Critical Survey

When Henry VIII, or All Is True was staged at Shakespeare's Globe in London in May 2022, the production elicited a lukewarm review from Arifa Akbar in the Guardian. The theatre critic stated that

Akbar's comment is revealing, and particularly so in the context of this issue's engagement with the varieties of early modern dramatic collaboration. It not only mentions several collaborative practices used in early modern theatre which are explored in the articles brought together for this special issue – co-authorship, adaptation and quotation, to name but three – but also reflects a profound unease towards collaboration in twenty-first-century culture. Henry VIII, Akbar infers, is an imbalanced play because Shakespeare wrote it with somebody else rather than by himself. Akbar also implies that the relationship between these two authors has to be hierarchical, with Shakespeare (aka the inevitably capitalised, solitary ‘Bard’) as the better and Fletcher as the lesser playwright, who is responsible for the play's alleged shortcomings. A similarly dismissive attitude towards Fletcher is reflected in the review's title, which refers to Henry VIII as ‘little-seen Shakespeare’ as a form of skewed advertisement (this is Shakespeare, but not as we know him),² thus erasing Fletcher's co-authorship completely, only to eventually present his name by way of explaining the play's mediocrity. The review also suggests that the play's merit has been further reduced by Hannah Khalil's contemporary adaptation, which adds too much ‘wokeness’ (the accentuation of women's roles) as well as too much middle-class Shakespeare (the well-known lines recognisable for those who know their Shakespeare inside out). In short, the review relies on a hierarchy well established in (traditional) literary criticism: Shakespeare is the epitome of playwrighting, and his solo-authored plays are the gold standard of early modern English drama; his co-authored plays are diminished by the lesser dramatic ability of his collaborators (where Shakespeare is sprezzatura, Fletcher is learned rhetoric); adapters have even more limited authorial skills and, therefore, an adapted play is a ‘lesser’ play because of the adapter's ‘interference’. As Akbar's review showcases, the notion of dramatic co-authorship, especially Shakespeare's, is still routinely met with scepticism and disdain in public discourse. Rather than enriching a play, three cooks (Shakespeare, Fletcher, Khalil) have spoiled the broth.

In this article we scrutinise the anti-theatrical bias implicit in attempts to distinguish between Shakespeare and his collaborators; we attempt a taxonomy of the many different forms that collaborative practice took in the early modern theatre; and we examine the extent to which scholarly attitudes to early modern dramatic collaboration, particularly the tendency to see it as a vertical hierarchy rather than horizontal partnership, are shaped by modern ambivalence to academic collaboration in the humanities.

Early modern dramatic co-authorship is traditionally thought of as a temporally and geographically synchronous process, yet recent advances in authorship attribution have increasingly considered later adapters who reshaped older plays for revival at much later dates. Their additions are often considered detachable from the original text, and scholarship has therefore largely focused on simply investigating the authorship of such alterations. Many plays, however, survive in adapted versions for which the identity of the adapters remains elusive. Analysing these adapters independently of identifiable authorship, this article argues that such adapters actively collaborated with a work's absent originator, supplying additions which pay attention to the play-text as a whole, thereby appropriating an old work for the requirements of a theatre company at much later moments in time.

This article demonstrates how dramatic censorship in London's public theatres necessitated a kind of collaborative playwriting with extra-authorial labourers. In the playbook manuscript of Sir John van Olden Barnauelt, the Master of the Revels, Sir George Buc, and the playhouse scribe, Ralph Crane, engaged in a collaborative process that resulted in the most censored extant dramatic document of the early modern English theatres. The censorship is revealing of how political drama was interpreted by its first readers – it was Buc's exegetical interpretation of Barnauelt as anti-monarchical that led to his collaborative revisions and the play's restructuring. This style of censorship also has wider implications. If almost every play was read and revised by the Master of the Revels and perhaps edited by a scribe, then most early modern drama was collaboratively written.

To enrich characterisation and bond with audiences, Jacobethan playwrights included Classical tags, Bible verses and vernacular quotations in their work. Borrowings from other plays were particularly effective: a line of dialogue could ‘go viral’ straight from the stage. This verbal network, linking hundreds of early modern plays by one-liners, names and catchphrases, can now be investigated through the WordWeb-IDEM database, which contains over ten thousand text extracts that quote each other. The part of John Marston in this dramatic intertextuality is as yet under-researched. He saturated his writing with others’ words extensively and idiosyncratically; tracing these overlaps with Marston's unwitting ‘collaborators’ richly illustrates the research potential offered by the WordWeb-IDEM corpus and its search options.

While co-authorship was common practice in early modern drama, poetological treatises remain silent about it. They speak about the poet but not about collaboration. It is, hence, one of the aims of this article to arrive at conceptualisations of co-authorship through immanent reflections of co-creativity and authorial interaction. In particular, we will show that stylistic practices form an essential part of such reflections, which also helps us dissociate style from the identification of individual authorship. Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet and Beaumont and Fletcher's Philaster, or Love Lies A-Bleeding have been chosen to show how juxtapositions and adaptations of style in both single-authored and co-authored works reveal practices of collaboration in early modern theatre. As a result of our investigation, elements of a poetics of collaborative playwriting will emerge.

This article delves into the collaborative dynamics of early modern literary production, emphasising the need for a comprehensive view of collaboration beyond joint authorship as the role of translators is still often overlooked, maintaining their perceived secondary status even after the translational turn. Using Petrarch's I Triumphi, first printed in 1470, and arguably one of the most decisive vernacular works in early modern Europe, as a case study, the article showcases the pivotal contribution of translators to a text's international prominence, challenging established gender norms in Petrarchism. The article highlights the role of the female translators as collaborators and proposes a nuanced understanding of gender, social class and religious factors in shaping translation practices, enriching our comprehension of early modern literary dynamics.