Strategies of Identity Construction: The Writings of Gildas, Aneirin and Bede 9783737004312, 9783847104315, 9783847004318

Citation preview

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Super alta perennis Studien zur Wirkung der Klassischen Antike

Band 18

Herausgegeben von Uwe Baumann, Marc Laureys und Winfried Schmitz

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Stefan J. Schustereder

Strategies of Identity Construction The Writings of Gildas, Aneirin and Bede

V& R unipress Bonn University Press

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

®

MIX Papier aus verantwortungsvollen Quellen

www.fsc.org

FSC® C083411

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. ISSN 2198-6134 ISBN 978-3-8471-0431-5 ISBN 978-3-8470-0431-8 (E-Book) ISBN 978-3-7370-0431-2 (V& R eLibrary) Weitere Ausgaben und Online-Angebote sind erhältlich unter: www.v-r.de Veröffentlichungen der Bonn University Press erscheinen im Verlag V& R unipress GmbH.  2015, V& R unipress GmbH, Robert-Bosch-Breite 6, 37079 Göttingen / www.v-r.de Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk und seine Teile sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fällen bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Einwilligung des Verlages. Printed in Germany. Titelbild: Cardiff Manuscript 2.81 – Llyfr Aneirin (‘The Book of Aneirin’), p. 23, supplied by Llyfrgell Genedlaethol Cymru / National Library of Wales by permission of Cardiff Council Library Service. Druck und Bindung: CPI buchbuecher.de GmbH, Zum Alten Berg 24, 96158 Birkach Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier.

Content

1 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3 eoretical considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Imagined Communities - the construction of identity 3.2 Medieval Ethnic communities and Writing . . . . . . 3.3 Markers of ethnic identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 e Founding Myth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4 Heroic Figure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.5 Rule and Kingship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.6 Customs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.7 Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.8 Territory and Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.9 Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.10 Otherness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.11 Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.12 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 21 25 28 29 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 40 42 43

4 Discussion of other Potential Source Writings . 4.1 Adomnán’s Vita Sancti Columbae . . . . 4.2 e vitae of St Cuthbert . . . . . . . . . 4.3 e Whitby Life of Gregory the Great . . . 4.4 Felix’s Life of St Guthlac . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Stephen of Ripon’s Vita Sancti Wilfrithi . 4.6 e Works of Taliesin . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

45 45 46 47 47 48 49

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

5 Methodological Considerations - Identity Construction as Discourse . . 51 5.1 e concept of discourse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 5.2 Discourse and the Construction of Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

6

Content

5.3 Discourse Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 Historical Discourse Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 Critical Discourse Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.3 e Discourse Historical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.4 Analysis of the Discoursive Strategy (ADS) of Identity Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Methodological Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Authorship and Date of Composition . . . . . . . . . 6.1.1 e origin of the name Gildas . . . . . . . . . 6.1.2 Gildas’ geographical background . . . . . . . . 6.1.3 Gildas’ educational background . . . . . . . . 6.1.4 Date of Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Manuscripts and Editions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Structure and Subject Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Gentes and collective identities in Gildas’ DEB . . . . 6.4.1 Britons in Gildas’ De Excidio Britanniae . . . . 6.4.2 Romans in Gildas’ De Excidio Britanniae . . . 6.4.3 e Saxons in Gildas’ De Excidio Britanniae . . 6.4.4 Picts and Scots in Gildas’ De Excidio Britanniae 6.5 Summary and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

56 56 57 58

. . . 58 . . . 61 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

65 68 68 69 71 74 80 81 82 82 91 94 97 100

7 Aneirin’s Y Gododdin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Authorship and Date of Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Manuscripts and Editions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Structure and subject matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Gentes and collective identities in Aneirin’s Gododdin poems 7.4.1 e Britons in Y Gododdin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.2 e Saxons in Y Gododdin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.3 e English in Y Gododdin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.4 People of Deira, Bernicia and Gwynedd in Y Gododdin 7.4.5 Christian references in the Gododdin poems . . . . . 7.5 Summary and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

109 112 121 126 129 131 135 138 141 150 154

8 Bede’s Historiae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 Authorship and Dates of Composition . 8.1.1 Bede’s Life and Death . . . . . . 8.1.2 Bede’s Language . . . . . . . . . 8.1.3 Jarrow and Wearmouth . . . . . 8.2 e scholarly discussion about Bede . . 8.3 Bede’s Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

161 164 164 166 167 168 170

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

7

Content

8.4 Selection of texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4.1 e Historia Ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum . . 8.4.2 e Chronica Minor and the Chronica Maior 8.4.3 e Historia Abbatum . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 Manuscripts and Editions of the Texts . . . . . . . . 8.5.1 Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum . . . . 8.5.2 Chronica Maior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 Structure and Subject Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6.1 Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum . . . . 8.6.2 Chronica Maior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7 Gentes and collective identities in Bede’s writings . . 8.7.1 Bede and the Britons . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7.1.1 e Britons, Bede and the DEB . . . 8.7.1.2 Bede and the Britons aer Gildas . . 8.7.2 Bede and the Saxons . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7.2.1 e geuissi in the HE . . . . . . . . . 8.7.2.2 e gyrui in the HE . . . . . . . . . . 8.7.2.3 e Continental Saxons in the HE . . 8.7.3 Bede and the angli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7.4 Bede, the picti and the scotti . . . . . . . . . 8.8 Summary and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

171 172 173 174 175 175 176 177 177 180 181 181 181 200 204 209 211 213 216 227 238

9 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 9.1 Textual and Intertextual Identity Markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 10 Conclusion - Strategies of Identity Construction . . . . . . . . . . 10.1 Strategies of identity construction - the Analysis of Discourse Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 Aneirin’s Y Gododdin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4 Bede’s Historiae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 Outlook for further research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . 257 . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

257 259 260 261 265

Editions and Translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

1 Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to all my teachers, colleagues and friends who supported and helped me to finish this project. I am particularly indebted to my supervisors Professor Dr. Dr.hc. Hildegard L.C. Tristram (University of Freiburg) for her genuine and patient supervision of my dissertation since its very beginning, to Professor Dr. Felix Heinzer (University of Freiburg) for his support, his helpful comments and our interesting discussions and to Professor Dr. omas Charles-Edwards (Jesus College, University of Oxford) for his guidance and for sharing his fascination for early medieval writings with me. My sincere thanks to Professor Fiona Tolhurst (Florida Gulf Coast University) for her patient support and for all the advice and help she provided and to Dr. Susan Reynolds (London) for our discussions, her helpful comments, her patience and endless motivation. I would also like to thank Professor Andrew J. Johnston (Freie Universität, Berlin) for his support and encouragement, Professor Stefan Zimmer (University of Bonn) for his help with the Welsh texts, Dr. Irene Balles (University of Bonn) for her support in finding etymologies for Late British words, Professor John Hutchinson (London School of Economics) for his advice on identity construction and nationalism, Professor Winfried Rudolf (University of Göttingen) for his helpful remarks, Dr. Bianca Kossmann (University of Freiburg) for her patient advice and her helpful comments on my dras, Dr. Luciana Meinking Guimarães (University of Freiburg) for her guidance, her advice and her example and Dr. Rüdiger Lorenz (University of Freiburg) for sharing his expertise on the wonders of the Latin language with me. I would also like to express my sincere thanks to all my teachers, whose training and advice have led me to approach this dissertation, most of all Professor Wolfgang Hochbruck (University of Freiburg), Professor Jon Adams (University of Freiburg), Professor omas Zotz (University of Freiburg), Professor Andreas Bihrer (University of Kiel), Professor Rüdiger Müller (University of Guelph, Ontario), Professor Stephen Henighan (University of Guelph, Ontario) and Professor Hartwig Mayer (University of Toronto). Moreover, I would like to thank Professor Tristram, Professor Tolhurst, Dr. Reynolds, Dr. Kossmann, Dr. Meinking Guimarães, Dr. Rüdiger Lorenz, Dr. Ninja Schulz, Kathrin Behrendt and Agnes Laba for their support and for days and

10

Acknowledgements

weeks of proof-reading, commenting and correcting. Without the support of all these great people I would not have been able to approach this project, let alone finish it. e responsibility for all the views expressed here and for all the errors in this work is, of course, my own.

is island at present, following the number of the books in which the Divine law was written, contains five nations, the English, Britons, Scots, Picts, and Latins, each in its own peculiar dialect cultivating the sublime study of Divine truth. The Venerable Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum, Book I, Chapter I.

Lastly, it is inhabited of five peoples, Romans, to wit, Britons, Saxons, Picts and Scots. Geoffrey of Monmouth, Historia Regum Britanniae, Chapter II.

2 Introduction

roughout history, people have believed to live in a world of distinct groups, differing in culture, ethnicity or origin. is belief is based on features of identity which are applied to formulate the differences between individuals or between different peoples. ese features, or the terms referring to them, have always functioned as symbols of identification for individuals and communities either in the way of self-identification or to contrast others from oneself (Le Page 1985: 208). With their symbolism, these terms allowed communities to formulate a unity of individuals agreeing to the categories of a group and also to mediate the difference to other communities, maybe even sometimes emphasizing barriers. Both, Bede, who wrote his Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum around AD 732, and Geoffrey of Monmouth, who wrote his Historia Regum Britanniae around AD 1137, name five particular peoples living in Britain. ese quotes are only two examples found in writings from earlier as well as later authors who mention these peoples to live on the island. Bede and Geoffrey use the names of these peoples to distinguish them from each other. e same peoples appear in Gildas’ De Excidio Britanniae, dated to the mid-6th century, and most of them can be found in the late British vernacular poem Y Gododdyn, presumably dated only a few decades later. ese quotes demonstrate an early awareness of the different collective groups inhabiting Britain and were obviously used to differentiate between them. Comparing the quotations from the early eighth-century historian Bede and the twelh-century historian Geoffrey, the reader recognizes a peculiar difference: Bede’s Angles were replaced by Geoffrey’s Saxons. is then leads to two questions: where there no Saxons in Britain when Bede wrote his text? And had the Angles le the island when Geoffrey wrote his history? Of course, both assumptions are wrong. Saxons and Angles had lived in Britain for centuries before either of the two authors began to write. Reading these two passages in contrast to each other shows that both authors named different groups: the names of the peoples of Britain, as well as their origins, histories and traditions, were treated very consciously in the writings of medieval Britain. Information was added and le out on purpose in order to give history a different meaning. Authors worked consciously with the features that construct collective

14

Introduction

identities and were, in spite of the differences in the passages shown before, very much aware of the peoples that inhabited Britain. It is the aim of this study to show how this awareness was constructed in early medieval writings in Britain and how this construction of collective identities relates to the contemporary political and social developments. is study will approach three exemplary writings from the period between AD 550 to AD 732 in order to show how the respective features of identity construction were and still are presented. e three sources chosen for this study represent different perspectives on peoples in Britain during this time. Two of them come from British authors, Gildas and Aneirin, who wrote about their own people as well as about the peoples who began invading the island shortly aer the fall of the Roman Empire in the mid-fih century. e third author, the Venerable Bede, writes from the perspective of these invading peoples and speaks of his view of the invasion and about the peoples who lived in Britain. e authors also differ in regard to their social background. While two of them, Gildas and Bede, were ecclesiastics, the third author, Aneirin, wrote his poem from a secular perspective. Another difference between the sources which will be used in this study is their textual genre. Earlier studies, like the research of the concept of origo gentis limited their focus to writings of the genre of historiae (Plassmann 2006: 31–32). I will show that the construction of identities is not limited to this specific genre but can be found in all the writings dealt with in my thesis, which belong to the textual genres of letters, poems, histories and chronicles. e central research questions of my thesis can thus be formulated as follows: what are the features that can be considered to have been instrumental in the construction of the identity of a gens? How is the use of these features influenced by the historical and social context of the writings and their authors? Where are the similarities in the use of these features in the texts, where are their differences? How can these similarities and differences be explained? Following these questions, my study will show that features of identity construction can be found in writings from different genres and from different social and ethnic backgrounds. In spite of these differences, features of identity construction are also inherited from earlier writings and put into a new context in order to fit the purpose of a new writing. e construction of identities in texts will therefore be demonstrated to have been a dynamic process embedded in the strategies of authors who were writing for a specific purpose. In other words, the respective identities are not freshly constructed for each writing but rather copied from earlier writings and recontextualized in the new texts depending on the perspective and purpose of the author. Before entering the discussion of collective identity it is necessary to outline the geographical area this paper is referring to, namely Britain. Even common geographical and cultural terms tend to be used incorrectly, even among scho-

Introduction

15

lars, especially scholars with a non-British research background. e term English refers to the landmass or the people in the south-west of Britain. erefore, arguing against common critical statements, England is not the name of the entire island but forms a part of the island of Britain sharing its landmass with Scotland, Wales and Cornwall.¹ is study uses the geographic term Britain or Island of Britain when referring to the island that includes the areas of England, Scotland and Wales.² At this point it needs to be emphasized that this geographical definition must not be confused with a political definition of the term Britain; in the Middle Ages, this term referred to the area under Roman administration between AD 46 and until about 410. Furthermore, the term British refers to the inhabitants of this province and was used to distinguish them from the other gentes on the island such as the Picts, the Scots, i.e. the Irish in the north of Britain, and the Saxons or Anglo-Saxons. e Britons later changed their name into Cymraeg referring to the gens living in Strathclyde-Cumbria and in the area we know today as Wales, a term which originated from the Anglo-Saxon word wealas, meaning foreigner or slave. However, this differentiation only took place aer the seventh century (Davies 1995: 8). In earlier sources, as will be shown, the term British was applied to distinguish the inhabitants of the Roman province from the Picts in the north and the Saxon invaders. Concerning the terminology used in this thesis, the term gens is used when referring to the Britons, the Saxons or Anglo-Saxons or other collective or ethnic groups. ere are two reasons for this approach: first, translations of contemporary Latin terms like the English words tribe and people or the German terms Volk or Rasse carry negative connotations depriciating these groups and thus falsify the at least more neutral and descriptive meaning of the Latin term gens (Jarnut 1985: 83). Secondly, other contemporary terms such as populus or natio can generally be seen as synonyms of gens which is why this term is used exclusively to avoid confusion.³ e term gens is therefore used to ensure a uniform terminology although it does not allow a clear differentiation from other Latin or Greek terms that are used in the primary sources (Pohl 1994: 13). e fact that a depreciative connotation of this term as well has been brought into the discussion (Pohl 1985: 93) needs to be mentioned, in this thesis it is used for all collective groups that are distinguished by ethnic origin. At this point, however, it is crucial to outline the difference between the research focus of this thesis and research on nationalism; 1 2 3

For a discussion of the problems of geographical definitions see Tschirschky, 2006, 65–67, and omas Charles-Edwards, 2003, 5. (Tschirschky 2006: 67) e terms gens and natio are most frequently used to refer to groups and peoples in the Middle Ages (Jarnut 1985: 83). However, they refer to groups of various sizes and social structures, natio, was only used aer the Middle Ages to refer to larger collective groups or peoples (Graus 1985: 76).

16

Introduction

while nationalism has been argued to be a modern phenomenon not evidenced earlier than the French Revolution, this thesis focuses on a sense of nation in the early Middle Ages.⁴ It is clear that before 1800 no nation could be created by design, that means that no gens would have been able to claim a nation for themselves in the modern meaning of the term, i.e. the concept of a nation-state. (Smith 1995: 37) However, there can be no doubt that the awareness and the feeling of forming part of a larger collective, i.e. of sharing a collective identity, can be found much earlier than the late 18th or early 19th century.⁵ e following chapter will provide a detailed discussion of various approaches and theories on identity construction. It will also introduce the methodology for this study and explain the choice of the writings used as primary sources. In the chapters ensueing, these sources will be analysed according to their chronological origin, at least insofar as the dates of composition for the writings have been affirmed in recent research. e analysis will commence with Gildas´ De Excidio Britanniae and continue with the Late British poem named Y Gododdyn. Aer these two British writings, the focus will move to an Anglo-Saxon author, the Venerable Bede and a selection of his writings. is change of perspective is necessary to demonstrate the continuities and discontinuities in earlier medieval identity construction of collective ethnic groups as shown by both major gentes in Britain of this period. e discussions of these writings will include an introduction to their history, the context of their production and the history of their authors. Each chapter will be followed by a short discussion of the results of the analysis of the particular writing as well as possible conclusions. In the final chapter, I will provide answers to the research questions formulated before and an outlook to further research regarding the construction of identities in early medieval writings.

4 5

It was pointed out earlier by Krishan Kumar that these two phenomena should not be confused (Kumar 2003: 33). Anthony Smith is right in claiming that to refuse the term nation to any pre-modern form of community would be unduly restrictive. (Smith 1995: 34) is would indicate a static nature of the term which I think does not exist. e fluidity of the concept of nation does not allow a static definition. If one would apply such definition this would lead, as it has in the past, to the necessity of constant exceptions when applied to existent population units. is, in my opinion, supports Smith’s claim that the concept of nation and its connection to the past should not be approached from static paradigms. However, to avoid the sin of retrospective nationalism, it should always be emphasized that, although modern nations developed out of pre-modern communities, the contemporary form of a nation must by no means be equalled to a pre-modern form of population group.

3 Theoretical considerations

e background to the theoretical approach which will be introduced here is based on three major assumptions which have been discussed in the past decades in literary and cultural studies. First, I approach the primary sources which are the subjects of my analysis, as only one part among others constituting culture during the early Middle Ages in Britain. I claim that writings are, among other phenomena such as art or archaeological findings, only one source of information on how medieval societies saw themselves and others. In this regard, writings do not necessarily hold a central position to phenomena like collective or cultural memory, arts, tradition or history. e different forms of writings of this period, however, constitute sources that, in my view, have been neglected in regard to their information on early medieval cultures and societies and, in numerous cases, have been overestimated in regard to their value to provide historical facts. Second, I assume a reciprocal relationship between writings and societies in regard to the exchange of ideas, values and information. Writings are here approached as witnesses to a complex system of communication of a society with itself, indicating controversies and topics of relevance for societies. erefore, writing is seen as a textual manifestation of culture (Nünning 1998: 188). Although there can be no doubt that medieval writings were never a medium of mass communication, they represented a medium of communication of a small elite within medieval society. Here, my approach agrees with the assumption of Jan Assmann who claimed that cultural memory never represented the memories of all members of a community but rather the memories, real or constructed, of a small, specialized elite which influenced the construction of identity with the transmission of specific forms of memory (Assmann 1988: 14). In this regard, the constructed character of memory is central because this small elite did not only use cultural memory as it was transmitted, rather, memory is continuously in the process of being reconstructed within different social, historical and cultural backgrounds (Assmann 1988: 13). Cultural memory as found in texts, therefore, is no memory of the community chosen by itself. It is rather a constructed or selected memory of a community chosen by a small elite group or members of this group for speci-

18

Theoretical considerations

fic reasons, with a distinct purpose (Nünning 1998: 187). Textuality, however, not just mirrors reality but participates in the production of cultural identity. ird, I approach the sources in this thesis as subjects to discourse traditions in regard to the construction and articulation of collective identities. While previous research acknowledged the role of writings in the construction of shared identities or traditions, it failed to connect different types of written sources to understand the development of the construction of shared identities. is failure is surprising considering the consensus about the dynamic and flexible nature of identities in general and, moreover, earlier approaches such as ethnogenesis or origo gentis which ignored the connections between their sources altogether but categorized them into works that fit a static definition of what has even been considered a textual genre, the account of ethnogenesis or origo gentis.¹ To me, this one-dimensional and static approach seems to be in contrast with the dynamic nature of the subject matter of identities or ethnicity. Following these three assumptions on the relationship between writings and identity, I now turn to the theoretical background of my work and to the current state of research on different forms of collective identities, their development and characteristics and, finally, to the question of identity construction. e idea of collective identity leads straight to the question of what we understand by the terms of a collective, a group, or a gens. e concept behind the term of a gens is one of unstable nature and changing definition (Davies 1994: 2). e term comes from the Greek ethne, meaning membership of a people (Halshall 2007: 35). e two most common Latin terms, gens and natio, indicate a community with a shared origin or birth (Davies 1994: 6). But defining people simply by their birth and decent would mean that any fudging of the boundaries that divide them would be impossible. is would lead to a sense of unity and immutability which is surely mistaken (Pohl 1998c: 67). erefore, membership was also expressed via a number of characteristics of the community’s members. ese characteristics were transmitted through the sources defining the members of the community they referred to (Davies 1994: 6). is approach of characterization was first named biological and later became ethnic, including characteristics such as decent, custom and geography. Later approaches also offered a political or constitutional definition of a people based on shared laws, allegiance and historical processes (Geary 2003: 42). Isidore of Seville, in his Etymologia, defined a gens in the following way: 1

As applied by Plassmann 2006. In her theoretical justification, Plassmann discusses the problem of origo gentis as a genre. She denies the applicability of the concept of genre to texts that provide information which can be read as origo gentis. However, she fails to follow her own critical approach when she claims that Gildas’ De Excidio Britanniae cannot be assigned to the genre of origo gentis because it does not show all the characteristics that are presumably essential for a text to be assigned the label of origo gentis, see Plassmann, 2006, 49–51.

Theoretical considerations

19

Gens est multitudo ab uno principio orta, sive ab alia natione secundum propriam collectionem distincta, ut Graeciae, Asiae. Hinc et gentilitas dicitur. Gens autem appellata propter generationes familiarum, id est a gignendo, sicut natio a nascendo.² [A gens is a group coming from one origin, (a group) which is distinguished from a second nation through its unity, like Greece and Asia. at is why it is named a people. However, they are called gens because of the generations of the families, based on gignere (to give birth), like natio is based on nasci (to be born).] ³ is passage is significant because Isidor not only speaks of a shared origin as the unifying element of a gens but also appears to use gens and natio as synonyms. He provides further details, explaining that groups or gentes are united because of their shared origin, their language and their culture which could be recognized in clothing and armoury and would be closely connected to law and tradition (Oeser 1985: 17). But what is meant by people today? Since the 19th century the concept of a people equalled with the concepts of the nation and the state which led to the application of the concept of ethnicity to the concept of nation itself. is development led to the idea of physical, moral and psychological distinctiveness elementary for nationalism. Here, in what Guy Halshall ascribed to be a primordialist view, biological or rather pseudo-biological ideas of race were confused with the sociological concept of ethnicity (Halshall 2007: 35).⁴ I will return to the concept of primordialism in short. However to a certain extent, this problem can be avoided by resorting to terms that can be found in the sources such as gens or ethnos. As Patrick Geary pointed out earlier, Herodotus used the terms to distinguish people, Greek ethne, from tribe, Latin gens. His description of Europe’s peoples became the basis for subsequent European ethnology (Geary 2003: 43 and 46). ese are terms for the concept of a biologically shared origin which has fortunately been abandoned by contemporary researchers as fictitious. It furthermore tended to neglect the influence of social and cultural environments on the members of a community. Both terms were used interchangeably and haphazardly in the sources of Antiquity (Davies 1994: 5). However, the methodological problem and the necessity of an adequate terminology for modern scholars remains (Pohl 1994: 12)(Pohl 1998a: 15). I chose to use the term of gens when referring to peoples in the early Middle Ages in Britain. I made this choice for several reasons. First, during Antiquity this 2 3 4

Isidori. Hispalensis Episcopi. Etymologiarum sive originum, Wallace M. Lindsay, vol. I, Oxford University Press: Oxford 1962. My translation with my own comments. (Oeser 1985: 4)

20

Theoretical considerations

term was used for a community outside the populus Romanum (Pohl 1985: 93). e distinction between Roman citizens and non-citizens constituted a vital line in the organization of the Roman society (Geary 2003: 58). I therefore chose it because, in the period in question, the gentes in Britain were no longer members of the populus of the declining Roman empire. Furthermore, as the passage of Isidor of Sevilla shows, this term was used as a synonym for natio. Second, I chose it for the reason of uniformity. Since the sources used in this thesis employ various terms for peoples, I decided to minimize confusion by reducing them to one term. It is, however, impossible to ascertain what the identity of these gentes was (Geary 2003: 73). In my thesis, I use the term gens in order to be able to categorize ethnic communities. By applying this term, I do not suggest any primitive connotation, as was argued earlier against the term (Pohl 1985: 93). e same holds true for all other connotations the term acquired in any later period (Pohl 1985: 94). Finally, and most importantly, I want to emphasize that the term gens was chosen out of uniformity reasons and not because it is free of any connotations that other terms, referring to the same concepts, could carry. It was chosen simply as a term that refers, among others, to the concept of a people but, although this has been refuted in the past, should still be assumed to carry negative connotations like all other terms related to the concept.⁵ While it is clear that gens refers to a group of people defined by specific characteristics, scholars have argued that gentes are neither homogenous nor stable in their existence: Peoples may not be an ‘enduring reality’, whatever that is; but perceptions, myths and sentiments should surely be legitimate items for the historian’s (sic!) agenda if we mean to try to reconstitute the experience of the past [...]. Illusions, if such they be -and our own includedare likewise an essential item on that agenda.⁶ is leads to the next step in my approach, to the understanding of early medieval communities and their imagined nature.

5

6

In her work, Plassmann argues that the term is found in the primary sources and therefore does not carry the connotations which are connected with the German translations Volk or Stamm. However, her argumentation implies a neutrality of the term gens that I find impossible to prove based on the readings of Classical or medieval sources, see Plassmann 2006, 13–14. erefore, it also seems to me advisable to indicate the possibility of connotations implying superiority or subordination which might be connected to gens as well. (Davies 1994: 3)

Imagined Communities - the construction of identity

21

3.1 Imagined Communities - the construction of identity e construction of identities was first emphasized in 1961 in Reinhard Wenskus’s work on the development of tribes and gentes in Europe (Wenskus 1961: 2).⁷ e publication of his research started a lasting scholarly discussion about his approach as well as about the features he proposed as the basis for identity construction. Within this discussion, the question whether or not a form of premodern nationalism can be assumed to have existed in Classical Antiquity or in the Middle Ages has been assigned a major role.⁸ Apart from the question of a pre-modern form of nationalism, the question of the nature of communities or groups has always been in the centre of the discussion about pre-modern gentes. e concept of constructed or imagined communities was first proposed in the early 1980s by Benedict Anderson.⁹ Anderson claimed that communities need to be “imagined” because their members are mostly unknown to each other, but imagine themselves to form part of one unity: In fact, all communities larger than primordial villages of face-to-face contact (and perhaps even these) are imagined. Communities are to be distinguished, not by their falsity or genuineness, but by the style in which they are imagined.¹⁰ Anderson argued that the imagined character is common to all larger forms of community and that they only differ in the way they are imagined. is implies the artificiality of all communities.¹¹ is view was rejected by scholars like Ernest Gellner who argued that communities are natural phenomena (Smith 1996: 367). Claiming that communities are constructed, Anderson’s phrase imagined communities does not indicate that communities are not real (Johnson 1995: 6). at this construction and reconstruction is determined by and contributes to imagined communities of the present was argued by other scholars as well (Johnson 1995: 2). Anthony Smith did not explicitly state the constructed nature of communities, but he agreed that a shared belief in a common history and identity is essential for a community to develop ethnic or national identity, without which, it would remain 7

On the role and the importance of Wenskus’s work for the current research on Medieval Studies see Pohl, 1998, 15. On the context of Wenskus’ research and the influence of earlier scholars, see Wood, 2013, 299f. 8 On the discussion about pre-modern nationalism, see especially Smith (1981) as well as Smith (1986). On the differentiation between two existing forms of nationalism, one modern and one pre-modern, see Pohl, 1998a, 12. 9 On the influences of Anderson’s research and the context of his arguments, see Wood, 2013, 312f. 10 (Anderson 2006: 6) 11 e idea of an imagined community and the artificial nature of communities in general has also been applied to other related concepts such as the process of ethnogenesis. is was done by Walther Pohl who claimed that ethnogenesis is constructed out of political developments rather than being a natural phenomenon, see Pohl, 1985, 95–97.

22

Theoretical considerations

purely academic (Smith 1981: 66). In the past, it has been argued that Anderson’s idea of the imagined communities focuses too much on single units of people and neglects the fact that they always exist in contact with other forms of communities, oen in direct competition (Davies 1994: 4). is contact or competition leads to a constant re-definition and reshaping of communities, to which Davies used the example of the gentes. is resulted in a fascinating paradox, i.e. the fact that the gentes are imagined as historically stable but are in fact in a constant process of redefinition, and therefore “are characterised by a curiously simultaneous solidity and insubstantiality”.¹² In spite of his criticism of Anderson, Davies never questioned the artificial nature of ethnic communities. He emphasises the central role of the community’s name for its identity on the one hand and the definition of it by other communities on the other hand (Davies 1994: 20). Another critical objection to Anderson’s theory was that it overstates the homogeneity of medieval culture as well as overestimates sacral language while ignoring vernacular languages (Johnson 1995: 4). Furthermore, Johnson criticises that Anderson’s theory grossly oversimplifies world view in circulation in medieval culture in order to produce one dominant version in which historical and cultural differences are simply not apprehensible. In his study, as in others, the medieval past is idealised, homogenised, mythicised and made to serve a ‘before the Fall’ time, as a period of pre-nationalist thinking and imagining, which may conveniently serve as a point of origin for a study which is in other respects committed to nuanced historical specificity and materialist analysis.¹³ Although Johnson’s criticism seems justified, there are a few points that I think are necessary to be specified here since my argument follows, to a certain extent, Benedict Anderson’s theory. First of all, as a theory, Imagined Communities does not claim to characterize all imaginable communities throughout history. It merely provides a theoretical framework which can be applied when explaining historical communities in various periods. Although I do not see how Anderson idealizes the medieval past, a certain homogenization can indeed be found when approaching his model. In this regard, however, his theory does not differ from the majority of publications about medieval culture and communities. Even if Imagined Communities does insinuate a certain homogeneity, this should remind scholars to try to avoid this mistake as far as possible when adopting Anderson’s theory. One advantage of Anderson’s theory is mentioned by Johnson himself: Anderson’s study puts more weight on cultural processes through which the idea of communities is constantly in the process of being made and remade. It also raises ques12 (Davies 1994: 4) 13 (Johnson 1995: 4–5) e argument of the generalization of Anderson’s theory to relate to communities in general was made earlier by Keith Stringer (Stringer 1994: 27).

Imagined Communities - the construction of identity

23

tions about the how, the where and the when the community is imagined as well as by whom and to what purpose.¹⁴ In the past, numerous scholars agreed with Anderson’s theory of imagined communities. Walter Pohl, for example, acknowledged the role of myths, truth and fantasy when constructing collective identities (Pohl 1998b: 7). He also emphasized the central role of shared beliefs in a community by its members. e idea of communities as constructed or imagined entities was also subscribed to by Patrick Geary who saw the Roman community as a constitutional category in contrast to Barbarian communities which were invented (Geary 2003: 63). e membership also “depended more on the willingness of the people to identify with the traditions of that people [...] than on biological descent, culture, language, or geographical origin.” ¹⁵ Patrick Geary, similar to what Davies said earlier about Anderson’s work, also emphasized the complexity and dynamic of communities and the constant state of transformation and dispute of their identities which, according to him, seemed to be dismissed by phrases like imagined communities or invented traditions (Geary 2003: 173). Eric Hobsbawm argued that traditions are invented rather than rooted in history (Hobsbawm 1983: 1). To him, invented traditions mean a set of practices, normally governed by overtly or tacitly accepted rules and of a ritual or symbolic nature, which seek to inculcate certain values and norms of behaviour by repetition, which automatically implies continuity with the past. In fact, where possible, they normally attempt to establish continuity with a suitable historical past.¹⁶ According to Hobsbawm, traditions appear as responses to novel situations with the claim of being historically unchanging and invariant (Hobsbawm 1983: 2). Traditions are not to be confused with customs, which, according to Hobsbawm, do not preclude innovation and change but give any desired change or resistance to variation the sanction of a historical continuity. is means that, while traditions are invariant, customs are not (Hobsbawm 1983: 2). He explicitly refers to the conscious instrumentalisation of traditions when he says: More interesting, from our point of view, is the use of ancient materials to construct invented traditions of a novel type for quite novel purposes. A large store of such materials is accumulated in the past

14 Johnson speaks here about nations but I am certain this is only an example of one form of community where one can find advantages when applying Anderson’s work (Johnson 1995: 6). 15 (Geary 2003: 62) 16 (Hobsbawm 1983: 1)

24

Theoretical considerations

of any society, and an elaborate language of symbolic practice and communication is always available.¹⁷ is means that traditions, real or invented, are constantly reconstructed in order to meet novel situations.¹⁸ Traditions, naturally, can be old and still alive. However, if no traditions are available, innovators will invent their own (Hobsbawm 1983: 8). While old traditions are characterized as specific and strongly binding, newly invented ones are unspecific and vague but play a central role in public rather than private areas (Hobsbawm 1983: 10). Hobsbawm classified invented traditions into three different types: 1. ose which establish or symbolize social cohesion and membership of groups, real or artificial communities. 2. ose which symbolize or legitimize institutions, status or relation of authority. 3. ose whose main purpose is to symbolize socialization, beliefs, value systems of behavioral conventions.¹⁹ Due to my research questions, the main focus of my thesis will lie on traditions that could be ascribed to type one and three with a strong focus on ethnic communities. As I will show in the following chapters, texts like Gildas’ De Excidio Britanniae or Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum use invented traditions in order to construct cohesion and membership of communities. e perceived role of history in this notion of invention is central, as Hobsbawm points out: For all invented traditions, so far as possible, use history as a legitimator of action and cement of group cohesion. Frequently it becomes the actual symbol of struggle. Even revolutionary movements backed their innovations by reference to a ‘people’s past’ [...] and to its own heroes and martyrs.²⁰ at new traditions are stronger when they are built on older ones or on sentiments present in the community has also been emphasized by other scholars (Stringer 1994: 28). 17 (Hobsbawm 1983: 6) 18 Hobsbawm argues that it is not clear how far these inventions can go but it is clear that for many political institutions, ideological movements or communities a historical tradition had to be invented to explain their presence and, more important, their role in power in the contemporary world. He names the example of Bodicea or Vercingetorix, who he claimed to be meta-fiction and which gained significant roles as heroic figures for their respective ethnic communities. However, there are also purely fictional examples for invented traditions such as Czech medieval manuscripts to explain historical continuity (Hobsbawm 1983: 7). 19 (Hobsbawm 1983: 9) 20 (Hobsbawm 1983: 12–13)

Medieval Ethnic communities and Writing

25

To sum up, I will follow both Anderson’s and Hobsbawm’s assumptions. erefore, I assume that communities, while being perceived to be stable, are in the constant state of being defined and re-defined. is strategy is influenced, following Hobsbawm, by the changing contemporary realities in politics, society or culture (Hobsbawm 1983: 6). is leads to the community’s shared identity to be constantly re-defined or constructed. I consciously use the term construction because, following the assumptions of Reinhard Wenskus and his theory of a Traditionskern, a kernel of tradition, which will be introduced shortly, a small elite within the community uses various strategies to construct an identity that suits their present situation. I deliberately use the term construction because identity as it presents itself in various media, including written texts, is based on various components, for example, on a shared perceived history, which may be based on historical events or be purely and simply invented.

3.2 Medieval Ethnic communities and Writing Since the written sources do not allow to make claims about the felt identity of a medieval gens, the question arises what research can say about this phenomenon within this period of history. is leads to a concept which Armstrong called nostalgia (Armstrong 1982: 16–51). Nostalgia as a concept based on collective memory forms a persistent image of a superior way of life in the past. In this way it is primarily significant, among other things, for written texts which preserve this image. Although there is no intermediate relevance for group identity, nostalgia provides different symbolic contents which include myths and symbols which again are essential for the development of a group identity (Armstrong 1982: 21). erefore, the concept of nostalgia is only indirectly connected to the concept of group identity, being mostly reflected in verbal discourses, in this case writings. erefore, it provides us with an indirect connection of two concepts: it allows us to analyse indirectly how group identity may have been constructed and, to a certain extent, how it was perceived in a period of time for which historical sources are scarce. In this regard, nostalgia is a critical indicator of attachment to a way of life; and the expression of nostalgia constitutes a strong symbolic device to transmitting attitudes deriving from such life patterns.²¹ Although Armstrong uses the idea of what he calls a “shared territory” as a symbol that can be seen in the expression of nostalgia, numerous other symbols can be found in written sources. is does not mean that writings from this period should be treated as anything different but fiction, although these fictional texts 21 (Armstrong 1982: 51–52)

26

Theoretical considerations

nevertheless found their introduction into the tradition of the gentes (Armstrong 1982: 86). As the history of the transmission of the texts dealt with here will show, myths and symbols essential for various expressions of collective identities were transported by these texts. With this transport, medieval texts continued a tradition that had begun centuries before in earlier civilizations handing down symbols and myths that were used to construct identity for their audiences (Armstrong 1982: 165).²² ese audiences can be assumed to have been familiar with the subject matter the authors presented in their writings (Plassmann 2006: 21). is process, however, should not deter scholars from considering the impact of writings on medieval societies. In medieval Byzantium, for example, only two percent of the population were literate (Armstrong 1982: 201). e only contact between a political elite and the masses was restricted to military issues and to the collection of taxes. Contact was closer between the masses and ecclesiastical structures which aimed at reaching all social levels and all regional areas of a community (Armstrong 1982: 202). e Church, therefore, provided a far more advanced communication network than non-ecclesiastical structures. is network was not only widespread but also unique in its quality and therefore provided a strong force for perpetuating one rather uniform concept of collective, ethnoreligious identities (Armstrong 1982: 211). is indicates that ecclesiastical communication reached broader audiences than political communication. Still, it was a very small elite who communicated in written form. is means that scholars are forced to distinguish between a popular oral culture of the masses of the community and the elite culture as it presents itself in the sources (Goetz 1999: 334). Assumptions regarding the perception of written texts and the symbols and myths among the majority of a gens are, therefore, very difficult to formulate. is is also true of course for the research conducted here, where the source texts only reflect a small proportion of the community in focus.²³ In spite of this historiographical problem, source texts always reflect the consciousness of the people who brought them to writing, i.e. authors or scribes. It was claimed earlier, that the literate elite was that part of society in which ethnicity was a central issue (Goetz 1999: 337) (Pohl 1998a: 17). Bearing this in mind, it is essential not to underestimate the role of written texts in the early Middle Ages: [e]arly medieval society as a whole in whatever historical context one chooses to see it, was one in which literacy mattered, and where literacy had repercussions right down the social scale [...].²⁴ 22 Audience, in this context, refers to the readership of the text but also includes individuals or groups who listened to the texts being read aloud. 23 For the problem of assumptions about popular culture on the basis of elite literature, e.g. hagiographical works, see (Goetz 1999: 335). Peter Brown proposed earlier a more dynamic view of a popular religion accepting the idea of a complicity between the literate elite and the practices of the religious community (Brown 1981: 22). 24 (McKitterick 1990: 333)

Medieval Ethnic communities and Writing

27

McKitterick suggested to approach writings not just as a historical records but as narratives of ideology and symbols, playing a significant role in the step of history becoming memory (McKitterick 2000: 22–24).²⁵ Medieval writings were the primary medium of communication between the Traditionskern of a gens and the people who identified with it. Ethnicity was mainly mediated through writings, including not only mythical narratives but also referring to recent events (Pohl 1994: 23) (Smith 1986: 68). Scribes and priests, but also poets and other spiritual figures were therefore able to communicate their culture from central to outlying areas of the community.²⁶ By their mobility they did not only transport the culture from remote areas to the central area of a community but also vice versa. As will be shown in the following chapters, direct written communication, i.e. the process of writing a text down, was not necessary as long as the works of these individuals were at some point put into writing, even centuries aer their composition. is is particularly true for the poets whose works were put into writing and entered the written transmission at some point.²⁷ Notably, all groups were closely interwoven with the concerns of ethnic identity and the community’s goals (Smith 1986: 158). In conclusion, the concepts of ethnicity and ethnic identity as they present themselves in the source texts of my research base should be considered to be part of an ethnic practice rather than inborn characteristics of the members of a community, serving as a form of expression of these concepts (Pohl 1998a: 17). Particularly the written sources from the sixth to the eighth century are witnesses of the elite’s efforts to come to terms with and remain in control over a changing world (Pohl 1994: 20).²⁸

25 e importance of a critical differentiation between truth and historical record was also pointed out by Walter Pohl (Pohl 1994: 22). 26 While scholars such as Patrick Sims-Williams speak of bards, I prefer to use the term poets because of the common misconceptions the first term bears. ere is hardly any evidence whether works of poetry were only written down or also recited or sung for an audience. Furthermore, there is no concise definition of the concept of a bard, or Welsh bardd as well as there is no clear differentiation between a bard and a poet. e concept of role, function and importance of a bard in society seems to differ significantly when approaching different gentes, for example when comparing the Irish bard with their Welsh or Late British equivalents. erefore, instead of using the term bard I henceforth use poet when referring to the authors of early medieval poetry in order to avoid any implication or confusion with common misconceptions the term bard might imply, see Sims-Williams, 1984, 183–184. 27 In this regard, particularly the role of poets in the communication and construction of ethnic identities are of interest. Aside of the examples given in my thesis, see also omson’s work on Gaelic ethnic identity and communication in poetry (omson 1985: 262). 28 Scholars like Guy Halshall argued that this strong transition and change of ethnic identities began even earlier in the middle of the fourth century (Halshall 2007: 457).

28

Theoretical considerations

3.3 Markers of ethnic identity In regard to the construction of collective identity in the written sources, scholars have agreed upon a set of features that are elemental for this process. is list of features oen includes a founding myth.²⁹ In the research of ethnic identities, the founding myth or the myth of origin of a gens has received particular attention. Scholars developed the concept of an origo gentis, a historical narrative about the mythical origin of the gens. As the following study will demonstrate, the concept of origo gentis is only of limited use when discussing the construction of identities. ere are three reasons for this: first, origo gentis is an artificial concept to summarize writings that contain a passage that could be read as story of origin for a gens. e concept was developed by modern historical research to categorize classical or medieval writings (Plassmann 2006: 15). Scholars who support the idea of the origo gentis, however, acknowledged that they study a concept which was not known to any medieval author (Plassmann 2006: 15–16). e assumption of a writing to be an origo gentis even led repeatedly to the misunderstanding of the concept to be a genre to which writings could be assigned to.³⁰ Second, the concept of origo gentis can, following its definition, only be applied to writings that are understood as historical. is leads to two problems: first, scholars tend to use the term historical in its modern meaning ignoring that a medieval understanding of history might have differed from ours. As the following study will show, approaching medieval writings following a Ranke’sches Geschichtsverständnis, a modern understanding of history and historiographical sources as facts, has always provided scholar with more questions than answers regarding the historical value of the writings. Second, the concept of origo gentis ignores all other writings that do not fit into the genre of historia. is narrow focus on the presence of a founding myth in a historia, in my opinion, leads to a limited understanding of the influence of writings in the construction of identity in general. Besides this myth, other important elements of identity construction include a perceived common history, shared names and geographical or political boundaries, customs and laws, and, to a certain degree, language.³¹ However, political boundaries, ethnic territories, linguistic groups and areas of archaeological cultures should not be seen as synonymous and therefore should be approached with circumspection because of their possible overlapping in the written sources (Pohl 1998a: 22). 29 See (Wenskus 1961: 14), (Armstrong 1982: 29 and 52–53), (Smith 1986: 4),(Wolfram 1990: 30), and (Pohl 1998a: 15 and 24). 30 is is also true for the writings which will be discussed in the following chapter. I will get to this problem shortly. 31 Even slavery as a tradition was argued to provide a legitimation and thus to support the construction of an ethnic identity (Armstrong 1982: 91).

Markers of ethnic identity

29

e following part of this chapter provides an overview of the potential features instrumental in identity construction. ese will be further discussed in the context of the analysis of the textual sources resorted to. What will follow is a collection of characteristics that have been mentioned in the research of the past decades to constitute ethnic identity and other forms of collective identities and are supposed to support a set of characteristics to be looked for during the analysis in later chapters. 3.3.1 Names

In the past, names of gentes or ethnonyms have been considered to be central characteristics of ethnic communities conveying a sense of a shared ethnic identity (Anderson 2006: 157–158). ey are material for the definition of the superseding ethnic particularity of the community (Le Page 1985: 219). e use of names to distinguish between ethnic identities is, of course, no invention of the Middle Ages. It was also common in Classical Antiquity and names also form part of the Biblical world-view (Pohl 1998b: 4). ey are central for both, the individual as well as the community: Nothing touches our individual or collective identity more closely than the name or names with which we are associate. [...] It is through names that we order, describe, categorise and label the world. [...] Names in that sense make a people; no people can exist without its name.³² Furthermore, names may be conventional or may be artificially constructed: e names of people are in a measure political artefacts; but they are also ultimately, more importantly and irreducibly, manifestations of a sense and conviction of communal identity; [...] ey might appear timeless, literally aboriginal, especially in a society which constructed so much of its history around the concept of an eponymous founder; but they are in fact a product of time, circumstance and accident. As such, they have no ultimate fixity; they can be modified, transformed or forgotten.³³ us, names are dynamic and flexible characteristics of collective identities. ey may indicate unity or timelessness but are of constructed and artificial origin, changing their meanings with the change of political and social realities (Geary

32 (Davies 1995: 3) 33 (Davies 1995: 4–5)

30

Theoretical considerations

2003: 151) (Wood 1998: 298) (Pohl 1998b: 2) (Davies 1995: 9).³⁴ erefore, communities labelled with a distinctive name can oen be polyethnic (Wood 1998: 299). Names are also renewable, have the power to convince people of historical continuity even if this continuity is constructed. Old names can be reclaimed, also claiming old traditions or power, or names of small, unimportant groups may expand with a rise of power and influence.³⁵ e process of naming an ethnic group for the purpose of identification can follow three different strategies. First, a group of people can be named according to a criterion it is associated with, for example with the name of the territory they inhabit, a common physical characteristic or common traditions such as religion. Second, it is possible to name a group of people according to the name of their language which is usually attributed to the community as an adjective, e.g. the English language, lingua franca for the Franks, etc. Or, third, this adjective may become a noun itself and may denote not only the language used by the community but also refer to the culture, tradition and finally the group itself, e.g. the English. e name of the language therefore may become synonymous with the community of its speakers (Le Page 1985: 235). In conclusion, names are central to the identification of separate communities of people. ey do not convey information in regard to the ethnic or social structure of a community but rather provide the term by which they are understood to be associated, at least in the eyes of someone identifying them with this name. Of course this does not indicate any homogeneity of this community nor the fact that they would themselves use this name to refer to their community. In addition to the names of a certain gens, or ethnonyms, names of individuals can also convey information about or membership to a certain gens these individuals belong to or origin from. is is true, for example, for the names found in British elegies such as Y Gododdin, where most, presumably all of the names follow the tradition of telling names which do not only represent the name of an individual but also provide information about certain characteristics, in this case battle qualities. Individual names from foreign gentes such as the Britons are also provided in writings of Anglo-Saxon origin, such as Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica, and thus provide insight to the perspective to and the awareness of one gens to the other, as will be discussed in one of the following chapters as well.

34 See, for example Davies’ example of the term Scotti which seems endlessly elastic in its application (Davies 1995: 14). Another example is the rise of pre-Roman tribal names as intentional archaizing and romantic appeal to ancient traditions (Geary 2003: 105). 35 See, for example, Patrick Geary’s example of the Franks who received their name based on their shared language or the origin of the name of the Saxons who received their name because of their tradition to use a short sword (Geary 2003: 119 and 141–142).

Markers of ethnic identity

31

3.3.2 The Founding Myth

Another important feature in the construction of a community’s identity is the founding myth, it was even claimed to be the most potent structure influencing identity (Armstrong 1982: 43).³⁶ is story or narrative of origin, or constitutional myth, is elementary in the construction of a collective unit (Armstrong 1982: chapter 5). Armstrong calls this the mythomoteur to put emphasis on the dynamic character of this element both for its history as well as its impact on the shared identity of the gens (Armstrong 1982: 164). Walter Pohl criticised this, and in this he was justified, to indicate a misleading sense of unity and immutability of the group (Pohl 1998c: 67). is myth is usually not invented out of the blue by a community but assimilates components of earlier, connected myths (Armstrong 1982: 208). With this, it provides the community with a legitimacy and cohesion drawn from an oen constructed past to explain the political and social present situation (Johnson 1995: 2). It is even possible to merge myths from other gentes into the myth of the own community. During the history of the gens, the myth is subject to change and transformation according to political developments. is indicates the central role historians have within this process since it is their task to describe and explain the past of the community. e dynamic and constructed nature of the mythomoteur is shared by most other components that influence collective identity. In this regard, the myth of foundation has repeatedly been considered to be the sole basis for an ethnic community (Pohl 1994: 10). e impact of this mythomoteur on a community depends on three factors: first, it depends on the relationship between the small elite, who defines the community and the majority of the community; this small elite was named Traditionskern or kernel of tradition by Reinhard Wenskus (Wenskus 1961: 75–76). Second, it depends on the assistance or persistence of ecclesiastical communication structures to promote the myth and third, closely related to the factor of communication structures, the relationship between the centre and the remoter areas of the community, i.e. the political stability, play an important role (Armstrong 1982: 167) (Davies 1994: 10). e last two factors have a significant importance for the impact and the distribution of the myth because the centre usually hosts the elite of the community (Armstrong 1982: 197). is elite, however, did not necessarily consist of clerical scholars or warriors but could also be a secular elite (Davies 1994: 9). When these myths retain their place in the political and social communication of the community, they may acquire considerable normative and moral weight as cultural traditions that can inspire and shape action, they become part of the political culture (Zimmer 2003: 6). e characteristics of ethnic myths were persistently diffused from this 36 (Armstrong 1982: 29) Armstrong goes one step further and claims a shared myth of origin to be the major element in the construction of ethnic identity with a ancient tradition. An unknown origin should be seen as “the worst tragedy for a group or individual [...]”. Here, Anthony Smith agrees, claiming that there can be no identity without a shared myth of origin (Smith 1986: 2).

32

Theoretical considerations

centre (Armstrong 1982: 205).³⁷ e idea of an elite fostering and consciously constructing the identity of a community which is settled around the aristocratic core is one of the oldest and strongest models regarding ethnic identities and is again ultimately based on the works of Reinhard Wenskus.³⁸ ese narratives of a shared origin suggest a sense of uniformity and homogeneity that did not exist. ey masked the radical discontinuities that arose in late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages (Geary 2003: 156). In conclusion, the idea of a myth of shared origin of a gens, or a mythomoteur to use Armstrong’s term, is usually brought forward by a small elite group, the Traditionskern or kernel of tradition. If it remains within the historical and political communication of the gens it can become part of its cultural heritage. e question whether the myth is invented or if it refers to an actual historical event is only of secondary importance because the written texts most oen ignore this distinction. is leads to the next element of interest in the construction of identity, the history of a gens. 3.3.3 History

Historical developments are one further important feature which can be found in written sources (Zimmer 2003: 3).³⁹ For audiences of texts in the early Middle Ages, a sense of the past was closely connected to a sense of identity (McKitterick 2000: 57) (Pohl 1998c: 65).⁴⁰ For this reason, the perception of time was crucial to the development of identity (McKitterick 2000: 38–39). e political success of a dynasty was oen based on its ability to use history as a point of reference to unite communities that were oen heterogenous. It was this successful relationship between tradition and politics that ensured the success of the ruling dynasty (Wolfram 1990: 28) (Pohl 1994: 16). Written texts were always part of this strategy (Pohl 1985: 97). Newly imagined communities always regarded themselves as ancient, even though their past had to be constructed (Geary 2003: 109).⁴¹ For this reason it was necessary that the story of the past of the respective community ap37 See for example the construction of a Frankish identity under Clovis I. in the 5th century claimed by Patrick Geary (Geary 2003: 117). 38 e significance of Wenskus’ model of the Traditionskern was also supported by Guy Halshall (Halshall 2007: 457). 39 Identity construction as a dynamic process and the role of history within this process has been matter of numerous discussions, see, for example Walther, 1997, 73, Pohl, 1998, 21–23 and Wolfram, 1990, 30. 40 Particularly the building of images in historical texts from this period must have had a strong influence on the audience’s feeling of unity and identity as a community. Sources also oen included local history and local commemoration, which were central for local identities, into the gens’ history and therefore fit these aspects into a wider perception of the past, present and future of the group altogether as was shown by Rosamond McKitterick with her example of Frankish historiography (McKitterick 2000: 45–46). 41 Patrick Geary considers the apprehension of time together with the dynastic realm and the religious community as cultural roots of a gens (Geary 2003: 211). Geoffrey Elton disagrees, claiming

Markers of ethnic identity

33

peared to be well-preserved, else it had to be constructed (Smith 1986: 178–180).⁴² Following this strategy, a historical text of this time must have aimed at two goals: one to define the ethnic community it was referring to and the other to direct it towards a goal (Smith 1986: 182). erefore, the goals of history in early medieval society were focused on the past, defining and explaining the origin of the gens. Written sources also located the gens in place and time. Furthermore, influenced by a contemporary situation, the sources were focused on the future, visualizing the descent of the gens and its future goals (Walther 1997: 73). 3.3.4 Heroic Figure

is approach oen included a specific heroic figure active in the past of the gens, exemplifying its virtues (Smith 1986: 192). Here, the historicity of the heroic figure was immaterial because he or she served as a vessel communicating characteristics which the elite class considered central to share with their audience or subjects to support the construction of an unified identity (Smith 1986: 194). So again, closely connected with the founding myth, we find a central element of the construction of ethnic identity not to be necessarily historical but intended as a stimulus to react to a present situation (Smith 1986: 198) (Wenskus 1961: 34). e heroic figure serves numerous functions in the process of identity construction. He or she serves as a symbol for a golden age, oen to indicate the necessity of regeneration or change within the contemporary society or for military success (Smith 1986: 200) (Walther 1997: 70). It can only be understood in the time which it is constructed for. It is therefore situational.⁴³ By referring to a figure in the mythic past, the heroic figure also implies immortality through the memory of the community: In this sense, history is the precondition of destiny, the guarantee of immortality, the lesson for posterity. Since we must live through our posterity, the offspring of our families, that history and its lesson must belong to us and our collective tale. Hence our myths, memories and symbols must be constantly renewed and continually re-told, to ensure our survival.⁴⁴

that ethnic units in the early Middle Ages were shaped by geography only, not by history or anthropology (Elton 1992: 6). 42 is also indicates the central role of “historians” in the process of identity construction to which I will return later (Geary 2003: 60). 43 Smith argued in this regard for the heroic figure to be a symbol of nationalist mythology within the community serving as a point of reference for the present. Although I would, at this point, not apply the term nationalism for Britain in the period in question, I do strongly agree with his statement (Smith 1986: 200). Historic identities are therefore part of the process of historic communication and subject to change and development, being re-defined constantly (Walther 1997: 73). 44 (Smith 1986: 208)

34

Theoretical considerations

e heroic figure, however essential as part of the identity of the gens, does not unite the community itself (Wenskus 1961: 30). It rather provides a role model with qualities that reflect the qualities and ideals of the community which the elite involved in the construction of the identity of the gens wants to communicate. 3.3.5 Rule and Kingship

e rule of an elite class has also been argued to be of importance for the development of a collective identity. is argument focused in particular on the idea of kingship and the role of paying taxes or being part of a centralised economy (Davies 1995: 13).⁴⁵ Kingship, or political rule in general influenced the identity formation process in three different ways, as Elton argued earlier using the English as an example: In the first place, they offered a physical centre for the regional selfconsciousness which in due course would produce a sense of local nationhood. [...] Secondly, the kings were as a rule leaders in war, obviously a function only notional if the office was for a time in the hands of a woman or a child, but always built into the essential concept of the whole nation. Kings had to be warriors because for some 300 years aer the first settlement [of the Saxons - the author] the chief thing remembered about them and their people was the constant warfare. [...] [irdly - the author] Anglo-Saxon kings, or at least quite a number of them, acted also as givers of law, or perhaps rather as collectors and definers of the legal customs of their communities.⁴⁶ Although in this case, these three aspects all remain connected to the rule of an Anglo-Saxon king, the role of a physical centre of the community, warfare and laws are general factors in identity construction as will be shown later.⁴⁷ ey are not necessarily connected to the power of one particular king. Patrick Geary emphasized the role of the king in the construction of collective identity, in particular his role as a charismatic military leader unsing the example of eoderic king of the Ostrogoths (Geary 2003: 77–79). Although Geary used the example of one king in particular, he acknowledged that this influence was not only dependent on one ruling person but rather on numerous members of an aristocratic group or dynasty: 45 Davies underlined this element in regard to the formation of an English and Scottish identity (Davies 1995: 13–16). 46 (Elton 1992: 8–11) He mostly refers to the role of Alfred the Great as identifying figure for the English. Under Alfred’s rule, all these aspects can actually be found in connection to his strong kingship (Elton 1992: 22–23). 47 See Chapter 3.3.6.

Markers of ethnic identity

35

At the top of society, [...] a rediscovery, or perhaps an invention, of a feeling of connection to an ancient, pre-Roman past, emerged as a powerful source of regional self-perception.⁴⁸ is already indicates that political rule in general could influence the construction of collective identity and that this construction was not dependent on one single ruling person, for example a king. It was, however, acknowledged by Davies that a lack of sovereignty did not necessarily lead to a weakening of identity. is indicates that other elements are of stronger relevance for the construction and maintenance of a gens’ identity (Davies 1995: 20). Regarding the few sources there are from the period between the sixth and eighth century, it is not always possible to distinguish between the influence of an aristocratic group or another elite influencing the construction of collective identities, such as Wenskus’ kernel of tradition or Traditionskern. e feature of kingship or political rule, therefore, will not be of central focus in the following analysis. Features that traditionally have been connected with kingship, such as the role of laws, however can be found in the sources and therefore are of interest for the analysis. 3.3.6 Customs

Another feature relevant for identity construction are customs that are shared by members of the community. Although their importance is not regularly evidenced in the sources because differences in the way of life did not lead to major differences in identity construction, the possibility for communities to develop around and identify with various customs and laws is agreed upon by most scholars (Armstrong 1982: 51 and 275) (Halshall 2007: 462). Burial practices, for example, have been considered to be a significant feature for the identification of a gens (Armstrong 1982: 268). Apart from this, clothing and physical appearance, like the wearing of facial hair, can be of significance as well, beauty and war-like behaviour are also mentioned regularly (Wenskus 1961: 33). Particularly appearance, however, has been argued to be a marker of identity which expresses differences between the social status within a community rather than being a marker indicating differences between ethnic identities (Pohl 1998c: 42). e same has been argued for other markers of appearance such as hairstyles, for example (Pohl 1998c: 51–52). A strong political system as well as an institutionalized, successful military organization can also provide elements that unite a community and construct a shared identity. e Roman Empire in particular united its citizens under its complex and for centuries successful administration (Jarnut 1985: 87). Even aer the withdrawal of the Roman military power from Britain in 410 AD, the administration still continued to function. is could have le a minority entrusted with Roman 48 (Geary 2003: 114)

36

Theoretical considerations

administration under Roman rule in a very powerful position aer the Roman withdrawal, moving up to replace the earlier ruling class and taking their position in influencing the newly emerging identity of the community. 3.3.7 Laws

Shared laws and values have been claimed to be of mayor importance when defining a shared identity (Jarnut 1985: 85) (Geary 2003: 109–111). e first AngloSaxon laws, the law code by king Aethelberht of Kent dated to the beginning of the seventh century, are of particular interest in this regard for two reasons: first, they were written down in the vernacular language in contrast to other laws on the continent that were composed in Latin. Second, fines for crimes played a central role in these law texts which indicates that there might have been a significant amount of circulating coins within the Anglo-Saxon community in the kingdom of Kent (Elton 1992: 14).⁴⁹ Both aspects were taken up again later under Alfred the Great who encouraged both the production of vernacular texts and minting (Elton 1992: 19–22). While earlier scholars emphasized the central role of laws and customs in the construction of collective identities, more recent research has suggested that the laws did not necessarily define or construct identities for the community in its entity but were restricted to certain rights and privileges and therefore had only a small influence on the construction of identity.⁵⁰ e role of customs and laws leads to the question of their origins. Patrick Geary claimed that, during the early Middle Ages, different families maintained different traditions and sought to impose these with their authority over communities during their struggle for power and the establishment of early kingship, for example in Britain. With this strategy, traditions of families or dynasties who had developed into some form of aristocracy were claimed to be traditions of the community itself in an attempt to create an identity of the community (Geary 2003: 75). e Kentish laws are only one example for this approach. us, while the level of importance of the laws and the customs for identity construction do not always seem to be the same, it is clear that the existence of different ethnic groups is affirmed by the existence of their different laws. is means that while it does not seem possible to judge on the role of laws for the process of identity construction, they do provide an important marker for separate communities with identities different from each other (Pohl 1998b: 2).

49 e oldest collection of Anglo-Saxon laws is usually connected with Aethelbert of Kent who died in the first half of the 7th century (Pohl 2005: 97). 50 See, for example Patrick Geary’s analysis of the role of laws for Carolingian local elites (Geary 2003: 154). e central role of laws in the construction of identities was also claimed earlier by Erhard Oeser (Oeser 1985: 4).

Markers of ethnic identity

37

3.3.8 Territory and Boundaries

In addition, it has been claimed that aer the tenth century the identification with a founding myth gradually transformed into a growing identification with the territory inhabited by the gens (Armstrong 1982: 52). is added to the claim that Western Christianity was rooted profoundly in the soil and territory and that these features always had a strong influence on collective identity (Armstrong 1982: 20). e role of the territory inhabited by a gens in the construction of its identity, however, turned out to be of less significance than had been initially assumed.⁵¹ e relationship between a gens and the territory it inhabits is rather based in myth and historical ties and remains vague in the written sources (Smith 1986: 182). is also indicates that the territory does not necessarily have to be real. A mythical land of origin for example can be much more powerful in shaping a community’s identity than a real territory (Davies 1995: 10). is does not mean that a community’s land of origin is of no importance at all in the construction of its identity. Places of historical value, such as the location of battles for example, can be of importance for a shared identity as will be shown in the following chapters (Smith 1986: 185). Again, these can also be imagined. Apart from the territory, Krishan Kumar, among others, argued that boundaries were far more essential in the definition of a gens than any other cultural features (Kumar 2003: 15).⁵² e role of boundaries for a community has been researched most fundamentally, taking the Roman Empire as an example. Here, boundaries of communities were to be one of the major elements defining identities that the majority of the community encountered. In the course of its history, the Roman Empire fixed precise frontiers between the ager Romanum and the territories outside (Armstrong 1982: 21–22). Aer the collapse of the Empire the former territorial boundaries remained surprisingly stable and retained significant importance for following policies (Armstrong 1982: 23). However, this is only true for territorial boundaries. e influence of linguistic boundaries should be considered as rare, as can be seen, for example, by the language border between Latin and Germanic languages in Antiquity, which never coincided with a political frontier (Wenskus 1961: 3) (Armstrong 1982: 249).

51 Even today the identity of a people and the territory it inhabits in form of a state is an exception, multi-ethnic states are much more common (Pohl 1998a: 15) (Ruddick 2006: 16). 52 is was also argued by Armstrong. He locates the emergence and development of collective identities mostly in cultural conflict zones and therefore usually in boundary areas between conflicting gentes.

38

Theoretical considerations

3.3.9 Language

Language has long been emphasized as the central component in identity construction.⁵³ A reference to the connection of a gens and its language can already be found in Isidor of Seville’s Etymologia: Ex linguis gentes, non ex gentibus linguae exortae sunt.⁵⁴ [e collectives emerged from the language, not the languages from the collectives.]⁵⁵ In spite of what Isodore claimed about the emergence of gentes and what modern research has claimed about the connection between language and identity, the assumption of language to be of central importance for the creation of identity has been strongly influenced by modern views on communities as nations and their languages. e idea that one particular language belonged to a specific territorial group only emerged late in the 18th century (Anderson 2006: 196). is assumption, however, is of a modernist nature. Democracies, modern mass communication and universal education have made language the most salient criterion of collective identity. Since all of these are developments beginning with the industrial age at the end of the 19th century, they can be assumed to have had no impact on the role of language in earlier periods. e idea of language to be the prime criterion for identity construction, therefore, has been ruled out during the mideighties at the latest (Armstrong 1982: 241 and 264) (Jarnut 1985: 88) (Le Page 1985: 236)(Pohl 1985: 98–99).⁵⁶ In spite of that, language was of some importance to members of the ruling class, not as part of identity, rather as part of the dynasty’s tradition (Armstrong 1982: 249) (Le Page 1985: 215). erefore it was possible to change the language of the ruling class, for example in times of conquest when the class itself was replaced, without significant influence on the community’s identity (Pohl 1985: 99). Two examples of a development of this process can be found in medieval Britain: the Anglo-Saxon conquest replaced the British aristocracy and its language with that of the Anglo-Saxon rulers. Another example is the Norman 53 (Pohl 1985: 209) (Armstrong 1982: 191–196) Heinz Kloss claimed language to be the most important and only objective factor in the construction identities (Kloss 1985: 209). Armstrong referred to the role of the administrative language to support ethnic identity as he demonstrated by the example of Habsburg monarchy in the 16th century. However, he also saw language rather as a part within an intricate pattern of elements than a central one (Armstrong 1982: 241). Language has even been applied as a synonym for ethnicity (Smith 1986: 14). 54 Isidori. Hispalensis Episcopi. Etymologiarum sive originum, Wallace M. Lindsay, vol. I, Oxford University Press 1962, lib IX.I. 55 My translation. 56 For an additional notion within this debate, see Smith’s comments on the Eurocentric nature of the argument where he claims that the view of language as one prime characteristic of ethnic identity is typically found in European discussions and perceptions of ethnic identities (Smith 1986: 181).

Markers of ethnic identity

39

Conquest where the English aristocracy and language was replaced by that of the Norman French-speaking elite. In particular during the Middle Ages it was a common phenomenon that several languages were spoken within one gens (Graus 1985: 74). e conversion of the gentes to Christianity was always accompanied by the introduction of the Latin language as the lingua franca of the Church which also influenced all the production of written sources. Even different social classes within one gens used different languages, again Norman England provides an example for this.⁵⁷ erefore, it is highly unlikely that language served as a criterion for ethnic identity in the Middle Ages (Armstrong 1982: 282). In regard to the historical period which is within the focus of this study, Latin was of central relevance. It was not only the language of teaching but also the only language taught in the schools (Anderson 2006: 18). is led to the fact that texts from this period were put into writing and rewritten in Latin as well. As I will show in the following chapters, the same is true for the written sources from Britain where the earliest Anglo-Saxon sources have been dated to the seventh centuries. Most of the sources from this period, however, are in Latin. e decline of Latin as lingua franca was not rooted in a national upheaval but indicates a rise of vernacular-speaking groups to power as can be seen in Britain in the 9th and 10th centuries (Elton 1992: 11) (Anderson 2006: 42).⁵⁸ Anderson claimed that this development, which he refers to as the lexigraphic revolution, led to the assumption that languages were the personal property of communities because they became closely connected to the gentes which used them (Anderson 2006: 84). Although the production of texts was still limited to the literate members of the community this did not imply that there was only one language spoken by the gens because the language of the elite could well be a different language than the language spoken by the rest of the gens. us, language and collective identity in the Middle Ages were two elements that developed more or less independent of each other (Graus 1985: 73). In regard to Britain, an elite class of the Late British speaking communities, at least in the English Lowlands, presumably adopted Latin as the language of administration and, later, as the language of religion (Armstrong 1982: 252) (Schrijver 2007: 165). Latin therefore became the language of communication among the educated class

57 Armstrong referred to the language divide between ‘patrician’ and other classes within Roman society. Here, he indicated the possibility of communities being not only distinct of each other, i.e. horizontally, but also having language differences within the community and, therefore, being vertically distinct as well (Armstrong 1982: 262 and 271). In this context he also emphasized the relevance of the administrative centre and its elites to spread the elite language, in this example, Latin. 58 Or, as Walter Pohl argued, in the end of the eighth century based on the growing presence of Anglo-Saxon sources from this time (Pohl 1998c: 24).

40

Theoretical considerations

of the community and retained this status until aer the ninth century.⁵⁹ Educated churchmen used Latin although they were speakers of the vernaculars, one famous example which will be discussed later being Gildas (Armstrong 1982: 254). In conclusion, the use of languages does not construct identity itself but communicates the constructed identity to the community. is leaves two further possible features that have been argued to indicate the identity of gentes, one of them referring to a feeling rather than a fact, i.e. the awareness of otherness or alterity. 3.3.10 Otherness

It has been argued that the awareness of otherness explicitly marks the identity between different communities (Davies 1994: 9). e perception of other gentes seems to affect the identity of one’s own community (Pohl 2005: 19). Ethnic identity can be understood as the result of continuous communication which underlines clear ethnic dissimilarities out of a variety of differences. Ethnic identity cannot be experienced directly like the membership to a family, a village community or another ‘faceto-face’ group. Here, foreigners have to be distinguished according to explicit criteria between their own or a different community.⁶⁰ erefore, direct contact of a community with another gens strengthens the sense of a gens’ self and its unity (Armstrong 1982: 120).⁶¹ Neighbouring communities 59 Peter Schrijver claimed that spoken Latin was, at least to some extent, spoken in towns, military camps and among higher social classes but also among lower and less mobile parts of the British population in the southern and eastern Lowland zone which he claimed to have been much more Romanized than the Highland zone (Schrijver 2009: 195). He even went as far as claiming that Latin may have been dominant if not the only language spoken in these areas around 400 AD. Schrijver’s argument is based on the claim that the first Anglo-Saxon settlers in Britain met these speakers of Latin, presumably with a strong Late British accent, which had a strong influence on the phonological history of Old English (Schrijver 2009: 208). e arrival of the Anglo-Saxon settlers led to a distinct language shi where Old English was accepted readily by the British population. Hildegard Tristram proposed that the reason for this acceptance of Old English should be sought in the desire of the British population to participate in and benefit from the growing elite AngloSaxon society (Tristram 2007: 214). 60 [Ethnische Identität lässt sich als Ergebnis einer ständigen Kommunikation verstehen, in der aus einer Vielfalt von Differenzen zwischen Menschen klare ethnische Unterscheidungen herausgehoben werden. Ethnische Identität ist nicht unmittelbar erfahrbar, wie es die Zugehörigkeit zu einer Familie, einer Dorfgemeinscha oder einer anderen “face-to-face” group ist. Hier müssen Fremde nach bestimmten Kriterien in Angehörige des eigenen oder eines anderen Volkes geschieden werden.] (Pohl 2005: 19). My own translation. 61 is is particularly true regarding religion. Frontier situations between two population units can produce and strengthen distinct collective identities. is has been researched on the development of ethnic identity in frontier areas of Islam and Christianity in medieval Spain or in the Balkans (Armstrong 1982: 92).

Markers of ethnic identity

41

are thus of central importance as contrasts of structures on a linguistic, political, social but, particularly for the Middle Ages, also a religious level (Wenskus 1961: 4). It is interesting that otherness is diagnosed by socially relevant factors alone (Armstrong 1982: 242–243). Apparently the allegiance to one community is far stronger in creating a perceived identity on the base of otherness than the objective differences of community members. Contrast with others is therefore a major factor in the development of identities, in which case the other is oen seen not only as different but also as negative (Waldenfels 1997: 22). e relevance of contrast to others can be applied multi-dimensionally, that means, it is not restricted to appearance, language or history but also to space, sometimes even to time (Waldenfels 1997: 33). During the Middle Ages, utterances of otherness in Britain were the theoretical distinctions of self-absorbed and intensely conservative societies, and especially of their professional bardic, legal and clerical élites.⁶² e community was therefore not only defined by explicit written statements of who they were but also by implicit references to who they were not. For the present study the concept of otherness will be carefully distinguished from the concept of alterity. is is necessary because the concept of otherness is relevant to both, the construction of identity and the construction alterity at the same time. e construction of alterity, however, follows a different strategy than the construction of identity does. A community’s identity is constructed in order to create a sense of self by connecting the gens’ identity with certain concepts and characteristics, alterity is constructed by emphasizing the difference of certain concepts and characteristics between two more communities. So while the concept of otherness is restricted on utterances of difference between two gentes, alterity is constructed using otherness, but also emphasizing differences in other concepts, like history, language, culture, and so forth, in order to create an identity of a gens which is based on the differences of these concepts in contrast to another gens. Alterity can thus be described as an identity which is constructed in contrast to other identities. To guarantee a careful distinction between otherness and alterity, the concept of otherness will only be discussed when it can be found in an explicit context participating in the construction of a gens’ identity, not its’ alterity.⁶³ Following the focus of this study, 62 (Davies 1994: 9) 63 While the discussion of the construction of alterities could be added to the discussion of identity construction, it is not possible to include a close analysis of alterities of gentes in my study. An analysis of the construction of alterity would require a different set of research questions and significant differences in the theoretical approach and method. For example, a much more contrastive approach to two or more sets of identities would be necessary in order to be able to analyse the

42

Theoretical considerations

the discussion of otherness will be limited to passages where this feature is of relevance regarding the construction of identities. is leads to the final point of this list of features, religion. 3.3.11 Religion

While all religions show significant features which are essential for the construction and maintenance of ethnic identity, it is important to be aware that apart from the relationship between mankind and God or the gods, religion always focuses on the relationship between man and the religious community, e.g. the Celtic or the Roman Church (Armstrong 1982: 54).⁶⁴ Religion is one of the central and most regularly found elements of identity and has up to today not been exceeded in its impact on identity by other forms of collective conscience like, for example, nationalism (Armstrong 1982: 206–207). It was the central condition for the sedentarization as well as for the accommodation of European polities aer the collapse of the Roman Empire (Armstrong 1982: 49). No other force in the Middle Ages penetrated societies to such an extent as religion and the Church, establishing widespread systems of administration and communication (Armstrong 1982: 238). erefore, not only the religious element but also the administrative power and the language of religion and its representatives exerted a pervasive influence on the unity of the religious community and therefore on its shared identity (Armstrong 1982: 123). e possibility to spread this identity was based on the spread of Roman administrative structures which then coincided with the spread of Christianity within the territory of the Roman Empire (Armstrong 1982: 53).Naturally, this expansion was closely connected to the Christian missionary activities. ese activities included a conscious decision in favour and against a language, in this case Latin, which led to a clear distinction between ecclesiastical matters for which Latin was used, and other areas where the vernacular languages gained more and more influence (Armstrong 1982: 223). However, the influence of Christianity on the unification of people did not end with its administration, its expansion and its languages. e Church stimulated moreover the use of Latin and written codification (Armstrong 1982: 238). Here, the close association of religion and a large polity complemented the influence on ethnic identities (Armstrong 1982: 203). Aer the fall of the Roman construction of alterity. A study about the construction of alterities in the sources of my research, however, seems promising and should be undertaken in the future, particularly in regards to the use of names, collective and individual, in the respective writings. 64 In his work, Armstrong focused on the boundary contacts between Christians and Muslims during the Middle Ages and the influence of this situation on the formation of Christian and Muslim identities, both religious groups representing various ethnic communities. In this boundary situation the definition of a gens’ identity was strongly influenced by the proximity of other gentes’ identities (Armstrong 1982: 90).

