Dedication
To preserve line numbering—used in Index entries—all line breaks in the primary text have been retained. Your browser may add extra line breaks, depending on window width.
Introduction
The work now for the first time reprinted from Caxton’s original edition has been preserved in three copies. One of these is in the Library of Ripon Cathedral, another in the Spencer Library, now at Manchester, and the third at Bamborough Castle. A small fragment, consisting of pp. 17-18 and 27-28, is in the Bodleian Library. The text of the present edition is taken from the Ripon copy. I have not had an opportunity of seeing this myself; but a type-written transcript was supplied to me by Mr. John Whitham, Chapter Clerk of Ripon Cathedral, and the proofs were collated with the Ripon book by the Rev. Dr. Fowler, Vice-Principal of Bishop Hatfield’s Hall, Durham, who was kind enough to re-examine every passage in which I suspected a possible inaccuracy. It is therefore reasonable to hope that the present reprint will be found to be a strictly faithful representation of the original edition.
The earlier bibliographers gave to the book the entirely inappropriate title of ‘Instructions for Travellers.’ Mr. Blades is nearer the mark in calling it ‘A Vocabulary in French and English,’ but, as it consists chiefly of a collection of colloquial phrases and dialogues, the designation adopted in the present edition appears to be preferable. As in other printed works of the same period, there is no title-page in the original edition, so that a modern editor is at liberty to give to the book whatever name may most accurately describe its character. The name of Caxton does not occur in the colophon, which merely states that the work was printed at Westminster; but the authorship is sufficiently certain from internal evidence. On the ground of the form of type employed, Mr. Blades inferred that the book was printed about 1483. However this may be, there are, as will be shown, decisive reasons for believing that it was written at a much earlier period.
A fact which has hitherto escaped notice is that Caxton’s book is essentially an adaptation of a collection of phrases and dialogues in French and Flemish, of which an edition was published by Michelant in 18751, from a MS. in the Bibliothèque Nationale.
The text of Caxton’s original cannot, indeed, have been precisely identical with that of the MS. used by Michelant. It contained many passages which are wanting in the Paris MS., and in some instances had obviously preferable readings. Caxton’s English sentences are very often servile translations from the Flemish, and he sometimes falls into the use of Flemish words and idioms in such a way as to show that his long residence abroad had impaired his familiarity with his native language. The French respaulme cet hanap, for instance, is rendered by ‘spoylle the cup.’ Of course the English verb spoylle never meant ‘to rinse’; Caxton was misled by the sound of the Flemish spoel. Caxton’s ‘after the house,’ as a translation of aual la maison (throughout the house), is explicable only by a reference to the Flemish version, which has achter huse. The verb formaketh, which has not elsewhere been found in English, is an adoption of the Flemish vermaect (repairs). Another Flemicism is Caxton’s whiler (= while ere) for ‘some time ago,’ in Flemish wilen eer. It is still more curious to find Caxton writing ‘it en is not,’ instead of ‘it is not’; this en is the particle prefixed in Flemish to the verb of a negative sentence. As is well known, Caxton’s translation of ‘Reynard the Fox’ exhibits many phenomena of a similar kind. From all the circumstances, we may perhaps conclude that Caxton, while still resident in Bruges, added an English column to his copy of the French-Flemish phrase-book, rather as a sort of exercise than with any view to publication, and that he handed it over to his compositors at Westminster without taking the trouble to subject it to any material revision.
The original work contains so many references to the city of Bruges that it is impossible to doubt that it was compiled there. According to Michelant, the Paris MS. was written in the first half of the fourteenth century. The MS. used by Caxton must itself have been written not later than the second decade of the fifteenth century; unless, indeed, it was an unaltered transcript from an older MS. The evidence on which this conclusion is based is somewhat curious. Caxton’s text contains two passages in which the pope is spoken of as still resident at Avignon. Now the ‘Babylonish captivity’ of the popes ended in 1378; and, even if we suppose that at Bruges the Avignon anti-popes were recognized by some persons to the very last, the latest date at which these passages could have been written is the year 1417. It is not easy to understand how it was possible for Caxton to leave uncorrected these references to a state of things which he must have known had long ceased to exist. The only explanation of the fact seems to be that, as has been suggested above, he sent his many years old MS. to the press without going over it again. It may be remarked that one of the Avignon passages does not occur in the text as printed by Michelant. As it would be absurd to suppose that it was introduced by Caxton himself, the inference is clear that his copy of the original work was fuller than that contained in the Paris MS. Probably Caxton may have added a few lines here and there—the mention of certain English towns and fairs on pp. 18-19, and that of English bishoprics on p. 23, for instance, were most likely inserted by him. But by far the greatest portion of the matter which is peculiar to Caxton’s form of the dialogues may be confidently ascribed to his original, on account of the frequent occurrence of passages in which, while the French is quite correct, the English translation shows imperfect understanding of the sense.
