Annotated Bibliography: Death and Reconciliation in Shakespearean Tragedy

"Good Night, Sweet Prince": Death and Reconciliation in Shakespearean Tragedy

Although each of the deaths of tragic heroes contribute to the natural bleakness and pessimism of tragedy, they also add an element of hope to the end of the play because they provide an opportunity for reconciliation and redemption for the tragic hero as well as other characters within the play.

Foreman, Walter C., Jr. The Music of the Close: The Final Scenes of Shakespeare's Tragedies. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1978. Print.

Foreman goes through the final scenes of Shakespearean tragedies to explore the different forms of character deaths and how for most of them, death is both desirable and an art form that they can use to effect society even after they die. He focuses specifically on Hamlet, Othello, Antony and Cleopatra, and King Lear. I'll use this in contrasting the differences between the three plays that I am using and also while talking about characters who use death to achieve their aims.

Hutton, Virgil. "Hamlet's Fear of Death." The University Review 37.1 (1970): 11-19. Rpt. in Twentieth-Century Literary Criticism. Ed. Jennifer Gariepy. Vol. 74. Detroit: Gale, 1998. Literature Criticism Online. Web. 30 Nov. 2015. <http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CFIVCVB428478382&v=2.1&u=byuprovo&it=r&p=LCO&sw=w>

Hutton discusses Hamlet's soliloquies and shows how his fear of death changes throughout the play from a very Christian acceptance of death at the beginning of the play, to a more logical fear of death and what follows, and finally to a more mature acceptance of death and its consequences by the end of the play. I will use this to show how Hamlet is able to reconcile and prepare himself for death.

Reid, B. L. "The Last Act and the Action of Hamlet." The Yale Review 54.1 (1964): 59-80. Rpt. in Shakespearean Criticism. Ed. Laurie Lanzen Harris. Vol. 1. Detroit: Gale, 1984. Literature 
Criticism Online. Web. 30 Nov. 2015. <http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CGQNKRS610713360&v=2.1&u=byuprovo&it=r&p=LCO&sw=w>

Reid goes through Act V of Hamlet and shows how Hamlet comes to be a hero to his society who sacrifices himself in order to rescue his nation from its diseased state. I'll use this in talking about how Hamlet's death benefits other characters within the play and allows them to have hope.

Ribner, Irving. "Othello and the Pattern of Shakespearean Tragedy." TSE: Tulane Studies in English 5 (1955): 69-82. Rpt. in Shakespearean Criticism. Ed. Mark W. Scott. Vol. 4. Detroit: Gale, 1987. Literature Criticism Online. Web. 30 Nov. 2015. <http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CEQXLGB483071877&v=2.1&u=byuprovo&it=r&p=LCO&sw=w>

Ribner discusses how Othello is related to medieval plays by explaining how Othello is essentially a good man who sins, but then repents and is redeemed through his suicide. I'll use this in explaining Othello's reasons for killing himself and how his suicide can be seen as hopeful and redemptive.

Stirling, Brents. "Reputation, Reputation, Reputation!" Unity in Shakespearian Tragedy: The Interplay of Theme and Character, 1956. Rpt. in Shakespearean Criticism. Ed. Mark W. Scott. Vol. 4. Detroit: Gale, 1987. Literature Criticism Online. Web. 30 Nov. 2015. <http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CKJKDVO171429994&v=2.1&u=byuprovo&it=r&p=LCO&sw=w>

Stirling discusses the theme of reputation in Othello and how Othello goes from having a normal view of honor and reputation to having an obsession with it and then at the end of the play, returns to having a normal view. I will use this in talking about how Othello commits suicide partially to maintain his honor and reputation.

West, Robert H. "The Christianness of Othello & King Lear." Shakespeare & the Outer Mystery. Robert H. West. University of Kentucky Press, 1968. 127-166. Rpt. in Shakespearean Criticism. Ed. Laurie Lanzen Harris and Mark W. Scott. Vol. 2. Detroit: Gale, 1985. Literature Criticism Online. Web. 30 Nov. 2015. <http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CBDEKZV867833121&v=2.1&u=byuprovo&it=r&p=LCO&sw=w&authCount=1>

West argues against critics who point out the pessimism in King Lear by pointing out themes of procreation, morality, love, and hope throughout the play and specifically in the ending. I'll use it in talking about the death of King Lear and how it is hopeful despite the fact that it is unexpected and a reaction to the death of Cordelia.

