# Double Falsehood / Cardenio — dossier of the primary documentary and theatrical record

Compiled from the files in `sources/documents/` (index: `sources/documents/SOURCES.md`). One entry per document, in order of priority. Quotations are in original spelling; the long s (ſ) is normalised to s, italics and small capitals are not reproduced. Verification flags: **[image]** = checked against a page image; **[ocr]** = read from uncorrected OCR (garbles possible, noted where they matter); **[transcription]** = from a keyboarded edition (ECCO-TCP) or a scholarly transcript; **[secondary]** = reported by a later authority, original not seen.

---

## 1. Double Falshood, first edition (London: J. Watts, 1728)

**What it is.** Lewis Theobald's adaptation, printed with a royal licence, a dedication, an editor's preface, a prologue by Philip Frowde and an epilogue "by a Friend". Collation [16], 64 p., 8vo, with half-title (ESTC T34858). Text below from the ECCO-TCP keyboarded transcription of the British Library copy (TCP K036934.000; Gale CW3311703747; `K036934.000.xml`, extracted to `K036934.000_frontmatter.txt`). **[transcription]**; title page, licence and dramatis personae also checked against the OCR of two other copies (`bim_eighteenth-century_double-falshood-or-the_theobald-mr-lewis_1728_djvu.txt`, British Library microfilm; `doublefalshoodor00shak_djvu.txt`, a copy with the half-title priced "Price 1s. and 6d.") **[ocr]**. The ESTC catalogue note reads "Probably written originally by James Shirley" (i.e. Farmer's guess, see §7).

### 1a. Title page
> Double Falshood; OR, The DISTREST LOVERS. A PLAY, As it is Acted at the THEATRE-ROYAL IN DRURY-LANE. Written Originally by W. SHAKESPEARE; And now Revised and Adapted to the Stage By Mr. THEOBALD, the Author of Shakespeare Restor'd. —Quod optanti Divûm promittere nemo / Auderet, volvenda Dies, en! attulit ultrò. Virg. LONDON: Printed by J. WATTS, at the Printing-Office in Wild-Court near Lincolns-Inn Fields. M DCC XXVIII.

(The Virgil motto is Aeneid ix. 6–7: "what none of the gods would have dared promise to your wish, rolling time has brought unasked".)

### 1b. The Royal Licence, 5 December 1727 (printed on the leaf before the title page) — full text
> GEORGE R.
> GEORGE the Second, by the Grace of God, King of Great-Britain, France and Ireland; Defender of the Faith, &c. To all to whom these Presents shall come, Greeting. Whereas our Trusty, and Well-beloved Lewis Theobald, of our City of London, Gent. hath, by his Petition, humbly represented to Us, That He having, at a considerable Expence, Purchased the Manuscript Copy of an Original Play of WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, called, Double Falshood; Or, the Distrest Lovers; and, with great Labour and Pains, Revised, and Adapted the same to the Stage; has humbly besought Us, to grant him Our Royal Privilege, and Licence, for the sole Printing and Publishing thereof, for the Term of Fourteen Years: We, being willing to give all due Encouragement to this his Undertaking, are graciously pleased to condescend to his Request: and do therefore, by these Presents, so far as may be agreeable to the Statute in that Behalf made and provided, for Us, Our Heirs, and Successors, grant unto Him, the said Lewis Theobald, his Executors, Administrators, and Assigns, Our Royal Licence, for the sole Printing and Publishing the said Play, in such Size and Manner, as He and They shall think fit, for the Term of Fourteen Years, to be computed from the Date hereof; strictly forbidding all our Subjects within our Kingdoms and Dominions, to Reprint the same, either in the like, or in any other Size, or Manner whatsoever; or to Import, Buy, Vend, Utter or Distribute any Copies thereof, Reprinted beyond the Seas, during the aforesaid Term of Fourteen Years, without the Consent, or Approbation of the said Lewis Theobald, his Heirs, Executors, and Assigns, under his, or their Hands and Seals first had, and obtained; as they will answer the contrary at their Peril.—Whereof the Commissioners, and other Officers of our Customs, the Master, Warden, and Company of Stationers, are to take Notice, that the same may be entred in the Register of the said Company, and that due Obedience be rendred thereunto. Given at Our Court at St. James's, the Fifth Day of December, 1727; in the First Year of Our Reign.
> By His Majesty's Command, HOLLES NEWCASTLE.

Note: the licence says "the Manuscript Copy" (singular) of "an Original Play of William Shakespeare"; it is a copyright privilege, not an authentication — the wording is the petitioner's own ("hath, by his Petition, humbly represented").

### 1c. Dedication to George Dodington, dated "Great Russell-street, 21st December, 1727" (extracts)
> NOTHING can more strongly second the Pleasure I feel, from the Universal Applause which crowns this Orphan Play, than this Other which I take in presuming to shelter it under Your Name. I bear so dear an Affection to the Writings and Memory of SHAKESPEARE, that, as it is my good Fortune to retrieve this Remnant of his Pen from Obscurity, so it is my greatest Ambition that this Piece should be received into the Protection of such a Patron […] if You shall think fit to pronounce this Piece genuine, it will silence the Censures of those Unbelievers, who think it impossible a Manuscript of Shakespeare could so long have lain dormant; and who are blindly paying Me a greater Compliment than either They design, or I can merit, while they cannot but confess Themselves pleased, yet would fain insinuate that they are imposed upon. I should esteem it some Sort of Virtue, were I able to commit so agreeable a Cheat. […] that You would look with a Tender Eye on this dear Relick […] LEW. THEOBALD.

