Talk:Gildas

Untitled

Excellent stuff, Llywrch. I would probably have got round to it eventually but life is short and I am spread very thin... user:sjc

Thanks. Although if someone is looking for something easy to do, It would be nice to create some kind of article -- even stub articles -- for each of the five personages that Gildas mentions, as well as find/write links to the several Romance languages that I mention in this article. As well as some kind of article that explains or mentions how Latin evolved into the several Romance languages.

I see all sorts of articles that need writing/rewriting/adding to, but as you said ``life is short and I am spread very thin". Right now I'm focussing on Late Roman Imperial history & topics relating to Arthur, before I start branching into the dozens of other topics I know something about. llywrch

Cuneglasus

"Cuneglasus of "the Bear's Stronghold" (Din Eirth, possibly Dinarth near Llandudno)" - unlikely to be Dinarth I would have thought, since Maelgwn's main stronghold at Deganwy would have been only a couple of miles away. Apart from Maelgwn, I don't think anything further is known of the other kings denounced by Gildas Rhion 20:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Square brackets and links

I'm not sure where the problem lies -- in the Wikipedia software or my browser -- but when a link is indicated next to a square braket like this [[Aetius]]], the text of the actual link is swallowed, & all I see is this Aetius]. To fix that problem, I have added a space where this problem occurs to fix this.

Or am I the only person to see that phenomena? -- llywrch 21:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Picture

That's actually a picture of Abelard and Heloise. Abelard was abbot of St. Gildas de Rhuys MaryJones 23:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. I never saw Gildas with a nun. Let's delete it. Andrew Dalby 00:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted

I removed the following passage:

The vision presented in this work of a land devastated by plundering raiders and the misrule of corrupt and venial officials has been readily accepted by scholars for centuries, because not only did it fit the accepted belief of invading, destructive barbarians who destroyed Roman civilization within the bounds of the former empire, but it also explained away the awkward question of why Britain was one of the few parts of the Roman Empire that did not acquire a Romance language, as had France and Spain.

It seemed a little strange to me. Obviously, huge sections of the Roman Empire were not Latin speaking, or spoke Latin only as a second language. The large numbers of early Latin loanwords in Welsh are adequate evidence of a Roman presence. The question "why didn't Latin replace British as the colloquial tongue of (lowland) Britain" is not in any way "awkward", nor mysterious, nor indeed in need of much explanation -- Britain was a distant frontier province, separated by the sea, and not as desirable for colonization by Romans from Italy as were Gaul, Spain, and (parts of) North Africa. If anything, it's the lack of survival of Gallic and the pre-Roman Iberian languages that is "awkward" -- Albanian, spoken much closer to Italy, survived quite nicely.

Anyway, it's not clear how Gildas' account relates to the linguistic situation -- there's no evidence that Latin was a vernacular language spoken by a majority of Britons under Roman rule even before the arrival of the Saxons, and subsequent events would have affected Latin and British speakers equally. RandomCritic (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Celtic Church

I re-wrote the first sentence to avoid using the expression 'Celtic Church'. For one thing, Gildas would have thought of himself as a Roman Christian, just as St. Patrick did, equating Christianity with 'Romanitas'. For another, he would have been totally unfamiliar with the word 'Celtic', also with the idea that the Church in his part of the world was a separate entity from the church on the other side of the Channel.Nennius (talk) 08:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Nennius

That's an excellent point.--Wetman (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Year of birth

What are the original sources for the two years of birth? The 1911 Britannica only states 516. Kaldari (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think 516 will be the right year, Britannica is the most scholarly encyclopedia. Also see this discussion. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

De Excidio update

Mention of the Apocalyptic beasts should be in the Gildas article ... else we have part I (religious theme), part II (tirade), part III (religious theme). All 3 parts are consistently religious when the Apocalypse is included. Ultimately, when the first and third parts are expanded, De Excidio should probably have its own article.

Not sure why there is a tradition of editing Gildas to refer to Dumnonia rather than Damnonia ... Gildas ties all of the kings together through Maelgwn, and that is historically accurate and credible regarding Damnonia. It makes no sense regarding Dumnonia, which was not under Maelgwn's pre-eminence, and had no known relationship of this kind with either Maelgwn or his kingdom.

Comments welcome. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Steep Holm & Glastonbury

According to Clay, Rotha Mary., (1914). "The Hermits and Anchorites of England.". Methuen & Co. London. pp. 9. http://www.historyfish.net/anchorites/clay_anchorites_one.pdf. Retrieved 23 January 2010.  Gildas left Steep Holm to become Abbot of Glastonbury. Is this strong enough evidence to include in the article?— Rod ^talk 19:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)