The Five Deadly Claims

1.      Policy: The deaths of tragic heroes in Shakespearean tragedy should not be overlooked because rather than simply ending a character’s life they provide a single redemptive moment in which the true nature of the hero is revealed.

2.      Definition: Death in Shakespearean tragedy is not an ending but rather a destination that the tragic hero must arrive at in order to realize his or her true potential as a human being. 

3.      Comparison: Although Shakespearean comedies end much more happily than tragedies, tragedies are ultimately more satisfying because the deaths of the tragic heroes give the audience a chance to see both the hero and the world itself as they really are, with any pretense stripped away.

4.      Evaluation: Despite the many redeeming qualities of Shakespearean tragedies, they succeed as stories because the death of the tragic hero provides a fitting climax to all the action and tensions within the play.

5.      Causal: The deaths of tragic heroes in Shakespearean tragedy provide pivotal moments in each play that combine all the various themes of the play into one central meaning. Without those pivotal moments, key themes of the play would be more easily lost on the audience.

A Very Tragic Annotated Bibliography

My topic is going to be focused on the deaths in Shakespeare's tragedies, so I looked mostly for sources talking about different elements of Shakespearean tragedy so I could have a good understanding of the genre and how the character deaths fit into it.

1. Boyce, Charles. Shakespeare A to Z: The Essential Reference to His Plays, His Poems, His Life and Times, and More. Ed. David White. New York: Roundtable Press, 1990. Print.

This book has information about characters from all the plays, many people involved with Shakespeare and Shakespearean performances, and the plays themselves, including a synopsis, commentary, sources for the play, and theatrical history. I found it at the BYU library (sorry, I'm the guilty one who checked it out.) Since I'm going to be using multiple plays for my paper, this will be helpful for getting general information for plays that I haven't studied in depth.

2. Bradley, A.C. Shakespearean Tragedy: Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth. London: Penguin Books, 1991. Print.

This book has a series of lectures about the substance and construction of Shakespearean tragedies as well as lectures specifically focusing on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth. I haven't looked at the play-specific lectures yet, but the general ones have helpful insights about different elements of tragedy and how they are used in individual plays. I also found this one at the BYU library while just looking around in the Shakespeare section.

3. Hammersmith, James P. "Shakespeare and the Tragic Virtue." Southern Humanities Review 24.3 (1990): 245-54. Web. 4 Nov. 2015.

This article, which I found online using a site.edu Google search, is actually a criticism of Bradley's book. It talks about the tragic flaw theory, the idea that all of the tragic heroes of Shakespeare's tragedies fall because of a certain tragic flaw, and says that the idea of a tragic flaw is itself flawed because all of the supposed flaws would be virtues in a different circumstance. I think this article is useful because it gives a more unique view of tragedy and also because I might be talking about tragic flaws in connection with character deaths.

4. Kaiser, Gerhard W. The Substance of Greek and Shakespearean Tragedy. Ed. James Hogg. Salzburg: Universität Salzburg, 1977. Print.

This book explains the basic elements of both Greek and Shakespearean Tragedy and the similarities and differences between the two. This was very helpful for me because a question that I had was whether the character deaths in Shakespeare's tragedy were hearkening back to classical tradition (it turns out they're not) and it also explained the basics of tragedy in a very understandable way. I also found this one at the library.

5. Johnston, Ian. "Dramatic Structure: Comedy and Tragedy." Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Nov. 2015.

This is a lecture about differences in structure between comedies and tragedies. The main claim that it makes is that comic heroes succeed because they are willing to rely on a community, while tragic heroes fail/die because they insist on relying only on their own ideas and solving problems alone. It was a really interesting way to look at it, and helpful to me because of the focus on why tragedies end tragically. I think it could be helpful for people looking at comedies or the way characters interact as well. I also found this from a site.edu Google search.

