THE HOUSE IN WHICH SHAKSPEARE WAS BORN—PLAGUE AT STRATFORD,
JUNE 1564—SHAKSPEARE EDUCATED AT THE FREE-SCHOOL OF
STRATFORD—STATE OF EDUCATION, AND OF JUVENILE LITERATURE IN
THE COUNTRY AT THIS PERIOD—EXTENT OF SHAKSPEARE'S ACQUIREMENTS
AS A SCHOLAR.
The experience of the last half century has fully proved, that every
thing relative to the history of our immortal dramatist has been
received, and received justly too, by the public with an avidity
proportional to his increasing fame. What, if recorded of a less
celebrated character, might be deemed very uninteresting, immediately
acquires, when attached to the mighty name of Shakspeare, an importance
nearly unparalleled. No apology, therefore, can be necessary for the
introduction of any fact or circumstance, however minute, which is, in
the slightest degree, connected with his biography; tradition, indeed,
has been so sparing of her communications on this subject, that every
addition to her little store has been hitherto welcomed with the most
lively sensation of pleasure, nor will the attempt to collect and
embody these scattered fragments be unattended with its reward.
The birth-place of our poet, the spot where he drew the first breath of
life, where Fancy
—— "fed the little prattler, and with songs
Oft sooth'd his wond'ring ears,"
has been the object of laudable curiosity to thousands, and happily the
very roof that sheltered his infant innocence can still be pointed out.
It stands in Henley-street, and, though at present forming two separate
tenements, was originally but one house.[21:A] The premises are still
in possession of the Hart family, _now_ the _seventh_ descendants, in
a direct line, from Jone the sister of the poet. From the plate in
Reed's Shakspeare, which is a correct representation of the existing
state of this humble but interesting dwelling, it will appear, that
one portion of it is occupied by the Swan and Maidenhead public-house,
and the other by a butcher's shop, in which the son of old Mr. Thomas
Hart, mentioned in the last chapter, still carries on his father's
trade.[22:A] "The kitchen of this house," says Mr. Samuel Ireland, "has
an appearance sufficiently interesting, abstracted from its claim to
notice as relative to the Bard. It is a subject very similar to those
that so frequently employed the rare talents of Ostade, and therefore
cannot be deemed unworthy the pencil of an inferior artist. In the
corner of the chimney stood an old oak-chair, which had for a number
of years received nearly as many adorers as the celebrated shrine of
the Lady of Loretto. This relic was purchased, in July 1790, by the
Princess Czartoryska, who made a journey to this place, in order to
obtain intelligence relative to Shakspeare; and being told he had
often sat in this chair, she placed herself in it, and expressed an
ardent wish to become a purchaser; but being informed that it was not
to be sold at any price, she left a handsome gratuity to old Mrs. Hart,
and left the place with apparent regret. About four months after, the
anxiety of the Princess could no longer be withheld, and her secretary
was dispatched express, as the fit agent, to purchase this treasure at
any rate: the sum of twenty guineas was the price fixed on, and the
secretary and chair, with a proper certificate of its authenticity on
stamped paper, set off in a chaise for London."[23:A] The elder Mr.
Hart, who died about the year 1794, aged sixty-seven, informed Mr.
Samuel Ireland, that he well remembered, when a boy, having dressed
himself, with some of his playfellows, as Scaramouches (such was his
phrase), in the wearing-apparel of Shakspeare; an anecdote of which,
if we consider the lapse of time, it may be allowed us to doubt the
credibility, and to conclude that the recollection of Mr. Hart had
deceived him.
Little more than two months had passed over the head of the infant
Shakspeare, when he became exposed to danger of such an imminent kind,
that we have reason to rejoice he was not snatched from us even while
he lay in the cradle. He was born, as we have already recorded, on the
23d of April, 1564; and on the 30th of the June following, the plague
broke out at Stratford, the ravages of which dreadful disease were so
violent, that between this last date and the close of December, not
less than two hundred and thirty-eight persons perished; "of which
number," remarks Mr. Malone, "probably two hundred and sixteen died of
that malignant distemper; and one only of the whole number resided,
not in Stratford, but in the neighbouring town of Welcombe. From the
two hundred and thirty-seven inhabitants of Stratford, whose names
appear in the Register, twenty-one are to be subducted, who, it may
be presumed, would have died in six months, in the ordinary course of
nature; for in the five preceding years, reckoning, according to the
style of that time, from March 25. 1559, to March 25. 1564, two hundred
and twenty-one persons were buried at Stratford, of whom two hundred
and ten were townsmen: that is, of these latter, forty-two died each
year at an average. Supposing one in thirty-five to have died annually,
the total number of the inhabitants of Stratford at that period was one
thousand four hundred and seventy; and consequently the plague, in the
last six months of the year 1564, carried off more than a seventh part
of them. Fortunately for mankind it did not reach the house in which
the infant Shakspeare lay; for not one of that name appears in the dead
list. May we suppose, that, like Horace, he lay secure and fearless in
the midst of contagion and death, protected by the Muses, to whom his
future life was to be devoted, and covered over:—
—————— "_sacrâ
Lauroque, collataque myrto,
Non sine Diis animosus infans_."[24:A]
It is now impossible to ascertain with any degree of certainty the mode
which was adopted in the education of this aspiring genius; all that
time has left us on the subject is, that he was sent, though but for
a short period, to the free-school of Stratford, a seminary founded in
the reign of Henry the Sixth, by the Rev. —— Jolepe, M. A., a native
of the town; and which, after sharing, at the general dissolution of
chantries, religious houses, &c. the usual fate, was restored and
patronised by Edward the Sixth, a short time previous to his death.
Here it was, that he acquired the _small Latin and less Greek_, which
Jonson has attributed to him, a mode of phraseology from which it must
be inferred, that he was at _least acquainted_ with _both_ languages;
and, perhaps, we may add, that he who has obtained some knowledge of
Greek, however slight, may, with little hesitation, be supposed to have
proceeded considerably beyond the limits of mere elementary instruction
in Latin.
At the period when Shakspeare was sent to school, the study of
the classical languages had made, since the era of the revival of
literature, a very rapid progress. Grammars and Dictionaries, by
various authors, had been published[25:A]; but the grammatical
institute then in general use, both in town and country, was the
Grammar of Henry the Eighth, which, by the order of Queen Elizabeth,
in her Injunctions of 1559, was admitted, to the exclusion of all
others: "Every schoolmaster," says the thirty-ninth Injunction,
"shall teach the grammar set forth by King Henrie the Eighth, of
noble memorie, and continued in the time of Edward the Sixth, and
_none other_;" and in the Booke of certain Cannons, 1571, it is again
directed, "that no other grammar shall be taught, but only that which
the Queen's Majestie hath commanded to be read in all schooles, through
the whole realm."
With the exception of Wolsey's _Rudimenta Grammatices_, printed in
1536, and taught in his school at Ipswich, and a similar work of
Collet's, established in his seminary in St. Paul's churchyard, this
was the grammar publicly and universally adopted, and without doubt the
instructor of Shakspeare in the language of Rome.
Another initiatory work, which we may almost confidently affirm him
to have studied under the tuition of the master of the free-school at
Stratford, was the production of one Ockland, and entitled ΕΙΡΗΝΑΡΧΙΑ,
_sive_ ELIZABETHA. The object of this book, which is written in Latin
verse, is to panegyrise the characters and government of Elizabeth and
her ministers, and it was, therefore, enjoined by authority to be read
as a classic in every grammar-school, and to be indelibly impressed
upon the memory of every young scholar in the kingdom; "a matchless
contrivance," remarks Bishop Hurd, "to imprint a sense of loyalty on
the minds of the people."[26:A]
To these school-books, to which, being introduced by compulsory edicts,
there is no doubt Shakspeare was indebted for some learning and much
loyalty, may be added, as another resource to which he was directed by
his master, the Dictionary of Syr Thomas Elliot, declaring Latin by
English, as greatly improved and enriched by Thomas Cooper in 1552.
