User:Ivyeon/sandbox

Instructor feedback
- Quite a few things are inaccurate, unclear, or poorly worded in this team's peer reviewed plan. I have edited/rewritten the content below. Note the different section titles, and note that I have deleted the opening two sentences (incorporating some of their content into the first sentence) and reordered and combined several areas. Please note what needs changing and also consider why the changes are necessary.

- Also note that citations in the "Influence on the Public" section need to be fixed

Politics and Religion
Much of the criticism and interpretation of A Game at Chess has focused on its political, religious and allegorical content. Thomas Cogswell has argued that the play enjoyed success not only because of its humorous and critical portrayal of Spain, but also because it celebrates George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham and Prince Charles as heroes. Cogswell argues that Middleton does not advance the agenda of his patron, the Earl of Pembroke, by criticizing Buckingham. Instead, the play was an attempt to reinforce public support for Charles and Buckingham.

Middleton antagonizes Spanish Catholics and the Jesuit order by portraying them as schemers intent on the domination of the world. The Black Queen's Pawn serves as an example, representing a domestic threat to English women, especially virgins. Overall, Middleton uses black and white imagery to portray Spanish Catholics as evil ("black") in their ambitions to convert the pure English nation ("white") to Catholicism.

Howard Hill has suggested that the play is not a result of any specific statecraft, but merely takes advantage of the anti-Spanish and anti-Catholic sentiments of the moment. However, other scholars see the play as participating in the agenda of Parliamentary Puritans and their Continental counterparts, mainly the Dutch, to galvanize the masses against the Spanish-Catholic hegemony. Gary Taylor has argued that the play was subversive insofar as Middleton's Puritan ideology was in opposition to the Church of England also the political establishment, specifically King James I of England himself. For Taylor, the play was meant to be a pointed critique of Catholic ideals and its authoritative control over its subjects’ lives. Yet Taylor also argues that the text "depends upon what it rejects," that is, "obedience, confession, dissembling, totalizing power, and sexual mismatching."

Chess Allegory
Roussel Sargent has argued that Middleton uses chess allegory to elude censorship, allowing him to avoid explicitly identifying his characters with political figures. Portraying the events of the play as a chess match affords Middleton flexibility: he can create completely fictitious characters, and he can also base characters upon political figures. Chess is also a means of portraying the conflicts between Catholic Spain and Protestant England in terms of two clearly opposing sides.

Scholars have observed the racism of Middleton's chess allegory, in which the difference between England and Spain in cast in terms of skin color. The blackness of the Spanish side associates darker complexion with evil, while the whiteness of England associates lighter complexion with purity.

Influence on the Public
Musa Gurnis has observed that scholars have neglected to observe the impact of the play's dramaturgy upon audiences. Gurnis argues that the play not only arouses anti-Catholic sentiment, but also encourages the audience to actively persecute Catholic minorities outside of the theatre. Stephen Wittek notes that plays including A Game at Chess shaped and contributed to the making of a public sphere, as audience members were able to bond over shared experiences and partake in a shared discourse.

A Game at Chess Draft Implementation: Criticisms and Interpretations
Much of the early criticisms and interpretations of A Game at Chess focused on its political and religious content. While some scholars did examine its form, they primarily focused on the political, religious and allegorical aspects that contributed to the interpretation of the drama rather than its impact on the audience.

Political Messages
Thomas Cogswell criticizes previous works where scholars claimed that the play was solely supported by the Earl of Pembroke due to a long-standing feud with the Duke of Buckingham. Cogswell, instead, argues that not only did the Earl of Pembroke support the production, but the whole Royal Court approved the play as well. By addressing the public's reaction to the play, Cogswell was able to analyze how it benefited the Royal Court. The play enjoyed success not only because of its humorous and critical portrayal of Spain, but also because the Duke of Buckingham and Prince Charles, who were viewed as heroes, were portrayed as such. Cogswell concludes that the play acted as support, possibly even propaganda, for The Duke of Buckingham and Prince Charles’s efforts against Spain. Cogswell elaborates on this notion by stating that these same officers of the Court were later discovered to have acted treacherously towards England during their trip to Spain. Therefore the play was also an attempt to reinforce public support for them.

Chess Allegory
It is theorized that Middleton used the chess allegory to protect the play from censorship, as it allowed him to avoid explicitly naming his characters after political figures. Through the allegory, Middleton could either create completely fictitious characters or base a character off of a political figure. As the characters of the play are chess pieces and the setting is theorized to be a chessboard, scholars have interpreted the allegory as a method to further highlight the conflicts between Catholic Spain and Protestant England as two literal opposing sides.

Another scholar contextualizes the play through both its initial reception and the religious reformation occurring at the time. The chess allegory is explained to emphasize the flaws of racialization between England and Spain by pointing out how, unlike the chess pieces themselves, the actual characters in the play were not distinguished by their color. The blackness of one side simply represents the evil, while the whiteness of England represents purity. What is most telling of the narrative’s goals is his assertion that the text "depends upon what it rejects: ...obedience, confession, dissembling, totalizing power, and sexual mismatching." His argument is that the play was meant to be a pointed critique of Catholic ideals and its authoritative control over its subjects’ lives as Spain attempts to convert English subjects.

Anti-Catholic Sentiments
Middleton antagonizes the Spanish Catholics and the Jesuit order by portraying them as schemers intent on the domination of the world. The Black Queen's Pawn serves as an example, representing a domestic threat to English women, especially virgins, by falling to Catholicism. Caroline Bicks explores the reactions to Jesuitess Mary Ward’s theatrical training of Catholic school girls to support this claim. Overall, however, Middleton uses black and white imagery throughout the play to portray the Spanish Catholics as blind and evil [black] in their ambitions to convert the pure English nation [white] to Catholicism. It is possible that Middleton's intentions were more complicated than this, as Gary Taylor argues that the play was subversive as Middleton's Puritan ideology was in opposition to the religious establishment of the Church of England, and it therefore also opposed the political establishment of England itself. Given that scholars have been unable to find any reference to a sponsor of the play and the ambiguous composition of the characters, Howard Hill concludes that the play is not a result of any specific state-craft, but was merely taking advantage of the popular anti-Spanish and anti-Catholic sentiments of the period. However, other scholars pin the sponsorship of the play to a number of Parliamentary Puritans and continental counterparts, mainly the Dutch, to galvanize the masses against the Spanish-Catholic hegemony.

Influence on Public
Early scholars have neglected to observe the impact of the theatrical performances on the audience. Musa Gurnis interprets the theatrical performances as a device for not only incensing anti-Catholic sentiments during the performance, but also encouraging the audience to actively persecute Catholic minorities outside of the theatre. As another scholar, Stephen Wittek, notes the popularity of renaissance plays shaped and contributed to the making of a public sphere, as audience members were able to bond over shared experiences, partaking in discourse from the proximity as an audience.

Team members:

 * Steph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Broc.steph/sandbox
 * Adlee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AdleeUni/sandbox
 * Will https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Willee1938/sandbox


 * Ivy | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ivyeon/sandbox
 * Rachel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rachelad/sandbox
 * Matthew | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MatthewLangsdale/sandbox
 * Abigail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Abigailo15037/sandbox
 * Jaiwen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jwwhsu27/sandbox
 * Danielle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniellelm/sandbox

Personal Contribution: I looked for different sources relevant to criticisms/interpretations and worked on the 'Influence on Public' section. I added citations for Gurnis, Hill, Heinemann and Wittek. I also made small contributions to the section about chess allegory and anti-catholic sentiments.

Article Evaluation: The Spanish Tragedy
Content: The introduction blurb is straightforward with mentions of its influence and its connections with other famous playwrights such as Marlowe and Shakespeare. In this case, the mentions of other playwrights is relevant rather than distracting. Informing others of the similarity and the possible relationship between The Spanish Tragedy and Hamlet is helpful, especially when Hamlet is more well known. The wiki page is relatively well structured, but I think it can be better organized. It makes more sense to provide information about the play itself (ex: characters, synopsis) first before aspects such as performances. In addition to that, rather than blocks of text under 'Plot,' I feel that it's better to organize/list out the specific acts and scenes in which each event plays out. There could definitely be more details too. I'd also advise editing the title of the section heading 'Dramatis personæ' to be more clear. Not everyone understands the meaning of those words-- substituting 'Dramatis personæ' for something like 'Characters' would be good. It'd also be helpful to expand on some of the characters, giving brief blurbs to provide background and context. Other than that, everything else seems well structured. The information seems a bit out of date in the 'Performances' section-- there seems to have been other performances of the play past the year 2015.

Tone: The tone seems neutral with no value statements. Things that are hypothetical or unconfirmed are listed as such for the majority, and there is also a reminder of 'citation needed' for several statements, which at least gives the audience knowledge that this cannot be taken as the truth. I think the 'Plot' section of the wiki isn't very neutral-- there were definitely a few interpretations and statements that came off a bit too opinionated.

Sources: There is an adequate amount of sources at first look, but some of them are not cited properly (formal citation). In addition, some of the sources are shallow and aren't actually related to the play itself-- I would hesitate to call them scholarly reliable sources. Some of them are even links to performances of the play on a college campus. As mentioned before, there are several statements that require a citation-- while they have been helpfully labeled with 'citation needed,' the statements themselves are written as if the information is absolutely true. I feel that while the usage of qualifiers aren't recommended usually, it should be used if the information is not confirmed. Either that, or one shouldn't include dubious information at all. The references section can also be more organized-- it's not following the standard of alphabetization.

Talk Page: The wikipage for The Spanish Tragedy is given a rating of 'C,' meaning that there's information missing and requires cleaning up (in regards to sources as well). It is also rated 'mid-important.' The talk page is actually quite empty; there's mentions about unusable/unsourced links and references. There is also an old mention of how a plot summary is needed (currently, there is one provided). One person even deleted a whole section!

The wikipedia page focuses on topics that we've talked about before, but it also focused on more technical aspects such as 'authorship' and 'publication' information. There's not too much I can say since it's actually pretty bare. I feel that there are a lot of other things that can be discussed.