3. Contents![[arrow up]](http://diglib.hab.de/images/arrowup.png)
The treatise opens with the Greek alphabet. Grammar is then defined in a traditional way, as ‚an art of correct speech and writing‛ (‚Grammatica est recte scribendi atque loquendi ars‛) and divided into its four medieval parts: ‚orthographia, etymologia, syntaxis‛, ‚and prosodia‛ (B i v). Under the title of ‚orthographia‛, the letters are discussed in a traditional manner; among the new elements is the distinction between small and capital letters (‚characteres maiusculi et minusculi‛ B ii r). The capitals are said to be used at the beginning of a sentence (e.g. ‚Deum time, Regem honora‛) and with proper nouns (e.g. ‚Henricus, Anglia‛). The following section is dedicated to syllables (B ii v) and a separate section is devoted to ‚orthoëpia‛ (B iii r), a topic which was not within the scope of traditional grammar. This section gives instruction in breathing and defines the typical errors in pronunciation, such as ‚Iotacismus, Lambdacismus, Ischnotes, Traulismus‛, and ‚Plateasmus‛, all taken from Quintilian. Then follows a section on punctuation (B iii v). In addition to the three punctuation marks, ‚distinctio, subdistinctio‛ and ‚media distinctio‛, familiar from Donatus, this treatise redonatuscognizes two additional signs: the question mark and the parenthesis.
The second part of grammar, ‚etymologia‛, is defined as „the principle of identifying case distinctions“ (‚ratio cognoscendi casuum discrimina‛) (C i r), but it actually includes a discussion on the eight parts of speech in accordance with the medieval tradition. The order followed in the discussion on the parts of speech is the one that can be found in Donatus.
A noun is defined as ‚a part of speech signifying a thing, without an indication of time or person‛ (‚Nomen est pars orationis quae rem significat, sine ulla temporis aut personae differentia‛). The signification of a noun – the ‚thing‛ – is very generic, Donatus's distinction between concrete (‚corpus‛) and abstract (‚res‛) things being abolished. Nouns are then divided into substantives and adjectives and the former further into proper and common nouns (C i v). „The noun is that which needs nothing to be added to signify its meaning“ („Substantivum est quod nihil addi postulat ad suam significationem exprimendam.“) „The common noun is that which signifies a thing as being common to many, e.g. man, stone, justice, goodness“ („Appellativum, est quod rem multis communem significat, ut homo, lapis, iustitia, bonitas“) „The proper noun is that which signifies a thing as being proper to an individual, e.g. Jesus, Mary, London, the Thames“ („Proprium est quod rem uni individuo propriam significat: ut Iesus, Maria, Londinum, Thamesis“). Then follow the traditional subtypes of proper nouns, which are the four subtypes of Roman names: ‚nomen, praenomen, cognomen‛, and ‚agnomen‛. „The adjective is that which requires a noun, to which it belongs in a sentence, e.g. lazy, sharp, sincere, clement“. („Adiectivum, est quod substantivo indiget, cui in oratione adhaereat, ut piger, alacris, candidus, clemens“.) The adjective is also divided into common (‚bonus, malus‛) and proper (‚Gradivus Marti, Quirinus Romulo‛). These divisions are rewordings of the inherited doctrine, with minor modifications. Some examples go back to late antique grammars, such as ‚homo, lapis, iustitia, bonitas, Gradivus Marti‛, and ‚Quirinus Romulo‛, whereas others are related to the contemporary Christian world, like ‚Iesus, Maria, Londinum‛, and ‚Thamesis‛.
The traditional accidents of the noun are then discussed: ‚species, figura, numerus, casus, genus, declinatio‛, and ‚comparatio‛ (C ii rv). The subtypes of common nouns are now integrated into the discussion of the species of the noun, being divided into primitive and derivative in accordance with the late antique grammarian Priscian; the primitive nouns include ‚collectivum, fictitium‛ (onomatopoetic nouns), ‚interrogativum, redditivum, distributivum, numerale‛, and ‚ordinale‛, whereas the derivative include verbal nouns, patronymics, and diminutives. Among the new items in this classification are the primitive nouns ‚universale‛ (‚omnis, cunctus, nullus, nemo‛) and ‚particulare‛ (‚aliquis, quisquam, ullus, quidam‛), which go back to medieval semantic theories.
