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