William Shakespeare (1564-1616) was an English Poet, playwright, and actor. Shakespeare wrote approximately 39 plays and over 150 sonnets and is widely considered the greatest writer in the English language. In this informational text, Mia Hodorovich discusses the legacy of Shakespeare and his popular work.

William Shakespeare is the most studied playwright in the world. All of his plays have been translated into every major language and are performed more frequently than those of any other playwright. He is considered the major author of Modern English literature, the standard to which all other writers are compared.

Despite having lived over 400 years ago, Shakespeare is one of the most popular writers in history. His influence lasts to this day, shaping how we communicate and inspiring the popular culture we consume. So how has Shakespeare managed to beat the test of time? 

ALL THE WORLD’S A STAGE

Shakespeare became popular during the rule of Queen Elizabeth I and produced most of his work between 1589 and 1613. During this time, London was experiencing a revitalization of the arts. Few enjoyed as much acclaim as Shakespeare. He was a prolific dramatist and poet. He produced about 39 plays and wrote over 150 sonnets in little over two decades. 

His plays can typically be broken down into three categories. He wrote plays about historical figures, such as  Julius Caesar and  Henry VI. He wrote comedies, like  Much Ado About Nothing and  A Midsummer Night's Dream. These plays are called comedies because they contain happy endings, usually in the form of a wedding. Finally, he wrote tragedies, like  Romeo & Juliet and  Hamlet, which feature character deaths and tragic endings.

[5]  Shakespeare wrote not only plays but beautiful sonnets, as well. A sonnet is a type of poem that consists of 14 lines (three quatrains and one couplet) and follows a specific rhyme scheme. Many of his sonnets feature themes about love and beauty. He wrote these sonnets, as well as a good deal of his plays, in iambic pentameter. This form of writing contains five metric feet, in which each foot consists of an unstressed syllable followed by a stressed syllable. It mimics the rhythms of natural speech patterns in English, a feat which takes a great amount of careful writing skill.

BREVITY IS THE SOUL OF WIT

Shakespeare was an innovator of language. People quote his plays all of the time without realizing it. If you’ve ever heard someone say that “love is blind” or “all that glitters is not gold,” they’re quoting  The Merchant of Venice. In fact, Shakespeare is credited with inventing over 1700 words and phrases. Do you know the joint that bends in the middle of your arm? Without Shakespeare, we wouldn’t have the word for elbow!

Not only has Shakespeare shaped the English language but he’s also had a hand in almost every form of popular culture. From books to music to modern theatre, Shakespeare has served as an inspiration. The popular TV series  Breaking Bad is in part inspired by  Macbeth — just as  House of Cards takes cues from  Richard III, and the show  Empire has been compared to  King Lear.

One reason his work has endured is because he wrote about universal themes. His storylines are dramatic and engaging. His dialogue is witty and poetic. He wrote tales of forbidden romance, of political intrigue, of murder and revenge. In their time, these plays were comparable to modern blockbusters. In fact, many films have been inspired by Shakespeare, such as  The Lion King and  10 Things I Hate About You.

SOME ARE BORN GREAT, SOME ACHIEVE GREATNESS

Many people tend to think of Shakespeare as boring and outdated. His work is known for its complexity, and his plays are published with a lot of footnotes — sometimes even translations! Nevertheless, his contributions to language and culture are apparent today. It’s hard to avoid his influence on language, literature, and popular culture. Shakespeare continues to inspire generations of readers, writers, actors, and audience members. In this way, his legacy lives on.

Notes:

Prolific  (adjective) : producing a great number of something

Innovator  (noun) : a person who introduces new ideas or methods

Which detail from the text best supports the answer to Part A?

William Shakespeare (1564-1616) was an English Poet, playwright, and actor. Shakespeare wrote approximately 39 plays and over 150 sonnets and is widely considered the greatest writer in the English language. In this informational text, Mia Hodorovich discusses the legacy of Shakespeare and his popular work.

William Shakespeare is the most studied playwright in the world. All of his plays have been translated into every major language and are performed more frequently than those of any other playwright. He is considered the major author of Modern English literature, the standard to which all other writers are compared.

Despite having lived over 400 years ago, Shakespeare is one of the most popular writers in history. His influence lasts to this day, shaping how we communicate and inspiring the popular culture we consume. So how has Shakespeare managed to beat the test of time? 

ALL THE WORLD’S A STAGE

Shakespeare became popular during the rule of Queen Elizabeth I and produced most of his work between 1589 and 1613. During this time, London was experiencing a revitalization of the arts. Few enjoyed as much acclaim as Shakespeare. He was a prolific dramatist and poet. He produced about 39 plays and wrote over 150 sonnets in little over two decades. 

His plays can typically be broken down into three categories. He wrote plays about historical figures, such as  Julius Caesar and  Henry VI. He wrote comedies, like  Much Ado About Nothing and  A Midsummer Night's Dream. These plays are called comedies because they contain happy endings, usually in the form of a wedding. Finally, he wrote tragedies, like  Romeo & Juliet and  Hamlet, which feature character deaths and tragic endings.

[5]  Shakespeare wrote not only plays but beautiful sonnets, as well. A sonnet is a type of poem that consists of 14 lines (three quatrains and one couplet) and follows a specific rhyme scheme. Many of his sonnets feature themes about love and beauty. He wrote these sonnets, as well as a good deal of his plays, in iambic pentameter. This form of writing contains five metric feet, in which each foot consists of an unstressed syllable followed by a stressed syllable. It mimics the rhythms of natural speech patterns in English, a feat which takes a great amount of careful writing skill.

BREVITY IS THE SOUL OF WIT

Shakespeare was an innovator of language. People quote his plays all of the time without realizing it. If you’ve ever heard someone say that “love is blind” or “all that glitters is not gold,” they’re quoting  The Merchant of Venice. In fact, Shakespeare is credited with inventing over 1700 words and phrases. Do you know the joint that bends in the middle of your arm? Without Shakespeare, we wouldn’t have the word for elbow!

