Talk:Historia Brittonum

Discussion

Sjc, I see from your recent changes to the Sites and places associated with Arthurian legend page that you are maing a lot of links to a proposed Nennius article. My research (which I'm compiling into a Historia Brittonum article) shows the likely possibility that N. had little to do with the HB. Would you like to see what I've written so far so that we aren't needlessly fighting over the best way to present a NPOV about this contraversial issue?

I would post it, but I want to make sure the material I'll be including does not violate wikipedia's policy about copyright. - llywrch 19:36 Nov 11, 2002 (UTC)

There's no problem here; I have more than enough work on my Wikipedia plate for the foreseeable future. You are more than welcome to do what you wish to Nennius, I am seriously busy on Arthurian places, British toponymy, and Old English language at the moment in between keeping the vandals at the gate at bay.... I think you're probably on the right track with Nennius/HB btw, in my view he always struck me as a clerical composite, but I never really went into it too deeply. I will try and chip in on Nennius if you steam in, where time permits. user:sjc

Just put my Historia Brittonum article up. Have a look, & fix any mistakes you see. (Although the names are as they appear in Giles' translation.) - llywrch 05:57 Nov 12, 2002 (UTC)

Excellent stuff. I have a couple of (minor) reservations but I'll give them some thought before coming back to you in seriousness. user:sjc

I had a second thought or two myself: I moved some of the material to its own article under Pillar of Eliseg - llywrch 02:34 Nov 16, 2002 (UTC)

A delayed addendum. First, as authoritative as this article may appear, I must admit I wrote much of it from memory with some fact-checking. As I've been scraping together the backup for my article on Nennius, I am relearning just how complex the subject of the Historia Britonum really is. It is a fluid text, so some discussion of the textual transmission must be added in this article. There are a number of chronological calculations that point to dates at which the Historia Britonum was revised. And some more attention must be made to non-Arthurian materials in this work, for example:

(1) The History of Britain that occupies chapters 7-49 served as the basis or inspiration of the psuedo-history Geoffrey of Monmouth fills much of his Historia Regum Britanniae;

(2) The Northern History of chapters 57-65 offer a history of the wars between Northumbria and the Celtic kings from the British point of view. There is a great deal of secondary literature about just how reliable this section is.

Is this short historical text of dubious value truly worth this much space in the Wikipedia? I believe that if the end result is an article that can be held up as an example of the critical process required to write history, then this article is justified. -- llywrch 05:37 Nov 21, 2002 (UTC)

Title

Surely it must be the Historia Brittonum? I'll be moving it in a few days if no-one objects... Edricson 21:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A question of authorship?

tunc arthur pugnabat contra illos in illis diebus cum regibus brittonum, sed ipse erat dux bellorum

"Then Arthur fought against them [the Saxons] in those days with the British kings, but himself was the leader of battle."

Note that this passage is not fluent Latin, but rather Latin written by someone who natively spoke a Germanic (not Celtic) language. The sentence structure gives it away. Note how it follows word-for-word the same sentence in English. This may challenge the fact that the semi-anonymous author, Nennius, was supposed to be Welsh.

Yes, this is original research. But keep an eye on it.

--76.223.221.122 10:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

(Tongue in cheek) The author (singluar or collective) of the Historia Brittonum might make a good 'patron saint of Wikis' - there are a number of points of resemblence. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(Advocatus diaboli) Does he have any miracles ascribed to him? — LlywelynII 08:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sponsorship

This guy (in the notes of that page) seems to think there is a convincing case to be made for the original work having been sponsored by Ffernfael ap Tewdwr, king of Buallt and Gwrtheyrnion. At the very least, that it was written by a native to those parts. Aside from the obvious (there are some nasty bits about g'g'g'g'g'...g'dad), does he have a point? — LlywelynII 08:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This sez even if it was certainly sponsored by Merfyn Frych, the author was &c. — LlywelynII 10:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Categorization

If the Historia Regum Britanniae is partly derived from the Historia Brittonum, and the HRB's article is categorized as pseudohistory, shouldn't this article also be so categorized? -JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. The compiler of the Historia Brittonum seems to have been working in good faith with the sources available to him. Geoffrey of Monmouth used sources, including the Historia Brittonum and also Bede's Historia Gentis Anglorum, which I don't think anyone would accuse of being pseudohistory, but what he made of them was so fanciful he must have been aware he wasn't writing accurate history, or even trying to. The Historia Brittonum is a work of scholarship, however flawed; the Historia Regum Britanniae is a work of imaginative literature. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyedit performed on section

Addressed the section for flagged copyediting issues. There appeared to be two different subject matters that were being discussed in this section and they were blended in a way that was confusing at best. The remaining text represents the one strand of content that made sense and contributed to the point identified by the sub-heading used. The text that was removed might make sense in another location, or if prefaced with contextual content. Potatowrite (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)