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.
CITATION STYLE
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
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.