What's New I Sitemap I Bibliography I Vortigern I Vortigern Studies l Wansdyke I POLLS I LINKS l Sitemaster I FAQs
|Vortigern Studies > Vortigern > The Sources > Historia Brittonum|
Vortigern Studies Index
The Historia Brittonum is the single most important source for Vortigern. It describes for the first time the full background of the invitation to the Saxons, at least as it was perceived at the time of writing, in the 9th century. As a result of e new interest in British history, the questions as to the how and why of the current English domination led to a new interest in Vortigern at the same time. However, most of what we get to see is purely legendary.
Manuscripts and date
It has become clear that all MSS of the Historia Brittonum are different enough from each other, as well as from the later Welsh Bruts and the Historia Regum Britanniae of Geoffrey of Monmouth, to be seen as very late but original version of an independent Welsh tradition. Unfortunately, all of these MSS might have been cross-referenced in later medieval copying, to an extent which has to make us very careful in determining their true value. What we may conclude is that the Historia Brittonum may reflect an authentic (but very insecure) Welsh traditional history, which might even possibly date back to the 5th century as far as Vortigern is concerned.
Mommsen chose 11 manuscripts as worthy of prime consideration, in 5 groups:
P and Q are abbreviated copies, which ascribe the Historia Brittonum to Gildas. There are also several Irish versions, known as the Lebor Bretnach, which contain 3 main versions in 5 manuscripts.
The problem with this text is than we can't establish whether this particular MS is the most authentic version, due to the intermingling with later Welsh tradition and Geoffrey of Monmouths Historia Regum Britanniae. The form of the Historia Brittonum itself is not early, so we should expect other sources to have influenced the text when it was reproduced. Especially chapters 1-30 differ widely in the known versions of the Historia Brittonum, which is exactly what we would find if we have such influence in mind. It has now become clear that the Welsh Bruts (and other more obscure MSS) form an independent tradition of Welsh history. These MSS often resemble each other the Historia Brittonum and the Historia Regum Britanniae of Geoffrey of Monmouth, which has in the past been the main reason to discard them as flawed versions of the Historia Brittonum, which as we have seen was not held in high esteem to begin with.
Chartres MS 98
MS CCCC 139
Another descendant from MS CCCC 139 is Cambridge University Library MS Ff. I. 27(1), which was probably written in the early 13th century, and which was in turn copied to St.Johns College, Oxford, MS 99. MS CCCC 139 however is the archetype of all.
This MS has been added to by many scribes, information which was added for perhaps half a century after 1200. Most of this does not concern us, but there are late but unique references to Germanus and Vortimer, Vortimers Grave, Old Carlisle, the origin of Gwrtheyrion, Craig Gwrtheyrn and Germanus and Benlli.
The editor known as Nennius (below) made some additions of his own, possibly between AD 796 and 801. Nennius is later known as a writer around 820. The preface, which occurs only in Group C and the Irish versions, contain evidence to date the Historia Brittonum:
All MSS except Group Z and the Irish versions, have written in chapter 16:
This reference to King Mervyn Vrych of Gwynedd might lastly suggest that the text was brought up to date in AD 829 or 830, for it does appear in the Chartres text and not the Harleian version. Bishop Elvodug (Elffodw), of whom Nennius claimed to have been a follower, lived 768 and died 809, so that it is very much possible that Nennius was alive in 830. Ecgfrith, King of Mercia, is the last person mentioned to whom a date can be assigned (796), while most MSS of the Historia Brittonum are derived from a text which mentions Fernmail, ruler of Built and Gwrtheyrnion who traced his pedigree from Vortigern. Fernmail seems to have flourished around 800 as well.
Other recensions indicate later dates:
Who was the real author of the Historia Brittonum? As we have discussed above, the preface that contains the actual name of Nennius is only to be found in in later version of the MS. The earliest two, the Harleian 3859h and the Chartres M98, neither have the preface or any reference to the name of the author. It is only MS CCCC 139 and its derivates (MS CCCC 139, fo. 168v), that provides the famous prologue, starting with: Ego Ninnius, Eluodugi disciples (I, Ninnius, disciple of Elffodwg). Two other hands have added Nennio (abl.) and Nemnii (gen.), but Ninnius must be considered the authentic form. But how authentic is it? The rest of the preface consists of later collations from Harleian MSS and a Gildasian recension.
To confuse the matter, other names crop up as well. The prologue also refers to a certain Beulan and his magister, who is referred to elsewhere in CCCC 139, together with a certain Samuel. The scribe calls himself Euben. And the Vatican recension claims as author a certain anchorite called Marcus! Who were these people? Are they the names of later scribes, or is any of these the real author of the Historia Brittonum?
But how can we be sure that the prologue was really written by this Ninnius? After all, the attribution could have been a mere guess, made by later editors and pinned on this famous person, as it was done with Gildas, who was also made into the author of the Historia Brittonum. Or, it could have been completely false and a forgery. And lastly, the prologue could really have been written by a Ninnius, but one that lived in the 1oth or 11th century.
Of course, the prologue itself may be a forgery, but there are several Old Welsh names that point to an early origin. How is the "Nennian" authorship affected by all that? Dumville believed that the name of Ninnius was no older than c. 1100, when a new edition was made under the direction of Beulan, by the scribe Euben, in praise of Samuel, and ascribed to Ninnius. However, it is the last part I cannot agree with. If there was no known author, what made the editors so sure that they would ascribe it to this famous Welsh scholar? Surely, there would have been other candidates, such as the more famous Elfoddw? I think it therefore much more acceptable to agree that the name of Ninnius or 'Nennius', was already known to them as author of the text. But to be completely correct, I am using the name of 'Nennius'.
Who was 'Nennius'?
Above all, Nennius was a Welshman, and probably the very first to attempt writing a synthetic history of his native race, drawn from all possible sources he could lay his hands on. Though often described (because of the infamous prologue) as dim-witted or muddle-headed, he clearly did not make a heap of all he could find, but carefully constructed a narrative history, attempting to synchronise all the composite material where he could. That he often failed only proves that his professionalism was not of such a high level as we (and no doubt he) would have liked it to be. He made mistakes with dating schemes, he interchanged people with similar names but from different periods, and he would have needed help with genealogical material.
He may have been lacking in skills, but the glimpse he provides on early British history (no matter how legendary or folkloristic) is the earliest we get, and therefore absolutely unique. Nennius is nonetheless our earliest coherent and datable witness to the development of Welsh literature an d historiography, which makes the value of his work to the historians of both oral and written literature immense.
The Historia Brittonum may be briefly analysed as follows:
The sources for the late 4th to the 7th century are considered almost all either made up from legendary material, regnal lists, genealogies, catalogue poems, hagiographical or folkloristic. All these show the signs of mediaeval scholarship: origin-legend, systematic pedigrees, battle-catalogues, hagiography and synchronisation. In short, we can only use them with extreme caution and under constant doubt. Nevertheless, to disregard this material just for that reason alone means taking an easy way out and not doing the text enough justice. I have gone further into such minimalism in my article about discussing history.
Sources for the Historia Brittonum were the chronicles of Prosper of Aquitane and Isidore of Seville, the Eusebius-Jerome Chronicle, the Cursus Paschalis of Victorius of Aquitaine, Gildas De excidio et conquestu Brittanniae, at least Bedes Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum, a legendary account of St. Patrick, a Welsh vernacular poem on Arthur, a (lost) Liber Beati Germani, the Northumbrian regnal list and some English material concerning Hengist and Vortigern.
The Historia Brittonum is therefore a highly composite work, and very divergent views have been and are still held as to its historicity and its value. Though much work has been done on the history of the Historia Brittonum itself, as a source it almost invariably falls short of sources like Gildas and Bede in the minds of modern critics. The chief consideration is as follows:
These opinions are held by the authors we owe a large debt for their admirable work on critical editions of the Historia Brittonum, namely Ferdinand Lot and more recently David Dumville. I regret that I cannot accept their views on the value of the Historia Brittonum in any respect, because in my view (and that of others) these are largely based on an overvaluation of Bede and his use of Gildas.
Even though the material for the 5-6th centuries cannot be relied on without great caution, the Historia Brittonum is the only sources which give us anything at all. The material for the 7th century is less shaky, and can be corrected because of the English material. It is the 8-9th centuries that the Historia Brittonum provides the most value, as a source for the general cultural history of the time. Cultural connections with Ireland and England were slowly strengthening by that time, where none had been before the Easter-controversy was resolved in the later 8th century. Nennius wrote during the early 9th century, a period of English cultural dominance while the Welsh raided the English. However, Welsh learning at the time led to a cultural superiority that strangely enough matched the political domination by Wessex during the late 9th century. The Historia Brittonum (or rather a Welsh revision) was just then transmitted back to England, where a revival of learning was just under way. The rewriting of that revision led to the Vatican recension, which provided material to English literature, making the circle complete.
VortigernStudies is copyright © Robert Vermaat 1999-2010. All rights reserved