Hello there.

Welcome to today's lesson.

My name is Mr. Barnsley and I'm so glad that you could join me as we continue to study the AQA World and Lives Poetry Anthology.

In today's lesson, we're gonna do a deeper analysis of Shelley's poem "England in 1819".

So you probably should have already read the poem before you start today's lesson.

You are also gonna need your copy of the AQA World and Lives Poetry anthology in front of you, 'cause you are gonna want to be able to see the poem.

All right, I think it's time for us to get started.

Let's go.

So let's have a look at the outcome of today's lesson.

By the end of the lesson, you are gonna be able to explain how Shelley uses language, structure and form to express his viewpoint.

There are five keywords in today's lesson.

Let's take a closer look at them so we recognise them when they turn up in today's lesson, and we can even use them in our own analysis.

So the first is plosive, and this means a sound which is articulated with an abrupt release of air, like p, b or t.

You'll notice they're the sounds that are made by the front of your mouth, either your lips or just behind your teeth.

Plosives, okay? They all make an abrupt release of air.

Figurative language is where we use words and ideas to suggest a meaning, but it's not literally true.

So a simile or a metaphor might be good examples of figurative language.

Euphony is where we use soft vowels or consonants to create a pleasing sound.

Okay, so kind of almost the opposite of plosives.

A softer sound, creating, pleasing, something really pleasing to the ear.

Revolutionary is something involving or causing a complete and dramatic change.

So a revolution is where people demand change.

And sonnet then, a sonnet is a form of poetry and it consists of 14 lines and it's written in iambic pentameter.

And typically we expect sonnets to be about the topic of love.

Not always, but probably most commonly.

All right, look out for those words and let's see if we can use them in our own analysis.

So we're gonna be analysing the poem "England in 1819", and there're gonna be three steps to today's lesson.

We're gonna start by looking at the language, then moving on to the structure, and finally thinking about the form.

So let's start with language.

Okay, so Shelley's "England in 1819" acts as a critique of powerful institutions.

It's very critical of powerful institutions, particularly the monarchy, the church and the government of the day.

In his critique, Shelley uses that figurative language in order to enhance his meaning.

Okay, to give us a really vivid description of what he's describing, he uses figurative language.

Here are two examples, mud from muddy spring and leachlike.

I want you to think about what the connotations of these examples of figurative language are.

Okay, these are both being used to describe the monarchy.

What are the connotations, what can we infer that Shelley is saying about the monarchy by using this figurative language? All right, if you've got a partner, you can discuss this with them.

But if you're working by yourself, you can just take some time to think about this question independently.

Either way, I want you to pause the video, give yourself some thinking time, and press play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, over to you.

Welcome back, some really great discussions there.

Let's have a look at mud from a muddy spring.

Well, when we think of mud, I heard lots of people talking about things that are dirty or unclean, but you might not know that it also meant a fool in the 18th century.

So actually this is a metaphor and I think, he's talking about the prince here and he's basically suggesting or I feel he's suggesting that the prince is going to fail.

Okay, he's talked about the king.

The king is dying, but the prince, the person who will ascend to the throne after him is also going to fail.

This is inevitable because the family line, the family line of monarchs is tainted, it's muddy, it's unclean, and perhaps then we need a new spring, a new source of leadership.

Okay, really interesting interpretations.

Well done if you've said something similar.

Now for leechlike, you might have thought about leeches as those parasitic creatures, and it really implies that the monarchy are draining the people for their own benefits.

They're giving nothing back in return.

And I think comparing the monarchy to a creature almost implies that actually they're less human and they don't have compassion and care that other humans have.

You might have had similar things to this.

You might have had slightly different things, and that's okay.

Interpretations are valid as long as they can be justified.

But well done if you said anything similar to what we can see on the screen.

Okay, let's have a check, see how we're getting on.

True or false? Shelley compares the monarchy to parasitic creatures.

Is that true or is that false? Pause the video.

Have a think and press play when you're ready to continue.

Yeah, really well done if you said that was true.

Now let's justify that.

