What non-English speakers would have trouble learning English in 1700? For study and diplomacy, the answer is practically nobody. That had changed by the year 1800: English had become an important language. Now the language of the United States is predominant, and more people are learning English than the total number of native speakers. The roots of this expansion can be found in the 18th century and are inextricably linked to the literature and history of the time.

The seventeenth century had closed with a triumph of scientific reasoning. Isaac Newton published his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica in 1687. Science, which at the time was called Natural Philosophy, began to ascend over traditional philosophy and religion: it was concerned with publicly observable phenomena and not with the subjective or wishful aspects of single human being. mind. Newton wrote for an international audience of educated men. He wrote in Latin.

Latin was still the international academic language of Europe. It was also the language of the Roman Church and had the prestige of the ages; and it was a necessary part of the education of any well-to-do child. The academies wrote in Latin. Diplomats wrote and spoke French, and French was the language of the courts of Europe.

So the predominant languages ​​of the 18th century became associated in the European mind with two enduring institutions: the Church and the Monarchy. It was these two institutions that came under particular attack during the Enlightenment.

This was nothing new. The Protestants had broken with Rome due to its arrogance in claiming to be the direct successor to the spiritual Roman Empire in the 16th century. The English had overthrown their monarch in the 17th century. In the 1700s, the idea of ​​Rome persisted as a community – a catholic and universal church – even though its geography had little to do with Rome’s secular empire, which had included all of North Africa, along with the Middle East; while in the 18th century most points east and south of Vienna were held by the Ottoman Muslims. In fact, there was a European institution that called itself the Holy Roman Empire until 1806. Voltaire stated the obvious when he pointed out that he was neither holy nor Roman: he was German. But the idea of ​​Rome persisted.

There were two aspects of the Roman idea that appealed to two different factions. Rome as an Empire attracted the Catholic Church and the Absolute Monarchies. Rome as a Republic caught the attention of men who wanted to change the existing order of government and society. The imperial notion had proven to be extremely enduring. It was more than a mixture of myths. It had represented peace, order and security in an uncertain medieval world. It was something to hold on to.

For rationalists, the underlying consistency of the laws of nature should be reflected in the consistency of man’s natural laws. The idea of ​​the Rights of Man gained currency. However, the fundamental difference between the two is that natural laws have automatic consequences, while man’s laws require administration. If men constituted and administered a just government, then humanity would be on the path of progress. Men would return to a natural state of harmony with the removal of iniquity and inequality.

What models of government were available in history, and how did men hire themselves to be part of this government? There was the practical Roman republican model of law and administration and there was the late Roman ideal of the simple Christian community as a House of Peace – a Pax Romana.

Take the Roman republican virtues of thrift and hard work. Take noble Protestant farmers as an example. Mix them in a place with a classic name like Philadelphia (Greek, not Latin) and you have an ideal city.

The concept of a simpler and purer Rome was current in the eighteenth century. However, its realization was prevented by the mundane institutions of the Church and the Monarchy that had become moribund: they were no longer holy and Roman and therefore did not deserve respect or belief among rationalists. Also, for Protestants, they represented an arrogant and irresponsible intermediary between men and their God; an unnecessary and lustful obstacle that ruled by power and not by right. Men had been given brains: it was up to men to use them.

The Church and the Monarchy had also become entrenched elites. It was hard to take a look if you weren’t of good birth. They were not institutions of opportunity for those who believed that men could make their way in the world because of their lights and efforts; although churches and monarchies, like political parties, have never been obstacles to the true opportunist.

This was the meaning of the Declaration of Independence proclaimed by the 13 American colonies on July 4, 1776: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that their Creator endowed them with certain unalienable rights , that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”.

The United States Declaration of Independence was written in English. At its inception, the United States declared itself to be an English-speaking country. Although, in the following century, Mr. Noah Webster might have preferred the revolutionary title Dictionary of the American Language, he chose to call his great work American Dictionary of the English Language. English was and English is.

The rational proposition was made that men are capable of governing themselves, in their own interests, by common consent. And that simple proposition was made in simple language.

English was, at the time, a fairly standardized written language. Printing presses had been in operation for two and a half centuries, and the spelling had gelled more out of habit than design. Dr. Johnson had interfered with some spellings, insisting, for example, that dett be spelled debt for (bad) etymological reasons. Noah Webster would do the same in Massachusetts. There were 26 letters in the English alphabet, j and v having been added. The golden triangle of Oxford, Cambridge and London had established a cultured and mercantile form of English. The 1611 King James Bible, designed to be read in churches, and the Book of Common Prayer, meant that all Protestants heard the same words for the same texts, though of course they heard regional variations of pronunciation. Carlos I had approved a law on the standardization of the brochures through which street vendors sold the rudiments of literacy.

The language of Cambridge, England, passed directly to Cambridge, Massachusetts, where Stephen Day founded the first printing press in 1639. Hezekiah Usher of Boston added books to his list of General Store items in 1647.

There are no census figures for literacy in the eighteenth century, but detailed reports of the number of printing presses in operation. No press could operate without a license, issued by the Lord Chancellor’s office, which was also responsible for censorship. So in the 1760s the question is not how many people were literate but how many were completely illiterate. Universal literacy was not achieved until the late 19th century, but it is likely that most English people had at least a basic knowledge of reading and writing a century earlier, perhaps 80%.

Protestants insisted on literacy, and America was largely a Protestant creation. Back then, literacy among the early American settlers was high. His texts were more religious than political. They knew their Bible. There were homiletic pamphlets. The four editions of John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, 1570-1583, were the norm in Protestant homes and shaped Protestant views on the Inquisition and the reign of Bloody Mary for a century. Also, since its publication in 1678, the other book to rank alongside the Bible was John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress.

Newton, at just the same time, reached it from Cambridge by way of the old Roman road, which had survived without repair for twelve centuries. At Stourbridge he bought prisms on Dutch Row with which to unweave the rainbow.

‘The Pilgrim’s Progress’ was probably the last truly popular work of English fiction, as it appealed to all sections of society who read or heard it. Parts of the book have passed into the language, so even those who have never read it may be familiar with The Swamp of Despond, The Giant of Despair and The Castle of Doubt, Mr. Worldy-Wiseman, as well as Vanity Fair (taken by Thackeray as the title of his serialized novel 1847/48).

It is still a very powerful allegory of the passage of a pilgrim through this world with the hope of reaching the Celestial City. It touches the dark well of the Protestant mind as well as the ecstasy of light. Bunyan knew of Foxe’s book and condemned Faithful to the flames of martyrdom in the best tradition of sorrow and upliftment.

Languages ​​gain prestige, in part, through their literature, and this includes their religious literature. Hebrew and Arabic, for example, can claim to be languages ​​of revelation. That in itself is not enough to ensure the continuity of a language among anyone but scholars and priests. Religious languages ​​become fixed and dead. Living languages ​​change. Literature is a changing medium. Add the new dimension of technical literature, and English is now the closest language to a universal language.

The British gave Great Power prestige to the English in the 19th century. The United States sponsored English in the 20th century. The British claimed, for better or worse, the greatest empire in the history of the world. The industrial and military power of the United States in August 1945, compared to the rest of the world, was unprecedented in history. New Rome had grown up in New England.

Read the full version of this essay at:
http://www.literature-study-online.com/essays/ageofreason.html