Geskiedenis Podcasts

William Langland

William Langland

William Langland is waarskynlik in ongeveer 1332 in Ledbury, Herefordshire, gebore. Langland verhuis na Londen waar hy sy bestaan ​​verdien deur liedjies te sing by begrafnisse van ryk mans. Daar word ook geglo dat hy jare lank 'n swerwende minstreel was wat dorpe en dorpe besoek het. (1) John F. Harrison stel voor dat hy ''n arme priester sonder verdienste' was. (2)

Ballades wat deur minnaars gesing word, het dikwels die probleme van die armes behandel. Die gewildste karakter in hierdie ballades was Robin Hood. Eerlike manne wat deur wrede regeringsamptenare of korrupte lede van die geestelikes gedwing is om 'n outlaw te word, was 'n algemene tema in hierdie ballades. Die kleinboere in die Middeleeue was veral lief vir ballades wat vertel het van outlaws wat van die rykes gesteel het om vir die armes te gee. Langland het geskryf: "Ek kan nie heeltemal die Onse Vader sê soos die priester dit sing nie. Maar ek ken rympies van Robin Hood". (3)

John Major het geskryf: 'Op hierdie tydstip (die bewind van Richard the Lionheart) het die beroemdste rowers Robin Hood en Little John, wat in die bos gelê en floreer het, floreer en diegene wat ryk was, beroof ... Die prestasies van Robin is Hy het toegelaat dat geen vrou onreg ly nie, en die armes nie sou beroof nie, maar hulle eerder verryk uit die roof wat van abte geneem is. " (4)

Sommige godsdienstige leiers, soos Thomas de Cobham, biskop van Worcester, het gevra dat hierdie dwalende sangeres gearresteer word: "Daar is akteurs wat musiekinstrumente het vir vreugde vir mans. Sommige spook in openbare drinkhuise en ander byeenkomste waar hulle baie liedere sing beweeg mans tot ondeunde gedrag ... Maar daar is ander wat sing oor die lewens van prinse ". (5)

Langland het ook poësie geskryf en word vermoedelik die outeur van The Vision Piers the Ploughman. Die gedig is in die West Midland -dialek geskryf en vertel die verhaal van Piers, 'n eenvoudige landgenoot. Langland was self baie arm en die gedig gee 'n eerstehandse weergawe van hoe die lewe was vir gewone mense wat gedurende die 14de eeu in Engeland gewoon het. Die gedig val ook die korrupsie van die adel en vooraanstaande lede van die kerk aan. (6)

George M. Trevelyan het aangevoer dat die gedig 'n godsdienstige allegorie is en die leë vers gebruik wat uit die Angelsaksiese poësie afgelei is. "Die gees van Piers Ploughman het voortgegaan in die godsdienstige erns van ons vaders, hul voortdurende verontwaardiging oor die verkeerde dade van ander en soms hul eie leed." (7)

Trevelyan voeg by dat hierdie Engelse digvorm later vervang is deur die rymbenadering van Geoffrey Chaucer. Daar is daarop gewys dat hulle 'n heel ander siening van die samelewing het. "Sowel Langland as Chaucer het dinge met dieselfde oë gesien, maar hulle visie was nie dieselfde nie. Hulle ore het ook nie dieselfde dinge gehoor nie. Soos die een die gedagtes van die rykes voorstel, spreek die ander ook die menings van die armes uit. . " (8)

Die eerste weergawe van Die visie van Piers Ploughman verskyn in 1362. Langland werk voortdurend aan die gedig en verdere weergawes word versprei in 1377 en 1395. Meer as sestig eksemplare van die boek het oorleef, wat daarop dui dat Langland se gedig in die Middeleeue uiters gewild moes gewees het. Dit is as 'n gevaarlike boek beskou en is deur die owerhede verbied. (9)

Langland se biograaf, George Kane, het aangevoer: "Langland se onderwerp, 'n kultuur wat in die begin van radikale verandering herstel, is van groot tyd .... Die gedig is belas met diep geestelike ongemak, verlies aan vertroue in die volgorde van dinge, toestand waarvoor geen duursame en intelligente verklaring moontlik was nie, omdat die beskikbare denkvorme onvoldoende was: dit het hom veral in 'n gevoel van teenstrydigheid, 'n bewussyn van opposisies wat nie sou bestaan ​​nie, tussen materiële en geestelike waardes, tussen morele uitnemendheid as 'n filosofies bedink waarde en die sigbaar alomteenwoordige onvolmaaktheid van die werklikheid, tussen kennis van die regte gedrag en die mislukking van die besitters van daardie kennis om dit te besef ... en, in die diepste teologiese sin, tussen die God van geregtigheid en die God van liefde. die middelpunt van hierdie angs was die klaarblyklike mislukking van die predikante van die kerk in pastorale sorg. ” (10)

In sy gedig toon Langland besorgdheid oor die armes: "Hulle word belas met kinders en oorlaai deur verhuurders, wat hulle spaar, spandeer hulle aan melk of maaltyd om pap te maak om die kinders te snik tydens etenstyd ... Die hartseer van die vroue wat in hierdie hokke woon, is te hartseer om van te praat of in rym te sê. " Hy kla dat die welvarende lede van die samelewing min besorgdheid oor die armes getoon het: 'Terwyl onkruid op die heuwel loop, veroorsaak rykdom wat op rykdom versprei word, alle ondeugde ... Die rykdom van hierdie wêreld is sleg vir die bewaarder, tensy dit so is goed bestee. " (11)

Langland was ook kritiek op monnike. "Langland se kritiek op die lewe van die monnik was nie, soos baie moderne kritiek, insluitend die van Wyclif nie, as gevolg van die gebrek aan waardering vir die afgetrede, kontemplatiewe lewe van selfverwerping, maar van Langland se persepsie dat die monnike opgehou het om die ideaal te verwesenlik." (12)

Langland verskaf belangrike inligting oor die alledaagse lewe, insluitend die huwelik: "So is die huwelik gemaak - eers met toestemming van die vader en advies van vriende, en dan in onderlinge ooreenkoms van die twee vennote. So is die huwelik tot stand gebring, en God het dit self gemaak . " (13)

William Langland was moontlik ook die outeur van Richard the Redeless, 'n gedig wat die heerskappy van Richard I. Langland aanval, sterf in ongeveer 1400.

Ek kan nie volkome die Onse Gebed sê soos die priester dit sing nie. Maar ek ken rympies van Robin Hood en Randolph, graaf van Chester.

Belas met kinders en oorlaai deur verhuurders, wat hulle spaar, spandeer hulle aan melk of maaltyd om pap te maak om die kinders te snik tydens etenstyd ... Die hartseer van die vroue wat in hierdie hutte woon, is te hartseer om te praat van of sê in rym.

Soos onkruid op die doringveld loop, so veroorsaak rykdom wat op rykdom versprei word, alle ondeugde ... Die rykdom van hierdie wêreld is sleg vir die bewaarder, tensy dit goed bestee word.

Beide Langland en Chaucer het dinge met dieselfde oë gesien, maar hulle visie was nie dieselfde nie. Soos die een die verstand van die rykes verteenwoordig, spreek die ander ook die menings van die armes uit.

