FOOTNOTES:

Pourquoi ne parle-t-il point de vendre et d'acheter?Parce qu'il n'a rien à vendre et que fort peu d'argent pour acheter; et que les autres faiseurs de livres François en ce pais ont tout vendu et tout acheté avant qu'il allât au marché.Pourquoi ne dit-il rien du Manger et du Boire?Pour tant qu'il y prend fort peu de plaisir, faute d'appétit, et que quelques-uns de ceux qui l'ont precédé l'ont fait pour lui, nommant fidèlement toutes les viandes qu'ils ont portées à la table de leurs maîtres. Qui lèche les plats, en peut bien parler.Pourquoi ne parle-t-il point des Habits, et de La Mode, du Lever et du Coucher, de la Chambre et du Lit?Parce que nos maîtres, qui ont été valets de chambre ou laquais, lui ont épargné ce travail, comme leur étant plus propre qu'à lui.Pourquoi se tait-il des Merciers, des Tailleurs et des Cordonniers?Parce qu'ils aiment mieux argent contant que des paroles et que n'étant point dans leurs livres il ne se souvient guère d'eux et s'en soucie encore moins.Pourquoi laisse-t-il les Ministres, les Médecins et les Jurisconsultes, sans faire attention d'eux?Parce qu'ils ont assez d'esprit pour ne s'oublier pas: et assez de langue pour parler pour eux-mêmes. Et toutefois il en parle à la dérobée, sans leur donner un discours à part, quoiqu'il honore ces professions-là, et aime fort passionément plusieurs personnes de ces trois états, pour leurs rares mérites.

Pourquoi ne parle-t-il point de vendre et d'acheter?

Parce qu'il n'a rien à vendre et que fort peu d'argent pour acheter; et que les autres faiseurs de livres François en ce pais ont tout vendu et tout acheté avant qu'il allât au marché.

Pourquoi ne dit-il rien du Manger et du Boire?

Pour tant qu'il y prend fort peu de plaisir, faute d'appétit, et que quelques-uns de ceux qui l'ont precédé l'ont fait pour lui, nommant fidèlement toutes les viandes qu'ils ont portées à la table de leurs maîtres. Qui lèche les plats, en peut bien parler.

Pourquoi ne parle-t-il point des Habits, et de La Mode, du Lever et du Coucher, de la Chambre et du Lit?

Parce que nos maîtres, qui ont été valets de chambre ou laquais, lui ont épargné ce travail, comme leur étant plus propre qu'à lui.

Pourquoi se tait-il des Merciers, des Tailleurs et des Cordonniers?

Parce qu'ils aiment mieux argent contant que des paroles et que n'étant point dans leurs livres il ne se souvient guère d'eux et s'en soucie encore moins.

Pourquoi laisse-t-il les Ministres, les Médecins et les Jurisconsultes, sans faire attention d'eux?

Parce qu'ils ont assez d'esprit pour ne s'oublier pas: et assez de langue pour parler pour eux-mêmes. Et toutefois il en parle à la dérobée, sans leur donner un discours à part, quoiqu'il honore ces professions-là, et aime fort passionément plusieurs personnes de ces trois états, pour leurs rares mérites.

STATE OF THE TEACHING PROFESSION

N'a-t-il rien des Apoticaires, des Chirurgiens et des Barbiers?Pas un seul mot, monsieur, parce qu'il se sert rarement des premiers, et que, par la grâce de Dieu, il n'a ni playes ni ulcères ni vérole pour les seconds, et que, les derniers le tenant à la gorge, il n'oseroit parler.Il pourroit dire quelque chose des Parens et des Alliéz.Qu'en diroit-il, les siens lui étant si peu courtois? S'il parloit d'eux, ce seroit moyen de renouveler ses douleurs.

N'a-t-il rien des Apoticaires, des Chirurgiens et des Barbiers?

Pas un seul mot, monsieur, parce qu'il se sert rarement des premiers, et que, par la grâce de Dieu, il n'a ni playes ni ulcères ni vérole pour les seconds, et que, les derniers le tenant à la gorge, il n'oseroit parler.

Il pourroit dire quelque chose des Parens et des Alliéz.

Qu'en diroit-il, les siens lui étant si peu courtois? S'il parloit d'eux, ce seroit moyen de renouveler ses douleurs.

Herbert, it will be seen, had not a very high opinion of the social origin or ability of the majority of his fellow-teachers. He was a very unwilling member of the profession. He does not style himself "Professor of the French Language" on the title-page of his dialogues, although he taught both in his house and away from home, because few people care to boast of their cross, and his cross was—to be reduced to belong to a profession "que tant de valets, de mécaniques, et d'ignorants rendent tous les jours méprisable." He draws a far from flattering picture of the common sort of French teacher. He is a "brouillon," a shuffling fellow, who boasts, dresses well, and intrudes everywhere, cringing and offering his services at a cheaper price than the genuine teachers. He can hardly write seven or eight lines of French correctly. Yet men such as this, says Herbert, pass for first-class teachers, and some take upon themselves to correct and write books. What is more, they count many pupils, even among the nobility.

Yet another cause of annoyance to Herbert was what seemed to him the presumption of the Blois fraternity. It is the fashion, he remarks scornfully, to say you come from Blois. And you do so if you happen to come from Normandy. He is not ashamed of his province, though he takes good care not to advertise it needlessly; Brittany (of which he was evidently a native) is better than Blois, according to him. Thus we may conclude that Herbert was one of the 'enemies' to whom members of the Blois group frequently allude. Festeau refers to them as being ignorant and envious persons, while Mauger describes them foaming with envy and jealousy, and trying to harm him in the eyes of his pupils, as well as casting aspersions on his grammar;[841]but he did not regard what they said, England having raised his grammar so highthat "their envy cannot reach to it." And Mauger goes on to censure a certain section of the French teaching profession, "broken Frenchmen," who make their pupils speak rapidly, but not distinctly. "Have a speciall care," he exclaims, "that you have not to do with those that are not true Frenchmen as your Normans or Gascons. I confesse that a Norman that is a man of some quality or one that hath seen the world or that is a good scholar may possibly have the right accent, but any other that hath not such parts can never give the true accent." Herbert retorted that the Blois clique tried to persuade every one that Bretons and Normans cannot speak correct French. He naturally resented such assertions, and was not himself nearly so exclusive in the list of those who were not "good Frenchmen." He merely states that the English are greatly mistaken in their estimation of the French living here, "considering as such all those that speak their tongue, so that the high Germans, Switzers of the French tongue, Danes, Swedes, Dutch, Walloons, and those of Geneva pass for good French in the opinion of many, although in truth there are not here two naturall French 'mongst ten, which are taken for such, and who for their profit would gladly go for such."

