We shall begin this section of our study by considering the work of a British scholar named Nennius. (The term British means he descended from the original peoples who settled in Britain after the Flood. The modern Welsh are descended from that same stock.) Nennius completed his famous work, the Historia Brittonum, towards the very end of the eighth century AD, and his achievement was to gather together, and thus preserve, a whole series of documents and sources that collectively shed much light specially upon the early pagan (i.e. pre-Christian) history of the early Britons. 16 In the preface to his work, he tells us (in Latin) that he is recording certain facts that the British had stupidly thrown away (quae hebitudo gentis Brittaniae deiecertat.)
As his work proceeds, he lists some of the sources he has used, and we see these ranged from oral traditions to certain written chronicles and annals. As far as his oral sources are concerned, he tells us that certain items in his history were imparted by Irish scholars (sic mihi peritissimi Scottorum nuntiauerunt,) and a certain genealogy was "in the writing of the writer's mind" (set in scriptione mentis scriptoris fuit.) Of his written sources, he lists the annals of the Romans; the Law; "another explanation" (aliud experimentum;) and, lapsing into his native Welsh, informs us that a noble elder named Cuana compiled a British genealogy from a certain Roman chronicle (i Guanach geitilach Breatan a cronicib na Romanach.)
In common with other historical writings from the Saxon period, it has been fashionable for scholars to denigrate much of his work as fictitious or mythical. However, the tide is now turning, and not without good reason. One of the latest scholars to study Nennius' work in any real depth wrote:
"Nennius' SELECT DOCUMENTS (Excerpta) of Early British History is almost unique in ancient and Medieval historical writing, both in concept and form and in originality and quality of scholarship." 17
As with the Irish chronicles, we shall meet with certain corroborations in Nennius' history that confirm the fact he was not just inventing stories to either flatter, deceive or entertain his readers. But before we proceed, let us set our minds at rest over any unease that may be felt regarding the reliability or otherwise of "oral tradition." What type of information can we reasonably expect oral tradition to convey, that is, with any degree of accuracy.
Oral tradition can, in fact, remain surprisingly accurate, even over vast periods of time. Events sometimes become exaggerated during transmission, or lose their chronological sequence, to be sure. But for the most part, they remain recognizable. However, as well as events, oral transmission is especially effective in the preservation of personal names. A most interesting example of this from modern times, and one which illustrates the principle exactly, is the following account. It concerns an old man of a certain author's acquaintance:
"This man was rich in ancient lore. For instance, through tradition handed down from father to son for untold generations, he could trace the poor condition of certain farms to what he called "a bad setback." When pressed for details he would say, "Mi grandfaither told me, and his grandfaither told him, that 'Willy Norman burnt 'em down.' Who 'Willy Norman' was he had no idea. Yet here was a folk memory preserved in local dialect and handed down as a kind of family secret." 18
"Willy Norman," of course, was William, the Norman Conqueror of England, his burning down certain farms in the area was a well-attested historical incident of a punitive raid carried out under William's orders and by his troops. It would, no doubt, have come as a great surprise to the old man who, remembered the incident, to learn no less than 900 years lay between him and the facts behind the story he was so fond of relating! Yet, he was accurately conveying to his listeners, both the name of the culprit and the nature of the crime, in spite of his own unawareness of the passage of so many centuries. And this is typical of oral traditions as a whole. They can be surprisingly accurate in the information they convey, even though time-scales and chronological sequences may suffer in the process, and as we begin our consideration of the rest of Nennius' work, we would do well to bear in mind that the same principle applies to certain ancient written records too.
Nennius, as we have seen, gathered together a number of sources from which he compiled the Historia; one especially, contains remarkable information. He begins chapter ten of his work with the statement he has come across two "alternative explanations" (hoc experimetum bifarie inueni) concerning the origins of the early British people. The first account, which appears in the same chapter, is of doubtful reliability, to say the least, although a historicity of sorts could be argued for some of its details.
However, in chapters 17 and 18, he deals more plainly, with the origins of the British, stating that "I found another explanation.... in the ancient books of our elders, (Aliud experimentum inueni.... ex ueteribus libris ueterum nostrorum.) There then follows a genealogy whose scope embraces a surprising amount of verifiable history. We can only deal with it briefly here, but the genealogy is best understood by studying Table 3 and its accompanying notes. (For the full Latin text, and a translation, see Appendix I.) Here, we may content ourselves with the observation that Nennius has passed down to us the contents of a very ancient document; and he has preserved it warts and all.
