History HubΒ permalink
French- 'lingua franca'
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Wednesday, 9th March 2011
To what extent was French literally a 'lingua franca' amongst the knightly class of Europe (and perhaps non-knightly professional soldiers, as well) in the later middle ages (>1300<, say)- and, if so, how widely in Christendom would it have served this purpose?
I'm assuming that Latin was the international language in a written context but less so in a military one. Would that be fair? -
Message 2
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Wednesday, 9th March 2011
I might well be entirely off beam here but I always understood that this referred to French being the language of Diplomacy in the 18th and 19th centuries.
-
Message 3
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Wednesday, 9th March 2011
Well, as to French being the 'lingua franca' of the C18th-C19th, I should think you might well be absolutely 'on beam' but as to French being the language of the international elite in the earlier period, any thoughts?
-
Message 4
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Wednesday, 9th March 2011
I believe, with very little in the way of supporting evidence, that French was the 'language of chivalry', it wasn't the 'Morte D'arthur' and not the 'Death of Arthur' for nothing, but I'll wait for the medievalists to give the informed response.
-
Message 5
Posted by Stoggler (U14387762) on Wednesday, 9th March 2011
Well French was obviously important in England in the Middle Ages, but then that was because of it being ruled by Anglo-Normans.
Initially it was the Norman variety that was spoken in England, but gradually Parisian French became important here too. Many a nobleman sent his sons to France to learn to speak the language "properly" (as often the children would grow up speaking English from their wet nurses and other servants) rather than French.
French was also important in the court of Scotland due to the Anglo-Norman influence there (the Bruces, Balliols, Comyns and a number of others were originally of Norman origin).
Outside northern France and England and Scotland, I don't actually know if French (Langue d'Oil) was important in Europe. It was my understanding that Latin was the language of international diplomacy - you needed to know Latin if you were an educated person.
Langue d'Oc was a thriving language with its own literature, so even in France the Parisian Langue d'Oc variety wasn't the be all and end all. -
Message 6
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Wednesday, 9th March 2011
So, to narrow it down little, how would the Scots in 1330, or the English in the 1360s, have communicated with the Spanish with whom they came in contact. There appears to have been regular French influence from across the Pyrennees from the C11th so would French (d'Oil/d'Oc?) have been a natural medium or would they have compared notes in Latin? Wasn't Latin mainly the language of the literate?
-
Message 7
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Wednesday, 9th March 2011
Langue d'Oc might have been more important - it and its relatives were spoken widely across southern France and northern *Italy & Spain.
I thought the "lingua franca" description came mostly from Oultrmer and other parts of the Levant. -
Message 8
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Wednesday, 9th March 2011
But presumably Scots or English would have been more conversant in Langue d'Oil? Would it have been like Spaniards and Italians trying to converse today?
Langue d'Oc was a principal root of Catalan, Valenciano and Mallorquin, was it not? -
Message 9
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Wednesday, 9th March 2011
Principal root indeed. However, remember Chaucer's prioress speaking "Frensshe after the scole of Stratford-atte-Bowe for Frensshe of Paris was to her unknowe" so I'm not so sure about what form was in use in these islands.
-
Message 10
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Thursday, 10th March 2011
A very enjoyable point. If the phrase "Pardon my Frensshe," didn't originate 'atte Bowe'- it should have.
-
Message 11
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Thursday, 10th March 2011
Or it's Bouquet, not Bucket.
Chaucer was gently taking the you-know-what out of his Prioress. She was very much a social climber with her "posh" French and her affected table manners - very much a medieval Hyacinth in fact (albeit it a pretty and dainty one).
The Prioress's showing off her "French" was the equivalent today of a silly woman trying to talk with a rally, rally posh accent - not that anyone does* that* anymore - do they?
-
Message 12
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 10th March 2011
I am not sure that the concept of the "lingua franca" was really appropriate to the Middle Ages. For, as I understand it, the "lingua franca" was not really intended to be a mundane work-a-day form of communication: and does, as has been said, belong to the emerging Europe of many different Nation States, as great Empires- notably the Hapsburg one- were breaking up, and England was finally losing its last foothold in France (Calais) and increasingly using English (prayer book- Bible etc)
In this situation when the Europe of Christendom, with Christian brotherhoods over-arching the continent in terms of spiritual and often temporal authority, was giving way to the Europe of the State, there had to be some legal basis for formal communication between countries:and as I understand it this was the purpose of the "lingua franca"..
Any formal authority wishing to communicate with another formal authority had the right to put what they had to say into French and deliver it. It was then the recipients duty to be able to read the French- and could not claim not to get the message. "Nil comprende" was no excuse, just as ignorance of the law is no excuse.