### 1d. "PREFACE OF THE EDITOR" — full text of the first edition
> THE Success, which this Play has met with from the Town in the Representation, (to say nothing of the Reception it found from those Great Judges, to whom I have had the Honour of communicating it in Manuscript;) has almost made the Purpose of a Preface unnecessary: And therefore what I have to say, is design'd rather to wipe out a flying Objection to two, than to labour at proving it the Production of Shakespeare. It has been alledg'd as incredible, that such a Curiosity should be stifled and lost to the World for above a Century. To This my Answer is short; that tho' it never till now made its Appearance on the Stage, yet one of the Manuscript Copies, which I have, is of above Sixty Years Standing, in the Handwriting of Mr. Downes, the famous Old Prompter; and, as I am credibly inform'd, was early in the Possession of the celebrated Mr. Betterton, and by Him design'd to have been usher'd into the World. What Accident prevented This Purpose of his, I do not pretend to know: Or thro' what hands it had successively pass'd before that Period of Time. There is a Tradition (which I have from the Noble Person, who supply'd me with One of my Copies) that it was given by our Author, as a Present of Value, to a Natural Daughter of his, for whose Sake he wrote it, in the Time of his Retirement from the Stage. Two other Copies I have, (one of which I was glad to purchase at a very good Rate,) which may not, perhaps, be quite so Old as the Former; but One of Them is much more perfect, and has fewer Flaws and Interruptions in the Sense.
> Another Objection has been started, (which would carry much more Weight with it, were it Fact;) that the Tale of this Play, being built upon a Novel in Don Quixot, Chronology is against Us, and Shakespeare could not be the Author. But it happens, that Don Quixot was publish'd in the Year 1611, and Shakespeare did not dye till April 1616, a sufficient Interval of Time for All that We want granted.
> Others again, to depreciate the Affair, as they thought, have been pleased to urge, that tho' the Play may have some Resemblances of Shakespeare, yet the Colouring, Diction, and Characters, come nearer to the Style and Manner of FLETCHER. This, I think, is far from deserving any Answer; I submit it to the Determination of better Judgments; tho' my Partiality for Shakespeare makes me wish, that Every Thing which is good, or pleasing, in our Tongue, had been owing to his Pen.
> As to the Performance of the respective Actors concern'd in this Play, my applauding It here would be altogether superfluous. The Publick has distinguish'd and given them a Praise, much beyond Any that can flow from my Pen. But I have some particular Acknowledgments to make to the Managers of this Company, for which I am glad to embrace so fair an Opportunity.
> I came to Them at this Juncture as an Editor, not an Author, and have met with so much Candour, and handsome Treatment from Them, that I am willing to believe, the Complaint, which has so commonly obtain'd, of their Disregard and ill Behaviour to Writers, has been more severely urg'd, than it is justly grounded. They must certainly be too good Judges of their own Interest, not to know that a Theatre cannot always subsist on old Stock, but that the Town requires Novelty at their Hands. On the other Hand, they must be so far Judges of their own Art and Profession, as to know that all the Compositions, which are offer'd them, would never go down with Audiences of so nice and delicate a Taste, as in this Age frequent the Theatres. It would be very hard upon such a Community, where so many Interests are concern'd, and so much Merit in their Business allow'd, if they had not a Priviledge of refusing some crude Pieces, too imperfect for the Entertainment of the Publick. I would not be thought to inferr, that they have never discourag'd what They might, perhaps, afterwards wish they had receiv'd. They do not, I believe, set up for such a Constant Infallibility. But if We do but fairly consider out of above Four Thousand Plays extant, how small a Number will now stand the Test: if We do but consider too, how often a raw Performance has been extoll'd by the Partiality of private Friendship; and what a Clamour of Injury has been rais'd from that Quarter, upon such Performance meeting a Repulse; we may pretty easily account for the Grounds upon which they proceeded in discountenancing some Plays, and the harsh Things that are thrown out upon their giving a Repulse to others.
> But I should beg Pardon for interfering in this Question, in which I am properly neither Party, nor Judge. I am only throwing out a private Opinion, without Interest or Prejudice, and if I am right in the Notion, Valeat quantum valere potest.

Points to note: three manuscripts are claimed (one "of above Sixty Years Standing" in the hand of John Downes, prompter of the Duke's Company, said to have belonged to Betterton; one from an unnamed "Noble Person"; one purchased); the "Natural Daughter" tradition; the Fletcher objection was already current in December 1727; the Don Quixote date is given wrongly as 1611 (corrected in the second edition, §2).

### 1e. Prologue and Epilogue (extracts)
Prologue "Written by PHILIP FROWDE, Esq; And Spoken by Mr. WILKS":
> Such SHAKESPEARE's Genius was:—Let Britons boast / The glorious Birth, and, eager, strive who most / Shall celebrate his Verse […] When great AUGUSTUS fills the British Throne, / And his lov'd Consort makes the Muse her own. / How would he joy, to see fair Merit's Claim / Thus answer'd in his own reviving Fame! / How cry with Pride—"Oblivion I forgive; / "This my last Child to latest Times shall live: / "Lost to the World, well for the Birth it stay'd; / "To this auspicious Aera well delay'd.

Epilogue "Written by a Friend. Spoken by Mrs. OLDFIELD":
> WELL, Heaven defend us from these ancient Plays, / These Moral Bards of good Queen Bess's Days! / They write from Virtue's Laws, and think no further; / But draw a Rape as dreadful as a Murther. […] "And Violante grieves, or we're mistaken, / "Not, because ravisht; but because—forsaken.— […] In SHAKESPEARE's Age the English Youth inspir'd, / Lov'd, as they fought, by him and Beauty fir'd. / 'Tis yours to crown the Bard, whose Magick Strain / Cou'd charm the Heroes of that glorious Reign, / Which humbled to the Dust the Pride of Spain.

### 1f. Dramatis Personae and the Drury Lane cast, as printed
> MEN. Duke Angelo — Mr. Corey. Roderick, his Elder Son — Mr. Mills. Henriquez, his Younger Son — Mr. Wilks. Don Bernard, Father to Leonora — Mr. Harper. Camillo, Father to Julio — Mr. Griffin. Julio, in Love with Leonora — Mr. Booth. Citizen — Mr. Oates. Master of the Flocks — Mr. Bridgwater. First Shepherd — Mr. Norris. Second Shepherd — Mr. Ray. WOMEN. Leonora — Mrs. Porter. Violante — Mrs. Booth. SCENE, the Province of Andalusia in Spain.

(Booth was ill at the opening; the part of Julio was played for the first five nights by Charles Williams and by Booth from the sixth night, 19 December 1727 — see §6.)


## 2. Court payments, 1613: "Cardenno" (warrant 20 May) and "Cardenna" (warrant 9 July)

What it is: the declared account of the Treasurer of the Chamber for the year to Michaelmas 1613. Chambers cites the Pipe Office roll as "D. A. 544, m. 14" (= TNA E 351/544); the Audit Office duplicate is AO 3/908/13, the copy used by Cook and Wilson, *Dramatic Records in the Declared Accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber*, Malone Society Collections VI (1962), items 47a–b, as cited by the Lost Plays Database [secondary]. The play-titles survive only in the contemporary copy Bodleian MS Rawlinson A. 239, ff. 46v–48. Printed: E. K. Chambers, *The Elizabethan Stage* (Oxford, 1923), iv, Appendix B, pp. 179–180 [image: archive.org elizabethanstage0004ekch leaves n192–n193]; earlier P. Cunningham, *Extracts from the Accounts of the Revels at Court* (Shakespeare Society, 1842), Introduction pp. xlii–xliv [image n46–n47; ocr].

Chambers iv. 179, foot of page, verbatim:
> 1612-13 (D. A. 544, m. 14; Bodl. Rawlinson MS. A. 239, ff. 46v–48).
> 8 June. 'John Hemynges . . . for . . . the kinges Mates Players for presentinge a playe before the Duke of Savoyes Ambassadoes'; Rawl. MS. 'a playe . . . called Cardenna'. £6 13s. 4d. 9 July; C. xliii.

Chambers iv. 180 ("APPENDIX B—(continued). CHAMBER ACCOUNTS."), verbatim, all fourteen and all six titles:
> — (C. E. F., 14 plays). 'To him [Hemynges] more'; Rawl. MS. 'fowerteene severall playes, viz: one playe called ffilaster, One other called the knott of ffooles, One other Much adoe aboute nothinge, The Mayeds Tragedy, The merye dyvell of Edmonton, The Tempest, A kinge and no kinge, The Twins Tragedie, The Winters Tale, Sir John ffalstaffe, The Moore of Venice, The Nobleman, Caesars Tragedye, And on other called Love lyes a bleedinge'. £93 6s. 8d. 20 May; C. xliii.
> — (K., 6 plays). 'the sayd John Heminges'; Rawl. MS. 'Sixe severall playes, viz: one play called a badd beginininge makes a good endinge, One other called ye Capteyne, One other the Alcumist. One other Cardenno, One other the Hotspur, And one other called Benedicte and Betteris'. £60. 20 May; C. xliii.

(C. E. F. = Prince Charles, the Princess Elizabeth and the Elector Frederick; K. = the King.) Cunningham, p. xliii, printing the Audit Office copy, which has no play-titles [image/ocr]:
> To John Hemynges upon a Warrant dated the 9th of July 1613 &c. for presentinge a playe before the Duke of Savoyes Ambassadors on the 8th of June 1613 — vjli. xiijs. iiijd. To him more upon a warrant dated the 20th May 1613 for presentinge fourtene severall playes before the Prince, the ladye Elizabeth and the Prince Palatyne iiijxx xiijli. vjs. viijd. To the said John Heminges upon a warrant of the same date for presenting sexe seuerall playes before the Kinges Matie xlli. and by waye of his Mats rewarde xxli.

Points. (i) "Cardenno" is one of the SIX plays before the King (20 May 1613, £40 plus £20 reward), not one of the fourteen before the Prince, Elizabeth and the Palatine; the two warrants share the date. (ii) The Savoy-ambassador performance of "Cardenna" is dated 8 June 1613 in the warrant of 9 July 1613. (iii) Neither entry names an author or a company beyond "the kinges Mates Players". (iv) Chambers's calendar, iv. 127–128 [ocr]: "Christmas. Twenty plays by King's this winter ... and Cardenio, Merry Devil of Edmonton, Knot of Fools" and "June 8. King's (Cardenio) for Savoyard ambassador." Greg 1911, n. 47 [ocr]: "'Cardenna' was acted 8 June 1613, 'Cardenno' at court in 1612/13." The Cook–Wilson text as quoted by the Lost Plays Database reads "One other Cardenno. One other The Hotspurr. And one other called Benidicte and Bettris" and "a playe ... called Cardenna" [secondary].

## 3. Stationers' Register: Moseley, 9 September 1653; 29 June 1660; Warburton's list

### 3a. 9 September 1653, as printed by Eyre and Rivington
What it is: *A Transcript of the Registers of the Worshipful Company of Stationers; from 1640–1708 A.D.*, ed. G. E. Briscoe Eyre and C. R. Rivington (London, 1913), vol. i, pp. 428–429 (Register pp. 285–286) [image: archive.org 1913transcriptof01statuoft leaves n441–n442]. Running-head "[3—9 September 1653. M. Flesher. {H. Seile. H. Robinson]". Three Moseley entries stand under "September ye 9th 1653": a play "Alphonso, Emperor of Germany, by John Poole" (vjd); the assignment of Quarles's "Argalus & Parthenia" from Richard Marriott (vjd); then:
> Die eodem
> Master Mosely. Entred also . . . the severall playes following . . xxs vjd
> The Widdowes Prize, by Mr Wm Samson.
> Witt in Madnesse / The Lovesick Maid, or the honour of young ladies, by } Rich: Brome.
> The Discreet Lover, or the Foole would bee a Favourite, by / Osman, the great Turke, or, The Noble Servant, both by } Lod: Carlel.
> The Countrey Man.
> The Siege, by . . . . Wm Davenant.
> The Jew of Venice, by . . . . Tho: Decker.
> The woman's mistaken, by Drew & Davenport.
> The history of Cardenio, by Mr Fletcher & Shakespeare.
> The Governour, by Sr Cornelius Formido.
> The Kings Mistresse.
> Beauty in a Trance, by . . . . Mr Jno Ford.
> [p. 429] More Dissemblers besides women / A right woman, or women beware of women / No witt, no helpe like a woman / The Puritan Maid, modest wife & wanton widdow, by } Mr Tho. Midleton.
> [Page 286 More to Master Mosely.] The Noble choice, or the orator / The wandring lovers or the painter / The Italian night-peece, or, the unfortunate piety / Alexius, the chast gallant, or, The bashfull lover / A very woman, or, the woman's plot. / The Judge, or Beleive as you list / The Prisoner, or the Faire Anchoress / The citie honest man, or the guardian / The Spanish Viceroy or the honor of women / Minerva's sacrifice, or the forc'd lady } by Phill. Massinger.
> The Maids Tragedie, 2d part.
> The crafty merchant, or the souldred citizen, by Shakerly Marmion.
> The politique bankrupt, or which is the best girle.
> The foole without booke / A knave in print or one for another } by Wm Rowley.
> The Polititian, by . . . . James Shirley.
> The Spanish Duke of Lerma / The Duke of Guize / The Dumbe Bawd & / Giraldo, ye constant lover } by Henry Shirley.
> The merry devill of Edmonton, by Wm Shakespeare.
> Henry the first, & Hen: the 2d, by Shakespeare & Davenport.
> The Nobleman or Great man, by Cyrill Tourneur.
> The inconstant lady, by Mr Arth: Wilson.

Forty-one titles at 6d each = 20s 6d, the fee recorded. Slashes mark separate lines bracketed to one author in the print. Greg's own transcript from the Register (Library 1911, pp. 240–241 [ocr]) reads the line "The History of Cardennio, by Mr. Fletcher. & Shakespeare." — double n and a full stop after "Fletcher" that Eyre–Rivington omit; Freehafer (PMLA 84, 1969, p. 508) took the stop to suggest "& Shakespeare" was an afterthought [secondary, via Lost Plays Database]. The Register itself was not seen.

