Amenities of Literature Part 11

I throw into a note what I have transcribed of this specimen of the old Saxon-English, or, as it is called, "Semi-Saxon."[10] In this specimen of the language as spoken by the people the barbarism is native, pure in its impurity, and unalloyed by any spurious exotic. This English spoken in the Weald of Kent, Caxton tells us, in his time, was "as broad and rude English as is spoken in any place in England." When contrasted with the diction of a northern bard, whom a singular accident retrieved for us,[11] it offers a curious picture of the English language, so different at precisely the same period. The minstrel's flow of verse almost antic.i.p.ates the elegance of a writer of two centuries later.

The poems of LAURENCE MINOT consist of ten narrative ballads on some of the wars of Edward the Third in Scotland and in France. The events this bard records show that his writings were completed in 1352. His editor is surprised that "the great monarch whom he so eloquently and so earnestly panegyrised was either ignorant of his existence or insensible of his merit." Minot was probably nothing more than a northern minstrel, whose celebrity did not extend many leagues. His verses convey to us a perfect conception of the minstrel character, throwing out his almost extemporaneous "Lays" on the predominant incidents of his day. All these narrative poems open by soliciting the attention of the auditors:--

LITHES! and I sall tell you tyll The bataile of Halidon Hyll.

And in another,--

HERKINS how long King Edward lay, With his men before Tournay.

The singularity of these "Lays" consists in coming down to us in a written form, evidently with great care and fondness, bearing their author's unknown name. They might have appropriately been preserved in Percy's "Reliques of English Poetry."[12]

Three centuries had now pa.s.sed, and still the national genius languished in the Norman bondage of the language. But the commonalty were increasing in number and in weight, and an indignant sense of the dest.i.tution of a national language was not confined to the laity; it was attracting the attention of those who thought and who wrote. Richard of Bury, Bishop of Durham, who put forth the first bibliographical treatise by an Englishman, and may he ranked among the earliest critical collectors of a private library, in his celebrated treatise on the love of books, the "Philo-biblion,"[13] breathes all the enthusiasm of study; but while he directs our attention to the cla.s.sical writers of antiquity, he stimulates his contemporaries to emulate them by composing new books. Although he himself wrote in Latin, he regrets that no inst.i.tution for children in the English language existed; and he complains, that our English youth "first learned the French, and from the French the Latin." Our youth were sent into France to polish their nasal Norman. This writer flourished about 1330, and thus ascertains, that in the beginning of the reign of Edward III. no English was taught.

The "Polychronicon," a Latin chronicle compiled by the monk Higden, was finished somewhat later, about 1365; and we find the complaint more bitterly renewed. "There is no nation," wrote this honest monk, "whose children are compelled to leave their own language, as we have since the Normans came into England. A gentleman's child must speak French from the time that he is rocked in a cradle, or plays with a child's breche."

The Latin Chronicle of Higden, twenty years later, was translated into English by John de Trevisa. On this pa.s.sage the translator furnishes the important observation, that, since this was written, a revolution had occurred through our grammar-schools: the patriotic efforts of one Sir John Cornewaile, in teaching his pupils to construe their Latin into English, had been generally adopted; "so that now," proceeds Trevisa, "the yere of our Lorde 1385, in all the grammere scoles of Engelond, children leaveth Frensche and construeth and lerneth in Englische." The innovation had startled our translator, for, like all innovations, there was loss as well as profit, when, quitting what we are accustomed to, we launch dubiously into a new acquisition. The disuse of the French would detriment their intercourse abroad, and, on great occasions, at home. This was a time when Trevisa himself, in selecting some Scriptural inscriptions for the chapel of Berkley Castle, where he was chaplain, had them painted on boards in Norman-French, and Latin, in alternate lines. They are still visible. English itself was yet too base for the service of G.o.d.

It was still a debateable question, as appears by the prefatory dialogue between Trevisa and his patron, Lord Berkley, whether any translation of the Chronicle were at all necessary, Latin being the general language.

It was, however, a n.o.ble enterprise, being the first great effort in our vernacular prose. This mighty volume is a universal history, which, in its amplitude and miscellaneous character, seemed to contain all that men could know; and the version long enjoyed the favour of all readers as the first historical collection in the English language. It bears the seal of the monkish taste, being equally pious and fabulous. It not only opens before the days of Adam, but, like the creation, has its seven divisions; it has monsters, however, which are not found in Genesis. The monk is doubtful whether they came of Adam or of Noah. They, indeed, came from the elder Pliny, to whose puerile wonders and hasty compilation we owe the foundation of our natural history.

It was about the period that Higden concluded his labours, that Sir John Mandeville deemed it wise, having written his Travels in Latin and French, to compose them also in the vernacular idiom;--a strong indication of the rising disposition to cultivate the national tongue.

The policy of our Government now accorded with the general disposition; and hence originated the n.o.ble decision of Edward III., in 1362, to banish from our courts of law the Norman-French; but so awkward seemed this great novelty, that the statute is written in the very language it abolishes,[14] and, indeed, to which our great lawyers, the timid slaves of precedents, long afterwards clung in their barbarous law-French phrases mingled with their native English.

A mightier movement even than the royal decree in favour of fostering the national language was a translation of the Scriptures, by the intrepid spirit of Wickliffe. This had been done with the pledge of his life, for that was often in peril while he thus struck the first impulse of that reformation which not only influenced his own age, but one more remote. The translation of Wickliffe was a new revelation of the Word of G.o.d in the language of many. The streets were crowded with Lollards, as his followers were denominated, of which, like similar odious names attached to a rising party, the origin remains uncertain; Lollardy was, however, a convenient term to describe treason in the Church and the State. Wickliffe's translation of the Old Testament still lies in numerous ma.n.u.scripts, for our cold neglect of which we have incurred the censure of the foreigner. The New Testament has happily been printed.[15]

If we place by the side of the text of Wickliffe our later versions, we may become familiar with that Saxon-English which our venerable Caxton subsequently considered was "more like to Dutch than English."

But the picturesque language of our emotions, the creative diction of poetry, appeared in the courtly style of Chaucer, who n.o.bly designed to render the national language refined and varied, while his great contemporaries, the author of Piers Ploughman lingered in a rude dialect, and Gower was still composing alternately in Latin and in French.

The emanc.i.p.ation of the national language was subsequently confirmed by another monarch. A curious anecdote in our literary history has recently been disclosed of Henry V. To encourage the use of the vernacular tongue, this monarch, in a letter missive to one of the city companies, declared that "_the English tongue hath in modern days begun to be honourably enlarged and adorned, and for the better understanding of the people_ the common idiom should be exercised in writing:" this was at once setting aside the Norman-French and the Latin for the daily business of civil life. By this record it appears that many of the craft of brewers, to whose company this letter was addressed, had "knowledge of writing and reading in the English idiom, but Latin and French they by no means understood." We further learn that now "the LORDS and the COMMONS BEGAN _to have their proceedings noted down in the mother tongue_;" and this example was therefore to be followed by the city companies.[16]

At this advanced age of transition, so unsettled was the language of ordinary affairs, that the same doc.u.ment bears evidence of three different idioms. We find the pet.i.tion of an Irish chieftain, a prisoner in the Tower, written in the French language, while the endorsed royal answer is in English, and the order of the council in Latin.[17] The bulletins of Henry V. to the mayor and aldermen of London are written in English, but endorsed in French.

As if they designed to hold out a model to their subjects and to sanction the use of their native English, both this prince, and his father, Henry IV., left their wills in the national language,[18] at a time when the n.o.bles employed Latin or French for such purposes.

