Shakespeare Apocrypha - Edmund Ironside

Today I've read Edmund Ironside, subtitled War Hath Made All Friends. Some critics have suggested that this play is an early Shakespeare work, though all these claims are relatively modern. The play wasn't published and only survives in manuscript. Nor was it attributed to Shakespeare in any way before the modern era. So the links to him are tenuous.

It was a good quick read and I enjoyed it. However, it didn't feel especially Shakespearean. It was a bit blunt and plain speaking. In fact, it was really easy to understand. Often with Shakespeare there are parts that are quite opaque. Either because of the language itself, or because of the lack of context or reference points. This one was very clear though, apart from the odd word.

It felt like it was aimed at the public in general, rather than at an educated audience. Almost being like a morality play, with the duplicitous character Edricus being the hated pantomime villain. Setting out a clear illustration to the audience of how not to behave. It was also very pro-English. So in that regard it does fit neatly with the other history plays.

Again, personally I didn't get the feeling that this was from the same hand. Though I don't have a particularly strong opinion either way. The simple clunky-ness could indeed owe itself to the fact that this was an early work. So I'll leave the jury out.

Shakespeare Apocrypha - Fair Em, The Miller's Daughter of Manchester

Another day, another play. This one was really good. It had a certain charm. It also had an odd anachronistic feel to it. Which I quite liked.

There were two loosely overlapping plot strands. One focusing on Fair Em, and the various suitors attempting to woo her. The other concerning the love life of William the Conqueror. Imagine that. Quite a contrast.

The parts concerning Em set in Manchester felt very Elizabethan. Her father, the Miller, going by the name Sir Thomas Goddard. Though now, thanks to the yoke of the Norman Conquest just a lowly miller without the title. Likewise, when King William heads to Denmark in disguise he goes by the name Sir Robert of Windsor. So these more contemporary sounding names didn't quite sit right with 11th century Danes and Normans.

Consequently it felt slightly absurd.

(Cover from a 1750 print)

The play also read very much like a Shakespeare. In many ways much more so than yesterday's Merry Wives.

The vague attribution to Shakespeare comes as it was found in the library of King Charles II, bound with the plays Mucedorus and The Merry Devil of Edmonton, with the label "Shakespeare Vol. I".

I've now read all three of these plays and they all feel very much of a mode. So I'm instinctively leaning towards the idea that they are indeed Shakespeares. As they weren't published in the 17th century under Shakespeare's name this'll have to remain just a subjective opinion though sadly.

Incidentally, in the above pictured 1750 print which I read the writer states in the preface;

"I cannot learn who is the Author of the Play, but, by the Stile, Conduct, and Manner, take it to be wrote in the latter End of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth."

Moving subject a little I also noticed that in the text William the Conqueror is often referred to as a Saxon.

Zweno. [..] If William, Duke of Saxons, be the man,

This felt slightly confused. Obviously William's Normans conquered Anglo-Saxon England, though I guess in many ways all these various groups overlap and intermingle to some degree. Plus William effectively becomes leader of these Anglo-Saxon folk after the conquest. So it may be nothing.

It's perhaps worth noting though. As I've mentioned many times on this blog before; when we head back into the dim light of history things often get quite zany and jumbled. In fact, in Richard III it's stated that Julius Caesar built the Tower of London, even though conventional history states it was established after the Norman invasion a thousands years later.

Prince Edward. I do not like the Tower, of any place.

Did Julius Caesar build that place, my lord?

Buckingham. He did, my gracious lord, begin that place;

Which, since, succeeding ages have re-edified.

So we have a little Norman / Roman confusion there it seems.

This is partly why I enjoy reading these old plays so much. Not only do you get to read something from an earlier era of history, but you also get to hear the versions of history those people ascribed to too.

This Elizabethan comedy set in Norman-conquered Manchester didn't disappoint.

Recently Read: The Merry Wives of Windsor

I've just finished reading The Merry Wives of Windsor. After the speculation in my last post I couldn't resist. I was supposed to be reading Fair Em, but I guess she'll have to wait, however fair she may be.

(The cover from a 1630 print of the play,

courtesy of Google Books)

As I surmised in the last post the play was indeed very comic and earthy. Having more in common with some of the apocrypha plays than with the more heady works.

I really enjoyed reading it. It was fun. Once again that British sitcom feel. Just daft, unpretentious comedy. I can imagine how everyday normal people might have enjoyed this at the time. It can be a little bit difficult to envision regular English folk of the period lapping up Hamlet and the like, but stuff like this seems so natural and relatable.

In fact, going down this little avenue has led me to completely rethink my views on Shakespeare full stop, and not just in regard the apocryphal works.

My view now is that he was a popular playwright who wrote accessible works that had mass appeal, but that over time his works became reframed as highbrow.

The general stereotype of Shakespeare we have from his era is that he was a semi-educated "upstart crow". With "small Latin, and less Greek". Popular, but not necessarily held in high regard by his peers. A "natural" genius, lacking classical learning.

I'm now inclined to think this was probably true. That he perhaps was just a semi-rural grammar school boy made good.

Instinctively I now suspect that he rose to prominence penning comedic dramas and jingoistic history plays. Then perfected his craft from there. That his plays were in effect "pop culture" for the time. More aimed towards pleasing audiences than pleasing critics and the well-lettered.

Then, as this popular appeal grew over time and sustained itself it gradually morphed and moved into the realms of "high culture". Which then meant that the scant record of his life was embroidered somewhat. With his body of work pruned of any "lesser works" that didn't sit well with the time-grown myth.

I suspect some of the apocrypha plays are the discarded fruit of this.

It may be hard to imagine this process whereby something "popular" becomes something held in high esteem. However, it is quite a common path for great art. A good example would perhaps be the Beatles.

When the Beatles started out they were "popstars" with mass appeal. Not only that, but they began by imitating the artists that came before them. Elvis, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, etc. (Much like how it's said that Shakespeare was influenced by, or even copied and cribbed from, earlier writers such as Marlowe). The Beatles' art then developed in sophistication over time. Going through many phases. From Love Me Do, to Eleanor Rigby, to solo stuff such as Imagine.

Now had you said to an educated person in the mid-1960s that the Beatles were as important as Mozart or Beethoven they'd have probably laughed. "It's just pop music --for teenage girls. Yes, it's catchy, but nothing more than that".

However, today, fifty years on, the Beatles are lauded as one of the most important cultural touchstones of the 20th century. Their memorabilia sort after. Their songs dissected and obsessed over ..and it's now not teenage boys and girls doing this, but the very people who consider themselves educated. Or at least cultured in some sense.

Time has a way of doing this to art. The truly important stuff tends to stand the test of time. Gathering prestige.

With this lofty elevation though often comes a certain connoisseur's snobbery. With over-analysis, expert opinion and the club of knowledge robbing and clouding the work of its original, simple appeal.

So just as now modern Beatles fans will pour effuse praise on Abbey Road or The White Album. Not attaching themselves quite so much to the catchier and less sophisticated earlier stuff like Please Please Me. So now will Shakespeare fans laud Hamlet and King Lear. Dismissing poppy little works like The Merry Wives.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Finally, as a side note. Whilst searching out information I came across these podcasts concerning the apocrypha plays. They contain so much good information. So much so that I almost feel guilty piggybacking my own little theories off them. They were very useful in helping me form my recent opinions. So I highly recommend them.

The Apocryphal William Shakespeare: Episode 4 with Sabrina Feldman

Poet Ape, A Plagiarist Among the Playwrights: Episode 6 with Sabrina Feldman

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Oh, and finally finally. Before I forget. In Merry Wives there's a character in the play called William. A schoolboy by the name of William Page. He only really features in one scene and is inconsequential to the plot. So it's very much a cameo role.

Obviously, having the same first name as the writer himself this could be viewed as a little self-reference. The fact that in the scene the schoolboy is being questioned on his grammar adding to this. When reading it I read it as a nod-and-a-wink joke to the above mentioned criticism of his own poor Latin.

Of course, there are countless theories out there for the appearance of such names and passages, and we all tend to view them through the lens of our own favoured hypothesis. So would I have read it like this had I not already had such a view in mind? It's hard to tell.

Either way I'm glad I've remembered just in time to make a note of it.

Shakespeare - Scenes of the Scenes

A month ago I stated that I was going to make a list of all the Shakespeare plays, noting their location. In order to tally how many were set in England and how many were set elsewhere.

(The real anglo Shakespeare)

Anyway, I've finally done it. For both the accepted plays and the apocrypha ones. So I now have some data.

The First Folio

Firstly we have the 36 plays of the First Folio. The classic Shakespearean canon. (For the time being I'll leave Pericles, The Two Noble Kinsmen and Edward III in the apocrypha category, though they're generally accepted as being genuine works these days).

Of the 36 plays just 14 are set in England, and that's including the 10 history plays, which all deal with English history. (Some of the history plays have scenes in France too of course, but they're essentially all happening from an English perspective).

I'm also including Macbeth in the 14 'English' plays.

Instinctively I'd like to exclude it. After all Scotland isn't England (though Macduff does go to England in the play). Likewise it feels quite exotic in relation to the England of the time - the fact that we call it "The Scottish Play" kind of emphasises this distance. However, it's difficult to draw a clear line between Britain and England historically. Things tend to blur ..plus I don't want to cheat. So it's in there.

If we break things down this is what we get.

Comedies:                1/14                7.1%

Histories:                10/10               100%

Tragedies:                3/12                25.0%

Total:                       14/36              38.9%

So not many comedies set in England, just a few more tragedies (even with Macbeth), and overall it's less than 40% of the total.

Incidentally that one comedy is The Merry Wives of Windsor. The other two tragedies are Cymbeline and King Lear. Both being set in ancient Britain. So I guess you could say British rather than English in a sense. Again, it's difficult to draw a line though.

The Apocrypha Plays

So let's compare this to the apocrypha plays.

As mentioned in previous posts there isn't really a definitive list of what constitutes the apocrypha plays. So to keep things simple I've just went with the twenty listed on the Wikipedia page. My particular interest is the dozen or so plays that were attributed to Shakespeare during the 17th century. Particularly those published as "by William Shakespeare" or "by W.S". So I'll also look specifically at those ones too.

Total:                15/20 set in England/Britain          75%

Those published with "by Shakespeare" on the cover:    4/6            66.7%

Those pub. with "by Shakespeare" or "by W.S." on the cover:    7/9            77.8%

So the percentage of plays set in England is approximately double that of those in the First Folio. So quite a notable difference.

The Apocrypha Plays Now Accepted As Genuine

An interesting thing also happens when we remove those now accepted as genuine works from the apocrypha list (Pericles, The Two Noble Kinsmen and Edward III) and place them with the First Folio.

Total:                14/17 set in England/Britain            82.4%

Those published with "by Shakespeare" on the cover:    4/4            100%

Those pub. with "by Shakespeare" or "by W.S." on the cover:    7/7            100%

The total increases, and those published as by Shakespeare in the 17th century flick up to 100%.

For the record those four published as "by Shakespeare" are the plays The Birth of Merlin, Sir John Oldcastle, A Yorkshire Tragedy and The London Prodigal. The added three with "W.S." on the cover are Locrine, Thomas Lord Cromwell and The Puritan.

This list tallies quite nicely with the seven plays added to the canon in the 1664 Third Folio. The only difference being that this has Pericles, Prince of Tyre listed, and omits The Birth of Merlin.

Of course, removing the three plays from the apocrypha list also changes the numbers for the accepted canon slightly too.

Comedies:                1/16                6.3%

Histories:                11/11               100%

Tragedies:                3/12                25.0%

Total:                       15/39                38.5%

Comedies set in England are rare indeed it seems.

Conclusion

To conclude I think this information supports my general view that plays set in England, or dealing with British history, are less likely to be considered as true Shakespeares. My suspicion is that this is a product of cultural snobbery on the part of later Shakespeare compilers and academics. A play set in London or Yorkshire simply doesn't carry the same exotic gravitas that a play set in Venice or Milan does. So they come across as more earthy and vulgar, and therefore less highbrow.

Leading to a cry of: "This couldn't possibly be the work of the hallowed bard!"

Of course, one big snag with this idea is that these apocrypha plays simply weren't included in the First Folio, which was published in 1623. Just seven years after Shakespeare's death. So any cultural snobbery would've had to have begun pretty early. Unless the First Folio itself is questionable in some sense (it is a very elaborate and swish publication considering the era !).

The three plays that have been upgraded to official status (Pericles, The Two Noble Kinsmen and Edward III) all fit the established consensus picture fairly well. Both Pericles and The Two Noble Kinsmen are set in far off locations - Tyre, Antioch, Athens, Thebes, etc. And Edward III, though undoubtedly English, fits fairly neatly with the 10 other history plays. So in regard the more recent inclusion of these works cultural bias certainly can't be ruled out.

My other floated contention was that some of these apocrypha plays might have been discarded because they didn't fit the consensus history itself. For instance, The Birth of Merlin and Locrine both owe their origins to the Geoffrey of Monmouth account of British history. Which was popular in Shakespeare's day, but came to be largely discredited as myth and fiction in later eras.

"[Monmouth] is best known for his chronicle The History of the Kings of Britain which was widely popular in its day [...] It was given historical credence well into the 16th century, but is now considered historically unreliable." - Wikipedia

However, both King Lear and Cymbeline fall under this general category too. So I may have to discount this idea.

Finally, it perhaps would be useful to split the seven plays published as by Shakespeare or by W.S. into three general sub-categories. To delineate things a little more clearly.

English Plays:

The Yorkshire Tragedy, The London Prodigal, The Puritan

English History Plays:

Thomas Lord Cromwell, Sir John Oldcastle

Plays dealing with British history:

Locrine, The Birth of Merlin

Splitting things like this it would be easy to speculate that the last four plays may have been excluded simply because they're not good enough (or perhaps not tasteful enough). Thomas Lord Cromwell and Sir John Oldcastle have a similar feel to the history plays, but as the central figures aren't kings they lack that same gravitas. Also the fact that Oldcastle is a doppelganger for Falstaff muddies the pristineness further. A bit like when a different actor comes in to play a familiar character in a TV series. People don't really like it. We know it's just a TV show and that these aren't real people, but still, we like things to be consistent.

"That's not the right person!! They've ruined it!"

So I imagine having a version of the much-loved Falstaff in the collection, but with a completely different name would be a little too imperfect for some people.

It's also worth mentioning that the Protestant/Catholic factor may have had an influence on the inclusion of these plays too.

As for Locrine and Merlin, they could easily fall in with the other tragedies and comedies. However, it may be that they were simply too poor and unpalatable. It's a while since I've read Locrine, but when I read Merlin last month it was quite whacky lol. Personally I loved it, but I can imagine the general silliness not sitting well with more serious people.

Lastly, the three 'English Plays' are perhaps the most out of keeping with anything in the established Shakespeare canon. Though it should be noted that I've yet to read The Merry Wives of Windsor. Which may fall closest to this tree. So I should do that as soon as possible, once I've sped through the last six apocrypha ones.

Having read an overview of The Merry Wives I suspect that its inclusion owes itself largely to Falstaff appearing in it. How could they leave him out. So I'll be very interested to read it.

In fact, the opening paragraph on Wikipedia contains this line;

"The play is one of Shakespeare's lesser-regarded works among literary critics."

Sounds like my kind of play.

Perhaps it's a little too earthy and English for the critics though??

Then again ..perhaps it's just a bad play.

Shakespeare Apocrypha - The Second Maiden's Tragedy

I've just finished The Second Maiden's Tragedy. (Yes, I'm flying through them now.)

This play's authorship is contested, but the general consensus seems to be that it's the work of Thomas Middleton. It's part of the Shakespeare apocrypha as it was loosely attributed to Shakespeare in the 17th century. By virtue of the fact that his name was scribbled upon the manuscript by someone (the play was never printed). However, two other names (Thomas Goffe and George Chapman) also had the same honour. So such scribblings are likely estimated guesses or wishful thinking on the part of the various scribblers.

(The cover of an 1824

printing of the work)

The play was quite an enjoyable little read. The two plot strands both dealing with the theme of married women tempted by other men.

A tyrannical king, simply named Tyrant in the play, tries to woo the lady of the former king he's usurped.

And a fellow named Anselmus persuades his friend Votarius to try to seduce his wife in order to test her chastity. A plan which comes unhinged as the wife and Votarius become involved with each other.

This second plot ends in disaster, with everyone killing each other. The main plot ends with the lady killing herself to spurn the tyrannical king. The king, in morbid fashion, then steals her body from her tomb in an attempt to keep his desired relationship with her alive. The usurped king, on the prompting of the ghost of his dead lady, then kills the tyrant and restores her body to its rest.

Quite a tale.

The play doesn't especially read like a Shakespeare. It's not quite as heady and flower-laden. So coupled with the lack of a clear attribution I'm more than happy to go with the consensus view.

It really makes me want to branch out and read some of these other writers such as Middleton though. There seems to be such a gold mine out there, both in terms of general entertainment, and also in terms of historical curiosity. Like little dramatic windows into our past.

Incidentally, the following webpage for the play was a great help in regard the linked notes for the text. The website also seems to be a great resource for Middleton plays in general (a link to the homepage can be found at the bottom). So I may be returning at some point.

https://tech.org/~cleary/2mt.html

"He's lost the kingdom, but his mind's restor'd ;

Which is the larger empire ? pr’ythee tell me

Dominions have their limits, the whole earth

Is but a prisoner, nor the sea, her jailor,

That with a silver hoop locks in her body ;

They're fellow prisoners, though the sea looks bigger,

Because it is in office and pride swells him ;

But the unbounded kingdom of the mind

Is as unlimitable as heav'n , that glorious court of spirits."

 

Shakespeare Apocrypha - Edward III

This should be a super short one. I've just finished reading Edward III. One of the Shakespeare apocrypha plays, but now generally considered to be part of the Shakespeare canon proper.

I don't have a great deal to add, other than to just tick it off my list. It was a pretty standard history play. As ever some of the poetic wordiness was impressive. With some nice flourishes and observations. In fact, like many of these plays it started slowly and a little laboured, then picked up apace. Almost like the writer needed time to get into the flow of things. After which the verses start pouring out.

As with the other plays it felt and read like a Shakespeare.

Sadly there wasn't a great deal of comedy or bawdiness, so it was a little plain for my tastes. Though I did enjoy the anti-French and anti-Scottish sentiment 😈

Definitely worth reading, but certainly not a favourite.

Shakespeare Apocrypha - The Two Noble Kinsmen

I finished reading The Two Noble Kinsmen yesterday. It's considered an apocrypha play as it didn't appear in the First Folio, however modern contention generally does ascribe it Shakespeare now (along with its co-author John Fletcher).

"This world's a Citty full of straying Streetes,

And Death's the market place, where each one meetes."

I must say this wasn't one of my favourite ones so far. It starts off quite slow, and it took me a while to get into it. Saying that though, once the general scene is set and the story is in full motion it does pick up quite a bit. Some of the scenes featuring Arcite and Palamon - the two noble kinsmen - were quite enjoyable to read, and the comic scenes featuring the Jailor and his lovesick daughter were amusing. (I really do like the silly, lighter stuff in these plays).

Aside from that there isn't really too much to mention. There was a fair bit of sauce and innuendo, as is usual. At one point the Doctor character states that a man should sleep with the Jailer's Daughter if necessary to cure her of the madness brought on by her lovesickness.

Wooer. Alas, I have no voice Sir, to confirme her that way.

Doctor. That's all one, if yee make a noyse,

If she intreate againe, doe any thing,

Lye with her if she aske you.

Iaylor. Hoa there Doctor.

Doctor. Yes in the waie of cure.

Iaylor. But first by your leave

I'th way of honestie.

Doctor. That's but a nicenesse,

Nev'r cast your child away for honestie;

Cure her first this way, then if shee will be honest,

She has the path before her.

lol

In fact, at one point whilst reading I was dragged off on a little detour. There's a scene where the character Emilia describes a mildly sexual relationship she once had with a female companion called Flavina. From the little jokes in the passage it's clearly implied that it was not simply platonic.

Emilia. [...] That the true love tweene Mayde, and mayde, may be

More then in sex individuall.

Hippolyta. Y'are ont of breath

And this high speeded-pace, is but to say

That you shall never (like the Maide Flavina)

Love any that's calld Man.

So there's clearly a, let's say, lesbian vibe to it, though whether the implied meaning back then was identical to how we would understand things now is difficult to know for sure.

When I searched for more information online however I came across all manner of articles framing the entire play as one big ode to homosexuality. With some of the analysis even seeing some of the other relationships in the play as having homosexual undertones. In particular the relationship between Theseus and his general Pirithous, and also the relationship between the two noble kinsmen themselves.

I found this quite funny, as I didn't pick this sense up at all when reading. The relationship between Theseus and Pirithous just seems to be one of true friendship, and that of Arcite and Palamon likewise.

One scene in particular some of these articles refer to is a scene where Arcite and Palamon are in jail and Arcite describes Palamon as his wife - "We are one anothers wife". However, it comes in a passage where Arcite is idealising life in prison as a life without danger and temptation. Basically saying; in here we can't be tempted by women, or killed in battle, or lost on the high seas, or ruined in business. And that neither can such things come between friendship.

This declared friendship then builds to crescendo of hyperbole and rhetoric, which then gets shattered as the beautiful Emilia appears and both men instantly turn on each other to compete for her hand. So the whole scene is built up for that slightly comic moment. Where a beautiful woman comes between two friends - in spite of all their declarations that such a thing could never happen.

Anyway, I'm rattling on a bit. It's just interesting to watch people project their own politics and wishes onto something. Though I guess that's also what I may be doing as well here. So perhaps my interpretation is wrong too. Which reminds me actually of when I was reading some of my older posts a few weeks back. The topic of religion came up and I stated that I couldn't possible imagine how anyone as bright as Shakespeare could be Catholic!

I find it hard to believe that any intelligent man of learning, living in England at that time, could have chosen to be Catholic. Protestant possibly, atheist maybe, agnostic more likely, but a practising Catholic - a bit of a stretch.

Back then I was much more dogmatically opposed to organised religion. So I was obviously just projecting my own views onto all this. Without a great deal of evidence. I'm not quite as judgemental now (at least I don't think), so it's a little embarrassing reading some of these earlier statements back. That post was ten long years ago now. How time flies.