Shakespeare in School

[Taliesin]

Some favourite passages from Antony and Cleopatra:

Spoiler :

PHILO

Nay, but this dotage of our general's
O'erflows the measure: those his goodly eyes,
That o'er the files and musters of the war
Have glow'd like plated Mars, now bend, now turn,
The office and devotion of their view
Upon a tawny front: his captain's heart,
Which in the scuffles of great fights hath burst
The buckles on his breast, reneges all temper,
And is become the bellows and the fan
To cool a gipsy's lust.

Flourish. Enter ANTONY, CLEOPATRA, her Ladies, the Train, with Eunuchs fanning her
Look, where they come:
Take but good note, and you shall see in him.
The triple pillar of the world transform'd
Into a strumpet's fool: behold and see.

CLEOPATRA

If it be love indeed, tell me how much.

MARK ANTONY

There's beggary in the love that can be reckon'd.

CLEOPATRA

I'll set a bourn how far to be beloved.

MARK ANTONY

Then must thou needs find out new heaven, new earth.

...

MARK ANTONY

Let Rome in Tiber melt, and the wide arch
Of the ranged empire fall! Here is my space.
Kingdoms are clay: our dungy earth alike
Feeds beast as man: the nobleness of life
Is to do thus; when such a mutual pair

Embracing
And such a twain can do't, in which I bind,
On pain of punishment, the world to weet
We stand up peerless.

Spoiler :

MARK ANTONY

Sometimes we see a cloud that's dragonish;
A vapour sometime like a bear or lion,
A tower'd citadel, a pendent rock,
A forked mountain, or blue promontory
With trees upon't, that nod unto the world,
And mock our eyes with air: thou hast seen
these signs;
They are black vesper's pageants.

EROS

Ay, my lord,

MARK ANTONY

That which is now a horse, even with a thought
The rack dislimns, and makes it indistinct,
As water is in water.

EROS

It does, my lord.

MARK ANTONY

My good knave Eros, now thy captain is
Even such a body: here I am Antony:
Yet cannot hold this visible shape, my knave.
I made these wars for Egypt: and the queen,--
Whose heart I thought I had, for she had mine;
Which whilst it was mine had annex'd unto't
A million more, now lost,--she, Eros, has
Pack'd cards with Caesar, and false-play'd my glory
Unto an enemy's triumph.
Nay, weep not, gentle Eros; there is left us
Ourselves to end ourselves.

Spoiler :

MARK ANTONY

The seven-fold shield of Ajax cannot keep
The battery from my heart. O, cleave, my sides!
Heart, once be stronger than thy continent,
Crack thy frail case! Apace, Eros, apace.
No more a soldier: bruised pieces, go;
You have been nobly borne. From me awhile.

Exit EROS
I will o'ertake thee, Cleopatra, and
Weep for my pardon. So it must be, for now
All length is torture: since the torch is out,
Lie down, and stray no farther: now all labour
Mars what it does; yea, very force entangles
Itself with strength: seal then, and all is done.
Eros!--I come, my queen:--Eros!--Stay for me:
Where souls do couch on flowers, we'll hand in hand,
And with our sprightly port make the ghosts gaze:
Dido and her AEneas shall want troops,
And all the haunt be ours. Come, Eros, Eros!

Re-enter EROS

EROS

What would my lord?

MARK ANTONY

Since Cleopatra died,
I have lived in such dishonour, that the gods
Detest my baseness. I, that with my sword
Quarter'd the world, and o'er green Neptune's back
With ships made cities, condemn myself to lack
The courage of a woman; less noble mind
Than she which by her death our Caesar tells
'I am conqueror of myself.' Thou art sworn, Eros,
That, when the exigent should come, which now
Is come indeed, when I should see behind me
The inevitable prosecution of
Disgrace and horror, that, on my command,
Thou then wouldst kill me: do't; the time is come:
Thou strikest not me, 'tis Caesar thou defeat'st.
Put colour in thy cheek.

EROS

The gods withhold me!
Shall I do that which all the Parthian darts,
Though enemy, lost aim, and could not?

MARK ANTONY

Eros,
Wouldst thou be window'd in great Rome and see
Thy master thus with pleach'd arms, bending down
His corrigible neck, his face subdued
To penetrative shame, whilst the wheel'd seat
Of fortunate Caesar, drawn before him, branded
His baseness that ensued?

EROS

I would not see't.

MARK ANTONY

Come, then; for with a wound I must be cured.
Draw that thy honest sword, which thou hast worn
Most useful for thy country.

EROS

O, sir, pardon me!

MARK ANTONY

When I did make thee free, sworest thou not then
To do this when I bade thee? Do it at once;
Or thy precedent services are all
But accidents unpurposed. Draw, and come.

Spoiler :

MARK ANTONY

The miserable change now at my end
Lament nor sorrow at; but please your thoughts
In feeding them with those my former fortunes
Wherein I lived, the greatest prince o' the world,
The noblest; and do now not basely die,
Not cowardly put off my helmet to
My countryman,--a Roman by a Roman
Valiantly vanquish'd. Now my spirit is going;
I can no more.

CLEOPATRA

Noblest of men, woo't die?
Hast thou no care of me? shall I abide
In this dull world, which in thy absence is
No better than a sty? O, see, my women,

MARK ANTONY dies
The crown o' the earth doth melt. My lord!
O, wither'd is the garland of the war,
The soldier's pole is fall'n: young boys and girls
Are level now with men; the odds is gone,
And there is nothing left remarkable
Beneath the visiting moon.

Faints

CHARMIAN

O, quietness, lady!

IRAS

She is dead too, our sovereign.

CHARMIAN

Lady!

IRAS

Madam!

CHARMIAN

O madam, madam, madam!

IRAS

Royal Egypt, Empress!

CHARMIAN

Peace, peace, Iras!

CLEOPATRA

No more, but e'en a woman, and commanded
By such poor passion as the maid that milks
And does the meanest chares. It were for me
To throw my sceptre at the injurious gods;
To tell them that this world did equal theirs
Till they had stol'n our jewel. All's but naught;
Patience is scottish, and impatience does
Become a dog that's mad: then is it sin
To rush into the secret house of death,
Ere death dare come to us? How do you, women?
What, what! good cheer! Why, how now, Charmian!
My noble girls! Ah, women, women, look,
Our lamp is spent, it's out! Good sirs, take heart:
We'll bury him; and then, what's brave,
what's noble,
Let's do it after the high Roman fashion,
And make death proud to take us. Come, away:
This case of that huge spirit now is cold:
Ah, women, women! come; we have no friend
But resolution, and the briefest end.

Exeunt; those above bearing off MARK ANTONY's body

Absolutely fantastic, and wonderfully subtle stuff.

 

[Bast]

I did Hamlet, Tweflth Night, Tempest and Merchant of Venice in high school.

I've also read MacBeth and Romeo & Juliet.

I don't have the time now but I'll comment on this later.

EDIT: I forgot Othello.

 

[MrCynical]

Besides lamenting the fact that you clearly haven't had very inspiring English teachers (and you're not alone-- I think literature is probably pretty poorly taught in general), I have to respond to the claim that the study of literature is completely subjective. In my experience this view is held by science students who either don't like reading or whose intelligence is of a more mathematical than verbal bent, and by the kind of arts student who enjoys substituting vague generalisations for thought (i.e., the kind who scrapes Bs and earns the ridicule of serious literature students). The capacity of literature to support multiple angles of interpretation should not be mistaken for an equality among all interpretations.

On some points here you're correct. Yes, I had an extremely uninspiring set of English teachers (five in rapid succession, all of whom contradicted each other and, with surprising frequency, themselves as well). Yes, I lean heavily towards maths and science rather than the arts. As to reading though, it is something I enjoy, though despite rather than thanks to study of literature.

As to whether the study of literature is subjective though, my position is unchanged. In the absence of any specific statements by the author (especially any statements written prior to widespread analysis of the work), any attempts to state what the author's intentions were when writing a piece are little more than speculation. While a piece can be written to support multiple interpretations, I doubt Shakespeare intended even a tenth of the "meanings" people have derived from his work. Given that there are therefore a large number of, frequently contradicting, interpretations of a work, English teaching boils down to little more than memorising the interpretation that is currently in fashion, or is the personal opinion of the teacher/examiner.

Analysis of literature permits criticism of literature, and a critical understanding of literature. This is important, if you think literature is important, which I hope you do.

Do I think literature important? - Yes.

Is critical understanding of literature necessary for literature to be important? -Arguable, but leaning towards no. I don't have to dissect a painting to find it aesthetically pleasing. If it has been written to convey a specific message, but it suffers the kind of contradictory interpretations that appear in literature courses, it has failed in its function, and is merely an example of how not to do it.

Does analysis of literature lead to criticism of literature? - Yes, mainly because I consider these basically synonymous.

So no, I don't consider analysis of literature important, any more than I consider the opinions of an art teacher relevant to my appreciation of a painting.

