FRENCH TUTORS AT COURT--GILES DUWES--JOHN PALSGRAVE--JEAN BELLEMAIN
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.
[Header: JOHN PALSGRAVE'S FRENCH GRAMMAR] Like all the French
grammarians of the time, Palsgrave 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 _doUcement_
instead of _doucemEnt_, 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. [Header: THE "INTRODUCTORIE" OF GILES
DUWES] Nothing 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. [Header: HIS METHOD] Henry VIII.'s
skill in French has already been 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. [Header: HIS DIALOGUES IN FRENCH AND ENGLISH]
However, he advises those who desire 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. [Header: POPULARITY OF DUWES] The third book was not fully
written 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.
[Header: SALE OF PALSGRAVE'S GRAMMAR] He 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, though he could not bring
himself to excuse what seemed to him his presumption in attempting to
write rules for a language not his own. [Header: DUWES ON ENGLISH
TEACHERS OF FRENCH] 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. [Header: PUPILS OF DUWES]
Throughout 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 oeuvres 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:
Par luy (Decembre) ay fait pleurs et soupirs mains,
Ja ne sera que ne m'en remembre,
luy et Janvier mont tollu ung membre
qui me fera que tant que je vivray
en grant doulleur doresavant iray;
pourquoy je crains qu'en grant melancolie,
en fin fauldra que j'en perde la vie.
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:
_Mary._ Comment Giles, vous montrés bien qu'avés grant cure et
soing de m'aprendre quand vous vous absentés ainsy de moy.
_Gyles._ Certes madame, il me semble que suis continuellement ici.
_Mary._ Voire, et ou estiés vous hier a soupper je vous prie.
_Gyles._ Veritablement, madame, vous avez raison, car je
m'entroubliay ersoir a cause de compagnie et de communication.
_Mary._ Je vous prie, beau sire, faictes nous parçonniere de
vostre communication, car j'estime quelle estoit de quelque bon
purpos.
_Gyles._ Certes, madame, elle estoit de la paix, laquelle (come on
disoit) est proclamée par tout ce royaume. . . .
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. [Header: QUEEN MARY'S FRENCH STUDIES] His eloquence on
the subject suggests 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.
[Header: PALSGRAVE'S PUPILS] On 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
schools, "first word for word, and then according to the sense."
[Header: EDWARD VI.'S FRENCH EXERCISES] 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 in Latin, on her beautiful handwriting.[272] [Header:
JEAN BELLEMAIN] 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:
Puisque vous a pleu me rescrire, tres chere et bien aymée soeur, je
vous mercie de bien bon cuer, et non seullement de vostre lettre,
mais aussy de vostre bonne exhortation et example, laquelle, ainsy
que j'espere, me servira d'esperon pour vous suivre en apprenant.
Priant Dieu vous avoir en sa garde. De Titenhanger, 18 jour de
decembre et l'an de nostre seigneur, 1548.--Vostre frere,
EDWARDUS. PRINCE.
a ma treschere et bien
aymée soeur Elizabeth.[273]
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] [Header: QUEEN ELIZABETH'S
KNOWLEDGE OF FRENCH] In 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.
[Header: RELIGIOUS OPINIONS OF FRENCH TUTORS]
It 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.
FOOTNOTES:
[221] First edition. Printed at London, by Th. Godfray, _c._ 1534. Sig.
A-Ea in fours.
[222] Both these grammars were reprinted by Génin, in the _Collection
des documents inédits sur l'Histoire de France_. II. _Histoire des
lettres et sciences_. Paris, 1852.
[223] By Andrew Baynton, in a letter prefixed to Palsgrave's grammar.
[224] Palsgrave in his grammar.
[225] Both Palsgrave's and Duwes's observations on the pronunciation of
French are utilized by M. Thurot: _De la prononciation française depuis
le commencement du_ 16e _siècle d'après les témoignages des
grammairiens_. 2 tom. Paris, 1881.
For further treatment of Palsgrave's grammar, see A. Benoist, _De la
syntaxe française entre Palsgrave et Vaugelas_. Paris, 1877.
[226] The second book begins on folio xxxi. and ends on folio lix. In the
third book the pagination begins anew: folio 1 to folio 473.
[227] Four hundred and seventy-three folios, while the first and second
books together occupy only fifty-nine folios.
[228] The fulness, originality, and exhaustive character of the work may
be illustrated by the treatment of such a point as the agreement of the
past participle with its subject, when used with the auxiliary _avoir_.