The discussions on figure, number and case are traditional. In the description of gender, pronouns are used as tokens in accordance with Donatus: ‚masculinum, cuius nota est 'hic'‛ (C iii v). It is followed by a detailed account of the gender rules of the noun (C iv r), occupying over five folios, compiled by William Lily. (This section deserves a separate study.) The subsequent presentation of nominal case (E i r) is based on the traditional division of nouns into the five declensions, with the case endings of each being listed. This approach, absent from Donatus, had been integrated into most medieval grammars, being adopted, for instance, from Priscian's Institutio de nomine et pronomine et verbo. Special attention is paid to Greek (and Hebrew) names, including ‚Aeneas, Anchises, Penelope, Phoebe, Oedipus, Androgeos, Orpheus, Ilion, Delos‛. Of the Hebrew names ‚Adam‛ and ‚Abraham‛, two alternative declensions are given, ‚Adam Adae/Adamus Adami‛ and ‚Abraham Abrahae/Abrahamus Abrahami‛. Rare case endings are also accounted for, such as the genitive plural ending in -as, like ‚pater familias‛, the accusative singular in -im, like ‚vim‛, ‚tussim‛, the ablative singular in -i instead of -e, e.g. ‚mare, calcar‛, the vocative ending in -eu, like ‚Orpheu‛, syncopated forms, like ‚deum‛ instead of ‚deorum‛ and ‚virum‛ instead of ‚virorum‛, the pluralia tantum names of the festivities ending their genitive either in -orum/arum or -um, like ‚Vinaliorum, Floralium‛. Special attention is also paid to the notoriosly difficult third declension.
DThen follows a section on heteroclite nouns in verse (F ii r), that is, nouns that change gender or declension, after which various types of nouns having defective declensions are accounted for (‚aptota, monoptota, diptota, triptota‛).
Nouns subjected to comparison are defined in traditional terms as those whose signification can be diminished or increased (F iv v). The positive signifies a thing without excess, the comparative has the signification of ‚more‛ (‚magis‛), as in ‚albior‛, id est ‚magis albus‛. The superlative has the signification of ‚very, much‛ (‚maxime, valde‛) added to the positive, as in ‚doctissimus, id est valde vel maxime doctus‛. The comparative and superlative nouns are formed according to the medieval rule by adding the ending ‚-ior‛ to the first case ending in ‚-i‛, as in ‚amici, pudici, amicior, pudicior‛. The superlative is formed by adding ‚-s‛ and ‚-simus‛ to the same form of the positive, as in ‚docti-s-simus‛. Various less regular formations are then taken up.
The pronoun section opens with a definition whose content – demonstration and referring – goes back to medieval tradition, occurring, for instance, in the Doctrinale. (v. 356) (G ii r): „The pronoun is a part of speech, which we use in demonstrating a thing and referring to it.“ („Pronomen, est pars orationis, qua in demonstranda aut repetenda re aliqua utimur“.) The accidents of the pronoun are traditional: ‚species, numerus, casus, genus, declinatio, persona, figura‛. The declension of pronouns is divided into four in accordance with the medieval tradition; this division can also be found in the Doctrinale (v. 463-8)(G ii v-G iii r).
The definition of the verb involves (H i r) the typically medieval concern with the substantival verb esse: „The verb is a part of speech, inflected in moods, cases and tenses, signifying that something is, acts or is acted upon, as in ‚I am, exist, move, am moved, touch, am touched‛.“ („Verbum est pars orationis, quae modis & temporibus inflexa, esse aliquid, agereue, aut pati significat: ut sum, existo: moveo, moveor, tango, tangor“). The verb is divided into personal and impersonal. The accidents of the verb include the traditional items: gender, mood, tense, figure, species, person, number, and conjugation. Within the gender, verbs are divided into the traditional five, the neuter being additionally divided into the substantival, like ‚sum‛, and absolute, which renders perfect sense on its own (H i v).
The traditional discussion on the mood (H ii v) involves some interesting observations as well one new item. For instance, the indicative mood can also take the form of a question (‚Quis legit haec?‛) and can indicate a doubt or hesitation (‚An in astu venit aliud ex alio malum?‛). One new mood, the potential, is added to the traditional four: indicative, imperative, conjunctive and infinitive. This new division is attributed to Linacre.
