PATRICK CHENEY 3I See Max W.Thomas,'Eschewing Credit:Heywood,Shakespeare,and Plagiarism before Copyright',New Literary History 3I(2o00),277-93. 32 de Grazia,Shakespeare Verbatim:The Reproduction of Authenticity and the 1790 Apparatus(Oxford:Clarendon,1991),p.167.Since Jaggard published the I62 edition first with Shakespeare's name on the title page and then without it,we need to be careful when assigning to his publishing venture an interest specifically in Shakespeare. 33 For commentary and scholarship,see Complete Sonnets and Poems,ed.Burrow, pp.148-58.On A Funeral Elegy in particular,see Brian Vickers,Counterfeiting Shakespeare:Evidence,Authorship,and John Ford's 'Funerall Elegye' (Cambridge University Press,2002). 34 For commentary,see Walter Cohen,Introduction to'Various Poems'in the Norton Shakespeare,pp.1,991-5;and Kay,William Shakespeare',in Sixteenth-century British Non-dramatic Writers,ed.David A.Richardson,Dictionary of Literary Biograpby 172(Detroit:Gale Research,1996),pp.229-30.For scepticism about authenticity,see Poems,ed.John Roe(Cambridge University Press,1992),pp.2-3; and esp.Complete Sonnets and Poems,ed.Burrow,pp.146-52. READING LIST Burrow,Colin.'Life and Work in Shakespeare's Poems'.Chatterton Lecture on Poetry.Proceedings of the British Academy 97 (1998),I5-50. Cannan,Paul.D.'Early Shakespeare Criticism,Charles Gildon,and the Making of Shakespeare the Playwright-Poet'.Modern Philology Ioz(2004),35-55. Cheney,Patrick.'Shakespeare's Literary Career and Narrative Poetry'.In Early Modern English Poetry:A Critical Companion.Ed.Patrick Cheney,Andrew Hadfield,and Garrett Sullivan.New York:Oxford University Press,2007, Pp.I6I-71. Ellrodt,Robert.'Shakespeare the Non-Dramatic Poet'.In The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare Studies.Ed.Stanley Wells.Cambridge University Press,1986,pp.35-47. Enterline,Lynn.'"The Phoenix and Turtle",Renaissance Elegies,and the Language of Grief.In Early Modern English Poetry:A Critical Companion.Ed.Patrick Cheney,Andrew Hadfield,and Garrett Sullivan.New York:Oxford University Press,2007,pp.147-59. Ewbank,Inga-Stina.'Shakespeare's Poetry'.In A New Companion to Shakespeare Studies.Ed.Kenneth Muir and S.Schoenbaum.Cambridge University Press, I97I,Pp.99-II5. Empson,William.The Narrative Poems'.In Essays in Shakespeare.Ed.David B. Pirie.Cambridge University Press,1986,pp.I-28. Kay,Dennis.'William Shakespeare'.Sixteenth-century British Non-dramatic Writers.Ed.David A.Richardson.Dictionary of Literary Biography.172. Detroit:Gale Research,1996,pp.217-37. Kerrigan,John.'Shakespeare's Poems'.In The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare.Ed.Margreta De Grazia and Stanley Wells.Cambridge University Press,201,pp.65-8I. I2
31 See Max W. Thomas, ‘Eschewing Credit: Heywood, Shakespeare, and Plagiarism before Copyright’, New Literary History 31 (2000), 277–93. 32 de Grazia, Shakespeare Verbatim: The Reproduction of Authenticity and the 1790 Apparatus (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991), p. 167. Since Jaggard published the 1612 edition first with Shakespeare’s name on the title page and then without it, we need to be careful when assigning to his publishing venture an interest specifically in Shakespeare. 33 For commentary and scholarship, see Complete Sonnets and Poems, ed. Burrow, pp. 148–58. On A Funeral Elegy in particular, see Brian Vickers, ‘Counterfeiting’ Shakespeare: Evidence, Authorship, and John Ford’s ‘Funerall Elegye’ (Cambridge University Press, 2002). 34 For commentary, see Walter Cohen, Introduction to ‘Various Poems’ in the Norton Shakespeare, pp. 1,991–5; and Kay, ‘William Shakespeare’, in Sixteenth-century British Non-dramatic Writers, ed. David A. Richardson, Dictionary of Literary Biography 172 (Detroit: Gale Research, 1996), pp. 229–30. For scepticism about authenticity, see Poems, ed. John Roe (Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 2–3; and esp. Complete Sonnets and Poems, ed. Burrow, pp. 146–52. READING LIST Burrow, Colin. ‘Life and Work in Shakespeare’s Poems’. Chatterton Lecture on Poetry. Proceedings of the British Academy 97 (1998), 15–50. Cannan, Paul. D. ‘Early Shakespeare Criticism, Charles Gildon, and the Making of Shakespeare the Playwright–Poet’. Modern Philology 102 (2004), 35–55. Cheney, Patrick. ‘Shakespeare’s Literary Career and Narrative Poetry’. In Early Modern English Poetry: A Critical Companion. Ed. Patrick Cheney, Andrew Hadfield, and Garrett Sullivan. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 161–71. Ellrodt, Robert. ‘Shakespeare the Non-Dramatic Poet’. In The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare Studies. Ed. Stanley Wells. Cambridge University Press, 1986, pp. 35–47. Enterline, Lynn. ‘ ‘‘The Phoenix and Turtle’’, Renaissance Elegies, and the Language of Grief’. In Early Modern English Poetry: A Critical Companion. Ed. Patrick Cheney, Andrew Hadfield, and Garrett Sullivan. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 147–59. Ewbank, Inga-Stina. ‘Shakespeare’s Poetry’. In A New Companion to Shakespeare Studies. Ed. Kenneth Muir and S. Schoenbaum. Cambridge University Press, 1971, pp. 99–115. Empson, William. ‘The Narrative Poems’. In Essays in Shakespeare. Ed. David B. Pirie. Cambridge University Press, 1986, pp. 1–28. Kay, Dennis. ‘William Shakespeare’. Sixteenth-century British Non-dramatic Writers. Ed. David A. Richardson. Dictionary of Literary Biography. 172. Detroit: Gale Research, 1996, pp. 217–37. Kerrigan, John. ‘Shakespeare’s Poems’. In The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare. Ed. Margreta De Grazia and Stanley Wells. Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp. 65–81. PATRICK CHENEY 12
Introduction Lever,J.W.'Shakespeare's Narrative Poems'.In A New Companion to Shakespeare Studies.Ed.Kenneth Muir and S.Schoenbaum.Cambridge University Press, I97I,pp.II6-26. Magnusson,Lynne.Non-Dramatic Poetry'.In Shakespeare:An Oxford Guide.Ed. Stanley Wells and Lena Cowan Orlin.Oxford University Press,2003, Pp.286-99. Roberts,Sasha.'Shakespeare's Sonnets and English Sonnet Sequences'.In Early Modern English Poetry:A Critical Companion.Ed.Patrick Cheney,Andrew Hadfield,and Garrett Sullivan.New York:Oxford University Press,2007, Pp.I72-83. I3
Lever, J.W. ‘Shakespeare’s Narrative Poems’. In A New Companion to Shakespeare Studies. Ed. Kenneth Muir and S. Schoenbaum. Cambridge University Press, 1971, pp. 116–26. Magnusson, Lynne. ‘Non-Dramatic Poetry’. In Shakespeare: An Oxford Guide. Ed. Stanley Wells and Lena Cowan Orlin. Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 286–99. Roberts, Sasha. ‘Shakespeare’s Sonnets and English Sonnet Sequences’. In Early Modern English Poetry: A Critical Companion. Ed. Patrick Cheney, Andrew Hadfield, and Garrett Sullivan. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 172–83. Introduction 13
I WILLIAM J.KENNEDY Shakespeare and the development of English poetry Shakespeare's relationship to the earlier development of English poetry is complex and multiform.Certainly in his time,perspectives about this devel- opment were changing as a new generation of poets and writers re-evaluated the past.Shakespeare himself shifted his perspective on poetry,alternately engaging his attention with older popular forms,currently fashionable elite forms,and newly conceived experimental forms.When he began writing poems for his earliest plays,lyric poetry appeared in popular broadside printings of traditional ballads,anonymous verse,and occasionally signed poems;in prestige,often reprinted anthologies such as Richard Tottel's Songes and Sonnettes (1557)and Richard Edwards's The Paradise of Dainty Devyces(1576);and in a few volumes of seriously crafted verse by signed authors such as George Gascoigne in A Hundreth Sundrie Flowres (1573,revised as The Posies,1575).When in the early I59os Shakespeare wrote Venus and Adonis,The Rape of Lucrece,and his early Sonnets,the literary current in London was marked by the dominance of Edmund Spenser (after the publication of the first three books of The Faerie Oueene in 1590 and of Complaints in I59)and Philip Sidney(after the pirated publication of his Astrophil and Stella with Samuel Daniel's Delia in 1591).When by 1609 Shakespeare revised his Sonnets for their publication,the development of English poetry was undergoing a sea-change at the hands of Ben Jonson, who had rejected the older fashions of native and Petrarchan forms and had promoted instead those of the classical epigram,ode,satire,and epistle. Shakespeare,as we will see,responded to each of these currents in his own poetic production,dipping into them,floating upon them,and swimming against them in various tides of native,continental,and classical convention. Shakespeare had already begun his theatrical career in London by 1589, the year in which Thomas Nashe,a poor minister's son recently down from Cambridge,sought to ingratiate himself with London's University Wits by volunteering a preface for Robert Greene's pastoral romance Menaphon. Dedicated to the Gentlemen Students of Both Universities',this preface