There was every need, thought Herbert, of protecting the profession from these incompetent teachers. Before a tutor is engaged he should be made to translate a passage from a good author from English into French, and then from French into English, and both the pieces should be examined by competent judges of both languages; for, according to him, a teacher must know English, or some other language with which the scholar is acquainted, such as Latin, so that there may be some foundation on which to build the new edifice.

Beyond the importance he attached to translation, we know little of Herbert's ideas on the teaching of French. He devotes more space to criticizing the teachers. He does tell us, however, that French orthography is best learnt by transcribing French passages, by which operation it impresses itself on the mind without effort. He was also an advocate of much and careful reading. Grammatical rules he considered necessary, and he had intended to publish a grammar together with his dialogues, but he was prevented from doing so by illness. He hoped, however, to issue it a few months later, but apparently he was again prevented from carrying out his design. Yet two years after the appearance of hisGUILLAUME HERBERTdialogues he published another work but of quite a different character—Considerations on the behalf of Foreiners which reside in England, and of the English who are out of their own country, to allay the tempest which is too often raised in the minds of the vulgar sort, and to sweeten the bitterness of a bilious or cholerick humour against strangers, in which he showed "that of all the Nations of Europe, the English and French should love one another best, as well for their vicinity as for the great commerce that is 'mongst them in time of peace, and for their consanguinitie, there being in this country thousands of families which are descended from the French, and as many or more in France whose progenitours are English." These 'considerations,' twenty in number, are mainly a plea in favour of the foreign churches in England and of the liberty of aliens to trade and work in this country, with an allusion to the "good usage of neighbouring Nations" towards the English fugitives of Mary's reign. They are dated from the Charterhouse, June 1662, and appear to have been the only work Herbert published after hisDialogues. He had, however, previously shown his interest in the teaching of French by editing in 1658 the fourth edition of Cogneau'sSure Guide to the French Tongue,[842]which consisted largely of the style of dialogue which he ridiculed at a later date.

Herbert had had a long career in England before we first hear of him as a teacher of French. He had composed treatises in French and in English, both of which he wrote with equal facility. His language gives no clue to his nationality, but, as we saw, we may conclude from his autobiographical dialogue that he was a native of Brittany. He was, no doubt, the William Herbert, native of France, who received a grant of letters of denization in 1636. At that date he was living at Pointington, Somerset, and was married to an Englishwoman, Frances Sedgwicke. In the previous year he had prepared for the press a work in French calledLa Mallette de David.[843]How he spent his time in Pointington is not clear, but in 1640 he was tutor to the sons of Montague Bertie, second Earl of Lindsey. On the death of his wife in 1645 he moved to London, and published a number of devotional works in English, which he had composed at Pointington, chiefly for the benefit of his wife and children. He refers to the unfavourable reception of these compositionsin his French and English dialogues, which he hoped would meet with a better fate.

Herbert also took a great interest in the foreign churches of London. He dedicated hisQuadripartit Devotionof 1648 to the "learned, pious, and reverend Pastors, Elders, and Deacons of all the French and Dutch congregations in England." At a later date he published a biting pamphlet against a French Pastor, Jean Despagne,—theRéponse aux Questions de Mr. Despagne adressées à l'Eglise Françoise de Londres(1657), accusing "le ridicule Despagne" of blasphemy and immorality, as well as criticising his French. In this work Herbert agrees with Lainé in omitting a number of superfluous letters, with the intention of facilitating reading for foreigners, though he was opposed to too many changes, for fear of offending the partisans of the old orthography. TheDialoguesand theConsiderations in behalf of Strangerswere the two works issued subsequently to the attack on Despagne, and with them ends all we know of the career of Herbert, critic of the French teaching profession, and earliest advocate of the "registration" of teachers.

The Jean Despagne attacked so bitterly by Herbert was none the less a welcome guest in this country, and was the only truly French minister in London during the Commonwealth. English as well as French, attracted by his excellent sermons, gathered round him. Thus he co-operated in a sense, and no doubt unconsciously, with Mauger and the other French teachers of the time, who were busy encouraging their pupils to attend the French church. Despagne was minister, not of the old church of Threadneedle Street, but of a new congregation in Westminster, which met at first in Durham House in the Strand, and when that was pulled down, at the chapel in Somerset House (1653).[844]He held aloof from the older church, and went so far as to criticise Calvin. He was attacked and accused of schism, but was protected by his powerful patrons, chief among whom was the Earl of Pembroke. An important group of the royalist English nobility and gentry found in Despagne a means of satisfying their religious needs when the Anglican church was in abeyance. Among them was the diarist John Evelyn, who heardDespagne preach in the Savoy church.THE FRENCH CHURCHESAnother adherent, and a very faithful one, was a certain Henry Brown, who, in his English translation of one of Despagne's works,[845]speaks of the great resort of the English nobility and gentry to the "excellent sermons and Doctrines" of the French pastor. Many continued to attend after the Restoration, Evelyn among others; as late as 1670 he remarks that "a 'stranger' preached at the Savoy French church, the liturgie of the Church of England being now used altogether, as translated into French by Dr. Durell."

The Savoy church had been authorized by Charles II. at the Restoration on condition that the English Liturgy in French should be used. The Threadneedle Street church, on the contrary, continued to use the Calvinistic 'discipline,' and regarded with jealousy and suspicion the church rising in Westminster. It refused all co-operation, and endeavoured to bring about the suppression of the new church. The Savoy church benefited on account of its situation in the fashionable residential quarter, while Threadneedle Street was away in the city. Consequently many members of the English aristocracy and gentry continued to frequent the Westminster church even after the Restoration. The use of the Anglican Liturgy was no doubt an additional attraction. When service was opened there in 1661, by J. Durel,[846]among the English present were the Duke and Duchess of Ormond, the Countess of Derby and her daughters, the Earl of Stafford, and the Dukes of Newcastle and Devonshire. Indeed the English gentry seem to have occupied the attention of the French churches just as much as the refugees themselves. The Threadneedle Street church felt the advantages of its Westminster rival in this respect, and at the Restoration, offered to establish a French Sabbath Lecture at Westminster for those of the English gentry and French Protestants who found Threadneedle Street too remote, hoping by this means to prevent division by having a separate church there.[847]The Threadneedle Street church, however, was not without its English adherents. Pepys went from time to time to both French churches, but more frequently to Threadneedle Street, as far as can be gathered from his diary, where he does not always specify which of the churchesis meant. "At last I rose," he writes on the 28th September 1662, "and with Tom to the French church at the Savoy, where I never was before; a pretty place it is; and there they have the Common Prayer Book read in French, and which I never saw before, the minister do preach with his hat off, I suppose in further conformity with our Church." Pepys as a rule went to the Anglican church in the morning, and to the French in the afternoon. He usually has a very good word for the sermon, though on one occasion it was so "tedious and long that they were fain to light candles to baptize the children by." There were also services held at the French ambassador's, which many of the nobility attended, as well as French sermons at Court from time to time. Evelyn was present on one of these occasions: "At St. James's chapel preached, or rather harangued, the famous orator, Monsieur Morus, in French. There were present the King, the Duke, the French ambassador Lord Aubigny, the Earl of Bristol, and a world of Roman Catholics, drawn thither to hear this eloquent Protestant." This was on the 12th of January 1662. At a much later date, September 1685, he heard another Frenchman, "who preached before the King and Queene in that splendid chapell next St. George's Hall."

It appears therefore that the practice, common among French teachers, of urging their pupils to go to the French church, met with some response, as did their advice as regards the reading of French literature. On both these points the teachers of the middle of the seventeenth century are at one with those of the sixteenth, and, as a general rule, there is very little difference between the methods used in the two centuries. Reading remained the basis of the teaching; dialogues were committed to memory and translated into English, less importance being attached to retranslation into French in later times. As for pronunciation, the teachers of the seventeenth century realised the inadequacy of teaching it by comparison with English sounds; they laid all the more emphasis on the services of a good tutor, continuing, none the less, to supply certain rules, though not without a warning. As time went on, more importance was attached to the grammar, which, though still limited in theory to essential general rules, was often studied in the first place, and not left till need for it arose in practice. The general opinion is thus expressed by James Howell: "What foundationsareFRENCH BY "GRAMMAR AND ROTE"to material fabriques the same is grammar to a language. If the foundation be not well laid, 'twill be but a poor tottring superstructure; if grammatical rules go not before, there is no language can be had in perfection. Yet there are no precepts so punctuall, but much must be left to observation, which is the grand Mistresse that guides and improves the understanding in the research and poursute of all humane knowledge,Quod deficit in praecepto, suppleat observatio." Students who learnt on this method, called a combination of "grammar and rote," would read aloud with their tutor, chiefly for practice in pronunciation; study the principal grammar rules and commit to memory the vocabulary of familiar phrases, and a few short dialogues; read and translate[848]French dialogues, and then pass to the favourite French authors; sometimes they would translate from English into French, or write French letters; finally they would converse as much as possible with their tutor, repeat stories they had read in French, and seize every opportunity of speaking the language and hearing it spoken.

Such was the method employed by the more serious French teachers of the time. There were, however, others, and apparently very many, who taught "by rote" alone without any grammar rules—a common method of learning modern languages. "In England, the French, Spanish, and Italian Languages are not the languages of our country, and spoke only by few Persons, yet 'tis evident they are taught in London, and several other places in the Kingdom, purely by conversation." "For it is well known," argues a writer on education,[849]"that there are Grammars writ for the French, Italian, and Spanish languages, and yet notwithstanding, these Languages are learned by Conversation ... little children, who know not what Grammar means, are bred up to speak foreign languages fluently and correctly.... Thereare some indeed, in England that teach Modern Languages by Grammar. But this is not at all necessary, as is unanswerably evident from those Persons who perfectly learn them without it. However, those who reach the Modern Languages by Grammar only teach their scholars so much of it as to know how to decline Nouns and Verbs and understand some few rules. For as for the Languages themselves, they are generally taught not by Books but Conversation, which is found by experience to be much the readiest, easiest, and best Method of teaching them.... Some by great application have learn'd French or Italian in half a year's time by conversation, and indeed any foreign Tongue is ordinarily taught in a year or a year and a half. And such as are two years in learning any of them are accounted either very negligent or else very incapable of retaining them.... Men who know little or nothing of French, Italian, or Spanish, quickly learn any one of these languages only by going twice or thrice a week to a club where they are obliged to speak it."

How common such practical methods of learning French were may be gathered from the fact that the few memoirs and similar writings which give any detail on the subject invariably mention them. For instance, the mother of Mrs. Hutchinson, the wife of the regicide and Governor of Nottingham, was sent to board in the house of a refugee minister in order to learn French.[850]As to Mrs. Hutchinson herself, she had a French nurse, and was taught to speak English and French together.[851]Others had tutors. Thus the mother of Lady Anne Halkett, the royalist and writer on religious subjects, paid masters to teach Lady Anne and her sister "to write, speak French, play on the lute and virginals and dance";[852]and Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle, held up by Mrs. Makin as an example to "all ingenious and Vertuous Ladies," also had tutors for the polite accomplishments, and refers to her language lessons as "prating."[853]She acquired a good knowledge of French, became attendant to Queen Henrietta Maria, and accompanied her in her exile in France.

An example of the opportunities of acquiring a knowledgeFRENCH BY CONVERSATIONof French, "in any leisure hour," as Milton said of Italian, is found in the Letters of Robert Loveday, the translator of part of La Calprenède'sCléopâtre. Loveday lived during the Commonwealth as a dependent in the house of Lady Clinton at Nottingham, where, he says, French "was familiarly spoken by the best sort of the family."[854]He therefore had every opportunity of learning the language, and was much helped by an old Italian gentleman, skilled in French, who was living in the house on the same footing as himself. As a result of his application he was able to translate several French works into English "in those empty spaces of time which were left by those that command me at my disposall." He procured a copy of Cotgrave's dictionary and asked a friend in London to make enquiries at the booksellers if there was "any new French book of indifferent volume that was worth the translating and not enterprised by any other."[855]Loveday hoped by this means to give "larger scope to (his) narrow condition" at Nottingham. One of his first enterprises was the translation of a "mad fantastick Dream" he met with in Sorel'sFrancion, which he sent to his brother; but his chief work was a rendering of the first three parts ofCléopâtre, which was hardly of the "indifferent size" he writes of. The several parts appeared in 1652, 1654, and 1655 respectively, under the title ofHymen's Praeludia, or Love's Masterpiece, and were dedicated to his "ever-honoured lady" Lady Clinton. In the complete version, the fourth, fifth, and sixth parts are also ascribed to Loveday.

