Law.] 132 [April 6, 
Observations on Gildas and the Uncertainties of Early English History. 
By Philip H. Law. 
(Read before the American Philosophical Society, April 6, 1888.) 
Historians and antiquarians have been inclined to base their statements 
too much on guesses. Pyramids of very doubtful conjecture have been 
erected on a foundation of a very few facts: and those facts very uncer- 
tain. The pregnant aphorism of Dr. Johnson that history written from 
facts not recorded at or near the time of their happening is a mere work 
of the imagination, should be constantly present to their minds. But, 
alas, it is generally ignored, for if it were applied it would reduce the vast 
volumes of archeological learning to a very small compass. 
Any one reading the early history of England in the popular historians 
and of its conquest by the so-called Anglo-Saxons, but who called them- 
selves the Ainglisk, would believe that our knowledge of the events of its 
conquest were certain ; at least, as certain as the events of the reign of 
Edward I. 
But if we examine the sources of information we will find them to be 
profoundly unreliable. That a conquest did occur, a severe and drastic 
one, cannot be doubted or denied. The great change of language estab- 
lishes this ; absolutely proving the obliteration or enslavement of the 
native population. The latter was, according to the probabilities, the case. 
The captive of a rude and warlike people is too useful to be slain ex- 
cept in the heat of battle. The barbarian hates persistent work ; his labor 
is war; his enjoyments are the chase and the wassail bowl; and land, 
without slaves to work it, is for him but of little use. 
The historians of the Anglo-Saxon Conquest draw their facts from the 
monk Gildas. And to these the writers of the picturesque school, such 
as the late Mr. Green, add facts drawn from their imagination ; for exam- 
ple, Mr. Green in his special history of the period describes, as if he was 
an eye-witness what is a matter of pure conjecture, giving a most vivid 
account of the sack of Anderida, the line of march taken by the different 
Saxon bands, how they fought, and what they did. 
But as to these we have but one authority who has even pretensions to 
be a contemporary—Gildas, the British monk. A few casual but not con- 
nected remarks occur in Continental writers. Britain in the days of the 
Roman Empire was a very obécure and very unimportant dependency. It 
‘was not more important to the Roman Empire then than New Zealand is 
now to the present English Empire. Naturally, therefore, very little im- 
portance was attached to what happened there ; indeed, the whole Latin 
literature of the time, except in theology, is scanty. The Anglo-Saxons 
were completely barbarous and without letters. No record was kept by 
them of their conquest. Gildas, therefore, is our only authority, and if 
his authenticity is disproved, complete darkness will cover the subject of 
