Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Lost' Shakespeare Play Double Falsehood Published
BBC ^ | Monday, 15 March 2010

Posted on 03/16/2010 12:25:03 AM PDT by nickcarraway

A play which was first discovered nearly 300 years ago has been credited to William Shakespeare.

The work, titled Double Falsehood, was written by the playwright and another dramatist, John Fletcher.

Theatre impresario Lewis Theobald presented the play in the 18th century as an adaptation of a Shakespeare play but it was dismissed as a forgery.

But scholars for British Shakespeare publisher, Arden, now believe the Bard wrote large parts of the play. Researchers think the play is based on a long-lost work called Cardenio, which was itself based on Don Quixote.

"I think Shakespeare's hand can be discerned in Act One, Act Two and probably the first two scenes in Act Three of the play," Professor Brean Hammond told the BBC's World Service.

Professor Hammond of Nottingham University is the editor of the latest Arden Shakespeare collection, which includes Double Falsehood.

"At least half of the plays written in the period were written collaboratively," Hammond told Radio 4's Today programme.

It is already established that Shakespeare wrote two other plays with Fletcher towards the end of his career, Henry VIII and The Two Noble Kinsman.

Professor Hammond believes Double Falsehood was written shortly after the translation of Don Quixote came out in 1612.

The play was performed at least twice in 1613.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Arts/Photography; Books/Literature; History
KEYWORDS: cardenio; cervantes; doublefalsehood; drama; godsgravesglyphs; johnfletcher; lewistheobald; shakespeare
It seems amazing Shakespeare would be using Don Quixote as source material, given how late it was published. Interestingly, both Shakespeare and Cervantes were supposed to have died on April 23rd.
1 posted on 03/16/2010 12:25:05 AM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GretchenM; TBP; clockwise; highball; KC_Conspirator; lizma; Stoat; rdb3; onedoug; SunkenCiv; ...

Shakespeare Ping


2 posted on 03/16/2010 12:27:13 AM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

I really do not see why people are so in love with Shakespeare (if he eve wrote all his plays) Most of his works were based on earlier plays or stoies.


3 posted on 03/16/2010 12:48:46 AM PDT by LukeL (Yasser Arafat: "I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

I wrote several no act plays. Saved plenty of paper that way.


4 posted on 03/16/2010 12:51:44 AM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult (The man who said "there's no such thing as a stupid question" has never talked to Helen Thomas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LukeL

Yes, he often borrowed source material, but it’s what he did with it that is so amazing. The story of a Danish prince wasn’t all that interesting, and who would have otherwise guesses that a write could make something so sublime of it. It’s the language, the wit, the psychology, the metaphysics, that make Shakespeare great. To worry about the source material is missing the point entirely. I can guarantee you, no one is reading Saxo or Belleforest today, because they think it is fsantastic.


5 posted on 03/16/2010 12:59:25 AM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LukeL
"I never writ"

---Shakespeare

6 posted on 03/16/2010 1:13:21 AM PDT by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

That may be true, but his authorsip is in doubt, and not to knock your screen name, but The Great Gatsby was the most painful expierence of my high school years.


7 posted on 03/16/2010 1:29:47 AM PDT by LukeL (Yasser Arafat: "I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LukeL

I totally doubt authorsip in all its forms.


8 posted on 03/16/2010 1:43:31 AM PDT by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LukeL

All the reasons you hear people liking Shakespeare are all wrong. Shakespeare is holding a mirror up to nature and people see themselves in it. Shakespeare is a liberal to a liberal, a conservative to a conservative, a monarchist to a monarchist, a lover to a lover, a fighter to a fighter, a Catholic to a Catholic, a Protestant to a Protestant, and so on.

Shakespeare is unique in that he is mocking Nature. He doesn’t take Nature seriously. I can’t find any writer who mocked Nature in such a way. Because of his constant mockery, almost all of Shakespeare is a comedy. His tragedies even sound like comedies until at the very end when the play suddenly calls for mass corpses.

All the stuff that is taught about Shakespeare is wrong. The worst way to look at Shakespeare is with any eye of seriousness. The guy is a total clown. But he is mocking Nature in every which way.

Shakespeare would even mock himself. “What are you reading?” asks the Polonious.

“Words. Words. Words.”


9 posted on 03/16/2010 2:48:17 AM PDT by SlipStream
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Interestingly, both Shakespeare and Cervantes were supposed to have died on April 23rd.

So did my cat. hmmmm
10 posted on 03/16/2010 2:51:02 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (IN A SMALL TENT WE JUST STAND CLOSER! * IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

11 posted on 03/16/2010 3:45:54 AM PDT by JoeProBono (A closed mouth gathers no feet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LukeL

I suppose that if you are deaf and blind to the beauties of our gloriously rich, complex language; if you don’t care to see the human heart and mind subtly and deeply examined; if you are not interested in the thought, actions, and psychology of the people and culture that formed the basis of our own nation, then perhaps you would not “see why people are so in love with Shakespeare.”


12 posted on 03/16/2010 4:33:20 AM PDT by ottbmare (I could agree wth you, but then we'd both be wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LukeL

I really do not see why people are so in love with Shakespeare (if he eve wrote all his plays) Most of his works were based on earlier plays or stoies.

<><><><><><

Would it be OK to ask, then, what you do enjoy reading? Folks who dismiss Shakespeare as glibly as you do, and for the reasons you do, surely must be reading something.


13 posted on 03/16/2010 6:54:49 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LukeL
Most of his works were based on earlier plays or stoies.

You would be hard pressed to find anything that is not.

14 posted on 03/16/2010 6:57:32 AM PDT by Sloth (Civil disobedience? I'm afraid only the uncivil kind is going to cut it this time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LukeL

His authorship is in doubt? Find me a serious scholar who thinks that’s possible. The people who doubt authorship are the upscale equivalent of 9/11 truthers. And basically they are snobs.


15 posted on 03/16/2010 10:39:54 AM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LukeL
Besides, does it make a difference to the appreciation of the text? Someone wrote it. I don't know who wrote Dream of the Rood or Beowulf, but I can still appreciate them.
16 posted on 03/16/2010 10:42:53 AM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: firebrand
"I never writ" ~Shakespeare

"Now it's a rat writ, writ for a rat, and this is lawful service of the same." ~Rooster Cogburn

17 posted on 03/16/2010 10:46:13 AM PDT by Tijeras_Slim (Live jubtabulously!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; StayAt HomeMother; Ernest_at_the_Beach; 1ofmanyfree; 21twelve; 240B; 24Karet; ...

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·

 
Gods
Graves
Glyphs
Thanks nickcarraway.

Cardenio, which is all but lost (just an offstage musical interlude and the accompanying simultaneous onstage dialogue survives), was similarly based on Cervantes.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
 

·Dogpile · Archaeologica · LiveScience · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society ·
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google ·
· The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·


18 posted on 03/16/2010 2:47:22 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (http://themagicnegro.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LukeL

The lad doth protest too much, methinks.


19 posted on 03/16/2010 3:07:53 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra; shibumi; Jet Jaguar; bcsco; Markos33; Eaker; Slings and Arrows; humblegunner

“Question authorsipity”


20 posted on 03/16/2010 3:12:26 PM PDT by Salamander (....and I'm sure I need some rest but sleepin' don't come very easy in a straight white vest.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dmz

It is not that I hate Shakespeare, I enjoyed Macbeth and Hamlet a lot, and I ejoyed Romeo and Juliet as well. I however do not understand how he is held to be one of the greatest of all time.


21 posted on 03/16/2010 3:40:35 PM PDT by LukeL (Yasser Arafat: "I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LukeL
Most classic dramas were based on earlier stories. Greek tragedies were mostly taken from mythology. Even later, tragedies were expected to be based on great heroes of myth, legend or history, not on original creations of an author.

It's what a writer does with the story -- how he tells or shows it -- that makes for greatness. The source material for some of Shakespeare's plays was pretty minimal -- certainly in comparison with what Shakespeare created out of it.

22 posted on 03/16/2010 3:52:28 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Salamander

I wonder who really wrote your post.


23 posted on 03/16/2010 5:03:16 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: LukeL
Can I ask what made Gatsby so painful?
24 posted on 03/16/2010 5:10:38 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

It was just a boring story where very little happened. You could not like any of the characters (which I know was the point) and it seemed like you were reading about someones boring life.


25 posted on 03/16/2010 7:26:27 PM PDT by LukeL (Yasser Arafat: "I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: LukeL

I know what you mean. His most often produced plays are just a string of famous quotations.


26 posted on 03/16/2010 7:33:01 PM PDT by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: LukeL

You have to READ it to figure out the draw.

;-)


27 posted on 03/16/2010 8:14:56 PM PDT by bannie (Somebody has to go to seed...it might as well be me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LukeL

“I really do not see why people are so in love with Shakespeare (if he eve wrote all his plays) Most of his works were based on earlier plays or stoies.”

God made man, but when Michelango PAINTED him...well!


28 posted on 03/16/2010 8:36:57 PM PDT by Beowulf9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Authors in those days generally did not do all original work. If they did it would have then been disregarded as of no value.
Art was in reworking already known themes and incidents with one’s own insights and techniques.


29 posted on 03/16/2010 9:05:43 PM PDT by ThanhPhero (di tray hoi den La Vang)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
His authorship is in doubt?

The theory runs along the lines that it is entirely improbable that someone could have been such a genius as to write what Shakespeare wrote, so, it could not have been Shakespeare, but some other genius. Or, in the alternative, they pose the even more improbable hypothesis, that the only way to to explain the conundrum of one such improbable genius having lived is to posit that there were two such geniuses.

Some genius wrote Shakespeare, and for the sake of convenience we might as well call that author what he called himself, i.e. Shakespeare.

30 posted on 03/18/2010 8:35:37 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson