Four

The Middle Ages

'Th M'

, e tddle Ages.' is a· . "

penod of Eu r h' ~ term used to desIgnate. and charactenze the

opean 'Isto b

Empire as a' ry etween the breakdown of the Roman

· Unitary area of ' 'liz .

sequence of events ~ d civi atlon and administration, and the

generally taken anh, cuJt~ral. changes known as the Renaissance and

., as te ,operung I f th '

han of this sort.' d ., p lase 0 .. e modern world. Periodiza-

l ' IS a escnpu '

tllan a precise d. . ve convemence for the historian rather

E recor of th f •

mpire and the' . .. e acts; the decline and faU' of the Roman

, : . revival of I .' . , ,

Ism, rehglOUs ref . earning, the rise of humanism and national-

h . lOrmatIon and th h

as c aracterizing and. " , e on er features collectively regarded

c.an be tQcated at par·t' colnShtu:mg the Renaissance are not events that

of lCU ar po ts i .

eVents of histor' 1 ' , In S In time; they summarize 3. multitude

ch ' lea slgntfican· d ~. .

anges of attitude a d f ce an , perhaps of more Importance,

and at d'a n a ways of b havi . 11

IHerent ti " e aVlOg, that took place gradua y

off th E mes In ddTere t I

Ie uropean situt·· n p aces, but together served to mark

a tered & a Ion after ther ..' " 1

. nom What had em as recogruzably and irreversib y

start Or h preceded A d

at al ,as t e finish of the M' • . ny. ate taken symbolically as the

'lI~~lteralIy. misleadin Jddle Ages must be arbitrary, and, if taken

Huddle' f g.

• ,0 course I

medlaeyal' , wou d have. ., .

that ~ penod; the term . no meanIng for anyone living m the

the b ~on~?ther achieve Spnngs from the sense of Renaissance men of intng t ~Wdization and hments,. they Were again linking hands with

· erverung d umanlsm f th I .

tion pe I arkness and b b ,0 e c assical era across the gulf

, op e of th ar arlSm I I hi ,

ness of d' e.first years f· ,n r IS sweeping generalize-

me laev I . 0 modern E

:tctivities d a tImes and U d uropeexaggerated the black .•

= an P d n ex-val d h

ro Ucts of the "l'd· ue .t.e cultural and intellectual JV I dIe A

ges, But a decline there un-

THB MIDDLB AGES 67

deubtedly was over a wide field of human life during the centuries immediately following the collapse of Rome.

The first six: centuries following the dissolution of the western Roman Empire are often distinguished, as the 'Dark Ages', from the later mediaeval period between about 1100 and the Renaissance, during which the flowering of mediaeval civilization recovered much of the ground lost in the turmoil of earlier years.>

During this time the Eastern Empire fared better. Though its territory was attacked from different sides and reduced in area, a continuity of Greek thought and learning coexisted with the spread of official Christianity, which gradually attained the status of the separate Eastern Church. No sharp break in organized life and civilization occurred such as was suffered by the west, and in matters of scholarship, Greek philosophy and Greek literature were never lost, although little of original merit was achieved outside theology, and the ancient Greek authors were subjects of continuous commentary and exegesis. Byzantine scholars wrote explications and notes 00 the work of Dionysius Thrax and of Apollonius Dyscolus, and research continued on the theory of grammatical cases (cp. p, 39, above).

The Roman Empire in the west, already under pressure .from barbarian invasions over the frontiers that had been nearly stable from Augustus (27 B,C.-A.D. 14) to Marcus Aurelius (161-80), failed to stand the strain, and its territory passed into the hands of various tri~es, mostly Germanic. In 410 Rome suffered the humiliation of being sacked by the Visigoths, and in 476 the last of the emperors in the west, poor Romulus Augustulus, was summarily deposed by a German mercenary, Odovacar, and Italy passed seventeen years later into the Ostrogothic kingdom under Theodoric.

The causes of the collapse of the empire of the • eternal city' have been the focus of earnest enquiry from the time when, with the sac~ of Rome in his memory, Augustine sought for a Christian interpretation of secular history in The city of God (Civitas Dei). Certainly from the end of the second century A.D. external pressures on the frontiers were more severe than hitherto, and certainly, too, one can point to grave weaknesses of character and wrong decisions on the part of those called upon to face those pressures, Civil fighting, invasions, and later wars between the Eastern Empire and the successora to the western emperors cumulatively caused an absolute fall in standards of life, securit~, and liberal civilization such as had been enjoyed in the first two cen~ries. of the Christian era. Two events may be thought symbolic: the fortifica bon

68

CHAPTBR FOUR

of Rome under AureIian ( ')

supp] .' 270-5, and the destruction of the aqueducts

ymg water to the city duri h . '

Justini , h" unng t e sixth century wars waged by

an In 'IS attempts t .

Roman E' 'Th 0 reconquer the former territory of the old

~. mprre, ese cal '

greater an f' armtous years were, probably, marked by no

amount a misdi ti h .

the pursu't f' ,Irec ion, S OTtslghtedness, and obstinacy in

flo,ured t'hle fio Itm}prlfactficab, le and ,undesirable end, s than that which dis-

C> e nrs 13' 0 the t ieth

cessors had t h wcn,_tIet century; but OUr unhappy prede-

no t e uncovena t d d

to r'epair the re It f n e. a vantages of modern technology

B " su s 0 wanton destruction.

, ut one must not 0 "

tribes had d V~~31nt the darkness. Many of the Germanic

a opted Chnstlanity and,' .

selves part of th R' 'I were, anxious to consider them-

e oman Em ' d '

acquired territ ' ' pire an indeed to defend their newly

ory agamst much m ib

first impelled th ore savage tri es, whose pressure had

.em across the ' , 1 f .

Western provin " , impcrra rontiers, The Latin of the

, . ces survived ever}' G ' ~

only a few lexical't, , .. errnamc Invader, whose speech left

1 ems In the m dR"

descendants of th ken ' . 0. ern, ornance languages that are the

Ie spo en Latll1 of th '

n the West m h f " _0, se regions.

, uc 0 claSSICal li t '

,Ctlnturies, the stud d 1 erature was Irreparably lost; for some

d y an even the k '1 d

uced, and in the Da k A now e ge of Greek was greatly re-

able Was in the f r ges ~uch of Greek philosophy that was avail-

di orm of LatIn t lati

sturbance of the j: rans ations of selected works. In the

de times and th 11

stan ards, the Ch'h . . e co apse of pagan authority and l' urc . grew In p ti . earning and ed ,', res Ige as a refuge and as a patron 0.1

ce UCatlOn posses' , '

ntrcs ~f secular powe:. The smg, in th,e P~pacy and bishoprics,

wa,s Chnstian literatu f ,mDst formative literature of the period

ph'I' re 0 vanous t '

, 1 ~SOphICal schools of A h ypes, and with the closure of the

Contlnu 'd' . t ens by Ju t" . ,

, C In both cast d S iruan m 529, such learning as

clencall' , an West was u d I"

Y msplred. n er c erical patronage and often

A great debt '

and 1 . IS OWed for the pre ., .'

S't' earnmg to the monast' senabon of a continuity of education

I res th ' enes abb h

d .' at were founded d " eys, c urches, and, later, univer-

aminated b . unng the carl M'ddJ .

cl"~', I. ' Y Christian ele ' y • , .l e Ages. In institutions

""Slca r t ' ncs pagan] ,

. I cratUte of ant' .' ltcrature, that is to say the

Instances f d . lqUlty Was b d

whi h 0 ehberate host'l' ' ' oun to be suspect and there are

c they 1 Ity to the ' '

Latin of h Wrot,e, as contrasted 'I se authors and the language in

, te V 1 wIt l the J' . ,

ell.ced l' I' u gate and of ch h ate,r, more nearly colloquial,

lee Ings f' urc usag AI' . .

at the 0 guilt at his t ,e.. ready Jerome had expert-

expense f h 00 great int " ' ,

declared hi ,0 oly sCripture a d peres, t, in CIcero and the classics

Is COnt ' ,n, . ope 'G

ernpt for the 1 . regory the Great (590-604)

ru ee of D '

onatlls In application to the

THE MIDDLE AGES

language of divine inspiration; a French abbot of the ninth century was careful to draw the examples he used in his lectures on grammar from the scriptures to avoid clerical displeasure.s But in a number of places of learning ancient literature continued to be studied, ancient manuscripts were copied and preserved, and grammatical theory was taught,

Latin remained the language of learning, and its authority was increased by its use as the language of patristic literature and of the services and the administration of the western (Roman) Church. This alone ensured the language a high place, and linguistic studies in the early years of the Middle Ages were largely represented by studies in Latin grammar. Mediaeval education was built on the foundation of the • Seven liberal arts'; grammar, dialectic (logic), and rhetoric formed the first part, or trivium, music, arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy the second part, or quadrivium. A jingle summarizes their functions:

Gram loquitur; dia vera docet; rhet verba colorat ; :\-1us canit; ar numerat; ge ponderat; ast colit astra. 4

The division into the trivium and quadrivium and these terms were the work of Boethius (c. A,D. 500), a Roman scholar and statesman, who among his many writings made a number of Latin translations from the works of Aristotle, which formed a good part of the restricted amount of Greek literature available in the west in the early Middle Ages.

