SAA TORONTO 2013 a play unfinished (Wilkins – Pericles) or when a problem arises (). Shakespeare is therefore seen SEMINAR 4: COLLABORATIVE generally as either a writer in his formative SHAKESPEARE years during his pre-Chamberlain’s days or as a ‘play-doctor’ at the end of his writing CONVENORS: HEATHER career, ready to come to the rescue of less HIRSCHFELD AND TON gifted playwrights. Otherwise, the central HOENSELAARS core of the canon (i.e. the second tetralogy and , the mature comedies, the five most celebrated tragedies and the better known tragicomedies) are intentionally ABSTRACTS foregrounded as solo work, reinforcing the romantic image of Shakespeare as isolated genius who worked on his own and downplaying an alternative possible image of the playwright as interacting with other I. “Collaborator or Co-Author?: authors in a rich medium in which Shakespeare’s Collaborative Practices in authorship may have been understood as a Modern Biography and Popular Fiction” more fluid notion. The most immediate drawback of Clara Calvo, University of Murcia, Spain this all too frequent narrative that polarises collaboration into the early and late phases In recent years, a turn to the study of of Shakespeare’s writing career is that it Shakespeare’s collaboration with allows little room for other kind of contemporary playwrights has become Shakespearean collaborative practices evident in Shakespearean scholarship. Has during the middle period of his dramatic this interest trickled down to Shakespearean production. For instance, this scenario biography or popular representations of clashes with the existing evidence, which Shakespeare as fictional character? This suggests that Shakespeare is likely to have paper sets out to examine both academic been the author of the additions to The and non-academic biographies as well as Spanish Tragedy. some examples of popular fiction that construe Shakespeare as literary character * to determine if any consistent patterns emerge in the treatment of Shakespeare as II. “Forms of Affiliation to the Profession collaborator. of Dramatist” The working hypothesis is that whereas most popular representations of Lacey Conley, Marquette University Shakespeare tend, as a rule, to ignore his collaborative activities, in many recent In this paper, I plan to approach the various biographies, collaboration takes the shape practices of authorial collaboration in the of a narrative in which Shakespeare early modern theater as expressions of the emerges as co-authoring plays with other authors’ individual backgrounds, playwrights at the start and the end of his experiences, and opinions about plays and dramatic career. This narrative often has the playwriting. Based on biographical details effect of implying that his collaboration and the ideas expressed in the writing of the was either the result of a mere period of authors themselves, I have placed each of apprenticeship that took place during the the twenty three playwrights who, within early years of his development as author or the years 1590-1625, I have identified as the logical conclusion of his maturity as “professional” (informed by G.E. Bentley’s writer, once he is a well-established criteria) in one of the following four “forms playwright and he is resorted to as a first- of affiliation” to the playwriting profession: class expert when another playwright leaves Attached Dramatists, Commercial Professionals, Literary Dramatists, and

1 Gentleman Authors. In order to show how * an author’s affiliation to the profession affects his attitude towards and engagement IV. “Collaboration and Proprietary in collaborative authorship, I will use the Authorship: Shakespeare, et al.” example of the Poetomachia of 1599 to 1601. This debate about theatrical value Trevor Cook, Trent University, Oshawa involved at least one member of each of the aforementioned “forms,” so it is an ideal Who in Shakespeare’s lifetime deserved example of how conflicting perspectives credit for a play like Pericles? The title about drama and authorship found ways to page of the 1609 quarto lists the King’s coexist—more or less amicably—in the Men as the actors and very public forum of a staged debate. In as the author, but the play was not included this instance, the playwrights were able to in the and many scenes were engage in attempts at internal regulation of evidently written by George Wilkins, who the bounds of their profession, while also had only a year prior published a prose facilitating audience recognition of version of the same story. Was it (or just individual authorial styles through the use parts of it) Shakespeare’s work, Wilkins’, of mocking and exaggerated or a joint property? Or as any one of the impersonations of one another, enabling interested parties might have put it: yours, them to promote both themselves and the mine, or ours? Shakespeare was not as legitimacy of their craft. The Poet’s War concerned with the question as some of his functions as a sort of meta-collaboration, contemporaries were. In The Spanish Gypsy where differing ideas are brought together (1623), the work of four leading Jacobean not simply for the creation of a single text, dramatists (Ford, Dekker, Middleton, and but rather for the construction of the Rowley), one player proposes to another dramatic profession itself. that they be inspired together when preparing the play-within-the-play so as to * protect his individual property: “we’ll invoke them [the muses] together – so that III. “The Passionate Pilgrim and you will not steal my plot.” In this context, Shakespearean Collaboration, with The Spanish Gypsy is as important for what Musings Upon a ❡” is has to say about the significance of attribution as it has been as a test case for Francis X. Connor, Wichita State methods of attributing authorship, University especially in light of the fact that scholars continue to be divided on the implications The Passionate Pilgrim includes a handful of collaboration for such concepts as of known Shakespeare poems surrounded literary property: some continue to cite the poems either unattributed or attributed to prevalence of collaboration as an historical other hands. Yet this is rarely considered a alternative to the modern notion of collaborative work, in large part because authorial property, while others maintain Shakespeare’s role in the production of the that it was equally common for authors in book remains unknown. Building upon the period to work independently and so be recent criticism that has begun to accustomed to receiving unique credit for acknowledge Passionate Pilgrim as a their work. This paper considers how thematically coherent work, I consider collaborators within The Spanish Gypsy some grounds upon which we may consider negotiate these differences in ways that it a Shakespearean particular. To this end, I might also shed light on Shakespeare’s read an awful lot into a single piece of type working relationship with the likes of in the 1598 Loues labors lost, wondering if Wilkins. a pilcrow that precedes a sonnet the play shares with Passionate Pilgrim may be key * to understanding how Shakespeare may have considered his poetry collaborative.

2 V. “What is not collaborative about early responded to the claim and presented modern drama in performance and countering evidence on multiple objective print?” and subjective points, their refutation generally treated the play as a whole rather Gabriel Egan, De Montfort University, than considering it on a scene-by-scene Leicester, UK basis, as outlined in Maguire and Smith’s argument. Because of this discrepancy, This paper is concerned with the idea that further study seemed in order. This Shakespeare’s plays are inherently preliminary paper describes the results of a collaborative because drama is a collective word, phrase, and collocation study based artform and that the processes of on the methodology employed by transmission by which the texts come down MacDonald P. Jackson, performed on to us – scribal copying and printing – passages selected from among the scenes in constitute additional layers of collaboration. All’s Well that Ends Well considered most On the assumption that Shakespeare Middletonian in nature by Maguire and welcomed or at least acquiesced to changes Smith. Evidence drawn from the seven to his plays made by actors during analyzed samples corroborates Shakespeare rehearsal, the 1986 Oxford Complete as sole author of All’s Well, with Middleton Works edition attempted, where a choice attributes lagging behind even those of John existed, to reflect the plays as they were Fletcher, used as a control. Finally, the first performed rather than as first written. paper glances at data visualization as an This paper reconsiders the extent to which important, and underexplored, aspect of Shakespeare’s plays may have been visual rhetoric in early modern studies and reshaped in , finding that it has notes the opportunity for collaborative recently been overstated and that his organization and dissemination of the authority over his words is probably greater multiple kinds of data required for than usually supposed. The idea that textual stylometric studies (including peer- transmission was thoroughly collaborative reviewed data on authorial, scribal, and rose to prominence in the 1980s and 1990s compositorial practices and attributions as the sociology-of-texts movement reached throughout the entire corpus of early Shakespeare studies. This approach stressed modern dramas, as well as bibliographic that writers do not produce books on their information). own, and that a constellation of other individuals and institutions constitutes the * necessary condition that enables publication. The collaborative nature of VII. “Lego and Logos” publication also appears to have been overstated and editors ought to focus on Jeffrey Kahan, University of La Verne, undoing the effects of scribes and Southern California compositors to recover the authorial labour. In essence, mathematical approaches follow * a lego block approach. That is, Shakespeare uses such and such a word or image, Fletcher uses another. We can therefore VI. “‘Seeming knowledge’: Stylometry take all the Shakespeare blocks and count and Data Visualization in All’s Well that Ends Well Attribution Studies” them up and all the Fletcher blocks and do the same. That sort of argument is obviously the outcome of industrial Jennifer Forsyth, Kutztown University thinking. In an age of DNA decoding,

Last year, Laurie Maguire and Emma Smith perhaps something more organic is in order—for example, collaborative proposed that Thomas Middleton had authorship as a blending of wines. While collaborated with William Shakespeare on All’s Well that Ends Well. Although Brian updating the approach might make the Vickers and Marcus Dahl had already process more logical to us, we are merely