Markers of ethnic identity

43

Empire, the political identity of Romanness or romanitas was, simply put, replaced by Christianness. Both were universalist concepts. While Rome expressed its universalism in the claim of territory which divided the world into Roman and soon-to-be Roman, very much focused on the Roman expansion, the universalism of Christianity was expressed by its culture, its history and its missionary drive (Armstrong 1982: 151). Although the political system of Classical Rome disappeared, its capital became the centre of Christianity and maintained its role as a capital for the world as a religious community (Armstrong 1982: 207). RomanLatin Christianity succeeded to unite the peoples of Europe by the ninth century, a similar area as was united under the Roman Empire six centuries earlier (Armstrong 1982: 159). In 800, Christianity was then united with the Frankish political empire by Charlemagne and the foundation of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation during which Rome remained the spiritual capital. 3.3.12 Summary

It is important to emphasise that concepts such as religion or language should not, in spite of the structured and independent presentation of these features in this chapter, be understood to be exclusive. ese concepts, as well as identities in general, can of course overlap with each other. is becomes apparent, for example, when considering the religion of the Britons and the Anglo-Saxons in early Medieval Britain, who both were Christians but belonged to different branches of the Church, i.e. the Celtic Church and the Roman Church. In spite of having the same faith, the belonging to different branches of the Church, as will be shown in the following chapters, provided both gentes with a strong feature of identification which was, furthermore, used to express superiority over the other gens. Another example is the concept of language: as will be shown in the course of this study, it was and still is quite normal that more than one language was used within one gens such as, for example, Late British and Latin among the Britons. Again there is an overlap between Gildas, clearly a Briton, who wrote in Latin, and Bede, the most prominent English author, who himself wrote in Latin and in the Anglo-Saxon language. In spite of using the same language it is clear that Bede’s and Gildas’ writings provide material for the construction of two very different identities of their gentes. e use of the concepts introduced in this chapter, therefore, should never be seen as exclusive as overlaps can occur quite regularly. e set of features which have been argued in the past to influence the construction of collective identities represents a list of concepts that will be subject of analysis in the following chapters. Although works by Reese Davies or Alheydis Plassmann used smaller selections from this list in their approaches to Medieval literature in earlier research, this particular long set of features has never been used in a close analysis of the primary sources used for this study. While Ree-

44

Theoretical considerations

se Davies made use of most of these concepts in his studies in a rather general approach, an in-depth analysis of single works has only been conducted by Alheydis Plassmann. Her work, however, was particularly selective in the choice of primary sources and, due to a long list of sources which were used in her analysis, only discussed a very selective number of concepts relevant to the construction of identities as will be demonstrated in the following chapters.

4 Discussion of other Potential Source Writings

For the purpose of my study, I chose the writings of three medieval authors from Britain. ese authors are Gildas, Aneirin and Bede. My choice is based on the different perspectives the writings of these authors provide. Furthermore, this choice of source writings was also influenced by the difference in the ethnic backgrounds of these authors. Gildas and Aneirin wrote from a British perspective, Bede wrote from an Anglo-Saxon point of view. is difference in the origin of the authors will provide me with the chance to contrast each particular approach to the construction of collective identity. Another difference between these writings is their presumed textual genre. Following the approach of this study, which will be introduced shortly, an analysis of identity construction is not limited to writings from one particular genre only. e source writings used in my dissertation will be discussed in detail in the following chapters.¹ ere are, however, other writings which would also have qualified as source writings but which were not included for various reasons. e following chapter will provide an overview on a selection of these writings and furthermore outline the specific reasons why I decided against their inclusion to the source corpus of this study.

4.1 Adomnán’s Vita Sancti Columbae e writings not considered in this study include Saints’ Lives like, for example, the Hiberno-Latin Vita Sancti Columbae by Adomnán, the ninth abbot of Iona. He was born ca AD 628 and died in 704.² e vita he wrote is centred around the sixth-century Irish saint Columbanus. is saint, born around AD 522, travelled to parts of northern Britain aer being exiled from Ireland for the illegally copying gospels, in order to convert the Picts and spend his life as a pilgrim. He died in Iona in AD 597. is vita provides numerous references to the different gentes in Ireland and Britain. Adomnán even speaks of various encounters of Columba1 2

For the discussion of the three authors and their sources used in this study, see Chapter 6 for Gildas, Chapter 7.1 for Aneirin and Chapter 8.3 for Bede. Apart from this Life, one other writing, De Locis Sanctis can be connected with Adomnán as the author beyond any doubt (Anderson 1991: xlii).

46

Discussion of other Potential Source Writings

nus with individuals from all parts of the islands (Anderson 1991: xxviii–xxxviii). For the purpose of my work, however, I decided to focus on authors from Britain exclusively. As it turned out, information of sources from Britain about the gentes of Britain in the early Middle Ages provided more material than could possibly be studied for the present purpose. erefore, I decided to exclude the Irish perspective which no doubt would provide important details about contemporary identity construction in this period for future research. ere are, furthermore, other writings from Britain, excluding Ireland, which would have been possible to include in the present study. ese include four hagiographical writings which were not possible to fully take into account in my study but which will be briefly mentioned here.

4.2 The vitae of St Cuthbert e Latin Vita sancti Cuthberti, written by an anonymous author, is the earliest vita of an English saint. Cuthbert was a Northumbrian monk and bishop of Lindisfarne. He lived between AD 635 and 687. is writing is the earliest of three vitae about this saint and was written some time soon aer AD 698, probably between AD 699 and 704 (Kirby 1965-66: 343). e text is divided into four books and was commissioned by Bishop Eadfrith of Lindisfarne (Berschin 1989: 95). e early veneration of St Cuthbert led the foundation of his cult in the North of Britain. Because of the detailed accounts of his Life, Cuthbert is one of the bestknown figures of early Northumbria. It speaks of numerous contacts of the saint with other gentes in Britain, notably of his Irish background, and provides a detailed survey of the history of Northumbria in the seventh century. Furthermore, Bede composed a metrical version of this vita, a substantial poem of nearly 1000 hexameters divided into 46 chapters, which closely follows the anonymous vita (Lapidge 1989: 77). Bede’s metrical version can be dated to AD 705 (Lapidge 1989: 78). At the request of the community of Lindisfarne, Bede later, around AD 720, wrote a prose version in which he made use of this earlier poem (Goffart 1990: 39). It closely follows the arrangement of his metrical vita and is also divided into 46 chapters (Berschin 1989: 95). Bede’s prose version cleaned Cuthbert from his Irish background and rather positioned him in a Roman context because, in view of a strong pro-Wilfridian movement, he must have seemed an intruder, trained in Lindisfarne and put into a bishopric which was Wilfrid’s before he was sent into exile (Goffart 1990: 38). Various passages of Bede’s Life of Cuthbert were also included in his Historia Ecclesiastica which even provides further details which are free from the ecclesiastical context and less restricted to Northumbria than the vitae of Cuthbert. Since the Historia Ecclesiastica forms part of the research corpus of this study, I did not include his vitae nor the earlier anonymous work. However, all of the writings about this saint certainly deserve a detailed analysis

The Whitby Life of Gregory the Great

47

in regard to their treatment of identity construction in future research. e same is true for another vita, the Whitby Life of Gregory the Great.

4.3 The Whitby Life of Gregory the Great Another early anonymous English vita, the Latin Life of Gregory was written in the monastery of Whitby at the beginning of the eighth century.³ is vita is the earliest biography about this prominent pope whose pontificate lasted from AD 590 until 604. Much of the material used in it is based on legends. e central topic is Gregory’s mission of St Augustine, who was sent to Britain to convert the English (Kirby 1965-66: 344). Although the vita seems to be expansive, its content is mostly focused on the influence of Gregory the Great on English history. Kent is mentioned briefly, but the central topic is the Gregorian mission of Northumbria (Goffart 1990: 33). In his Historia Ecclesiastica Bede, though not verbatim, used much material from the Whitby vita.⁴ Its focus and the presence of its information in Bede’s writings led to my decision not to include it in my corpus. In spite of its legendary nature, a future analysis of this writing in regard to the construction of identity should be approached, especially in contrast to the works by Gregory himself, for example his Liber Pontificalis as well as his numerous letters relating to Britain.

4.4 Felix’s Life of St Guthlac e Latin Life of St Guthlac is about a Mercian aristocratic saint who lived from AD 673 to 714, and was written by Felix of Crowland at the beginning of the eighth century (Wormald 1978: 56). Guthlac, a former warrior in the army of King Aethelred of Mercia who ruled the country from AD 675 to 704, turned a monk at Repton monastery in Derbyshire and later lived as a hermit close to the monastery. e vita closely follows the model of another earlier vita, the Mediterranean Life of St Anthony by Anasthasius which was written between AD 356 and 362. Initially, Felix’s work would have seemed to be of significant interest for the present study because it contains numerous negative references to the Britons, including a passage where the saint is tortured by Late-British speaking demons. Like the vita of St Wilfrid, St Guthlac was a saint with an aristocratic background and the vita speaks about his family ancestry as well as about his secular career before his conversion (Wormald 1978: 56). According to his vita, Guthlac was the founder 3 4

It is still matter of discussion whether the Life of Cuthbert or the Life of Gregory is older, but so far no one was able to determine which has priority over the other (Goffart 1990: 33). is led David Kirby to argue that Bede had only access to oral accounts of the text but did not have a copy of the text itself (Kirby 1965-66: 354).

48

Discussion of other Potential Source Writings

of Crowland monastery in the kingdom of Mercia (Kirby 1965-66: 370). e tradition to depict saints from an aristocratic background was a new hagiographical fashion in Anglo-Saxon England and intended to emphasize the public splendour of the saint (Wormald 1978: 56).⁵ e addition of this vita to my research corpus, however, would have added another aspect to the construction of collective identities, namely the two different approaches in Anglo-Saxon writings to saintly figures. Bede, as will be shown, neglected the aristocratic backgrounds of his central figures. As the following chapters will demonstrate, he had, in contrast to authors like Felix, a different, rather religious interest to reflect on these figures. is contrast, though promising for future research, would have added a further level of analysis to my study, namely the comparison between authors whose writings strongly overlap and who write from the same ethnic perspective. Since the focus of this study is to compare writings from authors from different social and ethnic backgrounds, I therefore decided to exclude Felix’s prose work from my corpus.⁶

4.5 Stephen of Ripon’s Vita Sancti Wilfrithi Stephen’s Latin Vita Sancti Wilfrithi is the most complete and outstanding account of England before Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica (Goffart 1988: 281). It was written between AD 710 and 720 and was commonly attributed to Aeddi cognomento Stephanus, who used to be identified with a singing master from Kent who had joined the monastery of Ripon, in the North of England, between AD 666 and 669 (Goffart 1988: 281). In the scholarly debate, a number of arguments have been adduced against the identification of Eddius Stephanus as the author of this Life, for example the long gap between his joining the monastery and his writing the vita. It is, therefore, more likely that the author was a monk in Ripon (Goffart 1988: 282). e distinction between Eddius Stephanus and Stephen of Ripon is therefore still matter of discussion. e author was urged to write the vita aer the death of Wilfrid in AD 709 or 710 by the superiors of his monastery (Goffart 1990: 34). is Life has an offensively anti-Irish tone which has been explained by the conflicts between the Irish and the Roman Church in Northumbria (Kirby 1965-66: 5

6

Wormald claimed that this tradition is Anglo-Saxon in its origin because “the fashion seems to arise, not from following any particular model, Mediterranean or Frankish, but simply from writing hagiography in a barbarian environment. is is literature of the taste of a Germanic aristocracy, and thus reflecting the social origins not only of Guthlac himself, but also of the communities for whom his deeds were recorded” (Wormald 1978: 56). Wormald furthermore pointed out that Guthlac and Wilfrid serve examples for the influence of a former pagan warrior class in a recently converted society combining elements of heroic literature with Christian hagiography (Wormald 1978: 58). e same is true for two poems about Guthlac which derived from this vita and were composed between 730 and 740 AD. e poems are part of the Exeter Book, a collection of Old English poems from this period and mirror the information from Felix’s prose work in verse form.

The Works of Taliesin

49

343) (Goffart 1988: 286). As I will demonstrate in the following chapters, this tone was not shared by Bede. Stephen’s vita was not only used but also re-interpreted by Bede for his Historica Ecclesiastica (Goffart 1988: 307–324).⁷ In spite of his diminished importance in Bede’s work which will be discussed in one of the following chapters, it can be assumed that he was one of the most central figures of the Church in northern England at the end of the seventh and the beginning of the eighth century. His students and his personell, such as his chaplain Acca, exerted influence on the Church of Northumbria until late in the eighth century (Goffart 1990: 37). e Vita sancti Wilfrithi provides many details about the gentes in Britain at the beginning of the seventh century. However, the period of time dealt with in Stephen of Ripon’s Life is limited to the life of Wilfrid. Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica and his Chronicae also provide information about events before his time. Bede’s writings, therefore, provided more opportunities of a contrast especially with the text of the British author Gildas and his De Excidio Britanniae. erefore I decided against the use of the Vita sancti Wilfrithi although, as the research of Walter Goffart has demonstrated, especially a contrastive discussion of Bede and Stephen of Ripon seems very promising for future research. Apart from these hagiographical works, there are works of poetry which I excluded from the corpus of my present study due to reasons which will be explained below. Regarding the choice of the collections of stanzas which are today referred to as Y Gododdin, attributed to a poet named Aneirin, there is one other poet whose works could also have been of use for my research, Taliesin.

4.6 The Works of Taliesin e earliest reference to the Late British poet Taliesin is found in the Historia Brittonum where he is mentioned together with other poets, including Aneirin.⁸ His work survives in the Llyfr Taliesin or the Book of Taliesin in an early fourteenthcentury manuscript known as Peniarth MS 2 at the National Library of Wales. It is also incorporated in various manuscripts which have been referred to as the Ystoria Taliesin or the Story of Taliesin in several manuscripts written between the sixteenth and eighteenth century (Ford 1992: 55). e story of Taliesin has been claimed to be a narrative with central importance for the understanding of the concepts of poets and poetry in the British tradition (Ford 1992: vii). e Book of Taliesin contains a variety of poetic works, some of which are supposedly of historical value, others dealing with mythology and magic. e discussion about the historical value of Taliesin’s work has reached no common consensus 7

8

See Walter Goffart’s chapter “e Abasement of Bishop Wilfrid” for how Bede’s changes and omissions succeeded in diminishing the role of Bishop Wilfrid in his Historia Ecclesiastica in Goffart, 1988. See Chapter 7.1.

50

Discussion of other Potential Source Writings

(Ford 1992: 3). Among several open questions regarding these poems, the works of Taliesin, similar to the works of Aneirin, are assumed to be of sixth or early seventh century origin, although the discussion about the exact date of composition of the poems still remains open (Ford 1992: 5–8). In this regard, however, it needs to be said that the earliest manuscript extant of the works of Aneirin predates the earliest manuscript extant of Taliesin’s work by about a century since it has been dated to the first half of the fourteenth century. e works of Aneirin, furthermore, seemed to me to offer more references to the gentes in Britain than those of Taliesin. I therefore preferred Aneirin’s Y Gododdin to the Book of Taliesin although Taliesin’s work has been consulted at several instances in contrast to Y Gododdin. Since I am convinced that poetry from this period is very promising in regard to a discussion of the identity construction in Britain, the works of Taliesin should be fully included in the future discussion as well, in particular in a contrastive approach with other roughly contemporary works of poetry composed from other perspectives. My study, therefore, approaches an exemplary selection of writings which will be introduced in detail below. In my selection, I also wanted to use a corpus of works which appear to have been written within the time frame of approximately two centuries. ere are two reason for this, first I wanted to provide perspectives on the development of the gentes in Britain within this period. Since there are no sources before Gildas, I decided to use his writing to begin my study with. Bede, on the other hand, provided such an amount of material that I decided to close my corpus with a selection of his writings. Using these three sources for my corpus provided a sizeable amount of material to demonstrate the development of identity construction within the framework of a Discourse eoretical Approach. Secondly, the period aer Bede saw the arrival of new gentes in Britain, for example the raiders and settlers from Denmark and Norway (Colgrave 1994: 16). I therefore limited my corpus to writings which deal with the two central gentes in the focus of this study, the Britons and the Anglo-Saxons.

5 Methodological Considerations - Identity Construction as Discourse

Following the previous introduction into the features which have been argued to influence the construction of collective identities, this chapter will introduce the general theoretical background and the methodological approach used in this study. e concept of discourse, however, is burdened with a number of different definitions and various uses of terminology (van Dijk 1997: 1).¹ is is not the place to provide a complete discussion of the discourse phenomenon and it is also not the intention of this study to formulate a theoretical contribution to the ongoing discussion about discourse theory. e concept of discourse and the approaches to discourse analysis, however, provide a theoretical instrument which promises to be useful for the methodology of my analysis of the strategy of identity construction in Medieval literature in Britain. us considering the numerous definitions and ideas which have been voiced in the past in regards to discourse and discourse analysis, a short overview of the concept and its central terms is necessary before approaching the concise methodology used in this study. is overview will address three aspects in particular: the concept and the definition of discourse, its relationship to the construction of identity and social realities, as well as the differing forms and understandings of discourse analysis.

5.1 The concept of discourse e concept of discourse is commonly identified with the works of Michel Foucault, especially with his l’Ordre de Discours written in 1971.² Foucault, however, provided a basic definition for the term discourse in one of his earlier works, where he claimed discourse to be “an entity of sequences of signs in that they are enouncements (enoncés).” ³ ese enouncements, or statements, as they are regularly 1

2 3

Teun van Dijk, for example, uses the term discourse studies instead of the more widely-used term discourse analysis which already indicates the problem of a lack of a shared terminology within the field of discourse in general. Foucault, Michel. L’Ordre de Discours. Paris: Gallimard, 1971. Michel Foucault. L’Archaéologie du Savoir. Paris: Gallimard, 1969, 74.

52

Methodological Considerations - Identity Construction as Discourse

referred to, can be of any form or nature, for example spoken or written texts, pictures, sounds or any other form of signs. Discourse is thus constituted by what is at least in theory an unlimited number of statements in relation to a specific subject, a specific object or even to other enouncements. Foucault used this concept for his analysis of the discourse on knowledge, in particular on specific fields such as history or medicine.⁴ is approach led Foucault to his claim, that a discourse was always centred around a highly specialized theme or topic. Both terms, however, remain undefined in his works (Link 1999: 151). e concept of discourse was adopted by various fields of scholarship, most prominently by scholars of linguistics and history, but also in literary studies. e term discourse thereby underwent various re-definitions. While the concept of discourse has been used within the field of linguistics and received various definitions from the linguistic perspective, one of the main definitions for how the concept is understood in the study at hand is taken from the perspective of literary theory. Jürgen Link claimed his understanding of discourse as a Fluss von ‘sozialen Wissensvorräten durch die Zeit’, der aus der Vergangenheit kommt, die Gegenwart bestimmt und in der Zukun in wie auch immer modifizierter Form weiterfließt! Er formiert subjektives und kollektives Bewusstsein und übt insofern Macht aus. Denn subjektives und kollektives Bewusstsein sind die Grundlage für die Auseinandersetzung mit und die Neuformierung/ Weiterentwicklung/ Veränderung von Gesellscha. ⁵ Although used as an approach to discourse in literary studies, this definition agrees with the understanding of the concept as it was voiced by a linguist, Teun van Dijk, who claims that discourse consists of three dimensions, i.e. the use of language, the communication of beliefs and the interaction in social situations (van Dijk 1997: 2). Link and van Dijk therefore agreed about the influence of the discourse on the interaction in social situations as well as on its constitutional function for social realities. Van Dijk in particular considered writings an important component within the discourse. He claimed authors and readers to be users of texts which were themselves pieces of communication and interaction. Following van Dijk, the study of discourse should always include a focus on the texts, their co4 5

e following discussions and interpretations are, again, characterised by a changing use of terminology. Van Dijk, for example, uses discourse components for Foucault’s enoncés. [A stream of a socially constituted stock of knowledge through time which originated in the past, influences the present and will continue flowing in the future in a somewhat modified form. It forms subjective and collective conscience and, in this, it has its own power because subjective and collective consciousness are the basis for the discussion of the new formation, the continuous development or the change of society], cf. (Link 1999: 136). My translation.

The concept of discourse

53

texts or surrounding texts and their context, an approach which was adopted in the present study (van Dijk 1997: 4). Heidrun Kämper’s definition serves as a further example from the field of linguistics. Kämper agrees with the previous understandings of discourse, which she claimed to be eine Serie öffentlicher themenkohärenter, kommunikativer Akte, die von einer bestimmten Gruppe von Diskursbeteiligten realisiert werden, die in unterschiedlichen textuellen Mustern und kommunikativen Praktiken repräsentiert sind und die sich insbesondere in einem diskurstypischen/diskursrelevanten Vokabular verdichten.⁶ Kämpers’ definition of discourse as a series of public communicative acts already indicates the role of her definition for discourse analysis, an approach which I will turn to shortly. e study of discourse has also received a certain prominent attention amongst historians in the past decade. Achim Landwehr, who approached the topic of discourse from a historian’s perspective, claimed that in spite of the differences in the understanding of discourse, its scholarly use always aimed at Untersuchungen des Sprach- und Zeichengebrauchs, ob es sich dabei nun um mündliche oder schriliche Aussagen, konkrete Kommunikationsprozesse, die Analyse größerer Textcorpora oder die Untersuchung bildlicher und akustischer Medien handelt. Dabei ist es Üblicherweise das Ziel, formale oder inhaltliche Strukturierungen aufzudecken.⁷ Landwehr’s claim and the definitions by Link and Kämper indicate that discourse and its analysis has been an approach of interest for different fields of research. It was, however, in the past mostly put into practise by linguists, social scientists and, only recently, historians. e use of the concept of discourse for the study of literatures has thus been somewhat neglected in the past. Reading Foucault, this neglect is not surprising since he made no clear connection between his concept of discourse and literature in general. In spite of this, literary studies nevertheless experienced important impulses through his works 6

7

[A series of public, thematically related, communicative acts realized by a defined group of discourse participants which are represented in different textual patterns and communicative practices and which are particularly present in a language typical and relevant for the discourse], cf. (Kämper 2008: 207). My translation [e analysis of the use of language and signs in order to expose oral or written expressions, concise processes of communication, the analysis of larger text corpora or the anaylsis of pictoral or accustic media. It is usually the goal to expose structures in form or content]. cf. (Landwehr 2009: 15–16) My translation.

54

Methodological Considerations - Identity Construction as Discourse

(Link 1999: 154) (Galasinski 2001: 13–16). In his L’Ordre des Choses, Foucault distinguishes between the function of the Classical and modern literatures and claims that whereas the Classical writings form part of the representation of the order of Classical societies, modern literatures carry the meaning of a counter-discourse of the modern theory of meaning (Galasinski 2001: 37).⁸ However, neither Foucault’s study on the archaeology of knowledge nor any other of his works provided a methodology or any hints what a Discourse Analysis in literary studies or in any other field should look like. Although he referred to a discourse of texts at various times, this particular concept of discourse remained vague and imprecise (Link und Link-Heer 1990: 91). It was thus le to the scholars studying Foucault’s concept of discours to argue about a possible methodological approach in literary studies based on his discourse. is was done, as already mentioned, primarily by linguists, social scientists and historians. Literature, though widely used in Foucault’s arguments as subject of his own analysis, did not receive its own theory up to this day (Galasinski 2001: 15–16).⁹ Before I approach the question of how different areas of scholarship made use of the concept of discourse and how the present study benefits from the methodological developments discourse has introduced to linguistics, history and literature it is necessary to outline the connection between discourse and the construction of identity as it is understood by this study.

5.2 Discourse and the Construction of Identity e variety of understandings and definitions regarding the concept of discourse already bears a certain similarity to the concept of identity, where the multidisciplinary debate and the widespread academic and non-academic use of the term led to a similar vagueness of the concept as well (Grad 2008: 3). In his L’Archaéologie du savoir Foucault himself defined discourses as practices [..] which systematically construct the objects which they are referring to.. e constructive and re-constructive nature of identity thus carries strong similarities with the definitions of discourse. is is particularly true concerning the reciprocal relationship between discourse, society and communication where “social structures are produced through action and action is produced by social structures” (Grad 2008: 18–19). e action, as Hector Grad used it, is understood by the present stu8

9

Foucault, Michel. Les mots et les choses. Une archaéologie des sciences humaines. Gallimard: Paris, 1966. Foucault places the change from Classical to modern literatures to a transition period between the 17th and 18th century. Foucault’s definitions, however, received particular attention from the perspective of literary studies by Jürgen Link who critically discussed Foucault’s understanding of theme, positivities and interdiscoursive configuration (Link 1999: 150–152). ese concepts, however, play only a marginal role for the present study. eir definition by Foucault and the discussion provided by Link hence deserve to be discussed elsewhere.

Discourse and the Construction of Identity

55

dy as the use of certain features of identity construction in written communication as it can be found in the sources subject to analysis in this thesis. In spite of this obvious similarity between both concepts, a discursive approach to identity has only recently been undertaken, most prominently in the study of Hector Grad and others from 2008.¹⁰ In his study, Grad formulated the connection between discourse and identity as follows: e question of identity is therefore of special interest as it allows for a better understanding of how processes of the construction of identity in discourse are linked to processes of domination.¹¹ Although processes of domination are not in the central focus of the present study, Grad’s claim strongly resembles the purpose of this dissertation¹²: the analysis of the discourse of identity construction in order to understand the changes and continuities as well as similarities and differences in the discourse among various discourse participants between the fih and the eighth century in Britain. e interests of the analyses and discussions in the following chapters are thus the same as the interests of discourse theory as claimed by Grad, namely “showing the creative and reproductive power of discursive practices” or strategies of identity construction, implying a conscious agenda of the authors, or discourse participants, as it is done in this study (Grad 2008: 20). It is apparent that the concept of discourse is a promising one when approaching the question of a strategy that lies behind the construction of identities. Because of the usefulness of the concept of discourse in the approach to identity construction it seems credible to take a closer look at the different methodological approaches influenced by discourse studies when deciding on the methodology of the present study. e following chapter will thus provide an overview of the central methodological and theoretical discussions about the analysis of discourse in order to formulate the methodology of this present study which adapts certain elements of discourse analysis.

10 Analysing Identities in Discourse. Grad, Hector; Dolon, Rosana, et al. (eds.), Valencia: Universidad de Valencia 2008. 11 (Grad 2008: 22). 12 An analysis of processes of domination can only be approached when the processes which lie behind the construction of identity are understood. Domination or its claim, which I understand as the result or possible continuation of a successful construction of identity, should thus be approached aer the circumstances of the construction of identities have been analysed. e analysis of domination and the claim of political rule in Britain during the period in the focus of this study could thus be approached in the future with the result provided in this thesis.

56

Methodological Considerations - Identity Construction as Discourse

5.3 Discourse Analysis Foucault himself introduced the concept of discourse analysis in his text L’Archaéologie du savoir, where he claimed discourse to be an object which could be used for social analysis (Keller 2006: 52). Originally, the analysis of discourse emerged during the 1960s simultaneously in different areas of scholarship, including ethnography, structuralism, communication studies of historiography (van Dijk 1997: 25–27). In due course, discourse analysis gained attention in various fields of research when scholars tried to find a methodological instrument with which it was possible to apply Foucault’s concept. e following chapter will outline central approaches to and realizations of discourse analysis as they have been discussed by linguists, historians and scholars of literatures in the recent past. 5.3.1 Historical Discourse Analysis

e historical discourse analysis has been pursued most prominently by scholars such as Philipp Sarasin or Achim Landwehr. eir approaches to the analysis of discourse, however, differs fundamentally. While Sarasin understands discourse analysis as a theoretical-philosophical attitude towards historical research, Landwehr claims it to be a methodological instrument (Keller 2006: 55). Both scholars agree that the analysis of statements is focused around questions such as “how statements exist, what their existence means and what the meaning of their influence is, i.e. how and why they can be taken up and be re-negotiated at a later point.” ¹³ Because of Landwehr’s understanding of discourse analysis as a methodological instrument his elaborations have a strong influence on the methodology used in this study side by side with Critical Discourse Analysis and the Discourse Historical Approach, which will be introduced in short. Concerning writings, Landwehr distinguishes between a textual macro- and a textual micro-level. e textual macro-level includes aspects such as the general form of the text, its topics, its style and the role of its author (Landwehr 2009: 129). e textual micro-level includes aspects such as argumentation, rhetoric and style as they are expressed at the level of the text in general, but also at the sentence and word level. Additionally, the context needs to be taken into consideration, as Keller claimed when referring to Landwehr, die Analyse der regelmäßig wiederholten Aussagen zu einem emenkomplex ergibt dann die Analyse des Diskurses, dazu sei es zu-

13 [Wie die Aussagen existieren, was es bedeutet, dass sie existieren, und was es bedeutet, daß sie Spuren hinterlassen haben, um möglicherweise wieder aufgegriffen werden] (Keller 2006: 53). My translation and adaption.

Discourse Analysis

57

sätzlich notwendig, kontextuelle Einbettungen und anderes zu berücksichtigen.¹⁴ e necessity of taking the context of a writing into consideration when approaching the analysis of a discourse was adapted from historical discourse analysis by the methodology of this study. Other parts of this methodology, however, were influenced by and adapted from the Critical Discourse Analysis and, in particular, from the Discourse Historical Approach as introduced by Ruth Wodak. 5.3.2 Critical Discourse Analysis

One of the main influences for the methodology of this study is the Critical Discourse Analysis, originally an instrument developed for linguistic research.¹⁵ CDA understands Diskurs, sei er gesprochen oder geschrieben, als eine Form sozialer Praxis. Das Verhältnis zwischen den spezifischen diskursiven Handlungen und den Situationen, Institutionen und sozialen Strukturen, die diese rahmen, sieht die Kritische Diskursanalyse als dialektisches an: Einerseits formt und prägt der situationale, institutionelle und soziale Kontext den Diskurs, andererseits wirkt der Diskurs auf die soziale und gesellschaliche Wirklichkeit formend zurück.¹⁶ It is, therefore, the goal of Critical Discourse Analysis to make discourses of social manipulation visible (Wodak et al. 1998: 43). e aim of this study, which is to focus on the strategy of this particular manipulation that lies behind the production and transmission of a writing, and the goals of the CDA are close to each other. Apart from the reciprocal understanding of discourse and social realities, the present study profits from another characteristic of CDA, namely, its focus on strategies which will be discussed in short.¹⁷

14 [the analysis of statements which are repeated regularly, thus leads to the analysis of the discourse. It is, furthermore, necessary to consider context and other aspects] (Keller 2006: 54). My own translation. 15 Henceforth CDA. 16 [discourse, either spoken or written, as a form of social practice. e relationship between the specific discursive actions and the situations, institutions and social structures which frame them, are considered dialectal by Critical Discourse Analysis: discourse is, on the one hand, formed and influenced by the situational, the institutional and the social context. Discourse, on the hand, itself, reflects on and influences the social and communal reality] (Wodak et al. 1998: 42). My own translation. 17 See Chapter 5.3.4.

58

Methodological Considerations - Identity Construction as Discourse

5.3.3 The Discourse Historical Approach

e concept of Critical Discourse eory underwent further development in order to be able to analyse the motivation and intention of discourse participants. is led to the formulation of the Discourse Historical Approach¹⁸ by Ruth Wodak and others. e DHA moved away from the CDA’s focus on reciprocal relationships between discourse and society toward the analysis of how discourse practices could be used by social actors with different points of view and agendas in order to support their claims for or against a certain subject. Wodak formulated the understanding of discourse by the DHA as a cluster of context-dependent semiotic practices that are situated within specific fields of social action, socially constituted and socially constitutive, related to a macro-topic [and] linked to the argumentation about validity claims such as the truth and normative validity involving several social actors who have different points of view.¹⁹ e definition of a macro-topic within the discourse subject according to the DHA makes this approach especially useful for the present study. Here, the macro-topic of the discourse can be identified as the strategic construction of identities of various gentes in Britain between the sixth and eighth centuries. e strategies of identity construction, which were introduced in the previous chapter, are, in this study as well as within the DHA, assumed to be socially constituted and socially constitutive.²⁰ e change of the CDA’s focus on the reciprocal relationship between discourse and society towards the focus of the DHA on the social actors or participants is of central importance for the present study. Because of the central aim of DHA, i.e. the understanding of how these social actors participate within the discourse in order to validate their claims of truth, this approach provided a useful instrument when formulating the methodology and the aims of the present study. To be able to understand this form of participation, or strategy, the central terms of discourse, as they are understood and used in this study, will be introduced in the following section. is includes the methodological steps taken by this study which were influenced, to a certain extent, by all previous approaches to discourse analysis which have been introduced in this chapter. 5.3.4 Analysis of the Discoursive Strategy (ADS) of Identity Construction

e Analysis of Discoursive Strategies²¹, designed for this particular study, takes all of the previously discussed definitions of discourse into account when formu18 19 20 21

Henceforth DHA. (Wodak 2009: 89) See Chapter 3. Henceforth ADS.

Discourse Analysis

59

lating the definition of a discourse of identity construction as it is understood in this study. is discourse can, thus, be defined as an entity of features which are commonly understood to reflect the construction of identities. ese features are not created but rather taken up from previous statements and discourse participants. e features can undergo certain changes and adaptations in order to follow the strategy of a certain discourse participant depending on his situational, social and historical context as well as his origin, perspective and agenda. A reciprocal relationship between discourse and social reality can, therefore, be assumed. is definition of discourse is my own adaptation of the concepts presented earlier to the writings which are subject to analysis in this study. While the question about the reciprocal relationship between discourse and society is of central interest from a historical point of view, this study, from a literary point of view, is interested in the development of the discourse features in writings and the motives which lie behind these developments, i.e. the strategy of the discourse participants. Understanding the developments of the features allows the present study to formulate claims explaining the strategy of the discourse participants. ese discourse participants, as they are understood in this study, are the authors who produced and the scribes who re-produced the writings. Both groups followed a certain schedule or strategy with their production or re-production. e present study will, therefore, formulate arguments on the strategy of the authors or the scribes, depending on the circumstances of each writing’s production and its transmission history. Following this approach and the previous definition of discourse as it is understood by the ADS, this study’s approach to discourse analysis can be explained as the analysis of a discourse and the development of its discourse features whereas the discourse features in their complexity represent the discourse itself. is analysis must include a close examination of the context of the different discourse participants in order to formulate an explanation of their immanent strategy of identity construction. e present study will thus demonstrate that the ADS provides a useful tool in the analysis and interpretation of motives and strategies of discourse participants when following and adapting a certain discourse exampled by the construction of collective identities through medieval writings in Britain. e writings which will be subject to analysis in the following chapters have never been approached from the perspective of discourse studies. In addition, the present study will focus not only on the writings but also on the strategy of the discourse participants. e question about the connection between discourse and strategy was addressed earlier by Norman Fairclough. When discussing the concept of CDA, Fairclough claimed: Strategies for ‘transition’, like strategies in general, have a substantively discoursive character - they are [...] constituted as narratives

60

Methodological Considerations - Identity Construction as Discourse

which draw upon particular discourses (as well as e.g. legitimizing arguments). [...] In so far as a strategy is implemented, its narratives and discourses may be ‘operationalized’, ‘put into practice’ so to speak, in more general social change.²² Following Fairclough’s claim, the writings which are subject to the following analysis are approached as discourse events, i.e. events that form the discourse of the topics as was the understanding of Foucault.²³ Following these definitions of discourse, discourse participants and discourse events as well as the basic outline of the analysis which will be approached in this study, it is necessary to introduce the methodological steps the following chapters will follow. It is obvious that the study at hand can not provide a discourse analysis as it was described by historians, social scientists or linguists. First, writings from such early period have never been approached as a discourse presenting numerous problems for which the aforementioned methodologies do not provide solutions, i.e. the lack of sources about the discourse’s social impact. Second, while acknowledging and taking historical and social developments into consideration, the present study is undertaken from the perspective of literary studies which hitherto has not provided a methodological tool within discourse studies that would allow approaching the writings discussed in this thesis with the present research focus. e goal of this present study is thus to provide an analysis of the discoursive construction of collective identities in the corpus introduced before. e methodology of this study, while strongly influenced by traditional theories of discourse analysis, had to be adapted in order to be able to provide a new outlook on the discoursive strategy of identity construction in writings from the early Middle Ages. Since the methodology of discourse analysis is widely used in different areas of research, the methodology of this study tried to identify and use different approaches and aspects from these areas.²⁴ is is true for all three types of analyses undertaken in this study. For the micro-analysis, i.e. the analysis of the writings themselves, methodological strategies used by the Discourse-Historical Approach as introduced by Ruth Wodak and used by linguists have provided an important 22 (Fairclough 2007: 26) Teun van Dijk supported this argument with his claim of discourse as a communicative event used to communicate ideas or beliefs as part of more complex social events, see van Dijk, 1997, 2. 23 In contrast, for example, to Jürgen Habermas who claimed these events to be discourses themselves (Link 1999: 150). 24 Norman Fairclough considered such a dialogue with other disciplines and theories as a source of theoretical and methodological development and therefore prefers the term transdisciplinary over interdisciplinary because this approach to the development of methodologies intends to change the boundaries between disciplines which is not done by an interdisciplinary approach (Fairclough 2007: 27). Following Fairclough, this strategy might even itself be considered as a recontextualisation within a methodological discourse, but more on that later.

Methodological Steps

61

example which this study will follow. For the approach to a macro-analysis, i.e. the thorough discussion of the texts and their contexts, this study used various elements from the Historical Discourse Analysis as suggested by Achim Landwehr in 2009.²⁵ Both, the micro- and the macro-analysis undertaken in the present study are, in this combination, adapted to the corpus of writings and the immanent research questions this study will provide possible answers to in using the following methodological steps.

5.4 Methodological Steps e questions of genre, text type or any other classification of the writings based on their structure are of no interest for this study, or for the DHA for that matter. All sources will be examined by the same methodological steps (Mills 2007: 24). In accordance with studies assigned to the approach that has been labelled New Historicism, written texts will be analysed as only one part of discourse among others which reflect on their contemporary historical, social and political givens. e analysis of the primary sources in this study will be approached in four steps: first, each chapter will begin with a detailed discussion of the authors, the history and the transmission of the writings, i.e. an analysis of the extra-textual level. Second, an analysis of the features of identity construction in the texts will follow. is means that the textual level itself will be subject of analysis. ird, I will discuss my interpretation of the strategy of their identity construction by contextualizing my results with historical, political and social aspects of the texts during the time of their composition and, where necessary, during the time of their transmission, i.e. the intertextual level. In a final step, the focus of the present analysis will move from a thematic, text-internal analysis towards a discourse oriented, text-external discussion of identity construction in all the source texts to show how identity construction in early medieval writings in Britain presents itself during the period of production and transmission of these sources. is will be the fourth level of analysis in Wodak’s model, i.e. the level of the intertextual context. is will then lead to a discussion of the possible function of these texts in the construction of two specific collective identities in early medieval Britain, i.e. the Anglo-Saxons and the sub-Roman Britons. Apart from these identities of major interest, however, further collective identities, such as the identities of the scotti or the picti, will be taken into consideration as well. To be more precise, the first part of the following analysis will introduce and discuss the context of the written source as established by research in the past decades. is will include a discussion of a possible author, whose origin and background are of importance regarding the point of view presented in the source. 25 Achim Landwehr. Historische Diskursanalyse. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 2009.

62

Methodological Considerations - Identity Construction as Discourse

e discussion of his person and background should therefore be understood as an attempt to access the text’s context. is is necessary because the discussion of collective identities in pre-modern writings until recently oen neglected a critical approach towards texts from this period and therefore led to a positivistic view of their value as historiographical sources (Pohl 1994: 19). e second part will concentrate on the texts themselves. Every source writing will be subject to analysis according to the discourse-theoretical frame which I introduced earlier. e central questions of this step are: Which gentes are mentioned in the texts? How are they characterised? What identity markers are used for their characterization? How much emphasis is put on these markers; are some more detailed or more prominent than others? is analysis will provide the necessary data which will later be used to compare the strategies and means of identity construction between the texts and to show the similarities and differences between the sources. For some of them, however, the analysis does not end with the text. During my research I discovered that not only the texts presented in modern editions, but also their manuscripts provide significant insights into identity construction in the Middle Ages. Whenever possible and necessary, a closer look will thus be taken at the manuscript transmission of the respective writing. e third part will discuss the information retrieved from the texts together with a view on the established context of the source. Leading questions will be, for example, why does the text show the respective gentes the way it does? What is the text’s point of view? How does the point of view change the text’s approach to the people it conveys information about? How does this relate to the history of the text or its assumed author? How does this relate to what we know about the contemporary political and social situation? In regard to some sources, it will also be necessary to step away from the text itself and discuss significant changes in the manuscript transmission. Why were changes introduced in the text during the time of writing a certain manuscript? Where and by whom were the manuscripts written? What were the reasons for additions, deletions or reformulations? Such questions will lead my discussion of the texts to the historical, political and social realities of their times. e introduction of the context of the source provided in the first step of my analysis will then safeguard too positivistic answers to these questions to be given. In the conclusion of the present study the fourth level of analysis will provide a discussion of the discourse topic and its contextual development between the sources of my study. I will argue that features of identity construction can be found in all sources and are not influenced by genre or origin of the text. is discussion will also show that the construction of collective identity was a conscious process in all the sources, independent of the purpose of their composition, of their author or their transmission, i.e. the discourse participant. e construction of collective identity is used in the same way by all the discourse participants, although the

Methodological Steps

63

sources differ significantly in their origin, their purpose and their intended audience, and, thus, all follow certain strategies which will be brought to light in this present study. is approach is innovative because it takes into account the recontextualization of features which influence identity construction in written sources coming from different genres, different ethnic backgrounds and which were written with different purposes. In this, the present study differs, for example, from the research of origo gentis, which, as will be demonstrated in the following chapters, fails to demonstrate the discourse strategy in identity construction because it not only ignores discourse traditions altogether but also ignores writings that are not understood to fall into the category of what this particular branch of research understands to be histories. is present study will argue that all writings, and to a certain extent their authors and the scribes who participate in their transmission process, participate within the discourse of identity construction of the gentes in Britain. In this, they all follow the same discourse tradition, i.e. they use and, when necessary, manipulate the discourse features according to their own perspective, their own agenda and their own contemporary political and social realities. e writings thus follow the same discourse tradition, i.e. the construction of gentes of Britain, while significantly differing in in their discourse strategy, as the following chapters will demonstrate.

6 Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae

Gildas’ De Excidio Britanniae has been subjected to critical analysis by scholars from various fields of research./footnotee title of Gildas’ text derives from the Cottonian Library catalogue from the time before the principal manuscript, Cotton, Vitellius, A. VI. was damaged /cite[203]charles-edwards2013. In spite of this, numerous aspects of the text and of his author are still a matter of discussion. is includes the question about the communicative purpose of the text Gildas wrote; in his DEB, he refers to its epistolary character in the very first line: In hac epistola quicquid deflendo potius quam declamando;¹ [In this letter I shall deplore rather than denounce;]² He repeats this information in chapter 93: Velim quidem haec scripturae sacrae testimonia huic epistolae inserta vel inserenda, sicut nostra mediocritas posset, omnia utcumque historico vel morali sensu interpretari.³ [I should certainly like, so far as my feeble talents allow, to interpret, in the historical or moral sense, all these testimonies from the holy scripture that I have so far inserted and [or] have yet to insert in this letter.]⁴ Gildas specifies the purpose of his epistola, a document which in late Roman tradition describes a piece of public communication: imperitia sic ut et nunc una cum vilibus me meritis inhibentibus ne qualemcumque admonitiunculam scriberem;⁵ 1 2 3 4 5

DEB, 1.1, here and in the following references in Winterbottom, 1978. Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 13. DEB, 93.4 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 70. My alteration of Winterbottom’s translation. DEB, 1.2

66

Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae

[en, as now, my inexperience and my worthlessness restrained me from writing any warning, however modest.]⁶ Gildas thus writes a letter of admonition to the British nobility and clergy.⁷ As will be shown shortly, Bede calls Gildas’ DEB a sermo in his Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum.⁸ According to Bede, Gildas’ DEB is a written statement of warning. Judging from form, the author’s introduction and its purpose, the text has been argued to be in the tradition of the Classical sermon letter (Kerlouégan 1987: 36). Naturally, the term sermo is used here in its Classical meaning as statement or discussion and therefore significantly differs from its later medieval meaning. is categorization is based on three aspects: first, on what the author himself says about his text; second, on the key word sermo given by Bede, and third, on the tradition of texts into which the DEB can be placed according to its discourse strategy. Francois Kerlouégan puts the DEB in the tradition of other letters of this sort, e.g. from Augustine. He acknowledges that this particular text type was not of major importance but it existed and Gildas’ DEB can well be seen in this tradition (Kerlouégan 1987: 37). Beginning with what the author himself says about his work, his purpose seems to be evident: it is to admonish contemporary British rulers and ecclesiastics to change their behaviour which he judges to violate the morals and the behaviour of good Christians. Gildas begins his admonition with a historical and geographical introduction. is has led scholars like David Dumville to the question of the text’s historiographical value: is it possible to use this text as a primary source within historical research?⁹ Bede is the very first of the many scholars who called Gildas historicus.¹⁰ Bede naming Gildas the historian of the Britons opened a discussion which lasts until today. e contention among scholars is about the value of the DEB as a historical text or of Gildas as a historian in general, in spite of his apparent political agenda. According to Bede or following both of Gildas’ vitae, the DEB’s author was a historian, a great saint of the Celtic church and even a prophet (Hanning 1966: 61). Antonia Gransden went as far as to name Gildas the first British historian altogether (Gransden 1974: 1).¹¹ In this regard, it has been argued that Gildas’ chronological, if not even historical approach is used only to convince his audience of the historical validity of his accusations and of the parallels of the crimes of his contemporaries with events 6 7 8 9 10 11

Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 13. e expression admonitiunculam is a diminutive form of the term (Kerlouégan 1987: 33). See Chapter 6.1 See, for example, Dumville, 1984. See Chapter 6.1. Alheydis Plassmann claimed that Gildas was, strictly speaking, no historian but had a strong influence on later historians (Plassmann 2006: 28).

Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae

67

found in the Bible (Higham 1994: 13). According to Nick Higham, Gildas gives his text a historical appearance to justify his arguments and accusations. His purpose is not to argue by means of historical events, he hardly mentions any of them at all, but to reflect on the Britons’ relationship to God and to Rome as well as to stress their sinfulness and the divine punishment for this, i.e. the defeat by foreign gentes invading Britain.¹² In spite of his criticism, Gildas’ DEB must have evolved around a number of uncontroversial assumptions and well-known events in his writing in order to be read and understood by his targeted audience (Turner 2009: 30). On the other hand, it is necessary to keep in mind that Gildas himself was most likely relying on information from oral sources which are of limited use concerning events going back more than one or two generations. e use of these sources could have led to a rather vague and relative chronology, too.¹³ Some chronological inconsistencies have been explained by three possible reasons: first, they originate from scribal errors during the following years of Gildas’ work; second, the errors could be due to variances introduced by Gildas himself or third, the errors could already have been present in the written material Gildas used for his work (Higham 1994: 130)(Jones 1988: 143).¹⁴ Since the early 1980s, Gildas’ DEB has been argued to be a political document with a focus on contemporary political and social developments in Britain rather than a historical account of early history in Britain. erefore, a historical purpose has been put into question if not denied altogether.¹⁵ A political purpose of the 12 In this aspect Higham agrees with Patrick Sims-Williams, who claims that Gildas’ text has neither a political nor a racial purpose but is mostly restricted to a moral purpose (Sims-Williams 1984: 29–30) (Higham 1994: 26–27). Alheydis Plassmann, on the other hand, claims that Gildas is a new type of historian who did not focus on the history of Rome nor on the history of the Church but initiated the foundation of historians who wrote for their own gentes (Plassmann 2006: 49). 13 Where, at this point, we return to the question whether or not Gildas was interested in a historical chronology at all or, more likely, in explaining historical events in regard to their role as causing further effects or like crimes that resulted in punishment.(Sims-Williams 1983: 23ff) Especially Patrick Sims-Williams acknowledges that Gildas did what he could to portray the moral rights and wrongs in his time regarding the quality of sources he had to work with (Williams 1984: 19). 14 Higham proposes two more aspects that should be considered in this context: most importantly there is no clear indication of what sources Gildas used for his text. As was already indicated, the time of writing makes the use of oral sources much likely (Dumville 1984a: 67). is would of course imply the possibility of errors in the oral sources, mostly due to the actual chronological distance to the narrated events. Furthermore, bearing in mind the purpose of the work, there is also the possibility of dating the arrival of the Saxons to 443 AD due to the Roman conquest of Britain in 43 AD under Emperor Claudius. e period of 400 years could then be explained with biblical allegories which can be numerously found in Gildas’ work (Higham 1994: chapter 5). In this regard, there is still the possibility of Gildas’ not intending any historical function or chronology in his text at all. is would naturally lead the whole discussion ad absurdum. It is still an option that has to be kept in mind (Personal conversation with Professor Dr. omas Charles-Edwards, Jesus College, Oxford, September 2007). 15 See, for example, Sims-Williams 1984, 15, and Higham 1994, 10.

68

Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae

DEB, however, does of course not exclude a possible accuracy of historical events mentioned in the text. Aside from the question of a possible political or historical agenda, it is beyond doubt, of course, that his text’s main purpose is moral.

6.1 Authorship and Date of Composition Gildas does not name himself in his DEB. Bede is the first to ascribe the letter to a historical person, as he saw him, called Gildas: Qui inter alia inenarrabilium scelerum facta, quae historicus eorum Gildas flebili sermone describit, et hoc addebant, ut numquam genti Saxonum siue Anglorum, secum Brittaniam incolenti, uerbum fidei praedicando committerent. ¹⁶ [To other unspeakable crimes, which Gildas their own historian describes in doleful words, was added this crime, that they never preached the faith to the Saxons or Angles who inhabited Britain with them.] ¹⁷ Gildas’ name is the first open question regarding the DEB as it does not offer any information about his background: Gildas is neither Latin nor Pictish, also the idea of the name being Gaelic or Welsh seems vague (O’Sullivan 1978: 25). His name may have been an alias.¹⁸ His criticism of several political leaders might have led him to use an alias in order to hide his identity from the local rulers he chastises. Scholars working with DEB have agreed, however, to use the name of Gildas as a sobriquet for the author of the DEB. 6.1.1 The origin of the name Gildas

e author’s provenance is still a matter of contention. Most scholars agree that he was British and wrote at an insular location, not on the continent.¹⁹ Earlier research placed Gildas in the northern part of Britain. It has even been claimed that

16 Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum, Liber 1.22, ed. and transl. by Bertram Colgrave and R.A.B. Mynors in Colgrave 1969, 69. 17 Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum, Liber 1.22, in Collins, 1994, 36. 18 See Plassmann 2006, 36, and Sims-Williams 1983, 3. 19 Patrick Sims-Williams doubted at one point that a specific location of Gildas in Britain was possible. Sims-Williams argued that Gildas was likely to have travelled and therefore was very vague about his location (Sims-Williams 1984: 5–6).

Authorship and Date of Composition

69

he was of Pictish origin.²⁰ It was argued, therefore, that in spite of the detailed discussion about his writing, scholars have neglected the research about the person of Gildas in the past (Turner 2009: 31). One reason for the problem of locating the author of DEB is that it is not even clear which geographical area he referred to in his text when speaking of Britannia.²¹ Did Gildas mean the former Roman province, indicated by his use of the term patria in DEB, 1.1, or the entire island, including the areas of today’s Scotland and Wales? e nature of the source and its vague reference to the geographical area leaves room for all of theses understandings of Gildas’ Britain.²² 6.1.2 Gildas’ geographical background

We face a similar problem when approaching DEB with the question of its author’s personal background. It has been assumed that Gildas was acquainted with Saxon culture and their traditions. He was able to cite a Saxon word²³, he also was aware of the Saxon practice of prophecy before making important decisions.²⁴ He was also aware of the fact that the Saxons were collecting tribute from the Church in Britain (Higham 1994: 165). is would seem to indicate that he lived or wrote close to areas that were already inhabited by the Saxons or had been conquered by them.²⁵

20 See O’Sullivan 1978, 23–25, who in his book mostly refers to the works of Arthur Wade-Evans. O’Sullivan however stays surprisingly close to Wade-Evan’s argumentation and seems content with just denying his arguments and summing up the state-of the art in the discussion instead of introducing new ideas or theories. See, for the example, the discussion about Gildas’ origin (O’Sullivan 1978: 25). 21 It has been argued that Gildas uses the term to refer to the area which roughly can be seen within the geographical limits of the Roman province Britannia. However, there have been different interpretations of Gildas’ Britannia; Neil Wright argued that Gildas was referring to the entire island of Britain, Wright 1984, 102, see also Higham 1994, 102. On the other hand, E. A. ompson, based on his claim of Gildas’ origin from the north of Britain, argued that he used the term regio only to refer to the northern part of the Roman province Britannia and never spoke about other parts of the island (ompson 1979: 215–217). 22 omas Charles-Edwards also claimed Gildas’ to refer to the entire island while claiming that Britain also represented a figure for the British people addressed by his text (Charles-Edwards 2013: 209). 23 e Saxon term cyules, modern English keels in DEB, 20.1, see Chapter 6.4.3. 24 is argument has been used in the past to explain Gildas’ proximity to Saxon culture. Assuming a Classical education and knowledge of Classical writers such as Vergil, Gildas was most likely aware of the Roman tradition of prophecy, see Wright 1991, 129. He at least must have read about this tradition in the Roman past. e Saxon cult of prophecy was therefore not completely unfamiliar to him. 25 I use the term Saxon here in reference to the Continental gentes invading in Britain. Alternatively, the term Anglo-Saxon could be used as well. However, it seems more appropriate to me to use Saxon because no angli are found in Gildas’ DEB. I assume the term angli was introduced in the first half of the eighth century and will return to this question when discussing Bede’s HE.

70

Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae

e different possible origins of Gildas were summarized by David Dumville in 1984 and are still accurate to sum up the points of view in this debate: ²⁶ 1. Later hagiography claims Gildas to be of north Briton or Pictish origin which led to the assumption in the nineteenth century that he was originally from Strathclyde writing in the north.²⁷ 2. His main medieval cult is in Britanny. He could have migrated to the Ruis area and written there.²⁸ 3. ere are possible traces of his cult in south(- east) Wales. Welsh hagiographical legend locates him there, if unclearly. 4. We can locate him by considering his treatment of contemporary kings.²⁹ a) He was a devotee of King Maelgwn of Gwynedd, about whom he is very well informed; or, more generally, he lived in Wales or the Southwest in the areas ruled by the kings whom he knows about. Constantine of Damnonia or Dumnonia committed sacrilege hoc anno, he tells us us (sic) in an up-to-date report. b) He wrote in an area not represented among the kingdoms of the rulers whom he excoriates - hence, perhaps in south-east Wales. 5. Some Welsh and Irish sources show him to have connexions with Ireland. He could have been an expatriate British cleric in Ireland. 26 (Dumville 1984b: 79–80) 27 ompson bases his view about the location of Gildas in the North due to Gildas’ focus on the north of the former Roman province Britannia. However, he also locates the military conflicts against the Picts and Scoti in the same area and not north of the two walls (ompson 1979: 214). Molly Miller claimed that Gildas used inscriptions from Hadrian’s wall as source for his writing (Miller April 1975: 21). Franz Brunhölzl locates Gildas’ origin in modern Scotland, too (Brunhölzl 1975: 160). 28 One of his vitae written in or close to the town of Ruis or Ruys, today’s St-Gildas de Rhuys in northern France, is an indication for this theory and demonstrates by its modern name that his influence can still be seen there today. 29 Most recently done by Higham (Higham 1994: 110–113). According to him, Gildas writes from a south-western perspective; this is also the reason for the weaknesses in his descriptions when he refers to northern parts of Britain. His incorrect references to the origin of the Picts and Irish as well as to the Roman walls in the north are other reasons for Higham’s assumptions. Higham also sees Gildas’ references to southern rulers and martyrs as an indication for a location in the southwest of Britain (Higham 1994: chapter 4). In his conclusion, he locates Gildas in the southwest, south of the ames, and supports his opinion with references to the text including the comments about the local rulers and political events such as the martyrdom of Saints Alban, Aaron and Julius. He also lists geographical aspects as well as the clerical situation in that area Gildas must have been aware of. Higham however discards the problems in Gildas’ references to the rulers in the DEB, namely that historiography was so far not able to identify and precisely place any of these rulers in time and location. For the discussion on the historiographical accounts of the rulers mentioned by Gildas see Dummville, 1984b, 56–57, Miller, 1975, and Higham, 1994, 110–111.

Authorship and Date of Composition

71

6. Observation of his familiarity with or concentration on one main area in Book I, arguably with the North-west, places him there. e assumption of 4(a) has been ruled out due to the consequences Gildas would have had to fear aer his work became known.³⁰ However, due to the lack of historiographical background knowledge about Gildas, it is not possible to rule out any one of these possibilities. 6.1.3 Gildas’ educational background

Apart from the geographical aspect, the social and educational background of Gildas has been subject to discussion as well. His DEB offers some hints about the authors’ social and educational background. Being a fih or sixth century writer in Britain, Gildas can be considered to be educated and familiar with common texts, like the works of Orosius, thus a clerical and educated background seems highly probable.³¹ is assumption, however, has been put into question, above all because of other fragments which are now known or supposed to have been written by him. In this regard, the question of his authorship of these fragments or DEB in general is still being discussed (Herren 1990: 69–72). ere have been several approaches to answer the question of the level of Gildas’ education as well as of a possible ecclesiastical and aristocratic background. Two forms of education were present in Britain at the time of Gildas’ writing: traditional Classical education was provided in late Roman schools in the area of the former Roman province until the late 5th and the beginning of the 6th century.³² Apart from Classical education, monastic education was also offered during Gildas’ time (Lapidge 1984: 27f). His vitae, the only medieval sources referring to this aspect, metions two different teachers of Gildas, including St Hildutus, who has commonly been identified as the Welsh Saint Illtud who lived in the mid-6th century: Sanctus igitur Gildas cum per aliquos annos in doctrina beati Hilduti commoratus fuisset et tam saecularibus, prout res suppetebat, quam divinis scripturis ab eo optime, quicquid sibi a divina bonitate 30 is assumption had already been ruled out by ompson earlier, see Dumville, 1984b, 80. 31 It has also been assumed that he was a monk, see Hanning 1966, 45 and Wright 1991, 159. omas Charles-Edwards followed this claim and concluded, based on DEB, 26.1, that Gildas decided in his thirties as “one in a subordinate grade in the Church to deplore and denounce the wickedness and idleness of his superiors as well as his equals.” (Charles-Edwards 2013: 206). 32 Although there are no sources to validate the assumption of traditional Roman schools in Britain in that time their existence is strongly assumed. For the discussion on Classical schools in Britain of the 5th and 6th century see Lapidge, 1984, 28. Even if these schools did not exist anymore during the time of Gildas’ education it is still likely that teachers such as a magister, grammaticus or a rhetor were still available.

72

Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae

creditum fuerit, edoctus esset, valedicens pio magistro venerandisque condiscipulis Iren perrexit, ut et aliorum doctorum sententias in philosophicis atque in divinis litteris investigator curiosus exquireret.³³ [Now, St. Gildas, having tarried for the space of some years under the instruction of St. Hildutus, and having been excellently taught by him in everything the divine goodness had entrusted to him, both in secular writings, as far as the subject demanded, and in divine writings, bade farewell to his pious master and his venerable fellow-disciples, and proceeded to Iren that, as a diligent inquirer, he might also ascertain the views of other teachers both in philosophy and divinity.]³⁴ ere is, however, no further information about the location or the name Iren which, therefore, does not provide any further insight to Gildas’ advanced education. In a 12th century writing, another vita by the Welsh author Caradoc of Llancarfan locates Gildas’ advanced education abroad (Williams 1899, Reprint in 1990: 84). Following this account, the young Gildas travelled to Gaul to continue his education: Studuit studiosus assidue inter suates in artibus septem, donec pervenit ad iuventutem, dum iuvenis factus cito deseruit regionem. Transfretavit mare Gallicum, in civitatibus Galliae remansit studens optime spatio VII annorum et in termino septimi anni cum magna mole diversorum voluminum remeavit ad maiorem Brittanniam (sic!).³⁵ [He eagerly and diligently studied among his own people in the seven arts until he reached the age of youth; when, on becoming a young man, he speedily le the country. He crossed the Gallic Sea, and remained studying well in the cities of Gaul for seven years; at the end of the seventh year he returned, with a huge mass of volumes, to greater Britain.]³⁶ e differences in both texts in this and other regards may be due to the significant time difference between the dates of composition of Gildas’ vitae and the time of his life. erefore no conclusion can be drawn based on such hagiographical sources. 33 Vita Gildae. Auctore Monacho Ruiensi in Williams, 1899, 24. 34 e Life of Gildas by a Monk of Ruys. 1899. Ed. and trans. Hugh Williams. Llanerch Publishers: Felinfach, 1990, 24. 35 Vita Gildae. Auctore Caradoco Lancarbanensis in Williams, 1899, 84. 36 e Life of Gildas by Caradoc of Llancarfan. 1899. Ed. and trans. Hugh Ed. and trans. Hugh Williams. Llanerch Publishers: Felinfach, 1990, 85.

Authorship and Date of Composition

73

Beside of the circumstances and the location of his education, the level of his education is of central importance. Within the Classical schools of the time, the training in the Latin language and its practical use, i.e. the art of rhetoric, consisted of three stages of education (Lapidge 1984: 33). Judging from the Latinity of his text, Gildas must have received his training from a Classical teacher, at least of the level of a grammaticus (Lapidge 1984: 32f)(Kerlouégan 1987: 473)(CharlesEdwards 2013: 213). He may also have been a native speaker of British vernacular Latin. But this has been denied by most scholars due to the lack of evidence of spoken or vulgar Latin in his text (Lapidge 1984: 37f). e discussion has led to the consensus that Gildas was a native speaker of the British vernacular and underwent a Classical Latin education (Sims-Williams 1984: 169). According to Kenneth Jackson, Gildas and his audience, therefore, must have been members of the aristocracy or the civil administration.³⁷ e final step of education, his training with a rhetor, traditionally began at the age of 15 or 16. But, according to his first vita, Gildas le for Ireland or the Continent aer aliquos annos and chose a monastic life. Following Michael Lapidge this would exclude a rhetorical training because there is (..) no evidence whatsoever that rhetoric, the mainstay of traditional Roman education, was ever taught in a monastery in late Antiquity.³⁸ According to his second vita, Gildas travelled to the continent to continue his education. In this case, his training might have included the teachings by a rhetor. Francois Kerlouégan suggests as well that the training by a rhetor, as has been argued by Lapidge, is indicated by the quality of Gildas’ writing: Il faut noter (..) que, comme les auteurs les plus soignés, Gildas utilise le plus souvent le tour classique dont l’école et les livres assuraient la survie.³⁹ Arguing from Kerlouégan’s analysis, Gildas is much likely to have received education by a rhetor at one point or the other of his life, although early sources do not mention this.⁴⁰ 37 Jackson claimed the British governing classes and the army to have used Latin; Latin was also used with trade, Christian religion and eventually people of the towns. e rural upper classes were bilingual while the majority of the population spoke British and knew little Latin if any. Highland areas were by all means speaker of the Late British vernacular with exception of the army and related groups (Jackson 2000, Reprint of 1953: 105). is concurs with the narration of Roman military tactics among the Britons in the sixth century in the Gododdin which will be discussed in the following chapter. 38 (Lapidge 1984: 30) 39 [It has to be noted (..) that Gildas, like most respected authors, most oen uses Classical expressions which surely survived in the schooling and the books.] (Kerlouégan 1968: 156). My own translation. 40 Analysing his language, Lapidge goes one step further claiming not only that Gildas was trained

74

Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae

Several of Gildas’ contemporaries have been mentioned in recent scholarship who received a rhetorical education and training in the Classical manner before pursuing a clerical life, for example St Faustus of Riez, a bishop in southern Gaul in the first half of the fih century. Gildas has therefore been assumed to have had the same type of education (Lapidge 1984: 47). Gildas is thus likely to have pursued a traditional Classical education to the highest level possible. e question where or when in his life he received this type of education has not been answered yet. e difficult situation regarding sources like his vitae does not allow modern research to formulate a more than careful argumentation based on contemporary or almost contemporary sources. Finally, one further aspect of Gildas’ educational background is of interest: his educational level must have been shared by his readers or listeners. He must have assumed that they were able to understand highly-educated Latin, above all his rhetorical figures of speech (Lapidge 1984: 45). 6.1.4 Date of Composition

Apart from the question of the authorship, the date of composition of Gildas’ text is of major relevance when approaching its function in the discourse of the construction of collective identities. Gildas’ DEB does not provide any specific information as to when it was composed. It only provides four possible indications supporting the argument about a date of composition: first, the arrival of a Saxon force in Britain. Second, closely connected to it, an appeal for help to Rome.⁴¹. ird, the battle of Mount Badon in the year Gildas was born.⁴² And fourth, the five rulers, who are known by name and who are the recipients of his admonition, have been claimed to point to the date of composition of his letter. Beginning with the first evidence, the arrival of the Saxons has been matter of discussion among scholars for many decades. is discussion is based on historical as well as archaeological data. In this regard, the presence of armed Saxons in Roman Britain under Roman command has been claimed likely and is evidenced in various Roman provinces (Charles-Edwards 2003c: 24–27). e beginning of major conquests and settlements from so-called Saxons from the continent, however, has been dated aer the Roman withdrawal from Britain some time in the end of the first or the beginning of the second half of the fih century. Gildas’

by a rhetor but also that he continued his education in respect to a career in the field of law due to his specific use of terms from that field that can be found in the DEB (Lapidge 1984: 39). However, this is still a matter of discussion, e.g. Paul Schaffner does not share this view in his analysis of Gildas’ use of the term iudes and iudices (Schaffner 1984: 153–155). 41 DEB, 20.1 42 DEB, 26.1

Authorship and Date of Composition

75

text does not give any information in this regard.⁴³ He explicitly and exclusively names the Saxons in chapter 23.1: Tum omnes consiliarii una cum superbo tyranno caecantur, adinvenientes tale praesidium, immo excidium patriae ut ferocissimi illi nefandi nominis Saxones deo hominibusque invisi, quasi in caulas lupi, in insulam ad retundendas aquilonales gentes intromitterent.⁴⁴ [en all the members of the council, together with the proud tyrant, were struck blind; the guard - or rather the method of destruction they devised for our land was that the ferocious Saxons (name not to be spoken!), hated by man and God, should be let into the island like wolves into the fold.]⁴⁵ Since Gildas does not provide any date for the arrival of the saxones in Britain, this information does not support any claim regarding the date of composition of his DEB. However, there is also the appeal to Rome for help against the invaders: Igitur rursum miserae mittentes epistolas reliquiae ad Agitium Romanae potestatis virum, hoc modo loquentes: ‘Agitio ter consuli gemitus Britannorum;’ et post pauca querentes: ‘repellunt barbari ad mare, repellit mare ad barbaros; inter haec duo genera funerum aut iugulamur aut mergimur;’ nec pro eis quicquam adiutorii habent.⁴⁶ [So the miserable remnants sent off a letter again, this time to the Roman commander Aetius, in the following terms: ‘To Aetius, thrice consul: the groans of the British’. Further on came this complaint: ‘e barbarians push us back to the sea, the sea pushes us back to the barbarians; between these two kinds of death, we are either drowned or slaughtered’. But they got no help in return.]⁴⁷ 43 Michael Jones argued in his article that the use of the DEB as a source for the dating of a major Saxon arrival in Britain does not fit into the chronology of literary and archaeological evidence. Keeping to this evidence means ignoring Gildas’ text which is the nearest though not contemporary record of the Saxon arrival. Jones in this regard diagnosed a “pick-and-choose fallacy” where Gildas as a source is kept, while the literary and archaeological evidence is more or less adjusted to it or vice versa (Jones 1988: 143). For the connection between the DEB and the Saxon arrival, see also Zachrisson 1927, 39–40. Robert Zachrisson argued the historical theory of an extinction of Britain’s population by Germanic invaders, i.e. Saxons, to be out of date. He strengthened his claim with historical as well as archaeological and linguistic reasons and spoke of a “process of absorption and amalgamation” (Zachrisson 1927: 64). 44 DEB, 23.1 45 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 26. 46 DEB, 20.1 47 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 23.

76

Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae

Scholars have focused on the recipient of the appeal whom Gildas names as Agitius in chapter 20.1. Two historical persons have been identified with this name: the Roman consul, Aetius, as well as a Roman general in Gaul, Aegidius (Jones 1988: 141). Michael Jones, for example, argued the Roman general Aegidius as the recipient of the appeal. He based his argument on two reasons: one, an Aegidius was positioned in Gaul with a military command against the Visigoths and therefore close to Britain. is indicates his military and political power, both of which must have been of interest for the Britons. Second, he would likely have been the recipient of the appeal due to the proximity to British emigrants in Brittany and their influence in Gaul (Jones 1988: 150). Jones explains the endorsement ter consul with a scribal error, a hypercorrection or an abbreviation in a copy of the original appeal: e addition of ter consul [my own emphasis] by some scribe familiar with Aetius would be a typical example of a helpful gloss easily incorporated into a late version of the text. e term ter consul [my own emphasis] cannot be the original form of the address.⁴⁸ Jones supports this argument claiming that the term consul was frequently used in the 5th century as a honorary title, for example to flatter the addressee (Jones 1988: 153). erefore, Jones’ argues that ter consul “in this confused context seems a slippery rock on which to anchor a certain identification of Aetius and the year 446” (Jones 1988: 154). In spite of Jones’ argument, the term ter consul led to the identification of the Roman consul Aetius with Gildas’ Agitius. Aetius was consul three times, in AD 432, 447 and 446. Although there are strong implications for Aetius as the recipient, this question can only be answered with an assumption, the same is true for its date: most scholars today agree on 446 AD as a probable date for the letter.⁴⁹ e third cue found in Gildas’ DEB which could be of help regarding the date of composition of the letter is the siege of Mount Badon or mons badonicus which coincided with the year of Gildas’ birth, 44 years before he composed the text.⁵⁰ 48 (Jones 1988: 152) 49 See the comments of David Dumville in Dumville 1984a, 68. Higham gives the years 425 to 435 to be the most probable time of the appeal to Rome, which is again a very early dating (Higham 1994: 137). He uses his dating of the Saxon wars and the battle of Mount Badon to the years between 430 and 440 AD to support his assumption that the DEB was written somewhat between 479 and 484 AD. One argument against this theory is the congruence to the information given in the Gallic Chronicle. Higham acknowledges that later texts neither support nor deny his model, however he justifies his claim with reference to the obvious historical impact of the Saxon arrival in Britain as well as with his locating of Gildas in the west which supports his chronological model. Other reasons he mentions are Gildas’ knowledge of various Roman technical terms, strong links to the Roman society and culture and the matter of his own education. 50 A date or the location of the battle of Mount Badon is not only interesting due to its value as a

Authorship and Date of Composition

77

usque ad annum obsessionis Badonici montis, novissimaeque ferme de furciferis non minimae strategis, quique quadragesimus quartus (ut novi) orditur annus mense iam uno emenso, qui et mea nativitatis est.⁵¹ [is lasted right up till the year of the siege of Badon Hill, pretty well the last defeat of the villains, and certainly not the least. at was the year of my birth; as I know, one month of the fourty-fourth year since then has already passed.]⁵² However, any argument for a specific date of composition based on this battle has violated the dates given in the DEB or other sources. is resulted in the impossibility to find a consequent chronological construction to this day (Sims-Williams 1983: 4). According to Gildas, the battle was an important success for the Britons against the Saxon invaders. However, there are no historiographical indications that could allow an exact or even vague dating of this event or the location of it.⁵³ Gildas might have referred to a provincial historical event. So far scholars have chronological indication but also due to the date of the composition of the text itself. Different interpretations have been voiced on how the text should be understood; the DEB states that the work was written 44 years aer the battle of Mount Badon although other claims have been made during the discussion (O’Sullivan 1978: 135). e Battle of Mount Badon has been dated to 493 AD by Charles Plummer using the information in Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum, who continually referred back to Gildas himself (Plummer 1966: 31). is would lead to Gildas writing in about AD 537, which fits roughly into the current consensus of the DEB’s dating around AD 540. Earlier research dated this battle to the year 516, which would have led to the conclusion of Gildas writing around AD 560 (Sims-Williams 1984: 3). is dating is still a matter of discussion, as Higham dates the battle between the 430s and 440s (Higham 1994: 137). However, the battle itself as well as its location have been a matter of discussion for decades, those discussions being based on rather vague information taken from the Annales Cambriae, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle or the DEB (O’Sullivan 1978: 159–161). Recent calculations agree with a dating of the battle of Mount Badon around AD 500 (Dumville 1984b: 83). is would also coincide with the common date of the writing of the DEB, as mentioned earlier. Higham emphasized that this date should have been of importance to the writer himself and to his audience. He claimed that Gildas must have been familiar with the event as well as to the purpose of his work in general. So his personal knowledge might have led to the inclusion of the battle rather than the importance the historical event per se and its impact on British history of the 5th century. In this aspect Higham agrees with ompson’s argument that Gildas should rather be seen as a regional historian than as an important writer for Britain in general (ompson 1979: 218). erefore, Higham suggested that the siege of Mount Badon was mentioned due to its symbolical and personal importance for the writer and his work and not because of its historical value (Higham 1994: 52). Higham argues that the account of this siege has received too much attention from scholars regarding its historical impact altogether (Higham 1994: 48f). 51 DEB, 26.1 52 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 28. 53 is is also true for a mid-sixth century dating on account of the Annales Cambriae which were written around 1100. e Annales date Gildas’ death to AD 570. Of course, this date and the historical value of the Annales are highly speculative due to the distance to the actual events (SimsWilliams 1984: 3).

