Idea Transcript
THE GROANS OF THE BRIToNs IOWARD THE BRITISH CivirArEs PERIOD, CIRCA
406-455 C.E.
I
IsI;allnorfcillow t1icvuitings c idivcoclsoJinyou’n cotnitiv, vhich (ifrhcrccvcrw’crccur’of thcni) 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 reliable
sources, or any sources, has been lamented. Over the centuries, myth, pseudo-history, and educated guesswork have rushed in to fill the void.2 The last thirty years have seen a revival of interest in the fifth and sixth centuries, and a great deal of work has been clone on the historical and archaeological records. Ironically, the increased focus on the period has cast a doubt on almost every important assumption that has been macic about early Britain. Ian Wood has noted that between the usurpation of Constantine III in 407 and the death of the Roman consul Aetius in 455 there are a handful of dateable events associated with the British Isles.3 Yet even these are the subject of intense debate. Primary narrative sources, especially the chronicles, have come under fire. Many have been abandoned altogether, especially by archaeologists and histori ans favoring an archaeological approach to the period. With more questions than answers, historians are presented with tnatiy challenges, not the least of which is ‘hat to call this period and over what period of time that identification might 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 Brit ain.” 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 British historical circumstance led to a society that was unique when compared to the Late Roman provinces on the continent. The question of periodization is equally problematic. Traditionally, historians have focused on the years 400600, approximately the time from the departure of the legions to the Augustinian mission.4 While this approach has advantages in that it covers the period from Roman Britain to Christian-era England, it paints with too broad a brush. I will argue that the period from 406 to the mid-450s presents a unique period in British history, one in which the independent civitatcs of the island established a government independent from the Roman Empire. Their revolt in 409 was unparalleled in the West.5 Independence did not mean, however, that affairs in Britain were separate from those on the continent. In 429, the Church became involved in the Pelagian heresy on the island. This coincided with the mili tary affairs of the Roman general Aetius in Armorica, the G allic provi nec across the channel from Britain. In the late 440s the Britons pleaded to this same Aetius for Roman help in their fight against barbarian incursions, and by the time of his death, the last chance for Roman involvement disappeared. The independent British government of 409, succumbing to a variety of internal and external pressures, transformed into an island of petty kingdoms ruled by Gilcias’s famous tyrants, marking the end of the civitates pmod. This paper will look at some of the political, economic, religious, and military aspects of this historical process.
“No Longer Obeying the Romans’ Laws”
In The history of the independent Brittonic kingdoms begins in the late fourth 3$3 the Roman usurper Xlagnus Maximus left Britain, according to Gildas, “depriveclof all her soldiery and armed bands, of her cruel governors and of the flower of her youth, who went with Maximus, but never again returned.” \Vhile Gilcias’s account of the extent of the Roman departure has been called into question, there is no doubt that Maximus’s usurpa tion had weakened the defenses of the island.S The increased Pictish activity in this period, described by Gildas9 and supported by other e’idencc, is a symptom of the weakened state of the Roman military situation. Curiously, Niaximus’s death in 388 did not end his involve ment in British history. By the ninth century, Maximus’s name appears at the head of several Brittonic royal genealogies. According to David Dumville, “He appears both as the last Ro man emperor in Britain and as the tirst ruler of an independent Britain, from w’hom all legitimate power Flowed—a pleasing irony, in view of his actual history as a usurper.” A further weakening of the Roman defenses in Britain occurred at the end of the century. The first of the Pictish wars reported by Gilcias continued nitiltos an iios until 389- 90. In 39$ the Vandal general Stilicho, answering a call for help from the Britons, fought a campaign century.
66
Kcvin \fumnicy
against the Picts. Tn 401, however, he was forced to return to Italy in response to the threat posed by Alaric.’2 His departure with the legions marks a turning point—at least some of the islanc1, such as the area around Chester, would never again experience Roman military pres ence. The revolt that began in 406 hastened the end of Roman Britain and ushered in the cn’iwrcs period. The previous thirty-five years haciplaceci a great deal of stress on the Roman military 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-British history, apart from the periods that Tacitus describes for us.” ‘ In 406 the soldiers in Britain revolted, raising a certain Marcus to the purple. VVe don’t know why the legions were com pelled to rebel or why they chose Marcus. The increase in Irish raiding activity in the south in 405 (attributed to Niall of the Nine Hostages) may have contributed to the unease of the depleted garrison.11 Lack of pay—there had been no imperial issue sent to the island since 402—is another likely cause of discontent.15 The bleak prospect of being stationed in the periphery during a time of crisis in the center of the empire likely compelled the soldiers to look 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 British revolt. 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.’6 In the early months of 407, the British soldiers killed Marcus and appointed Gratian as their leader. He is described by Orosius as mimiccps, some sort of civic official, perhaps a town councilor and member of the aristocracy.’7 \Vhile his reign lasted only four months and ended with his assassination, the presence of a civic official as military commander is the first evidence we have indicating that a representative of the civitcltes assumed a role previously filled by an imperial official. The reason for his murder is unknown, but it is probable that his reluctance to take troops across the channel led to his demise.”1 In early 407, the Germanic peoples were wreaking havoc in Gaul, and pressure contin ued to mount on the island. Zosimus mentions that “[The barbarians] became formidable even to the armies in Britain, which, being afraid they might march against them, they drove to the point of choosing tyrants, the aforesaid Marcus and Gratianus and thereafter Constantinus [Constantine].”9 Constantine is reported to have won the throne by virtue of his fortunate name (lie would later add the imperial name Flavius), but it seems more likely that the army was eager to replace the town eouncilor with a soldier.2’1 By mid 407 more detailed accounts concerning the barbarians, and probably a good many rumors, would have reached the island. As early as May 407, Constantine crossed the channel with a field army estimated at 6,000, leaving only inferior frontier troops in Britain.2’ The last Roman usurper in 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 this paper, 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 in
control of Spain, revolted in 408, the Britons were left to fend for themselves. Zosimus writes of 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 barbarians in Gaul to rise against Constantine. Since Constantine did not hold out against these (the greater part of his strength being in Spain), the barbarians from beyond the Rhine overran everything at will and reduced the inhabitants of the British Island and some of the peoples in Gaul to the necessity of rebelling from the Roman Empire and of living by themselves, no longer obeying the Romans’ laws. The Britons, therefore, taking up arms and fighting on their own behalf, freed the cities from the barbarians who were pressing upon them; and the whole of Armorica and other provinces of Gaul, imitating the Britons, freed themselves in the same way, expelling the Roman officials and establishing a sovereign constitLition On their ow’n authority. And the rebellion of Britain and of the peoples in Gaul took place during 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 British provinces were devastated by an incursion of the Saxons.”21 Thus despite the problems with Chronicle, w’e have an independent verification of a barbarian incursion.25 The island, denuded of 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 an other. Here the history of Britain begins to depart from that of the continent. No other late imperial province reacted in such a vigorous way to the barbarian incursions. Other histories and hagiographies of the period recall the sufferings of the indigenous populations at the hands of the invader, the curious inertness of the locals, and their inability to organize resis tance. Olympiodorus recalls that the Romans in Spain fled to their walled cities and put up with the horrors of cannibalism. He says nothing of active defense.26 So why did the Britons act in such a manner? Understanding the causes of this revolt in Britain tells about the character 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 offi cials, not merely against the Rornans, similar to the bclccludclc of Gaul.27 He sees it as a social rebellion, 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 to indicate a massive peasant uprising. In fact, urban archaeological finds indicate the contrary. Excavations at Silchester, Wroxeter, and Canterbury give evidence