The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0467 Wednesday, 11 July 2007
[Editor's Note: The authorship of "A Lover's Complaint" has been
discussed on other occasions on SHAKSPER, notably in 2003 and 2004.
Entering the keywords "Lover's Complaint author" in the website Search
Engine <http://www.shaksper.net/search.html> will direct the interested
to those previous exchanges. -HMC]
[1] From: Julia Crockett <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 9 Jul 2007 15:34:45 +0100
Subj: Brian Vickers and A Lover's Complaint
[2] From: Bob Grumman <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 9 Jul 2007 17:57:02 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0458 Brian Vickers and A Lover's Complaint
[3] From: David Basch <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 09 Jul 2007 23:19:56 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0458 Brian Vickers and A Lover's Complaint
[4] From: Sid Lubow <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 9 Jul 2007 15:43:13 EDT
Subj: Brian Vickers and A Lover's Complaint
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Julia Crockett <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 9 Jul 2007 15:34:45 +0100
Subject: Brian Vickers and A Lover's Complaint
There is an interesting review by Harold Love of Vickers' book,
"Shakespeare, 'A Lover's Complaint', and John Davies of Hereford" in
Times Literary Supplement, July 6th 2007, No. 5440. Love is convinced by
Vickers 'that Shakespeare was not the author of the "Complaint"' but is
less convinced by his attribution to John Davies, with his reliance on
parallel passages and failure to consult advanced statistical testing.
He concludes, 'I suspect that the transfer may eventually take place;
but we have not yet reached the degree of assuredness that this bracing,
immensely erudite, but overpositive study would like us to assume.'
Cheers,
Julia
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Grumman <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 9 Jul 2007 17:57:02 -0500
Subject: 18.0458 Brian Vickers and A Lover's Complaint
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0458 Brian Vickers and A Lover's Complaint
I have a question about publishing practices concerning collections of
poetry in Shakespeare's time. I know that *The Passionate Pilgrim* was
published under Shakespeare's name although it contained many poems not
his. I know also of anthologies published with no attribution for the
whole that contained poems from many pens, some anonymous, some
pseudonymous, some initialed, some (apparently) with the actual author's
name attached. So, how common would it have been for a book of poetry
by more than one author's being published as a single author's work?
How often would a full collection by one author, like *Shakespeare's
Sonnets* (or are some of the sonnets now denied him?), published under
the author's name, but with an additional minor work not his added to it?
--Bob G.
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Basch <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 09 Jul 2007 23:19:56 -0400
Subject: 18.0458 Brian Vickers and A Lover's Complaint
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0458 Brian Vickers and A Lover's Complaint
Gerald Downs supports Brian Vickers' case that John Davies wrote A
Louer's Complaint. This was done on the basis of 90 parallels to Davies'
ideas and phrases found in his poems and in ALC. Gerald presents an
illustrative instance of this in lines given as follows-first those in A
Lover's
Complaint and then in one of Davies' poems:
Thus meerely with the garment of a grace
The naked and concealed fiend he coverd,
That th' unexperient gave the tempter place,
Which like a Cherubin above them hoverd
Who young and simple would not be so loverd.
(LC, 317-20)
I am (quoth shee) no Soule-confounding Fiend,
Assuming Angell's forme for wicked end;
But come to grace thee, graceless forlorne Man,
With divine favors. (115-118) [Davies]
While this parallel cannot be denied, it does not preclude that both
sets of lines are drawn from a common source which has the Devil
functioning as Tempter and operating in disguise nor does it preclude
that Shakespeare read Davies' poem and was touched by it. Gerald
testifies to the persuasiveness of Brian Vickers' book (which I presume,
although I have not read Vickers book, addresses these alternative
possibilities).
For what it is worth, I read some lines by Davies from his MICROCOSMOS,
which I found quoted in the introduction of a compilation of his work,
and find that the influence of these very words show up in Hamlet. Let
me quote first from Davies:
Be jeloues of me, play a Louer's part :
Keepe Pleasure from my sense, with sense of paine,
And mixe the same with pleasure by thine Arte;
That so I may with joy the griefe sustain,
Which joy in griefe by thy deere loue I gaine.
