is the name of a late 12th-century treatise on English treasury procedures by Richard FitzNigel. The first book begins as follows:
In the twenty-third year of the reign of King Henry II, while I was sitting at the window of a tower next to the River Thames, a man spoke to me impetuously, saying: "Master, hast thou not read that there is no use in science or in a treasure that is hidden?"
When I replied to him, "I have read so."
Straightway he said: "Why, therefore, dost thou not teach others the knowledge concerning the exchequer which is said to be thine to such an extent, and commit it to writing lest it die with thee?"
I answered: "Lo, brother, thou hast now for a long time sat at the exchequer, and nothing is hidden from thee, for thou art painstaking. And the same is probably the case with the others who have seats there."
But he, "Just as those who walk in darkness and grope with their hands frequently stumble, so many sit there who seeing do not perceive, and hearing do not understand."
Then I, "Thou speakest irreverently, for neither is the knowledge so great nor does it concern such great things; but perchance those who are occupied with important matters have hearts like the claws of an eagle, which do not retain small things, but which great ones do not escape."
And he, "So be it: but although eagles fly very high, nevertheless they rest and refresh themselves in humble places; and therefore we beg thee to explain humble things which will be of profit to the eagles themselves."
Then I, "I have feared to put together a work concerning these things because they lie open to the bodily senses and grow common by daily [use]; nor is there, nor can there be in them a description of subtile things, or a pleasing invention of the imagination."
And he, "Those who rejoice in imaginings, who seek the flight of subtile things, have Aristotle and the books of Plato; to them let them listen. Do thou write not subtile but useful things."
Then I, "Of those things which thou demandest it is impossible to speak except in common discourse and in ordinary words."
"But," said he, as if aroused to ire, -- for to a mind filled with desire nothing goes quickly enough, -- "writers on arts, lest they might seem to know too little about many things, and in order that art might less easily become known, have sought to appropriate many things, and have concealed them under unknown words: but thou dost not undertake to write about an art, but about certain customs and laws of the exchequer; and since these ought to be common, common words must necessarily be employed, so that style may have relation to the things of which we are speaking. Moreover, although it is very often allowable to invent new words, I beg, nevertheless, if it please thee that thou may'st not be ashamed to use the customary names of the things themselves which readily occur to the mind, so that no new difficulty from using unfamiliar words may arise to disturb us."
Then I, "I see that thou art angry; but be calmer; I will do what thou dost urge. Rise, therefore, and sit opposite to me; and ask me concerning those things that occur to thee. But if thou shalt propound something unheard of, I shall not blush to say 'I do not know.' But let us both, like discreet beings come to an agreement."
And he, "Thou respondest to my wish. Moreover, although an elementary old man is a disgraceful and ridiculous thing, I will nevertheless begin with the very elements."
(Paragraph breaks and a few slight alterations, including some capitalization, added.)
If you assume the equivalent of 100 loaves of bread is what cost a shilling (=1/20 of a pound for those who are too young to remember), and today 100 loaves would probably cost about 50 pounds (but who knows--that's the supermarket price!), then in 826 years the price has gone up by a factor of 1000. That's an inflation rate of only 0.84% per year. Not bad!
John,
The really interesting thing is when you compare inflation for goods and services. The former may have increased much more slowly than the latter. This is the basis for what's known as "Baumol's disease" or "cost disease."
The Crown could transfer it's debt to private parties- if it owed a debt, it would transfer one owed to it to the original party the Crown was indebted to, removing the Crown.
The term "check" is still used to describe particular defects in wood, those being small cracks in end grain.
The English treasury building, some hundreds of years ago, burned very swiftly to the ground when a fire broke out, the building being full of dry tally sticks- in effect, kindling wood.
and this:
purchasing power of the English Pound 1264 to 2005
Yet your point is accurate, even if I think your rate is inflated.
I besesc 3u Þn- be an dere manne a enstruck us howe tu æctyn, us pore enichted na'wasced.
No apology needed at all, John. Your comment and the others were of some interest. I was just taking a poke at the difference between Sasha's interests and those of the rest of us--and having a laugh at us.
I besesc 3u Þn- be an dere manne a enstruck us howe tu æctyn, us pore enichted na'wasced.
You, Glenn, are apparently an exception.
"then"
Þ = the letter "thorn", making the "th" sound as in "the"
3 = the letter "yogh", used as a "y", sometimes a "g".
I have seen "Þ" used in front of a consonant, dropping the vowel. out of context, it could also be interpreted as "than".
FWIW, despite a few "thees and thous" in the piece Sasha posted, it's modern english and nothing approaching what the original would have been. not a criticism.
I have no real command of old/middle/...or modern english :)
I dabble.
I thought I could read Middle English because I understood Chaucer in the original, but I can't make head or tails of this. I would guess it asks me to explain what I thought Sasha expected or wanted. I'm not sure; I just know that the comments above aren't it. I was hoping someone would enlighten me.
My guess is that this book represents a quite important development. It seems to me the piece is a justification of writing to convey useful information in common language understandable to the masses rather than writing as an art form devoted to more esoteric subjects--like, for example, art itself--and in language not readily understandable by the vast majority. That the author should feel it necessary to justify this in his prefatory remarks indicates writing to convey information and writing in simple language were not customary at the time. The book probably represented a large step forward in the history of writing in England.
The book also has political implications. That a book conveying information in simple language understandable to the average person was written about a governmental (royal) institution surely indicates a democratic impulse of sorts existed in the 12th century.
I could be entirely wrong about all this. It's speculation.
Best guess: "I beseech you, be a dear man and instruct us how to act, us poor benighted (?) and unwashed."
visitor, you can read it, the Chaucer, I mean- what I wrote is cobbled and... "creative", if you get my drift. it's not "real" middle english.
correct, but as above, I concocted it, it has no scholarly basis whatsoever.
I made it up.
do a search on the Paston Letters, all of them are online at the U of Virginia, I believe. 100 years worth of private correspondence, and very readable with just enough effort to be fun.
That's unfair, Glenn--a cheap shot--given that it responds to my "We are a pedestrian lot." The "we" includes the speaker or writer--here, me--in standard modern English, and that's the way I intended it. As I wrote above, I was hoping someone would enlighten me as to Sasha's purpose in posting this; I only knew that the comments that had been posted didn't reflect that purpose. Do you think he posted it so that people could talk about the price of goods and the means of tallying debts? Those are matters of some interest, but I doubt they reflect the purpose behind the post.
I gave my best guess as to the reason for the post, which I wouldn't have done but for your request, if it can be called that, because I have little knowledge in this area. Too bad no one else offered any thoughts on it.
visitor, you can read it, the Chaucer, I mean- what I wrote is cobbled and... "creative", if you get my drift. it's not "real" middle english.
Thank you for the reassurance, but it's entirely unnecessary given that it responds, in a nonresponsive way, to my "I thought I could read Middle English because I understood Chaucer in the original, but I can't make head or tails of this [your simulation of Middle English]." I was never in any doubt that I could read Chaucer because I did so several decades ago in college; it was only your simulation of Middle English I didn't understand. You didn't get my drift, even though it was plainly put.
Nope, just a little fun. Relax.
I'm aware you can read Chaucer. You told us so- well actually, you stated you thought you could, I'll take that as intended, that you can read Chaucer. My reference to it was that what I had written was gobbledy-gook. Your drift was obvious. My response was self-depreciation on my part, not depreciation of you, or an indication I didn't understand your intent.
And that is the extent I will invest myself in this. You've taken it too seriously.
Standard measurements varied in area and volume according to what they would yield. An acre of rich farm land was smaller than an acre of ground that didn't produce as much. Similarly, a gallon of whiskey was smaller than a gallon of cider, the whiskey being the more potent.
and, Visitor writes-
I would agree; a hundred years from when the book was written, english would begin to swing back to being the national language, including the courts and administrations, which conducted their duties in french and latin from the time of the conquest. English is an oddity in that it was brought to Britain by invaders/migraters and became the established language rather than the Anglo-Saxons assimilating Celtic, as is many times the case- the invaders usually adopt the language of the invaded.
When the French invaded, their language was that of the courts, and they assimilated english within 250 years; english "re-surfaced", in part for reasons of nationalism.
Robert of Gloucester, c.1200:
"And Þe Normans ne couÞe speke Þo bote hor owe speche,
And speke French as hii dude atom*, and hor children dude also teche..."
-And the Normans could speak nothing but their own language,
And spoke French as they did in their own country, and also taught it to their children...
*I love this- "atom" = "at home".
and-
"Vor bote a man conne Frenss me telÞ of him lute,
Ac lowe men holdeÞ to Engliss, and to hor owe speche 3ute..."
Unless a man knows French he is thought little of,
And low-born men keep to English, and to their own speech still...
Perhaps Visitor's comment implies (or states), also, that leveling the language also levels the law- an important circumstance.
It was aimed at people working at the Exchequer and other people studying administration who might be interested in working at the Exchequer. FitzNigel probably wrote it in dialogue form because he thought that would be fun, and I posted this introduction because I thought it was amusing.
I don't see this as reflecting any democratic impulse or as being particularly important in the history of writing -- it's just an administrative manual that was important in the development of English administration. Henry II was interested in reforming the law and in making administration more efficient -- who doesn't want to increase his tax revenue? -- so this book was useful as something for administrators and potential administrators to read.
Glenn -- I recognized your sentence as gibberish Middle English; the only reason I asked about "Þn-" is that I haven't seen this usage you mentioned of putting a thorn in front of a consonant and omitting the vowel; I was unsure of the function of the hyphen (I thought perhaps it might have been a typo); and I wasn't sure that "Þn" would be appropriate there, where I would have expected to see something like "I besesc 3u Þat 3e be" or something.
That reflects nothing more than the improvement of agricultural and manufacturing productivity over time, while many services inherently involve a fixed or nearly fixed amount of labor. As fewer people produce more goods, the price of labor relative to goods will increase, and that will increase the cost of getting a waitress to serve your meal, a barber to cut your hair, or a plumber to unclog your drains.
So why would anyone refer to that as a "disease"?
that leaves me "fake but accurate".
That leaves me wrong--again.
Meyer Boswell Books, Inc
——————————
[Richard FitzNeal]. The, Ancient Dialogue Concerning the Exchequer, Published from two Manuscript Volumes, Called the Black Book and Red Book. Remaining of Record in His Majesty's Exchequer . . . Also A circumstantial Detail of the Sheriff's Accompts [etc.]. Quarto . Printed for J. Worrall . . . near Lincoln's-Inn, London, 1758.
Contemporary sprinkled calf, rebacked, some wear and spotting, but generally quite a good copy, with wide margins.
The only early edition in English on the first work on the English Exchequer, a work which Maitland believed "stands alone in our mediaeval literature . . . an excellent and valuable little treatise on the . . . whole fiscal system".
$US850