DOCSLIB.ORG

4. Collaborative Shakespeare

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
4. Collaborative Shakespeare SAA TORONTO 2013 a play unfinished (Wilkins – Pericles) or when a problem arises (Sir Thomas More). Shakespeare is therefore seen SEMINAR 4: COLLABORATIVE generally as either a writer in his formative SHAKESPEARE years during his pre-Chamberlain’s days or as a ‘play-doctor’ at the end of his writing CONVENORS: HEATHER career, ready to come to the rescue of less HIRSCHFELD AND TON gifted playwrights. Otherwise, the central HOENSELAARS core of the canon (i.e. the second tetralogy and Henry V, the mature comedies, the five most celebrated tragedies and the better known tragicomedies) are intentionally ABSTRACTS foregrounded as solo work, reinforcing the romantic image of Shakespeare as isolated genius who worked on his own and downplaying an alternative possible image of the playwright as interacting with other I. “Collaborator or Co-Author?: authors in a rich medium in which Shakespeare’s Collaborative Practices in authorship may have been understood as a Modern Biography and Popular Fiction” more fluid notion. The most immediate drawback of Clara Calvo, University of Murcia, Spain this all too frequent narrative that polarises collaboration into the early and late phases In recent years, a turn to the study of of Shakespeare’s writing career is that it Shakespeare’s collaboration with allows little room for other kind of contemporary playwrights has become Shakespearean collaborative practices evident in Shakespearean scholarship. Has during the middle period of his dramatic this interest trickled down to Shakespearean production. For instance, this scenario biography or popular representations of clashes with the existing evidence, which Shakespeare as fictional character? This suggests that Shakespeare is likely to have paper sets out to examine both academic been the author of the additions to The and non-academic biographies as well as Spanish Tragedy. some examples of popular fiction that construe Shakespeare as literary character * to determine if any consistent patterns emerge in the treatment of Shakespeare as II. “Forms of Affiliation to the Profession collaborator. of Dramatist” The working hypothesis is that whereas most popular representations of Lacey Conley, Marquette University Shakespeare tend, as a rule, to ignore his collaborative activities, in many recent In this paper, I plan to approach the various biographies, collaboration takes the shape practices of authorial collaboration in the of a narrative in which Shakespeare early modern theater as expressions of the emerges as co-authoring plays with other authors’ individual backgrounds, playwrights at the start and the end of his experiences, and opinions about plays and dramatic career. This narrative often has the playwriting. Based on biographical details effect of implying that his collaboration and the ideas expressed in the writing of the was either the result of a mere period of authors themselves, I have placed each of apprenticeship that took place during the the twenty three playwrights who, within early years of his development as author or the years 1590-1625, I have identified as the logical conclusion of his maturity as “professional” (informed by G.E. Bentley’s writer, once he is a well-established criteria) in one of the following four “forms playwright and he is resorted to as a first- of affiliation” to the playwriting profession: class expert when another playwright leaves Attached Dramatists, Commercial Professionals, Literary Dramatists, and 1 Gentleman Authors. In order to show how * an author’s affiliation to the profession affects his attitude towards and engagement IV. “Collaboration and Proprietary in collaborative authorship, I will use the Authorship: Shakespeare, et al.” example of the Poetomachia of 1599 to 1601. This debate about theatrical value Trevor Cook, Trent University, Oshawa involved at least one member of each of the aforementioned “forms,” so it is an ideal Who in Shakespeare’s lifetime deserved example of how conflicting perspectives credit for a play like Pericles? The title about drama and authorship found ways to page of the 1609 quarto lists the King’s coexist—more or less amicably—in the Men as the actors and William Shakespeare very public forum of a staged debate. In as the author, but the play was not included this instance, the playwrights were able to in the First Folio and many scenes were engage in attempts at internal regulation of evidently written by George Wilkins, who the bounds of their profession, while also had only a year prior published