I was curious about the question of Shaksper's possible grammar school education, and came across some facts that surprised me.

If you look around on-line, you'll find many sites giving this scenario of Elizabethan education: English reading and writing (and basic arithmetic) were taught at a "Petty School", for students aged 5-7, by (usually) a woman, at her home. Admittance to a Grammar School, for those aged 7-14, was only open to those that could already read and write English - the function of a Grammar School was to teach Latin. Not English.

So, for instance, the Stratford school is said to have almost exclusively taught Latin. Here's a link to the Stratford-Upon-Avon site: http://www.stratford-upon-avon.co.uk/static_480.htm
A quote: "The School continued to concentrate on teaching Latin." and "Certainly the regime was very strict, with boys punished if they spoke in English to one another instead of Latin".

It's worth pointing out that this is the official site of the town of Stratford-Upon-Avon, and that it asserts that the purpose of the school was to teach Latin alone, as "Latin was required not only for entrance to university and the three professions - namely law, medicine and the Church but also by those in business or local administration for the keeping of records."

So the fantastical scenario of the Elizabethan Grammar School functioning as a mini University isn't supported by the stance of the official website of the town of Stratford!

Here's a link to a site about Elizabethan Education: http://www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/elizabethan-education.htm And a quote:

"Elizabethan Education - the Grammar Schools for boys aged 7 to 10: 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."

And: "The Ushers often refused to be bothered with the teaching of handwriting and this element of Elizabethan education was often taught by a temporary traveling scrivener for a few weeks during the school year." I suppose that this "traveling scrivener" could (for a fee) give lessons to those not in the Grammar School - so the ability to handle a pen doesn't necessarily count as evidence of attendance at School.

For those aged 10-14, the Elizabethan Education site says that Greek would be taught "occasionally" in some schools, as well as arithmetic and english/latin-latin/english translation; english skills would obviously be developed when translating.

There are websites which repeat the claims that Grammar Schools taught a myriad of subjects, but most don't, and the Stratford site is not one of them.

The point of all this is that Stratfordians (and non-Stratfordians) often fall into an error, which is the argument that if Shaksper could read and could even write his name (if he was "literate"), then he must have learned those skills at the Grammar School, and that therefore (by extension) he would also have received a fairly good Latin education.

BUT, the Grammar Schools didn't teach basic reading and writing of English. The Petty schools did. To enter a Grammar School, one had to already know how to read and write.

So, Shaksper would have received all the training he needed to write and read English (and therefore memorize scripts, respond to written direction, and function as a stage actor) if he went to Petty School. Of course, he would have had to steadily practice his English skills if the only training he had was at Petty School. But the mere possession of English literacy can't be counted as evidence that Shaksper attended Grammar School, thereby learning Latin (and then being able to read key texts in the original Latin).

And, conversely, the fact of Shaksper's poor handwriting and the lack of literary materials in his will can't be seen as conclusive evidence that he couldn't read and write - that he was "illiterate" (but, possessing this basic level of literacy doesn't argue that he could have written "Shakespeare", either).

You are on the right track.

Please cite a source that claims that; I think you're be surprised at how subtly you're misrepresenting what is said. The argument usually runs the other way: the works indicate a grammar school rather than university education; Shakespeare had access to and was qualified to attend a grammar school; so he most likely did so.

Rather than referring to particular sources, I'm conveying the overall sense I have of the debate concerning Shaksper's possible education.

The fact that Petty Schools even existed is absent from the general discussion, so the impression exists that any English education Shaksper received would have been at the Grammar School.

I know nothing of Petty Schools, but my wife is an elementary educator, and I suspect that the amount of basic English reading and writing that can be taught to -- and absorbed by -- a typical 5-to-7 year old is severely limited. They may have driven kids harder back then , but I can't believe they were any smarter or more developmentally advanced. How well did you read and write in second grade?

The existence of Petty Schools doesn't "solve everything." :-)

I initially had the same thought about 5-7 year-olds, but the fact remains that the Grammar Schools only accepted students who could read and write English.

What this probably indicates is that the bar was pretty high for admittance - I'm sure many kids wouldn't have cut it.

See Schoenbaum's Compact Documentary Life, p. 63, for just one example: "A child's education began at the age of four or five, not in the grammar school proper but in an attached petty school, under the tuition of an usher, or abecedarius, who also looked after the lower forms." In my experience this is typical of Shakespeare biographies. So your "overall sense" does not conform to the reality. Whose fault is that? "Stratfordian" scholars?

