The Manuscripts of the " Year Books written in a hand which is approximately contemporary. It is of course impossible to say, from the handwriting alone, that a MS. was written in any particular year, hardly possible to say with certainty that it was written in any particular reign, even though the reign may have been long. It is, how ever, quite possible to fix the date of a MS. within about half a century, or within the period during which any long-lived scribe may have been employed. He would natu rally write in his own way, from the time of his first employment until his employment ceased, though the general character of writ ing might have undergone a change in the mean time. Broadly speaking, no expert would be likely to mistake the writing of the beginning of the reign of Henry II. for that of the beginning the reign of Henry III., that of the reign of John for that of the reign of Edward I., or that of the early part of the reign of Edward III. for that of the reign of Henry IV. The characteristics of the writing (including not only the forms of the letters, but also the ink used) could not be explained in words without facsimiles, but they exist nevertheless, and tell their own tale without any possibility of doubt. The French used before the oral pleadings ceased to be in French seems to be, for the most part, that of persons familiar with the language. The apparent anomalies are only those of the Langue d' Oil before it finally settled down into the accepted modern forms. The manner of writing indiscrimi nately avoir and aver (to have) recovcrir and recoverer (to recover), maner and manoir (a manor), // or ils (they), and innumerable other inconsistencies do not necessarily in dicate, as has sometimes been supposed, a jargon of English growth, or of the school of Stratford — atte — Bowe, but are in accord ance with the use of the Langue d' Oil as written and spoken on. the other side of the Channel. The earlier language of the Year Books is indeed of unique philological value, for it is a representation or an attempted
537
representation of the language of everyday life as actually spoken, to which the nearest approach in most of the dead languages is that of the Drama. A study of this old French, from which a portion of our modern English is derived, might indeed have saved some of us from corrupting our own speech into a jargon. We should not, perhaps, have converted tin nonmficrc or nonnpiere, into "an umpire; " we should not perhaps use the expression " that is tantamount to saying" for the simple tant amonnfe of the Year Books; and we might have escaped from that greatest of spoken abominations " a valuable asset." It is probably needless to remind any one who is likely to read these pages that " asset " is a monstrous singular taken out of a non-existent plural " assets." The word " assets " is nothing but the "assets" of the Year Books (the modern French assez) which was used chiefly in relation to the old doctrine of warranty — the question com monly arising whether some person had as sets (the Latin ad satis), or land to a suf ficient value for the purpose of satisfying the warranty. The records or rolls, on which the reported cases (with innumerable others) may usually be found, are very different in character from the MSS. of Year Books. By the Act of the 36th year of Edward III., which substi tuted English for French in the oral plead ings in Court, it was provided that entries and enrolments should be in Latin. This, however, introduced no new feature. Domes day Book and the earliest rolls of the Ex chequer are in Latin, the earliest Fines (of the reign of Henry II.) are in Latin, and the earliest judicial proceedings (of the reign of Richard I.) are also enrolled in Latin. Before, as well as after the Act, the rec ords of the Courts of King's Bench, Common. Pleas and Exchequer, of the Justices in Eyre, and of the Justices of Assise were en rolled in Latin. After, as well as before the Act, there might be recitals on the rolls in French. In the Chancery the French Bill
