Talk:The History of Cardenio

Theatre Low‑importance

	Theatre portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elizabethan theatre (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Elizabethan theatreWikipedia:WikiProject Elizabethan theatreTemplate:WikiProject Elizabethan theatreElizabethan theatre articles

Shakespeare Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comedy Mid‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Performance

"The play was performed in England for the first time since its recovery at the Burton Taylor Theatre in Oxford in March 2004."

Which play? AFAIK there is still no play generally accepted as Shakespeare's Cardenio. Also, Shakespeare's Cardenio was certainly performed in England in the early 17th century. -Kevin Saff 21:33, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The line quoted has been gottn rid of, but it referred to a production of the Second Maiden's Tragedy which they called Cardenio for publicity. mholland 16:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warburton

John Warburton needs to be disambiged, but I do not know how. - SimonP 02:21, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, William Warburton was meant. I've changed it, but I'm no expert; any 18th-century specialists who can help? I'm dying to know about this "infamous cook!" Lusanaherandraton 7 July 2005 08:04 (UTC)

Several other articles reference it as John Warburton, but I don't think it's the one we have an article about. The article on Philip Massinger states: "Five of these lost plays were manuscripts used by John Warburton's cook for piecovers." The article on Cyril Tourneur also makes reference to John Warburton's mysterious cook. So I'm changing it back to John Warburton, but I'm leaving it unlinked since it's clearly not the person that article refers to. -- Zawersh 00:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely John Warburton, just turned up some search results: [1] [2] -- Zawersh 00:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I now created a stub for John Warburton (herald). -- Zawersh 01:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Theobald and Double Falshood

I wrote the material that is at present being anonymously sneered at.

I am officially pissed off. John W. Kennedy 03:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rejoice! The sneering is apparently gone. GeorgeTSLC (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Is it "The History of Cardenio" or just "Cardenio?" —Scouter Sig 16:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked into the detail, so I don't know, but I would refer you to this discussion. AndyJones (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the first lecture of "Lecture Transcript and Course Guidebook" for The Western Literary Canon in Context, a lecture series by Prof. John M. Bowers in "The Great Courses(r)" series, Part 1 of 3, Prof. Bowers says just Cardenio and the transcript makes it [The History of] Cardenio]]. This article makes the same point more explicitly. So the answer to the either-or question above is "Yes"! GeorgeTSLC (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed

Much of the first part has no references. Are there references that need to be added?Fotoguzzi (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about a summary of the plot?

From Shelton's translation of Quixote, I mean.--99.252.199.159 (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presently Adding it. You're Welcome.Artimaean (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Songs?

What I've added to the article about surviving songs is all I know. I think we would all appreciate anyone who knows or finds out more adding info! GeorgeTSLC (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

I deleted the following

"present scholarly opinion is that Theobald may indeed have used the lost Cardenio as his original, but he might have suspected that the work was wholly or partly by John Fletcher, even though he was presumably ignorant of the co-authorship attribution in Moseley's Stationers' Registry entry.^[1]"

Here's why I deleted it. There's nothing wrong with the info as such, it's just that it's already there in the article. Having this section above the main discussion makes it illogical and repetitive. We have "present scholarly opinion" that he used an authentic manuscript, then immediately below that we have "many scholars" saying he didn't. The whole passage breaks up the flow and logic of the text making it confusing to a reader. As it is now, the reader gets a logical flow of information. 1. Theobald publishes his play as a revised work by WS. 2. Many scholars came to the conclusion that he just made the text up himself. 3. Recent studies suggest that he may have been using an authentic manuscript.

The deleted text says he was "presumably ignorant" of the attribution to both Shakespeare and Fletcher in the Moseley entry, but he already has attributed it to Shakespeare and the text just asserts that he suspected Fletcher was co-author without indicating why. In fact the source says that scholars until recently thought he was unlikely to have known of it (p.260), so the source does not support the statement. The information contained in the deleted passage tells us nothing of significance that is not already provided in a way that makes sense to the reader. Whether or not Theobald knew about the register, he clearly knew of a claim that Shakespeare was the author or part author, so knowledge or lack of knowledge of Moseley is irrelevant at this point. It may be appropriate to mention later, perhaps if there is reason to believe that he thought Fletcher to be co-author. This is asserted in the deleted text, but I don't know where this is stated in the source. The footnote itself can be moved to the relevant part of the text if anyone thinks that the current citations are inadequate. Paul B (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ps. "The Shakespeare Secret" is the UK title of "Interred with their Bones". They are one and the same book. See the author's website. Paul B (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ For a thorough discussion of scholarship to date, see G.H. Metz, Sources of Four Plays Ascribed to Shakespeare, pp. 257-283, University of Missouri Press, 1989.

The "Cardenio in Don Quixote" Section

Yes. I know it is long.

The reason it is so long is first that this is a Renaissance work and complicated plots are really part of the decadence that makes them enjoyable, second that to be helpful at all to the comparison of the original character's story and that of "Double Falsehood" the only real solution is to write the whole story as it originally appears, third, that the story is spread over about two hundred pages in the original novel and selectively put together as it is, and fourth, I was requested to write a complete plot summary in more than once place.

I should mention that this article, and for that matter, the whole discussion of this play is not necessarily a matter of making a presentable article for the public, but far more a matter of listing as many hints, inferences, and sources as we can to bring any light to a lost and highly disputed work.

If it becomes a problem, message me before radically changing it. Artimaean (talk) 09:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking news: they may have found the missing play

According to World News Daily, a team of experts from Christie's Auction House in London announced today that the manuscript uncovered last year from the estate of the deceased Sir Humphrey McElroy appears to be genuine, and is the "History of Cardenio". See the article here for more information: http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/london-lost-play-of-shakespeare-discovered-in-family-heirloom/ I'm a little hesitant about just adding this to the article here, in case it turns out to be incorrect, but I wanted to post this here in the talk page so people will be able to know about it. --Saukkomies ^talk 06:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I feared, this story is a hoax. However, the fact that it is a hoax might be worth noting. --Saukkomies ^talk 17:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] For a thorough discussion of scholarship to date, see G.H. Metz, Sources of Four Plays Ascribed to Shakespeare, pp. 257-283, University of Missouri Press, 1989.

[1]