tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post6185235403327364597..comments2023-09-30T10:36:23.154-05:00Comments on Accidental Historian: AtF: Sins of OmissionGedshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15047239425466517786noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-6580508732168618922010-03-17T12:50:24.659-06:002010-03-17T12:50:24.659-06:00labjantFurther to my last, I should have done a bi...labjantFurther to my last, I should have done a bit more research before posting. I now discover that this issue was dealt with quite impartially by The Rev Acton Griscom in 'The "Book of Basingwerk" and MS Cotton Cleopatra BV' in Y Cymmrodor Vol. 35, 1925 (available online - Google it). Griscom references articles by RW Chambers, which basically revealed Petrie's arguments as fallacious. In particular, the "Breton Brut" was an artefact of Hodgkin's misreading of the Biographie Bretonne (BB). The ref in the BB is page 411, section II. <br /><br />It turns out that the BB refers to 'Brut y Brenhined' (sic) as the *hypothetical* Breton precursor of GoM. Hodgkin read this as implying that the BB author had evidence such a MS actually existed, which, in fact, he did not. It does not speak well of Petrie's method that he failed to go back to Hodgkin's source. <br /><br />That said, Griscom is critical of Chambers and others who dismiss Petrie and the Welsh Bruts as possible witnesses of a pre-GoM legendary history of Britain. He says that these scholars are none of them actually familiar with medieval Welsh, and are largely unaware that the Welsh Bruts have some features which give pause for thought with respect to the idea they are mere translations of GoM. <br /><br />This refers to the fact that some early Bruts (13C) contain the same basic story but have diverged markedly in terms of specific language and phraseology. Of course, it could be that these were just separately commissioned translations of GoM, and that is not at all unfeasible even within 100 years of GoM's original. However, Griscom's point is that the differences could be significant and ought to be considered.<br /><br />Overall, Griscom is saying that the Welsh Bruts are not dismissed as easily as Chambers et al. might like. He himself is not intending to come down either way, but merely setting out the facts for others to ponder.<br /><br />Griscom was writing in 1925. Since then there has been the 1970s work of Brynley Roberts (see Wikipedia on Brut y Brenhinedd), who, judging by his name, is a Welsh scholar, and he apparently disproves any idea that the Welsh Bruts go back to anything before GoM. I would still like to read his arguments though.Marc Widdowsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08962246529595511629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-21303989104418870382010-03-17T12:21:56.649-06:002010-03-17T12:21:56.649-06:00Marc:
I'm just going to start at the end here...Marc:<br /><br />I'm just going to start at the end here, then work around to something else...<br /><br /><i>As for “Brut y Brenhinedd” being the medieval Welsh title of translations of Geoffrey’s history, again I’m not sure this is a stumbling block per se. We need to know exactly what the title of the Breton Brut is claimed to have been. It would not be surprising to find it was something similar to “Brut y Brenhinedd” given that Breton is closely related to Welsh.</i><br /><br />I could well have made this out to be a much bigger issue than it is. My knowledge of medieval Welsh is, shall we say, limited. There also may well be a sort of shop language of which I am completely unaware. This is, of course, one of the problems with attempting to parse something said even a hundred years ago in your native language. Petrie's statements may well have been plainly obvious to his intended audience, but not at all clear to me.<br /><br /><i>I think [Petrie's] scenario, therefore, is that Tysilio is a more authentic version of the Brut material than GoM, and derives directly from an ancient British source. GoM then based himself either on Tysilio or on a Breton equivalent.</i><br /><br />This, actually, is a helpful way of looking at it. I glossed over Petrie's goals and motivations since I'm far more interested in how Cooper is attempting to use Petrie and Tysilio in his own arguments. And since Cooper is attempting to draw a straight line from ancient history -> Tysilio -> Nennius -> GoM. If Petrie was attempting to engage in some form of historiography this was apparently lost on Cooper and, as such, ignored by me.<br /><br /><i>We need to keep a distinction between texts and manuscripts. The existing Jesus College MS of Tysilio is 15th century, if Bill Cooper’s Introduction to his translation can be trusted. What Petrie is arguing is that the Breton Brut proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the content of this 15C MS predates GoM.</i><br /><br />I did make a bit of a muddle of this. In my defense, all the of the MS listings I had seen seemed to refer back to either GoM or Nennius and it wasn't until the follow up post that I saw Cooper's later translation of Tysilio.<br /><br />As such, if Cooper is to be believed that Jesus College has a manuscript of an authentic Seventh Century document then, yes, the game has changed.<br /><br />But then the question becomes, "But how much, really?" Because even if we can say with a strong degree of certainty that there really was an ancient Tysilio document and GoM really did find, translate, and use it, does that mean that Tysilio itself is valid?<br /><br />That's been the question that's driving me...Gedshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15047239425466517786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-73620267777931546082010-03-17T10:44:37.770-06:002010-03-17T10:44:37.770-06:00The crucial thing here seems to be the alleged &qu...The crucial thing here seems to be the alleged "Brut y Brenhined, written in Brittany in the Breton dialect in the time of Athelstan (925 - 941) by an insular Briton", for whose existence Petrie relies on Thomas Hodgkin, "Cornwall and Brittany", Royal Cornwall Polytechnic Society, 1910. Petrie indicates that Hodgkin in turn relies on the Biographie Bretonne (hereafter BB) of 1852. <br /><br />These references are unsatisfactory as they are both secondary sources. Is there an extant MS of this alleged Breton Brut? What is the basis of the BB's claim that such a work existed in the 10C? Elsewhere, Petrie refers to the Breton Brut as having existed not just in 925-941, but in 940 precisely. Where did that date come from? <br /><br />The BB is available online as a PDF but does not seem to be searchable. Someone needs to go back to Hodgkin, trace his ref to the BB, and then find out whether the BB has any solid evidence for this Breton Brut. <br /><br />It is not very impressive that Petrie failed to check Hodgkin's reference, given that he relies on it so heavily. For let us suppose that the 10C Breton Brut (meaning a document with substantially the same content as the later medieval Welsh Bruts) does or did exist. Then GoM was telling the truth when he said he was translating an earlier source. And this opens the possibility that his material is not just his own 12C concoction but accesses some ancient British traditions. So genuine evidence for a 10C Breton Brut would be very exciting. Without it, Petrie’s argument is much weaker (but not completely destroyed).<br /><br />Now, Petrie is admittedly unclear about precisely what scenario he is suggesting. However, his starting point is that textual comparison shows GoM is derivative of Tysilio not vice versa. He also argues that Tysilio’s account of Caesar’s invasion is convincing as representing an independent tradition and indeed a British perspective on the events--albeit somewhat garbled, showing that it was first transmitted orally then written down a century or so later.<br /><br />I think his scenario, therefore, is that Tysilio is a more authentic version of the Brut material than GoM, and derives directly from an ancient British source. GoM then based himself either on Tysilio or on a Breton equivalent. <br /><br />I don’t think it is true to say that Tysilio being a figure of the 7C makes a nonsense of Petrie’s attempt to justify Tysilio on the basis of the 10C Breton Brut. We need to keep a distinction between texts and manuscripts. The existing Jesus College MS of Tysilio is 15th century, if Bill Cooper’s Introduction to his translation can be trusted. What Petrie is arguing is that the Breton Brut proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the content of this 15C MS predates GoM. That is the 15C MS is derived not from GoM but from a MS tradition independent of GoM. If the Breton Brut exists, Petrie’s argument is pretty unassailable in this respect. If it doesn’t exist, though, he can still keep his argument afloat on the much weaker claim that inter-textual comparison demonstrates the anteriority of Tysilio (the text, not the specific MS).<br /><br />As for “Brut y Brenhinedd” being the medieval Welsh title of translations of Geoffrey’s history, again I’m not sure this is a stumbling block per se. We need to know exactly what the title of the Breton Brut is claimed to have been. It would not be surprising to find it was something similar to “Brut y Brenhinedd” given that Breton is closely related to Welsh. That is, I am not sure Petrie/Hodgkin are insisting the Breton version was called exactly “Brut y Brenhinedd”--this may be just a term of convenience.<br /><br />To sum up, I think further investigation is needed to dispose of this. Specifically, the Breton Brut of Petrie, Hodgkin and the BB needs to be shown to be spurious. Personally, I would also like to see the arguments of Brynley Roberts countering Petrie’s argument that Tysilio is prior to Geoffrey.Marc Widdowsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08962246529595511629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-73518571160098879832010-02-16T14:03:26.891-06:002010-02-16T14:03:26.891-06:00"... and we have left undone those things whi..."... and we have left undone those things which we ought to have done, and there is no health in us."<br /><br />I'm neither a professional archaeologist nor a historian, but I've hung around with them, and AFAICT Petrie's reputation is that he was as honest as the day is long, but his methodology is well obsolete. He did some stuff which was great in its time, but I don't think anybody studies him now.<br /><br />So Tysilio is about as creditable a source as any other early mediaeval chronicler, is what your saying? Is there a translation available? I'd love to read it. The only context I've ever heard of him before was <a href="http://www.llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch.com/information-about-llanfair.htm" rel="nofollow">this one</a> - Tysilio appears about 15 characters from the end.chris yhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07556240635442613879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-66967032095801060972010-02-15T10:54:26.392-06:002010-02-15T10:54:26.392-06:00I believe that's what we're seeing, yes.
...I believe that's what we're seeing, yes.<br /><br />The problem with interpreting "Neglected British History" is two-fold. <br /><br />First, I don't know what Petrie knew or was capable of knowing. It's entirely possible that in 1917 the generally held belief was that <i>Brut y Brenhinedd</i> was an older book which Geoffrey of Monmouth used as source material. He could also have been referring to a different <i>Brut</i> when he made the reference using just one word. "Brut" originally referred to any chronicle of Brutus, but eventually came to refer to any chronicle of kings written in Welsh. The problem here is that the word was not used in that way until after <i>Brut y Brenhinedd</i> itself. The only other Brut I know of is <i>Brut y Tywysogion</i>, which came after Geoffrey, but may have been based on source material going all the way back to 682 and does include references to one "Elbodius," who we met earlier as "Elvodug," Nennius' mentor. It's possible that Petrie was referring to this <i>Brut</i> and not Geoffrey's.<br /><br />The second problem, of course, is that I can't say for certain whether or not Petrie is a trustworthy source. I highly doubt that he would have been entirely on Bill Cooper's side, but I can't say for certain that he wasn't presenting his paper for his own version of history. Petrie was, after all, a British patriot. He may well have had his own reasons to advance the cause of British history and claim an antiquity it does not deserve.<br /><br />I decided to give Petrie the benefit of the doubt, but I may look at him more closely in the future. He was a brilliant archaeologist who put much of modern archeology in place and trained, among others, Howard Carter. But he was definitely a product of his times and carried that baggage with it. He's also known for discovering the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_stele" rel="nofollow">Merneptah Stele</a>, which is claimed to be the first reference to Israel in history.<br /><br />I'm of two minds on this: first, it implies that Israel was a political force worthy of mention, which at the time it probably wasn't. On the one hand, it seems specious and Petrie had to make a massive leap of logic to get Israel out of that particular Stele. On the other hand, it actually coincides quite well with my <a href="http://accidental-historian.blogspot.com/2009/05/sea-people.html" rel="nofollow">Sea People = Israel</a> theory. Erm, the Sea People theory. I'm hardly the first to advance it...Gedshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15047239425466517786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3375512083268389933.post-50679329861232017502010-02-15T08:50:30.272-06:002010-02-15T08:50:30.272-06:00Okay, I've read through the entire thing, and ...Okay, I've read through the entire thing, and I'm still confused. Also, I'm out of tylenol, and I'm at work, so... sober. And really, all I can say is, "Ouch."<br /><br />So did Petrie just *miss* the part where he was citing the-same-work-by-another-title to support his claims about better-known-title-of-that-same work? <br /><br />And do I have that part right? That is what we're seeing here, yes?Michael Mockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06233321050691782148noreply@blogger.com