The Lost Plays...

I know, cheating again, but I want to get this show on the road, and I can't read a whole play in a day! So I'm starting with the tiny stuff. Totally valid.

There are two plays specifically indexed in the Norton that are considered the "Lost Plays of Shakespeare" these plays are Love's Labour's Won and Cardenio. They are lost as in, well, they don't exist in any way shape or form other than by mention. So we know they exist, but where they are or went is unknown. Talk about a treasure...if either of these plays (or the Ur Hamlet) were found, then the Shakespearean community would EXPLODE. And whoever found them would be richer than...well...pretty much anyone.

The Editors of Norton thought they were pretty freaking important, which is why each play got exactly one page of information. (Love's Labour's Won is on page 837 and Cardenio is on page 3117.) They even put them in chronological order with the others! Those smart boys...

How do we know they actually exist(ed)? Well there is documented proof.

Lets discuss Love's Labour's Won first. Cause it came first.
In 1598 Francis Meres, an Elizabethan author, comments on the "excellence of Shakespeare" by citing a handful of his comedies...the list is as follows: "for Comedy, witnes his Gẽtlemẽ of Verona, his Errors, his Loue labors loſt, his Loue labours wonne, his Midſummers night dreame, & his Merchant of Venice"
Now, the argument can go two ways. There is no denying that there is a play in Shakespeare's catalog that is called Love's Labour's Won. But could it also be an alternate title for another play that we do know of? People through the centuries claimed that it may have been the alternate title for The Taming Of The Shrew which is so not a lost play...and was not listed by Meres even though it was a popular play at that time.
But then, in 1953 a booklist of the stationer Christopher Hunt from August 1603 lists plays written in quarto: "Marchant Of Vennis, Taming Of A Shrew, Loves Labour Lost, Loves Labour Won."
So that nixes that. Love's Labour's Won and The Taming Of The Shrew are two different plays. Or it could be an alternate title for Much Ado About Nothing or All's Well That Ends Well, both believed to have been written at around the same time as the others.
The alternate title theory goes with the fact that it has never been found.
But I think I agree more with the other theory...which is...
It is a sequel to Love's Labour's Lost. Think about it...the end of Love's Labour's Lost is a cliffhanger to beat all...the ladies depart and will return...blah blah blah...but the comedy doesn't have the classic end. No wedding! No bliss! It's actually kinda sad. So people think that Shakespeare wrote a continuation for The King Of Navarre and his merry, yet heartbroken, men...
I can live with that. So what happened to it? Why was it not included in the Folio by Heminges and Condell?
Well, it isn't uncommon for things to get lost in this world. It's a big planet. And in those days, sometimes the author didn't bother to put his name on the title page (copyright? ha!). So a guess is that one of the supposed 500 - 1500 copies that are usually made in quarto form may be floating around, but just not noticed as the actual original edition. Or maybe another author claimed it as theirs and people refuse to accept it as the original. All these possibilities.
Of course there is always my favorite theory...which is explained expertly in the Doctor Who episode "The Shakespeare Code". Love's Labour's Won was inspired by magical beings called the Carrionites who interweaved the code to the end of the world with the words of the greated genius ever, thus creating an ethical dilemma for the Doctor, who is unable to save the pages of Love's Labour's Won for fear that this ancient magic will return and destroy the world! :-) That one is plausable too.
Whatever the cause, the play is lost. Nothing is known other than the title and the fact that it existed in quarto form.

Which is more than can be said for Cardenio...

The History of Cardenio is credited to be written by Shakespeare and a John Fletcher. This is claimed in 1653 by a bookseller named Humphrey Moseley, who wasn't really the image of honesty. You see, if you wanted to sell a book, you claimed it was written by the greatest writer ever. So he had a habit of tagging Shakespeare's name onto things that were not written by him.
Cardenio is a character in Don Quixote. And the play is likely based on him.
Now, on the other hand, there are theories that the King's Men owned a play that was a similar story. And this was when Shakespeare and Fletcher were collaborating, so it is possible. And we do know that in 1613 that the King's Men were commissioned to perform a play called "Cardenno". Other than that, nothing is known about this play.
One writer, Lewis Theobald, published a play in 1728 called Double Falsehood which he claims is based on the original manuscripts of Cardenio.

Jury is still out on that one. Because the play is only "Shakespearean" in it's plot, and that can easliy be doctored up by any writer with skills. Or not. Having a heartbroken, raped female dress as a boy and join a group of shepherds, who try to rape her, and then she goes back and marries her repentant rapist isn't Shakespearean. That's some Titus shit. And this play is way past Will's Titus phase.