Vortigern Studies Index

The earliest form of the name of Vortigern that we know of is Uuertigernus, which comes from a strange manuscript which concludes the Bern Codex 178. This is a short British chronicle-fragment, based on a text of Bede and probably produced in France during the 9th century.

The Bern Codex 178 chronicle-fragment

This manuscript consists of 116 folios and was probably written after c. 850 AD, possibly in France. The chronicle is the last in a collection of of short, often grammatical tracts that follow a Latin glossary. The main purpose of this MS therefore probably was of a grammatical nature, with no interest in history intended. If so, we may probably be extra grateful for Bede's fine Latin.

Folio 116, with our chronicle written in two columns of 30 lines, is very damaged (which is often the case with the opening and closing folios of a MS) and therefore some words on f. 116r are shown below within brackets. The chronicle follows the conclusion of Differentiae Ciceronis and has no title. It starts with an entry for 60 BC and ends with an entry for 565 AD, after which the texts ends with the word VALETE. The rest of the page is empty, even though Bede's original, Historia Ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (V, 24) went on after that. The chronicle departs from Bede's text at a few points, which are shown in italics.

The name of Vortigern

My main interest in this altered copy of Bede's recapitulation is the name Uuertigerno. This form of the name Vortigern is unique, although for all we know the annalist might have drawn it also from Bede, as the rest of the text. Bede, who drew largely from Gildas, used Vertigernus in his De Tempore Ratione (III, 66), a form which he also must have obtained from an early British source, whether this was a version of Gildas or some other, lost source. The earliest version of Gildas' DEB (MS Avranches A 162) has Uur- and Uor-. However, most of Bede's MSS write it with -e-, which probably means this annal used a different source. Bede's usual form is the pre-literary English form Uur-, which he uses in his Historia Ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (I.14), which must have been copied from a document written in the early 7^th century.

A similar annal to this one, containing the form Vertigerno, was found by H.M. Chadwick in another copy of Bede's chronicle, this time interpolated sub anno passionis 348 in Isidore of Seville's (fl. 620) Chronica Maiora, though this manuscript dates back only to the 15th century. This also shows that by the 7th century, the form Uer- began to separate into Welsh, Irish and English forms. The post-Roman Uor- was developed from the Celtic preposition ver, and that this was replaced by the former.

The earliest form of Vortigern would be the theoretical Celtic *Wortigernos. The OW. Guorthigirn, as used in the Historia Brittonum, had developed regularly from Vortigernus, wich later became MW. Gwrtheyrn. This is the form mostly used today. The Irish form of the name is Foirtchern(n), a name that also appears in Scotland. In Brittany the name is Gurthiern, a form related to the Welsh Gwrtheyrn. In Old English, Ver- and Vor- had become Uur- due to sound-substitution of the unfamiliar vowel sequence o-i (in Vortigernus) by the familiar AS. u-i. The literary (Anglo-Saxon) form of the name is Wyrtgeorn. This became *Wurtigern by the 7^th century and finally Wyrtgeorn.

All this means that the form Uuer- is certainly earlier than the forms Bede uses, even archaic and must have come from sources contemporary with Vortigern himself, meaning sources older than Gildas!

The text of the chronicle-fragment

Below I've printed the text of the early british chronicle-fragment, with the Latin text in the first column and the translation in the second. In the third column is the original, Bede's recapitulation from Historia Ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, Book V.24. Where the Codex fragment varies from Bede's original text, the text is in italics. I've cut Bede's text short where the Codex fragment ends. In the fourth column is my translation of Bede's text, based on the translations of both Leo Shirley-Price and William Hurst. The translation of the chronicle is based on this, with the variations translated by me and Annemarie Speetjens.

Notes

^[1] This is an inversion of xlvi (see note 8).
^[2] According to Wallace-Hadrill, Efforica is derived from the OE name for York, Eoforwic. Normally this would be Eboracum.
^[3] This is a unique statement about the political situation in Britain following the end of Roman Imeperial rule. It might be compared to Gildas' statements about the resistance by Ambrosius Aurelianus (DEB, 25). Although Dumville proposes that it might be deduced from ASC 409 + 418, I personally treat it as a reference to a lost source, containing more detailed information about early 5th-century Britain. This may be compared to the early form of the name Vortigern, below. I agree with Dumville that this statement makes this annal unique.
^[4] Dumville proposes that the annalist may have drawn it from Bede (De Temporum ratione, c.66) where he writes it as Vertigernus. However, most MSS write it with -e-, which probably means this annal used a different source. Dumville cites Kenneth Jackson, who noted that "the post-Roman Uor- was developed from the Celtic preposition ver, and that this was replaced by the former. This makes the form Uuertigernus very early - indeed one might well suppose it comes from a written source contemporary with the man himself". Dumville points out that this shows once more that Bede used very early insular sources unknown to us.
^[5] Although Hengist is usually treated as a Jute, he may well have been an Anglian. In the Finnesburgh fragment and the Episode in Beowulf, Hengist may be seen as a Jute, but a distinction is made between him and the group of Jutes who are also present in the hall. As Hengist certainly was no Dane or Frisian, he may well have been an Anglian. Bede names the Anglians as the invited group, and therefore may point to Hengist as the Anglian warlord, with Jutes in his entourage.
^[6] This may be an error, according to Dumville due to the loss of the word cuius (Hengist cuius filius Ohta) or to the use of a declining genealogy. All other sources have Ohta as the son or grandson of Hengist. Bede makes him the son of Oisc, who founded the dynasty instead of Hengist. The Historia Brittonum reverses that order, which may be more original. Hengist may have been an Anglian (see note above) and Oisc apparently a Jute, so they may not have been related at all. What that would do for the position of Ohta in this genealogy remains uncertain - he may have been wrongly inserted in the apocryphical genealogy of Hengist, and therefore his position as the father of Hengist may be correct.
^[7] This again is a unique statement, in that it gives Eosa the honour of being the first to have come to Britain.
^[8] This is an inversion of dlxv (see note 1).

Bibliography

• Beda Venerabilis ca. 673 - 735 Historia Ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum Liber quintus, at: Bibliotheca Augustana: http://www.fh-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost08/Bede/bed_h524.html.
• Bede: Ecclesiastical History of the English People, trans. Leo Shirley-Price, (St Ives 1990).*
• Bede the Venerable: Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum: The History of the Primitive Church of England, transl. the rev. William Hurst, 1814, at: http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/bede.html.
• Bede (673-735): Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation, Book V, at: Medieval Sourcebook: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/bede-book5.html.
• Dumville, David N. (1973): A new chronicle-fragment of early British history, in: English Historical Review LXXXVII, pp. 312-314.*

VortigernStudies is copyright © Robert Vermaat 1999-2007. All rights reserved