Heore rachscipe scal heom seoluen to A 24943, B: 3am seolue. Plur. accus. reoupe iwurden. Laz. R. R. de H. 148,7, M. II. " Swa þatt te33 cunnenn rapenn rihht hemm sellfenn annd ec odre. Orm. 5514. Heo 3eokeden heora earmes and 3arweden heom seoluen þe wurse gon iscenden. Laz. A 25508. B: 3am seolue. Hou hi ssolle ham zelue ssriue. Azenb. of Inv. 61,5, M. II. þet hi hamzelue ne knawep ne ne zyep. ibd. 72,12. Casten that the commune sholde hemself fynde. Piers Pl. 233. They dreint hemselven. Chaucer, C. T. 11690. The seven maidens han slaine hemself. ibd. 11722. But in northern authors: þai halde þam selfe vile and erþely. R. R. de H. 127,5, M. II. All cristene men and wymene þat mekes pameselfe. ibd. 150,12. And swa þay dampne þamselfe. ibd. 150,25. We should expect to see,,self" remain invariable in the plural number, because "self" preserves in its connection with pronouns of the third person the character of an adjective and the English adjective does not vary in the plural number. But in consequence of the precedent of ourselves, yourselves" the form themself" receives the plural termination „themselves". This innovation took also place during that long sterile period between Chaucer and Spenser (1400-1560). Chaucer only uses „hemself". I found the first passage in Dunbar: Sum thocht thame sellfis stark. I, 116,21. " But even at Dunbar's time, the plural termination had not yet become the established rule, for we read also: Sum hes thair advocattis in chamir and takis thame sellfe thairof no glamir. ibd. 101,20. cf. also pg. 39. In its inclination to consider "self" as a substantive and to add it to possessive pronouns, the formation of the English language showed with regard to the third person a great inconsistency. A reason for it can hardly be given; with regard to euphony nothing can be said against such forms as hisself, itsself, theirselves", nor do I see any other reason which might be alleged. All we can do, is to recognize the fact that the historical development of the English language in this particular instance became arrested. There are, however, some examples which prove that the inclination to regard self" as a substantive, was also strongly exhibited with regard to the third person. I found the following examples of ,,hisself" instead of ,,himself": " His ship was doun born, hisself gan per deye. R. Manning's transl. of Peter Langtoft's Chron. ed. Hearne I, 158. þe un-rightwis saide with tunge hisse þat in his self noght gilt in isse. A. S. and Early Engl. Psalter XXXV, 2. Mätzner (gram. II, 11) says:,,Instead of ,,himself" we often find,,hisself" as a substantive". He gives, however, only two examples: Hisself shall not excuse hym. Townley-Mysteries pg. 191. According to Koch I, 471,,hisself" became firmly established in some dialects, for instance in the Hampshire and Northumbrian. I have found myself a few examples in modern prose writers: One of our boysgorging his-self with vittles and then turning ill; that's their way" says the Yorkshire school-master in Dickens' Nicholas Nickleby chapt. 34. To see how sly and cunning he grubbed on, day after day, a-worming and plodding and tracing and turning and twining of hisself about. ibd. chapt. 57. He makes hisself a sort of servant to her (says a fisherman from Yarmouth). Dicken's Dav. Copperf. Tauchn. II, 86, Sure, we have his picture in our gallery and hisself painted it. Thackeray, The Virginians I, 15 (Tauchn. ed.) Likewise we find according to Mätzner I, 319, ,,theirsels" instead of,,themselves" in some northern dialects. For the earlier time he quotes a passage out of Froyssart's Chronicle: „They had gret desyre to prove theirselves". I have found another example in W. Dunbar: ,,And quhen thair baggis ar full, thair sellfis ar bair. I, 194,27. Still it must be observed that ,,thair sellfis" is used here not in the reflective, but in the reenforcing sense. In some dialects we find also instances of a preservation of the archaic forms,,meself, theeself". We hear, for instance, a Yorkshireman in Dickens' Nich. Nickl. ch. 42, say: ,,I say" said John, rather astounded for the moment,,,mak' theeself quite at whoam (home), will' ee!" My own experience enables me to add that it is quite common in some parts of England to hear the lower classes say,,meeself and theeself". We have yet to speak of the indefinite reflective pronoun ,,one's self". This pronoun either refers to an indefinite,,one" which is expressed, or it is placed beside an infinitive the subject of which is understood. In one's self", the character of ,,self" is that of a substantive as in the first and second persons: ,,Out of love to one's self, one must speak better of a friend than an enemy", Fielding. ,,To dress one's self, to kill one's self" etc. This reflective presupposes the use of,,one" as an indefinite pronoun which was, however, entirely unknown before and at the time of Chaucer, and consequently the form ,,one's self" could not exist either. Only Mätzner II, 14, quotes the following passage from the TownleyMysteries (about the end of the 14. century) pg. 144:,,Oone spake in myn eers wonderfulle talkyng". I failed to find another example, nor do other grammarians quote any. The first example of one's self" I found in Dunbar 1, 179, where a poem is entitled: „Rewl of anis self" (one's self). How the modern expression,,one's self" was formerly rendered, I am unable to discover; most probably by ,,him, himself". PERIOD III. EXPRESSION OF THE REFLECTIVE RELATION We have now arrived at the time in which the present forms of the reflective pronouns became finally settled. From the time of Spenser and Shakespeare till now, they underwent little or no change. To express a reflective relation in modern English, the same means are employed with which we have become acquainted in the foregoing period: the simple personal pronouns and ,,myself, thyself" etc. With regard to these two means, we have to make the remark that the forms with,,self, selves" can be used nearly in all cases in which a reflective relation is to be expressed. The simple personal pronouns are used in prose only after prepositions and perhaps in a few archaisms, but in poetry their use is more frequent. The neuter form,,it" seems to have been entirely superseded in modern English by,,itself". In general, the use of the forms with ,,self, selves" becomes gradually predominant, and perhaps the English language will in future entirely give up the