Victorian Web

Currently accessible from its website victorianweb.org, the Victorian web originally began back in 1987 in hypermedia environments that existed long before the World Wide Web and is one of the oldest academic and scholarly websites. Its original purpose was to help scholars differentiate and make connections between different fields and has extended its reach.

Although there are many contributing editors listed on the site, George P. Landow, the founder and current webmaster and editor-in-chief of The Victorian Web, is a Professor of English and Art History Emeritus at Brown University. Though the Victorian Web has never received support from Brown University, it was first housed by the High Energy Physics Group at Brown University, then by Brown’s Scholarly Technology Group.

The Victorian Web takes a fundamentally different method to finding and using information than search-based Internet projects. Internet archives and tools, such as Google, treat bodies of information as a chaotic swamp that users search with a “laser-like tool that penetrates the fog and darkness.” They relate differently to hypertexts like the Victorian Web, which consists of information existing within a complex set of connections. In the Victorian Web, they encounter books, paintings, political events, and eminent and not-so-eminent Victorians in multiple contexts, which they can examine when and if they wish to do so.

The Victorian Web also differs fundamentally from websites like Wikipedia and many reference works, such as Britannica, and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography: Each of these sites aims to present a single authoritative view of its subject. In contrast, the Victorian Web encourages multiple points of view and debate, partly because contemporary issues seldom generate overall agreement.

With over 60,000 documents as recent as last year and steadily increasing, the site receives 1.5 million page views every month. Even their less updated Japanese server receives several hundred thousand views.

The main page of the website has a graphic design with several links that you may click that details what you may find there, such as authors, political history, religion, philosophy, places, and technology, just to name a few. Upon clicking any of those links, it directs you to several subtopics in bold with bullet points for each that link to pictures, timelines, or articles, depending on the subject matter.

The site discusses a wide variety of topics, including primary and secondary in British Victorian economics, literature, philosophy, political and social history, science, technology, and visual arts. Although the site concentrates on Great Britain in the age of Victoria (1837-1901), it contains considerable material before and after those years, particularly in sculpture and architecture, and the site also has a good deal of comparative material. For example, one can find railroad stations and other forms of iron-and-glass architecture not only from England but also from various parts all over the world. In addition, there is a section on Aesthetes, Decadents, and Symbolists that include European literature and art.

This resource would be useful for any student or scholar who is interested in learning more about the Victorian era and what life and culture was like during this time period.

Works Cited

Victorian Web. Web. 19 October 2013.

A Handbook to Literature

The latest edition of A Handbook to Literature can be accessed through Tennessee Tech University’s library, where they have a physical copy of the book. Under the current editor William Harmon, successor to William Holman and professor of English at the University of North Carolina, the twelfth edition of this handbook, long popular in academia for its expansive work, has been revised and updated. He has added more than one hundred entries, which reflect current trends in literature and criticism. This comprehensive text is the definitive reference text on literature and literary criticism in English, providing an alphabetical listing of more than 2,000 important terms and facts in literature, linguistics, rhetoric, criticism, printing, book selling, and information technology. The terms variously defined, discussed, explained, and illustrated with no attempt at exhaustiveness, completeness, or novelty (Harmon xi). That is to say, with the expansiveness of the English language, not every term will fit within the pages of this book. What makes the Handbook unique; however, is that, unlike a dictionary which lists every word in the English language with quick, short definitions, this text refers only to terms relevant to English and literature, some with explanations spanning across several pages when necessary.

The book itself is organized into five distinct categories. The Preface gives a little history of previous editions the Handbook as well as hopes for expansion. The ‘To the User’ explains how the book is laid out and clarifies the formatting of pages. The next five hundred or so pages recount the definitions of the important terms of literature, such as art epic, deconstruction, golden line, and objectivism. As in earlier editions, the initial capitals heading the chapters have been chosen from twenty-six different typefaces significant in the history of writing and printing, along with the definition and time period of the font. Immediately following the alphabetical listing, the Outline of Literary History tabulates the most important events in the literary history of English-speaking people from as early as 2600 B.C. to 2010. Literary history is divided into three columns, World, British, and American, along with relatively arbitrary periods, and historical subdivisions within these periods called ages. Afterwards, the appendices lists changes in  the monetary terms and values of the British pound as seen in literature, events such as Pulitzer prizes for literature, fiction, poetry, and drama. And, since the fifth edition, the Handbook has included an Index of Proper Names, which lists the names and pseudonyms of all actual persons mentioned within the Handbook. The Index gives the title or short title of all articles in which the person is mentioned.

This would be a valuable resource in any college or scholarly setting because it defines some of the most used words in literature; it makes for a handy reference book that can be used to find important concepts or literary dates.

 

 Works Cited

Harmon, William. A Handbook to Literature. Longman: Pearson, 2012. Print.

Studies in the Literary Imagination

Studies in the Literary Imagination (SLI) is a biannual scholarly journal published by the Department of English at Georgia State University and is accessible to Tennessee Tech University students through the Art Full Text (H.W. Wilson) database. Though TTU’s coverage only extends back to 1983, this journal has been around since 1968, endeavoring to explore several different aspects of specific themes and special topics in literature, featuring a wide variety of topics by well-known writers such as Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathan Swift, Faerie Queene by Edmund Spenser, and various works by William Gilmore Simms.

SLI enjoys a worldwide audience with peak circulation at 800 subscribers, as well as many universities who receive online subscriptions with Project Muse and EbscoHost, so it’s hard to track the full reach of the journal (Howard). SLI is unique among scholarly journals in that it relies on an editorial committee to review proposals from potential guest editors, who then invite scholars who are considered leaders in their field (Studies). As a special topics journal, SLI does not accept unsolicited articles for publication and instead advises those scholars who wish to propose a special issue for a topic for which he or she will serve as Contributing Editor must follow the strict guidelines of approximately 25 to 30 pages in length, or about 6,000 to 8,000 words prepared in MLA documentation format (Studies). The page length of individual articles is higher now than it was in 1983, whose articles averaged 9 to 14 pages. The journal receives submissions for full issues proposals – not individual articles – and receives 10-12 special issue proposals per year, accepting an average of 20-30% of proposals and returning all single article submissions (Howard). One of the favorable distinctions resulting from this practice is that each issue is topic driven, and because of this each issue varies widely from the next, and the journal is able to explore a diverse amount of literature from various time periods, such as the Renaissance from the 14^th and 15^th centuries, the Enlightenment of the 18^th century, and going into the 19^th and 20^th centuries.

SLI is currently headed by Editor and English Professor Paul Schmidt, who chose this position as a result of his teachings at Georgia State University, where he seeks to balance an appreciation of textual integrity with a willingness to entertain the possibility that the texts themselves invite readers to see them as artifacts whose purpose and value are constantly in question (Dr. Paul). The journal accomplishes this by establishing literature’s importance and prevalence; carrying out struggles between competing discourses from the past, and demonstrating a similarity to present day conflicts.

In the earliest editions provided in the TTU database, the journal focused on similar topics by different authors, such as in the Fall 1983 issue there was an article titled “Wandering Between Two Gods: Theological Realism in Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee.” In the article, Stanley Brodwin argues about the esthetic and ideological contradictions of Mark Twain’s novel and its underlying principle, the tension between action and reaction in the physiological nature of man and in the theological dynamics of historical change (Brodwin). On many pages in the article extensive footnotes take up over a third of the page to explain references and cite sources right after the information has been presented, rather than having the bibliography at the end of the document. And in a more recent issue in Spring 2012, different aspects of works by Thomas Carlyle are discussed, such as in the article “Carlyle’s Chartism and the Politics of the (In)Articulate,” in which John Ulrich discusses the Chartism movement in 19^th century Great Britain and Carlyle’s apparent affiliations with several political ideologies (Ulrich).

In short, this journal typically focuses on literary theory and criticism and would be useful to TTU students looking to find the opinions of scholars in regards to topics such as: English Renaissance drama, with articles discussing audiences in the early theatre, humanism of acting, and economy of Shakespearean reception; Modernism, with articles discussing the works of Virginia Woolf, Arnold Schoenberg, James Joyce, and the religious and literary correlation of modernism; several articles related to imagination of death, literary imagination, imagination as a critical method; the Fall 1989 article is even dedicated to criticisms of C.S. Lewis and his works. The range of these articles is overwhelming; the list could go on and on. A student needing to write a paper a wide variety of subjects from the 14^th century onward could just take a quick glance at the titles of an issue, which gives enough information to use to base an argument for or against any of the authors mentioned.

 

Brodwin, Stanley. “Wandering Between Two Gods: Theological Realism In Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee.” Studies In The Literary Imagination 16.(1983): 57-82. Art Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 10 Oct. 2013.

“Dr. Paul Schmidt.” Georgia State University. Georgia State University, 2013. Web. 1 Nov. 2013.

Howard, Lori. Personal Interview. 4 Oct. 2013.

Studies in the Literary Imagination. Georgia State University, n.d. Web. 1 Oct. 2013.

Ulrich, John M.1. “Carlyle’s Chartism And The Politics Of (In)Articulate.” Studies In The Literary Imagination 45.1 (2012): 67-87. Art Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 10 Oct. 2013.

Shakespeare Authorship Question: A Selective Annotated Bibliography

Introduction

            Most everyone, at one point or another, has had to read or has heard of Shakespeare. Considered by many to be the best English writer in the English language, there are many of his works to choose from like Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, and King Lear, just to name a few. But a topic that is seldom discussed is the Shakespeare Authorship question, that is, the long-debated conspiracy that someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the plays. Strange that no one questioned it until almost two hundred years later when theories started popping up and spreading. When it is brought up in class, most teachers will argue that there is no doubt about his authorship and that there’s no evidence to back up these claims supporting otherwise. But with so many questions regarding Shakespeare’s life, how can there not be room for doubt?

From movie adaptations to works inspired by his plays, Shakespeare has remained a relevant topic for centuries. People can’t seem to get enough of his works, but how did he do it? Many people question how someone who seemingly lacked the knowledge necessary to have such intricate details of a life he never led could write such masterpieces and hold one of the largest vocabularies known to one man.

The following selective annotated bibliography includes a wide variety of sources dealing with Shakespeare’s authorship and shows the various arguments people have gathered over the centuries. With so many possible candidates, from Edward de Vere, Francis Bacon, and Christopher Marlowe, it’s hard to imagine that there would be so many said to fit the position better than William Shakespeare himself, if it weren’t for how little of what was actually known about his life. Works in this collection, with some notable doubters like Mark Twain and Nathaniel Hawthorne, as well as the first notable doubter Delia Bacon, review the different aspects behind the more popular candidates and the reasoning behind these choices. From books, to magazine and journal articles, the following sources are written by credible Shakespearean scholars who are well-versed and knowledgeable in his works and life. It also includes scholarship supporting Shakespeare’s authorship, so that people have both sides to the argument and it is not a biased report.

The bibliography may prove useful for students, scholars, and those who have heard whisperings of conspiracy about Shakespeare’s authorship. It can also be used to get a basic understanding of the controversy. Information provided from each source could be used in any combination to write a persuasive essay to argue either for or against any of the candidates. If not to write a paper, a scholar new to the subject can use the following texts to broaden their knowledge of the subject and are provided with enough sources to make their own judgments about who they really think wrote Shakespeare.

Bacon, Delia Salter, and Nathaniel Hawthorne. The Philosophy of the Plays of Shakespeare Unfolded.   London: Groombridge, 1857. Google Books. 6 Feb. 2009. Web. 18 Oct. 2013.

The issue of Shakespearean authorship became popular knowledge with this book, written by Delia Bacon and preface by Nathaniel Hawthorne. This can be considered the first Anti-Stratfordian book and launched a whole genre of thought and criticism with her idea that the Shakespeare plays and believed in the group theory, that is, that Francis Bacon supplied the philosophy of the plays and Sir Walter Raleigh was the mastermind who created them, using the talents of a circle of men.

Blumenfeld, Samuel L. The Marlowe-Shakespeare Connection: A New Study of the Authorship Question. Jefferson, N.C: McFarland, 2008. Print.

In this book, Blumenfeld weaves together evidence and arguments made by others, as well as incorporating some of his own speculations, about Shakespeare’s authorship. He suggests that Marlow, supposedly killed in a tavern brawl in 1593, faked his own death in order to save himself from an inquisition and execution, and then continued writing under the pseudonym of William Shakespeare. Citing substantial and compelling evidence he outlines several hypotheses to support his case, including the theory that several top people in Queen Elizabeth’s government were involved in the plot to save Marlowe (who was reportedly a spy in the Secret Service.)

Burr, William Henry. Bacon and Shakspere. Proof That William Shakspere … Could Not Write. Washington: Brentano Bros., 1886. Web. 30 Sept. 2013.

Burr takes the stance that Sir Francis Bacon is the “true” Shakespeare, and after spending the first several pages discussing the inconsistencies in Shakespeare’s signature discusses his reasoning behind why he believes it to be Bacon, providing example from texts that directly coincide with information from Bacon’s life. Near the end of the 58-page book, there is a chronographic parallel chart comparing the lives of Bacon and Shakespeare, which shows Bacon to have more credibility.

Cutler, Keir. “The Top Ten Reasons Shakespeare Did Not Write Shakespeare.” The Oxfordian. 2010: 17+. Academic Onefile. Web. 26 Sept. 2013.

Cutler’s article provides insight behind the reasoning that Shakespeare should not be credited with the works normally associated to him. With topics such as The Pen Name, The Famous Doubters, His Unnoticed Death, and Multilingual, this article makes several points against William Shakespeare – claiming another individual used Shakespeare as a pseudonym, no manuscripts or documents exist in his own hand except for a few shaky, inconsistent signatures. According to what is known about Shakespeare, he seems incapable of creating the vast multitudes of works attributed to him. This would be a good resource to argue against Stratfordian authorship because it gives a lot of information against him.

“de Vere, Edward (1550-1604).” Encyclopedia of World Biography. Detroit: Gale, 1998. Academic OneFile. Web. 5 Oct. 2013.

This biographical essay describes the basic lifestyle of Edward de Vere and why he is the most likely candidate as the “true” Shakespearean author. Unlike Shakespeare we are familiar with, the essay provides good information on de Vere to show just how capable he was and just how easily he could be the real author of the Shakespearian plays. Knowing the history of de Vere would make it easier to argue and be more knowledgeable about the Shakespearean authorship debate.

Geoghegan, Tom. “Shakespeare: The Dossier.” BBC News. BBC News. 11 Sept. 2011. Web. 8 Sept. 2012.

This article argues, both for and against, the authorship question and gives a legitimate reason for each, helping those who wish to know more about this topic and the research behind these choices. The information here would provide valid points to use in a persuasive arguing, either for or against, authorship. Geoghegan quotes Matthew Cossolotto, president of the Shakespeare Oxford Society: “Unlike other writers of the period, not a single manuscript or letter exists in Shakespeare’s own handwriting. Nothing survives of a literary nature connecting William of Stratford, the man, with any of the ‘Shakespeare’ works.”

James, Brenda, and William D. Rubinstein. The Truth Will Out: Unmasking the Real Shakespeare. New York: Regan, 2006. Print.

With chapter titles like The Real Shakespeare, The Neville Heritage, and The Catastrophe, James explores in the eleven chapters of the book the Shakespearian authorship question confidently revealing a new candidate – Sir Henry Neville. She starts the book explaining the basic facts about why it could not be Shakespeare of Stratfod-upon-Avon before going into extraordinary detail all the qualifications Neville possesses that make him a better candidate.

Lander, Jesse. “He Made It All Up.” Commonweal 137.9 (2010): 34+. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 21 Oct. 2013.

In this article, Lander quickly expresses that he is an emphatic believer that William Shakespeare really did write the plays, and uses Shapiro’s book to argue his point that the only reason this controversy refuses to go away is because of the conditions that made it possible. He also points out that the reason for the many candidates is “as soon as one potential candidate for authorship loses momentum, a new champion emerges.” He claims the anti-Stratfordian position is a “solution without a problem.”

Looney, J. Thomas. Shakespeare Identified in Edward de Vere, the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford. 1920. Reprint. Hong Kong: Forgotten Books, 2013. Print.

