Shakespeare and the idea of Apocrypha : negotiating the boundaries of the dramatic canon

In Addition To The Thirty-six Plays Of The First Folio, Some Eighty Plays Have Been Attributed In Whole Or Part To William Shakespeare, Yet Most Are Rarely Read, Performed Or Discussed. This Book, The First To Confront The Implications Of The 'shakespeare Apocrypha', Asks How And Why These Plays Have Historically Been Excluded From The Canon. Innovatively Combining Approaches From Book History, Theatre History, Attribution Studies And Canon Theory, Peter Kirwan Unveils The Historical Assumptions And Principles That Shaped The Construction Of The Shakespeare Canon. Case Studies Treat Plays Such As Sir Thomas More, Edward Iii, Arden Of Faversham, Mucedorus, Double Falsehood And A Yorkshire Tragedy, Showing How The Plays' Contested 'shakespearean' Status Has Shaped Their Fortunes. Kirwan's Book Rethinks The Impact Of Authorial Canons On The Treatment Of Anonymous And Disputed Plays-- The Idea Of Apocrypha All Held Apocrypha, Not Worth Survey. Falsehoods On 2 April 1796, London's Drury Lane Theatre Presented A Recently Unearthed Play By William Shakespeare. Vortigern And Rowena, 'discovered' By William Henry Ireland, Played To A Derisive Crowd, Whose Disbelief In The Play's Authenticity Was Shared By The Theatre's Manager, John Philip Kemble. Kemble, In The Lead Role, Pointedly Repeated The Line 'and When This Solemn Mock'ry Is Ended', Inviting Ridicule From The Crowd. The Production Was Not Revived, And The Whole Incident Contributed To The Unravelling Of Ireland's Claims. The Authenticity Of The Play - Along With The Other Purportedly Shakespearean Documents Unearthed By Ireland And His Father Samuel - Had Been Attacked Only A Fortnight Earlier By The Leading Shakespearean Editor Of The Day, Edmond Malone, In An Inquiry Into The Authenticity Of Certain Miscellaneous Papers And Legal Instruments. Malone's Statement Of Intent Makes Clear His Chosen Role As A Defender Of Shakespeare: It Has Been Said, And I Believe Truly, That Every Individual Of This Country, Whose Mind Has Been At All Cultivated, Feels A Pride In Being Able To Boast Of Our Great Dramatick Poet, Shakspeare, As His Countryman:-- Machine Generated Contents Note: Introduction: The Idea Of Apocrypha; 1. Canonising The Apocrypha; 2. The Apocrypha In Rep; 3. Defining 'shakespeare'; 4. Apocryphising The Canon; Epilogue: An Apocryphal Identity; Appendix; Works Cited; Index. Peter Kirwan. Includes Bibliographical References And Index. "The Idea of Apocrypha All held Apocrypha, not worth survey. Falsehoods On 2 April 1796, London's Drury Lane Theatre presented a recently unearthed play by William Shakespeare. Vortigern and Rowena, 'discovered' by William Henry Ireland, played to a derisive crowd, whose disbelief in the play's authenticity was shared by the theatre's manager, John Philip Kemble. Kemble, in the lead role, pointedly repeated the line 'and when this solemn mock'ry is ended', inviting ridicule from the crowd. The production was not revived, and the whole incident contributed to the unravelling of Ireland's claims. The authenticity of the play - along with the other purportedly Shakespearean documents unearthed by Ireland and his father Samuel - had been attacked only a fortnight earlier by the leading Shakespearean editor of the day, Edmond Malone, in An Inquiry into the Authenticity of Certain Miscellaneous Papers and Legal Instruments. Malone's statement of intent makes clear his chosen role as a defender of Shakespeare: It has been said, and I believe truly, that every individual of this country, whose mind has been at all cultivated, feels a pride in being able to boast of our great dramatick poet, Shakspeare, as his countryman:"-- Provided by publisher Cover 1 Half-title Page 3 Title Page 5 Copyright Page 6 Dedication 7 Contents 9 Illustrations 11 Acknowledgements 12 Introduction: the idea of Apocrypha 15 Falsehoods 15 New directions 19 The return of the author 26 Chapter 1 Canonising the Apocrypha 29 The 43-play canon: 1664–1734 32 Restoring reputations: 1723–65 42 Biography, chronology, Bardolatry: 1760–1844 50 Canonising the Apocrypha: 1780–1908 62 C.F. Tucker Brooke and the canonising of the Apocrypha 80 Chapter 2 The Apocrypha in rep 86 Prodigal husbands and patient wives 89 Absent kings and common voices 103 Romance and nostalgia 112 Ensemble comedy 120 Conclusions 125 Chapter 3 Defining ‘Shakespeare’ 129 The Shakespearean corpse: physical traces of Shakespeare 133 Sample size, the ‘problem’ of revision and Locrine 141 Theory ‘versus’ history 152 The integration of disintegration: Edward III and Arden of Faversham 160 Conclusions 175 Chapter 4 Apocryphising the canon 178 The [Bibliographic] Complete Works of Shakespeare 183 The [Authorial] Works of William Shakespeare [and Thomas Middleton] 195 The [Performative] Complete Works of Shakespeare 203 Conclusions 217 Epilogue: an apocryphal identity 221 Appendix 229 Works cited 244 Index 267 In addition to the thirty-six plays of the First Folio, some eighty plays have been attributed in whole or part to William Shakespeare, yet most are rarely read, performed or discussed. This book, the first to confront the implications of the 'Shakespeare Apocrypha', seeks to ask how and why these plays have historically been excluded from the canon. Innovatively combining approaches from book history, theatre history, attribution studies and canon theory, Peter Kirwan unveils the historical assumptions and principles that shaped the construction of the Shakespeare canon. Case studies treat plays such as Sir Thomas More, Edward III, Arden of Faversham, Mucedorus, Double Falsehood and A Yorkshire Tragedy, showing how the plays' contested 'Shakespearean' status has shaped their fortunes. Kirwan's book rethinks the impact of authorial canons on the treatment of anonymous and disputed plays This book explores how, and on what grounds, plays have been excluded from the Shakespeare canon over the past four centuries. Combining approaches from varying fields of interest, it will appeal to researchers and graduate students in Shakespeare studies, early modern drama, theatre history, book history and attribution studies. This book explores the methodologies and assumptions governing answers to the question 'what did Shakespeare actually write?'