78

Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae

not succeeded in placing this siege chronologically or even geographically up to this day.⁵⁴ ere have been a few attempts at a possible location of mons badonicus, for example by Geoffrey Ashe who claimed that the battle took place at Liddington Castle, above the village of Badbury near Swindon. He argued that the Anglo-Saxon name for Bradbury, badon byrig, was an indication for a battle in this area (Ashe 1960: 164). Because of the lack of sources, however, any argument for or against a location of mons badonicus is based on speculation with no clear evidence. is is the reason why recent scholarship restrains itself from making further suggestions. e connection between Mount Badon, Gildas’ DEB and a possible date of composition remains unclear (Sims-Williams 1983: 14–16). e same is true for the approach of constructing a date using the names of the five British rulers Gildas mentions and his accounts of their misbehaviour. Among these rulers we find the name of Constantinus⁵⁵ of Dumnonia (Devon), who Gildas says to be still alive.⁵⁶ He adds Aurelius Caninus⁵⁷ and Vortipor of Demeta (Dyfed) who he speaks of as old but also still alive, too.⁵⁸ e fourth, Cuneglasus, is mentioned by Gildas, although he does not specify his location or whether he was still alive. e final ruler mentioned is Maglocunus⁵⁹, the “regum omnium regi”, “king of all kings”.⁶⁰ Maglocunus is the most famous of the five rulers mentioned and has been identified with Maelgwn of Gwynnedd, who reigned in the first half of the fih century (O’Sullivan 1978: 108). e historicity of King Maelgwn is undisputed, he can also be found in the Historia Brittonum where he is portrayed as a powerful king (Meinking Guimarães 2009: 84). In his DEB, however, Gildas does not say whether Maelgwn is a contemporary ruler or not. e reference to Maelgwn, therefore, does not provide evidence for the question about the date of composition of the text. us, while Gildas does mention at least two contemporary rulers, i.e. alive at the time he was writing, these passages in the text do not support any date of composition because of the lack of collateral evidence or because the text does not provide enough information about their lives. 54 See, for example, Dumville, 1984a, 51, as well as Higham, 1994, 118. e attempts of scholars to date this battle have ranged from dates in the fih and sixth century, Zachrisson mentions the years around AD 500 as a possible time for the siege (Zachrisson 1927: 7). Furthermore, Zachrisson explains the arrival of the Saxons in Britain not as conquerors but in a “process of absorption and amalgamation” (Zachrisson 1927: 64). He strengthens his claim with historical as well as archaeological and linguistic reasons and argues the theory of an extinction of Britain’s population by Germanic invaders, i.e. Saxons, to be out of date (Zachrisson 1927: 39f). 55 DEB, 28.1 56 DEB, 29.1 57 DEB, 30.1 58 DEB, 31.1 59 DEB, 33.1 60 DEB, 33.2

Authorship and Date of Composition

79

In conclusion, these references show that Gildas’ text yields no information to support a reliable date of when it was composed. is has led scholars to propose a variety of suggestions and a potential date for the DEB in the mid-sixth century as will be shown in the following chapter. For instance, Clare Stancliffe dates the letter between AD 523 and 540. According to her, Gildas must have written before AD 544. In this year, there was a plague in Ireland and Britain which would have contradicted his descriptions of Britain in a peaceful and undisturbed time; her argument was supported by the Irish Annals which date Gildas’ death to AD 570 (Stancliffe 1997: 179–181). With this, she supports the traditional dating of the DEB between 539 and 544 AD.⁶¹ Michael Herren, however, has argued that the DEB was written considerably earlier. He dated the letter to the early sixth century written by a rather young Gildas while his later works would show signs of him being involved with the early monastic movement in Britain (Herren 1990: 78). Patrick Sims-Williams argued the state of the discussion in 1983 to be heavily influenced by the rather doubtful information of the Annales Cambriae which dated Gildas’ death to the year AD 570 and the siege at Mount Badon to AD 516. However, the Annales also date the death of king Maelgwn to the year AD 547 which contradicts him writing in the 560s (Sims-Williams 1984: 3). Molly Miller calculated a chronology of events found in the letter (Miller 1975/76). She agreed with a date of composition in the middle of the sixth century and her work provides an interesting view on the calculation and theoretical construction of events and dates in the Dark Ages in general. e earliest date of origin that was claimed by Higham, i.e. the end of the second half of the 5th century (Higham 1994: 141).⁶² While the discussion about the possible date of composition of Gildas’ DEB still continues, I will follow the general assumption of a date of composition in the middle of the sixth century. In this dating I follow the construction of David Dumville whose chronological model I find most convincing.⁶³ However, as has become obvious in this chapter, not all scholars agree with this construction today and there are numerous other approaches to generate a different chronology of the events, Gildas’ DEB and his life. is presumed date of composition is thus merely to be taken as a plausible starting point for the general discussion about a possible chronology of the textual evidence of Gildas’ DEB.⁶⁴ 61 For the history of the traditional dating of the DEB see O’Sullivan, 1978, 77–86, and Herren, 1990, 67. 62 Alheydis Plassmann, however, claimed Higham’s arguments as “not useful in most aspects” because he “goes too far in his interpretations” regarding his discussion of Gildas (Plassmann 2006: 37). While I understand his claims to provide a fresh and interesting perspective for the discussion, I still find the arguments discussed earlier, which have been brought forward in favour of a later date of composition, to be more convincing. 63 For Dumville’s model see Dumville, 1984a, 83. His proposed date of composition was calculated by putting information from Gildas’ DEB into a chronological context with events such as the Roman withdrawal from Britain. 64 is discussion has led to yet another argument in favour of a rather late date of composition of

80

Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae

6.2 Manuscripts and Editions Although this has oen been contested, the DEB seems to have been written as one piece.⁶⁵ It was not compiled from various sources (Kerlouégan 1968: 173). Close analysis of the language, style and structure have shown its coherence (Kerlouégan 1987: 25f). e text has been transmitted in only four manuscripts. All of them are considerably younger than even the latest suggestion for a date of its composition: e earliest manuscript (C), British Library MS. Cotton Vitellius A. vi, has been dated to the 11th century and was used in the first printed edition (P) of the text in 1525.⁶⁶ ere are three later manuscripts: one of them (A), Avranches public library MS. 162, dates from the 12th century. e two other ones have been dated to the 13th century (X), Cambridge University Library MS. Ff. I.27, and to the 14th century (D), Cambridge University Library MS. Dd. I.17. e second printed edition (Q) was published in 1568. Apart from the transmission of the text itself, there are numerous medieval sources which mention Gildas as its author. ese sources usually refer only to his person and do not refer to the text. He is referred to, for example, in the letters of the Irish monk St Columbanus around the year 600.⁶⁷ As already mentioned, Gildas also occurs in Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica.⁶⁸ Another reference can be found in a letter of the English monk Alcuin to Archbishop Adalhard of Corbie in the diocese of Amiens, France, dated to the early ninth century.⁶⁹ Wulfstan of Worcester makes mention of Gildas as well in his Sermo Lupi Ad Anglos, written

65

66

67

68 69

the text, presumably during the late 7th or even early 8th century, by Konstantin Olbrich (Olbrich 2011). His convincing study, however, failed to take the question of the level of Latin and of the education of the text’s author into account which again points to an early date of composition and has been claimed again by recent research (Charles-Edwards 2013: 214–218). is has been repeatedly discussed by various scholars (Gransden 1974: 2) (Myres 1940: 196ff) (Stevens 1941: 353f). Stevens regarded the DEB’s first section as an aerthought to the other parts of the text which Gildas himself added later. However, Kerlouégan’s statement about the unity of the text has up to this day not been refuted. He bases his assumptions on his analysis of the syntax, the word choice and the style of the text (Kerlouégan 1987: 25f). See also Kerlouégan’s comments in footnotes 70 and 75 of this chapter. Both authors use the letters assigned to the manuscripts in Mommsen’s edition (Mommsen 1898: 2) British Library MS. Cotton Vitellius A. vi, however, was lost (Kerlouégan 1987: 25). See O’Sullivan, 1978, 150, and Kerlouégan, 1987, 25. Gildas is mentioned in the letters of St Columbanus: Ceterum de episcopis illis quid iudicas, interrogo, qui contra canones ordinantur, id est quaestu; simoniacos et Gildas auctor pestes scripsit eos, see Sancti Columbani Opera, edited and translated by George Walker in Walker, 1957, 8. George Walker’s translation reads: [Concerning those bishops, however, who ordain uncanonically, that is for hire, I ask what you decree; Gildas the writer set them down as simoniacs, i.e. individuals who buy or sell ecclesiastical pardons or offices, and plagues.] (Walker 1957: 9). See Chapter 6.1. Sancti Columbani opera, Epistula 1.7–8, ed. et trans. G.S.M. Walker (Scriptores Latini Hiberniae 2).

Structure and Subject Matter

81

at the beginning of the eleventh century between 1010 and 1016 (Treharne 2000: 226). Gildas is also mentioned in a Welsh genealogy⁷⁰ and in the Annales Cambriae.⁷¹ As already mentioned, there are two vitae of Gildas from the 11th and 12th century written by a Monk of Ruys and Caradoc of Llancarfan, respectively.6.1.3 Most of these references do not exceed the simple naming of Gildas or give a minor reference to him as an early historian of Britain. By doing so, they acknowledge his historical relevance. e two early editions of the text have already been mentioned. e first edition of Gildas’ DEB by Polydore Vergil, a northern Italian humanist from the region of Castro, was printed in 1525 when he spent some time in England. In 1568, another edition of the text was printed by Johannis Iosselini, whose identity and location remains unclear (Mommsen 1898: 2). Today, there are two scholarly editions: first, eodor Mommsen’s edition in the Monumenta Germaniae Historica of 1898, already mentioned.⁷² e most recent scholarly edition of the text was published by Michael Winterbottom in 1978.⁷³ Winterbottom made several changes and additions to Mommsen’s text and provided a translation of the text into English.

6.3 Structure and Subject Matter e letter consists of seven consecutive sections which differ by their subject matter. In the introduction, Gildas writes about his motivation and hesitation to write this letter. He then provides his audience and readership with his geographical and historical view of Britain from the conquest of the Romans until his own birth and the Battle of Mount Badon against the Saxons [chapters 2 to 26]. is part of the text is usually referred to as the historical introduction on which most of the discussion about the date and the chronology of the text has been based. He continues with the warnings against the moral misbehaviour of the Britons. In this third section, Gildas addresses two particular social groups, the rulers and the ecclesiastics of the Britons. He begins with the accusations against the rulers; first, he names the aforementioned five rulers and their moral and religious sins [chapters 27–36].⁷⁴ In order to support his criticism, he resorts to quoting a number of Old Testament paralells [chapters 37–65]. Following this, he turns to his complaints against the ecclesiastics [chapters 66–68], providing, first, a guideline of religious and moral behaviour for good priests [chapter 69–75] which is then 70 Bonedd y Saint, presumably composed in the twelh century (Kerlouégan 1987: 25). 71 (Kerlouégan 1987: ibid.). 72 Gildae Sapientis: De excidio et conquestu Britanniae ac flebili castigatione in reges, principes et sacerdotes, ed. by eodor Mommsen, in: MGH AA XIII, 1–110, Weidmann: Berlin, 1898. 73 Gildas: e Ruin of Britain an other works, ed. and transl. by Michael Winterbottom, Phillimore: London, 1978. 74 See Chapter 6.1.4.

82

Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae

contrasted with the abject behaviour of corrupt priests [chapters 76–109]. He closes his text with an appeal to and a prayer for the good priests of which he is sure they exist in the Britain of his day [chapter 110].⁷⁵ Gildas’ language is that of Late Latin, his text if free of any vernacular influence but for one exception.⁷⁶

6.4 Gentes and collective identities in Gildas’ DEB In the historical introduction, Gildas makes explicit reference to different contemporary gentes living and interacting in Britain. He names the Britons and refers to the Romans as part of the British past. Furthermore, there are references to the saxones, the picti and the scotti. In this chapter, I will discuss in what way he characterizes these gentes and their relationship with the Britons. 6.4.1 Britons in Gildas’ De Excidio Britanniae

As the most important gens in Gildas’ DEB, the readers are given numerous characterisations of the Britons. As was mentioned before, Gildas admonishes the British rulers and ecclesiastics but his text also criticises the Britons in general for their behaviour. Following Christian typology, there are also various metaphors used for the people in Britain, comparing them to the people of Israel to emphasize that they once had been a chosen people but lost this status: Videbamque [...] ‘filios Sion’, id est sanctae matris ecclesiae, ‘inclitos et amictos auro primo, amplexatos fuisse stercora’.⁷⁷ [I saw that ‘the sons of Zion’ (that is, of the holy mother church), ‘once glorious and clad in fine gold, had embraced dung’.]⁷⁸ is passage, on the one hand, follows Christian typology equalling a gens with the people of Israel and, on the other hand, clearly critizes the addressee of the admonition. In the very beginning Gildas offers a short overview of the chronological development of Britain which led him to the critical judgement of his contemporaries: Sed ante promissum deo volente pauca de situ, de contumacia, de subiectione, de rebellione, item de subiectione ac diro famulatu, de 75 For a closer examination of Gildas’ structure see the analysis of Francoise Kerlouégan in Kerlouégan, 1987, chapter 2. 76 In chapter 23.3 Gildas uses the term cyules which is a latinized form of c¯ eol, the Anglo-Saxon word for English keels (Winterbottom 1978: 7). 77 DEB, 1.5 78 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 14.

Gentes and collective identities in Gildas’ DEB

83

religione, de persecutione, de sanctis martyribus, de diversis haeresibus, de tyrannis, de duabus gentibus vastatricibus, de defensione itemque vastatione, de secunda ultione tertiaque vastatione, de fame, de epistolis ad Agitium, de victoria, de sceleribus, de nuntiatis subito hostibus, de famosa peste, de consilio, de saeviore multo primis hoste, de urbium subversione, de reliquiis, de postrema patriae victoria, quae temporibus nostris dei nutu donata est, dicere conamur. ⁷⁹ [But before I make good my promise, I shall try, God willing, to say a little about the situation of Britain; about her obstinacy, subjection, and rebellion, her second subjection and harsh servitude; about religion, persecution, the holy martyrs, diverse heresies, tyrants, two plundering races: about defence and a further devastation, about a second vengeance and a third devastation; about hunger, about the letter to Aetius, about victory, crimes, enemies suddenly announced, a memorable plague, a council, an enemy much more savage than the first, the destruction of cities; about those who survived, and about the final victory of our country that has been granted to our times by the will of God.]⁸⁰ e remarks on the Britons are directed at their behaviour, more particularly at their moral and military laxness. Gildas’ words in this early passage already give the readers an impression of the way he speaks about the Briton’s gens throughout the following chapters: Haec erecta cervice et mente, ex quo inhabitata est, nunc deo, interdum civibus, nonnumquam etiam transmarinis regibus et subiectis ingrata consurgit. Quid enim deformius quidque iniquius potest humanis ausibus vel esse vel intromitti negotium quam deo timorem, bonis civibus caritatem, in altiore dignitate positis absque fidei detrimento debitum denegare honorem et frangere divino sensui humanoque fidem, et abiecto caeli terraeque metu propriis adinventionibus aliquem et libidinibus regi?⁸¹ [Ever since it has been inhabited, Britain has been ungratefully rebelling, stiff-necked and haughty, now against God, now against its own countrymen, sometimes even against kings from abroad and their subjects. What daring of man can, now or in future, be more foul and wicked than to deny fear to God, charity to good fellow countrymen, 79 DEB, 2 80 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 16. 81 DEB, 4.1

84

Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae

honour to those placed higher in authority (for that is their due, granted, of course, that their is no harm to the faith): to break faith with man and God: to cast away fear of heaven and earth, and to be ruled each man by his own contrivances and lusts?]⁸² Following this overview of their history, the Britons not only rebelled against their own rulers, presumably the Roman emperors, but also failed to act as what Gildas understands to be good Christians. Also, consurgit civibus could refer to a British civil war. Gildas continues with his accusations when referring to the Roman occupation of the island: [...] imbellemque populum sed infidelem non tam ferro igne machinis, ut alias gentes, quam solis minis vel iudiciorum concussionibus, in superficie tantum vultus presso in altum cordis dolore sui oboedientiam proferentem edictis subiugavit.⁸³ [e people [i.e. British], unwarlike but untrustworthy, were not subdued, like other races, by the sword, fire and engines of war, so much as by mere threats and legal penalties. eir obedience to the edicts of Rome was superficial: their resentment they kept repressed, deep in their hearts.]⁸⁴ Following Gildas, the Britons are known for their lack of courage in contrast to other gentes, here translated with races. e Britons’ lack of qualities in military affairs is repeated throughout the text.⁸⁵ e negative aspects of the Britons’ character is not only known to the author but seems to be common knowledge: ita ut in proverbium et derisum longe lateque efferetur quod Britanni nec in bello fortes sint nec in pace fideles.⁸⁶ [In fact, it became a mocking proverb far and wide that the British are cowardly in war and faithless in peace.]⁸⁷ Furthermore, their enthusiasm for the Christian faith is reproached to have been poor. For Gildas this is the greatest flaw of the Britons altogether: [...] id est sua praecepta, Christus. Quae, licet ab incolis tepide suscepta sunt.⁸⁸ 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 17. DEB, 5.2 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 18. See also in Chapter 6.2. DEB, 6.2 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 18. DEB, 9.1

Gentes and collective identities in Gildas’ DEB

85

[Christ’s precepts were received by the inhabitants without enthusiasm.]⁸⁹ Of course, Christianity had long been established in the island when Gildas wrote (Charles-Edwards 2003b: 104). In spite of that, Gildas was disappointed with the fervour of the belief of his compatriots. His condemnation of his contemporaries and of their behaviour is most pronounced when he castigates their inability to defend themselves against the barbarian attacks or even their revolting against the former occupying force: insula, nomen Romanum nec tamen morem legemque tenens, quin potius abiciens germen suae plantationis amarissimae, ad Gallias magna comitante satellitum caterva, insuper etiam imperatoris insignibus, quae nec decenter usquam gessit, non legitime, sed ritu tyrannico et tumultuante initiatum milite, Maximum mittit. Qui callida primum arte potius quam virtute finitimos quosque pagos vel provincias contra Romanum statum per retia periurii mendaciique sui facinoroso regno adnectens.⁹⁰ [e island was still Roman in name, but not by law and custom. Rather, it cast forth a sprig of its own bitter planting, and sent Maximus to Gaul with a great retinue of hangers-on and even the imperial insignia, which he was never fit to bear: he had no legal claim to the title, but was raised to it like a tyrant by rebellious soldiery. Applying cunning rather than virtue, Maximus turned the neighbouring lands and provinces against Rome, and attached them to his kingdom of wickedness with the nets of his perjury and lying.]⁹¹ But whenever under threat from Picts, Scots or Saxons, the Britons turned to the Romans in their appeals for help: Ob quarum infestationem ac dirissimam depressionem legatos Romam cum epistolis mittit, militarem manum ad se vindicandam lacrimosis postulationibus poscens et subiectionem sui Romano imperio continue tota animi virtute, si hostis longius arceretur, vovens.⁹² [As a result of their [i.e. the Picts and the Scots] dreadful and devastating onslaughts, Britain sent envoys with a letter to Rome, plaintively requesting a military force to protect them and vowing whole89 90 91 92

Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 19. DEB, 13.1 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 20. DEB, 15.2

86

Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae

hearted and uninterrupted loyalty to the Roman empire so long as (sic!) their enemies were kept at a distance.]⁹³ However, the Britons’ inability is not limited to their laxness in fighting. Gildas claims that they are not even able to build defensive constructions even though they were instructed by the Romans how to do so: Quos iussit construere inter duo maria trans insulam murum, ut esset arcendis hostibus turba instructus terrori civibusque tutamini; qui vulgo irrationabili absque rectore factus non tam lapidibus quam cespitibus non profuit.⁹⁴ [e British were told to construct across the island a wall linking the two seas; properly manned, this would scare away the enemy and act as protection for the people. But it was the work of a leaderless and irrational mob, and made of turf rather than stone; so it did no good.]⁹⁵ e Britons and their cowardice are metaphorically referred to as pulli timidi, as frightened chickens that are in constant need of their parents, i.e. the Romans: Itamque mittuntur queruli legati, scissis, ut dicitur, vestibus, opertisque sablone capitibus, inpetrantes a Romanis auxilia ac veluti timidi pulli patrum fidissimis alis succumbentes, ne penitus misera patria deleretur nomenque Romanorum, quod verbis tantum apud eos auribus resultabat, vel exterarum gentium oppobrio obrosum vilesceret. At illi, quantum humanae naturae possibile est, commoti tantae historia tragoediae.⁹⁶ [And so a second time envoys set out with their complaints, their clothes (it is said) torn, their heads covered in dust, to beg help from the Romans. Like frightened chicks huddling under the wings of their faithful parents, they prayed that their wretched country should not be utterly wiped out, that the name of Rome, which echoed in their ears as a mere word, should not be cheapened by the gnawing of foreign insult. e Romans were as upset as humanly possible by the narration of such a tragedy.]⁹⁷ 93 94 95 96 97

Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 21. DEB, 15.3 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 21. DEB, 17.1 and 17.2 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 21–22.

Gentes and collective identities in Gildas’ DEB

87

Aer the final Roman withdrawal, the abject behaviour of the Britons in conflict situations is repeated with bitter irony: Moris namque continui erat genti, sicut et nunc est, ut infirma esset ad retundenda hostium tela et fortis esset ad civillia bella et peccatorum onera sustinenda, infirma, inquam, ad exequenda pacis ac veritatis insignia et fortis ad scelera et mendacia.⁹⁸ [It was always true of this people (as it is now) that it was weak in beating off the weapons of the enemy but strong in putting up with civil war and the burden of sin: weak, in following the banners of peace and truth but strong for crime and falsehood.]⁹⁹ Gildas then mentions a period of relative peace during which there is a civil war among the Britons. is period is ended by the rumor of another onslaught of the Picts and Scots which, according to the following passage, leads the Britons to an appeal for help from the Saxons: non ignoti rumoris penniger ceu volatus arrectas omnium penetrat aures iamiamque adventus veterum volentium penitus delere et inhabitare solito more a fine usque ad terminum regionem. Nequaquam tamen ob hoc proficiunt, sed comparati iumentis insipientibus strictis, ut dicitur, morsibus rationis frenum offirmantes, [...]¹⁰⁰ [e feathered flight of a not unfamiliar rumor penetrated the pricked ears of the whole people - the imminent approach of the old enemy, bent on total destruction and (as was their wont) on settlement from one end of the country to the other. But they took no profit from the news. Like foolish beasts of burden, they held fast to the bit of reason with (as people say) clenched teeth.]¹⁰¹ Among all these reproaches there is one positive and therefore outstanding passage in the letter regarding the Britons and their struggle against the Saxons: duce Ambrosio Aureliano viro modesto, qui solus forte Romanae gentis tantae tempestatis collisione occisis in eadem parentibus purpura nimirum indutis superfuerat, cuius nunc temporibus nostris suboles magnopere avita bonitate degeneravit, vires capessunt, victores provocantes ad proelium: quis victoria domino annuente cessit.¹⁰² 98 99 100 101 102

DEB, 21.1 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 24. DEB, 22.1 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 25. DEB, 25.3

88

Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae

[eir leader was Ambrosius Aurelianus, a gentleman who, perhaps alone of the Romans, had survived the shock of this notable storm: certainly his parents, who had worn the purple, were slain in it. His descendants in our day have become greatly inferior to their grandfather’s excellence. Under him our people regained their strength, and challenged the victors to battle. e Lord assented, and the battle went its way.]¹⁰³ Gildas’ praise of Ambrosius Aurelianus as vir modestus, a humble man, underlines two points: first, the continuity of romanitas, which means military strength and courage. Second, under the leadership of Ambrosius Aurelianus, God again turns to his people. Under his leadership, the Britons are again compared to the people of Israel:¹⁰⁴ ut in ista gente experiretur dominus solito more praesentem Israelem, utrum diligat eum an non: usque ad annum obsessionis Badonici montis, novissimaeque ferme de furciferis non minimae stragis [...]. ¹⁰⁵ [so that in this people the Lord could make trial (as he tends to) of his latter-day Israel to see whether it loves him or not. is lasted right up till the year of the siege of Badon Hill, pretty well the last defeat of the villains, and certainly not the least.]¹⁰⁶ Le on their own, the Britons do not follow the glorious example of Ambrosius Aurelianus in his struggle against the Saxons. His doings are soon forgotten and the people return to their mean behaviour which Gildas criticised before: ita cuncta veritatis ac iustitiae moderamina concussa ac subversa sunt ut earum non dicam vestigium sed ne monimentum quidem in supra dictis propemodum ordinibus appareat, exceptis paucis et valde paucis qui ob amissionem tantae multitudinis, quae cotidie prona ruit ad tartara, tam brevis numerus habentur ut eos quodammodo venerabilis mater ecclesia in suo sinu recumbentes non videat, quos solos veros filios habet. Quorum ne quis me egregiam vitam omnibus admirabilem deoque amabilem carpere putet, quibus nostra infirmitas in sacris orationibus ut non penitus conlabatur quasi columnis quibusdam ac fulcris saluberrimis sustentatur, si qua liberius de his, immo lugubrius, cumulo malorum conpulsus, qui serviunt non solum 103 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 28. 104 is comparison was also discussed by Alheydis Plassmann who, however, ignored the role of Ambrosius Aurelianus and that of his Roman background entirely (Plassmann 2006: 46). 105 DEB, 26.1 106 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 28.

Gentes and collective identities in Gildas’ DEB

89

ventri sed diabolo potius quam Christo, qui est benedictus in saecula deus, [...]¹⁰⁷ [All the controls of truth and justice have been shaken and overthrown, leaving no trace, not even a memory, among the orders I have mentioned: with the exception of a few, a very few. A great multitude has been lost, as people daily rush headlong to hell; and the rest are counted so small a number that, as they lie in her lap, the holy mother church in a sense does not see them, though they are the only true sons she has le. By their holy prayers they support my weakness from total collapse, like posts and columns of salvation; and no one should suppose that I am carping at their worthy lives, which all men admire and which God loves, if I speak freely, even sorrowfully, of those who are slaves of the belly, slaves, too, not of Christ, who is God, blessed forever, but of the devil.]¹⁰⁸ In the following chapters he focuses his accusations on the rulers and the ecclesiastics. However, as the quote above makes clear, he still has hope for the Britons, although there are only a few righteous ones of them le. Righteous in his sense of the word of course means Christian and pious. e introduction to his accusations and the following chapters demonstrate his view of the Britons’ and their rulers’ characters: Reges habet Britannia, sed tyrannos; iudices habet, sed impios; saepe praedantes et concutientes, sed innocentes;¹⁰⁹ [Britain has kings, but they are tyrants; she has judges, but they are wicked. ey oen plunder and terrorize - the innocent.]¹¹⁰ e same is true for the selfishness of the members of the Church of Britain: Sacerdotes habet Britannia, sed insipientes; quam plurimos ministros, sed impudentes; clericos, sed raptores subdolos; pastores, ut dicuntur, sed occisioni animarum lupos paratos, quippe non commoda providentes, sed proprii plenitudinem ventris quaerentes;¹¹¹ [Britain has priests, but they are fools; very many ministers, but they are shameless; clerics, but they are treacherous grabbers. ey are called shepherds, but they are wolves all ready to slaughter souls. ey 107 108 109 110 111

DEB, 26.3 and 26.4 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 28–29. DEB, 27 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 29. DEB, 66.1

90

Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae

do not look to the good of their people, but to the filling of their own bellies.]¹¹² He reproaches the common people to let themselves be exploited and subdued, so as to become damned to eternity: Quid tu, infelix popule, a talibus, ut dixit apostolus, bestiis ventris praestolaris? [...] Vel certe secundum salvatoris dictum, si non istos rapacissimos ut Arabiae lupos, ac si Loth ad montem igneum Sodomorum imbrem praepropere fugeritis, caeci educti a caecis pariter in inferni foveam cadetis.¹¹³ [What do you expect, unhappy people, from such beasts of the belly (as the apostle said)? [...] Indeed, in the words of our Saviour, if you do not swily flee these rapacious wolves of Arabia, like Lot fleeing the hills from the fiery rain that fell on Sodom, then, the blind led by the blind, you will fall together into the pit of hell.]¹¹⁴ In another reference from the Holy Script, he tells the people to act against such rulers: quid illis qui propriis scelerum suorum criniculis compediuntur fiet? Quorum nos necesse est, si in acie dominica volumus dimicare, peccata odire, non animas, dicente psalmista ‘qui diligitis dominum, odite malum’.¹¹⁵ [What, then, will become of those who are pinioned by the cords of their own sins? If we wish to fight on the side of the Lord, we must hate the sins of such men, though not their souls. As the psalmist says: ‘You who love the Lord must hate evil’.]¹¹⁶ Does Gildas incite the common people in his passage to agitate against their rulers? ere are more lines in the following parts which support this reading: Apparet ergo eum qui vos sacerdotes sciens ex corde dicit non esse eximium Christianum.¹¹⁷ [It is quite clear, then, that anyone who calls you priests knowingly and from his heart is no excellent Christian.]¹¹⁸ 112 113 114 115 116 117 118

Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 52. DEB, 68.1 and 68.2 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 54. DEB, 41.2 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 39. DEB, 108.2 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 77.

Gentes and collective identities in Gildas’ DEB

91

Besides his criticism against the rulers and ecclesiastics of Britain, I very much understand these last two passages as an appeal to revolt against them. In contrast to Gildas’ criticism and his accusations against the Britons, he furthermore speaks about the role of the friends and protectors of the Britons, the Romans who occupied the island for more than three centuries. 6.4.2 Romans in Gildas’ De Excidio Britanniae

First and foremost, the Romans’ duty in Gildas’ DEB is to protect and support the Britons whenever they are under the threat of the Picts and the Scots. e Britons repeatedly issue appeals for help to the Romans who, during the third and fourth century, repeatedly withdraw troops from the island. is is also the case aer the first Roman withdrawal from the island at the end of the fih century, when a first appeal for help from the Britons is issued against the Picts and the Scots. e Romans’ role for the Britons becomes clear in the following passage of Gildas’ text: at illi, [...] volatus ceu aquilarum equitum in terra, nautarum in mari cursus accelerantes, inopinatos primum, tandem terribiles inimicorum cervicibus infigunt mucronum unques, casibusque foliorum tempore certo adsimilandam hisdem peragunt stragem, ac si montanus torrens crebris tempestatum rivulis auctus sonoroque meatu alveos exundans ac sulcato dorso fronteque acra, erectis, ut aiunt, ad nebulas undis (luminum quibus pupilli, persaepe licet palpebrarum convolatibus innovati, adiunctis rimarum rotantium lineis fuscantur) mirabiliter spumans, ast uno obiectas sibi evincit gurgite moles. Ita aemulorum agmina auxiliares egregii, si qua tamen evadere potuerant, praepropere trans maria fugaverunt, quia anniversarias avide praedas nullo obsistente trans maria exaggerabant.¹¹⁹ [ey [i.e. the Romans] hurried the flight of their horsemen like eagles on the land and the course of their sailors on the sea, and planted in their enemies’ necks the claws of their sword-points - claws at first unexpected, finally terrifying; and they caused among them a slaughter like the fall of leaves at the due time of the year. ey were like a mountain torrent increased by tributaries tempest-swollen, that, thundering as it goes, wells out beyond its channel, back furrowed, forehead fierce, waves - as they say - cloud-high (because of them the pupils of the eyes are darkened, despite their constant refreshment of the flickering of the eye-lids, when they encounter the lines of the whirling cles); it foams wonderfully, and with a single surge it overcomes the obstacles in its path. is was the way our worthy allies 119 DEB, 17.2 and 17.3

92

Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae

instantly put to flight across the sea the columns of their rivals - such as could get away: year aer year they had greedily taken heaps of plunder overseas with none to resist them.]¹²⁰ is passage shows the Romans’ role of powerful protectors of the Britons from the Picts and the Scots, who Bede refers to as their traditional enemies. e saxones, though present on the island earlier, do not appear in Gildas’ DEB before the final Roman withdrawal from Britain.¹²¹ Aer the beginning of the fall of the Roman Empire, Rome informed its former province at the beginning of the fih century that it could no longer come to the Britons’ help: Igitur Romani, patriae denuntiantes nequaquam se tam laboriosis expeditionibus posse frequentis vexari et ob imbelles erraticosque latrunculos Romana stigmata, tantum talemque exercitum, terra ac mari fatigari, sed ut potius sola consuescendo armis ac viriliter dimicando terram substantiolam coniuges liberos et, quod his maius est, libertatem vitamque totis viribus vindicaret, et gentibus nequaquam sibi fortioribus, nisi segnitia et torpore dissolveretur, inermes vinculis vinciendas nullo modo, sed instructas peltis ensibus hastis et ad caedem promptas protenderet manus [...] ¹²² [e Romans therefore informed our country that they could not go on being bothered with such troublesome expeditions; the Roman standards, that great and splendid army, could not be worn out by land and sea for the sake of wandering thieves who had no taste for war. Rather, the British should stand alone, get used to arms, fight, bravely, and defend with all their powers their land, property, wives, children, and, more important, their life and liberties. eir enemies were no stronger than they, unless Britain chose to relax in laziness and torpor; they should not hold out to them for the chaining hands that held no arms, but hand-equipped with shields, swords and lances, ready for the kill.]¹²³ is event took place in 410 AD when Emperor Honorius informed the Britons that they from now on were responsible themselves for the defence of their island (Charles-Edwards 2003b: 8). However, the Romans did not leave without helping the Britons to build another wall against their enemies from the north. Apparently, they intended to prepare their former province for a future without Roman support: 120 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 22. 121 For the discussion about the possible beginning of the presence of the Saxons or other continental gentes in Britain, even during the Roman occupation, see Chapter 6.1.4. 122 DEB, 18.1 123 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 22.

Gentes and collective identities in Gildas’ DEB

93

[...] suadentes, quia et hoc putabant aliquid derelinquendo populu commodi adcrescere, murum non ut alterum, sumptu publico privatoque adiunctis secum miserabilibus indigenis, solito structurae more, tramite a mari usque ad mare inter urbes, quae ibidem forte ob metum hostium collocatae fuerant, directo librant; fortia formidoloso populo monita tradunt, exemplaria instituendorum armorum reliquunt. In litore quoque oceani ad meridianam plagam, que naves eorum habebantur, quia et inde barbaricae ferae bestiae timebantur, turres per intervalla ad prospectum mares collocant, et valedicunt tamquam ultra non reversuri.¹²⁴ [is was the Romans’ advice: and, in the belief that this would be a further boon to the people whom they proposed to abandon, they built a wall quite different from the first. is one ran straight from sea to sea, linking towns that happened to have been sited there out of fear of their enemy. ey employed the normal method of construction, drew on private and public funds, and made the wretched inhabitants help them in the work. ey gave the frightened people stirring advice, and le them manuals on weapon training. ey also placed towers overlooking the sea at intervals on the south coast, where they kept their ships: for they were afraid of the wild barbarian beasts attacking on that front too. en they said goodbye, meaning never to return.]¹²⁵ It is not clear which murus this passage refers to. Both great walls, Hadrian’s and Antonine’s, pre-date the Honorian rescript from 410 AD. However, the turres might be identified with defensive constructions built by the Romans, the socalled litus saxonicum, a line of coastal fortifications built on the coastal area of today’s south-eastern England between the late third and the late fourth centuries to protect the province from attacks and raids from the coast. Up to this day, there is no further clue which wall or fortification Gildas was referring to. e Roman withdrawal, however, was ultimate. e Britons were le to themselves with their enemies who continued increasing their pressure on Britain’s north. In spite of the fortifications the Romans le, remained unable to protect themselves from the growing number of raids and attacks by the gentes from the north, which I will discuss in short. According to the following passage, the Britons turned to the Saxons for help, which for Gildas was the beginning of their own downfall.

124 DEB, 18.2 and 18.3 125 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 22–23.

94

Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae

6.4.3 The Saxons in Gildas’ De Excidio Britanniae

Following Gildas, the Saxons were called upon by the Britons themselves because of their fear of the Picts and the Scots. e Britons seem to have hoped for help from the gens which Gildas refers to as saxones: adinvenientes tale praesidium, immo excidium patriae ut ferocissimi illi nefandi nominis Saxones deo hominibusque invisi, quasi in caulas lupi, in insulam ad retundendas aquilonales gentes intromitterentur. Quo utique nihil ei usquam perniciosius nihilque amarius factum est. O altissimam sensus caliginem! o desperabilem crudamque mentis hebetudinem! Quos propensius morte, cum abessent, tremebant, sponte, ut ita dicam, sub unius tecti culmine invitabant: [...]¹²⁶ [the guard - or rather the method of destructions - they devised for our land was that the ferocious Saxons (name not to be spoken!), hated by man and God, should be let into the island like wolves into the fold, to beat back the peoples of the North. Nothing more destructive, nothing more bitter has ever befallen the land. How utter the blindness of their minds! How desperate and crass the stupidity! Of their own free will they invited under the same roof a people whom they feared worse than death even in their absence - ]¹²⁷ is passage possibly indicates the different religions of the Britons and the Saxons: while the Britons of course were Christians, the Saxons’ religion, they were heathen, led Gildas to refer to them as invisi deo. is contrast is not only true for the religion of Saxons and Britons but also for the Saxons and the late Romans. Furthermore, the Saxons were not only despised by God, but also invisi hominibus, hated by men. Here, Gildas implies a certain reputation for the saxones who began to dominate the Britons, which he seems to accept as general knowledge. To Gildas, presumably an ecclesiastic, the heathen faith of the Saxons must have been of great importance in his judgement. His religious background, therefore, might have played a significant role in his description of the Saxons not only as enemies and conquerors of the Britons but also as a heathen gens. Gildas’ DEB reveals more details about the Saxons: Tum erumpens grex catulorum de cubili leaenae barbarae, tribus, ut lingua eius exprimitur, cyulis, nostra longis navibus, secundis velis omine auguriisque, quibus vaticinabatur, certo apud eum praesagio, quod ter centum annis patriam, cui proras librabat, insideret, centum vero quinquaginta, hoc est dimidio temporis, saepius vastaret,[...]¹²⁸ 126 DEB, 23.1 and 23.2 127 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 26. 128 DEB, 23.3

Gentes and collective identities in Gildas’ DEB

95

[en a pack of cubs burst forth from their lair of the barbarian lioness, coming in three keels, as they call warships in their language. e winds were favourable; favourable too the omens and auguries, which prophesied, according to a sure portent among them, that they would live for three hundred years on the land towards which their prows were directed, and that for half of the time, a hundred and fiy years, they would repeatedly lay it waste.]¹²⁹ is passage is interesting for two reasons: first, Gildas quotes one term from the Saxons’ language, cyulis, a latinized version of the Old English term ceōl. is term is a cognate with Old Saxon kiol, Old High German kiol, Modern German Kiel and Old Norse kjóll, from Western Germanic *keula (Kluge 1989: 368). e Old Norse term, however, is rare and specifically found as a reference to merchant ships from Britain (ier 2009: 157).¹³⁰ It is found in three of the four manuscripts; manuscripts (A) and (D) both contain the term in the form that can be found in Winterbottom’s and Mommsen’s editions, manuscript (X) contains the form ciulis. e earliest manuscript (C), however, does not contain this passage (Mommsen 1898: 38). In Germanic, this term translates into ship, in Old English ceōl is used in references to a keel as well as to a ship (Bosworth 1954: 151) (Kluge 1989: 368).¹³¹ Second, this passage reveals that the Saxons were familiar with the custom of prophecy and augury, a custom Gildas also must have been acquainted with due to his Roman cultural background and his presumed education within the Roman tradition. Another reason for this passage to be of interest is that it also refers to the Saxons by means of the term barbarian. is is also the case when he speaks of Picts and Scots, as will be discussed in short.¹³² Later, he emphasizes the role of the Saxons in Britain and further characterizes their heathen background: evectus, primum in orientali parte insulae iubente infausto tyranno terribiles infixit ungues, quasi pro patria pugnaturus sed eam certius impugnaturus. Cui supradicta genetrix, comperiens primo agmini fuisse prosperatum, item mittit satellitum canumque prolixiorem 129 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 26. 130 Kathrin ier claimed that the meaning of ceōl underwent a significant change between the first appearance of the term, the latinized version referring to ‘warships’ found in Gildas, whom she identifies as a Latin writer, until the eleventh century when the term appeared for the first time describing a merchant vessel (ier 2009: 158). 131 According to the Dictionary of Old English, an on-line project hosted with the University of Toronto, this passage is one of the earliest examples for the use of this term. Variants can be frequently found in Old English poetry, including Beowulf for example, referring to a ship or any other form of sea-going vessel. e Dictionary of Old English (DOE) project is currently developing a dictionary which can only be accessed on-line and provides entries for Old English words until the letter G up to this day. is entry and all of the following information taken from this dictionary were collected via an on-line access to the web presence of the DOE, www.tir.doe.utoronto.ca, on April 24th 2011 at the Free University in Berlin. 132 See Chapter 6.4.4.

96

Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae

catastam, quae ratibus advecta adunatur cum manipularibus spuriis. Inde germen iniquitatis, radix amaritudinis, virulenta plantatio nostris condigna meritis, in nostro cespite, ferocibus palmitibus pampinisque pullulat.¹³³ [On the order of the ill-fated tyrant, they first of all fixed their dreadful claws on the east side of the island, ostensibly to fight for our country, in fact to fight against it. e mother lioness had learnt that her first contingent had prospered, and she sent a second and larger troop of satellite dogs. It arrived by ship, and joined up with the false units. Hence the sprig of iniquity, the root of bitterness, the virulent plant that our merits so well deserved, sprouted in our soil with savage shoots and tendrils.]¹³⁴ At this point, Gildas also mentions where the Saxons arrived in Britain, i.e. on the eastern coast; as was the case with the picti and the scotti, Gildas again remains very general in his geographic references, which is why it is impossible to say which part of the eastern coast of the island he referred to. Following settlement patterns in this period, the south-east was conquered by Saxon tribes while, in the area north of the river Humber, two kingdoms were established by a gens which Bede would later name angli (Charles-Edwards 2003c: 30). is gens, however, is not mentioned at all in Gildas’ DEB, a fact which will I will return to in short. Returning to the saxones, there are further terms applied by Gildas to characterize them. ese terms underline the previous assumption as he calls them orientali sacrilegorum [i.e. Saxons] ¹³⁵ [impious easterners] [i.e. Saxons] ¹³⁶ which indicates their origin either from the east outside of Britain or from the east of the island itself. Besides, he also calls them crudelissimi praedones [i.e. Saxons] ¹³⁷ [cruel plunderers] [Saxons]¹³⁸ By calling the Saxons praedones, Gildas equates them with the Scots whom he refers to as grassatores, emphasising the role of both gentes as enemies of the Britons.¹³⁹ is leads us to the gentes of the picti and the scotti, who are usually mentioned together. 133 134 135 136 137 138 139

DEB, 23.4 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 26. DEB, 24.2 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 27. DEB, 25.2 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 28. See Chapter 6.4.4.

Gentes and collective identities in Gildas’ DEB

97

6.4.4 Picts and Scots in Gildas’ De Excidio Britanniae

e picti and scoti, or barbarians as he calls them repeatedly, are depicted as the Briton’s enemies; they are shown as a constant threat for the Britons: et omnis belli usus ignara penitus, duabus primum gentibus transmarinis vehementer saevis, Scotorum a circione, Pictorum ab aquilone calcabilis, multos stupet gemitque annos. ¹⁴⁰ [Quite ignorant of the ways of war, she [i.e. Britain] groaned aghast for many years, trodden under foot first by two exceedingly savage overseas nations, the Scots from the north-west and the Picts from the north.]¹⁴¹ Apparently Gildas places both gentes across the sea although this is only true for the scoti who originated from Ireland. e gens named picti originated from northern Britannia, roughly the area of today’s Highlands. Gildas, however, uses the Roman names and claims that both gentes are traditional enemies of the Britons. e threat from them returns whenever the Romans are not present in the island and the Britons are le to themselves: illi priores inimici ac si ambrones lupi profunda fame rabidi, siccis faucibus ovile transilientes non comparente pastore, alis remorum remigumque brachiis ac velis vento sinuatis vecti, terminos rumpunt caeduntque omnia et quaeque obvia maturam ceu segetem metunt calcant transeunt.¹⁴² [Meanwhile, the old enemies [i.e. Scoti and Picti] re-appeared, like greedy wolves, rabid with extreme hunger, who, dry-mouthed, leap over into the sheepfold when the shepherd is away. ey came relying on their oars as wings, on the arms of their oarsmen, and on the winds swelling their sails. ey broke through their frontiers, spreading destruction everywhere. ey went trampling over everything that stood in their path, cutting it down like ripe corn.]¹⁴³ Aer the Roman withdrawal from the island, the Picts and Scots resume their attacks upon the Britons. Gildas provides his audience with lengthy details of their attacks:

140 141 142 143

DEB, 14 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 21. DEB, 16 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 21.

98

Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae

Itaque illis ad sua remeantibus emergunt certatim de curucis, quibus sunt trans Tithicam vallem evecti, quasi in alto Titane incalescenteque caumate de artissimis foraminum caverniculis fusci vermiculorum cunei, tetri Scottorum Pictorumque greges, moribus ex parte dissidentes, sed una eademque sanguinis fudendi aviditate concordes furciferosque magis vultus pilis quam corporum pudenda pudendisque proxima vestibus tegentes, cognitaque condebitorum reversione et reditus denegatione solito confidentiores omnem aquilonalem extremamque terrae partem pro indigenis muro tenus capessunt. Statuitur ad haec in edito arcis acies, segnis ad pugnam, inhabilis ad fugam, trementibus praecordiis inepta, quae diebus ac noctibus stupido sedili marcebat. Interea non cessant uncinita nudorum tela, quibus miserrimi cives de muris tracti solo allidebantur. Hoc scilicet eis proficiebat immaturae mortis supplicium qui tali funere rapiebantur, quo fratrum pignorumque suorum miserandas imminentes poenas cito exitu devitabant.¹⁴⁴ [As the Romans went back home, there eagerly emerged from the coracles that had carried them across the sea-valleys the foul hordes of the Scots and Picts, like dark throngs of worms who wriggle out of narrow fisssures (sic!) in the rock when the sun is high and the weather grows warm. ey were to some extent different in their customs, but they were in perfect accord in their greed for bloodshed: and they were readier to cover their villainous faces with hair than their private parts and neighbouring regions with clothes. ey were more confident than usual now that they had learnt of the departure of our fellow-debtors and the denial of any prospect of their return. So they seized the whole of the extreme north of the island from its inhabitants, right up to the wall. A force was stationed on the high towers to oppose them, but it was too lazy to fight, and too unwieldy to flee; the men were foolish and frightened, and they sat about day and night, rotting away in their folly. Meanwhile there was no respite from the barbed spears flung by their naked opponents, which tore our wretched countrymen from the walls and dashed them to the ground. Premature death was in fact an advantage to those who were thus snatched away; for their quick end saved them from the miserable fate that awaited their brothers and children.]¹⁴⁵ Unfortunately, Gildas does not specify the differences between their customs. However, his account gives information about their appearance, their location and 144 DEB, 19.1 and 19.2 145 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 23.

Gentes and collective identities in Gildas’ DEB

99

where they originate from, although he returns to his claim that they come from across the sea and conquer the north of the island of Britain aer the Roman withdrawal.¹⁴⁶ Especially the last part of this passage can be interpreted as a hint at slavery between these gentes. In this regard he is very vague, yet another indication is later given: et sicut agni a lanionibus, ita deflendi cives ab inimicis discerpuntur ut commoratio eorum ferarum assimilaretur agrestium.¹⁴⁷ [e pitiable citizens were torn apart by their foe like lambs by the butcher; their life became like that of beasts of the field.]¹⁴⁸ is indicates that Gildas knew that the Picts and the Scots were societies that knew and practised slavery using their prisoners. e equation of their lives with ferae agrestae could be read as another reference for slavery. He provides this information particularly about these two gentes while slavery was also common among the Britons, the Romans and the Saxons. For the other gentes, however, he remains silent about this practice.¹⁴⁹ In a later part of the text, he returns to this issue, however without naming the gens he is referring to: Itaque nonulli miserarum reliquiarum in montibus deprehensi acervatim iugulabantur: alii fame confecti accendentes manus hostibus dabant in aevum servituri, si tamen non continuo trucidarentur, quod altissimae gratiae stabat loco.¹⁵⁰ [So a number of the wretched survivors were caught in the mountains and butchered wholesale. Others, their spirit broken by hunger, went to surrender to the enemy; they were fated to be slaves for ever, if indeed they were not killed straight away, the highest boon.]¹⁵¹ 146 e references to these features were ignored in Alheydis Plassmann’s discussion of Gildas’ DEB (Plassmann 2006: 48). 147 DEB, 19.3 148 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 23. 149 e history of slavery has been subject to detailed research before. James Campbell discussed the role of slaves in Saxon society in his work in 1986 where he claimed they were mostly used for household tasks (Campbell 1986: 136). He also argued that slavery had been ever-present in Saxon society. Noble captives were probably killed in war, non-nobles and women were enslaved and oen sold abroad. It was also possible for Saxon men to become slaves when unable to pay a fine or any other form of compensation. Men could also sell their children or themselves into slavery for a certain amount of time (Campbell 1986: 138). A more recent and detailed study of the topic can be found in David Pelteret’s Slavery in Early Medieval England, published in 1995. Pelteret, however, does not discuss the passages quoted above since his research focus begins with sources from the seventh and eighth centuries and later (Pelteret 2001: 24). 150 DEB, 25.1 151 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 27–28.

100

Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae

ere is only one passage where Gildas’ DEB distinguishes between these two gentes. He places the Picts in the north of Britain and the scoti directly in Ireland: Revertuntur ergo impudentes grassatores Hiberni domos, post non longum temporis reversuri. Picti in extrema parte insulae tunc primum et deinceps requieverunt, praedas et contritiones nonnumquam facientes. In talibus itaque indutis desolato populo saeva cicatrix obducitur [...]¹⁵² [So the impudent Irish pirates returned home (though they were shortly to return); and for the first time the Picts in the far end of the island kept quiet from now on, though they occasionally carried out devastating raids of plunder. So in this period of truce the desolate people found their cruel scars healing over.]¹⁵³ Gildas now places the Picts to the north of the island of Britain where they return to but still carry out raids in British territory. He also calls the Scots hiberni, which is another name commonly found in Latin sources for the same gens (Charles-Edwards 2003b: 31). e same use of names are used in Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica as will be shown shortly. is shows that Gildas was really referring to a gens which at least to a part originated from across the sea, or the Irish channel in this case. Oversea raids were quite common from the Irish kingdom of Dalriada, which covered western parts of today’s coast of Scotland as well as north-eastern parts of Ireland (Charles-Edwards 2003b: 31).

6.5 Summary and Conclusion e following conclusions can be drawn from a close reading of Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae. e author gives information regarding five different gentes in Britain during his time of writing, the Britons, the Romans, the Saxons, the Scots, or hiberni, and the Picts. e Britons form the focus of Gildas’ criticism and his reproaches. While he praises their courage and their success under Roman leadership at the battle of Mount Badon, he criticises their weaknesses aer the Roman withdrawal. He explains these weaknesses partly with the loss of the romanitas, the Roman strengths and traditions, aer the end of the occupation and the withdrawal of the Roman troops from Britain. Another reason for their weakness is their lack of faith. Gildas criticises the Britons’ failure in living the lives of good Christians in times of peace. Furthermore, he claims that they had always been sceptical to accept the Christian faith in the first place.¹⁵⁴ Although Gildas attacks the contemporary rulers and the 152 DEB, 21.1 and 2 153 Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 24. 154 See, for example, Chapter 6.4.1.

Summary and Conclusion

101

ecclesiastics, this chapter shows that there are several passages where his criticism aims at the gens in general. Gildas sees the Britons as superior to their enemies because of their Christian faith, however, they repeatedly fail to behave accordingly which led or at least contributed to the success of their enemies, i.e. the Scots, the Picts and the Saxons. Gildas’ emphasis on the Britons as a united gens in spite of the lack of a political unity was discussed earlier by Peter Turner (Turner 2009: 33). is emphasis was explained with Gildas’ sense for a British collective identity in the past (Turner 2009: 34). Gildas’ criticism and his claim that the Britons should oppose the sinful behaviour of their rulers and ecclesiastics in chapters 41.2 and 108.2, however, indicate that his memory of a united British gens from the past does not prevent him from hoping for this unity to return. is leads us to the Romans who le Britain before the time of Gildas’ writing. As it seems, this was only true regarding the Roman military. Under Roman rule, the Britons converted to Christianity and there are indications that specific urban Roman customs, such as education and administration, were still practised in sixth century Britain, at least in areas of the island that were still unaffected by the Saxon settlements, for example in the very east. However, the Romans as military protectors of the Britons were gone. Gildas claims that the Roman withdrawal, perhaps more than hundred years before the time of his writing, le the Britons not only exposed to their barbarian enemies but also to their own sinfulness and military weakness. He does not grow tired of reproaching the Britons for their selfishness and moral abjection contrasted to the glorious example of the Roman occupational forces in Britain. Assuming a date of composition for his DEB in the mid-sixth century, Gildas only knew about the Roman occupation in Britain from oral or written sources. Nevertheless, he only speaks of the Romans in a positive light. He also uses their language although he has been claimed to have been a native speaker of British.¹⁵⁵ I will return to the question of language shortly. e Romans, however, not only provided exemplary behaviour and skills for the Britons, Gildas speaks about their role metaphorically as parents who protect the Britons like their children. is picture is emphasised by their continuous help against the attacks from the Picts and the Scots. According to Gildas, the Romans are no occupants of the island but rather supporters of the weak Britons. erefore, I do not see the Romans in Gildas’ DEB in opposition to the Britons, Gildas rather seems to connect the Britons’ tradition with the Roman past of the

155 See Chapter 6.1.3.

102

Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae

island.¹⁵⁶ ese return to their sinfulness and weakness aer the final Roman withdrawal, which is commonly identified with the Honorian rescript in 410 AD. Aer the withdrawal, the Saxons were, according to Gildas, a new threat to the Britons. While Saxon attacks on Britain are accounted for historically much earlier, i.e. during the Roman occupation, Gildas claims that they were brought to the island aer AD 410 to support the Britons against their enemies from the north and from Ireland. Gildas’ date for the first arrival of the Saxons in Britain, therefore, is too late (Charles-Edwards 2003b: 27). Gildas considers the Saxons as a divine punishment for the sinful behaviour of the Britons. His information about the Saxons, however, remains scarce; his remarks are restricted to their barbarian origins and their heathen faith. is positions the Britons as superior to them due to their religious belief and their romanitas. A few details of his knowledge about the saxones, however, can be found in the writing. Gildas is aware of the Saxon word ceōl, keels, for which he uses the latinized version cyulis. He also seems to be aware of their way of sea-travelling, as well as of their custom of prophecy and augury. It can be assumed that Gildas was accustomed with the traditions of augury and prophecy due to his own Roman education. e text thus indicates a certain familiarity with the Saxons while the information provided is general and vague. e same is true for what the readers learn about the Picts and Scots. e information about the Picts and the Scots is based on their hostile relation with the Britons. While they appear together in the passages discussed above, Gildas distinguishes between the two gentes and provides information about their origin which he places across the sea for the Scots. e origin of the picti seems confused, while he refers to them as gens transmarina in chapter 14, he claims them to come from the north of the island, in extrema parte insulae, in chapter 25.1. is could be explained with the existence of Pictish tribes both in Britain and in Ireland. Gildas’ DEB, however, remains unclear in this regard. His account of the appearance and the clothing of these two gentes can be used to draw a contrasting picture of the appearance of the Britons. In chapters 19.1 and 19.2 he speaks of both gentes to have facial hair and to fight naked. is appears to be a significant contrast to the Britons, at least to the members of the aristocracy, whose looks can be assumed to be closer to that of the Roman occupants of Britain. Again, this does not only underline the connection between the Britons and the Romans, but it also contrasts the civilized Britons to their barbarian enemies. Furthermore, another important aspect is the difference made between Christian and heathen gentes. While the Britons had been converted to Christianity two 156 Turner, following Plassmann’s argumentation, claims that the Britons are in opposition to the Romans who serve to underline the Britons’ cowardice, incompetence and rebelliousness (Turner 2009: 46–48) (Plassmann 2001: 5–11). I agree with Turner’s argument that Gildas’ view of the Romans is very positive (Turner 2009: 41). is chapter, however, has demonstrated that the relationship between both gentes should be considered to be more complex, e.g. in the light of a remaining Roman identity, or Romanness, as claimed by Walter Pohl (Pohl 2014).

Summary and Conclusion

103

centuries before Gildas wrote his DEB, this was not the case for the Pictish tribes in the north. For the Scots from Ireland the situation appears to be different since the Irish conversion took place in the first half of the fih century. is means that, assuming a date of composition in the mid-sixth century, the Irish already were Christians when Gildas was writing. In spite of that, the gentes of the picti and scoti were repeatedly referred to as barbarians by the author which indicates that Gildas either wrote about the heathen scoti before the Roman withdrawal from Britain or he was not aware of the Irish mission. Because of the obvious ecclesiastic background of Gildas, the second possibility seems highly unlikely. Of course, the heathen faith of the enemies is a necessary aspect when contrasting them to the Christian Britons. For the purpose of Gildas, the contemporary Christian faith of the Irish in the sixth century, the presumed date of composition, was historically not of interest when he speaks of their hostile behaviour towards the Christian Britons. e addition of the successful mission in Ireland would have made the contrast between Christian Britons and heathen Scots not only more complicated but was also irrelevant for the time Gildas was referring to, i.e. the time before AD 410. Finally, Gildas refers to the tradition of slavery among these two gentes which is surprising because slavery was widespread among all gentes in Britain. erefore, I assume that it was not the fact that picti and scoti kept slaves, but the fact that Christian Britons were subjected to slavery by the heathens that shocked Gildas. In conclusion, Gildas’ DEB provides various elements that have been claimed to be of importance regarding the construction of ethnic identities. e five gentes referred to in the text are all referred to with their Latin names, britanni, romani, saxones, picti and scoti. e latter are also termed hiberni. is agrees with the presumed Romano-British background of the author. Although Gildas has been assumed to have been a native speaker of British, he only provides the Latin names of these gentes in Britain. Gildas does not refer to any smaller gentes which has been understood as a deliberate silence in favour of an identity which was not shared by the community who focused on smaller ethnic identities, like for example the people of Gwynnedd, which will be discussed in the following chapters (Turner 2009: 36).¹⁵⁷ Turner supported this argument with three roughly contemporary memorial stones which do not refer to the British gens but, for example, to the kingdom of Gwynnedd, while no gravestones from this period remain that are labelled as British.¹⁵⁸ e identification of smaller eth157 Turner understood this as a result of Gildas’ call for unity of the Britons. His DEB, however, does not only ignore other British gentes but also refers to the Saxons, Picts and Scots without providing information about further gentes, most prominently he does not speak of the angli at all. His references to the Britons agree with his treatment of all other gentes in his writing. 158 e two other memorial stones Turner mentions contain references to Elmet, a Late British kingdom in the north-east of England, and the Ordovices, smaller Late British tribes located in northern Wales (Turner 2009: 36).

104

Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae

nic communities based on archaeological findings was questioned in earlier research (Pohl 1998a: 21–22). Walter Pohl argued that, while both archaeology and writings mirror the conditions of ethnic identity, archaeological findings can only present a basis for hypotheses regarding ethnic interpretation while written documents present more detailed information. As culture represents a fully functional network with independent elements, archaeology is only able to analyse a limited number of these elements. (Polomé 1985: 68). It has therefore been claimed to be very limited in the amount of information it can provide regarding the construction of collective identities (Halshall 2007: 466). Gildas’ DEB, in contrast to Turner’s claims, shows that the argument about the limits of archaeological findings in regard to research of identity construction are justified. Turner presents three memorial stones with names of gentes that are not found in the writing, while Gildas’ DEB, in contrast, provides its readers with many more features that in the past have been argued to have influenced the construction of collective identities, for example language. Latin is the language of his writing. e reasons for this are his classical education and his presumed ecclesiastic background. e British vernacular, or Late British, as will be discussed in the next chapter, was not yet a medium of written communication for ecclesiastics, not even for members of the aristocracy which Gildas criticises too severely. is leads to the question of language within the gens in general, since there were two languages present and in use. Gildas’ DEB, however, makes use of languages because it mentions the term cyulis, a latinized form of the Anglo-Saxon term ceōl, in chapter 23.3. is passage not only indicates that Gildas could have been acquainted with Saxon culture but also that he could have been familiar, at least to a certain extent, with their language. Gildas uses this term as a contrast to Latin but it also serves him as an indication of his expertise about the Saxons and their culture. In contrast to what the readers learn about the culture of their enemies, Gildas’ DEB does not provide much information on the customs of the Britons. He only speaks of the appearance of the picti and scoti who fight without clothes and have beards. Both must have seemed peculiar to Gildas who was very aware of his romanitas and who came from a culture that was still under the influence of the Roman culture brought to the island centuries ago. e description of the Britons’ enemies as barbari shows that he distinguished between civilized and barbarian people either based on civilization or romanitas and the non-civilized barbarians as had been common for centuries. A judgement based on the difference between Christians and heathens supported this distinction even more. In this regard, it is peculiar that Gildas referred to the scoti from Ireland as heathen. He ignored the Christian mission to Ireland, perhaps because he was referring to their heathen ancestors. ese served him as an example to show the weaknesses of the Britons, who he still thought needed to be criticised at the time

Summary and Conclusion

105

of his writing. Religion, in addition to the refined life-style of romanitas, therefore served Gildas as an element to distinguish between the civilized Britons and the style of barbari, but also to explain his admonitions of the British rulers, ecclesiastics and the gens in general because of their lack of faith. ere is also optimism in Gildas’ DEB. is is underlined by the treatment of the figure of Ambrosius Aurelianus. e leader in the battle of Mount Badon provided a heroic example and united the positive features of the Roman past with the British present. He is shown as a glorious, a heroic figure for the Britons. Under his command, the Britons were returned God’s favour and successfully fought the Saxons. is can be seen as Gildas’ hope for the future of the Britons as a gens, however disappointed he is. But the gens itself does not appear to be responsible for their fall. ey are misled by their rulers and their ecclesiastics, the two addressees of his accusations; Gildas more than once called for the Britons’ duty to stand up against impious and unjust rulers. Ambrosius Aurelianus can be understood to be a heroic figure and to serve as an example for all Britons, providing a symbol of identification. With this figure, Gildas established a close connection between the Romans and the Britons while both gentes are clearly considered to be separate. is underlines the strong influence of the Roman period in Britain on the Britons and, more specifically, on Gildas and his writing as argued before.¹⁵⁹ In summary, Gildas’ De Excidio Britanniae is explicit regarding the identity of the Britons: they stand in the Roman tradition and are thus superior to their aggressors. e Romans were the ones who brought civilization to them, i.e. their urbanity, agriculture, trade, administration, religion, i.e. Christianity, and finally military discipline and efficiency for the sake of peace and the Britons’ unity. Gildas compared this with a paternal metaphor as we have seen earlier.¹⁶⁰ He sees the Britons as “growing up” and gives them a heroic figure, a typical feature for the identity construction of a gens. His text therefore is not only a list of accusations against rulers and ecclesiastics in Britain; it is also a demand to stand up against them and follow the glorious example of Ambrosius Aurelianus. He is the symbol of their success as an independent gens. His model as a heroic figure combines moral and religious integrity with military success. It is essential for the understanding of Gildas’ message and the construction of what he claimed should be the British identity. Peter Turner argued that Gildas failed to list what he regarded to be defining features of his gens. However, as the previous discussion demonstrates, a close reading of the text shows that this is not the case. e construction of identity in Gildas’ DEB is not restricted to the common heroic figure of the gens, 159 e absence of a more detailed discussion in his DEB about the Roman withdrawal from Britain should therefore not be reduced to be an indication for the ethnocentric view of Gildas as was done by Peter Turner (Turner 2009: 39–40). is chapter demonstrated that his references provide many details about other gentes than the Britons. 160 See Chapter 6.4.1.

106

Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae

Ambrosius Aurelianus. Gildas also explicitly distinguishes the appearance of the Picts, the Scots and the Saxons from the Britons’ own. Furthermore, religion is of course used to distinguish the gens of the Britons from their enemies; the Christian faith is used to diminish the religious virtue of the heathen barbarians from the perspective of the superior Christian Britons. Language also plays an implicit role as an element constructing identity. Gildas not only mentions the latinized form of an Old English word but writes his DEB in Latin although it is assumed that he was a speaker of the British vernacular. is symbolizes a conflict within the gens of the Britons, an issue which will be discussed in the following chapter. is list of features, however, demonstrates that Gildas’ DEB does contain features which allow the construction of a British identity. Regarding the discourse of identity construction, Gildas’ DEB provides the starting point of the discussion pursued in this thesis. While the focus of the present study begins with Gildas, the discourse of identity construction does not. Gildas draws his information from numerous sources, most evidently from the Old Testament and Orosius’ Historiae adversos paganos. At this point, these sources have to be assumed to provide Gildas with a specific discourse of identity construction which they presumably follow themselves.¹⁶¹ His construction of the identities of Britain’s gentes thus needs to be assumed to be strongly influenced by his sources.¹⁶² e results of the previous analysis will, therefore, be used as a starting point to demonstrate the discourse and its development as it presents itself in the writings subject to analysis in this study. e presence of the discourse features discussed in this chapter, however, allows to formulate several assumptions regarding the strategy of discourse Gildas seems to follow: Gildas’ opposition toward the rulers and the ecclesiastics together with the disastrous state in which he sees Britain explain his severe criticism in the DEB, his letter of admonition. is is the reason for his critical approach to the construction of the Briton’s identity which, from his perspective, led to the situation he criticises. However, in spite of his criticism, he provides his gens considerable value through the comparison with the other gentes in Britain, i.e. the picti, the scotti and the saxones.¹⁶³ While the Britons lack Christian faith and martial success, they are still superior to these heathen gentes. In his construction of an ethnic identity for the Britons, Gildas needs this comparison in order to formulate not only his hope for the future of the Britons, where he also relies on the example of the people of Israel which he uses numerously for the Britons, but also to support his demand for the Britons to rid themselves of their rulers and to stand up 161 For a detailed discussion of Gildas’ readings, see the study by Neil Wright in Wright 1991. 162 ese influences, however, cannot be discussed within the limits of the present thesis and need to be addressed by future research on this topic. I assume, however, that the construction of identities as presented by the DEB can be placed within a discourse which started significantly before the writing of this text. 163 is argument was also brought forward by Nicolas Higham in Higham 2007, 75.

Summary and Conclusion

107

against at least some of their ecclesiastics in order to return Britain to the glory it had seen under Roman rule. is is also the reason for his use of Ambrosius Aurelianus as heroic example for the gens, particularly because the Roman occupation can be assumed to still have been present in Britain in education, administration and presumably in the Latin language during the time of Gildas’ writing (Schrijver 2009: 195). e purpose of his writing, i.e. his criticism of rulers and ecclesiastics, and his approach to the construction of identities of the gentes in Britain thus indicates his strategy not only to voice criticism against those in power, but also to inform his gens about their duty to remember their history and rise against their rulers, their ecclesiastics and the heathen gentes conquering the island.

7 Aneirin’s Y Gododdin

Apart from the elements and aspects connected to the construction of ethnic identities, Gildas’ DEB also contains references to social groups other than the aristocracy or the ecclesiastics. It is the group that has commonly been referred to as the bards or poets.¹ Gildas mentions the poets on various occasions, one of these references is found in chapter 34 when he refers to the court of King Maelgwn of Gwynedd: Arrecto aurium auscultantur captu non dei laudes canora Christi tironum voce suaviter modulante neumaque ecclesiasticae melodiae, sed propriae, quae nihil sunt, furciferorum referto mendaciis simulque spumanti flegmate proximos quosque roscidaturo, praeconum ore ritu bacchantium concrepante, ita ut vas dei quondam in ministerio praeparatum vertatur in zabuli organum, quodque honore caelesti putabatur dignum merito proiciatur in tartari barathrum.² [Your excited ears hear not the praises of God from the sweet voices of the tuneful recruits of Christ, not the melodious music of the church, but empty praises of yourself from the mouths of criminals who grate on the hearing like ravaging hucksters, mouths stuffed with lies and liable to bedew bystanders with their foaming phlegm. Hence a vessel that was once being prepared for the service of God is turned

1

2

While Patrick Sims-Williams for example speaks of bards, I prefer to use the term poets because of the common misconceptions the first term bears. ere is hardly any evidence whether works such as Aneirin’s Gododdin poems were only written down or also recited or sung for an audience. Furthermore, there is no concise definition of the concept of a bard, or Welsh bardd. e concept of role, function and importance of a bard in society seems to differ significantly when approaching different gentes, for example when comparing the Irish bard with their Welsh or Late British equivalents. erefore, instead of using the term bard I henceforth use poet when referring to the authors of early medieval poetry in order to avoid any implication or confusion with common misconceptions the term bard might imply. I use the term poet in general based on the classification of the work Y Gododdin as a piece of poetry, see also Sims-Williams 1984, 183–184. DEB, 34.6

110

Aneirin’s Y Gododdin

into an instrument of the devil, and what was once thought worthy of heavenly honours is rightly cast into the pit of hell.]³ Although Gildas only implicitly mentions the poets at the court of the ruler, he informs his audience that Maelgwn is praised and influenced by representatives of another learned social group than that of the Church. He complains about the negative influence of these furciferi on the ruler and the, from Gildas’ ecclesiastic point of view, conflict between the praise of God and secular panegyric.⁴ As I will show in the following chapter, I assume that he refers to the poets as the intellectual court officials who, during the sixth and seventh century, but also later, were members of the aristocratic and warrior society and whose function it was to praise and honour individual warriors or rulers. e passage mentioned above is not the only reference to these members of the king’s court. In another passage, Gildas is more concise when again he contrasts the poets with the ecclesiastics: ad praecepta sanctorum, si aliquando dumtaxat audierint, quae ab illis saepissime audienda erant, oscitantes ac stupidos, et ad ludicra et ineptas saecularium hominum fabulas, ac si iter vitae, quae mortis pandunt, strenuos et intentos.⁵ [ey (i.e. the ecclesiastics) yawn stupidly at the precepts of holy men - if they ever do hear them: though they should constantly; while they show interest in sports and the foolish stories of worldly men, as though they were the means to life and not death.]⁶ Gildas condemns the fabulas of the worldly men and their influence on the audiences, in this case the ecclesiastics who, according to Gildas, prefer to listen to their stories than to those of the holy Script. Gildas creates a contrast between the influence of worldly stories on the ruler told by worldly men, and the lesser influence of the ecclesiastics. erefore, these two passages reveal important information about the relationship between an ecclesiastic like Gildas and the worldly poets. Gildas seems to fear the power of the fabulas so that the rulers do not listen to the advice of the Churchmen. He even accuses the ecclesiastics themselves to pay more attention to these fabulas than they pay to their own readings and writings. 3 4

5 6

DEB, 34.6, translation by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom (1978). e parallel function of the poet and the priest regarding the transmission and preservation of knowledge, secular or religious, was also pointed out by Calvert Watkins in Watkins 1995, 68–70. is criticism against secular poetry sung in the vernacular can also be found, for example, in the letters of Alcuin, who lived between 735 and 804 AD and served as advisor to Charlemagne. For a discussion about Alcuins critizism of the monks of York singing secular praise songs of Ingold, a figure also mentioned in Beowulf, see Pilch and Tristram 1979, 127. DEB, 66.4 DEB, 66.4, translation by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom (1978), my comments.

Aneirin’s Y Gododdin

111

Scholars have offered several explanations for Gildas’ negative attitude towards the poets (Sims-Williams 1984: 183–14, 192). First, the poets did not use Latin. eir poems or songs, as can be seen with Aneirin, Taliesin, and other poets, were composed in the vernacular. e difference in language, as has been argued, was however not the main reason for Gildas’ rejection of the poets. People not using the Latin language were not only illiterate but also considered to be uneducated or even primitive by authors like Gildas (Sims-Williams 1984: 179). Furthermore, religion also played a significant role. Gildas condemns the poets from a moral point of view (Sims-Williams 1984: 177). Clerical prejudice towards the poets is not uncommon in Medieval Welsh sources (Sims-Williams 1984: 177). But Gildas’ opposition towards the poets is not only due to his Christian background. Judging from the content of DEB and the author’s criticism of contemporary rulers, the poet’s praise of these rulers puts them into opposition to Gildas and his reproaches. eir praise can thus be seen as contrary to his criticism of the rulers. Wheras Gildas criticises the rulers and councels them, the poet’s task was to praise the warrior-class and its leaders to ensure that their heroic deeds and their fame were lastingly commemorated for their people.⁷ I therefore chose Aneirin’s Y Gododdin poems as a contrast to Gildas’ DEB in order to oppose his learned view with that of native vernacular poetry.⁸ My approach is based on the central question of how these texts differ not only in regard to the social background of their presumed author but also in regard to their strategies of identity construction. In the following chapter, I will show that texts such 7

8

e poets, however, also used satire to voice criticism about the aristocracy. Satire as an instrument of criticism is found in Irish as well as in Welsh poetry. erefore, the poets seem to have had a critical attitude towards the subjects of their poetry as well, however, by using satire, approached it different than Gildas did in his accusations in DEB. is leads to the question how to label the period between 500 and 800 AD in northern Britain. While early Welsh, Cornish, Breton and late British in the meaning of post-Brittonic can be found in the research literature, I will use Late British when referring to the language spoken in the area of the men from Gododdin during this period. e first reason for this is that the language at this time was presumably still close to the British language of the Roman period and only developed later in an early form of what was to become the Old Welsh. Kenneth Jackson used British as “the general term for the Brittonic language from the time of the oldest Greek information about it down to the sub-Roman period in the fih century and on into the sixth”, Jackson 2000, 4. Jackson thus also uses Late British for the language spoken by the Britons between the middle of the fih until the middle of the sixth century (ibid.). e second reason is that the sources for the language spoken during this period are only fragmentary. Scholars like John T. Koch have tried to reconstruct it and described it as Early or Old Welsh. In the following discussion, I will use the term Late British in order to provide a clear distinction between the British gentes found in the sources and the later gens of the Welsh or Cymraeg. However, I will continue using early Welsh when referring to literature, culture or tradition because to me it seems more appropriate to place Y Gododdin into a Welsh tradition rather than labelling it Scottish, based on the location of its subject matter in today’s Scotland. (Jackson 1969: ix) e location of the Gododdin will be discussed shortly.

112

Aneirin’s Y Gododdin

as the Gododdin poems are much more vague in regard to the picture of the identities of Britain’s gentes than Gildas’ DEB. However, two significant indications can be found: first, the names of various gentes include names that do not occur in Gildas’ DEB. Second, as in Gildas’ DEB, Christianity is presented as the defining element of a collective identity. In addition, the history of the transmission of the Gododdin poems also shows the change in the importance of these elements during the transmission process as well as a change in the the manner of how a gens such as the English was interpreted in these poems.

7.1 Authorship and Date of Composition Aneirin, the putative author of the Gododdin poems, is mentioned in one of the stanzas: Mina fi Neirin, Ys gwýr Taliesin Ofeg gywrennin, Neu cheint Ododdin Cyn gwawr dydd dilin.⁹ [I, yet not I, Aneirin/ Taliesin knows it,/ Skilled in expression/ Sang Y Gododdin/ Before the next day dawned.]¹⁰ [My emphasis]¹¹ e term Gododdin has been used in reference to three different meanings: first, it is the name commonly used to refer to the kingdom of the gens the Romans named Votadini, located in modern Scotland in the area around today’s Edinburgh. Second, the term is used to refer to the gens itself, in particular to the warriors from this kingdom as they are found in the stanzas of the Gododdin poems. And third, the term Gododdin is used as name for the collection of stanzas which are subject to the following analysis.¹² Aneirin is supposed to have been the contemporary of King Ida of Bernicia, who ruled that kingdom in the middle of the second half of the sixth century, presumably from 547 until 559 AD (Williams 1980: 52). e Historia Brittonum, written in the first half of the ninth century, names a poet Neirin as one of several of his class in the sixth century: 9 CA XLVIII, stanza 45 of hand A in Jackson’s translation. 10 Translation following that by Alfred Jarman, 1990, 32. Y Gododdin should be translated with e Gododdin. 11 In order to provide better orientation when discussing particular passages in the stanzas, I emphasise certain key terms and expressions in most of the quotations in this chapter. All these accentuations are my own unless indicated differently. 12 e present study follows the common use of this term with its three different meanings.

