Rhymes and Authors: Shakespeare, Wilkins, and Pericles
M. P. Jackson · Notes and Queries · 2011
IN ‘Rhyme and the Authorship of Pericles’, John Klause has subjected to adverse reappraisal my published work on this topic.1 Sustained thought about such matters is rare and to be welcomed. Klause makes some valid points and raises issues of methodology worthy of discussion. We need to scrutinize and expose the weaknesses of particular authorship studies if we are to improve our modes of operation and reach solidly based conclusions. But Klause’s notion of the nature of my argument differs from my own, and his critique is in turn open to criticism. My book considered the four theories that had been advanced about the authorship of Pericles: (1) that Shakespeare wrote the whole play around 1606–8 and the odd style of Acts I–II has some special cause or purpose; (2) that Acts I–II are by Shakespeare but written at a much earlier stage of his career than Acts III–V; (3) that the unusual features of Acts I–II arose subsequent to composition and performance, being attributable to accidents of textual transmission; and (4) that Acts I–II are the work of another author, George Wilkins having long been the leading candidate. Some kinds of evidence were taken to demonstrate the improbability of one, two, or all of the first three explanations, while other kinds of evidence were offered as confirming Wilkins as indeed the probable co-author.