Not only has Shakespeare shaped the English language but he’s also had a hand in almost every form of popular culture. From books to music to modern theatre, Shakespeare has served as an inspiration. The popular TV series  Breaking Bad is in part inspired by  Macbeth — just as  House of Cards takes cues from  Richard III, and the show  Empire has been compared to  King Lear.

One reason his work has endured is because he wrote about universal themes. His storylines are dramatic and engaging. His dialogue is witty and poetic. He wrote tales of forbidden romance, of political intrigue, of murder and revenge. In their time, these plays were comparable to modern blockbusters. In fact, many films have been inspired by Shakespeare, such as  The Lion King and  10 Things I Hate About You.

SOME ARE BORN GREAT, SOME ACHIEVE GREATNESS

Many people tend to think of Shakespeare as boring and outdated. His work is known for its complexity, and his plays are published with a lot of footnotes — sometimes even translations! Nevertheless, his contributions to language and culture are apparent today. It’s hard to avoid his influence on language, literature, and popular culture. Shakespeare continues to inspire generations of readers, writers, actors, and audience members. In this way, his legacy lives on.

Notes:

Prolific  (adjective) : producing a great number of something

Innovator  (noun) : a person who introduces new ideas or methods

How do paragraphs 4-5 contribute to the author’s depiction of Shakespeare’s writing?

Excerpt from Macbeth, ACT I, Scene 7

Macbeth: If we should fail? [1]

Lady Macbeth:We fail!

But screw your courage to the sticking-place, [3]

And we'll not fail. When Duncan is asleep—

Whereto the rather shall his day's hard journey [5]

Soundly invite him—his two chamberlains

Will I with wine and wassail so convince [7]

That memory, the warder of the brain,

Shall be a fume, and the receipt of reason [9]

A limbeck only: when in swinish sleep

Their drenched natures lie as in a death, [11]

What cannot you and I perform upon

The unguarded Duncan? what not put upon [13]

His spongy officers, who shall bear the guilt

Of our great quell? [15]

Which line from the passage best supports the inference that Lady Macbeth is immoral? 

MACBETH:

If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well [1]

It were done quickly: if the assassination

Could trammel up the consequence, and catch 

With his surcease success; that but this blow

Might be the be-all and the end-all here, [5]

But here, upon this bank and shoal of time,

We'ld jump the life to come. But in these cases

We still have judgment here; that we but teach

Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return

To plague the inventor: this even-handed justice [10]

Commends the ingredients of our poison'd chalice

To our own lips. He's here in double trust;

First, as I am his kinsman and his subject,

Strong both against the deed; then, as his host,

Who should against his murderer shut the door, [15]

Not bear the knife myself. Besides, this Duncan

Hath borne his faculties so meek, hath been

So clear in his great office, that his virtues

Will plead like angels, trumpet-tongued, against

The deep damnation of his taking-off; [20]

And pity, like a naked new-born babe,

Striding the blast, or heaven's cherubim, horsed

Upon the sightless couriers of the air,

Shall blow the horrid deed in every eye,

That tears shall drown the wind. I have no spur [25]

To prick the sides of my intent, but only

Vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself

And falls on the other.

Which line best expresses a theme of the passage?

MACBETH:

If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well [1]

It were done quickly: if the assassination

Could trammel up the consequence, and catch 

With his surcease success; that but this blow

Might be the be-all and the end-all here, [5]

But here, upon this bank and shoal of time,

We'ld jump the life to come. But in these cases

We still have judgment here; that we but teach

Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return

To plague the inventor: this even-handed justice [10]

Commends the ingredients of our poison'd chalice

To our own lips. He's here in double trust;

First, as I am his kinsman and his subject,

Strong both against the deed; then, as his host,

Who should against his murderer shut the door, [15]

Not bear the knife myself. Besides, this Duncan

Hath borne his faculties so meek, hath been

So clear in his great office, that his virtues

Will plead like angels, trumpet-tongued, against

The deep damnation of his taking-off; [20]

And pity, like a naked new-born babe,

Striding the blast, or heaven's cherubim, horsed

Upon the sightless couriers of the air,

Shall blow the horrid deed in every eye,

That tears shall drown the wind. I have no spur [25]

To prick the sides of my intent, but only

Vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself

And falls on the other.

How is this theme developed over the course of the passage?

MACBETH:

If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well [1]

It were done quickly: if the assassination

Could trammel up the consequence, and catch 

With his surcease success; that but this blow

Might be the be-all and the end-all here, [5]

But here, upon this bank and shoal of time,

We'ld jump the life to come. But in these cases

We still have judgment here; that we but teach

Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return

To plague the inventor: this even-handed justice [10]

Commends the ingredients of our poison'd chalice

To our own lips. He's here in double trust;

First, as I am his kinsman and his subject,

Strong both against the deed; then, as his host,

Who should against his murderer shut the door, [15]

Not bear the knife myself. Besides, this Duncan

Hath borne his faculties so meek, hath been

So clear in his great office, that his virtues

Will plead like angels, trumpet-tongued, against

The deep damnation of his taking-off; [20]

And pity, like a naked new-born babe,

Striding the blast, or heaven's cherubim, horsed

Upon the sightless couriers of the air,

Shall blow the horrid deed in every eye,

That tears shall drown the wind. I have no spur [25]

To prick the sides of my intent, but only

Vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself

And falls on the other.

How does the revelation that Duncan is a moral ruler help to propel Macbeth's internal conflict? 

