Talk:Thomas of Woodstock (play)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Theatre (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Shakespeare (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Changing "Shakespeare's Richard II, Part Two" to "Shakespeare's Richard II". The title of Shakespeare's play is Richard II, not Richard II, Part Two. If it becomes accepted that this play is by Shakespeare, then perhaps people will begin calling it part two...until then, the correct title ought to be used. Andyandy68 17:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Working on new version. WilliamKF 23:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi William KF-- just a comment on the existing version. The entry is very unhistorical. The fact that Rossiter opposed the view of Sh. authorship is scarcely relevant any longer in view of Egan's devastating analysis of the history of scholarship of the play. I'm leaving things unchanged for the present, but the entry is going to require much more historical precision if its to be worthy of Wikipedia.

I am removing large sections on Marlowe, editing for style, and removing the argument at the end of the article (why was an argument in the article in the first place???) Andyandy68 21:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


I think it's a mistake to make the main title of this article "Richard II, part 1," when (in spite of the current claim that it's the scholars' preferred term) "Thomas of Woodstock" is the one that is almost always actually used in reference to it. I just did a Google book search on "Richard II, part 1" or "part one" and got back just 4 references. "Thomas of Woodstock" (with the word drama thrown into the search to eliminate references to the historical personage) comes back with 314 references. Thomas of Woodstock is what this article should properly be called. Right now, it's trying way too hard to tie it to Shakespeare's cart. 12:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I'd support that move. Other than this page, I have only seen the play referred to as Richard II, Part 1 by a scholar who argues for Shakespeare's authorship, a minority position. AndyJones 13:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to return to this, here are the titles of the published editions:

  • Malone Society (1929): The First Part of the Reign of King Richard the Second, or Thomas of Woodstock
  • A.P. Rossiter (1947): Woodstock: A Moral History
  • Corbin & Sedge (2002): Thomas of Woodstock: or, Richard II, Part One
  • Egan (2006):The Tragedy of Richard II, Part One

Clearly this play doesn't have a stable 'name', but the present title risks POV by implying that the connection with Richard II is a "done deal" when it isn't. Thomas of Woodstock might be more neutral. Thoughts? The Drama Llama (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree - "Thomas of Woodstock" seems most appropriate. Explain the rest in the article itself. Smatprt (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok - I have been bold and renamed the page and as many links as I can find.Smatprt (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The Hampshire Shakespeare Company's Pastiche Ending[edit]

I would love to find a credible pastiche ending to Woodstock (or whatever we are calling it). But I am baffled to read the Hampshire Shakespeare Company's, apparently contest-winning, performed conclusion, which - without getting into the content - seems while wrapping up a verse play to follow no rules of scansion.

I have just re-read Corbin & Sedge's edition. I query why their notes equate Lapoole with Michael de la Pole rather than his brother who really was Governor of Calais. (Given of course that the play kind of superimposes the 1380s on the 1390s.) In fact who Lapoole really is is Thomas Mowbray, if we in any way read Woodstock as a prequel to Shakespeare's play. I just wonder, in view of discussion of Gloucester's dramatic character being influenced by the Good Duke Humphrey of Henry VI, Part Two (ironic in both cases), whether the Suffolk of that play, and the hostile quibbling on the family name of Pool(e), may not have influenced the play's identification of the earlier Duke's assassin.

Rogersansom (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is crap[edit]

This article seems to be based on news releases and bulletin board postings instead of scholarly, peer-reviewed publications. It needs a complete overhaul. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you can suggest some suitable sources, dumping them on this talk page might be helpful to potential contributors. I know that for myself, finding decent sources (among the innumerable chaff) is often the greatest challenge; particularly in finding a place to start. --Xover (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I've got Mac Jacson's "Shakespeare's Richard II and the Anonymous Thomas of Woodstock," and he pretty much outlines its critical history as far as authorship and date, plus he has a good bibliography of academic sources. I don't know that I'd trust Egan's doorstop, since it was published by Mullen, which is about two hairs away from being a vanity press. In any case, I don't know of any peer review of it. Corbin and Sedge's is the recognised critical edition.
the big problem with this article is its formlessness and almost random selection of sources, half of them shaky to the point of non RS. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Provisional deletion of material on living persons[edit]

I've provisionally deleted this statement which involves living persons, as there appears to be an ongoing debate on Hardy Cook's list as to whether the facts as stated are accurate:

>blockquote>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 29 August 2011, unequivocally rejecting Egan's attribution and determining that Elliott had won the bet.[1] It may be that the entire statement involving Hardy Cook's list should be deleted from the article, and that a reliable published source for Ward Elliot's results substituted, if Elliott's results have been published. NinaGreen (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^