There has often existed a sympathy between ourselves and our near neighbours of France, when not disturbed by war. This great movement of establishing a national language, and freeing themselves from the Roman bondage, was tried at a later period by the French government, who were nearly baffled in the attempt. An ordinance of Louis XII. was issued _to abolish the use of the Latin tongue_; but such was the prejudice in favour of the ancient language, that notwithstanding that the Latin of the bar had degenerated into the most ludicrous barbarism, the lawyers were unwilling to yield to the popular wish. The use of Latin in France in all legal instruments lasted till the succeeding reign of Francis I., who, by two ordinances, declared that THE FRENCH LANGUAGE should be solely used in all public acts. It was, however, as late as forty years after, in 1629, that at length the public offices consented to draw their instruments in their vernacular language.[19] So long has general improvement to contend with the force of habit and the pa.s.sion of prepossession; and such were the difficulties which the vernacular style of both these great empires had to overcome.

When the learned HICKES, in his patriotic fervour to trace the legitimacy of the English from its parent language, adjudged that "nine-tenths of our words were of Saxon origin," he exultingly appealed to the Lord's Prayer, wherein there are only three words of French or Latin extraction. This startled TYRWHIT, then busied on his Chaucerian glossary, and who in that labour had before him a different aspect of our mottled English. That was not the day when writers would maintain opinions against authority. Awed by the great Saxonist, the poetical antiquary compromised, alleging that "though the _form_ of our language was still Saxon, yet the _matter_ was in a great measure French." His successor in English philology, GEORGE ELLIS, still further faltered and arbitrated; suggesting that the great Saxonist, to complete his favourite scheme, would trace some _old Gaulish_ French to a _Teutonic_ origin. In tracing the formation of the English language, we are sensible that the broad and solid foundations lie in the Saxon, but the superstructure has often, with a magical movement, varied in its architecture. An enamoured Saxonist has recently ventured to a.s.sert that "English is but another term for Saxon;" but an ocular demonstration has been exhibited in specimens of the _modern English_ of our master-writers, marking by italics all the words of Saxon derivation. By these it appears that the translators of the Bible have happily preserved for us the pristine simplicity of our Saxon-English, like the light in a cathedral through its storied and saintly window, shedding its antique hues on hallowed objects. But as we advance, we discover in our most eminent writers the anglicisms diminish; and SHARON TURNER has observed that a fifth of the Saxon language has ceased to be used. A recent critic[20] has curiously calculated that the English language, now consisting of about 38,000 words, contains 23,000, or nearly five-eighths, Anglo-Saxon in their origin; that in our most idiomatic writers, there is about one-tenth _not_ Anglo-Saxon, and in our least about one-third.[21] A cry of our desertion of our Saxon purity has been raised by those who have not themselves practised it in their more elevated compositions; but are we to deem that English corrupted which recedes from its Saxon character, and compels the daughter to lose the likeness of her mother? Are we to banish to perpetuity those foreigners who have already fructified our Saxon soil? In an age of extended literature, conversant with objects and productive of a.s.sociations which never entered into the experience of our forefathers, the ancient language of the people must necessarily prove inadequate; a new language must start out of new conceptions. Look into our present "exchequer of words;" there lies many a refined coinage struck out of the arts and the philosophies of Europe. Every word which genius creates, and which time shall consecrate, is a possession of the language which must be inscribed into that variable doomsday book of words--the English Dictionary. Devotees of Thor and Woden! the day of your idolatries has pa.s.sed, and your remonstrances are vain as your superst.i.tions.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Mr. Hallam.

[2] Dr. Bosworth.

[3] Of this recondite writer Ellis has said, "probably Layamon never will be printed;" but we live in an age of publication, and Layamon is said to be actually in the press. [Since this was written, the work has been published at the cost of the Society of Antiquaries, under the editorial care of Sir Frederick Madden.]

[4] Dr. Bosworth, or Mr. Thorpe, has explained this attempt more fully. "From this idea of doubling the consonant after a short vowel, as in German, we are enabled to form some tolerably accurate notions as to the p.r.o.nunciation of our forefathers. Thus, Orm (or Ormin) writes _min_ and _win_ with a single _n_ only, and _lif_ with a single f, because the i is long, as in _mine_, _wine_, and _life_. On the other hand, wherever the consonant is doubled, the vowel preceding is sharp and short, as _winn_, p.r.o.nounced _win_, not _wine_."--"Origin of the Germanic and Scandinavian Languages," 24.