Swerwende klopse in die Middeleeue (antwoordkommentaar)

Die groei van vroulike geletterdheid in die Middeleeue (antwoordkommentaar)

Vroue en Middeleeuse werk (antwoordkommentaar)

Die Middeleeuse dorpsekonomie (antwoordkommentaar)

Vroue en Middeleeuse boerdery (antwoordkommentaar)

Kontemporêre rekeninge van die Swart Dood (antwoordkommentaar)

Siekte in die 14de eeu (antwoordkommentaar)

King Harold II en Stamford Bridge (antwoordkommentaar)

The Battle of Hastings (antwoordkommentaar)

William the Conqueror (Antwoordkommentaar)

Die feodale stelsel (antwoordkommentaar)

Die Domesday -opname (antwoordkommentaar)

Thomas Becket en Henry II (Antwoordkommentaar)

Waarom is Thomas Becket vermoor? (Antwoord kommentaar)

Verligte manuskripte in die Middeleeue (antwoordkommentaar)

Yalding: Middeleeuse dorpsprojek (differensiasie)

(1) George Kane, William Langland: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004-2014)

(2) John F. Harrison, Die gewone mense (1984) bladsy 101

(3) William Langland, Die visie van Piers Ploughman (c. 1365)

(4) John Major, Die geskiedenis van Groot -Brittanje (1521)

(5) Thomas de Cobham, biskop van Worcester (c. 1325)

(6) George Kane, William Langland: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004-2014)

(7) George M. Trevelyan, Engelse sosiale geskiedenis (1942) bladsy 16

(8) Hyman Fagan, Nege dae wat Engeland geskud het (1938) bladsy 118

(9) Chris Harman, 'N Volksgeskiedenis van die wêreld (2008) bladsy 179

(10) George Kane, William Langland: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004-2014)

(11) William Langland, Die visie van Piers Ploughman (c. 1365)

(12) George M. Trevelyan, Engelse sosiale geskiedenis (1942) bladsy 64

(13) William Langland, Die visie van Piers Ploughman (c. 1365)


Ons het almal gehoor dat die maksimum geduld gedurende ons lewens 'n deug is, en as ons gefrustreerd is dat iets te lank neem, lyk dit asof iemand dit altyd uitdoof. Ons leef in die era van mikrogolfoonde en die internet, waar ons byna alles kan kry wat ons wil hê. Terwyl die wêreld om ons al hoe vinniger beweeg en ons sien dat daar nie 'n tekort aan geduld is nie, moet ons ook erken dat die besit van die deugd van geduld 'n noodsaaklikheid is vir die volgelinge van God. Maar kom die aanhaling geduld uit die Bybel?

“Patience is a Virtue ” – Origin: William Langland, The Vision of Piers Ploughman, c 1370

Die oorsprong van die aanhaling geduld is 'n deugde afkomstig van 'n klassieke werk deur William Langland wat gedurende die Middeleeue geskryf is. As u egter op soek is na die oorspronklike teks van hierdie aanhaling uit The Vision of Piers Ploughman, sal u dit nie vind nie, tensy u op soek is na die oorspronklike Midde -Engelse taal, en#8220suffraunce is 'n soeverayn vertue ”.

Vertaling: Suffraunce is a soverayn vertue: Geduld is 'n soewereine (opperste) deug

Alhoewel u die aanhaling nie in die Bybel sal vind nie, kan u maklik argumenteer dat dit deur die Bybel geïnspireer is. The Vision of Piers Ploughman is 'n gedig wat 'n teologiese allegorie is van wat dit beteken om 'n ware Christen te wees. In sy gedig verwys Langland na die vier kardinale deugde: Prudence, Justice, Fortitude en Temperance. Geduld is een van die kenmerke van sterkte, dit wil sê die vermoë om pyn of swaarkry te verduur.

Die Bybelse verwysing na geduld (lankmoedigheid, lydsaamheid) as 'n deug kan gevind word in die boek Galasies, waar dit onder die vrugte van die Gees verskyn: “Maar die vrug van die Gees is liefde, vreugde, vrede, lankmoedig, sagmoedigheid, goedhartigheid, geloof, sagmoedigheid, matigheid: daar bestaan ​​geen wet nie.#8221. Galasie 5: 22-23 ABA.

Sedert die eerste keer dat dit verskyn het, het ander skrywers die aanhaling gebruik geduld is 'n deug in hul geskrifte. Die mees opvallende was 'n meer gewilde tydgenoot van Langland, naamlik Geoffrey Chaucer wat gesê het dat geduld 'n groot deug van volmaaktheid is in The Canterbury Tales. Hier is 'n paar baie vroeë plekke waar u vandag 'n Bybel of nie -kwotasie kan vind.

Geduld is 'n groet van perfeksie. – Chaucer Tale of Melibee, c 1386

Geduld is 'n hoogtepunt, maar knyp is erger as enige ondeugd! – Lyly Mother Bombie, 1594

Geduld is 'n deug. – The Works of Thomas Chalkley, 1724

Tannie Prue in Yorkshire … sal u kan onderrig dat geduld 'n deug is en dat u nie haastig moet wees om 'n eerste aanbod te neem nie. – Richardson Grandison, 1754

Geduld is en was nog altyd 'n deug. – 1858 Trollope Dr. Thorne, 1858

My broers, beskou dit as vreugde as julle in verskillende beproewings beland, wetende dat die toets van julle geloof geduld oplewer. Maar laat geduld sy volmaakte werk hê, sodat u volmaak en volkome kan wees en niks ontbreek nie. Jakobus 1: 2-4 NLV

Hierdie plasing word geborg deur die professionele fotografie-ateljee van Bohm-Marrazzo.


Waarom 'n nuwe Robin Hood elke generasie ontstaan?

Folklore kom van die mense, en daarom is dit 'n motief wat eeue lank in die verbeelding van die mense bestaan ​​het om die rykes te beroof om aan die armes te gee. As dit kom by die herverdeling van rykdom in ballade en legendes, beroof helde nooit van die armes om die rykdom se rykdom verder te verbeter nie.

Die mees onlangse illustrasie van hierdie beginsel kom op die dag voor Thanksgiving in rolprentteaters. Regie deur Otto Bathurst, Robin Hood sterre Taron Egerton in die titelrol, met Jamie Foxx as Little John, Ben Mendelsohn as die balju van Nottingham en Eve Hewson as Marian.

Die filmweergawe van 2018 maak gebruik van nuwe digitale tegnologieë in baie van die aksiereekse, maar gebruik baie van dieselfde tradisionele folklore in die rol van Robin as die wesenlike sosiale bandiet wat onreg regmaak deur van die rykes te beroof en aan die armes te gee.

Namate die nuwe blockbuster -film in die landwyd versprei word, het ek die diep wortels van die held Robin Hood gaan soek in argiefrekords en folklore -verwysings. Bygestaan ​​deur Michael Sheridan, 'n intern wat by die Smithsonian's Center for Folklore and Cultural Heritage dien, word dit gou duidelik dat in tye van ekonomiese afswaai, in tye van tirannie en onderdrukking, en in tye van politieke omwenteling, die held Robin Hood maak sy tydige oproep.

Ons weet nie of daar ooit 'n werklike Robin Hood in die Middeleeuse Engeland was nie, of dat die naam in die 13de eeu bloot aan verskeie outlaws geheg is. Dit is eers in die laat 14de eeu in die verhaalgedig Piers Ploughman deur William Langland dat verwysings na rympies oor Robin Hood verskyn.

Ek kan ook nie my Paternoster as die vooraf -toets wat dit pas nie,

Maar ek kan rymes van Robyn Hood en Randolf Erl van Chestre,

Ac nie een van Oure Lord ne van Oure Lady die leest wat ooit gemaak is nie.


Volgens 'n tydlyn wat deur Stephen Winick by die American Folklife Center of the Library of Congress saamgestel is, het verhale oor Robin Hood die komende eeue steeds versprei en geleidelik baie van die besonderhede aangeneem wat vandag bekend is: Robin as 'n goed #8221 outlaw, volgens Andrew van Wyntoun ’s Orygynale Chronicle (ca. 1420) Robin woon in Sherwood Forest, volgens die ballade Robin Hood and the Monk ” (ca. 1450) Robin beroof die rykes en gee aan die armes, volgens John Major ’s Geskiedenis van Groot -Brittanje (1521) en Robin as 'n edele graaf, volgens Richard Grafton ’s Kroniek in die groot (1569).

Namate hierdie verhale ontwikkel en versprei het, het Robin die tipiese sosiale bandiet geword, 'n term wat in die laat 20ste eeu deur die Britse historikus Eric Hobsbawm gewild geword het. Alhoewel 'n praktyk in sosiale bandiete, en hy skryf, kan dit duidelik nie altyd van ander soorte bandiete geskei word nie, beïnvloed dit nie die fundamentele analise van die sosiale bandiet as 'n spesiale soort protes teen boere en opstand nie. & #8221 Met ander woorde, sosiale bandiete is nie kriminele nie, meen Hobsbawm, maar is eerder verdedigers van die eerlike mense teen die bose magte van tirannie en korrupsie, veral in tye van ekonomiese onsekerheid. Boonop het Hobsbawm dit geïdentifiseer as 'n wêreldwye verskynsel, insluitend die Balkan haiduks, Brasiliaans congaceiros, Indiër dacoits, en Italiaans banditi.

In die Balkan-folklore is die hajduk 'n Robin Hood-tipe held wat veg teen die onderdrukkers en onregverdige wette. (Wikimedia Commons, Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenb üttel)

Die mees fassinerende aan die sosiale banditisie van Robin is miskien hoe die volksverhaal versprei het na sekere outlaws in die Verenigde State, wat (soos die Robin Hood van die Middeleeue) as verdedigers van die volk beskou word. Neem byvoorbeeld die verhaal 'N Gest van Robyn Hode, dateer uit ongeveer 1450, waarin Robyn Hode 'n arme ridder help deur hom 400 pond te leen sodat die ridder 'n gewetenlose abt kan betaal. Robyn verhaal kort daarna die geld deur die abt te beroof. Ongeveer 400 jaar later word 'n soortgelyke verhaal vertel van die Amerikaanse outlaw Jesse James (1847 �) uit Missouri, wat veronderstel was om $ 800 (of $ 1500 in sommige weergawes) aan 'n arm weduwee te gee, sodat sy 'n gewetenlose kan betaal bankier wat op haar plaas probeer afsluit. Kort daarna beroof Jesse die bankier en verhaal sy geld.

Jesse James het in die 1870's tot by die beroemdheid gestyg, aktief as bank-, trein- en koetsroof tydens 'n tydperk van ekonomiese depressie in die VSA, veral na die paniek van 1873. Twintig jaar later het die paniek van 1893 'n ander ekonomiese depressie veroorsaak. waarvan die Railroad Bill na vore gekom het, 'n Afro-Amerikaanse Robin Hood wie se spesialiteit die beroof van treine in die suide van Alabama was.

In teenstelling met die sosiale bandiet met witboordjiemisdadigers, het Woody Guthrie tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat sommige [u] u met 'n sesgeweer sal beroof, en sommige met 'n vulpen. ” (Wikimedia Commons, David Telford)

In die Groot Depressie van die dertigerjare was daar 'n soortgelyke toename in ander sosiale bandiete, wat dikwels as Robin Hood -heldefigure gevier word. John Dillinger (1903 �) van Indiana word gesien as 'n kruisvaarder, wat die vyande van die mense bestry deur banke te beroof in 'n tyd toe banke in duie gestort het en hul spaargeld saamgeneem het en genadeloos afgesluit het op huis- en plaasverband. . Volgens een mondelinge geskiedenis in die Folklore Archives aan die Indiana University, het Dillinger 'n held geword vir die mense, jy ken 'n soort Robin Hood. Hy sou van die rykes steel en vir die armes gee. . . . Almal was toe arm, ons was in 'n depressie. Dillinger was arm. Die enigste wat ryk was, was die banke, en dit was hulle wat almal arm gemaak het. ”

Toe Dillinger vermoor is deur agente van die Federal Bureau of Investigation buite 'n bioskoop in Chicago, het die titel van Public Enemy Number One langs Charles “Pretty Boy ” Floyd (1904 �) gegaan. Bekend as die “Oklahoma Robin Hood, ” Floyd, volgens Tyd tydskrif, is vermoedelik altyd op die uitkyk vir die outjie. ”

Gerugte het versprei dat hy verbandnotas vernietig het toe hy banke beroof het, en sukkelende boere bevry het van negatief. #8217 boer ” en “ gesinne oor verligting. ”

Wel, jy sê dat ek 'n outlaw is,
U sê dat ek 'n dief is.
Hier is 'n Kersete
Vir die gesinne op verligting.

Folklore kom van die mense, en daarom is dit 'n motief om die rykes te beroof om aan die armes te gee.Robin Hood: Sy boek deur Eva March Tappan en Charlotte Harding, 1905) wat eeue lank in die verbeelding van die mense bestaan ​​het. (New York Openbare Biblioteek)

In teenstelling met die sosiale bandiet met witboordjiemisdadigers, het Guthrie tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat sommige [mans] jou met 'n sesgeweer sal beroof, en sommige met 'n vulpen. ”

Hoe en waarom bandiete in die depressie, soos Dillinger en Floyd, hul reputasie as Robin Hoods verkry het, moes vir die wetstoepassers verbysterend en frustrerend gewees het. Maar baie folkloriste glo dat dit deels 'n kwessie van omstandighede is en dat bankrowers 'n bekende naam kry tydens ekonomiese depressie, en deels ook dat die mense dit nie kan weerstaan ​​om nuwe sosiale bandiete met tradisionele motiewe in hul eie moeilike tye te skep nie.

Laasgenoemde verskynsel kan verklaar waarom sosiale bandyt in byna elke filmweergawe oor Robin Hood gemaak word, selfs al word hierdie films vervaardig deur groot Hollywood -ateljees wat meer gemeen het met die rykes as met die armes.

Daar is nie veel bekend oor die vroegste so 'n film, die 1908 nie Robin Hood en sy vrolike mans, maar die eerste weergawe met funksielengte, Robin Hood van 1922, na 'n skerp resessie na die Eerste Wêreldoorlog, was 'n skouspelagtige sukses. Robin word gespeel deur Douglas Fairbanks, een van die gewildste sterrefilmsterre, soms die '#8220king of Hollywood' genoem, en#8221 wat nooit op die skerm gestap het toe hy kon spring nie. Sy Robin geniet goedhartig elke nuwe swaardgeveg en die geleentheid om met groot akkuraatheid pyle te skiet.

Errol Flynn, met swaard en langboog, speel Robin tydens die Groot Depressie in 1938 Die avonture van Robin Hood, 'n extravaganza van Technicolor wat Robin gekodeer het as leier van 'n vrolike bandiete in Sherwood Forest, wat hartstogtelik veg vir waarheid en geregtigheid teen gewetenlose edeles. (Fandom)

Errol Flynn, miskien selfs meer swashbuckling as Fairbanks met swaard en langboog, speel Robin volgende tydens die Groot Depressie in die 1938 Die avonture van Robin Hood, 'n extravaganza van Technicolor wat Robin gekodeer het as leier van 'n vrolike bandiete in Sherwood Forest, wat hartstogtelik veg vir waarheid en geregtigheid teen gewetenlose edelmanne wat probeer om die Engelse troon te gryp terwyl koning Richard die Leeuhart terugkeer van die godsdienstige oorloë bekend as die kruistogte.

Dieselfde elemente het sedertdien in byna elke filmweergawe gebly. Veral vir Sean Connery se resessie-era van 1976 Robin en Marian, waarin Robin na die dood van koning Richard terugkeer na Sherwood Forest. Vervolgens tydens die olieprys -skokekonomie vir Kevin Costner ’s 1991 Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, waarin Robin veg teen 'n sameswering onder leiding van die balju van Nottingham. En weer, na die internasionale bankkrisis in 2008 vir Russell Crowe ’s 2010 Robin Hood, waarin Robin veg teen 'n Franse sameswering om Engeland binne te val.

Teatergangers benodig ongetwyfeld 'n nuwe Robin Hood-volksheld in 2018. Die groep mans en vroue in Sherwood Forest is vanjaar vrolik, selfs al probeer die bose magte van tirannie en korrupsie hulle op 21ste-eeuse wyse marginaliseer.

Oor James Deutsch

James Deutsch is 'n kurator by die Smithsonian Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage, waar hy gehelp het om uitstallings oor onder meer die Peace Corps, China en die Tweede Wêreldoorlog te ontwikkel. Boonop dien hy as 'n adjunk -professor - wat kursusse aanbied oor Amerikaanse filmgeskiedenis en folklore - in die American Studies Department aan die George Washington Universiteit.


William Langland

William Langland rus op die Malvern Hills

William Langland kon Blinks gesoek het. Hierdie klein plantjie het klein liggroen blommetjies wat skyn te flikker, aangesien dit selde heeltemal oopgaan. Die blomme vorm digte liggroen mosagtige kolle langs fonteine.

Hulle word in Mei op die heuwels van Malvern gesien. Of miskien het hy eenvoudig 'n gemaklike sitplek gevind waar hy sonder onderbreking na sy skape kon kyk.

