Anonymity in Early Modern England: ''What's in a name?''

Anonymity in Early Modern England ‘What’s In A Name?’

Edited by Janet Wright Starner and Barbara Howard Traister

ANONYMITY IN EARLY MODERN ENGLAND

This page has been left blank intentionally

Anonymity in Early Modern England “What’s In A Name?”

Edited By JANET WRIGHT STARNER Wilkes University, USA BARBARA HOWARD TRAISTER Lehigh University, USA

© Janet Wright Starner, Barbara Howard Traister and the contributors 2011 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Janet Wright Starner and Barbara Howard Traister have asserted their rights under the &RS\ULJKW'HVLJQVDQG3DWHQWV$FWWREHLGHQWL¿HGDVWKHHGLWRUVRIWKLVZRUN Published by Ashgate Publishing Limited Wey Court East Union Road Farnham Surrey, GU9 7PT England www.ashgate.com

Ashgate Publishing Company Suite 420 101 Cherry Street Burlington VT 05401-4405 USA

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Anonymity in early modern England: ‘What’s in a name?’ 1. Anonymous writings, English – History and criticism. 2. English literature – Early modern, 1500–1700 – History and criticism. 3. Anonyms and pseudonyms – England – History – 16th century. 4. Anonyms and pseudonyms – England – History – 17th century. 5. Authorship – Social aspects – England – History – 16th century. 6. Authorship – Social aspects – England – History – 17th century. 7. Publishers and publishing – England – History – 16th century. 8. Publishers and publishing – England – History – 17th century. I. Starner, Janet Wright. II. Traister, Barbara Howard. 820.9’003–dc22 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Anonymity in early modern England: “what’s in a name?” / edited by Janet Wright Starner and Barbara Howard Traister. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Anonymous writings, English—History and criticism. 2. English literature—Early modern, 1500–1700—History and criticism. 3. Authorship—England—History—16th century. 4. Authorship—England—History—17th century. 5. Anonyms and pseudonyms, English—History—16th century. 6. Anonyms and pseudonyms, English—History—17th century. I. Starner, Janet Wright. II. Traister, Barbara Howard. PR121.A56 2011 820.9’003—dc22 2010038960 ,6%1KEN ,6%1HEN II

Contents List of Contributors Acknowledgments

vii ix

Introduction

1

Part 1 Anonymous Manuscript Poetry 1



Anonymity in Early Modern Manuscript Culture: Finding a Purposeful Convention in a Ubiquitous Condition Marcy L. North ³-DFNHRQ%RWK6LGHV´$SSURSULDWLQJ(TXLYRFDWLRQ   Janet Wright Starner

13 3

Part 2 Anonymous Printed Plays and Pamphlets 3

What Wrote Woodstock Thomas Cartelli

4

Dealing with Dramatic Anonymity: The Case of The Merry Devil of Edmonton Barbara Howard Traister

83

99

5

Attributing Authorship and Swetnam the Woman-Hater James Purkis

113

6

:DV$QRQ\PRXVD-RNHVWHU"The Anonymous Pamphlet Haec-Vir: Or The Womanish-Man Susan Gushee O’Malley

129

Part 3 The Consequences of Anonymity and Attribution 7

8

7KH$QRQ\PRXV6KDNHVSHDUH+HUHV\$XWKRUVKLS and the Anxiety of Orthodoxy Bruce Danner The Ethics of Anonymity Mark Robson

Select Works Cited Index

 143 159 177 181

This page has been left blank intentionally

List of Contributors Thomas Cartelli is a Professor of English and Film Studies at Muhlenberg College, and author of Repositioning Shakespeare: National Formations, Postcolonial Appropriations DQGMarlowe, Shakespeare, and the Economy of Theatrical Experience 0RUHUHFHQWSXEOLFDWLRQVLQFOXGHD1RUWRQ&ULWLFDO(GLWLRQRI Shakespeare’s Richard III DQGNew Wave Shakespeare on Screen  DERRNKHFRDXWKRUHGZLWK.DWKHULQH5RZH Bruce Danner teaches at St. Lawrence University. He is the author of Edmund Spenser’s War on Lord Burghley 3DOJUDYH 0DFPLOODQ   DQG LV FXUUHQWO\ ZRUNLQJRQDVWXG\RIHamlet entitled ‘To be or not to be’: The Enduring Mystery. Marcy North is an Associate Professor of English at Pennsylvania State University. She is the author of The Anonymous Renaissance: Cultures of Discretion in TudorStuart England&KLFDJR DQGQXPHURXVDUWLFOHVRQHDUO\DQRQ\PLW\ERRN history, and manuscript culture. Susan Gushee O’MalleyLVD3URIHVVRURI(QJOLVKDW.LQJVERURXJK&LW\8QLYHUVLW\ RI1HZ
viii

Anonymity in Early Modern England

Janet Wright StarnerLVDQ$VVRFLDWH3URIHVVRURI(QJOLVKDW:LONHV8QLYHUVLW\ 6KH KDV SXEOLVKHG RQ WKH ZRUN RI (OL]DEHWK &DUH\ DV ZHOO DV LQ WKH ¿HOG RI FRPSRVLWLRQDQGUKHWRULF6KHLVFXUUHQWO\DWZRUNRQDVWXG\RIQRYHOW\YHUVHLQ HDUO\PRGHUQPDQXVFULSWPLVFHOODQLHVDQGFRPPRQSODFHERRNV Barbara Howard Traister is a Professor of English at Lehigh University. She is the author of The Notorious Astrological Physician of London: Works and Days of Simon Forman&KLFDJR DQGHeavenly Necromancers: The Magician in English Renaissance Drama0LVVRXUL DVZHOODVDUWLFOHVGHDOLQJZLWKHDUO\ modern medicine, magic, and drama.

$FNQRZOHGJPHQWV There is a certain irony in beginning a collection of essays focused on early modern DQRQ\PLW\ ZLWK DQ DFNQRZOHGJPHQW SDJH VLQFH LW LV WUDGLWLRQDOO\ D VSDFH IRU QDPLQJ²DVWULQJRIWKDQNVIRUWKRVHZLWKRXWZKRVHVXSSRUWDQGHQFRXUDJHPHQW WKHERRNZRXOGQRWKDYHEHHQSRVVLEOH7KLVYROXPHLVVLPLODUO\LQGHEWHGWRPDQ\ :HZLVKWRWKDQNDOORIWKHHVVD\LVWVIRUWKHLUH[FHOOHQWZRUNDQGIRUWKHLUSDWLHQFH LQWKHIDFHRIVHWEDFNVWKDWGHOD\HGWKHFROOHFWLRQ¶VFRPSOHWLRQORQJHUWKDQDQ\RI XVH[SHFWHG:HZDQWDOVRWRDFNQRZOHGJHWKHZRUNRIWZRDQRQ\PRXVUHDGHUV ZKRJDYHGHWDLOHGDQGFRQVWUXFWLYHIHHGEDFNWKDWSURSHOOHGXVWRFXWSDVWHDQG XOWLPDWHO\UHWKLQNHDUOLHUGUDIWVWKLVFROOHFWLRQRIHVVD\VLVDEHWWHUERRNEHFDXVH of their careful reading. And while those respondents remain a mystery, the rest KDYHQDPHVZHNQRZ %DUEDUD WKDQNV /HKLJK 8QLYHUVLW\ IRU LWV PDQ\ IRUPV RI VXSSRUW ZKLOH WKLV volume was in preparation. As always, her family has been both patient and HQFRXUDJLQJ .XGRV WR -DQHW IRU KHU HQHUJ\ VHOIGLVFLSOLQH DQG WHFKQRORJLFDO NQRZKRZ&ROODERUDWLRQFDQEHGLI¿FXOWWKLVWLPHLWZDVDSOHDVXUH -DQHWLVJUDWHIXOWR:LONHV8QLYHUVLW\IRUSURYLGLQJ¿QDQFLDOVXSSRUWIRUUHVHDUFK trips to libraries in this country and in England, without which her essay could not KDYHEHHQZULWWHQ/LNHZLVHVKHZLVKHVWRDFNQRZOHGJHDOOWKHFULWLFDOIHHGEDFN probing questions, and endearing encouragement provided by the students she encountered in courses taught during the process and her colleagues—Larry .XKDU0LVFKHOOH$QWKRQ\0DUFLD)DUUHOO.DWK\.HPPHUHU&KDG6WDQOH\7RP +DPLOO+HOHQ'DYLVDQG6HDQ.HOO\6KHWKDQNV%DUEDUDZKRVDLG³\HV´ZKHQ she could have said “no” to the suggestion that we put together a collection of HVVD\V DQG IRU DOO RI WKH IXQ RI WKH FROODERUDWLYH ZRUN )LQDOO\ VKH WKDQNV KHU family who remain her best boosters, most especially her husband Jed who—as her daughter reminds her—most deserves to be named on this page for being the patient friend and helpful reader that he is.

This page has been left blank intentionally

Introduction 7RLGHQWLI\DXWKRUVKLSDVDIRUPRIKXPDQZRUNLVWRYDOLGDWHLQGLYLGXDODJHQF\ … In all cases it requires a model of authorship, not as a single essence or non-essence but as a repertoire of practices, techniques and functions—forms RIZRUN²ZKRVHQDWXUHKDVYDULHGFRQVLGHUDEO\DFURVVWKHFHQWXULHVDQGZKLFK may well in any given case have been performed by separate individuals. —Love, Attributing Authorship 32–3 We must locate the space left empty by the author’s disappearance, follow the distribution of gaps and breaches, and watch for the openings that this disappearance uncovers. —Foucault, “What is an Author?” 115 [A]nonymous and pseudonymous texts remain ungrounded to an author or gender, but they function differently with respect to their audiences … the anonymous text … erases the signature of authorship and thereby opens itself more radically to a proliferation of genders and meanings. The absence of any signature more urgently requires the activities that Foucault advocates for all texts. —Wayne, “The Dearth of the Author: Anonymity’s Allies and Swetnam the Woman-Hater” 225

The progression of ideas expressed in these prefatory epigraphs mirrors a SKLORVRSKLFDOHYROXWLRQQRZQHDUO\KDOIDFHQWXU\LQWKHPDNLQJZKLFKUHÀHFWV D UDGLFDO UHWKLQNLQJ RI ZKDW ZDV WKRXJKW WR KDYH EHHQ WKH ³LQGLYLGXDO DJHQF\´ SURGXFLQJWH[WVRIDOOVRUWVIRUDWOHDVWWZRPLOOHQQLD7KDWVDPHUHYLVLRQLVWWKLQNLQJ has dramatically altered the way literary critics conduct analyses, has altered contemporary interpretation of those texts and, in addition to changing ideas about ZULWHUV KDV SURYRNHG VSHFXODWLRQ DERXW UHDGHUV¶ UHVSRQVHV WR ZRUN SURGXFHG LQ SUHYLRXVFHQWXULHV$QG\HWLWPXVWEHDFNQRZOHGJHGWKDWWKHVRSKLVWLFDWHGDUJXPHQWV VWDQGLQJ EHKLQG WKHVH RSHQLQJ VQLSSHWV LQÀXHQWLDO DV WKH\ KDYH EHHQ DUH OHVV LPSRUWDQWWRUHDGHUVRXWVLGHRIDFDGHPLDWKRVHUHDGHUVZKRFRQVXPHERRNVEDVHG on their utility and/or the pleasure they offer rather than as artifacts for analysis and critique. The now commonplace academic agreement that the “Author is dead” has QHLWKHUUHYROXWLRQL]HGWKHOLWHUDWHSRSXODWLRQ¶VUHVSRQVHWRPRVWSXEOLVKHGPDWHULDOV nor has it prompted a search for the absent author. In fact, a great deal of material published today circulates with no writer’s name attached at all. 0RGHUQUHDGHUVHQFRXQWHUGR]HQVRIDQRQ\PRXVO\FRPSRVHGWH[WVRQDGDLO\ EDVLV 0RVW DG FRS\ JRYHUQPHQW SDPSKOHWV DQG SROLWLFLDQV¶ VSHHFKHV ODFN DQ DXWKRU¶VVLJQDWXUH(GLWRULDOVVRPHERRNUHYLHZVDQGHYHQVRPHFUHDWLYHZRUNV typically remain unsigned. Similarly, various texts created and signed by authors ZHOO NQRZQ DW RQH SRLQW LQ WLPH²VRQJ O\ULFV IRU H[DPSOH²FDQ PDNH HQFRUH appearances much later, unsigned by the original creator of the text. The proliferation

2

Anonymity in Early Modern England

of anonymously published texts may be most noticeable in electronic spaces, where texts can circulate without attribution because the content is noteworthy. Humorous texts or aphorisms, for instance, circulated via email or found on web sites, are sometimes revised, even compiled along with other witticisms, before they are sent RQ WR QHZ UHDGHUV PDQ\ RI ZKRP DUH HQFRXQWHULQJ WKRVH PRGL¿HG LQVFULSWLRQV IRUDVHFRQGRUWKLUGWLPH$QG\HWUHDGHUVFRPLQJWRWKLVVRUWRIZRUNUDUHO\WKLQN about the absence of an author’s signature because by custom and tradition they do QRWH[SHFWRQHWRDSSHDULQWKH¿UVWSODFH,QWKHVHFDVHVLWLVXQGHUVWRRGWKDWWKH SHUVRQV ZKRFUHDWHGWKHWH[WZLOOGLVDSSHDULQGHIHUHQFHWRWKHFRQWHQW 2QWKHRWKHUKDQGDOWKRXJKDQRQ\PRXVWH[WVDUHXELTXLWRXVLIUHDGHUV¿QG QRDXWKRULDOVLJQDWXUHZKHQWKH\GRH[SHFWRQHWKDWDEVHQFHLVVLJQL¿FDQW7KH designation “Anonymous” placed where an author’s name would have appeared FDQPDUNWKDWWH[WDVDSDUWLFXODUNLQGRIFXOWXUDODUWLIDFW6XFKDQRQ\PRXVWH[WV PD\VXUYLYHEHFDXVHWKH\HYRNHQRVWDOJLDIRUWKHSDVWLPSDUWDELWRIIRONZLVGRP or promise something bawdy, subversive, or politically dangerous. Alternatively, “Anonymous” may indicate that the creative agent behind the text has deliberately concealed his or her identity for aesthetic or protective reasons. In the case where readers expect an author’s name and one is not readily available, attribution to a particular originating source can become an important component of the reading DFW7KHGHVLUHWRNQRZZKRZURWHDZRUNEHFRPHVDNLQGRISOD\WKDWLQLWVHOILV part of the pleasure provided by the text. In this sense, the urge to discover who wrote what is nearly as old as literacy itself (Love   What isUHODWLYHO\QHZLVWKHZD\LQZKLFKOLWHUDU\FULWLFVKDYHFRQFHSWXDOL]HG the creative forces that generate a text—what is an “author”?—and newer still— ZKDW FRQVWLWXWHV IRUPDO ³DWWULEXWLRQ VWXGLHV´" 7KLV SURIHVVLRQDO ZRUN LV PRUH complex than the sort of sleuthing done by general readers, whose response to DQDXWKRU¶VQDPHRUODFNWKHUHRIZLOODIIHFWWKHLUUHVSRQVHWRWKHWH[WEXWLQPRVW FDVHVWKDWHIIHFWHQGVZLWKDELWRIFXULRVLW\WKDWLVRULVQRWVDWLV¿HG+RZHYHU WKHSURIHVVLRQDOFULWLFDOZRUNGRQHLQWKHQDPHRIDWWULEXWLQJZRUNVRIOLWHUDWXUH has been complex and, not infrequently, hotly contested. The essays in this volume aim in part to respond to that conversation by complicating the terms of the debate LQRUGHUWRRIIHUQHZZD\VRIWKLQNLQJDERXWDWWULEXWLRQDXWKRUVKLSDQGUHDGHUV¶ responses to texts of the early modern period. ,Q KLV UHLQWURGXFWLRQ RI WKH ¿HOG DIWHU WKH SRVWVWUXFWXUDO GLVPDQWOLQJ RI the “author,” Harold Love writes in Attributing Authorship WKDW ³WKH VXEMHFW RI attribution studies is the uniqueness of each human being and how this is enacted LQZULWLQJ´ ,QGHHGWKH¿UVWSRUWLRQRI/RYH¶VERRNVHUYHVDVDMXVWL¿FDWLRQ RI ZRUN WKDW PLJKW VHHP LUUHOHYDQW LQ OLJKW RI WKH ³GHDWK RI WKH DXWKRU´ )RU GHFDGHVHIIRUWVWRFRQQHFWZULWHUVZLWKWH[WVWKDWODFNDXWKRULDOVLJQDWXUHVKDYH leaned heavily on technology to authenticate authorship. This function of literary criticism was extraordinarily important when critics conceived of the author as DVLQJXODULQGLYLGXDOZULWLQJLQLVRODWLRQ,QOLJKWRIWKHZRUNGRQHE\%DUWKHV Foucault, and others, however, more recent scholarly claims have been founded

Introduction

3

on the assumption that a text is the end result of an “author function,”1 which can EH UH FRQVWUXFWHG E\ DWWHQWLRQ WR WKH PDWHULDO VRFLDO DQG KLVWRULFDO IRUFHV WKDW LQÀXHQFHWKHSURGXFWLRQRIWKDWWH[W7RGD\DXWKHQWLFDWLQJDXWKRUVKLSKDVEHFRPH a worthwhile activity in a lesser number of cases. +RZGRHVRXUZRUNGLIIHUWKHQIURPDWWULEXWLRQVWXGLHV":HXVHVRPHRIWKHVDPH methods, but our goal is not to authenticate authorship but rather to investigate the original conditions of publication and circulation in order to increase understanding of a text’s reception and shed further light on modes of reading. While it is true that modern readers still read lots of anonymous texts, and it is also true that both early modern and contemporary readers were/are nonchalant about anonymous authorship, these readers were/are not responding to anonymous texts in the same ways or for the same reasons. In many cases anonymity did not signal then what it signals QRZWRUHDGHUV7KHVHHVVD\VQRWRQO\SUHVHQWQHZZRUNRQVSHFL¿FHDUO\PRGHUQ WH[WVDQGRQHDUO\PRGHUQUHDGHUVEXWWKH\DOVRDGYDQFHWKH¿HOGRI³DQRQ\PLW\ studies” and our understanding of anonymity’s relationship to attribution studies. 7KHWKHRUHWLFDOXQGHUSLQQLQJVRIHDFK¿HOGZLOODOZD\VDQGQHFHVVDULO\HYRNH the other’s perspective, however. Because as Love and others note, in literary contexts particularly, but also for popular literature, readers instinctively imagine a persona behind the words they see on the page. In his essay in a special edition of New Literary History devoted to the study of anonymity, Donald Foster comments: In an unattributed publication, the “I” of the text is concealed from view, allowing ODQJXDJHWRFLUFXODWHLQ)RXFDXOW¶VDFFRXQW IUHHO\XQREVWUXFWHGE\WKHLOOXVLRQ that published writing constitutes an act of communication from the author to the reader. But it is not that simple, for the writer’s invisibility creates a vacuum WKDWLVLQHYLWDEO\¿OOHGKRZHYHULPSHUIHFWO\E\WKHUHDGHU¶VUH FRQVWUXFWLRQRI WKHYRLFHLQWKHWH[W±

And when that search is compelling, “attribution studies demands that we attend to WKHQRWLRQRILQGLYLGXDODJHQF\LQDZD\WKDWFDQQRWEHIXOO\VDWLV¿HGE\VWUXFWXUDOLVW and post-structuralist epistemologies because it raises questions which they have no FDSDFLW\WRDGGUHVV´/RYH 7KHQHZO\H[SDQGHGYHUVLRQRIDWWULEXWLRQVWXGLHV WKHUHIRUH VWLOO ³UHTXLUHV D PRGHO RI DXWKRUVKLS´   DQG WKH UHVXOWDQW VWUDLQ RI 1

2I FRXUVH WKLV JHQHUDO DVVHUWLRQ RYHUVLPSOL¿HV D FRPSOLFDWHG WKUHDG RI WKHRUHWLFDO debate ongoing since the 1960s, and it limits the range of those critical solutions to the problem of the dead author too narrowly to Foucault’s “author function.” To provide only one example of the diverse responses, in his essay “Commentary: In the Name of the Author,” 'RQDOG)RVWHUQRWHVWKDWWKH¿HOGKDVRUVKRXOGKDYHPRYHGEH\RQGWKHLGHDWKDW³VSHFL¿F DXWKRUIXQFWLRQV+RPHU2YLG0RKDPPHG6KDNHVSHDUH,JQRWR)UHXG%HFNHWWRU)RXFDXOW KLPVHOI DUHPHUHO\V\PSWRPDWLFRIWKHGLVFRXUVHVWKDWSURGXFHGWKHP´ ,QVWHDGKH DUJXHVZHVKRXOGDFNQRZOHGJHWKDW³LQDFWXDOSUDFWLFHWKHTXHVWLRQVµ:KRZURWHLW"¶DQG µ:KRVDLGLW"¶DUHQROHVVLPSRUWDQWWROLWHUDU\VFKRODUVWKDQWRUHVSRQGHQWVWDNLQJWKH6$7 VXEMHFWWHVWRUWKH79JDPHVKRZTXL]ZKHUHVXFKTXHULHVDUHPRVWOLNHO\WREHHQFRXQWHUHG´  )RUDIDUPRUHGHWDLOHGDQGWKRURXJKXQSDFNLQJRIWKHWKHRU\DQGKLVWRU\RIWKHLGHDV VXJJHVWHGKHUHVHH0DUN5REVRQ¶VHVVD\³7KH(WKLFVRI$QRQ\PLW\´LQWKLVYROXPH

4

Anonymity in Early Modern England

cultural studies into which “attributing authorship” has evolved serves critics well LQFRQMXQFWLRQZLWKRWKHUPHWKRGV6FKRODUVFDQQRZEULQJPDQ\WRROVWREHDURQD particular analysis and, as a consequence, provide a more complete understanding of the value of a text in its own literary, historical, and social context. In such a case, the authentication of the creator’s name is only one part of the process. No matter who is reading, however, if attribution cannot or has not occurred, readers approach and respond to anonymous texts differently than they do those with named authors. In academic reading circles, the differences in responses can EH SURIRXQG :KHQ DQRQ\PRXV ZRUNV OLNH Woodstock or Arden of Faversham GR DSSHDU WKH\ PXVW EH DQDO\]HG DQG LQWHUSUHWHG LQ ZD\V WKDW GR QRW UHO\ RQ NQRZOHGJH RI WKH DXWKRU$FDGHPLF UHDGHUV WKHQ DUH OLNHO\ WR VKLIW WKHLU IRFXV to the text’s aesthetic value, to its importance to a particular social or historical PRPHQWRUWRWKHRSSRUWXQLW\LWSURYLGHVIRUWKHNLQGRIWULDQJXODWLRQWKDWHQDEOHV researchers to situate a more important—because attributed—text “within [a] WLPHSODFHDFXOWXUHDJHQUHDQGLQVWLWXWLRQ´/RYH 7KHH[FHSWLRQWRWKH benign neglect given most early modern anonymous texts occurs when a text is transformed by attribution. If the creation of “Anonymous” is suddenly revealed as the lost child of a canonical author, that text undergoes a rags-to-riches rise in popularity, becoming the center of attention for a space, much cared for and about. One goal of this volume of essays is to suggest that more attention should be paid to the study of early modern texts that remain anonymous. The tradition of XQGHUYDOXLQJRULJQRULQJ³DQRQ\PRXV´IDLOVWRWDNHLQWRDFFRXQWWKDWWKHPDMRULW\ of texts circulated in the early modern period once fell into that category and that early modern readers approached texts with different assumptions about writers and reading than we do. Of course, not everything produced by “Anon” is “art,” or even of interest. Many anonymous texts deserve to be forgotten. But all? The answer to that question used to be: “almost all.” But new critical approaches have prompted critics to revisit received readings of many texts, and consequently, the answer is now more complicated: “it depends.” If the author is “dead,” then the “anonymous” text becomes more interesting. Changing assumptions about authorship have made possible the study of a text divorced from any consideration RILWVDXWKRUDQGWKH¿HOGKDVEURDGHQHGORJLFDOO\WRLQFOXGHERWKFROODERUDWLYH writing and anonymity itself.2 These areas of inquiry, which once would have 2 +HDWKHU+LUVFKIHOGKDVFRPSLOHGDQH[FHOOHQWVXUYH\RIWKHFULWLFDOZRUNRQHDUO\ PRGHUQ FROODERUDWLYH ZULWLQJ 6KH QRWHV WKDW ³FROODERUDWLRQ´ KDV PDQ\ GH¿QLWLRQV DQG contexts, and in the sense that collaborative authorship is diversely manifested and described, WKHVHQHZZD\VRIWDONLQJDERXWWKH³DXWKRUIXQFWLRQ´DUHQRWXQOLNHWKHDUJXPHQWVRIIHUHG in this volume in that “collaboration and collaborative authorship are the terms now used WRGHVLJQDWHDUDQJHRILQWHUDFWLRQVIURPWKHHIIRUWVRIWZRZULWHUVZRUNLQJFORVHO\WRJHWKHU WRWKHDFWLYLWLHVRISULQWHUVSDWURQVDQGUHDGHUVLQVKDSLQJWKHPHDQLQJDQGVLJQL¿FDQFH RI D WH[W´   0RUHRYHU WKLV EURDGHQLQJ RI WKH GH¿QLWLRQ RI FROODERUDWLRQ KDV KDG D SRVLWLYHHIIHFWRQRXUDELOLW\WRVHHROGWH[WVLQQHZZD\VDVLW³RSHQVWKH¿HOGRUIXQFWLRQ of the author to a variety of other roles” (“Early Modern Collaboration and Theories of $XWKRUVKLS´ 

Introduction

5

VHHPHGHLWKHULUUHOHYDQWRUDWSRODUHQGVRIDVSHFWUXPDVNVLPLODUTXHVWLRQVDQG employ similar methodologies: how was the text produced? How did it function LQLWVRZQFXOWXUDOPRPHQW",QZKDWZD\ZDVLWUHFHLYHGE\LWV¿UVWUHDGHUV"+RZ was it in conversation with other texts? The study of anonymity as a cultural phenomenon and as a textual function has, indeed, produced a good deal of critical analysis in the last decades. More than a few writers have argued that anonymity can and should be discussed by the same methods used to investigate the author as textual “agent.” The evidence to support these claims points to sophisticated conventions available to “Anonymous” as that text’s creator steered it around social and political obstacles toward an audience predisposed and eager to decode its origins. A fair number of individual essays KDYHDSSHDUHGRYHUWKHODVW¿IWHHQ\HDUVDQGDVSHFLDOHGLWLRQRINew Literary History published in the spring of 2002 offers a range of essays focused on texts produced over four centuries. The contributors to this edition are: less concerned with the author function as an isolated phenomenon than with its complex and varied relationship to what might be called “the attribution function” (the practice of assigning a name, initials, or pseudonym to a circulated WH[W DQG³WKHSXEOLFDWLRQIXQFWLRQ´LQFOXGLQJWKHYDULDEOHPHDQVPRWLYHDQG RSSRUWXQLW\IRUSXWWLQJDWH[WLQWRFLUFXODWLRQDWDOO )RVWHU±

The most comprehensive attention to the theory and historicity of anonymity LVH[SUHVVHGLQWKHLQWURGXFWLRQVWRWZRERRNVSXEOLVKHGZLWKLQD\HDURIHDFK RWKHU5REHUW-*ULI¿Q¶VFROOHFWLRQRIHVVD\VThe Faces of Anonymity DQG Marcy North’s Anonymous Renaissance: Cultures of Discretion in Tudor-Stuart England  3 XQSDFN WKH FULWLFDO MXVWL¿FDWLRQ IRU WKH VWXG\ RI DQRQ\PLW\ DV well as providing a detailed historical overview of anonymous publications. Their WUHDWPHQWV UHYHDO WKDW WKH ODFN RI D VLJQDWXUH RQ D ZRUN KDV KDG DQG FRQWLQXHV WR KDYH DQ LQÀXHQFH RQ UHDGHUV¶ UHVSRQVHV WR D WH[W *ULI¿Q SURYLGHV KLVWRULFDO data to support his claim that more literature has been published in the category of “anonymous” than by named authors. However, North convincingly argues WKDWOLWHUDU\FULWLFVKDYHRYHUZKHOPLQJO\IDYRUHGWKHVWXG\RIZRUNVZLWKDQDPH RYHU WKRVH ZLWKRXW LW 2QH VWULNLQJ H[DPSOH LV WKH OLVW RI 5HQDLVVDQFH SOD\V RQFH DWWULEXWHG WR 6KDNHVSHDUH EXW VWULSSHG RI WKDW DVVRFLDWLRQ ZKLFK DUH QRZ seldom staged, read, or studied because they are—now—merely “anonymous.” 7KH SUREOHP ZLWK FULWLFLVP WKDW RYHUORRNV RU GHOLEHUDWHO\ HIIDFHV DQRQ\PLW\ (in the case of modern editions where “Anon” is relegated to a footnote or the DXWKRULVGHOLEHUDWHO\³RXWHG´ LVWKDWVXFKFULWLFDOWUHDWPHQWUREVWKHFRQWHPSRUDU\ UHDGHURIWKHH[SHULHQFHRIWKHWH[WDVLWV¿UVWUHDGHUVZRXOGKDYHHQFRXQWHUHGLW ,QGRLQJVRZHRYHUORRNFUXFLDOUHDFWLRQVWKDWFRXOGDGGWRRXUJURZLQJNQRZOHGJH of readers’ practices, and we cut ourselves off from the study of texts that were important in their own time, even if modern editors have ignored them. Moreover, 3 )RUDPRUHFRPSOHWHOLVWLQJRIZRUNRQDQRQ\PLW\VHHWKH6HOHFW%LEOLRJUDSK\DW the end of this volume.

6

Anonymity in Early Modern England

WKH LQWHUSUHWLYH VWUDWHJLHV GHSOR\HG WR DQDO\]H VWLOODQRQ\PRXV DQG KLVWRULFDOO\ LPSRUWDQWWH[WVRIIHUXVQHZZD\VWRUHWKLQNDQGUHUHDGQDPHGWH[WVFDQRQLFDO and otherwise. 0RVW FRQWHPSRUDU\ ZRUN RQ DQRQ\PLW\ FHQWHUV RQ OLWHUDU\ WH[WV IURP WKH HLJKWHHQWKDQGQLQHWHHQWKFHQWXULHV$QGWKLVVFKRODUVKLSPDNHVFOHDUWKDWDODUJH number of titles were published “anonymously” in that time period, if one uses WKHEURDGHVWSRVVLEOHGH¿QLWLRQIRUWKDWWHUP³DWH[WZKRVHDXWKRULVQRWLGHQWL¿HG on the title page” or, in the case of both anonymity and pseudonymity, “the legal QDPHRIWKHDXWKRULVQRWLQHYLGHQFH´*ULI¿QFaces of Anonymity±  For example, nearly 70 percent of all novels published in the last thirty years RIWKHHLJKWHHQWKFHQWXU\ZHUHDQRQ\PRXVO\UHOHDVHG*ULI¿Q³$QRQ\PLW\DQG $XWKRUVKLS´ WKRXJKWKDWQXPEHUGURSVWRSHUFHQWLIZHHOLPLQDWHWKRVH WKDWZHUH³XQDWWULEXWHG´EXWIRUZKRPWKHDXWKRUZDVNQRZQDOWKRXJKWKHZRUN remained unsigned. Given the enormous number of anonymous texts, now and LQHDUOLHUFHQWXULHVLWLVSHUKDSVPRUHORJLFDOWKHQWRWDONDERXWwhen and how anonymity matters to readers rather than if it occurs. For as this new body of research reveals, the list of texts attributed to “Anon” was substantial. Scholars now generally agree that by the end of the seventeenth century, SXWWLQJDQDPHWRDZRUNKDGEHFRPHLPSRUWDQWDVWH[WVZHUHWUDQVIRUPHGIURP gifts to patrons to commodities purchased by readers. The lapse of the Licensing $FWRILQ(QJODQGLQSURIRXQGO\LQÀXHQFHGWKHZD\ZULWHUVFRPSRVHG DQG UHDGHUV UHVSRQGHG WR WH[WV *ULI¿Q ³$QRQ\PLW\ DQG $XWKRUVKLS´   Once government control of texts in their pre-publication stage disappeared, the need for a patronage system to protect, support, and champion texts waned along with it. As literacy rates rose, so did demand for new material. Readers and ERRNVHOOHUVUHSODFHGSDWURQVDVSULPDU\PDUNHWIRUFHVDQGPDNLQJRQH¶VOLYLQJDV DSURIHVVLRQDOZULWHUEHFDPHPRUHSRVVLEOHDVWKHERRNDVFRPPRGLW\VORZO\EXW surely elevated “writers” to the status of “authors.” By the end of the eighteenth century, a further transformation occurred. Two debates shaped popular notions of authorship: one about “artistic value” and the RWKHU DERXW ³LQWHOOHFWXDO SURSHUW\´ ,Q ³$XWKRUV 3XEOLVKHUV DQG WKH 0DNLQJ RI Literary Culture,” John Brewer writes: The former focused on the high-minded issue of creativity, the latter on the SURVDLFTXHVWLRQRIFRS\ULJKWERWKKHOSHGWRIRUPXODWHDQGFODULI\WKHQRWLRQRI the author as creator of a unique property which he owned by virtue of a singular LPDJLQDWLYHDFW

1HYHUWKHOHVVDV*ULI¿QFDXWLRQVZHVKRXOGUHPHPEHUWKDWDQRQ\PLW\GRHVQRW simply disappear with the emergence of a commercial culture. While there is certainly much less literary anonymity today than several centuries ago, we are misled if we assume that it is “simply a matter of a reversal” (“Anonymity and $XWKRUVKLS´ )LQDOO\WKHUHVHDUFKDOVRVXJJHVWVWKDWE\WKHHQGRIWKHQLQHWHHQWK century, the number of anonymously published texts had diminished to levels that ZHUHFRJQL]HWRGD\DV³QRUPDO´*ULI¿QFRQFOXGHVWKDWWKHSUDFWLFHRIDXWKRULDO

Introduction

7

DQRQ\PLW\ RIIHUHG ZULWHUV D SURWHFWLYH VKHOWHU WKDW ZDV ³RI¿FLDOO\ WROHUDWHG´ LIQRWVDQFWLRQHGIRUFHQWXULHV +HVXJJHVWVWKDWVLQFHWKHGHOLEHUDWHFKRLFH of anonymity was most often a consequence of a desire for protection, once “the protections afforded by authorial anonymity began to be diffused more generally throughout the society” (for instance, in the form of eighteenth-century legislation OLNHFRS\ULJKWODZ WKHSUDFWLFHRIDXWKRULDODQRQ\PLW\ZDQHG³$QRQ\PLW\DQG $XWKRUVKLS´  :KDW WKHQ VKDOO ZH PDNH RI DOO WKLV DQRQ\PRXV SXEOLFDWLRQ" 0XFK RI WKH analysis of anonymity from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is possible SUHFLVHO\ EHFDXVH RI LQWHUYHQLQJ DWWULEXWLRQ %HFDXVH ZH QRZ NQRZ ZKR ZURWH WKRVHRQFHDQRQ\PRXVRUSVHXGRQ\PRXVWH[WVZHFDQDQDO\]HZK\WKRVHDXWKRUV FKRVH DQRQ\PLW\ RULJLQDOO\ 7KXV ERWK *ULI¿Q¶V HGLWHG FROOHFWLRQ RI HVVD\V RQ anonymity and the special edition of New Literary History contain mostly essays dealing with eighteenth- and nineteenth-century anonymous publication and only D VLQJOH SLHFH LQ HDFK ERWK E\ 0DUF\ 1RUWK  GHDOLQJ ZLWK HDUO\ PRGHUQ ZRUN $QGLQGHHG*ULI¿QDFNQRZOHGJHVWKDWWKHVLJQL¿FDQWERG\RIPDWHULDODQDO\]LQJ DQRQ\PLW\ ³WHQGV WR EH ORFDOL]HG DURXQG VSHFL¿F DXWKRUV )UDQFHV %XUQH\ Charlotte Bronte, George Eliot, and Walter Scott are perhaps the most visible” ³$QRQ\PLW\DQG$XWKRUVKLS´  Similarly, John Mullan’s Anonymity: A Secret History of English Literature includes only one example of an anonymous text published in the early modern SHULRG ,Q IDFW WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ RI KLV ERRN²FKDSWHUV H[SORULQJ UHDVRQV ZK\ authors chose to publish anonymously (mischief, modesty, women writing as PHQ PHQ ZULWLQJ DV ZRPHQ GDQJHU PRFNHU\ DQG GHYLOWU\ DQG FRQIHVVLRQ ² LVSRVVLEOHODUJHO\EHFDXVHKHZRUNVZLWKDQRQ\PRXVWH[WVZKRVHDXWKRUVKDYH EHHQLGHQWL¿HGVLQFHWKHLURULJLQDODQRQ\PRXVSXEOLFDWLRQ/LWWOHRIWKHZRUNWR date, however, focuses on the particular uses of the tool that anonymity provides writers. And almost none of it considers anonymity’s impact on readers even though an anonymous text, absent the author’s guiding presence, shifts both the UHVSRQVLELOLW\ DQG WKH SRZHU WR PDNH PHDQLQJ WR WKH UHDGHU ,QGHHG WKH YHU\ prevalence of extant anonymous texts from the early modern period would seem to VXJJHVWWKDW5HQDLVVDQFHUHDGHUVZHUHQRWERWKHUHGE\DWH[W¶VODFNRI³DXWKRULW\´ Moreover, it now seems clear that in some time periods, and in some discourse communities, authors depended on anonymity to ensure an audience. 3HUKDSVEHFDXVHVLWXDWHGMXVWSULRUWRZKHQWKHQRWLRQRIWKHSURIHVVLRQDODXWKRU became established, the early modern period offers more examples than later periods of that most challenging of texts, those examples of anonymity that are “not delineated by text, space, expectation, or commentary” (North, Anonymous Renaissance WKRVHWH[WVFRPLQJWRUHDGHUVZLWKRXWDQDXWKRU¶VQDPHDGDWH RU D SODFH RI RULJLQ 7KHVH 1RUWK QRWHV DUH WKH ³KDUGHVW WR DQDO\]H´   \HW they have great potential to teach us valuable lessons about readers’ and writers’ expectations as they consumed and composed. Anonymous texts abound in the sixteenth and early seventeenth century in England, and their frequency gives us cause to examine the particulars of anonymity’s peculiarity and prevalence,

8

Anonymity in Early Modern England

precisely because our own expectations as readers and writers have evolved so far from what is—to us—the “alien” nature of these unsigned texts. Before the establishment of the idea of the professional author, the early modern reader could see anonymity as both a condition and a space where readers and text met without the mediation of the “author.” 7KLVFROOHFWLRQRIHVVD\VWKHQWDNHVDVHFRQGORRNDWVRPHHDUO\PRGHUQWH[WV WKDWDWWUDFWHGDJUHDWGHDORIDWWHQWLRQIURPWKHLU¿UVWUHDGHUV7KH\KDGYLEUDQWDQG full lives, circulating energetically in their own time period, despite their anonymity. 7KRXJKODUJHO\LJQRUHGWRGD\WKHVHZRUNVSHUIRUPHGIRUWKHLURULJLQDODXGLHQFHV ZLWKGUDPDWLFDQGYRFDOHQHUJ\7KHLU³DQRQ\PRXV´SHGLJUHHGLGQRWNHHSWKHP IURP HQMR\LQJ D UREXVW DQG LQ VRPH FDVHV ORQJ OLIH ,Q IDFW DV PDQ\ RI WKHVH essays show, it was sometimes a text’s very status as “anonymous” that allowed it WRVXUYLYHDQGÀRXULVK7KHHVVD\VLQWKLVYROXPHDVNWKHVHWH[WVWRWHOOXVDERXW the habits and expectations of those early modern readers, so very different from our own, and indeed different from the eighteenth century on, when expectations DERXW WKH ³$XWKRU´ PRUH VWURQJO\ LQÀXHQFHG UHDGHUV¶ UHVSRQVHV (DUO\ PRGHUQ readers energetically engaged with and appreciated texts that modern readers have dismissed, devalued, or ignored. 7KHVHHVVD\VMRLQWKHYRLFHVRIHDUOLHUZULWHUVZKRKDYHQRWHGIRUFHQWXULHVWKDW “anonymity” has advantages and of newer ones who argue the now commonplace notion that the term “author” is no longer a stable concept. However, the new PHWKRGVWKHVHHVVD\LVWVHPSOR\KDYHODUJHULPSOLFDWLRQVIRUWKHZRUNRIRXU¿HOG These critics use texts situated in their cultural moment—and their readers, not their ³DXWKRUV´²WRPDNHDQGEXLOGFODLPV,QVRGRLQJWKH\GHPRQVWUDWHWKDWDQRQ\PLW\ LVDVWUDWHJ\E\ZKLFKDWH[WVXUYLYHVDXWKRUVVSHDNDQGUHDGHUVUHZULWH7KRVH DUJXPHQWV FKDOOHQJH XV WR UHWKLQN RXU FULWLFDO DSSURDFKHV WR HDUO\ PRGHUQ WH[WV DQGWKHZRUNRIWKLVYROXPHSURYRNHVDWDQJHQWLDOFRQYHUVDWLRQVKRXOGDQRQ\PRXV WH[WVEHFRPHREMHFWVRIOLWHUDU\VWXG\",IVRLQZKDWZD\VPLJKWWKDWEHSRVVLEOH",I we learn to read early modern anonymity in new ways, the conversation about them VKRXOGH[WHQGEH\RQGVFKRODUO\MRXUQDOVLQWRFXUULFXODDQGFODVVURRPV 6XFKDSDUDGLJPDWLFVKLIWLQWKLQNLQJUHTXLUHVDFRPSOH[DQGÀH[LEOHGH¿QLWLRQ of the term “anonymity,” one large enough to include texts published anonymously WKDWKDYHUHPDLQHGSDUHQWOHVVWH[WVSXEOLVKHGRULJLQDOO\DVDQRQ\PRXVEXWZKLFK E\ WKH WZHQW\¿UVW FHQWXU\ KDYH EHHQ DWWULEXWHG WR DQ DXWKRU WH[WV WKDW ZHUH RQFH DWWULEXWHG WKHQ XQDWWULEXWHG DQG WH[WV WKDW ZHUH SXEOLVKHG DQRQ\PRXVO\ QRDXWKRULDOQDPHRQWKHWLWOHSDJH EXWZKRVHDXWKRUZDVNQRZQWRDXGLHQFHV HYHQ DW WKH WLPH RI SXEOLFDWLRQ 0XFK RI WKH ZRUN RI WKLV FROOHFWLRQ IRFXVHV on material from the early modern period that remains anonymous some four centuries later and, as a result, it is more concerned with readers than writers. 7KHVH HVVD\V KHDUNHQ EDFN WR IRUPDOLVW VWXGLHV DV ZHOO EXW ZLWK DQ DZDUHQHVV RIDQGDWWHQWLRQWRWKHWKHRUHWLFDOZRUNZKLFKKDVFRPHEHWZHHQIRUPDOLVPDQG WKHSUHVHQW7KHUHIRUHZKDWIROORZVHPSKDVL]HVWKHDQRQ\PRXVWH[WVWKHPVHOYHV FRQVLGHULQJKRZWKH\PDNHPHDQLQJDQGFRQWULEXWHWRWKHLUFXOWXUHGHVSLWHWKHLU ODFNRIDXWKRULDOPRRULQJ

