The Teaching and Cultivation of the French Language in England during Tudor and Stuart Times

The present work, begun during the author's tenure of a Faulkner Fellowship in the University of Manchester, and completed in subsequent years, is an endeavour to trace the history of the teaching and use of French in England during a given epoch, ending with the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes and the Revolution of 1689, which events mark the beginning of a new period in the study of the French language in this country. No attempt has been made to treat the wider topic of French influence in England in its literary and social aspects (this has already been done by competent hands), though this side of the question is naturally touched upon occasionally by way of reference or illustration.

I gladly take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude to Professor L. E. Kastner, at whose suggestion this investigation was undertaken, for his generous assistance, and the unfailing interest he has shown in my work during the whole course of its preparation. I am likewise considerably indebted to Dr. Phœbe Sheavyn for helpful criticism and advice, to Professor Tout for kindly reading through the introductory chapter, and to Mr. J. Marks for a careful revision of the proofs and many useful indications. I owe a great deal to my father also, whose sympathetic advice and encouragement did much to lighten my task. Nor can I close this list of acknowledgments without recording my obligation to the Secretary of the Press, Mr. H. M. McKechnie, for the valuable assistance he has so freely given me during the progress of this volume through the Press.

KATHLEEN LAMBLEY.

Durham, January 1920.

PAGE

3

French grammars in mediaeval England—The use of the French language—Latin, French, and English vocabularies—French at the Universities—Popularity of French in the thirteenth century—Ceases to be a vernacular in England—Treatises for teaching French—A treatise on French verbs—The Orthographia Gallica—The Tractatus Orthographiae—T. H. Parisiis studentis—Walter de Bibbesworth—French in the schools and Universities—The fourteenth century—Treatises on French—The Nominale—Model letters—Recovery of English in the second half of the fourteenth century—Deterioration of Anglo-French—English in official documents and correspondence—Decline in use of French.

26

Triumph of continental French over Anglo-French—"Doux françois de Paris" a foreign language—Standard of French taught in England—Femina—Treatises on Grammar—Barton's Donait—Epistolaries—Books of conversation in French—The Cambridge manuscript in French and English—First printed books for teaching French—Dialogues in French and English—Caxton, Wynkyn de Worde, and Pynson—French by conversation—Approaching improvement in the standard of French taught in England—Palsgrave's Grammar.

61

French at the Court of the Tudors—English neglected by foreigners—Latin a spoken language—Defective pronunciation of the English—Interest in modern languages awakened—French holds the first place—Its use in correspondence and in official documents—The French of Henry VIII., his courtiers, and the ladies—Of Anne Boleyn and the other Queens—Of the royal family, Edward, Mary, and Elizabeth—French tutors—Bernard André—French Grammars—Alexander Barclay's Introductory—Practice and Theory—Pierre Valence, tutor to the Earl of Lincoln—His Introductions in French—Fragment of a Grammar at Lambeth—French Humanists as Language masters—Bourbon and Denisot—England and the Pléiade.

86

French tutors at Court—John Palsgrave and Giles Duwes—Palsgrave's Esclarcissement—The pronunciation of French—His second and third books—The vocabulary—The Introductorie of Duwes—His Dialogues—The methods of the two teachers—Dates of composition and editions—Attitude of the two teachers to each other—Duwes on English teachers of French—Palsgrave's claims—Palsgrave's acquaintance with French literature—Incidents in Duwes's career in England—His royal pupils—Palsgrave's teaching career—Mary Tudor his pupil—The Duke of Richmond, Gregory Cromwell, etc.—Palsgrave in the North, at Oxford, and in London—Jean Bellemain, tutor to Edward VI.—The King's French exercises—Intercourse with Calvin—Bellemain on French orthography—French tutor to Elizabeth—Her translations from the French—A. R. Chevallier.

114

Effects of the persecution of the Protestants on the teaching of French in England—Protestant refugees—Registers and returns of aliens—French churches in London—Reception and treatment of foreigners—Incivility of the common people—Courtesy of the gentry—Refugees received into English families—French in polite education—French tutors and text-books—Converse with foreigners—Shakespeare's French—Professional schoolmasters—No opening in the grammar schools—French schools—Du Ploich's school—His Treatise in French and English and method of teaching—His works in manuscript—Claude Holyband—His French Schoolemaister and French Littleton—His French school—Holyband as private tutor—His method of teaching—Schools in connection with the French churches—Schools at Canterbury and elsewhere—Saravia's school at Southampton—Joshua Sylvester—Place of French in the public schools of Scotland—In the parish and private schools—No French grammars produced in Scotland.

155

Importance of the Huguenot teachers in London—St. Paul's Churchyard the centre of the profession—The group of Normans—Robert Fontaine—Jacques Bellot—His French and English grammars, and Jardin de Vertu—The French Methode—G. de La Mothe—His French Alphabet and method of teaching—French teachers from the Netherlands—Roman Catholic schoolmasters—Objections raised against French teachers—The right of the English to teach French—John Eliote—His attack on French teachers—His love of Rabelais and debt to French literature—His 'merrie vaine'—The Ortho-Epia Gallica and his other works.

179

Usual methods of learning French—Reading and translation—Pronunciation—Rules of grammar—Importance of 'practice'—Latin and French text-books—Contrast of methods—Grammar and Practice—Books in French and English—French by translation—French dictionaries—Holyband's Dictionaries—Dictionary printed by Harrison—A place given to French in some Latin dictionaries—Veron—Baret—John Higgins—French-Latin dictionaries—Cotgrave's great French-English Dictionary—Sherwood's English-French Dictionary—Howell's editions of Cotgrave—The reading of French literature—Attitude of French teachers—Favourite authors—Histories and Memoirs of military life for soldiers and statesmen.

198

Latin the language of the Universities—Retention of the use of French formulae—Modern languages read—French a relaxation from 'severer studies'—French tutors and French grammars—Morlet's Janitrix—French grammars written in Latin—Antonio de Corro—John Sanford—Wye Saltonstall—Henry Leighton—French grammarians and teachers at Oxford—Robert Farrear—Pierre Bense—French teachers at Cambridge—Gabriel du Grès at Cambridge and Oxford—On the teaching of French—French at the Universities at the time of the Restoration—The French of the Universities and of the fashionable world—French at the Inns of Court—One-sidedness of the University curriculum—Steps taken to supplement it.

211

Travel in France and on the Continent—In the suite of ambassadors—Children in France—Course of studies—Girls in France—Objections to children being sent to France—France and Italy—Protests against travel—Prejudices against travel—Preference for France—Necessity of the French language—The travelling tutor—The age for travel—Literati as travelling tutors—Travel without a governor—Books on travel—'Methods' of travel—The study of French—Dallington and Moryson—Study of French before travel—French 'by rote'—Language masters for travellers—French grammars for travellers—Charles Maupas of Blois and his son—Antoine Oudin—Other grammars—Père Chiflet—The 'exercises'—Travellers at the Universities—At the Protestant Academies—Geneva—Isaac Casaubon—The 'idle traveller'—The 'beau'—Affectations of newly returned travellers—Commendation and censure of travel.

239

Merchants and the study of French—Text-books for merchants—Relations with the Netherlands—The 'book from Anvers'—Barlement's book of dialogues—Meurier's manuals for teaching French to the English in Antwerp—The study of French in the Netherlands—French for soldiers—The Verneys—John Wodroeph—The difficulty of the French language—Necessity of rules as well as practice—The Marrow of the French Tongue.

259

The French language in England in the time of the early Stuarts—In the royal family—French tutors—John Florio—Guy Le Moyne—Massonet—Sir Robert Le Grys—French among the ladies—Erondelle's French Garden for English ladies—His dialogues—His career as a teacher—His earlier works—The French Queen of England—French plays in London—The English language neglected by foreigners—English literature ignored in France—English players abroad—The study of English—English grammars for foreigners in England—French teachers and merchants further the study of English—Provision for teaching English in the Netherlands and in France.

281

Robert Sherwood, teacher of French and English—His school and French Tutour—William Colson, another English teacher—His 'method' and writings—Maupas's French grammar in England—William Aufeild—How to study French—The Flower de Luce—Laur du Terme on the teaching of French—Paul Cogneau's French grammar—His method—Continued use of the sixteenth-century French grammars—Latin and French—Latin school-books adapted to teaching French—Books for teaching Latin and French together—The Janua of Comenius—Wye Saltonstall—De Grave—French in private institutions—The Museum Minervae—Gerbier's Academy—French in schools for ladies.

301

The Blois group of French teachers—Claude Mauger and his French grammar—Its popularity and development—Mauger's Letters—Other writings—Life in London—Teaches English—Mauger's method of teaching—Mauger at Paris—The demand for his grammar abroad—Paul Festeau—His French and English grammars—Editions and contents—Pierre Lainé—His French grammar—Encouragement of the study of French literature.

319

Vogue of French romances in England—Dorothy Osborne—Pepys on French literature—His French books—French text-books and the précieux spirit—William Herbert—His criticism of the French teaching profession—Rivalry among teachers—Need for protection—Herbert's later works—His early career in England—Quarrels with a minister of the French church—English gentry at the French church—Pepys a regular attender—French teachers encourage the practice—The method of 'grammar and rote'—French 'by rote'—Examples of how French was studied—Latin by grammar—Calls for reform—The case against grammar—French taught on the 'right method'—Attempts to teach Latin on the same lines as French—Contrast between the learning of Latin in England 'by grammar' and of French in France 'by rote.'

341

The Protestant schools and Academies—A group of English students at Saumur—Travellers at the French Universities—A method of travel—Attitude of the French teachers to the tour in France—Guide books—Routes followed—Favourite resorts for study—Auberges and pensions—Language masters in France—Grammars for travellers—Howell's instructions for travellers—Suitable books for students—The 'Grand' and 'Petit' Tour in France—Paris—Inexperienced young travellers—Sir John Reresby in France.

361

Gallomania in England after the Restoration—The royal family in France—Their knowledge of the language—English courtiers and gentry in France—Men of letters in France—French and the French at the English court after the Restoration—French 'salons' in London—French valets, cooks, dancing masters, tailors—The French language—French among the ladies—The 'Frenchified' lady—The 'beaux' or English 'monsieurs'—French influence at the theatre—Popularity of French actors in London.

381

French grammars after the Restoration—Pierre de Lainé, tutor to the children of the Duke of York—The Princely Way to the French Tongue—Guy Miège—His Dictionaries—His French Grammars—His method of teaching—Rote and grammar—Miège's other works—Other French Grammars—Pierre Berault—The universality of French—Supremacy over Latin in the world of fashion and diplomacy—Position of French in the educational world—The classics read in French—'All learning now in French'—French recognized by writers on education—Projects for reformed schools—Numerous French schools in and about London—Villiers' school at Nottingham—Academies for ladies—Academies for training gentlemen in the necessary social accomplishments and for business—Effects of the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes.

403

410

429

The first important grammar of the French language was printed in England and written by an Englishman. This enterprising student was John Palsgrave, "natyf de Londres et gradué de Paris," whose work, entitled L'Esclarcissement de la langue francoyse, was published in 1530. It is an enormous quarto of over a thousand pages, full of elaborate, detailed and often obscure rules, written in English in spite of the French title. It was no doubt the solid value and exhaustiveness of Palsgrave's work which won for it the reputation of being the earliest grammar of the French language.[1] Yet Palsgrave himself informs us that such was not the case, though he claims to be the first to lay down 'absolute' rules for the language.

The kings of England, he declares, have never ceased to encourage "suche clerkes as were in theyr tymes, to prove and essay what they by theyr dylygence in this matter myght do." "This like charge," he continues, "have dyvers others had afore my dayes ... many sondrie clerkes have for their tyme taken theyr penne in hande.... Some thyng have they in writing lefte behynde them concerning into this mater, for the ease and furtheraunce as well of suche as shilde in lyke charge after them succede, as of them whiche from tyme to tyme in that tong were to be instructed ... takyng light and erudition of theyr studious labours whiche in this matter before me have taken paynes to write.... I dyd my effectuall devoire to ensertche out suche bokes as had by others of this mater before my tyme ben compyled, of which undouted, after enquery and ensertche made for them dyvers came into my handes as well suche whose authors be yet amongst us lyveng, as suche whiche were of this mater by other sondrie persons longe afore my dayes composed."

The living predecessors to whom Palsgrave refers—authors of short works of small philological value, but of great interest to-day as evidence of the wide use of the French language in England—were likewise acquainted with earlier works on the subject. Giles Duwes, tutor in French to Henry VIII. and other members of the royal family, frequently invokes the authority of the 'olde grammar.' The poet Alexander Barclay, in his French Grammar of 1521, informs us that "the said treatyse hath ben attempted of dyvers men before my dayes," and that he had "sene the draughtes of others" made before his time; moreover, in times past, the French language "hath ben so moche set by in England that who hath ben ignorant in the same language hath not ben reputed to be of gentyll blode. In so moche that, as the cronycles of englande recorde, in all the gramer scoles throughout englande small scolars expounded theyr construccyons bothe in Frenche and Englysshe."

Thus the French grammarians in England in the early sixteenth century were acquainted with, and to some extent indebted to, a series of mediaeval treatises on the French language,—a type of work which, even at the time they wrote, was unknown on the Continent.[2] That England, before other countries, took on herself the study of the French language, was the result of events which followed the Conquest. From that time French had taken its place by the side of English as a vernacular. It was the language of the upper classes and landed gentry, the cultivated and educated; English was used by the masses, while all who read and wrote knew Latin, the language of clerks and scholars. For nearly three centuries after the Conquest almost all writings of any literary value produced in England were in French, though the bulk of composition was in Latin; English never ceased to be written, but was used in minor works for the most part.

It is not surprising, therefore, to find that from an early date Latin was at times construed or translated into French[3] as well as English in the grammar schools, both languages serving as vernaculars. There are still extant examples of this custom,[4] dating from the twelfth century; for instance, a version of the psalter, in which the French words are placed above the Latin without any regard to the order of the French sentence.[5] Others are found in some of the first vocabularies written for the purpose of teaching Latin,[6] which consist of lists of words grouped round subjects and arranged, as a rule, in sentence form. Two of these works seem to have been particularly well known, judging from the number of manuscripts still in existence—those of the English scholars, Alexander Neckam (1157-1217) and John de Garlande, both of whom were indebted to France for most of their learning. Neckam, who in 1180 had attained celebrity as a Professor of the University of Paris, was the author of a Latin Vocabulary—De Utensilibus—which was glossed in Anglo-French.[7] In this he enumerates the various parts of a house and the occupations and callings of men, and gives scenes from feudal and agricultural life. The Dictionarius (c. 1220) of John de Garlande, a student of Oxford and Paris, and one of the first professors of Toulouse University, deals roughly with the same topics.[8] It is glossed in both French and English—the sign of a later period—as was also a Latin vocabulary or nominale of the names of plants,[9] dating from a little later in the same century, though probably existing in earlier manuscripts.

At the universities a decided preference for French was shown in the rare occasions on which the use of a vernacular was allowed. The speaking of French was encouraged in some of the colleges at both Oxford and Cambridge, chiefly those belonging to the second set of foundations.[10] The scholars and fellows of Oriel could use either Latin or French in their familiar conversation and at meals. Similar injunctions were in force at Exeter and Queen's. Among the Cambridge colleges[11] the statutes of Peterhouse allow French to be used for "just and reasonable cause"; at King's it was permitted on occasion, and at Clare Hall French was countenanced only if foreigners were present as visitors. At Pembroke, founded by a Frenchwoman, Mary de Valence, special favour was shown to Frenchmen in the election of Fellows, provided that their total number did not exceed a quarter of the whole body.[12] The cosmopolitanism of the mediaeval centres of learning encouraged a number of such French students to come to England. In 1259, for instance, owing to the disturbed state of the University of Paris, Henry III. invited the Paris students to come to England and take up their abode wheresoever they pleased;[13] no doubt those who accepted his invitation settled at one or other of the two English universities. We also find in the Treaty of Bretigny (1360) a clause to the effect that the subjects of the French and English kings should henceforth be free to resume their intercourse and to enjoy mutually the privileges of the universities of the two countries, "comme ils povoient faire avant ces presentes guerres et comme ils font a present."[14] On the other hand, the English frequented the French universities in large numbers; at Paris in the thirteenth century they formed one of the four nations which composed the University.[15] The authors of the early Latin vocabularies, Alexander Neckam and John de Garlande, were both connected with the University of Paris, while most of the other English scholars of the period were indebted for much of their learning to the same great centre. Many, no doubt, could have written with Garlande:

In the thirteenth century French was still widely used in England. The fact that the fusion between conquerors and conquered was then complete,[17] and that at the same time French was very popular on the Continent undoubtedly helped to make its position in England stronger. It was then that the Italian Brunetto Latini wrote his Livres dou Tresor (1265), in French rather than in his native tongue, because French was "plus delitable et plus commune à toutes gens." During the same century French came to be used in correspondence on both sides of the Channel.[18] Little by little it was recognized as the most convenient medium for official uses, and the language most generally known in these sections of society which had to administer justice.[19] In the second half of the thirteenth century Robert of Gloucester complained that there was no land "that holdeth not to its kindly speech save Englonde only," admitting at the same time, however, that ignorance of French was a serious disadvantage. An idea of the extent to which the language was current in England may be gathered from the fact that in 1301 Edward I. caused letters from the Pope to be translated into French so that they might be understood by the whole army,[20] and in the previous year the author of the Miroir des Justices wrote in French as being the language "le plus entendable de la comun people." French, indeed, appears to have been used among all classes, save the very poorest;[21] some of the French literature of the time was addressed more particularly to the middle classes.[22]

Nevertheless, as the thirteenth century advanced, French began to hold its own with some difficulty. While it was in the unusual position of a vernacular gradually losing its power as such, there appeared the earliest extant treatise on the language. This, and those that followed it, were to some extent lessons in the vernacular; yet not entirely, as may be judged from the fact that they are set forth and explained in Latin, the language of all scholarship. The first work on the French language, dating from not later than the middle of the thirteenth century, is in the form of a short Latin treatise on French conjugations,[23] in which a comparison of the French with the Latin tenses is instituted.[24] As it appeared at a time when French was becoming the literary language of the law, and was being used freely in correspondence, it may have been intended mainly for the use of clerks. A treatise of considerably more importance composed towards the end of the century, appears to have had the same purpose. That he did not intend it exclusively for clerks, however, the author showed by adding rules for pronunciation, syntax and even morphology as well as for orthography. Like most of the early grammatical writings on the French language, this Orthographia Gallica is in Latin. The obscurity of many of its rules, however, called forth commentaries in French which appeared during the fourteenth century, and exceed the size of the original work. The Orthographia was a very popular work, as the number of manuscripts extant and the French commentary prove. The different copies vary considerably, and there is a striking increase in the number of rules given; from being about thirty in the earliest manuscript, they number about a hundred in the latest.[25]

It opens with a rule that when the first or middle syllable of a French word contains a short e, i must be placed before the e, as in bien, rien, etc.—a curious, fumbling attempt to explain the development of Latin free short e before nasals and oral consonants into ie. On the other hand, continues the author, e acute need not be preceded by i, as tenez. It is not surprising that these early writers, in spite of much patient observation, should almost always have failed to grasp fundamental laws, and group a series of corresponding facts into the form of a general rule. We continually find rules drawn up for a few isolated examples, with no general application. The most striking feature in the treatment of French orthography in this work is the continual reference to Latin roots, and the clear statement of the principle that, wherever possible, the spelling of French words should be based on that of Latin.

The Orthographia does not by any means limit its observations to spelling; there are also rules for pronunciation, a subject which in later times naturally held a very important place in French grammars written for the use of Englishmen, while orthography became one of the chief concerns of French grammarians. That orthography received so much attention at this early period in this country, is explained by the fact that these manuals were partly intended for "clerks," who would frequently have to write in French. As to the pronunciation, we find, amongst others, the familiar rule that when a French word ending in a consonant comes before another word beginning with a consonant, the first consonant is not pronounced. An s occurring after a vowel and before an m, writes the author, in another rule, is not pronounced, as in mandasmes, and l coming after a, e, or o, and followed by a consonant is pronounced like u, as in m'almi, loialment, and the like. A list of synonyms[26] is also given, which throws some light on the English pronunciation of French at this period, and there are also a few hints for the translation of both Latin and English into French.

Nor are syntax and morphology neglected; rules concerning these are scattered among those on orthography and pronunciation, with the lack of orderly arrangement characteristic of the whole work. Thus we are told to use me in the accusative case, and moy in all other cases; that we should form the plural of verbs ending in t in the singular by adding z, as il amet, il list become vous amez, vous lisez; that when we ask any one for something, we may say vous pri without je, but that, when we do this, we should write pri with a y, as pry, and so on.

The claim of the Orthographia Gallica to be the first extant work on French orthography, has been disputed by another treatise, also written in Latin, and known as the Tractatus Orthographiae. More methodically arranged than the Orthographia, this work deals more particularly with pronunciation and orthography.[27] It opens with a short introduction announcing that here are the means for the youth of the time to make their way in the world speedily and learn French pronunciation and orthography. Each letter of the alphabet is first treated in turn,[28] and then come a few more general observations. Like the author of the Orthographia, the writer of the Tractatus would have the spelling of French words based on that of Latin whenever possible. He claims that his own French is "secundum dulce Gallicum" and "secundum usum et modum modernorum tam partibus transmarinis quam cismarinis." Though he apparently places the French of England and the French of France on the same footing, it is noteworthy that he carefully distinguishes between the two.

The Tractatus Orthographiae bears a striking resemblance to another work of like nature, which is better known—the Tractatus Orthographiae of Canon M. T. Coyfurelly, doctor in Law of Orleans[29]—and for some time it was thought to be merely a rehandling of Coyfurelly's treatise which did not appear till somewhere about the end of the fourteenth century, if not later. But Coyfurelly admits that his work was based on the labours of one 'T. H. Parisii Studentis,' and there appears, on examination,[30] to be no doubt as to the priority of the anonymous Tractatus described above, which, on the contrary, is evidently the treatise rehandled by Coyfurelly, and the work of 'T. H. Student of Paris.' Besides being the original which Coyfurelly recast in his Tractatus, it also appears that T. H. may reasonably dispute with the author of the Orthographia Gallica, the honour of being the first in the field. His work shows no advance on the rules given for pronunciation in the Orthographia, while the orthography is of a decidedly older stamp.

At about the same time as these two treatises on orthography, probably a few years earlier, there was composed a work of similar purpose but very different character. It is of particular interest, and shows that, towards the end of the thirteenth century, French was beginning to be treated as a foreign language; the French is accompanied by a partial English gloss, and the author states that "touz dis troverez-vous primes le Frauncois et pus le Engleys suaunt." The author, Gautier or Walter de Bibbesworth,[31] was an Englishman, and appears to have mixed with the best society of the day. He was a friend of the celebrated statesman of the reign of Edward I., Henry de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln. The only work by which his name is known to-day, in addition to the treatise in question, is a short piece of Anglo-Norman verse,[32] written on the occasion of the expedition of Edward I. to the Holy Land in 1270, shortly before he came to the throne. We gather from letters of protection granted him in that year that Bibbesworth himself took part in this venture. In this poem he is pictured discussing the Crusade with Lacy, and trying to persuade his friend to take part in it. The name of Bibbesworth also occurs several times[33] in official documents of no special interest, and as late as 1302 a writ of Privy Seal was addressed to the Chancellor suing for a pardon under the Great Seal to W. de Bibbesworth, in consideration of his good services rendered in Scotland, for a breach of the park of Robert de Seales at Ravenhall, and of the king's prison at Colchester.[34]

Bibbesworth, however, interests us less as a crusader or a disturber of public order, than as the author of a treatise for teaching the French language, entitled Le Treytyz qe mounsire Gauter de Bibelesworthe fist a ma dame Dyonisie de Mounchensy[35] pur aprise de langwage. The large number of manuscripts still in existence[36] suggest that it was a popular text-book among the children of the higher classes of society. The treatise reproduces, as might be expected, the chief characteristics of the vocabularies for teaching Latin. In addition to giving a collection of words and phrases arranged in the form of a narrative, it also incidentally aims at imparting some slight grammatical information. Its contents are of a very practical character, and deal exclusively with the occurrences and occupations of daily life. Beginning with the new-born child, it tells in French verses how it is to be nursed and fed. Rime was no doubt introduced to aid the memory, as the pupil would, in all probability, have to learn the whole by heart. The French is accompanied by a partial interlinear English gloss, giving the equivalent of the more difficult French words. This may, perhaps, be taken as an indication of the extent to which French was regarded as a foreign language.[37]

After describing the life of the child during its earliest infancy, Bibbesworth goes on to tell how it is to be taught French as soon as it can speak, "that it may be better learned in speach and held up to scorn by none":

In accordance with this programme the parts of the human body, which almost invariably forms the central theme in this type of manual, are enumerated. Special care is taken to distinguish the genders and cases, to teach the children "Kaunt deivunt dire moun et ma, soun et sa, le et la, moy et jo . . .," and to explain how the meaning of words of similar sound often depends on their gender:

Throughout Bibbesworth seizes every opportunity to point out distinctions of gender of this kind, regardless, it appears, of the difference between the definite and indefinite articles. When the pupil can describe his body, the teacher proceeds to give him an account of "all that concerns it both inside and out" ("kaunt ke il apent dedens et deores"), that is of its clothing and food:

—a passage which illustrates the practical nature of the treatise, Bibbesworth's aim being to teach children to know the properties of the things they see ("les propretez des choses ke veyunt").

When the child is clothed, Bibbesworth next feeds him, giving a full account of the meals and the food which is provided, and, by way of variety, at the end of the dinner, he teaches his pupil the names given to groups of different animals, and of the verbs used to describe their various cries. ("Homme parle, cheval hennist," etc.). By this time the child is ready to observe Nature, and to learn the terms of husbandry,[38] and the processes by which his food is produced. From the fields he passes to the woods and the river, where he learns to hunt and to fish, subjects which naturally lead to the introduction of the French names of the seasons, and of the beasts and birds that are supposed to present themselves to his view.

During the whole of this long category the verse form is maintained, and the intention of avoiding a vocabulary pure and simple is manifest. How superior this method was to the more modern lists of words separated from the context is also evident. Besides giving a description of all the objects with which the child comes in contact, and of all the actions he has to perform, as well as examples for the distinctions of genders and of moy and jo—difficulties for which he makes no attempts to draw up rules—Bibbesworth claims for his work that it provides gentlemen with adequate instruction for conversational purposes ("tot le ordre en parler e respoundre ke checun gentyshomme covent saver"). And as he did not wish to neglect any of the items of daily life, he finally gives a description of the building of a house and various domestic arrangements, ending with a description of an old English feast with its familiar dish, the boar's head:

As time went on a conscious effort was made to retain the use of the French language in England. Higden, writing at about the middle of the fourteenth century,[39] informs us that English was then neglected for two reasons: "One is bycause that children than gon to schole lerne to speke first Englysshe and then ben compelled constrewe ther lessons in Frenssh"; "Also gentilmens children ben lerned and taught from theyr yougthe to speke frenssh.[40] And uplandish men will counterfete and likene them self to gentilmen and arn besy to speke frensshe for to be more sette by. Wherefor it is sayd by a common proverbe Jack wold be a gentilmen if he coude speke frensshe."

At the University of Oxford, likewise, the Grammar masters were enjoined to teach the boys to construe in English and in French, "so that the latter language be not forgotten."[41] The same university gave some slight encouragement to the study of French. There were special teachers who, although not enjoying the privileges of those lecturing in the usual academic subjects, were none the less recognised by the University. They had to observe the Statutes, and to promise not to give their lessons at times which would interfere with the ordinary lectures in arts. The French teachers were under the superintendence of the masters of grammar, and had to pay thirteen shillings a year to the Masters in Arts to compensate them for any disadvantage they might suffer from any loss of pupils; if there was only one teacher of French he had to pay the whole amount himself. As for those learning "to write, to compose, and speak French," they had to attend lectures in rhetoric and grammar—the courses most akin to their studies[42]—and to contribute to the maintenance of the lecturers in these subjects, there being no ordinary lectures in French.

In the meantime, more treatises for teaching French appeared; Bibbesworth's book soon found imitators, and early in the new century an anonymous author, clearly an Englishman, made free use of Bibbesworth in a treatise called The Nominale sive Verbale in Gallicis cum expositione ejusdem in Anglicis.[43] This anonymous writer[44] however, thought it necessary to make the interlinear English gloss much fuller than Bibbesworth had done, which shows that French had become more of a foreign language in the interval between the two works. He also placed the English rendering after the French, instead of above it. The later work differs further from the earlier in the order of the subject headings, as well as by the introduction of a few new topics. Enumerating the parts of the body,[45] as Bibbesworth had done, the author proceeds to make his most considerable addition to the subjects introduced by Bibbesworth in describing "la noyse et des faitz que homme naturalment fait":

Homme parle et espire:

Man spekyth & vndyth.

Femme teinge et suspire:

Woman pantyth & syketh.

Homme bale et babeie:

Man dravelith & wlaffyth.

Femme bale et bleseie:

Woman galpyth & wlispyth.

He then describes all the daily actions and occupations of men:

Homme va a la herce:

Man goth at the harewe.

Femme bercelet berce:

Woman childe in cradel rokkith....

Enfant sa lessone reherce:

His lessone recordeth,

and so on for about 350 lines. Other additions are of little importance, and, for the rest, the author treats subjects first introduced by Bibbesworth, though the wording often differs to a certain extent.[46]

When, towards the end of the thirteenth century, French began to be used in correspondence, need for instruction in French epistolary art arose; and early in the fourteenth century guides to letter-writing in French, in the form of epistolaries or collections of model letters, were produced.[47] The letters themselves are given in French, but the accompanying rules and instructions for composing them are in Latin. French and Latin have changed rôles; in earlier times Latin had been explained to school children by means of French. Forms for addressing members of the different grades of society are supplied, from epistles to the king and high state and ecclesiastical dignitaries down to commercial letters for merchants, and familiar ones for private individuals. Women, too, were not forgotten; we find similar examples covering the same range—from the queen and the ladies of the nobility to her more humble subjects. Each letter is almost invariably followed by its answer, likewise in French. Some contain interesting references to the great men or events of the day, but those of a more private nature possess a greater attraction, and throw light on the family life of the age. A letter from a mother to her son at school may be quoted:[48]

From about the middle of the fourteenth century a feeling of discontent with the prerogative of the French language in England becomes prominent. The loss of the greater part of the French possessions, and the continued state of hostilities with France during the reign of Edward III. brought home forcibly to the English mind the fact that the French were a distinct nation, and French a foreign tongue. This tardy recovery is sufficient proof of the strong resistance which had to be overcome. Chaucer is the greatest representative of the new movement. "Let Frenchmen endite their quaint terms in French," he exclaims, "for it is kindly to their mouths, but let us show our fantaisies in suche words as we learned from our dames' tongues." His contemporary, Gower, was less quick to discern the signs of the times. Of the four volumes of his works, two are in Latin, one in French, and one in English; but the order in which he uses these languages is instructive—first French, then Latin, and lastly English. Some writers made a compromise by employing a mixture of French and English.[49] French, however, continued to hold an important place in prose writings until the middle of the fifteenth century; but such works are of little literary value. The reign of French as the literary language of England, as Chaucer had been quick to discern, was approaching its end.

The same period is marked by a growing disrespect for Anglo-French as compared with the French of France. The French of England, cut off from the living source, had developed apart, and often with more rapidity than the other French dialects on the Continent. What is more, the language brought by the invaders was not a pure form of the Norman dialect; men from various parts of France had joined in William's expedition. The invaders, always called 'French' by their contemporaries, brought in a strong Picard element; and in the twelfth century there was a similar Angevin influence. Moreover, during Norman and Angevin times, craftsmen and others immigrated to England, each bringing with him the dialectal peculiarities of his own province.[50] Thus no regular development of Anglo-French was possible, and it can hardly be regarded as an ordinary dialect, notwithstanding its literary importance.[51] This disparity in the quality of Anglo-French is illustrated in a remarkable way by the literature of the period. Those who had received special educational advantages, or had travelled on the Continent, spoke and wrote French correctly; others used forms which contrasted pitiably with continental French. Moreover, the fourteenth century saw the triumph of the Île de France dialect in France; the other dialects ceased, as a rule, to be used in literature,[52] and this change was not without effect on Anglo-French, which shared their degradation. Chaucer lets us know the poor opinion he had of the French of England; his Prioress speaks French "full fayre and fetisly," but

William Langland admits that he knew "no frenche in feith, but of the ferthest ende of Norfolke."[53] As early as the thirteenth century English writers had felt bound to apologize as Englishmen for their French. Nor were their excuses superfluous in many cases; William of Wadington, the author of the Manuel des Pechiez, for example, wrote:[54]

Such apologies became all the more necessary as time went on. Even Gower, whose French was comparatively pure,[55] owing no doubt to travel in France in early life, deemed it advisable to explain that he wrote in French for "tout le monde en general," and to ask pardon if he has not "de François la faconde":

At about the same time the anonymous author of the Testament of Love finds fault with the English for their persistence in writing in bad French, "of which speech the Frenchmen have as good a fantasy as we have in hearing of Frenchmen's English."[56]

The notoriety of the French of Englishmen reached France. Indeed this was a time when the English were more generally known in France than they were to be for several hundreds of years afterwards—until the eighteenth century. Englishmen filled positions in their possessions in France, and during the long wars between the two countries in the reign of Edward III., many of the English nobility resided in that country with their families. Montaigne refers to traces of the English in Guyenne, which still remained in the sixteenth century: "Il est une nation," he writes in one of his Essays, "a laquelle ceux de mon quartier ont eu autrefois si privée accointance qu'il reste encore en ma maison aucune trace de leur ancien cousinage."[57] The opinions formed by the French of the English were naturally anything but flattering. We find them expressed in songs of the time.[58] But the recriminations were mutual, and the English had already hit upon the epithet which for centuries they applied to Frenchmen, and most other foreigners indiscriminately:

Even in the Roman de Renart we come across traces of familiarity with English ways, and also of the English language.[60]

It is not surprising, then, that Anglo-French was a subject of remark in France, especially when we remember that already in the thirteenth century the provincial accents of the different parts of France herself had been the object of some considerable amount of raillery.[61] The English, says Froissart, a good judge, for he spent many years in England, "disoient bien que le françois que ils avoient apris chies eulx d'enfance n'estoit pas de telle nature et condition que celluy de France estoit."[62] And this 'condition' was soon recognized as a plentiful store for facetious remarks and parodies of all kinds. In the Roman de Jehan et Blonde, the young Frenchman's rival, the Duke of Gloucester, is made to appear ridiculous by speaking bad French; and one of the tricks played by Renart on Ysengrin, in the Roman de Renart, is to pretend he is an Englishman:[63]

And Ysengrin answers:

A fabliau of the fourteenth century[64] pictures the dilemma of two Englishmen trying to make their French understood in France; one of them is ill and would have some lamb:

His friend sets out to try to get the 'anel' or 'lamb'; but no one understands him, and he becomes the laughing-stock of the villagers. At last some one gives him a 'small donkey' instead of the desired 'agnel,' and out of this he makes a dish for the invalid who finds the bones rather large. In the face of a reputation such as this it is no wonder that the English found additional encouragement to abandon the foreign language and cultivate their own tongue.

English was also beginning to make its way into official documents.[65] In 1362 the King's Speech at the opening of Parliament was pronounced in English, and in the following year it was directed that all pleas in the courts of justice should be pleaded and judged in English, because French was "trope desconue en ledit realme." Despite that, the act was very tardily obeyed, and English progressed but slowly, French continuing to be written long after it ceased to be spoken in the Law Courts. There were a few public documents issued in English at the end of the century, but the Acts and Records of Parliament continued to be written in French for many years subsequently. English first made its way into the operative parts of the Statutes, and till 1503 the formal parts were still written in French and Latin. Protests were made to Henry VIII. against the continued use of French, "as thereby ys testyfied our subjectyon to the Normannys"; yet it was not before the eighteenth century that English was exclusively used in the Law Courts, and for many years French, in its corrupt form, remained the literary language of the English law. Till the seventeenth century works on jurisprudence and reports on cases were mainly written in French. Les Cases de Gray's Inn shows French in accounts of discussions on difficult legal cases as late as 1680.[66] Sir John Fortescue (1394?-1476), Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, in his De Laudibus Legum Angliae, suggests that this Law French is more correct at bottom than ordinary spoken French, which, he contends, is much "altered by common use, whereas Law French is more often writ than spoken." In later times no such illusions prevailed. Swift thus estimates the value of the three languages of the English Law:[67]

At about the same time as Swift wrote, the 'frenchified' Lady, then in fashion, who prided herself on her knowledge of the "language à la mode" is described as being able to "keep the field against a whole army of Lawyers, and that in their own language, French gibberish."[68] And long after French ceased to be used in the Law many law terms and legal and official phrases remained, and are still in use to-day.[69] Anglo-French also lingered in some of the religious houses after it had fallen into discredit elsewhere, and continued to do so in some cases till the time of their dissolution. The rules and accounts of the nunneries were more often in French than not.[70] And John ap Rhys, visitor of monasteries in the reign of Henry VIII., wrote to Cromwell regarding the monastery of Laycock in Wiltshire, that he had observed one thing "worthy th'advertisement; the ladies have their Rule, th'institutes of their Religion and the ceremonies of the same written in the Frenche tongue, which they understand well and are very perfyt in the same, albeit that it varieth from vulgar Frenche that is now used, and is moche like the Frenche that the common Lawe is written in."[71]

During this same period English began to be used occasionally in correspondence; but here again its progress was slow. Some idea of the extent to which French was utilized for that purpose may be gathered from the fact that three extant letters of William de Wykeham, addressed to Englishmen, are all in that tongue. Not till the second and third decades of the fifteenth century were English and French employed in correspondence to an almost equal extent, and during the following years, especially in the reign of Henry VI., English gradually became predominant.[72] French remained in use longer in correspondence of a public and official nature, but became more and more restricted to foreign diplomacy.

Towards the middle of the fourteenth century, at the beginning of the long wars with France, French lost ground in England in yet another direction. Edward III. is said to have found it necessary to proclaim that all lords, barons, knights, burgesses, should see that their children learn French for political and military reasons;[73] and when Trevisa translated Higden's Polychronicon, he wrote in correction of the earlier chronicler's description of the teaching of French in the grammar schools of England:[74] "This maner was moche used before the grete deth (1349). But syth it is somdele chaunged. Now (i.e. 1387) they leave all Frensch in scholes, and use all construction in Englisch. Wherin they have advantage on way that they lerne the soner ther gramer. And in another disadvantage. For nowe they lerne no Frenssh ne can none, whiche is hurte for them that shall passe the see," and thus children of the grammar schools know "no more French than knows their lefte heele."

Thus the custom of translating Latin into French passed out of use early in the second half of the fourteenth century. No doubt there had been signs of the approaching change in the preceding period, and it is of interest here to notice that while Neckham's Latin vocabulary, which dates from the second half of the twelfth century, is glossed in French alone, that of Garlande, which belongs approximately to the third decade of the following century, is accompanied by translations in both French and English. In the universities, however, where French had been slower in gaining a foothold, it remained longer; in the fifteenth century teachers of French were still allowed to lecture there as they had done previously, but it is to be noticed that in all the colleges founded after the Black Death (1349), from which the change in the grammar schools is dated, the regulations encouraging the speaking of French in Hall are absent. The change appears also to have affected the higher classes, who did not usually frequent the grammar schools and universities, but depended on more private methods of instruction. Trevisa here again adds a correction to the earlier chronicle, and informs us that "gentylmen haveth now myche lefte for to teach their children Frensch."

We thus witness the gradual disappearance of the effects of the Norman Conquest in the history of the use of the French language in England. The Conquest had made Norman-French the language of the Court, and to some extent, of the Church; it had brought with it a French literature which nearly smothered the national literature and replaced it temporarily; it had led to the system of translating Latin into French as well as into English in the schools. In the later fourteenth century French was no longer the chief language of the Court, and the king spoke English and was addressed in the same tongue. In the Church the employment of French had been restricted and transitory, though, as has been mentioned, it lingered in some of the monasteries until the sixteenth century; yet Latin never found in it a serious rival in this sphere, and the ecclesiastical department of the law never followed the civil in the adoption of the use of French. How French lost ground in the other spheres has already been traced: in all these cases its employment may be regarded as a direct result of the Conquest.

This great event had also indirect results. French became the official language of England, and the favourite medium of correspondence in the thirteenth century, when the fusion between the two races was complete. But it is highly improbable that French would have spread in these directions if the Conquest had not in the first place made French the vernacular of a considerable portion of Englishmen, and that the most influential. With its use in official documents and in correspondence, may be classed the slight encouragement French received at Oxford. In all these spheres it remained longer than it had done where its status had been a more direct result of the Conquest.

Meanwhile the desire to cultivate and imitate the French of France had been growing stronger and stronger; and when, towards the end of the fourteenth century, the older influences were getting feebler, and in some cases had passed away, the influence of the continental French, especially the French of Paris, now supreme over the other dialects, became more and more marked. And it is this language which henceforth Englishmen strove to learn, gradually relinquishing the corrupt idiom with which for so long their name had been associated.

These great changes which took place in the status of French in England did not, however, affect fundamentally the popularity of the language: they had to do with Anglo-French alone. French, as distinct from this and as a foreign language, received more attention than ever before, especially from the higher classes, and from travellers and merchants. It was the language of politeness and refinement in the eyes of Englishmen, not only as a result of the Conquest, but for its inherent qualities; and so it retained this position when it gave way to English or Latin in other spheres where its predominance had been due, either directly or indirectly, to the Conquest. French had enjoyed a social reputation in England before the arrival of the invaders,[75] and had already made some progress towards becoming the language which the English loved and cultivated above all modern foreign tongues, and to which they devoted for a great many years more care than they did to their own. "Doulz françois," writes an Englishman at the end of the fourteenth century in a treatise for teaching the language,[76] is the most beautiful and gracious language in the world, after the Latin of the schools,[77] "et de tous gens mieulx prisée et amée que nul autre; quar Dieu le fist se doulce et amiable principalement a l'oneur et loenge de luy mesmes. Et pour ce il peut bien comparer au parler des angels du ciel, pour la grant doulceur et biaultée d'icel"—a more eloquent tribute even than the more famous lines of Brunetto Latini. Another writer of the same period informs us that "les bones gens du Roiaume d'Engleterre sont embrasez a scavoir lire et escrire, entendre et parler droit François," and that he himself thinks it is very necessary for the English to know the "droict nature de François," for many reasons.[78] For instance, that they may enjoy intercourse with their neighbours, the good folk of the kingdom of France; that they may better understand the laws of England, of which a great many are still written in French; and also because "beaucoup de bones choses sont misez en François," and the lords and ladies of England are very fond of writing to each other in the same tongue.[79]

As a result of the altered circumstances which were modifying the attitude of the English, there is a corresponding change in the standard of the French which the manuals for teaching that language sought to attain. All the best text-books of the end of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries endeavour with few exceptions to impart a knowledge of the French of Paris, "doux françois de Paris" or "la droite language de Paris," as it was called, in contrast with the French of Stratford-atte-Bowe and other parts of England. Those authors of treatises for teaching French of whose lives we have any details, had studied French in France, at Paris, Orleans, or some other University town. The fact that many of their productions still contain numbers of words belonging to the Norman and other dialects does not diminish the importance and significance of their more ambitious aims. These pioneer works on the French language, written in England by Englishmen without the guidance of any similar work produced in France, were bound to contain archaisms as well as anglicisms.[80]

Fluency in speaking French was the chief need of the classes of society in which the demand for instruction was greatest. Correctness in detail was only of secondary importance, and grammar, though desirable, was not considered indispensable. The importance of speaking French naturally brought the subject of pronunciation to the fore. No doubt most of the early teachers shared the opinions of their successors, that rules and theoretical information were of little avail in teaching the sounds of the language, compared with the practice of imitation and repetition; nevertheless, many of them attempted to supply some information on the subject. When, in the second decade of the fifteenth century, another writer based a new treatise for teaching French on the vocabulary of Bibbesworth, which had then been current for well over a century, the chief point in which it differed from its original was precisely in the provision of guidance to facilitate pronunciation.

This new treatise was styled Femina,[81] because just as the mother teaches her young child to speak his native tongue, so does this work teach children to speak French naturally.[82] It covers almost exactly the same ground as the vocabulary of Bibbesworth, but, as in the case of the earlier imitation of the same work, the Nominale, the order of arrangement varies, and the whole is permeated with a lively humour which makes it at least equal in interest to the work on which it is based. The French lines are octosyllabic and arranged in distichs, each pair being followed by an English translation, which is given in full, contrary to the practice in the earlier works of the same kind. The author endeavours to teach the French of France[83] as distinguished from that of England, and, although he lavishes provincialisms from the local dialects of France—Norman, Picard, Walloon—in the main they are French provincialisms, and many of them may be due to errors on the part of the scribe. To assist pronunciation notes are provided at the bottom of the page, giving pseudo-English equivalents of the sounds of words written otherwise in the text.

The treatise opens with an exhortation to the child to learn French that he may speak fairly before wise men, for "heavy is he that is not taught":

Cap: primum docet rethorice loqui de assimilitudine bestiarum.

    a        b

Beau enfaunt pur apprendre

c                  d

En franceis devez bien entendre

Ffayre chyld for to lerne

In french ye schal wel understande

 e

Coment vous parlerez bealment,

Et devaunt les sagez naturalment.

How ye schal speke fayre,

And afore ye wysemen kyndly.

  f      g

Ceo est veir que vous dy,

h            i

Hony est il qui n'est norry.

That ys soth that y yow say

Hevy ys he that ys not taugth

k l

Parlez tout ditz com affaites

m

Et nenny come dissafaites

Spekep alway as man ys tauth

And not as man untauth.

Parlez imprimer de tout assemblé

 n               o

Dez bestez que Dieu ad formé.

Spekep fyrst of manere assemble alle

Of bestes that God hath y maked.

The subsequent chapters deal with the same subjects as in Bibbesworth, and sometimes the wording is almost identical. The concluding chapter, "De moribus infantis," is taken from another source, and gives admonitions for discreet behaviour, quoting the moral treatise of the pseudo-Cato, the Proverbs of Solomon, and the like. The passage in which Femina deals with the upbringing of the child may be of interest, as showing how the later author repeats the earlier, while altering the wording; and as throwing some light on the way French was then learnt:

Et quaunt il court en graunt age

Mettez ly apprendre langage.

And when he runs in great age[84]

Put him to learn language.

En fraunceys a luy vous devez dire

Comez il doit soun corps discrire.

In French to him ye shall say

How first he shall his body describe.

Et pur ordre garder de moun et ma,

Toun et ta, son et sa, masculino et feminino.

And for order to kepe of mon and ma,

Toun and ta, soun and sa, for ma souneth.

Quia ma sonat feminino moun masculino.

To femynyn gender and moun to masculyn.

Cy que en parle soit bien apris,

Et de nule homme escharnis.

So that in speach he be well learned,

And of no man scorned.

At the end is a 'calendar,' or table of words arranged alphabetically in three parallel columns. The first gives the orthography of the word, the second the pronunciation, and the third the explanation of its meaning and construction, which usually takes the form of an English equivalent.

In the meanwhile the grammatical study of French was not neglected. There are still extant numerous small treatises[85] dealing with different aspects of French grammar, chiefly the flexions, and belonging to the end of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The conjugation of verbs receives special attention, and there are several manuscripts providing paradigms and lists of the chief parts of speech—often very incorrect, and of more value as showing the interest taken in French in England than as illustrating any development in the history of the conjugations of French verbs. The usual verbs described in these fragmentary works[86] are amo, habeo, sum, volo, facio, and the French paradigms are generally accompanied by Latin ones, on which they are naturally based, and which were intended to help the student to understand the French ("cum expositione earundem in Latinis"). The two most considerable of these works known add many verbs to the list mentioned above. Of these the first, the Liber Donati,[87] gives examples of law French rather than literary French;[88] but the other, written in French, endeavours to teach "douce françois de Paris"—cy comence le Donait soloum douce franceis de Paris.[89] The Donait belongs to the fifteenth century, and is the work of one R. Dove, who also wrote some Regulae de Orthographia Gallica in Latin,[90] which show considerable resemblance to those of the earlier Orthographia Gallica. The same is true of some of the rules devoted to orthography in the Liber Donati, which also owes something to the work of 'T. H., Student of Paris,' either in the original form, or, more probably, in the recast, due to Canon Coyfurelly. In this respect, Coyfurelly continues the efforts of the earlier writer to purify English spelling of French—efforts which at this time would meet with more success than was the case earlier.[91]

Another topic touched on in the Regulae of R. Dove is the formation of the plural of nouns, and of the feminine of adjectives. The substance of one of these rules may be quoted, as an example of the failure of these early writers to grasp general principles. All nouns ending in ge, like lange, says the grammarian, take s in the plural, as langes; all nouns ending in urc, as bourc, have z or s in the plural and drop the c, as bours; all nouns ending in nyn, as conyn, take s in the plural, as chemyns; all nouns ending in eyn, as peyn, form their plural by adding s, as peyns. Such is the rule for the formation of the plural of nouns, and that for the feminine of adjectives, which follows, is on the same lines. Pronouns also received some attention from these early grammarians. The Liber Donati[92] contains a few remarks on the personal, demonstrative and possessive pronouns, giving the different forms for the singular and plural and the various cases; thus it tells us that jeo and sometimes moy are used for I (ego) in the nominative case, and in other cases moy or me in the singular, while nous is used for the plural in all cases, and so forth.

We thus see that the verbs, nouns and pronouns received consideration, varying in degree, at the hands of these pioneers in French grammar. Neither were the indeclinable parts of speech neglected; at the end of the Liber Donati there is a list of some of these as well as of the ordinal and cardinal numbers in both Latin and French, while the Donait gives the numbers only. Some manuscripts contain lists of adverbs, prepositions and conjunctions in Latin and French.[93] Others give lists of the cardinal and ordinal numbers in French, and one adds to these a nomenclature of the different colours.[94] The names of the days, months, and feast-days were another favourite subject.

Of these small treatises that which nearest approaches the form of a comprehensive grammar is the Liber Donati, which includes observations on the orthography and pronunciation, on verbs and pronouns, and lists of adverbs, conjunctions, and numerals. But there appeared at the beginning of the fifteenth century, before 1409, a more comprehensive treatise of some real value—the Donait françois pur briefment entroduyr les Anglois en la droit langue du Paris et de pais la d'entour,[95] a work which but for its very many anglicisms might be placed on a level with some of the similar grammars of the sixteenth century.[96] The origin of this Donait is interesting. A certain Englishman, John Barton, born and bred in the county of Cheshire, but a student of Paris, and a passionate lover of the French language, engaged some good clerks to compose the Donait, at his own great cost and trouble, for the benefit of the English, who are so eager ("embrasez") to learn French.[97] Judging from the lines with which Barton closes his short but communicative preface, the work was intended mainly for the use of young people—the "chers enfants" and "tres douces pucelles," 'hungering' to learn French: "Pur ce, mes chiers enfantz et tresdoulcez puselles," he writes, "que avez fam d'apprendre cest Donait scachez qu'il est divisé en belcoup de chapiters si come il apperera cy avale." Barton then retires to make way for his 'clerks,' whose remarks are entirely confined to grammatical teaching and who, like Barton, write in French.

Most of the early treatises on French grammar which appeared in England are written in Latin. Latin appears to have been the medium through which French was learnt and explained to a large extent, although in the case of the riming vocabularies English was used for teaching the young children for whom these nomenclatures were chiefly written. But grammar, probably intended to be learnt by older students, was usually studied in Latin, which was also found to be a help in learning French. Students are told to base French orthography on that of Latin, and there are constant references from French words to their Latin originals. The Donait soloum douce franceis de Paris is apparently the only work of any importance written in French before that of Barton. English was not used for this purpose before the sixteenth century, when it was almost invariably employed, even by Frenchmen. A grammar such as Barton's would, no doubt, be read and translated with the help of a tutor; and it is highly probable that the children for whom it was intended would have previously acquired some practical knowledge of French from some such elementary treatise as Bibbesworth's vocabulary. Moreover, French was so generally in use in the higher classes of society, and had been for so long a kind of semi-national tongue, that it would hardly be approached as an entirely foreign language, as in later times. In writing a French grammar in French, Barton and those who followed the same course merely adopted for the teaching of French a method in common use in the teaching of Latin. The advisability of writing French grammars in French was a question, as we shall see, much discussed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as well as in much more recent times.

The clerks employed by Barton made free use of the observations on French grammar which had appeared previously. But their work had an additional value; the rules are stated with considerable clearness and are usually correct.[98] The opening chapters deal with the letters and their pronunciation, set forth, like the rest of the grammar, in a series of questions and answers:

To these observations on the vowels are added a few on the consonants, and "belcoup de bones rieules" (six in all) treating the avoidance of hiatus between two consonants and the effects of certain vowels and consonants on each other's pronunciation. Next come a few observations on the parts of speech; for "apres le Chapitre des lettres il nous fault dire des accidens." Instead of giving a number of isolated instances as rules for the formation of the plural, the general rule for the addition of s to the singular is evolved and emphasized by this advice: "Pour ceo gardez vous que vous ne mettez pas le singuler pour le pulier (pluriel) ne a contraire, si come font les sots." Further, we must avoid imitating the 'sottez gens,' to whom frequent reference is made, in using one person of a tense for another, and saying je ferra for je ferray.[99] In this section of the work the rules follow each other without any orderly arrangement.[100]

At about the same time an English poet is said to have written a French grammar, as another poet, Alexander Barclay, actually did later. An early bibliographer[101] includes in his list of Lydgate's works one entitled Praeceptiones Linguae Gallicae, in one book, of which no further trace remains to-day. Lydgate, however, was well acquainted with French; he made the customary foreign tour, besides visiting Paris again on a later occasion in attendance on noble patrons, and put his knowledge of the language to the test by translating or adapting several works from the French, like most contemporary writers.[102] The same early authority informs us that, as soon as Lydgate returned from his travels, he opened a school for the sons of noblemen, possibly at Bury St. Edmunds. Probably Lydgate wrote a French grammar for the use of these young noblemen, who would certainly have to learn the language; and, after serving their immediate purpose, these rules, we may surmise, were lost and soon forgotten.

In the fifteenth century, instruction in French epistolary style of all degrees continued to be supplied in collections of model letters; and at the end of the fourteenth century a new kind of book for teaching French appeared—the Manière de Langage or model conversation book, intended for the use of travellers, merchants, and others desiring a conversational and practical rather than a thorough and grammatical knowledge of French. Contrary to the custom, prevalent at this later period, of providing English translations, the earliest of these contain no English gloss, but simply the French text without any attempt at even the slight grammatical instruction provided in the vocabularies. Their sole purpose was to give the traveller or wayfarer a supply of phrases and expressions on the customary topics; grammatical instruction could be sought elsewhere.

The earliest of these[103] is the first work for teaching French to which a definite date can be assigned. A sort of dedication at the end is dated from Bury St. Edmunds, "la veille du Pentecote, 1396." We have not the same definite information as to the author.[104] The anglicisms make it clear that he was an Englishman, while the references to Orleans and its university, and the trouble there between the students and the townspeople in 1389, suggest that he was a student of that university, then much frequented by the English and other foreigners, especially law students. He may have been Canon M. T. Coyfurelly, Doctor of Law of Orleans,[105] and author of the contemporary recasting of T. H.'s treatise on French orthography. The author tells us he undertook his task at the request of a "tres honoré et tres gentil sire"; that he had learnt French "es parties la mere," and that he wrote according to the knowledge he acquired there, which, he admits, may not be perfect. Indeed his French is full of anglicisms; que homme is written for 'that man'; œuvrer for 'worker'; que for 'why,' and so on; there are also many grammatical mistakes such as wrong genders, au homme, de les for des, de le for du. This "manière" must have enjoyed a very considerable popularity, judging from the number of manuscripts, of various dates, still in existence. And, in modern times, it presents a greater interest to the reader than any of the treatises mentioned before, partly from the naïveté and quaintness of its style, partly owing to the vivid picture it gives us of the life of the time at which it was written.

It opens in a religious strain, with a prayer that the students of the book may have "sens naturel" to learn to speak, pronounce, and write "doulz françois":

Then, because man is the noblest of all created things, the author proceeds to give a list of the parts of his body, which recalls the old riming vocabularies. This, however, is the only portion in which conversation is sacrificed to vocabulary. In the rest of the work, though the vocabulary is increased by alternative phrases wherever possible, it is never allowed to encroach too much on the conversation.

The second chapter presents a scene between a lord and his page, in which the page receives minute instructions for commissions to the draper, the mercer, and upholsterer—an excellent opportunity of introducing a large choice of words. Conversation for travellers is the subject of the third chapter, the most important, and certainly the most interesting in the whole book. It tells, "Coment un homme chivalchant ou cheminant se doit contenir et parler sur son chemin qui voult aler bien loin hors de son pais." After witnessing the preparations for the journey, the reader accompanies the lord and his page through an imaginary journey in France. Dialogue and narrative alternate, and the lord talks with his page Janyn or whiles away the time with songs:

The page then proceeds to make hasty preparations for the coming of his master to the inn, and we next assist at the arrival of the lord and his evening meal and diversions—another opportunity for the introduction of songs—and his departure in the morning towards Étampes and Orleans.

More humble characters appear in the next chapter: "Un autre manière de parler de pietalle, comme des labourers et œuvrers de mestiers." Here we have conversations between members of the working classes. A gardener and a ditcher discuss their respective earnings, describe their work, and finally go and dine together; a baker talks with his servant, and so gives us the names of the chief things used in his trade, just as the gardener gave a list of flowers and fruits. A merchant scolds his apprentice for various misdemeanours, and then sends him off to market:

and after some bargaining he sells his goods.

In the next "manière de parler" a servant brings a torn doublet to a mender of old clothes, and enlists his services. A chapter of more interest and importance is that dealing with greetings and salutations to be used at different times of the day to members of the various ranks of society:

and so on. One traveller asks another whence he comes and where he was born, and the other says he comes from Orleans, where there is a fierce quarrel between the students and the townspeople; and was born in Hainaut, where they love the English well, and there is a saying that "qui tient un Henner (Hennuyer) par la main, tient un Englois par le cuer." We are next taught how to speak to children: "Quant vous verez un enfant plorer et gemir, vous direz ainsi: Qu'as tu, mon enfant," and comfort him, and when a poor man asks you for alms, you shall answer, "Mon amy, se je pourroi je vous aidasse tres volantiers. . . ."

From this we return to subjects more suited to merchants and wayfarers—how to inquire the road, and to go on a pilgrimage to the tomb of St. Thomas-à-Becket. The work closes with a gathering of companions in an inn, which, like the rest of the chapters, is full of life and interest. Last of all, a sort of supplement is added in the form of a short poem on the drawbacks of poverty:

and a fatrasie in prose.

Another treatise of the same kind, written about three years later, was intended chiefly for the use of children, Un petit livre pour enseigner les enfantz de leur entreparler comun françois.[106] It was not the first of its kind. The metrical vocabularies of Bibbesworth and his successors were chiefly intended for the use of children. There is also some evidence to show that the grammatical treatises were used by children; the commentary was added to the Orthographica Gallica because the rules were somewhat obscure "pour jeosne gentz," and Barton, in his introduction, mentions the "chiers enfantz" and "tresdoulez puselles," as those whom his grammar particularly concerns.

In the Petit livre, however, the teaching is of the simplest kind, and specially suited to children. The dialogue lacks the interest of the earlier 'manière,' and inclines, in places, to become a list of phrases pure and simple. The work opens abruptly with the words: "Pour ce sachez premierement que le an est divisé en deux, c'est asscavoir le yver et la esté. Le yver a six mois et la esté atant, que vallent douse," and so on to the other divisions of the year and time. The children are then taught the numbers in French, the names of the coins, and those of the persons and things with which they come into daily contact. Then follow appropriate terms for addressing and greeting different persons, and the author even goes so far as to provide the child with a stock of insulting terms for use in quarrels. The rest of the treatise does not appear to be intended for children. There are conversations in a tavern, lists of salutations, familiar talk for the wayside and for buying and selling, all of which has little special interest, and is designed apparently to meet the needs of merchants more than any other class. In the chatter on the events of the day there occurs a passage which enables us to date the work. The traveller tells the hostess of the captivity of Richard II. as a recent event:

The authorship is not so easy to ascertain. The manual may be due to Canon T. Coyfurelly, probable author of the earlier and better-known work also.[107] The many mistakes and anglicisms, such as quoy for quelle ('what') and the exclamatory 'Marie' in the quotation just given, show it to be the work of an Englishman.

Another book of conversation appeared in 1415,[108] as may be gathered from its first two chapters, in which a person fresh from the wars in France tells of the siege of Harfleur and the battle of Agincourt, and announces the return of the victorious English army. The rest of the dialogues are represented as taking place in and about Oxford. There is the usual tavern scene. Travellers from Tetsworth arrive at an Oxford inn, and are present at the evening meal and diversions. The hostess describes the fair at Woodstock and the articles bought and sold there; her son, a boy of twelve years, wants to be apprenticed in London; he goes to the school of Will Kyngesmylle, where writing, counting, and French are taught. One of the merchants calls the lad and questions him as to his knowledge of French: "Et que savez vous en fraunceys dire?—Sir je say moun noun et moun corps bien descrire.—Ditez moy qu'avez a noun.—J'ay a noun Johan, bon enfant, beal et sage et bien parlant engleys, fraunceys et bon normand, beneyt soit la verge que chastie l'enfant et le bon maistre qui me prist taunt! Je pri a Dieu tout puissant nous graunte le joye tous diz durant!" The lad then proceeds to give proof of his knowledge by naming the parts of his body and his clothing, always, it appears, the first things learnt.

This reference to the teaching of French in the school of an Oxford pedagogue shows that, though French had at this time lost all standing in the Grammar Schools, it was still taught in private establishments.[109] It seems highly probable that Will Kyngesmylle was the author of this work, and that he used his text-book as a means of self-advertisement, a method very common among later teachers of French. At the close comes a chapter belonging to another work of the same type, which is only preserved in this fragment; no doubt other such works existed and have been entirely lost.

It is likely that in the fifteenth century these conversational manuals supplanted, to a considerable extent, the earlier type of practical manual for teaching French—the metrical vocabulary—with which they had something in common. At any rate, there is no copy of such nomenclatures extant after Femina (1415). The 'manières' provided in their dialogues much of the material found in the vocabularies, giving, wherever possible, groups of words on the same topics—the body, its clothing, houses, and men's occupations. Further, the vocabularies, which had never departed from the type instituted by Bibbesworth in the thirteenth century, dealt more with the feudal and agricultural life of the Middle Ages, and so had fallen behind the times. The 'Manières de Langage' were more in keeping with the new conditions. Towards the end of the century (and perhaps at the beginning of the sixteenth century) we come to a manual,[110] which, while resembling the 'manières' in most points, reproduces some of the distinctive external marks of the vocabularies. For instance, the French is arranged in short lines, which, however, do not rime, and vary considerably in the number of syllables they contain; and these are followed by a full interlinear English gloss, as in the later vocabularies. The subject matter, however, is similar to that of the early conversation books. First comes gossip at taverns and by the wayside:

Ditez puisse ie savement aler?

Saie may I saufly goo?

Ye sir le chemyn est sure assez.

Yes sir the wey is sure inough.

Mes il convent que vous hastez.

But it behoveth to spede you.

Sir dieu vous donne bon aventure.

Sir god geve you good happe.

Sir a dieu vous commaunde.

Sir to god I you betake.

Sir dieu vous esploide.

Sir god spede you.

Sir bon aventure avez vous.

Sir good chaunce have ye.

Sir par saint Marie cy est bon servise.

Sir by saint Marie her is good ale.

Sir pernes le hanappe, vous comenceres.

Sir take the coppe, ye shal beginne.

Dame ie ne feray point devaunt vous.

Dame I wil not doo bifor you.

Sir vous ferrez verrement.

Sir ye shal sothely.

After some disconnected discourse on inquiring the time, asking the way, etc., we again return to the tavern:

Dame dieu vous donne bon jour.

Dame god geve you good daie.

Dame avez hostel pour nous trois compaignons?

Dame have ye hostel for us iij felowes?

Sir quant longement voudrez demourer?

Sir how long wol ye abide?

Dame nous ne savons point.

Dame we wote not.

Et que vouldrez donner le iour pour vostre table?

And what wil ye geve a daie for your table?

Dame que vouldrez prendr pour le iour?

Dame what wol ye take for the daie?

Sir non meynns que vj deniers le iour.

Sir noo lesse thenne vj d. the day ... etc.

Next comes the usual scene between buyers and sellers, followed by another inn scene of greater length. After attending to their horses, the travellers sup and spend the night at the inn, and set out the next morning after reckoning with their hostess. The manuscript ends abruptly in the midst of a list of salutations. The nature of the French[111] betrays the author's nationality; he was evidently an Englishman. As to the English, the quaint turn given to many of the phrases is usually explained by the writer's desire to give a literal translation of the French; many of the inaccuracies in both versions are probably due to careless work on the part of the scribe.

Merchants thus appear to have been one of the chief classes among which there was a demand for instruction in French. In addition to the large part assigned to them in the 'Manières de Langage,' and in the epistolaries, where letters of a commercial nature are a usual feature, there exist collections of model forms for drawing up bills, indentures, receipts and other documents of similar import. They are usually called 'cartularies,' are accompanied by explanations in Latin, and may be looked upon as the first text-books of commercial French.[112] One author explains their origin and aim by this introductory remark:[113] "Pour ceo qe j'estoie requis par ascunz prodeshommez de faire un chartuarie pour lour enfantz enformer de faire chartours, endenturs, obligations, defesance, acquitancez, contuaries, salutaries, en Latin et Franceys ensemblement . . . fesant les chartours, escripts munimentz a de primes en Latyn et puis en Franceys."

More emphasis is laid on the demand for instruction in French among the merchant class by the fact that the earliest printed text-books were designed chiefly for their use. The first of these may be classed with the new development of the 'Manières de Langage,' comprising dialogues in French and English, although it does not exactly answer to this description.[114] It was issued from the press of William Caxton in about 1483, and at least one other edition appeared at a later date.[115] In form it is a sort of narrative in French, with an English translation opposite. The aim of the work is stated clearly in an introductory passage which informs the reader that "who this book shall learn may well enterprise merchandise from one land to another and to know many wares which to him shall be good to be bought, or sold for rich to become." Caxton thus recommends the book to the learner:

The 'doctrine' itself opens with a list of salutations with the appropriate answers. A house and all its contents come next, then its inhabitants, which introduces the subject of degrees of kinship:

At the end of the category come the servants and their occupations, which affords an opportunity of bringing in the different shops to which they are sent and of specifying the meat and drink they purchase there. We then pass to buying, selling, and bargaining in general, and to merchandise of all kinds, with a list of coins, popular fairs, and fête-days.

After an enumeration of the great persons of the earth comes the main chapter of the work, giving a fairly complete list of crafts and trades. This takes the form of an alphabetical list of Christian names, each of which is made to represent one of the trades, beginning with Adam the ostler: "For this that many words shall fall or may fall which be not plainly heretofore written, so shall I write you from henceforth divers matters of all things, first of one thing, then of another, in which chapter I will conclude the names of men and women after the order of a, b, c." The baker may be selected as a fair example:

At last the author, "all weary of so many names to name, of so many crafts, so many offices, so many services," finds relief in certain considerations of a religious order: "God hath made us unto the likeness of himself, he will reward those who do well and punish those who do not repent of their sins, and attend the holy services: If ye owe any pilgrimages, so pay them hastily; when you be moved for to go your journey, and ye know not the waye, so axe it thus." The usual directions for inquiring the way follow with the description of the arrival at an inn, and the customary gossip. The reckoning and departure on the following morning afford an opportunity of including a further list of Flemish and English coins together with the numerals; and Caxton concludes his work by commending it to the reader with a prayer that those who study it may persevere sufficiently to profit by it:

The short introduction and epilogue were most probably the composition of Caxton himself. The rest of the book is drawn from a set of dialogues in French and Flemish, first written at the beginning of the fourteenth century, called Le Livre des Mestiers in reference to its main chapter.[116] This would possibly be known to merchants trading with Bruges and other centres of the Low Countries; and when we notice the numerous points of resemblance between it and the English manuals of conversation, the first of which did not appear before the end of the same century, it seems very probable that the Flemish original had some influence on the works produced in England. Caxton was a silk mercer of London, and his business took him to the towns of the Low Countries, especially Bruges, where the English merchants had a large commercial connexion. There, no doubt, he became acquainted with the Livre des Mestiers, and probably improved his knowledge of French by its help, for he studied and read the language a good deal during his long sojourn abroad. There also he probably added an English column to his copy of the French-Flemish phrase-book, as a sort of exercise rather than with any serious intention of publication; and when he had set up his press at Westminster, remembering the need he had felt for French, in his own commercial experience, and the little book which had assisted him, he would decide to print it. Caxton's copy of the Livre des Mestiers belonged, no doubt, to a later date than the one extant to-day,[117] probably to the beginning of the fifteenth century. It must have been fuller, and have had different names attached to the characters, so that, as the names are still arranged in alphabetical order, it is difficult, at a glance, to distinguish the identity of the two texts.

Caxton's rendering of the French is often inaccurate, owing perhaps to the influence of the Flemish version from which he seems to have made his translation.[117] Moreover, at the early date at which Caxton, probably, added the English column to the Livre des Mestiers, his knowledge of French had not yet reached that state of thoroughness which was to enable him to translate such a remarkable number of French works into English. He himself tells us in the prologue to the Recuyell of the Histories of Troy of Raoul le Fèvre (Bruges, 1475)—the first of his translations from the French, and, indeed, the first book to be printed in English—that his knowledge of French was not by any means perfect. With the exception of the introductory and closing sentences, Caxton made few additions to his original. He did indeed supply the names of English towns, coins, bishoprics, and so on; but, on the whole, the setting of the work is foreign; Bruges, not London, is the centre of the action, and no doubt the place where the original was composed.

Not long after the publication of Caxton's doctrine another work of like character and purpose appeared. It claims to be "a good book to learn to speak French for those who wish to do merchandise in France, and elsewhere in other lands where the folk speak French." The atmosphere is entirely English, and consequently its contents bear a closer resemblance to its English predecessors. In the arrangement of the dialogue it is identical with the Cambridge conversation book, except that the English lines come before the French, and not the French before the English.[118] The four subjects round which the dialogue turns, namely, salutations, buying and selling, inquiring the way, and conversation at the inn, were all favourites in the early "Manières de Langage." For the rest it follows in the steps of its English predecessors in confining itself to dialogue pure and simple, while Caxton's 'doctrine' adopted the narrative form. In one point, however, the work differs from the latest development of the old "Manière de Langage," as preserved in the Cambridge Dialogues in French and English; the dialogues are followed by a vocabulary, then a reprint of one of the old books on courtesy and demeanour for children, with a French version added, and finally commercial letters in French and English. The work is thus made much more comprehensive than any of its type which had as yet appeared, and includes samples, so to speak, of all the practical treatises for teaching French which had appeared in the Middle Ages.

It was printed separately by the two chief printers of the time, both foreigners: Richard Pynson, a native of Normandy and student of Paris, who came to England and began printing on his own account about 1590-1591; and Wynkyn de Worde, a native of Alsace, and apprentice to Caxton, with whom he probably came to England from Bruges in 1476, and to whose business he succeeded in 1491.[119] Although neither of the printers dated their work, it seems probable that the earliest edition was issued by Pynson. There is a unique copy of his edition in the British Museum; it is without title-page, pagination, or catch-words, and the colophon reads simply "Per me Ricardum Pynson." The colophon of Wynkyn's work, of which there is a complete copy in the Grenville Library (British Museum),[120] and a fragment of two leaves in the Bodleian, is slightly more instructive and runs as follows: "Here endeth a lytyll treatyse for to lern Englyshe and Frensshe. Emprynted at Westmynster by my Wynken de Worde." Now as Wynkyn moved from Westminster in 1500 to set up his shop in the centre of the trade in Fleet Street, opposite to that of his rival Pynson, his edition of the work must have appeared before that date, because it was issued from what had been Caxton's house in Westminster. On the other hand, the type used by Pynson is archaic,[121] and the work is evidently one of the earliest issued from his press. It is inferior to Wynkyn's edition from the technical point of view. A headline is all there is by way of title; while in Wynkyn's copy we find a separate title-page, containing the words, "Here begynneth a lytell treatyse for to lern Englishe and Frensshe," and a woodcut of a schoolmaster seated in a large chair, with a large birch-rod in his left hand, and, on a stool at his feet, three small boys holding open books. This particular woodcut was a favourite in school-books of the period;[122] it appears, for instance, in a little treatise entitled Pervula, giving instructions for turning English into Latin, which Wynkyn de Worde printed about 1495.[123] Moreover, each page of Wynkyn's edition has a descriptive headline, "Englysshe and Frensshe," which is not found in Pynson's. The text also is in many places more accurate than that of the Norman printer, and gives the impression of having been corrected here and there. It is therefore probable that Pynson first printed the treatise shortly after 1490,[124] and that another edition was issued by Wynkyn de Worde during the period intervening between the date of the issue of Pynson's edition and the end of the century. A remnant, consisting of one page of yet another edition, is preserved in the British Museum, and shows some variations in spelling from the two other texts.

This little book, then, seems to have enjoyed considerable popularity during its short life. On the whole it is more elementary in character than the 'doctrine' of Caxton. The first things taught are the numbers and a list of ordinary mercantile phrases. The opening passage is very much like that written by Caxton for his work:

Here is a good boke to lerne to speke Frenshe.

Vecy ung bon livre apprendre parler françoys.

In the name of the fader and the sone

En nom du pere et du filz

And of the holy goost, I wyll begynne

Et du saint esperit, je vueil commencer

To lerne to speke Frensshe,

A apprendre a parler françoys,

Soo that I maye doo my marchandise

Affin que je puisse faire ma marchandise

In Fraunce & elles where in other londes,

En France et ailieurs en aultre pays,

There as the folk speke Frensshe.

La ou les gens parlent françoys.

And fyrst I wylle lerne to reken by lettre.

Et premierement je veux aprendre a compter par lettre. . . .

Next come the cardinal numbers and a vocabulary of words "goode for suche as use marchaundyse":

Of gold & sylver.

D'or et d'argent.

Of cloth of golde.

De drap d'or.

Of perles & precyous stones.

De perles et Pieres precieuses.

Of velvet & damaskes.

De velours et damas etc. . . .

and so on for nearly a page, in which the names of various cloths, spices, and wines are provided.

Then follows another "manner of speeche" in a list of salutations arranged in dialogue form:

Other maner of speche in frensshe.

Autre magniere de langage en françoys.

Syr, God gyve you good daye.

Sire, Dieu vous doint bon iour.

Syr, God gyve you goode evyn.

Sire, Dieu vous doint bon vespere.

Syr, God gyve you goode nyght & goode reste.

Sire, Dieu vous doint bon nuyt et bon repos.

Syr, how fare ye?

Sire, comment vous portez vous?

Well at your commaundement.

Bien a vostre commandement.

How fare my lorde & my lady?

Coment se porte mon seigneur et ma dame?

Ryght well blessyd be God.

Tres bien benoit soit Dieu.

Syr, whan go ye agayne to my lorde,

Sire, quant retournez vous a mon seigneour,

I praye you that ye wyll recommaunde me unto hym,

Je vous prie que me recomandez a lui,

And also to my lady his wyfe.

Et aussi a ma dame sa femme.

Syr, God be wyth you.

Sire, Dieu soit avecques vous.

Yet another favourite subject is next introduced—a conversation on buying and selling:

Other maner of speche to bye and selle.

Aultre magniere de langage pour vendre et achatter.

Syr, God spede you.

Sire, Dieu vous garde.

Syr, have ye not good cloth to sell?

Sire, n'avez vous point de bon drapt a vendre?

Ye syr ryght good.

Ouy sire tres bon.

Now lette me see it and it please you.

Or le me laisses voir s'il vous plest.

I shall doo it with a good wyll.

Je le feray voulentiers.

Holde, here it is.

Tenez sire, le veez cy.

Now saye how moche the yerde is worthe

Or me dites combyen l'aune vault.

Ten shelynges.

Dix solz.

Forsothe ye set it to dere.

Vrayment vous le faictez trop cher.

I shall gyve you eyght shelynges.

Je vous en donneray huyt soulz.

I wyll not, it is to lytell.

Non feroy, cest trop pou.

The yerde shall coste you nyne shelynges,

L'aune vous coustra neuf soulz,

Yf that ye have it.

Si vous l'airez.

Ye shall have it for no lasse.

Vous ne l'avrez pour riens mains.

The merchant has also to be able to ask for directions on his way, and to gossip with the landlady of the wayside inn; the phrases necessary for these purposes are recorded in the next "manner of speech," where, as in the first treatise of 1396, the scene is laid in France:

For to aske the waye.

Pour demander le chemin.

Frende, God save you.

Amy, Dieu vous sauve.

Whiche is the ryght waye

Quelle est la voye droite

For to goo from hens to Parys?

Pour aller d'icy a Paris?

Syr, ye muste holde the waye on the ryght hande.

Sire, il vous fault tenir le chemin a la droite main.

Now saye me, my frende,

Or me ditez, mon amy,

Yf that any good lodginge

Y a il point de bon logis

Be betwixt this and the next vyllage?

Entre cy et ce prochayn village?

There is a ryght good one.

Il en y a ung tres bon.

Ye shall be there ryght well lodged,

Vous serez tres bien logé,

Ye & also your horse.

Vous et aussi vostre chevaul.

My frende, God yelde it you,

Mon ami, Dieu vous le rende,

And I shall doo an other tyme

Et ie feraye ung aultre foiz

As moche for you and I maye.

Autant pour vous se ie puis.

God be with you.

Dieu soit avecques vous.

The passage proceeds to describe, always in the form of a dialogue, the traveller's arrival at the inn, his entertainment there, and his departure:

Dame, shall I be here well lodged?

Dame, seroy ie icy bien logé?

Ye syr, ryght well.

Ouy sire, tres bien.

Nowe doo me have a good chambre

Or me faites avoir ungue bonne chambre

And a good fyre,

Et bon feu,

And doo that my horse

Et faites que mon chevaul

Maye be well governed,

Puisse estre bien gouverné,

And gyve hym good hay and good otes.

Et lui donnés bon foin et bon avoine.

Dame, is all redy for to dyne?

Dame, est tout prest pour aller digner?

Ye syr, whan it please you.

Oui sire, quant il vous plaise.

Syr, moche good do it you.

Sire, bon preu vous face.

I praye you make good chere

Je vous prie faictez bonne chere

And be mery, I drynke to you.

Et soyez ioieux, ie boy a vous.

Now, hostes, saye me how moche have we spende at this dyner.

Hostesse, or me dites combien nous avons despendu a ce digner.

I shall tell you with a good wyll.

Je vous le diray voulentiers.

Ye have in alle eyght shelyngs.

Vous avez en tout huyt solz.

Nowe well holde your sylver and gramercy.

Or bien tenez vostre argent et grandmercy.

Do my horse come to me.

Or me faittz venir mon cheval.

Is he sadled and redy for to ryde?

Est il sellé et appointé pour chevaucher?

Ye syr, all redy.

Ouy sire, tout prest.

Now fare well and gramercy.

Or adiu et grandmercy.

Here the 'manière de langage' ends. It is followed by a list of nouns arranged under headings. The enumeration begins with the parts of the body,[125] followed by the clothing and armour—a list containing valuable information on the fashions of the time; then come the natural phenomena, the sun, the stars, water, the winds, and so on; the products of the earth and the food they supply, and finally, the names of the days of the week. With the exception of the last page, each word is preceded by a possessive adjective or an article indicating its gender. The English rendering is sometimes placed above the French word, sometimes opposite.

After the vocabulary, which covers nearly five pages, comes the courtesy book in English and French, occupying the next seven pages. It is a reprint of the Lytylle Chyldrenes Lytil Boke,[126] which contains a set of maxims for discreet behaviour at meals, in which children are told not to snatch meat from the table before grace is said; not to throw bones on the floor; nor pick their teeth with their knife; nor do many other things, which, when we remember that such books were intended for the instruction of the gentry, throw interesting sidelights on contemporary manners. The inclusion of such precepts for children in a text-book for teaching French was not without precedent; in the last of the series of riming vocabularies, Femina (1415), there is a collection of moral maxims taken, in this instance, from the ancient writers, and printed in Latin, French, and English.

In conclusion, the author reverts to the more strictly commercial side of the treatise, with two letters, given in both French and English. One is from an apprentice who writes to his master reporting on some business he is transacting at Paris, and asking for more money. In the second a merchant communicates to his 'gossip' the news of the arrival at London and Southampton of ships laden with rich merchandise, and proposes that they should "find means and ways in this that their shops shall be well stuffed of all manner of merchandise." In both these letters the English comes first:

And so ends this interesting little book.[128] The texts of the two complete editions are in the main identical. The arrangement of the matter on the pages is different, and the spelling of the words, both French and English, varies considerably. Slips which occur in Pynson's text, such as the rendering of 'neuf' by 'ten,' or the accidental omission of a word in the French version, are sometimes corrected in Wynkyn's version. On the other hand, similar mistakes, though much fewer in number, are found in Wynkyn's edition and not in Pynson's; while yet others are common to both the printers. Dialect forms are scattered through the two editions with equal capriciousness. Both texts contain a few anglo-normanisms. Pynson's shows numerous characteristics of the North-Eastern dialects, Picard or Lorrain, but at times there is a Picard form in Wynkyn's version, where the pure French form occurs in the other. Apart from such variations, the wording of the two editions is usually similar. In cases where it differs, the improvements are found in Wynkyn's edition, in spite of the fact that, as a general rule, the output of Pynson's press reaches a higher literary level than that of the more business-like Alsatian. This exception may, no doubt, be explained by the fact that Pynson was the first to print the Good Book to learn to speak French.[129] Yet here again mistakes are sometimes common to both texts, as, for instance, the rendering of the lines:

by the French:

in which the wrong interpretation of the English 'for' (conjunction) and 'sythen' (taken as meaning 'since,' not 'say') destroys the sense.

On the whole, the impression conveyed by the perusal of the two editions is that the work is a compilation of treatises already in existence in manuscript. Neither the letters nor the vocabulary present any strikingly new features. The origin of the courtesy book is known, and it is even possible that the fragment of one leaf preserved belongs, not to another edition of the Good Book to learn to speak French, but to an earlier edition of the courtesy book in French and English, printed probably by Caxton, with the intention of imparting a knowledge of polite behaviour and of the favourite language of polite society at the same time. The fact that it reproduces the original courtesy book more fully than does either of the complete texts of Wynkyn and Pynson, suggests that it belonged to some such edition, or to an edition of the Good Book earlier than either of these. As to the dialogues, they may have belonged to the group of conversational manuals, which were, no doubt, fairly numerous. Caxton, while maintaining that his 'doctrine' contains more than "many other books," adds: "That which cannot be found declared in it, shall be found elsewhere in other books." That such practical little books shared the fate of the great majority of school manuals is not surprising.

The hypothesis that the work is a compilation of older treatises would, moreover, explain the variations in the quality of the French. The dialogues and letters, it would appear, were in the first place written by Englishmen. Pynson corrected them here and there, without, however, eliminating all the anglicisms, archaisms, and provincial forms; and when they passed through the hands of Wynkyn they underwent still further emendation. The English version contains gallicisms, just as the French contains anglicisms,[130] which were, however, probably due to a desire to make the English tally with the French. This same supposition also makes it easier to understand how it came about that the treatise was printed by the two rival printers within the space of a few years, and explains how it was they repeated the same obvious mistakes.

Thus, of the matter found in the mediaeval treatises for teaching French, grammar rules alone are unrepresented in this Good Book. Its aim is entirely practical. It seeks to teach those who wish to "lerne to speke Frensshe" for practical purposes, that is, "to do their merchaundise," and there is no mention of any deeper or wider knowledge of the language. That the work was intended for the use of children as well as for merchants is shown by the introduction of the courtesy book, and, in the later edition, of the favourite frontispiece for children's school-books described above. But these do not form a vital part of the work itself, and are mere supplements, added probably with the intention of increasing the public to which the book would appeal. The children who used it, we may assume, would probably be of the class of the boy, "John, enfant beal et sage," who appears in the 'manière' of 1415, and learns French that he may the more quickly achieve his end of being apprenticed to a London merchant. To such children the apprentice's letter quoted above would be of much interest.

Grammar did not hold a very large place in the teaching of French at this time. Practice and conversation were the usual methods of acquiring a knowledge of spoken French, and no doubt such books as those of Caxton and of Pynson and Wynkyn de Worde found many eager students. The two editions of the first and the three editions of the second with which we are acquainted, all of which probably appeared in the course of the last decade of the fifteenth century, bear testimony to this. Reference has already been made to the probable existence of numerous works of a similar scope in manuscript, and later in print. Such were the "little pages, set in print, with no precepts," to which Claude Holyband, the most popular French teacher of London in the second half of the sixteenth century, refers with contempt; he accuses them of wandering from the 'true phrase' of the language, and of teaching nothing of the reading and pronunciation, "which is the chiefest point to be considered in that behalf," and hence of serving but little to the "furtherance of the knowledge of the French tongue." Yet, though such was the case in all these early works, they seem, without exception, to have enjoyed great popularity at the time they were written, when to speak French fluently was an all-important matter. The difficulty of this accomplishment was realised to the full. We find it expressed in a few disconnected sentences added in French probably at the beginning of the sixteenth century, at the end of the 'manière de langage' of 1396: "We need very long practice before we are able to speak French perfectly," says the anonymous writer, evidently an Englishman, "for the French and English do not correspond word for word, and the fine distinctions are difficult to seize." He proceeds to urge the necessity of a glib tongue in making progress in French, and quotes the case of an unfortunate man, good fellow though he might otherwise be, who lacked this faculty: "Il ne luy avient plus a parler franceis qu'à une vache de porter une selle, a cause que sa langue n'est pas bien afilée, et pour cela n'entremette il pas à parler entre les fraunceis."

In the early part of the sixteenth century, however, French began to be studied with more thoroughness in England. Communication with France and the tour in France were no longer fraught with the same dangers and difficulties, and favoured the use of a purer form of French. Fluent was no longer sufficient without correct pronunciation and grammar. The standard of French taught was also raised by the arrival of numerous Frenchmen, who made the teaching of their language the business of their lives. Further, the spread of the art of printing had rendered French literature more accessible, and supplied a rich material from which the rules of the language might be deduced. And so it became possible for John Palsgrave, the London teacher and student of Paris, to complete the first great work on the French language, in which, however, he did not forget to render due homage to his humble predecessors,[131] then fast passing into oblivion.

At the beginning of the sixteenth century the gradual changes which brought about the extinction of Anglo-French were complete to all intents and purposes; this corrupt form of the language lingered only in a few religious houses and the law courts. The French spoken at the English Court in the Middle Ages had remained purer than elsewhere; for centuries the kings of England were as much attached to France as to England; they had spent much of their time in France and fought for the French crown as their natural right, not as Englishmen in strife with Frenchmen. From the thirteenth century, however, English was understood, though not widely spoken, at Court. It progressed gradually until, two centuries later, in the reign of Henry VI., it was used more frequently than French. By the sixteenth century French was an entirely foreign language at the English Court, and it was round the Court circles that developed the new and more serious study of the language which then arose—a study which led to the production of so important a work as John Palsgrave's L'Esclarcissement de la langue françoyse. It will therefore be well to consider the extent to which French was used among the nobility and gentry of the time.

The personal ascendancy of the Tudors and the pomp of their Court began to attract the attention of foreigners, and to excite their curiosity. Consequently numerous travellers made their way to the English capital; and later in the same period religious persecution, raging on the Continent, drove many Protestants, frequently men of distinction, to seek refuge in England. What language would these visitors employ in their intercourse with their hosts? English is excluded from the purview, because at this time, and indeed for some time after, our language received no recognition, and certainly no homage from any foreigner, and but scant deference from English scholars themselves.[132] Several foreign visitors in London have left an account of their impressions on hearing this entirely unknown and strange language spoken. Thus Nicander Nucius, the Greek Envoy at the Court of Henry VIII., says of the English that "they possess a peculiar language, differing in some measure from all others"; although it is "barbarous," he finds in it a certain charm and attraction, and judges it "sweeter" than German or Flemish.[133] Others formed a less favourable opinion.[134] The physician Girolamo Cordano, for instance, when he first heard Englishmen speaking, thought they were Italians gone mad and raving, "for they inflect the tongue upon the palate, twist words in the mouth, and maintain a sort of gnashing with the teeth." The Dutchman, Immanuel von Meteren, gathered the impression that English is broken German, "not spoken from the heart as the latter, but only prattling with the tongue."

We have, however, to recollect that, among the learned, Latin was in general use as a spoken language; it was the ideal of the Humanists to make Latin the universal language of the educated world. Erasmus was able to live several years in England, and in familiar intercourse with Englishmen, without feeling the necessity for learning English or using any other modern language; but he mingled almost entirely with scholars, such as Grocyn, Linacre, Latimer, Colet, and More—men with whom Henry VIII. loved to surround himself. Still, the great Dutchman was an exception even amongst Humanists, who nearly all, at some period in their lives, forsook Latin for their native tongue. Moreover, Latin was not fluently or colloquially spoken by the majority of the English nobility and gentry. The poet, Alexander Barclay, tells us that "the understandyne of Latyn," in the early years of the sixteenth century, was "almost contemned by Gentylmen."[135] "I have not these twenty years used any THE SPEAKING OF LATINLatin tongue,"[136] said Latimer at his trial for heresy in 1554—a striking testimony on the lips of one whose natural sympathies were towards Humanism. Some years later the great Huguenot scholar, Hubert Languet, wrote to his young English friend, Sir Philip Sidney—then newly returned from continental travel—to express his apprehension lest the young man should forget all his Latin at the English Court and entirely give up the practice of it; he urges him to do his best to prevent this, and maintain his Latin along with his French. Languet affirms that he has never heard Sidney pronounce a syllable of French incorrectly, and wishes his pronunciation of Latin were as perfect.[137] Sidney, however, does not appear to have considered Latin of as much importance to a courtier as French: "So you can speake and write Latine not barbarously," he wrote to his brother Robert in 1580,[138] "I never require great study ordinarily in Ciceronianisme, the cheife abuse of Oxford." No doubt Sidney voices a general sentiment in this verdict. It is increasingly clear that the supremacy of Latin was beginning to be questioned on all sides, and, while Latin remained to a large extent the language of scholars, it was not generally employed in society.

Further, when the English did speak Latin, foreigners had considerable difficulty in understanding them, on account of their notoriously bad pronunciation. The great scholar Scaliger, who was in England in 1590, tells that he once listened to an Englishman talking Latin for a quarter of an hour, and at last excused himself, saying that he did not understand English![139] To the same effect is the observation of Tom Coryat, the traveller, who, on his journey on the Continent,[140] found his Latin so little understood, that he had to modify his pronunciation. At a later date, when the Grand Duke of Tuscany, Cosmo III., visited the two English Universities,[141] he was unable to understand the Latin speeches and orations with which he was greeted. A Latin comedy which the Cambridge students performed in his honour was equally unintelligible to him. "To smatter Latin with an English mouth," wrote Milton in a well-known passage, "is as ill a hearing as Law French."

At the same time a quickened interest in modern languages generally was felt in England as in other countries. Two of these, Italian and Spanish, entered the arena to challenge the supremacy of French in the world of fashion and intellect. The real issue of the contest, however, was never in doubt. The Renaissance and the new Humanism appeared for a time to favour the Italian rival,[142] but the inherent merits of French, with its particular genius for precision and clarity, easily won the day. Those circles—often very brilliant circles—of distinguished men and women for whom the Renaissance was as the dawn of a new day, often made Italian a more serious object of study than French; but though it was widely learned for the sake of its literature, it was never so widely spoken or so universally popular as French. Italian, and to a minor degree Spanish, were indeed seriously cultivated by the Tudor group of distinguished linguists,[143] and so became a sort of fashion, which, spreading to more frivolous circles, soon degenerated into mere affectation. These dilettanti had been at a great feast of languages and stolen the scraps, to use Shakespeare's words. Such affectation was naturally felt to be dangerous. While Roger Ascham renders due homage to the linguistic attainments of his queen,[144] he finds it necessary to reproach INTEREST IN MODERN LANGUAGESthe young gentlemen of the day with their deficiency in this respect. Professional teachers of modern languages likewise complain of the lack of seriousness on the part of many of their pupils. John Florio,[145] for example, bewails the fact that when they have learned two words of Spanish, three words of French, and four words of Italian, they think they have enough, and will study no more; and a French teacher[146] expresses the same thought in almost identical terms; according to him they learn a little French one day, then a bit of Italian and a snatch of Spanish, and think themselves qualified for an embassy to the Grand Turk. Shakespeare's Falconbridge, the young baron of England, may be taken as a fair example of such dilettantism.[147]

Thus Italian was never a really dangerous rival to French, which had struck its roots deep into the English soil long before Italian influence reached our shores. Not only was this the case, but French was also widely known throughout Europe. Even in the early years of this period, the poet Alexander Barclay, himself the author of a French grammar, affirms that French was spoken even by the Turks and Saracens. The French themselves are said to have been in love with their own language, and, as a result, to have neglected Latin;[148] when the English ambassador at Paris, Sir Amias Poulet, sent to England for a chaplain for his household, he wrote: "Yt were to be wished that he had at the least some understandinge in the French tongue for his better conference with the Frenche ministers, whereof many are not best able to utter there mynde in Lattyn."[149]

We may therefore safely conclude that French was the language commonly spoken by Englishmen in their intercourse with foreigners, although Latin was sometimes used in conversation, and Italians were occasionally addressed in their own tongue. English was so little used in the Court and its circles that foreigners were apt to forget that England had a language of her own; one of them considers it a merit in Henry VIII. that he was able to speak English! In London, indeed, the use of French was so common that several foreign observers deemed the fact worthy of note. Nicander Nucius, the Greek envoy who visited London in 1545, remarks[150] that, for the most part, the English use the French language, besides having a great admiration for everything else French—an observation which cannot safely be taken as referring to any other class than the nobility, as his relations would be almost wholly restricted to that class. When the Duke of Württemberg visited the court of Elizabeth, where he found ample occasion to exercise his own admirable knowledge of French, he left on record the fact that many English courtiers understood and spoke French very well. The spread of French at the English Court attracted the attention of Frenchmen also, and several years after Nicander's account, Peletier du Mans states that in England, at least among the princes and their courts, French is spoken on all occasions.[151]

French was also not infrequently used in correspondence. Apart from such diplomatic correspondence as exists, numerous examples of the interchange of private letters in French among the English nobility have come down to us. Even among scholars Latin was by no means the only medium of communication. In the sixteenth century the chief scholars of the two countries corresponded with each other, and, though Englishmen never wrote in their native tongue, Frenchmen did occasionally use their own language rather than Latin. Bacon wrote in French to the Marquis of Effiat, and Hotman, on the other hand, in French to Camden: "Me sentant detraqué de l'usage de la langue latine, je vous escris cette lettre en françois pour renouveller avec vous notre amitié ancienne et correspondance."[152] John Calvin corresponded with Edward VI. and Protector Somerset in French, and Henry IV. of France carried on a voluminous correspondence in his own language with his "tres chere et tres aimée bonne FRENCH REGARDED WITH SPECIAL FAVOURsœur," Elizabeth, as well as with her chief ministers.[153] French was thus more than a mere accomplishment for the English gentleman, and soon became an absolute necessity for all those who desired employment under the Crown. It is true that an interpreter might be had, but the practice was looked upon with great disfavour as very unsuitable where private negotiations had to be conducted. The necessity for a knowledge of French on the part of a minister of state may be gathered from the large number of petitions and other documents addressed to them in that language and preserved among the State Papers.[154] A rather curious instance of the favour with which the use of French was regarded in official circles is supplied by the case of a Scotch prisoner in London, who, when he desired leave on parole, on the ground of ill-health, was advised to make his application in French, "to shew his scholarship."[155] Copies of proclamations, issued in foreign countries, were frequently translated into French before being sent to the English Government; and time after time we find a lack of knowledge of French regarded as a serious disqualification for diplomatic or other public service. One young gentleman regrets that he "cannot be engaged on any work of importance as he does not know French." The drawbacks arising from an inadequate knowledge of the language appear from the case of a certain Thomas Thyrleby who writes from Valance to Wriothesly in 1538 telling him how much discouraged he is concerning his knowledge of French. He says he went with the Bishop of Winchester and Brian to the Constable that morning at eight o'clock, and that he could understand them, but not the Grand Master's answer, except by conjecture, guessing at a word here and there; after dinner he had audience of the French king and bore away never one word but "l'empereur, l'empereur" often rehearsed; and he feels he must diligently apply himself to learn the language or the king will be ill served when he is left alone.[156]

The Tudors appear to have regarded the study of French with much favour. The first king of this line had lived for many years in France and was strongly imbued with French tastes.[157] He encouraged Frenchmen to visit England, and appointed one of them, Bernard André, his Poet Laureate and Historiographer as well as tutor to his sons. There were also troupes of French comedians and minstrels who performed at Court from time to time.[158] The king always received with favour at his Court those who were fluent in the French tongue. No doubt Stephen Hawes secured the king's patronage partly by his facility in the use of this language, and partly from his really profound knowledge of French literature, of which the king also was an eager student. Yet this first of the Tudor kings belongs rather to the Middle Ages and the Old Learning than to the Renaissance.

Not until we reach the period of Henry VIII., a distinct favourer of the New Learning, do we enter fully into the spirit of the new movement. In a true sense Henry may be called the first King of England, for England was his real home, and while using the ancient title "King of France," he had no truly filial attachment to the country. He may thus be taken as a fair example of the attitude of the cultivated English noble towards foreign languages. He spoke French fluently though he had never been in France, and also conversed in Latin with ease; Italian he understood, but made no attempt to speak. He always addressed foreigners in either French or Latin.[159] An admirer of French fashions, he copied in such matters his friend and rival, the French king, even allowing his beard to grow when he heard that Francis wore one, and having his hair dressed "short and straight after the French fashion." When the Venetian ambassador, Piero Pasqualigo, came from Paris to London in 1515, Henry eagerly seized the opportunity to institute a comparison between himself and the French king. Pasqualigo, meeting Henry at Greenwich, writes how he on one occasion beheld his majesty mounted on a bay Frieslander, and dressed entirely in green velvet; directly the envoy came in sight, he began to make his horse to curvet and perform such feats, that Pasqualigo says he thought himself looking upon Mars. He came into our tent, the narrator continues, and, addressing me in French, said, "Talk with me a while."[160] HENRY VIII.'S KNOWLEDGE OF FRENCHHenry then proceeded to question him about Francis and to induce him to draw comparisons between himself and the French king. The ambassador remarks that Henry spoke French "very well indeed." The campaign of 1513 supplies another example of the ease with which Henry spoke French. The English king was accompanied by Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, who later incurred the royal anger by his presumption in marrying Henry's sister Mary, the Dowager of France. On the present occasion, however, the king's knowledge of French was of great service to Suffolk, who found some difficulty in pressing his suit with the Lady Margaret of Savoy, owing to his ignorance of that language. The Duke had half seriously removed a ring from the lady's finger, and, as she particularly desired to reclaim it, and he refused to return it, she called him a thief; but he could not understand the word "larron," so she was forced to call upon the king to explain.[161]

There are extant several examples of Henry's compositions in French. Much of his private correspondence was written in this tongue; and he also essayed to write verses in French, possibly in imitation of Francis I. Their quality may be judged from the following specimens:[162]

or:

We gather from Henry's spelling of French that he had learnt the language chiefly by ear.

There is a curious example of the fluency with which the king and his courtiers spoke French, in a scene described by Wolsey's gentleman usher and afterwards dramatized by Shakespeare.[164] The cardinal was among the few at the Court of Henry VIII. who did not speak French with ease. During a banquet he was giving at the palace of Whitehall, Henry and a band of courtiers landed unexpectedly at the Whitehall Stairs, disguised as foreign noblemen. Wolsey sent the Lord Chancellor to bid them welcome, because he could not speak French himself.[165] The visitors were introduced, and passed for a time as foreigners, the Lord Chancellor acting as their interpreter to Wolsey. At last the royal joker and his companions disclosed their identity amidst a tumult of exclamations, and then joined in the festivities.[166]

The ladies of the Court rivalled the noblemen in their knowledge of French. When the French ambassadors with their brilliant suite, who had come to England for the ratification of peace in 1514, were entertained in great state at Greenwich, all the ladies and gentlewomen were able to converse in good French with their French partners, "which delighted them much to heare the Ladies speake to them in their owne language."[167] It is not surprising, therefore, to find French holding an important place in the education of women of high birth. The princess Mary Tudor, one of the most attractive figures at the English Court, had, like the king her brother, been early initiated in the difficulties of the French language.[168] At the age of twelve she pronounced in French her betrothal vows to the Prince of Castile (1513); and when it fell to her lot to marry Louis XII. of France, she continued still more to apply herself to the study of the language. She was able to write to her future husband in his own tongue,[169] and even occasionally made use of it in her correspondence with her brother, the English king.

FRENCH AMONG THE LADIESHenry's first queen did little to forward French tastes and never modified her natural preference for all things Spanish, but with the advent of Queen Anne Boleyn French acquired a powerful and enthusiastic patroness. Anne was entirely French by education and tastes. She had been brought up by a French governess,[170] and had from an early age used the French language in her correspondence with her father during his absences at the Court and elsewhere. It was her fluency in this language which led to her rapid advancement on her arrival at Court. She was soon chosen to accompany the king's sister Mary to France, and just before her appointment wrote to her father in French, telling him that the presence of the Queen of France would inspire her with a still greater desire to speak French well.[171] Anne stayed in France several years, first in the service of Mary during the few months she was Queen of France, then in that of her successor, Queen Claude, consort of Francis I., and finally in the more lively household of Margaret of Alençon, afterwards Queen of Navarre. On her return to the English Court she became maid of honour to Queen Katherine, and her skill in dress and her French manners[172] did much to promote the taste for French fashions. The famous Elizabethan antiquary Camden asserts that Anne's French jollity first attracted to her the notice of Henry. At any rate the courtship was largely carried on in French. Out of the seventeen love letters of Henry to Anne Boleyn, which are preserved in the Vatican Library, more than half are in French.[173] One of these may be quoted as an example of the English king's powers in French prose. It was written to Anne during one of the absences she deemed expedient to make from the Court:

Of Henry's other queens, Jane Seymour and Katherine Howard were both ardent admirers of the French language. The former had, like Anne Boleyn, completed her education at the French Court. Henry's chief objection to Anne of Cleves was her lack of French refinements. We know from the French ambassador Marillac that Henry was ill pleased at Anne's German costume and made her dress in the French style,[174] which, according to the same authority, had been favoured by Queen Katherine Howard and all her ladies. Moreover, the new queen could speak neither French[175] nor English, and her own language was displeasing to the king's ears; consequently he refused to converse much with her by means of an interpreter.[176] As for Katharine Parr, she was one of the most distinguished linguists of her time, and did much to encourage the studies of the royal family.

French was one of the principal studies of Henry VIII.'s children. It appears to have been the only modern foreign language with which Edward VI. was acquainted; he is said to have been "in the French and Latin Tongues singularly perfect."[177] Mary, on the other hand, knew Spanish as well as she did French. This is, however, accounted for by the fact that she was early destined to become the wife of the Emperor Charles V. FRENCH STUDIED IN THE ROYAL FAMILYThe emperor had even tried to persuade Henry to allow his daughter to be brought up in Spain. His request was refused, but a promise was given that the princess should be educated in all points as a Spanish lady.[178] In addition to this, her mother, Katherine of Aragon, superintended her early education, and her attendants were all Spanish. Thus Spanish was for a time almost her native tongue. Yet French was by no means neglected, especially after the Spanish marriage was broken off. Fresh impetus was given to this study by the possibility of a French match, when in 1518 negotiations for a union with the Dauphin, son of Francis I., were set on foot. On the testimony of Marillac, Mary spoke and wrote French well; the ambassador had seen letters of hers written in French at the time of her mother's divorce.[179] The princess was also well acquainted with Latin, and understood Italian, though, like many others, she did not attempt to speak it.[180]

Elizabeth alone of the royal family spoke Italian with almost as much ease as she did French.[181] "French and Italian she speaks like English," wrote her tutor, Roger Ascham, "Latin with fluency, propriety, and judgment"; and in addition she had some knowledge of Greek. When queen, she retained her early fancy for Italian, and prided herself on using no other language in the presence of Italians.[182] The Scotch ambassador, Sir James Melville, a very competent judge, remarks that she spoke it "raisonable weill."[183] French, however, was her usual means of intercourse with other foreigners, even when, like Melville, they spoke English. The queen commended Melville's French. "She said my French was gud," he writes in his memoirs, where he likewise gives his own opinion of the queen's attainments in the language: "hir Maiestie culd speak as gud Frenche as any that had never bene out of the contrie, but yet she laiketh the use of the Frenche court language, quhilk was frank and schort and had oft tymes twa significations, quhilk discreit and famylier frendes tok always in the best part."[184] If not idiomatic, the queen's French is generally allowed to have been fluent. Her accent is reported to have been harsh and unpleasing; she spoke with a drawl, and, according to M. Drizanval, resident in London for the French king,[185] she constantly repeated the phrase "paar Dieu, paar maa foi" in a ridiculous tone. Another visitor, the Duke of Württemberg, records that he once heard her deliver an appropriate speech in French,[186] which, as usual, was the language in which he addressed her. Towards the end of her reign the queen still practised the use of French and Italian. In 1598 the German Hentzner, travelling in England, describes how he saw Elizabeth "as she went along in all her State and magnificence," and how "she spoke very graciously first to one then to another (whether foreign ministers or those who attend for different reasons) in English, French, and Italian."[187] She also wrote French with some ease. One of her earliest literary efforts was a translation from the French of Margaret of Navarre's Miroir de l'Ame pécheresse. She likewise composed devotions and prayers in French—a habit which she retained after she had been queen for many years. At the time when her marriage with the Duke of Alençon, her "little frog," as she calls him, was under discussion, the queen compiled a curious little volume, containing six prayers, written on vellum in a very neat hand; in addition to devotions in French and English there are others in Italian, Latin, and Greek. In the front of this work there is a miniature of the Duke, and at the end, one of Elizabeth.[188] Other examples of her compositions in French are found in her correspondence, where this language holds a considerable place.

It thus appears that the majority of the English nobility and gentry spoke and understood French at least tolerably well. FRENCH TUTORS AND FRENCH GRAMMARSWe are led to ask how they came by their knowledge, and what facilities there were in England for learning French, seeing that many of them never visited France. In the sixteenth century private tuition played a large part in the education of the gentry; and the professional tutor was, in many cases, a Frenchman, who would naturally further the study of his native tongue. The Court itself encouraged the custom of employing French tutors by engaging several in its midst; and as, at this time, the Court became a powerful factor in English social life, and the chief means of entering the service of the State, noblemen and gentlemen wishing to figure on the social stage endeavoured to adapt themselves to Court requirements. French tutors were to be found in all the chief families of the time. Étienne Pasquier remarks that there was no noble family in England without its French tutor to instruct the children in the French language.[189] This condition of things was still further developed a few years later when religious persecution in France and the Netherlands drove increasingly large numbers of Protestant refugees to take asylum in England. All traces of the majority of these tutors have been lost; those of whom anything is known were, for the most part, either the authors of manuals for teaching French, or had won repute as writers or Humanists before leaving their native land.

One of these Humanists was Bernard André, familiarly called "Master Barnard," the blind poet—an infirmity to which he frequently refers. He was a native of Toulouse, and probably came to England with Henry VII., his patron.[190] It is a curious fact that soon after his accession Henry appointed this Frenchman, author of verses in French and Latin but never a line in English, Poet Laureate of England. In addition to this he bestowed on him repeated marks of favour. For a time André was engaged as a tutor at Oxford, and in 1496 was chosen as governor to Prince Arthur, and probably had much to do with the education of his brother, afterwards Henry VIII. Appointed Historiographer Royal, he began in this capacity to write his patron's life. Like so many other men of education, André was in Holy Orders; he received preferment from time to time, and was finally presented to the living of Guisnes near Calais, which he resigned in 1521, having attained an "extreme old age."

In the early sixteenth century, as in the Middle Ages, England took the initiative in the production of French grammars.[191] The numbers which appeared are so many testimonies to Englishmen's interest in the French language. The chief and best known of these grammars is the great work of John Palsgrave (1530), already mentioned, which stands out in contrast with the slight treatises which had previously appeared on the subject in England. Considering the time when it was written and the irregular and unsettled condition of the language with which it deals, it is truly remarkable for its fulness and comprehensiveness. Almost alone of its predecessors and its immediate successors, it answered more than a merely temporary and professional purpose, and is still of very great value to the student of the English and French languages at that time, and a great storehouse of obsolete words in both languages. Perhaps the very reason which makes it so valuable to the student of to-day hindered its success in the sixteenth century; most students of French then preferred the shorter and more practical manuals. Palsgrave had a very exalted idea of the French tongue; he desired to place it on a level with the "three perfect tonges"—Latin, Greek, and Hebrew—and to make it a fourth and classical tongue, by drawing up "absolute" rules for its use.

Palsgrave's grammar acquires additional importance from the fact that no similar work had been produced in France. It is the first systematized attempt to formulate rules for the French language, or indeed for any modern tongue. Only one year later, however, Sylvius or Dubois published his In Linguam Gallicam Eisagoge (1531). In the address to Henry VIII., which precedes his work, Palsgrave speaks of the "great nombre of clerkes, whiche before season of this mater have written nowe sithe the beginnyng of your most fortunate and most prosperous raigne." All these "clerkes," he says, have treated chiefly of two things, which they judged specially useful to the English—the pronunciation of French, and "wherein the true analogie of the two tongues did rest." BARCLAY'S "INTRODUCTORY"No doubt many of these treatises were in manuscript and are among the lost treasures of the sixteenth century. Yet some have come down to us. Palsgrave mentions three writers by name, Alexander Barclay, Petrus Vallensys, and Giles Duwes, copies of whose works are still in existence.

The earliest of these grammars—so far as is known the first French grammar ever printed—was the work of Alexander Barclay, well known as a prolific writer and poet, who devoted much of his time to translation and did much to make contemporary French literature known in England. Barclay had spent a time "full of foly and unprofytable stody" at some university, possibly Paris; he had travelled, and was well acquainted with French; from his youth upwards, he says, he had been exercised in the two languages of French and English. It was late in his literary career, when he had "withdrawen" his pen from its "olde dylygence," that he undertook to compose a grammar of the French language, at the request of the Duke of Norfolk, Lord Treasurer of England, and of "certain other gentlemen." The work appeared in 1521[192] under the title of Here begynneth the introductory to wryte and to pronounce frenche compyled by Alexander Barclay, compendiously at the commandement of the right hye excellent and myghty prynce, Th. duke of Northfolke. The printer, Robert Coplande, himself a good French scholar, composed some lines on the coat of arms of the Duke in French, and printed them at the beginning of the book; at the end he placed a translation of Lambert Danneau's Traité des Danses, also from his own pen.[193]

Barclay's endeavour is to make his grammar as short and concise as possible; his rules, so far as they go, are stated very clearly; he plunges straight away into his subject without any preliminary observations: "je in frenche," he begins, "is as moche to say in english as I, tu, thou, il, he, nous, vous, ilz or els: we may use sometyme ceux for this worde ilz. If we answere to a question by this worde 'I' usynynge no verbe withall then shall not 'ie' be set for 'I' but 'moy,' as in this example, 'qui fist ce livre' ... If I sholde answere saynge I, addynge no verbe withall, I must say 'moy,' and not 'ie.'" After giving similar rules for the second person singular, he proceeds to explain how, when the words nous, vous, ilz are placed before a verb beginning with a consonant, their last consonant is not pronounced, although it remains in the spelling; but if they come before a verb beginning with a vowel, the consonants are pronounced. He then turns to the conjugation of the two auxiliaries and some of the most common irregular verbs, to show "how these pronouns are ioyned with verbes." On the back of folio 4 he begins his "introductory of orthography or true wrytynge wherby the diligent reder may be infourmed truly and perfytely to wryte and pronounce the Frenche tunge after the dyvers customes of many contress of France." Barclay, then, does not adopt an exclusive attitude towards provincial accents; he rather calls attention to them,[194] though probably merely stating facts and drawing distinctions with no intention of teaching provincial forms. Palsgrave, on the other hand, deals only with the French spoken between the Seine and the Loire, which he regarded as the only pure French. Barclay's attitude to dialectal forms may possibly be explained by the fact that he transcribed freely from the mediaeval treatises, especially the Donait françois of John Barton. His debt was early noted by Palsgrave, who wrote: "I have sene an olde boke written in parchment, in all thynges lyke to his sayd Introductory, whiche, by conjecture, was not unwritten this hundred yeares."[195] So freely, indeed, and so carelessly did Barclay use his sources, that he did not even trouble to modernize the spelling, which contains many obsolete forms; in this connexion Palsgrave, who criticizes Barclay very severely when occasion arises,[196] remarks on his use of k for c.

Having exemplified the pronunciation of some of the French letters by comparison with English sounds,[197] Barclay suddenly[198] passes to the consideration of the number and gender of nouns,[199] besides supplying a short list of nouns beginning with the first two letters of the alphabet. After this digression he concludes his observations on the pronunciation,[200] and proceeds to give an alphabetical vocabulary of nouns,[201] adjectives and verbs, apparently the earliest known attempt at an alphabetical French-English vocabulary; the earlier method of arranging words under headings is discarded, though it continued to be the usual form adopted in most French grammars until the end of the eighteenth century. Barclay's vocabulary consists of a list of words pure and simple, with no indication of gender or flexions. The Introductory ends with lists of ordinal numerals, days, seasons, and so on, together with words of learned origin common to both languages "amonge eloquent men," and, last of all, pieces of prose composition in both French and English, arranged in alternate lines.[202]

As is usual in these early grammars, there is an obvious lack of orderly arrangement, and the work, as a whole, gives the impression of being a collection of rough notes rather than a carefully planned treatise. Barclay does not, however, make any claim to completeness, nor pretend to lay down "absolute" rules as Palsgrave claimed to do. He shared the opinion, common at that time among Frenchmen, that it was impossible to formulate anything like adequate rules for the French language. The sketchy nature of his rules may be judged by that given for the position of the objective pronoun: "oft times that thynge whiche cometh before the verbe in Englyshe commyth after it in frenche as il m'a fait tort . . . je ne me puis lever." He was of opinion that rules were not of much use in learning French: that language is best learnt by "custome and use of redynge and spekynge, by often enquirynge and frequentynge of company of frenchmen and of suche as have perfytnes in spekynge the sayd language." This opinion prevailed throughout the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in England, and, as a result, rules are reduced to a minimum in manuals for teaching French.

"Who so desyreth to knowe more of the sayd language, must provyde for mo bokes made for the same intent," Barclay notes at the end of his short and interesting treatise. Charles, Duke of Suffolk, the husband of Mary, sister to Henry VIII. and Dowager Queen of France, was soon to make the necessary provision. This "syngular good lorde," says Palsgrave, "by cause that my poore labours required a longe tracte of tyme, hath also in the meane season encouraged maister Petrus Vallensys, scole maister to his excellent yong sonne the Erle of Lyncolne to shewe his lernynge and opinion on this behalfe." Such was the origin of the Introductions in Frensche for Henry the Yonge Erle of Lyncoln (childe of greate esperaunce) sonne of the most noble and excellent princesse Mary (by the grace of God, queen of France etc.),[203] which is undated and anonymous, but clearly the work of Petrus Vallensys or Pierre Valence, French tutor to the Earl of Lincoln, and must have been written sometime in the third decade of the century.[204] Valence is said to have taught French after a "wonderesly compendious facile prompte and ready waye,"[205] and Gregory Cromwell, whom he also counted among his pupils, is reported to have made good progress under his direction. Pierre PIERRE VALENCE, TEACHER OF FRENCHValence was one of the natives of Normandy, so numerous in England at this time that the fact was commented on by Étienne Perlin, a French priest who visited England at the end of the reign of Edward VI. He describes them as being "du tout tres mechans et mauditz François," worse than all the English, which, according to him, is a very grave charge.[206] The date at which Valence came to England is unknown, but he is said to have studied at Cambridge in or about 1515.[207] He was in all probability a refugee for religious reasons. He is known to have held Lutheran opinions, and, whilst at Cambridge, caused a disturbance by defacing a copy of the Pope's general indulgence, which had been set up over the gates of the schools. Vigorous but ineffectual attempts were made to discover the writer, against whom the Chancellor pronounced sentence of excommunication. Valence is alleged finally to have acknowledged the act as his, to have expressed contrition, and to have been absolved. There are several points of contact between this man and his greater contemporary, John Palsgrave: both were students at Cambridge, possibly at the same time, though Palsgrave was the senior; both had as their pupil the son of Mr. Secretary Cromwell—the one for French and the other for Latin; both were protégés of the Dowager Queen of France (sister of Henry VIII. and Palsgrave's pupil for French) and of her husband the Duke of Suffolk. In 1535 Valence received a grant of letters of denization,[208] and ultimately became domestic chaplain and almoner to Dr. Goodrich, Bishop of Ely, and appears to have maintained this position under the bishop's successor. He was still living in 1555, since, in that year, he visited some heretics in Ely jail, and conjured them to stand loyally by the truth of the Gospel.[209]

Among the works of "dyvers clerkes" on the French language, to which Palsgrave refers, is probably to be reckoned a short treatise bearing the date 1528. This work is only known by a fragment consisting of two leaves now preserved in the library at Lambeth.[210] These pages are of quarto size and bear the signature "B. B." The right-hand page is in French, the left in English; the former is in Roman characters, the latter in black letter. Although these two pages contain the date, and the last is not full, they do not appear to be the end of the work, as the writer refers to what is to come hereafter.[211] One gathers from internal evidence that the author was a foreigner—no doubt a Frenchman. He speaks, for instance, of the "gentz Englois" as though he was not one of them; and it appears to be quite certain that the work was originally composed in French, and translated into English rather carelessly, and probably by another hand, for in the version it is rendered almost unintelligible by the translation of the French illustrative examples as well as the text itself.

