Book
II: Legends and history of the end of Roman
Britain
The most
elaborate and demanding of all the books, this
unravels the legendary picture of the end of
Roman unity (I argue that Roman civilization
lasted in Britain long after its political
separation from the Western Empire), separating
it from the purely historical elements, and
trying to show, both what we can actually know
about the end of Roman power, and what the
legends have to tell us about succeeding history.
|
|
Analysis of the
transition from legend to historical fact in
Gildas’ account of the end of Roman power in
Britain. The origin of Gildas’ legend of the
Roman Empire is placed in the British North
beyond the Wall of Hadrian, and accepted ideas
about Ammianus Marcellinus’ account of the
so-called conspiratio barbarica of 367 are
revised - it was an excuse for a Roman settlement
of accounts with the British-based usurper
Valentinus.
Discussion of
the evidence for the Rescript of 410, from which
British independence was held to be dated. It is
rather conservative, and denies one or two
currently accepted tenets.
Some evidence is
brought to argue that, at some point after 410,
the Picts suffered a memorable defeat,
exterminating much of their adult manhood; after
which, the local bishop Ninian temporarily
imposed Baptism and a church system on them. This
defeat established the British Roman state for a
generation, and also welded northern tribes such
as the Gododdin in loyalty both to the British
Roman state and to the Christian religion. The
Picts, on the other hand, soon rebelled.
A is the name I
have given to the legendary pseudo-history of
Roman Britain, from which both Gildas and Nennius
drew versions (Nennius’ version is his
Chapter 30). Here I undertake to reconstruct it,
beginning with an elucidation of major
divergences between Gildas and Nennius’
accounts.
Close analysis
of Gildas’ description of four of his five
tyrants, showing that each is described in a
different and personalized light, and that the
description of each presupposes different sources
of information - in other words, that Gildas did
not merely make up his charges.
This completes
the reconstruction of A, showing that it
articulates in narrative form a complete native
(Celtic) theory of sovereignty and race. As a
narrative, it reached its climax and its end with
the defeat of the Picts mentioned above (in The
Picts destroyed?).
A suggestion
that A itself has its roots in misunderstood
memories of the last fifty years of Roman power
in Britain (analyzed above, in Magnus Maximus
and the Picts), handed down without a time
dimension in the memory of tribes who had a
strong narrative culture but no chronological or
written traditions.
A
reconsideration of the Greek historian
Zosimus’ notorious notice that the British -
shortly after 410 - rebelled against "the
Roman magistrates" and drove them out of
Britain and vast regions of Gaul. The date is
shown to be unhistorical; Zosimus misunderstood a
British-originated account of events that
happened generations after 410. I argue that this
document was "L", also known to Gildas
(see book 1, ch.3 above). Zosimus’
description of the socio-political background to
the "rebellion" is shown to be
precious.
Surviving
stylistic features show that, while A belongs to
the Celtic Christian culture of Gildas rather
than to any surviving Roman environment, it is
somewhat earlier than Gildas. After a
considerable oral prehistory (see The
prehistory of A) it was written down in Latin
some time between 490 and 540. This emerges as
the likeliest period for Zosimus’
"rebellion".
This argues that
there was some sort of continuity in British
history between a series of pretender Roman
Emperors claiming their succession from
Constantine III (407-411) and the definitely
Celticized kings of Gildas’ time, and that
Constantine came to be regarded as the founder of
British monarchy. Once we reject Zosimus’
misleading notice, we must regard the lords of
Britain in the fifth century as Roman.
History
of Britain, 407-597 is copyright © 2002, Fabio
P. Barbieri. Used with permission.
Comments
to: Fabio P.
Barbieri
|
