Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2007 :: February ::
Thorpe Query
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0102  Tuesday, 6 February 2007

[1] 	From: 	Peter Holland <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date: 	Tuesday, 6 Feb 2007 10:56:34 -0500
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0098 Thorpe Query

[2] 	From: 	Hardy M. Cook <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date: 	Wednesday, February 07, 2007
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0098 Thorpe Query


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Peter Holland <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Tuesday, 6 Feb 2007 10:56:34 -0500
Subject: 18.0098 Thorpe Query
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0098 Thorpe Query

Dear Gerald E Downs,

(1) The 2nd edition of PP does indeed attribute the volume to WS

(2) There is no indication whether Heywood's comment about Shakespeare 
(as opposed to his comment about the use of his own poems) is related to 
the 2nd or 3rd edition of PP

(3) My apologies for repunctuating so as to make something clearer. If 
you prefer murkiness, that is your choice.

I really don't think you needed to make your comments quite so 
unpleasantly but then that would seem to me to say more about your 
notion of scholarship than it does about my shortcomings.

Peter Holland

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Hardy M. Cook <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Subject: 18.0098 Thorpe Query
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0098 Thorpe Query

Yesterday, I added the following Editor's Note to Gerald Downs' post, 
which took digs at Peter Holland and me: "I have every intention of 
answering this rather mean-spirited and highly misleading post; however, 
I simply do not have the time to do so today."

The mean-spiritedness of the post is obvious and need not be addressed 
further.

Ah, but the misleading nature of the post, whether intentional or not, 
calls for a response.

Downs begins by Marvin Bennet Krims:

 >>Thanks to all who correctly steered me away from Thorpe to
 >>Jaggard and The Passionate Pilgrim.
 >>
 >>This List is such a valuable resource.

To which he writes, "The Editor replied: 'thanks so much for the last 
comment.' Elsewhere the Editor wishes to 'raise the level of discourse 
on the list' and expresses a desire 'that those who contribute to the 
discussions be knowledgeable, informed, and familiar with the issues 
involved.'

Thus, after conflating two separate issues, The Roundtable and the 
thread on Thorpe, Downs proceeds to indict Peter Holland's contribution 
to the Thorpe thread, beginning by quoting from it.

 >>In 1599 William Jaggard published the second edition of the
 >>collection of poems called The Passionate Pilgrim (the date of
 >>the first edition is uncertain) which the title-page attributed to
 >>Shakespeare, much to Shakespeare's annoyance that Jaggard,
 >>as Thomas Heywood noted, 'altogether unknowne to him .
 >>presumed to make so bold with his name' (see Schoenbaum,
 >>William Shakespeare: A Documentary Life, p. 219).

Downs goes on,

 >Heywood's postscript epistle in _An Apology for Actors_ was
 >in reference to the third edition of _The Passionate Pilgrim_,
 >each publications of 1612, thirteen years after the second edition
 >of PP, during which interim recorded annoyance is missing, though
 >only five of the twenty poems of 1599 are known Shakespeare.
 >
 >Schoenbaum has the dates right in _Documentary Life_; though
 >his inference that "Apparently Shakespeare complained too, but
 >privately and to the printer" has no extant basis. Holland seems
 >instead to repeat information from _Shakespeare's Lives_, where
 >Schoenbaum describes the 1612 goings on as 1599 goings on,
 >and where he misquotes Heywood much as Holland does.
 >
 >The partial sentence properly reads, "(that altogether vnknowne to
 >him) presumed to make so bold with his name." In _Apology_
 >Heywood says that rhetoric "not onely emboldens a scholler  to
 >speake, but instructs him to speak well, and with judgement, to
 >observe his commas, colons, & full poynts, his parentheses . . ."
 >Maybe his parenthesis and the words in it should be observed,
 >not revised within quotation marks.
 >
 >Perhaps Shakespeare was angry with Jaggard in 1612, but the
 >'injury' was done to Heywood, by his own account, where the
 >name Shakespeare is not mentioned. Heywood's remarks are
 >far from clearly expressed, but it is (in the long run) unhelpful to
 >explain his meaning by misquotation. Or is this a good use of
 >'Presentism'?

Once again, Downs it trying to pull a slide of hand trick.