__________________________________________________________________________
NOAH
JAPHETH
________________________________|__________________________________
GOMER (1) MAGOG (2) MADAI (3) JAVAN TUBAL (4) MESHECH (5) TIRAS
| | | | | | |
Gauls ______|______ Medes | | | Thracians
Scythians Goths | | Cappadocians
| |---------------
| ________________|______
| Hiberei Hispani Itali
________|________
ELISHAH Iobaath
Dardanus Baath
| Izrau
| Ezra
Trous Rhea
Female line | Abir Male line
of descent Anchises Oth of descent
Aeneas Ecthet
Ascanius Aurthach
| Ethach
| Mair
Numa Pompilius Simeon
| Boib
| Thous
| Ougomun
Rhea Silvia____Fetebir
|
Alanus
|
___________________________|_________________________
Hessitio Armenon Negue,/pre>
| | |
__________|____________________ | _______________________|____________
Franks Latins Albans British | Bavarians Vandals Saxons Thuringians
|
___________________|________________________
Goths Walagoths Gepids Burgundians Langobards
TABLE 3. A chart showing the lines of descent to the European nations, including the British
A compatriot of Nennius, though he lived some 350 years after him, was Geoffrey of Monmouth who published his own History of the Kings of Britain (the Historia Regum Britanniae) in about 1136 AD. Geoffrey's Historia deserves our closest consideration, not least for the fact that it is today perhaps the most disparaged of all the works of the Middle Ages. Experience has shown, the re-examination of a work that is too readily dismissed by modernist scholars, usually reveals evidence that should not be ignored, and Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia is no exception to this rule.
Geoffrey's work undoubtedly contains errors, and it is allegedly on these grounds that his Historia is dismissed as myth or plain fiction. Yet, as we have already seen, such errors are exactly what we should expect to find! They in no way indicate that a given work is necessarily spurious. Rather, they are, paradoxically, the very hallmarks of a work's genuineness.
We must also bear in mind the fact that material passed down by Geoffrey, errors and all, is not original to him. Rather, according to his own account, the Historia is merely, for the most part his translation into Latin of a certain ancient British (i.e. Welsh) book (quendam britannici sermonis librum uetustissimum), which was given to him for this very purpose by Walter of Oxford, "a man most learned in all branches of history."
There are admittedly portions of Geoffrey's Historia tend to grate on the modern ear. It contains, for example the usual literary conventions of his time, such as long and flowery speeches, and unlikely tales of heroism. Yet, this is the very stuff and substance of Welsh Bardic lore, and it should come as no surprise to meet it in what was, after all, originally a Welsh book.
However, shorn of its magic tales and accounts of heroic deeds, Geoffrey's Historia is seen to be built around a solid framework of perfectly acceptable historical data. In the first few books of the Historia appear the names of some 110 successive holders of the British crown, and I have arranged these names into their proper genealogical order. (See Table 4 and accompanying notes.) The list is strictly a genealogy only as far as Lucius (54), after whom it becomes a king-list. However, this table embraces a period of history that extended over some 2,000 years, from Brutus (c. 13th century BC) to Yvor, who lived at the end of the 7th century AD.
Set against the acknowledged and expected errors in Geoffrey of Monmouth's work, are the equally expected (though too-rarely acknowledged) historical vindications. As Thorpe was compelled to concede:
"Finally, there is the archaeological evidence, the fact that strange light has been thrown upon certain of the alleged fancies of Geoffrey of Monmouth by subsequent archaeological discoveries." 21
A short discussion of these vindications is given in Appendix II of this article, and together they assure us of the general reliability of most of Geoffrey's historical material. Certainly, scholars in the Middle Ages found little to criticize in this regard. More modern scholars, however, justify their own rejection of Geoffrey's work by pointing out that a near-contemporary of his, namely William of Newburgh, condemned Geoffrey out of hand as a liar. But, such would do well to consider exactly what William was criticizing. In his own words:
"It is quite clear.... that everything this man wrote about Arthur and his successors, or indeed about his predecessors from Vortigern onwards, was made up, partly by himself and partly by others, either from an inordinate love of lying, or for the sake of pleasing the Britons." (Thorpe, p. 17.)
Thus, we see that William of Newburgh's criticism in fact was aimed at only the last portion of Geoffrey's Historia, namely its long section dealing with king Arthur. This, however, had more to do with William's sensitivity as a Saxon-cum-Norman scholar, whose efforts to establish the historical respectability of his Norman masters was not at all advanced by Geoffrey's reminding the Normans (and Saxons) that they were relative newcomers to this island! In this context, however, it is important to note William was careful not to disparage the historical material contained in Geoffrey's work for the ages prior to Arthur! That much, at least, was acceptable even to his jaundiced eye, and it becomes clear that when they reject all of Geoffrey's account on the basis of William of Newburgh's accusation, then modernist scholars can be said to have overstated their case.
Yet, why should Geoffrey's Historia suffer such out-of-hand rejection when a great part of it is verifiable and acceptable history? The answer is not hard to find. On Thursday 6th July 1600, a certain Baron Waldstein visited London's Lambeth Palace. He tells us that in one of the rooms he saw:
"..a splendid genealogy of all the Kings of England, and another genealogy, a historical one, which covers the whole of time, and is traced down from the Beginning if the World." 22
Later, arriving at Richmond Palace on 28th July, he saw in the library:
"...beautifully set out on parchment, a genealogy of the kings of England which goes back to Adam. "23
Such genealogies were immensely popular, and as fascinating to the general public as they were to historians and other scholars. As tables of descent they provide a continuous record of human history from the Creation through the post-Flood era, down to modern times. The material of which they were based was undoubtedly that which Geoffrey of Monmouth has passed down to us as well as various details gleaned from the Saxon records (Table 5.) It is important to realize the disparagement of these genealogies only really began in the 18th century, when so-called Rationalists were already seeking to replace man's recorded history with certain anti-Biblical notions of their own! Such is the extend of their success in this, that today hardly a scholar can be found who would dare to base his history on the truth and reliability of these records. Instead, the student of history is presented with a complete blank when he comes to inquire into the history of Britain for the period preceding the Roman; and when Sellar and Yeatman wrote satirically that history did not begin until 55 BC (the date of the first Roman invasion of Britain,) they were not entirely joking (Appendix II.)
