FLAVIANS, CELTS & CHRISTIANS

FLAVIANS, CELTS & CHRISTIANS.

A Study of the Earliest Christianity in the British Isles. Comparing Bede and Monmouth, with Tacitus and Suetonius.

ã Wayne William Blakeley B.A.(Hum)., B.Theol., Dip.Ed. 1999.

The majority of histories concerned with the Church in the British Isles begin with a very brief account of the Roman invasion under Julius Caesar in (55 B.C.E.). Some mention the Claudian invasion and Vespasian but most simply use these events as an easy introduction to what they consider the real history of the Church in the British Isles which begins with the Martyrdom of St Alban in (304 C.E.). Even Eusebius first mentions Britain in his History of the Church only when he comes to St Alban’s time under Diocletian (284-305 C.E.). Very few Church historians ever bother to examine the very early history of Christianity in this part of the Roman Empire. Most begin with St Alban while other begin later still with the mission of Ausgustine of Canterbury (596-7 C.E.) but few attempt to explain the very earliest histories that have come down to us such as the works Bede and Geoffrey of Monmouth. Both of these great men’s works are simple treated as non factual Medieval wishful thinking written to justify their own stand on the pressing issues of their time.

However, because most writers have passed over the works of these two Historians the small clues they offer about the early development of Christianity in the British Isles have not been fully explored. The clues which are embedded in their sometimes hard to believe narratives have simple been ignored. These clues have never, to my knowledge, been isolated and rigorously examined. Nor have they been compared to those histories written by the Roman writes that have subsequently formed the foundation of Western history such as Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, and later Eusebius. It is my intention in this paper to examine the parts of the histories of Bede and Monmouth that relate to the first and second centuries and compare them with the histories of mainly Tacitus and Suetonius so as to establish a clear understanding of the earliest foundation on which the Christian faith of any sort came to the British Isles.

The Venerable Bede (673-735.C.E.), educated under Abbot Benedict, served at Jarrow under Abbot Ceolfrid. This Bede was the author of the History of the English Church and People which was given royal approval by the court of King Ceolwulf in (731.C.E.). Bede states that the first Christian King was Lucius who in (156 C.E.) received the Christian faith under the direction of Pope Eleutherus.

“In the year of our Lord’s Incarnation 156, Marcus Antoninus Verus, fourteenth from Augustus, became Emperor jointly with his brother Aurelius Commodus. During their reign, and while the holy Eleutherus ruled the Roman Church, Lucius, a British king, sent him a letter, asking to be made a Christian by his direction. This pious request was quickly granted, and the Britons received the Faith and held it peacefully in all its purity and fullness until the time of the Emperor Diocletian”[1].

This passage is preceded by his account of Vespasian’s subjection of the Isle of Wight. Bede does not give us an account of the years between the time of Vespasian’s activities in Britain and the time of King Lucius. He simply skips over them and records Lucius’ conversion. This leaves a gap in Bede’s history of a hundred years. One thing that we can be sure of is that Bede did not know the intervening history. Bede was not in the position, as we are today, to see embarrassing connections that the intervening history, which we will examine in this paper. If he had shared our position he may never had written that “the Britons received the Faith and held it peacefully in all its purity and fullness until the time of the Emperor Diocletian”[2]. The Christian faith may well have been received in Britain at this time in history but was it as pure or as full as Bede’s history would have us believe? On what sort of foundation was the earliest Church in the British Isles built?

The history of the Roman Empire’s dealings with Britain was recorded in the works of Tacitus and Suetonius. However, it is not until Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote his History of the Kings of Britain at St George’s college in Oxford between (1129 to 1151. C.E.) that we are given an account of Lucius’ family history. Monmouth tells us that Lucius was the great, great, grandson of a King Avirargus who had once “refused to continue his homage to the Senate”[3] and “arrogating all things to himself instead”[4] when Claudius was Emperor. Claudius sent Vespasian to deal with Avirargus and to either “bring about a reconciliation with Arvirargus or else to force him back into subjection to Rome”[5]. Vespasian attempted a landing at Richborough but Arvirargus prevented him. Vespasian redirected his force and came ashore at Totnes[6]. Vespasian marched on Exeter[7] and besieged the city for six days until on the seventh day Arvirargus arrived with his army and attacked Vespasian’s besiegers. The two forces clashed and the battle ran all day but neither side could gain the victory as the light of day faded. As the new day dawned both armies where still suffering from the pervious days' battle and “Queen Genvissa acted as mediator and the two leaders made peace”[8]. At the end of the winter Vespasian returned to Rome and Arvirargus “at last, as old age came upon him, began to show deference to the Senate and to rule his kingdom in peace and quiet”[9]. He lived to a good old age, died in the reign of Nero and was buried in the Temple of Deified Claudius in Gloucester.

In the beginning of his history Monmouth complains that outside of Bede and Gildas he could find out nothing of the Kings that came before the time of Christ or those who came after until the time of King Vortigern (449.C.E.) and Ambrosius Aurelianus (493.C.E.). His complaining came to an end when Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford presented him with a book of histories in the British language. Monmouth translated this text into Latin and found that it contained a history of the Kings of Britain from the time of the fall of Troy (1240 B.C.E) to the time of Cadwallader (689.C.E.). This text became the foundation of Monmouth’s history as we have it today.

This however does not verify the events found in Monmouth’s history. Some of the events such as the conversion of King Lucius and the victories of Ambrosius Aurelianus are found in Bede and Gildas but the rest of the information covered in Monmouth’s history has no other sources to check it against. Indeed, it stands alone and thus we must endeavour to verify his statements as best we can.

So, let us begin and see on how much of Monmouth’s account we can rely. The history of Arvirargus gives us our best leads to begin with since he is connected with the Claudian invasion. Thus, if we take the date of Claudius’ ascension which took place in the (794) year after the foundation of Rome in (753 B.C.E.) and we subtract (753) from (794) we will get (41) which would make the date of Claudius’ ascension to the Purple (41 C.E.). This date is verified from the other end of Claudius’ life by the fact that Suetonius says that Claudius died “during the consulship of Asinius Marcellus and Acilius Aviola, in his sixty-forth year, and the fourteenth year of his reign”[10]. Thus, (753)+(41)+(14)=(808) years since the foundation of Rome. (808)-(753-1) = (54) [11] gives us the date of his death in (54 C.E.). (54)-(64)=(-10) which would make the date of Claudius’ birth (10 B.C.E.). From these dates we can establish some rough dates for Arvirargus. Arvirargus was old enough (18-20+) to take over the rule of his father kingdom just before Claudius’ invasion. Claudius sent his troops into Britain in (43 C.E.) (2) years after his ascension to the Purple in (41 C.E.). Thus, we may say that Arvirargus came to power in (40 C.E.) between the ages of twenty and thirty-five which would suggest that he was born within the first decade of the first century. We know that Arvirargus lived at least into the late (50s C.E.) for he is mentioned in the Satires of the Roman writer Juvenal who puts him in the context of dateable figures, and Monmouth is good enough to give us Juvenal’s quotation in Latin.