Thus practical methods gained a firm hold in the teaching of French; when grammar was studied, it was within limited boundaries, and only so far as desirable for practical purposes. In the teaching of Latin, on the other hand, more and more importance was attached to the study of grammar, which took the foremost place, literature being regarded as little more than a collection of illustrative examples of the rules.[856]Grammar had become "a full swolen and overflowing stream, which, by a strong hand, arrogates to itself (and hath well-nigh gotten) the whole traffic in learning,especially of languages."[857]The use of the Grammar and reading books in Latin alone was another practice which engaged the attention of the reformers.[858]"A book altogether in Latin is a mere Barbarian to our children," wrote Charles Hoole,[859]who published many of the popular Latin school-books with English translations, in the style of those which are always present in the French text-books. His opinion was that "no language is more readily got than by familiar discourse in it, and ability therein is in no way sooner gained then by comparing the tongue we learn with that we know, and asking how they call this or how they say that in another language, which we are able to express in our own." A writer of the time[860]thus describes "that wild goose chase usually led": "ordinarily boys learn a leaf or two of the Pueriles, twenty pages of Corderius, a part of Esop's Fables, a piece of Tullie, a little of Ovid, a remnant of Virgil, Terence, etc. ... to read the accidence, to get it without book, is ordinarily the work of one whole year. To construe the Grammar and to get it without book is at least the task of two years more, and then, it may be, it is little understood until a year or two more is spent in making plain Latin ... when it is all done, besides declining nouns and forming verbs and getting a few words, there is very little advantage to the child." And a French teacher,[861]writing at about the same time, has left a very similar picture. He describes how theGRAMMATICAL STUDY OF LANGUAGESchild slaves till the age of fifteen or sixteen, forced to learn against his will a little Latin and Greek, with little result after seven or eight years of hardship. "Not 10 per cent really know either; they are buried under afatrasof words and rules, which stun the memory and overturn the judgment, and all under the rule of the rod." Such is the learning of a foreign language "by grammar."

The feeling of dissatisfaction with the usual method of teaching Latin in grammar schools, however, seems to have been general in the seventeenth century, and many were the protests and appeals for reform. "No man can run speedily to the mark of languages that is shackled and ingiv'd with grammar precepts," wrote Joseph Webbe,[862]who draws a careful distinction between the grammar-Latin thus acquired and what he calls Latin-Latin,[863]that is, "Such as the best approved authors wrote and left us in their books and monuments of use and custom," as distinct from "that Latin which we now make by grammar rules, and their collection out of that custom and those authors was to make us write and speak such Latin as that custom and those authors did, which was Latin-Latin, but it succeeded not."

Consequently there arose a belief that "practice"—in speaking, reading, and writing the language—should take its place by the side of grammar. Writers pleaded, in the style of Elyot and Ascham, for the teaching of Latin on more practical lines, quoting Montaigne's experience.[864]Thomas Grantham[865]opened a private school, in which he sought to deliver youth from their "great captivity" and the hardship and uselessness of learning grammar word for word without book and in Latin, which the boy does not understand, "just as if a man should teach one an art in French when he understands not French." Grantham, on the contrary, taught his scholars to understand the rules first, and by repeatedly applying them they came to know them without book, whether they would or no. Similar was the method of the French teachers, who often carried the idea further, and taught their pupils the rules as need for them arose in practice.

John Webster thus puts the case for and against learning by "rule." "As for grammar," he says,[866]"which hath been invented for the more certain and facile teaching and obtaining of languages, it is very controvertible whether it perform the same in the surest, easiest and shortest way or not, since hundreds speak their mother tongue and other languages very perfectly, use them readily, and understand them excellent well, and yet never knew or were taught any grammar rules, nor followed the wayes of Conjugations and Declensions, Noun or Verb. And it is sufficiently known that many men, by their own industry, without the method or rules of grammar, have gotten a competent understanding in divers languages: and many unletter'd persons will, by use and exercise, without Grammar rules, learn to speak and understand some languages in far shorter time than any do learn them by method and rule, as is clearly manifest by those that travel.... And again, if we conceive that languages learnt by use and exercise render men ready and expert in the understanding and speaking of them, without any aggravating or pushing the intellect and memory, when that which is gotten by rule and method, when we come to use and speak it, doth exceedingly rack and excruciate the intellect and memory: which are forced at the same time, not only to find fit words agreeable to the present matter discoursed of, and to put them into a good Rhetorical order, but must at the same instant of speaking, collect all the numerous rules of number, case ... as into one centre, where so many rayes are united and yet not confounded, which must needs be very perplexive and gravaminous to memorative faculty: and therefore none that attains languages by grammar do ever come to speak and understand them perfectly and readily, until they come to a perfect habit in the exercitation of them, and so thereby come to lose and leave the use of those many and intricate rules, which have cost us so many pains to attain to them, and so to justifie the saying that we do butdiscere dediscenda." Those who learn by "use and exercitation," on the other hand, acquire languages more quickly and with better results. If the study of grammar is insisted on, it should be made very brief. The indeclinables require no rules, but are learnt byuse.LOCKE ON THE TEACHING OF FRENCHOf the declinables the only ones that present any difficulties are the noun and the verb, regular and irregular. As to the irregulars, they are best learnt by "use," as rules only "render the way more perplexed and tedious. And the way of the regulars is facile and brief, being but one rule for all."

Many others wrote in a similar strain,[867]advocating the teaching of Latin on lines widely used in the teaching of French. Several actually specified the modern language, which was first mentioned in books on education in this connexion. Thomas Grantham, in hisBrain Breaker's Breaker(1644), points out that many young gentlemen and ladies learn to speak French in half a year without grammar, and argues that the same purpose could be achieved with Latin and Greek in a twelvemonth. Similarly George Snell argued that Latin might be learnt "in as short a time as a Monsieur can teach French,"[868]for the pronunciation, so great a task in learning the living tongue, is of no importance in the dead language. At a somewhat later date, when French had made more headway in the scholastic world, Locke plainly states that people are accustomed to the right way of teaching French, "which is by talking it into children by constant conversation, and not by Grammatical Rules,"[869]and proposes that the same method should be applied to Latin. "When we so often see a Frenchwoman teach an English girl to speak and read French perfectly in a year or two, without any ruleof grammar, or anything else but prattling to her, I cannot but wonder how gentlemen have overseen this way for their sons, and thought them more dull and incapable than their daughters."[870]Elsewhere Locke again draws comparisons between the teaching of Latin and that of French,[871]and a French teacher of the early part of the eighteenth century recognized the importance of this tribute when he published a grammar intended to confirm the knowledge acquired by "practice."[872]

Yet all these proposals and protests do not seem to have had much effect on the teaching of Latin. In a few cases, however, experiments were attempted, usually in connexion with French. Several were made with theJanuaof Comenius, which had early been adapted to the teaching of French as well as Latin. The theories of Comenius himself had no doubt inspired the English reformers. He had written that rules are thorns to the understanding, that no one ever mastered a language by precept alone, though it is often done by practice; rules, however, should not be entirely discarded.[873]

J. T. Philipps, who was later tutor to the Duke of Cumberland, son of George II., relates[874]how he taught both Latin and French on practical lines with the help of Comenius. His pupil first got a good notion of the Latin tongue by studying the verbs and nouns, and then learning the Latin column of theJanua Linguarum. "I likewise at som leisure Hours," continues Philipps, "taught him to read French and when he had good the pronunciation, he labour'd for some time, as he did before in the Latin, to make himself Master of the French Verbs and Nouns, and then began to learn the sentences in another column of theJanua Linguarum, which, by the assistance of the Latin, he mastered in a very short time. So that before the end of the first year, he could read Fontaine'sFablesfrom French into English, and give me anLANGUAGES LEARNT WITHOUT GRAMMARaccount of the French Minister's text which he heard, and part of the sermon; for I charg'd him never to miss the French Church, that he might the better accustom himself to the true Accent of that Tongue.... I spent an hour every Sunday Morning all the time the Boy was with me, to read over several short Catechisms or systems in Divinity both in French and Latin."[875]

The learned Mrs. Bathsua Makin, who had been governess to the daughters of Charles I., and later kept a school at Tottenham High Cross, also advocated the use of theJanua Linguarumfor learning Latin and French. The young ladies of her school learnt ten Latin sentences of theJanuaa day thoroughly, spending "but six hours a day in their books." By the end of six months they had a fair knowledge of the language, and turned to French: "If the Latin tongue may be learnt in 6 months, where most of the words are new, then the French may be learnt in three, by one that understands Latin and English, because there is not above one word of ten of the French Tongue, that may not fairly, without force, be reduced to the Latin or English."[876]

