Animadversions upon Lily’s Grammar, or Lily Scanned

Introduction

Maddalena Repetto

Published seemingly anonymously in octavo in 1625 by the printer Richard Hawkins with the title Animadversions upon Lily’s Grammar, or, Lily Scanned. An Extract of Grammatical Problems, Gathered out of the Inquiries and Disputes of the most judicious Grammarians, Set down by way of Question and Answer, this treatise is one of the many works engaging with William Lily’s influential Latin grammar Institutio compendiaria totius grammaticae.[1] There exist few extant copies of the volume – eight, according to the volume’s entry in the English Short Title Catalogue – and this edition is based on the copy held at the Folger Shakespeare Library, collation A⁸(-A1) B-I⁸ K1, 2+.[2]

According to the Stationers’ Register entry dated 22 September 1624, the book was the work of Thomas Wise, master of arts, though not much is known about him.[3] A search through the Cambridge and Oxford archives of alumni yields two possible matches: a Thomas Wise (b. 1601) who graduated B.A. from Cambridge in 1622 and was later MP for Devon in the House of Commons, and a Thomas Wise (b. 1598 or 1599) who obtained his M.A. from Oxford in 1622 and later became rector of Brinklow, Warwickshire in 1624.[4] Given the age, profession, and academic qualification, the Wise who authored the treatise is probably the latter, although no further biographical information is available.

Among Wise’s works was another short pamphlet entered in the Stationers’ Register in June of 1623, published in that same year, and titled Exercitatio Scholastica, Ad linguam Latinam viam muniens; sive, Fasciculus argutiorum Sententiarum, quartum lectione Pueri Grammaticales simplicem Syntaxin possint summon cum fructu, & facilitate addiscere, Adultiores autem, & aetate provectiores recolere.[5] As the title suggests, the short book – just a little under 30 pages long – is a compendium of ‘witty sentences’ by famous Latin authors. No comment is provided; the author’s contribution is limited to the choice and arrangement of the aphorisms. The Exercitatio Scholastica was also entrusted to the same publisher as the Animadversions, Hawkins, whose shop was located in Chancery Lane, ‘in the hearts of the Inns of court area of London’ and especially close to the Serjeants’ Inn, and whose entire book repertoire was seemingly tailored to appeal to the high-class local readership.[6] Although both volumes are clearly intended for a younger audience and were explicitly produced for the education of Latin-learning ‘pueri’, they nevertheless suggest an attempt at viability among an older and more educated public as well, and the full title of the Exercitatio Scholastica openly invites ‘Adultiores’ and ‘aetate provectiores’ as well.

To better understand the significance of Wise’s work, however, it is important to consider the context in which it was born and developed.

Up until the beginning of the sixteenth century, there had been very little innovation in terms of Latin grammatical treatises in England: from about the year 350 and for almost twelve centuries, by far the most commonly read textbook had been Aelius Donatus’ De octo partibus orationis, more typically known as the Ars minor or simply Donatus. As testimony to its popularity, the book was one of the most frequently printed texts by fifteenth-century printers and, in a revised version, it was the basis for the first grammar printed in English; other popular Latin textbooks that also enjoyed numerous editions and revisions included Alexander de Villa Dei’s Doctrinale and Cato’s Distichs.[7]

These previously fixed circumstances began to evolve at the beginning of the sixteenth century, when English authors began to publish new textbooks which would end up slowly replacing their medieval predecessors. Among these, the first to gain prominence in the earlier part of the sixteenth century was John Stanbridge (1463-1510), who published grammars, vocabularies, and phrase books which went through several editions; Stanbridge was headmaster of the newly established Magdalen College School in Oxford, and was among the greatest influences on Cardinal Thomas Wolsey and William Lily.[8] Other influential grammarians included Robert Whittington, Thomas Linacre, and John Colet.[9] Colet in particular was the author of a grammar treatise known as the Aeditio which would later become part of the collection of works known as Lily’s Institutio compendiaria totius grammaticae; the first known edition of Colet’s work was published posthumously in 1527.[10] Cardinal Wolsey adopted this and Lily’s Rudimenta grammatices, discussed below, as a grammar for his school at Ipswich, and modified it slightly by adding new material; this material, too, like Colet’s, would become part of Lily’s Institutio.[11]

