K. Rebillon Lambley

THE INFLUENCE OF RELIGIOUS REFUGEES ON THE TEACHING OF FRENCH IN ENGLAND—OPENINGS FOR THEM AS TEACHERS—DEMAND FOR TEXT-BOOKS—FRENCH SCHOOLS IN ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND

Religion, the question of all questions in the sixteenth century, was destined, incidentally, to exercise a great influence on the teaching of French in England. The conflicts resulting from the fierce hatreds aroused by the Reformation compelled many Protestants to seek asylum from the triumphant Catholic reaction abroad, and England was the land to which many of them fled.[289] Among these refugees were many who took upon themselves the task of teaching their native tongue to the English. The second half of the sixteenth century was the time when this influence was most strongly felt, although it is not altogether negligible in the years immediately preceding. In France the Reformation had at first been favourably received at Court, but in the third decade of the century persecution began to drive some Protestants from their native land. They made their way to England with some trepidation at this early date,[290] for Henry VIII., in spite of his breach with Rome, had but little sympathy with the Protestants, although he refused on several occasions to surrender fugitive heretics to the French king.[291] On the accession of Edward VI. in 1547, however, England became FOREIGNERS IN ENGLANDa more hospitable abode for the Protestants, driven from France in increasing numbers by the persecutions sanctioned by Henry II., whose reign coincided with that of Edward. When Mary came to the throne all protection extended to these fugitives was withdrawn, and we find many of their protectors fleeing in their turn "to the Church and Christian congregation, then dispersed in foreine realmes, as to the safest bay."[292]

The return of the English Government to Protestantism in the reign of Elizabeth coincided with the period of increased persecution on the Continent. Refugees arrived in great numbers, not only Huguenots from France, but also subjects of Philip II., Dutch, Flemings, and Walloons, fleeing from the cruelties of Alva.[293] These inhabitants of the Low Countries came to England in greater numbers than the Huguenots.[294] Many of them, such as the Walloons and Burgundians, spoke French; and, while the chief teachers of the time were drawn from the Huguenots, a large group of these French-speaking Netherlanders also joined the profession. To these two classes of French teachers must be added a third, the Roman Catholics, who formed the largest proportion of the foreigners in England.[295]

The number of foreigners, augmented by the arrival of the refugee Dutch and French, created a situation which required serious consideration. These foreigners now formed a large fraction of the general population—probably about one in twenty of the inhabitants of London.[296] It became indispensable to keep some record of them, especially as there was a danger that spies and Roman Catholic emissaries might enter the country under the guise of refugees, and the overcrowding resulting from the arrival of so many aliens was becoming a serious matter. In earlier reigns the names of strangers in London had been registered; but in the time of Elizabeth a census, both numerical and religious, was taken more systematically, and at more and more frequent intervals. In these returns of aliens dwelling in London,[297] the names of many French teachers are preserved. Frequently their profession is stated, and we are told what church they attended and whether or not they were denizens, as well as the part of London in which they dwelt, and, in the lay subsidies, the amount they had to pay towards the heavy taxes levied on strangers.

Other names are preserved in the lists of the grants of letters of denization.[298] This grant made the precarious position of foreigners in England more secure. Denization became almost indispensable to any one wishing to exercise a craft or trade. These letters gave the recipient much the same privileges as a native, except that he was still subject to special taxation.[299] Only those intending to settle in England would trouble to take out letters of denization; and that many of these foreigners' stay in England was only temporary is shown by the fact that, when the number of strangers was greatest, as after the St. Bartholomew massacre, there is no marked increase in the number of denizations granted.

Means for registering the Protestant section of the community of foreigners were provided through the Dutch and French churches in London.[300] In 1550, Edward VI. had granted the dissolved monastery of the Austin Friars to the foreigners as a place of worship; some months later, owing to their increase in numbers, they were allowed the use of another building—St. Antony's Hospital in Threadneedle Street. The congregation was divided, the Dutch part remaining in the original church, while the French and the Walloons and other French-speaking refugees moved to Threadneedle Street. Both churches, each with two pastors,[301] were under the control of a Superintendent. But when, in the time of Elizabeth, the churches rose to new life, after their suppression in the reign of Mary, the Superintendent was replaced by the Archbishop of Canterbury. This change, however, did not RECEPTION OF REFUGEES IN ENGLANDprevent the refugee congregations from enjoying many of their former liberties, for in the time of Elizabeth the Archbishops, who had themselves experienced the hardships of exile in the reign of Mary, took a particular interest in the cause of the refugees. The English, indeed, complained, not entirely without reason, that the foreigners were allowed greater religious freedom than they themselves.

As French and Dutch refugees settled in different parts of the country, similar churches arose in these settlements. By the end of the reign of Elizabeth there were French-Walloon churches in existence at Canterbury, Glastonbury, Sandwich, Southampton, Rye, and Norwich. In 1552 all strangers were ordered to repair either to their own church or to the English parish church. These injunctions were renewed in the time of Elizabeth and became a useful means of checking the number of refugees in London. From time to time, during this reign, the Archbishop requested the ministers of the foreign churches to send him a list of their communicants. Foreigners who did not attend any church were not allowed to apply for the privilege of letters of denization.

Thus the aliens who arrived in England in such large numbers in the second part of the sixteenth century had many restrictions placed upon them, especially if they were engaged in any craft or trade which might arouse the commercial jealousy of the English. In the teaching profession such rivalry would not be felt to the same extent, though it did actually exist. In any circumstance, however, all the exiles had to endure the hatred and insults of the common people, from which, nearly two centuries later, Voltaire only escaped without injury thanks to his ready wit. Riots such as those of Evil May Day (1517) were directed mainly against foreign traders, but all foreigners, especially Frenchmen, were a continual butt for the insults of the mob. Nicander Nucius remarks that the common people in England do not entertain one kindly sentiment towards the French. "Ennemis du franÇois" is one of the epithets applied to the English by De la Porte in his collection of epithets (Paris, 1571) on the different nations. The French priest, Étienne Perlin, who was in England during the last two years of the reign of Edward VI., and thoroughly hated the country, calling it "la peste d'un pays et ruine," speaks bitterly of the contrast between the courteous reception the English receive in France, and the greeting of the French in England with the cry, "French dogue": "it pleaseth me not that these churls being in their own country spit in our faces, and they being in France are treated with honour, as if they were little gods."[302] All foreign visitors to England are at one in their complaints of the lack of courtesy among the people. The great scholar Casaubon says he was more insulted in London than he ever was in Paris; stones were thrown at his window day and night, and once he was wounded in the street on his way to pay his respects at Court.[303]

All these visitors, nevertheless, recognize that the English nobility and gentry and those in authority are "replete with benevolence and good order," and as courteous and affable as the people are uncivil.[304] And thus we find foreigners, especially refugees, welcomed to chairs at the English universities, and foreign students having their fees refunded on showing they had suffered "for religion," and receiving ecclesiastical preferment.[305] Most of the chief families in the realm, we are told, received refugees into their midst. Laurence Humphrey[306] exhorts these noble families to fulfil the sacred duty of hospitality towards strangers, especially religious exiles, whose sufferings many of them had themselves experienced in the reign of Mary, and to provide them with necessary livings, admit them to fellowships, and allow them yearly stipends. "Which well I wot, the noblest Prince Edward of happy memory most liberally did both in London and either university, whom some Dukes, Nobles, and Bishops imitated, chiefly the reverend Father and late Primate of England ... Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury.... Amongst the Nobles not the least praise earned Henry Gray, Marquis of Dorset, and Duke of Suffolk now a noble citizen of Heaven, who liberally relieved many learned exiles. The like may be said of many others."

Cranmer had entertained at Lambeth Pierre Alexandre and "diverse other pious Frenchmen," including Antony TUTORS IN PRIVATE FAMILIESRudolph Chevallier, who was tutor to Elizabeth for a short time. Matthew Parker, his successor to the see in the time of Elizabeth, followed his example and declared it to be a Christian duty to befriend "these gentle and profitable strangers." Cecil, Walsingham, and other dignitaries of the time also became their protectors, and, recognizing the advantages, both intellectual and commercial, which accrued to the country, sought by all means to ward off the hostile measures demanded from time to time by the English bourgeoisie.

One French teacher of the time, G. de la Mothe, says that so great was the affection of the English nobility and gentry for the French that few of them were without a Frenchman in their houses. Thus Pierre Baro, a native of Étampes and student of civil law who came to England at the time of the St. Bartholomew massacre, was "kindly entertained in the family of Lord Burghley, who admitted him to eat at his own table." Subsequently he went to Trinity College, Cambridge, and became Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at that university on the recommendation of his patron, besides being admitted to the degrees of Bachelor and Licentiate of Civil Law, and Doctor of Divinity (1576).[307] Lord Buckhurst had for a time in his house Claude de Sainliens or Holyband, the most popular French teacher of the time, and several other strangers; while Sir Nicholas Throckmorton gave shelter to two Burgundians, one Dutchman, and four Frenchmen, "whose names cannot be learned."[308]

In many instances we know that these refugees taught French when thus received into noble families, and it is extremely probable that such was almost always the case, for French was one of the chief studies of the higher classes of society and held an important place in the courtly education of the time. This partiality for the language was called one of the rare vocations which distinguished the English nobility. An idea of the intellectual accomplishments necessary to a young gentleman of the time may be gathered from the programme drawn up for Gregory, the son of Mr. Secretary Cromwell;[309] this comprises "French, Latin, writing, playing at weapons, casting of accounts, pastimes of instruments." Wilson, the author of the earliest treatise on rhetoric in English,[310] varies this scheme slightly; he commends the gentleman "for his skill in French, or Italian, or cosmography, Laws, Histories of all countries, gifts of inditing, playing on instruments, painting, and drawing." Lord Ossory, Duke of Ormond, for example, rode very well, was a good tennis-player, fencer, and dancer, understood music and played well on the guitar and on the lute; French he spoke elegantly, while he read Italian with ease—a careful and significant distinction between the two languages—and, in addition, he was a good historian and well versed in romances.[311]

Thus a place had to be assigned to French in the education of gentlemen. Thomas Cranmer,[312] for instance, wrote to Cromwell in 1539, making suggestions for the establishment of a College in the Cathedral Church at Canterbury, to provide for the instruction of forty students "in the tongues, in sciences, and in French"—a proposal which came to nothing, but is none the less important, as being the first attempt to reinstate French in an educational institution.

In the sixteenth century the long-standing custom among gentlemen of sending their sons to the houses of noblemen for education was still practised to some extent, and French was taught in these little communities.[313] The usual subjects of study were reading, probably writing, and languages, chiefly Latin and French. Sir Thomas More and Roger Ascham were both educated in this way. More, at the age of three, was sent to the house of John Morton, the chancellor, where he learnt French, Latin, Greek, and music. Ascham spent his early years in the house of Sir Humphrey Wingfield, who "ever loved and used to have many children in his house."[314] Sir Henry Wotton was "pleased constantly to breed up one or more hopeful youths which he picked out of Eton School, and took into his own domestic care."[315] It was also customary for young peers to become royal wards. In 1561 Sir Nicholas Bacon devised a plan for their FRENCH IN EDUCATION OF GENTRY"bringing up in virtue and learning" which he submitted to Cecil. According to these articles,[316] the wards were to attend divine service at six in the morning, then to study Latin till eleven; nothing is said of breakfast, but an hour is allowed for dinner; from noon till two o'clock they were to be with the music master, from two to three with the French master, and from three to five with the Latin and Greek masters. The rest of the evening was devoted to prayers, honest pastimes, and music under the direction of a master. No doubt Cecil put this advice into practice. Some years later, Sir Humphrey Gilbert drew up an admirable scheme for the "erection of an Academy in London for the education of her majesty's wards, and others, the youth of Nobility and Gentlemen," which was laid before the queen, probably in 1570. Although this scheme was never carried out, it is of great interest as showing what were the subjects most likely to be taught. Gilbert's plan is very extensive. French, of course, is included in the curriculum—"also there shall be one Teacher of the French tongue which shall be yearly allowed for the same £26. Also he shall be allowed one usher, of the yearly wage of £10." Gilbert urges also the teaching of other modern languages—Italian, to which he assigns about as large a place as to French, and Spanish and High Dutch, to which less importance is attached.[317]

French, then, was a recognized part of the education of the nobility and gentry. Italian, it will be noticed, was also considered desirable, but chiefly for reading purposes.[318] In the Elizabethan era Italian literature had perhaps more influence on English writers than that of France, although it not infrequently reached England through a French medium. But when the first enthusiasm of the early days of the Renaissance had burnt itself out, Italian was not cultivated generally, except by those specially interested in literature or by those who had special reasons for learning it. Nor was Spanish much studied, except for practical purposes and the government services; Richard Perceval, for instance, put his excellent knowledge of the language at the disposal of Lord Burghley for the purpose of deciphering the packets containing the first intelligence of the Armada.[319] Neither language could be a dangerous rival to French, which alone was studied generally, and by ever-increasing numbers.

It was in private tuition that those Frenchmen desirous of teaching their language, or driven to do so by stress of circumstances, would find the readiest opening and the largest demand for their services. Turning to the various registers of aliens, the earliest notices we find of French tutors are in the grant of letters of denization for the year 1544.[320] In that year one, John Verone, a French and Latin tutor to the children of William Morris, a gentleman usher to the king, received the grant, as did also a certain Honorie Ballier, a Frenchman who had been ten years in England, and was engaged in teaching his language to the children of the Lord Admiral, Lord Lisle, Duke of Northumberland. Yet another teacher received the same privilege in this year—John Veron, one of the "eminentest preachers" of the time, and the author of various religious controversial works. He gained considerable preferment in the Anglican Church, and once preached before the queen at the Cross in St. Paul's Churchyard,—"a bold as well as an eloquent man," and a perfect master of the English tongue.[321] In the earlier part of his life in England, where he arrived about 1536, Veron had been engaged in teaching gentlemen's children; a task in which, say his letters of denization (1544), he "doth yet continue with intent ever so to persevere." Veron manifested his interest in the teaching of Latin and French by publishing a Latin, French, and English dictionary in 1552, the first dictionary, published in England, in which a place is given to French. It is based on the Latin-French Dictionary of Robert Éstienne,[322] with the addition of a column in English, and entitled Dictionariolum puerorum tribus linguis Latina, Anglica, et Gallica conscriptum cui anglicam interpretionem adjecit Joannes Veron.[323]

The impetus imparted to the teaching of French by the arrival of these large numbers of refugees naturally led to an increased TEXT-BOOKS FOR TEACHING FRENCHproduction of books for teaching the language. Nearly all the grammars written in the second half of the sixteenth century are the work of Frenchmen,[324] the English, after their first initiative, soon giving place to the French writers on the language, although not without some protest. Some of these teachers no doubt made use of one or other of the grammars which had appeared in French; many of them taught without any such help, and a few were able to use one or other of the grammars which had already been published in England, while yet others set to work to compile text-books of their own. As many of them were, or had been, employed in noblemen's houses, and had composed their grammars from material used in teaching in these noble families, it was easy for most of them to find patrons for their works,[325] and thus secure a greater measure of success by offering them to the public under the protection of some well-known and powerful name, which would "shadow these tender plants" from the "over violent rays of reproachful censurings." To dedicate a grammar to some famous pupil, with praise of his rare knowledge of French acquired by means of its contents and the excellent method employed by his tutor, the author, was a very good form of self-advertisement, freely used by the French teachers of the time. Among patrons of French grammars were Edward VI. and particularly Elizabeth, who is, says one of these writers, "le vray port de retraite et asyle asseurÉ de ceux qui, faisans profession de l'Evangile, souffrent ores persecution soubs la Tyrannie de l'Antichrist"; another adds that she has "des estrangers les coeurs a volontÉ." Lord Burghley, Sir Henry Wallop, Sir Philip Wharton, and other influential men of the time also figure among the patrons of French teachers.