The traditional account of the tenses involves one new item, the future perfect (‚futurum exactum‛) (H iii r). In the discussion on the ‚species verbi‛ two terms proposed by Valla for inchoativa are mentioned, ‚meditativa‛ and ‚augmentativa‛ (H iii v). The section on the conjugations of verbs consists of a treatise composed by Lily covering six folios (H iv v). The verb section concludes with an account of impersonal verbs, gerunds and supines (K iii r). This is one of the rare cases in which the author resorts to the use of the vernacular. He points out that the Latin impersonal construction, such as ‚Oportet me legere Vergilium‛, must be rendered as a personal construction in English: ‚I must reade Virgil‛.
The definition of the participle is traditional and very similar to the one in the Shorte Introduction (K iiii r). „The participle is a part of speech with case inflection, which receives its gender, case and declesion from the noun, and tense and signification from the verb, and number and figure from both.“ („Participium est pars orationis inflexa casu, quae a nomine genera, casus et declinationem, a verbo tempora et significationes, ab utroque numerum et figuram accipit.“) The definition of the adverb also has the traditional contents, maintaining its association with the verb (L ii r): „The adverb is a part of speech without case, which perfects and explains the signification of the verb, to which it is associated.“ („Adverbium est pars orationis non flexa, quae adiecta verbo, sensum eius perficit atque explanat.“) The accidents, ‚significatio, comparatio, species‛ and ‚figura‛, are treated in a traditional manner (L ii v). The significations of the adverb are essentially the same as in Donatus, with some new entries being added: ‚diversitatis, excludendi, concedendi‛, and ‚intendendi‛.
The conjunction is the least traditional of the definitions (M I v): „The conjunction is a part of speech joining together sententiarum clausulas.“ („Coniunctio, est pars orationis, quae sententiarum clausulas apte connectit.“) ‚Sententiarum clausulas‛ probably means something like ‚parts of a sentence‛, which could also involve subclauses. Its accidents are traditional, including ‚figura, potestas‛ and ‚ordo‛. The ‚potestas‛ or ‚significatio‛, includes twelve subtypes, most of which come from Donatus and Priscian, whereas some others are likely to be drawn from a more recent source: ‚suspensivae, perfectivae seu absolutivae, continuativae, adversativae, redditivae‛.
The preposition receives a traditional definition (M iii v): „The preposition is a declinable part of speech which is placed before the other parts wither in composition or apposition.“ („Praepositio est pars orationis indeclinabilis, quae aliis orationis partibus, vel in compositione, vel in appositione praeponitur.“) Its only accident is the government (‚regimen‛) or construction (‚constructio‛) of cases. A detailed account of the government of the accusative and ablative cases concludes this section
Finally, the interjection is defined as follows (N i v): „The interjection is a part of speech, which shows the affection of the mind suddenly bursting out with an incomplete expression.“ („Interiectio, est pars orationis, quae sub incondita voce, subito prorumpentem animi affectum demonstrat.“) In addition to the traditional types, its significations include the following more recent items: deriding (‚deridentis‛), like ‚hui‛, coming suddely upon something (‚ex improviso aliquid deprehendentis‛), like ‚atat‛, laughing (‚ridentis‛), like ‚ha ha he‛, imposing silence (‚silentium iniungentis‛), like ‚au‛ (Terence); the words of exclamation include some new examples: ‚oh, proh, proh nefas‛ (Seneca).
The author concludes the section on the etymology of the parts of speech with stating that this much suffices for the pupils (N i v). If some one would like to investigate these issues more thoroughly, it is suggested that he ought to get immersed in other grammatical textbooks, which are numerable. However, none of them can be either compared with the ones composed by Linacre or be regarded as superior to them, as regards the erudition and the excellence of doctrine and the clarity and elegance of teaching.
The Institutio has a section on syntax, which treats the construction of each part of speech in turn, as was customary in late medieval and early modern treatises on syntax. After identifying the Greek word syntax (‚syntaxis‛) with construction (‚constructio‛), its Latin equivalent, the author proceeds to define it: „Syntax is a due composition and connection of the parts of speech, in accordance with the right reason of grammar.“ („Est igitur syntaxis, debita partium orationis inter se compositio connexioque, iuxta rectam Grammatices rationem“ P i rv). The right reason of grammar is then explained as that which was used by the most esteemed ancient authors in speaking and writing. One of the tenets of the Humanist was to return to the study of the Classical authors, and the treatise makes a heavy use of examples drawn from the works of Terence, Ovid, and others.
Before starting to deal with the construction of each part of speech in turn, the author lists what he calls ‚the three concords‛ of the Latin speech – the same as those in the Shorte Introduction (for the three concords, see Luhtala, forthcoming,. Then follows an account of the syntax of the declinable parts (the noun, adjective, pronoun, and verb), after which the indeclinable parts (adverb, preposition, conjunction, and interjection) are accounted for. The verb section is expanded to cover miscellaneous individual topics: the gerunds, gerundives, supines, participles, impersonal verbs, and verbal nouns, as well as expressions of time and place. The treatise concludes with a description of the figures of speech (‚figurae‛) and constructions (‚figurae constructionis‛) as well a discussion on prosody.
The first rule of concord describes the nucleus of a sentence, which is discussed without using the medieval terms subject and predicate: „A personal verb agrees (‚cohaerere‛) with its nominative in number and person, as in ‚Nunquam fera est ad bonos mores via‛ (‚The road to good manners is never savage‛), ‚Fortuna umquam perpetuo est bona‛ (‚Fortune is never continuously good‛)“ (N ii v). The examples are not translated into English. After the principal rule, three minor rules and two exceptions are added. Firstly, the nominative of the first and second person is very rarely expressed, unless for the sake of emphasis or discretion. Secondly, the third person nominative is often understood in verbs relating to human beings, such as ‚est, fertur, dicunt, ferunt, aiunt, praedicant, and clamitant‛. Thirdly, the nominative position can even be occupied by an infinitive, e.g. ‚Mentiri non est meum‛ (‚It is not my habit to lie‛). The first exception deals with the embedded construction, known as the ‚accusative with infinitive‛, which can be resolved into a subordinate clause, initiated with the explicative conjunctions ‚quod‛ and ‚ut‛ (‚that, such that‛), as in ‚Te rediisse incolumem, gaudeo‛ (‚I am glad that you have returned safe‛) = ‚Quod tu rediisti incolumis, gaudeo‛ (N iii r).
The second concord describes the relationship between an adjective and its headword. „The adjective agrees with the substantive in gender, number and case, as in ‚Rara avis in terris, nigroque simillima cygno‛ (‚A rare bird in the lands, and very similar to the black swan‛)“. The rule is first stated as concerning adjectives, but immediately after it is expanded to involve pronouns and participles, as in ‚Donec eris faelix, multos numerabis amicos‛ (‚As long as you are happy, you will have many friends‛) and ‚Non hoc primum pectora vulnus mea senserunt, graviora tuli‛ (‚My breast was not conscious of this first wound, for I have endured still greater‛). Sometimes a sentence can occupy the position of the substantive, for instance ‚Audito regem Doroborniam proficisci‛ (‚Having heard that the king has left for Dorobornia‛) (N iii r). ‚Audito‛ must be understood as an ablative absolute, which normally consists of two parts (as in ‚hoc audito‛, lit. ‚with this having been heard‛). An accusative with an infinitive is embedded into the ablative absolute.
