The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0135 Monday, 12 February 2007
From: Gerald E. Downs <
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:52:11 EST
Subject: 18.0102 Thorpe Query
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0102 Thorpe Query
Peter Holland and Hardy Cook replied to my post on Heywood's postscript
to Apology. Holland noted.
>>(3) My apologies for repunctuating so as to make something
>>clearer. If you prefer murkiness, that is your choice.
My point of course was that quotation should be accurate; murkiness
doesn't change that. Anyone is free to paraphrase or to clarify, so long
as the changes are identified. These rules should be followed when
informing anyone, anytime, between quotation marks. This is very easy to
accomplish. If any opt not to do so, it is no criticism of their persons
to suggest they conform.
>>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.
Any unpleasantness beyond that attendant on criticism of error and
inaccuracy was not intended. The originator of the thread saw posts as
helpful when they actually misinformed him and others. There is nothing
wrong with the correction of error.
Hardy Cook suggests that the errors I noted were too small to be of
service to well-intentioned criticism:
>>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.
Anyone familiar with scholarly editing must know that even the change of
a comma can significantly alter meaning. 'Preference'should not silently
replace the original and I am intrigued to see such revision defended.
When I related the errors to Presentism I suppose the Editor thought I
made light of the Roundtable topic, but I was quite serious. To misquote
a passage from 400 year ago is to preclude its analysis as the author
wrote. In this case, the parenthetical "(that altogether unknown to
him)" isolates a noun phrase. A feature of a parenthetical phrase is
that it can be removed without altering the grammar of the sentence. If
that is not merely a modern construct, then moving a parenthesis a word
to the right, as is often done, or otherwise punctuating to the same
effect, makes two changes. First, 'that' is removed from the phrase, and
second, 'that' is added to the sentence (as is represented by
Schoenbaum's 'who'), to significantly alter the grammar and syntax of
each sentence part. I believe this makes a difference.
Give a practice an inch and it will take a kilometer. How else does one
explain the Reader's Encyclopedia of Shakespeare, whose clarity is
"and printing them . . . under the name of another, . . . whom I know
much offended with M. Jaggard (that altogether vnknowne to him) presumed
Although the final line hasn't been improved a la Schoenbaum (whose
Lives version is probably itself derivative of a late source, since most
early renditions are faulty), the second ellipsis omits forty words and,
remarkably, three dots are missing between 'whom' and 'I' as seven words
are left out. This version is altered from F T Prince's elided version.
It is very clear up to the accurate part, but Heywood wouldn't recognize
it or agree with its meaning.
Even some modern scholars alter the passage as they please. Notions
that this is unimportant or that no one disagrees on its meaning are
mistaken. For example, Lukas Erne begins his introduction of Literary
Dramatist by citing the episode (p.1) and referring to its
misinterpretation by Duncan-Jones in the Arden Sonnets. Erne moves the
parenthesis but redeems himself by accurately quoting the sentence in a
footnote on the same page. Usually the reader hasn't that luxury.
Duncan Jones features the p.s. early as well (2-3), misquoting on both
pages. This alteration is her original, I believe: "as Heywood said, 'he
[Shakespeare] since, to do himself right, hath published them in his own
This misquote better supports Duncan-Jones's contention that Shakespeare
actually reclaimed the right to his sonnets by their publication in
1609. As Erne explains, Heywood was speaking instead of his own poems
and how their 1612 reprinting might be viewed by others. My point is not
that D-J is wrong, which she is, but that her silent 'clarification'
accidentally helps her cause, which is in part to contend that
Shakespeare authorized the sonnet publication.
In the Oxford Sonnets and Poems Colin Burrow covers the PP p.s. more
extensively and it must be said that his treatment is generally
accurate, scholarly throughout, and worth reading for a number of
reasons. One interesting conjecture (if I grasp it properly) is that the
title-page missing Shakespeare's name may have been accidental; It is
now bound in first, but less worn than the named title-page, which
suggests that the original circulated with the attribution on the outer
leaf. Burrow attaches the episode primarily to Heywood, and notes
something not always recognized by commentators:
"We should also pause over the contents of the third edition . . . in
1612. Jaggard was not simply passing Heywood's poems off as
Shakespeare's: the 'two Love epistles' added to the volume are referred
to after mention of Shakespeare on the title-page [J Q Adams in 1939
also noted that the additions seem to be sufficiently dissociated from
Shakespeare; Heywood objected nonetheless]. Nor, technically, was he
pirating the poems . . . . Jaggard had entered Troia Britannica in the
Stationers' Register on 5 December, 1608. This meant that he owned the
right to print the poem, and was legally entitled to reprint it" (78).
This is an important point when one considers the wording of Heywood's
protest. Everyone agrees that "under whom he hath published them" refers
to two people, the poet Shakespeare and the publisher Jaggard, who at
this point was the legal owner of Heywood's poems and he is the only one
they could appear to be stolen from to cast Heywood in the bad light of
a double-sale of his poetry - an act he denied having done with his
plays. Is it possible then that the earlier 'hee' who 'hath since
published' is also the publisher William Jaggard, the subject of the
entire postscript? I think it is possible, and only unbiased analysis of
a correct passage will decide the issue. The first to suggest this
meaning was C M Ingleby, "i. e. the printer of Britaines Troy." Whether
Ingleby clearly understood that Jaggard was the printer of both that
book and PP, I don't know, but if he is correct the relationship of the
publications must also be rethought.