Introduction

9

:HKDYHRUJDQL]HGWKHVHHVVD\VURXJKO\E\JHQUH7KH¿UVWVHFWLRQGHDOVZLWK manuscript poetry. Marcy North’s essay provides some theoretical grounding for issues the volume as a whole explores. It suggests in its early pages the shared conceptual landscape and the differences between attribution studies and analysis of anonymity. It goes on to examine anonymity as a purposeful strategy for manuscript authors, particularly for the genres of epitaph and libel. The breadth of North’s article is counter-balanced by the deep focus of Janet Starner’s treatment, which examines the complex textual tradition of a poem that depends on anonymity for its impact as it is transcribed in several miscellanies. A poem of equivocation, it would lose its paradoxical nature and become mere irony or satire if its author— DQGLWVDXWKRU¶VUHOLJLRXVSHUVSHFWLYH²FRXOGEHLGHQWL¿HG In the section dealing with drama, Thomas Cartelli situates an anonymous play, Woodstock, comfortably within a community of historical plays dealing with VLPLODUVXEMHFWPDWWHUDQGZULWWHQWRKLJKOLJKWWKHJHQHUDWLRQDODQGFODVVFRQÀLFWRI values in the 1590s. Cartelli argues that the relative neglect of Woodstock—neglect due largely to its anonymity—deprives contemporary readers of the full dramatic FRQYHUVDWLRQ%DUEDUD7UDLVWHUWDNHVXSWKHWKUHDGRI³FRQYHUVDWLRQ´DQGVXJJHVWV WKDWVLQFHDQRQ\PLW\ZDVDUHJXODUDQGWKHUHIRUHXQUHPDUNDEOHIHDWXUHRIHDUO\ PRGHUQGUDPDZHRXJKWWRORRNEH\RQGVSHFXODWLRQVDERXWDXWKRUVKLSIRUSURGXFWLYH interpretive readings. She argues that our examination of the intertextuality of these plays can reveal much about their appeal to contemporary audiences. Using the example of the wildly popular comedy The Merry Devil of Edmonton, a play that has garnered almost no modern critical notice, Traister points out a cross-referential ZHERIDOOXVLRQVWRWKHGHYLOWKDWUHÀHFWVWKHFXOWXUH¶VZDQLQJEHOLHILQWKLQJVPDJLFDO and argues that modern readers should attend more carefully to the agency of texts WKHPVHOYHVWKDQWKHDXWKRUVZKRPD\KDYHSURGXFHGWKHP-DPHV3XUNLVH[SORUHV the relationship of the anonymous drama Swetnam the Woman-hater to the earlier pamphlet The araignment of lewde, idle, froward and vnconstant women authored by Joseph Swetnam. Using the attribution scene in Swetnam as an example, he argues the danger of mis-attributing a text which gathers the misogyny of a culture and attributes it, scapegoat fashion, to a single “author.” Susan O’Malley extends consideration of anonymous pamphlet literature with an examination of Haec Vir: Or the Womanish Man. The essay explores possible reasons for Haec Vir’s anonymity, including the desirability of gender indeterminacy for its author. O’Malley is most interested in the pamphlet’s XQDFNQRZOHGJHGERUURZLQJIURPDQHVVD\E\0RQWDLJQHWKDWPD\KDYHEHHQPHDQW WRXQGHUFXWWKHSDPSKOHW¶VDSSDUHQWVXSSRUWRIZRPHQ¶VDXWRQRP\7KH¿QDOWZR HVVD\VHQJDJHWKHLVVXHRIDWWULEXWLRQWKHÀLSVLGHRIDQRQ\PLW\$WWULEXWLRQHUDVHV DQRQ\PLW\ RU DV 1RUWK UHPDUNV LQ KHU HVVD\ ³VFKRODUV RI DWWULEXWLRQ VWULYH WR UHSODFHDQRQ\PLW\ZLWKDQDPHDQGVFKRODUVRIDQRQ\PLW\VHHNWRXQGHUVWDQGWKH DEVHQFHRIDQDPH´ %UXFH'DQQHUFODLPVDQRQ\PLW\IRUWKHSOD\VDWWULEXWHG WR6KDNHVSHDUHEHFDXVHKHYLHZV³>W@KHFRQVWUXFWLRQRI6KDNHVSHDUHDVDYDJXH FRORVVDO DEVWUDFWLRQ VR FDSDFLRXV DV WR EHFRPH XQGH¿QDEOH´   $UJXLQJ that heterodox opinions often prove valuable in pushing orthodoxy into more

10

Anonymity in Early Modern England

carefully reasoned and supported positions, he explores the often contradictory and LOOVXSSRUWHG GLVPLVVDOV RI WKH DQWL6WUDWIRUGLDQV E\ 6KDNHVSHDUHDQ VFKRODUV ,Q WKHFROOHFWLRQ¶V¿QDOHVVD\0DUN5REVRQFDOOVIRU³DQHWKLFVRIDQRQ\PLW\´  In a far-reaching discussion of concepts of authorship in the early modern period, KHH[DPLQHVWKHUDPL¿FDWLRQVRIDWWULEXWLRQRILQVHUWLQJDVLJQDWXUHZKHUHEHIRUH there was none, and suggests that the anonymous text should, perhaps, remain anonymous or at the least that attribution should never completely erase the fact of original anonymity. The wide-ranging topics, theoretical approaches, and focal interests represented KHUH UHÀHFW WKH UHODWLYH QHZQHVV RI WKLV ¿HOG RI LQTXLU\ 7KH VL[WHHQWK DQG VHYHQWHHQWKFHQWXULHVDUH¿OOHGZLWKSRWHQWLDOWH[WVIRUVWXG\EXWDVWKHVHHVVD\V UHYHDOGLIIHUHQWSHUVSHFWLYHVPD\EHUHTXLUHGWRDQDO\]HDQGLQWHUSUHWDXWKRUOHVV ZRUN ,W LV RXU KRSH WKDW WKLV FROOHFWLRQ RI HVVD\V ERWK ZKHWV WKH DSSHWLWH DQG models some approaches that others will consider so that the voice of “Anon” PD\RQFHDJDLQHQMR\WKHSODFHLWRFFXSLHGLQOLWHUDU\FRQYHUVDWLRQVRIWKHHDUO\ modern period. Works Cited %UHZHU -RKQ ³$XWKRUV 3XEOLVKHUV DQG WKH 0DNLQJ RI /LWHUDU\ &XOWXUH´ The Pleasures of the Imagination: English Culture in the Eighteenth Century. Glasgow: Harper Collins, 1997. 125–66. Rpt. in The Book History Reader. 2nd HG(G'DYLG)LQNHOVWHLQDQG$OLVWDLU0F&OHHU\/RQGRQ5RXWOHGJH Foster, Donald. “Commentary: In the Name of the Author.” New Literary History  ± Foucault, Michel. “What is an Author?” The Foucault Reader. Ed. Paul Rabinow. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1984. 101–20. *ULI¿Q 5REHUW - HG ³$QRQ\PLW\ DQG $XWKRUVKLS´ New Literary History: A Journal of Theory and Interpretation ± ———. The Faces of Anonymity. 1HZ
PART 1 Anonymous Manuscript Poetry

This page has been left blank intentionally

Chapter 1

Anonymity in Early Modern Manuscript Culture: Finding a Purposeful Convention in a Ubiquitous Condition Marcy L. North

The study of early modern anonymity has traditionally been a minor sideshow in the bibliographic discipline of author attribution. Anonymity has been the starting point for many attribution narratives, and it has served as a lively anecdote in biographies RI UHFRYHUHG DXWKRUV EXW LW KDV QRW EHHQ DQDO\]HG WKRURXJKO\ DV D SRVWXUH WKDW HDUO\DXWKRUVFKRVHSXEOLVKHUVNQRZLQJO\SHUSHWXDWHGDQGUHDGHUVXQGHUVWRRGDV meaningful. Even the historicist interest in subversive literature and the materialist IDVFLQDWLRQZLWKWKHERRNDVREMHFWKDYHIDLOHGWREULQJDQRQ\PLW\FRPSOHWHO\WRWKH fore. There are, to date, some valuable articles on particular acts of anonymity and studies of notorious pseudonyms such as Martin Marprelate and Ester Sowernam, EXWPRVWDQRQ\PRXVZRUNVIURPHDUO\PRGHUQ(QJODQGUHPDLQXQGHUVWXGLHGDQG undervalued.1 The anonymity of individual poems has been especially neglected, not only because the early published miscellanies in which they appeared rarely had a single author, but also because many individual poems circulated in manuscript, ZKHUHDQRQ\PLW\LVYLHZHGDVLQFLGHQWDOUDWKHUWKDQVLJQL¿FDQW The essays in this volume suggest that a change is at hand and that the analysis of anonymity is emerging as a research area independent from attribution studies. The two pursuits, after all, have distinctly different goals. To practice attribution LVWRGHOLQHDWHWKHUROHVNQRZQLQGLYLGXDOVSOD\LQWKHSURGXFWLRQRIOLWHUDWXUHEXW to study anonymity is to explore the materials, functions, contexts, and nuances RI DQRQ\PRXV DXWKRUVKLS ZLWKRXW QHFHVVDULO\ ¿QGLQJ WKH DXWKRU2 Scholars of DWWULEXWLRQVWULYHWRUHSODFHDQRQ\PLW\ZLWKDQDPHDQGVFKRODUVRIDQRQ\PLW\VHHN WR XQGHUVWDQG WKH DEVHQFH RI D QDPH$OWKRXJK UHVHDUFKHUV LQ ERWK ¿HOGV XWLOL]H similar evidence and tools, they reach different conclusions about what information LVSHUWLQHQWWRRXUXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIDQHDUO\OLWHUDU\ZRUN0RVWDWWULEXWLRQVFKRODUV 1

)RU DUWLFOHOHQJWK VWXGLHV RI DQRQ\PRXV DXWKRUVKLS VHH %DURQ &RLUR 0HQW] 5DQGDOO DQG:LOGHU )RU UHFHQW VWXGLHV RI WKH 0DUSUHODWHDXWKRUVHH/DQGHUDQG%ODFN Sowernam’s anonymity is discussed by Wayne, among others. 2 )RUDVXUYH\RIWKH¿HOGRIDWWULEXWLRQVHH/RYH)RURWKHUKHOSIXOGLVFXVVLRQVVHH Robson and Clegg.

14

Anonymity in Early Modern England

treat the author’s name as an inherent component of the literary text and argue that it is essential to interpretation. Researchers of anonymity see names, pseudonyms, DQGHPSW\VLJQDWXUHOLQHVDVFRQYHQWLRQVVXEMHFWWRWKHPDQLSXODWLRQRIDXWKRUV ERRN SURGXFHUV DQG UHDGHUV 1R RQH FODLP WR D WH[W LV LQKHUHQW )RU DQRQ\PLW\ VFKRODUVWKHVHPDOOHDEOHFRQYHQWLRQVUHYHDOPXFKDERXWWKHUHFHSWLRQRIDZRUN in a particular time and place, about shared and contested notions of authorship DQGSXEOLFDWLRQDERXWWKHLQWHUSUHWLYHYDOXHRIWKHSDUDWH[WVWKDWSUHVHQWZRUNVWR UHDGHUVDQGDERXWWKHJHQHULFDQGSROLWLFDOFDWHJRUL]DWLRQRIOLWHUDU\ZRUNV The two approaches to missing names are not mutually exclusive, despite their GLIIHUHQWJRDOVDWWULEXWLRQVWXG\LVDORQJVWDQGLQJGLVFLSOLQHSULPDULO\EHFDXVH anonymity has long been a popular practice among authors and a common condition of many literary texts. Conversely, scholars of anonymity must sometimes begin with an author’s name in order to decipher the strategies and agency behind DQRQ\PLW\7KHHDUO\UHFHSWLRQRIDQRQ\PLW\LVOLNHZLVHPDGHYLVLEOHWKURXJKVRPH RIWKHHDUO\HIIRUWVWRWUDFNGRZQDQRQ\PRXVDXWKRUV,QWKHVHZD\VDQRQ\PLW\ DQGDWWULEXWLRQVWXGLHVDUHQHFHVVDULO\LQWHUWZLQHG&RQÀDWLQJWKHWZRGLVFLSOLQHV however, has tended to obscure much of what the study of anonymity can teach us. ,IZHZDQWWRKLVWRULFL]HHDUO\PRGHUQDXWKRUVKLSZLWKDQ\GHJUHHRIDFFXUDF\ZH QHHGWRORRN atDQRQ\PLW\ERWKEHIRUHDQGDIWHUZHORRNEHKLQGLW My essay on Stuart manuscript culture adopts this approach and foregrounds anonymity as a dynamic convention in hand-copied poetic miscellanies. Not XQOLNHWKHÀDJUDQWDQRQ\PLW\RISULQWDXWKRUVVXFKDV0DUSUHODWHDQG6RZHUQDP manuscript anonymity can be understood as strategic and intentional. Diverging from my discussion of particular manuscripts in The Anonymous Renaissance, I focus here on two fashionable poetic genres that are anonymous more often than QRWHSLWDSKVDQGOLEHOV1RUWK± 7KHVKRUWLQVFULSWLRQVFODLPLQJWRPDUND JUDYHRUWRPEDQGWKHVDWLULFDODWWDFNVRQGLVWLQFWDQGLGHQWL¿DEOHLQGLYLGXDOVKDYH much in common. For both of these exceptionally fashionable genres, a great deal LVDWVWDNHLQQDPLQJWKHVXEMHFWDQGLQKLGLQJWKHDXWKRU¶VQDPH7KHDQRQ\PRXV DXWKRUVRIOLEHOVDQGHSLWDSKVJRRXWRIWKHLUZD\WRPDNHWKHVXEMHFW¶VLGHQWLW\DQ intrinsic quality of a text (to a degree that rivals the way modern bibliographers WUHDWWKHDXWKRU 7KHJHQUHRIWKHHSLWDSKIRULQVWDQFHSUHWHQGVWRPDUNZLWKD QDPHWKHDFWXDOPDWHULDOUHPDLQVRILWVVXEMHFWDQGWKHOLEHOSURIHVVHVWRH[SRVH WKH FRUUXSW QDWXUH RI NQRZQ OXPLQDULHV7KHVH JHQUHV LQWHUWZLQH WKH VWDXQFKHVW claims to identity with the subtlest and most impenetrable acts of anonymity WR UHYHDO WKH LQVWDELOLW\ RI LGHQWLW\ ERWK RI DXWKRU DQG VXEMHFW ,Q DQDO\]LQJ WKHVH FRQWUDGLFWRU\ JHVWXUHV WKLV HVVD\ ERWK FULWLTXHV ERRN KLVWRU\¶V QHJOHFW RI DQRQ\PLW\¶V IXQFWLRQDOLW\ LQ PDQXVFULSW DQG DFNQRZOHGJHV WKDW WKH LPSXOVH WR PDUNLGHQWLWLHVLVSDUWRIWKHOLWHUDWXUHZHVWXG\ Epitaphs and libels, surprisingly, do not call attention to their own anonymity WR WKH H[WHQW WKDW FHUWDLQ SULQWHG VDWLUHV RI WKH SHULRG GR WKH\ DUH OHVV OLNHO\ WKDQ VDWLUHV WR MRNH DERXW WKH PLVVLQJ QDPH RU KLGGHQ DXWKRU$OWKRXJK LQ WKLV study I pay close attention to a few self-consciously anonymous libels, they are the exceptions. In a broad survey of extant Stuart libels, only a few poems taunt

Anonymity in Early Modern Manuscript Culture

15

readers with their anonymity or otherwise draw attention to the author’s namelessness.3 (SLWDSKVLQWKHYRLFHRIWKHGHFHDVHGDUHFHUWDLQO\GHVLJQHGWRSURYRNHWKHUHDGHUEXW WKH\DUHHYHQOHVVOLNHO\WKDQOLEHOVWRDGYHUWLVHWKHLUDQRQ\PLW\(SLWDSKVDQGOLEHOV WKHUHIRUHSRVHDFKDOOHQJHWRWKHFULWLFWKHIXQFWLRQDOLW\RIDQRQ\PLW\LVHYLGHQWLQ KRZFRQVLVWHQWO\LWLVHPSOR\HGEXWWKHDQRQ\PRXVDXWKRUV¶VSHFL¿FVWUDWHJLHVDUH FRQFHDOHGLQFRQYHQWLRQDOLW\(SLWDSKVVSHDNIRUWKHGHDGVRPHWLPHVHYHQLQWKH voice of the dead, and their living authors customarily do not sign their names below the tombstone inscription. Those literary epitaphs recorded in manuscripts and never intended to be carved in stone follow this precedent for the most part. Although authors claimed their printed epitaph collections, epitaphs in manuscript remained predominantly anonymous, and early printed anthologies derived from manuscript culture, such as Wits Recreations   UHWDLQHG DQG KHOSHG WR VWDQGDUGL]H WKH DQRQ\PLW\RIWKHLUVRXUFHV0DQXVFULSWOLEHOVDUHOLNHZLVHFRQYHQWLRQDOO\DQRQ\PRXV (Schneider 484–6 and McRae, Literature, Satire   7KH\ ZHUH GDQJHURXV WR compose and to own, but they were also relatively ubiquitous in Stuart manuscripts.4 Their anonymity was a necessary and effective protective device that allowed for their broad dissemination, and the particularly unobtrusive form of anonymity used by most libel authors focused attention away from the author and onto the libel’s YLFWLP7KHDQRQ\PLW\RIWKHOLEHOJHQUHZDVVRVWDQGDUGL]HGWKDWHYHQWKHDQWLOLEHOV DWWDFNLQJWKHFXOWXUHRIOLEHOLQJWHQGHGWRRYHUORRNWKHPLVVLQJQDPHVDQGIRFXVRQ the presumed character of the authors instead. How does one begin to uncover the strategies underlying the anonymity of epitaphs and libels? Although epitaphs are mostly silent about their anonymity, one ¿QGVYLVLEOHSDWWHUQVRIDQRQ\PLW\¶VIXQFWLRQDOLW\LQWKHZD\WKH\DUHFRSLHGDQG FROOHFWHGLQWRPDQXVFULSWYHUVHPLVFHOODQLHV0\HVVD\EHJLQVE\DQDO\]LQJWKLV process. Epitaphs are often paired with elegies, and the genre of the elegy serves WKURXJKRXWWKH¿UVWVHFWLRQDVDSRLQWRIFRPSDULVRQWKRXJK,FRQVLGHUSULPDULO\ WKHZD\WKDWDQRQ\PLW\EHFRPHVDG\QDPLFDQGJHQUHGH¿QLQJFRPSRQHQWZKHQ HSLWDSKVDUHFRSLHGQRWMXVWZLWKDVLQJOHHOHJ\EXWLQVHULHVDQGFOXVWHUVRIUHODWHG poems. In the case of libels and libelous epitaphs, historians and literature scholars VXFKDV$OLVWDLU%HOODQ\3ROLWLFVRI&RXUW6FDQGHO $GDP)R[+DUROG/RYH6FULEDO 3XEOLFDWLRQ DQG$QGUHZ0F5DHLiterature, Satire KDYHXQFRYHUHGQHZVOHWWHUV SHUVRQDOFRUUHVSRQGHQFHFRXUWWUDQVFULSWVDQGDIHZDQWLOLEHOVWKDWVNHWFKRXW the ways that libels were composed, circulated, and read. Bellany, Fox, and Love are more interested in the politics, news content, and transmission of libels than in DQRQ\PLW\DVDVWDQGDUGL]HGPDQXVFULSWFRQYHQWLRQEXWWKHLUUHVHDUFKHVSHFLDOO\ the online edition of Stuart libels published by Bellany and McRae, is immensely 3

For a discussion of how print authors announce their anonymity in the ecclesiastical debates, see North, chapters 4 and 5. McRae, “Literary Culture of Early Stuart Libeling”   FLWHV VRPH RI WKH PRUH VHOIFRQVFLRXV OLEHO QDUUDWRUV LQFOXGLQJ RQH ZKR XVHV KLV DQRQ\PLW\WRWDXQWKLVVXEMHFWWKH'XNHRI%XFNLQJKDP 4 Stuart libel laws are detailed in chapters 6 and 7 of Fox. See also Colclough, Croft, and most recently, Schneider.

16

Anonymity in Early Modern England

helpful in showing the degree to which readers were conscious of anonymity as DVWUDWHJ\,XVHWKLVLPSRUWDQWZRUNDQGP\RZQPDQXVFULSWUHVHDUFKWRDQDO\]H FORVHO\DVHWRIOLEHOVDQGDQWLOLEHOVWKDWVRPHZKDWXQFKDUDFWHULVWLFDOO\VDWLUL]H DQGWKHUHE\UHYHDODVLQWHQWLRQDODQGPHDQLQJIXO VRPHRIWKHDXWKRULDOVWUDWHJLHV of anonymity and attribution available to early seventeenth-century authors. I afford particular attention to a set of poems in Folger Library MS V.a. 345 FHOHEUDWLQJDQGPRFNLQJWKH'XNHRI%XFNLQJKDP¶VWULSWR6SDLQZLWK3ULQFH Charles to negotiate a Spanish marriage for Charles. My focus in this essay on manuscript culture, where anonymity is so widespread DV WR EH XQUHPDUNDEOH LV TXLWH SXUSRVHIXO 0DQXVFULSW DQRQ\PLW\ KDV JDUQHUHG even less attention than print anonymity in modern scholarship, in part because instances of manuscript anonymity are assumed to be far removed from the author’s intentions. Anonymity’s ubiquitous presence in Stuart verse miscellanies is blamed on the ignorance, carelessness, or nonchalance of early poetry collectors, even though authors surely set much of the anonymity in motion. While there was a degree of nonchalance and carelessness in early poetry collecting, these postures PD\ PDUN DQ DZDUHQHVV RI DQRQ\PLW\¶V FRQYHQWLRQDOLW\ UDWKHU WKDQ UHÀHFWLQJ D QHWZRUNRISLUDWHGWH[WVDQGDOHJDF\RIVFULEDOHUURUV$VWKHIROORZLQJDQDO\VHV UHYHDOWKHDQRQ\PLW\RIHSLWDSKVDQGOLEHOVZDVFUDIWHGWRZRUNH[FHSWLRQDOO\ZHOO in the world of hand-to-hand transmission of texts. This essay argues, therefore, that Stuart verse miscellanies show us literary conventions particularly adapted to the material and cultural conditions of manuscript, and that anonymity can best be XQGHUVWRRGLQWKLVOLJKWE\WDNLQJLWRXWRIWKHVKDGRZRISULQWFXOWXUHDQGH[SORULQJ it as an inventive, provocative, and useful authorial stance for manuscript authors.5 In Eundem: Epitaphs and Anonymity in Early Stuart Manuscripts In early Stuart manuscript culture, epitaphs and elegies often shared not only a focus on death, remembrance, consolation, and admonition, but also the space of a page. The two genres were regularly copied together in small clusters, and some manuscripts HYHQKDYHVHFWLRQVRIDGR]HQRUPRUHOHDYHVGHYRWHGWRSRHPVRQGHDWK(OHJLHV DQGHSLWDSKVRQWKHVDPHGHFHDVHG¿JXUHDOVRVHUYHGH[SOLFLWO\DVFRPSDQLRQSLHFHV ZLWKWKHHSLWDSKIXQFWLRQLQJDVDVKRUWHUFRGDRUSLWK\UHMRLQGHUWRWKHH[FHVVHVRIWKH HOHJLDFYRLFH6FRGHO1HZVWRN³(OHJLHV(QGLQJ+HUH´DQGQuoting Death %RWK JHQUHVHQMR\HGFRQVLGHUDEOHSRSXODULW\WRRHYHQULYDOLQJWKHQXPEHURIORYHSRHPV in some manuscripts. To a greater extent than the elegy, however, epitaphs were conventionally anonymous. A cluster of funerary verse at the beginning of Folger /LEUDU\069DSDUW,,LOOXVWUDWHVWKLVGLIIHUHQFH2IWKH¿UVWHQWULHVDOORI WKHHSLWDSKVDUHDQRQ\PRXVLQFOXGLQJHSLWDSKVIRU.LQJ-DPHV¶VVRQ+HQU\DQGIRU WKH'XNHRI%XFNLQJKDP¶VDVVDVVLQ-RKQ)HOWRQ,QFRQWUDVWPRUHWKDQKDOIRIWKH HOHJLHVDUHDWWULEXWHG+HQU\.LQJ¶V³([HTX\´LVVXEVFULEHGZLWKKLVLQLWLDOV5LFKDUG 5 Marotti (Manuscript, Print DQG:RXGKX\VHQGH¿QHPDQXVFULSWFXOWXUHDVDGLVWLQFW literary subculture.

Anonymity in Early Modern Manuscript Culture

17

Corbett’s elegies on Thomas Ravis, Bishop of London, and Sir Thomas Overbury DQQRXQFHWKHJHQUHDXWKRUDQGWKHVXEMHFWVLQWKHLUKHDGLQJVDVLIHOHJLHVUHTXLUHG DQDPHGDXWKRUDVZHOODVDVXEMHFW7KHEDODQFHRIDQRQ\PLW\DQGQDPLQJLQ)ROJHU 9DSDUW,,LVIDLUO\W\SLFDODQGJHQUHVHHPVWREHWKHSULPDU\GHWHUPLQDQW three other Corbett poems in this section are anonymous, probably because two are epitaphs and one is a short epigrammatic verse closely related to the epitaph.6 Funeral elegies, of course, are notorious for celebrating the author as well as WKH VXEMHFW DQG PDQ\ RI WKHP ZHUH HPSOR\HG DV DSSHDOV IRU SDWURQDJH VR WKH attributions are hardly surprising. The headings of the two Corbett elegies remind XVWKDWWKHDXWKRULVSDUWO\WKHHOHJ\¶VVXEMHFW:KDWLVSHUKDSVVXUSULVLQJWKHQ is the number of elegies in manuscript that nevertheless appear anonymously, especially in sequences of poems on death. A series of this sort in British Library 06(JHUWRQFRQWDLQVVL[HOHJLHVDQGVL[HSLWDSKVIIY± 2IWKHHOHJLHV +HQU\.LQJ¶V³([HTX\´DQG.LQJ-DPHV¶VHOHJ\RQ4XHHQ$QQH³7KHHWRLQYLWH WKHJUHDW*RGVHQWKLVVWDU´ DUHDWWULEXWHGWKHRWKHUIRXUHOHJLHVRQ.LQJ-DPHV Francis Beaumont, the earl of Rutland, and Prince Henry are anonymous, even though the author of the Beaumont elegy is explicitly advertising his writing VNLOOVZLWKLQWKHYHUVH,Q(JHUWRQWKHDQRQ\PLW\RIWKHHSLWDSKVLVPRUH FRQVLVWHQWRQO\DZU\HSLWDSKGHIHQGLQJWKHGXNHRI%XFNLQJKDPLVDWWULEXWHG²WR WKH &RXQWHVV RI )DONODQG %HOODQ\ DQG 0F5DH 3LLL  ,Q JHQHUDO WHUPV WKHQ HSLWDSKV VSHDN IURP WKH JUDYH WR LGHQWLI\ RU FKDUDFWHUL]H WKH GHFHDVHG ZKLOH HOHJLHVVSHDNIRUWKHPRXUQHUZKRFDQDQGRIWHQGRHVFODLPWKHWH[W6FRGHO± 'RHOPDQ ,QWKH(JHUWRQPDQXVFULSWKRZHYHUWKHFOXVWHULQJRIHOHJLHVDQG epitaphs shifts the balance of these generic standards by muting the particularity of YRLFHDQGLGHQWLW\IRUDOOEXWDIHZZHOONQRZQDXWKRUV,QGHHGFOXVWHULQJSRHPV on death in manuscript miscellanies, as this compiler has done, often pushes the poems toward greater anonymity, not because of the neglect of authorial names, EXWUDWKHUEHFDXVHRWKHUVWDQGDUGVDQGFRPSLODWLRQSURFHVVHVWDNHSUHFHGHQFHRYHU the preservation and presentation of authorial names. To some extent, it is the anonymity of the epitaph that drives this process. The conventional anonymity of the manuscript epitaph appears to have developed from D FRQÀXHQFH RI VHYHUDO WUDGLWLRQV 7KH OLWHUDU\ IRUP RI WKH HSLWDSK KDV JHQHULF DI¿OLDWLRQVZLWKERWKWRPEVWRQHLQVFULSWLRQVZKLFKDUHSUHGRPLQDQWO\DQRQ\PRXV and satiric epigrams, which are conventionally anonymous in manuscript (Scodel, 1HZVWRN ³(OHJLHV (QGLQJ +HUH´ DQG Quoting Death 7 The brevity of epigrams

6 7KH &RUEHWW SRHPV LQFOXGH ³2Q WKH /DG\ $UDEHOOD 6WXDUW´ +RZ GRH , WKDQN WKHH  I U ³2Q 0U +HQU\ %ROLQJ´ ,I JHQWOHQHVVH FRXOG WDPH WKH IDWHV RU ZLWW  I Y ³2Q 5LFKDUG (DUOH RI 'RUVHW´ /HW QR SURIDQH LJQREOH IRRWH WUHDG QHHUH  I U GXELD  Another Corbett poem on f. 8v is signed R.C. 7 2QH¿QGVDQLQWHUHVWLQJH[FHSWLRQWRWKHDQRQ\PLW\RIHSLJUDPVLQWKHFODVVLFDOSRHW 0DUWLDO¶VZRUNVZKLFKZHUHTXLWHLQÀXHQWLDOLQHDUO\PRGHUQ(QJODQG0DUWLDODVQDUUDWRUDQG author, is a self-conscious presence in his epigrams. See Doelman for a discussion of Martial’s LQÀXHQFHRQWKH(QJOLVKHSLJUDPDQGWKHFRQQHFWLRQEHWZHHQHSLJUDPVDQGHSLWDSKV

18

Anonymity in Early Modern England

and epitaphs may also have discouraged the careful attribution of single items, though this pattern needs to be seen as a characteristic of genre and not simply as a material vulnerability. Some epitaphs are libelous, and their anonymity is VWUDWHJLFDOO\ SURWHFWLYH $QRWKHU WUDGLWLRQ WKDW KHOSHG VWDQGDUGL]H WKH HSLWDSK¶V anonymity has roots in classical rhetoric. Many epitaphs affect an immediacy of YRLFHDVLIWKHJUDYHWRPERUHYHQWKHGHFHDVHGLVVSHDNLQJWRDSUHVHQWUHDGHU 7KHWHFKQLTXHRISURVRSRSHLDDVDXWKRUVPXVWKDYHUHFRJQL]HGZRUNVEHVWLIWKH epitaph is anonymous. In Folger Library MS V.a. 162, an anonymous epitaph for Prince Henry, who died in 1612, begins: 5HDGHUZRQGHUWKLQNHLWQRQH 7KDW,VSHDNH DPDVWRQH Should I not my treasure tell? :RQGHUWKHQWKRXPLJKWVWDVZHOOIY

Bodleian Library MS Rawlinson Poetry 26 records a copy of a popular, libelous HSLWDSKLQWKHYRLFHRIWKHDVVDVVLQDWHG%XFNLQJKDP I that my Country did betray: 8QGLGWKHNLQJWKDWOHWPHHVZD\ His scepter as I pleasd: brought downe The glory of the English Crowne. The Courtier’s bane, the Countrye’s hate: An agent in the Spanish state the Papist’s freind, the Gospell’s foe: 7KH&KXUFK .LQJGRPH¶VRYHUWKURZ 'RHKHHUHDQRGLRXV&DUNDVVHGZHOO 8QWLOOP\VRXOHUHWXUQIURP+HOOIUOO±

$QDQRQ\PRXVYHUVLRQRIWKLVSRHPLQ%ULWLVK/LEUDU\6ORDQH06IY  KHDGHG³3URVRSRSHLDRQWKH'´PDNHVH[SOLFLWWKHUKHWRULFDODUWL¿FLDOLW\RIWKLV ¿UVWSHUVRQYRLFHE\IRUPDOO\LGHQWLI\LQJWKHSHUVRQL¿FDWLRQEHKLQGLW Even in the case of third-person epitaphs, however, there is a distance between author and voice that allows for a range of perspectives, from the satiric to the admonitory, and that invites the author’s anonymity. Epitaphs, as DZKROHFXOWLYDWHDGLVHPERGLHGYRLFHDV6FRWW1HZVWRNKDVREVHUYHGDYRLFH LQWHQWLRQDOO\FUDIWHGWRVHHPDXWKRUOHVV³(OHJLHV´ $WWKHVDPHWLPHWKLVYRLFH DVNV WKH SDVVHUE\ WR VWRS DQG LGHQWLI\ WKH ERG\ DQG FKDUDFWHU RI WKH GHFHDVHG ,Q6WXDUWPDQXVFULSWFXOWXUHWKHÀH[LELOLW\RIWKLVHSLWDSKLFYRLFHHQFRXUDJHGWKH FRPSRVLWLRQRIERWKWKHVHULRXVIXQHUDU\WULEXWHVWKDWZHUHDWWDFKHGWRWKHVXEMHFW¶V KHDUVHDQGOLEHORXVPRFNHULHVWKDWZHUHFLUFXODWHGLQPDQXVFULSWWUDQVPLWWHGE\ word of mouth, or posted in obvious places around town. In both cases, the voices QDPHRUFKDUDFWHUL]HWKHLUVXEMHFWVLQDPDQQHUWKDWGHÀHFWVDWWHQWLRQDZD\IURP the actual author. It is no coincidence that in this period the epitaph became such a popular vehicle for libelous commentary. A less anonymous genre might not have proved as useful or effective.

Anonymity in Early Modern Manuscript Culture

19

7KHDQRQ\PRXVYRLFHLWVKRXOGEHHPSKDVL]HGVHUYHGERWKWKHFRQWURYHUVLDO epitaphs and the less controversial ones equally well. This is especially clear when early manuscripts group together poems on death. In Stuart miscellanies, IRULQVWDQFHRQHFRPPRQO\¿QGVVPDOOFOXVWHUVREVHVVLYHO\IRFXVHGRQQDPLQJ DVKDUHGVXEMHFWRIWHQDWWKHH[SHQVHRIWKHDXWKRUV¶QDPHV,QRWKHUFDVHVVHULHV of witty epitaphs reveal themselves to be the product of university competitions, where the authors, already familiar with one another, do not need to be named. There are important exceptions to this pattern of anonymity. Very popular epitaphs VXFK DV :LOOLDP %URZQH¶V WULEXWH WR WKH FRXQWHVV RI 3HPEURNH ³8QGHUQHDWK this Sable Hearse,” tended to be copied apart from generic sequences with their authors’ names attached, probably because they were sought after and transmitted DV LQGLYLGXDO LWHPV ,W LV DOVR FRPPRQ WR ¿QG SRSXODU DQG YHU\ VKRUW PRFN HSLWDSKVLQVHUWHGLQWRDQ\DYDLODEOHEODQNVSDFHLQDPDQXVFULSWRIWHQLQWKHPLGVW of unrelated materials. On the whole, however, the tendency to cluster poems RQ GHDWK FUHDWHG SDWWHUQV RI DQRQ\PLW\ DQG QDPLQJ WKDW OLNH WKH DQRQ\PLW\ RI the epitaph genre, became conventional. As such, the dynamics of these clusters ZHUHUHFRJQL]HGDVPHDQLQJIXODQGVWUDWHJLFE\DXWKRUVFRPSLOHUVDQGUHDGHUV even when no one person was entirely responsible for the results. These patterns acquired interpretive potential through repeated use, exposure, and imitation. Combined with the epitaph’s generic association with anonymity, they offer a SRZHUIXOWHVWLPRQ\WRWKHZD\IXQHUDU\WURSHVPHPRULDOL]HVXEMHFWVDQGDXWKRUV The clustering of funeral elegies and satirical epitaphs in early manuscripts RIWHQVWULNHVPRGHUQUHDGHUVDVLUUHYHUHQW,QH[SODLQLQJWKLVRGGSDLULQJRIWKH PHPRULDO DQG WKH PRFNLQJ$QGUHZ 0F5DH QRWHV WKDW PDQXVFULSW PLVFHOODQ\ FRPSLOHUVW\SLFDOO\MX[WDSRVHLWHPVZLWKRSSRVLQJSROLWLFDOSHUVSHFWLYHVDQGLWLV FRPPRQIRUSRHPVRQVKDUHGVXEMHFWVWREHJURXSHGWRJHWKHUUHJDUGOHVVRIWRQH RUSROLWLFDOEHQW³/LWHUDU\&XOWXUH´ 3DQHJ\ULFVDQGOLEHOVDUHLQWHUWZLQHG politically and materially in early modern literary manuscripts, as are love poems and misogynist witticisms (McRae, Literature, Satire 2QHFDQREVHUYH LQ WKLV FRPSLODWLRQ SUDFWLFH WKH LQÀXHQFH RI VWXGHQW YHUVH FRPSHWLWLRQ DQG WKH Humanist tradition of collecting related commonplaces under a single heading, ERWK RI ZKLFK MX[WDSRVH RSSRVLQJ SHUVSHFWLYHV RQ WKH VDPH VXEMHFW &UDQH  ,QFRPPRQSODFHERRNVWKHKHDGLQJV³2Q'HDWK´RU³2Q'HDWKDQG'\LQJ´GR QRWVSHFLI\DSHUVSHFWLYHRUWRQHDQGWKHHQWULHVEHQHDWKWKHPDUHOLNHO\WREH ERWK UHYHUHQW DQG PRFNLQJ 7KLV WUDGLWLRQ PD\ H[SODLQ ZK\ SRHWU\ FRPSLOHUV did not hesitate to set the serious and sarcastic together. On a single leaf in )ROJHU069DRQH¿QGVWKHVKRUWVLQFHUHHOHJ\RQWKH³UHPRYDORI4XHHQ (OL]DEHWK¶VERG\IURP5LFKPRQGWR:KLWHKDOOE\:DWHU´WZRPRFNLQJHSLWDSKV RQ0U6WRQHDWWULEXWHGWR6WRQHKLPVHOI DQG5LFKDUG&RUEHWW¶VFRPSODLQWDERXW 'U3ULFH¶VDQQLYHUVDU\HOHJ\IRU3ULQFH+HQU\S 7KHUHYHUHQWLDOZLWW\DQG piqued voices show death to be a pliable topic that can be approached from a variety of perspectives. The dynamic mix of anonymity and naming that results when compilers XVH VXEMHFW PDWWHU DV DQ RUJDQL]LQJ SULQFLSOH GHVHUYHV D FORVHU ORRN DQG WKH

20

Anonymity in Early Modern England

following examples demonstrate the variety of ways that clustering promotes and FRQYHQWLRQDOL]HVDQRQ\PLW\:KHQWKHVXEMHFWRIDFOXVWHULVDSDUWLFXODUSURPLQHQW LQGLYLGXDOZKRVHGHDWKKDVHDUQHGWKHDWWHQWLRQRIVHYHUDOSRHWVWKHVXEMHFW¶VQDPH helps to focus the cluster and to downplay authorial distinctions. In Bodleian MS 5DZO SRHW  WKUHH DQRQ\PRXV HSLWDSKV SUHFHGH ¿YH HOHJLHV RQ WKH GHDWK RI WKH 3URWHVWDQW .LQJ RI 6ZHGHQ *XVWDYXV$GROSKXV 7ZR RI WKH HOHJLHV DUH DOVR anonymous. What a reader perceives in this sequence is the compiler’s focus on the JUDYHDQGRQWKHORVVRI³6ZHGHQ´7KH¿UVWSRHPRQWKHNLQJ¶VGHDWKEHJLQV³WKHUH QHHGVQRWUXPSHWEXWKLVQDPH´I DQGWKLVDVVHUWLRQSOD\VRXWLQWKHODUJHU cluster, where “Sweden” unites three poems ascribed to “Tho. Roe,” “Hodgson,” DQG³+HQ.LQJ´DQGWZRDQRQ\PRXVRQHVUHQGHULQJDXWKRUVKLSVHFRQGDU\WRWKH VKDUHGVXEMHFW,Q)ROJHU069DIIY± DVHTXHQFHRISRHPVRQWKHGHDWK RI0LVWUHVV0DU\3ULGHDX[DOVRIRUHJURXQGVWKHVXEMHFWDWWKHH[SHQVHRIWKHDXWKRU William Strode anchors the sequence with three contributions, but all we have to DWWULEXWHWKHSRHPVWRKLPDUHIDLQWLQLWLDOVDGGHGEHVLGHWKHWLWOHRIWKH¿UVWHOHJ\8 Prideaux’s name, on the other hand, appears as a running title at the top of every page. A second poem “on the same” by one MMP interrupts the Strode sequence, rendering the poems that follow, Strode’s consolation to the parents and his epitaph, even more anonymous. Sequences of elegies and epitaphs often move toward greater anonymity the longer they get and the more contributors they comprise. This SKHQRPHQRQLVOLNHO\DQRWKHULQKHULWDQFHIURPFRPPRQSODFHFROOHFWLQJZKHUHWKH ZRUNV RI DXWKRUV ZHUH GUDVWLFDOO\ H[FHUSWHG FDWHJRUL]HG E\ WRSLF DQG JDWKHUHG ZLWKPDQ\RWKHUDXWKRUV¶ZRUNVXQGHUWKHLUVKDUHGKHDGLQJ7KHQDPHVRIDXWKRUV RFFDVLRQDOO\GHFRUDWHGWKHVHWH[WVEXWDVWKHSDJH¿OOHGXSWKHDXWKRUV¶QDPHVORVW PXFKRIWKHLUSRZHUWRGHPDUFDWHSDUWLFXODULWHPV&UDQH±  7KHVXEMHFW¶VQDPHDOWKRXJKVHHPLQJO\WKHIRFDOSRLQWRIPDQ\VHTXHQFHVRI HSLWDSKVDQGHOHJLHVGRHVQRWDOZD\VEHQH¿WIURPWKHDWWHQWLRQ$QRWKHUIDPLOLDU W\SHRIIXQHUDU\VHTXHQFHLQZKLFKDOOSRHPVDIWHUWKH¿UVWDUHODEHOHG³DQRWKHU´ or “in eundem´ FDQ DIIHFW WKH ORVV RI WKH VXEMHFW¶V QDPH WRR ,Q %RGOHLDQ 06 Ashmole 47, the name of the deceased Brasenose College proctor, Atherton Bruch, is slowly overshadowed by four authors’ elegies in eundem II ±  %UXFK¶V QDPHLVJLYHQLQWKHKHDGLQJIRUWKH¿UVWHOHJ\DQGLQWKHOLQHVRIWKH¿UVWDQG second elegies, but it is not mentioned again, even though the last two elegies occupy several leaves. The authors’ subscripts are predominantly initials, and they GROLWWOHWRIRFXVWKHVHTXHQFH7KHUHLVDSURFHVVE\ZKLFKWKHVXEMHFWVRSDUWLFXODU LQWKHVLQJOHHOHJ\RUHSLWDSKPDUNLQJDJUDYHEHFRPHVPRUHJHQHULFPRUHRID W\SHWKHPRUHIXQHUDU\YHUVHKHRUVKHLVJUDQWHG,QKDOIDGR]HQPDQXVFULSWV epitaphs for Prince Henry Stuart, who died in 1612 at the age of eighteen, are collected with or near epitaphs on anonymous children.97KHSRHPVPDUNLQJKLV 8 This sequence, incidentally, is not always attributed to Strode in contemporary manuscripts. For details, see Beal, Index. 9 6HHIRUH[DPSOH$VKPROHIIY±)ROJHU9DSDUW,,IY(JHUWRQ 2725, ff. 59v–60.

