Hello everyone, it's lovely to see you here today.

My name's Dr.

Clayton, I'm here to guide you through your learning journey today.

Today's lesson's called, "Analysing ideas of violence and honour in Act 3, Scene 1 of Romeo & Juliet".

Now, this is the climactic scene of the play, where Tybalt kills Mercutio, and Romeo kills Tybalt.

We're going to think about how violence and honour are presented, as integral to men's identities in this scene.

So, if you're ready, grab your pen, laptop, whatever you're using for this lesson, and let's get started.

So, by the end of the lesson, you'll be able to explain how violence and honour are presented in Act 3, Scene 1 of Romeo & Juliet.

So, we have five words today we're going to be using as our keywords, they'll be identified in bold throughout the learning material, and I'll try to point them out as well, so you can see them being used in context.

So, our first word is "masculinity", which means, qualities or attributes regarded as being characteristic of men or boys.

Our second keyword is "honour", which means, a quality that combines respect, being proud, and honesty.

Our third keyword is "integral", which means necessary to make a whole complete, essential or fundamental.

We're going to be thinking about how violence and honour are integral to ideas of masculinity in Elizabethan England.

Our fourth keyword is "dishonourable", which means, bringing shame or disgrace to someone or something.

Our final keyword is "submission", which means the action of accepting or yielding to a superior force, or to the will or authority of another person.

We're going to be thinking about passive-submissive behaviour in men was thought to be deeply dishonourable in Elizabethan England.

So, I'll just give you a moment to write down those keywords, and their definitions.

So, pause the video, write them down now.

Fantastic.

Let's get started with the lesson.

So, we have two learning cycles in our lesson today, for our first learning cycle, we're going to focus on Benvolio's opening words in Act 3, Scene 1, and how they create the expectation of violence in the scene.

For our second learning cycle, we're going to be thinking about how the concept of honour is presented in Act 3, Scene 1, and how it's intrinsically linked to ideas of violence.

So, we're focusing on Act 3, Scene 1 for our lesson today, so let's start with a quick summary of the scene.

Now, Act 3, Scene 1 is the climax of Romeo & Juliet, so it's the most important dramatic scene in the play.

Mercutio and Benvolio encounter Tybalt on the street, as soon as Romeo arrives, Tybalt tries to provoke him into a fight, since Tybalt felt as if Romeo's presence at the Capulet ball was dishonourable to him and his family.

When Romeo refuses, Mercutio answers Tybalt's challenge, as he sees Romeo's refusal as dishonourable.

Mercutio and Tybalt fight, and Mercutio is killed, Romeo then avenges Mercutio's death by killing Tybalt, as a consequence, Romeo is banished from Verona.

Now, for this learning cycle, we're specifically focusing on Benvolio's opening lines of the scene, "I pray thee, good Mercutio, let's retire.

The day is hot, and the Capels are abroad, and if we meet, we shall not escape a brawl, for now, these hot days, is the mad blood stirring." Now, we're going to spend the rest of the learning cycle zooming in on specific lines from this opening, and think about how they create the expectation of violence in the scene.

So, let's start by zooming in on the quote, "The day is hot." Now, this is an example of pathetic fallacy.

Pathetic fallacy is where emotions are being given to something non-human, so the day's been given emotions.

So, what I'd like you to think about is how the description of, "The day is hot," creates an expectation of violence through the pathetic fallacy here.

So, pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone, some great ideas there.

Now, if we describe an emotional state as "hot", then as Izzy says, "It signals an angry, tense emotional state, so the very air around them seems to create this expectation of violence." So, now for a quick check for understanding, what I'd like you to do, is tell me whether the following statement is true or false.

So, is it true or false that Shakespeare creates the expectation of violence from the beginning of Act 3, Scene 1? Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Now, the correct answer is "true".

Now, I'd like to tell you why it's true, so pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone.

You might have said, "The pathetic fallacy of 'hot' suggests the atmosphere is one of anger and tension." So, very well done if you got those right.

So, now let's focus on the quotation, "the mad blood stirring".

And if we're thinking about ideas of masculinity and violence, I think this quotation's absolutely essential.

So, what I'd like to start off by thinking about, is what are connotations of the word "blood"? How does it create an expectation of violence? Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone, some great ideas there.

Now typically, we associate blood with ideas of pain, hurt and violence, therefore, the word "blood" creates imagery of violence, and pain in the audience's mind.

Now, as well as using the word "blood", Shakespeare is specifically personifying blood, by associating it with an emotion, madness, and saying that it's stirring, so it's waking up and moving.

So, what I'd like you to think about is what might the significance of this be? Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone, some great ideas there.

Now, as Lucas says, "Perhaps by implying that 'blood' is alive, Shakespeare is creating the impression of violence and pain being sentient, and live around them." So, the very atmosphere is alive with violence, and pain.

Now arguably, Shakespeare's creating a connection between violence and the blood in men's veins here, because he's saying the madness in them is waking up.

So, what I'd like you to think about, is what might the significance of this be? Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone, some great ideas there.

Now, as Sophia says, "We need 'blood' to keep us alive, so perhaps Shakespeare is saying that violence is in men's veins, it's integral to keeping them alive." So, it's essential for keeping them alive, they can't exist without it.

So, now for a quick check for understanding.

So, which of the following might Shakespeare be suggesting through the quotation "mad blood stirring"? Is it 'A', "Elizabethan men were wary of violence, because they know it's potential effect on them." 'B', "That violence was an essential part of Elizabethan men, they need it to stay alive." 'C', "That men could choose to walk away from violence if they chose to." Or 'D', "The violence and pain were alive the atmosphere, surrounding Act 3, Scene 1." So, pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone.

Now, the pathetic fallacy "mad blood" shows that violence and pain were alive in the atmosphere surrounding Act 3, Scene 1.

And the fact we need blood to survive, means that violence was an essential part of Elizabethan men, they need it to stay alive.

So, very well done if you got those right.

Now, let's think about the way Shakespeare structured Benvolio's language.

Typically, Benvolio speaks in iambic pentameter throughout the play.

So, iambic pentameter means the lines of 10-syllables per line, that follow a pattern of unstressed and stressed syllables.

However, "For now, these hot days, are the mad blood stirring," has eleven-syllables rather than 10.

So, what I'd like you to think about is what might breaking the rhythm of a character's speech suggest? Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone.

And you might have said, "A change in the rhythm of someone's speaking voice might suggest heightened emotion or confusion." So, what I'd like you to think about now, is what might the significance of this be? Why might it be significant that Benvolio's showing heightened emotion? Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone.

Now, as Laura says, "Perhaps it reflects the instability and the anger of the atmosphere, it's just a particularly emotionally charged moment is going to happen." So, now for a quick check for understanding.

What I'd like you to do, is tell me whether the following statement is true or false.

So, is it true or false, the rhythm of Benvolio's speech might reflect the anger in the atmosphere in Act 3, Scene 1.

Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Now, the correct answer is "true".

Now, I'd like you to tell me why it's true.

So, pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone.

Now, you might have said, Benvolio typically speaks in iambic pentameter, however, he adds an extra syllable to, "For now, these hot days, is the mad blood stirring," which breaks this typical pattern.

So, very well done if you got those right.

Amazing work everyone.

But now, first task of the lesson, well we're going to think about how we can organise our ideas from this learning cycle.

Now, one way to organise your ideas, is to create a single paragraph outline.

So, these include a topic sentence that explains the focus of the paragraph, they also include supporting details, which analysis of evidence that supports the topic sentence.

Then we have a concluding sentence that summarise the paragraph with a clear focus on the writer's intentions.

So, what I'd like you to do, is create a concluding sentence to complete this single paragraph outline.

So, the topic sentence is, "Arguably, Shakespeare uses Benvolio's opening to Act 3, Scene 1 to create the expectation of violence in the scene." Then we have the supporting details, which are the pathetic fallacy and the word "hot", which creates an angry, tense, and emotional atmosphere.

We have the personification in "mad blood", which says that violence, pain and anger are sentient, and alive in the atmosphere.

Then, we have the nature of "blood" itself, which implies violence is in men's veins, it keeps them alive.

Finally, we have the extra syllable in the final line, and this reflects the anger, instability in the atmosphere.

So, pause the video, think about how we could summarise that paragraph with a clear focus on the writer's intentions.

Welcome back everyone, some amazing work there.

What I'd like you to do now, is think about Aisha and Alex's concluding sentences.

Which one feels more cohesive to the whole outline? So, Aisha said, "Throughout Benvolio's speech, Shakespeare creates the impression that honour and masculinity are an integral part of men's identities, they need the external validation of others to exist in society." And Alex said, "Throughout Benvolio's speech, Shakespeare creates the impression of blood and violence as a backdrop to Act 3, Scene 1.

He implies that violence is an integral part of men's identities, they need it to survive.

So, pause the video.

Think about which concluding sentence is more cohesive to the whole outline.

Welcome back everyone.

Now, as Jacob says, "I think Alex's concluding statement is more cohesive, because it specifically talks of violence, while Aisha's concluding sentence talks of honour instead, which is relevant to the scene, but not to this paragraph.

Amazing work everyone.

We're not onto the second learning cycle, where we're going to think about how honour is presented in Act 3, Scene 1.

So, let's begin by reading through Tybalt, Mercutio, and Romeo's exchange in Act 3, Scene 1.

Now, this exchange is in the additional materials, if you'd like to read through it yourself, or you can follow along with me.