It was much the same as putting a notice on the Church door as Martin Luther famously did, and as much later the process of Parliamentary Enclosure made a part of the compulsory notification of a projected enclosure. "No-one told me" also was no excuse. People were expected to really "mind their own business", which has now deteriorated into a belief that people can bury their head in the sands like ostriches.
As for the Middle Ages, and even the Dark Ages, it is pretty obvious that there were people who moved around, and there seems to be no reason why, in terms of working language, Europe should not have functioned like the Indian sub-continent or Africa in their "European Ages". In these places it was quite common for people who lived in centres of commerce, or who travelled around to be able to function in many languages.
During the British Raj British officers in the Indian Armies were paid extra salary increments for every additional sub-continental language they spoke: though I am not sure whether that applied to the more than 300 oral languages or the c18 Indian languages with their own distinct literature.
Many years ago I found that the rest of the class were tittering as a girl with a Pakistani background was struggling to express herself in English, which they obviously thought was "dumb".. So, knowing a bit about her, I changed our dialogue into French, with which she was more comfortable, but her classmates were the dumb ones. They got the point and began to treat her with new respect. I then asked her how many languages she spoke better than English, and she counted French, German, and (probably ) Urdu and Gujurati.
Now I get the impression from the TV sub-titles that people in the UK cannot even cope with strong regional versions of English that used to be part of a colourful soundscape.
Cass -
Message 13
Posted by Stoggler (U14387762) on Friday, 11th March 2011
Our term "lingua franca" comes from a contact language spoken around the Med from around the 11th century and survived as late as the 19th century.
Also known as Sabir, it was a pidgin spoken mostly by traders but also in diplomatic circles.
It was heavily based on Italian varieties and Langue d'Oc, but also Iberian influences, plus Turkish, Greek and Arabic. It was originally spoken mostly in the eastern Med but its use spread into the western Med too, especially along the Barbary Coast of North Africa.
As with all pidgins, it was subject to wide variations between speakers and over time, and as a pidgin it was essentially a basic form of language used for everyday transactions - it is not thought to have ever obtained a self-sustaining native language community (and thus becoming a creole).
The term "lingua franca" these days is used more for national languages that have taken on the role as an international language, such as English and Spanish on a global scale, but also regional lingua francas such as Swahili. -
Message 14
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 11th March 2011
Stoggler
Thank you for that clarification. Was swahili not something similar in East Africa?
But I do believe that the OP was correct in asserting that French was the "lingua franca" of diplomacy, and may still be so.
I think that it behoves English speakers to resist "World Domination" in this too, if we wish to avoid the almost inevitable backlash. It is some years since a research scientist in France told me that certainly in his specialization German was no longer as much the language of international science as it was in my childhood.
From various flight incidents I gather that English is the "lingua franca" of air trafffic control and aviation generally.
Cass -
Message 15
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Friday, 11th March 2011
Thanks for those thoughts. 'Lingua franca' merely a convenient phrase. My question, however, relates to a more specific practical matter.
Specifically, as I mentioned previously, I have been wondering how English and Scottish knights serving in Spain ca 1330-1370 might have communicated with their hosts and with knights of other nations.
Even as the national identities with which we are familiar were evolving in Europe, there seems to be a sense that there was an international knightly class, if that term has meaning, which may have been defined by the concept of Catholic Christendom forged in the centuries of conflict with the forces of Islam.
It seems clear enough that in the 13th &14th centuries, say, the knightly class in Scotland and England were conversant in some form of French that reflected their forbears' origins across the channel. In some cases, they or their families may have still held lands on the continent.
As far as we know, was French (langue d'oil) only a common language amongst knights with a common Francophone heritage or did it serve a wider community?
If it did not, is there, for instance, evidence that Latin served as a vernacular form of communication in armies containing elements from different nations. As I mentioned earlier, my assumption had been that amongst laymen Latin was mainly used as a written form of communication. -
Message 16
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 11th March 2011
arty
I am not sure just how much talking was necessary in Medieval Battles that were largely fought as an aggregate of one to one combats, especially where the mounted knight was concerned.. Even a non-automatic motor car can be driven quite well with just the steering wheel and three foot-pedals.
Surely we have all seen children from different languages playing together happily for hours on beaches. And there are all those studies on child language development that show the gender difference at play. Girls meeting girls start playing together and chatting away. But the chat has got nothing to do with being able to play. By the end of an hour or so the girls know "all" about each other. Boys just work by gesture, and play just as well, and part without even knowing the others name.
On another level at a football mad school in North London I had a new 16 year old boy arrive from Turkey knowing no English. I wondered how he was going to get on in the playground. I kept watch. One of "my" boys smiled at him and held up a football. The new boy smiled and nodded enthusiastically-and things never looked back.