Authorship and Date of Composition

113

Tunc Dutigirn in illo tempore fortiter dimicabat contra gentem Anglorum. tunc Talhaern Tataguen in poemate claruit et Neirin, et Taliessin, et Bluchbard, et Cian, qui vocatur Guenith Guaut, simul uno tempore in poemate Britannico claruerunt.¹³ [en Dutigirn at that time fought bravely against the gens of the Angles. en, Talhaiarn Tataguen was famed for poetry, and Neirin, and Taliesin and Bluchbard, and Cian, who is called Guenith Guaut, were all famous at the same time in British poetry.]¹⁴ Ifor Williams considered this passage in the Historia Brittonum to be the starting point for every discussion regarding early medieval Welsh poetry, because it is the first reference to the two central British poets of this period, Aneirin and Taliesin, the only poets whose poetry was transmitted to the high Middle Ages.¹⁵ Andrew Breeze claimed that this passage is the beginning of our knowledge of Welsh literature (Breeze 1997a: 7). Based on this reference in the Historia Brittoum, scholars have claimed that Aneirin lived in the late sixth or early seventh century.¹⁶ Robert Gruffydd suggested that the poets mentioned in the Historia Brittonum were all followers of King Maelgwn of Gwynedd (Gruffydd 1989/90).¹⁷ Although the suggestion that Aneirin was the author of Y Gododdin has always been questioned, his central agency in the composition of the poems has been agreed on. Even if he was not the original author of the poems himself, he should be considered as the poet who exerted a strong influence on the composition, at least in their written form. Historians such as omas Charles-Edwards have claimed the Gododdin poems to be the authentic work of Aneirin (CharlesEdwards 1978: 62–66). John Saunders-Lewis argued that the poems could have been composed as a poet’s exercise or for competitive reasons, for example as part of a competition with other poets (Padel Summer 1998: 309). e reference to the poet Aneirin could thus be circumstancial. ¹⁸ 13 Cf. Historia Brittonum, ed. by eodor Mommsen in MGH AA 13, 61. e Historia Brittonum will henceforth be referred to as HB. 14 My translation. 15 e name Talhaern Tataguen presumably refers to another Late British poet, also referred to as Talhaearn Tad Awen. However, none of his works survived. e epiphet of Tataguen or its later form Tad Awen can be translated to father of inspiration or, in the words of Ceri Lewis, father of the muse (Lewis 1992: 31). Nothing is known about the person named Cian or Guenith Guaut. 16 See, for example, the comments on the date of composition of the Historia Brittonum and Anerin‘s life in Jackson, 1963, 30 and 52, and Williams, 1980, x and 49. 17 Gruffydd assigned the kingdom of Gwynedd a central role not only in the support of the kingdom of Gododdin but also regarding the role of heroic praise poetry in the area, its preservation for nearly thousand years, and its role as a basis for all later Welsh writings. 18 is claim was criticized by Kenneth Jackson, ibid. Jackson repeatedly argued that Y Gododdin was in fact the work of the poet Aneirin and that a poem of such quality could not stem from mnemonic exercises or any competition.

114

Aneirin’s Y Gododdin

Before I discuss the date of composition of this collection of stanzas, one further question should be addressed: what was the role and the function of the Late British poet in the 6th or 7th century, whoever he was? An answer to this question is necessary to avoid a positivistic view of the stanzas regarding their value as historical sources. e same problem has been discussed before with respect to the example of Gildas’ De Excidio Britanniae as a historiographical source.¹⁹ Regarding Y Gododdin and early medieval Welsh poetry in general, it is safe to assume that Aneiren’s task or that of his contemporaries was not to keep record of historical events. e stanzas provide neither references to any dates nor do they cross-reference the events referred to in the poems, a battle of the men of Gododdin, with any other event of the time. e task or office of the British poets was to eulogize the courage and heroic deeds of the warriors and thereby to lend them everlasting fame.²⁰ e poets’ task was to uphold the social values and traditions central to the 6th and 7th-century British warrior society (Rowland 2007: 74). e poet himself was a member of the warrior-elite. He was connected to it in a close patronage system where he was to judge their honour and fame, two concepts of prime importance to the 6th century warrior in the Welsh heroic society (Charles-Edwards 1978: 61).²¹ e poet was the voice of the warriors, their mouth piece and the mediator between them and the world outside of this group of warriors (Rowland 2007: 75). is suggests that these poems must have been composed aer the death of the warriors that were praised by the poets (Chadwick 1932: 11 and 40).²² Assuming that the early medieval British poet did not have the task to preserve the memory of the historical events accurately, it should, however, be acknowledged that historical events might indeed have exerted an influence on his compositions. e poems should, therefore, not be treated as being composed without any historical background at all. It seems unlikely that a poet would have composed poems about warriors who died centuries earlier because he and his 19 See Chapter 6. 20 Calvert Watkins referred to the poets in this regard as “professionals of the word” who were entrusted with the preservation and the transmission of knowledge and tradition (Watkins 1995: 68). 21 In contrast to this approach to the poems, see the assumptions of J.E. Williams who considers the bards at King Maelgwn’s court as genealogists and historians of their time, see Williams 1984, 32. However, this approach has led to the use of the poems as historical source which, as will be shown later, provides no reliable information about historical events and developments. e poet had of course the function of committing heroic deeds of warriors to oral memory guaranteeing knowledge of their deeds. Another possibility was suggested by Brendan O Hehir who claimed the poems to be funerary or ritual texts composed in the middle Welsh period, see (O Hehir 1988: 74). He downright denies the historical value of the poems and the approach to use them as historical or journalistic sources about the events in north Britain in the sixth century(O Hehir 1988: 72). 22 e central role of heroic elements in the writings of this time is accepted, the period was repeatedly dated between the sixth and seventh century.(Chadwick 1932: 11) Hector M. Chadwick and Nora Kershaw Chadwick’s assumptions regarding a classification of literary productivity in early Welsh society however, is another question altogether and needs to be dealt with independently (Chadwick 1932: 613).

Authorship and Date of Composition

115

story would long have been deleted from the collective memory (Chadwick 1932: 36 and 40). Heroic poetry, therefore, can be used as a window on the mentality of a warrior-aristocracy and its social and cultural environment (Wormald 1978: 36). Another intriguing question is the discussion of the geographical location of the poet named Aneirin. Since the stanzas refer to the kingdom of the civitas of the Votadini, i.e. the Gododdin, this has led to the understanding that Aneirin, at least for some time, may have lived and composed his poetry in the area of today’s Scotland as well. It is a common consensus that the home of the troop of warriors was Dyn Eidin, today’s Edinburgh (Alcock 1987: 241). is putative location of the poet has been used to support the assumed date of composition in a rather early period. Ifor Williams argued that there would be no reason for a poet composing in the late British language in the north and referring to himself as a North Briton in the time between 800 or 850 AD (Williams 1980: 47). In this late period, the kingdom of the Gododdin, today referred to as Lothian, had already fallen to the Angles from Bernicia who, according to the Irish Annals, had conquered Edinburgh as early as in 638 AD (Koch 1997: 187). However, the language of the oldest extant manuscript as well as the historical context of the poems have confronted scholars with extraordinary difficulties regarding the date of composition of the extant stanzas. e traditional date of composition suggested by historians such as omas Charles-Edwards lies between 580 and 650 AD and is based on the regional history of the area (CharlesEdwards 1978: 62–66). Assuming the information in the Irish Annals to be correct, the poems, however, had to be composed before the fall of Edinburgh in AD 638. Andrew Breeze claimed that Aneirin was a contemporary of the poet Taliesin and lived and worked in the second half of the sixth century (Breeze 1997a: 8). Other scholars such as David Dumville have repeatedly claimed that there is no clear evidence for a date of composition during this period while agreeing with other scholars that a composition in the late sixth and early seventh century would be plausible.²³ 23 For a support of this date of composition with critical remarks on the evidence for these assumptions see Dumville, 1988, 3. Ifor Williams assumes a date of composition around the year AD 600, possibly even in the last half of the sixth century (Williams 1980: 49 and 53). A relatively early suggested date of composition of AD 590 was made by Matthew McDiarmid in McDiarmid, 1983, 2–5. Craig Cessford also agrees with the period proposed by omas Charles-Edwards (Cessford 1997: 218). David Dumville acknowledges the generally suggested date of composition as broad but correct. However, he insists there is no evidence for a connection of the poems to the seventh century. ere is also no external validation for the authorship aside of the Historia Brittonum and to place the subject matter of the poems into a historical context is not possible either. Dumville prompts to recreate the line of transmission of the poems using linguistic and text-historical elements provided by the text and comparing its content to foreign medieval evidence to prove its authenticity (Dumville 1988: 7–8). Alfred Jarman voiced a similar assumption with emphasis on the sixth century date of composition (Jarman 1967: 211).

116

Aneirin’s Y Gododdin

is suggestion of the poems’ date of composition is also supported by John T. Koch (Koch 2005: 17). His linguistic reconstruction of the texts is of great and central value when approaching the discussion of the date of composition of the Gododdin poems without looking at historical and historiographical aspects but focusing on the textual and the linguistic evidence which can be found in the text. Koch bases his suggestion for a date of composition on his reconstruction of what he considers to be the archaic text as it was composed by Aneirin.²⁴ According to omas Charles-Edwards, the linguistic features of the poems in the form they are preserved today form one of the major problems regarding an argument about their date of composition (Charles-Edwards 1978: 47). Judging from features such as lexis, spelling and metre, there is no reason to propose a date of composition for the Gododdin poems in their written form, earlier than the 10th, maybe even the late 13th century, which is when the earliest manuscript of the stanzas was written down. Again, David Dumville has denied the possibility of assigning the poems to a pre-eleventh century date of composition on the basis of the linguistic characteristics of the stanzas (Dumville 1977: 250). Dumville sees no indication that would indicate such an early date of composition. However, his argument has been repeatedly put into question by scholars such as John T. Koch in his reconstruction of the collection and also by Graham Isaac who has argued for an earlier date of composition on the basis of the different hands preserved in the earliest manuscript, i.e. late 13th century (Isaac 1999: 65). Isaac argued that the manuscript not only contains at least two, arguably discernable three hands, but that the differences in style and orthography indicate different periods of composition. Jenny Rowland agreed with an earlier dating on the basis of her analysis of the spelling of the same manuscript (Rowland 1990b: 119).²⁵ An earlier date was also suggested due to the questions why an eleventh century author should write down poems about the heroic age and what his sources could have been (Chadwick 1932: 36 and 40). In spite of the fact that the language of the earliest manuscript of the poems extant is Middle Welsh which was commonly used from the beginning of the twelh century onwards, the reasons in favour of an earlier date of composition seem plausible and convincing to me.²⁶ is poses the question of the original langua24 See Koch, John T., e Gododdin of Aneirin. Text and Context from Dark-Age North Britain. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1997. 25 Rowland’s analysis of the stanzas CA XLV and stanza CII concluded that the different forms of sax and seics, both referring to the Saxons, indicate an early date of composition. e term sax is the archaic form which underwent the development from -xs to -is / -cs in the late sixth century. Rowland argues seis to be “the naturally evolved form”. 26 For the language of the sixth century in the Gododdin poems, see Koch, 1988, 38, as well as his edition of the text. Koch claimed that the language of the sixth century which he sees partly preserved in the earliest manuscript of the poems today should be seen as a lingua Britannica. Ifor Williams agreed that Old Welsh, or Late British, had developed by the time of Gildas around AD 540 (Williams 1980: 15).

Authorship and Date of Composition

117

ge of the poems. Did the language change during the transmission process in the manuscripts or were the poems originally composed in Middle Welsh?²⁷ In his research about the Gododdin poems, John T. Koch approached this central question of the text’s history by trying to reconstruct what he calls the archaic language by his linguistic analysis. He claimed that the poems were composed in the Old Welsh language as contemporary commemorations of events in north Britain taking place between the later sixth and mid-seventh centuries and the language as it is found in the oldest extant manuscript was the result of modernization during the transmission process (Koch 2005: 17). He suggested that the issue of authenticity of the Gododdin poems needs to be clarified via a thorough analysis including the reconstruction of the archaic language of which he finds traces in the manuscript. He carried out this task in his own edition of the Gododdin poems. Modernizations and corruptions of the archaic text, which Koch claimed to have reconstructed, were due to the oral and written transmission process, especially because the written transmission process only began about three centuries aer the composition of the text (Koch 2005: 17).²⁸ Ifor Williams made similar suggestions regarding the corruptions and modernizations of the text found in the earliest manuscripts. Modernization of language and an according change of the poem’s metre and consonance possibly even influenced the oral transmission before the poems were written down. e written transmission of the poem would then also have been influenced by scribal errors of various sorts (Williams 1980: 78). erefore the poems, as they are preserved in the extant manuscript, have supposedly changed due to modernization of language and possible re-arrangement of wording and stylistic features. ese changes and the oral transmission in earlier periods prevent a precise reconstruction of the collection (Charles-Edwards 1978: 48–50). In conclusion, no definitive answer to

27 e same questions have been asked concerning the date of composition of the Beowulf poem. e discussion about a possible date of composition based on the historical events dealt with in the text has been the most prominent argument concerning this issue, along discussions based on codicological, palaeolographical, orthographic, linguistic and further aspects of the poem as was shown by Hildegard Tristram (Tristram 1997: 72). As with the Gododdin poems, the discussion about Beowulf has not led to a commonly agreed date of composition. In her research, Tristram argued, among other things, for a reading of Beowulf as a writing which mediates between ethnicities and cultures (Tristram 1997: 80). I share Tristrams admiration for the possible political and social functions of Beowulf and I claim them to be true for the Gododdin poems as well, as this chapter will demonstrate. A similar problem was encountered by James Carney in his research about e Poems of Blathmac. e earliest manuscript which contains the poems is G 50 in the collection of the National Library of Ireland, formerly MS. 10276, and has been dated to the 17th century. Carney convincingly argued, however, that the poem itself was composed in the early eighth century, thus leaving nearly one thousand years of transmission unaccounted for. His discussion is, therefore, another example for the authenticity of early medieval Celtic poetry which was put into writing centuries aer its composition (Carney 1964: ix and xiii–xv). 28 Koch’s research, however, was received critically, see Padel, 1998.

118

Aneirin’s Y Gododdin

the question of the date of composition of the Gododdin poems can be given based on the linguistic evidence provided by the version in the earliest manuscript. Apart from the language of the stanzas, scholars have tried to resort to historical information contained in the collection to answer the question of its date of composition. e greater number of the poems refer to the battle of Catraeth which has been identified by some scholars with today’s Catterick in North Yorkshire (Williams 1980: 55–58). However, some scholars, among them David Dumville and Leslie Alcock, have repeatedly disagreed with this location (Dumville 1988: 3) (Alcock 1987: 253). Matthew McDiarmid also claimed that the battle referred to in the poems did not occur at Catraeth but was fought in defence of Edinburgh (McDiarmid 1983: 5). He argued that Catterick was too far away for an army to reach from the area of the Gododdin and it was more likely that a group of Gododdin warriors attacked an army approaching from the south but was caught in an ambush and defeated. Another opinion has been argued for by Craig Cessford who suggested Catraeth to be a more general term that does not refer to a specific location at all (Cessford 1997: 218). However, the identification of Catraeth with Catterick has been taken as a support for an early date of composition. In the sixth and seventh century, the area of today’s Catterick would seem to agree with the suggested borders of the Gododdin kingdom at the time. A later date would indicate this border to be further north, with the kingdom of Bernicia as a new and imminent threat from the mid-7th century onwards when Bernicia succeeded in challenging the dominant role of the Deiran kingdom (Rowland 1990a: 35). is has been read as an indication for the battle to have taken place around the year 600 /cite[373]charles-edwards2013. Furthermore, Andrew Breeze argued that the battle itself was an indication for a date of composition during the sixth or seventh centuries because fighting in the poems from the eighth, ninth and tenth century oen seemed to belong to the distant past (Breeze 1997a: 20). Y Gododdin, he claimed, is rather defiant in its tone in contrast to a rather sorrowful tone of the later elegies. e scholarly discussion has not led to a consensus in this regard. Nevertheless it is likely that the stanzas were composed to honour the warriors of the battle of Catraeth, even though the exact geographical location of this battle remains unclear (Charles-Edwards 1978: 62).²⁹ Since the location does not seem to support the contention that the Gododdin stanzas, as transmitted to us, were indeed composed in the 6th century, the participants and leaders of the battle were cross-referenced, for example by Andrew 29 ere have been two suggestions for a possible etynmology of Catterick, one for the name having a Romano-Greek origin meaning the place of the waterfall, the other indicating a Celtic origin with a meaning referring to a battle rampart. e exact etymology, however, is still subject to debate, as is the identification of Catraeth with modern Catterick (Rivet und Smith 1981).

Authorship and Date of Composition

119

Breeze, with other sources to support or argue against an early date of composition. Since the names of the warriors are either too vague or general or cannot be found in any other sources, this approach did not lead to any conclusions, either (Breeze 1997a: 14). However, Andrew Breeze pointed out that it is difficult to see why a later poet should praise the heroic deeds of warriors from the 6th century who, but for the poem, would have been forgotten aer several decades (Breeze 1997a: 14). While it has been claimed that the poem could possibly refer to various ancestors following the idea that poets also exerted the role of genealogists, there are no other sources providing information for the individuals mentioned in the stanzas (Charles-Edwards 1978: 62). is leaves us with two further recent approaches to analyse cultural and archaeological information provided in the stanzas in order to find information about their author and their date of composition. Archaeological findings compared with weapons or equipment referred to in the stanzas seem to support the suggestion of an early date of composition.³⁰ ere have been various works on Late British culture and tradition in the late sixth and early seventh centuries which deserve to be mentioned in the discussion of the date of composition of the Gododdin poems. Scholars recently began to argue for a very early date of the original composition on account of the social and cultural evidence the Gododdin poems seem to provide. Before the more recent work by Rowland and Cessford, the idea of the Gododdin poems as a source for the British warfare culture of the sixth century had been voiced earlier, for example by Jarman (Jarman 1967: 205). Jenny Rowland argued for a date of composition of the Gododdin poems in the 6th-century based on her analysis of the type of warfare and the use of horses in the battle at Catraeth (Rowland 1990a: 19–22). She rejected earlier criticism by Nick Higham who denied any historical evidence for mounted cavalry sixth century northern Britain (Higham 1986). She claimed that calvary already existed in the pre-Roman period in Britain (Rowland 1990a: 13). Her conclusions on the authenticity of the subject matter in the stanzas were later supported by the work of Craig Cessford who assumed a well-equipped cavalry force in the Gododdin area to have remained from the Roman military forces, the ala petriana stationed at Hadrian’s wall (Cessford 1995a: 234). Rowland, justifying the use of the Gododdin to clarify the question of historical mounted warfare in Northern Britain in the sixth century, encouraged the study of further details of material culture to test the evidence about the historical background (Rowland 1990a: 39–41). She repeated her claim of the stanzas as a 30 Critics of an early date of composition for the poems also acknowledged that in spite of their argued origin in the early Middle Welsh period their tradition and content should be seen as more archaic, Cessford 1995, 240. Brendan O Hehir for example denied a date of composition before the twelh century but acknowledged that the tradition of the poems can be dated “well back into pagan Britain”, see O Hehir 1988, 79. However, this would place the composition in the time before the first mission of Britain, i.e. before 300 AD which cannot be correct.

120

Aneirin’s Y Gododdin

reliable source on sixth century cultural and social structures in her later work (Rowland 2007: 73 and 76). e conclusions of Rowland and Cessford about a close connection between the portrait of the cavalry in Y Gododdin and in the Roman occupational forces in Britain were supported by Andrew Breeze. He suggested a close connection between the middle-Welsh (MW) term trwm and a specific battle formation, the phalanx (Breeze 1997b: 270). Breeze argued that the use of the term and its reference to this battle-formation even aer the Roman period should be accepted as an archaism in the stanzas (Breeze 1997b: 271). e MW term trwm, which presumably was taken up as a loan word for the Old-English (OE) truma, cannot be found in later texts and may even be restricted to the Northumbrian area.³¹ To support his arguments, Breeze established further terminological connections between the stanzas and the Roman forces in the area: the MW term seirch, for example, is found in Y Gododdin as well as in the works of Taliesin. It is also found as an Anglo-Saxon loan word, sycre, referring to a coat of mail. e MW term itself is a loan from Latin sarcia which indicates that the original Latin term was first used in Welsh and later in Anglo-Saxon. e term seirch is middle Welsh, i.e. from the tenth century onwards, found only in the meaning of the trappings of horses. In the Gododdin stanzas as well as in the works of Taliesin it is used as a body protection for warriors, the meaning of the Latin original, which indicates a date of composition earlier than the seventh century, possibly around the year 600 (Breeze 1997b: 272). e presence of Brittonic loanwords in Old English, as discussed above with the example of scilde truma, particularly in regard to military terms, was also brought forward in favour of an early date of composition of the stanzas (Breeze 1997a: 14). An early date of composition of the Gododdin in the late sixth and early seventh century can also be supported by archaeological findings. Leslie Alcock did not succeed in supporting the use of shields in sixth century warfare in Northern Britain, as mentioned in the poems, by archaeological evidence. No form of military equipment other than spears was found in the archaeological evidence (Alcock 1987: 247). At a first glance, the same seemed to be true for the golden torcs which are oen referred to in the stanzas (Alcock 1987: 248). However, this could be explained by a misunderstanding of the wording of the text. Craig Cessford argued that the area in question provided numerous artifacts supporting evidence of jewellery and armoury mentioned in the poems. He suggested to understand the Welsh word aur not by its modern meaning gold but rather by splendor or magni31 Other OE forms are trume or trome. e OE form truma is a derivative of the adjective trum which means firm or strong. e OE term truma is accounted for in the end of the ninth century, the expression scild truma being used to describe the Roman battle formation. Based on its derivatives, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) claimed the term to be a native OE word. e Dictionary of Old English does not refer to these terms since it has only been published until the letter g.

Manuscripts and Editions

121

ficience (Cessford 1995a: 231). is would agree with the archaeological evidence since numerous silver torcs were found in the area. ese torcs were important status symbols during the period in question, as the area provides good archaeological evidence for them. Cessford considered it likely that torcs as well as the military tactics, weapons and armory were adopted from the Roman troops and continued to be used in Britain aer the Roman withdrawal. On the Continent, the Roman forces used torcs as a form of military decoration as early as 1 BC (Cessford 1995a: 233).³² Cessford thus considered it likely that former decorations were kept as symbols of pride and honour or as personal decorations by the British soldiery. In conclusion, there is no cogent evidence that the Gododdin collection of stanzas was originally composed in the 6th century. In spite of that, even critics have acknowledged that a broad date of composition at the end of the 6th and the beginning of the 7th century seems plausible (Dumville 1988: 3). Although this is based on various assumptions rather than on reliable evidence, the fact that no manuscript of vernacular poetry written in this period survived does not prove that such poetry did not exist.³³ Altogether, omas Charles-Edward’s answer to the question of the original date of composition of the Gododdin poems still stands: “we don’t know” (Charles-Edwards 1978: 71). However, the authenticity and the unknown date of composition of these stanzas need to be considered independently of each other (Alcock 1987: 253). Establishing the authenticity of Y Gododdin regarding the information about the cultural and social traditions of the period in question is possible in spite of the stanzas’ debatable value as a historical source. e research by Craig Cessford and Jenny Rowland but also by Andrew Breeze have shown that there is evidence that the contents of the poems should be considered to be authentic in regard to the information available about sixth or seventh century British culture in Britain. I therefore claim that, seen in this context, the conclusions of their research support the use of the Gododdin stanzas as a source in the discussion of the construction of ethnic identities in early medieval Britain.

7.2 Manuscripts and Editions e oldest manuscript in which the Gododdin stanzas are preserved is a collection of the poems in Cardiff, South Glamorgan County Library, MS 2.81. is manuscript contains 88 poems in one hand (commonly referred to as hand A) and 44 written by another hand (hand B). Some of the stanzas are found in two or more versions in this manuscript, both in hand A and hand B, but there are also stan32 A reference to the use of torcs in Rome can already be found in Cicero, De Officiis, book III, chapter 112. 33 (Dumville 1988: 1) (Sims-Williams 1984: 172)

122

Aneirin’s Y Gododdin

zas that are only found in one version. e manuscript also contains four longer poems which are labelled as gwarchanau or gorchanau by their editors, the Welsh term for poems or songs. ese poems are not considered to form part of Y Gododdin because of differences in metre, form, length and style (O Hehir 1988: 57) (Cessford 1995a: 96–99).³⁴ Although three of them refer to a similar subject matter as the Gododdin stanzas, they possibly antedate the Gododdin poems found in the same manuscript (Klar und O Hehir 1985: 46). Cardiff MS 2.81 has commonly been dated to the second half of the thirteenth century, around 1275. e leaves are held together by a calf binding which dates from the 17th century, the manuscript thus was bound together to its present form centuries aer its writing (Klar und O Hehir 1985: 39).³⁵ A close examination of the manuscript has led to the conclusion that it originally consisted of 22 leaves or 44 pages. Of these pages at least one to six pages were lost. is would then have led to a loss of about 16 of the Gododdin poems (Klar und O Hehir 1985: 47). As mentioned before, the manuscript consists not only of one set of poems but of a collection of poems. As they are extant in the manuscript, they have no discernible beginning nor end. e poems are of varying lengths and in a variety of metres. ey can be read in any order, as no chronological order underlies this collection (O Hehir 1988: 68–70). e first copy of this manuscript was compiled in 1587. Until 1807, 34 more copies were made which contain the entire Gododdin poems or parts of them (Huws 1988: 43). All of the later manuscripts are direct or indirect copies from Cardiff MS 2.81. Because of this, the main focus of this study lies with the Cardiff manuscript, since it is the oldest version extant and any variations in the later manuscripts therefore occurred in the transmission process aer the 13th century. In addition, there has also been speculation about a possible third hand, a hand C, which has led John T. Koch to assign the preserved poems to three different scribes. is argument was first voiced by Kathryn Klar and others (Klar und O Hehir 1985: 42). Based on orthographical differences of the stanzas, they argued that scribe C might have predated scribe A, scribe B still being, however, the most archaic. e discussion about a scribe C still remains open which is why at this point I will assume at least two scribes A and B with the possibility of at least one other hand. e collections of verse were sewn together in the second half of the 34 at the gwarchanau are separate poems was also claimed by Alfred Jarman (Jarman 1990: lxv). 35 e manuscript measures 17x7.5 cm and consists of a total of 42 manuscript leaves of which 38 contain the writing (Klar und O Hehir 1985: 40). Its early history is unknown. e presence of at least two hands in the manuscript indicates that it was possibly derived from two earlier manuscripts, the place of its compilation is unknown. e manuscript presumably was in the possession of two individuals from Morgannwg, South Wales, as indicated by marginal notes. It is referred to in the Hengwrt Library in the 17th century from where it moved through various private collections in Aberdare and Carnhunawc. e manuscript came to the Cardiff Free Library in 1896 from the collection of Sir omas Philips, an English antiquary and book collector.

Manuscripts and Editions

123

thirteenth century (Klar und O Hehir 1985: 41 and 49) (Charles-Edwards 1978: 49).³⁶ e texts of hand B are written in black capitals while scribe A used a less archaic script than scribe B (Klar und O Hehir 1985: 41–44). e language and the spelling of the stanzas, as mentioned before, is Middle Welsh (Rowland 2007: 2). It has been argued that the B version was already written in the tenth or early eleventh century but itself was a copy of a ninth or eighth century manuscript (Charles-Edwards 1978: 51). omas Charles-Edwards based this argument on the presumably Old British orthography of hand B supporting Sir Ifor Williams’ conclusion that the writing of hand B indicates the existence of an earlier version dating back to the ninth century (Charles-Edwards 1978: ibid.)(Williams 1980: 46). Charles-Edwards argued that hand B should be considered to be relatively close to the written original on the basis that variants of the stanzas in hand A could be explained when seen in the context of the stanzas by hand B (CharlesEdwards 1978: 64). is opinion was shared by Craig Cessford (Cessford 1995a: 95). As will be shown in my conclusion, the argument of the two different hands in Cardiff MS 2.81 is of essential importance for the approach of my study. However, the proposal of this long transmission has been put into question by various scholars. David Dumville claimed that both versions should be connected with a shared date of origin, most likely later than the seventh century, instead of a common manuscript source (Dumville 1988: 5–7). A similar argument was proposed by Matthew McDiarmid (McDiarmid 1983: 3). Because of the speculative nature of the discussion about a date of the original composition in the 6th or 7th century, David Dumville considered the connection of the 13th-century manuscript with a possible 9th-century version to be an exaggeration if not downright wrong (Dumville 1977: 247). Following a close palaeographical analysis of the manuscript, he did not see any evidence for the influence of an earlier manuscript on the Cardiff manuscript (Dumville 1977: 249). Scholars have also altogether denied Williams’ assumptions that hand B was just a variant or a set of variants of hand A (O Hehir 1988: 60). Brendan O Hehir claimed in this regard numerous sources from which manuscript A could have been put together (O Hehir 1988: 75). As mentioned before, the manuscript names Aneirin as the author of the poems and laments his death in what is commonly considered to be a form of a preface.³⁷ Because of the obvious lack of order of the stanzas in Cardiff MS 2.81, the assumed preface is found in stanza 48 of hand A. Since it is preserved in hand A, it has been 36 Kathryn Klar and her colleagues assume that in the manuscript in question, scribe A wrote from page 1 to 22 until line 5, scribe B from page 23 line 6 to the end of page 24 and scribe C from page 25 to page 30, line 11. From here on, scribe B continued on line 12 until the end of page 38 and beyond to the last pages that were already mentioned. Klar assumes that scribe B used the pages that were le empty in the booklet when it was put together and then added further pages aer the C version of which some parts are now lost. 37 See Chapter 7.1.

124

Aneirin’s Y Gododdin

argued that the preface only refers to the stanzas in hand A (Klar und O Hehir 1985: 41). In fact, the two poems in question (i.e. hand A and hand B) are not variants: each is an independent conventional performer´s preface, sharing only opening and closing formulas which were doubtless conventional and immutable. Between the layers of the conventional formulaic sandwich each performing poet supplied his own filling. And each preface occurs where it would be expected; at the beginning of a set of Gododdin poems.³⁸ ere are currently four different scholarly editions of the Gododdin. e earliest edition was published by Sir Ifor Williams in 1938. He added Roman figures to the individual stanzas in order to print them as they appear in Cardiff MS 2.81, designating the different versions with letters. Because of the articifial order of the poems, his edition has been criticized as not to be of adequate academic quality (O Hehir 1988: 60).³⁹ A second edition by Kenneth Jackson followed in 1969. Jackson printed both hands separately, beginning with the B version. Again, Brendan O Hehir criticized this edition when he accused Jackson of an “inadequate understanding of the text” (O Hehir 1988: 63). is was presumably because of Jackson’s understanding of the Gododdin as the earliest Scottish poem based on the location of the former kingdom of the Votadini in the area surrounding today’s Edinburgh. In 1988, Alfred Jarman published a rendition in Modern Welsh also providing a translation into English. Because of this he was criticized of having lost the contact with the original manuscript (Isaac 1999: 56). e most recent edition of the Gododdin poems was published by John T. Koch. He not only offered a new translation of the text but also re-constructed what he considered to be the original Late British version of the poems.⁴⁰ His work was also answered by serious criticism. Oliver Padel, for example, argued that Koch’s argument for his Late British reconstruction is selective and arbitrary. He also criticised the bad presentation of his arguments that seem cumulative and not convincing. However, he acknowledged the value of this new edition because of its innovative approach and its praise of the work and its value for research. In spite of this, Padel considered this edition to be too influenced by Koch’s preconceptions about the early date and the early history of the poems (Padel Summer 38 (O Hehir 1988: 76) 39 Brendan O Hehir referred to this edition as “worse than unhelpful. It is misleading and confusing” (O Hehir 1988: 60). 40 See Koch, John T., e Gododdin of Aneirin. Text and Context from Dark-Age North Britain. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1997. For a detailed critical review of Koch’s edition see Padel 1998. See also Chapter 7.1.

Manuscripts and Editions

125

1998: 48–55). As argued earlier by Isaac, Koch not only followed the distinction between the two different hands of the text but also argued for another version found in some stanzas which were traditionally seen as part of the B hand (Isaac 1999: 56).⁴¹ is followed the assumption of a C version that had been previously voiced by other scholars, for example by Klar in 1985. Isaac, however, denied a clear-cut development of the manuscripts as proposed by Koch. Both scholars nevertheless agree that there must have been several Gododdin texts circulating before the 13th century (Isaac 1999: 65). Two further translations of the stanzas into English, both based on the edition of Ifor Williams from 1938, were published by Steve Short in 1994 and by omas Clancy in 1998. Short provided what he called the translation of a “practising poet”, i.e. an adaption of the language to what he understands by modern English poetry (Short 1994: 12). He consistently translated what he considered the first variant, i.e. the stanzas of hand A and added translations of hand B where no variant from hand A exists. Furthermore, he changed the order of the stanzas as found in Cardiff MS 2.81 and moved CA LV, stanza 55 from William’s edition, to the beginning as it is considered to be the prologue of the poems (Short 1994: 16). Short furthermore claimed that the tone of the poems is essentially pre-Christian (Short 1994: 9) because of the blood-shed and praise of cruelty which Short considered to be predicated on a heroic ideal instead of Christian heroism. As I will show, there are indeed basic Christian elements in Y Gododdin. Short’s translation, furthermore, is biased by the focus on warfare and violence which he fails to contextualize as common themes shared by European heroic poetry in the Middle Ages. omas Clancy’s translation from 1998 made use of Jarman’s and Jackson’s versions in order to provide a collection of poems put into a Scottish context (Clancy 1998: 1). He translated all stanzas contained in Cardiff MS 2.81 ordered according to hand A and hand B. In contrast to Short, he included the variants as well. His claim of the Scottish context was based on the same identification of the court of the kingdom of Gododdin in Eidyn, today’s Edinburgh, and thus sharing Jackson’s approach (Clancy 1998: 8) While claiming an early context in the Scottish Lowlands which he understood as still British speaking, he also stressed Y Gododdin’s role for medieval Welsh poetry. e only German translation was published by Martin Rockel in 1989.⁴² His translation was also based on the edition of Ifor Williams (Rockel 1989: 188). Like Clancy, Rockel used all stanzas from Williams’ edition and their variants in his translation. In contrast to Clancy’s translation, however, Rockel claimed the 41 See Chapter 7.2. 42 Rockel’s edition is hardly available even in German libraries. I am particularly thankful to Professor Hildegard Tristram for lending me her copy of his text which I could not have accessed for my research any other way.

126

Aneirin’s Y Gododdin

stanzas to reflect the world of a Welsh warrior society of the sixth century (Rockel 1989: 5). In his introduction, he furthermore claimed that the acts of bravery of the men of Gododdin were glorified during the Middle Ages in order to emphasize the common identity of the Welsh with the Northern Britons which, for Rockel, was also the reason for the stanzas being written down or, as he claimed, having been copied from possible earlier versions, during the 13th century (Rockel 1989: 6). While the present study of the Gododdin poems agrees with this assumption, as will be shown in the following chapter, Rockel did not substantiate his arguments for this claim in his book. His translation was taken into account for the following analysis whenever it seemed useful.

7.3 Structure and subject matter e Gododdin poems have a unified subject-matter (Jarman 1967: 193). ey form a series of elegies about the defeat of a group of warriors from northern Britain, riding into a battle south of today’s Edinburgh (Klausner 1995: 87).⁴³ e poems celebrate individual traits of the warriors, sometimes also their martial aspects as a group. e events alluded to occur in no tangible order (Klausner 1995: 101). Two major events, the battle itself and a feast prior to it can be extracted from the information given in the stanzas. Since the battle was lost, the focus is drawn onto the heroic feats of the individual warriors. Altogether, six elements relating to the heroic code of the contemporary British warrior society are characteristic of these poems. First, the poems provide specific characteristics of the numerous warriors individually, usually of their performance during battle. Many of these martial characteristics contrasted with the ones in times of peace, this specifies the social importance of the warrior during both periods (Jarman 1967: 197). Second, the warriors are characterized by their preparation for the battle, i.e. in a time of relative peace (Jarman 1967: 199). Here, the focus lies on the court of king Mynyddog Mwynfawr in Eidyn, presumably today’s Edinburgh.⁴⁴ e poems reveal several details about the feast preceding the battle and the role of the feast 43 Both John T. Koch and Ifor Williams did not provide suggestions regarding a possible etymology of the name of Gododdin. Ptolemy uses the term Ouotadinoi in his Geography, the Geographike Hyphegesis. A connection between this term and another reference used for the people of northeastern Britain, Votaadiini, seems likely. Otherwise, the etymology of the name Gododdin remains unclear (Dr. Irene Balles, Bonn, personal conversation, 23 June 2010). 44 On the identification of Eydin with Edinburgh, see Alcock, 1987, 241. John T. Koch argued that Mynyddog Mwynfawr, or the Middle Welsh form Mynyddawg Mwynfawr, was not the head of the Gododdin but the son of an Anglian aspirant in the British upper-class; he sees his argument backed by archaeological findings from the 6th century in Bernicia, see Koch 2005, 26–28. If translated, the name could either refer to Mynyddog the wealthy or, if translated entirely, mean the wealthy mountain.

Structure and subject matter

127

in the alliance between the ruler and his warriors. ese details agree with descriptions found in other heroic works from this period, including Anglo-Saxon texts such as Beowulf (Alcock 1987: 241). e feast was thus argued to be a literary motif, referred to as talu medd, the pay for the mead, rather than an actual event to underline the alliance between the members of the war band (Rowland 1990c: 38). In the course of this feast the warrior promises loyalty to the leader by accepting his mead (Rowland 2007: 74).⁴⁵ e warriors furthermore utter their heroic vows or boasts. e feast, therefore, represents a contract between king and warrior and also binds the warriors together as a group. It underlines the relation between the warriors, the king and the poet, who guarantees the addition of the knights’ and the ruler’s heroic deeds to the collective memory (Rowland 2007: 74) (Charles-Edwards 1978: 56).⁴⁶ e subject matter of the poem is not the battle itself but Mynyddog Mwynfawr and the group of his warriors (Charles-Edwards 1978: 65). As mentioned earlier, the poet forms part of the group of warriors and the reason for his composition of the poems is to honour the men who participated in battle (Williams 1980: 48). e third topic in the poems is the battle of Catraeth.⁴⁷ According to the poems, the Britons were defeated in this battle, most or all of the warriors were killed. e poet is claimed to be the only eye-witness and the lone surviver.⁴⁸ Scholars have made different suggestions regarding the details of the battle. Particularly the number of warriors altogether and the number of mounted warriors in particular has led to discussions about the organisation and the goal of the battle. e fact that the poems do not mention any unmounted warriors has led to the suggestion that the poems are not referring to an ordinary battle altogether but rather to a raid of Gododdin warriors into the south (Rowland 1990c: 32–33)(Rowland 2007: 73). Jenny Rowland has claimed that the absence of Mynyddog Mwynfawr in the fight itself would strengthen her argument of this event as a raid. Another argument in favour of her assumption could be seen in the presence of warriors from other kingdoms, such as Gwynedd (Rowland 1990c: 33).⁴⁹ Rowland further assigned the treatment of the unspecified number of warriors in the poems to sa45 e topos of sharing the mead during the feast before battle is also found in the Anglo-Saxon poem the Battle of Finsburh, see Pilch and Tristram, 1979, 152. 46 e term comitatus can be found repeatedly as a reference for the group of warriors of the Gododdin. It originates from Taticus, Germania, chapter 13, where he speaks of the Germanic traditions of warfare and allegiance and uses this term for the social bond between the ruler and his retainers. Because of the nature of the Germania, being written from the perspective of the conquering and colonizing Romans, I will not use the term in this thesis. Tacitus neither provided a definition of the precise meaning of the term nor can we be sure that what he referred to agreed with how a group of Germanic warriors was actually organized. 47 For the discussion of a possible location of this battle, see above chapter 7.1. 48 is again is a common motif in heroic poetry and can be found, for example, in Beowulf or in the Battle of Maldon, an Old English elegy, too. 49 However, the presence of the warriors from Gwynedd has also been explained by a possible debt

128

Aneirin’s Y Gododdin

ga tradition. is would also indicate the absence of a motivation for this battle in the poems because this element would not have been of interest to the author (Rowland 1990c: 36). In addition, the same would be true for the outcome of the battle which again underlines the problem of regarding the poems as sources of historical facts and events altogether (Rowland 1990c: 37). As the fourth element of a typical heroic society, the poems praise the fighting qualities and the bravery of the men in battle together with their cruelty and their pride in the face of their enemies (Jarman 1967: 200). at these qualities occur regularly in the stanzas will be demonstrated later in this chapter. e fih element is the poet’s personal lament for the death of the heroes (Jarman 1967: 202). is underlines the close social and emotional bond between the poet and the warriors as mentioned before. It also characterizes the poet’s role in society, i.e. communicating the values and traditions of the warrior band to posterity and thus guaranteeing lasting honour and fame. With his work, the poet ensured that their exploits entered the collective memory of the society they belonged to. e sixth and final element, closely connected to the previous one, is the role the poet assigns to the concepts of honour and fame in society. ese are clearly valued higher than the life of the warriors (Jarman 1967: 203). Both concepts are of central importance for the society in this period as well as in the heroic literature and thus can be seen as vital for the understanding of the functioning of such societies. Altogether, these six key topics can be seen as instrumental for the supreme praise for the group of warriors of the Gododdin in the form of an eulogy (CharlesEdwards 1978: 45). In their praise, the poems cover in full the martial ideals of the British warrior community (Jarman 1967: 205). Praise and lament are the main topics of these poems; the pride of the poetic voice in the fallen warriors, the warriors’ pride in their deeds and their honour, the king’s pride in his men and, of course, the poet lamenting their death.⁵⁰ e stanzas emphasize central heroic and moral values of the warriors including honour (MW wyneb) and the contract (MW amot) which binds them to their lord, i.e. their leader in battle.⁵¹ e fame of Gwynedd to the men of Gododdin for support in a conflict with Irish invaders, see Gruffydd 1989/90, xxx. 50 See also Chadwick 1932, 20, who assigns the Gododdin poems to the Welsh celebration poetry underlining cardinal virtues of a heroic society. Nora and Hector Chadwick add several characteristics of this sort of poetry which are in their assumption typical for poems such as the Gododdin: they refer to present or immediate events, are intended for celebration, are full of descriptions and details and contain frequent repetitions, see also Chadwick 1932, 60–63. Furthermore they assume that heroic poetry is commonly focused on members of the aristocratic group and either refers to the king’s court or to the battle-field, which is also true for the stanzas in Cardiff MS 2.81. 51 With this I refer to the terms as they appear in their Middle Welsh form in the surviving manuscript to which I will turn in short. In regards to a possible Late British form of these terms, see the edition and reconstruction of the text in Koch 1997.

Gentes and collective identities in Aneirin’s Gododdin poems

129

(MW adrawd) they gain in battle is also a recurring motif in the poems (CharlesEdwards 1978: 45). One final aspect that is important to point out is a number of references to Christian features. Assuming the poems were composed in the sixth century or later this would explain the absence of references to pagan deities since this period falls completely into the Christian period of the British population (Chadwick 1932: 210). e role of Christianity will be subject of a more detailed discussion present.⁵²

7.4 Gentes and collective identities in Aneirin’s Gododdin poems Scholarly research into the Gododdin poems has neglected the question about the collective identities of the various gentes in Britain in the early Middle Ages. In spite of the fact that it seems that Aneirin’s texts do not provide the same amount of information on the gentes as Gildas’ DEB, the poems contain a number of significant terms and indications. is is true for rather general terms referring to the Britons, the Saxons and the angli, commonly interpreted as the English, but also regarding smaller groups like the British gentes of Bernicia, Deira and Gwynedd.⁵³ Another relevant aspect is the number of Christian terms and references in the poems which also play a significant role for an analysis of collective identities. e following chapter will discuss the relevant stanzas in the form provided by Sir Ifor Williams’ Canu Aneirin (CA) from 1961.⁵⁴ is particular edition was chosen as the best option, because Jarman’s edition (1990) changed the Middle Welsh orthography of the manuscript into a Modern Welsh. John T. Koch (1997), on the other hand, provided what he considered to be a Late British reconstruction of the text which, however, may perhaps be largely fictitious. Jackson (1969) only published a translation of the text provided in Williams’s edition. Particularly relevant lines will be cross-referenced between all relevant editions. In addition to 52 See Chapter 7.4.5. 53 In the following chapters, the term English will be used, for reasons of uniformity, when referring to the medieval gens commonly named angli in the writings subject to analysis. In this regard, the term English, however, refers only to the medieval gens and does not imply any connection with the use of the modern term English. e problem of the interpretation and the translation of angli, or of Late British terms such as lloegr, with the English will be addressed and discussed in the course of this chapter as well as in the final conclusion of this thesis. However, it needs to be pointed out that the translation of angli or lloegr with English or, for the last term, Angles, is highly problematic. is study is particularly aware of the problem of translation and interpretation which, at points, seems to be heavily influenced by colonial or even nationalistic claims trying to establish a historical sense of dominance by the use of specific names. While the limits of this study do not allow an extended discussion of each instance a problematic translation is used by modern research, the general problem will be addressed in the further course of this thesis. 54 Williams, Ifor. Canu Aneirin. Gyda rhagymadrodd a nodiadau gan Ifor Williams. Adargraffwyd: Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru, 1961.

130

Aneirin’s Y Gododdin

the stanza number given by Williams, the number of Jackson’s translation will be given as well to enable the reader to tell hand A from hand B. Williams numbered the poems according to their order in the manuscript while Jackson numbered them according to their scribe. e translation of the stanzas is taken from Jarman’s edition which is not only the most recent but also the most comprehensible and fluent one extant.⁵⁵ In the passages where the translations differ, all versions will be provided. As mentioned before, the poems feature a preface which is, due to the circumstances of transmission of the manuscript, i.e. the lack of order in Cardiff MS 2.81, not found at the beginning of the poems as they are preserved.⁵⁶ Here, Aneirin is introduced as the author of the poems of Y Gododdin.⁵⁷ Nid wyf fynog blin, Ni ddialaf orddin, Ni chwarddaf chwerthin O dan droed rhonin. Estynnog fy nglin Yn nhý deyerin, Cadwyn heyernin Am ben fy neulin, O fedd o fuelin, O Gatraeth werin, Mina fi Neirin, Ys gwýr Taliesin Ofeg gywrennin, Neu cheint Ododdin Cyn gwawr dydd dilin. [I am no weary lord,/ I avenge no provocation,/ I do not laugh/ Beneath the feet of hairy slugs./ Outstretched is my knee/ In an earthy dwelling,/ An iron chain/ Around my knees./ About mead from the drinking horn,/ About the men of Catraeth,/ I, yet not I, Aneirin/ Taliesin knows it,/ Skilled in expression/ Sang Y Gododdin/ Before the next day dawned.]⁵⁸ Beside the fact that Aneirin introduces himself as the one who sang the poems, he claims to be a skilled poet and introduces some of the main themes of the poems 55 e reference to Jarman’s translation refers not to the page number of his book but to the number of the stanza that he assigned to the according stanza in William’s edition. 56 See Chapter 7.1. 57 CA XLVIII, stanza 45 of hand A in Jackson’s translation. 58 Translation by Alfred Jarman, 1990, 49.

Gentes and collective identities in Aneirin’s Gododdin poems

131

in this stanza. is includes the battle of Catraeth, the feasting and the role of the mead as well as the warriors participating in the battle. Aneirin might possibly describe himself as a prisoner of some kind, on the other hand the reference to him being chained might also idicate his responsibility to the warriors of Gododdin, which is referred to repeatedly in other passages of the poems. e reference to Taliesin indicates a connection of uncertain nature between the two poets which agrees with the information found in the Historia Brittonum.⁵⁹ e other stanzas provide more explicit information about the gentes involved in the battle, most prominently the Britons from the kingdom of the Gododdin. 7.4.1 The Britons in Y Gododdin

Because of the poems’ focus on the heroic deeds of the individual warriors, references to collective groups like the Britons or Saxons are fewer than in other texts such as in Gildas’ DEB. However, the poems offer four explicit references to Britain and its inhabitants in general. One of these stanzas was written by scribe B, three others by scribe A.⁶⁰ Teithi etmygant, tri llwry nouant. pymwnt a phymcant. trychwn a trychant. tri si chatvarchawcg; eidyn eu ruchawc; tri llu llurugawc; tri eur deyrn dorchawc. tri marchawc dywal; tri chat gyhaual. tri chysneit kysnar; chwerw fysgynt esgar. tri en drin en drwm. llew lleddynt blwm; eur e gat gyngrwn. tri theyrn maon; a dyvu o vrython. kynri a chenon. kynrein o aeron. gogyuerchi ynhon deivyr diuerogyon. 59 See Chapter 7.1. 60 cf. CA XVIII, stanza 18 of hand A in Jackson’s translation.

132

Aneirin’s Y Gododdin

a dyfu o vrython wr well no chynon sarff seri alon.

[ey honour right,/ ey stain three javelins,/ Fiy, five hundred;/ ree chiefs and three hundred,/ ree battle-horsemen./ From Eiddyn of the goldsmiths,/ ree mail-clad hosts./ ree gold-torqued kings,/ ree fierce horsemen,/ ree battle-peers,/ ree leaping together, coequal,/ Harshly they rooted the enemy./ ree in battle, heavily engaged,/ Easily they slew the foe,/ Gold in a well-ordered army,/ ree kings of the hosts,/ Who sprang from the Brython,/ Cynri and Cynon,/ Cynrain of Aeron./ e tribes of the cray Deirans/ Were wont to ask/ Did there come from the Brython,/ A better man than Cynon,/ A serpent on his enemies path?]⁶¹ is stanza reflects on the origin of the army’s warriors, connecting them with particular actions during battle and referring to their pieces of armament and their splendour. Aeron has been identified with various settlements of that name in the Pennines and in Wales (Williams 1968a: xlvii). It shows the strong emphasis on battle terminology that is characteristic for the entire sequence of poems. It demonstrates that the poet’s praise is focused on the warriors of the Britons and their heroic deeds. Apart from the names of three particular British warriors, this rhapsody also provides a reference to the people of Deira with an explicit reference to them as enemies. While I will return to the role of the people of Deira shortly, this praise of explicitly British warriors is also found in two other stanzas:⁶² Ardyledawc canu claer orchyrdon. a gwedy dyrreith dykkeinw auon. dimcones lovlen benn eryron. llwyt; ef gorev vwyt y ysgylvyon. or a aeth gatraeth o eur dorchogyon. ar neges mynydawc mynawc maon. ny doeth en diwarth o barth vrython. ododin wr bell well no chynon. Erdyledam canu i cinon cigueren in guanth ac cin bu diuant dileit aeron riuesit i loflen ar pen erirhon luit en anuit guoreu buit i sgliuon 61 Translation by Alfred Jarman, 1990, 19. 62 CA LXVI A, stanza 66 of manuscript A in Jackson’s translation in the le column, followed by CA LXVI B, stanza 66 of manuscript B Jackson’s translation in the right column.

Gentes and collective identities in Aneirin’s Gododdin poems

133

ar les minidauc marchauc maon em godes itu ar guaiu galon ar gatraeth oed fraeth eur dorchogyon. wy guenint lledint seiuogion oed ech eu temyr treis canaon⁶³ oed odit imit o barth urython gododin obell guell no chenon.

[e most fitting song of brilliant retinues:/ And before the protector of Aeron was lost/ e beaks of grey (sic) eagles esteemed his hand;/ In his fury he fed birds of prey./ For the sake of Mynyddog, horseman of hosts,/ He set his side against the enemy’s spears./ Before Catraeth gold-torqued warriors were swi,/ ey charged, they slew those who withstood,/ e whelps of violence were away from their land./ Rarely in battle from among the Britons/ Of Gododdin was there only by far better than Cynon.]⁶⁴ Alternatively, Jackson’s translation of the last two lines reads Rare in battle was a man from among the Britons of Gododdin better by far than Cynon (Jackson 1969: 113). As in the previous stanza, a warrior named Cynon is again referred to as extraordinarily brave and exemplary for the heroic behaviour of the Britons. Although the expression Oedd ech eu tymyr trais ganaon, e whelps of violence were away from their land, only indirectly refers to the enemies of the men of Gododdin, it strikes me that we find a similar imagery in Gildas’ DEB:⁶⁵ Tum erumpens grex catulorum de cubili leaenae barbarae, tribus, ut lingua eius exprimitur, cyulis, nostra longis navibus[...]⁶⁶ Both of these passages speak of young animals of prey, indicating that the respective enemies referred here could be understood as agents of a larger threat such as larger gentes from a distant area or a distant army. Assuming that Aneirin referred to the enemies of the Britons, he then would have employed the same metaphor as Gildas when he referred to the Saxons. is could be seen as indication that this sort of reference was topical in the time when both texts were presumably composed and again may support an early date of composition for the Gododdin poems. 63 In this line it is uncertain whether this refers to the Britons or to their enemies, see Jarman, 1990, 123. 64 Translation by Alfred Jarman, 1990, 65. 65 See Chapter 6.4.3. 66 en a pack of cubs burst forth from their lair of the barbarian lioness, coming in three keels, as they call warships in their language., DEB, 23.3, Transl. by Michael Winterbottom in Winterbottom, 1978, 26.

134

Aneirin’s Y Gododdin

It could, of course, also be seen as an indication of a common source for both writings. However, here another aspect becomes relevant. Gildas’ DEB only mentions the gens of the Saxons. Since we do not know where the text was composed, it is not clear which gens he was referring to, assuming the term saxones to be a general term to subsume numerous smaller gentes. e Gododdin poems were composed in the North of Britain and the gens the poems refer to as the enemies of the men of the Gododdin were in all probability what has been commonly referred to as angli rather than saxones. I will touch upon this problem shortly.⁶⁷ e stanza under discussion here is found in the A as well as in the B version. ere are, however, no relevant variants in both stanzas in regard to the two lines in question. Cynon is the recipient of further praise in yet another stanza from hand B:⁶⁸ Pan dei y cyuarchant nyt oed hoedyl dianc dialgur aruon, cyrchei eur ceinyo arurchiat urython browys meirch cynon. [When he came to battle/ He was not one to escape with his life./ e avenger of Aeron/ Attacked, the gold-adorned/ Defender of the Britons:/ Cynon’s steeds were spirited.] Although his translation differs, Jarman acknowledges that in the line Cyrchai aur geinion the term aur in Jarman’s modern edition, might be translated with splendid rather than golden (Jarman 1990: 146). is would agree with suggestions made by Craig Cessford on the translation of the term (Cessford 1995a: 231).⁶⁹ Apart from such references to an individual warrior, there is one general reference to Britain to be found in hand A which is not connected with the prominent figure of Cynon:⁷⁰ Anawr gynhoruan, huan arwyran. gwledic gwd gyfgein nef enys brydein? 67 See Chapter 7.4.3. 68 CA XCVII, stanza 23 of manuscript B in Jackson’s translation. Translation by A. Jarman in (Jarman 1990: 94). 69 See Chapter 7.1. 70 CA XVII, stanza 17 of manuscript A in Jackson’s translation. Translation by Alfred Jarman in Jarman, 1990, 18.

Gentes and collective identities in Aneirin’s Gododdin poems

135

[A power in the front rank,/ sunlight on grass./ Where can be found the lord/ Of the heaven of the Island of Britain?] e line nef enys brydein was translated and interpreted differently by Jackson and Jarman. Jackson proposed the translation Where is the prince to be found/the lord of the island of Britain? He therefore emends nef, heaven or paradise, into nar, man or hero. Koch also offers two readings of these two lines, first Where is the lord of the heaven of Britain to be found? and second, Lord, where is the heaven of Britain to be found?. Apart from the differences in syntax and semantics, the Christian connection of this stanza is unclear as well, since the term nef might also be read as nar (Jarman 1990: 89). e problem here lies in Jackson’s interpretation of nef (heaven) as naf (lord) and Koch’s reading of nef as nar. Since naf could refer both to God and to a prince or a ruler, the Christian reference here is not clear.⁷¹ Koch mentions this problem and translates the term as Lord, but also offers the alternative of heaven and seems to support a reading in a more Christian sense (Koch 1997: 71). e same is true for the term gwledic, in this example translated with lord, although here a reference to a secular ruler would be more likely since the term derives from gwlad which means homeland or fatherland.⁷² Apart from the common praise of heroic action and feasting, this stanza also provides a clearly circumscribed geographical reference to the island of Britain. At this point it remains unclear whether this contains a Christian reference or not. erefore it will be the matter of discussion again at a later point when I will be discussing the Christian references in the poems.⁷³ ese four stanzas show that the reference to the Britons remains vague. e characterisation, if any, remains focused on single warriors and is only implicitly connected to the name of their gentes. ese implicit references can also be found when approaching the stanzas referring to the other gentes in the island, which leads me to the enemies of the men of the Gododdin. I begin with the Saxons. 7.4.2 The Saxons in Y Gododdin

e Gododdin poems in the form they have been preserved contain three references to the Saxons. e Welsh term saesson is used as a reference to the warriors of this gens and does not refer to any individuals among them. e first reference is found in the A version of the poems:⁷⁴

71 Rockel avoids this problem altogether by translating the term with the German Herr which can refer to God as well as to a ruler. His translation of nef is Himmel, which can be read as heaven or sky as well (Rockel 1989: 53). 72 Dr. Irene Balles, Bonn, p.c., 23 June 2010. 73 See Chapter 7.4.5. 74 CA XIII, stanza 13 of manuscript A in Jackson’s translation.

136

Aneirin’s Y Gododdin

Gwr a aeth gatraeth gan dyd. ne llewes ef vedgwyn vei noethyd. bu truan gyuatcan gyvluyd. e neges ef or drachwres drenghidyd. ny chryssyws gatraeth mawr mor ehelaeth e aruaeth uch arwyt. ny bu mor gyffor o eidyn ysgor a esgarei oswyd tut vwlch hir ech e dir ae dreuyd. ef lladei saesson seithuet dyd. perheit y wrhyt en wrvyd ae govein gan e gein gyweithyd. pan dyvu dutvwlch dut nerthyd. oed gwaetlan gwyaluan vab kilyd.

[A warrior went to Catraeth with the day,/ Greedily he drank mead at night time;/ Woeful, an army’s lament,/ Was his attack, the fiery slayer./ ere rushed to Catraeth/ no great one so generous/ Of intent over his mead;/ Never was one who so completely/ From the fortress of Eiddyn,/ Scattered the enemy./ Tudvwlch Hir from his land and homesteads/ drove out the Saxons without ceasing./ His valour will long endure/ And his memory among his fair company./ When Tudvwlch, strengthener of his people, son of Cilydd, attacked,/ the place of spears was a field of blood.]⁷⁵ Alternatively, Jackson’s translation of the line reads he slew the Saxons every seventh day (Jackson 1969: 120). is translation seems more appropriate since it translates lladei correctly with slew in contrast to Jarman’s drove out. Jackson claims that this line could also be an indication for Tudfwlch’s earlier battles against the Saxons. is reference speaks of the British warrior Tudfwlch and praises his fame when killing Saxons. is stanza is particularly interesting because of another curiosity regarding the names of the warrior of Gododdin. It can be assumed that most or all of the names found in the stanzas are telling names, i.e. they bear a significant meaning. is is confirmed when approaching possible meanings of the warrior’s names, Cilydd, for example, translates into companion or supporter. While the meaning of the name Tudfwlch is not entirely clear, Hir means tall. is means that the names of the individual warriors in the poems indicate certain 75 Translation by Alfred Jarman in Jarman, 1990, 14.

Gentes and collective identities in Aneirin’s Gododdin poems

137

characteristics or meanings which I presume could be connected to their heroic deeds and their success in battle.See Chapter 3.3.1. We have already seen the Saxons being treated in a similar matter in Gildas’ DEB, i.e. as enemies that have to be stood up against. is form of reference to the Saxons is also adopted in the other stanzas in which they are mentioned:⁷⁶ Da y doeth adonwy atwen. ym adawssut wenn heli bratwen. gwnelut. lladut. llosgut. no moryen ny waeth wnelut. ny delyeist nac eithaf na chynhor. ysgwn drem dibennor. ny weleist emorchwyd mawr marchogyon wy lledin ny rodin nawd y saesson.

[A fine gi, Addonwy, hadst thou promised me:/ at which Bradwen did thou wouldst do; thou wouldst/ slay, thou would burn,/ ou wouldst not do worse than Morien./ ou didst not hold the wing or the van./ With thy bold clear eye/ ou didst not see the surging fury of the horsemen:/ ey slew, they gave no quarter to the Saxons.]⁷⁷ Again, saesson being the Saxons are only mentioned as a gens, no reference to individual warriors can be found. e poetic voice does not add any qualities or descriptions of the enemy. He only mentions that the fiercer and more heroic the individual British warrior fights against the Saxons, the more he is to be glorified. I want to take a closer look now at the final stanza of the printed edition which does not explicitly speak of the Saxons, nevertheless, I think it deserves to be mentioned because it again provides similarities to Gildas’ DEB:⁷⁸ Mat vudic ysgavynwyn asgwrn aduaon. ae lassawc tebedawc tra mordwy alon. gwrawl amdyvrwys goruawrd y lu. gwryt vronn gwrvan gwanan arnaw. y gynnedyf disgynnu rac naw riallu. yg gwyd gwaed a gwlat. a gordiynaw; 76 CA LIV A, stanza 51 of manuscript A in Jackson’s translation. 77 Translation by Alfred Jarman in Jarman, 1990, 54. 78 CA LXXX, stanza 79 of manuscript A in Jackson’s translation.

138

Aneirin’s Y Gododdin

caraf vy vudic lleithic a vu anaw. kyndilic aeron kenhan lew.

[Fortunately victorious, lithe and fair, the backbone of a/ timid host,/ With his blue sword repelling the foe from overseas,/ A powerful hero with a mighty hand,/ Stout-hearted, skilful, they strike him./ His custom was to attack/ Before nine champions/ In the presence of the army and the host,/ Hurling defiance./ I love the victor, there was a couch beneath him,/ Cynddilig Aeron, splendidly brave.]⁷⁹ e poetic voice refers to the enemy, this time as tebedawc tra mordwy alon, here translated by Jarman as the foe from overseas, which is a reference similar to what can be found in Gildas’ DEB when he referred to the Saxons.⁸⁰ While this stanza only mentions enemies coming from overseas, not specifying which gentes they were, Gildas speaks of Picti and Scoti as well as about the boats the Saxons used when coming to Britain. Again, this seems to convey common knowledge of the period in question and demonstrates that both the Gododdin poems and Gildas’ DEB agree on these two small but obvious details. e saesson, as all other enemy gentes of the warriors from Gododdin, are refered to as a group only, there is again no information on individuals among them. e Gododdin poems, however, provide one significant difference in the reference to the enemies of the Britons: they also name the gens of the English who were not mentioned at all by Gildas. 7.4.3 The English in Y Gododdin

Similar to the Saxon gens, the English are also mentioned in the poems as enemies of the men of the Gododdin. Altogether, there are four references to them and to the name of the area of their geographic origin. Aryf angkynnull agkyman dull agkysgoget trachywed vawr treiglessyd llawr lloegrwys giwet. heessit eis yg kynnor eis yg cat uereu. goruc wyr lludw a gwraged gwydw kyn noe angheu. 79 Translation by Alfred Jarman in Jarman, 1990, 78. 80 See chapter 6.4.4.

Gentes and collective identities in Aneirin’s Gododdin poems

139

greit uab hoewgir ac ysberi y beri creu.⁸¹ [Amid scattered weapons, broken rangs, standing steadfast,/ With great destruction, the champion overthrew the host of the men of England,/ He cast lances in the forefront of battle in the spearfight,/ He laid men low and made women widows before his death,/ Graid son of Hoywgi formed a battle-pen against the spears.]⁸² Again, Aneirin focuses only on one specific individual Briton while mentioning men of the enemy gens, lloegrwys, the men of the English. e etymology of lloegr remains unclear.⁸³ e translations and editions of Y Gododdin by Jackson and Jarman, but also the other works introduced earlier, all render the Welsh term lloegrwys as the English or the men of England. While the poems again refer to the gens named lloegrwys as a collective, similarly to the way the Saxons are treated, the translation of this term is of interest in regard to the question of collective identity. I will return to this question and the question of the etymology of this term shortly. In general, the same strategy of focusing on the individual British warrior and on his enemies as a collective entity and hence anonymous can be seen as the poet’s emphatic focus on the heroic glory of the individual British warrior. e same approach is repeated in another short stanza with reference to the lloegrwys.⁸⁴ Kywyrein ketwyr kyuaruuant. y gyt en vn vryt yt gyrchassant. byrr eu hoedyl. hir eu hoet ar eu carant. seith gymeint o loegrwys a ladassant. o gyvryssed gwraged gwyth a wnaethant. llawer mam ae deigyr ar y hamrant. [e warriors arose, they assembled,/ Together with one accord they attacked./ Short were their lives, long their kinsmen’s grief for them,/ 81 CA XXIII A, stanza 23 of manuscript A in Jackson’s translation. 82 Translation by Alfred Jarman in Jarman, 1990, 25. e name Graid could be interpreted meaning bravery or anger and thus indicating a connection with what could be understood to be a typical terminology for warriors and battle. is impression is confirmed when taking a closer look at the possible meanings of other names of the British warriors, see Chapter 3.3.1. 83 Dr. Irene Balles, Bonn, p.c., 23 June 2010. Max Förster, in 1941, already claimed in his work Der Flussname emse und seine Sippe that the etymology of lloegr was unknown (Förster 1941: 601). In spite of the historical circumstances during its publication, Förster’s received wide attention by Anglo-Saxon scholarship and praise by scholars such as Kenneth Jackson. e study was considered to be the most complex study focusing on Britsh linguistic chronology in connection with Anglo-Saxon studies (Sauer 1998: 345). 84 CA LVIII, stanza 56 of manuscript A in Jackson’s translation.

140

Aneirin’s Y Gododdin

ey slew seven times their number of the English./ By fighting they made women widows,/ Many a mother with her tear on her eyelid.]⁸⁵ Leaving aside the problem of the numbers of warriors and enemies already discussed, the name of these enemies, lloegrwys, was again translated by Jarman as well as by Jackson as the English, and they are also only referred to as a collective. ere are two further references to lloegyr and lloegr which appear to refer to the area occupied by these enemies of the men of Gododdin:⁸⁶ Am drynni drylaw drylenn. gweinydyawr ysgwydawr yg gweithyen. en aryal cledyual am benn. en lloegyr drychyon rac trychant unben. a dalwy mwng bleid heb prenn. ene law; gnawt gwychnawt eny lenn. o gyurang gwyth ac asgen. trenghis ny dienghis bratwen.

[For the battle, a sorrowful disaster,/ e shields rendered service in combat,/ In the turmoil there was a sword-stroke on the head,/ In England there were men cut down before three hundred chieains./ He who holds a wolf ’s mane without spear in his hand/ Has a bold spirit under his mantle:/ From the encounter of strife and destruction/ Bradwen did not escape; he died.]⁸⁷ Following the information in this stanza, the battle is fought in lloegyr, here again translated by Jarman as England, referring to an unknown geographic area. e discussion about a possible location of the battle and the meaning of the reoccuring term Catraeth was dealt with before.⁸⁸ e term lloegr is repeated in one further stanza:⁸⁹ Ardwynef adef eidun gwalat. gwae ni rac galar ac avar gwastat. pan doethan deon o dineidin parth deetholwyl pob doeth wlat. yg kywryssed a lloegr illuyd amhat. nav ugeint am bob vn am beithynat. 85 86 87 88 89

Translation by Alfred Jarman in Jarman, 1990, 55. CA XLIV A, stanza 41 of manuscript A in Jackson’s translation. Translation by Alfred Jarman in Jarman, 1990, 46. See Chapter 7.1. CA XCIV, stanza 19 of manuscript B in Jackson’s translation.

Gentes and collective identities in Aneirin’s Gododdin poems

141

ardemyl meirch a seirch a seric dillat ardwyei waetnerth e gerth or gat. [e protection of heaven, an abode in a desired land!/ Woe to us from grief and unceasing sorrow!/ When trusted men came from the region of Din Eidyn,/ e chosen warriors of every prudent land,/ In strife with the mixed host of England,/ Nine score to one, around each mail-clad man,/ A multitude of horses and armour and silken clothing,/ Gwaerdnerth defended his rights through combat.]⁹⁰ e poet does not seem to refer to the gens at all but to a specific area. is is surprising since similar terminology, i.e. references to geographical areas, is not found in the stanzas referring to the Saxons. Following the translation of lloegyr as England and the references to saesson, the Saxons, that I mentioned before, this leads us to the question who the men of the Gododdin were fighting against in this battle: did the Saxons fight together with lloegrwys, the men from England, in lloegyr, an area translated as England? e term lloegr is understood to refer to the land of the English, the etymology, however, remains a matter of speculation.⁹¹ Furthermore, there remains the question who is the gens meant by the term lloegrwys. e morphology of the term seems clear, a literal interpretation is the men from lloegr.⁹² Etymologically, the term was repeatedly claimed to mean coming from a nearby border (Hamp 1982: 85) (Cessford 1995b: 96). is, however, could refer to any gens on the border of the kingdom of the Gododdin.⁹³ I will return to the question about the possible meaning of these ethnonyms and their highly problematic translations at the end of this chapter. 7.4.4 People of Deira, Bernicia and Gwynedd in Y Gododdin

Unlike Gildas, the Gododdin poems name people from several other gentes. We find the naming of people from Deira, Bernicia and Gwynedd. While the warriors 90 Translation by Alfred Jarman in Jarman, 1990, 91. e name Gwaetnerth is another example for a telling name in Y Gododdin and could be translated as strength of blood, again indicating a name closely related to battle. 91 Dr. Irene Balles, Bonn, p.c., 23 June 2010. 92 Dr. Irene Balles, Bonn, p.c., 23 June 2010. 93 Cessford includes another term, Welsh eingyl, presumably another ethnonym which can be found in the Taliesin poems. e term was translated with Angles by Ifor Williams and as Angeln, the angles, in Rockel’s translation (Williams 1968b: 48) (Rockel 1989: 17). Ifor Williams’ edition of the Canu Taliesin contains the term eingyl twice, in the third as well as the seventh poem. is is of particular interested because the third poem also contains a reference to the lloegrwys, the men from lloegr, about who Williams does not provide any further details or interpretation (Williams 1968b: 46). While the etymology of the term eingyl remains unclear, the connection between these two ethnonyms should be further investigated in a future analysis of ethnic identities in the works of Taliesin.

142

Aneirin’s Y Gododdin

of Deira and Bernicia are treated as enemies, i.e. the early Anglian kingdoms, the men of Gwnyedd are considered to be allies of the Gododdin. e two previous chapters have demonstrated that the poems’ references to the enemies of Gododdin are very vague. ere are, however, two references to Deira, one of the stanzas has already been discussed at the beginning of chapter 7.4.1. Another stanza exists in the form of four variants, which contain a reference to dewr or deor. Again, a British warrior is praised, this time as anchor and scatterer of the Deirans:⁹⁴ Angor dewr daen sarph seri raen sengi wrymgaen e mlaen bedin arth arwynawl drussyat dreissyawr sengi waewawr en dyd cadyawr. yg clawd gwernin. eil nedic nar; neus duc drwy var. gwled y adar o drydar drin. kywir yth elwir oth enwir weithret: ractaf rwyuyadur mur cauilet merin a madyein mat yth anet. Angor deor dain sarff saffwy grain blaen bedin enwir yt elwir oth gywir gverit. kewir yth elwir oth gywir weithret. rector rwyvyadur mur pob kiwet. meryn mab madyeith mat yth anet. [e anchor, scatterer of the Deirans,/ Serpent with the terrible sting,/ He would trample on the dark-blue armour/ In the forefront of the army./ A fearful bear,/ Violent defender,/ He would trample on spears/ In the day of battle/ In the alter-grown moat./ A lord worthy of Neddig,/ rough his fury he brought/ A feast for the birds/ From the uproar of battle./ Rightly art thou called from thy faithful deed/ 94 CA LXIII A, stanza 62 of manuscript A in Jackson’s translation on the le side, CA LXIII B on the right side. is variant is not found in Jackson’s translation but assigned to hand B by Koch who refers to it as stanza B1.15.

Gentes and collective identities in Aneirin’s Gododdin poems

143

Ruler, leader, wall of the battle-host,/ Merin, son of Madiain, fortunately wast thou born.]⁹⁵ ere are two more variants of this stanza:⁹⁶ Aches guolouy glasvleid duuyr dias dilin angor deor dain anysgocvaen em blaen bedin letrud leuir a meirch a gwyr rac gododin re cw gyuarch kywuyrein bard kemre tot tarth rac garth merin.

[e anchor, scatterer of the Deirans,/ An immovable rock/ In the forefront of the army./ Blood-stained were many,/ Both horses and men,/ Before the Gododdin./ Swi were the baying hounds,/ A host mustering,/ Total defence in the mist of the battle/ Before Merin’s stronghold.]⁹⁷ Angor deor dain sarff saffwy graen anysgoget vaen blaen bedin arall arlwy treis tra chynnivyn. rwy gobrwy gordwy lain. enwir yt elwir oth gywir weithret rector rwyfyadur mvr pob kyuyeith. tutvwlch treissic aer caer o dileith.⁹⁸ 95 Translation by Alfred Jarman in Jarman, 1990, 59. 96 CA LXIII C. is variant is not found in Jackson’s translation but assigned to hand B by Koch who refers to it as stanza B1.16. 97 Translation by Alfred Jarman in Jarman, 1990, 60. 98 CA LXIII D. is variant is not found in Jackson’s translation but assigned to hand B by Koch who refers to it as stanza B1.16.

144

Aneirin’s Y Gododdin

[e anchor, scatterer of the Deirans,/ Serpent with the terrible sting,/ An immovable rock/ In the forefront of the army./ A store of vigour,/ Violence beyond affliction,/ Abundant merit/ In the pressure of spears./ Rightly art thou called from thy faithful deed/ Ruler, leader, wall of every compatriot,/ Tudfwlch, harsh one of battle, a fortress barred.]⁹⁹ Another stanza also contains a very general reference to the Deirans:¹⁰⁰ Guaut i ar fisiolin amdiffin gododin im blain trin terhid rei gnaut illuru alan buan bithei gnaut rac teulu deor em discinhei gnaut mab golistan cen nei bei guledic itat indeuit a lauarei gnaut ar les minidauc scuitaur trei guaurud rac ut eidin uruei.

[It was usual on a spirited horse to defend Gododdin/ In the forefront of the battle of the ardent ones,/ It was usual that on the track of a deer he was swi,/ It was usual that before the war-band of the Deirans/ he would attack,/ It was usual for the son of Golystan’s words to be heeded,/ ough his father was no prince,/ It was usual that on behalf of Mynyddog there were shattered shields,/ Usual was a blood-stained spear before the lord of Eidyn,/ Urfai.]¹⁰¹ us again, the enemies of the men of the Gododdin only appear with the name of their gens. e different variants of the stanza offer no information on their warriors, on any individuals or on the characteristics of the Deirans; they just refer to them as a collective. is leads to the question of what the term and its variants refer to: deivyr, also found in the variants deifyr, deiuyr and deifr as well as deor, dewr is only found as a reference to the kingdom of Deira, established in the mid-sixth century.¹⁰² e 99 100 101 102

Translation by Alfred Jarman in Jarman, 1990, 61. CA C, stanza 28 of manuscript B in Jackson’s translation. Translation by Alfred Jarman in Jarman, 1990, 97. Dr. Irene Balles, Bonn, p.c., 23 June 2010. e form Deiri can be found in Bede’s Historia ecclesiastica gentis anglorum, the Historia Brittonum contains the form Deira, see Jackson, 2000, 419–421. Jackson claimed that the etymology of the term remains unknown. e references to Deira and the fact of its founding in the mid-sixth century, presumably under King Aella, indicates that the stanzas must have been composed aer the mid-sixth century.