This lexicon, the most copious and celebrated of its day, was received
into almost every school, and underwent numerous editions, namely,
in 1559, and in 1565, under the title of _Thesaurus Linguæ Romanæ et
Britannicæ_, and again in 1573, 1578, and 1584. Elizabeth not only
recommended the lexicon of Cooper, and professed the highest esteem
for him, in consequence of the great utility of his work toward the
promotion of classical literature, but she more substantially expressed
her opinion of his worth by promoting him to the deanery of Gloucester
in 1569, and to the bishoprics of Lincoln and Winchester in 1570 and
1584, at which latter see he died on the 29th of April, 1594.[27:A]
Thus far we may be allowed, on good grounds, to trace the very books
which were placed in the hands of Shakspeare, during his short
noviciate in classical learning; to proceed farther, would be to
indulge in mere conjecture, but we may add, and with every just reason
for the inference, that from these productions, and from the few
minor classics which he had time to study at this seminary, all that
the most precocious genius, at such a period of life, and under so
transient a direction of the mind to classic lore, could acquire, was
obtained.[27:B]
The universality of classical education about the era of 1575, when,
it is probable, Shakspeare had not long entered on the acquisitions
of the Latin elements, was such that no person of rank or property
could be deemed accomplished who had not been thoroughly imbued with
the learning and mythology of Greece and Rome. The knowledge which had
been previously confined to the clergy or professed scholars, became
now diffused among the nobility and gentry, and even influenced,
in a considerable degree, the minds and manners of the softer sex.
Elizabeth herself led the way in this career of erudition, and she was
soon followed by the ladies of her court, who were taught, as Warton
observes, not only to distil strong waters, but to construe Greek.[28:A]
The fashion of the court speedily became, to a certain extent, the
fashion of the country, and every individual possessed of a decent
competency, was solicitous that his children should acquire the
literature in vogue. Had the father of our poet continued in prosperous
circumstances, there is every reason to conclude that his son would
have had the opportunity of acquiring the customary erudition of
the times; but we have already seen, that in 1579 he was so reduced
in fortune, as to be excused a weekly payment of 4_d._, a state of
depression which had no doubt existed some time before it attracted the
notice of the corporation of Stratford.
One result therefore of these pecuniary difficulties was the removal of
young Shakspeare from the free-school, an event which has occasioned,
among his biographers and numerous commentators, much controversy and
conjecture as to the extent of his classical attainments.
From the short period which tradition allows us to suppose that our
poet continued under the instruction of a master, we have a right
to conclude that, notwithstanding his genius and industry, he must
necessarily have made a very superficial acquaintance with the learned
languages. That he was called home to assist his father, we are told
by Mr. Rowe; and consequently, as the family was numerous and under
the pressure of poverty, it is not likely that he found much time to
prosecute what he had commenced at school. The accounts, therefore,
which have descended to us, on the authority of Ben Jonson, Drayton,
Suckling, &c. that he had not much learning, that he depended almost
exclusively on his _native_ genius, (_that his Latin was small and his
Greek less_,) ought to have been, without scruple, admitted. Fuller,
who was a diligent and accurate enquirer, has given us in his Worthies,
printed in 1662, the most full and express opinion on the subject.
"He was an eminent instance," he remarks, "of the truth of that rule,
_Poeta non fit, sed nascitur_; one is not _made_ but _born_ a poet.
Indeed his learning was _very little_, so that as _Cornish diamonds_
are not polished by any lapidary, but are pointed and smoothed even as
they are taken out of the earth, so _nature_ itself was all the _art_
which was used upon him."[29:A]
Notwithstanding this uniform assertion of the contemporaries and
immediate successors of Shakspeare, relative to his very imperfect
knowledge of the languages of Greece and Rome, many of his modern
commentators have strenuously insisted upon his intimacy with both,
among whom may be enumerated, as the most zealous and decided on this
point, the names of Gildon, Sewell, Pope, Upton, Grey, and Whalley.
The dispute, however, has been nearly, if not altogether terminated,
by the _Essay_ of Dr. Farmer _on the Learning of Shakspeare_, who has,
by a mode of research equally ingenious and convincing, clearly proved
that all the passages which had been triumphantly brought forward as
instances of the classical literature of Shakspeare, were taken from
translations, or from original, and once popular, productions in his
native tongue. Yet the _conclusion_ drawn from this essay, so far as
it respects the portion of latinity which our poet had acquired and
preserved, as the result of his school-education, appears to us greatly
too restricted. "_He remembered_," says the Doctor, "_perhaps enough
of his school-boy learning to put the Hig, hag, hog, into the mouth
of Sir Hugh Evans_:" and might pick up in the writers of the time, or
the course of his conversation, a familiar phrase or two of French or
Italian: but his studies were most demonstratively confined to nature
and his own language.[30:A]
A very late writer, in combating this part of the _conclusion_ of Dr.