“Regem aliquem capies, aut de themone Britanno Decidet Arvirargus.[12]”

“You will capture some king - perhaps Arvirargus of Britain will tumble out of his chariot”[13].

Juvenal places these words in the mouth of a blind man who says this line to the Emperor Nero. Therefore, we can at least say the Arvirargus lived into Nero’s reign. By comparing the firm dates of the dateable characters mentioned in the reliable histories, such as I have done with Claudius above, with those characters from Monmouth’s history, such as Arvirargus, that have no fixed dates we can establish rough dates for Monmouth’s characters via their reported connection with the dateable characters in the more reliable sources we have. This is the method that I have used hereafter to offer dates for the characters mentioned in this section of Monmouth’s History. All date after this point will be (C.E.) dates unless otherwise denoted as (B.C.E.) dates. So, let us now continue to examine Monmouth and see on how much of his account we can rely.

Arvirargus was the youngest son of the famous Cunobelinus of Catuvellauni or Cymbeline, as Monmouth call’s him. Cymbeline was the son of Tenvantius, the Duke of Cornwall, who succeeded to the throne after the death of Cassivelaunus, who had made peace with Julius Caesar in (55 B.C.E). Cymbeline, Monmouth tells us was, “a powerful warrior whom Augustus Caesar had reared in his Household and equipped with weapons”[14]. Cymbeline was made King in the fifth year of the first century and ruled as Rex Brittonum until (40) when he handed the rule to Guiderius his oldest son. Arvirargus was given the Kingdom of Cornwall to rule. Cymbeline is mentioned in Suetonius[15] who refers to a son of Cymbeline’s named Adminius who was banished by his father and fled to Rome and surrendered to Gaius Caligula. This individual plays no part in Monmouth’s history. Tacitus does not mention Cymbeline but rather Caratacus whom Michael Grant footnotes[16] in the Penguin translation suggests that this Caratacus is also a son of Cymbeline. Togodumnus is another name which is associated with Cymbelines sons, but from the sources all we can assume is that Cymbeline had two sons who took over the rule of southern Britain two years before Claudius’ invasion. The problem of their names may be explained in two ways; firstly by the fact that Monmouth’s source is written in the British language and uses their native names while Suetonius and Tactius are using their Latin names. That British Kings were known by their Latin names is demonstrated by a Latin inscription found in Chicester which reads;

“To Neptune and Minerva, this temple is dedicated for the welfare of the divine house by the authority of Tiberius Claudius Cogidubnus, king and legate of Augustus in Britain...”[17].

Cogidubnus was a King of the Regnenses of Sussex who made terms with Claudius and was received as a vassal King. Tactius says that he “Maintained his unswerving loyalty down to our own times”.[18] It is from such inscriptions as the one found in Chicester that scholars such as Durant. G. M. have stated, “it is obvious that the former British Chieftains had not only adopted or been granted Latin names but was very proud of them and of his standing with the Romans”.[19] Thus, it is possible to reconcile the different names used to denote the sons of Cymbeline. In his Annals Tactic describes the capture and trial of Caratacus. Having delivered his finial appeal Caratacus waits for the Emperor to respond.

“Claudius responded by pardoning him [Caratacus] and his wife and brothers”[20].

In light of this we may assume that Cymbeline had more than two sons. In all, we may name five of them, Guiderius, Arvirargus, Togodumnus, Adminius, and Caratacus. Two were killed in battl; Guiderius at Richborough and Togodumnus at Medway. Arvirargus takes the power but retreats to his southern inheritance in Devon, Somerset and Cornwall and submits to Roman rule via Vespasian. Adminius was banished and fled to Rome. Caratacus fled west into Wales where he continued to fight in order take back his father's capital in Essex in vain. This scenario is also within the bounds of possibility.

What we do know from our sources is that these sons of Cymbeline where the leaders of the British force which met Claudius’ invading force under Aulus Plautius and Vespasian in (43). This force, consisting of the II Augusta from Strasbourg, XIV Gemina from Mainz, XX Valeria from Cologne and the IX Hispana from Pannonia, came ashore at Richborough. Monmouth has says that these forces came to Britain because “Guiderius refused to pay the Roman the tribute which they demanded”[21]. Monmouth places Claudius himself at their head as commander. But we know from Suetonius that Claudius was only in Britain for six months[22] and fought no battles but had Vespasian do his work for him[23]. Guiderius, Monmouth tells us, nearly succeeded in pushing Claudius forces back into the sea but Guiderius was slain. This battle according to all other accounts never happened but there may be an element of truth about it since the eldest son of Cymbeline under the name of Togodumnus was most likely killed at the battle of Medway the first major battle between the two forces. At this point Arvirargus took over and fought bravely until the capital Camulodunum was taken. Monmouth has Arvirargus retreat to Winchester where Claudius besieged the city. However, Arvirargus flung open the gates and went out to break the siege. Claudius’ forces are said to have suffered and Claudius sent envoys to sue for peace “promising to give him his own daughter, if only he would recognise that the kingdom of Britain was under the sway of Rome”[24]. Arvirargus accepts the offer of Claudius’ Daughter’s hand in marriage and thus a peace was agreed.

This daughter of Claudius, Monmouth says, was named Genvissa. However, according to Tactius and Suetonius Claudius never had a daughter by this name. Claudius married four times. He married Urgulanilla who bore him Drusus and Claudia, Paetina who bore him Claudia Antonia, Messalina who bore him Octavia and Britannicus beloved of Titus, and finally Agrippina who bore him Nero. Claudia Antonia married Faustus Cornelius Sulla Felix while Octavia married her step brother Nero. In light of this evidence Claudius had only one other daughter by Urgulanilla, Claudia, to offer Arvirargus. This Claudia, Suetonius tells us, was not really Claudius’ offspring but rather “Claudia’s real father was Claudius’s freedman Boter. Claudius disavowed paternity and, through she was born nearly five months after the divorce, had her laid naked outside Urgulanilla’s house-door”[25]. This woman was very powerful and her friendship Augusta “had placed her above the law”[26] so much so that she could defy a summons from the senate and get away with it. If Urgulanilla’s child lived, since she is never mentioned again, she would be the only daughter Claudius had to offer Arvirargus and Urgulanilla had the power to defy her ex-husband and raise the child on her own. The possibilities of this being the right child is heightened when we understand that Urgulanilla was related to the commander of the Claudian forces in Britain.

“Aulus Palutius, belonged to a family which had enjoyed high regard with the Julio-Claudian house since the reign of Augustus. A Cousin of Claudius’ ex-wife Ungularilla...”[27].