a prose facilitating audience recognition of version of the same story. Was it (or just individual authorial styles through the use parts of it) Shakespeare’s work, Wilkins’, of mocking and exaggerated or a joint property? Or as any one of the impersonations of one another, enabling interested parties might have put it: yours, them to promote both themselves and the mine, or ours? Shakespeare was not as legitimacy of their craft. The Poet’s War concerned with the question as some of his functions as a sort of meta-collaboration, contemporaries were. In The Spanish Gypsy where differing ideas are brought together (1623), the work of four leading Jacobean not simply for the creation of a single text, dramatists (Ford, Dekker, Middleton, and but rather for the construction of the Rowley), one player proposes to another dramatic profession itself. that they be inspired together when preparing the play-within-the-play so as to * protect his individual property: “we’ll invoke them [the muses] together – so that III. “The Passionate Pilgrim and you will not steal my plot.” In this context, Shakespearean Collaboration, with The Spanish Gypsy is as important for what Musings Upon a ❡” is has to say about the significance of attribution as it has been as a test case for Francis X. Connor, Wichita State methods of attributing authorship, University especially in light of the fact that scholars continue to be divided on the implications The Passionate Pilgrim includes a handful of collaboration for such concepts as of known Shakespeare poems surrounded literary property: some continue to cite the poems either unattributed or attributed to prevalence of collaboration as an historical other hands. Yet this is rarely considered a alternative to the modern notion of collaborative work, in large part because authorial property, while others maintain Shakespeare’s role in the production of the that it was equally common for authors in book remains unknown. Building upon the period to work independently and so be recent criticism that has begun to accustomed to receiving unique credit for acknowledge Passionate Pilgrim as a their work. This paper considers how thematically coherent work, I consider collaborators within The Spanish Gypsy some grounds upon which we may consider negotiate these differences in ways that it a Shakespearean particular. To this end, I might also shed light on Shakespeare’s read an awful lot into a single piece of type working relationship with the likes of in the 1598 Loues labors lost, wondering if Wilkins. a pilcrow that precedes a sonnet the play shares with Passionate Pilgrim may be key * to understanding how Shakespeare may have considered his poetry collaborative. 2 V. “What is not collaborative about early responded to the claim and presented modern drama in performance and countering evidence on multiple objective print?” and subjective points, their refutation generally treated the play as a whole rather Gabriel Egan, De Montfort University, than considering it on a scene-by-scene Leicester, UK basis, as outlined in Maguire and Smith’s argument. Because of this discrepancy, This paper is concerned with the idea that further study seemed in order. This Shakespeare’s plays are inherently preliminary paper describes the results of a collaborative because drama is a collective word, phrase, and collocation study based artform and that the processes of on the methodology employed by transmission by which the texts come down MacDonald P. Jackson, performed on to us – scribal copying and printing – passages selected from among the scenes in constitute additional layers of collaboration. All’s Well that Ends Well considered most On the assumption that Shakespeare Middletonian in nature by Maguire and welcomed or at least acquiesced to changes Smith. Evidence drawn from the seven to his plays made by actors during analyzed samples corroborates Shakespeare rehearsal, the 1986 Oxford Complete as sole author of All’s Well, with Middleton Works edition attempted, where a choice attributes lagging behind even those of John existed, to reflect the plays as they were Fletcher, used as a control. Finally, the first performed rather than as first written. paper glances at data visualization as an This paper reconsiders the extent to which important, and underexplored, aspect of Shakespeare’s plays may have been visual rhetoric in early modern studies and reshaped in the theatre, finding that it has notes the opportunity for collaborative recently been overstated and that his organization and dissemination of the authority over his words is probably greater multiple kinds of data required for than usually supposed. The idea that textual stylometric studies (including peer- transmission was thoroughly collaborative reviewed data on authorial, scribal, and rose to prominence in the 1980s and 1990s compositorial practices and attributions as the sociology-of-texts movement reached throughout the entire corpus of early Shakespeare studies. This approach stressed modern dramas, as well as bibliographic that writers do not produce books on their information). own, and that a constellation of other individuals and institutions constitutes the * necessary condition that enables publication. The collaborative nature of VII. “Lego and Logos” publication also appears to have been overstated and editors ought to focus on Jeffrey Kahan, University of La Verne, undoing the effects of scribes and Southern California compositors to recover the authorial labour. In essence, mathematical approaches follow * a lego block approach. That is, Shakespeare uses such and such a word or image, Fletcher uses another.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sonnets. Edited by C. Knox Pooler
    Presented to the LIBRARY of the UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO hy The 'Estate of the late PROFESSOR A. S. P. WOODHOIISE Head of the Department of English -» University College 1944-1964 \ '^/i^ /F. ^r:y r. -1 "^ NiL- ' 7^ ( ^S, U , - ^ ^' ^ ^/f '^i>-, '^Si^6,i(i? THE ARDEN SHAKESPEARE GENERAL EDITOR : W. J. CRAIG 1899-1906: R. H. CASE, 1909 SONNETS J^' THE WORKS OF SHAKESPEARE SONNETS EDITED BY C. KNOX POOLER ? METHUEN AND CO. LTD. 36 ESSEX STREET : STRAND LONDON First Published in igi8 z£4S CONTENTS PAOE Introduction ^* Dedication ^ Sonnets ..... 3 A Lover's Complaint *45 INTRODUCTION According to the Stationers' Registers, a license to print a book called Shakespeare's Sonnets was granted to Thomas Tjiprpe on the 20th of May, 1609. It appeared with the : Sonnets Never before following title-page Shake-speares | | At London G. Eld for T. T. and are to be ] Imprinted. | | by solde William Some instead of by Apsley. \ 1609. copies " " William have " lohn at Christ Apsley Wright, dwelling j Church gate," an indication that these two publishers shared in the venture. The publication cannot have been long delayed, for Edward Alleyn, the actor, bought a copy (for ^d.) in June. " " The words never before imprinted are not strictly accurate, as two of the sonnets, cxxxviii. and cxliv., had already ap- peared in The Passionate Pilgrim (1599). The book seems to have been issued without Shakespeare's his are knowledge, certainly without super\'ision ; misprints the often both sense unusually frequent ; punctuation neglects and and there are other errors of more rhythm ; consequence which no author or competent reader could have overlooked.
    [Show full text]
  • Sweet Cytherea”
    Proving Oxfordian Authorship in “Sweet Cytherea” The Wind-Up Oxford’s poems do not resemble Shakespeare’s. They were two different writers. Such is Academe’s preclusive claim that a literary chasm exists between the known, usually early, writings of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, and the collected works we recognize by the spectacular epithet ‘Shakespeare’. (Baldrick, l7-18; Elliott, The Shakespeare Files; Kathman, website; Low, letter NY Times; Nelson, quoted, “Shakespeare Matters”, 7; Nelson, website) Since Lord Oxford published under a series of pseudonyms and proxies in order to carry on an artistic vocation shunned by his class, only three subscribed poems after his youth have survived. (“Shakespeare” Vol I, 553) There are no original notes and manuscripts to document an Oxford/’Shakespeare’ stylistic evolution. His plays are said to have been lost. (Sidney Lee, in “Shakespeare” Vol I, 112) The 1951 Encyclopaedia Britannica noted only, “He was a lyric poet of no small merit.” Orthodoxy therefore may prefer the slanted odds of comparing The Sonnets, ‘Shakespeare’s masterpiece, with Oxford’s juvenilia, involving a gap of twenty-five to thirty-five years in a life full of writing and personal change. Lacking the autograph work, critics who credit Oxford as the mind behind the name 'Shakespeare' must build their evidence from logical deduction, similar phrasing and poetic devices, biographical allusion, vocabulary, allegorical reference, and a recombination of previously disparate sources. But these investigative techniques apply to any author’s unprovenanced writings. The literary detective work is no different. Should it link an unattributed work to Francois Marie Arouet, for instance, which means simultaneously to his pseudonym Voltaire, it would be a red-letter day for literature.
