IV. THE TEACHING OF THE DRAMA
If a teacher were to attempt to investigate the methods employed in classes formed to study Shakespeare, he would doubtless be impressed first by their variety. One teacher lays great stress on reading the play with little or no comment; another, with painful slowness, works line by line to bring out the details of the thought; while a third lays the greatest stress on the structure of the play, following minutely the steps from exposition to climax and from climax to conclusion. Each plan has its advantages, and in the hands of an enthusiastic and sensible teacher ought to achieve admirable results.
The fundamental reason for these wide differences in method is the greatness of Shakespeare's genius. We are captivated, perhaps, by one phase of his work and fail to see, or to see in due proportion, other phases equally, or even more, important. As a rule, the limitations of time make it impossible thoroughly to investigate many lines of study, and the teacher naturally follows his own taste in making selections.
Now the average high school student has limitations which we are bound to recognize. Accustomed as he is to reading fiction where description and explanation are frequently used to aid the imagination and the understanding, he fails to appreciate the situations in a drama and the motives for the actions. Again, there are considerable difficulties of language which must be overcome by persistent work. The over-editing of some of our text-books is often a real difficulty. A conscientious pupil often feels that his lesson is not quite learned unless he has carefully read all the notes. In one school edition of a play there are nearly twice as many pages of introduction and unclassified notes as of the text. Such an edition adds to the difficulties of the work by confusing essential and unessential matters.
It is evident that there is in the study of the drama unusual necessity for a plan, flexible enough for the varying needs of classes, but definite enough to keep classes from discouraging confusion of details. Just what the plan shall be for any particular class the teacher must decide from the condition and acquirements of the class, the limitations of time, and the object in view.
Few will deny that Julius Cæsar can be read with profit in the first year. It will be read, however, at that time, chiefly for the interest of the plot, the dramatic situations, and the contrasts of character. The study of meter will be slight, and of language and grammar only enough for an understanding of the thought; while the study of structure, textual changes, development of Shakespeare's art, date of publication, etc., will be left out entirely. On the other hand, the needs of a fourth year class would require a considerably different treatment of this same play. It may seem trite to say that the wisest plan is that which keeps the pupil interested in reading and re-reading the text. The more he reads the more he understands, and the more he understands the more he delights to read. This lies at the bottom of all the plans for Shakespeare reading.
Almost any student will read through a play with interest and enthusiasm, if he understands enough to keep the thread of the story. If much textual study is required with the first reading, the interest is weakened; but if the delight of a first reading leads to a second, a study of the text brings new delight, especially if the study is directed to the interpretation of the thought.
After the second reading, the study of the play as a whole, of the development of characters, of the structure and style, and of the various problems of human interest, should send the pupil to the play again and again to find evidence to support his opinions. This study, together with memory work, will help to give that familiarity with the play which is one of the tests of satisfactory Shakespeare study.
The following is suggested merely as one plan suitable for high school classes: