Welsh Journals

REVIEWS THE De Excidio OF Gildas: ITS AUTHENTICITY AND DATE. By T. D. O'Sullivan. Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition, E. J. Brill, 1978. Pp. 200. n.p. The basis for Dr. O'Sullivan's study was a doctoral dissertation defended at Columbia in 1973, He has wisely taken his time before turning it into a book. In consequence, with a subject so complex that its treatment at once invites and excuses pedantry, he has produced the most lucid and, arguably, the most convincing thesis on this much discussed topic. He writes well. In rejecting the thesis that Gildas is a conflation of two separate works, one, and perhaps both, of which were forgeries of the late-seventh century, he makes the telling point that the work shows not the slightest knowledge of the disputes over the calculation of Easter. 'In the De Excidio there is no reference to the computation of Easter. There is no mention of lunar cycles or embolisms or ogdoads, no talk of Anatolius or of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers, no display of eccentric calendrical erudition, no complaints about cel- ebrating in the dark of the moon, no innuendos about keeping the Passover with the Jews: nothing.' His rhetoric is effective and his lucidity a positive blessing. The difficulty with Gildas is its unique and astonishing form. About a quarter of it is a bird's eye view of the Roman and Saxon conquests of Britain, the rest consists of an introduction and eighty-odd chapters of diatribe, the historical account being sandwiched between introduction and sermon. There is only minimal cross-referencing between two sections. It is likely that the work existed as a whole by St. Aldhelm's lifetime and the historical section was certainly one of Bede's major sources. Not surprisingly, grave doubts about the work's unity and authenticity have been expressed in recent years, most notably by the Revd. Wade-Evans and Pere Grosjean. Part of the difficulty is the absence of any precedent for such an awkward compilation either authentic or forged. Dr. O'Sullivan painstakingly demonstrates the complete absence of motive for forgery and argues-as did Mr. Winterbottom, whose edition ap- peared too late for him to consult-that its style is a unity. Not every difficulty disappears. The use of Brittania in two different senses in the two parts is not wholly explained: Mr. Winterbottom's discussion of Gildas's classical allusions seems to suggest that Vergil is only quoted in the historical summary; Dr. O'Sullivan does not consider how Gildas, whom he supposes to have been only a young man at the time of his bookmaking, could be so much less circumspect than Bede about political events in his own lifetime and survive to be a senior churchman. He has shown that, at least in a general way, the book has unity of style, but he has not, no more than any other of Gildas's defenders, faced Grosjean's point about the rare and obscure words special to each section. In hysperic Latin vocabulary is an important ingredient of style. Doubts (it seems to me) remain but they are faint doubts and until someone offers an answer