Daar is eintlik soveel onsekerheid oor William Langland se lewe dat dit onmoontlik sou wees om te sê wat hy moontlik op die Malvern Hills gedoen het. Biografiese besonderhede is baie duister. Sy beroemde gedig, Die visie van Piers Ploughman, lewer min bewyse vir die skrywer daarvan. Die verteller, wat gewoonlik as Langland geïdentifiseer word, sê wel ‘…my naam is longe wille ’ wat vermoedelik 'n kode vir William Langland is. Wat bekend is, is dit Die visie van Piers Ploughman begin die lewe op die Malvern Hills. Die taalstyl wat in die gedig gebruik word, is soortgelyk aan die dialek wat in die suidelike Midlands voorkom.

Malvern -verbindings

Sommige geleerdes stel voor dat Langland as 'n jong man aan die Little Malvern Priory studeer het en dat hy later die beelde rondom hom opgeneem het in sy skerp aanvalle op die geestelikes wat die bladsye van Piers Ploughman vul.

Neem byvoorbeeld vraat: hierdie snywerk op een van die monnike se stalletjies by Little Malvern Priory toon twee varke wat uit 'n sak eikels of koring voed. Staan hulle miskien agter die beskrywing van Langland ’s ‘ twee gulsige sôe ’?

Gulsige saai

William beskryf die vraat wat was 'Lag en loer' en sit en drink '' N liter en 'n kieu ' wanneer,

'Sy ingewande begin brom soos twee gulsige sôe

En voordat jy jou pater-noster kon sê, het hy 'n paniekerige toorn gemaak,

En blaas die ronde basuin agter sy romp.

En almal wat daardie horing gehoor het, het hul neuse vasgehou

En wens dat dit met 'n sweempie gorse afgevee is. '

Dus, as William Langland nie aan die slaap geraak het nie, terwyl hy na blomme kyk wat na hom knip, sou hy dalk werklik herinneringe aan sy jeug laat optrek wat gebruik kan word om sy belangrikste werk te illustreer?


William Langland as 'n groot digter op die ouderdom van Chaucer.

Antwoord: Alhoewel Chaucer die mees dominante literêre figuur in die Middel -Engelse letterkunde was en sy groot werke die grootste deel van sy glorie uitmaak, bevat die literêre geskiedenis van sy tyd nog 'n paar belangrike literêre werke. Hierdie werke is natuurlik nie vergelykbaar met die meesterwerke van Chaucer nie, maar dit blyk dat hulle deel was aan die bydrae tot die uitbreiding van die Engelse letterkunde en die voorbereiding vir die Renaissance.

Dit is daarom merkwaardig om kennis te neem van verskillende letterkundiges en werke in die wêreld van Chaucer, wat nie Chauceriaans van oorsprong is nie, maar in meer of mindere mate sy majestueuse invloed dra en die nasleep van Chaucer aandui.

Onder die tydgenote van Chaucer word die trots van die plek gegee aan John Gower, William Langland en John Barbour van Skotland. Op die gebied van poësie het hierdie digters 'n ryk oes literatuur agtergelaat en hul bydrae tot die Engelse poësie is redelik aansienlik.

William Langland (1332-1400) en Piers Ploughman:
William Langland of Langly is een van die vroeë skrywers met wie moderne navorsing teëgestaan ​​het. Alles wat ons van hom weet, verskyn op die manuskripte van sy gedig, of is gebaseer op die opmerkings wat hy oor homself in die loop van die gedig maak. Hy is waarskynlik in 1332 naby Malvern gebore, waar hy aan die Benedictine School opgevoed is. Hy was 'n minderjarige klerk met verbintenis in Oxfordshire en Worcestershire. Langland kom na Londen en woon soms saam met sy vrou in 'n kothuis, nie ver van waar Chaucer woon nie, in 'n baie beter en gemaklike verblyf oor Aldgate.

Die naam van William Langland het 'n bekende persoon in die Engelse taal vir sy enkelvoudige werk - The Book of Piers the Ploughman. In die Engelse letterkunde van die 14de eeu staan ​​Langland ’s Piers the Ploughman op as die bekendste werk, behalwe Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales. Waar laasgenoemde 'n sosiale kroniek is met boeiende verhale, is Piers Plowman 'n indrukwekkende allegorie, wat dieper gemoeid is met godsdienstige, etiese, sosiale en ekonomiese probleme van die tyd.

Piers Ploughman is beslis 'n redelik nuwe en radikale werk vir sy ouderdom. Alhoewel dit eties van sentiment en didakties van aard is, bestaan ​​dit uit 'n fyn sintese van sosiologie, satire en allegorie. Dit het moontlik nie artistieke verdienste nie, maar dit het die uitdagende ondersoek na die ernstige diepte van die sosiale en morele lewe van die eeu. Trouens, dit bevat al die verskillende elemente wat die mensdom aanraak en toor en bly 'n goeie spieël van die verskeidenheid en kompleksiteit van die Middeleeuse lewe.

Soos Die Canterbury -verhale, Piers Ploughman het 'n Proloog wat die tipiese droomkonvensie van die Middeleeuse literatuur het. Dit beskryf hoe die skrywer op 'n Mei -oggend op die Malvern Hills aan die slaap raak en 'n visie het op 'n billike veld, pret van mense uit verskillende geledere en beroepe. Hierdie Proloog, soos in Chaucer ’s Proloog, teken 'n prentjie op van die Engelse samelewing van die 14de eeu. Sosiale tonele eerder as sosiale tipes is meer opvallend in Langland's Proloog. Die raamwerk van die gedig is allegoriese Piers the Ploegman of die visie van William betreffende Piers the Ploughman is beskikbaar in verskeie weergawes. Die hoofvorme van hierdie gedig is A-teks, B-teks en C-teks. Hiervan is die eerste weergawe ongeveer 1362 geskryf en bevat die visie oor Piers Ploughman en die visie van Do-well, Do-better en Do-best. Die tweede weergawe of B-teks is ongeveer 1377 geskryf en bevat die fabel van die rotte en die kat. Die C-teks het 'n paar honderd reëls meer as die B-teks. Deur hierdie weergawes gee Langland 'n baie duidelike weergawe van die morele geloof en die sosiale ondeugdes van sy ouderdom. Die digter bring verskillende visioene na vore om aan te dui dat die hoogste preek van waarheid, werk en liefde hierdie etiese punt duidelik is en dui aan dat die mens se belangrikste plig is om die waarheid te soek, dat geloof sonder werk geen waarde het nie en dat liefde na die hemel lei.

Die gedig bestaan ​​in die geheel uit elf visioene en het die onsamehangendheid en die gevolg van 'n droom. Dit is 'n alliteratiewe gedig. In hierdie gedig op 'n Mei -oggend raak die verteller aan die slaap langs 'n spruit op die Malvern Hills.

“In 'n paar seyson. Toe softe die seun was
Ek sluit my in omhulsel soos ek 'n herder was ”.

Terwyl hy droom, sien hy 'n hoë toring met 'n kerker in 'n delling daaronder, en tussen hulle was 'n Fairfield vol mense wat verskillende dele van die gemeenskap verteenwoordig. Die toring staan ​​vir die Hemel en die kerker is die hel en die veld is die wêreld waar allerhande mans, gemene en rykes langs mekaar in onheilige kompetisie woon.

Na Die proloog, daar is die twee episodes- Die huwelik van Lady Meed en Die belydenis van die sewe dodelike sondes. Die vorige episode bevat lewendige argumente en debatte tussen verskillende allegoriese figure, soos die Holy Church Lady Meed (Beloning omkopery) Valsheid, Gewete en die koning. Lady Meed, die sondige dame aan wie al die priesters en heiliges gehoorsaam is. Sy is op die punt om met Falsehood te trou. Hulle volk word versteur deur die teologie, en hulle word na Westminster voor die koning gebring. Hy maak 'n voorstel dat sy met die gewete moet trou, maar die gewete wil nie met Meed trou nie. Hy raai die koning aan om te stuur vir die rede, deur wie se advies hy belowe om te bly. Voordat Rede oordeel kan uitspreek, word Meed op heterdaad betrap deurdat hy die amptenare van die konings omgekoop het om 'n misdadiger vry te laat, en in 'n brandende toespraak van veroordeling deur Reason vir ewig daarvan weerhou om by die koning te pleit.

