Richard II, Part I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Richard the Second Part One and Thomas of Woodstock are two common names for an untitled, anonymous and incomplete manuscript of an Elizabethan play depicting events in the reign of King Richard II. Its main claim to fame is a suggestion by some scholars that its author was William Shakespeare, and hence it is often included within the Shakespeare Apocrypha. The play often is cited as being a probable influence upon Shakespeare's Richard II, as well as possibly Henry IV, Part 1[1] & [2]

Contents

[edit] Text and origins

The play survives only as an anonymous, untitled and incomplete manuscript now stored in the Egerton Manuscript Collection, in the British Library. It is one of fifteen plays included in the collection discovered by James Orchard Halliwell-Phillipps, which also includes Edmund Ironside, another play whose authorship has been attributed by some scholars to William Shakespeare.[3]

Thomas of Woodstock apparently was compiled by the Seventeenth Century King's Revels Men and Caroline actor William Cartwright (1606-1686) (not to be mistaken with his contemporary poet/dramatist of the same name William Cartwright), that later became a bookseller and collector of plays during the English Civil War.[4][5]

There is no confirmed recorded production of the play during Shakespeare's lifetime, although the well-worn state of the Egerton manuscript, the presence of notations referencing specific actor's names, and the inclusion of instructions within the text's margins suggesting censorship by the Master of Revels, all suggest that the play enjoyed heavy use even during the Jacobean period.[6] Significantly, it is not known which acting company owned or performed the play.[7]

A transcript of the text was published by the Malone Society in 1929, and in fully edited texts by A. P. Rossiter in 1946, Peter Corbin and Douglas Sedge in 2002 and Michael Egan in 2003.

[edit] Title and subject matter

The manuscript has no title. Most scholars who have worked on the play call it by some variation of either Richard II, Part One, Woodstock, or Thomas of Woodstock.[8]. Those who elect to call it Richard II, Part One or similar do so because the play describes events immediately prior to Shakespeare's Richard II and provides explanations for the behavior of many of Shakespeare's characters.[citation needed] However, this title has been criticized as "going too far", because it makes the play's relationship with Shakespeare's play seem definitive, when it is only speculative.[9] A.P. Rossiter prefers to call it Woodstock on the grounds that Woodstock is the hero of the play, not Richard.[10]

[edit] Authorship

Given the play's closeness to the subject matter of Richard II, Shakespeare's authorship has sometimes been suggested, although few of the play's historic editors supported this speculation. The Malone Society editor makes no reference to the Shakespeare theory.[11] A.P. Rossiter states "There is not the smallest chance that he was Shakespeare", citing the drabness of the verse, while acknowledging that the play's aspirations indicate that "There is something of a simplified Shakespeare" in the author.[12]

Other authors have been suggested. MacDonald P. Jackson uses stylistic analysis to propose Samuel Rowley as a possible author.[13] However, Louis Ule and John Baker, whose stylometric studies were first to analyze the entire play, rather than samples, claimed a close relationship with the works of Marlowe and Shakespeare and almost no similarity to the known work of Rowley.[citation needed] John Fletcher and Thomas Heywood likewise have been suggested as authors.[14]

More recently, the play has received renewed scholarly support as a work of Shakespeare. For instance, Michael Egan has made a case for Shakespeare and against Rowley in a four volume (2100 page) analysis.[15] As Egan notes, Ian Robinson also supported the attribution to Shakespeare in a now out of print manuscript.[16]

Peter Corbin and Douglas Sedge, in their 2002 edition of the play argue that Thomas of Woodstock was written by an author of "considerable range and competence", but they regard any attribution to Shakespeare "or any other author" as "highly speculative".[17] Nonetheless, they note:

