Education: Elizabethan Education

Greetings,

There will be a few articles following about education. These will be focused on medieval, Renaissance and Elizabethan education. It is necessary to know what these individuals were taught to better understand what they understood and the methods by which they came about knowledge. This is important for medieval and Renaissance treatises as I have discussed in my fencing blog (https://afencersramblings.blogspot.com/2020/06/old-learning-for-old-treatises.html), but is also essential for a greater understanding and appreciation of all texts of the period.

Cheers,

Henry.

Elizabethan Education

“The main form of school was the Petty School. This provided education from the age of 5. Education in Petty and Grammar Schools was very formal. Lessons tended to concentrate on learning the reading and writing of Latin, the Bible and Histories. At 14 children could progress to University. Here they could specialise in a wider range of subjects.”[1]

          When education is discussed about an era, it is necessary to note whether this is formal education or not. What has been described above is formal education, primarily for boys. Access to education was not as it is now; the terms and ideas were quite different. “Public education refers to going out to school, as opposed to being tutored at home. It does not mean they are paid for out of public funds.”[2] This was a class- and gender-divided system and these divisions will be discussed as they have an impact on the purpose of the education.

Class

“Education in Elizabethan England was provided for the children of the wealthy. Literacy rates increased during the Elizabethan era. Schooling began in the home and was continued through Petty Schools, Grammar Schools and Universities.”[3]

          Education was paid for by the parents or some benefactor who wanted to see the child educated. Children of Upper and Middle Class families would certainly be educated definitely in Petty Schools, and also sometimes in Grammar Schools. Only the wealthy could afford to be sent to university. The nobility were different again.

“Elizabethan Education was generally for boys of the Upper and Middle Classes. However, Upper Class girls, often members of the Nobility were also given and education.”[4]

          The members of the nobility were certainly educated, in this case both boys and girls were educated, but they did not attend public schools as other classes did, “noble children get their education at home, from private tutors.”[5] These tutors would serve for the noble children’s education all the way up through Grammar School equivalents, so that they were prepared to go to university, at least the boys did. Here, even in noble families there was a gender division; in general, females were not educated outside the home.

Gender

There was certainly a gender gap. The female’s role was seen to be in house-duties, so there was no reason for them to be educated outside the house. “In general, only boys go to school. A girl's education is accomplished at home, although it usually includes reading and arithmetic.”[6] Some noble families extended their female’s education. Female queens were a notable exception to this rule. Some girls did attend Petty School, but, “Girls did not attend Grammar Schools and were not allowed to go to University.”[7] It was seen as unnecessary. In the queens’ case private tutors were, once again, employed. The gender and class gaps were there for a purpose.

Purpose

“Education for all children in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries depended on the financial standing and social class of the family. The main purpose of education was to teach children appropriate behaviour for their social class and to make them useful members of society.”[8]

          Here, education has not changed throughout history. Its purpose has always been to produce citizens which were useful to the state in which they were educated. There was little point in educating an individual above their station because they would never need the knowledge and so it was considered a waste of money, it may also lead them to think above their station. The educational process started at home. “The basic principles of childhood and education would be started in the home.”[9] Here, conversational English was taught along with essential socialisation. The more rigid education started with the Petty School.

Petty School

“The most elementary level of schooling is called petty school. You learn to read and write in English and do sums, but the main idea is to get you into grammar school.”[10]

          Most of the classes who were educated, gained education in Petty Schools and these schools became more popular and were encouraged by the Tudors during their years. For some, graduating Petty School would be the end, for others, this was the beginning of their formal training, a preparation for what was to come in Grammar School.

“The most elementary level of education was conducted for boys aged between 5 and 7 at what was called a ' Petty School '. These lessons and general education were conducted not in a school but in the house of the teacher. The word ' petty ' probably derives from the French word ' petit ' meaning little or small.”[11]

          The modern reader could assume that these Petty Schools were more like our modern pre-schools but they are actually more like our primary schools. Here, the student would gain their general education. The subjects were not particularly broad, partly due to the focus of the education and partly due to the teachers.

“These Petty schools were usually run, for a small fee, by a local, well-educated housewife, and were therefore also referred to as ' Dame Schools '. At the ' Petty School ' or ' Dame School ' the boy's education would consist of being taught to read and write English, learn the catechism and also learn lessons in behaviour.”[12]

          These teachers were not qualified in any sense of the word, but they were educated enough to teach English, catechism, and lessons in behaviour. These schools were focused on the essentials. They were supported by the Tudors because they enabled more people to read the new Bible which was published in English. The teacher’s methods were relatively effective and have been left for us to examine.

“Elementary school teachers were largely untrained and, as historian David Cressy notes, many “were little more than child-minders.” Some, however, took a more professional approach and recorded their techniques for posterity. Their teaching methods consisted mainly of repetitive oral drills, with children encouraged to associate sounds with shapes and figures.”[13]

          There was a lot of repetition of letters and words to ensure that the student remembered them. To ensure that the student was getting the right sort of education, there was a religious and moral aspect which was always introduced into the study of the language.

“In these schools the curriculum usually covered the basics of the English language. They also taught the principles of the church, something called Catechism. This is similar to Bible studies. Petty / Dame schools also taught children about standards of expected behaviour. This was important because of the changes made by the Religious Settlement.”[14]

          The religious changes which had happened under Henry VIII and then had been reinforced under Edward VI and Elizabeth I were such that the Bible was written in English a new English Church had been formed and the students at school had to learn all of the necessary elements of church studies to have the correct behaviour. Further, there was a moral aspect which was enforced in these teachings. They used a writing aid to copy their letters from when practicing which reinforced the moral and religious aspects taught.

“Here they learned their ABCs using a hornbook, a paddle-shaped piece of English oak with a paper or parchment alphabet protected by transparent horn laminate. And because one of the purposes of Elizabethan education was to create a new generation of good Anglicans, the hornbook also contained the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed, and sometimes the Ten Commandments.”[15]

          The education was sanctioned in purpose by the state to produce the kind of citizens that they wanted. Education allowed more of the population to read the Bible in English and thus become better citizens through the Anglican Church. The Tudors focused on having as many of their English citizens able to read and write in English to ensure the prosperity of their nation. Writing was something which was not taught until later in the school program.