    [Show full text]
  • I599-I6oi: the Author Brought Into Print Play Scene: "Loves Labors Lost" to "Troilus and Cressida "
    PART THREE I599-I6oi: the author brought into print Play scene: "Loves Labors Lost" to "Troilus and Cressida " "How many tales to please me she hath coined." "W. Shakespere," The Passionate Pilgrim, Poem 7 In his monumental 1790 edition, tided The Plays and Poems of William Shakspeare, Edmund Malone performs a curious editorial procedure. As rhe final poem to William Jaggard's The Passionate Pilgrim (1599, 1612) he prints "The Phoenix and Turtle," lifted from Robert C hester's Love's MartyJ; or Rosa/ins Complaint (r6or). Malone's procedure may obscure the textual independence of these rwo volumes of early modern poetry, bur it nonetheless highlights a shared genealogy for them: the genre of the printed miscellany.' In bringing rhe rwo volumes together, Malone makes available a set of comparisons berween rwo works of erotic verse printed at about rhe same nme. Together, rhe printing of The Passionate Pilgrim and "The Phoenix and Turde" near rhe mid-point ofShal<espeare's professional career represents a second phase of rhe national poet-playwright in print. Unlike rhe 1593-94 Venus and Lucrece, however, these works do nor show the a uthor presenting himself as a poet through the medium of print, but rather they are works rhat show a manuscript poet brought into print by others. The nature of rhe appropriation differs, as do rhe roles of Jaggard and C hester in Eliza­ bethan culture. Jaggard was a publisher and businessman on rhe look for a market success; Chester, an "obscure poet" in search of a patron (Burrow, ed., Sonnets and Poems, 82).
    [Show full text]
  • The Sonnets and Shorter Poems
    AN ANALYSIS OF A NOTEBOOK OF JAMES ORCHARD HALLIWELL-PHILLIPPS THE SONNETS AND SHORTER POEMS by ELIZABETH PATRICIA PRACY A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Arts of The University of Birmingham for the degree of MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY The Shakespeare Institute Faculty of Arts The University of Birmingham March 1999 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. O t:O SYNOPSIS The thesis starts with an Introduction which explains that the subject of the work is an analysis of the Notebook of J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps dealing with the Sonnets and shorter poems of Shakespeare owned by the Shakespeare Centre Library, Stratford-upon- Avon. This is followed by an explanation of the material and methods used to examine the pages of the Notebook and a brief account of Halliwell-Phillipps and his collections as well as a description of his work on the life and background of Shakespeare. Each page of the Notebook is then dealt with in order and outlined, together with a photocopy of Halliwell-Phillipps1 entry. Entries are identified where possible, with an explanation and description of the work referred to.
    [Show full text]
  • The Passionate Pilgrim
    CHAPTE R 5 "TJ.ates ' . cozne· d" : ''W. S''-na kespeare , zn· Jagg' ar,d 's The Passionate Pilgrim [William Jaggard was] an infamous pirate, liar, and thief [who pro­ duced a] worthless litrle volume of stolen and mutilated poetry, parched up and padded our with dirty and dreary doggerel. Algernon Charles Swinburne, Studies in Prose and Poetry (1894), 90 W ith the 1623 First Folio and rhe 1599 and 1612 editions of The Passionate PiLgrim, William Jagga rd had primed the first collecrions of both Shakespeare's plays and his poems. Margrcra de Grazia, Sbakespeare Verbntim (1991). 167 T he above epigraphs pi npoint changing critical perceptions of William Jaggard's role in Shal(espeare's professional career. At the end of the nineteenth century, Swinburne works from a "Romantic" view of the autonomous author to judge Jaggard morally and The Passionate Pilgrim aesthetically. Jaggard is a cheat and the poetry poor. Since the poems' only begetter is a pirate, liar, and thief, and his li ttle volume stolen, mutilated, patched, padded, dirty, dreary, and worthless, who could find interest in the enterprise? A hundred years later, de Grazia helps us begin to under­ stand why. Even if we condemn Jaggard, he occupies a historic position in the printing of the national poet-playwright. He is the first to anticipate modern editors, including Malone, in the publication of both "the plays and poems ofWill iam Shakspeare." In between Swinburne and de Grazia, W illiam Empson gets at the crux of the histori cal matter when he remarks, "The Passionate Pilgrim (1599) is a cheat, by a pirate who is very appreciative of the work of Shakespeare" ("Narrative Poems," u ).
    [Show full text]
  • Stylometric Techniques for Multiple Author Clustering Shakespeare‘S Authorship in the Passionate Pilgrim
    (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2017 Stylometric Techniques for Multiple Author Clustering Shakespeare‘s Authorship in The Passionate Pilgrim David Kernot1 3 Terry Bossomaier Roger Bradbury 1Joint and Operations Analysis 2The Centre for Research in 3National Security College Division Complex Systems The Australian National University Defence Science Technology Group Charles Sturt University Canberra, ACT, Australia Edinburgh, SA, Australia Bathurst, NSW, Australia Abstract—In 1598-99 printer, William Jaggard named Modern scholars are divided on the authorship of the Shakespeare as the sole author of The Passionate Pilgrim even remaining unknown twelve. Reference [5] suggests Jaggard though Jaggard chose a number of non-Shakespearian poems in used Shakespeare‘s name because the majority of the poems the volume. Using a neurolinguistics approach to authorship were Shakespeare‘s, including 12 unidentified poems in The identification, a four-feature technique, RPAS, is used to convert Passionate Pilgrim said to be his earlier quality work and the 21 poems in The Passionate Pilgrim into a multi-dimensional never meant for publishing. She also adds there is some doubt vector. Three complementary analytical techniques are applied surrounding the authorship of the Barnfield and Griffin to cluster the data and reduce single technique bias before an poems. Reference [6] disputes Shakespeare‘s authorship, alternate method, seriation, is used to measure the distances while [7] suggest eight, not 12 of the anonymous poems are between clusters and test the strength of the connections. The Shakespeare‘s. However, [2] suggest poems 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, multivariate techniques are found to be robust and able to allocate nine of the 12 unknown poems to Shakespeare.
    [Show full text]
  • Book Chapter
    Book Chapter Print and Manuscript ERNE, Lukas Christian Abstract Positioning Shakespeare at the "crossroads of manuscript and print" and exploring what the choice of print or manuscript reveals about the poet's intended audience and the social persona the poet wanted to assume and fashion, argues that "Shakespeare's authorial self-presentation begins as a poet and, more specifically, as a print-published poet" with the publication of Venus and Adonis in 1593 and the allusion to the publication of Rape of Lucrece in the next year. Yet also considers the implications of Shakespeare's early choice to have Sonnets read in manuscript rather than print and the appearance of Passionate Pilgrim which "does not suggest a poet who presents himself through the medium of print but reflects a manuscript poet who is brought into print by others." Reference ERNE, Lukas Christian. Print and Manuscript. In: Cheney, Patrick. The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare's Poetry. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2007. p. 54-71 Available at: http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:14591 Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version. 1 / 1 Print and manuscript the immediate audience of the scribal community, whereas print publishing 3 authors took their places on the great stage of the world? Manuscript (or LUKAS ERNE `scribal') publication is therefore usually aimed at a relatively small, private, or semi-private community, an inner circle, as it were, within which more could Print and manuscript be taken for granted and more was allowed than in printed books to which any purchaser had access.
