solely from Saxon tradition and from Latin records, and that he was either ignorant of, or distrusted, the Celtic, or British, traditions concerning Arthur which had their origin and home in the West and in the then “farthest North.” If, on the other hand, stories of Arthur’s deeds were widely current in Lowland Scotland, it is surprising that a Northumbrian writer should apparently have known nothing of them. Again, there is no mention whatever of Arthur in the Saxon _Chronicle_. The fact that the _Chronicle_ contains no record of a fight, successful or otherwise, against the Britons for a long period after 527, or 530, seems to confirm Nennius’s account of the decisive check to the Saxon advance given in the battles with which he associates Arthur’s name. On the other hand, the battle at Badon Hill must, as we have seen, have been fought long before the year 527. There is no question about the superior trustworthiness of the _Chronicle_ to Nennius’s narrative as a historical authority.[39] Here, again, the silence can only be explained on the assumption that the compilers of the Saxon _Chronicle_ did not care much about recording British victories, and cared less, or knew nothing at all, about the British chieftains who won them. As against this assumption, it should be noted that the _Chronicle_ does mention such British names as Vortigern and Natanleod,--the latter a “British king” slain in the year 508, just at the time when Arthur’s prowess, according to tradition, was at its height.