These French grammars which appeared in the second half of the sixteenth century are of a decidedly more popular kind than those of Palsgrave and Duwes, and appeal to a larger public. The earlier grammars were written for the special use of royalty and the highest ranks of the nobility. Barclay, however, differs from his rivals in having a wider aim; his grammar is intended for the "pleasure of all englysshe men as well gentylmen marchauntes, as other common people that are not expert in the sayd langage." Palsgrave also, by way of epilogue, expresses the hope that the "nobility of the realm and all other persons, of whatever state and condition whatsoever, may in their tender age, by means of it the sooner acquire a knowledge of French by their great pains and study"; but it is clear that the size and price of his book, not to mention the restrictions he placed on its sale, would prevent it from fulfilling any such aim.

In this new series of French text-books there appeared nothing which could compare in importance with the great work of Palsgrave; they were all the hasty product of teachers, and intended to meet a pressing practical demand. The authors had not the time, even if they had had the ability, to produce any comprehensive study of the language, and, consequently, their works are of more value as showing how French was taught in England, and its popularity here, than as a store of philological material for the historical grammarian. Rules of grammar are usually reduced to as small a compass as possible; and the largest part of the volumes is occupied by dialogues in French and English, which give lively and often dramatic pictures of contemporary family life, and of the busy London streets of the time. A place is also given to familiar phrases, collections of proverbs, and golden sayings.

The public to which such text-books appealed was wider, including merchants and commoners, as well as the gentry. Nor was the demand for tutors in the language confined to the higher classes. At this time the great middle classes were rising to wealth and prominence, and demanding a share in the intellectual distinctions of their social betters. "As for gentlemen, they be made good cheap in England," writes Sir Thomas Smith,[326] in reference to the democratic movement. In this new class of Englishman, the teachers of French recruited a large number of their pupils. And so the French teacher who visited a clientÈle of pupils became a familiar figure in the London of the later sixteenth century.

The numerous French-speaking inhabitants of London, occupied in various trades and crafts in the city, were, so to speak, his unconscious collaborators, for the proportion of such foreigners in London was large enough to have some influence on the spread of the knowledge of French. SHAKESPEARE'S KNOWLEDGE OF FRENCHWe have an instance of this indirect influence in the case of Shakespeare. From 1598 he lodged for about six years, and possibly longer, in the house of a Huguenot, one Christopher Montjoy, who lived in Silver Street, Cripplegate[327]—a well-to-do neighbourhood, and the resort of many foreigners. Montjoy was one of the French head-dressers who were in such demand at that time. His wife, daughter, and also his apprentice, Stephen Bellot, formed the rest of the household, with whom Shakespeare seems to have lived on fairly intimate terms; he acted as a mediator in arranging a marriage between Montjoy's daughter and Bellot, and, some years later, was drawn into a family quarrel concerning a dowry which Bellot claimed and Montjoy refused to pay; in 1612 Bellot took the matter into the Court of Requests, and Shakespeare was one of the witnesses summoned. Finally the matter was referred to the consistory of the French Church, which decided in Bellot's favour.[328] It was no doubt during his sojourn in the house of this Huguenot family that he improved his knowledge of French, of which he gives evidence in his works.[329] The two plays in which he uses the language most freely—Henry V. and The Merry Wives of Windsor—were produced during the early time of his residence with Montjoy, whose name is given to a French Herald in Henry V. In The Merry Wives the French physician, Doctor Caius, speaks a mixture of broken English and French,[330] and in Henry V. French is introduced freely into a number of the scenes,[331] while one, in which Katharine of France receives a lesson in English from her French maid, is entirely in French, and is here quoted for convenience' sake:[332]

(Enter Katharine and Alice.)

Kath. Alice, tu as estÉ en Angleterre, et tu parles bien le langage.

Alice. Un peu, madame.Kath. Je te prie, m'enseignez; il fault que j'apprenne À parler. Comment appellez-vous la main en Anglois?

Alice. La main? elle est appellÉe de hand.

Kath. De hand. Et les doigts?

Alice. Les doigts? ma foy, j'oublie les doigts; mais je me soubviendra. Les doigts? je pense y qu'ils sont appellez de fingres; ouy, de fingres.

Kath. La main, de hand; les doigts, de fingres. Je pense que je suis le bon escholier. J'ay gagnÉ deux mots d'Anglois vistement. Comment appellez-vous les ongles?

Alice. Les ongles? nous les appellons, de nails.

Kath. De nails. Escoutez: dites-moy, si ie parle bien: de hand, de fingres, et de nails.

Alice. C'est bien dict, madame; il est fort bon Anglois.

Kath. Dites-moi l'anglois pour le bras.

Alice. De arm, madame.

Kath. Et le coude.

Alice. D'elbow.

Kath. D'elbow. Je m'en fais la rÉpÉtition de tous les mots que vous m'avez appris dÈs À present.

Alice. Il est trop difficile, madame, comme je pense.

Kath. Excusez-moy, Alice; escoutez: de hand, de fingre, de nails, de arm, de bilbow.

Alice. De elbow, madame.

Kath. O Seigneur Dieu! je m'en oublie; de elbow. Comment appelez-vous le col?

Alice. De nick, madame.

Kath. De nick: et le menton?

Alice. De chin.

Kath. De sin. Le col, de nick: le menton, de sin.

Alice. Ouy. Saulve vostre honneur, en vÉritÉ vous prononcez les mots aussi droict que les natifs d'Angleterre.

Kath. Je ne doubte poinct d'apprendre, par la grace Dieu, et en peu de temps.

Alice. N'avez vous pas desjÀ oubliÉ ce que je vous ay enseignÉ?

Kath. Non, je rÉciteray a vous promptement. De hand, de fingre, de mails—

Alice. De nails, madame.

Kath. De nails, de arme, de ilbow.

Alice. Saulve vostre honneur, de elbow.

Kath. Ainsi dis-je; de elbow, de nick, et de sin: comment appelez-vous le pied and la robbe?

Alice. De foot, madame; et de coun.

Kath. De foot, et de coun? O Seigneur Dieu! ce sont mots de son maulvais, corruptible, gros, et impudique, et non pour les dames d'honneur d'user. Je ne vouldrois prononcer cez mots devant les Seigneurs de France, pour tout le monde. Il fault de foot, et de coun, neant-moins. Je reciteray une aultre fois ma leÇon ensemble: de hand, de fingre, de nails, de nick, de sin, de foot, de coun.

Alice. Excellent, madame!

Kath. C'est assez pour une fois; allons-nous À disner.

It is not surprising, remembering Shakespeare's friendship with the Huguenots, to find him quoting from the Genevan Bible in the same play.[333] When he composed it, he must have FRENCH NEGLECTED IN GRAMMAR SCHOOLShad a strong inclination to write French, as he sometimes uses the language rather inconsistently, making the Dauphin, for instance, speak French one moment and English the next.

On the whole, Shakespeare's French seems to have been fairly correct grammatically, if not quite idiomatic.[334] It contains just enough mistakes and anglicisms to make it extremely unlikely that he received help from any Frenchman; for example, we find the Princess Katharine of France saying, "Je suis semblable a les anges." On other occasions, when Englishmen are speaking, Shakespeare purposely makes their French incorrect and clumsy. That he could read French is shown by the fact that some of the originals on which he based his plays were not translated into English.[335] Moreover, he probably read Montaigne in the original, unless, like Cornwallis, Florio allowed him to see his translation in manuscript—a rather remote possibility, as the French would be easier of access. No doubt many others besides Shakespeare owed a good deal of their knowledge of French to direct intercourse with Frenchmen, a means of improvement strongly advocated by the professional teachers of the time. "Get you acquainted with some Frenchman" is their cry.

In addition to the refugees, students or men belonging to no particular craft or profession who took up the teaching of their language on their arrival in England, there were also professional schoolmasters—French, Flemish, and Walloon. Many of the latter, we may surmise, were no doubt driven from their country by the edict issued by Margaret, Duchess of Parma, in 1567. One clause was particularly directed against schoolmasters who might teach any error or false doctrine. None of these teachers, however, would find any opening in the grammar schools, which were then "little nurseries of the Latin tongue." The memorizing of Latin grammar, with the study of rhetoric in the Latin writers, both in verse and prose, formed almost the whole of the curriculum.[336] In the books on education of the time the study of French was equally ignored. These works, however, are mainly from the pen of pedants, and have but little bearing on practical education.[337] For them French was not a 'learned' tongue, in spite of the efforts of Palsgrave to secure its recognition as such.

But it is not difficult to reconcile the general prevalence of the study of French with its absence from the grammar schools. At this time, and throughout the seventeenth century, there was a great division between scholastic education and social requirements.[338] The school and educational writers, in refusing to recognize French, held aloof from the social needs of the day: "non vitae sed scholae discimus"; and in retaining the cosmopolitan atmosphere of the Middle Ages they ignored the new spirit of nationalism which called modern languages into prominence. The school had little, if any, effect in retarding the progress of French, which came to be looked upon in the light of an 'extra,' to be studied privately and with the help of tutors. Many scholars of the public or grammar schools had a private tutor who would teach them French when occasion served. Such, for instance, was the case with Sir Philip Sidney. Fulke Grenville and Sidney both entered Shrewsbury School at the age of ten, in the year 1564. Two years later a letter of Sir Henry Sidney informs us that he had received two letters from his son, one in Latin and the other in French, "whiche I take in good parte, and will you to exercise that Practice and Learning often: For that will stand you in most steade, in that profession of lyf that you are born to live in."[339] Apparently, then, Sidney had received lessons in French either at home or out of school hours. He had also, in all probability, had a French tutor before he went to Shrewsbury.

French, however, was not entirely neglected in all schools. As the grammar schools were "Latin" schools, there arose in the second half of the sixteenth century a considerable PRIVATE FRENCH SCHOOLS number of private "French" schools, where this language received special attention. The earliest of these owed their origin to the refugees, both professional schoolmasters and others. St. Paul's Churchyard, the busy centre of city life, was the quarter round which many of these schools were grouped. There they were most likely to get a good clientÈle, partly, it may be, among those boys attending St. Paul's School who desired, like Sir Philip Sidney, to extend their studies. In St. Paul's Churchyard, also, lived the chief booksellers, who generally seem to have cultivated friendly relations with French teachers, especially those whose books they were commissioned to sell. Frequently they acted as agents for the teachers, who in their grammars advise prospective pupils to "inquire" at the bookseller's. And, at this time, when indications of address were given by reference to the nearest place of importance, printers' signs are frequently used to locate the situation of French schools. At least one of these schools seems to have been very well known, for in 1590 the printer W. Wright, senior, gave as his address, "neare to the French School."[340]

All of them, however, did not owe their origin to the French refugees. We hear, for instance, of a certain John Love, an Englishman, son of the steward of the Jesuit college founded by the English Catholics at Douay, who had a French school near St. Paul's, at the end of the century. But he was suspect, as it was feared he might be an "intelligenceer."[341] Among the earliest, however, if not the first of these French schools, was that of Peter Du Ploich, a Frenchman, and no doubt a refugee; at any rate the text-book for teaching French which he published shows his strong sympathy with the Protestants. This was entitled A Treatise in English and Frenche right necessary and profitable for al young children, and was first issued in about 1553 from the press of Richard Grafton, who had "privilege de l'imprimer seul."[342] Of this schoolmaster's life little is known.[343] From his little French text-book, "right necessary to come to the knowledge of the same," we learn that he kept his school at the sign of the Rose in Trinity Street; that he was married, and probably received some of his pupils into his house; and that he taught French, Latin, and writing. Probably religious instruction also formed part of the curriculum, as it did in the other schools of the time; both Henry VIII. and Edward VI. issued orders that the Paternoster, the Ten Commandments, and the Apostles' Creed should be taught to children.[344] Not only Du Ploich but other French teachers of the time provided religious formularies in their books for teaching the language, and in 1559-1560 the printer William Griffith received a licence to print a Catechism in Latin, French, and English.[345]

The Catechism, Litany, Suffrages, and prayers occupy a large part of Du Ploich's Treatise, which is of quarto size, and consists of about fifty leaves.[346] All these formularies are given in both French and English, arranged in two columns on each page.[347] Then come three familiar dialogues which constitute the third, fourth, and fifth chapters of the book. The first of these gives us a lively picture of family life at the time. From the street, where we meet friends and are taught how to greet and address them, we pass into the house, where we are spectators of the family repast and of the arrival of the guests, and hear conversation on many subjects in which Du Ploich finds an opportunity for self-advertisement by mentioning his school and address. A child reads a passage from the New Testament, and the meal is preceded and followed by lengthy thanksgivings, which, however, do not interfere with the joviality and conviviality of the host.

The next two dialogues deal with subjects characteristic of PETER DU PLOICHthese books for teaching French—asking the way, the arrival and entertainment at an inn, and finally, buying, selling, and bargaining—all topics useful for merchants and merchants' apprentices, from whose ranks Du Ploich probably recruited a number of his pupils. "L'aprentif" is the word he uses in speaking of his pupils, though there is no proof to show that he employed it in any special sense. Then comes a fifth chapter containing the following headings: "Pour demander le chemin," "Aultre communication en chevauchant," "Pour aller coucher," "Pour soy descoucher," and beginning thus:

In the sixth chapter the merchants leave the inn in the early morning to transact their business:

At the end come the names of the figures, necessary for such transactions, and finally information and advice in verse form, without any English rendering, "pour gens de finance":

Du Ploich seems to have brought with him to England a Genevan "A B C," or book of elementary instruction and prayers for children, such as was common in France as well as in England. The next section of his treatise treats of the French A B C in words identical with those of an A B C franÇois printed at Geneva in 1551. This is followed by a few very slight rules in English, which tell us not to pronounce the last letter of a French word, except s, t, and p, when the next word begins with a consonant; to neglect a vowel at the end of a word when the following word begins with another vowel; also that the accusative precedes the verb; that after au, ou, i, and eu, l is not sounded; that the consonants sp, st, and ct should not be separated in pronunciation; and that the negative is formed by placing ne before the verb and pas or point after it. To this scanty grammatical information, which bears considerable resemblance to that contained in some previous works,[348] the eighth and last chapter adds the conjugation of the two auxiliaries in Latin, English, and French. The treatise closes with a Latin poem addressed to "preceptor noster Du Ploich" by John Alexander, one of his pupils, and with a table of contents.

No doubt French was the basis of the whole of the instruction given by Du Ploich in his school. His pupils learnt to write from this French text-book, and memorized the Latin verbs with the French verbs. The fact that Du Ploich places his few grammar rules at the end of the work, and after the practical reading-exercises, shows what slight importance he attached to them. He would, we may assume, refer his pupils to them as occasion arose, but practical exercises and conversation formed the chief part of his lessons. He made free use of English in explaining the meaning of the French, and throughout his book he sacrifices the English phrase in order to render more closely the meaning of the French, for which he duly apologizes: "that none blame or reprove this sayd translacion thus made in Englishe because that it is a litle corrupt. DU PLOICH'S METHOD OF TEACHINGFor the author hath done it for the better declaryng of the diversitie of one tounge to the other, and it is turned almost worde for worde and lyne for lyne, that it may be to his young scholars more easy and lyght."

Du Ploich was thoughtful for his young pupils. "A little at a time, and that done well" was his motto. On this method, he says, the child will learn more in a week than he would do in two months by attempting a great deal at the beginning. The master should repeat the lesson two or three times before allowing the child to say it, and be ready to explain difficulties, and not wait for the child to guess. If not, the pupil will lose patience and the little courage he possesses. Du Ploich would have the verbs learnt on the plan already advocated on a larger scale by Duwes, that is, he advises the student to practise them negatively and interrogatively as well as in the usual affirmative form.

Some time later, probably after Du Ploich's death, or when he had left England, there appeared another edition of his grammar. This was printed by John Kingston, and finished on the fourteenth day of April 1578.[349] An important change in the arrangement of the chapters distinguishes it from the edition of 1553; in the later edition the chapter on the alphabet and grammar is placed at the beginning, although in both issues the chapter on the two auxiliaries closes the work. Kingston—for he was probably responsible for the change—thus yielded to the tendency, which became stronger and stronger as time advanced, of placing theoretical before practical instruction. In addition to slight variations, other differences between the two works are the omission of the verses for "gens de finance," and of the Latin poem addressed to Du Ploich by one of his pupils.

The Little Treatise in English and French was not the only work produced by Du Ploich during his residence in England. On its completion he turned his attention to the composition of a work on the estate of princes, which he called a Petit Recueil tresutile et tresnecessaire de l'Etat dez Princes, dez Seigneurs temporelz et du commun peuple, faict par Pierre Du Ploych.[350] This Recueil is written in French. Its subject matter is not of much interest, but the Latin verses with which it closes inform us that Du Ploich had a law degree (Licentiatus Legum). He dedicated the manuscript, which is not dated, to the "Roy tres puissant Eduard sixieme de ce nom," who graciously received it and rewarded Du Ploich's industry by a generous gift.[351] This favourable reception encouraged the French teacher to present another work to his "Soverain lord and master" in the course of the following year. This second manuscript is shorter than the earlier Recueil;[352] it bears the title of Petit Recueil des homaiges, honneurs et recognoissances deubz par les hommes a Dieu le createur, avec certaines prieres en la recognoissance de soy mesme. At the end occurs a passage of some interest in which Du Ploich expresses his intention of providing the work, unworthy as it is, with an English translation, as soon as he finds time and opportunity for such an undertaking, for he has not English "de nature."[353] This rendering, he says, will be "mot pour mot et ligne pour ligne, affin d'augmenter les couraiges des professeurs." We may infer from this that he thought of having the work printed in French and English for the use of students.

A French school very similar to that of Du Ploich, but of which we have more details, was kept by Claude de Sainliens, De Sancto Vinculo, or, as he anglicized it, Holyband. A native of Moulins and a Huguenot, Holyband probably sought refuge in England from the persecutions. In 1571 he is said to have been in England seven years;[354] hence he must have begun his long career in London as a teacher of French in the year 1564. In 1566 he took out letters of denization.[355] Holyband was not exactly a scholar, but rather a man of broad interests, sustained by extraordinary vitality, and before he had been in England three years he had published two books for teaching French, which became very popular, and continued to be reprinted for nearly a century. There is no extant copy of the earliest edition of the first of these, but it appeared most probably in 1565. CLAUDE HOLYBANDThe earliest copy known is dated 1573, and bears the title, The French Schoolemaister, wherin is most plainlie shewed the true and most perfect way of pronouncinge of the French Tongue. The contents of this little book are of the kind which became characteristic of works for teaching French. It opens with rules for pronunciation and grammar in English, of little value or originality, and purposely made as concise as possible. These are followed by dialogues, collections of proverbs, golden sayings, prayers, and graces before meat, and a large vocabulary. The dialogues are by far the most interesting portion of the work. Like those of Du Ploich, they show a close connexion between the teaching of French and the daily concerns of life. They give us a picture of the busy London of the time, and especially of St. Paul's Churchyard, as well as lively family scenes, together with the usual wayside and tavern conversation. We see the boy setting off to school in the morning, threading his way through the busy streets, and again see him return to the hearty and hospitable family dinner, during which he finds occasion to speak of his French studies. These dialogues are given in French and English arranged on opposite pages. Their dramatic interest may be gathered from the opening passage, where we listen to the servant hurrying the boy off to school:

And after quarrelling with Margaret, and using rather bad language, Francis receives his parents' blessing, and starts off to school. Unfortunately we are not spectators of his doings there.

Whether Holyband had opened his French school or not when he composed the French Schoolemaister is uncertain; but the school was evidently in full swing at the time his second work appeared, about a year later, in 1566. The contents of the new work, The French Littleton, a most easie, perfect, and absolute way to learn the French tongue, are much the same as those of the French Schoolemaister. There is, however, one important difference between the two works. In the Schoolemaister the rules precede the practical exercises, but this order is reversed in the Littleton. In the first work Holyband does not appear to have fully evolved his method of teaching French. By the time he wrote the French Littleton he was able to lay down principles, based, no doubt, on experience, and consequently he attached a higher value to the second of his works, and used it himself in teaching. The French Schoolemaister was intended more for the use of private pupils. It was described as a "perfect way" of learning French without any "helpe of Maister or teacher,[356] set foorthe for the furtherance of all those whiche doo studie privately in their own study or houses." Holyband himself does not seem to have given it much attention after its first appearance. Nevertheless it enjoyed as great a popularity and went through as many editions, or nearly so, as its author's more favoured work. Other French teachers made up for Holyband's neglect by editing it themselves in the early seventeenth century. So great indeed was its success that in 1600 a tax of 20 per cent was levied on each edition for the benefit of the poor.[357] We may perhaps conclude from this that those who studied French privately were numerous.

The value of the French Littleton is more educational; it expounds all the favourite theories of its author. The name is taken from the popular work on English law, the text-book for all law-students, Littleton's Tenures. While the French Schoolemaister was a small octavo, the Littleton was printed to the size of a tiny pocket-book, in 16mo. First come practical HOLYBAND'S FRENCH GRAMMARSexercises in the form of dialogues in French and English,[358] but of less lively interest than those of the Schoolemaister. They deal, however, with the same subjects,[359] only, as we read them we do not forget, as we were inclined to do in the earlier book, that we are reading exercises intended for school use. Then follow proverbs, golden sayings, prayers, the creed, the fifth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, a treatise on the iniquity of dancing (TraitÉ des Danses), and finally a vocabulary less comprehensive and of less value than that of the French Schoolemaister.

The French Littleton derives additional interest from the fact that in it Holyband sets forth a new system for rendering the pronunciation of French easier to the English. He realized the difficulties placed in their way by the many unsounded letters present in certain French words. He had no desire, however, to join the extremists, who advocated the omission of all such consonants in orthography as well as in pronunciation. Holyband considered such letters an essential part of the word, and often a useful indication of the pronunciation of vowels and of the derivation. He therefore proposed a compromise which he thought would please both parties: he retains the unsounded letters, but distinguishes them from those which were pronounced by placing a small cross below them,[360] a device adopted in later editions of the French Schoolemaister also. A short quotation from the conversation for travellers and merchants will show how Holyband applied his method:

The most interesting of the dialogues in the French Littleton, however, is that in which we have a picture of Holyband's school, which was first opened in St. Paul's Churchyard at the sign of Lucrece—the shop of the printer Thomas Purfoote. Here we see children arriving for their lessons early in the morning, each with his own books and other materials. The schoolroom seems to have been a lively place; the scholars are represented as fighting, pulling each other's hair, tearing their books, and indulging in other pranks of the kind. Holyband sought to keep order by means of a birch, and one of the many offences which called it into action was the speaking of English. HOLYBAND'S FRENCH SCHOOLIn this little school of his, Holyband appears to have laboured at the task he set himself of leading the English nation "comme par la main au cabinet de (nostre) langue franÇoyse," under excellent conditions. The whole atmosphere seems to have been French. The curriculum, however, was not confined to this one language. Holyband had to safeguard his interests by instructing his pupils in the subjects taught in the ordinary English schools, and so we find him teaching Latin, writing, and counting, as well as French, and probably by means of French. With some of his pupils Holyband studied Terence, Vergil, Horace, the Offices of Cicero, and with others, Cato, the Pueriles Confabulatiunculae, and Latin grammar, according to their capacity. Yet others learnt reading, writing, and French only. Morning school, which closed with prayer at eleven, was devoted chiefly to the study of Latin. The afternoon was given over entirely to French; and it does not seem unreasonable to suppose that other scholars came then specially for instruction in French. The pupils returned for afternoon work at mid-day, and began by translating French into English and then retranslated the English back into French, using, we may be sure, Holyband's French Littleton. Next came a little practice in vocabulary, in which "maister Claude" asked them the French for various English words. Grammar was not neglected, but questions concerning it do not appear to have been invited until some difficulty in the text rendered it necessary. The pupils were also required to decline various nouns and verbs which occurred in the text. The auxiliaries they were expected to learn by heart. Not until five o'clock did the long French lesson draw to a close, and then the scholars lit their torches or lanterns and set off home after being dismissed with evening prayers. Before their departure, they received instructions to read the lesson for the following day six or seven times after supper. By doing this, their master assured them, it would appear easy on the morrow, and be learnt without effort.

Holyband informs us that his charges were one shilling a week or fifty shillings a year. He allows that this was more than the fees asked for in most schools, but justifies the higher charge by the superior instruction imparted. At any rate his school was very prosperous. In 1568, when it had been in existence for at least two, and perhaps three years, we find him assisted by an usher, one John Henrycke, said to be a Frenchman.[361] He was, no doubt, the Jehan Henry "Maistre d'Eschole," who wrote a dizain in praise of Holyband's French Schoolemaister (1573), where, in rather questionable French, he summoned the students of France to devote all their attention to "ce poli et belle oeuvre," and not to read

Holyband, as we have noticed, was a very active and somewhat restless person, never staying long in one place, and it is difficult to follow him in his frequent changes of residence. For a time he removed his school to Lewisham, then outside London. Here, sometime before 1573, he had an interview with Queen Elizabeth, who perhaps visited his school as she passed through the village, for the head boy, Harry Edmondes, pronounced a discourse before Her Majesty.

In 1576 Holyband had given up his French school, and entered the ranks of French private tutors, living in the house of a patron. He was one of the aliens dwelling in Salisbury Court, the residence of Lord Buckhurst, and, no doubt, was engaged in teaching French to the younger children of his protector. He had previously come into contact with this noble family, and had probably received some assistance from this quarter on his arrival in England, and may have taught French to the eldest son, Robert Sackville, now at Oxford,[362] to whom he dedicated both his early works.

When we first hear of Holyband he was already married and had children. His wife died probably before he went to Salisbury Court. Two years later he married an Englishwoman, Anne Smith,[363] and had resumed his French school in St. Paul's Churchyard, but his address was now at the sign of the Golden Bell, HOLYBAND'S TEACHING CAREER for the printer Thomas Purfoote had moved his sign to Newgate Market. Here he remained for some time, until 1581 at the earliest, and probably somewhat later. He also attended the French Church. At this period of his life he again turned his attention to writing on the French language, and collecting together notes which he had no doubt compiled in past years. In 1580 three new works on French appeared from his pen. One was a Treatise for Declining Verbs—a subject which he calls "the second chiefest worke of the Frenche tongue"—written at the request of several gentlemen and merchants. The book itself is of little value, and did not by any means share the popularity of his earliest books. Still, two other editions appeared, one in 1599 and the other much later, in 1641. The second of these works, dealing with French pronunciation on much the same lines as the French Littleton, was even less popular. It was intended for the "learned," and consequently written in Latin—De Pronuntiatione linguae gallicae.[364] Holyband was also becoming more ambitious in his dedications; probably through Lord Buckhurst, the queen's cousin on his mother's side, he was able to dedicate his treatise "ad illustrissimam simulque doctissimam Elizabetham Anglorum Reginam." At the end Holyband added a dialogue in three different kinds of spelling—the new, the old, and his own—as well as a Latin sermon on the Resurrection. A French-English Dictionary was the third of these works, published in 1580, with the title: The Treasurie of the French Tong, Teaching the way to varie all sorts of Verbs, Enriched so plentifully with Wordes and Phrases (for the benefit of the studious in that language), as the like hath not before bin published. Many years later, in 1593, Holyband again gave proof of his deep interest in French lexicography by the publication of his Dictionarie French and English, published for the benefit of the studious in that language, based on his earlier work, but on a much larger scale.[365]

Meanwhile he had had an opportunity to extend his knowledge and to refresh his mind by a long journey on the Continent. Once more he had yielded to his love of change and movement, and entered the service of another powerful patron, Lord Zouche, to whom he dedicated his dictionary of 1593. In the dedication we are told how he had undertaken a "long, lointain, penible et dangereux voyage" with his noble protector, who was to him "plutot pere ou baston de vieillesse que non pas maistre, Seigneur ou commandeur." Thus we may conclude that, when Lord Zouche crossed to Hamburg by sea in March 1587, intending to qualify himself for public service on the Continent, as well as to "live cheaply," Holyband accompanied him, and, no doubt, found many opportunities for serious study. They proceeded to Heidelberg, where their names were inscribed on the matriculation register of the university in May.[366] Zouche then travelled to Frankfort, Basle (1588), Altdorf (1590), and thence to Vienna (1591), and on to Verona, returning to England in 1593.[367]

After the publication of this last of his works in 1593, we lose sight of Holyband in his rÔle of teacher of French. He was, however, still in England in 1597, when he dedicated a new edition of his French Littleton to a new patron, Lord Herbert of Swansea. Thereafter he is not mentioned, and subsequent editions of his most popular works—the Schoolemaister and French Littleton—were issued without his supervision. Probably he had returned to his native country, for in the last of his published works he assumes the title of "gentilhomme bourbonnais," which suggests that he had come into the possession of some property in his native province, where his name was still known in the seventeenth century.[368] Certain it is that he did not remain in England. There is no further trace of his children, of whom he had at least four.[369] Thus silently, as if forgetful of his former habits, he slipped out of sight after he had spent nearly forty years teaching his language in England. He won the praise of the scholar Richard Mulcaster, soon to be appointed Head of St. Paul's School, near which Holyband had so long had his own modest establishment; and the poet George Gascoigne wrote a sonnet in his honour:

Holyband, like his predecessor Du Ploich, was an advocate of the practical teaching of languages. A perfect knowledge of French, in his eyes, consisted in being able to read and pronounce the language accurately. Thus the first thing to be done by those desiring to study the language is to begin to read at once. The learner must not "entangle himself at the first brunte" with rules; but, "after he hath read them over, let him take in hand the dialogues, and as occasion requireth he shall examine the rules, applying their use unto his purpose."[370] He must first "frame his tongue by reading them aloud, noting carefully which letters are not pronounced, looking for the reasons why they are lefte in the rules of pronunciation," so that "when he shall happen uppon other bookes printed without these caracters he may remember which letters ought to be uttered and which ought not." In these rules[371] Holyband endeavours to explain French sounds by comparison with English sounds. His treatment of the letter a may be given as an example of his method. "Sound our a," he says,[372] "as you sound the first sillable in Laurence, or Augustine in English. When a is joined with in it loseth his sound, or at the least it is very little heard: as pain, hautain.... Pronounce then as if they were written thus: pin, hautin.... But if e followeth n, then i goeth more towards n, thus: balaine, semaine ...," and then he proceeds to describe in like fashion the sounds of the diphthong ai. His treatment of the sound gn is quaint and interesting. "When you find any word written with gn, remember how you pronounce these English words, onion, minion, companion, and such like: so melting g, and touching smoothly the roofe of the mouth with the flat of the tongue, say: mignon, oignon, compagnon; say then, cam-pa-gne, campa-gnie, and not cam-pag-ne, campag-nie, separating g from n; but rather sound them as if they were written thus in your English tongue, campaine, campanie."

Such rules alone, however, were of little value in Holyband's opinion, and we cheerfully agree with him. The reader must be very circumspect in his use of them, and his teacher a very skilful Frenchman, "or else all will go to wracke." He seems to have thought that much more depended on the tutor than on rules. No doubt he fully shared the opinion stated earlier by Duwes, that rules are of more use to the teacher than the learner. "Oh how busie is this tongue," he says of French, "and into what maze doth the learner enter which doth take it in hand: therefore let his tutor be sevenfold skilfull." We are prepared, then, to find Holyband agreeing with Henry VIII.'s tutor on another point—the teaching of French and writing of French grammars by the English. To him it appeared obvious that "it is not the part of a stranger, except he be learned and of a long continuance in France, to give precepts concerning the pronunciation of the (French) tongue: yea neither of the best Frenchmen, be he never so learned or eloquent in the same, except he hath practised the premises by teaching or otherwise by a long and diligent observation." There can be no question of committing rules to memory; they merely serve to throw light on the reading matter. Yet the practice of memorizing is not neglected. There were two purposes for which it was called into use, the verbs, chiefly the two auxiliaries, and vocabulary, to which Holyband attached much importance.

According to Holyband himself, his method had excellent results. He was especially proud of the pronunciation of his pupils. In teaching this he followed a plan which strikes the modern reader as curious, but which had already been employed in an early sixteenth-century grammar, that of the poet Alexander Barclay. According to this plan he taught his scholars the main characteristics of the different dialects of France, as well as the pure French in which they were encouraged to speak. His reason for doing so was to put them on their guard against the variety of dialects, chiefly Picard and Walloon, spoken by the numerous refugees FRENCH CHURCH SCHOOLSscattered all over London. When new scholars came to his school from "other French schools," he assures us that on hearing them speak and pronounce any letter incorrectly, his own pupils "spie the faultes as soone as I, yea they cannot abide it: and which is more they will discerne whether the maister which taught them first was a Burgonian, a Norman, or a Houyet."

The reading, which Holyband made the basis of his language teaching, was always explained by means of English renderings. In his dialogues he makes no attempt to retain the purity of the English phrase. English for him was merely a vehicle for interpreting to his young scholars the meaning of the French, "for I do not pretend to teach them any other thing then the French tongue," and so he begs his readers not to "muse" at the English of his book, but to take the French with such goodwill as it is offered. It will be noticed that on this point, as on many others—placing the rules after the practical exercises, for instance—Holyband resembles Du Ploich, and no doubt he was acquainted with the Treatise of his less well known fellow-teacher. The points of resemblance between the dialogues of the two works are sufficient proof of this, although Du Ploich's cannot compare with Holyband's in interest. Another work which had some influence on his dialogues was the Linguae Latinae Exercitatio of the great Spanish scholar and educationist Vives—a book containing Latin dialogues, dealing with the life of the schoolboy at home and at school, at work and at play. This was a very popular school-book in the sixteenth century, and was most likely used by Holyband in the Latin lessons at his own school. He also incorporated the Latin dialogues of Vives in a work which he called the Campo di Fior, or flowery field of four languages, Italian, Latin, French and English, giving the dialogues in these four languages. This work appeared in 1583, when he was probably still teaching in St. Paul's Churchyard.[373]

Besides these French schools kept by private individuals, there were others in connexion with the French churches. After the foundation of the French Church in Threadneedle Street, other churches had arisen in different parts of the country. The education of the children attending these institutions had to be seen to, and very soon schools were established under the supervision of the churches themselves.[374] Although these schools were primarily intended for the instruction of the children of the refugees, they also undertook to teach those "who would wish to learn the French language." Just as some English attended the services of the French Church, so also some sent their children to the school associated with it. And it must be remembered that to some Englishmen the French Church presented greater attractions than the English Church did at that time; for there naturally grew up a bond of sympathy between the Protestant refugees and the English Nonconformists, many of whom sought in the French Church, with its Genevan discipline, a form of worship not sanctioned by the English Church. Others attended these churches for the same reason as the "Italianate gentleman," censured by Roger Ascham,[375] went to the Italian Church: "to heare the (French) tongue naturally spoken, not to heare God's doctrine trewly preached." This was a practice strongly advocated by many of the French teachers of the time. The number of Englishmen of both kinds must have been considerable. In 1573 Elizabeth issued an Order forbidding the French Church to give communion to those English who, by curiosity or dislike for their own ceremonies, wished to receive it in the French Church. The church in Threadneedle Street took steps to limit the number of its English adherents. These were required to produce evidence of a sober life, and of loyalty to their own church, before they were allowed to communicate.[376] English names are not uncommon in the Threadneedle Street Registers. Even members of the nobility stood as sponsors to the children of the French strangers, for instance, the Marquis of Hamilton, the Earl of Pembroke, and the Countess of Bedford, in the year 1624.[377] The French Church at Southampton also had numerous English members and communicants,[378] while at Canterbury a rule was made that all the English connected with the church should know French; on one occasion, a person was refused as a sponsor on account of his ignorance of that tongue.[379] Considering FRENCH SCHOOL AT CANTERBURYthe esteem in which the French churches were held by many Englishmen, we may assume that some of the latter were glad to take advantage of the willingness of the French Church to receive their children into its schools. The refugees, on their part, did not always send their children to their own schools. The sons of the wealthier strangers would go to the English grammar schools, and thence, in many cases, to the University.[380]

The subjects taught in these French church schools were, no doubt, much the same as those of the private French schools, including religious instruction, writing, reading, arithmetic, and possibly music. The curriculum appears to have been of quite an elementary nature. As to the teachers, they were required to be of sober life, and members of the French Church. They had to be appointed by the minister and presented to the bishop. They also were required to give the minister an account of the books they read to the children, and of the methods followed, and be willing to adopt the advice of their superiors "sans rien entreprendre À leur fantaisie." Further, it was their duty to conduct the children to church on Sunday for the catechism.[381] Such were the regulations laid down in the second Discipline, drawn up on the restoration of the French Church after the accession of Elizabeth. When this was revised some years later, in 1588, a few changes were made. The presentation to the bishop was dispensed with, and the teachers were no longer obliged to conduct the children to the catechism: they had only to prepare them to answer it. And the ministers, on their side, were required to visit the schools, accompanied by the elders and deacons, at least four times a year; their attention was specially called to "those who teach languages."[382]

The French teachers attached to the Church at Canterbury are those of whom we have most detailed information. In one of the articles of a petition, which the group of refugees there addressed to the city authorities, in the reign of Elizabeth, they crave that permission may be given to the schoolmaster whom they have brought with them to teach both their own youth and also other children who desire to learn the French tongue.[383] Their request appears to have been well received, as a French church and school were established not long after. Among the names of the petitioners was that of Vincent Primont, teacher of youth, who seems to have been the first schoolmaster of this little community. He was a refugee from Normandy, and arrived at Rye in 1572.[384] To the office of schoolmaster, which he held for many years, was added that of Reader to the congregation—a post he resigned in 1584, owing to some action of the consistory which did not meet with his approval. The last mention we have of him, as schoolmaster, occurs in December 1583, when a member of the congregation was reproved for allowing his workmen to set a bad example to Master Vincent's scholars. He probably filled his position for some time after this date. In August 1581, however, another teacher, Nicholas du Buisson, obtained permission "to go from house to house to teach children," and in 1583 received a small quarterly allowance for taking charge of the children at the services in the Temple.[385] The demand for teachers apparently increased considerably at this time; in 1582 we hear of a third schoolmaster, Paul Le Pipre, who had already been teaching for some time previous to this date. Le Pipre several times took steps to defend his monopoly and prevent the admission of other schoolmasters. In 1582 he opposed the application of Jan Roboem or Jean Robone, who sought permission to hold school. Roboem, who had been Reader in the French Protestant Church at Dieppe, fled thence to Rye in 1572, in company with his wife and two children.[386] He was in very poor estate on arriving at Canterbury, and the consistory of the French Church at last prevailed on Le Pipre to agree to his admission, promising him that if any disadvantage accrued to him thereby it should be remedied. Roboem was therefore told he might put his notice on the door of the Temple—the usual form of advertisement—whenever he pleased.[387] He did not, however, keep it there long, moving to London in the same year. He is no doubt to be identified with the John Robonin, "schoolmaster of the French tongue," who was living in the "Warde of Chepe," and attending the French Church, at the end of 1582.[388]

PAUL LE PIPREPaul Le Pipre was again approached in 1583 with regard to the appointment of another schoolmaster, probably a successor to Robonin. He was told that another teacher was necessary, and that one had come forward, a destitute refugee, who wished for permission to teach in order to earn his living. Le Pipre replied "that he held to his agreement with the Church, namely that he could not leave without giving three months' notice." Ultimately it was decided "that the aforesaid should not be permitted to keep school, both on account of the agreement and because he was not as yet sufficiently known to be of the religion." This teacher, whose name is not given, was, however, allowed to instruct "certain married people, and others grown up and over fourteen years of age who did not go to Paul's school, in consideration of his poverty."[389]

Paul Le Pipre retained the position he was so unwilling to share with a colleague, for many years after this. The last we hear of him is in September 1597, when he was censured by the consistory for holding school on Sunday.

French schools likewise arose in other provincial towns, where French Churches had been established. There were also, it appears, similar private schools, with the primary object of teaching French to the English, and unconnected with the churches. At any rate, French and Walloon schoolmasters arrived in some of these towns. At Rye in 1572, for instance, we come across Nicholas Curlew and Martin Martin, fugitives from Dieppe,[390] though probably, like Vincent Primont and John Robone, they did not settle in the town. At Norwich, in 1568, was a Pierre de Rieu of Lille who had arrived ten months before, and in 1622 Francis Boy and John Cokele.[391] At Dover, in the same year, Francis Rowland and Nicholas Rowsignoll, both French schoolmasters, had "come out of France by reason of the late troubles yet continuing."[392] And lastly, at Southampton, we hear in 1576 of Nicholas Chemin, who, in 1578, was refused communion at the church on account of his causing some disturbance in the congregation; of a M. Du Plantin, dit Antoine Ylot, in 1576, and of a Pierre de la Motte, 'mestre d'escolle,' in 1577.[393] No doubt most of these schoolmasters taught under the auspices of the French Churches.

