Believers versus skeptics: An assessment of the Cardenio/Double Falsehood problem

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

This chapter maintains that "the Cardenio problem" raises interesting questions about the handling of scanty, contradictory, and often inadequate evidence. Shakespeare apparently collaborated with Fletcher on the original 1613 play (lost). An adaptation (by Davenant?) from circa 1667 is also lost. Theobald's later adaptation, entitled Double Falsehood (1728), apparently combines generic features and language from both the Jacobean period and the 1720s. Quantitative stylistics suggest the presence of three authorial hands. While I conclude that Double Falsehood is an adaptation-longstanding charges of forgery ignore facts and historical circumstances-the play contains little or no unadulterated Shakespeare.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationRevisiting Shakespeare's Lost Play
Subtitle of host publicationCardenio/Double Falsehood in the Eighteenth Century
PublisherSpringer International Publishing
Pages7-56
Number of pages50
ISBN (Electronic)9783319465142
ISBN (Print)9783319465135
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2 2017

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Arts and Humanities(all)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Believers versus skeptics: An assessment of the Cardenio/Double Falsehood problem'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Hume, R. D. (2017). Believers versus skeptics: An assessment of the Cardenio/Double Falsehood problem. In Revisiting Shakespeare's Lost Play: Cardenio/Double Falsehood in the Eighteenth Century (pp. 7-56). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46514-2_2