The honest but credulous gossip Aubrey, who died about 1700, states, on the authority of one Beeston, that “Shakespeare understood Latin pretty well, for he had been in his younger years a schoolmaster in the country.”  The statement may fairly challenge some respect, inasmuch as persons of the name of Beeston were connected with the stage before Shakespeare’s death and long afterwards.  And it is not unlikely that the Poet may, at some time, have been an assistant teacher in the free-school at Stratford.  Nor does this conflict with Rowe’s account, which states that John Shakespeare kept William at the free-school for some time; but that straitness of circumstances and need of help forced him to withdraw his son from the school.  Though writing from tradition, Rowe was evidently careful, and what he says agrees perfectly with what later researches have established respecting John Shakespeare’s course of fortune.  He also tells us that the Poet’s father “could give him no better education than his own employment.”  John Shakespeare, as we have seen, was so far occupied with agriculture as to be legally styled a “yeoman.”  Nor am I sure but the ancient functions of an English yeoman’s oldest son might be a better education for what the Poet afterwards accomplished than was to be had at any free-school or university in England.  His large and apt use of legal terms and phrases has induced many good Shakespearians learned in the law to believe that he must have been for some time a student of that noble science.  It is indeed difficult to understand how he could have spoken as he often does, without some study in the law; but, as he seems thoroughly at home in the specialties of many callings, it is possible his knowledge in the law may have grown from the large part his father had, either as magistrate or as litigant, in legal transactions.  I am sure he either studied divinity or else had a strange gift of knowing it without studying it; and his ripeness in the knowledge of disease and of the healing art is a standing marvel to the medical faculty.

Knight has speculated rather copiously and romantically upon the idea of Shakespeare’s having been a spectator of the more-than-royal pomp and pageantry with which the Queen was entertained by Leicester at Kenilworth in 1575.  Stratford was fourteen miles from Kenilworth, and the Poet was then eleven years old.  That his ears were assailed and his imagination excited by the fame of that magnificent display cannot be doubted, for all that part of the kingdom was laid under contribution to supply it, and was resounding with the noise of it; but his father was not of a rank to be summoned or invited thither, nor was he of an age to go thither without his father.  Positive evidence either way on the point there is none; nor can I discover any thing in his plays that would fairly infer him to have drunk in the splendour of that occasion, however the fierce attractions thereof may have kindled a mind so brimful of poetry and life.  The whole matter is an apt theme for speculation, and for nothing else.