'N Lang argument volg waaraan Rede, Wit, Wysheid en Verkeerd deelneem. Die Rede pleit vir beloning vir goeie daad en ernstige straf tot verkeerde daad. Die koning is baie ingenome met Rede en besluit om hom as sy raadgewer te behou.

In 'n tweede visioen spreek die rede 'n lang adres tot die mense. Die mense toon berou en bely dat hulle sewe dodelike sondes het: trots, luukse, afguns, toorn, grimmigheid, vraat en luiaard. Die briljante poëtiese talent van Langland word hier gereeld gesien in sy beskrywing van hierdie sewe dodelike sonde, veral in sy uitbeelding van vraat. Die berouvolle skares besluit om op 'n pelgrimstog te gaan op soek na die Waarheid. Hier verskyn Piers, die ploegman, 'n eenvoudige boer, en verseker die mense dat hy hulle op die pelgrimstog sou lei, dikwels het hy sy half akker grond geploeg en versoek almal om saam met hom te werk. Piers ontvang uit waarheid Pous se vergifnis wat nie net Piers dek nie, maar ook almal wat op die pelgrimstog gaan en wat die ploegman gehelp het om sy land te ploeg. Die vergifnis verklaar dat diegene wat goeie dade doen, redding sal kry en diegene wat slegte dinge doen, verdoem sal word. Die gedig is natuurlik 'n pleidooi vir almal om hulself te toelê op goeie dade en die kwaad te vermy.

In die tweede en derde weergawes kry die leser die drieledige visie van Dowel (Do-well) Dobet (Do-better) en Dobest (Do-best). In die eerste weergawe staan ​​Piers vir die simbool van eerlike arbeid, maar in die tweede en derde weergawe word hy getransformeer in die figuur van Christus self, wie se kruisiging en neerdaling in die hel beskryf word in 'n taal met 'n noot van verheweheid en genade.

Die driedubbele visie verduidelik die drievoudige opvatting van Christelike verpligting in drie opeenvolgende fases. Hierdie toestande moet egter nie bloot abstraksie bly nie; elkeen van hulle hou agtereenvolgens verband met die feite van menslike gedrag, soos waargeneem deur die digters in die samelewing wat hom omring.

Die stadium van Do-well is die toestand van die gewone mens se lewe in die aanvaarding van die lewensomstandighede. Dit is die eerste stap op die pad na perfeksie. Dit is die stadium van Do-bet wat die eienskappe van Do-well kombineer met groter en vervolmaakde eienskappe.

Die kontras tussen die voorskrif en gedrag word hier treffend na vore gebring. Do-bet is obviously the highest destiny open to man precisely because it combines the ‘active and contemplative virtues’, but it also entails upon man greatest responsibilities and also open corruption.

Langland’s achievement
Piers the Plowman is a mighty achievement of Langland and ranks very high as a social and moral study, its significance lies in its threefold manifestation. First, it is a graphic picture of contemporary life and manners. Second, it is a penetrative satire on social and ecclesiastical follies and vices. Third it is a powerful allegory of human life and morality. The poem describes a series of remarkable visions that pass before the dreamer and in their general draft we are reminded of the great allegory of Bunyan. The poem may be considered under the following heads:

(1) Considered as a picture of contemporary life and manners of the 14th century, as a social picture, the poem throws interesting side lights upon medieval life. The customary behavior of traders and shop-keepers and tavern-owners is presented with exactness. Medieval law courts and royal palaces are shown with no less dexterity. Here Langland is not simply serious. The comical personages, such as might have appeared in low-life are found in his representation of seven deadly sins.

(2) Considered as a social satire, the poem is perhaps the first great English satire in which the author has treated a quite comprehensive subject-matter. It is also a satire upon religious abuses and vices of the age. Langland is found to upbraid bitterly the lazy, the drunkard, the exploiter and the social cheat. He is also quite critical of luxury as well as vices in ecclesiastical places. Perhaps, in Langland, is heard the first voice of Puritanism against the extravagance of the Catholic court. His satirical strokes upon the clerical people are quite trenchant.

(3) As an allegory, the poem brings out subtly the strife between good and evil in the human breast for mastery. The hero, Piers, typifies the righteous living—a life of truth, action and love. Different personages in the poem allegorize different abstractions, such as wisdom, wit, sloth, despondency, doubt, bribery, conscience and so on.

(4) As a work of reform, Piers Ploughman bears out the radical views of its author as a conscious reformer. His reformative zeal is equally evident in political, social and ecclesiastical matters. The poet advocates a reform in the very political order and recommends a parliamentary system in which the king, supported by the commons, is to act for public welfare. Such a bold and original political view is certainly rare and astonishing for Langland’s age. Moreover, his emphasis is on the proper discharge of their duties by all classes or professions —the king, knights, the clergy, the mechanics and so on. Langland appears, too, a philosophical socialist who propagates from Plato and Seneca that all things should be shared in common.

In the ecclesiastical matter, Langland is no less radical. He is thoroughly opposed to the display of riches and splendor in the church. He advocates a life of penance and simplicity, restraint and sincerity and in this respect, he seems to be the coming voice of Puritanism.

Langland’s place in the allegorical literature of England is certainly very high. His art to alternate Christian tenderness and bitter satire, social realism and religious piety, allegory and sociology is well borne out here. Moreover his power to create realistic scenes and truth with an equal ease, the comic as well the holy is distinctly confirmed here.

Like Chaucer, Langland is found to have made the use of traditional materials and drawn on the facts of contemporary society, but he has not achieved the literary eminence of his great contemporary. Nevertheless the social and allegorical values of his work are immense and its literary merit is not altogether insignificant. Though he has no immediate successor, his influence on the subsequent authors of satires and allegories cannot be ignored. The immortal Pilgrim’s Progress of Bunyan is certainly a direct descendant of Langland’s Piers Ploughman.

Difference between Chaucer and Langland
There are some interesting points of difference between Chaucer and Langland, two close contemporaries. As the literary masters of their age, both of them are realistic social chroniclers and have made use of traditional materials yet, in their attitude and outlook, they differ immensely from each other.

Chaucer is basically an artist, while Langland a moralist. The former’s literature is an entertaining imitation of life to please and make life enjoyable. Langland’s singular work, on the other hand, is a serious representation of life, with a distinct purpose to teach.

Again, as Social Chronicler, Chaucer remains a broad minded spectator, taking interest and representing fun in human society and human behavior. Langland, however is a critical observer, detecting and denouncing moral defaults. Whereas Chaucer is a comedist, Langland remains a social critic.

Again Chaucer is essentially a humorist. His works are the gems of the gifts of wit and humour, with a slight, enjoyable caricature of human deformities. Langland is essentially a satirist who is unsparing on vices in high places.

As a literary master Chaucer stands definitely superior to Langland who lacks his artistic harmony and comic sense. Langland is no doubt, earnest, but not entertaining. His model is the allegory that lacks the Chaucerian variety of expression.


William Langland - History

English Language and History

Selected and prepared for people

Ivanhoe:
The Battlement
Miklós Rózsa (1907-1985)

Note: The recording at Amazon and the recording on YouTube may not be the same.

A SECOND time the Light knocked, and Lucifer answered, “Who is this?”
“What lord are you?” said Lucifer the Light straightaway said,
“The King of Glory, lord of might and main
And all manner of hosts! ‘The Lord of Hosts!’*
Dukes of this dim place, now undo these gates.
That Christ may come in, the King of heaven’s Son!”

And at that breath Hell broke, with Belial’s bars*
Despite ward and warden, the gates opened wide.*
Patriarchs and prophets, ‘the people [that sat] in shadow,’*
Sang St John’s song: ‘Behold the Lamb of God.’*

So blinded was he that Lucifer could not see*
And our Lord took those whom he loved into his light,
Saying to Satan: “See! Here is my soul to make amends
For all sinful souls, to save those that are worthy.
They are mine, of me they came I have the better claim.
Though Reason remember (and my own Justice)
That if they ate the apple all should die,*
I did not promise them to hell here forever!