Now to Hamlet, in Claudius's comment to all assembled on his marriage to
Gertrude:
Therefore our sometime sister, now our queen,
The imperial jointress to this warlike state,
Have we, as 'twere with a defeated joy,--
With an auspicious and a dropping eye,
With mirth in funeral and with dirge in marriage,
In equal scale weighing delight and dole,--
Taken to wife: ...
Notice Shakespeare's phrase, "defeated joy"-a striking phrase combining
opposite attributes-that seems to echo Davies similarly arresting
phrase, "joy in griefe." Claudius immediately continues with a
recitation of numerous parallels of a similar kind-"auspicious and a
dropping," "mirth in funeral," dirge in marriage," and "delight and
dole." It is as though Shakespeare had read Davies' "joy in griefe" and
wonderfully enlarged on this image.
It sure looks like Shakespeare read Davies here and paid him by
imitation the sincerest form of flattery. Can this explain the pairing
that Gerald Downs offered and perhaps some of the others-Shakespeare
working with Davies' images, enlarging on them, rather than lifting an
entire poem by Davies without attribution. Why would not the poem have
been found as part of the Davies corpus? Do writers like him write poems
that are left as orphans?
The point is that it need not be that John Davies wrote A Louer's
Complaint but rather that Shakespeare dashed off this narrative poem to
parallel his Sonnets for the purpose of creating a context that
suggested that the Sonnets too was to be read in a similar vein as a
poem describing the pitfalls of love. Note that both poems make the same
point that, despite the difficulties and disappointments that love may
bring, love is the very stuff of life and worth all the pain.
Shakespeare might have been concerned that his readers would too easily
recognize the Sonnets as allegorical and raise questions about its
deeper meaning which he had reasons not to desire at the time. Fifty
years ago, the allegory theory of the Sonnets was widely assumed by
scholars. Opposite to Vickers and Gerald, this view assumes that
Shakespeare was very much involved with his Sonnets and the poem
accompanying it.
About the word "grace" which Davies was so fond of using as to have used
it in variations "800 times," that word and its variations appear in the
Sonnets about 30 times and in ALC about five times. Neither of the
latter two poems seem to make so striking a use of this word as to make
this overly conspicuous and indicative of the influence of Davies.
I offer these thoughts as food for thought.
David Basch
[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sid Lubow <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Monday, 9 Jul 2007 15:43:13 EDT
Subject: Brian Vickers and A Lover's Complaint
Our Editor preceded Gerald E. Downs post with this:
"[Editor's Note: I have been uncomfortable with submissions about A
Lover's Complaint from the beginning of this round of them. And as soon
as I see a submission whose purpose is to argue overtly for a topic that
is out-of-bounds on SHAKSPER, I will shut down the thread. -HMC]"
Before I would even attempt a response, I request clarification of the
words "out-of-bounds". Indeed, one need not use the name of
Shakespeare, or any author in order to understand ALC or the Sonnets. To
defend Downs' lack of understanding ALC, he resorts to quoting Vickers,
Davies of Hereford,, Shakespeare, Shakespeareans, MacDonald P. Jackson,
Kenneth Muir, all the while raising the authorship issue that Davies was
the true author of ALC. And gets away with the trick, violating the
Editor's bounds. And if Davies was plagiarized, why did Davies not
confront Shakespeare and tell the B---ard off while both were still alive?
