Kyd and Shakespeare

295 Pages·2016·1.92 MB·English

Kyd and Shakespeare:
Authorship, Influence, and Collaboration

Darren Anthony Freebury-Jones

A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Cardiff University
2016
Abstract

The aim of this thesis is to establish the canon of Thomas Kyd’s plays and to explore
Shakespeare’s relationship with that oeuvre. Chapter One begins by examining Shakespeare’s
verbal indebtedness to plays that have been attributed to Kyd for over two centuries,
including The Spanish Tragedy (1587), Soliman and Perseda (1588), and The True Chronicle
History of King Leir (1589). The first chapter argues that Shakespeare’s extensive knowledge
of Kyd’s plays contributed towards the development of his dramatic language. The second
chapter provides an overview of some of the complex methods for identifying authors
utilized throughout the thesis. Chapter Three then seeks to establish a fuller account of Kyd’s
dramatic canon through a variety of authorship tests, arguing that in addition to the three
plays above Arden of Faversham (1590), Fair Em (1590), and Cornelia (1594) should be
attributed to Kyd as sole authored texts. The fourth chapter examines the internal evidence
for Kyd’s hand in Shakespeare’s Henry VI Part One (1592). The chapter contends that
Shakespeare’s chronicle history play was originally written by Kyd and Thomas Nashe for
the Lord Strange’s Men, and that Shakespeare subsequently added three scenes for the Lord
Chamberlain’s Men. The fifth chapter argues that Shakespeare and Kyd collaborated on The
Reign of King Edward III (1593) and that Kyd should thus be recognized as one of
Shakespeare’s earliest co-authors. Finally, Chapter Six, by way of conclusion, outlines other
possible links between Kyd’s plays and Shakespeare. The thesis as a whole argues for a
reconsideration of Kyd’s authorship of a number of key plays that influenced Shakespeare,
and for a reconsideration of the collaboration between these two dramatists.
Acknowledgements

I should like to thank my supervisor, Martin Coyle, who has shown so much confidence in
me over the years. I could not have done this without his reassuring kindness and unyielding
support.

A number of excellent scholars have devoted their time and energy in offering me advice and
feedback during my researches. I must thank Ian Lancashire, Richard Proudfoot, Martin
Wiggins, Lene Buhl Petersen, and Martin Mueller in particular. It has been reassuring to
learn that, even in the sometimes hostile world of authorship attribution studies, scholars are
willing to embrace new challengers. A special mention must go to Marcus Dahl, who has
proven himself to be not only a colleague, but a true friend. I could not have dreamt that I
would share a number of intoxicated evenings with Marcus in London, let alone work with
him on attribution studies-related projects!

My heartfelt gratitude to my family; they have made this possible. They have endured my
bouts of self-doubt with patient ears. All the pens that poets ever held could not sum up my
debt to them. The same goes to my girlfriend, Emma, who has always been able to cheer me
up and inspire self-confidence. I am unbelievably lucky to have met her during the course of
my studies.
Play Titles and Abbreviations

Ado = Much Ado About Nothing
AF = Arden of Faversham
Corn. = Cornelia
E3 = Edward III

FE = Fair Em
1H4 = Henry IV Part One
2H4 = Henry IV Part Two
1H6 = Henry VI Part One
2H6 = Henry VI Part Two
3H6 = Henry VI Part Three
Ham. = Hamlet
Jn. = King John
KL = King Leir
LLL = Love’s Labour’s Lost
Lr. = King Lear
MND = A Midsummer Night’s Dream
R2 = Richard II
R3 = Richard III
Rom. = Romeo and Juliet
S&P = Soliman and Perseda
Shr. = The Taming of the Shrew
SLWT = Summer’s Last Will and Testament
Sp. T. = The Spanish Tragedy
TGV = The Two Gentlemen of Verona
Tit. = Titus Andronicus
Table of Contents

Chapter One – Kyd and Shakespeare 1
Introduction
Shakespeare’s Early Career
The Case of Thomas Kyd 5
Conclusion 16

Chapter Two – Methodologies 18
Introduction
Verse Style

Function Words 22

Linguistic Idiosyncrasies 24

Vocabulary 26
Verbal Links 28

Chapter Three – Restoring Thomas Kyd’s Canon 31
Introduction
Part One: The Traditionally Accepted Kyd Plays
The Spanish Tragedy
Soliman and Perseda 38
Rhyme Forms 39
Verse Style 40
Linguistic Idiosyncrasies 41
Verbal Links 42
Overall Dramaturgy 43
Cornelia 46
Part Two: Plays in the ‘Extended’ Kyd Canon 48
King Leir 49
Rhyme Forms 50
Verse Style 51
Linguistic Idiosyncrasies 52
Vocabulary 53
Verbal Links 55
Overall Dramaturgy 59
Arden of Faversham 65
Rhyme Forms 67
Verse Style 69
Function Words 70
Linguistic Idiosyncrasies 71
Verbal Links 72
Overall Dramaturgy 75
Fair Em 84
Rhyme Forms 88
Verse Style 90
Linguistic Idiosyncrasies 91
Vocabulary
Function Words 93
Verbal Links 94
Overall Dramaturgy 96
Part Three: The Claim for Shakespeare’s Part Authorship
of Arden of Faversham 102
Conclusion 123
Chapter Four – Henry VI Part One by Nashe, Kyd, and Shakespeare 124
Introduction
Part One: Henry VI Part One: Relation to Shakespeare’s
Second and Third Parts
Henry VI Part One: Authorship 127
Part Two: Thomas Nashe’s Part Authorship of ‘Harey the vj’: Act One 128
Verse Style 129
Verbal Links 131
Vocabulary 134
Part Three: Identifying Thomas Kyd as Nashe’s Co-author 135
Rhyme Forms 136
Verse Style 137
Linguistic Idiosyncrasies 138
Function Words 141
Verbal Links 142
Kyd’s Part Authorship of ‘Harey the vj’: Act Two 143
Kyd’s Part Authorship of ‘Harey the vj’: Act Three 153
Kyd’s Part Authorship of ‘Harey the vj’: Act Four 162
Kyd’s Part Authorship of ‘Harey the vj’: Act Five 175
Part Four: Shakespeare’s Additions to ‘Harey the vj’:
Act Two Scene Four 186
Shakespeare’s Additions to ‘Harey the vj’: Act Four Scene Two 191
Shakespeare’s Additions to ‘Harey the vj’: Act Four Scene Five 192
Conclusion 195
Chapter Five – Edward III by Kyd and Shakespeare 197
Introduction
Part One: Edward III: A Shakespearean Collaboration
Part Two: Shakespeare’s Part Authorship of Edward III:
Scenes Two and Three 203
Shakespeare’s Part Authorship of Edward III: Scene Twelve 209
Part Three: Identifying Thomas Kyd as Shakespeare’s Co-author 210
Rhyme Forms 212
Verse Style 213
Linguistic Idiosyncrasies 214
Function Words 215
Verbal Links 216
Kyd’s Part Authorship of Edward III: Scene One 217
Kyd’s Part Authorship of Edward III: Scenes Four to Eleven 220
Kyd’s Part Authorship of Edward III: Scenes Thirteen to Eighteen 234
Conclusion 241

Chapter Six – Conclusion 243

Appendix

Rare Tetragrams Shared between Sole Authored Kyd Plays 256

Bibliography 272
1

Chapter One

Kyd and Shakespeare

Introduction
This chapter explores Shakespeare’s verbal indebtedness to Thomas Kyd. In particular, it
details some of the links between Shakespeare’s early plays and Kyd’s traditionally accepted
tragedies, The Spanish Tragedy (1587) and Soliman and Perseda (1588).1 Having analysed
verbal affinities between these texts, drawing upon the idea of Shakespeare’s ‘actor’s
memory’, the chapter investigates links between Shakespeare’s drama and The True
Chronicle History of King Leir (1589), which, Chapter Three argues, was also written by
Kyd.2 The aim of this first chapter is to demonstrate that Shakespeare had extensive
knowledge of Kyd’s plays and that this knowledge contributed towards the development of
Shakespeare’s dramatic language.

