The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0098 Tuesday, 6 February 2007
Date: Sunday, 4 Feb 2007 23:15:46 EST
Subject: 18.0079 Thorpe Query
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0079 Thorpe Query
Marvin Bennet Krims said:
>>Thanks to all who correctly steered me away from Thorpe to
>>Jaggard and The Passionate Pilgrim.
>>This List is such a valuable resource.
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."
One might think these goals apply to the list as a whole, not only to
special topics. If so, is it possible that Peter Holland's contribution
falls short of the 'valuable resource' necessary to a raised level of
>>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).
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
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'?
Gerald E. Downs
[Editor's Note: 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. -HMC]
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
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.