Once again we see how the academic view is distorted and turned into a strawman for argument purposes.

I am hardly unique, and I learned to read at the age of 3 and I read very well by second grade, although certainly not at the level where I could have written a play. That had to wait until the fifth grade.

It is not unusual to hear of children reading even earlier, as a simple google search will reveal.

Thanks for the reference - Schoenbaum in particular tried to stick to the facts as he understood them.

I'm really referring to the general discussion of the authorship issue in the popular press, with "authorities" being quoted stressing Shaksper's Grammar School education. The fact that English was taught in Petty School isn't mentioned. And when I use sort of a broad brush in describing "Stratfordians" as believing that English was taught in Grammar School, I'm really describing people of the sort I've met and worked with who are quick with the "Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare" and "Shakespeare obviously attended Grammar School" comments, but have never heard of Petty School.

I'm sure that it doesn't surprise you that many if not most readers of Shakespeare think that there is no authorship issue, so they haven't bothered to read Schoenbaum (and I wonder how many of the fictionalized "biographies" mention Petty School?).

As an Oxfordian, I finally realized that it's completely irrelevant whether or not Shaksper attended the Grammar School.

But there is an asymmetry between Stratfordians and non-Stratfordians on this point, in that the Stratfordian case completely collapses if Will didn't attend the School and learn his Latin. Whereas, it makes no difference from a non-Strat POV.

In fact the Stratford site declares that Shaksper would not have been able to attend his final year, because his father was in extreme financial straits that year. Will would have been needed at home - so he dropped out. http://www.stratford-upon-avon.co.uk/static_480.htm

The Stratford site declares that this is the reason he didn't go on to University - I see a problem with that statement, in that, if he was so excellent at Latin (as evidenced by the ability to read untranslated texts and write the Latin passages in the plays), he could have been accepted at University without finishing the final year of Grammar School. Or he could have made up that final year.

So, Shaksper's non-attendance at University CAN be read as evidence that his Latin skills weren't adequate for admittance, and therefore not of the level that is assumed for the writer of Shakespeare. And that he either dropped out of Grammar School earlier than is assumed, or didn't attend at all (but he would still be able to read and write English if he went to Petty School).

I too am an Oxfordian. But this needs to be taken to a deeper level—first of all, to separate fact from what is unsubstantiated. There is no factual evidence that Shaksper left school early. Evidence of his father’s financial difficulties is inconclusive and pounced upon by Stratfordians to confirm the ‘leaving school early’ theory. There is, of course, no evidence that he attended at all, and the question Stratfordians strain to avoid is: why would he? The answer we are given is that he was eligible and certainly wouldn’t have turned down the opportunity. In truth, he (and his parents) might very well have turned down the opportunity if they saw no practical value in it. Orthodox scholars have come up with no statistics on the number of eligible male children that attended grammar school. Why should we assume that eligible male children ipso facto attended? If the plan was for a male child to take up a trade, few trades required English literacy, let alone fluency in Latin. Another corollary assumption that Stratfordians hand us that Shaksper would have been aspiring to be an actor and playwright during the years he studied at the grammar school (even learning to act in the grammar school). If one takes the time to think about it, this is quite preposterous. There were no serious opportunities for either actors or authors in the years Shaksper was supposedly in grammar school, no credible basis for any such aspirations. His schoolmasters and parents would hardly have encouraged such aspirations if he made them known. Nothing in his history suggests he was ever on a trajectory for any recognized profession or trade that would have justified extended years at the grammar school. If he was the genius Stratfordians claim he was, why wasn’t he recommended to a patron to fund his university training, like Spenser and Marlow? The problem isn’t that he didn’t go university or may have dropped out early. The problem is that the whole grammar school scenario doesn’t fit William Shaksper.

Were your parents literate? Were there books in your home?

Baldwin, of course, writes about the petty school as well. However, petty schools don’t seem to have involved the grammar school usher who was typically responsible for the lower forms in the grammar school (all Latin). Petty schools were generally separate, run in private households, and some allowed girls to attend. Shaksper’s chances of attending a petty school are certainly better (practically speaking) than his chances of attending the grammar school. I would say that most Oxfordians don’t object to the assumption that Shaksper attended a petty school, except that he nevertheless left no example of his handwriting, unless, of course, you accept the six “signatures”, which don’t really help the case for his literacy.

Great points.

The "left Grammar school early" scenario is stated by the Stratford website, so I considered it a settled Stratfordian point of view. Of course, it's as speculative as anything else in the official story - but in fact it doesn't support the idea that Shaksper got the kind of grounding in Latin that Shakespeare obviously had.

I daresay you don't know what kind of Latin education the author of the canon required. He's out of date and uses the "doubtless" style, but way back in 1926 Fripp did a good job of outlining the typical grammar school curriculum of the time. Read, if thou canst: http://www.archive.org/stream/publicationsdugd05dugduoft#page/n19/mode/2up (Fripp also points out that Shakespeare used the 1587 or later version of the Geneva Bible that contained the commentary of Theodore Beza, an inconvenient fact that is unsurprisingly and conveniently ignored by Stritmatter.)

The idea that Shakespeare left school early began with Rowe in the early 18th century. But almost 30 years earlier Beeston reported that his father (who had acted with Shakespeare) had told him that Shakespeare had been a country schoolmaster when he was young.

I won't bother to reply to Steinburg; if you want Shakespeare to be an ignorant yokel there are all kinds of fantasies you can tell yourself. But the evidence for Shakespeare's education derives from his plays. The main reason people think Shakespeare was the MOST EDUCATED PERSON IN ENGLAND is because he is taught in college, plain and simple. Ben Jonson wrote much more erudite plays and was recognized as a scholar by being awarded an honorary degree from Oxford, and he had only a grammar school education, yet Oxfordians ignore Jonson's example because it doesn't fit with their imaginary Shakspur. You have to ignore a lot to be an Oxfordian, and a good imagination is required, also.

Pistol won’t stoop to reply to Steinburg, but Steinburg will stoop to reply to Pistol. You know, Tom, you are breaking through that very thin ice of the “standardized curriculum” that Baldwin fabricated from his imagination with an unbelievable amount of fantasy. Fripp will not help you. The facts contradict the myth. But, it does surprise me that you are so oblivious to the “imagination” of Stratfordians.

Conflate as you list Tom. It is Stratfordians like you who want Shakespeare to be a “yokel”, to bring him down to Shaksper’s level. The logic and motivation for that is clear enough. Oxfordians have never made Shakespeare out to be “yokel”. That is the job of Stratfordians and it is the great divide.

Is Honan's Shakespeare: A Life a fictionalized 'biography'?



Bate's Soul Of The Age?



Ackroyd's Shakespeare: The Biography?



Michael Wood's In Search Of Shakespeare?



I really haven't made an extensive search. These were just the first four I looked at.

So you're really not trying very hard, are you? Maybe if your reading extended beyond a Stratford town website you'd stop trying to imply that 'orthodox Stratfordians' are ignoring the existence of petty schools.

I don't see anyone 'straining to avoid' this question. Why wouldn't he?



Or they might very well have taken the opportunity if they did see some practical value in it.



I would think that's because the records aren't extant, so it would be rather hard to do. Not that it would be relevant to Shakespeare's particular circumstances anyway.



We don't need to assume that. We only need to assume that Shakespeare may have.



Maybe the plan wasn't for him to take up a trade.



Who says this? I find that a surprising claim. He may have aspired to these things very early in his life, but then again, he may not. There is no way of knowing.



How do you know this? We know playing companies visited Stratford.



How would you know?



We know very little about his history, as you are well aware. Nothing we know suggests he wasn't.



Maybe he didn't show signs of 'genius' at the time. Maybe his parents didn't know how to go about finding a handy patron. maybe his circumstances changed at some point. Maybe. . . well, I'm sure you get the picture. Fill one in for yourself.



In your opinion. But you can't know this and don't have any evidence for it. So I can happily disagree.

Fun, this, isn't it? We could bat unfounded speculations back and forth all day if we wanted, couldn't we?

So what is a 'yokel' exactly?

Morella.

Oh, so the fictionalized biographies you mentioned DO refer to Petty School.

I stand corrected.

Of course, the existence of Petty Schools is certain and clear, unlike the life events of the supposed genius, Shaksper.

As opposed to Oxfordians who never make things up.


Morella.

As you know, Oxford's life is very well documented - as well as his literary reputation among his peers.

For someone who's never even bothered to read a standard biography of Shakespeare, you seem very sure of yourself.

You mean "standard fiction".

If you haven't even read any of it, how would you know?

At least I've done Oxfordians the courtesy of making myself familiar with their 'fiction'.

Yes, and nowhere does it say he wrote the cannon.

So you have to speculate (I prefer that to 'make it up'). All authorship candidates have to be speculated upon to some extent - you know, to fill the gaps.

But don't make out everybody else does it and not yourselves.


Morella.

