Virtual Grub Street: A Spectacular Misconception.

I notice an article on the Oxfraud blog entitled “A spectacular own goal”¹. It is forwarded as an “antidote” to Ross Barbner's online Shakespeare Authorship course.

The point of the post is to establish that the Stratford man is clearly referred to in various records associating the name “Shakespeare” with the plays.

It is a documented fact that Shakespeare's father was granted a coat of arms, and that, following the grant of the coat of arms, William Shakespeare was subsequently entitled to be addressed as “Master” or “Mr.” Shakespeare and accorded the status of gentleman. That the author of the works was so designated during his lifetime is documented as fact in the historical records cited here:

The following contemporaneous documents specifically identify William Shakespeare of Stratford as the author of the works named therein, by the use of the honorific [“Master”, “Mr.” or “M.”] or the status signifier [“Gentleman” or “Gent”] that William Shakespeare of Stratford was entitled to use by the fact that his father had been granted a coat of arms. There was no other William Shakespeare, especially not one associated with the King's men and the Globe theater, who was entitled to be addressed in these terms, and, so, when these terms are used in a document, there is no reasonable doubt that they are explicitly identifying Shakespeare of Stratford by name.

What caught my attention is the fact that the premise is simply incorrect.

This is not the first time I have mentioned how important it is to the Authorship debate that the scholars — amateur, professional or purported — be knowledgeable about the historical context in which it unfolds. The author of the piece would be correct, by and large, if the context were the English Middle Ages. He would begin, however, to be noticably less correct from about the 1570s. By the 1590s his premise would simply fail.

Even before the 1570s, the term “Master” referred to a level of achievement within a craft guild regardless that the male could qualify for no coat-of-arms. Master also referred to a person who held an official office regardless of gentleman or noble status. The Master of the Horse, Master of the Hounds, Master of the Wards, Masters of the Grounds and Gardens of the various Royal and Noble castles. Also a free male who had persons in his hired service was addressed by them as “master”.

“Gentleman” likely meant a male member of a family having a registered coat-of-arms. But “Gentlemen of the Chapel Royal” were referrred to as “Gent.” in documents without the need of such a qualification. The same was true for gentlemen of a nobleman's chapel.

By the 1590s, however, English commoner males in positions of particular respect in their community were beginning more often to be addressed as “Master”. By the late 1590s, the English freeman characters of such plays as Everyman Out of his Humour and The Merry Wives of Windsor are uniformly addressed as “Master” it having become customary in society at large. Persons of foreign extraction and servants, however, did not merit the address.

A look through the letters of that same period reveals the same pattern. The famous correspondent John Chamberlain has even already shortened “Master” to “Mr.” where it refers to a respected friend or acquaintance. Office holders he continues to inscribe with the full title Master. It is not always clear that he hasn't already been an early convert to Mr. as “Mister”.

The author of “A spectacular own goal” gives 14 examples. All date from 1599 or later:

(1.) 1599 (From The Returne from Parnassus, Part I; MS in Bodleian Library): "Mr. Shakspeare" [more than once, with reference to Venus & Adonis and Romeo and Juliet];

(2.) 1600 (Stationer's Register entry for Henry the Fourth, Part Two and Much Ado About Nothing; August 23): "master Shakespere";

(3.) 1607 (Stationer's Register entry for King Lear; November 26): "Master William Shakespeare";

(4.) 1608 (Q1 of King Lear): "M. William Shak-speare" (title page) "M William Shak-speare" (head title);

(5.) 1610 (From The Scourge of Folly by John Davies of Hereford; registered October 8): "Mr. Will: Shake-speare"

(6.) 1612 (From "Epistle" to The White Devil by John Webster): "M. Shake-speare"

(7.) 1614 (From Runne and a Great Cast by Thomas Freeman): "Master W. Shakespeare" [references Venus & Adonis and Lucrece];

(8.) 1615 (From continuation to 1614 in ed. 5 of John Stow's Annales, by Edmund Howes): "M. Willi. Shakespeare gentleman" [in a list of contemporary poets];

(9.) 1616 (Q6 Lucrece): "Mr. William Shakespeare" (title page).

(10.) 1619 (Title page, Q3 (Pavier quarto) of Henry VI Parts 2 & 3): "William Shakespeare, Gent.";

(11.) 1619 (Title page, Q2 of King Lear, falsely dated 1608): "M. William Shake-speare";

(12.) 1619 (Head title of Q2 of King Lear): "M. William Shake-speare";

(13.) 1622 (Catalogus Universalis pro Nundinis Francofurtensibus; Frankfort book fair list of books to be published in England between April and October 1622): "M. William Shakespeare";

(14.) 1623 (Stationer's Register entry for First Folio; November 8): "Mr. William Shakspeer".

With the exception of the first example, there is no particular reason to believe that any of the persons cited might have known the playwright personally. Stationer's Registry entries were entered by wardens who generally knew nothing about the person of the author. There is no reason to believe that the member-publisher knew anything more than that the work promised to bring in a profit so they bought the rights from the previous holder.

By-the-bye, those wardens were uniformly addressed as “Master” in the records of the company. Their superiors were addressed as “Master Warden”.

As for Howe's continuation of the Annales, he may have assumed that an entry in the records of the College of Arms, which he and Stowe almost certainly consulted, referred to the playwright. Pavier would surely have read the Annales with particular interest in the lists of poets and other authors. Thus he cites Shakespeare “Gent.” on a title page some 4 years later.

1 Anonymous. “A spectacular own goal.” Oxfraud. Citing Mark Johnson. https://oxfraud.com/mooc-week-2-arms