William Lily (1468-1522) was High Master of St Paul’s school, and was friends with Colet, Linacre, and Thomas More. In 1509 he published his first foray into textbooks for Latin grammar, the Rudimenta grammatices, and in 1513 Absolutissimus de octo orationis partium constructione libellus; these two works, alongside other contributions, make up the majority of the Institutio compendiaria totius grammaticae, later known as Lily’s Latin Grammar to distinguish it from its English translation.[12] The other contributors to the volume were Colet, Erasmus, and Wolsey.[13] This text received the imprimatur of Henry VIII for the first time in 1530, but it definitively established itself as the touchstone of early modern Latin grammar teaching in 1540, when Henry VIII emitted a decree which officially sanctioned it as the only authorised Latin schoolbook in England. Henry’s decree would be renewed and reinforced by his successors for more than two hundred years, setting Lily’s grammar as ‘the standard by which all others were measured.’[14] The reasons behind this operation are clarified in the preface to the Institutio: here it is explained that the methods of teaching Latin grammar had become too many, too varied, and with little coherence, and the King had therefore assembled a committee of erudite men and tasked them with compiling a clear and complete introduction to Latin grammar based on the works of the best writers. Doubtlessly in large part thanks to its royally sanctioned status, the work became immensely popular and was printed numerous times: by 1640 there were over sixty editions.[15] Its influence was such and its use in grammar schools was so widespread that William Shakespeare made references to the volume in at least three plays: in Titus Andronicus, a quotation from it is read from a scroll; in 1 Henry IV Gadshill quotes from the very first page of the grammar; and references to it are made in The Merry Wives of Windsor.[16] Outside of the realm of the popular theatre, Christ Church college at Oxford produced the Latin play Bellum grammaticale by Leonard Hutten in 1581, in which Lily himself is resurrected and acts as a judge (‘judge Lilius’) in a quarrel between the King of the Nouns and the King of the Verbs.[17]

However, despite its status as the single most referenced and most prominent Latin grammar in the sixteenth century and later, Lily’s grammar was not exempt from subsequent ‘corrections’ and more or less covert attempts to replace it. Some writers argued against the need altogether for an official grammar textbook, while others criticised Lily’s work or advocated for revisions or glossing.[18] Generally speaking, the works that sprung from Lily’s grammar could be divided into four categories: translations, clarifications on subject matter and teaching method, praxes, and supplementary teaching; of these, the most notable examples from the sixteenth and seventeenth century are given below.[19]

John Stockwood’s A Plain and Easy Laying Open of the Meaning and Understanding of the Rules of Construction in the English Accidence, published in 1590, clarifies certain points of the book and deals extensively with the social connotations of language, with the connection between grammatical and social status, and the possibility of mapping ‘alternative social relations’ onto the structure of language. Other socio-political facets of language are discussed in John Leech’s contemporary (c. 1590) Certain Grammar Questions for the Exercise of Young Scholars in the Learning of the Accidence, also inspired by Lily’s work. [20] John Brinsley’s The Posing of the Parts, Or, A Most Plain and Easy Way of Examining the Accidence and Grammar, published in 1612, questions certain features of Lily’s teaching method and suggests alternative solutions.[21] Thomas Granger’s Syntagma Grammaticum, printed in 1616, explicitly aimed at simplifying Lily: the subtitle An easy and methodical explanation of Lily’s grammar and the promise of easier learning of the Latin tongue on the title page indicate as much. In line with Lily’s notion of English as being ‘either prior to Latin in signification or parallel with it’, Granger’s volume was an attempt at ‘redesign[ing] the process’ of teaching Latin entirely: his method first lay the basis of English grammar and only then started approaching the more complex study of composition in Latin.[22] Charles Hoole published two works dealing with Lily’s book, Propria quae Maribus and As in Praesenti Englished and Explained (1650) and Lily’s Latin Grammar Fitted for the Use of Schools (1653), in which he argued in favour of the continued use of Lily as an official textbook, but advocated for a teaching method prioritising examples over rules and understanding over mere memorising.[23] Finally, in 1655, Henry Edmundson published Lingua Linguarum, or The Natural Language of Languages, in which he compiled a compendium of Latin/English synonyms with the hope that students would learn Latin by way of comparisons with their native English.[24]

Wise’s Animadversions belongs to this series of derivative works that were born as companions, critiques, or possible replacements to Lily’s influential grammar: the volume, despite being in English, is closely modelled on the structure of the Latin Institutio Compendiaria and is evidently intended as a companion to it. The declared aim of Animadversions is to amend and correct the mistakes found in Lily’s text and, while overtly maintaining a respectful attitude towards the venerated grammarian, Wise ‘is nonetheless pointed in his criticism of usually minor points in the text’ and offers both specific and more general and methodological critiques.[25] In fact, notes John S. Pendergast, a rather radical bit of criticism aimed at Lily can be found in the very first pages of Wise’s text: there he gives a definition for ‘Grammaticus’ and ‘Grammatista’, arguing that the former strives to discuss the work of poets, historians, orators, and philosophers, and does not restrict the scope of his teaching to that of a mere instructor of Latin; the latter’s role, conversely, is limited to that. Perhaps controversially, Wise suggests that Lily is a ‘Grammatista’ rather than a ‘Grammaticus’, and that his grammar textbook ‘does not participate in larger, potentially more important topics.’[26]

This attitude of open criticism towards the ‘old master’ is apparent from the very title page of the volume. In the long subtitle of the Animadversions, the volume vows to resolve ‘many difficult knots’, ‘obscurities’, ‘errors and incogitances’, and ‘deficiencies’ found in Lily’s text, to answer several ‘accessory questions’, and purports to be ‘very necessary and profitable’ for those wishing to claim the title of ‘exact grammarian.’ Whether these boastful assertions were personally proposed by Wise, or were a selling tactic devised by the printer, is hard to tell; however, as emerges throughout the text, Wise was attempting to frame his Animadversions as an essential tool for the grammar teacher and as an improved version of Lily’s work.

As mentioned, the volume follows the outline of the Latin Institutio Compendiaria rather than Lily’s Latin grammar in English. According to the STC entry, there are at least two extant copies bearing an extra leaf with an address to the reader and an errata page, but this is not the case for the Folger copy at hand.[27] After a short section titled ‘Of Grammar, and the parts thereof’ in which Wise poses and answers four introductory questions – including the one setting out the difference between ‘Grammaticus’ and ‘Grammatista’ – the book is organised into paragraphs corresponding to the original sections found in the Institutio, with the same recurring configuration: an imaginary scholar posing questions about Lily’s work and Wise providing answers. Most of the paragraphs share the same title as their Latin counterparts, though translated in English, and are occasionally longer and more detailed than the original sections. The queries range from questions about historical or linguistic context, requests for clarifications on seemingly obscure passages or for additional information on points examined less thoroughly by Lily, and sometimes pretexts for Wise to provide his own definition or explanation to supplant Lily’s. The answers are occasionally supplied with marginal notes which usually provide additional context or examples, and Wise often references many other linguists and grammarians, as well as classical authors, to either counteract Lily’s arguments or support his own.

Wise’s Animadversions ends abruptly on page K²v, seemingly halfway through the paragraph ‘Of an interjection’ which corresponds to Lily’s ‘De interiectionum constructione’, and commentary on the last 27 pages of Lily – comprising the sections ‘De figuris’, ‘De prosodia’, ‘De carminum ratione’, and ‘De quantitate primarum syllabarum’ – is missing.[28] It is unclear how much of Wise’s book is missing; according to the volume’s entry in the catalogue of the Folger Shakespeare Library, the original collation is speculated to be A-I⁸ K⁴, thus with two full leaves missing.[29] If this hypotheses were true, it seems highly unlikely that Wise was able to complete his analysis of the remaining 27 pages of Lily in just four pages. It could be theorised that the original collation was A-K⁸ instead, which, with six full leaves, corresponding to twelve pages, makes it far more likely that Wise was able to accomplish his goal of providing a complete examination of Lily’s grammar. These remain, however, speculations.

To conclude, while it is perhaps not the most insightful response to Lily’s grammar, and while it most likely achieved very little success on its own – for it was never reprinted, it is hardly ever mentioned outside of book catalogues, and only a handful of modern critics have written about it and always in passing – Wise’s Animadversions deserves a mention in the critical discourse surrounding Lily’s contribution to Latin grammars in early modern England. Fashioning itself as a companion to Lily’s official textbook, it delves into grammar matters deeply and with meticulous expertise, offering numerous quotations from classical and contemporary Latin authors to implement its theses, and would probably prove valuable even on its own, detached from Lily’s fame.

Bibliographical references

Flynn, Vincent Joseph, “The Grammatical Writings of William Lily, ?1468-?1523”, in The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 37 (1943), pp. 85-113.

Green, Nina, “‘Edwardus is My Propre Name’: Lily’s Latin Grammar and the Identity of Shakespeare”, in Brief Chronicles 2 (2010), pp. 25-31.

Mace, Nancy A., “The History of the Grammar Patent from 1620 to 1800 and the Forms of Lily’s Latin Grammar”, in The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 100 (2006), pp. 177-225.

McGregor, Rachel, “‘Run not before the laws’: Lily’s Grammar, the Oxford Bellum grammaticale, and the rules of concord”, in Renaissance Studies 29 (2015), pp. 261-279.

Mead, H. R., “Fifteenth-Century Schoolbooks”, in Huntington Library Quarterly 3 (1939), pp. 37-42.

Pendergast, John S., Religion, Allegory, and Literacy in Early Modern England, 1560–1640: The Control of the Word (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2006).

Quarrie, Paul, “Elizabethan Latin: Latin at an Elizabethan Grammar School”, in The Classical Outlook 63 (1986), pp. 120-123.

Stevens, Denis, “A Musical Admonition for Tudor Schoolboys”, in Music & Letters 38 (1957), pp. 49-52.

Stewart, Mary Beth, “William Lily’s Contribution to Classical Study”, in The Classical Journal 33 (1938), pp. 217-225.

Wiggins, Martin, in association with Catherine Richardson, British Drama, 1533–1642: A Catalogue, 9 vols (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012-18).

Young, Jennifer, “Shakespeare for the ‘Triers’: Richard Hawkins and the Q2 Othello at the Serjeants’ Inn”, in Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies 21 (2021), pp. 94-119.

[1] The title is accompanied by a longer subtitle which reads: Wherein, many difficult knots in the English Rudiments and Lily’s Grammar are unloosed; many obscurities enlightened; many errors and incogitances discovered; many deficiencies supplied; the original and reason of many terms of art manifested; and not a few accessory questions discussed with much brevity and perspicuity. All early modern titles in this introduction have been modernised.

[2] The copies are, respectively, owned by British Library, Cambridge University Trinity College, Columbia University, Folger Shakespeare Library, Harvard University, Oxford University Bodleian Library, University of Manchester John Rylands Library, Library of Congress Washington DC; not a lot of information is available on most of these copies. STC 25867; see http://estc.bl.uk/S101876 (last accessed 29 May 2023).

[3] Stationers’ Register Online #SRO7998.

[4] See ACAD – A Cambridge Alumni Database, #WS619T (online, last accessed 25 May 2023), and Alumni Oxonienses 1500-1714, pages 1654-1674 (Wilson-Wood), https://www.british-history.ac.uk/alumni-oxon/1500-1714/pp1654-1674 (last accessed 25 May 2023).

[5] Stationers’ Register Online #SRO7797.

[6] Young, 94-98.

[7] In the fifteenth century, approximately 360 editions of Donatus were printed, 280 of the Doctrinale, and 135 of the Distichs; see Mead, 37-40.

[8] Quarrie, 120.

[9] Mead, 42.

[10] Flynn, 86-88.

[11] Stevens, 49.

[12] Quarrie, 120.

[13] Stewart, 218.

[14] Pendergast, 85; Mace, 177-178.

[15] Quarrie, 120.

[16] Green, 25-30.

[17] Wiggins, #710, and McGregor, 261.

[18] Pendergast, 85-86.

[19] Stewart, 222.

[20] McGregor, 268.

[21] McGregor, 268, and Stewart, 222.

[22] Pendergast, 86.

[23] Stewart, 222-223.

[24] Pendergast, 86-87.

[25] Pendergast, 86.

[26] Pendergast, 86.

[27] STC 25867; see http://estc.bl.uk/S101876 (last accessed 29 May 2023).

[28] See William Lily, Institutio compediaria totius grammaticae (London: 1542).

[29] See https://catalog.folger.edu/record/159099?ln=en (last accessed 29 May 2023).

There are eight extant copies of Thomas Wise’s Animadversions upon Lillies Grammar, stored, respectively, at the British Library, Cambridge University Trinity College (II.12.182[4]), Columbia University (PLIMPTON 470), Folger Shakespeare Library (HH221/6), Harvard University (Houghton Library GEN *59-336), Oxford University Bodleian Library (A 153(1) Art), University of Manchester John Rylands Library (Special Collections: 15449), Library of Congress Washington DC (PA2077.W5); this edition is based on the copy held by the Folger Shakespeare Library.

The octavo volume is collated A⁸(-A1) B-I⁸ K1, K2 and comprises 144 numbered pages. According to a note accompanying the record, both the Bodleian and the Harvard copies have an extra leaf with an address to the reader and errata. Additionally, the Folger copy is defective and lacks all pages after K2v.

The title page reports the title and subtitle, the place where it was printed, the printers’ names and details about their shop, and the year it was printed (‘London: Printed by W. Stansby for Richard Hawkins, and are to be sold at his Shop in Chancerie Lane. 1625.’). As noted, this copy does not feature an address to the reader, and the title page is immediately followed by the main contents of the book. The volume is structured according to the chapter distribution in Lily’s original grammar, so each short section is headed by a title identical to Lily’s source. The text occasionally presents marginal notes offering clarifications or further details.