It is notable that of the eleven manuscripts, which Mommsen distinguished as worthy of prime consideration for the study of the history of the Britons, all except the Chartres fragment contain in some form the following passage:

A primo anno quo Saxones uenerunt in Britanniam usque ad annum quartum Mermini regis supputantur anni CCCCXXVIIII. (From the first year in which the Saxons came into Britain up to the fourth year of King Merfyn are reckoned 429 years.)

For reasons given later the fourth year of King Merfyn seems to have been A.D. 830, so that Nenniusâs book, if indeed it first appeared before 820 and as early as 796 or 801, was again issued in 830. As a disciple of Elfoddw, who died in 809, Nennius may well have survived till 830 and been responsible for this hypothetical re-issue. Other editions (10) appared later (for 11 the work attained popularity) with a variety of changes in different hands.

The eleven manuscripts, selected by Mommsen, may now be arranged as follows with the capital letters used by him to denominate them:

Z = Chartres 98 (c. 900).

M = Vatican Reg. 1964 (11th cent.); N = Paris 11108 (12th cent.).

H = B.M. Harleian 3859 (11th cent.); K = B.M. Cott. Vesp. Dxxi (12th cent.).

C = Camb. Corp. Christi 139 (12th cent.); D = Durham B11 (12th cent.). L = Camb. Univ. Lib. Ff. I, 27 (13th cent.); G = London Burney 310 (A.D. 1381).

P = B.M. Cott. Caligula A VIII (12th cent.); Q = B.M. Cott. Nero VIII (13th cent.).

To revert to the Chartres fragment, not only was this badly transcribed, but it is evident that the book, from which it was copied, was itself barely more than a selection. It contained abbreviated passages, transpositions, corrections, alterations, substitutions, and even independent additions. It also omitted whole sections. The writer clearly had some particular interest in view other than the main theme of the book. It was not so much the history of the Britons which concerned him as the doings of St. Germanus amongst them. And this appeared from the headline, namely Exberta Run filii Urbagen de libro St. Germani inuenta, ãExcerpts of Rhun son of Urien found in the Book of St. Germanus.ä

Now towards the end of the ninth century Heiric of Auxerre met at Soissons a bishop, named Marcus, who was a Briton, educated in Ireland, and who in 12 his old age had retired to the continent to become a recluse in the monastery of SS. Medard and Sebastian. From this venerable man Heiric gleaned some information as to St. Germanusâs doings in Britain, which he afterwards (c. 876) inserted in his Miracula Germani, stating that Marcus assured him they were to be found in Britain preserved in writing. This report could not but have started inquiries as to the writing in question. Our scribe or another seems to have procured a copy of the History (as presumably it was in 801) with the information that the excerpts from the Book of St. Germanus had been made by Rhun son of Urien (who figures in §§ 57, 63, and is there made to have been an adult in A.D. 627). He seems to have failed to detach the excerpts made by Rhun, which are four in number and interwoven with the story of Hors and Hengist and with the wonder-tale of Ambrosiusâs fortress in the Snowdonian mountains, and to have treated the composite matter from § 31 as all by Rhun; hence the above quoted heading.

From some similar abbreviated copy of the History, written c. 945, which omitted the Preface, is derived the Vatican exemplar, denominated M, which actually attributes the work to the above-mentioned Bishop Marcus. Other abbreviated copies, such as P and Q, transcribed after the appearance of Geoffrey of Monmouthâs Historia Regum Britanniæ in 1136, ascribe the work to St. Gildas as Geoffrey himself seems to do, (11) who at least does not name Nennius.(12)

The contents of the History of the Britons may be tabulated as follows, which appear in some form in all the eleven manuscripts and also the Irish translation except where otherwise stated. (Z breaks off in the middle of § 37):

1. The Preface Not in HKMNPQZ.

2. The Six ages of the World (1-6) Not in KN or Irish.

3. Of Britain, etc., inhabitants, in-
vaders, etc. (7-49)

4. St. Patrick (50-55) Not in N.

5. Arthur (56)

6. Anglian Genealogies, etc. (57-65) In HK only (with § 66).

7. The Cities of
Britain (66 bis)

8. The Marvels of
Britain, etc. (67-76) Not in MN.

It will be observed that only in one manuscript does the whole of Nenniusâs book appear (and even in this without the Preface), that is in H, the Harleian MS. 3859 in the British Museum, which was at one time in the possession of Ovidius Montalbensis (1601-1671), professor of Mathematics, Physics and Moral Philosophy at the University of Bologna, and was bought for the Harleian Library on January 5, 1729. Its previous history is unknown. As it contains two lengthy and valuable interpolations, namely, (a) the Annals of the Britons, and (b) Welsh Genealogies of the time of Hywel Dda (d. 950), one can hardly doubt that it is a copy (made about 1100) of a mother manuscript compiled in the mid-tenth century.

As all the manuscripts (except Z) contain the passage (in § 16) which refers to ãthe fourth year of King Merfyn,ä i.e. 830, and as these ten also (with the Irish translation as well) contain § 25, wherein Cair Segeint in Arfon is provided with an English alias, viz. Mirmanton, i.e. Merfynâs town, it is clear they derive in the main from a copy written in Merfynâs time.

Merfyn, King of Gwynedd (Pedigree 1), known as Merfyn Ffrych, ãthe Freckled,ä was on the side of his mother, Etthil, the grandson of Cynan Tindaethwy (d. 816) of the line of Maelgwn Gwynedd, great-grandson of Cunedda Wledig. Notwithstanding the mastery of Anglesey and Gwynedd attained by individuals of this line, it is doubtful whether its claim to such wide sovereignty had ever remained unchallenged.

On the side of his father, (13) Gwriad ab Elidyr ap Sanddef, he was the great-grandson of Celenion, (14) daughter of Tudwal, King of the Isle of Man (Pedigree 4), of the line of Antonius, son of Maximus, the Roman emperor (d. 388). Hence his description as Merfyn Frych o Dir Manaw (15) ÷ ãMerfyn the Freckled from Manxland.ä It is probable that his descent from Maximus, who was associated with Segontium in Arfon, the above-mentioned Cair Segeint, now also styled ãMerfynâs town,ä would make him more acceptable in Arfon and those other parts of Gwynedd and Anglesey which had not hitherto permanently succumbed to the rule of princes of the stock of Cunedda Wledig.

On the paternal side, too, he was descended from Llywarch Hen, (16) the famous hero of the poetry which goes by his name and which dates from about Merfynâs 15 time. (17) He was, therefore, of the line of Coel, King of Kyle (in modern Ayrshire).

All this indicates the nature of his claim to supremacy in North-West Wales. That his son, Rhodri the Great, was remembered as ãRrodri vab Kamwriä (18) is explained by Phillimore (19) as proving that Merfyn was regarded by some as an oppressor; on the other hand the word ãKamwriä here may mean ãvalour.ä (20)

His grandfather, Cynan, had to contest for Anglesey with Hywel, who is made in ãBrut y Tywysogionä to have been his brother, but not so in ãthe Annals of the Britons,ä a much earlier and better authority. Hywel was probably the son of Caradog of the line of the Kings of Rhos (Pedigree 3). This Caradog is called King of Gwynedd, who was killed by the English in 798. Fifteen years later Hywel attacks Cynan to recover the supremacy exercised by his father and defeats him. Next year he proceeds further, winning Anglesey and driving Cynan out, but two years later Hywel in his turn is driven from the island, and then Cynan dies. In 817 occurs the Action of Llanfaes (doubtless in Anglesey), but no particulars are given. In the meantime the English invade Rhufoniog and Snowdonia. They also waste Dyfed in the south. In 822 they destroy Degannwy and bring Powys under control. In 825 Hywel dies. Then apparently Merfyn the Manxman comes to prominence, whether as oppressor or restorer or both. By 827 he is King of Gwynned, being acclaimed as such in 830, the fourth year of his reign, in Nenniusâs History of the Britons, wherein, too, Cair Segeint in Arfon is said to be also known as ãMerfynâs town.ä

That same year, 830 (ante-dated 828 by error in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle), Egbert of Wessex is said to have entered Wales and forced the Welsh to obedient 16 subjection. This can hardly mean more than his recognition of Merfyn as King of Gwynned and other changes which had occurred in Wales.

Merfyn strengthened his position by marrying Nest, (21) sister of Cyngen, King of Powys (Pedigree 27), who erected the famous cross in the Vale of Llangollen. When he died at Rome in 854, the rule of Powys passed to his nephew, Rhodri the Great, who was Merfynâs son.

It would in fact seem as though the advent of Merfyn the Manxman inaugurated a new forceful period in the history of Wales, extending to the days of Hywel Dda (d. 950) and Morgan Hen (d. 974). In Ireland his court was known as a rendezvous of learned men and an Irish writer is much concerned lest some of his brethren ãmight be made to blush in the presence of Merfyn, the glorious King of the Britons.ä (22)

Nennius skilfully arranged his ãexcerptsä according to plan, that is to conform with the scheme of ãthe Story of the Loss of Britain,ä which he takes as his basis, from which he often quotes short passages, and which he closely follows throughout, although (as countless others have done) he frequently misunderstands it, overlooking or ignoring its chronological sequences and missing some of its salient points. In short it may be said that Nenniusâs History of the Britons is a commentary on the ãStory of the Loss of Britain.ä They both begin with the time that Britain was first inhabited, and the last great event recorded by both is a decisive battle, wherein the English met with disaster.

It is, therefore, essential for the purposes of this book to provide for reference a fresh and close translation of the de excidio Britanniæ, the Story of the Loss of Britain, divided, in accordance with the 17 authorâs own plan, into its original twenty-six sections. As will be seen, these sections on their own evidence were written 193 years after a supposed first arrival of the English in Britain, which last event occurred some considerable interval after the Third Consulship of Aëtius in A.D. 446. By the first coming of the English he meant the landing of the Jutes in Hampshire in A.D. 514, from which time there was warfare between the English and Welsh for 150 years, terminating with the Battle of the Badonic Hill in A.D. 665. This is the last great event mentioned in the Story of the Loss of Britain.

Nennius, however, had been persuaded that the Battle of Badon was the last of Arthurâs victories nearly two centuries before. So for the Welsh victory at Badon in 665 he gives the crowning victory of the Picts over the Northumbrians at Llyn Garan of Nechtansmere on May 20, 685.

It is relevant at this point to refer to what has long proved the crux of Geoffrey of Monmouthâs famous romance, entitled the History of the Kings of Britain. He tells us (i, 1, xii, 18) of ãa very ancient book in the British tongueä given to him by Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford (from 1111 to 1151), which this same Walter had brought out of Britannia, i.e. Wales, (23) and which contained the history of the Britons from Brutus, their first king, down to Cadwaladr son of Cadwallon. This ancient British book could hardly have been other than a Welsh version of Nennius or of material used by Nennius. But whatever it was (and I see no reason to doubt Geoffreyâs credibility on the matter), the point here is that it began like Nennius and the Story of the Loss of Britain with the time that Britain was first inhabited, and ended with the death of Cadwaladr son of Cadwallon. In other words, it ended with an event which synchronized with the 18 Battle of the Badonic Hill in 665, for Cadwaladr died in the great plague which raged from Britain to Ireland in 664-5 (Bede, iii, 27, Nennius, § 64).

§§ 1-18.  OF BRITAIN AND ITS INHABITANTS.

After a short Preface, with preliminaries on the Ages of the World, Nennius begins like the Loss with the geography of Britain, which (he says) was formerly inhabited throughout by the Britons or Welsh. Like the Loss, too, he starts from the time that Britain wass first occupied, which gives him the opportunity to tell the story of the Trojan origin of the Welsh in the Third Age of the World, when Eli judged Israel and the Ark of the Covenant was taken.

Eight centuries later the Picts arrived in the Orkney Islands, but it was in subsequent times that they invaded Britain, drove the Welsh out of the country beyond Forth and Clyde, and occupied Pictland.

Later the Scots arrived in Ireland (this was in the Fourth Age of the World) and held it throughout. From Ireland they entered Britain and took Dalrieta, i.e. Argyll, also the Isle of Man, also Dyfed, Gower, and Cedweli (in South-West Wales), but they were expelled from all Welsh districts by Cunedda and his sons.

Learned Irishmen gave another account of the Irish occupation of Ireland and Dalrieta, which occurred when Brutus was consul in Rome, from whom consuls began to be.

Nennius, misunderstanding the Loss, says of the Picts and Scots that they used to combine forces to attack Britain, which they did incessantly, the Picts from the north and the Scots from the west, because the Britons were unarmed.

Then after a long interval of time the Romans became masters of the world, after whose rule in Britain the Saxons at Vortigernâs invitation entered Britain. This happened some four centuries before ãthe fourth year of King Merfyn,ä which appears to be A.D. 830.

Having discovered another account of Brutus from 19 ãold books of our ancestorsä and of the peopling of Europe by descendants of Japheth son of Noah, he adds this excerpt to the rest.

§§ 19-30.  THE ROMANS IN BRITAIN.

Nennius is now hard put to in an attempt to weld the story of Roman Britain as told in the Loss with an old British list of seven Roman emperors who had stood on British soil. According to the Loss it was after the Parthian peace of 20 B.C. that Roman armies first arrived in Britain. They came four times in all, twice at the Roman conquest to conquer, and twice after the Revolt of Maximus to repel the Picts and Scots, when the Stone Wall from sea to sea was built. Each of these four Roman armies returned to Rome immediately after accomplishing its task. The first time they left rulers behind, whom the Britons promptly slew, and the second time they left taskmasters with whips. For the author had no conception of a Roman military occupation of Britain extending over three centuries and a half.

What Nennius perceived clearly from all this was that a successful Roman army had landed in Britain on four occasions, and had then returned to Rome in triumph. Overlooking or ignoring the limits of time provided by the mention of the Parthian peace of 20 B.C. and of the Revolt of Maximus in A.D. 383, he begins with the landing of Julius Cæsar in 55 B.C., who comes twice (if not thrice), but only succeeds on his third attempt. This, therefore, is made to equate with the first Roman army of the Loss, which conquered Britain and left rulers behind, whom the Britons slew.

The second Roman army of the Loss to conquer Britain is made to have arrived under Claudius, who however ceased to receive tribute from the Britons before his death, it being paid to British emperors instead (which, of course, is pure invention). So Nennius assumes that the Roman leaders left behind by this second army were slain like the former ones.

The third army of the Loss, which came to repel the 20 Picts and Scots, is made to have arrived under Severus, who built the Stone Wall from sea to sea. Severus is made to have been slain by the Britons together with his leaders, which is again pure invention.

The fourth army of the Loss arrives under Carausius, who wrought vengeance on the Britons for the death of Severus and his leaders.

Thus (says Nennius) on three occasions were the Roman leaders slain by the Britons. And he proceeds to recapitulate in this fashion. Owing to the attacks of Picts and Scots, the unarmed Britons were wont to seek help of the Romans, expressing deep sorrow for killing the leaders, bearing with them rich presents, and promising obedience. The Romans would come with an army, appoint emperors with leaders, and return to Rome. This went on for 348 years.

And again the Britons, owing to Roman oppression, would slay the leaders and then solicit help. The Romans would come to avenge the empire, spoiling Britain in the meantime of its gold, silver, bronze, costly garments, and honey, but always going back to Rome when their work was done.

Nennius, who like the Loss always distinquishes between the Romans and the Britons, states that finally the Britons overthrew the dominion of the Romans, refusing to render tribute to them, declining to receive their kings, till the Romans dared no more to rule in Britain, for that their leaders were always being slain.

§§ 31-49.  VORTIGERN

The climax of the Story of the Loss of Britain is reached with the Saxons, who are made to land in the island for the first time at the invitation of a ãproud tyrantä and his counsellors some long interval after 446.

Nennius identifies the ãproud tyrantä with Vortigern, and devotes nearly a quarter of his book to recounting Vortigernâs career, but completely ignores the time-limit of 446.

Now according to the Loss the political situation in 21 Britain some considerable interval after Aëtiusâs third consulship in 446 was as follows. The Picts occupied the country beyond the Clyde and Forth, whilst the Britons, i.e. the Welsh, occupied all the rest. In other words, the Welsh were in full possession of the Lowlands, the whole of England and all Wales, there being as yet no English in the island. They were under the single rule of a ãproud tyrant,ä to wit, Vortigern. This of course is not history, but such was the situation as presented in the Loss.

Nennius had first and foremost a pedigree, which gave the line of Vortigern up to his great-grandfather, a man of Gloucester, and down to Ffernfael, who was reigning in A.D. 830 (fifteen generations in all) over the two districts of Gwrtheyrnion and Buellt (on either side of the river Wye in modern Radnorshire and Breconshire), the former of which derives its name from Vortigern himself. Vortigern, therefore, so far from being king of all Britain, south of Clyde and Forth, was a man of the West, ruling in Wales. Moreover, being the eleventh ancestor of Ffernfael, who lived in 830, his period was in the early fifth century.