Is it A, the comparison implies that they are somehow less human or less compassionate, or the comparison implies that they are somehow vacant and empty.

What do you think? Pause the video and have a think.

Press play when you're ready to find out the response.

Okay, over to you.

Yeah, well done if you said A, the comparison implies that they are somehow less human, less compassionate than others.

Okay, now I really want to consider the sound imagery in some of these quotations and I really want to think about what Shelley's meaning is and why he might have used these words with this specific sound imagery.

So both mud and leech begin with euphonic sounds which are considered soothing or pleasing to the ear.

Why might then, let's have a think about this.

Why might Shelley have juxtaposed these euphonic sounds with the meanings of these words, which are actually quite negative, mud and leach.

So if you think about M sound, that L sound, they're quite soft sounds, pleasing to the ear.

What's the effect of juxtaposing that, pairing that with words that actually have quite negative meanings? All right, pause and have a think through that.

It's a tricky question, but give it a go.

I know you can do it, so pause the video, have a think and press play when you're ready to continue.

All right, really well done.

Really impressed if you said something similar to this.

Perhaps Shelley was trying to imply that institutions such as the monarchy can give speeches that might sound pleasing and soothing, but actually there is nothing positive behind the words and their actions will bring pain to ordinary people.

I love this interpretation, this is so clever.

Taking something which feels quite small, like the sounds at the beginning of letters and kind of tying this with a poet's intentions.

So is this what Shelley meant to do, who knows? Okay, that's why we use tentative language like perhaps.

But I think this is a really nice inference and it makes logical sense to me because it's been explained clearly.

So well done if you've got any ideas like this, and if you didn't, why don't you pause the video to now and you might even want to make a couple of notes on your anthology, noting this inference down.

All right, pause the video if you need to and press play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, as well as euphonic sounds, Shelley also employs plosive sounds throughout the poem.

Plosive sounds, remember, are those abrupt sounds that are made by blocking the flow of air as it leaves the body.

So if you put your hands to your mouth and go, you should feel sharp blasts of air on your hand because the flow of air is being blocked by your lips or your teeth.

Okay, what do you then think the effect of using plosives might be? These harsh sounds, why might Shelley have used them? Pause the video, have a think and press play when you're ready to continue.

Some really interesting ideas there that you might have had.

Well done if you had something similar to this, the abrupt nature of the sound creates a very harsh tone.

Furthermore, the fact that the airflow is physically stopped while creating them could mean that conceptually, it suggests ideas of violence or death.

The people in the poem, the ordinary people are being stopped from living the lives that they deserve to live by these powerful institutions.

Again, is that what Shelley meant, who knows? But it's a logical inference based on the ideas within Shelley's poem.

So as long as we justify and make links between the plosives and Shelley's intention, then that's great.

Well done if you had any similar ideas to this, again, if you do want to pause the video and make a note of this in your anthology, now's the time to do it.

All right, pause the video and press play when you're ready to continue.

All right, on the screen now you can see some of the words which contain those plosive sounds that Shelley has used.

So blind, despised, blind in blood, burst.

Why do you think Shelley has used plosive sounds throughout his poetry? What do you think? All right, pause the video.

Have a think and press play when you're ready to continue.

Yeah, I think we could build on those inferences we were making on the last slide now, potentially Shelley's using these plosive sounds in order to emphasise the harsh nature of the power of institutions.

Furthermore, it creates this really violent imagery and that really, really emphasises the suffering, the violence, whether it's physical violence or kind of violence through letting people suffer.

It really comes across in this poem and it makes us feel really sympathetic for the ordinary people.

And I imagine makes us feel quite angry at these institutions for letting people suffer.

Okay, let's check how we're getting on then, shall we? Arguably, Shelley uses plosive sounds throughout in order to do what, is it A, emphasise the suffering of the ordinary people.

B, emphasise the neglect of the powerful institutions, or C, emphasise the ignorance of the powerful institutions.

Tricky one, give it a go.

Have a think, pause the video and press play when you're ready to move on.

Yeah, well done if you said A.

All right, over to our first task in today's lesson.

I'd like you to write a very short analytical paragraph answering this question.

How does Shelley use language in order to critique the monarchy? Things I want you to remember, I want a topic sentence explaining the focus of your paragraph.

I want you to try and bring in two quotations for the poem that you're gonna use as evidence, which show a critique against monarchy.

Hint, we've looked at two quotations earlier in today's lesson.

You may wish to use them and always take it back to Shelley's intentions.

What is it that Shelley is trying to say about these powerful institutions? Okay, pause the video.

You don't need to write lots and lots and lots.

This can be just a short paragraph, okay? But let's try and get some of the main ideas down on paper.

All right, pause the video, over to you.

Press play when you're ready to continue.

All right, welcome back.

Let's compare our work to the work of one of our Oak pupils.

Sofia has written a paragraph, let's see how she did and see if she managed to hit all of our success criteria.

So Sofia wrote, "Using figurative language such as leach like and mud from a muddy spring, not only depicts the parasitic and ineffective nature of the monarchy, but speaks to Shelley's revolutionary spirit by implying that England needs a new spring or source of leadership.

Shelley's anger towards institutions such as the monarchy can be felt throughout the poem, through the use of plosive sounds, which hints at the violent implications of keeping the institutions of power." Really, really nice ideas here.

But let's check against our success criteria to see whether Sofia did everything that we are looking out for.

Well, let's start with topic sentence.

I'm gonna say no because remember, the best topic sentences focus on intention, not method.

So if we start our paragraph saying, using figurative language, then it tells me all I'm gonna be able to talk about is the figurative language leechlike, and mud from a muddy spring.

Yet we know that's not all I talk about, because later in my paragraph I talk about plosives and that's not that figurative language.

So that topic sentence doesn't work.

However, we can see that Sofia has used different quotations, two quotations, and has very clearly linked to Shelley's intention.

So let's have a look at an improved response from Sofia if she included a topic sentence, this might look like this.

"Shelley critiques powerful institutions such as the monarchy." Okay, tells me what Shelley's intention is.

And then within the body of my paragraph, I can talk about figurative language and I can talk about plosives.

Both of these are techniques that Shelley uses to critique those powerful institutions.

Okay, why don't you pause the video and compare your work to that of Sofia and see if there's any ideas of hers that you would like to add to your own.

Okay, pause the video, steal some of Sofia's ideas if you wish, and press play when you are ready to move on.

Okay, now time for us to analyse the structure of the poem.

So Shelley utilises caesuras within England in 1819 and a caesura is a pause or a break in a line of verse often marked by punctuation.

So I want you to think about why Shelley might have used a caesura before mud from a muddy spring and later in the poem before a book sealed.

What was the point of putting a pause before these two quotations? Why don't you pause the video, have a think.

If you've got a partner you can discuss with them.

Otherwise you can just think through this independently.

But press play when you are ready to share and hear some responses.

Some really nice ideas going back and forth there.

And remember, as we said, we can never know for sure exactly why a poet, certainly a poet who lived so many years ago, made these decisions.

So as long as we have logical interpretations, we tie them to intention, then they can be totally valid.

So let's have a look at one idea that you might have had.

So potentially Shelley wanted the caesura to emphasise the preceding words of scorn and godless to show how the public ought to feel about these institutions.

However, the caesura could also serve to highlight an emptiness through the silent pause and demonstrate the emptiness within the monarchy and the church.

I really like that idea.

I love the idea that kind of that pause, kind of that moment of reflection kind of reminds us that certainly Shelley believes that the monarchy and church are empty from what they should be doing.

All right, well done if you said something similar.

Alright, let's have a check then.

The use of caesura might indicate what, is it, A, an emptiness in these institutions.

B, the ambitious nature of the institutions, or C, a corruption at the heart of the institutions.

Pause the video.

Have a think, press play when you are ready to find out the response.

Yeah, well done, if you said A, I think this could definitely represent an emptiness at the heart of these institutions.

Well done if you got that correct.

Okay, as well as caesura, Shelley also utilises enjambment throughout the poem.

A reminder that enjambment is the continuation of a sentence beyond the end of the line, stanza or couplet.

So if a line kind of flows onto the next line, or if a line flows between one stanza and the next, then we'll call that enjambment.

It generally when we think of enjambment, it can be used to represent the continuation of an idea or a theme.

So what might Shelley be using the enjambment to symbolise? What might be continuing within this poem? Why don't you pause and think about this, discuss in pairs or just think about this independently and press play when you're ready to hear some responses.

Getting really creative interpretations there.

Well done, I want to shine a light on this one because I heard some of you saying something similar and I thought it was great.

Potentially Shelley uses the enjambment to symbolise the continuation of people suffering due to the institutions.

Or similarly, it could show how the power and the influence of these institutions continues to grow.

It feels like there's no stopping it.

Okay, really, really nice to link these things, these structural devices like enjambment, to really specific interpretations, really specific intentions of the poet.

Okay, and we know that Shelley is trying to show the level of suffering caused by this continuous stream of power from these institutions.

So really nice to kind of pair the enjambment, to link the enjambment to those two ideas.

Great job, okay, true or false then? Shelley may have used en enjoyment to symbolise continuation.

Is that true or false? Pause the video, have a think and press play when you're ready to continue.

Yes, that is true.

Now time for you to justify your answer.

Is it A, he might have wanted to symbolise the continuation of the people suffering or is it B? He may wanted to symbolise the continuation of people's revolutionary spirit.

What do you think? Pause the video.

Have a think and press play when you're ready to continue.

Yeah, really well done if you said A.

All right, a practise task for you now, I want you to think about if we change the structure of the poem to alter the punctuation and remove enjambment.

The opening lines then might look like this, an old mad, blind, despised and dying king princes the dregs of their dull racers who flow through public scorn, mud from a muddy spring.

Rulers who neither see nor feel nor know.

So that's our changed version.

Okay, if we got rid of the enjambment and we the punctuation, that's what it could look like.

What I want you to do is have a discussion if you've got a partner, if you're working by yourself, you may wish to make a few notes.

How might this change our reading of the poem? How might it change its meaning? And obviously you will have a copy of your poem in anthology, but here is the original version so you can compare them next to each other.

All right, how might the first version change our meaning or understanding our reading of the poem in comparison to the original? All right, pause the video, have a discussion or think through this independently and press play when you are ready to hear some responses.

Welcome back, I really, really like doing activities where we say, well what if we change this about a poem? Because it really emphasises to me and hopefully to you, just how deliberate a poet's choices are.

And if you change one or two things, it can sometimes change meaning or understanding.

All right, let's have a look at what Sofia said and we can compare this to discussions you might have been having.

So Sofia said, seeing the poem without the enjambment made me realise that Shelley may have used it in order to add a sense of urgency to the poem and convey to us the desperate need to change the powerful institutions.

Seeing the full stops also gave the poem a stop and start feel and Shelley wants to emphasise how the suffering is continually happening, rather than stopping and starting.

So enjambment fits with the message behind the poem, some lovely ideas there from Sofia.

Why don't you pause the video and think, are these similar or different to the ideas you had? Why or why not, do you agree with Sofia? And you may even wish to take some of those ideas and add them as annotations to your copy of the poem.

All right, pause the video, do some reflection and press play when you're ready to move on.

Okay, welcome back, it is time for us to analyse the form of the poem now.

So we know "England in 1819" is written in the sonnet form Sonnet one of our keywords.

It's a form of poetry often associated with the poetry of love.

However, it doesn't follow the Shakespearian or the English sonnet structure or rhyme scheme.

Okay, so that has conventions of a sonnet, but it doesn't follow it exactly as we might expect a Shakespearean sonnet to be written.

So particularly the structure of the rhyme scheme.

So why then do you think that Shelley might not have chosen to follow the traditional form, the traditional form of a sonnet? Can you link this to him having this revolutionary spirit or kind of wanting desiring revolution? Alright, pause the video, have a think about this question.

You can discuss if you've got a partner or work through it by yourself.

Okay, why do you think Shelley might have chosen not to use the more traditional sonnet form? And how can you link this to ideas of revolutionary or revolutionary spirit? Okay, over to you.

Pause the video, press play when you're ready to hear some responses.

Some really creative ideas flowing about there.

Really well done.

So you might have said something similar to this, potentially Shelley chooses not to follow the traditional sonnet form to represent his revolutionary ideas.

And actually he's saying that traditional power structures and institutions should be abandoned, should be ignored.

Okay, so almost the traditional power structure or sorry, the traditional structure of a sonnet could represent those traditional power structures, which are those traditional powerful institutions.

And Shelley's saying, I'm not obeying them because I think they should be overturned.

I think they should be abandoned.

Okay, interesting.

We don't know for sure, we're gonna use tentative language like perhaps arguably, maybe, might, could, can.

Okay, really well done if you've got something similar.

So true or false, Shelley adheres to the traditional sonnet form, what do you think? Is that true or false? Pause the video.

Have a think, press play when you're ready to continue.

Yes, that is false, let's justify that.

Arguably Shelley's non-conformity to the traditional sonnet form shows a lack of respect for the form.

Or is it arguably Shelley's non-conformity to the traditional sonnet form represents his revolutionary spirit.

What do we think? Pause the video.

Have a think and press play when you're ready to continue.

Yes, well done if you said B.

Okay, onto our final practise task of today's lesson.

So as part of the sonnet form, Shelley includes a volta.

Our volta is a turning point in the final two lines of the poem.

And those two lines of the poem are as follows, "Are graves from which a glorious phantom may burst to a loom, a tempestuous day".

Okay, so there is a volta here.

There is a turning point.

I want you to think about the following questions.

How does that final couplet indicate a turning point? What is different in that final turning point? Sorry, what is different in that final couplet? How is it different to the poem that's come before us? And the second question I'd like you to think about, what do you think Shelley is trying to say through this use of volta? Okay, pause the video, I want a written response to this.

So answer these two questions.

What do you think Shelley is trying to do? Why has he used a Volta? What is interesting about the final two lines of the poem? All right, over to you.

Pause the video, give this a go and press play when you're ready to continue.

All right, welcome back.

Really great job on that task.

Let's take a moment and think about things that you might have said in your response.

So for the first question, how does that final couplet indicate a turning point in the poem? Well, you might have said, actually the final couplet offers a more optimistic tone.

It applies one day that some hope will soon illuminate England.

England will be, hope will shine on the land once more.

And after such a bleak, bleak poem, it is quite nice to think, life doesn't always have to be like this.

There is hope in the future things, can change.

So let's think then about, well, what do you think Shelley is trying to say then through that Volta? Well, don't if you said something similar to this.

I think the Volta implies that this hope will come from a grave.

And that could imply that actually the only way this hope is gonna shine on England is if existing powerful institutions and structures are gonna have to be torn down.

They're gonna have to be torn down and buried in a grave.

Okay, so yes, there is hope at the end of this poem, but this hope can only come if we do something about these powerful institutions that have left their people to suffer.

That is perhaps what Shelley is saying.

Well done if you had something similar and of course you might have had slightly different things.

Interpretations are valid as long as they are logical and justified.

All right, well done.

Okay, we have reached the end of today's lesson.

It has been a real pleasure learning alongside you today.

Let's run through a quick summary of what we've learned today so you can feel really confident before you move on to our next lesson.

So we've learned that Shelley may have used figurative language to expose the parasitic nature of the monarchy.

We've also learned that Shelley could have used plosive sounds throughout the poem to emphasise the suffering of ordinary people.

Arguably Shelley's use of references this continuation of the people's suffering and Shelley's non-conformity to the sonnet form may link to his revolutionary call for change.

Thank you so much for joining me today.

I hope you've enjoyed today's lesson.

I've certainly enjoyed teaching it to you.

I hope to see you in one of our lessons soon.

Thank you very much, goodbye.