The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0135  Monday, 12 February 2007

From: 		Gerald E. Downs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
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 
[etc.]" (616).

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
 >>obviously Shakespeare.

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
 >>third edition.

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
 >>addressed further.

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, 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.

Subscribe to Our Feeds


Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.