Is that purely the author's invention, or did old english sounded like what GRRM is writing? Stuff like "break his/her fast", "I'll see you on the morrow", the inverted sentences in some cases, etc, etc?
Depends what you mean by "old English". I'm pretty sure that in each of the cases, at some point that was a common way to speak in some part of the English speaking world. However, I'm also pretty sure that at no point was English spoken like Martin writes his dialogue.
In other words, it's a bit of a writer's affectation to suggest the flavour of an older or different English, rather than an accurate representation of how English was spoken at a particular time and place. It works okay, I think.
If it's anything like old French, it was probably much much worse then what GRRM is using.
Ever read Cartier's journal in original french?
It's a shame that he doesn't use the informal second person. There's incredible potential for subtle interaction there.
No, old English never sounded like Martin's writing. Old English is not intelligible to a modern speaker. Nor is it very close to middle English.
Here is the Lord's prayer in Old, Middle, and Modern English.
Old English
QuoteFæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum
Si þin nama gehalgod
to becume þin rice
gewurþe ðin willa
on eorðan swa swa on heofonum.
urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg
and forgyf us ure gyltas
swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum
and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge
ac alys us of yfele
Middle English
QuoteOure fadir that art in heuenes,
halewid be thi name;
thi kyngdoom come to;
be thi wille don, in erthe as in heuene.
Yyue to vs this dai oure breed ouer othir substaunce,
and foryyue to vs oure dettis, as we foryyuen to oure dettouris;
and lede vs not in to temptacioun, but delyuere vs fro yuel.
Modern English
Quote"Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil."
Note: that some people memorize a slightly archaic version.
This is how I was taught it:
QuoteOur Father who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us,
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
Phrases such as "break his fast" and "I'll see you on the morrow" aren't even close to old English, they're just a bit archaic modern English. Read much English literature from the 19th or early 20th centuries, and you'll find wording like that a lot.
By "English literature" in this context, I mean literature written by native speakers of English, not English literature as opposed to American literature.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 16, 2012, 12:15:05 PM
Ever read Cartier's journal in original french?
Nope, only Montcalm's journal. Did read other stuff in old French, though I can't remember what it was.
Quote from: dps on January 16, 2012, 12:53:50 PM
Phrases such as "break his fast" and "I'll see you on the morrow" aren't even close to old English, they're just a bit archaic modern English. Read much English literature from the 19th or early 20th centuries, and you'll find wording like that a lot.
By "English literature" in this context, I mean literature written by native speakers of English, not English literature as opposed to American literature.
funny, never heard/read that before. Not that I've read a ton of classic English literature.
Thanks all :)
Quote from: viper37 on January 16, 2012, 01:24:51 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 16, 2012, 12:15:05 PM
Ever read Cartier's journal in original french?
Nope, only Montcalm's journal. Did read other stuff in old French, though I can't remember what it was.
Won't differ. It's all unreadable.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 16, 2012, 12:24:25 PM
Old English
QuoteFæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum
Si þin nama gehalgod
to becume þin rice
gewurþe ðin willa
on eorðan swa swa on heofonum.
urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg
and forgyf us ure gyltas
swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum
and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge
ac alys us of yfele
Oddly, I find it easier to understand than some of the Old German versions (depending on origin):
Quote from: St. GallenFater unseer, thu pist in himile,
uuihi namun dinan,
qhueme rihhi din,
uuerde uuillo diin,
so in himile sosa in erdu.
prooth unseer emezzihic kip uns hiutu,
oblaz uns sculdi unseero,
so uuir oblazem uns sculdikem,
enti ni unsih firleiti in khorunka,
uzzer losi unsih fona ubile.
Quote from: WeissenburgFater unser, thu in himilom bist,
giuuihit si namo thin.
quaeme richi thin.
uuwerdhe uuilleo thin,
sama so in himile endi in erthu.
Broot unseraz emezzigaz gib uns hiutu.
endi farlaz uns sculdhi unsero,
sama so uuir farlazzem scolom unserem.
endi ni gileidi unsih in costunga.
auh arlosi unsih fona ubile.
Quote from: TatianFater unser, thu thar bist in himile,
si giheilagot thin namo,
queme thin rihhi,
si thin uuillo,
so her in himile ist, so si her in erdu,
unsar brot tagalihhaz gib uns hiutu,
inti furlaz uns unsara sculdi,
so uuir furlazemes unsaren sculdigon;
inti ni gileitest unsih in costunga,
uzouh arlosi unsih fon ubile.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 16, 2012, 01:43:29 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 16, 2012, 01:24:51 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 16, 2012, 12:15:05 PM
Ever read Cartier's journal in original french?
Nope, only Montcalm's journal. Did read other stuff in old French, though I can't remember what it was.
Won't differ. It's all unreadable.
Still made way after the
ordonnance de Villers-Cotterêts, while Cartier's diary wasn't.
Quote from: Solmyr on January 16, 2012, 02:26:15 PM
Quote from: Syt on January 16, 2012, 02:23:25 PM
pist in himile
:unsure:
:P
But e.g. in Old English:
Si þin nama gehalgod
Could easily be read as modern German
Sei dein Name geheiligt
That's because you are from Holstein and thus a close relative to the Anglo-Saxons :cool:
The OE apparently had tricky grammar, inflections and cases; nothing like the debased Franco-Saxon patois that is later English :P
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 16, 2012, 02:42:08 PM
That's because you are from Holstein and thus a close relative to the Anglo-Saxons :cool:
Yeah, Low German is the bastard stepchild of English, German and Dutch.
