Thomas of Woodstock (play)

Last updated

Thomas of Woodstock and Richard the Second Part One are two names for an untitled, anonymous and apparently incomplete manuscript of an Elizabethan play depicting events in the reign of King Richard II. Attributions of the play to William Shakespeare have been nearly universally rejected, and it does not appear in major editions of the Shakespeare apocrypha. [1] The play has been often cited as a possible influence on Shakespeare's Richard II , as well as Henry IV, Parts 1 [2] and 2 , [3] but new dating of the text brings that relationship into question.

Contents

Characters

Dramatis Personae after Corbin and Sedge (2002)

Text and origins

The play survives only as an anonymous, untitled and incomplete manuscript, part of a collection of fifteen plays in the British Library catalogued as MS. Egerton 1994. The collection was discovered by James Halliwell-Phillipps, and also includes Edmund Ironside , another play whose authorship has been attributed by some scholars to William Shakespeare. [4]

The collection 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]

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 actors' 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.

Title and subject matter

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. [8] Those who elect to call it Richard II, Part One or by similar titles 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 criticised as "going too far", because it makes the play's relationship to Shakespeare's play seem definitive when it is only speculative. [9] Moreover, events depicted in Woodstock are covered as well in Richard II (such as the farming out of the kingdom and the death of Green), so that play cannot be a sequel in the ordinary meaning of the term. A.P. Rossiter, who edited the play, preferred the title Woodstock since Woodstock is the play's protagonist, not Richard. [10] Corbin and Sedge argue that Shakespeare was familiar with the play, drew inspiration from it (especially in King Lear , particularly in the quarto version), and expected audiences to be familiar with it in Richard II, noting that many modern productions reverse the first two scenes to give the audience a better understanding of the events that occurred before the play opens.

Authorship

Given the play's close relationship to the subject matter of Richard II, Shakespeare's authorship has been suggested, although few of the play's earlier 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. In 2001, MacDonald P. Jackson used stylistic analysis to propose Samuel Rowley as a possible author. [13]

Corbin and Sedge 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". Nonetheless, they note that:

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 summarised 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 malapropisms, anticipating Costard, Dogberry and Mrs. Quickley; 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. [14]

In 2006, Michael Egan offered a case for Shakespeare's authorship of the play in a four volume (2,100-page) variorum edition, which includes a book-length authorship analysis. [15] His evidence consists for the most part in what he suggests are thousands of verbal parallels. [16] Egan claimed that Ian Robinson supported the attribution of the play to Shakespeare in a 1988 publication, Richard II and Woodstock, [17] but he cited no other adherents to this view. Ward Elliott reported that he had performed stylometric analysis on the manuscript's text, which he claimed discounts Egan's attribution. [18] In a review of Egan's treatise for the Times Literary Supplement, Bart Van Es also challenged Egan's attribution, arguing that the verbal links that he had found were often tenuous. Egan wagered £1,000 that he could prove "by clear, convincing and irrefutable evidence" that Shakespeare wrote the play. In 2011, a panel of three independent Shakespeare scholars concluded that he had not done so, and that the play was not Shakespearean. [19] Eric Sams, in an appendix on Woodstock planned for the second volume of his The Real Shakespeare (2008), also presented linguistic and circumstantial arguments for Shakespeare's authorship of "this powerful drama". [20]

An argument against Shakespeare's authorship is the fact that 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.[ citation needed ] There are, however, inconsistencies in Shakespeare, such as the claim at the end of Henry IV, Part 2 that Falstaff will be seen again in Henry V, a promise that is not kept. Furthermore, the character of Falstaff is arguably a different one in the history plays than the character encountered in The Merry Wives of Windsor , not to mention the apparent setting of that play in Renaissance England rather than Prince Hal's time.

Date

The 1929 Malone Society editor states that most scholars place its composition between 1591 and 1595. [21] Ule and Baker date it more precisely to about 1582; they believe it was written by Christopher Marlowe while he was at Cambridge, shortly after he had completed other plays they attribute to him such as Timon, and The Famous Victories of Henry V . [22] 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." [23] 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 which would make the play's relationship with Richard II that of a "prequel" rather than a source. [13] Eric Sams (2008) conjectured c.1590 as its original composition date, placing it after The First Part of the Contention, which he considered to be by the same author and a major influence on its language, content and treatment. [20]

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 writer Frederick Carrigg supplied an ending to cover the missing manuscript page(s). [24]

Royal Blood: The Rise and Fall of Kings was a 10-play series of Shakespeare's history plays staged chronologically over four seasons by the Pacific Repertory Theatre from 2001 to 2004, 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. [25] [26]

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.

On 20 December 2013 the Royal Shakespeare Company gave a rehearsed reading of the play at London's Barbican Centre in the context of its ongoing performances of Richard II. The text was significantly cut by the director (for example the subplot involving Nimble and the blank charters was excised) to highlight the relationship between the two plays.

In 2020, the Beyond Shakespeare Company released online a play-reading and discussion of Thomas of Woodstock on YouTube. [27]

Related Research Articles

<i>Richard II</i> (play) History play by William Shakespeare

The Life and Death of King Richard the Second, commonly called Richard II, is a history play by William Shakespeare believed to have been written around 1595. Based on the life of King Richard II of England, it chronicles his downfall and the machinations of his nobles. It is the first part of a tetralogy, referred to by some scholars as the Henriad, followed by three plays about Richard's successors: Henry IV, Part 1; Henry IV, Part 2; and Henry V.

<i>Edward III</i> (play) 1596 play often attributed to Shakespeare

The Raigne of King Edward the Third, commonly shortened to Edward III, is an Elizabethan play printed anonymously in 1596, and at least partly written by William Shakespeare. It began to be included in publications of the complete works of Shakespeare only in the late 1990s. Scholars who have supported this attribution include Jonathan Bate, Edward Capell, Eliot Slater, Eric Sams, Giorgio Melchiori and Brian Vickers. The play's co-author remains the subject of debate: suggestions have included Thomas Kyd, Christopher Marlowe, Michael Drayton, Thomas Nashe and George Peele.

<i>Henry IV, Part 1</i> Play by Shakespeare

Henry IV, Part 1 is a history play by William Shakespeare, believed to have been written not later than 1597. The play dramatises part of the reign of King Henry IV of England, beginning with the battle at Homildon Hill late in 1402, and ending with King Henry's victory in the Battle of Shrewsbury in mid-1403. In parallel to the political conflict between King Henry and a rebellious faction of nobles, the play depicts the escapades of King Henry's son, Prince Hal, and his eventual return to court and favour.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Shakespearean history</span> Shakespeares history plays

In the First Folio, the plays of William Shakespeare were grouped into three categories: comedies, histories, and tragedies. The histories—along with those of contemporary Renaissance playwrights—help define the genre of history plays. The Shakespearean histories are biographies of English kings of the previous four centuries and include the standalones King John, Edward III and Henry VIII as well as a continuous sequence of eight plays. These last are considered to have been composed in two cycles. The so-called first tetralogy, apparently written in the early 1590s, covers the Wars of the Roses saga and includes Henry VI, Parts I, II & III and Richard III. The second tetralogy, finished in 1599 and including Richard II, Henry IV, Parts I & II and Henry V, is frequently called the Henriad after its protagonist Prince Hal, the future Henry V.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Shakespeare apocrypha</span> Works questionably attributed to Shakespeare

The Shakespeare apocrypha is a group of plays and poems that have sometimes been attributed to William Shakespeare, but whose attribution is questionable for various reasons. The issue is not to be confused with the debate on Shakespearean authorship, which questions the authorship of the works traditionally attributed to Shakespeare.

<i>Henry VIII</i> (play) Play by Shakespeare

Henry VIII is a collaborative history play, written by William Shakespeare and John Fletcher, based on the life of Henry VIII. An alternative title, All Is True, is recorded in contemporary documents, with the title Henry VIII not appearing until the play's publication in the First Folio of 1623. Stylistic evidence indicates that individual scenes were written by either Shakespeare or his collaborator and successor, John Fletcher. It is also somewhat characteristic of the late romances in its structure. It is noted for having more stage directions than any of Shakespeare's other plays.

<i>Thomas Lord Cromwell</i> Elizabethan history play

Thomas Lord Cromwell is an Elizabethan history play, depicting the life of Thomas Cromwell, 1st Earl of Essex, the minister of King Henry VIII of England.

<i>The London Prodigal</i> Play sometimes attributed to Shakespeare

The London Prodigal is an English Renaissance play, most notable for its inclusion among among the Shakespeare apocrypha. A city comedy set in London, it tells the story of a prodigal son learning the error of his ways. It was published 1605 as a play by William Shakespeare but the attribution is regarded as spurious by most scholars.

<i>Locrine</i> Elizabethan play

Locrine is an Elizabethan play depicting the legendary Trojan founders of the nation of England and of Troynovant (London). The play presents a cluster of complex and unresolved problems for scholars of English Renaissance theatre.

<i>Sir Thomas More</i> (play) Elizabethan play likely worked on by Shakespeare

Sir Thomas More is an Elizabethan play and a dramatic biography based on particular events in the life of the Catholic martyr Thomas More, who rose to become the Lord Chancellor of England during the reign of Henry VIII. The play is considered to be written by Anthony Munday and Henry Chettle and revised by several writers. The manuscript is particularly notable for a three-page handwritten revision now widely attributed to William Shakespeare.

<i>A Yorkshire Tragedy</i> 1608 play by Thomas Middleton

A Yorkshire Tragedy is an early Jacobean era stage play, a domestic tragedy printed in 1608. The play was originally assigned to William Shakespeare, though the modern critical consensus rejects this attribution, favouring Thomas Middleton.

<i>Arden of Faversham</i> 1592 English play of undetermined authorship

Arden of Faversham is an Elizabethan play, entered into the Register of the Stationers Company on 3 April 1592, and printed later that same year by Edward White. It depicts the real-life murder of Thomas Arden by his wife Alice Arden and her lover, and their subsequent discovery and punishment. The play is notable as perhaps the earliest surviving example of domestic tragedy, a form of Renaissance play which dramatized recent and local crimes rather than far-off and historical events.

<i>The Merry Devil of Edmonton</i> Elizabethan-era stage play

The Merry Devil of Edmonton is an Elizabethan-era stage play; a comedy about a magician, Peter Fabell, nicknamed the Merry Devil. It was at one point attributed to William Shakespeare, but is now considered part of the Shakespeare Apocrypha.

Like most playwrights of his period, William Shakespeare did not always write alone. A number of his surviving plays are collaborative, or were revised by others after their original composition, although the exact number is open to debate. Some of the following attributions, such as The Two Noble Kinsmen, have well-attested contemporary documentation; others, such as Titus Andronicus, are dependent on linguistic analysis by modern scholars; recent work on computer analysis of textual style has given reason to believe that parts of some of the plays ascribed to Shakespeare are actually by other writers.

Fair Em, the Miller's Daughter of Manchester, is an Elizabethan-era stage play, a comedy written c. 1590. It was bound together with Mucedorus and The Merry Devil of Edmonton in a volume labelled "Shakespeare. Vol. I" in the library of Charles II. Though scholarly opinion generally does not accept the attribution to William Shakespeare, there are a few who believe they see Shakespeare's hand in this play.

Thomas Creede was a printer of the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras, rated as "one of the best of his time." Based in London, he conducted his business under the sign of the Catherine Wheel in Thames Street from 1593 to 1600, and under the sign of the Eagle and Child in the Old Exchange from 1600 to 1617. Creede is best known for printing editions of works in English Renaissance drama, especially for ten editions of six Shakespearean plays and three works in the Shakespeare Apocrypha.

<i>The True Tragedy of Richard III</i>

The True Tragedy of Richard III is an anonymous Elizabethan history play on the subject of Richard III of England. It has attracted the attention of scholars of English Renaissance drama principally for the question of its relationship with William Shakespeare's Richard III.

The Downfall of Robert Earl of Huntington and The Death of Robert Earl of Huntington are two closely related Elizabethan-era stage plays on the Robin Hood legend, that were written by Anthony Munday in 1598 and published in 1601. They are among the relatively few surviving examples of the popular drama acted by the Admiral's Men during the Shakespearean era.

<i>The Famous Victories of Henry V</i> Anonymous 1580s English play

The Famous Victories of Henry the fifth: Containing the Honourable Battel of Agin-court: As it was plaide by the Queenes Maiesties Players, is an anonymous Elizabethan play, which is generally thought to be a source for Shakespeare's Henriad. It was entered by printer Thomas Creede in the Stationers' Register in 1594, but the earliest known edition is from 1598. A second quarto was published in 1617.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Shakespeare attribution studies</span> Seeking extent of Shakespeares writings

Shakespeare attribution studies is the scholarly attempt to determine the authorial boundaries of the William Shakespeare canon, the extent of his possible collaborative works, and the identity of his collaborators. The studies, which began in the late 17th century, are based on the axiom that every writer has a unique, measurable style that can be discriminated from that of other writers using techniques of textual criticism originally developed for biblical and classical studies. The studies include the assessment of different types of evidence, generally classified as internal, external, and stylistic, of which all are further categorised as traditional and non-traditional.

References

  1. ↑ Brooke, C. F. Tucker, The Shakespeare Apocrypha Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1918; Kozlenko, William,Disputed Plays of William Shakespeare, New York: Hawthorne Publishers, 1974
  2. ↑ The Riverside Shakespeare at 842, 2000 (2nd ed. 1997)
  3. ↑ Corbin, Peter, and Douglas Sedge. (2002) Thomas of Woodstock: or, Richard II, Part One, Manchester University Press, p. 4.
  4. ↑ Sams, Eric. (1986). Shakespeare's Edmund Ironside: The Lost Play. Wildwood Ho. ISBN   0-7045-0547-9
  5. ↑ Corbin and Sedge, 2002, p. 1.
  6. ↑ Id. at 1–3, 38–39.
  7. ↑ Id. at 40
  8. ↑ Corbin and Sedge, 2002, pp. 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. 1 2 Macd. P. Jackson, "Shakespeare's Richard II and the Anonymous Thomas of Woodstock", in Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 14 (2001) 17–65. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24322987
  14. ↑ Corbin and Sedge, 2002, p. 4.
  15. ↑ Egan, Michael (2006). The Tragedy of Richard II: A Newly Authenticated Play by William Shakespeare. Edwin Mellen Press. ISBN   0-7734-6082-9.
  16. ↑ "Last weeks letters". The Times. London. 26 March 2008. Retrieved 25 May 2010.
  17. ↑ Robinson, Ian, Richard II and Woodstock, Brynmill Press, 1988 Retrieved 29 November 2013
  18. ↑ SHAKSPER 2005: Wager
  19. ↑ http://shaksper.net/archive/2011/304-august/28082-thomas-of-woodstock; see, also, "Poor Richards," SHK 25.080 Sunday, 16 February 2014
  20. 1 2 Sams, Eric, The Real Shakespeare: Retrieving the Later Years, 1594–1616, p.342 (unfinished at the time of Sams' death, an edited text being published as an e-book by the Centro Studi "Eric Sams", 2008 )
  21. ↑ Frijlinck, First Part, p. xxiii
  22. ↑ Ule, A Concordance to the Shakespeare Apocrypha, which contains an edition of the play and a discussion of its authorship.
  23. ↑ Corbin and Sedge, 2002, pp. 4, 8.
  24. ↑ "Thomas of Woodstock: Title Page". Hampshire Shakespeare Company. Archived from the original on 30 November 2012. Retrieved 21 May 2018.
  25. ↑ Pacific Repertory Theatre website archives
  26. ↑ Ehren, Christine (14 October 2001). "Lost Shakespeare Lost Again: CA Thomas of Woodstock, Edward III Ends U.S. Debut Oct. 14". Playbill. Retrieved 24 April 2017.
  27. ↑ Archived at Ghostarchive and the Wayback Machine : "Thomas of Woodstock | Second Look, part 1 (Beyond Shakespeare Exploring Session)". YouTube .

There is a full chapter about this anonymous play in Kevin De Ornellas, The Horse in Early Modern English Culture, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2013. ISBN   978-1611476583.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.