Talk:The History of Cardenio
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
"The play was performed in England for the first time since its recovery at the Burton Taylor Theatre in Oxford in March 2004."
Which play? AFAIK there is still no play generally accepted as Shakespeare's Cardenio. Also, Shakespeare's Cardenio was certainly performed in England in the early 17th century. -Kevin Saff 21:33, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- The line quoted has been gottn rid of, but it referred to a production of the Second Maiden's Tragedy which they called Cardenio for publicity. mholland 16:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, William Warburton was meant. I've changed it, but I'm no expert; any 18th-century specialists who can help? I'm dying to know about this "infamous cook!" Lusanaherandraton 7 July 2005 08:04 (UTC)
- Several other articles reference it as John Warburton, but I don't think it's the one we have an article about. The article on Philip Massinger states: "Five of these lost plays were manuscripts used by John Warburton's cook for piecovers." The article on Cyril Tourneur also makes reference to John Warburton's mysterious cook. So I'm changing it back to John Warburton, but I'm leaving it unlinked since it's clearly not the person that article refers to. -- Zawersh 00:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Lewis Theobald and Double Falshood
I wrote the material that is at present being anonymously sneered at.
I am officially pissed off. John W. Kennedy 03:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't looked into the detail, so I don't know, but I would refer you to this discussion. AndyJones (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- In the first lecture of "Lecture Transcript and Course Guidebook" for The Western Literary Canon in Context, a lecture series by Prof. John M. Bowers in "The Great Courses(r)" series, Part 1 of 3, Prof. Bowers says just Cardenio and the transcript makes it [The History of] Cardenio]]. This article makes the same point more explicitly. So the answer to the either-or question above is "Yes"! GeorgeTSLC (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
How about a summary of the plot?
I deleted the following
"present scholarly opinion is that Theobald may indeed have used the lost Cardenio as his original, but he might have suspected that the work was wholly or partly by John Fletcher, even though he was presumably ignorant of the co-authorship attribution in Moseley's Stationers' Registry entry."
Here's why I deleted it. There's nothing wrong with the info as such, it's just that it's already there in the article. Having this section above the main discussion makes it illogical and repetitive. We have "present scholarly opinion" that he used an authentic manuscript, then immediately below that we have "many scholars" saying he didn't. The whole passage breaks up the flow and logic of the text making it confusing to a reader. As it is now, the reader gets a logical flow of information. 1. Theobald publishes his play as a revised work by WS. 2. Many scholars came to the conclusion that he just made the text up himself. 3. Recent studies suggest that he may have been using an authentic manuscript.
The deleted text says he was "presumably ignorant" of the attribution to both Shakespeare and Fletcher in the Moseley entry, but he already has attributed it to Shakespeare and the text just asserts that he suspected Fletcher was co-author without indicating why. In fact the source says that scholars until recently thought he was unlikely to have known of it (p.260), so the source does not support the statement. The information contained in the deleted passage tells us nothing of significance that is not already provided in a way that makes sense to the reader. Whether or not Theobald knew about the register, he clearly knew of a claim that Shakespeare was the author or part author, so knowledge or lack of knowledge of Moseley is irrelevant at this point. It may be appropriate to mention later, perhaps if there is reason to believe that he thought Fletcher to be co-author. This is asserted in the deleted text, but I don't know where this is stated in the source. The footnote itself can be moved to the relevant part of the text if anyone thinks that the current citations are inadequate. Paul B (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- For a thorough discussion of scholarship to date, see G.H. Metz, Sources of Four Plays Ascribed to Shakespeare, pp. 257-283, University of Missouri Press, 1989.
The "Cardenio in Don Quixote" Section
Yes. I know it is long.
The reason it is so long is first that this is a Renaissance work and complicated plots are really part of the decadence that makes them enjoyable, second that to be helpful at all to the comparison of the original character's story and that of "Double Falsehood" the only real solution is to write the whole story as it originally appears, third, that the story is spread over about two hundred pages in the original novel and selectively put together as it is, and fourth, I was requested to write a complete plot summary in more than once place.
I should mention that this article, and for that matter, the whole discussion of this play is not necessarily a matter of making a presentable article for the public, but far more a matter of listing as many hints, inferences, and sources as we can to bring any light to a lost and highly disputed work.
Breaking news: they may have found the missing play
According to World News Daily, a team of experts from Christie's Auction House in London announced today that the manuscript uncovered last year from the estate of the deceased Sir Humphrey McElroy appears to be genuine, and is the "History of Cardenio". See the article here for more information: http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/london-lost-play-of-shakespeare-discovered-in-family-heirloom/ I'm a little hesitant about just adding this to the article here, in case it turns out to be incorrect, but I wanted to post this here in the talk page so people will be able to know about it. --Saukkomies talk 06:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)