reflective use of the simple personal pronouns, although it cannot be denied that some of the modern poets, especially those of the romantic period, manifest a great predilection for this construction. I think we can save us the trouble of quoting examples of the forms with,,self, selves". As for examples in which the personal pronouns without ,,self" are used in a reflective sense, I refer to the second part of this dissertation in which we have to examine the syntax of the reflective pronouns and where a copious collection of such examples will be given. Instead thereof I think it proper to cite here some examples in which ,,self" is used as a substantive. Although this use of,,self" is not intimately connected with our subject, still it may serve as an illustration of the change of the Anglo-Sax.,me selfne" etc. into ,,myself" etc.: For there is a popular belief that Dutchmen love broad cases and much clothing for their own lower selves. Dickens, the cricket on the Hearth, Tauchn. ed. p. 10, And his whole sarcastic ill-conditioned self ibd. p. 31. The wonderful expression in her whole self. ibd. p. 88. Dearer than self. Byron, Ch. Har. II, 24. A truth which through our being then doth melt and purifies from self. ibd. III, 90. To thine own self be true. Shak. Haml. I, 3. But for my single self. Shak. J. Caes. I, 2. 'Tis Edith's self. W. Scott, Lord of the Isles V, 4. So came that shock not frenzy's From observation of self and self could bear. T. Moore, Veil. neighbour. Thakeray, Virgin. Then you were yourself again, after yourself's decease. Shak. Son. 13. This last passage shows an instance of ,,self" undergoing the A. S. genitive inflection. The reenforcing pronouns during the period of transition and in modern English. We have yet to consider the development of ,,self" added to a noun by way of reenforcement. We find the first traces of this practice already in Anglo-Saxon, and we have seen above that in this case,,self was very often preceded by a pleonastic dative. (cf. pg. 22). Gradually the original signification of this strange construction disappears, and, this practice once having become habitual, the blending of the dative with ,,self" commences. Out of the above quoted passages (pg. 23), taken from the Saxon Chronicle, it will easily be seen that the original signification of this pleonastic dative was already lost and that it had become closely compounded with,,seolf". I maintain that out of the following forms: Plur. Heó { bu { be hire self I be self hire selfa him self Ve...ûs selfe Ge... eóv selfe Hi...heom selfe the reenforcing pronouns of the modern English,,myself" etc. have been developed, which in the course of time were employed also to reenforce a substantive which is the object of a sentence, except a pronominal object. I deny that these forms are identical with the corresponding reflective pronouns with regard to their origin, though in outward appearance they are exactly alike. Nor do I believe that the reenforcing pronouns are only a peculiar application of the reflective pronouns, though the modern language may be inclined to consider them in that way. However, I do not mean to say, that they have been developed separately or independent from the reflective forms. The influence of the latter is plainly visible, especially in the transition from the adjective to the substantive use of,,self". Mätzner, gram. II, 11 and 22 and Koch II, 238 are the first grammarians who hint at this origin and peculiar character of the reenforcing pronouns, but they leave the question obscure and undecided. I will try to prove my assertion. If my hypothesis be correct, we must needs find in the earliest Semi-Saxon monuments a difference between the reenforcing and the reflective pronouns with regard to inflection. And this is really the case, for we find that in the former, ,,self" is uninflected and in the latter we find the inflection,,en, ne" (cf. pg. 14). This difference is most apparent in the singular number; here the reenforcing word has in those earliest monuments no inflection at all, except that of ,,e", which is to be explained out of the A. S. definite form ,,selfa". Afterwards the inflection of the reflective pronouns „en" was given up and then the reflective and the reenforcing pronouns become identical in form. In the 14. century we find again in both cases the termination ,,en", which I have denounced to be of unorganic nature, cf. pg. 35 and 39. With regard to the plural number, it cannot be denied that the reenforcing pronouns often have the inflection ,,seolfen", especially in Lazamon and the Ormulum. It might be inferred from this that the definite Anglo-Saxon nominative plural inflection,,an" has been preserved; but instances of the definite inflection of,,seolf" in Anglo-Saxon can be found for the reenforcing pronouns only in singular: forms like ve.... ûs seolfan" occur nowhere. We must therefore conclude that the inflection,,en" in plural was introduced in consequence of the inflection of the reflective pronouns; ,,usself" was already considered as a compound word and the termination,,en" of the reflective pronoun was thought to be the proper means to mark the plural of the reenforcing pronouns also. As for the first of the two elements of which the reenforcing words are composed, the original datives of the personal pronouns, we find that they are subject to the same changes which we have discussed with regard to the reflective pronouns; they appear at the same time and in the same manner. For the singular of the first and second persons the Orm. offers constantly,,me, be sellf", whilst Laz. A has already the younger forms ,,mi, bi seolf"; but it must be observed that Laz. A often omits the dative ,,mi, þi" altogether and puts a mere,,seolf" to the subject. The fact that Laz. A has in this instance the younger forms, is the more strange, because we had frequent opportunities to notice the usage of the more ancient pronouns in Laz. A, where we find for the reflective pronouns only once: þi seoluen (17899). In Laz. B and in the later monuments we find only,,mi, piself. In the poem,,Thom. a Beket" I found once more,,pe self" (2066). The inclination to consider „self" as a substantive is also apparent in its reenforcing use, for instance: Myself hath been the whippe. Chaucer, C. Tales 5757. And even in Shakespeare we read: Even so myself bewails good Gloster's case with sad, unhelpful tears. 2 K. Henry IV. III. 1. |