Holland quoted from page 219 of Schoenbaum, William Shakespeare: A 
Documentary Life. On that page, introducing a reproduction of the 
Heywood's passage in question, Schoenbaum explains his purpose for 
including this document:

 >In 1612 William Jaggard brought out a new edition of <I>The
 >Passionate Pilgrim</I>, augmented by two long poems from
 >Thomas Heywood's <I>Troia Britannica</I>. As Jaggard did
 >not consult Heywood, or even give him credit on the title-page,
 >the latter naturally felt offended, and vented his spleen, with
 >more indignation than clarity, in an epistle to the printer following
 ><I>An Apology for Actors</I>, also published in 1612. The passage
 >holds interest for its Shakespearian allusion.

Now, let's get back to Downs: "Heywood's postscript epistle in _An 
Apology for Actors_ was in reference to the third edition of _The 
Passionate Pilgrim_, each publications of 1612." Okay, Heywood's 
"iniury" was the inclusion without credit of two of his poems in the 
third edition. The "Author" that Heywood knew was "much offended" is 
obviously Shakespeare. Jaggard offended Shakespeare by, without 
informing him, publishing several of his poems (variations of Sonnets 
138 and 144 and three extracts from <I>Loves Labour's Lost</I>) along 
with other poems by Richard Branfield, Christopher Marlowe, and Sir 
Walter Ralegh, attributing all to Shakespeare on the title-pages of both 
the second and third editions of PP. Only two sheets of the first 
edition survive bound with a second edition, so it is difficult to 
include it here.

Downs states unequivocally that Shakespeare was offended by 1612 third 
edition when it is just as likely that Shakespeare was complaining about 
the misattributions of the poems of others to him in the second edition.

Schoenbaum, after the reproduction of the passage from Heywood's 
"Epistle to Nicholas Okes," goes on:

 >Apparently Shakespeare complained too, but privately and to
 >the printer, for Jaggard cancelled the title-page and substituted
 >a new one omitting Shakespeare's name. It survives in a single
 >copy in the Bodleian Library. Thus the two sonnets, Heywood's
 >poems, and the other bits and pieces now comprised an anonymous
 >rather than falsely ascribed volume. Whether Heywood felt mollified
 >is not known, but may be doubted.

Similarly, in his <I>Shakespeare's Lives</I>, Schoenbaum writes,

 ><I>The Passionate Pilgrim</I>, printed in 1599 as "<I>By W.
 >Shakespeare</I>" consists of twenty poems, of which several
 >have been identified as the work of other writers, One injured
 >party, Thomas Heywood (two of his verse epistles had been
 >purloined), complained angrily, and let it be known that
 >Shakespeare was "much offended" with the stationer, William
 >Jaggard, who "altogether unknown to him, presumed to make
 >so bold with his name." Apparently Shakespeare protested
 >effectively, for Jaggard removed his name from the title-page.

Thus, Schoenbaum surmises that Jaggard's cancelling the initial 
title-page and removing Shakespeare's name from subsequent ones was a 
result of a complaint. I cannot locate the photocopies I made from EEBO 
and the short title catalog to provide more information now.

Where do we stand? Well, Downs' remarks that "Perhaps Shakespeare was 
angry with Jaggard in 1612, but the 'injury' was done to Heywood, by his 
own account, where the name Shakespeare is not mentioned. Heywood's 
remarks are far from clearly expressed," simply do not stand up to 
scrutiny.

Heywood reports that Shakespeare was angry with Jaggard, but it does not 
necessarily follow that it was in 1612. Heywood suffered an "iniury" 
because two of his poems were printed "vnder the name of another, which 
may put the world in opinion I might steale them from him; and hee doe 
himselfe right, hath since published them in his owne name." 
Shakespeare's name is not mentioned, but it is on the title-page of the 
1612 edition, causing Heywood's concern that the world might think he 
[Heywood] stole them from Shakespeare ["the name of another]. Finally, 
before making the statement that "the Author" [Shakespeare] was "much 
offended," Heywood notes, "but at I must acknowledge my lines not worthy 
his patronage, vnder whom he had publisht them." If this isn't a clear 
expression that the anecdote was about Shakespeare, then I don't know 
what is.

Hardy M. Cook
Editor

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail 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.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.