The Teaching and Cultivation of the French Language in England during Tudor and Stuart Times / With an Introductory Chapter on the Preceding Period

by K. Rebillon Lambley

THE THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH CENTURIES

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anglia cui mater fuerat, cui Gallia nutrix
Matri nutricem praefero mente meam.[16]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quaunt le enfes ad tel age
Ke il set entendre langage,
Primes en Fraunceys ly devez dire
Coment soun cors deyt descrivere,
Pur le ordre aver de moun et ma,
Toun et ta, soun et sa,
better lered
Ke en parlole seyt meut apris
scorned
E de nul autre escharnys.

In accordance with this programme the parts of the human body, which almost invariably forms the central theme in this type of manual, are enumerated. Special care is taken to distinguish the genders and cases, to teach the children "Kaunt deivunt dire moun et ma, soun et sa, le et la, moy et jo . . .," and to explain how the meaning of words of similar sound often depends on their gender:

lippe and an hare
Vous avet la levere et le levere,
a pound a book
Et la livere et le livere.
La levere si enclost les dens;
Le levere en boys se tent dedens;
La livere sert en marchaundye;
Le livere nous aprent clergye.

Throughout Bibbesworth seizes every opportunity to point out distinctions of gender of this kind, regardless, it appears, of the difference between the definite and indefinite articles. When the pupil can describe his body, the teacher proceeds to give him an account of "all that concerns it both inside and out" ("kaunt ke il apent dedens et deores"), that is of its clothing and food:

Vestet vos draps mes chers enfauns,
Chaucez vos brays, soulers, e gauns;
Mettet le chaperoun, covrez le chef, etc.

—a passage which illustrates the practical nature of the treatise, Bibbesworth's aim being to teach children to know the properties of the things they see ("les propretez des choses ke veyunt").

When the child is clothed, Bibbesworth next feeds him, giving a full account of the meals and the food which is provided, and, by way of variety, at the end of the dinner, he teaches his pupil the names given to groups of different animals, and of the verbs used to describe their various cries. ("Homme parle, cheval hennist," etc.). By this time the child is ready to observe Nature, and to learn the terms of husbandry,[38] and the processes by which his food is produced. From the fields he passes to the woods and the river, where he learns to hunt and to fish, subjects which naturally lead to the introduction of the French names of the seasons, and of the beasts and birds that are supposed to present themselves to his view.

During the whole of this long category the verse form is maintained, and the intention of avoiding a vocabulary pure and simple is manifest. How superior this method was to the more modern lists of words separated from the context is also evident. Besides giving a description of all the objects with which the child comes in contact, and of all the actions he has to perform, as well as examples for the distinctions of genders and of moy and jo—difficulties for which he makes no attempts to draw up rules—Bibbesworth claims for his work that it provides gentlemen with adequate instruction for conversational purposes ("tot le ordre en parler e respoundre ke checun gentyshomme covent saver"). And as he did not wish to neglect any of the items of daily life, he finally gives a description of the building of a house and various domestic arrangements, ending with a description of an old English feast with its familiar dish, the boar's head:

Au primer fust apporté
a boris heued
La teste de un sengler tot armé,
the snout wit baneres of flurs
E au groyn le colere en banere;
E pus veneysoun, ou la fourmenté;
Assez par my la mesoun
tahen of gres tyme
De treste du fermeyson.
Pus avyent diversetez en rost,
Eit checun autre de cost,
Cranes, pokokes, swannes
Grues, pounes, e cygnes,
Wilde ges, gryses (porceaus), hennes,
Owes, rosées, porceus, gelyns;
Au tercez cours avient conyns en gravé,
Et viaunde de Cypre enfundré,
De maces, e quibibes, e clous de orré,
Vyn blanc e vermayl a graunt plenté.
wodekok
Pus avoyunt fesauns, assez, et perdriz,
Feldefares larkes
Grives, alowes, e pluviers ben rostez;
E braoun, e crispes, e fritune;
Ke soucre roset poudra la temprune.
Apres manger avyunt a graunt plenté
Blaunche poudre, ou la grosse dragé,
Et d'autre nobleie a fusoun,
Ensi vous fynys ceo sermoun;
Kar de fraunceis i ad assez,
De meynte manere dyversetez,
Dount le vous fynys, seynurs, ataunt
A filz Dieu vous comaund.
Ici finest la doctrine monsire Gauter De Byblesworde.

