Entertainment

The literary landscape of Elizabethan drama is undergoing a significant re-evaluation with the forthcoming publication of the second volume of The Collected Works of Thomas Kyd. Scholars are now attributing a substantially larger body of work to the 16th-century playwright, more than doubling the number of plays previously accepted as his own. This revised assessment challenges long-held assumptions about authorship, particularly regarding plays once attributed to William Shakespeare and Christopher Marlowe.

For centuries, Kyd was primarily known for The Spanish Tragedy, a groundbreaking revenge tragedy that captivated audiences in its time. Now, a team of nine scholars argues that Kyd was a “tragically neglected major playwright,” whose influence extends far beyond this single work. The new edition promises to reshape our understanding of a pivotal period in English literary history, broadening our appreciation for the breadth of dramatic output during the Elizabethan era.

Traditionally, Kyd’s accepted plays included The Spanish Tragedy, the love tragedy Soliman and Perseda, and the classical tragedy Cornelia. However, the new edition expands his canon to include works such as Arden of Faversham, a domestic tragedy, which is now solely attributed to Kyd, dismissing previous assumptions of Shakespeare’s involvement. This is the first time the play has been presented in a critical edition as Kyd’s work, despite a long history of association with him.

Dr. Darren Freebury-Jones, associate editor of the publication and a former academic at the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, explained the scope of the revision. “Kyd’s canon has now been expanded from three plays to eight,” he said. “In the cases of Arden of Faversham, Fair Em, The Miller’s Daughter of Manchester and parts of Henry VI Part 1 and Edward III, this is the first time they have been presented in a critical, collected play edition as Kyd’s, despite a long history of these plays being associated with him.”

The scholars supporting these new attributions have employed a variety of analytical methods, including computational analysis of linguistic patterns and close examination of plot and character development. Evidence suggests that Henry VI Part 1 was a collaborative effort involving Kyd, Thomas Nashe, and Shakespeare, but not Marlowe, as previously believed. Similarly, Edward III is presented for the first time as a work by Thomas Kyd.

Freebury-Jones highlighted Kyd’s distinctive stylistic traits, differentiating him from Shakespeare. “Kyd is quite different from Shakespeare in several respects, particularly in terms of rhyme. He has this curious habit of breaking up his rhyme schemes. So, you’re reading his text, you’re thinking, ‘no, this is not rhyming’. And then a couple of lines later, you have a rhyming word.” He further noted that Arden of Faversham aligns with Kyd’s established vocabulary and stage direction conventions, such as the frequent leverage of “Then they” to begin stage directions, a unique characteristic in commercial drama of the period. He also pointed to recurring imagery, like “heart’s grief” and “fine device,” found consistently in Kyd’s plays but less common in the works of other playwrights, including Shakespeare.

Professor Sir Brian Vickers of the University of London, the general editor of the Kyd edition, emphasized the importance of recognizing Kyd’s contributions. “Apart from Shakespeare, Marlowe has enjoyed the most publicity of all the Elizabethan dramatists, although the number of plays that he actually wrote is extremely small,” Vickers stated. “This is partly the accident of being notorious, because he died in a terrible fight in a tavern in Deptford with a dagger thrust in his eye, which gives you a certain kudos.” He contrasted Marlowe’s notoriety with Kyd’s more unassuming career, describing him as a “serious writer, who just went about his business as one of the hard-working, conscientious writers who never became notorious.” Vickers believes Kyd’s plays deserve renewed attention on contemporary stages.

The re-evaluation of Kyd’s work isn’t simply about expanding his catalog; it’s about enriching our understanding of the entire Elizabethan theatrical landscape. By recognizing Kyd’s significant contributions, scholars hope to foster a more nuanced appreciation of Shakespeare’s work as well, viewing it within the context of the vibrant dramatic scene of the time. As Freebury-Jones suggests, comparing Shakespeare’s plays to those being performed concurrently can broaden our understanding of both.

The publication of The Collected Works of Thomas Kyd promises to spark further debate and research into the authorship of Elizabethan plays. The expanded canon will undoubtedly encourage renewed interest in staging Kyd’s works, offering audiences a fresh perspective on a previously underappreciated playwright. The impact of this scholarly work will likely be felt in classrooms and theaters for years to come, as Kyd takes his rightful place among the leading dramatists of his era.

What will be particularly fascinating to observe is how directors and actors approach these newly attributed plays, and whether audiences will embrace a more complete picture of Kyd’s dramatic vision. Share your thoughts in the comments below.