Welsh Journals

author seems to have devoted the lost folios 1-8 at the beginning to a general descrip- tion of the hundred of Kernes, in accordance with the plan he had laid down for himself, and then to have begun his account of individual parishes within the hundred with St. Dogmaels, which is the northernmost parish of the hundred as well as of the county. After St. Dogmaels there follow descriptions of the adjacent parishes of Monington, Moelgrove, Bayvil, Nevern, Meline, Eglwyswrw, Whitchurch, Llanfair- Nant-Gwyn (formerly the chapelry of Nantgwyn), Llanfyrnach and part of Mynachlog- ddu, which suggests that the author intended to pursue this systematic topographical arrangement until he had covered the other sixteen parishes of the hundred. The text breaks off in the middle of the description of Mynachlogddu and at present there is no means of discovering how much has been lost at the end of the manuscript. Small pieces of at least fourteen lost folios are still attached to the early sewing. On one of them the sub-heading Llanychlloy. i.e. Llanychlwydog, occurs, which shows that Owen had written his account of that parish It can be stated with cer- tainty that he wrote at least forty-two folios of the description of the hundred of Kernes as part of his proposed Second Book. His own parish of Nevern was in Kernes and he was lord of the barony of Kemes which included most of the hundred. There- fore, of the seven hundreds of Pembrokeshire, Kemes would naturally be the best- known to him. He had the necessary knowledge and sources of information to enable him to embark on a detailed historical and topographical study without recourse to the co-operation of many local helpers and it may be assumed that he began his Second Book by writing the description of Kemes, the extant portion of which is printed below. It is not dated but it would appear that the work was written after the completion of Book I on 18 May 1603 probably sometime between 1603 and the end of 1604. It is the earliest known attempt by any Welshman to write the history of his county parish by parish. Of its importance and interest the reader may judge for himself. As stated above, Fenton had access to this manuscript and made use of it. Indeed, he indicates in footnotes that he was quoting from a manuscript of George Owen then in his possession. It is possible that he had before him another copy of it which has gone astray, but I am inclined to believe this is the one Fenton used. His account of Kemes would have been barren of much of its interest and information had he not borrowed freely from the work, not always with strict accuracy or due acknowledg- ment. In transcribing the manuscript I have adhered closely to the author's text which is in his own hand. I have resisted the temptation to modernise Tudor spelling and punctuation so as to produce an edition which conforms in the main with the printed texts of George Owen's other works which the Cymmrodorion Society started to publish as far back as 1892. I have, however, extended many abbreviations, added some necessary marks of punctuation and eschewed the long s. Dotted lines indicate holes or tears in the manuscript, other spaces denote blanks left by the author. To facilitate printing the author's marginal headings have been set in italics at the head of paragraphs one or two unimportant ones have been omitted. B, G. CHARLES,