“BRITAIN has kings, but they are tyrants; she has judges, but unrighteous ones; generally engaged in plunder and rapine, but always preying on the innocent; whenever they exert themselves to avenge or protect, it is sure to be in favour of robbers and criminals; they have an abundance of wives, yet are they addicted to fornication and adultery; they are ever ready to take oaths, and as often perjure themselves; they make a vow and almost immediately act falsely; they make war, but their wars are against their countrymen, and are unjust ones; they rigorously prosecute thieves throughout their country, but those who sit at table with them are robbers, and they not only cherish but reward them; they give alms plentifully, but in contrast to this is a whole pile of crimes which they have committed; they sit on the seat of justice, but rarely seek for the rule of right judgment; they despise the innocent and the humble, but seize every occasion of exalting to the utmost the bloody-minded; the proud, murderers, the combined and adulterers, enemies of God, who ought to be utterly destroyed and their names forgotten.”

Gildas Sapiens, De Excidio Et Conquestu Britanniae (On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain), The Epistle, paragraph 27.  Circa 550 AD.

One of the iron laws of history is that there is nothing new under the sun. It is often said that history repeats itself. This is true with an important qualification. The exact situation or outcome does not repeat itself. History marches inexorably on. By the same metaphysical law that governs evolution, the story of mankind is incapable of going backwards – even though that may seem to be the case at times. But human traits and the human condition are  constant. Lust, greed for money and power, love, virtue, courage, melancholy, hate, war, wealth, riches, poverty and death. Nothing at all has changed for millennia.

Gildas was writing at a time of catastrophic national collapse. What Gildas witnessed was no more or less than the overthrow and death of the largely Christian, ordered, wealthy Romano British state: ravaged by the Picts and Scots in the north, and ultimately overrun by the Saxons (shorthand for various Germanic tribes) over the great bulk of the south, east and midlands. It is hard to convey what this must have meant in real terms. A half decent analogy would have been the conquest of Britain by Nazi Germany – an alien culture, godless, without respect for democracy –  to a significant degree accomplished quite literally at the point of a sword, specifically the seax, the short stabbing sword which gave the Saxons their name. There was flight and exile for many. Many were driven west into what is now Wales and Cumbria. Some to what is now France. Many modern historians have sought to downplay the level of what today we would call ethnic cleansing, but there is no doubt that it did take place. In other places there was coexistence, but eventual supplication to the Saxon social and military supremacy and by the extent of the Saxon population – growing by birth and endlessly reinforced from over the North Sea, arriving in their “Wave Horses”. Either way, Romano British culture was snuffed out, and the culture of the nation changed forever.

Gildas wrote his polemic seeking to explain the fall of his civilization in religious terms, by the failure of the nation and its leaders to stay true to the Christian faith. To that extent it is a religious tract and not a political or social history; frustrating from the historian’s point of view, because there is so much more detail he could have added.

However, the passage above shows that Gildas was far from blind to the political. He would instantly have recognised and railed against many aspects of modern Britain.

“Britain has kings, but they are tyrants.” This in a week in which we have confirmation (should it have been needed) that our former Overlord Gordon Brown was a brutal paranoid loon; unelected, by the way. The reputation for bullying and briefing against anyone considered to be a political enemy or indeed just anyone he met whom he found inconvenient was well earned. The reference to “Kings” must be construed liberally, to include all the petty tyrants at all levels of authority who manage national affairs without accountability, but with the propensity to rule by diktat – the Lords, the Chief Constables, the faceless Quango-istas. Whether the coalition will reverse this remains to be seen. I’m not holding my breath.

What Gildas was really writing about was the divorce between a closed, self serving, ruling elite and the “ordinary” people which it betrayed by its dishonesty, lack of integrity and lack of foresight. Importantly he describes the patronising disdain which that elite felt for those people and their concerns. He would therefore instantly have recognised and understood what was often called during the recent election campaign as “the disconnect” between the metropolitan political classes and the concerns and cares of the people at large.

Hypocrisy is a particularly strong theme. He perceived an incestuous political ruling class which preached a good sermon (“tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”) but was actually only concerned with its own private aggrandisement, feathering its own nest and concerned with accumulating as much loot as possible, hanging the odd thief, perhaps, but behind the scenes hanging out with the major league crooks (Let’s talk about party donations, the non executive directorships, the lobbyists, and just remind me, Lord Mandelson and you, George Osborne, who’s yacht was that? Oh yes…the allegedly money laundering Russian oligarch…)

The expenses scandal would have been instantly recognised and understood as the emblem of this particular problem. The crass hypocrisy which so many politicians of all parties practice in both private and public lives would have been utterly familiar to him.