Will Langland tells us of a dream, in which he seemed to see Christ’s soul, after he was crucified, go down to Hades like a brilliant light. He broke through the gates, and drew the worthy into heaven, declaring that for his sin mankind was doomed to die, but not to remain forever in the devil’s power.


William Langland

William Langland (c. 1332 – c. 1386) was an English poet. He wrote a long and complicated poem called Piers Plowman. The poem is an allegory about the struggle to lead a virtuous Christian life when the institution of the Church is often corrupt.

We do not know for sure that this poem was written by Langland. The strongest evidence we have is one manuscript which says that the poem was written by 'Willielmi de Langlond', son of 'Stacy de Rokayle, who died in Shipton-under-Wichwood, a tenant of the Lord Spenser in the county of Oxfordshire'. Other manuscripts also name the author as 'Robert or William langland', or 'Wilhelmus W.' (probably an abbreviation for 'William of Wichwood', since Wychwood is the village he probably came from). Another piece of evidence is within the poem itself. At one stage the narrator says: 'I have lyved in londe. my name is longe wille'. Scholars agree that this is a code for the poet's name: Longe-Land, and Wille meaning Will, short for William. This may seem unlikely, but this method of hiding the poet's name within a poem was used in Roman times, and was quite common in late-medieval literature.


Sadržaj

O samom Langlandu malo se zna. Čini se da je rođen u zapadnom Midlandsu u Engleskoj oko 1330. godine, prema intetekstualnim dokazima u Piers Plowmanu . Pripovjedač u Piers Plowmanu doživio je svoje prvo viđenje dok spava na Malvern Hillsu (između Herefordshirea i Worcestershirea ), što sugerira određenu povezanost s tim područjem. Dijalekt pjesme također je u skladu s ovim dijelom zemlje. Piers Ploughman napisan je oko 1377. godine, zato što mašta lika kaže da ga je slijedila "pet i četrdeset zima".

Bilješka iz petnaestog stoljeća u dublinskom rukopisu Piersa Plowmana kaže da je Langland bio sin Stacy de Rokayle.

Vjeruje se da je Langland rođen u Cleobury Mortimeru, Shropshire, iako je moguće da je rođen i u Ledburyu, Herefordshireu i Great Malvernu, Worcestershire. Teoriju o rođenju u Shropshireu podvrđuje trijem župne crkve Cleobury Mortimer gdje se nalazi spomen-prozor postavljen 1875. godine s prikazom vizije orača Piersa. Smatra se da je Langland bio novicijat samostana Woodhouse koji se nalazi u blizini.

Postoje snažne naznake da je Langland umro 1385. ili 1386. godine. Bilješka koju je napisao "Iohan but" (John But) u rukopisu pjesme iz četrnaestog stoljeća (Rawlinson 137) izravno upućuje na Langlandovu smrt: "whan this werke was wrouyt, ere Wille myte aspie/ Deth delt him a dent and drof him to the erthe/ And is closed vnder clom" (" jednom kad je ovo napravljeno, prije nego što je Will bio svjestan / Smrt ga je udarila i srušila na tlo / A sada je zakopan pod zemljom") . Prema Edith Rickert, čini se da je John But umro 1387. godine, što ukazuje da je Langland umro malo prije ovog datuma.

Većina onoga što se vjeruje o Langlandu rekonstruirano je prema Piers Plowmanu . Tekst pjesme (C verzija) sadrži odlomak u kojem se pripovjedač opisuje kao „loller“ (neobrazovan) ili „idler“ (neradnik) koji živi u londonskom području Cornhill, a odnosi se na svoju suprugu i dijete. Također sugerira da je bio znatno iznad prosječne visine i da je zarađivao čitajući molitve za mrtve. Međutim, razlika između alegorije i stvarnosti u Piers Plowmanu je suptilna, a cjelokupni odlomak, kako primjećuje Wendy Scase, podsjeća na lažnu tradiciju ispovijedanja u srednjovjekovnoj književnosti (također viđenu u Confessio Goliae i u romanu Jean-a Meuna -a Roman de la Rose ).

Sličan odlomak u konačnom pasusu verzija B i C pruža daljnje dvosmislene detalje o pjesnikovoj ženi i njegovim mukama uzrokovanih Elde (Starošću), uključujući ćelavost, giht i impotenciju. To može ukazivati na to da je pjesnik dosegnuo srednju dob do 1370-ih, ali točnost odlomka dovodi u pitanje konvencionalna priroda opisa i činjenicu da se događa pred kraj pjesme, kad Willov osobni razvoj dolazi do svog logičnog svršetka.

Detaljno i visoko sofisticirano vjersko znanje prikazano u pjesmi ukazuje na to da je Langland imao neke veze sa svećenstvom, ali priroda ovog odnosa nije sigurna. Pjesma ne pokazuje očitu pristranost prema nekoj određenoj skupini ili redu crkvenjaka, ali je ujednačena u svom antiklerikalizmu . To otežava usklađivanje Langlanda s bilo kojim određenim crkvenim redom. "Vjerojatno ga se najbolje smatra", piše John Bowers, "kao člana one značajne skupine dobrotvornih službenika koji su činili radikalni rub suvremenog društva . loše obučeni Will prikazan je kako putuje selom, pomahnitali disident koji ne pokazuje poštovanje prema nadređenima ". Malcolm Godden je predložio da je Langland živio kao putujući pustinjak, privremeno se vežući za zaštitnika i razmjenjujući usluge pisanja za sklonište i hranu.

Izdanje Piers Plowmana iz 1550. godine Roberta Crowleyja promoviralo je ideju da je Langland sljedbenik Johna Wycliffea . Međutim, ovaj zaključak je neuskladiv s ranim prikazom Oračevog lika. Istina je da su Langland i Wycliffe dijelili mišljenje o mnogim aspektima srednjovjekovnog života: obojica su dovodili u pitanje vrijednost indulgencija i hodočašća, promovirali upotrebu narodnog jezika u propovijedanju, napadali klerikalnu korupciju, pa čak i zagovarali oduzimanje prava. Ali o tim se temama široko raspravljalo tijekom kasnog 14. stoljeća i nisu se posebno povezivale s Wycliffeom za vrijeme Langlandova života. Također, kako primjećuje Pamela Gradon, ni u jednom trenutku Langland ne ponavlja Wycliffeova karakteristična učenja o sakramentima .

Pripisivanje Piersa Plowmana Langlandu počiva uglavnom na dokazima rukopisa koji se nalazi na Trinity Collegeu u Dublinu (MS 212). Ovaj rukopis pripisuje Piersa Plowmana Willielmiju de Langlandu, sinu Stacy de Rokayle, "koji je umro u Shipton-under-Wychwoodu, stanaru lorda Spensera u grofoviji Oxfordshire". U drugim se rukopisima autor imenuje Robert ili William Langland, ili Wilhelms W. (najvjerojatnije skraćenica za Williama od Wychwooda).

Čini se da i sama pjesma upućuje na Langlandovo autorstvo. U jednom trenutku pripovjedač primjećuje: "Živio sam u Londonu [. ] moje ime je longe wille (slično značenje kao Langland)" (B XV.152). To se može uzeti kao šifrirano pozivanje na pjesnikovo ime, u stilu kasnosrednjovjekovne literature (vidi, na primjer, Villonove akrostihe u Le Testamentu ). Međutim, također se sugerira da su srednjovjekovni prepisivači i čitatelji ovu liniju mogli shvatiti kao da se odnosi na "Williama Longwillea", pseudonim koji je koristio pobunjenik iz Norfolka

Iako postoji malo drugih dokaza, Langlandovo je autorstvo široko prihvaćeno od 1920-ih. Međutim, nije posve sporno, kao što je pokazao nedavni rad Stelle Pates i C. Davida Bensona.


Who Wrote Piers Plowman?

The popularity of the Middle English poem has endured for 650 years but the question of who wrote it remains unanswered. Lawrence Warner addresses the mystery.