Grammar was thus the foundation of mediaeval scholarship, both as a liberal art itself and asa necessity for reading and writing Latin correctly. All these studies were subordinate to theology, the study of the ~hristian faith and Christian doctrine; but as an example of the persistence of cultural themes, one can trace the organization of the se:e~ a,rts back into the classical period. Varro is known to. have written Ductplinae, an encyclopaedia on subjects of education, that included the seven arts, together with medicine and architecture. This was the m~del for Augustine's survey of the seven arts (in which he substituted philosophy for astronomyj.s and around the same time Martianus Capella (fifth century A,D.) wrote an account of the seven arts in the form of an allegory of the marriage of Mercury and Philologia, at which th~ seven bridesmaids were Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric, Geometry. Anthmetic, Astronomy, and Music. Capella's style has been found tedious, but the book became a standard school text. Cassiodorus, who Was one of those most responsible for organizing monastic life around the study and preservation of both classical and Christian literature.

70 CHAPTER POUR

also set out the seven liberal " •

(e, sso), arts In the course of his Institutione:

, Such was the context in which " , " .

the first cenrurj'e' fte, h " grammar was ,stu,dled,' and taught in

. ' s, a ter t e colla ~h

The work itself was' 'h ,", pse 01 r e w, estern Roman, Empire,

D ' ~n t e mam pm ti al d .'

onatus Were the' ," 1, ' . C ic .an nor,matlve; Priscian and

. pnncipa authorities . d hei h

zanon were little alt d' ,s an t eir teary and systemati-

ere , Further wri . k

commentaries and 'I . r wntmg too the form of numerous

g osses; m other field thi li ". .

supported by ety I . ' S 5 , inguistic scholarship was

k ' mo ogical and lex', ' ihical .

nown from the pen of I . d l~grap work such as IS well

Christianity has f ' s~ ore o~ Seville (seventh century).

I, . rrom Its earliest d b ,

re igion and rni . ' ays een conceived as a world

f ' issionary activity h . b' h Id .

o the work of the Chu . as een ne to be an Important part

. tween Christians d urch In most denominations. The contacts be-

linguistic work f an , n~n-Christia:ns from the beginning involved

hi , 0 a practical nann .d h '

• istory contribut d " ure"an I, ave through the course of

linguistic science e St Slfnlficantly to the growth and development of the Bible (the Vul ') erorne, responsible for the Latin translation of

th ' gate , devoted on f hi I .'

eory of translation' " e 0 setters to a discussion of the

than of word for ,Jdustlfymg a rendering of sense for sense rather

1 l' word, 6 Su h kn '

anguage comes to u f cn ki owledge as we have of the Gothic

ment into that Ian s .bv the translation of parts of the New Testa· bet in Use today 1:agRe y. Ulfilas in the fourth century; and the alpha-

desce d russian and h .,' . '

M ,n ant of one d,e' d' som" e ot er SlaVIC langua,ges 18 the

eth dO VIse . In th "

I, h 0 IUS of the Easte Ch ' e ninth century by St. Cyril and St,

a p abet f rn urch d Emni

Th or the Use of Ch' . ,an • mpire, who adapted the Greek

ough a good nshamzed Slavs.

out the" , amOUnt of Latin t bin"

c ... ..!- • penod of Rome's eae g must have gone on through-

.u~t1an ' . . ascendancy r tl . "

chu h • . nuss10nary wo k • It e 15 known of the methods.

, rc es In f' r and the £ di d

teachi ,Orelgn lands ,oun mg of monasteries an,

ng of L . gave a new . ,. .

Church . atin grammar d Impetus and inspiratron to the

gave in Christianized E ,an the status enjoyed by the Roman

, equally . urope db' .

In Eo 'I • a deSIre to be tau han, y Latin, Its official language,

and e' g and Bede and Al . g t,

, Igh.th cent . cum wrote

Latin is Aelf . ~rtes. An exampl f grammars of Latin in the seventh

book.), and' ~:~lC S Latl'n g'ra"'m e oi a specifically didactic grammar of

, <llS L . ". ar and C llo .

tre composed attn·Old English 'I oqumm (Latin conversation

Angl~Sll;!ton) ~ound 1000 for E g ~ssary that accompanied it. These a practical rn • elfric Was abb ng sh children speaking Old English

anual add ot of Eynsha ' . '

ressed to sch lb m Ul Oxfordshire; he wrote

00 oys, and he based his pre$Crjp~

TaE MIDDLE AGES 71

tion on the works of Priscian and Donatus, Rather significantly, he told his readers that his book would be equally suitable as an introduction to (Old) English grammar." Though he was aware of differences between the two languages, as in the matter of gender distribution between lexically equivalent nouns and the lack of exact correspondence between their two case systems,8 he did not question or discuss the applicability of the Priscianic system to Old English, and as his was one of the first known grammars specifically directed at English-speaking learners, it may be taken as setting the seal on several centuries of

Latin-inspired English grammar.

After the conversion of Ireland in the fifth century, Latin scholarship

flourished to an important extent during the first millennium in centres of learning founded by the Church. Until the Scandinavian invasions of the ninth century, Ireland was in the forefront of Christian civilization, and Irish churchmen played an important part in the spread of Christianity and Hteracyon the continent of Europe. Latin grammar was studied in Ireland through the works of Donatus, Priscian, and Isidore, and this linguistic learning merged with the native bardic tradition to produce the grammatical and poetic teaching of the mediaeval bardic tracts, which indeed continued down to the seventeenth century. The t~cllllical terminology of Irish linguistic scholarship shows a combina.tion of borrowing and adaptation of Latin terms with a parallel development of technical terms from native Irish words; this latter component included terminology devised to cover the features of the initial mutations, of great importance in the phonology and grammar of the Celtic languages, but not found in Latin (or elsewhere in Indo-europea~). A ninth-century manuscript of glosses on Priscian shows the partial assimilation of his terminology and descriptions into the Irish language; and the Auraicept na n-Eces (the poets', or scholars', primer) parts of which probably go back to the seventh century, also exemplifies the mingling in Ireland of the Latin and the native linguistic traditions; this work was studied down to the eleventh and twelfth centuries. 9

In the history of linguistic science, the second part of the Middle Ages, from around 1100 to the close of the period, is the more .significant. This was the period of scholastic philosophy, in which linguistiC stu~es had an important place and in which a very considerable amount of linguistic work was carried on. This same era is also marked by the flowering of mediaeval architecture (the so-called • Gothic') and literature, and the founding of several of the earliest universities of Europe.

CHAPTBR FOUR

THE MIDDLE AGES

The movements of wh le popula '

dane f h . . 0 e popu nons had now ceased, and the asc, en-

y 0 tt e Roman Ch h h .

D .. urc • strengt ened by the foundation of the

ommlCan and Fr . 0 ders . --

d .' , - anClscan rers, provided a central authority which esplte controv,ersies and ," ,. , ' I

act:V1'tloe. .., . antagorusms, umtedall men's cultural

• s as part of the . f G

Pursuits t th service o od, and subordinated all intellectual

. ' '0, e study of the faith.

HItherto linguistic k h d - . ,.

aims and 1 1 . w~r . a. been almost wholly paedagogical In Its

of L ti . arge y denvatIve 10 Its doctrine. being applied to the teaching

a in In accordance . h h .,. -

Such purel did ' WIt t e compilations of Donatus and Priscian,

Several m nual acne work went on throughout the scholastic period,

anus of Latin " .

the student ' grammar were published m verse, as an aid to

s memory 0 h i h - .

dieu.w-: . ne sue IS t ' e Doctrinale of Alexander of Vllle·

, Wntten about 12 d " ,. .

hexameters. 10 I 00, an runmng to 2645 lines of rather barbarous

this manual t ,;ould seem that the Latin taught in the schools where

. Was 10 use was n h L" di al

ImIJuQ fro"'C f d' ,earer t e , atm servmg as the me iaev

.:. J''' a 0 e ucated I'D h

who had served Pri ole t an the language of the classical authors

Th .. nscran as his materia1

e Doetnnale is eeverel ,'. .

prescribed textb k y practIcal, and It remained a popular and

schools long aft 00 dthroughout the mediaeval period, a,nd in some.

erwar s th h i -

mediaeval gramm f' oug 10 general it fell into the disfavour that

of t~e Renaissanc;rllo all sorts encountered in the renewed classicism Lmgu' ,

. lShc deSCriptions of h.,. '

penod, senring the ed," ot er languages appeared dunng this

standards. Irish W nk ~ ofhteracy", popular literature, and educational

. or III this fi Id

grammar is known f ,e has been noticed above; a Welsh

to g b rom the thirt h '.' id

o ack to the t h eent century and Its source IS Sal

One. ent .. U - -'

of the most st ·1.!_

was the F,- n~lIlg examples . f . al .. ' d

h - trst grammat' I ' 0, pracnc work in this perlO

t e twelfth. tea treattse b f

d century wh h ,y an unknown Icelandic scholar 0

ence of h ,0 s Owed a .k· 0" ,

. , t ought. The t . remar able originality and mdepen-

POSItion it 0 ext takes its h 0 "

co 1 occupied in th o. rat er Illappropnate title from the

nse.quenc ' °d e ongtnaI m' .

in f •. e 1. entified si 1 . anuscnp, t, and the author is JIl

act prl"' rnp Y as the 'lr

an alph' , b marl y inter,ested . l' irst Grammari.an '.13 He' was,

a et d . in spe hng r £: ' '" f

Iceland' 1- enved from th 'L' e, orm, In irnprovmg the use e

IC angu e . atlQ aI h b ' .

Latin... _age of his da l:CT P .lI. et for the wnnng of th,. e

",ranun . y. ne W .-

treatment or3.l'1ans, notably in th as well versed in the work of the

of the prin .olrth?graphic prohl e Work of Donatus; but it is in his

Clp es 1m li o. ems that he di 1 '

Such a, was _ . P Cit In pho I' sp ayed an understanding

rare In Uri no oglca1 a1 •

S period of the his an YSI,S an~ ~ its applicati?n

tory of hngulstlCS. Besides this,

his observations on the pronunciation of the language, which are in themselves valuable evidence for this stage of Icelandic, show him to have been a phonetician beyond the rank of any known European

contemporary, .

His short text points to the inadequacies of the existing lcetan~~c alphabet then in use, and, some eight hundred years in advance, anncrpates several parts of Prague phonological theory (p. 205. below) and the exploitation of the phoneme concept to a remarkable extent. The Icelandic of his time maintained the potentiality of thirty-six distinctive vowel segments, nine vocalic qualities each of which could be long or short, nasalized or non-nasalized, He was able to order the nine qualities, along the dimension open-close in reference to the values assigned to the Latin vowel letters 0, e, i, 0 and u; and by marking length and nasality with diacritics (a superscript accent mark and dot, respectively) and leaving their absence unmarked, he kept graphically distinct the thirty-six vowels by the use of just eleven symbols, nine letters and two diacritics. These were required if the orthography was to give an adequate indication of the contrastive pronunciations.

Several consonants occurred as long or geminate in contrast with their short or single counterparts. He suggested writing the long consonants with a capital letter; thus n represents [n], and N represents [nn], Conversely, he pointed out that phonetic differenoes that were dependent on their environment need not be marked separately; so the pronunciations [(I] and [0], at the time both allophones of 19/, were assigned the single letter p, and the velar nasal [I)], an allophone of In/. could be unambiguously indicated in the letter sequence ng.I4

In addition to his advanced phonological theory, his discovery and demonstration procedures were quite modern. Phonemic distinctions Were ascertained by controlled variation of a single segment in a constant frame, along such ordered series of words as sdr, sQr, ser, str, SOT, sci~,sUr, .yr, and they were illustrated by sets of minimally different: paIrS of words whose difference in meaning depended on the difference ?fa single letter (one phoneme). The pairs are glossed b}l being worked mto sentences, some of them revealing a, racy sense of humour;

Eigi eru ..,1 pL at einu Not all ales are alike;

MjQk eru peir menn framer, er eigi skammask at taka mlna konu

jra mb. - .

Those men are brazen, who are not ashamed to take my wifeJrom me.

73

74

CHAPTER FOUR

(The examples are given in the usual Old Norse spelJings; only the examples being contrasted are written in the First Grammarian's reformed orthography.)

, Whether in his theoretical exposition, his practical applications, or ~n the style in which he met imagined objections, the First Grammarian IS a pleasure to read. Yet the fate of his Treatise is a sad one. ShortIy ~ter the twelfth century Iceland fared ill, through climatic changes and dlsease, and became much more sundered from European life and learning. The text remained unpublished until 1818, and after that it Was largely unknown outside Scandinavia. Much of the ground it had covered so well was gone over again in the modern era by scholars who were the~ considered to be pioneers. One must not only have something worthwlule to say, if one is to have an assured place in history; one must also have an adequate cultural situation for it to become known and appreciated.

B,Y far the most interesting and significant development in linguistics dun~g the Middle Ages is the output of 'speculative grammars' or treatises De modis signijicandi (' on the modes of signifying ') from a number of writers during the high period of scholastic philosophy (c. 1200-13-50) S e I' - , ts

- _. . P cu at! ve grammar went far beyond the reqUlremen

of th t h'. -

. e ~c 109 of Latin, and the writings in which it was expounded

eXisted side by . . d .' h . '

I -. 51 e Wit standard teaching manuals such as the Doctn-

na e of Alexander of Villedieu.

Speculati ve· gram..... . d fi ' ." , (" -"

h mar IS a e nrte and distinct stage in . mguIStlC t eory,and the d'$ h ' ._

11, d - - ,I erent aut, ors, or Modistae, as they arc sometllnes

ca e ,_r,epresent s bsr ,. II - - . d

sh - .h u stantla, y the same theoretical point of view, an

are te same can . r n - d '

plae - cepuon 0 hnguistic science its objectives, an _ us

- e among othe' U . I J

detail f r inte ectual studies, There are of course, numerous

s 0 presentati ' hi , 11

study .. d - , o~ m w ich they differ, as may be expected; a fu

an - appreciation f till ' _ .

proper not' f o. s penod of linguistics would reqUIre

Ice o. these dift '., f h

subiect atte' _ erences, but in a historical survey 0 t e

~ -- ntton may b h

theory that _ e concentrated on the broad outlines of t e

was shared b all -

Speculath... _ Y those working within it.

" grammar w th . . h

grarnrnatkal. de ,. .as t e product of the integration of t e " . . SCtlptton of L·· "d uonatus into th ann as formulated by Priscian an .

,. e system of seh 'I . hi , " . If

was the result f h . . . 0 ashe p ,losophy. Scholasticism itse

hOt e tnte' .

ands of Such thinkers grahon of Aristotelian philosophy, at the

Scholasticism Was a as St. Thomas Aquinas, into Catholic theology. the Christian faith rSYhstern of thought reinforced by and reinforcing

o t e day h' h . f

,w ic - could serve to unify within itsel

THE MIDDLE AGES

7S

- f h 1 arning and in which the

all branches and departments 0 urnan . e .

claims of reason and of revelation could be harmonized, Probably not before and certainly never since has the fabric of knowledge been so undivided at its heart,

The rise and growth of scholastic philosophy came about from a number of historical factors, apart from the emergence of men of first rate intellectual abilities and devotion. The greater tranquillity and settledness of the later Middle Ages have been mentioned. In addition, a knowledge of the Greek language, of Greek writers, and, above all, of Greek philosophy as set out by Aristotle became more readily available to the west from around the twelfth century. This increase of knowledge came from opposite ends of the Mediterranean wor~d: The Crusades, though reflecting little credit on the western participants, resulted in more direct contacts between the Roman Church and the Eastern Empire, and the capture of Constantinople in I 204 stimulat~d interest in the Greek sources of Aristotelian philosophy (known earlier from Latin translations), and released a number of Greek manuscripts to the west. By the fourteenth century Greek was being regularly taught in a number of European universities, From Spain a considerable amount of Greek philosophical writing was reintroduced into the rest of western Europe through Arabic and Jewish translations and commentaries, During the Arab occupation of Spain, Toledo in particular was a centre of the translation of Arabic versions of Aristotle into Latin. Se .... eral of the scholastics knew and studied Aristotelian philosophy through Latin translations rather than in the original Greek, and the commentaries by Arabic scholars, of whom Averroes and Avicenna are the best known, contributed to their interpretation.

Earlier Christian philosophers had laid more weight on Plato and Platonic thought than on Aristotle, partly because Platonic theory was m?rc readily evailable through the writings of the Neo-Platonists of .the thIrd century and after. The works of Aristotle were not accepted WIthout a struggle in all seats of learning, but the teaching of St. Thomas Was decisive in making him the dominant philosopher in mediaeval Christian thought.

In the context of scholasticism, the mere description of Latin, as laid down by Priscian and Donatus, was considered inadequate, however useful it might be paedagogically. Commentators had a1rea~y begun to go further than straightforward elucidation and exegesls, and the view Was now expressed that Priscian had not delved deeply enough into his subject in merely describing the language, but should

CHAPl'BRFOUR

have investigated the underlying theory and the justification for the elements and categories that he employed. William of Conches (twelfth centtlry) complained that he had neglected to deal with the causal basis of the various parts of speech and their accidents.' 5 Same of the charges against Priscian and the other Latin grammarians show an interesting resemblance to the charges of neglecting explanatory adequacy of theory in favour of mere observational adequacy of data recording, that are made today by generative grammarians against their more purdy descriptive predecessors associated with Bloomfield and the dominant trends in linguistic work during the second quarter of the present century. From the twelfth century on, they provided the impetus that led to speculative grammar and to a theory of language ~et within the philosophy of the times. There was, too, a marked Increase in the volume of grammatical research and study that was

carried on.16 -

In the middle of the twelfth century Peter Helias wrote a commentary on Priscian in which he sought philosophical explanations for the rules ?f grammar laid down by him. The examination of Peter Helias's work In relation to a number of commentators preceding him suggests that he Was not so m h a ni , , f Ioai ~ Ii u'!StI' C

. .~. uc a pioneer In the application 0 ogle to uig

~~le5.tJ.on"S, but rather one of the first grammarians to bring some systematIZation Into e li ~ th .' h Ie

f ' ,~ ar ier ra er unordered statements. 17 Thereafter t e r. 0

o the phdoso h . th .

~ . p er In grammar was considered a major one; the soreu-

cal basIS of gramma di . , hoot

b r, as stmct from its mere exposition to sc -

oys, Was the philoso·I' . . . but

t; ." ,. P ier s provmce: • I t is not the grammarian

t ie philosopher wh fib'

di . 0, care u Iy considering the specific nature of t lfigs,

seovers grarnrnar '. • A . . . ..'

ignorant fl. . ' S IS the fool to the wise man, so IS a grammanan

F o. ogic m one skilled in IOgIC'.18

[Om thIS attitude . d

lying universal r conSIstently arose the conception of an un .cr-

thereafter E I' g aInmar, a recurrent quest of theoretical Iingu.,st

" ar ler gra- .' .' I'

They had ~ mmanans had not made universalistic Calms·

no need to' th ' " ~ - d

then to Gr'eek and La'. elflDt'ere.st was confined first to Greek an .

of classes and. . .tln, two languages not ill served by the same set - '1 categanes in t'- ~ 1\/f'ddl . -1 '

rea, y nt1:es.<;.~ ..... > hol ; , ne 1"11 e Ages Latin remained the on ~

kn I' d -~;T sc olars langua d . . " 's

Q"'~c ge of Creek; . ge, espite the later Increase in men

Bacon, who hi If and some study of Ar-abic and Hebrew. Roger

earl' mse wrote a ~ th

lest speculative (Tro,_ . grammar of Greek as, wellas one of e

!1.tudving A -!..' to" ... ·'mars and wh . . d . of

. • n.r.tUIC and U b .' . 0 mSlSt. e on the Importance

the sam . ne rew Could d I d·

e In aU langua .. ~ eciare that grammar was one an

ges tn Its subst . . -

anee, and that surface ddferences

TUB MIDDLE AGES

77

between them are merely accidental vanations.19 The unity of gram· mar, realized with superficial differences in different languag~s, was also compared to the unity of geometry irrespective of the dlfferent

shapes and sizes of any actual diagrams.1o

During the scholastic period certain linguistic topics were discussed hy writers whose main concern was not linguistic science in the na:rrower sense. An important distinction was madeexplicit in semantics, subsequently to be treated under a number of different terms but always maintained as essential in some form. In the thirteenth century, Petrus Hispanus, later to be Pope John XXI, in the course of his Summulae logicalesrefemd to the difference between significatio and suppositi6 as separate but related semantic properties of words.21 Signifiditiii may be translated as the meaning of a word, and was defined as the relation between the sign or word and what it signified. By virtue of this meaning relation, a given sign may act as a substitute for, or be accepted in place of, a given thing" person, event, etc., or a set of such things; with nouns this is the relation of suppositio. Thus because homo, man, means 'man', homo or man may stand for (supponere) Socrates, Guy Fawkes, or Harold Wilson. Significatio is prior to suppositio, and when the sicnijicdtimres 01' meanings of more than one word are brought together in constructions their suppositi6 may be restricted by this. Thus ,homO albus, white man, can only be accepted for men who are white, not for dark-skinned men nor for white existents other than men. This b~ic distinction comes up repeatedly) in somewhat different forms and \nth different interpretations, in such binary oppositions as meaning

nd reference, connotation and denotation, and intension and extension. , Some logicians and grammarians made a further distinction, invol\'lng ~e opposit1on of form and matter, that of formal supposition and tnatena:l supposition. In its formal supposition a word stands for or is :~~ted far a thing, person, etc., ~n what ~ater logic~a~s call object ...... cuage or first order language; m material sopposinon the word

lands for its 1£ '

1 e • 10 a metalanguage or second order language. These

two types. of supposition are exemplified in Peter is the Pope and • Peter' is a name.

This sam di . b

, . e lstmctlOn etween form and matter recurs at various

pomts 10 modist' ula '. . T .

ie spec nve grammar. he difference between vox,

:n:, ~d~ictiQ, word, treated by Priscian and, in fact, going back to

. tOlCS, IS expressed thus by Michel de Marbais (thirteenth cen-

tury)- • A . d'. . . -

: wore includes 10 itself its sound as it were its matter and its

meanmg as its fonn',n .~ ~

CHAPTER FOUR

Mediaeval modistic linguistics concentrated on grammar; the fact that Latin. w~ everywhere learned as a second language, and pronounced WIth 'an accent' depending on the first language of the indivi-

dual and his cornmuna . h ,. . ' ,

f '. . .. . unr y, may ave been partly responsible for their lack

~' mter,e~t In phonetic detail. The modistae excluded pronunciation Irom thea field, but some writers of the period mention certain features of ~ediaeval Latin wherein it had changed from the standards of the

classical grammarians d b f' d d '

, ,an anum er 0 In epen ent treatises on

phonet.l~s are known: In etymology the Middle Ages produced similar absurditles to those all too well known from antiquity.

The the_ory of the speculative grammarians involves a good deal of new technical terminology, and in detail its exposition is a formidable ~ask. In. essence, the ?rammar of Priscian and Donatus was presented as. an accurate :eflectron of the constitution of reality and the powers ?f .the human mind, on which it depended. Considering their universal-

IStIC pretensions it is k bI h ' . .

I I rernar at e ow the rnodistae preserved intact

almost aU the detail f P' " .

. , • I S a nSC13n s Latin morphology, down to sub-

dIVIsions of word cl . bvi , .

L ' asses qurte 0 viously havmg reference onJy to

atm (for exampJe the b J ifi • .,- su c assi cation of proper nouns Into PTaeTlO-

mtna, forenames coo • " ,

II .' bllomma, surnames, and agnomina personal titles,

a, categorIes strictl r . d . . ' , .

, y mute to Latin onomasticsj.sa In deahng with

\ erbal tenses no attempt d . . , . ,

h ina, .. was rna e to go desc.npuvely beyond Priscian s

rat er madequate f lati

, ,. ormu anon or to take Varronian or Stoic theory

mtoaccount In the '

, .' "".' se respects a certain naivety appears in the UIl-

questIoned descnptive b ' f h . . .

, d ] aSIS or w at IS otherwise a logically thouaht-

out an LDternaUy cohe .t ". . e

a te t' . ren system of philosophical grammar. It is also

Simony to the pl d . '

linguistic thought. ace an mfl.uence of Priscian in mediaeval

In the modistic system thi '. .

or modes of b in '( .' ngs possess as existents varIOUS propertles

active modes o;mg d mod, ~~endi). The mind apprehends these by the correspond th un e~stan ing (modi intelligendi activi), to w hich there

e passive modes of u d di

passivi), the qualities of thin ' n erstan mg (modi inteJligendi

age the mind c ~.. . ga as apprehended by the mind, In langu-

oruers meanmgs 0 I

become words (diet'- •. ) n voca sou. rids ('V.'oces), whereby they

. ,f: tone« , and the active . iod f si .

slgfUj.candi activi)' . rnooes 0 sIgmficatIon (modi

( • _ ._, ,In virtue of which'h b

partes oratron.!s) ~'J1Jd . if. t ey e,come parts of speech

,,, SIgn Y th aJ' . .

are now represented b h e qu mes .of things; these qualities

. . ' Y t e pas' d .

ngni./icandf Passivi) the qual't' sI:e rno es of sl.gnification (tfUJdi

Ttl ies of thin "fi

Wo modi essendi th . . gs as Slgnl ed by words at were found in aU th.i d' '

ngs an under1ay our

THE MIDDLE AGES

79

entire apperception of the world and the constitution o~ our l~~age were the modus entis, the property of permanence or persistence in tune whereby things may be recognized as things, and the modus es:e, the property of change and succession (also caUed the modus fluxus. the modUs fiefi, and the modus motUs) , whereby persistent things may be recognized as undergoing changes or other processes that involve tem-

poral succesaion.s» .

One may represent the system diagrammatically:

modi essendi

modi intelligendt actioi modi intelligendi passivi

modi significandi activi modi significandi passivi.

