Читать книгу The Teaching and Cultivation of the French Language in England during Tudor and Stuart Times - K. Rebillon Lambley - Страница 47

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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