One of the early scholars to question Shakespeare’s authorship in 1920, Looney is the first to offer de Vere as a candidate to the authorship of Shakespeare’s plays, as opposed to other popular theories like Sir Francis Bacon. The book begins with an outline of many of the popular anti-Stratfordian arguments, such as Shakespeare being too poor and uneducated. He also criticizes those who claim Bacon as one of the authors. As one the earliest sources of Oxfordian authorship, this would be a good source to see what he mentions of de Vere, since he will be unbiased by other advocates of today.

Price, Diana. “Shakespeare’s Authorship And Questions Of Evidence.” Skeptic 11.3 (2005): 10-15. General Science Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 1 Oct. 2013.

In this article, Price explains the history and reasoning of the authorship question as well as lists several candidates for authorship, including Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, and Edward de Vere. Useful for anyone wanting the history of the issue; she also lists references other works for further research. Unlike other scholars, she claims that Shakespeare might have acted as a play broker for someone of social prestige who wrote plays but, because of his position, did not want to be known as a playwright. Whereas others claim Shakespeare was a penname, not an actual person.

Schama, Simon. “The Shakespeare Shakedown.” Newsweek 24 Oct. 2011: 24.Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 17 Oct. 2013.

In Schama’s article discussing the recent movie Anonymous, which claims that Edward de Vere was the “true” Shaekspeare, he vehemently rejects this idea; going on to refute the ideas proposed in the movie by arguing that the school Shakespeare attended very well could have prepared him with the knowledge he needed to start his plays. Schama says, “the greatness of Shakespeare is precisely that he did not conform to social type”. He did not have to travel the world for inspiration – it came to him (24). This source provides useful information that can be used to argue that there should be no doubt about Shakespeare’s authorship.

Shapiro, James S. A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare, 1599. New York: HarperCollins, 2005. Print.

In a contrast to his later book, Contested Will, Shapiro narrows his focus down to a single year in Shakespeare’s life, 1599, in which Shakespeare completes “Henry the Fifth,” “Julius Caesar,” “As You Like It,” and shaped his first version of “Hamlet,”as well as a lot going on in his personal life. Dealing with all this gives Shapiro’s book a divided focus. His literary judgments rest on a thick underpinning of historical information, assessment of Shakespeare’s sources, the writings and activities of his contemporaries, and the tangled web of intrigue around the aging Queen Elizabeth.

—. Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010. Print.

Within the 352 pages of this book, James Shapiro, a much respected Shakespeare scholar and professor at Columbia University, explains when and why so many people started questioning who wrote Shakespeare’s plays. It’s an interesting story, replete with forgeries, deception, false claimants, ciphers and codes, conspiracy theories, and a failure to grasp the power of the imagination. Shapiro is the first to examine the controversy and its history by explaining what it means, why it matters, and how it has persisted despite abundant evidence that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays attributed to him. This will interest anyone curious about Shakespeare and the literary imagination.

Twain, Mark. Is Shakespeare Dead? New York: Oxford UP, 1996. Print.

In his book, Twain states that Shakespeare is one of the “best-known unknown persons that have ever drawn breath upon the planet.” He then lists the few absolute known facts about Shakespeare, followed by a litany of facts historians “suppose” they know. Twain claims that authors can’t fake the language and tone of real experience when it comes to endeavors involving high levels of skill, and points out that the Shakespeare canon was written by a man who was deeply experienced in sixteenth-century law and legal procedures, was a member of Elizabeth’s court, was widely traveled, and knew several languages. Yet there is no concrete evidence Shakespeare had any of this.

“Why the Shakespeare Authorship Question Matters.” Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter 49.2. 2013: 11. Academic OneFile. Web. 26 Sept. 2013.

This article makes the valid point that there are some authors whose works would be hard to understand the personal and social contacts, such as Wilfred Owen and the Great War. It explains Shakespeare as “an Elizabethan aristocrat to his core–a liberal and humanitarian one…” The article also states that, with works like King Lear (1606) and Coriolanus (1607), there are multiple contradictions between how Shakespeare apparently lived and what he wrote. Useful to anyone interested in Shakespeare’s actual life, this article gives a different take on it.