THE GROANS OF THE BRIToNsIOWARD THE BRITISH CivirArEs PERIOD, CIRCA 406-455 C.E.

I<CVIO IVlfmn1C)’

IsI;allnorfcillow t1icvuitings c idivcoclsoJinyou’n cotnitiv, vhich (ifrhcrccvcrw’crccur’ofthcni) hctvc Iccii consumcd by thcrircs of the encmv, orhvc cconijicuucd my cxilcd coun—ttvmcn into distant kmds..i

Since the time of Gilcias, the first great chronicler of the British, the problem of reliablesources, or any sources, has been lamented. Over the centuries, myth, pseudo-history, andeducated guesswork have rushed in to fill the void.2 The last thirty years have seen a revival ofinterest in the fifth and sixth centuries, and a great deal of work has been clone on thehistorical and archaeological records.

Ironically, the increased focus on the period has cast a doubt on almost every importantassumption that has been macic about early Britain. Ian Wood has noted that between theusurpation of Constantine III in 407 and the death of the Roman consul Aetius in 455 thereare a handful of dateable events associated with the British Isles.3 Yet even these are thesubject of intense debate. Primary narrative sources, especially the chronicles, have comeunder fire. Many have been abandoned altogether, especially by archaeologists and historians favoring an archaeological approach to the period.

With more questions than answers, historians are presented with tnatiy challenges, notthe least of which is ‘hat to call this period and over what period of time that identificationmight be valid. “The End of Roman Britain,” “Post Roman Britain,” “Dark Age Britain,” and“Arthur’s Britain” have been used in the past. From archaeology we have “sub-Roman Britain.” All ofthe above are to some degree unsatisfactory. Since the abandonment of the island

65

GROA5 OF lilt BRITONS

by the legions of Magnus Maximus (388), Stilicho (ca. 402), and lastly Constantine (407),a society began to form there that was clearly not Roman. The singularity of the Britishhistorical circumstance led to a society that was unique when compared to the Late Romanprovinces on the continent.

The question of periodization is equally problematic. Traditionally, historians havefocused on the years 400600, approximately the time from the departure of the legions tothe Augustinian mission.4 While this approach has advantages in that it covers the periodfrom Roman Britain to Christian-era England, it paints with too broad a brush. I will arguethat the period from 406 to the mid-450s presents a unique period in British history, one inwhich the independent civitatcs of the island established a government independent from theRoman Empire. Their revolt in 409 was unparalleled in the West.5 Independence did notmean, however, that affairs in Britain were separate from those on the continent. In 429, theChurch became involved in the Pelagian heresy on the island. This coincided with the military affairs of the Roman general Aetius in Armorica, the G allic provi nec across the channelfrom Britain. In the late 440s the Britons pleaded to this same Aetius for Roman help in theirfight against barbarian incursions, and by the time of his death, the last chance for Romaninvolvement disappeared. The independent British government of 409, succumbing to avariety of internal and external pressures, transformed into an island of petty kingdomsruled by Gilcias’s famous tyrants, marking the end of the civitates pmod. This paper will lookat some of the political, economic, religious, and military aspects of this historical process.

“No Longer Obeying the Romans’ Laws”

The history of the independent Brittonic kingdoms begins in the late fourth century. In3$3 the Roman usurper Xlagnus Maximus left Britain, according to Gildas, “depriveclof allher soldiery and armed bands, of her cruel governors and of the flower of her youth, who wentwith Maximus, but never again returned.” \Vhile Gilcias’s account of the extent of theRoman departure has been called into question, there is no doubt that Maximus’s usurpation had weakened the defenses of the island.S The increased Pictish activity in this period,described by Gildas9 and supported by other e’idencc, is a symptom of the weakened stateof the Roman military situation. Curiously, Niaximus’s death in 388 did not end his involvement in British history. By the ninth century, Maximus’s name appears at the head of severalBrittonic royal genealogies. According to David Dumville, “He appears both as the last Roman emperor in Britain and as the tirst ruler of an independent Britain, from w’hom alllegitimate power Flowed—a pleasing irony, in view of his actual history as a usurper.”

A further weakening of the Roman defenses in Britain occurred at the end of the century.The first of the Pictish wars reported by Gilcias continued nitiltos an iios until 389- 90. In 39$the Vandal general Stilicho, answering a call for help from the Britons, fought a campaign

66

Kcvin \fumnicy

against the Picts. Tn 401, however, he was forced to return to Italy in response to the threatposed by Alaric.’2 His departure with the legions marks a turning point—at least some of theislanc1, such as the area around Chester, would never again experience Roman military presence.

The revolt that began in 406 hastened the end of Roman Britain and ushered in thecn’iwrcs period. The previous thirty-five years haciplaceci a great deal of stress on the Romanmilitary and political structure on the island. Thompson has noted that “we know more

about the years 406-410 than we know about any other quinquennium of Romano-Britishhistory, apart from the periods that Tacitus describes for us.”‘ In 406 the soldiers in Britainrevolted, raising a certain Marcus to the purple. VVe don’t know why the legions were compelled to rebel or why they chose Marcus. The increase in Irish raiding activity in the southin 405 (attributed to Niall of the Nine Hostages) may have contributed to the unease of thedepleted garrison.11 Lack of pay—there had been no imperial issue sent to the island since402—is another likely cause of discontent.15 The bleak prospect of being stationed in theperiphery during a time of crisis in the center of the empire likely compelled the soldiers tolook for a leader who would take them back to the continent.