MACBETH:

If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well [1]

It were done quickly: if the assassination

Could trammel up the consequence, and catch 

With his surcease success; that but this blow

Might be the be-all and the end-all here, [5]

But here, upon this bank and shoal of time,

We'ld jump the life to come. But in these cases

We still have judgment here; that we but teach

Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return

To plague the inventor: this even-handed justice [10]

Commends the ingredients of our poison'd chalice

To our own lips. He's here in double trust;

First, as I am his kinsman and his subject,

Strong both against the deed; then, as his host,

Who should against his murderer shut the door, [15]

Not bear the knife myself. Besides, this Duncan

Hath borne his faculties so meek, hath been

So clear in his great office, that his virtues

Will plead like angels, trumpet-tongued, against

The deep damnation of his taking-off; [20]

And pity, like a naked new-born babe,

Striding the blast, or heaven's cherubim, horsed

Upon the sightless couriers of the air,

Shall blow the horrid deed in every eye,

That tears shall drown the wind. I have no spur [25]

To prick the sides of my intent, but only

Vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself

And falls on the other.

How do the phrases "even-handed justice", "we but teach bloody instructions", and "poison'd chalice" in the soliloquy contribute to the meaning of the passage? 

Excerpt from the play Macbeth-ACT V, Scene 8 

MACBETH Why should I play the Roman fool, and die On mine own sword? whiles I see lives, the gashes Do better upon them.

Enter MACDUFF

MACDUFF Turn, hell-hound, turn!

MACBETH Of all men else I have avoided thee: But get thee back; my soul is too much charged With blood of thine already.

MACDUFF I have no words: My voice is in my sword: thou bloodier villain Than terms can give thee out! They fight

MACBETH Thou losest labour: As easy mayst thou the intrenchant air With thy keen sword impress as make me bleed: Let fall thy blade on vulnerable crests; I bear a charmed life, which must not yield, To one of woman born.

MACDUFF Despair thy charm; And let the angel whom thou still hast served Tell thee, Macduff was from his mother's womb Untimely ripp'd.

MACBETH Accursed be that tongue that tells me so, For it hath cow'd my better part of man! And be these juggling fiends no more believed, That palter with us in a double sense; That keep the word of promise to our ear, And break it to our hope. I'll not fight with thee.

MACDUFF Then yield thee, coward, And live to be the show and gaze o' the time: We'll have thee, as our rarer monsters are, Painted on a pole, and underwrit, 'Here may you see the tyrant.'

MACBETH I will not yield, To kiss the ground before young Malcolm's feet, And to be baited with the rabble's curse. Though Birnam wood be come to Dunsinane, And thou opposed, being of no woman born, Yet I will try the last. Before my body I throw my warlike shield. Lay on, Macduff, And damn'd be him that first cries, 'Hold, enough!' Exeunt, fighting. Alarums

The Witches told Macbeth that he could be confident due to the following:

“Laugh to scorn

The power of man, for none of woman born

Shall harm Macbeth.”

Which of the following lines from ACT 5 scene 8 provides the best evidence for why Macduff was able to overcome this prophecy?

SECOND WITCH. By the pricking of my thumbs,

Something wicked this way comes.

Open, locks, Whoever knocks.

[Enter MACBETH.]

5 MACBETH. How now, you secret, black, and midnight hags?

What is 't you do?

ALL. A deed without a name.

MACBETH. I conjure you by that which you profess

(Howe'er you come to know it), answer me.

10 Though you untie the winds and let them fight

Against the churches,

though the yeasty waves Confound and swallow navigation up,

Though bladed corn be lodged and trees blown down,

Though castles topple on their warders' heads,

15 Though palaces and pyramids do slope

Their heads to their foundations,

though the treasure

Of nature's germens tumble all together

Even till destruction sicken, answer me

To what I ask you.

When Macbeth calls the witches "midnight hags" (line 5), what does it suggest about witches and their activities?

SECOND WITCH. By the pricking of my thumbs,

Something wicked this way comes.

Open, locks, Whoever knocks.

[Enter MACBETH.]

5 MACBETH. How now, you secret, black, and midnight hags?

What is 't you do?

ALL. A deed without a name.

MACBETH. I conjure you by that which you profess

(Howe'er you come to know it), answer me.

10 Though you untie the winds and let them fight

Against the churches,

though the yeasty waves Confound and swallow navigation up,

Though bladed corn be lodged and trees blown down,

Though castles topple on their warders' heads,

15 Though palaces and pyramids do slope

Their heads to their foundations,

though the treasure

Of nature's germens tumble all together

Even till destruction sicken, answer me

To what I ask you.

Think about the effect lines 5–7 have on the mood of the scene. How can that mood be described in one word?

LAST DIARY ENTRY OF JOHN WILKES BOOTH

by John Wilkes Booth, 1865

John Wilkes Booth was a famous actor, as well as a Confederate sympathizer during the Civil War. Booth tried on several occasions to kidnap and assassinate President Abraham Lincoln in order to aid the South against the Union. He and his co-conspirators failed to kidnap Lincoln on March 20, 1865 in Richmond Virginia. Booth then hatched another plan upon learning that Lincoln would attend the play “Our America’s Cousin” at Ford’s Theatre in Washington D.C. on April 14 (five days after the South surrendered). Booth snuck into President Lincoln’s private theatre box at 10:15 p.m., shot the president once in the head, stabbed his companion, and jumped onto the stage shouting “Sic semper tyrannis” (thus always to tyrants), which the audience first thought was part of the show. Booth then fled D.C., which he recounts in this diary entry. President Lincoln was taken to a house across the street before he died the following morning, April 15. Booth was tracked on April 26 to a tobacco farm in Virginia where he refused to surrender to Union soldiers. The barn he was hiding in was set on fire and Booth was shot and killed by a soldier before he could escape or surrender. As you read, note the language that Booth uses to describe himself in comparison to others, such as Lincoln.

[1]

Until today nothing was ever thought of sacrificing to our country’s wrongs. For six months we had worked to capture, but our cause being almost lost, something decisive and great must be done. But its failure was owing to others, who did not strike for their country with a heart. I struck boldly, and not as the papers say. I walked with a firm step through a thousand of his friends, was stopped, but pushed on. A colonel was at his side. I shouted Sic semper before I fired. In jumping broke my leg. I passed all his pickets, rode sixty miles that night with the bone of my leg tearing the flesh at every jump. I can never repent it, though we hated to kill. Our country owed all her troubles to him, and God simply made me the instrument of his punishment. The country is not what it was. This forced Union is not what I have loved. I care not what becomes of me. I have no desire to outlive my country. The night before the deed I wrote a long article and left it for one of the editors of the National Intelligencer, in which I fully set forth our reasons for our proceedings. He or the government.

[2]

After being hunted like a dog through swamps, woods, and last night being chased by gunboats till I was forced to return wet, cold, and starving, with every man’s hand against me, I am here in despair. And why? For doing what Brutus was honored for. What made Tell a hero? And yet I, for striking down a greater tyrant than they ever knew, am looked upon as a common cutthroat.My action was purer than either of theirs. One hoped to be great himself. The other had not only his country’s but his own wrongs to avenge. I hoped for no gain. I knew no private wrong. I struck for my country and that alone. A country that groaned beneath this tyranny, and prayed for this end, and yet now behold the cold hands they extend to me. God cannot pardon me if I have done wrong. Yet I cannot see my wrong, except in serving a degenerate people. The little, the very little, I left behind to clear my name, the Government will not allow to be printed. So ends all. For my country I have given up all that makes life sweet and holy, brought misery upon my family, and am sure there is no pardon in the Heaven for me, since man condemns me so. I have only heard of what has been done (except what I did myself), and it fills me with horror. God, try and forgive me, and bless my mother. Tonight I will once more try the river with the intent to cross. Though I have a greater desire and almost a mind to return to Washington, and in a measure clear my name - which I feel I can do. I do not repent the blow I struck. I may before my God, but not to man. I think I have done well. Though I am abandoned, with the curse of Cain upon me, when, if the world knew my heart, that one blow would have made me great, though I did desire no greatness. Tonight I try to escape these bloodhounds once more. Who, who can read his fate? God’s will be done. I have too great a soul to die like a criminal. Oh, may He, may He spare me that, and let me die bravely. I bless the entire world. Have never hated or wronged anyone. This last was not a wrong, unless God deems it so, and it’s with Him to damn or bless me. As for this brave boy with me, who often prays (yes, before and since) with a true and sincere heart - was it crime in him? If so, why can he pray the same?

I do not wish to shed a drop of blood, but ‘I must fight the course.’ ‘Tis all that’s left to me.

Which TWO of the following best identify the central ideas of the text? 

A POISON TREE

by William Blake,1794

William Blake (1757-1827) was an English poet during the British Romantic literary period who wrote extensively about God, nature, and the beauty of the human imagination.  As you read, take notes on Blake's use of symbolism throughout the poem.

I was angry with my friend;

I told my wrath, my wrath did end.

I was angry with my foe:

I told it not, my wrath did grow.     5

And I watered it in fears,

Night & morning with my tears:

And I sunned it with smiles,

And with soft deceitful wiles.

And it grew both day and night.     10

Till it bore an apple bright.

And my foe beheld it shine,

And he knew that it was mine.

And into my garden stole,

When the night had veild the pole;     15

In the morning glad I see;

My foe outstretched beneath the tree

Which of the following best describes a major theme of the poem? 

A POISON TREE

by William Blake,1794

William Blake (1757-1827) was an English poet during the British Romantic literary period who wrote extensively about God, nature, and the beauty of the human imagination.  As you read, take notes on Blake's use of symbolism throughout the poem.

I was angry with my friend;

I told my wrath, my wrath did end.

I was angry with my foe:

I told it not, my wrath did grow.     5

And I watered it in fears,

Night & morning with my tears:

And I sunned it with smiles,

And with soft deceitful wiles.

And it grew both day and night.     10

Till it bore an apple bright.

And my foe beheld it shine,

And he knew that it was mine.

And into my garden stole,

When the night had veild the pole;     15

In the morning glad I see;

My foe outstretched beneath the tree

Which of the following quotes best supports the answer to part A?

A POISON TREE

by William Blake,1794

William Blake (1757-1827) was an English poet during the British Romantic literary period who wrote extensively about God, nature, and the beauty of the human imagination.  As you read, take notes on Blake's use of symbolism throughout the poem.

I was angry with my friend;

I told my wrath, my wrath did end.

I was angry with my foe:

I told it not, my wrath did grow.     5

And I watered it in fears,

Night & morning with my tears:

And I sunned it with smiles,

And with soft deceitful wiles.

And it grew both day and night.     10

Till it bore an apple bright.

And my foe beheld it shine,

And he knew that it was mine.

And into my garden stole,

When the night had veild the pole;     15

In the morning glad I see;

My foe outstretched beneath the tree

What impact does the figurative language in lines 5-8 have on the poem’s meaning?

Elizabeth I at Tilbury Field

This speech was given by Queen Elizabeth to her troops, fighting the Spanish Armada, on 9 August 1588 at Tilbury in Essex.

My loving people,

We have been persuaded by some that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we commit ourselves to armed multitudes, for fear of treachery; but I assure you I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people. Let tyrants fear. I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good will of my subjects; and therefore I am come amongst you, as you see, at this time, not for my recreation and disport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live and die amongst you all; to lay down for my God, and for my kingdom, and my people, my honour and my blood, even in the dust.

I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm! To which rather than any dishonour shall grow by me, I myself will take up arms, I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field.

I know already, for your forwardness you have deserved rewards and crowns, and We do assure you in the word of a prince, they shall be duly paid you. In the meantime, my lieutenant general shall be in my stead, than whom never prince commanded a more noble or worthy subject; not doubting but by your obedience to my general, by your concord in the camp, and your valour in the field, we shall shortly have a famous victory over those enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people.

