Columbus, the play of: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "Falsely attributed to Anon. (falsely attributed to 1595) NB This purported lost play is a '''hoax'''. It is listed here simply to document that it is indeed inauthen...") |
No edit summary |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Falsely attributed to [[ | Falsely attributed to [[Marston, John]] (falsely attributed to [[1603]]) | ||
NB This purported lost play is a '''hoax'''. It is listed here simply to document that it is indeed inauthentic. | NB This purported lost play is a '''hoax'''. It is listed here simply to document that it is indeed inauthentic. | ||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
==Historical Records== | ==Historical Records== | ||
In 1841 John Payne Collier described an undated letter in the archives at Dulwich College, in which John Marston wrote to Philip Henslowe asking for a payment of £20 in connection with the “playe of Columbus” which he was then writing (Collier, ''Memoirs of Edward Alleyn'', 1841, 154n). The letter is indeed to be found in the archives at Dulwich (MS i.103), but it is a complete forgery by Collier himself, carefully modelling its handwriting and language upon the Marston manuscripts that were available to him. | |||
[[category:Dulwich College]] | |||
The | |||
==Theatrical Provenance== | ==Theatrical Provenance== | ||
Line 34: | Line 25: | ||
==Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues== | ==Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues== | ||
n/a | |||
<br> | <br> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
Line 46: | Line 37: | ||
==Critical Commentary== | ==Critical Commentary== | ||
James Orchard Halliwell cited this letter, using it as biographical evidence in the Introduction to his 1856 edition of ''The Works of John Marston''. Halliwell also included the supposed play in his ''Dictionary of Old English Plays'' (1860), 55. [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DZEUAAAAQAAJ] The letter was also reprinted in its entirety in Edwin Percy Whipple’s The ''Literature of the Age of Elizabeth'' (1869), 127, from where it made its way into other sources, including, most recently, Harold Bloom, ed., ''The New Moulton’s Library of Literary Criticism'' (1986), 1299.<br><br> In 1860 and 1861, the fraud was exposed by N.E.S.A. Hamilton and C.M. Ingleby, who re-examined the manuscript and discovered traces of the pencil marks used to construct it, still visible underneath the ink (Hamilton, ''An Inquiry'' [1860], 94; Ingleby, ''A Complete View'' [1861], 2; Freeman and Freeman, ''John Payne Collier'' [2004], 1034). As noted above, though, even this did not completely stop the forgery’s subsequent spread. | |||
<br> | <br> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
Line 57: | Line 44: | ||
==For What It's Worth== | ==For What It's Worth== | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
==Works Cited== | ==Works Cited== | ||
<div style="padding-left: 2em; text-indent: -2em">Collier, J.P. ''Memoirs of Edward Alleyn, Founder of Dulwich College''. London, 1841.</div> | |||
<div style="padding-left: 2em; text-indent: -2em">Freeman, Arthur and Janet Ing Freeman. ''John Payne Collier: Scholarship and Forgery in the Nineteenth Century''. 2 vols. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2004.</div> | <div style="padding-left: 2em; text-indent: -2em">Freeman, Arthur and Janet Ing Freeman. ''John Payne Collier: Scholarship and Forgery in the Nineteenth Century''. 2 vols. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2004.</div> | ||
<div style="padding-left: 2em; text-indent: -2em">Hamilton, N.E.S.A. ''An Inquiry into the Genuineness of the Manuscript Corrections of J. Payne Collier's Annotated Shakespeare, Folio, 1632''. London, 1860.</div> | |||
<div style="padding-left: 2em; text-indent: -2em">Ingleby, C. M. ''A Complete View of the Shakespeare Controversy''. London, 1861.</div> | |||
<div style="padding-left: 2em; text-indent: -2em">Whipple, Edwin Percy. ''Literature of the Age of Elizabeth'' (1869) | |||
<br> | <br> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
Site created and maintained by [[Matthew Steggle]], | Site created and maintained by [[Matthew Steggle]], University of Bristol: updated 18/12/2020. | ||
[[category:all]][[category:Matthew Steggle]][[category:forgery]][[category:Philip Henslowe]][[category:Ghost lost plays]] | [[category:all]][[category:Matthew Steggle]][[category:forgery]][[category:Philip Henslowe]][[category:Ghost lost plays]] | ||
[[category:John Payne Collier]][[category: | [[category:John Payne Collier]] [[category:Dulwich College]] [[category:John Marston]] |
Latest revision as of 05:25, 6 July 2021
Falsely attributed to Marston, John (falsely attributed to 1603)
NB This purported lost play is a hoax. It is listed here simply to document that it is indeed inauthentic.
Historical Records
In 1841 John Payne Collier described an undated letter in the archives at Dulwich College, in which John Marston wrote to Philip Henslowe asking for a payment of £20 in connection with the “playe of Columbus” which he was then writing (Collier, Memoirs of Edward Alleyn, 1841, 154n). The letter is indeed to be found in the archives at Dulwich (MS i.103), but it is a complete forgery by Collier himself, carefully modelling its handwriting and language upon the Marston manuscripts that were available to him.
Theatrical Provenance
n/a
Probable Genre(s)
n/a
Possible Narrative and Dramatic Sources or Analogues
n/a
References to the Play
None
Critical Commentary
James Orchard Halliwell cited this letter, using it as biographical evidence in the Introduction to his 1856 edition of The Works of John Marston. Halliwell also included the supposed play in his Dictionary of Old English Plays (1860), 55. [1] The letter was also reprinted in its entirety in Edwin Percy Whipple’s The Literature of the Age of Elizabeth (1869), 127, from where it made its way into other sources, including, most recently, Harold Bloom, ed., The New Moulton’s Library of Literary Criticism (1986), 1299.
In 1860 and 1861, the fraud was exposed by N.E.S.A. Hamilton and C.M. Ingleby, who re-examined the manuscript and discovered traces of the pencil marks used to construct it, still visible underneath the ink (Hamilton, An Inquiry [1860], 94; Ingleby, A Complete View [1861], 2; Freeman and Freeman, John Payne Collier [2004], 1034). As noted above, though, even this did not completely stop the forgery’s subsequent spread.
For What It's Worth
Works Cited
Site created and maintained by Matthew Steggle, University of Bristol: updated 18/12/2020.