The events on the continent at the end of 406 provided a clear motive for the Britishrevolt. On December 31, a force of Alans, Vandals, and Suevis crossed the frozen Rhine,overw’helming the imperial and federate forces and making their way unimpeded into Gaul.’6In the early months of 407, the British soldiers killed Marcus and appointed Gratian as theirleader. He is described by Orosius as mimiccps, some sort of civic official, perhaps a towncouncilor and member of the aristocracy.’7 \Vhile his reign lasted only four months andended with his assassination, the presence of a civic official as military commander is the firstevidence we have indicating that a representative of the civitcltes assumed a role previouslyfilled by an imperial official. The reason for his murder is unknown, but it is probable that hisreluctance to take troops across the channel led to his demise.”1

In early 407, the Germanic peoples were wreaking havoc in Gaul, and pressure continued to mount on the island. Zosimus mentions that “[The barbarians] became formidableeven to the armies in Britain, which, being afraid they might march against them, they droveto the point of choosing tyrants, the aforesaid Marcus and Gratianus and thereafterConstantinus [Constantine].”9 Constantine is reported to have won the throne by virtue ofhis fortunate name (lie would later add the imperial name Flavius), but it seems more likelythat the army was eager to replace the town eouncilor with a soldier.2’1 By mid 407 moredetailed accounts concerning the barbarians, and probably a good many rumors, would havereached the island. As early as May 407, Constantine crossed the channel with a field armyestimated at 6,000, leaving only inferior frontier troops in Britain.2’ The last Roman usurperin Britain had gone, and lie had taken the army with him.

While the details of Constantine’s continental ach’entures are outside the scope of thispaper, his fortunes were in decline by 409, rendering him powerless to provide for the de

67

GROANS OF THE BRITONS

fense of the western provinces.22 When Gerontius, the British lieutenant whom he had left incontrol of Spain, revolted in 408, the Britons were left to fend for themselves. Zosimus writesof this in one of the most famous passages in early British history:

Gerontius was incensed and, winning over the troops there (in Spain) caused the barbariansin Gaul to rise against Constantine. Since Constantine did not hold out against these (thegreater part of his strength being in Spain), the barbarians from beyond the Rhine overraneverything at will and reduced the inhabitants of the British Island and some of the peoplesin Gaul to the necessity of rebelling from the Roman Empire and of living by themselves, nolonger obeying the Romans’ laws. The Britons, therefore, taking up arms and fighting ontheir own behalf, freed the cities from the barbarians who were pressing upon them; and thewhole of Armorica and other provinces of Gaul, imitating the Britons, freed themselves inthe same way, expelling the Roman officials and establishing a sovereign constitLition Ontheir ow’n authority. And the rebellion of Britain and of the peoples in Gaul took placeduring the tune of Constantine’s usurpation.23

Historians have long debated this passage, especially the cause and nature of the rebellion.The question of cause is perhaps a bit easier. The GallicChroniclcof452 reports that “the Britishprovinces were devastated by an incursion of the Saxons.”21 Thus despite the problems withChronicle, w’e have an independent verification of a barbarian incursion.25 The island, denudedof troops, administrators, and money, would have little choice hut to look to its own defense.Fighting barbarians is one thing; overthrowing even the vestiges of the empire is quite another.

Here the history of Britain begins to depart from that of the continent. No other lateimperial province reacted in such a vigorous way to the barbarian incursions. Other historiesand hagiographies of the period recall the sufferings of the indigenous populations at thehands of the invader, the curious inertness of the locals, and their inability to organize resistance. Olympiodorus recalls that the Romans in Spain fled to their walled cities and put upwith the horrors of cannibalism. He says nothing of active defense.26 So why did the Britonsact in such a manner? Understanding the causes of this revolt in Britain tells about thecharacter of the island in 410 and the shape that it took in the several decades that followed.E. A. Thompson put forward the idea of a peasant revolt against landowners and civic officials, not merely against the Rornans, similar to the bclccludclc of Gaul.27 He sees it as a socialrebellion, not just a political one. It is a persuasive argument, especially considering Zosirnus’reference to the bacaudic revolt in Armorica, which was not crushed until 417, as “imitating”the revolt in Britain.28 However, there is nothing in the written or archaeological record toindicate a massive peasant uprising. In fact, urban archaeological finds indicate the contrary.Excavations at Silchester, Wroxeter, and Canterbury give evidence of prosperity and continuity that make the case for a violent overthrow problematic.29 Also, the class nature of thebaccwci (IC themselves has been called into question, and this further clouds the idea of a LateAntique class war.68