Since it started taking shape some 650 years ago, the alliterative dream poem Piers Ploughman has been a touchstone of the English literary tradition. Its textual, literary and religious difficulties have attracted the attention of audiences from the days of Geoffrey Chaucer and John Ball to our own. So, who wrote it? For a poem so immersed in its historical context, the relative anonymity of its author is remarkable and their identity has long been as interesting to readers as the poem itself.

Or, I should say, poems – for the question is inextricably bound up in questions of revision, addition and the like as the poem survives in three substantially different forms. 'Piers Ploughman: The Work of One or of Five', reads the title of an essay in a learned journal of 1909 (written by J.J. Jusserand, who discussed the poem's merits with the US president). Debates were raging over how many hands were responsible for the complex structure of this poem. The orthodox modern view, established by the Victorian editor Walter W. Skeat, was that a single man wrote all three versions, now called A, B and C. Yet could the substantial changes between the versions, even within the A version alone, be the work of one man? (John Trevisa, the translator and schoolmate of John Wyclif, has been nominated as candidate as author of the B version of the poem.) Thus raged a debate for much of the 20th century, one that has still not totally disappeared from view.

Earlier centuries had their own variations on the debate. The existence of later poems like Pierce the Ploughman's Crede (written between 1393 and 1401) and The Plowman's Tale (c.1400) caused no end of confusion. 'I thinke hit not to be on and the same that made both' this latter poem and Piers Ploughman, wrote one commentator in the 16th century, 'for that the reader shall fynde divers maner of Englishinge on sentence.' Logic is hardly in full view here. Chaucer inevitably shows up in such discussions and was even taken to be author of Piers Ploughman itself by a long line of observers between John Leland in the 1530s to one Elizabeth Johnson c.1700, who was proud to own 'The Vision of Pierss Plowman said to be wrote by Chaucer some say by a Wickliffian about Rc 2d time'.

Yet that attribution always flew below the radar. 'I have learned that the Autour was named Roberte langelande, a Shropshere man borne in Cleybirie, about viii myles from Malverne hilles': so wrote the editor of the editio princeps of 1550, Robert Crowley. This forename seems to be the result of a misreading of one line as recorded now in a single manuscript: '& y Robert in russet gan rome abowhte.' 'I, Robert', that is, where other manuscripts have yrobed, that is, 'robed'. The Malvern connection gave rise to a competitor, first proposed by John Stow in 1580, that the poem was written c.1342 by John Malvern, Fellow of Oriel College. Not everyone was convinced by these proposals: 'This writer is still anonymous', wrote Joseph Ritson in 1792 'there is no reason to believe that it was either Robert Langland, or John Malverne, but on the contrary a substantial one that it was not'. What that reason was he never said.

How, then, did the name 'William Langland' come to be the one most commonly cited today? In part, because the protagonist of the poem, the dreamer, comes to be called 'Will', and readers easily take him as a stand-in for the poet. But there is other evidence, too: one 'Stacy de Rokayle' was described as 'pater willielmi de Langlond' (father of William Langland) according to a note inscribed at the end of a manuscript copied in 1427: 'willielmus fecit librum qui vocatur Perys ploughman', it continues (William made the book called Piers Ploughman). And a single line in one of the versions reads nicely as a reverse acrostic: ''I have lyved in londe', quod I, 'my name is long wille'' (which, backwards, reads 'wille long londe'). Later readers often glossed this line Nomen auctoris.

William Langland it is, then, for most modern readers, if only because they need something other than 'the Piers Ploughman-poet' as its author. A biography has built up upon this personage, based on the waking episodes of the poem (a cleric in minor orders, had a wife and child, moved from Malvern to London) and on the circumstances of the poem's production (it is written in a South-West Midlands dialect, the poet knew French, etc.).

And yet, is this 'Will' an accurate representation of the author? Considering the convention whereby authors of this period inscribed versions of themselves into their poems (Chaucer being the most well-known instance), is it not possible that the poet was trying it on, as it were? So argues one recent critic who pushes the logic of that inscription regarding William Langland as son of Stacy de Rokayle to its limit. In 1356, one 'William de la Rokele, parson of Esthorp' yielded to his kinsman John his claim to over 300 acres of land, including some seven houses. 'Obviously, this transaction does not attest the sort of heart-wrenching poverty that some readers have wanted to associate with the life of "Long Will"', writes Robert Adams in his book pursuing this case. Indeed. How far from the world conjured by the poem are readers willing to place that world's poet?

Another historian, Michael Bennett, has recently discovered a record that casts that question in another light: one 'Willelmus vocatus Longwyll' was among the dozen men who in 1385 stood accused of aiding and abetting the murder, by the half-brother of Richard II, of Sir Ralph Stafford, son and heir of the Earl of Stafford. Is this our man, too? Could he have been part of the king's expedition to Scotland, ready to go into battle for his king?

Stranger things have happened in the history of authorship. The strangest of all, perhaps, is that such questions so easily vanish once the reader is immersed in the mysterious 650-year old world of Piers Ploughman.

Lawrence Warner is Senior Lecturer in Medieval English Literature at King's College London and director of the International Piers Plowman Society.


Jesus the Brave Knight: William Langland and William Dunbar

William Dunbar wrote this crackling, exciting poem, “A Hymn of the Resurrection,” in the early 1500s. We meet Christ, like St. George, coming off the field of battle, having slain the “cruel serpent,” the dragon Satan. Christ the champion knight reigns, his cross like a triumphant banner left standing.

We are in the middle of a Lent Series, “The Many Faces of Jesus.” Each week I consider a medieval “version” of Jesus—a representation in literature, art, or theology popular before the Reformation. These versions of Jesus may be strange, silly, scary, or inspiring to us today above all they challenge us to consider our own versions of Jesus we encounter in our culture. Many of them capture important aspects of Jesus and the church that we overlook. None of these episodes comprehensively present these images think of them like little introductions that you can dive further into on your own. I hope that as we draw closer to Easter, their aesthetic beauty gives joy too.

So far, we’ve learned about two representations of Jesus in the medieval era: Jesus the Judge and Jesus Our Lover. Jesus the Brave Knight is a little different. Jesus as the Divine Judge at the End of Days comes straight out of the Book of Revelation. Jesus as Lover emerges from the allegorical Song of Songs. Both are rooted originally in scriptural sources, though they take on a life of their own. Jesus the Knight takes more creative license though it can be distantly connected to Ephesians 6:13-16 and donning the armor of God, it is more obviously based in the art and culture of the times. While lovers have always existed everywhere, and judges have been around for a very long time across many different cultures, knights belong to a very specific time and place: medieval Europe.

Knights reigned in imagination and literature in the very, very popular tales of King Arthur’s court, as models of the best courtly manners, and as chivalric lovers who wore tokens from their lady and fought on their behalf. Jesus the Knight appeared in both contexts, as a lover-knight and as a knight doing battle against Satan. Last week, we discussed Jesus the Lover, and he appears as a chivalric, knightly lover in the lyric poem I shared then. So today, we will focus more on the social and combative aspects of Jesus as Knight.

Medieval thinkers often conceived of their society as divided into three “estates”: the nobles and gentry, the clergy, and the peasants. Each one of these “estates” was considered to have its own essential role in a functioning society. The clergy were “those who prayed,” the folks who provided spiritual instruction, interceded for their communities, and administered the sacraments. The peasants were “those who labored,” the essential group who grew, cultivated, and harvested food for everyone. And the nobles were “those who fought,” the lords of society who were supposed to protect the realm from invaders, administer justice locally, and use their largesse to support the poor and the church in their community. The knights belonged to this last estate. In reality, of course, such divisions were far too neat. Peasants often bore the worst, most devastating effects of war yet this was the theoretical division of feudal society that persisted for a very long time.

In order to dig into this figure more thoroughly, we will examine the most incredible Middle English poem that almost no one has read outside of the academy. It fills my soul with delight to share William Langland’s Piers Ploughman with you today. Piers Ploughman is a long, confusing, magnificent allegorical poem written, rewritten, and rewritten yet again in the tumultuous fourteenth century. In the last installment of this series, we had briefly discussed the power of allegory in the medieval imagination. I had quoted Gregory the Great on the Song of Songs:

For allegory supplies the soul separated far from God with a kind of mechanism by which it is raised to God. By means of dark sayings in whose words a person can understand something of his own, he can understand what is not his to understand, and by earthly words he can be raised above the earth. Therefore, through means which are not alien to our way of understanding, that which is beyond our understanding can be known. By that which we do know—out of such are allegories made—divine meanings are clothed and through our understanding of external speech we are brought to an inner understanding.