Elizabeth I states, “I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king.” What rhetorical appeal does the speaker employ to garner the support of her soldiers?

Elizabeth I at Tilbury Field

This speech was given by Queen Elizabeth to her troops, fighting the Spanish Armada, on 9 August 1588 at Tilbury in Essex.

My loving people,

We have been persuaded by some that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we commit ourselves to armed multitudes, for fear of treachery; but I assure you I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people. Let tyrants fear. I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good will of my subjects; and therefore I am come amongst you, as you see, at this time, not for my recreation and disport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live and die amongst you all; to lay down for my God, and for my kingdom, and my people, my honour and my blood, even in the dust.

I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm! To which rather than any dishonour shall grow by me, I myself will take up arms, I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field.

I know already, for your forwardness you have deserved rewards and crowns, and We do assure you in the word of a prince, they shall be duly paid you. In the meantime, my lieutenant general shall be in my stead, than whom never prince commanded a more noble or worthy subject; not doubting but by your obedience to my general, by your concord in the camp, and your valour in the field, we shall shortly have a famous victory over those enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people.

The speaker states, “I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field.” Through this line, the speaker reveals which of the following points of view on her own leadership?

The Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan Scandal

by Jessica McBirney

One of the greatest scandals in sports history is the attack on figure skater, Nancy Kerrigan, in 1994 and the suspicion that surrounded fellow skater, Tonya Harding. In this informational text, Jessica McBirney explains the details of the attack and the dramatic investigation that followed. 

On January 6, the figure skater Nancy Kerrigan had just finished one of her final practices before the beginning of the 1994 U.S. Figure Skating Championships. She knew that if she performed well, she would get to represent the United States at the Winter Olympics in Norway. Kerrigan was a favorite among the judges and the public. She felt confident as she left the ice at the Cobo Arena in Detroit, grabbing her jacket and a bottle of water, attaching her skate guards to her blades. Camera footage captured Kerrigan as she walked to the changing room. She parted the blue curtains and disappeared. The cameraman didn’t plan on following her — not until he heard what he would later describe as “blood-curdling screams.” He raced into the corridor, camera still rolling, and found Kerrigan curled on the floor. She clutched her knee as she cried, “Why, why, why me?” She described, through tears, how a man had jumped from behind the curtain and struck her just above the knee with a big, black baton before fleeing the scene.

This was a prelude to one of the biggest sports scandals in American history. TV stations around the world played the footage for their viewers. A manhunt ensued, and as everyone searched for an offender to blame for the attack, the eyes of the nation turned to Kerrigan’s teammate and top competitor: Tonya Harding.

Could it be that this sudden, seemingly random attack was actually orchestrated?

PARALLEL LIVES

Both Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan had dedicated their lives to figure skating from a very young age. Nancy Kerrigan was raised in Stoneham, Massachusetts. Her family didn’t have huge amounts of money, but they supported her dream of becoming a skater. Her father, a welder, sometimes worked three jobs to make ends meet. She won her first skating competition at age nine, and over the next several years, she gained national attention by winning medals in national and international competitions. Gold medals, however, always eluded her. She struggled with some of the most technical skating requirements and sometimes let her nerves interfere with her performance.

Tonya Harding also came from a family with little money. She began skating at age three. Her mother hand-sewed her competition costumes because she could not afford to buy them. Harding enjoyed skating, but she also enjoyed outdoor activities with her father, such as hunting, drag racing, and fixing cars. Despite the financial struggles and a difficult family situation, Harding knew she was meant to be a skater; she dropped out of high school in her sophomore year to train full-time. In 1991, she had her breakthrough when she became the second woman ever to land a triple axel jump4 in an international competition. She placed first in the 1991 U.S. Championships, although she struggled to maintain her top position in the years between this and the 1994 Championship.  

OPPOSITE PUBLIC PERSONAS

Despite their similar backgrounds, the public had very different views of the two women. Harding may have won more medals, but Kerrigan was the media darling of American figure skating. Her graceful style and demeanor fit well with the image people believed figure skaters should resemble. She gathered corporate sponsorships, from Campbell’s Soup to Revlon cosmetics to Reebok apparel. Harding, meanwhile, gained the reputation of being an athletic tomboy who had fought her way to the top. She was an outsider and didn’t attract any sponsorships. Harding once said of Kerrigan, “She was a great skater and I was a great skater, but she was treated like this queen.” 

THE ATTACK

The unwitting rivalry came to a head that fatal night in Detroit during the 1994 U.S. Figure Skating Championships. Only two female skaters could go on to represent the U.S. in the 1994 Winter Olympics. Harding and Kerrigan were both expected to do well in the national championships, but nothing was guaranteed. It is little wonder, then, that when Kerrigan was attacked during the final days of training, she yelled not just out of pain but frustration, “Why me?” It was an attack, seemingly without cause, on the brink of one of the most important moments of her career. This led to another question to be asked: Why now?

Fortunately, her knee was not seriously injured, but it was bruised badly enough that she could not compete in the championship. Harding skated beautifully and walked away with first place and a spot on the Olympic team. 

AN ARREST

A few days after the incident, the FBI arrested the attacker. Shane Stant, a bulky, imposing man from California, had no connection to Kerrigan or Harding at all. The story didn’t quite make sense. But then Stant confessed and told the FBI why he had carried out the attack; he had been hired by Tonya Harding’s ex-husband, Jeff Gillooly.

[10]   Gillooly had wanted to break Kerrigan’s leg so she could not compete in the Olympics, but Stant had failed to complete the task. Both men were arrested and jailed, along with co-conspirators Derrick Smith and Shawn Eckhardt, who was Harding’s bodyguard. During questioning, all of the men claimed that Harding had joined them in planning the attack. Their claim was shocking. Would Harding really go to such lengths just to further her career?