KCVUI ?1wumcy

Others turn to religion and its effect on the civitatcs as the cause of this singular revolt.J.N.L. Myres suggests that the Pelagian ideas of social justice, self-reliance, and devotion topersonal freedom Won wide acceptance among the British elites, and that their unique display of initiative was an unleashing of long pent u p desires for a way of life free from Romantyranny and corruption.3’ In this scenario, the revolt of the civitatcs is a high-status revolt, a“prudent” step by Pelagian landowners who had ejected the corrupt administration ofConstantine for having failed to protect them from the barbarian This group of well- to -

do landowners, in Myres’s argument, provides support for this movement For another twentyyears, when they concern the Church enough to inspire the visit of Saint Germanus.33 Despite the fact that later scholarship has shown that the Pelagian movement did not have thesocial and political aims suggested by Myres, the strong evidence ofwealthy Pelagians cluring this period speaks to unique social conditions on the island.31 The survival ofahereticalsegment of the population speaks to a civil administration that is acting (or not acting) in amanner distinct from its late Roman counterpart on the continent.

Kenneth Dark, on the other hand, suggests that the revolt was a low status Christianrevolt. He sees a connection between the new militancy centered around Martin of Tours, thedisappearance of pagan artifacts, and the change in villa status to paint a picture of a revolt ofa newly invigorated Christian population against a pagan elite.35 This argument rests onshaky ground. The evidence for Martinian militancy relies on a visit to the island by Victriciusof Rouen, the content of which is unknown, and the fact that Constantine’s son Constansmay have been a monk. It is impossible to assess what influence this new movement in theGallic Church may have had in Britain. The archaeological evidence concerning the change invilla status suggests a decline in the economy of Britain in the late fourth and early fifthcenturies, and need not be tied to a religious movement.36 Religion may have played apart inthe revolt of the civitatcs; it is hard to imagine a significant political event in the fifth centurynot being influenced by the Church and its followers. However, the recent history of theRoman inability to pro’icle peace and security on the island is the more critical element here,in that it created a political situation in which organized self defense was seen as necessaryfor survival.

We return then to the ci\’itatcs. The fact that the revolt cropped the administration clownto the civitotcs level indicates that they became the most important form of political organization in Britain after the revolt.37 The civitatcs were the building blocks of imperial organizatim,, their taxes in money and in kind supporting the imperial superstructure.35 The rest ofthe impenal administration had been cleared off the island. The head of the army, ConstantineIll, was gone, and earlier many Roman administrators left with Stilicho. The Vicarius, who inBritain was both the chiefmilitary and civil official, was not present. If he had been, he wouldhave organized the defense.39 Zosimus does not even bother to mention him. It is clear thatthe expelled Roman officials were of the provincial hierarchy. for the civitatcs to organize adefense against the barbarians, it was first necessary to expel the Roman officials and the

69

GROANS OF THE BRITONS

system of rules and practices designed to keep military power in the hands of the Empire.4°In 410 the emperor Honorius sent a letter to the Britons “bidding them to take precautionson their own behalf”1’ While the letter has been the subject of some debate, it is now consid -

ered to be genuine.42 Its audience is what is of interest: Zosimus tells that Honorius wrote tothe citics of Britain.43 They appear to have written a letter or letters informing him of theirmeasures for self-defense, and his response implies Imperial consent to those measures. Theletter indicates that at least some of the officials on the island anticipated a return of theEmpire, and felt it necessary to maintain communications with Ravcnna.44 Tn 410, the civitatcs successfully organized a defense, saw to the administration of daily matters, and conducted foreign affairs. It is regrettable for the historian that there is virtually no writtenrecord for the next two decades.

The Warrior Bishop

fortunately, the Gallic chronicler Prosper of Aquitaine provides a reliably dated eventthat gives a glimpse of life in the third and fourth decades of the century, with the visit to theisland by Germanus, Bishop ofAuxerrc, and lupus, Bishop of Troyes, in 429. After reportingof the corruption of the British churches by the Pelagian bishop Agricola, Prosper remarksthat “at the persuasion of the deacon Palladius, Pope Celestine sent Germanus, bishop ofAuxcrre, as his representative, and having rejected the heretics, directed the British to thecatholic faith.”45 Despite the characteristically cryptic nature of Prosper’s chronicle entry, heis an unusually good source, writing in 433, only four years after the event. Curiously,Palladius and the Pope sent a Gctllic bishop to deal with the problems of the church in Britain,indicating that there was no one on the island, lay or ecclesiastical, that had the authority totake care of a heresy. By this time both Roman law and Catholic doctrine clearly opposed toPelagianism and empowered citizens and clerics to punish the heretics.46 Yet there is noevidence that anyone in Britain did so prior to Germanus’s visit. The ecclesiastical administration did not seem to have the power to do so. This could indicate several things, mostlikely the strength of those landowners loyal to Pelagianism and the growing lack of communication between the British and Roman churches. Civic power was also curiously uninvolved.Civic officials were apparently unaware of Germanus’s visit and do not take part in thedebates between Germanus and the Pelagian officials. As Thompson points out, where elsein theWestern world were civic officials not involved in matters so vital to the Church?47 TheBritish civil and ecclesiastical administrations appear to have been on a decicledily differentcourse from that of the continent.

