Chapter IX: Introduction

Grammar did not appear as a separate body of knowledge until a late period in the Greek civilization. The merest ground-work of the science had sufficed to meet all the demands of education, of philosophy, and of a literature in course of production; for its development it was necessary to await a period of literary criticism. When the Alexandrian scholars began to compare the idiom of Homer with that of their own day, the requisite stimulus for the scientific study of language was given, and grammar may be regarded as dating from the Alexandrian age.

What was at that time termed grammar, γραμματική, included far more than the modern science; it was the study of literature at large. The grammarian might have nothing to do with what we call grammar, but be a student of textual criticism or mythology. Any sort of study undertaken for the purpose of elucidating the poets was grammatical. Like the modern professor of literature, the only invariable characteristic of the grammarian was his literary point of view.[155]

[155] See Sandys, _History of Classical Scholarship_, pp. 6–10.

The grammatical studies of the Romans were patterned closely after those of the Greeks; the Greek terminology and organization of the science were adopted without change. The Roman interest in the subject was no doubt heightened by the fact that the Roman culture was a bilingual one; thus a broad basis for the study was furnished, and naturally much attention was given to the derivation of words. A large number of scholarly works was produced, and the inferiority of the borrowed Roman culture is perhaps less noticeable in this department than in any other.

It was inevitable that this ‘grammar’, in a condensed form, should come to be used in common education. Its outlines, however, were rather vague, and many of its departments did not lend themselves to the concise statement necessary in a text-book. The first Greek school grammar, the τεχνὴ γραμματικὴ[156] of Dionysius Thrax, which was destined to be the basis of all the school grammars of antiquity, appeared about 80 B.C. It is noticeable that although the definition of grammar that is given[157] is the definition of the grammar of the scholars, the subjects actually treated are little more than the parts of speech. It was natural that there should be this gap between promise and performance. For a long time no doubt this mere outline was filled in by the oral interpretation of the masterpieces in the manner of the scholars; but when these ceased to be studied, in the early medieval period, the study of grammar was confined to the material offered in the text-books.[158]

[156] It is still in existence. The best text is that of Uhlig,
1883 (Leipzig).

[157] “Grammar is a practical knowledge of the usages of
language as generally current among poets and prose writers. It
is divided into six parts: (1) trained reading with due regard
to prosody; (2) explanation according to poetical figures; (3)
ready statement of dialectical peculiarities and allusions; (4)
discovery of etymology; (5) an accurate account of analogies;
(6) criticism of poetical productions, which is the noblest
part of grammatic art.” _The Grammar of Dionysius Thrax_,
translated by T. Davidson (St. Louis, 1874), p. 3. In contrast
to this definition the body of the work is devoted to reading,
punctuation, the alphabet, syllables, and the parts of speech.

[158] The older definition or its substance was still retained,
however. See p. 97. Its retention is rather an evidence of
conservatism than a proof of the continued study of the poets.

The first of the Romans to produce a school grammar was Remmius Palaemon, who flourished in the first half of the first century. He had many successors in the later centuries of the Roman Empire, and the literary tradition of the school grammar continued unbroken into the Middle Ages. The most influential exponent of the subject was Aelius Donatus, whose _Ars_, written in the fourth century, was used throughout the Middle Ages. The chief writers of grammatical texts in the centuries preceding Isidore were Victorinus, Donatus, Diomedes, Charisius, and Martianus Capella in the fourth; Consentius and Phocas in the fifth; and Cassiodorus in the sixth. No new contributions were being made to the science, and these writers had no other resource than to copy their predecessors, which they did in a slavish manner.[159] The verbal similarity in all of them is so strong that it is impossible to trace with certainty the immediate source of any one of the later writers.

[159] The following list of passages gives some idea of the way
in which grammatical works were produced in this age.

Vox sive sonus est aer ictus, id est percussus, sensibilis
auditu quantum in ipso est. Probi, _Instituta Artium_ in Keil,
_Grammatici Latini_, vol. vi, p. 4, 13.