"Shakespeare is perhaps the one known dramatist in the 1590s whose dramatic style most closely resembles that of Thomas of Woodstock. The 'Shakespearian' characteristics of the play may be summarized as follows: a sophisticated handling of chronicle material; a careful and fruitful juxtaposition of low life scenes over and against court life; the sense of England as a significant 'character' throughout the play; a sure handling of dramatic technique as in the economical and engaging exposition; the careful drawing of effective female characters (specifically Anne O' Beame [i.e. Anne of Bohemia]); Nimble's malaproprisms, anticipating Costard, Dogberry and Mrs. [sic] Mistress Quickly; the dramatist's ability to manipulate audience sympathy in a complex fashion towards Richard and to present Woodstock as a figure of conscience in a manner which anticipates Gaunt."[18]

However, Ward Elliott reported that he performed stylometric analysis on the manuscript's text that he claimed discount Egan's assertion.[19] This prompted Egan to offer Elliott 1000 pounds if he could disprove Shakespeare's authorship -- a wager that was never accepted.[20] Similarly, more recently Bart Van Es also has challenged the attribution of the play to Shakespeare, though that has not caused Egan to waiver with respect to his own position.[21]

[edit] Date

The 1929 Malone Society editor states that most scholars place its composition between 1591 and 1595.[22] Ule and Baker put it more precisely as c. 1582; they believe it was written by Marlowe while at Cambridge while Marlowe was there, shortly after he had completed other plays they attribute to him, such as Timon, and The Famous Victories of Henry V[23]Corbin and Sedge, while cautioning that "[d]ating by suppositions of literary or theatrical influence is ... a hazardous business," nonetheless state that "in so far as literary influence may help dating, it would seem probable that [Woodstock] was written, and perhaps staged, some time before 1595."[24] Egan dates the play to 1592-1593, while dating the manuscript to 1605. MacDonald P. Jackson argues that "Woodstock's contractions and linguistic forms, expletives, metrical features, and vocabulary all point independently to composition in the first decade of the seventeenth century", a conclusion that would make the play's relationship with Richard II that of a 'prequel' rather than a source.[25] Others, particularly Egan, have specifically criticized such a date and characterization.[26]

[edit] Performances

The Hampshire Shakespeare Company, a non-professional theatre in Amherst, Massachusetts, staged the first known American production of "Thomas of Woodstock" in 1999. Local scholar Frederick Carrigg supplied an ending to cover the missing manuscript page(s). Their copy of the script can be found here.

Royal Blood: The Rise and Fall of Kings was a 10-play series of Shakespeare's history plays staged chronologically over four seasons by Pacific Repertory Theatre from 2001-2004, which included the American professional premieres of both Edward III and Richard II, Part I. They titled the latter Thomas of Woodstock and proposed Shakespeare as its author in their first arc in 2001, consisting of Edward III, Thomas of Woodstock, and Richard II. The next season featured Henry IV (I & II) and Henry V; the third season consisted of Henry VI, (I and II); with the last season consisting of Henry VI, Part III and Richard III.[1]