Gentes and collective identities in Aneirin’s Gododdin poems

145

variant deivyr could be identified with *dagi:wiri, which means good, i.e. couragous or capable men. is could explain a possible etymology of the name for this gens, however the term could also have been identified secondarily with the gens later.¹⁰³ Nick Higham claimed that the name was rooted in Welsh deifr, water, or in Welsh daru-, oaktree (Higham 1993: 81). However, assuming these terms as a possible origin, it is not possible to explain the linguistic development of deivyr.¹⁰⁴ Again, an etymology of the term remains unclear. In spite of the unknown etymology of the word, the British name and its variants for Deira seem to occur together with the name of another gens, that of Bernicia.¹⁰⁵ Bernicia is found twice in combination with Deira and once alone:¹⁰⁶ Kaeawc kynhorawc aruawc eg gawr kyn no dw e gwr gwrd eg gwyawr. kynran en racwan rac bydinawr kwydei pym pymwnt rac y lafnawr. o wyr deivyr a brennych dychiawr. vgein cant eu diuant en un awr. kynt y gic e vleid nogyt e neithyawr. kynt e vud e vran nogyt e allawr. kyn noe argyurein e waet e lawr. gwerth med eg kynted gan lliwedawr. hyueid hir etmygir tra vo kerdawr.

[Wearing a brooch, in the forefront, armed in the fight,/ Before his death a mighty warrior in combat,/ A princely leader charging before armies,/ five fiies fell before his blades./ Of the men of Deira and Bernicia there fell/ A hundred score into oblivion in one hour [...]¹⁰⁷ In this stanza, the men of Deira and Bernicia are mentioned together as the opponents of the men of Gododdin. is would agree with a presumed shared ethnic, i.e. Anglian origin of both kingdoms, thus assuming an Anglo-Saxon solidarity in battle (Charles-Edwards 2003c: 36–38). As with the name of the warriors from Deira, the etymology of the name of brennych is unclear. e name appears in the variants of brenneych, byrneich and bryneich and has commonly been identified with the kingdom of Bernicia.¹⁰⁸ It has been shown before that the Anglo-Saxon 103 104 105 106 107 108

ibid. ibid. ibid. CA VI, stanza 6 of manuscript A in Jackson’s translation. Translation by Alfred Jarman in Jarman, 1990, 6. Kenneth Jackson’s discussion of a possible etymology together with the Roman name of the gens in the area of the later Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Bernicia, the brigantes, does not provide any answers

146

Aneirin’s Y Gododdin

gentes are collectively shown as the enemies of the Gododdin. Bernicia alone is again mentioned in another stanza, as the following example shows there is still dispute wether this stanza speaks of Deira or Gododdin in addition:¹⁰⁹ Nyt ef borthi gwarth gorsed senyllt. ae lestri llawn med; godolei gledyf e gared. godolei lemein e ryuel. dyfforsei lynwyssawr oe vreych; rac bedin ododin a breennych. gnawt ene neuad vythmeirch gwyar a gwrymseirch. keingyell hiryell oe law. ac en elyd bryssyaw. gwen ac ymhyrdwen hyrdbeit. disserch a serch atro gwyr nyt oedyn drych draet fo. heilyn achubyat pob bro.

[e court of Senyllt bore no shame/ With its mead-filled vessels:/ He meted out the sword to the wrongdoer,/ He apportioned aussaults to warfare./ He carries away blood-stained men in his arms/ Before the army of Deifr and Brynaich./ In his hall there were wont to be swi horses,/ Blood and dark-blue armour,/ A long yellow spear in his hand,/ And in his anger he would hasten./ Smiling and frowning alternately,/ Unkind and kind by turns,/ With warriors who did not show their heels in flight,/ Heilyn assailed every land.]¹¹⁰ Jarman’s translation follows Williams interpretation of the original manuscript, where Williams claims that Gododin was erroneously substituted for deivyr based on other stanzas where brynaich and deivyr occur together. Jarman thus replaregarding the origin of the name brenneych (Jackson 2000, Reprint of 1953: 701–705). He also tried to connect the name with the Old Irish term bern, Celtic *berna, the word for gap or mountain pass. e development of this term into brennych or its variants would, however, be without parallels in the language. e origin of the name, therefore, remains unknown. Dr. Irene Balles, Bonn, p.c., 23 June 2010, argued that the origin of the name could be based on a personal name of a ruler of the original gens, such as *Bernakkos or *Brennakkos. Although a person with such name does not occur in any of the sources which were subject of this study, this suggestion could serve further research into the etymology of brennych. Furthermore, there is no indication for a connection of the name with two Gaulish chieains from the third and fourth century, both named Brennus. 109 CA L, stanza 47 of manuscript A in Jackson’s translation. 110 Translation by Alfred Jarman in Jarman, 1990, 51.

Gentes and collective identities in Aneirin’s Gododdin poems

147

ced Gododin in his translation with Deifr (Jarman 1990: 113).ere is one further passage where Bernicia is referred to alone:¹¹¹ Gwyr a aeth gatraeth verduaeth uedwn. fyryf frwythlawn oed cam nas kymhwyllwn. e am lavnawr coch gorvawr gwrmwn. dwys dengyn ed emledyn aergwn. ar deulu brenneych beych barnasswm. dilyw dyn en vyw nys adawsswm. kyueillt a golleis diffleis oedwn. rugyl en emwrthryn rynn riadwn. ny mennws gwrawl gwadawl chwegrwn. maban y gian o vaen gwynngwn.

[Warriors went to Catraeth, a mead-nourished host,/ Sturdy and vigorous, it would be wrong if I did not praise them./ Along with bloodred blades in great dark-blue sockets,/ in close ranks, grimly, the warhounds fought./ Of the host of Bernicia - I should have considered it a burden -/ No one in the shape of a man would I have spared./ A friend have I lost - I was faithful -/ Swi in combat, it was hard for me to leave him./ e hero desired no father-in-law’s dowry,/ e young son of Cian from Maen Gwyngwn.]¹¹² As Deira is mentioned, similarly to lloegr, lloegrwys and saesson, in a very general way without any detailed information, the same is true for Bernicia. Bernicia only appears in hand A, presumably the more modern version. At this point one can only speculate whether the more archaic stanzas of hand B containing Bernicia were lost or whether the reference to this gens is a later addition to the poems. I will return to this point later in this chapter. e third gens found in the poems is that of the men of Gwynnedd who are said to fight together with the warriors from the Gododdin, in spite of the territorial distance between both kingdoms. ere are three stanzas that contain references to Gwynnedd:¹¹³ Kaeawc kynhorawc bleid e maran gwevrawr go/ diwawr torchawr am rann. bu gwevrawr gwerthvawr gwerth gwin vann. 111 CA IX, stanza 9 of manuscript A in Jackson’s translation. 112 Translation by Alfred Jarman in Jarman, 1990, 10. 113 CA IV, stanza 79 of manuscript A in Jackson’s translation.

148

Aneirin’s Y Gododdin

ef gwrthodes gwrys gwyar dis grein. ket dyffei wyned a gogled e rann. o gussyl mab ysgyrran. ysgwydawr angkyuan.

[Wearing a brooch, in the forefront, a wolf in fury,/ e generous torqued warrior gained amber beads./ Of great worth was Gweafrfawr in return for wine from the cup,/ He repelled the attack with blood down his cheek./ ough the men of Gwynedd and the northern part came,/ rough the planning of the son of Ysgyrran/ ere would be shields shattered.]¹¹⁴ Although this stanza refers to the allies of the men of the Gododdin, there is no specific information provided about them besides their martial ornaments. e poems seem to treat enemies and allies alike and to keep their focus centred on the warriors of Gododdin. e same can be seen in the second stanza which also contains a reference to the men of Gwynnedd:¹¹⁵ Eveis y win a med e mordei. mawr meint e vehyr ygkyuaruot gwyr. bwyt e eryr erysmygei. pan grysseyei gydywal kyfdwyreei. awr gan wyrd wawr kyui dodei. aessawr dellt anibellt a adawei. pareu rynn rwygyat dygymynei. e gat blaen bragat briwei mab syvno; sywyedyd ae gwydyei. a werthws e eneit er wyneb grybwyllyeit; a llavyn lliveit lladei. lledessit ac athrwys ac affrei; er amot aruot aruaethei.

114 Translation by Alfred Jarman in Jarman, 1990, 5. 115 CA XIX, stanza 19 of manuscript A in Jackson’s translation.

Gentes and collective identities in Aneirin’s Gododdin poems

149

ermygei galaned o wyr gwychyr gwned em blaen gwyned gwanei.

[I drank wine and mead in the hall./ His spears were many/ In the clash of armed men,/ He made food for eagles./ When Cydywal rushed to the attack a battle-cry rose/ With the green dawn wherever he came,/ He le shields splintered and shattered./ reatening spears the tearer cut down in battle,/ He broke the vanguard of an army./ e son of Sywno - the soothsayer knew it -/ sold his life/ For the mention of honour./ With sharpened blade he struck,/ He slew both Athrys and Affrai./ in fulfillment of his pledge he planned attack,/ He brought about the slaughter/ Of brave warriors [of Gwynnedd],/ In the forefront of the men of Gwynnedd he charged.]¹¹⁶ While this stanza makes the connection between the men of Gwynnedd and the men of Gododdin as allies in this more clear, the men of Gwynnedd still remain an undifferentiated group. Apart from the reference to the men of Gwynnedd, this stanza is furthermore interesting due to its reference to a soothsayer, a reference we find in Gildas’ DEB in connection with the Saxon arrival in Britain.¹¹⁷ e last reference to Gwynnedd differs significantly from the previous ones:¹¹⁸ Keint amnat amdina dy gell. ac ystauell yt uydei. dyrllydei med melys; maglawr gwrys. aergynglys gan wawr. ket lwys lloegrwys lliwedawr. ry benyt ar hyt yd attawr. eillt wyned klywer e ardeched. gwananhon byt ved. savwy cadavwy gwyned. tarw bedin treis trin; reyrned. kyn kywesc daear kyn gorwed; byt orfun gododin bed.

[I sang a skillful song about the destruction of thy dwelling/ And the hall that was./ It deserved mead, sweet, ensnaring,/ e attack on the 116 Translation by Alfred Jarman in Jarman, 1990, 20. 117 See Chapter 6.4.3. 118 CA LXXIV, stanza 73 of manuscript A in Jackson’s translation.

150

Aneirin’s Y Gododdin

champion’s court at dawn,/ A handsome gi to the hosts of the English,/ Too great a penance while their presence was allowed./ A man of (sic!) Gwynedd, his excellence will be known,/ In Gwanannon is his grave./ e steadfast war-avid one of Gwynedd,/ Bull of an army, violent in the conflict of kings/ Before earth’s resting-place, before burial:/ e borderland of Gododdin is his grave.]¹¹⁹ In contrast to the previous stanzas, this one is dedicated to a warrior of the men of Gwynnedd who remains anonymous. While it does not give any information about the characteristics of this gens, it is peculiar because it is the only stanza to be found in the Gododdin that refers to a British individual who does not come from the kingdom of Gododdin. In conclusion, the stanzas referring to Deira, Bernicia and Gwynnedd show that members of these gentes are treated similarly to the Saxons and the lloegrwys, presumably referring to the men of lloegr. Apart from one exception, all the other gentes in the Gododdin are merely used as names to refer to the gentes without providing any information about their characteristics, history, culture or traditions. e only exception is the praise of one warrior from Gwynnedd who is shown to be an ally of the Gododdin. While Deira and Gwynnedd are mentioned in both hands, Bernicia only appears in hand A. e same is true for the name of Gwynnedd. I will return to this peculiarity in my conclusion of this chapter. 7.4.5 Christian references in the Gododdin poems

As mentioned a number of times before, apart from the names of different gentes, the Gododdin poems contain various Christian references. ese include, in the order of occurrence, references to penance (benydyaw), the Church (llan), the Trinity (drindawt), God (duw) and heaven (nef ). e first relevant stanza refers to the penance of the warriors of Gododdin:¹²⁰ Gwyr a aeth ododin chwerthin ognaw. chwerw en trin a llain en emdullyaw. byrr vlyned en hed yd ynt endaw. mab botgat gwnaeth gwynnyeith gwreith e law. ket elwynt e lanneu e benydyaw. a hen a yeueing a hydyr a llaw. dadyl diheu angheu y eu treidaw.

119 Translation by Alfred Jarman in Jarman, 1990, 73. 120 CA VI, stanza 6 of manuscript A in Jackson’s translation.

Gentes and collective identities in Aneirin’s Gododdin poems

151

[Warriors went to Gododdin, laughter-provoking,/ Harsh in battle, with spears in array,/ For a short year in peace they are calm./ e son of Bogdad, the deeds of his hand wrought vengeance./ ough they went to churches to do penance,/ old and young, powerful and lowly,/ e certain meeting with death came to them.]¹²¹ A variant of this stanza reads:¹²² Gwyr a aeth gatraeth oed fraeth eu llu Glasved eu hancwyn a gwenwyn vu Trychant trwy beiryant en cattau A gwedy elwch tawelwch vu Ket elwynt e lanneu e benydu Dadyl dieu angheu y eu treidu [Warriors went to Catraeth, their host was swi,/ Fresh mead was their feast and it was bitter,/ ree hundred fighting under command,/ And aer the cry of jubilation there was silence./ ough they went to churches to do penance,/ e certain meeting with death came to them.]¹²³ Here, the observance of doing penance does not prevent the warriors’ death during battle. Death, however, is not explained as divine punishment. Unlike later examples, this stanza explicitly refers to more than one warrior indicating that many of the men of the Goddoddin went to Church to obtain absolution from the priest. is Christian reference is also supported by other stanzas, like the following one:¹²⁴ Keredic karadwy gynran Keimyat yg cat gouaran Ysgwyt eur crwydyr cadlan Gwaewawr uswyd agkyuan Kledyual dywal diwan Mal gwr catwei wyaluan Kynn kysdud daear hynn affan O daffar diffynnei e vann Ys deupo kynnwys yg kyman Can drindawt en undawt gyuan 121 122 123 124

Translation by Alfred Jarman in Jarman, 1990, 7. CA VIII, stanza 8 of manuscript A in Jackson’s translation. Translation by Alfred Jarman in Jarman, 1990, 9. CA XXVIII, stanza 29 of manuscript A in Jackson’s translation.

152

Aneirin’s Y Gododdin

[Ceredig, lovable chieain/ A ferocious fighter in battle,/ Goldchased shield of the battlefield,/ With spears splintered, shattered,/ And a furious powerful sword-stroke,/ Like a man kept his position./ Before the grief of burial, before the suffering,/ Purposefully he defended his post./ May he be welcomed among the host/ With the Trinity in full unity.]¹²⁵ It is not entirely clear who kyman refers to, but several interpretations are possible: it might refer to angels, perhaps to saints or to the souls who died for their faith and now dwell in Heaven. e term trindawt, or Trinity, is another explicit Christian reference. Although there are stanzas where a Christian reference may be a matter of interpretation, the previous and the following stanzas have strong associations with the Christian faith as can be seen here:¹²⁶ Twrch goruc amot emlaen ystre ystrywawr Teilingdeith gwrthyat gawr an gelwit e nef bit athledhawr. e myt ef krennit e gat waewawr.

[A boar pledged himself before the treacherous boundary,/ Worthy of his rights, resister with a battle-cry:/ ‘Let Him who calls us to heaven be a protector in battle!’/ He brandished his javelins.]¹²⁷ is stanza implicitly refers to God and underlines the Christian faith of Cadfannan, a celebrated warrior of the Gododdin.¹²⁸ Heaven and hope for ample rewards are expressed in stanza CA LXXXII:¹²⁹ Truan yw genyf vy gwedy lludet. godef gloes angheu trwy angkyffret. ac eil trwm truan gennyf vy gwelet. dygwydaw an gwyr ny penn o draet. ac ucheneit hir ac eilywet; en ol gwyr pebyr temyr tudwet. ruvawm a gwgawn gwiawn a gwlyget.

125 126 127 128

Translation by Alfred Jarman in Jarman, 1990, 31. CA XLII, stanza 39 of manuscript A in Jackson’s translation. Translation by Alfred Jarman in Jarman, 1990, 44. Again, when taking a closer look at this warrior’s name, the Welsh term cadfan, battlefield, indicates a connection to typical battle terminology. 129 CA LXXXII, stanza 81 of manuscript A in Jackson’s translation.

Gentes and collective identities in Aneirin’s Gododdin poems

153

gwyr gorsaf gwryaf gwrd yg calet. ys deupo eu heneit wy wedy trinet. kynnwys yg wlat nef adef avneuet.

[Grievous for me, aer toil,/ Is the suffering of death’s agony in affliction,/ And again it is a heavy grief for me to see/ e headlong fall of our men,/ And long sighing and lamentation/ Aer the valiant warriors of our land and territory,/ Rhufon and Gwgon, Gwion and Gwlged,/ Bravest men in their stations, mighty in conflict./ May there be for their souls aer battle/ A welcome in the land of heaven, the home of plenty./]¹³⁰ is reference to the gwlat nef, the land of heaven, concludes the list of references to Christianity. However, there is one more stanza with a possible reference to God as the Lord of Britain:¹³¹ Anawr gynhoruan huan arwyran. gwledic gwd gyfgein nef enys brydein. garw ryt rac rynn; aes e lwrw budyn.

[A power in the front rank,/ sunlight on grass./ Where can be found the lord/ Of the heaven of the Island of Britain?/ ere was violence at the ford before the warrior/ with his shield as a stronghold./]¹³² is reference to nef enys brydein., the heaven of the island of Britain, refers to the Heaven or Paradise of the Christian faith, but was understood and translated by Jackson as a reference to a king or other sort of lord in Britain. Jackson thus offered a different translation: “Where is the prince to be found, the lord of the island of Britain?” (Jackson 1969: 122). Jarman explained this different interpretation by considering nef, heaven, as an error for naf, lord. In conclusion, the Gododdin poems contain at least four, arguably five stanzas with references that mention the Christian faith of the men of Gododdin. ese references are in stanzas written in hand A, presumably the younger text. None of the more archaic stanzas of hand B contain any Christian references. Since the 130 Translation by Alfred Jarman in Jarman, 1990, 80. 131 CA LXXIV, stanza 73 of manuscript A in Jackson’s translation. 132 Translation by Alfred Jarman in Jarman, 1990, 18.

154

Aneirin’s Y Gododdin

same phenomenon can be seen when reading the stanzas containing references to Bernicia and England or the English, it is possible that these elements were added at a later point during the transmission process, assuming a date of composition in the late sixth or early seventh century. It is, furthermore, interesting that the poems, while providing numerous references to individual warriors, their names, their weapons and their heroic deeds in battle, do not refer to individuals among the enemies of the men of Gododdin. e references to weapons and armoury of the men of Gododdin are of particular interest in this regard. ese references have not only been discussed in connection with a possible date of composition of the poems, they can also be expected to present a picture of self-portrayal and self-recognition for the audience which presumably identified with these items of their warriors.

7.5 Summary and Conclusion ere are many controversial aspects of the Gododdin poems. First of all, the authenticity of the poems, i.e. their possible composition in or shortly aer the sixth century, has been questioned numerous times. Neither historical nor linguistic evidence proves that the poems were composed at that time. However, as mentioned above, Jenny Rowland’s and Craig Cessford’s arguments, among others, suggest an early date of composition.¹³³ e presence and the sparse information about the gentes in Britain found in the Gododdin does neither support nor deny the argument of an early date of composition, at least at first sight. e gens of the Britons plays the central role in these poems. e stanzas, with few exceptions, deal with the heroic deeds of British warriors who participated in the battle of Catraeth. e name brython and its variants are usually connected to individual warriors and only once refer to the island.¹³⁴ e warriors are always referred to individually. e stanzas provide their names as well as information about their heroic characters. However, neither allows to draw conclusions regarding their gens. us apart from religion, which will be discussed shortly, the ethnonym brython and its variants is the only information the Gododdin provides. In addition, however, there are two more implicit references provided by these poems. First, the re-occuring use of telling names for the British warriors in Y Gododdin demonstrate the presence of such a tradition in the culture of this gens. Second, the material culture mentioned before does not only provides information on warfare and weaponry of this period but also was used to argue in favour of an early date of composition of Y Gododdin. e same is true for the Saxons or saesson. ere is no information about any characteristics of this gens other than that the saesson are enemies of the Gododdin 133 See Chapter 7.1. 134 See Chapter 7.4.1.

Summary and Conclusion

155

and they meet in battle. ere is no reference to individual warriors nor of their origin. Also, the stanzas contain no information about a possible geographical area of the Saxons which is, however, referred to when looking at the information provided about the English. Lloegyr is found twice in the stanzas as a reference to an unspecified geographical area, presumably outside of the home territory of the Gododdin. e same number of references is found for lloegrwys, the men from lloegr. Again, no information is provided about the characteristics of the gens but for their fighting against the men of the Gododdin. It is interesting, however, that the lloegrwys, as well as the Britons, are identified with a geographic area although the location of this area remains vague. One problem is the translation of the terms lloegr and lloegrwys. e interpretation of these two terms as referring to England and the English does not withstand close examination based on the assumption of an early composition (Cessford 1995b: 95). e etymology of the term remains unclear.¹³⁵ Translating the terms with coming from a nearby border, as was suggested by Craig Cessford, would mean that the English as such are not mentioned in the Gododdin. e term lloegrwys could, in the meaning claimed by Cessford, refer to any gens located close to the kingdom of Gododdin. is would agree with the complete absence of the English in Gildas’ DEB. Since this is based on the postulated authenticity of both works and a postulated rather early date of composition, the presence of the English gens should be cross-referenced with other texts, as will be done, to a certain extent, in the following chapter. is leads to the names of the gentes found in the Gododdin poems which are not found in Gildas’ DEB, namely the names of Deira, Bernicia and Gwynnedd. Deira and the variants of dewr can be found in two stanzas of which various variants are preserved in Cardiff MS. 2.81.¹³⁶ Here the use is again very similar to the use of saesson or lloegr. e term is used as an ethnonym without any information about the details of the gens it refers to. Like the names discussed previously, dewr is found in stanzas of hands A and B. Here, however, lies one difference to the name of Brynaich which is only found in stanzas of hand A. Two of three references name Bernicia together with Deira, brenneych is mentioned alone once in CA IX. Following the argument that hand A is the later version of the Gododdin this could mean that brenneych was not part of the original poem. e addition of Bernicia into the Gododdin as it is found in hand A would strengthen the assumption of an early composition of the poems and an addition of brenneych to a later version due to the growing importance of Bernicia in the second half of the seventh century. is means that not only the early author of the poems was aware of and referred to contemporary gentes but also that the later scribes considered the gens of the 135 See Chapter 7.4.3. 136 See Chapter 7.4.4.

156

Aneirin’s Y Gododdin

men of brenneych to be important enough to be added to the poems in their time. is shows that ethnic identity, here represented in the form of the name of a gens, was of importance to them as it was to the original author of the poems. e same could be true for the reference to Gwynedd. ere are three references to this gens fighting together with the warriors from Gododdin. In contrast to the other gentes already discussed, there is one stanza, CA LXXIV, which focuses on an anonymous warrior from Gwynedd. is is the only stanza that praises a warrior who is not from Gododdin although this warrior is identified with the same qualities, i.e. excellence in fighting, violence and fierceness, as are the warriors from Gododdin. However, his explicit origin from Gwynedd is an extraordinary information in the poems. Incidentally, references to Gwynedd are again found only in stanzas of hand A. As was the case with brenneych, this could indicate a later addition of the ethnonym to the poems. Assuming the addition of Gwynedd into the poems during transmission could support the argument of Andrew Breeze and David Dumville about the transmission of the poems from the area of Gododdin across Strathclyde into Wales (Breeze 1997b: 18). If Bernicia was added to the poems because of the change of the political balance in the seventh century, it would also be possible that Gwynedd was added to emphasize the role of the British ally of the men of Gododdin in a time aer the composition of the original poems. Considering the absence of Gwynedd in stanzas by hand B, a later addition by some scribe seems possible. e claim of a later addition can also be made with regard to the Christian references in the poems. A rather negative view of the ecclesiastics regarding their poets and their work in the sixth century is found in Gildas’ comments on the poets and bards. Following Gildas’ accusations against them and their telling of fabulas, Christian elements do not seem to have been of interest to the poets whose focus may have been only with the heroic elements of the individual warrior and members of the aristocracy they praise. is assumption would be supported by the fact that no Christian element can be found in the presumably more archaic version of the poems, the stanzas of hand B. But how and why were Christian elements added to the poems later? Following the arguments of the later addition of Bernicia and Gwynedd, a growing relevance of Christian elements in the centuries aer the composition, when writing was restricted to a social class with a clerical background, could have led to the addition of these elements to the Gododdin. However, there might also be another explanation. While the Britons, including the people of Gododdin, had been Christianized during the Roman occupation, the Anglo-Saxons were pagans at the time of their arrival in Britain. e conversion of the Anglo-Saxons began in the first and was completed in the second half of the seventh century (Charles-Edwards 2003a: 135–139). Assuming that the Christian elements found their way into the Gododdin poems during or aer that time, this could indicate a growing awareness of the scribes about the

Summary and Conclusion

157

older, from their perspective presumably superior Christian tradition of the Britons. In fact, this strategy could have been understood to express superiority by emphasizing the Britons’ older Christian tradition before or even during the time when Bede was writing his Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum. If an addition took place during the seventh century, it could have been influenced by the Easter controversy between the monastic Church, which the Britons belonged to, and the Roman episcopal Church. Aer the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons to the Roman Church, the admittedly older Christian tradition of the Britons suddenly became an important factor for contrasting the British to the Anglo-Saxon gentes in retrospective. is would be a possible explanation for the later addition of Christian elements to the poems. Regarding the construction and articulation of collective identities, the Gododdin stanzas do not offer any explicit characteristics of the enemy gentes mentioned in the text. All the listeners of the poems or the readers of the writing explicitly learns about was the enmity between the Britons and the Saxons as gentes, represented on a smaller ethnic or smaller political level by the collective men of Gododdin and that of their allies, some warriors from Gwynedd, opposing to the warriors from Deira and Bernicia.¹³⁷ Although there are particularly archaeological hints at battle formations and armoury of the men of the Gododdin, the text does not provide any information that could be clearly assigned as characteristic of a particular gens.¹³⁸ e only elements relevant to the construction of a collective identity found in the Gododdin as it is preserved in Cardiff MS 2.81 are the names of the gentes as well as the reference to the Christian religion of the British warriors. However, the text or rather the circumstances of its transmission convey several implicit elements regarding the importance of collective identities in the post-Roman period. If the additions of Bernicia and Gwynedd took place during the transmission process this would indicate a growing importance of these gentes to the scribes, in this case scribe A, most likely due to a growing political role of both kingdoms in the seventh century. Inserting Bernicia as one of the Gododdin’s enemies clearly assigns the warriors of Bernicia a growing relevance.¹³⁹ e same could be true for the men of Gwynedd as allies for the warriors of Gododdin. e addition of these two gentes into the Gododdin poems may perhaps reveal a very conscious treatment of the names of these gentes by the scribes. e evidence of the Christian elements in the poems would seem to lead to the 137 Since the problem of the interpretation of the term lloegr has already been discussed, this is le aside at this point. 138 Although the use of torcs and other pieces of jewellery and armoury are mentioned in the poems and supported by archaeological evidence, the text does not make clear whether these artefacts were particularly British or could also have been found among other gentes. 139 See chapter 7.4.4. e two kingdoms, Deira and Bernicia, were merged in 604 AD under king Aethelfrith into the kingdom of Northumbria.

158

Aneirin’s Y Gododdin

same conclusion, the role of Christianity to the author and the scribes of the poems seems to have changed during the transmission process. Assuming Christian elements were added later to the Gododdin, again the stanzas written in hand A, this would indicate that the scribes inserting these elements wanted to insert a strong Christian element into the poems, most likely to reflect the increasing role of Christian elements in their collective’s identity. Of course, the Britons had long been Christians by the time of the composition of the poems in the sixth century. Christianity, however, does not seem to have been a theme in the original composition of the Gododdin. e later addition of Christian elements into the Gododdin poems could be due to clerical scribes during the transmission process. It could indicate that literate circles were convinced that Christian elements were of such value that they decided to add them to what might had earlier been a heroic poem without any Christian references.¹⁴⁰ At the same time, Christianity can possibly have found its way into the Gododdin poems as a strategy of distinction during the Christianization of the Anglo-Saxons in Britain in the mid-seventh century. It is possible that the addition of Christian elements took place to show that the Britons were already Christians during the battle of Catraeth whereas their enemies were pagan. e claim to be the naf enys brydein, the ruler of Britain, would be strongly supported by the indication that the Britons were already Christians when they were conquered by the Anglo-Saxons, a fact that, as I will show in the following chapter, plays an important role in other works such as Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum. Considering the discourse of identity construction, the Gododdin poems features most of the discourse features which were found in Gildas’ DEB. e poems, therefore, follow the discourse as it had already been established by Gildas’ writing mentioned before.¹⁴¹ is is true for use of the gentes’ names, the praise of heroic behaviour and martial success and the use of telling names which we find in the Gododdin poems as well as in Gildas’ DEB with some of the rulers he reproaches. Characteristic information concerning weapons and armoury are presented in the Gododdin poems as well and were used in the discussion about a possible date of composition, again a feature that was also mentioned by Gildas when referring to the conflicts with the scotti and picti. Regarding the question of the possible discourse strategy revealed by the Gododdin poems, the presumed addition of Christian elements to the stanzas indicates that the different versions of scribes A and B of the Gododdin poems represent two different discourse events, demonstrating a change in the discourse of identity construction during the time between the stanzas of hand A and hand B were 140 is, of course, does not imply that heroic poetry excluded Christian elements per se. ere are numerous examples of heroic poetry containing Christian elements, for example the Battle of Maldon, the Song of Roland or the Nibelungenlied. 141 See chapter 6.5.

Summary and Conclusion

159

put into writing. However, the stanzas provide more information about the discourse strategy of identity construction than the mere addition of the Christian elements. e presumed addition of Bernicia indicates that the growing political importance of the kingdom led to an addition of its name to the poems as well. e fact that the men of Bernicia were added as enemies of the warriors of Gododdin could be understood as an indication for a presumable struggle for domination between these two gentes during the time when the stanzas were put into writing by hand A. It is thus possible that the addition of Bernicia to the stanzas was the result of a growing conflict between the gentes in the north of Britain. is struggle for dominance led to the battle of Degsastan in 604 AD, where the Bernician King Aethelstan took control over Deira and established a Bernician dominance in the region (Charles-Edwards 2003b: 37). is dominance, however, was repeatedly challenged and led to numerous battles in the region, the conflict lasted until 679 AD, when Ecfrith finally united both kingdoms and founded the new Kingdom of Northumbria. e addition can, therefore, be assumed to be the result of the adaption of the subject matter of the stanzas to the presumed contemporary political situation, thus changing the discourse of identity construction for the men of Gododdin, i.e. the Britons. is indicates that the discourse of identity construction did not come to an end aer the stanzas were composed and put into writing. ere are strong indications for further, later changes and adaptions of the information provided in the stanzas, particularly of features relevant for the discourse of identity construction. ese changes presumably took place during the process of transmission of the stanzas. However, the treatment of certain features within the poems indicate a further development of the discourse: the translation and, consequently, interpretation of ethnonyms such as lloegrwys indicates that the discourse of identity construction was still present during the time of the translation and interpretation of the poems. Trying to connect the gens from lloegr with the English, a translation which is found in most interpretations and translations of the poems, for example in Jarman’s and Jackson’s versions used in the previous chapter, indicates a presumably common understanding of this gens with the gens which Bede calls angli. But why? Neither the etymology nor the meaning of the term is known and there is no indication found in the poems as to who the lloegrwys were. Of course, the identification could be explained with the presumed origin of this gens from the south of Gododdin which, consequently, would place them in the area of the later kingdom of Northumbria. is, however, is speculation since the origin of the lloegrwys is completely unknown. e interpretation of the term to mean the men of England could rather be seen as a strategy by the translators and interpretors of the poems, implying a connection between the lloegrwys and Bede’s gens anglorum, maybe even following his claim for dominance of his gens which will be discussed

160

Aneirin’s Y Gododdin

in the following chapter. At this point, however, it needs to be emphasised that it has hitherto not been possible to identify any gens with the name lloegrwys.

8 Bede’s Historiae

Like in Gildas’ DEB, poetry and poets were also a topic in the writings of the Venerable Bede, most prominently in his Historia ecclesiastica gentis anglorum.¹ Bede does not condemn the poets as Gildas does. His Historia ecclesiastica, however, refers to poetry in the story about Caedmon, a shepherd in a monastery in Northumbria. When comparing Gildas’ and Bede’s treatment of poetry and poets, the story of Caedmon is of particular relevance; Bede speaks of Caedmon as a humble man who leaves the monks of the monastery aer dinner when they start playing the harp and singing because he does not know any songs himself. Quod dum tempore quodam faceret, et relicta domu conuiuii egressus esset ad stabula iumentorum, quorum ei custodia nocte illa erat delegata, ibique hora conpetenti membra dedisset sopori, adstitit ei quidam per somnium, eumque salutans ac suo appellans nomine ‘Caedmon’, inquit, ‘canta mihi aliquid.’ At ille respondens ‘Nescio’ inquit ‘cantare; nam et ideo de conuiuio egressus huc secessi, quia cantare non poteram.’ Rursum ille qui cum eo loquebatur ‘At tamen’ ait ‘mihi cantare habes.’ ‘Quid’ inquit ‘debeo cantare?’ Et ille ‘Canta’ inquit ‘principium creaturarum.’ Quo accepto responso, statim ipse coepit cantare in laudem Dei Conditoris uersus quos numquam audierat [...].² [On one such occasion when he did so, he le the place of feasting and went to the cattle byre, as it was his turn to take charge of them that night. In due time he stretched himself out and went to sleep, 1

2

Bede himself presumably composed three works of poetry, of which two are lost, the liber epigrammatum and the liber hymnorum. e third work, the Vita Metrica S. Cuthberti, was transmitted completely (Lapidge 1994: 929–940). Michael Lapidge stressed the metrical excellence, the subtlety and the great refinement of Bede’s poetry. He also claimed that the complexity of the metaphors and the biblical allusions in Bede’s poetry might have led to the fact that it has never been studied properly by scholars and that no translation has been approached yet (Lapidge 1994: 943). HE, IV.22. In order to provide better orientation when discussing particular passages in the stanzas, I emphasise certain key terms and expressions in most of the quotations in this chapter. All these accentuations are my own unless indicated differently.

162

Bede’s Historiae

whereupon he dreamt that someone stood by him, saluted him, and called him by name: ‘Caedmon’, he said, ‘sing me something.’ Caedmon answered, ‘I cannot sing; that is why I le the feast and came here because I could not sing.’ Once again the speaker said, ‘Nevertheless you must sing to me.’ ‘What must I sing?’, said Caedmon. ‘Sing’, he said, ‘about the beginning of created things.’ ereupon Caedmon began to sing verses which he had never heard before in praise of God the Creator [...].]³ Aer this, Caedmon composed Christian poetry in the Old English vernacular as Bede points out shortly aer: fuit frater quidam diuina gratia specialiter insignis, quia carmina religioni et pietati apta facere solebat, ita ut, quicquid ex diuinis literis per interpretes disceret, hoc ipse post pusillum uerbis poeticis maxima suauitate et conpunctione conpositis in sua, id est Anglorum, lingua proferret. [...] Namque ipse non ab hominibus neque per hominem institutus canendi artem didicit, sed diuinitus adiutus gratis canendi donum accepit.⁴ [(T)here was a certain brother who was specially marked out by the grace of God, so that he used to compose godly and religious songs; thus, whatever he learned from the holy Scriptures by means of interpreters, he quickly turned into extremely delightful and moving poetry, in English, which was his own tongue. [...] For he did not learn the art of poetry from men nor through a man but he received the gi of song freely by the grace of God.]⁵ Bede emphasizes the religious quality of Caedmon’s poetry as well as the superior quality of his songs based on the divine influence (Crépin 1976: 179). is passage indicates the difference between secular and Christian poetry as Bede sees it. Caedmon is not able to sing or compose secular poetry before his dream. Not because he does not know the language nor that he has never heard Old English poetry before, this is made clear in the reference to the singing and the feasting which he avoids. Only aer his dream is he able to compose religious vernacular poetry 3 4 5

Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 215. HE IV.24 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 215. Considering this translation it is, however, necessary to point out that the Latin lingua Anglorum should be translated with the language of the Angles which seems more accurate since it is far from clear who or what Bede was referring to when he used the term Angli, which will be discussed in the following chapter.

Bede’s Historiae

163

because the subject matter of his songs is now Christian. What Bede claims here is that a true Christian, which he no doubt saw in Caedmon, cannot compose or sing poetry which is not Christian. is demonstrates not only the Christian focus of Bede’s words, but also his negative view on secular poetry which, according to this passage, could neither be composed nor sung by a true Christian.⁶ André Crépin claims that “the miracle in Caedmon’s story is that he succeeded in adapting ancient traditional themes and formulas to new revolutionary ideas” (Crépin 1976: 179). is passage shows that Bede does not criticise poetry in general, he praises Christian poetry and Caedmon’s singing in the vernacular. His criticism thus aims at secular poets like Aneirin.⁷ As the following chapter will show, this criticism, in contrast to Gildas’ reproaches, can also be found in regard to other topics. On the one hand, his approach to the construction of identities in Britain is much more subtle and implicit but, on the other hand, there are numerous examples where his writings are strongly influenced by the writing of Gildas and his reproaches (Olsen 1982: 521).⁸ e story of Caedmon, however, is also interesting in another regard. e name originated from the Late British name Catumanus and became Catmon in Old Welsh. e anglicised version (Caedmon) can thus be translated with war pony or little war horse, indicating a British origin of the figure. Bede and his numerous works play a significant role in the construction of insular identities, particularly for Anglo-Saxon history.⁹ His relevance as a symbolic figure is still felt present today, his works were claimed to have inspired more scholarship than those of any other medieval author (Goffart 1990: 29). In the year 2000, an initiative argued to build a statue resembling Bede on London’s Trafalgar Square. Earlier, similar approaches had been made, such as an initiative to build 6

7

8 9

Caedmon was also unable to sing Old English heroic poetry because he did not belong to the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy. Caedmon’s name, which could be translated into English the small warrior horse, is a strong indication for his British origin, indicating his acculturation to Anglo-Saxon society (Professor Dr. Hildegard Tristram, personal conversation, 8 November 2011). e British origin and the use of a telling name by Bede are of particular interest. With this, Bede’s HE follows a specific British tradition which has already been seen in the previous chapter with the names of single warriors in the Gododdin poems. is form of Bede’s criticism against secular poetry can also be found in the writings of other Christian authors. Alcuin of York, who lived between the 730s or 740s and died in AD 804, for example claimed that only Christian tractates and the works of Christian authors were to be read in the monastery in York. Other writings were to be burned (Bolton 1979: 51–52). For a detailed analysis of Gildas’ influence on Bede’s writing, see Charles-Edwards, 1983. Church councils held in Aachen mentioned Bede as Venerabilis for the first time in the first half of the 9th century. Paul the Deacon took up this title in his homiliae in the end of the 9th century. From then on, the title appears increasingly. e term was used more frequently in the eleventh and twelh century. ere is no source indicating the use of the title Venerabilis for Bede before the ninth century. It has been argued that this title, in contrast to sainthood, was chosen to indicate the particular English role of Bede in contrast to his relationship to the Roman papacy which would have been expressed by sainthood (Higham 2006: 9–10).

164

Bede’s Historiae

a cathedral in memory of Bede and Cuthbert in 1996 (Higham 2006: 2). Such examples indicate that Bede exerts a prominent role for some people in Britain and is, in the public memory, much more present than for example Gildas.

8.1 Authorship and Dates of Composition ere are two major sources of information on the person of Bede. One is an autobiographical chapter in his Historia ecclesiastica gentis anglorum, the other, a letter of his pupil Cuthbert to an unknown recipient named Cuthwin or Cuthwine (Higham 2006: 10).¹⁰ It seems likely that several weeks passed between Bede’s death and the composition of this letter. It underlines Bede’s role for Cuthbert as a teacher and a fatherly figure (Higham 2006: 17). e nature of these two sources already indicates the problem regarding their historiographical value: both of them, though no truly personal documents which were expected to strictly follow source text templates, must be assumed to have been composed under a personal influence of Bede himself.¹¹ Bede’s characterisation of himself in the Historia ecclesiastica has also been interpreted critically by Walter Goffart. He claimed that Bede, for being a humble monk, had extraordinary contacts; for example Nothelm, a priest from London who provided Bede with information, or Daniel, Bishop of Westminster who died in AD 745. Bede’s own research assistant Albinus, became Archbishop of Canterbury shortly aer, which, according to Goffart, clashes with the concept of Bede being a simple monk isolated in Northumbria (Goffart 1990: 39–40). Bede was also closely connected with the ruling aristocrats of Northumbria as well as to Egbert, Archbishop of York, brother of King Eadbert of Northumbria and cousin of King Ceolwulf whom Bede dedicated his Historia ecclesiastica to.¹² 8.1.1 Bede’s Life and Death

Bede was born either in 672 or 673 AD and died almost certainly in 735, a short time aer completing the Historia ecclesiastica (Goffart 1988: 241).¹³ He was a 10 Although the authenticity of this letter was put into question in the past, there are still more indications in favour than against an approach to carefully use this letter as authentic (Higham 2006: 17). 11 Nicolas Higham argues that Bede does not give information about himself in the Historia ecclesiastica but rather praises his authority and influence on contemporary society. Although I assume that Bede’s own claims are strongly over-interpreted and understood too literally by Higham, the biographical nature of the information both provided by Bede and Cuthbert needs to be kept in mind when judging the Historia ecclesiastica’s historical value (Higham 2006: 16). 12 For a detailed discussion of Bede’s contacts in Britain and on the Continent, see Kirby, 1994, 908–911. 13 e letter of Cuthbert, dates Bede’s death to the 25th or 26th of May AD 735 (Higham 2006: 16). Peter Hunter Blair claims he was born around 671 (Hunter Blair 1970: 197).

Authorship and Dates of Composition

165

monk at the monasteries of Jarrow and Wearmouth, dedicated to the Saints Peter and Paul. According to the sources provided by himself, he joined the monastery at the age of seven, became deacon when he was 19 years old and priest when he was 30 (Higham 2006: 6) (acker 2006: 39).¹⁴ His origin remains unknown. Based on the anonymous biography of his abbot, Ceolfrith, it has been assumed that he stemmed from a noble family. Alan acker claimed that Bede was a relative of Benedict Biscop, the founder of Jarrow and Wearmouth, who himself came from a rich and well-connected background (acker 2006: 40).¹⁵ Bede’s name does also not provide any indication about his possible background. e name has been argued to be of Old English origin, deriving from OE b¯ ed, meaning prayer or supplication and might be connected to OE b¯ eodan, which means to bid or to command. However, it is not known whether he received this name by birth, which judging from its presumed religious meaning could then indicate a planned monastic career, or when he entered the monastery (Higham 2006: 9). However, an Anglo-Saxon background, as well as any other background for his name, is based on speculation and it has become a common consensus that the origin of Bede’s name, as is the case of Gildas, remains unknown. Bede certainly was a pupil of Benedict Biscop and was strongly influenced by him (Wormald 1976: 154). In his Historia abbatum, Bede praises Benedict Biscop, who died in 689, as the founder of the monasteries of Wearmouth and Jarrow. e life of a later abbot, Ceolfrith, provides information on how the plague arrived at the monasteries during the 680’s and spared only abbot Benedict and a young boy who has repeatedly been identified with Bede. While there is no confirmation for this, this passage has been used to explain Bede’s close connection to the monastery (Higham 2006: 13). When he wrote the Historia ecclesiastica at the end of his life, he was already famous for his biblical commentaries in England as well as abroad (Goffart 1990: 29). Bede spent most of his life in his monastery in Wearmouth-Jarrow. Cuthbert’s letter indicates that Bede, towards the end of his life, dictated his texts and did not write himself anymore, which might indicate him losing his eye sight but was also a common practice for an experienced author. It was claimed that he began dictating his texts in the 720’s, which would mean that the Historia ecclesiastica was first written down by one of his pupils (Higham 2006: 8). Bede saw himself as a teacher and seemed to be very conscious of his edu-

14 See also HE 5.24. 15 Benedict Biscop himself was member of the small group of advisers at the court of King Oswiu. Alan acker argues that, for Bede, this presumed social background could explain the selfconfident and abrasive tone of Bede’s letter to Ecberth where he formulated distinct admonitions towards the bishops and their lifestyles. In this letter, Bede expressed his concern about the Church in Northumbria which he claimed should be divided into smaller dioceses to be able to provide pastoral care in remote areas and raise the number of bishops (Wormald 1978: 51). e letter is commonly dated to 734, shortly before Bede’s death (Goffart 1988: 255 and 274).

166

Bede’s Historiae

cational role (acker 2006: 44). He offered a definition of his own perceptions of his work in the Historia ecclesiastica, claiming ex eo tempus uitae in eiusdem monasterii habitatione peragens, omnem meditandis scripturis operam dedi, atque inter obseruantiam disciplinae regularis, et cotidianam cantandi in ecclesia curam, semper aut discere aut docere aut scribere dulce habui.¹⁶ [From then [i.e. the entry into the monastery] I have spent all my life in this monastery, applying myself entirely to the study of the Scriptures; and, amid the observance of the discipline of the Rule and the daily task of singing in the church, it has always been my delight to learn or to teach or to write.]¹⁷ His numerous writings on a variety of topics and his strong focus on teaching corroborate this claim as the following chapter will show. 8.1.2 Bede’s Language

Language is of central importance in all the works which are dealt with in this thesis.¹⁸ e same is true for Bede’s writings. All of Bede’s works are in Latin, but there is a consensus that he was a native speaker of the Northumbrian dialect of Old English (Crépin 1976: 173). His Latin, however, does not show any indication of the influence of the vernacular. e characteristics of his Latin are his use of grammatical or lexical features belonging to various periods or styles and his departure from the rhythm of the Latin tongue. ese are characteristics of an artificial, bookish Latin; yet it is the living language of the Church, written and occasionally spoken, but quite different from the vulgar Latin spoken in Rome (Crépin 1976: 173).¹⁹ However, there are explicit references to the vernacular. One is Caedmon’s miraculous gi of vernacular poetry in book IV chapters 23 and 24 of the Historia ecclesiastica, where Caedmon is said to have received the gi of composing wonderful Christian poetry in the vernacular.²⁰ e other is a reference in Cuthbert’s account of Bede’s death, namely his Death Song, although the genuineness of the 16 HE V.24 17 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 293. 18 See Chapters 6.1.3 and 7.1. 19 See also the discussion of Crépin to reconstruct saga Urtexte from passages of the Historia Ecclesiastica (Crépin 1976: 172–175). 20 See Chapter 8.

Authorship and Dates of Composition

167

letter and the information provided by Cuthbert has been questioned. e question of the Old English vernacular in Bede’s writings will be discussed in detail in the following chapter. 8.1.3 Jarrow and Wearmouth

Bede admittedly spent most of his life in the monasteries of Jarrow and Wearmouth. e monasteries are located within six miles from each other, a few miles from Newcastle, close to Hadrian’s wall. Wearmouth is still considered to be the founding site and, during Bede’s time, was presumably larger than Jarrow. Jarrow is assumed to be the place where Bede was buried aer his death in 735. Benedict Bishop, whom Walter Goffart claimed to be “a rich, restless nobleman” (Goffart 2006: 204), travelled to Gaul and Italy collecting artefacts and, more importantly, books, which were brought to the monasteries. Nicholas Higham claimed that both houses held scriptoria (Higham 2006: 14).²¹ is made the monasteries centres of learning. ey held the largest library in the north and, together with Canterbury, were the most prominent learning centres in those times (acker 2006: 42) (Goffart 2006: 204).²² However, the number of books about history was limited (Ogilvy 1994: 242–243). For Bede, Britain was what Alan acker called “the Ultimate West, the edge of the world, whose conversion represented the completion of the conversion of the Gentiles” (acker 2006: 61). While Bede is put into connection with the monastery of Wearmouth and Jarrow by his own as well as by the writings of others, there is no information about possible travels in the island or on the continent. He travelled at least once to the monastery of Bishop Ecbert which has been assumed to have been York (Higham 2006: 14). Bede presumably also travelled to other monasteries such as Hexham and also visited Wicthed, a person who lived in an unknown location (Higham 2006: 15).²³ e topic of Bede’s travels leads to the much more general discussion about his role as the first Anglo-Saxon historian and his writings in general.

21 e extraordinary quality of manuscripts from these scriptoriae was discussed by Malcolm Parks in his Jarrow Lecture from 1982. Parks also connected the manuscripts and their particular characteristics with the historical development of the monasteries (Parks 1994: 576). 22 Today, an exhibition named Bede’s World, which has also been referred to as a “small theme park”, is still hosted in Jarrow showing archaeological findings and artefacts of both monasteries (Goffart 2006: 203). 23 Although we cannot be sure about Bede’s travels, Nicholas Higham, among others, assumed that 8th century societies were much more mobile than has been acknowledged until today, especially regarding members of the clerical and aristocratic elite. Bede therefore may have traveled more regularly than the sources indicate in spite of the fact that there are no hints of travels outside of Britain nor to Rome (Higham 2006: 16) (Whitelock 1976: 19).

168

Bede’s Historiae

8.2 The scholarly discussion about Bede e past twenty years have seen the introduction of a new approach to the writings of Bede. According to Walter Goffart, research about Bede pursued by earlier scholars like Peter Hunter Blair, J.N.L Myres, Dorothy Whitlock and J.M. WallaceHadrill approached Bede’s writings as sources written by an innocent ecclesiastic who wrote isolated from the politics and historical developments of his time (Goffart 2006: 205) (Goffart 1990: 32).²⁴ Peter Hunter Blair’s claim that the mere fact that the Historia ecclesiastica has been read for more than twelve centuries serves as evidence for its quality indeed indicates the way scholars approached Bede and his work few decades ago (Hunter Blair 1970: 221).²⁵ He also claimed that, “however much we may criticise [Bede] in detail, we are le in the end with a sense of wonder and admiration that a man who lived in that alter orbis so far removed from the ancient centres of civilisation, was yet able to acquire a sense of historical vision which enabled him to see how much was to be gained ad instructionem posteritatis from a book which told of the conversion of a people from paganism to Christianity” (Hunter Blair 1970: 221). Walter Goffart then argued for a new, more critical view of Bede and in particular his involvement in the political developments of his time. is has led to two different approaches which Goffart refers to as the approach of the Bede lovers, i.e. the view of Bede as geographically and politically isolated historian, in contrast to the intentionalist approach which claims that Bede was following a certain agenda and had a particular purpose when writing. Another, critical argument was brought forward by Patrick Wormald some time before Walter Goffart’s innovative approach. He claimed that Bede differed much more from modern historians than had been taken into account by scholars, who especially during the first half of the twentieth century measured Bede’s quality as a historian by their own standards (Wormald 1978: 32).²⁶ In spite of this argument, Wormald also claimed that Bede buried whatever aristocratic past he had when he entered the monastery at the age of seven, in contrast to other authors of this period like Gregory the Great, Paul the Deacon or Widukind of Corvey who-

24 See, for example, Peter Hunter Blair’s passionate defense of Bede’s Historia ecclesiastica against scholarly criticism on the lack of accuracy about the Augustine mission in England. Hunter Blair advocates that Bede’s lack of accuracy was due to the confused information provided by his sources and that Bede did not have access to sources which were correct and concise. Furthermore, he argues that the lack of information was not Bede’s fault. It is much more remarkable that the Canterbury tradition had only vague information about the Augustine mission and since Bede had to draw his sources from Canterbury, he just fell victim to the lack of evidence from there (Hunter Blair 1970: 214–218). 25 Hunter Blair claimed the same in his Jarrow Lecture in 1959 (Hunter Blair 1994: 32). 26 See, for example, the connection Peter Hunter Blair draws between Bede as a historian and modern historians (Hunter Blair 1970: 199).

The scholarly discussion about Bede

169

se aristocratic pasts are accounted for (Wormald 1978: 62).²⁷ Patrick Wormald explained this “other-worldliness” of Bede in that he differed from the Adelsheiligen-tradition of the early Middle Ages, where many writers and learned ecclesiastics had anaristocratic background (Wormald 1978: 63). He was the only historian from a presumed non-aristocratic background who became a Church Father and his ecclesiastical training made him a commentator rather than a recorder of past events. is argument implies that Wormald, at this point, shared the idea of Bede as an isolated writer writing from the vantage point of political neutrality. e claim that Bede le behind his possible aristocratic origins underlines the contrast between Wormald and Goffart. Goffart claimed Bede to have had a particular social and political intention with his writing. is agrees with his earlier argument of Bede’s close involvement with Northumbrian Church politics and his own agenda when writing the Historia Ecclesiastica (Goffart 1988: 325). He also claimed that the influence of the political controversy on Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica was not new but could also be found in Stephen’s Life of Wilfrid and in the writings of Wilfrith himself (Goffart 1988: 326) (Goffart 1990: 40). In addition to the question about Bede’s involvement in Northumbrian Church politics, Higham introduced the question of what Bede’s work tells his audience about his own position. In his preface, Bede dedicates the Historia Ecclesiastica to king Ceolwulf who ruled Northumbria between AD 729 to 737. Nicholas Higham understood Bede’s introduction to be more than just a conventional feature of an 8th century text. He sees it as a masterpiece of positioning which sets out his own self-perception as an historian. Bede portrayed the king as if dependent on himself as author, eager to acquaint himself with the work both in its first dra and its present state, and as its enthusiastic recipient and consumer. He presented himself, in contrast, as a gracious benefactor to the king, then as if a wise teacher to his royal pupil and shepherd to his sheep. is offers a comparatively elevated self-perception, although there are modesty formula included in later passages.²⁸ Higham repeatedly emphasizes Bede’s strategy to show his confidence in his own works, his person and his authority (Higham 2006: 12). Although I would agree with the conventional nature of the introduction, I would be careful agreeing to Higham’s interpretation of Bede’s words to be considered his own self-perception as a historian. e problem of the term and of its concept was already discussed 27 It was also claimed that aristocratic origins were not important for Bede. Henry Mayr-Harting argued that Bede had a classless view of the Church, or at least of the members of monasteries (Mayr-Harting 1994: 418). 28 (Higham 2006: 11)

170

Bede’s Historiae

in the introduction to Gildas’ DEB. e interpretation that Bede used his introduction to underline his own role and relevance as a historian in contrast to his king bears again the question whether one is applying a modern understanding of the concept of history and its scholars to a time where this concept might have differed fundamentally. I would also question whether Bede really did consider the king to be dependent on the author, based on the rather simple question: if Higham’s assumption were correct, why should Bede then mention the king at all and not dedicate his work to his abbot or to the Pope? I would assume that the dedication to king Ceolwulf supports his role as a patron of the monasteries Wearmouth and Jarrow. Here, I would argue, Higham falls victim to the already mentioned problem of regarding Bede, or Gildas for that matter, as historians in a modern meaning which might differ significantly from the meaning of a historian in the Middle Ages. e question of the dedication of Bede’s work to King Ceolwulf, thus, leads back to the question of Bede’s involvement in regional politics in general. Ultimately, the discussion leads to the question whether Bede lived and worked isolated from the world, writing a unique Historia or whether he wrote for a broad audience with an explicit intention. Of course, both intentions would not necessarily exclude one another. And while Walter Goffart said that “clouds gather thickly over the head of anyone who dares suggest that Bede might have been anything but innocent, spotless and without sin” the following chapter will show that the argument of a specific intention of Bede is justified and indicates his involvement in local Church politics (Goffart 2006: 207). It will, furthermore, also demonstrate that Bede was far from being a neutral observer in the writings that I chose for my present analysis. Regarding the question of a possible discourse of identity construction, the following chapter will demonstrate that Bede’s writings fit very well with the discourse tradition of the writings discussed in the previous chapters of this thesis.

8.3 Bede’s Works Bede began writing around AD 700 (Goffart 1988: 242). is leaves about 35 years in which he continuously wrote texts of various genres before he died in AD 735. He provides a list of his works in the Historia ecclesiastica in book V chapter 24 aer the statement about his own view of himself as a scholar and teacher.²⁹ is is followed by a list of Bede’s numerous works covering various themes and subjects including grammar, rhetoric, poetics, natural science, computus, history, hagiography, and writings on Scripture. He lists the latter according to their canonical order, apparently not according to the date he wrote them, indicating an 29 See Chapter 8.1.1.

Selection of texts

171

ambitious and well-planned corpus of biblical commentary (acker 2006: 47). His works imply a focus on education, or, to be more precise, on the education of his pupils in Christian thought and monastic life (acker 2006: 51). Altogether, he wrote about 60 different texts (Hunter Blair 1970: 197).³⁰ Leaving works about rhetoric or the computus and others aside, Walter Goffart divided what he considered to be Bede’s historical works into five general categories: 1. Chronicles, or universal histories such as the Chronica minor and the Chronica maior; 2. Hagiography, for example the verse and prose versions of the vita of St Cuthbert; 3. A martyrology or Chronicle of Saints; 4. A history of the abbots of his monastery, the Historia abbatum and 5. the Historia Ecclesiastica.³¹ From these five textual categories, I chose the Chronicles and the Histories as sources for my analysis. is choice is based on few practical assumptions: first, these writings can be expected to provide a higher number of references to elements which influence the construction of collective identities because of their broader focus; Saints’ lives, for example, focus on one particular figure which is why they can be expected to focus on a smaller geographical area and a smaller chronological period than a text such as the Historia abbatum. Second, Bede’s Historia ecclesiastica provides references to poetry and poets and includes a references to Gildas which makes it possible to place the writing within a discourse tradition with both a work of poetry and Gildas’ DEB. e third reason for this choice of texts is that Bede’s two historiae and the chronicles works received much more attention from the general and the academic audience, modern or pre-modern, which indicates the importance of these writings for its audience who is elemental for the continuity of the discourse this dissertation intends to analyse. However, as the following chapter will show, not all of these writings provide information regarding the construction of collective identities by Bede.

8.4 Selection of texts From the numerous texts written by Bede, the ones that have been labelled Histories provide most information about identity construction in Bede’s contemporary Britain, particularly but not exclusively in the Kingdom of Northumbria. His 30 For the complete list of his texts, see HE V.24. 31 See (Goffart 1988: 246).

172

Bede’s Historiae

most famous text, the Historia ecclesiastica is of central importance for my analysis. However, it would be too narrow a view to claim that the Historia ecclesiastica was the only work of Bede that deserved to be named a history. At least three other works deserve to be referred to as such as well. ese include the Historia abbatum and the two Chronicae incorporated into his two works on time, De Temporibus from 703 and the larger De Temporum Ratione from 725 (Hunter Blair 1970: 198). De Temporibus contains a smaller chronicle which has been called Chronica Minor while a longer and more detailed version was included in Bede’s later writing De Temporum Ratione. is chronicle, the Chronica Maior, forms chapter 66 of that work. 8.4.1 The Historia Ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum

Among his numerous writings, Bede’s Historia ecclesiastica is his most widely read work today (Higham 2006: 5).³² It has been prised as the “climax of all of his scholarly endeavours” (Hunter Blair 1994: 3). Bede wrote it between AD 730 and 731, it was claimed he finished the work by the 22 November 731 (Kirby 1994: 906).³³ e subject matter of the HE is dominated by two major themes, the conversion of the English, who are compared to a New Israel, and the need for well-trained doctores, i.e. learned men and teachers of the Church as well as preachers to guide the English according to their new religion (acker 2006: 60–61). In contrast to Gildas’ DEB or to other historiae such as the writings by the sixth century author Jordanes or Paul the Deacon (720–799), Bede’s writing provides a positive and optimistic view of the history of the English Church, particularly in Northumbria (Goffart 2006: 20). Walter Goffart has claimed that Bede wrote it to present “an idealized, engaging, edifying account of the church of Northumbria and some of its neighbours, a glowing balance sheet of the Northumbrian past [...]”.³⁴ Aside from Orosius’ Historiae adversum paganos, Bede used information from Gildas’ DEB but also from the Life of Gregory the Great and Stephen’s Life of Wilfrid (Goffart 1988: 299). Bede, however, added information in his writing which Gildas’ DEB does not contain, as for example Boudicca’s rebellion against the Romans, and other details that will be discussed shortly (Goffart 1988: 300). e information provided in the HE is also based on oral tradition. In its preface, Bede lists the names of people who provided him with information for his 32 Henceforth HE. 33 e question of when Bede finished his HE has been matter of dispute because of a reference found HE, V.23, where Bede speaks of a Saracen raid in Gaul. It is unclear which Saracen raid Bede is referring to in this passage, for there is no account of a raid in Gaul in AD 729 as it is dated the HE. Different Muslim gentes conquered Spain at the beginning of the eighth century and there were frequent raids to Gaul (Colgrave 1969: 557). It has been claimed that Bede meant the very first Arab raid in AD 721 or a later raid in 725 which penetrated Gaul as far north as Autun (Kirby 1994: 907) (Collins und McClure 1994: 418). 34 (Goffart 2006: 213)

Selection of texts

173

work, these include Albinus, Abbot of St. Peter and St. Paul in Canterbury who died in 732, and Nothelm, a priest from London who later became Archbishop of Canterbury in 735 and died in 739 or 740 (Kirby 1965-66: 341) (Collins und McClure 1994: 359–360).³⁵ Bede also includes a list of ecclesiastics who provided him with information from all over the island to emphasise the credibility of his work (Goffart 1988: 298).³⁶ e strong focus on the Northumbrian Church could be explained with his dependency upon oral sources which led to a lack of information about remote kingdoms and events that took place far away from Northumbria (Kirby 1965-66: 342). e scarce information available to him about the southern kingdoms came from Canterbury, from where he received copies of letters of Pope Gregory to Augustine about the mission in Britain, and from the East Saxon kingdom and the monastery at Barking, presumably via Nothelm, who was claimed to have been familiar with the historical events in London and in Canterbury (Kirby 1965-66: 358–360). Bede received information about Wessex from Daniel, bishop of Winchester, who also provided him with information about the Isle of Wight and additional information about Sussex (Kirby 1965-66: 364). e details about the history of the early English are thus fragmentary in the HE (Kirby 196566: 370). Bede had to rely on the information available to him which is why some passages about more distant areas on the island oen read like notes. e history of Britain between AD 410 and the beginning of the mission by Augustine in 597 in Bede’s HE is mostly influenced by Gildas’ DEB as well as by the Vita Germani written in the end of the fih century by Constantius of Lyon (Hunter Blair 1970: 211). Based on the amount of information taken from Gildas, Peter Hunter Blair claimed that Bede agreed with Gildas’ view that the conquest of Britain was God’s vengeance because of the corruption of the Britons and their evil behaviour (Hunter Blair 1970: 211). As will be shown shortly, Bede added to Gildas’ accusations that the Britons refused to preach the Christian faith to the invaders. is, in Bede’s view, increased their wickedness which was further demonstrated by their persistence in refusing to accept the calculation of the Easter date of the Roman Church which was used as a symbol of Rome’s struggle to gain ecclesiastical dominance in Britain. is will be discussed in detail in the following chapter. 8.4.2 The Chronica Minor and the Chronica Maior

e Chronica minor forms a part of one of Bede’s earlier works, De temporibus, written around AD 703. However, there is only one reference to Britain found 35 For a complete list of persons who provided Bede with the information used in his HE, see Kirby, 1965, 345–347. 36 e same strategy can be found, for example, in the Dialogi by Pope Gregory I. written at the end of the sixth and the beginning of the seventh century.

174

Bede’s Historiae

in the text and concerns the conversion of the Saxons (Hunter Blair 1970: 209).³⁷ Bede dates this event to the reign of the Emperor Phocas, who ruled the Byzantine Empire between AD 602 and AD 610. is indicates that, at this time, Bede was not yet familiar with the details about the conversion of the Saxons and the Jutish mission by Gregory the Great at the end of the sixth century (Hunter Blair 1970: 209). Bede wrote a longer and more detailed chronicle later in his life. He completed De temporum ratione in 725. In chapter 66 of this writing he included not only more information about Britain but also corrected the information provided in De Temporibus about the conversion of the Saxons, giving details about the mission of Augustine in Canterbury. isChronica Maior is therefore, aer the HE, Bede’s second most relevant text in my analysis. 8.4.3 The Historia Abbatum

Bede wrote his Historia Abbatum between 725 and 731 AD, presumably between the composition of the Chronica Maior and the Historia Ecclesiastica.³⁸ e HA summed up the history of the monasteries of Wearmouth and Jarrow since their foundation. is account was strongly bent on the transition from the age of the founders of the monastery to a more autonomous life with a free election of a new abbot (Goffart 1988: 277). Abbot and co-founder Ceolfrith resigned and departed into voluntary exile in AD 716. Walter Goffart argued that the HA was, similarly to Bede’s HE, strongly influenced by Bede’s agenda to diminish the role of Bishop Wilfrith on the history of the English Church (Goffart 1988: 326) (Goffart 1990: 38).³⁹ e HA should provide a history of central ecclesiastical persons who were, according to Bede, at least of as much influence and importance as Wilfrith was. is agrees with the role Wilfrith plays in Bede’s HE. Because of his prominence, he easily could have become the founding figure of the Church of Northumbria. In Bede’s work, however, “the giant bishop was cut down to a manageable size” (Goffart 1990: 45). is gave Bede the opportunity to position other personae whom he considered to be at least of equal importance in the past and present of the Northumbrian Church. e HA was strongly influenced by the earlier, anonymous Vita Sanctissimi Ceolfridi Abbatis but focuses more on the role of Benedict Bishop (AD 628–690), the founder of Wearmouth and its first abbot for sixteen years, than on Ceolfrith (Goffart 1988: 294). Again, Bede omitted every 37 Saxones in Britannia fidem Christi suscipiunt, cf. Beda, De Temporibus Liber, chapter 22 (Jones 1943). 38 Henceforth HA. 39 David Kirby argued earlier that Bede curtailed the information about Wilfrith for reasons of space and not because of any dislike of the bishop or his role in the history of the English Church (Kirby 1965-66: 356). Wilfrith was expelled from his see in 677 or 678 AD by king Ecfrith and lost control not only over his diocese but also over all the monasteries.

Manuscripts and Editions of the Texts

175

detail about Wilfrith’s involvement in Benedict’s abbacy (Goffart 1988: 279). Furthermore, the book draws attention to the three abbots who followed Benedict, Eosterwine (AD 650–686), Sigfrith and Ceolfrith. It ends with the election of a new abbot, Huetbert, who presided the monastery until his death in the 740s, and the death of Ceolfrith on his way to Rome in AD 716. e HA, therefore, focuses on the monasteries of Wearmouth-Jarrow, their abbots and the politics of Northumbria which exerted a direct influence on the double monasteries. It contains no reference to the neighbouring gentes or to the gens of the angli itself. So while the text is of importance with respect to the history of the monasteries, the local history of Northumbria and the relationship between the monasteries and Rome, it does not provide any material in regard to identity construction of any of Britain’s gentes. e HA will, therefore, only be referred to when needed for comparison with the HE or the Chronicles.

8.5 Manuscripts and Editions of the Texts In comparison to the sources which were subject to analysis in the previous chapters, the writings of Bede are far less controversial because we have much more knowledge about his person and his work than about Gildas or Aneirin and their work. In addition, Bede’s works on grammar and chronology and his biblical commentaries, for example, were spread on the Continent by Anglo-Saxon missionaries and have been claimed to have exerted a strong impact on the Carolingian revival of learning in the late 8th and early 9th centuries (Goffart 1988: 243). ere are plenty of medieval manuscripts, some of them dated relatively close to Bede’s death (Goffart 1988: 235). For the HE, there are more than 150 manuscripts, some of them were still copied by hand in the 15th century even aer the first printed edition was published in Strasbourg in 1475 (Hunter Blair 1970: 221). 8.5.1 Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum

Bede’s HE was known all over Western Europe within a century aer his death (Colgrave 1994: 8). ere are more than 150 surviving manuscripts of the text. e extant manuscripts of Bede’s HE were divided into two classes by the first and most prominent modern edition by Charles Plummer (Goffart 1988: 236). e later edition by Sir Roger Mynors followed Plummer’s distinction between two different classes of manuscripts which Plummer classified as C and M, Mynors as c and m (Collins und McClure 1994: xx). Apart from smaller differences, the most important characteristic is that the C/c manuscripts are exclusively linked to Britain (Collins und McClure 1994: xxi).⁴⁰ 40 Charles Beeson called them English in his discussion of the manuscripts of Bede’s works (Beeson 1947: 75).

176

Bede’s Historiae

All extant manuscripts from this class were written in Britain, even though many of them are found today in Continental libraries. ere are, however, nearly as many insular manuscripts as there are continental ones (Beeson 1947: 75). e C/c class manuscripts also served as basis for the Old English translation of the HE, which was presumably written in the ninth century in Mercia. e M/m class of manuscripts appears to have been the first ones to be sent to the Continent where they became the dominant form. Two manuscripts of the M/m class are today considered the most important manuscripts since they are the oldest ones extant. e first one, Cambridge University Library Kk.5, also referred to as the Moore Bede aer its donor, is claimed to have been written in or soon aer 737 AD and is therefore important because of its closeness to the date of composition (Crépin 1976: 180). It has been claimed to have been written in Northumbria by someone visiting the monasteries of Wearmouth-Jarrow because it shows signs of haste in the copying process and lacks decoration. e other important manuscript is St. Petersburg Public Library MS lat. Q.v.I.18. It is a product of the monasteries’ scriptorium and features the decorations and care which Cambridge University Library Kk. 5 lacks (Collins und McClure 1994: xxii). Bede’s autograph in this manuscript, however, has been shown to be a medieval forgery (Collins und McClure 1994: xxii). is manuscript was not known by Plummer when he published his edition of the text but was added by Colgrave and Mynors which led to their edition to become the standard text. In the following analysis the references to the HE therefore always refer to the edition by Colgrave and Mynors. e quotations of the passages from Bede’s HE provided in the following analysis are taken from Betram Colgrave’s edition of the text as it was reprinted by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in 1994 unless noted differently. e translations are taken from Colgrave’s edition with my own amendments and comments as well as with the corrections provided by McClure and Collins. e corrections of Colgrave’s translation provided by John Michael Wallace-Hadrill in his important commentary on the HE were also included in the translation by McClure and Collins (Collins und McClure 1994: xxxiii). 8.5.2 Chronica Maior

Bede’s De Temporum Ratione (DTR), which includes the Chronica Maior, was widely used on the Continent during the Middle Ages (Goffart 1988: 247) (Jones 1943: 241). e writing quickly became a standard textbook for the study of computus, i.e. the calculation of time and especially the Easter date (Jones 1943: 241). is led to numerous copies already during the eighth and ninth centuries showing only slight variations.⁴¹ e majority of the surviving manuscripts was writ41 For the grouping of the manuscripts extant see Jones, 1977, 241. For the list of manuscripts extant, see ibid., 242–256.

Structure and Subject Matter

177

ten on the Continent (Beeson 1947: 75).⁴² e first fragments of the text written in Britain date from the middle of the eighth century, all complete manuscripts in Britain, however, were written aer the Norman conquest. e history of the text’s early circulation therefore, remains unknown (Collins und McClure 1994: xxvii). By the end of the eighth century, the Chronica Maior began being circulated without the rest of DTR. A first printed edition of the De Temporum Ratione was published by John Sichardus in 1529 (Jones 1943: 256). eodor Mommsen published his critical edition of the Chronica Maior in 1898 in the Monumenta Germaniae Historia.⁴³ e most recent edition, which is used in my study, was published by Charles Jones in 1943 and republished in 1977.⁴⁴ Jones omitted the Chronica Maior in his 1943 edition of DTR. Chapter 66, however, was included in the reprint from 1977. For the following analysis of the Chronica Maior Jones’ edition will be used. In addition, I will provide translations of the passages used in this study from the reprint by Judith McClure and Roger Collins who used Jones’ edition of the Chronica as well.

8.6 Structure and Subject Matter 8.6.1 Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum

e HE begins with a preface where Bede acknowledges his enthusiasm to have written the book. He dedicates it, as mentioned before, to King Ceolwulf, who reigned in Northumbria between 729 until 737 AD.⁴⁵ Bede hopes that his book should provide example to the pious and good listener or reader: satisque studium tuae sinceritatis amplector, quo non solum audiendis scriptura sanctae uerbis aurem sedulus accomodas uerum etiam noscendis priorum gestis siue dictis, et maxime nostrae gentis uirorum inlustrium, curam uigilanter inpendis. Siue enim historia de bonis bona referat, ad imitandum bonum auditor sollicitus instigatur; seu mala commemoret de prauis, nihilominus religiosus ac pius 42 Beeson explained the greater number of manuscripts on the Continent by the decrease of manuscript production in Britain because of the repeated attacks of the Scandinavian raiders in Britain. ese attacks presumably also led to the destruction of many manuscripts, including works of Bede (Beeson 1947: 73). 43 Beda Venerabilis. Chronica Maiora ad a. 725 et Chronica Maiora ad a. 703. Ed. eodor Mommsen. Weidmann: Berlin 1898. 223–354. MGH, AA XIII. 44 is edition was published together with other works of Bede in Corpus Christianorum Series Latina (CCSL), Bd. 123, B, Turnholti: Brepols, 1977. 45 Ceolwulf acceeded to his kingdom in AD 729. He lost the throne two years later during a political plot at his court but was restored shortly aer and then reigned until AD 737. In this year, he abdicated and entered the monastery of Lindisfarne, where he spent the rest of his life as a monk (Hunter Blair 1994: 29).

178

Bede’s Historiae

auditor siue lector deuitando quod noxium est ac peruersum, ipse sollertius ad exsequenda ea quae bona ac Deo digna esse cognouerit, accenditur.⁴⁶ [I gladly acknowledge the unfeigned enthusiasm with which, not content merely to lend an attentive ear to hear the words of Holy Scripture, you devote yourself to learn the sayings and doings of the men of old, and more especially the famous men of our race. Should history tell of good men and their good estate, the thoughtful listener is spurred on to imitate the good; should it record the evil ends of wicked men, no less effectually the devout and earnest listener or reader is kindled to eschew what is harmful and perverse, and himself with greater care pursue those things which he has learned to be good and pleasing in the sight of God.]⁴⁷ He explicitly refers to the educative nature of his writing and also advises his audience, reader or listener, to follow the good examples of great men as well as to understand the wrongs of wicked men as an example to live a good and pious life, underlining the moral purpose of his book.⁴⁸ He lists, as already discussed, the people who provided him with sources and information when writing his text.⁴⁹ e preface is followed by five books with varying numbers of chapters about the history of the Christianization of Britain. Book I begins with an introduction about Britain before the Roman Conquest, which is then dealt with in chapter 2. Chapter 3 refers to the conquest of Britain under the Roman Emperor Claudius. e Roman occupation remains the main topic until chapter 12, where the Romans leave the island under the rule of the Emperor Honorius. ese chapters include the coming of Christianity to Britain (chapter 4), as well as the Diocletion prosecution of the Christians (chapter 6). What follows aer chapter 12 is a geographical description of Britain, and the beginning of the invasion of the Angles and the Saxons and of the Pelgian heresy. Chapters 12 to 16 are almost verbatim copies from Gildas’ DEB describing the attacks of the picti and scotti and the advent of the Saxons (Hanning 1966: 76).⁵⁰ e HE also mentions the battle of Mount Badon which does not occur in Bede’s chronicae. Following Hanning, Chapter 22 has been claimed to contain the main theme of British history because it underlines the importance of conversion and the refusal of the Britons to preach to the Saxons (Hanning 1966: 78). In chapter 23 Bede explains how Pope Gregory sent 46 HE, praefatio 47 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 3. 48 Here lies one of the major differences between his work and Gildas’ DEB which is filled with criticism against rulers, ecclesiastics and the Britons in general (Wormald 1978: 61). 49 See Chapter 8.4.1. 50 As was discussed in chapter 5, Gildas’ letter does not contain any reference to the Angles.

Structure and Subject Matter

179

Augustine to convert the angli or English. At this point the history of the Roman Church in Britain begins. e final chapter 34 ends with the Irish being driven off the island of Britain by King Aethelfrith, presumably during the Battle of Degsastan in the beginning of the seventh century. e second book contains 20 chapters beginning with the death of Pope Gregory in 605 AD and ending with the death of King Edwin of Northumbria in 633 AD. Book III contains thirty chapters and begins with Edwin’s successors Osric and Eanfrith. e first chapter of this book also shows how Northumbria is reunited by Oswald who also reintroduces the Christian faith, replacing paganism that was introduced by Edwin’s successors Osric and Eanfrith. Book III ends with chapter 30 about the reinstatement of the Christian faith among the West Saxons by bishop Jaruman in the second half of the seventh century. Book IV contains 30 chapters and begins with the death of Deusdedit, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 664 AD. is book ends with St Cuthbert’s life about whom Bede wrote a complete vita around 721 AD. Book V contains 24 chapters. Chapter 1 begins with the death of St Cuthbert. e historical overview ends in chapter 22 with a discussion of the Easter question and the conflict with the Irish Church in this regard. Bede ends his HE with chapter 23, where he outlines the contemporary state of the angli, of their Church and of Britain in general. Chapter 24 provides a summary of his text and additional information about his own life. e historical survey ends approximately twenty-five years before the time of its composition, the intervening period remaining disregarded (Goffart 2006: 205). e time of composition around the early 730s has, therefore, to be kept distinct from the information provided by Bede, which ends in 705 AD (Goffart 2006: 211).⁵¹ Two major themes are found in the HE, the conversion of the Anglo-Saxon people in Britain and the Easter Controversy about the correct calculation of the Easter date according to the Roman Church (Kirby 1965-66: 349). While Bede is very explicit about the details of the conversion, he provides near to no information at all about the heathen pre-history of his gens (Wormald 1978: 59). His focus remains on Northumbria and its Church history (Goffart 2006: 205). However, less than half of the chapters of the HE refer to the other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms (Goffart 1988: 252). Regarding the invasion of Britain, he speaks of the earliest Anglo-Saxon arrivals in Kent, Essex, East Anglia and Wessex. But no information in this regard can be found about Mercia (Kirby 1965-66: 368).⁵² 51 Walter Goffart claimed that not too much should be read into the omission of information of Bede’s lifetime in his HE. is does not necessarily imply anything but that Bede did not choose to write about this period (Goffart 1988: 242). 52 In his preface, Bede mentions an episcopal list from Lindsey which is the closest information to Mercia he provides. ere have been different suggestions within the discussion about Bede’s omission of the history of the kingdom of Mercia by David Kirby and Walter Goffart, see Kirby, 1965, 342 and Goffart, 1988, 253.

180

Bede’s Historiae

e second prominent theme in the HE is the Easter Controversy which was resolved at the Synod of Whitby in 668 AD (Collins und McClure 1994: xix). is dispute focused on the appropriate calculation of the Easter date. e synod ended the discussion within the English Church about which tradition to follow: the older practice that had its origin in Iona, representing the Irish or Celtic Church, or the more modern practice of the Roman Church. During the synod, King Oswiu of Northumbria decided that his kingdom would follow the Roman tradition and thus ended the dispute (Collins und McClure 1994: 375) (O’Reilly 2003: 144). In spite of the prominence of this controversy in the HE, it has been claimed that the dispute had ceased to be a major topic during the time of Bede’s writing (Goffart 1988: 253) (Collins und McClure 1994: xx). Apart from the difference in the question of the Easter date, the differences between the Celtic Church and the Roman Church were, on the surface of the conflict, largely concerned with details (Colgrave 1994: 8). e Easter Controversy and these details, however, should not be misunderstood to be the centre of the struggle between the Celtic Church and the Roman Church. e real dispute was the question which Church would gain religious and thus also political dominance in Britain. the Controversy was, therefore, a political struggle for power between the traditional, de-centralized Celtic Church and the modern, centralized Church with its centre in Rome. As the following analysis will show, Bede uses the dispute of the Easter Controversy mainly to show the Britons in his HE in a negative light. 8.6.2 Chronica Maior

e Chronica Maior is an account of historical events presented in chronological order.⁵³ It is part of what has been claimed to be Bede’s most elaborate work on the division of time, De Temporum Ratione (Collins und McClure 1994: xxiv). Focusing on the history outside of Britain, the Chronica Maior exceeds the Historia Ecclesiastica in its geographical focus. e events range from the Roman history, including the history of the Roman emperors as well as the popes, to events both on the Continent and Britain. Bede used the Liber Pontificalis, a collection of papal biographies, as well as the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea (260/64 – 337/340 AD), a bishop, Church father and historian in Palestine from the first half of the fourth century (Collins und McClure 1994: xxvi). He also made use of Orosius, whose Historia adversus paganos he quoted verbatim (Collins und McClure 1994: xxv). As in the HE, Bede also used Gildas’ DEB. e DTR divides the world history into the Six Ages. ese begin with the Creation and the birth of Adam, the First Age ends with the Flood. e Second Age begins with Noah and ends with the story of Abraham. e ird Age begins with Abraham and ends with David. e Fourth Age begins with David and ends with the captivity of the Jews in Babylon. e 53 Henceforth CM.

Gentes and collective identities in Bede’s writings

181

Fih Age ends with the birth of Christ, the event the Sixth Age begins with. e Sixth Age takes up nearly half of the total length of the Chronica Maior.⁵⁴

8.7 Gentes and collective identities in Bede’s writings Both of Bede’s works provide numerous references to various gentes in and outside of Britain. To be able to compare the results with those of the previous chapters, the main focus will lie with the Romans, the Britons, the Saxons and the Angles, who are in the main focus of Bede’s works, and of course with the Irish in Ireland and Scotland and the Picts. To demonstrate the strategy which Bede uses to construct collective identities for the respective gentes, his treatment of the gentes which were not found in the works of the previous chapters will be taken into consideration as well when necessary. 8.7.1 Bede and the Britons

As mentioned before, the first book of Bede’s HE relies strongly on the information provided by Gildas in his DEB.⁵⁵ Since this is particularly true for the information provided about the Britons, the following section will analyse the treatment of the Britons in Bede’s work in two steps: first, there will be a close examination of the passages of book I where Bede uses information from Gildas, which will then be followed by a close reading of the relevant passages that do not appear in Gildas’ DEB. 8.7.1.1 e Britons, Bede and the DEB At the very beginning of book I, Bede informs his readers about the history of the Britons before the arrival of the Saxons and Angles on the island: In primis autem insula Brettones solum, a quibus nomen accepit, incolas habuit; qui de tractu Armoricano, ut fertur, Brittaniam aduecti australes sibi partes illius uindicarunt.⁵⁶

54 e formulation of the Six Ages goes back to Augustine of Hippo (AD 354 to AD 430). For Bede and his readers, the Sixth Age was the last before the Second Coming and would be ended with the appearance of the Antichrist (Collins und McClure 1994: xxviii). For the treatment of the Six Ages or sex aetates mundi by the Anglo-Saxons and the Irish, see the study by Hildegard Tristram (1985). In his writings, Bede’s chronology differs from the the chronologies of the sex aetates mundi by Augustine and by Isidor. Bede changes the outlook for the time aer the Sixth Age and calculates less years for each age (Tristram 1985: 181–182). For the discussion of the sex aetates mundi in his Chronicles, see Tristram, 1985, 62–63. 55 See Chapter 8.4.1. 56 HE, I.1

182

Bede’s Historiae

[To begin with, the inhabitants of the island were all Britons, from whom it receives its name; they sailed to Britain, so it is said, from the land of Armorica, and appropriated to themselves the southern part of it.]⁵⁷ According to Bede, Britain receives its name from an invading gens coming from Armorica, the Roman name of north-western Gaul which is still used in the Breton Armor today.⁵⁸ e region received the name Brittany during Bede’s lifetime (Collins und McClure 1994: 362). is indicates a connection between the name of the gens and the name of the island, a connection which also occurs with the Saxon gens as will be shown later. In contrast to Gildas, Bede speaks about how the Britons first arrived in Britain and where they originally came from. He remains silent about possible other gentes who had been present in the island before the Britons’ arrival or who were living in other parts of the island.⁵⁹ Later, Britain was conquered by the Romans: Caesaris equitatus primo congressu a Brittanis uictus, ibique Labienus tribunus occisus est, Secundo proelio cum magnum suorum discrimine uictos Brittanos in fugam uertit [...].⁶⁰ [At the first encounter Caesar’s cavalry were defeated by the Britons and there the tribune Labienus was killed. In the second battle, though his men incurred heavy risks, he conquered the Britons and put them to flight.]⁶¹ is passage reads much different from what we learned in Gildas’ DEB about the military qualities of his fellow Britons. I will get to this difference shortly. e following information provided about the Britons is also connected with the Roman occupation of the island and found in the CM. Eodem anno ipse Brittaniam adiens, quam neque ante Iulium Caesarem neque post eum quisquam attingere ausus fuerat, sine ullo proelio ac sanguine intra paucissimos dies plurimam insulae partem in deditionem recepit. Orcadas etiam insulas Romano adiecit imperio ac sexto quam profectus erat mense Romam rediit.⁶² 57 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 10. 58 e Roman term referred to parts of today’s Brittany but also included the territory between the Seine and Loire rivers. 59 See Plassmann, 2006, 60. 60 HE, I.2 61 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 12. 62 CM, 286

Gentes and collective identities in Bede’s writings

183

[In the same year the emperor [i.e. Claudius] conquered Britain, which no one had dared to invade before Julius Caesar or since his time. Without battle or bloodshed he brought the greater part of the island under his rule in the course of very few days. He also added the Orkney islands to the empire, and he returned to Rome in the sixth month aer he had set out.] ⁶³ Nearly the same information can be found in the HE in book I, chapter 3: Itaque expeditionem in Brittaniam mouit, quae excitata in tumultum propter non redhibitos transfugas uidebatur; transuectus in insulam est, quam neque ante Iulium Caesarem neque post eum quisquam adire ausus fuerat; ibique sine ullo proelio ac sanguine intra pucissimos dies plurimam insulae partem in deditionem recepit.⁶⁴ [So he [the Emperor Claudius] made an expedition to Britain, which had apparently been roused to rebellion because of the refusal of the Romans to give up some deserters. He crossed to the island which no one either before or aer Julius Caesar had dared to invade until then, and without any fighting or bloodshed he received the surrender of the greater part of the island within a very few days.]⁶⁵ Bede does not provide any information on why Emperor Claudius succeeds in conquering Britain sine ullo proelio ac sanguine but this detail is reminiscent of Gildas’ characterisations of the Britons’ lack of military power or their lack of courage. e CM, however, also reports British victories against the Romans without passing judgment on whether they were seen as positive or negative events: Hic in re militari nihil omnino ausus Brittaniam pene amisit, nam duo sub eo nobilissima oppida illic capta atque euersa sunt.⁶⁶ [is emperor [i.e. Nero] attempted nothing of a military kind, and even nearly lost Britain; where two of the finest towns were captured and sacked.]⁶⁷ 63 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 309. 64 HE, I.3 65 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Colins, 1994, 13. 66 CM, 294 67 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 310.

184

Bede’s Historiae

Without providing information about who captured and sacked these towns, Bede informs us about this in the neutral tone of the CM. He merely lists the events in Britain under the Roman occupation while Gildas criticised these events as an insubordinate behaviour of the ungrateful Britons towards the Romans who brought not only the Christian faith but also law and order to the island. e same can be said about the following passage, an account of the Emperor Vespasian who succeeds to expand the area under control of the Roman Empire: Vespasianus inter alia magnorum operum in priuata adhuc uita in Germaniam ac deinde in Brittaniam a Claudio missus tricies et bis cum hoste conflixit, duas ualidissimas gentes, XX oppida, insulam Vectam Britanniae proximam imperio Romano adiecit.⁶⁸ [Vespasian, amongst other mighty deeds while still a private citizen, was sent by Claudius to Germany and thence to Britain, fighting thirty-two battles. He added two powerful peoples, twenty towns, and the Isle of Wight, near Britain, to the empire.]⁶⁹ Here, the difference from the account of Gildas is most obvious: Bede claims that Vespasian succeeds against two powerful peoples, an acknowledgement which can hardly be found in Gildas’ work. is indicates that, at least at this point in the CM, Bede did not follow Gildas’ characterisations of the Britons as weak. e CM does not contain information about how Christianity was brought to the Britons. e HE, however, provides a passage about how Lucius, a British king, who reigned from 161 to 169 AD, converted to Christianity: misit ad eum Lucius Brittaniarum rex epistulam, obsecrans ut per eius mandatum Christianus efficeretur; et mox effectum piae postulationis consecutus est, susceptamque fidem Brittani usque in tempora Diocletiani principis inuiolatam integramque quieta in pace seruabant.⁷⁰ [Lucius, a king of Britain, sent him [Eleutherius, bishop of Rome] a letter praying him that he might be made a Christian by a rescript from him. His pious request was quickly granted and the Britons preserved the faith which they had received, inviolate and entire, in peace and quiet, until the time of Emperor Diocletian.]⁷¹ 68 CM, 297 69 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 310. 70 HE, I.4 71 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 14.

Gentes and collective identities in Bede’s writings

185

Bede borrowed this passage from the Liber Pontificalis (Colgrave 1969: 24).⁷² It is the only reference found in his works about the early conversion of the Britons. Compared to his interest in the conversion of the other gentes this information is very scanty. is could be explained by a lack of sources. It could, however, also be explained with a lack of interest of Bede either in this period of the history of Britain or his lack of interest in how and when the Britons originally converted to Christianity.⁷³ From this on, Bede closely follows the information in Gildas’ DEB. e conflicts between the Britons and the other gentes in Britain or from Ireland are central topics in both the HE and the CM. e ongoing conflicts, as we learned from Gildas, led to the Romans building a wall in the north of the island. Bede’s writings differ significantly from Gildas’ DEB about the details of this first wall. e HE dates the first wall to the reign of Severus who became Emperor in AD 189: Victor ergo ciuillium bellorum, quae ei grauissima occurrerant, in Brittanias defectu paene omnium sociorum trahitur. Vbi magnis grauibusque proeliis saepe gestis receptam partem insulae a ceteris indomitis gentibus non muro, ut quidam aestimant, sed uallo distinguendam putauit. Murus etenim de lapidibus, uallum uero, quo ad repellendam uim hostium castra muniuntur, fit de caespitibus, quibus circumcisis e terra uelut murrus exstruitur altus supra terram, ita ut in ante sit fossa de qua leuati sunt cespites, supra quam sudes de lignis fortissimi praefiguntur. Itaque Seuerus magnam fossam firmissimumque uallum, crebis insuper turribus conmunitum, a mari ad mare duxit.⁷⁴ [Having been victorious in the very grievous civil wars which happened in this time, he [Emperor Severus] was drawn into Britain by the defection of almost all the federate tribes there. Aer fighting many great and hard battles, he decided to separate the part of the island 72 e Liber Pontificalis is a collection of short papal biographies initiated in the fourth and compiled in the sixth century. e legend of the British King Lucius appears in the biography of Eleutherius, Bishop of Rome, who held the office approximately between AD 174 and 189. ere are no further sources indicating that there was a King Lucius in pre-Christian Britain (Collins und McClure 1994: 363). 73 ere is not metropolitan and no diocesan see where a continuous episcopal history from Roman Britain to Anglo-Saxon Britain can be traced, indicating a hiatus between these two periods. A number of reasons for this hiatus were suggested by Nicholas Brooks, including a possible secure establishing of the Christian faith in Roman Britain, a possible connection of the faith with the military and political failures of Roman Britain during the late fourth and early fih centuries or a program of “cultural and ethnic amnesia” during the seventh and eighth century (Brooks 2006: 4). 74 HE, I.5

186

Bede’s Historiae

over which he had regained control, from the other unconquered tribes, not by a wall as some think, but by a rampart. For a wall is made of stones but a rampart, with which the forts are strengthened to resist the violence of the enemy, is made of sods cut from the earth and is raised high above the ground like a wall. In front is the ditch from which the sods have been lied and above it are fixed stakes made of the strongest wood. So Severus constructed a great ditch from sea to sea and a very string rampart fortified by numerous towers upon it.]⁷⁵ e wall Bede speaks of here has been commonly identified as Hadrian’s wall which was built around AD 122 and, aer being destroyed by northern tribes, was rebuilt by Emperor Severus between AD 205 and 208. is passage follows Orosius’ Historia adversum paganos, who also claimed that the Emperor Severus built this wall.⁷⁶ Apparently the damage done to the wall seemed so severe that the Emperor Severus was not only considered to have repaired it, but to have built the wall altogether (Colgrave 1969: 26). In spite of the proximity of the wall to the monasteries of Wearmouth-Jarrow, the information provided by Bede is scarce, taken from a military treatise named Epitoma rei militaris written in the early fih century by the Roman writer Vegetius (Goffart 1988: 301). Most significant in this passage is the fact that Bede does not provide any information on why this wall was built. ere is no mention of any northern tribes, of the scotti or the picti, as found in Gildas’ DEB. e first wall is not mentioned at all in the CM. Before I turn to the circumstances under which the second wall was built by the Romans, there is another fortification which deserves to be mentioned: Quorum tempore Carausius quidam, genere quidam infimus sed consilio et manu promptus, cum ad obseruanda Oceani litora, quae tunc Franci et Saxones infestabant, positus, [...].⁷⁷ [In their [i.e. Emperors Diocletian and Maximus] time a certain Carausius, a man of mean birth but able and energetic, had been appointed to guard the shores of the Ocean, which were then infested by Franks and Saxons.]⁷⁸ is passage shows that groups of Franci et Saxones were already raiding Britain during the time of the Emperors Diocletian, who ruled from 285–305 AD, and 75 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 14–15. 76 See Book 7, Chapter 17. 77 HE, I.6 78 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 15.

Gentes and collective identities in Bede’s writings

187

Maximian, who ruled from 286–308 AD. e Oceani litus in this passage can probably be identified with the fortifications that are commonly referred to as litus saxonicum. is line of fortifications was built during the fourth century to provide protection against the constant raids from invaders on the south-eastern coast of Britain (Charles-Edwards 2003c: 25). is passage is the only reference about these fortifications. Bede’s focus lies with the two walls in the north. e information about the second wall built in Britain provided in Bede’s writings is more explicit and also provides information about the struggle of the Britons against the other gentes in the island. e CM identifies the construction of the second wall with the Roman withdrawal from Britain: Brittani Scothorum (sic!) Pictorumque infestationem non ferentes Romam mittunt et sui subiectione promissa contra hostem auxilia flagitant. Quibus statim missa legio magnam barbarorum multitudinem sternit, ceteros Britaniae finibus pellit ac domum reuersura praecepit sociis ob arcendos hostes murum trans insulam inter duo maria statuere, qui absque artifice magistro magis cespite quam lapide factus nil operantibus profuit. Nam mox ut discessere Romani, aduectus nauibus prior hostis quasi maturam segitem obuia queque sibi caedit, calcat, deuorat. Iterum petenti auxilia Romani aduolant et caesum hostem trans maria fugant coniunctisque sibi Brittanis murum non terra, ut ante, puluereum, sed saxo solidum inter ciuitates, quae ibidem ob metum hostium fuerant factae, a mari usque ad mare collocant. Sed et in litore meridiano maris, quia et inde hostis timebatur, turres per interualla ad prospectum maris statuunt. Sic ualedicunt sociis tamquam ultra non reuersi.⁷⁹ [e Britons, unable to put up with the problem of the Irish and the Picts, sent to Rome and, promising their submission, begged for help against the enemy. A legion was immediately sent to them which overthrew the great horde of barbarians and expelled others from the borders of Britain. On preparing to return home it ordered the allies [i.e. the Britons], for the purpose of keeping out the enemy, to build a wall across the island between the two seas. Lacking a master builder, this was built from turf rather than stone and the work was not carried out by trained men. Soon, when the Romans had departed, the former enemy came in ships and trampled on anything that stood in their way, devouring it like ripe corn. eir help having been sought again, the Romans rushed across [the Channel] and defeating the enemy, they gathered together the Britons and built [another] wall from 79 CM, 473–474

188

Bede’s Historiae

sea to sea, not as before out of crumbly earth but in solid stone, between the towns that were sited there. But on the southern shores, because they also feared the enemy coming from the sea there, they established towers at intervals overlooking the sea. en, saying farewell to their allies, they le, not intending to return again.]⁸⁰ is passage not only speaks of two walls but also provides information about the enemies of the Britons, the picti and the scotti. is passage is also largely based on the information provided by Gildas, chapter 15 and 16, although not a verbatim formulation (Collins und McClure 1994).⁸¹ e same information is found in the HE in chapter 12 of the first book, however in a different context and with many additional details. e HE then provides an explanation for the weakness of the Britons: Exin Brittania in parte Brettonum omni armato milite, militaribus copiis uniuersis, tota floridae iuuentutis alacritate spoliata, quae tyrannorum temeritate abducta nusquam ultra domum rediit, praedae tantum patuit, utpote omnis bellici usus prorsus ignara; denique subito duabus gentibus transmarinis uehementer saeuis, Scottorum a circio, Pictorum ab aquilone, multos stupet gemitque per annos.⁸² [From that time Britain [i.e. the invasion of Rome by the Goths], or the British part of it, which had been stripped of all its armed men, its military supplies, and the whole flower of its active youth, who by the rashness of the dictators, had been led away never to return, lay wholly exposed to plunderers and the more so because the people were utterly ignorant of the practice of warfare. For instance, they were rapidly reduced to a state of terror and misery by two extremely fierce races from over the waters, the Irish from the west and the Picts from the north; and this lasted many years.]⁸³ I will come back to the scotti and picti and the question of why Bede refers to them as gentes transmarinae in the following chapters. is passage, however, shows that the armed men, the young and the military supplies were withdrawn during the power struggle of the declining Roman Empire which made Britain vulnerable to its enemies. Bede apparently does not blame the Britons for not being capable 80 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure, 1994 and Collins, 324–325. 81 See Chapter 6.4.4. 82 HE, I.12 83 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 22. e term circio, however, might also be translated by northwest instead of west. e invasion of Rome by the Goths occured in 410 AD.

Gentes and collective identities in Bede’s writings

189

of defending themselves but rather considers the problems of the Empire itself to lead to the attacks from the enemies of the Britons. Still, as was shown in Gildas’ DEB, Bede also speaks of another wall which was built aer the Britons’ appeal to Rome:⁸⁴ Ob harum ergo infestationem gentium Brettones legatos Romam cum epistulis mittentes, lacrimosis precibus auxilia flagitabant, subiectionemque continuam, dummodo hostis inmens longius arceretur, promittebant. Quibus mox legio destinatur armata quae ubi insulam aduecta et congressa est cum hostibus, magnam eorum multitudinem sternens, ceteros sociorum finibus expulit, eosque interim a dirissima depressione liberatos hortata est instruere inter duo maria trans insulam murum, qui arcendi hostibus posset esse praesidio; sicque domum cum triumpho magno reuersa est. At insulani murum, quem iussi fuerant, non tam lapidibus quam cespitibus construentes, utpote nullum tanti operis artificem habentes, ad nihil utilem statuunt.⁸⁵ [As a result of these invasions, the Britons sent messengers to Rome bearing letters with tearful appeals for aid, promising to be their subjects for ever, if only they would drive away their threatening foes. An armed legion was quickly dispatched to them which duly reached the island, attacked the enemy, destroying a great number of them and driving the rest from the territories of their allies. When the Romans had freed them from their dire distress, they urged the Britons to build a wall across the island from sea to sea, as a protection against their foes. And so the legion returned home in great triumph. e islanders built the wall, as they had been bidden to do, but they made it, not of stone, since they had no skill in work of this kind, but of turves, so that it was useless.]⁸⁶ us Bede, who is much more detailed about the building of the two walls, claims that the wall built by the Britons was useless. e Romans had to come back and help to build a more efficient fortification: Verum priores inimici, ut Romanum militem abisse conspexerant, mox aduecti nauibus inrumpunt terminos caeduntque omnia, et quasi maturam segetem obuia quaeque metunt calcant transeunt. Vnde 84 See Chapter 6.4.1. 85 HE, I.12 86 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 23.

190

Bede’s Historiae

rursum mittuntur Romam legati, flebili uoce auxilium inplorantes, ne penitus misera patria deleretur, ne nomen Romanae prouinciae, quod apud eos tam diu claruerat, exterarum gentium inprobitate obrutum uilesceret. Rursum mittitur legio, quae inopinata tempore autumni adueniens magnas hostium strages dedit, eosque qui euadere poterant omnes trans maria fugauit, qui prius anniuersarias praedas trans maria nullo obsistente cogere solebant.⁸⁷ [But as soon as their former foes saw the Roman soldiers depart, they took ship and broke into their borders, felling, trampling, and treading down everything they met, like reapers mowing ripe corn. Once more envoys were sent to Rome with pitiful appeals for help so that their wretched country might not be utterly destroyed, and the name of a Roman province, long renowned amongst them, might not be obliterated and disgraced by the barbarity of foreigners. Once again a legion was sent, which arrived unexpectedly in the autumn and did great destruction amongst the enemy, while all who succeeded in escaping were driven across the waters; before this they had been accustomed to carry off their booty every year across the same waters without any opposition.]⁸⁸ is passage follows much more closely Gildas’ tone of the helpless Britons who needed to be rescued by the Romans. At this point, it is obvious that while Bede uses most of the information in these chapters from Gildas’ DEB, his accusations against the Britons are, at least in the first book of his HE, not as pronounced as in Gildas’ writing. Of course, Bede deals with the Roman withdrawal from Britain aer helping the Britons to defend themselves: Tum Romani denuntiauere [sic!]⁸⁹ Brettonibus non se ultra ob eorum defensionem tam laboriosis expeditionibus posse fatigari; ipsos potius monent arma corripere et certandi cum hostibus studium subire, qui non aliam ob causam, quam si ipsi inertia soluerentur, eis possent esse fortiores. Quin etiam, quia et hoc sociis, quos derelinquere cogebantur, aliquid commodi adlaturum putabant, murum a mari ad mare recto tramite inter urbes, quae ibidem ob metum hostium factae fuerant, ubi et Seuerus quondam uallum fecerat, firmo de lapide locarunt. Quem uidelicet murum, hactenus famosum atque conspicuum, sumtu publico priuatoque adiuncta secum Brittanorum manu construebant, octo pedes latum et XII altum, recta ab 87 HE, I.12 88 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 23. 89 is should read correctly denunitiauere.

Gentes and collective identities in Bede’s writings

191

oriente in occasum linea, ut usque hodie intuentibus clarum est. Quo mox condito, dant fortia segni populo monita, praebent instituendorum exemplaria armorum.⁹⁰ [en the Romans informed the Britons that they could no longer be burdened with such troublesome expeditions for their defence; they advised them to take up arms themselves and make an effort to oppose their foes, who would prove too powerful for them only if they themselves were weakened by sloth. Moreover, thinking it might be some help to the allies whom they were compelled to abandon, they built a strong wall of stone from sea to sea in a straight line between the fortresses which had been built there for fear of the enemy, on the site where Severus had once made his rampart. So, at public and private expense and with the help of the Britons, they made a famous wall which is still to be seen. It is eight feet wide and twelve feet high, running in a straight line from east to west, as is plain for all to see even to this day. When it was complete they gave some heartening advice to this sluggish people and showed them how to make themselves weapons.]⁹¹ e expression populus segnis, sluggish people, agrees with the characterizations Gildas uses for the Britons. However, Bede provides information that is not given in Gildas, that the width of the wall was octo pedes. While there were indeed differences in the width of the wall, this number is considered to be correct (Colgrave 1969: 44). Apparently, Bede’s information is again more detailed than that which Gildas provided in his DEB. is can be explained by the eye witness experience and the proximity of Wearmouth-Jarrow to the wall as was mentioned before (Colgrave 1994: 6).⁹² Like Gildas, Bede also speaks of a letter to a certain Aetius who was dealt with in this study before:⁹³ Ad hunc pauperculae Brettonum reliquiae mittunt epistulam, cuius hoc principum est: ‘Aetio ter consuli gemitus Brittanorum,’ et in processu epistulae ita suas calamitates explicant:‘Repellunt barbari ad mare, repellit mare ad barbaros; inter haec orientur duo genera funerum, aut iugulamur aut mergimur.’ Neque haec tamen agentes quicquam ab illo auxilii inpetrare quiuerunt, utpote qui grauissimis eo 90 HE, I.12 91 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 23–24. 92 See Chapter 8.1.3. 93 See Chapter 6.1.4.

192

Bede’s Historiae

tempore bellis cum Blaedla et Attila regibus Hunorum erat occupatus [...].⁹⁴ [e wretched remnant of the Britons sent him [i.e. Aetius] a letter which began: ‘To Aetius, thrice consul, come the groans of the Britons.’ In the course of the letter they unfolded their sorrows: ‘e barbarians drive us to the sea: the sea drives us back on the barbarians; between them two kinds of death face us: we are either slaughtered or drowned.’ In spite of all this they were unable to obtain any help from him, seeing that he was at that time engaged in a deadly struggle with Blaedla and Attila, the kings of the huns;]⁹⁵ In contrast to Gildas, we learn more about Aetius in the HE. Bede identifies this person correctly with the Roman Consul Aetius, who died in 453 AD, but there are significant differences to Gildas’ chapter 20. Bede drops Gildas’ negative references to the Saxons. I will return to Bede’s treatment of the Saxons shortly. When referring to the time aer the appeal to Aetius, Bede refers to the Britons’ behaviour and their struggle against their enemies: Interea Brettones fames sua praefata magis magisque adficiens, ac famam suae malitiae posteris diuturnam relinquens, multos eorum coegit uictas infestis praedonibus dare manus, alios uero numquam; quin potius confidentes in diuinum, ubi humanum cessabat, auxilium de ipsis montibus speluncis ac saltibus continue rebellabant, et tum primum inimicis, qui per multos annos praedas in terra agebant, strages dare coeperunt.⁹⁶ [Meanwhile [i.e. aer the appeal to Aetius] this famine, which le to posterity a lasting memory of its horrors, afflicted the Britons more and more. It compelled many of them to surrender to the plundering foe; others, trusting in divine aid when human help failed them, would never give in but continued their resistance, hiding in mountains, caves and forests. At last they began to inflict severe losses on the enemy who had been plundering their land for many years.]⁹⁷ Bede does not accuse the Britons of lack of faith. He even emphasizes their initial military success against their enemies. Aer this success, however, Bede turns to 94 HE, I.13 95 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 25. 96 HE, I.14 97 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 25–26.

Gentes and collective identities in Bede’s writings

193

speak of their behaviour in the same way as we have already seen in Gildas’ DEB. In the following passage of chapter 14, the HE mentions of the outbreak of a civil war which not only involved the common people and the secular rulers but also the members of the Church: Et non solum haec saeculares uiri sed etiam ipse grex Domini eiusque pastores egerunt, ebrietati animositati litigio contentioni inuidiae ceterisque huiusmodi facinoribus sua colla, abiecto leui iugo Christi, subdentes.⁹⁸ [Not only were laymen guilty of these offences but even the Lord’s own flock and their pastors. ey cast off Christ’s easy yoke and thrust their necks under the burden of drunkenness, hatred, quarrelling, strife, and envy and other similar crimes.]⁹⁹ So in his judgement of the Britons’ behaviour during what seems to be a time of relative peace, Bede again agrees with what we already learned from Gildas’ DEB. is leads to the question of how Bede presents the battle of Mount Badon under the glorious leadership of Ambrosius Aurelianus. e context of the battle and the role of this heroic leader of the Britons were already discussed.¹⁰⁰ Bede also speaks of this battle and his reference resembles closely to what Gildas said about Ambrosius Aurelianus: At ubi hostilis exercitus exterminatis dispersisque insulae indigenis domum reuersus est, coeperunt et illi paulatim uires animosque resumere, emergentes de latibulis quibus abditi fuerant et unanimo consensu auxilium caeleste precantes ne usque ad internicionem usquequaque delerentur. Vtebantur eo tempore duce Ambrosio, uire modesto, qui solus forte Romanae gentis praefatae tempestati superfuerat, occisis in eadem parentibus regium nomen et insigne ferentibus. Hoc ergo duce uires capessunt Brettones, et uictores prouocantes as proelium uictoriam ipsi Deo fauente suscipiunt. Et ex eo tempore nunc ciues nunc hostes uincebant usque ad annum obsessionis Badonici montis, quando non minimas eisdem hostibus strages dabant, quadragesimo circiter et quarto anno aduentus eorum in Brittaniam.¹⁰¹

98 HE, I.14 99 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 26. 100 See Chapter 6.5. 101 HE, I.16

194

Bede’s Historiae

[When the army of the enemy had exterminated or scattered the native peoples, they returned home and the Britons slowly began to recover strength and courage. ey emerged from their hiding-places and with one accord they prayed for the help of God that they might not be completely annihilated. eir leader at that time was a certain Ambrosius Aurelianus, a discreet man, who was, as it happened, the sole member of the Roman race who had survived this storm in which his parents, who bore a royal and famous name, had perished. Under his leadership the Britons regained their strength, challenged their victors to battle, and with God’s help, won the day. From that time on, first the Britons won and then the enemy were [sic!] victorious until the year of the siege of Mount Badon, when the Britons slaughtered no small number of their foes about fourty-four years after their arrival in Britain.]¹⁰² e same event is also referred to in the CM: Brittones duce Ambrosio Aureliano uiro modesto, qui solus fortae Romanae gentis Saxonum caedi superfuerat, occisis in eadem parentibus purpura indutis, uictricem eorum gentem prouocantes ad proelium uincunt, et ex eo tempore nunc hi, nunc illi palmam habuere, donec aduena potentior tota per longum potiretur insula.¹⁰³ [e Britons, under the leadership of Ambrosius Aurelianus (a man of modest means, who alone of the Romans had survived the disaster of the Saxons in which his parents, who had worn the purple, had been killed), provoked the victors to battle and defeated them. From then on first one side then the other had the palm [of victory], until such time as the foreigners [i.e. the Saxons] became the more powerful ones throughout the whole island, which they have now possessed for a long while.]¹⁰⁴ In addition to the information provided by Gildas, Bede here speaks of other supporters of the Britons in their struggle against their enemies. e passage about Ambrosius Aurelianus is followed by the story of St Germanus and his journey and 102 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 28–29. Nicolas Higham claimed that Classical Latin exterminare should rather be translated with to drive out instead of to exterminate or to destroy. With his argument he supported the claim of modern scholarship that no large-scale genocide took place in Britain during the Anglo-Saxon conquest (Higham 2007: 3). 103 CM, 504 104 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 318.

Gentes and collective identities in Bede’s writings

195

miracles in Britain (chapters 17–21). In chapter 20, aside from the hagiographical quality of these chapters, we learn about bishops who lead the Britons against their enemies. Interea Saxones Pictique bellum aduersum Brettones iunctis uiribus susceperunt, quos eadem necessitas in castra contraxerat, et cum trepidi partes suas pene inpares iudicarent, sanctorum antistitum auxilium petierunt; qui promissum maturantes aduentum tantum pauentibus fiduciae contulerunt, ut accessisse maximus crederetur exercitus. Itaque apostolicis ducibus Christus militabat in castris.¹⁰⁵ [Meanwhile the Saxons and the Picts had joined forces and were making war upon the Britons, who were forced to take up arms. Fearing they were no match for their foes, they besought the help of the holy bishops. ese came at once to fulfil their promise and inspired such confidence in the timid people that one would have thought that a large army had come to their support. Indeed, with such apostolic leaders, it was Christ Himself who fought in their camp.]¹⁰⁶ In contrast to Gildas, the HE, following the triumph of the Britons, introduces the life of St Germanus of Auxerre who visited Britain in the first half of the fih century, acting as an envoy of Pope Celestine, who was Pope from 422 until 432 AD, in order to suppress the Pelagian heresy.¹⁰⁷ e Britons are again led to victory, this time by the bishop himself: Tum subito Germanus signifer uniuersos admonet, et praedicat ut uoci suae uno clamore respondeant; securisque hostibus, qui se insperatos adesse confiderent, alleluiam tertio repetitam sacerdotes exclamabant. Sequitur una uox omnium, et elatum clamorem repercusso aere montium conclusa multiplicant; hostile agmen terrore prosternitur, et super se non solum rupes circumdatas sed etiam ipsam caeli machinam contremescunt, trepidationique iniectae uix sufficere pedum pernicitas credebantur. Passim fugiunt, arma proiciunt, 105 HE, I.20 106 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 33. 107 e text De Vita sancti Germani was written in the mid-fih century by Constantius of Lyon, details about, however, remain unknown aside from the few information about him found in his book. e Pelagian heresy received its name from a British monk named Pelagius, who lived from 354 AD until 420 or later. He presumably voiced doctrines according to which humans were capable to choose between their good and bad behaviour in spite of the original sin, indicating a certain innocence and freedom of mankind for which Jesus served as a role model of good behaviour. Pelagianism thus considered humans to be sinners by choice rather than by nature in contrast to the Church.

196

Bede’s Historiae

gaudentes uel nuda corpora eripuisse discrimini; plures etiam timore praecipites flumen quod transierant deuorauit. Vltionem suam innocens exercitus intuetur, et uictoriae concessae otiosus spectator efficitur.¹⁰⁸ [Germanus who was bearing the standard, thereupon ordered his men to repeat his call in one great shout; as the enemy approached confidently, believing that their coming was unexpected, the bishops shouted ‘Alleluia’ three times. A universal shout of ‘Alleluia’ followed, and the echoes from the surrounding hills multiplied and increased in the sound. e enemy forces were smitten with dread, fearing that not only the surrounding rocks but even the very frame of heaven itself would fall upon them. ey were so filled with terror that they could not run fast enough. ey fled hither and thither casting away their weapons and glad even to escape naked from the danger. Many of them rushed headlong back in panic and were drowned in the river which they had just crossed. e army, without striking a blow, saw themselves avenged and became inactive spectators of the victory freely offered to them.]¹⁰⁹ e same event is also referred to in the CM: Heresis Pelagiana turbat fidem, qui a Gallicanis episcopis auxilium quaerentes Germanum Altiodorensis ecclesiae episcopum et Lupum Trecasenum aeque apostolicae gratiae antistitem fidei defensores accipiunt. Confirmant antistites fidem uerbo ueritatis simul et miraculorum signis. Sed et bellum Saxonum Pictorumque aduersus Brittones eo tempore iunctis uiribus susceptum diuina uirtute retundunt, cum Germanus ipse dux belli factus, non tubae clangore sed clamore alleluiae totius exercitus uoce ad sidera leuato, hostes in fugam uertit inmanes.¹¹⁰ [e Pelagian heresy disturbed the faith of the Britons, who having sought help from the Gallic bishops, received Germanus the bishop of Autun and Lupus, equally by apostolic grace, bishop of Treves as the defenders of the faith. e bishops strengthened the faith by the word of truth and at the same time by miraculous signs. Having gathered some men they checked the campaign of the Saxons and the Picts 108 HE, I.20 109 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 34. 110 CM, 491. e name Lupum Trecasenum refers to Loup, Bishop of Troyes in north-eastern France.

Gentes and collective identities in Bede’s writings

197

against the Britons by a divine miracle; with Germanus himself as their war-leader, the enemy was forced to flee panic-striken, not by the noise of the tuba but by the crying of Alleluia by the voice of the whole army raised to the stars.]¹¹¹ While writing about a victory of the Britons, Bede still claims that the Britons did not win because of their mere fighting but through their faith. However, his version of this battle does not speak of the cowardice of the Britons which we saw in Gildas’ DEB. Nevertheless, Bede emphasizes that the Britons did not contribute to the victory when informing his readers who actually won the battle: Triumphant pontifices hostibus fusis sine sanguine, triumphant uictoria fide obtenta non uiribus.¹¹² [e bishops thus overcame the enemy without the shedding of blood; they won a victory by faith and not by might.]¹¹³ Beside the fact that the Britons neither fought nor contributed to the victory, they are presented to have been passive and again, as we have seen so many times in Gildas’ DEB and in Bede’s HE, they are rescued by others. ere is, however, one significant difference: while Gildas focuses on the role of Ambrosius Aurelianus who leads the Britons to victory, the HE provides much more room to the role of the bishops in the victories of the Britons, most of all to the support of St Germanus and Bishop Lupus who does not appear at all in Gildas’ DEB. is treatment of the saint in contrast to Ambrosius Aurelianus indicates the emphasis Bede lays on the Gaulish bishops as spiritual as well as military leaders, thereby weakening the role of Ambrosius Aurelianus as the heroic leader of the Britons. In Bede’s understanding, Ambrosius Aurelianus still played his part in the victory of the Britons at Mount Badon, a figure he could not leave out aer relying so strongly on Gildas’ DEB. Yet, Bede weakens the role of the Roman or Romano-British military leader by inserting the figures of St Germanus and Lupus who not only lead the Britons to the victory over their enemies but also bring divine support into play. So while Gildas draws a direct connection between the battle of mons badonicus and the glorious example of Ambrosius Aurelianus who, however, cannot prevent the Britons to fall back to their wickedness, Bede adds an important detail: the role of a particularly non-British but Gaulish saint who twice tries to prevent the ruin of Britain but in the end fails because of the sinfulness of the Britons. Here the information in the HE contradicts the CM: the arrival of St Germanus and the 111 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 327. 112 HE, I.20 113 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 34.

198

Bede’s Historiae

battle mentioned above is dated to the rule of the Emperor Marcian, who ruled until AD 455.¹¹⁴ e battle under the leadership of Ambrosius Aurelianus, however, is dated to the end of the Emperor Zeno and the beginning of the rule of the Emperor Anasthasius around AD 491.¹¹⁵ According to the information provided in the CM, the battle in which St Germanus participated took place more than thirty years before the battle which was led by Ambrosius Aurelianus. Apparently, Bede changed the information he provided in the Chronica Maior in order to place the bishop into the same context with Ambrosius Aurelianus and, by the way the bishop is presented, diminishing the role of the British military leader in the HE (Goffart 1988: 303). Aer the death of St Germanus, Bede takes up the story from Gildas again and intensifies the topic of the Britons’ wickedness. e Britons, as we already learned from the DEB, enjoying a period of peace from foreign enemies, turn to civil war, with no ruler able to assume political control: Interea Brittaniae cessatum quidem est parumper ab externis, sed non a ciuilibus bellis. Manebant exterminia ciuitatum ab hoste derutarum ac desertarum; pugnabant contra inuicem, qui hostem euaserant, ciues. Attamen recente adhuc memoria calamitatis et cladis inflictae seruabant utcumque reges, sacerdotes, priuati et optimates suum quique ordinem. At illis decentibus, cum successisset aetas tempestatis illius nescia et praesentis solum serenitatis statum experta, ita cuncta ueritatis ac iustitiae moderamina concussa ac subuersa sunt, ut earum non dicam uestgium sed ne memoria quidem praeter in paucis, et ualde paucis, ulla appareret.¹¹⁶ [Meanwhile Britain had rest for a time from foreign though not from civil wars. e ruins of the cities destroyed and abandoned by the enemy still remained, while the citizens who had escaped from the foe fought against each other. Nevertheless, so long as the memory of the calamity and bloodshed was still fresh, somehow the kings, priests, nobles and private citizens kept within bounds. But, when they died, a generation succeeded which knew nothing of all these troubles and was used only to the present state of peace. en all restraints of truth and justice were so utterly destroyed and abandoned that, not merely was there no trace of them to be found, but only a small, a very small minority even remembered their existence.]¹¹⁷ 114 115 116 117

CM §488 CM §498 HE, I.22 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 36.

Gentes and collective identities in Bede’s writings

199

is passage highlights Bede’s major didactic point: learning from history means to follow the good example of others, while ignorance of the past, here shown by the example of a new generation of Britons, leads to wickedness. What follows is a reference about Gildas’ role as the Briton’s historian. e following passage contains Bede’s central accusation directed at the Britons: Qui inter alia inenarrabilium scelerum facta, quae historicus eorum Gildas flebili sermone describit, et hoc addebant, ut numquam genti Saxonum siue Anglorum, secum Brittaniam incolenti, uerbum fidei praedicando committerent. Sed non tamen diuina pietas plebem suam, quam praesciuit, deseruit; quin multo digniores genti memoratae praecones uertitatis, per quos crederet, destinauit.¹¹⁸ [To other unspeakable crimes, which Gildas their own historian describes in doleful words, was added this crime, that they never preached the faith to the Saxons or Angles who inhabited Britain with them. Nevertheless God in His goodness did not reject the people whom He foreknew, but He had appointed much worthier heralds of the truth to bring this people his faith.]¹¹⁹ e reproach against the Britons for not preaching the Christian faith to the saxones and to the angli is found again in both the HE and the CM.¹²⁰ is first explicit reference to Gildas marks the end of his DEB’s influence on the HE.¹²¹ In this connection, it is interesting how Bede, on the one hand, adapts the information provided in Gildas’ DEB and, on the other hand, changes it to his own perspective: the Saxons and the Angles, whom Gildas does not mention, are now the predestined people chosen by God to conquer the island (Trilling 2009: 139–140). In this, Bede follows what Renée Trilling has called the fall of Britain tradition, a historical 118 HE, I.22 119 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 36. 120 Bede tries to underline the role of Rome in the Conversion of the angli. It has been repeatedly claimed, however, that the Roman mission of these gentes in Britain was not the first attempt to convert them to the Christian faith. Earlier attempts were undertaken by missionaries from the Frankish kingdoms and from the Irish Church, see Plassmann, 2006, 58. Bede’s belief that Christians are obliged to preach the Gospel to their neighbours was also discussed by omas Charles-Edwards in 1983 (Charles-Edwards 1983a: 43). Bryan Ward-Perkins also claimed that Anglo-Saxons who lived in modern Worcershire, Gloucestershire and neighbouring regions had possibly been converted by British Christians. is Conversion, however, was not remembered since the Roman mission to Britain became dominant in the memory of the Anglo-Saxon Conversion and the ignorance of a possible British Conversion was encouraged by Roman missionaries due to the struggle of power between both Churches in Britain (Ward-Perkins 2000: 515). 121 A similar comparison between both works was carried out by Molly Miller. In her article, Miller limited the comparison of Bede and Gildas to their treatment of the Picts, the Saxons and the northern walls (Miller April 1975).

200

Bede’s Historiae

model originally developed by Orosius and taken up from Gildas in the first place, in order to explain “the meaning of catastrophic events and to offer hope by means of the promise of future salvation” (Trilling 2009: 136). is means that all three authors refer to the catastrophic events in Britain in the aermath of the Roman withdrawal and at the same time connect this period with a promise of salvation for the gentes in the future. In this passage, Bede thus followed the discourse of the topos of divine retribution for sinful behaviour, continued by Gildas who himself made use of Orosius’ material.¹²² 8.7.1.2 Bede and the Britons aer Gildas In the second chapter of book II, Bede introduces the dispute between the Roman and the British Church and relates how Augustine tries to convince the Britons to follow the Roman manner of the calculation of the Easter date. e British ecclesiastics, however, deny giving up their own tradition of calculating the Easter date and the dispute remains unsettled. In this chapter, the British bishops are even portrayed as hostile towards Augustine. He repeatedly demands them to follow the Roman tradition of the calculation of the Easter date as well as to help the Roman Church in the mission of the English people. However, the British ecclesiastics decline his demands and do not acknowledge him as archbishop. What follows are, first, threats by Augustine and then, later, military action where King Aethelfrith, who reigned Bernicia from 593 until 616 AD, defeats the Britons whom Bede calls gens perfida.¹²³ However, not only the British warriors were defeated during the battle. is king also kills a number of the British priests from the monastery of Bangor: Extinctos in ea pugna ferunt de his qui ad orandum uenerant uiros circiter mille ducentos, et solum L fuga esse lapsos. Brocmail ad primum hostium aduentum cum suis terga uertens, eos quos defendere debuerat inermes ac nudos ferientibus gladiis reliquit. Sicque completum est presagium sancti pontificis Augustini, quamuis ipso iam multo ante tempore ad caelestia regna sublato, ut etiam temporalis interitus ultione sentirent perfidi, quod oblata sibi perpetuae salutis consilia spreuerant.¹²⁴ 122 e same is done by Alcuin when he explains the devastation of the monastery of Lindisfarne by the Vikings, again referring to a catastrophic event as divine punishment for the sins of the people but with an outlook to a possible salvation, see Trilling 2009, 141. Another example can be found in Wulfstans Sermo ad Anglos, where the Viking raids are seen as divine retribution, see Pilch and Tristram 1979, 78. 123 HE II.1. is was translated as nation of heretics (Collins und McClure 1994: 73). However, perfidus might as well refer to the generally hostile and dishonourable behaviour of the Britons. e matter of the dispute between the Christian traditions of the Britons and Rome will be discussed in short. 124 HE, II.2

Gentes and collective identities in Bede’s writings

201

[It is said that in this battle about twelve hundred men were slain who had come to pray and only fiy escaped by flight. Brocmail [i.e. the guard of the priests] and his men at the first enemy attack turned their backs on those whom they should have defended, leaving them unarmed and helpless before the swords of their foes. us the prophecy of the holy Bishop Augustine was fulfilled, although he had long been translated to the heavenly kingdom, namely that those heretics would also suffer the vengeance of temporal death because they had despised the offer of everlasting salvation.]¹²⁵ In this passage, Bede repeatedly speaks about the defeat of the Britons as punishment for their wicked behaviour. e issue of the Easter controversy was of course also a political dispute in which the Roman episcopal Chruch claimed dominance over the British Church which had been organised in a monastic structure. e religious aspects within this dispute, i.e. the Easter controversy, but also questions regarding the tonsure, were thus symptoms of a political struggle for dominance underlying this conflict. He also emphasises the failure of the Britons when it comes to warfare and their lack of courage when fleeing from their enemies, characteristics which were already found in Gildas’ DEB. He shows no sympathy for the Britons nor for their ecclesiastical leaders, as they are shown as heretics, or rather as unfaithful in their submission to the Roman Church, in this passage. As will be shown shortly, Bede’s approach to the Irish or Pictish Christians is much more positive. e difference in faith as well as this initial refusal of the Britons of converting the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity becomes an obsessive topic in the following chapters of the HE. Bede returns to the Britons aer the death of King Edwin of Northumbria in the context of the British King Caedwalla. King Edwin of Northumbria is defeated and killed by Caedwalla, King of Gwynedd, who died either in AD 633 or 634. Caedwalla is supported by King Penda, the heathen Anglian King of Mercia.¹²⁶ When speaking of the time aer the battle mentioned in the previous quotation, Bede uses this passage to characterise the relationship between the gentes in general:

125 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 74. Again, I would argue against the translation of the term perfidi with heretics. In their refusal to accept the Easter calculus, the British Christians did not commit heresy in the true sense of the word which refers to unfaithful behaviour in a religious sense. It was much rather a political dispute between the monastic British Church and the episcopal Roman Church. One could speak of heretics in the widest sense of the word, but there needs to be a distinction between the reproaches against the Britons and the reproaches against heresy in the religious sense of the word, e.g. Pelagianism. 126 HE, II.20

202

Bede’s Historiae

Quo tempore maxima est facta strages in ecclesia uel gente Nordanhymbrum, maxime quod unus ex ducibus, a quibus acta est, paganus, alter quia barbarus erat pagano saeuior. Siquidem Penda cum omni Merciorum gente idolis deditus et Christiani erat nominis ignarus; at uero Caedualla, quamuis nomen et professionem haberet Christiani, adeo tamen erat animo ac moribus barbarus, ut ne sexui quidem muliebri uel innocuae paruulorum parceret aetati, quin uniuersos atrocitate ferina morti per tormenta contraderet, multo tempore totas eorum prouincias debachando peruagatus, ac totum genus Anglorum Brittaniae finibus erasurum se esse deliberans. Sed nec religioni Christianae, quae apud eos exorta erat, aliquid inpendebat honoris, quippe cum usque hodie moris sit Brettonum fidem religionemque Anglorum pro nihil habere, neque in aliquo eis magis communicare quam paganis.¹²⁷ [At this time there was a great slaughter both of the Church and of the people of Northumbria, one of the perpetrators being a heathen and the other a barbarian who was even more cruel than the heathen. Now Penda and the whole Mercian race were idolaters and ignorant of the name of Christ; but Caedwalla, although a Christian by name and profession, was nevertheless a barbarian in heart and disposition and spared neither women nor innocent children. With bestial cruelty he put all to death by torture and for a long time raged through all their land, meaning to wipe out the whole English nation from the land of Britain. Nor did he pay any respect to the Christian religion which had sprung amongst them. Indeed to this very day it is the habit of the Britons to despise the faith and religion of the English and not to cooperate with them in anything any more than with the heathen.]¹²⁸ Repeating his accusation against the Britons for not converting the English in the first place, Bede speaks of their general despise of the newly adopted religion of the angli. He does not refer to the time before the conversion of the English in the seventh century which he mostly ignores, as will be shown in the following chapter. His characterisation of Caedwalla is strongly remniscient of what Gildas wrote about the picti and scotti. Bede also claims that while King Penda and Caedwalla fought King Edwin of Northumbria together, it is Caedwalla who intends to wipe out totum genus Anglorum. Bede, as becomes apparent in this passage, does not hide or disguise his despise of the Britons in general and of Caedwalla in particular. 127 HE, II.20 128 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 105.

Gentes and collective identities in Bede’s writings

203

Bede continues his account of Caedwalla and relates how this British king defeated two English kings, Osric and Eanfrith, who had lost their Christian faith and returned to their heathen beliefs and practices: Nec mora, utrumque rex Brettonum Caedualla impia manu sed iusta ultione peremit. Et primo quidem proxima aestate Osricum, dum se in oppido municipio temerarie obsedisset, erumpens subito cum suis omnibus inparatum cum toto exercitu deleuit. Dein cum anno integro prouincias Nordanhymbrorum non ut rex uictor possideret, sed quasi tyrannus sauiens disperderet ac tragica caede dilaceraret, tandem Eanfridum inconsulte ad se cum XII lectis militibus postulandae pacis gratia uenientem simili sorte damnauit. Infaustus ille annus et omnibus bonis exosus usque hodie permanent, tam propter apostasiam regum Anglorum, qua se fidei sacramentis exuerant, quam propter uaesanam Brettonici regis tyrannidem.¹²⁹ [Very soon aerwards [i.e. AD 634], Caedwalla, the king of the Britons, killed them both [i.e. Osric, King of Deira and Eanfrith, King of Bernicia], executing a just vengeance upon them, though with unrighteous violence. First, in the following summer he killed Osric, who had rashly besieged him in a fortified town; he broke out suddenly with all his forces, took Osric by surprise, and destroyed him and all his army. Aer this he occupied the Northumbrian kingdoms [i.e. Northumbria and Bernicia] for a whole year, not ruling them like a victorious king but ravaging them like a savage tyrant, tearing them to pieces with fearful bloodshed. Finally, when Eanfrith came to him unadvisedly [sic!] to make peace, accompanied only by twelve chosen thegns, he destroyed him as well. To this day this year is still held to have been ill-omened and hateful to all good men, not only on account of the apostasy of the English kings who cast aside the mysteries of their faith, but also because of the outrageous tyrannies of the British king.]¹³⁰ Caedwalla, a British Christian and, therefore, an opponent of the Roman Church in Bede’s perspective, successfully defeats and kills the two heathen Anglian kings. However, when facing a Roman-Christian opponent, the Britons’ success is reversed: Quo post occisionem fratris Eanfridi superueniente cum paruo exercitu, sed fide Christi munito, infandus Brettonum dux cum inmen129 HE, III.1 130 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 110–111.

204

Bede’s Historiae

sis illis copiis, quibus nihil resistere posse iactabat, interemtus est in loco, qui lingua Anglorum Denisesburna, id es Riuus Denisi, uocatur.¹³¹ [Aer his brother Eanfrith was killed, Oswald [i.e. his successor] came with an army, small in numbers but strengthened by their faith in Christ, and destroyed the abominable leader of the Britons together with the immense force which he boasted irresistible, at a place which is called in the English tongue, Deniseburn, that is the brook of the Denise.]¹³² So while Caedwalla, a Celtic Christian, succeeds over two heathen Anglian kings, he is, according to Bede, defeated by a Roman Christian king because of his faith. e pervasive influence of Gildas’ DEB on Bede’s references about the Britons is obvious. As the following chapter will show, the same is true for his treatment of the saxones. 8.7.2 Bede and the Saxons

A first reference to the saxones is provided by the CM and immediately recalls the equivalent passage in Gildas’ DEB: Gens Anglorum siue Saxonum Britaniam tribus longis nauibus aduehitur, quibus dum iter prosperatum domi fama referret, mittitus exercitus fortior, qui iunctus prioribus primo hostes quos petebatur abigit. Deinde in socios arma uertens totam prope insulam ab orientali eius plaga usque ad occidentalem igni uel ense subigit conficta occasione, quod pro se militantibus Brittones minus sufficenter stipendia darent.¹³³ [e people of the Angles or the Saxons came to Britain in three longships; as their undertaking prospered, the fame of it was carried back home. ey sent for a stronger army, which, joined to the previous one, first of all drove away the enemy that they were seeking [i.e. the Picts and the Irish]. Next, turning their arms on their allies, they subjugated virtually the whole of the island by fire or the sword, from the eastern shore as far as the western one, offering as their ex-

131 HE, III.1 132 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 111. 133 CM, 489

Gentes and collective identities in Bede’s writings

205

cuse that the Britons had given them less than sufficient salary for their military services.]¹³⁴ While clearly influenced by Gildas, the CM at this point, based on the meaning of sive as or, seems to use the names of the angli and the saxones as synonyms. However, as will be shown in this chapter, Bede distinguishes carefully between both gentes in the HE.¹³⁵ What follows is again closely related to Gildas’ DEB, where we already learned that the Britons asked the saxones for help and, by doing so, are punished by God for their sinful behaviour: Vnde non multo post acrior gentem peccatricem ultio diri sceleris secuta est: initum namque est consilium quid agendum, ubi quaerendum esset praesidium ad euitandas uel repellendas tam feras tamque creberrimas gentium aquilonalium inruptiones, placuitque omnibus cum suo rege Uutigerno ut Saxonum gentem de transmarinis partibus in auxilium uocarent. Quod Domini nutu dispositum esse constat, ut ueniret contra inprobos malum, sicut euidentius rerum exitus probauit.¹³⁶ [For this reason [i.e. their sins] a still more terrible retribution soon aerwards overtook this sinful people for their fearful crimes. ey consulted as to what they should do and where they should seek help to prevent or repel the fierce and very frequent attacks of the northern nations; all, including their king Vortigern, agreed that they should call the Saxons to their aid from across the sea. As events plainly showed, this was ordained by the will of God so that evil might fall upon those miscreants.]¹³⁷ Still following Gildas’ DEB, Bede agrees that the Saxons were sent by God to punish the Britons for their sins. While in this passage the HE only names the saxones, the angli then are first referred to in the following chapter of book I: Tunc Anglorum siue Saxonum gens, inuitata a rege praefato, Brittaniam tribus longis nauibus aduehitur et in orientali parte insulae iubente eodem rege locum manendi, quasi pro patria pugnatura, re autem uera hanc expugnatura suscepit. Inito ergo certamine cum hostibus, qui ab aquilone ad aciem uenerant, uictoriam sumsere Saxones. Quod ubi domi nuntiatum est, simul et insulae fertilitas 134 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 326. 135 is difference in Bede’s approach had already been voiced in McClure and Collins, 1994, xx. 136 HE, I.14 137 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 26.

206

Bede’s Historiae

ac segnitia Brettonum, mittitur confestim illo classis prolixior, armatorum ferens manum fortiorem, quae praemissae adiuncta cohorti inuincibilem fecit exercitum.¹³⁸ [At that time [i.e. the rule of Emperor Marcian] the race of the Angles or Saxons, invited by Vortigern, came to Britain in three warships and by his command were granted a place of settlement in the eastern part of the island, ostensibly to fight on behalf of the country, but their real intention was to conquer it. First they fought against the enemy who attacked from the north and the Saxons won the victory. A report of this as well as of the fertility of the island and the slackness of the Britons reached their homes and at once a much larger fleet was sent over with a stronger band of warriors; this, added to the contingent already there, made an invincible army.]¹³⁹ Bede acknowledges the arrival of the enemy gentes with their ships in Britain, whereas again he refers to them as anglorum siue saxonum gens, not clearly distinguishing what had, in his time, become two gentes, from each other. He also claims that the arrivals intended to conquer Britain. He speaks of a Saxon victory against the enemy of the Britons and does not mention the angli in this context. It is also not entirely clear in this passage who informs their home about the segnitia Brettonum, although it is of course possible that messengers were used to maintain communication with the saxones on the Continent. Does Bede imply here that this was only done by the saxones but not by the angli? It seems surprising that the gens Anglorum is mentioned here only indirectly and vaguely. is passage, I would argue, reads as if Bede only added the gens anglorum to the information already provided by Gildas, leading to this obvious but confusing information. Bede, however, becomes more specific about this early period of the history of the Germanic gentes in Britain later in this chapter when he provides information that was not contained in Gildas’ DEB: Aduenerant autem de tribus Germaniae populis fortioribus, id est Saxonibus, Anglis, Iutis. De Iutarum origine sunt Cantuari et Uictuari, hoc est ea gens quae Uectam tenet insulam, et ea quae usque hodie in prouincia Occidentalium Saxonum Iutarum natio nominatur, posita contra ipsam insulam Uectam. De Saxonibus, id est ea regione quae nunc Antiquorum Saxonum cognominatur, uenere Orientales Saxones, Meridiani Saxones, Occidui Saxones. Porro de Anglis, hoc 138 HE, I.15 139 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 27.

Gentes and collective identities in Bede’s writings

207

est de illa patria quae Angulus dicitur, et ab eo tempore usque hodie manere desertus inter prouincias Iutarum et Saxonum perhibetur, Orientales Angli, Mediterranei Angli, Merci, tota Nordanhymbrorum progenies, id est illarum gentium quae ad boream Humbi fluminis inhabitant, ceterique Anglorum populi sunt orti.¹⁴⁰ [ey came from three very powerful Germanic tribes, the Saxons, Angles and Jutes. e people of Kent and the inhabitants of the isle of Wight are of Jutish origin and also those opposite the Isle of Wight, that part of the kingdom of Wessex which is still today called the nation of the Jutes. From the Saxon country, that is, the district known as Old Saxony, came the East Saxons, the South Saxons, and the West Saxons. Besides this, from the country of the Angles, that is, the land between the kingdoms of the Jutes and the Saxons, which is called Angulus, came the East Angles, the Middle Angles, the Mercians, and all the Northumbrian race (that is those people who dwell north of the river Humber) as well as other Anglian tribes. Angulus is said to have remained deserted from that day to this.]¹⁴¹ Bede provides a division of the Germanic tribes entering Britain. While this passage does not mention other Germanic gentes who arrived in Britain around the same period, for example the Frisians or the Franks, it does provide more information about the invaders than Gildas’ DEB (Colgrave 1969: 50). Bede not only names the gentes but also speaks about their settlements and about their geographical origins. In the following passages of this chapter, he continues informing his readers about the leaders of these invaders: Duces fuisse perhibentur eorum primi duo fratres Hengist et Horsa, e quibus Horsa postea occisus in bello a Brettonibus hactenus in orientalibus Cantiae partibus monumentum habet suo nomine insigne. Erant autem filii Uictgisli, cuius pater Uitta, cuius pater Uecta, cuius pater Uoden, de cuius stirpe multarum prouinciarum regum genus originem duxit.¹⁴² [eir first leaders are said to have been two brothers, Hengist and Horsa. Horsa was aerwards killed in battle by the Britons, and in the eastern part of Kent there is still a monument bearing his name. ey were the sons of Wihtgisl, son of Witta, son of Wecta, son of Woden, 140 HE, I.15 141 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 27. 142 HE, I.15

208

Bede’s Historiae

from whose stock the royal families of many kingdoms claimed their descent.]¹⁴³ Bede here provides information on what he thought was claimed to be the origin of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in Britain. But he again remains vague about which gens Hengist and Horsa are leading. Bede speaks of a monument in Cantia, i.e. Kent. He mentioned before that Kent was inhabited by the gens iutarum. Does this mean he claims that Hengist and Horsa were of Jutish origin? ey could also be leaders of the saxones alone or unite an army with participants of all the three gentes Bede named.¹⁴⁴ However, this passage does not imply who Hengist and Horsa are leading into Britain. All Bede makes clear is that they are descendants from Woden, who is claimed to be the progenitor of many royal families, without naming who these families are. Bede finishes this passage with an explanation on how the invaders succeed in conquering Britain. He repeats his claim that the invasion is a result of the sinfulness of the Britons: Siquidem, ut breuiter dicam, accensus manibus paganorum ignis iustas de sceleribus populi Dei ultiones expetiit, non illius inpar qui quondam a Chaldeis succensus Hierosolymorum moenia, immo aedificia cuncta consumit. Sic enim et hic agente impio uictore, immo disponente iusto Iudice, proximas quasque ciuitates agrosque depopulans, ab orientali mari usque ad occidentale nullo prohibente uum continuauit incendium, totamque prope insulae pereuntis superficiem obtextit.¹⁴⁵ [To put it briefly, the fire kindled by the hands of the heathen executed the just vengeance of God on the nation for its crimes. It was not unlike that fire once kindled by the Chaldeans which consumed the walls and all the buildings of Jerusalem. So here in Britain the just Judge ordained that the fire of their brutal conquerors should ravage all the neighbouring cities and countryside from the east to the western sea, and burn on, with no one to hinder it, until it covered almost the whole face of the doomed island.]¹⁴⁶ Bede again provides details about the suffering of the Britons which follows the invasion, but at this point it is clear that he strongly agrees with Gildas in the 143 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 27. 144 In spite of the vague information provided in this passage, Alheydis Plassmann tried to identify Hengist and Horsa as leaders of the angli (Plassmann 2006: 65). 145 HE, I.15 146 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 28.

Gentes and collective identities in Bede’s writings

209

justification of the invasion of the Germanic tribes in Britain as divine punishment of the Britons.¹⁴⁷ is passage is the final general reference about the Saxons in both of Bede’s works. From now on he specifies the individual Saxon kingdoms when providing information about their kings, their bishops or the conversion of the people in their kingdoms. He also provides names for two particular Saxon tribes which deserve a closer look. 8.7.2.1 e geuissi in the HE ere are four references to the geuissi in the HE. One of them is found in book V, when Bede speaks of the new rulers in the East Saxon kingdom who drove out the bishops of the former king and were therefore punished: Sed non multo tempore reges, qui praeconem a se ueritatis expulerant, daemonicis cultibus inpune seruiebant. Nam egressi contra gentem Geuissorum in proelium omnes pariter cum sua militia corruerunt; nec, licet auctoribus perditis, excitatum ad scelera uulgus potuit recorrigi atque ad simplicitatem fidei et caritatis, que est in Christo, reuocari.¹⁴⁸ [But not for long did the kings [i.e. the East Saxon kings] who had driven away the herald of truth worship their devils unpunished. ey went out to fight against the Gewisse and they and all their army perished together. But thought (sic!) the instigators perished, the people, once they had been encouraged to do evil, could not be converted and recalled to the simplicity of faith and love which is in Christ.]¹⁴⁹ Aside from the punishment of the heathen East Saxon kings, this passage is reminiscent of the Britons who, as we have seen in Gildas’ DEB, also return to their sinful ways whenever possible. But who were the Gewisse? Bede uses the name interchangeably and locates this gens in the geographical region of the future kingdom of Wessex. (Kirby 1991: 38). e name has thus been claimed to have been an early name for the gens that was later referred to as the West Saxons (Collins und McClure 1994: 387) (Yorke 1995: 6). e name Gewisse appears again in book III when they are converted to the Christian faith around the time of the death of the Northumbrian King Oswald in ca. AD 642:

147 See Chapter 8.7.1.1. 148 HE, II.5 149 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 80.

210

Bede’s Historiae

Eo tempore gens Occidentalium Saxonum, qui antiquitus Geuissae uocabantur, regnante Cynigislo fidem Christi suscepit, praedicante ilis uerbum Birino episcopo [...]. Sed Brittaniam perueniens, ac primum Geuissorum gentem ingrediens, cum omnes ibidem paganissimos inueniret, utilius esse ratus est ibi potius Verbum praedicare quam ultra progrediens eos, quibus praedicare deberet, inquirere.¹⁵⁰ [About this time the West Saxons, who in early days were called the Gewisse, received the faith of Christ during the reign of Cynegisl through the preaching of Bishop Birinus [...]. So he came to Britain and visited the race of the Gewisse first of all; finding that they were all completely heathen, he decided that it would be more useful to preach the word there rather than go further seeking for others to evangelize.]¹⁵¹ In the following part of this chapter, Bede speaks of Cynegisl’s son Cenwealh who remained heathen. When he became king aer his father’s death, the kingdom started to decline and he suffered many military defeats. It was only restored again when the kingdom received a new bishop in 670 AD, Leuthere, who died in 676 AD. e geuisse appear again in a reference to the inhabitants of the geographical region of the future kingdom of the the West Saxons in book IV chapter 16, where Bede speaks of their country: Sita est autem haec insula contra medium Australium Saxonum et Geuissorum, interposito pelago latitudinis trium milium, quod uocatur Soluente. In quo uidelicet pelago bini aestus Oceani, qui circum Brittaniam ex infinito Oceano septentrionali erumpunt, sibimet inuicem cotidie conpugnantes occurrunt ultra hostium fluminis Homelea, quod per terras Iutorum quae ad regionem Geuissorum pertinent praefatum pelagus intrat, finitoque conflictu in Oceanum refusi unde uenerant redeunt. ¹⁵² [e Isle of Wight lies opposite the borders of the South Saxons and of the Gewisse, with three miles of sea between, which is called the Solent. In this sea the two ocean tides which breaks up Britain from the boundless northern ocean meet daily in conflict beyond the mouth

150 HE, III.7. Bishop Birinus is also mentioned as first bishop of Wessex in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. His origin and background, however, remain unknown. He presumably died in 650 AD. 151 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 119–120. 152 HE, IV.16

Gentes and collective identities in Bede’s writings

211

of the river Huble, which enters the same sea, flowing through those Jutish lands which belong to the kingdom of the Gewisse.]¹⁵³ A final reference to the name of this gens occurs in book V chapter 19, where Bede uses the name without a reference to the new name of the West Saxons. Following the research of Barbara Yorke, the name was referring to a gens which settled in the upper ames region (Yorke 1995: 34). Yorke also argued for an etymology of the name from the Old English term for reliable or sure while David Kirby argued for an etymology based on a mythical figure, gewis, who was later claimed to be found in the ancestry of the Kings of Wessex (Kirby 1991: 38–29). At present, the etymology of the term is, therefore, still a matter of debate. e conquests of the gens led to the establishment of the Kingdom of Wessex during the late 7th and early 8th century (Yorke 1995: 6). It was also during this time, that West Saxons was established as their new name and eventually replaced the term geuisse.¹⁵⁴ Another gens that Bede regularly connects with the Saxons are the gyrui. 8.7.2.2 e gyrui in the HE e HE refers three times to the gyrwe. ey are mentioned for the first time in chapter 20, book III. Interea, defuncto Felice Orientalium Anglorum episcopo post X et VII annos accepti episcopatus, Honorius loco eius ordinauit omam diaconum eius de prouincia Gyruiorum. [...] Et ipse quoque Honorius, postquam metas sui cursus inpleuit, ex hac luce migrauit anno ab incarnatione Domini DCLIII, pridie kalendarum Octobrium; et cessante episcopatu per annum et sex menses, electus est archiepiscopus cathedrae Doruuernensis sextus de gente Occidentalium Saxonum [...] et ipse, defuncto Ithamar, consecrauit pro eo Damianum, qui de genere Australium Saxonum erat oriundus.¹⁵⁵ [Meanwhile Felix died seventeen years aer becoming bishop of the East Angles, and Honorius consecrated in his place his deacon named omas who belonged to the nation of the Gyrwe. [...] en Honorius himself, aer he had finished his course, departed in the 153 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 198. 154 e Dictionary of Old English does not provide any reference to the name altogether. It was claimed that the name could be traced back to a certain Gewis, presumably the great-grandfather of Cerdic, the putative mythological founder and first king of Wessex from AD 519 until AD 534. Asser claimed that the name of Gewis led Bede to assign the name geuisse to the gens (Bosworth 1954). 155 HE, III.20

212

Bede’s Historiae

year of the Lord 653, on 30 September. Aer the see had been vacant eighteen months, Deusdedit, a West Saxon by race, was elected sixth archbishop of Canterbury. [...] Deusdedit, on the death of Ithamar, consecrated Damian in his place, a man of the South Saxon race.]¹⁵⁶ As the example of Deusdedit, the first Saxon bishop of Canterbury who died in 664 AD, demonstrates, the origin of the ecclesiastics was worth mentioning for Bede. Not only was there a regular exchange of ecclesiastics between the gentes, but also the reference to the original gens was apparently of importance. However, I disagree with the translation provided in the 1994 edition of McClure and Collins. Colgrave’s edition reads provincia Gyruiorum which I would argue is a reference to a geographical area which is identified as the provincia of this particular gens instead of referring to their name as a natio.¹⁵⁷ A similar reference can be found in book IV: Non multo post haec elapso tempore, offensus a Uynfrido Merciorum episcopo per meritum cuiusdam inoboedientiae, eodorus archiepiscopus deposuit eum de episcopatu post annos accepti episcopatus non multos, et in loco eius ordinauit episcopum Sexuulfum, qui erat constructor et abbas monasterii quod dicitur Medeshamstedi in regione Gyruiorum.¹⁵⁸ [Not long aerwards, Archbishop eodore, displeased by some act of disobedience of Winfrith, bishop of the Mercians, deposed him from his bishopric which he had held only a few years. In his place he consecrated Seaxwulf as bishop, the founder and abbot of the monastery known as Medehamstede (Peterborough) in the land of the Gyrwe.]¹⁵⁹ Here, Bede uses the name as a reference to a regio, a territory. is use of the name is confirmed in the reference to the gyrwe found in book IV: Accepit autem rex Ecgfrid coniugem nomine Aedilthrydam, filiam Anna regis Orientalium Anglorum, cuius saepius mentionem fecimus, uiri bene religiosi ac per omnia mente et opere egregii; quam et alter ante illum uir habuerat uxorem, princeps uidelicet Australium Gyruiorum uocabulo Tondberct. ¹⁶⁰ 156 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 143. 157 omas Charles-Edwards claimed earlier that Bede uses the term prouincia for the territory of a kingdom or for the territory of a distinct gens (Charles-Edwards 1983a: 49–51). 158 HE, IV.6 159 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 183. 160 HE, IV.19

Gentes and collective identities in Bede’s writings

213

[King Ecgfrith married a wife named Aethelthryth, the daughter of Anna, king of the East Angles, who has oen been referred to, a very religious man and noble both in mind and deed. She had previously been married to an ealdorman of the South Gyrwe, named Tondberht.]¹⁶¹ In this passage, the name gyrui is not found in connection with a geographical reference but as a name for a gens. e term gyrui has been claimed to be connected to OE gyr which can be translated with fen, mud or marsh, cognate with Old Frisian gere or cere which means dirty water (Bosworth 1954). is gens was connected with OE gyrwe which can be translated the marsh dwellers (Ekwall 1960: 268).¹⁶² In this case, an identification of the gens and its name with their territory in East Anglia, in the area of Medeshamstede, today’s Peterbrough, seems therefore likely. 8.7.2.3 e Continental Saxons in the HE Bede’s HE is not limited to references to the Saxons in Britain. In book V, he also speaks about the attempt to convert the Continental Saxons at the end of the seventh century. Here he provides information about this gens: [D]uo presbyteri de natione Anglorum, qui in Hibernia multo tempore pro aeterna patria exulauerant, uenerunt ad prouinciam Antiquorum Saxonum, si forte aliquos ibidem praedicando Christo aduirere possent. Erant autem unius ambo, sicut deuotionis, sic etiam uocabuli, nam uterque eorum appellabatur Heuuald; ea tamen distinctione, ut pro diuersa capillorum specie unus Niger Heuuald, alter Albus Heuuald diceretur. Quorum uterque pietate religionibus inbutus, sed Niger Heuuald magis sacrarum litterarum erat scientia institutus. Qui uenientes in prouinciam intrauerunt hospitium cuiusdam uilici, petieruntque ab eo ut transmitterentur ad satrapam qui super eum erat, eo quod haberent aliquid legationis et causae utilis, quod deberent ad illum perferre. Non enim habent regem idem Antiqui Saxones, sed satrapas plurimos suae genti praepositos, qui ingruente belli articulo mittunt aequaliter sortes, et quemcumque sors ostenderit, hunc tempore belli ducem omnes sequuntur, huic obtemperant; peracto autem bello, rursum aequalis potentiae omnes fiunt satrapae. ¹⁶³ 161 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 202. 162 See also the entry gyru in the Dictionary of Old English which agrees with these interpretations. e etymology of the term remains unknown. 163 HE, V.10

214

Bede’s Historiae

[[T]wo English priests who had long lived in exile in Ireland for the sake of their eternal fatherland, came to the kingdom of the Old Saxons in the hope of winning some in that land to Christ by their preaching. ey both shared the same devotion and also the same name, for they were both named Hewald, but with the distinction that because of the different colour of their hair one was called Black Hewald and the other White Hewald; both were full of religious devotion, but Black Hewald was more learned in the holy Scriptures. When they reached the land, they went into the guest-house of a certain reeve, asking him to give them safe conduct to the viceroy who was over him because they had a message of importance which they had to deliver to him. e Old Saxons have no king but only a number of viceroys who are set over the people and, when at any time war is about to brake out, they cast lots impartially and all follow and obey the one on whom the lot falls, for the duration of the war. When the war is over, they all become viceroys of equal ranks again.]¹⁶⁴ It is not clear where Bede received these details from but he provided an insight to the social hierarchy of the Continental Saxons, which apparently differed from the hierarchy in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. e two priests are not welcome though and are killed before they can reach the said local ruler and before they can start their mission. In the following passage, Niger Heuuald is tortured and killed while Albus Heuuald is slain with a sword. e ruler, however, avenges the two priests: Quod cum satrapa ille, quem uidere uolebant, audisset, iratus est ualde, quod ad se uenire uolentes peregrini non permitterentur, et mittens occidit uicanos illos omnes uicumque incendio consumsit.¹⁶⁵ [When the viceroy whom they wished to see heard of it, he was extremely angry that the pilgrims had not been permitted to see him as they wished, So he sent and slew all those villagers and burned their village.]¹⁶⁶ Bede here indicates that this particular local ruler of the Continental Saxons, while still a heathen, demonstrates his interest in supporting the Christian mission. is passage also emphasizes the positive view of Bede of the Saxon’s pagan ancestors in spite of the death of the two English priests. Again, there is a strong contrast with the passages where Bede writes about the religion of the Britons. 164 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 249–250. 165 HE, V.10 166 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 249–250.