The contents are of a light and entertaining character. The author holds that many rules do but "trouble and marre" the understanding. He counsels students rather to follow the example of good writers as likely to be more helpful.

He treats entirely of the pronunciation, and devotes special attention to the difficulties of the English,[212] laying emphasis on the importance of placing the accent on the right syllable. The rules are put in an amusing way, thus: "a should be pronounced fro the botom of the stomake and all openly, e a lytell higher in the throte there properly where the Englishman soundeth his e; i, in the roundnesse of the lippes; u, in puttynge a lytell of wynde out of the mouthe." Further uses of the vowel a are thus set forth: it may be placed before all verbs, in the infinitive mood, and before all manner of nouns and pronouns, as "to Robert," "to May," and so on. Again, "it betokeneth 'have' when it cometh of the Latin verb habeo." The consonants are next dealt with and disposed of in much the same way. Some attention is also given to the question, then much discussed, whether the etymological consonants in the words where they are not pronounced should be retained or not. The author's opinion was that every letter in a word ought to be sounded, yet he feels himself utterly unable to struggle against custom, and falls back on the rule "go as you please": TWO FRENCH POETS TEACH FRENCH"Pronounce ech one as he shal please, for to difficyl it is to correct olde errours."

Among the French teachers in England at this time were also two Frenchmen of considerable literary distinction—Nicolas Bourbon, the Latin poet and well-known scholar, friend of Rabelais and Marot; and Nicolas Denisot, who likewise held an important place among French humanists, and finished his literary education under Daurat, the famous Hellenist.

Bourbon came to England under the protection of Anne Boleyn, who appears to have taken a special interest in him;[213] she had, he tells us, procured his liberation from imprisonment. Bourbon was for some time a private tutor in Paris, and soon after he regained his freedom he crossed to England, intending to continue his work there. He had a cordial welcome, and invariably speaks of his stay and treatment in London with gratitude. His Latin verses[214] show him to be acquainted with the chief Englishmen who gathered round the Court, where he occupied his leisure by writing satirical verses against the queen's enemies, especially Sir Thomas More,[215] and in eulogizing Cromwell, Cranmer, and the Reform Party then in power. It was on the recommendation of the king and queen, he informs us, that he was engaged as French tutor in several families of distinction, including the Carews, Norrisses, and Harveys. John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, was one of his patrons, and from him Robert Dudley, afterwards Earl of Leicester, together with his brothers, learnt French as children. Bourbon left England in 1535, on hearing of the death of his father. He had probably been in the country at least two years, and, perhaps happily for himself, left it a year before the fall of his patroness Anne Boleyn.

At a somewhat later date, 1547, the elegant poet and artist Nicolas Denisot arrived in England, driven from Paris by an unfortunate love affair.[216] His nephew, Jacques Denisot, declares he was "fort bien accueilliz dans la cour d'Angleterre où son estime et sa reputation estoit deja cogneue." He mixed with the writers and politicians[217] of the day, and attracted the notice of the Court by writing verses in honour of the young king, Edward VI.[218] He soon found himself in the distinguished position of French and Latin tutor to the three daughters of the Protector Somerset,—Anne, Margaret, and Jane,—who were destined shortly to become famous in Paris as his pupils, and to form an important link in the literary relations of the two countries. Calvin corresponded with one of Denisot's pupils, the Lady Anne; and in 1549 he wrote requesting her to use her knowledge of French in transmitting to her mother an expression of his gratitude for a ring he had received from that lady, he being unable to do so, on account of his ignorance of English.[219] In this same year, 1549, Denisot's engagement in the house of Somerset came to an end rather abruptly, probably on account of some misunderstanding with the duke. He returned to France after spending three years in England, and thence kept up a friendly correspondence with his former pupils. On the death of Queen Margaret of Navarre, whom, no doubt, Denisot had taught them to admire, the sisters composed four hundred Latin distichs in her honour, and sent them to their former master, who welcomed them with enthusiasm, and published them in 1550. In the following year the verses appeared again, accompanied by French, Italian, and Greek translations, and verses from the pen of Ronsard, Du Bellay, and other literary friends of Denisot.[220] It is a striking fact that before the Pléiade was fully known in France, the fame of some of its members had reached England, where a particular interest would be taken in this development of the work of the three princesses. Ronsard, Denisot's intimate friend, wrote one of his earliest odes in honour of Denisot's pupils, in which he celebrates the intellectual union of France and England:

Herberay des Essarts, the translator of the famous Amadis, wrote a letter in praise of the princesses, which was printed at the beginning of Margaret's "tombeau." With full justice has Denisot been called the "ambassador" of the French Renaissance in England.

The two most popular French tutors at the Court of Henry VIII. were undoubtedly Giles Duwes and John Palsgrave. Palsgrave is the only one of these early French tutors who is well known to-day as a writer on the French tongue. He was a Londoner, and received his education at Cambridge and Paris. Giles Duwes was a Frenchman and seems to have enjoyed a greater popularity in his own day. He had been teaching French at the English Court for over ten years when Palsgrave received his first appointment there, as French tutor to the king's "most dere and entierly beloved" sister Mary, afterwards Queen of France. Both teachers were protégés of Henry VIII., and taught in the royal family—Duwes was tutor to the king himself; and both were authors of grammars of the French language. That of Palsgrave has been mentioned already. It appeared in 1530 under the title of L'Esclarcissement de la langue françoyse. Duwes's was not published till three years later approximately, at the request of his pupil, Princess Mary, afterwards Queen of England. It was called An Introductorie for to learne to rede, to prononce and to speke French trewly, compyled for the rigid high excellent and most vertuous Lady Mary of Englande, daughter to our most gracious soveraign, Lorde Kyng Henry the Eight.[221] His treatise is a small quarto of 102 leaves, forming a striking contrast to Palsgrave's enormous folio[222] of over 1000 pages.

The contents and style of the two books are as different as their size. Like all the French grammarians of the time, JOHN PALSGRAVE'S FRENCH GRAMMARPalsgrave opens his work with rules for the pronunciation, and the whole of the first book is devoted to an elaborate study of this subject. Earlier writers had treated it very slightly, if at all, trusting that the student would find some opportunity of learning the sounds of the language by mixing with those who spoke it. We are told[223] that as a result there was no means of acquiring a good pronunciation, save in early youth by practice and use for a year or two. And it came to be supposed in a manner a thing impossible; "in so much that whereas there be hundreds in this realm, which with a little labour and the aid of Latin, do so perfectly understand this tongue that they be able to translate at the first sight anything out of the French tongue into ours, yet have they thought the thing so strange to leave the consonants unsounded whiche they saw written in such books as they studied, that they have utterly neglected the Frenchmen's manner of pronunciation, and so read French as their fantasy or opinion did lead them and, by that means, perceiving in themselves a want and swerving from the truth, which they wot not how to amend, utterly leave to speak or exercise the language as a thing which they despair of."[224] One of the chief difficulties of these early students then was the numerous consonants found in French words for etymological reasons, and which were not pronounced. Other difficulties were found in the accentuation of vowel sounds. The English were in the habit of placing the accent on the wrong syllable, saying dōucement instead of doucemēnt, and of not giving the vowel its full and pure sound, both mistakes being due to peculiarities of their native tongue. "We must leave that kind of reading and pronouncing if we will sound the French Tongue aright," says Palsgrave, "for the French in their pronunciation do chiefly regard three things: to be armonious in theyr speking, to be brefe and sodayne in soundyng of theyr words, avoydyng all manner of harshenesse in theyr pronunciation, and thirdly to gyve every worde that they abyde and reste upon theyr most audible sounde." There is something solemn about his assurance of the successful results to be attained by the study of his rules: "whereas nowe the very grounde and consyderation of the Frenchmen in this behalf ones knowen, it hath been proved by experience that it is but a senyghts labour, or, at the most, a fournyghtes to lerne this poynt concernyng to theyr pronounciatyon an to be sure herof for ever."

Palsgrave devotes attention to each letter of the alphabet in turn, and seeks to elucidate the value of the sounds by reference to contemporary English or Italian, and by attempting to give the position of the vocal organs.[225] A, he says, has two diverse sounds. "Sometimes he is sounded as in English, and sometimes like the diphthong au and a little in the nose. The most usual pronunciation given it by the French, is the same as those who speak the best English, that is like the Italian sound a, or those of the English who sound the Latin tongue aright. When m or n follow the vowel it is pronounced as au and somewhat in the nose, chambre being sounded chaumbre," etc. More general topics are also touched on—the accent, the length of vowels, and the intonation which is so "brief, so sudden and so hard."

In his second book,[226] Palsgrave treats what he calls the second difficulty of the French tongue—the accidence of the nine parts of speech. Throughout, constant reference is made to the third book, "whiche is a very comment expositour unto my second." This last book deals with the more syntactical side of the subject, and was added on the model of Theodore Gaza's Greek grammar. It occupies by far the largest portion of the whole work,[227] and besides giving elaborate and often obscure rules to govern every French inflexion,[228] includes an English-French alphabetical vocabulary which reaches the size of a dictionary. This vocabulary is arranged according to the parts of speech, and numerous phrases and idioms illustrative of different uses of the words are freely given. THE "INTRODUCTORIE" OF GILES DUWESNothing like it in dimensions had yet appeared, and, contrary to custom, the English is placed before the French.

Duwes's manual, on the other hand, opens with an acrostich in French with an interlinear English translation containing the author's name—Giles Duwes or de Vadis,—followed by a short address in verse to the Princess Mary, "filleule a saincte Marie" (also in French, accompanied by an English interlinear version), and lists of French words beginning with each of the letters of his royal pupil's name. The grammar itself is written in English, for Duwes was one of the few Frenchmen of the time who knew English; neither Bourbon nor Denisot, though they lived in England some years, and taught French to English pupils, knew our language; and no doubt they helped to continue the long-standing relation between the teaching of Latin and the teaching of French. Duwes's work is divided into two books, the first of which is devoted to rules of grammar. He dismisses the pronunciation with seven short and inadequate rules, and proceeds to give his pupil a copious vocabulary of words and phrases, in which the English word is printed over the French one. The headings with which the earlier vocabularies have made us familiar are again utilized, though with variety in detail, and many passages are reminiscent of the mediaeval nomenclatures. After his pupil has gained a knowledge of pronunciation, and acquired a good vocabulary, Duwes proceeds to give him an insight into the grammar of the language. He treats the parts of speech, with the exception of the verb, in a very summary fashion; thus, with regard to the gender of pronouns, all he has to say is that those ending in a are feminine, and those ending in on or e are masculine. "But there be certain names of the feminine, which do require the pronouns masculine, that must be accepted (excepted), as mon ame; me and se be indifferent." He devotes nearly the whole of his space to a lengthy and elaborate treatment of the French verb, which he divides into two conjugations, according as there is not or is an s before the termination -ons of the first person plural, present indicative! Thus the forms aimons, avons, batons, donons prove the verbs aimer, avoir, batir, donner to belong to the first conjugation; and similarly the forms baisons, taisons, etc., indicate that these verbs belong to the second conjugation—an arrangement not at all conducive to lucidity. A considerable part of his work is occupied by the conjugation of verbs of all sorts, in a variety of forms and both negatively and interrogatively. He usually adopts the practice, frequent in modern text-books, of attaching words to the verbs as he conjugates them, and so providing them with a context. Thus he writes j'ai grand desir, and not simply the verb form j'ai. A knowledge of French verbs was, in Duwes's opinion, the key to the knowledge of the French language.[229]

The second book occupies more than half the volume. It contains practical exercises in the form of "letters missive in prose and in rime, also diverse communications by way of dialogue, to receive a messenger from the emperor, the French King or any other prince, also other communications of the propriety of meat, of love, of peace, of wars, of the exposition of the mass, and what man's soul is, with the division of time and other conceits." Each exercise is provided with an interlinear English translation, and all, as may be gathered from their subject matter, were in the first place written specially for the use of the Princess Mary. They deal with the daily events of her life, and, though occasionally public affairs are touched on, these exercises are of greatest interest in disclosing the affectionate relations existing between Mary and her tutor. Whenever possible, Duwes introduces alternative phrases as well as variations of number and gender, and this attention to his pupil's vocabulary and knowledge of the flexions often encumbers his sentences. As for the English version, it gives a word-for-word rendering of the French, without regard to the natural order of words in an English sentence.

The methods of the two teachers seem to have been as different as their works. Everything tends to prove that Duwes's manner of teaching was practical, light, and entertaining, and at the same time efficient—a rare combination of good qualities. Henry VIII.'s skill in French has already HIS METHODbeen noticed, and Duwes's other pupils seem to have been equally accomplished. In his opinion, a good vocabulary and a thorough knowledge of the verbs were the two essentials in teaching French. To learn French quickly, he thinks, the student must practise turning the verbs in all possible ways, affirmatively, negatively, and interrogatively—a principle of repetition. In this way he acquires fluency of speech and is able to "make diverse and many sentences with one word, and perconsequent come shortly to the French speach." For instance, thirty-six variations may be got in one tense, by turning each person in six different ways, "that is to say, the affirmative three ways, and the negative likewise." Duwes reaches this large total by giving the following forms of each person: "I have, have I?, why have I?" for the singular of affirmation, "I have not, have I not?, why have I not?" for the singular of negation, and so on with other persons and the corresponding plural forms. He further counsels the student to practise 108 similar variations in the same tense, by means of the use of the pronouns me, te, se; "for the first person, I have me, I have thee, I have him, and we turn it, we shall have, Have I me, have I thee, have I him. Then putting why before it we shall have, Why have I me," etc., and so on, on lines exactly similar to the example for thirty-six variations. Apparently such exercises were the mainstay of his grammatical instruction, for rules of grammar are reduced to a minimum. Practice held a higher place than theory in Duwes's estimation, and his attitude towards attempts to draw up rules for the French language was very sceptical; to be complete, the numbers of such rules would be infinite, and, what is more, rules are of more use to the teacher than to the learner.

Palsgrave, on the contrary, had a firm belief in the value and soundness of grammar rules. He seems to have been the first to advocate the learning of French chiefly by means of grammar. The earliest treatises had been intended more to correct the French of those who read them than to teach the language; and though in later times the rules were intended to impart a knowledge of the language, they were not put in the first place, and it was always felt that they were very secondary to "custom and the use of reading and speaking." Before Palsgrave's grammar appeared, declares his enthusiastic pupil Andrew Baynton, Englishmen did in a manner despair of learning French except by an "importune and long continued exercise and that begun in young and tender age." Sir Thomas Elyot in The Boke of the Governour, which appeared a year after Palsgrave's grammar, seems to regret this interference with long-standing custom, by means of which French was "brought into as many rules and figures and as long a grammar as is Latin or Greek."[230] He was afraid that the "sparkes of fervent desire of learnynge" should be "extincte with the burdone of grammar, lyke as a lytell fyre is sone quenched with a great heape of small stickes: so that it can never come to the principale logges where it shuld longe bourne in a great pleasaunt fire." Many years elapsed, however, before the deadening effect of too much grammar, apprehended by Elyot, was felt in the teaching of French.

Palsgrave's method of teaching, therefore, was the reverse of that of his fellow-worker, although he professes a desire to induce his pupils not only to love their studies, but to be merry over them.[231] It appears that he was fond of making his pupils learn rules by heart,[232] while the dynamic of his method was translation from English into French—an exercise not very popular amongst teachers at this time. So great was his faith in his rules that he felt that the student might, with their aid, even dispense with the assistance of a teacher. By an attentive study of the first book the reader "shal undouted attayne to the right and naturall pronunciation of this sayde tonge." And he assures the student that by reading the general information in the introduction to his first two books, and by learning by heart the three perfect verbs in his second book (Je parle, Je convertis, Je fais, representatives of the three conjugations into which Palsgrave arranges French verbs) and the three irregulars (J'ai, Je suis, and Je m'en vais), he will know French tolerably well, and be able, with the help of the vocabulary in the third book, to translate from English into French, and "so incontinente accustome hym to have theyr common speache"; and, again using the vocabulary, he will be able to read any French author by his own study, without help or teacher, if he knows the second book perfectly. However, he advises those who HIS DIALOGUES IN FRENCH AND ENGLISHdesire to attain perfection, or to qualify themselves for foreign service, to read and study the whole of the three books.

Palsgrave seems to assign the priority to Duwes by mentioning him as one of his immediate predecessors, although Duwes's work was not published until after Palsgrave's. Yet it is improbable that the debt on either side was anything but trifling. Duwes had been teaching many years before we first hear of Palsgrave. As he taught he drew up grammatical rules for the use of his pupils; and when he was tutor to the Princess Mary, she requested him to collect together and publish the material he had used in teaching the king, her father, as well as other members of the royal family.[233] According to Palsgrave, diverse noblemen supported the princess's request. Thus most of the rules published in Duwes's grammar had been composed very many years before they were published, for Duwes had then been teaching for over thirty years. And no doubt Palsgrave, who was also employed at Court, had opportunities of seeing them in manuscript. As to the dialogues and other practical exercises, they were all specially written for the use of the princess, and so are of later date than most of the rules. Duwes had doubtless composed for the benefit of his earlier pupils similar exercises, which remained in manuscript form and were lost. Some idea of the dates at which the dialogues were written and of the period during which Duwes was engaged in teaching the princess may be gathered from references to topical events which occur in the text. For instance, mention is made of a peace newly proclaimed throughout the kingdoms of France and England, which was, no doubt, that of 1525, when England joined with France to counteract the excessive power of Spain. We also find a somewhat vague reference to a possible marriage for the princess with a "king or emperor," and remember that it was in 1525 that negotiations for her marriage with Charles V. were broken off, and others for an alliance with the French king, Francis I., begun. Another circumstance points to this same period. One of the dialogues takes place at Tewkesbury Park; it was in 1526 that Mary was created Princess of Wales, and sent to Ludlow to hold her Court there, and in November of the same year six of her Council addressed a letter to Wolsey from Tewkesbury. Duwes is not mentioned by name in a list of the princess's household appointed on this occasion, probably because he was already in her service; and it is interesting to note that the Countess of Salisbury, her lady governess, had instructions "without fatigacion or weariness to intende to her learninge of Latine tongue and French," as well as her music, dancing and diet.[234] In May 1527, Mary had returned to London, and took part in the festivities given at Greenwich in honour of the French ambassadors who had come to ask for her hand on behalf of the French king's second son, Henry, Duke of Orleans. We may therefore conclude that Duwes's grammar rules were composed at various dates from the beginning of the century, and the dialogues probably between the years 1524 and 1527.

Palsgrave, on the other hand, began his great work when Henry VIII. appointed him French tutor to his sister Mary, the future Queen of France, in 1512. He had "conceyved some lyttle hope and confidence" by receiving such a noble charge, and thought it a convenient occasion for showing his gratitude by means of his works. Several years later he completed "two sondrie bookes" on the subject, which he offered in manuscript to his former pupil, the Dowager Queen of France, and her husband the Duke of Suffolk. On their advice and encouragement he undertook to enlarge these and to add a third, and present the whole to the king. In 1523, Palsgrave had planned the whole of the three books, for in that year he made a contract with the printer, Richard Pynson, in which it is stipulated that "the sayd Richarde, his executors and assignes shall imprint or cause to be imprynted on boke callyd 'lez lesclarcissement de la langue Françoys,' contayning iii sondrye bokes, where in is shewyd howe the saide tong schould be pronownsyd in reding and speking, and allso syche gramaticall rules as concerne the perfection of the saide tong, with ii vocabulistes, oone begynnyng with English nownes and verbes expownded in frenshe, and a general vocabulist contayning all the wordes off the frenshe tong expound in Englishe." Pynson undertook to begin at once and to print every whole working day, at the rate of a sheet a day, interrupting the work for nothing save a royal order. The third book was not fully POPULARITY OF DUWESwritten when the first two passed into the hands of the printer, as Palsgrave constantly refers in it to the mistakes made already by the printer in his second book,—mistakes unavoidable in so "newe and unaccustomed worke." He also seems to have modified his plan for the vocabulary; in that which actually appeared in the third book there is a separate English-French dictionary for each part of speech—noun, adjective, verb, adverb, conjunction, and interjection. In the meantime, Pynson died, and the book was completed by John Hawkins, this being the only known production of his press. The two writers, then, were both engaged on their work for a great many years. Duwes was the first in the field, but he wrote with no view to publication, merely to satisfy the needs of his pupils. Palsgrave, on the other hand, from the very first intended to publish his work, and had great ambitions. Although he no doubt saw some of Duwes's manuscript, his debt was of the slightest character, if it can be called a debt at all. The respective size of the two volumes is enough to prove this.

Duwes's small treatise, however, seems to have enjoyed a greater popularity than that of Palsgrave;[235] the latter did not reach a second edition, whereas the former went through three in rapid succession. This was no doubt largely due to its conciseness and practical nature, which would appeal to the student, discouraged at the sight of Palsgrave's immense work. The first edition (as far as is known) of Duwes's Introductorie must have appeared at least three years after Palsgrave's Esclarcissement. The first two editions, printed, one by Thomas Godfray, and the other by Nicholas Bourman for John Reyns at the sign of the George in Paul's Churchyard, were published during the years when Anne Boleyn was queen, and after the birth of the Princess Elizabeth, as they both contain a "laude and prayse" of the King, Queen Anne, and her daughter. This leaves a period of under three years for the publication of the two editions, seeing that Elizabeth was born in September 1533, and Anne was put to death on the 19th of May 1536, Jane Seymour becoming queen in her stead on the 20th. The third edition[236] appeared after Duwes's death in 1535, as perhaps the second edition may have done also. The dedication to Anne is omitted, and a new one inserted, addressed to Henry alone. The second part is here said to be "newly corrected and amended"; but it is difficult to find in what the corrections consist, for, with the exception of slight variations of spelling, the edition is identical with the two earlier ones. It was issued from the press of John Waley, who began to practise his trade as printer in about the year 1546.[237] Most probably, then, this edition appeared in the last months of the reign of Henry VIII. (1547), and was one of the earliest works issued from Waley's press. It is hardly likely that he would have inserted the "laude and prayse" of the king if the work had appeared after his Majesty's death.

Several reasons combine to explain how it was that Palsgrave's work does not appear to have been as widely used as that of Duwes.[238] While his book was still in the press, alarming rumours as to its size began to circulate, and caused the great demand there had been for the work previously to diminish noticeably. Some of Palsgrave's pupils made efforts to stop the report, one of whom was Andrew Baynton, already mentioned, a favourite courtier of Henry VIII. and vice-chamberlain to three of his queens. "The labour needed to master the book is not in proportion to his size!" he wrote indignantly to three distinguished fellow-students, who helped him to contradict the rumour. On the contrary, he argues, it may rather be thought too small; it is as complete as can be expected when we consider that it is the first of its kind: clerks have laboured for years at Latin grammar and still find something new; French grammar, then, cannot be expected to attain completeness in this first attempt. But "he that will seek, may find and in a brief time attain to his utterest desire." Palsgrave deemed it wise to publish this letter as a prefatory notice to his grammar; it may, indeed, have been written in the first place with that object in view. SALE OF PALSGRAVE'S GRAMMARHe also judged it expedient to explain how students, not wishing to study the whole, might learn enough French to serve their purpose by selecting and learning certain sections of the grammar.[239]

Moreover, Palsgrave himself restricted the sale of his book. On account of "his great labours, the ample largeness of the matter, and the great difficulty of the enterprise," as well as its "great costs and charges" (for he had the work printed at his own expense), he was anxious to keep his grammar for himself, his friends, and his pupils, "lest his profit by teaching the French tongue might be minished by the sale of the same to such persons as besides him were disposed to study the French tongue." His chief aim was to keep his book out of the hands of rival teachers, who might use it for their own ends. Yet this attitude conflicts strangely with Palsgrave's generous declaration in his epistle to the king, expressing the hope that by means of his poor labours on this occasion "the frenche tongue may hereafter by others the more easely be taught, and also be attayned unto by suche as for their tyme therof shal be desyrous." Nor was this the only precaution taken by Palsgrave to ensure safety and fair dealing for his grammar. He obtained from Henry VIII., to whom he dedicated the work, a privilege for seven years,[240] the king being greatly "moved and stirred by due consideration of his said long time and great diligence about this good and very necessary purpose employed." The fact that Palsgrave altered his original contract with Pynson twice[241] shows how careful he was in all his proceedings. He wished to be sure of having complete control of the 750 copies which were printed. He did not trust the "sayd Richarde" further than he could help, and intended to see that Pynson "used good faith" in his dealings with him. Pynson was to give Palsgrave six copies to present to the king and his friends. The rest were to be left at Pynson's house, in a room of which Palsgrave kept the key, and to be sold only to such as Palsgrave desired. When Pynson had paid himself,[242] the remaining books were to be given to Palsgrave, either to take away or leave, as he willed. A striking example of the difficulty there was in obtaining Palsgrave's grammar is illustrated by the case of Stephen Vaughan. Again and again he begged Palsgrave to let him have a copy, but Palsgrave would not grant this favour at any price; and it is easy to form an idea, from Vaughan's persistence, of the great value attached to the grammar among serious students; so great and unparalleled a work was credited with almost supernatural powers. Finally, in despair, Vaughan wrote to his patron Cromwell, asking him to use his influence with the French teacher in obtaining this "jewell."[243] Cromwell had received one of Palsgrave's presentation copies, and, as a last resort, Vaughan begs him to let him have this. It is to be hoped that the young man succeeded in getting a copy. At any rate he seems to have made good progress in the French language.[244]

It is not surprising to find that the fashionable Court tutors were personally acquainted with each other. Palsgrave seems to have had a great respect for Duwes, and to have set a high value on the opinions of "that singular clerk." He feels he "cannot too much praise his judgment concerning the French Tongue." And he quotes Duwes's authority on the subject of mean verbs, a matter about which he had consulted him personally. We thus see that Palsgrave probably was more indebted to Duwes in this direct way, than by any help he received from such manuscripts as came into his hands. "Maister Gyles," who was librarian to the king, also showed Palsgrave a very old text of the Roman de la Rose in the Guildhall, "to shewe the difference betweene tholde Romant tong and the right french tong." The Roman de la Rose was a text frequently quoted by Palsgrave in support and illustration of his rules.

Thus Palsgrave has nothing but praise for Duwes, and no doubt Duwes took a friendly interest in his younger rival, DUWES ON ENGLISH TEACHERS OF FRENCHthough he could not bring himself to excuse what seemed to him his presumption in attempting to write rules for a language not his own. Like many Frenchmen of the time, Duwes firmly believed that it was not possible to draw up anything like infallible rules for the French language, and that Englishmen should presume, not only to teach it, but to do this also, appeared to him preposterous. Would it not seem strange, he cries, to see a Frenchman endeavouring to teach the Germans their own language? Why should it be considered less strange for Englishmen to teach French and lay down rules and principles for the French language, a thing very few of those who have the language "by nature" are able to do? That these presumptuous Englishmen may be well read, and possess a good knowledge of French—"au moins pour non estre natif du territoire et pais"—does not alter the case; for Art, though it follow Nature closely, can never overtake her. Duwes himself, he tells us, had been teaching his language for over thirty years, he had searched and worked hard, but had never been able to find these so-called infallible rules—for it is not possible to do so. Yet there are Englishmen who claim to have done this great thing, though they have been studying French for but a short time. With Greek and Latin the matter is different. The rules of these languages have grown up through the ages, and are the common property of all nations. This tirade against English writers on the French language is evidently aimed at Palsgrave and his predecessors, all those who since the beginning of Henry's "well-fortuned reign of this thing had written"—but above all at Palsgrave and his ambitious aspirations.

Duwes's half-ironical assumption of humility as to the value of his own rules, although the fruit of over thirty years' experience in teaching, is probably meant as a rebuke to Palsgrave, who claimed to have "reduced the French tongue under a rule and grammar certain," and to have laid down "rules certain and precepts grammatical like as the other three perfect tongues." And when Duwes expresses, time after time, his intention of avoiding all prolixity and 'super-fluity' of words, we are also led to think that he is perhaps directing his remarks at Palsgrave's wordy rules and the size of his work. Duwes may have been a little annoyed at being anticipated in publication by his younger rival. But it is still more likely he resented, as a Frenchman, that the honour of having first produced a great work on the French language should be generally ascribed to an Englishman.

For Palsgrave, with very natural and just pride, laid claim to this honour, and was supported by his contemporaries. Andrew Baynton, in the letter already mentioned, speaks of his "master" as being "the first author of our nation or of the french mennes selfe that hath so farre waded in all maner thinges necessary to reduce that tong under rules certayne." The French, it is true, were beginning to take some interest in their own language, and a French writer of the time, Geoffrey Tory of Bourges, had urged the necessity of reducing the French language to rules in his Champ fleury (1529). "Would to God," he cried, "that some noble soul would busy himself in drawing up and writing rules for our French tongue!"[245] Palsgrave was acquainted with Tory's work, and thought he had realized Tory's ideal and "done the thynge which by the testimony of the excellent clerke, maister Geffroy Tory de Bourges (a late writer of the French nation) in his boke entituled Champ fleury, was never yet amongst them of that contraes self hetherto so moche as ones effectually attempted." Leonard Coxe, the Principal of Reading College, a popular philological writer of the time, also connects the names of Tory and Palsgrave in some Latin verses that were printed at the beginning of the grammar. The short interval which elapsed between the appearance of the two volumes renders it impossible for Palsgrave to have got his first suggestion from Tory, and makes it very improbable that Tory had even the smallest influence on his work.[246] Tory had begun his work in 1522. Before this date Palsgrave had already completed two books of his Grammar. He notes, however, as a coincidence, that Tory and himself quote the same French authors. PUPILS OF DUWESThroughout his Grammar, Palsgrave continually alludes to the authority of French authors, for he studied French a great deal in books. It would not indeed have been possible to produce so comprehensive a work in England without constant reference to French writers, who, owing to the spread of printing, were becoming more and more accessible. Palsgrave refers most frequently to Alain Chartier and Jean Lemaire de Belges, while Guillaume de Lorris (Roman de la Rose), Octovian de St. Gelais, Jean Meschinot, Guillaume Alexis, and Froissart are all consulted and quoted—a list in which, it will be noticed, the name of no contemporary French poet figures. Palsgrave was not content with simply referring to his authorities; he sought to awake an interest in French literature by quoting selections in verse and prose, with guides for pronunciation.

Apparently Duwes's attack on Palsgrave was only one of many. Much before this Palsgrave had complained of unreasonable opposition from his contemporaries, and the "unpleasantness" to which he had to submit. One should not, however, attach too much importance to such complaints, for they seem to have been more or less habitual among writers of the day. Duwes appears to have suffered in a similar way, judging by the acrostic which closes his first book, and contains an unusually vehement attack on the "correcteurs et de toutes œuvres repreveurs," those "grosses gens de rudes affections, ivrognes bannis de vray sentement." It is hard to imagine whence came such severe criticism; probably from other French teachers, but most certainly not from Court circles, where both these teachers enjoyed the greatest popularity.

Nearly all the members of the royal family for two generations learnt French from Duwes. He counted among his pupils Henry VIII. when prince, his elder brother Arthur, his sister Margaret, who became Queen of Scotland, and his daughter Mary, afterwards Queen of England, besides many English noblemen. There is also evidence that Henry's favourite sister Mary, afterwards Queen of France, learnt the first principles of French from Duwes before she became the pupil of Palsgrave. His favourite scholar, however, appears to have been the Princess Mary, afterwards queen, at whose request he published his observations on the French language. When Duwes began to teach her he was an old man, and a little inclined to melancholy. He was beginning to feel the effects of the English climate and complains bitterly of his chief enemies, December and January:

Gout, his chief affliction, often nailed him to his chair, and prevented him from attending his pupil—a greater sorrow, he says, than to suffer sickness and danger. On one occasion he was so ill that he feared he would not see the princess again, and sent a letter, asking pardon if ever he had rebuked her in his lessons. His whole consolation "lies in the hope that Spring, seeing him in such a piteous state, will take pity on him."

Mary seems to have returned fully the affection of her old master. He was her almoner and treasurer, and she playfully called him her "adopted husband." Duwes spent a great deal of his time with his pupil, and his "adopted wife" appears to have become impatient when his gout or any other reason kept him from her. In one of the dialogues she is shown rebuking him for his absence one evening:

Then master and pupil are pictured discussing at length the subject of peace. Love, the nature of the soul, and the meaning of the celebration of Mass were other topics on which they had long conversations; and they would accompany their supper—for the princess begged her master to dine with her as often as possible, in order to talk French—by discourse on health and diet, in the course of which Duwes gave the princess much friendly advice. His eloquence on the subject QUEEN MARY'S FRENCH STUDIESsuggests that when he calls himself a "doctor" he means a doctor of medicine. Thus Mary's practice in the language was not by any means limited to regular lessons, and these lessons were always kept in close contact with her daily life. She is taught how to receive a messenger from the king, her father, or from any foreign potentate, in French, or how to accept presents from noble friends. Duwes sometimes used his lessons as a means of conveying to Mary messages from different members of her household. Lady Maltravers exhorts her to study French seriously that reports of her ability may not be belied, and that she may be able to speak French with the king her father, and her future husband, "whether king or emperor"; and her carver, John ap Morgan, writes to her when she is ill, to express his hopes for her speedy recovery. When Duwes's gout prevented him from waiting on the princess, he would send her a poem of his own composition, in French with an interlinear English version—Duwes wrote singularly crude and inharmonious verses—which the princess learnt by heart by way of lesson. Or he would excuse his absence in a letter, which, he assures her, "will not be of small profit" to her if she learns it.

Such were the relations of Duwes with his favourite pupil. Little else is known of his life beyond the fact that he taught French for nearly forty years in the highest ranks of English society. He himself tells us that he was a Frenchman, and in all probability he was a native of Picardy, for his name is of Picard origin, and there are a few traces of picardisms in his work. We also know that he was librarian to both Henry VII. and Henry VIII.,[247] and that in 1533 he was appointed a gentleman waiter in the Princess Mary's household, and his wife one of the ladies-in-waiting;[248] that, curiously enough, he was a student of alchemy and wrote a Latin dialogue, Inter Naturam et Filium Philosophiae, dated from the library at Richmond (1521), and dedicated to his friend "N. S. P. D.";[249] that he died in 1535, about two years after the publication of his Introductorie; and that he was buried in the Parish Church of St. Olave in Old Jury, where he was inscribed as "servant to Henry VII. and Henry VIII., clerke to their libraries, and schoolmaster of the French Tongue to Prince Arthur, and to the Ladie Mary"—a by no means complete list of his illustrious pupils.

Among Duwes's earliest pupils had been Henry's sister Mary, afterwards Queen of France. This princess, however, was to continue her study of the language under John Palsgrave, and the first we hear of Palsgrave as a teacher of French is on the occasion of his appointment by Henry VIII. as tutor to his sister, probably towards the end of 1512, when negotiations for the princess's marriage with the Prince of Castile, afterwards Charles V., were in progress.[250] And when at last it fell to the lot of the princess to marry, not the emperor, but the French king, Louis XII., in 1514, Palsgrave remained in her service, and accompanied her to France in the capacity of almoner. Like the majority of her English followers, he was soon dismissed from her service. Yet Mary did not forget her former tutor. From time to time she wrote to Wolsey, seeking to obtain preferment for him;[251] like many other men of his standing, Palsgrave was in Holy Orders, and became later chaplain to the king. In November 1514 the Queen of France wrote to Wolsey to beg his favour on behalf of Palsgrave that he may continue at "school."[252] From this we may conclude that Palsgrave was continuing the studies he had begun at an earlier date at the University of Paris. He calls himself "gradué de Paris" in 1530, and no doubt also, his work on the French language was making headway.

How long he remained in France is uncertain, but we are told that on his return he was in great demand as a teacher of French and Latin to the young English nobility and gentry.[253] Sir Thomas More, writing to Erasmus in 1617, mentions that Palsgrave is about to go to Louvain to study there. This second sojourn at a foreign university was not of long duration, for Erasmus, in a letter dated July the same year, informs Tunstall that Palsgrave had started for England.[254] Palsgrave was soon to receive from the king a second important appointment as tutor. PALSGRAVE'S PUPILSOn the formation of the household of his natural son, Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond, in 1525, when his "worldly jewel," as Henry called the young duke, was made Lieutenant-General of the North, the king entrusted Palsgrave with the charge of bringing him up "in virtue & learning."[255] Palsgrave was allowed three servants and an annual stipend of £13:6:8. He took great pains with his young pupil's education, and the king seems to have approved of his method.[256] Such was not the case with Gregory Cromwell, who, it appears, shared the lessons of the duke. When Gregory went to Cambridge under John Cheking's care, the latter wrote to Cromwell that he had to unteach his charge all he had learnt, and that if such be Palsgrave's style of teaching, he does not think he will ever make a scholar.[257] Palsgrave declares that he suffered much, when in the North, from poverty and calumny.[258] His friend, Sir Thomas More, lent him money, and Palsgrave begged him to continue to help him to "tread underfoot" that horrible monster poverty. He also petitions his constant patroness the Dowager Queen of France and her husband the Duke of Suffolk. All he has to live by and pay his debts and maintain his poor mother is little more than £50.[259]

Among Palsgrave's other pupils of note were Thomas Howard, brother to the Earl of Surrey; my Lord Gerald, probably the brother of the fair Geraldine, the object of Lord Surrey's passionate sonnets; Charles Blount, son and heir of Lord Montjoie; Thomas Arundel, who later lost his head for conspiring with the Duke of Somerset against Northumberland, and Andrew Baynton, who has been mentioned already: all students of French, who were acquainted with his book before it was published, and knew his "hole intente and consyderation therein," and who called Palsgrave "our mayster" with a certain amount of pride.

The year after the publication of his grammar, Palsgrave went to Oxford, where he was incorporated M.A. and took the degree of B.D.[260] He was, however, back in London in the following year, taking pupils into his house and visiting others daily. He had, for instance, promised to serve Mr. Baynton and Mr. Dominico in the house of the latter till Candlemas. Of the pupils who were "with him," the "best sped child for his age" was William St. Loe, afterwards Sir William and captain of Elizabeth's Guard. Palsgrave seems to have suffered much from interruptions in his pupils' studies caused by visits to their mothers, or by their leaving London on account of the unhealthiness of the city. He writes to William St. Loe's father that if he takes his son away for either of these reasons the child will not "recover this three years what he has lost in one," and moreover he will have "killed a schoolmaster," for Palsgrave vows he will never teach any more. He also writes that after spending a little time at Cambridge, where he could take the degree of D.D., he intends to keep school in Black Friars, and have with him Mr. St. Loe's son, Mr. Russell's son (who is a good example of what results from interruption of studies by a visit home), the younger brother of Mr. Andrew Baynton, and Mr. Norice's son, of the Privy Chamber.[261] At Cambridge, also, he would be able to get an assistant, as at present the strenuous and continuous application to teaching is ruining his health. Nothing else is known of Palsgrave's teaching career. He seems to have spent a good deal of time towards the end of his life at one or other of the rectories[262] to which he was collated by Archbishop Cranmer, and where, no doubt, he continued to receive pupils till the time of his death in 1554.

Palsgrave's great French Grammar was not his only professional work. He also published a text-book for the use of students of Latin. This was a Latin comedy, Acolastus,[263] which had made its way into English schools. Palsgrave added an English translation of his own, and the whole appeared in 1540, with a dedication to the king. He says it is a translation according to the method of teaching Latin in grammar EDWARD VI.'S FRENCH EXERCISESschools, "first word for word, and then according to the sense." Palsgrave had also announced his intention of publishing a book of French proverbs; he had written in his grammar: "There is no tongue more aboundante of adages or darke sentences comprehendyng great wysdome. But of them I differ at this time to speake any more, intendyng by Goddes grace to make of thes adages a booke aparte." There is, however, nothing to show that he ever realized this intention, even partially.

Another French teacher in the royal family was Jean Bellemain, tutor to Edward VI. Edward refers to his French master in the passage in his diary[264] in which he gives an account of his education. Speaking of himself in the third person, he writes: "He was brought up until he came to six years old among the women. At the sixth year of his age he was brought up in learning by master Dr. Cox, who was after his almoner, and John Chepe, M.A., two well-learned men, who sought to bring him up in learning of Tongues, of scripture, philosophy and all liberal sciences: also John Belmaine, French man, did teach him the French language." It appears from a letter of Dr. Cox to Secretary Paget, that the prince had his first lesson in French on October 1, 1546.[265] His teacher was a zealous Protestant, a friend and correspondent of Calvin, and he had probably some influence on the religious opinions of his pupil.

The three French exercises in the king's hand which are still in existence show that he made rapid progress in the language.[266] They all bear on religious subjects, showing how carefully Bellemain attracted the attention of his young pupil to this matter. All were written after his accession to the throne (1547), and were dedicated to his uncle, Protector Somerset. The first two are very similar in composition. Edward made a collection of texts out of the Bible in English, bearing on two subjects, Idolatry and Faith. He then proceeded to turn these from English into French as an exercise in translation. After they had been corrected by his master, the king had them transcribed into a paper book—the first consisting of twenty pages, the second of thirty-five—and sent them to the Protector.[267] The first was written when Edward had been learning French for about a year (in 1547), and the second shortly afterwards.

The third exercise is much longer than the two earlier ones, and differs from them in being not a translation, but a composition of Edward's own in French. It is entitled, A l'encontre des abus du Monde, and was begun on December 13, 1548, and finished on March 14 of the following year, so that its composition occupied Edward for over three months. The manuscript is corrected throughout by Bellemain, who makes the interesting entry at the end, that the young king, who was then not yet twelve, had written the whole without the help of any living person. Bellemain seems to have been very proud of his pupil's performance; he sent a copy of it to Calvin as "flowers whose fruit would be seen in due season."[268] Calvin in turn sent Bellemain observations on the composition for him to transmit to his pupil, and advised its publication, which Edward would not hear of.[269] Bellemain remarks that Edward took great delight in Calvin's works, and from time to time the French tutor acted as a medium of communication between the two, as in the case just mentioned. Calvin did not scruple to give the young monarch advice on religious subjects,[270] while Cranmer invited him to write to the young king. Bellemain himself made a translation of the English Liturgy of 1552, and sent it to Calvin to have his opinion on it.[271]

Besides these three exercises, two of Edward's French letters have also survived. One is addressed to Queen Katharine Parr and the other to the Princess Elizabeth. In the former he compliments the queen, whom he more usually addressed JEAN BELLEMAIN in Latin, on her beautiful handwriting.[272] The other is to Elizabeth, who, it appears, had written to him in French, inviting him to reply in the same language. He takes her advice:

We see from the date of this letter that Edward had been learning French nearly three months when it was written.

Bellemain's salary as French tutor to the king was £6:12:4 per quarter. In 1546 he received an annuity of fifty marks for life; in 1550 a lease for twenty-one years of the parsonages of Minehead and Cotcombe, county Somerset; in 1553 a lease of the manor of Winchfield in Hampshire;[274] and in 1551 a grant of letters of denization.[275] He stayed in England until the king's death in 1553, and was present at his funeral. No doubt, with his religious sympathies, he would find the England of Mary's time an uncongenial home, and leave it at as early a date as possible.

Bellemain did not compose any treatise on the French language. He says that he had long nourished the hope of writing some rules for French pronunciation and orthography; but he changed his mind, thinking it mere folly to attempt to give rules for that which was not yet fixed and certain. In a translation into French of the Greek Epistle of Basil the Great to St. Gregory upon solitary life, which he dedicated to the Princess Elizabeth,[276] he expresses his opinion upon the new style of French orthography, then promoted by certain writers, with whom he did not agree on most points. These writers[277] wished to make the orthography tally with the pronunciation and to discard the letters which are not pronounced; they would thus change the spelling still used for the most part by scholars and courtiers, and which in Bellemain's opinion is preferable to that proposed by the so-called reformers. He argues that an alteration of the spelling of French would necessitate a corresponding change in Latin, where the letters have the same sound and meaning, a thing which appears ridiculous to the merest observer. Besides, the derivative consonants are useful, as they serve to distinguish words of identical sound but different meaning and derivation, and to indicate the length of the preceding vowel. On the other hand, letters have been added by versifiers merely to suit their rimes, and these writers have done more than any others to corrupt French orthography. Of what avail is it, asks Bellemain, to compose rules on a subject so much in dispute? For these reasons he abstained from increasing the number of works on the French language produced in England.

In the dedication to Elizabeth of his translation of Basil the Great's Epistle to St. Gregory, Bellemain shows that he was familiar with the books which the princess read, and also expresses his desire that she will not let her French be corrupted by the so-called reformed orthography she may meet in some of these books.[278] Thus Bellemain took an interest in Elizabeth's French, and it is highly probable that he was her tutor in that language.[279] QUEEN ELIZABETH'S KNOWLEDGE OF FRENCHIn the year 1546, when he began to teach Edward French, the Princess Elizabeth shared for some time her brother's studies. It is said that they began with religious instruction in the morning, and the rest of the forenoon, breakfast alone excepted, was devoted to the languages, science, and moral learning. Edward then went to his outdoor exercises and Elizabeth to her lute or viol.[280] No doubt, then, she received lessons from the French tutor until she left her brother in December. Elizabeth, however, had made considerable progress in the language some years before this date, and before 1544, so that it is extremely likely that Bellemain had been teaching her for several years before he was appointed French tutor to Edward, perhaps owing to his success with Elizabeth. At any rate there does not seem to be any trace of any other French tutor to the princess, and the fact that he received an annuity of £50 for life suggests that he had already rendered some service in the royal family.

The scholar Leland praised Elizabeth's skill in French and Latin when he saw her at Ampthill with her brother, and already in 1544 she had completed the first composition in which she exerted her early activity in the French language. This was a translation of Margaret of Navarre's Miroir de l'ame pecheresse,[281] which she called The Miroir or Glasse of the Synneful Soul, and dedicated to Queen Katharine Parr.[282] It was published in 1564 under the title, A godly meditacyon of the Christian soule concerning a love towards God and Hys Christe, compyled in Frenche by Lady Margarete, Quene of Naver, and aptly translated into Englysh by the right vertuous lady Elizabeth, daughter of our late Soverayne Kynge Henri the VIII.[283] The translation itself is not very good, and the style is awkward. But Elizabeth was only eleven years old when she undertook it, and observes apologetically that she "joyned the sentences together as well as the capacite of (her) symple witte and small lerning coulde expende themselves." In the following year (1545) she translated some prayers and meditations written in English by the queen, Katharine Parr, into Latin, French, and Italian, and dedicated them to her father.[284] Of greater interest is a little book the princess wrote in French, and also offered to the king—a translation into French of the Dialogus Fidei of Erasmus, thus inscribed: "A Treshaut Trespuissant et Redoubté Prince Henry VIII de ce nom, Roy d'Angleterre, de France et d'Irlande, défenseur de la foy, Elizabeth sa Treshumble fille rend salut et obedience." This treatise, composed before the death of the king in 1547,[285] was preserved in the Library at Whitehall, and often attracted the attention of foreign visitors in London.[286]

Thus Elizabeth was well accomplished in French before the reign of Edward VI. It was while her brother was king that the great Hebrew scholar, Antony Rudolph Chevallier, commonly called Monsieur Antony, was for a short time her tutor in French. Chevallier was a Norman who had studied Hebrew under Vatable at Paris, and had been forced to take refuge in England on account of his religious opinions. He studied at Cambridge and lived for a year in the house of Archbishop Cranmer,[287] who brought him to the notice of the young king (then famous for his patronage of foreign scholars of the Reform) and of Protector Somerset, who appointed him tutor to the Princess Elizabeth.[288]

On the death of Edward VI., Chevallier, like Bellemain, left England. He taught Hebrew at Strasburg and Geneva, where he came into contact with English student refugees under the reign of Mary I., and made the acquaintance of Calvin. He returned to England in the reign of Elizabeth (1568) to solicit the queen's help for the French Protestants. He received a good welcome, and in 1569 was made a lecturer in Hebrew at Cambridge, where "he was accounted second to none in the realme." He returned to France before the Massacre of St. Bartholomew (1570), and died as a result of the hardships he suffered in making his escape.

RELIGIOUS OPINIONS OF FRENCH TUTORSIt is a curious fact that the religious opinions of the French tutors in Henry VIII.'s family were reflected in the reigns of their pupils—the Protestant Edward VI., the Roman Catholic Mary, and the Protestant Elizabeth. Both Duwes and Bellemain allowed the subject of religion to make its way into their lessons, and they probably exercised some influence, differing in degree, on the religious convictions of their pupils.

Religion, the question of all questions in the sixteenth century, was destined, incidentally, to exercise a great influence on the teaching of French in England. The conflicts resulting from the fierce hatreds aroused by the Reformation compelled many Protestants to seek asylum from the triumphant Catholic reaction abroad, and England was the land to which many of them fled.[289] Among these refugees were many who took upon themselves the task of teaching their native tongue to the English. The second half of the sixteenth century was the time when this influence was most strongly felt, although it is not altogether negligible in the years immediately preceding. In France the Reformation had at first been favourably received at Court, but in the third decade of the century persecution began to drive some Protestants from their native land. They made their way to England with some trepidation at this early date,[290] for Henry VIII., in spite of his breach with Rome, had but little sympathy with the Protestants, although he refused on several occasions to surrender fugitive heretics to the French king.[291] On the accession of Edward VI. in 1547, however, England became FOREIGNERS IN ENGLANDa more hospitable abode for the Protestants, driven from France in increasing numbers by the persecutions sanctioned by Henry II., whose reign coincided with that of Edward. When Mary came to the throne all protection extended to these fugitives was withdrawn, and we find many of their protectors fleeing in their turn "to the Church and Christian congregation, then dispersed in foreine realmes, as to the safest bay."[292]

The return of the English Government to Protestantism in the reign of Elizabeth coincided with the period of increased persecution on the Continent. Refugees arrived in great numbers, not only Huguenots from France, but also subjects of Philip II., Dutch, Flemings, and Walloons, fleeing from the cruelties of Alva.[293] These inhabitants of the Low Countries came to England in greater numbers than the Huguenots.[294] Many of them, such as the Walloons and Burgundians, spoke French; and, while the chief teachers of the time were drawn from the Huguenots, a large group of these French-speaking Netherlanders also joined the profession. To these two classes of French teachers must be added a third, the Roman Catholics, who formed the largest proportion of the foreigners in England.[295]

The number of foreigners, augmented by the arrival of the refugee Dutch and French, created a situation which required serious consideration. These foreigners now formed a large fraction of the general population—probably about one in twenty of the inhabitants of London.[296] It became indispensable to keep some record of them, especially as there was a danger that spies and Roman Catholic emissaries might enter the country under the guise of refugees, and the overcrowding resulting from the arrival of so many aliens was becoming a serious matter. In earlier reigns the names of strangers in London had been registered; but in the time of Elizabeth a census, both numerical and religious, was taken more systematically, and at more and more frequent intervals. In these returns of aliens dwelling in London,[297] the names of many French teachers are preserved. Frequently their profession is stated, and we are told what church they attended and whether or not they were denizens, as well as the part of London in which they dwelt, and, in the lay subsidies, the amount they had to pay towards the heavy taxes levied on strangers.

Other names are preserved in the lists of the grants of letters of denization.[298] This grant made the precarious position of foreigners in England more secure. Denization became almost indispensable to any one wishing to exercise a craft or trade. These letters gave the recipient much the same privileges as a native, except that he was still subject to special taxation.[299] Only those intending to settle in England would trouble to take out letters of denization; and that many of these foreigners' stay in England was only temporary is shown by the fact that, when the number of strangers was greatest, as after the St. Bartholomew massacre, there is no marked increase in the number of denizations granted.

Means for registering the Protestant section of the community of foreigners were provided through the Dutch and French churches in London.[300] In 1550, Edward VI. had granted the dissolved monastery of the Austin Friars to the foreigners as a place of worship; some months later, owing to their increase in numbers, they were allowed the use of another building—St. Antony's Hospital in Threadneedle Street. The congregation was divided, the Dutch part remaining in the original church, while the French and the Walloons and other French-speaking refugees moved to Threadneedle Street. Both churches, each with two pastors,[301] were under the control of a Superintendent. But when, in the time of Elizabeth, the churches rose to new life, after their suppression in the reign of Mary, the Superintendent was replaced by the Archbishop of Canterbury. This change, however, did not RECEPTION OF REFUGEES IN ENGLANDprevent the refugee congregations from enjoying many of their former liberties, for in the time of Elizabeth the Archbishops, who had themselves experienced the hardships of exile in the reign of Mary, took a particular interest in the cause of the refugees. The English, indeed, complained, not entirely without reason, that the foreigners were allowed greater religious freedom than they themselves.

As French and Dutch refugees settled in different parts of the country, similar churches arose in these settlements. By the end of the reign of Elizabeth there were French-Walloon churches in existence at Canterbury, Glastonbury, Sandwich, Southampton, Rye, and Norwich. In 1552 all strangers were ordered to repair either to their own church or to the English parish church. These injunctions were renewed in the time of Elizabeth and became a useful means of checking the number of refugees in London. From time to time, during this reign, the Archbishop requested the ministers of the foreign churches to send him a list of their communicants. Foreigners who did not attend any church were not allowed to apply for the privilege of letters of denization.

Thus the aliens who arrived in England in such large numbers in the second part of the sixteenth century had many restrictions placed upon them, especially if they were engaged in any craft or trade which might arouse the commercial jealousy of the English. In the teaching profession such rivalry would not be felt to the same extent, though it did actually exist. In any circumstance, however, all the exiles had to endure the hatred and insults of the common people, from which, nearly two centuries later, Voltaire only escaped without injury thanks to his ready wit. Riots such as those of Evil May Day (1517) were directed mainly against foreign traders, but all foreigners, especially Frenchmen, were a continual butt for the insults of the mob. Nicander Nucius remarks that the common people in England do not entertain one kindly sentiment towards the French. "Ennemis du françois" is one of the epithets applied to the English by De la Porte in his collection of epithets (Paris, 1571) on the different nations. The French priest, Étienne Perlin, who was in England during the last two years of the reign of Edward VI., and thoroughly hated the country, calling it "la peste d'un pays et ruine," speaks bitterly of the contrast between the courteous reception the English receive in France, and the greeting of the French in England with the cry, "French dogue": "it pleaseth me not that these churls being in their own country spit in our faces, and they being in France are treated with honour, as if they were little gods."[302] All foreign visitors to England are at one in their complaints of the lack of courtesy among the people. The great scholar Casaubon says he was more insulted in London than he ever was in Paris; stones were thrown at his window day and night, and once he was wounded in the street on his way to pay his respects at Court.[303]

All these visitors, nevertheless, recognize that the English nobility and gentry and those in authority are "replete with benevolence and good order," and as courteous and affable as the people are uncivil.[304] And thus we find foreigners, especially refugees, welcomed to chairs at the English universities, and foreign students having their fees refunded on showing they had suffered "for religion," and receiving ecclesiastical preferment.[305] Most of the chief families in the realm, we are told, received refugees into their midst. Laurence Humphrey[306] exhorts these noble families to fulfil the sacred duty of hospitality towards strangers, especially religious exiles, whose sufferings many of them had themselves experienced in the reign of Mary, and to provide them with necessary livings, admit them to fellowships, and allow them yearly stipends. "Which well I wot, the noblest Prince Edward of happy memory most liberally did both in London and either university, whom some Dukes, Nobles, and Bishops imitated, chiefly the reverend Father and late Primate of England ... Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury.... Amongst the Nobles not the least praise earned Henry Gray, Marquis of Dorset, and Duke of Suffolk now a noble citizen of Heaven, who liberally relieved many learned exiles. The like may be said of many others."

Cranmer had entertained at Lambeth Pierre Alexandre and "diverse other pious Frenchmen," including Antony TUTORS IN PRIVATE FAMILIESRudolph Chevallier, who was tutor to Elizabeth for a short time. Matthew Parker, his successor to the see in the time of Elizabeth, followed his example and declared it to be a Christian duty to befriend "these gentle and profitable strangers." Cecil, Walsingham, and other dignitaries of the time also became their protectors, and, recognizing the advantages, both intellectual and commercial, which accrued to the country, sought by all means to ward off the hostile measures demanded from time to time by the English bourgeoisie.

One French teacher of the time, G. de la Mothe, says that so great was the affection of the English nobility and gentry for the French that few of them were without a Frenchman in their houses. Thus Pierre Baro, a native of Étampes and student of civil law who came to England at the time of the St. Bartholomew massacre, was "kindly entertained in the family of Lord Burghley, who admitted him to eat at his own table." Subsequently he went to Trinity College, Cambridge, and became Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at that university on the recommendation of his patron, besides being admitted to the degrees of Bachelor and Licentiate of Civil Law, and Doctor of Divinity (1576).[307] Lord Buckhurst had for a time in his house Claude de Sainliens or Holyband, the most popular French teacher of the time, and several other strangers; while Sir Nicholas Throckmorton gave shelter to two Burgundians, one Dutchman, and four Frenchmen, "whose names cannot be learned."[308]

In many instances we know that these refugees taught French when thus received into noble families, and it is extremely probable that such was almost always the case, for French was one of the chief studies of the higher classes of society and held an important place in the courtly education of the time. This partiality for the language was called one of the rare vocations which distinguished the English nobility. An idea of the intellectual accomplishments necessary to a young gentleman of the time may be gathered from the programme drawn up for Gregory, the son of Mr. Secretary Cromwell;[309] this comprises "French, Latin, writing, playing at weapons, casting of accounts, pastimes of instruments." Wilson, the author of the earliest treatise on rhetoric in English,[310] varies this scheme slightly; he commends the gentleman "for his skill in French, or Italian, or cosmography, Laws, Histories of all countries, gifts of inditing, playing on instruments, painting, and drawing." Lord Ossory, Duke of Ormond, for example, rode very well, was a good tennis-player, fencer, and dancer, understood music and played well on the guitar and on the lute; French he spoke elegantly, while he read Italian with ease—a careful and significant distinction between the two languages—and, in addition, he was a good historian and well versed in romances.[311]

Thus a place had to be assigned to French in the education of gentlemen. Thomas Cranmer,[312] for instance, wrote to Cromwell in 1539, making suggestions for the establishment of a College in the Cathedral Church at Canterbury, to provide for the instruction of forty students "in the tongues, in sciences, and in French"—a proposal which came to nothing, but is none the less important, as being the first attempt to reinstate French in an educational institution.

In the sixteenth century the long-standing custom among gentlemen of sending their sons to the houses of noblemen for education was still practised to some extent, and French was taught in these little communities.[313] The usual subjects of study were reading, probably writing, and languages, chiefly Latin and French. Sir Thomas More and Roger Ascham were both educated in this way. More, at the age of three, was sent to the house of John Morton, the chancellor, where he learnt French, Latin, Greek, and music. Ascham spent his early years in the house of Sir Humphrey Wingfield, who "ever loved and used to have many children in his house."[314] Sir Henry Wotton was "pleased constantly to breed up one or more hopeful youths which he picked out of Eton School, and took into his own domestic care."[315] It was also customary for young peers to become royal wards. In 1561 Sir Nicholas Bacon devised a plan for their FRENCH IN EDUCATION OF GENTRY"bringing up in virtue and learning" which he submitted to Cecil. According to these articles,[316] the wards were to attend divine service at six in the morning, then to study Latin till eleven; nothing is said of breakfast, but an hour is allowed for dinner; from noon till two o'clock they were to be with the music master, from two to three with the French master, and from three to five with the Latin and Greek masters. The rest of the evening was devoted to prayers, honest pastimes, and music under the direction of a master. No doubt Cecil put this advice into practice. Some years later, Sir Humphrey Gilbert drew up an admirable scheme for the "erection of an Academy in London for the education of her majesty's wards, and others, the youth of Nobility and Gentlemen," which was laid before the queen, probably in 1570. Although this scheme was never carried out, it is of great interest as showing what were the subjects most likely to be taught. Gilbert's plan is very extensive. French, of course, is included in the curriculum—"also there shall be one Teacher of the French tongue which shall be yearly allowed for the same £26. Also he shall be allowed one usher, of the yearly wage of £10." Gilbert urges also the teaching of other modern languages—Italian, to which he assigns about as large a place as to French, and Spanish and High Dutch, to which less importance is attached.[317]

French, then, was a recognized part of the education of the nobility and gentry. Italian, it will be noticed, was also considered desirable, but chiefly for reading purposes.[318] In the Elizabethan era Italian literature had perhaps more influence on English writers than that of France, although it not infrequently reached England through a French medium. But when the first enthusiasm of the early days of the Renaissance had burnt itself out, Italian was not cultivated generally, except by those specially interested in literature or by those who had special reasons for learning it. Nor was Spanish much studied, except for practical purposes and the government services; Richard Perceval, for instance, put his excellent knowledge of the language at the disposal of Lord Burghley for the purpose of deciphering the packets containing the first intelligence of the Armada.[319] Neither language could be a dangerous rival to French, which alone was studied generally, and by ever-increasing numbers.

It was in private tuition that those Frenchmen desirous of teaching their language, or driven to do so by stress of circumstances, would find the readiest opening and the largest demand for their services. Turning to the various registers of aliens, the earliest notices we find of French tutors are in the grant of letters of denization for the year 1544.[320] In that year one, John Verone, a French and Latin tutor to the children of William Morris, a gentleman usher to the king, received the grant, as did also a certain Honorie Ballier, a Frenchman who had been ten years in England, and was engaged in teaching his language to the children of the Lord Admiral, Lord Lisle, Duke of Northumberland. Yet another teacher received the same privilege in this year—John Veron, one of the "eminentest preachers" of the time, and the author of various religious controversial works. He gained considerable preferment in the Anglican Church, and once preached before the queen at the Cross in St. Paul's Churchyard,—"a bold as well as an eloquent man," and a perfect master of the English tongue.[321] In the earlier part of his life in England, where he arrived about 1536, Veron had been engaged in teaching gentlemen's children; a task in which, say his letters of denization (1544), he "doth yet continue with intent ever so to persevere." Veron manifested his interest in the teaching of Latin and French by publishing a Latin, French, and English dictionary in 1552, the first dictionary, published in England, in which a place is given to French. It is based on the Latin-French Dictionary of Robert Éstienne,[322] with the addition of a column in English, and entitled Dictionariolum puerorum tribus linguis Latina, Anglica, et Gallica conscriptum cui anglicam interpretionem adjecit Joannes Veron.[323]

The impetus imparted to the teaching of French by the arrival of these large numbers of refugees naturally led to an increased TEXT-BOOKS FOR TEACHING FRENCHproduction of books for teaching the language. Nearly all the grammars written in the second half of the sixteenth century are the work of Frenchmen,[324] the English, after their first initiative, soon giving place to the French writers on the language, although not without some protest. Some of these teachers no doubt made use of one or other of the grammars which had appeared in French; many of them taught without any such help, and a few were able to use one or other of the grammars which had already been published in England, while yet others set to work to compile text-books of their own. As many of them were, or had been, employed in noblemen's houses, and had composed their grammars from material used in teaching in these noble families, it was easy for most of them to find patrons for their works,[325] and thus secure a greater measure of success by offering them to the public under the protection of some well-known and powerful name, which would "shadow these tender plants" from the "over violent rays of reproachful censurings." To dedicate a grammar to some famous pupil, with praise of his rare knowledge of French acquired by means of its contents and the excellent method employed by his tutor, the author, was a very good form of self-advertisement, freely used by the French teachers of the time. Among patrons of French grammars were Edward VI. and particularly Elizabeth, who is, says one of these writers, "le vray port de retraite et asyle asseuré de ceux qui, faisans profession de l'Evangile, souffrent ores persecution soubs la Tyrannie de l'Antichrist"; another adds that she has "des estrangers les cœurs a volonté." Lord Burghley, Sir Henry Wallop, Sir Philip Wharton, and other influential men of the time also figure among the patrons of French teachers.

These French grammars which appeared in the second half of the sixteenth century are of a decidedly more popular kind than those of Palsgrave and Duwes, and appeal to a larger public. The earlier grammars were written for the special use of royalty and the highest ranks of the nobility. Barclay, however, differs from his rivals in having a wider aim; his grammar is intended for the "pleasure of all englysshe men as well gentylmen marchauntes, as other common people that are not expert in the sayd langage." Palsgrave also, by way of epilogue, expresses the hope that the "nobility of the realm and all other persons, of whatever state and condition whatsoever, may in their tender age, by means of it the sooner acquire a knowledge of French by their great pains and study"; but it is clear that the size and price of his book, not to mention the restrictions he placed on its sale, would prevent it from fulfilling any such aim.

In this new series of French text-books there appeared nothing which could compare in importance with the great work of Palsgrave; they were all the hasty product of teachers, and intended to meet a pressing practical demand. The authors had not the time, even if they had had the ability, to produce any comprehensive study of the language, and, consequently, their works are of more value as showing how French was taught in England, and its popularity here, than as a store of philological material for the historical grammarian. Rules of grammar are usually reduced to as small a compass as possible; and the largest part of the volumes is occupied by dialogues in French and English, which give lively and often dramatic pictures of contemporary family life, and of the busy London streets of the time. A place is also given to familiar phrases, collections of proverbs, and golden sayings.

The public to which such text-books appealed was wider, including merchants and commoners, as well as the gentry. Nor was the demand for tutors in the language confined to the higher classes. At this time the great middle classes were rising to wealth and prominence, and demanding a share in the intellectual distinctions of their social betters. "As for gentlemen, they be made good cheap in England," writes Sir Thomas Smith,[326] in reference to the democratic movement. In this new class of Englishman, the teachers of French recruited a large number of their pupils. And so the French teacher who visited a clientèle of pupils became a familiar figure in the London of the later sixteenth century.

The numerous French-speaking inhabitants of London, occupied in various trades and crafts in the city, were, so to speak, his unconscious collaborators, for the proportion of such foreigners in London was large enough to have some influence on the spread of the knowledge of French. SHAKESPEARE'S KNOWLEDGE OF FRENCHWe have an instance of this indirect influence in the case of Shakespeare. From 1598 he lodged for about six years, and possibly longer, in the house of a Huguenot, one Christopher Montjoy, who lived in Silver Street, Cripplegate[327]—a well-to-do neighbourhood, and the resort of many foreigners. Montjoy was one of the French head-dressers who were in such demand at that time. His wife, daughter, and also his apprentice, Stephen Bellot, formed the rest of the household, with whom Shakespeare seems to have lived on fairly intimate terms; he acted as a mediator in arranging a marriage between Montjoy's daughter and Bellot, and, some years later, was drawn into a family quarrel concerning a dowry which Bellot claimed and Montjoy refused to pay; in 1612 Bellot took the matter into the Court of Requests, and Shakespeare was one of the witnesses summoned. Finally the matter was referred to the consistory of the French Church, which decided in Bellot's favour.[328] It was no doubt during his sojourn in the house of this Huguenot family that he improved his knowledge of French, of which he gives evidence in his works.[329] The two plays in which he uses the language most freely—Henry V. and The Merry Wives of Windsor—were produced during the early time of his residence with Montjoy, whose name is given to a French Herald in Henry V. In The Merry Wives the French physician, Doctor Caius, speaks a mixture of broken English and French,[330] and in Henry V. French is introduced freely into a number of the scenes,[331] while one, in which Katharine of France receives a lesson in English from her French maid, is entirely in French, and is here quoted for convenience' sake:[332]

It is not surprising, remembering Shakespeare's friendship with the Huguenots, to find him quoting from the Genevan Bible in the same play.[333] When he composed it, he must have FRENCH NEGLECTED IN GRAMMAR SCHOOLShad a strong inclination to write French, as he sometimes uses the language rather inconsistently, making the Dauphin, for instance, speak French one moment and English the next.

On the whole, Shakespeare's French seems to have been fairly correct grammatically, if not quite idiomatic.[334] It contains just enough mistakes and anglicisms to make it extremely unlikely that he received help from any Frenchman; for example, we find the Princess Katharine of France saying, "Je suis semblable a les anges." On other occasions, when Englishmen are speaking, Shakespeare purposely makes their French incorrect and clumsy. That he could read French is shown by the fact that some of the originals on which he based his plays were not translated into English.[335] Moreover, he probably read Montaigne in the original, unless, like Cornwallis, Florio allowed him to see his translation in manuscript—a rather remote possibility, as the French would be easier of access. No doubt many others besides Shakespeare owed a good deal of their knowledge of French to direct intercourse with Frenchmen, a means of improvement strongly advocated by the professional teachers of the time. "Get you acquainted with some Frenchman" is their cry.

In addition to the refugees, students or men belonging to no particular craft or profession who took up the teaching of their language on their arrival in England, there were also professional schoolmasters—French, Flemish, and Walloon. Many of the latter, we may surmise, were no doubt driven from their country by the edict issued by Margaret, Duchess of Parma, in 1567. One clause was particularly directed against schoolmasters who might teach any error or false doctrine. None of these teachers, however, would find any opening in the grammar schools, which were then "little nurseries of the Latin tongue." The memorizing of Latin grammar, with the study of rhetoric in the Latin writers, both in verse and prose, formed almost the whole of the curriculum.[336] In the books on education of the time the study of French was equally ignored. These works, however, are mainly from the pen of pedants, and have but little bearing on practical education.[337] For them French was not a 'learned' tongue, in spite of the efforts of Palsgrave to secure its recognition as such.

But it is not difficult to reconcile the general prevalence of the study of French with its absence from the grammar schools. At this time, and throughout the seventeenth century, there was a great division between scholastic education and social requirements.[338] The school and educational writers, in refusing to recognize French, held aloof from the social needs of the day: "non vitae sed scholae discimus"; and in retaining the cosmopolitan atmosphere of the Middle Ages they ignored the new spirit of nationalism which called modern languages into prominence. The school had little, if any, effect in retarding the progress of French, which came to be looked upon in the light of an 'extra,' to be studied privately and with the help of tutors. Many scholars of the public or grammar schools had a private tutor who would teach them French when occasion served. Such, for instance, was the case with Sir Philip Sidney. Fulke Grenville and Sidney both entered Shrewsbury School at the age of ten, in the year 1564. Two years later a letter of Sir Henry Sidney informs us that he had received two letters from his son, one in Latin and the other in French, "whiche I take in good parte, and will you to exercise that Practice and Learning often: For that will stand you in most steade, in that profession of lyf that you are born to live in."[339] Apparently, then, Sidney had received lessons in French either at home or out of school hours. He had also, in all probability, had a French tutor before he went to Shrewsbury.

French, however, was not entirely neglected in all schools. As the grammar schools were "Latin" schools, there arose in the second half of the sixteenth century a considerable PRIVATE FRENCH SCHOOLS number of private "French" schools, where this language received special attention. The earliest of these owed their origin to the refugees, both professional schoolmasters and others. St. Paul's Churchyard, the busy centre of city life, was the quarter round which many of these schools were grouped. There they were most likely to get a good clientèle, partly, it may be, among those boys attending St. Paul's School who desired, like Sir Philip Sidney, to extend their studies. In St. Paul's Churchyard, also, lived the chief booksellers, who generally seem to have cultivated friendly relations with French teachers, especially those whose books they were commissioned to sell. Frequently they acted as agents for the teachers, who in their grammars advise prospective pupils to "inquire" at the bookseller's. And, at this time, when indications of address were given by reference to the nearest place of importance, printers' signs are frequently used to locate the situation of French schools. At least one of these schools seems to have been very well known, for in 1590 the printer W. Wright, senior, gave as his address, "neare to the French School."[340]

All of them, however, did not owe their origin to the French refugees. We hear, for instance, of a certain John Love, an Englishman, son of the steward of the Jesuit college founded by the English Catholics at Douay, who had a French school near St. Paul's, at the end of the century. But he was suspect, as it was feared he might be an "intelligenceer."[341] Among the earliest, however, if not the first of these French schools, was that of Peter Du Ploich, a Frenchman, and no doubt a refugee; at any rate the text-book for teaching French which he published shows his strong sympathy with the Protestants. This was entitled A Treatise in English and Frenche right necessary and profitable for al young children, and was first issued in about 1553 from the press of Richard Grafton, who had "privilege de l'imprimer seul."[342] Of this schoolmaster's life little is known.[343] From his little French text-book, "right necessary to come to the knowledge of the same," we learn that he kept his school at the sign of the Rose in Trinity Street; that he was married, and probably received some of his pupils into his house; and that he taught French, Latin, and writing. Probably religious instruction also formed part of the curriculum, as it did in the other schools of the time; both Henry VIII. and Edward VI. issued orders that the Paternoster, the Ten Commandments, and the Apostles' Creed should be taught to children.[344] Not only Du Ploich but other French teachers of the time provided religious formularies in their books for teaching the language, and in 1559-1560 the printer William Griffith received a licence to print a Catechism in Latin, French, and English.[345]

The Catechism, Litany, Suffrages, and prayers occupy a large part of Du Ploich's Treatise, which is of quarto size, and consists of about fifty leaves.[346] All these formularies are given in both French and English, arranged in two columns on each page.[347] Then come three familiar dialogues which constitute the third, fourth, and fifth chapters of the book. The first of these gives us a lively picture of family life at the time. From the street, where we meet friends and are taught how to greet and address them, we pass into the house, where we are spectators of the family repast and of the arrival of the guests, and hear conversation on many subjects in which Du Ploich finds an opportunity for self-advertisement by mentioning his school and address. A child reads a passage from the New Testament, and the meal is preceded and followed by lengthy thanksgivings, which, however, do not interfere with the joviality and conviviality of the host.

The next two dialogues deal with subjects characteristic of PETER DU PLOICHthese books for teaching French—asking the way, the arrival and entertainment at an inn, and finally, buying, selling, and bargaining—all topics useful for merchants and merchants' apprentices, from whose ranks Du Ploich probably recruited a number of his pupils. "L'aprentif" is the word he uses in speaking of his pupils, though there is no proof to show that he employed it in any special sense. Then comes a fifth chapter containing the following headings: "Pour demander le chemin," "Aultre communication en chevauchant," "Pour aller coucher," "Pour soy descoucher," and beginning thus:

In the sixth chapter the merchants leave the inn in the early morning to transact their business:

At the end come the names of the figures, necessary for such transactions, and finally information and advice in verse form, without any English rendering, "pour gens de finance":

Du Ploich seems to have brought with him to England a Genevan "A B C," or book of elementary instruction and prayers for children, such as was common in France as well as in England. The next section of his treatise treats of the French A B C in words identical with those of an A B C françois printed at Geneva in 1551. This is followed by a few very slight rules in English, which tell us not to pronounce the last letter of a French word, except s, t, and p, when the next word begins with a consonant; to neglect a vowel at the end of a word when the following word begins with another vowel; also that the accusative precedes the verb; that after au, ou, i, and eu, l is not sounded; that the consonants sp, st, and ct should not be separated in pronunciation; and that the negative is formed by placing ne before the verb and pas or point after it. To this scanty grammatical information, which bears considerable resemblance to that contained in some previous works,[348] the eighth and last chapter adds the conjugation of the two auxiliaries in Latin, English, and French. The treatise closes with a Latin poem addressed to "preceptor noster Du Ploich" by John Alexander, one of his pupils, and with a table of contents.

No doubt French was the basis of the whole of the instruction given by Du Ploich in his school. His pupils learnt to write from this French text-book, and memorized the Latin verbs with the French verbs. The fact that Du Ploich places his few grammar rules at the end of the work, and after the practical reading-exercises, shows what slight importance he attached to them. He would, we may assume, refer his pupils to them as occasion arose, but practical exercises and conversation formed the chief part of his lessons. He made free use of English in explaining the meaning of the French, and throughout his book he sacrifices the English phrase in order to render more closely the meaning of the French, for which he duly apologizes: "that none blame or reprove this sayd translacion thus made in Englishe because that it is a litle corrupt. DU PLOICH'S METHOD OF TEACHINGFor the author hath done it for the better declaryng of the diversitie of one tounge to the other, and it is turned almost worde for worde and lyne for lyne, that it may be to his young scholars more easy and lyght."

Du Ploich was thoughtful for his young pupils. "A little at a time, and that done well" was his motto. On this method, he says, the child will learn more in a week than he would do in two months by attempting a great deal at the beginning. The master should repeat the lesson two or three times before allowing the child to say it, and be ready to explain difficulties, and not wait for the child to guess. If not, the pupil will lose patience and the little courage he possesses. Du Ploich would have the verbs learnt on the plan already advocated on a larger scale by Duwes, that is, he advises the student to practise them negatively and interrogatively as well as in the usual affirmative form.

Some time later, probably after Du Ploich's death, or when he had left England, there appeared another edition of his grammar. This was printed by John Kingston, and finished on the fourteenth day of April 1578.[349] An important change in the arrangement of the chapters distinguishes it from the edition of 1553; in the later edition the chapter on the alphabet and grammar is placed at the beginning, although in both issues the chapter on the two auxiliaries closes the work. Kingston—for he was probably responsible for the change—thus yielded to the tendency, which became stronger and stronger as time advanced, of placing theoretical before practical instruction. In addition to slight variations, other differences between the two works are the omission of the verses for "gens de finance," and of the Latin poem addressed to Du Ploich by one of his pupils.

The Little Treatise in English and French was not the only work produced by Du Ploich during his residence in England. On its completion he turned his attention to the composition of a work on the estate of princes, which he called a Petit Recueil tresutile et tresnecessaire de l'Etat dez Princes, dez Seigneurs temporelz et du commun peuple, faict par Pierre Du Ploych.[350] This Recueil is written in French. Its subject matter is not of much interest, but the Latin verses with which it closes inform us that Du Ploich had a law degree (Licentiatus Legum). He dedicated the manuscript, which is not dated, to the "Roy tres puissant Eduard sixieme de ce nom," who graciously received it and rewarded Du Ploich's industry by a generous gift.[351] This favourable reception encouraged the French teacher to present another work to his "Soverain lord and master" in the course of the following year. This second manuscript is shorter than the earlier Recueil;[352] it bears the title of Petit Recueil des homaiges, honneurs et recognoissances deubz par les hommes a Dieu le createur, avec certaines prieres en la recognoissance de soy mesme. At the end occurs a passage of some interest in which Du Ploich expresses his intention of providing the work, unworthy as it is, with an English translation, as soon as he finds time and opportunity for such an undertaking, for he has not English "de nature."[353] This rendering, he says, will be "mot pour mot et ligne pour ligne, affin d'augmenter les couraiges des professeurs." We may infer from this that he thought of having the work printed in French and English for the use of students.

A French school very similar to that of Du Ploich, but of which we have more details, was kept by Claude de Sainliens, De Sancto Vinculo, or, as he anglicized it, Holyband. A native of Moulins and a Huguenot, Holyband probably sought refuge in England from the persecutions. In 1571 he is said to have been in England seven years;[354] hence he must have begun his long career in London as a teacher of French in the year 1564. In 1566 he took out letters of denization.[355] Holyband was not exactly a scholar, but rather a man of broad interests, sustained by extraordinary vitality, and before he had been in England three years he had published two books for teaching French, which became very popular, and continued to be reprinted for nearly a century. There is no extant copy of the earliest edition of the first of these, but it appeared most probably in 1565. CLAUDE HOLYBANDThe earliest copy known is dated 1573, and bears the title, The French Schoolemaister, wherin is most plainlie shewed the true and most perfect way of pronouncinge of the French Tongue. The contents of this little book are of the kind which became characteristic of works for teaching French. It opens with rules for pronunciation and grammar in English, of little value or originality, and purposely made as concise as possible. These are followed by dialogues, collections of proverbs, golden sayings, prayers, and graces before meat, and a large vocabulary. The dialogues are by far the most interesting portion of the work. Like those of Du Ploich, they show a close connexion between the teaching of French and the daily concerns of life. They give us a picture of the busy London of the time, and especially of St. Paul's Churchyard, as well as lively family scenes, together with the usual wayside and tavern conversation. We see the boy setting off to school in the morning, threading his way through the busy streets, and again see him return to the hearty and hospitable family dinner, during which he finds occasion to speak of his French studies. These dialogues are given in French and English arranged on opposite pages. Their dramatic interest may be gathered from the opening passage, where we listen to the servant hurrying the boy off to school:

And after quarrelling with Margaret, and using rather bad language, Francis receives his parents' blessing, and starts off to school. Unfortunately we are not spectators of his doings there.

Whether Holyband had opened his French school or not when he composed the French Schoolemaister is uncertain; but the school was evidently in full swing at the time his second work appeared, about a year later, in 1566. The contents of the new work, The French Littleton, a most easie, perfect, and absolute way to learn the French tongue, are much the same as those of the French Schoolemaister. There is, however, one important difference between the two works. In the Schoolemaister the rules precede the practical exercises, but this order is reversed in the Littleton. In the first work Holyband does not appear to have fully evolved his method of teaching French. By the time he wrote the French Littleton he was able to lay down principles, based, no doubt, on experience, and consequently he attached a higher value to the second of his works, and used it himself in teaching. The French Schoolemaister was intended more for the use of private pupils. It was described as a "perfect way" of learning French without any "helpe of Maister or teacher,[356] set foorthe for the furtherance of all those whiche doo studie privately in their own study or houses." Holyband himself does not seem to have given it much attention after its first appearance. Nevertheless it enjoyed as great a popularity and went through as many editions, or nearly so, as its author's more favoured work. Other French teachers made up for Holyband's neglect by editing it themselves in the early seventeenth century. So great indeed was its success that in 1600 a tax of 20 per cent was levied on each edition for the benefit of the poor.[357] We may perhaps conclude from this that those who studied French privately were numerous.

The value of the French Littleton is more educational; it expounds all the favourite theories of its author. The name is taken from the popular work on English law, the text-book for all law-students, Littleton's Tenures. While the French Schoolemaister was a small octavo, the Littleton was printed to the size of a tiny pocket-book, in 16mo. First come practical HOLYBAND'S FRENCH GRAMMARSexercises in the form of dialogues in French and English,[358] but of less lively interest than those of the Schoolemaister. They deal, however, with the same subjects,[359] only, as we read them we do not forget, as we were inclined to do in the earlier book, that we are reading exercises intended for school use. Then follow proverbs, golden sayings, prayers, the creed, the fifth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, a treatise on the iniquity of dancing (Traité des Danses), and finally a vocabulary less comprehensive and of less value than that of the French Schoolemaister.

The French Littleton derives additional interest from the fact that in it Holyband sets forth a new system for rendering the pronunciation of French easier to the English. He realized the difficulties placed in their way by the many unsounded letters present in certain French words. He had no desire, however, to join the extremists, who advocated the omission of all such consonants in orthography as well as in pronunciation. Holyband considered such letters an essential part of the word, and often a useful indication of the pronunciation of vowels and of the derivation. He therefore proposed a compromise which he thought would please both parties: he retains the unsounded letters, but distinguishes them from those which were pronounced by placing a small cross below them,[360] a device adopted in later editions of the French Schoolemaister also. A short quotation from the conversation for travellers and merchants will show how Holyband applied his method:

The most interesting of the dialogues in the French Littleton, however, is that in which we have a picture of Holyband's school, which was first opened in St. Paul's Churchyard at the sign of Lucrece—the shop of the printer Thomas Purfoote. Here we see children arriving for their lessons early in the morning, each with his own books and other materials. The schoolroom seems to have been a lively place; the scholars are represented as fighting, pulling each other's hair, tearing their books, and indulging in other pranks of the kind. Holyband sought to keep order by means of a birch, and one of the many offences which called it into action was the speaking of English. HOLYBAND'S FRENCH SCHOOLIn this little school of his, Holyband appears to have laboured at the task he set himself of leading the English nation "comme par la main au cabinet de (nostre) langue françoyse," under excellent conditions. The whole atmosphere seems to have been French. The curriculum, however, was not confined to this one language. Holyband had to safeguard his interests by instructing his pupils in the subjects taught in the ordinary English schools, and so we find him teaching Latin, writing, and counting, as well as French, and probably by means of French. With some of his pupils Holyband studied Terence, Vergil, Horace, the Offices of Cicero, and with others, Cato, the Pueriles Confabulatiunculae, and Latin grammar, according to their capacity. Yet others learnt reading, writing, and French only. Morning school, which closed with prayer at eleven, was devoted chiefly to the study of Latin. The afternoon was given over entirely to French; and it does not seem unreasonable to suppose that other scholars came then specially for instruction in French. The pupils returned for afternoon work at mid-day, and began by translating French into English and then retranslated the English back into French, using, we may be sure, Holyband's French Littleton. Next came a little practice in vocabulary, in which "maister Claude" asked them the French for various English words. Grammar was not neglected, but questions concerning it do not appear to have been invited until some difficulty in the text rendered it necessary. The pupils were also required to decline various nouns and verbs which occurred in the text. The auxiliaries they were expected to learn by heart. Not until five o'clock did the long French lesson draw to a close, and then the scholars lit their torches or lanterns and set off home after being dismissed with evening prayers. Before their departure, they received instructions to read the lesson for the following day six or seven times after supper. By doing this, their master assured them, it would appear easy on the morrow, and be learnt without effort.

Holyband informs us that his charges were one shilling a week or fifty shillings a year. He allows that this was more than the fees asked for in most schools, but justifies the higher charge by the superior instruction imparted. At any rate his school was very prosperous. In 1568, when it had been in existence for at least two, and perhaps three years, we find him assisted by an usher, one John Henrycke, said to be a Frenchman.[361] He was, no doubt, the Jehan Henry "Maistre d'Eschole," who wrote a dizain in praise of Holyband's French Schoolemaister (1573), where, in rather questionable French, he summoned the students of France to devote all their attention to "ce poli et belle œuvre," and not to read

Holyband, as we have noticed, was a very active and somewhat restless person, never staying long in one place, and it is difficult to follow him in his frequent changes of residence. For a time he removed his school to Lewisham, then outside London. Here, sometime before 1573, he had an interview with Queen Elizabeth, who perhaps visited his school as she passed through the village, for the head boy, Harry Edmondes, pronounced a discourse before Her Majesty.

In 1576 Holyband had given up his French school, and entered the ranks of French private tutors, living in the house of a patron. He was one of the aliens dwelling in Salisbury Court, the residence of Lord Buckhurst, and, no doubt, was engaged in teaching French to the younger children of his protector. He had previously come into contact with this noble family, and had probably received some assistance from this quarter on his arrival in England, and may have taught French to the eldest son, Robert Sackville, now at Oxford,[362] to whom he dedicated both his early works.

When we first hear of Holyband he was already married and had children. His wife died probably before he went to Salisbury Court. Two years later he married an Englishwoman, Anne Smith,[363] and had resumed his French school in St. Paul's Churchyard, but his address was now at the sign of the Golden Bell, HOLYBAND'S TEACHING CAREER for the printer Thomas Purfoote had moved his sign to Newgate Market. Here he remained for some time, until 1581 at the earliest, and probably somewhat later. He also attended the French Church. At this period of his life he again turned his attention to writing on the French language, and collecting together notes which he had no doubt compiled in past years. In 1580 three new works on French appeared from his pen. One was a Treatise for Declining Verbs—a subject which he calls "the second chiefest worke of the Frenche tongue"—written at the request of several gentlemen and merchants. The book itself is of little value, and did not by any means share the popularity of his earliest books. Still, two other editions appeared, one in 1599 and the other much later, in 1641. The second of these works, dealing with French pronunciation on much the same lines as the French Littleton, was even less popular. It was intended for the "learned," and consequently written in Latin—De Pronuntiatione linguae gallicae.[364] Holyband was also becoming more ambitious in his dedications; probably through Lord Buckhurst, the queen's cousin on his mother's side, he was able to dedicate his treatise "ad illustrissimam simulque doctissimam Elizabetham Anglorum Reginam." At the end Holyband added a dialogue in three different kinds of spelling—the new, the old, and his own—as well as a Latin sermon on the Resurrection. A French-English Dictionary was the third of these works, published in 1580, with the title: The Treasurie of the French Tong, Teaching the way to varie all sorts of Verbs, Enriched so plentifully with Wordes and Phrases (for the benefit of the studious in that language), as the like hath not before bin published. Many years later, in 1593, Holyband again gave proof of his deep interest in French lexicography by the publication of his Dictionarie French and English, published for the benefit of the studious in that language, based on his earlier work, but on a much larger scale.[365]

Meanwhile he had had an opportunity to extend his knowledge and to refresh his mind by a long journey on the Continent. Once more he had yielded to his love of change and movement, and entered the service of another powerful patron, Lord Zouche, to whom he dedicated his dictionary of 1593. In the dedication we are told how he had undertaken a "long, lointain, penible et dangereux voyage" with his noble protector, who was to him "plutot pere ou baston de vieillesse que non pas maistre, Seigneur ou commandeur." Thus we may conclude that, when Lord Zouche crossed to Hamburg by sea in March 1587, intending to qualify himself for public service on the Continent, as well as to "live cheaply," Holyband accompanied him, and, no doubt, found many opportunities for serious study. They proceeded to Heidelberg, where their names were inscribed on the matriculation register of the university in May.[366] Zouche then travelled to Frankfort, Basle (1588), Altdorf (1590), and thence to Vienna (1591), and on to Verona, returning to England in 1593.[367]

After the publication of this last of his works in 1593, we lose sight of Holyband in his rôle of teacher of French. He was, however, still in England in 1597, when he dedicated a new edition of his French Littleton to a new patron, Lord Herbert of Swansea. Thereafter he is not mentioned, and subsequent editions of his most popular works—the Schoolemaister and French Littleton—were issued without his supervision. Probably he had returned to his native country, for in the last of his published works he assumes the title of "gentilhomme bourbonnais," which suggests that he had come into the possession of some property in his native province, where his name was still known in the seventeenth century.[368] Certain it is that he did not remain in England. There is no further trace of his children, of whom he had at least four.[369] Thus silently, as if forgetful of his former habits, he slipped out of sight after he had spent nearly forty years teaching his language in England. He won the praise of the scholar Richard Mulcaster, soon to be appointed Head of St. Paul's School, near which Holyband had so long had his own modest establishment; and the poet George Gascoigne wrote a sonnet in his honour:

Holyband, like his predecessor Du Ploich, was an advocate of the practical teaching of languages. A perfect knowledge of French, in his eyes, consisted in being able to read and pronounce the language accurately. Thus the first thing to be done by those desiring to study the language is to begin to read at once. The learner must not "entangle himself at the first brunte" with rules; but, "after he hath read them over, let him take in hand the dialogues, and as occasion requireth he shall examine the rules, applying their use unto his purpose."[370] He must first "frame his tongue by reading them aloud, noting carefully which letters are not pronounced, looking for the reasons why they are lefte in the rules of pronunciation," so that "when he shall happen uppon other bookes printed without these caracters he may remember which letters ought to be uttered and which ought not." In these rules[371] Holyband endeavours to explain French sounds by comparison with English sounds. His treatment of the letter a may be given as an example of his method. "Sound our a," he says,[372] "as you sound the first sillable in Laurence, or Augustine in English. When a is joined with in it loseth his sound, or at the least it is very little heard: as pain, hautain.... Pronounce then as if they were written thus: pin, hautin.... But if e followeth n, then i goeth more towards n, thus: balaine, semaine ...," and then he proceeds to describe in like fashion the sounds of the diphthong ai. His treatment of the sound gn is quaint and interesting. "When you find any word written with gn, remember how you pronounce these English words, onion, minion, companion, and such like: so melting g, and touching smoothly the roofe of the mouth with the flat of the tongue, say: mignon, oignon, compagnon; say then, cam-pa-gne, campa-gnie, and not cam-pag-ne, campag-nie, separating g from n; but rather sound them as if they were written thus in your English tongue, campaine, campanie."

Such rules alone, however, were of little value in Holyband's opinion, and we cheerfully agree with him. The reader must be very circumspect in his use of them, and his teacher a very skilful Frenchman, "or else all will go to wracke." He seems to have thought that much more depended on the tutor than on rules. No doubt he fully shared the opinion stated earlier by Duwes, that rules are of more use to the teacher than the learner. "Oh how busie is this tongue," he says of French, "and into what maze doth the learner enter which doth take it in hand: therefore let his tutor be sevenfold skilfull." We are prepared, then, to find Holyband agreeing with Henry VIII.'s tutor on another point—the teaching of French and writing of French grammars by the English. To him it appeared obvious that "it is not the part of a stranger, except he be learned and of a long continuance in France, to give precepts concerning the pronunciation of the (French) tongue: yea neither of the best Frenchmen, be he never so learned or eloquent in the same, except he hath practised the premises by teaching or otherwise by a long and diligent observation." There can be no question of committing rules to memory; they merely serve to throw light on the reading matter. Yet the practice of memorizing is not neglected. There were two purposes for which it was called into use, the verbs, chiefly the two auxiliaries, and vocabulary, to which Holyband attached much importance.

According to Holyband himself, his method had excellent results. He was especially proud of the pronunciation of his pupils. In teaching this he followed a plan which strikes the modern reader as curious, but which had already been employed in an early sixteenth-century grammar, that of the poet Alexander Barclay. According to this plan he taught his scholars the main characteristics of the different dialects of France, as well as the pure French in which they were encouraged to speak. His reason for doing so was to put them on their guard against the variety of dialects, chiefly Picard and Walloon, spoken by the numerous refugees FRENCH CHURCH SCHOOLSscattered all over London. When new scholars came to his school from "other French schools," he assures us that on hearing them speak and pronounce any letter incorrectly, his own pupils "spie the faultes as soone as I, yea they cannot abide it: and which is more they will discerne whether the maister which taught them first was a Burgonian, a Norman, or a Houyet."

The reading, which Holyband made the basis of his language teaching, was always explained by means of English renderings. In his dialogues he makes no attempt to retain the purity of the English phrase. English for him was merely a vehicle for interpreting to his young scholars the meaning of the French, "for I do not pretend to teach them any other thing then the French tongue," and so he begs his readers not to "muse" at the English of his book, but to take the French with such goodwill as it is offered. It will be noticed that on this point, as on many others—placing the rules after the practical exercises, for instance—Holyband resembles Du Ploich, and no doubt he was acquainted with the Treatise of his less well known fellow-teacher. The points of resemblance between the dialogues of the two works are sufficient proof of this, although Du Ploich's cannot compare with Holyband's in interest. Another work which had some influence on his dialogues was the Linguae Latinae Exercitatio of the great Spanish scholar and educationist Vives—a book containing Latin dialogues, dealing with the life of the schoolboy at home and at school, at work and at play. This was a very popular school-book in the sixteenth century, and was most likely used by Holyband in the Latin lessons at his own school. He also incorporated the Latin dialogues of Vives in a work which he called the Campo di Fior, or flowery field of four languages, Italian, Latin, French and English, giving the dialogues in these four languages. This work appeared in 1583, when he was probably still teaching in St. Paul's Churchyard.[373]

Besides these French schools kept by private individuals, there were others in connexion with the French churches. After the foundation of the French Church in Threadneedle Street, other churches had arisen in different parts of the country. The education of the children attending these institutions had to be seen to, and very soon schools were established under the supervision of the churches themselves.[374] Although these schools were primarily intended for the instruction of the children of the refugees, they also undertook to teach those "who would wish to learn the French language." Just as some English attended the services of the French Church, so also some sent their children to the school associated with it. And it must be remembered that to some Englishmen the French Church presented greater attractions than the English Church did at that time; for there naturally grew up a bond of sympathy between the Protestant refugees and the English Nonconformists, many of whom sought in the French Church, with its Genevan discipline, a form of worship not sanctioned by the English Church. Others attended these churches for the same reason as the "Italianate gentleman," censured by Roger Ascham,[375] went to the Italian Church: "to heare the (French) tongue naturally spoken, not to heare God's doctrine trewly preached." This was a practice strongly advocated by many of the French teachers of the time. The number of Englishmen of both kinds must have been considerable. In 1573 Elizabeth issued an Order forbidding the French Church to give communion to those English who, by curiosity or dislike for their own ceremonies, wished to receive it in the French Church. The church in Threadneedle Street took steps to limit the number of its English adherents. These were required to produce evidence of a sober life, and of loyalty to their own church, before they were allowed to communicate.[376] English names are not uncommon in the Threadneedle Street Registers. Even members of the nobility stood as sponsors to the children of the French strangers, for instance, the Marquis of Hamilton, the Earl of Pembroke, and the Countess of Bedford, in the year 1624.[377] The French Church at Southampton also had numerous English members and communicants,[378] while at Canterbury a rule was made that all the English connected with the church should know French; on one occasion, a person was refused as a sponsor on account of his ignorance of that tongue.[379] Considering FRENCH SCHOOL AT CANTERBURYthe esteem in which the French churches were held by many Englishmen, we may assume that some of the latter were glad to take advantage of the willingness of the French Church to receive their children into its schools. The refugees, on their part, did not always send their children to their own schools. The sons of the wealthier strangers would go to the English grammar schools, and thence, in many cases, to the University.[380]

The subjects taught in these French church schools were, no doubt, much the same as those of the private French schools, including religious instruction, writing, reading, arithmetic, and possibly music. The curriculum appears to have been of quite an elementary nature. As to the teachers, they were required to be of sober life, and members of the French Church. They had to be appointed by the minister and presented to the bishop. They also were required to give the minister an account of the books they read to the children, and of the methods followed, and be willing to adopt the advice of their superiors "sans rien entreprendre à leur fantaisie." Further, it was their duty to conduct the children to church on Sunday for the catechism.[381] Such were the regulations laid down in the second Discipline, drawn up on the restoration of the French Church after the accession of Elizabeth. When this was revised some years later, in 1588, a few changes were made. The presentation to the bishop was dispensed with, and the teachers were no longer obliged to conduct the children to the catechism: they had only to prepare them to answer it. And the ministers, on their side, were required to visit the schools, accompanied by the elders and deacons, at least four times a year; their attention was specially called to "those who teach languages."[382]

The French teachers attached to the Church at Canterbury are those of whom we have most detailed information. In one of the articles of a petition, which the group of refugees there addressed to the city authorities, in the reign of Elizabeth, they crave that permission may be given to the schoolmaster whom they have brought with them to teach both their own youth and also other children who desire to learn the French tongue.[383] Their request appears to have been well received, as a French church and school were established not long after. Among the names of the petitioners was that of Vincent Primont, teacher of youth, who seems to have been the first schoolmaster of this little community. He was a refugee from Normandy, and arrived at Rye in 1572.[384] To the office of schoolmaster, which he held for many years, was added that of Reader to the congregation—a post he resigned in 1584, owing to some action of the consistory which did not meet with his approval. The last mention we have of him, as schoolmaster, occurs in December 1583, when a member of the congregation was reproved for allowing his workmen to set a bad example to Master Vincent's scholars. He probably filled his position for some time after this date. In August 1581, however, another teacher, Nicholas du Buisson, obtained permission "to go from house to house to teach children," and in 1583 received a small quarterly allowance for taking charge of the children at the services in the Temple.[385] The demand for teachers apparently increased considerably at this time; in 1582 we hear of a third schoolmaster, Paul Le Pipre, who had already been teaching for some time previous to this date. Le Pipre several times took steps to defend his monopoly and prevent the admission of other schoolmasters. In 1582 he opposed the application of Jan Roboem or Jean Robone, who sought permission to hold school. Roboem, who had been Reader in the French Protestant Church at Dieppe, fled thence to Rye in 1572, in company with his wife and two children.[386] He was in very poor estate on arriving at Canterbury, and the consistory of the French Church at last prevailed on Le Pipre to agree to his admission, promising him that if any disadvantage accrued to him thereby it should be remedied. Roboem was therefore told he might put his notice on the door of the Temple—the usual form of advertisement—whenever he pleased.[387] He did not, however, keep it there long, moving to London in the same year. He is no doubt to be identified with the John Robonin, "schoolmaster of the French tongue," who was living in the "Warde of Chepe," and attending the French Church, at the end of 1582.[388]

PAUL LE PIPREPaul Le Pipre was again approached in 1583 with regard to the appointment of another schoolmaster, probably a successor to Robonin. He was told that another teacher was necessary, and that one had come forward, a destitute refugee, who wished for permission to teach in order to earn his living. Le Pipre replied "that he held to his agreement with the Church, namely that he could not leave without giving three months' notice." Ultimately it was decided "that the aforesaid should not be permitted to keep school, both on account of the agreement and because he was not as yet sufficiently known to be of the religion." This teacher, whose name is not given, was, however, allowed to instruct "certain married people, and others grown up and over fourteen years of age who did not go to Paul's school, in consideration of his poverty."[389]

Paul Le Pipre retained the position he was so unwilling to share with a colleague, for many years after this. The last we hear of him is in September 1597, when he was censured by the consistory for holding school on Sunday.

French schools likewise arose in other provincial towns, where French Churches had been established. There were also, it appears, similar private schools, with the primary object of teaching French to the English, and unconnected with the churches. At any rate, French and Walloon schoolmasters arrived in some of these towns. At Rye in 1572, for instance, we come across Nicholas Curlew and Martin Martin, fugitives from Dieppe,[390] though probably, like Vincent Primont and John Robone, they did not settle in the town. At Norwich, in 1568, was a Pierre de Rieu of Lille who had arrived ten months before, and in 1622 Francis Boy and John Cokele.[391] At Dover, in the same year, Francis Rowland and Nicholas Rowsignoll, both French schoolmasters, had "come out of France by reason of the late troubles yet continuing."[392] And lastly, at Southampton, we hear in 1576 of Nicholas Chemin, who, in 1578, was refused communion at the church on account of his causing some disturbance in the congregation; of a M. Du Plantin, dit Antoine Ylot, in 1576, and of a Pierre de la Motte, 'mestre d'escolle,' in 1577.[393] No doubt most of these schoolmasters taught under the auspices of the French Churches.

M. Du Plantin was one of a large number of ministers who took refuge in England, and his school was probably a French Church school, for seven of his young scholars are mentioned as communicants. Many French pastors like him, no doubt, took to the teaching profession during their stay in England, their numbers being far in excess of the ministers needed in the churches. The famous reformer, John Utenhove of Ghent, was in 1549 tutor to the son of a London gentleman.[394] Valerand Poullain, a converted priest, who, after being pastor at Strasburg, came to England, for a time held a similar post in the household of the Earl of Derby;[395] he afterwards became minister of the French Church at Glastonbury on the recommendation of Utenhove. Another minister, Jean Louveau, Sieur de la Porte, spent the time of exile from his Church of Roche Bernard, after the massacre of St. Bartholomew, in teaching languages in London, and there were many others in like case.[396]

At Southampton there was a French school of special interest. Its teacher, like Du Plantin, was a pastor, though the school does not seem to have had any close connexion with the French Church. This schoolmaster and divine was the once famous Dr. Adrian Saravia, a learned refugee from Flanders. He became later Professor of Divinity at Leyden and an intimate friend of Casaubon; and when he took refuge in England for a second time in 1587, he enjoyed some ecclesiastical preferment, and was one of the translators of the Authorised Version of the Bible.[397] During his first sojourn in England, however, he was engaged on a more humble task. He first arrived at Southampton in about 1567,[398] after having been for some years headmaster of a grammar school in Guernsey. Saravia's school at Southampton was limited to sixteen or twenty youths of good family. It was a rule that all the scholars should speak French. Any one who used English, "though only a word," was obliged to wear a fool's cap at meals, and continue to wear it until he caught another in the same fault.[399] FRENCH SCHOOL AT SOUTHAMPTONTwo Englishmen, who later became well known as translators, acquired their knowledge of French in this school. One was Joshua Sylvester, famous for his translation of Du Bartas, and the other Robert Ashley, who turned Louis le Roy's De la Vicissitude ou Variété des choses de l'univers (1579) into English (1594). Sylvester informs us that he learnt his French at Saravia's school "in three poor years, at three times three years old"; "I have never been in France," he writes to his uncle, William Plumb, "whereby I might become so perfect." Elsewhere he expresses his affection for his master and his debt of gratitude to him:

Sylvester did not put his knowledge of French into practice only by translations into English. He also wrote some original verses in French; the sonnet with which he offered to James I. his translation of the works of Du Bartas, a poet for whom the king had a great admiration, will show his skill in a difficult art:

Another of Sylvester's contemporaries at Saravia's school was Sir Thomas Lake,[401] who became Secretary of State in the reign of James I., and is said to have read Latin and French to Queen Elizabeth towards the end of her reign. His French accent, unlike that of his schoolfellows, seems to have left much to be desired. In 1612 he incurred much ridicule by reading the French contract of marriage at the wedding of the Princess Elizabeth to the Elector with a very bad accent.

Saravia, it seems, encouraged his pupils to attend the French Church. Two of their names occur in the registers of the Church for the year 1576, viz. Nicholas Essard and Nicholas Carye, both probably Englishmen. Saravia himself and his wife were also regular attenders; in 1571 and again in 1576 he stood godfather at baptisms. The latest mention of him occurs in 1577. Usually the descriptive title "minister" is added after his name.[402] He is mentioned in the town records under the year 1576 as Master of the Grammar School, and in the following year the town paid 36s. "for four yardes of broade cloth for a gowne for Mr. Adrian Saravia the schoolmaster at 9s. the yarde."[403] Apparently he had abandoned his private school, although it is very likely that he continued to take private pupils into his house, and that the grammar school scholars had ample opportunity to learn French; but it is hardly probable that he introduced the language into the grammar school curriculum, where, no doubt, Latin retained its usual supremacy.[404]

Thus we see that in the England of the sixteenth century French had no footing in the ordinary schools, but was taught in a growing number of small private schools kept by Frenchmen, French-speaking refugees from the Netherlands, and sometimes by Englishmen.

In Scotland, on the other hand, French received more recognition in the grammar schools, although it did not form part of the ordinary curriculum, which was based on Latin, as in England. Yet in several schools its use was distinctly encouraged on lines which, we may conclude, were followed at Southampton grammar school in Saravia's time. For instance, the boys of Aberdeen grammar school, in the middle of the sixteenth century, were enjoined to address each other in French, while the use of the vernacular was forbidden. In the famous grammar school of Perth, when John Rowe, the reformer, was master there, and many of the scholars boarded with him, we are informed that "as they spake nothing in the schoole and fields but Latine so nothing was spoken in his house but French." It is of interest to note that in this school French is put side by side with FRENCH IN THE SCHOOLS OF SCOTLANDthe ancient tongues, as Palsgrave had wished. After meals a selection from the Bible was read; if from the Old Testament, in Hebrew, if from the New Testament, in Latin, Greek, or French.[405]

Turning to the more elementary education, we find French holding a still larger place in some of the parish schools of Scotland, where it was taught as part of the regular course by the side of Latin. An interesting account of one of these schools has been left by James Melville, in his diary.[406] He records that in 1566, at the age of seven, he, together with his elder brother, was sent to a school kept by a kinsman, minister at Logie, a few miles from Montrose. This "guid, lerned, kind man" attended to the children's education, while his sister was "a verie loving mother" to them, and to a "guid number of gentle and honest mens berns of the country about," who also were at the school. "Ther we lerned," he continues, "to reid the catechisme, prayers and scripture, to rehers the catechisme and prayers par cœur.... We lerned ther the Rudiments of the Latin grammar, with the vocables in Latin and French, also divers speitches in Frenche, with the reading and right pronunciation of that toung." Melville also assures us that his master had "a verie guid and profitable form of resolving the authors," and that he treated them "grammaticallie, bothe according to etymologie and syntaxe"; but, unfortunately, he gives us no further details on the teaching of French. After spending five years at this school, where, he admits, he learnt but little, "for his understanding was yet dark," he went to the grammar school at Montrose. There, although he had a French Protestant refugee, Pierre de Marsilliers, to teach him Greek, he does not appear to have had occasion to continue his study of the French tongue.

In Scotland, as in England, there were also special schools for teaching French. For instance, the French schoolmaster Nicholas Langlois, or Inglishe, who came to England in 1569, and in 1571 was installed in Blackfriars, London, with his wife and two children,[407] moved to Scotland in about 1574. He opened a French school in Edinburgh, which was subsidized by the Town Council, and where he taught French, arithmetic and accounts until the time of his death in 1611. The Town Council of Aberdeen also showed itself favourable to French schools; in 1635 it granted to a certain Alexander Rolland a licence "to teach a French school," and allowed him "for that effect to put up one brod or signe befoir his schoole door."

Yet in spite of the fact that French received greater recognition in the schools of Scotland than it did in those of England, there is nothing to show that the same general interest was taken in the study of the language. While in England large numbers of grammars and other text-books were published, there is only one notice of the production of a similar work in Scotland during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This solitary work, which a certain William Nudrye received a licence to print in 1559,[408] was entitled Ane A B C for Scottes men to read the frenche toung, with an exhortation to the nobles of Scotland to favour their old friends. The plea that French was learnt by the help of French grammars imported from France, or on conversational methods, or yet again in France by direct intercourse with Frenchmen, may be applied with as much force to England as to Scotland, though it is not improbable that in Scotland such methods were relied on to a greater extent; the friendly relations which existed between Scotland and France from the thirteenth century onwards encouraged large numbers of Scots to seek instruction in France, just as it led some Frenchmen to the Scottish centres of learning.[409] French tutors were said to be as common in Scotland as in England; a Spanish ambassador reported to Ferdinand and Isabella as early as 1498 that "there is a good deal of French education in Scotland, and many speak the French language." Yet the fact remains that while one small French A B C appears to have been the only work on the language issued in Scotland, there was a whole series of such works published in England.

We have seen that some of the refugees who came to England as a result of the persecutions in France and the Netherlands were professional schoolmasters; others joined the profession on their arrival, through force of circumstances, or as a means of repaying hospitality. The lot of such teachers varied considerably. Some lived and taught in gentlemen's families; others thrived by waiting on a private aristocratic clientèle; others gained a more precarious livelihood under less powerful patronage; and yet others opened private schools, often with decided success. Many of these teachers[410] were denizens, and had long teaching careers, chiefly in London; a certain Abraham Bushell, for instance, a native of "Rotchell," had been a "schoolmaster of the French tongue" in London for twenty-two years in 1618, during which time he had attended the French Church. Many other French teachers were members of the French Church, which naturally, seeing that it fostered a French school itself, took a particular interest in the French schoolmasters generally. Thus in 1560 all French schoolmasters having schools in London were summoned before the consistory, which was seeking to ascertain how many belonged to the Church, and also what book they used in teaching the children. Eight were ready to conform to the Church and its discipline;[411] a ninth, one Gilles Berail, refused to conform, on the plea that he attended the English parish church and understood English as well as French.

With the exception of Holyband, the chief Huguenot teachers who gathered round St. Paul's Churchyard would seem to have been Normans. One of these was Robert Fontaine, a friend of Holyband. He had a long and varied career in England as a teacher of French. Arriving in 1550, he remained in England during the reign of Mary, modifying his religious convictions to suit the exigencies of the time. He returned to his former faith early in the reign of Elizabeth, and expressed contrition for his "falling off to idolatry."[412] He attended the French Church faithfully in the early time of its revival, but he appears to have gone more frequently to the Anglican Church in later years, and possibly his sympathies were more in that direction. The favourite neighbourhood, St. Paul's Churchyard, was the scene of his activities, and there he lived for many years with one of his countrymen, Mr. Bowry, a purse-maker. In 1571 he had been living seventeen years in the vicinity of the Cathedral, and in 1582, the latest mention of him in the returns of aliens, he was still in the same district, and appears to have been very prosperous.

Some of this group of Normans added to their activities that of writing books for teaching French—an occupation for which Fontaine, presumably, had not time or inclination. One such author was Jacques Bellot, a "gentleman of the city of Caen in Normandie," who came to England in 1578, or the end of 1577, probably driven from his native land by the persecutions. He was received into the household of Sir Philip Wharton, third baron of that name, and in a surprisingly short time produced a French Grammar, which he dedicated to his patron, with an expression of his gratitude. Bellot, it appears, had already a considerable connexion. His work is preceded by numerous commendatory poems, after the fashion of the time. The poet Thomas Newton of Chester wrote two of these, one in Latin and the other in English, laying stress on the debt due by his countrymen to these French grammarians:

Other verses are written in French by John and William Wroth, no doubt two of the numerous sons of the politician Sir Thomas Wroth.

This new work, entitled The French Grammar, or An Introduction orderly and Methodically by ready rules, playne preceptes and evident examples, teachinge the French Tongue, differs from the popular books of Holyband, and also from most other French manuals, in that it deals with grammar alone. It opens with the usual observations on pronunciation. Each letter is taken in turn, and the position of the organs necessary to produce it is given. The author makes no attempt to compare the French sounds with the English equivalents. He had probably not yet had time to master the intricacies of English pronunciation, although the whole book is written in English; and he also, no doubt, made free use of grammars written in France. He tells us, for instance, that "c ought to be pronounced with the tongue against the roof of the mouth, and the mouth somewhat open"; that "f is pronounced holding the nether lip against the upward teeth"; and that "h is but aspiration, which loseth his sound after e feminine, and also after every consonant." Then, after a few general observations and lists of numbers, months, and other familiar words, we reach the second part of the Grammar, which deals with the eight parts of speech. Each is defined and commented on in turn. The wording is often quaint; for instance, verbs are defined as "words which be declined with Modes and tenses, and are betokenynge doing." This second book treats of the accidence. In the third we pass to the consideration of syntax with the following warning:

This part of the work is not extensive, and consists of a miscellaneous collection of observations; we are, for instance, told that the antecedent governs its relative, that the adjective agrees with its noun, and we are supplied also with rules for the gender and number, the negative, and so on. To this Bellot adds a fourth book, which is perhaps the most curious part of the work. It deals with French versification. We are first favoured with a description of the structure of various forms of poems, such as the "chant royal," the "ballade," the sonnet, rondeau, "dixain," and so on, each accompanied by an example, by way of illustration. The various forms of rime are next described and exemplified; and some of the complicated forms dear to the "rhétoriqueurs" find a place here. This is followed by a description of the various kinds of metres, again with examples; and finally rhythm, colour or "lizière," the caesura, elision, the "coupe féminine," and the use of the apostrophe are treated. Such is this little treatise on the "French poeme," which shows incidentally that Bellot had not yet learned the lesson enforced by the Pléiade more than twenty years before he wrote.

What strikes one most, perhaps, in Bellot's Grammar is that he makes no attempt to deal with the difficulties which the French language presents to the English in particular. No comparison of the two languages is instituted; no emphasis is laid on points in which they differ. Were it not written in English, it might be taken for a study of the language on the model of those produced in France. Considering that the work was published in the year of his arrival in England, it seems almost certain that he had begun his study before his arrival, and translated it himself, or had it translated into English. This would account for its unusual character.

Bellot opens and closes his Grammar with apologies. He repudiates all claim to completeness, and writes, he says, merely to provoke the "learned" to do better. "Yet the worke is not so leane and voide of fruite, but there is in it some taste. The bee gathereth honey from the smallest flowers, and so may the wise man from this small work."

Some time after the publication of his Grammar, he joined the group of French teachers dwelling in the neighbourhood of St. Paul's Churchyard. He was there in 1582, and made the acquaintance of Holyband, who had then resumed his French school in that locality. In the following year he wrote a quatrain and a sonnet in praise of Holyband's latest work, the Campo di Fior (1583):

It is not certain how Bellot employed his time there. He may have had a school, or have taught privately. In any case he was a member of the French Church, and in the returns of aliens he calls himself a "schoolmaster" and a "teacher of children."[413] But the title on which he is most insistent is that of "gentleman." He is a "gentilhomme cadomois," or a gentleman of Caen, and usually attaches the abbreviation G.C. to his name. His attitude to the usual type of French teacher is distinctly supercilious. He prided himself on belonging to the "noblesse instruite et de Savoir," and had the reputation of teaching elegant French.

