In the story of _Romeo_ and _Juliet_ he is observed to have followed the _English_ translation, where it deviates from the _Italian_; but this on the other part proves nothing against his knowledge of the original.

He was to copy, not what he knew himself, but what was known to his audience.
It is most likely that he had learned _Latin_ sufficiently to make him acquainted with construction, but that he never advanced to an easy perusal of the _Roman_ authours.

Concerning his skill in modern languages, I can find no sufficient ground of determination; but as no imitations of _French_ or _Italian_ authours have been discovered, though the _Italian_ poetry was then high in esteem, I am inclined to believe, that he read little more than _English_, and chose for his fables only such tales as he found translated.
That much knowledge is scattered over his works is very justly observed by _Pope_, but it is often such knowledge as books did not supply.

He that will understand _Shakespeare_, must not be content to study him in the closet, he must look for his meaning sometimes among the sports of the field, and sometimes among the manufactures of the shop.
There is however proof enough that he was a very diligent reader, nor was our language then so indigent of books, but that he might very liberally indulge his curiosity without excursion into foreign literature.

Many of the _Roman_ authours were translated, and some of the _Greek_; the reformation had filled the kingdom with theological learning; most of the topicks of human disquisition had found _English_ writers; and poetry had been cultivated, not only with diligence, but success.