The third rule concerns the relationship between the relative pronoun and its antecedent: „The relative pronoun agrees with its antecedent in gender, number and person, as in ‚Vir bonus est quis? Qui consulta patrum, qui leges iuraque servat‛“ (N iii rv) (‚Who is to be called a good man? The one who observes the decrees of the fathers, and who maintains the statutes and laws‛). The rule is expanded with special cases, which are not organized under any subtitles, such as ‚Appendices‛ or ‚Exceptions‛. A sentence (‚in tempore veni‛) may replace the antecedent, as in ‚In tempore veni, quod omnium rerum est primum‛ (‚I came in time, which is the most important thing‛). When the antecedents are of different genders, the relative sometimes agrees with the first mentioned antecedent, as in ‚Propius a terra Iovis stella fertur, quae Phaeton dicitur‛ (‚Below this and nearer to the earth moves the star of Jupiter, called Phaethon‛), sometimes with the last-mentioned, as in ‚Est locus in carcere, quod Tullianum appellatur‛ (‚In the prison, there is a place called Tullianum‛). Several examples are given of both instances. Yet another rule states that whenever no nominative is inserted between the relative and the verb [in the subordinate clause ‚qui potuit‛], the relative will be the nominative of the [principal] verb [= the subject of the main clause, ‚is‛], as in ‚Faelix [est is] qui potuit boni fontem visere lucidum‛ (‚Happy is he who has been able to gaze upon the clear font of goodness‛, N iii v)
The principal rule concerning noun phrases states that when two nouns are joined so that the latter appears to be possessed by the former, the latter is in the genitive, e.g. ‚arma Achillis‛ (‘the arms of Achilles’ N iiii r). This genitive can often be turned into an adjective, as in ‚patris domus‛ =
‚paterna domus‛ (‘father’s house’). The use of apposition forms an exception, in that nouns are joined to each other in the same case, e.g. ‚Effodiuntur opes, irritamenta malorum‛. Another exception is formed by neuter adjective which can stand on its own (absolute), without the noun. The account of the construction of the noun involves only two additional rules: praise and blame are said to be expressed by means of the ablative or genitive, as in ‚vir nulla fide‛ (‘an untrustworthy man’), and the words opus and usus require the ablative
The section on the construction of the adjective is based on the different semantic relations that the adjective bears to the headword (N iiii v). Starting from the genitive, a number of semantic groups are listed, which demand a genitive: verbs of desire, memory and their opposites, partitive and interrogative nouns, superlatives, comparatives, verbal adjectives ending in ‚-ax‛; finally, a long list of miscellaneuos adjectives construed with the genitive is offered, which are said to be drawn from Linacre and Despauterius (O i r - O ii rv). Adjectives demanding the dative include those signifying beneficiality and similaríty together with their opposites, desire, subordination, relation, community, alienation, and immunity as well as verbal nouns ending in ‚-bilis‛. The origin of one of these items, words of relation (‚relatio ad aliquid‛), is philosophical. The accusative is required by adjectives signifying measure. The adjectives construed with the ablative have one of the following meanings: abundance, shortage, diversity, cause, form, manner, worthy, equipped, content, being affected, and exiled.
The construction of the pronoun is restricted to the genitive. In this section, the medieval term ‚suppositum‛ incidentally surfaces (I ii v).
The construction of the verb starts from the type in which the nominative follows the verb. The substantival (‚sum, forem, fio, existo‛) and vocative verbs in the passive (‚nominor, appellor, dicor, vocor, nuncupor‛) are construed with the nominative case after them, together with verbs of bodily movement (O iii v).
Any verb can have a nominative of an adjectival noun after it, which agrees with the subject of the verb (‚cum supposito verbi‛) in case, gender and number, as in ‚Pii orant taciti‛ (‚The pious pray in silence‛). Here we come across the second occurrence of the medieval term ‚subject‛ (‚suppositum‛). This construction is also discussed in terms of ‚apposition‛ in the section on the figures of construction.
The genitive comes after the substantival verb ‚sum‛ as indicating possession, and with verbs of accusing, condemning, estimating, remembering, forgetting, exhortation, and compassion (O iiiv-iiiir).
All acquisitive verbs are construed with the dative of the recipient. Verbs signifying beneficiality and its opposite, comparing, giving, promising, trusting, obeying, commanding, announcing, threatening and resenting. Verbs composed with prepositions are construed with the dative (O iiii v - P i v).
The accusative case comes after the transitive verbs of any voice. Intransitive verbs can take a cognate object. Two accusatives are demanded by verbs signifying asking, teaching and dressing up (P ii rv).
The ablative case is construed after the verbs signifying instrument, cause, and the manner of operation (P iii rv). Words signifying price are in the ablative case (‚vili, paulo, minimo, magno, nimio, plurimo, dimidio, duplo‛). Finally, the ablative is demanded by verbs having one of the following significations: abundance, functioning, earning, accompanying, being affected, receiving, comparing, filling, loading, enjoying, and using. Many special cases together with examples are given (Q i r).