3 updating critical mystique, not solving its IX. “(Con)spiracy Theories: Inspiration mystery. and Collaboration in Early Modern Poetry” * Whitney Taylor, Northwestern VIII. “Collaboration and Marlowe’s The University Jew of Malta” In this paper, I explore ways that poetic Robert Sawyer, East Tennessee State inspiration conceives of composition and University creative acts as fundamentally collaborative. Specifically, the etymology The debate over the collaborative process in of inspiration, from the Latin “to breathe the early modern theatre has been ongoing into,” suggests a flow of breath in and out at least since G. E. Bentley’s work in 1971. of the self that relies on an idea of Estimates of collaborative play scripts interdependent personhood. Invocations of range from less than 20% to more than 35% inspiration in sacred poetry mobilize early (Jackson, Vickers et al.). Whatever the modern notions of a body enlivened by an exact number, almost all experts agree that outside spirit to show that the act of shared collaboration of some sort, due in large breathing is foundational to crafting measure to the rapid expansion of the devotional verse. How might inspiration theatre-going public, occurred extensively and collaboration function in a secular during the era when the public theaters in context? In order to take up this question, I London dominated the entertainment turn to Shakespeare’s Lucrece, arguing that options. Moreover, most playhouse one of the tragedies of Lucrece is the failure productions incorporated a large supporting of breath to circulate between characters. cast, with many of the members working My reading of Lucrece develops a together in various ways, both on and off paradigm for understanding how inspiration the stage. entails collaboration as a precondition of While numerous critics have early modern poetic composition. focused on early modern authors collaborating with one another, and other * scholars have noted the collaboration between actors and performance texts, I X. “The Authorship of would suggest that specific cultural IV.i Reconsidered” contexts may also be considered as a collaborative force. Using a model that William Weber, Veterans Center for the borrows from all of these possibilities, my Performing Arts essay examines three versions of ’s The Jew of Malta– A scholarly consensus now holds that Titus ’s in 1632, Edmund Andronicus was co-authored by William Kean’s in 1818, and F. Murray Abraham’s Shakespeare and George Peele, with Peele in 2006–in order to show that playwrights, usually ascribed scenes I.i, II.i, II.ii, and actors, and the cultural milieu may work IV.i. While the attribution of the first act to together in a collaborative enterprise to Peele is supported by virtually every shape a performance, resulting in a product analysis performed on the text, the evidence which sometimes highlights, but at other supporting Peele’s authorship of IV.i does times hides, the additions cobbled on to not enjoy a similar uniformity. In fact, the Marlowe’s initial version of the play, first Peele attribution of this seen proves to have performed, according to Henslowe’s Diary, been founded on questionable precepts and in 1591. Ultimately, this focus may also to be contradicted by a significant number allow us to expand our definition of of otherwise-reliable authorship tests. collaboration itself. Given this confusion, more study of the scene in particular is required before we can * assert that a consensus exists for the play as a whole.

4 In response to this lingering Knapp, Jeffrey. “What is a Co-Author?” uncertainty, this paper revisits the Representations 89 (2005): 1-29. attribution of this scene by applying two new tests, one quantitative and one Masten, Jeffrey. Textual Intercourse: qualitative. The first of these compares the Collaboration, Authorship, and Sexualities frequency with which collocations of two in Renaissance Drama. Cambridge: or more words from this scene match up Cambridge University Press, 1997. with the known canon of one candidate but not the other, investigating the extent to Stallybrass, Peter and Roger Chartier. which IV.i reflects the particular ‘Reading and Authorship: The Circulation vocabulary and phraseognomy, or lexical of Shakespeare 1590-1619’. In A Concise fingerprint, of its potential authors. The Companion to Shakespeare and Text. Ed. second reads the scene’s foregrounded Andrew Murphy. Blackwell, 2007. intertextuality – a copy of Ovid’s Metamorphoses appears on stage as a prop Stern, Tiffany. ‘Re-patching the Play.’ and provides a crucial catalyst for the play’s From Script to Stage in Early Modern revenge plot – alongside the two writers’ England. Eds. Peter Holland and Stephen highly divergent allusive practices. Orgel. 151-77. Macmillan. 2004. Contrary to the today’s conventional wisdom, both of these analyses strongly Vickers, Brian. Shakespeare Co-Author: A suggest that the author of Titus Andronicus Historical Study of Five Collaborative IV.i was William Shakespeare. Plays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. * * *

Working Bibliography:

Bednarz, James P. Shakespeare and the Poet’s War. New York: Columbia UP, 2001.

Bentley, Gerald Eades. The Profession of Dramatist and Player in Shakespeare’s Time, 1590-1642. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1971.

Craig, Hugh, and Arthur F. Kinney, eds. Shakespeare, Computers, and the Mystery of Authorship. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2009.

Eden, Kathy. Friends Hold All Things in Common: Tradition, Intellectual Property, and the Adages of Erasmus. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001.

Hoenselaars, Ton, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare and Contemporary Dramatists. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2012.

Jackson, MacDonald P. Defining Shakespeare: Pericles as Test Case. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2003. Print.

5