Richard Sharpe has made the case for the primacy of the ‘Vespasian’ (V) recension of Rhygyfarch's Vita S. Dauid over the ‘Nero’ (N) and ‘Digby’ (D) versions, on editorial grounds. Here, I shall offer some observations on the Latin style of V compared with ND, and the content of the different recensions, in order to reinforce the case for V's primacy; I shall also suggest a date for the composition of the Life.

Style, vocabulary, and content

One of the most notable features of V, which is the basis for our edition, is that it contains features of the pretentious ‘hermeneutic’ style of Latin. The ‘hermeneutic’ style is a legacy of Aldhelm and Alcuin, and one might expect to find it in an eleventh-century work – Vita S. Neoti is a good example of this type of composition from eleventh-century England – rather than a composition of the mid-twelfth century, as James argued that V was. Such distinctive features of V are the author's fondness for Graecisms and obscure words, such as agius (Gk hagios), cephal (Gk kephalos), bragminatio (a very obscure word), and fanum (Gk phanon), which are all absent from ND.

Patrick Sims-Williams has argued that Rhygyfarch's text was expanded with numerous additional passages, ‘easily recognisable from the trick of calling the saint agius rather than sanctus’, and that V must date ca 1130×1200, ‘later than Caradog of Llancarfan's Vita S. Gildae, which it quotes’.