Farmer, has advanced an opinion in several respects so similar to our
own, that it will be necessary, in justice to him and previous to
any further expansion of the idea which we have embraced, to quote
his words. "Notwithstanding," says he, "Dr. Farmer's essay on the
deficiency of Shakspeare in learning, I must acknowledge myself to be
one who does not conceive that his proofs of that fact sufficiently
warrant his conclusions from them: 'that his _studies_ were
demonstrably confined to nature and his own language' is, as Dr. Farmer
concludes, true enough; but when it is added, 'that he only picked
up in conversation a familiar phrase or two of French, or remembered
enough of his school-boy's learning to put _hig, hag, hog_, in the
mouths of others:' he seems to me to go beyond any evidence produced
by him of so little knowledge of languages in Shakspeare. He proves
indeed sufficiently, that Shakspeare chiefly read English books, by his
copying sometimes minutely the very errors made in them, many of which
he might have corrected, if he had consulted the original Latin books
made use of by those writers: but this does not prove that he was not
able to read Latin well enough to examine those originals if he chose;
it only proves his indolence and indifference about accuracy in minute
articles of no importance to the chief object in view of supplying
himself with subjects for dramatic compositions. Do we not every day
meet with numberless instances of similar and much greater oversights
by persons well skilled in Greek as well as Latin, and professed
critics also of the writings and abilities of others? If Shakspeare
made an ignorant man pronounce the French word _bras_ like the English
_brass_, and evidently on purpose, as being a probable mistake by
such an unlearned speaker; has not one learned modern in writing
Latin made _Paginibus_ of _Paginis_, and another mentioned a person
as being born in the reign of Charles the First, and yet as dying in
1600, full twenty-five years before the accession of that king? Such
mistakes arise not from ignorance, but a heedless inattention, while
their thoughts are better occupied with more important subjects; as
those of Shakspeare were with forming his plots and his characters,
instead of examining critically a great Greek volume to see whether he
ought to write _on this side of Tiber or on that side of Tiber_; which
however very possibly he might not be able to read; but Latin was more
universally learnt in that age, and even by women, many of whom could
both write and speak it; therefore it is not likely that he should
be so very deficient in that language, as some would persuade us, by
evidence which does not amount to sufficient proofs of the fact. Nay,
even although he had a sufficiency of Latin to understand any Latin
book, if he chose to do it, yet how many in modern times, under the
same circumstances, are led by mere indolence to prefer translations of
them, in case they cannot read Latin with such perfect ease, as never
to be at a loss for the meaning of a word, so as to be forced to read
some sentences twice over before they can understand them rightly. That
Shakspeare was not an eminent Latin scholar may be very true, but that
he was so totally ignorant as to know nothing more than _hic, hæc,
hoc_, must have better proofs before I can be convinced."[31:A]
The truth seems to be, that Shakspeare, like most boys who have spent
but two or three years at a grammar-school, acquired just as much
Latin as would enable him, with the assistance of a lexicon, and no
little share of assiduity, to construe a minor classic; a degree of
acquisition which we every day see, unless forwarded by much leisure
and much private industry, immediately becomes stationary, and soon
retrograde. Our poet, when taken from the free-school of Stratford, had
not only to direct his attention to business, in order to assist in
warding off from his father's family the menacing approach of poverty;
but it is likewise probable that his leisure, as we shall notice more
at large in the next chapter, was engaged in other acquisitions; and
when at a subsequent period, and after he had become a married man,
his efforts were thrown into a channel perfectly congenial to his
taste and talents, still to procure subsistence for the day was the
immediate stimulus to exertion. Under these circumstances, and when we
likewise recollect that _popular_ favour and applause were essential
to his success, and that nearly to the last period of his life he was
a prolific caterer for the public in a species of poetry which called
for no recondite or learned resources, it is not probable, nay, it is,
indeed, scarcely possible, that he should have had time to cultivate
and increase his classical attainments, originally and necessarily
superficial. To translations, therefore, and to popular and legendary
lore, he was alike directed by policy, by inclination, and by want
of leisure; yet must we still agree, that, had a proficiency in the
learned languages been necessary to his career, the means resided
within himself, and that, on the basis merely of his school-education,
although limited as we have seen it, he might, had he early and
steadily directed his attention to the subject, have built the
reputation of a scholar.
