The Teaching and Cultivation of the French Language in England Part 1

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

by Kathleen Lambley.

PREFACE

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 ill.u.s.tration.

I gladly take this opportunity of expressing my grat.i.tude to Professor L. E. Kastner, at whose suggestion this investigation was undertaken, for his generous a.s.sistance, and the unfailing interest he has shown in my work during the whole course of its preparation. I am likewise considerably indebted to Dr. Phoebe 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 a.s.sistance he has so freely given me during the progress of this volume through the Press.

KATHLEEN LAMBLEY.

DURHAM, _January 1920_.

PART I

INTRODUCTORY

CHAPTER I

THE THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH CENTURIES

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 gradue de Paris," whose work, ent.i.tled _L'Esclarciss.e.m.e.nt 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 t.i.tle. 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 cla.s.ses and landed gentry, the cultivated and educated; English was used by the ma.s.ses, 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 ma.n.u.scripts 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 ma.n.u.scripts.

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:

Anglia cui mater fuerat, cui Gallia nutrix Matri nutricem praefero mente meam.[16]

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 a 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 cla.s.ses, save the very poorest;[21] some of the French literature of the time was addressed more particularly to the middle cla.s.ses.[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 inst.i.tuted.[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 p.r.o.nunciation, 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 ma.n.u.scripts 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 ma.n.u.script, 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 p.r.o.nunciation, 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 p.r.o.nunciation, 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 p.r.o.nounced. An _s_ occurring after a vowel and before an _m_, writes the author, in another rule, is not p.r.o.nounced, as in _mandasmes_, and _l_ coming after _a_, _e_, or _o_, and followed by a consonant is p.r.o.nounced 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 p.r.o.nunciation 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 p.r.o.nunciation, 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 p.r.o.nunciation 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 p.r.o.nunciation 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 Gallic.u.m" 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 p.r.o.nunciation 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 doc.u.ments 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, ent.i.tled _Le Treytyz qe mounsire Gauter de Bibelesworthe fist a ma dame Dyonisie de Mounchensy[35] pur aprise de langwage_. The large number of ma.n.u.scripts still in existence[36] suggest that it was a popular text-book among the children of the higher cla.s.ses 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":

Quaunt le enfes ad tel age Ke il set entendre langage, Primes en Fraunceys ly devez dire Coment soun cors deyt descrivere, Pur le ordre aver de moun et ma, Toun et ta, soun et sa, _better lered_ Ke en parlole seyt meut apris _scorned_ E de nul autre escharnys.

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:

_lippe and an hare_ Vous avet la levere et le levere, _a pound_ _a book_ Et la livere et le livere.

La levere si enclost les dens; Le levere en boys se tent dedens; La livere sert en marchaundye; Le livere nous aprent clergye.

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:

Vestet vos draps mes chers enfauns, Chaucez vos brays, soulers, e gauns; Mettet le chaperoun, covrez le chef, etc.

--a pa.s.sage which ill.u.s.trates 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 pa.s.ses 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:

Au primer fust apporte _a boris heued_ La teste de un sengler tot arme, _the snout_ _wit baneres of flurs_ E au groyn le colere en banere; E pus veneysoun, ou la fourmente; a.s.sez par my la mesoun _tahen of gres tyme_ De treste du fermeyson.

Pus avyent diversetez en rost, Eit checun autre de cost, _Cranes_, _pokokes_, _swannes_ Grues, pounes, e cygnes, _Wilde ges_, _gryses_ (_porceaus_), _hennes_, Owes, rosees, porceus, gelyns; Au tercez cours avient conyns en grave, Et viaunde de Cypre enfundre, De maces, e quibibes, e clous de orre, Vyn blanc e vermayl a graunt plente.

_wodekok_ Pus avoyunt fesauns, a.s.sez, et perdriz, _Feldefares larkes_ Grives, alowes, e pluviers ben rostez; E braoun, e crispes, e fritune; Ke soucre roset poudra la temprune.

Apres manger avyunt a graunt plente Blaunche poudre, ou la grosse drage, Et d'autre n.o.bleie a fusoun, Ensi vous fynys ceo sermoun; Kar de fraunceis i ad a.s.sez, De meynte manere dyversetez, Dount le vous fynys, seynurs, ataunt A filz Dieu vous comaund.

Ici finest la doctrine monsire Gauter De Byblesworde.

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.