Shorte Introduction of Grammar

1. Title and Authorship

The Shorte Introduction of Grammar is an elementary textbook of Latin grammar, which dominated the teaching of Latin in England until well into the nineteenth century. It was intimately associated with a more advanced Latin grammar, knonw as the Brevissima Institutio or the Institutio compendiaria, and designed to be studied after it. Both of these treatises, which covered the entire grammatical curriculum, were granted a royal monopoly by Edward VI (1547-1553) in 1547; the more elementary treatise was written in English and the more advanced in Latin. Although the Shorte Introduction is thought of as having existed c. 1540, the earliest printed copy is from 1542 (London, Berthelet). My references to this text are based on this volume. The treatise belongs to a volume consisting of three parts, each of which has a different date, and the grammatical treatises bear the following titles: An Introduction of the Eyght Partes of Speche, and the Construction of the same, compiled and sette forthe by the commaundement of our most gracious souerayne lorde the king and Institutio compendiaria totius grammaticae quam et eruditissimus atque idem illustrissimus rex noster hoc nomine euulgari iussit, ut non alia quam haec una per totam Angliam pueris praelegeretur. The most important later editions are by Reyner Wolfe in 1549, in which the title A Shorte Introduction of Grammar, generally to be vsed in the Kynges Maiesties dominions, for the bryngynge vp of all those that entende to atteyne the knowledge of the Latine tongue first appears, and by the assignes of Frauncis Flowar in 1574, in which the two authorized grammars are for the first time printed in one work, with continuous pagination. In the 1549 edition (Reyner Wolfe) the title of the Latin part was changed to Brevissima Institutio seu ratio Grammatices Cognoscendae. Both parts of the work bear their own titles throughout their printing history. The first extant copy was published neither as a facsimile nor as a scholarly edition until Hedwig Gwosdek’s study (Gwosdek 2013).

2. Authors

The Shorte Introduction of Grammar, whose title page fails to mention its author(s), has been falsely attributed to two famous humanists, William Lily (c. 146-1522) and John Colet (c. 1467-1519), and the grammar came to be known as ‘Lily’s grammar’ and ‘Lily & Colet’, alongside the ‘King’s Grammar’. However, both of these treatises are today regarded as an outcome of the work of a committee, commisioned by Henry VIII some twenty years after the death of William Lily and John Colet. Lily composed a treatise on syntax, the Rudimenta grammatices, probably in 1509-1510, which circulated separately or jointly with John Colet’s treatise on Latin accidence, known as Aeditio. These two treatises are regarded today as the most important sources for the Shorte Introduction of Grammar (henceforth Introduction).

3. Contents

The treatise opens by listing the eight parts of speech as divided into declinable and indeclinable, as was customary since late medieval times (A4r). The noun is defined as follows: „the noun is the name of a thing that may be seen, felt, heard or understood. The name of my hand is in Latin ‚manus‛, the name of a house ‚domus‛, and the name of goodness ‚bonitas‛“. The examples are translated into English.

Nouns are then divided into subatantival and adjectival. A substantival noun, such as man, ‚homo‛, can stand alone without needing to be joined to another word. It is declined with one article, such as ‚hic magister‛, or two articles, such as ‚hic‛ and ‚hec parens‛. An adjectival noun cannot stand alone but needs to be joined with another word, like ‚bonus‛ and ‚pulcher‛. It has three endings, such as ‚bonus, a, um‛, or else it is declined with three different articles, ‚hic, haec, hoc‛.

Nouns are divided into common and proper in accordance with Donatus’s Ars minor. : a proper noun is proper to the thing it signifies, like one’s own name ‚Edowardus (Ioannes)‛, and a common noun ‚homo‛ is common to all men. The textbook then proceeds to deal with the accidents of the noun (without using this term), starting with number. The six cases are introduced by using tokens and by asking questions in order to identify the various cases (A4v). This account is based on the idea of natural word order, according to which the nominative precedes the verb and the accusative follows it.

• The nominative case comes before the verb and answers the question ‚who‛ or ‚what‛, such as ‚magister docet‛‚the master teaches‛.
• The genitive is known by this token ‚of‛ and answers the question ‚whose?‛ or ‚whereof?‛, such as ‚doctrina magistri‛, ‚the learning of a master‛.
• The dative is known by this token ‚to‛ and answers the question ‚to whom?‛ or ‚to what?‛, as in ‚do librum magistro‛, ‚I give a book to the master‛.
• The accusative case follows the verb and answers to the question ‚whom?‛ or ‚what?‛, as in ‚amo magistrum‛, ‚I love the master‛.
• The vocative case is known by calling or speaking to, such as ‚o magister‛, ‚o master‛.
• The ablative case is commonly known by these signs ‚in, with, through, by, for‛ or ‚from‛.

The Introduction then has a short account of the declension of the articles ‚hic hec hoc‛ and a very traditional discussion on gender (B1r). The genders are introduced by using an article.

The cases of the noun are discussed by the five declensions, without indicating that they can be identified by their genitive endings (B1v). All the endings of each declension are listed, after which the paradigms are given: the first declension, ‚musa‛ (as in Donatus), the second ‚magister‛ (as in Donatus) and ‚regnum‛ (B2r), the third ‚lapis‛, the fourth ‚manus‛ (B2v), and the fifth ‚meridies‛ (B3r). Then follow paradigms of adjectives: ‚bonus, a, um, felix‛ (B3v), ‚ambo, unus, tristis‛.

In the section on the comparison of nouns, the comparative and superlative forms are said to be derived from the first case ending in -i (which is the genitive in the second declension and the dative in the third), e.g. ‚boni‛ and ‚tristi‛ (B4r)

The pronoun is a part of speech much like a noun, which is used in showing and rehearsing. ‚Showing and rehearsing‛ are probably translations for ‚monstrant et referunt‛ in the Doctrinale, meaning ‚to demonstrate‛ and ‚to refer‛ (B4v).

The fifteen pronouns are then listed, being divided into primitive and derivative. The primitive pronouns include ‚ego, tu, sui, iste, ille, ipse, hic‛, and ‚is‛; they are called demonstrative, because they show a person not mentioned earlier. The relative pronouns refer to a thing mentioned before and include ‚ hic, ille, iste, is, idem‛, and ‚qui‛. The derivative pronouns are ‚meus, tuus, suus, noster, vester, nostras‛, and ‚vestras‛, being derived from ‚mei, tui, sui, nostri‛, and ‚vestri‛.

The four declensions of pronouns, which had been established in the Middle Ages, together with their paradigms occupy the major portion of the following section (C1r); this division of pronouns occurs, for instance, in the Doctrinale. Then follow traditional accounts of gender and person (ii v).

The verb is defined as a part of speech, with moods and tenses, signifying doing (‚amo‛), suffering (‚amor‛), or being, such as ‚sum‛ (C2v). A division is then drawn between personal and impersonal verbs. The personal verbs are further divided into the five voices, active, passive, neuter, deponent and common, which are defined in the traditional manner. For instance, an active verb ends in -o and by adding r can be turned into the passive, as in ‚amo, amor‛.

The mood is introduced by listing the six moods, which include the potential in addition to the traditional five: indicative, imperative, conjunctive, optative and infinitive. Technical terms are used in labeling the moods. The indicative mood is defined as a sentence which is true or false either by way of asking or telling. 1 Tokens in the vernacular are used in identifying three of them. 2

The subjunctive joins sentences together (C3r), as in ‚cum amarem, eram miser‛, ‚when I loved, I was wretched‛. The infinitive signifies doing, suffering or being and has neither number, nor person, nor a nominative case before it and it is known by the token ‚to‛, like ‚amare‛, ‚to love‛. The definition is followed by a syntactic rule: when two verbs come together without any nominative case between them, then the latter will all be in the infinitive mood, as in ‚Cupio discere‛, ‚I desire to learn‛.

The tenses and the four conjugations are recognized by their infinitive forms. Paradigms are given of the following verbs: ‚amo, doceo, lego, audio, sum, possum, nolo, volo, fero, malo, edo, fio‛, (G1r), ‚memini, inquit, aio‛, and ‚quaeso‛. A note on impersonal verbs concludes the section on the verb: they are conjugated in the third person in all moods and tenses, being preceded by the token ‚it‛ in English, as in ‚It delights me to read‛, ‚Me delectat legere‛.

A participle is defined as a part of speech derived from a verb; it shares gender and case with the noun, tense and signification with the verb, and number and figure with both (E3v).

The tenses of the verb are four, and include present and past as well as two types of future tenses, one ending in ‚-rus‛, like ‚amaturus‛, and another, signifying later future, in ‚-dus‛, like ‚amandus‛. Two participles are said to be derived from the active verb, present and future, and two from the passive verb, past and the later future. The present participle has the ending ‚-ing‛ in English, like ‚loving‛, and in Latin ‚-sans‛, like ‚amans‛ or ‚-ens‛, like ‚docens‛. It is said to be formed from the past tense, such as ‚amabam‛, by replacing ‚-bam‛ with ‚-ns‛. The signification of the participle of the future ending in ‚-rus‛ is compared with the active infinitive, so that ‚amaturus‛ means ‚to love‛ or ‚about to love‛. It is formed from the later supine, by adding ‚-rus‛, like ‚doctu docturus‛. The past participle ends in ‚-d‛, ‚-t‛, or ‚-n‛ in English, like ‚loved‛, ‚taught‛, ‚fallen‛, and in ‚-tus, -sus, -xus‛ in Latin, like ‚amatus, visus, nexus‛, and one in ‚-uus‛, like ‚mortuus‛. It is formed from the supine, by adding ‚-s‛, like ‚lectu, lectus‛. The participle of the late future signifies suffering like the infinitive mood of the passive voice, for instance, ‚amandus‛‚to be loved‛. It is formed from the genitive of the present participle by replacing ‚-tis‛ with ‚-dus‛, like ‚legentis, legendus‛. The participle of the first future, like ‚amaturus‛, is formed from the later supine.

An adverb is defined as a part of speech joined to the verbs in order to declare their signification (E4r). The account of the adverb consists of a list of twenty-four various significations with one example of each and without using any technical terminology. For instance, some adverbs are of time, like ‚hodie, cras, olim‛, and ‚aliquando‛; others of place, like ‚ubi, ibi, hic, istic, illic, intus‛, and ‚foris‛.

A conjunction is defined as a part of speech that joins words and sentences together (F1r). A list of twelve significations of conjunctions are given, whereby their Latin names are preserved (copulatives, disjunctives, discretives, causals, conditionals, exceptives, interrogatives, illatives, adversatives, redditives, electives, diminutives).

A preposition is defined in the traditional manner as a part of speech that can be placed before the other parts of speech in apposition, like ‚ad patrem‛, or in composition, like ‚indoctus‛ (Fir). In accordance with Donatus, prepositions are divided into those requiring the accusative, the ablative and those requiring both with different meanings. The prepositions listed are those of the Ars minor.

An interjection is defined as a part of speech which signifies affections of the mind in imperfect expression (F1v). Thirteen affections are mentioned, only four of which can be found in Donatus (F2r).

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, starting from the declinable parts (see Luhtala 2013 and 2014a). The syntactical section of the Introduction adheres to this approach. The treatment of the individual parts of speech is preceded by a short account of the ‚three concords‛, discussing agreement between the noun and adjective, the noun and the main verb, and the relative pronoun and its antecedent (for details, see Luhtala, forthcoming). After introducing these three concords briefly, another digression follows which teaches how to turn an English sentence into Latin (F4v). According to a pedagogical device offered here, one must first look out for the principal verb, [that is, the predicate of the main clause]. If there are more verbs than one in a sentence, the first of them will be the principal verb, unless it is preceded by an infinitive, a relative word, like ‚that, whom‛, or ‚which‛, or a conjunction, like ‚ut‛ and ‚cum‛, and so forth; the last remark probably pertains to subclauses initiated by pronouns or conjunctions. When you have found this verb, you should ask the question ‚Who?‛ or ‚What?‛ and the word that answers this question will be the nominative case of the verb. The nominative must be placed before the verb in construing Latin, unless it is a question, whereby the nominative case comes after the verb or the sign of the verb, as in ‚amas tu?‛‚love you?‛ or ‚venitne rex?‛‚does the king come?‛

The first concord deals with the relationship between a noun and a verb in the nucleus of a simple sentence, thus being closely related to the above advice on how to find the verb: „A verbe personell agreeth with his nomynative case, in number and person, as ‚The mayster redeth and ye regard not‛, ‚Praeceptor legit, uos uero negligitis‛.“

The examples are simple, often drawn from the school environment, and some of them have a moral content. The technical terms used in describing the nucleus of a sentence are the ‚nominative case‛ and the ‚personal verb‛. The treatise uses throughout the same term, ‚to agree‛, for concord. Each rule is accompanied by a number of exceptions and irregular cases. The second rule of concord regarding the relationship between an adjective and a noun resorts to the method of asking a question in order to identify the headword. The rule concerns the adjective in the first place (exemplified by ‚certus‛), but immediately after, it is noted that the position of the adjective can also be occupied by a pronoun or a participle, and examples are given of these different categories respectively: ‚armatus‛ is a participle, ‚colendus‛ is a gerundive/participle, ‚hic‛ and ‚meus‛ are pronouns.

The second rule (G1r): „When ye have an adjective, aske this question, who or what, and that that answereth to the question, shall be the substantive. The nowne adiectyve agreeth with his substantive, in case, gender, number, as ‚A sure frende is tried in a doubtfull matter‛‚Amicus certus in re incerta cernitur‛. Lykewyse particyples and pronownes be ioyned with substantyues, as ‚A manne armed‛, ‚Homo armatus‛, ‚a fielde to be tylled‛, ‚ager colendus‛, ‚this manne‛‚hic vir‛, ‚it is my mayster‛‚meus herus est‛.“

When describing the concord between the relative pronoun and its antecedent, the Introduction again resorts to the method of asking questions: „Whan ye have a relatyve, aske this question, who or what, and that that answereth to the question, shall be the antecedente, whiche is a woorde that goeth before the relative, and is rehersed again of the relative. The relatyve agreeth with his antecedente, in gender, number, and person, as ‚that manne is wyse that speaketh fewe‛, ‚vir sapit qui pauca loquitur‛“ (G1v).

A digression into the ‚accusative with infinitive‛ construction concludes this section. It is presented as involving a process of transformation, whereby the conjunction ‚quod‛ or ‚ut‛ [initiating a subordinate clause] is deleted while the nominative is turned into an accusative and the verb into an infinitive, as when ‚Gaudeo quod tu bene vales‛ (‚I am gladde that thou art in good helth‛) is turned into ‚Gaudeo te bene valere‛. The other example ‚Iubeo ut abeas‛ (‚I byd the to go hens‛) involving a verb of will is transformed into ‚Iubeo te abire‛ .

The discussion on noun phrases consists of four rules (G2r). When two nouns having different meanings come together, the latter must be in the genitive, as in ‚the eloquence of Cicero‛, ‚facundia Ciceronis‛, ‚the boke of Vergile‛, ‚codex Vergilii‛, ‚a lover of studies‛, ‚amator studiorum‛, ‚the opinion of Plato‛, ‚dogma Platonis‛. But if they belong to one and the same thing, they are both in the same case, as in ‚my father being a manne, loveth me a chylde‛, ‚Pater meus vir amat me puerum‛.

The next rule offers advice how to use adjectives as nouns: when an adjective is associated with the word ‚res‛‚thing‛, you can leave it out, and turn the adjective into the neuter, as in ‚Many thynges have letted me‛, ‚Multa me impedierunt‛.