Vox est aer ictus sensibilis auditu, quantum in ipso est. Donati,
_Ars Grammatica_. _Ibid._, vol. iv, p. 367, 5.

Vox est aer ictus sensibilis auditu, verbis emissa, et exacta
sensus prolatio. Sergii, _Explanationum in artem Donati, Liber
I._, _Ibid._, vol. iv, p. 487, 4.

Vox est aer auditu percipibilis quantum in ipso est. Marius
Victorinus, _Ars Grammatica_. _Ibid._, vol. vi, p. 4, 13.

Vox quid est? Aer ictus sensibilisque auditu quantum in ipso est.
Maximus Victorinus, _Ars Grammatica_. _Ibid._, vol. vi, p. 189, 8.

Vox articulata est aer percussus sensibilis auditu quantum in
ipso est. Cassiodorus, _Institutio de Arte Grammatica_. _Ibid._,
vol. vii, p. 215, 4.

Vox est aer ictus sensibilis auditu, quantum in ipso est.
Isidore, _Etymologiae_, 1, 15.

These grammars are almost altogether made up of definitions which
had become stereotyped.

Isidore’s account of grammar is of somewhat more than the average length[160] found in these text-books, but its lack of solid substance, in which it differs from the books of the fourth century, measures the decline in intellectual grasp and thoroughness of the two intervening centuries. Donatus, Servius, and even Capella, stick closely to the technique of the subject and are thorough-going; their books are calculated to afford a severe discipline to the student. But in Isidore a feebleness in handling the subject is evident; he is apparently unaware of the superior importance of such subjects as conjugation and declension, and he is very easily led into confusion by the trains of thought suggested by his frequent derivations.[161]

[160] The greater length of his treatment is due to the fact
that he includes more subjects than do the preceding writers of
text-books. A comparison of his table of contents with those of
Cassiodorus, Martianus Capella, Donatus, and Servius shows that
he professes to cover much more than they; he has ten topics that
do not appear in Donatus’ _Ars Grammatica_, and a greater number
that do not appear in Servius, Capella, or Cassiodorus.

[161] See especially his definition of verbum, 1, 9, 1.

ANALYSIS[162]

[162] The analysis is meant to indicate briefly the formal
organization of the subject. It is followed by selected
passages in translation, which, while illustrating the
technical treatment, are meant rather to give what is of more
general interest. It must be remembered that this treatment by
selected passages fails to give a just idea of the meagerness,
attenuation, and confusion of the material considered as a whole.

A. Introductory.
1. Definition of _ars_ and _disciplina_ (ch. 1).
2. Definition of the seven liberal arts (ch. 2).
3. The Hebrew and Greek alphabets (ch. 3).
4. The Latin alphabet (ch. 4).

B. Grammar.
1. Definition and divisions[163] (ch. 5).
2. Parts of speech (chs. 6–14).
a. _de nomine_ (ch. 7).
_Propria_ (four sub-classes of proper nouns are
given).
_Appellativa_ (twenty-eight sub-classes of common
nouns are given).
_Nominis comparatio_ (comparison of adjectives).
_Genera_ (genders).
_Numerus._
_Figura_ (simple and compound nouns).
_Casus._[164]
b. _de pronomine_[165] (ch. 8).
c. _de verbo_ (ch. 9).
_Formae_ (desiderative, inchoative and
frequentative verbs).
_Modi_ (indicative, imperative, optative,
conjunctive, infinitive, impersonal).
_Conjugationes._[166]
_Genera_ (active, passive, neuter, common, and
deponent verbs).
d. _de adverbio_[167] (ch. 10).
e. _de participio_ (the participle) (ch. 11).
f. _de conjunctione_ (ch. 12).
g. _de praepositionibus_ (ch. 13).
h. _de interjectione_ (ch. 14).
3. Articulate speech (ch. 15).
4. The syllable (ch. 16).
5. Metrical feet[168] (ch. 17).
6. Accent[169] (chs. 18, 19).
7. Punctuation (ch. 20).
8. Signs and abbreviations (_Notae_) (chs. 21–26).
a. _Notae sententiarum_ (critical marks used in
manuscripts).
b. _Notae vulgares_ (shorthand).
c. _Notae militares_ (abbreviations used in military
rolls).
d. _Notae litterarum_ (cipher-writing).
e. _Notae digitorum_ (sign language).
9. Orthography (ch. 27).
10. Analogy[170] (ch. 28).
11. Etymology (ch. 29).
12. Glosses (ch. 30).
13. Synonyms (ch. 31).
14. Barbarisms, solecisms[171] and other faults[172] (chs. 32–34).
15. Metaplasms (poetic license in changing the forms of words)
(ch. 35).
16. _Schemata_ (rhetorical figures) (ch. 36).
17. Tropes[173] (ch. 37).
18. Prose (ch. 38).
19. Metres[174] (ch. 39).
20. The fable (ch. 40).
21. History (chs. 41–44).

[163] See p. 97.

[164] A set of terms unfamiliar to the modern student of grammar
is given under this head. Nouns having six distinct case-forms
are called _hexaptota_; those having five, _pentaptota_, and so
on. See 1, 7, 33.

[165] Pronouns are classified according to use into _finita_,
_infinita_, _minus quam finita_, _possessiva_, _relativa_,
_demonstrativa_; and according to origin into _primigenia_ and
_deductiva_.

[166] Three conjugations are given.

[167] Note part of the definition: “Adverbium autem sine verbo
non habet plenam significationem, ut hodie: adjicis illi verbum,
hodie scribo, et juncto verbo implesti sensum.” 1, 10, 1.

[168] Isidore asserts that there are one hundred and twenty-four
sorts of metrical feet, “four of two syllables, eight of three,
sixteen of four, thirty-two of five, sixty-four of six.” 1, 17, 1.

[169] The ten so-called accents of the grammarians are described:
the acute, the grave, the circumflex, the marks to indicate long
and short vowels, the hyphen, the comma, the apostrophe, the
rough and smooth breathing.

[170] This section is to be explained by reference to the
chief controversy in the history of the science of grammar in
classical times, that between analogy and anomaly, or whether
grammatical regularity or irregularity was the more basic
phenomenon. In Capella’s grammar _analogia_ is the heading under
which declensions of nouns and conjugations of verbs are given,
while exceptions are grouped under the heading _anomala_. See
Martianus Capella, Eyssenhardt, pp. 75–97. Also Sandys, _History
of Classical Scholarship_, Index.

[171] Solecism is “the failure to put words together according to
the correct method”, while barbarism includes blunders in the use
of single words. 1, 33, 1.

[172] Chiefly a parade of long words, like _perissologia_,
_macrologia_, _tapinosis_, _cacosyntheton_, etc. 1, 34.

[173] A large number of poetical figures are described. This
section is probably nothing but an evidence of conservatism,
since Isidore certainly did not include a study of the poets in
his scheme of education.

[174] A number of metres are described and some attention is
given to different kinds of poetry, such as the elegiac, bucolic,
hymn, cento, etc.

EXTRACTS

Chapter 2. On the seven liberal arts.[175]

[175] Du Breul has _disciplinis_, not _artibus_.

1. The disciplines belonging to the liberal arts are seven. First, grammar, that is, practical knowledge of speech. Second, rhetoric, which is considered especially necessary in civil causes because of the brilliancy and copiousness of its eloquence. Third, dialectic, called also logic, which separates truth from falsehood by the subtlest distinctions.

2. Fourth, arithmetic, which includes the significance and the divisions of numbers. Fifth, music, which consists of poems and songs.

3. Sixth, geometry, which embraces measurements and dimensions. Seventh, astronomy, which contains the law of the stars.