“ONE OF THE BIGGEST SCANDALS IN AMERICAN SPORTS HISTORY”

The media seized on this unexpected story. Reporters followed Harding everywhere she went, begging for comments, hiding outside her house, and even digging through her trash. Kerrigan’s every move was also followed by the news reporters and camera crews. She appeared on the cover of magazines like  TIME and  Newsweek. Hundreds of pages of press were dedicated to the two women. It was the perfect opportunity for the media to complete the caricatures they had begun building for each woman: Tonya Harding, the scrappy, disadvantaged athlete who fought for everything she thought she deserved; and Nancy Kerrigan, the elegant, natural performer who had now, in the media’s eyes, become a victim of ruthless ambition.

Harding denied all involvement in the attack. She told news reporters that she had been terrified when she first got word of the incident, worried that the hitman might come after her, too. Perhaps not surprisingly, few people believed her. 

The intrigue continued when the committee decided that Kerrigan deserved the other slot on the Olympic team. She had recovered enough to skate in time for the big event. Harding and Kerrigan, as both teammates and competitors (as well as “enemies” now, according to public perception), travelled to Norway to compete on the world stage. And the world was certainly watching. Over four-hundred members of the press crammed into the practice rink in the days leading up to their Olympic performance.

Kerrigan skated her best show yet and won the silver medal. Harding, thrown off by a last-minute difficulty with the laces on her skate, came in eighth. Their event is still one of the most-watched telecasts in American history.

FALL-OUT

[15]   It is still unclear whether Harding was involved in planning the attack. Gillooly maintained that Harding had not only known about the attack, she had given the go-ahead to carry it out. Harding denied his accusations. She told the authorities that though she had known nothing about the plan to assault Kerrigan, she did delay reporting the details after discovering that Gillooly was behind the attack.

Harding plead guilty to conspiring to hinder a prosecution and was sentenced with a $100,000 fine and 500 hours of community service. She still maintained that she knew nothing of the attack before it happened, but the United States Figure Skating Association (USFSA) saw it differently. She received a lifetime ban from the USFSA and was stripped of her 1st place title from the 1994 U.S. Championships. 

Harding’s skating career was over. But she did not leave the public eye. She appeared as a judge on a handful of skating television shows and acted in a few low-budget films. Later, she had a brief and moderately successful career in boxing. Health problems forced her to retire and embrace a life away from the spotlight. Since the early 2000s, she has worked as a welder, painter, and hardware sales clerk in Washington state.

TRIAL BY MEDIA?

The Winter Olympics rarely draws public attention beyond the two weeks it is televised every four years. And yet, even today, people still talk about Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding. The media coverage made it about more than sports. In tabloids and news features, Kerrigan and Harding found themselves the subjects of a universal story about competition, ambition, victimhood, and justice.

The mass appeal of this narrative is easy to see. The rivalry between Kerrigan and Harding became a pop culture trope. Sitcoms, like  Seinfeld, leaned on the narrative to crack relatable jokes to their audiences. And more than 23 years after the attack, the 2017 Hollywood blockbuster movie  I, Tonya revived the story once again. Harding briefly re-appeared for TV interviews in anticipation of the movie. She reminded the public that, despite the singular narrative now ingrained in our collective consciousness, she maintains her innocence. 

Which statement best expresses the central idea of the text?

The Shakespeare Authorship Debate by Jason Kwon

[1]  The question of whether William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the actual writer of 37 plays and 154 sonnets first came up in the middle of the nineteenth century, and debate about the issue continues to this day. Those who believe he was the author are called Stratfordians, and those who believe he was not are called anti-Stratfordians. The Stratfordians are by far the majority, disparaging the claims of those on the other side of the argument. What evidence could the anti-Stratfordians possibly have against one of the most famous writers in history?

[2]  The main argument against Shakespeare's authorship is that only a well-educated aristocrat would have the necessary background and leisure time to write such brilliant works. Since it was considered unseemly for an aristocrat to be published, he or she would have had to publish under a different name. A name he possibly pulled from a popular actor working in London at the time.

[3]  William Shakespeare came from a modest background. He was born in 1564 in Stratford-upon-Avon, a market town whose main industry was sheep herding. One hundred miles away from London, this town was hardly a cultural center. Anti-Stratfordians say that such a town could not nurture a genius. Furthermore, both of Shakespeare's parents signed their names with a mark, which is used as evidence that Shakespeare was brought up in an illiterate home. The question of how such a home could have produced such an accomplished son seems like a legitimate one, until you consider the quality of the average grammar school of the time.

[4]  According to royal decree, grammar schools used a standardized basic Latin text. Students received an intensive education in Latin grammar, the classics, and rhetoric. A free grammar school was about half a mile from Shakespeare's boyhood home, so it is not unreasonable to assume that William attended it. All the teachers at the school were Oxford University graduates, so the education would have been top quality. No attendance records from the school survive, so there is no definitive proof that Shakespeare attended. This fact is often used to suggest that Shakespeare had little or no education. Still, the proximity of the school to Shakespeare's home indicates the probability that he went there. And despite possibly being illiterate, Shakespeare's father was a relatively successful merchant and glove maker, and his mother came from a landed family. In that time in England, that was more than enough to be sent to school in a small town.

[5]  In Shakespeare's favor, Stratfordians also point to written evidence that William Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him. This evidence includes the fact that his name was mentioned as a well-known writer at least twenty-three times while he was alive. For example, in 1598 Francis Meres called Shakespeare an author by whom the "English tongue is mightily enriched" and went on to name twelve plays written by Shakespeare, including some that had been published anonymously before 1598. He also referred to Shakespeare's sonnets some eleven years before they were published.

