Généalogie and Heritage

Source: Wikiwand: Historia Brittonum

Description

Type	Valeur
Titre	Wikiwand: Historia Brittonum

Entrées associées à cette source

Personnes
King EUDAF Hen ap Einudd of Cernyw

Texte


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Médias

URL

Notes


"The History of the Britons" (Latin: "Historia Brittonum") is a purported history of the indigenous British (Brittonic) people that was written around 828 and survives in numerous recensions that date from after the 11th century. The "Historia Brittonum" is commonly attributed to Nennius, as some recensions have a preface written in his name. Some experts have dismissed the Nennian preface as a late forgery, arguing that the work was actually an anonymous compilation. Overview The "Historia Brittonum" describes the supposed settlement of Britain by Trojan expatriates and states that Britain took its name after Brutus, a descendant of Aeneas. The work was the "single most important source used by Geoffrey of Monmouth in creatinghis 'Historia Regum Britanniae' and via the enormous popularity of the latter work, this version of the earlier history of Britain, including the Trojan origin tradition, would be incorporated into subsequent chronicles for the long-running history of the land, for example the Middle English "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 "miles" ("warrior, soldier") and not as a king. It names the twelve battles that Arthur fought, but unlike the "Annales Cambriae," none are assigned actual dates. The reference in the "Historia Brittonum" of Arthur carrying the image of St. Mary on his shoulders during a battle has been interpreted by later commentators as a mistake for Arthur bearing the image of Mary on his shield, the error being caused by the similarity between the words in Welsh. The greatest classicist of the 19th century, Theodore Mommsen, divided the work into seven parts: Preface ("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 Patrick ("vita Patricii") (§50-55); IV. Arthuriana (§ 56); V. Genealogies ("regum genealogiae cum computo") (§c. 57—66); VI. Cities of Britain ("civitates Britanniae") (§66a); 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 Gwynedd). Historians have conservatively assigned 828 tothe 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." The text makes use of two narrative techniques which are generally considered not reliable by modern academic standards: synthesizing and synchronizing history. Synthetic history combines 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. 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. The classical debate Repudiating the so-called vindication of Nennius in 1890 by the Celtic scholar Heinrich Zimmer, Mommsen returned to the earlier view of a ninth century Nennius merely building on a seventh century original, which he dated to around 680. The historian Ferdinand Lot swiftly challenged Mommsen; 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. Re-analyzing 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.” 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 recognizing that “we must lower Nennius's rank as a historian...[but] praise his patriotic heart." Recent re-assessments The Nennius question was re-opened in the 1980s by Professor David Dumville. Dumville revisited the stemmatics of the various recensions (he published the Vatican version). Dumville branded the Nennian preface (Prefatio Nennii) a late forgery,and believesthat the work underwent several anonymous revisions before reaching the forms that now survive in the various families of manuscripts. Dumville's view is largely accepted by current scholarship, though not without dissent. 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 in Liebermann 1925 stillbears consideration. The 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. This is quoted from the Apologia version of the preface. Giles' 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"). Leslie Alcock was not the first to draw attention to the phrase though he may have started the recent spate of interest. However the author still clearly aimed to produce a synchronizing chronicle. Arthuriana The "Historia Brittonum" has drawn attention because of its role in influencing the legends and myths surrounding King Arthur. It is the earliest source that presents Arthur as a historical figure, and is the source of several stories which were repeated and amplified by later authors. Vortigern and Ambrosius The "Historia" contains a story of the king Vortigern, who allowed the Saxons to settle in the island of Britain in return for the hand of Hengist's daughter. One legend recorded of Vortigern concerns his attempt to build a stronghold near Snowdon, calledDinas Emrys, only to have his building materials disappear each time he tries. His advisers tell him to sprinkle the blood of a boy born without a father on the site to lift the curse. Vortigern finds such a youth in Ambrosius, who rebukes the wise men and reveals that the cause of the disturbance is two dragons buried under the ground. The tower story is repeated and embellished by Geoffrey of Monmouth in his "Historia Regum Britanniae," though he attributes it to Merlin, saying "Ambrosius" is the sage's alternative name. Geoffrey also includes Aurelius Ambrosius, another figure mentioned in the "Historia," as a king in his own right, and also includes other characters such as Vortimer and Bishop Germanus of Auxerre. Arthur's battles Chapter 56 discusses twelve battles fought and won by Arthur, here called "dux bellorum" (war leader) rather than king: "At that time, the Saxons grew strong by virtue of their large number and increased in power in Britain. Hengist having died, however, his son Octha crossed from the northern part of Britain to the kingdom of Kent and from him are descended the kings of Kent. Then Arthur along with the kings of Britain fought against them in those days, but Arthur himself was the military commander ['dux bellorum']. His first battle was at the mouth of the river which is called Glein. His second, third, fourth, and fifth battles were above another river which is called Dubglas and is in the region of Linnuis. The sixth battle was above the river which is called Bassas. The seventh battle was in the forest of Celidon, that is Cat Coit Celidon. The eighth battle was at the fortress of Guinnion, in which Arthur carried the image of holy Mary ever virgin on his shoulders; and the pagans were put to flight on that day. And through the power of our Lord Jesus Christ and through the power of the blessed Virgin Mary his mother there was great slaughter among them. The ninth battle was waged in the City of the Legion. The tenth battle was waged on the banks of a river which is called Tribruit. The eleventh battle was fought on the mountain which is called Agnet. The twelfth battlewas on Mount Badon in which there fell in one day 960 men from one charge by Arthur; and no one struck them down except Arthur himself, and in all the wars he emerged as victor. And while they were being defeated in all the battles, they were seeking assistance from Germany and their numbers were being augmented many times over without interruption. And they brought over kings from Germany that they might reign over them in Britain, right down to the time in which Ida reigned, who was son of Eobba. He was the first king in Bernicia, i.e., in Berneich." Most of these battle sites are obscure and cannot be identified. Some of the battles appear in other Welsh literature, though not all are connected explicitly with Arthur. Some scholars have proposed that the author took the list from a now-lost Old Welshpoem which listed Arthur's twelve great victories, based on the fact that some of the names appear to rhyme and the suggestion that the odd description of Arthur bearing the image of the Virgin Mary on his shoulders at Guinnion might contain a confusion of the Welsh word "iscuit" (shield) for "iscuid" (shoulders). Others reject this as untenable, arguing instead that the author included battles that were not previously as..

"The History of the Britons" (Latin: "Historia Brittonum") is a purported history of the indigenous British (Brittonic) people that was written around 828 and survives in numerous recensions that date from after the 11th century. The "Historia Brittonum" is commonly attributed to Nennius, as some recensions have a preface written in his name. Some experts have dismissed the Nennian preface as a late forgery, arguing that the work was actually an anonymous compilation.

Overview
The "Historia Brittonum" describes the supposed settlement of Britain by Trojan expatriates and states that Britain took its name after Brutus, a descendant of Aeneas. The work was the "single most important source used by Geoffrey of Monmouth in creatinghis 'Historia Regum Britanniae' and via the enormous popularity of the latter work, this version of the earlier history of Britain, including the Trojan origin tradition, would be incorporated into subsequent chronicles for the long-running history of the land, for example the Middle English "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 "miles" ("warrior, soldier") and not as a king. It names the twelve battles that Arthur fought, but unlike the "Annales Cambriae," none are assigned actual dates.

The reference in the "Historia Brittonum" of Arthur carrying the image of St. Mary on his shoulders during a battle has been interpreted by later commentators as a mistake for Arthur bearing the image of Mary on his shield, the error being caused by the similarity between the words in Welsh.

The greatest classicist of the 19th century, Theodore Mommsen, divided the work into seven parts: Preface ("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 Patrick ("vita Patricii") (§50-55); IV. Arthuriana (§ 56); V. Genealogies ("regum genealogiae cum computo") (§c. 57—66); VI. Cities of Britain ("civitates Britanniae") (§66a); 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 Gwynedd). Historians have conservatively assigned 828 tothe 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."

The text makes use of two narrative techniques which are generally considered not reliable by modern academic standards: synthesizing and synchronizing history. Synthetic history combines 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.

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.

The classical debate
Repudiating the so-called vindication of Nennius in 1890 by the Celtic scholar Heinrich Zimmer, Mommsen returned to the earlier view of a ninth century Nennius merely building on a seventh century original, which he dated to around 680. The historian Ferdinand Lot swiftly challenged Mommsen; 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. Re-analyzing 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.” 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 recognizing that “we must lower Nennius's rank as a historian...[but] praise his patriotic heart."

Recent re-assessments
The Nennius question was re-opened in the 1980s by Professor David Dumville. Dumville revisited the stemmatics of the various recensions (he published the Vatican version). Dumville branded the Nennian preface (Prefatio Nennii) a late forgery,and believesthat the work underwent several anonymous revisions before reaching the forms that now survive in the various families of manuscripts. Dumville's view is largely accepted by current scholarship, though not without dissent. 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 in Liebermann 1925 stillbears consideration.

The 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. This is quoted from the Apologia version of the preface. Giles' 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"). Leslie Alcock was not the first to draw attention to the phrase though he may have started the recent spate of interest. However the author still clearly aimed to produce a synchronizing chronicle.

Arthuriana
The "Historia Brittonum" has drawn attention because of its role in influencing the legends and myths surrounding King Arthur. It is the earliest source that presents Arthur as a historical figure, and is the source of several stories which were repeated and amplified by later authors.

Vortigern and Ambrosius
The "Historia" contains a story of the king Vortigern, who allowed the Saxons to settle in the island of Britain in return for the hand of Hengist's daughter. One legend recorded of Vortigern concerns his attempt to build a stronghold near Snowdon, calledDinas Emrys, only to have his building materials disappear each time he tries. His advisers tell him to sprinkle the blood of a boy born without a father on the site to lift the curse. Vortigern finds such a youth in Ambrosius, who rebukes the wise men and reveals that the cause of the disturbance is two dragons buried under the ground.

The tower story is repeated and embellished by Geoffrey of Monmouth in his "Historia Regum Britanniae," though he attributes it to Merlin, saying "Ambrosius" is the sage's alternative name. Geoffrey also includes Aurelius Ambrosius, another figure mentioned in the "Historia," as a king in his own right, and also includes other characters such as Vortimer and Bishop Germanus of Auxerre.

Arthur's battles
Chapter 56 discusses twelve battles fought and won by Arthur, here called "dux bellorum" (war leader) rather than king:

"At that time, the Saxons grew strong by virtue of their large number and increased in power in Britain. Hengist having died, however, his son Octha crossed from the northern part of Britain to the kingdom of Kent and from him are descended the kings of Kent. Then Arthur along with the kings of Britain fought against them in those days, but Arthur himself was the military commander ['dux bellorum']. His first battle was at the mouth of the river which is called Glein. His second, third, fourth, and fifth battles were above another river which is called Dubglas and is in the region of Linnuis. The sixth battle was above the river which is called Bassas. The seventh battle was in the forest of Celidon, that is Cat Coit Celidon. The eighth battle was at the fortress of Guinnion, in which Arthur carried the image of holy Mary ever virgin on his shoulders; and the pagans were put to flight on that day. And through the power of our Lord Jesus Christ and through the power of the blessed Virgin Mary his mother there was great slaughter among them. The ninth battle was waged in the City of the Legion. The tenth battle was waged on the banks of a river which is called Tribruit. The eleventh battle was fought on the mountain which is called Agnet. The twelfth battlewas on Mount Badon in which there fell in one day 960 men from one charge by Arthur; and no one struck them down except Arthur himself, and in all the wars he emerged as victor. And while they were being defeated in all the battles, they were seeking assistance from Germany and their numbers were being augmented many times over without interruption. And they brought over kings from Germany that they might reign over them in Britain, right down to the time in which Ida reigned, who was son of Eobba. He was the first king in Bernicia, i.e., in Berneich."

Most of these battle sites are obscure and cannot be identified. Some of the battles appear in other Welsh literature, though not all are connected explicitly with Arthur. Some scholars have proposed that the author took the list from a now-lost Old Welshpoem which listed Arthur's twelve great victories, based on the fact that some of the names appear to rhyme and the suggestion that the odd description of Arthur bearing the image of the Virgin Mary on his shoulders at Guinnion might contain a confusion of the Welsh word "iscuit" (shield) for "iscuid" (shoulders). Others reject this as untenable, arguing instead that the author included battles that were not previously as..