Editing Historia Brittonum (section)

=== 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>