Introduction: Gender, Authorship, and Early Modern Women’s Collaboration

  • Patricia PenderEmail author
  • Alexandra Day
Part of the Early Modern Literature in History book series (EMLH)


Women played a variety of roles in the production of early modern literature, many of which remain hidden from view under a model of single, solitary authorship. The contradiction between collaboration—whether literary, material, or both—and the very idea of women’s writing make this an area of investigation prone to conflict, just as it is in canonical studies. By way of introduction to a volume of new essays on gender and early modern literary collaboration, this chapter briefly surveys these conflicts and the development of collaborative authorial models within early modern feminist scholarship. It highlights the advantages of mixed-methods approaches to this topic, arguing that both book history and literary methods have much to offer in the analysis of early modern collaborations.


  1. Beilin, Elaine. “Anne Askew’s Dialogue with Authority.” In Contending Kingdoms: Historical, Psychological, and Feminist Approaches to the Literature of Sixteenth-Century England and France, edited by Marie-Rose Logan and Peter Rudnytsky, 313–322. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. ———. Redeeming Eve: Women Writers of the English Renaissance. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  3. ———. “Anne Askew’s Self-Portrait in the Examinations.” In Silent but for the Word: Tudor Women as Patrons, Translators, and Writers of Religious Works, edited by Margaret Hannay, 77–91. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  4. Bentley, Gerald Eades. The Profession of Dramatist in Shakespeare’s Time 1590–1642. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  5. Cheney, Patrick. “Introduction.” Shakespeare Studies 36 (2008): 19–25.Google Scholar
  6. Clarke, Danielle. “Nostalgia, Anachronism, and the Editing of Early Modern Women’s Texts.” Text: An Interdisciplinary Annual of Textual Studies 15 (2002): 187–209.Google Scholar
  7. ———. “Introduction.” In “This Double Voice”: Gendered Writing in Early Modern England, edited by Danielle Clarke and Elizabeth Clarke, 1–15. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, Matt. The Networked Wilderness: Communicating in Early New England. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2009.Google Scholar
  9. Coles, Kimberley Anne. Religion, Reform, and Women’s Writing in Early Modern England. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
  10. Craig, Hugh. “Style, Statistics, and New Models of Authorship.” Early Modern Literary Studies 15, no. 1 (2009/10). Accessed October 12, 2016.
  11. Crawford, Julie. Mediatrix: Women, Politics, and Literary Production in Early Modern England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Darnton, Robert. “What Is the History of Books?” Daedalus: Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 111, no. 3 (1982): 65–83.Google Scholar
  13. Demers, Patricia. “‘Warpe’ and ‘Webb’ in the Sidney Psalms: The ‘Coupled Worke’ of the Countess of Pembroke and Sir Philip Sidney.” In Literary Couplings: Writing Couples, Collaborators, and the Construction of Authorship, edited by Marjorie Stone and Judith Thompson, 41–58. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2006.Google Scholar
  14. Ezell, Margaret. Social Authorship and the Advent of Print. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  15. ———. The Patriarch’s Wife: Literary Evidence and the History of the Family. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  16. Felch, Susan M. “‘Noble Gentlewomen Famous for Their Learning”: The London Circle of Anne Vaughan Lock.” ANQ 16, no. 2 (2003): 14–19.Google Scholar
  17. Frye, Susan and Karen Robertson. “Preface.” In Maids and Mistresses, Cousins and Queens: Women’s Alliances in Early Modern England, edited by Susan Frye and Karen Robertson, 3–17. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  18. Hannay, Margaret (ed.). Silent but for the Word: Tudor Women as Patrons, Translators, and Writers of Religious Works. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  19. Hirschfeld, Heather. “Early Modern Collaboration and Theories of Authorship.” PMLA 116, no. 3 (May 2001): 609–622.Google Scholar
  20. Knapp, Jeffrey. “What Is a Co-Author?” Representations 89 (2005): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koestenbaum, Wayne. Double Talk: The Erotics of Male Literary Collaboration. New York: Routledge, 1989.Google Scholar
  22. Lamb, Mary Ellen. “Margaret Roper, the Humanist Political Project.” In Ashgate Critical Essays on Women Writers in England, 1550–1700 Vol. 1, edited by Elaine Beilin, 47–72. Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2009.Google Scholar
  23. Lunsford, Andrea and Lisa Ede. Singular Texts/Plural Authors: Perspectives on Collaborative Writing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  24. Masten, Jeffrey. Textual Intercourse: Collaboration, Authorship, and Sexualities in Renaissance Drama. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  25. McMullan, Gordon. Shakespeare and the Idea of Late Writing: Authorship in the Proximity of Death, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. ———. “‘Our Whole Life Is Like a Play’: Collaboration and the Problem of Editing.” Textus 9 (1996): 437–460.Google Scholar
  27. Orgel, Stephen. “What Is a Text?” In Staging the Renaissance: Reinterpretations of Elizabethan and Jacobean Drama, edited by David Scott Kastan and Peter Stallybrass, 83–87. New York: Routledge, 1991.Google Scholar
  28. Pender, Patricia. Early Modern Women’s Writing and the Rhetoric of Modesty. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. ———. “Reading Bale Reading Anne Askew: Contested Collaboration in the Examinations.” Huntington Library Quarterly: Studies in English and American History and Literature 73, no. 3 (2010): 507–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pender, Patricia and Rosalind Smith. “Introduction: Early Modern Women’s Material Texts: Production, Transmission and Reception.” In Material Cultures of Early Modern Women’s Writing, edited by Patricia Pender and Rosalind Smith, 1–13. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.Google Scholar
  31. Ross, Sarah Gwyneth. Birth of Feminism: Woman as Intellect in Renaissance Italy and England. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
  32. Shuger, Debora. “Laudian Feminism and the Household Republic of Little Gidding.” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 44, no.1 (2014): 69–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith, Helen. “Grossly Material Things”: Women and Book Production in Early Modern England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Subaltern Studies: Deconstructing Historiography.” In Selected Subaltern Studies, edited by Ranajit Guha and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, 3–32. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  35. Travitsky, Betty. “The New Mother of the English Renaissance (1489–1659): A Descriptive Catalogue.” Bulletin of Research in the Humanities 82 (1979): 63–89.Google Scholar
  36. Vickers, Brian. Shakespeare, Co-Author: A Historical Study of Five Collaborative Plays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  37. White, Micheline. “Power Couples and Women Writers in Elizabethan England: The Public Voices of Dorcas and Richard Martin and Anne and Hugh Dowriche.” In Framing the Family: Narrative and Representation in the Medieval and Early Modern Periods, edited by Rosalyn Voaden and Diane Wolfthal, 119–138. Tempe, AZ: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2005.Google Scholar
  38. Wynne-Davies, Marion. Women Writers and Familial Discourse in the English Renaissance: Relative Values. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of NewcastleNewcastleAustralia

Personalised recommendations