“Writing was taught later in petty school, mainly as a means of reinforcing reading skills. Penmanship was a complicated process that required mastery of papers, rulers, inks, penknives, and goosefeathers, all alien to students who did not grow up with such materials in their homes. It was also a messy business—and not an easy proposition for clumsy little hands. Children would begin by imitating written letters, syllables, and words they had learned orally until they could reproduce them without following a copy. Oddly (to us, at least), one thing Ben and his peers would not have been encouraged to write was their names. In fact, according to Cressy, “none of the educators of pre-industrial England recommended children to learn to write their own names… since [personal names] did not conform to the rules of spelling that the teachers were trying to instill.” So when Renaissance people were unable to produce a signature, it did not necessarily mean that they were illiterate.”[16]

          Shakespeare has been presented as having several different signatures with several different spellings of his name. He has to be the most well-known poet and play-wright of the Elizabethan era and credited with having a significant impact upon the English language. Clearly, he was not illiterate. The focus was on words other than individual names. Names did not conform to rules of spelling, as indicated. Shakespeare’s noted friend Ben Jonson attended Grammar School, due to a patron’s gift. Many others were not so fortunate.

Grammar School

“Somewhere between the ages of eight and eleven, boys graduated to grammar school. Very few Elizabethan girls progressed beyond petty school, although those in the middle and upper classes sometimes continued their education at home. In Jonson’s case, he made the leap at only seven, thanks to a benefactor who secured him a spot at Westminster School. ... Jonson’s patron remains unknown, it is recorded that his first teacher was William Camden, who was not only one of the leading schoolmasters of his day but also an eminent linguist, historian, and author.”[17]

          Grammar School was not for everyone. For some, it was not affordable, for others it was not necessary, due to their future occupation. The gifted students would progress to Grammar School along with those of whom it was required for them to assume their roles in society. While this school could be compared to the modern secondary school, there were some differences noted, aside from attendance and age.

“The Children of Noble birth were invariably taught by tutors at home but, from the age of 7 to 14, children of a lower standing went to Grammar Schools - the most common institute for Elizabethan education during the Elizabethan period. Many schools were financed by the local Guild.”[18]

          Guilds would finance schools because they would benefit from the graduands of those schools. Where the Guild assisted a citizen, they could pay the Guild back in favourable mention and other benefits. This was especially the case for the emerging Middle Class which was becoming more and more economically-powerful. Further, their members could be educated at these schools, thus benefiting the Guild in a direct sense. These schools did not have the same comforts of modern schools.

“Elizabethan classrooms were big drafty spaces, often converted from chapels; they were noisy and dirty, freezing in winter, and dark at both ends of the school day. Pupils furnished not only their own writing paper, notebooks, quills, and sharpening knives, but were also expected to contribute fuel to stave off the chill and candles to see their way through long hours of study.”[19]

          Such a situation, it could be assumed, would not be beneficial for the students and their studies might suffer. The same conditions also produced students who were willing to endure the conditions to achieve their end. Such conditions for study make modern ones seem rather comfortable in comparison. The curriculum was heavily based around Latin.

“Teaching techniques relied heavily on memorization and recitation. Students were expected to become proficient in Latin, as it was the language of the educated throughout Europe. The curriculum was conservative, because most of the teachers had received their education in the old system, which concentrated on rhetoric.”[20]

          The medieval systems of teaching which had preceded it still held their sway hence the influence of rhetoric being present and also that Latin was still the language of the educated throughout Europe. The curriculum was focused around the learning of Latin and its correct grammar. Writing was based on reading of Latin passages. “A grammar school pupil’s first order of business was learning Latin; his second was avoiding the birch.”[21] Corporal punishment was prevalent in these schools and was expected for any infraction.

“Latin is also the language of international affairs, and men of affairs are expected to be able to communicate in it. Or employ someone who does. Anyone who wants to make his way in the world must have at least a working knowledge of Latin.”[22]

          Latin was the common language amongst the European nations so it was the language of international affairs, and also commerce. This is one of the reasons that it was emphasised in these schools. The students in these schools were expected to be the leaders and it was necessary to learn Latin to do this. “A textbook, ‘Lily’s Latin Grammar’ had been authorised for use in Grammar Schools during the reign of Henry VIII.”[23] This same textbook followed through and was used in the Elizabethan period for the same purpose.

Other Latin texts were used as secondary sources. “Plautus, Terence, and Seneca as classical sources. Any history, literature, or drama is mainly a vehicle for illustrating the grammar.”[24] There were other subjects learnt at Grammar School, but these subjects were learnt around the core of Latin and used as a method of learning Latin. Latin is the gate-key language to further learning and learning was based in the humanities.

“The function of the grammar school is to prepare you for university, where courses are conducted in Latin, even after the Reformation. Music, modern languages, and science are irrelevant.”[25]

          The Grammar School is concerned with the interactions with people, but based upon ancient texts, so history, literature and drama are substantially more important as they explain the world in context with other people and how they should act. There is a subtle sense of social education within the teaching. The early part of teaching was performed by older pupils known as “Ushers” to the younger ones.[26] In this early stage, the student would find their foundations in Latin and learn all of the important aspects of reading and writing in this language.

“Between the ages of 7 and 10 boys would have spent their early childhood being taught by Ushers, a junior master or senior pupil at the Grammar School. The boys first learnt the rudiments of Latin with the assistance of the Tudor text-book known as Lily's Latin Grammar - using the horn-book and the alphabet as a tool and the basis of Elizabethan education. This short introduction to grammar and education, compiled by William Lily, had been authorised by Henry VIII as the sole Latin grammar textbook to be used in education and schools. In 1558 a child's speller was written in England as spelling consistency gradually emerges. This period of Elizabethan education would have followed a set routine”[27]

          In the teaching by the “Ushers” would seem like the actual teachers were moving some of their responsibilities to others. If it is examined from another perspective, the “Ushers”, in teaching of the younger students reaffirm their knowledge of the subjects by having to teach them to the younger students. Through teaching, they can find out any elements in their knowledge which needed work. The actual teachers were known as “Masters”.