[Editor's Note: Regarding "out-of-bounds": It is perfectly acceptable to
discuss whether William Shakespeare of Stratford upon Avon did or did
not author "A Lover's Complaint"; it is not acceptable to argue that
because of convoluted parallels someone (Let's say, Oxford) was the
author of LC as well as the other works attributed to William
Shakespeare. The so-called "authorship question" is a topic that I
stopped permitting discussion on many years ago; and as I announced on
February 8, 2006, I will only post messages that I believe are of
interest to the broad scope of academic interests in Shakespeare
studies. In 2005, I made the following statement: "Once again, let me
remind members, old and new, that I do not permit postings on the
so-called 'authorship' question. If you wish to contend that William
Shakespeare of Stratford was not the author of the plays and poems
generally associated with him, then you have subscribed to the wrong
list. Other authorship issues are acceptable, including apocrypha,
collaborative writing, and possible misattributions such as <I>A Lover's
Complaint</I>. This is an academic list and I as an educator have a
responsibility not to distribute posting that I view as misleading or
scholarly unsound. A number of years ago, I gave Anti-Stratfordians the
floor to air their arguments. The ensuing discussions threatened to
consume the list, so I ended them. There are plenty of places to have
such discussions; SHAKSPER is just not one of them"
<http://www.shaksper.net/archives/2005/1341.html>. I feel that recently
some members have been pushing the limits of this policy with
submissions that I have only reluctantly posted. I intent to be vigilant
about what gets posted here, and I shall simply deleted without comment
or response submissions that I believe do not adhere to the policies
expressed above. -HMC]
I have many things to say. I do not intend to refute or defend
authorship, in any way, although I strain at the leash, to defend the
speechless Shakespeare, whose work has been trashed. I think it is more
important to tell Shakespeareans the story of the Sonnets and why ALC is
the link. Indeed, that it is the Prologue to the Sonnets. Please
note, Downs does not tell us any of the story.
The last two lines of ALC, read:
"Would yet againe betray the fore-betrayed,
And new peruert a reconciled Maide"...
the Muse...who goes back into the Sonnets, having been seduced by the
same young man, who was not yet old enough to shave, Narcissus, who says
that he is "A God in love," with himself, "to whom I am confin'd."
I request clarification. Can one discuss the Sonnets and ALC's
relationship to it without discussing the name of ANYONE except
Narcissus? Namely, the speechless young man in the mirror, and the Muse
who wooed the reflection away. The spiteful Muse, who complained so
bitterly to the old man, voluntarily telling him so many scandalous
things about her seducer's flings, (and arrows) so ungrateful was he,
after she breathed inspiration into "his spungie lungs" in the last
stanza of ALC.
By the way, Colin Burrow devoted nine pages to ALC and did not end any
"discussion" about it. As a matter of fact, he wrote this: "Brilliant
critical and literary historical work by John Kerrigan, who was the
first editor to see that the poem (ALC), is integrally connected to the
sonnet sequence it follows, has brought the poem to life as echt
Shakespeare."
Respectfully,
Sid Lubow
[Editor's Note: Sid Lubow asks above, "Can one discuss the Sonnets and
ALC's relationship to it without discussing the name of ANYONE except
Narcissus?" In response, let me explain my position. I am myself
generally not open to biographical interpretations of Shakespeare's
works. It is an interesting exercise to speculate about who the
characters in The Sonnet might be, but I do not consider The Sonnets as
telling a literal biographical story, despite any attempts to suggest
real persons as being the characters in The Sonnets. If someone has some
evidence (and I do mean evidence and not mere speculation) about who
characters who appear in "A Lover's Complaint" might be, then I would
post that evidence. However, I am not inclined to have someone use
SHAKSPER to advocate a . . . [readers may insert here what they consider
the appropriate adjective to describe a particularly esoteric] . . .
theory. Sid Lubow has such a theory, a theory that connects "A Lover's
Complaint" and The Sonnets in a manner that argues for someone else's
authorship of these and all of Shakespeare's works. I deem this theory
not to be of interest to the Shakespeare academic community, and I will
not post submission of this nature. Finally, let me remind all that
submissions should be substantial and not merely speculative. SHAKSPER
is not the place for individual musings and unsubstantial speculations.
Members should read any books they are commenting on.-HMC]
_______________________________________________________________
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.
|
