UC-NRLF 73 3M3 EXCHANGE 4- - Neuter il in Old French A DISSERTATION presented to the Philosophical Faculty of the University of Strassburg for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by HERMAN PIATT STRASSBURG i. E. C. & J. GCELLER, PRINTERS 1898. To mv associations wiffi wFiom I shall always deem one of ffic most pleasanf and valuable experiences of mv lije. 256221 1897 Bibliography. The following texts are referred to in the course of this investigation: - Serments de Strasbourg: Les plus anciens monuments de la langue franchise, Koschwitz, Leipzig, 1896. Fragment de Valenciennes: Les plus anciens monuments. Cantilene de Ste. Eulalie: Les plus anciens monuments. Also, Altfranzosisches Uebungsbuch. Forster und Kosch- witz, Heilbronn 1884; La langue et la lit. fr. depuis le IX e s. jusqu'au XI V>el *), is of no importance here. Its existence is the only thing with which we are concerned. ') According to Schwan 398. 1, el occurs in Eul. 13. This is sustained by Gledat (Ghrest. 4), but not by the editions of Foerster, Koschwitz or Bartsch. The MS. is not very distinct, but a careful examination of Paris's photographic reproduction makes the acceptance of el not so very difficult. It is found as masc. also in the Passion. Other instances of el for il masc. are found, but only in Anglo-Norman texts, or those which have been subjected to Anglo-Norman influence. See Quatre Livres des Rois 9, 18. In Wright's edition of Philippe de Thaun's Bestiary, el masc. occurs with great frequency along with il. The existence of a neater nominative pronoun in Old French, regularly derived from the Latin illud (which in .popular Latin had become ilium) has been denied. Neither Schwan in his Grammatik des Alt- franzosischen nor Meyer-Lubke in his Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen recognize the existence -of any representative in French of the cl. Latin illud, either nominative or accusative. Schwan says (399, 7): ,,Als Neutrum wird der Obi. sg. des Masculinums lo gebraucht". Meyer-Lubke passes over in silence the whole subject of the neuier nominative 3d singular pronoun in French, and considers the question a syn- tactical one. Gram. II 123, he says: ..Ueber das Sub- jectspronomen unpersonlicher Verba hat die Syntax zu handeln". However, Gaston Paris, in an article entitled ,,Le pronom neutre de la 3 e personne en Francais (Ro- mania XXIII, 161) has presented facts and material which make it hardly. to be doubted that a neuter el, which would be the normal development out of ilium (illud) did actually have an existence, at least in certain dialects of Old French. An instance occurs in Roman de Trpie: 20253 Peser m'en deit, et si fait el; Trop ai le cuer muable et fel, This is all the more striking as it occurs in a text composed at a time when neuter II had become well established, and in which it occurs with unusual fre- quency. The explanation given by G. Paris (ibid. 164) is that the original el was preserved in this single passage of the comparatively late redaction published by Joly, as a metrical necessity. In the Cotton MS. of the Voyage of Brandan, pub- lished by Suchier (Rom. Stud. I, 553), is found : - 12 - 127 Seignors co q e pensed auu. Cu el est grief nus nel sauu. The Oxford MS. has il. Both belong tho the 12th century. This regular neuter el, even if it can be shown to have existed, could have been at no time very frequently employed as subject. The use of the pronoun subject in general was a comparatively late syntactical deve- lopment in French. In the early literary period it is rarely used. Moreover, the neuter gender having practically disappeared from the nouns, and the co being at hand for demonstrative purposes, the only possible occasion for a neuter personal pronoun would be as subject of the impersonal verbs. As we should expect, and as will be shown later, the impersonal verbs were the very last to receive the pronoun subject, the first instances occurring long after the literary period begins, and not becoming well established until several centuries later. That the neuter el was so rarely employed, therefore, as to practically disappear from the language is not surprising J ). 1 ) The greatest light upon the question of the existence of a representative of a Latin illud in the oldest texts would be thrown by those interrogative sentences which require yes or no for an answer, since in these sentences the interrogative could only be shown in Old French, apparently, by the inversion of subject and werb. In such sentences containing an imper- sonal verb , the subject could not have been omitted , and would therefore be decisive for our problem. Unfortunately, such impersonal interrogates do not occur in the oldest texts. The earliest example which I have found occurs in 4LR 352, 12, as a translation of I he Latin, Estne hie propheta Domini? so that the question as to how these interrogative sentences were formed in the oldest French cannot be an- swered. - 13 - CHAPTER I. The Pronoun lo-le. A. With the accusative lo-le<^illum (illud) the case is quite different. Here we have the normally developed atonic form l ) of the Latin ilium occurring from the very beginning and with* great frequency. This lo represents not only the Latin ilium ' (masc.), but also the pop. Lat. ilium, (neut.) from cl. illud. The two genders were thus confounded in form, but that the distinction was still clearly felt I sha'l endeavor to show later on. The existence of pronouns identical in form but differing in usage is not without its analogy in other languages. The German may say, Er giebt sich einen Stoss, and Er yiebt sich dtr Sache kin, the pronoun object being (syntactically) in one case dative, in the other accusative. Si mil arty, in English, He gives me a book and He gives me- into the hands of my enemies. The difference in these cases is discoverable only by syntactical means. Whether the different usages repre- sent separate' and distinct pronouns, or whether one pronoun has been differentiated in usage does not concern us here. They are presented merely for their analogy to the point under discussion. As the pronouns lo masc. and lo neut. in the same way were identical in form, they can be distinguished from each other only by syntactical means. Wherever the lo-le refers *) The accusative tonic form el neut. also occurs in Benoit de Ste. More (see Romania XXIII, 169), hut not with sufficient frequency to make it important for the present study. 14 to some person or noun as its antecedent, i. e., has a gender-containing antecedent; it will be called masculine. Where, on the other hand, the antecedent is a sentence, an act, or an event previously mentioned, or where the pronoun has an indefinite, indistinct antecedent (cf. St. Leger 18 d, Alexis 51 e, 61 e, etc.) in other words where the antecedent could of necessity represent no gender, the pronoun will be called neuter. This is for the sake of convenience ; syntactical proof will be given later. Instances of this Zo-tebons, bonum>bon; amatus>>amez. amatunr>amet. The accusatives were identical, and for the plural of the neuter, of course, there was no occasion in French. We can establish by grammatical evidence the presence of the neuter in the pronouns discussed above by showing that they stood for neuter antecedents or concepts. That these antecedents, or the concepts for which the} 7 stood were neuter can be shown if in those cases where an adjec- tive or past participle in the nom. case is used to qualify these indefinite or non- gender -containing- concepts, as we have described the antecedents of neuter lo-le to be, this adjective or past participle has the neuter form. This could only occur with the verb efre, where the adjective or participle complement agrees with the subject, and where the subject is (a) an event, quo- tation, circumstance, etc., or (b) where the subject is indefinite or has no psychological content, as in the strictly impersonal verbs in other words, where the subject is non-gender-containing or represents a non- gender-containing antecedent. We shall now examine the cases which comply with the above conditions, during the period when the neuter form as well as meaning was present in the adjective. For the sake of convenience, those .cases will also be given in which the demonstrative $o-ce is employed as subject, representing a non-gender-containing antecedent. Qo-ce nom. corresponds to co-ce ace:, which does not differ from lo-le except in demonstrative force. These cases are therefore equally important for ourpurpose. The pronoun itself will be discussed at length further on. Passion 8 a Anz petitz dis que cho fus fait Alexis 13 e Mais lui ert tart qued il s'en fust alez. Voyage de Charlemagne 38 Que ja por vostre honte ne fut dit ne penset, 184 Qo dist li patriarches ; Bien vos est avenut J ). 