What do you think?
Rate this book
Brut
This book was converted from its physical edition to the digital format by a community of volunteers. You may find it for free on the web. Purchase of the Kindle edition includes wireless delivery.
Paperback
First published January 1, 1190
4 people are currently reading
241 people want to read
About the author
Layamon
45 books2 followersfloruit 13th century
Layamon, English poet, circa 1205 wrote The Brut , the first account of knights of Arthur, king.
Layamon, occasionally notable author of the 12th century and the early 13th century, worked the language to discuss the legends of the Round Table.
Layamon describes a priest, lived at Areley Kings in Worcestershire. He provided numerous later inspiration for Sir Thomas Malory and Jorge Luis Borges and affected medieval history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layamon
Layamon, English poet, circa 1205 wrote The Brut , the first account of knights of Arthur, king.
Layamon, occasionally notable author of the 12th century and the early 13th century, worked the language to discuss the legends of the Round Table.
Layamon describes a priest, lived at Areley Kings in Worcestershire. He provided numerous later inspiration for Sir Thomas Malory and Jorge Luis Borges and affected medieval history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layamon
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
December 15, 2012
Layamon's Brut is an early Middle English verse adaption of Geoffrey of Monmouth and Wace's so called histories. So what's that point in reading another adaption of the Brut after reading the earlier versions? Absolutely none if you are reading a modern English translation. But for those who have a serious interest in the English language and are willing to put in the effort of reading the Middle English text the rewards are well known.
First of all, Layamon is the first Arthurian author to compose using vernacular English and the first history of England to be composed in English since the Anglo Saxon chronicle, albeit legendary history. Secondly, the text is an important preservation from the period of transition from Old to Middle English. Layamon's style of verse is the alliterative metre of Germanic heroic poetry and uses traditional formulaic expressions within the lines, but at points he also uses tail end rhyme in the poem which shows influences from Anglo-Norman and French poetry. These peculiar points in the text make it essential reading for anyone who wishes to explore the development of the english language between Beowulf and Chaucer.
This 1995 edition by Barron and Weinberg really is the business. The book contains the Early English Text society's edition of the longer Cotton Caligula A ix with a very good modern English translation on the facing page, a long introduction and 70 pages of textual notes for those who really want to explore this important Middle English text.
First of all, Layamon is the first Arthurian author to compose using vernacular English and the first history of England to be composed in English since the Anglo Saxon chronicle, albeit legendary history. Secondly, the text is an important preservation from the period of transition from Old to Middle English. Layamon's style of verse is the alliterative metre of Germanic heroic poetry and uses traditional formulaic expressions within the lines, but at points he also uses tail end rhyme in the poem which shows influences from Anglo-Norman and French poetry. These peculiar points in the text make it essential reading for anyone who wishes to explore the development of the english language between Beowulf and Chaucer.
This 1995 edition by Barron and Weinberg really is the business. The book contains the Early English Text society's edition of the longer Cotton Caligula A ix with a very good modern English translation on the facing page, a long introduction and 70 pages of textual notes for those who really want to explore this important Middle English text.
March 29, 2013
Frederic Madden's edition of Layamon's Brut has attained something of a legendary status among readers of Layamon, due to the excellence of Frederic Madden's work on the text. The book even gained unusual praise from Eric G. Stanley, who called the work "Madden's brilliant first edition" there was also a recent essay by Daniel Donaghue that explored Madden in relation to Layamon.
So why buy a book that was first published in 1847 when there's the more modern Early English Text Society and the Longman's editions? In my opinion it is because the book prints both the Caligula and Otho texts next to each other and at the bottom of the page is Madden's literal translation. The translation is based on the Caligula manuscript but Madden also inserts a translation of the Otho manuscript within brackets.
The page layout makes reading Layamon in the original Early Middle English very easy, the reader can easily glance between the two texts and use the translation as a guide and there is also a huge glossary in the third volume that can be checked for any tricky words. This glossary is really valuable because none of the newer editions give a glossary and this can at times be a real hindrance while reading a text this long and complex.
