Barclay's endeavour is to make his grammar as short and concise as possible; his rules, so far as they go, are stated very clearly; he plunges straight away into his subject without any preliminary observations: "je in frenche," he begins, "is as moche to say in english as I, tu, thou, il, he, nous, vous, ilz or els: we may use sometyme ceux for this worde ilz. If we answere to a question by this worde 'I' usynynge no verbe withall then shall not 'ie' be set for 'I' but 'moy,' as in this example, 'qui fist ce livre' ... If I sholde answere saynge I, addynge no verbe withall, I must say 'moy,' and not 'ie.'" After giving similar rules for the second person singular, he proceeds to explain how, when the words nous, vous, ilz are placed before a verb beginning with a consonant, their last consonant is not pronounced, although it remains in the spelling; but if they come before a verb beginning with a vowel, the consonants are pronounced. He then turns to the conjugation of the two auxiliaries and some of the most common irregular verbs, to show "how these pronouns are ioyned with verbes." On the back of folio 4 he begins his "introductory of orthography or true wrytynge wherby the diligent reder may be infourmed truly and perfytely to wryte and pronounce the Frenche tunge after the dyvers customes of many contress of France." Barclay, then, does not adopt an exclusive attitude towards provincial accents; he rather calls attention to them,[194] though probably merely stating facts and drawing distinctions with no intention of teaching provincial forms. Palsgrave, on the other hand, deals only with the French spoken between the Seine and the Loire, which he regarded as the only pure French. Barclay's attitude to dialectal forms may possibly be explained by the fact that he transcribed freely from the mediaeval treatises, especially the Donait françois of John Barton. His debt was early noted by Palsgrave, who wrote: "I have sene an olde boke written in parchment, in all thynges lyke to his sayd Introductory, whiche, by conjecture, was not unwritten this hundred yeares."[195] So freely, indeed, and so carelessly did Barclay use his sources, that he did not even trouble to modernize the spelling, which contains many obsolete forms; in this connexion Palsgrave, who criticizes Barclay very severely when occasion arises,[196] remarks on his use of k for c.
Having exemplified the pronunciation of some of the French letters by comparison with English sounds,[197] Barclay suddenly[198] passes to the consideration of the number and gender of nouns,[199] besides supplying a short list of nouns beginning with the first two letters of the alphabet. After this digression he concludes his observations on the pronunciation,[200] and proceeds to give an alphabetical vocabulary of nouns,[201] adjectives and verbs, apparently the earliest known attempt at an alphabetical French-English vocabulary; the earlier method of arranging words under headings is discarded, though it continued to be the usual form adopted in most French grammars until the end of the eighteenth century. Barclay's vocabulary consists of a list of words pure and simple, with no indication of gender or flexions. The Introductory ends with lists of ordinal numerals, days, seasons, and so on, together with words of learned origin common to both languages "amonge eloquent men," and, last of all, pieces of prose composition in both French and English, arranged in alternate lines.[202]
As is usual in these early grammars, there is an obvious lack of orderly arrangement, and the work, as a whole, gives the impression of being a collection of rough notes rather than a carefully planned treatise. Barclay does not, however, make any claim to completeness, nor pretend to lay down "absolute" rules as Palsgrave claimed to do. He shared the opinion, common at that time among Frenchmen, that it was impossible to formulate anything like adequate rules for the French language. The sketchy nature of his rules may be judged by that given for the position of the objective pronoun: "oft times that thynge whiche cometh before the verbe in Englyshe commyth after it in frenche as il m'a fait tort . . . je ne me puis lever." He was of opinion that rules were not of much use in learning French: that language is best learnt by "custome and use of redynge and spekynge, by often enquirynge and frequentynge of company of frenchmen and of suche as have perfytnes in spekynge the sayd language." This opinion prevailed throughout the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries in England, and, as a result, rules are reduced to a minimum in manuals for teaching French.
