thumb|right|George Buc's license at the end of the manuscript. It reads "This second Maydens tragedy (for it hath no name inscribed) may with the reformations now be acted publikely."
The Second Maiden's Tragedy is a Jacobean play that survives only in manuscript. It was written in 1611, and performed in the same year by the King's Men. The manuscript was acquired but never printed by the publisher Humphrey Moseley after the closure of the theatres in 1642. In 1807, the manuscript was acquired by the British Museum. Victorian poet and critic, Algernon Swinburne, was the first to attribute this work to Thomas Middleton; this judgement has since been joined by most editors and scholars. The play has received few modern revivals. It was the opening production at the newly refurbished Hackney Empire studio in 2006 starring Alexander Fiske-Harrison and Jos Vantyler.
Title
The play's original title is unknown. The manuscript bears no title, and the censor, George Buc, added a note beginning "This second Maiden's Tragedy (for it hath no name inscribed)...". Buc was possibly comparing the play to Beaumont and Fletcher's The Maid's Tragedy. Buc's comment confused a seventeenth-century owner of the manuscript, Humphrey Moseley, who listed the play in the Stationers' Register as The Maid's Tragedy, 2nd Part. Buc's title has stuck and the play is usually referred to as The Second Maiden's Tragedy.
However, two recent editors of the play have preferred to retitle it. In his anthology Four Jacobean Sex Tragedies, Martin Wiggins argues that since the word "second" refers to the play, not to a character (there is no "second maiden"), Buc was actually calling the play The Maiden's Tragedy. In Thomas Middleton: The Collected Works, Julia Briggs goes further: pointing out that the word "maiden" never appears in the play, she retitles it The Lady's Tragedy, after the unnamed female protagonist.
Briggs was anticipated by the 1994 Hen and Chicken production in Bristol, which also used The Lady's Tragedy. Other theatrical productions have also retitled the play. For example, in 1984, the first, modern professional production at London's Upstream Theatre called it The Tyrant's Tragedy, after the play's primary protagonist. The play has similarly been known in the past as simply The Tyrant, identifying it as being a lost play by Philip Massinger of the same title.
Authorship
thumb|right|The back page of the manuscript, featuring a title and three authorship attributions by its later owners. The names of [[Thomas Goffe and George Chapman are heavily crossed out, the words "by Will Shakespeare" less heavily so.]]
Thomas Middleton
The play's authorship is also contested. On the manuscript, three crossed-out attributions in seventeenth century hands attribute it first to Thomas Goffe, then to William Shakespeare, and then to George Chapman. Today, however, the scholarly consensus is that the true author was Thomas Middleton, as indicated by linguistic analysis, and by its similarity with other Middleton plays. It was first published under Middleton's name in Martin Wiggins's anthology Four Jacobean Sex Tragedies (1998), and subsequently in the 2007 Collected Works of Middleton.
Shakespeare and Cardenio
[[File:A few lines from the manuscript of The Second Maiden's Tragedy.jpg|thumb|Act II, scene ii, "Enter Votarius sadly.
VOTARIUS
All's gone; there's nothing but the prodigal left:
I have played away my soul at one short game
Where e'en the winner loses.
Pursuing sin, how often did I shun thee!
How swift art thou afoot, beyond man's goodness,
Which has a lazy pace! So was I catched."]]
Professional handwriting expert Charles Hamilton claimed in a 1994 book that the manuscript of The Second Maiden's Tragedy is in fact the lost Shakespearean play Cardenio and indeed that the handwriting is Shakespeare's. Scholars have given little consideration to this idea, agreeing with the Middleton attribution. The play does appear to draw on elements of Don Quixote, as Cardenio is assumed to have done.
Although The Second Maiden’s Tragedy has been generally credited to Middleton, there is evidence that Shakespeare could have contributed to the play. When examining the manuscript, there are slips of paper that were added to the prompt book, which shows revisions or notes. These slips of paper have been examined and it is quite certain that Middleton did not write these revisions, as they do not resemble his handwriting. However, the notes resemble the handwriting assumed to be Shakespeare's. It is also possible that Shakespeare could have written these notes because at the time the play was to be produced, Shakespeare was still in the King's Court, and could have been working on the play and had influence. Therefore, despite the consensus that Shakespeare is not responsible for the writing of The Second Maiden’s Tragedy, it is quite possible that Shakespeare was involved in its production and revision.