However, the woman that Arvirargus married was known as Genvissa. Again the names may have been changed by the language in which Monmouth received these histories, or this woman may have taken on a native name at her marriage as demonstrated with the names of Cymbeline’s sons above. This woman gave birth to a son, Marius, between (43-45). Monmouth tells us, that having come to this peace, Arvirargus helps Claudius “subdued the Orkneys and the other islands in the neighbourhood”[28].

However, this peace was not to last. Monmouth tells us for as soon as Claudius had left;

“Arvirargus began to show his prowess and to develop his own policy. He rebuilt his cities and castles and rule the people of his kingdom with such firm application of law that he was feared by far-distant kings and peoples. As a result he became arrogant and looked down on the majesty of Rome”[29].

Arvirargus made a diplomatic error by rebuilding his fortification. Such an enterprise was always seen as an act of defiance and was treated as an act of rearmament[30]. Claudius sent Vespasian to deal with him as layed out at the beginning of this paper. Monmouth here sees the coming of Vespasian as a separate invasion and uses the traditional site of the Roman landings which both Julian and the Claudian forces under Aulus Plautius had used. Thus, he has Vespasian come from Rome, from Claudius’ presence, and again lands at Richborough but he is forced back into the sea by Arvirargus. This motif is a reflection on the trouble that Julius Caesar had when he tried to land the first Roman forces to come to Britain. In this way Monmouth presents the coming of Vespasian as if he was the first. This indicates that his source views this as a turning point in the history. The Julio-Claudian settlements that had governed Britain since the arrival of the Romans begins to wain. Vespasian’s appearance in the history, though under Claudius’ orders, is seen as the beginning of the Flavian ascendants to the Purple. Monmouth however uses this to get his Vespasian to Exeter.

Yet, again we ask how reliable is this historical interpretation? We know from Suetonius and Tactius that Vespasian indeed was active in this region of Britain at the head of a legion, the II Augusta from Strasbourg, between (43-45). Indeed, Suetonius, Tactius, and Bede all say roughly the same thing that it was in Britain that Vespasian truly distinguished himself. Tactius writes that Claudius;

“sent over legions an auxiliaries and chose Vespasian as his coadjutor the first step towards his future greatness. Nations were subdued, kings captured, and the finger of fate pointed to Vespasian”[31].

But Suetonius does not look to what fate did but simply records the most extensive account of Vespasian’s progress through Britain which we have. He writes;

“On Claudius’ accession, Vespasian was indebt to Narcissus for the command of a legion in Germany; and proceeded to Britain, where he fought thirty battles, subjugated two warlike tribes, and captured more than twenty towns, besides the entire Isle of Vectis. In these campaigns he served at times under Aulus Plautius, the commander of consular rank, and at times directly under Claudius, earning triumphal decorations;...”[32]

From these quotations we see, that Vespasian was in Britain when Monmouth’s history says he was and he, at times, served directly under Claudius’ orders as Monmouth states. That Vespasian’s activities were concentrated in the south of Britain, where he subjected tribes and Kings and took more than twenty towns should not be doubted. Tacitus writes of this fact in his Histories as he reflects on the allegiance of the provinces as the civil war of (69) raged;

“Here the balance was already in favour of Vespasian, who had been posted to the country by Claudius to command the second legion and fought there with distinction”[33].

Monmouth’s history is thus consistent with the only sources we have and it is doubtful that Monmouth had access to then as we do. Thus, his source is reliable and independently verified by the ancient authors who were writing much closer to the events which they describe on these points concerning Vespasian.

It is surprising that Monmouth does not mention the subjection of the Isle of Vectis (Wight) but there is a good reason why Suetonius does. The Isle of Wight was the southern strong-hold of the Druids. These Druids where the grandsons of those Julius Caesar had pushed out of Gaul. The Druids remained a problem to the Romans in Gaul because they had a safe haven in Britain and easily crossed back and forth instigating revolt and insurrection. Julius Caesar recorded this after uncovering a seditious plot against the Romans in Gaul. He writes;

“Their leading men induced (the Bellovaci people) to sever the connection (with Caesar) and take up arms against Rome, by telling them that the Asdui were enslaved by Caesar and had to endure every kind of ill-usage and humiliation. ‘The people responsible for the adoption of this policy,’ he continued, ‘have now realised what a calamity they have brought upon their country, and have fled to Britain”[34].

Thus, Julius crossed into Britain in the hope of ending their influences in Gaul.

“Caesar made active preparation for an expedition to Britain, because he knew that in almost all the Gallic campaigns the Gauls had received reinforcements from the Britons”[35].

These Druids of the southern kingdoms were the back bone of nationalistic, anti-Roman, religious resistance. Some Kings had willing defected to Rome in light of the strength of Claudius’ invasion force. King Prasutagus and the Iceni, King Cogidubus and all the people of East Anglia, Kent, Surrey and Sussex submitted to the Romans after they had taken Essex[36]. The Druids withdrew from the mainland to the Isle of Wight. This Isle lay six miles off the coast at the southern end of the Romans’ first established line of control that ran from Colchester, through the future site of London, to Chichester and the Isle of Wight.

From this relative safety these Druids could direct operations against the Romans amongst those tribes in the south west.

“The Celts appointed those whom they call Druids, these also being devoted to the prophetic art and to wisdom in general. In all these cases the Kings were not permitted to do or plan anything without the assistance of these wise men, so that in truth it was they who ruled, while the Kings became their servants and ministers of their will, though they sat on golden thrones, dwelt in great houses, and feasted sumptuously”[37].

These tribes, the Dvrotriges of Dorset and Somerset, the Belgae and Atrebate[38] on Salisbury plain, and the Dvmonii of Cornwall were the tribes that Vespasian and the II Augusta were sent to subdue. Thus, what we see is that Vespasian was sent to deal with the most important fanatical religious nationalistic strongholds that lay at the head of the resistance in Britain and influenced Gaul.

“The Druidic doctrine is believed to have been found existing in Britain and thence imported into Gaul”[39].

The Isle of Wight was the key religious stronghold in the south, and the Isle of Mona (Anglesey) was the religious refuge in the north west. If Britain was to be taken and held by the Romans the religious spirit led by the Druids needed to be destroyed conclusively. Vespasian with his down to earth common sense was the right man for the job. Thus, he took the Isle of Wight and smashed the southern Druids’ influence over the southern tribes. Britain was to the Druids what Jerusalem was to the Jews and both, with their anti-Roman religious fanatical nationalism, were wiped out, along with their major centres of power, by Vespasian. It was here in Britain that Vespasian learnt how to deal with this sort of religious nationalism which he later used so effectively in Judea, the only other place in the Empire that suffered from this particular sort of problem. Monmouth’s account of Vespasian being repelled by Arvirargus at Richborough and sailing to Totnes may reflect his attack by sea on the Isle of Wight.

The archaeological evidence demonstrates that the II Augusta, with Vespasian at its head, was the legion that reduced the south west to peace[40]. There are many theories about Vespasian’s campaign in the south west writers such as L. Cottrell[41] say that the II Augusta simply extended their lines to the west alone the southern coast line and swept north to encircle the Belgae and Atrebate on Salisbury Plain and secured Bath, the region around Glastonbury, the Charterhouse lead mines in Somerset and up to Gloucester. Having accomplished this task the II Augusta began to push deeper into Devon and finally finished at Exeter. Monmouth’s account suggests a different tactic. Monmouth account suggests that Vespasian sailed to Totnes and marched on Exeter, Arvirargus’ seat of power, from which he ruled his kingdom given to him by his father who left Essex in the north east, now over run by the Romans, to Guiderius. This may suggest that Vespasian attacked the rear of the resisting tribes and then pushed back towards Gloucester with a fast sweeping advance. How Vespasian reduced these regions to peace is unknown to us and we can only speculate about his precise movements. But Monmouth’s history is not wrong when it places Vespasian’s activities in this region.

Monmouth’s history tells us that Vespasian besieged the town of Exeter. This is not at all impossible. Suetonius, as we have seen above, says that Vespasian took twenty towns. The archaeological evidence presented by Sir Mortimer Wheeler revealed that Maiden Castle near Dorchester was destroyed at this time[42]. Hod Hill near Blandford was also occupied by the Romans at this time. Another two other hill forts in Dorset have yielded evidence of Roman attack. Therefore, it is not difficult to be assured that Exeter was one of the other sixteen of the twenty that Suetonius mentions. We know now that Exeter was the II Augusta’s base camp from this time on until the time of Frontinus[43]. Thus, again Monmouth’s history contains the cornels of truth and that Arvirargus and Vespasian could had a have battle, and on the seventh day of the siege come to a peace via Queen Genvissa’s mediation as Monmouth claims. This may explain why Cornwall gave the Romans no trouble after this time. At this juncture Monmouth says that Vespasian returned to Rome. This would coincide with Claudius’ triumph around (45-46). He lived in retirement until he was given the province of Africa[44].

By (47) the conquest of Britain, below the Humber and east of the Severn, had been accomplished and Aulus Plautius came to the end of his governorship in (49). He had advanced north with the IX Hispana towards Lincoln and west with the XX Valeria Victrix while Vespasian and the II Augusta subdued the south west. Later, in (57) Aulus Plautius’ Wife

“Pomponia Graecina,...was charged with foreign superstition and referred to her husband for trial. Following ancient tradition he decided her fate and reputation before her kinsmen, and acquitted her”[45].

This passage is used by Christian scholars as the first reference to Christianity in antiquity[46]. Aulus Plautius was replaced by Ostorius Scapula and during his governorship, (49-50), a colony of veterans was established at Colchester which was Cymbeline’s old capital. Ostorius Scapula defeated and captured Caractacus and sent him to Rome. He also made some advancement into Wales against the Silures. Didius Gallus came next (50-55). In (54) Claudius died and Nero became Emperor. In the following year Britannicus was killed and Titus the son of Vespasain turned fourteen. According to Monmouth’s chronological sequence about this time, or a little later, Marius, the son of Arvirargus, had a son and named him Coilus. Didius Gallus was followed by Veranius (56-57) who died within a year of taking up his post. Suetonius Paulinus came to take Veranius’ place in (57-9) and set his mind on the destruction of the last remaining Druid stronghold on the Isle of Mona (Anglesey) “which was feeding the native resistance”[47]. So in (60) he set out to do in the north what Vespasian had accomplished in the south. But no sooner left he had to turn back as the Iceni of Norfolk and Suffolk under Boudicca broke out in serious revolt.

What can be discerned from the histories of these events is striking when we compare the recorded relationship between the Romans and the native tribes in the north compared to the south. In the north peace never really took hold and the Client Kings and vassal semi-independent states under the system of the Julio-Claudian government was always breaking down because of the abuses of power which the Romans indulged. Tacitus informs us that;

“the Britons themselves submit to the levy, tribute and the other charges of Empire with cheerful readiness provided that there is no abuse. That they bitterly resent; for they are broken in to obedience but not to slavery”[48].

Things seem to have gotten worse under Nero in the north until the time of Agricola. In (60) the abuse in the north reach its climax. This abuse is particularly evident in the case of Queen Boudicca[49]. When Prasutagus, King of the Iceni, died and left his kingdom to the Emperor and his two daughters the Roman officers, most likely of the IX Hispana, took little notice of the dead Kings wishes and his “Kingdom and household alike were plundered like prizes of war”[50]. For a start they took hold of Queen Boudicca, the King’s widow, and she was;

“flogged and their daughters raped[51]. The Incenian chiefs were deprived of their hereditary estates as if the Romans had been given the whole country. The King’s own relatives were treated like slaves”[52].

The south, where Vaspasian had been and the II Augusta was stationed, on the other hand, enjoyed peace. Under this Flavian influence it stayed that way for (170) years. This matches the conditions depicted in Monmouth’s history of this time, but not the history of the north, the abuses marks a distinct divide between the two areas of Roman influence in Britain at the time. These good relations in the south west may have been further deepened by Vespasian’s son Titus.

Having barely held Britain and survived Boudicca’s vengeful revolt and finally defeated the enemy in (61) the Romans sent for reinforcements. Nero sent Petronius Turpilianus to replace Suetonius Plaulinus as governor (61-64). It has been suggested that Titus, having won his Tribuneship in Germany, now came to Britain and assisted with the mopping up and was in Britain at this time.

“Reinforcements were sent from Germany, 2,000 legionaries, eight cohorts of auxiliaries and 1,000 cavalry-7,000 men in all which gives some indication of the Roman losses, it has been suggested that the officer in command of his large Vexillatio was Titus...there seems no other time when he could have been in Britain”[53].

When Terbellius Maximus became governor in (64-67) Titus returned to Rome and practiced Law at the Bar in (65). Suetonius gives us this sequence of events in Titus’ life;

“Titus’ reputation while an active and efficient colonel in Germany and Britain is attested by the numerous inscribed statues and busts found in both countries. After completing his military service he pleaded in the Roman Forum as a Barrister; but in order to make a reputation, not because he meant to make a career of it”[54].

In (66) Titus joined his father Vespasian in Greece, on tour with Nero, when they were sent to Judea to subdue the Jewish revolt.

It is quite possible that Titus, Vespasian’s son, was in Britain while Avirargus was alive and may well have been the same age as his son Marius who succeeded Avirargus to the throne at about this time (63-65). It is possible to assume that Titus was attached too, or visited, his father's legion the II Augusta which was stationed in the south west at Exeter. Marius was on the throne, according to Monmouth’s chronological sequence, when Vespasian became Emperor with his son Titus after the confusion of (69), the year of the three Emperors. Over this period Vettius Bolanus was governor in Britain (67-71)[55]. According to Tacitus, Britain remained quiet and loyal to Vespasian as mentioned above but the division between the Julio-Claudian legions in the north and the Flavian legions south west of Cornwall and Wales became apparent at this time. Tacitus tell us that the south was loyal to Vespasian;

“But there was some restlessness among the other legions in Britain, for they contained a number of Centurions and [other ranks] who owed their promotion to Vetellius and were doubtful about accepting a new Emperor in exchange for one they knew”[56].

