2004

A Lover's Complaint & John Davies of Hereford

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0066  Monday, 12 January 2004

From:           Katherine Duncan-Jones
<This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 9 Jan 2004 15:48:48 -0000
Subject:        A Lover's Complaint

I'm a bit surprised that no-one so far has mentioned the strong evidence
offered by John Kerrigan in his 1986 Penguin edition and by myself in my
1997 Arden that 'A Lover's Complaint' is a designed component of the
Shakespeare's Sonnets volume as published in 1609. It's true that
Vickers doesn't mention them, either, and starts from the now widely
rejected assumption that Shakespeare's authorship of the 'Complaint' is
in doubt. Stylometric analysis by Mac Jackson, and studies of published
sonnets sequences + Complaints by Kerrigan and myself, all strongly
support the view that Sonnets and Complaint together form a generic
whole, with the female-voiced Complaint both complementing and
contrasting with the male-voiced Sonnets.

A further, smaller, point: Vickers and others write as if 'Spenserian'
diction and style in the 'Complaint' support the argument for John
Davies of Hereford as author. But as Kent Hieatt has been demonstrating
over many years, Shakespeare himself frequently echoed Spenser's
'Complaints', and especially so in the Sonnets.

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Important Changes to the World Shakespeare

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0065  Monday, 12 January 2004

[1]     From:   Tony Burton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 9 Jan 2004 08:02:56 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.0057 Important Changes to the World Shakespeare
Bibliography

[2]     From:   David Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 9 Jan 2004 17:55:58 -0000
        Subj:   RE: SHK 15.0057 Important Changes to the World Shakespeare
Bibliography


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Tony Burton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 9 Jan 2004 08:02:56 -0500
Subject: 15.0057 Important Changes to the World Shakespeare
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.0057 Important Changes to the World Shakespeare
Bibliography

I'd like to add my support to Martin Green's protest against reducing
the World Shakespeare Bibliography to electronic-only format (and
access).  For one thing, print on paper is more friendly to the physical
nature of a human reader, and was designed with the eyes in mind.
Computer terminals are a physical strain on the eyes at least, and may
be unhealthy in the long run.  Acknowledging the "extraordinary power"
of computer technology  praised by Gabriel Egan, it's not a panacea, nor
a bride for all markets.

Books can be and are shared, passed around, annotated by their readers,
put aside next to other material that may be related only in the mind of
a particular reader, etc.  They build community, of a sort.  I find
computers -- as accesses to source materials -- isolating rather than
collegial, but perhaps that's just a rare idiosyncrasy on my part.  Of
course computer data bases have an enormous range of valuable uses, and
make rare books available across the world.  But the rare books were not
produced in limited number because computer access was preferable and
desired by readers, the computers are just making the best of a
difficult and undesirable situation.

Again, the world of computers is not all that reliable, nor secure and
stable.  I don't see ideologist hackers censoring the contents of the
World Shakespeare Bibliography (maybe I should), but there are long term
drawbacks and limitations to putting all one's eggs into a single
basket, and each of us can probably make up a quick list of favorite
disasters.

Finally, I find the rush to this modern, gee-whiz technological style of
research offensively elitist.  There are places where computer-access is
restricted, and if publishers abandon book publishing, there won't even
be copies of current materials to hand around.  In a world where wealth
is poorly distributed and education is being starved in many places, who
exactly is the "we" who will be on-line with our laptops whenever it is
convenient?  Moreover, knowledge is a threat in many places to the
holders of power and, with centralization of access (okay, Shakespeare
studies may be down on the list of worrisome activities) the Beast will
have fewer heads to cut off (exactly the opposite, I'm sure, of what its
proponents envision, what with the new delights of IM still being
discovered, along with the easy formation of world-wide interest groups
that is now catching the attention of so many, politicians especially).
  But look at China now, think of other authoritarian states throughout
the world, and remember the importance of samizdat in the darker days of
the USSR.  And in fact, the freedom to perform Shakespeare's plays was
an important barometer of liberalization or restrain in the old Iron
Curtain days.  It may be objected that my preference to printed books is
even more elitist for approximately the same reasons I deplore the
switch to data-base access.  But the real issue is not which is better,
it's whether to abandon the good entirely for the just-possibly-better.

Tony Burton

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Lindley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 9 Jan 2004 17:55:58 -0000
Subject: 15.0057 Important Changes to the World Shakespeare
Comment:        RE: SHK 15.0057 Important Changes to the World Shakespeare
Bibliography

Gabriel Egan writes, in praise of electronic media:

 >Another example: with Literature Online, one can
 >find every example of a particular word (say, the verb 'to
 >place') in playtext stage directions across hundreds of
 >years.

Well, we've been round this before, but Literature Online is
emphatically NOT a reliable scholarly resource. The keyed texts contain
many errors, or are derived from imperfect editions; there are, I am
told, a significant number of misattributions; and I've spoken before
about the inadequacy of the search engine. No statistics based on LION
are likely to be accurate. This isn't to deny that it is an invaluable
starting-point, but one should always check the text, and assume that in
dealing with old-spelling texts, one is almost certain to miss things
that a search should have found.

It's proving to be the same with EEBO, to which my university has just
subscribed. My colleague Martin Butler and I have already encountered
two texts where openings have been missed out (one presumes in the
digitisation process), and the same mechanical failure, one assumes,
accounts for the clipping of some texts, and the unreadability of some
words in tightly-bound margins (the latter seeming to be a more frequent
fault in EEBO than in the microfilm series from which it derives).

The same is also true of electronic library catalogues. Many of us, I'm
sure, have had the frustrating experience of using the British Library
electronic catalogue to find a book one knows is there, only for it not
to appear. When actually in the library I often find it quicker to use
the printed catalogue than the electronic.

Yes, of course, there are many sorts of information which electronic
media make available in ways that print cannot match - and I certainly
would not now want to be without LION or EEBO - but they are much less
reliable than they can appear to be.

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

A Lover's Complaint & John Davies of Hereford

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0063  Friday, 9 January 2004

[1]     From:   Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 8 Jan 2004 18:15:32 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.0049 A Lover's Complaint & John Davies of Hereford

[2]     From:   Jim Carroll <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Thursday, 8 Jan 2004 21:58:17 EST
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.0049 A Lover's Complaint & John Davies of Hereford


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 8 Jan 2004 18:15:32 -0500
Subject: 15.0049 A Lover's Complaint & John Davies of Hereford
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.0049 A Lover's Complaint & John Davies of Hereford

 >Carroll asks "Do we really need this analysis to see that John
 >Davies was not the author of ALC?"  Perhaps he feels the analysis is
 >unnecessary because of the external evidence of its publication with
 >Shakespeare's Sonnets. By those standards, however, we must accept A
 >Yorkshire Tragedy, The London Prodigal and all of The Passionate Pilgrim
 >as the work of Shakespeare.

Not so.  A Lover's Complaint not only was printed with an attribution to
Shakespeare but was printed in a book of other poems attributed to
Shakespeare, and accepted as Shakespeare's.  That makes its attribution
much firmer than that of the two plays mentioned.  And there is no hard
evidence against its attribution as there is against the attribution of
the poems in The Passionate Pilgrim (Heywood's letter, for instance).

Has anyone said why A Lover's Complaint would have been called
Shakespeare's if it were not his?  Surely, the number of sonnets was
enough for a full book.  And A Lover's Complaint was stuck in the back
of that book, so doesn't seem to have been used to win readers.

 >If Barnfield's poems had not been published
 >elsewhere under his name, and Thomas Heywood had not made his objection,
 >we would have no external evidence that all of Passionate Pilgrim was
 >not by Shakespeare. Would we then find Jim Carroll defending the
 >non-Shakespearean material in that collection against the
 >'disintegrationists'?

Possibly.  You would find me defending it.

--Bob G.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Jim Carroll <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 8 Jan 2004 21:58:17 EST
Subject: 15.0049 A Lover's Complaint & John Davies of Hereford
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.0049 A Lover's Complaint & John Davies of Hereford

Bill Lloyd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote on Wednesday, 7 Jan 2004:

 >Hash it out in a constructive way that is. Jim Carroll's argument is not
 >strengthened by his apparent personal bias against Vickers: "...Vickers
 >has botched another attribution."  And his coupling of the case for and
 >against the presence of Peele in Titus Andronicus can only bode ill for
 >his anti-Davies argument. It is clear to me (and many others) that
 >Vickers, building on the work of other scholars, is correct about Peele.
 >See Vickers' book Shakespeare, Co-Author, and the relevant SHAKSPER
 >threads from early 2003. Carroll's arguments there, though deployed with
 >much show of learning, were ultimately unconvincing, and, in my mind,
 >called into question his "feele for Peele" and for early Shakespeare.

I don't have a "personal" bias against Vickers, because I've never met
him or communicated with him. What I have is a "bias" against the
misreading of history. Please read Vickers' comments about Donald Foster
in his book "Counterfeiting Shakespeare" if you want see evidence of
personal bias.

You may not have been convinced by my arguments concerning the Peele
attribution, but you were not able to refute them either. As I pointed
out in a later contribution to this forum,

http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2003/2009.html

I think it is far more likely that Shakespeare simply used the old play
Gorboduc as his model for parts of Titus, in the same way that he used,
for instance, Holinshed for parts of Henry V.

I could go on all day about the mistakes in his latest TLS essay. For
example, Vickers wrote:

"The issue can only be decided on the internal evidence, since the
single external witness, Thomas Thorpe, is notoriously unreliable."

I would ask, since when? Well, probably since Vickers tried to discredit
Thorpe in his book "Counterfeiting Shakespeare", in an attempt to
disparage in general Foster's scholarship in the chapter "Donald
Foster's Shakespearean Construct". He cites Duncan-Jones in saying that
Thorpe's attempt to register, with William Aspley, John Gordon's
panegyric to King James, ' was cancelled because it was already
registered', and that Thorpe's publication of Marlowe's translation of
Lucan, was, according to Duncan-Jones, an 'apparent piracy', even though
Vickers himself admits that Thorpe "enjoyed close relations with the
printer concerned, Edward Blount", and finally Thorpe's publication in
1611 of Coryate's *The Odcombian Banquet*, of which the STC says it is
"apparently" a pirated reprint of another edition published earlier that
year.

But by my count from the STC, Thorpe had a hand in some 48 publications
between 1603 and 1625. The first item mentioned above was probably just
a mistake on the part of Thorpe and Apsley.  I'm not sure how they could
know in every case which work had been previously registered. In any
case, it was not Thorpe alone who was involved. The second case speaks
for itself, and it was probably a result of a private agreement between
Blount and Thorpe. The final case is _thought_ to be, at least by the
editors of the STC, a case of piracy, but no one really knows any
details concerning what happened. In both of the latter cases, the
authors of the works were attributed correctly, which is ultimately the
issue at stake here. One possible piracy, from a total of 48
publications, and even that has its author attributed correctly.  So I
would have to conclude on the basis of the facts that I've presented
here that Thorpe was "generally reliable" when it came to authorship
attributions, not "notoriously unreliable" as Vickers claims.

Jim Carroll

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

SB Special Offer

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0064  Monday, 12 January 2004

From:           Andrew Hartley <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Sunday, 11 Jan 2004 17:04:59 -0500
Subject:        SB Special Offer

Dear Fellow SHAKSPEReans,

I wanted to alert you to a pair of special offers aimed at new
subscribers to Shakespeare Bulletin, the journal of Renaissance drama in
performance. This offer is exclusive to users of the SHAKSPER list.

1. For individual subscribers.
Buy a one year subscription now and get a fifth issue free! Send a check
for $25.00 (plus $10.00 if you live outside the United States) to the
address below with a note referencing this offer, and we will begin your
subscription with our inaugural issue which contains an extended piece
by Cary Mazer on dramaturging The Merchant of Venice, alongside more
traditionally academic pieces by scholars such as John Ford (on staging
gender in The Globe's recent Twelfth Night), Virginia Mason Vaughn and
Lisa Hopkins (on Taymor's Titus) as well as numerous book, film and
theatre reviews.

2. For Institutions.
If you believe that your institution may be interested in starting a
subscription to SB, write to this e-mail address including the name of
your institution and your mailing address and we will send you a free
issue of SB, on the understanding that you will show it to your
institution and ask them to subscribe.

Both offers are for a limited time and will last only as long as stocks
last.

