The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0716 Friday, 4 August 2006
From: Gerald E Downs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: Thursday, 3 Aug 2006 17:06:45 EDT
Subject: The Collier Leaf, part 2
In addition to numerous paleographical errors in his article on the
"Collier Leaf" in _Shaksperian Scraps_, Tannenbaum adds poorly conceived
theatrical and literary arguments, suggesting again that his case was
hurriedly overconfident. One example is particularly telling. Because
the lines discussed may yet touch on the question of forgery, the poor
argument will at least introduce one of Collier's traits.
Granting, then, that the manuscript is not a remnant of a
prompt-book, is it possible -- as has been suggested
(privately) -- that it is part of the author's first draft, that is,
part of the author's "foul papers"? That this view is . . .
untenable . . . will be granted when the following remarks
by [Greg] are considered: "In line [30] 'degestion' [sic]
should surely be 'dejection,' and in lines [31-32] neither
of Collier's versions seems satisfactory. In the earlier the
colon after 'ayme' [line 31] is manifestly wrong, and the
repetition of 'now' [line 32] hardly less so: in the later 'More
at thy ende than exterpatione' is nonsense." Evidently,
then, the leaf is not in the handwriting of the author.
Not even in his foulest papers would an author write such
absurd and unintelligible stuff without attempting to
correct it. (182-3)
This passage must have been maddening to Adams. The private suggestion
that the leaf was foul papers was made by Adams himself, who was no
doubt blindsided by the "refutation." More to the point, Tannenbaum
should have been more careful in citing Greg on this Guise speech:
fondlie has thow in Censte the guises sowle 28
yt of itself was hote enoughe to worke
thy Iust degestione wt extreamest shame.
the armye I have gathered now shall ayme
more at thie end then exterpatione 32
Greg had no access to the leaf for his 1928 edition. He relied instead
on Collier's 1925 and 1931 transcripts, which were inaccurate and did
not agree with each other. The later transcript is accurate at line 32,
but that of 1925 reads:
Nowe at thine end then exterpatione
Knowledge of the correct transcription obviates the need to question
this reading as a product of the Elizabethan theater. Greg's treatment
in itself shows his reliance on Collier, but that must have been known
to readers of the edition anyway. In questioning a suggestion of foul
papers, Tannenbaum should have cited approvingly only Greg's comment
about the correct version. Tannenbaum was too hasty with his own
argument and Adams was quick to reply.
As it happens, "digestion" is not wrongly used; there is no colon after
"ayme"; and "more at thie end then exterpatione" makes passable sense.
It is possible that Tannenbaum did not himself believe Greg's arguments,
but saw a win-win scenario if he cited them. Greg's authority could
discredit Adams's 'foul papers' suggestion. If the arguments failed, the
discredit would redound to Greg. Whatever the motive, the addition of
these and other poor arguments only serve to make Tannenbaum look that
much worse after his goofs in interpreting the photographs.
Given these preliminaries, two fundamental questions arise. First, did
Tannenbaum make any good arguments in his prosecution of the forgery
case? Second, did Adams make any good arguments in defense of the
Collier Leaf? I will give an incomplete answer to the first query before
moving to the second.
Despite the terrific rebuttal Adams makes, he does not answer the whole
of his opponent's case. For example, Tannenbaum notes of the 'f ' in
'fondlie', the first word of the verso of the leaf: "The overhead loop
terminates with a descending stroke to the left, as no Elizabethan ' f '
ever did." Adams does not comment on this, though it seems odd for the
top of an 'f ' to be written backward. If one is to examine the leaf
anew, all such evidence must be given due weight.
As noted above, Tannenbaum offers as evidence of forgery this statement:
"Collier's discoveries, when uncorroborated, and incapable of
corroboration, are probably all forgeries" (186). Adams says this and
related arguments are "without force, and therefore call for no
comment." (467) Yet in the Foreword to Tannenbaum's _Scraps_, Adams
comments:
At any rate, one naturally suspects every document or
manuscript entry that he first called attention to, or that
at some time passed through his hands without having
been previously recorded by a person of recognized
integrity.
Adams's change of heart (or at least his differentiation between
'naturally suspects every' and 'probably all' was perhaps necessitated
by the surprise application of the suspicion to a document he thought
genuine. Question of Collier's stories of provenance cannot be dismissed
out of hand. When this failure to account for a manuscript can be shown
to be typical of forgery (particularly of Collier forgery) and when the
subject of the manuscript can be shown to be helpful to Collier's
established opinion, then 'no provenance' may grow to the status of
negative evidence.
Other of Tannenbaum's case should be considered when evaluating the
evidence in its entirety, as I believe must be done anew. But now I'll
examine the evidence Adams offers in support of the genuineness of the
leaf, as opposed to his confutation of Tannenbaum's negative argument.