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.[831]This book was very widely read in England. But there does not seem to have been an English translation of it before 1709 (Pepys'sDiary, Oct. 13, 1664, ed. Wheatley, 1904).[832]Diary, Jan. 13, Feb. 8 and 9, 1667-8.[833]L'Hydrographie contenant la théorie et la pratique de toutes les parties de la navigation, 1643.[834]He read Descartes'sMusicae Compendium, but did not think much of it.[835]Pepys relates how one evening Penn and he fell to discoursing about some words in a French song Mrs. Pepys was singing—D'un air tout interdict: "wherein I laid twenty to one against him, which he would not agree to with me, though I know myself in the right as to the sense of the word, and almost angry we were, and were an houre and more upon the dispute, till at last broke up not satisfied, and so home."[836]Les Résolutions Politiques ou Maximes d'État, par Jean de Marnix, Baron de Potes, Bruxelles, 1612.[837]Cp. E. Gosse,Seventeenth Century Studies, 1897; J. J. Jusserand,The English Novel in the Time of Shakespeare, p. 373.[838]D. Canfield,Corneille and Racine in England, 1904. How common was the presence of Frenchmen in English families of high standing may be gathered from Orinda's statement that "one, Legrand, a Frenchman belonging to the Duchess of Ormond, has by her order set the fourth [song inPompeyto music], and a Frenchman of my Lord Orrery's the second" (Letters of Orinda to Poliarchus, London, 1705, Letter dated Jan. 31, 1663).[839]Fifth ed., Amsterdam, 1686. Translated into English by F. Spence, London, 1683. Queen Henrietta Maria had done much to foster the spirit of theAstréeand the Hôtel de Rambouillet in England: cp. J. B. Fletcher, "Précieuses at the Court of Charles I.," in theJournal of Comparative Philology, vol. i. 1903.[840]Between ladies and "cavaliers." Herbert explains that by "cavalier" he meansgalant homme. Here is a specimen of their style: "Cavalier: La voilà, je la vois.—Dame: Que voyez-vous, mons.?—Je vois la Gloire du beau sexe, l'Ornement de ce siècle, et l'Objet de mes affections.—Vous voyez ici bien des choses.—Toutes ces choses sont en une.—C'est donc une merveille.—Dites, ma chère Dame, la merveille des merveilles.—Je le pourrois dire après vous, car votre bel esprit ne se sauroit tromper.—Il se peut bien tromper, mais non pas en ceci.—Je veux qu'il soit infaillible en ceci: il faut pourtant que je voye cette Gloire, cet Ornement et cet Objet, pour en pouvoir juger.—Vous ne les sauriez voir que par réflexion.—Je ne vous entens pas.—Approchez-vous de ce miroir, et vous verrez ce que je dis. Qu'y voyez-vous, ma Belle?—Je vous y vois, monsieur.—Voilà une belle réponse.—Belle ou laide, elle est vraye.—Elle l'est effectivement: mais n'y voyez-vous rien que moi?—Je m'y vois aussi bien que vous.—Vous voyez donc cette illustre merveille, etc."[841]"Il y a des particuliers qui ne sont pas dans mes intérêts, qui les (i.e.his works) décrient hautement, non pas tant par malice que par jalousie, quelques-uns étant des personnes intéressées qui sont de ma profession, ou des critiques ignorans qui trouvent à redire à tout ce que les autres font, pour faire paroître ce qu'ils n'ont point, s'imaginant qu'on les prend pour des hommes d'esprit, quand on les entend reprendre les choses les mieux faites."[842]See p. 290,supra.[843]Arber,Stationers' Register, iv. 333.[844]Schickler,Églises du Refuge, ii. pp. 148-9, and 153. Despagne became a denizen in 1655 (Hug. Soc. Pub. xviii.). Cp. also Haag,La France protestante, ad nom., and theBulletin de la société de l'Histoire du Protestantisme français, viii. pp. 369et seq.He died in 1658.[845]Harmony of the Old and New Testament, 1682, Brown's preface.[846]Schickler,op. cit.ii. p. 224.[847]Cal. of State Papers, Dom., 1660-61, p. 277.[848]That translation was not always the means of interpretation is shown by the following passage from Mauger; a stranger questions one of his pupils:Entendez-vous tout ce que vous lisés?J'en entends une partie.Entendez-vous bien le sens?Fort bien, monsieur.Probably French was not 'construed' word for word, as Latin was, the clause, on the contrary, being made the starting-point. "Construing word for word is impossible in any language," wrote Joseph Webbe in hisPetition to the High Court of Parliament, quoting as an example the "barbarous English of the Frenchman, 'I you pray, sir,' forJe vous prie, monsieur."[849]An Essay on Education, London, 1711.[850]Memoirs of the Life of Colonel Hutchinson, ed. C. H. Firth, London. 1885, i. p. 16.[851]Ibid.p. 23.[852]Autobiography of Lady Anne Halkett, 1622-1699, 1701, Camden Society, 1875, p. 2.[853]The Lives of Wm., Duke of Newcastle and of his wife Margaret ... written by the thrice noble and illustrious princess Margaret, Duchess of Newcastle, ed. M. A. Lower, 1872, p. 271.[854]Loveday's Letters, Domestick and forrain to several persons ..., London, 1659, p. 31.[855]Letters, p. 105. Cp. also pp. 26, 47, 79, 135, etc. It is evident from the letter of Dorothy Osborne quoted above, p. 320, that she had learnt French chiefly by ear. Several of the inaccuracies, such as the use of the past participle for the infinitive, would not be noticeable in pronunciation.[856]F. Watson,Grammar Schools, pp. 276sqq.[857]J. Webbe,An Appeale to Truth in the Controversie between Art and Verse about the best and most expedient course in languages, 1622.[858]There was a strong feeling at this period in favour of a freer use of English in the teaching of Latin, chiefly on account of the time such a course would save. Thus Milton recognized the mistake of spending a great number of years in learning one language "making two labours of one by learning first the accidence, then the grammar in Latin, ere the language of those rules be understood." The remedy, he thought, was the use of a grammar in English (A. F. Leach, "Milton as Schoolboy and Schoolmaster,"Proceedings of the British Academy, iii. 1908). Snell (Right Teaching of Useful Knowledge, 1649), Mrs. Makin or M. Lewis (?) (Essay to Revive the Antient Education of Gentlewomen, 1671), and others also argued that English should be the groundwork of the teaching of Latin. Most of the English grammars produced in the seventeenth century claim to be useful to scholars as an introduction to the rudiments of Latin; and it was on this footing, no doubt, that English grammar first made its way into the schools. Chief among these, perhaps, was J. Poole'sEnglish Accidence for attaining more speedily the Latin Tongue, so that every young child, as soon as he can read English, may by it turn any sentence into Latin. Published by Authority, and commended as generally necessary to be made use of in all schooles of this commonwealth, London, 1655. For a list of English grammars cp. F. Watson,Modern Subjects, chap. i. Lily's Grammar came to be almost always used with the English rendering by Wm. Hume. Cp. Watson,Grammar Schools, p. 296.[859]An advertisement ... touching school books, 1659.[860]An Essay to Revive the Antient Education of Gentlewomen, London, 1673 (by Mrs. Makin or Mark Lewis).[861]G. Miège,A New French Grammar, 1678, p. 377.[862]Appeale to Truth, 1622, p. 41.[863]Petition to the High Court of Parliament, in behalf of auncient and authentique Authours, for the universall and perpetuall good of every man, 1623.[864]Essais, liv. i., ch. xxv.[865]Cp.The Brain Breaker's Breaker, or the Apologie of Th. Grantham for his Method of Teaching, 1644.[866]The Examination of Academies, wherein is discussed ... the Matter, Method and Customes of Academick and Scholastick Learning, and the insufficiency thereof discovered and laid open, 1653, p. 21.[867]Thus Sir Wm. Petty, in hisAdvice to S. Hartlib for the advancement of some particular parts of learning(1648), argues that languages should be taught by "incomparably more easy wayes then are now usuall." An anonymous "Lover of his Nation" proposed that children should learn Latin as they do English, by having no other language within their hearing for two years; and similarly with other languages (Watson,Modern Subjects, p. 482). Ch. Hoole, teacher at a private grammar school in London, also proposes that Latin should be learnt by speaking and hearing it spoken, and attributes the unsatisfactory knowledge of the language to the too frequent use of English in schools (New Discoverie of the old art of Teaching Schooll, 1660). The French teacher Miège suggests that Latin should be taught in special schools, on the same lines as French was taught in the French ones (French Grammar, 1678). In 1685 was publishedThe Way of Teaching the Latin Tongue by use to those that have already learn'd their Mother Tongue; and in 1669 had appeared a work translated from the French, calledAn Examen of the Way of Teaching the Latine Tongue to little children by use alone. Among other publications of similar import are:An Essay on Education, showing how Latin, Greek, and other Languages may be learn'd more easily, quickly and perfectly than they commonly are, 1711; andAn Essay upon the education of youth in Grammar Schools in which the Vulgar Method of Teaching is examined, and a new one proposed for the more easy and speedy training up of Youth, to the knowledge of the Learned Languages ..., by J. Clarke, Master of the Public Grammar School in Hull (London, 1720).[868]Right Teaching of Useful Knowledge to fit scholars for some honest Profession, London, 1649, p. 186.[869]Locke,Some thoughts concerning Education(1693), ed. J. W. Adamson, inEducational Writings of Locke, London, 1912, p. 125.[870]Op. cit.p. 127.[871]"Why does the Learning of Latin and Greek need the rod, when French and Italian need it not?" (op. cit.p. 69). And again, "Those who teach any of the modern languages with success never amuse their scholars to make speeches or verses either in French or Italian, their business being language barely and not invention" (op. cit.p. 71).[872]J. Palairet,New Royal French Grammar, The Hague, 1738.[873]Languages, he held, were best learnt by rules of a simple nature, comparison of the points of difference and resemblance between the known and unknown language, and exercises on familiar subjects.[874]A compendious way of teaching Ancient and Modern Languages ..., 2nd edition, London, 1723, pp. 45et seq.[875]He would then learn Italian and Spanish on the same plan.[876]An Essay to Revive the Antient Education of Gentlewomen ..., 1673.[877]Essay on Education, 1711. The case of Queen Elizabeth, who is said to have learnt only one or two Latin rules, is also quoted.[878]An Essay on the education of children in the first rudiments of learning, together with a narrative of what knowledge Wm. Wotton, a child of 6 years of age, had attained unto upon the Improvement of those Rudiments in the Latin, Greek and Hebrew Tongues.Reprinted, London, 1753, p. 38.[879]Diary, July 6, 1679.[880]Ibid., Jan. 27, 1688.[881]For this purpose he wroteThe True and readie way to learne the Latin Tongue, expressed in an answer to the Question whether the ordinary way of teaching Latin by Rules of Grammar be best, 1654.

[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.

[831]This book was very widely read in England. But there does not seem to have been an English translation of it before 1709 (Pepys'sDiary, Oct. 13, 1664, ed. Wheatley, 1904).

[832]Diary, Jan. 13, Feb. 8 and 9, 1667-8.

[833]L'Hydrographie contenant la théorie et la pratique de toutes les parties de la navigation, 1643.

[834]He read Descartes'sMusicae Compendium, but did not think much of it.

[835]Pepys relates how one evening Penn and he fell to discoursing about some words in a French song Mrs. Pepys was singing—D'un air tout interdict: "wherein I laid twenty to one against him, which he would not agree to with me, though I know myself in the right as to the sense of the word, and almost angry we were, and were an houre and more upon the dispute, till at last broke up not satisfied, and so home."

[836]Les Résolutions Politiques ou Maximes d'État, par Jean de Marnix, Baron de Potes, Bruxelles, 1612.

[837]Cp. E. Gosse,Seventeenth Century Studies, 1897; J. J. Jusserand,The English Novel in the Time of Shakespeare, p. 373.

[838]D. Canfield,Corneille and Racine in England, 1904. How common was the presence of Frenchmen in English families of high standing may be gathered from Orinda's statement that "one, Legrand, a Frenchman belonging to the Duchess of Ormond, has by her order set the fourth [song inPompeyto music], and a Frenchman of my Lord Orrery's the second" (Letters of Orinda to Poliarchus, London, 1705, Letter dated Jan. 31, 1663).

[839]Fifth ed., Amsterdam, 1686. Translated into English by F. Spence, London, 1683. Queen Henrietta Maria had done much to foster the spirit of theAstréeand the Hôtel de Rambouillet in England: cp. J. B. Fletcher, "Précieuses at the Court of Charles I.," in theJournal of Comparative Philology, vol. i. 1903.

[840]Between ladies and "cavaliers." Herbert explains that by "cavalier" he meansgalant homme. Here is a specimen of their style: "Cavalier: La voilà, je la vois.—Dame: Que voyez-vous, mons.?—Je vois la Gloire du beau sexe, l'Ornement de ce siècle, et l'Objet de mes affections.—Vous voyez ici bien des choses.—Toutes ces choses sont en une.—C'est donc une merveille.—Dites, ma chère Dame, la merveille des merveilles.—Je le pourrois dire après vous, car votre bel esprit ne se sauroit tromper.—Il se peut bien tromper, mais non pas en ceci.—Je veux qu'il soit infaillible en ceci: il faut pourtant que je voye cette Gloire, cet Ornement et cet Objet, pour en pouvoir juger.—Vous ne les sauriez voir que par réflexion.—Je ne vous entens pas.—Approchez-vous de ce miroir, et vous verrez ce que je dis. Qu'y voyez-vous, ma Belle?—Je vous y vois, monsieur.—Voilà une belle réponse.—Belle ou laide, elle est vraye.—Elle l'est effectivement: mais n'y voyez-vous rien que moi?—Je m'y vois aussi bien que vous.—Vous voyez donc cette illustre merveille, etc."

[841]"Il y a des particuliers qui ne sont pas dans mes intérêts, qui les (i.e.his works) décrient hautement, non pas tant par malice que par jalousie, quelques-uns étant des personnes intéressées qui sont de ma profession, ou des critiques ignorans qui trouvent à redire à tout ce que les autres font, pour faire paroître ce qu'ils n'ont point, s'imaginant qu'on les prend pour des hommes d'esprit, quand on les entend reprendre les choses les mieux faites."

[842]See p. 290,supra.

[843]Arber,Stationers' Register, iv. 333.

[844]Schickler,Églises du Refuge, ii. pp. 148-9, and 153. Despagne became a denizen in 1655 (Hug. Soc. Pub. xviii.). Cp. also Haag,La France protestante, ad nom., and theBulletin de la société de l'Histoire du Protestantisme français, viii. pp. 369et seq.He died in 1658.

[845]Harmony of the Old and New Testament, 1682, Brown's preface.

[846]Schickler,op. cit.ii. p. 224.

[847]Cal. of State Papers, Dom., 1660-61, p. 277.

[848]That translation was not always the means of interpretation is shown by the following passage from Mauger; a stranger questions one of his pupils:Entendez-vous tout ce que vous lisés?J'en entends une partie.Entendez-vous bien le sens?Fort bien, monsieur.Probably French was not 'construed' word for word, as Latin was, the clause, on the contrary, being made the starting-point. "Construing word for word is impossible in any language," wrote Joseph Webbe in hisPetition to the High Court of Parliament, quoting as an example the "barbarous English of the Frenchman, 'I you pray, sir,' forJe vous prie, monsieur."

[848]That translation was not always the means of interpretation is shown by the following passage from Mauger; a stranger questions one of his pupils:

Entendez-vous tout ce que vous lisés?J'en entends une partie.Entendez-vous bien le sens?Fort bien, monsieur.

Probably French was not 'construed' word for word, as Latin was, the clause, on the contrary, being made the starting-point. "Construing word for word is impossible in any language," wrote Joseph Webbe in hisPetition to the High Court of Parliament, quoting as an example the "barbarous English of the Frenchman, 'I you pray, sir,' forJe vous prie, monsieur."

[849]An Essay on Education, London, 1711.

[850]Memoirs of the Life of Colonel Hutchinson, ed. C. H. Firth, London. 1885, i. p. 16.

[851]Ibid.p. 23.

[852]Autobiography of Lady Anne Halkett, 1622-1699, 1701, Camden Society, 1875, p. 2.

[853]The Lives of Wm., Duke of Newcastle and of his wife Margaret ... written by the thrice noble and illustrious princess Margaret, Duchess of Newcastle, ed. M. A. Lower, 1872, p. 271.

[854]Loveday's Letters, Domestick and forrain to several persons ..., London, 1659, p. 31.

[855]Letters, p. 105. Cp. also pp. 26, 47, 79, 135, etc. It is evident from the letter of Dorothy Osborne quoted above, p. 320, that she had learnt French chiefly by ear. Several of the inaccuracies, such as the use of the past participle for the infinitive, would not be noticeable in pronunciation.

[856]F. Watson,Grammar Schools, pp. 276sqq.

[857]J. Webbe,An Appeale to Truth in the Controversie between Art and Verse about the best and most expedient course in languages, 1622.

[858]There was a strong feeling at this period in favour of a freer use of English in the teaching of Latin, chiefly on account of the time such a course would save. Thus Milton recognized the mistake of spending a great number of years in learning one language "making two labours of one by learning first the accidence, then the grammar in Latin, ere the language of those rules be understood." The remedy, he thought, was the use of a grammar in English (A. F. Leach, "Milton as Schoolboy and Schoolmaster,"Proceedings of the British Academy, iii. 1908). Snell (Right Teaching of Useful Knowledge, 1649), Mrs. Makin or M. Lewis (?) (Essay to Revive the Antient Education of Gentlewomen, 1671), and others also argued that English should be the groundwork of the teaching of Latin. Most of the English grammars produced in the seventeenth century claim to be useful to scholars as an introduction to the rudiments of Latin; and it was on this footing, no doubt, that English grammar first made its way into the schools. Chief among these, perhaps, was J. Poole'sEnglish Accidence for attaining more speedily the Latin Tongue, so that every young child, as soon as he can read English, may by it turn any sentence into Latin. Published by Authority, and commended as generally necessary to be made use of in all schooles of this commonwealth, London, 1655. For a list of English grammars cp. F. Watson,Modern Subjects, chap. i. Lily's Grammar came to be almost always used with the English rendering by Wm. Hume. Cp. Watson,Grammar Schools, p. 296.

[859]An advertisement ... touching school books, 1659.

[860]An Essay to Revive the Antient Education of Gentlewomen, London, 1673 (by Mrs. Makin or Mark Lewis).

[861]G. Miège,A New French Grammar, 1678, p. 377.

[862]Appeale to Truth, 1622, p. 41.

[863]Petition to the High Court of Parliament, in behalf of auncient and authentique Authours, for the universall and perpetuall good of every man, 1623.

[864]Essais, liv. i., ch. xxv.

[865]Cp.The Brain Breaker's Breaker, or the Apologie of Th. Grantham for his Method of Teaching, 1644.

[866]The Examination of Academies, wherein is discussed ... the Matter, Method and Customes of Academick and Scholastick Learning, and the insufficiency thereof discovered and laid open, 1653, p. 21.

[867]Thus Sir Wm. Petty, in hisAdvice to S. Hartlib for the advancement of some particular parts of learning(1648), argues that languages should be taught by "incomparably more easy wayes then are now usuall." An anonymous "Lover of his Nation" proposed that children should learn Latin as they do English, by having no other language within their hearing for two years; and similarly with other languages (Watson,Modern Subjects, p. 482). Ch. Hoole, teacher at a private grammar school in London, also proposes that Latin should be learnt by speaking and hearing it spoken, and attributes the unsatisfactory knowledge of the language to the too frequent use of English in schools (New Discoverie of the old art of Teaching Schooll, 1660). The French teacher Miège suggests that Latin should be taught in special schools, on the same lines as French was taught in the French ones (French Grammar, 1678). In 1685 was publishedThe Way of Teaching the Latin Tongue by use to those that have already learn'd their Mother Tongue; and in 1669 had appeared a work translated from the French, calledAn Examen of the Way of Teaching the Latine Tongue to little children by use alone. Among other publications of similar import are:An Essay on Education, showing how Latin, Greek, and other Languages may be learn'd more easily, quickly and perfectly than they commonly are, 1711; andAn Essay upon the education of youth in Grammar Schools in which the Vulgar Method of Teaching is examined, and a new one proposed for the more easy and speedy training up of Youth, to the knowledge of the Learned Languages ..., by J. Clarke, Master of the Public Grammar School in Hull (London, 1720).

[868]Right Teaching of Useful Knowledge to fit scholars for some honest Profession, London, 1649, p. 186.

[869]Locke,Some thoughts concerning Education(1693), ed. J. W. Adamson, inEducational Writings of Locke, London, 1912, p. 125.

[870]Op. cit.p. 127.

[871]"Why does the Learning of Latin and Greek need the rod, when French and Italian need it not?" (op. cit.p. 69). And again, "Those who teach any of the modern languages with success never amuse their scholars to make speeches or verses either in French or Italian, their business being language barely and not invention" (op. cit.p. 71).

[872]J. Palairet,New Royal French Grammar, The Hague, 1738.

[873]Languages, he held, were best learnt by rules of a simple nature, comparison of the points of difference and resemblance between the known and unknown language, and exercises on familiar subjects.

[874]A compendious way of teaching Ancient and Modern Languages ..., 2nd edition, London, 1723, pp. 45et seq.

[875]He would then learn Italian and Spanish on the same plan.

[876]An Essay to Revive the Antient Education of Gentlewomen ..., 1673.

[877]Essay on Education, 1711. The case of Queen Elizabeth, who is said to have learnt only one or two Latin rules, is also quoted.

[878]An Essay on the education of children in the first rudiments of learning, together with a narrative of what knowledge Wm. Wotton, a child of 6 years of age, had attained unto upon the Improvement of those Rudiments in the Latin, Greek and Hebrew Tongues.Reprinted, London, 1753, p. 38.

[879]Diary, July 6, 1679.

[880]Ibid., Jan. 27, 1688.

[881]For this purpose he wroteThe True and readie way to learne the Latin Tongue, expressed in an answer to the Question whether the ordinary way of teaching Latin by Rules of Grammar be best, 1654.

Back to Index Next