My major work examines Shakespeare’s characters Cleopatra from Antony and Cleopatra and Cordelia from King Lear through the lens of Romantic individuals Elizabeth Inchbald, William Hazlitt and Samuel Taylor Coleridge.
The introduction of each character is unclear, maybe it's just because of the way it's reformatted here. Put the text's names in Italics or underlined so that we can tell apart the characters and their texts, just because it seems to be a bit jumbled and we can't have that happen so early on 
I arrived at this area of study through my readings of Joseph Ortiz’s Shakespeare and The Culture of Romanticism and Jonathan Bate’s The Romantics on Shakespeare,
this allowed me to This language here makes sense, but it's not expressed in a sophisticated manner. Perhaps if you start a new sentence here, you can use nominalisation to your advantage. create an informed understanding of what Romantic critique consisted of and how it was applied to Shakespeare’s work. The focus on Shakespeare’s female characters has been quite neglected in history
in literary history? critical history? Be specific here., however the new wave of feminism in the 21st century has brought Shakespeare’s female characters
back to this implies that they were once at the forefront - were they? the forefront, but with a focus only on contemporary and 20th century critique. Within Romantic critique there was a concentration on Shakespeare’s women which was quite revolutionary for the era and it is imperative that this focus is revived in contemporary society
I know it's small, but we've used "was" twice in this sentence. No huge deal, but being E2, expression is everything. I hope you don't think I'm being too picky, it's always easier to find faults in other people's work than your own! . Focusing on Romantic criticism offers something rich in the understanding of Shakespeare’s characters, the era’s evaluations have become quite forgotten and concentrating on this lens provides a view that informs character criticisms. The examination of the development of Romantic criticisms through different periods in the era provides various informed scopes for the evaluation of the characters. This analysis, using Romantic precepts attempts to grant validity to the female experience and representation of human characters. The journal the Shakespeare Quarterly is a peer reviewed journal, renowned for its publication of essays at the forefront of Shakespearean studies. Its concentration on scholarly essays investigating new perspectives on Shakespeare’s work provides an audience for my major work, which evaluates his characters using the Romantic lens.
My initial research focussed
focused* upon the form of character criticism that the Romantics delighted in. Reading essays
upon Romantic criticism such as George Mosse’s The Culture of Western Europe and Arthur Kirch’s Shakespeare’s Humanism reaffirmed a clear understanding of why the Romantics revered Shakespeare, highlighting that the Romantics centred their attention upon the internal condition of individuals and the analysis of the individual’s emotions. Prior to commencing my major work, I had an understanding of Romantic philosophies and precepts, however my research made me aware of its potential relevance and application to the critique of literature. My interest in Romantic critique grew as I researched essays written in the Romantic era, such as John Keats’ The Poetical Character and Samuel Johnson’s Dedication to Shakespeare which directly interacts with Shakespeare’s characters and Romantic perspectives upon them, Johnson remarking that “Shakespeare’s excellence was not the fiction of a tale, but the representation of life; and his reputation is therefore safe till human nature shall be changed.” I also came across peer reviews of Romantic essays written by Elizabeth Inchbald, William Hazlitt and Samuel Taylor Coleridge, such as Karen Gervitz’s Elizabeth Inchbald; Shakespeare Criticism, Francesca Saggini’s The Art of Fine Drama: Inchbald’s Remarks for The British Theatre and the Aesthetic Experience of the Late Eighteenth Century Theatre-Goer, Jonathan Bate’s William Hazlitt “On Siddons, Kemble and Kean” and James Engell’s Coleridge, Johnson and Shakespeare. This piqued my interest into the development of Romantic criticism on Shakespeare, Inchbald providing a bridge between Neoclassic Criticism and Romantic understanding, Hazlitt capturing Humanist and Romantic perspectives, whilst Coleridge forming the epitome of 19th century Romantic critique. This interest caused me to explore their own essays in order to garner knowledge on their precepts and preoccupations of Shakespeare’s characters. Elizabeth Inchbald’s remarks on Shakespeare’s characters in The British Theatre provided an understanding of her observations which grant validity to the female experience within the Romantic era. Hazlitt’s Characters of Shakespeare’s Plays also focussed upon Shakespeare’s female characters as capturing women with internal machinations. Coleridge’s criticism within his letter On Shakespeare’s Characters prefigured psycho-analytical readings of literature. This research shaped my major work, creating a discussion of Shakespeare’s characters through the development of Inchbald, Hazlitt and Coleridge’s critique-which reflects different periods of Romanticism.
