Layamon’s Brut
Before I say anything else, I want to say that the title I’m using for this blog in no way represents a correct spelling of the author’s name. However, since the “yogh” (funny-looking squiggly letter) doesn’t want to transfer to this website, this spelling will have to do. Most of the research on Brut spells the author’s name “Layamon,” although I’ll discuss the problems with this when I give my presentation.
We find in Brut a history of the kings of England, which Layamon wrote based on a French work by a Norman author (Wace), which Wace wrote based on a Latin work by a French author (Geoffrey of Monmouth). Something that struck me as interesting, as I read this, was how very “English” it was. Though it was composed after the Norman Conquest, there are very few French words, and thematically it seems to glorify the British kings of old. Even the poetic techniques utilized in Brut resemble Old English more than Middle English. I wonder if Layamon wanted to record his history of the English kings (the first such record in the English language) so that, in that blending of Norman and Saxon tradition that was beginning to occur, the inherently British parts of their history, mythology, and society would be preserved.
Although composed in the early 1200s, Brut is written in a much more archaic version of Middle English (quite similar to Old English) than many of the works we have read lately. I found that, stylistically, Brut almost seemed to be more a product of Anglo-Saxon times than a product of the Middle Ages. Do you agree or disagree? What elements of Brut seem to be Anglo-Saxon?
Personally, the section of Brut printed in our textbook is not one of my favorite parts, although it’s a significant moment because it’s when Arthur decidedly defeats the Saxons and drives them from the land (they’ve been more than a nuisance for many, many years at this point). I was trying to think why that section, as opposed to some of the others, was included, and I wonder if perhaps it is stylistically important in some way. In this blog, I’d love to see a discussion on the Anglo-Saxon elements in this work, as well as any thoughts you have on Layamon’s depiction of Arthur as compared to your previous perceptions of the Arthurian figure. And of course, anything else you think is interesting.
We find in Brut a history of the kings of England, which Layamon wrote based on a French work by a Norman author (Wace), which Wace wrote based on a Latin work by a French author (Geoffrey of Monmouth). Something that struck me as interesting, as I read this, was how very “English” it was. Though it was composed after the Norman Conquest, there are very few French words, and thematically it seems to glorify the British kings of old. Even the poetic techniques utilized in Brut resemble Old English more than Middle English. I wonder if Layamon wanted to record his history of the English kings (the first such record in the English language) so that, in that blending of Norman and Saxon tradition that was beginning to occur, the inherently British parts of their history, mythology, and society would be preserved.
Although composed in the early 1200s, Brut is written in a much more archaic version of Middle English (quite similar to Old English) than many of the works we have read lately. I found that, stylistically, Brut almost seemed to be more a product of Anglo-Saxon times than a product of the Middle Ages. Do you agree or disagree? What elements of Brut seem to be Anglo-Saxon?
Personally, the section of Brut printed in our textbook is not one of my favorite parts, although it’s a significant moment because it’s when Arthur decidedly defeats the Saxons and drives them from the land (they’ve been more than a nuisance for many, many years at this point). I was trying to think why that section, as opposed to some of the others, was included, and I wonder if perhaps it is stylistically important in some way. In this blog, I’d love to see a discussion on the Anglo-Saxon elements in this work, as well as any thoughts you have on Layamon’s depiction of Arthur as compared to your previous perceptions of the Arthurian figure. And of course, anything else you think is interesting.
posted by Jana Swartwood | 11:11 PM
1 Comments:
I agree with Jana that Brut seems particularly Anglo-Saxon. Even in this translation, the sense of caesura is preserved. Starting with line 18, the text reads: "It was Other's, the noble king's; it was named Goswhit, each other unlike." There is a certain amount of alliteration as in "they are to us in land loathest of all things." The phrase "Arthur he was, noblest of race!" is similar to the Anglo-Saxon kennings. But more than stylistic similarities, I find the heroic qualities of Arthur to be more Anglo-Saxon; he is stern and almost ruthless, reminding me to some degree of Beowulf. This Arthur is also QUITE different from the father-like Arthur of The Quest of the Holy Grail. The Quest's Arthur seems to be a figure of God who sends his son - Galahad - on the Quest, and is almost a passive figure. This Arthur is the strong warrior, noble and powerful, and seems to be a pattern for Shakespeare's Henry V. In fact, I found the account of the death of 2000 of Childric's men compared to "never Arthur lost ever one of his men" to be very similar to the account of the Battle of Agincourt where the French are decimated and only a token number of English are killed or wounded. I also found echoes of the story of the tower of Babel when noble Arthur (and Layamon reminds us frequently that he is the "noblest") declares that Colgrim had "climbed on this hill wondrously high, as if thou wouldst ascend to heaven." One other item seems very Anglo-Saxon to me and that is the sense of just vengeance against a wicked enemy who deserves no mercy: "We shall here in land live in bliss, pray for your souls, that happiness never come to them; and here shall your yones lie."
Post a Comment
<< Home