A friend of mine is studying Norwegian (bokmal). I had a look at her textbook, and I was surprised how much of the contents I could guesstimate.
Then you'd probably do alright with written Danish also.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 16, 2012, 01:43:29 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 16, 2012, 01:24:51 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 16, 2012, 12:15:05 PM
Ever read Cartier's journal in original french?
Nope, only Montcalm's journal. Did read other stuff in old French, though I can't remember what it was.
Won't differ. It's all unreadable.
not if you had latin class ;)
See you [on] the morrow isn't even archaic, people in much of Britain say that. Pretty common around my way (well..."see y th'morra" is....)
Break his fast...yeah, I think it might have been with Martin or maybe Cromwell that I first read that. It was a nice little bit of learning, makes logical sense.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 16, 2012, 12:24:25 PMThis is how I was taught it:
QuoteOur Father who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us,
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
Yep, that's how I was taught it to; having only a limited religious impulse, I didn't even realise that that wasn't the modern version until I read your post.
It certainly sounds much better than the truly "modern" version when recited, in my opinion.
That would be Shakespearean English I guess. It's from the King James version of the bible.
I think Martin is going for something that sounds "vaguely Early Modern English." People are typically incredibly uneducated about the differences between historical versions of English and just throw terms together interchangeably.
Common things I've heard:
-Shakespearean English = Old English - No, Shakespeare wrote in Modern English, but it was 400 years ago and different from our English that we speak. But any decently literate speaker of English can read Shakespeare as originally written. (Some call English of that era "Early Modern.")
-Referring to the slightly quirky ways of writing in the 19th century along with the slightly different vocabulary as "Elizabethan English." I've heard people refer to works of Dickens as "Elizabethan English." That's probably one of the dumbest things ever, writings from the 19th century are sometimes a bit tortuous if you are offended by quirky vocabulary and use of words we stopped using (I like both of those things, myself) but it's totally the same language as we write in today so to think it is anything other than modern English is stupid. To refer to it as "Elizabethan English" is even dumber because Elizabethan English is itself also Modern English but from the age of Queen Elizabeth I, so obviously has nothing to do with the 19th century.
Genuine Old English is essentially a foreign language and unless you have studied it like a foreign language a modern English speaker will have about as much luck reading it as a modern German speaker (maybe even slightly less.) Middle English if you read the Canterbury Tales a few times you get used to the differences in how their consonants and words work and it is fairly intelligible. I actually would guess that while it'd be hard to understand because of the different accent and speech patterns, I think the "sound" of Middle English words is actually fairly close to modern English, but the spelling is far different.
Quote from: Maximus on January 21, 2012, 02:51:05 PM
That would be Shakespearean English I guess. It's from the King James version of the bible.
Pretty much, the KJV was written not long after Shakespeare and is basically written in Early Modern English. You'll hear people refer to it as "Shakespearean" because of Shakespeare being by far the most famous person to have spoke/written this form of English, and you also hear "Elizabethan English" because it was used in the Elizabethan Age. Neither is totally accurate because in the early 17th century when King James actually had the bible written they still spoke/wrote that way but obviously Shakespeare had passed as had Elizabeth.
The KJV of the Lord's Prayer is an example of how this type of English truly is modern English. It uses slightly archaic sentence structure and one truly archaic word (art) and one probably archaic word (thy), but other than that it is essentially as intelligible as anything you'd read on CNN.com.
This thread is boring.
It also hadn't been posted to in over 24 hours and wasn't anywhere near the top post. So one wonders why you even bothered to post about it, you ignorant arab.
Why? I was reading it.
It is very boring, all about some old languages and stuff.
I thought it was gonna be about Jon and Stannis fighting it out.
And I ain't arab!
Why would Jon fight Stannis?
You want to hear a weird American accent/dialect?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXs9cf2YWwg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXs9cf2YWwg)
Quote from: Siege on January 22, 2012, 09:02:31 PM
Why? I was reading it.
It is very boring, all about some old languages and stuff.
I thought it was gonna be about Jon and Stannis fighting it out.
And I ain't arab!
Yes, you are.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 21, 2012, 02:54:31 PM
People are typically incredibly uneducated about the differences between historical versions of English and just throw terms together interchangeably.
It tends to happen for people not raised in anglo-saxon education system.
Quote
Genuine Old English is essentially a foreign language and unless you have studied it like a foreign language a modern English speaker will have about as much luck reading it as a modern German speaker (maybe even slightly less.) Middle English if you read the Canterbury Tales a few times you get used to the differences in how their consonants and words work and it is fairly intelligible. I actually would guess that while it'd be hard to understand because of the different accent and speech patterns, I think the "sound" of Middle English words is actually fairly close to modern English, but the spelling is far different.
that I knew, but I was asking if the way the expressions were made, the way some sentences were inverted (one-and-twenty instead of twenty one) was similar to old (medieval) english, as a way people spoke/wrote, not necessarly as it really sound. Like in Spartacus they don't say "thank you" but "gratitude", and I know this comes from latin wich had no word specifically for "thank you" they way we use it now, yet, I'm pretty sure Romans did not speak English.
One-and-twenty or "breaking his/her fast" could have been a translation of the german language used in medieval times in many parts of England.