[6]  Meres was not the only contemporary of Shakespeare to mention him in writing. Such famous writers as Ben Jonson, Samuel Pepys, Robert Greene, and Voltaire criticized Shakespeare, though not always favorably. No contemporary dramatists, writers, or actors ever mention the slightest doubt that Shakespeare was the author of the plays. If his own contemporaries acknowledged Shakespeare, why should anyone question it now?

Which choice is a rhetorical question Kwon uses to strengthen the argument?

The Shakespeare Authorship Debate by Jason Kwon

[1]  The question of whether William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the actual writer of 37 plays and 154 sonnets first came up in the middle of the nineteenth century, and debate about the issue continues to this day. Those who believe he was the author are called Stratfordians, and those who believe he was not are called anti-Stratfordians. The Stratfordians are by far the majority, disparaging the claims of those on the other side of the argument. What evidence could the anti-Stratfordians possibly have against one of the most famous writers in history?

[2]  The main argument against Shakespeare's authorship is that only a well-educated aristocrat would have the necessary background and leisure time to write such brilliant works. Since it was considered unseemly for an aristocrat to be published, he or she would have had to publish under a different name. A name he possibly pulled from a popular actor working in London at the time.

[3]  William Shakespeare came from a modest background. He was born in 1564 in Stratford-upon-Avon, a market town whose main industry was sheep herding. One hundred miles away from London, this town was hardly a cultural center. Anti-Stratfordians say that such a town could not nurture a genius. Furthermore, both of Shakespeare's parents signed their names with a mark, which is used as evidence that Shakespeare was brought up in an illiterate home. The question of how such a home could have produced such an accomplished son seems like a legitimate one, until you consider the quality of the average grammar school of the time.

[4]  According to royal decree, grammar schools used a standardized basic Latin text. Students received an intensive education in Latin grammar, the classics, and rhetoric. A free grammar school was about half a mile from Shakespeare's boyhood home, so it is not unreasonable to assume that William attended it. All the teachers at the school were Oxford University graduates, so the education would have been top quality. No attendance records from the school survive, so there is no definitive proof that Shakespeare attended. This fact is often used to suggest that Shakespeare had little or no education. Still, the proximity of the school to Shakespeare's home indicates the probability that he went there. And despite possibly being illiterate, Shakespeare's father was a relatively successful merchant and glove maker, and his mother came from a landed family. In that time in England, that was more than enough to be sent to school in a small town.

[5]  In Shakespeare's favor, Stratfordians also point to written evidence that William Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him. This evidence includes the fact that his name was mentioned as a well-known writer at least twenty-three times while he was alive. For example, in 1598 Francis Meres called Shakespeare an author by whom the "English tongue is mightily enriched" and went on to name twelve plays written by Shakespeare, including some that had been published anonymously before 1598. He also referred to Shakespeare's sonnets some eleven years before they were published.

[6]  Meres was not the only contemporary of Shakespeare to mention him in writing. Such famous writers as Ben Jonson, Samuel Pepys, Robert Greene, and Voltaire criticized Shakespeare, though not always favorably. No contemporary dramatists, writers, or actors ever mention the slightest doubt that Shakespeare was the author of the plays. If his own contemporaries acknowledged Shakespeare, why should anyone question it now?

Paragraph 4 leads to the inference that

The Shakespeare Authorship Debate by Jason Kwon

[1]  The question of whether William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the actual writer of 37 plays and 154 sonnets first came up in the middle of the nineteenth century, and debate about the issue continues to this day. Those who believe he was the author are called Stratfordians, and those who believe he was not are called anti-Stratfordians. The Stratfordians are by far the majority, disparaging the claims of those on the other side of the argument. What evidence could the anti-Stratfordians possibly have against one of the most famous writers in history?

[2]  The main argument against Shakespeare's authorship is that only a well-educated aristocrat would have the necessary background and leisure time to write such brilliant works. Since it was considered unseemly for an aristocrat to be published, he or she would have had to publish under a different name. A name he possibly pulled from a popular actor working in London at the time.

[3]  William Shakespeare came from a modest background. He was born in 1564 in Stratford-upon-Avon, a market town whose main industry was sheep herding. One hundred miles away from London, this town was hardly a cultural center. Anti-Stratfordians say that such a town could not nurture a genius. Furthermore, both of Shakespeare's parents signed their names with a mark, which is used as evidence that Shakespeare was brought up in an illiterate home. The question of how such a home could have produced such an accomplished son seems like a legitimate one, until you consider the quality of the average grammar school of the time.

[4]  According to royal decree, grammar schools used a standardized basic Latin text. Students received an intensive education in Latin grammar, the classics, and rhetoric. A free grammar school was about half a mile from Shakespeare's boyhood home, so it is not unreasonable to assume that William attended it. All the teachers at the school were Oxford University graduates, so the education would have been top quality. No attendance records from the school survive, so there is no definitive proof that Shakespeare attended. This fact is often used to suggest that Shakespeare had little or no education. Still, the proximity of the school to Shakespeare's home indicates the probability that he went there. And despite possibly being illiterate, Shakespeare's father was a relatively successful merchant and glove maker, and his mother came from a landed family. In that time in England, that was more than enough to be sent to school in a small town.

[5]  In Shakespeare's favor, Stratfordians also point to written evidence that William Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him. This evidence includes the fact that his name was mentioned as a well-known writer at least twenty-three times while he was alive. For example, in 1598 Francis Meres called Shakespeare an author by whom the "English tongue is mightily enriched" and went on to name twelve plays written by Shakespeare, including some that had been published anonymously before 1598. He also referred to Shakespeare's sonnets some eleven years before they were published.

[6]  Meres was not the only contemporary of Shakespeare to mention him in writing. Such famous writers as Ben Jonson, Samuel Pepys, Robert Greene, and Voltaire criticized Shakespeare, though not always favorably. No contemporary dramatists, writers, or actors ever mention the slightest doubt that Shakespeare was the author of the plays. If his own contemporaries acknowledged Shakespeare, why should anyone question it now?