For anyone who has a real interest in Layamon, this is a milestone publication that they will be forever browsing.
So why buy a book that was first published in 1847 when there's the more modern Early English Text Society and the Longman's editions? In my opinion it is because the book prints both the Caligula and Otho texts next to each other and at the bottom of the page is Madden's literal translation. The translation is based on the Caligula manuscript but Madden also inserts a translation of the Otho manuscript within brackets.
The page layout makes reading Layamon in the original Early Middle English very easy, the reader can easily glance between the two texts and use the translation as a guide and there is also a huge glossary in the third volume that can be checked for any tricky words. This glossary is really valuable because none of the newer editions give a glossary and this can at times be a real hindrance while reading a text this long and complex.
For anyone who has a real interest in Layamon, this is a milestone publication that they will be forever browsing.
July 3, 2022
There's a whole bunch of scholars leaving reviews on this book already. I don't have the in-depth knowledge of the text that other readers seem to have. But I am very interested in Medieval England, particularly the 12th and 13th centuries, so I greatly enjoyed reading a poem from that era.
It must be incredibly difficult to translate a text from earlier forms of English to modern English and maintain the meaning. Translation seems to be an art in and of itself.
This was a poem full of epic battles and war and very gruesome "history" of Briton. It's obviously not so much a history as it is a bit of folklore, but folklore is kind of a historical artifact in itself.
This was a fun and entertaining read and I enjoyed it a lot, knowing it came from one of my favorite historical periods.
It must be incredibly difficult to translate a text from earlier forms of English to modern English and maintain the meaning. Translation seems to be an art in and of itself.
This was a poem full of epic battles and war and very gruesome "history" of Briton. It's obviously not so much a history as it is a bit of folklore, but folklore is kind of a historical artifact in itself.
This was a fun and entertaining read and I enjoyed it a lot, knowing it came from one of my favorite historical periods.
December 8, 2010
Another version of the same "history" Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote, only filtered through Wace and then expanded upon. The translation is clunky, not idiomatic, and can be hard to read. If I'd been the one to translate this, okay, I haven't seen the original text, but I get the feeling from looking at this translation that it's quite close to literal in places. It'd benefit from having the word order changed, at the very least.
(It scares me that I now feel qualified to comment on the accuracy of translations. Eek!)
In any case, having read Geoffrey and Wace, this doesn't offer much new.
(It scares me that I now feel qualified to comment on the accuracy of translations. Eek!)
In any case, having read Geoffrey and Wace, this doesn't offer much new.
October 20, 2015
I think Lawman, is worth reading as a poet rather than just a historical curiosity and this book makes that easy to do.
The Caligula text of Lawman, edited with modern punctuation, with a facing page prose translation. The presence of an edited text in one volume (The EETs version is in two, Madden's in three) presented with a minimum of diacritical marks and editorial footnotes is a bonus for anyone who wants to read the poem. Notes are kept to a minimum. There is no glossary.
The Prose translation keeps the syntactic awkwardness of the poem so it conveys some of the sense of reading the original.I think the editors are to be congratulated on resisting the urge to make it smooth.
It's a huge poem (16,000+ lines) and deserves to be remembered for more than just the fact that it contains the first English telling of the story of King Arthur (and King Lear). There are many more good stories in the text, but one of the things that makes Lawman fascinating is that he's writing before the great medieval love stories became stories about a world well lost for love. In Lawman's world the performance of the public duty associated with an individual's socially sanctioned role is what matters. Putting personal desire before public obligation is always disastrous and never admirable. Arthur is the greatest of Kings simply because he does "kinging" better than anyone else. Some of Lawman's Kings do it very badly and the poem is a gallery of the strange and the incompetent.
The poem works by building its own internal references. Each story provides a possible commentary on the one that follows, and to see this as "chronicle writing" is to miss the cumulative effect Lawman builds up and the way he uses it. No one knows what models of English poetry or Homiletic prose he had internalised, but whatever his models, he was no fool.
As a recommendation, after the famous "Prologue" or 'Proem" as it's called here, in which Lawman steps forward to claim the poem as his, (and this is almost unique in surviving poems of the period) the poem opens with probably its most awkward thousand lines. The story of how Brutus gets to Britain is messy and confused. Even in translation it's hard to follow, or care.
The story of Locrin, Brutus' son, and Gwendoline, the daughter of Corineus the giant killer, is one of the highlights of the poem and starts about line 1000.
If you were trying to read the poem from start to finish, I'd read the Proem, then skip to the start of Locrin's story.
There's a fuller discussion of poet and poem here
The Caligula text of Lawman, edited with modern punctuation, with a facing page prose translation. The presence of an edited text in one volume (The EETs version is in two, Madden's in three) presented with a minimum of diacritical marks and editorial footnotes is a bonus for anyone who wants to read the poem. Notes are kept to a minimum. There is no glossary.
The Prose translation keeps the syntactic awkwardness of the poem so it conveys some of the sense of reading the original.I think the editors are to be congratulated on resisting the urge to make it smooth.
It's a huge poem (16,000+ lines) and deserves to be remembered for more than just the fact that it contains the first English telling of the story of King Arthur (and King Lear). There are many more good stories in the text, but one of the things that makes Lawman fascinating is that he's writing before the great medieval love stories became stories about a world well lost for love. In Lawman's world the performance of the public duty associated with an individual's socially sanctioned role is what matters. Putting personal desire before public obligation is always disastrous and never admirable. Arthur is the greatest of Kings simply because he does "kinging" better than anyone else. Some of Lawman's Kings do it very badly and the poem is a gallery of the strange and the incompetent.
The poem works by building its own internal references. Each story provides a possible commentary on the one that follows, and to see this as "chronicle writing" is to miss the cumulative effect Lawman builds up and the way he uses it. No one knows what models of English poetry or Homiletic prose he had internalised, but whatever his models, he was no fool.
As a recommendation, after the famous "Prologue" or 'Proem" as it's called here, in which Lawman steps forward to claim the poem as his, (and this is almost unique in surviving poems of the period) the poem opens with probably its most awkward thousand lines. The story of how Brutus gets to Britain is messy and confused. Even in translation it's hard to follow, or care.
The story of Locrin, Brutus' son, and Gwendoline, the daughter of Corineus the giant killer, is one of the highlights of the poem and starts about line 1000.
If you were trying to read the poem from start to finish, I'd read the Proem, then skip to the start of Locrin's story.
There's a fuller discussion of poet and poem here
March 14, 2020
Brut is one of the verse narratives of the Middle English era.
At the conclusion of the 12th century, Layamon, a priest translated for his fellow countrymen Wace's ‘Brut’ which was based on the extraordinary effort of Geoffrey of Monmouth.
Layamon, who was Saxon, authentically replicates the narration, in which the Britons are overestimated to the detriment of his own precursors. Notwithstanding the fact that Layamon, was translating from a French source, Layamon is a scrupulously English poet. He had, rumor has it that, been brought up on the old English alliterative verse and his own lines are so noticeably in this tradition that about half of them can be scanned by old English customs.
He, however, makes recurrent use of rime. It has definite crucial English traits.
Layamon's vocabulary is extraordinary for the small number of French words in it, chiefly considering the fact that he was translating from a French poem.
Moreover, Layamon is a poet. He has an eye for nature and outdoor life. Arrows fly as thick as hail; a cornered warrior is compared to a wild boar at bay.
Layamon is more than a translator; he is a poet and his efforts are the effects of conscious art. There is something impressive in his work - far removed as it is from Wace's correctness and ease. His verse is a blending of the old and the new, halting midway between alliteration and rhyme.