The British chronicles, however, are not alone in suffering such disparagement at the hands of modern sceptics. Rather, their treatment is mirrored exactly in the present-day handling of another set of records that far exceed those of the early British in both quality and quantity:
TABLE 4. A chart showing the line of descent of the early British kings:
__________________________________________________________________________
NOAH
|
JAPHETH
|
JAVAN
|
ELISHAH
|
DARDANUS
|
TROUS
| Latinus
ANCHISES |
| |
AENEAS-----Lavinia
|
ASCANIUS
|
SILVIUS--Lavinia's
| niece
|
|_________________________________________ Pandrasus (K. of Greeks)
| |
(2) Corineus (1) BRUTUS---Ignoge
| _______________|_____________
| | | |
(6) Gwendolen---Locrinus---Estrildis Kamber Albanactus
| (3) | (7) (4) (5)
| |
(9) Madden Habren
_________|_________(8)
| |
(11) Mempricius (10) Malin
|
(12) Ebraucus
________|__________________________
| |
(13) Brutus (Greenshield) 19 sons & 30 daughters
|
(14) Leil
|
(15) Hudibras
|
(16) Bladud
|
(17) Leir
____________|_______________________________________________
| | |
(18) Goneril---Maglaurus (19) Regan---Henwinus (20) Queen Cordella---Aganippus
| | K. of the
(21) Marganus I (22) Cunedaglus Franks
|
(23) Rivallo
|
Gurgustius
|
Sisillius I
|
(24) Jago
|
Kimarcus
|
Gorboduc---Judon (25)
_________|______________
| |
(27) Ferrex (26) Porrex I
|
(28) ? ---Unspecified period of civil war
|
(29) Pinner
|
(30) Cloten
|
(31) Dunvallo---Tonuuenna
_________|___________________
|
(32) Belinus Brennius---Daughter of
| Eisinglus K.
(33) Gurgult (Barbtruc) of Norwegians
|
(34) Gulthelin---Queen Marcia
|
Sisillius II
________|________
| |
Kinarius Danius---Tanguesteala
|
(35) Morvidus
__________________________________|________________________
| | | | |
(36) Gorbonianus (37) Archgallo (38) Elidurus (39) Ingenius Peredurus
| | | | |
? | Gerennus Idvallo Runo
___________________|_______ |
| | Catellus
(40) Marganus II (41) Enniaunus |
Millus
|
Porrex II
|
Cherin
___________|____________
| | |
Fulgenius Edadus Andraglus
|
Urianus
|
Ellud
|
Cledaucus
|
Clotenus
|
Gurgintlus
|
Merianus
|
Bledudo
|
Cap
|
Oenus
|
Sissillius III
_______|______
| |
(42) Beldgabred Archmail
_______________________|
|
Eldol
|
Redon
|
Redechius
|
Samull
|
Penessil
|
Pir
|
Capoir
|
(43) Digueillus
|
(44) Heil
_________|__________
| | |
(45) Lud | Nennius
|(46) Cassivelaunus
_________|____________________
| |
(47) Androgeus (48) Tenvantius
|
(49) Cymbeline
_________________|
____________|__________________________
| |
(50) Gulderius (51) Arviragus---Genvissa
|
(52) Marius
|
(53) Coilus
|
(54) Lucius
|
(55) Geta
______________________|
|
(56) Bassianus
|
(57) Carausius
|
(58) Ascieplodotus
|
(59) Coel
|
(60) Constantius---Helen
|
(61) Constantine I
|
(62) Octavius
|
(63) Trahern
|
(64) Maximianus
|
(65) Gracianus
__________|
|
(66) Constantine II---A British Noblewoman
_________________________|__________
| | |
(67) Constans (73) Aurelius (74) Utherpendragon---Ygerna
| ____________|__
| | |
| (69) Hengist (75) Arthur Anna---Budicius II
| | | | K. of
?---(68) Vortigern---Renwein (76) Constantine III | Brittany
| | |___
| (77) Aurelius (Conanus) |
__|____________________ | Hoel I
| | | (78) Vortporius |
Vortimer Katigern Paschent | Hoel II
(70) (71) (72) (79) Malgo Kings of
| Brittany
(80) Keredic
|
3 unnamed "tyrants"
|
(81) Cadvan
|
(82) Cawallo
|
(83) Cadwallader
|
(84) Yvor The last king of British descent
TABLE 4. A chart showing the line of descent of the early British kings.