Talk:Gildas

Untitled

Excellent stuff, Llywrch. I would probably have got round to it eventually but life is short and I am spread very thin... user:sjc

Thanks. Although if someone is looking for something easy to do, It would be nice to create some kind of article -- even stub articles -- for each of the five personages that Gildas mentions, as well as find/write links to the several Romance languages that I mention in this article. As well as some kind of article that explains or mentions how Latin evolved into the several Romance languages.

I see all sorts of articles that need writing/rewriting/adding to, but as you said ``life is short and I am spread very thin". Right now I'm focussing on Late Roman Imperial history & topics relating to Arthur, before I start branching into the dozens of other topics I know something about. llywrch

Cuneglasus

"Cuneglasus of "the Bear's Stronghold" (Din Eirth, possibly Dinarth near Llandudno)" - unlikely to be Dinarth I would have thought, since Maelgwn's main stronghold at Deganwy would have been only a couple of miles away. Apart from Maelgwn, I don't think anything further is known of the other kings denounced by Gildas Rhion 20:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Square brackets and links

I'm not sure where the problem lies -- in the Wikipedia software or my browser -- but when a link is indicated next to a square braket like this [[Aetius]]], the text of the actual link is swallowed, & all I see is this Aetius]. To fix that problem, I have added a space where this problem occurs to fix this.

Or am I the only person to see that phenomena? -- llywrch 21:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Picture

That's actually a picture of Abelard and Heloise. Abelard was abbot of St. Gildas de Rhuys MaryJones 23:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. I never saw Gildas with a nun. Let's delete it. Andrew Dalby 00:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted

I removed the following passage:

The vision presented in this work of a land devastated by plundering raiders and the misrule of corrupt and venial officials has been readily accepted by scholars for centuries, because not only did it fit the accepted belief of invading, destructive barbarians who destroyed Roman civilization within the bounds of the former empire, but it also explained away the awkward question of why Britain was one of the few parts of the Roman Empire that did not acquire a Romance language, as had France and Spain.

It seemed a little strange to me. Obviously, huge sections of the Roman Empire were not Latin speaking, or spoke Latin only as a second language. The large numbers of early Latin loanwords in Welsh are adequate evidence of a Roman presence. The question "why didn't Latin replace British as the colloquial tongue of (lowland) Britain" is not in any way "awkward", nor mysterious, nor indeed in need of much explanation -- Britain was a distant frontier province, separated by the sea, and not as desirable for colonization by Romans from Italy as were Gaul, Spain, and (parts of) North Africa. If anything, it's the lack of survival of Gallic and the pre-Roman Iberian languages that is "awkward" -- Albanian, spoken much closer to Italy, survived quite nicely.

Anyway, it's not clear how Gildas' account relates to the linguistic situation -- there's no evidence that Latin was a vernacular language spoken by a majority of Britons under Roman rule even before the arrival of the Saxons, and subsequent events would have affected Latin and British speakers equally. RandomCritic (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Celtic Church

I re-wrote the first sentence to avoid using the expression 'Celtic Church'. For one thing, Gildas would have thought of himself as a Roman Christian, just as St. Patrick did, equating Christianity with 'Romanitas'. For another, he would have been totally unfamiliar with the word 'Celtic', also with the idea that the Church in his part of the world was a separate entity from the church on the other side of the Channel.Nennius (talk) 08:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Nennius

That's an excellent point.--Wetman (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Year of birth

What are the original sources for the two years of birth? The 1911 Britannica only states 516. Kaldari (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think 516 will be the right year, Britannica is the most scholarly encyclopedia. Also see this discussion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

De Excidio update

Mention of the Apocalyptic beasts should be in the Gildas article ... else we have part I (religious theme), part II (tirade), part III (religious theme). All 3 parts are consistently religious when the Apocalypse is included. Ultimately, when the first and third parts are expanded, De Excidio should probably have its own article.

Not sure why there is a tradition of editing Gildas to refer to Dumnonia rather than Damnonia ... Gildas ties all of the kings together through Maelgwn, and that is historically accurate and credible regarding Damnonia. It makes no sense regarding Dumnonia, which was not under Maelgwn's pre-eminence, and had no known relationship of this kind with either Maelgwn or his kingdom.

