On the whole, the impression conveyed by the perusal of the two editions is that the work is a compilation of treatises already in existence in manuscript. Neither the letters nor the vocabulary present any strikingly new features. The origin of the courtesy book is known, and it is even possible that the fragment of one leaf preserved belongs, not to another edition of the Good Book to learn to speak French, but to an earlier edition of the courtesy book in French and English, printed probably by Caxton, with the intention of imparting a knowledge of polite behaviour and of the favourite language of polite society at the same time. The fact that it reproduces the original courtesy book more fully than does either of the complete texts of Wynkyn and Pynson, suggests that it belonged to some such edition, or to an edition of the Good Book earlier than either of these. As to the dialogues, they may have belonged to the group of conversational manuals, which were, no doubt, fairly numerous. Caxton, while maintaining that his 'doctrine' contains more than "many other books," adds: "That which cannot be found declared in it, shall be found elsewhere in other books." That such practical little books shared the fate of the great majority of school manuals is not surprising.

The hypothesis that the work is a compilation of older treatises would, moreover, explain the variations in the quality of the French. The dialogues and letters, it would appear, were in the first place written by Englishmen. Pynson corrected them here and there, without, however, eliminating all the anglicisms, archaisms, and provincial forms; and when they passed through the hands of Wynkyn they underwent still further emendation. The English version contains gallicisms, just as the French contains anglicisms,[130] which were, however, probably due to a desire to make the English tally with the French. This same supposition also makes it easier to understand how it came about that the treatise was printed by the two rival printers within the space of a few years, and explains how it was they repeated the same obvious mistakes.

Thus, of the matter found in the mediaeval treatises for teaching French, grammar rules alone are unrepresented in this Good Book. Its aim is entirely practical. It seeks to teach those who wish to "lerne to speke Frensshe" for practical purposes, that is, "to do their merchaundise," and there is no mention of any deeper or wider knowledge of the language. That the work was intended for the use of children as well as for merchants is shown by the introduction of the courtesy book, and, in the later edition, of the favourite frontispiece for children's school-books described above. But these do not form a vital part of the work itself, and are mere supplements, added probably with the intention of increasing the public to which the book would appeal. The children who used it, we may assume, would probably be of the class of the boy, "John, enfant beal et sage," who appears in the 'manière' of 1415, and learns French that he may the more quickly achieve his end of being apprenticed to a London merchant. To such children the apprentice's letter quoted above would be of much interest.

Grammar did not hold a very large place in the teaching of French at this time. Practice and conversation were the usual methods of acquiring a knowledge of spoken French, and no doubt such books as those of Caxton and of Pynson and Wynkyn de Worde found many eager students. The two editions of the first and the three editions of the second with which we are acquainted, all of which probably appeared in the course of the last decade of the fifteenth century, bear testimony to this. Reference has already been made to the probable existence of numerous works of a similar scope in manuscript, and later in print. Such were the "little pages, set in print, with no precepts," to which Claude Holyband, the most popular French teacher of London in the second half of the sixteenth century, refers with contempt; he accuses them of wandering from the 'true phrase' of the language, and of teaching nothing of the reading and pronunciation, "which is the chiefest point to be considered in that behalf," and hence of serving but little to the "furtherance of the knowledge of the French tongue." Yet, though such was the case in all these early works, they seem, without exception, to have enjoyed great popularity at the time they were written, when to speak French fluently was an all-important matter. The difficulty of this accomplishment was realised to the full. We find it expressed in a few disconnected sentences added in French probably at the beginning of the sixteenth century, at the end of the 'manière de langage' of 1396: "We need very long practice before we are able to speak French perfectly," says the anonymous writer, evidently an Englishman, "for the French and English do not correspond word for word, and the fine distinctions are difficult to seize." He proceeds to urge the necessity of a glib tongue in making progress in French, and quotes the case of an unfortunate man, good fellow though he might otherwise be, who lacked this faculty: "Il ne luy avient plus a parler franceis qu'à une vache de porter une selle, a cause que sa langue n'est pas bien afilée, et pour cela n'entremette il pas à parler entre les fraunceis."

In the early part of the sixteenth century, however, French began to be studied with more thoroughness in England. Communication with France and the tour in France were no longer fraught with the same dangers and difficulties, and favoured the use of a purer form of French. Fluent was no longer sufficient without correct pronunciation and grammar. The standard of French taught was also raised by the arrival of numerous Frenchmen, who made the teaching of their language the business of their lives. Further, the spread of the art of printing had rendered French literature more accessible, and supplied a rich material from which the rules of the language might be deduced. And so it became possible for John Palsgrave, the London teacher and student of Paris, to complete the first great work on the French language, in which, however, he did not forget to render due homage to his humble predecessors,[131] then fast passing into oblivion.

FOOTNOTES:

[75] Freeman, Norman Conquest, ii., 1868, pp. 16 sqq., 28 sqq.

[76] Manière de Langage, 1396; cp. infra, p. 35.

[77] "Doulz françois qu'est la plus bel et la plus gracious language et plus noble parler, apres latin d'escole, qui soit au monde."

[78] Jehan Barton, Donait François, c. 1400.