Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T16:17:40.690Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Early Modern Collaboration and Theories of Authorship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Heather Hirschfeld
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

About halfway through the 1998 film shakespeare in love, a group of players and hired extras, under the critical eye of the theater owner Philip Henslowe, begins rehearsing a new play at the Rose. While Henslowe observes the process with a simultaneously proprietary and befuddled air, his financial backer, the apothecary Fennyman, comes to ask him about the play's progress. Suddenly Fennyman notices a tall, handsome figure bustling about, shouting both instructions and thanks. “Who is that?” the skeptical Fennyman asks. The movie audience knows that it is Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard's version of Will Shakespeare, assembling the cast for his play. “Nobody,” replies Henslowe. “The author” (Norman and Stoppard 49-50).

Type
Theories and Methodologies
Information
PMLA , Volume 116 , Issue 3 , May 2001 , pp. 609 - 622
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Works Cited

Barroll, Leeds. “Inventing the Stuart Masque.” The Politics of the Stuart Masque. Ed. Bevington, David and Holbrook, Peter. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998, 121–43.Google Scholar
Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author.” Image, Music, Text. Trans. Stephen Heath. New York: Hill, 1977. 142–48.Google Scholar
Beal, Peter. In Praise of Scribes: Manuscripts and Their Makers in Seventeenth-Century England. Oxford: Clarendon. 1998.Google Scholar
Bednarz, James. “The Collaborator as Thief: Ralegh's (Re)-Vision of The Faerie Queene.” ELH 63 (1996): 279–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergeron, David. “Thomas Middleton and Anthony Munday: Artistic Rivalry?” SEL 36 (1996): 461–79.Google Scholar
Bishop, Tom. “The Gingerbread Host: Tradition and Novelty in the Jacobean Masque.” The Politics of the Stuart Court Masque. Ed. Bevington, David and Holbrook, Peter. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998. 88–120.Google Scholar
Black, Joseph. “‘Pan Is Hee’: Commending The Faerie Queene.” Spenser Studies 15 (2001): forthcoming.Google Scholar
Black, Joseph “The Rhetoric of Reaction: The Martin Marprelate Tracts (1588-89). Anti-Martinism, and the Uses of Print in Early Modern England.” Sixteenth-Century Journal 28 (1997): 707–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. Ed. and introd. Johnson, Randal. New York: Columbia UP, 1993.Google Scholar
Burt, Richard. Licensed by Authority: Ben Jonson and the Discourses of Censorship. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, Neil. “Collaborative Playwriting: The Chettle, Dekker, Heywood Syndicate.” Theatre Research International (1989): 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, Neil. Companion to Henslowe's Diary. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1988.Google Scholar
Cerasano, S. P. “The Master of the Bears in Art and Enterprise.” Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 5 (1991): 195–209.Google Scholar
Chambers, E. K. The Elizabethan Stage. 4 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1923.Google Scholar
Cox, John D., and Kastan, David Scott. Introduction. Cox and Kastan, History 1–6.Google Scholar
Cox, John D., and Kastan, David Scott, eds. A New History of Early English Drama. New York: Columbia UP, 1997.Google Scholar
Crane, Mary. Framing Authority: Sayings, Self, and Society in Sixteenth-Century England. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekker, Thomas. Satiromastix. Dramatic Work of Thomas Dekker. Ed. Bowers, Fredson. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1953, 308–95.Google Scholar
Dobranski, Stephen. Milton, Authorship, and the Book Trade. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999.Google Scholar
Dutton, Richard. Mastering the Revels: The Regulation and Censorship of English Renaissance Drama. Iowa City: U of Iowa P. 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezell, Margaret. Social Authorship and the Advent of Print. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1999.Google Scholar
Finkelpearl, Philip. John Marston of the Middle Temple: An Elizabethan Dramatist in His Social Setting. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1969.Google Scholar
Fleming, Juliet. “Graffiti, Grammatology, and the Age of Shakespeare.” Renaissance Culture and the Everyday. Ed. Fumerton, Patricia and Hunt, Simon. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1999. 315–52.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. “What Is an Author?” Textual Strategies. Ed. and introd. Harari, Josue. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1979. 141–60.Google Scholar
Frey, Charles. Introduction. Frey, Shakespeare 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, Charles, ed. Shakespeare, Fletcher, and The Two Noble Kinsmen. Columbia: U of Missouri P, 1989.Google Scholar
Gordon, D. J. “Poet and Architect: The Intellectual Setting of the Quarrel between Ben Jonson and Inigo Jones.” The Renaissance Imagination. Ed. Orgel, Stephen. Berkeley: U of California P, 1975. 78–100.Google Scholar
Greenblatt, Stephen. Renaissance Self-Fashioning from More to Shakespeare. Berkeley: U of California P, 1980.Google Scholar
Greene, Thomas. The Light in Troy: Imitation and Discovery in Renaissance Poetry. New Haven: Yale UP, 1982.Google Scholar
Guillory, John. Poetic Authority: Spenser, Milton, and Literary History. New York: Columbia UP, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halasz, Alexandra. The Marketplace of Print: Pamphlets and the Public Sphere in Early Modern England. Cambridge Studies in Renaissance Lit. and Culture 14. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpern, Richard. The Poetics of Primitive Accumulation: English Renaissance Culture and the Genealogy of Capital. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haselkorn, Anne M., and Travitsky, Betty S., eds. The Renaissance Englishwoman in Print: Counterbalancing the Canon. Amherst: U of Massachusetts P, 1990.Google Scholar
Helgerson, Richard. Self-Crowned Laureates: Spenser, Jonson, Milton, and the Literary System. Berkeley: U of California P, 1983.Google Scholar
Hirschfeld, Heather. “Collaborating across Generations: Thomas Heywood, Richard Brome, and the Production of The Late Lancashire Witches.” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 30 (2000): 339–74.Google Scholar
Hirschfeld, Heather “‘Work upon That Now’: The Production of Parody on the English Renaissance Stage.” Genre 32 (1999): 175–200.Google Scholar
Honigmann, E. A. J., and Brock, Susan. Playhouse Wills, 1558-1642. New York: Manchester UP, 1993.Google Scholar
Hope, Jonathan. The Authorship of Shakespeare's Plays. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoy, Cyrus. “The Shares of Fletcher and His Collaborators in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon.” Studies in Bibliography 8 (1956): 129-46; 9 (1957): 143-62; 11 (1958): 85-106; 12 (1959): 91-116; 13 (1960): 77-108; 14 (1961): 45-67; 15 (1962): 71–90.Google Scholar
Ingram, William. The Business of Playing: The Beginnings of the Adult Professional Theater in London. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irace, Kathleen. Reforming the “Bad” Quartos. Newark: U of Delaware P, 1994.Google Scholar
Jaszi, Peter, and Woodmansee, Martha, eds. The Construction of Authorship: Textual Appropriation in Law and Literature. Durham: Duke UP, 1994.Google Scholar
Kerrigan, William. “The Articulation of the Ego in the English Renaissance.” The Literary Freud: Mechanisms of Defense and the Poetic Will. Ed. Smith, Joseph. Psychiatry and the Humanities 4. New Haven: Yale UP, 1980. 261–306.Google Scholar
Knutson, Roslyn. “Falconer to the Little Eyases: A New Date and Commercial Agenda for the ‘Little Eyases’ Passage in Hamlet.” Shakespeare Quarterly 46 (1995): 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knutson, Roslyn The Repertory of Shakespeare's Company, 1594-1613. Fayetteville: U of Arkansas P, 1991.Google Scholar
Koestenbaum, Wayne. Double Talk: The Erotics of Male Literary Collaboration. New York: Routledge, 1989.Google Scholar
Langbaine, Gerard. An Account of the English Dramatick Poets. London, 1691.Google Scholar
Limbert, Claudia A., and O'Neill, John H. “Composite Authorship: Katherine Philips and an Antimarital Satire.” Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 87 (1993): 487–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Limon, Jerzy. The Masque of Stuart Culture. Newark: U of Delaware P. 1990.Google Scholar
Lindley, David. Introduction. The Court Masques. Ed. Lindley, . Manchester: Manchester UP, 1984. 1–15.Google Scholar
Loewenstein, Joseph. “Authentic Reproductions: The Material Origins of the New Bibliography.” Textual Formations and Reformations. Ed. Maguire, Laurie and Berger, Thomas L. Newark: U of Delaware P, 1998. 23–44.Google Scholar
Loewenstein, Joseph “For a History of Literary Property: John Wolfe's Reformation.” English Literary Renaissance 18 (1988): 389–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
London, Bette. Writing Double: Women's Literary Partnerships. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1999.Google Scholar
Love, Harold. Scribal Publication in Seventeenth-Century England. Oxford: Clarendon, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, Scott. “The Suppressed Edition and the Creation of the ‘Orthodox’ Mirror for Magistrates.” Renaissance Papers 1994. Ed. Baines, Barbara J. and Williams, George Walton. Raleigh: Southeastern Renaissance Conf., 1995. 31–54.Google Scholar
Macherey, Pierre. A Theory of Literary Production. Trans. Geoffrey Wall. London: Routledge, 1978.Google Scholar
Maguire, Laurie. Shakespearean Suspect Texts: The “Bad” Quartos and Their Contexts. New York: Cambridge UP, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, David. The Elizabethan Player: Contemporary Stage Representation. New York: Routledge, 1991.Google Scholar
Marotti, Arthur. John Donne, Coterie Poet. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1986.Google Scholar
Marotti, Arthur Manuscript, Print, and the English Renaissance Lyric. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masten, Jeffrey. “Beaumont and/or Fletcher: Collaboration and the Interpretation of Renaissance Drama.” ELH 59 (1992): 337–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masten, Jeffrey “My Two Dads: Collaboration and the Reproduction of Beaumont and Fletcher.” Queering the Renaissance. Ed. Goldberg, Jonathan. Durham: Duke UP, 1994.Google Scholar
Masten, Jeffrey. “Playwrighting: Authorship and Collaboration.” Cox and Kastan, History 357–82.Google Scholar
Masten, Jeffrey. Textual Intercourse: Collaboration, Authorship, and Sexualities in Renaissance Drama. Cambridge Studies in Renaissance Lit. and Culture 14. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 1997.Google Scholar
McGann, Jerome. A Critique of Modern Textual Criticism. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1983.Google Scholar
McKenzie, D. F. Bibliography and the Sociology of Texts. London: British Lib., 1986.Google Scholar
McMillin, Scott. The Elizabethan Theatre and The Book of Sir Thomas More. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1987.Google Scholar
McMullan, Gordon. The Politics of Unease in the Plays of John Fletcher. Amherst: U of Massachusetts P, 1994.Google Scholar
Norman, Marc, and Stoppard, Tom. Shakespeare in Love: A Screenplay. New York: Hyperion, 1998.Google Scholar
Patterson, Annabel. Reading Holinshed's Chronicles. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1994.Google Scholar
Raylor, Timothy. Cavaliers, Clubs, and Literary Culture: Sir John Mennes, James Smith, and the Order of the Fancy. Newark: U of Delaware P, 1994.Google Scholar
Rose, Mark. Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1993.Google Scholar
Shapin, Steven. A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spigelman, Candace. Across Property Lines: Textual Ownership in Writing Groups. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2000.Google Scholar
Stillinger, Jack. Multiple Authorship and the Myth of Solitary Genius. New York: Oxford UP, 1991.Google Scholar
Thomas, Max. “Reading and Writing the Renaissance Commonplace Book: A Question of Authorship?” Jaszi and Woodmansee 401–15.Google Scholar
Turner, Robert Kean. “Collaborators at Work: The Queen of Corinth and The Knight of Malta.” Shakespeare: Text. Language, Criticism: Essays in Honour of Marvin Spevack. Ed. Bernhard, Fabioan and Rosador, Kurt Tetzelivon. Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann, 1987. 315–33.Google Scholar
Tuve, Rosemund. Allegorical Imagery: Some Medieval Books and Their Posterity. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Kim. Women Writers of the English Renaissance. New York: Twayne, 1996.Google Scholar
Wall, Wendy. The Imprint of Gender: Authorship and Publication in the English Renaissance. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1993.Google Scholar
Watt, Tessa. Cheap Print and Popular Piety, 1550-1640. Cambridge Studies in Early Mod. British History. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991.Google Scholar
Werstine, Paul. “On the Compositors of The Two Noble Kinsmen.” Frey, Shakespeare 6–30.Google Scholar
Woodmansee, Martha. The Author, Art, and the Market: Rereading the History of Aesthetics. New York: Columbia UP, 1994.Google Scholar
Woodmansee, Martha. “The Genius and the Copyright: Economic and Legal Conditions of the Emergence of the ‘Author.‘” Eighteenth-Century Studies 17 (1984): 425–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar