Presentation

I had my presentation on Wednesday the 22nd of March. I believe that it went very well: people were engaged in my discussion, I gave long, detailed answers during the Questions & Answers session, and my voice projected very fell. I didn't feel that I had missed anything vital, and I didn't feel that I was being lacklustre in any sense.

My presentation is below, but does not contain the contents of my extraneous notes for the project.

Assessing the Usefulness of my Sources

Having realised that my scattered commentaries on different texts and resources were not as organised as I had hoped, I compiled a document with the reference to every source I used for my essay and my broader research in general (including those that did not end up aiding me) and have given a bullet point or so commentary on their usefulness.

Compilation of Comments Regarding Research

Ardetti, M. (2016). Theatre Reviews: The Entertainer and The Two Noble Kinsmen. The Express.

• ·       The article provides an insight into theatre opinions of the most recent adaptation of The Two Noble Kinsmen by the Royal Shakespeare company.
• ·       However, it dedicates a significant amount of time to discussing Kenneth Branagh’s The Entertainer, which is not relevant to my investigation.
• ·      Highlights the obscurity of the play, referring to it as “an occasion solely for Shakespearean completists.”

Baker, H. (1907). The Authorship of Pericles, v, 1, 1-101. Modern Language Notes, 22(7), pp.222-223.

• ·      Offers an interesting perspective on the authorship of Pericles.
• ·       I was only able to access two pages of the essay due to financial restraints, but the information I was able to access was helpful.

Biscoglio, F. (2001). Shakespeare Newsletter. Literature Resource Centre.

• ·      Discusses the ‘Invocation of the Gods in King Lear’ which gave me an insight into the earlier tragedies and their usage of invocation of powerful beings, which becomes a recurring theme in the late plays.
• ·       However, it only discusses King Lear which is ultimately a periphery for my essay.

Billington, M. (2016). The Two Noble Kinsmen review - rarely staged bromance returns to RSC. The Guardian.

• ·      The article goes into great detail describing the latest Two Noble Kinsman staging by the Royal Shakespeare Company’s Blanche McIntyre.
• ·       It also discusses the authorship split briefly (that Shakespeare wrote the first and fifth acts) but focuses predominately on the actors’ portrayals – as it should, being a theatre review.
• ·      “McIntyre makes a case for the play, but her production would be far stronger if it paid due attention to Shakespeare’s uniquely unmistakable voice.”

Bryant, F. (1902). Did Boccaccio Suggest the Character of Chaucer's Knight?. Modern Language Notes, 17(8), p.235.

• ·       Fascinating essay relating Boccaccio’s Teseide to Chaucer’s The Knight’s Tale, which is useful for understanding the intertextual history of The Two Noble Kinsmen.
• ·       However, the play isn’t referenced once so sits on the periphery of my essay.

Butler, P. (1910). Recent Shakespeare Criticism. The Sewanee Review, 18(4), pp.490-502.

• ·       Offers an interesting perspective on Shakespearean criticism that is contemporary to many of the essays I have to refer to.
• ·       Once again, it’s a periphery essay that does not directly contribute to my essay.

Chaucer, G. (2014). The Canterbury Tales: Complete Modern English Translation. 1st ed. Exeter: The Book Shed.

• ·       Provided an easy-to-read, modern translation of The Knight’s Tale which gave me a greater understanding of The Two Noble Kinsmen.
• ·       However, this was only the modern translation, so it could be argued that there is a slight disconnect between the two variations of the text.

Charney, M. (1993). All of Shakespeare. 1st ed. New York: Columbia University Press.

• ·      I was only able to access a few short excerpts from the text due to the limitations in finance, and it did not have an extended focus on The Two Noble Kinsmen. However, the information that was provided was somewhat helpful.

Coleridge, S. (1909). Coleridge's Essays & Lectures on Shakespeare. 1st ed. London: J.M. Dent & Co.

• ·      Coleridge’s essay relating to The Two Noble Kinsmen is incredibly helpful for what I could read of it; finance was again a limiting factor.
• ·      It broadened my understanding of the text to a greater degree.

Durand, W. (1905). Palaemon and Arcyte, Progne, Marcus Geminus, and the Theatre in Which They Were Acted, as Described by John Bereblock (1566). PMLA, 20(3), p.502.

