Shakespeare Fans discussion
Self Promotion
>
Not Wisely but Too Well
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
Meanwhile I must beg to differ with something in your post... Where did you get the idea Shakespeare barely went to grammar school? And even if he didn't finish school as we think of it today...five years of British parochial grammar school is better education than most u. A. Kids get today graduating at grade 12!!!
Since reading Pauline's book I've gone to the BBCs, at least, of a couple of the early plays she deals with, having got interested in how she sees their inception. Two Gentlemen, for one. When is the next group read, Candy??
Hi Candy. Shakespeare's schooling is one of those contentious issues, isn't it? I'm sure he did go to school as his father was an aldermen and so had automatic access to the grammar school for his sons. Will's younger brother Gilbert became a haberdasher so he must have had an education. However, many of Shakespeare's biographers think that he was probably taken out of school early when his father fell on hard times. Park Honan, for example, has found that Shakespeare's name was omitted from the list of promising students the schoolmaster sent to his bishop. At the same time I think the quality of those one room grammar schools has been romanticised, not least to explain Shakespeare's learning. I go into more detail in my post 'He's a better scholar than I thought he was' http://stuffofdreamsseries.blogspot.c... I would love to join in a discussion, but it would have to be one of the early plays as I'm studying them as I go, and I'm only up to Romeo & Juliet!
School isn't the only place or way people learn. In the end genius finds a way. It may go unrecognized; it may be for naught, but the knowledge is there nonetheless. Last summer my husband and I joined a group on an old-fashioned schooner ship and learned the basics of celestial navigation. A minor miscalculation often sent ships crashing into the cliffs. The captain ruled and underlings were not allowed to learn to read the stars: military class only. But many a cabin boy was hanged for warning the crew and/or captain they should turn around. Soon after the hanging the others died when the ship was demolished exactly as the boy had warned. Proximity and imagination combined with inspiration will always trump the classroom, necessary as it is for us mortals.
I agree. As a teacher of adults, I am a great advocate of lifelong learning. I also believe we learn things when we are ready for them. After escaping Stratford, I daresay Shakespeare devoured every book he could get his hands on, and took every opportunity to learn.
You are all cordially invite to attend a Q and A with me, Pauline Montagna, the author of Not Wisely but Too Well and the Slave to be held between December 15 and December 20 (Australian Time) at http://www.goodreads.com/group/show/8... I look forward to meeting you all there.
On the subject of Shakespeare's education, Michael Wood reports in "The Search For Shakespeare" (do I have that right?) TV series that W.S. received several years of rigorous education, including Latin, but that he was pulled out of school around eighth grade, I believe, for reasons I don't recall (I'm a hell of a lot of help!). One point: There wasn't all that damn much to learn back then. Science was in its infancy, the knowledge of world geography and world cultures was limited, the history of most of the world was unknown ... a bright, well–read lad or lass could learn a much bigger slice of all there was to know than would be the case today.
It's important to remember that there is no historical information of any kind about S's schooling. Wood's book of the series, In search of S, chapter 3, guesses his years of school attendance to be 7-14. Leaving at 14 was normal, since University entrance was much earlier then. Some examples of Cambridge entrance ages from the 16th-17th centuries: Marlowe 15, Milton 16, Marvell only 12. Jon, you may not think there was much to learn then, but they still spent a huge amount of time studying. Milton's Il Penseroso is forever burning the midnight oil ....
If we went back in time, I think the grammar schools then would seem to us to be harsh, narrow and under-resourced, but they certainly succeeded in their main aim, to teach Latin, at a time when hardly anyone outside England spoke English, and when half the books published in England were in Latin. They understood that to learn a foreign language the earlier you started the better. Age 6 or 7 was not too young.
I think Wood's book is very good, incidentally. It is informative, avoids wild speculation, and done modestly.
Michael Wood's book and the BBC series it accompanies were called In Search of Shakespeare, but the book has since been re-issued as simply Shakespeare. Wood is very informative, but he does indulge in a great deal of speculation, just as all Shakespeare's biographers do. His description of Shakespeare's education is derived by working backwards from Shakespeare's works, and from evidence from other, larger and better resourced grammar schools. I very much doubt Stratford's grammar school was quite the intellectual hotbed Wood makes it out to be. However, Shakespeare would have learnt enough Latin to continue reading and learning as an adult.
Keep a look out for my Q&A which will begin around December 15. My website is at http://paulinemontagna.net.
How did Will Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon, the son of illiterate parents, with barely a grammar school education, become the greatest playwright the English theatre will ever know? How did he learn his craft? How did he gain the knowledge his plays display? What was his own experience of the love, passion, pain and ambition he wrote into every line?
This is the story of how that journey began.