So, press play now if you're following along with me, or pause the video if you're reading through it yourself.

So, let's read part of the exchange from Mercutio, Tybalt and Romeo in Act 3, Scene 1.

So, Tybalt says, "Well, peace be with you, sir.

Here comes my man." And Mercutio responds, "But I'll be hanged sir, if you wear your livery.

Marry, go before to field, he'll be your follower.

Your worship in that sense may call him 'man'." Now here, when Tybalt says "my man", he's just saying, "The man I'm waiting for has arrived." However, Mercutio deliberately misinterprets Tybalt's phrase, it's just that Tybalt means that Romeo will be his follower, because "my man" referred to a gentleman of lower social rank, who owes allegiance to the noblemen.

Mercutio jokes the only sense in which Romeo could be a follower of Tybalt, would be if Romeo followed Tybalt onto the duelling field, where they'd fight out man to man.

So, Tybalt says to Romeo, "Romeo, the love I bear thee can afford no better term than this, thou art a villain." So, here Tybalt's very much insulting Romeo's honour, a villain is someone morally reprehensible, so the opposite of honourable.

And Romeo responds, "Tybalt, the reason I have to love thee doth much excuse the appertaining rage to such a greeting.

Villain am I none.

Therefore farewell.

I see thou knowest me not." So, Romeo here's trying to diffuse the situation, and get Tybalt to withdraw.

Tybalt says, "Boy, this shall not excuse the injuries thou hast done me.

Therefore turn and draw." Now, we're going to zoom-in on Tybalt's use of "boy" during the learning cycle.

But essentially, Tybalt's rejecting Romeo's words and saying that he needs to fight him.

Romeo responds, "I do protest I never injured thee.

But love thee better than thou canst devise Till thou shalt know the reason of my love.

And so, good Capulet, which name I tender As dearly as mine own, be satisfied." Now, we know that Romeo has to love Tybalt now, because he's married to Juliet, so Tybalt essentially is family now, but obviously, no one else in the scene knows this.

Now, Mercutio's incredibly offended by Romeo's words, and says, "O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!" Now, we're going to zoom in on this slide specifically during the learning cycle, and think about what it suggests about honour and masculinity.

"Alla staccato carries it away." Now, Alla Staccato's a fencing move, so Mercutio's saying here that fencing move, so violence, is going to decide the matter.

"Tybalt, you ratcatcher, will you walk?" So, here Mercutio's challenging Tybalt to a duel.

"What wouldst thou have with me?" "Good kind of cats, nothing butone of your nine lives, that I mean to be bold withal, and as you shall use me hereafter, dry-beat the rest of the eight.

Will you pluck your sword out of his pilcher by the ears? Make haste, lest mine be by your ears ere it be out." So, here Mercutio suggests that Tybalt's sword is cowardly, it's hiding from a fight.

And Tybalt says, "I am for you." So, although Tybalt initially came to fight Romeo, because Mercutio certainly called him a coward, now he's gonna fight Mercutio, because he has to defend his honour against him.

Welcome back everyone.

Now, we're going to zoom in on some of the language, and think about what it might reveal about honour, violence, and masculinity.

Now, in Act 3, Scene 1, Tybalt suggests the only was his honour will be satisfied is if he duels Romeo.

So, what I'd like you to think about, is what does this suggest about honour and violence? Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone, some great ideas there.

As Andeep says, "I think it suggests how linked honour and violence were, Tybalt sees violence as the only way to satisfy his honour." So, now for a quick check for understanding.

Which of the following is true of Mercutio, Tybalt, and Romeo's exchange in Act 3, Scene 1? Is it 'A', "Romeo feels as if he must fight Tybalt in order to satisfy his honour." 'B', "Tybalt feels as if he must fight Romeo in order to satisfy his honour." Or 'C', "Mercutio initially starts the scene as aggressive, but ends by making jokes and adding comedy." So, pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone.

The correct answer, is that Tybalt feels as if he must fight Romeo, in order to satisfy his honour.

So, very well done if you got that right.

So, let's zoom in on Tybalt's use of "boy" to describe Romeo.

What I'd like you to think about is how might this be significant in terms of honour and masculinity? Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone, some great ideas there.

Now, as Sam says, "To call someone a 'boy' is to suggest that they are an immature man, so perhaps it suggests that questioning someone's masculinity and manhood was a threat to their honour." What I think is particularly interesting, is that Lord Capulet belittled Tybalt by calling him a boy in Act 1, Scene 5, so perhaps Tybalt's transferring this anger onto Romeo, and finding someone to assert his dominance over, 'cause he didn't have authority over his uncle.

So, now for a quick check for understanding, what I'd like you to do, is tell me whether the following is true or false.

