The Phoenix Network:
 
 
About  |  Advertise
Adult  |  Moonsigns  |  Band Guide  |  Blogs  |  In Pictures
 
Books  |  Comedy  |  Dance  |  Museum And Gallery  |  Theater

The Shakespeare mystery

By JEFFREY GANTZ  |  May 7, 2008

How does this become a play in Shakespeare’s time?
In October of 1611, an untitled play was submitted to King James’s censor, George Buc, for approval; he passed it, with “the reformations,” for public acting, dubbing it the “second Maydens tragedy.” This play, which most contemporary scholars attribute to Thomas Middleton, has a plot that vaguely resembles that of the Cardenio tale in Don Quixote — with completely different names — and a pretty accurate subplot version of “El curioso impertinente,” with characters named Anselmus, Votarius, and “Wife.”

So is this play Cardenio?
Well, that’s the question. There’s no character in it called Cardenio, so you wouldn’t think so. But it has its own mystery: Thomas Shelton’s English translation of part one of Don Quixote didn’t come out till 1612. So either the Second Maiden’s Tragedy playwright(s) could read Spanish or he/they had access to Cervantes’s source.

This is confusing. Is there a play that is called Cardenio?
Yes. An entry in the Revels Accounts for 1613 states that John Heminges was paid for a play the King’s Men presented at court on May 20 called Cardenno, and again for a play presented June 8 called Cardenna. Given the popularity of Shelton’s translation — and the vagaries of spelling in Shakespeare’s time — it’s reasonable to assume that these references are to a single play and that the title character is Cervantes’s Cardenio.

Were those the first performances?
We can’t say. We don’t know whether Cardenio was ever presented in a public playhouse. We just know there were these two performances.

So what happened to the play?
Well, we don’t have it. The Globe Theatre burned down on June 29, 1613, when, during the King’s Men’s production of Henry VIII, a shot from a cannon saluting the entrance of the king caused the theater to catch fire. The playbook may have burned up there, though you might think that the actors, who would have had their individual parts in their lodgings, could have reconstructed it.

It didn’t appear in the First Folio, then?
No. At this point, we don’t have any reason to think that Shakespeare had anything to do with the play, except that the King’s Men was his company and he might still have been writing in 1613. There’s some question about what made it into the First Folio. Shakespeare scholars believe that Henry VIII is partly by Shakespeare and partly by John Fletcher. That play is in the Folio. Shakespeare scholars also believe that Two Noble Kinsmen is partly by Shakespeare and partly by Fletcher, but that play is not in the Folio. Neither is Pericles, which everyone believes Shakespeare had some part in.

How does Shakespeare come into it?
On September 9, 1653, the bookseller Humphrey Moseley paid the fee to register “The History of Cardenio by Mr Fletcher & Shakespeare.” At the same time he also registered Henry I and Henry II, both being attributed to Shakespeare and Robert Davenport. In 1660 he registered The History of King Stephen, Duke Humphrey, and Iphis and Iantha, or A Marriage Without a Man — all alleged to be by Shakespeare. If we take at face value Moseley’s assertion that the Cardenio he intended to publish was in part the work of Shakespeare, then we have to consider the possibility that Shakespeare wrote, or co-wrote, a large number of plays that we never heard about in his lifetime and that weren’t included in the Folio. Moseley never published any of the “Shakespeare” plays he registered, and we don’t possess any of them. Henry I had been licensed for performance by the King’s Men in 1624 — eight years after Shakespeare’s death — as a play by Davenport. It’s possible that Moseley added Shakespeare’s name to plays written by other dramatists to improve sales.

< prev  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |   next >
Related: Channeling Shakespeare, Love and war, Play by play: July 31, 2009, More more >
  Topics: Theater , Politics, Political Parties, Entertainment,  More more >
  • Share:
  • Share this entry with Facebook
  • Share this entry with Digg
  • Share this entry with Delicious
  • RSS feed
  • Email this article to a friend
  • Print this article
Comments
The Shakespeare mystery
Jeffrey Gantz, the author of this article, got it right: what Shakespeare wrote and what he didn't is definitely "one of literature's most enduring and enjoyable mysteries." When we do bring the Earl of Oxford into it, we gain an understanding of Shakespeare's "genius" as never before. The plays and poetry acquire profound human connection far beyond even that for which we already know them. Thank you to Mr. Gantz for not summarily dismissing the experience offered by the true Shakespeare.
By Thomas Hunter, Ph.D. on 05/25/2008 at 3:49:32
The Shakespeare mystery
Having seen 'Cardenio' at the ART, I'm glad the critics panned it. I happened to enjoy it, because we got something seldom seen at the ART: a beautifully constructed traditional set (i.e., no sloping floors), actresses with beautiful singing voices (even Tommy Darrah surprised me) and a pseudo-Shakespearean aura about the whole thing.
By Alice the Pilgrim on 05/27/2008 at 10:17:22

ARTICLES BY JEFFREY GANTZ
Share this entry with Delicious
  •   IS IT MAGIC YET?  |  December 02, 2009
    When you've seen every Boston Ballet Nutcracker for the past 20-odd years, and reviewed most of them, it can get a little hard to locate the magic. Then again, when you survey other Nutcracker s around the world you appreciate that there's no place like home, and not many that are as good.
  •   PLAY BY PLAY: DECEMBER 4, 2009  |  December 02, 2009
    Boston's weekly theater schedule
  •   PLAY BY PLAY: NOVEMBER 20, 2009  |  November 18, 2009
    Boston's weekly theater listings
  •   PLAY BY PLAY: NOVEMBER 13, 2009  |  November 11, 2009
    Boston's weekly theater schedule
  •   REVIEW: SEVERED WAYS: THE NORSE DISCOVERY OF AMERICA  |  November 04, 2009
    Tony Stone’s “love letter to the Vikings’ discovery of the New World, pagan iconography, brute manliness, and simpler times” is set in the simpler (?) time of 1007 AD.

 See all articles by: JEFFREY GANTZ

MOST POPULAR
RSS Feed of for the most popular articles
 Most Viewed   Most Emailed 



  |  Sign In  |  Register
 
thePhoenix.com:
Phoenix Media/Communications Group:
TODAY'S FEATURED ADVERTISERS
Copyright © 2009 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group