Our up-coming winter issue, along with the usual extensive selection of
theatre, book and film reviews, contains work by Paul Yachnin (on King
Lear on the Jewish stage) , Sarah Werner (on the body of the boy actor
in Henry V) and Jonathan Kamholtz (on staging Ben Jonson).  In spring we
will publish our first special issue which will focus on the theory and
practice of staged readings.

Subscription costs ($25.00 per quarterly year for individuals, $35.00
for institutions, with a $10.00 surcharge for overseas mail) are payable
by check to Shakespeare Bulletin, English dept. University of West
Georgia, Carrollton, GA, 30118, or through subscription services such as
Blackwell's, EBSCO, Faxon, Karger Libri, and Swets.

I hope you will consider a subscription for yourself or your
institution, and invite you to consider SB as a publication source for
your best performance work. For inquiries about specific departments,
please contact the appropriate editor directly.

Theatre Reviews: Jeremy Lopez (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)
Book Reviews: Genevieve Love (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)
Shakespeare in Film: Kirk Melnikoff (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)

Sincerely,
Andrew Hartley
(editor)

Editor
Shakespeare Bulletin
English Dept.
University of West Georgia
Carrollton, GA 30118

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Bartolozzi Engravings

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0062  Friday, 9 January 2004

From:           Thomas Larque <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 8 Jan 2004 17:46:25 -0000
Subject: 15.0046 Bartolozzi Engravings
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.0046 Bartolozzi Engravings

 >"Marlowe was stabbed while reclining on a bed, not sitting at a table."
 >
 >Marlowe was stabbed neither whilst reclining on a bed or sitting at a
 >table. Kit was stabbed whilst he was trying to, literally, pommel Ingrim
 >Frizer.

This sounds a bit pedantic to me, and it isn't necessarily right either.
  According to the Coroner's report, Marlowe was stabbed after having
leant forward from the bed (where he was reclining) to hit Frizer, who
was seated next to him, over the head.  Assuming that he hadn't stood on
the bed, it sounds to me like Marlowe would still have been stretched out.

He certainly doesn't seem to have got off the bed, since Frizer and his
two companions were sitting in a row at the table with their backs to
the bed, with Frizer in the middle, and a table in front of them.
Marlowe could not have got off the bed to attack Frizer, since that
would have put one of the other men, or the table, between Marlowe and
Frizer.  Rather, Marlowe seems to have reached across from the bed to
take Frizer's dagger from his back, and then hit him over the head with
it, quite probably while still lying down.

The question of exactly what angle qualifies as "reclining" and exactly
how far Marlowe is likely to have sat up or leant forward to attack
Frizer seems extremely disputable.  Standing on the bed seems unlikely,
and "reclining" seems as good a term as "lying forward" or "sitting up"
or "kneeling" since we cannot be entirely certain that any of these
terms accurately describe what Marlowe was doing.

Since Marlowe was certainly reclining on the bed before the attack (the
inquest report describes Frizer with his "back towards the bed where the
said Christopher Morley was then lying") and could easily have stayed
lying back, largely recumbent, during the entire attack (which might be
why the wound on Frizer's head was not as serious as it could have
been), there seems no particular reason to quibble about the word
"reclining".  In any case, my point remains the same whether he was
reclining on the bed, standing on it, or dancing an Irish jig.  When
Marlowe was killed, he was on a bed, not seated at a table.  His death
therefore looked nothing like the Bartolozzi engravings.

Of course, the Coroner's report also says that Frizer struggled with
Marlowe to get his dagger, but since neither of the other men seem to
have had time or space to move or intervene (and if Marlowe had ever got
off the bed they would have been nearer to him than Frizer), this might
well have been little more than arm wrestling for the dagger, and
Marlowe could still have been lying down, or even pushed down onto the
bed by Frizer.  Since reclining just means lying down (usually
backwards) or leaning backwards against something, there is no way that
you can be sure that he was not technically "reclining" the whole time.
  Unless of course you have photographs from the scene, or sketches from
the witnesses, in which case I would very much like to see them.
Perhaps you could sell them on E-Bay?

Thomas Larque.
"Shakespeare and His Critics"       "British Shakespeare Association"
http://shakespearean.org.uk           http://britishshakespeare.ws

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.