This article on the Shakespeare Authorship Question has been written according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as they pertain to alternative theory and minority view articles. The article also conforms to Wikipedia's 5 Pillars of fundamental principals.[a]
Notes on terminology*
*Due to a lack of standardized spelling in the Elizabethan era,[b] the name known today as 'Shakespeare' was spelled numerous ways in the historical records, some of the most well known being Shakspere, Shake-speare and Shakespeare.
Within this article -
*when the name is spelled Shakspere, using the spelling which appeared on his baptismal record and several of his putative signatures, the article will be referring to the gentleman named William Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon, to whom authorship is traditionally credited.
*when the name is written Shakespeare or Shake-speare, as spelled on many quartos and in the first folio, the article will be referring to the writer responsible for creating the plays and poems in question (regardless of the candidate).
*Due to a lack of standardized spelling in the Elizabethan era,[b] the name known today as 'Shakespeare' was spelled numerous ways in the historical records, some of the most well known being Shakspere, Shake-speare and Shakespeare.
Within this article -
*when the name is spelled Shakspere, using the spelling which appeared on his baptismal record and several of his putative signatures, the article will be referring to the gentleman named William Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon, to whom authorship is traditionally credited.
*when the name is written Shakespeare or Shake-speare, as spelled on many quartos and in the first folio, the article will be referring to the writer responsible for creating the plays and poems in question (regardless of the candidate).
2 - Pseudonymous and secret authorship in Renaissance England
Hyphenated "SHAKE-SPEARE", Sonnets (1609)
Archer Taylor and Frederic J. Mosher identified the 16th and 17th centuries as the "golden age" of pseudonymous authorship and maintain that during this period “almost every writer used a pseudonym at some time during his career.”[1]
Anti-Stratfordians say that aristocratic writers used pseudonyms to write for the public because of a prevailing "stigma of print", a social convention that restricted their literary works to private and courtly audiences - as opposed to "commercial" endeavors - at the risk of social disgrace if violated.[2] Court Poets, for example, were looked on favorably when reciting poesies before the Queen, but publishing commercially and consorting with actors and musicians, was cause for chastisement.
Diana Price has analyzed several examples of Elizabethan commentary on anonymous or pseudonymous publication by persons of high social status. According to Price, "there are two historical prototypes for this type of authorship fraud, that is, attributing a written work to a real person who was not the real author". Both are Roman in origin and both are mentioned by contemporary Elizabethan writers with what skeptics believe are implications that apply to the authorship of Shakespeare's plays:[3]
Anti-Stratfordians say that aristocratic writers used pseudonyms to write for the public because of a prevailing "stigma of print", a social convention that restricted their literary works to private and courtly audiences - as opposed to "commercial" endeavors - at the risk of social disgrace if violated.[2] Court Poets, for example, were looked on favorably when reciting poesies before the Queen, but publishing commercially and consorting with actors and musicians, was cause for chastisement.
Diana Price has analyzed several examples of Elizabethan commentary on anonymous or pseudonymous publication by persons of high social status. According to Price, "there are two historical prototypes for this type of authorship fraud, that is, attributing a written work to a real person who was not the real author". Both are Roman in origin and both are mentioned by contemporary Elizabethan writers with what skeptics believe are implications that apply to the authorship of Shakespeare's plays:[3]
- The Roman performer Bathyllus was known to have taken credit for verses written by Virgil. In 1591, pamphleteer Robert Greene described an Elizabethan "Batillus", who put his name to verses written by certain poets who, because of "their calling and gravity" did not want to publish under their own names. This 'Batillus' was accused of "under-hand brokery." [4]
- A second prototype is the classical playwright Terence, several of whose comedies were believed to have been written by his patrician patrons Scipio Africanus and Laelius.[5].
- In 1599, Hayward published The First Part of the Life and Raigne of King Henrie IV dedicated to Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex. Queen Elizabeth and her advisers disliked the tone of the book and its dedication, and on July 11, Hayward was interrogated before the Privy Council, which was seeking "proof positive of the Earl's [sc. Essex's] long-standing design against the government" in writing a preface to Hayward's work.[6] The Queen "argued that Hayward was pretending to be the author in order to shield 'some more mischievous' person, and that he should be racked so that he might disclose the truth".[7]
Anderson and other anti-Stratfordians say that the name "Shakespeare" would have made a symbolically apt pseudonym because it alludes to the patron goddess of art, literature and statecraft, Pallas Athena, who sprang from the forehead of Zeus shaking a spear.[8] They also believe that the hyphen in the name "Shake-speare", which appeared in 15 of the 32 editions of Shakespeare's plays published before the First Folio, indicated the use of a pseudonym.[9] Tom Tell-truth, Martin Mar-prelate (who pamphleteered against church "prelates"),[10] and Cuthbert Curry-knave, who "curried" his "knavish" enemies,[11] are examples of other hyphenated pseudonyms of the period.
Stratfordians say that no scholar of Elizabethan literature or punctuation affirms that a hyphen signaled a pseudonym, and that the theory is unknown outside of anti-Stratfordian literature.[12] Matus writes that proper names hyphenated in print were not uncommon in Elizabethan times, citing the examples of poet and clergyman Charles Fitzgeoffrey, often printed as "Charles Fitz-Geffry"; Protestant martyr Sir John Oldcastle, as “Old-castle”; London Lord Mayor Sir Thomas Campbell, “Camp-bell”; printer Edward Allde, “All-de”; and printer Robert Waldegrave, “Walde-grave”.[13]
Stratfordians say that no scholar of Elizabethan literature or punctuation affirms that a hyphen signaled a pseudonym, and that the theory is unknown outside of anti-Stratfordian literature.[12] Matus writes that proper names hyphenated in print were not uncommon in Elizabethan times, citing the examples of poet and clergyman Charles Fitzgeoffrey, often printed as "Charles Fitz-Geffry"; Protestant martyr Sir John Oldcastle, as “Old-castle”; London Lord Mayor Sir Thomas Campbell, “Camp-bell”; printer Edward Allde, “All-de”; and printer Robert Waldegrave, “Walde-grave”.[13]
Dramatist Ben Jonson is cited by both sides of the debate.
|
Poor POET-APE, that would be thought our chief,
Whose works are e'en the frippery of wit, From brokage is become so bold a thief, As we, the robbed, leave rage, and pity it. At first he made low shifts, would pick and glean, Buy the reversion of old plays; now grown To a little wealth, and credit in the scene, He takes up all, makes each man's wit his own. And, told of this, he slights it. Tut, such crimes The sluggish gaping auditor devours; He marks not whose 'twas first: and after-times May judge it to be his, as well as ours. Fool, as if half eyes will not know a fleece From locks of wool, or shreds from the whole piece?" On Poet Ape, Ben Jonson, pre-1612. |
Independent researcher Diana Price acknowledges that Shakespeare's name appears on the title pages of numerous play texts, but questions the traditional implication, asking "But what if his name is on the title pages for another reason? What if he were a play broker who took credit for the works of others?"[14]
Similarly, skeptic Mark Anderson has suggested that when poet John Davies referred to Shakespeare as "our English Terence, Mr Will. Shake-speare", he could be naming Shakespeare of Stratford as a front man, given that one tradition has it that some of Terence's plays were written by Roman nobles. Anderson also writes that "Greene's Groatsworth of Wit" could imply Shakespeare of Stratford was being given credit for the work of other writers.[15]
Diana Price writes that "In Shakespeare's day, those who traded in used costumes were called frippers or brokers. Those who traded in plays, as in other commodities, were also brokers." Price also says that Ben Jonson used both terms in the epigram, "On Poet-Ape", written between 1595-1612, and often regarded as concerning Shakespeare:[16]