### 3b. 29 June 1660 (Moseley's second batch)
Transcript, vol. ii (1655–1675), p. 271 (Register p. 196) [image: transcriptofregi02statuoft n282]. Among a long list (Massinger's "The Honour of Women ... The Tyrant", Glapthorne, Marmion, Chapman, Ford) stands:
> The History of King Stephen / Duke Humphrey, a Tragedy / Iphis & Iantha, or a marriage without a man, a Comedy } by Will: Shakspeare.
No Cardenio, no Henry I/II and no Merry Devil appear in the 1660 batch; those three Shakespeare attributions belong to 9 Sept. 1653 (3a). Langbaine, *Account of the English Dramatick Poets* (1691), anonymous plays [ocr]: "Merry Devil of Edmonton ... This Play is said by Kirkman, to be writ by Shakespear; tho' finding no Name to it, I have plac'd it amongst those that are Anonymous." Neither Langbaine 1691 nor the Gildon continuation of 1699 mentions Cardenio (grep of both OCRs: no hit).

### 3c. Greg on Moseley's reliability
W. W. Greg, "The Bakings of Betsy", *The Library*, 3rd ser., ii, no. 7 (July 1911), pp. 225–259 [image n5–n7 for pp. 230–232; otherwise ocr]. p. 252: "I feel it extremely difficult to make up my mind as to whether Moseley was a knave or Warburton a liar. Each alternative is intrinsically probable, and yet there seems hardly evidence enough to substantiate both charges." p. 253: "It is chiefly the alternative titles in Moseley's 1653 entry that excite suspicion against him, but in several cases there is independent evidence which suggests that the alternative titles really belonged to different plays. The implication, of course, would be that Moseley was trying to smuggle through two plays for a single fee." p. 256: "The entries of 1653 and 1660 account for thirty-eight out of a total of fifty-six items in the list [Warburton's]", and Warburton "was acquainted with the Stationers' Registers". Moseley's 1653 Shakespeare ascriptions (Cardenio with Fletcher; Henry I and II with Davenport; Merry Devil) are all otherwise unsupported; Merry Devil is the Kirkman/Moseley attribution Langbaine already doubted.

### 3d. Warburton's list (Lansdowne MS 807, f. 1): no Cardenio
Greg prints the list "exactly", pp. 230–232 [image]. Recto (33 items) includes "Henry ye 1st. by Will. Shakespear & Rob. Davenport", "Duke Humphery Will. Shakespear", "Minervas Sacrifise Phill. Masenger", "The Governer T. Sr. Corn. Fermido", "The Puritan Maid ye. Modest Wife & ye. Wanton Widow by Tho. Middleton", "The Widows Prise C. Wm Sampson", "The Inconstant Lady Wm. (sic) Wilson", "Beauty in a Trance AC. Jon. Forde"; verso (23 items) includes "The Nobleman T.C. Cyrill Turnuer", "A Play by Will Shakespear", "Bugbear C. Jon. Geffrey". Between them the memorandum, verbatim:
> After I had been many years Collecting these MSS Playes, through my own carelesness and the Ignorace (sic) of my S[er]t in whose hands I had lodgd them they was unluckely burnd or put under Pye bottoms, excepting ye three which followes. J. W.
No Cardenio, Cardennio or Double Falshood appears anywhere on either side. The three survivors in Lansdowne 807 are the Queen of Corinth, the Second Maiden's Tragedy and the Bugbears (plus a fragment of Wild's Benefice). Greg, p. 256: "One, 'A Play by Will Shakespear,' is also probably one of those entered."

## 4. Downes and Betterton: what is actually documented
The only document connecting the manuscripts with John Downes (prompter to the Duke's/United companies, by his own account 1662–1706) and Thomas Betterton (d. 1710) is Theobald's Preface of 1728 (§1d above, [transcription]): "One of the Manuscript Copies, which I have, is of above Sixty Years Standing, in the Handwriting of Mr. Downes, the famous Old Prompter; and, as I am credibly inform'd, was early in the Possession of the celebrated Mr. Betterton, and by Him design'd to have been usher'd into the World." Downes's own *Roscius Anglicanus* (1708; archive.org rosciusanglicanu00downrich and 00downuoft, both OCR searched) nowhere mentions Cardenio, an unacted Shakespeare play, or any such manuscript. Nothing from Betterton's own papers has been produced; Pope's 1729 note reduced the claim to hearsay: "secondly, that once Mr. Betterton had it, or he hath heard so" (§13). The chain Moseley – the Davenants – Betterton – Theobald is a modern reconstruction (Freehafer, PMLA 84, 1969, pp. 501–513) [secondary]; no document for any link before 1727 was found.

## 5. Gildon, c. 1710, on a manuscript play of Shakespeare's
Not found. The Gildon continuation of Langbaine, *The Lives and Characters of the English Dramatick Poets* (1699; archive.org bim_early-english-books-1641-1700_the-lives-and-characters_langbaine-gerard-young_1699_0), OCR-searched for "manuscript"/"MS", yields nothing relevant; Gildon's *Remarks on the Plays of Shakespear* (Rowe ed., vol. vii, 1710) was not among the downloaded sources and was not checked.

## 6. The Tonson assignment, 5 April 1718
Not seen. The Lost Plays Database (citing Hammond, Arden *Double Falsehood*, 2010, p. 81) states that Moseley's 1653 entry "is repeated in an assignment of copyrights sold to Jacob Tonson the Younger on 5 April 1718" and that "there are no other early references to the play by this title" [secondary]. The document itself (Tonson papers) was not located online; the identifier tried was the LPD page https://lostplays.folger.edu/Cardenio (saved as sources/documents/lostplays_Cardenio.html).

## 7. The performance record, 1727–1791
Sources: London Stage Database (LSDB, LondonStageFull.csv, saved rows in sources/documents/lsdb/double_falshood_rows.tsv) [secondary: the database is the Emmett Avery / Arthur Scouten / G. W. Stone / C. B. Hogan *London Stage 1660–1800* keyed; its "e_BookPDF" values give the PDF page of the scanned volume, e.g. vol2-2/516-517.pdf, NOT printed page numbers; the printed volumes on archive.org (londonstage166010000geor, londonstage166010002unse_m8i0, londonstage166010000e4e4) returned 401 and could not be read]; Genest, *Some Account of the English Stage* (1832), iii. 203–205, 209–210; v. 136, 270–272 [ocr]; Nichols, *Illustrations* ii (1817), p. 213 n. [ocr]; *Gentleman's Magazine* March 1824, p. 223 [ocr]; Graham, ed., *Double Falsehood* (1920), intro. [ocr].

