Josephus Stevenson established a solid case that there were two individuals named Gildas, one born at the end of the fifth century who penned the De Excido and was surnamed Badonicus, and the other, Gildas Albanius, who preceded the first and flourished during the same era as Ambrosius Aurelianus. GILDAS BADONICUS The full title for the work of this individual is translated as The Epistle of Gildas the most ancient British Author: who flourished in the yeere of our Lord 546. And who by his great erudition, sanctitie, and wisdome, acquired the name of Sapiens. As with all ancient manuscripts, the interpolations and postulations about the De Excidio are prolific. Bypassing many of the conundrums, Geoffrey Ashe set the date of manuscript as “somewhere around 545. Leslie Alcock, who is quite reliable about chronological calibration, lists the date as prior to 549. Based upon the death of Maelgwn who was still alive when Gildas was penning the manuscript, The Historic King Arthur calibrates the ordinal year for the penning of the De Excidio as 541 (pages 117-119; 121). An abbreviated chronological table shows the life span of Gildas, a singular asterisk indicating a cardinal year and a double signifying an ordinal year. Anno Domini Pre-Christian Event *428 Nulla The first Saxon landing 438 Nulla The compilation, purification and writing of the Irish Annals *440 Nulla The second Saxon landing *453 ix Easter was altered by Pope Leo I * The year of the third Saxon landing *455-516 Nulla Cerdic son of Cunedda *455-516 v/xiv Cerdic the interpreter *497 liii Battle of Badon Birth of Gildas Badonicus **541 iiic Penning of the De Excidio, Gildas Badonicus age 44 **547 ciii The death of Maelgwyn, King of Gwynedd **570 cxxvi The Death of Gildas Badonicus, age 73 Gildas Badonicus and the De Excidio (both the Historia and the Epistola) are significant in accepting or rejecting the role of a King Arthur in the fifth century, concentrating particularly upon the span of years from 420 to 502. The best approach is to abandon an expositional format and instead bullet the highlights. ●The Aetius letter mentioned by Gildas Badonicus is an important factor. The letter, commonly date 446, was a plea for Roman aid in repelling the incursion of the Saxones, the Roman term blanketing the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. Gildas actually used the word Agitius, corrected by Bede to Aetius, who at that time was the supreme commander of the Western Roman Empire. ●Gildas Badonicus is explicit about “External wars may have stopped, but not civil ones.” He refers to the enemies of the Britons (Welsh) as the “orientali sacrilegorum,” the impious easterners. Prior to the Roman withdrawal, Wales was separated from the East Anglians by the Cornovii territory, which was occupied by the Roman military. When the Romans withdrew, the East Anglians began incursions into the Cornovii territory and the Midlands, part of the Welsh domain in earlier times. ●Both Gildas Badonicus and Bede do not record an Arthur during the East Anglian encroachment into Welsh territory. In a rare instance, Gildas Badonicus records the name Ambrosius Aurelianus, son of Roman royalty, who is victorious over the East Anglians. There are only ten lines of text between the reference to Ambrosius Aurelianus and the Battle on Badon Hill, leading to the obvious conclusion that Ambrosius Aurelianus was the dux bellorum, especially since no Arthur, as claimed and distorted by Nennius three centuries later, can be traced in the fifth century. Caradoc’s Life of Gildas is either built upon myth and legend, or there was indeed a Gildas Albanius who flourished during Ambrosius Aurelianus’s era. Based upon Nennius’s misconception, Ambrosius Aurelianus might have been conflated with the Arthur of the second century. ●If we assume that the De Excidio was divided, the Historia ends at Chapter 26, and Chapter 27 begins with the castigation of the Welsh kings. This Epistola reveals some very interesting connections. As the above map shows, Constantine is king of Dumnonia, which was later named Cornwealas (Cornwall), meaning the “people from Cornovii,” who had migrated to the southwestern peninsula to escape the conflicts with the East Anglians. ●Gildas Badonicus refers to Constantine as “the whelp of the filthy lioness of Dumnonia.” This king is described as deceiving his countrymen and killing two royal youths and their two guardians. The account of their murders is difficult to decipher, and translations of it vary. Gildas becomes entangled in his vilification and his attempt of a graphic description hinders his grammatical precision. The Historic Figures of the Arthurian Era, page 63, translates that passage as At the holy altar, Constantine, with his abominable sword and spear, mauled and slashed the youths as with teeth, so that clotted gore tinged the heavenly altar purple, matching the cloak of the attacking Roman. Because of the complex Latin interpretations, the passage makes a comparison of the purple gore on the altar with Constantine’s purple cloak, purple being the color of royalty. ●Gildas Badonicus emphatically states that he knows Constantine is still alive which allows a timeframe for this king. Penning the De Excidio is set in the year 541, and in his prime Constantine’s rule-of-thumb floruit would be 525 - 555. ●What makes this particular passage (Chapters 28-29) by Gildas interesting is Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Part Eight, “The Saxon Domination. When Arthur is mortally wounded and carried off to the Isle of Avalon, the crown is handed over to his