CHAPTER II.
THE RELATION OF THE ENGLISH TO THE ANGLO-SAXON, AND THE STAGES OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
[§ 174]. The relation of the present English to the Anglo-Saxon is that of a modern language to an ancient one: the words modern and ancient being used in a defined and technical sense.
Let the word smiðum illustrate this. Smiðum, the dative plural of smið, is equivalent in meaning to the English to smiths, or to the Latin fabris. Smiðum however, is a single Anglo-Saxon word (a substantive, and nothing more); whilst its English equivalent is two words i.e., a substantive with the addition of a preposition). The letter s, in smiths shows that the word is plural. The -um, in smiðum, does this and something more. It is the sign of the dative case plural. The -um in smiðum, is the part of a word. The preposition to is a separate word with an independent existence. Smiðum is the radical syllable smið, plus the subordinate inflectional syllable -um, the sign of the dative case. To smiths is the substantive smiths, plus the preposition to, equivalent in power to the sign of a dative case, but different from it in form. As far, then, as the word just quoted is concerned, the Anglo-Saxon differs from the English thus. It expresses a given idea by a modification of the form of the root, whereas the modern English denotes the same idea by the addition of a preposition. The Saxon inflection is superseded by a combination of words.
The part that is played by the preposition with nouns, is played by the auxiliaries (have, be, &c.) with verbs.
The sentences in italics are mere variations of the same general statement. (1.) The earlier the stage of a given
language the greater the amount of its inflectional forms, and the later the stage of a given language, the smaller the amount of them. (2.) As languages become modern they substitute prepositions and auxiliary verbs for cases and tenses. (3.) The amount of inflection is in the inverse proportion to the amount of prepositions and auxiliary verbs. (4.) In the course of time languages drop their inflection and substitute in its stead circumlocutions by means of prepositions, &c. The reverse never takes place. (5.) Given two modes of expression, the one inflectional (smiðum), the other circumlocutional (to smiths), we can state that the first belongs to an early, the second to a late, stage of language.
The present chapter, then, showing the relation of the English to the Anglo-Saxon, shows something more. It exhibits the general relation of a modern to an ancient language. As the English is to the Anglo-Saxon, so are the Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian, to the old Norse; so also the Modern High German to the Mœso-Gothic; so the Modern Dutch of Holland to the Old Frisian; so, moreover, amongst the languages of a different stock, are the French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanese and Wallachian to the Latin, and the Romaic to the Ancient Greek.
[§ 175]. Contrasted with the English, but contrasted with it only in those points where the ancient tongue is compared with the modern one, the Anglo-Saxon has the following differences.
NOUNS.
Of Gender.—In Anglo-Saxon there are three genders, the masculine, the feminine, and the neuter. With adjectives each gender has its peculiar declension; with substantives there are also appropriate terminations, but only to a certain degree; e.g., of words ending in -a (nama, a name; cuma, a guest), it may be stated that they are always masculine; of words in -u (sunu, a son; gifu, a gift), that they are never neuter; in other words, that they are either mas. or fem.
The definite article varies with the gender of its substantive; þæt eage, the eye; se steorra, the star; seo tunge, the tongue.
Of Number.—The plural form in -en (as in oxen), rare in English, was common in Anglo-Saxon. It was the regular termination of a whole declension; e.g., eágan, eyes; steorran, stars; tungan, tongues. Besides this, the Anglo-Saxons had forms in -u and -a, as ricu, kingdoms; gifa, gifts. The termination -s, current in the present English was confined to a single gender and to a single declension, as endas, ends; dagas, days; smiðas, smiths.
Of Case.—Of these the Saxons had, for their substantives, at least three; viz. the nominative, dative, genitive. With the pronouns and adjectives there was a true accusative form; and with a few especial words an ablative or instrumental one. Smið, a smith; smiðe, to a smith; smiðes, of a smith. Plural, smiðas, smiths; smiðum, to smiths; smiða, of smiths: he, he; hine, him; him, to him; his, his; se, the; þa, the; þy, with the; þam, to the; þæs, of the.
Of the dative in -um, the word whilom (at times, at whiles) is a still extant and an almost isolated specimen.
Of Declension.—In Anglo-Saxon it is necessary to determine the termination of a substantive. There is the weak, or simple declension for words ending in a vowel (as eage, steorra, tunga), and the strong, or complex declension for words ending in a consonant (smið, spræc, leáf). The letters i and u are dealt with as semivowels, semivowels being dealt with as consonants; so that words like sunu and gifu belong to the same declension as smið and sprǽc.
