LECTURE V.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE OF THE FIRST PERIOD: FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE THIRTEENTH TO THE MIDDLE OF THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY.

As I have remarked in a former lecture, the change from Anglo-Saxon and Semi-Saxon to English was so gradual, that the history of the revolution can be divided only by arbitrary epochs; and I have given some reasons for thinking that whatever date we may assign to the formation of the English speech, English literature cannot be regarded as having had a beginning until the English tongue was employed in the expression of the conceptions of a distinctively national genius. This, as we have seen, cannot be said to have taken place until after the middle of the fourteenth century; but the incipient chemical union of Saxon and French was attended with an effervescence which threw off some spirited products, though it must be confessed that most of what is called the English literature of the thirteenth century, when compared with the contemporaneous poetry of Continental Europe, and especially of France, resembles dregs and lees rather than anything more ethereal.

To the grammarian and the etymologist, the history of the transition period, or the larva and chrysalis states, is of interest and importance as necessary to a clear view of the physiology of the English speech; but, both because I aim to exhibit the literary adaptations of the language rather than its genesis

or its linguistic affinities, and because of the extreme difficulty of intelligibly presenting niceties of grammatical form to the ear alone, I attempt nothing beyond a very general statement of the leading facts of this period of English philological history.

We shall have time and space to criticise only the more conspicuous writers and their dialect, and even among these writers I must confine myself to those who were something more than merely products of their age and country. I can notice only two classes, namely, such as are emphatically important witnesses to the state of English philology in their time, and such as contributed by the popularity of their writings and their sympathy with the tendencies of the yet but half-developed nationality which was struggling into existence-to give form and direction to contemporaneous and succeeding literary effort, and are consequently to be regarded, not as examples, results, simply, but as creative influences in English letters.

Of the former class, the most celebrated is the short proclamation issued in the year 1258, in the reign of Henry III., which many English philologists regard as the first specimen of English as contradistinguished from Semi-Saxon.*

There is

no very good grammatical reason for treating this proclamation. as belonging to an essentially different phase of English philology from many earlier writings of the same century; for though it is, in particular points, apparently more modern than

I suppose the editors of the great English Dictionary now in course of preparation under the auspices of the London Philological Society, consider this state-paper as not English, but Semi-Saxon; for it is not among the monuments enumerated as examined for Coleridge's Glossarial Index to the English literature of the thirteenth century. Short as it is, it contains, besides some variant forms not noticed by Coleridge, these words not found in the Glossarial Index: a, always, aye; aforesaid (toforeniscide); besigte, provision, ordinance; freme, profit, good; fultume, help; moge, nobles [?]; ourself (usselven); redesman, councillor; setness (isetness), law, decreo; sign (iscined), verb; worsen (iwersed); worthnesse, honour. We may hence infer that the still unpublished relics of the literature of the thirteenth century will furnish a considerable number of words not yet incorporated into English vocabularies.

some of them-the Ancren Riwle for instance it is, in other respects, quite as decidedly of an older structure. Its real importance arises chiefly from the fact, that it is one of the very few specimens of the English of that century, the date of which is positively known*, that of the older text of Layamon being rather doubtful, those of the later text and of the Ormulum, as well as of the Ancren Riwle, and of most other manuscripts ascribed to the thirteenth century, altogether uncertain.

Another circumstance which adds much to its value is, that it was issued on an important political occasion-the establishment of a governmental council or commission, in derogation of the royal authority, and invested with almost absolute powersand that, as appears from the document itself, copies of it were sent, for public promulgation, to every shire in England. The probability therefore is strong, that this translation - for the proclamation appears to have been drawn up in French-was not written in the peculiar local dialect of any one district, but in the form which most truly corresponded to the general features of the popular speech, in order that it might be everywhere intelligible. It must then be considered the best evidence existing of the condition of English at any fixed period in the thirteenth century.

It has been objected against this view of the philological importance of this document, that, being an official paper, it is made up, in great part, of established phrases of form, many of which had probably become obsolete in ordinary speech and writing,' † and hence is to be regarded as no true representative of the current English of its time, but as an assemblage of archaic forms which had lost their vitality, and, of course, as

I am perhaps in error in treating the period to which this monument belongs, as altogether certain. There is no doubt as to the date of the original composi tion, but are we sure that this particular English copy is contemporaneous with the original?

↑ Craik, Outlines of the History of the English Language.

belonging philologically to an earlier period. This objection is founded on what I think an erroneous view of the facts of the case. After the Conquest, the Anglo-Saxon was superseded by French and Latin as the mediums of official communication, and there is reason to believe that, except in grants to individuals and other matters of private concern, Semi-Saxon and Early English were little, if at all, used by the government, this proclamation being, I believe, the only public document known to have been promulgated in the native tongue during the whole of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. It was probably employed on this occasion, because the political movement which extorted from the crown the establishment of the commission was, as far as in that age any political movement could be, of a popular character, and it was thought a prudent measure to publish this concession to the demands of the people in a dialect intelligible to all.

There were, then, at that time, no established phrases of form' in the political dialect of the English language. The government could not have used a stereotyped phraseology, for the reason that none such existed; and accordingly this proclamation must be viewed as an authentic monument of the popular speech of England in the middle of the thirteenth century, so far as that speech had yet acquired a consistent and uniform character.

It is very short, containing, besides proper names, only about three hundred words in all, and only between one hundred and thirty and one hundred and forty different words, even counting as such all the different inflections of the same stem. Of course, it exemplifies but a small proportion of either the grammatical forms or the vocabulary. In this latter respect it shows no trace of Norman influence, all the words being English, except the proper names, a couple of official titles, duke and marshal, and one or two words which the Anglo-Saxon had, in earlier ages received from the Latin; but in the grammar, the breaking down of the Anglo-Saxon inflectional system is plainly per

ceptible. I give the text as I find it in Haupt's Zeitschrift, xi. 298, 299, after Pauli.*

Henr', thurg Godes fultume King on Engleneloande, lhoaverd on Irloand, duk' on Norm', on Aquitain', and eorl on Aniow, send igretinge to all hise halde ilaerde and ilae wede on Huntendon' schir'.

Thaet witen ge wel alle, thaet we willen and unnen, thaet thaet ure raedesmen alle other the moare dael of heom, thaet beoth ichosen thurg us and thurg thaet loandes folk on ure kuneriche, habbeth idon and schullen don in the worthnesse of Gode and on ure treowthe for the freme of the loande thurg the besigte of than toforeniseide redesmen, beo stedefaest and ilestinde in alle thinge a buten aende, and we hoaten alle ure treowe in the treowthe, that heo us ogen, thaet heo stedefaestliche healden and swerien to healden and to werien the isetnesses, thaet beon imakede and beon to makien thurg than toforeniseide raedesmen other thurg the moare dael of heom alswo alse hit is biforen iseid, and thaet aehc other helpe thaet for to done bi than ilche othe agenes alle men, rigt for to done and to foangen, and noan ne nime of loande ne of egte, wherethurg this besigte muge beon ilet other iwersed on onie wise and gif oni other onie cumen her ongenes, we willen and hoaten, thaet alle ure treowe heom healden deadliche ifoan, and for thaet we willen, thaet this beo stedefaest and lestinde, we senden gew this writ open iseined with ure seel to halden amanges gew ine hord.

Witnesse usselven aet Lunden' thane egtetenthe day on the monthe of Octobr' in the two and fowertigthe geare of ure cruninge.

And this wes idon aetforen ure isworene redesmen :

[here follow the signatures of several redesmen or councillors]

and aetforen othre moge..

And al on tho ilche worden is isend in to aeurihce othre shcire ouer al thaere kuneriche on Engleneloande and ek in tel Irelonde.

In modern English thus:

Henry, by the grace of God king in (of) England, lord in (of) Ireland, duke in (of) Normandy, in (of) Aquitaine, and earl in (of) Anjou, sends greeting to all his lieges, clerk and lay, in Huntingdonshire.

This know ye well all, that we will and grant that what our council

* I regret that I am unable to furnish a literal copy of this interesting document. Pauli, from whom the text in Haupt is printed, has thought fit to reject the 3 of the original, and I suppose also the þ and X, one or both of which it probably employed. Whether other changes have been made, I do not know, but even these are as unjustifiable as it would be to substitute g for y, or ch for x in printing a unique Greek manuscript.