A Study of Other Shakespeare Plays

Among plays bearing the authorial name of William Shakespeare, or its initials, we cannot afford to shirk the responsibility imposed upon us by our title-page of examining, briefly at least, those admitted to the Third Folio, as well as several others having quite as good a claim to canonization, if we accept contemporary evidence, or the claims of the so-called Cipher Story, to be treated later.

Sir John Oldcastle, bearing the full name, William Shakespeare, on the title-page, was never disowned by the actor, nor disputed by critics until, in 1790, Malone, who then almost monopolized the field of speculative criticism, passed upon it an unfavourable opinion; indeed, he goes so far as to
say that he cannot “perceive the least trace of our great poet in any part of the play.” No less a critic, however, than Schlegel declares that this play, Thomas Lord Cromwell and Locrine are not only unquestionably Shakspere’s, but, in my opinion, they deserve to be classed among his best and maturest works.”

Thomas Lord Cromwell and Sir John Oldcastle he classes together as biographical dramas, and models of their kind, the first in the nature of its subject linked to Henry VIII., and the second to Henry V. Tieck also has no hesitation in assigning these plays to the author of Hamlet. On the other hand, Phillipps, realizing the danger of questioning the infallibility of the Canon, rejects, in accord with the prevailing policy, the play of Oldcastle, suggesting an old play of that name, while Ulrici ascribes it to an imitator “who tried to model himself upon Shakespeare’s style.”

The personalities of Oldcastle and Falstaff have been confused unnecessarily by critics. There were real personages of both names, but there is nothing in the drama we are considering to lead one to suppose that the worthy Sir John was the prototype of the selfish and lascivious Falstaff. In the Famous Victories there is a Sir John Oldcastle, a disreputable fellow associated with Prince Henry in his madcap adventures, whom the public later recognized in Falstaff, seemingly to the annoyance of the Cobhams who were allied to the Oldcastle family. The following quotations from the Prologue to Sir John Oldcastle, and the Epilogue to the second part of Henry IV., should settle the matter: “It is no pamper’d glutton we present, nor aged Councellor to youthfull sinne, but one whose virtue shown above the rest, a valiant Martyr, and a vertuous Peer.” “For anything I know Falstaffe shall dye of a sweat unless already he be killed with your hard Opinions: For Old-Castle dyed a Martyr, and this is not the man.”

Concerning this play a curious question is disclosed by this entry in Henslowe’s Diary: This 6th of October ‘99, received by me Thomas Downton of Phillipp Henchlow, to pay Mr. Munday, Mr. Drayton and Mr. Wilson, and Hathway for the first parts of the Lyfe of Sir John Ouldcasstell, and in earnest of the second parts, for the use of the companye ten pownd. Thomas Lord Cromwell.

This play, political in its nature, appeared in 1602, shortly after the Essex Rebellion, and Cromwell, having been also Earl of Essex, seems to have attracted notice to that event. It was first published anonymously, and continued to be played by the company to which the Stratford actor was nominally attached, until 1613, when it was republished with his initials on the title-page. Farmer ascribes its authorship to Heywood, and others to Wentworth Smith, but there is nothing whatever, not even its style, to give colour to such allotment. That it was regarded as a genuine work of the author of plays in the Canon is evidenced by its endorsement by Rowe, Pope, and Walker, who published it as A Tragedy By Shakespear, as late as 1734, and its acceptance by the German critics, Ulrici, Tieck, and Schlegel. The Tragedy was entered for license in 1594, and printed in Quarto in 1595 under the initials “W. S.” Steevens accredits the authorship to Marlowe, who died a year before it was entered on the Register. Knight says that the initials might, without any attempt to convey the notion that Locrine was written by Shakspere, have fairly stood for William Smith, and in the same way the W. S. of Thomas Lord Cromwell might have represented Wentworth Smith, a well-known dramatic author at the date of the publication of those plays. If we refer to Fleay, however, we find that Wentworth Smith was “A hack writer, not one scrap of whose work was ever thought worth publishing.”

Schlegel we have, seen says of Oldcastle, Cromwell, and Locrine, that they “are not only unquestionably Shakspeare’s, but deserve to be classed among his best and matures works”; and Tieck pronounces Locrine to be “The earliest of Shakspere’s dramas.” 1

The Puritan Widow. No play among those admitted to the two later Folios has been discredited so generally as this. Winstanley ascribed it to Shakspere, and likewise Schlegel, who advances the theory that for some reason of his own he wished to adopt the style of Jonson. Knight dismisses it contemptuously; Fleay ascribes its authorship to Middleton. It was first published in 1607, and contains an allusion to Richard III., and Macbeth. It can hardly be thought worthy of the great dramatist, unless it is regarded as a very youthful work which it shows evidence of being.

A Yorkshire Tragedy. This play was founded upon a tragedy which occurred in 1604, and was published in 1608, with W. Shake-speare, on the title-page. Knight pronounces it a “Play of sterling merit in its limited range,” 2 and is inclined to ascribe it to Heywood. Fleay, however, admits that “The authorship of this play has not yet been ascertained.” 3 Malone would give no decided opinion upon it, nor does Phillipps venture to guess at its author, though he condemns it, and accounts for the actor’s remaining silent about the use of his name by assuming that he was probably attending to some of his many lawsuits. Hazlitt ascribes its author ship to Heywood, and Dr. Farmer asserts that “Most certainly it was not written by our poet at all.”

The London Prodigal. This play was first published in 1605, and the title-page bore the name William Shakespeare. Tieck ascribes its authorship to Shakspere. Knight rejects it. Fleay says: “This play is certainly by the same hand as the Cromwell. 4

Areden of Feversham should especially gain our attention. It was published as early as 1592. How long before this date it was written, we have no means of knowing; but there can be no doubt that it was the work of a young writer. Like the Yorkshire Tragedy, it is founded upon a local homicide, and like that event greatly excited the public mind. Its first publication was in Holinshed’s Chronicle of 1577. As it occurred, however, in 1551, it was then an old case with the legal fraternity, and served them for reference in similar cases. The author, however, had a clearer legal conception of the case than the chronicler, and discards certain speculative evidence to advantage. Tieck thought well enough of the drama to translate it into German, declaring it beyond question a Shakspere work.

Edward III., was printed in quarto in 1596 anonymously, as the early Shakespeare quartos were, and was regarded as being the work of the same author by Collier. Capell in 1760 republished it as “A Play thought to be writ by Shakespeare” and that when it appeared “there was no known writer equal to such a play.” Ulrici accounts for its neglect, and its omission from the Folio, by the fact that it contains reflections upon the Scots, which made it popular in Elizabeth’s time but would have given offense to James, and therefore its paternity was not recognized by its author in his reign. He concludes that it is “a complete and beautiful composition, which is throughout worthy of the great poet,” having already given his opinion “that the piece probably belongs to Shakespeare’s earlier labours.” Collier declares it to be undoubtedly Shakespeare’s. 5