Question:
I was struck by a couple of lines in Diana Price's book:
"Shakespeare's mastery of the English language reveals an
education far beyond what any grammar school could offer. Grammar
schools did not teach English." (p. 236)
A good point. And an obvious point although I had never
really thought about it before. The curriculum of Elizabethan grammar
schools was preoccupied with teaching Latin, wasn't it?
But then a couple of other questions occurred to me:
Was English, as such, even taught at the University level?
Isn't Shakespeare's mastery of the English language somehow
independent of the Elizabethan education system, no matter who you
think the real author is?
Answer:
I'm sure the answer is that it wasn't, but I can't produce the evidence for
thinking so, except the well-known 19th and even early 20th century
hostility to the development of undergraduate English studies at Oxford. How
long did the medieval trivium-quadrivium course of study outlast the changes
of attitude brought about by the Reformation and Renaissance? Can someone
give the title of a useful book on the Elizabethan curriculum in grammar
school and university? I know only of pedagogic ideas promulgated by
individual "progressives" such as Roger Ascham.
Diana Price may not be quite correct in saying that English was not taught
in Elizabethan grammar schools. As such, perhaps not, but there was
translation from and into Latin, which requires careful analysis of the
original passages in both languages, and the basic textbook, Lily's Grammar,
broke new ground by explaining Latin grammar in English. The catechism was
taught in English, no doubt alongside its scriptural basis. I read
somewhere, but can't recall where, that there was some training in rhetoric
in both languages, though perhaps Shakespeare left school before reaching
that grade.
Submit Your
Own Answer!
