METHODS OF TEACHING FRENCH--LATIN AND FRENCH--FRENCH AND ENGLISH
DICTIONARIES--STUDY OF FRENCH LITERATURE
Eliote gives some information concerning the fees charged by French
teachers in the later part of the sixteenth century. He asserts that the
usual charge was a shilling a week,[449] but we are left in doubt as to
how many lessons this entitled the student to. He affirms, probably not
seriously, that he would charge a gentleman £10 a year, and a lord from
£20 to £30.
We are indebted to him also for an account, very prejudiced, no doubt,
of the usual method employed by French teachers generally. This
consisted, according to him, in reading a page of French and then
translating it. Fortunately we are enabled, by means of the French
text-books that have come down to us, to draw a fuller picture of the
French lessons of the time. It has been seen that as a rule these books
contained four parts--rules of pronunciation, rules of grammar, reading
exercises, and a vocabulary. They are generally written throughout in
French and English (in parallel columns[450]), the reason of this being
the importance attached to reading and to double translation, from
French into English and English into French. In the English version the
idiomatic phrase is sacrificed in order to give a more literal rendering
of the French, and also, possibly, because these Frenchmen were
incapable of writing any other. As is to be expected, translation from
French into English was the more usual exercise. Translation from
English into French, however, was by no means neglected, and appears to
have been recommended principally by English teachers of French, and
more especially by Palsgrave and Eliote. Edward VI.'s French exercises,
it will be remembered, are translations from English into French, or
free composition in French.
In addition to reading and translating, much importance was attached to
pronunciation. It was generally considered best to learn the sounds of
the language by repetition after a teacher with a good accent; but rules
were thought necessary to confirm the knowledge thus acquired. As to
rules of grammar, there was no question of learning the language by
means of them. A grammar was treated as a book of reference, just as a
dictionary. Thus the student usually learnt the pronunciation by reading
the French aloud with his tutor, referring to the rules of pronunciation
whenever necessary, and then translating and retranslating the
dialogues, grammar being supplied as the need for it was felt. Although
these early teachers strictly limited the place of grammar, they almost
all agree in emphasizing its importance within the limits indicated.
Grammar rules were reduced to a minimum. Attention was called to what
were considered important general rules, but those with numerous
exceptions, it is argued, were better learnt by "use" and persistent
reading, "so as not to weary with long discourses which would be
necessary to explain things learnt better by practice than by rule."
The dialogue form in which almost all the reading material is given, and
the proverbs and familiar phrases, show the importance attached to a
practical and colloquial knowledge of the language. The teaching of
French was of a decidedly business-like nature, and closely in touch
with the concerns of life. One of the chief reasons for this, no doubt,
was that it was learnt for social or other immediate requirements. The
fact that French was not taught in the grammar schools undoubtedly
assisted it to maintain its close connexion with practical life. It is
only about a century and a half later, when French began to gain a
foothold in these schools, that it was taught more and more on
grammatical lines, and less and less as a living language.
Latin, although most of the school statutes of the time encourage the
scholars to speak it, was taught chiefly on grammatical lines.[451] The
memorizing of Latin grammar was a foremost subject even in the Middle
Ages.[452] [Header: LATIN AND FRENCH] In the sixteenth century the Latin
grammar usually known as Lily's was the prescribed national grammar,
with rules of accidence in English and of syntax in Latin.[453] Familiar
dialogues in the style of those for French were also used, the chief
difference between the Latin and French dialogues being that the Latin
are separate and complete works in themselves, and are not, as a rule,
provided with an English translation. They were memorized as the grammar
was. From the dialogues, or colloquies as they were called, dealing with
typical occurrences of life, the Latin scholar passed on to the reading
of school authors--Cato, Cicero, Ovid, Virgil, Terence, etc.[454] Nor
was vocabulary neglected, for in the schools of the Renaissance the
practice of learning so many words a day, prevalent in the Middle Ages,
was still in vogue.
It thus appears that the books generally used in teaching Latin were not
without some influence in determining the types of manuals employed for
teaching French. The practice of including religious formulae, which we
find in some books, was sanctioned by their place in the national Latin
grammar, while it is clear that the Latin colloquia of the time had
considerable influence on the French dialogues. In the early sixteenth
century the dialogues of the scholar Vives,[455] who received honours at
both Oxford and Cambridge during his short stay in England, were much in
vogue. Like the French dialogues of the time, they kept closely in touch
with the interests of the pupils and dealt with such topics as rising in
the morning, going to school, returning home, and children's play and
meals, and students' chatter. Similar works were the _Sententiae
pueriles_,[456] a book for beginners, first published at Leipzig in
1544, and containing a collection of familiar phrases rather than
dialogues, and the _Pueriles Confabulatiunculae_ by Evaldus Gallus. In
the second half of the sixteenth century two other manuals of
conversation were added to those already in use in England: the
_Colloquia_ of Mathurin Cordier, first published in Latin in 1564, and
Castellion's _Sacred Dialogues_ based on the Scriptures, printed in
Latin at Basle, in 1555.[457]
With the text-books, however, all close resemblance between the teaching
of Latin in grammar schools and the teaching of French ends. As we have
seen, reading, pronunciation, and conversation were the main concerns of
the French student; translation held a large place and grammar rules a
subsidiary one. The grammar-school boy, on the contrary, would first
gain an elementary knowledge from rules written in English, and memorize
the vocabulary and phrases; learn his Latin grammar, and then parse and
construe[458] the usual school authors.[459] The sons of the aristocracy
and well-to-do classes probably learnt by a more practical method, as
they were able to have private tutors, who devoted all their time to
providing the necessary atmosphere. As late as 1607, when Latin was less
used colloquially, the writer Cleland, a great advocate of the teaching
of French, condemns the practice of those parents who have their
children brought up to speak Latin only; they neglect their mother
tongue and the language of elegance, French, and soon forget their Latin
when once removed from their tutor's care.[460] That such cases were the
exception rather than the rule, even in the early sixteenth century, may
be gathered from the two great educational writers of the time, Sir
Thomas Elyot and Roger Ascham. Both the _Governour_ (1531) and the
_Scholemaster_ are protests against the common school usage of placing
grammar in the first place, and a summons to base the study of the
language on the reading of authors. They believed with Quintilian that
"Longum et difficile iter est per praecepta, breve et efficax per
exempla." Colet in his _Aeditio_ had laid down the same principle, to
the effect that the "reading of good books, dyligent information of
taught masters, studious advertence and taking heed of learners, hearing
eloquent men speak, and finally busy imitation with the tongue and pen,
more availeth shortly to get the true eloquent speech than all the
tradition of rule and precepts of masters"; [Header: GRAMMAR AND
TRANSLATION] and he adds, "men spoke not Latin because such rules were
made, but contrariwise because men spoke such Latin, upon that followed
the rules and so were made."[461] Yet it seems that the force of
tradition prevailed, and that these precepts were only put into practice
in exceptional cases.
It is striking to notice how close was the resemblance between the
actual methods used by French teachers and those advocated by would-be
reformers of the teaching of Latin. Colet's words express almost exactly
the sentiments and practice of Holyband, De la Mothe, and other French
teachers; and the same is true of Elyot and Ascham. "Nothing can be more
convenient," writes Elyot in referring to students of Latin, "than by
little and little to train and exercise them in the speaking of Latin,
informing them to know first the names in Latin of all the things that
come in sight, and to name all the parts of their bodies, and giving
them somewhat that they covert or desire in most gentle manner to teach
them to ask it again in Latin." He even goes so far as to say that the
pupil may "as sone speake good latin" on this method "as he may do pure
frenche,"[462] thereby showing that he probably derived suggestions from
the prevalent methods of teaching French. Elyot, however, realized that
the use of Latin as a familiar tongue was not as practicable in schools
as in many noble families, where it might well happen that the pupil
would have "none other persons to serve him or keep hym company but
suche as can speake Latine elegantly." How successful the sole use of
Latin could be in such circumstances is exemplified in the well-known
case of Montaigne. Ascham, like Elyot, recognized the exceptional
conditions required for such a method. He believed the "dailie use of
speaking" would be the best way of learning the language if the child
could only hear it spoken perfectly, but failing this he considered the
practice dangerous.[463] It is probable, however, that in the best
French schools, and certainly in that of Holyband, this ideal was
realized in the case of French.
As regards the respective importance of reading and grammar, the French
teachers of the time appear to have put into practice the ideas of the
reformers. All agree that grammar rules should be as few as possible,
and be taught in connexion with reading. The general method of French
teachers was to refer to the rule as the need for it arose in reading.
Ascham also pleads for the study of grammar, "so hardlie learned by the
scholar in all common scholes," along with authors; and the educational
reformer Mulcaster, in his _Elementarie_ of 1582, writes that grammar is
best learnt by being applied to the matter, and that the child's mind
should not be clogged with rules. Elyot differs slightly from them in
detail but not in principle. He allows grammar to precede the study of
authors, provided it is reduced to the smallest possible amount.
"Grammar," he says, "being but an introduction to the study of authors,"
care should be taken "not to detain the child too longe in that tedious
labour, for a gentyll wytte is there with some fatigate," and "hit in a
maner mortifieth his corage" before he "cometh to the most swete and
pleasant readinge of olde authors."[464] Both these views as regards
grammar--that of Ascham and Mulcaster, and that of Elyot--were prevalent
among French teachers of the time. There are only small differences in
detail; the general principles are identical.
In the matter of translation, "most common and most commendable of all
other exercises of youth,"[465] there is a striking resemblance between
the method of double translation common among French teachers, and the
same method set out by Ascham, who marks the transition from oral to
written methods of teaching Latin.[466] In the case of De la Mothe, the
resemblance is so clear and close that we are led to believe he was
acquainted with the work of Elizabeth's tutor,[467] published in 1570,
over twenty years before the _French Alphabet_. Ascham's system
consisted of the double translation of a model book, and it is
interesting to compare it with the method of De la Mothe. The pupil has
first to parse and translate the Latin into English; "after this the
child must take a paper booke, and sitting in some place where no man
shall prompe him, by him self, let him translate into Englisshe his
former lesson. [Header: BOOKS IN FRENCH AND ENGLISH] Then showing it to
his master, let the master take from him his Latin booke, and pausing
an houre, at the least, than let the childe translate his owne Englishe
into latin againe, in an other paper booke." And when this is done, the
master should compare it with the original Latin, "and laie them both
togither."[468]
There was thus much in common between the teaching of Latin and the
teaching of French. The dialogues, which form so important a feature in
the French text-books of the time, were certainly indebted to the Latin
Colloquia, although they also continue the tradition of the mediaeval
French conversation-books. The Latin Dialogues of Vives had much
influence on the French, and Holyband based one of his books, the _Campo
di Fior_, on the _Exercitatio_ translated in French, Italian, and
English. Eliote also acknowledged his debt to the Spanish scholar. In
other cases the debt was almost inevitable and probably unconscious; for
the French teachers, who often taught Latin as well, would use such
books daily, and had moreover probably acquired their own knowledge of
Latin from them. Holyband, we have seen, read the _Sententiae pueriles_
with his pupils.
The importance attached to reading and double translation by teachers of
French led to the appearance of a great number of books in French and
English, on the lines of Bellot's _Jardin de Vertu_. For instance, part
of the _Semaines_ of Du Bartas, the most popular French poet in England
in the sixteenth century, was published in this form in 1596, and again
in 1625, on the occasion of the marriage of Charles I. This translation
is due to William L'Isle of Wilbraham,[469] the pioneer in the study of
Anglo-Saxon, who dedicated it in the first place to Lord Howard of
Effingham, Earl of Nottingham, Lord Admiral, and subsequently to Charles
I. It is entitled _Part of Du Bartas, English and French, and in his own
kinde of verse, so near the French Englished, as may teach Englishmen
French, or a Frenchman English. Sequitur Victoria Junctos_,[470] and
consists of the first two days of the _Second Week_, with the French
and English arranged on opposite pages, followed by an English
translation of the commentary of Simon Goulart de Senlis.
Guy du Faur, Sieur de Pibrac, was another French writer widely read in
England, and his _Quatrains_ were frequently commended by French
teachers to their scholars. They were translated into English verse by
Sylvester, the translator of Du Bartas, and published with the French
original in 1605. Sylvester dedicated the quatrains to Prince Henry, and
the copy in the British Museum contains an epigram in English in the
handwriting of his brother, afterwards Charles I., and a manuscript
dedication to the younger prince in that of the translator.[471] The
quatrains appeared again with the subsequent editions of Sylvester's
works. About this time Prince Henry made Sylvester a Groom of his
Chamber, and gave him a small pension of £20 a year.[472] The story goes
that the prince valued him so highly that he made him his first "poet
pensioner," and it seems that Sylvester took advantage of his position
to encourage his royal patron's French studies. Many other works of the
kind appeared in French and in English.[473] The educational writer
Charles Hoole tells us that masters frequently taught languages by using
interlinearies, "not to speak of their construing the French and Spanish
Bible by the help of an English one."[474] Lord Herbert of Cherbury,
philosopher and gallant, ambassador in France in the time of James I.,
learnt French, Italian, and Spanish, on this translation method, whilst
living in the University or at home. He mastered them, he assures us,
without the help of a tutor, solely by means of Latin or English books
translated into those languages, and of dictionaries.[475]
[Header: FRENCH AND ENGLISH DICTIONARIES]
De la Mothe advised his advanced pupils to read difficult French books
with the help of a dictionary, and there was some supply of works of
this kind at the disposal of Lord Herbert and other students of the
language. It is true that the widespread use of books in both languages
diminished the demand for such manuals, which may not have been easy to
acquire. Yet there was a considerable choice of such works. Holyband had
produced two French-English dictionaries, in 1580 and 1593 respectively,
in which he referred to "those which broke the ice before him." There
had appeared in 1571 an anonymous _Dictionarie Frenche and
English_,[476] printed by Henry Bynneman for Lucas Harrison. This work,
which does not confine itself to words only, but includes phrases as
well, was no doubt known to Holyband. Its author had probably drawn
largely on an earlier dictionary, already mentioned, in which a place
was given to French--the Latin, English, and French Dictionary of John
Veron (1552). The inclusion of French in such a work is a striking
testimony to the importance of French at that time. But when a second
edition of Veron's dictionary was prepared by Ralph Waddington, in 1575,
he "of purpose thought good to leave out the French, both because (he)
saw it was not necessary for English students of Latin, as for that
Maister Barret hath five years since set forth an alvearie sufficient to
instruct those which are desirous to travel in th'understanding of the
French Tongue."
This "alvearie" appeared in 1573, two years after the French-English
dictionary printed for Harrison. It was entitled "_An alvearie or Triple
Dictionarie in English, Latin and French, very profitable for all such
as be desirous of any of those three languages ..._" and was dedicated
to Wm. Cecil, Lord Burghley, then Chancellor of Cambridge University.
Baret had been teaching at Cambridge for eighteen years "pupils studious
of the Latin tongue," and part of their daily task was to translate some
piece of English into Latin "for the more speed and easie attayning of
the same." At last, "perceiving what great trouble it was to come
runnying to (him) for every word they missed,"[477] he made them collect
each day a number of Latin words and phrases, together with their
English equivalents. Within a year or two they had gathered together a
great volume of work, to which, "for the apt similitude between the good
scholers and diligent bees in gathering them wax and honey into their
hive," Baret gave the title of _Alvearie_. At first he had no intention
of publishing the work, but when he went to London he was finally
persuaded to do so, and received help from many of his old pupils who
were then at the Inns of Court, and from several of the best scholars in
various English schools. How Baret first thought of adding French to his
dictionary is not known. He owns that he did not trust his own skill in
this matter, although he had formerly "travelled in divers countries
beyond the seas both for languages and for learning"; but that he "used
the help of M. Chaloner and M. Claudius." By 'M. Claudius,' Baret
possibly meant Holyband, who was often called "Maistre Claude." M.