1 WILLIAM J. KENNEDY Shakespeare and the development of English poetry Shakespeare’s relationship to the earlier development of English poetry is complex and multiform. Certainly in his time, perspectives about this development were changing as a new generation of poets and writers re-evaluated the past. Shakespeare himself shifted his perspective on poetry, alternately engaging his attention with older popular forms, currently fashionable elite forms, and newly conceived experimental forms. When he began writing poems for his earliest plays, lyric poetry appeared in popular broadside printings of traditional ballads, anonymous verse, and occasionally signed poems; in prestige, often reprinted anthologies such as Richard Tottel’s Songes and Sonnettes (1557) and Richard Edwards’s The Paradise of Dainty Devyces (1576); and in a few volumes of seriously crafted verse by signed authors such as George Gascoigne in A Hundreth Sundrie Flowres (1573, revised as The Posies, 1575). When in the early 1590s Shakespeare wrote Venus and Adonis, The Rape of Lucrece, and his early Sonnets, the literary current in London was marked by the dominance of Edmund Spenser (after the publication of the first three books of The Faerie Queene in 1590 and of Complaints in 1591) and Philip Sidney (after the pirated publication of his Astrophil and Stella with Samuel Daniel’s Delia in 1591). When by 1609 Shakespeare revised his Sonnets for their publication, the development of English poetry was undergoing a sea-change at the hands of Ben Jonson, who had rejected the older fashions of native and Petrarchan forms and had promoted instead those of the classical epigram, ode, satire, and epistle. Shakespeare, as we will see, responded to each of these currents in his own poetic production, dipping into them, floating upon them, and swimming against them in various tides of native, continental, and classical convention. Shakespeare had already begun his theatrical career in London by 1589, the year in which Thomas Nashe, a poor minister’s son recently down from Cambridge, sought to ingratiate himself with London’s University Wits by volunteering a preface for Robert Greene’s pastoral romance Menaphon. Dedicated to ‘the Gentlemen Students of Both Universities’, this preface 14
Shakespeare and the development of English poetry bristles at the work of 'vainglorious tragedians'skilled with inkhorn terms (Thomas Kyd?),'idiot art-masters'swollen with blank verse (Marlowe?), and'deeply-red grammarians [=grammar school graduates]...that feed on nought but the crumbs that fall from the translator's trencher [the early Shakespeare?]'.Nashe disparages 'our English Italians'who prefer Petrarch,Ariosto,Tasso,and even the minor Livio Celiano to native poets. Among the latter,he commends Gascoigne,who 'first beat the path to that perfection which our best poets have aspired to since his departure';the 'divine'Spenser,a miracle of wit';and 'many most able men to revive poetry'such as Matthew Roydon,Thomas Atchelow,and George Peele, who would publish little and fade from view.This list gives us a pretty good idea of England's poetic canon just before Shakespeare began to sharpen his poetic quill in earnest. If Nashe had insulted Shakespeare by referring to him as one who fed upon translators'crumbs,Henry Chettle added to Nashe's insult when he in I592 published Greene's penitential Groats-worth of wit bought with a million of repentance,allegedly penned on the latter's deathbed with a caustic rebuke aimed at Shakespeare.Here Greene advises his fellow University Wits Marlowe,Nashe,and Peele to renounce atheism,write satires against vanity, and mistrust theatrical 'Puppets'and 'Apes'who debase their work.Chief among them is Shakespeare,thinly disguised as 'an upstart Crow'who supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blanke verse as the best of you'.The attack could only edge Shakespeare toward proving that he might measure up to the most admired Elizabethan writers,including the University Wits themselves.A characteristic they all shared was the display of at least some (and in some cases,too much)erudition-familiarity with classical Latin authors,especially Ovid and Virgil,and with modern con- tinental poets,especially Petrarch and those indebted to him such as Ariosto, Ronsard,Tasso,and Desportes.Shakespeare could compete with them by returning to Latin texts that he'd studied at Stratford grammar school,and by acquiring at least some rudiments of Italian,French,and other European languages. This task was fairly easy to accomplish.London of the late I58os embraced a population of some soo Italian immigrants,most of them merchants,but many of them musicians,artists,and makers of luxury goods for the city's elite population.3 In Taming of the Shrew Shakespeare had already incorporated casual Italian locutions into that play's dialogue. By the time he wrote Love's Labour's Lost with Holofernes's citation (4.2.89-9o)of a proverb from John Florio's Italian grammar,First Fruits (1578),he had dipped yet deeper into the language of Petrarch and Ariosto. French speakers and French books were even easier to come by.After the I5
bristles at the work of ‘vainglorious tragedians’ skilled with inkhorn terms (Thomas Kyd?), ‘idiot art-masters’ swollen with blank verse (Marlowe?), and ‘deeply-red grammarians [¼ grammar school graduates] ... that feed on nought but the crumbs that fall from the translator’s trencher [the early Shakespeare?]’.1 Nashe disparages ‘our English Italians’ who prefer Petrarch, Ariosto, Tasso, and even the minor Livio Celiano to native poets. Among the latter, he commends Gascoigne, who ‘first beat the path to that perfection which our best poets have aspired to since his departure’; the ‘divine’ Spenser, a ‘miracle of wit’; and ‘many most able men to revive poetry’ such as Matthew Roydon, Thomas Atchelow, and George Peele, who would publish little and fade from view. This list gives us a pretty good idea of England’s poetic canon just before Shakespeare began to sharpen his poetic quill in earnest. If Nashe had insulted Shakespeare by referring to him as one who fed upon translators’ crumbs, Henry Chettle added to Nashe’s insult when he in 1592 published Greene’s penitential Groats-worth of wit bought with a million of repentance, allegedly penned on the latter’s deathbed with a caustic rebuke aimed at Shakespeare. Here Greene advises his fellow University Wits Marlowe, Nashe, and Peele to renounce atheism, write satires against vanity, and mistrust theatrical ‘Puppets’ and ‘Apes’ who debase their work. Chief among them is Shakespeare, thinly disguised as ‘an upstart Crow’ who ‘supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blanke verse as the best of you’.2 The attack could only edge Shakespeare toward proving that he might measure up to the most admired Elizabethan writers, including the University Wits themselves. A characteristic they all shared was the display of at least some (and in some cases, too much) erudition – familiarity with classical Latin authors, especially Ovid and Virgil, and with modern continental poets, especially Petrarch and those indebted to him such as Ariosto, Ronsard, Tasso, and Desportes. Shakespeare could compete with them by returning to Latin texts that he’d studied at Stratford grammar school, and by acquiring at least some rudiments of Italian, French, and other European languages. This task was fairly easy to accomplish. London of the late 1580s embraced a population of some 500 Italian immigrants, most of them merchants, but many of them musicians, artists, and makers of luxury goods for the city’s elite population.3 In Taming of the Shrew Shakespeare had already incorporated casual Italian locutions into that play’s dialogue. By the time he wrote Love’s Labour’s Lost with Holofernes’s citation (4.2.89–90) of a proverb from John Florio’s Italian grammar, First Fruits (1578), he had dipped yet deeper into the language of Petrarch and Ariosto. French speakers and French books were even easier to come by. After the Shakespeare and the development of English poetry 15
WILLIAM J.KENNEDY St Bartholomew Day's Massacre in 1572,some 5,ooo Huguenots fled to London,and in 1604 and possibly earlier Shakespeare lodged at the home of one of them,Christophe Montjoy,a purveyor of quality headdresses to the city's elite and possibly to its South Bank theatres.By the late I59os,he had already brought enough French into his plays to attest to his competence in that tongue-notably in the locutions of Dr Caius in Merry Wives of Windsor and in the language lesson scenes of Henry V. Venus and Adonis Shakespeare's familiarity with French and Italian texts proves difficult to estimate,but his experience with classical Latin texts,especially with Ovid's poetry,is evident.We do not know whether Venus and Adonis or Marlowe's Hero and Leander came first in composition,but it seems clear that one poem alludes to the other and that both share a playful,cheeky,tone-shifting attitude to the mode.+Marlowe,elaborating upon his Greek source by Musaeus,toys with Epicurean naturalism (Leander's fall into love, 167-91),jaded sensualism (his sacrilegious rhetoric,209-90),social criti- cism (the narrator's digression on scholarly poverty,461-82),and homo- erotic titillation(Neptune's attraction to Leander,639-76).Shakespeare magnifies his brief Latin source in Ovid's Metamorphoses 1o.519-59 and 705-39 with strategic references to Adonis's genealogy as the incestuous offspring of Cinyras and Myrrha (168-74,199-216,1183-8),who are in turn the grand-and great-grand-offspring of Pygmalion and an ivory statue brought to life by Venus.From this derives the odd naturalism of Adonis' ivory'hand(363)and his stony silence(200,427-38),of Venus's maternalistic- and vaguely incestuous-solicitude toward him(611-78),and perhaps of the sheer mismatch between the goddess's physical strength and the young man's diminutive stature(31-42,589-612),playing on the etymology of Pygmalion's name (=Greek pygmaios'pigmy,measuring a cubit or eighteen inches in length,the size of a well-endowed phallus').s In depicting these sexual pratfalls,Shakespeare deploys at least as much humour as Marlowe, and in investing his heroine's sexual rhetoric with economic figurations of loss and gain (Venus and Adonis 5I-51),the author flirts with social criticism as did his rival in the digression on poor scholars (Hero and Leander 465-84).Such was the verse that had tickled the elite at court,at university,among the wealthy gentry of London,and among the legal- training societies populated by 'Gentlemen of the Innes of Court and Chauncerie'. To the latter,Greene's friend Thomas Lodge had dedicated his Ovidian poem Scillaes Metamorphosis(1589)in England's first major example of this 16
St Bartholomew Day’s Massacre in 1572, some 5,000 Huguenots fled to London, and in 1604 and possibly earlier Shakespeare lodged at the home of one of them, Christophe Montjoy, a purveyor of quality headdresses to the city’s elite and possibly to its South Bank theatres. By the late 1590s, he had already brought enough French into his plays to attest to his competence in that tongue – notably in the locutions of Dr Caius in Merry Wives of Windsor and in the language lesson scenes of Henry V. Venus and Adonis Shakespeare’s familiarity with French and Italian texts proves difficult to estimate, but his experience with classical Latin texts, especially with Ovid’s poetry, is evident. We do not know whether Venus and Adonis or Marlowe’s Hero and Leander came first in composition, but it seems clear that one poem alludes to the other and that both share a playful, cheeky, tone-shifting attitude to the mode.4 Marlowe, elaborating upon his Greek source by Musaeus, toys with Epicurean naturalism (Leander’s fall into love, 167–91), jaded sensualism (his sacrilegious rhetoric, 209–90), social criticism (the narrator’s digression on scholarly poverty, 461–82), and homoerotic titillation (Neptune’s attraction to Leander, 639–76). Shakespeare magnifies his brief Latin source in Ovid’s Metamorphoses 10.519–59 and 705–39 with strategic references to Adonis’s genealogy as the incestuous offspring of Cinyras and Myrrha (168–74, 199–216, 1183–8), who are in turn the grand- and great-grand-offspring of Pygmalion and an ivory statue brought to life by Venus. From this derives the odd naturalism of Adonis’ ‘ivory’ hand (363) and his stony silence (200, 427–38), of Venus’s maternalistic – and vaguely incestuous – solicitude toward him (611–78), and perhaps of the sheer mismatch between the goddess’s physical strength and the young man’s diminutive stature (31–42, 589–612), playing on the etymology of Pygmalion’s name (¼ Greek pygmaios ‘pigmy, measuring a cubit or eighteen inches in length, the size of a well-endowed phallus’).5 In depicting these sexual pratfalls, Shakespeare deploys at least as much humour as Marlowe, and in investing his heroine’s sexual rhetoric with economic figurations of loss and gain (Venus and Adonis 511–51), the author flirts with social criticism as did his rival in the digression on poor scholars (Hero and Leander 465–84). Such was the verse that had tickled the elite at court, at university, among the wealthy gentry of London, and among the legaltraining societies populated by ‘Gentlemen of the Innes of Court and Chauncerie’. To the latter, Greene’s friend Thomas Lodge had dedicated his Ovidian poem Scillaes Metamorphosis(1589) in England’s first major example of this WILLIAM J. KENNEDY 16