WRAP THESIS Kirwan 2011.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Warwick institutional repository: http://go.warwick.ac.uk/wrap A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of Warwick http://go.warwick.ac.uk/wrap/45389 This thesis is made available online and is protected by original copyright. Please scroll down to view the document itself. Please refer to the repository record for this item for information to help you to cite it. Our policy information is available from the repository home page. Shakespeare and the Idea of Apocrypha: Negotiating the Boundaries of the Dramatic Canon by Peter Philip Kirwan A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English Literature University of Warwick, Department of English and Comparative Literary Studies August 2011 ii For my grandparents, Kathleen and Meynell Marshall The leaning of sophists towards the bypaths of apocrypha is a constant quantity, John Eglinton detected. The highroads are dreary but they lead to the town. - James Joyce, Ulysses 250. All held Apocrypha, not worth survey. - Antonio’s Revenge 4.1.22. iii Contents Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................. v Declaration.............................................................................................................................. vi Thesis abstract ....................................................................................................................... vii Introduction: The Idea of Apocrypha.......................................................................................1 New directions.....................................................................................................................5 The Return of the Author...................................................................................................15 Chapter One: Canonising the Apocrypha...............................................................................18 The 43-Play Canon: 1664-1734..........................................................................................22 Restoring Reputations: 1723-65 ........................................................................................35 Biography, Chronology, Bardolatry: 1760-1844 ................................................................48 Canonising the Apocrypha: 1780-1908..............................................................................64 C.F. Tucker Brooke and the canonising of the Apocrypha.................................................88 Chapter Two: The Apocrypha in Rep .....................................................................................97 Prodigal Husbands and Patient Wives .............................................................................103 Absent Kings and Common Voices...................................................................................121 Romance and Nostalgia ...................................................................................................135 Ensemble Comedy ...........................................................................................................147 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................154 Chapter Three: Defining “Shakespeare”..............................................................................160 The Shakespearean corpse: physical traces of Shakespeare...........................................165 Sample Size, the “problem” of revision, and Locrine.......................................................177 Theory “versus” History...................................................................................................194 The integration of disintegration: Edward III and Arden of Faversham ..........................205 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................228 Chapter Four: Apocryphising the Canon..............................................................................231 The [Bibliographic] Complete Works of Shakespeare .....................................................238 The [Authorial] Works of William Shakespeare [and Thomas Middleton]......................255 The [Performative] Complete Works of Shakespeare .....................................................266 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................283 Epilogue: An Apocryphal Identity ........................................................................................287 Works Cited..........................................................................................................................305 iv List of illustrations Fig. 1. Frontispiece and title-page of the third Shakespeare Folio (1664)…………………………. 23 Fig. 2. Title page of Tyrrell, Henry, ed., The Doubtful Plays of Shakspere (1853?)…………..… 82 Fig. 3. Title pages of The London Prodigal (1605) and A Yorkshire Tragedy (1608)…………. 105 Fig. 4. Title page of Locrine (1595)…………………………………………………………………………………. 184 v Acknowledgements As this thesis will demonstrate, the presence of a single name on a title page rarely does justice to the number of agents who made it possible. While there isn’t space here to thank everyone, I would like to acknowledge my more prominent “collaborators”. My greatest debt is to my supervisor, Jonathan Bate, who gave me the opportunity to write this thesis in conjunction with his forthcoming edition of disputed plays. Jonathan’s intellectual guidance and professionalism have been invaluable throughout. My mentor, Paul Prescott, has also gone beyond the call of duty with his support and feedback. I hope that this thesis does justice to their patience and encouragement. The other members of my research team – Eric Rasmussen, Jan Sewell and Will Sharpe – have been a pleasure to work with, and I’m particularly grateful to Will for many stimulating conversations. Carol Rutter, Susan Brock and Nick Monk have been inspiring colleagues and friends. I am grateful for the support of the English faculty at Warwick, and to my past Shakespeare teachers: Mike Devitt, Tim Kershaw, Charlotte Scott and Tony Howard. I have benefited from the generosity of several scholars who have kindly sent me advance copies of work. Thanks to David Carnegie, Ward Elliott, Brean Hammond, Christa Jansohn, John Jowett, Edmund King, Thomas Merriam, Richard Proudfoot, Bernard Richards, Emma Smith, Tiffany Stern, Gary Taylor and Brian Vickers, this thesis is significantly more up to date than it might have been. The Arts and Humanities Research Council provided a grant that allowed me to devote myself to the project full time, and travel grants from the ISA and SAA enabled me to present at their meetings in 2011. Parts of this thesis have been trialled at conferences, and I would like to thank Adam Hooks, Lisa Hopkins, Helen Ostovich, Matt Kubus and Emily Oliver for invitations that proved especially useful. I would also like to thank the students of the Warwick Shakespeare Society who invited me to act as dramaturge for their rehearsed reading of Double Falsehood, a rich and informative experience. The expertise of staff at the Shakespeare Institute Library, Shakespeare Birthplace Trust and the Rare Books and Reading Room of the British Library has been most helpful. The majority of this PhD was written in the Wolfson Research Exchange at Warwick Library, and I would like to thank the team for creating such a conducive environment. The administrative staff in the English office have been a source of information and good humour, and Peter Larkin and Cath Hanley have provided valuable technical advice. Most important are the real-world contexts that have kept me healthy and sane for the duration of the project. I am lucky to have an extraordinary group of friends in Warwick, Stratford and London, who have made the PhD experience a pleasure. I owe particular debts to Charlotte Mathieson, who is still an inspiration, and to Andy Kesson, who has been a constant source of encouragement and an enthusiastic reader. I would also like to thank Kate Scarth for her generosity, and Sara Thompson, who was right. My parents, Paul and Barbara, have insisted throughout on the importance of self-belief, and their support has made the last three years possible. Mark, Ruth and Sharon have kept me grounded in family, and Fionnuala O’Neill kept me smiling in the final stages. Final thanks go to Persephone for providing much-needed perspective. She would have enjoyed sitting on the finished product. vi Declaration This thesis is my own work; no part of it has been submitted for a degree at another university. No part of the thesis has been published elsewhere except the appendix, “The First Collected ‘Shakespeare Apocrypha’”, which is a reprint of an article forthcoming in Shakespeare Quarterly and is reproduced here for reference. vii Thesis abstract Shakespeare and the Idea of Apocrypha offers the most comprehensive study to date of an intriguing but understudied body of plays. It undertakes a major reconsideration of the processes that determine the constitution of the Shakespeare canon through study of that canon’s exclusions. This thesis combines historical analysis of the emergence and development of the “Shakespeare Apocrypha” with current theorisations of dramatic collaboration. Several new theoretical and historical approaches to