Shakespeare Apocrypha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Shakespeare Apocrypha is the name given to a group of plays that have sometimes been attributed to Shakespeare, but whose attribution is questionable for various reasons. This is separate from the debate on Shakespearean authorship, which addresses the authorship of the works traditionally attributed to Shakespeare.

1 The problem
2 Plays attributed to Shakespeare during the 17th century, but not included in the First Folio
3 Plays attributed to Shakespeare after the 17th century
4 Lost plays
5 Hoaxes
6 An apocryphal poem: A Funeral Elegy
7 References
8 Notes
9 External links

[edit] The problem

In his own lifetime, Shakespeare saw only about half of his plays enter print. Some individual plays were published in quarto, a small, cheap format. In 1623, seven years after Shakespeare's death, his fellow actors John Heminges and Henry Condell put together a collection of his complete plays. Heminges and Condell were in a position to compile Shakespeare's complete plays, because they, like Shakespeare, worked for the King's Men, the London theatre company that produced all of Shakespeare's plays (in Elizabethan England, plays belonged to the company that performed them, not the dramatist who had written them).

It ought to be simple, therefore, to say what Shakespeare wrote, and what he did not: the plays that were included in the First Folio must be by Shakespeare, and those that were excluded must be by someone else. After all, Heminges and Condell were in a better position to know what Shakespeare wrote than we are.

However, there are a number of complications that have created the concept of the Shakespeare Apocrypha. The Apocrypha can be categorized under the following headings.

[edit] Plays attributed to Shakespeare during the 17th century, but not included in the First Folio

There were several plays published in quarto during the seventeenth century which bear Shakespeare's name on the title page (or the intitials 'Will.S.'), but did not appear in the First Folio. Some of these plays (such as Pericles) are believed by most lovers of Shakespeare to have been written by him (at least in part). Others, such as Thomas Lord Cromwell are so badly written that it is difficult to believe they really are by Shakespeare.

There are various conceivable explanations as to why these plays were excluded from the First Folio by Heminges and Condell.

The title page attributions are simply lies made by fraudulent printers trading on Shakespeare's reputation.
These plays are collaborative, not by Shakespeare alone (yet it must be remembered that Henry VIII, Henry VI, part 1 and Timon of Athens were not excluded, even though modern stylistic analysis suggests that they are collaborations).
Shakespeare may have had an editorial role in the plays' creation, rather than actually writing them; alternatively they may simply be based on a plot outline by Shakespeare
They were written for different companies than the King's Men, perhaps from early in Shakespeare's career, and thus were inaccessible to Heminges and Condell when they compiled the First Folio.

No one of these explanations is the right one; each play needs to be looked at on an individual basis.

The Birth of Merlin was published in 1662 as the work of Shakespeare and William Rowley. This attribution is demonstrably fraudulent, or mistaken, as there is unambiguous evidence that the play was written in 1622, six years after Shakespeare's death. It is unlikely that Shakespeare and Rowley would have written together, as they were both chief dramatist for rival playing companies. The play is fun and very stageworthy, but most readers see its style as merely a clumsy imitation of Shakespeare.
Locrine was published in 1595 as "Newly set forth, overseen and corrected by W.S." The play's stiff, formal verse is unshakespearean, but it is conceivable that Shakespeare might have been in charge of tidying up an old play. It is also possible that the man behind the W.S. was Wentworth Smith, another, more obscure dramatist with the right initials.
The London Prodigal was printed in 1605 under Shakespeare's name. As it is a King's Men play, Shakespeare may have had a minor role in its creation, but the play's bland style bears no traces of his flair.
Pericles, Prince of Tyre was published under Shakespeare's name. Its uneven writing suggests that the first two acts are by another playwright, probably George Wilkins. However, the play contains numerous beautiful passages, and mainstream scholarship accepts the play as primarily Shakespeare's.
The Puritan was published in 1607 and attributed to 'W.S.' This play is now generally believed to be by Thomas Middleton. As with Locrine, Wentworth Smith is also a possibility.
The Second Maiden's Tragedy survives only in manuscript. Three crossed-out attributions in seventeenth century hands attribute it to Thomas Goffe, Shakespeare, and George Chapman. However, stylistic analysis indicates very strongly that the true author was Thomas Middleton. A professional handwriting expert has claimed that this play is in fact Shakespeare's manuscript of the lost Cardenio, but his argument has many logical flaws.
Sir John Oldcastle was originally published anonymously in 1600. In 1619, a new edition attributed it to Shakespeare. In fact, the diary of Philip Henslowe records that it was written by Anthony Munday, Michael Drayton, Richard Hathaway and Robert Wilson.
Thomas Lord Cromwell was published in 1602 and attributed to 'W.S.' It is a badly-written play and no reader has ever been convinced of Shakespeare's authorship. Another possible candidate for its authorship would be Wentworth Smith.
The Two Noble Kinsmen was published as a collaboration between Shakespeare and John Fletcher, the young playwright who took over Shakespeare's job as chief playwright of the King's Men. Mainstream scholarship agrees with this attribution, and the play is increasingly being accepted as a worthy member of the Shakespeare canon, despite its collaborative origins. It is for instance included in the 1986 Oxford Shakespeare.
A Yorkshire Tragedy was published in 1608 as the work of Shakespeare. Although a minority of readers support this claim, the weight of stylistic evidence supports Thomas Middleton.
Edward III was published anonymously in 1596. It was first attributed to Shakespeare in a bookseller's catalogue published in 1656. ^[1] Various scholars have suggested Shakespeare's possible authorship, since a number of passages appear to bear his stamp, among other sections that are remarkably uninspired. In 1996, Yale University Press became the first major publisher to produce an edition of the play under Shakespeare's name, and shortly afterward, the Royal Shakespeare Company performed the play (to mixed reviews). In 2001, the American professional premiere was staged by the Carmel Shakespeare Festival, which received positive reviews for the endeavor. A consensus is emerging that the play was written by a team of dramatists including Shakespeare early in his career — but exactly who wrote what is still open to debate. The play is included in the Second Edition of the Complete Oxford Shakespeare (2005), where it is attributed to "William Shakespeare and Others".