As for fanboyism, I think you would approve of biology, philosophy, and physical education teachers deciding what's important for their students to learn, so I don't see where the objection comes from in the case of literature.

The source of the objection (at least in the case of biology and physical education) is obvious. They are based in testable facts, not opinion. With literature my personal opinion will be ranked as irrelevant unless it matches that of the teacher, though no justification is given for the teacher's opinion, and it is untestable in the absence of the original author. This lack of anything testable also leads to a lack of ultimate purpose. Physical education has a purpose - fitness and health - which is reasonably testable, and hence the teacher's methods can be validated.

Ditto in biology, the knowledge of the student can be tested, and hence the validity of a teacher's choice of learning material.

Philosophy I have not included in the above comments, since I lack extensive knowledge of it, though from what I have seen it too lacks practical and testable outcome. I do not know though whether it suffers from the problem that literature analysis does, of deciding that one of a multitude of interpretations is correct, with neither consensus or justification.

How are students to acquire discriminating literary taste, or familiarity with their common literary heritage, if their instruction is not prescribed to a certain extent?

Familiarity with common literary heritage? I can think of few things more damaging than literature analysis to this goal. Nothing kills a book like analysis and dissection, and it puts pupils off anything that might be considered "serious literature". From what I have seen, it is those who sought out such literature of their own accord, who are familiar with this heritage, and they have enjoyed it despite, not as a result of, analysis.

As to discriminating literary taste that is, as its name strongly implies, a matter of taste. Your opinion as to what is great literature is of no more value than anyone else's opinion, any more than is your opinion on which are the best movies, games, works of art, sports teams or brands of beer. I'll grant that literature analysis is an effective way of passing on your opinion, but I don't consider the perpetuation of unverifiable opinion a laudable end in its own right.

Shakespeare is not taught independent of his merit, simply because he's Shakespeare-- he's taught because he's the greatest genius of the English language.

Again, opinion and unsupported. Nothing to verify it and many would not agree with you.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Even if Shakespeare was an idiot his work would still be essential in understanding the endless cultural references to his characters that our language employs. I didn't enjoy it at the time but I'd be diminished without it.

Edit: And for the record, as a Physics graduate, I think people who say that the arts, however subjective, aren't worth study should get out more.

Edit2: And I don't mean to say that Shakespeare was an idiot - he was a genius. Rather, I was an idiot when I read his works at school.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Shakespeare's genius was not in coming up with original stories (he never did) but telling them in new and interesting ways. As an English class (in high school I had the same teacher my last 3 years) we would read them out loud, which helped a little; better still is watching them. There still has not been much to equal his work. A Midsummer Night's Dream, for instance, is funnier than any sex comedy that has been made in the 400 years since.

 

[Taliesin]

@MrCynical

I think it may help to bear the following in mind:

1) Literary criticism isn't about unlocking "the meaning" of a work. It's not as though authors write books to encrypt a message, which critics set about trying to discover.

2) If a piece of literature is written to communicate something, which it usually is, then argument about its author's intention shouldn't be founded on mere speculation. William Golding isn't here to explain Lord of the Flies to me, but I like to think I could tell you something of what it's about-- because he's a skilled author and I'm an intelligent reader.

3) Actual criticism has nothing to do with memorisation-- it's about thinking, and imagining. But you have to start somewhere. Mathematics as taught in high school is about learning and memorising principles, but of course actual mathematics is not. Likewise, it wouldn't do much good to give Twelfth Night to a ninth grade class and tell them to say something useful about it. The teacher is there to instruct them in how to approach it. The teaching of literature is, perhaps, more subject to the individual teacher's character than math is, but a decent educator will instil something more than memorisation of bullet points.

4) The importance of literature is not reducible to its aesthetic quality or merit, except according to one school of thought popular between about 1870 and 1920. In Sir Philip Sidney's classic formulation, art aims to delight and to instruct. You don't need criticism to enjoy literature, though without it enjoyment mostly rests in interest in the plot and perhaps a superficial pleasure in imagery. Criticism, however, helps both to elevate one's appreciation of a work's aesthetics and to refine one's understanding of the work's moral and intellectual content. Even if you don't do most of the criticism yourself-- few people construct an essay on everything they read-- training in literary analysis, and the recorded analysis of others, are available when you read.