"Who so desyreth to knowe more of the sayd language, must provyde for mo bokes made for the same intent," Barclay notes at the end of his short and interesting treatise. Charles, Duke of Suffolk, the husband of Mary, sister to Henry VIII. and Dowager Queen of France, was soon to make the necessary provision. This "syngular good lorde," says Palsgrave, "by cause that my poore labours required a longe tracte of tyme, hath also in the meane season encouraged maister Petrus Vallensys, scole maister to his excellent yong sonne the Erle of Lyncolne to shewe his lernynge and opinion on this behalfe." Such was the origin of the Introductions in Frensche for Henry the Yonge Erle of Lyncoln (childe of greate esperaunce) sonne of the most noble and excellent princesse Mary (by the grace of God, queen of France etc.),[203] which is undated and anonymous, but clearly the work of Petrus Vallensys or Pierre Valence, French tutor to the Earl of Lincoln, and must have been written sometime in the third decade of the century.[204] Valence is said to have taught French after a "wonderesly compendious facile prompte and ready waye,"[205] and Gregory Cromwell, whom he also counted among his pupils, is reported to have made good progress under his direction. Pierre PIERRE VALENCE, TEACHER OF FRENCHValence was one of the natives of Normandy, so numerous in England at this time that the fact was commented on by Étienne Perlin, a French priest who visited England at the end of the reign of Edward VI. He describes them as being "du tout tres mechans et mauditz François," worse than all the English, which, according to him, is a very grave charge.[206] The date at which Valence came to England is unknown, but he is said to have studied at Cambridge in or about 1515.[207] He was in all probability a refugee for religious reasons. He is known to have held Lutheran opinions, and, whilst at Cambridge, caused a disturbance by defacing a copy of the Pope's general indulgence, which had been set up over the gates of the schools. Vigorous but ineffectual attempts were made to discover the writer, against whom the Chancellor pronounced sentence of excommunication. Valence is alleged finally to have acknowledged the act as his, to have expressed contrition, and to have been absolved. There are several points of contact between this man and his greater contemporary, John Palsgrave: both were students at Cambridge, possibly at the same time, though Palsgrave was the senior; both had as their pupil the son of Mr. Secretary Cromwell—the one for French and the other for Latin; both were protégés of the Dowager Queen of France (sister of Henry VIII. and Palsgrave's pupil for French) and of her husband the Duke of Suffolk. In 1535 Valence received a grant of letters of denization,[208] and ultimately became domestic chaplain and almoner to Dr. Goodrich, Bishop of Ely, and appears to have maintained this position under the bishop's successor. He was still living in 1555, since, in that year, he visited some heretics in Ely jail, and conjured them to stand loyally by the truth of the Gospel.[209]
Among the works of "dyvers clerkes" on the French language, to which Palsgrave refers, is probably to be reckoned a short treatise bearing the date 1528. This work is only known by a fragment consisting of two leaves now preserved in the library at Lambeth.[210] These pages are of quarto size and bear the signature "B. B." The right-hand page is in French, the left in English; the former is in Roman characters, the latter in black letter. Although these two pages contain the date, and the last is not full, they do not appear to be the end of the work, as the writer refers to what is to come hereafter.[211] One gathers from internal evidence that the author was a foreigner—no doubt a Frenchman. He speaks, for instance, of the "gentz Englois" as though he was not one of them; and it appears to be quite certain that the work was originally composed in French, and translated into English rather carelessly, and probably by another hand, for in the version it is rendered almost unintelligible by the translation of the French illustrative examples as well as the text itself.
The contents are of a light and entertaining character. The author holds that many rules do but "trouble and marre" the understanding. He counsels students rather to follow the example of good writers as likely to be more helpful.
He treats entirely of the pronunciation, and devotes special attention to the difficulties of the English,[212] laying emphasis on the importance of placing the accent on the right syllable. The rules are put in an amusing way, thus: "a should be pronounced fro the botom of the stomake and all openly, e a lytell higher in the throte there properly where the Englishman soundeth his e; i, in the roundnesse of the lippes; u, in puttynge a lytell of wynde out of the mouthe." Further uses of the vowel a are thus set forth: it may be placed before all verbs, in the infinitive mood, and before all manner of nouns and pronouns, as "to Robert," "to May," and so on. Again, "it betokeneth 'have' when it cometh of the Latin verb habeo." The consonants are next dealt with and disposed of in much the same way. Some attention is also given to the question, then much discussed, whether the etymological consonants in the words where they are not pronounced should be retained or not. The author's opinion was that every letter in a word ought to be sounded, yet he feels himself utterly unable to struggle against custom, and falls back on the rule "go as you please": TWO FRENCH POETS TEACH FRENCH"Pronounce ech one as he shal please, for to difficyl it is to correct olde errours."
Among the French teachers in England at this time were also two Frenchmen of considerable literary distinction—Nicolas Bourbon, the Latin poet and well-known scholar, friend of Rabelais and Marot; and Nicolas Denisot, who likewise held an important place among French humanists, and finished his literary education under Daurat, the famous Hellenist.
Bourbon came to England under the protection of Anne Boleyn, who appears to have taken a special interest in him;[213] she had, he tells us, procured his liberation from imprisonment. Bourbon was for some time a private tutor in Paris, and soon after he regained his freedom he crossed to England, intending to continue his work there. He had a cordial welcome, and invariably speaks of his stay and treatment in London with gratitude. His Latin verses[214] show him to be acquainted with the chief Englishmen who gathered round the Court, where he occupied his leisure by writing satirical verses against the queen's enemies, especially Sir Thomas More,[215] and in eulogizing Cromwell, Cranmer, and the Reform Party then in power. It was on the recommendation of the king and queen, he informs us, that he was engaged as French tutor in several families of distinction, including the Carews, Norrisses, and Harveys. John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, was one of his patrons, and from him Robert Dudley, afterwards Earl of Leicester, together with his brothers, learnt French as children. Bourbon left England in 1535, on hearing of the death of his father. He had probably been in the country at least two years, and, perhaps happily for himself, left it a year before the fall of his patroness Anne Boleyn.
At a somewhat later date, 1547, the elegant poet and artist Nicolas Denisot arrived in England, driven from Paris by an unfortunate love affair.[216] His nephew, Jacques Denisot, declares he was "fort bien accueilliz dans la cour d'Angleterre où son estime et sa reputation estoit deja cogneue." He mixed with the writers and politicians[217] of the day, and attracted the notice of the Court by writing verses in honour of the young king, Edward VI.[218] He soon found himself in the distinguished position of French and Latin tutor to the three daughters of the Protector Somerset,—Anne, Margaret, and Jane,—who were destined shortly to become famous in Paris as his pupils, and to form an important link in the literary relations of the two countries. Calvin corresponded with one of Denisot's pupils, the Lady Anne; and in 1549 he wrote requesting her to use her knowledge of French in transmitting to her mother an expression of his gratitude for a ring he had received from that lady, he being unable to do so, on account of his ignorance of English.[219] In this same year, 1549, Denisot's engagement in the house of Somerset came to an end rather abruptly, probably on account of some misunderstanding with the duke. He returned to France after spending three years in England, and thence kept up a friendly correspondence with his former pupils. On the death of Queen Margaret of Navarre, whom, no doubt, Denisot had taught them to admire, the sisters composed four hundred Latin distichs in her honour, and sent them to their former master, who welcomed them with enthusiasm, and published them in 1550. In the following year the verses appeared again, accompanied by French, Italian, and Greek translations, and verses from the pen of Ronsard, Du Bellay, and other literary friends of Denisot.[220] It is a striking fact that before the Pléiade was fully known in France, the fame of some of its members had reached England, where a particular interest would be taken in this development of the work of the three princesses. Ronsard, Denisot's intimate friend, wrote one of his earliest odes in honour of Denisot's pupils, in which he celebrates the intellectual union of France and England: