B 3.3 Coat of Arms - The Authorship Argument

Loading...

From the course by University of London

Introduction to Who Wrote Shakespeare

57 ratings

University of London

Introduction to Who Wrote Shakespeare

57 ratings

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.

From the lesson

The Man and the Author

In this module we’ll look at questions of identity; chiefly at arguments that attempt to link William Shakspere the man to William Shakespeare the author – or to sever that link. The arguments surrounding “Hand D” in Sir Thomas More claim to establish a firm link between Shakspere and Shakespeare, and Shakespeare’s authorship of the “Hand D” pages is now being presented as fact, so it’s important to understand the evidence, arguments, and reasons for this attribution. You’ll look in detail at the non-Stratfordian argument that Shakespeare authorship doubt was first expressed within only four years after the first “Shakespeare” publication in the works of John Marston and Joseph Hall. You’ll consider some of the key Stratfordian and non-Stratfordian arguments related to William Shakspere’s coat of arms. And lastly, you’ll look critically at an important cornerstone of Shakespeare biography, Robert Greene’s reference to a plagiarising actor, the “upstart Crow”.

B 3.1 'Not Without Right' - Shakspere's Coat of Arms4:54

B 3.2 Coat of Arms - Insulso Sogliardo9:23

B 3.3 Coat of Arms - The Authorship Argument6:17

Meet the Instructors

Ros Barber
Dr
English and Comparative Literature

Before 2014, the only copy we had

of Ralph Brooke's objection to Shakspere's coat of arms,

the one that has 'Shakespeare the Player by Garter' written beneath it,

was a copy made a hundred years after the original complaint.

The words 'Shakespeare the Player by Garter' were in

a different handwriting and in different ink to the rest of the words on the page

so it had to be treated with caution.

But since 2014, three copies of

the Shakspere coat of arms have been found that

were all made in the early 17th century.

All say 'Shakespeare the Player by Garter'

so this confirms Shakspere as a known member of the players' company,

the Lord Chamberlain's Men.

In January 2017, researchers at

the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington announced that they

had made discoveries which dealt

a decisive blow to the belief that Shakspere was a front man for someone else.

Heather Wolfe and Folger director

Michael Witmore was specifically looking for evidence that would provide the unambiguous,

contemporaneous, personal testimony required to tie Shakspere to the plays and poems.

As they recognized, it would need to be

testimony provided by a witness with direct knowledge of

William Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon and would need to

declare that he was the poet and playwright we know as Shakespeare.

From the three copies of the Shakspere arms which had been newly unearthed,

it was clear that Ralph Brooke's objections to the grants of

22 coats of arms, including Shakspere's, was widely known.

The words 'Shakespeare the Player' are deliberately belittling.

Brooke had referred to others who had been granted arms in similarly belittling terms.

He called William Norton,

the Master of the Stationers' Company, 'a bookbinder'.

He called William Sanderson,

a member of the Fishmongers' Guild who had financed the printing of

the first English maps for globes, 'a fishmonger'.

Thus, Wolfe and Witmore argued that Shakspere was more than a mere player.

But where was the definitive proof that

attested to him being the author of the plays and poems?

What Wolfe and Witmore provided was a passage written

by Edmund Howes and published in 'Stow's Chronicles'.

On page 811 of this massive work, Edmund Howes wrote,

'Our modern and present excellent poets which worthily flourish in their own works,

and all of them in my own knowledge lived together in this Queen's reign,

according to their priorities as near as I could,

I have orderly set down.'

'Poets', incidentally, was a very inclusive term

in Elizabeth times and would have included playwrights,

many of whom wrote at least part of their time in verse.

Howes then lists 27 'modern and present excellent poets',

some of whom are dead.

But all of whom, as he put it,

'flourish in their own works'.

The thirteenth of these he lists as: 'Willi. Shakespeare gentleman'.

Study it for a moment.

Is this personal testimony?

Wolfe and Witmore say it is,

because of the phrase,

'In my own knowledge'.

But that is to take the phrase out of context.

Howes is not saying he knew these 27 writers personally,

he says, 'All of them in my own knowledge,

lived together in this Queen's reign'.

In other words, as far as I know,

they were all alive at the same time during the reign of Elizabeth I.

There was no reason to think he knew them

other than through their writing and reputation.

The other reason Wolfe and Witmore think this is personal testimony that

names Shakspere as an excellent poet is because Howes refers to him as a Gentleman.

It is true that anyone granted a coat of arms could be referred to this way.

But there isn't good evidence that Howes calls Shakespeare

a Gentleman because he is aware of Shakspere's coat of arms.

All of the writers in his list either knights or esquires or gentlemen, apart

from the very last one named, George Withers,

who had published his first work only three years previously.

Fourteen of the writers in Howes's list are called Gentleman.

Some of these writers,

though they had no coat of arms,

had earned the title Gentleman through gaining

a masters degree at Oxford or Cambridge University.

John Lily is one of these, Christopher Marlowe another.

But other Gentlemen in the list had no degree and no coat of arms;

Ben Jonson for example and George Chapman.

The explanation is simple.

Being an established and respected author was enough to gain you the title.

William Harrison, a friend of William Camden, who was named in

Shakspere's 1599 coat of arms application wrote,

'Gentlemen be those whom their race and blood,

or at the least their virtues,

do make noble and known.'

By the very works they had written

George Chapman and Ben Jonson had proved

themselves gentlemen even without

gaining a degree or paying money to get the coat of arms.

In other words, Howes's inclusion of Shakespeare as

a Gentleman in this list does not prove the Orthodox cause.

Howes is not claiming personal knowledge of the 27 members of this list,

no personal knowledge is displayed here, and we have

no other evidence to support a personal connection between Howes and Shakespeare.

Howes bestows the title Gentleman upon

any established writer who is not an Esquire or a Sir.

There is no evidence that he is judging

their social status by anything other than their writing.

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.

Download on the App Store

Get it on Google Play