Читать книгу The Teaching and Cultivation of the French Language in England during Tudor and Stuart Times - K. Rebillon Lambley - Страница 32

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anglia cui mater fuerat, cui Gallia nutrix

Matri nutricem praefero mente meam.[16]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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