Michael Field — Reading Notes

(0 User reviews)   840
Sturgeon, Mary, -1925 Project Gutenberg 2022 Not confirmed
Authors, English -- 19th century -- Biography; Women authors, English -- Biography; Bradley, Katharine Harris, 1846-1914; Cooper, Edith Emma, 1862-1913; Lesbians -- Great Britain -- Biography; Authorship -- Collaboration Readers of public-domain and historical texts
Project Gutenberg digital edition en

Edition facts

Words 53,147
Reading time 232 min
Text sections 8

The catalog record for Michael Field — Reading Notes provides practical reading context through 53,147 words, 3 hr 52 min estimated reading time, and 8 detected text sections.

The text analysis averages about 21.4 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.

Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Authors, English -- 19th century -- Biography,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.

Mary Sturgeon's 1922 study of the collaborative poets 'Michael Field' (Katharine Bradley and Edith Cooper) examines their dramatic works, including 'The Tragedy of David' and 'William Rufus,' through close reading of verse, character, and thematic tensions, drawing on letters and prefaces to reveal the interplay between personal romance and artistic ambition.
Share
Editorial Edition Score 4.7/5

Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.

How this score is calculated
  • Description quality20 pts
  • Title & short description10 pts
  • Source metadata20 pts
  • Text length15 pts
  • Chapters / structure15 pts
  • EPUB file integrity20 pts

Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.

Edition quality

Read the Text

arine, poetic genius was dormant in her too, only waiting to be stimulated by Katharine’s exuberance and led by her audacity. Edith, stepping delicately, followed the daring lead of her elder with a steadiness of mental power which was her proper gift; and she reaped from Katharine’s educational harvest (won in all sorts of fields, from literatures ancient and modern, from the Collège de France, Newnham, University College, Bristol, and numerous private tutors) fruits more solid and mature than even Katharine herself.

When the poets removed to Stoke Bishop, Bristol, in 1878 it was with intellectual appetites still unsatisfied, and determined to pursue at University College their beloved classics and philosophy. They were already, in the opinion of a scholar who knew them at that time, fair latinists: they possessed considerable German and French, and some Italian, while Edith’s enthusiasm for philosophy was balanced by Katharine’s for Greek. Edith, docile in so much else, yet “could not be coaxed on” in Greek; not even later, when Browning, who used to speak affectionately of her as “our little Francesca,” one day gently pressed her hand and said “in honied accents, ‘_Do learn Greek_.’” What could a young poet do, overwhelmed by the courtly old master’s flattery, except promise softly, “I will try”? But it is not recorded that the effort took her very far. Katharine the Dionysian (always a little over-zealous for her divinities, whether Thracian or Hebrew) did not cease from coaxing; and perhaps did not perceive, for she could be obtuse now and then, how radical was Edith’s austere latinity. A poem of this period, addressed by Katharine to Edith, and called _An Invitation_, throws a gleam on their student days. Through it one sees as in morning sunlight their strenuous happy existence, their eager welcome to the best that life could offer, and their fortunate freedom to grasp it, whether it were in books or art, in sunny aspects or beautiful new Morris designs and textures. For they were, from the first, artists in life.

Come and sing, my room is south; Come with thy sun-governed mouth, Thou wilt never suffer drouth, Long as dwelling In my chamber of the south.

Three stanzas describe the woodbine and the myrtles outside the window, and the cushioned settee inside. Then:

Books I have of long ago And to-day; I shall not know Some, unless thou read them, so Their excelling Music needs thy voice’s flow:

Campion, with a noble ring Of choice spirits; count this wing Sacred! All the songs I sing Welling, welling From Elizabethan spring.

French, that corner of primrose! Flaubert, Verlaine, with all those Precious, little things in prose, Bliss-compelling, Howsoe’er the story goes:

All the Latins _thou_ dost prize! Cynthia’s lover by thee lies; Note Catullus, type and size Least repelling To thy weariable eyes.

And for Greek! Too sluggishly Thou dost toil; but Sappho, see! And the dear Anthology For thy spelling. Come, it shall be well with thee.

It is clear from all the testimony that Katharine and Edith were extremely serious persons in those first years at Stoke Bishop, a fact which seems to have borne rather hard on the young men of their acquaintance. Thus, a member of their college, launching a small conversational craft with a light phrase, might have his barque swamped by the inquiry of one who really wanted to know: “Which do you truly think is the greater poem, the _Iliad_ or the _Odyssey_?” It was an era when Higher Education and Women’s Rights and Anti-Vivisection were being indignantly championed, and when ‘æsthetic dress’ was being very consciously worn--all by the same kind of people. Katharine and Edith were of that kind. They joined the debating society of the college and plunged into the questions of the moment. They spoke eloquently in favour of the suffrage for women, and were deeply interested in ethical matters. They were devotees of reason, and would subscribe to no creed. Katharine was a prime mover of the Anti-Vivisection Society in Clifton, and was its secretary till 1887. She was, too, in correspondence with Ruskin, was strongly influenced by him in moral and artistic questions, and was a companion of the Guild of St George--though that was as far as she ever went in Ruskinian economics. Both of the friends adored pictures, worked at water-colour drawing, wore wonderful flowing garments in ‘art’ colours, and dressed their hair in a loose knot at the nape of the neck.

Mary Sturgeon opens her study of Michael Field—the pseudonym for Katharine Bradley and Edith Cooper—by recounting her own discovery of their poetry, a process she describes as a series of 'fresh delights' that led her to investigate the life behind the work. The preface makes clear that this is a retrieval project: Sturgeon found that 'no one seemed to have heard about this large body of fine poetry,' and she set out to remedy that neglect. Her method is evident from the start: she moves between biographical context and textual analysis, drawing on the poets' letters, prefaces, and the testimony of friends. The result is a portrait that treats the literary output as inseparable from the 'epical romance and heroism' of the collaborators' shared life.

Tragic Irony in The Tragedy of David

Sturgeon devotes considerable attention to The Tragedy of David (1884), particularly its handling of dramatic irony. In Act IV, Scene 5, King Robert, unaware that his son David (Rothsay) is starving to death in Falkland Castle, muses affectionately about the boy's fear of the dark. The king recalls how David 'used to throw a cushion on the floor, / And lay him down as featly as the hound, / His foolish yellow head against my knee.' This tender memory is undercut by the audience's knowledge that Rothsay is at that moment dying of starvation. Sturgeon calls the scene 'masterly,' and the excerpt she provides shows the king's ignorance deepening the pathos. Earlier, Rothsay's own speeches—'I ever thought / Death was a shadow.—I myself am Death'—reveal a character who becomes the very skeleton he once saw in books. Sturgeon's analysis highlights how the play uses physical deprivation to dramatize psychological collapse, a pattern she traces through the verse.

The Land Question in William Rufus

In discussing William Rufus (1885), Sturgeon notes that the play was explicitly conceived as a drama about the land question, inspired by a visit to the New Forest where the poet found the stone marking Rufus's death. The arrow that killed the king seemed 'directed by Nature's anger at the destruction of her food-bearing fields for the insolence of pleasure.' Yet Sturgeon argues that the play's 'dramatic instinct' overrides this political agenda: 'Michael Field has been better than her creed.' The evidence, she suggests, lies in the texture of the drama itself, which feels organic rather than imposed. She quotes the poet's preface to show the ulterior motive, but insists that the work succeeds on its own terms. This tension between intention and execution is a recurring theme in Sturgeon's criticism, and she returns to it when examining the poets' later devotional verse.

The Collaborative Voice

Throughout the study, Sturgeon grapples with the question of how two writers produced a single poetic identity. She draws on the poets' own statements—such as the epigraph from Gordon Bottomley, 'the two friends ... Who sought perfection and achieved far more'—and on the testimony of friends like Charles Ricketts and Havelock Ellis. The excerpts from the plays show a consistent dramatic voice, but Sturgeon is careful not to claim that she can distinguish Bradley's hand from Cooper's. Instead, she focuses on the shared preoccupations: the exploration of power, desire, and mortality. The preface's mention of 'the life of Michael Field' as 'epical in romance and heroism' suggests that Sturgeon sees the collaboration itself as a kind of creative act. Her method is to let the poetry speak for the partnership, using the plays and lyrics as evidence of a unified sensibility.

Sturgeon's study is best read as an introduction rather than a definitive biography. She acknowledges her debts to many who knew the poets, and her tone is that of an advocate eager to share a discovery. Readers new to Michael Field will find here a guide to the major plays and poems, with enough quotation to suggest the quality of the verse. Those already familiar with the work may wish to compare Sturgeon's readings with the original texts, particularly her claims about dramatic irony and political intent. The book remains valuable as a contemporary account of a literary partnership that was, even in 1922, in danger of being forgotten.

I have often kept Mary Sturgeon's wise book on Michael Field near my desk, for it whispers of two women who wrote as one flame. But next to it, I find Sappho: A New Rendering — Text and Context, whose broken songs hold the same quiet hunger, the same ache for a voice that must be shared. They seem, across ages, to nod to each other.

There are no reviews for this eBook.

0
0 out of 5 (0 User reviews )

Add a Review

Your Rating *
There are no comments for this eBook.

Reader reflection

Your personal reading reflection

Build a private reading journal entry for this title.

Your progress 0 / 10
1

Where are you in your reading?

2

Was reading this book enjoyable?

3

Would you pass this book on to a friend?

4

Did the language feel accessible?

Related eBooks