Editing Historia Brittonum (section)

== Overview ==
The ''Historia Brittonum'' describes the supposed settlement of [[Great Britain|Britain]] by [[Troy|Trojan]] settlers and says that Britain was named for [[Brutus the Trojan|Brutus]], a descendant of [[Aeneas]]. The "single most important source used by [[Geoffrey of Monmouth]] in his [[pseudohistorical]] ''[[Historia Regum Britanniae]]''"<ref>{{Harvnb|Koch|2006|p=925}}</ref> 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 [[chronicle]]s of the long-running history of the land, such as the [[Middle English]] ''[[Brut Chronicle|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 ''[[milites|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 language|Welsh]] are very similar.<ref>{{Harvnb|Fletcher|1906}} points out this conflation of "shield" ({{langx|cy|ysgwyd}}, Middle Welsh: ''scuit'') and shoulder ({{langx|cy|ysgwydd}}), citing J. William's edition of the ''Annales Cambriae,'' (1860), p.xxiv; and Skene, ''Four Ancient Books''(1868), I, 55.</ref>

The 19th-century [[Classics|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 [[Saint Patrick|Patrick]] (''vita Patricii'') (§50-55); IV. Arthuriana (§ 56); V. Genealogies (''regum genealogiae cum computo'') (§c. 57–66); VI. Cities of Britain (''civitates Britanniae'') (§66<sup>a</sup>); 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 [[Kingdom of Gwynedd|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".<ref name="Koch 2006">{{Harvnb|Koch|2006}}, p. 926.</ref><ref>Dumville, "Some aspects of the chronology." 439-45.</ref><ref>Higham, ''King Arthur: Myth Making and History'' (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 2002), p. 118.</ref>{{efn|The Prologue mentions "the 858th year of our Lord's incarnation, and in the 24th year of Mervin, king of the Britons", but presumably the preface was produced after the body of the work was written or was perhaps attached to a later revision.{{citation needed|date=February 2017|reason=quote and analysis}} }}

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 [[legend|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.<ref>{{Cite encyclopedia|last=Keller |first=James |author-link=<!--James Keller (scholar)--> |entry=Nennius |editor1-last=Lambdin |editor1-first=Laura C.　|editor1-link=<!--Laura Cooner Lambdin-->|editor2-last=Lambdin |editor2-first=Robert T.　|editor2-link=<!--Robert Thomas Lambdin--> |title=Arthurian Writers: A Biographical Encyclopedia |publisher=Greenwood |date=2008 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AH_DEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA16 |pages=16–17<!--16–17--> |isbn=<!--0313346836, -->9780313346835}}</ref>

=== 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.<ref>N.J. Higham, 'Early Latin Sources', in Helen Fulton ed, ''Blackwell Companion to Arthurian Literature'', (Oxford 2009) p. 31</ref>

====Classical debate====
Repudiating the so-called vindication of Nennius in 1890 by the Celtic scholar [[Heinrich Zimmer (Celticist)|Heinrich Zimmer]], Mommsen returned to the earlier view of a ninth-century Nennius merely building on a seventh-century original,<ref>F. Liebermann, 'Nennius', in A. G. Little ed, ''Essays in Medieval History presented to T. F. Tout'' (Manchester 1925) p. 29-30</ref> which he dated to around 680.<ref name="O Sayles, 1966 p. 4">G. O Sayles, ''The Medieval Foundations of England'' (London 1966) p. 4</ref> The historian [[Ferdinand Lot]] swiftly challenged Mommsen;<ref>F. Liebermann, 'Nennius', in A. G. Little ed, ''Essays in Medieval History presented to T. F. Tout'' (Manchester 1925) p. 29</ref> 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.<ref name="O Sayles, 1966 p. 4"/> 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”.<ref>F. Liebermann, 'Nennius', in A. G. Little ed. ''Essays in Medieval History presented to T. F. Tout'' (Manchester 1925) p. 33–34</ref> 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."<ref>F. Liebermann, 'Nennius', in A. G. Little ed. ''Essays in Medieval History presented to T. F. Tout'' (Manchester 1925) p. 32 and p. 42</ref>

====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.<ref>Dumvillle, David, “‘Nennius’ and the Historia Brittonum”, Studia Celtica 10/11 (Cardiff, 1975/6), 78-95</ref> Dumville called the Nennian preface (''Prefatio Nennii'') a late forgery,{{efn|name=Koch-anon}}{{efn|name=mackillop-DND}} and believes that the work underwent several anonymous revisions before reaching the forms that now survive in the various families of manuscripts.<ref>See {{Harvnb|Dumville|1985}}, "Introduction", ''This needs to be more precise''</ref> Dumville's view is largely accepted by current scholarship, though not without dissent.<ref>{{Harvnb|Koch|2006}} "Although Dumville's case has been widely accepted, ..Field has since argued.."</ref> 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<ref>{{Harvnb|Liebermann|1925}}</ref> still bears consideration.<ref>Norris Lacy, ''The Fortunes of Arthur'' (2005) p. 2</ref>

=== 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.<ref>G. Ashe's entry under "Nennius", {{harvnb|Lacy et al. edd.|1986}} (Reprint 1987), ''Arth. Ency.'', p. 404: "..and matter that was probably oral rather than written that they seldom inspired much trust."</ref> This is quoted from the ''Apologia'' version of the preface.<ref>{{Harvnb|Mommsen|1898|p=143}} as variant preface in ''C<sup>2</sup>D<sup>2</sup>GL''; {{Harvnb|Giles|1847|loc=''Apologia'', I, p. 303}} "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."</ref> 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|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.<ref>"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" {{harv|Alcock|1971|p=32}}.</ref>