Thomas of Woodstock and Richard the Second Part One are two common names for an untitled, anonymous and apparently incomplete manuscript of an Elizabethan play depicting events in the reign of King Richard II. Some scholars have attributed it to William Shakespeare, although it does not appear in at least two of the major editions of the Shakespeare Apocrypha.[1] The play often is cited as being a probable influence upon Shakespeare's Richard II, as well as possibly Henry IV, Parts 1[2] and 2.[3]
Contents |
The play survives only as an anonymous, untitled and incomplete manuscript, part of a collection in the British Library catalogued as MS. Egerton 1994. It is one of fifteen plays included in the collection discovered by James Halliwell-Phillipps, which also includes Edmund Ironside, another play whose authorship has been attributed by some scholars to William Shakespeare.[4]
The collection of manuscripts in which Thomas of Woodstock survives was compiled by a seventeenth century actor in the King's Revels Men, William Cartwright (ca. 1606-1686; not to be confused with his contemporary poet/dramatist of the same name), who later became a bookseller and collector of plays during the English Civil War.[5][6]
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.[7] Significantly, it is not known which acting company owned or performed the play.[8]
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.
The play covers the events leading up to the murder of Richard II's uncle, Thomas of Woodstock, 1st Duke of Gloucester in 1397. The manuscript has no title. Most scholars and theatre companies who have worked on the play call it Thomas of Woodstock or Woodstock, but some entitle it Richard II, Part One, either as the main title or as a sub-title.[9] 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 context for the behaviour of many of Shakespeare's characters. 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.[10] In addition, A.P. Rossiter preferred to call it Woodstock on the grounds that Woodstock is the hero of the play, not Richard.[11]
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.[12] 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.[13]
Other authors have been suggested. In 2001, MacDonald P. Jackson used stylistic analysis to propose Samuel Rowley as a possible author.[14] John Fletcher and Thomas Heywood likewise have been suggested as authors.[15]
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".[16] Nonetheless, they note:
In 2006, Michael Egan made a case for Shakespeare and against Rowley in a four volume (2100 page) analysis.[18] His evidence includes what he claims to be thousands of phrasal parallels.[19] Egan notes that Ian Robinson also supported the attribution to Shakespeare in a now out of print manuscript.[20] Egan's work has sparked debate. On the SHAKSPER moderated discussion list, Ward Elliott reported that he had performed stylometric analysis on the manuscript's text that he claimed discount Egan's assertion.[21] This prompted Egan to offer Elliott £1000 if he (Egan) could not prove Shakespeare's authorship—a wager that was accepted in 2010. Egan and Elliott agreed to settle the bet by referring the issue to a panel of three Shakespeare scholars. The panel issued their opinion on August 29, 2011, unequivocally rejecting Egan's attribution and determining that Elliott had won the bet.[22] In a review for the Times Literary Supplement, Bart Van Es also challenged Egan's attribution, arguing that the verbal links he had found were often tenuous. Egan responded that the most important evidence was the quality of the writing.[19]
Against the argument of Shakespeare's authorship, the character of Sir Henry Green is killed fighting in Act V of Thomas of Woodstock, yet is alive again at the beginning of Richard II until his execution is ordered by Bolingbroke in Act III. There is no instance of a character dying twice in the validated works of Shakespeare.
The 1929 Malone Society editor states that most scholars place its composition between 1591 and 1595.[23] Ule and Baker put it more precisely as c. 1582; they believe it was written by Marlowe while at Cambridge, shortly after he had completed other plays they attribute to him, such as Timon, and The Famous Victories of Henry V.[24] 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."[25] 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.[26] Others, particularly Egan, have specifically criticized such a date and characterization.[27]
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).[28]
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 2001–04, which included the American professional premieres of both Edward III and "Thomas of Woodstock". They proposed Shakespeare as the author of both plays 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.[29]
The Shakespeare Theatre in Washington, D.C., staged Richard II in 2010 with director Michael Kahn's incorporation of a significant part of "Thomas of Woodstock" at the start of the play.