cousin, Constantine III, son of Cador, Duke of Cornwall. Monmouth then gives an exact date: 542 after our Lord’s Incarnation. He then writes Constantine continued to harass the sons of Mordred. First he forces the Saxons to submit to his authority; and then he captured the two cities I have mentioned. He killed one of the young men in front of the altar in the church of St. Amphibalus, where he was taking refuge. The second hid himself in the monastery of certain friars in London. Constantine discovered him and slew him without mercy, beside the altar there. The Brut Tysilio records a similar but abbreviated passage: “After the coronation of Constantine, Medrod’s two sons, in conjunction with the Saxons, made an unsuccessful attempt to oppose him.” Monmouth was familiar with the De Excidio of Gildas Badonicus, which leads to one of two conclusions: either Monmouth read Gildas Badonicus’s castigation of Constantine in the DE and created his own elaborate scenario, or he indeed had a source he was copying. ●Gildas Badonicus’s most scathing castigation is directed to Maglocunus, no doubt also known as Maelgwyn/Mailcun, whose death-year (547) was included in the Annales Cambriae. A great deal has been written about Maglocunus by Thomas O’Sullivan, P.H. Blair, Nora Chadwick, William MacArthur, and Leslie Alcock. The castigation covers four chapters, 33 through 36. Maglocunus was a powerful king who indeed would have been a contemporary with Gildas Badonicus. ●Summarized, Gildas Badonicus is the only source a person can turn to which gives a background of what is commonly called the “Arthurian Era.” However, there is no heroic Arthur of the fifth century, which suggests that Ambrosius Aurelianus has been conflated with the name Arthur. Accepting that there was a Gildas Albanius, then his brother Hueil was killed by Ambrosius, and Gildas Albanius would have been one of Ambrosius’s advisors at the Battle of Badon Hill. One factor above all others supports the theory that there was a Gildas Albanius, and that is the chronology. Gildas Badonicus is irrefutably of the sixth century, not only by his own declaration that he was born forty-four years after the Battle at Badon, but other chronological details attached to the kings he castigates. Most of the researchers questing for a historic Arthur of the fifth century focus solely upon a Gildas who penned The De Excidio. Additionally, John of Glastonbury unknowingly relied upon a heavily inaccurate, interpolated manuscript penned by William of Malmsbury and left it at the Abbey where is was drastically distorted and gorged with information about a historic Arthur whom Malmsbury himself did not even acknowledge in his original. The birth-year for Gildas Badonicus is commonly listed as being between 497 and 500, matching geographical, chronological, and historical details listed in his manuscript. GILDAS ALBANIUS Editor Norris Lacy in The Arthurian Encyclopedia writes this of the possibility of two Gildases: A medieval theory, sometimes echoed by modern scholarship, distinguished two Gildases--the author and the saint. Hagiography, however, treats them as the same person, and that assumption may be allowed to stand. However, there is an extensive, enigmatic controversy which continues, questioning the acceptance that assumption. Josephus Stevenson, who wrote the recension Gildas: De Excidio Britanniae, builds a sound case that chronology necessitates the acceptance of two Gildases, agreeing with Archbishop Usher’s authoritative conclusion: there were two individuals called Gildas, surnamed respectively as Badonicus and Albanius, and that they were not contemporaries. There are two Prefaces in Stevenson’s recension, the first an eighteen-page explanation written by Stevenson himself, the first ten pages or so defending his conviction that there were two Gildases, and the remainder focusing upon the two extant manuscripts of Gildas’s work. The second Preface is titled Vita Sancti Gildae, the Life of Saint Gildas, which was attached to the original two manuscripts, one known as the Durham copy, and the other a later manuscript of the “fourteenth or commencement of the fifteenth century.” David Dumville is more specific, suggesting that the “LIfe of Gildas came to the Sawley monastery with the Nennian recension of the Historia Brittonum,” labeling the other two editions as the Durham text and the Burney text. Stevenson admonishes the reader to realize that both of the original Prefaces describe the life of Gildas Albanius and NOT the life of Gildas Badonicus who penned the manuscript iself. Readers tend to elide that, or reject it without realizing its impact or its possible distortion of history. He writes [Gildas Albanius] was born about A.D. 425, and in the thirteenth year of his age passed over from Scotland, of which he was a native, into France, at that time under the rule of Childeric, the son of Merovius, where he founded the monastery of Ruys. Historically, Childeric, son of Merovech, was a Salian Frank who was settled in Belgica Secunda in 428 and in 436 returned to Frankish territory. In Gildas Albanius’s thirteenth year, 438, Childeric would have been ruling for two years. If there were no Gildas Albanius, it’s perplexing why the Childeric material was included in the vita of Gildas, since it is chronologically impossible to be a reference to the Gildas who penned the De Excidio. Stevenson adds that Gildas Albanius returned to England after an absence of seven years, encountering a certain Pepediauc, and settled in Armagh. His death-year was given as 512. Once again, the death-year of 512 is chronologically impossible for the Gildas who penned the De Excidio because he claimed in his own manuscript that his date of birth was forty-four years after the Battle of Badon. If the 512 date is accepted, Gildas would have penned the De Excidio when he was about twelve years old, just prior to his death. Section 5 of Caradoc’s Life of Gildas begins with the sentence “St. Gildas was the contemporary of Arthur, the king of the whole of Britain, whom he loved exceedingly, and whom he always desired to obey.” The story about Gildas’s brother Hueil follows, describing that this brother was an active warrior who submitted to no king. After many provocations and conflicts, Arthur kills Hueil. Gildas Albanius’s reaction to Arthur, however, is not one of revenge. Some historians and researchers who ascribe to the theory of only one Gildas have offered the explanation that Arthur’s name was deliberately omitted from the De Excidio because of Gildas’s disdain and hatred of the king. In the Caradoc manuscript, however, when GildasAlbanius hears of the murder, he laments the death of his brother, but he also prayed for Arthur, “fulfilling the apostolic commandment which says: Love those who persecute you, and do good to them that hate you.” Section 6 further negates the explanation that Gildas deliberately snubbed or retaliated against Arthur: When King Arthur and the chief bishops and abbots of all Britain heard of the arrival of Gildas the Wise, large numbers from among the clergy and people gathered together to reconcile Arthur for the above mentioned murder. But Gildas, as he had done when he first heard the news of his brother’s death, was courteous to his enemy, kissed him as he prayed for forgiveness, and with a most tender heart blessed him as the other kissed in return. When this was done, king Arthur, in grief and tears, accepted penance imposed by the bishops who were present, and led an amended course, as far as he could, until the close of his life. John of Glastonbury’s Cronica sive Antiquitates Glastoniensis Ecclesie extracts some, but not all, of Caradoc’s Life of Gildas. Chapter XXXII echoes this information: In those days flourished St. Gildas, the excellent teacher and historian of the Britons. He was the son of a king of Scotland named Kau who also had twenty-three other sons who were warlike soldiers. St. Gildas, however, was set by his parents upon a course of literary studies. As a youth he crossed to Gaul, where he studied in the best fashion for the space of seven years. When this period was over, he sailed back to Great Britain with a great supply of books of all sorts. Scholars came together from everywhere when they heard of of the splendid teacher’s fame; he abundantly poured forth for them what he had learned in a far land by excruciating labour and sleepless nights. The piety of this wisest of teachers was extolled by all, and he was praised for his excellent merits. He fasted and prayed assiduously while clothed in a hairshirt. He ate barley bread mixed with ash, and spring water was his daily drink. He slept little, lying upon a rock, and content with only one garment; he was, moreover, the most outstanding preacher in the whole kingdom of Britain. Not much later, he crossed to Ireland, where by his teaching he converted many to the catholic faith. John, however omits the part of Section 10 and all of Section 11 which gives the account of Melwas violating Gwenhwyfar, and Gildas reconciling the feud between Melwas and Arthur. Some of the claims that Gildas Albanius is a legendary figure have merit. As Jeffrey Gantz points out in his Introduction to The Mabinogion, The Celtic storytellers’ sources fall into two broad categories: myth and folklore on the one hand, history and pseudo-history on the other. Inasmuch as the Celts, true to their escapist nature, tended to view history as what ought to have happened rather than as what actually did, fact and fiction in The Mabinogion are not easy to distinguish. Gildas, for example, is associated with the highly controversial figure, the alleged King Arthur of the fifth century. In “How Culhwch Won Olwen” when Culhwch invoked Olwen to Arthur, the name of Gildas, son of Caw, is part of the extensive list along with eighteen other brothers, including Hueil. In The Dream of Rhonabwy, Gildas’s name is listed-- along with one of his brothers Gwarthegydd--among Arthur’s advisors who are consulted about the Battle of Badon. In the tale “Gereint and Enid,” during a hunt Arthur requests that Gildas, son of Caw, and the scholars of the court accompany Gwenhwyvar back to the castle. To complicate matters even more, the De Excidio itself is called into question because of so many changes, interpolations, poor translations, additions of titles, and speculative divisions of that text. The first twenty-six chapters are sometimes viewed as the Historia, and the remainder titled the Epistola, possibly written by two different people, which seems highly unlikely by most researchers. However, both John Bale and James Usher maintained that it was Gildas Albanius who was the subject of Caradoc’s Life of Gildas, distinctively different from Gildas Badonicus, whom Bale claimed wrote the De Excidio. If indeed there was only one Gildas, then Caradoc’s Life of Gildas (if it can be attributed to Caradoc, since Stevenson reminds us that the name Caradoc was prefixed to the manuscript during the time of Henry VIII) is built upon folklore. Yet there has not been a successful rebuttal that there is only one Gildas. Even when one considers the obverse side of the paradox, there might not be a valid judgment.