Anonymity in Early Modern Manuscript Culture

21

³JUDYH´EOXUZLWKWKRVHPDUNLQJWKHJUDYHVRIRWKHUFKLOGUHQUHQGHULQJWKHORVVRI England’s heir to the throne less political, more personal, and also more typical. When in eundemFRQQHFWVDVHULHVRIPRFNHSLWDSKVRQDQRWRULRXV¿JXUHWKLV SDWWHUQEHFRPHVHYHQPRUHYLVLEOHEHFDXVHWKHVHULHVHQGVXSPRFNLQJQRWRQO\ WKHVXEMHFWEXWDOVRWKHYHU\WUDGLWLRQRIFRPPHPRUDWLQJDOXPLQDU\ZLWKPXOWLSOH epitaphs. One leaf of Folger MS V.a. 345 has three sequential epitaphs on Lady Penelope Devereux Rich, Sidney’s Stella and sister to the Earl of Essex, who gained notoriety for her long affair with Charles Blount, the earl of Devonshire. The second two epitaphs are labeled “Another.” On the Lady Rich Heer lyes the Lady Penelope Rich Or the Countes of Deuonshire, chuse ye which One stone contents her, loe what death can doe That in her life was not content with two. Another Heer lyes on dead under this marble stone who when she liv’d lay under more then one. Another Upon her stone write this (yet, dost thou heare At the QDPHRIVWRQHVKH¶OULVHDJDLQH,IHDUH« S

A reader of Folger MS V. a. 345 appears to have been uncomfortable with this third epitaph, especially the invocation of a name in the second line. The epitaph has been scribbled through, rendering the second “stone” almost illegible. The dynamic of this series is one in which Penelope Rich’s identity is also HUDVHG (YHQ WKRXJK 3HQHORSH¶V QREOH VWDWXV PDNHV WKH DWWDFN PRUH SRLQWHG and provocative, it is precisely that noble status that the epitaphs challenge. ,QHIIHFWWKHVHTXHQWLDOHSLWDSKVZRUNWRPDNHKHULQWRDQDPHOHVVZKRUH7KH second epitaph in the series, coincidentally, is often included in manuscripts under the heading “Epitaph on a Whore.” In Bodleian MS Ashmole 47, f. 101v, there is no mention of Lady Rich anywhere near the entry (McRae, “Reading /LEHOV´±  6HULHVRIPRFNHSLWDSKVDUHLQWHQWLRQDOO\GLVFRQFHUWLQJEHFDXVHWKH\UHYHDO WKHDUWL¿FLDOLW\DQGORVVRILGHQWLW\WKDWDFFRPSDQ\WKHH[FHVVHVRIHYHQVHULRXV funerary commemorations. The ridiculous image of multiple tomb inscriptions PRFNLQJ3HQHORSH5LFKH[SRVHVWKH¿FWLYHDQGWH[WXDOQDWXUHRIWKHJHQUH,Q DQRWKHUW\SHRIVHULHVRQHGHYRWHGWRVXEMHFWVZKRVHQDPHVKDYHKRPRQ\PLF SRWHQWLDO WKH HSLWDSKV VDFUL¿FH WKH VXEMHFW¶V QDPH WR D JDPH RI SXQQLQJ DW RQFHLGHQWLI\LQJDQGJHQHUDOL]LQJWKH¿JXUHRIWKHGHFHDVHG(SLWDSKVZULWWHQ RQ0U3ULFNDUHDQLQIDPRXVH[DPSOHWKHERG\SDUWQRWWKHPDQGRPLQDWHV the poems. Epitaphs on Mr. Stone play upon the irony that Stone lies under a tombstone. A Stone epitaph in a short sequence in Bodliean MS Engl. poet. e. 14 SULYLOHJHVZLWRYHULGHQWL¿FDWLRQZKHQLWDOOXGHVWRWKHSURSKHF\RIWKH7HPSOH¶V destruction in Matthew 24:2:

22

Anonymity in Early Modern England Jherusalem’s curse shall never light on me )RUKHUHDVWRDQXSRQDVWRDQ\HWVKDOOEH«IYUHY

Another Bodleian manuscript, Malone 19, has several sequential leaves of epitaphs and elegies devoted to “Stone” and “Stoner” that were all copied in a single scribal stint. The copyist attributed only two of the poems, however—to Ben Stone— RQFH DJDLQ H[SRVLQJ WKH JHQUH¶V SOD\IXO DUWL¿FLDOLW\ ,Q XQLYHUVLW\ PDQXVFULSWV VHULHV RI HSLWDSKV RQ 0U 3ULFN DQG 0U 6WRQH DUH XELTXLWRXV 7KH\ HQFRXUDJH us to re-imagine authorship as a competition of wits, in which the authors treasure cleverness more than identity and compilers rarely distinguish their individual contributions. 2QH DOVR ¿QGV HSLWDSKV FOXVWHUHG LQ PDQXVFULSWV EHFDXVH WKH\ VKDUH WKH FRQFHLWRIJHQHUDOL]LQJDSDUWLFXODUVWHUHRW\SHRUSURIHVVLRQDKRUVHPDQWDLORU RU VKRHPDNHU IRU LQVWDQFH 0DORQH  I   ,QVWHDG RI SOD\LQJ ZLWK WKH SURSHUQDPHDXWKRUVRIWKHVHSRHPVXVHSXQVWRPRFNDGDLO\RFFXSDWLRQ7KH conventionality of the occupation epitaph invited authors to try their hands at whole series, which probably accounts for some of their clustering in manuscripts and certainly explains their popularity in print. The well-traveled epitaph on WKH EHOORZV PDNHU LV DQ XQXVXDO H[DPSOH EHFDXVH WKH VXEMHFW VSRUWV GLIIHUHQW QDPHVLQGLIIHUHQWPDQXVFULSWV.LWW.UDNHU-RKQ:LOOV-RQ&REDQG%RXQFHWR QDPHDIHZDUHHDFKDPDNHURIEHOORZV³PDVWHURIKLVWUDGHDQGNLQJRIJRRG fellowes / Yet at the hower of his owne death, / Hee that made bellowes could not PDNHEUHDWK´)ROJHU069DI 7KLVLQFUHGLEO\SRSXODUHSLWDSKDSSHDUV both in and out of clusters, and its malleability seems to have spurred its popularity. Although Peter Beal suspects that John Davies is the author, the epitaph is usually anonymous (Index,± *LYHQWKHH[WHQVLYHUHXVHDQGLQGLYLGXDOL]DWLRQRI this poem, identifying the original author is counterproductive, for doing so would ¿[WKHQDPHRIWKHVXEMHFWDVZHOODVWKHDXWKRUDQGREVFXUHWKHG\QDPLFIXQFWLRQ of this poem in early manuscripts. As this verse illustrates, the genre of the epitaph LVURRWHGLQQDPLQJEXWZRUNVPRVWHIIHFWLYHO\ZKHQDQRQ\PRXV The ubiquitous epitaphs on unnamed infants and children also remind readers WKDWQHLWKHUDXWKRUV¶QRUVXEMHFWV¶QDPHVDUH¿[HGWRWKHOLWHUDU\HSLWDSK(SLWDSKV IRUFKLOGUHQVKDUHWKHJHQHUDOL]LQJHOHPHQWVIRXQGLQRWKHUOLWHUDU\HSLWDSKV$VZLWK WKH KRPRQ\PLF HSLWDSK VXEMHFWV XQQDPHG FKLOGUHQ DWWUDFWHG QXPHURXV HSLWDSK writers. The phrase in eundem in a series of child epitaphs creates the illusion WKDWWKHSRHPVDUHDOODERXWWKHVDPHXQQDPHGFKLOGWKRXJKWKHLUVXEMHFWVOLNHO\ GLIIHU/LNHWKHRFFXSDWLRQHSLWDSKVWKHVXEMHFW¶VVWDWXVKHUH\RXWKRULQQRFHQFH  provided authors with an unending source of irony and wit. The child epitaphs have WKHPDOOHDELOLW\RIWKH.UDNHUHSLWDSKWKRXJKWKHHIIHFWLVIDUOHVVFRPLF The clustering of elegies and epitaphs, although more often literary than not, has an important precedent in actual funerary practices. It was a fashion to attach elegies and epitaphs to hearses during funeral processions. Even in these actual IXQHUDU\FRQWH[WVKRZHYHUSDUWLFXODUDXWKRUVJHWORVWLQWKHÀXWWHURISDSHUVDQG when the body reaches the cathedral or graveyard, only a select number of verses

Anonymity in Early Modern Manuscript Culture

23

FDQDFWXDOO\PDUNZKHUHWKHERG\OLHV7KHRWKHUYHUVHVUHPDLQSULPDULO\WH[WXDO GLVSODFHG DQG GLVWDQW IURP WKH VXEMHFW DV RQH HSLWDSK LOOXVWUDWHV PRFNLQJO\ ³+HUHO\HWK2ZHQWKDWRIODWHGLGG\H\RXGLGQRWNQRZKLPQRPRUHGLG,´ (Bodleian MS Firth H  S  10 In another, an epitaph for Mary Villiers, the JHQHUDOL]DWLRQRIWKHVXEMHFWWDNHVSODFHLQWKHHSLWDSK¶VFRQFOXGLQJDGPRQLWLRQ to the passerby: If thy self possesse a gemme, As dear to thee as shee to them Though a stranger in this place bewaile in theirs thy owne sad case For thou perhaps at thy returne 0D\VW¿QGWK\GDUOLQJLQDQ8UQH     )ROJHU069DIYOO±

In this poem’s anticipation of a future loss, perhaps your FKLOGLWLVWKHVXEMHFW¶V ERG\QRWMXVWWKHQDPHWKDWWKHHSLWDSKUHIXVHVWR¿[LQSODFH7KHDXWKRUVKLSRI WKLV SRHP LV OLNHZLVH XQVHWWOHG²WRGD\¶V UHDGHU FRXOG SURYH WRPRUURZ¶V HSLWDSK DXWKRU6RPHFRPSLOHUVFUHDWHDVLPLODUHIIHFWE\OHDYLQJDVSDFHIRUDVXEMHFW¶V name in their epitaph copies. In Bodleian MS Rawl. poet. 160, in which many KHDGLQJVUHPDLQXQ¿QLVKHGWKHFRS\LVWKDVOHIWURRPIRUDQDPHLQWKHKHDGLQJWRD SRSXODUDQRQ\PRXVHSLWDSKXSRQDFKLOG7KHFRS\LVWLVSHUKDSVKRSLQJWR¿QGWKH SRHP¶VVXEMHFWEXWLWLVMXVWDVOLNHO\WKDWWKHFRS\LVWVHHVLQWKLVSRHP¶VJHQHUDOLW\ the possibility of a future application. It is an open grave awaiting a body: An epitaph on ————————— As carefull nurses in their beds doe lay their babes which would too long the wantons play So to prevent my youthes ensewing crimes 1DWXUHP\1XUVHKDGPHLQEHGEHWLPHVIY

This generic poem happens to be one of the epitaphs often copied near those on Prince Henry. In fact, epitaphs on children are more often clustered together than not. Although these sequences mimic the decorated hearse in their numerous YRLFHV WKHLU JHQHUDOLW\ FRPSOLFDWHV WKH LGHQWL¿FDWLRQ RI WKH ERG\ ZLWKLQ 7KH conventionality of these literary epitaphs and their awareness of the distance between the author and the funeral belie the funerary purpose of the larger genre. (SLWDSKVUDUHO\PDUNDXQLTXHLQGLYLGXDO¶V¿QDOUHVWLQJSODFH1HZVWRNQuoting Death 1RUGRHSLWDSKVVHUYHWRPDUNDQDXWKRU,QVHTXHQFHVHVSHFLDOO\HSLWDSKV perform the loss of names and authorship rather than their preservation. Authors may have set the anonymity of the epitaph in motion, but readers and compilers encouraged the development of the epitaph sequence, effectively PDNLQJ LW D PDQXVFULSW JHQUH RI LWV RZQ 0DQ\ FOXVWHUV DSSHDU WR KDYH EHHQ 10 In Bod. MS Engl. poet. e. 14, this epitaph follows one on Owen, butler of Christ Church, attributed to Richard Corbett.

24

Anonymity in Early Modern England

RUJDQL]HGE\WKHPDQXVFULSWFRPSLOHUVWKHPVHOYHVUDWKHUWKDQFRSLHGZKROHVDOH $JRRGQXPEHURIVHTXHQFHVDUHOLNHQRRWKHUFRQWHPSRUDU\VHTXHQFHVDOWKRXJK WKH\ PD\ VKDUH D IHZ SRHPV ZLWK RWKHU PDQXVFULSWV &RPSLOHUV LQGLYLGXDOL]HG sequences by composing their own contributions, by adding epitaphs to a sequence over time, or, as in the case of the Penelope Rich epitaphs in Folger MS V.a. 345, by UHIHUULQJUHDGHUVWRDUHODWHGYHUVHRQDQRWKHUSDJHSS 0RVWPDQXVFULSWV miscellanies have as many epitaphs out of sequences as they do in sequences, so clustering poems on death is not necessarily a given. These individual entries, however, stand as proof that raw material for clustering was readily available. The ideal sequences appear to be anywhere from three poems to a few pages long, basically a small family graveyard. We get some idea of how compilers found material for their own epitaph FRQWULEXWLRQVLQWKHPLVFHOODQ\RIRQH0U5LFKDUG-DFNVRQ(GLQEXUJK8QLYHUVLW\ /LEUDU\ +²3 &ROO   ZKR KDV DQQRWDWHG ZKDW LV SUREDEO\ KLV RZQ ORQJ SRHPRQ&HODQGLQHDQG0DULQHIIY± PDUNLQJVRPHSDVVDJHVDVXVHIXOIRU ³ZRRLQJ´DQGRWKHUVDV³VXWDEOHIRUDQ(SLWDSK´I -DFNVRQSLFNVRXWDSKUDVH he expects to use in an epitaph—a comparison of Celandine’s body to a mansion— EHIRUH WKHUH LV D JUDYH WR PDUN ,Q GRLQJ VR KH PDNHV H[SOLFLW WKH FRQQHFWLRQ between commonplace collecting and epitaph production. It is no surprise that his manuscript also contains a substantial cluster of epitaphs and elegies. On folio 71, HSLWDSKVKDYHEHHQVFULEEOHGLQWRHYHU\DYDLODEOHVSDFHDQGWZRGLIIHUHQWLQNFRORUV tell us that items were added at different times. In numerous Stuart manuscripts, WKHVHNLQGVRISHQDQGLQNYDULDWLRQVDQGWKHFURZGHGPDUJLQVDUJXHWKDWLWHPV were added at different times and in different hands—they were not all pulled from RQHVRXUFH%ULWLVK/LEUDU\$GGLWLRQDOIIDQG )ROJHU9D S DQGII±Y DOOKDYHHSLWDSKVWKDWZHUHLQVHUWHGDWWKHERWWRPRI leaves at some point after the above poems were entered. Epitaph sequences are ZRUNVRISURJUHVVWKDWLQYLWHDGGLWLRQDQGH[WHQVLRQ$VDFWLYHSDUWLFLSDQWVLQWKH FUHDWLRQRIHSLWDSKVHTXHQFHVUHDGHUVDQGFRPSLOHUVOLNH-DFNVRQSHUSHWXDWHGWKH conventional anonymity of this malleable manuscript genre. 2QHPLJKWH[SHFWPDQXVFULSWHSLWDSKVFRSLHGLQVHULHVWRKDYHDI¿QLWLHVZLWK SULQWHGHSLWDSKFROOHFWLRQV%XWWKHUHDUHVRPHVWULNLQJGLIIHUHQFHV0DQ\SULQWHG collections separate the elegies and epitaphs into distinct generic sections, so SULQWHGFROOHFWLRQVGRQRWKDYHWKHVDPHG\QDPLFMX[WDSRVLWLRQRIDQRQ\PLW\DQG attribution. Printed collections foreground the wit of the collection’s author or compiler, who claims the poems on the title page. Printed collections are also not as open to expansion and addition as the manuscript versions, though items could be added by hand or to subsequent editions. While printed collections of epitaphs such as Camden’s Remains occasionally record actual tomb inscriptions, PDQXVFULSWFOXVWHUVIXQFWLRQOLNHDJUDYH\DUGWKHPVHOYHV(PSW\VSDFHVDUH¿OOHG LQDVQHZHSLWDSKVDUHDFTXLUHGMXVWDVERGLHVDUHDGGHGWRDFURZGHGFKXUFK\DUG RUWRPEVWRD&DWKHGUDOFRUQHU$ZHOONQRZQHSLWDSKIRU6KDNHVSHDUHWKHPDWL]HV WKLV SURFHVV 7KH DXWKRU SUHWHQGV WR DVN 6SHQVHU &KDXFHU DQG %HDXPRQW WR “lye a thought more nigh” to each other in their corner of Westminster Abbey

Anonymity in Early Modern Manuscript Culture

25

³WRPDNHURRPHIRU6KDNHVSHDUH´%RG065DZOIY ,QGLYLGXDOVXEMHFWV can be important on pages crowded with epitaphs, but not to the extent that they are in collections of epitaphs such as Camden’s Remaines, where a narrator RIIHUVDVPXFKLQIRUPDWLRQDERXWWKHHSLWDSKDXWKRUVDQGVXEMHFWVDVLVDYDLODEOH ,Q6WXDUWPDQXVFULSWPLVFHOODQLHVWKHODUJHUVXEMHFWRIGHDWKGRPLQDWHVWKHOHDYHV DQGDEVRUEVWKHLQGLYLGXDOVXEMHFWV²LQGHHGDOORIKXPDQNLQGDVWKHVHVHTXHQFHV VHHPWRZDUQ7KHQDPHVRIDXWKRUVDQGVXEMHFWVIDOOXQGHUWKHVWURNHRIGHDWKHYHQ as the material conditions of the page remind us that different hands contributed WRLW6KDNHVSHDUHEHORQJVDPRQJWKHSRHWVEXWHDFKDGGLWLRQWRWKHSRHW¶VFRUQHU threatens to render the other names a bit more anonymous. $QRQ\PRXV/LEHOLQJDQGWKH'HÀHFWLRQRI$XWKRUVKLS The literary epitaph’s anonymity made it an excellent medium for pointed character DVVDVVLQDWLRQLQMXVWDIHZZRUGVDQGZLWKRXWHYHUKDYLQJWRLGHQWLI\KLPVHOIWKH DXWKRUFRXOGGLJXSDJUDYHDQGH[SRVHDVXEMHFW¶VFRUUXSWQDWXUH$VLIWRNHHSWKH UHDGHU¶VDWWHQWLRQIRFXVHGRQWKHSRHP¶VVXEMHFWDXWKRUVRIOLEHORXVHSLWDSKVUDUHO\ called attention to themselves. In the longer, more elaborate libels gathered into WKHVDPHPLVFHOODQLHVDVWKHHSLWDSKVRQHGLVFRYHUVDVLPLODULQWHUQDOGHÀHFWLRQ of attention away from the origins of the libel and onto the victim or reader. As WKHOLEHORXVHSLWDSKGRHVWKHORQJHUOLEHO³LGHQWL¿HV´LWVVXEMHFWE\SHHULQJLQWR DQGWKURXJKWKHIDFDGHVRIUHVSHFWDELOLW\DQGWKHQE\OLQNLQJWKHVXEMHFW¶VQDPH WRDKRVWRIXQÀDWWHULQJFKDUDFWHUWUDLWV/LNHHSLWDSKVOLEHOVWKDWÀDXQWWKHLURZQ DQRQ\PLW\DUHUDUHHYHQWKRXJKSULQWHGVDWLUHVRIWKHSHULRGPRFNLQJO\FHOHEUDWHG their authors’ disguises (North, Anonymous Renaissance 5HDGHUVDQGFRPSLOHUV ZHUHPLQGIXORIWKHPDQLSXODWLRQVRIDXWKRUVKLSEHKLQGHSLWDSKVDQGOLEHOVDOLNH HYHQZKHQWKH\GLGQRWDFNQRZOHGJHLWGLUHFWO\WKH\UHDGWKHLQFRQVSLFXRXVQHVV of the author as a purposeful gesture. The rhetorical strategies shared by epitaphs and libels point to generic FRQQHFWLRQVEH\RQGWKHLUFRQÀDWLRQLQWKHOLEHORXVHSLWDSK7KHLUFXOWXUDODQG material applications in Stuart society, for instance, are similar. Libels and HSLWDSKV ZHUH ERWK SRVWHG SXEOLFO\ DQG WUDQVPLWWHG YLD PDQXVFULSW QHWZRUNV Although the libel has roots in oral culture, the epitaph’s brevity made it easy to remember and recite, effectively giving it the same advantage as more traditional RUDO WH[WV )R[ ±  %HFDXVH RI WKHLU IRFXV RQ LQGLYLGXDO VXEMHFWV DQG particular events, epitaphs and libels both lend themselves to topical clusters in Stuart manuscript miscellanies. In fact, they often appear in the same clusters, HVSHFLDOO\WKRXJKQRWH[FOXVLYHO\ ZKHQWKHHSLWDSKVDUHWKHPVHOYHVPRFNLQJ Bod. MS Rawl. poet. 160, for instance, contains a series of libels related to the poisoning of Sir Thomas Overbury and the falls of two court favorites implicated LQKLVPXUGHU)UDQFHV+RZDUGDQG5REHUW&DUUII±Y%HOODQ\Politics of Court Scandal ,QWKHPLGVWRIWKHVHOLEHOVDUHWKUHHHSLWDSKVWZRRIWKHP comic but otherwise unrelated to the Overbury libels and one critical of the

26

Anonymity in Early Modern England

&DWKROLF 'U 3ULFH 0DQXVFULSW FRPSLOHUV REYLRXVO\ UHFRJQL]HG WKH FRQQHFWLRQ EHWZHHQOLEHOVDQGHSLWDSKVERWKWKHLUGULYHWRLGHQWLI\WKHLUVXEMHFWVDQGWKHLU authors’ self-concealment. In moving from the epitaph to the libel in this section of my essay, I focus RQDIHZVLJQL¿FDQWOLEHOVWKDWXQFKDUDFWHULVWLFDOO\FRPPHQWXSRQDQRQ\PLW\ Although these self-referential moments are not conventional to the genre, they QHYHUWKHOHVV UHYHDO WKH G\QDPLFV DW ZRUN EHKLQG OLEHO DXWKRUVKLS JHQHUDOO\ Anchoring my discussion is a set of poems written in the 1620s that weave WRJHWKHU VHYHUDO VSHFL¿F QHZV LWHPV RI WKH GD\ .LQJ -DPHV¶V  YLVLW WR 2[IRUG WKH GXNH RI %XFNLQJKDP¶V  WULS WR 6SDLQ ZLWK 3ULQFH &KDUOHV WR negotiate a marriage for the prince, and the culture of patronage that made both of WKHVHHYHQWVVLJQL¿FDQWIRU6WXDUWSRHWV7KHHYHQWVRIWKHHDUO\VJHQHUDWHG DQXQSUHFHGHQWHGÀRRGRIOLEHOV6HYHUDODQWLOLEHOVFLUFXODWHGDWWKHVDPHWLPH although they failed to slow the tide of criticism. In the midst of what was EHFRPLQJDSXEOLFUHODWLRQVFULVLVIRU.LQJ-DPHV5LFKDUG&RUEHWWDQ2[IRUG OXPLQDU\DQGUHFLSLHQWRI%XFNLQJKDP¶VSDWURQDJHFLUFXODWHGDSRHPLQSUDLVHRI WKHGXNHWKDWHDUQHGKLPDOLEHOHU¶VLURQLFUHWRUW7KHOLEHORXVUHVSRQVHLURQLFDOO\ SUHWHQGHGWREHDQDQWLOLEHODSRHPDWWDFNLQJWKHIDVKLRQRIOLEHOLQJ,WDVVHUWHG that Corbett’s sycophantic poem was not Corbett’s at all, but a libel that had been purposely misattributed to Corbett. By pretending to defend Corbett’s reputation, the libeler exposed the various ways that anonymity could be employed and read in manuscript culture. 7KHJHQUHRIWKHDQWLOLEHOLVZKHUHRQHZRXOGH[SHFWWR¿QGSRLQWHGFULWLFDO readings of anonymity. Given that anonymity enabled the broad circulation of libels, anonymity would have been an obvious target for critics intent on defeating libel culture. Most authors of anti-libels, however, focus on the religion, class, and general character of the libeler rather than on the missing name, a tactic that allowed the author to stereotype the libeler unreservedly. Those rare anti-libels that GRDFNQRZOHGJHDQRQ\PLW\PRUHGLUHFWO\VWLOOGUDZKHDYLO\RQVRFLDOVWHUHRW\SHV 2QH¿QGVDQLQWHUHVWLQJH[DPSOHLQWKHRXWSRXULQJRIOLEHOVIROORZLQJWKH PXUGHURIWKH'XNHRI%XFNLQJKDP,QDYHUVHDGPRQLVKLQJWKRVHOLEHOHUVZKR made a hero out of the assassin John Felton, an author reveals his curiosity. He inserts into a curse on libelers a question about authorship: “May hee starve / ZKRHUHWKDWFDWLIIHEH DSSURYHVWKHG\HWW:KLFKPXUWKHUFRRN¶GZLWKVDXFH RIEORRG U\RWW´%RG060DORQHSS±%HOODQ\DQG0F5DH3LLL OO ±  7KH DQWLOLEHO JRHV RQ WR GHVFULEH KRZ WKH REMHFWLRQDEOH OLEHOHU ³EDVHO\VKURXGV+LVIDFHLQIRJJVRIWKLFNH7REDFFRFORXGV´RQO\WR³SDFHWKH VXEXUEHVZLWKDVSXUJDO¶GQHZHV$QGVSULQFNOH3DVTXLOOVLQWKH%XUVHRU6WHZHV´ OO± 7KHURJXLVKDXWKRULVGHSLFWHGDVIDPLOLDUZLWKWKHEURWKHOVDQGWKH rougher parts of London. His poetry is all borrowed from “banques of common FUHGLWW´ O   0RVW VLJQL¿FDQWO\ WKH DXWKRU LV SRUWUD\HG DV D PHVVHQJHU RU servant engaged in distributing the libel rather than an author who has penned D YHUVH WKRXJK WKH FULWLF PDNHV LW FOHDU LQ RWKHU OLQHV WKDW ZKRHYHU composed ³WKHVH VWUDLQHV  2I VDZHWRRWK¶G VDUFDVPHV´ OO ±  LV KLV SULPDU\ RSSRQHQW

Anonymity in Early Modern Manuscript Culture

27

7KHFULWLF¶VFKRLFHWRKDYHWKHOLEHOHUKLGHKLVIDFHDVZHOODVKLVQDPHHPSKDVL]HV the intentionality that the critic sees behind libelers’ discretion. 7KH FRQÀDWLRQ RI WKH OLEHO DXWKRU DQG GLVWULEXWRU LQ WKLV SDUWLFXODU DQWLOLEHO mirrors in an interesting way the governmental responses to Stuart libeling. Adam )R[¶V ZRUN RQ 6WDU &KDPEHU OLEHO WULDOV XQFRYHUV VHYHUDO FDVHV LQ ZKLFK OLEHO investigations blurred the lines between authors, distributors, and even readers. Fox focuses on libels originating in less educated circles where they often had multiple, sometimes even illiterate “authors,” but his research reveals that authorship was never a clear-cut category in the production of libels or the prosecution of libelers, because the danger of libels was measured as much by their transmission and SHUIRUPDQFHDVE\WKHLUFRPSRVLWLRQ± 7KLV¿QGLQJLVHFKRHGE\$QGUHZ Gordon who argues that in libel cases, “the sheer emphasis placed on their permeation of civic space suggests the extent to which the physical transgression RIWKHOLEHOFRQVWLWXWHGDNH\HOHPHQWRILWVLPSDFW´ 3DXOLQH&URIWFLWHVDODWH (OL]DEHWKDQFDVHLQZKLFKWKHDXWKRULWLHVERDVWRIKDYLQJDSSUHKHQGHGERWKWKH DXWKRUDQGWKH³GLVSHUVHU´ 0DUWLQ,QJUDPGHVFULEHVDFDVHLQZKLFK different people were held accountable for various roles in the libeling of the victim  DQG$OLVWDLU%HOODQ\GLVFXVVHVDOLEHOLQYHVWLJDWLRQWKDWXQFRYHUHGDQ HTXDOO\H[WHQVLYHWUDQVPLVVLRQQHWZRUNPolitics of Court Scandal  Authorship within manuscript culture was, as a whole, somewhat less LQGLYLGXDOL]HGOHVV¿[HGDQGOHVVGH¿QHGWKDQLWZDVLQSULQWFXOWXUH0DQXVFULSW transmission exposed a text to alterations, additions, appropriations, and PHGLDWLRQVWKDWPLJKWVKLIWWKHDXWKRULDOFODLPVWRDZRUNRUHUDVHWKHPDOWRJHWKHU 2ZQHUVRIPDQXVFULSWVRIWHQSHUIRUPHGWKHZRUNRIDXWKRUSXEOLVKHUDQGUHDGHU as they collected and copied items. The dispersal of authorial responsibility that FKDUDFWHUL]HG PDQXVFULSW FXOWXUH JHQHUDOO\ ZDV PRUH RI D VKDUHG SUDFWLFH WKDQ DQ RUJDQL]HG VWUDWHJ\ ,Q WKH FDVH RI OLEHO DXWKRUVKLS KRZHYHU WKLV GLVSHUVDO was understood as strategic by both libel producers and prosecutors. Libel SURGXFHUV DQG OLEHO RZQHUV SDUWLFLSDWHG LQWHQWLRQDOO\ RU DW OHDVW NQRZLQJO\ LQ D GLVVHPLQDWLRQ QHWZRUN &ULWLFV VHDUFKHUV DQG SURVHFXWRUV UHFRJQL]LQJ WKH HI¿FLHQF\ RI WKLV QHWZRUN ZHUH IRUFHG WR GH¿QH OLEHOLQJ DV DQ DFW QRW MXVW RI composition but also of publication. They broadened their list of conspirators to include performers, owners, distributors, and copyists of libels. Any one of these ¿JXUHVPD\DOVRKDYHEHHQWKHSULPDU\DXWKRUEXWVLQFHFRPSRVLQJWKHOLEHOZDV only one part of the act of libeling, those who were not authors could still be libelers. Any of these individuals might require the protection of anonymity, a FRYHULQJRIWKHIDFHRUWKHQDPH-XGJLQJIURPWKHPDMRULW\RIOLEHOVWKHTXLHW denial of an origin, the text without a self-consciously anonymous author, was the best protection. (Bellany, Politics of Court Scandal $QRQ\PLW\DOORZHG GLVWULEXWRUVWRSRVWOLEHOVOLNHHSLWDSKVDVFORVHWRWKHVXEMHFWDVSRVVLEOHPDNLQJ it seem as if the libels had emerged from the victim’s own social circle, or as Martin ,QJUDPDUJXHVDVLIWKH\³KDGWKHIRUFHRIFRPPXQLW\IHHOLQJEHKLQGWKHP´  By protecting more than one agent, libel anonymity also made the authoring of libels

28

Anonymity in Early Modern England

synonymous with their broad reach and penetration and thus more threatening.11 7KRVHSRHPVWKDWEUHDNZLWKWUDGLWLRQWRFDOODWWHQWLRQWRDQRQ\PLW\RIWHQVKRZ us an “author” with multiple roles, faces, and possibilities. They show us an act of intentional anonymity that comes to cover more than a single name. Individual names do sometimes emerge from the unraveling of complex dissemination QHWZRUNVLQVXFFHVVIXOOLEHOLQYHVWLJDWLRQVEXWLQWKHVHFDVHVWKHQDPHVJHQHUDOO\ serve to underscore the cooperation of the libelers rather than the origin of the OLEHO)R[  ,Q WKH HDUO\ V LQ (QJODQG *HRUJH 9LOOLHUV WKH 'XNH RI %XFNLQJKDP DQG .LQJ -DPHV¶V IDYRULWH ZDV RQH RI WKH PRVW LQYLWLQJ WDUJHWV IRU SROLWLFDO libelers of the time (Fox 388–90, Perry Literature and Favoritism ,QWKH VDPH\HDUWKDWKHZDVPDGHDGXNH9LOOLHUVMRXUQH\HGVHFUHWO\WR6SDLQZLWK Prince Charles to negotiate a marriage for the prince with the Spanish infanta, Maria Anna. The Catholic marriage prospect was unpopular at home, as was WKHGXNH¶VJURZLQJSROLWLFDODJHQF\DQGDÀXUU\RIOLEHOVDJDLQVWWKHGXNHDQG WKH6SDQLVKPDWFKHQVXHG%HOODQ\DQG0F5DH/±3 7KHVHOLEHOVZHUHPHWE\ a small bevy of anti-libels that were intentionally circulated in manuscript to compete with the libels. Some of these anti-libels were instigated and perhaps HYHQSHQQHGE\.LQJ-DPHVKLPVHOIWKRXJKWKHNLQJGHQLHGEHLQJWKHLUDXWKRU %HOODQ\DQG0F5DH1YL3HUU\³,I3URFODPDWLRQV:LOO1RW6HUYH´±  The anti-libels, especially those attributed to James, achieved broad circulation but did little to discourage libeling. James’s participation in the debate and his ambiguous authorship seem only to have spurred the activity and licensed the anonymity of the libelers.12 ,Q WKH PLGVW RI WKLV ÀXUU\ RI OLEHOV DQG DQWLOLEHOV VXUURXQGLQJ WKH 6SDQLVK PDWFK 5LFKDUG &RUEHWW GHDQ RI &KULVW &KXUFK WRRN WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR SHQ DQG GLVWULEXWH D SDQHJ\ULF IRU WKH GXNH +DPPRQG ± 0F5DH ³6DWLUH DQG 6\FRSKDQF\´ &RUEHWWZDVLQGHEWHGWR%XFNLQJKDPIRUSRVLWLRQVDQGIDYRUVDQG KHKDGWKDQNHGDQGSUDLVHGKLVSDWURQLQYHUVHEHIRUH\HWWKLVSRHPZDVHVSHFLDOO\ DWWXQHGWRWKHOLEHOFXOWXUHWKDWKDGUHFHQWO\PDGHWKHGXNHLWVSULPDU\WDUJHW7KH SRHP EHJLQV FRQYHQWLRQDOO\ ZLWK D GHSLFWLRQ RI9LOOLHUV¶V SRZHU DQG LQÀXHQFH 7KHGXNHDQGSULQFHVRWKRURXJKO\GH¿QHDQGV\PEROL]H(QJODQGWKDWZKHQWKH\ depart, the island goes with them: ,¶DYHUHDGRI,ODQGVÀRWLQJDQGUHPRY¶G In Ovids time, but never hard it prov’d Till now, that fable of the3ULQFH \RX By your transporting England is made true Wee are not wher wee were, the dogstar raignes

11 &URIWZULWLQJDERXWWKH(OL]DEHWKDQSHULRGQRWHVWKDW³7UHDVXUHU%XFNKXUVWWKRXJKW WKDWOLEHOHUVGHVHUYHGGHDWKPRUHWKDQRSHQUHEHOVZKRZHUHHDVLO\VXSSUHVVHG´  12 7KLV ZDV QRW EH WKH ¿UVW WLPH WKDW -DPHV WULHG WR UHFODLP KLV DQRQ\PLW\ DIWHU FLUFXODWLQJDFRQWURYHUVLDOZRUNVHH1RUWK³$QRQ\PLW\¶V6XEMHFW´

Anonymity in Early Modern Manuscript Culture

29

No cooler in our Climate then in Spaine The selfe same ayre same heate, same breath, sam burning ,VKHDUDVWKHUHZLOOEHWLO\RXUUHWXUQLQJOO± 13

)URPKHUHWKHSDQHJ\ULFGHYHORSVLQWRVRPHWKLQJRIDQDQWLOLEHOPRFNLQJWKH rumors and news swirling around London. According to McRae, this section also illustrates the extent to which, in the period, “panegyric and satire became increasingly interdependent, as the praise of one person or position unavoidably LQYRNHGWKHEODPHRIDQRWKHU´0F5DH³6DWLUHDQG6\FRSKDQF\´ &RUEHWW¶V SUDLVH RI WKH GXNH UHVWV SUHFDULRXVO\ RQ WKH /RQGRQ JRVVLS KH GLVPLVVHV +LV SRHPLQWHUYHQHVEHWZHHQWKHUXPRUVDQGWKHGXNHEXWLWDOVRPHGLDWHVEHWZHHQ WKHP HQFRXUDJLQJ WKH GXNH WR OLVWHQ ,Q &RUEHWW¶V FDWDORJXH RI UXPRUV KH gives us a surprising amount of detail about where and when they can be heard or read: 2KWKDW\RXZHUHP\/RUG ÐWKDW\RXZHUH 1RZLQ%ODFNIULHUVRUKDGDGLVJXLVHGHDUH Or that you ware Smith ‘gaine ii houres to bee In Paules next Sunday at ful sea, at three 7KHUHVKRXOGKHDUHWKHOHJHQGVRIHDFKGD\OO±

:KHWKHU&RUEHWWLVSRNLQJIXQDWWKHGHWDLOVFRQMXUHGXSE\/RQGRQ¶VUXPRUPLOOV LQRUGHUWRHPSKDVL]HWKHLUSHWWLQHVVRUWKHLULQDFFXUDF\KHVSHQGVWKHPDMRULW\ RIWKHSRHPRQWKHSDUWLFXODUVRIWKHVHUXPRUV$VKHWHOOVWKHGXNHWKHZHDWKHU FDWWOHIHHGDQGGULQNLQ6SDLQKDYHFRPHWRIDVFLQDWHWKHJRVVLSHUV
Corbett does not neglect to detail the medium of rumor transmission either, FRQGHPQLQJ WKH ³&DUDQWRHV '\HWV 3DFNHWV QHZHV PRUH QHZHV´ DQG HYHQ WKH SDSHUDQGSULQWWKDWGLVVHPLQDWHVWKHPO $JDLQ&RUEHWW¶VSRHPLVPRUHWKDQ a record of these rumors—it is also “newes and more newes.” He may be turning WKHVHLWHPVRYHUWRWKHGXNHMXVWDVDQXQVXVSHFWLQJUHDGHUZKRGLVFRYHUVDSRVWHG OLEHO PLJKW WXUQ LW RYHU WR WKH JRYHUQPHQW EXW &RUEHWW¶V JRRG FLWL]HQVKLS RQO\ barely exonerates him for his indulgence in and reliance upon libel culture. 13

For my text, I rely on Folger MS V.a. 345, pp. 33–6, where this poem and the libelous response have been collected together. In the case of a few ambiguous readings, I have compared the Folger text to the transcript by Bellany and McRae, Nv3. Their source is BL Add. MS 22603, fols 39v–41r.