Comments welcome. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Steep Holm & Glastonbury

According to Clay, Rotha Mary., (1914). "The Hermits and Anchorites of England" (PDF). Methuen & Co. London. p. 9. Retrieved 23 January 2010.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Gildas left Steep Holm to become Abbot of Glastonbury. Is this strong enough evidence to include in the article?— Rod ^talk 19:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Family

From his brother's names, his father was presumably named Caw. Anything else known about him?

His brother 'Maelog'/'Mailoc' was apparently also revered as a saint, with his feast on the following day, 30 January, per this guy. — LlywelynII 22:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd really prefer to see a more modern source than something printed in 1761 - what do modern scholars say? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Major Revisions

I should like to begin by commending those who have worked so hard to summarize the surviving vitae related to Gildas. This is very useful information. There are, however, a number of problems with the entry in its current form which I hope to address in the coming weeks. Most significantly, the vitae (all of which were composed well after Gildas's floruit) are treated as factual sources for his career when, in reality, nothing of the sort can be assumed. We are thus dependent upon the information that can be reasonably reconstructed from the evidence preserved within the texts that may be securely attributed to him—chiefly the De Excidio Britanniae. To address this, I propose to edit the biographical section to reflect current scholarly concensus.

Further, I believe that it is necessary to clearly differentiate between fact and medieval tradition in the layout of the page. Thus, I envisage an organizational structure that privileges his biographical information and brief remarks concerning the De Exicidio over the later vitae and Arthurian traditions.

Moreover, I would like to expand the further reading section to include more than Dr Larpi's current monograph. There's a significant body of scholarship relating to Gildas that ought to be referenced. Many of the out-of-date references ought to be excised and links to pages of questionable scholarly value should be pruned. Both are frequently misleading or draw upon dubious material.

Medievalbrian (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I concur.Cagwinn (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

That would be valuable. As you say, the sources are very out of date. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree - this page has been a mess for a while, and I would love it if it could be cleaned up, restructured, and had more reputable references. Could you point out some scholarly resources on Gildas? I was just looking for some on Worldcat yesterday and was unimpressed with what I could find. The only thing I put on my reading list was Gildas: New Approaches by Michael Lapidge (Editor), and David Dumville (Editor), and that was published in 1984. --Florimell1919 (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for your responses! I think that we should be able to soon whip this page into shape. Unfortunately for us, Gildas is notoriously difficult in terms of concrete evidence since we've no contemporary evidence for his life beyond what we can tease out of the text of the DEB. Nevertheless, there's some good material out there that can get us started. Here's an initial list of secondary sources:

• Chadwick, O., 'Gildas and the Monastic Orders', The Journal of Theological Studies ns 5 (1954), 78–80
• Dumville, D. N., 'Gildas and Maelgwn: Problems of Dating', in Gildas: New Approaches (Woodbridge, 1984), pp. 51–60
• —, 'Sub-Roman Britain: History and Legend', History ns 62 (1977), 173–92 [repr. in Histories and Pseudo-histories of the Insular Middle Ages (Aldershot, 1990) I]
• Herren, M., 'The Authorship, Date of Composition and Provenance of the So-Called Lorica Gildae', Ériu 24 (1973), 35–51
• Higham, N., Rome, Britain and the Anglo-Saxons (London, 1992)
• Howlett, D., Cambro-Latin Compositions: Their Competence and Craftsmanship (Chippenham, 1998)
• Kerlouegan, F., Le De Excidio Britanniae De Gildas (Paris, 1987)
• Lapidge, M., 'Gildas’s Education and the Latin Culture of sub-Roman Britain', Gildas: New Approaches (Woodbridge, 1984) pp. 27–50
• Larpi, L., 'Prolegomena to a New Edition of Gildas Sapiens, De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae' (SISMEL, 2013)
• McKee, I., 'Gildas: Lessons from History', Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies 51 (2006), 1–36
• Miller, M., 'Bede’s Use of Gildas', English Historical Review 90 (1975), 241–61
• Wood, I., 'The End of Roman Britain: Continental Evidence and Parallels', in GNA (Woodbridge, 1984) pp. 1–26
• —, 'The Fall of the Western Empire and the End of Roman Britain', Britannia 18 (1987), 251–62
• Wright, N., 'Gildas’s Prose Style and Its Origins', in GNA (Woodbridge, 1984), pp. 107–28
• —, 'Aldhelm, Gildas, and Acircius', in History and Literature in Late Antiquity and the Early Medieval West, Collected Studies Series (Aldershot, 1995), pp. 1–28 [first publication] No. XIV

