Medieval literature. Is it legit? Or just unga bunga apes smearing ink across a page?

It's very legit.

Start with Virgil Maro. He's more troll than anything written until the renaissance.

Proceed with Boethius, even though he's earlier than Virgil, fuck you.

Then on to Ornosius.

Then Cassiodorus.

Then the boss-level, Martian Capella.

Oh yeah you should also read at the very least all of Augustine, or at the VERY least de civitate and confessiones, and the whole vulgtate, or at least the best bits, i.e. pentateuch + psalms + NT, also the aeneid, etc.

And you can't miss the De Planctu

Medieval literature is weird as fuck, that's why it's not well regarded. It's not Cicero or Virgil so people think it's inferior. Most of it is inferior but some of it is brilliant and experimental and dangerous. Virgil Maro is extreme. He was the closest thing the dark ages had to Veeky Forums.

If you can't read Latin you're fairly well screwed as far as western medieval lit goes.

And what a goddamn fool I am not to mention Boethius' De Consolatione, which exists in a number of good English translations going back to King Aelfred the Great.

Also Gregory's History of the Franks.

Gregory in his hagiography describes the great works of pagan Rome sitting on a shore, with the tide coming in, ready to wash them away. And he averts his gaze, to contemplate the Trinity...

Bede is excellent, so is Gildas. I find Gildas more interesting.

Oh and do you read Old Irish? I sure as hell do not but there is a lot of great stuff, I have been told, written in that language, too.

Whoops I already mentioned Boethius, cervesa de auribus fluit...

Don't forget Terence.

Medii aevi homines librum facere noverant...

Si nobis libri sic essent, non tam stulti cives forsitan essent.

Wow ur so smart, you don't care about those arbitrary periodizations (even though op's question itself uses one but whatever)

Oh, sit down. Chaucer lived between 1343-1400 and thus qualifies as medieval. So does Dante. Just because they had humanist characteristics and were forerunners of the misleading antiquated bullshit period we call the "Renaissance" (the time of which varies wildly from England to Italy, of course) doesn't disqualify them from medieval literature.

>misleading antiquated bullshit period we call the "Renaissance"

I hope you are set on fire and while being raped by an immigrant.

That seems a tad harsh. I hope you study history a bit more, and stop believing 19th-century propaganda so readily. Discrete periodization is a risky game, and pretending there was some fundamental difference between all medieval and Renaissance culture is misleading as fuck, and has led to the idiotic "Dark Ages" ghetto dismissal of an incredible period.

I think it's rather harsh to call the greatest minds of the last 500 years "antiquated bullshit." Luckily your opinion is completely irrelevant to their standing among the illuminati. You just stick with your "information technology" courses.

No, I was saying that the retroactive dates and mythology that were later used to define the Renaissance are antiquated bullshit, not the period itself. And really, "illuminati" and "information technology"? What's next, pleb/patrician?

how the fuck did this turn into a who can be that faggest faggot contest more medieval lit recs please and thanks

Simplicius Simplicissimus is great fun, but I don't know if it counts as "medieval lit" (written in 1668).

Cellini's autobiography is amazing too (~1563), it's unrelenting boasting featuring him murdering his enemies and then running away

>ille sensus ubi numquam eris librarius politicam aristotelis reddens.

I am a big fan of anything Arthurian. Chretien is good, as mentioned. So is Wolfram von Eschenbach, and of course Mallory.

Beowulf is pretty dope in original Anglo