Gregory the Great, quoted in Eros and Allegory, Denys Turner

Allegory was deeply important for medieval folks because of its particular power to communicate abstract truth in homely and familiar words. Poets in particular used allegory to great effect. To overly simplify a complex poem, in Piers Ploughman, Wille, whom we would now call the protagonist or main character, experiences a series of dreams that are allegories for historical events, scriptural events, and theology in fourteenth-century society. Wille himself is a figure of allegory: his name gestures towards his simultaneous existence as a person dreaming in the poem, and as the faculty of the will undergoing spiritual transformation.

Towards the end of the poem, Wille falls asleep again, and he witnesses something spectacularly beautiful: the events of Holy Week, set into allegory. It is Langland’s version of the Christ-Knight. I am using the excellent translation of Piers Ploughman by George Economou, if you are interested in reading more.

I love this initial image of Jesus the Knight. Langland creatively blends together Palm Sunday with a knight coming to joust in a tournament. We recognize Palm Sunday because of the onlookers who excitedly shout Hosanna and blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Earthly knights come to battle in their best armor, arms emblazoned so that all will know their identity and their great deeds of prowess. Langland’s barefoot knight comes without weapons, on the back of a donkey instead of a great, expensive charger, yet he comes to fight a holier battle, one that ultimately eschews the typical knightly trappings of wealth and violence. Yet he is still a knight, one come to fight battles on behalf of those who cannot.

The reader meets a picture of the Incarnation: Jesus clad in human nature, jousting in the “armor” of a simple plowman. The image is incongruous—a knight, fighting in the gear of a field-worker? Contemporary knights would have curled their lip in disgust at the thought of clothing themselves in a plowman’s garb. The image demonstrates God’s humble, action-oriented, division-destroying love in his relinquishment of power in his embodiment as Jesus.

Piers the Plowman is an extremely difficult allegorical figure in this poem who I won’t go into in great detail, but here we can recognize him as a figure of humanity and the backbreaking labor of living well after the Fall. In typical Langlandian fashion, the allegories expand further. The “fruit” of Piers the Plowman is both his labor and the actual people of God. The Fiend claims his rights to sinful humanity and their work Jesus the Knight takes them back, and redeems humanity, their labor, and the fruits of that labor. The Free Will of God, “Liberium-dei-Arbitrium,” undertakes this task for love.

Let’s pause for a moment and focus on Langland’s inclusion of human labor in the redemption sequence. One of the beauties of allegory is that it can contain so many meanings at once. When Langland’s readers in the fourteenth century encountered this image, they may have thought of a few different ideas.

The first is Langland’s interest in the plight of laborers. Laborers were suffering under wage restrictions in the wake of the plague that decimated the population. Significant and unjust legislation kept them, in many places, as little better than slaves in the serf system still prevalent in medieval society. They simply were not appreciated by the society that depended upon them to eat. We should not feel superior this is one of the many things we share with medieval folks. We too mostly harbor ignorance and disdain of the population, often migrants, that typically harvests our own food here in America.

Additionally, the most popular method of making war in France and England during that time was something called the chevauchee. The chevauchee was akin to what we now call a scorched earth strategy—in order to win, you would deplete enemy resources by destroying not their knights and soldiers, but through burning and pillaging the villages that fed them. Most medieval cities and towns had walls to protect themselves from invaders, but little rural villages did not. They were the ones who paid many of the ultimate costs of war. Their homes were destroyed, their bodies were ravaged or slaughtered, and the fruits of their backbreaking work, food for their society, up in greedy flames or stolen by their own killers. The Christ-Knight has come to save these poor workers, in contrast to the Fiend and his knights of death who would gladly destroy both their bodies and their labor. He works the salvific redemption of all estates, knight and farmworker together preserved and transformed. He jousts with Death itself.

The image also reminds both medieval and modern readers of the importance of our spiritual labor. Sometimes we deceive ourselves into thinking that unless things are easy, we are doing something wrong or life isn’t as it should be. But living well is hard. The virtues are hard. Laboring in the field of life is often really, really difficult. Sometimes we sidestep this difficulty entirely in order to make things easier on ourselves by saying that it doesn’t really matter what we do, as long as our heart is in the right place. Not fully true! One of the greatest evils in the world is when intentions and words become divorced from exterior action and response—this is actually one of Langland’s most pressing concerns throughout his entire poem. We can see the bitter fruits of this divorce in our current political situation. The so-called party of morality couldn’t be less concerned with morality in America right now as they follow at all costs a serial liar and cheater, a beacon of gluttony, callousness, and greed. But let yourself be encouraged, not shamed by your inability to follow through (an inability we all frequently share). You matter, and what you do and work in the world also matters. It matters so much that your labors themselves will be redeemed. Keep laboring in the difficult fields of your life.

Such a labor requires the practice of courage. Your work may entail the courage of endurance rather than the courage of daring. Both of my current labors, parenting and writing, require both kinds of courage at times but mostly just endurance. Thankfully, Jesus the Knight gives us a model for both as well. Because, of course, the image isn’t just Jesus riding in to shouts of acclaim on Palm Sunday. Palm Sunday leads to the Crucifixion, and to something called the Harrowing of Hell.

You may not have heard of the Harrowing of Hell. It is an ancient belief, that after Jesus died but before he rose from the grave, he drank the dregs of human death and actually went to Hell. In the Creed, we recite that he descended into Hell, but many view this descent as allegorical. For medieval folks, it was decidedly not allegorical. It was yet another indicator of the courage and willingness of Jesus to go to the greatest depths to save his people. For in Hell, Jesus does not just show up and putz around, taunting his archenemy Satan. Langland describes the Harrowing as if a distant light begins to appear from far away in the dim murk of Hell. The demons speculate on what it could be—nothing good for them, they feel. The light draws closer and closer. The demons wait with trepidation. At last the Light, brilliantly blinding, arrives at Hell’s gates. The demons cannot see who is at the heart of the dazzling, starry light. And at last Lucifer dares to call out:

Behold the Lamb of God! All the people of the old law are freed as the gates are broken. The Harrowing of Hell teaches that Jesus also redeemed those who came before him in his descent. The people in darkness have seen a great light, as Isaiah wrote. The patriarchs and prophets sing with ecstasy.

Then Wille wakes up from his vision of the history of salvation. It is Easter morning in his own world. Filled with joy, he calls his wife and daughter to join the community of saints on earth at his own parish church and participate in the liturgy of celebrating Christ’s resurrection. He can hardly contain himself.

There are different species of joy. One kind is a quiet, contemplative joy, the kind generated by sitting by cozy fireplaces with great books, holding hands with a beloved, listening to the ocean. The other is sparkling and wild. It is the joy that little kids have when they eat ice cream and then run around afterwards, losing their minds in the delight of the sugar rush. It is the joy that you experience when you receive unfathomably good news, when your sports team wins the championship, when you find something you thought was lost forever, when you meet with old friends and the words do not stop tumbling from everyone involved. This joy generates action, dancing, shrieking, singing, doing things. Such joy has been rare for everyone during the pandemic.

Langland and Dunbar’s images of Jesus the Knight are meant to evoke this latter, wild joy. Feel it and relish it with Langland and Dunbar. Death itself no longer has the last word. The dragon is dead! Our champion Christ has destroyed our ancient enemy! The gates of Hell crumble into dust as the Light of the World falls upon them.

What requires courage in your life during this Lent? How can you emulate Jesus the Knight? This week, as your Lenten practice, try something rather un-Lenten, especially since lately your entire life may have felt like Lent as you have given up going to your favorite places and seeing your favorite people during the pandemic. In the spirit of Jesus the Knight, go out of your way this week to provoke joy, in anticipation of the coming resurrection. Play a song you loved in high school. Go on a walk with a good friend. Surprise a family member with something that they will be excited about. Paint your nails a bold color. Create or plan something beautiful.

Surrexit Dominus de sepulchro!


Kyk die video: Everyman Summary (November 2021).