You'll notice that much refers back to the individual essays found in Gildas: New Approaches since they remain at the head of most scholarly work on Gildas in the last fifty years. In your research, keep an eye open for works by Dumville, Herren, Lapidge, Thompson, and Wright. Paul Grosjean needs to be used with extreme care since he was a supporter of Arthur Wade-Evans who argued that the DEB was a forgery.

Editions of the primary text:

• Mommsen, T., ed. 'Gildæ Sapientis De excidio et conquestu Britanniae ac flebili castigation in reges principes et sacerdotes', Chronica minora saec. IV. V. VI. VII. ed. T. Mommsen Vol. III, Monumenta Germaniae Historica (Berlin, 1898)
• Winterbottom, M., ed. and trans., The Ruin of Britain and Other Work, Arthurian Period Sources 7 (London, 1978)

I'll add to this list when I'm in my office this week and have access to my collection. Medievalbrian (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Please don't forget one of the most comprehensive sources on Gildas and his writings:

• Thomas D. O'Sullivan, The De Excidio of Gildas: Its Authenticity and Date, BRILL, 1978. Cagwinn (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't forgotten O'Sullivan's monograph; it is worth noting, however, that his work regarding dating has been roundly criticized by Dumville, Davies, and Winterbottom. While his arguments against Wade-Evans and Grosjean for the unity of the text of the DEB have met with approval, for most scholars there was never any real doubt on that head. Consequently, I don't believe that O'Sullivan will necessarily contribute much to our revisions here. Medievalbrian (talk) 05:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Gorgeous, I love it. Thanks for all the recommended texts, that is incredibly helpful. It's probably going to take me a bit to track them all down, because my library doesn't have copies so I have to do interlibrary loan to get them. Are any of the articles available on any online databases? My library is sloow. The translation of the primary text I have (and the one most commonly available online or in print) is the J. A. Giles translation, probably because it's no longer under copyright. What the general opinion on that? Is it considered a good translation? Florimell1919 (talk) 04:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I have some of them in electronic form, Florimell, and can forward them on to you. Giles is rather dated (and didn't have Mommsen's recension available to him for his translation). Winterbottom, while freer, is generally preferred. Medievalbrian (talk) 05:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

What is the best way to set about revising this? I'm a complete tiro when it comes to editing things on Wikipedia, but can we use someone's sandbox as a place to put things together before introducing it to the world? Is there a better way to set about the task?

While I'm at it here are a few more useful references (which deal chiefly with Gildas's ecclesiastical career and issues of authorship concerning the Fragmenta and the Praefatio de poenitentia, though Herren does make an argument about dating in his piece):

• Herren, Michael W. 'Gildas and Early British Monasticism', Britain 400–600: Language and History, eds. A. Bammesberger and A. Wollmann (Heidelberg, 1990) 65—78
• Davies, W. H. 'The Church in Wales', Christianity in Britain 300-700: Papers presented to the Conference on Christianity in Roman and Sub-Roman Britain held at the University of Nottingham 17-20 April 1967, ed. M. W. Barley and R. P. C. Hanson (Leicester, 1968), pp. 131–50
• Sharpe, Richard, 'Gildas as a Father of the Church' in GNA (Woodbridge, 1984) pp 196–98.
• Dumville, D. N., 'Gildas and Uinniau' in GNA (Woodbridge, 1984) pp. 207–8.

Medievalbrian (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The first volume of the Oxford History of Wales, T. M. Charles-Edwards's Wales and the Britons 350-1064, has over a column in the index on Gildas, though it is a while since I read it and I cannot remember what he said. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not a high-traffic article, so if if it was me (I don't have access to your sources, so it won't be me) I would just set about revising it in situ. If you prefer to rewrite it from scratch, then by all means use your sandbox to draft it, then link to it here, we can make comments and help with the markup and such, and once everybody's happy we can copy the rewritten version into the article. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

"Brythonic"

I've changed the pipelink from "Brythonic" back to "British" in the lead. "Brythonic" is not an ethnic category, it's a linguistic one, and is inappropriate here, partly because linguists seem to prefer "Brittonic" these days, partly because the only language Gildas is known to have used is Latin, but mainly because it's uninformative. It's specialist jargon, which the general reader will have to look up. "British" at least tells you where he came from geographically, which is far more relevant in the introduction than which group of languages the language he presumably spoke belonged to. --Nicknack009 (talk) 06:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine - Brythonic/Brittonic is almost exclusively used for the language family; and while Gildas probably referred to himself as a "Britto" in Latin, we would normally translate that as "British" in English.Cagwinn (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction

In the text we have "but both agree that he was born in what is now Scotland, on the banks of the River Clyde" while in the box we have "Born c. 500 traditionally the valley of the river Clwyd in north Wales." Please could an expert resolve this. Brownturkey (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The sources are unreliable and I have corrected. This article needs general revison as it appears to be largely based on sources which are dated and unreliable. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Vortigern

This morning I deleted a paragraph stating that presence of Vortigern in some versions of De Excidio is a later interpolation because one of the two sources cited does not support the text. An IP has restored an amended version with the comment: "I have restored this argument with a source that is more explicit about this point, since modern recent historical scholarship, such as Halsall, does accept Mommsen's highlighting of this as an interpolation." The new version is

The work's status as one of the sole contemporary pieces of evidence for this period in British history, as well as the text's transmission history, has rendered much of its content highly contestable and a large body of source criticism has developed to this end. One noteworthy example of the difficulties involved in using the De Excidio as a source for post-Roman Britain is the question of the very presence of the mythical king Vortigern within it. It has been widely recognised since at least as early as Theodor Mommsen's Monumenta Germaniae Historica edition of the text that Vortigern's presence is likely an interpolation in a limited number of manuscripts from Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Angorum, and it is therefore entirely possible that Gildas' original text made no reference to Vortigern, for which reason his name is omitted from Mommsen's edition, as well as recent translations such as that of Winterbottom. This argument was recognised as a problem by historians well into the twentieth century, and recent historical work now treats Bede as the first source to mention Vortigern, who only later became associated with the 'proud tyrant'.

This is highly problematic. Vortigern is not regarded by historians as mythical, but as a genuine figure who has been surrounded by legendary accretions (e.g. Thornton, Vortigern, ODNB). It is not correct that Mommsen's omission of Vortigern's name is generally accepted. Winterbottom's translation is cited as omitting it, and he refers instead to a "proud tyrant" (p. 26), but the note to the text has "PROUD TYRANT. Vortigern" (p. 150). E. A. Thompson is cited as supporting Mommsen's view, but he was on the contrary questioning it, and wrote that a new edition would be needed to settle the problem. He cited Dumville, "Sub-Roman Britain: History and Legend", History, 1977, pp. 183-184, which says that Mommsen's edition is unsatisfactory, and that a new reconstruction of De Excidio might well require the addition of Vortigern's name. Halsall is cited as saying that Bede was the first to mention Vortigern, but Halsall also said that Vortigern means something like "high ruler" in old Welsh, and that Gildas's "proud tyrant" is probably a pun on Vortigern's name (p. 15). The same suggestion in made by Thornton in ODNB and John Morris in an introduction to Winterbottom's translation (p. 2). Dudley Miles (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts. One, as this concerns the content of De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae, would it not fit better at that article rather than this one?

Two, the style it's written in is very convoluted and probably not very informative to the general reader. I might suggest rewriting it something like this:

It is a matter of dispute whether Gildas named the "proud tyrant" who invited the Saxons to Britain as Vortigern, as not all manuscripts contain the name. Theodor Mommsen believed that Gildas did not use the name Vortigern, and that in those manuscripts where it appears, it is an interpolation derived from Bede's Ecclesiastical History. Mommsen's 1898 edition of the text in Monumenta Germaniae Historica omits it, and his view has been influential in later scholarship. However, other scholars [expand with examples] have argued that the name Vortigern is original to Gildas.

