Library › St Gildas › On the Ruin of Britain

On the Ruin of Britain

St Gildas, tr. Williams, 1899

But let me return to my theme. Who of you, I say, like noble Polycarp, the pastor of the …

But let me return to my theme. Who of you, I say, like noble Polycarp, the pastor of the church at Smyrna¹, witness of Christ, placed a table with kindliness to guests that were violently dragging him to the fire, and when exposed to the flames for his love of Christ said: He who gave me to bear the torture of fire will give me to endure the flames unshaken without any fastening by nails? One more, swiftly flying in my words past the thick forest of the saints, will I put forth by way of example. I mean Basil, the bishop of Caesarea,² who, when threats were pressed by an unjust prince to the effect that unless, by the morrow, he would, like the rest, defile himself with the Arian filth³, he should die without fail, is said to have answered: I in sooth shall to-morrow be the man I am to-day: as for thee, mayest thou not change. Again, he said: Would that I had some worthy reward to offer him who would free Basil from the bond of this frame⁴. Who of you, amid the distraction of tyrants, has inviolably kept the rule given in the apostolic word? I mean the rule which has been observed always by all the holy priests, in all times that have been, rejecting the intimation of men which hurried them headlong to vanity, speaking after this manner: We ought to obey God rather than men.⁵

Notes

Smyrnensis ecclesiae pastor egregius Polycarpus. This brief account of the last days of Polycarp, who died A.D. 155, is taken from Rufinus’ version of the extracts made by Eusebius in Book vi, 15, of his History, from the Martyrium Polycarpi.
Basilium Caesariensem episcopum. The two previous examples are those of early martyrs, whose bold and steadfast spirit Gildas would fain find in the respectable clergy of his time. Now he brings forward a different case: a man who by his firm dignified bearing (A.D. 371), bewildered a cruel praefect—Modestus—and struck awe into the soul of Valens, the persecuting emperor. Valens, as is said, had made an oath to convert all his Christian subjects to Arianism. He is the iniquus princeps mentioned above; but the fearless bishop, who knew how to speak with princes, filled him with admiration and terror, and was almost able to save the province of Cappadocia. The two sayings of Basil, and probably the bulk of what is narrated, Gildas owes to Rufinus, xi, 9, where he continues the History of Eusebius; but there are some details found here which indicate a wider knowledge than could be procured from Rufinus. The account of the persecution of Basil at the hands of Valens is found in Theodoret, iv, 19; Socrates, iv, 26; Sozomen, vi, 16; as well as in the work of Rufinus. The facts are more fully given by Theodoret than by the others, and he appears to have had Gregory of Nazianz’ Oratio in laudem Basilii Magni as an independent source; the Orationes of Gregory were also translated into Latin by Rufinus, as he himself states in the very chapter from which Gildas quotes. Is it not possible that Gildas was acquainted with the incidents of the persecution from either Theodoret or Gregory, as well as from Rufinus? There is no mention in Rufinus of what is implied in the words Arriano caeno; whereas, Theodoret expressly says that the emperor had commanded the Praefect Modestus either to persuade Basil to communicate with Eudoxius (the Arian bishop of Constantinople), or in case he refused, to exile him.
Arriano caeno; with Arian filth: that is, the demand that he should enter into communion with the Arian Eudoxians.
De nodo follis hujus; follis means “bellows,” by which probably Basil means his own frail body. Sozomen (vi, 16) gives us the true meaning: “Basil replied that it would be a great gain to him to be delivered from the bondage of the body, and that he should consider himself under obligation to whoever would free him from that bondage.”
Quis ex vobis: This last question sums up the writer’s complaint against this class: they are not souls that dare; they will not say, “it behoves us to obey God rather than men.”