Of hardly less importance than this pedigree Nennius had four excerpts taken from a Book of St. Germanus by Rhun son of Urien, a cleric who was busy in 627. These are of great value, being long prior to the Loss and constituting with the pedigree our primary authority for a study of the historic Vortigern as distinct from the sham one. They bring him face to face with St. Germanus of Auxerre on his first visit to Britain in 429, locate him in various parts of Wales, and record his death at the fortress, still bearing his name, on the river Teify, prior to St. Germanusâs departure in 430. Moreover, the only crime with which he is charged is that of incest, not a hint being given of any dealings on his part with Saxons, who are not even mentioned.

Nenniusâs hard task was to harmonize this early material with the stories which had gathered around the name of Vortigern after the Loss had declared him to be the villain who had first received the Saxons into 22 Britain. The year of the Saxon arrival he fixed at A.P. 401 (according to the system of Victorius of Aquitaine), which is our A.D. 428. But he knew of another dated, viz. A.P. 347 (according to the system of Prosper), which is our A.D. 375. It tells for his good faith that he gives these two irreconcilable dates.

Moreover, Bede had erroneously supposed that the first landing of the Saxons, as told by Loss, had occurred in Kent. After reading ãthe Storyä Bede had made inquiries of his Canterbury friends, who told him of two brothers who had invaded that district, Hengest and Horsa, the latter of whom had a monument in eastern Kent bearing his name. Nennius had heard the same tale with further particulars. Hengist and Hors had arrived as exiles, to whom Vortigern had presented the island of Thanet, and afterwards the whole of Kent in return for Hengistâs pretty daughter. Different as this Kentish story with its embellishments is from that told in the Loss, Nennius does his best to harmonize them.

To these reports from distant Kent he attaches names and incidents from Wales. Thus a Welsh ruler, named Gwrangon, whose fort on the Teify is only some seven miles from that of Vortigern, whom Vortigern had possibly displaced, who also figures in traditions of Gwent, is turned into an imaginary King of Kent, secretly dispossessed of his realm in favour of Hengist, whose daughter Vortigern wished to marry. Again, Vortimer and Cattigirn, two sons of Vortigern, are transported from Wales to Kent. The former, Vortimer, was historically a man of Gwent, whose possible activities in the Forest of Dean, known in Welsh as Llwyn Danet are converted into blockades of Thanet, whilst four obscure Kentish battles are turned into Welsh victories won under his leadership. The second son, Cattigern, who historically was King of Powys, is also made to have fought in Kent and even to have fallen there in the same battle as the mythical Hors. To make the story more convincing, Welsh equivalents are invented for Kentish place-names.

Another ingredient in this very composite account of 23 Vortigern is a wonder-tale of a contest between him and his dreaded rival, Ambrosius, in the heart of the Snowdonian mountains. The story, doubtless of ancient origin, has been re-fashioned to make it harmonize not only with the fictitious Vortigern of the Loss but also with the no less fictitious Vortimer of Kent.

AMBROSIUS

Ambrosius, son of a Roman consul or emperor, sojourned as a boy in Glywysing in the neighbourhood of what is now Llansannor in Glamorgan. Whilst Vortigern reigned from 425 to 430, he lived in dread of Ambrosius, and before his death had surrendered to him the stronghold of Dinas Emrys in Arfon and the supremacy of the Britons, whereby he became Emrys Wledig or Ruler. As ruler he bestowed the two provinces of Gwrtheyrnion and Buellt on Vortigernâs son, Pascent, whose descendants still held them in A.D. 830. In 440 occurred the Battle of Guoloph between Ambrosius and Vitalinus, of whom nothing is known save that his name, being identical with that of Vortigernâs grandfather, points to his being of that family.

§§ 50-55.  ST. PATRICK

Contemporary with Vortigern and his successor, Ambrosius, was St. Patrick, some account of whom, therefore, fitly appears here. The mission of Paladius, the ordination of Patrick and his departure for Ireland are derived directly from Muirchuâs Life of St. Patrick, but Nennius had some additonal matter. The description of Patrickâs experience on Cruachan Eile seems not to be taken directly from Tirechan, but to depend on another source, whence Tirechan also drew. The three petitions of Patrick are identical and correspond verbally with those which are added in the Book of Armagh to the incomplete text of Tirechan. The four points of comparison with Moses are also found in the same order among these additions to Tirechan. (24)

§§ 56.  ARTHUR

This famous section, which contains the earliest account of Arthur, consists of four paragraphs. The first and fourth are deductions from the Loss made by Nennius himself. The second is a valuable English tradition from Kent, that Octha, the father of Oeric Oisc, settled in Kent from North Britain. The third is an old list of the victories of Arthur, whose name is suddenly sprung on the reader as that of one so renowned as to need no introduction. His period clearly follows close on that of Ambrosius, and synchronizes with the arrival of Octha in Kent. The list shews indubitable traces of the influence of the Loss in the matter of Arthurâs last victory, where a clumsy attempt is made to identify it with the siege of the Badonic Hill fought in 665 some two centuries later. Thus:

HK      The eleventh battle on the mountain called Agned.

        The twelfth on Mount Badon.

MN      The eleventh is named Breguoin, ãwhich we call Cat Bregion.ä

        The twelfth on Mount Badon.

CDGLPQ  The eleventh on the mountain called Agned Cat Bregomion.

        The twelfth on Mount Badon.

Irish      The eleventh (omitted in all MSS.).

        The twelfth (name omitted in all MSS.).

The two last victories were evidently Agned and Breguoin, with Badon as intruder from the Loss. One group ejects Breguoin to find room for Badon, another ejects Agned, whilst the majority overcome the difficulty by compressing Agned and Breguoin into one. The Irish translator, unable to find a solution, omits the eleventh victory altogether, and leaves the twelfth unnamed.

The special mention of ãCat Bregionä shews it was once well remembered. It seems to stand for Cat 25 Breguoin or Breguoinion, which might yield in modern Welsh Cad Frywain (or Fryweinion), i.e. the Battle of Bravonium, the Romano-British town at Leintwardine, Herefordshire.

§§ 57-61.  ANGLIAN GENEALOGIES

Between Arthurâs victories and Ida of Northumbria in 547 (an interval of over fifty years) Nennius provides not a single excerpt. (Yet this was the interval when Cerdic ruled the Gewissi and the Jutes were called in.)

Fortunately, however, he here interposes a short but precious tract, containing genealogies of English kings. These are remarkable in that they all go back into Romano-British times, even in the case of the Oiscings of Kent, who, as he has already told us, arrived there from North Britain near the Wall. (No genealogy is provided of the kings of the Gewissi, or of the West Saxons, or of any other Saxons.)

Although in some instances these pedigrees are prolonged into the eighth century, one can hardly doubt that they were originally drawn up in the century before, possibly during the reign of Ecgbert, King of Kent (664-673), with whom that royal line ends. The tract certainly dates from before the appearance of the Loss, for it betrays no knowledge of any ãyear of the Saxon adventä (which is nothing but an invention of that work) or of any expulsion of Britons into the West. On the contrary the English kings are made to have sprung from ancient insular stocks who lived in Britain in Roman times. In other words they were not invaders, but men of Britain.

Remarkable, too, is the fact that, whereas the Mercian genealogy is prolonged to 796 with mention of Æthelred (675-704), Æthelbald (716-757) and Offa (757-796), there is no reference whatever to Pendaâs famous son Wulfhere (659-675), in whose time occurred the Battle of the Badonic Hill. This omission can hardly be other than intentional (the mention of Wulfhere and Badon being suppressed). On the other hand, much is 26 said of the overthrow of Ecgfrid of Northumbria at Llyn Garan (or Nechtansmere) in 685, which is the last battle recorded.

§§ 62-65.  WARS OF BRITONS AND ANGLES.

These sections, again, seem to date in their original from the seventh century, (25) certainly before the publication of the Loss, for it is the English, and not the Britons, who are on the defensive. Not a hint is given of any retreat to the west on the part of the Welsh. On the contrary, it is the Welsh who attack either from the western Lowlands or from Wales.

Whoever inserted the quotation in § 65 from the Loss (Z) of the Britons being sometimes victors and sometimes the Saxons identified these battles rightly with those which were fought before and after A.D. 600, so that they should have ended (as in the Loss) with the obsession of the Badonic Hill in 665, when Wulfhere reigned in Mercia. But in their present form these sections omit any reference to Wulfhere or to Badon.

The last battle referred to is Llyn Garan in 685, so that it is not improbable that Nennius quietly dropped Badon, which he had been persuaded was a victory of Arthur two centuries previouly, and substituted the English disaster of 685.

§ 66.  CALCULI

These (except the last) fall into three groups, which I mark a, b, and c, as follows. In 457 Victorius of Aquitaine adopted the Great Cycle of 532 years for the construction of his Easter Table, the object of which was to enable the clergy to find the day on which Easter was kept in any particular year. Victorius gave the names of the consuls for each year, the week-day of January 1st, the age of the moon on that day, the date of 27 Easter, and the age of the moon on that day; and for security of reference he prefixed the Year of the Passion. Now the Year of the Passion according to Victorius equates with the Dionysian A.D. 28, when the two Gemini, Fufius and Rubelius, were consuls, so that we have the following equations:

(a)

  A.P.  1   = A.D. 28 (Fufius and Rubelius, coss.).

  A.P.  430 = A.D. 457 (Constantine and Rufus, coss. The Year of the World, 5658).

(b)

  A.P.  1   = A.D. 28 (Fufius and Rubelius, coss.).

  A.P.  373 = A.D. 400 (Stilicho, cos.).

  A.P.  401 = A.D. 428 (28 years from Stilicho, Vortigern reigning).

  A.P.  413 = A.D. 440 (12 years from last item, Cat Guoloph).

(c)

  A.P.  398 = A.D. 425 (Theodosius and Valentinianus, coss.).

  A.P.  401 = A.D. 429 (Felix and Taurus, coss. Arrival of the Saxons).

These calculations revolve round the notion that Saxons were first let into Britain by Vortigern in A.D. 428 (§§ 16, 31). Systematically they are all correct, except that some bungler, who calculated from the Incarnation, altered ãPassionä into ãIncarnationä in the last item (as into ãNativityä in § 16).

This same bungler was responsible for the final calculation of § 66, which is a jumble of errors, wherein Decius and Valerianus appear for Aëtius and Valerius, the consuls for A.P. 405 = A.D. 432, the year of Bishop Patrickâs arrival in Ireland. Instead of adding 27 to A.P. 405 to reach the correct Dionysian Year of the Incarnation, he added 32 (as in § 16) and reached A.D. 437. 28 From this he proceeded to subtract A.P. 348 ( = A.P. 347 according to Prosperâs system, the year of the Saxons as in § 30), bungled again by misreading it as 368, and reached 437 minus 368 = 69.

