T. W. Baldwin
Volume 2
 
© 1944 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois
All rights reserved
PAGES
* PAGE
  GO TO   
 
Previous Page
Next Page
 
CHAPTER
Previous Section,
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Go to Table of Contents
 
SEARCH
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PRINTABLE
Print a lo-res (150 dpi) PDF image of this page
 
HELP
Get Help    
Volumes Available
  Navigate This Volume


[ About the Books ] [ Volume One ] [ Volume Two ]
[ Search ]
[ Links] [ Home ]


© 2007 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois
All rights reserved

OCRed data provided for searching only.
**SHAKSPERE'S LESSE GREEKE 619 The only other grammar to be mentioned in the curricula at all is Ceporinus at Norwich in 1566. An edition of this was printed in England in 1585, and I have William Lambarde's copy as printed Tiguri, 155o. In Shakspere's time in grammar school, then, Clenardus was by odds the favorite, being in fact the official grammar, and has the best chance of having been Shakspere's Greek grammar. Ac-cording to the terms of Marshe's patent in 1572, only English printed copies of Clenardus would have been for sale, if Shakspere got a new book; but we cannot take these terms too literally. A Greek grammar by an Englishman, that of Edward Grant, printed in 1575, should probably have been available when Shakspere had need of it; but it seems to have made no headway, only one edition being called for before Camden systematized it into the gram-mar bearing his name. Shakspere's Greek grammar is thus almost certain to have been either Clenardus, Ceporinus, or Grant, the order of mention being the order of probability. If one wishes to get a pragmatic test of the state of Shakspere's Latinity at the time he began to acquire his less Greek, let him pick up any one of these three and read it. If he cannot do so, then upon the authority of Ben Jonson and the tradition, his Latin is "littler" than that of Shakspere. For, of course, all these Greek grammars were written in unsimplified Latin; there was no Greek grammar in English for many a year to come, and even those in Latin made no concessions. I have not read these three grammars in detail to see if I could catch Shakspere passing through. That I leave for some more heroic soul. After the boy had entered his Greek grammar, he would, of course need authors for construction. So in Brinsley Spoudeus asks, "But with what Author would you begin, to enter them into Construction?" and Brinsley-Philoponus answers, I hold the Greeke Testament to bee most fit; and that for these reasons: 1. Because, that through the familiarnesse of the matter, (in that children are so well acquainted with it, by daily hearing or reading of it) the Greeke thereof which is easie of it selfe, will be made yet farre more easie to the learner; for that the matter will bring the words, as I haue oft said. 2. Because all Schollers who can haue meanes to come to any knowledge of the Greeke, should indeauour aboue all other Authors, to be well ac-. quainted with this. First, for that this booke together with the Hebrew of the Old Testament, were written by the Lord himselfe; not onely the mat-ter, but also euen the very words of them. Secondly, for that eternall life is onely in these bookes, being truly vnderstood and beleeued. So that wee may rightly tearme these the Bible, or