The next rule concerns the construction that we know as the partitive genitive: an adjective of neuter gender can be used as a noun and have a genitive after it, as in ‚much gain‛, ‚multum lucri‛.

The use of the ablative or genitive in expressing quality is explained as follows: the praise or blame of a thing is normally expressed with the ablative, but also with the genitive, as in ‚a child of a good towardness‛, ‚puer bona indole‛ or ‚bonae indolis‛. Finally, ‚opus‛ and ‚usus‛ require the ablative case.

Seven types of construction involving adjectives are established. Among them, the rule advising how to answer questions is of pedagogical interest. When a question is asked, one has to answer it with the same case and tense as in the question: ‚Cuius est fundus? Vicini‛. ‚Whose is the estate? Of the neighbour‛ (G2v).

According to the first rule of the construction of the verb, the verbs ‚sum, forem, fio‛, and ‚existo‛ have the same case before and after them, as in ‚malus cultura fit bonus‛; similarly, with some passive verbs, as in ‚Croesus vocatur dives‛, and ‚Horatius salutatur poeta‛, and with verbs of behaving and gesture, as in ‚dormit securus, bibit ieiunus‛ (G4r).

The genitive case (G5r): the verb ‚sum‛ signifying possession or pertaining to something requires the genitive case, as in ‚vestis est patris, insipientis est dicere‛; verbs signifying esteem or regard, as in ‚parvi ducitur probitas‛; verbs of accusing, condemning and warning, and the opposites, as in ‚furti se alligat‛, or ‚furto‛; other verbs include ‚satago, misereor, miseresco, reminiscor, obliviscor, memini, egeo‛, and ‚indigeo‛; either genitive or accusative is required by ‚potior‛.

The dative case: All kinds of verbs signifying acquisition will have a dative case, with the tokens ‚to‛ or ‚for‛ as in ‚non omnibus dormio‛ (G5v). The following semantic groups are distinguished: profit or loss (‚commodo, incommodo, noceo, comparo, compono, confero‛); giving (‚dono‛); promising (‚promitto‛); commanding (‚impero‛); trusting, obeying, and being against something (‚fido, obedio, dignor‛); the verb ‚sum‛ and the compounds of ‚satis‛, ‚bene‛ and ‚male‛ (‚satisfacio‛); verbs prefixed with a number of prepositions (‚prae, ad, con, sub‛ and others); and the verb ‚sum‛ signifying possessing (‚est tibi mater‛). Finally, like many other verbs, sum can be associated with a double dative: ‚sum tibi praesidio‛.

The accusative case: all transitive verbs demand an accusative of the sufferer after them, whether they be active, common or deponent, as in ‚usus promptos facit, foeminae ludificantur viros, Largitur pecuniam‛ (H1r). Neuter verbs may have an accusative of their own signification: ‚vivo vitam, gaudeo gaudium‛. Verbs of asking, teaching and arraying have two accusatives: ‚rogo te pecuniam, doceo te literas‛.

The ablative case: any verb can demand an ablative of instrument and cause or the manner of doing: ‚ferit cum gladio, taceo metu, summa eloquentia causam egit‛. Verbs signifying price: ‚vendidi auro‛; plenty or scarcity, filling and emptying, loading and unloading (‚affluis opibus, cares virtute‛); receiving, distance, or taking away together with one of the prepositions ‚a(b), e(x)‛ or ‚de‛ (‚accepi litteras a Petro‛); verbs of comparison and exceeding (‚prefero hunc multo‛) (H1v); and the following individual verbs: ‚fungor, fruor, laetor‛, etc.

Ablative absolute: a substantival noun or a pronoun, joined with a participle, either expressed or understood, and having none other word governing it, is put into an ablative absolute, as in ‚the king coming, the enemies fled‛, ‚rege veniente hostes fugerunt‛. It may also be resolved into a clause initiated by any of these words: ‚dum/cum/quando/si/quamquam/postquam veniret rex‛.

