Gildas

This work is one of the very few primary sources written by a near contemporary we have for British history in the 6th century AD, the real “Dark Ages” between the end of Roman rule and the proper establishment of the first Anglo Saxon kingdoms (called the sub-Roman period). That said, it is not a very good source for the modern reader, as it was not intended to be an objective chronicle, Gildas’s purpose in writing it being “to preach to his contemporaries in the manner of an Old show more Testament prophet, not to write an historical account for posterity”. Indeed I would say only around 10-15% of the work could be classed as history (valuable though even this is with so little known about this time), and much of the rest is religious polemic designed to bolster his view that British society has undergone decay and deterioration due to its supposed abandonment of the Christian faith. When he does mention a few names of (otherwise unknown) kings in this period, it is to rubbish them. About the only character he speaks favourably of is Ambrosius Aurelianus and, while he mentions the Battle of Mons Badonicus, he does not mention King Arthur, to whom later texts attribute the victory in this battle.

The Delphi edition of the history is supplemented by two later Medieval biographies of the author, one written some three hundred years later in c 800 by a monk in the abbey of Ruys, that Gildas established, and a much short one written over three centuries later in c 1150 by a Welshman Caradoc of Llancarfan. The details of Gildas’s family are completely different in each of these (e.g. he has four brothers in the first biography, and no fewer than 23 in the second one, and their father has a completely different name). The first biography contains colourful incidents describing the various miracles Gildas is supposed to have performed, including saving the people of Rome from a dragon whose noxious breath was spreading plague by ordering it to lie down and die, as well as the more traditional making the lame walk and blind see again type miracles. The second biography mentions King Arthur, though the author does not think much of him.

All in all, this is an interesting historical curiosity due to the rarity of source material from this time, despite its faults for the modern reader. show less

I've rated this 5 stars as this is an absolutely crucial text for Post-Romano British history if only because we have so little written records for that period. However, in saying that, Gildas is an unreliable authority and should be treated accordingly. The fact he nowhere mentions Arthur in what is, it has to be admitted, an old man's rant is not proof he (or whoever we associate with Arthur) did not exist; although it has been used extensively as such. Treat Gildas as one piece in the show more Arthurian puzzle, that because of our lack of contemporary accounts, has given him more weight than he deserves. show less