King edward iii, p.14
King Edward III, page 14
13See Proudfoot, ‘Wars’.
14These events are dramatized, together with their sequel up to 1589, by Marlowe in The Massacre at Paris, 1593.
15Cf. Thomas Dekker, If This Be Not a Good Play the Devil Is in It (1611), 5.4.
16See Parmelee, and Voss. During England’s involvement in France, news pamphlets constituted part of Lord Burghley’s anti-Catholic propaganda campaign (Voss, 51–2).
17Sidney Lee, The French Renaissance in England (Oxford, 1910), 8, spotted this detail, characterizing it as an historical ‘ungrammaticality’.
18Calais was lost to the English in 1558, in a surprise attack by the Duke of Guise: ‘Overwhelming numbers, well-handled siege guns and a bungled defence allowed the French to achieve in a week what had taken Edward III eleven gruelling months in 1346–47’ (Hammer, 50).
19Cf. 1H6 3.3.85, ‘Done like a Frenchman: turn and turn again’; also Love’s Labour’s Lost, where the oath-breaking King Ferdinand is the King of ‘Navarre’ (see Woudhuysen, LLL, 66–8). See also Voss, 110–53.
20E.g. The copy of a letter, written by a Master of Art of Cambridge … about the present state, and some proceedings of the Earl of Leicester (Paris, 1584; reprinted later as Leicester’s Commonwealth).
21See Scarisbrick, 19, 27; also Dale Hoak, ‘Edward VI (1537–1553)’, ODNB.
22Details of the controversy, and a disparaging account of the Scots and their country, are to be found in William Harrison’s Description of Scotland prefaced to Holinshed’s chronicle of Scotland (see Roger Mason, ‘Scotland’, in Holinshed Handbook, 647–62).
23For Henry’s incursions into France in 1514 and 1544, see Scarisbrick, 58–60, 577.
24In the seventeenth century the story mutated into the popular chapbook tale of the successful wooing of the Fair Maid of Kent by the Black Prince, which survived at least well into the eighteenth century.
25Alternate rhyme occurs elsewhere only at 11.68–73, for the prophecy, and 17.14–17, where Prince Edward taunts his royal captives.
26See, e.g., Irving Ribner, The English History Play in the Age of Shakespeare (2nd edn, 1965), 150.
27It is noticeable that the military plays of the late 1580s and early 1590s supply a succession of roles for youthful warriors: see, e.g., Tamburlaine, The Wounds of Civil War, Locrine. At the same time, the military heroism represented in many of these plays was being encouraged by, and was indeed associated with, the Earl of Essex. His popularity is attested by the many books dedicated to him, including manuals on war and honour (see Voss, 246, n. 60; Paul E.J. Hammer, ‘Devereux, Robert, second earl of Essex (1565–1601)’, ODNB).
28James P. Carley, ‘Bourchier, John, second Baron Berners (c. 1467–1533)’, ODNB.
29See Ruth Morse, ‘François-Victor Hugo and the limits of cultural catalysis’, SS 64 (2011), 220–30.
30Nicola Shulman, Graven with Diamonds (2011), 262, n. 2.
31Taylor; Vickers, ‘Incomplete Shakespeare’.
32A.T. Pratt and D.S. Kastan, ‘Printers, publishers, and the Chronicles as artefact’, in Holinshed Handbook, 22.
33Henry Summerson, ‘Sources: 1577’, in Holinshed Handbook, 68.
34Henry Summerson, ‘Sources: 1587’, in Holinshed Handbook, 80–3.
35Cf. Melchiori’s imaginative reconstruction of the process (Cam, notably 178–214).
36Paul E.J. Hammer, ‘War’, in Holinshed Handbook, 444.
37Ocland, Anglorum Praelia (1582), STC2, 18773.7 (University College London Library: B.1582.01) has the Privy Council order on sig. A2r–v; STC2, 18774 (BL: G.17449) replaces it with the letter of Her Majesty’s High Commissioners, 7 May 1582, to all Bishops throughout England and Wales.
38A much-used copy of the 1582 octavo edition, now in the Folger library, changed hands in 1596.
39After giving details of the objections of schoolmasters and clerics to certain classical Latin authors currently in use in schools as the motive for prescription of Ocland’s Anglorum Praelia, in 1582, T.W. Baldwin adds, ‘By reason of his age, Shakspere was spared at least this – unless, indeed, he later had to teach Ocland’ (Baldwin, 1.111).
40But see citations of Sharrock in the commentary: e.g. nn. on 1.95; 4.112, 148, 161, 169; 5.66; 6.219–26; 10.3).
41‘The play is sometimes identified with two other pre-Shakespearian Henry V plays mentioned by Thomas Nashe and Philip Henslowe respectively (912 and 1021)’ (Wiggins, 2.358/773).
42See Riggs, 83, ‘while the order of composition remains uncertain, the artistic sequel to Edward III is Henry VI, part 1 … Shakespeare enlarges the central political issue beyond the narrow problem of hereditary legitimacy, and he sees more in heroic worth than a personal fidelity to knightly ideals … The right of the English in France is given an historical basis rather than an exclusively genealogical one.’
43Patrick Juola, ‘Authorship attribution’, Foundation and Trends in Information Retrieval, 1 (2008), 233–334, cited by Vickers, ‘Authorship Studies’, 115, n. 25.
44Interested readers will find guidance in C.F. Tucker Brooke (ed.), The Shakespeare Apocrypha (Oxford, 1908; repr. 1929), xx–xxiii, 441–2, 448–53; D.V. Erdman and E.G. Fogel, Evidence for Authorship (Ithaca, N.Y., 1966), 188–203 (a reprint of S. Schoenbaum, ‘Internal evidence and the attribution of Elizabethan plays’, Bulletin of the New York Public Library, 65 (1981), 102–24), 478–80; and G. Harold Metz, Sources of Four Plays ascribed to Shakespeare:‘The Reign of King Edward III’, ‘Sir Thomas More’, ‘The History of Cardenio’,‘The Two Noble Kinsmen’ (Columbia, Mo., 1989), supplementing his Four Plays Ascribed to Shakespeare; The Reign of King Edward III; Sir Thomas More; The History of Cardenio; The Two Noble Kinsmen: An Annotated Bibliography (New York, 1982). See also Will Sharpe, ‘Authorship and attribution’, in Bate & Rasmussen, 663–70, 734–5.
45See MacDonald P. Jackson, Determining the Shakespeare Canon: ‘Arden of Faversham’ and ‘A Lover’s Complaint’ (Oxford, 2014), the review of it by Brian Vickers, TLS (24 April 2015), 9–11, and Jackson’s rejoinder, TLS (8 May 2015), 6.
46See Chambers, Shakespeare, 2.396–408, Appendix H, Metrical Tables; also Philip W. Timberlake, The Feminine Ending in English Blank Verse: A Study of its Use by Early Writers in the Measure and its Development in the Drama up to the Year 1595 (Menasha, Wis., 1931), 85–118.
47MacDonald P. Jackson uses the phrase ‘monosyllabic double endings’: see, e.g., ‘Looking for Shakespeare in Double Falsehood: stylistic evidence’, in David Carnegie and Gary Taylor (eds), The Quest for ‘Cardenio’ (Oxford, 2012), 138.
48Compare totals as follows: 1H6, 16; 2H6, 38; 3H6, 28; R3, 87; Tit, 22 (none in Act 1, assigned to Peele); TS, 39; TGV, 54; CE, 56. Relevant Marlowe totals are: Dido, 0; 1Tam, 2; 2Tam, 3; Edward II, 13; Kyd, Spanish Tragedy, 6 (8 if ‘’t’ is accepted as a final monosyllable); Soliman and Perseda, 19; Cornelia, 15.
49See, e.g., Ian Lancashire, Forgetful Muses: Reading the Author in the Text (2010).
50Brian Vickers, ‘Thomas Kyd, secret sharer’, TLS (18 April 2008), 13–15; Vickers, ‘Two Authors’.