Quote from: Siege on January 22, 2012, 09:02:31 PM
Why? I was reading it.
It is very boring, all about some old languages and stuff.
I thought it was gonna be about Jon and Stannis fighting it out.
And I ain't arab!
Look at the title: "and old english". That's a clue about the content ;)
Quote from: viper37 on January 23, 2012, 11:14:38 AM
It tends to happen for people not raised in anglo-saxon education system.
Nobody has been raised under this system in over 900 years. No wonder there is so much ignorance.
Quote from: viper37 on January 23, 2012, 11:14:38 AM
One-and-twenty
The double digits are still done like that in German:
Einundzwanzig.
Though I don't think anyone would consider "breakfast" as "Fastenbrechen" (breaking one's fasting) - it's "Frühstück", i.e. "early/morning piece (of bread)".
Searching on "one-and-twenty" I find poems by Samuel Johnson, Robert Burns and A E Housman that use the expression.
Then there is always the nursery rhyme :
" Sing a song of sixpence,
A pocket full of rye.
Four and twenty blackbirds,
Baked in a pie.
......."
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2012, 11:31:20 AM
Quote from: viper37 on January 23, 2012, 11:14:38 AM
It tends to happen for people not raised in anglo-saxon education system.
Nobody has been raised under this system in over 900 years. No wonder there is so much ignorance.
yet, I was just reading a piece this morning about "the anglo-saxon world outside of Quebec". Surely, these people did not mean England 900 years ago? I can't believe they invented a time machine and I don't know about it! ;)
@Syt:
thanks :)
@Richard:
Was this simply poetry (it sounded better that way in the context), or was it reflective of the way ordinary people talked in the 19th century?
Quote from: viper37 on January 23, 2012, 02:05:25 PM
yet, I was just reading a piece this morning about "the anglo-saxon world outside of Quebec". Surely, these people did not mean England 900 years ago? I can't believe they invented a time machine and I don't know about it! ;)
Sounds like some ignorant writers. The Anglo-Saxon world ended with the Conquest (at the latest). Quebec did not then exist, so there never was an "anglo-saxon world outside of Quebec."
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2012, 11:31:20 AM
Quote from: viper37 on January 23, 2012, 11:14:38 AM
It tends to happen for people not raised in anglo-saxon education system.
Nobody has been raised under this system in over 900 years. No wonder there is so much ignorance.
Another example of Norman vandalism <_<
Quote from: grumbler on January 23, 2012, 02:10:04 PM
Sounds like some ignorant writers. The Anglo-Saxon world ended with the Conquest (at the latest). Quebec did not then exist, so there never was an "anglo-saxon world outside of Quebec."
I don't know if you're serious... but the anglo-saxon world is the usual term used to describe the US, Canada, Great Britain and other predominantly english speaking countries with a capitalist system. Just as when the French speaks of "anglo-saxon rating agencies", they look at corporations like Standard&Poors or Moody's, not the people who criticized Longshanks' leadership ;)
Quote from: viper37 on January 23, 2012, 02:17:22 PM
I don't know if you're serious... but the anglo-saxon world is the usual term used to describe the US, Canada, Great Britain and other predominantly english speaking countries with a capitalist system. Just as when the French speaks of "anglo-saxon rating agencies", they look at corporations like Standard&Poors or Moody's, not the people who criticized Longshanks' leadership ;)
Ok I was making fun of you for precisely this reason.
The modern use of this term is always tinged a bit negative and has its roots in 19th century ethno-nationalism (our pure Celtic-Scandinavian-German-Roman blood blah blah).
But for godsake man Longshanks was a Anglo-Frenchie, a French speaking descendent of the Dukes of Anjou.
Its been a long time since I have heard someone described as a WASP. But I suppose those kinds of descriptions have their uses within some circles in Quebec.
Quote from: viper37 on January 23, 2012, 02:17:22 PM
I don't know if you're serious... but the anglo-saxon world is the usual term used to describe the US, Canada, Great Britain and other predominantly english speaking countries with a capitalist system. Just as when the French speaks of "anglo-saxon rating agencies", they look at corporations like Standard&Poors or Moody's, not the people who criticized Longshanks' leadership ;)
Not serious. A bit ironic, but it was a throwaway post, not a real argument. If you refer to Anglo-Saxon, I know what you mean, and ditto the writers. It's just shorthand, and not meant literally.
I was just thinking this morning...Is there a difference in terminology between old English and Old English?
I was thinking that the latter is the actual damn near impossible to read language. old English meanwhile....well that is Shakespeare or even Tolkein or what have you, just English which is old.
I prefer Colt 45 myself. Olde English is acceptable in a pinch I guess.
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2012, 02:25:25 PM
But for godsake man Longshanks was a Anglo-Frenchie, a French speaking descendent of the Dukes of Anjou.
But he's the embodiment of the English King, along with Arthur. Most of England's greatest kings weren't really English (as we'd define it today), I suppose. Wasn't it around the War of the Roses that French was totally abandonned in favour of English along the nobility?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 23, 2012, 02:27:59 PM
Its been a long time since I have heard someone described as a WASP. But I suppose those kinds of descriptions have their uses within some circles in Quebec outside of the US & Canada.
fixed your post ;)
If we're serious though, the terme "WASP" is not really used outside historians and maybe neo-nazis too. Only the two middle letters, since religion and colour aren't that important anymore.