of prosperity and conti nuity that make the case for a violent overthrow problematic.29 Also, the class nature of the baccwci (IC themselves has been called into question, and this further clouds the idea of a Late Antique 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 to personal freedom Won wide acceptance among the British elites, and that their unique dis play of initiative was an unleashing of long pent u p desires for a way of life free from Roman tyranny 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 of Constantine 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 twenty years, when they concern the Church enough to inspire the visit of Saint Germanus.33 De spite the fact that later scholarship has shown that the Pelagian movement did not have the social and political aims suggested by Myres, the strong evidence of wealthy Pelagians clur ing this period speaks to unique social conditions on the island.31 The survival ofaheretical segment of the population speaks to a civil administration that is acting (or not acting) in a manner distinct from its late Roman counterpart on the continent. Kenneth Dark, on the other hand, suggests that the revolt was a low status Christian revolt. He sees a connection between the new militancy centered around Martin of Tours, the disappearance of pagan artifacts, and the change in villa status to paint a picture of a revolt of a newly invigorated Christian population against a pagan elite.35 This argument rests on shaky ground. The evidence for Martinian militancy relies on a visit to the island by Victricius of Rouen, the content of which is unknown, and the fact that Constantine’s son Constans may have been a monk. It is impossible to assess what influence this new movement in the Gallic Church may have had in Britain. The archaeological evidence concerning the change in villa status suggests a decline in the economy of Britain in the late fourth and early fifth centuries, and need not be tied to a religious movement.36 Religion may have played apart in the revolt of the civitatcs; it is hard to imagine a significant political event in the fifth century not being influenced by the Church and its followers. However, the recent history of the Roman 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 necessary for survival. We return then to the ci\’itatcs. The fact that the revolt cropped the administration clown to the civitotcs level indicates that they became the most important form of political organiza tion in Britain after the revolt.37 The civitatcs were the building blocks of imperial organiza tim,, their taxes in money and in kind supporting the imperial superstructure.35 The rest of the im penal administration had been cleared off the island. The head of the army, Constantine Ill, was gone, and earlier many Roman administrators left with Stilicho. The Vicarius, who in Britain was both the chief military and civil official, was not present. If he had been, he would have organized the defense.39 Zosimus does not even bother to mention him. It is clear that the expelled Roman officials were of the provincial hierarchy. for the civitatcs to organize a defense 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 precautions
on 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 to the citics of Britain.43 They appear to have written a letter or letters informing him of their measures for self-defense, and his response implies Imperial consent to those measures. The -
letter indicates that at least some of the officials on the island anticipated a return of the Empire, and felt it necessary to maintain communications with Ravcnna.44 Tn 410, the civi tatcs successfully organized a defense, saw to the administration of daily matters, and con
ducted foreign affairs. It is regrettable for the historian that there is virtually no written record for the next two decades.
The Warrior Bishop fortunately, the Gallic chronicler Prosper of Aquitaine provides a reliably dated event that gives a glimpse of life in the third and fourth decades of the century, with the visit to the island by Germanus, Bishop of Auxerrc, and lupus, Bishop of Troyes, in 429. After reporting of the corruption of the British churches by the Pelagian bishop Agricola, Prosper remarks that “at the persuasion of the deacon Palladius, Pope Celestine sent Germanus, bishop of Auxcrre, as his representative, and having rejected the heretics, directed the British to the catholic faith.”45 Despite the characteristically cryptic nature of Prosper’s chronicle entry, he is 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 to take care of a heresy. By this time both Roman law and Catholic doctrine clearly opposed to Pelagianism and empowered citizens and clerics to punish the heretics.46 Yet there is no evidence that anyone in Britain did so prior to Germanus’s visit. The ecclesiastical adminis tration did not seem to have the power to do so. This could indicate several things, most likely the strength of those landowners loyal to Pelagianism and the growing lack of com mu nication 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 the debates between Germanus and the Pelagian officials. As Thompson points out, where else in the Western world were civic officials not involved in matters so vital to the Church?47 The British civil and ecclesiastical administrations appear to have been on a decicledily different course from that of the continent. Germanus’s visit coincided with imperial success in northern Gaul. The Roman general Aetius established himself as the greatest military power in the west between the years 425 and 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 Germanus to Britain and Paflaclius to Ireland occur in the same years. ‘While there is no evidence of coordination between the Church and Empire at this perioeL it seems Likely given their common interests in the region. The connection between events in Armorica and Britain during 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 was beginning to go its own way.48 The story of Germantis’s exploits on the island is contained in the Vita sancti Gcvmani of Constantius of Lyon.18 Historians who do not dismiss Vita as being only of interest as a hagiography 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 “over there,” outside the Empire.51 In twenty short years Britain spun far enough away from the Roman orbit to be considered a foreign nation in ticed of papal correction. V’/hen Germanus and Lupus arrived in l3ritain they were met by multitudes who hael heard of their coming via rumor.52 That civic officials were among the surprised multitudes at the site of Germanus’s landings indicates they were not aware of his mission. The two prelates began to preach, not only “in the churches, but at the crossroads, in the Fields, and in out- of the- way parts of the countryside.”5 Constantius reports nothing of the cities, nor of the civitatcsor the old Roman proviflces. He speaks only vaguely of “regions” in which Germanus was preaching.54 Constantius 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 480s Constantius.hacl no knowledge of their importance, and there was no one alive that could have told him otherwise. The ‘hallelujah victory’ highlights the absence of another important Late Antique figure on the island, that of the warrior bishop. Constantius says “a force of Saxons and Picts had joined forces to make war upon the Britons.”58 Germanus took control of the army and by employing tactics characteristic of late Roman military strategy led his troops in an ambush of the invaders. After stationing the Britons on the rim of a valley through which the invaelers were marching, he had them shout ‘hallelujah’ three times. The echo of this mighty roar is said to have sent the Picts and Saxons in flight, and the Britons w’ere awarded a bloodless victory. The veracity of this story has been eliscussed elsewhere.57 It may also tell as much about Constantius’s Gaul as it does about Germanus’s Britain. However, the fact that a foreign bishop took it upon himself to organize the British defenses suggests that no such figure existed on the island.58 This is a major departure from the continent. The Late Antique bishops in Gaul were usually from the Roman administrative class and were vital in the preservation of orelcr in the fifth century. They were a crucial component in the transition from the Roman Empire to the barbarian kingdoms. Their administrative and military capa bilities 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 conclu sive evidence of the Late Antique cathedral based cities in Britain similar to those that formed on the continent. The absence of Late Antique warrior-bishops may indeed be an important reason for their absence. Constantius introduces a number of individuals on the island who may help piece together a few more facts about British life. The Pelagians that Germanus meets are described as wealthy and powerful, indeed “flaunting their wealth, in dazzling robes, surrounded by a crowd of flatterers.” These may well be those wealthy landowners who took part in the rebellion of 409. Regardless, the depiction of wealth on the island may speak to a temporary economic 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 exiled the 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. On his first visit Germanus met a man of “tribunican power.”62 It is important that Constantius did not give him an exact title. His power was like that of a tribune; Constantine was groping for a description that his audience, still familiar with Roman administration, would under stand. This official was not Roman and was not acting in a Roman manner. He is not inter esteci in the heresy, only in the power of Germanus to heal his daughter.63 The second administrator was a certain Elafius, described as a chief man of the region. Again, he was accorded no Roman title or connected to any Roman administrative unit. He was similarly interested in Germanus’s healing powers, and there is no indication of his involvement in the Pelagian controversy.64 That there is no evidence of a official on the island who takes part in 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, institu tions, and ideological concerns that shaped life on the continent. civic
The Groans of the Britons So the miserable remnantscnt offa lctteragciin, toActius.
‘ToAetius three times consul, thegroans And further on: ‘the barbarians push us to the sea, thc sea pushes us back to the barbarians; betwCCn these two kinds of death, we arc either slaughtered or clrowncd.’5 of the Britons’.
