Kyd and Shakespeare: Authorship, Influence, and Collaboration Darren Anthony Freebury-Jones A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Cardiff University 2016 Abstract The aim of this thesis is to establish the canon of Thomas Kyd’s plays and to explore Shakespeare’s relationship with that oeuvre. Chapter One begins by examining Shakespeare’s verbal indebtedness to plays that have been attributed to Kyd for over two centuries, including The Spanish Tragedy (1587), Soliman and Perseda (1588), and The True Chronicle History of King Leir (1589). The first chapter argues that Shakespeare’s extensive knowledge of Kyd’s plays contributed towards the development of his dramatic language. The second chapter provides an overview of some of the complex methods for identifying authors utilized throughout the thesis. Chapter Three then seeks to establish a fuller account of Kyd’s dramatic canon through a variety of authorship tests, arguing that in addition to the three plays above Arden of Faversham (1590), Fair Em (1590), and Cornelia (1594) should be attributed to Kyd as sole authored texts. The fourth chapter examines the internal evidence for Kyd’s hand in Shakespeare’s Henry VI Part One (1592). The chapter contends that Shakespeare’s chronicle history play was originally written by Kyd and Thomas Nashe for the Lord Strange’s Men, and that Shakespeare subsequently added three scenes for the Lord Chamberlain’s Men. The fifth chapter argues that Shakespeare and Kyd collaborated on The Reign of King Edward III (1593) and that Kyd should thus be recognized as one of Shakespeare’s earliest co-authors. Finally, Chapter Six, by way of conclusion, outlines other possible links between Kyd’s plays and Shakespeare. The thesis as a whole argues for a reconsideration of Kyd’s authorship of a number of key plays that influenced Shakespeare, and for a reconsideration of the collaboration between these two dramatists. Acknowledgements I should like to thank my supervisor, Martin Coyle, who has shown so much confidence in me over the years. I could not have done this without his reassuring kindness and unyielding support. A number of excellent scholars have devoted their time and energy in offering me advice and feedback during my researches. I must thank Ian Lancashire, Richard Proudfoot, Martin Wiggins, Lene Buhl Petersen, and Martin Mueller in particular. It has been reassuring to learn that, even in the sometimes hostile world of authorship attribution studies, scholars are willing to embrace new challengers. A special mention must go to Marcus Dahl, who has proven himself to be not only a colleague, but a true friend. I could not have dreamt that I would share a number of intoxicated evenings with Marcus in London, let alone work with him on attribution studies-related projects! My heartfelt gratitude to my family; they have made this possible. They have endured my bouts of self-doubt with patient ears. All the pens that poets ever held could not sum up my debt to them. The same goes to my girlfriend, Emma, who has always been able to cheer me up and inspire self-confidence. I am unbelievably lucky to have met her during the course of my studies. Play Titles and Abbreviations Ado = Much Ado About Nothing AF = Arden of Faversham Corn. = Cornelia E3 = Edward III FE = Fair Em 1H4 = Henry IV Part One 2H4 = Henry IV Part Two 1H6 = Henry VI Part One 2H6 = Henry VI Part Two 3H6 = Henry VI Part Three Ham. = Hamlet Jn. = King John KL = King Leir LLL = Love’s Labour’s Lost Lr. = King Lear MND = A Midsummer Night’s Dream R2 = Richard II R3 = Richard III Rom. = Romeo and Juliet S&P = Soliman and Perseda Shr. = The Taming of the Shrew SLWT = Summer’s Last Will and Testament Sp. T. = The Spanish Tragedy TGV = The Two Gentlemen of Verona Tit. = Titus Andronicus Table of Contents Chapter One – Kyd and Shakespeare 1 Introduction Shakespeare’s Early Career The Case of Thomas Kyd 5 Conclusion 16 Chapter Two – Methodologies 18 Introduction Verse Style Function Words 22 Linguistic Idiosyncrasies 24 Vocabulary 26 Verbal Links 28 Chapter Three – Restoring Thomas Kyd’s Canon 31 Introduction Part One: The Traditionally Accepted Kyd Plays The Spanish Tragedy Soliman and Perseda 38 Rhyme Forms 39 Verse Style 40 Linguistic Idiosyncrasies 41 Verbal Links 42 Overall Dramaturgy 43 Cornelia 46 Part Two: Plays in the ‘Extended’ Kyd Canon 48 King Leir 49 Rhyme Forms 50 Verse Style 51 Linguistic Idiosyncrasies 52 Vocabulary 53 Verbal Links 55 Overall Dramaturgy 59 Arden of Faversham 65 Rhyme Forms 67 Verse Style 69 Function Words 70 Linguistic Idiosyncrasies 71 Verbal Links 72 Overall Dramaturgy 75 Fair Em 84 Rhyme Forms 88 Verse Style 90 Linguistic Idiosyncrasies 91 Vocabulary Function Words 93 Verbal Links 94 Overall Dramaturgy 96 Part Three: The Claim for Shakespeare’s Part Authorship of Arden of Faversham 102 Conclusion 123 Chapter Four – Henry VI Part One by Nashe, Kyd, and Shakespeare 124 Introduction Part One: Henry VI Part One: Relation to Shakespeare’s Second and Third Parts Henry VI Part One: Authorship 127 Part Two: Thomas Nashe’s Part Authorship of ‘Harey the vj’: Act One 128 Verse Style 129 Verbal Links 131 Vocabulary 134 Part Three: Identifying Thomas Kyd as Nashe’s Co-author 135 Rhyme Forms 136 Verse Style 137 Linguistic Idiosyncrasies 138 Function Words 141 Verbal Links 142 Kyd’s Part Authorship of ‘Harey the vj’: Act Two 143 Kyd’s Part Authorship of ‘Harey the vj’: Act Three 153 Kyd’s Part Authorship of ‘Harey the vj’: Act Four 162 Kyd’s Part Authorship of ‘Harey the vj’: Act Five 175 Part Four: Shakespeare’s Additions to ‘Harey the vj’: Act Two Scene Four 186 Shakespeare’s Additions to ‘Harey the vj’: Act Four Scene Two 191 Shakespeare’s Additions to ‘Harey the vj’: Act Four Scene Five 192 Conclusion 195 Chapter Five – Edward III by Kyd and Shakespeare 197 Introduction Part One: Edward III: A Shakespearean Collaboration Part Two: Shakespeare’s Part Authorship of Edward III: Scenes Two and Three 203 Shakespeare’s Part Authorship of Edward III: Scene Twelve 209 Part Three: Identifying Thomas Kyd as Shakespeare’s Co-author 210 Rhyme Forms 212 Verse Style 213 Linguistic Idiosyncrasies 214 Function Words 215 Verbal Links 216 Kyd’s Part Authorship of Edward III: Scene One 217 Kyd’s Part Authorship of Edward III: Scenes Four to Eleven 220 Kyd’s Part Authorship of Edward III: Scenes Thirteen to Eighteen 234 Conclusion 241 Chapter Six – Conclusion 243 Appendix Rare Tetragrams Shared between Sole Authored Kyd Plays 256 Bibliography 272 1 Chapter One Kyd and Shakespeare Introduction This chapter explores Shakespeare’s verbal indebtedness to Thomas Kyd. In particular, it details some of the links between Shakespeare’s early plays and Kyd’s traditionally accepted tragedies, The Spanish Tragedy (1587) and Soliman and Perseda (1588).1 Having analysed verbal affinities between these texts, drawing upon the idea of Shakespeare’s ‘actor’s memory’, the chapter investigates links between Shakespeare’s drama and The True Chronicle History of King Leir (1589), which, Chapter Three argues, was also written by Kyd.2 The aim of this first chapter is to demonstrate that Shakespeare had extensive knowledge of Kyd’s plays and that this knowledge contributed towards the development of Shakespeare’s dramatic language. Shakespeare’s Early Career Ann Thompson pointed out in 1984 that many scholars ‘seem reluctant to accuse’ Shakespeare ‘of being the borrower but prefer to assume that the other dramatist borrowed from him’.3 For example, in 1924 John Mackinnon Robertson highlighted striking verbal parallels between Shakespeare’s early works, and King Leir and Arden of Faversham (1590), but he concluded: ‘The notion that Shakespeare in 1593 was capping in this fashion lines so freely current in the theatre will perhaps at this stage be dismissed by most readers’.4 William Wells, in 1940, refused to believe that 1 I have used Martin Wiggins and Catherine Richardson’s British Drama 1533-1642: A Catalogue: Volume II: 1567-1589 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) and British Drama 1533-1642: A Catalogue: Volume III: 1590-1597 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013) for the dates of first performances. 2 See Chapter Three below for my evidence that King Leir (1589) was written by Kyd. The evidence I present for Shakespeare’s borrowing from plays in the ‘extended’ Kyd canon will inform my evaluation of MacDonald P. Jackson’s argument for Shakespeare’s part authorship of Arden of Faversham (1590), also in Chapter Three. 3 Ann Thompson, ‘The Taming of the Shrew and The Spanish Tragedy’, Notes and Queries, 31 (1984), 182-184 (p. 182). 4 J. M. Robertson, An Introduction to the Study of the Shakespeare Canon: Proceeding on the Problem of Titus Andronicus (London: Routledge, 1924), p. 392. 2 Shakespeare not only plagiarized the Raigne—which, by the way, when re-moulding the work, he almost scrupulously refrained from doing—but that he plundered every Kyd play he could lay his hands on. Passages from […] Leir, Arden, the Spanish Tragedy […] are all deftly woven into the fabric.5 Other scholars, however, have been willing to accept the fact that Shakespeare followed the standard practice of borrowing from his fellow dramatists. Hardin Craig suggested in 1951 that Shakespeare had acted in King Leir and was thus able to recall the play.6 In 1958, Thomas H. McNeal listed numerous verbal matches between Shakespeare’s plays and King Leir. He concluded that Shakespeare borrowed ‘in both phrase and paraphrase’ from the old play throughout his career.7 Charles R. Forker has suggested that ‘Much of this assimilation was undoubtedly unconscious, at least in the case of verbal echoes, since Shakespeare seems to have known many of the plays from practical experience in the theatre’.8 I argue in this chapter that Shakespeare’s ability to weave verbal details from other plays into his own passages is in part attributable to his career as an actor.