• ·      An interesting article which has given me a wider understanding of the literary history of The Two Noble Kinsmen, as it is entirely possible that Shakespeare and Fletcher were familiar with Palaemon and Arcyte.
• ·      However, it provides information that sits on the periphery; this would only be tangentially related to the ‘Authorship’ section.

Emerson, O. (1919). Chaucer's "Opie of Thebes Fyn". Modern Philology, 17(5), pp.103-291.

• ·      An intriguing essay which discusses Chaucer’s medicinal knowledge; it also provides some information how Palamon escapes in both The Knight’s Tale and Teseide.
• ·       However, it provides tangential information that can only be discussed in the ‘Narrative’ section.

Emerson, O., Brink, B. and Robinson, C. (1893). REVIEW: History of English Literature, Vol. II, Part I by Bernhard Ten Brink and Wm. Clark Robinson. The School Review, 1(3), pp.311-313.

• ·       Not as helpful as I had hoped; the information was mostly tangential.

Emerson, O. (1911). The Suitors in the Parlement of Foules Again. Modern Language Notes, 26(4), pp.109-111.

• ·      Not as helpful as I had hoped, as it is barely related to my question.

Erne, L. and Straznicky, M. (2014). REVIEW: Shakespeare’s Stationers: Studies in Cultural Bibliography by Straznicky. Modern Philology, 112(2), pp.E175-E178.

• ·       An interesting review on a text I was unable to access directly, and mentions that The Two Noble Kinsmen “essentially drove his bookshop into the ground” in its publication by John Waterson.
• ·      It is scarcely relevant, however, as it is not immediately related to the text itself, but gives me a broader understanding of the play’s iterations and history.

Farnham, W. (1916). Colloquial Contractions in Beaumont, Fletcher, Massinger, and Shakespeare as a Test of Authorship. PMLA, 31(2), pp.326-358.

• ·      An incredibly useful text which discusses the authorship division of various texts, including The Two Noble Kinsmen and Henry VIII.
• ·       It’s another puzzle-piece to the timeline of critical thought regarding collaboration and authorship.

Felperin, H. (1972). Shakespearean Romance. 1st ed. Princeton University Press.

• ·      Very helpful for understanding the period of plays which I am investigating.
• ·      However, due to financial restrictions I was only able to access snippets of the piece, but these still gave me a greater insight into the plays.

Fletcher, J., Shakespeare, W. and Waith, E. (1989). The Two Noble Kinsmen. Reissue. Oxford [England]: Clarendon Press. 2008.

• ·      As my primary text, the Oxford edition of The Two Noble Kinsmen provides the modern-text translation of the play which I have referred to throughout the entire process of writing my essay.
• ·      Waith’s Introduction was my first piece of research and laid the foundations of to my wider understanding of the text. Furthermore, Waith’s footnotes pointed me towards several other essays that are relatively modern, even if I couldn’t access them in full.
• 
  

Fletcher, J., Shakespeare, W. and Potter, L. (1997). The Two Noble Kinsmen. 1st ed. Surrey: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, pp.10,15,55.

• ·      Due to financial restraints, I wasn’t able to access the text fully; however, the snippets of Potter’s commentary on the text I was able to access were incredibly helpful.

Folger Shakespeare Library. (n.d.). Cymbeline. [online] Available at: http://www.folger.edu/cymbeline [Accessed 11 Jan. 2017].  

Folger Shakespeare Library. (n.d.). Pericles. [online] Available at: http://www.folger.edu/pericles [Accessed 11 Jan. 2017].

Folger Shakespeare Library. (n.d). The Two Noble Kinsmen. [online] Available at: http://www.folger.edu/two-noble-kinsmen [Accessed 11 Jan. 2017].

Folger Shakespeare Library. (n.d.). The Tempest. [online] Available at: http://www.folger.edu/tempest [Accessed 11 Jan. 2017].

Folger Shakespeare Library. (n.d.). The Winter's Tale. [online] Available at: http://www.folger.edu/winters-tale [Accessed 11 Jan. 2017].

Folger Shakespeare Library. (n.d.). Henry VIII. [online] Available at: http://www.folger.edu/henry-viii [Accessed 23 Jan. 2017].

• ·      The Folger Shakespeare Library provided me with a concise summary of my key texts and the quirks associated with the play, as well as offering digital copies of excerpts from the original texts, which was incredibly helpful.

Frey, C. (1989). Grinning at the Moon: Some Sadness in The Two Noble Kinsmen. In: C. Frey, ed., Shakespeare, Fletcher, and The Two Noble Kinsmen, 1st ed. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.

• ·      I was only able to access a small measure of the text due to financial restraints, but the discussion that I was able to read was eminently helpful to my essay as a whole.

Gray, D. (1913). The Evolution of Shakespeare’s Heroine. The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 12(1), pp.122-137.

• ·      An incredibly helpful essay which described the characteristics of the differing Shakespearean heroines through the comedies, tragedies, and late plays, and how they have evolved in each era.
• ·      It doesn’t actually address The Two Noble Kinsmen, but many of the features that are examined for the romantic heroines apply, especially to Emilia with her “lily-white” hands.

Hale, E. (1903). The Influence of Theatrical Conditions on Shakespeare. Modern Philology, 1(1), pp.171-192.

• ·      An interesting essay which has given me a broader sense of Shakespearean theatre and how these might have influenced staging of The Two Noble Kinsmen.
• ·      However, this essay is not directly related to the play itself, and is instead a piece of periphery information.

Hanford, J. (1912). Suicide in the Plays of Shake-Speare. PMLA, 27(3), pp.380-397.

• ·      It is unfortunately almost entirely unrelated to my essay, but is interesting nevertheless.

Hart, W. (1907). The Lady in the Garden. Modern Language Notes, 22(8), pp.241-242.

• ·      It offers a comparison between a stanza in Boccaccio’s Teseide and a passage in Henri d’Andeli’s Lai d’Aristotle.
• ·      It is scarcely relevant to my essay, which is further tempered by the fact that the article doesn’t offer translations for the verses, instead providing a brief summary at the bottom.

Hempl, G. (1908). Palamon and Arcite. Modern Language Notes, 23(4), pp.127-128.

• ·      An unfortunately irrelevant article that deals solely with The Knight’s Tale.

Hendrik, D. (1989). Be Rough With Me: The Collaborative Arenas of The Two Noble Kinsmen. In: C. Frey, ed., Shakespeare, Fletcher, and The Two Noble Kinsmen, 1st ed. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.

• ·      An interesting essay which I was only able to attain excerpts of, but still helpful nevertheless.

Kirwan, P. (2016). Collaborations and (mis)attributions. [online] Shakespeare Documented. Available at: http://www.shakespearedocumented.org/exhibition/playwright-actor-shareholder/collaborations-and-misattributions [Accessed 1 Dec. 2016].

• ·      An incredibly helpful article which discussed both the Shakespeare Apocrypha and the collaborations that Shakespeare undertook during his lifetime, and the dubious attributions that occurred after his death.
• ·      However, The Two Noble Kinsmen is not as prominent as could be hoped, but it is still a useful article that discusses relevant information.

Lamb, C., MacDonald, W., Lamb, M., Brock, C., Green, W., Robinson, C. and Railton, H. (1903). The Works of Charles Lamb. 1st ed. London: J.M. Dent & Sons, p.341.

• ·      Lamb’s essay on The Two Noble Kinsmen has continued to help develop my knowledge of the conflicts regarding the authorship.

Leif, Madelon and Nicholas F. Radel. "Linguistic Subversion And The Artifice Of Rhetoric In The Two Noble Kinsmen". Shakespeare Quarterly 38.4 (1987): 411. Print.

• ·      While I’ve only been able to access very limited aspects of the essay due to financial restraints, what little I was able to read was very helpful.

Libby, W. (1908). Two Fictitious Ethical Types. International Journal of Ethics, 18(4), pp.466-475.

• ·      Despite quite a copious amount of jargon and critical theory I’m not eminently familiar with, it was still an interesting essay which offers a comparison between the eponymous Hamlet and The Two Noble Kinsmen’s Theseus, although I’m not entirely sure how relevant it is.

Littledale, H., Shakespeare, W. and Fletcher, J. (1876). The Two Noble Kinsmen. 1st ed. London: Trübner.

• ·      A useful version of the text, whose ‘Introduction’ has a timeline of different critical thoughts regarding the text, and their different variations. It was immensely helpful, even when I wasn’t able to access all of the texts.

Neely, C. (2004). Distracted Subjects: Madness and Gender in Shakespeare and Early Modern Culture. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. 84-88

• ·      The chapter I read was incredibly helpful and gave me a greater understanding how mental illness was treated.
• ·      It offered specific comparisons to The Two Noble Kinsmen’s Jailer’s Daughter and real-life case studies; such as her treatment of “love melancholy” were the “delusion cure” and “coital cure”, which were typically reserved for men.
• ·      However, I was limited by finance, and only able to access a single chapter.

Nicolson, M. (1922). The Authorship of Henry the Eighth. PMLA, 37(3), pp.484-502.

• ·      An incredibly helpful essay which broadened my understanding of the composition of Henry VIII as well as the conditions that created it. Nicholson’s theory on the collaboration is particularly interesting.

Pressley, M. (1998). "What's Love Got to do with It?": Shakespeare and the Precarious Friendship Ideal in 'The Two Noble Kinsmen' and 'Julius Caesar'. [online] Writing.jmpressley.net. Available at: http://writing.jmpressley.net/papers/2NK.html [Accessed 26 Nov. 2016].

• ·      A useful essay which discussed The Two Noble Kinsmen in a context beyond its dubious authorship.
• ·      The discussion of friendship is very pertinent to my essay, as it plays a major role in the plot and is valid for comparison with the other late plays.

Quiller-Couch, A. (1916). Shakespeare's Later Workmanship: 'Pericles' and 'King Henry VIII'. The North American Review, 203(725), pp.601-612.

Quiller-Couch, A. (1916). Shakespeare’s Later Workmanship “The Winter’s Tale”. The North American Review, 23(726), pp.749-760.

• ·      A helpful pair of articles which has given me a broader understanding of the romances.
• ·      The discussion of Pericles and Henry VIII asserts that Shakespeare wasn’t the sole author, which relates prominently to my discussion regarding The Two Noble Kinsmen.

Rollins, H. (1917). The Troilus-Cressida Story from Chaucer to Shakespeare. PMLA, 32(3), pp.383-429.

• ·      While unfortunately irrelevant to the main body of my essay, Rollins’ discussion of the intertextual evolution of the text is pertinent to how The Two Noble Kinsmen was adapted from Chaucer by Shakespeare.

Root, R. (1902). Some Notes on Shakespeare. The Journal of Germanic Philology, 4(4), pp.452-459.

• ·      An interesting essay which provides some notes on unravelling some of the obscure phrasings in Shakespearean plays.
• ·      However, it doesn’t offer anything directly relevant to my essay.

Sawyer, R. (2005). The New Shakespeare Society, 1873-94. [online] Borrowers.uga.edu. Available at: http://www.borrowers.uga.edu/781463/show [Accessed 18 Jan. 2017].

• ·      A useful article discussing the rise and fall of the American New Shakespeare Society, whose section on Fleay was incredibly helpful for my discussion in the ‘Authorship’ section of my essay.

Schoenbaum, S. (1970). Shakespeare's Lives. 1st ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

• ·      While I was only able to access snippets of the book due to financial restrictions, it gave me broader understanding of my topic.

Shakespeare Documented. (2016). Liber D, page 290. [online] Available at: http://www.shakespearedocumented.org/file/liber-d-page-290 [Accessed 11 Dec. 2016].

• ·      A digital copy of the Stationers’ Register entry for The Two Noble Kinsmen, which was useful for understanding the wider context of the play.

Shakespeare, W. and Brooke, T. (1908). The Shakespeare Apocrypha. 1st ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

• ·      For what excerpts I could read, it was incredibly helpful and gave me a greater understanding of the Apocrypha. However, I would like to read more of it in the future.

Shakespeare, W. and Knight, C. (1867). The Pictorial Edition of the Works of Shakespeare: Doubtful Plays. 2nd ed. London: George Routledge & Sons, pp.169-181.

• ·      An incredibly helpful collection of plays which includes The Two Noble Kinsmen. Knight’s introduction offers a contemporary opposition to the dual authorship, which is relevant to my essay.

Shakespeare, W. and Margeson, J. (1990). King Henry VIII. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.1-14.

• ·      Margeson’s introduction to the play is incredibly helpful and is an important aid to the ‘Authorship’ section of my essay.

Shakespeare, William, Tony Tanner, and Sylvan Barnet. (1995) Comedies, Volume 1. 1st ed. London: Knopf, Everyman Library.

• ·      The Comedies have not been eminently relevant to my essay, but the collection includes The Two Gentlemen of Verona, which is apt to compare with The Two Noble Kinsmen.

