We are also told[877] of a boy of seven who spoke Latin, French, and English with equal facility, "by reason that his father talked to him in nothing but Latin, and his mother, who was a Frenchwoman, in nothing but French, and the rest of the family in nothing but English." And the Rev. Henry Wotton of Corpus Christi, Cambridge, has left an account of how, when he undertook the education of his son, "leaving off the Accidence in that Method that ordinarily children are trained up in, (he) immediately thought with (him)self to make an experiment whether children of his years might not be taught the Latin Tongue as ordinarily children are taught the French and Italian, and without the torture of grammar, to make them, by reading a Latin book, to understand Nouns and Verbs, Declensions and Moods, and that without the vast circuit, that ordinarily takes up 3 or 4 years, as preparatory to read any Latin author."[878] Evelyn bears witness to the success of Wotton's experiment. He saw the young William Wotton in London at the age of eleven, and pronounced him "a miracle."[879] To Evelyn also we are indebted for an account of another case of similar precocity due to the same method. He relates how he and Pepys saw a child of twelve, the son of one Dr. Clench, "who was perfect in the Latine authors, spake French naturally, and possessed amazing knowledge. His tutor was a Frenchman, who had not troubled him to learn even the rules of grammar by heart, but merely read to him, first in French, and then in Latin."[880]
In no case, however, was the contrast between the prevalent methods of teaching Latin and French so marked as in the learning of Latin in Grammar Schools, and of French in France by "rote" or with the help of a few general grammar rules; the older the student, the more necessary were grammar rules considered. Richard Carew, for instance, was struck by the fact that he learnt more French without rules in three-quarters of a year in France than he had learnt Latin in more than thirteen years' strenuous study of grammar. He had gone to France on leaving the university. On his arrival he was at a loss for words, knowing nothing of the language; but after a short stay, spent in the midst of French people, talking and reading nothing but French, he surmounted the difficulties of the language with surprising ease, and wished students of Latin to benefit by his experience.[881] The two languages, indeed, were not infrequently studied together by the considerable number of English children who were sent to France for purposes of education.
FOOTNOTES:
[824] "It is most astonishing that there ever could have been people idle enough to write and read such endless heaps of the same stuff. It was, however, the occupation of thousands in the last century, and is still the private though disavowed amusement of young girls and sentimental ladies," wrote Chesterfield in the eighteenth century (Letters to his Son, 1774, p. 242). Even Johnson read and enjoyed these lengthy romances.
[825] Jusserand, The English Novel in the Time of Shakespeare, p. 381.
[826] Letters from Dorothy Osborne to Sir Wm. Temple, 1652-54, London, 1888, p. 318.
[827] He in turn passed them on to Lady Diana Rich.
[828] T. P. Courtney, Memoirs of the Life, Works and Correspondence of Sir Wm. Temple, London, 1836, i. p. 5.
[829] Letters, p. 172; ep. Goldsmith, Essay on the Use of Language: "If again you are obliged to wear a flimsy stuff in the midst of winter, be the first to remark that stuffs are very much worn at Paris."
[830] Pepys used Cotgrave's Dictionary; Diary, February 26, 1660-1.