I forgot to say - nobody fictionalises the Stratford man better than the Oxfordians do!


Morella.

Honan is a very intersting case-study in Strafordian fictionalized biography.

At the beginning of his book he says: "This book differs from those biographies which imagine for him political roles, sexual relationship, or colourful intrigues no in the factual record. Imaginative reconstructions and elaborate psychological theories about him can be amusing; but, for me, they strain credulity."

Nevertheless, on a typical page of Honan’s biography we find the likes of this:

"Shakespeare, in his early twenties, was not unprepared to succeed there [London] . . . he was ready for work . . . had been trained in elocution . . . We cannot doubt his energy . . . In 'the Countrey' or at home, he must have become practiced as a singer or musician . . . there is no need to assume that Shakespeare, on leaving home, imagined that his only chance of success lay in the theatre. He soon had an eye on help outside that of players--patrons, to judge from the courtly tenor of his writings . . . But for a few years he is not traceable in our records, and the likeliest reason for this is that he began as a 'hireling' of other actors . . . After some experience as actor and theatre-poet . . . he bursts into flower as a poet with astonishing suddenness."

Pure, 100%, 200 proof, speculation.

But not in the same league as the fiction that an illiterate would be chosen as a frontman for an aristocratic concealed author.


Morella.

You said, “I don't see anyone 'straining to avoid' this question. Why wouldn't he?” etc.

Do you see anyone answering the question? All we heare or read is what you said, “Why wouldn’t he?”. There were many practical reasons for eligible male children not to attend, or to attend briefly. Do you suppose that all eligible boys attended, regardless of their career plans or their parent’s plans for them? His three brothers were eligible to attend as well. Do you make the same assumption, even though none of those four brothers took up a formal profession that required Latin? Were Englishman so enamored of Latin and so impractical? Common sense tells me otherwise, we don’t have any statistics on attendance, and you don’t find that relevant. You just assume he would have attended. Period. Stratfordians simply hand out the notion that anyone who was eligible would have attended, and everyone goes along. If eligible boys automatically attended, why do we have no indication of literacy for the three Shaksper brothers (besides the questionable annotations about him being an actor)? What was the point of their 6-7 years of grammar school education? People just did for fun?

You said, “We don't need to assume that. We only need to assume that Shakespeare may have.”

Yes, you may “assume” to your heart’s content, and put all those assumptions in a Shaksper “biography”. That’s exactly how it works.

But then you say, “Maybe the plan wasn't for him to take up a trade.”

And if he planned to take up a trade, he nevertheless spent 10-12 hours a day, six days week, for 6-7 years, learning Latin? How gloriously impractical the English were back then.

You said, “Who says this? I find that a surprising claim. He may have aspired to these things very early in his life, but then again, he may not. There is no way of knowing.”

And you see no need to give such problems any consideration, in terms of creative development etc?

You said, “How do you know this? We know playing companies visited Stratford.”

And what Greenblatt calls “the bread and buttermilk” tour (for that, according to Greenblatt, was often how they were paid), inspired a young man who, by the way, was presumably in a very serious problem of classical study. And his parents encouraged him to aspire to acting?

I said, “His schoolmasters and parents would hardly have encouraged such aspirations if he made them known.”

To which you said, “How would you know?

Seriously, have you given any thought whatsoever to the implications of such assumptions? Schoolmaster’s trained as Jesuits encouraging a pupil to pursue a career in the equivalent of the traveling circus?

You said, “Maybe he didn't show signs of 'genius' at the time. Maybe his parents didn't know how to go about finding a handy patron. maybe his circumstances changed at some point. Maybe. . . well, I'm sure you get the picture. Fill one in for yourself.”

Well, from my reading on creative development and genius, from sources such as Simonton, I think what you are proposing (“didn’t show signs of ‘genius’”) is beyond improbable.

I said, “The problem isn’t that he didn’t go university or may have dropped out early. The problem is that the whole grammar school scenario doesn’t fit William Shaksper.”

And you responded, “In your opinion. But you can't know this and don't have any evidence for it. So I can happily disagree. …Fun, this, isn't it? We could bat unfounded speculations back and forth all day if we wanted, couldn't we?”

Dialectically speaking, we begin with your assumption that Shaksper would have attended the grammar school, followed by your assumptions that everything else that needed to happen happened and it all worked out wonderfully. If you look carefully you will find that I’ve not posed any assumptions. I have presented questions and arguments against your assumptions. Fun? Perhaps. Your the one leaning on the “unfounded speculations”.