That the powers, however, of his vast and capacious mind, especially
if we consider the shortness of his life, were not expended on such an
attempt, we have reason to rejoice; for though his attainments, as a
linguist, were truly trifling, yet his _knowledge_ was great, and his
_learning_, in the best sense of the term, that is, as distinct from
the mere acquisition of language, multifarious, and extensive beyond
that of most of his contemporaries.[32:A]
It is, therefore, to his _English_ studies that we must have recourse
for a due estimate of his reading and research; a subject which will be
treated of in a future portion of the work.
FOOTNOTES:
[21:A] It is with some apprehension of imposition that I quote the
following passage from Mr. Samuel Ireland's Picturesque Views on the
River Avon. This gentleman, the father of the youth who endeavoured
so grossly to deceive the public by the fabrication of a large mass
of MSS. which he attributed to Shakspeare, was undoubtedly, at the
time he wrote this book, the complete dupe of his son; and though,
as a man of veracity and integrity, to be depended upon with regard
to what originated from himself, it is possible, that the settlement
which he quotes may have been derived from the same ample store-house
of forgery which produced the folio volume of miscellaneous papers,
&c. This settlement, in the possession of Mr. Ireland, is brought
forward as a proof that the premises in Henley-street were certainly
in the occupation of John Shakspeare, the father of the poet; it is
dated August 14th, thirty-third of Elizabeth, 1591, and Mr. Ireland
professes to give the substance of it in the subsequent terms:—"'That
George Badger, senior, of Stratford upon Avon, conveys to John and
William Courte, yeomen, and their heirs, in trust, &c. a messuage or
tenement, with the appurtenances, in Stratford upon Avon, in a certain
streete called Henley-streete, between the house of Robert Johnson on
the one part, and the house of _John Shakspeare_ on the other; and also
two selions (_i. e._ ridges, or ground between furrows) of land lying
between the land of _Thomas Combe_, Gent. on the one hand, and Thomas
Reynolde, Gent. on the other.' It is regularly executed, and livery of
seisin on the 29th of the same month and year indorsed." _P._ 195, 196.
[22:A] "In a lower room of this public house," says Mr. Samuel Ireland,
"which is part of the premises wherein Shakspeare was born, is a
curious antient ornament over the chimney, relieved in plaister, which,
from the date, 1606, that was originally marked on it, was probably
put up at the time, and possibly by the poet himself: although a
rude attempt at historic representation, I have yet thought it worth
copying, as it has, I believe, passed unnoticed by the multitude of
visitors that have been on this spot, or at least has never been made
public: and to me it was enough that it held a conspicuous place in
the dwelling-house of one who is himself the ornament and pride of the
island he inhabited. In 1759, it was repaired and painted in a variety
of colours by the old Mr. Thomas Harte before-mentioned, who assured
me the motto then round it had been in the old black letter, and dated
1606. The motto runs thus:
=Golith comes with sword and spear,
And David with a sling:
Although Golith rage and sweare,
Down David doth him bring.="
Picturesque Views, p. 192, 193.
[23:A] Picturesque Views, p. 189, 190. It is probable that Mr. Ireland,
though, it appears, unconnected with the forgeries of his son, might,
during his tour, be too eager in crediting the tales which were
told him. One Jordan, a native of Alverton near Stratford, was for
many years the usual _cicerone_ to enquirers after Shakspeare, and
was esteemed not very accurate in weighing the authenticity of the
anecdotes which he related.
[24:A] Reed's Shakspeare, vol. i. p. 84, 85.
[25:A] It is possible also that the following grammars and
dictionaries, independent of those mentioned in the text, may have
contributed to the school-education of Shakspeare:—
1. Certain brief Rules of the Regiment or Construction of the Eight
Partes of Speche, in English and Latin, 1537.
2. A short Introduction of Grammar, generallie to be used: compiled and
set forth, for the bringyng up of all those that intend to attaine the
knowledge of the Latin tongue, 1557.
3. The Scholemaster; or, Plaine and perfite Way of teaching Children to
understand, write, and speak, the Latin Tong. By Roger Ascham. 1571.
4. Abecedarium Anglico-Latinum, pro tyrunculis, Ricardo Huloeto
exscriptore, 1552.
5. The Short Dictionary, 1558.
6. A little Dictionary; compiled by J. Withals, 1559. Afterwards
reprinted in 1568, 1572, 1579, and 1599; and entitled, A Shorte
Dictionarie most profitable for young Beginners: and subsequently, A
Shorte Dictionarie in Lat. and English.
7. The brefe Dyxcyonary, 1562.
8. Huloets Dictionary; newlye corrected, amended, and enlarged, by John
Higgins, 1572.
9. Veron's Dictionary; Latin and English, 1575.
10. An Alvearie, or Quadruple Dictionarie; containing foure sundrie
Tongues: namelie, English, Latine, Greeke, and Frenche. Newlie enriched
with varietie of wordes, phrases, proverbs, and divers lightsome
observations of grammar. By John Baret, 1580.
11. Rider's Dictionary, Latine, and English, 1589.
[26:A] Moral and Political Dialogues, vol. ii. p. 28. edit. 1788.
[27:A] That school-masters and lexicographers were not usually so well
rewarded, notwithstanding the high value placed on classical literature
at this period, may be drawn from the complaint of Ascham: "It is
pitie," says he, "that commonlie more care is had, yea, and that amonge
verie wise men, to find out rather a cunnynge man for their horse, than
a cunnynge man for their children. They say nay in worde, but they do
so in deede. For, to the one they will gladlie give a stipend of 200
crownes by yeare, and loth to offer to the other 200 shillings. God,
that sitteth in heaven, laugheth their choice to skorne, and rewardeth
their liberalitie as it should; for he suffereth them to have tame, and
well ordered horse, but wilde and unfortunate children; and therefore,
in the ende, they finde more pleasure in their horse than comforte in
their children."—Ascham's Works, Bennet's edition, p. 212.
[27:B] It is more than possible that the Eclogues of Mantuanus the
Carmelite may have been one of the school-books of Shakspeare. He is
familiarly quoted and praised in the following passage from Love's
Labour's Lost:—
"Hol. _Fauste, precor gelidâ quando pecus omne sub umbrâ Ruminat_,—and
so forth. Ah, good old Mantua! I may speak of thee as the traveller
doth of Venice:
——— _Vinegia, Vinegia,
Chi non te rede, ci non te pregia._
Old Mantuan! old Mantuan! who understandeth thee not, loves thee not."
Act iv. sc. 2. And his Eclogues, be it remembered, were translated
and printed, together with the Latin on the opposite page, for the
use of schools, before the commencement of our author's education;
and from a passage quoted by Mr. Malone, from Nashe's _Apologie of
Pierce Penniless_, 1593, appear to have continued in use long after
its termination. "With the first and second leafe, he plaies very
prettilie, and, in ordinarie terms of extenuating, verdits Pierce
Pennilesse for a grammar-school wit; saies, his margine is as deeply
learned as, _Fauste, precor gelidâ_." Mantuanus was translated by
George Turberville in 1567, and reprinted in 1591.—_Vide_ Reed's
Shakspeare, vol. vii. p. 95.
[28:A] Warton's History of English Poetry, vol. iii. p. 491.
[29:A] Worthies, p. iii. p. 126.
[30:A] Reed's Shakspeare, vol. ii. p. 85.
[31:A] Censura Literaria, vol. ix. p. 285.
[32:A] "If it were asked from what sources," observes Mr. Capel Lofft,
"_Shakspeare_ drew these abundant streams of wisdom, carrying with
their current the fairest and most unfading flowers of poetry, I
should be tempted to say, he had what would be now considered a very
reasonable portion of Latin; he was not wholly ignorant of Greek;
he had a knowledge of the French, so as to read it with ease; and I
believe not less of the Italian. He was habitually conversant in the
chronicles of his country. He lived with wise and highly cultivated
men; with Jonson, Essex, and Southampton, in familiar friendship. He
had deeply imbibed the Scriptures. And his own most acute, profound,
active, and original genius (for there never was a truly great poet,
nor an aphoristic writer of excellence without these accompanying
qualities) must take the lead in the solution." Aphorisms from
Shakspeare: Introduction, pp. xii. and xiii.
Again, in speaking of his poems, he remarks—"Transcendent as his
original and singular genius was, I think it is not easy, with due
attention to _these_ poems, to doubt of his having acquired, when a
boy, no ordinary facility in the _classic_ language of Rome; though
his knowledge of it might be small, comparatively, to the knowledge
of that great and indefatigable scholar, Ben Jonson. And when Jonson
says he had 'less Greek,' had it been true that he had none, it would
have been as easy for the verse as for the sentiment to have said 'no
Greek.'"—Introduction, p. xxiv.