My previous post puts forth the first true explanation of the origin of Shakespeare’s First Folio—especially focusing on what happened to the plays attributed to Shakespeare while he was alive.
If I can offer up one minor consideration on the claim that no publisher is known to have deceitfully published the work of a living author under another author's name. I believe that Polidori's short tale The Vampyre was originally (and very profitably) mistarributed to Lord Byron when it was first published?
If so, it doesn't alter your general case, but I'd thought I'd flag.
Thanks for all your doing. I've read (and enjoyed) both your book and Michael Blandings too. I wonder if you've thought of publishing editions of North's translations of Dial of Princes, Moral Philosophy of Doni and Nepos Lives? There's no readily available editions of these that I can find in print currently - a bit like every Oxfordian now has a Penguin edition of Golding's Ovid (believing it to be Oxford's juvenalia) it could be that as North becomes a mainstream authorship candidate people want an accessible version of his prose works? You've probably done enough scholarship to get a head start on that opportunity! Just a thought.
Keep the revelations coming! I look forward to your next post!
Yes! Thanks for the suggestion. I agree wholeheartedly--and should try to publish North's works soon. One problem is that they're quite large--and may be expensive to self-publish. Thank you for the Lord Byron example too. It's very apropos--as I do think it helps prove my case. Attached is the full story. Evidently, the original misattribution was a mistake. The tale came from the same famous Byron-overnighter that led to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein--and in which Byron told a Vampyre story that Polidori expanded upon (and several paragraphs in the work are Byrons). After the story "Vampyre: A Tale by Lord Byron" fell into a publisher's hands some ten years later and it was printed in "New Montly Magazine," both Polidori and Byron complained (which is why this never purposefully happens to living authors, both would complain.) Then the publisher removed the attribution--and included front matter and back matter, truthfully mentioning Byron but doing so in a way that would mislead readers into believing he wrote it. https://lithub.com/why-polidoris-the-vampyre-was-falsely-attributed-to-lord-byron/
Another example of attributing a work to a famous writer who had nothing to do with it is the original King Kong (1933). Popular mystery novelist Edgar Wallace was hired to write the script, but before he could even get started, he contracted pneumonia and died. Nevertheless, his name remained in the credits and was prominently displayed on the movie poster and the novelization ("conceived by Edgar Wallace!”). Even now, AI tools will report that Wallace contributed the plot structure and many other details to the movie, a tidbit of conventional wisdom that Kongophiles like me know to be flatly wrong.
From my time living in NYC and in frequenting plays “last” century, I remember the ubiquitous “Joseph Papp Presents…” file:///var/mobile/Library/SMS/Attachments/54/04/35AADF15-8E98-4A2B-AFD0-38644609B886/IMG_0982.jpg
"it is well-known that Shakespeare often employed poets-for-hire,"
Probably an important point to convince anti-Stratfordians who believe Shakespeare was more of a shrewd merchant than a grandiose writer. Do you exclude Shakespeare didn't write a single line himself, but merely paid and instructed others to adapt plays based on his requirements?
Hey SSA, I do exclude that. 1) First his contemporaries repeatedly insult Shakespeare's writing--noting he was a plagiarist beautified with the feathers of other writers--that he was adapting old plays and "marks not whose twas first," that he cobbles plays together from scraps of fuller plays, that he simplifies plays, that his lines lacked scholarship, that his writings are enjoyed by ignoramuses, etc.
2) His name is on the bad quartos and apocryphal plays. Why? Because that's what he wrote. And if we accept those title pages, then the 400 year-old war is over. For the last century, orthodox scholars have been absolutely hammering anti-Stratfordians on the issue of title pages. This is why they always lose the war. All they have to do is stress the title pages of the bad quartos and apocryphal plays and they are taking that hammer away from them and hitting them with it.
3) If the bad quartos and apocryphal plays confirm Shakespeare didn't write the masterpieces, why would an anti-Stratfordian try to deny their veracity --and even try to prop up the orthodox conspiracy theories used to save a belief in Shakespeare's literary reputation? Why would anyone do that in order to defend a much more extreme and impossible-to-prove point--that Shakespeare never even added a single line to the canon? Even if you think he's illiterate (and he wasn't), how could you possibly know that during rehearsals Shakespeare never added a joke or lines or changed wording that ended up in the plays? I just don't see the rationale behind taking such an extreme and impossible-to-defend position--especially since it can do nothing but lead to more decades of defeat by the orthodox who would otherwise be easily vanquished.
I understand you want the title pages to be 100% truthful, but this really isn't necessary, and these arguments aren't particularly convincing.
If Shakespeare bought source texts without disclosing it (which he did), he could easily have tasked poets-for-hire to adapt these texts for the stage without disclosing it, either (which you admit he did in some cases at least).
Other writers could then easily complain that he stole source material, and that "his" adaptations were poor. The "bad quartos" are only "bad" compared to the masterpieces, which the public didn't know anyway, but they apparently were quite popular and successful at the time. Most movie adaptations even today are "worse" than the original book, but that's no shame.
The fact is, we still have no direct evidence Shakespeare wrote anything himself, or was even capable of adapting such complex literary works. Anti-Stratfordians still have a point here.
There is only one play manuscript where scholars believe it might show Shakespeare's "hand", but even if true, it would expose him as a junior writer and part of a collective.
You write: "I understand you want the title pages to be 100% truthful."
Dennis responds: Well, I'm just confirming there is zero evidence that any printer and publisher knowingly misstated the claim "written by William Shakespeare"--and that no publisher/printer has ever purposefully misattributed a single work to a living author in all of English history--let alone more than a dozen different publishers/printers all doing it to the same author a dozen times.
Also, contemporaries repeatedly refer to Shakespeare adapting plays--and never to him being illiterate: Francis Beaumont writes to Ben Jonson that he is going to rid himself of all "scholarship/ And from all learning leave these lines as clear
As Shakespeare's best are." That's referring to Shakespeare's "lines."
Again, Jonson says Shakespeare has "small Latin and less Greek." THat's not "No Latin or Greek."
You also write "there's no direct evidence that Shakespeare wrote anything himself." We have more evidence that SHakespeare was involved in the writing of SHakespeare's plays than John Lyly, Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Lodge, Robert Greene, Thomas Dekker, etc., wrote theirs.
(And remember for every piece of evidence you may think suggests these authors wrote their plays, one can always respond in an anti-Stratfordian manner: That's not really that author. "Christopher Marlowe's name is on the title pages? Well, it's an allonym and that's not really Chris Marly, the shoemaker's son, from Canterbury. Someone wrote that Marlowe wrote "Dr. Faustus"? Again, that's not Canterbury," etc.)
"I'm just confirming there is zero evidence that any printer and publisher knowingly misstated the claim "written by William Shakespeare""
Well, we already know that many of these plays were not "written" by Shakespeare, both because the source texts were acquired from other authors and because at least in some cases, other authors did the adaptations (or helped doing it), and none of these people were ever mentioned on any title page. Plus, there is no reason to assume the printer/publisher *knew* who really wrote and adapted these plays.
"contemporaries repeatedly refer to Shakespeare adapting plays--and never to him being illiterate"
He obviously doesn't have to be illiterate, a modern producer who asks a director to adapt a script for a movie isn't illiterate, either. Plus, contemporaries may have referred to or criticized Shakespeare's adaptations, but that still doesn't mean he himself wrote these adaptations.
"We have more evidence that Shakespeare was involved in the writing of Shakespeare's plays than..."
We currently don't have any direct evidence. The fact that there is no evidence in other cases doesn't help Shakespeare, either.
So I personally remain undecided and open-minded as to Shakespeare's personal contribution to these adaptations. I wouldn't be surprised if he played mainly a managerial role, telling others what to do, and counting the money.
Nice, intelligent, and fact-based response (anti-Stratfordians/orthodox should hire you for all their arguments). A few quibbles:
SSA writes: "Well, we already know that many of these plays were not "written" by Shakespeare ... because at least in some cases, other authors did the adaptations (or helped doing it), and none of these people were ever mentioned on any title page."
Dennis responds: Well, that coauthors were often left off is standard and well-documented. I can list dozens of examples. That a publisher/printer falsely stated "written by X" when X wrote not a line has never occurred before then or since in the history of English publishing.
SSA writes: "Plus, there is no reason to assume the printer/publisher *knew* who really wrote and adapted these plays."
Dennis: Well, here we are converging on agreement. If that's the case, then we agree that scholars and anti-Stratfordians are making rash assumptions without evidence by contending that printers and publishers purposefully misattributed "Yorkshire Tragedy," "London Prodigal" to Shakespeare.
SSA writes: "The fact that there is no evidence in other cases doesn't help Shakespeare, either."
Dennis responds: Well, the fact that anti-Strats must also accept that, according to their definition, there is "no direct evidence" that Christopher Marlowe, John Lyly, Thomas Lodge, Robert Greene, or many other Elizabethan playwrights wrote their plays confirms their definition of "direct evidence"--which excludes title pages and contemporary comments--artificially creates an insurmountably high bar and is not especially relevant to matters of authorship-adjudication.
I don't know if this really applies to these other literary authors (i.e. no direct evidence they wrote what today is attributed to them), but if you consider other famous texts by people like Copernicus (written 50 years before Shakespeare), Kepler (about the same time), or Newton (80 years later), there is lots of direct evidence they personally wrote what is attributed to them, which is why there is no authorship debate in these cases.
So the fact that there is no direct evidence (manuscripts, drafts, letters etc) in some other cases really doesn't help Shakespeare. All sides have to be careful with assumptions (e.g. what printers and publishers really knew, beyond what they were told and given).
So the primary authorship question appears to have been mostly solved (based on direct evidence, including manuscripts), but the evidence concerning the secondary question of Shakespeare's true role and contribution remains more indirect and speculative. And this secondary uncertainty regarding Shakespeare might be part of the reason why folks continue ignoring/denying the much stronger primary case regarding North.
I suspect Dennis doesn't mention this scenario (of Shakespeare not having written a single line) because it would challenge his "no conspiracies, no deceptions" doctrine. He should probably watch a documentary called "The Boston Unbombing" to overcome this notion.
I have responded to this to SSA above. 1) First, it is clear his contemporaries repeatedly insult Shakespeare's writing--noting he was a plagiarist beautified with the feathers of other writers--that he was adapting old plays and "marks not whose twas first," that he cobbles plays together from scraps of fuller plays, that he simplifies plays, that his lines lacked scholarship, that his writings are enjoyed by ignoramuses, etc.
2) His name is on the bad quartos and apocryphal plays. Why? Because that's what he wrote. And if we accept those title pages, then the 400 year-old war is over. For the last century, orthodox scholars have been absolutely hammering anti-Stratfordians on the issue of title pages. This is why they always lose the war. All they have to do is stress the title pages of the bad quartos and apocryphal plays and they are taking that hammer away from them and hitting them with it. Orthodox scholars use a system of conspiracy theories to explain the bad quartos and apocryphal plays exclusively in order to save Shakespeare's reputation. Why on Earth would you try to help them do that?
Orthodox scholars aren't really hammering anti-Stratfordians with the title pages, as most anti-Stratfordians simply argue that the "Shake-Speare" of the title pages isn't the Stratford Shakspere. Also, orthodox scholars don't really require a grand conspiracy to explain the "bad quartos" and apocryphal plays, the believe these were simplified copies of actual Shakespeare plays, or possibly free riders using his name, like some Chinese shop selling "Gucci" stuff. Both of them are probably wrong, but this still doesn't prove Shakespeare wrote anything himself.
Hey SSA, I do understand you are just explaining what anti-Stratfordians believe, but I do have to put forth a gentle rebuttal. You write: "Orthodox scholars aren't really hammering anti-Stratfordians with the title pages"
Dennis responds: Absent signed mss., the *only* evidence that we have that Shakespeare (or anyone in history) wrote anything ever are title-pages/front matter and contemporaneous comments. That's all there can be. And many outsiders find the title pages extremely convincing:
Again, in Reedy and Kathman's "How we know that Shakespeare wrote SHakespeare: The Historical Facts"(https://shakespeareauthorship.com/howdowe.html), here's what they put at the top of their list as evidence: "The Name "William Shakespeare" appears on the plays and poems."
Again, in William Murphy's famous attack on anti-Stratfordianism (published on PBS)-https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shakespeare/reactions/murphyarticle.html at the top of his list of evidence is that of 15 plays published "during SHakespeare's lifetime, fourteen of these bear his name on the title pages." He notes, correctly, that this "is the same kind of evidence we use to determine what Geoffrey Chaucer wrote, or Dante, or George Washington."
Now, yes it is true that anti-Stratfordians can *imagine* that some nobleman used the name "William Shakespeare" as an allonym for decades (and faked the face in the FF, and doctored the monument at Statford, etc.) with no-one ever mentioning it. But the overwhelming majority of the world has not been convinced by such evidence-free speculations--causing anti-Stratfodians to lose this war for more than 100 years--despite the fact that title pages and insider comments really prove their point. All they have to do is reply once, "Actually the majority of plays attributed to William Shakespeare while he was alive are mediocre unShakespearean works and inferior adaptations--and if he wrote those, he couldn't have been the author of the masterpieces." But, nope, so attached are they to their hypothesis that Shakespeare was illiterate and really an allonym, they won't make this checkmate move.
"the *only* evidence that we have that Shakespeare (or anyone in history) wrote anything ever are title-pages/front matter and contemporaneous comments. That's all there can be. "
Well, in many cases there are drafts or manuscripts, often handwritten. Or letters by the author describing his current work or his next projects. Or unpublished works. We don't have anything like that with Shakespeare.
Yes, Stratfordians certainly insist on the title pages, my point simply was that most anti-Stratfordians don't consider this relevant. They also don't necessarily claim that Shake-Speare was an allonym (some do), they often argue it was a different person or a pseudonym or a stage name, and Stratford-Shakspere had nothing to do with it at all.
Also, two quick notes: If you exclude Shakespeare's hand in Sir Thomas More, I believe there are actually zero Shakespeare-era holograph drafts of plays (i.e., manuscripts of plays in the playwright's own hand.) Lyly, Greene, Marlowe, Lodge, Beaumont, Fletcher, Jonson, etc. have none. And there are zero personal letters from any playwright of the era describing themselves writing a play. In fact, there are essentially zero personal letters or manuscripts from most of the well-known playwrights of the era at all--let alone one theatrically related. There are no manuscripts in any form from Lyly, Lodge, Greene, Dekker, Watson, Beaumont, Fletcher, Kyd, Webster, Drayton, etc. So again, it's title pages, legal records, and comments from contemporaries. That's it. With every other author, we accept the straight forward declarations of title page records and contemporary comments. With Shakespeare, however, both orthodox scholars and anti-Stratfordians privilege what they can imagine. Also, I know of no well-known anti-Stratfordian who makes the impossible and easily falsified claim that William of Stratford was not involved in the theater. Stritmatter, Price, Barber, etc. all accept this easily checked fact. There are dozens of legal records that confirm his links to the theater. Even the application for his coat of arms (which has a spear in the crest, showing exactly what he thought about the second syllable of his family name) refers to Shakespeare "the player." His will includes bequests to Burbage, Heminges, and Condell, etc.
Yes! Exactly! You write: "Yes, Stratfordians certainly insist on the title pages, my point simply was that most anti-Stratfordians don't consider this relevant." Right! And yet the title pages confirm Shakespeare didn't write the masterpieces. Unbelievably, anti-Stratfordians ignore straight-forward documentation because they privilege what they can picture in their minds over what the documents state. And this is why they never win the war over authorship. And if only they would accept the title-pages, they would realize they immediately confirm Shakespeare didn't write the masterpieces. Thanks, SSA, I'm going to write a post on this
This is literary ultimate frisbee at its finest :) You have completely solved this mystery.
Explaining the FF is no trivial task, even if you already know North was the original author. Authorship timeline finally straightened out, bad quartos and apocrypha explained in one fell swoop, satirical references to North by literary insiders finally decrypted, and so much more.
It probably won't meet the conditions, but I will propose you for the Nobel Prize in Literature.
Not to take away from what Dennis has found, but Sabrina Feldman has published a very similar explanation for the bad quartos and apocryphal plays. In her account, Sackville is the true original author for plays that Shakespeare adapted. I think the two theories were arrived at independently.
Sabrina Feldman is a genius and a wonderful person to boot. I published this view about the bad quartos and apocryphal plays in 2011 (in “North of Shakespeare”). Sabrina had also come up with it independently, and I know she references me in one of her books (and I added a footnote about her in my FF post.) We coauthored a letter together at that time but couldn’t get it published. Where we differ, however, (beside on the original author) is that Sabrina still thinks there was some kind of ruse for the good quartos and FF—whereas I do not. Even more specifically, I claim Merchant of Venice, Much Ado, Titus, etc., are really Shakespeare’s adaptations too—just like the bad quartos. She contends these are authentic originals of her author—and their attribution to Shakespeare was the result of fraud. So orthodox scholars contend roughly half the plays attributed to Shakespeare prior to 1621 are correct and the rest are fraudulent; Sabrina says the other half are the ones that are correct and the rest are fraudulent; I say they are essentially all correct and there were no conspiracies. (I highly recommend Sabrina’s works—all of them.)
I think one thing we need to keep in mind here, something I keep forgetting though I know you yourself have mentioned it elsewhere, is that these plays were not then the classics we know them as now. They were just another bunch of plays. Clearly some people thought highly of them, and they were popular with theatre goers in whatever form they saw them in, but Shakespeare wasn't The Bard. He wasn't THE William Shakespeare, greatest writer in the English language (and all that stuff).
When I read about reactions of contemporaries, and about their references to North - and when I try to look for some you've not found yourself yet! - I always have in the back of my mind this assumption that North and Shakespeare's contemporaries *must* have been as obsessed with these plays and poems as we are now. That surely, everyone who knew anything about North as a playwright *must* have recognised the unique quality of the plays, and therefore *must* have felt the need to write about him and his plays in some way.
But this is clearly a silly assumption. North was in many ways a failure as a writer, and never realised his ambitions. He wasn't a particularly important person. I don't think he was even an unusually remarkable writer compared to many of his peers until he hit his 40s and 50s, by which time he was an even more marginally important person in Elizabethan culture and politics.
We (or at least, I) keep expecting everyone to be making explicit or at least very clear references to North as the writer of these plays because I'm coming to it from the positon that these texts are self-evidently important, and certainly better remembered now than anything else from that time. But that doesn't mean anyone else alive at that time would have agreed or expected this.
Slight side note to conclude this wall of text: beyond all the obvious reasons, I am looking forward to the day that this all sees mainstream acceptance because I think it will cause a massive reevaluation of these texts in relation to the rest of 16th century literature. I was told as an literature student to simply avoid Groatsworth of Wit, as it was just the embittered ranting of a jealous rival - upon actually reading it (thanks to your work), I actually found it witty, fun, eloquent and incredibly enjoyable.
Excellent points, BYP. Yes, exactly. Remember, not only did no one praise North for Othello, Macbeth, Antony and Cleopatra, etc., during North's lifetime, they didn't praise Shakespeare for those plays during Shakespeare's lifetime either. Only Francis Meres in 1598 (who listed the works of playwrights of the various theaters and praised all English writers) complimented Shakespeare for some plays (his recent staged adaptations). This is before most of those plays were printed, so Meres was referencing the adaptations. Other than Meres, what people praised Shakespeare for during his lifetime was almost exclusively Venus Freakin' Adonis and then Lucrece. That's it.
Dennis, I want to accept all you say, but have a niggling doubt, which I hope you can resolve.
These literary texts would have been bought in en masse, presumably, by the Lord Chamberlain's Men. This purchase would surely have been known to Heminges and Condell as co-sharers with W.S. How come then that they presented them as being by the latter in the First Folio. Were they being less than truthful? Or have I got that all wrong?!
Well, there's nothing to doubt here as it is indisputable the Roman plays are closely-followed, excessively-plagiarized adaptations of North's Plutarchan chapters--and it is denied by no one that Shakespeare didn't originate Romeo and Juliet, Merchant of Venice, Hamlet, Henry V, etc., but merely adapted them. Why don't Heminges and Condell mention this?
And remember, even in my view, the FF does include many of Shakespeare's adaptations--that Shakespeare had a hand in most of the plays in the FF. So everyone must agree that Heminges and Condell did write a sales pitch to a Shakespeare collection that included many works and passages not original to Shakespeare. This is not a point in dispute.
Moreover, if you check out the preface, it is clear their prime motivation was sales--and they were trying to sell to prospective buyers eager to purchase Shakespeare's plays. Here's their opening lines:
"FROM the most able, to him that can but spell: There you are number’d. We had rather you were weighd. Especially, when the fate of all Bookes depends vpon your capacities: and not of your heads alone, but of YOUR PURSES. Well! it is now publique, & you wil stand for your priuiledges wee know: to read, and censure. Do so, BUT BUY IT FIRST. That doth best commend a Booke, the Stationer saies. Then, how odde soeuer your braines be, or your wisedomes, make your licence the same, and SPARE NOT. Iudge your sixe-pen’orth, your shillings worth, your fiue shillings worth at a time, or higher, so you rise to the iust rates, and welcome. But, what euer you do, BUY." (Emphasis added.)
That's a sales pitch--not a history lesson on the origins of SHakespeare's plays. Heminges and Condell were part of that publishing syndicate--and their goal was profit.
Finally, when they do mention the "AUTHOR"--once--they refer to him NOT as "Shakespeare," but only as the "AUTHOR." And their one "compliment" is "that his mind and hand went together, and what he thought he uttered with that easiness that wee haue scarse receiued from him a blot in his papers. But it is not our prouince, who onely gather his works, and giue them you, to praise him."
So his papers had no blots (why did they have no blots? Is it because--as Jonson and others were saying--he was buying already completed plays?)--and now you can't blame them for anything as all they did was "gather his works and give them you."
Dennis, one related pillar of your theory (alongside the role of the good/bad quartos, apocryphal plays, and First Folio) that runs counter to the orthodox conventional wisdom is the provenance of known/supposed source texts. In particular, most scholars believe that Greene's Pandosto was the source for Winter's Tale and that Lodge's Rosalynde, Euphues Golden Legacie was the source for As You Like It. You invert the order and hypothesize that Shakespeare's (North's) plays came first.
And related to this are the myriad of details that scholars use to date and sequence the plays. This involves topical references as well as Shakespeare's evolving linguistic style and evolving theater conventions, etc.
I know you have good arguments for much of the above and have discussed these topics at various times. But these tenets of the orthodoxy are deeply entrenched. If Stratfordians and Oxfraudians are confident of their position they shouldn't be afraid of debating the substance of these questions. It's unfortunate that personality issues have gotten in the way. But maybe a post that ties these textual dating/provenance issues together would be useful.
Well-known alternative history/science fiction writer Harry Turtledove published his first two novels in 1979 under the pseudonym "Eric G. Iverson". Another pseudonym was "Mark Gordian". In 1998, he published under the pseudonym "H. N. Turteltaub" as well as three books as "Dan Chernenko". Writers do this all of the time. Not sure why it's hard for people to understand this as it relates to Shakespeare?
Because William Shakespeare was a real human being involved in the theater--not an invented name. What you need to find is an example of an actual "allonym" --not a pseudonym. What is even more devastating to the "pseudonym" argument is that, while he was alive, the name William Shakespeare was placed on the bad quartos and apocryphal plays--NOT the masterpieces. So you have to assume that some nobleman (Oxford?) created the allonym William Shakespeare to place on his masterpieces, then forgot to publish his masterpieces, and dozens of others used "William Shakespeare" instead for mediocre plays and shoddy adaptations.
Okay. That's essentially a pseudonym. For the Shakespeare analogy to work, you need an allonym of a person who was then alive. (There are examples, I believe, during the Spanish Inquisition--and during the McCarthy blacklist [Trumbo may have used them], but that's about all.) I can't find one in England.
There was no pseudonym. Shakespeare was William Shakespeare of Stratford. And all conventional scholars today argue that the reason Shakespeare's name was on the apocryphal plays is because publishers knew his name was widely recognized and sold plays.
That’s true, but for Turtledove, he changed his name so that it better suited the genre (at least he believed this would help his credibility/acceptance in the subject matter).
More simply still: I am stating that publishers of the era used the fact that Shakespeare's name on a work helped increase sales. This is a fact denied by no one.
1) I never claimed nor implied that Shakespeare's name was "suiting a genre."
2) Again, no one denies publishers used Shakespeare's name as a big name, selling point. In fact, essentially all conventional scholars contend publishers falsely put his name on plays he didn't write in order to sell plays.
3) Spielberg's name was not placed on Gremlins due to its genre--but because Spielberg was a beloved, big-name director.
4) Although this is entirely irrelevant to the point, the word "genre" did not become part of the English language until the 18th century. But of course the notion of literary categories (now called genres) existed in North and Shakespeare's time. His plays after all were divided into tragedies, histories, and comedies.
I was just replying to the comment about Harry Turtledove’s pseudonyms. I’m not sure exactly how that was supposed to relate to Shakespeare, but I was arguing that it doesn’t.
Hi Dennis
Great work.
If I can offer up one minor consideration on the claim that no publisher is known to have deceitfully published the work of a living author under another author's name. I believe that Polidori's short tale The Vampyre was originally (and very profitably) mistarributed to Lord Byron when it was first published?
If so, it doesn't alter your general case, but I'd thought I'd flag.
Thanks for all your doing. I've read (and enjoyed) both your book and Michael Blandings too. I wonder if you've thought of publishing editions of North's translations of Dial of Princes, Moral Philosophy of Doni and Nepos Lives? There's no readily available editions of these that I can find in print currently - a bit like every Oxfordian now has a Penguin edition of Golding's Ovid (believing it to be Oxford's juvenalia) it could be that as North becomes a mainstream authorship candidate people want an accessible version of his prose works? You've probably done enough scholarship to get a head start on that opportunity! Just a thought.
Keep the revelations coming! I look forward to your next post!
John
Yes! Thanks for the suggestion. I agree wholeheartedly--and should try to publish North's works soon. One problem is that they're quite large--and may be expensive to self-publish. Thank you for the Lord Byron example too. It's very apropos--as I do think it helps prove my case. Attached is the full story. Evidently, the original misattribution was a mistake. The tale came from the same famous Byron-overnighter that led to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein--and in which Byron told a Vampyre story that Polidori expanded upon (and several paragraphs in the work are Byrons). After the story "Vampyre: A Tale by Lord Byron" fell into a publisher's hands some ten years later and it was printed in "New Montly Magazine," both Polidori and Byron complained (which is why this never purposefully happens to living authors, both would complain.) Then the publisher removed the attribution--and included front matter and back matter, truthfully mentioning Byron but doing so in a way that would mislead readers into believing he wrote it. https://lithub.com/why-polidoris-the-vampyre-was-falsely-attributed-to-lord-byron/
Another example of attributing a work to a famous writer who had nothing to do with it is the original King Kong (1933). Popular mystery novelist Edgar Wallace was hired to write the script, but before he could even get started, he contracted pneumonia and died. Nevertheless, his name remained in the credits and was prominently displayed on the movie poster and the novelization ("conceived by Edgar Wallace!”). Even now, AI tools will report that Wallace contributed the plot structure and many other details to the movie, a tidbit of conventional wisdom that Kongophiles like me know to be flatly wrong.
From my time living in NYC and in frequenting plays “last” century, I remember the ubiquitous “Joseph Papp Presents…”
From my time living in NYC and in frequenting plays “last” century, I remember the ubiquitous “Joseph Papp Presents…” file:///var/mobile/Library/SMS/Attachments/54/04/35AADF15-8E98-4A2B-AFD0-38644609B886/IMG_0982.jpg
"it is well-known that Shakespeare often employed poets-for-hire,"
Probably an important point to convince anti-Stratfordians who believe Shakespeare was more of a shrewd merchant than a grandiose writer. Do you exclude Shakespeare didn't write a single line himself, but merely paid and instructed others to adapt plays based on his requirements?
Hey SSA, I do exclude that. 1) First his contemporaries repeatedly insult Shakespeare's writing--noting he was a plagiarist beautified with the feathers of other writers--that he was adapting old plays and "marks not whose twas first," that he cobbles plays together from scraps of fuller plays, that he simplifies plays, that his lines lacked scholarship, that his writings are enjoyed by ignoramuses, etc.
2) His name is on the bad quartos and apocryphal plays. Why? Because that's what he wrote. And if we accept those title pages, then the 400 year-old war is over. For the last century, orthodox scholars have been absolutely hammering anti-Stratfordians on the issue of title pages. This is why they always lose the war. All they have to do is stress the title pages of the bad quartos and apocryphal plays and they are taking that hammer away from them and hitting them with it.
3) If the bad quartos and apocryphal plays confirm Shakespeare didn't write the masterpieces, why would an anti-Stratfordian try to deny their veracity --and even try to prop up the orthodox conspiracy theories used to save a belief in Shakespeare's literary reputation? Why would anyone do that in order to defend a much more extreme and impossible-to-prove point--that Shakespeare never even added a single line to the canon? Even if you think he's illiterate (and he wasn't), how could you possibly know that during rehearsals Shakespeare never added a joke or lines or changed wording that ended up in the plays? I just don't see the rationale behind taking such an extreme and impossible-to-defend position--especially since it can do nothing but lead to more decades of defeat by the orthodox who would otherwise be easily vanquished.
I understand you want the title pages to be 100% truthful, but this really isn't necessary, and these arguments aren't particularly convincing.
If Shakespeare bought source texts without disclosing it (which he did), he could easily have tasked poets-for-hire to adapt these texts for the stage without disclosing it, either (which you admit he did in some cases at least).
Other writers could then easily complain that he stole source material, and that "his" adaptations were poor. The "bad quartos" are only "bad" compared to the masterpieces, which the public didn't know anyway, but they apparently were quite popular and successful at the time. Most movie adaptations even today are "worse" than the original book, but that's no shame.
The fact is, we still have no direct evidence Shakespeare wrote anything himself, or was even capable of adapting such complex literary works. Anti-Stratfordians still have a point here.
There is only one play manuscript where scholars believe it might show Shakespeare's "hand", but even if true, it would expose him as a junior writer and part of a collective.
You write: "I understand you want the title pages to be 100% truthful."
Dennis responds: Well, I'm just confirming there is zero evidence that any printer and publisher knowingly misstated the claim "written by William Shakespeare"--and that no publisher/printer has ever purposefully misattributed a single work to a living author in all of English history--let alone more than a dozen different publishers/printers all doing it to the same author a dozen times.
Also, contemporaries repeatedly refer to Shakespeare adapting plays--and never to him being illiterate: Francis Beaumont writes to Ben Jonson that he is going to rid himself of all "scholarship/ And from all learning leave these lines as clear
As Shakespeare's best are." That's referring to Shakespeare's "lines."
Again, Jonson says Shakespeare has "small Latin and less Greek." THat's not "No Latin or Greek."
You also write "there's no direct evidence that Shakespeare wrote anything himself." We have more evidence that SHakespeare was involved in the writing of SHakespeare's plays than John Lyly, Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Lodge, Robert Greene, Thomas Dekker, etc., wrote theirs.
(And remember for every piece of evidence you may think suggests these authors wrote their plays, one can always respond in an anti-Stratfordian manner: That's not really that author. "Christopher Marlowe's name is on the title pages? Well, it's an allonym and that's not really Chris Marly, the shoemaker's son, from Canterbury. Someone wrote that Marlowe wrote "Dr. Faustus"? Again, that's not Canterbury," etc.)
"I'm just confirming there is zero evidence that any printer and publisher knowingly misstated the claim "written by William Shakespeare""
Well, we already know that many of these plays were not "written" by Shakespeare, both because the source texts were acquired from other authors and because at least in some cases, other authors did the adaptations (or helped doing it), and none of these people were ever mentioned on any title page. Plus, there is no reason to assume the printer/publisher *knew* who really wrote and adapted these plays.
"contemporaries repeatedly refer to Shakespeare adapting plays--and never to him being illiterate"
He obviously doesn't have to be illiterate, a modern producer who asks a director to adapt a script for a movie isn't illiterate, either. Plus, contemporaries may have referred to or criticized Shakespeare's adaptations, but that still doesn't mean he himself wrote these adaptations.
"We have more evidence that Shakespeare was involved in the writing of Shakespeare's plays than..."
We currently don't have any direct evidence. The fact that there is no evidence in other cases doesn't help Shakespeare, either.
So I personally remain undecided and open-minded as to Shakespeare's personal contribution to these adaptations. I wouldn't be surprised if he played mainly a managerial role, telling others what to do, and counting the money.
Nice, intelligent, and fact-based response (anti-Stratfordians/orthodox should hire you for all their arguments). A few quibbles:
SSA writes: "Well, we already know that many of these plays were not "written" by Shakespeare ... because at least in some cases, other authors did the adaptations (or helped doing it), and none of these people were ever mentioned on any title page."
Dennis responds: Well, that coauthors were often left off is standard and well-documented. I can list dozens of examples. That a publisher/printer falsely stated "written by X" when X wrote not a line has never occurred before then or since in the history of English publishing.
SSA writes: "Plus, there is no reason to assume the printer/publisher *knew* who really wrote and adapted these plays."
Dennis: Well, here we are converging on agreement. If that's the case, then we agree that scholars and anti-Stratfordians are making rash assumptions without evidence by contending that printers and publishers purposefully misattributed "Yorkshire Tragedy," "London Prodigal" to Shakespeare.
SSA writes: "The fact that there is no evidence in other cases doesn't help Shakespeare, either."
Dennis responds: Well, the fact that anti-Strats must also accept that, according to their definition, there is "no direct evidence" that Christopher Marlowe, John Lyly, Thomas Lodge, Robert Greene, or many other Elizabethan playwrights wrote their plays confirms their definition of "direct evidence"--which excludes title pages and contemporary comments--artificially creates an insurmountably high bar and is not especially relevant to matters of authorship-adjudication.
"artificially creates an insurmountably high bar"
I don't know if this really applies to these other literary authors (i.e. no direct evidence they wrote what today is attributed to them), but if you consider other famous texts by people like Copernicus (written 50 years before Shakespeare), Kepler (about the same time), or Newton (80 years later), there is lots of direct evidence they personally wrote what is attributed to them, which is why there is no authorship debate in these cases.
So the fact that there is no direct evidence (manuscripts, drafts, letters etc) in some other cases really doesn't help Shakespeare. All sides have to be careful with assumptions (e.g. what printers and publishers really knew, beyond what they were told and given).
So the primary authorship question appears to have been mostly solved (based on direct evidence, including manuscripts), but the evidence concerning the secondary question of Shakespeare's true role and contribution remains more indirect and speculative. And this secondary uncertainty regarding Shakespeare might be part of the reason why folks continue ignoring/denying the much stronger primary case regarding North.
I suspect Dennis doesn't mention this scenario (of Shakespeare not having written a single line) because it would challenge his "no conspiracies, no deceptions" doctrine. He should probably watch a documentary called "The Boston Unbombing" to overcome this notion.
I have responded to this to SSA above. 1) First, it is clear his contemporaries repeatedly insult Shakespeare's writing--noting he was a plagiarist beautified with the feathers of other writers--that he was adapting old plays and "marks not whose twas first," that he cobbles plays together from scraps of fuller plays, that he simplifies plays, that his lines lacked scholarship, that his writings are enjoyed by ignoramuses, etc.
2) His name is on the bad quartos and apocryphal plays. Why? Because that's what he wrote. And if we accept those title pages, then the 400 year-old war is over. For the last century, orthodox scholars have been absolutely hammering anti-Stratfordians on the issue of title pages. This is why they always lose the war. All they have to do is stress the title pages of the bad quartos and apocryphal plays and they are taking that hammer away from them and hitting them with it. Orthodox scholars use a system of conspiracy theories to explain the bad quartos and apocryphal plays exclusively in order to save Shakespeare's reputation. Why on Earth would you try to help them do that?
Orthodox scholars aren't really hammering anti-Stratfordians with the title pages, as most anti-Stratfordians simply argue that the "Shake-Speare" of the title pages isn't the Stratford Shakspere. Also, orthodox scholars don't really require a grand conspiracy to explain the "bad quartos" and apocryphal plays, the believe these were simplified copies of actual Shakespeare plays, or possibly free riders using his name, like some Chinese shop selling "Gucci" stuff. Both of them are probably wrong, but this still doesn't prove Shakespeare wrote anything himself.
Hey SSA, I do understand you are just explaining what anti-Stratfordians believe, but I do have to put forth a gentle rebuttal. You write: "Orthodox scholars aren't really hammering anti-Stratfordians with the title pages"
Dennis responds: Absent signed mss., the *only* evidence that we have that Shakespeare (or anyone in history) wrote anything ever are title-pages/front matter and contemporaneous comments. That's all there can be. And many outsiders find the title pages extremely convincing:
The very first fact in Oxfraud's Proof of Shakespeare's authorship is "Title Pages." (https://oxfraud.com/sites/PrimaFacie.html)
Again, in Reedy and Kathman's "How we know that Shakespeare wrote SHakespeare: The Historical Facts"(https://shakespeareauthorship.com/howdowe.html), here's what they put at the top of their list as evidence: "The Name "William Shakespeare" appears on the plays and poems."
Again, in a Forbes article attacking the film anonymous: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/10/19/yes-shakespeare-really-did-write-shakespeare/ Alex Knapp's very first argument is: "Shakespeare's name is on the plays and poems attributed to him."
Again, in William Murphy's famous attack on anti-Stratfordianism (published on PBS)-https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shakespeare/reactions/murphyarticle.html at the top of his list of evidence is that of 15 plays published "during SHakespeare's lifetime, fourteen of these bear his name on the title pages." He notes, correctly, that this "is the same kind of evidence we use to determine what Geoffrey Chaucer wrote, or Dante, or George Washington."
Now, yes it is true that anti-Stratfordians can *imagine* that some nobleman used the name "William Shakespeare" as an allonym for decades (and faked the face in the FF, and doctored the monument at Statford, etc.) with no-one ever mentioning it. But the overwhelming majority of the world has not been convinced by such evidence-free speculations--causing anti-Stratfodians to lose this war for more than 100 years--despite the fact that title pages and insider comments really prove their point. All they have to do is reply once, "Actually the majority of plays attributed to William Shakespeare while he was alive are mediocre unShakespearean works and inferior adaptations--and if he wrote those, he couldn't have been the author of the masterpieces." But, nope, so attached are they to their hypothesis that Shakespeare was illiterate and really an allonym, they won't make this checkmate move.
"the *only* evidence that we have that Shakespeare (or anyone in history) wrote anything ever are title-pages/front matter and contemporaneous comments. That's all there can be. "
Well, in many cases there are drafts or manuscripts, often handwritten. Or letters by the author describing his current work or his next projects. Or unpublished works. We don't have anything like that with Shakespeare.
Yes, Stratfordians certainly insist on the title pages, my point simply was that most anti-Stratfordians don't consider this relevant. They also don't necessarily claim that Shake-Speare was an allonym (some do), they often argue it was a different person or a pseudonym or a stage name, and Stratford-Shakspere had nothing to do with it at all.
Also, two quick notes: If you exclude Shakespeare's hand in Sir Thomas More, I believe there are actually zero Shakespeare-era holograph drafts of plays (i.e., manuscripts of plays in the playwright's own hand.) Lyly, Greene, Marlowe, Lodge, Beaumont, Fletcher, Jonson, etc. have none. And there are zero personal letters from any playwright of the era describing themselves writing a play. In fact, there are essentially zero personal letters or manuscripts from most of the well-known playwrights of the era at all--let alone one theatrically related. There are no manuscripts in any form from Lyly, Lodge, Greene, Dekker, Watson, Beaumont, Fletcher, Kyd, Webster, Drayton, etc. So again, it's title pages, legal records, and comments from contemporaries. That's it. With every other author, we accept the straight forward declarations of title page records and contemporary comments. With Shakespeare, however, both orthodox scholars and anti-Stratfordians privilege what they can imagine. Also, I know of no well-known anti-Stratfordian who makes the impossible and easily falsified claim that William of Stratford was not involved in the theater. Stritmatter, Price, Barber, etc. all accept this easily checked fact. There are dozens of legal records that confirm his links to the theater. Even the application for his coat of arms (which has a spear in the crest, showing exactly what he thought about the second syllable of his family name) refers to Shakespeare "the player." His will includes bequests to Burbage, Heminges, and Condell, etc.
Yes! Exactly! You write: "Yes, Stratfordians certainly insist on the title pages, my point simply was that most anti-Stratfordians don't consider this relevant." Right! And yet the title pages confirm Shakespeare didn't write the masterpieces. Unbelievably, anti-Stratfordians ignore straight-forward documentation because they privilege what they can picture in their minds over what the documents state. And this is why they never win the war over authorship. And if only they would accept the title-pages, they would realize they immediately confirm Shakespeare didn't write the masterpieces. Thanks, SSA, I'm going to write a post on this
This is literary ultimate frisbee at its finest :) You have completely solved this mystery.
Explaining the FF is no trivial task, even if you already know North was the original author. Authorship timeline finally straightened out, bad quartos and apocrypha explained in one fell swoop, satirical references to North by literary insiders finally decrypted, and so much more.
It probably won't meet the conditions, but I will propose you for the Nobel Prize in Literature.
Not to take away from what Dennis has found, but Sabrina Feldman has published a very similar explanation for the bad quartos and apocryphal plays. In her account, Sackville is the true original author for plays that Shakespeare adapted. I think the two theories were arrived at independently.
Sabrina Feldman is a genius and a wonderful person to boot. I published this view about the bad quartos and apocryphal plays in 2011 (in “North of Shakespeare”). Sabrina had also come up with it independently, and I know she references me in one of her books (and I added a footnote about her in my FF post.) We coauthored a letter together at that time but couldn’t get it published. Where we differ, however, (beside on the original author) is that Sabrina still thinks there was some kind of ruse for the good quartos and FF—whereas I do not. Even more specifically, I claim Merchant of Venice, Much Ado, Titus, etc., are really Shakespeare’s adaptations too—just like the bad quartos. She contends these are authentic originals of her author—and their attribution to Shakespeare was the result of fraud. So orthodox scholars contend roughly half the plays attributed to Shakespeare prior to 1621 are correct and the rest are fraudulent; Sabrina says the other half are the ones that are correct and the rest are fraudulent; I say they are essentially all correct and there were no conspiracies. (I highly recommend Sabrina’s works—all of them.)
You make it all look so easy!
I think one thing we need to keep in mind here, something I keep forgetting though I know you yourself have mentioned it elsewhere, is that these plays were not then the classics we know them as now. They were just another bunch of plays. Clearly some people thought highly of them, and they were popular with theatre goers in whatever form they saw them in, but Shakespeare wasn't The Bard. He wasn't THE William Shakespeare, greatest writer in the English language (and all that stuff).
When I read about reactions of contemporaries, and about their references to North - and when I try to look for some you've not found yourself yet! - I always have in the back of my mind this assumption that North and Shakespeare's contemporaries *must* have been as obsessed with these plays and poems as we are now. That surely, everyone who knew anything about North as a playwright *must* have recognised the unique quality of the plays, and therefore *must* have felt the need to write about him and his plays in some way.
But this is clearly a silly assumption. North was in many ways a failure as a writer, and never realised his ambitions. He wasn't a particularly important person. I don't think he was even an unusually remarkable writer compared to many of his peers until he hit his 40s and 50s, by which time he was an even more marginally important person in Elizabethan culture and politics.
We (or at least, I) keep expecting everyone to be making explicit or at least very clear references to North as the writer of these plays because I'm coming to it from the positon that these texts are self-evidently important, and certainly better remembered now than anything else from that time. But that doesn't mean anyone else alive at that time would have agreed or expected this.
Slight side note to conclude this wall of text: beyond all the obvious reasons, I am looking forward to the day that this all sees mainstream acceptance because I think it will cause a massive reevaluation of these texts in relation to the rest of 16th century literature. I was told as an literature student to simply avoid Groatsworth of Wit, as it was just the embittered ranting of a jealous rival - upon actually reading it (thanks to your work), I actually found it witty, fun, eloquent and incredibly enjoyable.
Excellent points, BYP. Yes, exactly. Remember, not only did no one praise North for Othello, Macbeth, Antony and Cleopatra, etc., during North's lifetime, they didn't praise Shakespeare for those plays during Shakespeare's lifetime either. Only Francis Meres in 1598 (who listed the works of playwrights of the various theaters and praised all English writers) complimented Shakespeare for some plays (his recent staged adaptations). This is before most of those plays were printed, so Meres was referencing the adaptations. Other than Meres, what people praised Shakespeare for during his lifetime was almost exclusively Venus Freakin' Adonis and then Lucrece. That's it.
There's also the reference Meres made to Shakespeare's sonnets.
Any timeframe for when you'll reveal your explanation for the poems in Shakespeare's name?
Next big reveals will be the poems. Spread the word! (especially to those interested in authorship.)