361 Que QO vos fust viaire que tuit fussent vivant. 755 Par la feit que vos dei, ne m'en est lei ne gent 2 ). *) MS. avenuz ; probably error of the scribe, due to the fact that the two preceding lines end with z. 2 ) MS. gentilz. 22 - The logical subject here seems to be gabement in 754. But the form of the adjectives makes this im- possible. Here again is illustrated the readiness with which the notion of the neuter sprang into the minds of the early French writers. Roland 625 ,,Bien serat fait", li cuens Guenes respunt ; 632 ,.Bien serat fait", Guenes li respundit. 1004 Sunent mil grailles pur go que plus bel seit ; 1074 Que $o seit dit de nul hume vivant 1686 As quatre esturs lur est avenut bien 2483 En Rencevals est tart del repairier. The above cases of etre with non-gender-containing or indefinite subject and adjective or participle com- plement occur before the 12 th century. Passing to the 12th century it will be impossible to reproduce here all the instances which are found. Selections will therefore be made from representative monuments. A difficulty is encountered at the outset in dealing with 12th century literature, namely, that in the case of some of the most important documents no critical editions exist, 'the only texts available being merely faithful reprints of manuscripts (mostly redactions) of much later date than the originals, usually 13th century. In discussing a question which turns upon the presence or absence of a terminal s, this difficulty will be readily appreciated. The Bestiary of Philippe de Thaun is available only in the edition of Wright (1841). The text is useless for the present purpose because it is entirely uncritical. The adjectives and participles after etre, even when clearly maculine. appear more often without s ; e. g.: 9BO E quant il est iret senes est merguillet; 1041 E quant il est leved, cum egle est renoved. 1459 Le munt demustre majeste u Jhesu Christ serat trovt. The Cumpoz of the same author furnishes the following examples of the neuter adjective: 303 G'est Ion al noturner, 415 E igo est escrit 1202 Ainz est dit par figure, 1633 Qo est dit par figure: 2834 Si cum est espruvet Cf. also 2972, 3016, 3036, 3046, 3058, 3102, and other places. Munich Brut: 3091 Ne li est pas venu en grei; 3681 Bien est chaii a Cunedage, 3892 Tot altrement est avenu. We have now approached the middle of the 12th century without finding any instance of the predicate adjective referring to a non-gender-containing concept or an indefinite antecedent, which did not have the neuter form *). The translation of the Quatre Livres des Rois belongs to near the middle of the 12th century. The MS. which is reproduced by Le Roux de Lincy in his edition is also of the 12th century, and is therefore not so far removed in time from the original: 34 Que est igo que est avenud a Saul 51 6 E fud apergeud que li afaires turnad 80. 12 Qo fust avenud par a venture que 9917 g est /erf. 18234 la u bon li est. 229 15 si bon vus est, *) For discussion of two apparent exceptions see end of chapter. 9J. The literature of the latter part of the 12th century shows abundant examples of the neuter adjective in impersonal constructions. The following are a few specimens : Rom. de Rou 346 Ki bon sereit e bel a dire. 371 La nuit, quant bien fu aseri. 6672 Mult li esteit bien avenu. 10036 Mais sempres fu al rei mostre. 10336 Fu mult par plusors lieus parle. 10622 Mais mult uos est bien eschaeit. 11372 Conseillie li fut tost e dit. Rom. de Troie 878 La irrai gie, quant biau vus est 16185 Qo lor est biau qu'on les ocie 16443 Se morte fust QO li fu bel. 24206 Se il or mnert, QO li est bel, Eneas 1629 Molt li est griff a departir 2327 Sanz icel rain n'est pas legier 1 ) Qai sus d'enfer a repairier 6550 ne bel 2 ) ne nrest, ne me 1'otrei, Yvain 73 Et certes mout m'est bel que vos 4703 Mes dedanz ce fu avenu Eracle 490 Se bel 3 ) vos est; si Fen menrez, 523 Bel me serait d'avoir apris 2576 Mout lour fust bel, s'estre peiist, *). GEF legiers; but legier is sustained by the rhyme. 2 ) IE variant. : <) boin; F variant. '25 Raoul de Cambrai 669 G. respont: ,,Ja teserag^t": 1155 Dame, dist il, ne vos eri iert mentiy. 1447 Se R. truevent, mal li est avenu 8695 En tra'ison, ne pent estre celet : Two cases of apparent exception are entitled to special treatment: 1) Voirs. Along with*a few instances of voir in neuter constructions, we find in the great majority of cases voirs. Cf. Cumpoz 580 and 2739 c'est veirs\ Huon de Bordeaux 43, Que c'est tout voirs \ 47 c'est voirs que je di , 147 Se c'estoit voirs, etc. This is the case throughout the Old French period. If we are not to consider this as an exception to the hitherto un- broken law. we must regard voirs in these cases as a noun. Certain it is that such a noun existed. This is shown by the phrase per voir found throughout Old French. Cf. Passion 68 d, 84 d, etc. Gautier, in the vocabulary to his edition of the Chanson de Roland, under veir 3 veire, says: ,.L'emploi le plus frequent de ce mot est ait neutre: Sire vos dites veir, 2754, 3414. Veir dites, 760, Ne client veir, 1436. Dans ces trois examples, veir derive evidemment de verum. II en est de meme de la locution adverbiale : Par veir, qui vient de per verum, 87, 520, 692". This verum is not the Latin adverb, but the neuter of the adjective used substantively, equivalent to veritas, and becoming regu- larly masculine in passing into French. Compare the following passages, in which voir is clearly noun: Eneas 1557 d'un poi de veir dit tant men- Conges 26 - Erec et Enide 1509 Qne nus qui le voir vossist dire 4074 Au tre le roi vint, si li conte Le voir, qne rien ne 1'an cela. 5641 Se tot le voir ne vos disoie, 6051 Dirai le voir, que qu'il me griet. Kom. de 7 Sages 954 Car se li rois seust le voir (cf. 3051). The use of voirs as a noun instead of as an ad- jective may have arisen because the phrases analogous to or equivalent to est voirs were constructed with nouns : Voy. de Charl. 734 Or voil saveir des altres se mengonge est o veirs ! ). Huon de Bordeaux 43 Que Jest men^oigne que chis lerres a dit, 87 S'il nel veoit, $on est la verifes. 2) Droiz. This form is used almost without ex- ception in neuter constructions: Munich Brut 2661 N'est droiz que li pa'is s'en plaigne Roland 497 Tant vus ad dit, nen est dreiz que plus vivet; 1950 Tort nus ad fait, nen est dreiz qu'il s'en lot; It has been shown that a noun voirs, identical in form, existed side by side with the adjective. The same is true of droiz: Rol. 1015 Paien unt tort e chrestien unt dreit. Cliges 2471 Qu'il 1'a tenue contre droit. H. de B. 295 Qou fu ses drois, devant devoit parler, *) MS. neir. 27 Also the frequently recurring expressions a bon droit. a droit, etc. Additional evidence is found in the following: Rom. de Troie 15167 Qu'il lor avint; QO fust bien dreiz, where the adjective would have to agree with QO, and would consequently be neuter dreit. Droiz in neuter constructions may have the same explanation as that suggested for voirs: Mun. Brut 2839 Se je bien t'aim, cho est Rom. de Tr. 22303 Qu'il n'esteit pas reisotis ne dreiz, It is incredible that two adjectives, voirs and droiz, and only these two, should practically always appear as masculines in positions where other adjectives and participles invariably appear as neuters. It is more reasonable, therefore, to consider both of them as sub- stantives. It is thus seen that non-gender-containing concepts were distinctly felt to be neuter by the writers of Old French. If this is true, then the pronoun which was used to represent these concepts must also have been felt to be neuter, and therefore the ace. lo-le referring to genderless antecedents is to be considered as an independent pronoun, and not as identical with the lo-le referring to masculine antecedents. Direct evidence would of course be the best; that is, cases where the adjective limited the pronoun directly, or where both referred to the same thing. It is not surprising that passages in which these con- ditions are present are not numerous. In such as do occur, however, the adjective is neuter. The following, in which the adjective and pronoun refer to the same thing, show clearly that the pronoun was felt to be neuter : Brut (W.) 5102 Dit li fu, et il le quidoit Er. et En. 3095 Erec Toctroi et bel li fu. Eenans de Mont. 5020 Quant le vit Karlesmaines, mult par li samble bon. 408 30 Quant lo vit 1'amirauz. ne li fu mie bel ; Passages where lo is equivalent to QO, whose neuter gender is not doubted, also tend to the same result. E. g., Cumpoz 2655 E go poez veeir Se le volez saveir From these facts the following conclusions are derived : Non-gender-bearing concepts were regarded as neuter by the writers of Old French- this also applies to the pronouns representing them. Consequently the lo-le which stood for these concepts was felt as a neuter pronoun, separate and distinct from the masculine pronoun having the same form. This state of things continued as long as there was any means of distinguishing, inflectionally, the neuter gender from the masculine. How much longer we cannot say. It is maintained consistently in Ville- hardouin, who wrote about 1205. These facts are of great importance for the present investigation. CHAPTER II. Other Neuter Pronouns in the Earliest French. In addition to the pronouns discussed in the foregoing chapter, the Old French possessed another, compounded from the latin particle ecce and the neuter pronoun hoc^ ecce -|- hoc ^> igo/ go, ce, nom. and ace. The un- compounded hoc is found also in the earliest monuments as o, chiefly with prepositions. Primarily and from its etymology a demonstrative pronoun, this force is well maintained in the ace., though evidences of weakening in the nom. are already apparent in the earliest monu- ments. For the present its history will be traced only as far as the Chanson de Roland. Inasmuch as at this period the pronoun subject in general was little em- ployed, we shall find it for the most part as an accu- sative, and referring usually to a following antecedent. The cases where it is used with a preposition will be omitted here, as foreign to the purpose. The earliest examples are found in the Fragment de Valenciennes, where the phrase go dixit occurs three times. This phrase seems to have become thus early a stereotyped formula, and it remained popular during a long period. Since the go could be just as well omitted, it furnished conveniently elastic material for smoothing metrical difficulties. Where too long a citation would not be required, the antecedent is also given and indicated by italics: 30 - Passion de Christ: 8 a Anz petitz dis que cho (= mounting the ass) fus fait 9 a Cum co audid tota la gent que Jhesus lo rets podenz, etc. 18 a Cum cho (= long quotation preceding) ag dit et percuidat 20 a Felo Judeu cum il cho (= clearing the temple) vidren, 26 d tot als Judeus o vai ntincier. 34 b zo lor demandet que querent: 35 a ,,En soi quel", zo dis Jhesus: 35 c terce vez lor o demanded: 47 d ,,dinos, prophete, chi t'o fedre" ? 58 b zo dis Pilaz, forfaiz non . 68 d zo (= non-parting of his vestments) fu granz signa tot per ver : 71 c entre eels dos pendent Jhesum: il per escavn o fan trestot 75 c ,,en t'o proraet, oi en est di db me venras in paradis". 84 d el resurdra, cho sab per ver: 91 a Quar el zo dis que resurdra llOc zo pensent il que entre els, etc. 116b non avra mal, zo sab per ver; Vie de Saint Leger: - 7 a Qo sempre fut et ja si iert: Qui fait lo bien lodez ent iert. 1 d Sempre fist o que il puot : 8 a A sei 1' mandat et co li dist: i A cort fust, sempre lui sercist. 9d Qo controverent baron franc. The antecedent here is in doubt, but the pronoun is certainly demonstrative. See Romania I, 306, note to thjs line. 31 15 c Qo li mandat que revenist, 16 a II QO li dist et adunat; ,,Tos consiliers ja non istrai, etc. 18 d Qo li preiat laissast lo tot\ 18 f Qo li preiat, paiast sad lui. 19 b Co 1'demonstrat que se paiast. 19 d Qo 1'demonstrat amis li fust. 19 e Mais en avant vos go odreiz Qom il edrat par mele feid. 20 e Qo confortent ad ambes dous Que s'ent raiment en lor honors. 33 c Qo li rovat, et noit et di Mel li fesist dentro qu'il vit. Vie de Saint Alexis: 21 c Quant il co sovrent qued il fuiz s'en eret, 38 a Quant il QO veit que Vvolent honorer: 68 e E QO sai dire que il fut bons cristiens. 71 c Ore ai trovet QO que tant avons quis : 73 c fo'st sa mercit qu'il nos consent I' honor; 74 a Cist apostolies deit les anmes baillir, Qdxt ses mestiers dont il ad a servir: 76 e E QO lor dist de quel parenz il eret, 88 e Q~ o'st grant merveile que pitet ne fen prist (cf. 89 e). 92 e Co peiset mei que ma fin tant demoret (cf. 96 b). 110 (f Qo preions Deu, la sainte trinitet^ Quod lui ensemble poissons d del regner. 116 d Voillent ou non. si Vlaissent metre en terre Qo peiset els, mais altre ne pot estre. 123 d Qo at que s'volt, n'en est nient a dire : 124 b Quer QO vedons que toit somes desvet: Qo dist with quotation occurs lib, 22 a, 22 c ? 35 e, 101 e. Co li comandet 34 e. 32 Voyage de Charlemagne : 30 Quant <>o vit la re'ine Charles est si iriez, 361 Que go vos fust viaire que tuitfussent vivant (cf. 374; also 376, rfst avis). 385 Charles vit le palais torneier et fremir ; II ne sout que co fut, ne Tout de loin apris. 674 ^Charles ne fes-maier*, qo te man del Jhesus ! (cf. 676). 733 ,,Li primiers est guariz; enchantre est. go crei. 841 Et dist li emperere: Tot go laissiez ester. go dist, with quotation occurs 39, 41, 51, 184, 227, 465, 482, 494, 505, and many other places. In all of the above cases, the pronoun, whether subject or object, is clearty demonstrative. It has also been proved (if proof were necessary for (-0) in Chapter I that go is uniformly regarded as neuter by Old French writers. We shall now examine a series of passages where this force is weakened, where the /pronoun does not designate its antecedent with emphasis, or even distinctly, or where it seems to refer to a non-neuter antecedent. First, where the logical antecedent is either masculine or feminine: Pas. 4 a Cum aproismed sa pass-inns, cho fud nostre redemptions, Leger 3d f (= rei) fud Lodiers fils Baldeqni, Alex. 52 c Sainte escriture. c,o ert ses conseiliers : 69 a ,,Molt longement ai od lid converset: De nule chose certes ne Fsai blasmer, E QO m'est vis que co l ) est li horn Deu." Voy. de Ch. 139 Par le mien escientre, go (= Charle- magne) est meismes Deus! A AP il. - 33 The pronoun in these cases is not to be regarded as anything but neuter, although in some instances it seems to stand in very close relations to its antecedent. Alexis 52 c is such an instance. Sainte escriture, go ert ses conseiliers corresponds to the German, Die heilige Schrift, to war sein Rathgeber; or, as one might say in English, A good woman, that is a man's best counselor. The co is simply the neuter demon- strative, weakened in force. It does not represent its logical antecedend directly, but represents indistinctly the idea contained in it. We have already found si- milar cases, where grammatical relations were loosely conceived, and a masc. or fern, concept previously men- tioned was represented later by a neuter word. See p. 13 ff above. We shall now pass to another series of passages in which the <;o is used with weakened demonstrative force. The degree of weakening varies; in Leger 5d. the subject represents nothing, has no content whatever; while in 17 c, it might almost be considered a clear demonstrative: Leger 5d fo fut loncs temps od sei lo tint. 17 c Qo fut Lusos o il entrat, 39 c Qo fut loncs dis que non cadit. Alex. 21 d Co fut granz dols qued il en de- men er en t, 36 c fo l )'st cil qui lez 1'us siet ; It will be noticed that the weakened co is always nominative. The demonstrative force is consistently maintained in the accusative. This completes the history of our pronouns before the Chanson de Roland. The results of these two chapters may be summed up as follows: l ) Not in S. 34 There existed in the earliest French two neuter accusative pronouns, go-ce and to-le. The latter was distinctly felt as a neuter, notwithstanding the fact that it existed along witth a masculine pronoun with which it was identical in form. The relations of <;o-ce to lo-le were that of a demonstrative to an unde- monstrative, or rather that of a strong demonstrative to a weak demonstrative. No other syntactical dis- tinction is apparent. Both refer for their antecedent to some act, event, or quotation. It is true that in the cases thus far examined, the antecedent of lo is more apt to precede, while with c,o it generally follows, but this fact probably has no syntactical signi- ficance, and in later documents is not maintained. The difference lies in the prominence which each gives to the idea which it represents. Qo carries with it more force, is a more emphatic demonstrative, and that is all. Both are demonstrative etymologically, but in use as well as in etymology, one is emphatic while the othen is weak. The relations can be shown by putting side by side for convenient comparison one of the ear- liest examples of each that occurs. They are both rep- resentative cases: Pas. 56 a Pilat qne anz fen vol laisar no rconsentunt fellon Judeu: Leger 15 c Qo li mandat que revenisf, In the following interesting passage from the Voy- age de Charlemagne, go and lo have the same antece- dent and are therefore completely identical in use: 385 Charles vit le palais torneier et fremir; . II ne sout que co fut, ne Tout de loin apris. It is thus seen that the two pronouns not only have similar antecedents, but may even have the same 35 antecedent. In all cases the distinction of force is probably present. Thus, in the above passage, the phe- nomenon is represented emphathically by co\ after that, emphasis is not necessaiy, and consequently in the second mention immediately following, the weaker V is used. In the nominative case, co corresponding to QO ace. finds frequent usage. Like the latter, it is strongly demonstrative; but unlike the latter, it is not exclus- ively so. A number of passages have been found in which it is used with very" much weakened force, and corresponds, therefore, more nearly to lo. The nom. co represents the same kind of antecedents as co and lo ace. Another neuter nom. pronoun will be the subject of the next chapter. CHAPTER III. Neuter il. Neuter // does not appear in the earliest monuments of French literature. It is not found in the Serments de Strasbourg, or the Oantilene de Ste. Eulalie, or the Fragment de Valenciennes, or the Passion du Christ, or the Vie de St. Leger. This fact in itself would not be sufficient to prove its' non-existence in the language of the time. All of these documents are very brief, and taken together form but a sorry rem- nant of nearly two centuries of literary activity. Be- sides, the pronoun subject in general was but sparsely em- ployed at this time; and it is therefore' not surprising that even in cases where the impersonal // might have 36 been used ij is not found. In view of these facts, it will not do to decide too hastily that writers of French in the earliest literary period did not know any neu- ter pronoun ^7. There is, however, I believe, trustworthy evidence going to show that no such pronoun was known at the time that the monuments named above were composed. The masculine // existed from the first, although as be- fore intimated, comparatively rarely used. It occurs in the Serments. No nouter nouns existed, therefore tl.e only occasion for a' neuter subject pronoun would be to represent a non-gender-containing antecedent and with the impersonal verbs. In the former case, since it would perhaps be desired to indicate the an- tecedent clearly and distinctly, it is not surprising to find the demonstrative go used; especially so, since in its origin the pronoun subject in general had a demon- strative force. But with the impersonal verbs, those which can have no logical subject, this desire would not be felt. When, therefore, following the general tendency of syntactical usage, it was desired to em- ploy something to represent a subject, the least de- monstrative or an undemonstrative pronoun would have been employed if such had existed. Here would have been the occasion for neuter il corresponding to weak demonstrative lo-le. But we have already found that in all instances thus far examined, where a subject is attached to the clearly impersonal verbs, it is go that is used. Such instances are, go fnt longs temps (Leger 5d). go fat loncs dis (39 c), go fat granz dols (Alex. 21 d), go'st cil (36 c). It is exeedingly im- probable that the strong demonstrative go would be found in phrases like the above if any weaker pronoun had existed. Further proof is found in the fact that this 37 - weakening of the go does not occur in the accusative, where lo had always existed. The earliest instances of il neuter are found in the Vie de Saint Alexis, where it occurs three times : 11 a Quant li jorz passet et U fid anoitet, This is the reading of the oldest MS. L, and I have not been able to find any good reason to ques- tion it. The use of the neuter form of the participle accords with all the cases examined in chapter I, and shows the subject to be neuter. Homing's attempt to show that the il is masculine 1 ) fails entirely: 93d Ne pois tant faire que mes cors s'en sazit ; 11 n'est merveile', n'ai mais filie ne fil. It is true that the oldest and best MSS. do mot show the il. L has n'est merveile, but, as Horning -ob- serves 2 ) this leaves a syllable lacking to the hemistich. A (same date as L, i. e., 12th century) has n'est pas' merveile. But pas is an unusual negative particle in the oldest French and at the time of the Alexis can- not be shown to have been used at all. In this same poem we have: 88 e go'st grant merveile que pitet ne t'en prist 89 e Qo'st grant merveile que le miens cors tant duret. Here are two expressions exactly analogous, with go as subject, and the antecedent, as usual, following. It is noticeable that in 93 e the antecedent precedes, which is just what we should expect from a pronoun corresponding to lo. If we admit any of the cases of il neuter in this poem, in other words, if we admit ') Rom. Stud. IV. 234. 2 ) Ibid. 233. 38 that sucli a pronoun existed at all at the time of its composition, then Homing's substitution of go for il in 93 e becomes unnecessary and therefore unjustified: 101 c Cui que seit dols, a nostre os est il goie\ Here again Horning resorts to an unnatural and irrational interpretation i) in order to get rid of the neuter il. It was not the body of the dead saint that was a joy to them, but the fact that by his death and translation to Heaven they would have tliere a gra- cious and powerful advocate. This is sufficiently and clearly stated in the two following lines: 101 d Quer par cestui avrons bone adjutorie, Si li preions que de toz mals nos tolget. The antecedent of il, as in 93 e, is found before, and is the fact of his death related in strophe 67. . I do not find, therefore-, sufficient grounds for rejecting any of the instances of neuter il found in the Alexis. Gaston Paris, in the preface to his edition, p. 40. gives the date of this poem as ,,vers le milieu de ce siecle (the llth) environ sous le regne de Henri I er; '. In the Tableau Chronologique of his Littfaature, he puts it more specifically vers 1040. Between the Alexis and the monument next precedeing which has come down to us, there is a gap of half a century. When we consider how rarely the pronoun in general was attached to the verb at this time, the three cases of neuter il in the Alexis become quite respectable numeri- cally, and make it probable that its use was quite extended at this time. It is not unreasonable, there- fore, to place the beginning of the use of neuter il as early as the first half of the llth century. Le Pelerinage de Charlemagne. The date of the Pelerinage is still a matter of contention. Gautier ') Rom. Stud. IV. 234. 39 (Epopees III 274) decides for the first quarter of the 12th century. Koschwitz, in his second edition (XXI), concludes, on philological grounds, that it belongs, in its present form, to the second half of the llth or beginning of the 12th century. H. Morf (Romania XIII 185) concludes that it was composed before 1080. Since the poem contributes little to the solution of the problem, the uncertainty as to date need not disturb us, and it will be convenient to treat it here before taking, up the Chanson de Roland. In the edition of F. Michel (1836). from a MS. of the 13th century, neuter il occurs once: 704 Tresque il vint a la nuit que tut est aserie. Horning does not entirely reject this reading ! ), but he endeavors to throw suspicion upon it: ,,En 1'ab^ence d'une edition critique, il faut se garder d'admettre trop vite, sur la foi d'un manuscrit du 13 s. que ce vers nous donne la legon de Fori- ginal qui etait peut-etre : Tresque vmt a la nuit, etc." In the second edition of Koschwitz (1883) the il is omitted, as the editor says in a note, ,,wegen Hor- ning". No other reason is assigned. The meter is of no assistance here. Tresque vint answers the me- trical requirements quite as well as Tresque il vint. In the rest of the poem que is found both elided and unelided. It is therefore impossible to prove the ge- nuineness of this il, but at the same time, admitting the existence of neuter il in the language of the period, its re- jection in the present instance, without any evidence, be- comes gratuitous and unwarranted. Its presence in the only MS. extant at the time of Michel's edition 2 ), throws ') Rom. Stud. 243. 2 ) This MS. has since been lost. 40 the onus probandi upon the editor who rejects it. It will be shown later that it was in just such phrases as these, where the subject was without content and ' go was therefore too demonstrative, that neuter il had its origin. Hence there is nothing unnatural or impro- bable in its employment here. La Chanson de Poland. The Chanson de Roland, in the form in which it has reached us was composed between 1066 ane 1095 ! ). We may therefore accept a date midway between, say about 1080. as approxi- mately correct. This is the one given in the Tableau Chronologique. In this poem neuter il occurs so frequently as to show incontestably that in the latter half of the 11th- century its use was already well established. This text also shows the increasing use of the masc. and, fern, pronouns as subject. 61 Dientpaien: ,.Issi poet il bien estre". 192 Dient Francois: // nus i cuvient garde". 884 II est jug let que nus les ocirinn: 1318 Ultre s'en vait qu'*7 n'i ad desturbier, 1443 II est escrit en la geste Francur 1684 II est escrit es cartres e es briefs, 1743 Mais nepurquant si est il asez mielz: 2349 // nen est dreiz que paien te baillisent, 2399 II nen i ad ne veie ne sentier, 2401 Que il ri*i ait o Franceis o paien. 2418 II nen i ad chevalier ne barun 2561 II 'nen est dreiz que il seit mais ad vus 3522 Cument qu'il seit, ne s'i voelt celer mie, 3905 Jamais n'iert jurz que // nen seit parlet. 3909 Mielz voeill murir qu'/7 me seit reprovet. 3913 II ne poet estre qu'il seient desevret, l ) Gautier III 493. - 41 - The following case is doubtful: 2607 S'il ad bataille, il ne s'en fuirat mie. It. is impossible to say here whether the il was neuter or masculine in the mind of the writer. It is represen- tative of a large class of cases which occur during the period discussed. Inasmuch as i avoir was one of the first expressions to which the neuter il was frequently attached, it is unnecessary to contend for the doubtful instances, and I have therefore rejected them, both here and later. In 2467 // n't ad barge ne drodmund ne caland, Horning calls attention to the redundant syllable in the first hemistich in (il nene ad barge) and suggests Nen i ad as a probable reading. We may. pass over this objection. Not so his effort to depreciate the value of this whole poem, as representing the syntactical usage of the latter half of the llth century. For instance, while not rejecting the il of 192, he says: (11) ,,pre- sente un example de Temploi d'il qui * * ne s'est gene- ralise que vers le milieu du 12 s." This is doubtless true if we judge from the literary documents which have come down to us. But it must be remembered that the literature w r hich we possess earlier tl\an the middle of the 12th century is very insignificant and fragmentary compared with what we have from the middle of. the 12th century on. Under such circum- stances, the arguwentum e silentio carries with it little force. Besides, an isolated instance is not necessarily open to suspicion. Grammatical usages do not become general all at once ; they must appear at intervals at first, and only gradually attain general literary ac- ceptance, 42 The above is really part of an attept on the part of M. Horning to cast .suspicion on the genuineness of neuter il as a whole in the Chanson de Roland, which is expressed in the following sentence: ,,Tont ce qu'on peut dire, c'est qu'il est fort possible que le remanieur ait introduit le il neutre dans nne serie de vers on 1'original ne 1'avait pas". This, as a bare and unmodified statement, would also have to be admitted. But possibility is a long way from probability, and certainly is a slender thread upon which to hang broad generalisations. Gormont et Isembart. This belongs probably to the latter half of the llth century, although the single MS. is later. In lines 418 19 we have: (Ceo diste la geste, e(t) il est veir, quis n'ot en France mil dreit (h)eir). The editor appends a note as follows: ,,418 und 419 halte ich fiir Interpolation, S. gleich falls". S. refers to Scheler, La Mort du Roi Gormont, Bruxelles 1876. This brings us to the first half of the 12th cen- tury. The material which we have at our disposal is, aside from the Poeme Devot and the Alexander frag- ment, which together contain less than 200 lines, as follows: The Bestiary and Cuinpoz of Philippe de Thaiin. The Voyage of Brand an. The Munich Brut. The Quatre Livres des Rois. The Oxford and Cambridge Psalters. It will be observed that only four of the above are original compositions. The Quatre Livres des Rois is a free translation, and therefore has more of the va- lue of an original document than the two Psalters, 43 which are very literal reproductions of the Latin texts. It is interesting to note, therefore, that it is in the Psalters alone that no case of neuter il appears, while in the others it is employed with quite as great fre- quency as would be expected, considering the number of occasions for it which occur, and the usage in re- gard to the use of the pronoun subject in general which prevailed at the time. The remarks of Horning on this point are appropriate, especially in the light of the fact that this investigator was apparently desir- ous of setting as late a date as possible for the be- ginning of neuter il: ,,Du reste, de 1'absence du pronom neutre il (in the Psalters), on ne saurait rien conclure quant a 1'age de ces deux versions: en effet, la traduction est tres- litterale, et le texte latin, caique en quelque sorte, ne conviait pas le traducteur a faire un usage plus libre de sa langue". For the same reason, it 'would be hazardous to generalize too readily from the absence of the pronoun in these texts, concerning its employment in the lan- guage of the time. The other five documents present the following instances of neuter il, all of which are cited by Hor- ning, but partly objected to for reasons made to fit his theory: Ctimpoz: 18 Que il n'i ait desrei 2636 Quant il fait tewpestet 3197 Qu'7 avient par treis anz, D'icez dis e nof anz, Que eles lur curs funt 3498 Se tis numbres creist tant Qu'i7 vienget a quarante, Bestiary*: 504 1 1 nen est creature de tant breve figure 509 Se il pint sur son forment, gete le fors al vent, 593 // est tine bestete, ki ad a mnn mustelete, 789 Fors sulement de mort, ti il n'od mil resort. 1114 Hoc est nus alters, ne qui que il salt mais tels, 1356 Quant il fait tempeste, lores se plunge el gue; 1487 Qu'?7 n'ad buche ne jointure ne eschede ne creveure. A curious use of il in line 1224 deserves special mention: 1223 Se Vumbre est a destre, dune se vait a senestre, Se il est a senestre, li draguns vait a destre. If il is not a mistake of the copyist for el (elle), as is highly probable, then it is a most remarkable illus- tration of a phenomenon that has already deen noted, namely, the readiness with which the neuter notion suggested itself to the minds of the early French wri- ters, even after a gender-containing antecedent had been mentioned, the interval between antecedent and pronoun serving to weaken the distinctness with which the former was conceived. The Voyage of Brandan : 128 Cu el est grief nus nel sauu. The Munich Brut: 444 Dunt il n'estoit encor nus granz. 584 Mais il ne Vent avint nus biens. 738 U il lo covendra morir. 45 1015 II n'a en nos point de cunfort, 1340 Que il n'i ait si haut tnndu 1709 II n'i a tence ne menace 1775 II nel gari ses obeis blans 2168 Ainz qvCil i ait xx cops feruz 2488 Mais U Ven est remeis nus filz 2494 11 n'a sus ciel plus sodomite 2739 11 lo tesmonie nostre hystorie 3556 N'est il mie luns tens passiez 4162 Qu'i/ ne fust leire ne trechiere . In 2445 occurs one of those doubtful cases alrea- dy mentioned (Rol. 2607), where it is impossible to say if the il is to be regarded as masculine or neuter: 2444 Quar il voloit toz sols regneir Qif// wV eust segnor ne peir. Les Quatre Livres des Rois: 39 14 Kar il en est mestier, 51 5 e s'il est el pople (the logical subject is iniquite; see previous discussions of this point). 603 S'7 te plaist, cumande 122-11 si cume U est- escrit el livre as dreitu- riers. 184 5 e passerent le flum Jurdan jesquV/ ajurnad. 184 6 devan go que il fud send, 187 15 si que il i out un grant -muncel, 190 1 Issi seit de tuz ces * * cume il est de Absalon. 227 8 si cume il est escrit en la lei Moysi; 259 7 e un pot d'or u // en i out de la maune 261 1 Tu as par buche parle * * si cume U pert. 26210 si li ciels est clos, que U ne pluve - 46 263 1 s'?7 ie plaist 277 8 11 avint si 282 7 s'?7 te plaist a ore o'ir lur requests, 28213 se il te plaist: 299 9 Kar il ne vus ad mestier. 357 11 ne me di fors si cume il. iert, 362 9 il me vail a mal e achaisun. 362 12 e saverait que // / ad prophete en Israel 364 12 s'?7 avient que mis sires entred 376 4 Se il vus plaist, 377 1 Li reis demanded s'7 \ ad pais? 377 1 Que apent a tei s'7. / ad pais? 414 9 11 est si de els cume del fain del cliamp 417 12 e il i out nus oriloges In the comments of the translator: 76 Note 1, 3 qu'i/ dit ici que Saiil prophetizad 426, margin, ce qu'// out encuntre Deu. 427, margin, ce que il i out encuntre Deu. The list given above is too long to permit any doubt that neuter il had certainly, in the first half of the 12th century, become a recognized grammatical form, and was freely employed by writers, due consideration of course being had for the facts that, at best, the occasions for its use would be relatively few, as com- pared with the gender-bearing forms, and also that the pronoun subject in general was not commonly expressed. The four original monuments taken together contain in amount the equivalent of about 8,120 alexandrine lines, or considerably more than two poems like the Roland. The Roland contains 16 or 17 cases of neuter il, while the four under discussion contain about 30 cases. There is nothing in these figures to show a backward step or even a standstill in the development of neuter il. On 47 the contrary, it will be shown later that the monuments of the first half of the 12th century show its use much extended and enlarged. Before going farther, it will be well to examine some objections raised by Horning to the genuineness of several of the instances cited above. We find this investigator, following his evident desire to make the beginning of neuter il as late an event as possible, en- deavoring to discredit by every possible means its oc- currence in the monuments of the first half of the 12th century. In the Cumpoz, for line 2636, one MS., L, gives the reading fait grand tempestet. All the others, CAS, have the il. M. Horning l ) did not fail to note, however, that the editor in the preface (pp. 15, 16), had shown that L in a number of passages (dans une serie de pas- sages), was more trustworthy than all the other MSS. taken together. Notwithstanding the fact that line 2636 is not mentioned as being one of the passages, this sim- ple statement of the editor is seized upon and empha- sized the utmost possible for the author's purposes: ,,De plus", continues Horning, ..grant tempestet dans le sens de mauvais temps, repond fort bien a bel oret (of the preceding line), tandis qu'au v. 2626 tempestet semble signifier en general temperature 2 ). II n'est done pas certain que 1'original ait eu ici Yil impersonnel". Another criticism is as follows: ,,Nous ferons une remarque analogue (referring to what has just been quoted) sur le v. 3197 qu'?7 avlent par treiz anz\ il se trouve au milieu d'un passage qui n'est conserve que par CLA; Fautorite de S lui fait defaut. On voit, du ') Rom. Stud. IV 244. 2 ) Wright in his edition translates by weather, which is better. 48 reste, que, il supprime, le vers n'en est pas moins correct". It seems hardly necessary to comment upon such criticism. The il is suspicious because it is sup- ported by only three, and these the oldest, of the four MSS. upon which the edition is based! one of the three being L, upon whose sole authority the writer a moment before was constrained to doubt the il of 2636, because this MS. ,.dans une serie de passages, a lui seul a plus d'autorite et merite plus de confiance que tous les autres manuscrits reunis!" The last sen- tence of the criticism is no better than the rest. The fact that a word is not absolutely required by the metre is not necessarily a suspicious circumstance. In the Bestiary, line 14S7 is objected to as follows ! ): ,,Ce dernier example est peut-etre a retrancher; levers etant trop long, on pourrait supprimer qu'il". The ob- jection is valid and may be allowed to stand. For 1856, the reader is referred to the author's comment upon line 2636 of the Cumpoz. The inference is that the criticisms there made hold for the analogous passage in the Bestiary. Attention is called to the fact that il in 509 and 1114 is not required by the meter. Both of these objections have already been touched upon. The instance in the Voyage de Brandan is not noted. No attempt is made to discredit the instances of neuter il in the Munich Brut. This fact becomes more curious when it is observed that here occur two cases which in themselves are well calculated to arouse the just suspicions of a critic. These are lines 1775 and 2739. The writer remarks: ,,Ils presentent, que nous sachions, les deux seuls examples, en langue d'oil. de *) Rom. Stud. IV 245. 49 il impersonnel, en tete d'un verbe transitif a 1'actif accompagne de son regime direct". He nevertheless finds no difficulty in accepting them, notwithstanding the fact that it wonld he very easy to reconstruct both passages so as to get rid of the //, thus : 1775 Ne le gari ses obers blanc, 2739 Qo nos tesmonie nostre hystorie, The explanation is simple. They supply the kind of evidence which he needs in order to combat Grimm's theory: ,,Nous crayons qu'on pent tirer de ces deux examples une consequence tres-importante; une pareille tentative d'enrichir la langue d'une construction nouvelle n'a pu se produire qu'a une epoque on 1'usage de il impersonnel precedant le sujet n'etait pas encore fixe, ou la langue etait encore hesitante en ce point: nous obtenons ainsi un moyen de determiner Fepoqu^ a laquelle cet usage s'est forme, de la determiner, non pas sans doute a un an ou a dix ans pres, mais a un demi- siecle pres environs: c'est la premiere moitie du 12 e siecle". Such being the case, Grimm's theory of German influence falls to the ground. Then, lest he has gone too far and granted more for the use of the pronoun than is compatible with his own theory, he hastens to add : ,,Pour en revenir au Brut, nous ferons remarquer encore que, si Ton y trouve des examples assez nombreux de U precedant le sujet, on n'est nullement autorise a conclure de ce fait, que des lors 1'usage de ce pronom ait ete tres-repandu". Twenty cases of neuter il are cited by Horning from the Quatre Livres des Rois, and none are ques- tioned. There are in fact twenty-seven, not counting doubtful cases, in the body of the translation, and three in the marginal and foot notes of the translator. It is thus seen that most of the objections brought against the genuineness of II in the passages discussed above, by any fair and unbiased methods of criticism, fall to the ground. The most that is shown is that in some cases the pronoun might not have been in the original text, which statement it would be, of course, impossible to disprove. But possibility is very far from probability. At any rate, there are enough cases left, of undoubted genuineness, to justify, as it seems to me, the following statement: By the middle of the 12th century, due regard being had for the facts that we must generalize for long periods of time from a very meager amount of literary material, that the use of the pronoun subject in general was not common, that the impersonal verbs by their very nature would be much slower than the others to have a subject attached due regard being had for all these facts, the neuter II was a well established grammatical form and in quite general use in French. This fact will become clearer if we classify, for convenient observation, the data thus far obtained con- cerning the history of neuter II. Before the 12th century, we found 19 cases of neuter *7, not counting any doubtful ones. They represent the following usages: (a) with / avoir 4 times; (b) with noun predicate 2 times; (c) with etre and noun predicate followed by que and a clause which is the logical subject of efre, 2 times; (d) with etre and a participle followed by que and a clause which is the logical subject of etre (Rol. 884), 1 time; (e) with' ttre absolute 2 times; (f) with etre and participle, but without following clause, 4 times ; (g) with puet estre 2 times; (h) with convient and noun which is logical subject l.time; (i) in phrase expressing time of day 1 time. 51 The literature of tlie next half century shows the following additions to this classified list: (j) With expressions of weather and time (as Curapoz 2636, Brut 3556), 6 times. (k) With venir in absolute sense (Gump. 3499), 1 time. (1) With aller in absolute sense (4LE 3629), 1 time. (m) With avenir, 3 times. (n) With pert (= par alt), 1 time. (o) With plaire, 5 times. (p) With etre equivalent to il i a, 8 times. (q) With etre and adjective predicate. 1 time. All the previous classes are also represented (some of the instances, are included in the above) except (g). In this list the two anomolous cases in Brut 1775 and 2739 are not reckoned. At best they represent no permanent addition to the language, and are . too doubtful in themselves to contribute an} 7 valuable ma- terial to the history of our pronoun. It is thus seen that while the use of neuter il shows no marked numerical increase in the first half of the 12th century, it really undergoes considerable extension. From the middle of the 12th century on we have at command a wealth of material such as to make investigation profitable and generalisations trustworthy. It will be convenient to treat the period from 1150 to Villehardouin as a unit and note the position occupied by neuter il in general in the literature of the whole. I shall therefore pursue here again the method of classification, and note the extension of the pronoun qualitatively rather than quantitavely, i. e., its growth syntactically rather than numerically. Representative texts will be drawn upon which cover the period from 1150 to Villehardouin, who wrote about 1205. In the 52 citations, those texts which approach nearest to 1150 in date will be given first and drawn upon more liber- ally. For this purpose a classification has been adopted which is doubtless open to objections, but which has been selected with a view to bringing the cases into as fevy groups as possible. Many instances could be placed equally well in more than one group. This would probably be the case with any system which endeavored to restrict the number of classes. 1. II i a. The pronoun is used in this phrase with increas- ing frequency, and its usage is extended to cases like the following: En. 107 II i ot escrit en Grezeis (que, etc.) 6205 II n'a guaires que je i fui Likewise all the other usages of il i a heretofore noted are found in great numbers during this period. They will not be repeated here. . The phrase // est, equivalent to il i a is likewise frequent. 2. Expressions referring to the weather, etc. The phrases descriptive of meteorological conditions, time of day, year, etc., which contain neuter il are par- ticularly numerous and varied: Rom. de Rou 1903 La nuit, quant il fu auespre. En. 265 quant vint al quart qn'il ajorna, 1506 Tant chacierent qu'?7 fu midis 1709 II est ivers, molt fait lait tens 4793 et li reis vit qu'7 avespra 4612 // comenqa a avesprir] 53 Rom. de Troie 1760 Tant qu'?7 estoit ja halte tierce 4463 Et quant il vient a Vanuitier 13301 A 1'endemain, qu'iJ fist cler jor 22253 E quant il prist a esclarzir 25559 Que il fus yaires esclairci Flore et Blancheflor 593 E quant il laisse de venter 1177 La puet on veoir et esmer Cent Hues loing, quant il . fait cler. Er. et En. 1951 N'i7 rii J ) fet trop chaut ne n'iverne. R. de Cambrai 8715 Quant il fu nuis, par verite le vous di, 3. Phrases of pleasing, displeasing, indifference, and similar states of mind. The phrase s'il vous plait and its variants, being exceedingly numerous, and having been already noted, will be omitted here: Rom. de Ron 5581 Qui que il feist bel semUant. 9039 Mais comment que il lifust grief. 9436 Mais semblant fist qu'*7 li pesa. En. 1773 E se il 2 ) fust a mon plaisir 2912 et il lor vient a volentt 7816 s'i7 3 ) m'en chiet bien o malement 8349 Trop m'en clialt il, car il m'a morte 10083 et a li resteit il 4 ) molt tart Eracle 4264 I/ 5 ) ne li torne a nul delit *) CV Ne ni. *) DFG or. 3 ) Not in HIGEF. 4 ) Not in G. 5 F Car. 54 Rom. de Troie 1304 II ne vos deit ennoier 8432 Qu'// ne Ten vienye a mesestance 11804 Mais // n'ert pas a son voleir 16980 Qui qu'/7 fust ennui et con- traire, 17246 Tel lo veient qu'*7 molt des- plest , 20687 Que qu'7 tardast, igo sachiez 29932 Dont H li e*t grant desconfors Tristan (I) 108 Et s'?7 estoit a -son plesir (II) 111 Kar il vus ert encuntre quor. Yvain 147 Mais je ferai ce. qu'?7 vos siet, 148 Com ant que il j ) onques me griet. 4622 An cor, s'?7 ne vos estoit grief Er. et En. 48 La plus bele, a que que // tort. 6008 Que que il li dole grever II. et Gal. 1749 Que il li feroit double anui, , 2301 Et s'>7 vlent Damedieu a bel, R. de Carabrai 798 Qe de la terre, qui qu'/7 tourt a pesance 4. With verb accompanied by a noun or equivalent (as partitive en), which is the logical subject of the verb. Rom. de Troie 3835 Qu'?7 nos avendra grant biens 14826 Dont il n'est flanbe ne fumee 22252 Ainz qn'ilparust deljor clartez. En. 6719 il 2 ) ii enbat tels kil compere 7019 mais dee"tnorz i gixeit il 3 ) tant 9249 rnais ?7 4 ) s'i esta nus archiers *) Not in P. 2 ) Not in HI. 3 ) Not in HIDGEF. 4 ) Not in G. - 55 Eracle 4488 il w'* paire nule jointure 6008 Quant il Vest cheii ambesas 6396 Com il a fait Vempereur Tristan (I) 81 QuV/ rfosout I sol entrer (II) 38 Grant fu li poples gu'i il vint Yvain 753 Qu't7 ! ) n'j fa'dloit ne fers ne dos Er. et En. 454 Gardez qu'*7 ?e J* /ai/fe news 2591 Qu'/7 2 ) ne me faloit nule chose. Flore et Blancheflor 75 Car quant il i passe pucele 226 Que il n'en i pot plus entrer R. de Cambrai 734 Qet il muert conte de ci qu'en Verm end ois 3292 En sera il mainte targe troee 8009 Taut le vis bel qu'tf me'n prist grant piles 5. With expressions of necessity. The very common modern French il faut, in the sense of it is necessary, is scarcely found before the 13th century. The verb failloir was first used as a personal verb meaning to fail or to be wanting. Then we find it as an impersonal in the same sense and with the logical subject following, as above Yvain 653. texts Only one case of the modern usage occurs in the examined : Ren. de Mont. 40410 Et ge, ce dist'li dus, quant ge voi qu'*7 me faut. As no critical edition of this text exists, too much confidence should not be placed in this reading. a ) Not in VP. 2 ) Not in EBPA. 56 - This phrase was represented in the Old French by such expressions as the following, all of which have disappeared from the language: Rom. de Troie 953 De quanqu'i7 lor est oit mestier 8885 QuVZ li aura mestier encui 10462 Si com il iert sovent besoing 22569 Bien seit qu'?7 en aura besoing 24476 II le covient par estoveir 26233 Qn'7 besoigne que si gardez En. 1320 que qu'?7 m'en estuice endurer Yvain 1583 De tot quanque il li corinf. 6. With est tens, lens, costume, or similar noun and frequently accompanied by de or equivalent. Rom. de Troie 10444 Ne il n'est pas resons ne dreiz 15851 Que il n'est se merveille non 19752 Se est il Men chose seue 22053 Si tost com il iert tens et ore 25099 Qu'?7 me fust grant profit de faire 28072 Et nos verrons qu'// sera leus, En. 5081 qu'<7 ] ) n'ert mais leus de demorer Flore et Blanch. 211 Quar il n'est oit reson ne bien To the above list should be added the expressions il est droiz, il est roirs. Reasons have already been given for considering droiz and voirs as nouns. 7. With phrases of remembering and similar mental activities. Rom. de Troie 13121 Totes les ores qu'7 m'en menbre, ') Not in HID. 57 Er. et En. 1117 Oil, mout m'an sovient il bien. 2483 Quant il ) Fan prist a sovenir, Akin to this group are the phrases il semble, il m'est av-is, wliicli occur with great frequency. 8. With phrases of happening, or descriptive of the course or outcome of affairs. Several of the examples given in this group might also be placed in other groups: Rom. de Troie 2199 Qne s'?7 aveneit aventure 2202 S'*7 lor tornot a grant destrece 12737 Se il vos lorne a grant besoing, 15968 Qu'7 li devoit mesavenir, 21902 Puisque il torne a traison. 25044 S'il nos torne a necessite 28432 Et s'il ne lor fust destorne En. 985 des i 1'altrier que il 2 ) avint II. et Gal. 809 Car il tournerolt a folie 2263 II chiet 3 ) bien tel a un assaut 2852 Se il li mesclwoit de rien Here belong also such constructions with vcnir and aller as the following: En. 933 II fust ale tot altrement II. et Gal. 2500 Se.i7 went as dos torner Yvain 201 Quant il me vint a Festrie prandre, 915 Le rat quant il 4 ) vient au forfet, Tristan (II) 16 Se il vent a dire verite Not in P. 2 ) Not in D. 3 > MS. Iciet, 4 ) Not in VP. 58 9. Miscellaneous. A considerable number of instances cannot be brought into any of the above groups. Many of them are of rare occurrence, and probably represent syn- tactical experiments on the part of the writers employing them. At a time when the use of the impersonal neuter was more or less a novelty, and usage had not been crystallized by custom, this would be but natural. In the struggle for existence and the consequent sur- vival of the fittest which ensued while this crystallization was taking place, they disappeared for the most part from the language. In this group belongs the phrase il pent estre. which by the middle of te 12th century had supplanted the pnet eel estre of the earlier literature. Also // with etre absolute, as in il en est ensl. Others are : Rom. de Troie 1929 Que il en fait assez petit Que ne 1'esteint ou nel ocist. 5013 Altresi riches i ot dus, Com il esteit, quatorze et plus, Justisera mes nequedent: 8157 En la quarte sont il tel gent This is a curious case of neuter il as subject of a plural verb the more curious, since gent itself is singular in form, so that the verb derives its form from the plural idea contained in gent. Cf. modern French re sont. Rom. de Troie 13163 Mon regne, et quant qu'/J * apent 18033 Que a go me covient entendre Coment que il me dole prendre 18706 Helas! gie quit qvCil ierj assez Desi qu'a brief terme cil face-. 59 19992 La vont tuit voit li buen de- strier Qu'>7 n'est que nul en bait ne prenge 21225 Molt Ten poise, si deit il faire 22569 Bien seit qu'iJen aura besoing, Ne quit qu'?7 en seit gaires loing, 26600 Que il vox dele remdneir (cf. 26613). En. 106B molt me torne a grant contraire que morz ne sui, si puet il faire 3487 Se bataille vuelt Eneas, en mei ne remaindra il pas ; 9880 car il 1 ) ne li est de mei rien 10056 il nuist so vent a porloignier Eracle 57 Mais tant dirai, coment qu'tf auf, 1421 Or ne remain t II en vous mie 3527 Ne de cesti ne m'est il rien. 5117 II riafiert pas a me matere II. et Gal. 2046 II me pert mout bien qui je sui; 2471 Pour que // en vous ne remaigne Yvain 3614 // ne sont el monde que dui (cf, Rom. de Tr. 8157). Tristan 73 Quant II fu pres qu'il dut estre ars 80 Com il s'avient en'i prent maint Rom. de 7 Sages 984 II se fu un riches horn (cf. 2472, 3070, 4218, 4684). R. de Cambrai 2847 Comment qu'/7 pregne, vasal- ment m'as requis 5793 Car je ne sai il ! ). *) Just as we find iKille and elle