M. Du Plantin was one of a large number of ministers who took refuge in England, and his school was probably a French Church school, for seven of his young scholars are mentioned as communicants. Many French pastors like him, no doubt, took to the teaching profession during their stay in England, their numbers being far in excess of the ministers needed in the churches. The famous reformer, John Utenhove of Ghent, was in 1549 tutor to the son of a London gentleman.[394] Valerand Poullain, a converted priest, who, after being pastor at Strasburg, came to England, for a time held a similar post in the household of the Earl of Derby;[395] he afterwards became minister of the French Church at Glastonbury on the recommendation of Utenhove. Another minister, Jean Louveau, Sieur de la Porte, spent the time of exile from his Church of Roche Bernard, after the massacre of St. Bartholomew, in teaching languages in London, and there were many others in like case.[396]

At Southampton there was a French school of special interest. Its teacher, like Du Plantin, was a pastor, though the school does not seem to have had any close connexion with the French Church. This schoolmaster and divine was the once famous Dr. Adrian Saravia, a learned refugee from Flanders. He became later Professor of Divinity at Leyden and an intimate friend of Casaubon; and when he took refuge in England for a second time in 1587, he enjoyed some ecclesiastical preferment, and was one of the translators of the Authorised Version of the Bible.[397] During his first sojourn in England, however, he was engaged on a more humble task. He first arrived at Southampton in about 1567,[398] after having been for some years headmaster of a grammar school in Guernsey. Saravia's school at Southampton was limited to sixteen or twenty youths of good family. It was a rule that all the scholars should speak French. Any one who used English, "though only a word," was obliged to wear a fool's cap at meals, and continue to wear it until he caught another in the same fault.[399] FRENCH SCHOOL AT SOUTHAMPTONTwo Englishmen, who later became well known as translators, acquired their knowledge of French in this school. One was Joshua Sylvester, famous for his translation of Du Bartas, and the other Robert Ashley, who turned Louis le Roy's De la Vicissitude ou VariÉtÉ des choses de l'univers (1579) into English (1594). Sylvester informs us that he learnt his French at Saravia's school "in three poor years, at three times three years old"; "I have never been in France," he writes to his uncle, William Plumb, "whereby I might become so perfect." Elsewhere he expresses his affection for his master and his debt of gratitude to him:

Sylvester did not put his knowledge of French into practice only by translations into English. He also wrote some original verses in French; the sonnet with which he offered to James I. his translation of the works of Du Bartas, a poet for whom the king had a great admiration, will show his skill in a difficult art:

Another of Sylvester's contemporaries at Saravia's school was Sir Thomas Lake,[401] who became Secretary of State in the reign of James I., and is said to have read Latin and French to Queen Elizabeth towards the end of her reign. His French accent, unlike that of his schoolfellows, seems to have left much to be desired. In 1612 he incurred much ridicule by reading the French contract of marriage at the wedding of the Princess Elizabeth to the Elector with a very bad accent.Saravia, it seems, encouraged his pupils to attend the French Church. Two of their names occur in the registers of the Church for the year 1576, viz. Nicholas Essard and Nicholas Carye, both probably Englishmen. Saravia himself and his wife were also regular attenders; in 1571 and again in 1576 he stood godfather at baptisms. The latest mention of him occurs in 1577. Usually the descriptive title "minister" is added after his name.[402] He is mentioned in the town records under the year 1576 as Master of the Grammar School, and in the following year the town paid 36s. "for four yardes of broade cloth for a gowne for Mr. Adrian Saravia the schoolmaster at 9s. the yarde."[403] Apparently he had abandoned his private school, although it is very likely that he continued to take private pupils into his house, and that the grammar school scholars had ample opportunity to learn French; but it is hardly probable that he introduced the language into the grammar school curriculum, where, no doubt, Latin retained its usual supremacy.[404]

Thus we see that in the England of the sixteenth century French had no footing in the ordinary schools, but was taught in a growing number of small private schools kept by Frenchmen, French-speaking refugees from the Netherlands, and sometimes by Englishmen.

In Scotland, on the other hand, French received more recognition in the grammar schools, although it did not form part of the ordinary curriculum, which was based on Latin, as in England. Yet in several schools its use was distinctly encouraged on lines which, we may conclude, were followed at Southampton grammar school in Saravia's time. For instance, the boys of Aberdeen grammar school, in the middle of the sixteenth century, were enjoined to address each other in French, while the use of the vernacular was forbidden. In the famous grammar school of Perth, when John Rowe, the reformer, was master there, and many of the scholars boarded with him, we are informed that "as they spake nothing in the schoole and fields but Latine so nothing was spoken in his house but French." It is of interest to note that in this school French is put side by side with FRENCH IN THE SCHOOLS OF SCOTLANDthe ancient tongues, as Palsgrave had wished. After meals a selection from the Bible was read; if from the Old Testament, in Hebrew, if from the New Testament, in Latin, Greek, or French.[405]

Turning to the more elementary education, we find French holding a still larger place in some of the parish schools of Scotland, where it was taught as part of the regular course by the side of Latin. An interesting account of one of these schools has been left by James Melville, in his diary.[406] He records that in 1566, at the age of seven, he, together with his elder brother, was sent to a school kept by a kinsman, minister at Logie, a few miles from Montrose. This "guid, lerned, kind man" attended to the children's education, while his sister was "a verie loving mother" to them, and to a "guid number of gentle and honest mens berns of the country about," who also were at the school. "Ther we lerned," he continues, "to reid the catechisme, prayers and scripture, to rehers the catechisme and prayers par coeur.... We lerned ther the Rudiments of the Latin grammar, with the vocables in Latin and French, also divers speitches in Frenche, with the reading and right pronunciation of that toung." Melville also assures us that his master had "a verie guid and profitable form of resolving the authors," and that he treated them "grammaticallie, bothe according to etymologie and syntaxe"; but, unfortunately, he gives us no further details on the teaching of French. After spending five years at this school, where, he admits, he learnt but little, "for his understanding was yet dark," he went to the grammar school at Montrose. There, although he had a French Protestant refugee, Pierre de Marsilliers, to teach him Greek, he does not appear to have had occasion to continue his study of the French tongue.

In Scotland, as in England, there were also special schools for teaching French. For instance, the French schoolmaster Nicholas Langlois, or Inglishe, who came to England in 1569, and in 1571 was installed in Blackfriars, London, with his wife and two children,[407] moved to Scotland in about 1574. He opened a French school in Edinburgh, which was subsidized by the Town Council, and where he taught French, arithmetic and accounts until the time of his death in 1611. The Town Council of Aberdeen also showed itself favourable to French schools; in 1635 it granted to a certain Alexander Rolland a licence "to teach a French school," and allowed him "for that effect to put up one brod or signe befoir his schoole door."

Yet in spite of the fact that French received greater recognition in the schools of Scotland than it did in those of England, there is nothing to show that the same general interest was taken in the study of the language. While in England large numbers of grammars and other text-books were published, there is only one notice of the production of a similar work in Scotland during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This solitary work, which a certain William Nudrye received a licence to print in 1559,[408] was entitled Ane A B C for Scottes men to read the frenche toung, with an exhortation to the nobles of Scotland to favour their old friends. The plea that French was learnt by the help of French grammars imported from France, or on conversational methods, or yet again in France by direct intercourse with Frenchmen, may be applied with as much force to England as to Scotland, though it is not improbable that in Scotland such methods were relied on to a greater extent; the friendly relations which existed between Scotland and France from the thirteenth century onwards encouraged large numbers of Scots to seek instruction in France, just as it led some Frenchmen to the Scottish centres of learning.[409] French tutors were said to be as common in Scotland as in England; a Spanish ambassador reported to Ferdinand and Isabella as early as 1498 that "there is a good deal of French education in Scotland, and many speak the French language." Yet the fact remains that while one small French A B C appears to have been the only work on the language issued in Scotland, there was a whole series of such works published in England.