51See Patrick Juola, ‘Authorship attribution and the digital humanities curriculum’, in Willie van Peer, Sonia Zyngier and Vander Viana (eds), Literary Education and Digital Learning: Methods and Technologies for Humanities Studies (New York, 2010), 1–21.
52J. Jowett, Shakespeare and Text (Oxford, 2007), 21, challenges this view.
53Cf. Harold Love, reviewing MacDonald P. Jackson, Defining Shakespeare (Oxford, 2003), ‘Jackson gives an invaluable account of the practical skills needed to use LION productively … but his new method of attribution turns out to be a more sophisticated form of parallelography’ (TLS, 13 August 2004, 8).
54Martin Mueller proposes to establish the complete range of n-gram connections ‘between 548 plays between 1562 and 1662’, by way of determining which may be suitable objects of investigation for common authorship (see https://scalablereading.northwestern.edu).
55In this discussion the line numbering used is that of the lines as they are printed in Q, and reproduced in the quoted passages, not the edition line numbers. Q’s spelling and punctuation are also retained.
56The Cambridge Introduction to Shakespeare’s History Plays (Cambridge, 2007), 91.
57Cf. Proudfoot, Reign, 147, ‘The play’s King Edward is the king of the woodcut portrait that heads his reign in the chronicles of Holinshed and Stow. It shows an armed man, with a crown on his helmet … and in his right [hand] a sword on which two more crowns are broached’.
58See G.K. Hunter, ‘Poem and context in Love’s Labour’s Lost’, in Philip Edwards, Inga-Stina Ewbank and G.K. Hunter (eds), Shakespeare’s Styles: Essays in Honour of Kenneth Muir (Cambridge, 1980), 25–38; Muir, ‘Poets’.
59See Ian Donaldson, The Rapes of Lucretia: A Myth and its Transformations (Oxford, 1982), 30, 176, for St Augustine’s formulation of the dilemma: ‘Si adultera, cur laudata; si pudica, cur occisa?’ (‘If she is adulterous, why is she praised? If chaste, why was she put to death?’) (The City of God, trans. Henry Bettenson, ed. David Knowles (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 1972), 1.18).
60See Roslyn L. Knutson, ‘What’s so special about 1594?’, SQ, 61 (2010), 449–67, for the lack of evidence for the precise point in 1594 at which Shakespeare joined the company.
61E.H.C. Oliphant, ‘How not to play the game of parallels’, JEGP, 28 (1929), 13: cited by M.L. Wine, introduction to Arden of Faversham, lxxxvii.
62See Hugh Craig and John Burrows, ‘A collaboration about a collaboration: the authorship of King Henry VI, Part Three’, in Marilyn Deegan and Willard McCarty (eds), Collaborative Research in the Digital Humanities (Farnham and Burlington, Vt., 2012), 27–65.
63Melchiori, Meditations, 42–7. Claes Schaar, ‘The Sonnets and Edward III’, in Elizabethan Sonnet Themes and the Dating of Shakespeare’s ‘Sonnets’, Lund Studies in English 32 (1962), 117–35, argues against intimate connection between the Sonnets and the play.
64See Duncan-Jones & Woudhuysen, 245; also Zachary Lesser and Peter Stallybrass, ‘The first literary Hamlet & the commonplacing of professional plays’, SQ, 59 (2008), 371–420.
65See Armstrong2, 243, ‘the love scenes could be the work of another hand replacing an original romantic interlude’.
66Hero and Leander did survive incomplete, whether or not as a direct result of the murder of its author, to be printed in 1598 both in incomplete form and as extensively supplemented by George Chapman.
67Thomas Merriam, ‘Edward III’, Literary and Linguistic Computing, 15 (2000), 157–80.
68See also Merriam, ‘Marlowe versus Kyd as author of Edward III I.i, III, and V’, N&Q, 254 (2009), 549–51.
69See p. 59, n. 3.
70Private communication, 6 March 2015. The three plays attributed to Kyd are placed as follows in Mueller’s list: The Spanish Tragedy, 24th; Soliman and Perseda, 33rd; Cornelia, 121st.
71See Vivien Thomas and William Tydeman, Christopher Marlowe, The Plays and their Sources (1999), 341–81; and Marlowe, Edward II, ed. C.R. Forker (Manchester, 1999), 41–65.
72Arthur Freeman (Thomas Kyd, Facts and Problems (Oxford, 1967), 181–2) reprints Kyd’s 1594 letter to Sir John Puckering in which he refers to Marlowe and the shuffling of politically toxic fragmentary papers of his ‘with some of myne (vnknowne to me) by some occasion of our wrytinge in one chamber twoe yeares since’.
73Guy Lambrechts, ‘Edward III, oeuvre de Thomas Kyd’, Études Anglaises, 16 (1963), 160–74; Vickers, ‘Two Authors’.
74Darren Freebury-Jones, in his (unpublished) PhD thesis ‘Kyd and Shakespeare: Authorship, Influence, and Collaboration’ (University of Cardiff, 2016), has a chapter entitled ‘Edward III by Kyd and Shakespeare’, 197–243, where he adduces further phrasal links, chiefly tetragrams, in support of Vickers.
75A Literary History of England, ed. Albert. C. Baugh, 2nd edn, vol. 2: C.F. Tucker Brooke and Matthias A. Shaaber, The Renaissance (1500–1660) (1967), 468.
76Private communication from Colin Tite.
77Privately communicated to Proudfoot.
78Dates are those of C.G. Harlow, ‘Nashe’s visit to the Isle of Wight and his publications of 1592–4’, RES, n.s. 14 (1963), 225–42.
79Capell, x.
80Riggs, 17, regards ‘heroical drama’ as ‘probably the largest distinguishable body of drama on the eve of Shakespeare’s career’, listing fifteen plays between 1587 and 1591.
81For example, the Cross Keys Inn (see Van Es, 99, on its occupancy by Lord Strange’s Men in 1594).
82A curtained space between two doors would be a usual provision of custom-built playhouses (GWW), but the argument here is for touring adaptability.
83Depending on the date of completion of the extant text, this still seems a plausible company association, although in the turbulent theatrical scene of 1593–4 it cannot be the only one (Wiggins, 227–8/952, proposes the last three months of 1593 for a date of completion and the Earl of Derby’s Men).
84See Greg, 1.85, 129, 113, 120, 117, 121, 94, 95, 102, 103, 122, respectively.
85Woudhuysen.
86Letters of John Holles, 1587–1637, ed. P.R. Seddon, Thoroton Society Record Series vol. 35 (1983), vol. 2, 222, letter 317.
87Letter to the Earl of Somerset, 11 August 1624; see G. Taylor and J. Lavagnino (eds), Thomas Middleton and Early Modern Textual Culture (Oxford, 2007), 867–8.
88Italian: Melchiori1; German: Frank-Patrick Steckel, Die Regierung des Königs Edward III (Cologne, 1999); Romanian: George Volceanov, Eduard al III-lea (Bucharest, 2003); Japanese: Shoichiro Kawai, Edowado Sansei (Tokyo, 2004); Spanish: Antonio Ballesteros González, Eduardo III (Madrid, 2005); French: Gisèle Venet and Anny Crunelle-Vanrigh (eds), Le Règne du Roi Édouard III, trans. Jean-Michel Déprats and Jean-Pierre Vincent, in Shakespeare Histoires, 3 vols (Paris, 2008), vol. 1.
89For information about this production we are indebted to the kindness of the translator, George Volceanov, who also arranged for Proudfoot to see it on 22 May 2009.
90The source of the further details offered here is the copy of an interim working manuscript of the play given to Proudfoot by the director. It is therefore less than certain that every detail here recorded had its place in the final script, though most assuredly did.
91See Cam, 17–25, and Melchiori, Garter Plays, 115–32.
92Director’s note from the programme, under the heading, ‘I Kept My Word’.
93Romania liberá, 1 February 2008, translated, like other references to this production, and privately communicated, by George Volceanov.
94A previous collaboration by Tocilescu and Caramitru, a highly politicized Hamlet, in which the King and Queen were modelled on the Ceauşescus, played in London at the National Theatre in the 1980s.
95For a fuller account of the production and its auspices, see http://quarto.u-paris10.fr/index.php?id=174.
96The award-winning designer was Dragoş Buhagiar.
97In conversation with Proudfoot (23 May 2009).
98See Fig. 14 in Cam, 47.
99The programme for Tocilescu originally, in 2008, had a drawing of King Edward, King John and Prince Edward on its cover: by 2009 this was replaced by a photograph of the besotted King with his arms round a tense and distraught Countess.
100The seven known copies, all of which lack sig. A1, are now held in the British Library (BL); the Bodleian Library, Oxford (Bod, lacking I, K, supplied by MS copy based on Q2); the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge (TCC); the Folger Shakespeare Library (Folger); the Houghton Library, Harvard (H); and the Henry E. Huntington Library, San Marino (two copies: HN1, 59126, lacking K – sig. I4 heavily restored and sigs K1–2 supplied in near perfect pen facsimile; and HN2, 59127, the Kemble-Devonshire copy, all leaves inlaid). A. Freeman and Paul Grinke, in TLS, 5 April 2002, 17–18, record evidence for a lost eighth copy. A full and up-to-date technical account of hand printing in the Elizabethan period can be found in Weiss.
101This distinctive feature, associated mainly with Robert Waldegrave, is shared only by Scarlet. The sole exception in Edward III, sig. ‘C3’, presumably appears in the stint of a new compositor in sheet C.
102Charles-Moïse Briquet, Les Filigranes: dictionnaire historique des marques du papier dès leur apparition vers 1282 jusqu’en 1600, ed. A. Stevenson, gen. ed. J.S.G. Simmons (Amsterdam, 1968; facsimile of the 1907 edn with supplementary material).
103The apparently anomalous watermark in HN1, sig. K1, is ‘possibly of Britannia (probably 18th or 19th century)’ (Woudhuysen), and is explained by the late substitution of pen facsimiles for the lost original K1–2 (see p. 114, n. 1).
104He also shared the printing of plays with John Danter, printing sheet F of The Cobbler’s Prophecy (1594) and sheet G of Orlando Furioso (1594) (see Hanabusa).
105Simon Stafford managed to further reduce this to nine sheets in Q2, which collates 4o, A–I4.
106See Weiss, 216, on ‘simultaneous setting by halves’.
107See pp. 64–8 on the setting of sig. H2r–v.
108The short titles at the head of text pages, once set, were reused in sets. Four quarto running titles remained in print for reuse as part of the skeleton forme, which included all spacing material required to keep the type pages in position.
109See Weiss, 220–2.
110See R. Proudfoot, ‘Speech prefixes, compositors and copy in plays from the Shakespeare Apocrypha’, in G.W. Williams (ed.), Shakespeare’s Speech-Headings: Speaking the Speech in Shakespeare’s Plays (Newark, Del., and London, 1997), 125–6.
111On the second recto of sheet F (= F2r, an inner-forme page) of John Danter’s edition of Robert Wilson’s The Cobbler’s Prophecy (the sheet proved recently by Hanabusa to have been printed by Scarlet in his pica roman fount) occurs exactly the same use of large roman type for a single SD, presumably for the same reason, to compensate for inadequate copy.
112Further deliberate correction at press occurs on the following leaves: A3r – catchword corrected from ‘Per-’ (BL, Bod) to ‘To’ after adjustment to page depth by moving 1.29 from the foot of A3r to the head of A3v; E3v – 4.130, punctuation of ‘kings, … dispose’ (Folger) corrected to ‘kings … dispose,’; G2v – correction of catchword from ‘It’ (HN1, HN2) to ‘Yet’ as at 9.16; G4r – adjustment of two blank lines so that SD at 10.61.1 lies between them rather than beneath both (uncorrected in HN1, HN2); H2v – adjustment of spacing round 12.57, ‘tels’, and 79, ‘lips’ (uncorrected in HN2); and H3r – correction of ‘anothrr’ (HN2) at 12.87.1 to ‘another’ (see pp. 65–6 for adjusted line numbering in edited text of Sc. 12).
