"Historically I suspect the vast majority of poems are versifications of a set message of one kind or another, and the beauty and satisfaction of the best of them derives in large part from recognition and agreement, rather than a sense of discovery; from hearing, as Pope put it, ‘What oft was thought, but ne’er so well expressed’."
This is an amazing point that I really jive with. So much of contemporary work is interested in being new and fresh, and people lament the "repackaging" of old ideas. And yet -- that's really all we have is repackaged ideas. It is how you interpret these ideas that really matters.
1. Blame Great Vowel Shift for the reason why we pronounce "Understand" as like "Ændérstænd" and not actually "Understand" in literal sense like in Old / Middle English
Great Vowel Shift is the thing that distinguish Late Middle English from Early Modern English
2. I must have footnote tho: Middle English is a continuum of dialect - no, "language", within span of time (from after 1066 to Great Vowel Shift).
Different dialects and different time could be very distinctive.
Heck you can even divide pre Black Death English as "Early Middle English" and post Black Death English as "Late Middle English" simply because you won't be able to read pre Black Death English anyway
There was a famous story of Caxton (first printing press in Britain) retelling a story:
Someone want to buy "egges" (eggs - Old Norse derived) to a local farmer nearby, but the local farmer don't understand the word "egges" thinking that it's French, until someone help and the wife understand it as "eyren" (Old English derived).
So two Late Middle English speaker, separated less than 50 km, living under the same time, literally can't understand each other.
You may think of Chaucer as comprehensible, but try reading the original Sir Gawain and the Green Knight - released on roughly the same time as Canterbury Tales - and you won't understand it. You'll need translation. Why? Because it was written in different dialect from different place (Canterbury Tales were written in London, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is written somewhere else).
There was also no standardized spelling until Chancery Standard (which derives from Chaucer's English and is providing pathway to the Great Vowel Shift). People write based on how they think it's spoken - They would write how we speak "Understand" as "Ændèrstænd".
I've read Gawain in the original. It was definitely more difficult! That's why I told readers to start with Chaucer instead of the Pearl Poet.
But nowhere near as difficult as reading, say, The Dream of the Rood, which really does have strikingly different grammar, declensions, vocabulary, etc. Gawain uses quite a different vocabulary and poetics from Chaucer, but the grammar, conjugations, declensions, etc are similar.
The Dream of the Rood is actually Late Old English (900s - 1066). This is the time where some areas start to have some Viking influence but not that much; grammatically it's still Old English grammar (which is different than ours).
But thing is rule of thumb Middle English works in general are grammatically closer to Chaucer than Beowulf due to Viking influence already being solidified after 200-300 years of Viking rule. Even Ormulum is grammatically much closer to Chaucer than Beowulf, and Ormulum is the early middle English works with the least amount of French influence to the point that some people classify Ormulum as "very late Old English".
Rules tend to get in the way of creativity, in more ways than one. It took me too long to realize there actually are no rules.
This reminded me a little bit of https://homosabiens.substack.com/p/review-conor-moretons-civilization?publication_id=1642926&post_id=144789378&isFreemail=true 🙂
"Historically I suspect the vast majority of poems are versifications of a set message of one kind or another, and the beauty and satisfaction of the best of them derives in large part from recognition and agreement, rather than a sense of discovery; from hearing, as Pope put it, ‘What oft was thought, but ne’er so well expressed’."
This is an amazing point that I really jive with. So much of contemporary work is interested in being new and fresh, and people lament the "repackaging" of old ideas. And yet -- that's really all we have is repackaged ideas. It is how you interpret these ideas that really matters.
1. Blame Great Vowel Shift for the reason why we pronounce "Understand" as like "Ændérstænd" and not actually "Understand" in literal sense like in Old / Middle English
Great Vowel Shift is the thing that distinguish Late Middle English from Early Modern English
2. I must have footnote tho: Middle English is a continuum of dialect - no, "language", within span of time (from after 1066 to Great Vowel Shift).
Different dialects and different time could be very distinctive.
Heck you can even divide pre Black Death English as "Early Middle English" and post Black Death English as "Late Middle English" simply because you won't be able to read pre Black Death English anyway
There was a famous story of Caxton (first printing press in Britain) retelling a story:
Someone want to buy "egges" (eggs - Old Norse derived) to a local farmer nearby, but the local farmer don't understand the word "egges" thinking that it's French, until someone help and the wife understand it as "eyren" (Old English derived).
So two Late Middle English speaker, separated less than 50 km, living under the same time, literally can't understand each other.
You may think of Chaucer as comprehensible, but try reading the original Sir Gawain and the Green Knight - released on roughly the same time as Canterbury Tales - and you won't understand it. You'll need translation. Why? Because it was written in different dialect from different place (Canterbury Tales were written in London, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is written somewhere else).
There was also no standardized spelling until Chancery Standard (which derives from Chaucer's English and is providing pathway to the Great Vowel Shift). People write based on how they think it's spoken - They would write how we speak "Understand" as "Ændèrstænd".
3.
Here's Free Bird in Chaucer's English
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ueg8QIt7ZTo&pp=ygUYZnJlZSBiaXJkIG1pZGRsZSBlbmdsaXNo
Here's Running Up That Hill in Early Middle English (based on Ormulum by Ormin, written in like year 1200)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DHspDQZKvwg&pp=ygUYZnJlZSBiaXJkIG1pZGRsZSBlbmdsaXNo
I've read Gawain in the original. It was definitely more difficult! That's why I told readers to start with Chaucer instead of the Pearl Poet.
But nowhere near as difficult as reading, say, The Dream of the Rood, which really does have strikingly different grammar, declensions, vocabulary, etc. Gawain uses quite a different vocabulary and poetics from Chaucer, but the grammar, conjugations, declensions, etc are similar.
The Dream of the Rood is actually Late Old English (900s - 1066). This is the time where some areas start to have some Viking influence but not that much; grammatically it's still Old English grammar (which is different than ours).
But thing is rule of thumb Middle English works in general are grammatically closer to Chaucer than Beowulf due to Viking influence already being solidified after 200-300 years of Viking rule. Even Ormulum is grammatically much closer to Chaucer than Beowulf, and Ormulum is the early middle English works with the least amount of French influence to the point that some people classify Ormulum as "very late Old English".
I know all this? Ive studied old English as well. We are literally saying the same thing.
You don't said it tho, so
But yeah it's cool if you know it as well
Really enjoyed this!