Fascinating talk at Warwick today by Peter Kirwan on “The Incomplete Works of William Shakespeare: Handling the Apocrypha“, as part of the Sidelights on Shakespeare lecture programme. The talk related to his just published book Shakespeare and the Idea of Apocrypha: Negotiating the Boundaries of the Dramatic Canon.

In addition to the thirty-six plays of the First Folio, some eighty plays have been attributed in whole or part to William Shakespeare, yet most are rarely read, performed or discussed. This book, the first to confront the implications of the ‘Shakespeare Apocrypha’, asks how and why these plays have historically been excluded from the canon. Innovatively combining approaches from book history, theatre history, attribution studies and canon theory, Peter Kirwan unveils the historical assumptions and principles that shaped the construction of the Shakespeare canon. Case studies treat plays such as Sir Thomas More, Edward III, Arden of Faversham, Mucedorus, Double Falsehood and A Yorkshire Tragedy, showing how the plays’ contested ‘Shakespearean’ status has shaped their fortunes. Kirwan’s book rethinks the impact of authorial canons on the treatment of anonymous and disputed plays.

The talk largely focused on The London Prodigal, but what I found really interesting was the bringing in of perspectives from repertoire studies – Shakespeare as the house dramatist of the King’s Men, which may have meant he worked with texts for productions – and debates about authorship and Biblical apocrypha. Kirwan was also part of the team involved in the recent RSC collection of Collaborative Plays, which includes several texts from the apocrypha. Much to think about, though as yet, the only such play I’m intending on discussing in my planned book on Shakespeare is Edward III, which is being largely accepted as part written by Shakespeare – an Arden third series edition is being prepared, for example.