Talk:Brut Chronicle

Comments
It is unclear to me exactly what this article is about. Is the Brut Chronicle a work or a set of works? It starts off, "The Brut Chronicle is the common name of various surviving medieval chronicles." This implies to me that it is a set of related works (chronicles) and not a single work (perhaps in several variations). But then I read, "Historians consider it important due to the sheer number of copies that survive and the fact that in the late fourteenth century it was translated into the vernacular, indicating the growth in common literacy." This implies that it is a single work ("it").

The term "Prose Brut", which is common in the literature, does not appear in this article. I am not sure if it is more common to treat the Prose Brut in all its manifestations as variants of a single work or as different works within a single tradition. Srnec (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Drmies appears to have addressed my concerns. From my reading, it appears that the transition from treating it as a single work with many versions to treating it as a tradition or genre with several distinct works is rather recent. Srnec (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , as the young folk say, it's complicated. There really is no "the" Brut. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at it, . As you can tell I'm busy with cleanup after merge. As for your question, it depends. In some contexts it is talked about as "the Brut" but that's mostly general shorthand. In many cases there are specific contexts, specific versions; Fortuna mentioned the "Common" version in the text, but there's more. When I get through Matheson I'll list them--if I can. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)