Reading Texts (4)

The ‘White Hand’ of Shakespeare’s Heroines

Morris P. Tilley

The Sewanee Review, Vol. 19, No.2, (April, 1911) 

pp.207-212

Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press

I read this with the hope that it would provide an overall understanding (as I’m still clinging to the idea of exploring exactly what a ‘conventional’ Shakespeare play is) into the nature of his heroines and it does so, but not with as great a depth as I’ve hoped. I have noticed the praise towards “white hands” being discussed in the essay being applied to TTNK’s Emilia, so I suppose that does give the play some conventionality. 

Review: Marta Straznicky Shakespeare’s Stationers: Studies in Cultural Bibliography

Reviewed Work: Shakespeare’s Stationers: Studies in Cultural Bibliography by Straznicky

Review by: Lukas Erne

Modern Philology, Vol. 112, No.2 (November 2014) pp.E175-E178

Published by: The University of Chicago Press

An interesting review on a text I would be interested in reading, particularly regarding the brief passage relating to TTNK, which “essentially drove his bookshop into the ground” on its only publication by John Waterson. This builds on the mosaic (including reading prior to this blog post) of TTNK having an almost cursed property about it, and seeming to inspire derision from all fronts. Spalding’s comments of the play being “no more than a sketch, when would be see to great disadvantage beside finished drawings of the same master” is brought to mind.

Shakespeare’s Gentle Heroine

Bertha Vanderlyn

Dine Arts Journal, Vol. 14, No.3 (March, 1903)

pp.91-94

Published by: 

December 17^th

While it is a very moving opinion piece, it centres in its entirety on Ophelia, and its references to plays beyond Hamlet are scant and unhelpful. While it would certainly be worth a speed-read in aid of my Literature A-Level, it is unhelpful for the EPQ.

Colloquial Contractions in Beaumont, Fletcher, Massinger, and Shakespeare as a Test of Authorship

Willard Edward Farnham

PMLA VOl.31, No.2 (1916) 

pp.362-358

Published by: Modern Language Association

This was incredibly helpful as it gives me a vivid example of the investigations towards authorships. It discusses the authorship of The Two Noble Kinsmen (as well as Henry VIII) at great length with a well-founded evidence. Farnham’s essay adds to the slowly-growing timeline (with Spalding’s bringing together of the earlier thoughts in 1834) of critical thought regarding TTNK’s authorship.

Palamon and Arcite

John S. P. Tatlock

Modern Language Notes, Vol.23 No-4 (April 1908)

p.128

Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press

This wasn’t as helpful as I’d hoped, as it’s only a page long so can’t go into a great measure of depth. Furthermore, the text is merely an exchange between three critics quibbling Chaucer’s Palamon and Arcite, rather than Shakespeare’s and Fletcher’s.

Palamon and Arcite

George Hempl

Modern Language Notes, Vol. 23, No.4 (April 1908)

pp.127-128

Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press

Much like the entry before it, it wasn’t as helpful as it could have been, being that it is the same piece ascribed to a different critic who contributes. Disappointing.

The Lady in the Garden

Walter Morris Hart

Modern Language Notes, Vol. 22, No.8 (December 1907)

pp.241-242

Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press

Unfortunately, I do not read Italian or French and do not have any aid to translate the verse Hart sets out. Again, it deals with Chaucer rather than Fletcher and Shakespeare. While these would have provided to be inspirations to the dramatists, the do not immediately help my essay (which I’m beginning to become quite concerned about as to how to construct my arguments).