no 



of English literature. This (as Mr. Wharton has justly re- 

 marked) may be ascribed to the Reformation. When the 

 corruptions of popery had been abolished, the laity, who 

 had now been taught to assert their natural privileges, 

 became impatient of the old mof/bpoly of knowledge. The 

 general curiosity, heightened by ideas, either real or ima- 

 ginary, of the treasures contained in the Greek and Ro- 

 man- writers, excited all persons, of leisure and fortune, to 

 study the Classics. The marvellous progress of Qileeri 'Eli- 

 zabeth, in the Greek nouns, is recorded with rapture, by 

 her preceptor, Roger Ascham. He might have found many* 

 similar examples, in Anna Boleyn, Lady Jane Grey, the 

 daughters of Sir Thomas More, and other distinguished 

 characters. As the stores of Greek, Roman, and Italian 

 literature, were now laid open, through the medium of 

 translations, the former supplied our language with a va- 

 riety of beautiful allusions: the latter afforded numberless 

 stories, taken from common life, in which the Variety of 

 incident and ingenuity of contrivance were united. 



It seems that the English language was, at this time, 

 more copious, and better adapted for the purpose of po- 

 etry, than at any prior or subsequent period. Our vo- 

 cabulary was enriched, duiing the first half of the sixteenth 

 century, by almost daily adoptions from the Greek, Latin, 

 Italian, French and Spanish languages: not to speak of 

 the oriental to gues, which furnished liberal contributions 

 of words, and still nore liberal of figures and pi rases; 

 particularly Avhen the scriptures came to be generally stu- 



'"^^ '' died, 