That the form of adjectives varies with their definitude or indefinitude, has been seen from [§ 93]: definite adjectives following the inflection of the simple; indefinite ones that of the complex declension.
The detail of the Anglo-Saxon declension may be collected from [§§ 83]-89.
The Anglo-Saxon inflection of the participles present is remarkable. With the exception of the form for the genitive plural definite (which, instead of -ena, is -ra,) they follow the declension of the adjectives. From the masculine substantives formed from them, and denoting the agent, they may be distinguished by a difference of inflection.
| Participle. | Substantive. | ||
| Wegferende=Wayfaring. | Wegferend=Wayfarer. | ||
| Sing. | Nom. | Wegferende | Wegferend. |
| Acc. | Wegferendne | Wegferend. | |
| Abl. | Wegferende | Wegferende. | |
| Dat. | Wegferendum | Wegferende. | |
| Gen. | Wegferendes | Wegferendes. | |
| Plur. | Nom. | Wegferende | Wegferendas. |
| Dat. | Wegferendum | Wegferendum. | |
| Gen. | Wegferendra | Wegferenda. | |
Pronouns Personal.—Of the pronominal inflection in Saxon, the character may be gathered from the chapter upon pronouns. At present, it may be stated that, like the Mœso-Gothic and the Icelandic, the Anglo-Saxon language possessed for the first two persons a dual number; inflected as follows:
| 1st Person. | 2nd Person. | ||||
| Nom. | Wit | We two. | Nom. | Git | Ye two. |
| Acc. | Unc | Us two. | Acc. | Inc | You two. |
| Gen. | Uncer | Of us two. | Gen. | Incer | Of you two. |
Besides this, the demonstrative, possessive, and relative pronouns, as well as the numerals twa and þreo, had a fuller declension than they have at present.
VERBS.
Mood.—The subjunctive mood that in the present English (with the exception of the conjugation of the verb substantive) differs from the indicative only in the third person singular, was in Anglo-Saxon inflected as follows:
| Indicative Mood. | |||||
| Pres. Sing. 1. | Lufige. | Plur. 1. |
| Lufiað. | |
| 2. | Lufast. | 2. | |||
| 3. | Lufað. | 3. | |||
| Subjunctive Mood. | |||||
| Pres. Sing. 1. |
| Lufige. | Plur. 1. |
| Lufion. |
| 2. | 2. | ||||
| 3. | 3. | ||||
The Saxon infinitive ended in -an (lufian), and besides this there was a so-called gerundial form, to lufigenne.
Tense.—In regard to tense, the Anglo-Saxon coincided with the English. The present language has two tenses, the present and the past; the Saxon had no more. This past tense the modern English forms either by addition (love, loved), or by change (fall, fell). So did the Anglo-Saxons.
Number and Person.—In the present English the termination -eth (moveth) is antiquated. In Anglo-Saxon it was the only form recognized. In English the plural number (indicative as well as subjunctive) has no distinguishing inflection. It was not so in Anglo-Saxon. There, although the persons were identical in form, the numbers were distinguished by the termination -að for the indicative, and -n for the subjunctive. (See above.) For certain forms in the second conjugation, see the remarks on the forms drunk and drank, in Part IV.
Such are the chief points in the declension of nouns and the conjugation of verbs that give a difference of character between the ancient Anglo-Saxon and the modern English: and it has already been stated that the difference between the New and the Old German, the Dutch and the Frisian, the Italian, &c., and the Latin, the Romaic and the Greek, &c., are precisely similar.
How far two languages pass with equal rapidity from their ancient to their modern, from their inflected to their uninflected state (in other words, how far all languages alter at the same rate), is a question that will be noticed elsewhere. At present, it is sufficient to say, that (just as we should expect à priori) languages do not alter at the same rate.
Akin to the last question is a second one: viz.: how far the rate of change in a given language can be accelerated by external circumstances. This second question bears immediately upon the history of the English language. The grammar of the current idiom compared with the grammar of the Anglo-Saxon is simplified. How far was this simplification of the grammar promoted by the Norman Conquest. The current views exaggerate the influence of the Norman Conquest and of French connexions. The remark of Mr. Price in his Preface to Warton, acceded to by Mr. Hallam in his Introduction to the Literature of Europe, is, that every one of the
other Low Germanic languages (affected by nothing corresponding to the Norman Conquest) displays the same simplification of grammar as the Anglo-Saxon (affected by the Norman Conquest) displays. Confirmatory of this remark, it may be added, that compared with the Icelandic, the Danish and Swedish do the same. Derogatory to it is the comparatively complex grammar of the new German, compared, not only with the Old High German, but with the Mœso-Gothic. An extract from Mr. Hallam shall close the present section and introduce the next.
"Nothing can be more difficult, except by an arbitrary line, than to determine the commencement of the English language: not so much, as in those on the Continent, because we are in want of materials, but rather from an opposite reason, the possibility of showing a very gradual succession of verbal changes that ended in a change of denomination. We should probably experience a similar difficulty, if we knew equally well the current idiom of France or Italy in the seventh and eighth centuries. For when we compare the earliest English of the thirteenth century with the Anglo-Saxon of the twelfth, it seems hard to pronounce why it should pass for a separate language, rather than a modification or simplification of the former. We must conform, however, to usage, and say that the Anglo-Saxon was converted into English:—1. By contracting and otherwise modifying the pronunciation and orthography of words. 2. By omitting many inflections, especially of the noun, and consequently making more use of articles and auxiliaries. 3. By the introduction of French derivatives. 4. By using less inversion and ellipsis, especially in poetry. Of these, the second alone, I think, can be considered as sufficient to describe a new form of language; and this was brought about so gradually, that we are not relieved from much of our difficulty, as to whether some compositions shall pass for the latest offspring of the mother, or the earlier fruits of the daughter's fertility. It is a proof of this difficulty that the best masters of our ancient language have lately introduced the word Semi-Saxon, which is to cover everything from A.D. 1150 to A.D. 1250."—Chapter i. 47.
[§ 176]. At a given period, then, the Anglo-Saxon of the standard, and (if the expression may be used) classical authors, such as Cædmon, Alfred, Ælfric, &c., had undergone such a change as to induce the scholars of the present age to denominate it, not Saxon, but Semi-Saxon. It had ceased to be genuine Saxon, but had not yet become English. In certain parts of the kingdom, where the mode of speech
changed more rapidly than elsewhere, the Semi-Saxon stage of our language came earlier. It was, as it were, precipitated.
The History of King Leir and his Daughters is found in two forms. Between these there is a difference either of dialect or of date, and possibly of both. Each, however, is Semi-Saxon. The extracts are made from Thorpe's Analecta Anglo-Saxonica, p. 143.
|
Bladud hafde ene sune, Leir was ihaten; Efter his fader daie, He heold þis drihlice lond, Somed an his live, Sixti winter. He makade ane riche burh, Þurh radfulle his crafte, And he heo lette nemnen, Efter him seolvan; Kaer-Leir hehte þe burh. Leof heo wes þan kinge, Þa we, an ure leod-quide, Leir-chestre clepiad, Geare a þan holde dawon. |
Bladud hadde one sone, Leir was ihote, After his fader he held þis lond, In his owene hond, Ilaste his lif-dages, Sixti winter. He makede on riche borh, Þorh wisemenne reade, And hine lette nemni, After him seolve; Kair-Leir hehte þe borh. Leof he was þan kinge; Þe we, on ure speche, Leþ-chestre cleopieþ, In þan eolde daiye. |
The Grave, a poetical fragment, the latter part of the Saxon Chronicle, a Homily for St. Edmund's Day (given in the Analecta), and above all the printed extracts of the poem of Layamon, are the more accessible specimens of the Semi-Saxon. The Ormulum, although in many points English rather than Saxon, retains the dual number of the Anglo-Saxon pronouns. However, lest too much stress be laid upon this circumstance, the epistolary character of the Ormulum must be borne in mind.
It is very evident that if, even in the present day, there were spoken in some remote district the language of Alfred and Ælfric, such a mode of speech would be called, not Modern English, but Anglo-Saxon. This teaches us that the stage of language is to be measured, not by its date, but by its structure. Hence, Saxon ends and Semi-Saxon begins, not at a given year, A.D., but at that time
(whenever it be) when certain grammatical inflections disappear, and certain characters of a more advanced stage are introduced.
Some amongst others, of the earlier changes of the standard Anglo-Saxon are,
1. The substitution of -an for -as, in the plural of substantives, munucan for munucas (monks); and, conversely, the substitution of -s for -n, as steorres for steorran (stars). The use of -s, as the sign of the plural, without respect to gender, or declension, may be one of those changes that the Norman Conquest forwarded; -s being the sign of the plural in Anglo-Norman.
2. The ejection or shortening of final vowels, þæt ylc for þæt ylce; sone for sunu; name for nama; dages for dagas.
3. The substitution of -n for -m in the dative case, hwilon for hwilum.
4. The ejection of the -n of the infinitive mood, cumme for cuman (to come), nemne for nemnen (to name).
5. The ejection of -en in the participle passive, I-hote for gehaten (called, hight).
6. The gerundial termination -enne, superseded by the infinitive termination -en; as to lufian for to lufienne, or lufigenne.
7. The substitution of -en for -að in the persons plural of verbs; hi clepen (they call) for hi clypiað, &c.
The preponderance (not the occasional occurrence) of forms like those above constitute Semi-Saxon in contradistinction to standard Saxon, classical Saxon, or Anglo-Saxon proper.
[§ 177]. Old English Stage.—Further changes convert Semi-Saxon into Old English. Some, amongst others, are the following:—
1. The ejection of the dative plural termination -um, and the substitution of the preposition to and the plural sign -s; as to smiths for smiðum. Of the dative singular the -e is retained (ende, worde); but it is by no means certain that, although recognized in writing, it was recognized in pronunciation also.
2. The ejection of -es in the genitive singular whenever the
preposition of came before it; Godes love (God's love), but the love of God, and not the love of Godes.
3. The syllable -es as a sign of the genitive case extended to all genders and to all declensions; heart's for heortan; sun's for sunnan.
4. The same in respect to the plural number; sterres for steorran; sons for suna.
5. The ejection of -na in the genitive plural; as of tunges' for tungena.
6. The use of the word the, as an article, instead of se, &c.
The preponderance of the forms above (and not their occasional occurrence) constitutes old English in contradistinction to Semi-Saxon.
The following extract from Henry's history (vol. viii. append. iv.) is the proclamation of Henry III. to the people of Huntingdonshire, A.D. 1258. It currently passes for the earliest specimen of English.
"Henry, thurg Godes fultome, King on Engleneloande, lhoaurd on Yrloand, Duke on Normand, on Acquitain, Eorl on Anjou, send I greting, to alle hise holde, ilærde & ilewerde on Huntingdonschiere.
"That witen ge well alle, thæt we willen & unnen (grant) thæt ure rædesmen alle other, the moare del of heom, thæt beoth ichosen thurg us and thurg thæt loandes-folk on ure Kuneriche, habbith idon, and schullen don, in the worthnes of God, and ure threowthe, for the freme of the loande, thurg the besigte of than toforen iseide rædesmen, beo stedfæst and ilestinde in alle thinge abutan ænde, and we heaten alle ure treowe, in the treowthe thæt heo us ogen, thet heo stede-feslliche healden & weren to healden & to swerien the isetnesses thet beon makede and beo to makien, thurg than toforen iseide rædesmen, other thurg the moare del of heom alswo, also hit is before iseide. And thet æheother helpe thet for to done bitham ilche other, aganes alle men in alle thet heo ogt for to done, and to foangen. And noan ne of mine loande, ne of egetewhere, thurg this besigte, muge beon ilet other iwersed on oniewise. And gif oni ether onie cumen her ongenes, we willen & heaten, thæt alle ure treowe heom healden deadlichistan. And for thæt we willen thæt this beo stædfast and lestinde, we senden gew this writ open, iseined with ure seel, to halden amanges gew ine hord. Witnes us-selven æt Lundæn, thæne egetetenthe day on the monthe of Octobr, in the two and fowertigthe geare of ure crunning."
[§ 178]. The songs amongst the political verses printed by the Camden Society, the romance of Havelok the Dane,
William and the Werwolf, the Gestes of Alisaundre, King Horn, Ipomedon, and the King of Tars; and, amongst the longer works, Robert of Gloucester's Chronicle, and the poems of Robert of Bourn (Brunn), are (amongst others) Old English. Broadly speaking, the Old English may be said to begin with the reign of Henry III., and to end with that of Edward III.
In the Old English the following forms predominate.
1. A fuller inflection of the demonstrative pronoun, or definite article; þan, þenne, þære, þam;—in contradistinction to the Middle English.
2. The presence of the dative singular in -e; ende, smithe;—ditto.
3. The existence of a genitive plural in -r or -ra; heora, theirs; aller, of all;—ditto. This with substantives and adjectives is less common.
4. The substitution of heo for they, of heora for their, of hem for them;—in contradistinction to the later stages of English, and in contradistinction to old Lowland Scotch. (See Chapter III.)
5. A more frequent use of min and thin, for my and thy;—in contradistinction to middle and modern English.
6. The use of heo for she;—in contradistinction to middle and modern English and old Lowland Scotch.
7. The use of broader vowels; as in iclepud or iclepod (for icleped or yclept); geongost, youngest; ascode, asked; eldore, elder.