This plaintive cry, first reported by Gildas and later by Bede, paints a far bleaker picture of 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 of this paper will look at some of the factors, both internal and external, that brought our civitates period to a close. 72
N&n Mummcy
It would be a mistake to imagine the Britons spealdngwith one voice. We have seen the activity ofa pro imperial party in the missions ofGermanus and In the letter toAetius In the late 440a Later, in the 460s, the British general Riothamus led an army of several thousand odlesin Gait6’ The failure of civic offfris.1in Britain to provide peace and security, as well as the desire for a significant section of the society to return to the Empire, Indicates a society dIvided and under considerable stress. The exiles to Annorlca likely took with them a great deal of treasure and administrative expertise. The differences between those Britons with local interests and those with Imperial interests were becoming more pronounced by the middle of the century. Archaeological evidence helps filth the picture of a society under stress. The evidence for urban continuity is the subject of considerable debate, but there is agreement on a few points. The practice ofbuildlngwith stone appears to have died out In the early fifth century, and evidence of mosaics disappears at this time? The pottery Industry also drastically contracted during thisperiod. changing from alarge scale manufacturing and trading opera tion to a purely local one, possibly centered around the villa6’ The money economy was also In decline. The legions probably removed most ofthe gold from the islan4 leaving the British economywith Theodosian bronze coinage. By the 440s this supplywould have been consid erably won. Supplies of silver also disappeared; hoarding and Saxon plunder an the most likely causes.6’ Independent civic government would have been difficult to maintain given these stresses on the society, and the opportunities for local strongmen became greater. While there is evidence for the continued importance ofthe former Roman provlnchdcapl tols, the cMwtcs seem to take on a purely defensive function. The decay ofthe Roman infra structure, the decline and irrelevance of the cities, the disappearance of economic activIty, and the lack of a fonnidablc ecclesiastical structure combined by the 440s to create an unstable political situation on the island. The coming of the Saxons and the imperial situa tion on the continentheralded the end ofan era, and itis to these developments that we now turn. The Athcirus Sawnum marked thc beginning, or at least the rapid acceleration, of the process In which British societybroke apart into the petty tyrannies made famous by Gildas. The Gallic Chronicle of 441 reports: “The British provinces, which to this time had suffered various defeats and misfortunes, are reduced to Saxon rnle7’° The Chronicle of 511 adds an even more cryptic notc “Britain abandoned by the Romans passed into the power of the Saxons7” The chronological problems of the Chronicleshave been previously notedP What is Important here is that the Saxon presence was having a dramatic enough effect on the island tobe noted on the continent. There is evidence ofwarlords (exemplified by the pseudohistoricalWrtigern)invitinglargenumbersofSaxonstoaidIntheirconifictsagainstfletish raiders (and probably otherwarlords). The military situation obviously changed since 409, when the Britons provided for their own defense. Despite the fact that the Saxons were now acting asfx&ata, there is no evidence ofthe 73
¶:-
GROANS OF TIlE BRITONS
regulated system of hospitalitas that existed in Gaul and Italy. On the continent, barbarian kings were given a stake in the land in return for its defense. That land was administered by former Roman officials, much as they had in the clays of the empire73 These administrators had long since lett, or been expelled, from Britain. With no personal interest in defending former imperial territory, the Saxons were compelled to seize the land for themselves. The system of payments from the British eventually broke down. The ‘wars of the Saxon feder ates’ began. Gildas reports that the barbarians “plundered from sea to sea.”74 The Britons suffered from a famine which “compelled many of them without delay to yield themselves up to their cruel prosecutors” while others hid in the woods and mountains and continue a kind ofguerilla war.75 Gildas’s dramatic description does not depict the situation on the whole of the island but it does indicate a new political reality!6 The wealthy society of 429 seems already a distant memory. The last chance for the Romans to intervene in Britain was in 447—44$. The consul Aetius was in Armorica dealing with another revolt, and it is at this time, I believe, that the
Britons wrote him their famous letter.77 A party on the island still had a stalce in the Roman Empire. British society was crumbling from both internal and external pressures, as we have seen. The sovereign government reported by Zosimus was no longer tenable. But no help
would he coming from the Empire. Aetius’s death in 455 marked the end of British involve ment in the imperial orbit, and the next one hundred fifty years heralded the development of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the east and the Celtic kingdoms in the west of the island.78 While we can not be sure how long the civitatcs were able to provide for their own defense, or when warlords first appear on the British political landscape, the fact that the Romans could no longer intervene signals an inevitable end. Gildas, writing in the first decades of the sixth century, knew little of the events of the late fourth and early fifth centuries. His memory of the Romans is one of harsh persecutions and a usurper named Magnus Maximus. He was ignorant of Germanus, Pelagianism, and Constantius’s Life, which was probably written around the time of his birth. To him the eastern part of the island was a Saxon rcrra incoguitct. He knew’ nothing of the thousands of
exiles who tied the island and established a new life in Armorica.7 Despite evidence of his Latin education, Gildas’s world was small. He was concerned with the morals and behavior of a few tyrants, Celtic warlords w’ho had seized powier in the west of the island. The society of the Britons of 409 had vanished from the historical memory, its people and their struggles and accomplishments lay silent. The Late Antique world of the civitates was gone. The age of Gildas was, to use Christopher Snyder’s phrase, “an age of tyrants.”8° Kevin Mummey isa professional nlustCian clncl is takinghistoy classes through rhcColkgc of Extended Learn 111g. He is interested in medieval histonogtaphy,pcwticularly is.sucs ofmythandstatc formation ill Bntain. He l4’oIIld like to acknowlcdgcProfcssorJarbcl Rothigueforhis patience, and Lynn Slobodicn, without whose help this paperwciuld lIaVC been impossible. Thanks.