In (71) Vespasian sent Petillius Cerealis to Britain as Governor and he subdued the Brigantes. He was followed by Julius Fontinus in (74) who defeated the Silures of southern Wales.

“As part of Frontinus’ campaign the II Augusta (moved from Exeter to Gloucester it take the place of the XX when it was transferred to Wroxeter) was now stationed in a new legionary fortress at Caerleon.”[57]

In (78) Gnaeus Julius Agricola who finally reduced the Isle of Anglesey and ended the Druids influence in Britain. He then set about reforming the army which had abused the natives under the Julio-Claudian’s along Favian lines and;

“by checking these abuses in his very first year of office, Agricola gave men reason to love peace and honour peace. Hitherto, through the negligence or arbitrariness of former governors, it had been as much feared as war”[58].

King Marius, Monmouth tells us, was faced with an invasion of Picts under Sodric whom he repulsed after many battles[59]. This would reflect the moves that Agricola made against the tribes, the Scots and Picts, in Caledonia (Scotland) about (79). It is not implausible that a friendly native King would send men to assist the Romans who where waging war on their mutual enemies. Having proved his loyalty and;

“Once he had established absolute peace in every part of the island, Marius began to develop a close relationship with the Roman people, paying willingly the taxes which were demanded of him. Encouraged by the example of his father, he fostered justice and peace, the maintenance of laws and decent behaviour in all matters throughout his kingdom”[60].

From this quotation we can assume that the Romans mentioned where those which belonged the forces under Agricola in the north and the II Augusta now in the south of Wales. King Marius ruled well and had a son called by the name of Coilus who took over the rule of the Kingdom on his father's death.

“From his early childhood this Coilus had been brought up in Rome. He had learnt the ways of the Romans and had conceived the greatest possible liking for them. He paid their tribute without even attempting to argue about it, for he realised that the whole world was subject to them and their power was great than that of individual countries or any one province. He therefore paid what was demanded and was left to rule in peace over his possessions”[61].

This Coilus would have thus been in Rome when the Flavian’s came into the purple and set up their new dynasty. The ways that he learned about would have been Flavian and it is this influence that he brought back to Britain when his father had died. This is very understandable and having been born in the late (50s) Coilus may have been taken to Rome as a hostage after the revolt of Boudicca when he had been weened. Thus, he would have been (10 or 11) years old when Nero died and (13 or 14) years old when Vespasian won the government. Just after Agricola returned to Rome in (82) Marius died and Coilus returned to Britain to take up the crown as Domitian began his rule. Coilus’ rule was a very good one through he only produced one heir in (85-95) and he gave him the name Lucius.

Domitian after his regression to the wickedness of the Julio-Claudians was assassinated and Nerva brought good government back to the Empire (96). Trajan consolidated the Flavian Peace. Hadrian came into the purple in (117). The Picts and Scots harassed the British Kings and the Roman province. The Romans built the wall which divided the Island in two and kept the enemy in the wild northern extremes in (122). About this time King Coilus died and Lucius came to the throne of Cornwall. Britain as a whole lived in peace but the Jews arose again in (135) and were subsequently defeated in the eastern regions of the Empire. In (138) Antonius Pius became Emperor and second wall bearing his name was thrown up in Britain against the Scots and Picts in (142). In (145) Tertullian was born while King Lucius rule his kingdom.

At this point Monmouth’s history turns to the story Bede relates in the passage with which we began. Monmouth adds many details about the life and works of King Lucius but finally informs that “he had no heir to succeed him, so that after his death dissension arose between the Britons, and the power of Rome was weakened”[62].

What is seen in this sequence, according to the sources we have examined and compared, is that there was a steady Romanization of the Kings in Lucius’ line and that these influences began with Vespasian himself and further developed under Titus. These influences were of a Flavian nature because of the Flavian allegiance of the II Augusta who were the Romans stationed in their kingdom. The net result of this Flarvianization was that King Lucius requests to be made a Christian under Pope Eleutherus in (156).

There are some problems with Bede’s account which will yield some interesting connections when we try to solve his problems. For a start, the Emperors mentioned by Bede reigned between (161-196). The date Bede gives (156) of King Lucius’ letter is not consistent with the Emperors mentioned. We can trace Bede’s problem with these Emperors to the writings of Eusebius who makes the same mistakes with their names in his work The History of the Church.[63] Pope Eleutherus did not become Pontiff until (175) and reigned until (189). Thus, King Lucius must have lived into his hundreds and made this request very late in his life[64]. However, Monmouth’s history avoids the problem of which Emperor was ruling the Empire by simply not mentioning them. He does mention the name of Pope Eleutherus but not the Emperors. This connection with Pope Eleutherus then is the only clue to the time that King Lucius was converted. What is really different from Bede’s account is that Monmouth says that King Lucius dies in (156)[65].

In the following passage from Hegesippus, via Eusebius’ History of the Church, we can see that Eleutherus was not the Pope in (156) but was the deacon to Pope Anicetus and thus was in a position of power. It thus is possible that any letter the King Lucius may have written to the Pope would have passed through Eleutherus’ hands. Eleutherus may have been given the task of instruction and leading the King through the catechismal process which lead to Baptism. This is an appropriate role for a deacon at this time of the Churches development. Hegesippus writes that;

“On my arrival at Rome I drew up a list of the succession of bishops down to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. To Anicetus succeeded Soter, and after him came Eleutherus. But in the case of every succession, and in every city, the state of affairs is in accordance with the teaching of the Law and of the Prophets and of the Lord.[66]”

From this passage it would seem that the teachings of these Bishops of Rome was in accordance with all Orthodoxy but if we examine all the possible connections to Pope Eluetherus we find that he was not always viewed with such high regard. Eusebius records a letter of introduction written in (177) by Attalus the Martyr to Pope Eleutherus for a priest named Irenaeus (120-202)[67] who was coming to Rome to plead his help in putting down a new out break of Montanus’ teaching in Lyons led by a man named Alcibiades. Montanus had taught his spiritual method in Hierapolis a city of Phrygia and sent out many missionaries in (156) many of whom reached the ends of the Empire very quickly via the sea and the Roman roads[68]. When Irenaeus reached Rome “he had the mortification of finding the Montanist heresy patronised by Eleutherus the Bishop of Rome; and there he met an old friend from the school of Polycarp, who had embraced the Valentinian heresy.[69]” It is suggested that it was because of these encounters that Ireneaus wrote his work Against Heresies when he became Bishop of Lyons.