8. The use of the strong preterits (see the chapter on the tenses of verbs), where in the present English the weak form is found; wex, wop, dalf, for waxed, wept, delved.
9. The omission not only of the gerundial termination -enne, but also of the infinitive sign -en after to; to honte, to speke;—in contradistinction to Semi-Saxon.
10. The substitution of -en for -eþ or -eð in the first and second persons plural of verbs; we wollen, we will: heo schullen, they should;—ditto.
11. The comparative absence of the articles se and seo;—ditto.
12. The substitution of ben and beeth, for synd and syndon=we, ye, they are;—in contradistinction to Semi-Saxon.
[§ 179]. The degree to which the Anglo-Saxon was actually influenced by the Anglo-Norman has been noticed. The degree wherein the two languages came in contact is, plainly, another consideration. The first is the question, How far one of two languages influenced the other? The second asks, How far one of two languages had the opportunity of influencing the other? Concerning the extent to which the Anglo-Norman was used, I retail the following statements and quotations.
1. "Letters even of a private nature were written in Latin till the beginning of the reign of Edward I., soon after 1270, when a sudden change brought in the use of French."—Mr. Hallam, communicated by Mr. Stevenson (Literature of Europe, I. 52, and note).
2. Conversation between the Members of the Universities was ordered to be carried on either in Latin or French:—"Si qua inter se proferant, colloquio Latino vel saltem Gallico perfruantur."—Statutes of Oriel College, Oxford.—Hallam, ibid. from Warton.
3. "The Minutes of the Corporation of London, recorded in the Town Clerk's Office, were in French, as well as the Proceedings in Parliament, and in the Courts of Justice."—Ibid.
4. "In Grammar Schools, boys were made to construe their Latin into French,"—Ibid. "Pueri in scholis, contra morem cæterarum nationum, et Normannorum adventu, derelicto proprio vulgari, construere Gallice compelluntur. Item quod filii nobilium ab ipsis cunabulorum crepundiis ad Gallicum idioma informantur. Quibus profecto rurales homines assimulari volentes, ut per hoc spectabiliores videantur, Francigenari satagunt omni nisu."—Higden (Ed. Gale, p. 210).
That there was French in England before the battle of Hastings appears on the authority of Camden:—
"Herein is a notable argument of our ancestors' steadfastness in esteeming and retaining their own tongue. For, as before the Conquest, they misliked nothing more in King Edward the Confessor, than that he was Frenchified, and accounted the desire of a foreign language then to be a foretoken of the bringing in of foreign powers, which indeed happened."—Remains, p. 30.
[§ 180]. In Chaucer and Mandeville, and perhaps in all the writers of the reign of Edward III., we have a transition
from the Old to the Middle English. The last characteristic of a grammar different from that of the present English, is the plural form in -en; we tellen, ye tellen, they tellen. As this disappears, which it does in the reign of Queen Elizabeth (Spenser has it continually), the Middle English may be said to pass into the New or Modern English.
[§ 181]. The present tendencies of the English may be determined by observation; and as most of them will be noticed in the etymological part of this volume, the few here indicated must be looked upon as illustrations only.
1. The distinction between the subjunctive and indicative mood is likely to pass away. We verify this by the very general tendency to say if it is, and if he speaks, for if it be, and if he speak.
2. The distinction (as far as it goes) between the participle passive and the past tense is likely to pass away. We verify this by the tendency to say it is broke, and he is smote, for it is broken, and he is smitten.
3. Of the double forms, sung and sang, drank and drunk, &c. one only will be the permanent.
As stated above, these tendencies are a few out of a number, and have been adduced in order to indicate the subject rather than to exhaust it.
[§ 182]. What the present language of England would have been had the Norman Conquest never taken place, the analogy of Holland, Denmark, and of many other countries enables us to determine. It would have been much as it is at present. What it would have been had the Saxon conquest never taken place, is a question wherein there is far more speculation. Of France, of Italy, of Wallachia, and of the Spanish Peninsula, the analogies all point the same way. They indicate that the original Celtic would have been superseded by the Latin of the conquerors, and consequently that our language in its later stages would have been neither British nor Gaelic, but Roman. Upon these analogies, however, we may refine. Italy, was from the beginning, Roman; the Spanish Peninsula was invaded full early; no ocean divided Gaul from Rome; and the war against the ancestors of the Wallachians was a war of extermination.