The passive verbs are construed with an ablative with the preposition ‚ab‛ and sometimes with the dative as the agent, as in ‚Vergilius legitur a me, tibi fama petatur‛. This ablative will be the nominative case of the verb in an active sentence.

The following rule advises one how to form the gerund: when you have in English a present participle preceded by the token ‚of‛ or ‚with‛ and coming after an adjectival noun, it must be put into the gerund ending in ‚-do‛ in Latin (‚Caesar dando, sublevando, ignoscendo gloriam adeptus est‛) (H2r). The gerund signifying obligation is identified by means of the tokens ‚must‛ or ‚ought to‛: When you have in English ‚must‛ or ‚ought to‛ in a sentence, where it seems to mean the same as ‚oportet‛, it may be put in the gerund ending in ‚-dum‛ and the verb ‚est‛. Also, the noun which is in the nominative case in English must be put into the dative [of agent].

The final section of the syntactical treatise is devoted to expressions of time and place (H2v)

4. Context and Classification

The Shorte Introduction is the culmination of the tradition of Latin grammars written in English, starting around 1400). From the fifteenth century, thirty-eight textbooks are available in modern editions, which deal with elementary Latin morphology and syntax (see Thomson 1984, Bland 1991). and Gwosek 2000). These manuals present a great diversity of doctrine, which was felt to be a hindrance for learning. This is why a new uniform textbook was commissioned by Henry VIII to be used in English schools. The uniformity of teaching was also in accordance with the spirit of the Reformation, which established the King as responsible for the orthodoxy of the people Cummings (2002: 187-223 ). The New Learning, which aimed at simplifying the teaching of grammar, also had its impact on the emergence of these treatises. Ideally a grammatical manual ought to be short, and the idea of brevity (‚shorte‛, ‚brevissima‛) is implied in the titles of both treatises. William Lily was a pupil of John Anwykyll (d.1487), the first master of Magdalen College School, Oxford, who is first recorded as having introduced the New Learning into his grammar, Compendium totius grammaticae, an advanced work of grammar written in Latin (Bloxham 1853-55: 3-7 and Orme 1989: 16). When he died in 1487, his successor John Stanbridge composed several treatises in the humanist vein in English. The Parvula, Accidence, Long Parvula, and Parvulorum Institutio have all been attributed to him. Two pedagogical works by Thomas Linacree Progymnasmata grammatices vulgaria and Rudimenta grammatices are also among the sources of the Shorte IntroductionGwosdek 2013: 105 ; the Rudimenta is generally regarded as the expanded version of the Progymnasmata.

The parts of speech section in the Introduction is heavily dependent on the Middle English elementary Accedence-texts, which are ultimately based on Donatus’s Ars minor. . Donatus’s grammar did not have a section on syntax, and it was in the twelfth century that a section on syntax began to be integrated into pedagogical grammars for the first time (Luhtala 2013: 351-353). The syntactical doctrine of the Introduction depends on the medieval adaptations of the theory that is ultimately based on the late antique Institutiones grammaticae of Priscian c. 500). These medieval adaptations involve substantial influences from Scholasticism. Short syntactical treatises, known as Informacio and Formula, circulated together with the Accedence-texts in the fifteenth century. William Lily’s Rudimenta grammatices – the most immediate source of the syntactical part of the Introduction – belonged to the late medieval tradition of syntactical treatises.

The Informacio was, according to Thomson, composed by John Leylondd. 1428), one of the famous Oxford grammar masters. At the beginning of the fifteenth century, John Leylond had carried out a reform whose aim was to simplify the tools of grammatical analysis. This simplification, omitting some theoretical parts of the doctrine, was viewed in the twentieth century as representing ‚a debasement‛ of teaching by Richard W. Hunt (1964: 181-184)). Twenty years later, Thomson regarded the simplified textbooks more positively as being „more adequate to the needs of schoolboys than the earlier, compendious, grammatical summae“ and as representing „a more appropriate and practical approach to teaching“. However, a comparison of Leylond’s syntactical treatise with the popular versions of the Informacio and Formula texts (revisions of the Informacio) circulating in the mid- and late-fifteenth century shows that they made less frequent use of medieval philosophical vocabulary than Leylond’s treatises. This suggests to me that there was an ongoing process of simplification of grammatical exposition throughout the fifteenth century rather than one single reform carried out by John Leylond Luhtala (forthcoming).

The textbooks of the Italian humanists reached England in the latter half of the fifteenth century, but the humanist reform did not have an immediate impact on the teaching of grammar. According to Thomson (1984: xiv), „innovation and continental influence only began to take a significant part in the elementary tradition in the next, sixteenth century, wave of development, represented by the work of Colet at St. Paul’s School in London“. One of the reasons for the relatively late breakthrough of the humanist pedagogical ideas in the teaching of Latin grammar in England may be that a simplification of medieval grammar, very similar to that promoted by the humanist reform, had already taken place in England earlier in the fifteenth century. However, in this earlier reform not all Scholastic terms were excised from grammatical exposition; for instance, the functional notions of subject and predicate were maintained in several Middle English treatises and also in Compendium. . The final and complete excising of Scholastic terms did not take place until the late fifteenth century, being probably carried out by one of Anwykyll’s successors.

The humanists criticized the medieval grammar for being too analytical for the young pupils. Accordingly, the Introduction uses technical terms sparingly. The medieval terms subject (‚suppositum‛) and predicate (‚appositum‛) were replaced by the expressions ‚the nominative case‛ and ‚personal verb‛ in describing the nucleus of a sentence, and the medieval terms ‚regere‛ and ‚regimen‛ are absent from the syntactical rules. Definitions − one of the cornerstones of ancient and medieval grammar − were another area in which the Humanists wanted to reform the grammatical exposition. Thus, the inherited definitions were either simplified or they were replaced by the use of various tokens in the vernacular or by asking questions.

5. Reception

The Introduction dominated the teaching of Latin for more than three centuries as an obligatory textbook in English schools. The importance of the uniformity of grammar teaching was promoted especially in the writings of Richard Mulcaster (1531/32-1611), the High Master of St. Paul’s School, London during 1596-1608. However, the enforcement of the uniform grammar did not advance without resistance. Although the Introduction was intended to be short and simple, the pupils nevertheless met with difficulties in trying to understand the definitions and rules given in it. Towards the end of the sixteenth century, competitive teaching material began to emerge, which complemented the study of the authorized manual. Such was, for example, A Plaine And Easie Laying open of the meaning and understanding of the Rules of Construction in the English Accidence. (1590), which spelt out the rules of concord offered by the Introduction and the principles which lay behind them Gwosdek 2013: 13 . In 1641, an alternative manual, entitled Systema Grammaticum, was composed by Thomas Farnaby, which proposed to be „more brief and useful than that now taught in schools, called Lilie’s grammar“ (HMC 1874, quoted by Gwosdek 2013: 14 . A list of commentaries on Lily’s Grammar is given in Padley (1985: 147-148). In spite of resistance, ‘Lily’s grammar’ continued to be the only legal textbook used in schools. The English part of the authorized grammar also exerted influence on the earliest extant grammar of the English language, the Pamphlet for Grammar. of (1586).

