The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0116  Thursday, 8 February 2007

[1] 	From: 	Bob Grumman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date: 	Wednesday, 7 Feb 2007 20:05:16 -0500
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 18.0102 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, 7 Feb 2007 14:05:22 -0500
	Subj: 	SHK 18.0102 Thorpe Query


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Bob Grumman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Wednesday, 7 Feb 2007 20:05:16 -0500
Subject: 18.0102 Thorpe Query
Comment: 	Re: SHK 18.0102 Thorpe Query

Sorry to be (apparently) on Gerald Downs's side on one point, but it 
seems to me that Shakespeare was offended by the attribution in the 1612 
edition of *The Passionate Pilgrim* of the two poems by Heywood that 
were added to that edition.  Heywood was, naturally, also angered by the 
misattribution--"which," he says, "may put the world in opinion I might 
steal from (Shakespeare); and to do himself right, hath since published 
them in his own name; but as I must acknowledge my lines not worthy his 
patronage under whom he hat published them, so the author I know much 
offended with M. Jaggard (that altogether unknown to him) to make so 
bold with his name." Nothing there about the earlier edition so far as I 
can see.

--Bob G.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Hardy M. Cook <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Wednesday, 7 Feb 2007 14:05:22 -0500
Subject: Thorpe Query
Comment: 	SHK 18.0102 Thorpe Query

I don't mean to prolong this, but . . .

My main point was that Gerald Downs's post was misleading, appearing to 
call into question my work for this list and Peter Holland's scholarship 
as represented by his comment in the Thorpe thread.

In that post, Holland wrote, "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." This is indeed an accurate statement. He 
went on "much to Shakespeare's annoyance that Jaggard, as Thomas Heywood 
noted, 'altogether unknowne to him . presumed to make so bold with his 
name'." Another accurate statement.

Downs pointed out that "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." He 
then recounts that Schoenbaum has the dates right in _Documentary Life_" 
and then he asserts "though his inference that 'Apparently Shakespeare 
complained too, but privately and to the printer' has no extant basis." 
The reason that Schoenbaum included this document was for Heywood's 
allusion to Shakespeare: the allusion is the "extant basis," Shakespeare 
did not have a Boswell.

After attempting to call into question Schoenbaum's scholarship, Downs 
accuses Holland of repeating "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." Yesterday, I 
reproduced the passage from <I>Shakespeare's Lives</I> to which Downs 
refers:

 ><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.

Granted Schoenbaum does not mention in <I>Shakespeare's Lives</I> that 
Heywood's complaint was in regards to the third edition of PP, an 
omission later rectified in <I>William Shakespeare: A Documentary 
Life</I>. However, Schoenbaum does include the fact that Jaggard, as he 
also mentions in <I>Documentary Life</I>, "cancelled the title-page and 
substituted a new one omitting Shakespeare's name," which occurred after 
the publication of the third edition of PP. To Downs, the statement from 
<I>Shakespeare's Lives</I> that "Apparently Shakespeare protested 
effectively, for Jaggard removed his name from the title-page" 
represents a purposeful  example of Schoenbaum's describing "the 1612 
goings on as 1599 goings on," and thereby is an indictment of 
Schoenbaum's scholarship. Similarly, Downs is accusing Peter Holland of 
repeating incorrect information and also that Schoenbaum and Holland 
misquote Heywood. This egregious misquoting involves not including an 
opening parentheses mark before "that" and substituting a comma for the 
closing parenthesis after "to him" in Schoenbaum's case and a period 
being used similar to an ellipsis in Holland's. Holland explained that 
he repunctuated to make the passage clearer. Schoenbaum's comma and 
Holland's period surely seem preferable to "altogether unknown to him) 
presumed to make so bold with his name." It seems to me that Downs's is 
misleading and is an exaggeration of the information presented.

Yesterday, I discussed Gerald E. Downs's last paragraph in his post, and 
there is no reason to revisit what I said then.

As for Bob Grumman's "that Shakespeare was offended by the attribution 
in the 1612 edition of *The Passionate Pilgrim* of the two poems by 
Heywood that were added to that edition," let me begin by quoting in 
full the passage included in <I>Documentary Life</I>:

Here likewise, I must necessarily insert a manifest iniury done me in 
that worke, by taking the two Epistles of <I>Paris</I> to <I>Helen</I>, 
and <I>Helen</I> to <I>Paris</I>, and printing them in a lesse volume, 
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: but as I must acknowledge my lines not worthy his 
patronage, vnder whom he had publisht them, so the Author I know much 
offended with M. <I>Iaggard</I> (that altogether vnknowne to him) 
presumed to make so bold with his name.

The fact is that Jaggard made so bold with Shakespeare's name in both 
1599 and 1612 and so must have offended the "Author." Granted Heywood's 
two poems that were published under Shakespeare's name were published in 
1612, but other poet's poems were included in both 1599 and 1612, and 
there is no reason not to conclude that Shakespeare was angered by both 
instances of the misuse of his name. One must, however, conclude that 
Shakespeare's complaint in 1612 resulted in the cancellation of the 
third edition's title-page and its replacement that omitted 
Shakespeare's name.

Hardy M. Cook

_______________________________________________________________
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.