_Venus and Adonis_ owes to Ovid, at most, but ideas for three purple patches, scattered in different parts of the _Metamorphoses_. _Lucrece_ is based on the then untranslated _Fasti_ of Ovid. I do not think Shakespeare incapable of reading such easy Latin for himself; or too proud to ask help from a friend, or buy it from some poor young University man in London. That is a simple and natural means by which he could help himself when in search of a subject for a play or poem; and ought not to be overlooked. Mr. Collins, in his rapturous account of Shakespeare’s wide and profound knowledge of the classics, opens with the remark: “Nothing which Shakespeare has left us warrants us in pronouncing with certainty that he read the Greek classics in the original, or even that he possessed enough Greek to follow the Latin versions of those classics in the Greek text.” {71a} In that case, how did Shakespeare’s English become contaminated, as Mr. Collins says it did, with Greek _idioms_, while he only knew the Greek plays through Latin translations? However this is to be answered, Mr. Collins proceeds to prove Shakespeare’s close familiarity with Latin and with Greek dramatic literature by a method of which he knows the perils—“it is always perilous to infer direct imitation from parallel passages which may be mere coincidences.” {72a} Yet this method is what he practises throughout; with what amount of success every reader must judge for himself. He thinks it “surely not unlikely” that Polonius’s “Neither a borrower nor a lender be: For loan oft loses both itself and friend,” may be a terse reminiscence of seven lines in Plautus (_Trinummus_, iv. 3). Why, Polonius is a coiner of commonplaces, and if ever there were a well-known reflection from experience it is this of the borrowers and lenders. Next, take this of Plautus (_Pseudolus_, I, iv. 7–10), “But just as the poet when he has taken up his tablets seeks what exists nowhere among men, and yet finds it, and makes that like truth which is mere fiction.” We are to take this as the possible germ of Theseus’s theory of the origin of the belief in fairies: “And as imagination bodies forth The _forms_ of things unknown, the poet’s pen Turns them to _shapes_, and gives to airy nothing A local habitation and a name.” The reasoning is odd; imagination bodies forth _forms_, and the poet’s pen turns them to _shapes_. But to suppose that Shakespeare here borrowed from Plautus appears highly superfluous. These are samples of Mr. Collins’s methods throughout. Of Terence there were translations—first in part; later, in 1598, of the whole. Of Seneca there was an English version (1581). Mr. Collins labours to show that one passage “almost certainly” implies Shakespeare’s use of the Latin; but it was used “by an inexact scholar,”—a terribly inexact scholar, if he thought that “_alienus_” (“what belongs to another”) meant “slippery”!