What we see is the Eusebius, Bede and Monmouth are attempting to cover up a very embarrassing fact Eusebius hid the fact that this Bishop of Rome Eleutherus was a Montanist while Bede and Monmouth, if they knew, hid the fact that the first British King to convert to Christianity was brought to faith by a heretic. It is my opinion that it was in (156), while Anicetus was Pope, that the Christian message, of a Montanist missionary, was first heard of in King Lucius’ court. As his old age came upon him in the reign of Pope Eleutherus King Lucius formally received the faith and died. King Lucius died around (175-80).

The first mention of Christians in Britain dates to within 40 years the events that both Bede and Monmouth record. The first mention of Christians in Britain comes from Tertullian (145-220). Tertullian writes in his work An Answer to the Jews that the Christian message had been carried to many nations.

“For whom have the nations believed,-Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and they who inhabit Mesopotamia, Armenia, Phygia, Cappadocia, and they who well in Pontus, and Asia, and Pamphylia, tarriers in Egypt, and inhabiters of the regions of Africa which is beyond Cyrene, Romans and sojourners, yes, and in Jerusalem Jews, and all other nations; as for instance, by this time, the varied races of the Gaetulians, and manifold confines of the Moors, all the limits of Spain and diverse nations of the Gauls, and the haunts of the Britons-inaccessible to the Romans, but subject to Christ...”[70].

This quotation from Tertullian shows that Christianity had been received in Britain within his life time and gives some creditability to the conclusion of the history I have taken from Monmouth and compared with the earliest sources available. It is also interesting that it was Tertullian who records this since Tertullian at the time he wrote An Answer to the Jews had taken up the Montanist position and may well have reason to include Britain in his list especially if the British Christians he refers to are Montanist like himself. This then would serve then as a two edged sword against the Jews and those who did not agree with the Montanist’s.

Montanism, as a Sect, had several characteristics that would have a lasting impact on the Christian Church in the British Isles. Montanism’s sometimes charismatic use of the Holy Spirit would have appealed to a people familiar and comfortable with the practices Druidic Bards and Priests of their common past. The anti-establishmentarianism of Montanism would have warmed the hearts of a subjugated people without the normal political problems. Its universal celibacy, rigorous fasting and extreme puritanical asceticism that was akin to the forest dwelling Druids of the past would shape the character of the later third and fourth century Celtic saints. The Montanists belief “that Easter should be celebrated on the fourteenth day of the moon in the month of Nisan”[71] would become the foundation of the Celtic Church’s problem with the establishment of the Roman Church until the Synod of Whitby in (664)[72]. The Sect of Montanists as a Sect would die out but these influences would remain part of the Celtic-British Church for the next five hundred years.

However, regardless of what sort of Christianity was received in Britain during the reign of King Lucius. It is clear, from the history I have examined and presented above, that it came and was received first by the Flavianised Kings and peoples of the south west of Britain as Monmouth’s chronological sequence indicates.

The historicity of this paper and the marked contrasts between the Flavian and Julio-Claudian methods of government is not the most interesting aspect of my work but rather the connections it reveals between the rise of the Flavians’, the peace which insured, and the rise of Christianity in this part of the world. The history laid out above seems to indicate such a connection in Britain and may indicate a hidden foundation on which the history of early Christianity in other parts of the Roman Empire was also adapted and established. The list from Tertullian above gives ample examples to test out this Flavian foundation theory on as I have done with Britain in this paper.

Other scholars have worked over this history before and this paper is indebted to their broad works on Roman Britain but I have yet to find one that has looked at this history from the position that has been able to be put forward in this paper. However, this is a small beginning and further study of this material is needed to follow these Flavian influence into those Stories, Legends, Traditions and Histories, such as Geoffrey of Monmouth, Bede, Gildas, Nennius, and Richard of Cirencester that have been dismissed by most scholars. It is my hope that other scholars may join me in further study of this material and that we may be able to trace the Flavian influence deep into what we now call the ‘Dark Ages’ of our Western culture and find that those ‘Ages’ were not as ‘Dark’ as we have previously suspected.

Geoffrey of Monmouth (55 B.C.E.) Julius Caesar invades Britain. Cassivelaunus makes war with Caesar and drives him back into the sea. Caesar regroups in Gaul and invades again. After fighting the make peace. Cassivelaunus pays tribute if Caesar levels Britain. ALL DATES C.E (0-5) Cymbeline becomes King.	Suetonius & Tacitus (55 B.C.E.) Julius Caesar invades Britain. ALL DATES C.E (0-5) Cymbeline in the house of Augustus.
(40) Cymbeline hands rule too eldest sons Arvirargus & Guilderus.	(41) Claudius becomes Emperor. Titus is born. Vespasian goes to Germany.
(43) Guilderus killed in battle at Medway or London fighting Claudius, Arvirargus takes over the kingship & withdraws to Winchester. Claudius besieges Arvirargus & comes to terms. Arvirargus married Genvissa. Claudius & Arvirargus take the Orkneys.	(43) Claudius sends Aulus Plautius & Vespasian into Britain. Claudius in Britain for six weeks back in Rome within six months.
(44) Arvirargus defies Rome from Exeter. Rebuilds fortifications and rearms. Claudius sends Vespasian to make him submit. Marius is born. Vespasian brings peace and good relations between Arvirargus and Rome.	(44) Vespasian & the II Augusta reduce the Isle of Wight & the south west to peace. The II Augusta stationed at Exeter in Cornwall.
(45) Vespasian leaves Britain.	(45-46) Vespasian leaves Britain and returns to Rome. Claudius’ Triumph. Becomes governor of Africa.
	(46-47) Aulus Plautius extends frontiers to the Humber & remains as governor.
	(47-52) Ostorius Scapula becomes Governor. Veteran colony established at Colchester. Caractauc defeated & sent to Rome. Advanced into Wales against the Silures.
	(52) Didius Gallus becomes governor. (54) Claudius dies Nero becomes Emperor. (55)Britannicus assassinated. Titus is fourteen.
(55-59) Marius has a son Coilus.	(57-58) Veraius becomes Governor but dies. (59) Sustonius Paulinus takes his place.
(60-63) Arvirargus dies and Marius becomes king. Relations with Romans in the south west become stronger. Coilus goes to be raised in Rome.	(60-61) Iceni revolt under Boudicca. Titus in Germany.
	(61-63) Titus comes to Britain with reinforcements from Germany. Petronus Turpilianus becomes the new Governor. (64) Terbellius Maximus becomes Governor in Britain
	(65) Titus practices Law in Rome.
	(66) Titus & Vespasian with Nero in Greece sent to Judea to subdue the Jewish revolt. (67) Vettius Bolanus becomes Governor in Britain.
	(69-70) Civil War: Years of the (3) Emperors. Vespasian becomes Emperor with Titus. Titus destroys Jerusalem.
	(71-73) Petillius Cerealis governor in Britain & attacks Brigantes. The II Augusta moved from Exeter to Glochester.
	(74-78) Julius Fontinus governor in Britain defeats Silures and southern Wales. The II Augusta moves to l new legionary Castle at Caerlion on Usk (Isca) in southern Wales.
(78-85) Marius fights the Picts	(78) Gnaeus Julius Agricola becomes governor, destroys Anglesey, reforms the northern legions under Flavian lines and fights his way into Scotland. (79) Vespasian dies. (79-81) Titus becomes Emperor but dies having reigned alone for only (2) years. (81) Domitian becomes Emperor & recalls Agricola.
(85-90) Marius dies and Coilus becomes King. Coilus’ son Lucius is born. Relations with the Romans very, very strong in the south west.
	(96-98) Nerva becomes Emperor.
	(98-117) Hadrian becomes Emperor.
(120) Coilus dies Lucius becomes King. Very friendly relations with the Romans in the south west maintained and cultivated.	(120) Irenaeus is born.
	(122) Hadrian’s wall built. detachment from II Augusta helps build a section of the wall.
	(138) Antonius Pius becomes Emperor and adopts Marius Aurelius and Lucius Aelius Verus.
	(142) Antonies Wall built.
	(145) Tertullian Born.
(150-56) Lucius converts to Christianity and the south west receives the faith. (156) In Monmouth Lucius dies without an heir and relations with the Romans begins to wain. In Bede it is this year that Lucius writes to Pope Eleuthius.	(156) Montanism preached.
	(161) Marius Aurelius becomes Emperor.
(170-180) Lucius dies and relations with the Romans begin to wain.	(175-89) Eleuthius is Pope in Rome. (177) Irenaeus’ visits Rome