Chaloner may have been the author of the French-English dictionary
published by Harrison in 1571.
According to the custom of the time, Baret's dictionary was preceded by
a number of commendatory addresses, one of which was by the head-master
of Merchant Taylors' School, Richard Mulcaster. In the dictionary
itself, every English word is first explained, and then its equivalent
in Latin and French given. At the end are tables of the Latin and French
words "placed after the order of the alphabet, whatsoever are to be
found in any other dictionarie. And so as to turn them backwards againe
into Englishe when they reade any Latin or French authors and doubt of
any harde worde therein."
Baret had "gone to God in Heavenlie seates" before the close of 1580,
when there appeared a posthumous second edition of the _Alvearie_. In
this final form Greek has a place by the side of the other languages,
and the title runs, _An Alvearie or quadruple Dictionarie containing
four sundrie tongues, namely, English, Latine, Greeke, and Frenche,
newlie enriched with varietie of wordes, phrases, proverbs, and divers
lightsome observations of grammar_. But there is no table of the Greek
words, as for the Latin and French. Such was the third dictionary of
French words which appeared before Holyband's.[478]
[Header: FRENCH IN LATIN DICTIONARIES]
The place given to French in these early Latin dictionaries is worthy of
notice. No doubt French first entered the schools in this indirect way.
Both Veron's and Baret's works were used in schools; and Baret's
dictionary is included in the list of books mentioned by Charles Hoole
as being specially useful to schoolboys.[479] There are at least two
other school vocabularies in which French was introduced, both due to
the poet and compiler John Higgins, who is said to have been "well read
in classick authors, and withall very well skilled in French."[480] The
first of his lexicographical works was a new and revised edition of
_Huloet's Dictionarie_,[481] which occupied him two years. It appeared
in 1572,[482] a year before Baret's work. Higgins calls himself "late
student in Oxforde," and dedicates the volume to Sir John Peckham. This
edition by Higgins is so much altered that it is almost a new work. One
of the chief changes was the addition of a French version to the Latin
and English, "by whiche you may finde the Latin or French of anye
Englishe woorde you will." For the French, Higgins seems to have drawn
chiefly on the Latin-French dictionary of Robert Estienne, which had
already been published in French, English, and Latin by Jean Veron, in
1552. Higgins also acknowledges his debt to Thierry, whose French-Latin
dictionary appeared twelve years later in 1564. There was a close
relationship between French-Latin and French-English dictionaries.
French is first found side by side with English, in one of these
French-Latin dictionaries--that of Veron; and in subsequent years the
French-English dictionaries are mostly based on one or other of the
French-Latin lexicons. Those due to Robert Éstienne and to Thierry were
probably the sources from which the author of the French-English
dictionary of 1571 drew his material; while Holyband based his
_Treasurie_ (1580), and his Dictionary (1593), respectively, on the
augmented editions of Thierry's work due to Nicot, which appeared in
1573 and 1584.[483]
The second lexicographical work of Higgins, published in 1585, was a
translation, entitled _Nomenclator or Remembrancer of Adrianus Junius,
Physician, divided into two tomes_. It professed to supply the
appropriate names and apt terms for all things under their convenient
titles, in Latin, Greek, French, and English.[484] The English column
was added by Higgins.
Thus by the end of the sixteenth century there had appeared in England
three French-English dictionaries, and several others in which French
found a place by the side of the classical languages. And we may add to
these the French-Latin dictionaries on which they were usually based,
for it seems extremely likely that those students of French who knew
Latin--and practically all of them would know this chief and first of
school subjects--used the French-Latin lexicons as well, in their study
of French, when other means were not available.
Early in the seventeenth century, in 1611, Holyband's French dictionary
of 1593 was succeeded by the celebrated French-English dictionary of
Randle Cotgrave,[485] which occupies in the seventeenth century the
place that Palsgrave's _Esclarcissement_ does in the sixteenth among the
works on the French language produced in England. Although Cotgrave's
work is on a much larger scale than Holyband's, and much superior to
it,[486] there is a close connexion between the two. In the _Stationers'
Register_ Cotgrave's is entered as a dictionary in French and English
first collected by Holyband, and since augmented and altered by
Cotgrave.[487] But the work which no doubt was of most help to Cotgrave
was another French-Latin dictionary, Aimar de Ranconnet's _Tresor de la
Langue Françoise_, revised by Nicot (1606).[488] He had, moreover, read
all sorts of books, old and new, in all dialects, where he found words
not heard of for hundreds of years, which he included in his book, to be
used or left as the reader thought fit. J. L'Oiseau de Tourval,[489] a
Parisian, and friend of Cotgrave, who wrote in French an epistle
prefixed to the dictionary, thought it advisable to assure the reader
that none of these words were of Cotgrave's invention, observing at the
same time that it would be well to revive some of these obsolete and
provincial terms. [Header: COTGRAVE'S DICTIONARY] He also adds that
Cotgrave had sent to France in his eager search for words. M. Beaulieu,
secretary to the British ambassador at Paris, was no doubt Cotgrave's
collaborator in this quest, as Cotgrave tells us elsewhere[490] that he
had received valuable help from M. Beaulieu, as well as from a certain
Mr. Limery.
