The History of the Britons () is a purported history of early Britain written around 829-30 that survives in numerous recensions from after the 11th century. The Historia Brittonum is commonly attributed to Nennius, as some recensions have a preface written in that name. Some experts have dismissed the Nennian preface as a late forgery and argued that the work was actually an anonymous compilation.
Publication history
Manuscripts At least five manuscripts preserve the Historia, with the Harleian being the most complete. The Chartres manuscript was the oldest until it was largely destroyed during the accidental bombing of the library in 1944, although its contents had been transcribed previously and still survive. +Manuscripts of the Historia BrittonumSiglumLibraryShelfmarkDate (century)FateSourceZChartres Municipal Library98Destroyed during the May 1944 Bombing of Chartres Municipal Library MVaticanReg. Lat. 196411thHBritish LibraryHarleian MS 3859CCorpus Christi Library1391164PBritish LibraryCotton Caligula A VIII12th
Overview The Historia Brittonum describes the supposed settlement of Britain by Trojan settlers and says that Britain was named for Brutus, a descendant of Aeneas. It was the "single most important source used by Geoffrey of Monmouth in his pseudohistorical Historia Regum Britanniae" and, through the enormous popularity of this latter work, the Historia Brittonum version of Britain's early history, including the Trojan origin tradition, was incorporated into subsequent chronicles of the long-running history of the land, such as the Middle English Brut of England, also known as The Chronicles of England.
The Historia Brittonum can be dated to about 829. The work was written no earlier than the "fourth year of [the reign of] king Mermenus" (who has been identified as Merfyn Frych ap Gwriad, king of Gwynedd). Historians have conservatively assigned 829 to the earliest date for the work, which is consistent with the statement in chapter 4 that "from the Passion of Christ 796 years have passed. But from his Incarnation are 831 years"., p. 926.Higham, King Arthur: Myth Making and History (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 2002), p. 118.
The 19th-century classicist Theodor Mommsen divided the work into seven parts:
The work was the first source to portray King Arthur, who is described as a dux bellorum ('military leader') or miles ('warrior, soldier') and not as a king. It names the twelve battles that Arthur fought, but, unlike the Annales Cambriae, does not give any actual dates.
The reference in the Historia Brittonum to Arthur carrying the image of St. Mary on his shoulders in a battle has been interpreted by later commentators as a mistranslation of Arthur bearing the image of Mary on his shield; the words in Welsh are very similar. points out this conflation of "shield" (, Middle Welsh: scuit) and shoulder (), citing J. William's edition of the Annales Cambriae, (1860), p.xxiv; and Skene, Four Ancient Books(1868), I, 55.
The text makes use of two narrative techniques that are generally considered not reliable by modern academic standards: synthesizing and synchronizing history. Synthetic history combines legendary elements with fact, which makes the veracity of the text challenging to evaluate. Various specious causal connections and attempts to synchronize material from different sources and traditions also contribute to undermining the reliability of the chronicle.
Authorship, recensions and editions The question of the nature of the text of the Historia Brittonum is one that has caused intense debate over the centuries. Some scholars have taken the position that treating the text as anonymously written would be the best approach as theories attributing authorship to Nennius have since been disputed by subsequent scholars.N.J. Higham, 'Early Latin Sources', in Helen Fulton ed, Blackwell Companion to Arthurian Literature, (Oxford 2009) p. 31
Classical debate Repudiating the so-called vindication of Nennius in 1890 by the Celtic scholar Heinrich Zimmer, Mommsen returned to the earlier view of a ninth-century Nennius merely building on a seventh-century original, which he dated to around 680.G. O Sayles, The Medieval Foundations of England (London 1966) p. 4 The historian Ferdinand Lot swiftly challenged Mommsen; but it was not until 1925 that the Anglo-Saxon scholar Felix Liebermann offered a major reconstruction of the Mommsen view, arguing that Nennius in fact first put the whole work into shape in the ninth century. Re-analysing the eleven manuscript variants of Mommsen, he produced a two-stemma analysis of their hypothetical descent, noting however that "Only one branch, viz. C2d2 of the second stem, preserves Nennius's name." His overall conclusion (based on uniform particularities of style) was that "The whole work...belongs to Nennius alone", but this did not prevent him from recognising that "we must lower Nennius's rank as a historian...[but] praise his patriotic heart."
Recent re-assessments The Nennius question was re-opened in the 1970s by the historian David Dumville, who revisited the stemmatics of the various recensions and published the Vatican version.Dumvillle, David, "'Nennius' and the Historia Brittonum", Studia Celtica 10/11 (Cardiff, 1975/6), 78-95 Dumville called the Nennian preface (Prefatio Nennii) a late forgery, and believes that the work underwent several anonymous revisions before reaching the forms that now survive in the various families of manuscripts. Dumville's view is largely accepted by current scholarship, though not without dissent. "Although Dumville's case has been widely accepted, ..Field has since argued.." Peter Field in particular has argued for the authenticity of the preface, suggesting that it was left out of many recensions because it was seen as derogatory to British scholarship. However, Field believes Liebermann's earlier argument for Nennius's authorship still bears consideration.Norris Lacy, The Fortunes of Arthur (2005) p. 2
Compiler's approach Various introductory notes to this work invoke Nennius's (or the anonymous compiler's) words from the Prefatio that "I heaped together (coacervavi) all I could find" from various sources, not only concrete works in writing but "our ancient traditions" (i.e. oral sources) as well.G. Ashe's entry under "Nennius", (Reprint 1987), Arth. Ency., p. 404: "..and matter that was probably oral rather than written that they seldom inspired much trust." This is quoted from the Apologia version of the preface. as variant preface in C2D2GL; "Ego autem coacervavi omne quod inveni tam de annalibus Romanorum..", English tr. in II, p. 384, "But I have got together all that I could find as well from the annals of the Romans." Giles's translation rendered this as "I put together", obscuring the fact that this is indeed a quote from the work and not from some commentator (See Morris's more recent translation as given in wikiquote: Historia Brittonum). Leslie Alcock was not the first to draw attention to the phrase though he may have started the recent spate of interest."like a cairn of stones, uneven and ill-fitting… as an example of the historian's art it is atrocious. But it has the virtue of its defects. We can see the individual stones of the cairn, and in some cases we can trace the parent rock from which they came, and establish its age and soundness" .
Arthuriana The Historia Brittonum has drawn attention because of its role in influencing the legends and myths surrounding King Arthur. It is the earliest source that presents Arthur as a historical figure, and is the source of several stories which were repeated and amplified by later authors.
Vortigern and Ambrosius The Historia contains a story of the king Vortigern, who allowed the Saxons to settle in the island of Britain in return for the hand of Hengist's daughter. One legend about Vortigern says he tried to build a stronghold near Snowdon called Dinas Emrys, only to have his building materials disappear every time he tried. His advisers told him to sprinkle the blood of a fatherless boy on the site to lift the curse. Vortigern found such a youth in Ambrosius, who rebuked the wise men and revealed that the disturbance was caused by two dragons buried underground.
The tower story is repeated and embellished by Geoffrey of Monmouth in his Historia Regum Britanniae, though he attributes it to Merlin, saying "Ambrosius" is the sage's alternative name. Geoffrey includes Aurelius Ambrosius, another figure mentioned in the Historia, as a king in his own right, and also includes other characters such as Vortimer and Bishop Germanus of Auxerre.
Arthur's battles Chapter 56 discusses twelve battles fought and won by Arthur, here called dux bellorum (war leader) rather than king:
Many of these battle sites are obscure and cannot be identified with any certitude. Some appear in other Welsh literature, though not necessarily explicitly connected to Arthur. Some scholars have proposed that the author incorporated the list from a now-lost Old Welsh poem, based on the fact that some of the names appear to rhyme. Others argue that the author included battles not previously associated with Arthur, and perhaps even made them up entirely. The odd description of Arthur bearing the image of the Virgin Mary on his shoulders at Guinnion might stem from a conflation of the Welsh word (shield) with (shoulders).
A similar story to that attached to Guinnion also appears in the Annales Cambriae; here, Arthur is described as carrying "the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ on his shoulders for three days and three nights…", though here the battle is said to be Badon rather than Guinnion. T. M. Charles-Edwards argues that these accounts both refer to a single source. Other scholars, however, such as Thomas Jones and N. J. Higham, argue that the Annales account is based directly on the Historia, suggesting the name of the battle was switched from the unknown Guinnion to the famous Badon, and that the icon Arthur carries was replaced with a more common one.
The Battle of Mount Badon is associated with Arthur in several later texts, but not in any that predate the Historia. It was clearly a historical battle described by Gildas, who does not mention the name of the Britons' leader. He does however mention Aurelius Ambrosius as a great scourge of the Saxons immediately prior. Of the other battles, only the Battle of Tribruit is generally agreed to be associated with Arthur in another early Welsh source. Tribruit appears as Tryfrwyd in the Old Welsh poem Pa Gur?, dating to perhaps the mid-ninth century. This poem follows the story of a battle against , or dogheads, whom Arthur's men fought in the mountains of Eidyn (Edinburgh); in the Tryfrwyd battle they spar with a character named Garwlwyd (Rough-Gray), who is likely the Gwrgi Garwlwyd (Man-Dog Rough-Grey) who appears in one of the Welsh Triads.For the discussion of Gwrgi Garwlwyd as a werewolf, see . Arthur's main protagonist in the fight is Bedwyr, later known as Sir Bedivere, and the poem also mentions the euhemerized god Manawydan. "The City of the Legion" may be a reference to Caerleon, whose name translates as such, but it might also refer to Chester, the site of a large Roman base.Ashe, Geoffrey (1991). "Annales Cambriae." In Lacy, Norris J. (Ed.), The New Arthurian Encyclopedia, p. 65. New York: Garland. .