'Lost' Shakespeare Play Double Falsehood Published

BBC ^ | Monday, 15 March 2010

[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.

[nickcarraway]

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.

[nickcarraway]

Shakespeare Ping

[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.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

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

[nickcarraway]

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.

[firebrand]

"I never writ"

---Shakespeare

[LukeL]

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.

[agere_contra]

I totally doubt authorsip in all its forms.

[SlipStream]

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.”

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

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

So did my cat. hmmmm

[JoeProBono]

[ottbmare]

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.”

[dmz]

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.

[Sloth]

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

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

[nickcarraway]

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.

[nickcarraway]

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.

[Tijeras_Slim]

"I never writ" ~Shakespeare

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

[SunkenCiv]

· 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 ·

[colorado tanker]

The lad doth protest too much, methinks.

[Salamander]

“Question authorsipity”