Story of my paper

The story of my paper all began on a boring, run of the mill, Saturday night. My wife and I were just hanging out and decided to watch a movie at home. This naturally lead us into the Netflix trap. After spending a sizable amount of time just trying to choose a movie we both could agree on we finally settled on a little known Shakespeare adaptation starring Ralph Fiennes and Gerard Butler. After watching this adaptation of Coriolanus I became really intrigued.  The movie was so great I couldn't figure out why this particular Shakespeare play didn't receive as much attention as the others.  Because of this, and my own unfamiliarity with the play, I decided it would be a fun and interesting play to research.

After deciding on my play I really didn't have any idea what particular aspect I wanted to research. Initially, I thought looking into and breaking down the theme of 'exile' but that idea fizzled out pretty fast. Struggling with research ideas actually turned out to be a really helpful process because it caused me to really read between the lines of the primary text. Coriolanus was always on my mind. I was constantly trying to correlate the play to whatever it was I was occupying myself with. Eventually this payed off one night as I was watching T.V. and John Hughes' classic "The Breakfast Club" came on. All of the sudden the lessons I had taken from Coriolanus were being reflected back at me through the character of Andrew. My Breakfast club post goes into greater detail about these ideas. I began to get great feed back from the class about these parallels and I began to explore Coriolanus as the basis of T.V. tropes. I didn't end up following through with these ideas very long as I became more interested in the Nature vs. Nurture aspects of the play.

As I looked at what was causing me to draw comparisons of Coriolanus and other popular T.V. and movie character I found that it was similar nurturing factors in their characters that drew me to them.  As I did more research of the primary text as well as outside research I found that there was a lot of material to support my claim that the tragedy of Coriolanus was the fault of the peoples cultivation of his pride. However, the more I researched the more I felt that my idea was lacking something. Getting some great feedback from Lauren R. and Britton and a meeting from Professor Burton helped me to refine my ideas one last time.  Through their outside perspective I was able to direct my paper more towards the innovations that Shakespeare was doing with the genre of tragedy. Bringing in my research on Nature vs. Nurture as well as applying Aristotle's definition of tragedy. I argued that Shakespeare was transcending the classic ideals of tragedy being defined within the individual by applying the tragedy to society as a whole.

I really appreciated the way this class was set up and how it facilitated the refinement of my paper. Though I didn't have any great enlightening experiences with social media I did have some great enlightening moments with many of my fellow class mates and I feel that made all the difference with the way my paper turned out.

Paper Submitted

So I submitted my paper to the Scholars Archive and the Wooden O Symposium in Cedar City Utah. I have to say that, like Nyssa, I found myself pretty nervous about the whole ordeal. However, afterward I felt really good about it. Whether they accept my proposal or not, it is a really fun feeling to have putting your work, and yourself, out there.

Here is my abstract:
This essay attempts to show how William Shakespeare reformed the age old constructs of the genre of tragedy by refocusing the emphasis of the tragedy away from the individual and placing it on society as a whole. Using Aristotle’s timeless definition of the genre as a foundation this essay explores his specific designation that states tragedy occurs within the individual. An in-depth analysis of  The Tragedy of Coriolanus shows that Shakespeare was moving away from that construct by portraying tragic flaws in virtually every part of Roman society. Paying particular attention to Coriolanus’ pride, this essay explores where exactly this fatal flaw was developed. Bringing in ideas grounded in the ‘nature vs. nurture’ conflict. A rigorous analysis of the primary text affirms that the title character’s downfall was not a trait wholly unique to his person but that it was cultivated in him through an overzealous mother, indulgent patricians, and a dependant proletariat. The nurturing aspect of these dominating societal forces naturally prescribe the plays fatal flaw not just to Coriolanus but to Roman society at large. Additional support for Shakespeare’s transcendence of the genre of tragedy is garnered from his negotiation of Plutarch’s Lives of the Nobel Greeks and Romans.  As this work was the basis for his Roman tragedies this essay argues that, as the bard’s Roman tragedies were among his last works, he was more than willing to toy with the classic constructs of the genre by placing his own distinct mark on the already existing stories.