"simply avoid Groatsworth of Wit, as it was just the embittered ranting of a jealous rival"
love it. also, avoid Galileo, another embittered disbeliever :)
"because I'm coming to it from the position that these texts are self-evidently important"
very true and relevant observation. also, the fact that this was an era without newspapers, as emphasized by Dennis, is probably quite crucial.
Dennis, I want to accept all you say, but have a niggling doubt, which I hope you can resolve.
These literary texts would have been bought in en masse, presumably, by the Lord Chamberlain's Men. This purchase would surely have been known to Heminges and Condell as co-sharers with W.S. How come then that they presented them as being by the latter in the First Folio. Were they being less than truthful? Or have I got that all wrong?!
Well, there's nothing to doubt here as it is indisputable the Roman plays are closely-followed, excessively-plagiarized adaptations of North's Plutarchan chapters--and it is denied by no one that Shakespeare didn't originate Romeo and Juliet, Merchant of Venice, Hamlet, Henry V, etc., but merely adapted them. Why don't Heminges and Condell mention this?
And remember, even in my view, the FF does include many of Shakespeare's adaptations--that Shakespeare had a hand in most of the plays in the FF. So everyone must agree that Heminges and Condell did write a sales pitch to a Shakespeare collection that included many works and passages not original to Shakespeare. This is not a point in dispute.
Moreover, if you check out the preface, it is clear their prime motivation was sales--and they were trying to sell to prospective buyers eager to purchase Shakespeare's plays. Here's their opening lines:
"FROM the most able, to him that can but spell: There you are number’d. We had rather you were weighd. Especially, when the fate of all Bookes depends vpon your capacities: and not of your heads alone, but of YOUR PURSES. Well! it is now publique, & you wil stand for your priuiledges wee know: to read, and censure. Do so, BUT BUY IT FIRST. That doth best commend a Booke, the Stationer saies. Then, how odde soeuer your braines be, or your wisedomes, make your licence the same, and SPARE NOT. Iudge your sixe-pen’orth, your shillings worth, your fiue shillings worth at a time, or higher, so you rise to the iust rates, and welcome. But, what euer you do, BUY." (Emphasis added.)
That's a sales pitch--not a history lesson on the origins of SHakespeare's plays. Heminges and Condell were part of that publishing syndicate--and their goal was profit.
Finally, when they do mention the "AUTHOR"--once--they refer to him NOT as "Shakespeare," but only as the "AUTHOR." And their one "compliment" is "that his mind and hand went together, and what he thought he uttered with that easiness that wee haue scarse receiued from him a blot in his papers. But it is not our prouince, who onely gather his works, and giue them you, to praise him."
So his papers had no blots (why did they have no blots? Is it because--as Jonson and others were saying--he was buying already completed plays?)--and now you can't blame them for anything as all they did was "gather his works and give them you."
Dennis, one related pillar of your theory (alongside the role of the good/bad quartos, apocryphal plays, and First Folio) that runs counter to the orthodox conventional wisdom is the provenance of known/supposed source texts. In particular, most scholars believe that Greene's Pandosto was the source for Winter's Tale and that Lodge's Rosalynde, Euphues Golden Legacie was the source for As You Like It. You invert the order and hypothesize that Shakespeare's (North's) plays came first.
And related to this are the myriad of details that scholars use to date and sequence the plays. This involves topical references as well as Shakespeare's evolving linguistic style and evolving theater conventions, etc.
I know you have good arguments for much of the above and have discussed these topics at various times. But these tenets of the orthodoxy are deeply entrenched. If Stratfordians and Oxfraudians are confident of their position they shouldn't be afraid of debating the substance of these questions. It's unfortunate that personality issues have gotten in the way. But maybe a post that ties these textual dating/provenance issues together would be useful.
Well-known alternative history/science fiction writer Harry Turtledove published his first two novels in 1979 under the pseudonym "Eric G. Iverson". Another pseudonym was "Mark Gordian". In 1998, he published under the pseudonym "H. N. Turteltaub" as well as three books as "Dan Chernenko". Writers do this all of the time. Not sure why it's hard for people to understand this as it relates to Shakespeare?
Because William Shakespeare was a real human being involved in the theater--not an invented name. What you need to find is an example of an actual "allonym" --not a pseudonym. What is even more devastating to the "pseudonym" argument is that, while he was alive, the name William Shakespeare was placed on the bad quartos and apocryphal plays--NOT the masterpieces. So you have to assume that some nobleman (Oxford?) created the allonym William Shakespeare to place on his masterpieces, then forgot to publish his masterpieces, and dozens of others used "William Shakespeare" instead for mediocre plays and shoddy adaptations.
Hmmm, interesting point. The only examples that come to mind are Freemasons of the 18th and 19th century, who did this all of the time.
What allonyms did the Freemasons use?
Typically, they’d use classical Greek or Roman authors, philosophers, historians. Similar I suppose to some of the Founding Fathers
Okay. That's essentially a pseudonym. For the Shakespeare analogy to work, you need an allonym of a person who was then alive. (There are examples, I believe, during the Spanish Inquisition--and during the McCarthy blacklist [Trumbo may have used them], but that's about all.) I can't find one in England.
Yes- not arguing with you. I’m entirely sold on your thesis.
The usual reasons for pseudonymity now are related to mass market pressures never dreamt of in North’s time.
There was no pseudonym. Shakespeare was William Shakespeare of Stratford. And all conventional scholars today argue that the reason Shakespeare's name was on the apocryphal plays is because publishers knew his name was widely recognized and sold plays.
That’s true, but for Turtledove, he changed his name so that it better suited the genre (at least he believed this would help his credibility/acceptance in the subject matter).
The very notion of a name suiting a genre depends on a mass market (not to mention a notion of genre) that didn’t exist in North’s time.
More simply still: I am stating that publishers of the era used the fact that Shakespeare's name on a work helped increase sales. This is a fact denied by no one.
1) I never claimed nor implied that Shakespeare's name was "suiting a genre."
2) Again, no one denies publishers used Shakespeare's name as a big name, selling point. In fact, essentially all conventional scholars contend publishers falsely put his name on plays he didn't write in order to sell plays.
3) Spielberg's name was not placed on Gremlins due to its genre--but because Spielberg was a beloved, big-name director.
4) Although this is entirely irrelevant to the point, the word "genre" did not become part of the English language until the 18th century. But of course the notion of literary categories (now called genres) existed in North and Shakespeare's time. His plays after all were divided into tragedies, histories, and comedies.
I was just replying to the comment about Harry Turtledove’s pseudonyms. I’m not sure exactly how that was supposed to relate to Shakespeare, but I was arguing that it doesn’t.
M.C Demarco, I now understand your replies. Sorry