Again with reference to the distinction between form and matter, the modi essendi, the modi inteUigendi passiivi, and the modi significandi passivi differ formally. since they are on different levels, ,but the~ are the same materially, in that they all relate to the properties ofthings, as they are, as they are understood in the mind, and as they are expressed in language. 25

The modi significandi are the key terms in thesystern. Ev~ry part .of speech, or class of words, is distinguished by its representlfl.g reality through a particular mode or from some particular point of VIC:V; ~nd every category applicable to any word class is itself a mode contnbutmg its own semantic component .. This system of description and th~ theory iying behind it may be illustrated and oompared with the DlOnysIan and Priscianic systems by setting out the modistic definitions of the eight Priscianic word classes of Latin, as they were given by Thomas of Erfurt, the author of a De modis significandi sive grammatica speculatioa (c. 1350), once attributed to Duns ScotuS:16

niimen: a. patt of speech signifying by means of the mode. of ~n existent or of something with distinctive characteristics (this IS said to be the equivalent of Priscian's definition involving substance and quality). The mode of an. existent is the mode of stability and permanence. ~ 7

·t:erbum: a part of speech signifying through the mode of temporal process, detached from the substance (of which it is predicated).zs

participium: a part of speech signifying thtough the mode of temporal process, not separated from the substance (of which it is predicated).29

pron6men: a part of speech signifying through the mode of an

CH.\PTiER FOUR

THE MIDDLE AGES

8J

existent, without distinctivecbaracteristics. The mode of existing without distinctive ,characteristics comes from the property or mode of being of primal matter (ep, pp. 37 and 58 above),30

The remaifling, indeclinable, parts of speech were said to have fewer 'modi ng,nijic4ndf. involved with them and to be derived from fewer properties in things. An earlier modista, Michel de Marbais, had rather loo~e.]y compared them with the syncategorematic terms of the loglclans,ll

aduerbium, a part of speech signifying by the mode of being constructed with another part of speech that signifies through the mode of temporal process, H and further qualifying that mode but without other syntactic relationships.vt

cou-iuncti6: a part of speech signifying through the mode of joining two other terms. J+

p.raepositio; a part: of speech signifying through the mode of syntactic construction with a case inflected word. linking and relating it to an action. 35

interiectia, a part of speech signifying through the moue of qualifying a verb or a participle, and indicating a feeling Dr an emotion,)6 The speciflcassociation of the interjection with verbs and participles seems to spring from its earlier inclusion in the adverb class by the Greek grammarians. Other modistae, such as Siger de Courtrai, did not restrict it in this way, and this accords more with Prisdan's definition (p. 58, above) and with Latin usage,37

It is apparent that the fonnal aspects of earlier definitions have been replaced by the ascription of specific meaning categories, some of them shar:d by more than one word class; but each class is defined by a particular mode of signifying that distinguishes it from alI the others. The dedinable (inflected) word classes are defined by reference to the catego~es of scholastic philosophy, ultimately referable to Aristotle's

categones of being' but' . I·' tho . 1 . d •. hi

, IR app ymg JS terrnino ogy to the rn eCdna e

word dasses the disi d . . ,

, ' rno istae treate modus stgnificandi almost as the

eqUIvalent of synta ti f·· . Wh'! ' .

. . .' C IC . uncnon, 1 e class meamngs ar,e morereadily

(If often roughly) asc 'b b1 t d " .' ,

, '. n a, . e 0 nouns an verbs, It IS much Jess easy to

do this for those classes of" d all fi . ., . .

, .. ' . . \."\or s norm y ound m subordinate POSI-

nons within syntactic I ( ..

. cornp exes as were the Latin umnflected words)

unless meaning is verv . h·' d' '

I . ry . mue WJ ened to include formal syntactic

~e at~on~. as the Firthians do explicirfv and the d' did b

JmpllcatlOn. H - mo istae 1 y

The scholastic interpretation of Aristotelian doctrine is apparent throughout modistic grammar. Priscian's grammatical description of Latin was readily adaptable to this, since Aristotelian influence ,:as strongly felt in its source, the system set out in Thrax's Tichni. D.efi?1n,g categories were designated modi signijicandi essentitiies, and Pnscla~ s accidentia became modi significandi accidentali!, covering such categones as case and tense, The definition of the pronoun shows how ~he descriptive observations of Apollonius and Priscian _were mad; to_l~~k this class of words with the representation of the pht1osophers mdterta prima.

Although modistic theory was primarily focused on what one ~i~ht call the morphosemantics of Priscian's Latin grammar, the ascnptron of a distinct and definite category of meaning to each formal differe~ce exhibited by Classes of words. it was in syntax that the speculative grammarians made the greatest innovations and the most significant developments. A number of the fundamental concepts of later syntacttc theory can be assigned to this period of linguistic science, A thirteenthcentury writer corrected the previous concentration on morphology by declaring that grammar is above all concerned with syntax; and It may be aid that in the mediaeval speculative grammars there appeared for the first time in Europe since the Stoics, whose work on syntax can only be tentatively reconstructed. a definite and explicit theory of

entence srructure.w Indeed. not only the theoretical rnodistae but 11.ls.o the writers of the later mediaeval practical manuals and teaching grammars such as the Doctrinale of Alexander of ViUedieu, made use of terms and concepts beyond those found in Donatus and Priscian, in particular that of government (regimen), in dealing with the syntax. of nominal case forms.

Thomas of Erfurt's treatment of syntax may be briefly summarized

as anexample of modistic theory. 40 •

An acceptable sentence (sermo congruus et perfectus) arises from four principles, comparableto the four Aristotelian causes:

material, the words as members of grammatical classes {construetihilia),

formal, their union in various constructions.

efficient, the grammatical relations between different parts of speech expressed in the inflexional forms {modi sigrEifican~i), ~hat are required by the construction and imposed by the speaker s mind, final, the expression of a complete thought."!

82

THE MIDDLE AGES 83

CHAPTER POUR

~cceptability required three dl . - .

Involved must be s h con, mons to besattsfied: the word classes

d uc as to constitute a .

an verb), the words . ." syntactic construction (e.g. noun

(m di si .. must exhibit approp· . t . fI . I

o ~ Stg71ificand- . 'J __. nate In exiona categories

, . l aCCt. entales) and 1:1:1 d indi .

must be collocable (in h ~.. ... e wor s as In ividual lexical items

collocationally a ,t. e Firthian sense.), Ca:plfJa n£ora. black cap is

ppropnate (p .). 'r b ,... ,

cap, though grammaf 11 roprta, but *'cappa categorica, ·categorical

p 110 .) • ica y congruent ( 0 )"

roprta smce it involves . c ngrua , IS Inappropriate (im-

and seven centuries b rall unacceptable collocation. A century earlier

'l J erore pseudo .,. . ,

JOl1l were made f ., .. -sentences like *'szncenty admires

th amous In dISCUS '

e unacceptability of Ill' SIan, a grammarian had pointed out

d ' , ' apls a t fil' .

esplte Its formal c rna t tum, il<the stone loves the boy

. d. orrectness U'.· , . I 10 ep.endently India I' . ,several ce.n. tunes. before that and quite

(p b ' Jan mgUlsts had f, I ' " .

. 145,elow). ormu ated the same distinction

The construction of

menta!' noun and verb (c 1.fIn' ._)

, as In earlier ' omr~ntlO was taken as funds-

and 1>' . syntactIc descri .

f a, '/Jontum (subject and ,nptlOns, and the terms suppositum

UnctlOns of the two predIcate) were used to denote the syntactic

~sseintiiiles of the noun ~~~SthOf the basic sentence; the modi significan:di

IVe y) ar ' . e verb (mod' d

e Involved in th ' . us entts an modus esse respect-

terms s ,.,,' e mterrelatio f bi '

d . uciPoSitum and aplh '. . ns 0 su ject and predicate, The

an praed' - .r0sltum were of

di ,. lcatum of the I " ,course, related to the subiectum

lShnct. Oglclans, but th '

Oh. , . ey were, very properly, kept

t er Co

. nst mr.tion .

oPPOs£tmll, and' s were related eitl . '

mns well the analysis of S- _ ter to the s.upposttum or to the

, comp' ,oerates albus ' . b

appositu ( ,nses a maJ'or t cU,rru ,erle, white Socrates

m C1ITTU) • s ructuIe of ,h' --

head but ' WIth one sub di suppositum (Socrates) and

, . only med' Or mate elerne t 1

analytical . lately to th n re ated directly to each

. model a '., e rest of th .'

type, nhClpatory of th e sentence, introducing an

Earlier the e mOre formal immediate constituent

h orv had di ,

t e ,'erb.object-(ob' ISttnguished the .

and appositul1l Or hque case)constru .subJect-verb construction and

'I'h • ally Co cuons but h

e modistae Went f ,mparahle synta " te terms suppositum

of de"" d nrthe . ctrc terms h d . .

r.n cnce and th r,3nd anal d ., a" not been used.

part of ' e term' yse syntact' I

'., 3. construct' Ination (sat" f' ,Ie re ations in terms

satJsfvi' ton stand . IS actIOn) f d

J'ng Us depend ,s to another' 0 a cpendence:' One

dependent t, .' cnC:e 43. W' h either as dep d' .

lh r ,0 terrnll1ant " . It various '. en mg on It or as

e rollowm g: \\ as \Ised t su bdi VIsions th I' f

. 0 charact . ,e reianon 0'

Cttze COnstructions such as

Terminant

noun in nominative case (suppositum)

noun in oblique case (object)

Dependent

verb (appositum)

Socrates currit

legit libnlm

verb

noun

Socrates albus

adjective (nomen adiectit-'Um) adverb

verb

currit bene

noun

noun in genitive case

filius S6cratis.4+

It will be seen that this relation does not coincide with the relation oj dependent to head in modern syntax (cp.especially the last example), nor with any single syntactic relation. Its main importance lies in the recognition of syntactic relations in sentence structures other than the surface relations of inflexional concord.

The relation of government (rection) between one word and another had already been identified by the time of Peter Helias,4S who used regere, to govern, in denoting the relation of prepositions to oblique case nouns- as weU as the types of relation exemplified above in so far as case forms were involved. He is said to have defined this relation as 'causing a word to be put in the particular case in which it is put'. 46 Thomas of Erfurt did not use regere or morphologically associated words as technical terms; but in the sense in which government is mostly used today in the description of languages like Latin, in reference to the relation of prepositions to certain oblique case forms, he used the verb deservire, to be subject to, an interesting example of two metaphors drawn from words of opposite literal meanings to bear precisely the same technical sense," Regere and regimen were used by some modistae as wen as by

Alexander of Villedieu.

Dependency and its termination are also used to distinguish subordi-

nate clauses and constructions from independent or main constructions, Si Socratis cuTt'it, if Socrates runs, is dependent, because the reader or hearer expects more before he accepts the sentence as complete, or the

dependency terminated.48

Transitive and intransitive as categories of syntactic constructions

make their appearance in modistic syntax, The terms were not used in the same sense in which they had been used of verbs by Priscian (following the terminology of Apollonius. p. 37, above), and in which

CfJAPTE~ .fOUR

they are used today but her

bet\,:een them Tl ' di rat er a general connection can be traced

constructiiJ ;, t' . ~e. mo istae apply the terms constructid transition and

. l ({lImil'Va to cert " .. ' Iati

components I a.1n sy.ntactlc re ations between sentence

, ' , or 'e ements of. . . '

dIfferent clas f ' sentence structure, that involve several

, " scs 0 words, In i-verb " -, -

legu librutn S " a noun-ver-noun sentence like Socrates

, oci ates reads a book th I'

(suPpo~'itllm)' a d I· , e re anon between the first noun

n t ie verb (arp,,, 'tu: '

the relation bet ' J "OSI UIII) IS a constructiii intrallsiti1!,a, as is

. ",een t le no d ·h ' .

currit Socr"t un an t e verb !11 a sentence like Sorra/c)

, ... es runs' and t1 I'

cOllStrlle/io ITa1 ,_' ie re ation between legit and lilmnn is a

lSltlva, the verb 1 . d' ,

whole structure "th d ega, rea s, acnng as the pivot of the

, "\ I ,ependcnc . h

same distinct' . e on eac noun (p. 83, above), The

S- Ion IS made bet " di . .

ocr, atrs albus whi S I: ween a Je,c(J\'e and noun In concord,

I' ,He ocrates ..'- . , ' .

C udmg adjective) " .' a construcns mtransitica, and noun (m-

; ./. and an oblIque' c I-I' 5'-' ~

sttm ts Socrali lik S . ase, . ,l"lllS , ocratts, son of Socrates,

disr] ,e ocrates canst '--

Istmctioll is that i " . ' '. ructuines transitiuae. The basis of the

'. .at mtransltl\'e co .

In. the category f . nstructlOns need involve onlv one term

. 0 person wher . , ,-.

inVolve two (i e ,reas transltn'e constructions necessarily

h .. non-corefere ti J

t at the later rued' 1 n ra nouns or pronounsj.w It is noteworthy

'. laeva gram " . .

III the Identificati f martans made explicit use of word order

on 0 senten

aSsumed as normal h ce compon.cnts, and that the word order

tad ' Was t at comm h {

ay, noun verb n ' . on to te Romance languages 0

nou oun, or subJect' b bi

n noun verb (sub' , ver 0 jeer, rather than the order

tatin So I ject object verb) h . , "

., n rnedl'aeval ti ". c aractenstic of classical Iitersrr

" ", . Imes L .

wntU1, g Was a living m d' aftIn of the type exemplified in scholastic

everywh' . 0 e a com " .

ere acquired as as' mumcatJon, even though it was

The modistae folio '. d ec.on~ language.

very closet. b . .., e Pnsclan's . holooi ,...

Clllld~' . J: ut 111 relating tl morp 0 OglCa1 description of Law,l

z In their t' ne morphoJooi I ' . ifi

carne t ermmology) to th grca categones (modi sigm -

. 0 make a ' .' e syntax of s t

One Word L n unportant dist' . . en ence construction, they

t'lat we di inChon bCh' .

and those til re lreclly invoI 'd' veen categories (m.odes) of

" at were ' \e 'i\Jth the c .

Involved in f 'h, not. These we desi ategones of other word~

, Urt er 8" t, re eSlgnated· di - - •

Involved 51 S ,J n actlc relat' 1110 I respectnn mOLle~

. omewrit f Ions, and'll d- b 1- - '

c-cmstmcti61lts (the ers urther definedh_ 0 l.~ so, uu, modes not so

modes of the ' bases of SCll1e t e modi respectiv.l 3S /Jri'l1ci"ill

b nOUn and . nee structu), .. 'r

a on~), make pO~s.'bl verb, the mod". . rej, ,Thus the essential

rh ., 1 e th ' us en.lu a d h

' e sentence and CIT relationsh' n t e modus esse (p. 7"{] th ' . are th Ip as subt, , . • v»

e accidental rn d erefore both J:'yOSltllm and appositum in

at 0 es (Pr' , modi res" - l'

e syntactically rele lSClan's aCciden') rectlVf. Likewise among

vant cate' z za • case

gones (mod." , gender, and mood

1 TesPeclf -)

VI , but form (figUra,

THE MIDDLE AGES

Thrax's schlma). simple or compound (e.g. diVes, rich, praedives, very rich), and type (species, Thrax's eldos), primary or derived (e.g. calleo. I am hot, callesco, I become hot), are not, i.e. they are modi absoliiti.

The modistae differ in detail on the uistribution of particular categories (modes) in these two. classes, but broadly a distinction was drawn on syntactic lines between what have been termed in later formal grammar inflexional and derivational formations. S2 The modistic distinction bears some relation also to the distinction made by Varro between dic/ina1w naturtilis and decZintiiiii 'Oolulltiiria (p. 50., above), though there is no evidence of an actual use of Varro's work by the modistae, Varrowas concerned with morphological regularity and irregularity; the modistae were concerned with syntactic function. The partial correspondence between Varro's dicliniitiii ooluntdria and their 'ltodi absoliiti, and between his declfnat.io niilfiriiUs and their trwdf respec'ivi arises from the fact that in Latin (as in many other languages) inflexional formations tend to. be much more regular and systematic

than derivational formations.

The syntactic system worked out by the modistae enabled them to

arrive at a clearer picture of the essential function of certain ~l~sses. of word and in consequence to refine their definitions. The dlst11lctlon between noun and adjective assumed a position of greater importance. In antiquity adjectives had been assigned to a variety of subclasses of the onoma!nomen class (pp. 34 and 57, above). Peter Belias refe:red to a primary division of the nomen into ttornm $llbstmUivtt7tl and n.ol1~en adt"ectl'i}um, and Thomas of Erfurt, in describing the 1tomen, distinguished nomen suhstantioum from nomen adiectivum by their modi essentiii.les of syntactic independence (per si stantis) and of construction with

a noun (adiacentis).sl

The verb and the participle share the IIwdus esse, the category of pro-

cess in time; but the verb is grammatically distinct from the .n~un, and in the minimal noun-verb, or suppositum-apposit.ufI:l sentence it IS one of the two polar terms. The participle, while sharing in much of the 5yn~ and semantics of the verb, including time reference andoon~tructlOn with oblique case forms can also with or without other words attach .. ed

" d' .

to it itself act as a nominal dement in sentence structure. This isunc-

tionwas marked by referring to the verb as detached from the substa~~e denoted by the noun (signijicans per modum esse distantis a sub_lita_ntla). and to the participle as not separated from this substance (Slgmficans

per modum esse indistantis ii SlJ,bstantia).54 • '

Similarly, the rather unsatisfactory definitions of the prepoSlt1.0n by

85

86

CHAPTER FOUR

ancient c' .

tion (i grL~artans were replaced by a succinct statement of its func-

10 atin] syntact" all . d . .

th' _ .' ic -- y tie to a case inflected word and relating

. 18 to a verb or art" 1 (d

Plicl'tl.' P, IC1P e a actumreduce1u). Thomas of Erfurt ex-

- y rejects the identi fi ti f b-

as _ " . I ea ron 0 ound morphemes in certain words

- ,preposItIons along ",'th th f'- . ...

led P" . '., _ \ 1 I e ree preposmons, a confusion which had

.. nscian mto maccuracy.5S

The system of relation· d ' .

the's an categories outhned above is by no means

same as the system us d t d .' ..

more at' lv fot e 0 ay.m traditional Latin grammar o_r in

nct y ormal gram - B .

syntact'lc' iaht mar. ut It shows a remarkable growth of

Inslg t and the d I '

fro. m wh , h _ eve opment of terminology and theory

- Ie present-da Iineui - I

able and re ali , Y mglllsts have found a great deal that is applic-

ve mg In the fo It' -

of others It 'f. rma an.a YS1S of the cIassicalIanguages and

. can m ract b I' d

of sentencs st ict .. · , e crairne that a. defin. ite and coherent theory

. ruc ure and f "

~odistae, one that dealt ~ syntacnc analysis was achieved by the

Immediately '. inv I. d . w. ith levels of structure deeper than those

o ve with the hI' ., '

words of Prisci ' L ' morp ological categories of the inflected

. an s attn grammar

WrIters of the speculative· '. '

selves directly with th . grammars. did not have to concern rhem-

mediaeval philoso h e ti)J.c that received the greatest attention from While scarcely a lfn e~ .. hIS was the so-called 'question of universals'.

, . gUlstlC problem . "

pretatlOn of the field d . . e~cept on the most liberal mter-

an scope of 1 " ,

aspect of the relaf b mguistics, It was centred on one

. . IOn etween th .

World and the nat, f . e use of language to talk about the

f.. ure 0 the world' ., .

re ers to the semant'. . In Itself. The question primarily

lC status of th t

general.· Propositions br dl .... e erms or words used to make

, .. , loa y speaki th

as smgle predicates or ". h. . ng e sort of words that can occur

Pro " . rig t-hand b

". POSltlOns in AristoteI' . I' . rnem eIS of subject-predicate

~ rational, and so on DIan OgIC, such as Socrates is a man and man

In their ." ,0 such terms stand • al uni , "

own right apart fro ' . ror re universals existing

or persons of Which the t:: and mdependent of the particular things

common pro e .. rrns are predicated' 0 d '

the. P rt,} or character within .', r, 0 they exist as a

ry no mor.e than general or ni n the particulars? Or finaIIy are

a angu' . umversal t "

Th . age.,,:,. ith no status apart f - herms use. d by the speakers of.·

. ese questIOn· fi rom t: elan -

forms . . b. s, rst Pi'omoted hy Plato' hguage and. the speak .. er?

• were rou ht " 0 s t Cor f' id

the media I· . ~ Into particular pr' y 0 leas> or ideal

evat penod b B omInence t th b

of the N . PI ' Y oethius in hi a . e . eginning of

eo- atonisr Po . h . IS commentary h " .

cations of the thr rp yry; and various Ii on t e wnungs

" ree fund .. . re nements d '

the subject of c' amental vlewpoints an rnodifi-

ontmuous debate during the ~ the problem were hole of the Middle

THE MIDDLE AGES

Ages (the question is still a living one, and likely to remain so, but it no longer holds the same central position in philosophical enquiry and controversy). The nominalist point of view, that universals are words or names only, with no real existence outside language, has been made famous by one of its exponents, William of Ockham (first half of the fourteenth century), to whom the saying' entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem' (Entities are not to be increased in number beyond what is necessary) has been attributed, wrongly in the actual

words used, but rightly in the doctrine.

The theory of language set out by the modistae, in terms of the modi essendi, intelligendl, and significandi, however, rests on a • moderate realism', basically an Aristotelian view as interpreted by St. Thomas Aquinas, and one of the tenets of Thomist philosophy, In this view, as far as human knowledge is concerned, universals are abstracted from real properties of particulars and then considered apart from them by the mind.56 In modistlc terms the mind abstracts the modi esstmdi from things, considers them as modi intelligendi, and language permits such abstractions to be communicated by means of the modi significandi.

The assumption was that all men carry out this process alike, and that despite superficial differences aU languages communicate in the same way, or as the modistae put it, the modi essendi, the passive modi intelligendi and significa71di are all the same materially.

This sort of view became harder to maintain when in later years wider linguistic experience and interests showed how very differe~t languages are in their grammatical constitutions and in the semantic categories associated with their most important formal features, More recently linguists have maintained that peoples whose languages and culture are widely separated from those of others must be allowed to Li ve in partly different worlds, or in worlds differently conceived and structured from the • standard average European' world of the classical European inheritance and that these differences are in some respects

, '

correlated with the grammatical and semantic structure of then'

languages .. Such a viewpoint, in its extreme and scarcely tenable form, that one's language is wholly and irresistibly responsible for one's eonception of the world and attitude towards it, has been ascribed,. perhaps unjustly, to B.. L. Whorf,51 But in recognizing the far too limited approach to linguistic diversity seen in the modistic speculative graIDw mars, there is no need to go to the opposite extreme. Indeed one may retain modistic tenninology, with the sensible provision that the modi

88

CHAPTER FOUR

inttlligendi probably differ from language community to language community, and that the traffic is not all in one direction; the modi intelligendf give rise to modi signijicandi, but are themselves influenced in the course of years by the modi sigmJicalldi and the actual forms in \\ hich they are expressed.

It is worth while studying the work of the speculative granunarians, both to see how their linguistic thought arose from the intellectual context: of their time, and to consider its relevance to current problems in the theory and the analysis of language. Apart from their contribution to the theory and the terminology of syntactic description, men, tioned above, the rnodistae raised questions on the most important topics that concern our attempt to understand language and its place in human life and society. Moreover they not unfairly represent some aspects of the mediaeval achievement. They wrote in, and illustrated from, Latin, the international language of European culture during the Middle Ages; but they sought to give a universal validity to the rules exhibited in Latin grammar. Mediaeval scholars wished for a system of knowledge in which all branches and all disciplines would accept the same philosophical and religious principles; and after the confusion of the Dark Ages they endeavoured to establish firmly all sciences on true and stable foundations.

!he de~and that grammatical description should be integrated into philosop~eal~h~ory brought about a great change in people's attitudes towards lIngUlstlC studies. Philosophy in its widest sense had been the. cradle of linguistics and of the first speculation on language in ancient Greece; but since the emergence of the Alexandrian school represented in Th ' '7' 1· ~ . ' . , ~ rax s 1. ecmw, whose standpoint remained dommam

l~ ApoHonius and his Greek and Latin successors, the study of classical hterature and the I d 1 . , I d. anguage an stye of reputed poets and prose writers

na been the accepted Pd' ., S h

hd . urpose an context of Iinguistic work. 0 rnuc

a I' t~s. been an accepted and continuing tradition that after the

exp icu statement of th t ks d ,..,.'

. f. e as . an purposes of linguistics at the begin-

nmg 0 the TtcJm.e (p b) 1. " '

'I ~ ~. 3 I, a ove), ater writers either repeated It

summarl yconf'in d th 1

1 d f' e. ernse ves to such brief phrases as 'the knowe ge 0 correct speakin d ' . ,., - recti S""'W dO) ,g ,an correct wrttmg' (sctentta reete IOljuendl

~, en l • or as Pnse felt i

or defi itic ' ' ran. te t It unnecessary to give any statement

m Ion to mtroduc thei ~ bi

the later "Il'dd-I A. . e eir su ~.ect.511 But tbechanged outlook o.f

n 1 eges dem d d I"

nitions of r '. , an e exp .icst recognition in changed defimgUlstlc science S' ~ de'

science of Ian . a e " rger c e O!l rtrai wrote: 'Grammar is the

- gu g , and rts field of study is the sentence and its modifi-

THE MIDDLE AGES

" ,.. • ·f the concepts of the mind

canons, Its purpose being the expresslOfl 0 .

in well formed sentences '.59 . , d

, f hi 1 in the defimtlOn an

Contemporaries were aware a t IS C 1ange . '

, . .. F 1 ar had been directed to-

conception of the subject, < ormer y grarnm ,

, 'all' t ,. now It wasexclu-

wards the auctores, the wnters of claSSIC' rtera ure, ~

, . , 1 I is the seven liberal arts

sively concerned with its place among t ae ar e ,

. l' - t d place unless like the

(p, 69, above), wherein pagan uerature na no , .'

philosophical writings of Aristotle, it had been o_ffiClally mco:porat~d into accepted doctrine. The Latin of the speculatlve grammartans was

b ' ., 1 r th f nus employed were

y classical standards clumsy and me egant, eo. ,

. '1' t tl usage of classical

often unacceptable when considered in re auon 0 re

Latin authors and the philosophical theory adduced to justify the h : . ld b 1 iriti of the period to be

t cory of modistic grammar was he. yater en lCS

, ' ' d ob -antist In modern

at best irrelevant and at worst pettifogging an 0 SCtH, ,

, ' . d d tl adherents of classi-

terms the rnodistae were theory onentate, an le . ~

1 I, . . . 't t d -ere data anentated.

ea uerature and Priscian's grammar as 1 s 00 . \\ . . , ~

The difference between the two attitudes is illustrated by the Ch01C~ ot ex.amples; the linguists of antiquity and the late Latin gram~ana~s

duuotati , 1)" b' g very free with his

use . quotations from classical texts, nscian em

'. I' I almost formula-

citanons, but the modistae made up t teir examp cs . , "

'all . . t 'tuat'lonal plauslblhty;

rc y, Without regard to actual utterance or 0 Sl .

b ,. . 1'[· ' ti ular structure they

emg only concerned with exemp L ymg a par c "

frequently produced sentences that could scarcely have occurred 10 any

h ' , 1 . d b ve Socrates albus

ot er context of situation (the examp e quote a 0 ,

currit bene, white Socrates runs well, is quite typical).

,- h - ~ as not

TIns Sort of opposition between the aries and t e auct~re5 w

, Chri . hi "lid be seen in the heart-

new m nstian Europe; sometrung sirm ar COil ~, .

searching of St. Jerome and others on ·whether they were guilty of pre-

'. ... ,. distic : ·oach to

fernng Cicero to Holy Writ; but the rrse of the rno isuc app~ "

, i+ intc di t tact with ImgulstlC

grammar sharpened It and brought it into irec con .

studies. We find this the subject of a well-known allegory, the Battle of

I '1 l . from Homer

t Ie seven arts, in which the auctores, classics aut jors . ,

d I . 1 h larship and litera-

onwar s, are based on Orleans, where C' aSSlca sc 0 ,

ture had remained entrenched and go out to do battle with the philo-

, P , f the

eophers and the personifications of the seven arts at an~, o~e 0

, . ' 60 It is Ironical that

rnain centres of logic and speculative grammar. . ~

P" ., . . Ari t 1'· models and whose

nscian, who III method owed much to istote Ian . ,

L ~ , f di 1 ammatical theory, IS

ann grammar was the foundatlOn 0 me iaeva gr . ,

h ' ~ 0 1 tched in allegOrical

DOW, as e arnpion of the auctores from reans, rna

·b·' , . d ible for the assumed

com at with Anstotle who had been mae responei .

,

- -

-----='----'

90 CHAPTER FOUR

logical basis of grammatical rules and concepts and, as the inspiration of scholastic philosophy, had become a leader of the artis,

In the allegory the artes win, but at the end of the story it is prophesied that in time the true grammar of the classical texts will return in triumph. This indeed happened, but as part of the many and profound movements of thought that characterized the intellectual and cultural side of the Renaissance, which was simultaneously the full-scale revival of classical learning and the birth of the modem world.

FOR FURTHER CONSULTATION

.... LEXANDER VILLADEI, Doctrinale (ed, D .. REICHLING), Berlin, 189'3 (/1-101'111- menta Germaniae paedaz~gica 12).

H. ARENS, Sprachwissenschajt: der Gang ihrer ElItw£ckltmg von del' Anlike bis ZUr Gegenwart, Freiburg/Muruch (second edition) 1969, 35-61.

G. L. BURSILL-HALL, Speculative grammars of the Middle Ages, The Hague, 1971.

M. GRABMANN, Mittelalterliches Geistesleben, Munich, 19Z6, volume I, chapter 4.

E. HAUG.EN (ed.), First grammatical treatise, London, 1972.

R, HUN.T, 'Studies on PJ'iscian in the eleventh and twelfth centuries', MedUleval and renaissance studies 1 (1941-3), 194-231, and Z (1950), I-56.

I· KOCH (ed.), Artes liherates, Leiden and Cologne, 1959.

L. J. PAETOW, The arts COurse at mediaeval universities with special reference to grammar and rhetoric, Urbana, 1910 (University of Ill!'nois studies 3,7).

--. Th~ bat!le oj the seven arts, Berkeley, 1914 (Memoirs of the Unieersity of Ca1iforma 4.1).

1· PINBORG, Die EntwickJung der SprachtheMie im Mittelalter Copenhagen,

1967. ,

;;-. Lcc!k ~4nd Sen:a~tik. im Mittelalter, Stuttgart, 1972.

• ROQS" DIe mOdi. slgnl~Candi des Martinus de Dacia', Beitriige eur ~e$:hu;hte der. Phz/osoph&e und Theologje des Mittelalters 37.2 (1952)'

J. . S NDYS, HIstory oj claSSIcal scholarship (third edition) Cambridge

1921. volume I. "

T ...... SIIDIlOK, Historiography oj linguistics, 179-230 .•

SIGERtJs DE oon'l'RACo, Summa modorum. significandi Sophismata (ed :1:llgP~~~.ORC), (977) (Amsterdam studies in the the:ry and history oj 15 .. c SCIence 14 .

THLOMASd OF ERFURT, Gramrnatica specui,ativa (ed, G. L. BURsTLL-HALL)

011 on, 197~. >

C. THUROT, EJJ;traitl de divers manuscrits latins pour Se7Vir a l'hutoire des

THE MIDDLE AGES 91

doctrines grammaticales au moyen lige, Paris, 1869 (reprinted Frankfurt am Main, 1964). . :\1. DE WULF, History oj medieval philtJsophy (tr. P. COl''FEY), London, 1909.

J. ZlJPITZA (ed.) Aelfrics Grammalik und Glossal', Berlin, 1880 (SnmmlllPlg I'nglischer Denkmiilel' I),

).;OTES

T. W. P. KER, The. Dark Ages, London, J904, chapter I.

2. ibid., I. ..

J. JERO:\U;, Epistulae 22 c 30; GREGORY, Epistulae 5,53 (G~eg~m ~ p_ap~e registrum epistularum, Berlin, 1891, volume I, 357); Histoire litteraire de fa France, Paris, 1738, volume 4, 445-6.

4. SAKDYS, 1921, 670 (Gramfrnar) speaks; diatlectic) teaches the trut.h; rhet(oric) adorns the words we use; mustic) sings; arfithmetic) counts, gefometry) measures ; astfronorny) studies the stars},

5. AUGUSTINE, Retractatio r ,6.

6. JEROME, Epistulae 57.

7· ZUPITZ..... 1880, preface, lines 1-7.

8. ibid., 18-19. 22-4· . . h '). Auraicept na n-Eces, The scholars' primer (ed. G. CALDER), .EdlJ1bur~ .

1917; B. 0 ct.Iv, 'Linguistic terminology in th.e .medl.a~val Irish bardic tracts', TPS 1965, 141-64: id. 'The linguistic training of the

mediaeval Irish poet', Celtica 10 (1973), II4-40•

10. ALEXA~DER VILLADIH, 1.880.

11. ibid" lxxxix. .. T" o.

D h d. d. -od (lur or fie ancien e.

12. J.. WILLIAM.'; An ITIWL, ospar! e e_llr.1l . at .,

Welsh grammar, London, 1856, xi. .. . . . I d

li ... tudies In lee an R j.

I J. HAUGEN, 1972. On subsequent ingursnc 5 ... ' :,

, . 1 f modern Icelandic,

MCCLEAN, • The grammatical terrmno ogy 0 .

Studia Germanica Gandensia 4 (1962), 2191-300.

14· HAUGEN, 1972, 19,25-7,31,46-7. .

15· 'Causas vero invention is diversarum partium et dlversorum aCCI-

dentium .. ,pJ'aetermittit' (ROOS, 1952,93); THUROT, 1869, I?

S· d C trai Louvain 1913

16. G. WALLERAND (ed.), Les GIluvres de ,ger .e OUT, ,

(Les philosophes belges 8), (36).

J7·· 18.

HUNT, 1941-3, I950• . . m

., . hilosceh roprlas naturas reru .

Non ergo grammaticus sed p l' osop us, p. .

. , . , .' . . it' THL"ROT 1869,1Z4,

diligenter considerans ... grammancam mvemr, ' . ·h b t

. I . d pientern SIC se a e

,\LBERTUS l'I-IAGNIJS: "Sicut se habet stu tus a sa , .

... ..' 1 ica' ALEXANDER 1893.

grammatlcus ignorans logicam ad perrtum In ogr ,

xi-xii.

, G tica una et eadem est

GRABMANN 1926 lIS' ROGER BACO~: ramma .'

.., ., . '. . I' . licet accidentaliter

secundum substantiam 10 omnibus mguis,

varietur', S1Glm, 19'13, (43).