Steve Kesler: "Transcending Tragedy: Shifting Tragedy From the Individual to Society at Large in Shakespeare's Coriolanus"

"Transcending  Tragedy:  Shifting Tragedy From the Individual to Society at Large In Shakespeare’s Coriolanus"

One of the many parameter that Aristotle placed on tragedy when he defined the genre was that it exists only in the individual. The plethora of tragedies that have been written since have largely followed this rule until William Shakespeare.  While many of his tragedies do follow the rules as defined by Aristotle his Roman tragedies, written later in his illustrious career, tend to push the envelope of the genre. Specifically looking at Coriolanus I argue that Shakespeare transcended the classic idea of tragedy that Aristotle established by taking away the emphasis on the individual and placing it on society as a whole.

Annotated Bibliography

Using some of the outlets that Professor Burton outlined I had a lot of luck finding some really good source material.

1. Langis, Unhae. Coriolanus: "Inordinate Passions and Powers in Personal and Political Governance"
              Comparative Drama, V. 44.1 (2010). p 27.
--> William Shakespeare's play Coriolanus vividly dramatizes a notion of moderation that is faithful to the Aristotelian ethical theory of the mean as a situational virtue, which incorporates both excessive affect and action. The lack of virtuous moderation in Coriolanus himself, Rome's first citizen, mirrors the collective immoderation of the whole polity

2. Dittman, Joo Young. "Tear him to pieces": De-Suturing Masculinity in "Coriolanus".
              Comparative Drama. V. 90.6 (2006). p653-672
--> The construction and deconstruction of the ideology of masculinity in William Shakespeare's play Coriolanus and early modern culture is examined. The process by which masculinity is constructed as an ideological fiction in early modern England led to its role in socio-symbolic structures as well as subject formations. 

3.Rich, John. War and Society in the Roman World. London: Rutledge. 1993
       Explores the wider social context of war, focusing on the changing relationship between warfare and the Roman citizen body; from the Republic, when war was at the heart of Roman life, to the Late Empire, and the Roman army's eventual failure.

4. Kuzner. James. Unbuilding the City: Coriolanus and the Birth of Republican Rome.  
            Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol 58.2 (2007) pp. 174-99.
    Unbuilding the City" considers the issue of republicanism in Coriolanus criticism and in early modern studies more generally, with special emphasis on how this issue relates to questions about bounded self-hood, thought to be emerging in early modernity. The essay argues against pro republican readings of the play—and against norms associated with the bounded self—by demonstrating the salience to the play of recent theory, particularly that of Giorgio Agamben and Leo Bersani. And although Coriolanus is not a prorepublican or protoliberal document, it is still a politically viable one; if the play exhibits skepticism about bounded selfhood, it also exhibits investment in forms of self-undoing, especially in the representation of Coriolanus himself.

5. Polka, Brayton. Coriolanus and the Roman World of Contradiction: A Paradoxical World 
            Elsewhere. The European Legacy, Vol 15.2 (2010) pp. 171-94.
   This study argues that Shakespeare's aim in Coriolanus is twofold: (1) to depict the ancient world of Rome as dominated by contradiction; and (2) to signal to us moderns, in the biblical tradition, that we can comprehend or, in other words, interpret the contradictory world of the ancients solely on the basis of a paradoxical world elsewhere, beyond contradiction.

6.  Adelman, Janet. "'Anger's My Meat': Feeding, Dependency, and Aggression in Coriolanus," in  
            Shakespeare: Pattern of Excelling Nature, edited by David Bevington and Jay L. Halio,
            University of Delaware Press, 1978, pp. 108-24.
     Adelman examines the psychology of Coriolanus in Shakespeare's play of the same name, illuminating his desire for masculine self-sufficiency and dependency on his mother.

7. Alvis, John. Coriolanus and Aristotle's Magnanimous Man Reconsidered. Interpretation: A
          Journal of Political Philosophy,  Vol 7.3 (1978) pp. 4-28.
       Argues for Coriolanus' kinship with the classical ideal of the superlatively honorable man developed by Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics, but concludes that Coriolanus' tragedy resides in his failure to encompass the elusive ideal of the Ethics.

8. Alvarez Faedo, María José."Re-Visions of Volumnia's Motherhood".  Revista alicantina de 
             estudios ingleses. Vol 15 (2002). pp. 23-37.
      Explores the concept of motherhood in Coriolanus from two perspectives: the psychoanalytic and the political.

