This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the "public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
It's been a while since I read these. I remember liking one much more than the other. One of them leans very hard into Arthur being a violent warlord. The other is more interested in courtly love. It's still a few centuries before Mallory's Morte de Arthur and you can tell that he had a lot of work to do. But interesting comparing the two and then comparing this against Monmouth's Historium Regnum. In both I thought it very strange how much they emphasized that Arthur was Roman over his being British. I don't know if this was supposed to be an attack on Rome/the Catholic Church at the time or why the writers thought that this would somehow cement Arthur's legitimacy. It is curious.
These are the works of a couple of poets, who sought to write down the Arthurian tales that had become popular in the centuries after the Norman invasion of England. As such, they're probably the best source documents we have.
Full of unlikely events, magic, and mythical creatures they're a good insight into the medieval European mind. It's easy to forget how very dark the darkness of night was before the coming of gas and electricity; impossible to understand how dark the medieval mind was before science. What hope was there against foreign invaders? Somewhere in the mists there had to be a mythical hero.
I enjoyed both of these accounts of the Arthurian saga -- particularly that of Layamon. The translator has skillfully incorporated just enough of the archaic language and Saxon sentence-structure of the latter, to make the book a challenging but pleasurable reading experience.
Wace and Layamon, both in archaic 19th century prose translations; the Layamon translation attempts a subtle metric flow with some internal rhyming (not much if any of the original Middle English alliteration) but still crammed into dense paragraph layout.