OCRed data provided
for searching only. ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;684 SMALL LATINE AND LESSE GREEKE
Erasmus discusses the type in Copia, Veltkirchius adds, "quales sent Solomonis vet Catonis sententiae."$ One could find no better sententiae than those from the Bible.
This was the material upon which the boys were especially drilled. But they, of course, were also taught other sections of the Bible. Gabriel Harvey in 1581 gives the typical readings of the boys in grammar school as follows,
legunt Christi Euangelium: Praxes Apostolorum: Apocalypsin Ioannis: Parabolas, & Ecclesiastin Solomonis: Genesin, Exodum, Deuteronomium, Mosis: Paralipomena: Prophetas: Psalmos.9
Thus Harvey omits the apochryphal books, but includes the universaI Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes.
Fortunately, Mr. Noble has now made a sufficient study of Shakspere's Biblical knowledge to enable us to be certain at least of its main trends. In the Old Testament, Shakspere knew his Genesis thoroughly.
We may Ieave out of account the Psalms-his knowledge of the Psalms, ac-cording to the Prayer Book version, will be proved in due course, with something to spare. He displays such a familiarity with job, Proverbs and Ecclesiasticus, and in later years with Isaiah, as can only have been acquired by reading. job and Ecclesiasticus especially seem to have attracted his attention L0
Whether or not one agrees to all the details of proof, yet it is clear, at least, that Shakspere was better acquainted with these sections of the Old Testament than with others.
I believe, therefore, it is clear that Shakspere's schoolmaster followed the advice of the authorized grammar, as made specific in 1548, and began in the first year of Shakspere's grammar school work to have him turn "an englishe booke, as the Psalter, or Salomons Prouerbes, or Ecclesiasticus" from English into Latin. Here are, no doubt, Shakspere's "vulgars." The Psalter would, of course, also have been much reenforced by its constant use in the church service. So Shakspere knew it unusually well-well enough to attempt to correct a supposed error of another, as Mr. Noble has shown.
We thus have left of Old Testament books Genesis, Job, and Isaiah as possible indications of Shakspere's unforced choice. It may be well to remember here that with possible exception of Job these alleged "favorites" of Shakspere are also included in Gabriel Harvey's list
$ Erasmus, Copia (1566), p. 367. ' Cf. above, p. 436. !0 Noble, Biblical Knowledge, p. 43.
[ Volume
One ] 
