ish matter in the
English tongue for Englishmen"--a memorable sentence none the worse for its
jingle and repetition, which are well in place. Until scholars like Ascham,
who with the rarest exceptions were the only persons likely or able to
write at all, cared to write "English matters in English tongue for
Englishmen," the formation of English prose style was impossible; and that
it required some courage to do so, Cheke's letter, written twelve years
later, shows.[12]

"I am of this opinion that our own tongue should be written clean
and pure, unmixed and unmingled with borrowing of other tongues,
wherein, if we take not heed by time, ever borrowing and never
paying, she shall be fain to keep her house as bankrupt. For then
doth our tongue naturally and praisably utter her meaning, when
she borroweth no counterfeitures of other tongues to attire
herself withal, but useth plainly her own with such shift as
nature, craft, experience, and following of other excellent doth
lead her unto, and if she want at any time (as being imperfect
she must) yet let her borrow with such bashfulness that it may
appear, that if either the mould of our own tongue could serve us
to fashion a word of our own, or if the old denizened words could
content and ease this need we would not boldly venture of unknown
words."[13]

[12] The letter is given in full by Mr. Arber in his introduction to
Ascham's _Schoolmaster_, p. 5.

[13] It will be seen that Cheke writes what he argues for, "clean and pure
English." "Other excellent" is perhaps the only doubtful phrase in the
extract or in the letter.

The _Toxophilus_ and the _Schoolmaster_ are both in their different ways
very pleasant reading; and the English is far more correct than that of
much greater men than Ascham in the next century. It is, however, merely as
style, less interesting, because it is clear that the author is doing
little more than translate in his head, instead of on the paper, good
current Latin (such as it would have been "more easier" for him to write)
into current English. He does not indulge in any undue classicism; he takes
few of the liberties with English grammar which, a little later, it was the
habit to take on the strength of classical examples. But, on the other
hand, he does not attempt, and it would be rather unreasonable to expect
that he should have attempted, experiments in the literary pow