<i>‘That grammar grudge not our English tong’</i> . Linguistic nationalism in early modern England and the discursive shift from apologia to assertion

Early modern humanism brought about profound psychological shifts in the perception of vernacular languages, which increasingly became important symbols of emerging national identities. Yet Europe’s languages were not equal. In England–newly isolated from the continent both politically and diplomatically–the imposition of English as the language of state and church aimed to consolidate insular unity and cultural identity, despite it lacking the international prestige it holds today. This paper argues that the enduring characterisation of ‘good’ English as ‘plain’ and ‘manly’ Germanic¹¹ Following the advice of an anonymous reviewer, I have deliberately avoided using the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ in this paper (except where directly quoting others) because of the potentially negative connotations it may carry for some readers. While my intention was to critique the nationalist discourse behind the concept of Anglo-Saxonism, I acknowledge that use of the term might inadvertently reinforce the very concept I aim to problematise. See Rambaran-Olm and Wade’s (2022) discussion and visceral critique of the term. As a British scholar, I am keen to avoid the complacency identified by these authors, who are critical of UK medievalists who frame the ‘racial use’ of the term as an American problem. Instead, I have used ‘Germanic’ as a linguistic category and ‘pre-Conquest’ to designate the historical period. English originates in this period of assertive linguistic nationalism. English began consciously to distinguish itself from the ‘flowery’, Latinate languages, including the ‘smooth-tong’d French’ (Tomkis 1607, 19) whose influence was increasingly derided in satire as insincere and pompous. After establishing the historical context, I examine key advocates for English from the 16th century who, aware of its mixed linguistic roots, celebrated a purer, proudly monosyllabic English stripped of rhetorical artifice and the perceived duplicity of ‘inkhorn’ terms and foreign borrowings. This marked a decisive turn from defending the use of English on the grounds of its practical value as the common tongue towards its promotion as a legitimate and distinctively national literary language.