Hardy Cook discusses the postscript extensively and takes the
opportunity to fault my statements as "slide of hand" and misleading. I
always intend to speak as straightforwardly as possible, and as the
Editor knows only too well, I extend my posts to a fault in hope of
covering all aspects of an issue. But some things I don't say:
>>Downs states unequivocally that Shakespeare was offended
>>by 1612 third edition
I didn't state that at all. I agree with Malone, who on the fly-leaves
of his copy of PP noted in 1785 that Heywood "was so offended at
Jaggard" that Jaggard "in consequence of [the postscript] appears to
have printed a new title-page, to please Heywood . . . " These topics
lead into another discussed by Hardy Cook:
>>The "Author" that Heywood knew was "much offended" is
I once strongly held the opinion myself that "the Author" meant
'Shakespeare' ("unmistakably", I said); nevertheless, I believe this is
an error. First, Heywood did not say the Author was offended. He said
the Author offended, unless he wrote like Tonto talked. Next, in the
postscript to Okes, Heywood refers to himself three times in the third
person as "the Author." Is it possible that he again refers to himself?
Of course it is, depending on analysis of the sentence, which must
account for the rhetorical device 'homoeosis', that employs 'as . . . ,
so' in a similitude of logical and syntactical correlation. The
traditional paraphrase ignores these facts, which can be properly
addressed only by reference to an accurate quotation.
To be clear; I am not suggesting that 'Shakespeare' was not the poet
'under whom' PP was printed, or that he was not spoken of with great
deference by Heywood.
>>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
Actually, two long poems and seven shorter poems by Heywood were
included in the third edition. But I do not necessarily agree that PP
was the cause of the initial 'injury'.
At any rate, I believe that Heywood may have carefully written his words
in the postscript to a printer about the sins of his former printer, and
that he may have been writing sensibly: ". . . so the Author I know
much offended with M. Iaggard (that altogether vnknowne to him) presumed
to make so bold with his name."
However, when these words are forced to comply with an a priori
explication, they cannot make grammatical or semantic sense without
being rewritten. When one is disposed to rewrite them, it may be too
much to ask for an explanation, but it is not wrong to expect the
alterations to be noted.
When I made this point, the Editor "much offended" and suggested (twice)
that my comments were mean-spirited, but:
>>The mean-spiritedness of the post is obvious and need not be
That's too bad, because I deny the charge and find instead that without
explanation, the Editor is unfair to me and the spirit of the post. I
approve of the move toward more scholarly responsibility in the new
format, and suggested the standard should likewise be upgraded on the
list. The example of Heywood's postscript seemed good because it is
almost always mishandled.
The Editor did, however, allude to several examples of my supposed
mean-spiritedness and I think I have a right to reply.
>>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."
I noted Schoenbaum's errors, which Hardy Cook acknowledges:
>>Granted Schoenbaum does not mention in Shakespeare's Lives
>>that Heywood's complaint was in regards to the third edition of PP,
>>an omission later rectified in William Shakespeare: A Documentary
>>To Downs, the statement from Shakespeare's Lives 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.
Schoenbaum left out 1612, whether on purpose I don't know and didn't
say. It was an error that misinforms the reader, in any case. If that
is an indictment of scholarship, so be it. To me it is simply an error
of judgment that would amount to an indictment only if it were
multiplied. Is it a crime to question scholarship?
When I stated that no evidence exists supportive of Shakespeare
complaining "privately and to the printer" I was responding more to the
"to the printer" bit. Whether he complained at all is debatable, but if
one believes he did complain to Heywood, that is a private complaint.
There is no evidence that Shakespeare complained to Jaggard, unless that
refers to Adams's guess that Shakespeare induced the printing of the
second title-page found in the second edition of PP (1599), of which
Burrow says: "the sole evidence for this is the testimony of Thomas
Heywood. . . . This is a reference to [the third edition of 1612] and is
not reliable evidence that Shakespeare took a proprietorial interest in
his name or his writings as early as 1599 (75). Of Heywood's evidence
Burrow remarks: "It may be evidence that Heywood, in common with a
number of writers in the first decades of the seventeenth century, was
becoming increasingly irritated by the lack of control which he could
assert over his texts once a printer had won the copyright of them"
(79). I do not by any means agree with everything Burrow says; he makes
a few mistakes; but his attitude and scholarship are superior to
Schoenbaum's on this issue. It is not mean-spirited to hold such a view.
Although Holland cited one of Schoenbaum's books, his mistaken dates and
misquotation coincide with the earlier book, which led me to say it
"seems" that the earlier was consulted; an incorrect presumption, as it
happens: the mistakes were coincidental. Holland did have the correct
information at hand. When I consult Schoenbaum, as all do, I look
invariably to both books. If Holland had copied the misquotation instead
of creating his own, the result would be the same: misquotation, when
quotation was at hand. I suggested that the bar be raised to quotation.
But that is not to impugn the person. Holland is certainly in good
company: Lee, Thorndike, Chambers, and many others fail to get the quote
right, having followed Malone. It is a good lesson. Or so I thought.
Gerald E. Downs
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
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.