Thomas of Woodstock (play) - Authorship

Authorship

Given the play's closeness to the subject matter of Richard II, Shakespeare's authorship has sometimes been suggested, although few of the play's historic editors supported this speculation. The Malone Society editor makes no reference to the Shakespeare theory. A.P. Rossiter states "There is not the smallest chance that he was Shakespeare", citing the drabness of the verse, while acknowledging that the play's aspirations indicate that "There is something of a simplified Shakespeare" in the author.

Other authors have been suggested. In 2001, MacDonald P. Jackson used stylistic analysis to propose Samuel Rowley as a possible author. John Fletcher and Thomas Heywood likewise have been suggested as authors.

Peter Corbin and Douglas Sedge, in their 2002 edition of the play argue that Thomas of Woodstock was written by an author of "considerable range and competence", but they regard any attribution to Shakespeare "or any other author" as "highly speculative". Nonetheless, they note:

Shakespeare is perhaps the one known dramatist in the 1590s whose dramatic style most closely resembles that of Thomas of Woodstock. The 'Shakespearian' characteristics of the play may be summarized as follows: a sophisticated handling of chronicle material; a careful and fruitful juxtaposition of low life scenes over and against court life; the sense of England as a significant 'character' throughout the play; a sure handling of dramatic technique as in the economical and engaging exposition; the careful drawing of effective female characters (specifically Anne O' Beame ); Nimble's malaproprisms, anticipating Costard, Dogberry and Mrs. Quickley; the dramatist's ability to manipulate audience sympathy in a complex fashion towards Richard and to present Woodstock as a figure of conscience in a manner which anticipates Gaunt.

In 2006, Michael Egan made a case for Shakespeare and against Rowley in a four volume (2100 page) analysis. His evidence includes what he claims to be thousands of phrasal parallels. Egan notes that Ian Robinson also supported the attribution to Shakespeare in a now out of print manuscript. Egan's work has sparked debate. On the SHAKSPER moderated discussion list, Ward Elliott reported that he had performed stylometric analysis on the manuscript's text that he claimed discount Egan's assertion. This prompted Egan to offer Elliott £1000 if he (Egan) could not prove Shakespeare's authorship—a wager that was accepted in 2010. Egan and Elliott agreed to settle the bet by referring the issue to a panel of three Shakespeare scholars. The panel issued their opinion on August 29, 2011, unequivocally rejecting Egan's attribution and determining that Elliott had won the bet. In a review for the Times Literary Supplement, Bart Van Es also challenged Egan's attribution, arguing that the verbal links he had found were often tenuous. Egan responded that the most important evidence was the quality of the writing.

Against the argument of Shakespeare's authorship, the character of Sir Henry Green is killed fighting in Act V of Thomas of Woodstock, yet is alive again at the beginning of Richard II until his execution is ordered by Bolingbroke in Act III. There is no instance of a character dying twice in the validated works of Shakespeare.