As regards the ablative absolute, it is merely stated that it can be added to any verb (Q I r). It is left for the pupil to understand its meaning and use from the accompanying examples or for the teacher to explain them in the classroom: ‚imperante Augusto natus est Christus, imperante Tyberio, cucifixus‛ (‘Christ was born while Augustus was ruling and crucified during the reign of Tiberius’). ‚Crede pudicitiam Saturno rege moratam in terris‛ (‘I believe that during the reign of Saturn chastity dwelled upon the earth’); ‚nil desperandum Christo duce and auspice Christo‛ (‘there is nothing to be afraid of while Christ is our guide/under the guidance of Christ), ‚iam Maria audito Christum venisse, cucurrit‛ (‘Having heard that Christ has come Mary ran’). The discussion on the syntax of verbs is concluded with the construction of gerunds and supines
Then follows a chapter on expressions of place and time (Q ii rv - iii r), as well as one on the construction of the impersonal verbs (Q iii r - iv r). The account of the construction of the participles (Q iv r) is followed by a a section on the syntax of adverbs, which includes a brief account of the moods with which adverbs can be associated (R i r). For instance, ‚ubi, postquam‛ and ‚quum‛, as well as adverbs of time, can sometimes be associated with the subjunctive mood, sometimes with the indicative (R ii r). The section on the conjunction (R ii v - iii rv) deals with the same question. Examples illustrating the use of the different moods are drawn from Classical literature. The syntax of preposition (R iii v) concludes the discussion on regular syntax (
The final chapter ‚De figuris dictionis‛ consists of the traditional six figures of speech: ‚prothesis, aphaeresis, epenthesis, syncope, paragoge‛, and ‚apocope‛; and of construction ‚appositio, evocatio, syllepsis, prolepsis, zeugma, synthesis, antiptosis‛, and ‚synecdoche‛.
4. Context and Classification
The level of instruction at which the Institutio was designed to be studied, is not specified, but there are several elements pointing to the more advanced nature of the textbook. Unlike the Shorte Introduction, the Institutio defines its subject matter, grammar, as well as its four parts respectively. The account of the parts of speech is also more methodical than in the more elementary Introduction. The definitions of the parts of speech are regularly cast into the form of ‘essential’ definitions. Such a definition first mentions the genus (‚The noun is a part of speech‛ and proceeds to state the properties that one particular part of speech shares with the other parts as well as its own peculiar property. Thus, whereas the Introduction taught to identify the various parts of speech by asking questions, the more advanced treatise makes use of notional definitions, such as can be found in ancient and medieval textbooks on grammar. The Institutio also fails to make use of vernacular tokens as pedagogical devices. Consistently with its advanced nature, the Institutio makes a more frequent use of technical terms than the Introduction. The Greek alphabet and vocabulary as well as the section on figurative syntax in the Institutioare further signs of the advanced level of instruction.
All syntactical study ultimately goes back to the Institutiones grammaticae of the late antique grammarian Priscian c. 500 AD, one of the favourite textbooks of the humanists. The two books of syntax of the Institutiones grammaticae , known as the Priscian minor, had also been a standard textbook in medieval universities, and the humanist scholars proclaimed that they wanted to study Priscian in its authentic form, deprived of Scholastic influence. Consequently, the distinctly Scholastic terms such as subject (‚suppositum‛) and predicate (‚appositum‛) are absent from the Institutio; yet the term ‚subject‛ incidentally surfaces in two contexts, betraying their medieval origin. Yet some philosophical concepts introduced into grammar in the Middle Ages remain in the syntactical section, such as cause, instrument, and form, but their use is not distinctly philosophical. Instead of the functional notions of subject and predicate, the nuclear clause was described in terms of agreement between the nominative case and a verb and in terms of word order: the nominative is placed before the verb and the oblique cases after it. Both of these methods were also part and parcel of late medieval grammar. It was indeed impossible for the humanists to completely avoid medieval influence, especially in the field of syntax, which had made great advances in the Middle Ages. It was in the Middle Ages that a syntactical section began to be integrated into pedagogical grammars (see, for instance, Luhtala (2013), and it was medieval adaptations of Priscian’s syntactical theory that provided the foundation for the humanist treatises on syntax, such as Guarino Guarini’s Regule, Niccoló Perotti’s Rudimenta and the Institutio.
