by Mike Ashley
As the best attested ruler mentioned by Gildas, Maelgwyn’s reign has been used to help date when Gildas wrote De Excidio. I have already used other factors to deduce that it must have been written in the mid to late 530s. The Welsh Annals note the death of “Mailcun” in 549, and Maelwgyn’s reign is usually allocated to 534–549. This suggests that Gildas was writing early in Maelgwyn’s reign, but the catalogue of crimes Gildas lists, including three marriages, suggests a good few years have passed. However 534 relates to the death of Cadwallon and that date is far from certain, and Cadwallon could have died in the 520s. Also the throne Maelgwyn usurped by murdering an uncle relates to a smaller chiefdom, not the main line of Gwynedd that he later inherited. In all probability, Maelgwyn’s post-monastic catalogue of crimes began in the 520s, perhaps even earlier, allowing plenty of opportunity for Gildas to vilify him in the late 530s.
Gildas was the major witness to early sixth century events, and if Arthur existed he would have known about him. The fact that he does not name him is frustrating but in itself proves nothing. What Gildas does do is prove that a battle of Badon took place, but he also casts doubt on the dating in the Welsh Annals, forcing us to consider an earlier date, during the 490s. He also provides useful details on Ambrosius, Vortigern and Arthur’s contemporaries, but any other clues about Arthur, despite ingenious interpretations, are very circumspect. We must continue our search, but now we enter the murky waters of Nennius’s Historia Brittonum.
6
NENNIUS’S OLD PAPERS
1. Historia Brittonum
Nennius is both the saviour and the curse of Arthurian research. The works attributed to him provide considerable background to early British history that is missing from other sources. Nennius claimed to “heap” together those records that other historians and church fathers had rejected. Like a jackdaw, he assembled a miscellany of writings known as the Historia Brittonum, which, on the surface, seems a goldmine of information, but on close analysis poses more questions than it answers. After working our way through Nennius, the path we have carved with the help of the Welsh Annals, the ASC and Gildas will have lost some of its definition.
Nennius tells us in his opening section that “from the passion of Christ 796 years have passed; from the Incarnation 831 years.” In fact, the date, as evident from various references within the papers, was closer to 828/9. Nennius’s figures show that he believed the life of Christ was 35 years, whereas most scholars treat it as 33, and we will need to bear this in mind in the computations arising from Nennius’s work.
Nennius benefited from that flowering of research at the court of King Merfyn “the Freckled” of Gwynedd, which also encouraged the compilation of the Welsh Annals. However, it is evident that there were several revisions to the original Historia Brittonum, and only one of these incorporates a preface ascribing the work to Nennius. Whilst there’s no reason to doubt it, we must consider that the attribution may have been a guess by a later scholar. Nevertheless, for the sake of convenience, I will continue to refer to Nennius as the author.
That same preface refers to extracts found by Rhun. If this is accurate then it is significant, for it means that amongst the papers found by Nennius were some going back to the century following Gildas. The son of Urien of Rheged, Rhun was alive in the 620s (see Table 3.3), and entered the church in his later years, retiring to live in Powys. He was on good terms with the Angles (even credited with baptising King Edwin of Northumbria), and is a logical candidate for producing a Northern Chronicle.
Nennius’s papers go back to the settlement of the Roman consul Brutus, a story told in greater detail by Geoffrey of Monmouth. We need not concern ourselves with his pre-history, but there are occasional chronological references. For instance, §16 states2
From the year when the Saxons first came to Britain to the fourth year of king Mervyn, 429 years are reckoned; from the birth of the Lord until the coming of Patrick to the Irish are 405 years. From the death of Patrick to the death of Saint Brigit are 60 years; from the birth of Columba to the death of Brigit are 4 years.
23 cycles of 19 years from the Incarnation of the Lord until the coming of Patrick to Ireland; these years number 438. From the coming of Patrick to the present 19 year cycle there are 22 cycles, that is 421 years, two years in the Ogdoad until this present year.
