More on Thomas North as Shakespeare and author of Arden of Feversham.

In this Series:

• Shakespeare and Thomas North
• The Thomas North Theory Springs Leaks Under Scrutiny.
• More on Thomas North as Shakespeare and author of Arden of Feversham.
• On Claim that Thomas North wrote Arden of Faversham in 1550s.

For the next review of Dennis McCarthy’s Thomas North theory of Shakespeare authorship  I will linger over his claims vis-à-vis the anonymous play THE LAMENTABLE AND TRVE TRAGEDIE OF M. ARDEN OF FEVERSHAM IN KENT. The theorist detects passages underlined in “North’s actual workbook” which he claims appear in Feversham. The workbook in question is a copy of the 1582 edition of his own Diall of Princes that North purchased on March 29, 1591. North’s signature appears at the back.

McCarthy’s point, in this particular, is that the volume immediately became

a workbook for plays he was either revising or writing at that time[1]

Consequently, only North could possibly have marked out the passages corresponding to the play Feversham.

The first thing that needs be said about the claim is that a great deal of McCarthy’s evidence about which “there is no doubt” is dubious. Not only that but the reader is often only provided cropped photos by way of examples. It is not possible to make a proper assessment of the marginalia without a digital copy, or copy, at least, of all marked pages. I will address what he has presented. He has chosen what to reveal and what not.

Happily, the cropped perspectives provide enough information to say a good deal. I may not be able to see what markings or marginal notes are made elsewhere but I can see those I’ve been provided. Beyond them, a great many of McCarthy’s assertions are made based upon his personal assumptions and lack of knowledge of Tudor publishing and literature.

For example, the play Arden of Feversham was entered in the registers of the Stationer’s Company on April 8, 1592. Publication was complete later in 1592. If Thomas North feverishly chose the purported passages from his “workbook” the day after he purchased it, he had  to write the play (at least in part), had to present it for performance, and to sell it to William Shaksper of Stratford to be revised for immediate stage revival.  Someone next had to buy Shaksper’s revised play to present on the stage and next to sell it for publication by the printer Edward White. All of this had to occur within a single year. Presumably, the North version of the play did not have a long run, or otherwise notable success, and the wily Shaksper bought it anyway. There could have been no stage success for the revised version either thus encouraging the company that bought the Stratford man’s play to cut its losses by immediately selling it to White.

Alternately, North took the standard route and sold it to a company of players (the far more likely case). The company saw it as a flop and sold it to Shaksper. If North sold his plays to companies, after the normal fashion, he must have sold all of his plays to the same company in order for Shaksper to have bought all of his old plays in turn for revision. Or Shaksper and/or North must have had an agreement with all London companies that North’s old plays must be remaindered to Shaksper alone.

If we assume that McCarthy’s example passages represent his most compelling instances, he offers  the underlined “workbook” passage “ye great malyce & litle pacience of an euil woman”. This, he asserts, is irrefutably connected with a line from a Title-page blurb on Faversham:

Wherein is shewed the great malice and dissimulation of a wicked woman

Seemingly half-aware of a certain weakness to his claim, McCarthy refers to the blurb as a “subtitle”. Who knows from whence the misunderstanding comes. It is nothing of the sort.

As publishers became ever more adept at using the pages of their books to the absolute last tittle of benefit, during Tudor and Stuart times, they made their title pages into advertisements. These advertisements were written by the owner or some member of the crew who had proven to have a talent in that  way.

This is also the reason why the title pages included the address of the shop that was selling the book. Some considerable number of title pages were separately struck off as individual sheets at the beginning to the printing process. These were set aside until the book was completed. Then one or more of the printing apprentices took up the individual title-page sheets and ran around tacking them to all of the posts and walls that served as popular bulletin boards in London.

This to say, McCarthy claims to have proven that North wrote advertising copy for at least one publisher. Not that he wrote a play later revised by Shaksper. Perhaps he made a little side money inking the galleys, as well.

The talented apprentice did, indeed, know his business. The wickedness of malicious loose women was perhaps the single most popular subject of Tudor plays and fiction. The patter was formulaic. There were reams upon reams of highly popular text on the subject. Lurid sexual escapades. Lovers planning on murdering husbands and having glorious sex on his posthumous dime. That was the stuff that sold.

In the play, of course, God’s justice must get top billing (very briefly, for who wants to be a buzz-kill) in the end. The slow disintegration of the murders’ plans was all part of the gripping tale. An obligatory part if one wished to get the play past the censors and to stay out of The Clink. The better advertising blurbs, though, would leave all of that unstated.

 

---

[1] McCarthy, Dennis. “More of the “Arden” Passage in North’s Marked Chapter.” https://sirthomasnorth.com/2021/03/25/46-more-of-the-arden-passage-in-norths-marked-chapter/  

Also at Virtual Grub Street:

• Shakespeare and Thomas North. April 5, 2021. “It might have been more of a surprise if North had not been advanced after one or another fashion.”
• On Shakespeare and Drinking Smoke. January 4, 2021. “The debate raged for some time: Had Shakespeare smoked pot? Tobacco? Both?”
• On the Question “Who knew Edward de Vere was Shakespeare?” December 14, 2020. “But was the word going around that his wife, the Countess of Oxford, conceived two children in his absence?”
• A 1572 Oxford Letter and the Player’s Speech in Hamlet. August 11, 2020. “The player’s speech has been a source of consternation among Shakespeare scholars for above 200 years.  Why was Aeneas’ tale chosen as the subject?”
• Check out the English Renaissance Article Index for many more articles and reviews about this fascinating time and about the Shakespeare Authorship Question.
• Check out the Letters Index: Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford for many letters from this fascinating time, some related to the Shakespeare Authorship Question.