Bibliography

Thanks to Carrington’s Classical & Christian Library

for providing the majority of texts listed.

Bede. A History of the English Church and People. Trans. Leo Sherley-Price. Penguin. Eng. 1955.

Bettenson. H. Documents of the Christian Church. Oxford University Press. Oxford. 1963.

Burn. A. R. Agricola and Roman Britain. Collier. New York. 1962.

Caesar. The Conquest of Gaul. Trans. S. A. Handford. Penguin. Eng. 1951.

Christie-Murray. D. A History of Heresy. Oxford University Press. Oxford. 1989.

Cottrell. L. The Great Invasion. Pan. London. 1975.

Coxe. A. Cleveland. Introductory Notes to Irenaeus, Against Heresies. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 1. WM. B. Eerdmans. Grand Rapids. 1979.

Dio Chrysostom. Discourses. Loeb Classical Library. Vol. IV. Harvard University Press. USA. 1986.

Durant. G. M. Britain, Rome’s Most Northerly Province. Readers Union. London. 1970.

Eusebius. The History of the Church. Trans, G. A. Williamson. Penguin. Eng. 1965.

Frontinus. Stratagems. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press. USA. 1986.

Geoffrey of Monmouth. The History of the Kings of Britain. Trans. Lewis Thorpe. Penguin. Eng. 1966.

Gregory of Tours. The History of the Franks. Penguin. England. 1977.

Hegesippus, Fragments from His Five Books of Commentaries on the Acts of the Church. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Trans. Rev. B. P. Pratten. Vol. 8. WM. B. Eerdmans. Grand Rapids. 1979.

Ireland. S. Roman Britain. A Sourcebook. Routledge. 1989.

Josephus. Antiquities. The Works of Josephus. Trans. Whiston. W. Ward, Lock & Co. London. 1907.

Juvenal. The Sixteen Satires. Trans. Peter Green. Penguin. 1967.

Lives of the Later Caesars. Trans. Birley. A. Penguin. 1978.

Luttwak. E. N. The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire. From the First Century A..D. to the Third. John Hopkins University Press. U.S.A. 1976.

Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars. Trans. Robert Graves. Penguin. England. 1957.

Tactius. The Annals of Imperial Rome. Trans M. Grant. Penguin. England. 1956.

Tactius. Agricola. On Britain and Germany. Trans. H. Mattingly. Penguin. Eng. 1948.

Tacitus. The Histories. Trans Kenneth Wellesley. Penguin Books. Eng. 1964.

Tertullian. An Answer to the Jews. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Trans. Rev. S. Thelwall. Vol. 3. W. M. B. Eerdmans. Grand Rapids. 1978.

Todd. M. Roman Britain (55 B.C.-400). Harvester Press. Sussex. 1981.

Webster. G. The British Revolt against Rome 60. Book Club. London. 1978.

[1] Bede. A History of the English Church and People. Trans. Leo Sherley-Price. Penguin. Eng. 1955. p 42.

[3] Geoffrey of Monmouth. The History of the Kings of Britain. IV. 16. Tran. Lewis Thorpe. Penguin. Eng. 1966. p. 122.

[6] This town is in Cornwall at the southern end of the Dartmoor where the Dart river empties into the sea at Dartmouth. These means that Vespasian’ fleet sailed through the Dover strait and through the English Channel and attacked Arvirargus’ seat of power while Arvirargus was at Winchester.

[8] Geoffrey of Monmouth. The History of the Kings of Britain. IV. 16. p. 122.

[10]Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars. IV. XLV. Trans. Robert Graves. Penguin. England. 1957. p. 212.

[11] The extra (1) in this equation needs to be subtracted to account for the extra year in C.E. – A.D. dating. This extra year needs to be accounted for because the span of time between (1 B.C.E.) and (1 C.E.) is (2) years rather than (1) year. Without this adjustment the equation gives the date (55 C.E.) rather than the correct date of (54 C.E.). This adjustment is not necessary when dealing with purely Roman dates but only when reconciling Roman and Christian dates.

[12] Geoffrey of Monmouth. The History of the Kings of Britain. IV. 17. p. 123.

[13] Juvenal. I. IV. 126-127. The Sixteen Satires. Trans. Peter Green. Penguin. 1967. p. 109. Also see Green’s note on Shakespeare’s use of this name. p. 115.

[14] Geoffrey of Monmouth. The History of the Kings of Britain. IV. 11. p. 119.

[15] Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars. IV. XLIV. p. 176.

[16] Tactius. The Annals of Imperial Rome. XII. XXXIII. Trans M. Grant. Penguin. England. 1956. see note on p. 266.

[17] Ireland. S. Roman Britain. A Sourcebook. Routledge. 1989. p. 224.

[18] Tactius. Agricola. XIV. On Britain and Germany. Trans. H. Mattingly. Penguin. Eng. 1948. p. 64.

[19] Durant. G. M. Britain, Rome’s Most Northerly Province. Readers Union. London. 1970. p. 8.

[20] Tactius. The Annals of Imperial Rome. XII. XXXIII. p. 267.

[21] Geoffrey of Monmouth. The History of the Kings of Britain. IV. 12. p. 119.