Of course for the planning and managing of battles discussion was necessary. But there was an advantage in the system of monarchy, which reuired that a monarch should be married to royalty. This often meant foreign royalty, and princes and princesses growing up in multi-lingual families. Moreover right into modern times sons from the military establishment, as it were, went to get battle experience wherever there was a war- and foreign fields meant foreign languages. Battle fields were the "finishing schools" of the young men.
Cass -
Message 17
Posted by Stoggler (U14387762) on Friday, 11th March 2011
My understanding is that Latin was the international language of western Europe of the Medieval period, and continued to be through the Renaissance.
If you were high born and could afford your children to have an education, then Latin would have been an intergral and obligatory element of that education, pretty much regardless of where in western Europe you were. To be in the Church you needed Latin, to enter a university you needed Latin, to conduct international diplomacy (or even intranational diplomacy) you needed Latin. Official documents in many countries (England included) were written in Latin rather than any vernacular, letters between royal houses were written in Latin. Put simply, Latin was the language that at the least needed to be known by those at the upper end of the social scale in western Europe.
The increasingly important middle classes aspired to be like their "betters", and so would try and obtain educations similar to the rich, so again they too would often have had some Latin knowledge.
In reality however, those who had the ability to travel often picked up other languages, and very often people were born and brought up in multi-lingual situations; multilingualism was more common in the past than it is in today's western world.
As a rule, Latin was the default language when people from different linguistic backgrounds would come together, but it does depend on the circumstances of the individuals involved.
French was of importance in Medieval western Europe, but its use as the language of European international diplomacy does not really start until the 17th century, and carried on until the mid-20th century. Although many French speakers would argue otherwise, it is English that has surpassed it in terms of international diplomacy, even in the EU where the Nordic countries, most of the most recent new members, and even Germany more willing to do business in English than in any other language.
Not sure that really answers the OP - hope it goes someway to help though.
I am interesed in the developments over the next few decades though, to see if English is able to maintain its de facto international lingua franca status. Millions of Chinese people are learning English, and educated Indians are usually fluent English speakers, so their rise in economic importance may consolidate the position of English (with new varieties of English surpassing the American and British varieties in importance?). On the other hand, Chinese (Mandarin) may challenge English, and Spanish is not to be ignored either, now the second most spoken language in the world in terms of first-language speakers (and numbers of total speakers not to be sniffed at). -
Message 18
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Friday, 11th March 2011
"Not sure that really answers the OP "-
No, not really!
Cass- Research proves that there was much more importance given to mounted men-at arms-fighting in formation than was previously thought. Those units were most effective if they advanced in a measured way and kept their cohesion, particularly against Islamic opponents who for a while even tried to emulate this style of fighting. In the East 'The Franks' were admired for their caution and discipline!
Nonetheless, once an advance took place, command and control was difficult, which is one of the reasons why commanders avoided pitched battles if at all possible, simply because it was so difficult to influence the outcome. Obviously when battle commands were given it must have been with trumpet and flags rather than orally. Given the difficulty in being heard with a full face helmet helmet on many of those epic speeches we read must presumably have been literary invention.
Apart from that, as with soldiering down the ages, only a very small part of a military campaign was spent in fighting. Over the weeks and months, on the march, in camp, in simple socialising, networking, what have you, men in multi-national armies had to communicate, had to get on; even when they didn't get on and they fell out!
Yes, sign language, footballs, etc., would have played a part but we hear of conversations reported in the chronicles- Froissart/ Le Bel, between Scots and Spanish, English and French, Scots and Flemings, at various levels- King to knight, knight to knight,- as if in a common language. If those are accurate accounts- big 'if' - what was the likely language?
Yes, we know of the importance of written Latin in Christendom but I don't get the impression it was SPOKEN much outside church establishments. Am I wrong? -
Message 19
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 11th March 2011
Stoggler
I am not sure to what extent the "upper class" did know latin, though I believe that Henry II was considered to be well-educated and literate..
As I said in an earlier post the over-arching structure was the Church, and the importance of Latin within the Church provided the "clerical" skills-- which are now rarely associated with clerics at all, but with "clerks".
Cass -
Message 20
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Friday, 11th March 2011
arty
I see no reason to assume any "common language"- after all even "the vernaculars" were only emerging, and it took the French Academy decades in the Eighteenth Century to define and fix "proper French"-which may well have been both a cause and consequence of French becoming the diplomatic language.
As for you point about formation fighting, there is a difference between acting as a team, and acting as a carefully drilled machine. That kind of fighting seems to have been developed in its modern form by the early Dutch Republic, which subsequently became the training ground for people aspiring to make soldiering their career. I am not sure whether the Dutch Highland Regiment operated in Erse or Dutch. But people like General Monck who learned his trade over there no doubt also learned some Dutch at least.
