Although Tillyard gives a great idea of commonly held beliefs in Elizabethan times, he never goes into details about life during the Elizabethan era. I think that an important part of understanding people's beliefs is understanding how they lived. I found this video made by a student (I didn't even realize until the end since it was so well made) that I believe illustrates Elizabethan life in a relatively succinct manner.Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ1BZMcUBxo&feature=related
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I completely agree. Tillyard really only gives an intellectual view of Elizabethan times. It's important to remember that not everyone was a scholar.
http://www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/elizabethan-daily-life.htm
This website also gives a lot of information on Elizabethan Daily life. I found it interesting that the middle class could get an education and that printing of books and such increased during this time.
Daily life seems much more interesting to me. Like the sports they played and the events they attended. It seems like living back then was much simpler than today, but who knows
I agree with you guys. Tillyard mainly focuses on a small minority of the population. I find that learning about Elizabethan daily life is much more interesting.
I agree with yall; I think that Tillyard has to be taken with a grain of salt because most people back in the day were not nobles. I feel like high-culture was reserved for only the upper crust. I think that plays sort of bridge the gap between upper and lower classes but there is still a big separation between the cultured/refined nobles and the peasants who were seen as crass and uneducated. I think that it's interesting that the Elizabethans were so fascinated by order, in a way it seems like they were justifying the social power structure they created around themselves (where the power was with king, then with the nobles.) Nobody wrote plays about or painted pictures of peasants, nobody in the upper crust seemed to acknowledge them much except either pityingly or angrily (if the working class was fed up enough to rebel against the oppressive social order or desperate enough to steal.)
I feel like the upper crust looked upon themselves as individuals and the on the working class as a generality. Nobles were refined, educated, considered themselves the rightful decision makers in the state, like they knew what was good for the uneducated, unrefined masses. The emphasis on social order validated the repression of the lower classes and eliminated a need for the common man's input in state decisions. Anyway, when the lower classes are mentioned by the upper crust, it seems they are reffed to as a single mob or an generalized, pitiable and dangerous "other." This other-ing of the lower class helped to reinforce social order and therefore upper crust oppression.
Post a Comment