede. Bede, also known as The Venerable Bede, shows a similar situation as that of Gildas in several ways. In 673, about 100 years after the death of Gildas, Bede was born into what appears to be an affluent family much like Gildas himself. He was moved into the church for education, and like Gildas, pursued a life within the church as a monk. He was, however, a much more prolific writer than Gildas, producing over 60 works in his lifetime. The work he is most famous for is his five volume "History of the English Church and People" (Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum). In his five volume History, he discusses the history of Britain with a focus on its christianization. For our purposes we want to examine Arthur's time period, and exactly like Gildas, he does not mention him at all. It has been shown that Bede relied on Gildas's Conquest for that time period. Bede does, however, provide some new information. He names the Breton king that invited the Saxons as Vortigern and the leaders of Saxons as Hengist and Horsa.
It will not be necessary to read this either, because it does not discuss Arthur, but you should take away these few points.
- Its the first known mention of Hengist and Horsa as the leaders of the Saxon invaders and Vortigern as the British king who invited them.
- Bede was using Gildas's account of the Saxon invasion and may duplicate his possible prejudices against Arthur.
References: Oxford Guide to Arthurian Literature and Legend by Alan Lupack pp.14; King Arthur in Legend and History by Richard White, pp. 3,4,19
I have found both of the above books extremely useful in my studies. Look out for my personal reviews of the books later on! Each of these is a link the books on Amazon, I hope you will check them out.
Comments
Post a Comment