Thoughts? --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

As the author of the original now disputed paragraph, I would be perfectly happy with this compromise. Both positions have had advocates in the scholarship, and I think it important that they both be represented, rather than simply one of these possibilities be presented as decisive without recognition of the other. 2A00:5BA0:0:3800:0:0:0:50 (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I think that the first sentence is fine if a reliable source can be cited for it, apart from replacing the nonsensical "one of the sole" with "one of the very few". The remainder is simply wrong, in my view. There are many problems with De Excidio, and Vortigern is a very minor one. Mommsen used a version which omitted his name, but it is not clear whether he stated that it was an interpolation from Bede or just omitted it, and it does not really matter either way. Mommsen's omission of Vortigern appears to have been accepted up to the 1970s, although I have not found any examples. Since the 1980s it seems to have been accepted that superbus tyrannus was a pun on Vortigern's name (see sources I cite above and Snyder, An Age of Tyrants, p. 106). Mommsen's edition is no longer considered authoritative, but no better one has been published. As Nicknack suggested above, I do not think that Vortigern is significant for the Gildas article. Dumville's criticisms of Mommsen's edition are relevant to the De Excidio article and the controversy over Vortigern to his own article. Views? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

At any rate, Flint F. Johnson has just published an article making a firmer case against identifying the superbus tyrannus with Vortigern and I have cited it in the article accordingly. 2A02:8071:7922:B400:994F:3ED5:E408:F7C9 (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

It is available here, and Johnson treats resolving the issue as important for ascertaining the date of De Excidio: https://www.academia.edu/143169394/Gildas_s_Legendary_History_of_Post_Roman_Britain 2A02:8071:7922:B400:994F:3ED5:E408:F7C9 (talk) 10:42, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

You ignore the errors I have pointed out and just add one source which you claim makes a firmer case against the identification. Johnson's arguments are unconvincing. Gildas wrote that the council and the proud tyrant invited the Saxons over and Johnson claimed that this was impossible because the necessary provincial administration no longer existed. That is absurd. Johnson also claimed that the identification rests on Bede who is not a reliable source, but no historian rests the case on Bede. I will delete the disputed text as it both has serious errors and is not important for this article, as I have commented above. If you wish to add back text, please discuss it here first. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

My lack of addressing your objections above notwithstanding, Johnston holds a PhD on post-Roman Britain, and makes the point as part of a sequence of arguments that are well grounded in an understanding of late antique administrative and political history, and likewise in the nature of memory transmission and its role in conveying reliable information to authors of premodern texts. The arguments are published in an established, peer-reviewed journal. You and other scholars may disagree with and dislike the argument, but to simply dismiss them out of hand on the grounds of them simply being 'absurd' is not, I would posit, reasonable Wikipedia practice. 2A02:8071:7922:B400:5091:3D32:1279:6AB (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I do find that particular article strange, but as you say that is not a reason for excluding it provided that other views are also discussed, which you appear to be doing where it belongs, in the article on the De Excidio. Perhaps you can add a detailed discussion of Dumville's criticism of Mommsen's edition as it is referenced by E. A. Thompson and Winterbottom. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I do not think it is correct to cite Halsall as denying that Gildas associated the proud tyrant with Vortigern as he suggests p. 15 that it is a pun on Vortigern's name. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I mean there more to cite Halsall as aligning with Mommsen, if not explicitly, with respect to the question of the word 'Vortigern' appearing in Gildas' text, which is a separate question from whether or not the proud tyrant was Vortigern, so it's a slightly distinct claim from the one Johnston is advancing. As per Halsall p. 60: "The status and origins of the information Bede added to Gildas’ story are essentially unknowable. Bede uses probably the oldest recorded form of Vortigern’s name." 2A02:8071:7922:B400:5091:3D32:1279:6AB (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Re: Dumville's criticism, I'll try to draft something on that too when I get a moment. The main motivation behind my small effort here is simply to try and get more of the substantial modern source critical scholarship on Gildas reflected in the various articles about him, even if I'm going about it somewhat ham-fistedly. I do think it important that readers are made aware that even basic questions like "did Gildas even name Vortigern?" are not settled.2A02:8071:7922:B400:5091:3D32:1279:6AB (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2025 (UTC)