[5] Guest's "Hist. of English Rhythms," ii. 186.

[6] During the thirteenth century, the organic change proceeded so rapidly that there is quite as wide a difference between the language of Layamon and that which was written at the beginning of the fourteenth century (about the time of Robert of Gloucester), as there is between the English language of the reign of Edward the Second and the tongue of the present day.--See Mr. Wright's learned "Essay on the Literature of the Anglo-Saxons," 107.

[7] Hearne, in his preface, exclaims in ecstacy--"This is the _first book_ ever printed in this kingdom, it may be in _the whole world, in the black letter_, with a mixture of _the Saxon characters_, which is the very garb that was in vogue in the author's time, that is, in the thirteenth century." Hearne often claims our grat.i.tude, while his earnest simplicity will extort a smile. On our ancient Bibles he could not refrain from exclaiming--"Though I have taken so much pleasure in perusing the English Bible of the year 1541, yet 'tis nothing equal to that I should take in turning over that of the year 1539." His antiquarianism kindled his piety over Cranmer's Bible.

Thomas was haunted by a chimera that whatever was obsolete deserved to be revived. This honest spirit of antiquarianism, working on a most undiscerning intellect, seems to have kindled into a literary bigotry in his sateless delight of "the black-letter of our grandfathers' days." Hearne set this unhappy example of printing ancient writers with all their obsolete repulsiveness in orthography and type. He was closely followed by RITSON, and by WHITAKER in his edition of "Piers Ploughman;" and these editors a.s.suredly have scared away many a neophyte in our vernacular literature. RITSON printed his "Ancient Songs" with the Saxon characters and abbreviations, which render them often unintelligible. This literary antiquary lived to regret this superst.i.tious antiquarianism. He had prepared a new edition entirely cleared of these offences, but which unfortunately he destroyed at the morbid close of his life.

[8] Turner's "History of England," v. 217, will furnish the curious reader readily with several of these specimens of the modes of thinking and of acting of the middle ages, when monks only were the preceptors of mankind.

[9] This term of "strange Ingliss" has yet been found so obscure as to occasion some strictures, which, like the Interpreter in the Critic, are the most difficult to comprehend. I must refer to Monsieur Thierry's very delightful "History of the Conquest of England," ii. 271, for a very refined speculation on our Robert de Brunne's unlucky obscurity. Monsieur Thierry imagines that the "strange Ingliss" was the refined English which had flown into Scotland, and there become the cultivated language of the minstrels and the court, and which our hapless Saxons on _this side of the Tweed_ had sunk into a dialect only fitted for serfs. This finer and more elevated English could not be understood by a base commonalty; this was "strange Ingliss" to them. A very interesting event in the history of both nations had transplanted the purer English to the Scottish court:--Malcolm, whom the usurpation of Macbeth had driven from the Scottish throne, was expatriated in England during an interval of near twenty years; the affection of the monarch for the English was such, that he adopted their language, and when the royal family of England was expelled by the Conqueror, the king received them and the emigrant Saxons, and married the English princess. This gave rise to that intercourse with the south of Scotland, of which the result in our literary, if not in our civil, history is remarkable. Certain it is that much broad Scotch is good old English, and the n.o.blest minstrelsy cometh "fra the North Countrie."

[10] On the leaf appears, in the handwriting of the author, "This Boc is Dan Michelis of Northgate ywrite an Englis of his ozene hand that hatte _Ayenbyte of inwyt_, and is of the boc-house of Seynt Austyn's of Cantorberi." The writer was seventy years of age; and he tells us that he was not--

"Blind, and dyaf, and alsuo dumb, Of zeventy yer al not rond, Ne ssette by draze to the grond, Uor peny nor mark, ne nor pond."

At the end the monk tells us for whom he writes--

"Nou ich wille that ye ywite hou hitt is ywent Thet this Boc is ywrite mid Engliss of Kent.