    [Show full text]
  • Standard Abbreviations of Shakespeare Titles
    Standard Abbreviations of Shakespearean Titles According to the MLA Handbook, students should abbreviate titles of works and parts of works to avoid awkward or repetitive parenthetical in their papers. The MLA Handbook's suggestion to write out the full title the first time you mention the play, but then use abbreviations thereafter: "It is usually best to introduce an abbreviation in parentheses immediately after the first use of the full title in the text: 'In All's Well That Ends Well (AWW), Shakespeare develops the character of . .'" Below is a list of standard, traditional abbreviations for Shakespeare's work that you should use in citations. Shakespearean scholars will know and recognize them when you use them in your papers. See the MLA Handbook, 8th edition, section 1.6.4, pp. 100-01, for further information. Ado Much Ado about Nothing MND A Midsummer Night's Ant. Antony and Cleopatra Dream AWW All's Well that Ends Well MV The Merchant of Venice AYL As You Like It Oth. Othello Cor. Coriolanus Per. Pericles Cym. Cymbeline PhT The Phoenix and the Err. The Comedy of Errors Turtle F1 First Folio ed. (1623) PP The Passionate Pilgrim F2 Second Folio ed. (1632) Q Quarto ed. Ham. Hamlet R2 Richard II 1H4 Henry IV, Part 1 R3 Richard III 2H4 Henry IV, Part 2 Rom. Romeo and Juliet H5 Henry V Shr. The Taming of the Shrew 1H6 Henry VI, Part 1 Son. Sonnets 2H6 Henry VI, Part 2 TGV Two Gentlemen of 3H6 Henry VI, Part 3 Verona H8 Henry VIII Tim.
    [Show full text]
  • Shakespeare's Literary Authorship
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-40459-5 - Shakespeare’s Literary Authorship Patrick Cheney Frontmatter More information SHAKESPEARE’SLITERARYAUTHORSHIP Re-situating Shakespeare historically as an early modern professional, Patrick Cheney views him not simply as a man of the theatre, but also as an author with a literary career. Cheney argues that Shakespeare’s genius for disappearing into ‘character’ within the collaborative work of the theatre counters Elizabethan England’s dominant model of author- ship. Rather than present himself as a national or laureate poet, as Edmund Spenser does, Shakespeare conceals his authorship through dramaturgy, rendering his artistic techniques and literary ambitions opaque. Accordingly, recent scholars have attended more to his inno- vative theatricality or his indifference to textuality than to his contri- bution to modern English authorship. By tracking Shakespeare’s ‘counter-laureate authorship’, Cheney demonstrates the presence throughout the plays of sustained intertextual fictions about the twin media of printed poetry and theatrical performance. These fictions speak to Shakespeare’s standing as a new European author of poems and plays, and to his fascination with a literary afterlife, on page as on stage. By challenging Spenser as England’s National Poet, Shakespeare reinvents English authorship as a key part of his legacy. PATRICK CHENEY is Distinguished Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Pennsylvania State University. He is the author of Shakespeare, National Poet–Playwright (Cambridge, 2004), and is editor of a number of publications on early modern English drama and poetry, including The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare’sPoetry(2007), The Cambridge Companion to Christopher Marlowe (2004), and, with Brian J.
    [Show full text]
  • William Shakespeare 1 William Shakespeare
    William Shakespeare 1 William Shakespeare William Shakespeare The Chandos portrait, artist and authenticity unconfirmed. National Portrait Gallery, London. Born Baptised 26 April 1564 (birth date unknown) Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire, England Died 23 April 1616 (aged 52) Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire, England Occupation Playwright, poet, actor Nationality English Period English Renaissance Spouse(s) Anne Hathaway (m. 1582–1616) Children • Susanna Hall • Hamnet Shakespeare • Judith Quiney Relative(s) • John Shakespeare (father) • Mary Shakespeare (mother) Signature William Shakespeare (26 April 1564 (baptised) – 23 April 1616)[1] was an English poet and playwright, widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist.[2] He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon".[3][4] His extant works, including some collaborations, consist of about 38 plays,[5] 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems, and a few other verses, the authorship of some of which is uncertain. His plays have been translated into every major living language and are performed more often than those of any other playwright.[6] Shakespeare was born and brought up in Stratford-upon-Avon. At the age of 18, he married Anne Hathaway, with whom he had three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. Between 1585 and 1592, he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part-owner of a playing company called the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men. He appears to have retired to Stratford around 1613 at age 49, where he died three years later.
