. The most he says that, from
_writings and traditions_ along with the information derived from the
monks of the Abbey of Lestingham, he wrote that part of his work which
gives an account of the Christianity of the kingdom of Mercia. For the
other parts of the kingdom he chiefly applied to the Bishop of the
Diocese; to Albinus for the antiquities of Kent and Essex; and to Daniel
for those of Wessex, the Isle of Wight, and Sussex. For Lincolnshire he
had _viva voce_ information from Cynebert, and the monks of the Abbey of
Partney; and for Northumberland he made his inquiries himself. Now as
Christianity was first introduced into Anglo-Saxon England by Augustine,
A.D. 597, the era of the Germanic invasions lies beyond the evidence of
either Beda or his authorities. Gildas, and the sources of Gildas he
knew; but of access to native records of the fifth century--the century
for which they are most wanted--or of the existence of such, no trace
occurs in the Historia Ecclesiastica, except in the two doubtful cases
which will appear in the sequel.[13]

In Nennius, more than in any other writer, do we find it necessary to
assume the existence of any previous historians, upon whose authority
the facts of the times between the cessation of the Roman supremacy, and
the consolidation of the Anglo-Saxon power may be received; and in
Nennius we must, for many reasons, admit it. In the first place, he
mentions more than one circumstance which he could not well have got
from any other source; in the next, the preface says that what has been
done has been done "partim majorum traditionibus; partem scriptis;
partim etiam monumentis veterum Britanniae incolarum; partim et de
annalibus Romanorum. Insuper et de chronicis sanctorum Patrum, Ysidori,
scilicet Hieronymi, Prosperi, Eusebii, necnon et de historiis Scotorum
Saxonumque, inimicorum licet, non ut volui, sed ut potui, meorum
obtemperans jussionibus seniorum, unam hanc historiunculam undecunque
collectam balbutiendo coacervari." But, it should be added that the
authenticity of the preface is doubtful.

Nennius, then, most introduces the question as to the value of the
narratives of the events of the fifth century. I cannot but put it
exceedingly low. Of any _historian_, properly so called, there is not a
trace. Neither is there of regular annals, a point which will soon be
considered more fully. Nor yet of any of even the humbler forms of
narrative poetry; though this is a point upon