NENNIUS, the supposed author of a Historia Britonum, which, commencing with a description of Britain, gives the mythical origin of the Britons and Scots and an account of the Roman occupation and of the reign of Vortigern, describes the successive settlements of the Saxons, and concludes with a narrative of the twelve battles in which King Arthur, in the 6th century, is said to have defeated the Saxons. The work is evidently the production of a Cymric or ancient Welsh writer; but the claim of Nennius to be regarded as the author is derived solely from two prologues, where he is described as the disciple of one Elvodugus or Elbotus, whom we may perhaps identify with Elbodus, bishop of North Wales, who died in 809, and whose notable innovation of the introduction of the Roman cycle in keeping Easter “Nennius” appears to have followed. Of the above prologues (which differ considerably) one is preserved in the MS. in the cathedral library at Durham, and in this it is stated that the History was written in the year 858, which year is also spoken of as being the twenty-fourth of the reign of Mervin, king of the Britons. But in the work itself (chap, xvi.) it is stated that between the arrival of the Saxons (assigned in chap, xxxi. to the year 447) and the fourth year of the reign of Mervin, four hundred and twenty-nine years elapsed. Thus the twenty-fourth year of Mervin becomes coincident with the year 896, or thirty-eight years later than the date assigned by the prologue. This discrepancy, taken in conjunction with the following facts, viz., that both the above prologues are much superior in style and diction to the barbarous Latin of the Historia itself, that the MSS. prior to the 13th century are either altogether silent respecting the authorship or ascribe it to ...Gildas, and that Henry of Huntingdon, in his Historia Λnglorum (chap, xviii.), after quoting verbatim the account above referred to of King Arthur’s battles, expressly speaks of it as taken from Gildas,—has led the most competent critics to conclude that the real author of the Historia Britonum must be looked upon as unknown. The original text is likewise a matter of doubt, the work having evidently been subjected to several recensions, in which the earliest version can no longer be traced.
As an historical composition the Historia Britonum has but little value. Μ. de la Borderie lays it down as a canon that, when the work is found to contain an unsupported statement, which at the same time does not clash with the authority of Bede, Gildas, or any other received authority, such statement may, after due examination, be accepted; but if at variance with those authorities, it should be rejected. Much of the narrative, however, is evidently the offspring of invention and imagination; while the Cymric superstition respecting the mysterious importance attaching to the number three and its multiples induces the writer habitually to represent the more striking events and phenomena as occurring in a succession of triads. The peculiar value of the Historia consists in the illustration it affords of the Welsh mythology and those traditions of the race which took the place of history; it is in fact the earliest collection of those British legends which gave birth to the romances of Brut, Merlin, King Arthur, and the whole cycle of epics associated with the Knights of the Round Table. This element is discussed at some length by San Marte (A. Schulz) in the preface to his edition of Gildas and Nennius (Berlin, 1844). The best edition of the text is that edited by the Rev. Joseph Stevenson for the English Historical Society (1838). The most recent criticism on both the work and the manuscript sources will be found in L' Historia Britonum, by Μ. de la Borderie (Paris, 1883).
[646 words — estimated reading time: 4 minutes]
