Pericles, Prince of Tyre

• 1. The Authorship Puzzle

  ›

  In 1609, a quarto edition of Pericles appeared on the London bookstalls with no author listed. The title page claimed it was written by William Shakespeare, yet scholars have debated this claim for over three centuries. Modern textual analysis suggests that Shakespeare wrote only about half of the play. He is responsible for approximately 827 lines in the final acts, while another writer crafted the first two acts containing 835 lines. Many experts believe George Wilkins, a victualler and pamphleteer, co-wrote those opening scenes. Wilkins published a prose version titled The Painful Adventures of Pericles Prince of Tyre in 1608. This text draws from Lawrence Twine's earlier story The Pattern of Painful Adventures. Some critics argue Wilkins novelized the play after its creation, but others see stylistic links proving he helped write the original script. Nicholas Rowe noted in 1709 that the greatest part of the play likely did not come from Shakespeare. By 1868, researchers proposed Wilkins as the missing collaborator. Jonathan Hope and MacDonald P. Jackson solidified this theory in the 1990s through detailed linguistic studies. Brian Vickers summarized the historical evidence in 2002 to challenge Cambridge editors who insisted on sole authorship.

• 2. The Riddle of Antioch

  ›

  John Gower introduces each act with a prologue spoken directly to the audience. The play opens inside the court of King Antiochus, where a beautiful daughter offers her hand to any suitor who solves his riddle. Those who fail must die. I am no Viper, yet I feed On mother's flesh which did me breed. Pericles, the young Prince of Tyre, hears these words and instantly understands their meaning. He realizes Antiochus is engaged in an incestuous relationship with his own child. If he answers correctly, he dies. If he reveals the truth, he also dies. Pericles hints that he knows the answer and asks for forty days to think. Antiochus grants the time but sends an assassin after him. Pericles flees the city in disgust before the deadline expires. He returns to Tyre only to find Helicanus advising him to leave again. The prince sails toward Tarsus, a city suffering from famine. He gives grain from his ship to Cleon and Dionyza to save their people. A storm wrecks his vessel and washes him onto the shores of Pentapolis. Poor fishermen rescue him and tell him about a tournament where the winner wins Thaisa, daughter of Simonides. One fisherman drags Pericles' rusty suit of armour ashore just as they speak. The prince enters the contest and wins both the tournament and the hand of Thaisa.

• 3. Sources And Shadows

  ›

  The play draws its plot from two primary sources found in earlier literature. John Gower wrote Confessio Amantis in 1393, providing the story of Apollonius of Tyre. Lawrence Twine published a prose adaptation called The Pattern of Painful Adventures around 1576. This version was reprinted in 1607, shortly before the play appeared on stage. George Wilkins released The Painful Adventures of Pericles Prince of Tyre in 1608. Scholars debate whether this novelization came before or after the play itself. F.E. Halliday noted that Wilkins mentions the play within his own Argument section. This suggests Wilkins derived his book from the theatrical script rather than vice versa. The choruses spoken by Gower show influence from Barnabe Barnes's The Diuils Charter published in 1607. They also reflect elements from The Trauailes of the Three English Brothers by John Day, William Rowley, and Wilkins. Stephen Orgel dates the play to 1607 or early 1608 based on these connections. This timeline fits with Wilkins' known literary career spanning only three years between 1606 and 1608. The text appears to be one of seventeen plays printed during Shakespeare's lifetime. It was reprinted five times between 1609 and 1635.

• 4. The Corrupt Quarto

  ›

  The only surviving text from the original production is a quarto edition printed in 1609. Henry Gosson published it twice that same year. Subsequent editions appeared in 1611, 1619, 1630, and 1635. Scholars describe this first quarto as manifestly corrupt and often clumsy. Some believe it was reconstructed from memory by someone who witnessed the performance. This theory parallels explanations for the bad quarto of Hamlet found in 1603. The play did not appear in the First Folio of 1623. Instead, editors added it thirty-six years later in the third impression of the Third Folio in 1664. William Jaggard included Pericles in his False Folio of 1619. Modern editors at Oxford and Arden accept George Wilkins as a collaborator due to unique stylistic links. Cambridge editors reject this view, arguing all oddities reflect an old-fashioned style deliberately chosen by Shakespeare. They do not discuss the specific scholarly papers demonstrating contrary opinions. F.D. Hoeniger's 1963 Arden edition marked a turning point where critics began embracing the play. Most subsequent scholars have been enthusiastic about its narrative structure despite textual problems.

• 5. From Dismissal To Praise

  ›

  Ben Jonson lamented audience enthusiasm for the play in 1629 with lines calling it a mouldy tale. He compared it to stale crusts and scraps thrown into a common tub. Nineteenth-century scholar Edward Dowden found the work singularly undramatic and lacking unity of action. He struggled with the episodic nature combined with lewdness in Act Four. T.S. Eliot offered praise decades later, calling the reunion scene between father and daughter ultra-dramatic. Alfred W. Pollard, Walter Wilson Greg, and R.B. McKerrow examined quarto editions closely during the early twentieth century. John Arthos published an article in 1953 titled Pericles, Prince of Tyre: A Study in the Dramatic Use of Romantic Narrative. Harold Bloom stated that the play works well on stage despite its flaws. He suggested Shakespeare compensated for declining to write the first two acts by making the remaining three his most radical theatrical experiment since Hamlet. Modern productions often utilize doubling and minimal sets to handle the expansive scope. Critics now find merits within the dramaturgy and use of the marvelous.