First reading of Gildas

[David]

A couple of days ago I read the full text of Gildas for the first
time. Previously I had only read the oft-quoted section relating to
Ambrosius, Badon and the 'Arthurian' period.

What really struck me was his hideous bias towards the Romans and
against the Britons. Gildas appears to have regarded the Britons as a
cowardly rabble incapable of defending themselves against hordes of
revolting barbarians, and the Romans as the noble civilized lot who
have to keep riding in to save Britain's bacon.

Having read the whole text now, the Badon section is even more
interesting. Gildas had to deal with the fact that the degenerate
Britons somehow hit a winning streak for a while, but compensates by
placing the 'last of the Romans' as their leader.

But he even seems a bit uncomfortable with Ambrosius. Gildas's
preferred methods are excessive praise or condemnation, and he doesn't
really praise Ambrosius to the skies. The phrase 'a modest man' just
seems to me a bit uncharacteristic coming from a writer who preferred
to deal in rhetoric.

I don't know what all this implies, but it's just the impression I got
from a first read. Thoughts please from any of you on this group who
must be very very familiar with Gildas?

[Mabon Dane]

Gildas is one of the earliest authorities on King Arthur. Born in the
Romano-British stronghold of Strathclyde Gildas lived at a time when
the British still held onto large portions of ancient Britain.

Gildas did all the usual things that ancient celtic monks did,
pilgrimage, being a hermit, writing a few books for monks and
converting the pagans. Gildas remembered the time when Britain was a
Roman province with solid Roman traditions. The Saxon invasion
brought Roman civilization in Britain to its knees and Gildas put the
blame for this on the rulers of the time of Britain. Gildas was not
best pleased at seeing civilization as he saw it collapsing and
supported any efforts to keep it alive whilst condemning those that
undermined it.

Like so many Romano-British Gildas left Britain for Brittainy where he
died.

[PAUL GADZIKOWSKI]

Mabon Dane <***@h2001.net> wrote:
: Gildas is one of the earliest authorities on King Arthur.

Gildas never says a word about King Arthur...


Paul Gadzikowski, ***@iglou.com since 1995
http://www.arthurkingoftimeandspace.com New cartoons daily.

"Wicky wacky woo"

[Mabon Dane]

Gildas is one of the earliest authorities on King Arthur. Born in the
Romano-British stronghold of Strathclyde Gildas lived at a time when
the British still held onto large portions of ancient Britain.

Gildas did all the usual things that ancient celtic monks did,
pilgrimage, being a hermit, writing a few books for monks and
converting the pagans. Gildas remembered the time when Britain was a
Roman province with solid Roman traditions. The Saxon invasion
brought Roman civilization in Britain to its knees and Gildas put the
blame for this on the rulers of the time of Britain. Gildas was not
best pleased at seeing civilization as he saw it collapsing and
supported any efforts to keep it alive whilst condemning those that
undermined it.

Like so many Romano-British Gildas left Britain for Brittainy where he
died.

[WebSlave]

Post by Mabon Dane
Gildas is one of the earliest authorities on King Arthur.

Except that he doesn't mention him. Gildas might be called one of the
earliest sources for sub-Roman Britain though.

Post by Mabon Dane
Gildas remembered the time when Britain was a
Roman province with solid Roman traditions.

It would be interesting to know when exactly do you think Britain ceased
to be a Roman province and when do you think Gildas was born.

[Mabon Dane]

In answer to some of the questions:

1. Gildas lived in AD500 to AD570.

2. Gildas does not directly mention Arthur but does refer to the "Bear".

3. The disintegration of Roman civilization in Britain was not sudden but gradual.

[Mabon Dane]

The recent response to one of my posts about King Arthur had me
looking at all the historical sources on Arthur and to my surprise he
is mentioned little at all. Why?

For anyone who has made such a major impact upon their people or
country as has been alluded to King Arthur one would then think that
the historians of the time would be falling over themselves either
praising or putting them down. But the silence is deafening. Look at
Alexander the Great, lives to the grand old age of 32 then dies but
there is so much written on him nobody can dismiss his existance. But
what of Arthur? Who was he really?

I have my theories but that will be another post.

[Ian Weir]

Post by Mabon Dane
The recent response to one of my posts about King Arthur had me
looking at all the historical sources on Arthur and to my surprise he
is mentioned little at all. Why?
For anyone who has made such a major impact upon their people or
country as has been alluded to King Arthur one would then think that
the historians of the time would be falling over themselves either
praising or putting them down. But the silence is deafening.

I'm sorry, but isn't that precisely the point? If someone doesn't
exist -- or has little or no significance -- then contemporary writers
have no reason to write about him. The fact that much later writers
believed in Arthur is irrelevant. After all, a zillion contemporary
greeting cards do not prove that the Easter Bunny is based on
historical fact.

Ian

[martymonster]

I'm with you Ian ... although I can't help but notice that if I read your
analogy word for word, I think you might not have made the exact point you
intended. Sorry, I'll go away now.

;)

[snip]...After all, a zillion contemporary
greeting cards do not prove that the Easter Bunny is based on
historical fact.
Ian