Talk:Brut y Brenhinedd

Unbalanced article

This article essentially reproduces uncritically the arguments of the author of the online translation, who is a pseudohistorian. All reputable sources agree this chronicle is an abridged translation of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae, and that Geoffrey's claim to have translated the HRB from an ancient British book is dubious at best. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Even the argument about the the extent that the contents differ from Geoffrey is highly misleading, to say the least. There are literally scores (over 60) of translations/adaptations into Middle Welsh which can be classed into six chief variant groups. Some omit material, others add, presumably from the stock tradition of the cyfarwyddiaid (professional storytellers). There are so many wild claims made here, and presented as fact, it's hard to know where to start, but the purported history of the book - starting with it being written in 410 AD (!) - is as good a point as any. This needs to be thoroughly revised. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There are large sections in this chronicle which are not included in GoM and I think it is a reasonable assertion from Cooper (the author of this translation) that these extra portions as well as the absence of GoM's narrative make this document significantly different to HRB. As a matter of fact I did state that the stories contained in the chronicle would have probably been written in the CENTURIES FOLLOWING 410AD - not literally in 410AD. The 15th Century copy of Walter of Oxford's 12th Century original does exist and is found in the library in Oxford. Presumably, if Walter of Oxford, as he says, translated the book in the 12th Century FROM Welsh to Latin and THEN back into Welsh he would have revised the language of the original document he had initially translated into Latin into the form of Welsh contemporary to his time. This would suggest that the original material was not in the contemporary form of Welsh of the 12th Century and required translation suggesting the original material was written sometime before. Walter (Archdeacon) of Oxford and Geoffrey of Monmouth were both fellows at Oxford at the same time. I think it is unlikely that one would have directly copied the other and claimed it as his own work. It is surely more likely, that both had access to the same material and wrote two separate chronicles differing significantly in style as well as substance. It is entirely plausible that the original material which provided the source for both GoM and Walter of Oxford has been lost or destroyed, why not? Many ancient books and manuscripts were destroyed at various stages in English history. In writing this wiki I hoped to make a brief synopsis of this Chronicle and try to explain how it differed from HRB and highlight the portions of particular interest to anyone with an interest in Welsh legends, the late Iron Age and sub-Roman Britain. I agree that the areas in which the two Chronicles are alike ought to be explained more as well as the arguments asserting that the two Chronicles are fundamentally the same. Both documents contain stories about events for which there are no other sources, and both books describe those events slightly differently - and for that reason they are of interest to many. I hope that we can agree that a) HRB and the Chronicle of the Britons appear to be written by two different men; Geoffrey of Monmouth and Walter of Oxford respectively, and that b) there are numerous differences between the two, not least in style. Finally, c) Yes, both documents (Geoffreys and Walters) contain events that clearly did not happen and also describe events that may have happened but in a way which seems to us fantastical and unbelievable. However they may well be based on real events of which there is no other record. For the record I would welcome a considered revision of this article James Frankcom (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, James. Hope you don't take these criticisms personally, of course, but I believe they are valid. Strange that the introduction to the translation (why no original text as well?) is the only non-Biblical item on an American fundamentalist website which teaches, amongst other things, that "the KJV (King James Version) is the only inspired version (of the Bible) and all others are satanic perverted versions," and that "God created all things. There is no such thing as evolution."! I don't have time to answer all your points tonight, but I think I've already answered your first point above ("There are literally scores (over 60) of translations/adaptations into Middle Welsh which can be classed into six chief variant groups. Some omit material, others add, presumably from the stock tradition of the cyfarwyddiaid"). This particular text, which I admit I've not read, is a version in the group often called "Brut Tysilio". Whatever may be claimed by the translator (no easy task - how well qualified is he?) these views are flatly contradictory to those held by every reputable scholar in the field. The article ignores that completely and presents a description and interpretation which would be rejected - point by point if need be - by anyone familiar with the textual history of the Welsh redactions of HRB. This is merely one person's interpretaion of one of sixty-odd texts. That is not acceptable in an encyclopedic article. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

James, you simply can't say that "The 15th Century copy of Walter of Oxford's 12th Century original does exist and is found in the library in Oxford". The truth is, a 15th century document which claims to be a copy of Walter of Oxford's original exists. It is far from unusual for medieval documents to claim spurious authority, and it is credulous in the extreme to accept such claims uncritically. This particular Welsh version follows Geoffrey very closely, abridging to some extent, and the only significant addition is the story of Llydd and Llefelys, a well-known Welsh tale included in the Mabinogion.