5) Unless you subscribe to the grossest form of utilitarianism, it should be evident that training refines the taste and permits much more sophisticated enjoyment of art. I know next to nothing about material art, so my appreciation of a painting is fairly limited. I'm reminded of this every time I visit an art gallery: I usually know what I like when I see it, but for the most part I can't meaningfully compare two paintings except at a rudimentary level. However, I have an at least somewhat sophisticated understanding of English literature. This may be partly because I have greater verbal aptitude than visual, but it's mostly because I was taught nothing useful about art in school. Had as much attention been devoted to it as to math or literature, I would get a whole lot more out of museums.

6) When studying your literature in high school, your opinion matters-- but your judgement doesn't. You bring your faculty of reason and your experience to the classroom, which you use to organise your impressions into arguments. But your judgement is what's being moulded, and it's the teacher's job to correct it. Biology is partly about facts, just as English is partly about facts: the nuts and bolts of poetical mechanics, for example. But it's also about learning to think scientifically, and gaining a sophisticated approach to the natural world-- i.e., developing your judgement. The teacher corrects your logical fallacies, and your deficiencies in thinking process, and it's not your place to defy correction. If you propose an alternative to the scientific method, to put a crude example, you will be told to abandon it. Similarly, you can't float just any old opinion about King Lear, and within a certain range of material, it makes sense for the teacher to tell you how to think about it.

7) Literature deals with individual persons, a subject that, outside exceedingly narrow limits, does not admit of testable facts in the way that sciences do. It isn't sensible to expect literary arguments to be physically testable-- they are the object of the reasoning faculty, and of the imagination, not of instruments. You wouldn't seek to analyse a piece of oratory with scientific tools, and a novel is no different.

8) If the inculcation of our literary heritage consisted of the teacher saying, "Here's some books, kids, read!", it wouldn't accomplish much. There is an important place for that kind of instruction, of course-- I'm not suggesting that all literary education be mandated by an academy-- but the teacher has a responsibility to show students something of why the greats of the canon are great. That entails instruction in some kind of criticism.

9) Even if you're denying that Shakespeare is in a real sense more artistically worthwhile than Jerry Springer, three important points remain: Shakespeare is in a real sense much more culturally important, and hence worthwhile; Shakespeare is demonstrably more sophisticated, and yields many more interesting things to talk about; and, democratically speaking, the vast weight of preference of generations of readers militates for Shakespeare's importance. If the literary world is an aristocracy, then it makes sense that we listen to the aristocrats; on the other hand, if taste is democratic, then an individual student's opinion of Shakespeare can't be said to count for much.

10) A heck of a lot of people who make arguments using words would agree with me that arguments can be substantiated without laboratory results.

 

[puglover]

Shakespere was a great writer of tragedy and war. Henry V and Hamlet are awesome plays to go see.

However, I never got into his comedies. They seem so pointless and dumb.

 

[Irish Caesar]

One thousand science, math, and engineering courses are more important than any course in English, or any arts course for that matter. A course which depends on arbitrary interpretation of a work is a course that deserves to die.

It seems more like a thousand science, math, and engineering students need to get out more.

There was a time I thought like Bill on this one.

Then I got out more.

Seriously, though, I did enjoy reading Shakespeare in school, although I don't think any high school freshman is going to understand Romeo and Juliet all that well. I've had the opportunity to re-read some Shakespeare outside of school, and enjoyed it more the second time around knowing a little bit more of what to look into. Hint: a lot of Shakespeare's writing is loaded with puns; read it out loud and picture the scenery to get them.

I would say, having seen a performance of A Midsummer Night's Dream, that they guy is still one of the premier playwrights out there. And he's been dead for almost four centuries...

As a final note, concentration solely on math/science classes at the expense of anything else can be a bit disheartening. I'm not usually a fan of how art/literature is taught, but some exposure to the arts that have made up the soul of our society for hundreds of years is necessary. Wouldn't an architect or an engineer be better appreciated and respected if he understands not only what holds a building up, but what makes people want to keep it up?

 

[Guangxi]

Shakespeare was a genius. His plays are as fresh and relevant today as they've ever been. Sadly generations of schoolkids have been put off by having them simplistically rammed down their throats.

yes, definately. i probably would have enjoyed the merchant of venice had
it not for the bloody dissection of it. and memorisation of bits and pieces.
for example, lists of themes.
theme of romance. yep.
theme of revenge. yep.
theme of metals. WTH?
how is there a theme of metals, i asked.
the teacher said something about currency. i suppose there is a Theme of Canals too.
and the humour... well, i wouldnt have taken it for humour had not the teacher
pointed it out and said it was Humourous.

 

[Technocactus]

Julius Caesar is my personal favourite. But my school has Shakespeare rammed down its pupils throat so much, because it's the school Shakespeare went to.