It is impossible to enter here upon a discussion of the numerous points of interest which a proper examination of this vast and important work would present to any careful inquirer. Only a few bare results can be here enumerated. The A-text may be dated about 1205, and the B-text (practically by another writer) about 1275. Both texts, the former especially, are remarkably free from admixture with words of French origin; the lists that have been given hitherto are inexact, but it may be said that the number of French words in the A-text can hardly exceed 100, or in the B-text 160. Layamon's work is largely original; Wace's _Brut_ contains 15,300 lines, and Layamon's 32,240 lines of a similar length; and many of Layamon's additions to Wace are notable, such as his story "regarding the fairy elves at Arthur's birth, and his transportation by them after death in a boat to Avalon, the abode of Argante, their queen"; see Sir F. Madden's pref. p. xv. Wace's _Brut_ is almost wholly a translation of the Latin chronicle concerning the early history of Britain by Geoffrey of Monmouth, who said that he obtained his materials from a manuscript written in Welsh. The name Brut is the French form of Brutus, who was the fabulous grandson of Ascanius, and great-grandson of Aeneas of Troy, the hero of Virgil's _Aeneid_. After many adventures, this Brutus arrived in England, founded Troynovant or New Troy (better known as London), and was the progenitor of a long line of British kings, among whom were Locrine, Bladud, Leir, Gorboduc, Ferrex and Porrex, Lud, Cymbeline, Constantine, Vortigern, Uther and Arthur; and from this mythical Brutus the name Brut was transferred so as to denote the entire chronicle of this British history. Layamon gives the whole story, from the time of Brutus to that of Cadwalader, who may be identified with the Caedwalla of the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, baptized by Pope Sergius in the year 688. Both texts of Layamon are in a south-western dialect; the A-text in particular shows the Wessex dialect of earlier times (commonly called Anglo-Saxon) in a much later form, and we can hardly doubt that the author, as he intimates, could read the old version of Beda intelligently. The remarks upon the B-text in Sir F. Madden's preface are not to the point; the peculiar spellings to which he refers (such as _same_ for _shame_) are by no means due to any confusion with the Northumbrian dialect, but rather to the usual vagaries of a scribe who knew French better than English, and had some difficulty in acquiring the English pronunciation and in representing it accurately. At the same time, he was not strong in English grammar, and was apt to confuse the plural form with the singular in the tenses of verbs; and this is the simple explanation of most of the examples of so-called "nunnation" in this poem (such as the use of _wolden_ for _wolde_), which only existed in writing and must not be seriously considered as representing real spoken sounds. The full proof of this would occupy too much space; but it should be noticed that, in many instances, "this pleonastic _n_ has been struck out or erased by a second hand." In other instances it has escaped notice, and that is all that need be said. The peculiar metre of the poem has been sufficiently treated by J. Schipper. An abstract of the poem has been given by Henry Morley; and good general criticisms of it by B. ten Brink and others.