What is the author’s purpose in writing this article?

The Shakespeare Authorship Debate by Jason Kwon

[1]  The question of whether William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the actual writer of 37 plays and 154 sonnets first came up in the middle of the nineteenth century, and debate about the issue continues to this day. Those who believe he was the author are called Stratfordians, and those who believe he was not are called anti-Stratfordians. The Stratfordians are by far the majority, disparaging the claims of those on the other side of the argument. What evidence could the anti-Stratfordians possibly have against one of the most famous writers in history?

[2]  The main argument against Shakespeare's authorship is that only a well-educated aristocrat would have the necessary background and leisure time to write such brilliant works. Since it was considered unseemly for an aristocrat to be published, he or she would have had to publish under a different name. A name he possibly pulled from a popular actor working in London at the time.

[3]  William Shakespeare came from a modest background. He was born in 1564 in Stratford-upon-Avon, a market town whose main industry was sheep herding. One hundred miles away from London, this town was hardly a cultural center. Anti-Stratfordians say that such a town could not nurture a genius. Furthermore, both of Shakespeare's parents signed their names with a mark, which is used as evidence that Shakespeare was brought up in an illiterate home. The question of how such a home could have produced such an accomplished son seems like a legitimate one, until you consider the quality of the average grammar school of the time.

[4]  According to royal decree, grammar schools used a standardized basic Latin text. Students received an intensive education in Latin grammar, the classics, and rhetoric. A free grammar school was about half a mile from Shakespeare's boyhood home, so it is not unreasonable to assume that William attended it. All the teachers at the school were Oxford University graduates, so the education would have been top quality. No attendance records from the school survive, so there is no definitive proof that Shakespeare attended. This fact is often used to suggest that Shakespeare had little or no education. Still, the proximity of the school to Shakespeare's home indicates the probability that he went there. And despite possibly being illiterate, Shakespeare's father was a relatively successful merchant and glove maker, and his mother came from a landed family. In that time in England, that was more than enough to be sent to school in a small town.

[5]  In Shakespeare's favor, Stratfordians also point to written evidence that William Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him. This evidence includes the fact that his name was mentioned as a well-known writer at least twenty-three times while he was alive. For example, in 1598 Francis Meres called Shakespeare an author by whom the "English tongue is mightily enriched" and went on to name twelve plays written by Shakespeare, including some that had been published anonymously before 1598. He also referred to Shakespeare's sonnets some eleven years before they were published.

[6]  Meres was not the only contemporary of Shakespeare to mention him in writing. Such famous writers as Ben Jonson, Samuel Pepys, Robert Greene, and Voltaire criticized Shakespeare, though not always favorably. No contemporary dramatists, writers, or actors ever mention the slightest doubt that Shakespeare was the author of the plays. If his own contemporaries acknowledged Shakespeare, why should anyone question it now?

How does the author use rhetoric to advance his purpose?

The Shakespeare Authorship Debate by Jason Kwon

[1]  The question of whether William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was the actual writer of 37 plays and 154 sonnets first came up in the middle of the nineteenth century, and debate about the issue continues to this day. Those who believe he was the author are called Stratfordians, and those who believe he was not are called anti-Stratfordians. The Stratfordians are by far the majority, disparaging the claims of those on the other side of the argument. What evidence could the anti-Stratfordians possibly have against one of the most famous writers in history?

[2]  The main argument against Shakespeare's authorship is that only a well-educated aristocrat would have the necessary background and leisure time to write such brilliant works. Since it was considered unseemly for an aristocrat to be published, he or she would have had to publish under a different name. A name he possibly pulled from a popular actor working in London at the time.

[3]  William Shakespeare came from a modest background. He was born in 1564 in Stratford-upon-Avon, a market town whose main industry was sheep herding. One hundred miles away from London, this town was hardly a cultural center. Anti-Stratfordians say that such a town could not nurture a genius. Furthermore, both of Shakespeare's parents signed their names with a mark, which is used as evidence that Shakespeare was brought up in an illiterate home. The question of how such a home could have produced such an accomplished son seems like a legitimate one, until you consider the quality of the average grammar school of the time.

[4]  According to royal decree, grammar schools used a standardized basic Latin text. Students received an intensive education in Latin grammar, the classics, and rhetoric. A free grammar school was about half a mile from Shakespeare's boyhood home, so it is not unreasonable to assume that William attended it. All the teachers at the school were Oxford University graduates, so the education would have been top quality. No attendance records from the school survive, so there is no definitive proof that Shakespeare attended. This fact is often used to suggest that Shakespeare had little or no education. Still, the proximity of the school to Shakespeare's home indicates the probability that he went there. And despite possibly being illiterate, Shakespeare's father was a relatively successful merchant and glove maker, and his mother came from a landed family. In that time in England, that was more than enough to be sent to school in a small town.

[5]  In Shakespeare's favor, Stratfordians also point to written evidence that William Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him. This evidence includes the fact that his name was mentioned as a well-known writer at least twenty-three times while he was alive. For example, in 1598 Francis Meres called Shakespeare an author by whom the "English tongue is mightily enriched" and went on to name twelve plays written by Shakespeare, including some that had been published anonymously before 1598. He also referred to Shakespeare's sonnets some eleven years before they were published.

[6]  Meres was not the only contemporary of Shakespeare to mention him in writing. Such famous writers as Ben Jonson, Samuel Pepys, Robert Greene, and Voltaire criticized Shakespeare, though not always favorably. No contemporary dramatists, writers, or actors ever mention the slightest doubt that Shakespeare was the author of the plays. If his own contemporaries acknowledged Shakespeare, why should anyone question it now?

Which choice is the best evaluation of the anti-Stratfordians' claim that only a well-educated aristocrat could have written the work?