    [Show full text]
  • Reclaiming the Passionate Pilgrim for Shakespeare
    Reclaiming The Passionate Pilgrim for Shakespeare Katherine Chiljan he Passionate Pilgrim (1598-1599) is a hornet’s nest of problems for academic Shakespeareans. This small volume is a collection of twenty T poems with the name “W. Shakespeare” on the title page. Only fragments of the first edition survive; its date is reckoned as late 1598 or 1599, the same year as the second edition. Scholars agree that the text was pirated. Why it was called The Passionate Pilgrim is unknown. It has been suggested that the title was publisher William Jaggard’s at- tempt to fulfill public demand for Shake- speare’s “sugar’d sonnets circulated among his private friends” that Francis Meres had recently mentioned in Palladis Tamia, or Wit’s Treasury , also published 1598. Jag- gard somehow acquired two Shakespeare sonnets (slightly different versions of 138 and 144 in Thomas Thorpe’s 1609 edition), and placed them as the first and second poems in his collection. Three additional pieces (3, 5 and 16) were excerpts from Act IV of Love’s Labor’s Lost , which was also printed in 1598. A total of five poems, therefore, were unquestionably by Shakespeare. But attribution to Shakespeare for the rest has become confused and doubted because of the inclusion of pieces supposedly by other poets. Numbers 8 and 20 were published in Richard Barnfield’s The Encomion of Lady Pecunia: or The Praise of Money (1598); No. 11 appeared in Bartholomew Griffin’s Fidessa (1596); and No. 19, “Live with Me and Be My Love,” was later attributed to Christopher Marlowe.
    [Show full text]
  • Shakespeare's Shifting Sonnets. from Love's Labour's Lost to The
    In and Out: Shakespeare’s Shifting Sonnets. From Love’s Labour’s Lost to The Passionate Pilgrim Sophie Chiari To cite this version: Sophie Chiari. In and Out: Shakespeare’s Shifting Sonnets. From Love’s Labour’s Lost to The Passionate Pilgrim. The Englishness of English Poetry in the Early Modern Period. The Triumph of the Sonnet? , Laetitia Sansonetti, Anne-Valérie Dulac et Rémi Vuillemin May 2016, Strasbourg, France. hal-01719713 HAL Id: hal-01719713 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01719713 Submitted on 28 Feb 2018 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. In and Out: Shakespeare’s Shifting Sonnets. From Love’s Labour’s Lost to The Passionate Pilgrim Sophie Chiari, Université Clermont Auvergne, IHRIM (UMR 5317) While Shakespeare’s Sonnets did not appear in print before 1609, some of his sonnets were actually published before that date, which seems to suggest that there was hardly such thing as the so-called ‘private’ circulation of poems in early modern England.1 In a miscellany of twenty sonnets and lyrics entitled The Passionate Pilgrim (1598-1599) and printed by William Jaggard, one can find three poems from Love’s Labour’s Lost, a play whose earliest extant quarto edition dates back to 1598.2 Jaggard’s collection, which also comprised poems by Richard Barnfield, Bartholomew Griffin (the author of a 1596 sonnet sequence entitled Fidessa, More Chaste than Kinde), Christopher Marlowe and, possibly, Sir Walter Raleigh, sold so well that a reprint of 1612 included additional poems by Thomas Heywood.
    [Show full text]