3. Contents![[arrow up]](http://diglib.hab.de/images/arrowup.png)
The Compendium is an independent grammatical treatise, discussing first the letters, followed by a systematic presentation of the parts of speech and syllables, and concluding with a section on syntax. The order of treatment of the parts of speech comes close to the one found in the Ars minor(Oxford, 1483): the noun, pronoun, verb, adverb, participle, preposition, conjunction, and interjection. Some of the definitions are drawn from Donatus, while others are based on Priscian, or else represent a more recent reworking of the inherited doctrine. The treatise opens with the traditional definition of grammar as „the art of correct speech and writing“, which is accompanied by the etymological definition, equally traditional, based on the notion of letter. Grammar is then divided into four parts: letter (‚littera‛), syllable (‚syllaba‛), word (‚dictio‛), and sentence (‚oratio‛), which are called the species of grammar. This is the more traditional division of grammar, followed by, for instance, Priscian, as opposed to the medieval division into ‚orthographia‛, ‚prosodia‛, ‚etymologia‛, and ‚diasintastica‛, found in many early modern grammars. The ‚dictio‛ is then divided into its species, that is, to the various parts of speech: the noun, pronoun, verb etc. The definitions of the letter, syllable, word, and sentence are drawn somewhat directly from Priscian’s Institutiones grammaticae.
The noun section depends heavily on Priscian's Institutiones. , maintaining its philosophical orientation. The Priscianic definition of the noun involves the philosophical concepts of substance and quality: „Quid est nomen? Nomen est quod substantiam cum qualitate significat. Substantiam, ut homo, animal, qualitatem, ut scientia“. It is accompanied by the etymological definition, also drawn from Priscian: „Nomen dicitur ab onoma Greco uel a notamen per syncopa[m], quia per hoc notamus uniuscuiusque substantie qualitatem“ (f. c i). Common and proper nouns, which are called the species of the noun, are also described in philosophical terms: „Quot sunt species nominum? Due. Que? Propria et communis. Quid est nomen proprium? Quod uni soli convenit ex prima institutione vel est quod plures eodem nomine impositione. Inde est quod plures eodem nomine proprio appellantur, nam prima impositione id fit, sc. eodem nomine pluribus consequenter dato“. Here the notion of the first imposition, typical of medieval grammar, has been integrated into Priscian's definition. The various subtypes of common nouns include those present in Priscian (many of which are also present in Donatus's Ars maior. and include many philosophical categories (relational nouns, homonyms, synonyms). Aristotle's definition of homonyms (or ‚equiuoca‛) in the Categoriae is directly quoted, which shows that Anwykyll did not hesitate to increase the philosophical orientation of grammar. The noun section concludes with a discussion on word formation.
The definition of the pronoun involves a reworking of inherited doctrine, by mentioning the three functions, or significations, of the pronoun, namely demonstration, relation, and reflexivity: „Pronomen est quod pro nomine ponitur et demonstrationem relationem reciprocationem significat quibus nomen caret“ (f. c iii). John Anwykyll first discusses the construction of the pronoun and then goes on to deal with its various subtypes, the demonstrative, relative, and reflexive. In the section on the relative pronoun, considerable use is made of the typically medieval division between the relative of substance (‚relativum substantiae‛) and that of accidents (‚relatiuum accidentis‛). This medieval digression is adopted from Perottus's grammar.
The contents of the definition of the verb is traditional, although its form is not literally similar to any authoritative definition: „Quid est verbum? Est pars orationis actionem vel passionem cum modo et tempore significans“ (f. d iii). The major part of the verb section is dedicated to a discussion on verbal voice, which also takes into account the modes of construction of each voice, as was customary in several Italian grammars. The active verb is defined as the one ending in ‚-o‛, which is turned into ‚-or‛ in the passive and demands the accusative case. „Quod est uerbum activum? Quod in o desinit, accusativum poscit, passiuumque accepta r littera ex se facit“. Then the active verbs are divided into those that are active only by signification, such as ‘make’ (‚facio‛) and ‘hurt’ (‚noceo‛), those active by form only, such as ‘to fear’ (‚metuo‛), and those active by both form and meaning, such as ‘to accuse’ (‚accuso‛) and ‘to teach’ (‚doceo‛). Concerning the other voices, passive, neuter/absolute, deponent, and common, the treatise only discusses their construction with the accusative, distinguishing between the different ways in which each of the voices can be construed with it. The section concludes by presenting a division of verbs into personal and impersonal.
The description of the other parts of speech is traditional and they are defined using various methods. The adverb is defined at once etymologically and syntactically, as being joined to the verb (‚quia stat ad verbum, hoc est iuxta verbum‛ f. d iii); then its positioning before and after the verb is discussed. Instead of providing a definition of the participle and preposition, these parts of speech are introduced by raising the typically medieval question of why this particular part should have been invented (‚causa inventionis‛). The reason for the invention of the participle is to make the expression more concise, by avoiding the use of the copula or the relative pronoun (‚ut oratio breuior sit ac dilucidior, omissis relatiuis adverbiis coniunctionibus‛ f. e iii). The reason for the invention of the preposition is to be placed before the case form (‚p[rae]poni suo casuali ‛f. f ii); then those prepositions that are put after their headword instead are briefly touched upon. The conjunction is defined in a traditional way: „Coniunctio pars orationis indeclinabilis est annectens ordinansque sententiam“. Then its various functions are discussed, that is, the copulative, disjunctive, and so forth. The definition of the interjection is also traditional: „Interiectio est pars orationis aliis partibus interiectiva animi affectus significans (f. f iiii).“
The parts of speech section concludes with a discussion on two additional topics related to the noun: ‚heteroclita‛ (f. f iiii), that is, nouns that change their gender, number, or case, as well as the comparative and superlative forms of the noun (f. g iiii). This reminds us of the structure of several medieval treatises, in which these topics similarly occupy a place at the end of the entire treatise; this structure is also followed in Perottus's grammar. In the section on ‚heteroclita‛, Perottus's authority is explicitly resorted to: „Quid est nomen varium siue heteroclitum? quae casu declinatione genere numeroue uarium est, Perotus testificatur“. In the latter section Valla's doctrine is employed: „Secundum Laurentinum Vallam, adiectiua in cius terminantia que a facio componuntur non suum sed astiticium faciunt comparatiuum et superlatiuum, ut magnificus magnificentior magnificentissimus“ and „Valla gradus formare docet sic dico loquorque“. The vernacular is incidentally used in describing the formation of the comparative and superlative. When explaining that the comparative form ending in ‚-or‛ is of common gender, except for ‚senior‛, which is only masculine, he asks the question how the sentence „My modere is oldere than my vadere by iii yere“ is translated into Latin. Another vernacular example is used in discussing the superlative forms: „I am oldist off al my bredir“.
The section on syntax (f. h iiii) is entitled ‚De constructione‛, and the ‚constructio‛ is defined as „the due ordering of the parts of speech in a sentence“ („Est debita dispositio partium orationis in ipsa oratione“) at the beginning of the Compendium, probably adopted from Perottus. Syntax is divided into its species, namely, transitive and intransitive constructions. The transitive construction is that which involves two different referents, for example, Tullius and son in ‚Tullius diligit filium suum‛. In the intransitive construction, the various constructibles pertain to the same referent, for example, in ‚uir fortis coronabitur‛ or as if the same referent, for example, in ‚homo est asinus‛. The intransitive construction is further divided into retransitive and reflexive; the retransitive involves two transitive sentences, such as ‚oro Deum ut protegat me‛, in which the object pronoun ‚me‛ in the subclause refers back to the subject of the main clause ‚ego‛. In the reflexive construction the subject and object pronouns refer to the same person, for instance, in ‚bonus humiliat se‛. This division of (in)transitive constructions is entirely medieval, as is also their further division into (in)transition of action and persons. „An intransitive construction of action takes place between a verb and its subject, for example, ‚Cesar pugnat‛; and of persons between two nouns or between ‚determinabile‛ and ‚determinans‛, for example, ‚filius unicus Ciceronis oratoris studet bene‛.“ Anwykyll concludes this account by referring to Alexander [Villadei] for further information on the various types of constructions: ‚De istis speciebus vide plenius in Alexandro‛. Anwykyll places the medieval concept of transitivity at the basis of his theory of syntax, and uses other medieval tools of syntactical analysis, including the subject – predicate distinction as well as the concepts of ‚determinabile‛ and ‚determinans‛.
The next topic entitled ‘order of construing’ (f. h iiii) is also an important part of the medieval grammatical legacy. In this section, questions are raised concerning which constituent to pick up first, which second, and so on, in reading or composing a Latin sentence. Anwykyll offers five ways of starting to construe a Latin sentence: (1) from the vocative case, (2) from the subject (‚suppositum‛) of the principal verb, (3) from that which is placed instead of the subject or nominative, (4) from an impersonal verb or its oblique case, and (5) from the ablative absolute. Anwykyll incorporated many medieval features into his account of construing a Latin sentence, but he also widened its scope to cover compound sentences, suggesting that their construction had to be started from the verb of the main clause (‚clausula principalis‛).
The last and most extensive topic discussed in the syntactical section of the Compendium is heavily indebted to Perottus, as Anwykyll acknowledges. In the footsteps of Perottus, Anwykyll offers a detailed account of the construction of personal and impersonal verbs, dividing them first into the five voices and then further into seven conjugations (‚ordines‛) and quoting a large number of examples (f. h iiii - k iii). He concludes the work with an admonition to praise Perottus's teaching: „Vos nunc grammatici laudem celebrate Perotti, quo praeceptore tot documenta patent“.
4. Context and Classification
Anwykyll's Compendium has been characterized as one of the earliest Humanist grammars in England (Orme 1999: 458) and indeed it manifests a number of features characteristic of the Humanist educational reform. Perottus's grammar is one of its most important sources, and it makes a considerable use of Priscian's Institutiones in its original form, in accordance with the Humanist approach. Moreover, examples are mainly drawn from Classical literature, Terentius being the most popular source. However, Valla's role is minimal, although Anwykyll pays lip service to him by mentioning him as one of the sources in the preface. The Compendium does not align itself with the kind of extreme Humanist approach promoted by Valla, which wanted to eradicate all philosophical tools of analysis from grammar. Valla heavily criticized the use of the Scholastic method in grammar, and the Doctrinale. (1199) of Alexander of Villadei was one of the favourite targets of his attacks.
Anwykyll does not hesitate to use philosophical concepts in his teaching of grammar and he refers to Alexander of Villadei in the core of his syntactical doctrine. He adopts the full apparatus of philosophical terms used in Priscian's Institutiones. and occasionally even adds to it, which is the case when he identifies the parts of speech and the parts of grammar as ‘species’ of grammar and when he quotes Aristotle's definition of ‚equivoca‛. The use of medieval tools of analysis is especially prominent in the syntactical section, in which the medieval theory of transitivity forms the core of the doctrine. The medieval legacy also includes the application of the subject and predicate distinction to grammar and the order of construing the Latin sentence. Many Humanists, probably thinking that the analytical tools were too difficult to be understood by young pupils, avoided the use of not only the Scholastic method but technical terms generally, including those used by Priscian.
In early modern Europe it was customary to compose independent grammatical treatises, which were neither commentaries on any of the authoritative works nor heavily dependent on them. Anwykyll's Compendium is one such work. Even though many definitions in the parts of speech section depend heavily on Priscian, the overall structure does not depend on any one work, the Institutiones, or Perottus's Rudimenta. Scholastic influence is strong in the syntactical section, but its overall structure has many features taken over from Perottus and harks back to the Italian medieval tradition. A particular feature of the method of the Compendium is to introduce a new piece of doctrine in a memorable verse form and then proceed to explain in prose what it means. The verse form popular in the Middle Ages continued to appeal to many Humanist grammarians and new works in this genre continued to be written.
The educational level for which this grammar was intended remains ambivalent. On the one hand, the pupils are referred to as being of a tender age (‚teneri iuvenes‛), but on the other hand, in its title the treatise is said to be useful for both teachers and pupils. The catechetical method is typical of pedagogical grammars, as is the frequent use of the verse form, but several aspects in the contents point to an advanced level of study, such as Priscian's definitions used throughout the parts of speech section, the highly analytical method of the syntactical theory, and the frequent use of Classical literature as a source of examples. The treatise is written in Latin, which also points to an advanced level of study. Several contemporary or near contemporary authors used English as the medium of instruction in their elementary Latin grammars. The verse form and the use of the catechetical method do not suffice to qualify this treatise as an elementary grammar.