This is the first manifestation of King Arthur in English.
At the conclusion of the 12th century, Layamon, a priest translated for his fellow countrymen Wace's ‘Brut’ which was based on the extraordinary effort of Geoffrey of Monmouth.
Layamon, who was Saxon, authentically replicates the narration, in which the Britons are overestimated to the detriment of his own precursors. Notwithstanding the fact that Layamon, was translating from a French source, Layamon is a scrupulously English poet. He had, rumor has it that, been brought up on the old English alliterative verse and his own lines are so noticeably in this tradition that about half of them can be scanned by old English customs.
He, however, makes recurrent use of rime. It has definite crucial English traits.
Layamon's vocabulary is extraordinary for the small number of French words in it, chiefly considering the fact that he was translating from a French poem.
Moreover, Layamon is a poet. He has an eye for nature and outdoor life. Arrows fly as thick as hail; a cornered warrior is compared to a wild boar at bay.
Layamon is more than a translator; he is a poet and his efforts are the effects of conscious art. There is something impressive in his work - far removed as it is from Wace's correctness and ease. His verse is a blending of the old and the new, halting midway between alliteration and rhyme.
This is the first manifestation of King Arthur in English.
January 30, 2012
This is a different take on Arthurian legend, as the readers see a lot more of Arthur, and even Arthur fighting than in a lot of the tales about the Knights of the Round Table and King Arthur.
Another interesting thing is that there is the description of Merlin's birth as well as some of his prophecies.
Queen Guinevere is also depicted quite differently in this than in other stories I have read.
Another interesting thing is that there is the description of Merlin's birth as well as some of his prophecies.
Queen Guinevere is also depicted quite differently in this than in other stories I have read.
November 12, 2017
Rosamund Allen is a fine academic and she makes clear in her introduction that her translation is a poetic rendering of the Brut and cannot be used as a crib for anyone interested in reading the text in the original. She has done an excellent job in making this work, in both its sense and its feeling, accessible to those who cannot undertake 16,000 lines in ME - or who can't get hold of a copy in the original.
May 24, 2013
The amount of work that went into this three volume set is daunting. Like a lot of the 19th century pioneers of Medieval studies Madden had a day job and still managed to complete this.
While it's worth checking the texts against Brook and Leslie's later edition, if only to see the effect of switching from Madden's choice of short lines to Bandl"s long, what you get here is both texts, translations into modern English which may not be smooth but which are mostly literal, and a glossary. The commentary has been superseded by recent knowledge but the rest of the book is still the best edition to use.
The poem raises innumerable critical and historical problems, but why read it? It's the first English telling of the story of King Arthur is the usual answer.
This is the first (surviving?) time in English a named poet steps up to claim his poem. In what later scholars call "the prologue" the poet is named, his place of residence identified, his day job is given, as is the name of his father. You can still visit his church, though it's been added to since he was there.
He tells us (though it's in third person) why he wrote the poem and how he wrote it (like many good medieval writers he fudged his sources). There are only two surviving versions of the poem, Madden prints both and the differences in the prologue are startling. Whatever Lawman thought of his role in the writing of his poem, the scribe who copied it wasn't impressed.
It is written in a language that sits uneasily between familiar Anglo-Saxon and early Middle English, mixing rhyme and alliteration. A lot of silliness was written about it being an example of a debased 'Popular" form which existed along side 'official' Anglo-Saxon. It is mostly a translation of the Anglo-Norman of Wace, in itself a translation of Geoffrey of Monmouth. It tells the story of how the Trojans, fleeing the sack of Troy, first founded Rome and then how Brutus came to Britain, fought Giants and established his dynasty. It then plods (there's no other word for it) through all the legendary kings up to the success of the Anglo-Saxons.