As regards the attribution of the authorized grammar, among the earliest explicit references to Lily’s authorship is by Thomas Stapleton (1535-1598) in 1588 (Gwosdek 2013: 95). It was Flynn (1939) who first regarded ‘Lily’s grammar’ as a new compilation rather than a revision of William Lily and John Colet’s grammars. His dissertation and an article based on it (1943) thus deserve special merit in the history of the research into this text (Gwosdek 2013: 18-19). Most scholars failed to take into account Flynn’s work, a notable exception being Allen (1954) , who adopted Flynn’s position. However, concerning the substance of grammar, the line between a revision and a new compilation is fluid. In the Middle Ages and early modern times, many teachers compiled their own textbooks from the material widely in circulation. The Introduction is such a derivative work, as are also Lily and Colet’s grammars. Moreover, a large number of pedagogical Latin grammars based on Donatus were heavily reworked in the Middle Ages but nevertheless bore Donatus’s authoritative name. From this perspective, the King’s grammar is no less entitled to be associated with the names of Lily and Colet. Thus, we are left with a number of puzzling questions, some of which are addressed in an article by Law (1986: 153f). What kind of changes can one make to a particular grammar to make it an independent compilation? What should all the numerous medieval versions of ‘Donatus’ be called? The derivative works escape a precise classification (see Luhtala 2014b: 153f.).

6. Bibliography

• Allen, C. G. 1954. The Sources of Lily’s Latin Grammar: A Review of the Facts and Some Further Suggestions. The Library, 5th ser. 9.85-100
• Bland, Cynthia. 1991. The Teaching of Grammar in Late Medieval England. An Edition, with Commentary, of Oxford, Lincoln College, MS Lat. 130.. East Lansing: Colleagues Press.
• Bloxham, J. R. 1853-55. A Register of presidents, fellows ... of Saint Mary Magdalen College.. 8 vols. Vol 3, 7-10.
• Cummings, Brian. 2002. .The Literary Culture of the Reformation.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Flynn, Vincent Joseph. 1939. The Life and Works of William Lily, the Grammarian.. D.Phil. Thesis, University of Chicago.
• Flynn, Vincent Joseph. 1943.The Grammatical Writings of William Lily, ?1468-?1523.. The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America37.85-113.
• Gwosdek, Hedwig. 2000. A Checklist of Middle English Grammatical Manuscripts and Early Printed grammars, c. 1400-1540.. The Henry Sweet Society Studies in the History of Linguistics, 6. Münster: Nodus Publikationen).
• Gwosdek, Hedwig. 2013. Lily’s Grammar of Latin in English. An Introduction of the Eyght Partes of Speche, and the Construction of the Same. Edition and introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hunt, Richard. H. 1964. Oxford Grammar Masters in the Middle Ages. Oxford Studies presented to Daniel Callus. Oxford: Oxford Historical Society, N.S. 14.163-93.
• Brevissima Institutio seu ratio grammatices cognoscende. London: Berthelett, 1542.
• An Introduction of the Eyght partes of speche. London: Berthelett, 1542.
• Law, Vivien. 1986.When is Donatus not Donatus? Versions, variants and new texts.. Peritia 5.235-261.
• Luhtala, Anneli. 2013.Pedagogical Grammars before the Eighteenth Century.The Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics ed. Keith Allen, 341-358. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Luhtala, Anneli. 2014a.Scholastic Influence on Syntactical Theory in Pedagogical Grammars..Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft , 24.51-70.
• Luhtala, Anneli. 2014b.Review of Hedwig Gwosdek: Lily's Grammar..Language & History , 57.1,103-106.
• Luhtala, Anneli. Forthcoming.Teaching Agreement: A case study in the Language Pedagogy of Two Humanist Treatises on Syntax from Early Modern England..History of Language Teaching and Learning I. 16th 18th Century Europe. , ed. Nicola McLelland and Richard Smith.
• Orme, Nicholas. 1989.Education and Society in Medieval and Renaissance England. . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Padley, G.A. 1985. Grammatical Theory in Western Europe, 1500-1700. . Trends in Vernacular Grammar, I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Thomson, David. 1979. A Descriptive Catalogue of Middle English Grammatical Texts. New York and London: Garland.
• Thomson, David. 1983. The Oxford Grammar Masters Revisited. Medieval Studies 45. 298-310.
• Thomson, David. 1984. An Edition of the Middle English Grammatical Texts. New York and London: Garland.

---

Zitieren: https://diglib.hab.de/ebooks/ed000171/id/ebooks_ed000171_i_shorte/start.htmAnneli Luhtala