Drury Lane, 1727–29 (LSDB, Part 2 vol. 2, PDF pp. 516–518, 521, 532, 540, 594–595):
- Wed 13 Dec 1727: "Never acted. Double Falshood; or, The Distrest Lovers ... Written Originally by Shakespear"; Julio = Williams (Booth ill); Prologue by Frowde spoken by Wilks; Epilogue by Mrs Oldfield.
- 14, 15 ("For the Benefit of the Author of Shakespear Restor'd"), 16, 18 Dec; 19 Dec (6th night, "Julio = Booth"; author's benefit), 20, 21, 22 Dec (9th; author's benefit), 26 Dec ("With the Coronation Scene"); 9 Jan 1728 (11th night; "The last time Mr Booth Plaid", BL Egerton 2320 note in LSDB). So three author's benefits (3rd, 6th, 9th nights) and eleven nights in the run.
- 18 Mar 1728, Mrs Booth's benefit ("At the Particular Desire of several Ladies of Quality"); 1 May 1728, Griffin's benefit; 21 Apr 1729, "Benefit the Author of Shakespeare Restor'd", "With the Epilogue Mrs Oldfield". Total at DL 1727–29: fourteen performances. No Drury Lane account book survives for these seasons; LSDB records no receipts.
Cast change, contemporary and near-contemporary statements: Genest iii. 204 [ocr]: "19. Double Falshood 6th time. Julio = Booth, being his 1st appearance since his illness ... the character was supplied by Williams, to whom Booth had given the part to study". Theophilus Cibber, *Lives and Characters* (1753), pp. 82–83, as quoted in LSDB: Booth "at Mr Theobald's Entreaty, backed by many Gentlemen and Ladies, ... acted that Part from the fifth to the twelfth Night, which was, alas! the last time of his Appearance on the Stage". *Memoirs of Barton Booth* (Watts, 1733), as quoted in GM March 1824, p. 223 n.: "his part was supplied two or three nights by Mr. Williams; but, being solicited by Mr. Theobald, he ... performed from the fifth to the twelfth, which was the last of his appearance on the stage." The bills give Williams five nights (13–18 Dec) and Booth from the sixth (19 Dec). Nichols ii. 213 n. [ocr]: "acted twelve nights, with considerable applause, and was the last Play in which Mr. Booth appeared." *Weekly Journal or British Gazetteer*, 10 Feb 1728, as quoted by Graham (1920) [ocr]: "By the unanimous applause with which this play was received by considerable audiences for ten nights, the true friends of the drama had the satisfaction of seeing that author (i. e., Shakespeare) restored to his rightful possession of the stage."
Sale of the copy: John Watts's ledger, printed in GM March 1824, p. 223 [ocr]: "Lewis Theobald, for one hundred guineas, on 31st of July, 1728, sold to Watts 'the copy of a play, intituled Double Falshood, or the Distrest Lovers, written originally by W. Shakspeare, and now revised and adapted to the stage by the said Lewis Theobald, gent. the author of Shakspeare Restor'd, to have,' &c."

Revivals (LSDB unless stated):
- Covent Garden, 13 Dec 1740 ("With a New Prologue, the Original Epilogue"; Julio Delane, Henriquez Hale, Leonora Mrs Horton, Violante Mrs Woffington; receipts £129 19s 6d) and 15 Dec 1740 (£35 16s) [Part 3, PDF p. 296]; 15 May 1741, "By Command of their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales ... Benefit the last Editor of Shakespear" (receipts £100; "Prince up but did not come") [Part 3, PDF p. 340].
- Covent Garden, 24 Apr 1767, Gibson's benefit, "Not acted these 25 years" (Julio Ross, Henriquez Smith, Camillo Gibson, Violante "with original Song" Miss Macklin, Leonora Mrs Mattocks; receipts £104 3s 6d) and 6 May 1767, Hull's benefit (receipts £93 12s 6d; charges £66 7s) [Part 4, PDF pp. 775, 779–780]; Genest v. 136 [ocr]. The "third edition" of 1767 (§8) is the printed record of this revival.
- Drury Lane, 31 Mar 1770, Reddish's benefit, "Not acted in 40 years" (Julio Reddish, Leonora Miss Younge, Violante Mrs Jeffries; "In IV the Original Song New composed by Mr Hook, Miss Radley") and 11 May 1770 ("Acted but once these forty years; Written by Shakespeare and Revis'd by Theobald") [Part 4, PDF pp. 221, 231 of vol. 3]; Genest v. 270, 272 [ocr].
- Covent Garden, 6 June 1791, Wild's benefit (Julio Holman, Leonora Mrs Pope, Violante Mrs Wells; receipts £188 15s) [Part 5, PDF pp. 760–761].
LSDB matches on "Distrest Lovers" for 1 Aug 1730 (Tottenham Court) and 26 Aug 1731 (Bartholomew Fair) are a different piece, *The Banish'd General; or, The Distrest Lovers*, and the Drury Lane matches of 19 and 23 Feb 1782 are a dance called The Distress'd Lovers; neither is Theobald's play.

## 8. The second edition (1728), the third (1767), Dublin (1769)
Second edition: title-page "The SECOND EDITION ... M DCC XXVIII" [image: archive.org bim_eighteenth-century_double-falsehood-or-th_shakespeare-william_1728 leaf n2]; same licence, dedication and cast. The Preface is reset with these changes (collated against the first edition, leaves n8–n10 [image], and Graham's 1920 collation [ocr]):
1. First edition: "But it happens, that Don Quixot was publish'd in the Year 1611, and Shakespeare did not dye till April 1616, a sufficient Interval of Time for All that We want granted." Second edition: "But it happens, that the First Part of Don Quixot, which contains the Novel upon which the Tale of this Play seems to be built, was publish'd in the Year 1605, and our Shakespeare did not dye till April 1616; an Interval of no less than Eleven Years, and more than sufficient for All that we want granted."
2. First edition: "Every Thing which is good, or pleasing, in our Tongue, had been owing to his Pen." Second edition: "Every Thing which is good, or pleasing, in that other great Poet, had been owing to his Pen."
3. Second edition inserts a new paragraph beginning "I had once design'd a Dissertation to prove this Play to be of Shakespeare's Writing, from some of its remarkable Peculiarities in the Language, and Nature of the Thoughts" and ending "For which Reason I shall now drop it for another Subject" — the promise of an edition of Shakespeare that Mist's Journal of 16 Mar 1727-8 already cites (§13).
4. First edition "that it was given by our Author" becomes "that this Play was given by our Author".
The "Downes" sentence (§4) is unchanged. Nichols ii. 710 n. [ocr] dates the second edition's preface "1728-9", but Mist's Journal quotes it on 16 Mar 1727-8, so it was out by mid-March 1728.
Third edition: "DOUBLE FALSHOOD; OR, THE DISTREST LOVERS. A PLAY, As it is now Acted at The Theatre Royal in COVENT-GARDEN. Written originally by W. SHAKESPEARE; And now Revised and Adapted to the Stage By Mr. THEOBALD ... The THIRD EDITION. LONDON, Printed for T. LOWNDES ... MDCCLXVII" [image: ..._theobald-mr-lewis_1767 leaves n2–n3]; it reprints the Royal Licence and the second-edition preface (Graham) [ocr]. Dublin edition: "DUBLIN: Printed by CHARLES INGHAM, Bookseller in Skinner-Row, MDCCLXIX", with the Dodington dedication retained [ocr: ..._1769]. Neither the 1767 nor the 1769 text was found to add any statement about the manuscripts; the "Museum" statement belongs to 1770 (§11).

## 9. Contemporary reception, 1728–1733: Pope and Theobald
### 9a. Peri Bathous (Miscellanies. The Last Volume, Motte, March 1728)
Two quotations carry the marginal tag "Theob. Double Distress." [image: Miscellanies leaves n84–n85 = pp. 51–52; n116–n117 = pp. 69–70]:
> —Th' obscureness of her Birth / Cannot eclipse the Lustre of her Eyes, / Which make her all one Light. (ch. xi, "The Hyperbole, or Impossible", p. 52)
> Open the Letter. [marg.] Wax! render up thy Trust. — (p. 70)
A third use, ridiculing "None but himself can be his Parallel" beside the Smithfield showman's "This is the greatest Elephant in the World, except himself", stands at *Miscellanies* ii, p. 102 (so cited by Alotaibi, fn 17; the OCR of this copy is too damaged to transcribe the page and the leaf was not certainly identified) [secondary].
### 9b. Theobald's reply, Mist's Weekly Journal, 27 April 1728
Reprinted in *A Compleat Collection of all the Verses, Essays, Letters and Advertisements ... occasion'd by ... Miscellanies* (A. Moore, 1728) [ocr]; date 27 April confirmed by Jones, *Lewis Theobald* (1919), p. 113. Theobald: "There are three Passages, I observe, in his Art of Sinking in Poetry ... from Double Distress, as he calls it: I suppose, he means Double Falshood; for that is the Title of the Play published by me." On the parallel line he prints the text as:
> Is there a Treachery like this in Baseness / Recorded any where? It is the deepest: / None but it self can be its Parallel,
defends it ("does it not plainly imply, that it is a Treachery which stands single ... and that nothing but a Treachery equal to it in Baseness, can parallel it?"), cites Plautus and Seneca ("quaeris Alcidae parem? Nemo est, nisi ipse"), and — the key documentary sentence —
> If this were such Nonsense, as Mr. Pope would willingly have it, it would be a very bad Plea for me to alledge, as the Truth is, that the Line is in Shakespeare's old Copy; for I might have suppress'd it.
Other Theobald items in Mist's (Jones, ch. v; Nichols ii. 199–200): 16 Mar 1727-8, letter of Shakespeare emendations, whose editorial introduction already cites "a promise Mr. Theobald has made the Publick, in his Preface to the Second Edition of 'Double Falshood'"; 30 Mar 1728, "An Essay on the Art of a Poet's Sinking in Reputation" (anti-Pope); 22 June 1728, comment on the Dunciad. Mist's originals are not on archive.org; all wordings above are from the 1728 reprint and Nichols [ocr].
### 9c. The Dunciad (May 1728) and the Dunciad Variorum (1729)
1728 (Book iii): the couplet on the deathless Journals (OCR of the 1728 copy too poor to transcribe; text from the 1729 edition below). 1729 Variorum, Book iii, vv. 271–272 [image: leaves n144–n147 = pp. 141–144]:
> For works like these let deathless Journals tell, / "None but Thy self can be thy parallel.
Note on v. 272: "A marvellous line of Theobald; unless the Play call'd the Double Falshood be, (as he would have it believed) Shakespear's: But whether this line be his or not, he proves Shakespear to have written as bad ... [quoting Hamlet etc.] Mist's Journ." Second note: "The former Annotator seeming to be of opinion that the Double Falshood is not Shakespear's; it is but justice to give Mr. Theobald's Arguments to the contrary: First that the MS. was above sixty years old; secondly, that once Mr. Betterton had it, or he hath heard so; thirdly, that some body told him the author gave it to a bastard daughter of his: But fourthly and above all, 'that he has a great mind every thing that is good in our tongue should be Shakespear's.' I allow these reasons to be truly critical; but what I am infinitely concern'd at is, that so many Errors have escaped the learned Editor ... an instance of our regard to this dear Relict" — followed by mock emendations to Acts i, ii and iv ("Throw all my gay Comparisons aside ... read ... Caparisons"). Book i, v. 106 note ("But chief in Tibbald"): Theobald "was Author of many forgotten Plays, Poems, and other pieces, and of several anonymous Letters in praise of them in Mist's Journal"; cites Mist's of "April 27" ("above 500 Emendations that shall escape them all") and later of June 8. Index: "Double Falshood, a Play publish'd by Tibbald, iii. 272." Pope to Aaron Hill, 9 June 1738 (Nichols ii. 710 n.): "I could not have the least pique to Mr. Theobald in what is cited in the Treatise of the Bathos from the Play, which I never supposed to be his. He gave it as Shakespeare's; and I take it to be of that age ... the collection ... was not made by me, but by Dr. Arbuthnot."
### 9d. The epigram, and Theobald's later silence
William Duncombe, "The Judgment of Apollo, on the Controversy between Mr. Pope and Mr. Theobald, 1729" (printed in *A New Miscellany*, A. Moore, 1730; text from Jones, p. 119 [ocr]): "...This the dire Cause of their contending Rage, / Who best could blanch dark Shakespear's blotted Page. / Apollo heard — and judg'd each Party's Plea, / And thus pronounced th' irrevocable Decree; / Theobald, 'tis thine to share what Shakespeare writ, / But Pope shall reign supreme in Poesy and Wit."
Theobald's forty-odd letters to Warburton in Nichols, *Illustrations* ii (1817), pp. 189–647, running 1729–1736, never once mention Double Falshood, Cardenio or the manuscripts (OCR searched for Cardenio / Falshood / Distrest: all hits are Nichols's editorial notes). In his *Works of Shakespeare* (1733) Theobald excluded the play; the sole reference is vol. iv, p. 188, note (25) on 1 Henry VI [ocr]: "he was pleas'd to be very smart upon me, as he thought, for a Line, in a posthumous Play of our Author's which I brought upon the Stage. Double Falshood: Nought, but itself, can be its Parallel. It is spoken of an Action so enormous, that the Poet meant, it had no Equal upon Record" — still "our Author's" in 1733. The 1733 preface (vol. i) is silent.

## 10. Farmer, 1767
Richard Farmer, *An Essay on the Learning of Shakespeare*, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1767), pp. 26–29 [ocr of three copies; cleanest onlearningofshak00farm]:
> Sometimes a very little matter detects a forgery. You may remember a Play called the Double Falshood, which Mr. Theobald was desirous of palming upon the world for a posthumous one of Shakespeare: and I see it is classed as such in the last Edition of the Bodleian Catalogue. Mr. Pope himself, after all the strictures of Scriblerus, in a Letter to Aaron Hill, supposes it of that age; but a mistaken accent determines it to have been written since the middle of the last century. "This late example / Of base Henriquez, bleeding in me now, / From each good Aspect takes away my trust." And in another place, "You have an Aspect, Sir, of wondrous wisdom." The word Aspect, you perceive, is here accented on the first Syllable, which, I am confident, in any sense of it, was never the case in the time of Shakespeare...
> After all, the Double Falshood is superior to Theobald. One passage, and one only in the whole Play, he pretended to have written: "—Strike up, my Masters; / But touch the Strings with a religious softness: / Teach sound to languish thro' the Night's dull Ear, / 'Till Melancholy start from her lazy Couch, / And Carelessness grow Convert to Attention." These lines were particularly admired; and his vanity could not resist the opportunity of claiming them: but his claim had been more easily allowed to any other part of the performance. To whom then shall we ascribe it? ... But you want my opinion: — and from every mark of Style and Manner, I make no doubt of ascribing it to Shirley. Mr. Langbaine informs us, that he left some Plays in MS. — These were written about the time of the Restoration, when the Accent in question was more generally altered.
Farmer also answers the Cervantes-chronology objection: the novel "was printed in Spanish, 1605, and in English by Shelton, 1612."

## 11. Steevens and Malone (1780), Reed (1782), Malone (1790)
1780: in the *Supplement to the Edition of Shakspeare's Plays Published in 1778*, ed. Malone, 2 vols (1780), Steevens first connected the 1653 "History of Cardenio" entry with the 1613 records, while rejecting Shakespeare's part: "had it ... been written by our author, it would surely have been published in the folio of 1623, or at least would have been ascribed to him in some ancient catalogue"; Malone in the same Supplement ascribed Double Falshood to Massinger, citing *The Duke of Milan*, "Her goodness does disdain comparison, / And but itself admits no parallel", and noting that "Throw all my gay Comparisons aside" echoes Antony and Cleopatra's "lay his gay comparisons apart" — "if the line was not interpolated by Theobald" [secondary: the 1780 Supplement itself was not obtained; quotations via Alotaibi, pp. 66–67, citing Supplement ii. 718, and Lupić, "Malone's Double Falsehood"]. In his annotated copy of the play (second issue) Malone wrote "This line is taken from Shakespeare's Anthony and Cleopatra. It was, I believe, inserted by Theobald, to give colour to the imposition that he meant to pass upon the public", and struck through "Written Originally by W. SHAKESPEARE" on the title [secondary: Lupić via Alotaibi].
1782: Reed, *Biographia Dramatica*, vol. ii [ocr]: no. 104, "THE DOUBLE FALSHOOD ... This piece Theobald endeavoured to persuade the world was written by Shakspeare. How true his assertion might be, I cannot pretend to determine, but very few I believe gave any credit to it ... Dr. Farmer is of opinion, that it is a production of Shirley's, or at least not earlier than his time. Mr. Malone inclines to believe it written by Massinger." And no. 103 in the same alphabet (1782 ed.; quoted in §-note of scholarship register): "THE HISTORY OF CARDENIO. A Play, by Mr. Fletcher and Shakspeare; entered on the books of the Stationers' Company Sept. 9, 1653; but I believe never printed. It has been suggested, that this play may possibly be the same as The Double Falshood; afterwards brought to light by Mr. Theobald" — the earliest printed identification of the two. The 1812 Biographia Dramatica repeats both and adds "Cardenio ... acted at court in the year 1613" [ocr].
1790: Malone, *Plays and Poems of William Shakspeare*, vol. i pt 1: note to Pope's preface, "plays, Pericles, Locrine, ... and a thing called The Double Falshood, cannot be admitted as his" [ocr, p. as printed]; and the Emendations/lost-plays list, p. 365: "—The Play of the Cards,—Cardenio,—The Knaves,—The Knot of Fools,—Raymond Duke of Lyons,—The Nobleman, by Cyril Tourneur,—[the last five, acted in the year 1613,]..." (repeated, Boswell–Malone 1821, ii. 438 [ocr]).

## 12. The 1770 notice, the Covent Garden fire, and Halliwell-Phillipps
1770 revival advertisement: "the original Manuscript of this play is now treasured up in the Museum of Covent-Garden Playhouse" — quoted from the 1770 edition's advertisement by Hammond (Arden DF, 2010) via Alotaibi, pp. 9–10; Freehafer (PMLA 84, 1969) cites the same statement from the *Gazetteer* of 31 March 1770 (the day of the Drury Lane revival) [secondary; no 1770 edition or Gazetteer file was found on archive.org — searches recorded in SOURCES.md]. NB the revival was at Drury Lane; the manuscript was claimed for the rival house's museum.
The first Covent Garden theatre burned in the early hours of 20 September 1808 (fire broke out after the performance of 19 September; Hammond and the Lost Plays Database give 19 September 1808). The suggestion that a Theobald manuscript perished in it is a modern conjecture from the 1770 notice: Brean S. Hammond, "Theobald's Double Falshood: An 'Agreeable Cheat'?", *Notes and Queries* 229 (1984), "suggests that one of Theobald's manuscripts may have survived in the Museum of Covent-Garden Playhouse until the fire at the theatre on 19 September 1808" [secondary: Seary on SHAKSPER, 14 July 1993]. No statement earlier than 1984 that the manuscript burned was found; Genest (1832) and the Biographia Dramatica (1812) say nothing of it. Stern's counter-point (quoted by Alotaibi, p. 10): had a Shakespeare manuscript sat in Covent Garden from the 1770s to 1808, "it is barely conceivable that the great editors ... Malone, Steevens, Johnson, and Capell, would not have gone to see it, or that ... David Garrick would not have devoted his life to acquiring it."
Halliwell-Phillipps: Graham (1920), p. 14 [ocr]: "Theobald is discredited by Halliwell-Phillips, but merely because the history of the manuscript as given by the editor was not satisfactory." His exact wording was not obtained (the *Outlines* were not among the sources).

