but, if it pleases Mr. Greenwood, I will, for the sake of argument,
accept the whole of them. Assuredly I shall not arbitrarily choose
among the traditions: all depends on the genealogical steps by which
they reach us, as far as these can be discovered. {56a}

According to the tattle of Aubrey the antiquary, publishing in 1680,
an opinion concerning Shakspere's education reached him. It came
thus; there had been an actor in Shakspere's company, one Phillips,
who, dying in 1605, left to Shakspere the usual thirty-shilling piece
of gold; and the same "to my servant, Christopher Beeston."
Christopher's son, William, in 1640, became deputy to Davenant in the
management of "the King's and Queen's Young Company", and through
Beeston, according to Aubrey, Davenant learned; through Beeston
Aubrey learned, that Shakespeare "understood Latin pretty well, for
he had been in his younger days a school-master in the country."
Aubrey writes that "old Mr. Beeston, whom Mr. Dryden calls 'the
chronicle of the stage,'" died in 1682. {56b}

This is a fair example of the genealogy of the traditions. Phillips,
a friend of Shakspere, dies in 1605, leaving a servant, Christopher
Beeston (he, too, was a versifier), whose son, William, dies in 1682;
he is "the chronicle of the stage." Through him Davenant gets the
story, through him Aubrey gets the story, that Shakspere "knew Latin
pretty well," and had been a rural dominie. Mr. Greenwood {57a}
devotes much space to disparaging Aubrey (and I do not think him a
scientific authority, moult s'en faut), but Mr. Greenwood here says
not a word as to the steps in the descent of the tradition. He
frequently repeats himself, thereby forcing me to more iteration than
I like. He had already disparaged Aubrey in note I to p. 105, but
there he approached so closely to historical method as to say that