Plot vs. sub-plot
The Second Maiden's Tragedy contains both a plot and a subplot, and they share similar and different characteristics. The plot and subplot are connected to each other only loosely, in that the main plot's protagonist, Govianus, is the brother of Anselmus, one of the primary characters in the subplot. Thematically, however, there are more interesting connections at work. The purpose behind having a plot and a subplot is to have two stories that magnify the "fundamental contrasts inherent in the material". The inspiration behind the subplot comes from Miguel de Cervantes's Don Quixote. From Cervantes's text, Middleton wrote a similar story and created a different resolution to the subplot. There are similarities and differences between the two.
Similarities
Both stories revolve around the women of the stories and the conflicts they face when it comes to love. Within the plot, the Lady is to be married to Govianus, but the Tyrant constantly pursues her. Within the subplot, the Wife is married to Anselmus, and a man who is not her husband also pursues her. In each plot, both women must choose whether to remain faithful to their husbands, or whether to give in to lust, and this is where the two plots diverge.
Differences
The first difference is that the two women are faced with a test, which leads to two different outcomes. This test is used to understand whether or not both the Lady and the Wife will remain faithful to Govianus and Anselmus. The Lady passes the test and because she does, she is given peace and salvation for her decision. The Wife fails to remain faithful and she faces corrosive conflict; because of her decision, the Wife is constantly in conflict with her own guilty conscience. The plot contains a "blameless protagonist whose wholly undeserved catastrophe is caused by the persecution of a villain and is treated as triumphant martyrdom". because he believes that the devil takes part in all that the Wife goes through in the story.
Major themes
Throughout The Second Maiden's Tragedy there are many prominent themes. Necrophilia was brought up when the Tyrant wanted to have sex with the dead body of the Lady whom he was trying to preserve, this could be viewed as attachment. The Tyrant was fascinated with the Lady's beauty and after she killed herself to escape his grasp this was the only way he could feel satisfied. She would not grant him access to her body throughout the first act of the play when the Tyrant asked her to marry him. By refusing the requests of his authority she was then placed under house arrest only furthering tensions between the Tyrant and the Lady. The Tyrant also made attempts to take the Lady to bed with him which were unsuccessful. This fascination would lead to his death at the end of the play. The Lady shows great sense of pride in upholding her morals throughout the play. "The Lady resists temptation […] the Lady is free from taint […] and the Lady meets her death with noble conviction." This is holding herself to a high standard which in turn makes her body more desirable by the Tyrant. The Female corpse can be seen as a prominent theme in The Second Maiden's Tragedy because it was the center of attention after the Lady's death.
Face Painting could be seen as a sense of life because the Tyrant uses face paint so the corpse of the Lady would seem more alive. This relates back to his original plan of using the body for necrophilia, as he was trying to make the body lifelike again. The female body could be seen as an erotic figure because sexual attractiveness and deadness can become indistinguishable." This scene in the play could have been used to spark voyeuristic interests from the audience. Using the female body as an object of infatuation would allow the Tyrants ambitions to be shown after the climax of the play. There are also underlying influences of face painting, as the strategic use of face painting was popular during the Renaissance. T.W. Craik comments that face painting often is used to signify moral corruption. This is significant because The Second Maiden’s Tragedy can be viewed as a commentary on the political life. During the time that the play was written, it was believed that the court of James I was "very much in need of moral cleansing". Therefore, the presence of face painting in The Second Maiden’s Tragedy exemplifies the sin and corruption of James I. Furthermore, the poisoned lips which lead to the Tyrant's death is also significant. It was well known that in the Jacobean era, makeup was in fact poisonous. However, in this instance the action and feeling of falling in love could not be undone and it turns into disastrous consequences. Chaste within this text is symbolic because the female body is seen as an idol and being unfaithful outside of the marriage would be a big deal. For the male characters in the text such as the Tyrant having sex with multiple people wasn't a problem because he had a lot of power. If a woman did this there could be varying consequences though because of their husbands. Another thing that is interesting is the disconnection between body and spirit. When the Lady died it was clear that her corpse was without spirit since her spirit sought after the rescue of the maternal body from the Tyrant. It can be argued that "the figure of the Lady is divided into three personae that are ultimately irreconcilable."