[22] Suetonius. The Twelve Caesars. V. XVII. p. 196.

[23] Suetonius. The Twelve Caesars. X. IV. p. 280.

[24] Geoffrey of Monmouth. The History of the Kings of Britain. IV. 14. p. 121.

[25] Suetonius. The Twelve Caesars. V. XXVII p. 203.

[27] Todd. M. Roman Britain (55 B.C.-400). Harvester Press. Sussex. 1981. p. 65.

[28] Geoffrey of Monmouth. The History of the Kings of Britain. IV. 14. p. 121.

[30] That rebuilding fortifications was viewed in this way in Claudius’ reign we have the example of Herod Agrippa I. In Josephus’ Antiquities XIX. VII. 2. we read; ”As for the walls of Jerusalem, that were adjoining to the new city [Bezetha], he repaired them at the expense of the public, and built them wider in breadth and higher in altitude; and he had made them too strong for human power to demolish, unless Marcus, then president of Syria, had by letter informed Claudius Caesar of what he was doing. And when Claudius had some suspicion of attempts for innovation, he sent to Agrippa to leave off the building of those walls presently. So he obeyed, as not thinking it proper to contradict Claudius”. The Works of Josephus. Tran. Whiston. W. Ward, Lock & Co. London. 1907. p. 489.

[32] Suetonius. The Twelve Caesars. X. IV. p. 280.

[33] Tacitus. The Histories. III. XLIV. Trans Kenneth Wellesley. Penguin Books. Eng. 1964. p. 171. also see note on S. W. Britain.

[34] Caesar. The Conquest of Gaul. II. IV. Trans. S. A. Handford. Penguin. Eng. 1951. p. 81.

[36] Durant. G. M. Britain, Rome’s Most Northerly Province. p. 8.

[37] Dio Chrysostom. Discourses. XLIX. VIII. Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press. USA. 1986. Vol. IV. p. 301.

[38] These tribes had fled to Britain from Gaul at the time of Julius Caesar. Frontinus. Stratagems. II. XIII. 11.

[39] Caesar. The Conquest of Gaul. I. I. p. 32.

[40] Stamped roof tiles, stamped pigs of lead and tombstones.

[41] Cottrell. L. The Great Invasion. Pan. London. 1975. p. 114 - 127.

[42] Durant. G. M. Britain, Rome’s Most Northerly Province. p. 11.

[43] Ireland. S. Roman Britain. A Sourcebook. p. 80.

[44] Suetonius. The Twelve Caesars. XI. IV. p. 280.

[45] Tactius, The Annals of Imperial Rome, XIII. XXX. p. 299.

[46] Bettenson. H. Documents of the Christian Church. Oxford University Press. Oxford. 1963. p. 1.

[50] Tactius, The Annals of Imperial Rome, XIV. XXX. p. 328.

[51] As a Claudian policy of defiling the royal line. This abuse of the daughters and female relatives at the death Client King can also be seen in the case of Bernice who was one of the three daughter of Agrippa I. When Agrippa I died Bernice at sixteen years along with her ten and six year old sisters were raped by the Roman soldiers stationed at Cesarea and Sebaste. These soldiers which “were great in number went to his house and hastily carried off the Statues of the king’s daughters and all at once carried them into the brothel-houses, and when they had set them on the top of the houses, they abused them to the utmost of their power, and did such things to them as are too indecent to be related”. Josephus. Antiquities. XIX. IX. 1. Whiston’s note to the word ‘statues’ say the Photius believed that it was not statues but the “ladies themselves”. see note on p.489. of The Works of Josephus. Tran. Whiston. W. Ward, Lock & Co. London. 1907. In light of the treatment of Boudicca and her daughters I agree with Whiston and Photius on this point. This sort of abuse is characteristic of the Julio-Claudian method of government which I am comparing to the Flavian method applied in the south west of Britain. It is to be noted that both this note and note (29) above both relate to Kingdoms that suffer from the influences of powerful fanatical nationalistic religious institutions The Jewish High Priesthood and Sects and the Druids these groups were never able to be reconciled with Roman occupation of land that they consider sacred or Roman interference with religious matters. This sort of abuse of royal women may reflect a Julio Claudian method to defiling the sacredness of a throne and the family that sits upon it and thus separate the religious claims on the political power.

[52] Tactius. The Annals of Imperial Rome, XIV. XXX. p. 328.

[53] Webster. G. The British Revolt against Rome 60. Book Club. London. 1978. p. 101.

[54] Suetonius. The Twelve Caesars. X. IV. p. 293.

[55] Tacitus. The Histories. II. XCVIII. p. 140.

[56] Ibid. III. XLIV. p. 171. Wellesley translated the [ other ranks] as N.C.O.s other translations vary and I think this is the most neutral.

[57] Ireland. S. Roman Britain. A Sourcebook. p. 80.

[59] Geoffrey of Monmouth. The History of the Kings of Britain. IV. 17. p. 123.

[63] Eusebius. The History of the Church. V.1. Tran, G. A. Williamson. Penguin. Eng. 1965. Book V. note I. p. 192 & note 2. p. 206. Bede gives two names Marcus Antonius Verus and Aurelius Commodus. The first of these is to be taken as Marcus Aurelius who Co-rules the Empire with Lucius Aelius Verus both of these men were adopted by Antoninus Pius. Thus, Eusebius confuses all these three Imperial names and Bede following repeats the mistake. Commodus also is mentioned by Bede but he is confused and mixes up the full names. Commodus’ full name Lucius Aelius Aurelius Commodus.

[64] That men in Britain could live to this age is evident from a inscription on a soldiers tomb stone it reads; “To the spirits of the departed. Julius Valens, veteran of the II Legion Augusta, lived 100 years...”. Roman Inscriptions of Britain, Vol. 1. Inscriptions in Stone, Collingwood. R. G. & Wright. R. P. Oxford. 1965. p. 363.

[65] Geoffrey of Monmouth. The History of the Kings of Britain. V. I. p.126.

[66] Hegesippus, Fragments from His Five Books of Commentaries on the Acts of the Church. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Trans Rev. B. P. Pratten. Vol. 8. W. M. B. Eerdmans. Grand Rapids. p. 762.

[67] Eusebius, History of the Church. V. 4. p. 206.

[68] Christie-Murray. D. A History of Heresy. Oxford University Press. Oxford. 1989. p. 34.

[69] Coxe. A. Cleveland. Introductory Notes to Irenaeus, Against Heresies. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 1. WM. B. Eerdmans. Grand Rapids. p. 309.

[70] Tertullian. An Answer to the Jews. VII. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Trans Rev. S. Thelwall. Vol. 3. W. M. B. Eerdmans. Grand Rapids. pp. 157-158.

[71] Christie-Murray. D. A History of Heresy. p. 34.

[72] Bede. A History of the English Church and People. III. 25. p. 185.