One of the most remarkable differences between Caxton’s form of the dialogues and that which is preserved in the Paris MS. consists in the transposition of several of the sections in that portion of the work to which the title ‘Le Livre des Mestiers’ is most properly applicable (pp. 24-44 of Caxton’s edition). In both versions the sections in this portion are arranged in the alphabetical order of the Christian names of the persons referred to; but the names connected with particular employments are not always the same in the two versions. Thus in Michelant the bowyer is called Filbert, in Caxton he is Guillebert; in Michelant the carpenter is Henri, in Caxton Lambert; in Michelant the tiler is Martin, in Caxton Lamfroy; and so on. The resulting transpositions render it somewhat difficult at first sight to perceive the substantial identity of the matter in the two books. If an editor wished to print Caxton’s text and that of the Paris MS. in parallel columns, he would need to have recourse to the ingenious device adopted by Professor Skeat in the Clarendon Press edition of the three recensions of Piers Plowman; that is to say, all the sections in which the names have been altered would have to be given twice over in each column—with large print where they occur in their alphabetical place, and with small print opposite to the corresponding sections in the other text. It is hard to see why the person who made the later version followed by Caxton should have taken the trouble to alter the names and re-arrange the material in the new alphabetical order. One might almost suspect that the names were those of actual tradesmen in Bruges, and that the alterations represent changes that had taken place between the earlier and the later edition of the book.
The French of the Paris MS. is the Picard dialect of the former half of the fourteenth century. The French of Caxton’s book retains many of the original north-eastern forms, but is to a considerable extent modernized and assimilated to the literary language of a later period. Such ‘etymological’ spellings as recepueur, debuoit, are common in Caxton’s text, but rarely occur in Michelant. The following comparative specimen of the two versions will afford some notion of the orthographical and grammatical differences between them, and also of the degree in which Caxton’s English was influenced by his Flemish original.
| MICHELANT. | CAXTON. | ||
| Pierres le bateur a l’arket | Pietre de coutenslaerre | Pyere le bateure de laine | Peter the betar of wulle |
| Va tout useus, | Gaet al ledich, | Va tout oyseux, | Gooth alle ydle, |
| Car ses doiiens | Want siin deken | Car son doyen | For his dene |
| Li ha desfendu son mestier | Heeft hem verboden sin ambocht | Lui a deffendu son mestier | Hath forboden hym hys craft |
| Sur l’amende de xx. sauls, | Up de boete van xx. scelle, | Sour l’amende de vingt solz, | Vpon thamendes of xx. shelyngs, |
| Dusqu’ a dont qu’il aura | Tote dien dat hi sal hebben | Jusques a dont quil aura | Till that he shall haue |
| Achaté le franchise. | Ghecocht sine vrihede. | Achatte sa franchise. | Bought his franchyse. |
| Il s’en plaindra | Hi sals hem beclaghen | Il sen plaindra | He shall complaine hym |
| Au bourghmaistre, | Den buerghmeestre, | Au burchmaistre, | Unto bourghmaistre, |
| Et li doiiens, ne si jurei | Ende de dekene no sine gheswoerne | Et les gardiens des mestiers | And the wardeyns of the crafte |
| N’en font conte. | Ne micken niet. | Nen font compte. | sette not therby. |
| Pol li cuveliers | Pauwels de cupre | Poul le cuuelier | Poule the couper |
| Fait et refait cuves, | Maect ende vermaect cupen, | Faict et refaict les cuues, | Maketh and formaketh the keupis, |
| Cuviers et tonniaux, | Cupekine ende vaten, | tonniaulx, vaissiaux | Barellis, vassellis |
| Chercles et tonnelets | Houpen ende tonnekine. | Courans et gouttans. | Lekyng and droppyng. |
| Il ont doilloires, wembelkins, | Si hebben paerden, spikelboren, | ||
| Forets, tareales, et planes. | Foretten, navegheeren ende scaven. | ||
| Paulins le mesureur de blé | Pauwelin de corenmetere | Paulin le mesureur de bled | Paulyn the metar of corne |
| A si longement mesuret, | Heeft so langhe ghemeten. | A tant mesure | Hath so moche moten |
| De bled et de mestelon | Of corne and of mestelyn, | ||
| Qu’il ne puet plus | Dat hi mach nemmeer | Quil ne peult plus | That he may no more |
| Par che grande villeche; | Mit sire groter outheide; | de viellesse; | for age; |
| Car il est tout kenus. | Want hi es al calv. | Il est tout gryse. | He is alle graye. |
| Il donna [sic] a chescun sa mesure. | He gyueth to euerich his mesure. | ||
| Pirote, si filleulle, | Pierote, siin dochterkine, | Pieronne sa filleule | Pieryne his doughter |
| Est la pire garche | Es die quaetste dierne | Est la pieure grace | Is the shrewest ghyrle |
| Que je sache | Die ic weet | Que ie sache | That I knowe |
| Dechà mer, ne delà. | An disside der zee, no an ghene zide. | de cha la mere. | on this side the see. |
| Quintins li tonliers | Quintin de tolnare | Quintin le tollenier | Quyntyne the tollar |
| A pris de mi | Heeft ghenomen van mi | A pris de moy | Hath taken of me |
| Une lb. de gros | 1 lb. grot | Vng liure de gros | A pound of grotes |
| Plus qu’il ne devoit; | Meer dan hi sculdich was; | Plus quil ne debuoit prendre | More than he ought to take |
| Du droit tonlieu; | Of right tolle. | ||
| Si m’en trairai | Zo dat ic sal trucken | Sy me trayeray | So shall I drawe me |
| Au recheveur | Vor den ontfanghere | Au recepueur | Vnto the receyuour |
| Pour faire me plainte, | Omme te doene mine claghe | ||
| Et pour men droit requerre. | Ende omne min recht te versoukene. | Pour men droit requerre. | For my right to requyre. |
In the present edition Caxton’s text has been literally reproduced, except that obvious misprints are corrected (the original readings being given in the marginal notes2), and that modern punctuation has been added for the sake of intelligibility. Where Caxton leaves a space for an illuminated initial (a small letter being printed in the middle to serve as a guide) I have used a large capital. The List of English Words at the end is intended to contain all the words that require any explanation, or are on any account noteworthy. The List of French Words, which I was unable to prepare on account of ill-health, has been compiled by Mr. Henry Littlehales.
HENRY BRADLEY.
1. Le Livre des Mestiers: Dialogues français-flamands composés au XIVe siècle par un maître d’école de la ville de Bruges. Paris: Librairie Tross.
2. Misprints affecting only the word-division, however, have been corrected without remark.
Notes
317. This corresponds with the beginning of the French-Flemish dialogues printed by Michelant. The preceding table of contents may have been added by Caxton himself.
48. The French should no doubt read quil y ait, as in Michelant, but Caxton translates the erroneous reading.
836. There is some mistake here. Michelant’s text has cavecheul, bed’s head.
839-106. Michelant’s text is here quite different, enumerating the parts of the body and the articles necessary for the toilet.
1319. Confite is a misreading on Caxton’s part for confire, comfrey; Michelant has the right word.
1531. Sera should be fera, as in Michelant; the sense is ‘the abatement which you will make will cause it to be sold.’ Caxton attempts to translate the erroneous reading sera, but his translation makes no sense.
161-1719. This interesting portion of the dialogue is not in Michelant.
1818. It en is not = Flemish het en es niet. Evidently when this was written Caxton had become more familiar with Flemish than with his native language.
1826-1910. The names of English towns in this list are added by Caxton.
2214-259. The enumeration of ecclesiastical and civil dignitaries is much more full here than in Michelant’s text, but it is probable that Caxton had before him an amplified copy of the original work, as the mention of the pope’s residence at Avignon obviously cannot have been inserted by him. The names of English bishoprics, however, are most likely added by Caxton.
246. Bogars in the French column (rendered by lewd freris, i.e. lay brothers) appears to be a mistake for Begars, Beghards.
2637. Spoylle the cuppe. Another proof that Caxton had forgotten his English. The Flemish is spoel den nap, ‘rinse the cup’; the English spoil of course never had the sense ‘to rinse.’
2912. Byledyng is an attempt at literal interpretation of the French deduit, delight.
2913. Serouge (serourge) is properly ‘brother-in-law’; it is not clear whether Caxton’s rendering cosen alyed is a mistranslation, or whether the French word was used at Bruges in the extended sense.
304-6. This reference to the truce between the English and the Scots is not, as might perhaps be thought, an insertion by Caxton. Michelant considers the truce in question to be that of the year 1340.
3030-33. Michelant’s text omits these lines, to the manifest injury of the sense.
3523-25. Caxton seems here to have found his MS. illegible: Michelant’s text has ‘Fremius [? read Fremins] ses voisins Dist qu’el vault bien son argent.’
378-30. This emphatic praise of the writer’s craft is not in Michelant; probably it expresses Caxton’s own sentiments.
3836. Enprintees, which Caxton amazingly renders ‘enprinted,’ is doubtless a mistake for enpruntes, borrowed. The occurrence of this mistake shows that the passage must have been in Caxton’s original, though it is not in Michelant’s text. Caxton’s account of the bookseller’s stock is much fuller than that in Michelant, but apparently this is not due, as might naturally be supposed, to his own interest in the subject.
4417. Formaketh, literally adopted from the Flemish vermaect, repairs.
4426. Filleule is god-daughter, not ‘daughter.’ The Flemish has dochterkine, which, though literally = ‘little daughter,’ was used for ‘god-daughter.’
461. It is curious that the names beginning with S and T, which appear in Michelant, are omitted by Caxton. Possibly a leaf was missing in his original.
5022. From this line to the end seems to be an addition by Caxton.