The humanists abhorred the dry and technical style of medieval grammatical textbooks and the present manual, as it appears, aimed at stylistic variation. For instance, instead of systematically using one single term for agreement, as in the Introduction (‚to agree‛), the title Institutio uses a different verb when describing each of the three concords, namely ‚concordare, consentire‛, and ‚cohaerere‛, probably for stylistic reasons. As regards ‚government‛ (‚regimen‛), the standard medieval term ‚regere‛ surfaces now and then in the Institutio, but generally speaking stylistic variation is sought in describing verbal syntax. Thus, altogether twenty-eight different terms are used in describing government, ranging from verbs indicating demanding, like Priscian’s ‚exigere‛, ‚postulare‛, to receiving ‚admittere, asciscere‛ and requiring ‚requirere‛. In accordance with the humanist educational ideals, examples in this manual are drawn from Classical literature. Terence dominates, the other authors include Virgil, Cicero, Ovid, Horace, Plinius the Elder, Caesar, Plautus, Seneca, Martialis, Valerius Maximus, Boethius, Catullus, Gellius, Tibullus, Iuvenal, Statius, Columella, Persius, Lactantius, Claudian, Quintilian, Suetonius, Macrobius, Sallustius, Livy, Cato, and Lucanus.
In the Late Middle Ages and early modern times it was customary to cast syntactical treatises into the form of rules that discuss the construction of each part of speech in turn. As a result of this approach, the notion of sentence, for which the ancient grammar used the term ‚oratio‛, is absent from most of such accounts; this is also true of the Institutio . It also appears that the term ‚sententia‛, which described the contents of a sentence in ancient grammar, began to assume a new meaning – at least in English grammars – as ‚sentence‛. Another new development can be detected in the use of the term ‚clausula‛. Originally a rhetorical notion, ‚clausula‛ had incidentally been used in the sense of a sentence, for instance by Roger Bacon Summa grammatica, p. 64, 71, 73, see (vgl. Michael 1970: 44), and the term ‚clausula principalis‛ was used for the main clause in the Compendium totius grammaticae of John Anwykyll, master of Magdalen College School, Oxford, 1481-88. Anwykyll, who composed the first humanist grammar in England in 1483 (vgl. (Orme 1989: 16) refers to causal subclauses as ‚clausulae causales‛. Thus, when the Institutio defines the conjunction as „joining together sententiarum clausulas“, the author may be thinking of sentences and units smaller than sentences, that is clauses. The distinction between a main clause and a subclause was not part of inherited grammatical doctrine, and it remained for the early modern grammarians to extend the scope of grammar into this new domain. Yet another novelty in the doctrine of the Institutio is the future perfect tense, ‚futurum exactum‛, adopted probably from Varro’s De lingua latina, rediscovered by Boccaccio at Monte Cassino in 1355.
The Institutio was one of sources for Ian Michael’s English Grammatical Categories (1970) 44), a historical survey of the development of grammatical terms and categories in the English tradition. Generally speaking, however, the Institutio has drawn hardly any scholarly attention, apart from that of book historians, nor is there a modern edition of it. The same neglect concerns the English tradition of Latin grammars written in Latin in general. Scholarly attention has been focused on grammatical textbooks written in English in the fifteenth century, of which thirty-seven have been edited by Thomson (1984). However, the grammars written in Latin, immediately preceding the vernacular tradition, have not been edited, and our knowledge of these textbooks is based on fragmentary quotations in various studies. These textbooks include John of Leylond’s De concordantiis grammatice and De regimine casuum from the early fifteenth century, the Memoriale Juniorum. of Thomas Hanney (1313), the Speculum grammaticale. of John of Cornwall (1346), and the two treatises by Richard of Hambury, active towards the end of the 13th century, the Tractatus de octo partibus orationis and the Suma. In the absence of research into Latin grammars written in Latin, the immediate sources of the Institutio cannot be exhaustively identified. The fact that it incorporates two short treatises by William Lily reveals its close association with the circle of Lily and Colet. At the end of the work, the pupil is encouraged to study the works of Thomas Linacre in case he wishes to pursue his grammar studies further, and Linacre is also mentioned as a source in the Institutio. Other sources of the Institutio are, according to Allen (1954: 98)Allen (1954: 98), Melanchthon, and Despauterius, Aldus Manutius, Erasmus, and Listrius. To these sources must be added Quintilian, whose treatise on the education of the orator was discovered by Poggio Bracciolini in 1416 at St. Gall.