Cotgrave dedicated his dictionary to Wm. Cecil, Lord Burghley, "his very
good Lord and Maister," whose secretary he was. He declares that he
would have produced a more substantial work to offer to his patron had
not his eyes failed him and forced him "to spend much of their vigour on
this bundle of words." He also offered a copy to the eldest son of James
I., Prince Henry, and received from him a gift of £10.[491] The price of
the dictionary seems to have been 11s. Cotgrave sent two copies to M.
Beaulieu at Paris, and wrote requesting payment of 22s., which they cost
him; for, he says, "I have not been provident enough to reserve any of
them and therefore am forced to be beholden for them to a base and
mechanicall generation, that suffers no respect to weigh down a private
gain."[492]
Cotgrave's dictionary was much superior to anything of the sort which
had yet appeared. In addition to giving the meaning of each French word
in English, with an indication of its gender in the case of nouns, and,
in the case of adjectives, of the formation of the feminine form,
Cotgrave supplied a collection of illustrative phrases, idioms, and
proverbs. At the end are found "briefe directions for such as desire to
learne the French tongue," giving a succinct treatment of the
pronunciation of the letters, followed by a description of the various
parts of speech.
This really remarkable work, which is still of considerable utility to
the modern student, reigned supreme throughout the greater part of the
seventeenth century. A second edition was issued in 1632, when Cotgrave
was still alive. The only change in this issue is the addition of a
"most copious Dictionarie of the English set before the French by R. S.
L." This R. S. L. was Robert Sherwood, Londoner, who taught French and
English in London, and also had a French school for a time. He gave his
dictionary the title of _Dictionarie Anglois et François pour l'utilité
de tous ceux qui sont desireux de deux langues_,[493] and addressed it
to the "favorables lecteurs françois, alemans et autres." The English
reader he advises to look for fuller information as to "the gender of
all French nouns, and the conjugation of all French verbs" in Cotgrave's
dictionary; the small space to which he was limited did not allow him to
provide such information. Like Cotgrave, Sherwood closes with rules of
grammar, in the form of observations on English pronunciation and on the
English verbs. Sherwood's work is the earliest of the English-French
dictionaries. Both Baret and Higgins had placed English before French,
and no doubt Sherwood made use of their works, as well as of
English-Latin dictionaries. Baret, however, gives an indication of the
greater demand there was for French-English vocabularies, by supplying a
table of French words at the end of his work. Moreover, the object of
Sherwood's lexicon was less to facilitate translation from English to
French than to teach English to foreigners.
In 1650 Cotgrave's dictionary was issued in a revised and augmented
edition by James Howell, the famous letter-writer.[494] This edition is
preceded by a lengthy essay on the French language, tracing its growth
from the earliest times, and taken, without acknowledgement, from
Pasquier's _Recherches_. Howell had already put much of the same matter
in a series of letters addressed to the Earl of Clare in his _Epistolae
Ho-Elianae_,[495] and repeated it in his glossary of English, French,
Italian, and Spanish, the _Lexicon Tetraglotten_ (1660). He quotes
several examples of old French in both prose and verse, and adds on his
own account a praise of Richelieu and the Academy recently founded by
the cardinal. [Header: JAMES HOWELL] He also discusses the question as
to where the best French was spoken--at the Court, among scholars at the
University, or lawyers at the Courts of Parliament--and is inclined to
share the general opinion of the day, which made the Court the supreme
arbiter in matters of language.
Cotgrave, it has been seen, included all sorts of words in his
dictionary. Howell thought it necessary to distinguish obsolete and
provincial words, and, accordingly, with the help of "a noble and
knowing French gentleman," he marked such terms with a small cross. He
also initiated another change by placing the grammar before the
dictionary instead of after it, as Cotgrave did: "for a dictionary which
contains the whole bulk of a language to go before the grammar is to
make the building precede the basis. Therefore it was held more
consentaneous to reason, and congruous to order that the grammar should
be put here in the first place, for Art observes the method of Nature to
make us creep before we go." He likewise made a few additions to
Cotgrave's rules, and appended a dialogue in French and English,
"consisting of some of the extraordinary and difficult criticall phrases
which are meer Gallicismes, and pure idiomes of the French tongue"; and
also a passage of French prose, in the old spelling and also according
to the reformed orthography introduced by the Academy.
In 1660 appeared another edition of Cotgrave, still further enlarged by
Howell.[496] Some years previously copies of the edition of 1650, "with
blank pages sown between the leaves," had been sent by the printer "to
knowing persons, true lovers of the French," who were invited to enter
on the blank pages any word they came across in their reading which was
not in the dictionary; by means of this plan several hundred additional
words were gathered together, many being "new invented terms, which the
admired Mons. Scudéry, and other late Romancers have so happily publisht
in their printed volumes." After Howell's death there appeared yet
another issue of his edition of Cotgrave, in 1673.[497] The printer
employed the same means to increase the number of words as had been so
successfully adopted in 1660.
The appearance of French dictionaries naturally facilitated the reading
of French literature, which in its turn had much influence on the spread
of the knowledge of the language. Lord Herbert of Cherbury, it has been
seen, gained his first knowledge of French by reading it with the help
of a dictionary. And, in spite of the fact that French literature was
widely read in translations,[498] there were many who preferred to read
it in the original. The number of French books in private libraries is
enough to show this. One translator of the time felt it necessary to
apologize for offering an English version (1627) "of the French Knight
Lisander and his lady Calista," contrary to the fashion of the time,
"which is all French."[499] Further testimony is found in the many
French books which were printed in England,[500] in addition to the
books in both French and English. And many English writers of the time
introduced French freely into their own English compositions.[501]
Almost all Englishmen of education could read French, and many, no
doubt, learnt it as Herbert did. [Header: STUDY OF FRENCH LITERATURE]
Milton, who differed from most of his countrymen in his decided
preference for Italian, taught both languages to his two pupils and
nephews, Edward and John Philips, on this method of reading. For Italian
they read Giovanni Villani's _History_, and for French "a great part of
Pierre Davity, the famous geographer of France in his time."[502] In
fashionable circles the case was the same, and French romances and
collections of _nouvelles_ were much in vogue. Lady Brilliana Harley,
for instance, who later distinguished herself by defending her castle in
Herefordshire against the Royalists, spent much of her time reading
French literature. She wrote asking her son, then at Magdalen College,
Oxford (1638-9), to send her books in French, as she "had rather reade
any thinge in that tounge than in Inglisch."[503] She would even while
away days of sickness by translating passages of Calvin, whom the
English Protestants, yielding to the general prejudice in favour of all
things French, followed in preference to Luther. Not infrequently,
moreover, works in other languages were read in French versions, just as
such versions were frequently the medium of translation; Drummond of
Hawthornden read _Orlando Furioso_ and the _Azolani_ of Bembo in French,
as well as the works of the Swiss theologian and follower of Zwingli,
Thomas Erastus.[504]
Among the most eager advocates of the reading of French literature were
naturally the French teachers of the time. One of the chief objections
raised against Holyband's system of distinguishing the unpronounced
letters was that the student would be at a loss when he came to read
French books. Holyband, however, protested that such was not the case,
and that "the cavillation of these ignorantes who measure other men's
wit according to their owne" was in contradiction to his experience,
which daily showed him the contrary. As to his reading, Holyband would
first have the learner "reade halfe a score chapters of the New
Testament, because it was both easie and profitable:[505] then let him
take in hand any of the works of Monsieur de Launay, otherwise called
Pierre Boaystuau, as the best and the most elegant writer of our tongue.
His workes be _le Theatre du monde_, the tragicall histories, the
prodigious histories. Sleidan's commentaries in frenche be excellently
translated. Philippe de Commins, when he is corrected is very profitable
and wise." The _Nouveau Testament_ of de Bèze, Boiasteau's _Théâtre du
monde_, and Sleidan's _Commentaries_[506] were all books well known in
England, and Holyband himself prepared an edition of Boiasteau.[507] An
additional reason, according to him, for retaining the unsounded
consonants was to facilitate the reading of the older monuments of the
French language. He also advised the perusal of Marot's works, of the
_Amadis_ of Herberay des Essarts, of François de Belleforest's _Histoire
Universelle du monde_, of the _Vies et Morales de Plutarque_, in Amyot's
version, and of the collection of stories, on the plan of the
_Decameron_, which its author, Jacques Yver, had entitled _Le Printemps_
(1572),[508] by way of contrast with his own name.
Evidently Holyband's choice of French literature was influenced to some
extent by his religious sympathies. It is curious that he makes no
mention of Ronsard, who was much read in England, and one of the
favourite authors of the Queen. Bellot in his Grammar had similar if not
identical ambitions. He sought to enable his pupils to read the _Amadis_
of Des Essarts, Marot, de Bèze, du Bellay's lyrics, Froissart, Ronsard,
Collet[509] and Jodelle "racontans l'un l'amour et l'autre la guerre
cruelle." Pibrac and Du Bartas have already been mentioned as favourite
authors. It was to encourage his pupils to take delight in the "profound
learning and flowing sweetness of the French poets, especially the
divine works of that matchlesse du Bartas," that a French teacher of the
seventeenth century, Pierre Erondell, printed at the end of his book for
teaching the language, the New Testament story of the Centurion,
rendered by himself into French verse. "This poor work," he quaintly
writes, will encourage learners to read better ones, "because everything
is better known by his contrarye and the sweet sweeter, after that the
mouth hath tasted of the sharpe sower."
Naturally writings of a religious character were much in favour with
these teachers. [Header: AUTHORS USUALLY READ] Holyband advised the
reading of de Bèze's New Testament, and several times we hear of "the
French Bible" being printed in England.[510] The Liturgy in French[511]
was also printed, and would be useful to English students of French
attending the French Church.
French teachers were not the only zealous advocates of the reading of
French literature. Most of the writers on polite education of the time
give similar advice, although for different reasons. "For statesmen,
French authors are the best," wrote Francis Osborne in his _Advice to a
son_,[512] "and most fruitful in negociations, and memoirs left by
public ministers, and by their secretaries published after their
deaths." Cleland names the works of the many learned historiographers of
France he would have the future diplomat and aspirant to the services of
the State read: "Engerrand of Munstrellet, Philip of Commines, the Lord
of Haillant, who is both learned and profitable and pleasant in my
conceit. The Commentaries of Bellay and the Inventorie of John Serres,
newlie printed and worthie to be read, both for the good and compendious
compiling of the storie and also for the French eloquence wherin he
floweth. For militarie affairs, yee maie read the Lord of Noue, who is
somwhat difficil for some men, and also the Commentaries of the L.
Monluc, which are good both for a young souldier, and an old
captaine."[513]
Bodin was another of the authors specially recommended. Sir Philip
Sidney counsels his brother Robert to read him with particular
attention, and James Howell[514] includes him in a list of "good French
writers," which varies slightly from that of Cleland: "For the general
history of France, Serres is one of the best, and for the modern times,
d'Aubigni, Pierre Mathieu, and du Pleix: for the politicall and martiall
government du Haillan, De la Noue, Bodin, and the Cabinet: Touching
Commines, who was contemporary with Machiavel, 'twas a witty speech of
the last Queen mother of France that he made more Heretiques in policy
than Luther ever did in religion. Therefore he requires a reader of
riper years."
FOOTNOTES:
[449] This was the fee charged by Holyband in his French school.
[450] The interlinear arrangement used in the Middle Ages had been
abandoned in all but a few exceptional cases. These teachers no doubt
agreed with the pedagogue John Brinsley, the chief exponent of the
method of translation, that interlinears were confusing because the eye
catches the two languages simultaneously.
[451] F. Watson, _English Grammar Schools_, Cambridge, 1908, pp. 305
_sqq._ J. E. Sandys, "Education in Shakespeare's England," in
_Shakespeare's England_, i. pp. 231 _sqq._
[452] Cp. Rashdall, _Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages_, ii. p.
603.
[453] Article on Lily in _Dict. Nat. Biog._, and Watson, _Grammar
Schools_, pp. 243 _sqq._
[454] Cp. W. Lilly's _History of His Life_, "Autobiographies," I.,
London, 1828, pp. 12, 13; _The Autobiography of Adam Martindale_,
Chetham Soc., 1845, pp. 14, 15, and similar diaries and memoirs.
[455] Published at Brabant, 1538; cp. F. Watson, _Tudor Schoolboy Life_,
1908.
[456] By Leonard Culman.
[457] Less widely used were the _Dialogues_ of John Posselius, a German
philosopher. They treat of the school and the study of the classical
tongues. They were printed in London in Latin and English in 1625, as
_Dialogues conteyning all the most familiar and usefull words of the
Latin Tongue_.
[458] Which took the form of translating: "For all your constructions in
Grammar Scholes be nothing els but translations," Ascham, _The
Scholemaster_ (1570), ed. Arber, 1869, p. 92.
[459] C. Hoole, _An advertisement touching ... school books_, 1659.
[460] _Institution of a young nobleman_, 1607, p. 78.
[461] Quoted by F. Watson, _Grammar Schools_, p. 246.
[462] _The Boke named the Governour_, ed. Crofts, 1883, i. p. 33.
[463] _The Scholemaster_ (1570), ed. Arber, London, 1869, p. 28.
[464] Elyot, _op. cit._ i. p. 54.
[465] Ascham, _op. cit._ p. 92.
[466] F. Watson, _Grammar Schools_, p. 264. "Much writing breedeth ready
speaking," was one of his precepts.
[467] Ascham himself got his ideas mainly from Cicero (_De Oratore_).
[468] _The Scholemaster, ed. cit._ p. 26. Ascham also suggests the use
of a third paper book, in which a collection of the different forms of
speech and phrases should be made from the material read.
[469] 1574?-1637, the second of the five sons of Edmund Lisle of
Tanbridge in Surrey, _Dict. Nat. Biog._, ad nom.
[470] This is the title of the 1625 edition, printed by John Hoviland.
That of 1596 was printed by L. Bollifant for R. Wilkins, and entitled
_Babilon a part of Du Bartas his second Weeke_ (Pyne, _List of Books_,
1874-8, i. p. 132); cp. _Stationers' Register_, iii. 98 (_A Booke called
the Colonyes of Bartas with the commentarye of S. G. S. englished and
enlarged by Wm. L'Isle_, 1597).
[471] This is a copy bound separately from the rest of the 1605 edition
of Sylvester's _Divine Weekes_, with which it was issued.
[472] S. Lee, in _Dict. Nat. Biog._
[473] A long list may be compiled from the _Registers of the Stationers'
Company_. J. Wolfe and R. Field, both printers of French grammars,
received many licences to print books in French and English. See also
Upham, _French Influence in English Literature_, New York, 1908
(Appendix I., pp. 471-505). Many of these works are on religious topics;
others belong to no particular category, in the style of Bellot's
_Jardin de Vertu_; many on topical subjects, such as news-letters and
pamphlets on the French wars, were printed in French more to appeal to a
larger public than to give instruction in the language.
[474] _An advertisement touching ... school books_, 1659.
[475] _Autobiography_, ed. S. Lee, 2nd ed., 1906, p. 23.
[476] Hazlitt, _Bibliog. Collections_, iv. 111. In 1584 Newbury and
Denham received licence to print "the Dictionary in French and English,
in 4to, and all other dictionaries French and English in quarto,"
_Stationers' Register_, ii. 438.
[477] "Knowing then of no other dictionary to help us, but Sir Thomas
Eliot's _Librarie_, which was come out a little before."
[478] On Holyband's debts to these works see Miss E. Farrer's _La Vie et
les oeuvres de Claude de Sainliens_, pp. 70 _sqq._
[479] F. Watson, _Grammar Schools_, p. 458.
[480] _Dict. Nat. Biog._, ad nom.
[481] _Abcedarium Anglico-Latinum_, London, 1552.
[482] Folio, printed by Thomas Marshe.
[483] Farrer, _op. cit._ p. 72.
[484] First appeared at Leyden in 1567. Higgins' edition was printed for
Ralph Newberie and Henrie Denham, 8vo.
[485] _A Dictionarie of the French and English Tongues._ London, printed
by A. Islip, 1611, folio.
