The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.1102  Thursday, 21 December 2006

From: 		Mathew Lyons <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Wednesday, 20 Dec 2006 00:29:34 +0000
Subject: 	Edward III and Thomas Heywood

In the Cambridge edition of 'Edward III', the editor Giorgio Melchiori - 
as a means of explaining the play's absence from the First Folio 
(assuming, as he does, that it was at least in part authored by 
Shakespeare) - identifies 'Edward III' as the play "speedily amended and 
stayed in 1598" for the offence it caused to the Scots. The play's 
negative image of the Scots, says Melchiori, resulted in its absence from 
the stage both immediately prior to and during the reign of James I. 
"Under such circumstances," he writes, "even if Shakespeare had had a hand 
in the writing of Edward III, by the time Heminges and Condell prepared 
the 1623 Folio they would hardly have remembered or thought of including, 
alongside the early histories and comedies which were still alive on the 
stage, a play which had totally disappeared from it a quarter of a century 

I have recently read Thomas Heywood's 'Apology for Actors' - dated 1612. 
In it, Heywood seems to refer to 'Edward III' twice. On page 21 (of the 
1841 Shakespeare Society reprint), he asks what English prince, "should 
hee behold the true portrature of that famous King Edward the Third, 
foraging France, taking so great a king captive in his owne country" could 
fail to be inspired by the example. Similarly, on page 57, he cites the 
Countess of Salisbury as one of the examples of feminine virtue with which 
the stage can inspire its audience.

My questions for list members are these:

1. Is there any other play which Heywood could be referring to?

2. If Heywood is referring to the extant 'Edward III' now attributed to 
Shakespeare, is it tenable that he, in defending his profession, would 
have used the example of a play which had not - if Melchiori is correct - 
been performed for 14 years and which had in any event been withdrawn from 
performance for the offence it gave to the monarch and his closest 

3. And again, if Heywood is indeed referring to "Shakespeare's" 'Edward 
III', to what extent does his reference to the play weaken the argument 
Melchiori makes for its exclusion from the First Folio - and therefore 
weaken the general argument for its attribution to Shakespeare in the 
first place?

I should be honest and say at this point that I am generally sceptical 
about the attribution of the play to Shakespeare. That is, I don't think 
there is enough evidence to take the play from the 'possible' column even 
as far as the 'probable', never mind beyond. (And it irks me that 
Melchiori doesn't even try to make an argument for attribution, but rather 
states it as a likely fact.) However, I was reading Heywood for other 
reasons, so was as surprised by these references as anyone.

Kind regards,
Mathew Lyons
email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the opinions 
expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the editor 
assumes no responsibility for them.

Subscribe to Our Feeds


Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.