The chronology of 5th century Britain

[Erpingham]

Nennius had plenty of sources we don't have and he - like us - would have understood the importance of being careful with his material and coming up with as consistent a picture of events as possible.

Come on, Justin.  Even your uncritical approach to sources must baulk at fighting dragons?  Nennius is a man of his time who is trying to synthesise a pile of traditional tales, some lists, saints lives, sermons and the odd bit of history and make a narrative.  He sees it through the lens of where and when he is.  We have no reason to think "being careful with his material" was in the forefront of his mind, though I will accept he probably was trying to create a consistent picture of events.

[Imperial Dave]

he admits himself that it is a collection of stuff which implies he cannot be 100% sure of its veracity

[Jim Webster]

Time to rethink my chronology.

Constantius gives us one solid date for Germanus' first visit that is confirmable from other sources - 429.  You can ignore the second visit if you wish - it is disputed whether it happened as we are short on independent confirmation.  Be wary of Nennius' reinterpretation of Germanus bringing together Welsh traditions and perhaps increasing the emphasis on the Welsh lands of his time.

I don't see any reason to discard the second visit - I prefer to accept the sources unless there is real evidence for not doing so (and a lack of independent confirmation isn't a good enough reason). Nennius had plenty of sources we don't have and he - like us - would have understood the importance of being careful with his material and coming up with as consistent a picture of events as possible.

I must admit that having read the Life, I'm happier with the second visit than I was before I read it. There are some similarities, people flocking to see them, but seeing as how he was invited it would be remarkable if people didn't flock to see him
But there there's less emphasis on what Germanus did and the local authorities acted differently, rounding up the main heretical preachers and delivering them to Germanus who took them back to Gaul where they could be more closely watched.

[Justin Swanton]

Nennius had plenty of sources we don't have and he - like us - would have understood the importance of being careful with his material and coming up with as consistent a picture of events as possible.

Come on, Justin.  Even your uncritical approach to sources must baulk at fighting dragons?  Nennius is a man of his time who is trying to synthesise a pile of traditional tales, some lists, saints lives, sermons and the odd bit of history and make a narrative.  He sees it through the lens of where and when he is.  We have no reason to think "being careful with his material" was in the forefront of his mind, though I will accept he probably was trying to create a consistent picture of events.

"... unless there is real evidence for not doing so"

I accept that there weren't dragons flying around (or tunnelling underground) in 5th century Wales. So no literal dragons.

But read the passage carefully. The boy (Ambrosius) doesn't see dragons; he sees snakes, one red and the other white, and Ambriosus tells Vortigern that they symbolise Vortigern himself and his enemies. The story is an allegory - Vortigern was warned that he would enjoy a time of success but would eventually be overcome by his foes. It also gives the origin of Ambrosius' political role - Vortigern assigns to him his western districts after being impressed by the story. What is at the bottom of the account? Ambrosius warning Vortigern with an allegory that he would lose his overlordship if he spilled his blood but assuring him he would support him (and being of noble birth that would count for something) if he abandoned the plan. Sounds like smart politics and a keen sense of self-preservation to me.

[Erpingham]

So, its an allegory except the bit where Vortigern gives the western districts to a fatherless child (whose father was a consul) with prophetic powers?

[Jim Webster]

The problem with analogy is that it only really works with people who share the same culture. Where we have some cultural overlap with an author, the analogies hang together for us.

But with an 8th century author, reading him in translation (and unless you're fluent in late Latin, I suspect there is an element for translation to take it back to classical Latin) the overlap is pretty sparse 

[Justin Swanton]

So, its an allegory except the bit where Vortigern gives the western districts to a fatherless child (whose father was a consul) with prophetic powers?

What is Ambrosius' background and how much did Vortigern initially know about him? After Vortigern's fall, Ambrosius is able to assume the overlordship of Britain which means he and his family cannot have been an unknown quantity. Arthur, despite all his military prowess, cannot ascend to that position.

On the miracles front I tread a middle course between not believing every miracle I read of in a life of a saint or a Welsh chronicle, and not automatically disbelieving everything either. This is a tricky topic but it keeps coming up, so let me open a brief parenthesis.