Shakespeare, W., Tanner, T. and Barnet, S. (1996). Romances. 1st ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Everyman Library.

• ·      Romances was fundamental to my essay, and contained four of the six plays I was comparing closely.
• ·      Furthermore, Tanner’s introduction was vitally useful for the broader context that the plays existed in.

Shakespeare, W., Tanner, T. and Fraser, R. (1992). Tragedies, Volume 1. 1st ed. New York: Knopf, Everyman Library.

• ·      While I was not directly comparing the tragedies to The Two Noble Kinsmen, the plays still offered a broader insight into the Shakespeare canon as a whole.

Shannon, E. (1912). The Source of Chaucer's Anelida and Arcite. PMLA, 27(4), pp.461-685.

• ·      While not explicitly relevant to The Two Noble Kinsmen, Shannon’s essay provides me a broader understanding of the intertextual history of the play.

Shannon, L. (1997). Emilia's Argument: Friendship, Gender and "Human Title" in The 'Two Noble Kinsmen'. ELH, 64(3), pp.657-682.

• ·      An incredibly useful essay which steered a considerable amount of my contextual understanding of the plays.

Shepard, H. (1889). Shakespeare and 'The Two Noble Kinsmen'. Modern Language Notes, 4(7), pp.213-214.

• ·      An unfortunately brief but incredibly insightful perspective on what the opposing critics to the theory of The Two Noble Kinsmen’s dual authorship.

Spalding, W., Fletcher, J. and Shakespeare, W. (1833). A Letter on Shakespeare's Authorship of the Two Noble Kinsmen; a Drama Commonly Ascribed to John Fletcher. 1st ed. Edinburgh.

• ·      As another fundamental piece of information regarding the ‘Authorship’ section of my essay, Spalding’s intricate ‘Letter’ has been invaluable to read and to consider in the wider critical context.

Stoll, E. (1910). Anachronism in Shakespeare Criticism. Modern Philology, 7(4), pp.557-575.

• ·      An unfortunately useless essay which criticises criticism rather than discussing any of the plays themselves, which makes it redundant.

Tilley, M. (1911). The 'White Hand' of Shakespeare's Heroines. The Sewanee Review, 19(2), pp.207-212.

• ·      An intriguing essay which compares the ascriptions of Elizabethan and Jacobean beauty standards to Shakespeare’s heroines, and notes a distinct level of self-parody when he reached the late plays. The qualities discussed are ones I’ve found attributed to Emilia.

Tatlock, J. (1916). The Chief Problem in Shakespeare. The Sewanee Review, 24(2), pp.129-147.

• ·       Tatlock’s article helps broaden my contextual understanding of Shakespearean plays, and discusses the criticisms associated with Trolius and Cressida, another play which was adapted from Chaucer’s poem.

Tatlock, J. (1908). Palamon and Arcite. Modern Language Notes, 23(4), p.128.

• ·       An unfortunately irrelevant article that deals solely with The Knight’s Tale.

Vanderlyn, B. (1903). Shakespeare's Gentle Heroine. Fine Arts Journal, 14(3), pp.91-94.

• ·      The piece centres itself entirely on Hamlet’s Ophelia, which is not particularly helpful as it is not one of the plays which I am able to compare.

Vickers, J. (2002). Shakespeare, Co-Author. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.291-293.

• ·      I was only able to access snippets of the essay due to financial restraints, but those I did obtain were enlightening and incredibly useful for the ‘Authorship’ section of my essay.

Victoria University of Wellington, (2015). Two Noble Kinsmen (2014 VUW). [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOKL_iX_wTQ [Accessed 12 Jul. 2016].

• ·      As the only edition of the play I have currently watched, the Victoria University of Wellington’s edition is charming and helpful, and was one of the key proponents (other than reading the text itself) that inspired me to pick a topic title based around The Two Noble Kinsmen.

Weller, Barry. "The Two Noble Kinsmen, The Friendship Tradition, And The Flight From Eros". Shakespeare, Fletcher, And The Two Noble Kinsmen. Charles H. Frey. 1st ed. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1989. 32-93. Print.

• ·      While I was only able to obtain a small measure of the essay due to financial restraints, it was an incredibly helpful essay which broadened my understanding of the period which the play was conceived in, and the history which permeates that.