In 1580 he dedicated to no less a person than François de Valois,[414] brother to Henry III., a work for teaching English to foreigners. Like Holyband, he gave his book the title of "Schoolmaster": Maistre d'Escole Anglois pour les naturelz françois, et autre estrangers qui ont la langue françoyse, pour parvenir a la vraye prononciation de la langue Angloise.[415] The work contains rules of pronunciation and grammar, given in opposite columns in French and English; it was evidently written in French in the first place, and then somewhat carelessly translated into English, for in the English column the illustrative examples are given in French. This produces a curious effect, and involves such statements as: "quand should be pronounced as Houen" (when), etc. In the dedication he refers to his "misfortune," by which, presumably, he means his exile.[416]

Bellot was busily occupied in the production of other text-books also during his residence in Paul's Churchyard. The Maistre d'Escole Anglois appeared in January 1580, and in 1581 was followed by a third work, in the form of a collection of moral dicta, entitled Le Jardin de vertu et bonnes mœurs plain de plusieurs belles fleurs et riches sentences, avec le sens d'icelles, recueillies de plusieurs autheurs,[417] and intended to be used as a "reader." It was published by the French refugee printer Thomas Vautrollier, who, at the same time, issued a new edition of Holyband's French Littleton. The works of the two friends were of the same size, and are bound together in the copy preserved in the British Museum.

Holyband, with his long-standing reputation, may have been able to further Bellot's interests. In 1580 he had dedicated his Latin work on French pronunciation to the queen, and in the following year Bellot obtained the same favour for his little work. He accordingly opened his book with six French sonnets in honour of Her Majesty, celebrating her generous reception of strangers, not omitting to beg her protection for the "garden":

The whole of the Jardin is printed in French and English; each maxim or saying is accompanied by explanations of the most difficult words, by means of synonyms, paraphrases, and definitions, as in the following example:

It will be noticed that Bellot had not fully mastered the English idiom, although he had written an English grammar. The rest of the "beautiful flowers of vertue" which he planted in his "garden" are similar in character and treatment. He characteristically closes his little book with a prayer, which he quaintly compares to a fence to keep the "goats" from harming the "flowers."

In 1583 Bellot was still living near St. Paul's Churchyard. But after this date we lose all trace of him until 1588, when the printer Robert Robinson received a licence to print "a booke intytuled a grammar in Frenche and Englishe, the auttour is James Bellot."[418] This second French Grammar was known as The French Methode.[419]

To the numerous band of Normans in England also belonged, perhaps, G. De la Mothe, who wrote the letter "N" after his name. De la Mothe was another refugee for the sake of religion, and he speaks with gratitude of the generous welcome he received in England.[420] He tells us that the cruel civil wars in France had "burnt the wings of his studies" and ruined his fortune.[421] On his arrival in England, he began his career as a teacher of French in the same way as many others; he became a tutor in a noble family, and shortly after produced a book for teaching French. He was first appointed French tutor to the son of Sir Henry Wallop, Lord Chief Justice of Ireland and a prominent patron of the refugees, on the return of his lordship to England in 1589. De la Mothe was also received, at some date before 1592, into the midst of another important English family, the Wenmans, of Thame Park, Oxfordshire. He taught French to the girls, and early in 1592, if not before, was at Oxford with the eldest son, Richard Wenman,[422] afterwards Sir Richard, and his brothers.

De la Mothe had in the meantime written a French text-book which he called The French Alphabet, Teaching in a very short time by a most easie way, to pronounce French naturally, to read it perfectly, to unite it truly, and to speak it accordingly, Together with a Treasure of the French Tongue.[423] He divided it into two parts, which he dedicated to each of his patrons—the first to Sir Henry Wallop and the second to Sir Richard Wenman's mother, at whose request he had undertaken the work. De la Mothe acknowledges his debt of gratitude to both, and also to the country which had received him so hospitably, in terms which contain something more than the usual trite expressions.

The French Alphabet was licensed to the printer Richard Field in 1592,[424] but no copy of this earliest edition has been preserved. Field succeeded to Vautrollier's successful business, and in this same year showed his friendship for his fellow-townsman[425] Shakespeare, by printing the first work he published, Venus and Adonis. It is of course pure conjecture to suggest that Shakespeare saw and even read the little book printed by his friend. Whether this be so or not, it was perhaps through Field and his Huguenot connexions—he had married Vautrollier's widow—that Shakespeare became acquainted with the family of Christopher Montjoy.

A G. DE LA MOTHE, N. new edition of the Alphabet appeared in 1595, from the press of Edward Alde. At this date De la Mothe had joined the group of teachers in St. Paul's Churchyard. He taught at the "Signe of the Helmet," and "there you shall finde him ever willing to show you any favour or curtesie he may; and most ready to endeavour himselfe to satisfie you in all that can be possible for hime to doe." The Sign of the Helmet was the address of the bookseller Thomas Chard.[426] Any one desirous of becoming acquainted with the author for his better furtherance in the French tongue could also make enquiries at the Sign of St. John the Evangelist in Fleet Street, beneath the Conduit, where lived the printer and bookseller Hugh Jackson, commissioned to sell the book—further instances of the friendly relations between the French teachers and the printers and booksellers of the time, through whom these teachers would, no doubt, get a large proportion of their clientèle. The Huguenot sympathies of many of the printers, such as Vautrollier and Field, account in part for this cordial feeling.

After the 1595 edition of his work we hear nothing further of De la Mothe. Although the name occurs frequently in the returns of aliens, none can be identified with him. He probably seized an early opportunity of returning to his native land. His manual, however, did not disappear with him. Second in popularity only to the works of Holyband in the sixteenth century, it enjoyed numerous editions in the seventeenth.[427] Excepting the omission of De la Mothe's advertisement, all the later editions are identical. They were issued from the press of Field's successor, George Miller.[428] It is difficult to understand how the 1595 edition came to be printed by Edward Alde, though his work was evidently countenanced by De la Mothe.

The French Alphabet is a very practical little work. It contains rules for pronunciation and familiar dialogues in the usual style. The whole is given in French and English arranged on opposite pages. His treatment of pronunciation is much the same as Holyband's, and he sometimes transcribes freely from his active contemporary's work.[429] He explains the sounds chiefly by comparison with English, giving the nearest equivalent to each letter. After the letters he deals with the syllables and then the words. The rules are arranged in the form of dialogues between master and pupil:

And the next lesson takes the following form:

After dealing with the sounds of the French language, De la Mothe passes to more general considerations. He touches on the much-discussed question of the reform of the orthography, and expresses his strong disapproval of all attempts to make it tally with the pronunciation. Then he deals with the pronunciation of the Law French of the English,[430] which he puts down to such fanciful experiments. Lawyers write their French as they pronounce it, and pronounce it as they write it, so that it is now quite corrupt. He next proceeds to give his pupils a short history of the chief Romance tongues, French, Italian, and Spanish, and finally of the English language.

The remainder of the first part of the Alphabet is occupied by short familiar dialogues on the usual subjects—greetings, the weather, the divisions of time, buying and selling, and the occurrences of daily life—as follows:

At the end of these dialogues comes the second part of De la Mothe's book, entitled the Treasure of the French Tongue. It consists of a collection of French and English proverbs and golden sayings, "diligently gathered and faithfully set in order after the Alphabeticall manner, for those that are desirous of the French tongue." These early teachers of French were fond of such collections. They usually included proverbs in their grammar books, and Palsgrave, as we have seen, hoped to publish a separate work on them. His intention seems to have been first fully realised by De la Mothe, although Holyband had included a smaller list in both his popular text-books.

From De la Mothe's French Alphabet, more than from any other of these early works, we can form a fairly adequate idea of the method of teaching French prevalent at the time. Much importance was attached to pronunciation and to reading, which were made the first subject of study. Rules were felt to be desirable for learning the sounds, but more stress was laid on the services of a good teacher; "for do not think," says De la Mothe, "that my book is by itself to make thee a good Frenchman." His own method was to make his pupils repeat the sounds after him. He believed that the acquirement of a good pronunciation depended on a mastery of each separate sound in the language. According to him, any one who can pronounce each letter correctly must, perforce, enunciate words correctly, and on the same plan, sentences also; a rather questionable theory this, but we must remember that De la Mothe took for granted the daily attendance of a French tutor. The understanding of the language De la Mothe regards as the second stage in the pupil's progress. This he considers a natural consequence of a perfect command of the pronunciation and reading of the language. Lastly comes the speaking of the language, which, according to him, results from understanding it.

De la Mothe does not only expound his theories; he also gives fairly detailed information as to how they may be put into practice. After engaging a good teacher, the student should learn to pronounce his letters and syllables perfectly. Then he may begin to read, very slowly at first, at the rate of from three to four lines a day, "or more or less according as your capacity can reach or your patience permit." Each word should be spelt four or five times, and in the spelling HIS METHOD FOR LEARNING FRENCHand reading the pupil should "not let passe any letter or syllable without bringing them to the trial of his rules." When you can "read truly and pronounce perfectly, then go about to English it." First translate the French passages into English, with the help of the word for word translation provided, then copy out the French into a book provided for the purpose, close the Alphabet and attempt to translate your copy into English at sight, correcting the version by referring again to the Alphabet. Next proceed to retranslate the English back into French on a similar method. "Continue this order for a month, every day repeating three or four times, both your letters and your syllables, and reading and Englishing as many times your old from the beginning till your latter lesson." ... "Being once able to reade and pronounce perfectly with your rules, two or three leaves of your book, at most, I can assure you that there is not any French book though never so hard, but you shall be able to reade it and pronounce it as truly as can be wished. For in less than one leaf of your book, all your rules are to be observed, three or four times at least. For there is not a word but in it is one or two rules to be noted."

When the learner has thus fully mastered the rules of pronunciation, he may go forward speedily, translating from English into French, and from French into English, and revising constantly. "This is the only ready way to learn to read and pronounce, to write and speak French." Not a single day should be allowed to pass without exercises of this kind, and "you shall find in less than five or six weeks your labour and dilegence afford you much profit, and advancement, that you will wonder at it, and much greater than I dare promise you."

Those who have made some progress in the language, De la Mothe advises to make the acquaintance of some Frenchman, if possible, "to the end that you may practice with him by daily conference together, in speech and talk, what you have learned. And if you be in place where the Frenchmen have a Church for themselves, as they do in London, get you a French Bible or a New Testament, and every day go both to their lectures and Sermons. The one will confirm and strengthen your pronunciation, and the other cause you to understand when one doth speak." And, finally, if you wish to understand the hardest and most "eloquent" French, and to speak it naturally, you must not neglect reading, but provide yourself with a French Dictionary, and the hardest book you can find, and set about translating it, on the method already described. If the student will not take the pains to translate the book, he should at least read it carefully, and write out a list of the hardest words and of appropriate phrases "to serve his turn, either to speak or write when he has need of them."

Although De la Mothe makes no mention of grammar, when he describes his method of teaching, he did not consider it unnecessary. Indeed he declares it is not possible to speak French perfectly without such rules, which he no doubt used for purposes of reference, as he did the rules of pronunciation. He even promises to produce shortly a French Tutor, "that will teach you in so short and easie a way as may be, both by the perfect knowledge of the parts of your speeches, and syntaxe, not only to speak perfectly, but also to know if one doth not speak well, to reprove him when he doth speak ill, and to teach him to amend his bad speech: a thing which yet before has never been taught. The promise is great, but the performance shall not be less if this be acceptable to you." Unfortunately this promise does not seem to have been kept. That his Alphabet did not prove "acceptable" cannot be the reason. Most probably De la Mothe left England before he had time to show his gratitude to the English nobility by the production of this second book.

We have seen that these teachers of French did not always look upon each other as rivals. Bellot wrote verses in honour of Holyband, who was a friend of Fontaine, another of the group of French teachers in St. Paul's Churchyard. But such friendly relations were not general. The teachers just mentioned belonged to what formed, no doubt, the highest rank of the profession. Bellot calls himself a "gentilhomme," and so does Holyband; and both refer to criticism and attacks upon them by other French teachers.[431] Holyband calls attention to the unscrupulousness of many of them, who take money in advance and do nothing to earn it; and expresses his contempt for his critics—Frenchmen ignorant of English, Burgundians, or Englishmen who do not know French thoroughly. FRIENDSHIPS AND RIVALRIESThe many French-speaking schoolmasters from the Netherlands—chiefly Walloons and Burgundians—and the English teachers of French formed separate groups apart from the Huguenots. Yet another group was recruited from the ranks of the Roman Catholics.

The Burgundians, who did not come from Burgundy, but from that portion of the Netherlands which had been under the rule of the House of Burgundy, formed a very considerable proportion of the foreign population of London. In 1567 there were only forty-four of them in London, but by 1571 their number had risen to four hundred and twenty-four—almost as many as the total number of French in the city.[432] The Walloons were still more numerous, and no doubt outnumbered the French. Such instructors were an obstacle in the way of those desirous of raising the standard of the French taught in England. Against the peculiarities of the French spoken in the Netherlands, Holyband is constantly warning his pupils. "You shall know them," he says, "at the pronunciation of c, as the proper mark of their language," for they sound it as the English sh or the French ch, saying shela for cela.[433] Warnings were also given against the barbarisms of the Picard dialect.

Of the many "Dutch" teachers in London—an epithet which usually includes the Flemings and Walloons—it is impossible to say which actually taught French.[434] Apparently those who attended the French Church taught that language; a certain Gouvert Hawmells, for example, a native of Antwerp, who came to England in 1568—"for religion"—is specially mentioned as a teacher of the French language; in 1571 he was living with his family in the house of one Thomas Grimes in St. Margaret's parish. He attended the French Church and was not a denizen.[435] Apparently his case was not an exceptional one. What is more, there were in London French schoolmistresses from the Low Countries. Marry Lemaire, "by trade a French schoolmistress," was a native of Antwerp and came to England in 1578; for over forty years she kept school in Southwick. Another French schoolmistress, Anness Deger, born in Tournay, came to England some ten years earlier, and in 1618 was still practising her "trade" in Tenter Abbey. Her qualifications were not of the first order; in the Register of Aliens she was unable to sign her name, for which she substituted a cross. There was also a "goodwife Frances schoolmistress, in Popinjay Alley," mentioned in 1598 and 1599, but whether she taught French or not is not specified.

Although the chief French teachers who were responsible for the manuals of the second half of the sixteenth century were Huguenots, it is extremely probable that Roman Catholic teachers were in the majority. When a census of the foreigners dwelling in London was taken in 1563, only 712 out of a total of 4534 had come to England on religious grounds.[436] Naturally the proportion of Protestants greatly increased as the persecutions grew more severe, until the passing of the Edict of Nantes in their favour in 1598. Then it probably again decreased; in the time of Charles I. there were at least five French papists to one French Protestant.[437] These Roman Catholic teachers were as a matter of course regarded as suspect by those in authority, and Jesuit priests teaching in noble English families, or those conversant with them, were carefully watched.[438] The suspicions aroused by the John Love who had a French school in St. Paul's Churchyard have already been noticed. This feeling became particularly strong after the Gunpowder Plot (1605). In the "Constitutions, Laws, Statutes, Decrees and Ordinances" of the Bury St. Edmunds Town Council of 1607 an article was inserted "to prevent the infectinge of youth in Poperie by Schoolmasters."[439] CLASSES OF FRENCH TEACHERSThe constables of every ward in the borough had to certify the Aldermen, Recorder, and Justices of the Peace, of the names of all persons "that do keep any school for the teaching of youth to write, read, or understand the English, Latin, French, Italian and Spanish Tongues, upon pain to forfeit for every default 6s. 8d." This notification had to be made quarterly. Others than the master or usher of the free grammar school, wishing to teach any of these languages, had to obtain special licence; and any one sending his children to a school kept by a teacher who had no licence was liable to forfeit for every week the sum of 6s. 8d.

Fear of proselytism was not the only incentive which aroused the animosity of certain sections of the English public. Many young Englishmen received much of their education from French tutors, frequently refugees, who taught them the usual subjects as well as French. One objection raised against them was that they corrupted their pupils' English if they spoke and wrote English themselves, as they did almost without exception. Thus they "pul downe with one hand more than they can build with the other," wrote Th. Morrice in 1619.[440] Such complaints, however, cannot have been very general or have had much effect on the lot of French teachers.

A further attack was to come from another quarter. In the early years of the sixteenth century, as in the Middle Ages, Englishmen had held an important place in the French teaching profession. They had been called to important positions as tutors, and had written grammars of the language. After the appearance of Palsgrave's Grammar, however, we hear no more of these English teachers of French, driven into the background, no doubt, by the great invasion of French teachers. Probably Duwes's earlier attack had helped either to turn public favour from the native teachers or to discourage them. Holyband, too, had endorsed the opinion of Duwes somewhat later, and expressed the little importance he attached to their criticisms. To acquire the true French pronunciation and idiom, he declares, it is necessary to learn from a Frenchman.

Towards the end of the sixteenth century, however, an English teacher of French came forward, and energetically took up the defence of his fellow-teachers of English birth. This was John Eliote, a man of boisterous spirits and a lover of good wine—a taste which he had acquired in France, where he had lived many years. There, if the dialogue he wrote for the help of students of French may be taken as autobiographical, he had spent three years in the College of Montagu at Paris, taught for a year in the Collège des Africains at Orleans, lived for ten months at Lyons, and spent a year amongst the Benedictine monks. On the murder of Henri III. in 1589, Eliote returned to England, strongly imbued with a love for the country in which he had lived so long.

This "fantasticall rapsody" was published in 1593, and entitled the Ortho-Epia Gallica. Eliot's Fruits for the French enriched with a double new invention, which teacheth to speake truly, speedily, voluably the French tongue. Pend for the practice, pleasure and profit of all English gentlemen, who will endevour by their owne paine, study, and diligence, to attain the naturall accent, the true pronunciation and swift and glib Grace of this noble, famous and courtly Language.[441]

It was dedicated to the young Sir Robert Dudley,[442] son of the famous Earl of Leicester, whom Eliote possibly instructed in the French tongue. Eliote had taken up the teaching of French, "that most ticklish of all tongues," on his return to England, and in his book he speaks of his long practice in learning and teaching the language. He proceeds, in the first place, to make fun of the "learned Professors of the French Tongue in the city of London." He burlesques the dedicatory epistles of his predecessors, especially that of Bellot,[443] and declares he is fully aware that, to be in the fashion, ENGLISH TEACHERS OF FRENCHhe ought to "dilate in some good speeches of the dignitie of the French tongue, and then show what ease this book of mine shall bring to the learning of the French, more than other bookes have done heretofore." But he must first ask pardon for his presumption in writing on this subject.

He is quite ready to have his book criticised as the work of an Englishman, and challenges these "gentle doctors" "to be ready quickly to cavill at his booke."

While admitting that there may be a few good French teachers amongst the refugees, he outlines a picture of the ordinary type which is far from flattering; and we gather that he had himself studied French with several refugees. He implies that the French teachers receive money in advance, and then do nothing else but "take their eases and, as the renowned poet saith,

Mercurie the god of Cunning, and Dis the Father of French crowns are their deities." They care nothing for the progress of their scholars; all they do is to give them a short lesson of half an hour, in which they read and construe about half a page of French. They are equally indifferent to the troubled state of their country, provided they themselves are comfortable and well provided with French wines.

The style of the introduction is maintained throughout the rest of the book. Eliote says he wrote the whole "in a merrie phantasicall vaine to confirme and stir up the wit and memorie of the learner," and "diversified it with a varietie of stories no lesse authenticall than the devices of Lucian's dialogues." He admits that he had turned over some French authors, and where he "espied any pretie example that might quicken the capacitie of the learner," he "presumed to make a peece of it flie this way, to set together the frame of (his) fantasticall comedie ... and out of every one (he) had some share for the better ornament of (his) worke." Eliote was well acquainted with French literature. He considered Marot the best poet, and gave Ronsard the second place only. He also read Du Bartas, Belleau, Desportes, and other sixteenth-century writers. But most of his admiration was reserved for Rabelais, "that merrie grig," and it is clear that he modelled his style on that of the great French humorist. Like Rabelais, he occasionally affects a sort of gibberish, coins words, and, like him also, he strings words together and is fond of exaggeration. Numerous passages in the Ortho-Epia Gallica are reminiscent of famous incidents in Gargantua and Pantagruel. Like Panurge, he defends debts and debtors:

The Ortho-Epia Gallica forms a striking contrast to Palsgrave's rather austere Esclarcissement, the last work on the JOHN ELIOTEFrench language composed by an Englishman before that of Eliote. The dialogues occupy nearly the whole volume. The first few pages, however, contain a table of French sounds with their pseudo-English equivalents. The pronunciation was, in Eliote's opinion, one of the chief difficulties of this difficult language, "deemed a jewel, so dearly bought, and so much desired by all"; and he considered that, with the help of Ramus and Peletier for the pronunciation, he had succeeded in reducing "the gulf of difficulties into a small stream" by "sounding the French by our English alphabet."

He arranges his dialogues, which he calls Le parlement de Babillards, id est, The Parlaiment of Prattlers, into three groups. The first of these consists of three long dialogues on the method of learning foreign languages, on the excellence of writers in both ancient and modern tongues, and on travel through the chief towns of Europe. The first dialogue ends with the quotation from Du Bartas in praise of Queen Elizabeth and her accomplishments, accompanied by a translation in English verse by Eliote himself.

The second part, styled "M. Eliote's first booke," is of a much more elementary character than the one just described. Eliote had referred elsewhere to a work entitled The Scholler, in which he propounded a "general method of learning and teaching all languages contrived by nature and art, conformable to the precepts of Aristotle." This, or part of it, evidently formed the first part of the Ortho-Epia Gallica, where it is separately paged.[444]

In his first and second books, which thus form the second and third parts of the work, he expounds "his double new invention, which teacheth Englishmen to speake truly, speedily and volubly the French tong." The first part of this "invention" consists in placing by the side of the French and English a third column, giving the French in pseudo-English equivalents—"the true pronunciation of each word wholly and certain little stripes (called approches) between the sillables that are to be spoken roundly and glib in one breath." The twelve dialogues of Eliote's first book are fairly simple in character, and some of them were probably suggested by Vives's Exercitatio. Their subject matter does not differ much from earlier dialogues, but their treatment is decidedly original. The following quotation is taken from the first dialogue:

There are twelve dialogues in all, but only each alternate one is accompanied by this curious guide to pronunciation.[445]

In the second book and third part the dialogues are longer and more numerous, dealing with the different trades and occupations—"les devis familiers des mesters fort delectables a lyre." They do not, however, confine themselves to the characters usually introduced into similar dialogues; besides the mercer, the draper, the shoemaker, the innkeeper, and so on, we have the armourer, the robber, the debtor, the apothecary, and other characters which offer ample scope for treatment in the Rabelaisian vein, of which Eliote was so fond. Some suggest that Eliote was acquainted with Holyband's works. This book contains the second part of his "double new invention." The French and English are printed on opposite pages, and in the margin the sounds of the most difficult French letters are indicated, thus:

ai sound e

ay sound e

am sound ein

aine sound eineh, and so on.

This table he describes "as Mercurie's finger to direct thee in thy progress of learning," and he repeats it on the margin of every pair of opposite pages.

THE "ORTHO-EPIA GALLICA" After these twenty dialogues comes the "Conclusion of the parlaiment of prattlers," which depicts a group of friends walking by the Thames and St. Paul's, "prattling, chatting, and babbling." The arrangement is the same as in the previous dialogues, and the work closes with a quotation from Du Bartas's praise of France:

In his dialogue called The Scholar, incorporated in the first part of the Ortho-Epia, Eliote explains his 'new' method of learning languages, by nature and art. By "nature" he means the acquirement of a vocabulary of all created things, by use and common practice; and by "art" the rules and precepts for combining these into sentences, and also the authority of learned men. Such rules chiefly concern nouns, verbs, and pronunciation, "in which the greatest mystery of all languages consists." Thus, although he gives no grammatical information in his Ortho-Epia Gallica, he recognized its importance.

Before introducing his pupils to the method of "Nature and Art," Eliote would have them well grounded in nouns and verbs, and able to translate dialogues, comedies in verse, and prose writings. He attached much importance to translation from English into French, just as Palsgrave did. He directs the student to make out the meaning of the French first by comparing it with the English column, and then to cover over the French version, and attempt to translate the English into French. "This I have learned by long experience to be the readiest way to attaine the knowledge of any language, that we of Englishmen make French, and not of French learn English." As to the theory of "Nature and Art," it seems to have been little more than the method, common at the time, of making practice the basis of the study of French, and confirming this by rules as need for them arose.

In addition to the Ortho-Epia Gallica,[446] Eliote also wrote a Survey or topographical description of France, collected from sundry approved authors. This was published in 1592, and dedicated to Sir John Pickering, Keeper of the Privy Seal. He also translated from French into English[447] a number of unimportant works, mostly of topical interest, one of them being dedicated to Robert, Earl of Essex. Little else is known of him, except that he was born in Warwickshire in 1562, and entered Brasenose College, Oxford, on the 12th of December 1580, at the age of eighteen years.[448] He tells us that he held the degree of Doctor of Divinity, but there is no record of his having taken any such degree there. Robert Greene was among his friends, and he wrote a sonnet in questionable French on Greene's Perimedes or the Black Smith, with which it was published in 1588. These are all the details we possess concerning this amusing and striking figure among the French teachers of the sixteenth century.

Eliote gives some information concerning the fees charged by French teachers in the later part of the sixteenth century. He asserts that the usual charge was a shilling a week,[449] but we are left in doubt as to how many lessons this entitled the student to. He affirms, probably not seriously, that he would charge a gentleman £10 a year, and a lord from £20 to £30.

We are indebted to him also for an account, very prejudiced, no doubt, of the usual method employed by French teachers generally. This consisted, according to him, in reading a page of French and then translating it. Fortunately we are enabled, by means of the French text-books that have come down to us, to draw a fuller picture of the French lessons of the time. It has been seen that as a rule these books contained four parts—rules of pronunciation, rules of grammar, reading exercises, and a vocabulary. They are generally written throughout in French and English (in parallel columns[450]), the reason of this being the importance attached to reading and to double translation, from French into English and English into French. In the English version the idiomatic phrase is sacrificed in order to give a more literal rendering of the French, and also, possibly, because these Frenchmen were incapable of writing any other. As is to be expected, translation from French into English was the more usual exercise. Translation from English into French, however, was by no means neglected, and appears to have been recommended principally by English teachers of French, and more especially by Palsgrave and Eliote. Edward VI.'s French exercises, it will be remembered, are translations from English into French, or free composition in French.

In addition to reading and translating, much importance was attached to pronunciation. It was generally considered best to learn the sounds of the language by repetition after a teacher with a good accent; but rules were thought necessary to confirm the knowledge thus acquired. As to rules of grammar, there was no question of learning the language by means of them. A grammar was treated as a book of reference, just as a dictionary. Thus the student usually learnt the pronunciation by reading the French aloud with his tutor, referring to the rules of pronunciation whenever necessary, and then translating and retranslating the dialogues, grammar being supplied as the need for it was felt. Although these early teachers strictly limited the place of grammar, they almost all agree in emphasizing its importance within the limits indicated. Grammar rules were reduced to a minimum. Attention was called to what were considered important general rules, but those with numerous exceptions, it is argued, were better learnt by "use" and persistent reading, "so as not to weary with long discourses which would be necessary to explain things learnt better by practice than by rule."

The dialogue form in which almost all the reading material is given, and the proverbs and familiar phrases, show the importance attached to a practical and colloquial knowledge of the language. The teaching of French was of a decidedly business-like nature, and closely in touch with the concerns of life. One of the chief reasons for this, no doubt, was that it was learnt for social or other immediate requirements. The fact that French was not taught in the grammar schools undoubtedly assisted it to maintain its close connexion with practical life. It is only about a century and a half later, when French began to gain a foothold in these schools, that it was taught more and more on grammatical lines, and less and less as a living language.

Latin, although most of the school statutes of the time encourage the scholars to speak it, was taught chiefly on grammatical lines.[451] The memorizing of Latin grammar was a foremost subject even in the Middle Ages.[452] LATIN AND FRENCHIn the sixteenth century the Latin grammar usually known as Lily's was the prescribed national grammar, with rules of accidence in English and of syntax in Latin.[453] Familiar dialogues in the style of those for French were also used, the chief difference between the Latin and French dialogues being that the Latin are separate and complete works in themselves, and are not, as a rule, provided with an English translation. They were memorized as the grammar was. From the dialogues, or colloquies as they were called, dealing with typical occurrences of life, the Latin scholar passed on to the reading of school authors—Cato, Cicero, Ovid, Virgil, Terence, etc.[454] Nor was vocabulary neglected, for in the schools of the Renaissance the practice of learning so many words a day, prevalent in the Middle Ages, was still in vogue.

It thus appears that the books generally used in teaching Latin were not without some influence in determining the types of manuals employed for teaching French. The practice of including religious formulae, which we find in some books, was sanctioned by their place in the national Latin grammar, while it is clear that the Latin colloquia of the time had considerable influence on the French dialogues. In the early sixteenth century the dialogues of the scholar Vives,[455] who received honours at both Oxford and Cambridge during his short stay in England, were much in vogue. Like the French dialogues of the time, they kept closely in touch with the interests of the pupils and dealt with such topics as rising in the morning, going to school, returning home, and children's play and meals, and students' chatter. Similar works were the Sententiae pueriles,[456] a book for beginners, first published at Leipzig in 1544, and containing a collection of familiar phrases rather than dialogues, and the Pueriles Confabulatiunculae by Evaldus Gallus. In the second half of the sixteenth century two other manuals of conversation were added to those already in use in England: the Colloquia of Mathurin Cordier, first published in Latin in 1564, and Castellion's Sacred Dialogues based on the Scriptures, printed in Latin at Basle, in 1555.[457]

With the text-books, however, all close resemblance between the teaching of Latin in grammar schools and the teaching of French ends. As we have seen, reading, pronunciation, and conversation were the main concerns of the French student; translation held a large place and grammar rules a subsidiary one. The grammar-school boy, on the contrary, would first gain an elementary knowledge from rules written in English, and memorize the vocabulary and phrases; learn his Latin grammar, and then parse and construe[458] the usual school authors.[459] The sons of the aristocracy and well-to-do classes probably learnt by a more practical method, as they were able to have private tutors, who devoted all their time to providing the necessary atmosphere. As late as 1607, when Latin was less used colloquially, the writer Cleland, a great advocate of the teaching of French, condemns the practice of those parents who have their children brought up to speak Latin only; they neglect their mother tongue and the language of elegance, French, and soon forget their Latin when once removed from their tutor's care.[460] That such cases were the exception rather than the rule, even in the early sixteenth century, may be gathered from the two great educational writers of the time, Sir Thomas Elyot and Roger Ascham. Both the Governour (1531) and the Scholemaster are protests against the common school usage of placing grammar in the first place, and a summons to base the study of the language on the reading of authors. They believed with Quintilian that "Longum et difficile iter est per praecepta, breve et efficax per exempla." Colet in his Aeditio had laid down the same principle, to the effect that the "reading of good books, dyligent information of taught masters, studious advertence and taking heed of learners, hearing eloquent men speak, and finally busy imitation with the tongue and pen, more availeth shortly GRAMMAR AND TRANSLATIONto get the true eloquent speech than all the tradition of rule and precepts of masters"; and he adds, "men spoke not Latin because such rules were made, but contrariwise because men spoke such Latin, upon that followed the rules and so were made."[461] Yet it seems that the force of tradition prevailed, and that these precepts were only put into practice in exceptional cases.

It is striking to notice how close was the resemblance between the actual methods used by French teachers and those advocated by would-be reformers of the teaching of Latin. Colet's words express almost exactly the sentiments and practice of Holyband, De la Mothe, and other French teachers; and the same is true of Elyot and Ascham. "Nothing can be more convenient," writes Elyot in referring to students of Latin, "than by little and little to train and exercise them in the speaking of Latin, informing them to know first the names in Latin of all the things that come in sight, and to name all the parts of their bodies, and giving them somewhat that they covert or desire in most gentle manner to teach them to ask it again in Latin." He even goes so far as to say that the pupil may "as sone speake good latin" on this method "as he may do pure frenche,"[462] thereby showing that he probably derived suggestions from the prevalent methods of teaching French. Elyot, however, realized that the use of Latin as a familiar tongue was not as practicable in schools as in many noble families, where it might well happen that the pupil would have "none other persons to serve him or keep hym company but suche as can speake Latine elegantly." How successful the sole use of Latin could be in such circumstances is exemplified in the well-known case of Montaigne. Ascham, like Elyot, recognized the exceptional conditions required for such a method. He believed the "dailie use of speaking" would be the best way of learning the language if the child could only hear it spoken perfectly, but failing this he considered the practice dangerous.[463] It is probable, however, that in the best French schools, and certainly in that of Holyband, this ideal was realized in the case of French.

As regards the respective importance of reading and grammar, the French teachers of the time appear to have put into practice the ideas of the reformers. All agree that grammar rules should be as few as possible, and be taught in connexion with reading. The general method of French teachers was to refer to the rule as the need for it arose in reading. Ascham also pleads for the study of grammar, "so hardlie learned by the scholar in all common scholes," along with authors; and the educational reformer Mulcaster, in his Elementarie of 1582, writes that grammar is best learnt by being applied to the matter, and that the child's mind should not be clogged with rules. Elyot differs slightly from them in detail but not in principle. He allows grammar to precede the study of authors, provided it is reduced to the smallest possible amount. "Grammar," he says, "being but an introduction to the study of authors," care should be taken "not to detain the child too longe in that tedious labour, for a gentyll wytte is there with some fatigate," and "hit in a maner mortifieth his corage" before he "cometh to the most swete and pleasant readinge of olde authors."[464] Both these views as regards grammar—that of Ascham and Mulcaster, and that of Elyot—were prevalent among French teachers of the time. There are only small differences in detail; the general principles are identical.

In the matter of translation, "most common and most commendable of all other exercises of youth,"[465] there is a striking resemblance between the method of double translation common among French teachers, and the same method set out by Ascham, who marks the transition from oral to written methods of teaching Latin.[466] In the case of De la Mothe, the resemblance is so clear and close that we are led to believe he was acquainted with the work of Elizabeth's tutor,[467] published in 1570, over twenty years before the French Alphabet. Ascham's system consisted of the double translation of a model book, and it is interesting to compare it with the method of De la Mothe. The pupil has first to parse and translate the Latin into English; "after this the child must take a paper booke, and sitting in some place where no man shall prompe him, by him self, let him translate into Englisshe his former lesson. Then showing it to his master, let the BOOKS IN FRENCH AND ENGLISHmaster take from him his Latin booke, and pausing an houre, at the least, than let the childe translate his owne Englishe into latin againe, in an other paper booke." And when this is done, the master should compare it with the original Latin, "and laie them both togither."[468]

There was thus much in common between the teaching of Latin and the teaching of French. The dialogues, which form so important a feature in the French text-books of the time, were certainly indebted to the Latin Colloquia, although they also continue the tradition of the mediaeval French conversation-books. The Latin Dialogues of Vives had much influence on the French, and Holyband based one of his books, the Campo di Fior, on the Exercitatio translated in French, Italian, and English. Eliote also acknowledged his debt to the Spanish scholar. In other cases the debt was almost inevitable and probably unconscious; for the French teachers, who often taught Latin as well, would use such books daily, and had moreover probably acquired their own knowledge of Latin from them. Holyband, we have seen, read the Sententiae pueriles with his pupils.

The importance attached to reading and double translation by teachers of French led to the appearance of a great number of books in French and English, on the lines of Bellot's Jardin de Vertu. For instance, part of the Semaines of Du Bartas, the most popular French poet in England in the sixteenth century, was published in this form in 1596, and again in 1625, on the occasion of the marriage of Charles I. This translation is due to William L'Isle of Wilbraham,[469] the pioneer in the study of Anglo-Saxon, who dedicated it in the first place to Lord Howard of Effingham, Earl of Nottingham, Lord Admiral, and subsequently to Charles I. It is entitled Part of Du Bartas, English and French, and in his own kinde of verse, so near the French Englished, as may teach Englishmen French, or a Frenchman English. Sequitur Victoria Junctos,[470] and consists of the first two days of the Second Week, with the French and English arranged on opposite pages, followed by an English translation of the commentary of Simon Goulart de Senlis.

Guy du Faur, Sieur de Pibrac, was another French writer widely read in England, and his Quatrains were frequently commended by French teachers to their scholars. They were translated into English verse by Sylvester, the translator of Du Bartas, and published with the French original in 1605. Sylvester dedicated the quatrains to Prince Henry, and the copy in the British Museum contains an epigram in English in the handwriting of his brother, afterwards Charles I., and a manuscript dedication to the younger prince in that of the translator.[471] The quatrains appeared again with the subsequent editions of Sylvester's works. About this time Prince Henry made Sylvester a Groom of his Chamber, and gave him a small pension of £20 a year.[472] The story goes that the prince valued him so highly that he made him his first "poet pensioner," and it seems that Sylvester took advantage of his position to encourage his royal patron's French studies. Many other works of the kind appeared in French and in English.[473] The educational writer Charles Hoole tells us that masters frequently taught languages by using interlinearies, "not to speak of their construing the French and Spanish Bible by the help of an English one."[474] Lord Herbert of Cherbury, philosopher and gallant, ambassador in France in the time of James I., learnt French, Italian, and Spanish, on this translation method, whilst living in the University or at home. He mastered them, he assures us, without the help of a tutor, solely by means of Latin or English books translated into those languages, and of dictionaries.[475]

De la Mothe advised his advanced pupils to read difficult FRENCH AND ENGLISH DICTIONARIESFrench books with the help of a dictionary, and there was some supply of works of this kind at the disposal of Lord Herbert and other students of the language. It is true that the widespread use of books in both languages diminished the demand for such manuals, which may not have been easy to acquire. Yet there was a considerable choice of such works. Holyband had produced two French-English dictionaries, in 1580 and 1593 respectively, in which he referred to "those which broke the ice before him." There had appeared in 1571 an anonymous Dictionarie Frenche and English,[476] printed by Henry Bynneman for Lucas Harrison. This work, which does not confine itself to words only, but includes phrases as well, was no doubt known to Holyband. Its author had probably drawn largely on an earlier dictionary, already mentioned, in which a place was given to French—the Latin, English, and French Dictionary of John Veron (1552). The inclusion of French in such a work is a striking testimony to the importance of French at that time. But when a second edition of Veron's dictionary was prepared by Ralph Waddington, in 1575, he "of purpose thought good to leave out the French, both because (he) saw it was not necessary for English students of Latin, as for that Maister Barret hath five years since set forth an alvearie sufficient to instruct those which are desirous to travel in th'understanding of the French Tongue."

This "alvearie" appeared in 1573, two years after the French-English dictionary printed for Harrison. It was entitled "An alvearie or Triple Dictionarie in English, Latin and French, very profitable for all such as be desirous of any of those three languages ..." and was dedicated to Wm. Cecil, Lord Burghley, then Chancellor of Cambridge University. Baret had been teaching at Cambridge for eighteen years "pupils studious of the Latin tongue," and part of their daily task was to translate some piece of English into Latin "for the more speed and easie attayning of the same." At last, "perceiving what great trouble it was to come runnying to (him) for every word they missed,"[477] he made them collect each day a number of Latin words and phrases, together with their English equivalents. Within a year or two they had gathered together a great volume of work, to which, "for the apt similitude between the good scholers and diligent bees in gathering them wax and honey into their hive," Baret gave the title of Alvearie. At first he had no intention of publishing the work, but when he went to London he was finally persuaded to do so, and received help from many of his old pupils who were then at the Inns of Court, and from several of the best scholars in various English schools. How Baret first thought of adding French to his dictionary is not known. He owns that he did not trust his own skill in this matter, although he had formerly "travelled in divers countries beyond the seas both for languages and for learning"; but that he "used the help of M. Chaloner and M. Claudius." By 'M. Claudius,' Baret possibly meant Holyband, who was often called "Maistre Claude." M. Chaloner may have been the author of the French-English dictionary published by Harrison in 1571.

According to the custom of the time, Baret's dictionary was preceded by a number of commendatory addresses, one of which was by the head-master of Merchant Taylors' School, Richard Mulcaster. In the dictionary itself, every English word is first explained, and then its equivalent in Latin and French given. At the end are tables of the Latin and French words "placed after the order of the alphabet, whatsoever are to be found in any other dictionarie. And so as to turn them backwards againe into Englishe when they reade any Latin or French authors and doubt of any harde worde therein."

Baret had "gone to God in Heavenlie seates" before the close of 1580, when there appeared a posthumous second edition of the Alvearie. In this final form Greek has a place by the side of the other languages, and the title runs, An Alvearie or quadruple Dictionarie containing four sundrie tongues, namely, English, Latine, Greeke, and Frenche, newlie enriched with varietie of wordes, phrases, proverbs, and divers lightsome observations of grammar. But there is no table of the Greek words, as for the Latin and French. Such was the third dictionary of French words which appeared before Holyband's.[478]

FRENCH IN LATIN DICTIONARIES The place given to French in these early Latin dictionaries is worthy of notice. No doubt French first entered the schools in this indirect way. Both Veron's and Baret's works were used in schools; and Baret's dictionary is included in the list of books mentioned by Charles Hoole as being specially useful to schoolboys.[479] There are at least two other school vocabularies in which French was introduced, both due to the poet and compiler John Higgins, who is said to have been "well read in classick authors, and withall very well skilled in French."[480] The first of his lexicographical works was a new and revised edition of Huloet's Dictionarie,[481] which occupied him two years. It appeared in 1572,[482] a year before Baret's work. Higgins calls himself "late student in Oxforde," and dedicates the volume to Sir John Peckham. This edition by Higgins is so much altered that it is almost a new work. One of the chief changes was the addition of a French version to the Latin and English, "by whiche you may finde the Latin or French of anye Englishe woorde you will." For the French, Higgins seems to have drawn chiefly on the Latin-French dictionary of Robert Estienne, which had already been published in French, English, and Latin by Jean Veron, in 1552. Higgins also acknowledges his debt to Thierry, whose French-Latin dictionary appeared twelve years later in 1564. There was a close relationship between French-Latin and French-English dictionaries. French is first found side by side with English, in one of these French-Latin dictionaries—that of Veron; and in subsequent years the French-English dictionaries are mostly based on one or other of the French-Latin lexicons. Those due to Robert Éstienne and to Thierry were probably the sources from which the author of the French-English dictionary of 1571 drew his material; while Holyband based his Treasurie (1580), and his Dictionary (1593), respectively, on the augmented editions of Thierry's work due to Nicot, which appeared in 1573 and 1584.[483]

The second lexicographical work of Higgins, published in 1585, was a translation, entitled Nomenclator or Remembrancer of Adrianus Junius, Physician, divided into two tomes. It professed to supply the appropriate names and apt terms for all things under their convenient titles, in Latin, Greek, French, and English.[484] The English column was added by Higgins.

Thus by the end of the sixteenth century there had appeared in England three French-English dictionaries, and several others in which French found a place by the side of the classical languages. And we may add to these the French-Latin dictionaries on which they were usually based, for it seems extremely likely that those students of French who knew Latin—and practically all of them would know this chief and first of school subjects—used the French-Latin lexicons as well, in their study of French, when other means were not available.

Early in the seventeenth century, in 1611, Holyband's French dictionary of 1593 was succeeded by the celebrated French-English dictionary of Randle Cotgrave,[485] which occupies in the seventeenth century the place that Palsgrave's Esclarcissement does in the sixteenth among the works on the French language produced in England. Although Cotgrave's work is on a much larger scale than Holyband's, and much superior to it,[486] there is a close connexion between the two. In the Stationers' Register Cotgrave's is entered as a dictionary in French and English first collected by Holyband, and since augmented and altered by Cotgrave.[487] But the work which no doubt was of most help to Cotgrave was another French-Latin dictionary, Aimar de Ranconnet's Tresor de la Langue Françoise, revised by Nicot (1606).[488] He had, moreover, read all sorts of books, old and new, in all dialects, where he found words not heard of for hundreds of years, which he included in his book, to be used or left as the reader thought fit. J. L'Oiseau de Tourval,[489] a Parisian, and friend of Cotgrave, who wrote in French an epistle prefixed to the dictionary, thought it advisable to assure the reader that none of these words were of Cotgrave's invention, COTGRAVE'S DICTIONARYobserving at the same time that it would be well to revive some of these obsolete and provincial terms. He also adds that Cotgrave had sent to France in his eager search for words. M. Beaulieu, secretary to the British ambassador at Paris, was no doubt Cotgrave's collaborator in this quest, as Cotgrave tells us elsewhere[490] that he had received valuable help from M. Beaulieu, as well as from a certain Mr. Limery.

Cotgrave dedicated his dictionary to Wm. Cecil, Lord Burghley, "his very good Lord and Maister," whose secretary he was. He declares that he would have produced a more substantial work to offer to his patron had not his eyes failed him and forced him "to spend much of their vigour on this bundle of words." He also offered a copy to the eldest son of James I., Prince Henry, and received from him a gift of £10.[491] The price of the dictionary seems to have been 11s. Cotgrave sent two copies to M. Beaulieu at Paris, and wrote requesting payment of 22s., which they cost him; for, he says, "I have not been provident enough to reserve any of them and therefore am forced to be beholden for them to a base and mechanicall generation, that suffers no respect to weigh down a private gain."[492]

Cotgrave's dictionary was much superior to anything of the sort which had yet appeared. In addition to giving the meaning of each French word in English, with an indication of its gender in the case of nouns, and, in the case of adjectives, of the formation of the feminine form, Cotgrave supplied a collection of illustrative phrases, idioms, and proverbs. At the end are found "briefe directions for such as desire to learne the French tongue," giving a succinct treatment of the pronunciation of the letters, followed by a description of the various parts of speech.

This really remarkable work, which is still of considerable utility to the modern student, reigned supreme throughout the greater part of the seventeenth century. A second edition was issued in 1632, when Cotgrave was still alive. The only change in this issue is the addition of a "most copious Dictionarie of the English set before the French by R. S. L." This R. S. L. was Robert Sherwood, Londoner, who taught French and English in London, and also had a French school for a time. He gave his dictionary the title of Dictionarie Anglois et François pour l'utilité de tous ceux qui sont desireux de deux langues,[493] and addressed it to the "favorables lecteurs françois, alemans et autres." The English reader he advises to look for fuller information as to "the gender of all French nouns, and the conjugation of all French verbs" in Cotgrave's dictionary; the small space to which he was limited did not allow him to provide such information. Like Cotgrave, Sherwood closes with rules of grammar, in the form of observations on English pronunciation and on the English verbs. Sherwood's work is the earliest of the English-French dictionaries. Both Baret and Higgins had placed English before French, and no doubt Sherwood made use of their works, as well as of English-Latin dictionaries. Baret, however, gives an indication of the greater demand there was for French-English vocabularies, by supplying a table of French words at the end of his work. Moreover, the object of Sherwood's lexicon was less to facilitate translation from English to French than to teach English to foreigners.

In 1650 Cotgrave's dictionary was issued in a revised and augmented edition by James Howell, the famous letter-writer.[494] This edition is preceded by a lengthy essay on the French language, tracing its growth from the earliest times, and taken, without acknowledgement, from Pasquier's Recherches. Howell had already put much of the same matter in a series of letters addressed to the Earl of Clare in his Epistolae Ho-Elianae,[495] and repeated it in his glossary of English, French, Italian, and Spanish, the Lexicon Tetraglotten (1660). He quotes several examples of old French in both prose and verse, and adds on his own account a praise of Richelieu and the Academy recently founded by the cardinal. He also discusses the question as to where the best French was spoken—at the Court, among scholars at the University, or lawyers JAMES HOWELLat the Courts of Parliament—and is inclined to share the general opinion of the day, which made the Court the supreme arbiter in matters of language.

Cotgrave, it has been seen, included all sorts of words in his dictionary. Howell thought it necessary to distinguish obsolete and provincial words, and, accordingly, with the help of "a noble and knowing French gentleman," he marked such terms with a small cross. He also initiated another change by placing the grammar before the dictionary instead of after it, as Cotgrave did: "for a dictionary which contains the whole bulk of a language to go before the grammar is to make the building precede the basis. Therefore it was held more consentaneous to reason, and congruous to order that the grammar should be put here in the first place, for Art observes the method of Nature to make us creep before we go." He likewise made a few additions to Cotgrave's rules, and appended a dialogue in French and English, "consisting of some of the extraordinary and difficult criticall phrases which are meer Gallicismes, and pure idiomes of the French tongue"; and also a passage of French prose, in the old spelling and also according to the reformed orthography introduced by the Academy.

In 1660 appeared another edition of Cotgrave, still further enlarged by Howell.[496] Some years previously copies of the edition of 1650, "with blank pages sown between the leaves," had been sent by the printer "to knowing persons, true lovers of the French," who were invited to enter on the blank pages any word they came across in their reading which was not in the dictionary; by means of this plan several hundred additional words were gathered together, many being "new invented terms, which the admired Mons. Scudéry, and other late Romancers have so happily publisht in their printed volumes." After Howell's death there appeared yet another issue of his edition of Cotgrave, in 1673.[497] The printer employed the same means to increase the number of words as had been so successfully adopted in 1660.

The appearance of French dictionaries naturally facilitated the reading of French literature, which in its turn had much influence on the spread of the knowledge of the language. Lord Herbert of Cherbury, it has been seen, gained his first knowledge of French by reading it with the help of a dictionary. And, in spite of the fact that French literature was widely read in translations,[498] there were many who preferred to read it in the original. The number of French books in private libraries is enough to show this. One translator of the time felt it necessary to apologize for offering an English version (1627) "of the French Knight Lisander and his lady Calista," contrary to the fashion of the time, "which is all French."[499] Further testimony is found in the many French books which were printed in England,[500] in addition to the books in both French and English. And many English writers of the time introduced French freely into their own English compositions.[501]

Almost all Englishmen of education could read French, and many, no doubt, learnt it as Herbert did. Milton, who differed from most of his countrymen in his decided STUDY OF FRENCH LITERATUREpreference for Italian, taught both languages to his two pupils and nephews, Edward and John Philips, on this method of reading. For Italian they read Giovanni Villani's History, and for French "a great part of Pierre Davity, the famous geographer of France in his time."[502] In fashionable circles the case was the same, and French romances and collections of nouvelles were much in vogue. Lady Brilliana Harley, for instance, who later distinguished herself by defending her castle in Herefordshire against the Royalists, spent much of her time reading French literature. She wrote asking her son, then at Magdalen College, Oxford (1638-9), to send her books in French, as she "had rather reade any thinge in that tounge than in Inglisch."[503] She would even while away days of sickness by translating passages of Calvin, whom the English Protestants, yielding to the general prejudice in favour of all things French, followed in preference to Luther. Not infrequently, moreover, works in other languages were read in French versions, just as such versions were frequently the medium of translation; Drummond of Hawthornden read Orlando Furioso and the Azolani of Bembo in French, as well as the works of the Swiss theologian and follower of Zwingli, Thomas Erastus.[504]

Among the most eager advocates of the reading of French literature were naturally the French teachers of the time. One of the chief objections raised against Holyband's system of distinguishing the unpronounced letters was that the student would be at a loss when he came to read French books. Holyband, however, protested that such was not the case, and that "the cavillation of these ignorantes who measure other men's wit according to their owne" was in contradiction to his experience, which daily showed him the contrary. As to his reading, Holyband would first have the learner "reade halfe a score chapters of the New Testament, because it was both easie and profitable:[505] then let him take in hand any of the works of Monsieur de Launay, otherwise called Pierre Boaystuau, as the best and the most elegant writer of our tongue. His workes be le Theatre du monde, the tragicall histories, the prodigious histories. Sleidan's commentaries in frenche be excellently translated. Philippe de Commins, when he is corrected is very profitable and wise." The Nouveau Testament of de Bèze, Boiasteau's Théâtre du monde, and Sleidan's Commentaries[506] were all books well known in England, and Holyband himself prepared an edition of Boiasteau.[507] An additional reason, according to him, for retaining the unsounded consonants was to facilitate the reading of the older monuments of the French language. He also advised the perusal of Marot's works, of the Amadis of Herberay des Essarts, of François de Belleforest's Histoire Universelle du monde, of the Vies et Morales de Plutarque, in Amyot's version, and of the collection of stories, on the plan of the Decameron, which its author, Jacques Yver, had entitled Le Printemps (1572),[508] by way of contrast with his own name.

Evidently Holyband's choice of French literature was influenced to some extent by his religious sympathies. It is curious that he makes no mention of Ronsard, who was much read in England, and one of the favourite authors of the Queen. Bellot in his Grammar had similar if not identical ambitions. He sought to enable his pupils to read the Amadis of Des Essarts, Marot, de Bèze, du Bellay's lyrics, Froissart, Ronsard, Collet[509] and Jodelle "racontans l'un l'amour et l'autre la guerre cruelle." Pibrac and Du Bartas have already been mentioned as favourite authors. It was to encourage his pupils to take delight in the "profound learning and flowing sweetness of the French poets, especially the divine works of that matchlesse du Bartas," that a French teacher of the seventeenth century, Pierre Erondell, printed at the end of his book for teaching the language, the New Testament story of the Centurion, rendered by himself into French verse. "This poor work," he quaintly writes, will encourage learners to read better ones, "because everything is better known by his contrarye and the sweet sweeter, after that the mouth hath tasted of the sharpe sower."

Naturally writings of a religious character were much in favour with these teachers. AUTHORS USUALLY READHolyband advised the reading of de Bèze's New Testament, and several times we hear of "the French Bible" being printed in England.[510] The Liturgy in French[511] was also printed, and would be useful to English students of French attending the French Church.

French teachers were not the only zealous advocates of the reading of French literature. Most of the writers on polite education of the time give similar advice, although for different reasons. "For statesmen, French authors are the best," wrote Francis Osborne in his Advice to a son,[512] "and most fruitful in negociations, and memoirs left by public ministers, and by their secretaries published after their deaths." Cleland names the works of the many learned historiographers of France he would have the future diplomat and aspirant to the services of the State read: "Engerrand of Munstrellet, Philip of Commines, the Lord of Haillant, who is both learned and profitable and pleasant in my conceit. The Commentaries of Bellay and the Inventorie of John Serres, newlie printed and worthie to be read, both for the good and compendious compiling of the storie and also for the French eloquence wherin he floweth. For militarie affairs, yee maie read the Lord of Noue, who is somwhat difficil for some men, and also the Commentaries of the L. Monluc, which are good both for a young souldier, and an old captaine."[513]

Bodin was another of the authors specially recommended. Sir Philip Sidney counsels his brother Robert to read him with particular attention, and James Howell[514] includes him in a list of "good French writers," which varies slightly from that of Cleland: "For the general history of France, Serres is one of the best, and for the modern times, d'Aubigni, Pierre Mathieu, and du Pleix: for the politicall and martiall government du Haillan, De la Noue, Bodin, and the Cabinet: Touching Commines, who was contemporary with Machiavel, 'twas a witty speech of the last Queen mother of France that he made more Heretiques in policy than Luther ever did in religion. Therefore he requires a reader of riper years."

The universities set the grammar schools the example by neglecting the study of French and other subjects necessary to a polite education. Even the limited encouragement given to the modern language at the universities during the Middle Ages no longer existed in the sixteenth century. At this date Latin reigned supreme at Oxford and Cambridge, and its use was rigorously enforced. The students were required "to speak in Latin at public places" or otherwise "incur the penalty contained in the statute regarding this point."[515] It is true that these regulations were not always obeyed; Fynes Moryson says that scholars in the universities shun occasions of speaking Latin. But it was none the less the chief language cultivated at the universities,[516] where no modern languages received official recognition.

The mediaeval custom of using French on various academic occasions had not, however, disappeared without leaving a few traces. Some of the French forms of procedure favoured in the Middle Ages, probably owing to the influence of the University of Paris, were still in use at Cambridge in the seventeenth century. The books of two Cambridge beadels, Beadel Stokys (c. 1570) and Beadel Buck (1665),[517] show that on several occasions these officials were instructed to use French during public ceremonies. Thus, at the solemn exercise of determination, one of the beadels gave thanks for the money he and his fellows received, in the following terms: "Noter Determiners je vous remercie de le Argent que vous FRENCH AND ITALIAN READavez donner a moy et a meis companiouns, pourquoy je prie a Dieu que il vous veuille donner tres bonne vie et en la Fin la Joye de Paradise." In similar "Stratford-atte-Bowe" French they summoned the lecturers in the 'schools' to be present on commencement day: "Nostre Seigneur Doctor, une parolle sil vous Plaist, nostres Peres de nostres Seigneurs Commencens vous prient que vous estes demayn a son commencement en l'église de nostre Dame." And throughout the ceremonies[518] in Arts and Theology similar French formulae, often interspersed with Latin, were frequently used, though they had probably passed out of use by the beginning of the eighteenth century. But even at that time the summons to dinner at New College still retained a trace of the old custom; two choristers walked from the chapel door to the garden gate crying, "Tempus est vocando, mangez tous seigneurs."

Yet modern languages were not entirely neglected by all university students. Gabriel Harvey, in an interesting letter to a certain Mr. Wood, says that the students of Cambridge have "deserted Thomas Aquinas and the whole rabblement of schoolmen for modern French and Italian works such as Commines and Machiavell, Paradines in Frenche, Plutarche in Frenche, and I know not how many outlandish braveryes of the same stamp." "You can not stepp into a schollars studye," he adds, "but (ten to on) you shall litely finde open either Bodin de Republica or Le Royes exposition uppon Aristotles Politiques, or some other like Frenche or Italian Politique Discourses."[519]

Thus we may safely conclude that French and to a less extent Italian books were widely read at the universities. No doubt, those who learnt Italian did so with the help of a dictionary or an English translation, like Lord Herbert of Cherbury. But there were additional opportunities for learning the more popular language. French tutors and French grammars were not unknown at both Oxford and Cambridge. But it was at Oxford that they were by far the more numerous. The tutors taught French privately to those of the students who were willing to learn. And Holyband in dedicating his French Schoolemaister (1573) to the young Robert Sackville, then a student at Oxford, throws light on the attitude taken towards that language: "not that you shuld leave off your weightier and worthier studies in the Universitie, but when your mind is amazed and dazled with long readinge, you may refresh and disport you in learninge this [French] tongue."

Protestant refugees formed an important section of the little band of private French tutors at Oxford. Many Huguenots, frequently scholars of distinction, settled at the English centres of learning. Some were promoted to positions in the University,[520] on which they had a very beneficial influence, just as others received preferment in the English Church. The French tutors were among the humbler and more numerous exiles who "taught privately," as the seventeenth-century historian of the University, Anthony à Wood, tells us. Apart from those who actually taught French, the presence of considerable numbers of Frenchmen[521] cannot have been without some indirect influence on the study of French at Cambridge, as well as at Oxford.

In addition, several French tutors accompanied their pupils to the University, and spent some time with them there. Such, no doubt, was the case of Peter Du Ploich who, for some unknown reason, was residing in Barnard College (now St. John's), Oxford, early in the second half of the sixteenth century. Another well-known French tutor, G. De la Mothe, accompanied his pupil Richard Wenman to Oxford, some time between 1587 and 1592. About ten years before, we come across a famous Protestant, Jean Hotman, sieur de Villiers St. Paul, resident at Oxford with his pupils, the sons of Lord Poulet, English ambassador at Paris; while attending to the education of his charges he completed his own, and received the degree of Doctor. Subsequently he became secretary to Leicester, and was thus brought into contact with the English Court.[522] The younger Pierre Du Moulin likewise remained with his pupil Richard Boyle when at Oxford.[523] Among tutors who spent a short time at Oxford, and then joined the larger and FRENCH GRAMMARS PRINTED AT OXFORDmore successful group of language teachers in London, was John Florio,[524] well known as a writer of books for teaching Italian, and himself of Italian parentage, though born in London. In about 1576 he became tutor for French and Italian to Emmanuel, son of Richard Barnes, Bishop of Durham, and to several other Oxford students. He was, we are told, a "very useful man in his profession." Shortly after, he removed to London, where he enjoyed favour at Court.

Of more importance, however, is the group of private tutors who settled at Oxford, found a clientèle among the University students, and frequently wrote and published French grammars for the use of their pupils. There was evidently some demand for instruction in French at Oxford early in the sixteenth century. The bookseller John Donne enters a book called Frans and Englis twice in the register of books he sold in 1520;[525] this may have been either Caxton's Book in French and English, or the similar collection of dialogues printed by Pynson and Wynkyn de Worde in turn.

The first book for teaching French printed at Oxford was due to a Frenchman called Pierre Morlet, a native of Auteuil, who taught French at Oxford in the last decade of the sixteenth century. His Janitrix sive institutio ad perfectam linguae gallicae cognitionem acquirendum was issued from the press of Joseph Barnes in 1596.[526] The dedication, dated from Broadgates Hall the 5th of March of the same year, is addressed to Morlet's former pupil, Sir Robert Beal. This rare little treatise contains a few observations on the pronunciation of the letters, followed by a concise treatment of each part of speech in turn. It is preceded by a number of commendatory verses in Latin and Greek, tributes from Morlet's pupils, students of the various colleges. Morlet had previously prepared a revised edition of Jean Garnier's French grammar, which was published at Jena in 1593,[527] no doubt before his coming to England.

As might be expected, most of the early Oxford French grammars, written for the use of Oxonians, differ from those published at London in that they are composed in Latin. They differ further in containing no practical exercises and restricting their contents to rules of grammar.

All the French grammars published at Oxford were not due to Frenchmen. In 1584 a Spanish refugee, Antonio de Corro, resident at Christ Church, after acting as minister of the Spanish Church in London, had anticipated Morlet by adding a few rules on French pronunciation and accidence to his Spanish Grammar,[528] written in his own language. This was subsequently translated into English in 1590 by J. Thorius, also of Christ Church, and printed in London as The Spanish Grammer with certaine Rules teaching both the Spanish and French tongues. Several grammars were likewise produced by Englishmen resident at Oxford, and teaching the French language. Among others was John Sanford, or Sandford, chaplain of Magdalen College, and the author of the French grammar which succeeded Morlet's. Sanford wrote in Latin, and entitled his work Le Guichet François, sive Janicula et Brevis Introductio ad Linguam Gallicam. It was published by Joseph Barnes in 1604,[529] and dedicated to Dr. Bond, president of Magdalen. Sanford compiled his observations on the pronunciation and parts of speech from the various French grammars published in both France and England; he drew largely on Morlet, as well as Bellot and Holyband; and made equally free with de Bèze, Pillot, and Ramus.

He varied his duties as chaplain by giving lessons in French. In 1605 he was teaching French to that "hopefull young gentleman Mr. William Grey, son to the Rt. Honourable Arthur Lord Grey of Wilton," and found "good contentement" in his "happy progresse therein." Called away temporarily by other duties, Sanford made an English translation of the Latin work, which he addressed to his young charge "as a pledge of my duteous love towards your good deserts, and as my substitute to supplie my absence, being willing also for your sake to make a publicke use therof." The Janicula appeared in its new form, much abridged as well as translated, in 1605, under the title of A Briefe Extract of the former Latin Grammar.[530] It is significant that although this English translation was printed by Barnes at Oxford, it was mainly intended for a London public, and was "to be sold in Paules Church Yard at the signe of the Crowne by Simon Waterson."

SALTONSTALL AND LEIGHTON Sanford retained his position at Magdalen for some years after the appearance of his grammars. In about 1610 he was travelling abroad as chaplain to Sir John Digby, whose acquaintance he had made when Sir John was a student at Balliol.[531]

Other well-known English teachers of French at Oxford were Wye Saltonstall and Henry Leighton. Wye Saltonstall came of a noble family in Essex. He was educated at Queen's College, Oxford, where "his descent and birth being improved by learning, flatter'd him with a kinder fortune than afterwards he enjoyed his life being all Tristia." He is said to have then gone to Gray's Inn, Holborn, without taking a degree at Oxford, and afterwards to have become a perfect master of French, which he had acquired during his travels. In 1625 he returned to Oxford for purposes of study and converse with learned men. There he taught Latin and French, and was still living in good repute in 1640 and after.[532]

Henry Leighton, on the other hand, had not so good a reputation at the University. He is said to have been a man of debauched character, and to have obtained the degree of M.A. in anything but a straightforward manner; when Charles I. created more than seventy persons M.A. on the 1st of November 1642, Leighton, who then bore a commission in the king's army, contrived to have the degree conferred on himself by presenting himself at dusk, when the light was very low, though his name was not on the list. When the king's cause declined, Leighton, who had received the greater part of his education in France, and was an accomplished French scholar, settled at Oxford as a teacher of French, and had a room in St. John's College. Apparently he continued to teach French until 1669, the year of his death.[533]

He was the author of a French grammar written in Latin, called Linguae Gallicae addiscendae regulae, printed in 1659,[534] and again in 1662. Beginning with rules for the pronunciation of each letter, the author passes to observations on the articles, nouns, pronouns, and verbs; he then returns to the pronunciation, gives fuller rules for the more difficult sounds, and closes with a list of irregular verbs.[535] Leighton says he published his work at the request of his friends. He dedicated it (in French) to Henry O'Brien, baron of Ibrecken, only son of the Earl of Thomond, expressing, in words very like those used by Holyband on a similar occasion, the hope that this "divertissement," as he calls the grammar, may help to while away time not occupied by more serious and important studies. Thus we see that the general attitude towards the study of French was still, in the middle of the seventeenth century, very much what it had been in the preceding century.

In the meantime other grammars had appeared from the pens of French sojourners at Oxford. One, Robert Farrear, a teacher of French, wrote a grammar in English for the use of his pupils, The Brief Direction to the French Tongue, printed at Oxford in 1618. Nothing further is known of its author. Anthony à Wood[536] informs us that in the title of the book Farrear inscribed himself M.A., but "whether he took that degree or was incorporated therein in Oxford" he could not discover.

The works on French which appeared at Oxford were not all formal grammars of the type described. Pierre Bense, a native of Paris, who taught Italian and Spanish as well as French, was the author of the Analogo-Diaphora seu Concordantia Discrepans et Discrepantia Concordans trium linguarum Gallicae, Italicae et Hispanicae, commended by Edward Leigh in his Foelix Consortium or a fit Conjuncture of Religion and Learning (1663). This comparison of the resemblances and differences in the grammar of the three languages is dedicated to the University of Oxford, and was printed at the author's own expense in 1637.[537] As to Bense himself we are told that he was partly bred "in good letters" at Paris, and then, coming to England, "he went by letters commendatory to Oxon where being kindly received and entertained, became a sojourner there, was entred into the public library, and taught for several years the French, Italian and Spanish tongues." For the rest we must be content to add with Wood: "What other things he hath written I know not, nor any thing else of the author."[538]

GABRIEL DU GRÈS As yet no French grammars had appeared at Cambridge, and French teachers do not seem to have made their presence felt there.[539] In 1631, however, one of the best known of this group of university French tutors arrived at Cambridge—Gabriel Du Grès, a native of Saumur, and a member of a good family from Angers. He arrived in England as a refugee on account of his Protestant faith, received a warm welcome at Cambridge, and taught French to several of the students in various colleges.[540] In the fifth year of his residence, the liberality of his pupils enabled him to publish his Breve et Accuratum Grammaticae Gallicae compendium in quo superflua rescinduntur et necessaria non omittuntur (1636), a work on the same lines and of about the same dimensions as that of Morlet.[541] It is preceded by Latin verses addressed to the author by members of different colleges, and is dedicated to the students of the University, especially those engaged in the study of French. This grammar of Du Grès appears to be the only work of its kind printed at Cambridge before the eighteenth century.[542]

Shortly after its publication Du Grès joined the group of French tutors at Oxford,[543] and this removal points to the more ready openings offered there to those of his profession. When he published his Dialogi Gallico-Anglico-Latini[544] at Oxford in 1639, he was teaching French in that "most illustrious and famous university." These dialogues are dedicated to Charles, Prince of Wales. Twenty-one in number, they deal with the usual familiar topics, greetings and the ordinary civilities, visiting and table talk, the house and its contents, man and the parts of his body, wayfaring, a journey to France, and so forth, many being of much interest on account of the light they throw on the customs of the time. Considerable space is devoted to instructions for writing letters.

A second edition appeared in 1652, enlarged with "necessary rules for the pronunciation of the French tongue, very profitable unto them that are desirous of it," giving a pseudo-English equivalent of the sound of each French letter, and followed by a few general rules for reading French and a table of the auxiliary and regular verbs. This little book, which has more in common with the productions of the London teachers than with the Oxford manuals, enjoyed a greater popularity than those of Du Grès's rivals. In 1660 a third edition appeared, without the additions found in the second.

He was also the author of an interesting little work in English on the Duke of Richelieu,[545] printed in London in 1643. Probably Du Grès had removed to London at that date; in the second edition of his grammar, printed, like the first, by Leonard Lichfield at Oxford, he describes himself as "late teacher of the same in Oxford."

In his dialogues Du Grès gives some account of his ideas on the teaching of French:[546]

He agreed with most of the French teachers of the day in attaching much importance to conversational practice and reading. He also recommended a certain amount of memorising and the study of grammar; general rules and rules of syntax he considered indispensable; but for pronunciation he thought practice of more avail than rules. It is possible, he admits, to learn French by rote, without any grammar rules. But it is not the best way in his opinion. Without grammar rules the student cannot distinguish good French from bad, nor can he translate, write letters, or read; and reading, thought Du Grès, was an essential condition if the cultivation of French in England was to be maintained. FRENCH AT CAMBRIDGEThose who learn by ear are at a loss as soon as they no longer hear French spoken daily. As for those who promise to teach French in a short time, they are nothing but mountebanks. Du Grès held that a man of moderate intellect could, with hard work, learn to understand an ordinary French author in three or four months. He had had, he declares, some pupils at Cambridge who learnt to read and speak fairly well in four months and others who learnt practically nothing in a whole year.

At the end of the seventeenth century the status of French at the universities had undergone no marked change. At the time of the Restoration, a certain Philemon Fabri petitioned Williamson for an appointment as Professor of French eloquence at Oxford, "he having held a similar situation at Strasburg"; he supported his request by an address to the king in French verses, entitled Le Pater Noster des Anglais au Roi. Apparently Fabri did not receive the desired position.[547] At Cambridge we find still less encouragement given to the study of French than at Oxford. During the Commonwealth, Guy Le Moyne, formerly French tutor to Charles I., lived at Cambridge, and no doubt continued to teach French there, as he had done in London and at Court.[548] At the Restoration he petitioned Charles II. to let him have the Fellowship at Pembroke Hall reserved for Frenchmen.[549] Le Moyne was then seventy-two years old, and wished, he said, to end his days at Cambridge.[550] At Cambridge, as at Oxford, there were also French tutors in charge of particular pupils. Many of these were French Protestants. Thus the famous Pierre Du Moulin, arriving in England as a destitute refugee in 1588, was received into the service of the Countess of Rutland, who sent him to Cambridge as tutor to her son. There he remained until 1592, continuing his own studies as well as attending to those of his young charge. He thoroughly disliked his position, and seized the first opportunity of leaving it.[551] We also hear of Herbert Palmer, President of Queen's College (1644-47), who had learnt French almost as soon as he could speak, and could preach in French as well as in English.[552] He won considerable distinction as a college tutor, but whether he placed his knowledge of French at the service of students, as Sanford and Leighton did at Oxford, is not specified.

Yet, even at Oxford, the efforts of this band of French teachers were not on a large enough scale to have any very noticeable effect. Some gentlemen who, like Sanford's pupil, William Grey, had gone to the University to make themselves "fit for honourable imployments hereafter," took advantage of such opportunities as there were of studying French. Thus Henry Smith, while acting as tutor to Mr. Clifford, learnt French himself, and wrote to Williamson in that language.[553] And no doubt the French tutors found enough pupils among those who were drawn more towards the fashionable than the scholastic world. But the inability of the young Oxford student to speak French when in polite London circles was a subject of comment in the seventeenth century as the language became more and more widely cultivated. To speak French was even considered incompatible with a university education, to judge from this passage in one of Farquhar's comedies:[554]

To the same intent Pepys relates[555] how an Oxford scholar, "in a Doctor of Lawe's gowne," whom he met at dinner at the Spanish ambassador's, sat like a fool for want of French, "though a gentle sort of scholar"; nor could he speak the ambassador's language, but only Latin, which he spoke like an Englishman. Pepys, on the other hand, was very pleased at the display he was able to make of his own French on this occasion. The famous diarist was a competent judge, and spoke and wrote the language with ease. Unfortunately we know nothing of how he acquired this knowledge, beyond the fact that he had not been to France.[556] ONE-SIDEDNESS OF UNIVERSITY EDUCATIONHe often criticizes the French of those he meets, and a certain Dr. Pepys, according to him, "spoke the worst French he had ever heard from one who had been beyond sea." Pepys's brother spoke French, "very plain and good," and Mrs. Pepys, the daughter of a refugee Huguenot, was as familiar with that language as with English.[557]

Thus the universities, like the schools, failed to keep in touch with practical life by their neglect of the broader education necessary to persons of quality and fashion. At the Inns of Court, where gentlemen usually spent some time on leaving the university,[558] or where they sometimes went instead of to the university,[559] the state of things was somewhat better. Some knowledge of French was indispensable to those studying the law, and the position of the Inns, almost all of them within the boundaries of the ward of Farringdon Without, the favourite abode of the French teachers, was such as to offer exceptional facilities for the study of the language. When Robert Ashley was at the Inner Temple he studied Spanish, Italian, and Dutch, as well as French. We are told[560] that in earlier times "knights, barons, and the greatest nobility of the kingdom often placed their children in those Inns of Court, not so much to make the laws their study, much less to live by the profession ... but to form their manners and to preserve them from contagion of vice." There, could be found "a sort of gymnasium or academy fit for persons of their station, where they learn singing and all kinds of music, dancing, and other such accomplishments and Diversions ... as are suitable to their quality and such as are usually practiced at Court." French was, without doubt, one of these accomplishments. Towards the end of the seventeenth century the Inns of Court were still much in favour, and gentlemen's sons could enjoy there good company and the innocent recreations of the town, as well as improve themselves in the "exercises." Clarendon calls the Inns of Court the suburbs of the Court itself.

None the less, the gentleman with a university education, even when it was followed by residence at one of the Inns of Court, was felt to be inadequately equipped. Almost invariably he sought on the Continent the polite accomplishments and knowledge of languages, which were necessary qualifications for high employment at Court, in the army, and elsewhere. Travel came to be regarded as "an especial part"[561] of the education of a gentleman, and as such occupies an important place in the educational treatises of the time. The usual course advised for the sons of gentlemen was an early study of Greek and Latin, followed by residence at one of the Universities and at the Inns of Court, and, finally, "travel beyond seas for language and experience" and the study of such arts as could not be easily acquired in England.

In some cases gentlemen were educated quite independently of the English schools and universities[562]—at home with private tutors, and in France. Lady Brilliana Harley, for instance, feared that her son would not find much good company at Oxford. "I believe," she wrote, "that theare are but feawe nobellmens sonne in Oxford, for now, for the most part, they send theaire sonnes into France when they are very yonge, theaire to be breed."[563]

One of the favourite methods of learning French was a sojourn in France. To speak the language well a visit there was considered imperative, and to speak it "as one who had never been out of England"[564] was synonymous with speaking it badly. Consequently a journey to France was common among the young gentry and nobility of the time. Moreover, those who pursued their travels further, and undertook the Grand Tour as many gentlemen did on leaving the university, invariably visited France first, and spent the greater part of their time there. Eighteen months in France, nine or ten in Italy, five in Germany and the Low Countries, was considered a suitable division of a three years' tour. Most young Englishmen of family and fortune spent some time on the Continent. Sir Francis Walsingham, said by one of his contemporaries to have been the most accomplished linguist of his day,[565] had acquired his proficiency abroad, as had also Lord Burghley, who wrote to Walsingham from France in 1583 to report on his progress in the language.[566] Both ministers in their turn were patrons to numerous young travellers in France. A certain Charles Danvers wrote to Walsingham from Paris, in French, to show his progress and thank him for his favours.[567] And Burghley gave one Andrew Bussy a monthly allowance of £5 to enable him to study French at Orleans, where, according to his own account, he took great pains to make good progress so as to serve his patron the better on his return.[568] It was generally held that travel was "useful to useful men,"[569] and that "peregrination" well used was "a very profitable school, a running Academy."[570]

Many young English gentlemen went to the French Court in the train of an ambassador,[571] or with a private tutor;[572] Henry VIII. sent his natural son, the Duke of Richmond, Palsgrave's pupil, to the French Court, in the care of Lord Surrey the poet. Richard Carew, the friend of Camden, was sent to France with Sir Henry Nevill, ambassador to Henri IV., and Bacon visited Paris in his early youth in the suite of the diplomat Lord Poulet. The last-mentioned ambassador had several young Englishmen in his charge. Of few, however, could he make so favourable a report as he did of the son of Sir George Speake: "I am not unacquainted with your son's doings in Parris," he wrote to Sir George, "and cannot comend him inoughe unto you aswell for his dilligence in study as for his honest and quiett behaviour." One of these young travellers, a Mr. Throckmorton, he was particularly glad to be rid of; the young man "got the French tongue in good perfection," we are informed, but he was of flippant humour, and before he left for England, Poulet told him his mind freely, and forbade him to travel to Italy, as he intended to do later, without the company of "an honest and wyse man." The ambassador had kept him and his man in food during the whole of his stay in Paris, and, besides, provided him with a horse, which he had also "kept att his chardges."[573]

Children too were often sent abroad for education. Thomas Morrice, in his Apology for Schoolmasters (1619), commends "the ancient and laudable custom of sending children abroad when they can understand Latin perfectly"; for then they learn the romance languages all the more easily, "because the Italian, French and Spanish borrow very many words of the said Latin, albeit they do chip, chop and change divers letters and syllables therein." ENGLISH GENTRY AT THE FRENCH COURTAnd Thomas Peacham[574] tells us in the early seventeenth century that as soon as a child shows any wildness or unruliness, he is sent either to the Court to act as a page or to France, and sometimes to Italy. The number of English children in France was, we may assume, considerable; and when the news of the terrible massacre of St. Bartholomew reached England, one of its most noticeable effects was to fill with concern and apprehension all parents who had children in France. "How fearfull and carefull the mothers and parents that be here be of such yong gentlemen as be there, you may easely ges," wrote Elizabeth's secretary of state to Sir Francis Walsingham, the English ambassador at Paris.[575] Among these "yong gentlemen" was Sir Philip Sidney, then newly arrived at the French Court, whom Walsingham himself sheltered in the ambassador's quarters during that awful night.