Scholarlink

<p>This article contributes to an ongoing scholarly debate concerning the nature and development of medieval English alliterative metre. It responds to Eric Weiskott’s critique of a previous essay co-authored by Leonard Neidorf and the present author, which challenged Nicolay Yakovlev’s theory of metrical evolution. Yakovlev’s model, centred on Laȝamon’s <i>Brut</i> as a transitional stage between Old and Late Middle English verse, redefines core metrical categories—stress, morphology, and alliteration. While often praised as paradigm-shifting, it is here argued that Yakovlev’s theory conflicts with the textual evidence. Several new arguments are presented against his treatment of stress hierarchy, his morphological determinism, and his claim that alliteration is merely ornamental. Drawing on traditional Sieversian metrics and close textual analysis, the article shows that the rarity of certain verse forms predicted by Yakovlev undermines the validity of his model. Moreover, the functional role of alliteration—as a structurally and rhythmically integral element of Old English poetry—is reaffirmed. Although Laȝamon’s <i>Brut</i> reflects a looser engagement with the alliterative tradition, it cannot serve as the metrical bridge Yakovlev proposes.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Laȝamon’s Brut and Alliterative Metrics

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月19日

查看全文
  • Rafael J. Pascual

摘要

This article contributes to an ongoing scholarly debate concerning the nature and development of medieval English alliterative metre. It responds to Eric Weiskott’s critique of a previous essay co-authored by Leonard Neidorf and the present author, which challenged Nicolay Yakovlev’s theory of metrical evolution. Yakovlev’s model, centred on Laȝamon’s Brut as a transitional stage between Old and Late Middle English verse, redefines core metrical categories—stress, morphology, and alliteration. While often praised as paradigm-shifting, it is here argued that Yakovlev’s theory conflicts with the textual evidence. Several new arguments are presented against his treatment of stress hierarchy, his morphological determinism, and his claim that alliteration is merely ornamental. Drawing on traditional Sieversian metrics and close textual analysis, the article shows that the rarity of certain verse forms predicted by Yakovlev undermines the validity of his model. Moreover, the functional role of alliteration—as a structurally and rhythmically integral element of Old English poetry—is reaffirmed. Although Laȝamon’s Brut reflects a looser engagement with the alliterative tradition, it cannot serve as the metrical bridge Yakovlev proposes.