A History of English Language

A history of the english language 192
were debating the merits of Latin and English, the issue was being decided by the
translators.
Other factors, however, contributed to the victory. One was the overzeal of the
humanists themselves. Not content with the vigorous and independent Latin that was
written in the Middle Ages, they attempted to reform Latin prose on the style and
vocabulary of Cicero. Ciceronianism substituted slavish imitation for what had been a
natural and spontaneous form of expression. Not only was the vocabulary of Cicero
inadequate for the conveyance of modern ideas, but there was no hope of being able to
surpass one’s model. As Ascham confessed in his Toxophilus, “as for ye Latin or greke
tonge, every thyng is so excellently done in them, that none can do better.” Another
factor was the Protestant Reformation, itself a phase of the Renaissance. From the time
that Wycliffe refused to carry on his quarrel with the church in the language of the
schools and took his cause directly to the people in their own tongue, one of the
strongholds of Latin was lost. The amount of theological writing in English is almost
unbelievable, for as one Elizabethan remarked, “The dissension in divinity is fierce
beyond God’s forbid.” Finally, we must not overlook the fact that the contest between
Latin and English had a commercial side. The market for English books was naturally
greater than for Latin, and we cannot blame the Elizabethan printer if he sometimes
thought, as one said to Thomas Drant in 1567, “Though, sir, your book be wise and full
of learning, yet peradventure it will not be so saleable.”
Although it is plain to us nowadays that from the beginning the recognition of English
was assured, the victory was not lightly won. The use of English for purposes of
scholarship was frankly experimental. Sir Thomas Elyot in his Doctrinal of Princes
(1534) says: “This little book…I have translated out of greke …to the intent onely that I
wolde assaie, if our English tongue mought receive the quicke and proper sentences
pronounced by the greekes.” The statement is slightly apologetic. Certainly those who
used English where they might have been expected to write in Latin often seem to
anticipate possible criticism, and they attempt to justify their action. Ascham prefaces his
Toxophilus with the statement: “And althoughe to have written this boke either in latin or
Greke… had bene more easier and fit for mi trade in study, yet neverthelesse, I supposinge
it no point of honestie, that mi commodite should stop and hinder ani parte either
of the pleasure or profite of manie, have written this Englishe matter in the Englishe
tongue, for Englishe men.” In his Castle of Health (1534) Elyot is somewhat bolder in his
attitude: “If physicians be angry, that I have written physicke in englische, let them
remember that the grekes wrate in greke, the Romains in latine, Avicenna, and the other
in Arabike, whiche were their own proper and maternall tongues. And if thei had bene as
muche attached with envie and covetise, as some nowe seeme to be, they wolde have
devised some particular language, with a strange cipher or forme of letters, wherin they
wold have written their scyence, whiche language or letters no manne should have
knowen that had not professed and practised physicke.” All these attempts at selfjustification
had as their strongest motive the desire to reach the whole people in the
language they understood best. This is stated with engaging frankness by Mulcaster: “I do
write in my naturall English toungue, bycause though I make the learned my judges,
which understand Latin, yet I meane good to the unlearned, which understand but
English, and he that understands Latin very well, can understand English farre better, if
he will confesse the trueth, though he thinks he have the habite and can Latin it exceeding