[486] Cp. _Revue des Deux Mondes_, 1901, v. p. 243.
[487] _Stationers' Register_, iii. 432.
[488] Farrer, _op. cit._ p. 86.
[489] Himself a good linguist, who translated some of James I.'s
compositions into French, and was for many years in the service of the
English Foreign Office; cp. S. Lee, _Beginnings of French Translations
from the English_. Transactions of the Bibliog. Soc. vii., 1908.
[490] In an autograph letter; cp. _Dict. Nat. Biog._, ad nom.
[491] _Rolls of expenses of Prince Henry_, "Revels at Court," ed. P.
Cunningham, New Shakespeare Soc., 1842 (Preface).
[492] Harl. MSS. 7002, quoted _Dict. Nat. Biog._ At the end of one of
the Brit. Mus. copies is the MS. inscription: "Mr. James Winwood, his
book and sent him out of England by John More the 18th May [1611]."
Evidently Cotgrave's work made its way rapidly into France.
[493] Printed by Adam Islip, 4to.
[494] _A French English Dictionary, compil'd by Mr. Randle Cotgrave,
with another in English and French. Whereunto are newly added the
Animadversions and Supplements etc. of James Howell, Esquire._ London,
printed by W. H. for Rd. Whitaker ... 4to. Sherwood's dictionary was
printed by Susan Islip.
[495] Ninth ed., 1726, pp. 470 _sqq._
[496] _A French and English Dictionary composed by Mr. Randle Cotgrave,
with another in English and French. Whereunto are added sundry
animadversions with supplements of many hundreds of words never before
printed; with accurate castigations throughout the whole work, and
distinctions of the obsolete words from those that are now in use.
Together with a dialogue consisting of all gallicisms, with additions of
the most useful and significant proverbs, with other refinements
according to cardinall Richelieu's late Academy. For the furtherance of
the young learners, and the advantage of all others that endeavour to
arrive to the most exact knowledge of the French this work is exposed to
publick...._ Printed by Wm. Hunt in Pye Corner.
[497] Title same as in 1660. "Printed for Anthony Dolle, and are to be
sold by Th. Williams at the Golden Ball in Hosier Lane."
[498] Many important literary productions in different languages came
into England through the medium of a French version--for instance,
Plutarch, _Amadis_, the _Politics_ of Aristotle. Cp. Upham, _French
Influence in English Literature_, p. 13. The influence of Senecan
tragedy reached England through the intermediary of the "French Seneca,"
Robert Garnier (Schelling, _Elizabethan Drama_, ii. pp. 5 _sqq._ and p.
512). In 1612 licence was granted N. Bulter to print an English
translation from French of so popular a work as Ovid's _Metamorphoses_
(_Stationers' Register_, iii. 489).
[499] The _Histoire tragi-comique de nostre temps sous les noms de
Lysandre et de Caliste_ (1615) was the work of d'Audigier.
[500] Thus the _Préau des Fleurs meslées, contenant plusieurs et
differentz discours_ of François Voilleret, sieur de Florizel, was
printed in London in 1600 (?), and dedicated to the Prince of Wales. In
1620 it was licensed to be printed in French and English, provided the
English translation be approved. In 1619 a French translation of Bacon's
_Essays_ was published at London, and in 1623 Field received a licence
to print a French translation of Camden's _Annals_ (originally in Latin)
by J. Bellequent, avocat au Parlement de Paris (_Stationers' Register_,
iv. 106).
[501] As did Shakespeare (cp. Schmidt, _Shakespeare Lexicon_, Berlin,
1902, vol. ii.) and several of the lesser poets. French refrains were
also sometimes used, as in Greene's _Never too Late_ (Infida's song):
"Wilt thou let thy Venus di,
N'oseres vous mon bel amy?
Adon were unkinde say I,
Je vous en prie, pitie me:
N'oseres vous mon bel, mon bel,
N'oseres vous, mon bel amy?"
See S. Lee, _French Renaissance in England_, Oxford, 1910, p. 243.
Sylvester even ventured to write poems in French.
[502] _Lives of Ed. and John Philips, nephews of Milton_ (1694),
reprinted by William Godwin, 1815, pp. 362-3.
[503] _Letters_, Camden Soc., 1854, p. 13, and _passim_.
[504] Upham, _op. cit._ p. 8.
[505] In 1551 the New Testament and a Book of Prayers in French were
printed by Thomas Gaultier. _Handlist of Books_, Bibliographical
Society, 1913.
[506] The German historian's commentary, _De Statu religionis et
reipublicae Carolo Quinto Caesare_, appeared in Latin in 1555, and in
French in 1557.
[507] _Le théâtre du monde . . . revue et corrigé par C. de Sainliens_,
1595. Printed by George Bishop and dedicated to "the Scotch Ambassador,
Jacques de Betoun, Archevesque de Glasco."
[508] Which was very popular. It reached twelve editions before the end
of the century.
[509] No doubt the poet Claude Collet.
[510] Cp. _Stationers' Register_, iii. 468. Another work of a religious
nature was the _Catechisme ou instruction familiere sur les principaus
points de la Religion Chrestienne_ (par M. Dielincourt), _Stationers'
Register_, iii. 410.
[511] _Stationers' Register_, ii. 451, 452.
[512] 1656, pp. 12-13.
[513] _Institution of a young nobleman_, p. 152.
[514] _Directions for forreine travel_ (1642), ed. Arber, 1869, p. 21.