The aim of this paper is to give an account of the historical reliability of Nennius’ Historia Brittonum (History of the Britons) as it is one of the earliest sources in which a person called Arthur is mentioned. Therefore, this paper will, firstly, give a brief account of the Historia Brittonum. Its structure, content, and, most importantly in terms of historical accuracy, its origin and development will be reviewed and classified, not only in the context of the emergence of the Arthurian legend but also in terms of real historical events. Secondly, an overview of Nennius’ sources will be provided and, in a further step, successively analysed in more detail. These sources include accounts of a Welsh monk named Gildas, the Venerable Bede, and others. Finally, after having reviewed and discussed the sources’ historical reliability, everything will be put into context and the question as to how accurate Nennius really was will be answered. However, before reading this paper it has to be pointed out that scholars still argue about the correct dates, sources, and, surprisingly enough, about the content of Nennius’ Historia Brittonum as well as its interpretation.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Analysis of the Historia Brittonum
3. Examination of Sources
4. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This paper aims to evaluate the historical reliability of Nennius’ Historia Brittonum, one of the earliest records mentioning Arthur, by examining its structural origins, the author's potential sources, and the blend of history and legend present in the text.
- Historical reliability of the Historia Brittonum
- Origins and authorship of the chronicle
- Analysis of Nennius' primary sources (Gildas and Bede)
- The evolution of the Arthurian legend from historical to mythical figures
- Political and nationalistic agendas in ninth-century religious writing
Excerpt from the Book
The historical Arthur: Nennius’ sources and their implications for the historical reliability of his account of Arthur
The aim of this paper is to give an account of the historical reliability of Nennius’ Historia Brittonum (History of the Britons) as it is one of the earliest sources in which a person called Arthur is mentioned. Therefore, this paper will, firstly, give a brief account of the Historia Brittonum. Its structure, content, and, most importantly in terms of historical accuracy, its origin and development will be reviewed and classified, not only in the context of the emergence of the Arthurian legend but also in terms of real historical events. Secondly, an overview of Nennius’ sources will be provided and, in a further step, successively analysed in more detail. These sources include accounts of a Welsh monk named Gildas, the Venerable Bede, and others. Finally, after having reviewed and discussed the sources’ historical reliability, everything will be put into context and the question as to how accurate Nennius really was will be answered. However, before reading this paper it has to be pointed out that scholars still argue about the correct dates, sources, and, surprisingly enough, about the content of Nennius’ Historia Brittonum as well as its interpretation.
Nennius is said to have written his Historia Brittonum around 800 AD. Some authors, however, claim that they are able to give a much more precise date and they state the year 829/30 AD as the year of its origin. The Historia Brittonum forms part of the literary genre named Chronicle. These are year-by-year accounts of the most important political, economical, or social events. Nennius was a disciple of the bishop of Bangor, St. Elbodug, and, therefore, it is very likely that he was a native Welshman. Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind that being Welsh in the ninth century meant being either Celtic or Romano-British (i.e. a romanised Celt), rather than what is nowadays understood of as being Welsh. According to Robert Huntington Fletcher, he used to live in South Wales along the border of Hereford and Brecknock-Radnor.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the objective of the study, which is to assess the historical accuracy of the Historia Brittonum and its portrayal of Arthur.
2. Analysis of the Historia Brittonum: Discusses the authorship of the text, the inclusion of legendary mirabilia, and the specific depictions of Arthur as a military leader rather than a king.
3. Examination of Sources: Investigates the reliance of the text on earlier authors like Gildas and Bede, highlighting the fragmentary nature of the historical data provided.
4. Conclusion: Summarizes the consensus that the work is a mixture of historical events and early oral traditions, reflecting the political and nationalistic climate of the ninth century.
Keywords
Nennius, Historia Brittonum, Arthurian Legend, Historical Reliability, Chronicle, Gildas, Venerable Bede, Ambrosius Aurelianus, Mount Badon, Ninth-century, Welsh History, Historiography, Oral Tradition, Dark Ages, Early Medieval Literature
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
The paper examines the historical reliability of the Historia Brittonum, focusing on how its author, Nennius, utilized early sources to construct an account of Arthur.
Which historical sources does the author analyze?
The paper evaluates the use of primary sources, specifically the accounts provided by the Welsh monk Gildas and the Venerable Bede.
What is the main research question?
The central question is how accurate the account of Arthur in the Historia Brittonum actually is, given the uncertainty surrounding the author and the sources used.
What methodology is employed?
The methodology involves a critical review and comparative analysis of existing historical manuscripts and scholarly assessments of the Arthurian material.
What is the significance of the "mirabilia" mentioned in the text?
The mirabilia, or "wonders of Britain," show that by the ninth century, a significant amount of legendary material had already accumulated around the figure of Arthur.
How is Arthur portrayed in the text?
Arthur is described as a "dux bellorum" (leader in battle) who successfully defended the British against Anglo-Saxon invaders, rather than as a king.
Does the author conclude that Nennius was a reliable historian?
No, the author suggests that Nennius largely collected and edited existing, often inaccurate, sources and that his work reflects the political agenda of the ninth-century Church.
How did the author address the debate over the date of the Historia Brittonum?
The text acknowledges the scholarly debate, noting that while Nennius is associated with the year 800 AD, some scholars advocate for a more precise date of 829/30 AD.
- Quote paper
- M.Ed. Stefan Westkemper (Author), 2010, The historical Arthur. Nennius’ sources and their implications for the historical reliability of his account of Arthur, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/272406