My own study of the HRB, which is original research so I can't include it in the article, leads me to believe that, based on proper names, the vast majority of it must be based on sources in Latin, not Welsh or any other language. The naming of the city as "Trinovantum" is derived from a very specifically Latin grammatical error. Most of the Latin-based material is identifiably adapted from either Bede or the Historia Brittonum, and so can't possibly be earlier than the mid-9th century. Names of many of the early kings are cribbed from identifiable Welsh genealogies, with stories either made up or taken from lost written or oral sources and forced into an artificial chronology. Later kings are cribbed from Gildas, but made consecutive instead of contemporary. There is some other material which must have had sources, but these are not identifiable. Details about Kimbelinus (Cunobelinus) are historically plausible, but can't be corroborated from anywhere else. The story of his sons Arviragus and Guiderius and their resistance to Claudius's invasion is close enough in broad strokes to Cassius Dio's history of Caratacus and Togodumnus to be beyond coincidence, but wrong enough in detail that it can't have been taken from a genuine Roman history of the invasion, and based on names I think this section is the most likely to have a British source - the Welsh versions call the brothers Gweyrydd and Gwydyr; Geoffrey's Arviragus looks like a learned substitution for Gweyrydd from Juvenal, and Guiderius is a Latinisation of Gwydyr. The massacre at London under Asclepiodotus is reminiscent of a genuine massacre there during Constantius and Asclepiodotus' invasion as referred to in the Panegyrici Latini, but wrong enough about who Constantius and Asclepiodotus were and whose side their were on that it can't come from the Panegyrici Latini; the skulls found in the Wallbrook in the 19th century also testify to some garbled truth in this incident. But the Welsh versions scramble Asclepiodotus' name unrecognisably, and Geoffrey gets it exactly right - as do Bede and the HB. If this Welsh chronicle was indeed translated by Walter from his own Latin translation of the "very ancient book" that Geoffrey translated into Latin, would Walter have got such names so badly garbled when Geoffrey didn't? --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you know far more on this subject than I and I bow to your judgement on these things. It is interesting to note that despite this being on some Christian website, I had not looked at other parts of the site, I confess, there are some very graphic descriptions of pagan rituals which I have never seen elsewhere - for example, the part in the text which describes the incantations made by Brutus to the Goddess Diana before his voyage. The translation, appears on the face of it, not to have been adulterated with any Christian distortion because, logically, they would seek to influence the reader to a Christian viewpoint - I have scrutinized the text and can find no evidence of this. Furthermore, don't the differences in the names of certain characters suggest that at least parts of this chronicle come from another source separate to both Bede and HRB. Another point, who was "Walter of Oxford"? Finally, the author (Cooper) cites a language expert at Oxford in his preface who checked the translation - is this person a real academic? My sole remaining point really is that there ARE substantial differences between this chronicle and HRB. Why those differences are there is important, and might allude to differing source materials? Purely because of the additional stories in this chronicle which do not exist in the HRB I maintain it is worthy of a wiki, but yes, the wiki must be improved to explain what those differences are and arguments about the worthiness of this chronicle as a resource James Frankcom (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Re-reading an old discussion, I feel the need to point out, for anyone reading, that the incantations to Diana mentioned above are in fact present in Geoffrey's Historia, in rather longer form. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Disputed

It looks like the recent edits to this article have not cleared up the above issues. As ever the main problem is that no reliable sources are used to back up the statements. The scholarly consensus is that Geoffrey's "very ancient book" is at best not extant (and more likely made up). This has to be addressed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to make it clearer why this document is different to GoM and therefore of interest to the historian. It is interesting to note that Walter of Oxford says he translated the original work into Latin from Welsh and then back into Latin. If he was in posession of the original Welsh document he would not need to do this, other than to copy the book so there was another copy. Peter Roberts who translated MS LXI suggested that this was because the original Welsh copy was being worked on by Geoffrey of Monmouth at the time Walter of Oxford wanted to copy the document into the Welsh that was contemporary to his time and understood by ordinary men, suggesting the original was in Old Welsh and unintelligable to the layman. Geoffrey of Monmouth in the preface of History of the Kings of Britain says he used a "very ancient book" given to him by Walter of Oxford which corroborates the fact these two men lived at the same time and used the same source.

There are distinct differences in style and really important differences in content between Historia of the Kings of Britain by Geoffrey and the Chronicle of the Britons by Walter. The work by Geoffrey of Monmouth is far more embellished than the work by Walter, and given that both profess to use the same source - which is nowl lost - it seems reasonable to consider the fact that The Chronicle is a valuable document which deserves great scrutiny. Flinders Petrie made the same point in 1917. Sadly, it seems some people cannot get past the school book dogma that Geoffrey of Monmouth was some sort of lunatic and fantasist, which is based more on the fact he is a Welsh author than anything else. Such points were no doubt made at the time by people who refused to accept there were organised Celtic social systems before the Roman Empire. Archaeology is gradually proving this view point to be false. As for the "very ancient book in the British language" cited by the 12th Century authors it is highly likely that such a document existed and that neither nor both of these men were lying about it. Many, many items were lost or destroyed during the Disolusion of the Monastries and later during the Civil War. Because it does not exist now does not mean it did not exist then.

A critique of the document would be useful to balance the article, but otherwise this wiki hopes to outline why the Chronicle of the Britons is an important document in its own right and how it is different to History of the Kings of Britain.James Frankcom (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the article to Brut y Brenhinedd, the title it's universally given in scholarly publications, and rewritten it based on Robrts' introduction to his edition of the text. A few more sources would be good, and I'll see what I can do there, but it's now on much firmer ground. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I see you have deleted about three quarters of the wiki and totally changed the emphasis of the wiki from one which was admittedly in favour of this Chronicle containing independent information different from GoM and which could contain information taken, as the authors stated, from a common ancient source, to one which is now unacceptably biased the other way towards complete dismissal of it as a different document and offers no description of what the Chronicle contains nor how the style and content differ between this and the work of GoM. Please can you reverse this slash and burn edit and allow some debate or there will be a serious edit disagreement here... James Frankcom (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I note a subsequent revision by you. It is still entirely one sided and does not explore the arguments in favour of the Brut y Brenhinedd being based on an original source and not based on GoM.James Frankcom (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the move, Nicknack. As I recently said to Enaidmawr on his talk page, the reason I never took a stab at this article is that I was unclear what it was even supposed to be about under its old title.

James, you say that the new version is "one sided" and does not "explore the arguments in favour of the Brut y Brenhinedd being based on an original source and not based on GoM". However, your material is entirely unverifiable because you did not include any reliable sources to back up any of the statements. Wikipedia works by verifiabilty, not truth, so even if it were true that the Geoffrey was telling the truth about his source material (which is very unlikely), we are obliged to go by the consensus of scholars in the field instead. This is not about politics, some perceived anti-Welsh vendetta, or scholastic dogmatism. It's about summarizing what the top scholars are saying whether we agree or not.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and I was attempting to cite Flinders Petrie, Cooper, Roberts et al as examples of scholars who believe this Chronicle to be of unique, primary importance to the understanding of Brythonic History. Just because a view point is modern does not necessarily make it the only view point. I am going to make it a personal project to get the source quotes required to fully explore the counter-argument to those made by modern revisionist historians (basically, you cite the work of just one, Brynley Roberts and refer to him as "all modern scholars"). In the meantime, please don't dismiss all of Geoffrey of Monmouth, Walter of Oxford, Flinders Petrie, Robert Cooper, Peter Roberts and Thomas Hodgkin out of hand. Each of them makes a clear argument that there is a basis of truth to ancient British myth - many myths have been shown to have a basis in truth - and that given the historical and geographical circumstances regarding Saint Tysilio it is not beyond the realms of possibility that his manuscript (now lost) was translated in the 12th Century by Walter and later by Geoffrey and later formed the basis for their respective works. It is over simplistic and frankly lazy to declare anything that does not fit the frame to have been made up. James Frankcom (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear James, I'm afraid you're confusing a couple of issues here. Let me just point out two weaknesses in your ramshackle argument. The possibility that there was such a thing as a "certain very ancient book", whatever language was intended by britannicus sermo, does nothing to prove that the Brut Tysilio was somehow a direct copy. You also seem to misunderstand the significance of textual differences, as if these were either (1) based on Walter's book, or else (2) invented out of thin air, and so building on your own assumptions, you misrepresent what Roberts and Parry have to say about it, claiming that they dismiss variances as "fraud or fantastical invention" (your words, not theirs). I suspect you haven't even read them, so who is being lazy? If it is a highly sophisticated civilisation in Late Roman Britain that you're looking for, then you're simply looking in all the wrong places. Cavila (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Cavila, thanks for being so patronising. The original wiki was deleted by Cuchullain on the basis that it was unbalanced and the principle arguments were (in the discussion page) that GoM made "spurious" claims and had a "wild imagination". The new wiki is based on the works, from what I can gather, of only one revisionist historian. The principle author of the new wiki makes the sweeping claim that "all modern scholars" agree that the manuscripts pertaining to this period in the Iron Age are "all" based upon GoM and are therefore unreliable. I assert that this is also unbalanced. I have sought to have included evidence in favour of and in opposition to the premis that there may be elements in the Brut y Brenhinedd/etc that could be based upon original source material that has since been lost. I am not looking for a "highly sophisticated" civilisation as you put it, I am just asking for the contents of that Chronicle and in the Historia which do not fit the standard pattern are not dismissed as solely the invention of a fertile imagination. I have not read every book on the matter and nor do I claim to have done, but I have read modern translations of the primary sources numerous times, compared them, and studied number of papers published about them. The article must remain balanced and pieces of information written by Britons concering that period - for which little or nothing is known other than what the victors (e.g. Caesar) cared to put to paper - are extremely valuable to our understanding of that whole period and ought not be dismissed as being invention when that has not been proved. I don't want an editing war, I just want both sides of the argument to be put. James Frankcom (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The original article was not "deleted" by Cucullain, unless the drink is having an even stronger effect on my memory than I'd already thought. It was re-edited by Nicknack009 and then Cavila, who replaced the unsourced content with material based on reliable sources. You keep insisting that your position be included in the article, but you haven't provided any reliable sources to back up your claims. You will have to do this. Just to reiterate though, I think it will be nigh on impossible to find any. I've done a considerable amount of reading in this area, as have the others who have weighed in here, and I've never heard anyone in modern times argue seriously that the Bruts are not based on Geoffrey. At least, I've never heard of scholars taking that position; such things seem common among Anglo-Israelites, neo-Celtic religionists, and other types of British nationalists.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

In the Brut (but not in the Historia) there is certain specific material which describes in detail the political events in Britain preceeding the Julian invasion. There is also some material detailing the military tactics adopted by the Britains to oppose the Romans; some of which are corroborated in Commentarii de Bello Gallico others are not. Flinders Petrie and other historians who have studied the Brut have claimed that these may represent surviving fragments of native Iron Age accounts of those events, and it would appear are not copied from the Roman accounts because of clear differences between them - the sort of differences that would be highly illogical for British writers to make. If there are elements of this story that have been preserved then they are of great value. There are compelling arguments (with examples) in favour of this made by the historians Petrie, Hodgkin and Cooper. I am not for a moment saying that the legendary tale of Brutus of Troy travelling to Britain is a literal account, but it too may preserve a folk memory of Celtic migration patterns. To dismiss all of these tales as pure invention by Geoffrey of Monmouth, as has been done, I think is over simplisitic. Given that Geoffrey of Monmouth alleges he procured the source of his material - the contraversial "very ancient book" - from a real person, Walter of Oxford, it is not unreasonable to consider that Walter had probably already translated that book himself before handing it over to Geoffrey? If "spurious" Geoffrey had just made that up and Walter of Oxford was a real person living at the same time then surely Walter would have publically refuted Geoffrey's spurious claims? If first Walter, then Geoffrey and possibly others made various translations of the original document is it not unreasonable to suggest that the Historia and the various versions of the Brut may all be interpretation of an original now lost document and not copies of Geoffrey's work. Readers have commented that the Brut that is kept at Oxford appears devoid of most of the embellishments synonymous to Geoffrey and is potentially a closer match to the original than the story as told by Geoffrey of Monmouth. James Frankcom (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"Containing surviving fragments" is one thing. Clearly these manuscripts do include material that is independent of Geoffrey. Lludd and Llefelys does not appear in Geoffrey, and may well predate him. That does not, however, demonstrate that all or most of the material is independent of Geoffrey, and it especially does not demonstrate that Geoffrey must have gotten his material from the Bruts or a common source. And Ludd is certainly not an accurate representation of historical events passed down through the ages, it's typical medieval fiction. At any rate, your arguments will continue to fall on deaf ears if you do not back them with reliable sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

To summarise your position; 1) Geoffrey of Monmouth mainly invented the content of his Historia. 2) He lied when he said he had used an ancient book given to him by Walter of Oxford as his primary source. 3) All the other chronicles containing events from this period are based wholly, or mainly on Geoffrey's Historia and are therefore unreliable. Is this correct? James Frankcom (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. No one's arguing that Geoffrey made up his material whole-cloth. In fact, very much of his material comes from earlier sources (the Historia Brittonum and several Latin histories, for example), while names indicate he had some knoweldge of Welsh traditional material, at least superficially. However, I believe the overall narrative was his work. In other words, he took disparate material from a variety of sources, combined it with stuff he just made up, and synthesized it all together into one cohesive narrative, thereby creating something new. The fact of the matter is that no chronicle that mirrors the Historia's narrative can be shown to predate the Historia itself. So yes, I think Geoffrey wasn't telling the truth when he said his work was essentially copied from an "ancient book" - the "I didn't make it up, I copied from an emminent ancient book" routine is one of the oldest tricks in the, well, book. And yes, I believe that all the Bruts descend from the Historia at some remove or another, with material added or subtracted, but I would be happy (and very excited) to be proven wrong. And no, I don't believe that any of them are reliable history in and of themselves, though the original sources may or may not be. But it doesn't matter what I or any other Wikipedia editor thinks, it matters what the scholars in the field think. This is why the attempt has been made to attribute the claims to reliable sources, something that was not at all done in the previous version of the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Cúchulainn and Cavila, while I admire your attempts to reason with James, I'm encountered this kind of editor on Wikipedia before, and they are not amenable to reason. James' purpose is evidently to disseminate erroneous ideas for political reasons, and all he can offer in support of those ideas is weasel words, poisoning the well and accusations of bias. Until he is prepared to start citing reputable sources, all his edits should be reverted on sight. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Cuchulainn for your reasoned and rational response. Sadly I must move on from that and address Nicknack009 because of the threats and insults he is throwing around. Firstly, I think those people who you are urging to reverse my edits can make up their own minds, and the arbitary reversing of my edits would count as an "edit war" and potentially as vandalism and could therefore lead to you being barred from this site. It is probably best if you don't do that. Secondly, for your information, I have written many reasoned, well referenced articles over more than five years for wikipedia. I have studied Welsh history for over ten years. I will work on a summary of the arguments put by various historians in favour of the claim that Geoffrey of Monmouth and Walter of Oxford both used a common source which may now be lost, and that this document may illuminate an otherwise shrowded period of British history as no others do. I think there is evidence that the purest surviving form of this lost chronicle is the Brut y Brenhinedd. I will make this argument in a special segment of this wiki with professional references in due course and I expect you to respect my right to do that.

It is not I, but you, who are name calling and "poisoning" as you put it. You have repeatedly made the slanderous claim that I am some kind of right wing lunatic whose academic interest and work on this site is solely driven by a malevolent desire to pervert history. Frankly that is entirely without foundation, insulting and tantamount to criminal libel. It also belittles all that you do. I am a modern antiquarian and my extensive reading has led me to the conclusion that there is much to be said of Welsh legend and the internet now makes it possible to revisit their work and research their conclusions.

I have therefore requested this wiki be written in such a way as to not entirely discount the possibility that the Brut may contain material taken from a "very ancient book" as Geoffrey states and allow a discussion on that point outlining the points made by historians to that effect. Presently the wiki opens with the claim that the Brut y Brenhinedd is simply a copy of Geoffrey of Monmouth's work. This is a view point which has certainly been disputed by a number of historians, first among those W. M. Flinders Petrie, a Fellow of the Royal Society. I am asking you to drop the dogmatism, stop the insults, and allow for that argument to be put.James Frankcom (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This article will be written in whatever way reputable sources can justify. Until you can cite a reputable source, you have no business editing the article. And don't make legal threats. --Nicknack009 (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I have neither insulted you, threatened you, or said what you claim I said about you even once, never mind "repeatedly". Unless you post under multiple usernames, I have never had any dispute with you before. Finally, Flinders Petrie was a distinguished archaeologist who in 1917 floated an idea on a subject that had not yet been properly studied. The study that has been done since has shown him to be wrong. --Nicknack009 (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I quote from what you said: "James' purpose is evidently to disseminate erroneous ideas for political reasons". That is untrue, baseless and libelous and I demand you retract it. Also I feel your wiki is very heavily weighted in favour of just one study, by Brynley Roberts, which I can see you have an emotional attachment to, do you know the guy? Roberts' work is just one study which I think has a very narrow focus and does not take into account evidence from other sources, like the Triads and the Breton version of the Brut (c.940AD). It seems to start from the paradigm that Geoffrey is a fraud and then find evidence to support that conclusion. It is also just one study, and you cannot use one study as a weapon to beat other editors with who have come to a different conclusion from reading other experts work. This wiki is unbalanced towards one viewpoint which you are trying to ram down my throat. I will include a section in due course which properly explores the alternative view with professional references. You will not be bullying me into submission and threats to "revert all edits on sight" would be vandalism and I would report it. James Frankcom (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Emotional attachments? Narrow focus? Unbalanced? Bullying people into submission? Pure projection. The Breton Brut that Petrie speculates about does not exist. The Triads are irrelevant. And while the article could indeed use more sources, the one I have provided, Roberts, bases his opinions on editing the Welsh text from a number of manuscripts. The one you are attempting to rely on, Petrie, was speculating based on an imperfect English translation of one, was talking outside his specialism, and did not have the benefit of all the study that has gone on since.

The consensus of scholarly opinion is that all the Welsh Bruts are derivative of Geoffrey. If you can find a reputable source that disagrees, great, put it in. But until then, it will simply not do to cast aspersions on the opinions of reputable scholars with nothing to back those aspersions up but your own conspiracy theories. Cite sources, or go away. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, rather than just make your point you fall back on insults and rudery. It does you no credit.James Frankcom (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This conversation has long ceased being productive. There is nothing more to discuss unless/until James finds some reliable sources to back up his assertions.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Brut y Brenhinedd/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article is basically a summary of the findings of one academic, Brynley Roberts, and his hypothesis that the Brut y Brenhinedd (all versions of it) are derrived from the work of Geoffrey of Monmouth. This is not a viewpoint shared by all historians and in my view this wiki is therefore unbalanced and other opinions about the reliability of the Brut should also be included 84.13.188.190 (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 12:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 10:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

.

Quote from Cooper deleted - why?

Greetings. I added a short, one-line quote from Dr William Cooper, a translator of Brut y Brenhinedd, but it was deleted without comment or reason. Perhaps someone could explain why. The page currently states that '(all) modern scholarship thinks that Brut y Brenhinedd was derived from Monmouth'. That is clearly not the case, because Cooper thinks they were both derived from a common source. I added one line to make that clear, and it has gone. Perhaps someone could explain why. Mythosmann (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Cooper is not a scholar, he's an internet crank who thinks the monster Grendel in Beowulf is evidence of Tyrannosaurus rex coexisting with humans. Enough of the wishful thinking, please. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The relevant guidelines are WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Cooper is not a reliable source for this topic.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It was not wishful thinking, I did not know Cooper. When I read his translation of the manuscript it appeard the best I had seen, with very good annotations. I had no idea he was a Creationist. But I really think the two should not be linked. Do you have any dispute with the actual translation? Mythosmann (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I never paid it much attention as he's not a reliable source for the topic.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)