Talk:Annales Cambriae

Untitled

Medraut is Mordred, not Merlin. Merlin is Myrddin in modern Welsh, so probably Myrdin in mediaeval Welsh. QuartierLatin1968 20:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

In fact, Medraut is the early 12th c. form of the Welsh name Medrod. Mordred is a form first found in the later medieval French Arthurian romances, and is an alteration of Geoffrey of Monmouth's variant form Modred. Geoffrey's form is perhaps not simply a variant, but a substantially different Cornish or Breton personal name.--Henrywgc 12:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The Arthurian entries

The latest study suggests that the date of the final copying of the A annales might be as late as 1200. As such there is every chance that the first two entries were interpolations taken from the works of Geoffrey of Monmouth. The battle of Arfderydd is atested in other sources and was definitely an historical event.--Paul Remfry (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Paul - thanks for this, but I've moved it from the article page to the discussion page as more appropriate. 'The latest study'? - do you have a reference for this?? I saw there was a PhD paper from University of Wales Aberystwyth some years ago which I've not managed to get hold of yet, but perhaps there's something else too? David Dumville still seems to be saying c.1100. What I really need is a photocopy of the MSS for the B and C texts, if you know anyone who....? There are, of course, no contemporary witnesses for the Battle of 'Arderit', so there must remain a large question mark over this, and its date. --Henrywgc (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Digital copies of the B and C texts are available from The British Library (Cotton Domitian Ai) and The National Archives (E164/1). C is a very clean and clear text. The first page of B is severely damaged but the rest of the MS is mostly clearly legible. Amongst the errors picked up in comparing the MSS with Williams ab Ithel's edition, a completely missing (and somewhat baffling) annal from B at its 'Anus' 709 (= c. AD 681) 'bellum anglorum in campo liphi contra britones'; apparently a notice of a war between the English and the British on the Plain of Liffey (i.e. in Ireland), but conceivably an error for a place in Wales (possibly campo *Linphi?), in which case perhaps a reference to the campaign noted in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle sub anno 682. --Henrywgc (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Advert removed

I've removed a link that just seemed to be an advert, on the basis that this kind of shouldn't be here: the link pointed straight to a page for purchasing (via Paypal) a text of the Annales Cambriae and the page contains no real content aside from this and an index for said text. I'm basing this deletion on Wikipedia:ADVERT#External_link_spamming and Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wasn't sure what to do about this, as it was inserted by a third party.--Henrywgc (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Latest study

I think you'll find at the time of writing (June 2010) the 'latest study' is mine (small burst of pride here) in the Welsh History Review (Grigg 'Mole Rain'). I reckon the Arthurian entries have been expanded by later scribes, but not fabricated and slotted into previously blank years at a later date. I also don't think there is a definitive date for the Welsh Annals, they probably derive from earlier material and were composed in the form we have today around 954 but even the surviving texts have been subject to changes or omissions during the 10th to 13th centuries. They are an interesting source and it is a shame people only look at the Arthurian entries. This focus on the controversial figure of Arthur means that 'serious' historians are often unnecessarily sceptical about the annals while over-enthusiastic amateurs come out with rather dubious theories about them. There are many other entries and that are also interesting and problematic. The best I think is the mole rain. That entry makes the Arthurian ones look straightforward! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.166.12 (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! I've now read 'Mole Rain', and as you'll see it's now in the list of references. Very interesting! I'm beginning to think we should start thinking about a 'Chronicle of Wales' behind all the extant versions, a la the 'Chronicle of Ireland'. It may have commenced no earlier than the 7th century, and extended into the 10th? Henrywgc (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrywgc (talk • contribs)

English translations of the A & B texts

User:Henrywgc deleted links to the English translations of the texts at Wikisource under the mistaken rationale that "Wikisource isn't for translations".

a) Wikisource most certainly is for translations (cf., inter alia, the first line of "What is Wikisource").

b) It is unhelpful (to say the least) to force readers of the English Wikipedia to click the Latin texts so they can then go to the English that they can actually read. (More than unhelpful since many will be put off in the first place or assume the English versions don't exist.)

I've already pointed out the relevant policies to Mr. Wgc, but should he come back through and continue removing the links, could other editors kindly restore the {{wikisource}} link to "Annals of Wales" in the external links section? Thanks. — LlywelynII 21:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it should be obvious that Wikisource includes translations; translations of this work are located here. I see no reason to remove that.Cúchullain ^t/c 21:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I apologise unreservedly; I thought the link to the original Latin text of the 'B' text had been removed and panicked, trying to revert to an earlier version. In the cold light of day I see things are OK! The editions of the original A and B texts are on WikiFons, not Wikisource, of course, and a reliable translation of both of them would be most useful. I think it should be made clear in the title that the 1912 translation by Ingram combines text from MSS. A, B & C for the period from the mid-5th to the late 10th centuries, and is the basis for the version found on Medieval Sources website and in Morris et al's edition of Nennius. In fact, this mix-and-match version has proliferated throughout the www. The statement 'The Harleian MS does not use the Dionysian era but records dates from around the establishment of the church at Armagh by Saint Patrick' is misleading: the Harleian text records no dates whatsoever: these have to be deduced from external sources. The 'B' text has no dates until b1119, which is stated as mxcvii, 1097, after which the anni domini are given almost continuously. The curious mismatch of annal number to AD date is examined in Brett, Caroline, 1988 'The Prefaces of Two Late Thirteenth-century Welsh Latin Chronicles' (Hughes and Dumville also comment in earlier papers) - the world chronicles of both B and C have been unsuccessfully spliced onto the tenth-century Chronicle of Wales (the text evidenced in A), probably in the early thirteenth century. There are no missing pages! I look forward to developing this page further. And, strength to the translator's arm! Henrywgc (talk) 09:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks for that. I can't find the Brett article itself (free or at JSTOR) but it's interesting the B text started using dates (I hadn't gotten that far myself) and apparently got it so wrong even on its own terms (b1119 means the scribe is writing "in the year of the Lord 1097" at a place in the chronicle 1060 years after the birth of Christ). The only good news is that, once they got AD dates, they seem to have got the right ones: the chronicle has Hastings exactly 37 years off.

(An even bigger headache if this synchronization is right, since it has the 6th and 7th century dates normally exactly 27 years off.)

If you have a copy, could you pass along a summary of Brett's ideas for what the scribe was thinking? Was it just paschal cycles being more important that real dates or what? — LlywelynII 15:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Send me your email address and I can send you a pdf of Brett with pleasure. Henrywgc (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The only good news is that, once they got AD dates, they seem to have got the right ones< :::Unfortunately, this is not always true, particularly in the twelfth century! Henrywgc (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Online C Text

The only one I can locate seems to be here, but it's purposefully truncated. Anywhere else? — LlywelynII 15:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

"Annals of the Menevan Church"

So this thing—the Annales Ecclesiae Menevensis, Annales Menevensis, "Annals of the Church at St Davids", whatever—what the hell is it? Is it the same thing as the C text? It doesn't seem to be and it doesn't seem to match the extract given above. But what is it and what's its story? — LlywelynII 15:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like extracts from the C text to illustrate the succession of bishops at Mynyw. I don't know what its story is, though... Henrywgc (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

He talks about it in the preface: it's definitely from Cotton. Domitian A.I., but it's formatted so differently. Any idea where a simple complete copy might be? — LlywelynII 18:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

s:Annales Menevensis ← since the link was removed. — LlywelynII 18:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Simple complete transcriptions of all three Welsh Latin chronicles are now available at WikiSource via the link at the foot of the article page.--Henrywgc (talk) 10:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Annals of wales listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Annals of wales. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Annales Cambriæ

the correct spelling should be “Annales Cambriæ”; if nobody objects, I will rename the article accordingly. --Jan Hejkrlík (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)