Mr. Collins goes on, in his simple confiding way, to state that “one
letter is by Abraham Sturley, afterwards an alderman of Stratford . . . ”
Pursuing the facts, we find that Sturley wrote in Latin to “Richard
Quiney, Shakespeare’s friend,” who, if he could read Sturley’s letter,
could read Latin. Then _young_ Richard Quiney, apparently aged eleven,
wrote in Latin to his father. If young Richard Quiney be the son of
Shakespeare’s friend, Richard Quiney, then, of course, his Latin at the
age of eleven would only prove that, if he were a schoolboy at Stratford,
_one_ Stratford boy could write Latin in the generation following that of
Shakespeare. Thus may reason the Baconians.
Perhaps, however, we may say that if Stratford boys contemporary with
Shakspere, in his own rank and known to him, learned Latin, which they
retained in manhood, Shakspere, if he went to school with them, may have
done as much.
Concerning the school, a Free Grammar School, we know that during
Shakespeare’s boyhood the Mastership was not disdained by Walter Roche,
perhaps a Fellow of what was then the most progressive College in
learning of those at Oxford, namely, Corpus Christi. That Shakespeare
could have been his pupil is uncertain; the dates are rather difficult.
I think it probable that he was not, and we do not know the
qualifications of the two or three succeeding Masters.
As to the methods of teaching and the books read at Grammar Schools,
abundance of information has been collected. We know what the use was in
one very good school, Ipswich, from 1528; in another in 1611; but as we
do not possess any special information about Stratford School, Mr.
Greenwood opposes the admission of evidence from other academies. A man
might think that, however much the quality of the teaching varied in
various free schools, the nominal curriculum would be fairly uniform.
As to the teacher, a good endowment would be apt to attract a capable
man. What was the endowment of Stratford School? It was derived from
the bequest of Thomas Jolyffe (died 1482), a bequest of lands in
Stratford and Dodwell, and before the Reformation the Brethren of the
Guild were “to find a priest fit and able in knowledge to teach grammar
freely to all scholars coming to him, taking nothing for their teaching
. . . ” “The Founder’s liberal endowment made it possible to secure an
income for the Master by deed. Under the Reformation, Somerset’s
Commission found that the School Master had £10 yearly by patent; the
school was well conducted, and was not confiscated.” {50a}
Baconians can compare the yearly £20 (the salary in 1570–6, which then
went much further than it does now) with the incomes of other masters of
Grammar Schools, and thereby find out if the Head-Master was very cheap.
Mr. Elton (who knew his subject intimately) calls the provision
“liberal.” The Head-Master of Westminster had £20 and a house.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account