The learning of French in England before going abroad did not, as a rule, enter into the plan of writers on the subject of travelling. Moryson, however, realized that "at the first step the ignorance of language doth much oppresse (the traveller) and hinder the fruite he should reape by his iourney." And Bacon went a step further when he wrote that "he that travaileth into a Country, before he hath some entrance into the language, goeth to schoole, and not to travaile.... If you will have a Young Man to put his Travaile into a little Roome, and in a short time to gather much, this you must doe. First, as was said, he must have some Entrance into the Language before he goeth. Then he must have such a Servant, or Tutor, as knoweth the country."[623] Later writers usually agree that it would be of benefit to have "something of the French"[624] before leaving England, "though it were only to understand something of it and be able to ask for necessary things," or to have "some grammatical instruction in the language, as a preparation to speaking it."[625] And indeed many travellers had some previous knowledge of French. Sir Philip Sidney, for instance, could manage a letter in French when he was at school at Shrewsbury; Lord Herbert of Cherbury had studied the language with the help of a dictionary; Sir John Reresby, at a later date, had learnt French at a private school, though, like many students nowadays, he could not speak the language on his arrival in France. STUDIES PREVIOUS TO TRAVELSeveral went abroad to "improve" themselves in French, and no doubt the phrase "to learn the French tongue"[626] often meant to learn to speak it.
In the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, however, many of those who studied French seriously in England did not go to France. Among these were the ladies, to whose skill Mulcaster[627] draws the attention of travellers, as a proof that languages can be learnt as well at home as abroad; and not a few of the younger sons of noblemen,[628] as well as the prosperous middle class—the frequenters of the French schools in St. Paul's Churchyard, and the pupils of Du Ploich and Holyband, neither of whom makes any reference to the tour in France.
The "common practice" in the sixteenth century among young travellers was to proceed to France knowing no French. They fully expected to learn the language there, with no further exertion than living in the country. They are constantly warned of the futility of such expectations. Dallington, Fynes Moryson, and others lay much emphasis on the necessity of some serious preliminary study of grammar and reading of good literature. French teachers in England compared the poor results obtained in France by these leisurely methods with those achieved by their own efforts in England. No doubt they found the practice of learning French by residence in France a serious rival to their own methods. De la Mothe,[629] for instance, declares he knows English ladies and gentlemen who have never left England and yet speak French incomparably better than others who have been in France three or four years trying to pick up the language by ear, as most travellers do. Another French teacher[630] writes: "I have knowne three Gentlemen's sonnes, although I say it that should not say it, who can testify yet, that in their return from France (after they had remained foure yeares at Paris, spending a great deal of money) perused my rules but six moneths and did confesse they reaped more good language in that short space I taught them then in all the time they spent in France. And sundry others I have helped who never saw France, and yet could talke, read and write better language in one yeare than those who have bene at Paris two yeares, learning but the common phrase of the countrie, shacking off a litle paines to learne the rules."
While holding that French could be better learnt in England with rules than in France without any such assistance, the French teachers of London admitted that the language could perhaps be best learnt in France, but only with the help of a good teacher and serious study, as in England. However, there were hardly any language teachers in France, according to them, while in England it was easy to find many good ones. Dallington more specifically bewails the fact that the traveller finds a "great scarcitie" of such tutors, and directs him to a certain M. Denison, a Canon of St. Croix in Orleans, after whom he may inquire, "except his good acquaintance or good fortune bring him to better."
There was indeed little provision for the serious study of French in France before the end of the sixteenth century. Most travellers, we are told, "observed only for their owne use." Few Frenchmen took up the teaching of their own language to foreigners as a profession, and those who taught from time to time or merely upon occasion rarely proved successful. Yet the earliest grammars produced in France were intended largely for the use of foreigners. Special attention is paid to points which usually offered difficulty to foreigners, such as the pronunciation and its divergencies from the orthography.[631] Sylvius or Du Bois, writing in Latin,[632] remarks that his principles may serve the English, the Italians and Spaniards, in short, all foreigners; no doubt those he had chiefly in mind were the numbers of English and other foreign students at the University of Paris. When the earliest grammar written in French appeared, its author, Louis Meigret,[633] sought to justify his use LANGUAGE TEACHERS IN FRANCEof the vernacular by suggesting that foreign students should first learn to understand French by speaking and reading good French literature, instead of depending on Latin for the first stages. He had noticed the peculiarities of the English pronunciation of French, especially the habit of misplacing the accent; "they raise the voice on the syllable an in Angleterre, while we raise it on the syllable ter: so that French as spoken by the English is not easily understood in France." From other grammarians foreigners always received some attention. Pillot[634] and Garnier[635] both wrote in Latin with a special view to foreigners; and Peletier,[636] who used French, retains all the etymological consonants, that strangers may find Latin helpful in understanding French.
Not before the end of the sixteenth century, however, do we hear of the first important language teacher in France—Charles Maupas of Blois, a surgeon by profession, who spent most of his life, more than thirty years, teaching French to "many lords and gentlemen of divers nations" who visited his native town. He was "well known to be a famous teacher of the French tongue to many of the English and Dutch nobility and gentry." For his English pupils Maupas showed particular affection.[637] And from them he received in turn numerous proofs of friendship. Among the Englishmen who learnt French under his care was George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, who, at about the age of eighteen, travelled into France, where "he improved himself[638] well in the language for one that had so little grammatical foundation, but more in the exercises of that Nobility for the space of three years and yet came home in his naturall plight, without affected formes (the ordinary disease of Travellers)."[639] Maupas bears stronger testimony to his pupil's attainments in the French language, and some years later he gratefully dedicated to the Duke his French grammar, first issued publicly in 1618.
Maupas's Grammaire françoise contenant reigles tres certaines et adresse tres asseurée a la naïve connoissance et pur usage de nostre langue. En faveur des estrangers qui en seront desireux, was first privately printed in 1607.[640] He had not originally intended it for publication. The work grew out of the notes and observations he compiled in order to overcome his pupils' difficulties. As these rules increased in number and importance, many students began to make extracts from them; others made copies of the whole, a "great and wearisome labour." Finally, Maupas, touched by this keenness, resolved to have a large number of copies printed. He distributed these among his pupils and their friends, till, contrary to his expectation, he found he had none left. It was then that the first public edition was issued at Lyons in 1618, and was followed by six others, which were not always authorized. A Latin edition also appeared in 1623.
Maupas insists on the necessity of employing a tutor. "Let them come to me," he says, addressing foreigners desirous of learning French, "if it is convenient."[641] To learn the language by ear and use alone is impossible. The small outlay required to engage a teacher saves much time and labour. As to the grammar, it should be read again and again, and in time all difficulties will disappear; it will be of great use even to those already advanced in French. He undertook to teach and interpret the grammar in French itself, without having recourse to the international language Latin, the usual medium of teaching French to travellers; he tells us that many of his pupils were ignorant of Latin, and that the practice of interpreting the grammar in French had been adopted by many of his fellow-teachers in other towns. The great advantage of this method was, he thought, that reading and pronunciation are learnt conjointly with grammar, the phrases and style of the language together with its rules and precepts. Besides, the student must read some book; and a grammar was, in his opinion, preferable to the little comedies and dialogues usually resorted to for this purpose. He did not, however, forget that some light reading was a greater incentive to the learner, and in practice used both.
Maupas died in 1625, when a new edition of his grammar was in preparation. His son, who assisted him in teaching, saw the work through the press, and invited students to transfer to him the favours they had bestowed on his father. Apparently the younger Charles Maupas continued to teach his father's clientèle for some time. CHARLES MAUPAS OF BLOISIn 1626 he gave further proof of his zeal for the cause in editing and publishing a comedy which both he and his father had frequently read with pupils not advanced enough for more serious matter. We are told vaguely that this comedy, entitled Les Desguisez: Comedie Françoise avec l'explication des proverbes et mots difficiles par Charles Maupas a Bloys, was the work of one of the beaux esprits of the period.[642] Maupas, however, only had one copy, and knew not where to procure more. He was induced to have it printed on seeing the great labour and time expended by many of his pupils in making copies of it for their own use. For the benefit of students who had no tutor, he added an explanatory vocabulary of proverbs and difficult words.
Maupas's Grammaire et syntaxe françoise is still looked on with respect.[643] The reputation it enjoyed in the seventeenth century is the more remarkable in that it was the work of a provincial who had no relations with the Court, then the supreme arbiter in matters of language. But the grammar passed into oblivion in the course of time, as more modern manuals took its place. Maupas's hope that it would be used by foreign students of French as long as the language was held in esteem was not to be fulfilled.