Abstract
A major way used by the poet of Laȝamon’s Brut, of which two versions are extant, to expand and embellish his principle source, Wace’s Roman de Brut, was the addition of direct speech. The shorter version of Laȝamon’s Brut often abbreviates the text by making the exchange between characters in direct speech more concise. This paper examines slipping from indirect into direct discourse in both versions, identifying some patterns and differences between the two versions and considering the narrative function of this combined use of direct and indirect discourse. In particular, a curious case of slipping in Otho suggests further clues to the transmission of its text and the redactor’s method. Three tables display the distribution of speeches in the two versions, allowing a close comparison of the two texts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen, R. (Trans.). (1992). Lawman: Brut. London: Dent.
Brook, G. L., & Leslie, R. F. (Eds.). (1963–1978). Laȝamon: Brut, Edited from British Museum MS Cotton Caligula A. ix and British Museum MS Cotton Otho C. xiii, 2 vols, EETS, o.s. 250 and 277. London: Oxford University Press.
Bryan, E. J. (1990). Laȝamon’s Brut: Relationships between the Two Versions. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Bryan, E. J. (1994). The two manuscripts of Laȝamon’s Brut: Some readers in the margins. In F. Le Saux (Ed.), The text and tradition of Laȝamon’s Brut (pp. 89–102). Cambridge: Brewer.
Bryan, E. J. (1999). Collaborative meaning in medieval scribal culture: The Otho Laȝamon. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Donahue, D. P. (1991). Lawman’s ‘Brut’, an early Arthurian poem: A study of Middle English Formulaic Composition. Studies in Mediaeval Literature, 9. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen.
Donoghue, D. (1990). Laȝamon’s ambivalence. Speculum, 65, 537–563.
Johnson, L. (1994). Reading the past in Laȝamon’s Brut. In F. Le Saux (Ed.), The text and tradition of Laȝamon’s Brut (pp. 141–160). Cambridge: Brewer.
Le Saux, F. H. M. (1989). Laȝamon’s Brut: The poem and its sources. Cambridge: Brewer.
Le Saux, F. (1992). Narrative rhythm and narrative content in Laȝamon’s Brut. Parergon, 10, 45–70.
McNelis, J. I., III (1994). Laȝamon as Auctor. In F. Le Saux (Ed.), The text and tradition of Laȝamon’s Brut (pp. 253–272). Cambridge: Brewer.
Millar, R. M. (1991). The realization of the ‘Simple’ and ‘Compound’ demonstrative pronouns in Laȝamon’s Brut and The Owl and the Nightingale. Doctoral Dissertation, King’s College London.
Parry, J. D. (1998). Narrators, messengers, and Lawman’s Brut. Arthuriana, 8(3), 46–61.
Perry, L. M. (2004). Laȝamon’s Brut: The representation of the individual in the voicing of history (British Library Cotton MSS Caligula A. ix and Otho C. xiii). Doctoral Dissertation, King’s College London.
Perry, L. (2005). ‘Forð ferde þas sonde … & seide him þeos ibeod’: Discours direct et indirect dans le Brut de Laȝamon. In J. R. Schwyter, E. Poppe, & S. Onillon (Eds.), Le slipping dans les langues médiévales, Cahiers de l’ILSL, 18 (pp. 43–55). Lausanne: Institut de Linguistique et des Sciences du Langage.
Richman, G. (1986). Artful slipping in old English. Neophilologus, 70, 279–291.
Roberts, J. (1994). A preliminary note on British Library, Cotton MS Caligula A. ix. In F. Le Saux (Ed.), The text and tradition of Laȝamon’s Brut (pp. 1–14). Cambridge: Brewer.
Thorpe, L. (Trans.). (1966). Geoffrey of Monmouth: ‘The history of the Kings of Britain’. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Wales, K. (1989). A dictionary of stylistics. Harlow: Longman.
Weiss, J. (Ed. and Trans.). (2002). Wace’s Roman de Brut: A history of the British. Exeter: University of Exeter Press (revised edition).
Wickham-Crowley, K. M. (2002). Writing the future: Laȝamon’s prophetic history. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
Wright, N. (Ed.). (1985). Geoffrey of Monmouth: The Historia Regum Britannie, I: Bern Burgerbibliothek, MS 568. Cambridge: Brewer.
Wright, N. (Ed.). (1988). Geoffrey of Monmouth, The Historia Regum Britannie, II: The First Variant Version: A Critical Edition. Cambridge: Brewer.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Jane Roberts and Jürg Schwyter for their advice and suggestions during the preparation of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This is a revised and enlarged version of Lucy Perry (2005). ‘Forð ferde þas sonde … & seide him þeos ibeod’: Discours direct et indirect dans le Brut de Laȝamon. (In Jürg Rainer Schwyter, Erich Poppe and Sandrine Onillon (Eds.), Le slipping dans les langues médiévales, Cahiers de l’ILSL, 18 (pp. 43–55). Lausanne: Institut de Linguistique et des Sciences du Langage.)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Perry, L. ‘Þus heo hit speken’: Direct and Indirect Speech in the Two Versions of Laȝ amon’s Brut . Neophilologus 92, 523–543 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11061-007-9088-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11061-007-9088-2