This Boc is ymade vor lewede men, Vor Vader and vor Moder and vor other Ken, Ham vor to berze uram alle manyere Zen Thet ine have inwytte ne bleue no uoul wen.

Huo ase G.o.d is his name yzed Thet this Boc made G.o.d him yeue that bread Of Angles of Hauene and thereto his red, And underuonge his Zoule, huanne that is dyad."

[11] While Tyrwhit was busied on the "Canterbury Tales" his attention was excited by the old cataloguer of the Cottonian ma.n.u.scripts to a _Chaucer exemplar emendate scriptum_. On a spare leaf the name of Richard Chawfer had been scrawled, which might have been that of some former possessor. There are two fatalities which hang over the pen of a slumbering cataloguer--ignorance and indolence. Our present one caught an immortal name and never travelled onwards; and, struck by the fairness of the writing, inferred that it was a copy of Chaucer critically accurate. It turned out to be the compositions of an unknown poet who not willingly relinquished his claim on posterity, for he has subscribed his name, LAURENCE MINOT. [The ma.n.u.script is marked Galba, E. IX.; specimens were first published from it by Tyrwhit and Warton, and the entire series ultimately by Ritson.]

[12] Ritson's first edition (1795) of Minot having become very difficult to procure, an elegant re-impression, and apparently a correct one, was published in 1825.

[13] "Philobiblion, sive de Amore Librorum et Inst.i.tutione Bibliothecae," ascribed to Richard of Bury, Bishop of Durham; but Fabricius says it was written by Robert Holcot, a learned friar, at his desire.--Fab. "Bib. Med. aevi," vol. i. It is the bishop, however, who was the collector, and always speaks in his own person. It has been recently translated by Mr. Inglis.

[14] Barrington on the Statutes.

In Blackstone's "Commentaries," book iii. chap. 21, we find much curious information, and some philosophical reflections. The use of the technical law-Latin is adroitly defended. Under Cromwell the records were turned into English; at the Restoration the practisers declared they could not express themselves so significantly in English, and they returned to their Latin. In 1730, a statute ordered that the proceedings at law should be done into English, that the common people might understand the process, &c. But after many years'

experience the people are as ignorant in matters of law as before, and suffer the inconveniences of increasing _the expense of all legal proceedings_ by being bound by the stamp-duties to write only a stated number of words in a sheet, _and the English language, through the mult.i.tude of its particles, is so much more verbose than the Latin, that the number of sheets is much augmented_. Two years subsequently it was necessary to make a new act to allow all technical terms to continue Latin, which were too ridiculous to be translated, such as _nisi prius, fieri facias, habeas corpus_. This last act, in 1732, has defeated every beneficial purpose intended by the preceding statute of 1730.

One hardly expected to find philological ac.u.men in the dry discussion of law-Latin, but when the _three_ words, "_secundum formam statuti_," require _seven_ in English, "according to the form of the statute," one easily comprehends the heavy weight of the _stamp-duty_ for _writing English_. The Saxons, who made no use of particles of speech, had more merit than we were aware of.

[15] By the Rev. JOHN LEWIS, 1731, fo., and republished by the Rev.

H. H. BABER, 1810, 4to.

The censure of Fabricius deserves our notice. After mention of Wickliffe's version of the Bible, he adds, "Mirum est Anglos eam (versionem) tam diu neglexisse quum vel linguae causa ipsis in pretio esse debeat."--"Bib. Lat.," v. 321.

It is provoking to be reminded of our neglected duties by a foreigner. We might a.s.suredly be curious to learn how the sublimity and the colloquial and narrative parts of this vast treasure of our ancient language were produced under the primitive pen of Wickliffe.

A fine copy of Wickliffe's Bible was in the library of Mr. Douce, and I have heard, with great satisfaction, that it will probably be edited by Sir Francis Madden.

[16] Herbert's "History of the City Companies."

[17] I derive this curious fact from Mr. Tyler's "History of Henry of Monmouth," ii. 245.

[18] These wills are preserved in Mr. Nichols' "Collection of Royal Wills."