Quote from: viper37 on January 23, 2012, 07:21:11 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2012, 02:25:25 PM
But for godsake man Longshanks was a Anglo-Frenchie, a French speaking descendent of the Dukes of Anjou.
But he's the embodiment of the English King, along with Arthur. Most of England's greatest kings weren't really English (as we'd define it today), I suppose. Wasn't it around the War of the Roses that French was totally abandonned in favour of English along the nobility?
I've never heard anyone call Arthur an English King.
Quote from: viper37 on January 23, 2012, 07:21:11 PMBut he's the embodiment of the English King, along with Arthur. Most of England's greatest kings weren't really English (as we'd define it today), I suppose. Wasn't it around the War of the Roses that French was totally abandonned in favour of English along the nobility?
Actually I'd say Henry VIII is the embodiment of a true English King, for that matter he was the penultimate true English King, and embodied the best and the worst of the Kings of England.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2012, 07:38:24 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 23, 2012, 07:21:11 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2012, 02:25:25 PM
But for godsake man Longshanks was a Anglo-Frenchie, a French speaking descendent of the Dukes of Anjou.
But he's the embodiment of the English King, along with Arthur. Most of England's greatest kings weren't really English (as we'd define it today), I suppose. Wasn't it around the War of the Roses that French was totally abandonned in favour of English along the nobility?
I've never heard anyone call Arthur an English King.
King Arthur is a legendary British leader of the late 5th and early 6th centuries (source: Wikipedia)Didn't medieval English kings traced their genealogy back to King Arthur? I thought I read that somewhere.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 23, 2012, 07:47:09 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 23, 2012, 07:21:11 PMBut he's the embodiment of the English King, along with Arthur. Most of England's greatest kings weren't really English (as we'd define it today), I suppose. Wasn't it around the War of the Roses that French was totally abandonned in favour of English along the nobility?
Actually I'd say Henry VIII is the embodiment of a true English King, for that matter he was the penultimate true English King, and embodied the best and the worst of the Kings of England.
Because he was married as often as Barbe Bleue (Bluebeard)?
Quote from: viper37 on January 23, 2012, 09:05:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2012, 07:38:24 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 23, 2012, 07:21:11 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2012, 02:25:25 PM
But for godsake man Longshanks was a Anglo-Frenchie, a French speaking descendent of the Dukes of Anjou.
But he's the embodiment of the English King, along with Arthur. Most of England's greatest kings weren't really English (as we'd define it today), I suppose. Wasn't it around the War of the Roses that French was totally abandonned in favour of English along the nobility?
I've never heard anyone call Arthur an English King.
King Arthur is a legendary British leader of the late 5th and early 6th centuries (source: Wikipedia)Didn't medieval English kings traced their genealogy back to King Arthur? I thought I read that somewhere.
King Arthur
fought the English. The Norman Kings of England did emphasis their ties to King Arthur because William the Conqueror was part Breton. In fact I suspect that's why the story became so popular. Poets and historians were encouraged to promulgate the story of the Heroic Arthur fighting off the invading Anglo-Saxons and create parallels with Bastard Bill taking back Britain from the English.
Quote from: viper37 on January 23, 2012, 09:07:26 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 23, 2012, 07:47:09 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 23, 2012, 07:21:11 PMBut he's the embodiment of the English King, along with Arthur. Most of England's greatest kings weren't really English (as we'd define it today), I suppose. Wasn't it around the War of the Roses that French was totally abandonned in favour of English along the nobility?
Actually I'd say Henry VIII is the embodiment of a true English King, for that matter he was the penultimate true English King, and embodied the best and the worst of the Kings of England.
Because he was married as often as Barbe Bleue (Bluebeard)?
No clue what Otto is on about. Henry VIII was perhaps the most Tyrannical King of England.
If Henry VIII was the penultimate, who would the ultimate be? :hmm:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 23, 2012, 11:51:18 AM
Searching on "one-and-twenty" I find poems by Samuel Johnson, Robert Burns and A E Housman that use the expression.
Then there is always the nursery rhyme :
" Sing a song of sixpence,
A pocket full of rye.
Four and twenty blackbirds,
Baked in a pie.
......."
Ahem. "Four score and seven years ago...".
I have no idea if people actually talked that way back then, or if such phrases were only used in literature, speachifyin' and the like.
I suspect people wrote more formally then they wrote.
Quote from: Jaron on January 23, 2012, 10:59:40 PM
If Henry VIII was the penultimate, who would the ultimate be? :hmm:
Penultimate just means second to last, Henry VIII was literally the second to last English King of England. He was followed by his son Edward and after that a few Queens and then after that the monarch of England was a series of Scottish guys and then the daughter of one of those Scottish guys and a Dutch guy, followed by another daughter of the same Scottish guy followed by our current line of Hessians.
But in terms of Henry VIII being the "embodiment of an English King" I think it's accurate. He was a brutal, monstrous tyrant, self-serving, covetous of power, disdainful towards his nobles and people. That's a not uncommon set of traits in English Kings up until Henry VIII, but he sort of was the real embodiment of all of those things.
He was also a learned man, a musician, an artist, an athlete, a patron of the arts and sciences and men of letters. A man who had lofty ideals and beliefs (that he never really even came close to adhering to), and a genuinely devout Christian. Henry VIII is easy to write off as a tyrant, but there are real reasons he is still so well known. The fascination with the number of Queens and the manner in which he dispatched with some of them picked up a lot of steam in the past 150 years or so, but he was a major figure in English history and really his entire reign was a bridge between the true Middle Ages of England and the modern Age.