The scientific method is built on the phenomenological approach of only considering as real what can be experienced by the five senses. So science will not entertain any cause for a physical effect that is not itself physical. This is a decision, an attitude; it's not a deduction or a proof. This refusal to consider material effects sometimes having immaterial causes led to the assumption that there are no such things as immaterial causes. Hence there is no such thing as a God. I'm not about to start arguing the existence of God, but I want to look at the application of the scientific approach to history. In consequence of this approach, any source that describes miracles immediately drops several notches in reliability. The more miracles in an account the less reliable the source is assumed to be. Accounts of the lives of saints are deemed to be the least reliable of all since they describe the most miracles.

My point is that there is no way of proving miracles never happened. I have documented evidence of miracles, i.e. of causes, events, for which there is no conceivable natural explanation. The near-perfectly preserved body of Bernadette Soubirous being one example. She was buried in an ordinary grave in 1879. Her body was exhumed in 1909. The crucifix and rosary in her hands had oxidised but her body was perfectly intact. You can visit the Chapel of Saint Gidard at the Sisters of Charity in Nevers, France, today where her body is on display. Her face is covered with a layer of wax as the skin has degraded over the years.

Here's an extract from the medical report by Dr Comte who examined her body in 1919:

What struck me during this examination, of course, was the state of perfect preservation of the skeleton, the fibrous tissues of the muscles (still supple and firm), of the ligaments, and of the skin, and above all the totally unexpected state of the liver after 46 years. One would have thought that this organ, which is basically soft and inclined to crumble, would have decomposed very rapidly or would have hardened to a chalky consistency. Yet, when it was cut it was soft and almost normal in consistency. I pointed this out to those present, remarking that this did not seem to be a natural phenomenon.

So did Ambrose actually have a supernatural insight into what would happen to Vortigern? I don't automatically discount it. End of parenthesis.

[Erpingham]

I think the issue for me is failing to place things in context, or consider transmission routes or any of the other things that make up the sources.  Ambrosius' "prophecy"/"allegory" is being recounted from a time when the idea of the red dragon being driven back but ultimately expelling the white still had resonnance - we know that the Welsh would essentially be pegged back to Wales but Nennius could still take comfort in the idea the Saxon's would eventually be expelled.  There seems to be a mingling of traditions in this passage, as there is the search for the fatherless boy at the beginning and the appointment of a man whose father was a consul to shared political power at the end.  I suspect, in keeping with the magical nature of the tale, the original is the mysterious child born by virgin birth, who may, or may not, originally have been connected to Ambrosius and the point of the tale was the prophesy.  Nennius (or his source) has tacked on something from elsewhere about Vortigern raising Ambrosius, a consul's son, to get back to the narrative.

[Justin Swanton]

I think the issue for me is failing to place things in context, or consider transmission routes or any of the other things that make up the sources.  Ambrosius' "prophecy"/"allegory" is being recounted from a time when the idea of the red dragon being driven back but ultimately expelling the white still had resonnance - we know that the Welsh would essentially be pegged back to Wales but Nennius could still take comfort in the idea the Saxon's would eventually be expelled.  There seems to be a mingling of traditions in this passage, as there is the search for the fatherless boy at the beginning and the appointment of a man whose father was a consul to shared political power at the end.  I suspect, in keeping with the magical nature of the tale, the original is the mysterious child born by virgin birth, who may, or may not, originally have been connected to Ambrosius and the point of the tale was the prophesy.  Nennius (or his source) has tacked on something from elsewhere about Vortigern raising Ambrosius, a consul's son, to get back to the narrative.

Sure, but this means discounting the credibility of the sources from the get-go - assuming they are wrong and then finding reasons for why they are wrong. I prefer to start by assuming that Nennius is conscientiously writing straight history and knows all about legends and what to think of them and the need to be careful with them, and from there seeing how far he clearly gets things wrong, accepting as reliable whatever is left over at the end. It's not a foolproof approach but I find it works well.

[Erpingham]

It's not a foolproof approach but I find it works well.

Many others would doubtless disagree   Me, I'll go with the traditional technique of considering the who, where and when of sources, being aware of the literary traditions, the audience and any agendas that the writer may have, consider the views of those better versed in the subject matter, consider the range of evidence available (literary, archeological, scientific etc.) and come to some conclusions .  I find it works well for me.

[Jim Webster]

Sure, but this means discounting the credibility of the sources from the get-go - assuming they are wrong and then finding reasons for why they are wrong. I prefer to start by assuming that Nennius is conscientiously writing straight history and knows all about legends and what to think of them and the need to be careful with them, and from there seeing how far he clearly gets things wrong, accepting as reliable whatever is left over at the end. It's not a foolproof approach but I find it works well.

