This free course from the University of London explores critical thinking, and the interpretation of texts, through the Shakespeare authorship question. Using doubt about Shakespeare’s authorship as our playground, we will explore the key concept of authorship attribution, while developing skills in literary analysis, interpretation, and argument. Through forensic exploration of key texts, you will learn why Shakespeare’s authorship is questioned, and what evidence is cited on both sides of the debate. For those of you interested in exploring the works of Shakespeare from a new angle, or just wanting to hone your analytical thinking skills, this course offers an introduction to a fascinating area of interest. Those of you already interested in the Shakespeare authorship question will be encouraged to question your own assumptions in fruitful ways. Whether undertaken as a standalone course, or as preparation for the University of London BA in English, this course will be food for thought.
A 3.2 The Shakespeare Apocrypha
Loading...
From the course by University of London
Introduction to Who Wrote Shakespeare
60 ratings
From the lesson
Understanding the Question
This week is a practical introduction to the Shakespeare authorship question, covering terms and concepts you will use and outlining the basic arguments for and against William Shakespeare’s authorship of the works attributed to him. You will learn a framework for understanding how a person’s perceptions (including your own) are shaped by pre-existing beliefs and assumptions and learn how this might impact your ability to interpret and assess literary and historical evidence. You will then be introduced to a key theory of the authorship question and to the first practical exercise in close-reading a relevant text.
Meet the Instructors
Ros BarberDr
English and Comparative Literature
One of the arguments sometimes used to defend the orthodox attribution of the
Shakespeare works is this simple statement: His name is on the plays.
But is that sufficient proof of authorship?
The existence of a group of plays and poems collectively
called "the Shakespeare Apocrypha" argues otherwise.
Apocrypha means writing not considered genuine,
not part of the canon.
During Shakspere's lifetime, 13 plays and
four poetic works of
the accepted Shakespeare canon were published with Shakespeare's name on.
Five further canonical Shakespeare plays were published anonymously.
But what is exceptional and unmatched by any other writer is that in the same period,
seven plays and two poetic works
that scholars believe or know to be by other writers
were also published either under Shakespeare's name or initials.
To put this in perspective, in Shakspere's lifetime,
a third of the works published under the name or
initials of William Shakespeare were by different writers.
The usual explanation for these works is that rogue publishers
published them under the Shakespeare name or initials in order to cash in on his fame,
and that their publication was entirely outside of his control.
But looking at each individual publication more closely,
it's easy to see some problems with this argument.
The first of the Shakespeare Apocrypha to be published was a play called Locrine.
It was published in 1595,
the year of that first payment to Shakspere as a member of the Lord Chamberlain's Men.
On the title page,
it states that it was "Newly set forth,
overseen, and corrected, By W.S."
Note, it doesn't claim that it was written by "W.S."
and we don't know whether "W.S."
is meant to mean William Shakespeare or someone else.
But this play was included in the Third Folio of Shakespeare's collected works in 1664.
Was the publisher, Thomas Creede,
cashing in on the success of William Shakespeare by
using the famous playwright's initials on this anonymous play?
Well, no. At this point,
the name William Shakespeare wasn't associated with any plays.
It had appeared on two narrative poems but it wouldn't
appear on a play until three years later.
Plays weren't associated with their authors at this time.
Like Hollywood films now,
audiences didn't really know who wrote the plays they saw even if they loved them.
There's no evidence that William Shakespeare was actually
known as a playwright at this time by the general public.
If Thomas Creede was going to cash in on Shakespeare's name,
he probably should have used it, rather than the initials.
And if the name Shakespeare would have made him a profit,
it's curious that he didn't use it when he printed
the second part of Shakespeare's Henry VI in 1594,
or Romeo and Juliet in 1599,
or Henry V in 1600 and 1602.
Thomas Lord Cromwell was published in 1602.
The title pages tell us that it was "Written by W.S."
and "sundry times publicly acted by the Lord Chamberlain's men", Shakspere's company.
By this time, a number of canonical works had been published,
attributed on their title pages to
William Shakespeare, and with this link to the Lord Chamberlain's men.
So even though this is published only under initials,
it feels like the intention is for us to read "W.S."
as William Shakespeare, but without openly claiming that.
There was no consensus over who actually wrote this play.
The next play in the Shakespeare Apocrypha was less coy.
Instead of initials, the London Prodigal,
published in 1605, declares it is "By William Shakespeare."
The Lord Chamberlain's Men have now become the King's Men,
and that this is that company's play is also declared on the title page.
Was this a piratical enterprise by the publisher,
Nathaniel Butter?
That seems unlikely.
Three years later, Butter would be the first
to publish another King's Men and Shakespeare play,
King Lear, a publication which scholars
broadly agree was authorized by Shakspere and his company.
The Puritan or the Widow of Watling Street,
widely believed to be by Thomas Middleton,
was published in 1607.
The title page bills it as "Written by W.S."
and associates it with the children of St. Paul's rather than the King's Men.
It was published by George Eld,
who would print Shakespeare's Sonnets for the publisher
Thomas Thorpe two years later.
Professor Katherine Duncan-Jones,
editor of the Arden Edition of Shakespeare's Sonnets,
argues strongly that it was an authorized rather than piratical publication.
In 1608, A Yorkshire Tragedy was billed as a King's Men
play by William Shakespeare and published by Thomas Pavier.
Pavier had published Shakespeare's Henry V in
1602 with no author's name attached.
If he was cashing in on Shakespeare's name,
why not do so on the genuine Shakespeare play?
Three years after Shakspere's death,
Pavier also published Sir John Old-castle
as "Written by William Shakespeare" in 1619,
alongside genuine Shakespeare plays, as part of what is called the False Folio.
Pavier had published it anonymously in 1600, but by 1619,
it had been established as part of Shakespeare's output and was being
published to secure the rights of the original publishers to the titles they had bought.
Henslowe's diary records that it was written by four authors,
including Michael Drayton, who you'll hear about later in this course.
The last of the Apocrypha published in Shakspere's lifetime,
The Troublesome Reign of King John,
first published anonymously in 1591,
claimed to be by "W. Sh."
This play seems to be a source for Shakespeare's King John,
and though a number of authors have been suggested for it,
no consensus has been reached.
There are several ways in which a play or poetic
work might end up published under the wrong name and
not all of these ways require the publishers to be rogues or Shakespeare to be a victim.
If this were indeed the case, one must
ask why the publishers were not roguish with
other popular dramatists of the era and singled out Shakespeare alone.
Many of these plays were the property of Shakspere’s company -
property that had commercial value to them.
In Stratford, Shakspere showed no qualms
about taking individuals to court over financial matters.
He sued John Addenbrooke for six pounds and he
sued Philip Rogers over sum of 35 shillings.
If the Lord Chamberlain's property and his name or initials had been taken in vain,
why wouldn't he and the company take legal action?
Until the year that Shakspere became
a shareholder with the Lord Chamberlain's Men, only one writer,
George Peele, had been attributed as
the author of a play originally performed on the public stage.
That year, publishing practice changed and seven out of
the 18 published plays that have survived from 1594 feature an author's name.
By the turn of the century,
about half of all published plays were still
anonymous, but naming the author became increasingly common.
This shift towards publishing plays with
an authorial attribution appears to have been
linked with a general move by publishers to present
dramatic works as suitable for 'gentlemen readers' by associating them with
an originating author rather than
the collaborative process by which so many plays, in fact, came about.
The diary of theater owner Philip Henslowe
reveals that from the summer of 1597 to the summer of 1600,
60% (30 out of 52) of the plays the company bought were co-authored.
But in the same period,
not a single one of the 32 published plays acknowledges more than one author.
Less than 12% of the plays published in the 40 years from 1584
to 1623 bears more than a single author's name on the title page.
It seems that publishers were deliberately representing
co-authored works as being the fruit of a single mind.
Is it possible that Shakspere himself,
as the company shareholder best placed to negotiate deals,
sanctioned the use of his name and initials on these publications?
Explore our Catalog
Join for free and get personalized recommendations, updates and offers.
Coursera provides universal access to the world’s best education,
partnering with top universities and organizations to offer courses online.
© 2018 Coursera Inc. All rights reserved.