Henry was also thoroughly English, and proud of it. He was disdainful of the French, and continental Europe in general. He was strongly of the belief that England was the best and had the best of everything (this wasn't true), and that's important because before Henry VIII a lot of English Kings still had their foot halfway in the world of French politics, courts, and intrigue, and depending on which one you look at many of them were basically French guys that were all too happy to rule a big Kingdom with large amounts of resources but who saw England as a cultural and political backwater. A lot of these guys were more emotionally attached to random French holdings than they were to England itself. If there's anyone who should be a biased patriot who blindly supports their country over all others, it would be your King.
Quote from: viper37 on January 23, 2012, 09:05:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2012, 07:38:24 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 23, 2012, 07:21:11 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2012, 02:25:25 PM
But for godsake man Longshanks was a Anglo-Frenchie, a French speaking descendent of the Dukes of Anjou.
But he's the embodiment of the English King, along with Arthur. Most of England's greatest kings weren't really English (as we'd define it today), I suppose. Wasn't it around the War of the Roses that French was totally abandonned in favour of English along the nobility?
I've never heard anyone call Arthur an English King.
King Arthur is a legendary British leader of the late 5th and early 6th centuries (source: Wikipedia)Didn't medieval English kings traced their genealogy back to King Arthur? I thought I read that somewhere.
Not arthur, they trace to Cerdic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerdic_of_Wessex)
Quote from: viper37 on January 23, 2012, 09:05:09 PM
King Arthur is a legendary British leader of the late 5th and early 6th centuries (source: Wikipedia)Didn't medieval English kings traced their genealogy back to King Arthur? I thought I read that somewhere.
Yes. I think Henry VI has a family tree that goes back to King Arthur as a way of giving himself greater legitimacy. It's an image of all the Kings before him converging on his coronation. He had a round table built to rule as Arthur, the model of Kingship. Didn't work out.
However there's no connection because Arthur was British and William the conqueror was Breton or anything like that. Arthur doesn't emerge as a major figure until Geoffrey of Monmouth. So by that time the Normans have more or less gone, the English court is Anglo-Central French. The story exists but there's not much written about it and the real Kings certainly make no use of it until that time. With Geoffrey it, and the story of Brutus of Troy as the first King of England, begin to form a part of a national story and of their own legitimacy. Perhaps because the monarchs aren't very English or British at all. They are predominately French. After that it seems to be part of the accepted myth of England until the Jacobean period.
I think the Central French connection at the English court is probably why Arthur then goes to France. Lots of Medieveal Romances about him are written in France. When we then get the Morte d'Arthur back in English Malory constantly repeats that he's only translating from 'the Frenshe bookes'. From what I gather that's not true, he's far more creative than he lets on, but in Medieval texts you're more legitimate if you're transmitting others' knowledge, writing a translation or copying a text than if you're creating one.
Eh? The Normans were still very much there in England when Geoffrey on Monmouth was there. He was writing during the reign of Henry I. The Angevins don't show up till a bit later. It also helps to remember that Normans are French.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 24, 2012, 01:47:34 AM
Eh? The Normans were still very much there in England when Geoffrey on Monmouth was there. He was writing during the reign of Henry I. The Angevins don't show up till a bit later. It also helps to remember that Normans are French.
Henry II's reign starts the year Geoffrey's work is first published. He's more English than later Kings but is basically French, he's also rebuilding after a civil war. I think those reasons are part of the attraction of myths of uniting Kings like Arthur and Brutus. But the French court in Anjou has Chretien de Troyes writing Arthurian Romance almost immediately after Geoffrey which suggest the myth was already known outside of England as an example of courtly virtues.
I have always thought it a tad simple to refer to every English King from William the Conquerer to Henry IV/V as "French." In 1066 there was no concept of France as a monolithic place, and there were even multiple dialects in France of "Langues d'oïl"; when the Normans conquered England there developed an Anglo-Norman variation of the Old Norman language.
While I'm sure to some degree it was mutually intelligible with other "Langues d'oïl", I don't know to what degree, and I do think it's rightly considered a separate language. When Richard I was King I've read that he knew Occitan (which was another French language, one of the "Langues d'Oc" so even further differentiated from the "Langues d'oïl" that are often collectively known as "Old French") and he knew the Parisian dialect of the Langues d'oïl, but he didn't speak or know the Anglo-Norman dialect.
I'm not sure if the differences were as subtle as "American English vs. British English" or more like "American and British English vs. Jamaican Patois."
The way I've understood it is the initial administrations of Norman conquest England were "Norman." But the royal family continually intermarried heavily with Parisian nobility and royalty strengthening ties both culturally and politically with the court in France (not necessarily meaning the court in France was always an ally or a friend, but the ties were close.)
Quote from: Viking on January 24, 2012, 12:25:34 AM
Quote from: viper37 on January 23, 2012, 09:05:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2012, 07:38:24 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 23, 2012, 07:21:11 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2012, 02:25:25 PM
But for godsake man Longshanks was a Anglo-Frenchie, a French speaking descendent of the Dukes of Anjou.
But he's the embodiment of the English King, along with Arthur. Most of England's greatest kings weren't really English (as we'd define it today), I suppose. Wasn't it around the War of the Roses that French was totally abandonned in favour of English along the nobility?
I've never heard anyone call Arthur an English King.
King Arthur is a legendary British leader of the late 5th and early 6th centuries (source: Wikipedia)Didn't medieval English kings traced their genealogy back to King Arthur? I thought I read that somewhere.
Not arthur, they trace to Cerdic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerdic_of_Wessex)
And, amusingly enough, through him to the god Wotan (Odin). I recently saw in the Tower of London gift shop an elaborate family tree of the royals and "Wotan" was the earliest ancestor mentioned! :D I wonder if the people putting it together knew he was, literally, a god.
For Cerdic, an amusing fictional account is
The Concience of the King by Alfred Duggan.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 24, 2012, 07:57:57 AM
I have always thought it a tad simple to refer to every English King from William the Conquerer to Henry IV/V as "French." In 1066 there was no concept of France as a monolithic place, and there were even multiple dialects in France of "Langues d'oïl"; when the Normans conquered England there developed an Anglo-Norman variation of the Old Norman language.
While I'm sure to some degree it was mutually intelligible with other "Langues d'oïl", I don't know to what degree, and I do think it's rightly considered a separate language. When Richard I was King I've read that he knew Occitan (which was another French language, one of the "Langues d'Oc" so even further differentiated from the "Langues d'oïl" that are often collectively known as "Old French") and he knew the Parisian dialect of the Langues d'oïl, but he didn't speak or know the Anglo-Norman dialect.
I'm not sure if the differences were as subtle as "American English vs. British English" or more like "American and British English vs. Jamaican Patois."
The way I've understood it is the initial administrations of Norman conquest England were "Norman." But the royal family continually intermarried heavily with Parisian nobility and royalty strengthening ties both culturally and politically with the court in France (not necessarily meaning the court in France was always an ally or a friend, but the ties were close.)
Reminds me of how William Wallace, scottish rebel, is portrayed as a half-naked kilted pict painted with woad in Braveheart and generally elsewhere as a highland savage - when, of course, he was descended from Norman aristocrats.
Quote from: Malthus on January 24, 2012, 08:45:35 AM
And, amusingly enough, through him to the god Wotan (Odin). I recently saw in the Tower of London gift shop an elaborate family tree of the royals and "Wotan" was the earliest ancestor mentioned! :D I wonder if the people putting it together knew he was, literally, a god.
Yeah his name is kinda Briton-sounding so maybe it was a Brit who threw his lot with the Saxons. Later on becoming an important figure I guess the later powers that be decided that he needed to appear more Saxon than the Saxons so showed how he was descended from Germanic Gods or something. That is always sort of amusing that the head of the Church of England claims to be descended from Wotan.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 24, 2012, 07:57:57 AM
The way I've understood it is the initial administrations of Norman conquest England were "Norman." But the royal family continually intermarried heavily with Parisian nobility and royalty strengthening ties both culturally and politically with the court in France (not necessarily meaning the court in France was always an ally or a friend, but the ties were close.)
There were never very many Normans in Normandy to begin with and they had a conscious policy of intermarrying and culturally becoming French so as to legitimize their rule so they became indistinguishable from the French (granted...whatever that might mean in the 11th century) pretty fast.. Throw that in with the fact William recruited knights and lords from all over France (and some in Flanders and Germany) for his war of conquest and you realize very few of the Normans were really Norman in ethnic or cultural sense, but rather only in the sense they were the vassals of the Duke of Normandy.
Quote from: Malthus on January 24, 2012, 08:49:55 AM
Reminds me of how William Wallace, scottish rebel, is portrayed as a half-naked kilted pict painted with woad in Braveheart and generally elsewhere as a highland savage - when, of course, he was descended from Norman aristocrats.
God I hate Gibson <_<
The thing that really annoys me is that because of Braveheart I don't think we'll ever get a film about Robert the Bruce which is the far more interesting story. The cunning, wily and ultimately successful rebel deserves more than Wallace.
QuoteI have always thought it a tad simple to refer to every English King from William the Conquerer to Henry IV/V as "French." In 1066 there was no concept of France as a monolithic place, and there were even multiple dialects in France of "Langues d'oïl"; when the Normans conquered England there developed an Anglo-Norman variation of the Old Norman language.
Agreed. There's a big cultural shift from the Normans to the Central French of the Angevin Empire. The legacy is differet Norman words are rather like Anglo-Saxon in terms of literature, they're on the same register whereas words we got from Central French courtly culture are different.
Quote from: Malthus on January 24, 2012, 08:49:55 AM
Reminds me of how William Wallace, scottish rebel, is portrayed as a half-naked kilted pict painted with woad in Braveheart and generally elsewhere as a highland savage - when, of course, he was descended from Norman aristocrats.
You mean like Robert de Brus...er...Robert the Bruce?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 24, 2012, 08:55:19 AM
God I hate Gibson <_<
Since you live in the England I assure you the feeling is mutual :P
Quote from: Valmy on January 24, 2012, 08:50:32 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 24, 2012, 08:45:35 AM
And, amusingly enough, through him to the god Wotan (Odin). I recently saw in the Tower of London gift shop an elaborate family tree of the royals and "Wotan" was the earliest ancestor mentioned! :D I wonder if the people putting it together knew he was, literally, a god.
Yeah his name is kinda Briton-sounding so maybe it was a Brit who threw his lot with the Saxons. Later on becoming an important figure I guess the later powers that be decided that he needed to appear more Saxon than the Saxons so showed how he was descended from Germanic Gods or something. That is always sort of amusing that the head of the Church of England claims to be descended from Wotan.