"... yet when the participle present followeth the tenses of _Je ay_, it
is not ever generall that he shall remain unchaunged, but ... yf the
tenses of _Je ay_ have a relatyve before them or governe an accusative
case eyther of a pronoune or substantyve, the participle for the most
part shall agree with the sayd accusatyve cases in gendre and nombre,
and in such sentences not remayne unchaunged. Helas, I have loved her,
_helas je l'ay aimée_ ..." etc.
[229] Duwes's plan is as comprehensive as Palsgrave's, as is seen by the
following table:
"In the first part shal be treated of rules, that is to say, howe the
fyve vowelles must be pronounced in redynge frenche, and what letters
shal be left unsounde, and the course thereof.
"The second part shal be of nounes, pronounes, adverbes, participles,
with verbes, propositions, and coniunctions.
"Also certayne rules for coniugation.
"Item fyve or syx maners of coniugations with one verbe.
"Item coniugations with two pronounes and with thre and finally
combining or ioinyng 2 verbes together."
[230] _The Boke of the Governour ..._ ed. H. H. S. Croft, 1883, vol. i.
p. 55.
[231] _Letters and Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII._ iv. 5806.
[232] _Ibid._ iv. 4560.
[233] ". . . m'a comandé et enchargé de reduire et mectre en escript la
maniere coment g'ay procedé envers ses dictz progeniteurs et
predecesseurs, coe celle aussi y la quelle ie l'ay (tellement
quellement) instruit et instruis iournellment. . . ."
[234] _Privy purse expenses of the Princess Mary_, ed. F. Madden, 1831,
pp. xli-xliii.
[235] "Duwes avait d'une main leste et sure esquissé la petite grammaire
de Lhomond: Palsgrave avait laborieusement compilé la grammaire des
grammaires: L'in-folio fut étouffé par l'in-8vo. Cela se voit souvent
dans la littérature où le quatrain de St. Aulaire triomphe de la Pucelle
de Chapelain" (Génin's Introduction).
It seems an exaggeration to use the word "étouffer." At any rate the
victory was not final. Palsgrave's work is not forgotten to-day, like
that of Duwes.
[236] There are copies of all three editions in the Bodleian. The
British Museum contains one copy of Bourman's edition, and two of
Waley's (the third). Génin used Godfray's edition in his reprint.
[237] E. G. Duff, _A Century of the English Book Trade_, Bibliog.
Society, 1905.
[238] There are, however, a larger number of Palsgrave's one edition
extant than of Duwes's three. This is, no doubt, because its size and
value prevented it from being used with the lack of respect with which
school-books are usually treated. There is a copy of the
_Esclarcissement_ in the Bibliothèque Mazarine at Paris; two in the
British Museum; one in the Bodleian, one in Cambridge University
Library, and one in the Rylands Library.
[239] _Supra_, p. 92.
[240] Dated September 2, twenty-second year of his reign (_i.e._ 1530).
[241] There were three drafts of the indenture with Pynson, _Letters and
Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII._ iii. 3680, iv. 39. The first two
were probably drawn up in 1523. The last is dated January 18, 1524. The
first two were printed by Dr. Furnivall for the Philological Society,
1868. The third draft is in Cromwell's hand, corrected by Palsgrave.
There is a clause that Pynson shall not print more than the given
number--750--until that number is sold. Pynson seems to have printed
only the first two parts of 59 leaves. After this there comes a third
part, with a fresh numbering of leaves from 1 to 473. The printing was
finished July 18, 1530, by J. Hawkins.
[242] At the rate of 6s. 8d. a ream.
[243] Ellis, _Orig. Letters_, 3rd series, vol. ii. p. 214.
[244] He found it useful in diplomatic service. He writes to his patron:
"I am well asseyed here and my little knowledge of French well
exercised" (Brussels, Nov. 20, 1538), _Letters and Papers of the Reign
of Henry VIII._ xiii. pt. ii. No. 882.
[245] "O devotz amateurs de bonnes lettres pleust a Dieu que quelque
noble coeur s'employast a mettre et ordonner par regle nostre langaige
françois! Ce seroit moyen que maints milliers d'hommes se evertueroient
a souvent user de belles et bonnes paroles. S'il n'y est mis et ordonné
on trouvera que de cinquante en cinquante ans la langue françoise pour
la plus grande part sera changée et pervertie" (folio 1, verso). Tory
sketched a plan of a great work on the language to which his _Champ
fleury_ was intended only as an introduction.
[246] Génin is 'certain' that the date given on the frontispiece of
Palsgrave's work is a year earlier than that on which it actually
appeared. He draws this conclusion from the date of the king's
privilege, twenty-second year of Henry VIII., who came to the throne in
1509; 9 + 22 = 31. This leaves Palsgrave a longer period to gather what
he could from Tory's work, says Génin. But the twenty-second year of the
reign of Henry VIII. began in April 1530, and the printing of
Palsgrave's work was completed on the 18th of July.
[247] _Letters and Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII._ i. Nos. 513 and
3094.
[248] _Ibid._ vi. No. 1199. Duwes also received numerous grants of money
and licences to import Gascon wine.
[249] Printed in _Theatrum Chemicum_, Ursel, 1602, vol. ii. pp. 95-123,
and reprinted in J. J. Manget's _Bibliotheca Chemica_, Geneva, 1702,
vol. ii. Two copies of an English translation are in the Bodleian
(Ashmole MSS.). See _Dict. Nat. Biog._
[250] He is called "schoolmaster to my Lady Princess of Castile," in the
Book of Payments, March 1513, _Letters and Papers of the Reign of Henry
VIII._ ii. No. 1460.
[251] _Ibid._ ii. 295.
[252] _Ibid._ i. 5582.
[253] Bale, _Britanniae Scriptorum_, 1548, fol. 219.
[254] _Letters and Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII._ ii. pt. 2, 1107.
[255] J. G. Nichols, _Memoir of the Duke of Richmond_, 1855, Camden
Society, _Miscellany_, iii. pp. xxiii-xxiv; also _Letters and Papers of
the Reign of Henry VIII._ iv. 5806, and v. 1596, 1793, 2069, 2081.
[256] _Letters and Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII._ iv. 5806.
[257] _Ibid._ iv. 4560: Letter dated July 27, 1528.
[258] _Ibid._ iv. 5806, 5807.
[259] "Instructions for Syr Wm. Stevynson, what he shall do for one John
Palsgrave with the Frenche Queenes Grace and the Duke of Suffolk her
espouse": _ibid._ v. 5808.
[260] Wood, _Athen. Oxon._ ed. Bliss, i. 121.
[261] _Letters and Papers_, v. 621-622: Letter dated Oct. 18, 1532.
[262] Palsgrave received ecclesiastical preferment from time to time.
Amongst others, he was collated to the prebend of Portpoole in St.
Paul's Cathedral by Bishop Fitzjames in 1514, and to the Rectory of St.
Dunstan-in-the-East by Cranmer in 1533, and to that of Wadenhoe,
Northamptonshire, in 1545, by the same Archbishop. (Thompson Cooper in
the _Dict. Nat. Biog._)
[263] Written by a Dutch contemporary, Fullonius, in 1529.
[264] J. G. Nichols, _Literary Remains of Edward VI._, Roxburghe Club,
1857, p. 210.
[265] _Ibid._ p. lxxviii.
[266] These have been printed by J. G. Nichols in his _Literary
Remains_, p. 144 _et seq._ The MS. of the first is at Trin. Col. Cantab.
R 7, 31, of the second in the Brit. Mus. Addit. MS. 9000, and of the
third at Biblio. Pub. Cantab. Dd 12, 59, and Brit. Mus. Addit. 5464.
Nichols uses the text of the first of these.
[267] "Apres avoir noté en ma Bible en Anglois plusieurs sentences qui
contredisent a toute ydolatrie, a celle fin de m'apprendre et exercer en
l'ecriture Françoise, je me suis amusé a les translater en ladite langue
Françoise, puis les ay fait rescrire en ce petit livret, lequel de tres
bon coeur je vous offre" (_Literary Remains ..._, p. 144).
[268] "Lettre inédite de Bellemain": _Bulletin de la Soc. de l'Hist. du
Protestantisme Français_, vol. xv., 1866, pp. 203-5.
[269] It was, however, translated into English and published in 1681
(two copies in the Brit. Mus.), and reprinted by Rev. J. Duncan in 1811
(no copy known), and by the Religious Tract Soc., _Vol. of Writings of
Ed. VI._, etc.
[270] Calvin wrote to Edward VI. in French: "C'est grand chose d'estre
roy, mesme d'un tel pays. Toutesfois je ne doubte pas que vous n'estimez
sans comparaison mieux d'estre chrestien. C'est doncq un privilege
inestimable que Dieu vous a faict, Sire, que vous soiez roy chrestien,
voire que luy servez de lieutenant pour ordonner et maintenir le
royaulme de J. Christ en Angleterre" (_Bulletin_, _ut supra_).
[271] There is a copy of this in Brit. Mus. Royal MSS. 20, A xiv.
[272] Ellis, _Orig. Letters_, ser. 1, vol. i. p. 132, and translated in
Halliwell's _Letters of the Kings of England_, ii. 33.
[273] J. C. Nichols, _Literary Remains_, p. 32.
[274] _Ibid._ p. li.
[275] Huguenot Soc. Publications, vol. viii. ad nom.
[276] Brit. Mus. Royal MSS. 16, E 1. The whole consists of only eighteen
small leaves, of which five are occupied by the dedication. No date is
attached. The dedication continues:
". . . S'ainsy estoit (Tresnoble et Tresillustre Dame) que i'attendisse
le temps auquel ie peusse trouver et inventer chose digne de presenter a
vostre excellence, certes, madame, i'estime que ce ne seroit de long
temps: car quelle chose est ce qu'on pourroit monstrer de nouveau a
celle a qui rien n'est caché, soit en langue grecque ou latine ou en la
plus part des autres langues vulgaires de l'Europe: soit en la
congnoissance des histoires ecrites en icelles ou en philosophie et
autres liberales sciences. Puis donc qu'ainsy est que peu de livres
antiques se peuent trouver que n'ayez leuz ou au moins desquels n'ayez
ouy aucunement parler, ioint aussy qu'estes maintenant comme en lieu
solitaire, ie vous vueil seulement ramentevoir une epistre de Basile le
grand que i'estime qu'avez autres fois leue: en laquelle il recommande
fort la vie solitaire ou au moins exempte des cures et solicitudes de ce
monde: et ce a intention de pouoir induire celuy a qui il l'envoioit a
la contemplation de Dieu et de la vie future: qui sont les choses
ausquelles devons le plus penser durant que sommes en ce monde comme
estans les causes qui plus nous donnent occasion de bien vivre. . . ."
[277] Sylvius (1530) had proposed a new system of orthography based on
etymology and pronunciation. Meigret, however, was the chief exponent of
the reformers, who sought to make orthography tally with pronunciation
(in his _Traité touchant le comun usage de l'escriture françoise_, 1542
and 1545, and other works). Meigret was supported by Peletier du Mans
(_Dialogue de l'ortografe et prononciation françoese_, 1549) and others,
and bitterly attacked by the opposing party. The question, once opened,
continued to be discussed until the decision of the Academy (founded
1649) settled the matter. Brunot, _op. cit._ ii. pp. 93 _sqq._
[278] "Ie vous ay escrit ce petit avertissement de paour que
paraventure, en lisant tant de diversitéz d'impressions comme pourriez
faire en ceste langue, ne sceussiez laquelle devriez suivre en ecrivant;
mais il sera bon de suivre la plus part des modernes qui s'accordent
quant a cela."
[279] Stevenson, _Cal. of State Papers_, foreign series, 1558-9, p. xxv,
takes it for granted that Bellemain was Elizabeth's tutor in French.
[280] Strickland, _Lives of the Queens of England_, 1884: Life of
Elizabeth, iii. pp. 9, 13.
[281] First printed at Alençon, 1531.
[282] This is at present in the Bodleian Library. It has an embroidered
cover, probably by the princess herself. See Cyril Davenport, _English
Embroidered Bookbindings_, London, 1899, p. 32. It was reprinted in
1897.
[283] There are two copies of this rare little volume in the Brit. Mus.
Another edition, varying considerably from the first, occurs in
Bentley's _Monuments of the Nations_, iv., London, 1582 (Stevenson, _ut
supra_, p. xxvi). It was republished in 1897.
[284] See Davenport, _ut supra_, p. 33. The original is in the Brit.
Mus.
[285] This little work appears to have been lost.
[286] Such as Hentzer the German, in 1598; Justus Zinzerling, 1610;
Peter Eisenburg the Dane, 1614. See Rye, _England as Seen by
Foreigners_, pp. 133, 171, 268, 282.
[287] D. C. A. Agnew, _Protestant Exiles from France ..._, 3rd ed.,
1886, vol. i. p. 45.
[288] Haag, _La France Protestante_, and Cooper, _Athen. Cant._ i. 306.
Agnew, _op. cit._, does not mention that Chevallier was tutor to
Elizabeth.