Shakespeare's Literacy: Debunking Myths and Unveiling Facts

Introduction

For some, the notion that Shakespeare was illiterate and couldn't write well is a common misconception. This belief, however, is largely disputed by historical evidence and scholarly analysis. In this article, we will explore the reality of Shakespeare's literacy and the literacy rates of his contemporaries, debunking the myths surrounding his writings.

Shakespeare's Literacy: Historical Evidence

Contrary to popular belief, the argument that Shakespeare was illiterate lacks substantial evidence. Historical research, particularly in the context of literacy rates during the Elizabethan era, paints a different picture.

Literacy Rates in the 16th and 17th Centuries

Literacy rates were gradually improving throughout the 1590s into the 1700s. The increasing number of pamphlets, plays, and poetry editions in the form of quarto pointed to a growing demand for reading and writing skills. David Cressy's study, Levels of Illiteracy in England, revealed significant insights into the literacy levels of different trades and professions.

Specific Trades and Their Literacy Rates

According to David Cressy, the trade of grocers, to which many of Shakespeare's fellow players belonged, had an extremely low illiteracy rate. For instance, grocers had an illiteracy rate of only 6, with a 95% confidence interval of -7. This means that a high percentage of grocers were literate, making it plausible that Shakespeare and others in his company were also capable of reading and writing.

Examples from Other Trades

Other trades also had varying literacy rates. Bricklayers, for instance, had an illiteracy rate of 88, indicating a high number could not sign their names. However, other trades, such as grocers, tailors, and haberdashers, had much lower rates. Haberdashers, for example, had an illiteracy rate of 9, which is surprisingly low and might explain better educational backgrounds among members of this profession.

Manuscript Culture and Surviving Documents

In addition to the improved literacy rates, the growing manuscript culture also supports the idea that Shakespeare and his contemporaries were educated and literate. Studies on surviving manuscripts of the William Basse tribute to Shakespeare reveal that there are 35 surviving copies, an impressive number even after 400 years. Furthermore, more surviving copies of commonplace books, such as those of Manningham and Pudsey, are also available, indicating that written works were valued and preserved.

Personal Documents and Literary Autographs

The presence of personal documents and literary autographs provides further evidence of Shakespeare's literacy. The book "English Literary Autographs" by Sir Walter Wilson Greg is particularly illuminating. This collection includes a large number of writing samples from many of Shakespeare's contemporaries, as well as notes from Henslowe's account book.

Handwriting Variations and Signature Marks

One notable observation from Greg's collection is the remarkable variety in handwriting and spelling, even among prominent literary figures of the era. Shakespeare's own variations in spelling his name, such as "Oxenford" and "Oxeford," attest to his complex and unique writing style.

Proper Signatures and Professional Marks

Regarding signatures, it is important to distinguish between professional marks and personal signatures. In Stratford upon Avon, unique trade marks were more common than simple X marks. For example, Shakespeare's daughter Judith witnessed a document with her initials "J.S." rather than a mark as often suggested. Council members used their professional marks on official documents but wrote and signed letters with their full names.

Further Readings and References

To delve deeper into this fascinating topic, readers are encouraged to explore the works mentioned below:

The Oxford Handbook of Shakespeare, by Arthur F. Kinney (Oxford University Press, 2012) Levels of Illiteracy in England, by David Cressy (Cambridge University Press, 2009)

These resources provide valuable insights into the literacy levels of Shakespeare's era and further support the notion that the Bard of Avon was indeed literate and capable of writing his plays.

Conclusion

The belief that Shakespeare was illiterate is a myth rooted in misinformation rather than historical fact. With the support of various historical and scholarly resources, it is clear that both Shakespeare himself and his contemporaries were well-versed in reading and writing skills. The evidence presented herein underscores the importance of accurate representation of historical figures and encourages a deeper exploration of this fascinating period.