So, is it true or false that Tybalt's use of "boy" creates a link between honour and masculinity? Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Now, correct answer is "true".

Now, I'd like you to tell me why it's true.

So, pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone.

You might've said, "By using 'boy' as an insult, it suggests to question someone's masculinity and manhood as a threat to their honour." So, very well done if you got those right.

So, now let's zoom in on Mercutio's line, "O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!" What I'd like to think about first is what does the connection between "calm" and "dishonourable" suggest about Mercutio's expectations of masculinity? Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone, some great ideas there.

Now, to be calm means to feel tranquil and peaceful.

For Mercutio to associate calmness with dishonour implies that to react calmly is shameful or disgraceful to a man, Romeo should act with violence and anger.

So, now let's think about Mercutio's use of "vile" and "submission" in the line, "O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!" Now, "vile" means somethings morally despicable, so deserving hatred or contempt, something physically repulsive.

And submission is the act of accepting or yielding to a superior force, or at the will or authority of another person.

So, what I'd like you to think about is, what does this connection between "vile" and "submission" suggest about honour, violence, and masculinity? Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone, some great ideas there.

Now, as Lucas says, "I think it's suggests that to yield to someone else's authority was something morally despicable, physically repulsive.

Men were supposed to be dominant.

So, now for a quick check for understanding, what I'd like you to do, is tell me whether the following statement is true or false.

So, is it true or false, that men were supposed to act calmly and rationally to challenges to their honour? Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Now, the correct answer is "false".

Now, I'd like you to tell me why it's false.

So, pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone, you might've said, "Mercutio suggests that to act calmly, and not want defend your honour was a sign of something morally despicable, and physically repulsive." So, very well done if you got those right.

Now, after Romeo's refusal, Mercutio challenges Tybalt to a duel himself by saying, "Tybalt you ratcatcher, will you walk?" So, what I'd like to think about is why do you think Mercutio does this? What does it suggest about honour in men's social circles? Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone, some great ideas there.

As Izzy says, "I think it suggests that men weren't just defined by their own honour, but also by the honour of those around them.

Mercutio challenges Tybalt, because Romeo won't, and if Romeo's seen as dishonourable, it reflects poorly on Mercutio and his honour." So, now for a quick check for understanding, which of the following is the most valid interpretation of Mercutio's wish to fight Tybalt? Is it 'A', "Mercutio wishes to defend Romeo's honour so challenges Tybalt." Or 'B', "Mercutio is itching for a fight, so challenges Tybalt." So, pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Now, correct answer is "A".

Now, I'd like you to tell me why it's "A".

So, pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone.

You might've said, "Mercutio links the ideas of honour and his challenge to Tybalt through the words, 'O calm, dishonourable, vile submission!'" So, very well done if you got those right.

Fantastic work everyone, we're now on the final task of the lesson.

So, what I'd like you to do, is take everything we've talked about in this learning cycle, and create a single paragraph outline to answer the question, "How does Shakespeare present ideas of honour and masculinity in Act 3, Scene 1 of Romeo & Juliet?" Remember, you need a topic sentence that explains the focus of the paragraph.

Supporting details are the analysis of evidence that supports the topic sentence.

And a concluding sentence that offers a summary of the paragraph with a clear focus on writer's intentions.

So, pause the video, and create your single paragraph outline now.

Welcome back everyone, some great work there.

Let's talk through what you might have said.

So, you might have had the topic sentence, "Throughout Act 3, Scene 1, Shakespeare creates links between honour, violence and masculinity." You then might have used the following quotations as supporting details.

So, the quotation "boy" implies that questioning someone's masculinity is a threat to their honour.

Mercutio's words "calm" and "dishonourable", just to act peacefully is to act shamefully.

Mercutio's words are "vile submissions" suggest to yield to someone else as morally despicable, physically repulsive, men were supposed to be dominant.

Finally, when Mercutio says, "Will you walk?" Mercutio's challenging Tybalt, it implies that men's honour is affected by the honour of those around them.

Then, we might end the concluding sentence, through Act 3, Scene 1, Shakespeare suggests that honour was something men were supposed to fight to protect.

The links between honour and masculinity, imply that honour was integral to men's identities.

You all did amazingly well today everyone, here's a summary of what we covered.

Arguably, Shakespeare opens Act 3, Scene 1 with the expectation of violence through the pathetic fallacy of "hot".

By connecting blood and violence, Shakespeare may be suggesting that violence is integral to men.

Through Act 3, Scene 1, Shakespeare might be implying that men saw violence as a way to satisfy their honour.

Mercutio's connection of submission and dishonour, may indicate that men were supposed to be violent and dominant.

We could see Mercutio's challenge as implying that men's honour was also affected by those in their social circle.

I really hope you enjoyed the lesson, everyone.

I hope to see you for another lesson soon, goodbye.