On the Ruin of Britain

Notes

1. Romano stigmata: a stigma (στίγμα) was a brand impressed upon slaves and artisans, as a mark of ownership, or for identification. Stigmata, hoc est nota publica, fabricensium brachiis, ad invitationem tironum, infligatur, ut hoc modo saltem possint latitantes agnosci. Cod. Theod. x, 22, 4. In the present passage the marks or emblems of Roman power would be the disasters inflicted upon the barbarians, and these again were visible in the Roman army and navy, as the means of effecting them. It is, however, possible that Gildas is using the word, in a sense not found elsewhere, for the Roman standards. Scholl includes stigma in his list of words found only in Gildas, or found very rarely.
2. Murum non ut alterum. The wall of Hadrian rebuilt of stone. Vide note, p. 34. Gildas speaks of two walls being built, one of turf, the other of stone: in fact, the two walls had been so constructed from the first, the stone wall in A.D. 122, the turf in A.D. 143, so that his words can imply no more than the repairing of them, though the repairs needed, after so many years of neglect and ruin, must have been extensive in the extreme.
3. Additional Note to cc. 5–7, 13–18.
   Gildas in these chapters refers to Roman interference as exercised on four different occasions. Unless we condemn the whole narrative as confused and undeserving of credit, it may be well to endeavour to find some points in which the account given of Roman visits touches well ascertained facts of history. Such an enquiry will, I believe, yield some results not devoid of interest.
   1. Remembering that the leading purpose of this work was to bring about a reformation of morals in Church and State, that it is in fact a Sermon, or a “Tract for the Times,” we must recognise that the writer is in no way bound to present his facts in due order of occurrence. Even more may be said: he is not bound to narrate events which, because of their high importance in fashioning subsequent events, have a special claim upon a historian. He is free, and in a way would be wise, to choose those that have a special bearing upon the message he brings to the notice of his readers. This is exactly what Gildas seems to me to have done: in no way does he call this part “a history;” his intention is simply to say “a few things” respecting the points named by him, before fulfilling his solemn promise (ante promisum Deo volente pauca .... dicere conamur).
   The first visit or expedition of the Romans to Britain is placed by him “after the first peace with the Parthians.” The empire of the world had been won, and an almost universal peace had come to pass (c. 5). Gildas may have read the Third Book of Orosius’ Historiae, where we find similar mention of a Parthian peace (post Parthicam pacem), followed by a general cessation of war, and obedience to Roman law. This was in B.C. 20 under Augustus, after the advance of Tiberius Nero into Armenia. (A full account is given in Merivale’s Rome under the Emperors, vol. iv, p. 173.) Orosius relates these events in order to show that the light of Christianity came into the world at the same time (quodsi etiam, cum imperante Caesare ista proucnerint, in ipso imperio Caesaris inluxisse ortum in hoc mundo Domini nostri Jesu Christi liquidissima probatione manifestum est.—Hist., iii, 5, 8). Gildas also introduces the rise of Christianity, but after relating the events of two Roman expeditions to Britain.
   Now, by many writers, both these have been understood as the expeditions of Julius Caesar (B.C. 55, 54). The Preface, for instance, to the Mon. Hist. Britannica, speaking of the narrative of Gildas, says: “It may be divided into two periods; the former extends from the first invasion of Britain by the Romans to the revolt of Maximus at the close of the fourth century, and the latter from the revolt of Maximus to the author’s own time.” I find it very difficult to accept this view. In any way some confusion in the mind of Gildas may be assumed, who, we again remind ourselves is writing not with a historian’s interest in facts as such, but with a reformer’s bent to find a moral purpose in them. He is, however, definite in certain limits he sets to himself. “Those evils only will I attempt to make public which the island has both suffered and inflicted upon other and distant citizens, in the times of the Roman Emperors” (c. 4). The Parthian peace of which Orosius speaks was secured under Augustus, many years after the death of Julius Caesar, therefore the first expedition described by Gildas, if after this Parthian truce and the subsequent universal peace, cannot be the attempted, though barely successful, conquest of Britain by Caesar. The expedition, according to Gildas, is due to the stubbornness (contumacia) of an unfaithful people (infidelem populum), that is, it was an expedition to punish not to conquer. Such a one could only take place “under the Roman Emperors” after the ten years’ work of conquest and settlement during the reign of Claudius (A.D. 43-53). The vigorous measures under Vespasian’s generals,” particularly Agricola, were intended to advance the Roman occupation, though Agricola, it is well known, succeeded in attaining larger and more permanent results. These, also, must precede the events narrated by Gildas.
   We, therefore, look out for “a peace with the Parthians,” followed by a punitive expedition to Britain, and find the former in the peace made by Hadrian, shortly after the death of Trajan, A.D. 117, the latter in the expedition of Hadrian. Hadrian’s policy of caution aimed at the maintenance of peace by restricting warlike operations “Adeptus imperium . . . tenendae per orbem terrarum paci operam intendit.” This is said by Aelius Spartianus, who in mentioning the difficulties adds further: “Britanni teneri sub Romana ditione non poterant.” It was then that the great wall from Tyne to Solway was built (A.D. 122). “Under Hadrian,” we read in Mommsen’s work: “A severe disaster occurred here, to all appearance a sudden attack on the camp of Eburacum, and the annihilation of the legion stationed there, the same 9th legion which had fought so unsuccessfully in the war with Boudicca. Probably this was occasioned, not by a hostile inroad, but by a revolt of the Northern tribes that passed as subjects of the empire, especially of the Brigantes. With this we have to connect the fact that the wall of Hadrian presents a front towards the south as well as towards the north; evidently it was destined also for the purpose of keeping in check the superficially subdued North of England (The Provinces, i, iSS).” It may not be wrong to conclude that Gildas, with some confusion in that word “first Parthian peace,” has selected this instance, first of all, to point his moral of “evils suffered” for “evils inflicted” by an “unfaithful people” (A.D. 122-124).
   2. At what time must we place the second expedition? Unfortunately it is only described in high-flowing language, almost turgid, void of all details: no name or date is supplied us. The first impression is that it occurred not long after troops had been withdrawn owing to the heavy burden of maintaining them. If so, then we may regard this second visit of the Romans as that which was made under Pius Antoninus to punish renewed conflicts on the part of the Brigantes. At that time, the Roman boundary was extended further north and fixed, though only for a time, by the turf wall built between Clyde and Forth (A.D. 143). But there seem to have been serious disturbances in Roman Britain, as well as renewed attacks by the Caledonians and Maeatae, so that Severus found himself led to interfere by an expedition in 209, during the operations of which he died at York in 211. Either of these two visits of Roman forces would fit the description given by Gildas, while the fact that no further troubles of any kind are mentioned until the end of the fourth century, may incline us to decide in favour of the expedition of Severus.
   3. There is a long interval from 122 or 209 to 383, of which not a word is said by Gildas. He then introduces Maximus, the “tyrannus” or usurper, and makes his first mention of the marauding incursions of the Picts and Scots. However, I believe a good reason for this silence is not far to seek. It has struck many as strange that this historiographus, as he is called by the mediaeval writers, should not have said a word about Constantius Chlorus and his son Constantine embarking together from Boulogne in 306, on purpose to drive back the Picts and Scots, nor of the splendid deeds of Constantine in the war against them. There was a more terrible incursion of these barbarians, aided by the Attacotti, about 368, when the Franks and Saxons also harassed the opposite Gallic coast, plundering and burning and murdering prisoners.* Yet Gildas makes no mention of this, or of the successful attack made upon them by Theodosius, father of Theodosius the Great, nor is anything said respecting the rebuilding of ruined cities and military posts, effected by him in that year (Amm. Marcell., xxviii, 3).
   Gildas, had he been writing as a historian, would be rightly censured for such grave omissions as these, but his motive and plan is different. On that account we cannot wonder that he passes by events, however important, which do not show the Britons to be a guilty people, suffering because of their evil ways. In 306 and 368, the Britons were faithful Roman subjects, who could in no way have contributed to the calamities of the empire. It was otherwise in 383. Was it not Britain herself that sent forth the usurper Maximus? Such is the view that Gildas takes, and, moreover, his action in denuding Britain of Roman troops, for the first time after Agricola’s settlement, laid the island bare to the plundering expeditions of the barbarian tribes. For these reasons, a more detailed account is given both of Maximus himself and of the fresh inroad which followed his abandonment of the island, than of the two early expeditions against British revolt. That the usurpation of Maximus could be laid to the charge of Britain herself, as Gildas represents the matter, finds no insignificant support in some ancient writers. Orosius describes the tyrannus as a man of strong character and probity, worthy to be Augustus, but created emperor against his will (in Britannia invitus propemodum ab exercitu imperator creatus, Hist., vii, 34.) Zosimus dwells upon the unpopularity of Gratian at the time among the soldiery, owing to the favour shown by him to the barbarian Alani (τοῦτο τοῖς στρατιώταις κατὰ τοῦ βασιλέως ἔτεκε μῖσος, Hist. Nova, iv, 35). “It is possible that he (Maximus) was rather the instrument than the author of the mutiny” (Hodgkin’s Italy and Her Invaders, i, 401). Now this is exactly the implication of Gildas’ language: non legitime, sed ritu tyrannico et tumtdtu ante initiatum milite, Maximum mittit (Britannia).
   Maximus crossed over into Gaul, taking with him the greater part of three legions: with these and the forces which joined him on the continent, he was able soon to make himself master of almost the whole of Europe west of Italy.
   The further words of Gildas, which describe this progress, show that he was writing this part also of his narrative with a firm grasp of the real facts of the time.
   He gives prominence to cunning artfulness (callida ars), to perjury and falsehood, on the part of Maximus, which unamiable features of his character are amply attested by writers of the fourth and fifth centuries. Socrates describes the guile by which the young emperor Gratian was captured and murdered (Γρατιανὸς δόλῳ τοῦ τυράννου Μαξίμου ἀνήρητο, H. E., v, 11); Sozomen speaks of the specious pretext he advanced that he would “allow no innovation to be introduced with respect to the national faith and church order.” Mr. Hodgkin, in narrating the meeting of the two armies, that of Maximus and Merobaudes, Gratian’s counsellor and general, adds: “For five days there were slight and indecisive skirmishes, but during all this time Maximus and his right-hand man, Andragathius, the commander of his cavalry, were tampering with the fidelity of Gratian’s troops.” At a later time, when Theodosius was making his preparations to suppress him, aided by the Gothic focdorati, the man of whom Gildas speaks with such sincere reprobation is thus described by the same historian: “Indeed, Maximus, whose one idea of strategy seems to have been to bribe the soldiers of his opponent, had actually entered into negotiations with some of the barbarians, offering them large sums of money if they would betray their master” (Italy and Her Invaders, i, 403, 465). Gildas fixes our attention upon Maximus because through him, the second stage of “the evils suffered” by Britain, begins in a highly aggravated form. But he may have felt also that this usurper, in whose usurpation Britain had a guilty share, had been a prominent figure in history. Ambrose of Milan gives an account of two embassies to him, in which the wily Maximus found the great bishop too astute for him; he is spoken of in the writings of Zosimus, of the ecclesiastical historians Socrates and Sozomen, of Jerome, Augustine, Orosius and Sulpicius Severus, probably others, besides several Chronica and Annales. After reaching Italy in 387, and Rome itself early in 388, the energy of Theodosius the Great brings his career to an end; he was captured and put to death “at the third milestone from Aquileia:’ on August 28th (Prosper Tiro, Chron., and Socrates, H. E., v, 14).
   It is only now that Gildas, for the first time, mentions the Picts and Scots, old enemies though they had been, because Britain was guilty of the old sin of unfaithfulness, and secondly, because not until then had the barbarians found the civilised parts of the island empty of proper garrisons to obstruct their path. It was the best opportunity for robber-inroads.
   4. Two Roman expeditions are mentioned by Gildas as taking place after Maximus had carried the forces needed for defence over to Gaul. The brief account given above will aid us in finding the terminus a quo for the time during which these took place. The position of Maximus, though strong, made it impossible for him to spare any of the old garrisons, much less any other forces, to take the field in Britain against the Scots and Picts.† It may be concluded, therefore, that no expedition could come until Theodosius had afresh reorganised the empire. This brings us to the year 389. It is possible also to fix a terminus ad quem.
   In the last days of December, 406, the Vandals and Alani crossed the Rhine for a furious attack upon the rich provinces of Gaul (Wandali et Halani Gallias trajecto Rheno ingressi II k. Jan. Prosper Tiro, M. G. H., ix, p. 465). In consequence, great dissatisfaction arose in Britain, where many Gallic detachments were then serving, and moved by fear of a general collapse of the empire, they proceeded to set up a new emperor. After making trial of several, they eventually fix on one bearing the noble name of Constantine, οἰηθέντες καθότι ταύτην εἶχε προσηγορίαν καὶ βεβαίως αὐτὸν κρατήσειν τῆς βασιλείας, Sozom., H. E., ix, II; vide also Oros., vii, 40. “Having perpetrated extensive murder, they—i.e., the Vandals, Alani and Suabians—became objects of fear even to the armies serving in Britain, and drove them, through fear of an attack against themselves, to proceed to the election of tyrants such as Marcus and Gratian, and after these Constantine” (Zosimus, vi, 3, i). On this act, Mr. Hodgkin, in the first volume of Italy and Her Invaders, p. 740, remarks: “Where the liegemen of a constitutional king change a ministry, the subjects of an elected emperor upset a dynasty.” The discontented army of Britain was led over to Gaul in the year 407 by Constantine, the third tyrannus, of whose deeds a full account by Dr. Freeman will be found in the English Historical Review, 1886, in his article on “Tyrants of Britain, Gaul and Spain,” or in the above-named work of Mr. Hodgkin. At no time, therefore, in the year 407, or subsequently, could any detachment of Roman forces be sent over to Britain, because this usurpation of Constantine, with his four years of power over the Prefecture of the Gauls, was the beginning of the final abandonment. “It was not Britain that gave up Rome, but Rome that gave up Britain.” By A.D. 446, we know from Gildas, there were hardly any of the old Roman families left in the island.
   Between 383 and 389, as has been said, no succour by the empire could have been despatched to Britain; from 388-9 onwards order and authority were being restored in the West by Theodosius the Great, and continued until 406 or 407. This is, therefore, the interval during which the two expeditions mentioned by Gildas must have taken place, that is, a period of about eighteen years (A.D. 389-407). It would be natural that Theodosius, while reorganising Italy and the Prefecture of the Gauls, after the defeat and execution of Maximus, should not delay in sending succour to Britain. It is certainly difficult to find definite evidence of such assistance. Socrates mentions Chrysanthus, a Novatian bishop at Constantinople, who was drawn into the episcopate against his will. His work as bishop began in 407, but before that he had filled several public offices about the palace, and after being raised to consular rank in Italy, was appointed by Theodosius the Great, Vicar of Britain. In the tasks of this office he acquitted himself well (H. E., vii, 12). It is just possible that in him we have one of the men employed by Theodosius in undoing the havoc caused by Maximus in Britain, which would mean repelling the barbarians.
   Theodosius died in 395, and from that time until his death in 408, Stilicho was actual, though not nominal, ruler of the West. Claudian’s verse has preserved many particulars respecting this brave soldier and strong minister of Honorius, and as the poems do not extend beyond the year 404, the frequent mention of Britain found in them must refer to events anterior to that date. These may be read in the Man. Hist. Brit., xcvii, xcviii, therefore I shall only quote the following from the poem on the Gothic war (De Bella Getico, A.D. 402 or 403):—
   “Venit et extremis legio praetenta Britannis
   Quae Scoto dat frena truci, ferroque notatas
   Pertegit exsangues Picto moriente figuras.”
   We have, therefore, clear evidence that measures were taken to repress the barbarians of the North after the death of Maximus, and before 402. I am further tempted to add the following quaint translation given by Speed in his Great Britaine, from the poem “On the First Consulship of Stilicho,” of the year 400. Britain is made to say of Stilicho—
   “When Seas did foame with strokes of Oares,
   That beat the billowes backe,
   His force effecting with his cares,
   Prevented still my wracke:
   He bade me fear no forraine powers,
   That Picts or Scots could make,
   Nor of the Saxons that on Seas,
   Uncertaine courses take.”
   The reference to Picts and Scots by Claudian may be pushed back some years earlier even than 400.‡ It is, however, unimportant to make any endeavour by way of fixing any precise year. We find it proved for us that help was actually sent to Britain by the Empire during the very time it was possible so to send it. Gildas is in this way vindicated as to the genuineness of his facts, though his mode of describing them may certainly be still open to suspicion. He has been accused of confusion, because historians have sought in his narrative what it could not have entered his thought to narrate. For instance, it was supposed that in c. 17 he was describing the successes of Theodosius (Senior), which took place in 368; but because Gildas places the events of that chapter subsequent to the usurpation of Maximus (383-388), his work was thrown aside with some amount of contempt.
   5. The third appeal to Rome was made, according to him, at the time when Aetius was consul, in 446, but was of necessity fruitless. The Empire was sinking. If, however, the views advanced in this note be correct, or approximately correct, they will help us further to understand his elation that, at last, victory over the old enemies came to the Britons “for the first time after many years: primum per multos annos? These” many years,” as we have seen, would date at latest from Constantine’s elevation in 407. The last help rendered by Rome was the empty letter of Honorius, sent about 410 to the Britons, “that the cities must take care of themselves.” Ὁνωρίου δὲ γράμμασι πρὸς τάς ἐν Βρεττανίᾳ χρησαμένου πόλεις φυλάττεσθαι (Zosimus, vi, 10, 2).
   The next and final disaster came by the deliberate admission of the Saxons into the island.
   * The words of Ammianus Marc., xxvii, 5, 8, have been usually understood as if the Franks and Saxons were ravaging Britain itself along with the northern nations. But must we not understand Gallicanos vero tractus Franci et Saxones isdem confines .... violabant, in the sense taken above?
   † St. Ambrose reminds Maximus, in the second embassy, of the latter’s project to enter Italy “followed by barbarian battalions” (barbarorum stipatus agminibus, Ep. 24).
   ‡ It is interesting to remember, once more, that the xxth legion, Valeria Victrix, established hitherto at Chester, was recalled to the continent by Stilicho about 402; but Claudian’s poem, De Bello Getico, proves that it had, before its withdrawal, done service against the Picts and Scots, as formerly, under Hadrian and Pius, as well as in the expeditions of Severus, it had taken part in the same work (see Mommsen’s Das Romische Heer in Britannien, s. 27).