Thomas of Woodstock (play)

"Thomas of Woodstock" and "Richard the Second Part One" are two common names for an untitled, anonymous and incomplete manuscript of an Elizabethan play depicting events in the reign of King Richard II. Its main claim to fame is a suggestion by some scholars that its author was William Shakespeare, and hence it is often included within the Shakespeare Apocrypha. The play often is cited as being a probable influence upon Shakespeare's "Richard II", as well as possibly "Henry IV, Parts 1" ["The Riverside Shakespeare" at 842, 2000 (2nd ed. 1997)] and 2". [Peter Corbin and Douglas Sedge, Thomas of Woodstock: or, Richard II, Part One (Manchester University Press, 2002), at 4.]

Text and origins

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. [ Sams, Eric. (1986). Shakespeare's "Edmund Ironside": The Lost Play. Wildwood Ho. ISBN 0-7045-0547-9]

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 (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. [Peter Corbin and Douglas Sedge, Thomas of Woodstock: or, Richard II, Part One (Manchester University Press, 2002), at 1] [ [http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Reviews/jimenez.woodstock.htm Brian Vickers "Counterfeiting" Review ] ]

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. ["Id." at 1-3, 38-39.] Significantly, it is not known which acting company owned or performed the play. ["Id." at 40]

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 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. [Peter Corbin and Douglas Sedge, Thomas of Woodstock: or, Richard II, Part One (Manchester University Press, 2002), at 3-4] . 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 explanations for the behavior of many of Shakespeare's characters.Fact|date=May 2008 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. [Wilhelmina P. Frijlinck, ed. "The First Part of the Reign of King Richard II or Thomas of Woodstock". Malone Society, 1929, p.v.] In addition, A.P. Rossiter preferred to call it "Woodstock" on the grounds that Woodstock is the hero of the play, not Richard. [A.P. Rossiter, "Woodstock: A Moral History" (London: Chatto & Windus, 1946), p. 26]

Authorship

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. [Frijlinck, "First Part".] 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. [Rossiter, "Woodstock", p. 73]

Other authors have been suggested. In 2001, MacDonald P. Jackson used stylistic analysis to propose Samuel Rowley as a possible author. [Macd. P. Jackson, "Shakespeare's "Richard II" and the Anonymous "Thomas of Woodstock",", in "Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England" 14 (2001) 17-65.] However, Louis Ule and John Baker, whose stylometric studies were first to analyze the entire play, rather than samples, claimed a close relationship with the works of Marlowe and Shakespeare and almost no similarity to the known work of Rowley.Fact|date=February 2007 John Fletcher and Thomas Heywood likewise have been suggested as authors. [ [http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Reviews/jimenez.woodstock.htm Brian Vickers "Counterfeiting" Review ] ]

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". [Peter Corbin and Douglas Sedge, "Thomas of Woodstock: or, Richard II, Part One" (Manchester University Press, 2002), at 4.] Nonetheless, they note:

:"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 summarized 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 malaproprisms, anticipating Costard, Dogberry and Mrs. [sic] Mistress Quickly; 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." ["Id."]

In 2006, Michael Egan made a case for Shakespeare and against Rowley in a four volume (2100 page) analysis. [citation
first1 = Michael
last1 = Egan
title = The Tragedy of Richard II: A Newly Authenticated Play by William Shakespeare
publisher = Edwin Mellen Press
year = 2006
isbn = 0773460829
url = http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Reviews/jimenez.woodstock.htm] His evidence includes what he claims to be thousands of phrasal parallels. [ [http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/tls_letters/article3627704.ece Letters to the Editor March 26th 2008 TLS ] ] Egan notes that Ian Robinson also supported the attribution to Shakespeare in a now out of print manuscript. [Ian Robinson, "“Richard II ” and “Woodstock,”" (Brynmill Press, 1988).] 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. [ [http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2005/1358.html SHAKSPER 2005: Wager ] ] This prompted Egan to offer Elliott 1000 pounds if he could disprove Shakespeare's authorship -- a wager that was never accepted. [ [http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2005/1975.html SHAKSPER 2005: Lions and Tigers and Wagers...oh my ] ] 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. [ [http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/tls_letters/article3627704.ece Letters to the Editor March 26th 2008 TLS ] ]

Date

The 1929 Malone Society editor states that most scholars place its composition between 1591 and 1595. [Frijlinck, "First Part"., p. xxiii] Ule and Baker put it more precisely as c. 1582; they believe it was written by Marlowe while at Cambridge while Marlowe was there, shortly after he had completed other plays they attribute to him, such as "Timon", and "The Famous Victories of Henry V" [Ule, "A Concordance to the Shakespeare Apocrypha", which contains an edition of the play and a discussion of its authorship.] 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." [Peter Corbin and Douglas Sedge, "Thomas of Woodstock: or, Richard II, Part One" (Manchester University Press, 2002), at 4 & 8.] 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. [Macd. P. Jackson, "Shakespeare's "Richard II" and the Anonymous "Thomas of Woodstock"," in "Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England" 14 (2001) 17-65.] Others, particularly Egan, have specifically criticized such a date and characterization. [editor's comment, "Why Richard II, Part 1 is Even More Important Than You Think", "Shakespeare Matters" 7.3 (Spring 2007): 3, 26-29, 31; Michael Egan, "Richard II, Part 1 and the Crisis of Shakespeare Scholarship", "Shakespeare Matters" 7.3 (Spring 2007): 1, 13-25; http://www.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/shakespeare/woodstock1.html]

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 scholar Frederick Carrigg supplied an ending to cover the missing manuscript page(s). Their copy of the script can be found [http://www.hampshireshakespeare.org/notes/TOWmain.html here] .

"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 2001-2004, 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". 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". [http://www.pacrep.org/Archives]

References