very lack of an imitative attempt, the freedom from any pretence at literary archaism, seems to show that Chaucer was valued rather as a propogandist than as a poet. At Oxford, (the author is careful to state that he is an Oxonian), as well as in Parliament, Chaucer's works were read from a religious standpoint. But apparently they were read. And thus in a manner that would surprise no one more than Chaucer himself, his poems were accepted as being those of our first English author, and his influence passed on to the coming generation. CHAPTER III THE SCHOLASTIC TRADITION The starting point for an understanding of the development of English poetry in the first half of the sixteenth century is the fact that the change in the pronunciation of the language between fourteen hundred and fifteen hundred to a measure broke the continuity in the development of the literature. Ordinarily the movement is gradual, each writer introducing modifications in themselves slight, but the cumulative effect of which, after half a century, becomes apparent in what is called a "new school." At that time, however, not only had the change in the language rendered former authors, such as Chaucer and Lydgate, unavailable as models, but also the demand for literary productions was great. With the Tudors was born a new age. The writers of this new age were in a curious situation. They could either adapt forms written in Middle English, which was fast being forgotten, or they could imitate forms used in other languages than English. Naturally the dilemma did not present itself to them as sharply defined as this. In trying to express themselves they took what forms they had, and did the best they could with them. And the form chosen depended both upon what the especial occasion required and upon the knowledge and preference of the writer. They wrote as best they knew. On the other hand, that they were limited to the alternatives of the dilemma, owing to the change in pronunciation, was felt by many of them and is clear to us. No one author, either, was limited to one kind of composition. Skelton, for example, has one poem in accordance with the practice of the medieval tradition, he shows a knowledge of humanism, and yet his characteristic work is in still another field, that of medieval, scholastic Latin; Hawes is affected by the scholastic theory of the "aureate language," but his work is along the lines of the medieval tradition. And so with the others. The condition is what is to be expected in an era of beginnings, when each writer is feeling his way to a manner of expression suitable to his idea. On the other hand, it is also true that each writer had his preferences for the kind of work that he wished to do, preferences sufficiently marked to allow him to be classed with others having the same characteristics. The first of these classes includes poems of the medieval tradition; 1 the second, those poems written in accordance with the precepts of the Medieval Latin poetics. 1 The difficulty in discussing poems of this second class arises from the fact that the Medieval Latin poetics and the Medieval Latin poems illustrating them have been so largely forgotten. Latin poetry to us means the Latin poetry of Rome, the work of Vergil, or Horace, poems to be scanned according to well-known rules carefully studied by us in school. Today, when we speak of Latin poetry, that is what we mean. Of course we all know of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, of the invasions of the barbarians, of the emergence of modern nationalities, of the institutions of feudalism, etc., etc., but most of us are ignorant of what happened to the Latin language during this long interval. We still allude to it in the terms of the past as being "monkish" Latin, or "barbarous" Latin, and assume it to have been used only by simple, uncultivated, unlearned men. But however their works may be regarded, they surely cannot be considered "naïve." Albertus Magnus, Abelard, Saint Bernard, or Saint Thomas Aquinas can be thought of as unlearned only by those that dislike their learning. And surely no one now imagines that the great cathedrals were haphazard constructions, or assumes that the architects of them were not acutely conscious of the effect to be produced. The same holds true of the literature. Since literature, more than any other art, expresses the soul of an age, the poetry of the Middle Ages expresses the idealism, the acuteness, the mysticism and brutality of the men that wrote it. The medium through which much of the Middle Ages expressed itself was Medieval Latin. In form it differs radically from classical Latin; its prosody is accentual, not quantitative. In classical Latin the scansion is determined by the length of the syllables; this length, in turn, is in accordance with the complicated rules of prosody. For example, in the phrase "arma virumque cano,” the first a is long by position and the second a is short by Chapter II. nature so that, in reading, the first syllable has twice the value of the second. Such rules as these do not hold in Medieval Latin. Here the value of a syllable depends upon the stress. The first line of the most famous medieval hymn is Dies iræ, dies illa But according to the rules for the scansion of classical Latin the quantities are Dies iræ, dies illă It is clear that the two systems of prosody are so different that poems composed according to one system cannot be scanned according to the other, except in rare cases. When it is added that the Medieval Latin poetry is rimed, a kind of poetry appears that differs fundamentally from that in classical Latin. The reason for so radical a change in the system of verse-composition is a problem for the Latinists. Briefly, it may be said that at one time, before Ennius, the Latin language was both quantitative and accentual, and that Greek influence turned the scale in favor of the quantitative system. In the hands of the great classic writers, verse obeying the rules of quantity is the accepted form. Yet, even in classical times, the Saturnian and Fescennine verses show accentual prosody. To the English reader the situation may be clarified by the analogy in the history of our own literature. The meter of all early English poetry is alliterative, the characteristics of which are that every long line is divided into two short lines or half-lines by a pause; each halfline contains two or more strong syllables; each strong syllable in a line should begin with the same sound and there is no rime. This system can be illustrated by the opening verses of the Prologue to Piers Plowman. The rime-letters are italicised. In a sómer sesón whan sóft was the sonne, I shópe me in shróudes as I a shépe wérë, About the fourteenth century under continental influences poetry was written according to an accentual rimed prosody. This has superseded the alliterative method of versification so that the latter seems strange to modern readers. Nevertheless, our ears respond to the lure of subtle alliteration, and our poets play with it. Hear the sounds Shakespeare uses to describe Cleopatra's meeting with Anthony: 1 The barge she sat in, like a burnish'd throne, Burn'd on the water. The poop was beaten gold; Purple the sails, and so perfumed that The winds were love-sick with them. The oars were silver, Which to the tune of flutes kept stroke, and made The water which they beat to follow faster, As amorous of their strokes. Surely this passage owes it celebrity to a clever repetition of certain letters. Now suppose in the distant future, for reasons impossible to foresee, English prosody should return to an alliterative basis. In that case the analogy with what happened in Latin prosody would be complete. In Latin the return from the quantitative to the accentual prosody came with the fall of Rome and was at least concomitant with the introduction of music in the services of the Church. The fact that the very early chants consist of a series of half notes, terminated by a whole note, renders the quantitative value of each syllable equal. When quarter notes were introduced to quicken the measure, the poets placed the strength where the accent came. With the waxing power of the Church Latin prosody became accentual until the versification of the classic authors was largely forgotten. It was not completely forgotten, since all through the Middle Ages occasionally poems were composed according to the quantitative principles 2 and even in accentual poems quantity was not entirely ignored. In general, however, it must be remembered that a vast amount of poetry was written in Latin according to principles unknown to Horace. 2 The amount of the literature shows that this Medieval Latin poetry possessed great influence. When the various vernaculars were in dialectic stages, before any vernacular had established itself as a national expression, men found in the Latin a medium of communication, not only between members of their own nation, but also with men of other nations. Consequently it was universal, 1 Anthony and Cleopatra, Act II, sc. ii. The reader is referred for examples to Poto Latini Evi Carolini, edited by Ernestus Duemler. |