Shakespeare Was a Filthy Murderer

This is fantastic. If you can't see it, here's a link.

Digest the Info: Finding my Thesis

This is where I am in brainstorming about a thesis:

The colored web makes me feel more hopeful that there is a thesis soon to come.  I think the ideas, although separated by different colors, could come together in some way, like "Is Hermione really dead?" relating to "Ekphrastic element of Shakespeare's work."  

Venting: Hermione's 16-year long hide-out?

I just thought it would be good to post a little venting.  I feel like there are some good starts to ideas going on in my brain about The Winter's Tale, but they're pretty scattered and varied.  Paul suggested I look at the scene with Hermione's statue coming alive.

I did that today and it's pretty compelling, especially because whether or not her being there is a miracle is ambiguous.  I'm thinking about the part that kind of magic plays in Shakespeare's romances versus tragedies, but I can't seem to decide where I stand on whether or not Hermione coming alive was a miracle or just a 16-year long hide-out in Paulina's house, and I'm not sure how to connect that in a meaningful way to what I've read about romance and tragedy.  What do you guys think?  Is there a direction I could go that strikes you as particularly interesting?

I hope as I go back and read literary criticism and more of the primary text, like what was suggested in class, my stance on Hermione and the connection between her, romance, and tragedy, will be more apparent.  Thanks for your help!

Do You Believe in Magic?

magic from Creative Commons: OUCHcharley

I'm wondering:

• Do the romantic elements of The Winter's Tale in fact make it more applicable to life than a tragedy?
• How does the supernatural element of a romance make it more true-to-life?  
• What role does fate play in a romance?

Romance: Lovey-dovey or that other kind?

What does the word "romance" mean to you?

a. "a medieval narrative"

b. "a Spanish historical ballad"

c. "a fictitious narrative . . . in which . . . the events depicted are remote from everyday life"

d. "a romantic relationship"

(All definitions come from the OED)

My Life, a Tragedy

After my discussion with Dr. Burton about my midterm paper, I've been thinking more about a comparison between tragedy and romance.  I read through my digital dialogue post about how I'd met with him, and realized that what we'd talked about was what role fate plays in a romance.  

Do you think tragedy or the romance genre is 

more true to life?  

I feel like this is an intriguing question that can interest a variety of audiences, even those not familiar with certain literary terms; most people have a basic understanding of what a tragedy is.  From my experience with social media, I've seen a lot of people who seem to look on life as a tragedy, and I'm interested as to their reasoning.

Liz made a comment on my post about that production of A Winter's Tale, Soviet-style, about the role of gods in a play where there were cosmonauts.  She pointed out that if they had a belief in gods, the cosmonauts should have visited Apollo themselves instead of going to an oracle.  This brings up the idea of the role of gods in the play, as well as the relationship of gods to fate, two ideas I'd like to explore further.    

Troilus and Cressida: Less of a Problem Play and More of a Promise Play

Well, here is my final paper! https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xUBXvTGtDI8hPC0ANP-BzgXeVAqzhwT6fe4RcDzcNt4/edit

I hope the formatting stayed intact, as I moved it from a Microsoft Word document to a Google Drive document.

I am still interested in submitting to the following venues:

Shakespeare Institute Review--I heard back from them and they said they were looking for "papers that include analysis rather than description, those that have something original to contribute, and work that is thoroughly researched and documented." My paper is long enough, but I will want to double check that I have something with enough analysis (I tried to include mostly analysis, but I may have to revise accordingly) and originality. I also don't know that my paper fits the theme of their current journal, but I'm hoping it will fit with the next one (or I can revise it to fit with the theme).

Criterion--I also am hoping to submit to Criterion. I am a little bit under the minimum word limit of 3,000 words, so I might have to expand my argument for them and make sure it is very analytically-based (as that is what I found many of the essays in this journal were like).

BYU English Symposium-- I presented a paper last year at this symposium, and I am hoping to do the same this year. If I did submit my paper, I would have to write a 200- to 250-word abstract, which wouldn't be too hard since the paper is already written. I would also have to adapt my paper for a speech format, which might involve simplifying some of my points and making sure my arguments are very clear for listeners (as they won't be able to reread what I say).

Hope everyone has a great Thanksgiving, and happy paper reading.