“Following this [“Ushers”] teaching moved to ‘Masters’ who were what we would call teachers. Lessons continued to look at different elements of the Latin and English curriculum. Religious Education was also important, especially so considering the Religious Settlement and changes to church practises that followed. Mathematics was taught, mainly arithmetic. Schooling continued to teach the need to respect ones superiors and the church.”[28]

          The “Masters” were what would now be considered actual qualified teachers. The “Ushers” were not, they were merely senior students who took the opportunity to practice their knowledge on the younger students. “Unlike petty school teachers, grammar masters were expected to have gone to university and all were required to pass the Queen’s muster.”[29] The “Masters” were qualified teachers and so would take the students through the senior years of their instruction. This part of the curriculum had a particular focus, being to ensure that the knowledge of Latin was solid and so was their moral knowledge. After this, the student should be ready to face the world, either to assume an occupation, or move to university.

“Between the ages of 10 and 14 boys leave the Ushers to be taught by the Masters in the following lessons.

·       Latin to English translations

·       Literature including the works of the great classical authors and dramatists, such as Ovid, Plautus, Horace, Virgil, Cicero and Seneca

·       Occasionally the study of Greek

·       Religious education continued

·       Arithmetic”[30]

The lessons that the “Masters” taught were thought essential for the student to either progress toward university or to succeed in their position in society. The literature in its reading instilled certain values in the student while reinforcing their knowledge of Latin. Such literature gave the student problems to consider and moral questions to examine. These were presented alongside religious education which was also considered essential for the proper functioning citizen.

School Day and Discipline

“Elizabethan Life at school was quite strict. During summer the school day started at six o'clock in the morning and finished at five o'clock in the evening. There was a two hour break at midday. Because of the dark nights the hours changed during the winter and school started at seven and finished earlier at four o'clock. The school week consisted of a five full days and a half-day on Thursday which continued for between 40 to 44 weeks of the year. This meant that the school boys spent at least 2,000 hours in school – more than double the current school hours.”[31]

          In comparison to their Elizabethan counter-parts the school-boy of the modern era has little to complain about in regard to the school hours. Nor can there be any complaint about the amount of hours worked during that period. Five and a half days in this account makes the typical modern Western school week look pale in comparison. Further the actual hours themselves starting at such early hours and ending at such late ones is of note. The day itself was detailed.

“The school day begins at 7:00am in winter or 6:00am in summer. After prayers, they work till about 9:00 when they are permitted breakfast, then they work till 11:00. Dinner is from 11:00 to 1:00. The school day ends at 5:00 or 5:30pm.”[32]

          When the above discusses “dinner” it is talking about what some might call “lunch”. Considering there is a break taken into account for “breakfast” in the early part of the day defines the day as starting quite early, thus before breakfast was actually had. Then there is the long stretch until the end. These are rather large blocks of work and the prime subject of concern was Latin.

“students were drilled in Latin grammar—memorizing, reciting, translating from English to Latin and back again, and copying classical authors. ... Facility in Latin was considered a requisite skill for educated Elizabethans and, in the upper forms, was the only language spoken in the classroom.”[33]

          Other subjects were primarily learnt as a consequence of learning Latin, because the primary texts that were used were written in Latin. The same texts these days are now translated for our convenience into English, making them easier to read. Latin has lost its place as the international language of discourse and commerce, but in the Elizabethan and earlier periods, it was essential. The Grammar School was focused on teaching Latin.

“Discipline was strict, and often involved beatings. In the lower forms boys studied Latin grammar and vocabulary; in the upper forms, they concentrated on the poetry and prose of writers such as Ovid, Martial, Catullus, and even the contemporary Latin of such writers as Sir Thomas More.”[34]

          Discipline was considered to be an essential part of the learning process. The student would learn their correct method and how to act as a member of society through strict discipline. This discipline was corporal in nature, “students must have their education beaten into them, like their manners and deportment. Parents tend to support this theory.”[35] Corporal punishment existed not only in the school setting but also at home, so this was a continuation of this discipline, such discipline was used to instil hardiness into the student. Punishments were frequent and for the simplest of infractions. “Punishments for lateness, speaking English or not concentrating were common. These punishments included use of the cane.”[36] These punishments were designed to instil the right things into the student, thus punishing them for wrong-doings, swiftly and often with the use of the cane. Such beatings would have been unheard of in the modern system, but considered essential in the Elizabethan.

“The school boys were expected to converse in Latin at all times in order to improve their spoken fluency in the language and any boy caught speaking English at school was punished. The punishments were fierce and fifty strokes of the cane was not an uncommon occurrence.”[37]

After Grammar School

          Once the student had survived the long hours and beatings of Grammar School, there was the possible prospect of university, “At 14 University was available to those boys who could fund such study.”[38] Much like some privately-funded university systems in the modern world, the student or some patron had to fund the student’s entrance and process through university, and most simply could not afford it, or did not see the need for it.

“The future after grammar school for most boys was apprenticeship: they were bound to a master as to a father; and the master, in turn, was responsible for the boy's clothing, food, shelter and training. After seven years of apprenticeship, the boy could become a journeyman and work for wages. It was possible--but rare--for boys of poorer families to attend university through a scholarship or financing from a wealthy patron.”[39]

          A student who went to Grammar School, would likely leave Grammar School educated and start apprenticeship under the tutelage of another of the future occupation, there was little social flow upward. For those whose occupation required the knowledge which was taught at university, they were sent to university, usually paid for by their parents or by some patron who saw potential in the individual, needless to say those of the lower classes rarely went to university. It is most interesting to look at Ben Jonson’s story as an example situation.

“Jonson left Westminster [Grammar School] when he was about sixteen but, without a scholarship, was unable to go on to university—a circumstance that rankled for the rest of his days. Education was one way to lay claim to being a gentleman (being well-born was the other). So unlike Christopher Marlowe, who attended Cambridge University on scholarship, Jonson was unable to pursue that route to upward mobility. He nonetheless built on the strong roots of his early schooling, continuing to educate himself throughout his life, and becoming one of England’s greatest dramatists, a highly respected man of letters, and eventually the recipient of honorary degrees from both Oxford and Cambridge.”[40]

          Ben Jonson’s situation demonstrates how a university education, as gained by Christopher Marlowe gained an individual social status. Jonson, on the other hand, was not able to go to university due to lack of a scholarship or patron, and thus studied independently gaining his honorary degrees, and gaining respect in the process. Education if it was afforded was one way that an individual could break through to another social class and improve an individual’s situation. While education reinforced some social values it offered the opportunity to break free, thus aspiring to become something more as the humanists of the age would have wanted.

---

[1] Moorhouse, D. (2019) “Education and Leisure” in SchoolsHistory.org.uk, https://schoolshistory.org.uk/topics/british-history/elizabethan-era/education-and-leisure/, [accessed 13/2/2020]

[2] Ros, M. (2008) “What Every Schoolboy Knows” in Life in Elizabethan England, www.elizabethan.org/compendium/54.html, [accessed 13/2/2020]

[3] Moorhouse (2019)

[4] Elizabethan-era.org (2017) “Elizabethan Education” in Elizabethan Era, www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/elizabethan-education.htm, [accessed 13/2/2020]

[5] Ros (2008)

[6] ibid.

[7] Moorhouse (2019)

[8] Internet Shakespeare Editions (2011) “The education of boys” in Life and Times, https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/SLT/ideas/education/boys.html#alternative, [accessed 13/2/2020]

[9] Elizabethan-era.org (2017)

[10] Ros (2008)

[11] Elizabethan-era.org (2017)

[12] ibid.

[13] Lyon, K. (2019) “Elizabethan education and Ben Jonson’s school days” in Shakespeare & Beyond, https://shakespeareandbeyond.folger.edu/2019/09/03/ben-jonson-school-elizabethan-education/ [accessed 13/2/2020], Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington, USA

[14] Moorhouse (2019)

[15] Lyon (2019)

[16] Ibid.

[17] ibid.

[18] Elizabethan-era.org (2017)

[19] Lyon (2019)

[20] Internet Shakespeare Editions (2011)

[21] Lyon (2019)

[22] Ros (2008)

[23] Moorhouse (2019)

[24] Ros (2008)

[25] ibid.

[26] Moorhouse (2019)

[27] Elizabethan-era.org (2017)

[28] Moorhouse (2019)

[29] Lyon (2019)

[30] Elizabethan-era.org (2017)

[31] ibid.

[32] Ros (2008)

[33] Lyon (2019)

[34] Internet Shakespeare Editions (2011)

[35] Ros (2008)

[36] Moorhouse (2019)

[37] Elizabethan-era.org (2017)

[38] Moorhouse (2019)

[39] Internet Shakespeare Editions (2011)

[40] Lyon (2019)

Bibliography

Elizabethan-era.org (2017) “Elizabethan Education” in Elizabethan Era, www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/elizabethan-education.htm, [accessed 13/2/2020]

Internet Shakespeare Editions (2011) “The education of boys” in Life and Times, https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/SLT/ideas/education/boys.html#alternative, [accessed 13/2/2020]

Lyon, K. (2019) “Elizabethan education and Ben Jonson’s school days” in Shakespeare & Beyond, https://shakespeareandbeyond.folger.edu/2019/09/03/ben-jonson-school-elizabethan-education/ [accessed 13/2/2020], Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington, USA

Moorhouse, D. (2019) “Education and Leisure” in SchoolsHistory.org.uk, https://schoolshistory.org.uk/topics/british-history/elizabethan-era/education-and-leisure/, [accessed 13/2/2020]

Ros, M. (2008) “What Every Schoolboy Knows” in Life in Elizabethan England, www.elizabethan.org/compendium/54.html, [accessed 13/2/2020]

Education: Renaissance

Greetings,

There will be a few articles following about education. These will be focused on medieval, Renaissance and Elizabethan education. It is necessary to know what these individuals were taught to better understand what they understood and the methods by which they came about knowledge. This is important for medieval and Renaissance treatises as I have discussed in my fencing blog (https://afencersramblings.blogspot.com/2020/06/old-learning-for-old-treatises.html), but is also essential for a greater understanding and appreciation of all texts of the period.

Cheers,

Henry.

Renaissance Education

          The education systems of the Renaissance form a backdrop to Elizabethan education, as they were in the same era and had a similar humanist foundation which was established based on the liberal arts of the medieval period. Some of what was used during the medieval period was discarded for this different approach, but not all of it. This is important, as there were elements of the same system which formed building blocks upon which Renaissance education systems were built. Most sources focus on the change between the two, the so-called revolution.

“The Renaissance created an educational revolution by adopting a classical curriculum for its Latin schools. This happened in Italy in the fifteenth century and in the rest of Europe in the sixteenth century. Renaissance Latin schoolmasters discarded the medieval curriculum, with a handful of exceptions at the primary school level, in favor of the works of Virgil, Cicero, Terence, Julius Caesar (c. 100 –44 B.C.E.), and other ancient authors. Most were Latin; Greek authors were introduced as teachers of Greek became available. These ancient authors taught grammar, rhetoric, poetry, history, and moral philosophy, which together comprised the studia humanitatis (humanistic studies) based on the standard ancient authors in Latin and, to some extent, in Greek. The classical humanistic curriculum remained the core of Latin education for the elite of Europe well into the twentieth century.”[1]

The effect of the change from the liberal arts of the medieval period to the humanist study of the Renaissance still affects the approach to education in the current era. The problem with the statement above is that there was already a classical curriculum being used in the form of the liberal arts; the humanists simply changed the approach. The humanist studies are still present in primary school education as well as in secondary school education. A person can even go to a modern university to study humanities, though with the impact of the so-called “hard” sciences the humanities departments of universities are taking the brunt of budget cuts.

Refocusing on the Renaissance period the trend which is found in the budgetary concerns of universities began in the Renaissance with their trend away from other aspects which could not be explained by scientific approaches. The result of this was that there was a trend away from the previous approach and focus from religious aspects to more scientific approaches, though there will be noted differences in the Elizabethan education.

“Scholars became more interested in the humanist features—that is, the secular or worldly rather than the religious aspects—of the Greek and Latin classics. Humanist educators found their models of literary style in the classics.”[2]

          The Renaissance educators found their style in the same classics they would end up studying. From these sources the educators found models from which they built their educational systems. These educators were concerned about how the student could improve themselves, understanding the universe was a consequence of this improvement. Social change drove much of this change.

“The religious Reformation of the 16th century marked a decline in the authority of the Catholic Church and contributed to the emergence of the middle classes in Europe.”[3]

          Students wanted to know about the world around them and how they could excel in it. Preparing for the next life, as was taught in the church schools was of less interest. The emergence of the middle class demonstrated that financial gain and presence was also power, so noble families wanted their children educated in this form of power as well. Education was stimulated by the church, however in an effort to ensure its power, teaching in the vernacular (native) language so that they could read the Bible in the same; this was especially significant in England. Here, liturgical and catechism studies were still important.

Vernacular Schools

“In their ardent determination to instruct followers to read the Bible in their native language, reformers extended literacy to the masses. They established vernacular primary schools that offered a basic curriculum of reading, writing, arithmetic, and religion for children in their own language. Vernacular schools in England, for example, used English to teach their pupils.”[4]

          Previously schools taught in Latin rather than the native language, in this case English, teaching of the vernacular, or native language, was thought to be something which was taken care of at home by nannies and other house employees in the course of their duties. While such vernacular schools did exist, the primary language of the learned was Latin, so this was the language that was taught at upper-class schools and universities.

“While the vernacular schools educated both boys and girls at the primary level, upper-class boys attended preparatory and secondary schools that continued to emphasize Latin and Greek. The gymnasium in Germany, the Latin grammar school in England, and the lycee in France were preparatory schools that taught young men the classical languages of Latin and Greek required to enter universities.”[5]

          Such a difference in the language taught at the schools is noteworthy. It is likely that the language taught at the school, and the language which the school was taught in, was what set the school as one of the upper- or middle- and lower-class schools. Lower-class students went to school so that they could read the Bible, as indicated previously. The influence of the ancients was felt especially in the primary upper-class schools and beyond, and these were studied for a reason.

Ancient Influence

“Renaissance humanists studied the literature of ancient Greece and Rome, believing that these classical works represented the height of human knowledge and were important models for a new age.”[6]

          The humanists of the Renaissance examined the literature of the ancients and formulated that they were the best that humanity had to offer, and that they were the models that people should follow. It has already been noted that the same humanists modelled the subjects for study from the same greats of ancient literature. The knowledge of these promised great things.

“It was believed that with the knowledge of greats—that is the ancient writers—you could be a proconsul of an empire, a captain of industry, or a general, or an admiral. You could do anything as long as you had the knowledge of classical antiquity and a good, correct Latin style behind you.”[7]

          From the same greats, it was said, that an individual could learn how to be like the individuals that the student was learning from. Not only could a person learn the words of Cicero, but a student, with diligence, could learn to write the same words and have the same skills of oration as him as well. The Renaissance opened the potential of the individual to do great things. Italy was the first to adopt this new curriculum, based on ancient educators, the rest of Europe followed not long after.

“Humanist pedagogues sought guidance on ancient education from the Institutio oratoria (Institutes of oratory) of the Roman teacher of rhetoric Quintilian (c. 35–100 C.E.). Italy adopted the classical Latin curriculum in the fifteenth century, and the rest of Europe followed in the sixteenth.”[8]

          It has been indicated that an individual had the potential to do great things through the reading of the classical authors. This is the reason that humanist educators of the Renaissance sought them for advice and taught them to their students, but there must also be a reason for giving the student the education in the first place, a purpose for education.

Purpose

“Education during the Italian Renaissance was carefully programmed to create students who were well-balanced and who embodied the values of their society.”[9]

          In society there is always a purpose to education and a reason that certain things are taught to the students and other things are not. The purpose highlighted above is very similar to the purpose of education in our current era and in eras previous: to create citizens who embodied the values of their society. The Renaissance educator wanted to teach the student to be more than a mindless drone.

“The Renaissance humanistic curriculum promised more than learning to read and write like the ancients. Italian and northern European humanists argued in a series of pedagogical treatises that reading the classics would teach boys, and a few girls, wisdom as well as eloquence. The classics would inspire readers to live honorably and well. If well instructed, they would do what was morally right and would be loyal to family, city, and country. The goal was humanitas, the knowledge of how to live as cultivated, educated members of society.”[10]

          There was more to the education than teaching the students the “nuts and bolts” of reading and writing. There was the consideration of deeper things about which they were reading so they would learn something of wisdom and eloquence. Considerations of morality were also presented so that the student would question things and ask the right questions. The subjects taught in the Renaissance curriculum were somewhat broader than the seven liberal arts of the medieval period, but show their influence.

Subjects

“Humanist educators designed teaching methods to prepare well-rounded, liberally educated persons. Dutch humanist Desiderius Erasmus was particularly influential. Erasmus believed that understanding and conversing about the meaning of literature was more important than memorizing it, ... He advised teachers to study such fields as archaeology, astronomy, mythology, history, and Scripture.”[11]

          The subjects in the Renaissance educator’s mind were more concerned with the humanities than the sciences, but as will be noted, some sciences were also included in the curriculum. The focus was to result in a well-rounded individual who could think for themselves and think about subjects, thus discuss them rather than memorising their content, at least as indicated by Erasmus. Other subjects that were studied during this period were: poetry, moral philosophy, rhetoric, grammar, ancient authors,[12] ethics[13] and Latin, of course.

          There were also contemporary authors that were considered important as well and their writings were included in reading lists. “In literature, the works of such Italian writers as Dante Alighieri, Petrarch, and Giovanni Boccaccio became especially important.”[14] These authors presented questions of morality which the students would have to comprehend and discuss. Here is some of the presentation of the student who could think for themselves. A similar approach to education is evident in the Elizabethan education, but this is no real surprise as the same humanist approach is present. The Renaissance education can be seen as a backdrop to fill in where information is not available specifically about Elizabethan education. For the Elizabethans, the focus was ensuring that a model citizen was created from the learning with the appropriate liturgical learning.

---

[1] Web Solutions (2020) “Education in Europe: From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment”, https://science.jrank.org/pages/9078/Education-in-Europe-From-Renaissance-Enlightenment.html, [accessed 13/2/2020]

[2] Universidad de Somoso (2009) “VIII Education During the Renaisssance” in Education History, http://education14.blogspot.com/2008/11/viii-education-during-renaissance.html, [accessed 27/5/20]

[3] ibid.

[4] ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] ibid.

[7] Bartlett, Dr. K. (2016) “Education in the Renaissance” in The Great Courses Daily, https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/education-in-the-renaissance/, [accessed 13/2/2020]

[8] Web Solutions (2020)

[9] Bartlett (2016)

[10] Web Solutions (2020)

[11] Universidad de Somoso (2009)

[12] Bartlett (2016)

[13] Universidad de Somoso (2009)

[14] ibid.

Bibliography

Bartlett, Dr. K. (2016) “Education in the Renaissance” in The Great Courses Daily, https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/education-in-the-renaissance/, [accessed 13/2/2020]

Web Solutions (2020) “Education in Europe: From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment”, https://science.jrank.org/pages/9078/Education-in-Europe-From-Renaissance-Enlightenment.html, [accessed 13/2/2020]

Universidad de Somoso (2009) “VIII Education During the Renaisssance” in Education History, http://education14.blogspot.com/2008/11/viii-education-during-renaissance.html, [accessed 27/5/20]

Education: Seven Liberal Arts: Trivium and Quadrivium

Greetings,

There will be a few articles following about education. These will be focused on medieval, Renaissance and Elizabethan education. It is necessary to know what these individuals were taught to better understand what they understood and the methods by which they came about knowledge. This is important for medieval and Renaissance treatises as I have discussed in my fencing blog (https://afencersramblings.blogspot.com/2020/06/old-learning-for-old-treatises.html), but is also essential for a greater understanding and appreciation of all texts of the period.

Cheers,

Henry.

Seven Liberal Arts: Trivium and Quadrivium

          The seven liberal arts, also known as the trivium and the quadrivium were the foundation for education in the medieval period. Their importance cannot be doubted as they laid the foundation for what would become the humanist education which would develop in the Renaissance period. In both cases, it will be noted that the knowledge was drawn from the classical period.

“Liberal arts is the term given to an education based on classical antiquity. It is meant to be a practical education which develops mental capacity. It was designed in the late medieval period (12th/13^th centuries) using ideas from Ancient Greek and Roman culture. The students were meant to be young gentlemen, that is, from respectable and important families.”[1]

          Drawing on classical antiquity was an attempt by the scholars who taught the students to bring authority to what was taught, the classical authors also had educational systems already laid out. It was also through this method that much of the learning in this period was saved. The seven liberal arts themselves covered quite a list of subjects and thus quite an expanse of knowledge.

“The seven liberal arts were taught in two groups: the trivium and the quadrivium:

§  Trivium

·       Grammar

·       Dialectic (logic)

·       Rhetoric

§  Quadrivium

·       Arithmetic

·       Geometry

·       Astronomy

·       Music”[2]

The trivium taught the student how to argue using language, and also how to use language to communicate. This was the essential education that most students who were able to gain education availed themselves. The quadrivium was for more advanced students, those who were supposed to become leaders, the elite of society, thus taught how the universe worked. Some foundation education was required before embarking on this educational process.

“Originally, most of the teaching, and all of the text-books, would have been in Latin, the language the students would have learnt at school before they came to college. In the beginning the courses were aimed at educating the elite in the classical works.”[3]

          Latin was the language used because it was the language most common with other nations at the time, thus it was common to all and could be spoken by the elite in their negotiations. Further, most of the classical works in the period were primarily available in Latin, or Greek, but mostly Latin. The Roman scholars were the prime source for the educators, being the conquerors. The educational system itself had its origins in Greece.

Ancient Origins

“From around 500BC, Liberal Arts education began to take shape in Ancient Greece. To begin with, Pythagoras argued that there was a mathematical and geometrical harmony to the cosmos or the universe”[4]

          The mathematical and geometrical harmony is conveniently presented in the combination of numbers when discussing the seven liberal arts. There are three for the trivium on one side of a triangle, four representing the quadrivium on another side of a right-angled triangle and the hypotenuse results in seven, being the combination of both trivium and quadrivium in the seven liberal arts. It was the mathematical beauty and learning of the quadrivium which Pythagoras’ followers focused on.

“Pythagoras argued that mathematics and the beauty of number, ratio and proportion were the first principles of everything in existence. His followers linked the four arts of astronomy, mathematics, geometry and music into one are of study called the Quadrivium. The study of number in particular was thought to purify the soul by putting it in mathematical harmony with the universe.”[5]

          The quadrivium uses mathematics in four different forms to explain the universe, which suited the followers of Pythagoras and also his teachings about the impact and importance of mathematics to the universe. However, it would take more than mathematics to create an educational system which to create a rounded individual. The student also needed to know how to think and speak.

“In 4th century Athens, the government of the polis, or city-state, respected the ability of rhetoric or public speaking above almost everything else. The Sophists claimed to be able to teach rhetorical skills to those who could pay them, and a science of oratory began to develop. Success required knowledge of grammar and dialectic; grammar in order to produce eloquence, and dialectic in order to make one’s arguments powerful enough to win debates. In time, rhetoric, grammar and dialectic became the educational programme of the Trivium. Until the European Renaissance, the trivium and the quadrivium were the foundation of Western education.”[6]

          The combination of the trivium and the quadrivium was the key. It was necessary to teach the student how to think about the universe before introducing the student to how the universe worked. Further, it was necessary to teach the student the correct manner in which to argue to ensure that the arguments were correct, effective and logical. One of the greatest minds of the age was to present the importance of the initial training.

“Aristotle who is considered to be one of the originators of the ideas behind the Trivium stated that an educated man should be capable of considering and investigating any idea or concept thoroughly without necessarily embracing or dismissing it. ...  Any emotional attachment to a particular belief blocks any kind of rational or logical argumentation.”[7]

          In Aristotle’s approach there are the beginnings of the scientific approach. Arguments were to be made without emotion evaluating the evidence “cold”. This is because emotion blocks logical and rational arguments. Indeed the “Appeal to Emotion” is cited as one of the logical fallacies which need to be avoided.[8]

Like the Renaissance humanist and Enlightenment scientific approaches which would follow, “the seven liberal arts were bound together by a philosophical approach to discovering the first principles of the universe and mankind.”[9] There is this urge in humankind to discover things about itself and the universe in which it lives. The seven liberal arts, the trivium and quadrivium were the foundation of education in the medieval period and in some cases, beyond.

Trivium

“The Trivium is the first half of the 7 Liberal Arts. It consists of 3 elements: General grammar, formal logic and classical rhetoric. Sacred texts often refer to these 3 elements as knowledge, understanding and wisdom. The overarching topic of the Trivium is communication and language.

·       General grammar : The systematic method of gathering raw data and ordering the facts of reality into a consistent body of knowledge.

·       Formal logic : Bringing full and intimate understanding to this body of knowledge by systematically eliminating all contradictions within it.

·       Rhetoric : Communicating this comprehensive knowledge and understanding to others in order to utilize the gained insights in the real world.”[10]

The three subjects of the trivium, the first part of the liberal arts were grammar, logic and rhetoric. These three were focusing on language, how it was formed and how it was used, especially in the forming of the argument. These are the science of language, how it was formed and effectively used. There was an immediate emphasis on functionality. In addition to what has been explained of these three subjects is the following which takes a slightly different, if more direct examination of the subjects.

“The trivium (Latin for three ways), included the literary disciplines:

§  Grammar, the science of the correct usage of language. It helps a person to speak and write correctly;

§  Dialectic (or logic), the science of correct thinking. It helps you to arrive at the truth;

§  Rhetoric, the science of expression, especially persuasion. Ways of organizing a speech or document. Adapting it so that people understand it, and believe it.”[11]

In comparison to the previous description of the subject the Wikipedia (2019) description focuses on the functionality and practicality of the subjects being taught and how the subjects would be used to enhance the student. The student was not just being taught about language, they were being taught how to use language effectively. This way they can use language to describe what’s around them. The trivium comprised the individual’s basic learning. For advancement, further learning was required in the form of the quadrivium.

Quadrivium

“The Quadrivium is the second half of the 7 Liberal Arts. It consists of 4 elements : Arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy. The overarching topic of the Quadrivium is the study of number and its relation to space and time.

·       Arithmetic : Number - as such number is a pure abstraction outside of time and space. This aspect of the Quadrivium deals with the different characteristics of each number

·       Geometry : Number in space - specific shapes can have a deeper meaning. This aspect relates symbolism and it is frequently used in architecture.

·       Music : Number in time - covers music in general and particularly the topic of natural harmonics

·       Astronomy : Number in time and space - covers the movement of planets in space and the natural harmonics between the planets when looking at the aspect of time (harmony of the spheres). This is the first time aspects of time and space meet with the abstraction of number thus it builds the foundation for science.”[12]

While the trivium focused on subjects about language and how to use it, the quadrivium focused on mathematics and how to use it to explain the universe in all its forms. This included not just physical measurement, but also the measurement of less quantifiable things such as time, and in some senses, space. The beginning of the process is to introduce numbers in arithmetic. Then put those numbers in space in geometry, then in time in music; finally, to put the numbers in time and space in astronomy. These numbers are used to explain the universe around the individual.

“The quadrivium (Latin for four ways), included the disciplines connected with mathematics. They were:

§  arithmetic teaches about numbers;

§  geometry teaches about calculating spaces;

§  astronomy teaches about the stars;

§  music teaches ratio and proportion and is related to melody and song as it was in the Middle Ages.”[13]

The seven liberal arts was the prime method of teaching which was utilised during the medieval period. Indeed, to understand people of the medieval period better requires understanding these seven subjects. These formed the foundation of education in its basic form all the way up through universities. “During the Middle Ages, the liberal arts were central to university education. The quadrivium followed the preparatory work of the trivium.”[14]

Medieval and Renaissance Period

“In medieval universities the Trivium combined with the Quadrivium comprised the seven liberal arts. This teaching method is based on a curriculum outlined by Plato. One of the key intentions behind applying the Trivium and the Quadrivium is to distinguish between reality and fiction. By training the mind how to think - instead of what to think - this method provides a teaching of the art and the science of the mind as well as the art of the science of matter.”[15]

          The ancient Greek origins of the seven liberal arts have been previously presented, and it is with little surprise that scholars of medieval age revered the teaching from the ancient period, it was the same in the Renaissance. Even now we still refer to ancient texts for some of our answers. These centres of learning did not teach by rote what the student was to learn, thus what to think, they taught the student how to think. They were more interested in producing individuals who could think for themselves. It is of little surprise that with such educational foundations that the Renaissance would come about. However, the liberal arts changed, due to a different approach.

“These were opposed in the Renaissance by Petrarch and others, and a new humanistic form of Liberal Arts emerged which included the whole range of the arts. The Trivium and Quadrivium became less central to Liberal Arts over the next few hundred years, to be replaced by different models of Liberal Arts education.”[16]

          The liberal arts changed, the trivium and quadrivium were not eliminated, they simply became less central to education and other subjects were considered more important. This is a change, an evolution of education, as society changes so other things must change, including education. Other subjects were now considered also as, if not more, important as the original seven, but the seven were not discarded, which is of note and importance. These seven formed the foundation of humanist education that would follow in the Renaissance.

---

[1] Wikipedia (2019) “Liberal arts” in Wikipedia, https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts, [accessed 13/2/2020]

[2] ibid.

[3] ibid.

[4] Liberal Arts Online (2020) “Trivium and Quadrivium” in Modern Liberal Arts, https://liberalarts.online/trivium-and-quadrivium/, [accessed 13/2/2020]

[5] ibid.

[6] ibid.

[7] Matrixwissen (2020) “The 7 Liberal Arts - Trivium, Quadrivium and Logical Fallacies” in Matrixwissen, https://www.matrixwissen.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=845:the-7-liberal-arts-trivium-quadrivium-and-logical-fallacies-en&catid=208&lang=en&Itemid=242&responsivizer_template=responsivizer, [accessed 13/2/2020]

[8] These are presented in Appendix 1.

[9] Liberal Arts Online (2020)

[10] Matrixwissen (2020)

[11] Wikipedia (2019)

[12] Matrixwissen (2020)

[13] Wikipedia (2019)

[14] ibid.