Gentes and collective identities in Bede’s writings

215

In his last book, Bede provides a final overview of the Continental gentes from which the gentes whom he calls Germani emigrated to Britain: Eo tempore uenerabilis et cum omni honorificenta nominandus famulus Christi et sacerdos Ecgberct, quem in Hibernia insula peregrinam ducere uitam pro adipiscenda in caelis patria retulimus, proposuit animo pluribus prodesse, idest, initio opere apostolico, uerbum Dei aliquibus earum, quae nondum audierant, gentibus euangelizando committere. Quarum in Germania plurimas nouerat esse nationes, a quibus Angli uel Saxones, qui nunc Brittaniam incolunt, genus et originem duxisse noscuntur; unde hactenus a uicina gente Brettonum corrupte Garmani nuncupantur. Sunt autem Fresones, Rugini, Danai, Hunni, Antiqui Saxones, Boructuari. Sunt alii perplures hisdem in partibus populi paganis adhuc ritibus seruientes, ad quos uenire praefatus Christi miles circumnauigata Brittania disposuit, siquos forte ex illis ereptos Satanae ad Christum transferre ualeret; uel, si hoc fieri non posset, Romam uenire ad uidenda atque adoranda beatorum apostolorum ac martyrum Christi limina cogitauit.¹⁶⁷ [At that time the venerable servant of Christ and priest Egbert, a man to be named with all honour, was living a life of exile in Ireland, as has been said before, so that he might reach his heavenly fatherland. He planned to bring blessing to many peoples by undertaking the apostolic task of carrying the word of God, through the preaching of the gospel, to some of those nations who had not yet heard it. He knew that there were very many peoples in Germany from whom the Angles and Saxons, who now live in Britain, derive their origin; hence even to this day they are by a corruption called Garmani by their neighbours the Britons. Now these people are the Frisians, Rugians, Danes, Huns, Old Saxons, and Boruhtware (Bructeri); there are also many other nations in the same land who are still practising heathen rites to whom this soldier of Christ proposed to go, aer sailing round Britain, to try if he could deliver any of them from Satan and to go to Rome, there to visit and worship at the shrines of the blessed apostles and martyrs of Christ.]¹⁶⁸ 167 HE, V.9 168 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 247. is translation, however, deserves a closer investigation. e translation of Latin Germania with Germany is an anachronism leading to the identification of the settlements of the migrating gentis in the modern state of Germany which of course cannot be correct. Latin Germania referred to the area east of the Rhine, possibly including parts of Switzerland, France, Belgium and the Netherlands in the west and stretching far into the region of modern Poland.

216

Bede’s Historiae

Since the focus of my analysis lies with the gentes in Britain, I do not want to go into detail about the possible locations of the continental gentes in this passage.¹⁶⁹ However, this passage indicates the vague and confused nature of Bede’s information about the Germanic gentes in general: e bructeri were a gens between the rivers Rhine and Lippe in northern Germany who were defeated by the Continental Saxons in the 690’s (Colgrave 1969: 477). Here, his information is accurate. e last contact between the Rugians as well the Huns with northern Europe can be dated to the fih century (Collins und McClure 1994: 412). Kenneth Jackson suggested that Garmani was a local British Latin form for Germani (Jackson 2000, Reprint of 1953: 281). e form Garmani, however, is not preserved in this form in any other source (Collins und McClure 1994: 412). McClure and Collins suggested that he named these gentes to represent the view of King Egbert of the heathen Continental neighbours of the Anglo-Saxons (Collins und McClure 1994: 412). Apart from this, Bede again speaks of pagan gentes in the same neutral tone which can be seen throughout his work, the passage lacks any criticism but much rather implies hope for their conversion in the future. is once more underlines the contrast between Bede’s reference to the pagan Germanic gentes and his tone towards Christian brettones, who however refused to follow the Roman traditions and its claim for dominance in Britain. 8.7.3 Bede and the angli

Regarding the construction of ethinic identities in Bede’s HE, there is one central question: who were Bede’s angli? Gildas’ DEB does not mention them at all.¹⁷⁰ Furthermore, their occurrence in Y Gododdin has been a matter of debate since they are not mentioned verbatim but as neighbours to the south of the Gododdin.¹⁷¹ So whom does Bede refer to when speaking of the angli? Apart from the title, there are numerous references to them found in both of his sources. Bede added them to the advent of the Saxons, a passage which apart from the mentioning of the angli closely resembles the version that was found in Gildas’ DEB.¹⁷² It was also shown where Bede claimed the angli came from and where they settled in

169

170 171 172

e translation here is thus misleading. e same is true for the translation of populi with nation, peoples would seem more appropriate. e Frisians, for example, were located on the northern coastal area of Germany and the Netherlands as well as on the south-western coast of Denmark while the Rugians presumably settled between the southern coast of the Baltic Sea and central eastern Europe. e origin of the Old Saxons is commonly located in the southern region of the modern German state of Schleswig-Holstein. See Chapter 6.5. See Chapter 7.5. e addition of the angli to this episode as well as their role in Bede’s work altogether led Jack Ogilvy to call him “the first Englishman” (Ogilvy 1994: 245–246). Ogilvy claimed that Bede was the first to unite the gens under the name angli while also mentioning that they were Northumbrians, Mercians or Deirans. For the discussion of the passage in Gildas, see Chapter 6.4.3.

Gentes and collective identities in Bede’s writings

217

Britain aer their arrival.¹⁷³ In addition to these references, Bede provides more information about this gens in the middle of his HE. In the following passage, he introduces the connection with the angli and the Roman Church or rather with Pope Gregory the Great in a paronomastic wordplay: Nec silentio praeterunda opinio, quae de beato Gregorio traditione maiorum ad nos usque perlata est, qua uidelicet ex causa admonitus tam sedulam erga salutem nostrae gentis curam gesserit. Dicunt quia die quadam, cum aduientibus nuper mercatoribus multa uenalia in forum fuissent conlata, multi ad emendum confluxissent, et ipsum Gregorium inter alios aduenisse, ac uidisse inter alia pueros uenales positos candidi corporis ac uenusti uultus, capillorum quoque forma egregia. Quos cum aspiceret, interrogauit, ut aiunt, de qua regione uel terra essent adlati; dictumque est quia de Brittania insula, cuius incolae talis essent aspectus. Rursus interrogauit utrum idem insulani Christiani, an paganis adhuc erroribus essent inplicati. Dictum est quid essent pagani. At ille, intimo ex corde longa trahens suspiria, ‘Heu, pro dolor!’ inquit ‘quod tam lucidi uultus homines tenebrarum auctor possidet, tantaque gratia frontispicii mentem ab interna gratia uacuam gestat!’ Rursus ergo interrogauit, quod esset uocabulum gentis illius. Responsum est quod Angli uocarentur. At ille: ‘Bene’ inquit; ‘nam et anglicam habent faciem, et tales angelorum in caelis decet esse coheredes. Quod habet nomen ipsa prouincia, de qua isti sunt adlati?’ Responsum est quia Deiri uocarentur idem prouinciales. At ille ‘Bene’ inquit ‘Deiri, de ira eruti et ad misericordiam Christi uocati. Rex prouinciae illius quomodo appellatur?’ Responsum est quod Aelle diceretur. At ille adludens ad nomen ait: ‘Alleluia, laudem Dei Creatoris illis in partibus oportet cantari.’ Accedensque ad pontificem Romanae et apostolicae sedis (nondum enim erat ipse pontifex factus) rogauit ut genti Anglorum in Brittaniam aliquos uerbi ministros, per quos ad Christum conuerteretur, mitteret. [...] Haec iuxta opinionem, quam ab antiquis accepimus, historiae nostrae ecclesiasticae inserere opportum duximus.¹⁷⁴ [We must not fail to relate the story about St Gregory which has come down to us as a tradition of our forefathers. It explains the reason why he showed such earnest solicitude for the salvation of our race. It is said that one day, soon aer some merchants had arrived in Rome, a quantity of merchandise was exposed for sale in the market-place. Crowds came to buy and Gregory too amongst them. As well as other 173 See Chapter 8.7.2. 174 HE, II.1

218

Bede’s Historiae

merchandise he saw some boys put up for sale, with fair complexions, handsome faces, and lovely hair. On seeing them he asked, so it is said, from what region or land they had been brought. He was told that they came from the island of Britain, whose inhabitants were like that in appearance. He asked again whether those islanders were Christians or still entangled in the errors of heathenism. He was told that they were heathen. en with a deep-drawn sigh he said, ‘Alas that the author of darkness should have men so bright of face in his grip, and that minds devoid of inward grace should bear so graceful an outward form.’ Again he asked for the name of the race. He was told that they were called Angli. ‘Good’, he said, ‘they have the face of angels, and such men should be fellow-heirs of the angels in heaven’. ‘What is the name’, he asked, ‘of the kingdom from which they have been brought?’ He was told that the men of the kingdom were called Deiri. ‘Deiri’, he replied., ‘De ira! good [sic!]! snatched [sic!] from the wrath of Christ and called to his mercy. And what is the name of the king of the land?’ He was told that it was Aelle, and playing on the name he said ‘Alleluia! the [sic!] praise of God the Creator must be sung in those parts.’ So he went to the bishop of Rome and of the apostolic see, for he himself had not yet been made pope, and asked him to send some ministers of the word to the race of the Angles in Britain to convert them to Christ. [...] I have thought it proper to insert this story into this Church History, based as it is on the tradition which we have received from our ancestors.]¹⁷⁵ A similar, but slightly shorter version of this story occurs in the vita Gregorii from Whitby referred to above.¹⁷⁶ is story at the beginning of the second book of the HE is important for various reasons. First of all, it draws the gens anglorum into a divine context, first with the paronomastic association of its name with God’s ministers, i.e. the angels, second with the name of King Aelle. Secondly, it has been read as the first medieval reference of the term angli, a name whose etymology is unclear.¹⁷⁷ But who was Bede referring to? e first possibility is that the angli 175 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 70–71. 176 See Chapter 4.3. 177 Tacitus mentions the continental Angles as anglii as neighbours of the Langobards without providing further details, see his Germania, 40. e Dictionary of Old English provides various entries connect to the angli, e.g. the entries angel-cynn, angel-folc and angel-þeod, all of which are assigned to the Continental invaders named angli, the angli in Britain or to the angli in the north of Britain in particular. e majority of these terms occurs in Old English translations of Bede and, to a smaller extent, in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. A possible etymology of the term, however, remains unclear.

Gentes and collective identities in Bede’s writings

219

are one of the gentes who migrated to Britain together with the saxones and other Germanic gentes (Collins und McClure 1994: xx). Another possibility is that Bede used the name angli for all the Germanicspeaking gentes in Britain. is would mean he reduced the diversity of Germanic gentes who settled in Britain to one name by means of an overgeneralisation. While the other gentes are found regularly in the HE, this argument is supported by the passage from Gregory and his decision to convert the angli because here Bede generalizes the term for the Germanic-speaking gentes in Britain altogether. Neither saxones, the Jutes, the Franks nor the Frisians nor the Britons are mentioned by Gregory in this passage. is would also agree with Gildas’ DEB, who only speaks of the saxones and makes no mention of the angli, thus implying the use of the first as name for all the Anglo-Saxons in Britain. Bede introduces this passage with “nec silentio praetereunda opinio, quae de beato Gregorio traditione maiorum ad nos usque perlata est”.¹⁷⁸ Comparing the detailed information he provided about the origins of the saxones, this indicates that Bede was either not aware of the origin of the gens anglorum or had reasons not to provide it in his HE. e following passage about the first meeting of the angli and Gregory concludes the information Bede provides about his own gens before the conversion to Christianity. [Gregorius] aduentus uero Anglorum in Brittaniam anno circiter CL, misit seruum Dei Augustinum et alios plures cum eo monachos timentes Dominum praedicare uerbum Dei genti Anglorum. Qui cum iussis pontificalibus obtemperantes memoratum opus adgredi coepissent, iamque aliquantulum itineris confecissent, perculsi timore inerti redire domum potius quam barbaram feram incredulamque gentem, cuius ne linguam quidem nossent, adire cogitabant, et hoc esse tutius communi consilio decernebant.¹⁷⁹ [about 150 years aer the coming of the Angles to Britain, Gregory, prompted by divine inspiration sent a servant of God named Augustine and several more God-fearing monks with him to preach the word of God to the English race. In obedience to the pope’s commands, they undertook this task and had already gone a little way on their journey when they were paralysed with terror. ey began to contemplate returning home rather than going to a barbarous, fier-

178 [We must not fail to relate the story about St Gregory which has come down to us as a tradition of our forefathers.] See the previous page. 179 HE, I.23

220

Bede’s Historiae

ce, and unbelieving nation whose language they did not even understand.]¹⁸⁰ At first sight, this passage provides the first example of a critical assessment of the angli shortly before their conversion. However, it might not be so. Bede tells us what Augustine and his men contemplate or think what the angli are like, namely barbari feri incredulique. Since they are, at this point, a heathen gens, this is true from a Christian point of view, but Bede does not provide any information what his gens actually was like. e group accompanying Augustine asks Pope Gregory to be allowed to return home, but Gregory encourages them to continue their journey and undertake their mission to Britain. Augustine and his companions arrive in Kent which is ruled by king Aethelberht. In 597 AD Augustine begins his mission with the king who tells him: Pulchra sunt quidem uerba et promissa quae adfertis; sed quia noua sunt et incerta, non his possum adsensum tribuere relictis eis, quae tanto tempore cum omni Anglorum gente seruaui.¹⁸¹ [e words and the promises you bring are fair enough, but because they are new to us and doubtful, I cannot consent to accept them and forsake those beliefs which I and the whole English race have held so long.]¹⁸² Bede here uses the expression of gens anglorum in this passage, but Collins and McClure claimed that it must have been unlikely that the kings used this expression because it is doubtful that anyone but the people in Rome or possibly a Latin source believed that there was only one dominant gens in lowland Britain in this time (Collins und McClure 1994: 371–372). us Bede masks or surpresses the other gentes here, ignoring the saxones, the Britons and all others. But this passage demonstrates that, according to Bede, the Christians were welcome in Britain. ey were not greeted by a gens which is barbara fera incredulaque, as claimed before, but they are protected by King Aethelberht. e King later decides to support the mission of Augustine and Augustine becomes the archbishop of the gens Anglorum.¹⁸³ In contrast to these presumably preconceived passages, the equivalent part of the CM is much clearer and does not imply so many obstacles for the conversion of the angli: 180 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 37. However, I disagree with the translation of gens with race and would prefer a translation with people instead. 181 HE, I.25 182 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 40. 183 HE, I.27.

Gentes and collective identities in Bede’s writings

221

Idem missis Brittaniam Augustino, Mellito, et Johanne et aliis pluribus cum eis monachis timentibus Deum, ad Christum Anglos conuertit. Et quidem Aedilberectus mox ad Christi gratiam conuersus cum gente Cantuariorum, cui praeerat, proximisque prouinciis etiam episcopum doctoremque suum Augustinum, sed et ceteros sacros antistites episcopali sede donabat. Porro gentes Anglorum ab aquilone Humbri fluminis sub regibus Aelle et Aedilfrido sitae necdum uerbum uitae audierant.¹⁸⁴ [He [i.e. Pope Gregory] also sent to Britain Mellitus, Augustine, and John, and many other God-fearing monks with them, to convert the Angles to Christ. And when Aethelberht was soon converted to the grace of Christ, together with the people of the Cantuarii over whom he ruled, together with those of neighbouring kingdoms, he gave Augustine to be his bishop and teacher, as well as other holy priests to become bishops. However, the people of the Angles north of the river Humber, under kings Aelle and Aethelfrith, did not hear the Word of life at this time.]¹⁸⁵ According to this passage, only the angli south of the river Humber are converted to the Christian faith at this point while the angli north of the river remain pagan. eir conversion is dealt with in a later chapter. e passage of Bede’s praise of Pope Gregory provides even more information about Bede’s view of the gentes in Britain: Ad cuius pietatis et iustitiae opus pertinet etiam hoc, quod nostram gentem per praedicatores, quos huc direxit, de dentibus antiqui hostis eripiens aeternae liberatis fecit esse participem; cuius fidei et saluti congaudens, quamque digna laude commendans, ipse dicit in expositione beati Iob: ‘Ecce lingua Brittaniae, quae nihil aliud nouerat quam barbarum frendere, iamdudum in diuinis laudibus Hebreum coepit alleluia resonare. Ecce quondam tumidus, iam substratus sanctorum pedibus seruit Oceanus, eiusque barbaros motus, quos terreni principes edomare ferro nequiuerant, hos pro diuina formidine sacerdotum ora simplicibus uerbis ligant, et qui cateruas pugnantium infidelis nequaquam metueret, iam nunc fidelis humilium linguas timet.¹⁸⁶ [To his [i.e. Gregory the Great] works of piety and justice this also belongs, that he snatched our race from the teeth of the ancient foe and 184 CM, 531 185 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 330. 186 HE, II.1

222

Bede’s Historiae

made them partakers of everlasting freedom by sending us preachers. Rejoicing in their faith and commending them with worthy praise he says in his commentary on the blessed Job: ‘Lo, the mouth of Britain, which once only knew how to gnash its barbarous teeth, has long since learned to sing the praises of God with the alleluia of the Hebrews. See how the proud Ocean has become a servant, lying low now before the feet of the saints, and those barbarous motions, which earthly princes could not subdue with the sword, are now through the fear of God, repressed with a simple word from the lips of priests; and he who, as an unbeliever, did not flinch before troops of warriors, now, as a believer, fears the words of the humble.]¹⁸⁷ Bede flamboyantly praises Gregory for the conversion of the angli to Christianity and for the rescue of this gens from the dentes hostis antiqui. In chapter 34 of book I, Bede speaks of Aethelfrith, king of Northumbria, who ruled this kingdom between 593 and 616 AD, who was still heathen at this time: His temporibus regno Nordhymbrorum praefuit rex fortissimus et gloriae cupidissimus Aedilfrid, qui plus omnibus Anglorum primatibus gentem uastauit Brettonum [...]. Nemo enim in tribunis, nemo in regibus plures eorum terras, exterminatis uel subiugatis indigenis, aut tributarias gentis Anglorum aut habitabiles fecit.¹⁸⁸ [At this time Aethelfrith, a brave king and most eager for glory, was ruling over the kingdom of Northumbria. He ravaged the Britons more extensively than any other English ruler. [...] For no ruler or king had subjected more land to the English race or settled it, having first either exterminated or conquered the natives.]¹⁸⁹ Again, Bede’s position towards the Britons could not be clearer. In this passage, he does nothing less but praise the subjugation and genocide of the Christian indigenes by a heathen ruler. Bede continues to speak about King Aethelfrith of Northumbria and about another battle against the Irish King Aedan, who ruled the kingdom of Dál Riada between 574 presumably until 609 AD, in the following chapter: 187 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 69. Again, the translation of gens with people should be preferred. 188 HE, I.34 189 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 61. e translation of Nordhymbrorum, however, should be over the people of Northumbria or the people north of the river Humber, thus refering to the gens and not to a geographical area or a territory.

Gentes and collective identities in Bede’s writings

223

Vnde motus eius profectibus Aedan rex Scottorum, qui Brittaniam inhabitant, uenit contra eum cum inmenso et forti exercitu; sed cum paucis uictus aufugit. Siquidem in loco celeberrimo, qui dicitur Degsastan, id est Degsa lapis, omnis pene eius est caesus exercitus. [...] Neque ex eo tempore quisquam regum Scottorum in Brittania aduersus gentem Anglorum usque ad hanc diem in proelium uenire audebat.¹⁹⁰ [Aedan, king of the Irish living in Britain, aroused by his success, marched against him with an immensely strong army; but he was defeated and fled with few survivors. Indeed, almost all his army was cut to pieces in a very famous place called Degsastan, that is the stone of Degsa. [...] From that time no Irish king in Britain has dared to make war on the English race to this day.]¹⁹¹ Contrasting this passage with the previous one which spoke of the battle against the Britons, the Irish seem to be shown in a much more positive light. is is surprising since both the Irish and the Britons shared the same variety of the Christian faith but Bede depicts the Irish in a far more positive light than the Britons. Both passages sound almost enthusiastic about King Aethelfrith which led to the assumption that Bede might have drawn this particular information from a heroic poem about this king (Colgrave 1969: 116). Indeed the tone is different from the previous passages, for example, from that of the battle wielded by Ambrosius Aurelianus, discussed in a previous chapter.¹⁹² What follows is the conversion of the Northumbrian angli in the 620’s under King Edwin: Quo tempore etiam gens Nordanhymbrorum (sic!), hoc est ea natio Anglorum quae ad aquilonalem Humbrae fluminis plagam habitabat, cum rege suo Eduine uerbum fidei praedicante Paulino, cuius supra meminimus, suscepit. Cui uidelicet regi, in auspicium suscipiendae fidei et regni caelestis, potestas etiam terreni creuerat imperii, ita ut quod nemo Anglorum ante eum, omnes Brittaniae fines, qua uel ipsorum uel Brettonum prouinciae habitabant sub dicione acciperet. ¹⁹³ [At this time the Northumbrian race, that is the English race which (sic!) dwelt north of the river Humber, together with his king Ed190 HE, I.34 191 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 61. 192 See Chapter 8.7.1.1. 193 HE, II.9

224

Bede’s Historiae

win, also accepted the word of faith through the preaching of Paulinus already mentioned. e king’s earthly power had increased as an augury that he was to become a believer and have a share in the heavenly kingdom. So, like no other English king before, he held under his sway the whole realm of Britain, not only English kingdoms but those ruled over by the Britons as well.]¹⁹⁴ Edwin ruled the kingdoms of Deira and Bernicia from AD 616 until AD 632 or 633. In this passage, Bede speaks of the gens Nordanhymbrorum, not of a kingdom. Apparently, he saw the gens anglorum divided into a southern and a northern part, although it remains unclear what region north of Northumbria he was referring to. is seems plauslible since the kingdom itself was not founded before the merge of Deira and Bernicia nearly half a century later. Furthermore, Bede informs his readers that Edwin, as an Anglian king, ruled over British kingdoms. ese kingdoms, presumably Deira and Bernicia although Bede does not provide their names, were then converted to Christianity, according to Bede, in AD 627: Igitur accepit rex Eduini cum cunctis gentis suae nobilibus ac plebe perplurima fidem et lauacrum sanctae regenerationis anno regni sui undecimo, qui est annus dominicae incarnationis DCXXVII, ab aduentu uero Anglorum in Brittaniam annus circiter CLXXXmus.¹⁹⁵ [So King Edwin, with all the nobles of his race and a vast number of the common people, received the faith and regeneration by holy baptism in the eleventh year of his reign, that is in the year of our Lord 627 and about 180 years aer the coming of the English to Britain.]¹⁹⁶ Following this passage, the aristocracy of Northumbria and the common people were baptised in 627 AD. is is interesting when regarding the British population in the two kingdoms. e Britons had been Christian for centuries. Even if the British aristocracy had been replaced by members of the new conquering gens, there must have been British common people, maybe also slaves, who had already been Christian before this event in 27 AD. is passage, thus, could be read as an indication for the remaining British population in the kingdom having been re-baptised during the reign of King Edwin. However, Bede remains silent about possible inhabitants of British origin in this region. However, he also refers to Edwin as a ruler of the angli and of the brettones in the CM: 194 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 84. 195 HE, II.14 196 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 97.

Gentes and collective identities in Bede’s writings

225

Anno Heracli regni XVI, indictione XV, Eduinus excellentissimus rex Anglorum in Britannia transumbranae gentis ad aquilonem predicante Paulino episcopo, quem miserat de Cantia uenerabilis archiepiscopus Iustus. Uerbum salutis cum sua gente suscepit anno regni sui XI, aduentus autem Anglorum in Brittaniam plus minus anno CLXXX; eique Paulino sedem episcopatus Eburaci donauit. Cui profecto regi in auspicium uenturae fidei et regni caelestis potestas quoque terreni creuerat regni, ita ut uniuersos Brittaniae fines, quod nemo Anglorum ante eum, qua uel ipsorum uel Britonum gentes habitabant, sub dicione acciperet. Eo tempore exortum apud Scottos in obseruatione paschae errorem quartadecimanorum Honorius papa per epistolam redarguit.¹⁹⁷ [In the sixteenth year of Heraclius’ reign and the fieenth indiction, also being in the eleventh year of his own reign, and more or less the one hundred and eightieth year from the arrival of the Angles in Britain, Edwin, the most excellent king of the Northumbrian Angles in Britain, received with his people the Word of salvation through the preaching of Bishop Paulinus, whom the venerable archbishop Justus had sent from Kent. He established Paulinus’ episcopal seat in York. As an auspice of the coming of the faith and the heavenly kingdom, the power of this kings’ earthly kingdom was increased; thus, unlike any of the Angles before him, he brought all the bounds of Britain, wherever either the Angles or the Britons dwelt, under his authority. At this time pope Honorius condemned in a letter the Quartadeciman error concerning the observance of Easter, which had appeared amongst the Irish.]¹⁹⁸ Bede’s distinction between the gentes and kingdoms of Edwin, who ruled the kingdoms of Deira and Bernicia from 586 AD until his death in 632 or 633 AD, remains unclear. is vagueness can again be found when Bede speaks about eodore, who became archbishop of Canterbury in AD 670: Neque umquam prorsus, ex quo Brittaniam petierunt Angli, feliciora fuere tempora, dum et fortissimos Christianosque habentes reges cunctis barbaris nationibus essent terrori, et omnium uota ad nuper audita caelestis regni gaudia penderent;¹⁹⁹ 197 CM, 541 198 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 332. Exortam should be translated with originated instead of appeared. 199 HE, IV.2

226

Bede’s Historiae

[Never had there been such happy times since the English first came to Britain; for having such brave Christian kings, they were a terror to all the barbarian nations, and the desire of all men were set on the joys of the heavenly kingdom of which they had only lately heard;]²⁰⁰ Bede here praises the rule of the angli over the entire island. He speaks again of the nationes barbarae without saying which nationes he is referring to. Understanding barbarus as heathen does not provide an answer since Britain was largely Christian in the second half of the seventh century. So Bede might have referred to smaller tribes or again might have used the term barbarus for the Irish, Pictish and British Christians who refused to follow the Roman Easter count. However, this controversy was, at least for Northumbria, settled by the Synod of Whitby in the 663 AD. I would like to finish the discussion about the angli in Bede’s writings with the passage about the death of King Ecfrith of Northumbria, dated between AD 684 and 686.²⁰¹ As a consequence of the king’s death, the gentes that lost their sovereignty and territory under the angli recover from their defeats: Ex quo tempore spes coepit et uirtus regni Anglorum ‘fluere ac retro sublapsa referri’. Nam et Picti terram possessionis suae quam tenuerunt Angli, et Scotti qui erant in Brittania, Brettonum quoque pars nonnulla libertatem receperunt; quam et hactenus habent per annos circiter XLVI. Vbi inter plurimos gentis Anglorum uel interemtos gladio uel seruitio addictos uel de terra Pictorum fuga lapsos;²⁰² [From this time, hopes and strength of the English kingdom began to ‘ebb and fall away’. For the Picts recovered their own land which the English had formerly held, while the Irish who lived in Britain and some part of the British nation recovered their independence, which they have now enjoyed for about forty-six years. Many of the English were either slain by the sword or enslaved or escaped by flight from the Pictish territory;]²⁰³ is passage provides the names of the gentes which had formerly been under the rule of the angli. Following Bede, the Northumbrian King ruled over the picti, the 200 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 172–173. 201 Collins dates the death of King Ecfrith to 686 (Collins und McClure 1994: 408). 202 HE, IV.26 203 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 222. e passage fluere ac retro sublapsa referri is taken from Virgil’s Aneid 2. 169. referring to the decline of hope for the Greek to conquer the city of Troy. Regni Anglorum is plural and should, therefore, be translated with English kingdoms which would be a correct expression for Northumbria which developed from the unification of the kingdoms of Bernicia and Deira under king Aethelfrith around AD 604.

Gentes and collective identities in Bede’s writings

227

scotti who lived in Britain, as well as over the brettones. e death of king Ecfrith at the Battle of Dun Nechtain in AD 685 against the Picts, however, indicate the decline of Northumbrian power for Bede. None of these gentes were heathen, they all followed the Irish calculus of Easter. e following chapter, therefore, will focus on the gentes of the scotti and the picti in Bede’s works. 8.7.4 Bede, the picti and the scotti

Similar to Y Gododdin and to Gildas’ DEB, Bede refers to the picti and scotti in the same language. As with the Britons, Bede also includes information about the origin of the picti at the beginning of the HE: contigit gentem Pictorum de Scythia, ut perhibent, longis nauibus non multis Oceanum ingressam, circumagente flatu uentorum, extra fines omnes Brittaniae Hiberniam peruenisse, eiusque septentrionales oras intrasse atque, inuenta ibi gente Scottorum, sibi quoque in partibus illius sedes petisse, nec inpetrare potuisse. [...] Respondebant Scotti quia non ambos eos caperet insula, ‘sed possumus’ inquiunt ‘salubre uobis dare consilium, quid agere ualeatis. Nouimus insulam esse aliam non procul a nostra contra ortum solis, quam saepe lucidioribus diebus de longe aspicere solemus. Hanc adire si uultis, habitabilem uobis facere ualetis; uel, si qui restiterit, nobis auxiliariis utimini.’ Itaque petentes Brittaniam Picti habitare per septentrionales insulae partes coeperunt; nam austrina Brettones occupauerant.²⁰⁴ [it is related that the Pictish race from Scythia sailed out into the ocean in a few warships and were carried by the wind beyond the furthest bounds of Britain, reaching Ireland and landing on its northern shores. ere they found the Irish race and asked permission to settle among them but their request was refused. [...] e Irish answered that the island would not hold them both; ‘but’, they said, ‘we can give you some good advice as to what to do. We know of another island not far from our own, in an easterly direction, which we oen see in the distance on clear days. If you will go there, you can make a settlement for yourselves; but if any one resists you, make use of our help.’ And so the Picts went to Britain and proceeded to occupy the northern parts of the island, because the Britons had seized the southern regions.]²⁰⁵ 204 HE, I.1 205 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 10–11. e verb occupauerant should be translated with occupied rather than seized.

228

Bede’s Historiae

is passage has led to the question which place Bede refers to with Scythia. Betram Colgrave claimed that Bede was confusing Scythia and Scandia, the Latin form of the Anglo-Saxon name for the southern part of the Scandinavian peninsula which was called Scedenig or Scedenland (Colgrave 1969: 17). However, he also assumed that the picti had not come from the Scandinavian peninsula at all and claimed that Bede did not know about the origin of this gens. His interpretation, however, stands in contrast to the information provided in Lebor Gabála Érenn, the Book of the Taking of Ireland, a Middle Irish collection of prose and verse narratives about the origins of the Irish gens. e collection provides numerous references where an origin of the Irish is claimed to lie in Scythia.²⁰⁶ Another interesting aspect in this passage is the reference to the scotti. Bede claims that the picti arrived at a different island first, Hibernia, and were then sent to Britain.²⁰⁷ e gens living in Hibernia, however, is referred to by him as scotti. Here Bede used this name for the gens who does not live in the island of Britain but in Ireland. is is repeatedly done, also in the following passage from the same chapter: Cumque uxores Picti non habentes peterent a Scottis, ea solum condicione dare consenserunt, ut ubi res ueniret in dubium, magis de feminea regum prosapia quam de masculina regem sibi eligerent; quod usque hodie apud Pictos constat esse seruatum.²⁰⁸ [As the Picts had no wives, they asked the Irish for some; the latter consented to give them women, only on condition that, in all cases of doubt, they should elect their kings from the female royal line rather

206 See the edition of the Lebor Gabála Érenn in five volumes in Robert Macalister, Lebor Gabála Érenn. Dublin: Irish Texts Society 1938–1956. References can be found, for example, in volume I, p. 39 and p. 153, volume II, p. 9–17 and volume V, p. 121. Colgrave seems to have been unaware of this myth. Of course it is only a matter of speculation that Bede was familiar with this particular source about the mythical origin of the Irish. e similarity, however, between his information and the Lebor Gabála Érenn is surprising and fascinating nevertheless. 207 e first mentioning of the picti is dated to 297 AD by the Roman writer Eumenius, however their history and culture remains obscure until the fourth century (Laing 1993: 5–9). Whether this name was even used by this gens itself or if it is just the name given by the Romans remains matter of dispute (Wainwright 1955a: 2). e Romans used the name picti for all people north of the Antonine Wall (Jackson 1955: 159). is area consisted of various kingdoms with changing boundaries and supremacies (Laing 1993: xiii). ese kingdoms finally were absorbed into a unified kingdom of Alba under the Dalriadic King Kenneth mac Alpin in 843 or 844 AD (Laing 1993: 17). e Irish name for this gens is cruithne, which is also the first name of a king provided in the Pictish king list. For a closer discussion about the Pictish king list, see Wainright 1955a, p. 16–18. Kenneth Jackson claimed that the Irish name cruithne, however, only referred to the gens in Britain whereas, in his opinion, the cruithni in Ireland where British immigrants to Ireland and not connected to the picti in the north of Britain (Jackson 1955: 159). 208 HE, I.1

Gentes and collective identities in Bede’s writings

229

than the male; and it is well known that the custom has been observed among the Picts to this day.]²⁰⁹ is passage shows that Bede was familiar with the aristocratic traditions of the picti in his day.²¹⁰ Judging from the proximity of his monastery to the northern walls, this could also be understood as an indication for his personal experience with this gens in the north but also with his knowledge of Adomnán’s De Locis Sanctis or his presumed knowledge of the literature on Irish history from Iona. His familiarity, therefore, does not surprise in spite of the fact that he does not provide any source for his information. In the following passage of this chapter, Bede speaks of the origin of the scotti and the distinction between this gens and the hiberni: Procedente autem tempore Brittania post Brettones et Pictos tertiam Scottorum nationem in Pictorum parte recepit, qui duce Reuda de Hibernia progressi uel amicitia uel ferro sibimet inter eos sedes quas hactenus habent uindicarunt; a quo uidelicet duce usque hodie Dalreudini uocantur, nam lingua eorum daal partem significat.²¹¹ [In course of time Britain received a third tribe in addition to the Britons and the Picts, namely the Irish. ese came from Ireland under their leader Reuda, and won lands among the Picts either by friendly treaty or by the sword. ese they still possess. ey are still called Dalreudini aer this leader, Dal in their language signifying a part.]²¹² e use of the names of the gentes in this passage seems confused. It is clear who Bede is referring concerning the brettones and the picti; he also speaks of the scotti, 209 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 11. 210 e question of matrilinear succession among the Picts, however, has long been matter of debate. Bede, as a matter of fact, does not claim that such practice existed in Pictish society in the passage above. All he claims is that this form of succession was only used when res ueniret in dubium, in cases of doubt about the proper succession. is claim is not supported by any other sources, neither is there proof that the system of succession in Pictish society was matrilinear, although Pictish king lists indicate that it was not patrilinear either (Wainwright 1955b: 26) (Laing 1993: 58). All of the kings in the Pictish king list have been identified as sons succeeding fathers, although close to a quarter of the rulers were succeeded by their brothers (Clarkson 2008: 84). is stands in contrast to Kenneth Jackson’s claim that all efforts demonstrating that the Pictish system of succession was not exclusively matrilinear “completely failed” (Jackson 1955: 153). e discussion has, so far, not led to a common concensus. If the succession among the picti really was matrilinear, however, this would make this gens unique in a European context where no such practice can be found during the early Middle Ages (Clarkson 2008: 80–81). 211 HE, I.1 212 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 11.

230

Bede’s Historiae

the term which he previously used for the gens living in Ireland, who he now also calls dalreudini and who, he claims correctly, originally came from hibernia. e scoti originated from the north-western area of Ireland, a part of what is today located in the County Antrim (Laing 1993: ix). e kingdom of Dalriada thus incorporated parts of the western coast of today’s Scotland as well as some territory on the north-eastern coast of Ireland. e links between Ireland and Britain grew between the first and the third century AD, when more and more Irish travelled to the north of Britain, first as raiders of the Romano-Britons, later as settlers in what was to become the Christian kingdom of Dalriada (Laing 1993: 30–35). At this point, it seems as if Bede was using the same term for two gentes until he starts to distinguish them more clearly in chapter 14: In the following passage, Bede for the first time uses the term hiberni particularly for the gens in Ireland when he speaks about their return from Britain: Reuertuntur ergo inpudentes grassatores Hiberni domus, post non longum tempus reuersuri; Picti in extrema parte insulae tunc primum et deinceps quieuerunt, praedas tamen nonnumquam exinde et contritiones de Brettonum gente agere non cessarunt.²¹³ [So the shameless Irish robbers returned home, intending to come back before long, while the Picts, from that time on, settled down in the furthest part of the island, though they did not cease to plunder and harass the Britons occasionally.]²¹⁴ is passage shows that until chapter 14 of book I, Bede uses the name scotti interchangeably for the Irish in the north of Britain as well as in Ireland. Only aer introducing the foundation of the Kingdom of the dalreudini, he begins to refer to the gens in Ireland by the name hiberni, whom he had been referring to before as scotti. One reason for the identification of the Irish with the scotti is based on the information that they were an overseas gens. Here, Bede uses information which can be found in Gildas and in the works of Isidor of Seville (Meinking Guimarães 2009: 146).²¹⁵ Bede, like Gildas, refers to the scotti and the picti as gentes transmarinae in a passage of chapter 12 of book I.²¹⁶ He also uses this term in the CM: Qui quoniam Brittaniam omni pene armata iuuentute copiisque militaribus spoliauerat, quae tyrannidis eius uestigia secutae in Gallias 213 HE, I.14 214 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 26. 215 For the relevant passage in Gildas’ DEB, see Chapter 6.4.4. 216 See Chapter 8.7.1.1.

Gentes and collective identities in Bede’s writings

231

numquam ultra domum rediere uidentes transmarinae gentes saeuissimae, Scothorum a circio, Pictorum ab aquilonae, destitutam milite ac defensore insulam, adueniunt et uastatam direptamque eam multos per annos obprimunt.²¹⁷ [He [i.e. Maximus] had also despoiled Britain of almost all of its armed youth and military forces, who had followed in the footprints of the tyrant to Gaul. Seeing them not returning, some very savage overseas nations - the Irish from the north-west and the Picts from the north- came into the island thus abandoned by its soldiers and defenders, and oppressed, devastated and pillaged it.]²¹⁸ When providing details about their origins in the same chapter, he explains what he means by this: Transmarinas autem dicimus has gentes non quod extra Brittaniam essent positae, sed quia a partem Brettonum erant remotae, duobus sinibus maris interiacentibus, quorum unus ab orientali mari, alter ab occidentali Brittaniae terras longe lateque inrumpit, quamuis ad se inuicem pertingere non possint.²¹⁹ [We call them races from over the waters, not because they dwelt outside Britain but because they were separated from the Britons by two wide and long arms of the sea, one of which enters the land from the east, the other one from the west, although they do not meet.]²²⁰ In contrast to Gildas, who also refers to the picti and scotti as gentes transmarinae, Bede explains the meaning of this reference. While the meaning in the DEB remains unclear, Bede seems to be aware of their location and also claims to know about the origins of both the picti and scotti. In this passage he might be referring to the two rivers Firth and Forth in the north of Britain. His knowledge could be explained by considering the location of Wearmouth-Jarrow and the relative proximity to the picti. Aer this passage, Bede returns to the information provided by Gildas when he speaks about the raids of the two gentes and the cowardly reaction of the Britons: Quibus ad sua remeantibus, cognita Scotti Pictique reditus denegatione redeunt confestim ipsi, et solito confidentiores facti omnen 217 CM, 461 218 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 323. 219 HE, I.12 220 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 22.

232

Bede’s Historiae

aquilonalem extremamque insulae partem pro indigenis ad murum usque capessunt. Statuitur ad haec in aeditio arcis acies segnis, ubi trementi corde stupida die noctuque marcebat. At contra non cessant uncinata hostum tela; ignaui propugnatores miserrime de muris tracti solo adlidebantur. Quid plura? Relictis ciuitatibus ac muro fugiunt disperguntur. Insequitur hostis, adcelerantur strages cunctis crudeliores prioribus. Sicut enim agni a feris, ita miseri ciues discerpuntur ab hostibus; unde a mansionibus ac possessiunculis suis eiecti, inminens sibi famis periculum latrocinio ac rapacitate mutua temperabant, augentes externas domesticis motibus clades, donec omnis regio totius cibi sustentaculo, excepto uenandi solacio, uacuaretur.²²¹ [Aer the Romans had gone back to their own land, the Irish and Picts, who knew they were not to return, immediately came back themselves and, becoming bolder than ever, captured the whole of the northern and farthest portion of the island as far as the wall, driving out the natives. ere the Britons deployed their dispirited ranks along the top of the defence and, day and night, they moped with dazed and trembling hearts. On the other hand the enemy with hooked weapons never ceased from their ravages. e cowardly defenders were wretchedly dragged from the walls and dashed to the ground. In short, they deserted their cities, fled from the wall, and were scattered. e enemy pursued and there followed a massacre more bloodthirsty than ever before. e wretched Britons were torn in pieces by their enemies like lambs by wild beasts. ey were driven from their dwellings and their poor estates; they tried to save themselves from the starvation which threatened them by robbing and plundering each other. us they increased their external calamities by internal strife until the whole land was le without food and destitute except for such relief as hunting brought.]²²² e equivalent passage in the CM reads similarly: Recedente a Brittania Romano exercitu cognita Scotti et Picti reditus denegatione redeunt ipsi et totam ab aquilone insulam pro indigenis muro tenus capessunt. Nec mora caesis captis fugatis custodibus muri et ipso interrupto etiam intra illum crudelis praedo grassatur. Mittitus epistula lacrimis erumnisque referta ad Romanae potestis uirum 221 HE, I.12 222 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 24.

Gentes and collective identities in Bede’s writings

233

Aetium ter consulem, XXIII eodosii principis anno, petens auxilium, nec impetrat. Interea famis dira ac famosissima profugos infestat, qua coacti quidam hostibus dedere manus, alii de montibus, speluncis ac saltibus strenue repugnabant ac strages hostibus dabant. Reuertuntur Scotthi domum post non multum tempus reuersuri. Picti extremam insulae partem tum primum et deinceps inhabitaturi detinent. Famem praefatam magna frugum opulentia, opulentiam luxuria et neglegentia, neglegentiam lues acerrima et acrior mox hostium nouorum, id est Anglorum, plaga secuta est. Quos illi unanimo consilio cum rege suo Vertigerno quasi defensores patriae ad se inuitandos elegerunt; sed exceptos mox inpugnatores atque expugnatores senserunt.²²³ [When the Irish and the Picts discovered that the Roman army had le Britain with no intention of returning, they came back again themselves and captured the whole of the island from its indigenous inhabitants, from the far north right up to the wall. Without delay, and with the guardians of the wall defeated, captive, or fugitive and it itself broken, the savage pirates also proceeded through it. In the twenty-third year of the reign of the emperor eodosius, a letter was sent bearing their [i.e. the Britons’] tears and groans to the most powerful of the Romans, Aetius thrice consul, seeking help. Meanwhile a terrible and very notorious famine attacked the fugitives. Because of this some were forced to surrender to the enemy, but others fought back vigorously from the mountains, caves, and forests, and gave the enemies a defeat. e Irish returned home, though shortly to come back again. e Picts kept hold of the far [i.e. northern] part of the island for the first time and inhabited it thereaer. e abovementioned hunger was followed by a great opulence of the fruits of the earth, the opulence by luxury and neglect, the neglect by a very severe pestilence, and soon a fiercer plague of new enemies, that is to say the Angles. ese they [the Britons] had chosen, by unanimous agreement with their king Vortigern, to invite in as defenders of [their] homeland; by they soon realized that the men they had chosen were attackers and conquerors.]²²⁴ Both of these passages read very similarly to what Gildas had to say about the return of the scotti and picti aer the Roman withdrawal from the island. is is 223 CM, 483–484 224 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 325–326.

234

Bede’s Historiae

particularly true for the information about the civil wars and the mutual plundering which broke out among the Britons during this time. Bede, however, omits the connection between the civilized behaviour of the Britons and the presence of the Romans in Britain. From Gildas we learned that the Britons become a wicked and coward gens, whenever they are le to themselves by the Romans, whom Bede does not speak of at all in this passage. ere is, however, another peculiarity. Bede speaks of the attacks of the picti and scotti against the indigenae. A reference to the Britons is not found in Colgrave’s edition in this passage, it is only added in the translation.²²⁵ So, as was seen before, Bede does not explicitly name the Britons in this passage although I would agree with the argument that he speaks about them, however indirectly that is. I will return to this point in the conclusion of this chapter. e hiberni play, from then on, a prominent role in both of Bede’s writings. He speaks of their conversion by Saint Patrick, of their saints and of their influence on the gentes in Britain. e CM speaks of the acceptance of the Roman calculation of Easter by the Irish through Bishop Egbert: Ecberectus, uir sanctus de gente Anglorum et sacerdotium monachica uita, etiam pro caelesti patria peregrinus exornans, plurimas Scotticae gentis prouincias ad canonicam paschalis temporis obseruantiam, a qua diutius aberrauerant, pia praedicatione conuertit, anno ab incarnatione domini DCCXVI.²²⁶ [In the seven hundred and sixteenth year from the Incarnation of the Lord, Egbert, a holy man and bishop in monastic life of the people of the Angles, having adopted the life of a pilgrim for the sake of the celestial homeland, converted through his pious preaching many provinces of the Irish to the correct observance of the timing of Easter, from which they had long strayed.]²²⁷ However, as Bede points out, some of the Irish continue to follow the old calculation of the Easter date. e example of Aidan, one of their saints, and of his treatment by Bede shows that Bede respected the Irish. In book III, chapter 14, Bede relates the story of Aidan and his influence on the kings of Deira and Bernicia with much praise of the Bishop and his humility. Bede adds this story to the HE in spite of Aidan being Irish and following the Easter tradition of Iona. However, Bede explains 225 See Chapter 8.7.3. 226 CM, 586 227 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 339.

Gentes and collective identities in Bede’s writings

235

Scripsi autem haec de persona et operibus uiri praefati, nequaquam in eo laudans aut eligens hoc, quod de obseruatione paschae minus perfecte sapiebat; immo hoc multum detestans, sicut in libro quem de Temporibus conposui manifestissime probaui; sed quasi uerax historicus simpliciter ea, quae de illo siue per illum sunt gesta, describens et quae laude sunt digna in eius actibus laudans, atque ad utilitatem legentium memoriae commendans; [...] Quod autem pascha non suo tempore obseruabat, uel canonicum eius tempus ignorans uel suae gentis auctoritate ne agnitum sequeretur deuictus, non adprobo non laudo.²²⁸ [I have written these things about the character and work of Aidan, not by any means commending or praising his lack of knowledge in the matter of the observance of Easter; indeed I heartily detest it, as I have clearly showed in a book which I wrote called De Temporibus, but, as a truthful historian, I have described in a straightforward manner those things which were done by him or through him, praising such of his qualities as are worthy of praise and preserving their memory for the benefit of my readers. [...] But I neither praise nor approve of him in so far as he did not observe Easter at the proper time, either because he was ignorant of the canonical time or because, if he knew it, he was compelled by the force of public opinion not to follow it.]²²⁹ Apparently, Bede carefully distinguishes between the fact that Aidan was a member of the Irish Church and therefore considered to be an opponent of Roman Catholic Church traditions, but was still worth of Bede’s praise and admiration. When Bede wrote about the life of Wilfrith, he also expressed his critical view of the Irish Christianity: In quo uidelicet monasterio cum aliquot annos Deo seruiret, animaduertit paulatim adulescens animi sagacis minime perfectam esse uirtutis uiam, quae tradebatur a Scottis, proposuitque animo uenire Romam, et qui ad sedem apostolicam ritus ecclesiastici siue monasteriales seruarentur uidere.²³⁰ [Aer [Wilfrid] had served God in that monastery for some years, being a youth of shrewd understanding, he gradually came to realize 228 HE, III.17 229 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 11. 230 HE, V.19

236

Bede’s Historiae

that the way of virtuous life followed by the Irish was by no means perfect; so he resolved to go to Rome to see what ecclesiastical and monastic practices were observed in the apostolic see.]²³¹ Regarding the translation of this passage, Walter Goffart disagrees with Colgrave’s translation and claims that virtutis viam, quae tradebatur a Scottis should rather be understood as “the virtue taught by the Irish” instead of the translation provided above (Goffart 2006: 209). e understanding of tradere as “teaching” instead of “following” agrees with Goffart’s claim of a strong educational focus of the HE and it also seems to express the meaning more precisely than Colgrave’s translation. e entire passage is deeply influenced by the Vita Wilfridi which also contains a passage about this incident:²³² Deinde post circulum annorum, suggerente spiritu sancto, apellare et videre sedem apostoli Petri et apostolorum principis, adhuc inattritam viam genti nostrae temptare in cor adolescentis supradicti et ab ea omnen nodum maculae solvendum sibi credens et beatitudinem benedicionis accipiendam. [...] Sunt vota mea Domino, quae reddam, [...] ut visitem sedem apostolicam et ecclesiasticae disciplinae regulas didicerim in augmentum gentis nostrae ad serviendum Deo.²³³ [Aer the lapse of a few years, it came into the heart of this same young man, by the promptings of the Holy Spirit, to pay a visit to the see of the Apostle Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and to attempt a road hitherto untrodden by any of our race. By so doing he believed that he would cleanse himself from every blot and stain and receive the joy of the divine blessing. [...] My vows have been rendered to the Lord and I will fulfill them [...] to visit the Apostolic See, and to learn the rules of ecclesiastical discipline, so that our nation may grow in the service of God.]²³⁴ Bede apparently used the information provided by Stephen in his Vita Wilfridi but added his criticism of the scotti. us he creates the distinction between their virtuous life which is to him minime perfecta in contrast to the virtuous life of the English here represented by Wilfrith. Even if Stephen implied the same, it is 231 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 268. 232 is vita was introduced before, see chapter 4.5. e virtuous life referred to by Bede, the disciplinae regulas ecclesiasticae, refers to the monastic life and its traditions in particular. 233 Stephen of Ripon. Vita Wilfridi. Ed. and trans. Bertram Colgrave. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge 1927 chapters 3–4. 234 Translation by Walter Goffart in Goffart, 2006, 208.

Gentes and collective identities in Bede’s writings

237

Bede who explicitly names the scotti.²³⁵ is addition underlines the conscious treatment of the gentes, and, in this case, their different Christian traditions, in Bede’s works. In comparison with the account of Aidan, it also shows that Bede did not condemn the Irish ecclesiastics in general but was able to form a balanced judgement and communicate it in his familiar neutral and optimistic tone.²³⁶ In the end of book V, Bede furthermore provides an overview on the state of the religion of the other gentes in Britain: Pictorum quoque natio tempore hoc et foedus pacis cum gente habet Anglorum, et catholicae pacis ad uertitatis cum uniuersali ecclesia particeps existere gaudet. Scotti qui Brittaniam incolunt, suis contenti finibus, nil contra gentem Anglorum insidiarum moliuntur aut fraudium. Brettones, quamuis et maxima ex parte domestico sibi odio gentem Anglorum, et totius catholicae ecclesiae statum pascha minus recto moribusque inprobis inpugnent, tamen et diuina sibi et humana porsus resistente uirtute in neutro cupitum possunt obtinere propositum, quippe qui, quamuis ex parte sint iuris, nonnulla tamen ex parte Anglorum sunt seruitio mancipati.²³⁷ [e Picts now have a treaty of peace with the English and rejoice to share in the catholic peace and truth of the Church universal. e Irish who live in Britain are content with their own territories and devise no plots or treachery against the English. ough, for the most part, the Britons oppose the English with their inbred hatred, and the whole state of the catholic Church by their incorrect Easter and their evil customs, yet being opposed by the power of God and man alike, they cannot obtain what they want in either respect. For although they are partly their own masters, yet they have also been brought under the rule of the English.]²³⁸ Bede closes the Historia Ecclesiastica with a repetition of his accusations against the Britons and their “odium domesticum in gentem Anglorum”, their natural hatred against the gens anglorum. He repeats the Britons’ refusal to accept the Catholic tradition of Easter but also claims that they are under the rule of the angli, 235 Walter Goffart also claimed that the Irish and their “defects” are Bede’s invention and addition to the information provided by Stephen (Goffart 2006: 210). 236 omas Charles-Edwards claimed that the Irish received a more balanced treatment than the Britons because they willingly preached the Gospel, had close connections with the kings of the angli and ultimately converted to the Roman tradition. e Irish, therefore, are shown in a much more positive light because “[a]s God did not neglect the English whom he foreknew to be Christians, so he did not neglect the Irish whom he foreknow to be Romani.” Romani refers here to the Irish accepting the Roman calculation of the Easter Date (Charles-Edwards 1983a: 52). 237 HE, V.23 238 Translation by Bertram Colgrave with corrections by Judith McClure and Roger Collins in McClure and Collins, 1994, 289–290.

238

Bede’s Historiae

which is, of course, not true since Wales remained independent from the English kingdoms. It remains unclear what he means with this reference. It seems unlikely that he was not aware of the British Kingdoms such as, for example, Gwynnedd. us the HE does not inform us about the details of the rule of the gens anglorum over the brettones.

8.8 Summary and Conclusion Compared to the other writings discussed in the present study, Bede’s Historiae generally provided the most detailed references about the different gentes in Britain. is is, however, only true for some of his writings. e only reference found in Bede’s first chronicle, the Chronica Minor, did not provide any information about the construction of ethnic identities in Britain.²³⁹ e Historia Abbatum, a detailed account of the history of the abbots of the monasteries of Wearmouth-Jarrow, does not contain any information about the gentes who lived in Britain before or during the time of its writing. When contrasting this detail to the numerous references and to the detailed information about Britain’s gentes in the HE, this lack of information is surprising. e HA offers a strictly self-centred Anglian view of Roman Christian affairs in northern Northumbria. ere are four possible explanations for the absence of any information about the gentes in Britain, or in Northumbria in particular, in the Historia Abbatum: 1. Northumbria was exclusively inhabited by the Anglian gens. e Britons who settled in this area before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons in Britain were either killed, suggesting a possible genocide, or, forced or deliberately, had le this area when Bede was writing his HA. 2. All the gentes who had originally settled in the area of what was to become the kingdom of Northumbria had been acculturated to the Anglian settlers or conquerors. 3. Bede deliberately disregarded the local working population and the slaves in his writing. 4. Bede only speaks of the members of the aristocracy in their function as representatives of the Roman Church. ere are various aspects and arguments to consider when discussing these possible scenarios. First of all, there is no historical, archaeological or linguistic indication for a complete absence of the British gens in Northumbria, neither due to some form of emigration from the area nor because of a possible genocide during 239 See Chapter 8.4.2.

Summary and Conclusion

239

the settlement or conquest of the Anglo-Saxons. e strong emphasis on the differences between the gentes in Britain which is found in the HE and the CM, on the other hand, indicates that the acculturation of the British gens in Northumbria is highly unlikely to have been concluded. If such an acculturation had existed, why should Bede put such a strong emphasis on the differences between the gentes in Britain in his other works? ese assumptions leave two of the four possible explanations for the lack of information about the ethnic situation in Northumbria when Bede wrote his HA. First, a deliberate silence about the local population and the slaves in Northumbria or, secondly, an exclusive focus on the aristocracy, particularly of the Roman Church, in the kingdom. Both of these explanations indicate a possible agenda of Bede when writing the HA, i.e. that this writing was supposed to emphasize the Anglian dominance in Northumbria by ignoring other Irish and British ethnicities which were presumably present in the kingdom. e HA could thus be understood as promoting Bede’s self-centred Anglianism. is assumption is supported by his treatment of the gentes in Britain in his other writings, the HE and the CM, especially in regard to his critical view of the Britons. e Britons were the focus of the first part of my analysis. e connections between Bede’s information about this gens, who he presumably also refers to as indigenae, and Gildas’ DEB are numerous.²⁴⁰ Bede made use of many of the details about the brettones from Gildas’ work and only made small changes to the information given in Gildas’ text. He added that they had originally come to Britain from armorica but does not make reference to any inhabitants of the island before their arrival. e changes Bede makes also include a more balanced view of the Britons’ capabilities in warfare. Bede claims, for example, that the military defeats of the Britons aer the Roman withdrawal can be explained with the absence of young and militarily trained people who were, together with military equipment, taken from the island by the Romans in the struggles for power by various Roman generals and aristocracy during the final period of the Roman Empire. Bede does not claim that the Britons’ military qualities were feeble per se, but that they were inadequate at the period in question because of the withdrawal of the Roman military presence from the island. In addition, Bede also includes a passage about the conversion of the British King Lucius who does not appear in the DEB. Bede, however, agrees with Gildas about the wickedness of the Britons and their lack of faith and courage, but, in contrast to the earlier author, fails to connect these negative qualities with the withdrawal of the Roman power from Britain. Bede adds details about the walls in the north and information about the methods of their construction which Gildas lacks. As in Gildas, we also find in Bede’s HE a passage about the appeal to the Roman consul Aetius. Bede seems to identify the 240 omas Charles-Edwards claimed that “Bede looks [...] through Gildasian spectacles.” CharlesEdwards further claimed that “[i]f he has a bias, it is of British manufactures”, emphasising the extraordinarily strong influence Gildas exerted on Bede (Charles-Edwards 1983a: 45).

240

Bede’s Historiae

Roman consul correctly but else relies on the information provided by Gildas. e same is true for the Battle of Mount Badon, although Bede diminishes the role of Ambrosius Aurelianus, the glorious heroic figure we know about from Gildas, by introducing St Germanus, who provides the Britons not only with military victories but also with divine support. Where Bede draws information from the DEB, his judgements about the Britons are much more balanced and neutral than in Gildas’ text. is attitude, however, changes when he turns to other sources about this gens. From then on, he loses his relatively neutral and balanced tone and criticises the Britons more directly. He praises the killing of their priests, who he describes as faithless, perfidi, and accuses them repeatedly for not converting the Saxons and Angles to Christianity. His judgment about the Britons, and most central their refusal to follow Roman traditions and accept the dominance of the episcopal Roman Church over the monastically-structured British Church, is much more critical than what he says about other Irish Christian gentes such as the hiberni or even heathen gentes such as the Continental Saxons or heathen leaders of Germanic gentes in Britain.²⁴¹ e Britons are, and there can be no doubt about this, the villains in Bede’s HE. According to him, they hate the English, refuse to convert the Anglo-Saxons and remain followers of earlier Christian practices, therefore refusing to accept the new Roman dating of Easter, among other religious practices. is, he claimed, led to their subjection by the English who, as Bede claims, rule over all the Britons in the island. e analysis above has shown that the Britons are constantly in the centre of Bede’s criticism. Although adding information such as the refusal to convert the Saxons to Christianity, or making changes such as the addition of the good agencies St Germanus to the victories of the Britons, Bede follows Gildas very closely. On the other hand, while doing so, his criticism seems more implicit than that of Gildas’ DEB. Comparing the information which is provided by both writings, Gildas’ accusations are much more severe. However, where Bede draws information from sources other than Gildas, his criticism becomes much more severe and explicit. is close resemblance of the two authors, however, cannot be paralleled by Bede’s treatment of the Saxons. Bede provides much more details about their origin on the Continent, the different tribes among them, the areas of their settlements, their kings and kingdoms. While the information about the saxones is more neutral in Bede than in Gildas’ DEB, it is also much more elaborate. Bede specifies 241 One arguments made in order to explain Bede’s perspective in this matter was the influence of the conflict history between Northumbria and Gwynedd, particularly unter King Cadwallon of Gwynnedd. Nicholas Brooks claimed that the history of bitter conflict between these two parts of Britain possibly led to the negative view in Bede’s works (Brooks 2006: 30). e treatment of King Cadwallon was also analyzed by omas Charles-Edwards who outlined the parallels between Gildas’ depiction of the Britons and Bede’s depiction of the King of Gwynnedd (Charles-Edwards 1983b: 46–48).

Summary and Conclusion

241

the gyrwe and the gewisse, two Saxon tribes. He introduces the story of Hengist and Horsa as leaders of either the Saxons or of all of the Germanic gentes arriving in Britain and, at the end of the HE, he also speaks about the Continental Saxons and their traditions. However, he seems to suggest that the Conquest of Britain was a punctual occurence which is, of course, far from reality. e Conquest itself took more than two centuries, the Conversion of the conquerers which followed aerwards taking another century. In spite of this, his knowledge about the different gentes participating in the Conquest of Britain is much broader than what Gildas provided. He names, for example, the Jutes, the Angles and the Saxons. In regard to the Saxons, Bede’s works provide a much more detailed picture of this gens than the sources which formed subject of my analysis before. Since the analysis is based on exemplary passages, it was not possible to include discussions about the conversion of all Saxon kingdoms to Christianity although Bede very carefully presents the names and characteristics of the Saxon kings and, more importantly, the conversion of the kingdoms and the appointment of bishops into these kingdoms. is wealth of details about the history and contemporary situation of the Saxons cannot be paralleled in Bede’s works regarding the origins and history of the angli. He uses the episode of the first meeting of the later Pope Gregory the Great and the angli on the Roman slave market where he draws the connection between the name of this gens and God’s angels, information he drew from the anonymous Vita Gregorii. His reference to Hengist and Horsa can be understood to refer to the angli. However, it is possible that he saw them as heroic figures of all Germanic tribes during the time of their arrival in Britain. When referring to the origin and earliest history of the angli, the passages in the HE are much more vague than when referring to the origin of the saxones. Bede provides, however, information about the Continental origin of the angli. He claims that their former country was le without any members of the original gens aer the arrival of the angli in Britain.²⁴² Regarding the rule and the conversion of the Anglian kingdoms, he is at least as detailed as he is with the Saxons. However, his claims about the rule of the angli over the Britons remain vague and do not provide any details. Bede, as was argued by Patrick Wormald, also omits everything relating to the Anglo-Saxons before their conversion (Wormald 2006: 60). It is surprising that in Bede’s HE the gens anglorum, before their conversion to Christianity, actually is the gens with the least amount of information about its early history, its origin and its traditions. Aer their conversion, on the other 242 See Chapter 8.7.2. Alheidys Plassmann proposed two explanations for the lack of information about the origin of the angli: first, Bede had been confident enough about his kingdom which led to his decision to leave out a more detailed account of the origin of the angli, or, second, he considered Gildas’ account to provide enough information and did not add any more details (Plassmann 2006: 68). e latter claim is surprising since Gildas does not mention the gens anglorum at all.

242

Bede’s Historiae

hand, the quality and details about this gens become as full as could be expected from the title of Bede’s work. He praises the conversion and provides details about many saints and rulers of the gens anglorum.²⁴³ In these passages, Bede returns to his neutral and balanced tone when recording the events and history. is is also true when he speaks about the contact between the angli with other gentes such as the picti and the scotti. But he still remains vague when it comes to his claims about the rule of the angli over the brettones. Regarding the gentes of the picti and scotti, Bede’s works also provide much more information than Gildas’ DEB. Bede speaks about their origin, even if this information seems to be mythical. He is acquainted with the traditions and the politics of the picti and is aware of the difference between the Irish in Ireland, who he later identifies by the name of hiberni, and the Irish kingdom in Britain and its inhabitants, whom he names dalreudini. Bede’s use of the term scotti is inconsistent, on the one hand distinguishing two gentes in Britain and Ireland, and then using the name for both interchangeably. He is careful about the geographical location of the gentes in the past and present and explains why he calls them gentes transmarinae, a clarification which is not found in Gildas’ DEB. Before the arrival of the continental gentes in Britain, the passages about the picti and scotti are strongly influenced by Gildas, although Bede again uses a much more neutral tone. is does not mean that he fails to criticise the so-called Celtic Christians for their in his view outdated calculation of the Easter date and their refusal to accept the Roman rule, but he does so in a balanced tone and even praises, though not uncritically, the Irish Bishop Aidan for his exemplary behaviour. is analysis of Bede’s works suggests a set of identity markers which he uses in the CM and in his HE: Bede distinguishes between a number of names of large and small gentes in Britain as well as on the Continent.²⁴⁴ His works contain references to the brettones, the saxones, the angli, the picti, the scotti and the hiberni as well as to the Jutes and the Dalriadans. Furthermore, he refers to gentes which seem to be included in these names, i.e. the geuisse as well as the gyrue. e latter are of particular interest because they are always connected to a certain prouincia or regio which indicates a relevance of their territory for their name. is assumption is strengthened when approaching the various claims about the etymology of the term which all relate to terms connected to marshes and swamps. Bede also connects most of the 243 However, his most details accounts are found about the areas close to his home monastery whereas there is a peculiar silence about the Church histories in Western Northumbria, the West Midlands and western Wessex, areas which arguably show hints of an effective transition from British to Anglo-Saxon Christianity which Bede remains silent about (Brooks 2006: 30). 244 Bede’s vocabulary for these gentes is not consistent. It was claimed by Campbell that he used the terms gens, populus and natio interchangeably though it seems that natio is used for larger groups. Populus, on the other hand, is only used when referring to a gens with its particular king in context (Campbell 1994: 494).

Summary and Conclusion

243

individuals in his works with the name of their respective gens. is shows the importance of the awareness of the ethnic background and, therefore, the relevance of the names of the gentes in general as they are used in Bede’s works. e HE also contains foundation myths of three gentes. Bede speaks of the arrival of the brettones in Britain from armorica and the beginning of their settlement on the island. He speaks of the origin of the picti and their arrival in Britain. He connects the Anglo-Saxons and their arrival with the leadership of Hengist and Horsa, whom he claims to be the ancestors of the royal families of at least some of the Anglo-Saxon gentes, for example the Jutes. Here, his references are very general and vague. While he usually distinguishes between saxones, angli and other AngloSaxon gentes, Hengist and Horsa can be read as either leaders of all of these gentes or just of a single gens. When speaking about the Continental origins of these gentes, however, he claims that only the angli le their Continental homelands completely uninhabited.²⁴⁵ It remains unclear whether he considers this exodus to be the foundation of a new gens anglorum altogether, but the disconnection from the original gens would imply that this is the case. Bede’s works are full of histories for all of the gentes he speaks of. For many of them, he provides the stories of their mythological origin until his days. While his overview of the Church history of the gens anglorum ends with the beginning of the eighth century, at the end of book V he provides an overview of the religious and political situation of the named gentes in Britain at the time of his writing. He, therefore, tried to connect the histories of all of the gentes in Britain while his focus of course lies with the gens anglorum. However, Bede remains silent about the history of the gens anglorum before the conversion to Christianity. is is also true for most of the Roman past of Britain. He is very selective about the histories he provides and we can only speculate about what histories he remains silent, either because of a lack of sources or, as I would claim, because it does not serve his purposes.²⁴⁶ ere are no heroic figures to be found in Bede’s writings, at least not in the sense of an Ambrosius Aurelianus as in Gildas’ DEB. Bede’s heroes are either kings or ecclesiastics but they differ from the heroes which were present in the sources discussed in previous chapters like the warrior band found in the Gododdin. Bede’s heroes impress by means of their exemplum and not because they lead to military victories. Heroic behaviour in Bede’s work seems to be solely connected to the Christian faith. e example of St Germanus as the heroic figure of the Britons showed that there was not even fighting involved. He overcame the 245 In spite of their leaving, the area in the north of modern Schleswig-Holstein in Germany continued to be identified with the name Angeln. 246 at Bede made a careful choice about what historical events and developments he included in his writings has been argued for earlier by Glenn Olsen. Olsen suggested that Bede’s choice seems to have based on the purpose of his writings (Olsen 1982: 528).

244

Bede’s Historiae

Britons’ enemies without battle and, for that matter, without the help of the Britons themselves. Bede’s heroes are also not necessarily connected to an aristocratic background. is can, for example, be seen with Cuthberth or the diminishing of the role of St Wilfrith, whose noble birth does not prevent Bede from reducing his importance in his writings. e heroic figure, therefore, in Bede’s works solely assumes an ecclesiastical function. Bede’s works always connect the gentes with specific rulers. e Anglo-Saxon kings play a prominent role in both of Bede’s writings. e same is true for the bishops and their rule of the ecclesiastical world. Bede provides his readers with the names and usually with even more personal information about each king and bishop of the respective gentes, specifically of the saxones, the angli and the iutari. He only mentions few kings and bishops of the Britons, his focus lying on the kingdom of Northumbria. is implies the motivation of Bede’s choice of the gentes who are in the focus of his writings and their secular and ecclesiastic rulers. Bede provides examples where the customs of a gens differ from those of the angli. One of these examples is the reference to the picti and the matrilinear royal succession whenever there is no male heir when a king passes away. Another example, though not connected to the gentes in Britain, is the practice among the Continental Saxons of the rule of satrapae, of viceroys or counts, who only elect a king in case of war. Bede connects these different traditions explicitly with these Continental gentes. Bede speaks very explicitly about the territories of the various gentes. e example of the gyrui was pointed out before.²⁴⁷ He provides a somewhat exact reference to the location of the territories from where the Germanic gentes came to Britain.²⁴⁸ His references to the boundaries of the kingdoms in the island are not as detailed. When it comes to the kingdoms in Britain, he remains vague. e identification here seems to be focused more on the name of the gentes than on the territory they inhabit, with the exception of the gyrui already mentioned. Regarding the issue of language, Bede’s Historiae indicate a practical and no hierarchical approach to languages in general and the distinction between Latin and the vernaculars in particular. is is shown by the example of Caedmon, who is said to have been miraculously given the ability to sing religious songs in the vernacular.²⁴⁹ Bede emphasizes that his failure to sing before the miracle is not because of his language but because of the secular subject matter of the monastic community of singers in Whitby abbey. Bede, therefore, does not focus on Caedmon’s language but on his faith. He, therefore, does not pass a judgement on

247 See Chapter 8.7.2.2. 248 See Chapter 8.7.2. 249 See Chapter 8. For the respective passage in Bede’s text, see HE, IV.24.

Summary and Conclusion

245

the quality of either language.²⁵⁰ Vernacular languages and Latin are for Bede not mutually exclusive, although Latin was the language of the Church (Crépin 1976: 185). Regarding the role of language, André Crépin also claimed that “Latin and English were by turns on the lips of the dying Bede, showing his faithful love to the catholic [sic!] Church in general, and to the English nation in particular” (Crépin 1976: 186). In my view, however, this quote does what Bede failed to do. is is to connect the English language to the idea of its gens which I have not found any examples in any of Bede’s works. Finally, religion is of central importance in Bede’s distinction between the gentes, in so far as they differ in their faith. He places, as was amply discussed, emphasis on the distinction between the Roman and the earlier Christians and continuously refers to the Easter controversy which, among other features, divided the brettones from the angli. e matter of conversion to Roman Christianity is of central relevance to him. He always informs his readers when a certain gens, as was seen by the example of the saxones, breaks away from Christianity and returns to their heathen traditions. He also explicitly deals with the conversion of the individual Anglo-Saxon gentes. Based on these findings, I agree with Walter Goffart who claimed that Bede was following a precise agenda and who thus termed the production of Bede’s writing as intentional (Goffart 2006: 210). is was shown in various instances in my previous analysis, including the addition of the scotti to the information which was taken from the Vita Wilfridi, the utilisation of the information provided by Gildas’ DEB and, most of all, the change of this information in order to fit into Bede’s agenda. ese conclusions lead to the question about the role of Bede’s writings and his own strategy within the discourse of identity construction. As with the writings discussed in the previous chapters, Bede’s writings contain references to numerous discourse features which are material for the construction of collective identities, such as histories, names, religion, etc. Regarding the discourse itself, Bede follows the writing of Gildas, but also the writings from other authors, though mostly not verbatim. is is particularly true for his treatment of a British identity which he not only extracted from Gildas, but also changed and adapted according to his own agenda, i.e. the reproach of the Britons for not taking part in the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons nor following the Roman calculation of the Easter date and other 250 André Crépin claimed one passage does provide a hierarchical difference between the vernacular and Latin. In HE, V.7: “He [i.e. Caedwalla] laid aside his barbarous rage and shame/ And, with changed heart, to Peter changed his name.” is passage refers to Caedwalla’s journey to Rome to be baptised. Here, Crépin claims that “the change of name marked the entrance into a new life or upon some holy function” (Crépin 1976: 184). Language, however, seems to be of less interest than the conversion to the Christian faith which is simply identified with a Christian name. I therefore do not see how the change of the name would diminish the value of the vernacular language.

246

Bede’s Historiae

Church matters. ere are two particular examples for this. First, Bede adds St Germanus as a heroic figure for the Britons to the information provided by Gildas and thus diminishes the role of Ambrosius Aurelianus, Gildas’ heroic figure for the Britons. In this, Bede not only contradicts himself because he has to change the chronology of events he claimed in the CM in order for St Germanus to support the Britons in battle in his HE. is leads to a time gap of thirty years between the same events mentioned in both writings. Bede also implicitly agrees with Gildas about the military incompetence of the Britons by claiming that St Germanus led them to victory without any battle. Second, Bede follows the information provided by Gildas about the arrival of the saxones but adds his angli to Gildas’ account of this event. Considering the title of Bede’s Historia ecclesiastica gentis anglorum, the information Bede provides in all of his writings about the gens anglorum is surprisingly scarce and vague. He seems to be much more aware of the origin of the neighbouring Saxon kingdoms and their origins on the Continent than about the origin of his own gens. Considering the abscence of the gens anglorum in Gildas’ DEB and the doubtful presence of this gens in Y Gododdin, Bede’s accounts could thus indicate a possible abscence of any palpable discourse of identity construction of the gens anglorum before his lifetime. Bede’s strategy in his contribution to the discourse tradition can thus be described as follows: his accusations of the Britons in the HE, the lack of any reference to other gentes but the gens anglorum in his HA and the manipulation of events from the CM in his HE all indicate his strategy to emphasise the claim for dominance of the gens anglorum in the north of Britain, possibly its dominance over the entire island. With all his writings, most importantly in his HE and his HA, Bede puts forth this claim and provided the necessary historical background, including a number of specific discourse features, all of which are essential for the construction of an identity, presumably a dominant identity, of the gens anglorum. At the same time, Bede used his HE and HA, though in different ways, in order to diminish the importance of the other gentes who inhabited Britain before the Anglo-Saxon arrival and during his lifetime.

9 Summary

e previous chapters have shown that markers of identity construction can be found in the writings from different genres by authors from different ethnic backgrounds, tied together by a common bond of near-contemporaneity, a shared geographic and political environment and complementary as well as interactive ethnic viewpoints. is was demonstrated in detailed discussions of a variety of source writings including a letter, a series of stanzas, a historical account and a chronicle. ese sources were attributed to Gildas, a British ecclesiastic, Aneirin, a British poet and the Venerable Bede, whose writings provided the perspective of an ecclesiastic from the stance of the gens anglorum. In the following conclusion, I will first discuss the textual and intertextual presence of the different markers of identity construction which can be found in the writings. Second, I will draw a conclusion regarding the use of these markers in the context of these writings and finally regarding their recontextualization.¹ From this I will draw generalising conclusions about the discourse of strategies of identity construction in early medieval writings in Britain. Finally, I will compare my results with the current state of research regarding the construction of ethnic identities in the early Middle Ages and the discussion of writings which have been claimed to resemble these constructions, commonly referred to as origo gentis. An outlook on the far-reaching possibilities for a further use of the DHA concerning the strategies of identity construction in early medieval writings in general will conclude this investigation.

9.1 Textual and Intertextual Identity Markers It has been demonstrated that the three works under discussion show almost all markers that have been argued to form part of the construction of collective identities. With the exception of the laws, these writings provide references to naming patterns, founding myths, historical narratives, heroic figures, rulers and kings, customs and traditions, language and religion.

1

See Chapter 5.3.4.

248

Summary

Names

Names are used for the identification of the gentes and their members in all writings considered. Names referring to the Britons and to the Saxons can be found in all of the sources studied. In addition, there are names such as the scotti and the picti which are only found in the writings of Gildas and Bede but not in the Gododdin. However, these stanzas contain a reference to overseas gentes, which could be identified with the picti and the scotti, since similar references to these gentes occur in the two other sources and seem to have been common property of the literati of both gentes. e poems indicate that the ethnic situation in postRoman Britain was more complex than shown in Gildas’ DEB. Apart from the gentes of the Britons and the Saxons, and the men of lloegr, the Gododdin poems distinguish between smaller units within these groups like the men of Gododdin, of Gwynedd, of Deira and of Bernicia, even though the latter might be a later addition. is is a distinction which was not made by Gildas. On the one hand, this could support the idea that Gildas wrote in distance from the north of Britain and was simply not aware of or interested in these gentes. is would mean that he also excluded the names of other political entities distant from the area where he wrote. e individual kingdoms, however, were not in the focus of Gildas since he criticised the British gens altogether, including their rulers and their ecclesiastics. is leads to a second possibility, namely that the focus on the names of the kingdoms and the addition of Bernicia in the Gododdin can be explained with the increased political relevance of Bernicia under King Aethelfrith in the beginning of the seventh century. Assuming an early date of composition of the poems, the scribes may have decided to add the name of this gens presumably because its importance had changed between the time of composition and the time of writing or re-writing the stanzas. is already indicates that the appearance of ethnonyms in the writings is influenced by both the purpose of the author or the bearers of the transmission and their contemporary social and political situation. In addition, the Gododdin poems feature a number of names of individual presumably British warriors. As I am sure future research will demonstrate that most of these names can be assumed to be telling names. e use of telling names in the Gododdin poems can, therefore, to be understood as a specific British feature providing further means of identification to a possible audience. is is also true for Bede’s HE, where we find numerous names bearing various meanings, including Hengist and Horsa, but also names of contemporary or near-contemporary individuals like Aethelfrith, as well as his story about Caedmon, a name of British origin. Of course it is impossible to say whether Bede was aware of the meaning of the name, however it is interesting that a specifically British tradition finds entrance to Bede’s work in this story.

Textual and Intertextual Identity Markers

249

Ethnonyms, however, play a much more dominant role in Bede’s writings than the names of individuals. In numerous passages he refers to the names of AngloSaxon kingdoms as well as to the names of gentes who do not occur in the other sources, for example the gyrui and the geuisse. Bede refers to a great variety of names and gentes although, especially in regard to the angli, the distinction between these gentes oen seems rather vague. In some passages of his writings, for example, it is not clear whether Bede uses the term angli to unite the gentes of all the different kingdoms of Germanic origin in Britain or whether he excludes such gentes as the saxones. Both explanations are possible. e presence of such names of gentes and their regular use for the identification of both the gentes themselves or, as was seen with Bede, certain individuals representing these gentes, demonstrate the names’ importance for the authors of these writings in order to provide means of identification for their own as well as for other gentes. e writings of Bede as well as the Gododdin poems regularly associate individuals with the names of their gentes. is indicates how important the distinction between the respective gentes must have been for these authors. All works, therefore, provide names for the identification of the specifically named gentes by their audience. While the names, so to say, provide the stage for the construction of identities, the writings themselves provide more markers for the identification. Founding Myth

Explicit references to possible founding myths can only be found in the writings of Bede. Neither Gildas’ DEB nor the Gododdin poems contain passages that could be read as a conventional founding myth. However, Gildas mentions the arrival of the Saxons in Britain by boat. Although he acknowledges the Saxons’ origin on the continent, this passage provides the historical reference of their arrival in Britain and thus could be understood as a founding myth for this particular gens in Britain. Regarding the Gododdin, the absence of a reference to a possible founding myth could be explained by the very limited focus of the poems on the feast, which however lasted for one year, and the following battle. In spite of the long preceding feast, the narrow focus of the poems led the author to exclude any information preceding the feasting of the warriors of Gododdin or following the battle of Catraeth. For Gildas’ DEB, the focus on the present dismal situation and his reproaches of the respective contemporary rulers and ecclesiastics could therefore be claimed to explain the presence of only an implicit founding myth. Bede, however, provides founding myths of three gentes. He speaks of the arrival of the Britons in Britain, although just briefly. He also speaks of the arrival of the picti and how they settled in the north of Britain aer trying to settle in Ireland. He also provides an account of the arrival of the Saxons, which reads very similar to the information found in Gildas’ DEB, Bede of course added the gens of the angli to

250

Summary

this event. In addition, Bede provides more details, particularly about the origins of these gentes on the Continent. He informs his readers that the angli le their former homes which he claims to have been deserted since the time of their exodus. With this information, he seems to conclude the history of the continental angli and considers their exodus to Britain as a new foundation of their gens, the insular angli. He furthermore added the anecdote of how Pope Gregory equalled the angli with angels and how he decided to send missionaries to convert them. But the foundation myth of the angli, read in contrast to what Bede writes about the origin of the picti or about the saxones, seems much more vague and general. is is particularly true for their arrival in Britain, where the angli appear as a mere addition to the passage which Bede copied from Gildas. is surprises in regard to his subsequent focus on the gens anglorum, but is likely to be explained by a lack of written sources. e attempt to include a founding myth of the angli, in spite of this lack of sources, emphasizes the importance of this marker to Bede. He included all the details he had access to about the founding myths of the gentes dealt with. Regarding the angli, he not only used the material he had access to but also seemed to have added them to Gildas’ story of the Saxons’ arrival. e question why the angli were invested with a less detailed myth of origin than the picti or the saxones, however, awaits future elucidation. Historiae or Historical Narratives

All three authors, to a certain extent, provide histories for several gentes. My analyses, however, have demonstrated that the concept of a history as a presumed textual genre of historical narrative is ambiguous, to say the least. For the writings of Gildas and Bede, the term of historical narratives seems not at all applicable, both of these authors provide rather histories for some of the gentes in Britain with a strong influence of their own perspectives.² For all the writings studied, there can of course be no doubt that history can not be understood as an abstract sequence of events in the lifetime of a gens, a person or a social group because all of the writings demonstrate a strong social, political and ethnic influence on their narratives. In addition, the Gododdin poems can be claimed to demonstrate another meaning of history, i.e. history as the telling or the performance of a narrative. e term thus bears meanings which could lead to a misunderstanding of these different concepts or forms of history. erefore, it is, in my opinion, necessary to point out that the term history as it is used in this study should be dinstinguished from the textual genre of a historical narrative. Regarding the story of the Britons in Gildas’ DEB and the account of the angli and, to a certain extent, of

2

e historical perspective and its influence on the text production of both authors, together with Nennius, was also discussed in Miller, 1977, 465.

Textual and Intertextual Identity Markers

251

the saxones in Bede’s HE, both authors ignore the heathen past of their gentes.³ Bede, furthermore, provides a strong contrast to Gildas’ DEB because his HE and his other writings lack the close connection to the supposedly glorious political Roman past of Britain.⁴ is is understandable since the gens anglorum never had a connection with the Romans at all. So both authors adapt the histories very carefully to their purposes: Gildas connects the Britons repeatedly with their shared history of the Romans who, from his perspective, provide a glorious example of how the Britons should act. Bede, on the other hand, disconnects the history of the angli not only from their heathen continental ancestors but also from their heathen forefathers in Britain. is agrees with his perspective and his criticism of other heathen gentes or the Britons who repeatedly refuse to accept to follow the Roman Catholic Church and keep to their own, long-established Church in Britain. e Gododdin poems, again, do not provide much information that could be identified with the past of their gens. e year-long feast is set in relation to the battle and because of the poems’ focus on this single event, further historical references are immaterial. e focus on the praise of the individual warrior and his performance in battle leads to the absence of more general information about the past of the gens of Gododdin. Heroic Figures

e retrospective point of view of Gildas and Bede is also similar in regard to the heroic figures in their writings. Gildas looks back on the history of his people, focussing on their heroic past under the Romans and their errors but ignores their ultimately heathen past as much as Bede ignores the heathen past of the angli. Gildas provides his readers with a secular heroic figure, Ambrosius Aurelianus, a Christian aristocrat with Roman ancestry who represents the characteristics which Gildas accuses the Britons to lack. Bede refers to Gildas’ Ambrosius Aurelianus as well. But he diminishes his role by adding a stronger figure of identification, St Germanus, and with him a stronger religious role model for his readers.⁵ is not only indicates the ecclesiastical influence on his writings in general and the construction of identities in particular, where a specifically religious element 3 4

5

Patrick Wormald claimed earlier that Bede forgot his ancestors entirely (Wormald 1978: 59). is is one of the striking differences of his work when compared to other Historiae such as the works of Gregory the Great or Paul the Deacon, who always connect the histories of their gentes with the downfall of the Roman Empire (Wormald 1978: 59). Bede also diminishes the influence of figures from an aristocratic background. is agrees with Patrick Wormald’s claim that Bede, in contrast to other early medieval authors, did not form part of the apparently strong group of Adelsheilige, i.e. aristocratic saints, of ecclesiastics coming from an aristocratic background where the heroic past still was of importance and part of the social consciousness of the entire warrior-class (Wormald 1978: 67).

252

Summary

is added to various other markers, but also shows Bede’s hesitation to follow older strategies to characterize heroic figures. By adding Christian elements and diminishing traditional heroic elements, Bede’s writings thus indicate the rise of new patterns of the characterization of a heroic figure. I assume that a similar development led to the changes in theGododdin poems and the addition, or at least the reinforcement, of Christian elements to the stanzas. Of course, the Britons had been Christians for about 300 years when the Gododdin poems were supposedly composed. In addition the Christian faith did not exclude martial heroism as can be seen in the Old Testament as well as in the Christian writings of the Middle Ages, for example in the Old English Judith or the old French Roland song. e addition or the reinforcement, of Christian perspective in the Gododdin stanzas, however, can be explained by the political necessity to emphasise the older Christian tradition of the Britons prevalent during the Roman christianization of the Germanic gentes in Britain. e stanzas reflect the traditions and the values of a traditional heroic society of the Britons through their strong heroic ethos. We find Christian elements indicating exactly this mixture of heroic values and the Christian faith. Patrick Wormald argued earlier that it is a basic error to confuse a continuity in depth between clerical and secular standards with a linear continuity between paganism and Christianity. [...] e coming of Christianity displaced the old Gods, and diverted traditional values into new pastures, but it did not change those values.⁶ As I have demonstrated in this study, this is not only true for the Anglo-Saxon but also for the British perspective were we witness a fusion of these values. is again underlines the strong influence of contemporary social developments on the writings, their transmission and their function in the construction of identity. Rule and Kings

Gildas’ DEB lacks a strong identification of any gens with secular rulers, spiritual superiors or an aristocratic class since the rulers are the sole focus of his criticism. His writing can be understood as a call for the gens of the Britons to protest against their rulers who, according to Gildas, were responsible for the invasion of the Germanic gentes as well as for the sinful way of life of the Britons. Apart from Ambrosius Aurelianus, there is no identification with any king, nor with any ecclesiastic. is agrees with Gildas’ claim that the people should return to a pious life and turn away from their sinful rulers and ecclesiastics. 6

(Wormald 1978: 67)

Textual and Intertextual Identity Markers

253

is differs greatly from the identification of the men of Gododdin with their ruler, Mynyddog Mwynfawr. In the poems, this ruler of Eydin, Edinburgh, is not only constantly referred to during the events of the battle, but also during the account of the preceding feast. As has already been discussed, the year-long feast was of importance to strengthen the bond between the warriors and their ruler, indicating the strong ties of allegiance between the warrior elite and their ruler. e famous topos of talu medd, the pay for the mead, is a motif which is found in British as well as in Old English heroic naratives. However, because of the sole focus of the stanzas on this warrior elite, the connection between the gens and its rulers remains unclear apart from the feast preceding the battle. While this feast and the talu medd demonstrate an important detail about the relationship between the warriors and Mynyddog Mwynfawr, the Gododdin poems do not provide any information regarding the connection between the rulers and the ruled in the kingdom in general. In contrast, Bede’s works show a very strong connection between the gentes in general and their secular rulers. He carefully introduces every ruler and also every member of the ecclesiastic aristocracy, like the bishops and the archbishops. He connects most individuals in his writings with their gens and oen speaks of their connection to a specific kingdom which indicates the strong identification of the individual with their kings and their rulers. Customs

When referring to the differences between the gentes, customs play an important role in all of the works considered. Gildas refers to a number of shared and differing customs among the gentes. He speaks about the picti and scotti as societies where slavery is practised. It is known that slavery was also common among the Britons, the Irish and the Saxons, therefore it remains unclear why Gildas considered this information worth mentioning. He also speaks of the physical appearance of the picti and scotti wearing facial hair and specific features of clothing and their nakedness when fighting. Gildas, here, identifies members of these gentes by such characteristics, which indicates that they differed from the Britons’ customs which were, of course, influenced by the customs the Roman introduced during their long occupation of the island. e same can be seen in the writings of Bede, who speaks about the custom of the picti to appoint women as their rulers when the order of succession of the kings was unclear. is custom, however, is still a matter of debate, whereas the passage in Bede’s HE is one of the few indications of the existence of a matrilinearity of royal succession among the picti. Bede also speaks of the practice of succession and political rule among the Continental Saxons. e difference in the calculation of the Easter date by the so-called Celtic Christians is one of his central points of

254

Summary

criticism of the Britons. e refusal of the Britons to accept the Roman calculus is repeatedly stressed. On the other hand, Bede does not insist on this point in regard to other gentes following the non-Roman calculation of the Easter date, such as the Irish, who began to accept the Roman calculus in the course of the 8th century, or the picti. is was shown by his treatment of the Irish Bishop Aidan, whom he praises in spite of the Easter Controversy. Bede, therefore, seems selective with regard to his judgement of other gentes. While the Britons’ refusal to accept the Roman Easter date is considered a heresy of the entire gens, there are individuals of other gentes, discussed in this study by the example of Aidan, who deserved his praise in spite of their gentes’ tradition to follow the Easter date of the so-called Celtic Church, the salient point being the Briton’s original failure of missionary zeal. Regarding the characteristic customs of the gentes in Britain, Bede does not use Gildas but draws on new information. He also does not include the term used by Gildas for the ships, cyulis, of the saxones. It appears that customs are only referred to when they are different from the customs and traditions of the author’s own gens. is is obvious in the writings of Bede as well as in Gildas’ DEB. ese markers, however, do not seem to play a role in the Gododdin poems, which only refer to the topos of feasting and sharing the mead between the ruler and his warriors before the battle, customs the other writings remain silent about. e stanzas themselves do not provide any information on the differences in customs between the gentes. Objects such as weapons, armoury or jewellery, however, were of great importance in the Gododdin poems, in particular concerning the discussion of their possible date of composition. e reference to the weapons of the warriors from Gododdin and the identification of these weapons with archaeological findings in Northern Britain was an important argument in favour of the early date of composition of the poems. e identification of ornaments, torcs in particular, was another important aspect in this respect. Language

Language is of no explicit importance in the writings considered. Implicitly, of course, it could be claimed that they were composed in a specific language for a specific reason. Both, Gildas and Bede, were ecclesiastics and influenced by the Christian tradition to write in Latin, their language of learning and salvation. ey both wrote for an international audience, prompted as they were by their Christian faith. is, however, did not lead them, as was discussed before, to a negative view of the vernacular or of other languages. Gildas and Bede provide references that show that the difference between languages was of interest and, with Gildas, language was connected with a very specific gens, i.e. the Saxons. Bede, when

Textual and Intertextual Identity Markers

255

speaking about Caedmon, was explicit about the failure of Caedmon to compose poetry, however, not because of his incompetence in the vernacular language but because of the secular subject matter. He was instantly able to compose poetry with a religious subject matter. e same type of criticism of secular poetry, but slightly stronger, can be found with Gildas. He criticises the court poets not because of their use of a specific language but because of the secular content of their poetry and their proximity to the rulers who are in the centre of his criticism. is criticism can also be found in the writings of other ecclesiastics, e.g. in the epistulae by Alcuin writtin in the late 8th century.⁷ is leaves the language of the Gododdin poems. I would support the claim that they were composed in a Late British vernacular, as they were composed for the secular aristocracy of the Britons, and then underwent a modernization into Middle Welsh during the transmission process. However, while the language of the poems underwent modernization, their subject matter reflects what it had been during their time of composition. ere are, however, two important exceptions: the what I assume the original, the sixth-century subject matter underwent a specific change in regard to the addition of Bernica and specifically Christian elements. e addition of Bernicia can, as was argued before, be explained with the growing political importance of this kingdom. e reason for an addition of specific Christian elements is of course not because a Christian mission of the Britons during the transmission process of the poems since Britain had become Christian many centuries before. e Christian elements were added to the poems in order to provide evidence for and support the older, so-called Celtic Christianity of the Britons in contrast to that of the only recently converted Anglo-Saxons. is should be seen as an adaptation of the poems’ language and subject matter to a change in language, politics and the perception of their gens’ own religion and underlines the continuity of the poem’s importance to the gens of the British and, later, the Welsh. Religion

Religion is the most important identity marker in all of the writings concerned. e connection between Christianity and the heroic figures in the writings which were subject to analysis in the present study has already been mentioned in this chapter. Christianity of course plays the central role in the works of Gildas and Bede, both authors having been ecclesiastics. Both works provide a contrast between Christian and pagan gentes. In Gildas we find a confrontation of the Christian Britons and the erstwhile pagan Germanic invaders. In Bede we find the same contrast during the Roman mission in Britain between the Saxon kingdoms who had already been converted and the kingdoms who were about to become Chris7

See Chapter 7.

256

Summary

tian. Bede also distinguished between Roman Christianity and so-called Celtic Christianity and repeatedly reproached the “Celtic” Christians who, in his view, were perfidi, faithless, for not accepting the Roman calculus of the Easter date. Religion also plays a central role in the Gododdin poems, although this only becomes apparent in the transmission process of the stanzas. e reinforcement of the Christian elements into the poems could indicate a growing importance of this marker at some time during their transmission. A presumable addition of Christian elements could thus be explained by the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons in the seventh century. Aer their conversion to the Roman faith, the authenticity and geniuneness of the older Christian observance of the Britons must have become important to be underscored by the scribes. It possibly became a defining factor when contrasting the religion of the Britons to that of the Anglo-Saxon gentes. is emerging contrast, due to the Roman Christianization of the Anglo-Saxon gentes, could explain this later addition in order to express authority and superiority over the Anglo-Saxons based on the older Christian traditions of the Britons, for which the Gododdin poems served as evidence. e Easter Controversy and the conflict between the Roman Church and the older Church practices already established in Britain could also be the prime reason for this addition. Christian elements in the British poems could have been used to underline the older religious practices of their own gens and therefore support their claim for the higher authority of the British Church in contrast to the younger traditions of the Anglo-Saxon Church.

10 Conclusion - Strategies of Identity Construction

e various markers serving identity construction can be found in all of the writings discussed in the present study. In addition to these markers, these writings are also connected to each each other by references to the same events, for example the battle of Mount Badon or the arrival of the saxones in Britain. ey are also connected to each other by their references to specific social actors, for example the poets and the ecclesiastics. Gildas speaks of the poets and condemns their influence on the rulers of Britain, who are in the centre of his criticism of contemporary Britain. e close reading of the HE demonstrated that this view was, to a certain extent, shared by Bede who offered his view of the poets by the story of Caedmon. Bede is more implicit than Gildas, but the story of Caedmon indicates that Bede shares his predecessors’ point of view and that poetry without an ecclesiastical purpose is not acceptable. His writings, however, lack the acid criticism of the secular rulers found in Gildas’ work. Emphasising the influence of the ecclesiastics and the role of the Church for a good ruler, he practically, though implicitly, says the same as Gildas does. is shows that identity construction is not limited to the mere presence of these connections or the presence of the markers in the writings. e following chapter will show how the strategies of identity construction can be identified, when taking a closer look at the presumable agenda of the discourse participants and the recontextualization of markers in the discourse events, i.e. the respective writings.

10.1 Strategies of identity construction - the Analysis of Discourse Strategies Discourse analysis, as it was defined and understood in this thesis, has demonstrated that all the writings which were subject of the analysis participated within the discourse of identity construction in early medieval Britain. Although these writings were written from different perspectives, i.e. they originated from writers from different gentes, they all make use of the same discourse markers which have been identified in recent research to influence the construction of collective identities. e use of these markers in order to construct identities can, therefore,

258

Conclusion - Strategies of Identity Construction

be claimed to be independent of the ethnic background of the respective author or, as was demonstrated with the Gododdin poems, the scribes who put the text into writing: all the writings analysed in the present study made use of the same discourse markers. at identities are constructed by means of specific discourse patterns has become obvious in the present study: all the writings, again independent of their ethnic origin, participate in an ongoing discourse. is is also true regarding the genre these writings were assigned to: Gildas’ letter of admonition, the Gododdin poem’s lament of a glorious past and Bede’s justification of the Christianization of the Anglo-Saxons in his historiae all contain the same discourse markers necessary for the construction of the aforementioned collective identities of Britain’s gentes. is function of these writings, however, has been mostly neglected in the past. is neglect can, to a certain extent, be explained with the sole focus of previous research on the origines gentium. e concept of origo gentis, as used by scholars such as Walter Pohl, Herwig Wolfram or Alheydis Plassmann, however suffers from two central weaknesses. ese weaknesses are the artificiality and the static nature of this concept. First, the concept of the origo gentis is a modern definition which medieval authors were not aware of, applied on their writings centuries aer their composition. It is thus an invention of modern historians and it is conceived by our modern understanding. e second weakness is that the research of origo gentis ignores sources that have not been labelled as historiae because they are claimed not to provide what scholars consider a story of origin or German Herkunserzählung. e choice of sources thus is too selective. e strong focus on the story or myth of origin narrows the focus of this particular research to one single marker of identity construction. Claiming a close connection between the origo gentis and the construction of identities, this approach is not of much use because identity construction, as argued at the beginning of my study, is a highly dynamic phenomenon dependent on various factors such as sociopolitical, cultural and historical changes. e focus on just one particular marker and on one particular genre of writings ignores the dynamic and multiple strategies of identity construction. e present study has shown that widening the research corpus onto writings of different genres and taking further markers of identity construction into consideration offers the opportunity of a broader understanding of the strategies of identity construction used by medieval authors and scribes. e ADS enabled the present study to establish a connection between the discourse and the strategy which the discourse participants followed. Assuming a close reciprocal relationship between discourse and discourse event, i.e. the writings, the findings of the present study allowed a careful identification of the strategies the respective discourse participants followed by their participation in the discourse. Discourse markers were continuously adopted from earlier writings and,

Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae

259

according to the strateges and the agenda of the relevant discourse participant, were adapted and changed. e example of the identity of the Britons indicates that the writings which were in the focus of this study succeeded in changing the identity of Gildas’s gens into the identity of an enemy gens by Bede with only a small number of changes and adaptions of the original formulations, and thus is strongly dependent on each author’s agenda. e results which were drawn from my analyses by means of the approach of the ADS can thus be formulated as follows:

10.2 Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae Gildas’ De excidio et conquestu britanniae was the earliest medieval writing approached in this study. In his letter of admonition, Gildas reproaches five of the contemporary rulers in Britain as well as the British ecclesiastics whom he blames together for the, in his view, disastrous state of the island. With the Romans gone and the northern gentes, the scotti and the picti, ravaging the Britons, the rulers invited the saxones to the island. is invitation, from Gildas’ perspective, made the life of the British gens even more deplorable. His letter can thus be read as a strong criticism of the contemporary state of Britain, its rulers and its ecclesiastics. Gildas draws numerous parallels with the story of the people of Israel in the Old Testament and repeatedly claims that the present situation in Britain must be seen as punishment for the sins of his own gens. His purpose is the severe criticism of the current political and ecclesiastical situation, while he also demands the British people to act against their rulers and ecclesiastics and return their country to the glory it had seen during the Roman occupation. As can be expected with such an agenda, Gildas’ DEB provided much information on how he constructs the Briton’s identity, but also on the identities of the other gentes in Britain as has been shown before. Although Gildas’ writing is the first writing in the focus of the present study, the discourse of identity construction, of course, does not begin with his DEB. Gildas is greatly influenced by his Roman-style education, by his ecclesiastic background and by the writings he drew from for his own letter, most importantly the Holy Script and Orosius’ Historiae adversos paganos, but also by other writings which influenced his DEB.¹ Regarding the discourse of identity construction, the present study has demonstrated that Gildas, in spite of all his criticism, emphasises the Britons’ moral and religious superiority over gentes such as the scotti, the picti and the saxones, who in the 6th century were still heathen gentes until the beginning of the mission of St Columbanus in the end of the 6th century. For the focus and the purpose of this thesis, Gildas’ DEB, there-

1

For a detailed discussion of Gildas’ readings, see the study by Neil Wright in Wright 1991.

260

Conclusion - Strategies of Identity Construction

fore, provided the beginning of my study of the discourse of identity construction and as the basis for my own critical comparison with the following writings.

10.3 Aneirin’s Y Gododdin is discourse is also present in the Gododdin poems. e stanzas commonly referred to as Y Gododdin are heroic poems, composed and written down from a British perspective in order to praise and remember the martial prowess of the warriors from the kingdom of Gododdin and their bond with the ruler of their kingdom, Mynyddog Mwynfawr. e Gododdin poems were of particular interest for this present study with respect to their role in the discourse of identity construction. Poetry, in contrast to writings which have commonly been referred to as historiae, has somewhat been neglected in the general research about identities in the Middle Ages, particularly within the discussion about what has been labelled origo gentis. While the aforementioned purpose of the stanzas did not necessarily promise many details on identity construction or a significant role within its discourse, the findings of my analysis nevertheless led to numerous conclusions about these issues. e discourse of the identity construction of the Britons, as evidenced in Gildas’ DEB, is taken up by Aneirin’s Gododdin poems. e stanzas not only provided numerous references to the discourse markers which are essential for the construction of identities, but also demonstrated an active role of heroic poetry in the discourse itself. is is particularly the case when looking at the role of Christianity and the role of the changing political realities in the north of Britain during the transmission of the stanzas. Regarding Christianity, there can be no doubt that the men of Gododdin were Christians, Britain had been converted to Christianity centuries before the presumed date of composition of the poems. Christian elements, however, presumably found their way into the stanzas centuries aer their original composition. I have argued that this addition can be explained with the changing political realities in Britain aer the Anglo-Saxon conquest and the conversion of the new AngloSaxon kingdoms to the more recent Roman orientation of the Christian faith. Adding Christian features to the poems demonstrates that with the growing power of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and their conversion by the Roman Church the scribes who put down the poems into writing saw the necessity to emphasise the older and thus superior Christian tradition of the Britons. is comparison had hitherto not been necessary since the Anglo-Saxon gentes had initially not been Christians, but with their conversion the claim for the older Christianity among the Britons became an important issue within the discourse. is led to the reinforcement of the Christian features into the discourse of British identity construction and maintenance as expressed in the stanzas. is demonstrates that the discourse of

Bede’s Historiae

261

identity construction was not only of relevance during their composition, but also influenced their transmission. During this process, the stanzas were adapted to the changing social situation. is indicates the reciprocal relationship between writing and contemporary political, social and religious change not only during the composition of the writing but also during its transmission. e same claim can be made regarding the change of political realities with respect to the growing political importance of the kingdom of Bernicia, which was presumably added during the transmission of the poems as well. e emphasis of Bernicia as a major enemy kingdom is, therefore, another indication for the adaption of the stanzas following the growing political importance of this kingdom and thus to changing political realities. A further aspect which provides significant insight to the discourse of identity construction is the identification of lloegr and lloegrwys with England and the English. e discussion about the origin of this ethnonym and which gens it was used to refer to did not provide any final answers. Following Craig Cessford, this term could possibly refer to neighbouring areas and their inhabitants. Nevertheless, even the most recent translations of the stanzas identify the men of lloegr with English warriors, thus creating a connection between the medieval gens Bede’s angli, a concept of similar vagueness and debatable origin as will be argued in short, and the modern people of England. e present study has thus demonstrated that the Gododdin poems can be claimed to have been actively participating within the discourse of identity construction of the British gens. Furthermore, it has been argued that the discourse not only led to significant changes in the stanzas during their transmission in order to follow a specific discourse strategy of the scribes, but that even modern interpretations and translations of the poems still participate in what appears to be an ongoing discourse of identity construction: the repeated identification of England with lloegr in most of the translations of the stanzas indicates the apparent necessity of creating a relationship between the concept of Englishness and the enemy participants of this early medieval battle.

10.4 Bede’s Historiae e interpretation of a specific medieval gens as English can also be seen in the writings of Bede and their treatment by modern research, again indicating the presence of a still ongoing discourse. I will return to this point in short. Regarding the construction of an identity for the gens anglorum, Bede uses the passage about the arrival of the saxones from Gildas and simply adds the angli to the arriving saxones. Bede also adds a reference to the territory on the continent the angli presumably originated from and informs his readers that they le this territory deserted. While he provides details about the Continental Saxons and some

262

Conclusion - Strategies of Identity Construction

of their traditions, for example in regard to the political rulership of their country, he remains silent about the Continental angli. Whether this silence is deliberate, perhaps in order to disconnect the continental angli from the now Christian gens anglorum and remain silent about their pagan origins, or whether it can be explained with Bede’s lack of information about the continental origins of the gens remains unclear.² Bede provides the names of the two heroic figures of Hengist and Horsa. It is not clear, however, who these two figures led to Britain, the HE speaks of the angli, the saxones and the iuti. He connects Hengist and Horsa with Cantia, Kent, where he claims the iuti lived. It is, therefore, not possible to connect these two heroic figures of Hengist and Horsa with the gens anglorum. Bede adds a passage from Gregory’s vita from Whitby about how the pope encountered the angli for the first time. Here, Bede informs his readers how this meeting led to Gregory’s decision to send missionaries to Britain and convert the angli to Christianity. He then provides an account of the conversion of the gens anglorum. He spoke about the legendary origin of their name, a passage which he also took from Gregory’s vita of Whitby. He added the name of the angli to the text which he copied, though not verbatim, from Gildas. A more detailed history of the gens anglorum begins with their conversion, but even here Bede remains very vague. His use of the name angli, for example, is not consistent because he sometimes uses the name to refer to all the Continental gentes who invaded Britain aer the Roman withdrawal and sometimes distinguishes between the gentes already mentioned. is inconsistent use of the name angli could be understood to imply a supreme importance of this gens among all the Germanic gentes who settled in and conquered Britain.³ Bede’s depiction of the gens anglorum is an idealised vision of a unified gens consisting of all the gentes who conquered Britain.⁴ e information about the territory of the gens anglorum appears to be rather vague as well when contrasted with the detailed information Bede provides about the Saxons, for example the geuisse and the gyrui. Furthermore, he does not give any information about specific cultural practices or customs of the angli. In conclusion, Bede’s works do not provide much information about the identity of his own gens. As already mentioned, this might be explained with a particular agenda of his or with his lack of written and oral sources. However, regarding the detailed information he provides about other gentes in Britain, it is surprising that, of all the

2

3

4

Nicolas Higham provided what I think is also a justified explanation for the absence of a connection between the identities of the gentes in Britain with the gentes from the Continent: It was Bede’s intention to construct newly-created identities which were more than merely derivatives of premigration communities (Higham 2007: 5). In her master’s thesis, Jana Harnett argued that Bede’s use of the term angli for all of the Germanic settlers in Britain indicated his claim for a unified gens under the rule of an ecclesiastica gens anglorum (Harnett 2010: 38). See also Harnett 2010, 39.

Bede’s Historiae

263

contemporary gentes in Britain, he provides the smallest amount of information about his own. In regard to the discourse of identity construction for the angli, Bede’s writings are closely connected to Gildas’ DEB. He used the relevant passage from Gildas and seems to have added the information about the gens anglorum he had access to or which he might have as well invented himself. is was, of course, necessary since Gildas did not provide the information Bede needed in order to write his historiae or to explain the Anglo-Saxon dominance in Britain, including the central role of his own kingdom Northumbria in the history of the island. It is apparent that Bede’s writings not only participate in the discourse of the construction of identities but also makes central contributions to this discourse and changes and adapts certain elements according to his own purposes. is can also be demonstrated when taking a closer look at his treatment of the Briton’s identity. Bede also used the information provided by Gildas about the Battle of mons badonicus and about Ambrosius Aurelianus. Bede does not question the role of Ambrosius Aurelianus as a heroic figure of the Britons. However, he makes an important addition to the information provided by Gildas: he refers to the bishops who support the Britons against the new gentes. St Germanus of Auxerre, who travelled to Britain around AD 430, is in the main focus of Bede, who particularly stresses the point that the bishop won the battle against the saxones and picti for the Britons without bloodshed.⁵ e length of this passage as well as the details about the battle and the strategy of St Germanus show the priority Bede gives this story in contrast to the battle won by Ambrosius Aurelianus. But Bede did not merely add additional heroic figures to diminish the role of the martial hero Gildas praised. As the comparison with the given information in Bede’s CM has shown, in the HE he also changed the chronology for this addition.⁶ He took the passage about St Germanus and the battle of the Britons out of its chronological context in the CM and placed it, in his HE, thirty years later. is approach was used in order to have a heroic figure to match Ambrosius Aurelianus and to challenge his importance for the Britons in their battle. ere is more: Gildas only spoke about Ambrosius Aurelianus’ Roman aristocratic background, a story which Bede takes up as well. But there is also a reference about Ambrosius’ religion. He is what might be considered a typical hero from the heroic age literature, with an aristocratic background, courage and success in battle. ese characteristics are of course also characteristic of the warriors of the Gododdin. Bede’s hero, however, is a bishop who wins the battle without fighting. Bede’s version thus suits with Gildas’ severe criticism of the lack of military 5

6

Nothing is known about St Germanus’ social background. He came to Britain in 429 AD in order to preach against the Briton’s refusal to follow the Roman tradition of the Easter date which Bede also repeatedly criticised. See Chapter 8.7.1.1.

264

Conclusion - Strategies of Identity Construction

success among the Britons. Bede does not follow this criticism, but states that the bishop drove away the enemy gentes by his divine power. In this passage, Bede’s prime heroic figure differs decidedly from the heroes we have seen in Gildas’ DEB and the Gododdin poems. e addition of St Germanus demonstrates two points regarding the discourse of identity construction. First, Bede considers it to be necessary to diminish the role of Ambrosius Aurelianus as a hero for the Britons. However, as I argued before, Ambrosius Aurelianus is not only the hero of the Britons at the battle of mons badonicus, but also the link to a glorious Roman past as expressed in Gildas’ DEB. is is also diminished by the addition of St Germanus because Bede disconnects the Britons from this past of superior civilization. By the figure of St Germanus, Bede directs the focus on the Easter problem and the role of the Britons as, in his view, perfidi, faithless because of their refusal to accept the traditions and dominance of the Roman Catholic Church. Bede thus obliterated the glorious Roman past the Britons were associated with by Gildas and added a heroic leader who, from his point of view, was much better suited as a model for identification of the British gens. At the same time he emphasizes the role of the Roman Church as the saviour and protector of the Britons in spite of their refusal to accept the Roman Christan traditions and its calculus of the Easter date. With this, he changed a significant element of identity construction. at he does so consciously can be seen by the recontextualization of St Germanus between the HE and the CM. He disconnects the Britons from their Roman past and connects their survival against the saxones and the picti with the Christian faith. According to Bede, the angli did not take part in the battle. With the help of St Germanus, who represents the Roman Church which Bede and the gens anglorum in general represent as well, the Britons overcome their enemies. e angli, however, did not belong to these enemies yet, as the passage demonstrates. is is not the only recontextualization of identity construction which can be identified in Bede’s writings. His treatment of the British gens in general shows a similar approach. Copying the relevant passages from Gildas, though not verbatim, Bede adopted Gildas’ reproaches against the Britons. Some passages even read as if he balanced Gildas’ criticism, for example concerning their military failures for which Bede provides the rational explanation of the Roman withdrawal of young men and military equipment from the island. In addition to the information taken from Gildas, Bede added his own reproaches, his criticism of the Britons becoming more direct. He thus adopts and alters given identity markers or discourse features for his own purpose of writing. From this perspective, Bede’s characterisation of the Britons, or the angli for that matter, is not innovative. e identities featured in Bede’s writings show the strong influence of earlier writings with his own adaptions which follow his own purpose of writing.

Outlook for further research

265

at Bede is conscious of his purpose of writing can be seen particularly in the HA, where he mentions no other gentes in Britain. e HA, as I understand it, thus demonstrates Bede’s claim for his own gens’ dominance in Northumbria. is lack of information implies that there are no other gentes present anymore or, more likely, that all other gentes either had been incorporated into the gens anglorum or were not worth mentioning in the context of the history of one of the major religious centres of Britain’s north. e latter would indicate that Bede deemed the other gentes irrelevant for the history of this particular area. He does so by following a discourse which, for the purpose of this study, began with Gildas’ DEB but was also carried through in the discussion of the Gododdin poems. us Bede followed the existing discourse traditions in order to justify the political conquest and submission of the Britons by means of religious arguments.

10.5 Outlook for further research is indicates the value of the approach and methodology of this study for further research. As argued before, there are more writings that might be able to provide additional information about the discourse of identity construction in the period.⁷ Although the room for discussion and analysis in a study like the present one is limited, the results and conclusions presented should thus be taken up and contextualized with the results of further research. In this regard, a broadening of the corpus of writings used could be a first step to an even deeper understanding of the discourse of identity construction in early, but also later medieval writings in Britain. e function of poetry seems a promising point to tie further research up in the conclusions of the present study. e additional poems, referred to as gwarchanau, in Cardiff, South Glamorgan County Library, MS 2.81 which also contains Y Gododdin, would provide suitable material for further analyses. Furthermore, a close analysis of the works of Taliesin, on the one hand, would provide a broader basis for the understanding of the identity discourse within late British, possibly also early Welsh poetry. A further analysis of Old English poetry, in contrast, would provide the opportunity to compare this discourse topic and the strategies behind it from the perspectives of both of these competing gentes. Especially Old English heroic poetry seems to be promising in this regard. A discourse analysis of writings like the Fight at Finnsburh, Widsith and Waldere could thus provide further insights to the discourse of identity construction from an Anglo-Saxon perspective. In this regard, a closer look at the Ruthwell Cross, an Anglo-Saxon stone cross built in Northumbria during the late seventh or early sixth century, would not only broaden the research corpus and provide a fascinating example of

7

See Chapter 4.

266

Conclusion - Strategies of Identity Construction

very early Anglo-Saxon writing but also add another form of writing for further analysis. Aer further research with a broader selection of writings, the research question could be advanced as well. Especially a further discourse analysis of the connection between the discourse of identity construction and the discourse of political and religious dominance could provide a more detailed understanding of how changing political, religious and social realities influenced both discourses on the one hand and, on the other, how success and failure of such claims influence the continuity of these discourses. e present study should thus be understood as a first step toward a more general understanding of the strategies which lie behind the construction of identities of the medieval gentes in Britain. e comprehension of these strategies and the analysis of the discourses behind these constructions are essential for an understanding of the history and the culture of these gentes in a closely circumscribed territory and how they experienced the world they lived in. People do not live by reason alone. ey cannot calculate and act rationally in pursuit of their self-interest until they define their self. Interest politics presupposes identity. In times of rapid social change established identities dissolve, the self must be redefined, and new identities created.⁸

8

Huntington, Samuel P. e Clash of Civilizations. New York: Touchstone Books, 1996. 97.

Editions and Translations

Beda Venerabilis. Chronica Maiora ad a. 725 et Chronica Maiora ad a. 703. Ed. eodor Mommsen. Berlin: Weidmann, 1898. 223–354. MGH, AA XIII. Beda: Opera. Ed. Charles W. Jones. Turnholt: Brepols Publishers, 1977. Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, Bd. 123, B. Bede. e Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Ed. and trans. Judith McClure and Roger Collins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Ed. Bertram Colgrave and R.A.B. Mynors. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969. Gildae Sapientis De excidio et conquestu Britanniae ac flebili castigatione in reges, principes et sacerdotes. Ed. eodor Mommsen. Berlin: Weidmann, 1898. 1–110. MGH, AA XIII. Gildas. e Ruin of Britain and other works. Ed. and trans. Michael Winterbottom. London: Phillimore, 1978. Isidori Hispalensis Episcopi Etymologiarum sive origines. Ed. Wallace M. Lindsay. vol. I,Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962. Vol. 1 lib IX.I. Jackson, Kenneth. Transl. e Gododdin. e oldest Scottish poem. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press, 1969. Jarman, Alfred O.H. Ed. and transl. Anerin, Y Gododdin: Britain’s oldest heroic poem. Llandysul: Gomer, 1990.

268

Editions and Translations

Koch, John T. Ed. and transl. e Gododdin of Aneirin. Text and Context from Dark-Age North Britain. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1997. Lebor Gabála Érenn. Part I-V. Ed. and trans. Robert A. Stewart Macalister. Dublin: Irish Texts Society, 1938–1956. Nennius. Historia Brittonum. Ed. eodor Mommsen. Berlin: Weidmann, 1898. 111–222. MGH, AA XIII. Rockel, Martin. Transl. Taliesin - Aneirin. Altwalisische Heldendichtung. Leipzig: Reclam, 1989. Stephen of Ripon. Vita Wilfridi. Ed. and trans. Bertram Colgrave. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1927. Two Lives of Gildas by a Monk of Ruys and Caradoc of Llancarfan. 1899. Ed. and trans. Hugh Williams. Felinfach: Llanerch Publishers, 1990. e Historia Regum Britanniae of Geoffrey of Monmouth. Ed. and trans. Neil Wright. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1991. Williams, Ifor. Canu Aneirin. Gyda rhagymadrodd a nodiadau gan Ifor Williams. Adargraffwyd: Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru, 1961.

Bibliography

A, L (1987): Economy, Society and Warfare Among the Britons and Saxons. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. A, A O; M O A (Hg.) (1991): Adomnán’s Life of Columba. Oxford: Clarendon Press. A, B (2006): Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London, New York: Verso. A, J A. (1982): Nations before Nationalism. Chapel Hill: e University of North Carolina Press. A, G (1960): From Caesar to Arthur. London: Collins. A, J (1988): »Kollektives Gedächtnis und kulturelle Identität«. In: Kultur und Gedächtnis. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 9–19. B, C H. (1947): »e Manuscripts of Bede«. In: Classical Philology, 42, 73–87. B, W (1989): »Opus deliberatum ac perfectum: Why Did the Venerable Bede Write a Second Prose Life of St Cuthbert?« In: St Cuthbert, His Cult and His Community to AD 1200. Woodbridge: e Boydell Press, 95–102. B, W F. (1979): Alcuin and Beowulf. An Eighth-Century View. London: Edward Arnold Publishers. B, J (1954): An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. B, A (1997a): Medieval Welsh Literature. Dublin: Four Courts Press. B, A (1997b): »Two Notes on Early Welsh Poetry: e Date of the Gododdin, and Poet and Patron in the Praise of Tenby«. In: Studia Celtica, 31, 269–275. B, N (2006): »From British to English Christianity: Deconstructing Bede’s Interpretation of the Conversion«. In: Nicholas Howe Karkov, Catherina (Hg.), Conversion and Colonization in Anglo-Saxon Engliand. Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 1–30. B, P (1981): e Cult of Saints. Its rise and function in Latin Christianity. London: SCM Press. B, F (1975): Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters.

270

Bibliography

Erster Band. Von Cassiodor bis zum Ausklang der karolingischen Erneuerung. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. C, J (1986): »Early Anglo-Saxon Society According to Written Sources«. In: Essays in Anglo-Saxon History. London: e Hambledon Press, 131–138. C, J (1994): »Bede’s Reges and Principes. e Jarrow Lecture 1979«. In: Bede and his World. Volume II. e Jarrow Lectures 1979-1993. Aldershot: Variorum, 494–505. C, T (Hg.) (1964): e Poems of Blathmac Son of Cú Brettan together with e Irish Gospel of omas and A Poem on the Virgin Mary. Dublin: Educational Company of Ireland. C, C (1995a): »Torcs in Early Historic Scotland«. In: Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 14, 229–242. C, C (1995b): »Where are the Anglo-Saxons in the Gododdin poem?« In: Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology and History, 8, 95–98. C, C (1997): »Northern England and the Gododdin Poem«. In: Northern History: A Review of the History of the North of England and the Borders, 33, 218–222. C, H M; N K C (1932): e Growth of Literature, Band Volume I: e ancient literatures of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. C-E, T (1978): »e Authenticity of the Gododdin: An Historian’s view«. In: Rachel Brinley Jones, R.; Bromwich (Hg.), Astudiaethau Ar Yr Hengerdd/ Studies in Old Welsh Poetry. Cardiff: Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru, 44–72. C-E, T (1983a): »Bede, e Irish and e Britons«. In: Celtica, 15, 42–52. C-E, T (1983b): »Bede, the Irish and the Britons«. In: Celtica, 15, 42–52. C-E, T (2003a): »Conversion to Christianity«. In: Aer Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 103–139. C-E, T (2003b): »Introduction«. In: Aer Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–20. C-E, T (2003c): »Nations and Kingdoms: A View from Above«. In: Aer Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 23–58. C-E, T (2013): Wales and the Britons. 350 - 1064. Oxford: Oxford University Press. C, T O (1998): e Triumph Tree. Scotland’s Earliest Poetry AD 550-1350. Edinburgh: Canongate Classics. C, T (2008): e Picts. Stroud: Tempus. C, B (1994): »Bede and his times. e Jarrow Lecture 1958«. In:

Bibliography

271

Bede and his World. Volume I. e Jarrow Lectures 1958-1978. Aldershot: Variorum, 5–18. C, R.A.B., B; M (Hg.) (1969): Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Oxford: Clarendon Press. C, R/ MC, J (1994): Bede. e Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Oxford: Oxford University Press. C, A (1976): »Bede and the Vernacular«. In: Famulus Christi. Essays in Commemoration of the irteenth Centenary of the Birth of the Venerable Bede. London: SPCK, 170–192. D, R R. (1994): »e Peoples of Britain and Ireland 1100-1400. I. Identities«. In: Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 4, 1–20. D, R R. (1995): »e Peoples of Britain and Ireland 1100-1400. II. Names, Boundaries and Regnal Solidarities«. In: Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5, 1–20. D, D (1977): »Palaeographical Considerations in the Dating of Early Welsh Verse«. In: Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies, 27, 246–251. D, D (1984a): »e chronology of De Excidio Britanniae, Book I«. In: Michael Lapidge/ David Dumville (Hg.), Gildas: New Approaches. Woodbridge: e Boydell Press, 61–84. D, D (1984b): »Gildas and Maelgwn: Problems of Dating«. In: Michael Lapidge/ David Dumville (Hg.), Gildas: New Approaches. Woodbridge: e Boydell Press, 51–59. D, D (1988): »Early Welsh Poetry: Problems of Historicity«. In: Brynley F. Roberts (Hg.), Early Welsh Poetry. Studies in the Book of Aneirin. Aberystwyth: National Library of Wales, 1–16. E, E (Hg.) (1960): e Concise Oxford Dictionary of English PlaceNames. Oxford: Clarendon Press. E, G (1992): e English. Oxford: Blackwell. F, N (2007): »e Contribution of Discourse Analysis to Research on Social Change«. In: Discourse and Contemporary Social Change. Bern; Berlin; Frankfurt am Main; New York; Oxford; Wien: Peter Lang, 25–47. F, P K. (Hg.) (1992): Ystoria Taliesin. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. F, M (1941): Der Flußname emse und seine Sippe. Studien zur Anglisierung keltischer Eigennamen und zur Lautchronologie des Altbritischen. Sitzungsberichte der Bayrischen Akademie der Wissenschaen. München: Verlag der Bayrischen Akademie der Wissenschaen. G, C., D; B (2001): Cultural Studies and Discourse Analysis. A Dialogue on Language and Identity. London: Sage Publications. G, P (2003): e Myth of Nations: the Medieval Origins of Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

272

Bibliography

G, H-W (1999): Moderne Mediävistik. Stand und Perspektiven der Mittelalterforschung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaliche Buchgesellscha. G, W (1988): e Narrators of Barbarian History. Princeton: Princeton University Press. G, W (1990): »e Historia Ecclesiastica: Bede’s Agenda and Ours«. In: e Haskins Society Journal, 2, 29–45. G, W (2006): »Bede’s History in a Harsher Climate«. In: Scott DeGregorio (Hg.), Innovation and Tradition in the writings of e Venerable Bede. Morgantown: West Viriginia University Press, 203–226. G, H; L M R (2008): »Identities in Discourse«. In: Júlia Dolón, Rosana; Todoli (Hg.), Analysing Identities in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, 3–28. G, A (1974): Historical Writing in England c.550 to c. 1307. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. G, F (1985): »Kontinuität und Diskontinuität des Bewußtseins nationaler Eigenständigkeit im Mittelalter«. In: P. Sture Ureland (Hg.), Entstehung von Sprachen und Völkern. Glotto- und ethnogenetische Aspekte europäischer Sprachen. Akten des 6. Symposions über Sprachkontakt in Europa, Mannheim 1984. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, Nummer 162 in Linguistische Arbeiten, 71–81. G, R G (1989/90): »From Gododdin to Gwynedd: Reflections on the Story of Cunedda«. In: Studia Celtica, 24/25, 1–14. H, G (2007): Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376-568. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. H, E P. (1982): »Lloegr: the Welsh name for England«. In: Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies, 4, 83–85. H, R W. (1966): e Vision of History in Early Britain. From Gildas to Geoffrey of Monmouth. New York: Columbia University Press. H, J (2010): From Angelcynn to e King’s English - e concept of an English ’National Language’ in the Middle Ages. Diplomarbeit, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden. H, M W. (1990): »Gildas and Early British Monasticism«. In: Alfred; Alfred Wollmann Bammesberger (Hg.), Britain 400-600: Language and History. Heidelberg: Winter Verlag, 65–78. H, N (1986): e Northern Counties to A.D. 1000. London: Longman. H, N (1993): e Kingdom of Northumbria. Stroud: Sutton. H, N J. (1994): e English Conquest. Gildas and Britain in the fih century. Manchester: Manchester University Press. H, N J. (2006): (Re-) Reading Bede. e Ecclesiastical History in context. London: Routledge.

Bibliography

273

H, N (2007): »Britons in Anglo-Saxon England: An Introduction«. In: Britons in Anglo-Saxon England. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1–15. H, E (1983): »Introduction: Inventing Traditions«. In: Eric; Terence Ranger Hobsbawm (Hg.), e Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–14. H B, P (1970): »e Historical Writings of Bede«. In: Settimane Di Studio Del Centro Italiano Di Studi Sull’ Alto Medievo, XVII, 197–221. H B, P (1994): »Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation and its Importance Today. e Jarrow Lecture 1959«. In: Bede and his World. Volume I. e Jarrow Lectures 1958-1978. Aldershot: Variorum, 21–33. H, D (1988): »Canu Aneirin: e Other Manuscripts«. In: Brynley F. Roberts (Hg.), Early Welsh Poetry. Studies in the Book of Aneirin. Aberystwyth: National Library of Wales, 43–56. I, G R. (1999): »Readings in the History and Transmission of the Gododdin«. In: Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies, 37, 55–79. Copied. J, K (1955): »e Pictish Language«. In: e Problem of the Picts. London: Nelson, 129–166. J, K (2000, Reprint of 1953): Language and History in Early Britain. A Chronological Survey of the Brittonic Languages 1st to 12th c. AD. Dublin: Four Courts Press. J, K H. (1969): e Gododdin. e Oldest Scottisch Poem. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. J, A O.H. (1967): »e Heroic Ideal in Early Welsh poetry«. In: Beiträge zur Indogermanistik und Keltologie. Julius Pokorny zum 80. Geburtstag gewidmet. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Gesellscha zur Pflege der Geisteswissenschaen, 193–211. J, A O.H. (1990): Aneirin. Y Gododdin: Britain’s oldest heroic poem. Llandysul: Gomer. J, J (1985): »Aspekte Frühmittelalterlicher Ethnogenese in Historischer Sicht«. In: P. Sture Ureland (Hg.), Entstehung von Sprachen und Völkern. Glotto- und ethnogenetische Aspekte europäischer Sprachen. Akten des 6. Symposions über Sprachkontakt in Europa, Mannheim 1984. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, Nummer 162 in Linguistische Arbeiten, 83–91. J, L (1995): »Imagining Communities: Medieval and Modern«. In: Alan V. Forde, Simon; Murray (Hg.), Concepts of National Identity in the Middle Ages. Leeds: Leeds Texts and Monographs, Kapitel 1, 1–20. J, C W (Hg.) (1943): Bedae Opera de temporibus. Cambridge: e Mediaeval Academy of America. J, M E. (1988): »e Appeal to Aetius in Gildas«. In: Nottingham Medieval Studies, 32, 141–155. K, R (2006): »Wissen oder Sprache? Für eine wissensanalytische

274

Bibliography

Profilierung der Diskursforschung«. In: Franz X. Eder (Hg.), Historische Diskursanalyse. Genealogie, eorie, Anwendungen. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaen, 51–69. K, F (1968): »Le latin du De Excidio Britanniae de Gildas«. In: M.W. Barley/ R.P.C. Hanson (Hg.), Christianity in Britain 300-700. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 151–176. K, F (1987): Le De Excidio Britanniae De Gildas. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne. K, D P. (1965-66): »Bede’s Native Sources for the Historia Ecclesiastica«. In: Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 48, 341–371. K, D P. (1991): e Earliest English Kings. London: Hyman. K, D P. (1994): »Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum: Its Contemporary Setting. e Jarrow Lecture 1992.« In: Bede and his World. Volume II. e Jarrow Lectures 1979-1993. Aldershot: Variorum, 903–926. K, K A./ O H, B (1985): »e Components of Cardiff MS. Welsh I, Llyfr Aneirin«. In: Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies, 32, 38–49. K, D N. (1995): »Apects of Time in the Early Battle Poetry of Britain«. In: Tom; Pat Starkey Scott (Hg.), e Middle Ages in the North-West. Oxford: Leopard’s Head Press, 85–107. K, H (1985): »Sprache, Nationalität, Volk und andere Ethnostatistische Begriffe im Lichte der Kontaktlinguistik«. In: P. Sture Ureland (Hg.), Entstehung von Sprachen und Völkern. Glotto- und ethnogenetische Aspekte europäischer Sprachen. Akten des 6. Symposions über Sprachkontakt in Europa, Mannheim 1984. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, Nummer 162 in Linguistische Arbeiten, 209–218. K, F (1989): Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: De Gruyter Verlag. K, H (2008): »Sprachgeschichte - Zeitgeschichte - Umbruchgeschichte. Sprache im 20. Jahrhundert und ihre Erforschung«. In: Heidrun Kämper/ Ludwig M. Eichinger (Hg.), Sprache - Kognition - Kultur. Sprache zwischen mentaler Struktur und kultureller Prägung. Berlin: De Gruyter Verlag, 198–223. K, J T. (1997): e Gododdin of Aneirin. Text and Context from DarkAge North Britain. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. K, J T. (2005): »Why was Welsh literature first written down?« In: Helen Fulton (Hg.), Medieval Celtic Literature and Society. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 15–31. K, J T. (Hg.) (2006): Celtic culture: a historical encyclopedia. Satna Barbara, Calif.: ABC-Clio. K, K (2003): e Making of English National Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bibliography

275

L, L; J L (1993): e Picts and the Scots. Dover: Alan Sutton. L, A (2009): Historische Diskursanalyse. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag. L, M (1984): »Gildas´s Education and the Latin Culture of subRoman Britain«. In: Michael Lapidge/ David Dumville (Hg.), Gildas: New Approaches. Woodbridge: e Boydell Press, 27–50. L, M (1989): »Bede’s Metrical Vita S. Cuthberti«. In: St Chuthbert, His Cult and His Community to AD 1200. Woodbridge: e Boydell Press, 77–93. L, M (1994): »Bede the Poet. e Jarrow Lecture 1993«. In: Bede and his World. Volume II. e Jarrow Lectures 1979-1993. Aldershot: Variorum, 929–956. L P, A, R B.; T-K (1985): Acts of identity. Creolebased approaches to language and ethnicity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Kapitel 6. e place of ethnicity in acts of identity, 207–246. L, C W. (1992): »e Historical Background of Early Welsh Verse«. In: Gwilym Jarman, A.O. A.; Hughes (Hg.), A Guide to Welsh Literature. University of Wales Press, 11–50. L, J (1999): »Diskursive Ereignisse, Diskurse, Interdiskurse: Sieben esen zur Operativität der Diskursanalyse, am Beispiel des Normalismus«. In: Hannelore Bublitz/ Andrea D. Bührmann/ Christine Hanke/ Andrea Seier (Hg.), Das Wuchern der Diskurse. Perspektiven der Diskursanalyse Foucaults. Frankfurt/ New York: Campus Verlag, 148–161. L, J/ L-H, U (1990): »Diskurs/ Interdiskurs und Literaturanalyse«. In: Zeitschri für Literaturwissenscha und Linguistik, 20:77, 88–99. M-H, H (1994): »e Venerable Bede, the Rule of St. Benedict, and Social Class. e Jarrow Lecture 1976«. In: Bede and his World. Volume I. e Jarrow Lectures 1958-1978. Aldershot: Variorum, 407–434. MD, M P. (1983): »e Gododdin and Other Heroic Poems of Scotland«. In: J. Derrick McClure (Hg.), Scotland and the Lowland Tongue. Studies in the language and literature of Lowland Scotland. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press, 1–18. MK, R (1990): e Uses of Literacy in Early Medieval Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MK, R (2000): History and its audiences. An Inaugural Lecture given in the University of Cambridge 15 May 2000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. M G, L (2009): e uses of secular rulers and characters in the Welsh Saints’ Lives in the ”Vespasian legendary”(Ms. Cotton Vespasian A. XIV.). Freiburg: Freiburg im Breisgau Universitätsverlag. M, M (1975/76): »Date-Guessing and Pedigree«. In: Studia Celtica,

276

Bibliography

X/XI, 96–109. M, M (April 1975): »Bede’s Use of Gildas«. In: e English Historical Review, 90, 241–261. M, S (2007): Der Diskurs. Tübingen: UTB. M, T (Hg.) (1898): De excidio et conquestu Britanniae ac flebili castigatione in reges, principes et sacerdotes. Monumenta Germaniae Historica (MGH), AA XIII. Berlin: Weidmann. M, J N.L. (1940): »Review«. In: e Journal of eological Studies, XLI, 196–198. N, A (1998): »Literatur, Mentalitäten und kulturelles Gedächtnis: Grundriß, Leitbegriffe und Perspektiven einer anglistischen Kulturwissenscha«. In: Ansgar Nünning (Hg.), Literaturwissenschaliche eorien, Modelle und Methoden. Trier: Wissenschalicher Verlag Trier, 173–197. O H, B; (1988): »What is the Gododdin?« In: Brynley F. Roberts (Hg.), Early Welsh Poetry. Studies in the Book of Aneirin. Aberystwith: National Library of Wales, 57–95. O, E (1985): »Methodologische Bemerkungen zur interdisziplinären Problematik der Ethno- und Glottogenese«. In: P. Sture Ureland (Hg.), Entstehung von Sprachen und Völkern. Glotto- und ethnogenetische Aspekte europäischer Sprachen. Akten des 6. Symposions über Sprachkontakt in Europa, Mannheim 1984. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, Nummer 162 in Linguistische Arbeiten, 1–6. O, J D. A. (1994): »e Place of Wearmouth and Jarrow in Western Cultural History. e Jarrow Lecture 1968«. In: Bede and his World. Volume I. e Jarrow Lectures 1958-1978. Aldershot: Variorum, 21–33. O, K (2011): »Die Britannienprophezeihung des Gildas im Lichte römischer Säkularvorstellungen: Spuren einer politischen Fälschung des 8. Jahrhunderts?« In: Frühmittelalterliche Studien, 44, 59–82. O, G (1982): »Bede as Historian: e Evidence from his Observations on the Life of the First Christian Community at Jerusalem«. In: Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 33, 519–530. O’R, J (2003): »e Art of Authority«. In: Aer Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 141–189. O’S, T D. (1978): e De Excidio of Gildas. Its Authenticity and Date. Leiden: E. J. Brill. P, O.J. (Summer 1998): »A New Study of the Gododdin«. In: Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies, 35, 45–55. P, M B. (1994): »e Scriptorium of Wearmouth-Jarrow. e Jarrow Lecture 1982«. In: Bede and his World. Volume II. e Jarrow Lectures 19791993. Aldershot: Variorum, 558–577. P, D A. E. (2001): Slavery in Early Mediaeval England. Boydell Press.

Bibliography

277

P, H/ T, H L.C. (1979): Altenglische Literatur. Heidelberg: Winter Verlag. P, A (2001): »Gildas and the Negative Image of the Cymry«. In: Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies, 41, 1–15. P, A (2006): Origo Gentis. Identitäts- und Legitimationsstiftung in früh- und hochmittelalterlichen Hernkunserzählungen, Band Band 7 von Vorstellungswelten des Mittelalters. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. P, C (1966): Venerabilis Baedae opera historica. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P, W (1985): »Strategie und Sprache zu den Ethnogenesen des Frühmittelalters«. In: P. Sture Ureland (Hg.), Entstehung von Sprachen und Völkern. Glotto- und ethnogenetische Aspekte europäischer Sprachen. Akten des 6. Symposions über Sprachkontakt in Europa, Mannheim 1984. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, Nummer 162 in Linguistische Arbeiten, 93–102. P, W (1994): »Tradition, Ethnogenese und literarische Gestaltung: eine Zwischenbilanz«. In: Brigitte Brunner, Karl; Merta (Hg.), Ethnogenese und Überlieferung. Angewandte Methoden der Frühmittelalterforschung. Wien/ München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 9–27. P, W (1998a): »Conceptions of Ethnicity in Early Medieval Studies«. In: Barbara H. Little, Lester K.; Rosenwein (Hg.), Debating the Middle Ages: Issues and Readings. Malden: Blackwell, 13–24. P, W (1998b): »Introduction: Strategies of Distinction«. In: Helmut Pohl, Walter; Reimitz (Hg.), Strategies of Distinction. e Construction of Ethnic Communities, 300-800. Leiden: Brill, 1–15. P, W (1998c): »Telling the Difference: Signs of Ethnic Identity«. In: Helmut Pohl, Walter; Reimitz (Hg.), Strategies of Distinction. e Construction of Ethnic Communities, 300-800. Leiden: Brill, 17–69. P, W (2005): Die Völkerwanderung. Eroberung und Integration. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. P, W (2014): »Romanness: a multiple identity and its changes«. In: Early Medieval Europe, 22 (4), 406–418. P, E C. (1985): »Methodological Approaches to the Ethno- and Glottogenesis of the Germanic People.« In: P. Sture Ureland (Hg.), Entstehung von Sprachen und Völkern. Glotto- und ethnogenetische Aspekte europäischer Sprachen. Akten des 6. Symposions über Sprachkontakt in Europa, Mannheim 1984. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, Nummer 162 in Linguistische Arbeiten, 45–70. R, A.L.F./ S, C (1981): e place-names of Roman Britain. London: Book Club Associates. R, M (1989): Taliesin - Aneirin. Altwalisische Heldendichtung. Leipzig: Philipp Reclam.

278

Bibliography

R, J (1990a): »Notes on the Gododdin«. In: Erich Ball, Martin J.; Poppe (Hg.), Celtic Linguistics/ Ieithyddiaeth Geltaidd. Readings in the Brythonic Languages. Festschri for T Arwyn Watkins. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 233–242. R, J (1990b): »e Orthography of the Exemplar of Canu Aneirin Awdl XLV«. In: Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies, 37, 119–120. R, J (1990c): »Warfare and Horses in the Gododdin and the Problem of Catraeth«. In: Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies, 35, 13–41. R, J (2007): »Aneirin, the Gododdin«. In: e Edinburgh History of Scottish Literature. Volume One: From Columba to the Union (until 1707). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 72–76. R, A (2006): »Ethnic Identity and Political Language in the King of England’s Dominions: A fourteenth-century Perspective«. In: Linda Clark (Hg.), e Fieenth Century VI. Identity and Insurgency in the late Middle Ages. Woodbridge: e Boydell Press, Band VI, 15–31. S, H (1998): »Max Förster (1869-1954)«. In: Helen Damico (Hg.), Medieval Scholarship. Biographical Studies on the Formation of a Discipline. New York and London: Garland Publishing Inc., 339–350. S, P (1984): »Britain´s iudices«. In: Michael Lapidge/ David Dumville (Hg.), Gildas: New Approaches. Woodbridge: e Boydell Press, 151–155. S, P (2007): »What Britons spoke around 400 AD«. In: Nicolas Higham (Hg.), Britons in Anglo-Saxon England. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 165–171. S, P (2009): »Celtic Influence on Old Englisch: phonological and phonetic evidence«. In: English Language and Linguistics, 113.2, 193–211. S, S (1994): Aneirin. e Gododdin. Felinfach: Llanerch Publishers. S-W, P (1983): »Gildas and the Anglo-Saxons«. In: Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies, 6, 1–30. S-W, P (1984): »Gildas and Vernacular Poetry«. In: Michael Lapidge/ David Dumville (Hg.), Gildas: New Approaches. Woodbridge: e Boydell Press, 169–192. S, A D. (1981): e Ethnic Revival in the Modern World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. S, A D. (1986): e Ethnic Origin of Nations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. S, A D. (1995): »National Identities: Modern and Medieval?« In: Simon; Alan V. Murray Forde (Hg.), Concepts of National Identity in the Middle Ages. Leeds: Leeds Texts and Monographs, 20–40. S, A D.; E G (1996): »e Nation: real or imagined? e Warwick Debates on Nationalism«. In: Nations and Nationalism, 2 (3), 357–370.

Bibliography

279

S, C (1997): »e thirteen Sermons attributed to Columbanus«. In: Michael Lapidge (Hg.), Columbanus: Studies on the Latin Writings. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 177–181. S, C E. (1941): »Gildas Sapiens«. In: e English Historical Review, Vol. 56, No. 233, 353–373. S, K (1994): »Social and Political Communities in European History: Some Reflections on Recent Studies«. In: Keith Stringer et.al. (Hg.), Nations, Nationalism and Patriotism in the European Past. Copenhagen: Academic Press, 9–34. T, A (2006): »Bede and the Ordering of Understanding«. In: Innovation and Tradition in the writings of e Venerable Bede. Morgantown: West Viriginia University Press, 37–63. T, K (2009): »Ships and their Terminology between England and the North«. In: Matti; Jane Roberts et al. Kiliö (Hg.), Anglo-Saxons and the North. Essays reflecting the eme of the 10th Meeting of the International Society of Anglo-Saxonists in Helsinki, August 2001. Tempe: ACMRS (Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies), 150–164. T, E A. (1979): »Gildas and the history of Britain«. In: Britannia, 10, 203–226. T, D S. (1985): »e Renaissance of Scottish Gaelic as a Component of National Identity«. In: P. Sture Ureland (Hg.), Entstehung von Sprachen und Völkern. Glotto- und ethnogenetische Aspekte europäischer Sprachen. Akten des 6. Symposions über Sprachkontakt in Europa, Mannheim 1984. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, Nummer 162 in Linguistische Arbeiten, 261–272. T, E (2000): Old and Middle English c.890-c.1400: An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell. T, R R. (2009): e Aesthetics of Nostalgia. Historical Representation in Old English Verse. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. T, H L.C. (1985): Sex aetates mundi. Die Weltzeitalter bei den Angelsachsen und den Iren. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. T, H L.C. (1997): »What’s the point of Dating ’Beowulf ’?« In: Medieval Insular Literature between the Oral and the Written. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 65–80. T, H L.C. (2007): »Why don’t the English speak Welsh?« In: Nicolas Higham (Hg.), Britons in Anglo-Saxon England. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 192–214. T, M W. (2006): Die Erfindung der keltischen Nation Cornwall. Kultur, Identität und ethnischer Nationalismus in der britischen Peripherie. Heidelberg: Universtätsverlag Winter. T, P (2009): »Identity in Gildas’s De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae«. In: Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies, 58, 29–48.

280

Bibliography

 D, T A. (1997): »e Study of Discourse«. In: Teun A. van Dijk (Hg.), Discourse as structure and process. London: Sage Publication, Kapitel 1, 1–34. W, F.T. (1955a): »e Picts and the Problem«. In: e Problem of the Picts. London: Nelson, 1–53. W, F.T. (1955b): »Preface«. In: e Problem of the Picts. London: Nelson, iii–iv. W, B (1997): Topographie des Fremden. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Verlag. W, G S. M. (Hg.) (1957): Sancti Columbani Opera, Band II. von Scriptores Latini Hiberniae. Dublin: e Dublin Institute for Andvanced Studies. W, H G. (1997): »Traditionen, Kontinuitäten, Konstruktionen: Identitätsfindungen mittelalterlicher Gruppen und Gesellschaen«. In: Matthias Werner (Hg.), Identität und Geschichte. Jenaer Beiträge zur Geschichte. Weimar: Hermann Böhlhaus Nachfolger, 61–78. W-P, B (2000): »Why did the Anglo-Saxons not become more British?« In: e English Historical Review, 115: 462, 513–533. W, C (1995): How to Kill a Dragon. Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press. W, R (1961): Stammesbildung und Verfassung. Das Werden der frühmittelalterlichen gentes. Köln; Graz: Böhlau Verlag. W, D (1976): »Bede and his Teachers and Friends«. In: Famulus Christi. Essays in Commemoration of the thirteenth Centenary of the Birth of the Venerable Bede. London: SPCK, 19–39. W, H (1899, Reprint in 1990): Two Lives of Gildas by a monk of Ruys and Caradoc of Llancarfan. Felinfach: Llanerch Enterprises. W, I (Hg.) (1968a): e poems of Taliesin. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. W, I (Hg.) (1968b): e Poems of Taliesin. Dublin: e Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. W, I (1980): e Beginnings of Welsh Poetry. Studies by Sir Ifor Williams. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. W, J E. (1984): »Gildas, Maelgwn and the Bards«. In: R. R. Davies et al. (Hg.), Welsh Society and Nationhood. Historical Essays presented to Glanmore Williams. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 19–34. W, M (1978): Gildas: e ruin of Britain and other documents. London: Phillimore. W, R/  C, R/ R, M (1998): Zur diskursiven Konstruktion nationaler Identität. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag. W, R; M M (2009): Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Los Angeles: Sage. W, H (1990): »Einleitung oder Überlegungen zur Origo Gentis«.

Bibliography

281

In: Herwig; Walther Pohl Wolfram (Hg.), Typen der Ethnogenese unter besonderer Berücksichtung der Bayern. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaen, Nummer 12 in Veröffentlichungen der Komission für Frühmittelalterforschung, 19–34. W, I (1998): »Conclusion: Strategies of Distinction«. In: Walter; Helmut Reimitz Pohl (Hg.), Strategies of Distinction. e Construction of Ethnic Communities, 300-800. Leiden: Brill, 297–303. W, I (2013): e Modern Origins of the Early Middle Ages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. W, P (1976): »Bede and Benedict Bishop«. In: Famulus Christi. Essays in Commemoration of the irteenth Centenary of the Birth of the Venerable Bede. London: SPCK, 141–169. W, P (1978): »Bede, ”Beowulfänd the Conversion of the AngloSaxon Aristocracy«. In: Robert T. Farrel (Hg.), Bede and Anglo-Saxon England. Papers in honour of the 1300th anniversary of the birth of Bede, given at Cornell University in 1973 and 1974. British Archaeological Reports, 32–95. W, P (2006): e Times of Bede. Studies in Early Christian Society and its Historian. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Y, B (1995): Wessex in the early Middle Ages. Leicester: Leicester University Press. Z, R E. (1927): Romans, Kelts and Saxons in Ancient Britain. An Investigation into the two dark centuries (400-600) of English History, Band 24:12. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells Boktryckeri. Z, O (2003): A Contested Nation. History, Memory and Nationalism in Switzerland, 1761-1891. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.