[edit] References

  1. ^ The Riverside Shakespeare at 842, 2000 (2nd ed. 1997)
  2. ^ Peter Corbin and Douglas Sedge, Thomas of Woodstock: or, Richard II, Part One (Manchester University Press, 2002), at 4.
  3. ^ Sams, Eric. (1986). Shakespeare's "Edmund Ironside": The Lost Play. Wildwood Ho. ISBN 0-7045-0547-9
  4. ^ Peter Corbin and Douglas Sedge, Thomas of Woodstock: or, Richard II, Part One (Manchester University Press, 2002), at 1
  5. ^ Brian Vickers "Counterfeiting" Review
  6. ^ Id. at 1-3, 38-39.
  7. ^ Id. at 40
  8. ^ Peter Corbin and Douglas Sedge, Thomas of Woodstock: or, Richard II, Part One (Manchester University Press, 2002), at 3-4
  9. ^ Wilhelmina P. Frijlinck, ed. The First Part of the Reign of King Richard II or Thomas of Woodstock. Malone Society, 1929, p.v.
  10. ^ A.P. Rossiter, Woodstock: A Moral History (London: Chatto & Windus, 1946), p. 26
  11. ^ Frijlinck, First Part.
  12. ^ Rossiter, Woodstock, p. 73
  13. '^ Macd. P. Jackson, 'Shakespeare's Richard II and the Anonymous Thomas of Woodstock, in Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 14 (2001) 17-65.
  14. ^ Brian Vickers "Counterfeiting" Review
  15. ^ Egan, Michael (2006), The Tragedy of Richard II: A Newly Authenticated Play by William Shakespeare, Edwin Mellen Press, ISBN 0773460829, <http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Reviews/jimenez.woodstock.htm> 
  16. ^ Ian Robinson, “Richard II ” and “Woodstock,” (Brynmill Press, 1988).
  17. ^ Peter Corbin and Douglas Sedge, Thomas of Woodstock: or, Richard II, Part One (Manchester University Press, 2002), at 4.
  18. ^ Id.
  19. ^ SHAKSPER 2005: Wager
  20. ^ SHAKSPER 2005: Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my
  21. ^ Letters to the Editor March 26th 2008 TLS
  22. ^ Frijlinck, First Part., p. xxiii
  23. ^ Ule, A Concordance to the Shakespeare Apocrypha, which contains an edition of the play and a discussion of its authorship.
  24. ^ Peter Corbin and Douglas Sedge, Thomas of Woodstock: or, Richard II, Part One (Manchester University Press, 2002), at 4 & 8.
  25. '^ Macd. P. Jackson, 'Shakespeare's Richard II and the Anonymous Thomas of Woodstock, in Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 14 (2001) 17-65.
  26. ^ editor's comment, "Why Richard II, Part 1 is Even More Important Than You Think", Shakespeare Matters 7.3 (Spring 2007): 3, 26-29, 31; Michael Egan, "Richard II, Part 1 and the Crisis of Shakespeare Scholarship", Shakespeare Matters 7.3 (Spring 2007): 1, 13-25; http://www.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/shakespeare/woodstock1.html
 William Shakespeare and his works
General information Biography · Style · Influence · Reputation · Religion · Sexuality · Shakespeare authorship question
Tragedies Antony and Cleopatra · Coriolanus · Cymbeline · Hamlet · Julius Caesar · King Lear · Macbeth · Othello · Romeo and Juliet · Timon of Athens · Titus Andronicus · Troilus and Cressida
Comedies All's Well That Ends Well · As You Like It · The Comedy of Errors · Love's Labour's Lost · Measure for Measure · The Merchant of Venice · The Merry Wives of Windsor · A Midsummer Night's Dream · Much Ado About Nothing · Pericles, Prince of Tyre · The Taming of the Shrew · The Tempest · Twelfth Night · The Two Gentlemen of Verona · The Two Noble Kinsmen · The Winter's Tale
Histories King John · Richard II · Henry IV, Part 1 · Henry IV, Part 2 · Henry V · Henry VI, part 1 · Henry VI, part 2 · Henry VI, part 3 · Richard III · Henry VIII
Poems Sonnets · Venus and Adonis · The Rape of Lucrece · The Passionate Pilgrim · The Phoenix and the Turtle · A Lover's Complaint
Apocrypha and
lost plays		 Edward III · Sir Thomas More · Cardenio (lost) · Love's Labour's Won (lost) · The Birth of Merlin · Locrine · The London Prodigal · The Puritan · The Second Maiden's Tragedy · Richard II, Part I: Thomas of Woodstock · Sir John Oldcastle · Thomas Lord Cromwell · A Yorkshire Tragedy · Fair Em · Mucedorus · The Merry Devil of Edmonton · Arden of Faversham · Edmund Ironside · Vortigern and Rowena
Other play
information		 Shakespeare's plays · Shakespeare in performance · Chronology of Shakespeare plays · Oxfordian chronology · Shakespeare on screen · BBC Television Shakespeare · Titles based on Shakespeare · Lists of characters A–K, L–Z · Problem plays · List of historical characters · Ghost characters
Languages