[15] Matrixwissen (2020)

[16] Liberal Arts Online (2020)

Bibliography

Liberal Arts Online (2020) “Trivium and Quadrivium” in Modern Liberal Arts, https://liberalarts.online/trivium-and-quadrivium/, [accessed 13/2/2020]

Matrixwissen (2020) “The 7 Liberal Arts - Trivium, Quadrivium and Logical Fallacies” in Matrixwissen, https://www.matrixwissen.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=845:the-7-liberal-arts-trivium-quadrivium-and-logical-fallacies-en&catid=208&lang=en&Itemid=242&responsivizer_template=responsivizer, [accessed 13/2/2020]

Wikipedia (2019) “Liberal arts” in Wikipedia, https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts, [accessed 13/2/2020]

Mercutio's Speech: An Analysis

“More than the prince of cats, I can tell you. O, he’s the

courageous captain of compliments. He fights as

you sing prick-song, keeps time, distance and

proportion; his rests his minim rests, one, two,

and the third in your bosom. The very butcher of

a silk button, a duellist, a duellist; a gentleman

of the very first house, of the first and second

cause. Ah, the immortal passado! The punto

reverso! The hay!” (Mercutio)

Romeo and Juliet Act II, scene iv, lines 19 -26

          Mercutio’s speech in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet is one which is well-known, especially by those who are familiar with the play. For actors the role of Mercutio is a dream role due to the breadth of the character and the passion which the character evokes. This short monologue is one of the most striking and most famous of his sets of lines throughout the play. This is a discussion of this particular speech and a possible different point of view as to how it is has previously been portrayed.

          The speech is Mercutio addressing the subject of Tybalt in an attempt to explain to Benvolio about him and the reason why Romeo would have no chance in a duel against him. Most often this speech is portrayed by the actor playing Mercutio as sarcastic remarks about Tybalt or joking about how skilled he is with his weapon. Often this is because those who are reading the part of Mercutio do not understand some of the language which is presented in this speech. Thus some explanation of this will be given.

Tybalt the Swordsman

            Having the advantage of experience in Renaissance martial arts means that the jargon which appears in this passage has the advantage of understanding what Mercutio is talking about. Some of these are elementary to all forms of fencing.

The first three terms he uses, time, distance and proportion are the foundation of fencing and indeed all martial arts. Time refers to the use of actions and that every action takes a certain amount of time, and also that each action may be performed in response to the action of the opponent, after, at the same time or to intercept their action. This relates to proportion which is another word for timing which means performing an action at the appropriate time. Distance is ensuring that the fencer is at the appropriate distance to both perform their own actions and to receive those of the opponent.

The next set of terms are terms for particular actions which were used in association with the use of the sword, and in particular the rapier. The passado, or passata, was a passing step which was sometimes accompanied by an attack, one foot passing the other dramatically increasing the distance moved. The punto reverso, or punta riversa, is a thrusting attack which for the right-hander originates on the fencers right side and is directed against the opponent’s right side, usually attacking the outside line of the opponent, thus moving around the opponent’s weapon with the assistance of footwork, a large step to the right of the opponent. The hay, or hai, is a direct thrust through the opponent, thus a finishing blow.

For Tybalt to be trained to know the foundation elements means that he is obviously trained, that he knows the other skills means that he is also trained in an Italian system because they are from the Italian school. This is significant, if one examines that Shakespeare was writing for an English audience who would know that the attention of an Italian fencing master would cost a lot.

Tybalt the Gentleman

With the fencing terminology explained an examination of the other language is also useful to further discuss the praise which Mercutio is heaping on to Tybalt. He calls Tybalt the “captain of compliments” alluding to him being well-spoken, as the first thing that he says about him. Later on in the speech he also states that he is a gentleman who would not fight without a cause, “a gentleman of the very first house, of the first and second cause.”

Mercutio then starts discussing his fighting ability saying that he “fights as you prick-song”. Prick-song is written music, so in other words he fights as easily as you sing and read music, a skill any gentleman of the period should have. Mercutio then discusses the tactical capabilities of Tybalt in the statement, “his rests his minim rests, one, two, and the third in your bosom.” He states that he uses his skill that he will set his opponent up and strike him with the third in the body. “The very butcher of a silk button,” alludes to his accuracy, that he could take the buttons off his opponent’s jacket.

A Deeper Discussion

With this deeper discussion and explanation of the terms and ideas put forward by Mercutio in his speech, it is clear that he is actually heaping praise on Tybalt. That he is called the “Prince of Cats” could allude to his second position in the Capulet house and their heraldry, and also his movement with a weapon, but such is supposition. What is evident by what is presented here is that Mercutio is stating a lot of positive things about Tybalt even though he really does not have to. More so, he is discussing with Benvolio why Romeo should not duel with Tybalt, so it is likely that Mercutio would be serious rather than joking or sarcastic.

The misinterpretation of Mercutio’s speech demonstrates why as in all cases of previous texts, the elements of the text need to be examined from the point of view of their origin rather than a modern point of view when examining them. Otherwise impressions are imposed upon the texts which are not present in the text and a deviant view of the text is then presented, as can be seen by the multiple portrayals of Mercutio’s speech as joking or sarcastic. Care needs to be taken so that the author’s intent remains.

Update... End in Sight

Greetings,

First, let me apologise for not updating you on my progress, I realise that it has been a long time since I have updated this blog on what has been going on with regard to this project. Things have been going on and it would seem that there would be a lot to tell and there are some things to tell, just not as much as time would indicate.

Well in the time that I have not written there has been a version 4 of both the Elizabethan and Modern versions of the text written, and then also a further version 5 of the Modern version. Since then I have not touched it as I have sent it off to various editors to have a good look at for me. These should be copy-editors, thus should be looking through the final products. Yes, it is that close to being completed.

I have discussed with various people about how the whole thing should be published and so forth, and come to a final decision. The primary version will be in hard copy. This hard copy will include both versions of the treatise which has been written and that I have indicated in my fencing blog (https://afencersramblings.blogspot.com.au/2016/11/my-treatise.html).

Being a real book, has also meant that I have had to go and write all of the "in between" bits which a book needs that I can write at this stage; a bit about the language, the introduction and all that stuff. I have also found a good friend of mine Richard Cullinan to write the Foreward for me. He has known me for quite some time so, it will be great.

I am hoping beyond all hope that this book will get published before the end of the year, this is my dream. I have even found myself a publisher, which shocked me a little when they said they were interested in publishing it. I thank Keith Farrell and Fallen Rook Publishing for their faith in me for that one. Anyway, that is about it.

Cheers,

Henry.