From memory, isn't it Nennius who apologises somewhere in his introduction or wherever saying , "I have made a heap of all I have found"

Believe it or not I've found it

Ego Nennius Sancti Elbodugi discipulus aliquis excerpta scribere curavi, quae hebitudo gentis Britanniae deiecerat, quia nullam peritiam habuerunt neque ullam commemorationem in libris posuerunt doctores illius insulae Britanniae. Ego autem coacervavi omne quod inveni tam de annalibus Romanorum quam de cronicis sanctorum patrum, et de scriptis Scottorum Saxonumque et ex traditione veterum nostrorum.

I, Nennius, pupil of the holy Elvodug, have undertaken to write down some extracts that the stupidity of the British cast out; for the scholars of the island of Britain had no skill, and set down no record in books. I have therefore made a heap of all that I have found, both from the Annals of the Romans and from the Chronicles of the Holy Fathers, and from the writings of the Irish and the English, and out of the tradition of our elders.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Historia_Brittonum

[Justin Swanton]

Sure, but this means discounting the credibility of the sources from the get-go - assuming they are wrong and then finding reasons for why they are wrong. I prefer to start by assuming that Nennius is conscientiously writing straight history and knows all about legends and what to think of them and the need to be careful with them, and from there seeing how far he clearly gets things wrong, accepting as reliable whatever is left over at the end. It's not a foolproof approach but I find it works well.

From memory, isn't it Nennius who apologises somewhere in his introduction or wherever saying , "I have made a heap of all I have found"

Believe it or not I've found it

Ego Nennius Sancti Elbodugi discipulus aliquis excerpta scribere curavi, quae hebitudo gentis Britanniae deiecerat, quia nullam peritiam habuerunt neque ullam commemorationem in libris posuerunt doctores illius insulae Britanniae. Ego autem coacervavi omne quod inveni tam de annalibus Romanorum quam de cronicis sanctorum patrum, et de scriptis Scottorum Saxonumque et ex traditione veterum nostrorum.

I, Nennius, pupil of the holy Elvodug, have undertaken to write down some extracts that the stupidity of the British cast out; for the scholars of the island of Britain had no skill, and set down no record in books. I have therefore made a heap of all that I have found, both from the Annals of the Romans and from the Chronicles of the Holy Fathers, and from the writings of the Irish and the English, and out of the tradition of our elders.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Historia_Brittonum

Coacervare -
transitive verb: heap/pile up, gather/crowd together; amass, collect; make by heaping; add/total. See here.

It doesn't necessarily imply a willy-nilly lumping together without discernment. In the same passage Nennius says:

May, therefore, candour be shown where the inelegance of my words is insufficient, and may the truth of this history, which my rustic tongue has ventured, as a kind of plough, to trace out in furrows, lose none of its influence from that cause, in the ears of my hearers. For it is better to drink a wholesome draught of truth from the humble vessel, than poison mixed with honey from a golden goblet.

He certainly intends to give an accurate account of the history of the Britons, and apologises only for his lack of mastery of Latin, not the lack of reliability of his sources or of his discernment in using those sources.

[Erpingham]

His intentions are doubtless sincere, though, by his own admission, he is making the best of what he can find.

[Jim Webster]

His intentions are doubtless sincere, though, by his own admission, he is making the best of what he can find.

Given he's taking stuff from, " Annals of the Romans and from the Chronicles of the Holy Fathers, and from the writings of the Irish and the English, and out of the tradition of our elders," it's a pretty mixed bag.

I would suggest that 'heaping up' amassing or collecting is pretty much the opposite of 'sorting' winnowing or otherwise discarding stuff because it doesn't make sense.

But apparently the pdf is here

https://www.yorku.ca/inpar/nennius_giles.pdf

[Imperial Dave]

a couple of points:

I would consider the Alleluia battle an allegory as part of the Germanus narrative (along with the various miracle healings)
Nennius admits that he made a heap of things - we really cant say what was true or not but remembering he is collating stuff that is 400 years old

making a coherent story of Germanus, Ambrosius and 'Arthur' from sources that contain possible truths and obvious embellishments is a house built on sand. We can simply not validate this