Library › St Gildas › On the Ruin of Britain
On the Ruin of Britain
St Gildas, tr. Williams, 1899
6. Insurrection Against Rome
Immediately on their return to Rome, owing to deficiency, as they said, of necessaries provided by the land, and with no suspicion of rebellion, the treacherous lioness1 killed the rulers who had been left behind by them to declare more fully, and to strengthen, the enterprises of Roman rule. After this, when news of such deeds was carried to the senate, and it was hastening with speedy army to take vengeance on the crafty foxes, as they named them, there was no preparation of a fighting fleet on sea to make a brave struggle for country, nor a marshalled army or right wing, nor any other warlike equipment on land. They present their backs, instead of their shields, to the pursuers, their necks to the sword, while a chilling terror ran through their bones: they hold forth their hands to be bound like women; so that it was spread far and wide as a proverb and a derision: the Britons are neither brave in war nor in peace faithful.2
Notes
- Leaena dolosa. These words have been frequently understood as referring to Boudicca’s revolt against Suetonius Paulinus, when the latter was in Anglesey, A.D. 62, but the date of the “First Parthian Peace” makes this impossible. Zimmer is of opinion that the words imply a reminiscence of that vassal queen. This, again, is not very probable, because Gildas shows a fondness elsewhere for the term “lioness,” as applied to a country: in c. 23 leaena barbara stands for the home of the Saxon hordes, and in c. 27 for the kingdom of Damnonia. It is difficult to fix the date of this second expedition of the Romans against Britain. Was it that of Antoninus Pius, who in 143 built the second wall—the vallum of turf—between Clyde and Forth, or the expedition of Septimius Severus in 193? Gildas’ account is extremely vague; yet, as he mentions no other visit of Roman forces until the end of the fourth century, and implies extensive provisions for the consolidation of the Roman power in the island, it is not improbable that he has the successful work of Severus in his mind.
A difficulty arises with the last sentence of c. 7. Mr. Rhys (Celtic Britain, p. 19) concludes that British coinage came to an end about the time of Claudius (died A.D. 54), or soon after 69; and in the Monumenta Hist. Brit., p. clii, we read: “After the expedition of Claudius and his establishment of the Roman power in Britain, the Britons discontinued the art of coining.” Reference is made there, in a note, to the present passage of Gildas as “confirming this opinion.” Such confirmation is not possible if the view taken here be correct, i.e., that Gildas has selected the expedition of Hadrian as his starting-point, unless Gildas is erroneously ascribing to the time of Severus what had already taken place in the time of Claudius. The work of Severus in Britain was, however, far more effective than anything that could be accomplished with the limited occupation secured under Claudius. Moreover, while it was quite natural that Roman coins should be current in Britain from an early period, the policy of forbidding British coinage was barely possible until the time of Severus, and it is something of this kind that is implied in the words of Gildas. It is curious that the name of no emperor later than Constans (A.D. 337-350) is found on inscriptions in Britain. - Vergilius, Aen. ii, 120.