According to Scott McCray, in The Case for Shakespeare: The End of the Authorship Question, "Poet-Ape was the current derogatory term for Actor-Dramatist". Prices writes that "this underhand play broker was passing off other men's work as his own". Price states that "If Shakespeare was, in fact, a Battillus or "under-hand" play broker who bought manuscripts from various authors, then we might reasonably expect to find plays published over the name 'William Shakespeare'," but written by various other authors... And we do." Price says that a number of plays including The London Prodigal (1605) and A Yorkshire Tragedy (1608) were "published during Shakespeare of Stratford's lifetime and attributed to 'William Shakespeare' yet nobody thinks that they belong in the [Shakespearean] canon..." [17]
John Michell writes that the "straightforward, orthodox view is that Jonson was merely saying what Shakespeareans have always admitted, that Shakespeare borrowed freely from contemporary as well as ancient authors, and that certain parts of his plays were probably contributed by other dramatists".[18] Other candidates for the 'Poet Ape' include Thomas Dekker, John Marston, and most recently, Thomas Heywood.[19]
Similarly, skeptic Mark Anderson has suggested that when poet John Davies referred to Shakespeare as "our English Terence, Mr Will. Shake-speare", he could be naming Shakespeare of Stratford as a front man, given that one tradition has it that some of Terence's plays were written by Roman nobles. Anderson also writes that "Greene's Groatsworth of Wit" could imply Shakespeare of Stratford was being given credit for the work of other writers.[15]
Diana Price writes that "In Shakespeare's day, those who traded in used costumes were called frippers or brokers. Those who traded in plays, as in other commodities, were also brokers." Price also says that Ben Jonson used both terms in the epigram, "On Poet-Ape", written between 1595-1612, and often regarded as concerning Shakespeare:[16]
According to Scott McCray, in The Case for Shakespeare: The End of the Authorship Question, "Poet-Ape was the current derogatory term for Actor-Dramatist". Prices writes that "this underhand play broker was passing off other men's work as his own". Price states that "If Shakespeare was, in fact, a Battillus or "under-hand" play broker who bought manuscripts from various authors, then we might reasonably expect to find plays published over the name 'William Shakespeare'," but written by various other authors... And we do." Price says that a number of plays including The London Prodigal (1605) and A Yorkshire Tragedy (1608) were "published during Shakespeare of Stratford's lifetime and attributed to 'William Shakespeare' yet nobody thinks that they belong in the [Shakespearean] canon..." [17]
John Michell writes that the "straightforward, orthodox view is that Jonson was merely saying what Shakespeareans have always admitted, that Shakespeare borrowed freely from contemporary as well as ancient authors, and that certain parts of his plays were probably contributed by other dramatists".[18] Other candidates for the 'Poet Ape' include Thomas Dekker, John Marston, and most recently, Thomas Heywood.[19]
References
- Taylor and Mosher,Bibliographical History of Anonyma and Pseudonyma. Chicago: The University Press, 1951, 85.
- Saunders 1951, pp. 139–164
- Price 2001, pp. 55–76
- Price 2001, pp. 55–56. Also see Ros Barber at https://leanpub.com/shakespeare/read
- 'it is well known by good record of learning, and that by Cicero's own witness, that some Comedies bearing Terence['] name were written by worthy Scipio and wise Laelius'. Roger Ascham, The Scholemaster, edited by Edward Arber, Westminster: A. Constable & Co., 1903, p. 143. For further discussion on this point, see Price, pp. 63-64
- Zaller, Robert. The discourse of legitimacy in early modern England (2007) Palo Alto, CA:Stanford UP, 41–42: "Much turned on the authorship of the critical preface...which Hayward insisted was his own although many had attributed it to Essex."
- Sohmer, Steve. "12 June 1599: Opening Day at Shakespeare's Globe." Early Modern Literary Studies 3.1 (1997): 1.1-46
- Anderson, intro
- Charlton Ogburn, The Mystery of William Shakespeare, 1983, pgs 87–88
- http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/marprelate/tract6m.htm
- Anderson, Shakespeare by Another Name, 2005, intro
- Kathman; Partridge, A. C. Orthography in Shakespeare and Elizabethan Drama (1964); Taylor, Archer, and Fredric J. Mosher. The Bibliographical History of Anonyma and Pseudonyma (1951, 1993)
- Matus 28-30
- http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmske/is_3_11/ai_n29167504/pg_6/?tag=content;col1
- Anderson, Mark. "Shakespeare" by Another Name. New York City: Gotham Books. xxx. ISBN 1592402151.
- Scott McCrea,The case for Shakespeare: the end of the authorship question, 2005, Greenwood Publishing Group, pg 21.
- http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmske/is_3_11/ai_n29167504/pg_7/?tag=content;col1
- Michell, page 71
- McCrea 2005, p. 21