528 
Let us now examine the British account. It is contained 
in a short but valuable chronicle, principally consisting of 
genealogies, appended to four M&S. of Nennius. 
The first of these MSS., of the tenth century, 3859 in the 
Harleian Collection, contains Nennius, these genealogies, the 
Annals of Cambria, and the Genealogy of Hoel Dha. The 
other three, in the Cottonian collection : Vespasian D. XXI. 
1, and B. XXV. 7, both of the twelfth century, and 
Vitellius XIII. 11, of the thirteenth, contain Nennius and 
the genealogies only. These three agree very closely with 
the first, but as they omit the Annals of Cambria and the 
Genealogy of Hoel Dha, they would seem to be copies of 
some common original in which these were not. Where, 
then, they agree in differing from the earlier MSS., we may 
place more confidence in the reading they supply than in that 
given therein, and, generally, the spelling of the names is 
more correct in the two twelfth century MSS. than in the 
earlier one. Now, all these MSS. agree in the following 
account of Penda's war with Oswiu. (In the original the 
paragraphs are transposed, the first being placed second. 
This obvious error I take the liberty of correcting) : — 
" Osguid sent all the wealth which was with him in the 
city to Manu, to Penda, and Penda distributed it to the 
kings of the Britons, that is, e Atbret Iudeu,' " (the ransom 
of Iudeu). " Osguid killed Pantha in the field of Giti, and 
the kings of the Britons were slain who went out with King 
Pantha in his expedition to the town which is called Iudeu." 
The Annals of Cambria, in the first of these MSS. con- 
tain the two following notices : — 
CCXII. year (A.D. 656).— The slaughter of the field of 
Gaii. 
CCXIII. year (A.D. 657) The execution of Pantha. 
The account given in the two paragraphs above differs 
from that in Venerable Ba^da, in saying that Oswiu actually 