At the outset we note that Adams's legacy is presented with a particular
problem that is not addressed. He says:
. . . it is difficult to believe that a contemporary transcriber
would use for his purpose an awkwardly shaped scrap of
paper, would write so carelessly, or would leave one side
of the leaf partly blank. . . . It seems to me more likely that
the manuscript is a preliminary draft . . ." (449)
All of Adams's argument is in support of the hypothesis that the leaf is
an example of an authorial draft, and therefore in Marlowe's hand. He
was unaware of the single Marlowe signature discovered in 1939 that
effectively denies identity of the leaf penman with the playwright. The
relevance of this fact may be discounted if the authorship of The
Massacre is called into question, but the point is that Adams geared his
paper to his theory and he did not attempt a description of the leaf as
anything other than a "foul sheet."
Adams repeatedly refers to the leaf as "carelessly" written. This
judgment may too readily explain some features of the penmanship and
could therefore be a reflection of bias. An adept forger may simulate
nonchalance and may even strive to that end. Further, the leaf may
exhibit on examination an overall attempt write carefully.
A notable feature of photographs of the leaf is the paleness of some
letters and the subject may be of some importance. (In the Collier Leaf
Universe, that is). Adams remarks:
Indeed, it is easy to tell when the writer 'dipped', and the
regular sequence of gradually fading and suddenly darker
words gives excellent testimony to the fluency with which
he wrote. ((454)
It seems to me that a pen would run out of ink in the same way, whether
the writing was fluent or not. Adams describes the penman in a manner
that would seem to differentiate him from a forger, without exactly
saying why:
The scribe was not a copy-book artist, but he wrote with
fluency and speed, and employed throughout a consistent
style, showing marked individuality. There are, to be sure,
instances where he corrected single letters (inserted in
error, or poorly made) . . . (457).
A forger may show marked individuality and consistent style. Even so,
these traits are matters of both quality and quantity that may be
reexamined. It also may be asked whether the writer's noted absence of
linked letters shows fluency and speed, or the lack of each. Adams also
says:
honest corrections, made with no effort at concealment,
they tend rather to guarantee the genuineness of the
document than to convict it of forgery.
Yet a forger would not necessarily try to conceal corrections. True,
disguised corrections may be evidence of forgery. But a forger may guard
against detection by more natural and straightforward touching up. This
would certainly be true if the forger was adept and practiced in his
style. It must be remembered that Collier (the only suspect) grew up
using a quill pen, was a shorthand expert, knew more manuscripts and
Elizabethan literature than most, was indefatigable, and a committed
forger. Even Tannenbaum erred in supposing that a forger must be
incompetent. Certainly if forgery is to be detected, anomalies are the
clues, and unconcealed retouching must be evaluated as evidence in any case.
Adams repeats his theme, this time in defending an italic 'o ', formed
by two semicircles: ' () ', "so obviously . . . without the smallest
effort at deception, that we might regard the letter as evidence of
genuineness rather than of crafty forgery." Again, an optional formation
of an Italic form would not be limited to legitimate writers, nor would
forgers necessarily be crafty at all times. Except for issues of
photography and ink, these assertions are the only arguments Adams uses
in defense of the leaf. To me they seem too subjective.
Adams caught Tannenbaum's serious misinterpretations of his photographs
of the Collier Leaf. Tannenbaum had seen the original and the photos are
clear and promise to be of use even to those who rely on the book. In a
review, Van Dam says, "Of all these alleged forgeries beautiful
facsimile plates are provided which enable anyone to check Dr.
Tannenbaum's arguments." But Adams demonstrates that photographs can be
deceptive, and he uses his examples to make a sweeping condemnation:
As Professor Feuillerat once remarked to me . . . "A
photograph is the greatest liar in the world !" . . . On the
whole, if one has sharp eyes and the writing is of good
size . . . one can more safely trust to an examination of
the original . . . (458)
Despite its seeming force, the Feuillerat citation is not very helpful
unless one is learning to spell 'Feuillerat'. Let's turn instead to a
contemporary authority who seems much more reasonable. In _Questioned
Documents_ (1940), Albert S Osborn makes the following statements:
Photographs are useful in nearly every questioned document
investigation . . . (39).
Photographs often make clear what otherwise may be hidden
or indistinct, and this fact alone is sufficient for their use (39).
It is necessary that certain tangible things should be of a
certain size before their presence is mentally recognized.
This is the reason that enlarged photographs sometimes at
first sight seem to be unfair and distorted when they are
absolutely accurate. Their purpose is to make plain certain
hidden or partly hidden things, and they do this so effectively
that at first sight they are criticized as inaccurate. These
attacks are the most eloquent of testimonials as to the value
of the illustrations (41).
