CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

SIXTEENTH-CENTURY VIEWS ON THE

SPELLING AND PRONUNCIATION OF FRENCH

A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in

Linguistics

by

Marianne Patalino Adams

June, 1981 The Thesis of Marianne Patalino Adams is approved:

Professor Paul Kirk

Professor Alvin Ford, Chairperson

California State University, Northridge

ii PREFACE

~he purpose of this thesis is threefold. First, to contribute to our understanding of some of. the external ncin-linguistic factors involved in linguistic change.

Second, to show how an examination of 16th-century gram­ marians' deScriptions of speech sounds can contribute to our knowledge of the phonology of the period. Third, to contribute to our understanding of the evolution of atti­ tudeS towards the French language and towards the history of linguistic study in general.

The Renaissance was chosen because it was a time of intense political, social, and intellectual transformation and the consequences for language were important, and be­ cause it was then that indiv~duals first began to study the ~odern languages in addition to Latin and Greek. It is therefore the first time in which we have significantly numerous direct written observations dealing specifically with the indigenous languages.

While the material presented does not exhaust th~ available literature, every effort has been made to make it representative of the kinds of attitudes and opinions to be found. Rather than an exhaustive examination of every 16th-century phoneme, this study has focused on those sounds ·undergoing relatively rapid change, thus· giving rise to diversity and controversy. These, it will

iii be seen, were numerous.

iv ACKNmvLEDGMENTS

Shyness and a feeling that my own· literary skills were inadequate to convey strength of feeling had at first persuaded me not to write any formal acknowledgments.

But gratitude deeply felt begs for expression and by its intensity cannot be easily held down. I therefore most gladly take this opportunity to say thank you, first of all to my husband, Jim, for his unfailing encouragement, for proofreading every word I wrote and making valuable

~uggestions and corrections, for suffering my complaints and standing by me, and for making this thesis and my

M.A. degree quite literalli possible. I also most warmly thank my chairman and teacher, Professor Alvin Ford, for his kindness, guidance, and generosity with his time, and

Profess6rs Iris Shah and Paul Kirk for their helpful edit­ ing, and who together with Professor Ford have made being a student of linguistic~ at CSUN an unexpected pleasure.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface iii

Acknowledgments v

Abstract vii

Chapters

l. The French Language in the Renaissance 1

2. Orthography 17

3. Pronunciation 46

Conclusion 94

Bibliography 98

vi ABSTRACT

SIXTEENTH-CENTURY VIEWS ON THE

SPELLING AND PRONUNCIATION OF FRENCH

by

Marianne Patalino Adams

Mast~r of Arts in Lin~uistics

Part I of this thesis shows how external non­ linguistic events such as political unification, improved communications, national and linguistic pride, printing, the prescriptions o£ grammarians; and the conscious choices of a growing class of literate speakers became in the Renaissance important factors influencing both the direction of linguistic change and the rate of that change.

Part II presents the debates raging in the 16th cen­ tury concerning the spelling of French and shows how the inclinations of 16th-century writers and printers were in large part responsible for the spelling system of modern

vii French.

Part III brings together representative statements of

16th,...century grammarians and phoneticii:ms concerning the pronunciation of French-to show that descriptions of speech sounds made before the days of tape recordings can, however, contribute to our ability to reconstruct the phonology of earlier periods.

By the 16th century, spelling had become conventional and almost everybody was writing letters for sounds they were not pronouncing. Thus, traditional spellings tell us little about actual pronunciation. At the same time learned in£luences were beginning to affect more and more speakers creating conflict between the spontaneous evolu­ tion of language and the conservative forces which resist change. The resulting diversity noted in the various seg­ ments of the population and irregularities in forms inter­ fere 'PTi th the reliability of classical reconstruction techniques, further increasing the importance of the gram- marians' descriptions. It will be seen that in many cases these descriptions constitute our primary source of infor­ mation as to when and for whom certain changes occurred, while in other instances observations are scarce, unre­ liable, or clearly in error and we must depend largely on other available evidence, such as rhymes and misspellings.

viii Chapter 1

THE FRENCH LANGUAGE IN THE RENAISSANCE

Historical Background

To precipitate the French Renaissance was not exact­ ly what Charles VIII had in mind when he initiated the

Italian campaigns in 1494. The effect of the campaigns, however, was to do iust that. Though of little conse­ quence in themselves, the social and cultural impact of the military escapades was far-reaching. In Italy, France di~covered a more refined and sophisticated way of life, intellectual and artistic activity of a new sort, and the

Classical world shed of centuries of medieval interpreta~ tion. Inspired by envy, curiosity, and excitement, France turned to Italy and through Italy to antiquity. New ideas poured into the country; everything Italian carne into vogue; and Greco-Roman philosophy, art, and culture inspired artists and writers to imitation and to creativ­ ity.

France was ready for the change. A rapid recqvery was being made from two centuries of devastation: the

Hundred Y~ars War, domestic turmoil, the ravages of the plague which had decimated half of the population of

Europe, widespread famine, terror, and depression were at an end. The economy was beginning to improve. Labor was scarce and could command higher wages, and a new

1 2 bourgeois class was growing in importance. Out of the debris of the feudal system came a stronger monarchy. A more unified country turned its back on the Middle Ages.

Any division between periods is always somewhat arbi­ trary. Still, a number of forces were at work at this time to produce decided, if not necessarily abrupt, changes: rapid advances in science~ and technology, the introduction of printing, the growth of nations and of national and linguistic pride and rivalry, the desire to raise the status of French, the increasing use of the vernacular for "serious" matters, the growing·be1ief that language could and should be regulated. These were not isolated phenomena, but inseparable one from the other and from all of the other political, cultural, and in­ tellectual transformations of the Renaissance. And while it may be that the connections between what happens in society and what happens linguistically can seldom if ever be overlooked, in the 16th century it is almost impossible to do so. "Immortal God!" writes Erasmus in 1517, "What a world I see dawning!" (Santillana, p. 17). Surely some- thing quite different was happening.

Indeed, what we call the Renaissance is precisely that great outburst of energy, creativity, and human achievement that spread across Europe from the 14th through the 16th centuries. A thirst for direct know­ ledge and free exercise of reason meant a rejection of 3 medieval scholasticism with its .vain formal disputes and pursuit of a logic conceived and designed to serve the faith. In contrast to the Church's well-ordered arrange­ ment of knowledge, Renaissance systems of thought were far from coherent. As new ideas of man, nature, and the universe were constructed, the intellectual climate was transformed, and out of the turbulence came the founda­ tions of modern thought and science. The consequences, even for language, cannot be underestimated.

Emulation of Antiquity

Renaissance French is repeatedly described as ex­ huberant, inspired, creative, imaginative, spirited, ex­ pansive, vigorous, vital, fertile, and so forthj the very qualities the next century would condemn as excessive, disorderly, confused, inaccurate, undisciplined, negli­ gent, outrageous, and chaotic. While facile interpreta­ tions .of the past can mislead, clich€s do often arise out of truth. Be it out of creative inSpiration or youthful rejection of outmoded traditions, or both, the century did, indeed, turn its back on the cumbersome intellectual machinery of the Middle Ages and did manifest an undeni­ able urge. to come ever closer to the fresh, true-, "essen­ tial" world of antiquity, a world suddenly emerging in a new guise, unburdened of centuries of encrusted anachron­ isms. \vhile the Church and the universities continued to 4

cling to empty rhetoric and vain and futile exercises of

logic, writers and poets immersed themselves in Greco-

Roman tradition, revived ancient forms of poetry, exalted

natural pagan wisdom, discovered delights in nature, a

relish for life, and encouraged everybody else to do like-

wise:

Ly donques, et rely premierement (8 Po~te futur), fueillete de main nocturne et journelle, les exemplaires Grecz et Latins, puis me laisse toutes ces vieilles poesies fran~oises aux Jeux Floraux de Toulouze, et au Puy de Rouan: comme Rondeaux, Ballades, Virelaiz, Chantz Royaulx, Chansons et autres telles epiceries, qui corrompent le goust de nostre Langue et ne servent sinon ~ porter tesmoignage de nostre ignorance .... Chante moy ces Odes, incogneues encor' de la Muse Fran~oise d'un Luc bien ac­ cord~ au son de la Lyre Grecque et Romaine .... la solicitude des jeunes hommes, comme l'amour, les vins libres et toute bonne chere. (Du Bellay, Deffence, I, 38; ed. M.-L.)

Enrichment of the Vocabulary

In the process of imitating, assimilating, translat-

ing, and exalting the classics, the lexicon grew enormous-

ly. Advances in science and technology, moreover, placed

_ additional demands on the language. While national

languages were establishing themselves, they were not

yet ideally suited to the expression of abstract thought,

and their gradual adaptation to the new uses to which

they were being put can be observed throughout the

Renaissance. New terms, if only because they were new,

could do a better job of expressing unfamiliar concepts 5

and subtle nuances of meaning than could older, popular, well-worn expressions with their looser definitions and

completely different sets of associations. Many scholars

today (see, for example, Brunot, II, 168-172, 221-2; von

Wartburg, pp. 136-142) say that, had one looked hard

enough, Old French words could have been found to do the

job as well. But to me; expanding the vocabulary facili­

tated the expression of complex meanings with a minimum of word1ness and explanation. And yet, if expanding the

vocabulary was indeed a good idea, goOd ideas do have a way of getting carried to absurd e~tremes, and the 16th

ceritury, in this, as in so many other respects, was no

·exception.

Borrowing from the Classical languages was not unique

to the Renaissance. The use of Latin had always been, and

has, in fact, remained, a vital, inexhaustible, and easy

source of new words. But while the Latinisms of the

Middle Ages were a natural consequence of translating back.

and forth between the two languages, in the 16th century

the new additions were to a great extent the result of a

deliberate and· conscious effort· to improve the language.

To be sure, translators continued to introduce new words

from the classi'cs they were translating, but many others

sought to. enrich the language by means other than Latin

or Greek formations.

Leading this campaign were the poets of the Pl~iade. 6

French is capable, they asserted, of producing works as great as those of Latin and Greek, but ne~ds to be embel~ lished to be of a dignity equal to these ambitions. To this end they revived archaic terms, sought out region~ alisms and occupational terms, and created new compounds out of nativ~ elements. An abundance of approximate syno- nyms was thought necessary to express subtle shades of meaning and satisfied the Renaissance desire for variety and richness. Du Bellay devotes an entire chapter to the need for new words (Deffence II, 6), and Ronsard succinct- ly recapitulates the new philosophy when he writes, "Plus nous ~urons de mots en nostre langue, plus elle sera parf ai te" (VI , 4 6 0) , and:

Ie vy que des Fran~ois le langage trop bas A terre se trainoit sans ordre ny compas: Andonques pour hausser rna langue maternelle, Indonte du labeur, ie trauaillay pour elle, Ie fis des mots nouueaux, ie r'appelay les vieux, Si bien que son reriom ie poussay iusqu'aux Cieux. Ie fys d'autre fa£on que n'auoyent les antiques Vocables composez et phrases poetiques, Et mis la Po~sie en tel ordre. qu'apres Le Franx_ois fut egal aux Remains et aux Grecs. (V, 425)

'~Deffence et Illustration"

While developing the resources of French arose on the one hand out of an obsession with enrichment it also to a large degree came as a reaction against what was seen as excessive foreign influence. Imitation and emulation were being replaced by a new attitude toward French, that of 7 recognizing French as a language capable of rivaling Latin,

Greek, and I~alian. Prominent writers came to its defense and contributed to its growing prestige. Geofroy Tory was one of the first to defend the purity of French and to condemn,les "esc-qmeurs" de Latin:

Quat Esclimeurs de Latin .disent Despumon la verbocination latiale, & transfreton la Sequane au dilucule & crepuscule, puis deambulon par les Quadriuies & Platees de Lutece, & comme verisimiles amorabundes captiuon la beniuolence de lomnigene & omniforme sexe feminin. me sem­ ble quilz ne se moucquent seullement de leurs semblables, mais de leur mesme Personne ... Si telz Forgeurs ne sot Ruffiens/ ie ne les estime gueres meilleurs. Pencez quilz ont vne grande grace/ ~uant ilz disent apres boyre, quiz ont le Cerueau tout encornimatibule/ & emburelicoque dug tas de mirilifiques & triquedondaines, dung tas de gringuenauldes, £ guylleroches qui les fatrouillet incessammet? (Champ Fleury, "Aux Lecteurs") 1

A decade later Dolet writes:

... il en fault dire briefuement, & prifu~ment, sans aulcune ostentation de scauoir, & sans fricass~e de Grec, & Latin. I'appelle fricass~e, une mixtion superflue de.ces deux langues: qui se faict par sottelets glorieux: & non par gens resolus, & pleins de bon iugement. (Les Accents; rpt. Beaulieux, p. 124)

Throughout his famous Deffence (1549), Du Bellay ex- presses dismay that "les etrangers ne prisent nostre langue comme nous faisons les leur," and encourages his fellow artists to use French over Latin and to dignify their language by enriching it.and rendering it illus- trious. Henri Estienne, the century's most prolific

1 . . Cf. Pantagruel, ch. VI, where Ra9elais develops. this theme in his characterization of the "ecolier limousin." 8 linguistic patriot, went even further in his celebration of French. In Deux Dialogues (1578), he den6unces the large number of Italianisms entering the language and the

Italian influence at Court: "-Pour quarante ou cinquante

Italiens qu'on y voyoit autrefois, maintenant on y voit vne petite Italie"- (p. 541), and asserted the superiority of French in its ability to create new words, a the~e he had begun earlier in Conformit~ (1565), where he condemned those who:

... empruntent de leurs voisins ce qu 1 ils trouveroient chez eux .... Et encores faisons­ nous souvent bieri pis, quand nous laissons, sans Sfavoir pourquoy, les mots qui sont de nostre creu et que nous avons en main, pour nous servir de ceux que nous avons ramassez d 1 ailleurs .... pourquoy ne ferions-nous plustost fueill~ter nos Romans [Old French poems] et desrouiller force beaux mots taht simples que composez qui ont pris rouille pour avoir este si long temps hors d 1 usage? (p. 22)

Peletier had said much the same thing in Dialogu¢ (1555):

Car qu 1 ~t il question d¢ mandier les moz d 1 alheurs, puis qu¢ nous an auons d 1 autr¢s a notr¢ port¢, et nommemant quasi d¢ mt_m¢ moul¢? E si on m¢ dit quiz n¢ sont pas si propr¢s: j¢ di qu¢ si, par c¢ qu¢ l 1 usag¢ les a apropriez .... Tel¢s. g 1 ans n¢ pans¢t pas la vrti¢ fa<;~m d 1 anrichir la Langu¢ Fran~ocs¢. Car. par reur manier¢ d¢ f~r¢ on 1 1 estim¢roet tousjours soufreteus¢ et qu 1 EC,l¢ n¢ s¢rott r¢uetue qu¢ des plum¢s d 1 autrui. (p. 10 4)

In Conformite', Estienne describes a host of peculiar similarities betw~en French and Greek, proving to him that since, "-la langue Grecque est·la roine des langues, et que si la perfection se doibt cercher en aucune, c 1 est en ceste-lil qu 1 elle se trouvera,"- it follows that, 9

~pareillement la larigue Franfoise, pour approcher plus pres de celle qui a acquis la perfe6tion, doibt estre estimee excellente par-dessus les autres'' (p. 18). Which

French is Estienne talking about?

Du pur et simple, n'ayant rien de fard ni d'affectation, lequel monsieur le Courtisan n'a point encores chang~~ sa guise, et qui ne tient rien d'emprunt des langues modernes. (p. 19)

/ ' ' He continues his campaign in Precellence (1579), proclaim- ing Fr~nch superior to all other modern languages and second only to Greek:

Car tout-ainsi que quand vne dame auroit acquis la reputation d'estre perfaicte et ac­ complie en tout ce qu'on appelle bonne grace, celle qui approcheroit le plus pres de ~es fa£ons auroit ~e second lieu: . ainsi, ayant tenu pour confesse que la langue grecque est la plus gentile et de meilleure grace qu'aucune autre, et puis ayant monstr~ que le langage Fran£ois ensuit iolies, gentiles et gaillardes fa9ons Grecques de plus pres qu'aucun autre: ii me sembloit q~e ie pouuois faire seurement rna conclusion qu'il meritoit de tenir le second lieu entre tous les langages qui ont iamais este, et le premier entre ceux qui sont auiourd'huy. (p. 3~)

Of course, Estienne proved very little, his inhaust- ible and exhausting supply of examples notwithstanding, but his influence was widespread and undeniably important to the emergence of that particularly Gallic infatuation with mother tongue and country.

But foreign elements continued nonetheless to infil- trate French. Indeed, even the most outspoken of critics did not completely escape Latinisms in their writing, so 10 deeply engrained and unconscious was the habit of using them. Still, the new attitudes were important in the struggle between French and Latin. As writers became conscious of the resources of the vernacular, they began to use it for "serious" purposes and encouraged others to do the same. An important precedent.in the U:se of the

French was Calvin's Institution de la religion chr~tienne

(Latin, 1536; French, 1541). Prior to this, works of a metaphysical or philosophical nature had been in the ex- elusive dom~ih of Latin, the attitude being that if you had something important to say,-you said it in that language. Modern languages were thought to be subject to change, but Latin, the language of the Church, had to be inviolate. Montaigne, by choosing to write in French in this w~ll-known and often quoted passage, was clearly not writing for posterity:

"J'escris man livre 'a peu d'hommes et ~ peu d I annees.. Si '2. I eust este !::ne matiere de dure'e I il l'eust fallu commettre a un langage plus ferme. Selon la variation continuelle qui a suivy le nostre jusques ~ cette heure, qui peut esperer que sa forme presente soit en usage, d I icy a cinquante ans: _Il eSCQUle taus les jours de nos mains et depuis que je vis s'est altere de moitit. Nous disons qu'il est a cette heure parfaict. Autant en diet du sien chaque siecle. (Essais, III, ix)

But when Peletier and Geofroy Tory chose to write in

French, they expressed an entirely new attitude toward their language: I'escri en ... langue mate~nell¢ Et tasch¢ a la mettr¢ en valeur 11

Affin de la rendr¢ eternelle Comm¢ les vieux ont fait la leur Et soutien que c 1 est grand malheur Que son propre bien mespriser Pqur 1 1 autruy tant fauoriser. (Peletier, Oeuvres Poetiques; rpt. Catach, p. 100)

Ien eusse traicte & escript en latin, comme ie porrois bien faire, se croy ie, & c~me on peut cognoistre aux petitz oeuures latins que iay faict Tprimer & mis deuant les yeulx des bons . ~ . ~ estudlans tat en metre quen prose. Mals volat. quelque peu decorer nostre langue Francoise, & afin que auec gens de bCS'nes lettres le peuple cO'mun en puisse vser, ien. veulx escrirer en Fran- cois. (Tory, Champ Fleury, fol. 1 )

The acceptance of French as a viable language for science and philosophy as well as literature didn 1 t happen all at once, and certainly not all in the 16th century, but it was inevitable. The·declining power of the Roman

Church facilitated the rejection of Latin as its vehicle of expression. The establishment of independent modern nations meant ultimately the victory of modern idioms, and the use by the state of a language everybody knew facili­

tated political unification and control. The spread of

literacy, moreover, and the new business of printing books

~ere at least as influential, as publishers, writers, and

booksellers sought to take advantage of the larger market

for books in the vernacular. Since the establishment of

the first Mainz press in 1457 printing houses had spread

out over Europe with extraordinary rapidity, and still

printers could not keep up with what must have indeed

seemed like an insatiable curiosity and demand for 12 knowledge.

Not everyone shared the enthusiasm for French. Latin was still primarily the language of science, education, medicine, philosophy, the other "important" matters. But the belief that French was now adequate for all purposes, or c6uld be made so, had been established. By 1550,

Meigret feels quite able to say:

Or ~t il qu notre lang' tt aojoui~huy si enrichie par la proftssion t experi~n~e dt'langes Latin' e Grt_cqe, q'il n'~t po'ltd'art, ne siE(_n<2e si difflci~ ~ subtile, ne mtme ~ete tant haote theolojie (qoe q'elle luy so~t deffendue, pour­ tant la peinel d~ la coulpe d'aotruy) d5t tlle ne puysse trttter amplement, ~ elegammtnt. Parqot il nou faot coftsser q tll'a tn so~ qelq' ordre, par le qel nou' pouuons distinger It' parties dont sont copozez tou' langajes, e la l r-v reduir' a qelqes reg les. . ( Grammtre, fol. 2 )

By the end of the century, French had acquired a new status. It was being cared for, and there was a growing sense of responsibility about using it. If French were to rival Latin, it had to.be "perfect," it was thought, and it had to have a consistent set of rules as Latin did.

Establishing a Standard

A necessary step in raising French to the status of the Classical languages was to provide it with a grammar:

Car l~ caus¢ qu'un¢ prolacion chang¢, tt qu'un¢ Langu¢ n't_t pas ancor¢s v¢nu¢ a son d¢gre d¢ p~rfeccion e consistanc¢ .... N¢ voions nous pas d~ la Langu¢ Latin¢ d¢puis qu'tl¢ a ete redige¢ an form¢: c'Et_t a dir¢, d¢puis qu'on an a f~t un¢ Grammer¢, d¢ 1aquel¢ depand l'Ortograf¢, comm¢ chacun set: qu'el¢ n'a point pris d¢ chang¢mant? (Peletier, p. 86) 13

It seemed to have been taken for granted that modern languages did not have a grammar, and that unlike Latin and Greek, could not be reduced to a set of definite and dependable rules:

Combien qe d'une pouure consideracion la plusgran' partie de no' Franfo~s soet ~n fantazie qe la pou:::-suyte.d'une gramm~re sottttr

Reference works (dictionaries, spelling books, grammars) were non-existent at the beginning of the century, nor were there any established or accepted standards to keep practices uniform. But a need for rules and for guidance was beginning to be felt. One of the first to express this need was Geofroy Tory:

0 Deuotz Amateurs de bonnes Lettres. Peust a Dieu que quelque Noble cueur semployast a mettre & ordoner par Reigle nostre Lagage Francois. Ce seroit moyen que maints Milliers dhommes se euerturoient a souuent vser de belles & bonnes parolles. Sil ny est mys & ordonne on trouuera que de Cinquante Ans en Cinquante Ans la La langue Francoise, pour la plus grande part, sera changes & peruertie. Le Langage dauiourdhuy est change en mille facons du Langage qui estoit il y a Cinquante Ans ou enuiron .... Parquoy ie vous prie donon nous tous courage les vngz aux aultres, & nous esueillon a .la purifier. Toutes choses ont eu commancement. Quat lung traictera des Lettres, & laultre des Vocales, vng Tiers viendra qui declar~ra les Dictions. & puis encores vng aultre suruiendra qui ordonera la belle Oraison. Par ainsi on trouuera que peu a peu on passera le chemin, si bien quon viedra aux g~ans Champs Poetiques et Rhetoriques plains de belles, bonnes, & odoriferetes fleurs de par­ ler & dire honn:estement & facillement tout ce qu6n vouldra. ( "Aux Lecteurs") 14

. ~ S1l est vray que toutes choses ont eu comance- ment, il est certain que ia langue Grecque, semblablement la Latine ont este quelque temps inqultes & sans Reigle·de Grammaire, comme est de present la nostre, mais les bons Anciens vertueux & studieux ont prins peine, & mis diligece a les reduyre & mettre a certaine Reigle, pour en vser honnestement a escripre & rediger les bonnes Sciences en memoire, au prouffi t & honneur du bien public. ( fol. 4 v)

Tbry's influence was also substantial in the trans- formation of French typography between 1530 and 1540 from the older Gothic and Italic characters which printing had inherited from the manuscript tradition to the clearer

Roman type. He was also the first to recommend the use of accentsi the apostrophe, and the cedilla, and to use quo- tation marks.

But it was John Palsgrave, French tutor at the Court of H·enry VIII, who wrote the first French grammar,

L'Esclarcissement de la Langue Francoyse (1530). In his dedication to King Henry, he writes:

If [we have] by our diligent labours nowe at the last, brought the frenche tong under any rules certayn and preceptes grammaticall, lyke as the other three parfite tonges be [Latin, Greek, Hebrew], we have nat onely done the thyng wiche by your noble graces progenitours, of all antiquite so moche hath ben desyred, ... but also .. ~done the thynge whiche, by the testimony of the e~cellent clerke, maister Geffray Troy [sic] de Bourges ... in his boke intituled Champ- fleury, was never yet amongst them of that ·contrayes selfe hetherto so moche as ones effectually attempted. (p. vii)

Several grammars followed Palsgrave's, but until the 17th century his remained the most thorough treatment, though somewhat archaic, being based largely on written forms. 15

The new gram,mars enjoyed considerable.popularity.

Moving up the social ladder was becoming a possibility and individuals were beginning to see advantages to learning to speak and write like their "betters." And while the idea of sending everybody to school was still far from universal, the middle class was demanding, and increasing­ ly able to pay for, an. educa.tion.

Go6d usage, correct pronunciation, and spelling be- came issues. The problem to be faced, if good usage were to be acquired, or prescribed, was to find out·just what good u:sage was. While a number of non-linguistic events had come together to make the crystalization of a standard and the regulation and control of the language possibili­

ties, no one was quite sure just what the standards were or ought to be~ The lively, often bitter, struggle to

figure it all out met with little success at first, and

uncertainty prevailed throughout the century.

The Free Development of Ftench Draws to a Close

But what was particularly important in all this

activity was that for the first time external and what might be considered artificial forces began to exert a major influence on the natural evolution of the language:

the use of judgment and choice, of consc~ous and deliber­

ate selectivity, the dict~tes of fashion, the prestige of

certain social groups, the growing reading public, and 16

the rol~ of the printing press in spreading and standard­ izing knowledge, were factors which interrupted, arrested, modified, and even reveised the natural inclination of language to change. Their consequences for pronunciation, in France perhaps more than anywhere else, cannot be over­ looked.

As well can be expected, such events were of concern to only a $mall portion of sixteenth-century society, and while the speech of the educated classes came increasingly under the influence of grammarians and of spelling pronun­ ciations, that of the majority of the people continued t~

~valve more or less spontaneously. Out of the widening breach between these two tendencies, the popular and the learned, arose much of the fluctuation and conflict that typified 16th-century spelling and pronunciation. Chapter 2

ORTHOGRAPHY

The Role of the Medieval Clerks

By the 16th century, orthography was no longer a reliable guide to pronunciation. Rapid changes in society had gone hand in hand with rapid changes in pronunciation, but the spelling inherited was that of the 12th century, which having become fixed by traditidn failed to show subsequent phonological developments. Writers continued to epell with the letters they were used to long after those letters ceased having anything to do with the sounds people made. f! To the superfluous letters left from the leveling of pronunciation were added many others by the medieval legal practitioners who, paid by the line and the number of letters per line, found almost any pretext sufficient to

Latinize or otherwis~ embellish their writing~ The legal pro£ession's preoccupation with avoiding ambiguity at all costs was doubtless also a contributing factor; short imprecise words were replaced with longer compounds and derivations based on Latin, and letters were added to distinguish homonyms or to help distinguish letters which medieval script often rendered indistinguishable ("peut" and "un," for example, were written "peult" and "ung" to prevent their being misread ·as "pent" and the numeral

. 17 18

"vii," or perhaps even the participle "vu") 2

Peletier was aware of and attempted to expose the motives·which led to the excessive letters the 16th cen- tury had acquired:

E.si l'Ecritur~ s'tt einsi muitiplie~ a rtson d~ l'abondanc¢ des proc~s, ou les procts a rtson d~ tant d'Ecritur¢s, c~ n'tt ici 1~ lieu d¢ 1~ dir~. Mts quo~ qu¢ so~t, ceus qui suiu~t 1~ pales, sau¢t ecrir~ plus Ieger¢mant, e plus pratiqtf¢mant, qu¢ les autr~s. E leur tt bien metier, vu la grand' press¢ qu'iz ont, pour satiftr¢ a tant d¢ pled~urs. Puis la lucratiu¢ qui an vient, leur a assoupli la mein, d~ tel~ facon qu¢ les Fran(oys amport~ront tousjou.rs l~Lpris par sus tout~s nacions du Mond¢, s'il tt question d¢ vittc~ d~ mein. Mes vo~ci 1~ point: qu'iz ecriu~t si leger~mant qu'a grand' pein¢ ont iz lo~sir d~ distinguer un "o," d'au~c un "r": tant s an faut qu'iz fac¢t discrecion d'un "n" d'au~c un "u." Or ~;til, qu'eus voyans qu¢ la soudein~te d~ leur meln, etott caus~ · qu'on pr¢no~t souuant l~tr¢s pour l~tr¢s: iz i ont afete e antr~mE[le d'autr¢s, pour obuier a l'inconueniant. Comm~ an quelqu¢s moz, qu'a aleguez Monsieur D¢B~z¢, iz ont mis ou "1," ou "b," ou "d," einsi qu¢ 1¢ cas 1¢ r¢qu¢rott. (Dialogu¢, p. 131)

2confusion was most apt to arise in words containing a number of successive minims, the vertical strokes of ."i"'s, "m"'s, "n"'s, and "u"'s. Thus aword like "minim" would tend to app~ar in manuscript writing something like "mni.mm." This helps to explain a number of innovations and apparent peculiarities such as the dot on "i," first added in the 11th century, the tail on "j," until the 17th century a mere variant of "i," the unetymological "h" of "huile," "huit," and the "wh" from older "hw" in such English words as "what," "when," "where," and "why," as well as the "g" of "ung" and the "1" in "peult" and the like. · 19

Theodore de B~~e, a particip~nt in Peletier's Dialogu¢, 3 and supporter of traditional spellings, had earlier de- fended the very same practice:

... comhle, pour "deus, veus, saus," iz liront 11 "dens, vens, sans ; car chacun set bien qu¢ la l~tr¢ vulguer¢ des Fran£o~s qu'iz ap~l¢t l~tr¢ courant¢, pour ttr¢ fort leger¢ e hatiu¢, n¢ · ftt point d¢ distinccion d¢ la voyel¢ "u" . auec·la consonant¢ "n," qui t.t d¢ fE(:rmer l'un¢ par 1¢ bas B l'autr¢ par haut, c¢ qu¢ les Fran2o~s n'ont lo~sir d'obs~ruer an ecriuant couranunant. (p. 46) .

Another partisan of 11 le vieux orthographe," Estienne

Pasquier, a foremost 16th-century lawyer, defended and

explained the spelling "ung":

Il n'est pas qu'il n'y ait quelque raison en vne orthographe que nous auons veue autre­ fois en ce mot d'"vn"que l'on escriuoit avec vn "g" au bout, lettre qui sembloit du tout superflue, de quelque coste que l'on voulut tourner sa pensee. Mais cela aduint pour autant qu'au parauant !'impression, aux liures que l'on escriuoit a la main, on cottoit les nombres par leurs figures I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII et ainsi des autres suiuants: et quand on commenta de les cotter par leurs noms on adiousta a . l'"vn" le 11 g" pour aster l'equiuoque qui eut peu aduenir entre ce mot et le nombre de "sept" repn{sente par sa figure de VII. ( "Lettre ~·. · Ramus," Oeuvres, II, col. 61)

3 Dialogu¢ is set up as a conversation among friends (except for the first 27 pages, which comprise Peletier's "Apologi~ a Lou1s Meigrtt"). I have been unable to dis­ cover whether or not. the conversation actually took place, but many similar ones at least must have been go­ ing on at the time in educated society. De Beze, a supporter of the Reformation, later escaped to Geneva where he wrote many books iri defense of his faith. He also wrote De FrancicaeLinguae Recta Pronunciatione Tractatus .(1584). Later reference will be made to Livet's tr~nslation of parts of this work. 20

Beaulieux (Histoir~ de l'orthographe franfaise, 1927) examines in great detail medieval orthographic practices and their contribution to the abundance of superfluous

letters current in 16th-century French; his work is recom- mended to readers requiring further background than can be given here. It may be worthwhile to point out, however,

that Beaulieux's relentless condemnation of the legal

fraternity's excessive use of letters ("Il est pour nous

, ,. /\. . ~ hors de doute que notre orthographe a ete gatee par les

gens de justice; sans eux elle elit conserve, tout au mains

jusqu'a la Renaissance, toute sa simplicit~ (I, 184-5) while widely accepted today may be somewhat misleading.

It does not, for one thing, take into account the same

practitioners' extensive use of abbreviations; nor does it

explain the superfluity of letters to be found in the writings of many of their contemporaries (Catach,

L'Orthographe frangaise, pp. xiii-xiv).

That the legal clerks nevertheless developed a system

convenient to the needs of their profession cannot be

doubted; it was a system whose orthography, syntax, arid

Vocabulary facilitated constant translation back and

forth between Latin and French. The coexistence of the

two languages did not change Latin, it being the more

prestigious, but its influence on French, which it was

felt could only profit fr6m the experience, was enormous. "La Belle Escripture"

To the superfluity of letters it had thus acquired, the orthography of 16th-century French, in the spirit of the Renaissanc~, added another layer solely for histori- cal or decorative purposes. De B~ze presents to the other participants iri Peletier's Dialogu¢ ~ number of prevailing principles by which the 16th-century writers justified the inflation of words with purely graphic letters:

1. Etymology, or the need to raise the dignity of

French by showing its Latin heritage:

Souuant aussi on l~ss¢ les l~tr¢s, ancor¢s qu'(l¢s n¢ s¢ p~ononc¢t po1nt, pour Ia reueranc¢ d¢ la Langu¢ dent les moz sent tirez. Car s'il ~t einsi qu¢ notr¢ Langu¢ des2and¢ quasi tout~ du Latin, pourquo~ s¢rons nous si nonchalans, m~s plus tot si ingraz, d'an voulo~r abolir la r¢ssamblanc¢, l'analogi¢ e la composicion? ... N'ttc¢ pas 1¢ meilheur d¢ garder la majeste d'un¢ Ecritur¢ 1¢ plus a;ntier¢mant qu¢ lon peut? ... e qu¢ par c¢la tl¢ aproch¢ra plus pr~s d¢ la dinite des Langu¢s ancienn¢s. (Dialogu¢ pp. 51-52)

Consider Ge~an for example, continues de Beze, which for all practical purposes has no etymology:

I¢ conf£ss¢ bien qu'an.notr¢ Fran~ots nous n'auons pas des sons s1 mal~sez a raporter par ecrit, ni an si grand nombr~, cornrn¢ ont les Al¢mans: par c¢ qu¢ leur Langu¢ {t fort robust~, e si j'os¢ dir¢, farouch¢: d'autant qu'{l¢ ~t, einsi qu'on dit, quasi tout¢ sans etimologi¢: e la notr¢ qui ~t douss¢ e delicat¢, particip¢ quasi an tout au{c 1¢ Latin. (Dialogu¢, p. 48)

Peletier, however, challenges the logic of the etymology argument, saying that if tr~ditionalists claim it to be a violation of etymology to omit letters in writing, should 22

they not also criticize speech, in which the omissions were

first made (pp. 89-90)?

Meigret, in his Grammere, also challenges the reason-

ing of .those who support the need for etymological letters,

·his argument being that logic would require going all the

way back .to Latin and saying not "ey, as, a, auons,·auez,

ont," for example, but "je habe, tu habes, il habe, habons,

habez, il' habet" (fol. 104v).

2. "Rapprochement," or the need to show the rela-

tionship between words of the same root or family. For

example, says de B~ze, an "s" must be written in "des-

crire, l.l though not pronounced, in order to show its re-

lationship to "description," and a "p" in "temps," to

relate it to "temporel":

Les autr¢s s¢ mt,t¢t pour raporter les Deriuatiz aus Primitiz: Comm¢ an ces moz "Descrir¢, Descripcion": La ou combien qu¢ la lc_tr¢ "s" n¢ s¢ prononc¢ point au pr¢mier: si tt cl¢ necesser¢ an tous deus, pour montrer qu¢ l'un e lautr¢ apartien¢t a m~m¢ chos¢, e sont d¢ mt,m¢ natur¢, origin¢ e sinificacion. Autant

3. "Distinction," or the need to distinguish homo-

nyms, such as "conte," "comte," and "compte," which though

pronounced the same, must be spelled differently:

Outr¢ c¢la, on m~t aucun¢fo~s des l~tr¢s pour sinifier la diferanc¢ des moz: . Comm¢. sont "compt¢" e "cont¢": dequez 1¢ pr¢mier apartient ·a nombr¢, e l'autr¢ a signeuri¢. Itam "croix" e "croiz" ... "grac¢" e "grass¢" ... e plusieurs 23

atitr¢s: Lequez, quat qu'iz s¢ prononc¢t d¢ m~m¢ sort¢, si do~u¢t iz ~tr¢ ecriz diuers¢­ mant, pour les r~sons particulier¢s qu¢ j'e alegue¢s, e pour la r~son general¢, qui ~t l'intelig'anc¢ du sans. (Dialogu¢, p. 51)

Meigiet argues with considerable sarcasm against suchprac- tices ~hen he says that supporters of tradition applytheir principles of "rapprochement" and "distinction" not systematically, but only when and where it suits them, and without any regard to the proper use of letters:

Parquo~ come homes de plus gran' e subtil' entrep~inze, ilz ont p~ns~ f~re q~lqe ~hoze pl' amlrable: come de montrer 1~' derluezons,. . ~ L ~ ~ differ~ntes d~' vocables, no pas de tous: mLs de ceus qe fion leur s~mble, sans auo~r egart ao' puyssan9es dt_' lEC_ttres, ne ao deuoEC_r de l'ecritture. 1Gramm~re, fol. 4r)

4. The need to distinguish words which due to

·hasty penmanship could be misinterpreted. For this argu- ment see p. 19, above. Many years later in his own De

Francicae Linguae Recta Pronunciatione Tractatus (15S4) .... . de Beze agaln defends the practice:

/ / / ...... "x" a souvent ete employe pour "s" ala fln de certains vocables. apr~s les diphthongues "eu; au"; on ~tait ainsi amen8' 13: distinguer "ceux, lieux, mieux," de "cens, liens, miens," que l'~criture cursive des Fran~ais, confondant "n" et "u" ne permettait pas de distinguer. Par suite, l'usage s'est introduit d'~crire "chevaux, maux," pour empecher.... qu'on ne lut/\ "chevans, mans," etc. (trans. Livet, p. 518)

5. The need to distinguish le~rned writers from

semi-literate ones. n·e B~ze is essentia.lly saying here

that writing should show evidence of scholarship by way

of letters which must be learned through study and 24

kno~ledge of Latin because they are not represented irt sound:

Il faut qu'il i et quelqu¢ diferanc¢ antr¢ la manier¢ d'ecr.tr¢ des g'ans doct¢'s e des g'ans mecaniqu¢'s: Car s¢'ro~t c¢' r~son d'imiter 1¢' vulguer¢, ·lequel sans jug¢'mant metra aussi tot un. "g" pour un "i" e un "c" pour uri "s," cornrn¢' un mot pour un autr¢': brief, qui n¢' gard¢ra ni regl¢' ni grac¢' an son Eciitur¢', non pl~s qu'an son parler ni an ses f~z? ~t c¢' rtson qu'un Artisan qui n¢' saura qu¢' Iir¢ e ecrir¢, ancor¢s assez maladroet, e qui n'an antant ni les rtsons ni la cokgru~te, so~t estime aussi bien ecrir¢ cornrn¢' nous qui l'auons par etud¢, par regl¢ e par exc~rcic¢? S¢'ra il dit qu'a un¢ farnrn¢ qui n'zt po1nt aut:¢mant lttrt¢, nous concedons l'art e Vrey¢ prat1qu¢' d¢ l'Ortograf¢? (Dialogu¢, p. 52)

Peletier is neither ~xaggerating nor distorting the op- position for, over 100 years later while preparing the

Dictionnaire de l'Acad~mie (1694), M~zeray wrote:

La Compagnie declare qu'elle desire suiure l'ancienne orthographe qui distingue les gents de lettres dauec les ignorants et les simples femmes, et qu'il faut la maintenir par tout, hormis dans les mots ou un long et constant usage en aura introduit une contraire. (Cahiers de remarqu~s sur l'orthographe frangoise, quoted by Beaulieux, I, 353)

Needless to say, the well-educated rarely neglected to use letters for any of these purposes, but see below for what Peletier has to say about the "erudite" spelling

"sravoir ....

6. ·Finally, the need to endow words with a "je ne

sais quai de plus ~laboure'," an argument used in support of those previously mentioned: 25

Outr¢ c¢la, qui dout¢ qu 1 il n'i ~t non seul¢­ mant an Fran~o~s, m~s aussi an tout¢s Langu¢s vulguer¢s, plusieurs l~tr¢s qui n 1 i sent aplique¢s pour i s~ruir, ni pour c¢ qu 1 ~l¢s i sot_t necesser¢s·: · mts seul¢mant pour i donner grac¢? ... 1 1 Ecritur¢ do~t tousjours auo~r j¢ n¢ se quo~ d¢ plus elaboure, e plus acoutre, qu¢ non pas la prolacion, qui s¢ PECrd incontinant. (Dialogu¢, pp. 50-52)

Many years later in his Dictionaire des rimes (1596; rpt.

1624), Lanoue observed an excessive and unnecessary use of

"y": "Il y a beaucoup de mots qu 1 on fait terminer en 1 Y 1 qui n'ont point de necessit~ de le receuoir plustost que

1 1 1 i, 1 comme 'aussy, voicy, ainsy, 1 etc." And he con- eluded: "La coustume l 1 y entretient sans aucune raison particuliere .... Qui le fait, il semble que ce doiue estre plustost pour 1 1 ornement de 1 1 escriture que pour autre chose" (p. 462).

Although most of the additions were at least etymolo- gically justified, errors were not uncommon. Ignorance of such previous phonological developments as intervocalic voicing, the influence and assimilation of palatal ele- ments, or the Old Frenth vocalization of "l" lead to spellings .like "veufve;." "faict," and "aultre"; ani- maulx," "chevaulx," "choulx," and the like were doubly redundant, as the "x" itself had earlier represented "us," resulting, quite literally, in "animauuu.s," and so on.

Writers went further and made a number of false analogies:

"envieus" and other "-us" words, which had never had an

"1," were remodeled on those above, hence, "envieulx," 26 but the article "aux" remained to distinguish it from

"aulx," plural of "ail." "Sis," from Latin "sex" became

"six"; then "dis," although from "decem," became ;'dix" by

analogy with "six."

Some words were remodeled on the basis of words

thought to be etymons but which actually had no relation-

ship: "poi s" <. La tin' "pens urn" > "poids" under the in,...

fluence of "pondus"; "lais" from Old French "laissier,"

incorrectly attached to Latin "legare," >"legs"; and "savoir" < "sapere," mistakenly assumed to be from

"scire," was written "sceavoir." Regarding this spelling

Peietier comme.nted scornfully:

Tous les ecriueins frantots, pour s¢ montrer beauco~p sauo~r e pour garder a tout¢ rigueur leur etimologl¢ ont tous obstinemant ecrit c¢ mot "st_ci.uoir" par un "

Beaulieux tells us that in the n~xt century M~zeray, again

speaking for the "Academie," declares the etymology

"sapere" a certainty, but that the word must nevertheless

be written "s

·. A few words escaped remodeling altogether because

they w~re overlooked or because their Latin origin wasn't

perceived. Further complications arose because learned

words and recent borrowings maintained Latin spellings 27 and native doublets were only sometimes made to conform.

Though most of the more outrageous excesses of the Renais,... sance were subsequently eliminated (debte from older dete > dette, faulx > faux, recepvoir > recevoir, s~avoir ·I > savoir), many remained (sept, doigt, poids) and under the influence of spelling in an increasingly literate society the additions, etymologically justif£able or not, sometimes came to be pronounced: ajectif > adjectif, ovier·> obvier, sculter > sculpter, seaume > psaume. (For many more examples of this see Darmesteter, Le

Seizieme si~cle, I, 222.)

All this tampering with the spelling was still quite possible in the 16th century. In the absence of standards spelling was largely an individual and capricious matter and words were spelled in a variety of ways (benoit, benoist, benoict~ cognoistre, congnoistre, connoistre; escripre, escrire, ecrire).. "Par c¢ qu¢ j¢ vot," says le

Seigneur Sauvage, another participant in Peletier's

Dialogu¢, "qu¢ d¢ tous ceus qui ecriu¢t Franfors, chac;r ortografi¢ a sa guis¢" (p. 67). Further on Peletier adds:

Com¢ quand il trouu¢ ecrit an un¢ impression "debuoir" e "recepuoir" autq "b," e "p": e an l'autr¢~ "deuoir" e "receuoir" pur¢mant: an l'un¢ "datter," an l'autr¢ "dacter," e an l'autr¢ "dabter" (car il s'ecrit an tro(s ou quatr¢ sort¢s). (p. 78)

If tradition was nevertheless responsible for main- taining certain general tendencies or habits~ these clear­ ly had no universal acceptance nor any authority with 28 which they could be imposed. A few writers, in fact, seem to give the impression that any attempt to curtail freedom of choice in matters of spelling would be thought little less than tyrannical. Once again de Beze champions the status quo in this matter:

ME(S S 1 iz voulol(t cro~r¢ coseilh, iz d¢urOEC_t un peu mieus e plus a lbesir panser, quel perilh c 1 tt d 1 introduir¢ nomYeautez: lequel¢s an tez cas plus qu 1 an autr¢ andrott, sont deprisabl¢s e odieus¢s ... Car c¢ n 1 tt pas p¢ti t¢ chos¢ qu¢ d 1 antr¢prandr¢ contr¢ tout un peupl¢, qui an tel cas ECt possesseur d¢ tout tans immemorial ... Dauantag¢, les. anseign¢mans d¢ l 1 0rtograf¢ n¢ sont pas comm¢ d 1 un¢ Filosofi¢ moral¢: qui· montr¢ qu 1 il n 1 i a qu 1 un¢ vor¢ qui sott bonn¢, qui ~t l¢ milieu antr¢ deus extrem¢s. Si un homm~ ecrit a sa mod¢, e un autr¢ a la sienn¢: il peut ctr¢ qu¢ tous deus ont leur r~sons, e qu¢ tous deus n¢ falh¢t point ... Quant aus P¥rsonnag¢s qui sont d¢ sauo{r e d 1 esprit, il n¢ leur faut point d 1 autr¢ metod¢ qu¢ c~l¢ qu¢ l 1 erudicion e l¢ jug¢mant leur aport¢. (Dialogu¢, pp. 63-68)

The idea of one and only one way to spell a w.ord was still an unfamiliar concept to most people and would re- main so for a long time. The process by which one variant eventually triumphed over its rivals took place gradually, often without any apparent predictability as to the final outcome, hence the many exceptions in today 1 s spelling.

Attempts to Reform Spelling

A few individuals were beginning to recognize the wholesale use of letters for almost everything but their original purpose as a debasement. No longer, it seemed, 29

were letters viewed as symbols to represent sound but

were tossed about freely to suit the whim of the individual

writer. To some reformers, simplification of spelling was

of ·concern only for the instruction of foreign~rs. To

others the situation called for a complete overhaul. For

these individuals it was important to render French as

pure and regular as they perceived the Latin, from which

it came, to be.

The earliest reformers were Geofroy TOry and Etienne

·nolet. Both were printers and both sought to make some

sense out of chaotic practices by the regular use of

auxiliary signs, but their spelling was otherwise tradi-

tional. Here Tory complains that French is deficient in

accents (diacritical marks) because it has not yet been

provided with a set of rules as have Hebrew, Greek, and

Latin:

En nostre langage Francois nauons point daccent figure en escripture, & ce pour le default que nostre langue nest encores mise ne ordonnee a certaines Reigles comme les Hebraique, Greque, & Latine. Ie vouldrois quelle y fust ainsi que on le porroit bien faire ... En Francois, comme iay dit, nescriuons point laccent sus le 0 vocatif, mais le pronunceons bien comme en disant 0 pain du Ciel angelique. Tu es nostre salut vnique. En ce passage daccent, nous auons im­ perfection a la quelle doiburions remedier en purifiant & mettant a Reigle & Art cert~in nostre lague qui est la plus gracieuser quon. sache. (Champ Fleury, fol. 52 )

Similarl~, Dolet encourages printers to use accents to

enrich their lan~uage and to show that they are not 30 ignorant of its rules:

Ce sont ces preceptions, que tu garderas quant aux accents de la langue Francoy~e. Lesquelz aussi observeront touts diligents Imprimeurs: car telles chases enrichissent fort !'impression, & demonstrent, que ne faisons rien par ignorance. (Les Accents; rpt~ Beaulieux, II, 131)

Peletier also felt that reform was necessary to raise the dignity of French: "C'~t 1¢ vrei moyen d¢ paru¢nir ou nous aspirons, qui tt d¢ randr¢ notr¢ Langu¢ r¢commadabl¢ anutrs les nacions etrang¢s" (Dialogu¢, p. 14). "Car par c¢1~ nous donn¢rons a connottr¢ aus etrangers qui la gout¢ront qu¢ c'tt un¢ Langu¢· qui s¢ peut regler et qu'E[l¢ n'tt point barbar¢" (p. 80). Meigret feared that

foreigners would ridicule French if something weren't done about its spelling:

Car come l'ecriture ne sott qe la vray' imaje de la parolle, a bone r~zon on l'estimera faos' £. abuziue, si.elle ne luy EC_t conforme par vn ass~mblem~nt de ltttres conuenantes ao batim~nt der vo~s .... Come quo~ donq, nous sauueron' nous de moqeri' tn 1 ecritture d'estoient, vu q'onqes Fran~o~s bien aprins n'y pronon£a s, ne i, ne n: ~ aoqtl l'ecrittur' ~t de huyt l~ttres, la ou la pron?ntia£ion n'~t qe de . c1nq voes: car nou' d1zons etoet .. (Grammgre, fol. 3r-cv) · <-

Meigret's concerns were for the present. He believed on

principle that writing should be a faithful image of

speech (see below) . But for Peletier the most important

reason for reform was not concern for the present but

for posterity. He believed, as we do today, that the

essence of language is in its spoken form; to him, writing 31

is mere dressing and hence cannot touch the fundamental

structure of the language and that from this point of

view it is quite irrelevant how words happen to be

spelled. He cites the uncertainty and constant discus-

sion over the pronunciation of Classical Greek and Latin;

and if he gives himself the task of writing French accord-

ing to the way it is spoken, it is because he must envi-

sion the possibility that French like Latin and Greek

could survive his own age, and because he hoped to spare

future generations any rincertainty about the pronunciation

of 16th-century French:

C 1 ~t donq principal¢mant pour 1¢ tans a v¢nir qu il faut policer notr¢ Langu¢. Nous pouuons antandr¢ qu 1 t.l¢ n 1 EL_t pas pour durer tousj ours an vulguer¢ nomplus qu¢ 1¢ Greq e Latin. Tout¢s chos¢s peric¢t sous 1¢ Ciel, tant s 1 an faut qu¢ la grac¢ des moz puiss¢ tous­ jours viur¢. Et partant, i~ nous f~ut eforcer d¢ la reduir¢ an art: non point pour nbus du tout, mts pour ceus qui viuront lors qu 1 tl¢ n¢ s¢ trouu¢ra plus t~l¢ qu 1 ~1¢ et d¢ presant, sinon d¢dans les Livr~s. Pr¢nons exampl¢ a nous mem¢s. Nous nous d¢batons tous les jours a qui prononc¢ra mieus la langu¢.Grecqu¢ e Latin¢: l 1 un dit qu¢ tel¢ lttr¢ s¢ prononc¢ einsi, l 1 autr¢ d 1 un¢ autr¢ sort¢, e l 1 autr¢ d 1 un¢ autre. E si n 1 auons qu¢ 1 1 Ecritur¢ sur quot nous puissions asso~r jug¢mant: Car 1¢ vulguer¢ ~t peri. (Dialogu¢, p. 79)

Another reformer was Honorat Rambaud.. A school

teacher in Provence for 3B years with a sincere affection

for children, " ... la chose plus precieuse qu 1 ayez en ce

·monde" (La Declaration des abvs, p. 3), he was not in-

valved in any of the intellectual disputes of his day, but suffered rather to see so many of his pupils give up their studies in frustration because they couldn't learn to spell, " ... il ne se faut pas esrnerueiller si lon apprend ~ lire et escrire auec grand' difficult~, veu que l'alphabet est si corrornpu" (p. 20). He believed that everyone ought to have a chance to learn to read and write,

"iusques ~ux laboureurs, bergiers, et porchiers ... puis que tous en ont besoing" (p~ 346) and that reforming the alphabet was thus of concern to all:

Mais voy~nt que l'irnperfection de l'alphabet interessoi t tous hornrnes, femmes, & enfans,. ·presents & aduenir, & rnesrnes les bestes, les arbres, & herbes, cornrne entendent ceux qui ont bon iugernent, ay laiss~ de rernedier a rnoy­ ~esrne & ~ rna rnaison, pour (rnoyennant l'aide de Dieu) rernedier ~ l'irnperfecti6n de l'alphabet ... auec desir & bonne intention de prbffiter ~ la posterite.... Vostre humble & tresobeissant seruiteur Honorat Rarnbavd, plus affectionne ~ vos enfans qu'a soyrnesrne. (pp. 2-3)

His system, good intentions notwithstanding, was quite

extraordinary, and no one seems to have paid any attention

to it whatsoever. It comprised an entirely new set of

characters of eight vowels and 44 consonants and may have

been a very good phonetic alphabet, for:all I could tell,

but it wasn't likely to change anyone's habits.

What may have given pause for thought and had the

potential, at least, of being a far more persuasive argu-

rnent for reform, were it not intended as sarcasm, is this

curiosity found in the editor's "Advertisement sur

l'orthographe de M. Ioubert": 33

En quay certainement il y a.grand'epargne de lettres: et par consequent profit a la Repub­ lique, entant que les liures imprimez de cette fa£on, seront ~ melheur march~, au mains de la dixieme part. Car il y a bien autant de lettres rabbatues. Ce qui et fort considerable, attedu la multiplicite des· liures qu'on ha pour le iourd'huy, par benefice de l'Imprimerie: lesquels il seroit bon de reduire en plus petit volume, et imprimer en mains de lettres qu'on pourroit, voire qu'une signifiast tout un mot, ou une sentence: a l'imitation des lettres hierogly~ phiques des Aegyptiens (chose bien inuetee) affin ·qulon en peust iouyr ~ meilleur march~. (Seconde Partie des Erreurs Populaires, Laurent Joubert; rpt. Catach, p. 264.)

The excesses of French spelling, then, had led to a reaction no less extreme, and while the reformers did bring to the attention of many the irrationalities of

French orthography, they also, by their very over- zealousnes~, inspired much animosity. Dissenting voices of conservatism began to be heard everywhere, and while some writers were indifferent and simply preferred to continue in their old ways, others were frankly hostile.

Traditionalists had a number of reasons for opposing reform. De B8'ze, in Dia1ogu¢', expresses the belief that any reform would be too difficult to impose and doubts anyway that it would be. worth the bother. For one thing,

French has sounds which no Latin characters adequately represent (p. 48), and for another, pronunciation varies so much, how is one to decide on the particular spoken dialect to which writing should conform? " .•. an notr¢' langu¢' nous pronont;ons e ecriuons diu~rs¢mant an beaucoup

------34

1 d · androE(:Z, la ou tous 1es plus sutiz reformateurs du mond¢ ne saurott donner ordr¢ (p. 56). The French, more- over~ were used to their way of writing; to take it away now would only confuse them:

Car les Fran£o~s, pour etr¢ d¢ si long tans acoutumez, assurez e co~firmez an la mod¢ d 1 ecrir¢ qu 1 iz tien¢t d¢ presant, sans jam~s auoer oui parler d¢ compleint¢ ni reformacion auc~h¢: s¢ trouu¢ront tous ebahiz, e pans¢ront qu 1 on s¢ veulh moquer d 1 eus, d¢ la leur voulotr oter einsi acoup .... Tel¢mant qu 1 au lieu d¢ leur gratifier, vous les m¢trez an pein¢ d¢ desapraridr¢ un¢ chos¢ qu 1 iz trouu¢t bonn¢ e ~se¢, pour an aprandr¢ un¢ fascheus¢, longu¢ e dificil¢, e qui n¢ leur pourra aporter qu¢ confusion, trreur e obscurite. (p. 45)

But in speech, argues Peletier~ words are generally recog- nized and understood. Language does not reside on paper, he insists, but in speech; its understanding is not in the eyes, but in the ear. Of what use, then, are superfluous letters which are merely the object of sight (pp. 80-81)?

Meigret puts forth the same argument in his Grammzre:

Ao demourat je ne voEC_ pott q 1 EC_n tenat propos lt_s vns auz aotres, nous vzions de qelqe note de difff!:ren£ 1 aotre qe luzaje de parler nous a introduit: ~ toutefo~s nou 1 nous rntrtnttndons bien: e si ~tlle qe ~eus ~ font par lt1 ltttres 1 1 superflues eto~t rtzonabl ~ ne~ess~re nou . pourrions dir 1 ~n SC(_mblable qe la SUpE(_rfluite' de vots seroEt_t bien seant 1 a la parolle pour denoter l~s diffencn~es: t~llemr_nt q 1 il faodra q 1 un saj 1 ecouteur sott aosi auize de ne preter · l 1 0rE[ll 1 ao 1 vo{s superflues. (fol. 4v)

But pronunciation is continually changing, observed de

B~ze; must writing, then, be constantly revised? If so,

someone would.have to be found who had no other task but 35. to inform the public of the new spellings, and what is worse, before one had a chance to adjust to them, they would be changed again:

E puis qu¢ j¢ suis tombe sus 1¢ chang¢mant, chacun set qu'antr¢ les Fran~o~s la prolacion chang¢ d¢ tans an tans. Partant si nous voulions tousjours donner nouu~l¢ Ecritur¢ a la nouu~l¢ Prononciacion, c¢ ~ero~t a tous cous a r¢commancer: E faudro~t qu'1l s¢ trouuat tousjours quelcun qui n'ut autr¢ charg¢ qu¢ d'ag'anser l'Ortograf¢, e la publier tout einsi qu¢ les ordonnanc¢s, e les criz d¢ vii¢. M~s qui pis tt, auant qu'on ut u 1¢ lotsir d~ panser a cet¢ mod¢ nouu~l¢, la · ~~o~~fion sero~t desja change¢. Dialogu¢,

Th~ idea of a changing orthography didn't seem to have bothered Meigret, however, who in his debates with Guil-

laume des Autels, his principle adversary, repeatedly in-

sisted that as pronunciation changes, writing, which is merely its image, must foll6w ~uit (Deftnses, sig. A4r. For more on this topic, see Reponse a la DezespereeI repliqe de Glaomalis de Vezeltt). Des Autels, however, had his own solution to the whole problem. To him! nothing was wrong with spelling;

speech, rather, was deficient; and far from removing let-

ters from writing, it seemed more sensible to him to

pronounce everything that was written. Meigret quotes

I · I Des Autels' Replique aux furieuses defenses de iouis

Meigret:

Cela premis je viens a la question de l'ortho­ graphe qui est de ce que nostre prononciation ne s'accorde pas auec l'escripture. Ceulx cy 36

trouuent cela fort estrange, & je le trouue vn peu mal gracieux: mais ils veul~t reigler l'escripture selon la prononciation, & il sembleroit plus conuenant reigler la prononcia­ tion selo l'escripture: pource que la prononcia­ tion vzurpee de tout le peuple auquel le plus grand nombre est des idiots, & indoctes, est . plus facile a corrompre que l'escripture propre aux gens scauants .... Et par ce moye je pourrois r'abbatre leur argumet de superfluite, en disant qu'il n'y en a po1t en l'escripture, mais que plustost il yen a en la prononciationj ... il vault mieux pronocerr-v tout ce qui est escript. (Def~nses, sig. Bl )

Such nonsense, of course, deserves Meigret's criticism:

Voyez irY la folle, t aoda~ieuze ~~tize de Ee Gyllaome Voulant corropre le Vlf pour satisf~r' ala portr~tture./ .... tu nou' veu'. tous forcer a pronon~~r t~' l~ttres ~uperflues/ .... Par cc_e moyen messleurs lts courtlzans, t tous aotres qi font profession de bien parler, aoront dortnauant a prononter/escripre, recepueur, doiouent, estoient, eulx, t infiniz aotres vocables, aotant etranjes, ~ diffi9iles a prononfer qe teus EY= s'il ne veuTet ~ncourir la ~~nsur' ~ maoutze gra~e du trrsextell~nt Gyliaome docteur en jargonerie. (sigs. Blv- .B3 v) t

Somewhat more sober are Pasquier's arguments against reform: "Quant a' l'orthographe que l'on dit n'estre bien formee/ entre nous, vous vous abusez si vous le pensez.

Celuy que l'anciennet~ nous a produit est.tres bon".

("Lettre 'aM. de Tournebu," Oeuvres, II, col. 8). In a letter to Ramus he defends his position eloquently and at length. Here are just a few excerpt~ from it:

Car je stay combien il y a de braves Capitaines qui so~t.de vostre party .. Je stay qu~ vostre proposltlon est tres precleuse, de prlme recontre; ... Mais je ~ous dy que quelque diligence que vous y apportiez, il vous est impossible a tous de parvenir au dessus de 37

vostre intention. Je le cognois par vos escrits: car combien que decochiez toutes vos fleches a un mesme blanc, toutesfois nul de vous n'y a s~eu attaindre: ayant chacun son orthographe particu­ liere, au lieu de celle qui est commune.~ la France. Qui me faict dire que pensant y apporter quelque ordre, vous y apportez le desordre: parce que chacun se donnant le mesme liberte. ./ que vous, se forgera une orthographe particuliere. Ceux qui mettent la main a la plume, prennent leur origine de divers pais de la France, et est mal-ais~ qu'en nostre prononciation il ne demeure tousjours en nous je ne S£ay quoy du ramage de nostre pals~ A tant puis que nos prononciations sont diverses, ·chacun de nous sera partial en son escriture ...• Je ne dy pas que s'il se trouve quelques choses aigres, l'on n'y puisse apporter quelque douceur et attrempance, mais de boule­ verser en tout et par tout sens dessus dessous nostre orthographe, c'est, ~ mon jugement, gaster tout. Les longues et anciennes coustumes se doivent petit~ petit denouer, et suis de l'opinion de ceux qui estiment, qu'il vaut mieux conserver une loy en laquelle on est de longue main habitu6 et nourry, ores qu'il y ait quelque defaut, que sous un pretexte de vouloir pourchasser un plus grand bien, en introduire une nou~elle, pour les inconveniens qui en adviennent auparavant qu'elle ait pris son ply entre les hommes. (II, cols. 55_;57)

Failure of Reform

That the movement for reform would fail was probably to be expected. Habit, respect for tradition, practical considerations, "la routine et les privileges des

bureaux" (Caput, La Langue franEaise, p. 123), and the

Latinizing tendencies of the .Renaissance proved forces too powerful to overcome. At a time when only a small minor-

ity could read and write and comparatively few books had been printed, reform would have been easier than at any _. _____ :______~ ---~ ~

38

time since; and yet this same literate minority, simply

by choosing to write in one style over another, was to de-

terrnine the future of French orthographic practices. For

these individuals, almost all well-educated and well-

versed in Latin, a learned and etymological spelling-

system was scarcely an inconvenience.

The reformists themselves weakened their case by

disagreeing as to how French was spoken, hence as to how

it ought to be r~presented in writing. Philosophical and

methodological differences also interfered with their

ability to put up a united front. Peletier adopted a

prudent approach. He-believed that change must come

slowly, "qu¢ tel¢s nouueautez au depouruu sont mal re<(_u¢s"

(Dialogu¢, p. 7). To him, a perfectly phonetic system

was unrealistic, and only spellings which caused·error and

con£usion needed to be changed: " ... qu'auons nous aftr¢

d¢ reformer un¢ chos¢ qui n¢ caus¢ point d'erreur?" (p.

13). Thus he spelled all plurals with an "s": "cornrn¢ an

cet¢ parol¢, 'Tous hornrn¢s e farnrn¢s ont a mourir'" even

though "la ll(tr¢ sonn¢ cornrn¢ ton 'z,' quad le mot suiuant

cornrnance par voyele" · (p. · 13). On the other hand, he c.on-

tinues:

... il sambl¢roct qu¢ la d

samblabl¢ a soe, et qui james n¢ s¢ demant. c¢ sont ceus qt.¢ nous d¢tios{.tascher a restituer." (pp. 13-14)

What Peletier seems to be· reaching for, I think, though of course he lacks the technical vocabulary to say so, is an orthography which identifies distinctive differences but not every allophonic variation. Meigret, on the other hand, is after a perfectly phonetic ~yste~ and, unlike

Peletier, he rejects a moderate approach:

~ qit ao conseil qe tu me propozes de tant seulem~nt corrijer l~s sup~rfluyt~s dt l~ttres, ~e n'~t q'entretenir ~ nourrir tousjours vne fieurej ... ~Ao demourant pour te satisf~r' ~n t~' remontrancc.es pleines de creinte, je s~ys d auis qe qi a peur d~' feulles, ne v£rze po~t ao bots/ ····t qant a ton moyen pour ganer pet1t a pet1t, t. finablem~nt f~re.le sot tout de gre, situ le trouue'bon, f~'Ie: car qant a mot je ne pretEt_n' par mon ecritEure qe pourtr~re le plus exactemtnt q'il me sera possible la pronon2i~£~on FranEo~ze . .... sans ao demourant f~r' etat_ s1 Je serey suyu1, ou non.r (Reponse a l'Apolojie de Iaqes Pelletier, fols. 3 -4 ) · ·

To Meigret's rigorous and uncompomising attempts at per- fection, Peletier replies:

Crot mo~, Meigret, nous n¢ f¢rions qu¢ nous i ropr¢ la tet¢, sans pouuopr rien meriter ni pour nous, nl pour les autr~s, ... Mr.s c¢la s'aptl¢, s¢lon 1¢ proutrb¢ vulguer¢, decouurir seint Pifrr¢ pour couurir seint Pol. (Dialogu¢ . p. 15)

Of capital importance in the failure of spelling re- form was the Dictionaire· francais-latin (1539) .of Robert

Estienne, which codified and gave authority to tradition- al spellings. This dictionary, its re-editions and abridged editions, though still bilingual, was for a· long 40 time the only French dictionary available. Its wide dif-:-

fusion in France and abrbad, and the stability of its orthography in the midst of diversity contributed to its

sUcce~s over the constantly changing systems of the re-

formers i " ••• et bon gre mal gre taus ceux qui etudiaient

en furent imbus" (Beaulieu~ I, 346).

Influential, too, in the defeat of reform were the

·positions taken_ by Du Bellay and Ronsard. Du Bellay, while sympathetic to the cause, was unwilling to commit

himself to it in practice: " ... voyant que telle nouueaute/

·desplaist autant aux doctes comme aux indoctes,. j'ayme

beaucoup mieux louer leur intention que la suyure, pource

que je ~e fay pas imprimer mes oeuures en intention qu'ils

seruent de cornets aux apothicaires, ... " (L'Olive, 2nd

Preface~ in Oeuvres, ed. Chamard). Complaints, rididule,

a cool reception by the public were understandably dis-

couraging. ·

Ronsard gave more .serious consideration to reform

than d{d Du Bellay, and for several years practiced some

modest simplifications in his writing. He was followed

in this by the other poets of the Pleiade, except Du

Bellay. For several decades, in fact, there seems to

have been two orthographies, a traditional one for prose,

and a simplified one for poetry. Ronsard's role has

generally g6ne unrecognized and would have been entirely

without consequence had not certain of his innovations 41 been taken up by printers in Holland, who throughout the

17th century flooded France with books, thus habituating the public to the changes. Overwhelming usage eventu~lly forced the "Acade'rnie Franr_aise" to incorporate some of these changes in its Dictionnaire ·(1694). The more irn- portant of these included the use of "i" and "u" exclu- sively for vowels; the replacement of plural "z" with "s," although "x" was retained (Ronsard had also used "s" in the 2nd person plural of verbs, but here the Academy re- tained "z"); and.the elimination of some superfluous con- sonants, such as vocalized "1" (faulx > faux), and "c" in such words as "sainct," "droict," and "diet." Otherwise, however, the Academy did little other than sanction and make official the spellings of Robert Estienne.

Printers were also instrumental in the failure to reform the spelling system. They weren't used to the new spellings, and their efforts to print them were often hap- hazard and halfhearted. An apology or a complaint con- cerning its orthography prefaces almost every major 16th- century publication. Here is an example:

Amy Lecteur, ie dois bien. estre excus~ enuers toy, attendu rna bonne volant~, si i'ay en plus­ ieurs endroits fally contre l'orthographie de· M. Iovbert, d'autant qu'elle rn'ha est~ fort nouuelle ~ ceste fbys, & difficile ~ irniter. Dequoy ie t'a~ bien voulu aduertir, affin. que tu n'irnputes a l'auteur, quelque deffaut en l'obseruation ~e ses reigles~ ou de n'estre par tout sernblable ~ soy. I'espere de faire rnieux vne autre fois, si i'ay cest hC>neur d'irnprirner encores de de ses oeuures Francoises: ------

42

te priant ce pandant de corriger toymesme les fautes plus notables, & qui peuuent troubler le sens (lesquelles me sont eschappees) comme s'ensuit. ("L'Imprimevr av Lectevr de bonn'ame," Seconde Partie des Erreurs Populaires, L. Jou- bert; rpt. Catach, p. 264.)

Meigret, eventually unable to find a printer who would ac~

cept his spellings, was forced to abandon reform alto-

gether:

Au demeurant, si le batiment de l'escriture vous semble autre et different de la doctrine qu'autrefoys je mis en auant, blamez-en l'imprimeur qui a prefere son gain a la raison esperant le faire beaucoup plus grant et auoir plus prompte depesche de sa cacographie que de mon orthographie .... ("Preface", Discours touchant la creation du Monde; rpt. Catach, p. 286)

The resistance of printers is understandable. It

took a certain amount of courage to print the new systems:

special characters had to be engraved and public rejectio~

hence a considerable decrease ~n revenue, was almost

certainly to be,expected. Writers nevertheless, and also

understandably, complained about the liberties printers

took with their manuscripts .. Peletier, like Meigret, ex-

pressed dismay over the nonchalance with which his spell-

irigs were regarded: "· ... il m¢ sembl¢ qu¢ quand on aport¢

quelqu¢ Liur¢ a un Imprimeur, 1¢ moins d¢ gracieus¢te

.qu'il puiss¢ fer¢, et d¢ suiur¢ la minut¢ d¢ c¢lui qui (,_ .l'a ftt, e qui 1¢ lui donn¢" (Dialogu¢, pp. 36-37). But ...... de Beze thought Peletler should be grateful, for had his

work (Oeuvres Poetiques, 1547) been printed as he had 43 wished, no one would have read it:

Vous vous pleignez .... Mts il m¢ sambl¢ qu'iz vous ont f~t grand pltsir: Car il i a b~aucoup d¢ Lecteurs qui usset difere a lir¢ votr¢ Liur¢, s'il ut ete ecrit a votr¢ mod¢: par c¢ qu¢ c~la les ut gardez d'antandr¢ plusieurs passag¢s: e pareinsi iz s'an fuss¢t faschez. (p. 37)

Pe1etier thought oth~rwise; his spellings would have amused men of leisure, always curious for novelty:

M~s j'uss¢ panse qu¢ votr¢ opinion ut ete tout au contrer¢, qu¢ si on l'ut imprime s¢lon mon intancion, c¢la ut ete caus¢ qu¢ meinz homm¢s d¢ lo~sir, e curieus d¢ nouueautez, s¢ fuss¢t .amusez a 1¢ lir¢, plus pour l'Ecritur¢ qu¢ pour la sustance du suget. (p. 37) ·

Conflicts between author and publisher were common, and many more instances than those presented here could be cited.

The ~revalence in many cases of the preferences of

the publishers is an indication of the authority they·had

already acquired. But printers, if they had done little

to help the cause of reform,.· were of primary importance

in the development of uniform standards. It was in print-

ing, in fact, that the need for order began to be felt most strongly.

While at first different spellings were found useful

in keeping margins even, it soon became apparent that con-

sistency was far more convenient. Printers cared less

that spelling be phonetic than that everyone spell the

same way, and they welcomed Robert Estienne's Dictionaire 44 as an authority against which to correct, in good con-

science, the diversity of spellings in the manuscripts sub- mitted to them for publication. Typographical necessities

led, moreover, to many auxiliary innovations. The con- ventions which existed were those developed throughout the

Middle Ages for copying manuscripts, but the demands of

print were being found to be quite different. These con- ventions, wh~ch we now take for granted--the design of ls~

ters, equalization of spacing, punctuation, capitalization,

pagination, careful editing, elimination of arbitrary variations--were not hit upon all at once, but took

several generations to develop. Pasquier and Du Bellay

.excused misprints as inevitable:

... quel liure peut on imprimer de nouueau qui n'y soit infiniement sujet? L'on enuoie a l'Imprimeur ses copies les plus correctes que l'on peut. Qui passent premierement par les mains du Compositeur. Ce seroit certes vn vray miracle, que sans faute il peust assembler toutes les lettres ... (Pasquier, "Lettre a Loisel," II, col. 282)

Situ treuues quelques faultes en l'impression tu ne t'en dois prendre ~ moy, qui m'en suis rapport~ a la foy d'autruy. Puis le labeur de la correction est tel, singulierement en vn oeuure nouueau, que tous les yeux d'Argus ne fourniroient J voir les faultes, qui s'i treuuent. (Du Bellay, L'Olive, 2nd Preface, in Oeuvres, ed. Chamard)

And Peletier here provides us with an indication that

printers were only beginning to learn their craft:

E mtm¢s les Apostrof¢s qui ont ete trouue¢s d¢ notr¢ tans, m¢ sambl¢t bien propr¢s: combien qu'il i ~t des Imprimeurs qui n¢ font cont¢ 45

d'an vser: Mes j¢ cro~ bien qu¢ c'ft par c¢ qu'iz n¢ sau¢t a quo~ ~ll¢s sont bon¢s, ni la ou tll¢s s¢ dotu¢t appliquer. (Dialogu¢, pp. 105-106)

The inconsistency and confusion to be seen everywhere in 16th-century print are thus understandable. And yet, by the end of the century a single, generally·accepted system of spelling was beginning to emerge in printed texts. It was learned and etymological, having responded to these forces in the course of its history; and the alphabet inherited from Latin, in spite of the reformers' efforts to introduce new symbols,remained intact. An orthography already archaic by the end of the Middle Ages had thus been preserved, and Estienne Pasquier, by 1596, could already write of its struggle as history:

Car comme ainsi soit que le temps eut alors produit une pepiniere de braues poetes, aussi chacun diuersement prit cette querelle en main, les aucuns estans pour le party qu'il falloit du tout accorder l'escriture au parler, s'y rendans mesmement extremes. Les autres nageans entre deux eaux voulurent apporter quelque mediocrite entre les deux extremitez. Ce nonobstant, apres plusieurs tracassemens, enfin encores est-on retourn~ ~ nostre vieille coustume, fors que dE! quelques paroles on en a oste les consonantes trap esloignees de la prononciation, comme la·lettre de "p" des mots de "temps, corps" et "escripre." (Recherches de la France, in Oeuvres, I, col. 756) CHAPTER 3

PRONUNCIATION

Th~ problem, then, for today•s historical linguist becomes one of determining 16th-century pronunciation in spite of 16th-century spelling. Which of the spellings corresponded to standard pronunciation? Which were particular to certain social strata or milieux and not to others? Which represented sounds in the process of chang­ ing or sounds long lost? Which were mere decoration?

Finally, which were those of the author? Which of the printer?

The descriptions of early writers are important to our ability to piece together the phonology of previous centuries. Yet they have to be interpreted cautiously, for while they have the advantage of being direct, and are the only direct evidence we have, they are at the same time inevitably subject to varying degrees of bias and error. In those first decades, when the analysis of the vernacular was just getting underway, perceptions were understandably confused. They were often limited to the writers' bwn social group of educated speakers and could combine insight and nalvete" with peculiar and disconcert­ ing unpredictability.

Host widespread was the tendency to confuse sound with its graphic representationr resulting in unclear,

46 47 often completely incorrect statements. Peletier seems to have been more aware than most of the other phoneticians of the difference between speech and writing, and seems to have made a constant, if not alw~ys successful, effort td differentiate the two. This makes his testimony among the more reliable, but he did not write about every l6th- 4 century p h oneme. Desaln. l'lens was a l so among t h e more

~ober and reliable witnesses. But, again, his coverage of l6th-cehtury pronunciation was selective and he often said nothing about those areas most in doubt.

Although the present work is concerned primarily with direct statements, occasional reference is made to the spellings themselves either to support the statements or to supplement them when they are scarce. No attempt is made to examine every 16th-century phoneme. Rather, the focus is on those sounds in the process .of rapid change or which gave rise to controversy and doubt.

4 claude Desainliens (also known as Claudius a Sancto Vinculo and Claud Hollyband) was a French Huguenot who fled to England in 1564 to escape persecution. There he became a respected school teacher and established his own school which specialized in teaching the French language. He laid particular stress on the good pro­ nunciation of a foreign language and prided himself on his own students' ability to speak French well. He wrote De Pronuntiatione to serve as a textbook for his school. 48

AU ) 0

Of the Old French diphthongs, only /au/< /al/ + con- sonant ("aube" < "alba") srirvived to the 16th century.

While cultivated speakers held ori to the d~phthong well

into the century, it had probably begun to be leveled to

/o/ somewhat earlier in popular speech. Conflicting testi-

many reflects the changing usage. Palsgrave compared the

sound to the English diphthong "aw":

"Au" in the frenche tonge shal be sounded lyke as we sounde hym in these wordes in our tonge, "a dawe, a mawe, an hawe" 5 .... Except where a frenche worde begynneth with this diphthong "au," as in these words, "aulcun, aultre, au, aussi, aux,. aucteurs," and all suche lyke, in wiche they sounde the "a" almost lyke an "o." (L'Eclarcissement, p. 14)

Meigret claimed to hear, and consistently wrote, "ao" for

"au":

Un' aotr' [diphthong] ~n ao, come, aotant, aos, loyaos: pour laqE(lle l'ecritture Frantotz' ~buze de la diphth~ge au, qe la pronon£ia2ion ne conott point. (Grammtre, fol. 8v)

Des Autels ·objected to Meigret' s "ao" and insisted on the

pronunciation "au," as in Latin, "autem," to which criti-

cism Meigret retorted acidly, first in his Deftnses centre

ly;s gensures C calonies de Glaumalis du Vezeltt:

5A more thorough investigation than the pre~ent one would, of course, attempt to establish exactly what "a dawe, a mawe, an hawe" sounded like in Palsgrave's day. The same is true of "a boye, a f royse , coye" ·in the passage quoted below. 49

Ie ne crot pas q'il SOEft horne si dehont~ ayant l'ex~eritnte de ~a Iage Fran~O@Z~, qi oza afft:rrner o1r ut a la f1n de vaut corn' 11 ftt ~n veut, t q'il ne conf~sse oir pluto~ o~ par o ouutrt tn vaot: ny n ~t la pronont_la£lOn de la diphthonge ao aotre t_n, aosi ne,

and then again in Reponse a. la.Dezespere'e repliqe de

Glaornalis de Vezelt.,t, transform~ t,n Gyllaorne des Aotels:

Si ltt:s ant_iens Latins l'ussent pronon£_~ come nou' fE£:zons aosi, il' vsse[n]t ecrit "aotern": att~ndu qe le plus opiniatre sourdaot du mode ne saro~t nier q'il.n:oye tD aosi vn a, puis vn o, q1 luy r_t conJOlnt ~n vne·rn~rne syllabe. (p. 54)

Peletier also disputed Meigret's "ao" but, unlike Des

Autels, the sound he heard was closer to "o":

... la Diftongu¢ compose¢ d¢ la pr¢rnier¢ e cinquiern¢ voy~l¢, qui t_t "au": pour laquele tu rn

And although he did admit the following, -he nevertheless

always spelled it "au":

Cornbien qu¢ notr¢ prononciacion tournat plus sus "ao, " qu¢ sus "au" ( c¢ qu¢ j ¢ n' apptr£_U jarnts) ancor¢s n¢ seror.t c¢ qu¢ curiosite a tot, d¢ chtrcher les chos¢s d¢ si pr~s. (pp. 17-18)

Theodore de Beze also identified "au" with "o": "La

dipthongue 'au' ne diff~re pas sensiblernent de la voyelle

'o':. ainsi 'aux' (allia), 'paux' (pali), 'vauxi (valles) 50 ne semblent pas avoir un autre son que 'os,' 'vos,' 'pro- pas.'" Although Heigret was Lyonnais, de Beze mentioned only the Normans as pronouncing "a-o" for "au": "Les

Normands la prononcent en faisant entendre distinctement

'a,o': disant 'a-o-tant' pour 'autant'" (De Francicae, trans. Livet, pp. 520-521).

EAU > 0 The triphthong "eau," also from the vocalization of

"1" before a consonant (beaus < bellus), survived as

I -a ao/ to the beginning of the 16th century, but was. soon reduced to I -a o/ and then, by the end of the century, to

/o/. Heigret transcribed it as "eao":

... come ~n veao, beao, moreao. Dont je m'em~ru~lle de £eus qi premiers ont termin~ £ete tripthong ~n u: vu qe la pronon£:_ia£ion ne tient rien de l'une, mtmes de l'ou clos, qi a qelq' affinite au~q l'u. Brief je ne vat point de lieu ou l'o sott prononc~ si ouu~r~, q'tn la diphthonge, ao. (Grammt;re, foL 9 )

Peletier always wrote "eau," which for him was equivalent to "eo," and Desainliens spelled it "au" in his transcrip- tions (De Pronuntiatione, pp. 93-97), thus "beaucoup" like

"-c-auze."

In popular Parisian speech "iau" (/iau/ or/io/), per- haps of dialectal origin, appeared in the 16th century.

Both Peletier and de Beze made note of it and denounced it.

Peletier referred to " ... le vic¢ des Parisiens, qui au lieu 'd'un seau d'eau,' dis¢t 'vn sio d'io"' (p. 17), and 51 de B~ze warned, "il faut e'viter la faute grossiere des

Parisiens qui dis~nt 'liau' pour 'l'eau,' etc." (trans.

Livet, p. 523). In the 17th century /iau/ became /jau/

and persisted as such in popular speech to the 19th century.

6 OI > WA, ~ The Old French.diphthong /oi/ (

/e/ < Classical Latin "e," "r", "oe") had become /w~/ by the end of the Middle Ages. But in the 16th century three pronunciations existed for the spelling "oi": /w~_/, /wa/,

and /~/- Its subsequent history furnishes an excellent example of the confusion wrought when grammarians began to

int~rfere with the natural tendencies of the language. The pronunciation /f(_/, characteristic of some western dialects and encouraged by the large number of provincial

immigrants to Paris (von Wartburg, Evolution et structure,

p. 156), developed directly from /ei/, that is, without going through the /oi/ > /wt/ stage. It was already a feature of Parisian speech by the 15th century and had be-

come common in the Court by the 16th. Grammarians and

purists reacted vigorously against this "unsophisticated" pronunciation and succeeded in establishing fw(/ in many words, first in polite society and later among the people.

6 For convenience, I am using /7;_/ for open "e" in­ stead of the IPA character lei· 52

Henri Estienne ridiculed the pronunciation If[/=

On n'oseroit dire 11 Francyois 11 ni 11 Fran

He blamed this unacceptable pronunciation on the many

Italians at the French Court who pronounced /~/ in these words, and he also blamed it on women: "Il est certain que ceci est venu premierement des femmes qui avoient peur d'ouvrir trop la bouche en disant 'Fran2ois, Anglois'

(p. 22). Geofroy Tory earlier observed that "~ .. les Dames

Llonnolses• • pronuncet-v souuant 'a' pour 'e.' Pareillement r les Normans 'e' pour ·' oy' " (Champ Fleury, fol. 39 ) . De

Beze attributed /~/ to the people of Paris as well as to the Normans and to Italian influence:

/ . ... ainsi les Normands ecrlvent et prononcent "fai," pour "foi," et le peuple parisien dit "parlet, allet, venet" pour "parloit, alloit, venoit"; les imitateurs de l'italien prononcent de m@me "Angles, Frances, Ecosses" pour "Anglois, Francrois, Ecossois." (trans. Livet, p. 522)

While the Italians did not introduce the pronunciation

It/, they may very well have contributed to its popularity and hence to its permanent establishment in manywords where /wcr_l might otherwise have prevailed.

At the same time that /t/ was gaining ground over /w'(_l, /wa/ < /wf(_/ was developing as a feature particular 53 to popular Parisian speech. Palsgrave reported it as early as 1530:

"Oi" in the frenche tonge hath II diverse soundes, for sometyme it is sounded lyke as we sounde "oy" in these wordes "a boye, a .froyse, coye," and such lyke, and somtyme they sounde the "i" of "oy" almost lyke an "a." If 11 s," "t" or "x" folowe next after iloy" in a worde of one syllable, in all suche the "i" shalbe sounded in maner like an "a," as for "boys, foys, soyt, croyst, uoix, croix" they sounde "boas, foas, soat, croast, uoax, croax," and in like wyse, in wordes of many syllables if "oi" be the last vowels of the wordes, havyng "s" or "t" folowyng them, all 11 suche shall sounde theyr "i" of "oi • lyke an "a," as "aincoys, francoys, disoyt, lisoyt, jasoyt" shalbe sounded "aincoas, francoas, disoat, lisoat, jasoat," also whan so ever "oy" cometh in the meane syllables of a worde havyng "r" or "l" immediatly folowing hym, the "i" of "oy" shalbe sounded almost lyke an "a," as "gloyre, croyre, memoyre, uictoyre, poille, uoille, poillon" shalbe sounded "gloare, croare, memoare. uictoare, poalle, uoalle, poallon," and so of all other. (p. 13)

This pronunciation, too, was condemned, and eschewed by cultivated speakers. "Une faute tre"s·grande des

Parisiens," wrote de B~ze, "c 1 est de prononcer 1 voirre 1

1 1 1 1 ( ou 'verre ) , foirre, ' trois, ' comme voarre, ' 'foarre, '

'troas,' et meme 'tras'" (trans. Livet, p. 522). Desain- liens taught only the pronunciation "o~ 1 " .saying that "moyne, moy, toy, loy," and other words with "oy" are .,_ pronounced "mo~ne, moe, toe," loe,.... Roe, foe," and that words with "oi," such as "oiseau, droit," must ·likewise be pronounced. "oeseau,' droet"' (p. 63). Peletier and

Meigret consistently transcribed "oi, oy" as "or·," al­ though Peletier noted, "Aujourdhui les uns dis¢t 'Rein¢,' 54

les autr¢s 'Ro~n¢.' Mccm¢s a la plus part des Courtisans vous orr~z dir¢, 'iz all~t, iz v¢n~t': pour, 'iz alo~t, iz v¢~o~t'" (p. 85). As educated speakers, Desainliens,

Peletier, Meigret, and others were doubtless recording the pronunciation of the class to which they belonged, and the

.one they recognized as best.

For a long time there was hesitation and c6nflict between Icc_/, the direct outcome of./ei/; /wa/, the speci­

fically Parisian development of /wt/; and /w~/, the con­

sciously cultivated pronunciation of the upper classes.

The effect of the grammarians' meddling was to postpone

the inevitable takeover of the popular forms /wa/ and/~/,

and to secure /wa/ in a number of words which would other­ wise have acquired 1[1· The form /wa/ only slowly dis­

placed /w~/ in those words in which /w~/ had been more successfully imposed, and lr/ continued where it had been too firmly established to revert to /wf[/, in the endings

of the imperfect and conditional and in scores of other words, "monnaie," "craie," "faible," "~pais," "paraitre,"

and so on. The pronunciation /Wf[/ lingered until the

Revolution, which dispersed the.court. Vdn Wartburg tells

us (p. 229) that when Louis XVIII returned to France in

1814 and proclaimed, "C'est rowe le rwe," he had to be I

told told that the last "rwe" was Louis XVI and that he

could no longer be anything but "le rwa."

The spelling "oi" for /wa/ remains to this day, 55 though the pronunciation /oi/ disappeared in the 12th century, and for lei' "oi" persisted until 1835.when the "Academie" adopted "ai. " "Fran<(ais, ... "Frant:ois"; "frais,"

"froid"; and "Anglais" and "Hollandais" beside "Danois,"

"Suedois," and "Hongrois" are among the many survivors bearing witness to the conflict.

0 and OU

Another difficult situation arose out of the hesita- tion between·"o" /o/ and "ou" /u/. This controversy reached major propor.tions in a long quarrel which lasted throughout the 16th century and well into the 17th be- tween the "ou'istes," who favored "ou" /u/, and the "non- oulstes," who liked "o" /o/ better. Apparently the con- flict between a very close /o/ and a very open /u/ had been going on for some time, but in the 16th century the popular tendency to close /o/ to /u/ was countered by the literate population which, influenced by othography and by Latin~ was ~nclihed to pronounce words as spelled, and /o/ ~as thus retained in many cases where it might otherwise have become /u/: "cSte" beside "coute,"

"couteau"; "dormir," but "tourment"; ·"rosee," which vied with "rousee";/' and so on.

Confusion prevailed for a long time even among the educated, who as a rule favored /o/ and rejected /u/ as popular or dialectal. Peletier reproached Meigret for 56

confusing the two sounds and writing "troup" and "noutres,"

but "doleur ," "coleur":

.... qui t 1 acord¢ra qu 1 on doE[u¢ prononcer, "troup, noutr¢s, coute, claus, nous anciens," par diftongu¢ "ou"? au lieu d¢ "trop, notr¢s, cot¢, c.los," e "nos anciens," par "o" simpl¢? Au contrer¢, a qui as tu oui dir¢, "coleur, doleur," par 1¢ m~m¢ "o" simpl¢, qu¢ tu apt,l¢s "o" ouur_rt? (p. 22)

Provincial pronunciations further complicated the

matter, which Brunet called one of the most confused of

16th-century French phonology (Histoire de la langue

.frantaise, II, 251). Meigret was from Lyon where

"l 1 ou'isme" was widespread, but other dialects favored /o/: ... dans le Berry, a Lyon et en plusieurs autres lieux, on prononce "nostre, vostre, le-dos," comme "noustre, voustre, 1e dous" ... en Dauphine, au contraire, et en Provence, on supprime 1 1 "u" de la diphthongue "ou," et l 1 on prononce "cop, beaucop, doleur, torment," pour "coup, beaucoup, douleur, tourment".., .... Il faut se garder de prononcer comme a Lyon "ou" pour "o" (comme "nous" pour "nos"), et comme dans le Dauphine et la Savoie "o" pour "ou": tels "cop" pour "coup," ""oi" pour "oui," etc. (De Beze, trans. Livet, p. 522)

Peletier indicted the pronunciation of still other dia~

lects:

I 1 e trouue qu¢ c 1 ~t 1¢ vic¢ d¢ cirteins pals, comm¢ d¢ la Gaul¢ Narbortnocs~, ~lonno~s¢~ e d¢ quelqu¢s andrott_z d¢ l 1 Aqulteln¢: ou lZ dis¢t 1¢ "haut bot, un huis ouert, du vin rog¢": Au contrer¢, "un mout, un¢ chouse," e des "pourreaus." I 1 e trouue an quelqu¢s Liur¢s, d¢ l 1 Tmprim¢ri¢ d¢ Librer¢s autr¢mant corncz e dilig 1 ans, "loang¢, rejoir, torner, oi, morir, e voloir": Au contrer¢, "ourront, 1¢ voul, e 1¢ mout"~ chos¢ c!rt¢s ridicul¢. (pp. 22-23) 57

Henri Estienne derided the "ou"lsmes" he found too popular among the members of the Court:

Si tant vous aimez les "ou" doux, N'estes vous pas bien de grands fous, de dire "chouse" au lieu de "chose"? De dire j'"ouse" au lieu de j'"ose"? (Deux Dialogues, "Remonstrance," pp. 14-15)

There is probably some truth in Meigret's explanation that

for certain wo~ds at least the pronunciation is neither

"o" nor "ou" but something in between:

~ qant a coleur, .~ doleur si tu vsses bien re­ gard~ ~e qe j'ey dit de l'o, tu vsses trouu~ qe lt' Fra£ots ont dr' vocables ambigues .... de sorte qe nou' ne proferon' pas couleur come couureur: ne douleur, come dous, t doulltt, aosi ne dizo' nou' pas coleur come col, ne doleur come dol.w.on pourra aosi dire qe nous ecriuons mal Rome, conduire, compozer~ come, com~nt/ .... ~ pourtant a faote de charactere _moy~n, il 1~' faot lrsser ao bo pltzir de l'ecriuein: combien q'il doECt auizer de suyure

Needless to say, educated spelling rarely reflected a

pronunciation /u/, which makes the transciptions and de-

scriptions of educated speakers particularly valuable.

"O" /o/ survived in most learned words ("volume,"

"moment.," ,;colonne") and in a number of popular words

which came under the influence of grammarians or of the

reforms in the pronunciation of Latin ( "soleil" <... Old

French "souleil," "rosee," "fosse'," "colombe," ''com-

mencer"). "Ou" /u/ prevailed in many other words, either

by analogy, especially in verb forms and derivations 58

("ouvre" and "coule" by analogy with "ouvrir," "couler";

"epoux" and ''jaloux" by analogy with "e-pouser," "jalousie") or because they escaped the grammarians' influence

("coussin," "tourment," "fourmi"). Because such inter- ferences resulted in many.irregularities, exact rules are hard to give, and the reasons for the survival of one form over another often.remain obscure.

EU and U

Debates also arose out of the hesitation between

"eu," /re/ or/(/;/, fromLatin "o" and "o,""u" respective- - 7 . ly: 11 oeuf" < "ovem, 11 "heure" < "hora" ; and "u 11 or "eu,"

/y/, jgyj, from the loss of an intervocalic consonant:

"sur" < "seur" < "seciirum. 11 These were complicated by the spelling 11 eU11 which represented both categories of sounds, by.dialectal pronunciations which invaded the capital, again by the interference of grammarians, and finally, by the fact that, while nothing significant happened to the first category, in the second/By/ was giving way to /y/ but was not yet universal for all speakers.

Acc6rding to Brunot, poetry is of little help in

7 The tendency for /re/ to appear in closed syllables and /(/;/ in open. is a more recent development; ·the dis­ tinction is blurred, however, in unstressed positions. Spellings with "o" ("oeuvre," 11 oeuf," "boeuf," 11 noeud, 11 "moeurs," etc., are etymological, or result from a desire to distinguish homonyms. 59

~orting out the distribution of these sounds, for poets simply chose the form which suited their rhyme. Most writers, moreovei, clung to the spelling "eu" regardless of their pronunciation. Thus the phoneticians' observa- tions .are in this case of particular value and usefulness:

"C'est ici l'un des points ou, suivant moi, le t~moignage direct·des th~oriciens doit pr~valoir sur l'observ~tion des rimes" (II, 264).

For Peletier /9 yj had already reduced to a simple vowel:

... la prolacion d¢ ces moz "conneu, d¢ceu, veu, peu" e les autr¢s, qu¢ nous prononcions naguer¢s par diftongu¢ an la dtrnier¢ so~t change¢ an. "u" simpl¢. (pp. 86-87)

But de B~ze considered the sound a diphthong, and attrib~ uted the pronunciation "u" /y/ to Picard influence:

Les Francais i~itent quelquefois les Picards, en ce qu'ils prononcent par "u" simple les mots "seur" ("securus") et ses derives, "seurete, asseurer, asseurance"; "meur" , ~ / ( "maturus" ) , "meurete," et en general taus les noms en "eure," comme "blesseure, casseure, navreure" ("vulneratio"), 11 rompeure" ( 11 rup­ tura"), etc.; il en est de m&me dans les participes passes passifs, masculins ou feminins, termines en "eu, "eue," comme "beu, beue, deu, deue, leu, letie~" etc. (trans. Livet, pp. 521-522)

He also criticized-as a Picardism: the pronunciation "u"

/y/ for "eu" /m, ~/: Dans cette diphthongue on n' en tend ni 1' "e," ni 1' "u," mais un son qui tient de 1 'un et de 1' autre: "beuf, neuf, peu" ( "paucum") , "seur" ("soror"), "veu" ("votum"), et un grand nombre d'autres que les Picards prononcent 60

souvent "u" simple, disant "Diu, ju," pour "Dieu, jeu." (p. 525)

Indeed, joe,¢/ did not exist in the Picard dialect, in which /y/ was the phoneme used instead. As Parisian speech was considerably influenced by invading regional pronun- cia tions, many words hesitated between /¢, oej and /yI: "heurter," "hurter"; "meure," "mure"; "fleute," "flute";

"beurre," "burre"; etc. Peletier, for example, took issue with Meigret 1 s pronunciation of "queue" and· "heurte":

"Di mot, j ¢ t¢· pri, Meigret, qui t¢ pourra consantir qu¢

lon dotu¢ prononcer 1 cue, 1 1 hurte, 1 par 1 u 1 tout nu au

lieu d¢ 'keu¢ 1 e 1 heurt¢ 1 ?" (p. 22). Meigret replied to

the criticism, more or less, but explained very little:

~ pour satisfer 1 a £e qe tu demandes, qi sera £eluy qi me constntira q 1 on dotue prono~er hurte, ~cue, pour heurte, e ceue? Ee sera £eluy qi voudra vzer d 1 un lt'gaje gra<(_ieus ~ d 1 une prola

Grarrunarians intervened, and on the authority of

spelling (some things never change) condemned "u" /y/ as

popular or

logically correct. Thus it came about that the "-heur" of

"bonheur," "malheur," and "heureux," pronounced /yr/ in

1 1 1 the 16th century (" ... 1 · e est inutile encore dans le mot 'heureux' qui se prononce 1 hureux, 1 bien qu'il soit

/. / 1 1 .... 1 1 derive de heur, ou s entend la diphthongue 'eu ••• ".

[De Beze, trans. Livet, p. 525]) became /oer/ by the 17th, whereas /yr/ would have been the expected development of 61

"augurium." A false assoc:Lation with "heure" favored the

outcome and alsri accounts for the unetymological "h."

·E, Closed, Open, and "Muet"·

Although Renaissance French had the same three "e"'s

in its repertoire as does modern French, lei, 1~1, ~nd I a I, their distribution differed considerably. They were

also far less stable, and were shifting from one category

to another during the course of the century. Regional,

social, and individual di£ferences added to the fluctua-

tion, disturbing the classification still further. It is

not surprising then that 16th-century phoneticians were

unable to arrive at a consensus· concerning the nature,

distribution, notation, or even the nlirnber of sounds rep~

resented by the.letter "e."

Etienne Dolet recognized only two "e"'s, "e mascu-

lin, II (/el) 1 and "e feminin, II (/ el) o He described their

nature and be~avior in his Lea Accents:

La letre appellee, e, a double son, & pro­ lation en Francoys. La premiere est dicte .masculine: & l'aultre feminine. La masculine / . . / . est. nommee a1ns1, pource que, e, mascul1n a l~ son plus uirile, plus robuste, & plus fort sonnant. D'aduantage, il porte sur soy une uirgule ung peu inclinee_,. ~ main dextre, comme est l'accent appelle des Latins aigu, ainsi, e./ Exemple. Il est homme de grand' bonte,/ priuaulte, & familiarite: plus, il diet tousiours uerite ....

Maintenant il te fault noter diligemment deux choses. C'est que cest~ letre, &, estant masculine iamais ne uient en collision: c'est 62

a dire, qu'estant deuant ling mot commencant par uoyelle, elle ne se perd poinct. Exemple. Il a este homme de bien toute sa uie: & n'a meri b~ ung tel oul trage.

En apres il fault entendre, que ceste letre, e,./ est aussi bien masculine au plurier nombre, qu'au singulier. Et ce tant en noms, qu'en uerbes~ Exemple des noms. Les iniquite"s, & meschancet~s, desquelles il estoit rempli, l'ont conduict ~ ce malheur. Aultre exemple. / . . Toutes uoluptes contra1res a uertu ne sont louables.

Ie te ueulx aduertir en cest endroict d'une mienne opinion. Qui est, que le, 6, masculin en noms de plurier hombre ne doibt recepuoir ung, z~ ma1s. une, s, & d 01'b t estre marcque/ de son accent, tout ainsi qu'au singulier nombre. Tu escriras doncq uolupte-s, dignite's, iniquite's, uerit~s: & non pas uolupt~z, dignit~z, iniquit~z, uerit~z. Ou sans ~ marcqu~ auec son accent aigu tu n'escriras uoluptez, dignitez, iniquitez, ueritez. Car, z, est le sign~ de, ~, masculin au plurier nombre des uerbes de seconde personne: & ce sans aulcun accent. marcque.I dessus. (rpt. Beaulieux, pp. 125-126)

Dolet is here reacting against the common practice of using "z" as a plural instead of "s" to indicate a pre- ceding closed "e" /e/. He continues:

Sur ce propos ie scay bien, que plusieurs non bien congnoissants la uirilit~ du son de le, ~' ~asculin trouueront estrange, que ie repudie le, z, en ces mots uoluptts, dignitds, & aultres semblables. Mais s'ilz le trouuent estrange, il leur procedera d'ignorance, & mauluaise coustume d'escrire: laquelle il c6nuient reformer peu ~ peu.

L'aultre pronunciation de ceste letre, e, est feminine: c'est a dire de peu de son, & sans uehemence. Estant feminine, elle n~ repcoit aulcun accent. Exemple. Elle est notable femme, de bonne uie, de bonne ren­ contre, & aultant prudente, · & sage, que femme, qui se trouue en ceste contree. 63

Note aussi, que quand ceste letre, e, est feminine, elle est de si peu de force, que tou­ siours elle est mangee, s'il s'ensuict apres elle ung mot commencant par uoyelle. (p. 126)

Like Dolet, f1eigret recognized only two "e" 's, but un- ·

like Dolet, he was quite mistaken in their classification. ·To Meigret, the lei of "bonte" and the I a I of "bonne" were one and the same "e clos," which he distinguished

from "~ ouvert." Here.· is what he said about it in his

Reponse to DesAutels, who had objected to Meigret's ana~

lysis, asserting that French had not two but three "e" 's: ·

Or re j~ntil Philozophe ~n la re2h~r£he d~s e me propoze qe je n'inore pas qe notr' e a troECs diuEt_rses puissan£es. Si frc_s Gyllaome: car je n'~n treuue en notre lange qe deus, si differ~s ~n leur pr~non~ia£i5, qe l'vn ne peut rtre pron5ge pour l'aotre, com assez je l'ey montre. Qi sont l'e clos, t 1'~ ouuert .... M~s tn tant qe con2~rne la qantit~, nous ~n pourrons assiner qatre: qi sont l'e clos / / long, come £eluy de bonte, ~hastete: l'aotre brief, come fame, bone. ~ si to~ ou aotre veullez dire qe l'e brief eyt/qelqe differanre formtlle dau~q laotre, efforce vous de le pronon£er long: ~ lors vou' vtrrez voutr' abus .... De m~mes aosi auon' nous l'y_ ouu~rt long, com' il ~t en la t~rminalle de tous 1~' pluriers, come bo~~s, vall~s: etant ao contr~re br~f tn leurs singuliers: come, bonet, vall~t .... Si tu vsses prins garde a l.. • • ~e' propr1etes ~ d1ffer~n£es, come do~t tout home qi se m~le de deuizer d'vne doctrine, tu n'vsse' pas parle- einsi confuzemE(nt, qe l'e a trot puissantes. (pp. 30-31)

Meigret's other adversary, Peletier, likewise ac-

cused ~·1eigret of confusing lei and I<) I:

Tun¢ f~s qu¢ deus sort¢s d'"e" an ta d~rnier¢ edicion. L'un a keu¢, duquel nous parlons, qu¢ tu ap~l¢s e ouutrt (qui plus propr¢mant s'aptl¢rott e cler ... ). 64

L'autr¢ sans. keu¢ l¢quel tu ftz seruir d¢ deus ofic¢s: qu¢ tu n¢ saurots nier (sans dir¢ rien d¢ plus ~gr¢) etr¢ chos¢ d'impru­ danc¢ e d'omission. Car tu sez qu¢ nous an auons tro~s: lequez tu sans an c¢ mot "Defxr¢." Vo~la ou il m¢ sambl¢, qu¢ tu as notaol¢mant falhi, .... Eta faut¢ s¢ vott an ces moz "ecrir¢, deduir¢, per¢": la ou tu n¢ myz poi,nt d' 'ie" diferant pour les pr¢mier~s e pour les dLrnier¢s· silab¢s. (p. 24) '

Further on Peletier described the nature of his

three "e"'s. His goal was to render these as distinct in writing as they were in speech, and indeed he was the

first to do so in every instance:

Pr¢mier¢mant, j¢ vous di qu¢ nous auons an Fran

Still, Meigret refused to be convinced:

~· qant ao' trots e qe tu dis qe je s~ns uiffertns ~n ee vocable defEC_re, je n'us jam~s le nes si ~on qe j'y.tn susse stn~ir plu de deus, etas le prem1er t le dern1er d'une mr.me natur' t. qatite, t le secod E( ouu~rt. Trouue' tu qe la voytlle de la prep~ziti~n de, dont deftr' ~~ compoze soet ~n r1en d1ffer~nte de la dern1ere de 65

(Reponse a Pelletier, fol. 8r)

~his passage is revealing, for it tells us that not all of the disagreements among 16th-century phoneticians were due to faulty perception. One of the Erasmian reforms of the pronunciation of.Latin substituted /e/ for /a I in pre- tonic position. This had important repercussions on

French, first on the pronunciation of learned words, and

. / later on many popular ones; hence, "present,".? "desir;"

/ / / "peril," "seduire," "benin," and so on, formerly pro- nounced with /a j, ·now proriounced with /e/. The reforms thus encouraged a pronunciation /de/ in.words which until then had /da /; and, although Meigr~t did not distinguish

/e/ from /a I in his orthography, it seems likely from his comment that he was pronouncing "d~fere" in the old manner, while Peletier was clearly pronouncing it in the new.

Fluctuations in pronunciation induced other disagree- ments. Peletier complained about Meigret's excessive use of "[ a keu¢," that is Ire/:

Qui t'acord¢ra qu¢ 1' 11 e" qu¢' tu ap~l¢s "e" · . ouuert conuiegn¢ an ces moz, "nagu~r¢,.pourtr~r¢, contrEC_r¢, necess~r¢, 11 pour "naguer¢, pourtrer¢, necesser¢'?'' ... E ancor¢s c¢ci m¢ sambl¢ autant ou plus etrang¢ qu¢ tu ecriu¢s si grand nombr¢ d¢ moz par 1' "t_" a keu¢. {pp. 2 2-24) But tonic /e/ was at the time giving·way to 1[/ in certain positions: where followed by a final consonant, closing

11 the syllable, words of the type "tel ; and in words where the disappearance of final unstressed I e/ also resulted 66 in a closed syllable, thus /pe-rQ I> /prr/. Here, then, it was Peletier who was pronouncing words in the old man- ner, and Meigret in the new. Meigret had a supporter in

Desainliens, who also prounounced "e" as open in this

position: "espe-ce, Lucrece,' tu. me bleces,' ... pere,' mere,'

fr~re" (p. 14).

Another source of variation arose out of a popular Parisian innovation which replaced It/ with /a/ and vice versa, especially before /r/. The tendency began as early

as the 14th century and had become very common by the 16th,

as numerous spellings reveal: "bizarre," "bizarre";

"asperge," ·"asparge"; ·"merque," "marque"; "perfect,"

"parfaict"; "lermes," "larmes"; and so forth. The two

vowels must haVe been very close at the time, for Ronsard

noted that, " ... 'e' est fort uoisine de la lettre 'a,'

uoire tel que souuent, sans i penser, nous les confondons

naturellement (Oeuvres~ II, 481). Tory reported that the

ladies of Lyon, influenced by the many Italians at the

fairs, affected Ha" for "e," while the ladies of Paris

pronounced "e" for "a":

A la cause de quoy, pour la frequentation des diets Italians, qui est aux ferez & bancquez de Lion, les dames Lionnoises pronuncent gracieusement souuent A pour E quant elles disent "Choma vous choma chat affeta" & mille aultres motz semblables, que ie laisse pour breuete. Au cofttraire les Dames de Paris, en lieu de A pronuncent E bien souuent, quant elles disent "Mon mery est a la porte de Peris, ou il se faict peier" en lieu de dire "Mon mary est a la porte de Paris ou il se 67

faict paier."

Hesitation between /a/ and If./ continued well into the 17th century when the issue was finally settled in favor o-f one form or the other. Among the irregular survivors of the shift are "larme" < "lerme" and "asperge" <. "asparge."

The disappearance of unstressed ja I which had begun earlier continued throughout the 16th century. We saw this in final position in words such as "p~re," where the preceding vowel was also affected. It occurred in other positions as well. In hiatus, /a I had begun to be lost as early as the 14th century ( "ve-oir" > "voir") . It re- mained longer between consonants, but by the 16th century

I . it too was disappearing ("p'lote," "ch'min," "sur' te") . Final unstressed I e I, pronounced and syllabic in Old French, suffered a slow and sporadic demise extending_over several centuries. Its· loss in hiatus after a tonic vowel ("eauen > "eau," "soucie" > "souci") was becoming generali after a consonant, final /a I continued to be pronounced throughout the Middle Ages but disappeared from popular speech in the 16th century, sometimes taking the consonant with it "not'," "les aut'," "une let'"). Whether following a vowel or a consonant,· final I a I tended to survive longer in cultivated speech than in popular, and in verse when necessary to the meter.

The extent of the leveling produced by the loss of 68 unstressed 181 in its various positions, which entailed syl.],.abic loss as well, began to worry a number of people.

Aided by orthography and by the reforms in the pronuncia­ tion of Latin, pedagogues and erudites were succes~ful in halting and in many cases reversing the trend in initial syllables (se~ ~bove, pp. 64-65). Less successful were efforts to save medial /8 / in hiatus ( "hardiement" > "hardiment," · "vraiement" > "vraiment") and between con­ sonants (acheter" / "ach'ter," "developper" > "dev'­ lopper," "souverain" > "souv'rain"), except when required as a supporting vowel ("tremblement"). But the loss of final I -8 I was delayed before a pause and in careful speech until well into the 17th century. An important consequence of its temporary survival was the preserva­ tion of the preceding consonant ("notre," "lettre,"

';raide," "vide") ; after a consonant plus liquid blend final I e/ continues to this day, except in liaison

("fenetre," "notre").

One of thE;! squabbles between Peletier and Meigret illustrates the role of final I 8 I in 16th-century French.

Meigret' s practice was to replace final I e I when not pronounced with an apostrophe. He would write, for ex­ ample, "tell'," "puiss' ," and "peupl'" before vowels, but

"telle," "puisse," and "peuple" before consonants.

Peletier took issue with this system because if one paused, he said, the tendency \vas to pronounce the vowel regardless 69 of the following word:

Sans rrson tu ot¢s 1'¢ feminin, au lieu duquel tu m~z un apostrof¢ a la fin des diccions, quand 1¢ mot suiuant s¢ commanc¢ par voyf[__l¢. B c¢ qui 1¢ m¢ ftt dir¢, @t qu¢ lon s¢ peut arrtter, ancor¢s qu¢ 1¢ point n'i sorct pas: e an s'i arrfC_tant, c'EC_t fore¢ d¢ prononcer 1'¢. (p. 18)

His practice, therefore, was to bar every unstressed "e"

I a/ whether pronounced or not and thus to allow for the fluctuation.

Earlier, in 1530, Palsgrave was still rlescribing final /8/, albeit not to clearly, as having a definite syllabic value:

"E shall in that place be sounded almoste lyke an "o" and very moche in the noose, as these wordes "homme, femme, honneste, parle, hommes, femmes, honnestes, auecques" shall have theyr laste "e" sounded in manner lyke an "o," as "hommo," "femmo," ... so that, if the reder lyft up his voyce upon the syllable that commeth nexte before the same "e," and sodaynly depresse his voyce whan he cometh to the soundynge of him, and also sounde hym very moche in the noose,·he shall sounde "e" accordyng as the Frenche men do. (p. 4)

But.in 1584 Desainliens was teaching something quite different. He repeatedly stressed the utmost importanc~ of liaison in order to avoid a rough and un-French sound

(pp. 20, 31, 33-34). When a word ending in "e feminin," he explained, is followed by a word beginning with any vowel~ the "e" must not be heard and.the two words are pronounced as one. Thus, "Ma tante a dishe," becomes 70

"rna tanta disne,u8 and 11 Mon pere et ma mere ont soupe," )<. becomes 11 !1on pe ret rna me.ront soup~," and these are best )(. ><. spoken with a single continuous emission of breath, as

...... / "Mon peretmamerontsoupe." He added, however, that an im- " )(. portant exception occurs in inversions. In 11 comment s• >'- appelle-il? comment s'appelle~elle? comment l'appelle-ort? 11 ~ ~ not only is the "e 11 retained, but many speakers, in order to avoid the shock of two consecutive vowels, say "s' appelle-til, s'appelle-telle, l'appelle-ton, 11 and likewise

11 a-til disne? 11 for 11 a-il disne?" He gave his students the )(. X choice of pronouncing this epenthetic 11 t 11 or not; in the

17th century it became universal. Unlike Palsgrave, what

Desainliens was teiching his students was a final /a/, whose role scarcely differed from that of Modern French.

Final Consonants and the Unity of the Phrase

Clearly the pronunciation or omission of final I ;o I was becoming primarily a matter of its position within the phrase. The same became.increasingly true of final con- sonants. In Old French, words had a large.degree of indep~ndence, but by the 16th ~entury the individuality of the word had been lost to the unity of the phrase. Though the disappearance of final consonarits was not new to the

8 oesainliens uses small crosses to show his students which letters are silent. 71

16th century, no longer was it merely a question of their being final. The following transcription of Henri

Estienne's was written to show that final ~onsonants were to be pronounced before a word beginning with a vowel or . I before a pause, even a slight one, but not before a con- sonant:

Vou me dite toujours que votre pays est plu grand de beaucoup et plus abondan que le notre, e que maintenan vou pourrie bien y vivre a meilleur marchl que nou ne vivon depui troi mois en cette ville: mai tou ceux qui en viennet, parlet bien un autre langage: ne vou deplaise. (Hypomneses, p. 94, quoted by Brunot, II, 268-269)

Estienne's rules are the same ones Desainliens taught, stressing as in the case of final I 8 I the unity of the phrase and the importance of liaison. He provided his students with an abudance of examples showing where final consonants are silent and where they must be detached and linked to the following word in order to obtain a smooth, natural pronunciation. In French, he explained, because of the softness of the language, one does not pronounce two successive consonants but almost always omits the first. Thus, in "belles paroles m'ont beaucoup serui," X. ><:. "' "s," "t," and "p" are silent because of the follow·ing con- sonant. On the other hand, in "levez vous, car il en est heure." the final consonants must be detached as follows:

"levez vous, ca ri len nes teure," and even more appro- x ~ priate is to emit the second phrase as a single word, 72

"carilenesteure.".,_ What Desainliens is saying is that final consonants within a phrase behave in the same manner as do medial ones within a word. This was much less true of Old French, but it is very much the case in Modern

French. Desainliens went on to say that these rules are essential to the beauty and grace of the French language, and that.while the English may complain about it, they forget that they themselves say "ittis madin ningland" for

"it is made in Eng lande·, " and even "much goudi ti" for

"much good may it do vnto you," "godi goden" for "God geue you a good eueninge," and "god bou'i" for "God be with you."

But those Frenchmen, continues Desainliens, who say ·" avoo disne" rather than "avez vous disn~" areindeed very much )f. ~ in error. Also at fault are those who imitate Italians and say "stome," "ste fame," and "astheure.," for "cest home,11 "ceste fame," "a'- ceste heure" (pp. 34-37, 66-69,

91) . A number of contractions no longer made today were in fact common in the 16th century. For example, ''qu • a- vous 11 ("qu•avez-vous"), 11 n'a-vous" ("n'avez~vous"), and

"sca-vous" ("scavez-vous 11 ), among others. These came to be frowned upon, however, and were successfully eliminated.

Other grammarians agreed v7i th Desainiiens and

Estienne•s rules. Palsgrave was quite definite about it:

If a frenche worde ende in a consonant, the next worde folowyng begynnyng with a vowel or diphthonge, all the vowels, diphthortges and consonantes shall have theyr distinct sounde .... Every frenche worde comynge next unto a point 73

or comma, or virgula shal sounde theyr last letters distinctly, and so sh~l all the last wordes in the lynes of suche thinges as be made in ryme .... If a. frenche worde ende in a con­ sonant or consonantes, the next worde folowyng begynnyng also with a consonant or consonantes, "m" "n" and "r" shall never lese their sounde. And if the worde goyng before ende in any other consonant, .he shall lese his sounde .... "Sans cause, soubz couleur, ung combat tel, faictz plaisans, suis sayn" shall be red and sounded "san cause, sou couleur, un comba tel, fai plaisans, sui sayn." And so of all 6ther, though XX suche wordes both endyng and begyn­ nyng with consonantes shulde fortune to folowe one an other in a sentence. (pp. 39-40)

Peletier also remarked that final consonants are omitted within a phrase and that a phrase when spoken without

stopping is rather like a word of many syllables:

Comm¢ quand nous disons, "Les Francro'Cs sont g'ans bien hardiz": la ou si vous prononcez l'or~son continu¢ chacun set qu¢ les d~rnier¢s l~tr~s d¢ tous les moz n¢ sonn¢t point, fors c~l¢ du d~rnier .... L'or~son qui s¢ prononc¢ tout d'un tryt, n'a EC_l¢ pas tel¢ natur¢ e fore¢ an proferant les moz sans s'arr~ter, comm¢ peut auo~r un mot seul d¢ plusieurs silab¢s, qu'on prononc¢ tout aucoup? (p. 58)

Further on he explained that if he nevertheless continues

to write final consonants it is because when one pauses

they are pronounced:

Car combien qu't_l¢s n¢ s'antand¢t comm¢ point an pronontant les moz tout d'un trein: tout¢­ fo~s par c¢ qu'il n'tt pas defandu d¢ s'ar~ter a quelqu¢ mot, e vu mEC_m¢s qu'on s'i arrECt¢ assez. souuant, ~l¢s i sECr';l¢t pour ttr¢ pronon ..... ce¢s an tel cas: c~t a dlr¢, quand on voudra proferer les moz distinct¢mant l'un aprrs l'autr¢. (p. 119)

The rules we have been discussing ~ere not, however,

universal. In popular speech the disappearance of final 74 consonants was inclined to occur not only before a con- sonant' but before a pause as well' as ccim be seen in the following passage in which Geofroy Tory chides Parisian women for leaving out too many 11 s"'s:

Les Dames de Paris pour la plus grande partie obseruent bien ceste figure poetique, en laissant le "s" finalle de beaucop de dic­ tions: quant en lieu de dire, Nous auons disne en vng Iardin & y auons menge des ·Prunes blanches et noires, des Amendes doulces ·& ameres, des Figues molles, des Parnes, des Poires, & des Gruselles. Elles disent & pronuncent, Nous auon disne en vng Iardin & y auon menge des prune blanche & noire, des amende doulce & am~re, des figue melle, des pome, des poyre, & des gruselle. Ce vice leur seroit excusable, se nestoit quil vient de femme a home, & quil se y treuue entier abus de parfaictement pronuncer en parlant. (fol. 57r) ·

And Henri Estienne observed that "le peuple ... a le tort de prononcer 'toujou'; de meme il ne prononce pas le 't' final de Jviennent,' 'parlent,' que tous ceux qui pronon- cent bien font sonner, et avec raison, pour distinguer le pluriel du singulier" (Hypomneses, trans. Livet, pp. 381-

382) •

The trend to lose consonants, however, was now com- plicated by the tendency to hold on to them in the literate population and by the efforts of grammel:rians to restore those already lost. The learned influence was, in fact, becoming cruc~al to the future of French conson- ants (see in particular the section on clusters below).

The grammarians' efforts, aided by orthography, massive 75

learned borrowings, and the widespread reaction against

the large number of monosyllabic homonyms which had arisen

through phonologic leveling, did indeed result in partial

restoration, but fluctuation between popular and learned

tendencies nevertheless continued throughout the 16th and

17th centuries. To a lesser degree it continues to this

day, in "pas encore" and "tandis que," for example, in

which careful speech retains·the "s," while casual speech

omits it.

The loss and restitution of final consonants was

responsible for some confusion in street names, which in

the 16th century, in the absence of signs, were trans-

mitted orally (Beaulieux, I, 202-203); Dauzat, p. 75).

Thus, "rue aux Oues" ("Oies") became "rue aux Ours,"

because "ours" was then pronounced "ou"; "rue des Jeux­

Neufs" became "rue des JeG:neurs," "jeux-neufs" and "jeG-

neurs" also sounding alike; and "rue St-Andre-des-Arcs"

was remade into "rue St-Andre-des-Arts," because, says

·Dauzat, "des 1 arcs 1 n 'existaient plus."

9 L /1/ and /1'/ Final "1" /l/ had disappeared in popular words some time before the 16th century ("choul," "saoul," "gentil,"

"fusil," "peril," "avril"), but under the influence of

9 For convenience, I am using /1'/ and /n'/ for pala- . tal "1" and "n" instead of the IPA characters /A/ and !r-1· 76 learned words, which preserved it ("calcul"), and the in­

.sistence of pedagogues, it was sometimes restored ("peril,"

"avri.l") . Then again' sometimes it wasn It ("chou' II II soul,"

"gentil," "fusil"). Desainliens taught his students to pronounce "No~'' for "No~l"; today we say /nJ~l/. For "la solde" and "il mohstre le cul " he said "la soude" and )(. '

"le cu." Today it is /s.:>ld(~)/ and some people say /cyl/

(pp. 65-66) . "Solde," incidently, shows also a reversal of the earlier vocalization of /1/ to /u/.

After "i," because in spelling "il" represents both

"i + 1" /il/ and "i" + palatal "1" ("1 mouille" or liquid "1," /il'/), confusion arose as to which consonant to repronounce. "Fil," /fi/ <"filum," correctly regained

/1/, but "cil" <"cilium," /si/

The pronoun "il'' was pronounced /il/ in the 16th century only before a vowel, as in "il a" /ila/ and "il y a" /ilia/. Before a consonant·, the "1" was silent, "il fait" /ife/. Usually only the "s" was retained·in the L plural, regardless of the following sound. Peletier transcribed "ils" everywhere as "iz": "iz alo~t ... e 1z soECt" (p. 106). But testimonies differed. For de Beze it was the "s" that was always silent:

Dans "ils," suivi soit d'une voyelle, soit d'une consonne, "s" ne se prononce jamais; 77

ainsi pour "ils ont droit, ils disent," prononcez "il ont droit, i disent." (trans. Livet, p. 529)

The prononciations/i/ for "il" and /i/ or /iz/ for ":lls" were widely condemned in the 17th century, regardless of

position, and while the grammarians' campaign was success-

ful as· far as standard French is concerned, in casual

speech one still hears "i fait," "iz ont," "i font."

Intervocalically usage also varied. During the

Renaissance a shift from palatal "1" /1'/ to /j/ began as

a feature of popular Parisian speech ( "maille," /mal' e I> /maj/; "brailler," /bral 'er/ > /braje/) . But /j/ was also denounced in the 17th century, and until the 19th was con-

sidered unacceptable in polite society. Today, of course,

it is universal, and French has lost the phoneme /1'/.

R

By the 16th century final "r·" was pronounced only

where it had previously been followed by another consonant

("hiver" < "hivern~" "fer"<. "ferr," "enfer" < "enfern"). It was saved from subsequent loss in these words, again

through the efforts of grammarians and erudites, and was

restored in many others, in "-ir" and "oir" infinitives

("finir," /fini/ > /finir/), and in the endings "-our," "-ir," and "-eur" ( "plaisir," /plt:zi/ > /plcrzir I; "leur

fr~re," /loo frer/ > /loerfre.Jf; "leurs amis," /loe zami/

/l~rzami/). For no apparent reason, but perhaps because 78 their loss was more universal, infinitives in "-er" and most substantives and adjectives in "-er" and "-ier" escaped remodeling, resulting in the inconsistent system existing today with respect to the pronunciation o~ final "r." Popular literature, unlearned spellings, and poetry

(aithough license was more rampant than it would become in

the next century) tell us more about the loss and restora~

tion of final "r" than do the statements of grammarians, almost.all of whom either took it for granted that the

"r" ~as pronounded or found that in their o~n learned

circles it was indeed pronounced: "If a frenche worde

ende in a consonant or consonantes, the next worde folmvyng

begynnyng also with a consonant or consonantes, 'm,' 'n,'

and 'r' shall never lese theyr ~ounde'' (Palsgrave, p. 40). "Cette lettre, soit au commencement, soit a la fin des syllabes, conserve toujours sa prononciation naturelle"

(De Beze, trans. Livet, pp. 516-517). Medially between vowels a shift of /r/ > /z/ and reciprocally /z/ > /r/ was noted as early as the 14th century in certain regions and had become common in popu-

lar Parisian speech by the 16th. A number of grammarians

attested to its existence and almost unanimously con- .

demned it:

La quelle mode de pronuncer est auiourdhuy en abus tant en Bburges, dou ie suis natif, quen ceste noble Cite de Paris; quat pour R bien 79

souuat-v y est pronunce S, & pour S, R. Car en lieu de dire Iesvs, Maria, ilz p~onunc~t Iervs Masia .... Ie ne dis cecy pour les blasmer, car il y en ya qui pronuncet tresbien, mais ie le dis pour en auertir ceulx qui ne prenet garde ne plaisir a bien pronuncer. (Tory, fol. 55r)

"They of Parys," observed Palsgrave, "sounde somtyme 'r' lyke 'z,' saying 'Pazys' for 'Parys,' 'Pazisien' foi

'Parisien,' 'chaize' for 'chaire,' 'mazi' for 'mary,' and suche lyke" (p. 34). Further on, concerning the "Parysyen" pronunciation "je gasouille," he said, "The right worde after the latyn shulde be 'je garrouille,' but the

Parysyens tourne 'r' into's,' whiche betwyne two vowels hath the sounde of 'z'" (p. 456). A half-century later de

Beze noted the same phenomenon:

Les Parisians et bien plri~ encore les habitants d'Auxerre et ceux de rna ville Vezelay, changent souvent- "s" en "r" et "r" en "s," disant "courin," "Hasie," "pese," "mese," "Theodose," pour "cousin," "Marie," "pere," "mere;" "Theodore." (trans. Livet, p. 517)

The upper classes, as usual rejecting any change not com- ing from their own milieu, refused to accept this "common/'

"patois" pronunciation,·and the movement was successfully reversed. A-survivor of the shift is "chaise," which now shares with its doublet "chaire" the original meaning.

GN/n/ and /n'/

For intervocal "gn" 16th-century usage was split be- tween a pronunciation /n'/ and /n/ < /n'/. Numerous rhymes and unlearned spellings indicate that a 80 pronunciation /n/ must have been very common, but examina- tion of them has. shown inconsistent results for individual words. Direct statements, moreover, are incomplete and often unclear, and al~o very much in disaccord, such that it is difficult to say which pronunciation was the more widespread or in ~hich words /n/ or /n'/ predominated. Meigret. adopted the spelling "n" .for /n' I to avoid the confusion of "gn":

Il y~ vrey qe qant a l, ~, n, il y peut auo~r ~n Iapronon

ltttres: qi sont ill, pour l molle ~ ign 1 pour ~ molle, sans auo~r auiz~ a la confuzion qi

s'z:n t:nsuyuo~t. \Grammytre 1 fol. .13v)

He consistently wrote "sinifie," "sinificatif 1 " "sinifi-

cation," "dine" ("digne") 1 but "aneau" ("agneau"). Pele-

tier used the traditional "gn" for /n'/, "par c¢ qu 1 il

n'i a point d¢ lttr¢ Latin¢ qui puiss¢ exprimer tel son:

e aussi qu¢ les Italiens an us¢t comm¢ nous" 1 and pro-

nounced it in "' gagner, guign¢, vign¢, b¢songn¢ 1 ' lequez

nous pronont_ons comm¢ l 'Espagnol prononc¢ l.a doubl¢

1 1 1 1 'nn, ou n"' "; he added that ''nous otons le 'g des moz

ou il n¢ s¢ prononc¢ point: Comm¢ d¢ 'cognor_tr¢,

·signifier, regner, dign¢, 1 e les samblabl¢s'" (p. lll).

For de B~ie: "Le 'g' n'a aucun son devant 'n' soit

mouille comme dans 1 gagner,' soit ferme comme dans

'signe; signer, regne, regner 1 ' qui se prononcent 'sine, 81

siner, rene, rener'" (trans. Livet, p. 527). Desainlien's

pronounced with "gn" /n'/ "montagne," "champagne,"

"gaigner," and "baigner," but "cognoistre ," "eigne," and·

"regnard,")<. he said, are exceptions and "signe" and

"agneau" are ambiguous and therefore may be pronounced

either way (pp. 61-63)~ (The "g" in "cognoistre" >

"connaitre" was purely orthographic and never reflected

a pronunciation /n'/.)

Complications arose because in learned words, Latin words, recent borrowings, and unusual words a pronuncia-

tion "g-n" /gn/ was. usual ("diagnostic," "stagnant"), and

later grammarians unsuccessfully attempted to impose this

pronunciation in common words. The traditional spelling

"gn," however, favored a pronunciation /n'/, with which it

was strongly a~sociated. Thus, while /gn/ continued in

learned words, /n'/ prevailed over /n/ in most popular

words. "Signet" still hesitates between /sine/ and

/sin'e/, with the latter gaining ground.

Denasalization of Vowels and Loss of Nasal Consonants

Loss of vowel nasality before intervocalic /m/, /n/,

and /n:/ may have begun during the Middle Ages~ but there

seems to be no evidence of it until the 16th century, at

which time the following changes appeared: /~/ > jaj ("flamme," "femme"), If/ :>If[/ ("peine," "aime"), /j~/ > /jE[/ ("tiennent"), and /f'/ > /?_/ ("homme). When, on the 82

other hand, the n~sal consonant was final or was followed by another consonant, it disappeared, and the preceding vowel retained its nasality. Thus, jan/> /a/ ("grand,"

# ..._, "an," "temps"), lrnl > If[! ("main," "plein," "crainten), /j in! > /j f./ ("bien," "vient") , /on/ > /o/ ("son," "pont," "ombre"), and /wfin/ > /wf/ ("coin," "pointe"). Sixteenth;_ century phoneticians, however, appear not to have addressed

themselves to these important changes, and our evidence

for them is largely indirect~

What did give rise to considerable discussion was the

pronunciation of "en." The pronunciation /a/ ("temps,"

"science," "souvent") in most words spelled with an "e"

represents the Old French shift !({! > /a/. Orthography which usually retained "en" (though not always: "langue,"·

"sans'') is probably responsible for /en/ C.. /a/ in "ennemi" (_ and "~trenne," while words used primarily in learned con-

texts before being adopted by everyone retained /tn/ or

/e/ without ever having become /a/ ("examen," "abdomen").

Peletier was perhaps the first to have recognized

that the spelling "en" usually had the pronunciation /an/

or /a/, and to have consistently spelled it as such:

Mts mon auis tt d¢ d¢uo~r ecrir¢ tout¢s tel¢s d1ccions plus tot par "a" qu¢ par "e." Car d¢ dir¢ qu'il i ~t diferanc¢ an 1a prolacion des deus dE[.rnier~s silab¢s d¢ "amant" e "firmamant," c'E[_t a fer¢ a ceus qui r¢gard¢t d¢ trap pr~s, ou qui ~eul¢t parler trap mig­ nonn¢mant: Samblabl¢mant antr¢ les penultim¢s d¢ "conscianc¢" e "alia:r).c¢." .... Brief l'"e" qu 'on mtt vulguer¢mant an· "scienc¢" sonn¢ 83

autr¢mant qu¢ l"'e" d¢ "scientia" Latin: la ou propr¢mant il s¢ prononc¢, cornm¢ an Franzo~s c¢lui d¢ "ancien," "sien," "bien." (p. 25)

Further on Peletier gave an explanation for the shift

/e/ > /a/. While it cannot today be taken seriously, it is something of a curiosity and does shed light on how early linguists attempted to discover the causes of linguistic change:

E tandis qu¢ j¢ suis ici, j¢ dire la r~son pourquocr_ nous pronon~ons autr¢mant, "sciance" an Francr.oT..s, qu¢' "sc1entia' n¢' s¢' prononc¢' an Latin. Les m~tr¢'s d'Ecol¢' du tans passe, disott "omnam hominam veniantam in hunt: mun­ dum": Duquel vic¢, notr¢' France a pein¢' s¢' pourra j'amts guer¢'s bien purger. E par c¢' qu¢' les prE[_tr¢'s auoE(_t tout 1¢' credit 1¢' tans passe (qu'on ap¢'lo~t 1¢' bon tans) e qu'il n'i auo~t guer¢'s qu'eus qui sut qu¢' c'etot:t qu¢' d¢' Latin (cornm¢' la barbari¢' e puis la literatur¢' rtn¢'t par vicissitud¢' an tous pais du mond¢') e qu¢' tous les jeun¢'s anfans tant d¢' vil¢' qu¢' d¢' vilage, pa~so~t par leurs meins: Dieu set com­ mant iz etoE(_t instruiz. E c¢' pandant, ces sauans montreurs, qui etott estimez cornm¢' dieus, an matier¢' d¢' scianc¢' donno~t form¢ C: notr¢' Langu¢': d¢' sort¢ qu'aup~ts du vulguer¢', lZ parlo~t plus souuant leur Latl~, qu'a~tr¢ . langag¢'. Parquoe 1¢' vulguer¢' apr1nt a d1r¢ "scianc¢', consciknc¢, dilig'anc¢," par "a." Vot:_r¢ d¢ sort¢ qu'aujourdhui c¢ nous EC_t un patron~ qui no~s d¢meu~e~a a jamts: E si ~ous profer1ons "sc1enc¢, d1l1genc¢" par 1¢ vrt1 "e" Latin, nous nous f¢rions moquer. E combien qu'aujourdhui la prolacion Latin¢ sott un peu. eclerci¢, s'il au¢no~t tout¢fots qu¢ nous prin­ sioks la libE[_rte d¢ tirer quelqu~ mot nouueau du Latin an cet¢ tE(rmintson ou samblabl¢ (comm¢ pour exampl¢, si nous d1sions "reminiscentia," e nous an voulussions former "reminiszanc¢") nous n¢ l'os¢rions proferer autr¢mant qu¢ par

II a 0 II ( pp o 12 0 -121)

Peletier expressed dismay that Meigret would write

"en" for what he, Peletier, clearly heard as "an" (p. 25). 84

Perhaps the spelling irifluenced Meigret, but more likely

it was his native Lyon dialect, in which /e/ was still com-

mon. His Reponse a Pelletier shows him to be unconvinced

by Peletier's arguments:

Ou ~t le Fran£o~s qi pronon~era la premiere de stmbla£lemtnt d'un' aosi gra~d' ouutrture come la secode ... vourrot' tu pronocer <(mbler, come ambles: E( tmplir, come ample? ~ qant a '(_e qe tu dis qe £e seroet regarder de trap prts, ~ parler/ trap mino~emt_nt: il me st:mble q'il vaodrof(t mieus ·parler minonem%"t qe de s 'efort:EC_r centre l'usaje de la parolle de proferer (come l'on dit) a gE(ule behe'e. (fol. 9r-v)

Desainliens, like Peletier, identified "en" with "an."·

He said that "attentivement," "entendement," and similar

·words·in "en" and "ent" are pronounced "attantivemant,"

"antandemant." He added that an important exception to

this rule is to be found in words with "ien,"."yen," and

"ient," as in "mien, tien, sien, bien, convient, moyen,

terrien"; these words should be pronounced as written,

that is, with "e." Peletier and Meigret also used the

spelling "ien" for such words. Because of the preceding

high vowel, /e/ in this position did not lower to /a/.

H

Germanic "h," called aspirated to distinguish it from

·Latin "h" (which was called mute because it disappeared

much earlier), was lost in the Middle Ages. But in the

16th century some, particularly well-educated, speakers

began pronouncing it in Latin words and then in learned 85

French words. Fortunately this was only a passing fancy, .. for Scalinger observed 11 qu'on ne sait plus prononcer l'h et que ceux qui veulent ~mettre ce son le font d'une

/ facon forcee, cornme s'ils aboyaient 11 (quoted by Dauzat, p. L 75). Purists nevertheless attempted to restore 11 h 11 in

French generally. Failing that, they imposed th~ arbi- trary rule prohibiting liaison before Germanic "h" and requiring it before Latin 11 h, 11 thus maintaining an arti- ficial distinction between the two. They then classified

11 hamez.on," though its 11 h 11 is Germanic, in the Latin group,

11 11 11 and Latin h~ros" (but not hero"ine ) in the Germanic, this in order to avoid confusion, which must have been

/ . frequent, between 11 les h8"ros 11 and 11 les zeros ... In the

17th century 11 huit 11 and 11 onze" also came to be treated as though they began with aspiration ("le huit, 11 "le onze"), probably by analogy with "le deux," "le trois," and so forth.

If one were to believe the statements of 16th cen- tury grammarians, ·one would surely conclude that /h/ sur- vived at least to the end of the century, but since the reporters almost always confused aspiration with mere lack. of liaison it is difficult to know what they were actually talking about. Palsgrave. distinguished two classes of

French words in which "h" was written. ·In one "h" is pro- nounced, he said, just as in English "have, hatred, hens,. hart, hurt, hobey"; in the other it is no more pronounced 86 than in English "honest, honour, habundance, habitacion"

(p. 17). In his treatise on accents Dolet gave several examples of aspirated and unaspirated "h," as well as some pointed criticism:

Et si d'aduanture il se commence par, h, cela n'ernpesche poinct quelcquefoys l'apostrophe: car nous disons, & escripuons sans uice, l'hon­ neur, l'hornrne, l'hurnilite: & non le honneur, le hornrne, la hurnilite. Au contraire nous disons sans apostrophe le haren, la harendiere, la haulteur, le houzeau, la housse, la hacquebute, le hacquebutier, la hacquenee, le hazard, le hallecret, la hallebarde. Et si ces mots se proferent sans grande aspiration, la faulte est enorme. De laquelle faulte sont pleins les Auuergnats, les Prouuencaulx, les Gascons, & toutes les prouinces de la langue d'oc. Car pour le haren ils disent l'aren: pour la haren­ diere, l'arendiere: pour la haulteur, l'aulteur: pour le houzeau, l'ouzeau: pour la housse, l'ousse: pour la honte, l'onte: pour la hacquebute, l'acquebute: pour la hacquen~e, l'acquen~e: pour le hazard, l'azard: pour le hallecret, l'allecret: pour la hallebarde, l'allebarde. Et non seulernent (qui pis est) font ceste faulte au singulier nornbre de telles dictions, rnais aussi au plurier. Car pour des harens ils disent des arens: pour les hacquene'es, les acquenees,/ pour rnes houzeaux, rnes ouzeaux: pour il me fault, ou ie me uois houzer, il me fault ouzer. Or ie laisse le uice de ce~ nations, & reuiens a rna matiere. (Les Accents, rpt. Beaulieux, II. 127-128)

Dolet's state~ent about the southern dialects is correct in that Germanic "h," which entered Francien when the

Franks invaded Gaul, appears not to have survived at all in "la langue d'oc."· Later in the century, de Beze gave what may be a hint that aspiration was on its way out:

Les Fran~ais adoucissent autant qu'ils peuvent l'aspiration, sans toutefois, quand · elle existe, la supprimer enti~rernent, except6 87

en Bourgogne, en Berry, a' .Lyon, en Guyenne, ou' l'on prononce "en ault, l'acquenee, l'azard," pour "en hault, la hacquenee, le hazard." (trans. Livet, p. 515)

Consonant Clusters

Several factors carne together in the Renaissance to reverse the tendency to simplify consonant clusters: 1) reforms in the pronunciation of Latin which stipulated repronunciation of all consonant groups; 2) numerous Latin borrowings which contained these groups, and which by ana- logy favored repronunciation in French words; 3) attempts of granunarians to Latinize the pronunciation of French;

4) Latinization of the spelling of French words which fur- th~r encouraged repronunciation; and 5) the loss of atonic

./8 I between consonants which reintroduced new clusters

(see above). These events had the effect of farnili~rizing the French with groups of consonants, of considerably modifying speech habits, and of favoring the eventual survival of many learned and etymological pronunciations which might otherwise have been merely temporary, had they occurred at all.

Nevertheless, the assimilation of adjacent consonants is a general tendency from which French did not become an exception, and in popular· words in particular the loss of supporting consonants continues today as it always has.

To this must be added other forces which arose in opposi­ tion to the conservative influence of orthography and the 88 prescriptions of grammarians. For one thing, masses of people remained for a long time unaffected by the goings­ on of the literati, and for another repronunciation did not occur in every case, even among the educated. Common, frequently used words in particular tended to remain un­ affected. Thus conflicts and differences arose between natural and learned tendencies, and side by side with ~e­ pronunciations were a number of losses.

Be that as it may, the pronunciation of consonant clusters underwent profound modifications in the 16th century. Until then the first of two successive con­ sonants was almost never pronounced, be it in French or in Latin; by the end of the century scores of them were, and the 17th and 18th centuries would continue to see many more reappear.

·Because almost everyone was writing letters for sounds they were not pronouncing, traditional spellings tell us little in most cases about the actual pronuncia­ tion of consonant groups in the 16th century; here in particular much has been learned by piecing together the descriptions and transcriptions of the early phoneticians ..

Of course c6nsiderable hesitation existed before outcomes were fixed in favor of one or another pronunciation, and it is not surprising that final results for individual words have been highly irregular and unpredictable.

"B,".restored in spelling in the prefixes "ab-," 89

"ob-," and 11 sub-," began to be repronounced in the 16th

.century, assimilating to "p" before a voiceless consonant

("absolu," "obvier,n "substituer"; but "subject" and

"subjection" became "sujet" and "suj~tion"). Peletier

pronounced "obstinemant;" de Beze "ostin~"; Meigret wrote "substance," Peletier "sustance" and "sutil." De Beze

tried to lay down some rules (learning where and where not

to pronounce these consonants must have been something of

a nuisance for foreigners):

La consonne "b" ne finit de syllabes qu'autant qu'elle est suivi, 1) d'un "s": "absent," "obseques," et alors elle se prononce; 2) de "sc," comme "obscur," et alors elle ne se pro­ nonce point et l'on dit "oscur"· 3) de "st " ' / . ' . , comme · "obst.ine," ou elle ne se prononce pas, . et "abstenir," ou elle se prononce aussi peu que possible; 4) de "j" consonne, comme 110bject," et alors on l'entend; 5) de "v" consonne, comme "obvier," ou elle n'a aucun son: d'ou ce jeu de mots latins fran

(This last remark, incidentally, says something about the

pronunciation of 16th-century Latin.)

"D," reintroduced in writing in the prefix 11 ad-," met

with only moderate success in speech. It was repronounced

in some words ("admirer," "adjectif," "admonition, ..

11 11 "adversaire ) but not in others ("avocat, "avis, .. "avan-

tage"). Out of the hesitation arose such pairs as "aver-

sian" and "adverse," "avenir" and "advenir." Peletier

criticized as superfluous the "d" in the spelling

"aduocat, aduis, aduantag¢, adu¢nir, adjoindr¢" (pp. 114- 90

115) . He also pronounced without "d" "aurrb¢," "awcrsite,"

"ajectif." Meigret wrote sometimes "adjectif," sometimes

"ajectif," but I could find only the spelling "autrbe."

"Cette consonne~" said de B~ze, "ne se prononce pas devant

'j,' co:rrune 'adjuger, adjurer, adjourner, adjouster'; ni devant 'm,' comme 'admonester'; exceptez 'admirer'; ni devant 'v' consonne, comme 'adviser, advis'" (trans~ Livet,· p. 527)

The group "c" /k/ + consonant had always existed in spelling ("bienfaicteur," "object," "practique," "sancti- fier"), but rarely was it pronounced, until the 16th century when it began to be used in some words, a process that would affect many more in the 17th ("affecter,"

"sanctifier," "diction,n "infect"). ~\There it remained silent, it was eventually removed from spelling; hence

"pratique," "bienfaiteur," "objet," "auteur"..( "aucteur."

Again, according to de B~ze:

Le 11 C 11 ne se prononce pas: 1) avant le "q," et on pourrait l'effacer des mots "acquerir, acquitter, 11 malgre l'etymologie; 2) avant le "t" ala fin des mots, comme "object, faict." Toutefois dans le corps des mots on prononce nettement le "c" et le "t" comme "acte, action, actif, detracteur." Exceptez "traic·ter" et "diction," ou "c" n'a aucun son. (trans. Livet, p. 528).

De Beze's "diction" /disjo/ has since become /diksjo/.

Palsgrave, curiously, said that the prefix "ex-" is pronounced n· euz·" : .•. this worde "ex" hath ever an "v" sounded, though he be nat written, bytwene the "e" and 91

"x" ... "euzemple, euzperience, euzecuter." And note that "x" shall never be sounded in frenche lyke as he is in latyn, or as we wolde do in our tonge, in no wyse, but lyke an "z." (p. 38)

But Peletier always spelled it "es" ("escus¢," "escuser")

and Meigret "ex11 ("extmple"). The learned pronunciation

/eks/ <. /es/ ("excellent," "extraire") and /egz/

("examen," "exemple") soon became general for this prefix.

Though it continued to be written, "s" before a con-

sonant had disappeared from speech as early as the 13th

century. While purists campaigned for its repronuncia-·

. tion, refor'mists urged its removal from spelling. Pele--

tier felt certain he would be ridiculed were he to say

"monsieur nostr¢ maistr¢": "Donq a bonn¢ rt,.son s¢moqu¢-

rott on d¢ mo~, si j¢ disot aujourdhui, 1 mon~ieur nostr¢

maistr¢, 1 an ftsant tout valotr, comm¢ nous presumons

qu 1 iz ftsort ancienn¢mant" {p. 86). Meigret seemed to

think, however, that the loss of this "s" was quite re-

cent: ;;De fE[t, nou 1 dizios n 1 a pas long tECms, hon~Cstet~,

honrste pour honE(tete, e hohE[te" (Gramm(re, foL 96v).

Peletier explained its loss as being due to the fact that

the French had become more soft-spoken since being at

peace:

E croe qu¢ noz anciens diso~t "best¢, honnest¢," e "me~tier" par "s." E n 1 ~·t chos¢ qui n¢ so~t croyabl¢, par c¢ qu¢ c¢ pais ici a ete autr¢foECs habite par g 1 ans qui auo~t la Langu¢, tout einsi qu¢ la manier¢ de viur¢, plus robust¢ qu¢ nous n 1 auons aujourdhui. M~s d¢puis qu¢ les Fran­ cots ont ete an pts, iz ont commance a parler 92

plus douss¢mant, e, si j'osot;, dir¢, plus mol¢mant. (p.· 84)

Because usage was evolving, many contrad~ctions exist in the grarrunariarts' transcriptions. For Meigret, it was

11 11 "sudit," SatifTre, n·.lljuques"; for Peletier, SUdit, II

11 patift_re, 11 "satifaccion," but "jusques. 11 Peletier wrote

11 trarrun~tre," but Desainliens said that the "s" in the pre.,.. fix "trans" is pronounced in all its compositions (p. 45), and while he preferred "satisfaire, 11 he conceded that some people omit the 11 s" . (p. 4 4) . He explained to his students that although it is true that "s" is often silent within words, "beste, feste, hoste, gouste, mesme, estudier, X X ;.< X. x ;.<: estuuer," one is always correct in pronouncing it in pro­ x. per names, "Auguste, Sebastien, Espagne" (except "Chri~t," which has since re-acquired "s" in "le Christ" /krist/, but

not in "J~sus Christ" /kri/. , "Escoce~ I " and "EstienneX "); in the names of sects, "Anabaptiste, Ath~1ste, latiniste"; in the ending "....;.isme," "barbarisme, cathe:chisme, juda1sme" ')(

(except "abi~me") ;·and in a very large number of words taken from Latin, such as "austere," "celeste," and

"histoire" (pp. 40-44). i- The 1740 edition of.the Dictionnaire de l'Acad~mie eliminated "s 11 before a consonantwherever it was silent, sometimes replacing it with a circonflex accent over the preceding vowel, but its continued presence in writing until that time led to its repronunciatidn in "blasph~me," 93

11 jusques," "restraindre," "satisfaire," "susdit," and countless other words. CONCLUSION

Inevitable difficulties arise in the atte~pt to con­

fine linguistic analysis to a particular century. For one

thing, phonological changes are indifferent to our calen­

drical divisions of time; for another, changes do not

occur uniformly across oialects and social strata at any

given moment. This was at least as true of the 16th

. century as it is of any other. l·Je saw that many of the

changes in the popular speech of the f.1iddle Ages were only

beginning to be felt in the cultivated speech of the 16th

century, and that many popular 16th-century innovations

did not become universal until much later; and that while

the speech of the majority of the p~ople continued to

evolve more or less spontaneously, forces of resistance be­

gan to organize against popular innovations and phonologi­

cal erosion. Within the growing classes of literate

speakers natural tendencies began to be appreciably modi­

fied as extra-linguistic factors took on a greater and

greater role in determining the direction of linguistic

change, and in slowing down that change.

The French language; no less than French society,

was in the 16th century in a state of transition coincid­

ing with and intim~tely interwoven with the philosophic,

aesthetic, and scientific movements of the Renaissance.

94 95

Out of the struggle and diversity which spanned the period came a language with a new shape modeled on Latin grammar, Latin spelling and, to some extent, Latin pro­ nunciation. Though still characterized by a degree of freedom, the latter part of the century saw a standard and a tradition beginning to emerge. Patterns of pronun­ ciation, as of grammar, were beginning to congeal, spon­ taneity was giving way to stability, enthusiasm was being tempered by rigorous demands for clarity of expression, and the preoccupation with richness was developing into a concern for·refinement and polish.

As enthusiastically as the 16th century encouraged innovation, the 17th century denounced it; indeed~ the extraordinary verbal inventiveness which characterized the

Renaissance came to be held in contempt. Malherbe severe­ ly criticized what he saw as irresponsibility and negli­ gence, insisted on the elimination from the language of the excesses it had acquired, and urged ·a simple, clear, disciplined style based on logical thought. Of course, what the 17th century did, and with remarkable success, was trade one excess for another. If the 16th century had begun to seek guidelines, the 17th century made them obligatory. It was then that grammatical rules acquired their absolute character, and that sobriety, fastidious­ ness, and voluntary constraint came to replace individual caprice and looseness of style. Brunot called Malherbe 96

and his fellow arbiters of usage the worst of France'~ literary iconoclasts (III, 95), but for them it was an act of purificatibn. There were, of course, dissenting voices, those who saw even poetry losing its license, but like the orthographic reformers of a century earlier, their voices did not prevail .. Needless to say, none of this would hav~ been possible without a strong center of power and influ­ ence, and the printing press. The authority of Paris was by then unquestioned; its dialect was adopted throughout the country by all those aspiring to position and prestige.

And when, in the 16th century, the intellectual community began to ~ake use of printing to exchange ideas, the spread of knowledge, and the standardization of that know­ ledge could occur on a scale previously impossible.

·There is little doubt that since that time the rate of linguistic change in France has decelerated appreciably; we knbw that this is so because since the b~ginning of the

17th century changes have been relatively minor compared to what had come before. Nor can the loyalty of the

French toward their language be questioned. What is per­ fect, or so the argument went in the 17th century, can only change in one direction; h?nce the preoccupation with fixed standards. It is universally recognized that 17th­ century French became "classical" and refined, and took on those characteristics so admired today. But it was the

Renaissance whic~ provided the fabric, the wealth of 97 forms from which to choose, and the inspiration for the development of Modern French. BIBLIOGRAPHY Sixteenth-Century Authors

Ba.if, Jean Antoine de. Evvres en rime. Ed. Ch. ~-1-arty­ Laveaux. Paris: Lemerre, 1881-90. Vol. V.

Desainliens, Claude (Hollyband). De Pronuntiatione Linguae Gallicae. Londini: T. Vautrollerius, 1580; facs~m. · rpt. Menston: Scolar, 1970.

Dolet, Etienne. La Maniere de bien traduire d'une langue en aultre, D'aduantage de 1a punctuation de la langue francoyse, Plus des accents d'ycelle. Lyon: Dolet, 1540; rpt. Paris: · Techener, 1830.

Du Bellay, Joachim. La Deffence et illustratioh de la langue francoyse. Paris: A. l'Angelier, 1549; rpt. Ed. H. Chamard. Paris: Fontemoing, 1904.

------Oevvres fran2oises de Ioachim Du Bellay. Ed. Ch. Marty-Laveaux. 2 vols. Paris: Lemerre, 1866-7.

/ . ------. Oeuvres poet1ques. Ed. H. Chamard. Paris: Corn~ly, 1908.

Estienne, Henri. Deux Dialogues du nouueau langage Fran­ koi~ italianize et autre~ent desguize. Geneve: H. st1enne, 1578: rpt. Par1s: Lemerre, 1885.

------La Pr~cellence du langage fran2ois. Paris: .Patisson, 1579; rpt. Ed. Huguet. Paris: Colin, 1896.

------Traicte de la conformite du langage frantois ~uec le grec. Gen~ve, 15S5; rpt. Ed. Feugere. Paris: Delalain, 1853.

Lanoue, Odet de. Le Grand Dictionaire des rimes frantois­ es. Cologny: M. Berjon, 1624.

Meigret, Louis. Le Trette de la rammere fran oeze. 1550; La Reponse de Louis Meigret a L'Apolojie e Iaqes Pelletier. 1550; Defenses de Louis Meigret tovchant son orthographie fran~oezer contre les censures e caH5nies de Glaumalis de Vezelet, e de. ses adherans. 1550; Reponse de Louis Meigret a la dezesperee rep­ liqe de Glaomalis de Vezelet, transforme en Gyllaome des Aotels. 1551; facsim. rpt. Menston: Scolar, 1969.

Palsgrave, John. L'Esclarcissement de la langue

98 99

francoyse. 1530i rpt. Collection des Documents Inedits. Ed. Genin. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1852.

Pasquier, Estienne. Les Oeuvres d'Estienne Pasquier. 2 vols. Amsterdam: Compagnie des Libraires Associez, 1723.

Peletier du Mans, Jacques. Dialogu¢ d¢ l'ortograf¢ e prononciacion fran~o~s¢. Lyon: Ian d¢ Tourn¢s, 1555i facsim. rpt. Gen~ve: Droz, 1966.

Rambaud, Honorat. La Declaration des abvs qve lon commet en es.criuant. Lyon: J. de Tournes, 1578i facsim. rpt. Menston: Scalar, 1970. ·

Ronsard, Pierre de. Oeuvres. Ed. Ch. Marty-Laveaux. 6 vols. Paris: Lemerre, 1887-93.

Tory, Geofroy. Champ Fleury, auquel est contenu l'art et science de la deue et vraye proportion des lettres attiques. Paris: ·Tory et Gourmont, 1529i facsim. rpt. Paris: Ch. Bosse, 1931.

General Bibliography Beaulieux, Ch. Histoire de l'orthographe francaise. 2 vols. Paris: Champion, 1927. Bannard, Henri. Synopsis de la phonetique historique. Paris: Soci~t~ d'Edition d'Enseignement Sup~rieurj 1975. Brunot, Ferdinand. Le Seizieme Siecle. Vol. II of Histoire de la langue fran9aise des origines a 1900. 2nd ed. Paris: Colin, 1922.

------La Formation de la langue classiqu~ (1600- 1660) . Vol. ~II of Histoire de la. langue ~rant.aise des origines a 1900. 2nd ed. Par1s: Col1n, 922.

Caput, Jean-Pol. La Langue frany,ai se: Histoire d'une institution: Tome I: 842-1715. Paris: Larousse, 1972.

Catach, N. L'Orthographe fran£aise ~ l'~poque de la Renaissance. Auteurs, imprimeurs, ateliers d'impri­ merie. Gen~ve: Drozt 1968. 100

Darmesteter, A., etA. Hatzfeld. Le Seizi~me Si~cle en France. Tableau de la litterature et de la langue, suivi de morceaux choisis. 3rd ed. Paris: Dela­ grave, 1886.

Dauzat, A. Phonetique et grammaire historiques de la langue fran£aise. Paris: Larousse, 1950.

Ewert, Alfred. The French Language. London: Faber and Faber, 1969.

Huguet, E. D1ct1onna1re· · · d u XVI e s1ec·' 1 e. 7 vols. Paris: Champion, 1925-68.

Livet, Ch. La Grammaire fran~aise et les grammariens au XVIe siecle. Paris: Didier et Durand, 1859.

Santillana, Giorgio de. The Age of Adventure: The Renaissance Philosophers. New York: Nev1 American Library, 1956.

Wartburg, Walter von. Evolution et structure de la langue fran£aise. 8th ed. Berne: A. Francke, 1967.