Troilus and Cressida--Building a Better Argument

Well, here's my post! I've spent a long while on it. I had some trouble uploading the video and it is sideways, so I apologize. I'm not the best in front of cameras (I'm afraid I'm a bit camera shy, so you'll have to excuse me). Frankly, I am proud of myself for making this video, even if no one else is impressed by it! I hope it's somewhat coherent.
 

Report on feedback from initial draft:

From the comments I got from the blog, I realize that my paper wasn't making enough of an argument. It was simply just trying to explain the reasons why Troilus and Cressida wasn't a tragedy. I realize that that is not enough, but I'm wondering if I should just brashly claim that it isn't a tragedy and move on to a more lucrative claim, or if I need to spend at least a little time explaining why it isn't a tragedy (though not as much as I did in this preliminary draft). I guess what I've learned from people's comments is that I need to focus more on why Shakespeare is going against the traditional tragedy in the play and what effect that has. Since this is a pretty significant shift in the focus of my paper, I'm going to have to do some more research.

Troilus and Cressida: A Tragic Misreading?

I'm reading Troilus and Cressida, one of Shakespeare's darker plays that has often been categorized as one of his "problem plays." This play is so rich and full of material that one of my initial reactions was that I didn't know where to start dissecting the play. Its a deeply cynical play that critiques war, love, and human nature. However, it's also a fairly philosophical play.

I found this video of Rob Melrose, who directed a version of the play at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival as he discusses why he likes the play, why it's such a difficult play to dissect, and what the specific themes of the play are.

I've started working on a few ideas for my paper. I have a few loosely-formed ideas that I'm developing. In class we've been calling them "proto-papers," or preliminary paper ideas. Originally, I had developed three distinct proto-papers that dealt with textual, contextual, and critical issues, but now I have paired it into two separate but related ideas. 

My first proto-paper focuses on the idea that although sometimes grouped in the category of “tragedy,” Troilus and Cressida is an anti-tragedy because what would traditionally be seen as the linguistically “tragic” language (e.g. Romeo and Juliet) is reduced to anticlimactic and unsatisfying language that departs from this traditionally romantic language.

            Most of the play centers on what seem to be very tragic moments, but these moments are never as amplified or as dramatic as we would expect them to be. Additionally, the characters that seek revenge never get that revenge, and the conclusion is unsatisfying. Because Shakespeare is limited to the story lines of the original Greek and Trojan wars, his story line is already sporadic and difficult to follow, but his choice to end the play with a distinctly unromantic ending goes against the tragic trends that he usually used.

Going along with this idea, I also thought it would be interesting to argue that although Troilus and Cressida was based on previous texts such as the Iliad and Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde, Shakespeare’s version is distinctly more modern and even forward-looking because of its anti-climatic nature and its criticism of traditional tragic values. “Troilus and Cressida, that most vexing and ambiguous of Shakespeare's plays, strikes the modern reader as a contemporary document—its investigation of numerous infidelities, its criticism of tragic pretensions, above all, its implicit debate between what is essential in human life and what is only existential are themes of the twentieth century. ... This is tragedy of a special sort—the 'tragedy' the basis of which is the impossibility of conventional tragedy” (Oates). Shakespeare leads the reader to believe that something dramatic will happen. Perhaps it is the fight between Achilles and Hector, or the revenge of Troilus. Yet, these events are unsatisfying, and just seek to draw out a deeper theme of the play—namely, that human nature is vile, lustful, and untrustworthy, and because of that, the primarily noble desires of a tragedy remain unrealized within the play. However frustrating and unsatisfying one of Shakespeare’s traditional tragedies may seem, Troilus and Cressida frustrates readers even more with a nontraditional tragedy that seems more closely aligned to the disappointed hopes and unexplained events of real life.

I'm wondering if I can weave together these two ideas into one mega-thesis about the status of Troilus and Cressida as a distinctly anti-tragedy play. Of course, this may be a large claim to take on, or may even be too simplistic, but for now, it's where I'm at. Feedback is much appreciated.

Oates, Joyce. “The Tragedy of Existence: Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida.” Originally published as two separate essays, in Philological Quarterly, Spring 1967, and Shakespeare Quarterly, Spring 1966.