Along the way he tells the stories of Lear and King Arthur for the first (surviving?) time in English, the former having a very different ending to Shakespeare's version, as well as several lesser known but equally memorable stories. (Locrin and Aestrild being one that faded out of medieval memory, Vortigern and Rowenne being another).
The Arthurian story dominates the text, simply in the amount of lines devoted to it, but it's a very different Arthur. Lawman's King is closer to the 'Dark Age' ideal war lord, crashing from battle to battle until, inevitably, like a good early medieval Hero, he dies in battle. Chivalry and courtly love are not yet colours in the tapestry and though the famous love stories are present (although there's no Lancelot), 'Love' is an aberration, a failure to put private desire aside for public duty and it always ends in disaster not just for the lovers but for their society.
Drawbacks? Lawman didn't have "twenty years later' or "then followed the reigns of several boring kings" in his repertoire and though he can dismiss some reigns in a few lines, he seems determined to include everyone. But you can get past this by cherry picking the great stories.
The battles get tedious, as they do in most medieval texts, though the famous set piece of the Battle of Bath is impressive. The language takes a lot of getting used to, which is why Madden's edition is so useful, you can switch easily between text and translation.
Why bother with the original? He sings. Alliterative verse is not popular these days, but the way he handles it, occasionally, reveals all its possibilities and so it's worth persevering with the original because no modern translation does the sound justice.
(In this review spellings of names have been.....?)
While it's worth checking the texts against Brook and Leslie's later edition, if only to see the effect of switching from Madden's choice of short lines to Bandl"s long, what you get here is both texts, translations into modern English which may not be smooth but which are mostly literal, and a glossary. The commentary has been superseded by recent knowledge but the rest of the book is still the best edition to use.
The poem raises innumerable critical and historical problems, but why read it? It's the first English telling of the story of King Arthur is the usual answer.
This is the first (surviving?) time in English a named poet steps up to claim his poem. In what later scholars call "the prologue" the poet is named, his place of residence identified, his day job is given, as is the name of his father. You can still visit his church, though it's been added to since he was there.
He tells us (though it's in third person) why he wrote the poem and how he wrote it (like many good medieval writers he fudged his sources). There are only two surviving versions of the poem, Madden prints both and the differences in the prologue are startling. Whatever Lawman thought of his role in the writing of his poem, the scribe who copied it wasn't impressed.
It is written in a language that sits uneasily between familiar Anglo-Saxon and early Middle English, mixing rhyme and alliteration. A lot of silliness was written about it being an example of a debased 'Popular" form which existed along side 'official' Anglo-Saxon. It is mostly a translation of the Anglo-Norman of Wace, in itself a translation of Geoffrey of Monmouth. It tells the story of how the Trojans, fleeing the sack of Troy, first founded Rome and then how Brutus came to Britain, fought Giants and established his dynasty. It then plods (there's no other word for it) through all the legendary kings up to the success of the Anglo-Saxons.
Along the way he tells the stories of Lear and King Arthur for the first (surviving?) time in English, the former having a very different ending to Shakespeare's version, as well as several lesser known but equally memorable stories. (Locrin and Aestrild being one that faded out of medieval memory, Vortigern and Rowenne being another).
The Arthurian story dominates the text, simply in the amount of lines devoted to it, but it's a very different Arthur. Lawman's King is closer to the 'Dark Age' ideal war lord, crashing from battle to battle until, inevitably, like a good early medieval Hero, he dies in battle. Chivalry and courtly love are not yet colours in the tapestry and though the famous love stories are present (although there's no Lancelot), 'Love' is an aberration, a failure to put private desire aside for public duty and it always ends in disaster not just for the lovers but for their society.
Drawbacks? Lawman didn't have "twenty years later' or "then followed the reigns of several boring kings" in his repertoire and though he can dismiss some reigns in a few lines, he seems determined to include everyone. But you can get past this by cherry picking the great stories.
