Latin, as he must have had, if he were what I fancy him to have been,
and if (which is mere hypothesis) he went for four years to a Latin
School. But the story does not suit you, and you call it "a mere
myth," which, "of course, will be believed by those who wish to
believe it." But, most excellent of mortals, will it not, by parity
of reasoning, "of course be disbelieved by those who do NOT wish to
believe it"?

And do you want to believe it?

To several stage anecdotes of the actor as an excellent instructor of
younger players, you refer slightingly. They do not weigh with me:
still, the Stage would remember Shakspere (or Shakespeare) best in
stage affairs. In reference to a very elliptic statement that, "in
Hamlet Betterton benefited by Shakespeare's coaching," you write,
"This is astonishing, seeing that Shakspere had been in his grave
nearly twenty years when Betterton was born. The explanation is that
Taylor, of the Black Fryars Company, was, according to Sir William
Davenant, instructed by Shakspere, and Davenant, who had seen Taylor
act, according to Downes, instructed Betterton. There is a similar
story about Betterton playing King Henry VIII. Betterton was said to
have been instructed by Sir William, who was instructed by Lowen, who
was instructed by Shakspere!" {200a}

Why a note of exclamation? Who was Downes, and what were his
opportunities of acquiring information? He "was for many years book-
keeper in the Duke's Company, first under Davenant in the old house .
. . " Davenant was notoriously the main link between "the first and
second Temple," the theatre of Shakespeare whom, as a boy, he knew,
and the Restoration theatre. Devoted to the traditions of the stage,