My impression is that among the Saxons, a people who were more at the "chieftom" level of social development at the time (in anthropology a stage often associated with leaders who claim some sort of divine mana or supernatural ancesty or both), anyone with aristocratic/chiefly ancesty claimed descent from the gods. Being "Wotan-born" may have been simply the mark of heriditary aristocracy.
Quote from: Valmy on January 24, 2012, 09:01:02 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 24, 2012, 08:55:19 AM
God I hate Gibson <_<
Since you live in the England I assure you the feeling is mutual :P
My nan was Jewish as well :o
To be fair Gibson's always wanted to make a movie about the Maccabees and I kind of what him to make that. This is his vision:
Quote"I just read it when I was teenager, and it's amazing. It's almost like" -- here, he grabbed my digital recorder, held it to his mouth, and spoke in a portentous movie-announcer voice -- "They profaned his Temple. They killed his father. They... all kinds of stuff. In the face of great odds for something he believed in" -- here he switched out of movie-announcer voice -- "Oh, my God, the odds they faced. The armies they faced had elephants! How cinematic is this! Even Judah's dad -- what's his name? Mattathias? -- you kind of get this guy who more or less is trying to avoid the whole thing, but he just gets to a place where had enough, and he just snapped!"
I would love to see that.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 24, 2012, 08:55:19 AM
Agreed. There's a big cultural shift from the Normans to the Central French of the Angevin Empire. The legacy is differet Norman words are rather like Anglo-Saxon in terms of literature, they're on the same register whereas words we got from Central French courtly culture are different.
Yep it gets rather messy, regional variations for so profound back then.
In fact this sort of thing is an explanation for why "French" was the language of the English upper classes for such a suprisingly long time: Old English itself was really just the language of the Anglo-Saxon nobility. The people on the ground spoke a huge variety of local dialects that were almost unintelligible to each other and the Church, of course, had their latin. So it was not like they were speaking French to resist English but rather they needed a language that all the nobles could speak and until modern English comes around such a thing does not really exist. Which is sort of like how French was for a long time in France yes? A language of the nobles.
Quote from: Valmy on January 24, 2012, 09:00:12 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 24, 2012, 08:49:55 AM
Reminds me of how William Wallace, scottish rebel, is portrayed as a half-naked kilted pict painted with woad in Braveheart and generally elsewhere as a highland savage - when, of course, he was descended from Norman aristocrats.
You mean like Robert de Brus...er...Robert the Bruce?
Heh. ;) But the Bruce is generally portrayed in fiction as more of an aristocrat.
I think Wallace gets the 'retroactive highlander' treatment (Gibson isn't the only one who does this) because of his rather extreme rep (a murderous giant who did stuff like make a sword belt out of an English general's skin).
As usual, Horrible Histories has the last word:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g61xASD-24
;)
Quote from: Malthus on January 24, 2012, 08:45:35 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 24, 2012, 12:25:34 AM
Quote from: viper37 on January 23, 2012, 09:05:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 23, 2012, 07:38:24 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 23, 2012, 07:21:11 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 23, 2012, 02:25:25 PM
But for godsake man Longshanks was a Anglo-Frenchie, a French speaking descendent of the Dukes of Anjou.
But he's the embodiment of the English King, along with Arthur. Most of England's greatest kings weren't really English (as we'd define it today), I suppose. Wasn't it around the War of the Roses that French was totally abandonned in favour of English along the nobility?
I've never heard anyone call Arthur an English King.
King Arthur is a legendary British leader of the late 5th and early 6th centuries (source: Wikipedia)Didn't medieval English kings traced their genealogy back to King Arthur? I thought I read that somewhere.
Not arthur, they trace to Cerdic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerdic_of_Wessex)
And, amusingly enough, through him to the god Wotan (Odin). I recently saw in the Tower of London gift shop an elaborate family tree of the royals and "Wotan" was the earliest ancestor mentioned! :D I wonder if the people putting it together knew he was, literally, a god.
For Cerdic, an amusing fictional account is The Concience of the King by Alfred Duggan.
Strangelly enough Heimskringla also starts with Odin as well. It's like the norse version of Ameratsu and the Tennoheika.
Quote from: Malthus on January 24, 2012, 09:02:53 AM
My impression is that among the Saxons, a people who were more at the "chieftom" level of social development at the time (in anthropology a stage often associated with leaders who claim some sort of divine mana or supernatural ancesty or both), anyone with aristocratic/chiefly ancesty claimed descent from the gods. Being "Wotan-born" may have been simply the mark of heriditary aristocracy.
My impression of the Anglo-Saxons is that their understanding of leadership was very much based on reciprocity. The major feature of their society is the swearing of oaths to your lord and to your hall. In Anglo-Saxon texts the focus on the failure of any individual to fulfil their boast almost always presages immediate and total defeat of the whole. The other aspect of that is that leadership doesn't seem to have any divine features. There's no outrage at bad lord, or lords who fail to fulfil their role of protector, being removed. It's the legitimacy of a very warlike society really.
What's really interesting is how they try and imagine Christianity in this context. They imagine Christ as an Anglo-Saxon Lord. His supporters are like retainers, the Cross is his most loyal servant doing his wish. While Christ being crucified is making the ultimate self-sacrifice for his oathsmen, to protect his people. Other poems have Christ leading spear charges against demons. The promise of heaven is seen as a Lord rewarding his thanes at an eternal feast in their hall. It's a very distinctive vision, but even for Christ his divinity is almost secondary to his role as Lord.
Heh good point Sheilbh. I heard in the History of England podcast a Anglo-Saxon era priest singing the praises of some Anglo-Saxon king (Offa I think?) about how great he was because he rewarded his followers with treasure. Which I found to be a hilarious commentary by a religious figure.
But I would like to point out that it looks like blood was vitally important to who got to be a king in Anglo-Saxon England. The king always had to be a blood relative of the ruling family, but he did not necessarily have to be the son of the former king.
The giving of rings is a huge part of the poetry actually. That's the standard reward for being a worthy thane (and goes on in heaven too, eternal life is secondary) and a common part of any mourning for a good lord is that there won't be any more gift-giving.
One very odd aspect in terms of family is that sons don't get much of a look-in for Anglo-Saxons. You didn't spend much time with your son. You would send him to another hall to serve another lord which would help keep the peace. It was very common to send him to a sibling's hall. So while there's very little mention of sons there's a lot of poetry that gives prominence to your 'sister-son'. They will get whole sections of being very worth thanes and following through on their oaths; if they die they will get a good chunk of mourning in the poem. Some more cynical twentieth century academics have suggested 'sister-sons' were important because they're one of the few relatives who were definitely genetically related to you :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 24, 2012, 08:55:19 AM
God I hate Gibson <_<
The thing that really annoys me is that because of Braveheart I don't think we'll ever get a film about Robert the Bruce which is the far more interesting story. The cunning, wily and ultimately successful rebel deserves more than Wallace.
I think you grossly over-estimate the power of Gibson over the Hollywood decision-makers, and even more over-estimate the impact of
Braveheart on the entire future of historical cinema. We had
Braveheart even though we had already had
Rob Roy. We'll have another Robert the Bruce movie, as well.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 24, 2012, 09:15:07 AM
My impression of the Anglo-Saxons is that their understanding of leadership was very much based on reciprocity. The major feature of their society is the swearing of oaths to your lord and to your hall. In Anglo-Saxon texts the focus on the failure of any individual to fulfil their boast almost always presages immediate and total defeat of the whole. The other aspect of that is that leadership doesn't seem to have any divine features. There's no outrage at bad lord, or lords who fail to fulfil their role of protector, being removed. It's the legitimacy of a very warlike society really.
What's really interesting is how they try and imagine Christianity in this context. They imagine Christ as an Anglo-Saxon Lord. His supporters are like retainers, the Cross is his most loyal servant doing his wish. While Christ being crucified is making the ultimate self-sacrifice for his oathsmen, to protect his people. Other poems have Christ leading spear charges against demons. The promise of heaven is seen as a Lord rewarding his thanes at an eternal feast in their hall. It's a very distinctive vision, but even for Christ his divinity is almost secondary to his role as Lord.
Certainly there is no hint that chiefs were divine in the sense of being untouchable. More that there were certain people who were extra-heroic or aristocratic by virtue of ancestry. This lingered a long time in anglo-saxon culture.
For example, in theory the anglo-saxon kings of Wessex were elected by the Witan - but in practice, the "election" was from any who could claim desecnt from Cerdic (and usually but not always by primogeniture). The members of the witan were thanes, heriditary aristocrats. The presumption is that the roots of such aristocracy go back to the age where descent froim gods made sense as a social marker.
Oath-swearing or "oath helping" as a method of trial is an interesting thing: I've argued elsewhere that it makes perfect sense as a violence-controlling mechanism in the absence of a fixed set of laws and a monopoly on violence ...
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 24, 2012, 01:56:40 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 24, 2012, 01:47:34 AM
Eh? The Normans were still very much there in England when Geoffrey on Monmouth was there. He was writing during the reign of Henry I. The Angevins don't show up till a bit later. It also helps to remember that Normans are French.
Henry II's reign starts the year Geoffrey's work is first published. He's more English than later Kings but is basically French, he's also rebuilding after a civil war. I think those reasons are part of the attraction of myths of uniting Kings like Arthur and Brutus. But the French court in Anjou has Chretien de Troyes writing Arthurian Romance almost immediately after Geoffrey which suggest the myth was already known outside of England as an example of courtly virtues.
No, it doesn't. Geoffrey finished his work in the mid 1130's. Henry II didn't become King till 1154. And even after the the rise of the Angevins, most of the nobility in England had strong ties to Normandy. Often owning fiefs in both Normandy and England. These families were not replaced and are likely to have spoken the Norman dialect for some time after Henry II came to power.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 24, 2012, 11:31:50 AM
No, it doesn't. Geoffrey finished his work in the mid 1130's. Henry II didn't become King till 1154. And even after the the rise of the Angevins, most of the nobility in England had strong ties to Normandy. Often owning fiefs in both Normandy and England. These families were not replaced and are likely to have spoken the Norman dialect for some time after Henry II came to power.
Sorry I thought they were both 1154 :blush:
I get what you're saying about the ties to Normandy. But I don't think any of this addresses my main point that Arthur emerged as a major figure in the era of Angevins and was of particular importance to Anglo-Central French courtly culture (Chretien, 'the Frenshe bookes') not Anglo-Norman culture. The language doesn't matter at all it was originally in Latin anyway and I think there are translations not very long after in Anglo-Norman, in French and there's quite early editions of it in Middle English too which indicates its enduring popularity.