Germanus’s visit coincided with imperial success in northern Gaul. The Roman generalAetius established himself as the greatest military power in the west between the years 425and 432. In 429 he campaigned along the Rhine, in 430 in Raetia, in 431in Noricurn. In 432

70

Kcvin Mtimmcv

he was awarded a consulship. The military successes of Aetius and the missions of Germanusto Britain and Paflaclius to Ireland occur in the same years. ‘While there is no evidence ofcoordination between the Church and Empire at this perioeL it seems Likely given theircommon interests in the region. The connection between events in Armorica and Britainduring the rebellion oF 409 is clear, as was another one in 446. As with the events of 410,events in Britain in 429 connected closely to events on the continent, even if the island wasbeginning to go its own way.48

The story of Germantis’s exploits on the island is contained in the Vita sancti Gcvmani ofConstantius of Lyon.18 Historians who do not dismiss Vita as being only of interest as ahagiography have Found several intriguing details concerning life in Britain in the 420s.5°This mission is unique, the first recorded instance of a pope sending a representative “overthere,” outside the Empire.51 In twenty short years Britain spun far enough away from theRoman orbit to be considered a foreign nation in ticed of papal correction. V’/hen Germanusand Lupus arrived in l3ritain they were met by multitudes who hael heard of their coming viarumor.52 That civic officials were among the surprised multitudes at the site of Germanus’slandings indicates they were not aware of his mission. The two prelates began to preach, notonly “in the churches, but at the crossroads, in the Fields, and in out- of the- way parts of thecountryside.”5 Constantius reports nothing of the cities, nor of the civitatcsor the old Romanproviflces. He speaks only vaguely of “regions” in which Germanus was preaching.54Constantius is very specific when he reports of political affairs and cities on the continent.That he does not speak of the cities in Britain does not mean they were absent in the 420s,bctt may be an inehication that their influence was waning.55 In any case, by the 480sConstantius.hacl no knowledge of their importance, and there was no one alive that couldhave told him otherwise.

The ‘hallelujah victory’ highlights the absence of another important Late Antique figureon the island, that of the warrior bishop. Constantius says “a force of Saxons and Picts hadjoined forces to make war upon the Britons.”58 Germanus took control of the army and byemploying tactics characteristic of late Roman military strategy led his troops in an ambushof the invaders. After stationing the Britons on the rim of a valley through which the invaelerswere marching, he had them shout ‘hallelujah’ three times. The echo of this mighty roar issaid to have sent the Picts and Saxons in flight, and the Britons w’ere awarded a bloodlessvictory. The veracity of this story has been eliscussed elsewhere.57 It may also tell as muchabout Constantius’s Gaul as it does about Germanus’s Britain. However, the fact that aforeign bishop took it upon himself to organize the British defenses suggests that no suchfigure existed on the island.58 This is a major departure from the continent. The Late Antiquebishops in Gaul were usually from the Roman administrative class and were vital in thepreservation of orelcr in the fifth century. They were a crucial component in the transitionfrom the Roman Empire to the barbarian kingdoms. Their administrative and military capabilities were vital in the preservation of city life in the west. Yet in Britain, no one similar to a

71

GROANS OF THE BRITONS

Caesarius of Aries appears in the historical record.59 Nor does archaeology provide conclusive evidence of the Late Antique cathedral based cities in Britain similar to those that formedon the continent. The absence of Late Antique warrior-bishops may indeed be an importantreason for their absence.

Constantius introduces a number of individuals on the island who may help piecetogether a few more facts about British life. The Pelagians that Germanus meets are describedas wealthy and powerful, indeed “flaunting their wealth, in dazzling robes, surrounded by acrowd of flatterers.” These may well be those wealthy landowners who took part in therebellion of 409. Regardless, the depiction ofwealth on the island may speak to a temporaryeconomic upturn that would have occurred in the absence of oppressive Roman taxation,before Saxon activity became significant enough to have a disruptive effect on British society.Despite their entourage and wardrobe, Germanus thoroughly defeated and eventually exiledthe Pelagians, revealing their lack of political power and prestige on the island.

The two civic officials provide a small window into the administration of the island. Onhis first visit Germanus met a man of “tribunican power.”62 It is important that Constantiusdid not give him an exact title. His power was like that of a tribune; Constantine was gropingfor a description that his audience, still familiar with Roman administration, would understand. This official was not Roman and was not acting in a Roman manner. He is not interesteci in the heresy, only in the power of Germanus to heal his daughter.63 The secondadministrator was a certain Elafius, described as a chief man of the region. Again, he wasaccorded no Roman title or connected to any Roman administrative unit. He was similarlyinterested in Germanus’s healing powers, and there is no indication of his involvement in thePelagian controversy.64 That there is no evidence of a civic official on the island who takes partin Germanus’s efforts is strange. It would be difficult to find a parallel on the continent,considering the civic and ecclesiastical obsession with heresy during the late antique period.The government of the British civitates operated without some of the individuals, institutions, and ideological concerns that shaped life on the continent.

The Groans of the Britons

So the miserable remnantscnt offa lctteragciin, toActius. ‘ToAetius three times consul, thegroansof the Britons’. Andfurther on: ‘the barbarians push us to the sea, thc sea pushes us back to thebarbarians; betwCCn these two kinds ofdeath, we arc either slaughtered or clrowncd.’5

This plaintive cry, first reported by Gildas and later by Bede, paints a far bleaker pictureof Britain in the late 440s than the vigorous, self-reliant society of 409 depicted by Zosimus.What caused the citizens of Britain to send such a letter to the Empire? The last section ofthis paper will look at some of the factors, both internal and external, that brought ourcivitates period to a close.72

N&nMummcy

Itwouldbe amistake to imagine the Britons spealdngwith one voice.Wehave seen theactivityofa pro imperial party in themissions ofGermanus and In the letter toAetius In thelate 440a Later, in the 460s, the British general Riothamus led an army of several thousandodlesinGait6’ The failure ofcivic offfris.1in Britain to provide peace and security, aswell asthe desire for a significant section of the society to return to the Empire, Indicates a societydIvided and under considerable stress. The exiles toAnnorlca likely tookwith them agreatdeal of treasure and administrative expertise. The differences between those Britons withlocal interests and those with Imperial interests were becomingmore pronounced by themiddle of the century.

Archaeological evidencehelps filth thepicture of a societyunder stress. The evidencefor urban continuity is the subject of considerable debate, but there is agreement on a fewpoints. The practiceofbuildlngwith stone appears tohave died out In the early fifth century,and evidence of mosaics disappears at this time? The pottery Industry also drasticallycontracted during thisperiod. changing from alarge scalemanufacturing and tradingoperation to apurely local one, possibly centered around thevilla6’ The money economywas alsoIn decline. The legions probably removedmost ofthegold from the islan4 leaving the BritisheconomywithTheodosian bronze coinage. By the 440s this supplywould havebeen considerablywon. Supplies of silver also disappeared; hoarding and Saxon plunder an the mostlikely causes.6’ Independent civic governmentwould have been difficult to maintain giventhese stresses on the society, and the opportunities for local strongmen became greater.While there is evidence for the continued importance of the formerRoman provlnchdcapltols, the cMwtcs seem to take on a purely defensive function. The decay ofthe Roman infrastructure, the decline and irrelevance of the cities, the disappearance ofeconomic activIty,and the lack of a fonnidablc ecclesiastical structure combined by the 440s to create anunstable political situation on the island. The coming of the Saxons and the imperial situation on thecontinentheralded the end ofan era, and itis to these developments thatwe nowturn.

The Athcirus Sawnum marked thc beginning, or at least the rapid acceleration, of theprocess In which British societybroke apart into thepetty tyrannies made famousbyGildas.The Gallic Chronicle of 441 reports: “The British provinces, which to this time had sufferedvarious defeats and misfortunes, are reduced to Saxon rnle7’° The Chronicle of 511 adds aneven more cryptic notc “Britain abandoned by the Romans passed into the power of theSaxons7” The chronologicalproblems of the Chronicleshavebeen previously notedP Whatis Important here is that the Saxon presence was having a dramatic enough effect on theisland tobenotedon thecontinent. There is evidenceofwarlords (exemplifiedby the pseudo-historicalWrtigern)invitinglargenumbersofSaxonstoaidIntheirconifictsagainstfletishraiders (and probablyotherwarlords). The militarysituation obviously changed since 409,when the Britonsprovided for their owndefense.

Despite the fact that the Saxonswere nowacting asfx&ata, there is noevidenceofthe

73

¶:--

GROANS OF TIlE BRITONS

regulated system of hospitalitas that existed in Gaul and Italy. On the continent, barbariankings were given a stake in the land in return for its defense. That land was administered byformer Roman officials, much as they had in the clays of the empire73 These administratorshad long since lett, or been expelled, from Britain. With no personal interest in defendingformer imperial territory, the Saxons were compelled to seize the land for themselves. Thesystem of payments from the British eventually broke down. The ‘wars of the Saxon federates’ began. Gildas reports that the barbarians “plundered from sea to sea.”74 The Britonssuffered from a famine which “compelled many of themwithout delay to yield themselves upto their cruel prosecutors” while others hid in the woods and mountains and continue a kindofguerilla war.75 Gildas’s dramatic description does not depict the situation on the whole ofthe island but it does indicate a new political reality!6 The wealthy society of 429 seemsalready a distant memory.

The last chance for the Romans to intervene in Britain was in 447—44$. The consulAetius was in Armorica dealing with another revolt, and it is at this time, I believe, that theBritons wrote him their famous letter.77 A party on the island still had a stalce in the RomanEmpire. British society was crumbling from both internal and external pressures, as we haveseen. The sovereign government reported by Zosimus was no longer tenable. But no helpwould he coming from the Empire. Aetius’s death in 455 marked the end of British involvement in the imperial orbit, and the next one hundred fifty years heralded the development ofthe Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the east and the Celtic kingdoms in the west of the island.78While we can not be sure how long the civitatcs were able to provide for their own defense, orwhen warlords first appear on the British political landscape, the fact that the Romans couldno longer intervene signals an inevitable end.

Gildas, writing in the first decades of the sixth century, knew little of the events of thelate fourth and early fifth centuries. His memory of the Romans is one of harsh persecutionsand a usurper named Magnus Maximus. He was ignorant of Germanus, Pelagianism, andConstantius’s Life, which was probably written around the time of his birth. To him theeastern part of the island was a Saxon rcrra incoguitct. He knew’ nothing of the thousands ofexiles who tied the island and established a new life in Armorica.7 Despite evidence of hisLatin education, Gildas’s world was small. He was concerned with the morals and behavior ofa few tyrants, Celtic warlords w’ho had seized powier in the west of the island. The society ofthe Britons of 409 had vanished from the historical memory, its people and their strugglesand accomplishments lay silent. The Late Antique world of the civitates was gone. The age ofGildas was, to use Christopher Snyder’s phrase, “an age of tyrants.”8°

Kevin Mummey isaprofessional nlustCian clncl is takinghistoy classes through rhcColkgc ofExtended Learn111g. He is interested in medieval histonogtaphy,pcwticularly is.sucs ofmythandstatc formation ill Bntain. Hel4’oIIld like to acknowlcdgcProfcssorJarbcl Rothigueforhis patience, and Lynn Slobodicn, without whosehelp this paperwciuld lIaVC been impossible. Thanks.

74

I<cvin IvltInlnlc)’

NOTES

Gi]das, On The Ruin of I3ritcnn, ccl. and trans ].A. Giles hook on linej 11.2 (1999). Available from the On line ResourceBookfmMcdicvalstudics, http://www.forclham.edu/halsall!basis/gildas full.html; Internet.I David Dumville presents an elegant argument against using myth as history, especial]y the Arthurian myths.He writes, ‘the fact of the matter is that there is no historical evidence about Arthur: we must reject him from ourhistories and, above all, from the titles of our books.” David Dumville, “SuhRoman Britain: History andLegend,” Histoiy 62 (1977): 173 92.2 Ian Wood, “The Fall of The Western Empire and the End of Roman Britain,” Britannia 18(1987): 251.Some have stretched this period even further. Kenneth Dark saw a strong Roman continuity until the lateeighth century. Kenneth Dark, CivitastoKingdom (London and New York: 1_cicester University Press, 1994). In alater work, he amended his end date for the period to the defeat of Cadwallon of Gwynedcl in 633. He cites thisas the end of any aspirations of returning to a unified Britishrulec1 Britain. This is, in tiiy opinion, far too late.The British kingdoms from their inceptions lacked the material culture and the political will foranything likeunification to he possible. Dark, Britai,iand the EncIoJ the Roman Empire (Charleston, SC: Tempus, 2000), 229.1 E. A. Thompson, “Britain, A.D. 406 410,” I3rittania8 (1977): 303 18. A classic introduction with the eharacteristic Thompson flair.Gi]clas, The Ruin, 111.27. “Britain has kings, but they are tyrants For a closer at the early British tyrants ofGildas, see Dumville, “Gilclas and Maelgw’n: Problems of Dating,” in Gilclas: NcwApproachcs, ccl. Dumville andl.apiclgc (Woodbriclge: Suffolk, 1984), 85 106.Gilclas, Thc Ruin, 11.14.P.J. Casey, “Magnus Maximus in Britain: a reappraisal,” in The End ofRoman Britain, cd. P.J. Casey (Oxford:Tempus Reparatum, 1979), 6679.Gilclas, The Ruin, 11.15.Mollie Miller, “Stilicho’s Pictish War,” Britannia 6 (1975): 141 45. An excellent use of the poet Clauclian to fillin the blanks left by Gilclas.Dumvillc, “Sub Roman Britain,” 180.Miller, “Stilicho,” 145.

2 Thompson, “406 410,” 303.Peter Salw’ay, Roman Britain (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 317. Salway offers a

useful discussion of the connection between the policies of Honorius and Stilieho and their effect on the rebellionof 406.14 Salway, Roman I3ritain, 316. Salway provides a variety of explanations for the lack of Roman paylisent after 402,but I agree with him that the best explanation is that Honorius was strapped for cash, aticl simply could nolonger pay’ the troops in Britain. The famous Honorian rescript may have been a formal recognition of a longstanding imperial policy.IS Sheparcl Frerc, Thitannia (London and New York: Routleclge and Kegan Paul, 1987), 353 75: Thompson, “406-410,” 303;].F. Drinkwatcr, “The Usurpcrs Constantine III ancljovinus,” Britannia 29 (1998): 271. MichaelKulikowski has rcccnt]y revived the argument that the crossing took place on 31 December 405. While hisargument rests on “fixing” Prosper’s chronicle, a dangerous proposition, moving the barbarian incursion to 405solves the probleni of motive for the first legionary revolt in Britain in 406. “Barbarians in Gaul, Usurpers inBritain,” Brittania 31 (2000): 325 32.Municeps has also been translated as “inhabitant of a place” and Gratian could therefore have been a soldier,Kulikowski, “Barbarians,” 332.Thompson, “406 410,” 305. Thompson points out that scholars have been eager to guess at the motives for themurders ot Marcus and G ratian, despite the complete lack of evidence. The Roman Legions’ desire to leave forthe continent in the wake of the news of the invasions remains our best guess.5Zosimus, NcsvHistoiy,trans. James]. Buchanan and HarolclT. Davis,inlhcSa.vonShore VI.3 (2001).‘ Drinkwater, “The Usurpers,” 272.20 Drinkwatcr, “The Usurpers,” 275.

75

GRo.As OF Tilt I3RITONS

a Drinkwater, “The Usurpers,” 26987, This section includes an extremely useful synthesis of recent scholarship.Zosimus, New History, \‘I.5. Zosimus is considered to be using the work of Olympiodorus of Thebes ftir this

period. For an excellent introduction to Olympiodorus see].f. Matthews, “Olympiodorus Of Thebes And TheHistory Of The West (A.D. 407-425),”]ownalofRoniansttithes 60(1970): 7997. For Zosimus see E. A.Thompson, “Zosimus on the End of Roman Britain,” Antiquity 30(1956): 163 67.The GaIIicClnonicleof452 [bookon line] in Welsh Histoiy:Historical Tests; available fromhttp:// www’.webexcel. ndirect.co.uk/gwarnant/hanes/texts/textsgaflic.htm; Internet.The reliahilty of the Chronicles has been exhaustively debated. For the affirmative, see ME. Jones and P.J.

Casey, “The Gallic Chronicle restored: a chronology for the Anglo Saxon invasions and the end of Roman Britain,”Britannial9 (1988): 367 98. for the negative, see R.W. Burgess, “The Dark Ages return to hfth century Britain:the ‘restored’ Gallic Chronicle exploded,” Btitcutnia 21(1990): 185 96. Burgess dismisses the Chronicle as “often amess” and doubts that it reflects ss’hat was going on in Britain in 441. I believe the Chronicle to be valuable despiteits flawed chronology. for a good overview, see Steven Muhlbergcr, “The Gallic Chronicle of 452 and itsAuthority for British events,” Thita,tnia 14 (1983): 2333.25 Thompson, ‘406 410,” 313 34, from Olympioclorus, frag. 40Thompson, “4064l0,” esp. pp. 314 16. for background on peasant revolts see]. F. Drinkwater, “The

Bacauclae of fifth Century Gaul.” In Fifth Ccnttuy Gaul: acuisis of identity?, ed. j.f. Drinkwater and Hugh Elton(Cambridge: Cambridge Uni’ ersity Press, 1992).27 Thompson, “406 410,” 314 16. An argument he stayed with throughout his distinguished career. The historyofArmorica in this period and its relevance to Britain needs more exploration.Christopher Snyder, An Age ofTvrants(University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996), 137 63.

A thorough look at contemporary Romano British archaeology.2] F. Drinkwater, “The Bacauclae of fifth Century Gaul,” 213. The author argues that fleeing the land was achoice open to lesser aristocrats and gentry. 1 agree with him that easmts would have been too psychologicaflyand economically tied to the land to flee to the bacaudae.‘J.N.L. Myres, “Pelagius And The End Of Ronun Rule tn Britain,” Journal ofRoman Studies 50(1960): 32. Thearticle begins with a good, concise explanation of Pelagianism.Nlyres, “Pelagius.” 33.° Myres, “Pelagius,” 34. Myres’s assertion that”the svhole circumstances ol Germanus’ visits both in 429 and inthe 440s shows that the movement had attained such political authority in Britain as to he thought a seriousmenace to the orthodox regime in Gaul is an exaggeration of conditions in both territories. eitherConstantius nor Prosper speaks of the situation in the Ga]lic or British churches as being menaced or evenseriously threatened.W. Lieheschut, “Did the Pelagian Movement HaveSocial Aims?,” Historia 12 (1963): 2274I.Dark, Ch’itas to Kingdom, 55 57.° Salway, Roman Britain, 347 48.Sb Drinkwater, “The Usurpers,” 286.Drinkwater, “The Usurpers,” 295 96.Myres, “Pelagius,” 32 33.

N See Zosimus’s account, above, page 6.Zosimus, New Hi.ston’, Vl.lO.Drinkwater, “The Usurpers,” 286.

42 Italics mine.° Salway, Roman Britain, 330. While the rescript is often used as evidence oft “little Britain party” still loyal tothe emperor, Salway has adroitly pointed out that it “may have been no more than a readiness to barter submission to imperial authority in return for assistance.”Prosper, Chronicle in Snyder, AgcofTyrants, 38.E.A. Thompson,St.Germantis ofAuverreanclthefndofRoman Britain (Suffolk: Boyclell, 1984), 28 29. Thompson

points out a law of Honorius dated 30 April 418 that empowered anyone to arrest and bring to trial those

76

Kcvin T1unimcv

suspected of the heresy. It is somewhat curious that this law cHcl not make it into the Theoclosian Code and mayindicate the short life of Pelagianism.4Thompson,StGcrniaiiiis, 27. “Throughout theentire seciuenceof events during bothof Germanus’ visits, theBritish rulers are simply not there. Of all the oddities of history of Britain at this time, none is more surprisingthan this.”Ian Wood, “The Fall of The Western Empire and the End of Roman Britain,” Britaiinia 18 (1987): 252.Constantius of Lyon, VitasanctiGc,mani, ccl. and trans. Thomas Noble and Thomas Heacl,in ‘art gcrii Studies(2001).Ian Wood, “The End of Roman Britain: Continental Evidence and Parallels,” in Gildas:Nc’4q)proachcs,6ll. The

author takes a wars’ looI< ,it the Lifc, closely examining the balance of fact and allegory. His opinions are powerfuland should be kept in mind by anyone using Constantius as a resource lot British history.In locis sins; see Thompson, Si. Gcnncnius, 7.Constantius, Vita, Chapter 14. Constantius uses the more poetic “whose coming had been foretold by theenemies of souls.”Constantius, Vita, Chapter 14.° Thompson, ,St.Gcrmcinus, S 9.° For an excellent look at the late anticiuc city, see W. I_iebeschut, “The End of the Ancient City,” in The City inLatcAntiquitv, ccl. John Rich (London: Routlecige, 1992),] 49. For Gilcias’s lamous statement on the cities seePhillip Dixon, “The cities are not as populated as they once were,” in Rich, The City.Constantius, Vixa, Chapter 17.Michael E. Jones, “The History of the Aileluja Victory,” Albion 18.3 (Fall 1986): 363 373. The article provides

an excellent look at late Roman military strategy. Jones makes a strong ease for Germanus’s military background.37]arbel Roclrigue: cuestions this assumption, suggesting that Germanus may simply have had more status antiwas acting in Ii is role as a papal legate. However, relations between the Gallic Church and Rome were strai ned atthis time, anti Germanus’ relationship to the Pope is unclear. See R.\V. Mathiesen, “Hilarius, Germanus, andLupus: The Aristocratic Background of the Chelidonius Affair,” Phoenft33 (1979): 160 9.\\‘iltiam Kbngshirn. CacsariuscfAries: Life, Testantent. Letters. (Liverpool: Liverpool L’mversity Press, 1994).Constantitis, Vita, Chapter 14.Constantius, Vita, Chapter 14. Thompson. Sr. Geriuanus suggested that the British bishops themselves had

joined the heresy, and that is why we do not meet them in If this is so, it is hard to imagine a British churchsurviving after theirexpulsion from the island in the 430s. That there is no evidence in the writings of Patrick orGilclas of Pelagianism makes it unlikely that Pelagianism was that pervasive.Constantius, Vita, Chapter 15.Thompson, St. Gennaniis. 26.° Constantius, Vita, Chapter 26. Thompson, St. Gennctnus, 7,26 28.Gilcias. TheRuin, 11.20. Becle, Tue EccksiasticaiHiston’ aftlieEnglishpcople, ed. and trans. McClure and Collins (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1969). 25.° Wood, “The Fall,” 261. Snyder. Age ofTyrants, 83.Snycler,AgeofTvrants, 153 54. Park. Ch’itas, 174 78. Frere. Britunnia, 365 66.Frere, Eriiannia, 365.frere, Britan,tia. 363 366. C.H.\’. Sutherland “Coinage in Britain in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries,” in DcirkAge

Britain, cci. D.B. Harden (London: Nlethuen, 1956). 310.Chronicle, Theoclosius II XVIII’XVIIIICInoiticleof 511, Iheoclositis 11 XVI

TI See above, 7.\\‘alter Goffart, Oct rbarictns and Rontans (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1980). This text includes a detaileddiscussion of the accommodation of the barbarian kingdoms. See Thompson, St. Gerntaitus, 110 111 forthe absenceofsuch a system in Britain. For a discussion of what system of accommodation was being used, and what Gilclasknew about it, see Thompson, “Gildas and the History of Britain,” Briicinnia 10(1980): 217-18.° Gilcias, The Ruin, 11.24.

77

GRoANS OF THE BRlTos

Gildas, Ilic Ruin, 11.25.Thompson, “Gildas” for a discussion of the problems of where Gildas was writing and what part of Britain hewas writing about. See also David Dunnile, “The Chronology of Dc Excidio Brkanniae, Book 1,” in Giklns, NewAppmcicIicMichael E.]ones, “The Date of the Letter to the Britons to Aetius,” Bulletin of thcBoard ofCclticStitdics 37(1990):

281 90. Jones suggests an earlier date. Bede, following Gilcias, placed the event in 446. Becle, EH, 25.° See Saiway. Roman Britain, 333 353, for a similar perspective.Thompson,St.Gci-maiius, 115.Snyder, Age ofTyrants, especially preface.

78