Dalarna University's logo and link to the university's website

Charles Bertram is best known for his Britannicarum Gentium Historiæ Antiquæ Scriptores Tres, published in 1757. This contains two genuine chronicles, Gildas' and Nennius,' and Bertram's forgery of a chronicle by Richard of Cirencester, and while not having had an extensive print run, still exists in some libraries, including the Centre for Arthurian Studies at Bangor.

The few studies that exist of Bertram's text focus on the forgery, but I owuld here like to look at one of the other two texts: that of Nennius. It seems clear that the inclusion of those two texts was intended to add credibility to the forgery, but considering that Bertram choose to publish Nennius's text again in 1758, it would seem to have meant more to him than a useful façade for his forgery. He provides it with a preface discussing its origin and sources, which indicates the extent of his interest.

From his letters and his forgery, it seems clear that Bertram is always more interested in Roman Britain than in medieval Britain: his main interest in medieval texts is where they transmit knowledge of the Roman era. The Middle Ages are interesting only as a time when the texts of classical authors later lost were still to be found in monastic libraries, and when Roman remains were more visible, and in better repair, than they were in his time. Yet he was invested enough in Nennius to publish the text twice, at some expense to himself.

His preface discusses the origins of Nennius' text, and its later fates in the hands of editors. It concerns itself specifically with what is Nennius' genuine text and what are later additions - a concern which produces some amusement, considering Bertram's own forgery. In this paper, I investigate Bertram's approach to Nennius, and why this text, so far removed from the Roman sources he primarily focused on, still fascinated him.