The 'Charles II Library' plays: in Charles II's library, an unknown seventeenth century person has bound together three quartos of anonymous plays and labelled them 'Shakespeare, vol. 1'. As a seventeenth century attribution, this decision warrants some consideration. The three plays are:

Fair Em, the Miller's Daughter of Manchester was published in 1591. This rollicking play does not read like Shakespeare; the likeliest candidate for its authorship is Robert Wilson.
Mucedorus was an incredibly popular play; it was first printed in 1598 and went through several editions despite the text's manifestly corrupt nature. As it is a King's Men play, Shakespeare may have had a minor role in its creation or revision, but its true author remains a mystery; Robert Greene is sometimes suggested.
The Merry Devil of Edmonton was first published in 1608. As it is a King's Men play, Shakespeare may have had a minor role in its creation, but the play's bland style bears no traces of his flair.

[edit] Plays attributed to Shakespeare after the 17th century

A number of anonymous plays have been attributed to Shakespeare by more recent readers and scholars. All of these claims need to be looked at sceptically: it is every Shakespeare lover's dream to discover a lost masterpiece, and many of the claims are supported only by debatable ideas about what constitutes 'Shakespeare's style'. Nonetheless, some of the claims are compelling and have been cautiously accepted by mainstream scholarship.

Arden of Faversham is an anonymous play printed in 1592 that has occasionally been claimed for Shakespeare. The attribution is not supported by mainstream scholarship, its style and subject matter being very different to Shakespeare's other plays. Thomas Kyd is often considered to be the author but still other writers have been proposed.
Edmund Ironside is an anonymous manuscript play. Despite vociferous arguments by Eric Sams that it is by Shakespeare, few readers agree, seeing it merely a weak imitation at best.
Sir Thomas More survives only in manuscript. It is a play that was written in the 1590s and revised about ten years later. The play is included in the Second Edition of the Complete Oxford Shakespeare (2005), which attributes the original play to Anthony Munday and Henry Chettle, with later revisions and additions by Thomas Dekker, Shakespeare and Thomas Heywood. A few pages are written by an author ('Hand D'), whom many believe to be Shakespeare, as the handwriting and spellings, as well as the style seem a good match. The attribution is not accepted by everyone, however, especially since six signatures on legal documents are the only authentic examples of Shakespeare's handwriting.

[edit] Lost plays

Love's Labour's Won. A late sixteenth-century writer, Francis Meres, and a scrap of paper (apparently from a bookseller), both list this title among Shakespeare's recent works, but no play of this title has survived. It may have become lost, or it may represent an alternate title of an existing play, such as Much Ado About Nothing, All's Well That Ends Well, or The Taming of the Shrew.
Cardenio. This late play by Shakespeare and Fletcher, referred to in several documents, has not survived. It was an adaptation of a tale in Cervantes' Don Quixote. In 1727, Lewis Theobald produced a play he called Double Falshood [sic], which he claimed to have adapted from three manuscripts of a lost play by Shakespeare that he did not name. Double Falshood does re-work the Cardenio story, and modern scholarship generally agrees that Double Falshood represents all we have of the lost play.
The lost play called the Ur-Hamlet is believed by a few scholars to be an early work by Shakespeare himself. The theory was first postulated by the academic Peter Alexander and is supported by Harold Bloom and Peter Ackroyd, although mainstream Shakespearean scholarship believes it to be by Thomas Kyd. Bloom's hypothesis is that this early version of Hamlet was one of Shakespeare's first plays, that the theme of the Prince of Denmark was one to which he returned constantly throughout his career and that he continued to revise it even after the canonical Hamlet of 1601.

[edit] Hoaxes

The dream of discovering a new Shakespeare play has also resulted in the creation of at least one hoax.

Vortigern and Rowena is a famous theatrical hoax perpetrated by William Henry Ireland, a notorious forger of Shakespearean manuscripts. Ireland claimed to have found a lost play of Shakespeare entitled Vortigern and Rowena, which was initially accepted by the literary community — albeit not on sight — as genuine. The play was eventually presented at Drury Lane on 2 April 1796, to immediate ridicule.

[edit] An apocryphal poem: A Funeral Elegy

Using stylometric computer analysis, scholar and forensic linguist Donald Foster attributed A Funeral Elegy for Master William Peter [1], previously ascribed only to "W.S.", to William Shakespeare, based on an analysis of its grammatical patterns and idiosyncratic word usage. The attribution received tremendous press attention from the New York Times and other newspapers.

However, a later analysis by scholar Gilles Monsarrat showed Foster's attribution to be premature, and that the true author may well have been John Ford. Foster conceded to Monsarrat in an e-mail message to the SHAKSPER e-mail list in 2002 [2].

[edit] References

C.F. Tucker-Brooke, ed. The Shakespeare Apocrypha. Oxford University Press, 1908.
Stanley Wells, Gary Taylor, John Jowett and William Montgomery. William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion. Oxford University Press, 1986.