Until this last sentence, you've just listed research without actually making the strong connections. I think we need to revise the way you've approached this. Similar to an essay, you make a point and then you link. Here, you need to make a point of your research but then link it as well to the way your major work is right now. Directly link the exact point your major work is up to now, to the research. Like, if in paragraph 3 you've espoused a marxist reading on top of romantic critical theory (hypothetical), then you would say that came from the reading of blah blah. Specifically talk about how each text influenced your work and where it did, and to what degree. Having attained this foundational understanding I began searching for potential characters in Shakespeare’s texts. Through my readings of Inchbald, Hazlitt and Coleridge I discovered their fascination with Cleopatra from Antony and Cleopatra. Each individual had a unique lens upon Cleopatra as they represented the different periods within Romanticism. In Inchbald’s Preface to Antony and Cleopatra she focuses upon Cleopatra’s emotion and insecurities as rendering her with human qualities-a culmination of Neo-classist and Romantic critique. Hazlitt’s notion of Cleopatra’s character revolving around the dichotomy of the political, powerful queen and yet the seductive woman driven by emotion transcends Inchbald’s evaluations to provide Humanist and Romantic critique. Coleridge's note which was made for a lecture in 1818 on Antony and Cleopatra revealed his opinion that “perhaps of Shakespeare’s plays, the most wonderful is Antony and Cleopatra.” Coleridge’s evaluation of Cleopatra represents the height of Romantic critique remarking that “the sense of criminality in her passion” reveals the Romantic preoccupation that “depth and energy” within emotion renders an authentic human experience. The development of criticism on Cleopatra within the Romantic era significantly shaped my major work as it allowed me to analyse Cleopatra through a development of Romantic readings and the differing perspectives on the representation of her humanity. This formed a structure of my analysis, to focus on Cleopatra in light of each individual and create a sustained Romantic evaluation.
So what did this offer that other texts couldn't? You're making the connection stronger in this one, but we need to be more evaluative now Was this pivotal in your work? You need to be more critical of your own research (which I know is tricky!).My knowledge of Hermione from The Winter’s Tale greatly assisted in my choice to contrast Cleopatra with Hermione, still using the Romantic individual’s criticisms. Hermione and Cleopatra were both queens and had similar roles within their respective monarchs, however there was a stark contrast in personality, Hermione being quite reserved and Cleopatra a vivacious, vibrant character. Phyllis Rackin’s Shakespeare and Women and Juliet Dusinberre’s Shakespeare and The Nature of Women provided significant insight into the analysis of Hermione. However, despite my extensive research, I came to a realisation that Hermione did not represent a character which embodied Romantic fascination and that Romanticism instead focused on the character of Cordelia form King Lear. This realisation led to a change of route in my major work as I chose a different character in order to render an authentic Romantic reading of Shakespeare’s female characters. Unfortunately, this decision was made very late in the term and impacted upon my ability to extensively research Cordelia.
Nice! Good critical thinking. I am aware, however, that King Lear was an incredibly popular play and has sustained its popularity into the 21st century. My knowledge that the Romantics revered Cordelia was supported by the alteration of King Lear’s ending in the 19th century, the Romantics deciding that Cordelia should not die because they believed such a wonderful and moral character did not deserve that ending. Therefore, the direction of my major work changed, however this ensures that it does reflect Romantic evaluations and criticisms of Shakespeare’s characters in order to create an authentic major work.
I chose to write a critical response as the form of my major work because this was the most effective instrument for the analysis which I desired to undertake. Despite having initially explored writing essays in the style of Elizabeth Inchbald, my final decision to utilise a traditional, objective, formal tone was determined by the strongly academic context of my response, particularly in my application of Romantic criticism.
Beautiful! Very good! I was influenced in my decision of this structure by Joseph Addison’s On the Essay Form and Richard Amacher’s The Essay, which highlighted that a complex subject matter mandated an academic approach.
Great! Furthermore, because the intended purpose of my response was investigative, I chose to write in third person. As my investigation progressed, I decided to structure my essay into sections to encapsulate the various criticisms of the Romantic individuals and their representations of the different periods of Romanticism for each female character. This structure not only provides different analyses per section of the humanity in each character but also allows a clear progression of Romantic critique and ideas.
Your best paragraph...you are so critical and evaluative here, making direct links between different people/works and your own work. My intended purpose, that is, the examination of Shakespeare’s female characters Cleopatra and Cordelia through the lens of Romantic critique from the individuals of Elizabeth Inchbald, William Hazlitt and Samuel Taylor Coleridge has been clearly shaped by the aforementioned area of investigation in Romantic criticisms of literature, particularly Shakespeare’s work.
Long sentence girlfriend! I'd split it into two sentences, the first saying "The research of blah blah and blah has clearly shaped my major work. The evolution of my purpose has come to a point where it now clearly is: *say intention*" Something like this, split them up Autonomous investigation has played an integral role in the major work progress and has furthered my conceptual development in numerous areas as well as inspiring the form and nature of my essay.
Home
Help
Search
Login