But flocking birds show just how easily those accustomed to movement can move in formation. At another level there was the possibly mythological story about the first time that Gareth Edwards and Barry John were picked to play for Wales. Gareth Edwards said that perhaps they should go and train. They did. Barry John said "Well you throw it to me, and I will catch it". .. In fact in my own very modest footballing times the best relationship of hat nature occurred when a "guest" centre forward played a second half with us. He was just about the only person who ever understood my positioning, though we had never met, and knew absolutely nothing about each other. But he could see me playing as an left wing/inside left and passed me the ball, immediately running into the space to which I could return the pass. I thus laid on two or three goals for him.
As for "common language"- In my experience of multi-lingual situations the "common language" is defined as the one with the highest average level of competency across the assembled group, with someon acting as interpreter for the mono-linguistic. A chronicler, however, would still record what was "said" as modern newspapers do, even though another language was used..
But then journalists are fond of the current misus of the English language and the disappearance of "one" .Hence they do not say "So Mr... one could say that the situation is a farce". And if they receive an affirmative they print a headline "Mr ... says that the situation is a farce".. I think that putting words into other people's mouths has been around for a long time.
Cass
Cass -
Message 21
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Friday, 11th March 2011
arty, I wonder if this sheds any light?
It suggests that at least some armies may have been organised on the the basis of common linguistic groupings but with higher order communications, I assume strategic and administrative matters, conducted in the Old French and then presumably disseminated in native tongues.
As far as interactions between the soldiery, I tend to Stoggler's pidgin hypothesis, much as workers of different nationalities quickly learn to speak to each other about the tools of their trades and pick up other words which are necessary for co existence. -
Message 22
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Friday, 11th March 2011
Thank you, Ferval, for that very interesting link. Where did you dig that up from?
There is a reference in Barbour's 'Bruce'- hardly infallible - to all the 'stranger knights' in the Castilian army being grouped under Sir James Douglas (Despite flights of literary excess and mythologising, Barbour does come up with odd details that one thinks he wouldn't have put in unless someone had relayed them as fact). So maybe all the foreigners were lumped together in something like a 'langue', with most probably sharing a form of French as a common tongue and with liaison officers to integrate them into the whole. Apparently King Alfonso wasn't particularly keen on freelances, anyway. He had complained that they would only bring disorder and scandal into his kingdom.
Hardly surprising that LeBel's version of Douglas' death, adopted by Froissart, puts it down to a misunderstanding over the King of Castile's intentions and a mistaken belief that an advance had been signalled - compounded by impatience and pride....
I have just found an interesting series of essays in BL called Language and culture in medieval Britain: the French of England, c.1100-c.1500 (ed.Wogan-Browne et al ISBN 978 1903153277 )
Serge Lusignan in 'The French Language in contact with English mid-C13th -14th' makes the interesting point that every King from Henry II to Henry VI- bar Henry IV- had a French mother, that David II of Scotland was brought up in France and that Froissart interviewed English knights in French for his chronicle.
The14th century seems to have seen the widest influence of French on English culture, in administration, law and trade. Between 1300 and 1392 twenty treaties between Scotland and England were written in French. By the early C15th English was taking over although some Chancery documents were still being drafted in Latin under Henry VIII.
Apparently there was a dialect of French used in England called the 'King's French' which was used, for instance, for official business in Gascony !
However by sometime in the C15th, can't remember the date, the English were complaining that the French were using all sorts of subtle nuances to gain unfair advantage in treaty negotiations so they insisted all treaties must be drafted in Latin- or English.
Plus ca change. -
Message 23
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 12th March 2011
In a small introduction to Great Britain published in the Seventies Jean Bailhache makes great claims for French as the language of the English governing class, including Simon de Montfort. He claims that the Hundred Years War saw feelings harden against the French language, and though it was spoken the language was no longer the vital language of "Guillaume le Conqueront" but the language of culture of the Ile-de-France and even Provence.
But he points to Shakespeare's dramatic licence in the charming scene when Henry V courts Catherine of France, with Henry speaking English and Catherine replying in a mixture of french and bad English. Henry V was a cultivated man and would, he insists, have courted Catherine in French. The child of this marriage was supposed to unite the two royal families, and in fact, when Henry V died their 10 year old son was crowned Henry VI of England and Henri II of France.
Having commented upon the consequent success of Joan of Arc's inspired campaigning for a 100% French King he put a footnote quoting Aristide Briand, who said "Why did she spend so much energy kicking the English out? Within a few generations we would have assimilated them all: what a marvellous race we would have made."
As for M. Bailhache he said that, instead of being caught between two 'blocs' {the Seventies superpowers] we would undoubtedly have been the most powerful country on earth: and, as French was the common language of the elite French might have finally triumphed throughout this even greater "United Kingdom".
I might suggest, however, that M. Bailhache not only misunderstood English history, but had not really understood the "evenements of 68" and the widespread popular revolt against the French elite.
Cass
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.