74
I
GRo.As OF Tilt I3RITONS
a Drinkwater, “The Usurpers,” 26987, This section includes an extremely useful synthesis of recent scholar ship. 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 The History 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 GaIIicClnonicleof 452 [bookon line] in Welsh Histoiy:Historical Tests; available from http:// 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 a mess” and doubts that it reflects ss’hat was going on in Britain in 441. I believe the Chronicle to be valuable despite
its flawed chronology. for a good overview, see Steven Muhlbergcr, “The Gallic Chronicle of 452 and its Authority for British events,” Thita,tnia 14 (1983): 2333. 25 Thompson, ‘406 410,” 313 34, from Olympioclorus, frag. 40 Thompson, “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 history ofArmorica in this period and its relevance to Britain needs more exploration. Christopher Snyder, An Age of Tvrants(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 a choice open to lesser aristocrats and gentry. 1 agree with him that easmts would have been too psychologicafly and economically tied to the land to flee to the bacaudae. ‘J.N.L. Myres, “Pelagius And The End Of Ronun Rule tn Britain,” Journal of Roman Studies 50(1960): 32. The article 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 in the 440s shows that the movement had attained such political authority in Britain as to he thought a serious menace to the orthodox regime in Gaul is an exaggeration of conditions in both territories. either Constantius nor Prosper speaks of the situation in the Ga]lic or British churches as being menaced or even seriously 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 to the emperor, Salway has adroitly pointed out that it “may have been no more than a readiness to barter submis sion to imperial authority in return for assistance.” Prosper, Chronicle in Snyder, AgcofTyrants, 38. E.A. Thompson,St.Germantis ofAuverreanclthefnd of Roman 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 may indicate the short life of Pelagianism. 4Thompson,StGcrniaiiiis, 27. “Throughout theentire seciuenceof events during bothof Germanus’ visits, the British rulers are simply not there. Of all the oddities of history of Britain at this time, none is more surprising than 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 powerful and 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 the enemies 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 in LatcAntiquitv, ccl. John Rich (London: Routlecige, 1992),] 49. For Gilcias’s lamous statement on the cities see Phillip 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 anti was acting in Ii is role as a papal legate. However, relations between the Gallic Church and Rome were strai ned at this time, anti Germanus’ relationship to the Pope is unclear. See R.\V. Mathiesen, “Hilarius, Germanus, and Lupus: 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 If this is so, it is hard to imagine a British church joined the heresy, and that is why we do not meet them in surviving after theirexpulsion from the island in the 430s. That there is no evidence in the writings of Patrick or Gilclas 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 of Tyrants, 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’XVIIII CInoiticleof 511, Iheoclositis 11 XVI TI See above, 7. \\‘alter Goffart, Oct rbarictns and Rontans (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1980). This text includes a detailed discussion of the accommodation of the barbarian kingdoms. See Thompson, St. Gerntaitus, 110 111 forthe absence ofsuch a system in Britain. For a discussion of what system of accommodation was being used, and what Gilclas knew 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 he was writing about. See also David Dunnile, “The Chronology of Dc Excidio Brkanniae, Book 1,” in Giklns, New AppmcicIic Michael 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 of Tyrants, especially preface.
78