Clearly Nennius – or the author of the paper he was editing – had access to a set of annals, but not the same as those from which the Welsh Annals were compiled, as the latter cite the birth of Columba and the death of St. Brigid in the same year (523). The key date noted here is the first one, relating to the coming of the Saxons. King Merfyn’s reign is generally accepted to have begun in 825. His fourth year, therefore, is 828/829, the date believed to be when Nennius compiled his Historia. That makes the first Saxon adventus the year 400, loosely tying in with the entry in the Gallic Chronicle under 410 when the British provinces were “devastated” by the Saxons, but clashing with another date I shall come to shortly.
The start of his next paragraph contradicts the previous one, though in fact the year cited for the mission of Patrick to Ireland, 438, is close to the traditionally accepted date of 432. The gap between 438 and 405 is 33 years, the generally accepted lifetime of Christ. Adjusting the number 405 to running from the death of Christ, rather than from his incarnation, reconciles the dates. Moreover, if we add the 405 years in the first paragraph to the 421 in the second and then add on the two years of the Ogdoad (an ogdoad is a set of eight years), that gives us 828, consistent with the reference to Merfyn’s reign. This kind of confusing consistency runs throughout Nennius.
The next inconsistency appears between §28 and §30. First Nennius says:
Hitherto the Romans had ruled the British for 409 years. But the British overthrew the rule of the Romans and paid them no taxes and did not accept their kings to reign over them and the Romans did not dare to come to Britain to rule any more, for the British had killed their generals.
The year 409 at first seems fairly accurate, close to Zosimus’s date of 410, when the British expelled the Roman officials. However, the Claudian conquest of Britain was in 43AD, meaning that Nennius’s 409 years begins then, bringing us to the year 452, which seems far too late. Before contesting this further, let’s see what it says in §30:
The Romans came with a great army to help them and placed emperors in Britain; and when the emperor was established with his generals the armies went back to Rome, and came and went in alternation over 348 years. But the British killed the Roman generals, because of the weight of the empire, and later asked their help. The Romans came to bring help to the empire and defend it, and deprived Britain of her gold and silver and bronze and all her precious raiment and honey, and went back in triumph.
348 years from 43AD is 391, soon after the death of Magnus Maximus. It is, however, worth noting that the gap from 391 to 409 inclusive is 19 years – one Easter cycle. Nennius’s source may simply have missed (or lost) one set of records.
Elsewhere in his Miscellany, in §66, Nennius has this to say:
From the reign of Vortigern to the quarrel between Vitalinus and Ambrosius are 12 years, that is Guoloppum, or Catguoloph [the battle of Wallop]. Vortigern, however, held the empire in Britain in the consulship of Theodosius and Valentinian, and in the fourth year of his reign the English came to Britain, in the consulship of Felix and Taurus, in the 400th year from the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The first joint consulship of Theodosius and Valentinian was in 425AD, although they also held the title jointly in 426, 430 and 435. However, Felix and Taurus held the consulship only once, in 428, which was indeed the fourth year after 425. Nennius, though, equates that year to the 400th since Christ’s birth, but may have meant from the baptism of Christ, at age 28, when he received the Holy Spirit, sometimes referred to as Christ’s true “incarnation”.
Thus we can see that Vortigern came to power in 425, that the Saxons first arrived in 428 and that in 4
37 was a battle between Ambrosius and Vitalinus, which I shall explore in more detail shortly.
All this gives the impression that the information is there, but one has to work hard to find it. With that in mind, let us run through the Historia Brittonum from §31 onwards, which follows from the death of Magnus Maximus:
It came to pass that after this war between the British and the Romans, when their generals were killed, and after the killing of the tyrant Maximus and the end of the Roman Empire in Britain, the Britons went in fear for 40 years. Guorthigirnus [Vortigern] then reigned in Britain. He had cause for dread, not only from the Scots and Picts, but also from the Romans, and a dread of Ambrosius.
In the meantime, three ships, exiled from Germany, arrived in Britain. They were commanded by the brothers Horsa and Hengist, sons of Wihtgils. [. . .]. Vortigern received them as friends, and delivered up to them the island which is in their language called Thanet, and, by the Britons, Ruym.
Gratianus Æquantius at that time reigned in Rome. The Saxons were received by Vortigern, three hundred and forty-seven years after the passion of Christ [and, according to the tradition of our ancestors, from the period of their first arrival in Britain, to the first year of the reign of king Edmund, five hundred and forty-two years; and to that in which we now write, which is the fifth of his reign, five hundred and forty-seven years].
The opening paragraph is ambiguous. It could be interpreted as meaning that the fearful 40 years occurred directly after the fall of Maximus in 388AD, during which time Vortigern ruled, or that Vortigern came to power at the end of the forty year period. If the latter, then Vortigern’s rule began in 428, close to the date of 425 extrapolated from §30.
It is pertinent that Nennius records Vortigern as afraid not only of the Picts and Saxons, but also of the Romans, specifically Ambrosius. This reference to the Romans may mean that Vortigern feared they might try to reclaim Britain for the Empire, but I believe it has to be read in conjunction with the reference to Ambrosius, namely that Vortigern was in fear of the Roman faction in Britain, led by Ambrosius. Can this be the same Ambrosius that led the British rally against the Saxons in the 460s? It seems unlikely, especially when we check §66, which refers to Ambrosius’s battle with Vitalinus in 437. If we read this in conjunction with Gildas’s description of Ambrosius’s parents as having “worn the purple”, and therefore being Roman, we can more logically deduce that Vortigern was in dread of Ambrosius the Elder. But who was Vitalinus?
This brings us to the matter of Vortigern’s real name. The name Vortigern, as mentioned earlier, means “supreme king”, hence Gildas’s pun on “superb tyrant.” It may well have been the name by which Vortigern was always known. In §49 Nennius provides a genealogy for Vortigern, telling us that “Guorthegirn Guortheneu was the son of Guitaul, son of Guitolion of Gloui.” Latinized, this reads “Vortigern, the Third son of Vitalis, son of Vitalinus of Gloucester.” Vitalinus was thus Vortigern’s grandfather and it is possible that Vortigern’s real name was also Vitalinus or Vitalis.
There is, however, more to Vitalinus. An ancient list of archbishops of London, believed to have been compiled by the twelfth-century Jocelin of Furness and incorporated by John Stow into his Annales of England (1580), includes the name Guetelinus as the twelfth to hold that office. No date is attached to him, but intriguingly Geoffrey of Monmouth, in his History of the Kings of Britain, also mentions this Guetelinus as the archbishop of London at the time of the Roman withdrawal. He attributes to Guetelinus the writing of the letter, which we know to have been written in about 446, to the Roman commander Aëtius, seeking help against the invaders. Although it is entirely possible for Guetelinus to have survived that long, I believe that both Geoffrey and Nennius’s sources were confusing father and son, or grandson. The elder Vitalinus would have been bishop in 410, and either Vitalis or Vortigern fought Ambrosius the Elder at Guoloph in 437, and wrote the appeal in 446.
Nennius tells us that Vortigern granted Hengist and Horsa territory on Ruym, which in other copies of the manuscript is spelled Ruoichin. Ruoichin, or Ruithin, is sometimes translated as “river-island”, and is taken to mean the Isle of Thanet in Kent, separated from the mainland by the Wantsum Channel, and long regarded as the landing place of the Saxons and their first settlement in Britain. But this does not wholly accord with Nennius’s record. In fact, there is no reference to Kent in this paragraph. For a start he states that Ruym is called “Tanet” in “their [the Saxons’] language”, but the Isle of Thanet’s name is of Celtic origin, Tanat, meaning “fire island”, perhaps because there was a beacon there.