As time went on a conscious effort was made to retain the use of the French language in England. Higden, writing at about the middle of the fourteenth century,[39] informs us that English was then neglected for two reasons: "One is bycause that children than gon to schole lerne to speke first Englysshe and then ben compelled constrewe ther lessons in Frenssh"; "Also gentilmens children ben lerned and taught from theyr yougthe to speke frenssh.[40] And uplandish men will counterfete and likene them self to gentilmen and arn besy to speke frensshe for to be more sette by. Wherefor it is sayd by a common proverbe Jack wold be a gentilmen if he coude speke frensshe."

At the University of Oxford, likewise, the Grammar masters were enjoined to teach the boys to construe in English and in French, "so that the latter language be not forgotten."[41] The same university gave some slight encouragement to the study of French. There were special teachers who, although not enjoying the privileges of those lecturing in the usual academic subjects, were none the less recognised by the University. They had to observe the Statutes, and to promise not to give their lessons at times which would interfere with the ordinary lectures in arts. The French teachers were under the superintendence of the masters of grammar, and had to pay thirteen shillings a year to the Masters in Arts to compensate them for any disadvantage they might suffer from any loss of pupils; if there was only one teacher of French he had to pay the whole amount himself. As for those learning "to write, to compose, and speak French," they had to attend lectures in rhetoric and grammar—the courses most akin to their studies[42]—and to contribute to the maintenance of the lecturers in these subjects, there being no ordinary lectures in French.

In the meantime, more treatises for teaching French appeared; Bibbesworth's book soon found imitators, and early in the new century an anonymous author, clearly an Englishman, made free use of Bibbesworth in a treatise called The Nominale sive Verbale in Gallicis cum expositione ejusdem in Anglicis.[43] This anonymous writer[44] however, thought it necessary to make the interlinear English gloss much fuller than Bibbesworth had done, which shows that French had become more of a foreign language in the interval between the two works. He also placed the English rendering after the French, instead of above it. The later work differs further from the earlier in the order of the subject headings, as well as by the introduction of a few new topics. Enumerating the parts of the body,[45] as Bibbesworth had done, the author proceeds to make his most considerable addition to the subjects introduced by Bibbesworth in describing "la noyse et des faitz que homme naturalment fait":

Homme parle et espire:

Man spekyth & vndyth.

Femme teinge et suspire:

Woman pantyth & syketh.

Homme bale et babeie:

Man dravelith & wlaffyth.

Femme bale et bleseie:

Woman galpyth & wlispyth.

He then describes all the daily actions and occupations of men:

Homme va a la herce:

Man goth at the harewe.

Femme bercelet berce:

Woman childe in cradel rokkith....

Enfant sa lessone reherce:

His lessone recordeth,

and so on for about 350 lines. Other additions are of little importance, and, for the rest, the author treats subjects first introduced by Bibbesworth, though the wording often differs to a certain extent.[46]

When, towards the end of the thirteenth century, French began to be used in correspondence, need for instruction in French epistolary art arose; and early in the fourteenth century guides to letter-writing in French, in the form of epistolaries or collections of model letters, were produced.[47] The letters themselves are given in French, but the accompanying rules and instructions for composing them are in Latin. French and Latin have changed rôles; in earlier times Latin had been explained to school children by means of French. Forms for addressing members of the different grades of society are supplied, from epistles to the king and high state and ecclesiastical dignitaries down to commercial letters for merchants, and familiar ones for private individuals. Women, too, were not forgotten; we find similar examples covering the same range—from the queen and the ladies of the nobility to her more humble subjects. Each letter is almost invariably followed by its answer, likewise in French. Some contain interesting references to the great men or events of the day, but those of a more private nature possess a greater attraction, and throw light on the family life of the age. A letter from a mother to her son at school may be quoted:[48]

Salut avesque ma beniçon, tres chier filz. Sachiez que je desire grandement de savoir bons nouelles de vous et de vostre estat: car vostre pere et moy estions a la faisance de ces lettres en bon poynt le Dieu merci. Et sachiez que je vous envoie par le portour de ces lettres demy marc pur diverses necessaires que vous en avez a faire sans escient de vostre pere. Et vous pri cherement, beau tres doulz filz, que vous laissez tous mals et folyes et ne hantez mye mauvaise compagnie, car si vous le faitez il vous fera grant damage, avant que vous l'aperceiverez. Et je vous aiderai selon mon pooir oultre ce que vostre pere vous donnra. Dieus vous doint sa beniçon, car je vous donne la mienne. . . .

From about the middle of the fourteenth century a feeling of discontent with the prerogative of the French language in England becomes prominent. The loss of the greater part of the French possessions, and the continued state of hostilities with France during the reign of Edward III. brought home forcibly to the English mind the fact that the French were a distinct nation, and French a foreign tongue. This tardy recovery is sufficient proof of the strong resistance which had to be overcome. Chaucer is the greatest representative of the new movement. "Let Frenchmen endite their quaint terms in French," he exclaims, "for it is kindly to their mouths, but let us show our fantaisies in suche words as we learned from our dames' tongues." His contemporary, Gower, was less quick to discern the signs of the times. Of the four volumes of his works, two are in Latin, one in French, and one in English; but the order in which he uses these languages is instructive—first French, then Latin, and lastly English. Some writers made a compromise by employing a mixture of French and English.[49] French, however, continued to hold an important place in prose writings until the middle of the fifteenth century; but such works are of little literary value. The reign of French as the literary language of England, as Chaucer had been quick to discern, was approaching its end.

The same period is marked by a growing disrespect for Anglo-French as compared with the French of France. The French of England, cut off from the living source, had developed apart, and often with more rapidity than the other French dialects on the Continent. What is more, the language brought by the invaders was not a pure form of the Norman dialect; men from various parts of France had joined in William's expedition. The invaders, always called 'French' by their contemporaries, brought in a strong Picard element; and in the twelfth century there was a similar Angevin influence. Moreover, during Norman and Angevin times, craftsmen and others immigrated to England, each bringing with him the dialectal peculiarities of his own province.[50] Thus no regular development of Anglo-French was possible, and it can hardly be regarded as an ordinary dialect, notwithstanding its literary importance.[51] This disparity in the quality of Anglo-French is illustrated in a remarkable way by the literature of the period. Those who had received special educational advantages, or had travelled on the Continent, spoke and wrote French correctly; others used forms which contrasted pitiably with continental French. Moreover, the fourteenth century saw the triumph of the Île de France dialect in France; the other dialects ceased, as a rule, to be used in literature,[52] and this change was not without effect on Anglo-French, which shared their degradation. Chaucer lets us know the poor opinion he had of the French of England; his Prioress speaks French "full fayre and fetisly," but

After the scole of Stratford atte Bowe,
For French of Paris was to her unknowe.

William Langland admits that he knew "no frenche in feith, but of the ferthest ende of Norfolke."[53] As early as the thirteenth century English writers had felt bound to apologize as Englishmen for their French. Nor were their excuses superfluous in many cases; William of Wadington, the author of the Manuel des Pechiez, for example, wrote:[54]

De le françois ne del rimer
Ne me doit nuls hom blamer,
Car en Engleterre fu né
Et nurri lenz et ordiné.

Such apologies became all the more necessary as time went on. Even Gower, whose French was comparatively pure,[55] owing no doubt to travel in France in early life, deemed it advisable to explain that he wrote in French for "tout le monde en general," and to ask pardon if he has not "de François la faconde":

Jeo suis Englois si quier par tiele voie
Estre excusé.

At about the same time the anonymous author of the Testament of Love finds fault with the English for their persistence in writing in bad French, "of which speech the Frenchmen have as good a fantasy as we have in hearing of Frenchmen's English."[56]

The notoriety of the French of Englishmen reached France. Indeed this was a time when the English were more generally known in France than they were to be for several hundreds of years afterwards—until the eighteenth century. Englishmen filled positions in their possessions in France, and during the long wars between the two countries in the reign of Edward III., many of the English nobility resided in that country with their families. Montaigne refers to traces of the English in Guyenne, which still remained in the sixteenth century: "Il est une nation," he writes in one of his Essays, "a laquelle ceux de mon quartier ont eu autrefois si privée accointance qu'il reste encore en ma maison aucune trace de leur ancien cousinage."[57] The opinions formed by the French of the English were naturally anything but flattering. We find them expressed in songs of the time.[58] But the recriminations were mutual, and the English had already hit upon the epithet which for centuries they applied to Frenchmen, and most other foreigners indiscriminately:

Franche dogue dit un Anglois.
Vous ne faites que boire vin,
Si faisons bien dist le François,
Mais vous buvez le lunnequin. (bière.)[59]

Even in the Roman de Renart we come across traces of familiarity with English ways, and also of the English language.[60]

It is not surprising, then, that Anglo-French was a subject of remark in France, especially when we remember that already in the thirteenth century the provincial accents of the different parts of France herself had been the object of some considerable amount of raillery.[61] The English, says Froissart, a good judge, for he spent many years in England, "disoient bien que le françois que ils avoient apris chies eulx d'enfance n'estoit pas de telle nature et condition que celluy de France estoit."[62] And this 'condition' was soon recognized as a plentiful store for facetious remarks and parodies of all kinds. In the Roman de Jehan et Blonde, the young Frenchman's rival, the Duke of Gloucester, is made to appear ridiculous by speaking bad French; and one of the tricks played by Renart on Ysengrin, in the Roman de Renart, is to pretend he is an Englishman:[63]

Ez vos Renart qui le salue:
"Godehelpe," fait il, "bel Sire!
Non saver point ton reson dire."

And Ysengrin answers:

Et dex saut vos, bau dous amis!
Dont estes vos? de quel pais?
Vous n'estes mie nés de France,
Ne de la nostre connoissance.

A fabliau of the fourteenth century[64] pictures the dilemma of two Englishmen trying to make their French understood in France; one of them is ill and would have some lamb:

Si tu avez un anel cras
Mi porra bien mengier ce croi.

His friend sets out to try to get the 'anel' or 'lamb'; but no one understands him, and he becomes the laughing-stock of the villagers. At last some one gives him a 'small donkey' instead of the desired 'agnel,' and out of this he makes a dish for the invalid who finds the bones rather large. In the face of a reputation such as this it is no wonder that the English found additional encouragement to abandon the foreign language and cultivate their own tongue.

English was also beginning to make its way into official documents.[65] In 1362 the King's Speech at the opening of Parliament was pronounced in English, and in the following year it was directed that all pleas in the courts of justice should be pleaded and judged in English, because French was "trope desconue en ledit realme." Despite that, the act was very tardily obeyed, and English progressed but slowly, French continuing to be written long after it ceased to be spoken in the Law Courts. There were a few public documents issued in English at the end of the century, but the Acts and Records of Parliament continued to be written in French for many years subsequently. English first made its way into the operative parts of the Statutes, and till 1503 the formal parts were still written in French and Latin. Protests were made to Henry VIII. against the continued use of French, "as thereby ys testyfied our subjectyon to the Normannys"; yet it was not before the eighteenth century that English was exclusively used in the Law Courts, and for many years French, in its corrupt form, remained the literary language of the English law. Till the seventeenth century works on jurisprudence and reports on cases were mainly written in French. Les Cases de Gray's Inn shows French in accounts of discussions on difficult legal cases as late as 1680.[66] Sir John Fortescue (1394?-1476), Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, in his De Laudibus Legum Angliae, suggests that this Law French is more correct at bottom than ordinary spoken French, which, he contends, is much "altered by common use, whereas Law French is more often writ than spoken." In later times no such illusions prevailed. Swift thus estimates the value of the three languages of the English Law:[67]

Then from the bar harangues the bench,
In English vile, and viler French,
And Latin vilest of the three.

At about the same time as Swift wrote, the 'frenchified' Lady, then in fashion, who prided herself on her knowledge of the "language à la mode" is described as being able to "keep the field against a whole army of Lawyers, and that in their own language, French gibberish."[68] And long after French ceased to be used in the Law many law terms and legal and official phrases remained, and are still in use to-day.[69] Anglo-French also lingered in some of the religious houses after it had fallen into discredit elsewhere, and continued to do so in some cases till the time of their dissolution. The rules and accounts of the nunneries were more often in French than not.[70] And John ap Rhys, visitor of monasteries in the reign of Henry VIII., wrote to Cromwell regarding the monastery of Laycock in Wiltshire, that he had observed one thing "worthy th'advertisement; the ladies have their Rule, th'institutes of their Religion and the ceremonies of the same written in the Frenche tongue, which they understand well and are very perfyt in the same, albeit that it varieth from vulgar Frenche that is now used, and is moche like the Frenche that the common Lawe is written in."[71]

During this same period English began to be used occasionally in correspondence; but here again its progress was slow. Some idea of the extent to which French was utilized for that purpose may be gathered from the fact that three extant letters of William de Wykeham, addressed to Englishmen, are all in that tongue. Not till the second and third decades of the fifteenth century were English and French employed in correspondence to an almost equal extent, and during the following years, especially in the reign of Henry VI., English gradually became predominant.[72] French remained in use longer in correspondence of a public and official nature, but became more and more restricted to foreign diplomacy.

Towards the middle of the fourteenth century, at the beginning of the long wars with France, French lost ground in England in yet another direction. Edward III. is said to have found it necessary to proclaim that all lords, barons, knights, burgesses, should see that their children learn French for political and military reasons;[73] and when Trevisa translated Higden's Polychronicon, he wrote in correction of the earlier chronicler's description of the teaching of French in the grammar schools of England:[74] "This maner was moche used before the grete deth (1349). But syth it is somdele chaunged. Now (i.e. 1387) they leave all Frensch in scholes, and use all construction in Englisch. Wherin they have advantage on way that they lerne the soner ther gramer. And in another disadvantage. For nowe they lerne no Frenssh ne can none, whiche is hurte for them that shall passe the see," and thus children of the grammar schools know "no more French than knows their lefte heele."

Thus the custom of translating Latin into French passed out of use early in the second half of the fourteenth century. No doubt there had been signs of the approaching change in the preceding period, and it is of interest here to notice that while Neckham's Latin vocabulary, which dates from the second half of the twelfth century, is glossed in French alone, that of Garlande, which belongs approximately to the third decade of the following century, is accompanied by translations in both French and English. In the universities, however, where French had been slower in gaining a foothold, it remained longer; in the fifteenth century teachers of French were still allowed to lecture there as they had done previously, but it is to be noticed that in all the colleges founded after the Black Death (1349), from which the change in the grammar schools is dated, the regulations encouraging the speaking of French in Hall are absent. The change appears also to have affected the higher classes, who did not usually frequent the grammar schools and universities, but depended on more private methods of instruction. Trevisa here again adds a correction to the earlier chronicle, and informs us that "gentylmen haveth now myche lefte for to teach their children Frensch."

We thus witness the gradual disappearance of the effects of the Norman Conquest in the history of the use of the French language in England. The Conquest had made Norman-French the language of the Court, and to some extent, of the Church; it had brought with it a French literature which nearly smothered the national literature and replaced it temporarily; it had led to the system of translating Latin into French as well as into English in the schools. In the later fourteenth century French was no longer the chief language of the Court, and the king spoke English and was addressed in the same tongue. In the Church the employment of French had been restricted and transitory, though, as has been mentioned, it lingered in some of the monasteries until the sixteenth century; yet Latin never found in it a serious rival in this sphere, and the ecclesiastical department of the law never followed the civil in the adoption of the use of French. How French lost ground in the other spheres has already been traced: in all these cases its employment may be regarded as a direct result of the Conquest.

This great event had also indirect results. French became the official language of England, and the favourite medium of correspondence in the thirteenth century, when the fusion between the two races was complete. But it is highly improbable that French would have spread in these directions if the Conquest had not in the first place made French the vernacular of a considerable portion of Englishmen, and that the most influential. With its use in official documents and in correspondence, may be classed the slight encouragement French received at Oxford. In all these spheres it remained longer than it had done where its status had been a more direct result of the Conquest.

Meanwhile the desire to cultivate and imitate the French of France had been growing stronger and stronger; and when, towards the end of the fourteenth century, the older influences were getting feebler, and in some cases had passed away, the influence of the continental French, especially the French of Paris, now supreme over the other dialects, became more and more marked. And it is this language which henceforth Englishmen strove to learn, gradually relinquishing the corrupt idiom with which for so long their name had been associated.