Historia Brittonum should not be confused with Historia Regum Britanniae.
The History of the Britons (Latin: '''Historia Brittonum''') is a purported history of early Britain written around 828 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.
The Historia Brittonum describes the supposed settlement of Britain by Trojan settlers and says that Britain was named for Brutus, a descendant of Aeneas. The "single most important source used by Geoffrey of Monmouth in his pseudohistorical Historia Regum Britanniae" and through the enormous popularity of the latter work, this version of the early history of Britain, 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 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.[1]
The 19th-century classicist Theodor Mommsen divided the work into seven parts: Preface (Prefatio Nennii Britonum); I. The Six Ages of the World (de sex aetatibus mundi) (§1-6); II. History of the Britons (historia Brittonum) (§7-49); III. Life of Patrick (vita Patricii) (§50-55); IV. Arthuriana (§ 56); V. Genealogies (regum genealogiae cum computo) (§c. 57–66); VI. Cities of Britain (civitates Britanniae) (§66a); VII. Wonders of Britain (de mirabilibus Britanniae) (§67—76).
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 828 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".[2] [3] [4]
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.[5]
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.[6]
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,[7] which he dated to around 680.[8] The historian Ferdinand Lot swiftly challenged Mommsen;[9] 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.[8] 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”.[10] 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.[11]
The Nennius question was re-opened in the 1970s[12] by Professor David Dumville. Dumville revisited the stemmatics of the various recensions and published the Vatican version. 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.[13] Dumville's view is largely accepted by current scholarship, though not without dissent.[14] 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.[15]
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)[16] as well. This is quoted from the Apologia version of the preface.[17] 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.[18]
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.
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.[19] 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.[20]
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.
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,[21] 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 Welsh: iscuit (shield) with iscuid (shoulders). Others reject this as untenable, arguing that the author included battles not previously associated with Arthur, perhaps even made them up entirely.
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 cinbin, 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.[22] 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.[23]
Cat Coit Celidon is probably a reference to the Caledonian Forest (Coed Celyddon) which once covered the Southern Uplands of Scotland. Scholar Marged Haycock has suggested that this battle can be identified with the Cad Goddeu, the "Battle of the Trees", best known from the tenth-century poem Cad Goddeu. Arthur is mentioned towards the end of this poem, and a fragment of a story about the battle preserved in manuscript Peniarth 98B states that the battle had an alternate name, Cad Achren, which suggests a connection with the Caer Ochren raided by Arthur in the earlier poem Preiddeu Annwfn.
Various writers have asserted that this chapter supports a historical basis for King Arthur and have tried to identify the twelve battles with historical feuds or locales (see Sites and places associated with Arthurian legend). On the other hand, Caitlin Green argues that the only identifiable battles linked explicitly with Arthur in Old Welsh sources are mythological, undermining any claims that the battles had a basis in history.
Attached to the Historia is a section called De mirabilibus Britanniae (or simply Mirabilia for short, a Latin word meaning 'marvels, miracles'). It gives a list of 13 topographical marvels, or wonders of Britain,[24] followed by a few marvels of Anglesey (Menand insulae or Mona) and of Ireland.[25] The Mirabilia section is thought to not be part of the original work, but to have been composed shortly after (early 9th cent.).
Two of the marvels are Arthurian lore (Chapter 73 of the Historia). Old editions give "Troynt" as the name of the great boar and "Anir" as the name of Arthur's tragic son in the Harleian manuscript, but Fletcher suggested the variant readings "Troit" and "Amr" be preferred[26] since they are closer to the Welsh forms of those names. The first concerns Arthur's dog, Cabal (Cavall in Welsh) and the footprint it left while chasing the boar Troynt (→Troit) Twrch Trwyth: The second concerns Arthur's son Anir or Amr (Amhar in Welsh) and his sepulchre:
Chapters relating events in the life of Saint Germanus of Auxerre claim to be excerpts from a (now lost) biography of the saint. The document includes a collection of traditions about Saint Patrick, as well as a section describing events in the North of England in the sixth and seventh centuries, starting with a paragraph about the beginnings of Welsh literature[27]
A number of works that are frequently associated with the Historia Brittonum, in part because some of them first appear with the Harleian manuscript, and partly because when the Historia Britonum is studied, these sources are eventually mentioned.