3 ms·
This is wrong. Of course Shakespeare had a formal education. "If William Shakespere had the grammar school training of his day - or its equivalent - he had as
by martingoodson 5y ago
This is wrong. Of course Shakespeare had a formal education.
"If William Shakespere had the grammar school training of his day - or its equivalent - he had as good a formal literary training as had any of his contemporaries. At least, no miracles are required to account for such knowledge and techniques from the classics as he exhibits. Stratford grammar school will furnish all that is required."
Baldwin, T.W. William Shakspere's Small Latine and Lesse Greeke.
You could have just opened a history book book to find this out. One of those skills you learn in a bureaucratic factory farm.
- boh 5y agoYou also learn to frame all previous learning within modern equivalents. Don't be surprised if academics choose to wedge their professional identities as the predetermining factor of genius. What counted as formal education of the past is barely applicable to the education systems of the present. Shakespeare didn't spend half of his teen years getting coached in state and national examinations, nor were his teachers subject to performance targets that demanded test results from their students above all else.
- martingoodson 5y agoPerhaps we should adopt the Elizabethan school system then. All lessons were in Latin and students were punished for speaking English. 'Memorising texts and performing endlessly tedious translations of Latin phrases was the norm [...]. Creating situations of competition between pupils with an atmosphere of fear of physical punishment and humiliation was the usual approach.'[1] Modern students might find a few exams preferable to this. [1] https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1583/education-in-the-elizabethan-era/ https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1583/education-in-the-e...