Ruym, on the other hand, is more likely derived from rhwym, meaning a bond or obligation. In other words, this land, wherever it was, was granted to the Saxons in return for their services. The town of Bonby in the North Lincolnshire Wolds has a similar origin, Bond-by, usually interpreted as “peasant’s farmhouse”, but meaning literally a farmland worked under bond. Bonby is on the edge of the Ancholme river valley which was regularly flooded until extensive drainage works were built in the seventeenth century. Moreover, just north of Bonby is Saxby, “Saxon’s farmhouse”, and just north of that, near Barton on Humber, is Beacon Hill, which was almost certainly an island in Saxon times and may also have been called Tanet by the British. This is not to say that Bonby was the original Saxon settlement, but its location is significant for two reasons. Directly across the Ancholme valley from Bonby are the villages of Winteringham and Winterton, the names of which are both from an Angle, Winta. J.N.L. Myres has suggested in The English Settlements that this is the same Winta as in the ancestry of the kings of Lindsey (see Table 3.11), a contemporary of Hengist and Icel, and thus one of the first settlers after the initial forays. Additionally, the archaeology has identified early Saxon settlements with mixed British and Saxon burial customs throughout this area.
§32–35 of Nennius’ Historia tells a story about Germanus’s visit to Britain, a story that does not relate to any other life of Germanus of Auxerre. It tells how Germanus tries to seek audience with the wicked king Benli, who refuses to see him. He is welcomed instead by one of Benli’s servants, Cadell. Germanus warns Cadell to leave the fortress, and that night it is destroyed by a bolt from heaven. Cadell was the grandson of Vortigern and became the forefather of the kings of Powys. Table 3.9 assigns him the dates 460–530, which is too late for St Germanus. Most scholars believe that Nennius has confused Germanus with the Irish-born St Garmon, who may have been a nephew of St Patrick, and who preached throughout Wales, especially Powys, in the late fifth century. The hill fort of Moel Benlli is near Maesgarmon, the suggested site for the “Alleluia” victory. It is possible that both sites should be associated with St. Garmon.
In the next section Nennius returns to the Saxon invasion of Britain, although, as with the Cadell episode, he seems now to be recounting folklore rather than true history.
In §36 he tells us that after the Saxons had been settled on Thanet for “some time”, Vortigern promised to supply them with provisions if they would fight the enemy, the Picts and Scots. But as the barbarians had “greatly increased in number”, the Britons could not keep up with demand and told the Saxons they were no longer needed and could go home.
We don’t know how long Nennius meant by “some time.” It could mean an entire generation, possibly suggesting two different folk memories that have become jumbled. The first Saxon adventus, around 428, led to them being granted land at Ruym. The next stage may be after that settlement has grown through children and fresh settlers. We could now have moved on to the period described in the ASC as starting in 449.
In §37 Nennius contradicts himself. He reports Hengist as saying, “We are indeed few,” and promising that if Vortigern agrees, Hengist will go home and return with more men. He returns with sixteen ships and his daughter, with whom Vortigern becomes besotted. Hengist agrees that Vortigern can marry her in exchange for the “province” of Kent. Vortigern grants Kent to the Saxons, much to the annoyance
of the native ruler Gwrangon. Hengist continues with his grand plan and, in §38, says to Vortigern:
If you approve, I will send for my son and his brother [cousin], both valiant men, who at my invitation will fight against the Irish, and you can give them the countries in the north, near the wall called Guaul.”
Vortigern agrees, and Octa and Ebissa arrive with forty ships. The two sail to the land of the Picts, lay waste to the Orkneys and take possession of territory “beyond the Frenessican Sea”, a contrived name for the Solway Firth.
One other point to note from this section is that Nennius says Vortigern had an interpreter called Ceretic. This was a common Celtic name, so one should not jump to conclusions, but one wonders why Nennius (or his chronicler) should name the interpreter at all, as he appears nowhere else but here. It suggests a connection with Cerdic, the later West Saxon leader, but since we have already determined that Cerdic’s reign may not have started until 538, he is unlikely to be with Hengist in the 440s.
Nennius’s narrative turns to another reason to condemn Vortigern. In Section §39 he reveals that Vortigern married his own daughter. As he had only just married Hengist’s daughter this seems to be another folktale inserted well out of sequence. Nennius tells us that Vortigern has had a son by his daughter whom he tries to deny, and that Germanus (or St. Garmon) condemns Vortigern for this. It may be that Vortigern married a widowed daughter-in-law or step-daughter. The child of this union is believed to have been called Faustus, of whom more shortly.