The battles get tedious, as they do in most medieval texts, though the famous set piece of the Battle of Bath is impressive. The language takes a lot of getting used to, which is why Madden's edition is so useful, you can switch easily between text and translation.
Why bother with the original? He sings. Alliterative verse is not popular these days, but the way he handles it, occasionally, reveals all its possibilities and so it's worth persevering with the original because no modern translation does the sound justice.
(In this review spellings of names have been.....?)
February 25, 2023
The first third (or so) of _Brut_ is taken up with the adventures of Vortiger, who betrays a couple of English kings with the intent of becoming King himself; he also kills two of his predecessor's sons, leaving one Uther in charge of things. To do his conquering, he also allies himself with "heathens" from "Allemaine," led by Hengist and Horsa.
The remainder is an account of the history of King Arthur, before the French romancers got hold of it and added extranea like Lancelot and the quest for the Holy Grail; and all the chivalry and derring-do and that. Not that there's anything _wrong_ with those, you understand. And, while I do love me some Arthuriana, _Brut_ is, to a huge extent, a series of descriptions of a _lot_ of wars and battles, and it gets a bit repetitive.
This is particularly so because this is a translation into modern English of an early middle English poem. Laȝamon wrote in an alliterative/rhymed form that is quite difficult to translate well, and the translator here (who is not credited; this is a free Kindle book) chose to translate it as prose. But he kept many features of the poetic scheme, particularly repeated phrases like "the fated" for those who are going to die in a given battle, which must occur fifty times; or the repeated helpful information that the souls of one of Arthur's enemies "sank down into hell."
I did enjoy it, don't get me wrong; but the poetic features in a prose format were very distracting to me.
I found it particularly interesting to see how Arthur was perceived at this point (somewhere in the neighborhood of the year 1200): already a great deal of downright unlikely things were attached to him: prophetic advice from Merlin (who is quite different here from how he is presented by, say, Mallory or White), the Round Table (not so named, but present, though only briefly and then not mentioned again), the defeat of the Roman Emperor (here named Luce), the betrayal of Modred (with whom the Queen, here named Wenhaver, willingly allies herself) leading to the fall of both himself and Arthur, and his departure for Avalun, where the elf-queen will heal his wounds, and from which he will someday return.
Maybe, someday, Wace. Who knows?
The remainder is an account of the history of King Arthur, before the French romancers got hold of it and added extranea like Lancelot and the quest for the Holy Grail; and all the chivalry and derring-do and that. Not that there's anything _wrong_ with those, you understand. And, while I do love me some Arthuriana, _Brut_ is, to a huge extent, a series of descriptions of a _lot_ of wars and battles, and it gets a bit repetitive.
This is particularly so because this is a translation into modern English of an early middle English poem. Laȝamon wrote in an alliterative/rhymed form that is quite difficult to translate well, and the translator here (who is not credited; this is a free Kindle book) chose to translate it as prose. But he kept many features of the poetic scheme, particularly repeated phrases like "the fated" for those who are going to die in a given battle, which must occur fifty times; or the repeated helpful information that the souls of one of Arthur's enemies "sank down into hell."
I did enjoy it, don't get me wrong; but the poetic features in a prose format were very distracting to me.
I found it particularly interesting to see how Arthur was perceived at this point (somewhere in the neighborhood of the year 1200): already a great deal of downright unlikely things were attached to him: prophetic advice from Merlin (who is quite different here from how he is presented by, say, Mallory or White), the Round Table (not so named, but present, though only briefly and then not mentioned again), the defeat of the Roman Emperor (here named Luce), the betrayal of Modred (with whom the Queen, here named Wenhaver, willingly allies herself) leading to the fall of both himself and Arthur, and his departure for Avalun, where the elf-queen will heal his wounds, and from which he will someday return.
Maybe, someday, Wace. Who knows?
May 26, 2021
Not an easy read, and a very bloody tale, but it is a history written as a poetic epic...
Read
January 7, 2019Did not finish.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews