This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 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)
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)
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)
User:Henrywgc deleted links to the English translations of the texts at Wikisource under the mistaken rationale that "Wikisource isn't for translations".
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)
The only one I can locate seems to be here, but it's purposefully truncated. Anywhere else? — LlywelynII 15:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 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)
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)
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)
User:Henrywgc deleted links to the English translations of the texts at Wikisource under the mistaken rationale that "Wikisource isn't for translations".
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)
The only one I can locate seems to be here, but it's purposefully truncated. Anywhere else? — LlywelynII 15:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)