## 13. Theobald's own habits as adapter; the Alotaibi thesis; Langbaine
Theobald's *Richard II* preface (1720): not found — no copy of the 1720 *Tragedy of King Richard the II* was located on archive.org (search recorded in SOURCES.md), so its preface could not be quoted.
What is documented instead: in 1715–16 Henry Mestayer, a watchmaker, accused Theobald of appropriating his manuscript play as *The Perfidious Brother*; a Daily Courant advertisement of 14 April 1716 announced that Mestayer's original manuscript was left at a tavern for public comparison (Stern, "'The Forgery of some modern Author'?", Sh.Q. 62 (2011), via Alotaibi, ch. 2) — whereas Theobald "never placed his Shakespeare manuscript(s) on public display" [secondary].
Alotaibi's thesis in one paragraph (N. Alotaibi, *Lewis Theobald's Double Falsehood: The Authorship Question Reconsidered*, PhD, Liverpool, 2016): the thesis argues that the documentary case for Shakespeare's hand in the source play of Double Falsehood rests on a chain first forged in 1780–82 (Steevens linking Cardenna/Cardenno to Moseley's 1653 entry; Reed linking both to Theobald's play), and that everything else is Theobald's own testimony, which his record — the Mestayer affair, his refusal ever to exhibit the manuscripts, his obsessive imitation of Shakespeare — renders unreliable (ch. 1–2); that the verbal-parallel and stylometric methods used to support Shakespeare-Fletcher attribution (LION searches, Hammond's Arden apparatus) are flawed (ch. 3); that the longest and most distinctive verbal parallels in the play are with Theobald's own works, suggesting extensive Theobald composition over what is, if anything, a Fletcher (not Shakespeare-Fletcher) source (ch. 4, "'None but Himself can be his Parallel': Verbal Connections between Double Falsehood and Theobald's Works"); and that Hammond's Arden edition (2010) misrepresents the text's status as an adaptation, for which Jowett's Oxford Middleton treatment of Measure for Measure offers a better editorial model (ch. 5).
Langbaine (1691) contributes two negatives [ocr]: no entry or mention of Cardenio anywhere (so the title had dropped out of theatrical memory by 1691), and scepticism about the Merry Devil ascription ("said by Kirkman, to be writ by Shakespear; tho' finding no Name to it, I have plac'd it amongst those that are Anonymous") — a caution directly applicable to Moseley's 1653 Shakespeare ascriptions, of which the Cardenio line is one.

## Timeline in one screen
- 1605: Don Quixote pt 1 (Madrid); Shelton's English translation 1612.
- 20 May 1613: warrant, Heminges paid for six plays before the King, incl. "Cardenno" (£60 + £20 reward); same date, fourteen plays before Charles, Elizabeth and the Palatine (no Cardenio among them).
- 9 July 1613: warrant, Heminges paid £6 13s 4d for "Cardenna" before the Duke of Savoy's ambassador, 8 June 1613.
- 9 Sept 1653: Moseley enters 41 plays in the Stationers' Register, incl. "The history of Cardenio, by Mr Fletcher & Shakespeare."
- 29 June 1660: Moseley's second list; King Stephen, Duke Humphrey, Iphis & Iantha "by Will: Shakspeare" (no Cardenio).
- 1691: Langbaine's Account: no Cardenio.
- 1708: Downes, Roscius Anglicanus: no Cardenio.
- 5 Apr 1718: Moseley's Cardenio entry repeated in assignment to Jacob Tonson the younger (Hammond) [secondary].
- 5 Dec 1727: Royal Licence to Theobald for "Double Falshood; or, the Distrest Lovers", "an Original Play of William Shakespeare".
- 13 Dec 1727: premiere, Drury Lane (Julio = Williams); Booth takes Julio from 19 Dec; run to 26 Dec, then 9 Jan 1728 (Booth's last stage appearance).
- 21 Dec 1727: dedication to Dodington signed; first edition (Watts) published c. Jan 1728, preface claiming three MSS, one "of above Sixty Years Standing" in Downes's hand, from Betterton.
- by 16 Mar 1728: second edition, preface corrected (Don Quixote 1611 → 1605) and promising an edition of Shakespeare.
- Mar 1728: Peri Bathous (Miscellanies) quotes "Double Distress" thrice.
- 27 Apr 1728: Theobald in Mist's: "the Line is in Shakespeare's old Copy."
- May 1728: The Dunciad: "None but Thy self can be thy parallel."
- 31 July 1728: Theobald sells the copy to Watts for 100 guineas.
- 1729: Dunciad Variorum notes ("this dear Relict"); Duncombe's epigram.
- 1733: Theobald's Works of Shakespeare excludes the play; note on 1 Hen. VI still calls it "a posthumous Play of our Author's".
- 13–15 Dec 1740, 15 May 1741: Covent Garden revival; royal command performance.
- 1767: Farmer ascribes the play to Shirley.
- 24 Apr and 6 May 1767: Covent Garden benefit revivals; third edition (Lowndes) printed; Dublin ed. 1769.
- 31 Mar 1770: Drury Lane revival (Reddish); Gazetteer/1770-edition notice: "the original Manuscript ... treasured up in the Museum of Covent-Garden Playhouse"; 11 May 1770 repeat.
- 1780: Steevens links Cardenna/Cardenno to Moseley's entry; Malone proposes Massinger.
- 1782: Reed's Biographia Dramatica first prints the suggestion Double Falshood = History of Cardenio.
- 1790: Malone lists Cardenio among lost plays "acted in the year 1613"; prints Pope's "a thing called The Double Falshood".
- 6 June 1791: last 18th-c. performance, Covent Garden.
- 19–20 Sept 1808: Covent Garden theatre burns; no contemporary source mentions the manuscript.
- 1911: Greg prints Warburton's list (no Cardenio): "whether Moseley was a knave or Warburton a liar".
- 1984/2010: Hammond conjectures a Theobald MS burned in 1808; Arden edition 2010.

## Open questions
1. The 1770 edition and its advertisement were not seen directly: wording rests on Hammond/Freehafer citing the Gazetteer, 31 Mar 1770 [secondary]. A copy of the 1770 issue (or the Gazetteer) would settle the exact words and where they appeared.
2. The third Peri Bathous quotation (Misc. ii, p. 102) was not verified from an image; the elephant sentence is quoted here from Theobald's reply and later reprints.
3. No statement earlier than Hammond (1984) that the manuscript burned in 1808 was found; leads not yet run down: GM Sept–Oct 1808 fire reports, The Times 21 Sept 1808, Boaden's Kemble (1825), Halliwell-Phillipps *Outlines* (exact wording).
4. The London Stage printed volumes (Parts 2–5) could not be downloaded (401); page references above are the database's PDF page numbers, not the printed pagination.
5. The 1780 Supplement (Steevens/Malone) and Gildon's 1710 *Remarks* were not obtained; quotations are second-hand.
6. Mist's Weekly Journal originals (16 Mar, 30 Mar, 27 Apr, 22 June 1728) are not on archive.org; texts rest on the 1728 Compleat Collection, Nichols and Jones.
7. The Tonson assignment of 5 Apr 1718 (Hammond, DF p. 81) has not been seen; its wording is unknown.
8. Whether the Register's stop after "Fletcher." (Greg's transcript) is meaningful (Freehafer's "afterthought") needs the Register leaf itself, which is not online.