NOTE ON AUTHORITIES
The date and authorship of the Historia BriUonum have long been matter of dispute. Sc hoe II and La Borderie (1851 and 1883) held the view that the work was written in the first quarter of the ninth century a.d., discrediting the alleged authorship of Nennius. Zimmer (1803), Duchesne (1804) and Thumeysen (1805) all claim for Nennius some share in the compilation of the book, which they date between 700 and 830. There is no doubt that it is a highly composite work. Zimmer and Thumeysen agree in dating the composition of the nucleus of the Hidoria BriUonum in 670. The sections with which we are concerned are §§ 31-40 and §§ 56-66. The greater part of the latter appears to be derived from an English genealogical document connected with the genealogies which appear in several early MSS. e.g. Cott. Vesp. B 6 (published in Sweet's Oldest English Texts , pp. 167-71), C.C.C.C. 183 and the Textus Roffensis , to which some notices of Welsh origin have also been added. There is some reason for believing that §( 31-40 likewise are partly of English origin (cf. Chadwick, Origin of the English Nation, pp. 38 ff. and 345).
The Saxon Chronicle down to the year 802 is preserved in two recensions, one of which is represented by texts A, B, C, the other by texts D, E, F, for which see Plummer’s introduction. The latter or northern recension contains many additions derived chiefly from Bede's Ecclesiastical History and from some lost Northumbrian annals, which can be traced also in Simeon of Durham and Roger of Howden. The lost archetype from which all the texts are descended down to 892 was perhaps itself extended from an earlier chronicle composed in the time of Aethelwulf. For the period with which we are concerned, the chief sources of the chronicle are firstly, the Chronological Summary in Bede's Ecclesiastical History, v. 24, secondly, a genealogical document intimately related to those mentioned in the preceding note, and thirdly, a series of annals of unknown authorship dealing chiefly with Wessex, which appear to have extended to a time shortly after the middle of the eighth century, though this last section may consist of elements of different date. The value of earlier entries derived from this last source is difficult to estimate, but in any case it is extremely doubtful whether the dates assigned to events before the end of the sixth century can be trusted.