§ 66 bis.  THE TWENTY-EIGHT CITIES OF BRITAIN

There were 28 cities in Britain (says the Loss), which had all been destroyed by the Saxons and were now lying desolate and deserted. But here we have a list of 28 said to be ãthe names of all the cities which are in the whole of Britain.ä Most of them, so far as they can be identified, represent Roman towns or forts, but certainly they are not all such, nor is it even suggested that any of them are uninhabited.

The one link between the Loss and this list is the number, 28, the source of which is unknown, nor is it known on what principle (if any) it was reached.

Certainly it is not a list from Roman times, nor is it the translation of such a list. Some dozen of them are identified by general agreement. As it was patently drawn up by a Briton, who like his fellows knew little or nothing of England, especially towards the east, one should expect to find most of the sites in Wales and the west, whilst the remainder would be mere attempts to translated English names or at least to throw them into some semblance of British form.

§§ 67-76.  MARVELS

Twenty in number, the first four of them (specially numbered) are outside Wales ÷ (1) Loch Lomond, (2) Estuary of the Trent, (3) Hot Pool (at Bath), (4) Salt Wells (at Droitwich). The next ten are in South Wales ÷ (5) The ãtwo kingsä of Severn, (6) Aber Llyn Llywan on Severn, (7) Guur Helic in Cynllybiwg, (8) Wondrous apples at Wye-mouth, (9) Wyth Gwynt blow-hole in Gwent, (10) Suspended Altar in Gower (Illtud), (11) Pwll Meurig in Gwent, (12) Carn Gafall in Buellt (Arthur), (13) Gamber Head, Archenfield (Arthur), (14) Crug Mawr, near Cardigan. The next 29 four in Anglesey ÷ (15) A sea-less beach, (16) A gyrating hill, (17) A vadum rising and falling with the sea, (18) A walking stone. The remaining two in Ireland, ÷ (19) The Luchlein swamp, (20) The Luch Echach swamp.

THE ANNALS OF THE BRITONS

These appear in the Harleian MS. 3859 as an integral part of the History of the Britons, and were edited for the Monumenta Historica Britannica, 1848, under a name apparently concocted for the occasion, to wit, Annales Cambriæ, ãthe Annals of Cambria.ä Under this name they were published a second time, interwoven with two later copies in the Rolls Series, 1860.

Of this nineteenth-century title, Annales Cambriæ it must be said at once that it was (and is) most unfortunate. As the work has no title and reads continuously in the Harleian History of the Britons as an integral portion of that book, it may well have been styled Annales Brittonum, ãThe Annals of the Britons,ä after the manner of Nennius himself, who in his Preface speaks of the annals of the Romans and the annals of the Scots and Saxons. (26) For (apart from other reasons) neither in the Annals themselves nor in the whole of Nennius does the word ãCambriaä ever appear, nor is it to be found in any Latin document relating to Wales prior to the publication of Geoffrey of Monmouthâs History of the Kings of Britain in 1136. (27) The tile, therefore, is apocryphal and most misleading.

In 1888 they were again edited (together with the Genealogies and the Catalogue of Cities which follow), this time by a Welsh scholar of the first rank, Mr. Egerton Phillimore, in Y Cymmrodor, ix, 143-183. ãBoth Annales and Genealogies (he tells us) in their present form shew marks of having been composed in the last half of the tenth century. The years of the 30 Annales are written down to 977, though the last event recorded is the death of Rhodri ab Hywel Dda in 954; whilst the omission of the battle of Llanrwst, which was fought in the very next year (955) between the sons of Idwal and those of Hywel Dda (especially on the part of an annalist who, if also the composer of the Genealogies, would seem to have been a partisan of Hywelâs family in their contest for the supremacy of Wales), certainly points to the Annales having been finished as they are now in the year 954 or 955, and never subsequently retouched. The Genealogies commence with that (given both on the fatherâs and on the motherâs side) of Owen ab Hywel Dda, who died in 988, and they must therefore have been compiled during his reign, and before that year.ä It should be added, however, that Pedigree 1, though it includes Owen, must have been originally compiled in the reign of his father, Hywel Dda, who died in 950. For as the initial letters of the names of both Owen and Hywel are omitted in order to be filled in later by an illuminator, which does not occur in the case of any other of these Pedigrees, it would seem that Pedigree 1 originally began not with [O]uen, but with [H]iguel, i.e. Hywel.

That the Annales ultimately derive from an Easter Table or Tables is shewn by the scantity and brevity of the notices, as they necessarily would be if taken from the margins of such compilations, and also by the fact that every annus is entered, whether any event is recorded or not.(28)

The choice of Annus i ( = A.D. 445) depends on the last paragraph of § 66, which immediately precedes the Annals, and which (as we have already seen) is a jumble of errors. This last paragraph was to open with an illuminated capital, which was never filled in, so that 31 it marks a fresh departure from what went before. It reads as follows:

[A]b anno quo Saxones uenerunt in Brittanniam et a Guorthigirno suscepti sunt usque ad Decium et Ualerianum anni sunt sexaginta nouem.

äFrom the year in which the Saxons came into Britain and were received by Guorthigirn up to Decius and Valerianus are 69 Years.ä

Our annalist found ãthe year of the Saxonsä at the end of § 31, namely 347, from the Passion of Christ as counted by Prosper, which (by adding 28) is A.D. 375. Then by adding 69, as the paragraph directs, he arrived at A.P. 416 ( = A.D. 444), after which he commenced his Annals with the year following, i.e. Annus i ( = A.D. 445).

This, however, was not the meaning or intention of the original author of the paragraph in question. The object in his case was to calculate the interval between ãthe year of the Saxonsä and that of the arrival of Bishop Patrick in Ireland. It was the chronological relationship between a great event in Irish history and what he had been led to believe (from the Story of the Loss of Britain) was an equally great event in British history that he sought to establish. We have seen how he bungled in this endeavour.

Now it is known that in A.D. 432 Patrick took with him to Ireland a prospective Paschal Table of a Cycle of 84 years (29). This Cycle began that same year, which was consequently distinguished by the names of its consuls, to wit, Aëtius and Valerius. It extended from 432 to 515. Between these years in the Annals of the Britons are five enries only, four of which relate to Ireland and one to the dating of Easter. Then at 516 appears the first British entry and another at 537, both considerably postdated. Between them at 521 are two Irish notices, and a third at 544. All this points to an Irish source for the opening of our Welsh Annals, which aimed, though unsuccessfully, at commencing with the arrival of Bishop Patrick in Ireland in 432.

PEDIGREES

These from the entourage of Hywel Dda, King of Wales, embrace most of the royal and princely lines of the Britons as recognized by him in what apparently he regarded as the order of their importance. They are only found so in this one MS., the Harleian 3859, and were compiled at the same period as the Annals and probably by the same person. Being ãlargely concerned with the same historical personages and events, they extensively illustrate one another.ä (30)

The date of the manuscript being some century and a half later than that of the composition of both Annals and Pedigrees, and being written in an English hand of about A.D. 1100, it ãbears marks of intermediate transcription by one or more copyists from an earlier MS. in the older ÎHiberno-Saxonâ character used in Wales up to the end of the eleventh century. The frequent and serious mistakes, both of misspelling and wrong division, made in the transcription of the commonest or most typical Welsh names and words, also show that at least one of the intermediate transcribers cannot have been a Welshman.ä (31)

The Pedigrees are printed in this book in columns, as reproduced by Philimore from the MS., but with certain obvious corrections and also notes to help the reader understand them.

THE PILLAR OF ELISEG

Of earlier date than these Pedigrees, and like them of first importance in the study of early Welsh history, is an inscription which was cut on the shaft of a tall cross erected in the Vale of Llangollen by Cyngen fab Cadell, the last King of Powys of the old line, who died at an advanced age in Rome in 854 (see Pedigree 27). It was his sister Nest, whom King Merfyn married and through whom their son, Rhodri the Great, acquired supremacy over Powys. Now known as the Pillar of Eliseg, it stands near the ruins of Valle Crucis 33 Abbey in the parish of Llandysilio yn Ial, Denbighshire. When the celebrated Welsh scholar, Edward Lhuyd, examined it in 1696, it had been thrown down, its crosshead had disappeared, and the shaft was broken in two. Lhuyd made a facsimile of what remained of the inscription, which facsimile was photographed to accompany an illuminating article on the subject by Sir John Rhys. (32) The inscription consisted of some 31 lines, divided into paragraphs, each introduced by a cross. As far as it could (or can) be deciphered, it was approximately as follows:

1. † Concenn filius Cattell Catell

2. filius Brohcmail Brohcmail filius

3. Eluseg Eliseg filius Guoillauc

4. † Concenn itaque pronepos Eliseg

5. edificauit hunc lapidem proauo

6. suo Eliseg † Ipse est Eliseg qui nec

7. xit hereditatem Pouosi ex manu

8. catâem per u e potestate Anglo

9. rum et cum gladio suo et igne

10. † Quicumque recitat manescrip

11. tum det benedictionem supe

12. r animam Eliseg † Ipse est Concenn

13 qui nactus est MC iung manu

14. sua quæ ad regnum suum Puois

15. pertinebant et apud

16.

17.

18.

19. monarchiam

20. Maximus Brittanniæ

21. Pascent Maucannan

22. † Britu autem filius Guarthi

23. girn qum benedixit Germanus quem

24. que peperit ei Seuira filia Maximi

25. regis qui occidit regem Romano

26. rum † Conmarch pinxit hoc

27. chirografum rege suo poscente

28. Concenn † Benedictio domini in Con

29. cenn et in tota familia eius

30. et in tota regione Pouois

31. usque in [diem iudici].

†  Concenn son of Cadell, Cadell son of Brochmail, Brochmail son of Eliseg, Eliseg son of Guoillauc. See Pedigree 27.

†  And so Concenn, great-grandson of Eliseg, erected this stone for his great-grandfather Eliseg.

†  This is that Eliseg, who joined together the inheritance of Powys . . . out of the power of the Angles with his sword and with fire.

†  Whoever repeats the writing, let him give a blessing on the soul of Eliseg.

†  This is that Concenn who captured with his hand eleven hundred acres which used to belong to his kingdom of Powys and . . .

One or more paragraphs, illegible, follow. Maximus is the emperor who fell in 388. The words monarchiam and Brittanniæ suggest the song entitled ãVnbeinyaeth Prydein,ä the Monarchy of Britain, which the Bard of the Kingâs Household sang before the troops in the day of battle. (33) For Pascent, Maucannan, see Pedigrees 22, 27.

†  Britu son of Vortigern, whom Germanus blessed, and whom Sevira bore to him, daughter of Maximus the king, who killed the king of the Romans. (34)

†  Conmarch painted this writing at the request of king Concenn.

†  The blessing of the Lord upon Concenn and upon his entire household and upon all the region of Powys until [the day of doom.]

FOOTNOTES

1 Ifor Williams, Bulletin, vii, 380-2. Cormac mac Cuilennáin, bisho-king of Cashel, killed in 908, quotes Nennius by name in his Psalter of Cashel (C.M., 117).

2 Additions to Bonedd y Saint (Arch. Camb., 1931, p. 170).

3 Anwylâs Gogynfeirdd, 119, col. 2.

4 Geraldâs Itinerary through Wales, ii, 1, where Elave, Elauc, Eludged, Eloued, two to four removes before Sadyrnfyw (d. 831), may refer to Elfoddw.

5 ãElvogusä in the time of Meurig, Rhys, Ffernfael, and Rhodri, sons of Ithael, King of Glywysing (B.L.D., 206). For Ffernfael and Rhys see Pedigrees 298, 29, and Annals at [775] for Ffernfaelâs obit.

6 There are nine grants to Bishop Cadwared recorded in B.L.D., 206-212, witnessed by Ffernfael, his brothers, or sons. For the absence of diocesan bishops in Wales in pre-Norman times and the origin of Llandaff, see W.C.O., 155 ff.

7 See the Chartres Historia Brittonum (Arch. Camb., 1937, pp. 64-85).

8 Slebhine, abbot of Iona, ruled from 752 till his death on March 2, 767.

9 On the other hand, the calculation of 300 years from Vortigernâs reception of the Saxons may only have been an attempt to fix the year when the Saxons, according to their own prognostic (see Loss [w]), were to quit Britain for ever.

10 As, for example, one dated the fifth year of King Edmund c. 945, and another dated the thirtieth year of Anarawd, King of Anglesey, ãwho now rules the realm of Gwynedd,ä the date given as A.D. 912. A certain Samuel, who describes himself as a disciple of ãBeulan,ä presbyter, is a ãreviserä who has left several traces of his work and has even been mistaken for Nennius! Certain obscure verses of his (erroneously attributed to Nennius) survive (C.M., 144). He adds to the text a pedigree of the Britons going back to the accursed Ham, son of Noah, saying, ãThus have I found, as I, Samuel, child of my father, Beulan presbyter, have written it for thee. But this genealogy was not written in any volumen Britanniæ, tome of Britannia [i.e. Wales], but in the writing of the mind of the writerä (ib., 152). The bishop Renchidus (otherwise unknown) and the most holy of bishops, Elfoddw, had transmitted to him that Rhun fab Urien, who baptized Edwin, was Paulinus of York. ãBut since the genealogies of the Saxons and the genealogies of other nations seemed useless to my master, Beulan presbyter, I have declined to write them, but I have written of the cities and marvels of the Island of Britain, as writers have written before meä (ib., 207). Nennius was translated into Irish by Gilla Coemáin, who died in 1072, which translation, including the Preface, is known as Lebor Bretnach. Geoffrey of Monmouth appears to have had a Welsh version, now lost (see p. 17 below).

11 Geoffrey names Gildas seven times: in I, i, where he means ãThe Loss of Britainä; in I, 17, ãGildas hystoricus,ä who gave an account (so he says) of the contention that arose on the renaming of Trinovantum as Kaer Lud; in II, 17, ãthe blessed Gildasä on the Molmutine laws; III, 5, ãGildas hystoricus,ä who translated the Molmutine laws from British into Latin even as Alfred translated them from Latin into English; IV, 20, where Gildas is made to have written a book ãon the victory of Aurelius Ambrosiusä; VI, 13, where Gildas is made to recount Germanusâs miracles (this doubtless is from Nennius); XII, 6, ãGildas historicusä with quotations from ãThe Loss of Britain.ä

12 Geoffreyâs “very ancient book in the British tongueä from Brutus to Cadwaladr could hardly have been other than some version of Nennius or at least of material used by Nennius, which ended with the plague of 664-5, when Cadwaladr died, which, be it noted, was contemporaneous with the Battle of Badon.

13 Jesus College Pedigree 19 (Y Cymmroder, VIII, 87). Gwriadâs tombstone in Man has the inscription Crux Guriat, his ãCross.ä

14 Or Celemion, cf. Cair Celemion in § 66 bis.

15 Skene, ii, 222; Phillimore, Owenâs Pembrokeshire, ii, 208.

16 Jesus College Pedigree 17 (Y Cymmroder, VIII, 87).

17 Ifor Williams, Poems of Llywarch Hen, 32; Canu Llywarch Hen, xci.

18 Ancient Laws of Wales, i, 342.

19 Owenâs Pembrokeshire, ii, 209.

20 Lloyd-Jones, Geirfa, s.. kamhwri, kamwri.

21 Jesus College Pedigree 18, ãRodri Mawy mab Nest merch Cadell Pywysä (Y Cymmrodor, VIII, 87).

22 Gougaud, Christianity in Celtic Lands, 252-3.

23 For Britannia = Wales, see W.C.O., ch. iii. Even as late as 1526 in ãThe Martiloge,ä one reads opposite March 1, ãIn Brytayne now Wales . . . the feast of saynt Dauid.ä

24 Bury (278-9).

25 A precise date, 679, was inferred for an earlier text by Zimmer and Thurneysen from § 64, Egfris filius Osbiu regnavit novem annis.. The last incident mentioned before 679 is the death of Cadwaladr in the plague of 664-5, which also is the date of Badon.

26 Williamsâ Christianity in Early Britain, 405.

27 For the late term Cambria = Wales, see W.C.O., 46-47.

28 It has been observed that the ãAnnalsä provides a list of 533 years (errors apart), as though it represented an original Table of a Great Cycle of 532 years, beginning with Annus i ( = A.D. 445) and ending with Annus dxxxii ( = A.D. 976), followed by a fresh Annus i ( = A.D. 977), the commencement of a new Great Cycle of 532 years.

29 Bury, 283.

30 Phillimore, Y Cymmrodor IX, 142.

31 Ibid., 145-6.

32 Rhys, Y Cymmrodor (1908) XXI, 1-62; see also Sayce, Arch. Camb. (1909), 43-48, and especially Macalister, Arch. Camb. (1935), 330-3.

33 W.M.L., 22, 167.

34 For Britu, modern Brydw, see Pedigree 23.

~~~~~~~

[Back] [Blueprint] [Next]