Objections to the use of photographs in court are based
upon the theory that they may be distorted and not true
representations of the original, and it is often incorrectly
asserted that the original affords the best means for study
and comparisons and that no reproduction of it is necessary.
It is true that photographs may be distorted and may be
dishonest and if they cannot be properly proved or verified
by comparison with the original they should be excluded (47).
Tannenbaum, who cites this authority, made a fundamental error by not
comparing his photos (or having them compared by the Folger Library) to
the original Collier Leaf.
The real reason for most objections to photographs is
that they do well just what it is intended they should do,
that is, assist in showing the facts. (48)
Skilled microscope specialists . . .are always careful that
the degree of enlargement is appropriate to the most effective
understanding of the thing to be seen. . . .To show retouching,
disconnections, and a slow drawing movement, considerable
enlargement may, however, be necessary. (55 & 59)
Thus a real authority seems not to agree that photography is useless. No
examination of the Collier Leaf would be complete without extensive use
of photographs. Tannenbaum used them wrongly, but that should not
prejudice their future use. Another issue that Adams argues may relate
to photography. Dr T made this statement:
The ink is brown, conspicuously dark in some places and
very pale in others. The contrast between the light and dark
letters is very striking; some letters are so pale as to be
almost invisible. It might be supposed that the pale writing
was due to the pen's running dry, but, in view of the fact
that lines 26 and 27 . . . are pale throughout their whole
extent, this explanation cannot be right. It is also noticeable
that in some places, as in line 23, there is a succession of
four or five pale words without any indications of a failure
on the pen's part to write. (179)
Adams denies these characteristics:
In the original, the ink is not 'conspicuously' uneven in
colour . . ., save where the quill began to run dry and the
writer dipped his pen for a fresh supply. . . .[Lines 26&27]
are not pale; . . . line 23 . . . contains no noticeably pale
words. (455)
Tannenbaum doesn't speak to any inference based on the observed paleness
of writing, but the implication is that something was fishy about the
ink. Adams doesn't address that question, other than to quash it by
implying that the ink is normal. What he does authoritatively is to
contradict Tannenbaum in such a way as to further discredit him.
A little retrograde analysis suggests to me that Tannenbaum must have
noticed some pale ink in the original, but arrived at his published
evaluation by viewing the photographs, which seem even in the book
plates to confirm his observations. It is hard to conceive of any
photographic error that would produce such variations of shading, so
they are indicative of some difference in the ink not apparent (at least
in extent) to the naked eye.
True, a pen runs out of ink and needs dipping. But unless something
alters the delivery, the shading should not vary until the last moments,
or until a spotty flow occurs. If the paleness revealed in the
photographs is real, as it must be, this condition alone vindicates the
use of photographs.
Petti backs Tannenbaum on this issue, perhaps after having seen the
original; he doesn't say. But he is unequivocal in his pronouncement:
"Tannenbaum was surely right to be uneasy about the continual unevenness
of inking, and the occasional retracing of letters" (85). Petti doesn't
speculate as to what the uneasiness should portend.
I have recently seen a photographic plate of a 16th Century formal
document that exhibited an even more pronounced two-toned effect. If the
scribe had seen the same variation he would not have approved his own
work. It's safe to say the effect is not always noticeable and not
unprecedented.
What causes a string of pale words? A quill draws ink by capillary
action, as we observe a portion of a drink climb the inside of a straw.
When the pen touches an absorbent material, gravity insures a flow. Ink
comprising solvents such as water and alcohol may perhaps separate in a
capillary, where the water and alcohol could carry more or less of the
coloring. As the quill is used, the darker ink is used up until the
lighter flows, though it may darker to the naked eye.
Whether this guess has merit or not, some phenomenon is at work to
produce variant shading, and that must result from an ink that is not a
homogeneous solution. By itself, finding the ink was anomalous would not
certainly indicate forgery, but a list of the odd features of the leaf
might be telling if it gets long enough. How unusual can a legitimate
document be?
At any rate, Adams appears to be wrong to deny the fading of the ink,
and to this he adds no argument except to defend some paleographic
aspects of the leaf, and this he does well, especially when Tannenbaum
is unobservant. Still, the issue of handwriting is by no means
exhausted. For example, Petti says, "There is an incredibly large number
of detached letters for a cursive script, and the slight tremulousness
in the penstrokes, the blots and false starts may connote a forger's
hesitancy. Also worrying is a lack of uniformity of character in the
writing." (85) These are matters for the judgment of an unbiased
paleographer.
To be continued in a last post. Gerald E Downs
_______________________________________________________________
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.