Shakespeare’s Early Career
Ann Thompson pointed out in 1984 that many scholars ‘seem reluctant to accuse’
Shakespeare ‘of being the borrower but prefer to assume that the other dramatist borrowed
from him’.3 For example, in 1924 John Mackinnon Robertson highlighted striking verbal
parallels between Shakespeare’s early works, and King Leir and Arden of Faversham (1590),
but he concluded: ‘The notion that Shakespeare in 1593 was capping in this fashion lines so
freely current in the theatre will perhaps at this stage be dismissed by most readers’.4 William
Wells, in 1940, refused to believe that

1 I have used Martin Wiggins and Catherine Richardson’s British Drama 1533-1642: A Catalogue: Volume II:
1567-1589 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) and British Drama 1533-1642: A Catalogue: Volume III:
1590-1597 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013) for the dates of first performances.
2 See Chapter Three below for my evidence that King Leir (1589) was written by Kyd. The evidence I present
for Shakespeare’s borrowing from plays in the ‘extended’ Kyd canon will inform my evaluation of MacDonald
P. Jackson’s argument for Shakespeare’s part authorship of Arden of Faversham (1590), also in Chapter Three.
3 Ann Thompson, ‘The Taming of the Shrew and The Spanish Tragedy’, Notes and Queries, 31 (1984), 182-184
(p. 182).
4 J. M. Robertson, An Introduction to the Study of the Shakespeare Canon: Proceeding on the Problem of Titus
Andronicus (London: Routledge, 1924), p. 392.
2

Shakespeare not only plagiarized the Raigne—which, by the way, when re-moulding
the work, he almost scrupulously refrained from doing—but that he plundered every
Kyd play he could lay his hands on. Passages from […] Leir, Arden, the Spanish
Tragedy […] are all deftly woven into the fabric.5

Other scholars, however, have been willing to accept the fact that Shakespeare followed the
standard practice of borrowing from his fellow dramatists. Hardin Craig suggested in 1951
that Shakespeare had acted in King Leir and was thus able to recall the play.6 In 1958,
Thomas H. McNeal listed numerous verbal matches between Shakespeare’s plays and King
Leir. He concluded that Shakespeare borrowed ‘in both phrase and paraphrase’ from the old
play throughout his career.7 Charles R. Forker has suggested that ‘Much of this assimilation
was undoubtedly unconscious, at least in the case of verbal echoes, since Shakespeare seems
to have known many of the plays from practical experience in the theatre’.8 I argue in this
chapter that Shakespeare’s ability to weave verbal details from other plays into his own
passages is in part attributable to his career as an actor.
We know frustratingly little about Shakespeare’s acting career. The first allusion to
Shakespeare as an actor and dramatist features in Robert Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit
Bought with a Million of Repentance (1592). Greene warns his fellow dramatists and
University Wits, Nashe, Peele, and Marlowe, about actors, ‘those Puppets (I meane) that
spake from our mouths, those Anticks garnisht in our colours’, and one actor in particular;
Shakespeare, or ‘Shake-scene’, has had the audacity to turn his hand to writing plays:
Yes trust them not, for there is an upstart Crow, beautified with our feathers that, with
his Tygers heart wrapt in a Players hyde, supposes he is as well able to bombast out a
blanke verse as the best of you: and being an absolute Johannes fac totum, is in his
own conceit the only Shake-scene in a countrey.9

5 William Wells, ‘Thomas Kyd and the Chronicle-History’, Notes and Queries, 30 (1940), 218-224, 238-243 (p.
243).
6 See Hardin Craig, ‘Motivation in Shakespeare’s Source of Materials’, Shakespeare Survey, 4 (1951), 26-34.
7 Thomas H. McNeal, ‘Margaret of Anjou: Romantic Princess and Troubled Queen’, Shakespeare Quarterly, 9
(1958), 1-10 (p. 5).
8 Charles R. Forker, ‘The Troublesome Reign, Richard II, and the Date of King John: A Study in Intertextuality’,
Shakespeare Survey, 63 (2010), 127-148 (p. 127).
9 Robert Greene, Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit Bought with a Million of Repentance, ed. D. Allen Carroll
(Binghampton, NY: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1994), pp. 83-84.