He would have recognised at once a world where the thug who burgles a home but is repelled by the house owner is given a slap on the wrist, but the man who defends his home receives the full weight of the law.

He would have understood the problem in which the bankers are bailed out and then gorge themselves on bonuses but the working mother must repay her tax credit because of some bureaucratic glitch

A world turned upside down in which the pensioner is prosecuted for objecting to his council tax but the Chancellor of the Exchequer – and many others – “flip” their homes to avoid capital gains tax. He will have seen the poor taxed and the rich and the powerful hoard their money.

A brief aside on “flipping” by the way. A lawyer writes:

“Your principle private residence is a question of fact. To declare the house which is not, in fact, you real main home as that is incorrect, and the only question is whether it is “dishonest”. It palpably is: the fact that MP’s are permitted to identify their main private residence does not relieve them of the obligation to do so truthfully. The fact that there have been no prosecutions is plainly a policy decision, because otherwise the jails would indeed be overflowing and the cabinet would have to have convened in Wormwood Scrubs.”

He also have pointed out that the seeds of the collapse of his world were finally sown when the rulers of Britain abdicated their responsibility to manage the defence of the realm by importing Saxon mercenaries, who found the place very much to their liking, and invited their friends and relatives. Who in turn…

When Gildas talked to a woman in Rochdale about immigration and heard her concerns, he would not have thought her a bigot. He would have understood them. He would seen how an open door policy on immigration can have nation changing consequences. He would not have bowed to those who sought to suppress any complaint, debate and concern – as has been and continues to be the stance of Our Lords and Masters, the modern day, self appointed Tyrant Kings.

He would have had words to say to them about that.

Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.

Gildas the Monk

Gildas July 19, 2010 at 10:14

I enjoy Bernard Cornwell too, and he is a very accomplished technical
writer. I do feel, however, that he has a tendancy to make what should be two
books into three (well, he’writing fore money).
Brunanburgh – a frustrating
but fascinating topic. Where was it? Th Wirral, as some suggest, or the
Rother/Don valley, as I and others prefer.
I fear we may be straying beyond
the confines of this blog. My last word on this therefore: check out Micheal
Wood’s “In search of Athelstan”, now available in bits on Youtube.
Waes
Hael
Gildas the Monk

Middle Seaxe
July 18, 2010 at 23:30

Thank you Brother Gildas.

I in turn, shall reacquaint myself with your works and those of Brother
Nennius and may even delve into the later life of the wild Owain Glyn D?r,
who’s story excites my imagination, even though I am an English man. What man
with a bit of fire in his belly could fail to be stirred by tales such as
those?

I suppose we can be grateful that in this day and age, though we may feel
aggrieved and even oppressed by bureaucrats and the heavy handedness of the
state, that death will not come screaming at the edge of a sword or the tip of
a spear in the middle of the night as it did all too frequently in the days of
which we speak.

Well, not for the time being at any rate.

English Viking, I like Mr Cornwell’s writing, but I’m sure he’d forgive me
for saying that I prefer the originals such as The Battle of Brunanburh (with
apologies to the Scots here) or the Battle of Maldon.

Middle Seaxe
July 18, 2010 at 21:53

Gildas, I wonder, have you ever read the Wolf’s sermon to the English? An
Anglo-Saxon text with a very similar theme and from a remarkably similar
perspective.

There is indeed nothing new under the sun.

“Wyrd bi

English Viking
July 18, 2010 at 22:12

A fellow fan of Bernard?

Gildas July 18, 2010 at 22:38

Good evening Middle Seaxe. In fact, I had not . I immediately assumed
that you referred to Wulfstan (which you do) but to Wolf or Wulfstan II, not
Wulfstan I. Wulfstan I was an entertaining character, and a supporter of the
even more entertaining Erik Bloodaxe.
However, brief research shows that
that you refer to the Sermo Lupe Ad Anglos.
I confess I was not familiar
with it, though I have some views on the mini-collapse of the Anglo Saxon
state, the formation of what we may call the Anglo-Danish state, and so
on.
It does nor surprise me that there are parallels, because the
dynastic confusion towards the end of of the 10th Century would have
produced similar results. In fact, there are passages in the Anglo Saxon
Chronicle which have echoes, although more to do with the incompetence of
government, particularly under Ethelread “Unready” (literally, “Ill
Counselled).
I shall do penance and more research.
Waes Hael, as I
believe you guy used to say!

Gildas the Monk

Daedalus
Parrot July 19, 2010 at 14:33

Facinating, your discussions prompt my curiosity. Do any of you have any
links for further information on this period and these sources?

By the way for a dolt such as myself, who failed his history O Level
thrice and just scraped a pass in Franglais, could you possibly provide some
subtitles on the foreign lingo bits?
Much obliged.

Daedaluus the Philistine Parrot.

chrisM July 18, 2010 at 19:07

Good piece. Richard Baron without some submission there is only anarchy. We
must keep a close eye on our rulers though and judge them well. There should
have been jail terms for some of these con artists and new elections where
necessary. It would have been internationally embarracing but we’ve sent out
the message to our polititians that they can get away with it. A very bad
idea.
I wonder if some of the atheists would agree that a truely Christian
society ( if thats possible) would be the best kind to live in, even if they
couldn’t themselves believe. I say that because you need a source of right to
judge anything as right or wrong. A moral compass.

English Viking
July 18, 2010 at 19:40

Chris, you’re making a mistake there old bean. You’re using common sense
and logic in a reply to an Atheist.

Richard
Baron July 18, 2010 at 23:12

There may well be a need for some rules. But all the problem with
religion-based systems is that the people at the top argue that they are
implementing God’s unchallengeable word. They do not accept that all rules
should be open to revision (revision by due process, after careful
consideration, but revision nonetheless). They also believe that there is a
group of people (priests, ayatollahs, whoever) who have some special
expertise and whose views should be given special weight.

There is also the problem that if you found your rules on religion, you
are founding them on what many of us regard as a patent falsehood (the
existence of God) – not a basis that will encourage allegiance.

It is perfectly possible for atheists to have decent values, and to be
able to sustain those values even when one enquires into their foundations.
Mill made a good and godless case for utilitarianism, neo-Kantians like
Christine Korsgaard make good and godless cases for their style of ethic,
and so on. One is not guaranteed to adhere to one’s values throughout one’s
life, of course. But those who do believe that God is there are not
guaranteed to adhere to their values either. Have a look at how many
God-fearing people are in prison.

Daedalus
Parrot July 18, 2010 at 17:43

* applause *

I think the Abbot should reward you by allowing you to wear your hairshirt
on six days in the week rather than seven.

Gildas July 18, 2010 at 22:41

Hair shirt no big deal. For various reasons it’s been four days now
without a fag or a drink – I can tell you Daedalus, that’s been enough
bloomin’ penance for a bloomin’ lifetime!

Gildas the Grumpy

Joe Public July 18, 2010 at 11:56

That Sermon should be a compulsory part of all English secondary schools’
History Curriculum.

Thank you for the lesson Gildas.

Richard
Baron July 18, 2010 at 11:14

Yes, a good piece, but let us not forget that Christianity and Judaism, as
well as the newcomer Islam, promote the idea of submission to petty and
not-so-petty authority figures.

WitteringsfromWitney July
18, 2010 at 10:21

I don’t know about Gildas, methinks ‘standing ovation, take a bow, Anna’
more like it!

Well written sermon indeed Anna and thank you.

Anna
Raccoon July 18, 2010 at 10:27

Witterings – the sermon was written by Gildas, and is one of the best
things I have read this week.

WitteringsfromWitney July 18, 2010 at 13:59

Yes I realise that Anna – I meant thanks & well written in bringing
it to our attention.

Eleanor July 18, 2010 at 10:45

Gildas wrote this piece. It is always a good idea to read the signature
at the top of the page.

Jolly good piece, Gildas, but the truth of the matter is that the vast
majority of them have gotten away with it. Again. I am passing angry about
this, so heaven knows how those with less self control feel.

WitteringsfromWitney July 18, 2010 at 13:59

See comment above to Anna, in respect of your first para.

Anna
Raccoon July 18, 2010 at 09:08

* Standing ovation*
*and yet more applause*
Take a bow, Gildas.