Shakespeare Apocrypha

The Third Folio of Shakespeare's plays, listing additional works attributed to the author

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 separate from the debate on Shakespearean authorship, which addresses the authorship of the works traditionally attributed to Shakespeare.

Background

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. Then, in 1623, seven years after Shakespeare's death, his fellow actors John Heminges and Henry Condell compiled a Folio collection of his complete plays, now known as the First Folio. Heminges and Condell were in a position to do this because they, like Shakespeare, worked for the King's Men, the London playing company that produced all of Shakespeare's plays (in Elizabethan England, plays belonged to the company that performed them, not to the dramatist who had written them).

In theory, it ought to be clear 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 not, since Heminges and Condell were in a better position to know what Shakespeare wrote than subsequent scholars or other sources. 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.

In addition to plays, poems were published under Shakspeare's name. The collection published as The Passionate Pilgrim contains genuine poems by Shakespeare along with poems known to have been written by other authors, along with some of unknown authorship. Unattributed poems have also been assigned by some scholars to Shakespeare at various times.

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

Several plays published in quarto during the seventeenth century bear Shakespeare's name on the title page or in other documents, but do not appear in the First Folio. Some of these plays (such as Pericles) are believed by most scholars of Shakespeare to have been written by him (at least in part). Others, such as Thomas Lord Cromwell are so atypically written that it is difficult to believe they really are by Shakespeare.

Scholars have suggested various reasons for the existence of these plays. In some cases, the title page attributions may be lies told by fraudulent printers trading on Shakespeare's reputation. In other cases, Shakespeare may have had an editorial role in the plays' creation, rather than actually writing them, or they may simply be based on a plot outline by Shakespeare. Some may be collaborations between Shakespeare and other dramatists (yet it must be remembered that the First Folio includes plays such as Henry VIII, Henry VI, part 1 and Timon of Athens that are believed to be collaborative, according to modern stylistic analysis). Another explanation for the origins of any or all of the plays is that they were not written for the King's Men, were perhaps from early in Shakespeare's career, and thus were inaccessible to Heminges and Condell when they compiled the First Folio.

C. F. Tucker Brooke lists forty-two plays conceivably attributed to Shakespeare, many in his own lifetime, but dismisses the majority on their face,[1] leaving only most of those listed below, with some additions.

Plays attributed to "W.S." during the 17th century, and not included in the First Folio

Some plays were attributed to "W.S." in the seventeenth century. These initials could refer to Shakespeare, but could also refer to Wentworth Smith, an obscure dramatist.[8]

Plays attributed to Shakespeare after the 17th century

A number of anonymous plays have been attributed to Shakespeare by more recent readers and scholars. Many of these claims are supported only by debatable ideas about what constitutes "Shakespeare's style". Nonetheless, some of them have been cautiously accepted by mainstream scholarship.

Lost plays

Hoaxes

The dream of discovering a new Shakespeare play has also resulted in the creation of at least one hoax. In 1796 William Henry Ireland claimed to have found a lost play of Shakespeare entitled Vortigern and Rowena. Ireland had previously released other documents he claimed were by Shakespeare, but Vortigern was the first play he attempted. (He later produced another pseudo-Shakespearean play, Henry II.) The play 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, and Ireland eventually admitted to the hoax.

Apocryphal poems

Several poems published anonymously have been attributed by scholars to Shakespeare. None have received universal acceptance. The authorship of some poems published under Shakespeare's name in his lifetime has also been questioned.

The Passionate Pilgrim

The Passionate Pilgrim was a collection of poems published in 1599 by William Jaggard, later the publisher of Shakespeare's First Folio. The title page attributes the content to Shakespeare. However, many of the poems are known to be by other writers. Some are of unknown authorship and may be by Shakespeare. Jaggard issued an expanded edition of The Passionate Pilgrim in 1612, containing additional poems on the theme of Helen of Troy, announced on the title page ("Whereunto is newly added two Love Epistles, the first from Paris to Hellen, and Hellen's answere back again to Paris"). These were in fact by Thomas Heywood, from his Troia Britannica, which Jaggard had published in 1609. Heywood protested the piracy in his Apology for Actors (1612), writing that Shakespeare was "much offended" with Jaggard for making "so bold with his name." Jaggard withdrew the attribution to Shakespeare from unsold copies of the 1612 edition.[15]

A Lover's Complaint

This poem was published as an appendix to Shakespeare's sonnets in 1609. Its authorship has been disputed by several scholars. In 2007 Brian Vickers, in his monograph, Shakespeare, "A Lover's Complaint", and John Davies of Hereford, attributes the Complaint to John Davies. Other scholars continue to attribute it to Shakespeare.

To the Queen

The manuscript of "To the Queen by the Players"

To the Queen is a short poem praising Queen Elizabeth, which was probably recited as an epilogue to a royal performance of a play. It was first attributed to Shakespeare by American scholars William Ringler and Steven May, who discovered the poem in 1972 in the notebook of Henry Stanford, who is known to have worked in the household of the Lord Chamberlain.[16] The attribution was supported by James S. Shapiro and Juliet Dusinberre. It was included in 2007 by Jonathan Bate in his complete Shakespeare edition for the Royal Shakespeare Company.[17] The attribution has since been challenged by Michael Hattaway,[18] who argued that poem is more likely to be by Ben Jonson, and by Helen Hackett, who attributes it to Thomas Dekker.[19]

A Funeral Elegy

In 1989, using stylometric computer analysis, scholar and forensic linguist Donald Foster attributed A Funeral Elegy for Master William Peter,[20] previously ascribed only to "W.S.", to William Shakespeare, based on an analysis of its grammatical patterns and idiosyncratic word usage.[21] The attribution received tremendous press attention from The New York Times and other newspapers.

However, later analyses by scholars Gilles Monsarrat and Brian Vickers 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.[22][23]

Shall I Die

In 2005 Gary Taylor attributed a short poem Shall I Die to Shakespeare. The attribution is not widely accepted.[24]

Notes

  1. ^ Tucker Brooke (1908), pp. ix–xi.
  2. ^ Dominik (1991), p. 7.
  3. ^ Tyrrell (1800), p. 411.
  4. ^ Tucker Brooke (1908), p. xlvi.
  5. ^ Warren (2003), p. 59.
  6. ^ Greg (1902), Appendix II, p. lxiv.
  7. ^ Tucker Brooke (1908), p. xxx.
  8. ^ Chambers (1930), p. 536.
  9. ^ F. David Hoeniger (1957). "Review of Studies in the Shakespeare Apocrypha by Baldwin Maxwell". Shakespeare Quarterly 8 (2): 236–237. JSTOR 2866972. 
  10. ^ Frijlinck (1929)
  11. ^ Rossiter (1964), p. 73.
  12. ^ "Brick Vickers Counterfeiting Review". http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Reviews/jimenez.woodstock.htm. 
  13. ^ Peter Corbin & Douglas Sedge. "Introduction". pp. 1–46.  In: Corbin & Sedge (2002).
  14. ^ Egan (2006)
  15. ^ Halliday (1964), pp. 34–35.
  16. ^ David Wilkes (20 April 2007). "To my Queen...the Shakespeare poem on the back of an envelope". Daily Mail (UK). http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-449747/To-Queen--Shakespeare-poem-envelope.html. Retrieved 24 March 2012. 
  17. ^ Ron Rosenbaum (12 June 2008). "Are Those Shakespeare's "Balls"?". Slate. http://www.slate.com/id/2193477/. Retrieved 24 March 2012. 
  18. ^ Michael Hattaway (2009). "Dating As You Like It, epilogues and prayers, and the problems of "As the Dial Hand Tells O'er"". Shakespeare Quarterly 60 (2): 154–167. doi:10.1353/shq.0.0074. JSTOR 40468403. 
  19. ^ Helen Hackett (2012). "'As The Diall Hand Tells Ore': the case for Dekker, not Shakespeare, as Author". Review of English Studies 63 (258): 34–57. doi:10.1093/res/hgr046. 
  20. ^ Text of A Funeral Elegy for Master William Peter
  21. ^ Foster (1989); Foster (2000)
  22. ^ e-mail message from Foster to the SHAKSPER e-mail list in 2002.
  23. ^ William S. Niederkorn (20 June 2002). "A scholar recants on his 'Shakespeare' discovery". The New York Times. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9903E5DD143FF933A15755C0A9649C8B63. Retrieved 24 March 2012. 
  24. ^ Otto Friedrich (21 June 2005). "Education: Shall I Die? Shall I Fly ...". Time. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1074859,00.html. Retrieved 24 March 2012. 

References

External links