30

Anonymity in Early Modern England

:KDW&RUEHWWGRHVQRWWDNHXSH[SOLFLWO\LQWKHSRHPLVWKHLVVXHRIDXWKRUVKLS 7KRXJKWKHUHDUHDIHZYHLOHGUHIHUHQFHVWRWKH³3RHWVRI3DXOVWKRVHDW'XN +XPSK\HVPHVVH7KDWIHHGHRQQRXJKWEXWJUDYHV HPSWLQHV´OO± WKH\ DUHVKDGRZVDQGVWHUHRW\SHVUDWKHUWKDQVSHFL¿FLQGLYLGXDOV,WLVDOPRVWDVLI Corbett uses the particulars of the rumors to replace the missing authors’ names DQGOLNHZLVHWXUQVKLVDWWHQWLRQWRWUDQVPLVVLRQWRFRPSHQVDWHIRUWKHJRVVLS¶V obscure origins. Corbett’s anti-libel section of this panegyric poem shares with other anti-libels of the time an elite disdain for the seemingly common status and reach of libels and rumors. The libelers are depicted as socially base and hardly worth naming (Bellany, Politics of Court Scandal ± 0F5DH ³/LWHUDU\ &XOWXUH´ ±  &RUEHWW¶V DOOXVLRQ WR +XPSKUH\¶V PHVV VXJJHVWV WKDW WKH\ FDQQRW DIIRUG D PHDO /LNHZLVH KLV VQLGH REVHUYDWLRQ WKDW RQHUXPRU³DIWHUVL[KRZUHVÀRZLQJHEGDQGG\GH´O GUDZVRQWKHIDPLOLDU image of the common people as a changeable and unreliable political body. An anti-libel attributed to James, “Oh stay your tears,” is the most explicit on this point, admonishing that libelers to stay out of political discussions because “God DQG.LQJVGRHSDFHWRJHWKHU%XW9XOJDUZDQGHUOLJKWDVIHDWKHU´DQG³.LQJV FDQQRWFRPSUHKHQGHGEHH,QFRPRQFLUFOHV´%RG060DORQHSS± %HOODQ\DQG0F5DH1YLOO±± $VLPLODUDQWLOLEHOGHVFULEHVWKRVH OLEHOLQJ %XFNLQJKDP DV D ³PRQVWURXV +LGUDKHDGHG WKLQJH´ ZKLFK %HOODQ\ DQG 0F5DH DSWO\ LGHQWLI\ DV DQRWKHU ¿JXUH RI WKH FRPPRQ SHRSOH DLPHG LQ WKLVFDVHDW3XULWDQRSSRQHQWV%RGOHLDQ06(QJO3RHWHIROVY±U %HOODQ\DQG0F5DH1YL%HOODQ\Politics of Court Scandal± 7KHDQWL OLEHOVSURGXFHGLQWKHZDNHRI%XFNLQJKDP¶VDVVDVVLQDWLRQDOVRGHSLFWOLEHOHUV DV ³VRFLDOO\ EDVH DQG LQWHOOHFWXDOO\ FUHGXORXV´ %HOODQ\ DQG 0F5DH 3LLL  What should be observed in all of these anti-libels is the extent to which libelers DUHFKDUDFWHUL]HGQRWVRPXFKDVDXWKRUVKLGLQJWKHLUQDPHVEXWDVSXUYH\RUV of half truths too low in status to have names. Some are malicious malcontents DQGRWKHUVDUHVLPSO\EXV\ERGLHVEXWWKH\DUHDOOVRFLDOO\LQVLJQL¿FDQW&RUEHWW does not need to pull anonymity into the spotlight for examination, for there is no worthy opponent to uncover. Indeed, calling attention to anonymity would only grant libel authors credibility. The consistent strategy of stereotyping rather than identifying libelers is an intentional effort to discount and downplay the equally strategic and intentional anonymity of the libelers. This technique, especially in the ways that it differs from the name-calling tactics used by print satirists, seems to have developed in response to the demands of manuscript culture. The lengthy anti-libel in the middle of Corbett’s poem gives way at the end to DSDQHJ\ULFWURSHRIFRQVLGHUDEOHDUURJDQFH&RUEHWWLPDJLQHVWKHGXNHDQGSULQFH UHWXUQLQJKRPHWRVLWRQWKHULJKWDQGOHIWKDQGVRI-DPHVMXVWDVWKHPRWKHULQ Matthew 20 imagined her sons, James and John, sitting next to Jesus in heaven. But it is the self-serving conclusion to this panegyric scene that attracted the attention of more than one libeler:

Anonymity in Early Modern Manuscript Culture

31

In this I have a part in this I see some new addition smiling uppon mee Who in an humble distance claimeth share ,QDOO\RXUJUHDWQHVZKDWVRHYHUWKH\DUHOO±

7KLVH[SOLFLWHQWUHDW\IRUSDWURQDJHLQVSLUHGD&DWKROLFOLEHOHU¶VPRFNLQJUHVSRQVH in British Library MS Add. 61481. Calling Corbett “a Parasite a Cicophant, a IR\VW´KHDVNV³ZKDWZLOOWKH\>6SDLQHDQG5RPH@WKLQNHRIRWKHUPHQVGHYRWLRQ when deanes dare thus profane to gett promotion” (Bellany and McRae, Nv5, OO±  Corbett’s panegyric also caught the eye of another libeler, who responded by turning Corbett’s anti-libel tactics against him, effectively reducing Corbett to WKHVWHUHRW\SHRIDOLEHOHUDQGUHGH¿QHGWKHSDQHJ\ULFDVDOLEHO%RWK&RUEHWW¶V poem and this libel circulated broadly, sometimes even together. The libel, “An $SRORJHWLFNULPH´DSSHDUVLQDWOHDVWWKLUWHHQVHYHQWHHQWKFHQWXU\ PDQXVFULSWV and it was collected with Corbett’s poem in Bodleian MS Malone 19, pp. 27–30, Bodleian MS Rawl. D. 1048, ff. 51v–53v+, and Folger MS V.a. 345, pp. 133–6. It is best read with the panegyric as a parody of an anti-libel, for the anonymous author feigns outrage that the panegyric has been attributed to Richard Corbett, who, he claims, is too mature and responsible to indulge in this sort of base, fawning verse. %\DUJXLQJWKDW&RUEHWWFRXOGQRWKDYHZULWWHQWKHSRHPWRWKHGXNHWKH OLEHOVNHWFKHVRXWWKHSRVVLEOHVWUDWHJLHVRIDSUHWHQGHUDQGDWWKHVDPHWLPHFDVWV EDFNRQWR&RUEHWWWKHVW\OLVWLFDQGHWKLFDOZHDNQHVVHVWKDWWKHOLEHOHU¿QGVLQWKH panegyric. I quote the poem in its entirety from Folger V.a. 345:14 Natura negat, facit indignatio versum15 $Q$SRORJHWLFNULPHYLQGLFDWLQJ'&RUEHWWRI&& from ye aspersion of lat Adulatory verses published under his name. False on his Deanry—false, nay more, Ile [l]ay As many poundes as hee or’s freinds did pay Greate Phœbus darling for his dignity, that [no] such thought abus’d his braine, that hee Is growne in wit, as well as beard and place Has left his boyes play scornes to be so base As bow his wits to those forgotten rimes whose often births endeerd his former times To tapsters, ostlers, and that lovely crew of Soveraigne Bacchus witty mates, tis true His wanton youth and verse hath made them merry And servd to draw downe white, canary, sherry

say with 5

10

14 &RUUHFWLRQVWRWKH)ROJHUYHUVLRQDUHLQEUDFNHWVZLWKWKHXQFRUUHFWHGWH[WLQWKH right margin. Corrections are mostly based on British Library Add. 25303, f. 131–2, though I have also consulted Stuart Libels, Nv4. 15 7KH/DWLQKHDGLQJLVDTXRWDWLRQIURP-XYHQDO¶V¿UVWVDWLUH

32

Anonymity in Early Modern England And som perhaps then deemd him borne for nought But to imploy som ballad=singers throate 7KRVHWLPHVDUHFKDQJ¶GWLVJUHDW WLV\HJXLVH  of rays’d estates, though mad men to grow wise 2QHSDWHQWVSRZHUKDWKFKDQJGERWKPLQGH EORXG And made him at a clap, as great, so good, 7LVEODPHWRWKLQNHKLPZKDWKHZDVKLVFRDWHV DQGFDVVRFNVZRUWKKDWKNLOGKLVZLOGHURDWHV  +LVIRUPHUWR\HVEHOHHY¶W KHQRZGLVGDLQHV as much as Calvin or the Puritanes. Sure twas some hungry poetasters braine ZKRVHKXFNVWHULQJULPHVSUHYHQW\HIDPLQHRI6SDLQH In his owne guts, which hath not what to eate, or weare but’s wits, they’r all his cloath and meat Some Taylor or some Fencer dares to ly And clap his name to there sale poetry >2UHOVSHUKDSVWZDVVRPH6DW\ULFNTXLOO@   7KDWZKLSWDQGVFRXUJ¶GRXUZRRGVWRFNVFHQHZKRVWLO %HDUHVPDOLFHLQKLVLQNVRPHVXFKGLGGRHLW And coynd a Deanry to steal credit to it Beleive or this or worse, But nere suppose +HHO\HHOGWRRZQHVXFKÀDWWHU\HVDVWKRVH Such an extortion cannot but undoe 7KHVHUYLOV¶WPLQGHWRSD\ ÀDWWHUWRR ,V¶WSUREDEOHWRWKLQNWKDWKHHVKRXOGORQJ once more to be ye ground of Pigeons song 2UWKDWKHVKRXOGSURYRNH&RXUWZLWVWRVLQJ the 2 part of ye bandstrings and ye ring Or lets suppose, that he (which yet my braine ZLOO>QRW@DGPLW PDGHWU\DORIWKDWYHLQH   That earst his muse enriched him with, that hee 2QFHPRUHDZDNHGKLVVOXPEULQJIDFXOW\ Yet sure he would provide his verse mighte bee 3HUIHFWDQGURXQGZLWKRXWDOONQDYHU\ The sacred volume questionles should scape WKHYLROHQFHRIDSRHWLFNUDSH 7KHLQFNKRUQHQDPHPRWKHU=HEHGHH FRXOGQRW Proceed from one engrav’d, in Levyes lot Since each abuse of scriptures purer line [Gives stronger proofe of Atheist then Devine.] In breife, his calling, place, degrees disclayme WKDW>VWXSLG@$FWWKLVLQMXU\RIIDPH   Nor wil I ere beleive so rich a Sp[i]rite Should rayse it selfe by ballads more then merit.    ȂȓıȠȤȠȜĮȗ     )ROJHU9DSS±





25

>PLVVLQJ@ 

35

40 >PLVVLQJ@

45

50 [missing] VWD\G 55

Anonymity in Early Modern Manuscript Culture

33

7KH ³$SRORJHWLFN ULPH´ LV IUDPHG DV D GHIHQVH RI &RUEHWW¶V VRFLDO VWDWXV DQG poetic style. The pretense is that Corbett, having achieved prominence in the FKXUFKZRXOGQHYHUVWRRSWRZULWHDSRHPOLNHWKLVRQH+LV\RXQJHU\HDUVPD\ have been occupied with ballad writing and entertaining the tavern crowds, but he “has left his boyes play [and] scornes to be so base / As bow his wits to those IRUJRWWHQULPHV´OO± 7KHOLEHOVKLIWVEODPHIRUWKH³ER\VSOD\´IURP&RUEHWW WRDQDQRQ\PRXVDXWKRUEXWWKHFULWLFLVPERXQFHVEDFNRQWR&RUEHWW²H[SOLFLWO\ in the assertion that Corbett bought his church position and implicitly in the libel’s DVVXPSWLRQWKDWUHDGHUVNQRZ&RUEHWWDFWXDOO\GLGZULWHWKHSDQHJ\ULF7KHOLEHOHU is willing to bet a considerable sum that this poem is not worthy of Corbett, but WKH VXP KH EHWV LV HTXDO WR WKH EULEH &RUEHWW RIIHUHG WKH GXNH RI %XFNLQJKDP “As many poundes as hee or’s freinds did pay / Greate Phœbus darling for his GLJQLW\´OO± 1RZKHUHGRHVWKHOLEHOHUGHQ\WKDW&RUEHWWERXJKWKLV&KULVW &KXUFK ³GHDQU\´ ,Q IDFW KH WDNHV WKLV IRU JUDQWHG DQG WKLV SXUFKDVHG GLJQLW\ prompts readers to re-evaluate the defense of Corbett’s style as well. 7KH OLEHO GRHV QRW DWWHPSW WR GHVFULEH WKH SDQHJ\ULF DFFXUDWHO\ LWV VWUDWHJ\ LV UDWKHU WR OLQN WKH SDQHJ\ULF WR WKH EDZG\ YHUVH DQG WDYHUQ EDOODGV IRU ZKLFK &RUEHWWZDVLQIDPRXV/LNHZLVHWKHOLEHOHUPDNHVDQLURQLFDQDORJ\EHWZHHQWKH SDQHJ\ULFDQGWKHZRUNVRIWKHUXPRUPRQJHUVDW3DXO¶VZKRP&RUEHWWEODPHG in the anti-libel section of his verse. The libel’s author borrows Corbett’s allusion WRUXPRUVDERXWWKH6SDQLVKIDPLQHLQRUGHUWRFKDUDFWHUL]HWKHSDQHJ\ULF¶VDXWKRU DV D VWDUYLQJ KDFN ZULWHU ³VXUH WZDV VRPH KXQJU\ SRHWDVWHUV EUDLQH  ZKRVH KXFNVWHULQJ ULPHV SUHYHQW the famine of Spaine / In his owne guts, which hath QRWZKDWWRHDWHRUZHDUHEXW¶VZLWV´OO± 7KLVSKUDVHLQWHQWLRQDOO\HFKRHV &RUEHWW¶VRZQWLUDGHDJDLQVWWKH³3RHWVRI3DXOVWKHVHRI'XNH+XPIUH\VPHVVH That feed on naught but graves and emptinesse.” What is important in this echo is the way it uses style to identify the base character of the panegyric author. Although the libeler argues disingenuously that the panegyric style and genre could not be Corbett’s, for Corbett “would provide his verse mighte bee / Perfect DQGURXQGZLWKRXWDOONQDYHU\´KHVWLOOLQVLVWVWKDWVW\OHDQGJHQUHDUHHVVHQWLDO clues to an author’s identity. $QRQ\PLW\WKH³$SRORJHWLFNULPH´DUJXHVFDQQRWGLVJXLVHWKHFKDUDFWHURI an author, even though it can hide an author’s name. This convenient equation, espoused by many anti-libelers intent on discrediting the opponents they could not name, is also found in another anti-libel ascribed to Richard Corbett on page 107 of the Folger manuscript. In “Antidotum Cæcilianum,” Corbett refers to anonymous OLEHOHUVDV³EDVHVODYHV´DQGSHUIRUPVWKHVWUDWHJLHVVLPLODUWRWKRVHPRFNHGLQ WKH³$SRORJHWLFNULPH´%HOODQ\DQG0F5DH'O ,URQLFDOO\³$QWLGRWXP &DHFLOLDQXP´PD\QRWEHE\&RUEHWWDWDOO%HOODQ\DQG0F5DH' ,WVDWWULEXWLRQ to Corbett in the Folger manuscript nevertheless offers evidence that Corbett was NQRZQ IRU GHEDVLQJ DQRQ\PRXV OLEHOHUV ,Q WXUQLQJ WKH DQWLOLEHOHUV¶ VWUDWHJ\ DJDLQVW &RUEHWW LQ WKH ³$SRORJHWLFN ULPH´ WKH OLEHOHU HPSOR\V &RUEHWW¶V QDPH DQGWLWOHDVGHDQRI&KULVW&KXUFKDVDNLQGRIDQRQ\PLW\DFORDNRIUHVSHFWDELOLW\ designed to hide Corbett’s corruption. The name and title, purchased from the

34

Anonymity in Early Modern England

GXNHZLWKÀDWWHU\DUHQREHWWHUWKDQWKHZRUNVVROGE\KDFNZULWHUV7KHVWUDWHJ\ that anti-libelers used to depict their opponents as unworthy of names has now EHHQWXUQHGDJDLQVW&RUEHWWWKH³$SRORJHWLFNULPH´DXWKRUKDVUHGXFHG&RUEHWW¶V QDPHWRDPDUNHWLWHPVRPHWKLQJERXJKWEDUWHUHGDQGVWROHQ7KHOLEHOGRHVQRW neglect the presumptuous ending that so enraged Corbett’s other respondent, but LQ SRNLQJ IXQ DW &RUEHWW¶V V\FRSKDQWLF SOHD WR VKDUH LQ WKH GXNH¶V UHZDUGV WKH author again uses the style equation. Corbett could not possibly have committed WKH³SRHWLFNUDSH´WKDWWXUQVWKHVFULSWXUHVLQWRDQRSSRUWXQLW\IRUIDZQLQJIDYRU VHHNLQJ1RGLYLQHZRXOGGRVXFKDWKLQJ%HWZHHQWKHOLQHVRIFRXUVHWKHOLEHOHU TXHVWLRQV&RUEHWW¶VVXLWDELOLW\IRUWKHEHQH¿FHKHKROGVEHFDXVHKHhas employed scripture in a self-serving plea for patronage. In between assertions that Corbett could not have written the panegyric, the OLEHOHUORRNVDWW\SHVRIDQRQ\PRXVDXWKRUVZKRPLJKWKDYHWDNHQ&RUEHWW¶VQDPH Who would do such a thing? And why? The answers concocted by the libeler offer XVDVKRUWFDWDORJXHRIDQRQ\PRXVDXWKRU¿JXUHVDQGWKHLUPRWLYDWLRQV7KHOLEHOHU draws deliberately upon commonly held stereotypes about anonymity. His culprits are imagined to be of low social status, they employ anonymity for personal gain not for political change, and they steal Corbett’s name intentionally—nowhere does the libeler suggest that the name of the poet has been lost. The intention that the libeler gives to his anonymous authors proves important. Corbett was UHJXODUO\ D YLFWLP RI PLVDWWULEXWLRQ LQ PDQXVFULSW QHWZRUNV EHFDXVH KLV SRHPV ZHUHSRSXODUZHOOWUDYHOHGDQGVLPLODULQSHUVSHFWLYHWRZRUNVE\2[IRUGDXWKRUV VXFKDV:LOOLDP6WURGH0F5DH³6DWLUHDQG6\FRSKDQF\´± %\PDNLQJ the misattribution intentional, the libeler offers evidence that early readers were ready to suspect a strategy when they encountered anonymity, pseudonymity, or even a misattribution. )RUWKH¿UVWRIWKHDXWKRUW\SHVZKRPLJKWKDYHVWROHQ&RUEHWW¶VQDPHZLWV DUHKLV³FORDWKDQGPHDW´O 1HFHVVLW\KDVGULYHQWKH³SRHWDVWHU´WRKXFNVWHU KLVZULWLQJIRUDSD\LQJSXEOLF,QWHUHVWLQJO\WKLV¿JXUHLVPRUHRIDSULQWDXWKRU than a manuscript poet. The libeler proposes a second possible author type that LV FORVHO\ UHODWHG WR WKH ¿UVW ³6RPH 7D\ORU RU VRPH )HQFHU GDUHV WR O\ $QG FODS KLV QDPH WR WKHUH VDOH SRHWU\´ OO ± 7DLORUV DQG IHQFHUV DUH FRPPRQ professions—a “fencer” was something of a hired sword—so the reference is again to the base social status of the author. One of Folger V.a. 345’s compilers LQFOXGHVDQHSLJUDP³2Q&KXUFKZKREHDWDIHQFHUDWDOOZHDSRQV´ WKDW HPSKDVL]HVWKLVFRQQHFWLRQ7KHVNLOOVRIWDLORUVDQGIHQFHUVVWLWFKLQJDQG¿JKWLQJ are analogous to the libel authors’ composition and posting of libels. Yet there is a good possibility that “fencer” may be a misreading on the part of this Folger copyist. British Library MS Add. 25303 and other manuscripts have “Fenner” instead. This spelling encourages readers to see the imposters as popular print DXWKRUVOLNH-RKQ7D\ORUDQG:LOOLDP)HQQRUWKRXJKWKHDOOXVLRQWRRFFXSDWLRQVLV VWLOODWZRUNLQWKHVHFRPPRQQDPHV%\JXHVVLQJWKDWWKHDXWKRULVsome “Taylor or Fenner,” the libeller reads the two popular names as types, much as epitaph ZULWHUVGLGZLWKVXUQDPHVOLNH3ULFNDQG6WRQHRUZLWKRFFXSDWLRQVVXFKDVWKH

Anonymity in Early Modern Manuscript Culture

35

EHOORZVPDNHU7D\ORU¶VDQG)HQQHU¶VUHDVRQVIRUFODSSLQJ&RUEHWW¶VQDPHWRWKHLU ZRUNVDUH¿QDQFLDO7KH\ZDQWWKHZRUNWRVHOO7KHXQGHUO\LQJFRPPHQWLQWKHVH lines is, of course, that Corbett has also bought and sold his name. ,QPRVWYHUVLRQVRIWKHOLEHOWKHWKLUGSURSRVHGDQRQ\PRXVDXWKRUWKH³6DW\ULFN TXLOO´O LVRQHRIWKHXQLYHUVLW\PHQZKRKDGDOUHDG\PRFNHG&RUEHWWDQG KLV &KULVW &KXUFK VWXGHQWV IRU WKHLU IDLOXUH WR HQWHUWDLQ .LQJ -DPHV GXULQJ KLV YLVLWWR2[IRUG8QLYHUVLW\DQG:RRGVWRFN:KHQWKH&KULVW&KXUFKGUDPD Barten Holiday’s Technogamia or The Marriage of the ArtsGLVSOHDVHGWKHNLQJ DQG&RUEHWWERWFKHGDVHUPRQEHFDXVHKHZDVSUHRFFXSLHGZLWKWKHNLQJ¶VJLIWRID ring, several rival university men ridiculed the Christ Church hosts in a set of libels. Corbett’s ring, attached to his long clerical bands, became a focal point in these libels. The libeler guesses that the Corbett imposter might be another university wit UXEELQJVDOWLQWR&RUEHWW¶VZRXQGV,WLVWKH³$SRORJHWLFNULPH´DXWKRUZKRWXUQV out to have the salt, however. In the early 1620s after Technogamia libels began WR FLUFXODWH &RUEHWW KDG MXPSHG LQWR WKH IUD\ DQG UHVSRQGHG ZLWK DQ DQWLOLEHO WKDWFRQFOXGHV³,IDQ\VXFKEHJUHLY¶GWKHQGRZQHSURXGVSLULW,IQRWNQRZ 1XPEHU QHYHU FRQTXHU¶G 0HULW´ &RUEHWW   7KH ³$SRORJHWLFN ULPH´ DXWKRU LV LQWLPDWHO\ IDPLOLDU ZLWK WKH :RRGVWRFN HPEDUUDVVPHQWV DQG ZLWK &RUEHWW¶V GHIHQVH1RWRQO\GRHVKHUHIHUWRWKHLQIDPRXVUR\DOYLVLWLQKLVFKDUDFWHUL]DWLRQ of the proposed satirical author, he also borrows Corbett’s spirit/merit couplet for KLVRZQFRQFOXVLRQOO± DQGSURWHVWVIDFHWLRXVO\WKDW&RUEHWWZRXOGQHYHU FLUFXODWHDEDOODGWLWOHG³WKHSDUWRI\HEDQGVWULQJVDQG\HULQJ´O )ROJHU 9DOHDYHVRXWWKHOLQHDERXWWKH³VDWLULFNHTXLOO´FRPELQLQJWKH)HQFHUDQG Taylor authors with the actions of the university author, but other clues in the Folger manuscript indicate that the compilers understood the university allusions in this section of the libel. It is no coincidence that many of the libels about the royal visit to Oxford and numerous Corbett poems are included in my source manuscript, Folger Library V.a. 345. Folger V.a. 345 was copied by several individuals around 1630 and is one of a group of verse miscellanies associated with Christ Church College, 2[IRUG%HDO 7KHFRPSLOHUVRI9DFOHDUO\KDGDQLQWHUHVWLQ&RUEHWWDQG the controversy surrounding Technogamia, and they created a context in which WKHDOOXVLRQVLQWKH³$SRORJHWLFNULPH´DUHOHJLEOHDQGPHDQLQJIXO:KHQWKHOLEHO draws a subtle parallel between Corbett’s literary career and his political career, Corbett’s literature is nearby for comparison. And when its author claims that the style of the panegyric cannot be Corbett’s, the reader has evidence at hand that the panegyric is typical of Corbett’s style. The result is that Corbett is debased E\WKHVKDGRZ\¿JXUHRIWKHDQRQ\PRXVEDOODGZULWHUSUHWHQGLQJWREH&RUEHWW and also by his own authorship of the panegyric He is defamed if the panegyric is not his and also if the panegyric is his. The libel even manages to blame Corbett for the “anonymity” of the panegyric, to the extent that Corbett’s style is so much OLNHWKDWRIFRPPRQDQRQ\PRXVZULWHUVWKDWDUHDGHUFDQQRWWHOOWKHPDSDUW /LNH PRVW OLEHOHUV WKH DXWKRU RI WKH ³$SRORJHWLF ULPH´ QHYHU DFNQRZOHGJHV his own anonymity, even as he speculates about the intentions of other anonymous

Anonymity in Early Modern England

36

authors. He leaves little doubt, however, that his own anonymity was employed VWUDWHJLFDOO\6LPSO\E\DFNQRZOHGJLQJWKHVWUDWHJLHVEHKLQGDQRQ\PLW\KHLQYLWHV readers to guess at his own intentions, identity, and character. Is he one of the hungry SRHWDVWHUVDSRSXODUSULQWDXWKRUOLNH7D\ORUDXQLYHUVLW\VDWLULVWRUHYHQ&RUEHWW" The attribution of the poem to Misocholaz in Folger V.a. 345 may represent one FRS\LVW¶VUHVSRQVHWRWKDWLQYLWDWLRQ7KH*UHHNSVHXGRQ\PFDQEHWUDQVODWHG³KDWHU RIVWRPDFK´RU³JXW´EXWLWLVDOVRDOLNHO\SXQRQMisocholos, “hater of bile” or “billiousness.”16%\DWWDFKLQJD*UHHNSVHXGRQ\PWRWKHSRHPWKHFRS\LVWORRNV WRWKHXQLYHUVLW\FLUFOHVIRUWKHDXWKRUKRSLQJWR¿QGWKHUHDVDWLULVWZKRFDQIHLJQ disdain for the hungry poet and the bilious genre that he himself employs, someone aware that anonymity would be read as a strategy in manuscript culture. The Folger compilers’ efforts to collect Technogamia libels and other university verse bolster WKLVLGHQWL¿FDWLRQ,QGHHGWKHFRPSLOHUVRI)ROJHU9DFUHDWHDQLGHQWLW\²RU FKDUDFWHU²IRUWKH³$SRORJHWLFNULPH´DXWKRUE\FOXVWHULQJUHODWHGSRHPVWRJHWKHU 7KHUHODWLRQVKLSEHWZHHQ&RUEHWW¶VSDQHJ\ULFWRWKHGXNHRI%XFNLQJKDPDQG WKHDQRQ\PRXV³$SRORJHWLFNULPH´LVKDUGO\VWUDLJKWIRUZDUGLQ)ROJHU9D even though the poems appear in close proximity. The two poems are integrated with a number of other entries, and the panegyric follows the libel rather than the other way around. A copyist has added a note beside the libel, “See the Adulatory YHUVHVSDJH´S DQGDQRWKHUEHVLGHWKHSDQHJ\ULF³7KLHVHYHUVHVFDXVHG the IRUHYHUVHVSDJH³S %DVHGRQWKHPDUJLQDOFRPPHQWVWKHFRS\LVW WKRXJKW&RUEHWWSURYRNHGWKHOLEHORXVUHVSRQVHWRKLVSDQHJ\ULFWKDWKH³FDXVHG the IRUH YHUVHV´ UDWKHU WKDQ VHUYLQJ DV WKHLU VXEMHFW RU YLFWLP 7KH IDFW WKDW WKH )ROJHUFRS\LVWOLQNVWKHOLEHOWRWKHXQLYHUVLWLHVPD\DOVRLQGLFDWHWKDWKHLVVNHSWLFDO RI WKH FRQYHQWLRQDO DWWHPSWV E\ &RUEHWW DQG RWKHU DQWLOLEHOHUV WR FKDUDFWHUL]H DQRQ\PRXVOLEHOHUVDVEDVHKDFNZULWHUV7KHTXDOLW\RIVRPHLIQRWPDQ\OLEHOV in Stuart miscellanies argues that their authors were more elite and better educated WKDQPRVWKDFNZULWHUVDQGVRPHRIWKHFRPSLOHUVDQGFRS\LVWVRI9DPD\ KDYHHYHQKDGLQVLGHNQRZOHGJHWKDWWKHDQWLOLEHOHUV¶GHSLFWLRQVRIOLEHODXWKRUV were misleading. A reader with this inside perspective would have been all the more OLNHO\WRDSSUHFLDWHWKHZD\WKH³$SRORJHWLFNULPH´SRNHVIXQDWWKLVVWUDWHJ\ The broader contents of Folger V.a. 345 also complement the authorial issues UDLVHGLQWKHSDQHJ\ULFDQG³$SRORJHWLFNULPH´7KHPDQXVFULSWFRQWDLQV¿IWHHQ poems in the Richard Corbett canon and several other poems commonly associated with him, and although the Corbett poems are not all clustered together, their numbers suggest that the Folger compilers had sympathies with Christ Church, HYHQ LI SRUWUD\DOV RI &RUEHWW ZHUH PRUH DPELYDOHQW ,QGHHG MXVW D IHZ SDJHV DIWHU &RUEHWW¶V SDQHJ\ULF D UHDGHU ¿QGV RQH RI WKH SRSXODU OLEHOV PRFNLQJ WKH Christ Church production of Technogamia, “A satire made against Mr. Holiday’s 7HFKQRJDPLD RU UDWKHU 7HFKQRELJDPLD´ EHJLQQLQJ ³:KRRS +ROLGD\´ S   It is followed immediately by a short retort that compares Barten Holiday’s wit with that of the anonymous critic. The retort reads: 16

0\FROOHDJXH0DUNXV$VSHUJHQHURXVO\VXJJHVWHGWKHWUDQVODWLRQVRIWKLVWHUP

Anonymity in Early Modern Manuscript Culture

37

An Answere to the Satyr./ Thou that as yet hast no name of thine owne %XWKRSHVWE\WUDGXFLQJKLVWREHNQRZQH (QMR\WK\GHDUSXUFKDVH\HWQRWZLWKRXW/DXJKWHU Be thy name halfe Holyday ever after for in learning and wit I would have thee believe where Holyday comes thou art but his Eve./    )ROJHU9DS

The author of this quip uncharacteristically grapples with his opponent’s anonymity, EXWKHGRHVVRE\FRQÀDWLQJQDPHDQGUHSXWDWLRQMXVWDVRWKHUDQWLOLEHOHUVGLG 7KH SOD\ RQ %DUWHQ +ROLGD\¶V QDPH UHVHPEOHV WKH SXQQLQJ LQ PRFN HSLWDSKV A “half-holiday” referred to a lesser holiday that did not fall on the Sabbath or to WKHOHLVXUHO\SRUWLRQRIDKROLGD\DIWHUVHUYLFHVZHUH¿QLVKHG,QERWKFDVHVDKDOI KROLGD\LVOHVVVLJQL¿FDQWWKDQWKHKROLGD\SURSHUMXVWDVWKHHYHRIDKROLGD\LV less important than the day. The author of the quip assumes that Barten Holiday’s FULWLFZDQWVWREHNQRZQVRKHJLYHVKLPDQDPHEDVHGRQKLVLQDGHTXDWHOHDUQLQJ and wit. The author of the quip is conventionally quiet about his own anonymity, SHUKDSVEHFDXVHKHNQRZVKLVUHSXWDWLRQLVWKHQH[WWREHWUDGXFHG7KHFURZGLQJ of this poem at the bottom of the page suggests that a compiler wanted the retort EDGO\HQRXJKWRVTXHH]HLWLQWRWKHLQDGHTXDWHVSDFHEHORZWKHOLEHOZKHUHKHKDG to write two lines below his ruled margin. 1XPHURXVWKHPDWLFFRQQHFWLRQVDOVROLQNWKHSRHPVVXUURXQGLQJWKHH[FKDQJH EHWZHHQ &RUEHWW DQG WKH ³$SRORJHWLFN ULPH´ OLEHOHU -XVW WZR SDJHV EHIRUH WKH ³$SRORJHWLFNULPH´DFRPSLOHUKDVFRSLHGWZRORYHSRHPVRQHE\&RUEHWW¶VFORVH associate, William Strode, and another by John Donne, a Divine whose youthful poetry also stood in contrast to his mature status as Dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral. A short libel on Barten Holiday’s play, beginning, “Christ Church a mariage shewd before the NLQJ´ S   VHUYHV WR UHPLQG WKH UHDGHU DERXW WKH 2[IRUG HQWHUWDLQPHQWEHIRUHKHLVWUHDWHGWRWKHDOOXVLRQVLQWKH³$SRORJHWLFNHUK\PH´ Between the “Apologetic Rime” and the panegyric sit a short marriage blessing DQGWKUHHHSLWDSKVRQHRQWKH%DOOLRO&ROOHJHPDVWHUZKRVHQDPHLVDEODQNOLQH LQWKHPDQXVFULSWWKHPDVWHU¶VUHSO\LQZKLFKKHIXPHVWKDWKHFDQQRWLGHQWLI\ KLVHSLWDSK¶VDXWKRUDSDUDGR[LFDOHSLWDSKRQ$QQ1RWWKDWEHJLQV³1RWGHDG1RW ERUQH1RWFKULVWQ¶G1RWEHJRW´S DQGDQHSLJUDPRQDPXVLFLDQS  Following Corbett’s panegyric and preceding the longer libel on Technogamia, “Whoop Holiday,” a reader discovers an epigram on an archbishop who is stingy ZLWKKLVEHHUVHYHUDOVRQJVDPRFNHOHJ\IRUWKHUHFXVDQW2[IRUGVKHULII)UDQFLV 6WRQHUWKDWGHYHORSVWKHWKHPHRIIDPLQHDQGSOHQW\SS± D/DWLQSRHP RQ%XFNLQJKDPDWWULEXWHGWR.LQJ-DPHVS D&RUEHWWSRHPFRQQHFWLQJWKH DSSHDUDQFHRIDFRPHWWRWKH6SDQLVKQHJRWLDWLRQVS DQGDOLEHORXVVRQJ DERXWWKH³VNLOOV´RISDUWLFXODUSK\VLFLDQVSS±  The literary, social, and political context a reader needs to understand the panegryic DQG WKH ³$SRORJHWLFN ULPH´ LQ )ROJHU9D  KDV EHHQ FRQYHQLHQWO\ DVVHPEOHG IRUUHDGHUV%DOODGVOLNHWKRVH&RUEHWWZURWHLQKLV\RXWKTechnogamia libels by a

38

Anonymity in Early Modern England

satiric quill, poems of patronage, anti-libels, allusions to the Spanish famine, and poems that manipulate names and notions of authorship all surround the two poems. (YHQWKHPRUHREVFXUHDOOXVLRQVLQWKH³$SRORJHWLFNULPH´DUHXQOLNHO\WREHPLVVHG in this cluster of very topical verse. With its different copyists’ contributions and its well placed items of gossip, Folger MS V.a. 345 offers the advantages of a trip WRJDWKHUJRVVLSDW6DLQW3DXO¶V7KHUHDG\DFFHVVWKDWFRPSLOHUVKDGWRWKLVNLQG RI WRSLFDO SRHWU\ LV DFNQRZOHGJHG JUXGJLQJO\ LQ DQ DQWLOLEHO DWWULEXWHG WR .LQJ -DPHV³
-DPHVFRQFOXGHVE\DVNLQJKLVVXEMHFWWRSUD\IRU³QRPRUHZLW´O DQGWR “conceale his dreame, for there / are they that will beleive all he dares feare” OO± )ROORZLQJWKHFOXVWHURIDQRQ\PRXVOLEHOVDVLWGRHV-DPHV¶VSRHPLVD WHVWDPHQWWRWKHXQVWRSSDEOHÀRZRIDQRQ\PRXVOLEHOVLQPDQXVFULSWFXOWXUH+LV poem has become a novelty to be collected with the others, rather than a serious discouragement to libelers. There is no doubt that strategic anonymity is what PDGHWKHÀRZRIOLEHOVLPSRVVLEOHWRVORZ Many of the poems found in this section of Folger V.a. 345 can be found elsewhere, especially in other manuscripts with ties to Christ Church. The thematic OLQNVDQGHFKRHVLQ)ROJHU9DDUHQRWXQXVXDOHLWKHU
Anonymity in Early Modern Manuscript Culture

39

begins with the authors, but it comes to include the disseminator, collector, and reader, WRR7KHJRYHUQPHQWLQYHVWLJDWLRQVRIOLEHOQHWZRUNVKHOSHGWRLQVWLWXWLRQDOL]HWKLV EURDGDFFRXQWDELOLW\HIIHFWLYHO\HQFRXUDJLQJWKRVHLQSRVVHVVLRQRIOLEHOVWRWKLQNDV strategically as authors did about “owning” a text. Readers and compilers, therefore, need to be seen as more than purveyors of attribution misinformation. The author of WKH³$SRORJHWLFNULPH´ZHVKRXOGQRWHQHYHUFRQVLGHUVWKDWWKH³PLVDWWULEXWLRQ´RI the panegyric to Corbett is an accident. The fact that authors, compilers, and readers have competing necessities, intentions, and strategies accounts for many attribution discrepancies, and these motivations should be studied as important clues to early LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ,WLVQRWDOOWKDWVXUSULVLQJWKDWWKHVHPRWLYDWLRQVDUHQRWDFNQRZOHGJHG in epitaphs and libels. The tendency for even libel detractors to steer away from DQRQ\PLW\DVDVXEMHFWPD\EHHYLGHQFHWKDWDQRQ\PLW\ZDVHIIHFWLYHDVSURWHFWLRQ DQGDVDUKHWRULFDOFRQYHQWLRQ:HDUHOXFN\WRKDYHDIHZH[FHSWLRQVWRWKHUXOH7KH fashion of stereotyping libelers that seems to stand in for the revelation of the author is also an indication that many names were not recoverable and that anti-libelers had to create villains rather than uncover them to combat libeling. Much of this evidence points to rules and conventions particular to manuscript poetry, some of which may be the consequence of manuscript circulation, but many of which were designed with manuscript culture in mind. Epitaphs and libels, as manuscript genres, share FRQYHQWLRQVRIDQRQ\PLW\GHVLJQHGWRFRPSOHPHQWDQGPDNHXVHRIWKHPDQXVFULSW medium in which they are found. Works Cited Manuscripts %RGOHLDQ/LEUDU\2[IRUG8. Ashmole 38 Ashmole 47 English poetry e. 14 Firth e. 4 Malone 19 Malone 23 Rawlinson poetry 26 Rawlinson poetry 160 %ULWLVK/LEUDU\/RQGRQ8. Additional 21433 Additional 25303 Additional 61481 Egerton 2725 Sloane 826

40

Anonymity in Early Modern England

Edinburgh University Library H.—P. Coll. 401 )ROJHU6KDNHVSHDUH/LEUDU\:DVKLQJWRQ'& V.a. 125 V.a. 162 V.a. 170 V.a. 345 Printed Books Baron, Sabrina. “Licensing Readers, Licensing Authority in Seventeenth-Century England.” In Books and Readers in Early Modern England. Ed. Jennifer $QGHUVHQDQG(OL]DEHWK6DXHU3KLODGHOSKLD8RI3HQQV\OYDQLD3 Beal, Peter. Index of English Literary Manuscripts, 2 Vols. London: Mansell, 1980. Bellany, Alistair. “A Poem on the Archbishop’s Hearse: Puritanism, Libel, and Sedition after the Hampton Court Conference.” Journal of British Studies 34  ± ———. The Politics of Court Scandal in Early Modern England: News Culture and the Overbury Affair. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002. &OHJJ&\QGLD³µ7KH$XFWKRURI7KLV%RRN¶$WWULEXWLQJ$XWKRUVKLS±´ 3DFL¿F&RDVW3KLORORJ\ ± &RLUR$QQ%D\QHV³$QRQ\PRXV0LOWRQRU$0DVNH0DVNHG´English Literary History  ± Colclough, David. “Freedom of Speech, Libel and the Law in Early Stuart England.” Literature, Politics, and Law in Renaissance England. Ed. Erica Sheen and Lorna Hutson. Houndmills: Palgrave, 2005. 170–88. Corbett, Richard. The Poems of Richard Corbett. Ed. J.A.W. Bennett and H.R. Trevor-Roper. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955. Crane, Mary Thomas. Framing Authority: Sayings, Self, and Society in SixteenthCentury England. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1993. Croft, Pauline. “Libels, Popular Literacy and Public Opinion in Early Modern England.” Historical Research  ± Doelman, James. “Epigrams and Political Satire in Early Stuart England.” Huntington Library Quarterly  ± “Early Stuart Libels: an Edition of Poetry from Manuscript Sources.” Ed. Alistair Bellany and Andrew McRae. Early Modern Literary Studies Text Series I  KWWSSXUORFOFRUJHPOVWH[WVOLEHOV! Fox, Adam. Oral and Literate Culture in England: 1500–1700. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000. Gordon, Andrew. “The Act of Libel: Conscripting Civic Space in Early Modern England.” Journals of Medieval and Early Modern Studies  ±

Anonymity in Early Modern Manuscript Culture

41

Hammond, Gerald. Fleeting Things: English Poets and Poems, 1616–1660. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1990. ,QJUDP0DUWLQ³5LGLQJV5RXJK0XVLFDQG0RFNLQJ5K\PHVLQ(DUO\0RGHUQ England.” Popular Culture in Seventeenth-Century England. Ed. Barry Reay. London and Sidney: Croom Helm, 1985. Lander, Jesse M. “Martin Marprelate and the Fugitive Text.” Inventing Polemic: Religion, Print, and Literary Culture in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006. Love, Harold. Attributing Authorship: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002. ———. Scribal Publication in Seventeenth-Century England. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. McRae, Andrew. “Literary Culture of Early Stuart Libeling.” Modern Philology  ± ———. Literature, Satire and the Early Stuart State. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004. ———. “Reading Libels: An Introduction.” Huntington Library Quarterly 69  ± ———. “Satire and Sycophancy: Richard Corbett and Early Stuart Royalism.” Review of English Studies ± Marotti, Arthur. Manuscript, Print, and the English Renaissance Lyric. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1995. The Martin Marprelate Tracts: A Modernized and Annotated Edition. Ed. Joseph %ODFN&DPEULGJH83 0HQW] 6WHYH ³)RUPLQJ *UHHQH 7KHRUL]LQJ WKH (DUO\ 0RGHUQ $XWKRU LQ A Groatsworth of Wit.” Writing Robert Greene. (G.LUN0HOQLNRIIDQG(GZDUG *LHVNHV$OGHUVKRW$VKJDWH 1HZVWRN 6FRWW ³(OHJLHV (QGLQJ µ+HUH¶ 7KH 3RHWLFV RI (SLWDSKLF &ORVXUH´ Studies in the Literary Imagination  ±. ———. Quoting Death in Early Modern England: The Poetics of Epitaphs Beyond the Tomb. Houndmills: Palgrave, 2009. 1RUWK 0DUF\ ³$QRQ\PLW\¶V 6XEMHFW -DPHV , DQG WKH 'HEDWH RYHU WKH 2DWK RI Allegiance.” New Literary History  ± ———. Anonymous Renaissance: Cultures of Discretion in Tudor-Stuart England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. Perry, Curtis. “‘If Proclamations Will Not Serve’: The Late Manuscript Poetry of James I and the Culture of Libel.” Royal Subjects: Essays on the Writings of James VI and I. (G'DQLHO)LVFKOLQDQG0DUN)RUWLHU'HWURLW:D\QH6WDWH UP, 2002. ———. Literature and Favoritism in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006. Randall, David. “Joseph Mead, Novellante: News, Sociability, and Credibility in Early Stuart England.” Journal of British Studies  ±

42

Anonymity in Early Modern England

5REVRQ 0DUN ³7KH (WKLFV RI $QRQ\PLW\´ Modern Language Review 103.2  ± 6FKQHLGHU *DU\ ³/LEHORXV /HWWHUV LQ (OL]DEHWKDQ DQG (DUO\ 6WXDUW (QJODQG´ Modern Philology ± Scodel, Joshua. The English Poetic Epitaph. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1991. Wayne, Valerie. “The Dearth of the Author: Anonymity’s Allies and Swetnam the Woman-hater.” Maids and Mistresses, Cousins and Queens: Women’s Alliances in Early Modern England. (G6XVDQ)U\HDQG.DUHQ5REHUWVRQ1HZ
Chapter 2

³-DFNHRQ%RWK6LGHV´ Appropriating Equivocation Janet Wright Starner

:H DOO QHHG WR WKLQN DERXW WKH LQWHQVHO\ SULYDWH LQWHUFKDQJH EHWZHHQ WKH original writer and reader when we simultaneously reenact and reinterpret their performance, or we will lose both text and meaning. —Sullivan, “The Renaissance Manuscript Verse Miscellany: Private Party, Private Text” 297 There is a common saying amongst us here in England, “Everything is, say they, DVLWLVWDNHQ´ZKLFKLQGHHGLVQRWVRIRUHYHU\WKLQJLVDVLWLVKRZVRHYHULWLV WDNHQ —Hugh Latimer, Sermon At Grimsthorpe, 1553, qtd. in Gordon 87 I holde as faythe What Englands Church allowes What Romes Church saith My conscience dissavowes :KHUHWKHNLQJLVKHDG 7KH&KXUFKFDQKDYHQRVKDPH 7KHÀRFN¶VPLVOHDG 7KDWKDWKWKH3RSH6XSUHDPH Where the Altar’s Drest Ther’s Service Scarce Divine The People’s Blest With Table Bread and Wine +H¶VEXWDQ$VVH :KRWKDW&RPXQLRQÀ\HV Who shun’s the Mass Is Catholique and Wise :KHUHIRUH,SUD\ 7KDW(QJODQGÀRXULVKEHVW That Rome may sway Shall ne’re be my request. V.a. 198

³-DFNHRQ%RWK6LGHV´1 is the title of an anonymous poem appearing in the oftprinted seventeenth-century miscellanies Parnassus Biceps2 and Wits Recreations,3 1

To avoid confusion, I will identify the poem throughout this essay by this title, despite the fact that it is so titled in only one publication space. 2 Parnassus Biceps; or Several choice pieces of poetry 1656. Ed. by Peter Beal. Aldershot, Hants, England: Scolar Press, 1990. 3 Facetiae. Musarum deliciæ: or, The muses recreation, containing severall pieces of poetique wit. By Sr. J.M. and Ja: S. 1656. Wit restor’d, in severall select poems, not formerly publish’t. 1658. :LWVUHFUHDWLRQVVHOHFWHGIURPWKH¿QHVWIDQFLHVRIPRGHUQHPXVHV:LWK a thousand out-landish proverbs. 7KHZKROHGLOLJHQWO\FRPSDUHGZLWKWKHRULJLQDOV with all the wood engravings, plates, memoirs, and notes. Created/Published: London, J.C. Hotten, 1874.

Anonymity in Early Modern England

44

EXW LW FDQ DOVR EH IRXQG LQ QHDUO\ WKUHH GR]HQ PDQXVFULSWV KHOG E\ OLEUDULHV LQ the United States and England, inscribed as late as 1789 and perhaps as early as 1600. While the print versions of the poem remained stable across decades of UHSXEOLFDWLRQ WKH KDQGZULWWHQ FRSLHV RI WKH SRHP LQ FRQWUDVW DUH UHPDUNDEO\ LGLRV\QFUDWLF7KH\YDU\LQOHQJWKIURPHLJKWWRWZHQW\OLQHVWKH\DUHLGHQWL¿HG by no consistent title, they are claimed by no author, and they appear in English, French, and Latin. Sans creator, social connections, and lyric elegance, this anonymous text has remained mostly unnoticed by modern readers,4 yet it seems to KDYHEHHQSRSXODULQLWVRZQWLPHQRGRXEWEHFDXVH³-DFNH´insists on a response. 5HDG KRUL]RQWDOO\ LW DI¿UPV OR\DOW\ WR WKH GRFWULQH RI WKH &KXUFK RI (QJODQG UHDGFRQWUDULO\DVDSRHPLQWZRYHUWLFDOFROXPQVLWYHKHPHQWO\UHMHFWV3URWHVWDQW belief and practices. A fascinating oddity, but perhaps not yet an ideal candidate for undergraduate reading lists since most manuscript versions of it come without contextual clues to assist a traditional literary analysis of it. The diverse titles assigned it by its compilers, and the labels by which scholars have indexed it, IXUWKHUIUXVWUDWHPRGHUQDWWHPSWVWRFODVVLI\DQGFDWHJRUL]HWKLVSRHP$EVHQWDQ\ surety about authorship, date of composition, or social context for this poem, the modern reader wishing to do more than describe its existence must focus instead on the verse itself and its many reader/compilers. This essay, then, attempts to shift the critical eye to a landscape where readers, not writers, control texts. The numerous and varied versions of this poem HQFRXUDJHXVWRVHHWKHHDUO\PRGHUQYHUVHPLVFHOODQ\DVPRUHWKDQMXVWDVWDWLF ³SDSHUERRN´LQWHQGHGWRJDWKHU³GDLQW\GHYLFHV´DPHUHUHFHSWDFOHIRUWKHZRUN RIRWKHUV,QVWHDG³-DFNH¶V´WUDQVFULEHUVWHDFKXVWRVHHLWDVDPDOOHDEOHVSDFHDVD VWDJHZKHUHRQWKHFRPSLOHUPLJKWHQDFWDSHUIRUPDQFHIRUUHDGHUVDVDFUHGVSDFH ZLWKLQZKLFKWRHQJDJHLQGHYRWLRQDQGUHÀHFWLRQDSODWIRUPIURPZKLFKWRLQFLWH UHEHOOLRQ RU HGLWRULDOL]H RQ WKH SROLWLFDO ODQGVFDSH RU DQ DUWLVW¶V VWXGLR ZKHUHLQ WKHZULWHUFDQHQJDJHLQFUHDWLYHH[SUHVVLRQ³-DFNH´QRWRQO\UHVLVWVQRWLRQVRI authorship, it reconstructs the idea of “author” because it foregrounds reading as DQDFWRIWH[WXDOSURGXFWLRQ7KHVFKRODUO\ZRUNRQHDUO\PRGHUQUHDGHUVOHDGV us to understand that they were “active,” not passive. Anonymous verse, then,

4

In his 1969 essay ‘“Coplas Contradictorias’: The Perils of Double-Edged Verses” Edward M. Wilson examines sixteenth-century Spanish poems that he names “coplas contradictorias” because they can be read in two contradictory ways. He notes that the sort RIYLVXDOWULFNHPSOR\HGE\WKHVHSRHPVFRXOGEHIRXQGLQWKHOLWHUDWXUHRIRWKHUFRXQWULHV DVZHOOLOOXVWUDWLQJKLVSRLQWZLWKDFRS\RI³7KH&KXUFK3DSLVW´DQRWKHUWLWOHIRU³-DFNH on Both Sides.” A footnote citing the source explains that he was unfortunately unable to see the poem “in the imperfect copies that exist in Cambridge libraries,” so he used the 1817 reprint version found in Witt’s Recreations instead. In a March, 2006 essay, Adam 6P\WKXVHVWKLVSRHPWRLOOXVWUDWHWKH³VKLIWLQJVLJQL¿FDQFH´RIDYHUVHDVLWPRYHVIURP manuscript to print in his essay “Recycling Satire in the Mid-Seventeenth Century.” His examination of the poem supports an argument about the re-publication of topical satire rather than an investigation of the poem in its various manuscript contexts.

“Jacke on Both Sides”

45

has the potential to teach us much about reading and writing practices as well as HQFRXUDJHXVWRUHWKLQNRXUUHDGLQJVRIFDQRQLFDODXWKRUV¶ZRUN $W ¿UVW JODQFH ³-DFN RQ %RWK 6LGHV´ VHHPV VLPSO\ WR EH D YHU\ FOHYHU ELW of poetic acrobatics, performed in the center ring for an admiring audience of readers. In fact, this poem dependsRQH\HVIRULWVLPSDFWDVWKHWULFNLVVXSSOLHG by the visual arrangement of the columns on the page. But it also begs to be shared ZLWKRWKHUUHDGHUVDIWHUWKH¿UVWVLJKWLQJ2QFHHDUO\PRGHUQUHDGHUVXQGHUVWRRG its structure, they must have been irresistibly drawn to reiterate and reshape the text to facilitate their own performance desires, much as we are eager to retell a JRRGMRNHRQFHZHKDYHEHHQHQWHUWDLQHGE\LW*LYHQLWVSURYRFDWLYHQDWXUHWKLV equivocal poem would have been an ideal candidate for circulation among a coterie RINQRZQUHDGHUV$QGLQGHHGLQLWVQHDUO\WZRFHQWXU\MRXUQH\³-DFNH´KDVEHHQ alternatively amputated and augmented, dressed for a formal and stripped for a barbeque, and placed in the company of aristocrats and pub-dwellers. The poem JRHVEH\RQGVLPSOHHTXLYRFDWLRQLWVPDQ\XVHVWHVWLI\WRLWVH[SDQVLYHSRWHQWLDOWR PDNHPHDQLQJ7KHZLGHO\GLIIHULQJWLWOHVDORQHGHPRQVWUDWHWKDWHDFKFRQVXPHU RIWKLVWH[WIUDPHGLWLGLRV\QFUDWLFDOO\KLVSHUFHSWLRQRIWKHYHUVHDQGLWVXVHYDOXH to him, was informed by his view of the world and his socio-historical location in it. Its wildly divergent uses demonstrate the instability of manuscript transmission of verse, the strength of active reading in the early modern period, and the degree to which readers believed that appropriating texts was an accepted and natural activity in which to engage. 7REHFOHDU,DPQRWWKH¿UVWWRVHHDYHUVHPLVFHOODQ\DVDVLWHRISHUIRUPDQFH rather than a compilation of “innocently” transcribed poems.5 But the critical conversation about manuscript transcription is dominated by author-centered readings. Even those that consider the reader have focused nearly exclusively on the intertextuality among verses produced by canonical authors and readers whose FRWHULHFLUFOHVFDQEHWUDFNHGRUVXUPLVHG7KLVHVVD\ZLOOQRWDWWHPSWWRDQVZHU³ZKR ZURWHWKLV"´HYHQWKRXJKLWLVE\KDELWDQGFRQYHQWLRQWKHTXHVWLRQRI¿UVWUHVRUW EXWZLOODVNLQVWHDGKRZGRHVWKHSRHPFKDQJHDVLWPRYHVDPRQJPDQXVFULSWV" How does it function in the context of a single manuscript? How do the paratextual FRPSRQHQWVZRUNWRPDNHPHDQLQJ":KDWGRHVLWUHYHDODERXWWKHQDWXUHRIUHDGHU compilers-as-writers and their responses to early modern texts? The early modern period is an age obsessed with order. The extant material is permeated with anxiety about chaos: educational texts taught novice readers to proceed with care lest WKH\PLVLQWHUSUHWKDQGERRNVJXLGHGFRXUWLHUVWKURXJKKLJKVWDNHVSHUIRUPDQFHV VHUPRQVLQVLVWHGRQXQL¿HGEHOLHIWRVDYHVRXOVUR\DOSURFODPDWLRQVGHPDQGHGD 5 Among others, see Ted-Larry Pebworth, who argues that we should be careful in our editorial practices where manuscript verse is concerned, urging caution so “that we do QRWXQWKLQNLQJO\²DQGDQDFKURQLVWLFDOO\²UHDGWKHDWWLWXGHVDQGSUDFWLFHVRIPRGHUQSULQW SRHWVEDFNRQWR'RQQHDQGWKHRWKHUPHPEHUVRIKLVFRWHULH´ +HEDVHVKLVFODLPRQ the various versions of John Donne’s poetry, which indicate that Donne himself saw his YHUVHDVSLHFHVRISHUIRUPDQFHHSKHPHUDODQGÀHHWLQJ

46

Anonymity in Early Modern England

SXEOLFUHKHDUVDORIDOOHJLDQFHWRRQHDQGRQO\RQHUXOHU³-DFNH´QRWRQO\UHVLVWVDOO WKRVHGHPDQGVEXWSURYLGHVDPHFKDQLVPE\ZKLFKGLVRUGHUFDQÀRXULVK,QDWLPH RIDQ[LHW\DERXWPLVUHDGLQJVDQGPLVUHSUHVHQWDWLRQ³-DFNH´GHOLEHUDWHO\EUHDNV all the rules, about writing, reading, religious belief, identity itself. In the safe space RIWKH³OLEHUWLHV´WKDWWKHPDQXVFULSWSURYLGHGIRUUHDGHUFRPSLOHUV³-DFNH´ZDV free to imagine other selves and other ways of being in the world. Instructions for Readers I posit here a self-conscious reader/compiler, one whose appropriations suggest VHYHUDOSRVVLEOHFRQFOXVLRQVKHLVSOD\LQJWRDPXVHKLVDXGLHQFHKHLVWHDFKLQJ DSULYDWHOHVVRQKHLVQHUYRXVO\HQJDJLQJLQDSXEOLFDFWDZDUHWKDWD³ZURQJ´ UHDGLQJRIKLVWH[WPD\EHIULJKWHQLQJO\FRQVHTXHQWLDOKHLVHQJDJLQJLQLQGLYLGXDO RUFRPPXQDOVHOIH[DPLQDWLRQKHLVDMRNHVWHUSOD\LQJIRUODXJKV6XFKUHDGHUV perform the role of “author” as they appropriate material into their privately constructed texts. The creative alterations they impose on this poem appear to be rhetorically strategic and aware of an audience. A reader/compiler’s understanding of the activity he was engaging in—at least in part—would have been based on his assumptions about the act of reading itself, as shaped by his early training. And while early modern verse miscellanies reveal a widespread resistance to authoritarian control of readings, such controls are nevertheless asserted as necessary by print-published texts positing an ideal UHDGHURQHZKRVHFRQVXPSWLRQRIPDWHULDOLVRYHUVHHQE\DXWKRULW\XQGHUWDNHQLQ collaboration with experienced readers, and conservative of tradition rather than UHVLVWDQWWRLW(GPXQG&RRWH¶VWH[WERRNThe English Schoole-Master lays out that LGHDO+LVYHU\SRSXODUSULPHUUHYHDOVWKDWQRWRQO\GLGUHDGHUVPRYHEDFNDQGIRUWK between print-published and handwritten texts, but that reading was a collaborative DFWLYLW\XQGHUWDNHQZLWKH\HVHDUVDQGOLSV6 Coote instructed beginning readers WR¿UVWYRFDOL]HUHFRJQL]DEOHRQHV\OODEOHXQLWVDQGWKHQEXLOGORQJHUZRUGVRXW RIWKRVHV\OODEOHV 6LQFHIRUWKHVHVWXGHQWVUHDGLQJPHDQWWUDQVODWLQJZULWWHQ V\PEROVLQWRVSRNHQODQJXDJHSURQXQFLDWLRQZDVDNH\VNLOOWRPDVWHU , NQRZ QRW ZKDW FDQ HDVLO\ GHFHLYH \RX LQ ZULWLQJ XQOHVV LW EH E\ LPLWDWLQJ the barbarous speech of your country people whereof I will give you a taste … WKH\FRPPRQO\SXWI IRUY DVIHDOIRUYHDO$QGDQR[DQDVVP\QDXQWWK\ QXQNOHIRUDQR[DQDVVPLQHDXQWWKLQHXQFOHHWF

For Coote, reading was also dialogic. Each student was expected to collaborate with a more experienced reader, who would correct pronunciation and explain “hard words,” but the lessons would engage learners in a literal dialogue, as well. 6 Coote, Edmund. The English school-master. (London: printed by A[nne]. 0>D[ZHOO@DQG5>REHUW@5>REHUWV@)RUWKH&RPSDQ\RI6WDWLRQHUV &RRWH¶VSULPHU ZDV¿UVWSULQWHGLQWKH¿QDOHGLWLRQZDVSXEOLVKHG\HDUVODWHULQ

“Jacke on Both Sides”

47

Extensive marginal glosses provide an instructor’s script, coaching him or her to WHDFKE\DVNLQJTXHVWLRQV³:KHQ\RXUVFKRODUVVKDOOOHDUQWKLV&KDSWHUOHWRQH read the questions, and another the answers. When your Scholars appose one the RWKHUOHWWKHDQVZHUHUDQVZHUZLWKRXWERRN´  The Schoole-Master’s multiple references to pronunciation suggest students UHDGLQJ DORXG WR OHDUQ +RZHYHU WKH LQMXQFWLRQ WR YRFDOL]H GRHV QRW VHHP WR KDYH HQGHG RQFH SUR¿FLHQF\ ZDV UHDFKHG QRU ZDV DGYLFH WR UHDGHUV OLPLWHG WR basic primers. Early in the sixteenth century, Roger Ascham evidences particular FRQFHUQDERXWWKHLQÀXHQFHRI,WDOLDQDWHOLWHUDWXUHEHFDXVHLWHPSOR\VODQJXDJHLQ subtle and slippery ways: they open, not fond and common wayes to vice, but such subtle, cunnynge, new, and diverse shiftes, to cary yong willes to vanitie, and yong wittes to mischief, to teach old bawdes new schole poyntes, as the simple head of an English man is QRWKDEOHWRLQYHQWQRUQHYHUZDVKDUGRILQ(QJODQGEHIRUH4WGLQ.LQWJHQ Reading in Tudor England

Thomas Blundeville’s The true order and Methode of wryting and reading HystoriesSXEOLVKHGLQFRQYH\VVLPLODUFRQFHUQV.LQWJHQ %OXQGHYLOOH and others worried that reading practices that were taught and enforced in a controlled educational environment, where a master reader oversaw the consumption and LQWHUSUHWDWLRQRIWH[WVPLJKWEHXWLOL]HGLQRWKHUVHWWLQJVIRUXQVDQFWLRQHGSXUSRVHV and unlicensed conclusions. Early modern students were exhorted to interpret ZKDWWKH\UHDGFRS\LQWRFRPPRQSODFHERRNVWKHPRVWDSSURSULDWHD[LRPVWKH\ found for future reference, and to read in a certain sequence: “Reading, repetition, OLYHO\FRQIHUHQFHDOOOHDGLQJWRFRPSOHWHGLJHVWLRQWKHVHZHUHWKHNH\VIRUSURSHU PDVWHU\RIWH[WV´.LQWJHQ $WWKHHQGRIVXFKDSURFHVVWKHUHDGHUZDVSUHSDUHG to participate in public life. In fact, it was assumed that “the effects of the reading on the will and wit are all but unavoidable, propelling the reader irresistibly into SUDFWLFDODSSOLFDWLRQ´ ,WZDVIRUWKLVUHDVRQWKDW³LWZDVGDQJHURXVSROLWLFDOO\ and religiously, to read suppressed texts precisely because they would be read the VDPH ZD\ DXWKRUL]HG WH[WV ZHUH DQG ZRXOG KDYH DQDORJRXV EXW SROLWLFDOO\ RU UHOLJLRXVO\GHOHWHULRXV HIIHFWV´  Indeed, the shifting sands of religious controversy profoundly altered the practices of reading and writing. In Privacy and Print: Reading and Writing in Seventeenth-Century England&HFLOH0-DJRG]LQVNLQRWHV 7KHURXWLQHDVVRFLDWLRQRIWKH3URWHVWDQWUHOLJLRQZLWKWKHERRN&DWKROLFLVPZLWK FHUHPRQ\DQGLPDJHU\IDLOVWRWDNHLQWRDFFRXQWWKHIDFWWKDWERWKERRNVDQGLPDJHV DUH¿UVWRIDOOYLVXDO«,PEXHGZLWKDVDFUDPHQWDODQGLFRQRJUDSKLFDOPLQGVHW WKDWORRNHGIRUPHDQLQJLQLPDJHVDQGIRUFHGLQWRGLVJXLVHDQGHTXLYRFDWLRQE\ FRQVWDQWSROLWLFDOWKUHDWV&DWKROLFVWRRNWRWKHLQWHUSUHWLYHH[HUFLVHRIUHDGLQJWR VXVWDLQWKHLUDQFLHQWOLWXUJLFDODQGSDUDOLWXUJLFDOWUDGLWLRQV

3HGDJRJ\ SUDFWLFH DQG SROLWLFDO SUHVVXUH DOO ZRUNHG WRJHWKHU WR VKXW GRZQ unsanctioned written “conversations” about texts. Typical educational instruction

Anonymity in Early Modern England

48

IRFXVHG QRW RQ RULJLQDO WKRXJKW FULWLFDO DQDO\VLV RU K\SRWKHVL]LQJ EDVHG RQ HPSLULFDO REVHUYDWLRQ EXW RQ PHPRUL]DWLRQ7 The goal seems not to have been WRWHDFKSHRSOHWRWKLQNIRUWKHPVHOYHVEXWUDWKHUWR¿OOWKHPXSZLWKWUDGLWLRQDO NQRZOHGJHDQGVDQFWLRQHGGRFWULQH %\WKHHDUO\VHYHQWHHQWKFHQWXU\KRZHYHUWKHLQMXQFWLRQWRFRQWUROUHDGHUV and readings met with resistance. Francis Bacon, for one, railed against the VWUDLJKWMDFNHWRIFRQYHQWLRQWKDWUHVWUDLQHGLQWHOOHFWXDOIUHHGRP Again, in the customs and institutions of schools, academics, colleges, and similar bodies destined for the abode of learned men and the cultivation of learning, everything is found adverse to the progress of science. For the lectures DQG H[HUFLVHV WKHUH DUH VR RUGHUHG WKDW WR WKLQN RU VSHFXODWH RQ DQ\WKLQJ RXW of the common way can hardly occur to any man. And if one or two have WKH EROGQHVV WR XVH DQ\ OLEHUW\ RI MXGJPHQW WKH\ PXVW XQGHUWDNH WKH WDVN DOO E\ WKHPVHOYHV WKH\ FDQ KDYH QR DGYDQWDJH IURP WKH FRPSDQ\ RI RWKHUV (Novum Organon

And while the school models posit, indeed insist on, a docile and obedient reader, evidence from verse miscellanies indicates that reader/compilers were using texts in exactly the opposite way, for their own purposes in uncommon and “incorrect” ways. Unfettered by the constraints of the school room and the censored print YHQXHFRPSLOHUVGHFLGHGQRWRQO\ZKLFKWH[WVWKHLU³SDSHUERRNV´ZRXOGFRQWDLQ but in many cases they altered the very fabric of those texts in response to individual GHVLUHVH[KLELWLQJZKDW$UWKXU0DURWWLWHUPV³WH[WXDOPDOOHDELOLW\´ 0DUF\ 1RUWKGHVFULEHVDV³UHXVHFRPSLODWLRQDQGUHFHSWLRQ´ $GDP6P\WKFDOOV ³WH[WXDOFDUSHQWU\´ DQG6DVKD5REHUWVWHUPV³DSSURSULDWLRQ´  ,QWHUHVWLQJO\ KRZHYHU FRPSLOHUV RIWHQ PLPLFNHG WKH form of a printed text even as they altered its composition and attempted to control its reception. They, WRRHPEHGGHGLQVWUXFWLRQVIRUUHDGHUVLQWKHLUERRNVEXWWKH\GLGVRDSSDUHQWO\QRW because they feared they might be censored for irregular use of the content—they were not awaiting the teacher’s beating or the rap on the door that would signal a WULSWRWKHJDRO²UDWKHUOLNHVWDJHDFWRUVIHDUIXORIURWWHQWRPDWRHVWKH\VHHPHGWR have imagined a critical audience against which they needed to protect or defend their performance. Transcribed manuscript verses commune with readers in a cloistered and liminal discursive space that affords more freedom and safety than the ground offered either by print or speech. Many of these compilations include verse that is playful, and so the notion of “play” as a central activity goes part way to helping us understand a compiler’s motivations.8 But the manuscripts under 7

See Sherman, John Dee: The Politics of Reading and Writing in the English Renaissance. Amherst: U of Massachusetts P, 1995, for an excellent overview of reading SUDFWLFHV HVSHFLDOO\ SDJHV ± DQG .LQWJHQ IRU VSHFL¿F VWUDWHJLHV XVHG E\ UHDGHUV WR consume texts. 8 (DUO\ PRGHUQ PDQXVFULSWV FDWHJRUL]HG DV ³YHUVH PLVFHOODQLHV´ GHI\ FRQVLVWHQW FDWHJRUL]DWLRQ 7KH FRQWHQWV RI WKHVH DUWLIDFWV ZKHQ FRPSDUHG WR HDFK RWKHU FDQ EH

“Jacke on Both Sides”

49

VWXG\KHUHUHDGDVLIWKHFRPSLOHUDOVRWKLQNVRIKLPVHOIDVQRWMXVW³SOD\IXO´EXWDV playing a role in a semi-public arena. The resultant persona nearly always seems PDVNHG DQG LV URXWLQHO\ FRQWUDGLFWRU\ 7KH YDULRXV FRSLHV RI ³-DFNH´ SHUIRUP D EDODQFLQJ DFW EHWZHHQ RUGHU DQG FKDRV (DFK YHUVLRQ RI WKH SRHP PXVW ¿UVW rehearse the prescribed traditional protocols, before it can re-interpret, subvert, and UHVLVWWKRVHVWUXFWXUHVWKHUHE\NHHSLQJUHDGHUVLQDFRQWLQXRXVORRSLQJSDUDGR[ HQGOHVVO\UHSURGXFLQJDPSOL¿HGPHDQLQJV Appropriating Reading/Performing Writing :KLOH WKH DQRQ\PRXV HTXLYRFDO ³-DFNH´ FRPHV ZLWKRXW D NQRZQ DFWRU EHKLQG it, we do have examples of performance writing in manuscripts whose authors KDYH VLJQHG WKHLU ZRUN ,Q  6LU -RKQ +DUULQJWRQ SURGXFHG D QRZIDPRXV SUHVHQWDWLRQPDQXVFULSW)ROJHU9D FRQWDLQLQJRYHUIRXUKXQGUHGHSLJUDPV the collection was a gift for the young Prince Henry.9 It opens with a preface that LQVWUXFWV FODVVL¿HV DQG ZDUQV UHDGHUV +DUULQJWRQ FRPSDUHV WKH UHDGLQJ RI KLV epigrams to eating a meal, and he urges readers to dine slowly, with relish, in order WRJHWIXOOHQMR\PHQWRIWKHSRHPV0RUHRYHUKHLPSOLFLWO\GLYLGHVUHDGHUVLQWR two categories, those who are “competent” and those who are not. This reproduces a traditional medieval hierarchy of wise readers/interpreters, but it also has the effect of shifting any potential blame for the poems’ failure onto readers whose “wits” are too “dull” to fully appreciate the texts. Finally, with his Latin phrasing Harrington references a section of Thomas cquinas’ Summa Theologica that argues the relative value of “intelligent” reading of Scripture for prospective priests. This oblique pointing to the consequences of mis-readings underscores the reader’s individual responsibility for generating active, and correct, interpretations: The Epistle to all Readers how Epigrams must be read attent= tiuely. Yt legere et non intelli= gere est negligere When in your hand you had this Pamphlet caught Your purpose was to post yt ouer speedy: but chaunge your minde and feed not over greedy 7LOOLQZKDWVRUWWRIHHG\RX¿UVWEHWDXJKW 6XSSRVHWKDW¿UVWDQGVHFRQGFRXUVHLVGRQQH surprisingly different (“surprising” since we have typically regarded these collections DV DXWKRUFHQWHUHG UHSRVLWRULHV  DQG FDQ LQFOXGH WKH VHULRXV DQG WKH ULGLFXORXV RQ WKH same page. Jests, acronyms, emblems, acrostics, humorous anecdotes all may be found MX[WDSRVHGQH[WWRZHLJKW\UHOLJLRXVSROLWLFDOO\FKDUJHGRUVHULRXVVFKRODUO\HQWULHV 9 Throughout the essay, I provide transcriptions that are as close to the original as computer typography will allow. Where superscript was used, where lines have been FURVVHGRXWRUZRUGVDQGOHWWHUVDGGHGVRKDYH,%UDFNHWHGOHWWHUVVLJQDODPDFURQLQWKH WH[W,QWKLVZD\OLNHWKH¿UVWFRPSLOHUVUHDGHUVFDQPDNHPHDQLQJRQWKHLURZQ

Anonymity in Early Modern England

50

1RJRRVH3RUNH&DSRQVQ\WHVQRUVXFKDVWKHHVH %XWORRNHIRUIUXLWHDVQXWWVDQG3DUPD&KHHVH Comfetts, Conserus, and Raysons of the Sonne 7DVWEXWDIHZDWRQFHIHHGQRWWRR¿FNOH 6RVKDOO\RX¿QGHVRPHFRROHVRPHZDUPHVRPHE\WLQJ Some sweet in tast, some sharp, all so delighting $VPD\\RXULQZDUGWDVWDQGIDQF\WLFNOH e Y But though I wish ^ Readers with VWRPDFNVIXOO Yet fast, or come not yf your witts bee dull, For I had leeue you did still and whistle as reading not to reade. So ends th’ Epistle.

$VHULHVRISRHPVDSSHDULQJODWHULQWKHPDQXVFULSWLOOXVWUDWHVMXVWKRZDQGZK\ a mis-reading could be consequential. The meaning—and the lesson—hang on a WULFNRISXQFWXDWLRQ2EH\RQHVHWRIUXOHVDQGRQHPHDQLQJLVGHOLYHUHG2EH\ D VHFRQG VHW DQG WKH RSSRVLWH DSSHDUV +DUULQJWRQ LQWURGXFHV WKH VXEMHFW RI “double pointing,” and thereby heightens the warning, with an historical anecdote describing the fate of Edward II whose written death warrant was deliberately phrased to ensure the guilty parties could not be charged with plotting to murder him. But he follows this lesson with a sequence of verses ostensibly intended for his mother-in-law and wife: Of wryting with double poynting DV,WLVVDLGWKDWNLQJ(GZDUG RI&DUQDUXDQO\LQJDW%HUNO\&DVWOH3ULVRQHU D&DUGLQDOOZUDWHWRKLVNHHSHU(GRXDU dum occidere noli, timere, bonum est, w[hi]ch being read with the poynt DWWLPHUH\WFRVW\HNLQJKLV life. Here ensews as doubtfull a point, but I trust not so daungerous.

  

Dames are indewd with vertues excellent. / What man is he can proue that they offend? Dayly 10 they serue the lorde with good entent. ^ Seelde they displease their husbands to their end. allwayes to please them well they do entend, QHXHULQWKHPRQHVKDOO¿QGH6KUHZGQHVPXFK Such are their humors and their grace is such.

10 WKHZRUGµGD\O\¶LVLQVHUWHGMXVWDERYHWKHZRUGµWKH\¶7KHZULWHUKDVXVHGWKHVDPH LQNDQGWKHKDQGLVWKHVDPH,WORRNVDVLIWKHPLVWDNHZDVPDGHDWWKHRULJLQDOPRPHQW of copying.

“Jacke on Both Sides”

51

After this example, the following sequence appears in the manuscript: To my Lady Rogers one11 65 Good Madam in this vearse obserue ^ poynt that though it seemes the wryter did appoynt With smoothest oyle of prayse your ears to noynt, Yet one his purpose soone may disapoynt, For in this vearse displacing but a poynte, Will put the sence so clearly out of Joynt   7KDWDOOWKLVSUD\VHZLOOVNDQWEHZRUWKDSR\QW To Hir daughter vpon the same poynt Reading the same Vearse with another poynt Dames are indewd with vertues excellent? What man is he can proue that? they offend Daylie: they serve the lord with good entent Seeld: they displease their husbands to theyr end allwayes: to please them well they do entend neuer: In them one shall fynd Shrewdnes much. Such are their humors, and their graces such. My Mall the former verses this may teach you that some deceaue, some are deceau’d by showes For this verse in your prayse so smooth that goes With one false poynt and stop did overreache you, and turne the prayse to scorne, the ryme to prose. by which you might be sclaundred all as shrowes,  DQGVRPHSHUKDSPD\VDLHDQGVSHDNHQRWUHDVRQ, the vearses had more ryme: ye proase more Reason./

Read as a unit of meaning, in the sequence in which they occur on the pages of WKHPDQXVFULSWWKH¿UVWSRHPLQWURGXFHVWKHVXEMHFWWKHVHFRQG³GHFHLYHV´WKH UHDGHU DQG WKH WKLUG H[SODLQV WKH GHFHSWLRQ :KLOH WKH ¿UVW YHUVH FRXOG DODUP HVSHFLDOO\LIWKHUHDGHULVDIXWXUH.LQJ+DUULQJWRQQRWHVWKHVHFRQGYHUVHLV³QRW VR GDQJHURXV´ EHFDXVH RI LWV VXEMHFW PDWWHU ZRPHQ %XW LQ UHDOLW\ +DUULQJWRQ KD]DUGVOLWWOHLQLQFOXGLQJLWVLQFHWKHYHUVHLVVXSSRVHGO\DGGUHVVHGWRWKHIHPDOH members of his family, over whom he has authority. The third didactic verse FRQWDLQVDZDUQLQJIRU+DUULQJWRQ¶VZLIHDQGWKHUHIRUHVHHPVOLNHLWLVSDUWRID OHVVRQIRUKHU+RZHYHUVLQFHZHNQRZWKHHQWLUHYROXPHLVLQWHQGHGIRUDUHDGHU 11 7KHZRUG³RQH´LVLQVHUWHGMXVWDERYHWKHZRUG³SRLQW´RQWKDWOLQH7KHZULWHUKDV XVHGWKHVDPHLQNDQGWKHKDQGLVWKHVDPH,WDSSHDUVWKHPLVWDNHZDVPDGHDWWKHRULJLQDO moment of copying.

Anonymity in Early Modern England

52

other than Harrington’s relatives, the verse sequences do not so much teach as they construct a performance for the reader’s eye, portraying a scene in which WKHWHDFKHUSRHWOHFWXUHVWKHZRPHQZKLOHWKHUHDGHU²3ULQFH+HQU\²ORRNVRQ presumably in approval. As David Carlson explains in English Humanist Books: Writers and Patrons, Manuscript and Print, 1475–1525, the strategy used here by Harrington was by then a time-honored technique designed to enhance an author’s standing E\ VKRZFDVLQJ KLV DELOLWLHV DV D VFKRODU ZKLOH VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ ÀDWWHULQJ KLV prospective patron. Moreover, these authors felt free to manipulate and re-vision texts at later dates if that became necessary for political or personal reasons  7KLVDSSURDFKKDGWKHHIIHFWRIVHSDUDWLQJDXWKRUIURPWH[WDQGSURPRWHG the notion of identity as a performance that was open to interpretation and UHYLVLRQ%HFDXVHRIWKHNQRZQFRQWH[WVXUURXQGLQJ+DUULQJWRQ¶VYROXPHLWLV possible to see his manuscript as a performance piece designed to curry favor and position.12 Moreover, Harrington has transferred authorial power to the reading Prince Henry. Harrington places his wife and mother-in-law on stage DQG WKHQ LQYLWHV SDUWLFLSDWLRQ +HUH DV ZLWK ³-DFNH´ D YLVXDO WULFN SURPSWV D readerly performance. Bit Players But what of anonymous performances? How do compilers perceive the rhetorical relationships among reader, writer, and text? Folger manuscript V.a. 34513 begins with notes to the Reader that indicate that someone (perhaps not even the original FRPSLOHU LVH[SHFWLQJDQDXGLHQFH Ad Lectorem 5HDGHU,PXVWSUHVHQW\RXZ>L@WKDVKULPS¿VK ,KRSH\RXOHPDNHQRERQHVWRWDVWWKLVGLVK It is no carpe, unlesse you giu’t yt note W[hi]ch if you doe, I wish t’were in your throate.

12 The Dictionary of National Biography QRWHVWKDW+DUULQJWRQZKRZDV(OL]DEHWK,¶V godson, anticipated a need for patronage after she died. And so he set about “to convince WKHZKROHVSHFWUXPRIFRQIHVVLRQDORSLQLRQRIWKHMXVWLFHRIWKH6WXDUWFODLPWRWKH(QJOLVK throne.” In 1602 he sent a “richly symbolic lantern” to James VI, “comparing himself with WKHJRRGWKLHIFUXFL¿HGDORQJVLGH&KULVWDQGDVNLQJKLVORUGWRµUHPHPEHUPHZKHQ\RX FRPHLQWR\RXUNLQJGRP¶´$ZDWHUFRORURIWKLVODQWHUQDSSHDUVLQ)ROJHUPDQXVFULSW9D DVZHOODVDFRS\RIWKHOHWWHUIURP.LQJ-DPHVZKRDFNQRZOHGJHVUHFHLSWRIVDLGODQWHUQDQG promises that Harrington will, indeed, be remembered when James ascends the throne. 13 Arthur Marotti provides an image of this verse and excellent commentary about this miscellany in “Folger MSS V.a. 89 and V.a. 345: Reading Lyric Poetry in Manuscript.” The Reader Revealed. Seattle: U of Washington P, 2001.

“Jacke on Both Sides”

53

This is followed by two lines that are completely scratched out, and they, in turn, are followed by another poem addressing the reader: Ad Lectorem 3DUGRQPHHNLQGUHDGHU WKRXJKQRZ WKDQ I shew my selfe to bee a very man, ,(SLJUDPVGRHZULWHDQGWLVNQRZQHZHO )RUZDQWRQMHVWVWKH\EHDUHDZD\WKHEHOO Then when lascivious rimes you heer shal see ,PSXWHWKHPWRWKH(SLJUDPQRWW¶PHHYL

7KHVHHQWULHVDUHPDGHLQGLIIHUHQWLQNFRORUVDQGE\WZRGLIIHUHQWKDQGV/LNH Harrington, these compilers also transcribe verse that plays with the notion of ³GRXEOLQJ´EXWLQWKLVFDVHWKHVXEMHFWLVODZ\HUV Verses implying a double sence (wealth, Lawyers themselus maintaine/, the common They punish, such as do offend and steale They free w[i]th cunning art/, ye innocent from danger Losse and punishment WKH\FDQEXWZLOOQRWNHHS\e world in aw with false and misexpounding of ye Law And loue they want not hauing amyty 7KH\DOZD\VNHSWJUHDWVWRUHRIFKDULW\ And loue they want, not hauing amity.

+HUH WKH FRPSLOHU RIIHUV QR NH\ IRU UHDGHUV RWKHU WKDQ WKH WLWOH WR XQORFN WKH SRHP¶VWULFN7KRVHZKRKDGVHHQWKHGHYLFHLQRSHUDWLRQHOVHZKHUHZRXOGLQVWDQWO\ UHFRJQL]HLWVHTXLYRFDOQDWXUHEXWWKHLQH[SHULHQFHGUHDGHURURQHDPRQJWKDW group of “dull wits” that Harrington deplores might be initially “deceived,” as Harrington predicted. In either case, the compiler is a virtual companion to the silent reader as he/she scans the page. The wordplay can only be apprehended by noting the placement of punctuation on the page. A solitary silent reading draws the YLHZHULQWRWKHUHDOPRISULYDWHMRNHDQGWKHVHOHFWLYHFRWHULHRIRWKHU³DWWHQWLYH´ and “intelligent” readers. This entry is followed by a version of the sequence included in Harrington’s ERRN RI HSLJUDPV $ UXOH GLYLGHV WKH LQWURGXFWRU\ ³9HUVHV LPSO\LQJ D GRXEOH sence” and the poem titled “Another,” but no space. The commas are penned in OLJKWHULQNDQGDUHPXFKIDLQWHUWKDQWKHRWKHUSXQFWXDWLRQZKLFKZDVZULWWHQLQ WKHRULJLQDOEODFNLQN14

14

I owe the discovery of this verse to Marcy North who suggested that some of WKHSXQFWXDWLRQPDUNLQJWKHVHFRQGYHUVHRQZRPHQZDVLQVHUWHGDWDODWHUGDWH,DJUHH 7KHFRPPDVDUHGDUNHUDQGSHUKDSVSHQQHGLQHQWLUHO\GLIIHUHQWLQNWKXVVXJJHVWLQJDQ additional reader who has further manipulated the text.

Anonymity in Early Modern England

54

Another +DUULQJ ,WLVVD\G .(GZDUGRI&DQDUXDQO\LQJDW WRQ %HUNO\&DVWOHSULVRQHUD&DUGLQDOZURWHWRKLV   NHHSHU(GXDUGXPRFFLGHUHQROLWLPHUHERQX>P@(>VW@ which being read wth ye point at timere, it   FRVW\HNLQJKLVOLIH+HHUHQVXHVDGRXEWIXO point but not so dangerous. Dames are endued wth vertues excellent, what man is hee can proue that? they offend, Dayly, they serue ye lord wth good intent seld, they displease their husbands to their end Allwayes, to please them wel they doe intend 1HXHULQWKHPRQHVKDOO¿QGHVKUHZGQHVPXFK Such are their humours and their grace is such

 

p. 14

 

Women the former verses, this may teach you, That some decieue, some are deceiud by showes, for this verse in your prayse, so smooth that goes wth one halfe point and stop, did ouerreach you And turnes ye prayse to scorne ye rimes to prose By which you may be slandred al as shrowes. $QGVRPHSHUKDSVPD\VD\ VSHDNQRWUHDVRQ the verses had more rime, ye prose more reason

The notion of doubling occurs in both manuscripts, and the inscription of Harrington’s name suggests that the verse has been borrowed from that collection, but the anonymous compiler employs the poems differently. He begins his VHTXHQFHZLWKDYHUVHWKDWHPEHGVWKHWULFNDQGFRPPHQWVQHJDWLYHO\RQODZ\HUV ZKRDUHUHJXODUO\VODQGHUHGODZ\HUVDQGWKHLUVKDG\FKDUDFWHUVKDYHEHFRPHWKH VWXIIRI³FRPPRQSODFH´DQGVRDUHQRWGDQJHURXV7KHQOLNH+DUULQJWRQKHDGGV WKH VWRU\ RI .LQJ (GZDUG UDLVLQJ WKH OHYHO RI UHDGLQJ WHQVLRQ ZLWK WKH VSHFWHU RI UHJLFLGH ZKLFK KH WKHQ VXEGXHV ZLWK D MRNH RQ ZRPHQ$ SRWHQWLDO VHFRQG FRPSLOHUUHDGHULQVHUWLQJWKHFRPPDVODWHUWDNHVRYHUWKHDXWKRUIXQFWLRQRQFH again. The word play involved is complex and resonates on various levels, with DQGZLWKRXWDQ³DXWKRU´WRDVVLJQWRWKHWH[W0DOFROP3DUNHVRIIHUVVRPHLQVLJKW into the evolving early modern use of punctuation: Rhetorical analysis has been concerned with the ways in which punctuation UHÀHFWVWKHSHULRGLFVWUXFWXUHRIDGLVFRXUVHDQGLQGLFDWHVWKHperiodus and its parts (commata or incisa, cola or membra :LWKLWVHPSKDVLVRQSDXVHVIRUEUHDWK this mode of analysis has been preoccupied with bringing out correspondences EHWZHHQWKHZULWWHQPHGLXPDQGWKHVSRNHQZRUG 

“Jacke on Both Sides”

55

The difference between the two versions seems to depend on an evolved XQGHUVWDQGLQJRIWKHXVHRIPDUNVWRVHFWLRQRIIXQLWVRIWKRXJKW157KH¿UVWYHUVLRQ depends on structures—the grammar of sentences—while the second leans on rhetorical strategies used to persuade an audience. And in fact, audience awareness LVDKDOOPDUNRIWKLVWHFKQLTXHEHFDXVHWKHDFWRI³GRXEOLQJ´LWVHOILVKLJKOLJKWHG LQWKHVHSRHPV7KHDXWKRUFRPSLOHUIRUHJURXQGVWKHLGHDRI³PDVNV´E\YLUWXHRI presenting for examination, analysis, and conversation the very idea of duplicity, FRQFHDOPHQWDQGHTXLYRFDWLRQ/LNHD&KLQHVHQHVWHGER[WKHVHYHUVHVOLWHUDOO\ deliver meaning within meaning. Thus, the readers compiling these verses enact yet another performance delivered via punctuation. Reading Jacke 7KH /LWHUDU\ :RUN FRQVLVWV H[KDXVWLYHO\ RU HVVHQWLDOO\ RI D WH[W WKDW LV WR VD\ D YHU\ PLQLPDO GH¿QLWLRQ  LQ D PRUH RU OHVV OHQJWK\ VHTXHQFH RI YHUEDO utterances more or less containing meaning. But this text rarely appears in its QDNHGVWDWHZLWKRXWWKHUHLQIRUFHPHQWDQGDFFRPSDQLPHQWRIDFHUWDLQQXPEHU RISURGXFWLRQVWKHPVHOYHVYHUEDORUQRWOLNHDQDXWKRU¶VQDPHDWLWOHDSUHIDFH illustrations. —Genette, “Introduction to the Paratext” 261

,QLWVYDULRXVPDQLIHVWDWLRQV³-DFNHRQ%RWK6LGHV´LVMXVWWKHVRUWRI³QDNHG´WH[W to which Genette refers in the epigraph above. And to point this out is not to suggest that it comes without any material context that can be examined thoughtfully, but WRDUJXHWKDWDQXQSDFNLQJRIWKLVYHUVHE\PHDQVRIWUDGLWLRQDO literary analysis— with “the reinforcement and accompaniment of a certain number of productions, «OLNHDQDXWKRU¶VQDPHDWLWOHDSUHIDFHLOOXVWUDWLRQV´²LVPRVWO\XQDYDLODEOH And I would argue that with anonymous texts, the traditional approach is not even particularly helpful. I have examined 23 transcriptions of this poem in manuscripts KHOGE\WKH%RGOHLDQ/LEUDU\WKH%ULWLVK/LEUDU\WKH)ROJHU6KDNHVSHDUH/LEUDU\ 15 (GPXQG &RRWH NQHZ WKDW UHDGHUV¶ DWWHPSWV DW SHUIHFW YHUEDOO\ GLVWLQFW UHDGLQJ ZRXOGUHTXLUHPRUHWKDQMXVWZRUGUHFRJQLWLRQ7KH\ZRXOGDOVRQHHGWRXQGHUVWDQGWKH symbols that cropped up in texts they read. What we now call “punctuation” he called ³SRLQWV´ EXW WKHVH PDUNV GLG QRW QHFHVVDULO\ PDUN RII JUDPPDWLFDO XQLWV QRU GLG WKH\ provide visual cues to guide understanding, as they do for us. Instead, they functioned as expressions of the length of time the tongue tarried before continuing to sound out a phrase: You must obserue also, that which we doe call * points or stayes in writing, DV WKLV PDUNH   OLNH WR D VPDOO KDOIH 0RRQ QRWHWK D VPDOO VWD\ WZR SULFNHV WKXV PDNHVDORQJHUVWD\DQGRQHSULFNHWKXV LVSXWIRUDIXOOVWD\DVLIZH KDGHQGHG:KHQDTXHVWLRQLVDVNHGZHPDUNHLWWKXV" :KHQVRPHZRUGV PD\EHOHIWRXWDQG\HWWKHVHQWHQFHSHUIHFWLWLVQRWHGWKXV DVWHDFKPH,SUD\ \RX WRUHDGH%XWIRUWKHWUXHIUDPLQJRI\RXUYRLFHLQDOOWKHVH\RXPXVWFUDXH WKHKHOSHRI\RXU0DVWHU

56

Anonymity in Early Modern England

DQGWKH%HLQHFNH/LEUDU\DW
“Jacke on Both Sides”

57

well beyond the “textual carpentry” that Adam Smyth suggests was operating as writers recycled satire—this verse among them—in the mid-seventeenth century   7KHVH YHUVLRQV LQGLFDWH WKDW ZULWHUV ZHUH QRW VLPSO\ UHPRGHOLQJ WKH WH[W they were building entirely new structures of meaning. 7RXQGHUVWDQGIXOO\KRZWKLVSRHPZRUNVWKHQWKHUHDGHUPXVWDWWHPSWWRSXW him/herself in the place of those early modern readers who appropriated it for their RZQXVHV2IFRXUVHWKLVLVDQHDUO\LPSRVVLEOHWDVNJLYHQWKHOLPLWHGLQIRUPDWLRQ D PRGHUQ UHDGHU KDV DERXW VSHFL¿F WUDQVFULSWLRQV 7KH GDWLQJ RI LQGLYLGXDO PDQXVFULSWVLVRIWHQGLI¿FXOWSDUWLFXODUO\LIQRQDPHVRIDQ\NLQGJLYHFOXHVWR its origin. Moreover, many of the copies of this verse are part of collections that include the handwriting of more than one compiler, so even if a range of dates and a name are available for a particular manuscript, we can have only limited FRQ¿GHQFH DERXW WKH RQH KDQG WKDW LQVFULEHG WKH YHUVH )LQDOO\ LQ PDQ\ FDVHV the copies of this poem occur on pages in collections that were assembled by later FROOHFWRUV RU ERRNVHOOHUV DQG LQ DW OHDVW RQH FDVH WKH FRS\ RFFXUV RQ D VLQJOH sheet, completely separated from everything but the family name attached to a large number of manuscripts in a collection. In the pages that follow, I will transcribe a few of the most interesting copies of the poem and offer some tentative conclusions about the appropriation of each, based on the variant form of the verse, its context, and the material form of the larger text into which it is gathered. The conclusions I draw about the way the SRHPZRUNVLQLWVFRQWH[WXVXDOO\GRnotGHSHQGRQNQRZOHGJHRIWKH³DXWKRU¶V name.” The consequence of such an approach is that the possibilities for meaning VLJQL¿FDQWO\ LQFUHDVH UHLQIRUFLQJ GUDPDWLFDOO\ WKH QRZ FRPPRQSODFH EHOLHI that “meaning” resides in the reader, not the text. Moreover, I would suggest that although such an indeterminate state is frustrating, it replicates the very situation in which many of the early modern compilers found themselves as they copied the poem. Clearly, many—perhaps most—of the transcribers would not KDYHNQRZQZKRZURWH³-DFNH´RUZKHQDQGZKHUHLW¿UVWDSSHDUHG%\WDNLQJ this approach, I am aware that I whet the reader’s appetite and then frustrate a VDWLVI\LQJFRQFOXVLRQ$QG,DPNHHQO\DZDUHWKDWLQVRPHRIWKHVHFDVHVDPXFK more thorough discussion of the possible historical context could and would be GHVLUDEOHEXWJLYHQWKHOLPLWDWLRQVRQVSDFHIRUWKLVHVVD\WKDWZRUNPXVWEHOHIW to a future paper. My goals for this piece are modest: to introduce readers to a fascinating text and to suggest that the record of its transcription history should HQFRXUDJHXVWRUHFRQVLGHUWKHZD\ZHWDONDERXWWHDFKDQGLQWHUSUHWDQRQ\PRXV texts in the early modern period. At essay’s end, I have provided an appendix with additional copies of the poem with minimal descriptions of each. I have put RPLWWHGOHWWHUVLQVLGHEUDFNHWVZKHUHDPDFURQDSSHDUHGLQWKHWH[WKDYHLQGLFDWHG superscript by changing the font, and where it has been technologically feasible, ,KDYHLQFOXGHGVRPHEXWQRWDOORIWKHQRQDOSKDEHWLFPDUNVWKDW,VDZZKHQ, ¿UVWFDPHWRHDFKFRS\,QWKLVZD\,KRSHWRJLYHUHDGHUVWKHRSSRUWXQLW\WRPHHW ³-DFNH´LQDIRUPWKDWLVFORVHUWRWKHRULJLQDOFRPSLOHU¶VH[SHULHQFHWKDQLI,KDG altered the text to suit modern readerly expectations.

58

Anonymity in Early Modern England

, ¿UVW GLVFRYHUHG WKLV SRHP ZKLOH H[DPLQLQJ )ROJHU PDQXVFULSW 9D  DTXDUWRVL]HGFROOHFWLRQRIPLVFHOODQHRXVPDWHULDOVFD± ZKLFKKDG EHHQGLYLGHGLQWRIRXUVHFWLRQVWKDWFDPHWRJHWKHUSUREDEO\IRUWKH¿UVWWLPHZKHQ a new leather binding gathered and gilded the leaves in 1809.16 Each section has an introductory page that is empty but for an elaborately penned numeral: No.1, 2, 3, or 4. The equivocal poem appears on fol. 14 in the third section, and it stands out from the surrounding material because it is written in an italic hand that retains vestiges of the formation of some characters used in secretary hand. It is written ZLWKLQNWKDWKDVUHPDLQHGEODFNLQFRQWUDVWWRWKHUHVWRIWKHPDQXVFULSWZKLFK is inscribed by an accomplished—perhaps professional—secretary hand, written LQEURZQLQN7KHHYLGHQFHRIWKHGLIIHULQJKDQGVDQGLQNFRORUVVXJJHVWVWKDWWKH YHUVHZDVDGGHGWRWKHERRNDWDODWHUGDWHWKDQWKHVXUURXQGLQJPDWHULDOVDQG SHUKDSVGHFDGHVODWHUWKDQWKHHQGSRLQWVXJJHVWHGE\WKHOLEUDU\¶VUHFRUG  7KHSDSHUZDWHUPDUNVDQGJDWKHULQJRIWKHOHDYHVLQWKHWKLUGVHFWLRQKRZHYHU PDNHLWVLQWHJULW\DVDXQLWSUREDEOH17 The text appears on the bottom half of the page, and the slight crease in the FHQWHURIWKDWORZHUVSDFHLVDUHDGHU¶V¿UVWFOXHWKDWWKHYHUVHFDQEHUHDGYHUWLFDOO\ UDWKHUWKDQKRUL]RQWDOO\$¿UVWUHDGLQJZLOOWDNHWKHH\HDFURVVWKHORQJKRUL]RQWDO line, but a very slight gap in the middle of each line—and a beginning capital OHWWHU²XUJHDVHFRQGUHDGLQJDVWZRYHUWLFDOFROXPQV7KHGLIIHUHQFHLQLQNFRORU the easy-to-read italic hand, and catch words at the bottom of some pages (echoing SULQW SUDFWLFHV  VXJJHVW WKDW WKLV YHUVLRQ PD\ KDYH EHHQ FRSLHG IURP D SULQWHG volume. The print published versions of the poem, however, employ widely VSDFHGGRXEOHFROXPQVWKDWHPSKDVL]HUDWKHUWKDQKLGHWKHSRHP¶VWULFN2IWKH versions that I have examined, only this and one other copy use spacing to attempt a sort of visual subterfuge. 7KHFDSLWDOL]DWLRQPDNHVLWDSSDUHQWWKDWWKHFRPSLOHU ZDVQRWVHULRXVO\DWWHPSWLQJWRFRQFHDOKLVWUXHUHOLJLRXVDI¿OLDWLRQ1HYHUWKHOHVV he/she clearly wanted any other reader coming to the text to delay discovery, at OHDVWEULHÀ\RIWKHHTXLYRFDWLRQ ,QWHUHVWLQJO\ WKH VLOHQW UHDGHU ZKR WDNHV LQ WKH GXSOLFLWRXV SRWHQWLDO RI WKH poem will simultaneously practice two forms of casuistry: equivocation and mental reservation, the approved legal dodges for Jesuits charged with heresy. 16 This volume, when rebound, gathered together material that, at least in terms of sections No. 1 and 2, was probably notRULJLQDOO\IRXQGWRJHWKHULQWKHVDPHERRN1R contains only one piece, No. 2 has multiple texts, but the transcriptions are in multiple hands. Each “old” page is interleaved between two newer pages, no doubt designed to protect WKHPZKHQUHERXQG7KHQHZHUSDJHVKDYHEHHQHGJHGZLWKJROGJLOWWKHROGHUSDJHVDUH VPDOOHULQVL]HDQGUHWDLQWKHLURULJLQDOHGJLQJ$VVXFKWKLVPDQXVFULSWLVWHFKQLFDOO\ZKDW Steven May and others would term a “composite manuscript.” However, it is so neatly and PHWLFXORXVO\ DVVHPEOHG WKDW D ¿UVW FXUVRU\ H[DPLQDWLRQ PDNHV LW ORRN DV WKRXJK LW KDV DOZD\VMRLQHGWRJHWKHUWKHVHIRXUXQLWV6HHWUDQVFULSWLRQRQSDJH 17 I am grateful to Henry Woudhuysen for his examination of the manuscript. He agrees with my conclusion that the leaves in this section form an integrated unit and have always been together.

“Jacke on Both Sides”

59

That same silent reader, if he18 is experiencing the text as copied in Folger V.a. 198, LVDGGLWLRQDOO\DIIRUGHGWKHRSSRUWXQLW\IRUDFRPSOLFDWHGNLQHVWKHWLFH[SHULHQFH $V KLV ¿QJHU WUDFHV WKH DOWHUQDWLYH URXWHV WR PHDQLQJ²¿UVW IROORZLQJ WKH ORQJ KRUL]RQWDOOLQHVWKHQWUDFLQJWKHSDWKRIWKHWZRFROXPQV²KHZLOOPDNHWKHVLJQ of the cross.197KLVUHDGHUSK\VLFDOO\DQGPHQWDOO\HQDFWVWKHQUHMHFWVRQHIDLWKIRU WKHRWKHU7KLVVHOIHQDFWPHQWPLJKWEHLQWHUSUHWHGDVHLWKHUF\QLFLVPRUGH¿DQFH20 Alternatively, the reader experiences the paradoxical “equivocal” nature of the cross—a eucatastrophe—which is simultaneously disaster and blessing. Although WKHSRHP¶VWULFNLVYLVXDOO\WULJJHUHGWKHUHDGHUZKRSHUIRUPVWKHSRHPRUDOO\² DVDPRFN³RDWK´IRULQVWDQFH²KDVWKHRSSRUWXQLW\WRFKRRVHDVLGHRUQRWDVKLV fancy, or his audience, dictates. The miscellany’s remaining texts suggest a preoccupation with self-control, either spiritual or sexual. The verse in the near vicinity is written in the same hand, but that writing differs from the compiler who added the equivocal poem. The piece that appears above it on the same page is titled “Sonnet.” This fourteen line SRHPWDNHVVHOIGLVFLSOLQHDVLWPDMRUVXEMHFWEHJLQQLQJZLWKWKHOLQH³:LWKGUDZ thie mynde from deep devise of yll / Suppresse Thy lust, wthin the boundes of VNLOO´DQGLWHQGVZLWKDSURPLVHWKDWLIWKHUHDGHUEHKDYHVWKHQ³0RUHKDSSLO\ This life then shall Thou end / Most happie life That God To The may send.” Later PDWHULDO LQ WKH PLVFHOODQ\ DUFKLYHV 3URWHVWDQW EHOLHIV DQG FUHHGV EXW WKH ¿QDO section of this manuscript, No. 4, is composed entirely of A Fourfold Meditation, D ZRUN DWWULEXWHG WR WKH -HVXLW 5REHUW 6RXWKZHOO21 If all of the sections were,

18 The astute reader will have noticed by now that I have adopted the masculine pronoun ZKHQWDONLQJDERXWPDQXVFULSWYHUVH,GRVRGHOLEHUDWHO\WRVLJQDOP\EHOLHIWKDWPRVWRIWKH compilers whose manuscripts I have studied were gendered male. The transcription of the poem in italic hand, even though it was the hand prescribed for women, is no guarantee of IHPDOHFRPSRVLWLRQDQGWKHPDMRULW\RIWKHFRSLHV,KDYHIRXQGWRGDWHVHHPWRKDYHEHHQ produced by compilers with connections to Oxford and Cambridge Universities. 19 ,RZHWKDQNVWR0LFKDHO+DUUDZRRG)ORULGD$WODQWLF8QLYHUVLW\IRUWKLVLQVLJKW 20 See David Martin Jones, Conscience and Allegiance in Seventeenth-Century England: 7KH3ROLWLFDO6LJQL¿FDQFHRI2DWKVDQG(QJDJHPHQWV5RFKHVWHU8RI5RFKHVWHU3  ,QFKDSWHUWZR-RQHVH[SODLQVKRZWKHRI¿FLDO3URWHVWDQWUHDFWLRQWR-HVXLWHTXLYRFDWLRQ PHQWDOUHVHUYDWLRQDQGDPSKLERORJ\ZDVKDQGOHG³7KHFDVXLVWLFDOVW\OHDGRSWHGLQRI¿FLDO English government discourse and Protestant case divinity, therefore, sought to remove conscience from the claims of religious extremists and expose the egregious consequences RI-HVXLWHWKLFV,WDOVRVWURYHWRLPSUHVVXSRQVXEMHFWVWKHFRUUHFWLQJUROHRIFRQVFLHQFHDQG WKHLPSRUWDQFHRIWKHRDWK¶VERQGXSRQLW7KHRI¿FLDOFDVXLVWU\WKDWHYROYHGLQUHVSRQVHWR Jesuit and radical Puritan criticism established clear guidelines for assessing the bond of an RDWK6LJQL¿FDQWO\LWSURSRVHGDUHJLPHRIVHOIHQDFWPHQWDQGVHOIGLVFORVXUHLQUHODWLRQWR WKHRDWKZLGHO\GLVVHPLQDWHGWKURXJKGHYRWLRQDOOLWHUDWXUHVHOIKHOSPDQXDOVDQGRI¿FLDO KRPLOLHVUHJXODUO\SUHDFKHGLQFKXUFKSXOSLWV´  21 7KLVVHFWLRQLVUXOHGZLWKLQNPDUNLQJRIIWKHWRSULJKWHGJHDQGERWWRPPDUJLQV ,WORRNVSURIHVVLRQDOO\GRQHDQGEHFDXVHWKHLGLRV\QFUDWLF³J´LVOLNHWKRVHIRXQGLQ1R I am inclined to believe it was copied by the same scribe.

60

Anonymity in Early Modern England

indeed, originally bound together in one volume, the compiler himself manifests the equivocation that he inscribes. V.a. 232 I hold as faith ________________________What th, English church allowes, What Romes church saith ______________ My conscience Disavows :KHUH\H.LVKHDGBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 7KHÀRFNHFDQKDYHQREODPH 7KHÀRFNHVPLVOHGBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB7KDWKROG\H3RSHVXSUHPH Where, the table,s drest ________________ Theire service is scarce divine The people,s best _____________________ Whose table,s bread and wine +HH¶VEXWDQ$VVHBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB :KR\H&RPXQLRQÀ\V :KRVKXQV\H0DVVHBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB,V&DWKROLFNHDQGZLVH That Romes church sway ______________ That never bee my request Therefore I pray. _____________________ That ye English church bee blest. My wishes greet ____________________ The navy of ye Dut ^c h 7KH(QJOLVKÀHHWBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB ,DOOJRRGIRUWXQHJUXWFK 0D\QRVWRUPWRVVHBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 9DQ7UXPS KLVVHDKRUVHV The Harp and Crosse ______________ Shall have my dayly curses Smile gentle fate _________________ Upon ye Dutch Admiral Upon ye state ____________________ Let ye plagues of Egipt fall Attend all health __________________ The Cavilee ^r ing part The com[m]onwealth ______________ I hate, w[i]th all my heart I value not a fart.

This copy of the poem appears in Folger manuscript V.a. 232, a miscellany constructed over time, and produced later than V.a. 198. The spine is imprinted with WKHWLWOH³06RI06´7KH¿UVWHQWULHVDUHGDWHGLQDQGWKHDPDWHXUKDQGLV primarily italic with vestiges of secretary hand apparent in the formation of many RIWKHFKDUDFWHUV7KHVSHOOLQJWKURXJKRXWLVPRUHVWDQGDUGL]HGDQGOHVVGHSHQGHQW RQ D SKRQHWLFUHDGLQJIRU FRPSUHKHQVLRQ7KLV ERRN DOVR DSSHDUVWR KDYHEHHQ rebound, but the pages are of lesser quality paper, and although the handwriting LVHYHQO\VSDFHGDQGOHYHOOHGRQWKHSDJH²DPDUNRIIRUPDOLW\²WKHERRNLWVHOI KDVWKHZRUQORRNRIDWH[WPXFKFRQVXOWHGE\LWVRZQHU7KHFUDEEHGKDQGZULWLQJ LV VPDOO DQG ZULWLQJ LV SDFNHG LQWR HYHU\ DYDLODEOH ZKLWH VSDFH RQ HDFK SDJH 8QOLNH9DWKHSRHWU\WUDQVFULEHGZLWKLQLVDUHODWLYHO\XQFXOWLYDWHGPL[WXUH RIFRPLFDQGVHULRXVSLHFHV0RUHRYHUWKLVLVDQ³LQYHUWHGPLVFHOODQ\´22 the last RUVRSDJHVLQWKHEDFNRIWKHERRNDUHERXQGXSVLGHGRZQLQUHODWLRQWRWKH ¿UVWSDUW7KH¿UVWHQWULHVLQWKLV¿QDOVHFWLRQFRQWDLQDVHULHVRIMHVWV each with its own number, while the pages at the very end comprise a sort of dictionary with DFDUHIXOO\DUUDQJHG³FDWDORJXHRIZRUGVPRVWXVXDODQGDOPRVWVLJQL¿FDQWRQO\ LQ /DQFDVKLUH E\ \H 1RUWK RI (QJODQG´7KH OLEUDU\¶V FDWDORJXH HQWU\ LGHQWL¿HV WKLVPDQXVFULSWDVWKH³0LVFHOODQ\RI+HQU\1HZFRPHEHJXQ6HSWHPEHU´

22 , DGRSW 0DUJDUHW (]HOO¶V WHUPLQRORJ\ KHUH IRU PLVFHOODQLHV WKDW LQFOXGH SDJHV oriented oppositely from each other at either end of the volume.

“Jacke on Both Sides”

61

according to the DNB, WKLV+HQU\WKHHOGHVWVRQRI+HQU\DQG(OL]DEHWK1HZFRPH became a Church of England clergyman. One startling feature of this copy of the poem sets it apart from all the others I KDYHH[DPLQHG,WFRQWDLQVDQDGGLWLRQDOHLJKWOLQHVRU³VWDQ]D´LI\RXZLOOWKDWWUHDWV DYHU\GLIIHUHQWVXEMHFW0RUHRYHUWKHWDEOHRIFRQWHQWVLGHQWL¿HVWKHSRHPQRWE\ LWVFRQQHFWLRQVWRIDLWKEXWPRUHVSHFL¿FDOO\IRULWVSROLWLFDOUHVRQDQFHV³9HUVHV on ye'XWFKHWF´7KHDGGHGVHFWLRQXWLOL]HVWKHVDPHHTXLYRFDOYLVXDOGHYLFHEXW LW IRFXVHV LQVWHDG RQ WKH )LUVW$QJOR'XWFK ZDU ±  HTXLYRFDWLQJ RQ DOOHJLDQFHQRWWRDFKXUFK&KXUFKRI(QJODQGYV5RPDQ&DWKROLF EXWUDWKHUWR SROLWLFDOIRUFHV&RPPRQZHDOWKYV5R\DOLVW 7KHFRUHRILWVMHVWLVFRPPHQWDU\ RQDZDUIRXJKWWRSURWHFW(QJOLVKWUDGHVSHFL¿FDOO\LWVVKLSSLQJLQWHUHVWV7KH (QJOLVKKRSHGWKH1DYLJDWLRQ$FWRIZRXOGUHYHUVH³WKHSRVWLQÀX[ of Southern European commodities into England, from Holland,” as this trade imbalance heavily favored Dutch commercial interests to the detriment of many RWKHUVLQ(XURSHDVZHOODVLQ(QJODQG,VUDHO³$QJOR'XWFK7UDGH5LYDOU\´±  Israel argues that although the Navigation Act did indeed deliver “a heavy blow to the Dutch entrepôt … what made [war] inevitable in the early 1650’s was the increasingly aggressive attitude of the English towards Dutch shipping on the KLJKVHDV´ ,WLVSHUKDSVWKDWDWWLWXGHWKDWLVVDWLUL]HGLQWKHSRHP7KHQDPH ³9DQ7UXP´ PRVW OLNHO\ UHIHUV WR WKH IDPRXV 'XWFK QDYDO FRPPDQGHU 0DDUWHQ van Tromp whose tactical brilliance had plagued the English navy, but who was NLOOHGLQGXULQJRQHRIWKHODVWQDYDOEDWWOHVRIWKHZDU,VUDHO 7KH³+DUS DQG&URVVH´KDYHWZRSRWHQWLDOUHIHUHQWV7KH¿UVWPRVWORJLFDODOOXVLRQLVWRÀDJV ÀRZQE\(QJOLVKQDYDOZDUVKLSVZKLFKIURP0DUFKWR0D\LQFOXGHG WKHLPDJHVRIDKDUSDQGDFURVV6PLWK 7KHVHFRQGSRWHQWLDOUHIHUHQFHOHVV OLNHO\LVWRDQREVROHWHFRLQDJHEXWVWLOOFLUFXODWLQJLQ FROORTXLDOO\QDPHG “harp and crosse money,” which Samuel Pepys mentions in a diary entry for 0D\3HS\V  7KH¿QDOKDOIOLQHVWDQGVRXWYLVXDOO\DQGVHHPVD¿WWLQJFRQFOXVLRQWRDUHDGLQJ H[SHULHQFH WKDW EHZLOGHUV LQ LWV FRPSOH[LW\ 7KH PRVW SUREDEOH ¿UVW HQFRXQWHU ZLWKWKLVWH[WLVDUHDGLQJWKDWVFDQV¿UVWRQHVWDQ]DERWKZD\VDQGWKHQPRYHV RQWRWKHVHFRQG,QGRLQJVRDNQRZOHGJHDEOHUHDGHUPRYHVWKURXJKDQGPXVW consider, some of the most powerful social forces in the seventeenth century. 7KH¿UVWSDUWDVNVRQHWRIRFXVRQUHOLJLRXVSUDFWLFHVWKDWLQIRUPHGFRQWURYHUVLDO debates during the reigns of James I and his successor, Charles I. The second section invites commentary on the political leadership during the Interregnum. 7DNHQWRJHWKHUDUHDGHUVHHLQJERWK³VWDQ]DV´LVLQYLWHGWRFRQWHPSODWH²DVVR many historians have done since—the complex causes and consequences of the (QJOLVK&LYLO:DU6XFKDIRFXVSRWHQWLDOO\VWUHWFKHVEDFNWRWKHHDUOLHVWGD\VRI ³RI¿FLDO´ 3URWHVWDQWLVP LQ WKH UHLJQ RI (OL]DEHWK , WKHQ IRUZDUG WR WKH YHUVH¶V potential moment of inscription soon after the manuscript was begun in 1669, but several years after the death of Von Trump, the Commonwealth itself, and the restoration of the monarchy.

62

Anonymity in Early Modern England

However, the innocent or ignorant reader choosing to scan both left hand VWDQ]DVRIWKHSRHPUHDGLQJLQRQHORQJOLQHVHVVLRQZRXOGFKRRVHWREHOLHYH LQ ERWK WKH 5RPDQ &KXUFK DQG WKH (QJOLVK ÀHHW²FRPPDQGHG E\ D 3URWHVWDQW Protector—and would conclude by scorning the Anglican communion service and FXUVLQJERWKWKH'XWFKDGPLUDODQG³&DYLOHHUV´7KHSDUDGR[LFDOMX[WDSRVLWLRQV resonating from such a reading might very well convince a compiler that the value of any allegiance is worth “not a fart.” In this manuscript, the poem is situated among texts that are both playful and UHÀHFWLYH ,Q WKH WZR SDJHV SUHFHGLQJ LW WKH UHDGHU HQFRXQWHUV WZR KXPRURXV HSLWDSKV ³8SRQ \H GHDWK RI -RKQ D &UDJ´   DQG ³2Q D :HDYHU´   DQG PLVRJ\QLVWYHUVHV³:RPHQZHUHPDGHWRKHOSPHQVRWKH\GRH´ %XWWKHVH DUH IROORZHG E\ DQ HSLJUDP FRPSRVHG E\ WKH 3XULWDQ 7KRPDV *DWDNHU WLWOHG ³5HOLTXLD*DWDNHUL´³,WKLUVWIRUWKLUVWLQHVV,ZHHSIRUWHDUHV´DYHUVHDWWLEXWHG DOWHUQDWLYHO\ WR +HQU\ 1RHO DQG:LOOLDP 6WURGH ³*D]H QRW RQ VZDQV LQ ZKRVH VRIW EUHDVW´   DQG D GULQNLQJ SRHP ODWHU WLWOHG ³$QDFUHRQWLFV´ E\$EUDKDP &RZOH\ZKRVH¿UVWOLQHUHDGV³7KHWKLUVW\HDUWKGULQNVXSWKHUDLQH´+RZHYHU none of these entries are so titled or attributed in the manuscript itself, nor are the selections arranged by genre. I provide the authors’ names here to demonstrate the wide variety of texts included, and the compiler’s complete disregard for what we would consider “canonical” value or a quest for excellence based solely on an author’s reputation. 7KRVH PRGHUQ WLWOHV KHOS XV GHPRQVWUDWH KRZ WKLV FRPSLOHU FRQWH[WXDOL]HG ³-DFNH´&RQVLGHUHGDVDZKROHWKHSDUWLFXODUFKRLFHVVXJJHVWWKDWKHZDVLQWHUHVWHG LQODQJXDJHDQGZRUGSOD\:KLOHKHVHHPVWRKDYHXVHGWKHERRNWRFROOHFWZLWW\ YHUVHVRIZKLFK³-DFNHRQ%RWK6LGHV´LVRQO\RQHH[DPSOHWKHVXEMHFWPDWWHURI the collected items grows more serious until, at the end, the compiler has inscribed verse and aphorisms appropriate for an examination of the state of one’s immortal soul. There are 12 entries devoted to an analysis of faith and doctrine, including the true nature of the Eucharist, the differences between Protestant and Catholic theology, and the nature of equivocation itself: 7KH3ULVFLOOLDQ+HUHWLFNHVLQDOOWKHLUH Examinacions before the Rulers in yt tyme '\GVHHNHWRGLVVHPEOHWKHLUHKHUHVLHE\XVLQJH $QVZHUVRI(TXLYRFDWLRQ WKH3DSLVWHVQRZ Mayteyene yt lawfull to deny all truths under A mentall reservacion and wrestinge the words 2I6W3DXOZKRUHTX\UHWKHQ\PDQWRVSHDNH The truth to his neighbore, inferred, as yf 7KH\PLJKWVSHDNIDOVO\HWRDOORWKHUV St. Augustine refuted yt irreligious principle wth this sentence &RUGHFUHGXUX[DG-XVWLWLDPR[H¿WFRQIHVVLRDG6DOXWHP 2WKHUZLVHVDLWKKH 3HWHUZKRSURIHVVHG&KULVW In harte and denyed hym wordes would never Have redeemed his denyall with so many teares.

“Jacke on Both Sides”

63

This thematic narrowing occurs toward the end of the manuscript, and two GLIIHUHQW KDQGV ¿OO WKH ¿QDO SDJHV RI WKH ERRN ,W PD\ EH WKHQ WKDW ZH DUH witnesses to a dialogue on “Truth” between two readers and/or the mind of one FRPSLOHUPDNLQJPHDQLQJIRUKLPVHOIE\VRUWLQJWKURXJKDQGPDNLQJVHQVHRI FRPPRQSODFHV DV KH KDV FROOHFWHG WKHP +H WDNHV ERWK VLGHV RI WKH TXHVWLRQV under study and, in a sense, is himself “equivocating” as he momentarily holds both sides of an argument—at least on the page. Reading thematically, from IURQWWREDFNLVOLNHIROORZLQJWKHSURJUHVVLRQRID\RXQJPDQ¶VPDWXULQJLQWR DGXOWKRRGDQGWKHQROGDJH¿UVWIRFXVLQJRQVFKRROH[HUFLVHVDQGWKHQHHGVRI WKHÀHVKEXWFRQFOXGLQJZLWKDNHHQLQWHUHVWLQDQVZHUVWROLIH¶VELJTXHVWLRQV What must I believe? To what faith should I profess allegiance? What will happen to my soul after I die? There are other less visually and topically dramatic, but nevertheless interesting copies of the poem worth mention. The British Library archives manuscripts that FRQWDLQDWOHDVWHLJKWFRSLHVRIWKLVSRHP2QHYHUVLRQ%/06$GG 23 is written in a beautiful italic script, probably done by a professional scribe, but 23

The British Library catalogue gives this description of this section of the manuscript holdings: Gonson and Browne 78168–78271. Evelyn Papers. Vols. i–civ. Papers which DFFUXHGWRWKH(YHO\QDUFKLYHDVWKHIDPLO\SDSHUVRI0DU\ZLIHRI-RKQ(YHO\Q±  DQGRQO\VXUYLYLQJFKLOGRI6LU5LFKDUG%URZQH%DUW± 7KH\FRQVLVWRISDSHUV ± ZKLFKGHVFHQGHGWR%URZQHWKURXJKKLVPRWKHU7KRPDVLQHG IURP KHUIDWKHU%HQMDPLQ*RQVRQWKHHOGHUG DQGJUDQGIDWKHU:LOOLDP*RQVRQG  ERWKRIZKRPKDGEHHQLQWXUQ7UHDVXUHUVRIWKH1DY\IXUWKHUSDSHUV± RI %URZQH¶VSDWHUQDOJUDQGIDWKHU6LU5LFKDUG%URZQHG 03RI+RUVOH\FR(VVH[ DQGODWHURI6D\HV&RXUW'HSWIRUGUHÀHFWLQJKLVVHUYLFHLQWKHKRXVHKROGRI5REHUW'XGOH\ (DUORI/HLFHVWHU± DQGODWHULQWKDWRI(OL]DEHWK,± SDSHUVRI KLVIDWKHU&KULVWRSKHU%URZQHG ± DQGSDSHUVRI6LU5LFKDUG%URZQH %DUW± )RUDSHGLJUHHRIWKH*RQVRQDQG%URZQHIDPLOLHVVHH7KH 9LVLWDWLRQRI(VVH[HG:&0HWFDOIH+DUOHLDQ6RFLHW\YRO;,,,,,SS± and family notes of Sir Richard Browne among the Pepys papers in the Bodleian Library, MS Rawl. A 183 and 308, and Add. MS 15857, f. 153. The central part of the collection ± FRQVLVWVRIGLSORPDWLFFRUUHVSRQGHQFHDQGSDSHUVRI%URZQHUHODWLQJWRKLV GXWLHVDVUHVLGHQWWR&KDUOHV,DQG,,LQ)UDQFH±DQG± DVFOHUN RI WKH 3ULY\ &RXQFLO DIWHU WKH 5HVWRUDWLRQ %\ YLUWXH RI KLV FOHUNVKLS %URZQH FDPH LQWR SRVVHVVLRQDWWKH5HVWRUDWLRQRIDVHULHVRILQIRUPDWLRQVDQGSHWLWLRQVHWF±  that had been submitted to the Council of State between 1649 and 1652. Also included ±  DUH SHUVRQDO DQG IDPLO\ FRUUHVSRQGHQFH KRXVHKROG DFFRXQWV HDUO\ academic exercises and manuscripts owned by or presented to Browne. A extra dimension LVDGGHGE\WKHVXUYLYDORISDSHUVUHODWLQJWR&KDUOHV,,LQFOXGLQJDPLQXWHERRN  NHSWE\6LU5LFKDUG)DQVKDZHDVVHFUHWDU\WR3ULQFH&KDUOHV¶VFRXQFLORIZDUDW%ULVWROLQ DQGRI¿FLDOSDSHUV RI6LU5REHUW/RQJSULYDWHVHFUHWDU\WR&KDUOHVLQ 3DULVLQDQG7KHVHDUHFRPSOHPHQWHGE\DVHULHVRISDSHUV± RI Charles’s secretary of state, Sir Edward Nicholas, that were acquired by Evelyn’s grandson, Sir John Evelyn, 1st Bart., in the mid-eighteenth century from the archive that was formerly in the possession of Nicholas’s descendants at West Horsley, co. Surrey.

64

Anonymity in Early Modern England

the poem has been translated into French. This text appears as the only item on DIROLRVL]HGSLHFHRISDSHUZKLFKKDVEHHQIROGHGWZLFH1RZULWLQJDSSHDUV DQ\ZKHUH HOVH RQ WKH SDJH RU WKH EDFN RI WKH VKHHW DQG WKLV OHDI LV RQH RI many stored together in three folders. These are unbound miscellaneous leaves collected by one family, and the individual leaves are probably unrelated to HDFKRWKHU7KHSLHFHVRISDSHUDUHRIGLIIHUHQWVL]HVDQGGLIIHUHQWTXDOLW\DQG a penciled description on the front of the folder, which holds three separate FKXQNV RI SDSHUV VD\V ³9HUVH  HSLWDSKV HWF LQ /DWLQ )UHQFK 6SDQLVK DQG Italian.” The fact that it is included with other examples of non-English verse suggests that the collector was fascinated not only by language but also about the SRVVLELOLWLHVIRUPDNLQJPHDQLQJRSHQHGXSE\WUDQVODWLRQ BL MS Add. 78234 Je tien pour chose tres certaine La foy qu’Angleterre produit, Ce que dit L’Eglise Romaine, A la fausseté se reduit 2XOH&KHI5R\DOQRXV,QVWUXLW  /D5HOLJLRQMDPDLVQ¶HUUH /HSHRSOHWLUFXQPDXYDLVIUXLW  4XLFURLWYQ3DSHVXUODWHUUH Ou l’autel d’Image on decore Le seruice n’est pas divin Le monde est bien heureux encore, Ou l’on prend le pain et le vin 9QDVQH/¶RQSHXWDSSHOHU  4XLODFHQHDLQVLQHYHXWSUHQGUH 4XLQHYHXWDOD0HVVHDOOHU  &DWKROLTXHHVWVDQVSOXVDSSUHQGUH

In his 1969 essay, “‘Coplas contradictorias’: The Perils of Double-Edged Verses,” Edward M. Wilson notes that equivocal verse of this type was composed in Spanish during the sixteenth century: The strong caesura of arte mayor led easily to their fragmentation. The richness of rhymes in Spanish made it easy for anyone who cared to do so to introduce LQWHUQDOUK\PHVLQVWDQ]DVLQWKLVPHWHU,QJHQLRXVYHUVL¿HUVWKHQIRXQGWKDWWKH\ FRXOGZULWHWZRSRHPVLQRQH$ORQJOLQHFRPSRVHGRQHSRHPDQRWKHUZDV FRQFHLYDEOHLQWZRFROXPQVDVLWZHUHRIVL[V\OODEOHOLQHV

This French version of the poem differs in one critical way from the Spanish H[DPSOHV:LOVRQUHFRUGVWKH6SDQLVKSRHPVKLGHWKHLUHTXLYRFDWLRQ:KLOHWKLV )UHQFK ³-DFNH´ OLNH KLV (QJOLVK FRXQWHUSDUWV PDNHV WKH DFW RI HTXLYRFDWLRQ REYLRXV E\ VHSDUDWLQJ WKH WZR FROXPQV DQG E\ FDSLWDOL]LQJ WKH ¿UVW ZRUG LQ WKHPLGGOHRIHDFKKRUL]RQWDOOLQHWKH6SDQLVKYHUVHGRHVQRW7KHUHZDVJRRG reason for this subterfuge. Wilson explains that “two young men suffered excessive penalties for merely copying out these verses,” which alternately SUDLVHG DQG GDPQHG 0DUWLQ /XWKHU ± $OWKRXJK (QJOLVK WUDQVFULEHUV GR not seem to have worried that the same fate would befall them, it is clear that LQ VRPH QHLJKERUKRRGV SOD\LQJ ZLWK RQH¶V UHOLJLRXV DOOHJLDQFH ZDV QR MRNH A second example of a translation of the poem into another language appears in MS Add. 52494.

“Jacke on Both Sides”

65

fol. 20, v. The Jesuits double-faced Creed 3UR¿GHWHQXVDQD²²²²²² 4XDHGRFHW$QJOLFDQD $I¿UPDWTXDH5RPDQD²²²² 9LGHQWXVPLWULVDQD Supremus quanda Rex est ——— Tum Plebs est fortunata (UUDWLFXVVXPJUH[HVW²²²² &XP¿DWFDSXW3DSD Altare quum ornatur ————— Communia sit inanis 3RSXOLDVXPEHDWXV²²²²² &XPPHQVD¿QH3DQLV Asine nomen meruit ————— Huni morem qui non rapit Missam qui disservit ————— Catholicus est et sapit. fol. 21 Translated I hold for Faith ——————— What England’s Church allows What Rome’s Church saith —— My Conscience disavows :KHQWKH.LQJLV+HDG²²²²7KH)ORFNFDQWDNHQRVKDPH 7KH)ORFN¶VPLVOHDG²²²²² :KRKROGWKH3RSHVXSUHPH Where the Altar’s dress’d ——— The Worship’s scarce divine 7KH3HRSOHVEOHVV¶G²²²²² :KRVH7DEOH¶V%UHDG :LQH He’s but an Ass ——————— Who Their Communion        ÀLHV Who shuns the Mass ————— Is Catholic and wise —— In a Letter from R. C. Dec. 10. 89

This copy appears toward the end of a very late manuscript, titled “Miscellanea” RQWKH¿UVWSDJHDQGGDWHG$XJ7KHERRNLVYHU\VOLPDQGDOWKRXJKWKH British Library’s catalogue ascribes its contents to “various hands,” the writer who LQVHUWVWKHHTXLYRFDOSRHPVHHPVWRKDYHFRSLHGWKHYDVWPDMRULW\RIWKHHQWULHV24 7KH¿QDOHQWU\RQIROLVGDWHG$SULO7KHPDWHULDOZLWKLQLVFRPSULVHG of seemingly unrelated entries, including epitaphs, humorous verse, a hymn, and an anecdote copied out of Gospel Magazine about a woman who attended plays and was chastised by a Mr. James Hervey. Many of the entries are dated, and quite a few are attributed to an author, particularly William Cowper. 24

2QFHDJDLQOLWWOHFDQEHNQRZQIRUVXUHDERXWWKHKDQGWKDWDFWXDOO\FRSLHGWKLV YHUVHLQWRWKHFRPPRQSODFHERRN7KHOLEUDU\¶VFDWDORJXHRIIHUVWKLVLQIRUPDWLRQ %5$ &2//(&7,21 9RO ;;, &RPPRQSODFH ERRN LQ D YDULHW\ RI KDQGV PRVWO\ FRQWDLQLQJSRHWU\DQGSURVHWUDQVPLWWHGE\µ5HY0U&RWWDP¶IE ±3DUWO\ Latin. Mostly comprises religious verse and epitaphs, partly by R. Cottam, including copies RISRHPVE\:LOOLDP&RZSHUD µ7KH0RUQLQJ'UHDP¶II±±E µ2QD5RVHDIWHUD 6KRZHU¶IE±F µ7KH'RJDQG:DWHU/LO\Ó1R)DEOH¶II±±G µ6WDQ]DVSUH¿[HG to a Bill of Mortality for the Parish of All Saints Northampton, December 21 1787’. II±±H µ$QQXV0HPRUDELOLV¶IIE±E$OVRKHUHI FRUUHFWO\DWWULEXWHG to Cowper is ‘Epitaph on the Death of Mr. Hamilton who died at Newport Pagnell 1788 aged 32’. The Cowper poems ‘were presented to Mr [i.e. Rev. William] Bull of Newport Pagnell and copied in shorthand from the original by R. Cottam’ and then dictated to the ZULWHUE\5&RWWDPQRWHRQIE 

Anonymity in Early Modern England

66

The equivocal poem came to the compiler by letter, from a friend who perhaps sent it to him because of its novelty and its commentary on religious faith. It is interesting to note that other compilers have made corrections when they began to write out a wrong word or placed a word in the wrong place, but not to spelling “errors.” This compiler’s sense of error, instead, focuses on the spelling of the words, a corrective habit that GRHVQRWDSSHDULQWKHHDUOLHUFRSLHV6XFKDQDWWHQWLRQWRVWDQGDUGL]HGUXOHVPLJKWEH H[SHFWHGIURPDUHDGHUZKRZDVHGXFDWHGDIWHUWKH¿UVWVWDQGDUGGLFWLRQDU\DUULYHG DV ZHOO DV RQH ZKR ZDV HTXLSSHG WR DSSUHFLDWH DQ HOLWLVW SHUIRUPDQFH /LNH RWKHU FRPSLOHUVWKLVRQHKDVWDNHQIXOODGYDQWDJHRIWKHSRWHQWLDOIRUSOD\E\PDQLSXODWLQJ the visual mechanics of the verse. This writer showcases the poem by allotting each WUDQVODWLRQ LWV RZQ SDJH DQG E\ RULHQWLQJ WKHP KRUL]RQWDOO\ ZKDW PRGHUQ ZRUG SURFHVVRUVFDOOD³ODQGVFDSH´SDJHOD\RXW RQIDFLQJSDJHVVRWKDWWKHUHDGHUPXVW WXUQWKHERRNWRYLHZWKHGLVSOD\HGOLQHV7KHWZRSDJHVWKHQRIIHUDGRXEOHIDFHG RSHQLQJWKDWOLWHUDOO\HQDFWVWKHWH[WRQWKHIDFLQJSDJHVRIWKHERRN At the point in the manuscript where this text is copied, the value of the verse seems not to be so much its equivocal nature, but that the compiler/reader can H[KLELW KLV RZQ NQRZOHGJH RI DQG FRPSHWHQFH LQ /DWLQ /LNH +DUULQJWRQ WKLV compiler is showing off in a private setting for a particular reader. Moreover, if the WZRGLIIHULQJKDQGVGRLQGHHGUHSUHVHQWGLIIHUHQWUHDGHUVZKRDFFHVVHGWKHERRN WKHQWKHSHUIRUPDQFHLVIRUPRUHWKDQMXVWWKHWZRFRUUHVSRQGHQWV Making Meaning In the past, manuscript study often involved a careful archeological dig to discover the “best text” so that editors might offer readers an “authoritative” version of a ZRUN ZKLFK KDG YDOXH VXEVWDQWLDO HQRXJK WR HDUQ D SODFH LQ WKH OLWHUDU\ FDQRQ It is now commonplace to note that this evaluative sorting is a characteristic of our own age, and not of the early modern period, and nowhere is that disregard for authors more apparent than in verse miscellanies circulated in manuscript circles. In his introduction to Abraham Wright’s 1656 edition of Parnassus Biceps, Peter Beal notes that the collection: amount[s] to an anthology no more distinguished in the quality of its verse than the average miscellany normally found in manuscript form in this period and LVOHVVGLVWLQJXLVKHGWKDQVRPH1HYHUWKHOHVV:ULJKW¶VSUHIDFHPDNHVLWFOHDU that he regarded the poems included as in some ways rhetorical models, worthy of imitation, and as a representative of the cultural ideals … it is characteristic of his interest in the type of poetry they represent, rather than in the particular SRHPVWKHPVHOYHVWKDWOHVVWKDQKDOIDGR]HQRIWKHPDUHVSHFL¿FDOO\DVVLJQHG WR WKHLU DXWKRUV DQG HYHQ :ULJKW¶V RZQ FRQWULEXWLRQV DUH NQRZQ RQO\ IURP $QWKRQ\:RRG¶VWHVWLPRQ\[Y

It is easy to see why Abraham Wright might be interested in some of the included YHUVHDVPRGHOV²HQWULHVLQFOXGHZRUNE\+HUULFN5DQGROSK:DOOHUDQG5LFKDUG &RUEHWW²EXW D QXPEHU RI WKHVH SRHPV IDOO IDU VKRUW RI WKH NLQG RI SHUIHFWLRQ

“Jacke on Both Sides”

67

that would earn a place for them in an undergraduate anthology today. It seems reasonable to conclude that Wright valued theseVHOHFWLRQVDVSURPSWVWRWKLQNLQJ about the cultural environment from which they sprang, and the social connections WKDW KLV FRSLHG WH[WV PLJKW PDNH IRU WKH UHDGHUV WKH\ UHDFKHG %HDO VXJJHVWV WKDW :ULJKW¶V FROOHFWLRQ ZDV LQ SDUW D QRVWDOJLF ORRN EDFN DW WKRVH \HDUV SULRU WR WKH &LYLO:DU D PRUH FLYLOL]HG WLPH WKDW KDG EHHQ ORVW ZLWK WKH ELUWK RI WKH Commonwealth. But this collection was also “evidently considered to be in some PHDVXUHDJXLGHWRZLVGRPDQGNQRZOHGJH´%HDO[YLL 7KHLPSOLHGUHDGHUKHUH LVRQHZKRFRQVXPHVWKHWH[WDQGDSSOLHVLWWRKLVRZQFULWLFDOWKLQNLQJDERXWWKH world in which he lives. Such an active reader would have considered himself not only “allowed” to appropriate the texts, but in a real way responsible for a selfUHÀHFWLYHDQGHWKLFDOXVHRIZKDWHYHUKHUHDG In his “Introduction” to Critical Essays on John Donne, Arthur Marotti suggests that John Donne seems to have imagined a particular connecting force between his words and his readers. He thought of his letters, poetry, and prose as go-betweens that could nurture and cement a relationship with those who experienced his text. This writing was meant to “ravish” readers or similarly visit upon them acts (in DEVHQFHRIWKHSK\VLFDO WKDWFRXOGVWDQGLQIRUWKHIDFHWRIDFH'RQQH +LVZRUGV DFWRQWKHUHDGHUVZKRDFWEDFNLQUHVSRQVH,ZDQWWRVXJJHVWWKDWRWKHUHDUO\PRGHUQ writers—the “anonymous” transcribers of manuscript verse in the seventeenth century—hoped for the same connection with their readers. I suspect the compiler of 9DDQWLFLSDWHGDUHVSRQVHWRKLVDGGHGVWDQ]DHTXLYRFDWLQJRQWKH$QJOR'XWFK war, and it seems reasonable to speculate that the response, when it came, may very well have arrived, instead, in oral form. Indeed, even the elite coterie circles North describes potentially involve an oral component. When the author’s name is absent, “the names and claims of authors often circulated separately” (The Anonymous Renaissance: Cultures of Discretion in Tudor-Stuart England  $QGVXUHO\DQ RUDOUHVSRQVHZRXOGKDYHEHHQSURYRNHGE\WKHYHUVLRQRIWKHSRHPWKDWZDVSULQWHG as a broadside in 1655 and then posted on the wall of a Gloucestershire inn:     7+(&$7+2/,&. [The following ingenious production has been copied literally from a broadside posted against the ‘parlour’ wall of a country inn in Gloucestershire. The verses are susceptible of two interpretations, being Catholic if read in the columns, but Protestant if read across.] I HOLD as faith What England’s church alows What Rome’s church saith My conscience disavows Where the King’s head That church can have no shame 7KHÀRFNVPLVOHG  7KDWKROGVWKHPope supreame. Where the altars drest There’s service scarce divine The peoples blest With table, bread, and wine. He’s but an asse Who the communionÀLHV Who shuns the masse Is catholick and wise. London: printed for George Eversden, at the signe of the Maidenhead, in St. Powle’s Church-yard, 1655. Cum privilegio$QRQ\PRXV

68

Anonymity in Early Modern England

The same George Eversden printed Abraham Wright’s Parnassus Biceps the IROORZLQJ \HDU SHUKDSV KH IHOW HQWLWOHG WR DWWHPSW WR HQIRUFH KLV ULJKW WR WKLV novelty with the appendage “Cum privilegio´ %XW JLYHQ -DFNH¶V FKDPHOHRQ shape-shifting as he wandered from reader to reader, Eversden’s highly ironic declaration provides almost as much delight as the poem itself. With exquisite DSSURSULDWHQHVVWKLVFRS\RIWKHSRHPKDVFRPHIXOOFLUFOH¿OWHUHG¿UVWWKURXJK a nineteenth century edition of Ancient Poems, Ballads and Songs of England, by Robert Bell,25 to its new home at several Internet sites—some more, some less, scholarly—the next evolution in manuscript transmission. If this manuscript verse is in communion with readers, and has the power to HQJDJHZLWKWKHPLQSDUWLFXODUSULYDWHFORLVWHUHGVSDFHVWKHQ³-DFNH´LVLQYLWLQJ his audience into a liminal no-space, perhaps only possible in the chirographic medium.26 The various copies of this poem indicate that the particular activities WKDW RFFXU LQ WKDW PHGLXP DUH ERWK XQSUHGLFWDEOH DQG IUHH IURP VXEMHFWLRQ WR RI¿FLDOQRUPV0RUHRYHUWKLVVSDFHLVQRWRQO\IUHHIURPWKHDXWKRUL]HGSUDFWLFHV RI OLWHUDF\ LW RIIHUV D NLQG RI GHPRFUDWLF VRFLDO VSDFH IRU IUHH H[SUHVVLRQ 7KH VSDFHWKDW-DFNH¶VFRPSLOHUVXVHWRLQWHUDFWZLWKUHDGHUVDOORZVWKHPWRFUHDWLYHO\ H[SORUHUHMHFWDQGUHVKDSHFXOWXUDOQRUPV:KDWHYHUWKH\KDGEHHQWDXJKWWKHVH writers made their own rules, appropriated texts for their own purposes, and made PHDQLQJWKDWZDVERWKFODVVDQGJHQGHULQÀHFWHGUHJDUGOHVVRIWKHVKDSHRIWKH original text they encountered. The evidence from transcriptions of this text, in concert with other manuscript verse of its type, offers compelling support for the notion that miscellany compilers ZHUHQRWPXFKLQWHUHVWHGLQ³DXWKRUL]HG´YHUVLRQVRIWH[WVRUHYHQ³DXWKRUV´QRU do they seem to have been concerned about a “best text” as they copied.274XLWHWKH FRQWUDU\WKHVHFRPSLOHUVLQWHUSUHWDQGDSSURSULDWHWH[WVIRUWKHLURZQSXUSRVHV Secondly, these reader/writers have an abiding fascination with notions of duality DQG HTXLYRFDWLRQ ³-DFNH´ LV HTXLYRFDO ERWK LQ LWV SRHWLF PHFKDQLFV DV ZHOO DV its various manuscript contexts. The repeated transcription of verse treating the issues of oaths, creeds, and equivocation—and what those material practices might mean for an individual’s faith—parallels the age’s fascination with the difference EHWZHHQ DSSHDUDQFH DQG UHDOLW\ $QG OLNH 6KDNHVSHDUH¶V GUDPD WKHVH SRHPV 25 A revised and expanded version of an 1846 volume Ancient Poems, Ballads, and Songs of the Peasantry of England, edited by Mr. James Henry Dixon, itself a collection of manuscript texts. 26 Harold Love notes that “It is the presence-rich chirographic text which becomes the arena of freedom” (Love, Scribal Publication  27 To be clear, I wish to distinguish between a verse “miscellany” and a “commonplace ERRN´ , IROORZ 6WHYHQ 0D\¶V GH¿QLWLRQ RI WKH ODWWHU VRUW RI PDQXVFULSW DV RQH WKDW ³LV SUHSDUHG LQ DGYDQFH ZLWK KHDGLQJV WR DFFHSW PDWHULDO LQ IXWXUH´ 6R GH¿QHG FRPPRQSODFH ERRNV RIWHQ FROOHFWHG SURYHUELDO VD\LQJV DQG YHUVH DWWULEXWHG WR FODVVLFDO DXWKRUV,QWKLVIUDPHZRUNFRPSLOHUVZHUHRIWHQFDUHIXOWRQRWHDXWKRUV¶QDPHV0RVWRI the manuscripts under study here are notFRPPRQSODFHERRNVE\WKLVGH¿QLWLRQEXWUDWKHU collections of miscellaneous materials, some attributed, and some not.

“Jacke on Both Sides”

69

“stage” readings. The writer’s performance is present, provocative, and insistent, albeit silent. Thirdly, the fact that none of the versions of this poem attempts to FRQFHDOWKHHTXLYRFDO³WULFN´WRUHDGLQJVXJJHVWVWKDWWKHNLQGRILPSOLFLWIHQFH sitting recorded there was at least tolerable, if not common. Finally, these verses PDNHYLVLEOHWKH³FKLURJUDSKLF´VSDFHWKDW+DUROG/RYHSRVLWV³DQLQWHUPHGLDWH stage between oral and typographical transmission in which the values of orality— and the fact of presence—are still strongly felt” (The Culture and Commerce of Texts: Scribal Publication in Seventeenth-Century England :KLOHSXEOLFO\ performed oaths and religious statements of faith are speech acts, only a silent, private, reading of this poem will deliver the written verse’s point. ³-DFNRQ%RWK6LGHV´LVDSRHPWKDWZRXOGQRWRUGLQDULO\PDNHDYHU\JRRG VXEMHFW IRU DFDGHPLF DQDO\VLV RU GLVFXVVLRQ ,W LV QRW SDUWLFXODUO\ DHVWKHWLFDOO\ SOHDVLQJQRUFDQLWEHOLQNHGZLWKFRQ¿GHQFHWRDSDUWLFXODUFDQRQLFDODXWKRU,WLV nevertheless fraught with meaning. The large number of versions available to us, and the extraordinary diversity of contexts in which it is embedded indicate how differently early modern compilers perceived collections of poetry. They clearly did notWKLQNRILWDVOLWHUDWXUHWKH\RXJKWWRSUHVHUYHIRUSRVWHULW\RQO\EHFDXVHRI its beauty or the reputation of its author, but rather—and more often—because it SURYRNHGGLVFXVVLRQZLWKRWKHUVSURYLGHGDWHPSODWHIRUFUHDWLYHVKDSLQJRUDZD\WR PDNHDVWDWHPHQWVDIHO\ZLWKLQWKHFRQ¿QHVRIDQDXGLHQFHRIV\PSDWKHWLFUHDGHUV :HFDQOHDUQIURP³-DFNH´SUHFLVHO\EHFDXVHLWLVDQRQ\PRXV8QHQFXPEHUHGE\ the baggage of the literary canon and the complications of attribution, anonymous texts provide new windows onto the world of the reader/compiler/writer, expanding our understanding of the nature of reading and writing in early modern England. Appendix $V,EHJDQWKHVHDUFKIRUFRSLHVRIWKLVSRHPLWTXLFNO\EHFDPHFOHDUWKDWHDFK QHZ WUDQVFULSWLRQ GLIIHUHG VLJQL¿FDQWO\ IURP WKH ¿UVW YHUVLRQ , GLVFRYHUHG 1R WZRFRSLHVRIWKLVSRHPDUHDOLNH7KH\DSSHDULQFRPPRQSODFHERRNVLQYHUVH miscellanies compiled by one or more hands, and/or that span one or more family JHQHUDWLRQVRQVLQJOHVKHHWVDQGLQ³FRPSRVLWHPDQXVFULSWV´LHFROOHFWLRQVRI loose sheets bound by the holding library that are not necessarily related to each other in any way. Where I have library catalogue copy, I have provided it in quotes along with a citation for the source. Where no formal copy is available, I have provided my own descriptions. $VHDFKDOWHUDWLRQSUHVHQWHGLWVHOI,PDGHP\RZQLGLRV\QFUDWLFPDUNVLQP\ notes so as to record the differences: spacing, non-alphabetical designs, macrons, ÀRXULVKHVDSSHQGHGWRFKDUDFWHUVDQGSXQFWXDWLRQ$OWKRXJKLWLVQRWSRVVLEOHWR reproduce with accuracy those handwritten notations, I have noted where possible the gaps between columns, the superscription of letters and/or words, have duplicated crossings out, added ampersands, and indicated macrons by placing PLVVLQJOHWWHUVLQVLGHEUDFNHWV$VWKLVYROXPHJRHVWRSULQW,KDYHORFDWHGWKLUW\

70

Anonymity in Early Modern England

six copies of the poem. A handful are discussed in the chapter itself, but I add some additional, particularly interesting copies here for interested readers. 1. British Library (hereafter BL) MS Add. 44963 fol. 120 ³&RPPRQSODFH %RRN RI $QWKRQ\ 6FDWWHUJRRG E  G   WKHRORJLDQ FRQWDLQLQJSRHPVLQ/DWLQ*UHHNDQG(QJOLVKUHFLSHVDFDGHPLFH[HUFLVHVHWF n.d., but probably compiled while at Trinity College, Cambridge, 1632–1640. $XWRJUDSKH[FHSWIRUWZRSLHFHVDWWKHHQGIIE ´KWWSZZZEOXN FDWDORJXHVPDQXVFULSWV+,76$63"93DWK KWPOKWP 6HDUFK  +LJKOLJKW )  I hold as Faith, Wt Romes church saith :KHUH.LQJLV+HDG  7KDWÀRFN¶VPLVOHDG  Where th’ Altar’s drest The people’s best, Who shunnes ye0DVVH Hee’s but an Asse, Who Charity teach, They heaven soon reach, On Faith rely, 7LV+HUHV\       Fallacia Divisions

Wt Englands Church allows My conscience disavows 7KDW&KXUFKFDQKDYHQRVHDP :ch holds ye Pope Supreme The service scarce divine Wth7DEOHEUHDG ZLQH +HH¶VFDWKROLNH ZLVH Who ye &RP>P@XQLRQÀLHV That Chch wth error’s fraught Where only faith is taught No matter for good wNV 0DNHV&KULVWLDQVZRUVH  WKHQ7XUNHV

2. BL MS Add. 52494 fol. 20 v. and 21 ³&RPPRQSODFHERRNLQDYDULHW\RIKDQGVPRVWO\FRQWDLQLQJSRHWU\DQGSURVH WUDQVPLWWHG E\ µ5HY 0U &RWWDP¶ I E  ± 3DUWO\ /DWLQ 0RVWO\ FRPSULVHVUHOLJLRXVYHUVHDQGHSLWDSKV´KWWSZZZEOXNFDWDORJXHVPDQXVFULSWV +,76$63"93DWK DUHYKWPOKWP 6HDUFK  +LJKOLJKW )  The Jesuits double-faced Creed 3UR¿GHWHQXVDQD²²²²²² 4XDHGRFHW$QJOLFDQD $I¿UPDWTXDH5RPDQD²²²² 9LGHQWXVPLWULVDQD Supremus quanda Rex est ——— Tum Plebs est fortunata (UUDWLFXVVXPJUH[HVW²²²² &XP¿DWFDSXW3DSD Altare quum ornatur ————— Communia sit inanis 3RSXOLDVXPEHDWXV²²²²² &XPPHQVD¿QH3DQLV Asine nomen meruit ————— Huni morem qui non rapit Missam qui disservit ————— Catholicus est et sapit. fol. 21 Translated

“Jacke on Both Sides”

71

I hold for Faith ——————— What England’s Church allows What Rome’s Church saith —— My Conscience disavows :KHQWKH.LQJLV+HDG²²²²7KH)ORFNFDQWDNHQRVKDPH 7KH)ORFN¶VPLVOHDG²²²²² :KRKROGWKH3RSHVXSUHPH Where the Altar’s dress’d ——— The Worship’s scarce divine 7KH3HRSOHVEOHVV¶G²²²²² :KRVH7DEOH¶V%UHDG :LQH He’s but an Ass ——————— Who Their Communion       ÀLHV Who shuns the Mass ————— Is Catholic and wise —— In a Letter from R. C.

Dec. 10. 89

3. BL MS 78234 fol. 125 7KLV VLQJOH VKHHW RI SDSHU OLHV ZLWKLQ D VWDFN RI RWKHU SDSHUV LQ WKLV FROOHFWLRQ ,W KDV QR PDUNV RQ LW RWKHU WKDQ WKH SRHP¶V WUDQVFULSWLRQ EHDXWLIXOO\ ZULWWHQ in italic hand, and it seems to bear no relation to the other papers in the group ± EHORQJLQJWR6LU5LFKDUG%URZQH%DUW “Evelyn Papers. Vols. i–civ. Papers which accrued to the Evelyn archive as WKHIDPLO\SDSHUVRI0DU\ZLIHRI-RKQ(YHO\Q± DQGRQO\VXUYLYLQJ FKLOG RI 6LU 5LFKDUG %URZQH %DUW ± ´ KWWSZZZEOXNFDWDORJXHV PDQXVFULSWV+,76$63"93DWK DUHYKWPOKWP 6HDUFK  +LJK OLJKW )  Je tien pour chose tres certaine Ce que dit L’Eglise Romaine, 2XOH&KHI5R\DOQRXV,QVWUXLW  /HSHRSOHWLUFXQPDXYDLVIUXLW  Ou l’autel d’Image on decore Le monde est bien heureux encore, 9QDVQH/¶RQSHXWDSSHOHU  4XLQHYHXWDOD0HVVHDOOHU 

La foy qu’Angleterre produit, A la fausseté se reduit /D5HOLJLRQMDPDLVQ¶HUUH 4XLFURLWYQ3DSHVXUODWHUUH Le seruice n’est pas divin Ou l’on prend le pain et le vin 4XLODFHQHDLQVLQHYHXWSUHQGUH &DWKROLTXHHVWVDQVSOXVDSSUHQGUH

4. BL MS Harl. 6933 fol. 6 This is a leather-bound octavo verse miscellany, “Collected by W O,” written on XQOLQHG SDSHU LQ D PRGL¿HG VHFUHWDU\ KDQG ,W DSSHDUV WR EH D ERRN RZQHG E\ one person over a time span of many years. The hand is the same throughout, very elegant, and very small. This is one of the few copies that deliberately hides the equivocal nature of the text, giving readers the pleasure of discovery. This miscellany includes many playful texts, and most of the verses fall into this FDWHJRU\HYHQWKHHSLWDSKVDUHIUHTXHQWO\PRUHKXPRURXVWKDQVHULRXV   7KH&DWKROLFN I Hold as Faith, What Englands Church allows: :KDW5RPHV&KVDLWK0\&RQVFLHQFHGLVVDORZV :KHUHWK¶.LQJLV+HDG7KDW&KXFKFDQKDYHQRVKDPH

72

Anonymity in Early Modern England 7KH )ORFNV PLVOHG7KDWKROGVWKH3RSH6XSUHDP Where th Altars drest, There’s service scarce Divine: 7KH 3HRSOH¶V EOHVW:LWK7DEOH%UHDGDQG:LQH +H¶V EXW DQ $VVH:KRWKH&RPPXQLRQÀLHV :KR VKXQV WKH0DVV,V&DWKROLFNDQG:LVH

5. BL MS Harl. 2127 fol. 6 A folio composite manuscript with a non-contemporary binding, titled “Songs and Sonnets.” Single pages are attached to leader ‘stubs’ that are pasted to the edges of VPDOOHUPDQXVFULSWSDJHV7KHVFULSWLVLQPDQ\GLIIHUHQWKDQGV0XFKRILWLVVHFUHWDU\ some is italic. This scribe’s secretary hand is both elaborate and distinctive. He greatly elongates the capital letters, so that the tails cut through the two lines beneath the ZRUGV³5RRPHV´.LQJV´³&RQVFLHQFH´DQG³&KXUFK´DVLIWRFDOOSDUWLFXODUDWWHQWLRQ WRWKHP7KHUHLVDVFUDWFKHGRXWVHFWLRQMXVWEHIRUHWKHZRUG³GHQLHV´7KHSRHPLV ZULWWHQRQDVLQJOHSDSHUIUDJPHQWRIDERXW´[´ZKLFKORRNVDVLILWKDGEHHQIROGHG for a while. The paper itself is fairly dirty, particularly at the edges. I hold as faith what Roomes Church saith ZKHUH.LQJVWKHKHDG  WKHÀRFNVPLVOHGG  where Altars drest the peoples blest he’s butt an Asse ZKRVKXQ¶VWKH0DVVH 

Whatt Englands Church Allowes My Conscience disavows WKH&KXUFKFDQKDYHQRHEODPH WKDWKROGVWKH3RSHVXSUHPH the Service scare devine whose tables bread and wine that Englands Church denies ,VSROORWLFNDQGZLVH

6. (Oxford: Bodleian Library, hereafter Bod.) MS Ashmole 38 fol. 116 This copy appears inside a worn, much studied, and annotated verse miscellany that collects verses, songs, epigraphs, and an ending section containing other PLVFHOODQHRXV PDWHULDO ,W DSSHDUV WR EH D ERRN WKDW ZDV NHSW IRU TXLWH D ZKLOH and consulted often by one compiler. Recipes for medicines are included as well as drawings. I hould as faith –––––––––––––– what the English Churcch allowes what Romes church saith –––––– my Conscience disavowes ZKHDUWKH.LQJLVKHDG±±±±±±±±7KH&KXUFKFDQKDYHQREODPH 7KH)ORFN¶VPLVOHG±±±±±±±±±±± 7KDWKRXOGVWKH3RSHVXSUHDPH The Altar drest ––––––– ––––––– Their service bread and wyne scarse devyne The peoples blest –––––––––––– Their table bread and wyne +HHVEXWDQ$VVH±±±±±±±±±±±± ZKRWKH&RPPXQLRQÀ\HV :KRVKXQHVWKHPDVVH±±±±±±±± ,V&DWKR/LFNHDQGZLVH wherfore I praye ––––––––––––– That English Church bee blest That Romes Church swaye ––––– Shall ne’r bee my request

“Jacke on Both Sides”

73

7. Bod. MS Dodsworth 144 fol. 98 v. 7KLV LV D OHDWKHUERXQG TXDUWR FRPPRQSODFH ERRN XQOLQHG H[FHSW IRU WZR ,QGLFHVRQHLQWKHIURQWRIWKHERRNDQGRQHLQWKHPLGGOHHDFKRIZKLFKLVOLQHG RIIWRSURYLGHEORFNVRIVSDFHIRUDOSKDEHWL]HGOLVWVRIIDPLO\QDPHV,WLVZULWWHQ almost entirely in Latin, with glosses in the left margins. At intervals, the compiler has drawn family trees. The equivocal poem seems to be the only material written in English, and the only bit of poetry. Carmen Equiuocum 1 I hold as ffaithe 2 What Romes church faithe :KHU.LQJLVKHDG  7KHÀRFN¶VPLVOHG  5 Wher Aulters drest 7KHSHRSOHV%OHVW  +HH¶VEXWDQ$VVH  :KRVKXQQHVWKHPDVVH

    

9 What Englands church allowes 10 My conscience disavowes 7KHFKXUFKFDQKDYHQRVKDPH :KLFKKROGVWKHSRSHVXSUHDPH 13 Your service’s scarce divine :KRVH7DEOH¶V%UHDG Z\QH :KR7KH&RPPXQLRQIÀLHV ,V&DWKROLFNH ZLVH

7REHUHDGHWKHUDVWKH\DUH¿JXUHGLQO\QHV RULQO\QHVYL]W I hold as faithe what Englands church allowes xxx

What Romes church faythe my conscience di/a :KHQ.LQJLVKHDGWKHFKXUFKFDQKDYHQRVKDPH 7KHIÀRFNVLVOHGZKKROGVWKHSRSHVXSUHDPH Wher Thaulters drest, your service’ scarce divine 7KHSHRSOHVEHVWZKRVHWDEOHVEUHDG Z\QH +H¶VEXWDQ$VVHZKRWKHFRPPXQLRQIÀLHV :KRVKXQQHVWKH0DVVHLV&DWKROLFNH ZLVH

8. Bod. MS Douce 357 fol. 129 7KLVLVDIROLRVL]HGOHDWKHUERXQGYHUVHPLVFHOODQ\VWDPSHGZLWK³´LQJLOW numerals on the front, under the initials “A.P.” It seems to be the product of one compiler and is written in secretary hand in a large and evenly formed script. The collection of verses is primarily political in nature, with references to the UHOLJLRXV FRQWURYHUV\ LQ WKH IRUP RI FRPPHQWDU\ RQ WKH NLQG RI IDLWK SUDFWLFHG by hypocrites. I hold as faith ————What Englands Church allowes What Romes Church saith —––––My Conscience disavowes Where ye.LQJLV+HDG²²±±²7KHÀRFNFDQWDNHQRVKDPH 7KHÀRFN¶V0LVOHG²²7KDWKROG\e Pope Supreame Whose Altars drest —– The service scarce divine

74

Anonymity in Early Modern England 7KH3HRSOHVEOHVW±±±± :KRVHWDEOHV%UHDG ZLQH Hee’s but as Ass ––––– Who ye&RPXQLRQÀ\HV Who shuns ye0DVV±±± ,V&DWKROLFNDQGZLVH±±±

9. Bod. MS Engl. poet. e. 97 fol. 181 I hold as faith ––––––– What Englands Ch: alowes What Roomes Ch: saith – My Conscience disavowes. :KHUHWKH.LQJLVKHDG±7KH&KFDQKDYHQRVKDPH 7KHÀRFNVPLVOHG±±±±±±:KRKROGV\e Pope supreame. Where the altar’s drest –– That Service’s scarce divine. 7KHSHRSOH¶VEOHVW±±±±± ZKRVH7DEOHVEUHDG ZLQH +HHLVDQ$VVH±±±±±±±±ZKR\H&RPPXQLRQÀLHV :KRVKXQ¶VWKHPDVVH ,V&DWKROLFNH ZLVH

10. Bod. MS Engl. poet f. 10 fol. 95 v. 2FWDYRVL]HG OHDWKHUERXQG ERRN VWDPSHG ZLWK ³6 6´ RQ WKH IURQW FRYHU presumably the property of “Simon Sloper of Wilts, gent. Magd. Hall matr. 20 Oct. 1615 aged 18. B.A. 14 May 1616, M.A. 27 Jan. 1618/19,” as inscribed by a PRGHUQKDQGLQSHQFLORQDSDJHLQVHUWHGLQWRWKHERRN7KHVHFUHWDU\KDQGLV consistent throughout, the script is quite regular and well-formed, and it includes prose material in addition to verse. I houlde as faith: What Englands church allowes What Roomes church faith: my conscience disallowes Wheare ye.LQJHLVKHDG7KHFKXUFKFDQKDYHQRVKDPH 7KHÀRFNVPLVOHG  Zch houls ye pope supreame. Where ye alters drest = : ye service’s scarce divine The people’s blest = : whose table’s bread and wine +HHV EXW DQ DVV ZKR\HFRPPXQLRQÀLHV 7KDW VKXQQHV WKHPDVV,VFDWKROLFNH :LVH

11. Bod. MS Malone 21 fol. 78 This verse miscellany primarily collects verse, elegies and epitaphs, but it also includes personal “diary” entries. It is written in at least three different hands, in both italic and secretary. The Catho The Catholique I hold as faith What Romes Church saith 7KHÀRFNH¶VPLVOHDG Where ye .LQJLV+HDG  7KHIÀRFNH¶VPLVOHG 

What Englands church allowes My conscience disavowes 7KDW&KXUFKFDQKDYHQRVKDPH 7KDWKROGVWKH3RSHVXSUHDPH

“Jacke on Both Sides” Where ye Altars drest 7KH3HRSOHVEOHVW  Hees’ but an Asse Who shuns ye masse Who charity teach They heaven soone reach

75

Their service is scarce divine :LWKWDEOHEUHDG ZLQH Who yeFRPPXQLRQÀLHV Is Catholique and wise Their Church wth errours fraught Where only faith is taught

12. Bod. MS Rawl. D. 1092 fol. 268 v. $FRPSRVLWHPDQXVFULSWLQVFULEHGE\PXOWLSOHKDQGVWKLVERRNKROGVDFKDRWLF collection of a variety of texts. -DFNHRQERWK6LGHV I holde as fayth –––––––––––––– Wt Englandes Church Allowes Wt Romes Church sayth ––––––– My conscience disavowes Where ye .LQJ¶V+HDG±±±±±±±± 7KDW&KXUFKFDQKDYHQRVFKHPH 7KDWÀRFN¶VPLVOHG±±±±±±±±±±± 7KDWKROGV\e Pope supreme drest Where the Altar’s blest –––––––– Their service scarce divine Ye People’s blest ––––––––––––– Wth table bread and wine Who shuns ye Masse –––––––––– Hee’s Catholique and wise Is but an Asse ––––––––––––––– Who yt &RP>P@XQLRQÀ\HV Who Charity teach ––––––––––– That Church wth schisme’s fraught They heaven soon reach ––––––– Where only fayth is taught 2QID\WKUHO\±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±1RH0DWWHUIRUJRRGZRUNHV ¶7LV+HUHV\±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±± 0DNHV&KULVWLDQZRUVHWKHQ7XUNHV Dr. Strode of Ch. Ch.

13. Bod. MS Rawl. D. 859 This is a leather-bound quarto composite manuscript. The handwriting is executed in secretary and italic, and the leaves have been gathered from multiple sources. 7ZRFRSLHVRIWKHSRHPDSSHDULQVLGHWKLVERRNRQIROVYWKHVHFRQGLV dated 1636. )RO7KLV¿UVWFRS\RIWKHSRHPLVZULWWHQRQDVPDOOVFUDSRISDSHU²ZLWK nothing other than the poem written on it—that is interleaved between two folioVL]HG VKHHWV ,W KDV QR WLWOH LV ZULWWHQ LQ VHFUHWDU\ KDQG DQG VHHPV GDVKHG RII TXLFNO\ E\ WKH WUDQVFULEHU )ROG OLQHV RQ WKH EDFN RI WKH VKHHW VXJJHVW LW PLJKW originally have been part of a letter. I hold as faith — What Englands Church alowes Wt Romes church faith — my conscience disalowes :KHUH\H.LQJLVKHDG²
Anonymity in Early Modern England

76

+HVEXWDQ$VVH²:KR\H&RPXQR>Q@À\V Therfore I praye — Yt Englands church be blest Yt Romes church sway — Shall nere be my request

139 v. The second copy of the poem collected in this manuscript is written on the EDFNRIDSDJHWRUQIURPDSULQWHGERRNWKH¿UVWOLQHDQGDKDOIRIWKHSRHPDUH FRSLHGRXWLQEORFNOHWWHUVDVLIWRUHVHPEOHDSULQWHGYHUVHDQGEOHQGLQZLWKWKH print copy. The transcriber abandons that strategy in later lines. I Hold as faith

What Englands church avowes

faith What Romes Church Wher ye.LQJLVKHDG YeÀRFNHVPLVOHDGH Where ye Altars drest Ye peoples blest

 

+HHVEXWDQ$VVH  Who shuns ye masse Therfore I praye Yt Romes church swaye

My conscience disalowes \H&KXUFKFDQKDYHQRVKDPH P@XQR>Q@À\HV Is Catholique and wise Yt Englands Church be blest Shall nere by my request.

$QQRZKHQ\H.LQJZDVDWR[RQ

14. Bod. MS Rawl. poet. 26 fol. 105 These Verses will serve both for Protestant and Papist, as they may bee diversly read. I hole as faith ––––––––––––––– what England’s Church allowes: What Rome’s Church fayth ––––– my conscience disavowes. :KHQWK¶.LQJLVKHDG±±±±±±±±±7KDW&KXUFKFDQKDYHQRVHDPH 7KDWÀRFN¶VPLVVHOHG±±±±±±±±±7KDWKROG¶V\e Pope supreame Hee’s but an asse ––––––––––––– Who ye&RP>P@XQLRQÀ\HV Who shunnes ye0DVVH±±±±±±±±,V&DWKROLFN ZLVH Who Charity teach ––––––––––– Theyr Church of Errour’s fraught. They heaven soone reach –––––– When onely ffaith is taught. 2QIDLWKUHO\H±±±±±±±±±±±±±±± 1RPDWWHUIRUJRRGZRUNHV 7LV+HUHV\±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±± 0DNHV&KULVWLDQVZRUVHWKHQ7XUNHV

15. Bod. MS Rawl. poet. 117 fol. 166 v. 7KLVERRNLVZKDW0DUJDUHW(]HOOKDVWHUPHGDQ³LQYHUWHG´PLVFHOODQ\,WRIIHUV WZRVHSDUDWHFKXQNVRIFRQWHQWIRUUHDGHUVGHSHQGLQJRQLWVRULHQWDWLRQ2QHKDOI UHDGVRQHZD\WKHQLWPXVWEHWXUQHGXSVLGHGRZQWRUHDGWKHRWKHUKDOIRILW ,W LV D OLQHG FRPPRQSODFH ERRN WKDW LV VHW XS WR DFFHSW HQWULHV EXW WKH V\VWHP

“Jacke on Both Sides”

77

EUHDNV GRZQ SUHWW\ TXLFNO\ :ULWWHQ LQ VHFUHWDU\ KDQG WKURXJKRXW PRUH WKDQ one compiler’s hand transcribes the material. The second half includes verses, proverbs, humorous verse, elegies, and psalms. 9HUVHVSUHVHQWHGWRWKHNLQJH Wee hold as faith What Romes church saith :KHUWKHNLQJLVKHDG  7KH)ORFNHVPLVOHDG  Wher the Altars drest The Peophles blest +HHLVEXWDQ$VV  That shunns the mass

What Englands church allowes My conscience disavowes 7KHFKXUFKFDQKDYHQRKDUPH 7KDWKROGVWKH3RSHVXSUHDP The service is [nere] divine Wth table, bread and wine :KRWKHFRPXQLRQÀLHV Is Catholique and wise

16. Bod. MS Tanner 465 7KLV ERRN VHHPV WKH SURGXFW RI RQH FRPSLOHU ZULWLQJ LQ LWDOLF KDQG FROOHFWLQJ PRVWO\%LEOLFDOSDVVDJHVLQ/DWLQZLWKVRPH*UHHNVHOHFWLRQV$GGLWLRQVLQFOXGH humorous verse and epitaphs. $5RPLVK&DWKROLFNGHPDQGLQJRIKLVIUHLQGZKDW he should report his religion to be, sitts it downe thus in 2 columnes, as followeth. I hold as faith – What Englands church vowes. What Romes church sth– My conscience disallowes. :KHUHWKH.LQJ¶VKHDG± 7KHFKXUFKFDQKDYHQRHVHDPH 7KHÀRFN¶VPLVOHG± 7KDWKROGWKH3RSHVXSUHPH Where th’Altars drest – There’s service scarce divine. 7KHSHRSOH¶VEOHVW± :LWKWDEOHEUHDG ZLQH :KRVKXQQHVWKH0DVVH± +HH¶V&DWKROLTXH ZLVH +HH¶VEXWDQDVVH± 7KDWWKHFRP>P@XQLRQÀLHV Who Charitie doe teach – Their church wth error’s fraught. They heaven soone reach – Where onely faith is taught. 2QIDLWKUHOLH± 1RHPDWWHUIRUJRRGZRUNHV ,W¶VKHUHVLH± 0DNHV&KULVWLDQVZRUVH\n7XUNHV

17. Bod. MS Rawl. poet. 153 This is a verse miscellany with multiple hands. The copy of the poem is written clearly in two columns, but there is little room between the two sections of each OLQHP\VSDFLQJ²GLVWRUWHGE\WKHFRQVWUDLQWVRIPRGHUQZRUGSURFHVVLQJ²SODFHV the sections much farther apart than they appear in the original.

Anonymity in Early Modern England

78 “The Church Papist”

I hold as fayth What Romes church sayth :KHUHWKH.LQJHLVKHDG 7KHÀRFNH¶VPLVOHDG  Where th’ altar’s drest The peoples blest +HVEXWDQ$VVH  :KRVKXQVWKH0DVVH  Who Charity preach They heaven soone reach 2QID\WKUHO\   6LUKDUHV\  

What Englands church allowes My conscience dissavowes 7KH&KXUFKFDQKDYHQRVHDPH :KHUHWKH3RSHLVVXSUHPH There’s service Scarce Divine Where’s Table Bread and wine :KRWKH&RPPXQLRQÀ\V ,V&DWKROLFNHDQG:LVH Their church with error’s fraught Where only fayth is taught 1RPDWWHUIRUJRRGZRUNHV 0DNHV&KULVWLDQVZRUVHWKHQ7XUNV

18. (Folger Shakespeare Library) V.a. 381 7KLVOHDWKHUERXQGTXDUWRVL]HERRNLVEDGO\ZRUQGHVLJQVDUHVWDPSHGRQWKH front and spine. The hand of one compiler—who collected verses, epitaphs, maxims, proverbs over decades—is evident throughout. I hold yt faith W t Romes church faith Where Christ is head 7KHIRON¶VPLVOHG Where ye altar’s drest 7KHSHRSOH¶VEOHVW He is an ass :KRVKXQQV\HPDVV 7KHUHIRUH,SUD\ That Rome may sway

That England’s church allowes My conscience disallows That Church can have no shame 7KDWKDWK\e pope supreame They are scarcely Divine 7KDWWDNHERWKEUHDGDQGZLQH Who y -FRPPXQLRQÀLHV ,V&DWKROLFN ZLVH 7KDW(QJODQGÀRXULVKEHVW Shall not be my request.

19. (Yale: Beinecke Library) MS Osborn b. 155 7KLVTXDUWRVL]HGKDQGPDGH³SDSHUERRN´LV¿OOHGZLWKDIDLUO\FRQVLVWHQWLWDOLF KDQGZULWWHQLQYHU\ODUJHOHWWHUV7KHPDMRULW\RIWKHHQWULHVKHUHDUHDSKRULVPV or notable quotes lifted from other sources interspersed with accounts of the FRPSLOHU¶VMRXUQH\V The Jesuits Creed I hold for faith ––––––––––––––– What Englands church allows, What Rome’s Church sayth –––––My Conscience disavows :KHUHWK¶.LQJLVKHDG±±±±±±±± 7KH)ORFNFDQWDNHQRKDUP 7KH)ORFN¶VPLVOHG±±±±±±±±±±± :KRKROGVWKH3RSHVXSUHDP Where th’ altars drest ––––––––– The Worships scarce divine 7KH3HRSOH¶VEOHVW±±±±±±±±±±±±:KRVH7DEOH¶VEUHDG :LQH +HLVDQ$VV±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±:KRVXFKFRPPXQLRQÀ\HV :KRVKXQVWKHPDVVH±±±±±±±±± ,V&DWKROLFN :LVH

“Jacke on Both Sides”

79

Works Cited $QRQ\PRXV³7KH&DWKROLFN´The Project Gutenberg EBook of Ancient Poems, Ballads and Songs of England by Robert BellKWWSZZZJXWHQEHUJRUJGLUV HWH[WROHQJKKWP! Bacon, Francis. “Aphorism XC.” The New Organon; or, True Directions Concerning the Interpretation of Nature. Ed. James Spedding, Robert Leslie Ellis, and Douglas Denton Heath. Vol. 4 of The Works of Francis Bacon. London: Longman, 1870. Beal, Peter. “Introduction.” Parnassus Biceps or Severall Choice Pieces of Poetry by Abraham Wright 1656. Facsimile edition. Aldershot: Scolar Press, 1990. Coote, Edmund. The English school-master. London: printed by A[nne]. M[axwell]. and R[obert]. R[oberts]. For the Company of Stationers, 1680. Genette, Gerard and Marie Maclean. “Introduction to the Paratext.” New Literary History ± Gordon, Ian A. The Movement of English Prose. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1966. Israel, Jonathan. “Anglo-Dutch Trade Rivalry.” History Today ± -DJRG]LQVNL&HFLOH0Privacy and Print: Reading and Writing in SeventeenthCentury England. Charlottesville: UP of Virginia, 1999. Jones, David Martin. Conscience and Allegiance in Seventeenth-Century (QJODQG 7KH 3ROLWLFDO 6LJQL¿FDQFH RI 2DWKV DQG (QJDJHPHQWV. Rochester: U of Rochester P, 1999. .HQQHG\ 3DXO 0 The Rise and Fall of British Naval Mastery 1HZ
80

Anonymity in Early Modern England

Sherman, William H. John Dee: The Politics of Reading and Writing in the English Renaissance. Amherst: U of Massachusetts P, 1995. Smith, Whitney. Flags Through The Ages And Across The World 1HZ
PART 2 Anonymous Printed Plays and Pamphlets

This page has been left blank intentionally

Chapter 3

What Wrote Woodstock Thomas Cartelli

1. Attribution studies tend to operate at the speculatively charged margins of the JUHDWHU PHWURSROLWDQ 6KDNHVSHDUH LQGXVWU\ 7KH GHGLFDWHG DWWULEXWLRQLVW LQYHVWV considerable scholarly capital in the effort of “proving” that Middleton is the real author of The Revenger’s Tragedy or The Family of Love, RU WKDW 6KDNHVSHDUH is essentially the author of Sir Thomas MoreRUHYHQPRUHSDLQVWDNLQJO\ WKDW 6KDNHVSHDUH¶VKDQGLVPRVWSURPLQHQWLQWKLVRUWKDWDFWRIPericles while Fletcher’s LPSULQWHPHUJHVPRUHFOHDUO\LQRQHRUWZRRWKHUV$V0DUF\1RUWKDFNQRZOHGJHV LQ KHU JURXQGEUHDNLQJ ERRN The Anonymous Renaissance   the scholarly returns on a convincingly argued case of attribution can be quite high. As the recent release of Middleton’s Collected Works demonstrates, a successful argument for adding a play to the Middleton canon may not only lead to its re-publication and WKHDWULFDO UHYLYDO EXW PDNHV WKH SOD\ QHZO\ DYDLODEOH IRU FULWLFDO DWWHQWLRQ DQG encourages a re-examination of how its inclusion affects our understanding of the other plays already assembled under the Middleton imprimatur. +RZHYHUJLYHQWKHODUJHO\ODFNOXVWHUUHVSRQVHRIPRVW6KDNHVSHDUHVFKRODUV and critics to the determined efforts of attributionists to claim a place at the table IRUSOD\VOLNHEdmund Ironside, Cardenio, and the play variously titled Thomas of Woodstock, Woodstock: A Moral History, and, more troublingly, 1 Richard II, one PD\FRQFOXGHWKDWDWWULEXWLRQVWXGLHVPRUHRIWHQIXQFWLRQVDVD¿HOGFRPPDQGHG by a brave but arguably insular band of scholar-enthusiasts quixotically bent on breaching the walls of an established canon that may occasionally bend but seldom opens its gates. /LNHWKHFKDQJHOLQJER\LQA Midsummer Night’s Dream, DQRQ\PRXVSOD\WH[WVYDULDEO\VHUYHDVREMHFWVRIGHVLUHRUQHJOHFWIRUDYDULHW\RI differently motivated claimants. Some of these claimants wish merely to give the orphan-text a competitive place in the canonical hierarchy (and only incidentally to PDNHWKHLUQDPHVDVHGLWRUVRUVFKRODUVLQWKHSURFHVV 2WKHUVPRUHDJJUHVVLYHO\ VHHNWRDI¿OLDWHWKHXQFODLPHGWH[WZLWKWKHPRUHHVWDEOLVKHGVSDZQRIDSRZHUIXO DXWKRUIDWKHUDQGLQVRGRLQJWRH[WHQGWKHKRUL]RQVRIWKDWDXWKRU¶Voeuvre into QHZO\DQQH[HGWHUULWRU\ $WKLUGFODVVRIDWWULEXWLRQLVWVPD\PRUHPRGHVWO\VHHN to enrich the comparatively smaller and poorer domain of a rival playwright, who WKXVEHFRPHVEHWWHUHTXLSSHGWRFRPSHWHZLWKKLVVWURQJHURSSRQHQWRQWKH¿HOGV of course syllabi, scholarly monographs, and in revised volumes of Collected :RUNV7KHVHWKUHHWHQGHQFLHVHDFKSDUWDNHRIPRWLYHVWKDWKDYHWKHLUDQDORJXHV

Anonymity in Early Modern England

84

LQ IDPLO\ DQG VRFLDO UHODWLRQVKLSV WKH ¿UVW EHLQJ VWHUHRW\SLFDOO\  PDWHUQDO RU OLEHUDWRU\ WKH VHFRQG SDWHUQDOLVW RU LPSHULDOL]LQJ ZLWK WKH WKLUG EHDULQJ DQ RGG UHVHPEODQFHWRWKHSUDFWLFHRIDI¿UPDWLYHDFWLRQDQGWKHRULHVRIGLVWULEXWLYHMXVWLFH 7KH¿UVWVHHNVWRJLYHWKHFDQRQLFDOO\PDUJLQDOL]HGWH[WD¿JKWLQJFKDQFHWRPDNH LWRQLWVRZQWKHVHFRQGWRLQYHVWLWZLWKWKHLQÀXHQFHDQGSUHVWLJHRIDSRZHUIXO father and supply it additionally with a set of celebrated cousins, second cousins, and VLEOLQJVWKHWKLUGWRJLYHLWDVPDOOHUIDPLO\RUVSRQVRULQJSDUW\WREHORQJWREXWRQH DOVRFRPSDUDWLYHO\LIQRWFRPSDUDEO\ ULFKLQDFKLHYHPHQWLQÀXHQFHDQGWUDGLWLRQ :HPD\FRQVLGHUIRUH[DPSOHWKHGLIIHUHQWIDWHVWKDWPLJKWDZDLWSOD\VOLNHArden of Faversham or Woodstock  should they be successfully annexed to WKHJUHDWKRXVHRI6KDNHVSHDUHWKH³UXLQ¶GFKRLUV´RI0DUORZHRUWKHJXLOGKDOORI 'HNNHU11HLWKHUSOD\ZRXOGDUJXDEO\GRPXFKWRHQULFKWKH6KDNHVSHDUHFDQRQ however welcomed they might be to the fold (though they might do much to enrich WKHSURIHVVLRQDOIRUWXQHV RIWKHVXFFHVVIXODWWULEXWRU %RWKPLJKWGRFRQVLGHUDEO\ more for Marlowe, but given the comparative conservatism of these plays’ critiques of social mobility and social upstarts, one would, upon annexation, have to rewrite PRVWHVVD\VDQGERRNVRQWKHSOD\ZULJKW¶VZRUN7KHFDVHLVVRPHZKDWDOWHUHGZLWK UHVSHFWWR'HNNHUZKRVHoeuvre would notably be refreshed and made considerably PRUHSURYRFDWLYHE\VXFKDGGLWLRQVZKLFKZRXOGOLNHO\MXPSVWDUWWKDW³SUROLIHUDWLRQ of meaning” normally precluded by the imposition of claimed authorship on a IRUPHUO\FRPSDUDWLYHO\IUHHÀRDWLQJDQRQ\PRXVWH[W)RXFDXOW  The recent revival of interest in biographical criticism, literary biography, and in the shaping of literary careers by early modern writers (see, for example, the UHFHQWSXEOLFDWLRQVRI3DWULFN&KHQH\.DWKHULQH'XQFDQ-RQHVDQG/XNDV(UQH DPRQJRWKHUV KDVWHQGHGWRHURGHWKHFRQVHQVXVWKDWEHJDQWRIRUPLQWKHV around ideas associated with the death of the author and the social production RIOLWHUDU\WH[WV,QGHHGZHVHHLQWKHZRUNRI&KHQH\LQSDUWLFXODUSURQRXQFHG symptoms of the tendency to turn the author into “a functional principle” whose critically outlined career path becomes the river into which the tributary streams RIKLVFROOHFWHGZRUNVSUHGLFWDEO\HPSW\)RXFDXOWDQG&KHQH\Marlowe’s Counterfeit Profession :KLOH QR GRXEW WHPSWLQJ WKLV WHQGHQF\ KDV GDQJHURXV implications for early modern texts collected under the auspices of “Anonymous.” %HFDXVHVXFKWH[WVFDQQRWEHFRQWH[WXDOL]HGLQVXFKZD\VWKH\QRWRQO\UXQWKH ULVNRIEHFRPLQJLQFUHDVLQJO\PDUJLQDOL]HGEXWRIEHLQJYXOQHUDEOHWRDQGPDGH DYDLODEOHIRUFULWLFDODSSURSULDWLRQLQWRD³NQRZQ´DXWKRU¶Voeuvre. As Marcy North notes: “The association of the Renaissance with self-naming, print dissemination RINQRZOHGJHDQGDQRQ\PRXVDXWKRUVKLSKDVXQGRXEWHGO\HQFRXUDJHGWKHYLHZ WKDWDQRQ\PRXVWH[WVIURPWKHSHULRGDUHIDULQIHULRUWRWKRVHRINQRZQDXWKRUV´ adding that “The privilege granted to the named author extends as well to the 1

7U\LQJ WR LGHQWLI\ ZLWK DQ\ GHJUHH RI FHUWDLQW\ WKH GDWHV RI ¿UVW SHUIRUPDQFH DQGSURGXFWLRQRIPRVWSOD\VRIWKLVSHULRGUHOLHVDVPXFKRQLQVSLUHGJXHVVZRUNDVRQ SDLQVWDNLQJGRFXPHQWDWLRQ,KDYHFRQVHTXHQWO\FKRVHQWRSURYLGHWKHSOD\VWKDWHQWHULQWR WKHERG\RIP\GLVFXVVLRQRQO\ZLWKWKHGDWHVRIWKHLU¿UVWNQRZQSXEOLFDWLRQ

What Wrote :RRGVWRFN

85

recovered author, who is credited with having more authorial intention and artistic PHULW WKDQ WKRVH ZKR UHPDLQ DQRQ\PRXV´ 1RUWK  7KHUH LV QRWKLQJ WHUULEO\ mysterious about this practice, apart from the fact that it is the very mystery of the conditions of anonymous production which remain in danger of being neglected or ignored. As Foucault observes: :H QRZ DVN RI HDFK SRHWLF RU ¿FWLRQDO WH[W )URP ZKHUH GRHV LW FRPH ZKR wrote it, when, under what circumstances, or beginning with what design? The meaning ascribed to it and the status of value accorded it depend on the manner in which we answer these questions. And if a text should be discovered in a state of anonymity—whether as a consequence of an accident or the author’s explicit wish—the game becomes one of rediscovering the author. Since literary anonymity is not tolerable, we can accept it only in the guise of an enigma. )RXFDXOW± 

The intolerability of anonymity is, of course, a comparatively recent phenomenon. As North has demonstrated, it could actually be considered a preferred mode of literary production throughout the middle ages and the early modern period: “Rather than falling out of fashion with the development of print, Anonymous was welcomed into the Renaissance as an old friend and new ally, occasionally as an aggravation or threat, but more often as a familiar and useful collaboration LQERWKWKHJURZLQJSULQWLQGXVWU\DQGWKHPDQXVFULSWWUDGH´1RUWK ,QGHHG LQ WKH (OL]DEHWKDQ DQG -DFREHDQ SHULRGV , FRXQW URXJKO\ VHYHQW\ NQRZQ SOD\V DQGPDVTXHVHTXDOLQQXPEHUWRWKHGUDPDWLFRXWSXWRI0DUORZH6KDNHVSHDUH -RQVRQ DQG :HEVWHU FRPELQHG  WKDW ODFN D FRQVHQVXDOO\ DJUHHGXSRQ DXWKRU While many of these plays have been associated—as sources, early versions, ³SLUDWHG´HGLWLRQVRUWH[WXDOYDULDQWV²ZLWKWKHZRUNRIFHOHEUDWHGSOD\ZULJKWV many (including the most oft-played, Mucedorus KDYHQRWDQGIRUWKDWUHDVRQ have either been consigned to oblivion or live on mainly as oft-studied enigmas and, hence, as continuing fodder for future generations of attributionists. In this UHVSHFW D EHWWHU DQG IDU PRUH GDXQWLQJ  TXHVWLRQ WKDQ who wrote Woodstock would be why did the Woodstock or Mucedorus DXWKRUV choose anonymity, or why was anonymity chosen for them? +DYLQJPDGHDJHQHUDOO\SUHMXGLFLDOFDVHDJDLQVWDWWULEXWLRQLVP,PD\ZHOO EH DVNHG ZKDW DSDUW IURP WKH DSSUHFLDWLRQ RI ³DQRQ\PLW\¶V OHJLEOH IXQFWLRQV DQGPHDQLQJVDVZHOODVLWVP\VWHULHV´1RUWK LVJDLQHGE\SULYLOHJLQJWKH anonymity of authorship? In addition to gaining the advantage of what Foucault terms the “proliferation of meanings” that generally follows the absenting of the ³LGHRORJLFDO¿JXUH´RIWKHDXWKRUIURPWKHPL[)RXFDXOW ,ZRXOGSODFHLQ the “gained” column an opportunity for a criticism focused on the contextual or social production of texts to claim a provisional interpretive priority over authorFHQWHUHGPHWKRGRORJLHVDQRSSRUWXQLW\WRUHDGWKHWH[WDJDLQVWWKHJUDLQRIZKDW LVNQRZQRUNQRZDEOHDERXWFRQWHPSRUDQHRXVDXWKRUVWKRXJKWRUWKLQNDEOHDERXW their established oeuvreDQGDQRSSRUWXQLW\WRHVWDEOLVKWKHH[LVWHQFHDQGSURPRWH the cultural agency of, a critically emergent “new” or counter-voice, one that has

Anonymity in Early Modern England

86

not yet been claimed by, or fully integrated into, scholarly discourse and debate. I would also add to the “gained” column the opportunity to inquire generally and VSHFL¿FDOO\LQWRWKHUHODWHGTXHVWLRQVRIZK\VRPHDXWKRUVFKRVHDQRQ\PLW\DQG why anonymity was chosen for others. For such reasons among others, I am happy to claim that Anonymous is the author not only of WoodstockEXWRIDWOHDVWWZRRWKHUSOD\VRIWKHVVSHFL¿FDOO\ devoted to the reign of Richard II and those of his usurping successor’s son—that is, The Life and Death of Jack Straw  and The Famous Victories of Henry V  ²DQG DOO EXW RI¿FLDOO\ DFFRXQWDEOH IRU D WKLUG FRQWHPSRUDQHRXV SOD\ devoted to the period, Sir John Oldcastle   JLYHQ WKDW SOD\¶V FROODERUDWLYH DXWKRUVKLS7KHIDFWWKDWWKH¿UVWWKUHHHGLWLRQVRI6KDNHVSHDUH¶VLQLWLDOFRQWULEXWLRQ WR WKH VXEMHFW²Richard II  ²ZHUH IDPRXVO\ FHQVRUHG DQG WKDW D QRQ dramatic account of Henry IV’s life published by John Hayward in 1599 led to its DXWKRU¶VLPSULVRQPHQWZRXOGLQGLFDWHWKHSROLWLFDOYRODWLOLW\RIWKHVXEMHFWPDWWHULQ question. Such instances also indicate that trying to ascertain what wrote Woodstock may constitute a more productive line of inquiry than trying to determine who wrote WKLV UHPDUNDEO\ VXJJHVWLYH SOD\ D SOD\ ZKLFK GHVSLWH WH[WXDO HYLGHQFH DWWHVWLQJ both to its formal censorship and apparent popularity, never found its way into print and survives only in manuscript form, with its last pages regrettably missing.2 6RPHRIWKHTXHVWLRQV,LQWHQGWRH[SORUHLQWKHSURFHVVRIPDNLQJDFDVHIRU the contextual “authorship” or social production of Woodstock are: How do we assemble and read this play’s unusually mixed social and political positioning? )URPZKDWSRLQWV RIYLHZGRHVLWVHHPWRVSHDN":KRVHFODVVVRFLDOSROLWLFDO  LQWHUHVWV GRHV LW VHHN WR GHIHQG SURWHFW SURPRWH" +RZ GRHV LW VLWXDWH LWVHOI LQ relation to ongoing debates about order and disorder, deference and disobedience, VRFLDO PRELOLW\ DQG HVWDEOLVKHG VWUXFWXUHV RI UDQN DQG DXWKRULW\" +RZ ZKHUH and when does it enter into conversation with other plays of the period (Arden of Faversham, 6KDNHVSHDUH¶V 2 Henry VI [1594], and Marlowe’s Edward II >@ ZKLFKDGGUHVVVRPHRIWKHVDPHTXHVWLRQV"+RZGRHVLWVSHFL¿FDOO\RSHUDWHDVD reading of a particular moment in the history of the uneasy relations that obtained DPRQJ(QJOLVKNLQJVWKHLUIDYRULWHVDQGWKHLUDULVWRFUDWLFULYDOVDQGSURWHFWRUV" +RZ GRHV LW RSHUDWH DV D VWDJHG KLVWRU\ RI WKH ODWH (OL]DEHWKDQ SUHVHQW WKDW LV as implied commentary on the relations between England’s queen, her appointed DGPLQLVWUDWRUV DQG KHU GLVDSSRLQWHG FRXUWLHUV" $QG ¿QDOO\ KRZ GRHV LW HQWHU into conversation with other anonymous and attributed texts of the period which VSHFL¿FDOO\DGGUHVVWKHPDWWHURI5LFKDUG,," 2

William B. Long attests to Woodstock’s popularity on the grounds that “the manuscript is now thumbed and stained from playhouse use, not merely decayed from several centuries of poor storage.” He also contends that “The play was revived on two RFFDVLRQV>FDDQG@DIWHUWKHFUHDWLRQRIWKHRULJLQDOSOD\ERRNZLWKHDFKUHYLYDO QHZPDUJLQDOLDZHUHDGGHGVRWKDWWKLVPDQXVFULSWSURYLGHVLQVLJKWLQWRWKHDWULFDOPDUNLQJ practices in three periods. It is probable that composition and original production occurred in the season of 1594–1595. Playwright or playwrights, company, and theater performance RIWKHRULJLQDODUHXQNQRZQ´/RQJ± 

What Wrote :RRGVWRFN

87

2. Woodstock VWDNHV RXW D FRPSOLFDWHG SRVLWLRQ LQ D FRQYHUVDWLRQ WKDW LV DOVR prominently staged in 2 Henry VI and Edward II, and to a different extent in Richard II. Whereas in 2 Henry VI the most serious antagonists to right rule in the state are drawn from a cast of royal, aristocratic, and ecclesiastical characters (with WKHWKUHDWHPERGLHGE\-DFN&DGHDQGKLVFRKRUWVDUJXDEO\EHLQJPRUHWKHDWULFDOO\ WKDQ WKHPDWLFDOO\ VLJQL¿FDQW WR WKH RQJRLQJ FRXUWO\ FRQWHQWLRQ  LQ Woodstock GLVRUGHUGUDZVERWKLWVHQHUJ\DQGFKDUDFWHUIURPLWVZHDNNLQJ¶VOLFHQVLQJRIWKH XQUHVWUDLQHGRSSRUWXQLVPRI³VRFLDOXSVWDUWV´WZRRIZKRP1LPEOHDQG7UHVLOLDQ  DUHVLJQL¿FDQWO\GUDZQIURPWKHUDQNVRIWKHOHJDOSURIHVVLRQ7KHNLQJ¶VUHOLDQFHRQ some of the same named favorites also plays a consequential role in Richard II. But WKDWSOD\LVDUJXDEO\OHVVLQWHUHVWHGLQWKHLQÀXHQFHWKH\H[HUWRQ5LFKDUG²ZKLFK effectively concludes by the end of the play’s second act—than it is in exploring Richard’s extended response to his sudden loss of power and contention with KLV XVXUSLQJ VXFFHVVRU %ROLQJEURNH LQ ZKRP Woodstock’s pronounced anxiety about worldly ambition becomes embedded.3 Woodstock is, in this respect, more directly comparable to Edward II, with the crucial difference that in Marlowe’s SOD\WKHSUHRFFXSDWLRQZLWKDQGDWWDFNRQWKHNLQJ¶VPLQLRQVDQGVRFLDOXSVWDUWV LQ JHQHUDO LV ODUJHO\ FRQVWUXFWHG DQG GUDPDWLFDOO\ UHSUHVHQWHG  DV D V\PSWRP of aristocratic anxiety and not as the exclusive concern of the play itself, which depicts both upstarts and aristocrats as equally motivated by predatory ambitions and opportunism.4 By way of comparison, Woodstock WDNHV FRQVLGHUDEO\ PRUH OLEHUWLHV ZLWK WKH ³WH[W´ RI KLVWRU\ WR GLJQLI\ DQG LGHDOL]H 5LFKDUG¶V DULVWRFUDWLF RSSRQHQWVDQGWRPDNHWKHLUGHPRQL]DWLRQRI5LFKDUG¶VIDYRULWHVFRQVLVWHQWZLWK WKHRYHUWDLPVRIWKHSOD\LWVHOI,QGHHGLQLWVHIIRUWWRHYRNHDXGLHQFHV\PSDWK\DQG admiration for “plain Thomas” and the allegedly “traditional” values of austerity, moderation, and honesty he represents, Woodstock casts an anachronistic net over Richard II’s reign that embraces characters and events that variously overlap with, DQG VXSHUFHGH WKH 'XNH RI *ORXFHVWHU¶V GRFXPHQWHG H[LVWHQFH LQ KLVWRU\ 6R eager is the Woodstock author-function to display a world turned upside-down that LW FRQÀDWHV UHVLGXDO HOHPHQWV RI WKH PRUDOLW\ SOD\¶V SHUVRQL¿FDWLRQV RI ZRUOGO\ 3 In a move that owes much to Harry Berger’s brilliant distinction between Prospero’s SOD\DQG6KDNHVSHDUH¶VSOD\LQ³0LUDFXORXV+DUS$5HDGLQJRIThe Tempest,” I assume KHUHDGLVWLQFWLRQEHWZHHQ%ROLQJEURNH¶VSOD\DQG6KDNHVSHDUH¶V,Q%ROLQJEURNH¶VSOD\ Bushy, Bagot, and Green are trumpeted as primary cause for the assault he mounts against 5LFKDUG¶V VRYHUHLJQW\ DQG HIIRUW KH PDNHV WR ³ZHHG´ WKH FRUUXSWHG (QJOLVK JDUGHQ ,Q Shakespeare’s SOD\ WKLV LV WKH SXEOLF SROLF\ RU UDWLRQDOH %ROLQJEURNH SURPRWHV LQ RUGHU WRPDVNRUP\VWLI\KLVUHDOLQWHQWLRQV1RWHIRUH[DPSOHWKHIUHTXHQWO\LJQRUHGIDFWWKDW 6KDNHVSHDUHKDV%ROLQJEURNHUHWXUQWR(QJODQGDQGEHJLQKLVDVVDXOWRQ5LFKDUGbefore the basis for his complaint—Richard’s expropriation of his title and property—has been dramatically transacted. 4 See my chapter on Edward IILQ3DWULFN&KHQH\HG The Cambridge Companion to Christopher Marlowe.

88

Anonymity in Early Modern England

vanity and pride with emergent elements of the Machiavellian stage-villain in assembling the characters of Nimble and “my Lord Tresilian,” who are made to FDUU\WKHGRXEOHEXUGHQRIPRUDODQGSROLWLFDOFRUUXSWLRQ$QGLW¿OOVWKHVWDJH with favorites who live to wear their gaudy fashions anew in the more historically IDLWKIXOFRQ¿QHVRI6KDNHVSHDUH¶VRichard II. By fastening so heavily on the contrast between the unrestrained opportunism RI WKH IDYRULWHV ZKR UXOH WKH NLQJGRP E\ UR\DO DSSRLQWPHQW DQG WKH JHQHUDOO\ XQVWLQWLQJOR\DOW\RI:RRGVWRFNDQGKLVEURWKHUVZKRRQO\PRYHWRWKHOHYHORI resistance upon the former’s demise, Woodstock SHUIRUPVDVWULNLQJDFWRIGUDPDWLF UHYHUVDO LQ ZKLFK WKH VRYHUHLJQ¶V DXWKRULW\ WKRXJK QRW WKH VRYHUHLJQ KLPVHOI  effectively deposes itself by no longer being the thing it is supposed to be and is WDNHQ RQ E\ ³UHEHOV´ WR WKDW DXWKRULW\ ZKR EHWWHU UHSUHVHQW WKH WKLQJ LW ZDV VHH Rossiter 14 and passim RQWKLVVXEMHFW :KLOHWKLVUHYHUVDOPD\EHVDLGWRDQWLFLSDWH 5LFKDUG¶VPRUHSHUPDQHQWGHSRVLWLRQDWWKHKDQGVRI%ROLQJEURNHLQ6KDNHVSHDUH¶V Richard IILWPD\DOVREHVDLGWRPDNHDSUHHPSWLYHFDVHIRUWKDWDFW¶VLOOHJLWLPDF\ JLYHQ KRZ XQIDYRUDEO\ %ROLQJEURNH¶V ³EDG IDLWK´ DVVDXOW RQ 5LFKDUG FRPSDUHV ZLWK :RRGVWRFN¶V XQÀDJJLQJ OR\DOW\ WR WKH FURZQ DQG KLV VXUYLYLQJ EURWKHUV¶ reluctant redress of Richard’s royal transgressions. The palpable anxiety about social mobility evinced throughout Woodstock fastens particularly on Tresilian’s ULVHIURP³SORGGLQJFOHUN´WR/RUG&KLHI-XVWLFHDQHYROXWLRQ7UHVLOLDQDFFRXQWV WRDPLQGVWLUUHGXS³WRLQGXVWU\´ EXWZKLFKWKHWoodstock author (through WKH PHGLXP RI7UHVLOLDQ¶V KHQFKPDQ 1LPEOH  DWWULEXWHV WR7UHVLOLDQ¶V HDJHUQHVV to do anything he can to advance himself. This anxiety migrates, in Richard II, WR WKH FULWLFDOO\ XQGHUUHPDUNHG SUHVXPSWLRQ RI %ROLQJEURNH¶V SUHPDWXUH DQG DJJUHVVLYH DVVDXOW RQ WKH FURZQ )URP 5LFKDUG¶V HDUO\ OLNHQLQJ RI %ROLQJEURNH WR D SROLWLFLDQ ZLOOLQJ WR ZRR VXSSRUW IURP DQ\ TXDUWHU WR
What Wrote :RRGVWRFN

89

of Woodstock DV 6KDNHVSHDUH PLJKW KDYH ZULWWHQ WKHP 2Q WKH FRQWUDU\ , VHH Woodstock and Richard II as very differently situated plays, with the former VSHDNLQJ LQ WKH PL[HG XS"  VRFLDO LGLRP 'DYLG %HYLQJWRQ ORQJ DJR VNHWFKHG out in Tudor Drama and Politics, which may be said to be at once populist and anti-populist, monarchist and anti-monarchist. By contrast, Richard II seems to me too implicitly royalist to have been commissioned for private performance by supporters of the Earl of Essex, though ambiguous enough to have merited mutilation at the hands of the censors and to have served Essex’s purposes.6 Indeed, if I had to determine which play of Richard II might have better served DVDUDOO\LQJSRLQWDJDLQVW4XHHQ(OL]DEHWKDQGKHUPLQLVWHUV,PLJKWYHQWXUHRQ Woodstock. Why? As David Bevington has observed, “To the extent that the play’s KHURHVDUHQREOHPHQZKREHOLHYHLQUDQNWoodstock is hierarchically orthodox” DQG³XSKROGVDQLGHDORIROGIDVKLRQHGQRELOLW\DV(QJODQG¶VEHVWKRSHIRUMXVWLFH 1R &DGH RU 7\OHU VSRUWV OHYHOLQJ GRFWULQH´ %HYLQJWRQ ± $V %HYLQJWRQ goes on to contend: Woodstock’s civil war is … politically close to the aims of the Pilgrimage of Grace  WKH:HVWHUQ5LVLQJRIRUWKH1RUWKHUQ5HEHOOLRQRIZLWKWKHLU reverence for the conservative nobility, their sympathy for the oppressions of the peasantry, and their longing to disencumber the monarch of upstart favorites. To this older form of protest is added a radical interest in plain dress, free speech, and constitutional safeguards—a coalescing of extreme dissidence in the 1590s increasingly associated with the erratic leadership of Essex. Such a political alignment explains how Woodstock can be at once old-fashioned in its social YDOXHVDQGXQRUWKRGR[UHJDUGLQJ7XGRUPRQDUFKLVP%HYLQJWRQ

%HYLQJWRQ¶VUHPDUNVEULQJWoodstock LQWRWKHFLUFXLWRIODWH(OL]DEHWKDQFRQFHUQV DERXW WKH ODUJHO\ SURIHVVLRQDO VWDWH DSSDUDWXV 4XHHQ (OL]DEHWK KDG VHW XS WR DGPLQLVWHU FRXUW DIIDLUV WKH LQFUHDVLQJO\ PDUJLQDOL]HG UROH SOD\HG E\ WKH ROG QRELOLW\ ZLWKLQ LW DQG WKH LQFUHDVLQJ LQÀXHQFH RYHU WKH TXHHQ FRPPDQGHG E\ Robert Cecil in particular.7 Unfortunately, the examples that Bevington draws on— 6

My reading of Richard II clearly goes against the grain of most commentaries on WKHSOD\ZKLFKLQVLVWUDWKHURQ(OL]DEHWK¶VLGHQWL¿FDWLRQZLWK5LFKDUGDQG(VVH[¶VJURZLQJ DVVRFLDWLRQ ZLWK %ROLQJEURNH$V 5LFKDUG 'XWWRQ ZULWHV ³WKH KLVWRU\ RI 5LFKDUG ,, KDG XQGRXEWHGO\DFTXLUHGDYHU\VSHFL¿FWRSLFDOLW\E\WKHWLPHRILWVSHUIRUPDQFH,WZDV QRWXQNQRZQIURPWKHVRQZDUGVIRUSHRSOHWRGUDZSDUDOOHOVEHWZHHQ5LFKDUG,,DQG (OL]DEHWKLQUHODWLRQWRVXFKPDWWHUVDVWKHLQÀXHQFHRIIDYRXULWHVDQGKHUJHQHURVLW\WR them, at the expense of the general populace who paid through taxation, monopolies and enforced benevolence … By 1601 … there was an all-too-plausible candidate for the role RI%ROLQJEURNHLQWKHSHUVRQRI(VVH[´± 6HHWKHGHEDWHRQWKLVVXEMHFWHQJDJHGLQ E\%ODLU:RUGHQDQG)UDQN.HUPRGHLQWKH/HWWHUVSDJHVRIWKHLondon Review of Books -XO\±1RYHPEHU  7 7KH DSSOLFDELOLW\ RI VSHFL¿F DVSHFWV RI Woodstock to contemporary conditions DWFRXUWLV LQGLFDWHGE\ WKHVWURQJ OLNHOLKRRGRI FHUWDLQSDVVDJHVKDYLQJEHHQVFRUHGIRU omission “in accordance with the censor’s instructions to remove explicit reference to

90

Anonymity in Early Modern England

ZKLFKOLQNWKHFRQFHUQVRIWKHSHDVDQWU\DQGWKH³FRQVHUYDWLYHQRELOLW\´²VHHP somewhat peripheral to the social concerns and anxieties that inform Woodstock. Moreover, the connection Bevington draws between the political alignments in Woodstock DQG WKH SROLWLFDO GLYLVLRQV WKDW EHVHW WKH (OL]DEHWKDQ FRXUW LQ WKH VWHQGVWRRYHUVLPSOLI\WKHPRUHFRPSOH[LQWUDJHQHUDWLRQDOLQ¿JKWLQJWKDW FKDUDFWHUL]HGWKHODWWHU,IWoodstock LVWREHUHDGDVVRPHNLQGRIOLJKWO\YHLOHG SROLWLFDODOOHJRU\RIWKHODWH(OL]DEHWKDQSUHVHQWLWIDLOVWRDOLJQLWVHOIVSHFL¿FDOO\ enough with the actual conditions that then obtained, which effectively pitted a younger generation of powerfully ambitious apparatchiks headed by Robert Cecil against equally ambitious factions of comparatively young aristocratic dissidents led by Essex on the one hand and Raleigh on the other. Although Essex would serve as a rallying point for a variety of dissident interests and professions, with VHYHUDOQRWDEOH&DWKROLFDQG3XULWDQ¿JXUHVDOO\LQJWKHPVHOYHVWRZKDWFDQRQO\ vaguely be called his “cause,” his egotism, unreliability, vanity, ostentation, and passionate temperament—not to mention his participation in what passed at the time IRU WKH ³OHDVLQJ RXW´ RI JRYHUQPHQWDO SUHURJDWLYHV²SODFH KLP MXVW DV VTXDUHO\ in the company of Woodstock’s dissolute upstarts DQG 6KDNHVSHDUH¶V 5LFKDUG II as of the “old nobility.” Essex can, in this respect, hardly be associated with WKHDYRZHGO\KLJKPLQGHGSRVLWLRQVWKDWSURPSW:RRGVWRFNDQGKLVEURWKHUVWR defend ancient English freedoms and the chronically put-upon peasantry. It rather seems that though the aims of the Woodstock author-function may be as nostalgic as those Bevington proposes, they are also more extreme. They are QRVWDOJLFLQVRIDUDVWKH\DUHOLQNHGWRSRSXODUDQGSHULRGLFDOO\YRODWLOH IDQWDVLHV of a feudal social contract that neither present conditions nor the past provide a viable example of. They are extreme insofar as they seem to condemn virtually all preferred latter-day forms of social, cultural, and political behavior as corrupt and corrupting, and advocate a wholesale social reformation in which the values of plainness, property rights, honesty, industriousness, free expression, and austerity should reign supreme: values that had already become closely associated with WKH 3XULWDQ FKDOOHQJH WR WKH XQHDV\ (OL]DEHWKDQ FRQVHQVXV 7KDW WKH FKDQQHO through which this reformation is to be achieved runs through the variously selfdeprecating and self-righteous media of “Plain Thomas” and his brothers—who throughout protest their reluctance to effect the political transformation that would PDNHUHIRUPDWLRQSRVVLEOH²DWRQFHORFDOL]HVDQGGLVORFDWHVWKHSOD\¶VSUHIHUUHG DOLJQPHQW RI PRUDO DQG SROLWLFDO DXWKRULW\ %\ ORFDOL]LQJ PRUDO DXWKRULW\ LQ :RRGVWRFNWKHSOD\GLVORFDWHVSROLWLFDODJHQF\E\ORFDOL]LQJSROLWLFDODJHQF\LQ Richard and his favorites, the play dislocates moral authority. 7KH KLJKSRZHUHG DULVWRFUDWV FKLHÀ\ /DQFDVWHU DQG
What Wrote :RRGVWRFN

91

%XWWKHDFWXDOFRPEDWWKDWLVHQJDJHG²EHWZHHQWKHNLQJDQGKLVVRFLDOXSVWDUWVRQ RQHVLGHDQGWKHNLQJ¶VXQFOHVRQWKHRWKHU²GUDPDWLFDOO\RSHUDWHVDWDFRQVLGHUDEOH level below the discursive formations in which it is pitched. In many respects, the debate over right rule is fuelled—as it is in both Edward II and Richard II—by the impatience and immoderation of the aristocratic party itself. However often that party PD\UHSUHVHQWLWVHOIDVUHOXFWDQWWRRSSRVHWKHNLQJGLUHFWO\LWQRQHWKHOHVVRSSRVHV him at virtually every turn, even when a more circumspect, cautious approach appears PRUHYLDEOH7KLVLVFHUWDLQO\WKHFDVHZLWK7KRPDVRI:RRGVWRFNZKRPRWLYDWHG by the general applause lavished on his austerity and integrity, fails to heed his brother Lancaster’s advice that “To hide our hate is soundest policy,” choosing rather to press his case against Richard and his minions at the most inopportune of times and to do so in the most self-congratulatory and immodestly modest manner. It is, in IDFWVRPHWLPHVKDUGWRUHFRQFLOHWKHVKULOOQHVVDQGLQGHFRURXVQHVVRI:RRGVWRFN¶V public reprimands of Richard with the play’s apparent privileging of the social and SROLWLFDO YDOXHV DQG YLUWXHV:RRGVWRFN LV VHHNLQJ WR DGYDQFH ,QGHHG LQ RUGHU WR claim that the Woodstock author is entirely supportive of Plain Thomas and his rather puritanical agenda—which frequently and stridently fastens on Richard and his favorites’ inordinate concern for outlandish fashions and lavish dress—one would DOVRKDYHWRFODLPWKDWKHLVXQXVXDOO\GHDIWRWKHLURQLHVWKDWDWWHQG:RRGVWRFN¶V prideful celebration of his own plainness and humility, which often assemble around the play’s 13 repetitions of the “Plain Thomas” catch-phrase. The contextual permutations of the play’s rehearsals of this mantra are worth IROORZLQJ LQ VRPH GHWDLO :H ¿UVW KHDU WKH QDPH ³3ODLQ 7KRPDV´ DSSOLHG WR :RRGVWRFNLQWKHSOD\¶V¿UVWDFWDVWKH'XNHRI

8 $OOTXRWDWLRQVIURPWKHSOD\DUHWDNHQIURPThomas of Woodstock or King Richard the Second, Part One, edited by Peter Corbin and Douglas Sedge.

92

Anonymity in Early Modern England

$IWHUDQLQLWLDOVKRZRIUHVLVWDQFH:RRGVWRFNDJUHHVWREUHDNDVDUWRULDOKDELWRI VRPHWZHQW\\HDUVVWDQGLQJEXWLQWKHSURFHVVWDNHVRQDQG³QDWXUDOL]HV´ZLWK ZKDWPLOLWDWHVEHWZHHQVHOIGHSUHFDWLQJLURQ\DQGVHOIFRQJUDWXODWLRQ WKH³WLWOH´ lavished on him by “the coarse and vulgar”: “Let’s hie to court, you all your wishes KDYH2QHZHDU\GD\SODLQ7KRPDVZLOOEHEUDYH´±  ,URQ\WDNHVRQWKHVRPHZKDWGLIIHUHQWFKDUDFWHURIFRQWHPSWLQWKHQH[WVFHQH as Greene regrets the failure of a plot to poison Richard’s other uncles, which ZRXOGKDYHOHIW³3ODLQ7KRPDVWKH3URWHFWRU´ WKHRQO\UHPDLQLQJREVWDFOH WRSRZHU%\LWVQH[WLWHUDWLRQWKHJDSEHWZHHQKRZ:RRGVWRFNUHSUHVHQWVKLPVHOI and how he is represented by “the coarse and vulgar” has all but closed, “the SODLQDQGKRQHVWSKUDVH´ KDYLQJEHFRPH:RRGVWRFN¶VE\ZRUGIRUKLVRZQ XQHUULQJHDUQHVWQHVV5HVSRQGLQJWRWKH.LQJ¶VDVVD\DWLURQLFDOO\GLVDUPLQJKLP of the inappropriately censorious vein he has fallen into in a speech that begins DV D IRUPDO ZHOFRPH WR (QJODQG¶V QHZ TXHHQ :RRGVWRFN IDLOV WR ULVH WR WKH JRRGQDWXUHGSLWFKRI5LFKDUG¶V³,WKDQN\HIRU\RXUGRXEOHSUDLVHJRRGXQFOH´ RIIHULQJLQVWHDGWKHKXPRUOHVVDQGVHOIUHÀH[LYHVWUDLQVRI³$\D\JRRGFR],¶P 3ODLQ7KRPDVE\WK¶URRG,¶OOVSHDNWKHWUXWK´± :RRGVWRFN¶VIDLOXUHWR UHVSRQGWR5LFKDUG¶VSDUU\ZLWKWKHSXEOLFJUDFHWKDWEH¿WVVXFKDQRFFDVLRQPD\ ZHOOEHVSHDNKLVLQWHJULW\DQGFRXUDJHRXVUHIXVDOWRFRPSURPLVHRQKLVSULQFLSOHV DQGWKHSXEOLFJRRGWKH\VHHNWRSURPRWH%XWZHPD\DOWHUQDWLYHO\GHWHFWKHUH a hint either of the character’s obtuseness or of his author’s deafness to dramatic LURQ\$OORSWLRQVUHPDLQLQSOD\DV:RRGVWRFN¶VLQGLJQDWLRQEUHDNVRXWLQIRUFH DV D FRQVHTXHQFH HLWKHU RI KLV SULQFLSOHG RU ERRULVK UHIXVDO WR EDQG\ MHVW ZLWK MHVWDERXWKLVVDUWRULDOSUHIHUHQFHVZLWKWKH.LQJDQGKLVIDYRULWHV³6FRII\HP\ SODLQQHVV,¶OOWDONQRULGGOHV3ODLQ7KRPDV:LOOVSHDNSODLQO\´±  3URYLQJLPSHUYLRXVHYHQWRWKHVDLQWO\4XHHQ¶VDGPRQLWLRQWKDW³7KH.LQJEXW MHVWVP\ORUGDQG\RXJURZDQJU\´ :RRGVWRFN¶VSODLQQHVVOHDGVKLP to demand that Richard’s favorites trade their places beside Richard’s throne with WKRVHZKREHWWHUGHVHUYHWKHP³8SVWDUWVFRPHGRZQ\RXKDYHQRSODFHVWKHUH +HUH¶VEHWWHUPHQWRJUDFH.LQJ5LFKDUG¶VFKDLU,I¶WSOHDVHGKLPJUDFHWKHP VR´±  The play’s overt display of the greedy machinations of Richard’s all-licensed ³XSVWDUWV´ZRXOGDSSHDUWRJUDFH:RRGVWRFN¶VVWURQJSURQRXQFHPHQWZLWKERWK dramatic and moral authority, and to position it as a dramatically privileged and disinterestedly principled stand against misgovernance. But the obvious, if XQDFNQRZOHGJHG UDJH RI :RRGVWRFN DW KDYLQJ KLV DQG KLV EURWKHUV¶ DXWKRULW\ ÀRXWHGDQGGLVFUHGLWHGDOVRSOD\VDFUXFLDOUROHKHUHDQGPRYHVWRWKHIRUHJURXQG of our attention in an exchange between the three brothers that closes out the SOD\¶V¿UVWDFW York. *RGIRUKLVPHUF\VKDOOZHEURRNWKHVHEUDYHV 'LVJUDFHGDQGWKUHDWHQHGWKXVE\IDZQLQJNQDYHV" Lancaster. Shall we that were great Edward’s princely sons %HWKXVRXWEUDYHGE\ÀDWWHULQJV\FRSKDQWV" Woodstock. Afore my God and holy saints, I swear,

What Wrote :RRGVWRFN

93

But that my tongue hath liberty to show The inly passions boiling in my breast, ,WKLQNP\RYHUEXUGHQHGKHDUWZRXOGEUHDN±

The discourse within which this exchange is framed seems directly modeled on similar exchanges that occur in Marlowe’s Edward II, with its formulaic contrasts EHWZHHQ³SULQFHO\VRQV´RQWKHRQHKDQGDQG³IDZQLQJNQDYHV´DQG³ÀDWWHULQJ V\FRSKDQWV´RQWKHRWKHUDQGUHSHDWHGXVHRIWHUPVOLNH³EURRN´ZKLFKVLJQDO the temperamental impatience of characters used to having their own way. More revealing, however, is the way the surplus of passion, which the earlier play delegates to the love-lorn Edward II, migrates here to the “overburdened KHDUW´ RI :RRGVWRFN KLPVHOI ZKR WHQGV WR SULYLOHJH UDWKHU WKDQ FHQVXUH KLV outbursts of emotion. Nonetheless, when news is brought, on the heels of this exchange, that the common themselves have risen in reaction to Richard’s ³OHZG OLFHQWLRXV ZLOOIXOQHVV´²QHZV WKDW SURYRNHV WKH FKDUDFWHULVWLFDOO\ PRUH LQWHPSHUDWH /DQFDVWHU WR DGYLVH KLV EURWKHUV WR ³7DNH RSHQ DUPV -RLQ ZLWK WKH vexed commons / And hale his minions from his wanton side. / Their heads cut off, WKHSHRSOH¶VVDWLV¿HG´± 9²:RRGVWRFNDSSHDUVWRUHJDLQKLVFRPSRVXUH DQGDGYLVHVLQVWHDGWKDWWKH\¿UVWVHHN³WRSDFLI\WKHPXUPXULQJFRPPRQV¶UDJH´  DQGXVHOHJDOPHDQVWRKDYHWKHGHHGVRI5LFKDUG¶VIDYRULWHV³H[DPLQHG WKRURXJKO\´  At this point in the drama, the tendency of the Woodstock author to simplify, rather than complicate, returns in full force as we witness Richard and his minions arraign Richard’s uncles as if there were little difference between indignant DULVWRFUDWVDQGUHEHOVRIWKHVWULSHRI-DFN6WUDZ9DULRXVO\WHUPLQJWKHXQFOHV³WKH .LQJ¶VUHEHOOLRXVHQHPLHV´DQG³XQGHUPLQHUVRIKLVVDFUHGVWDWH´ZKRDUHJXLOW\ RI ³WUHDVRQ FDSLWDO´ LQ DOOHJHGO\ VHHNLQJ ³WR VXEYHUW WKHLU NLQJ DQG VRYHUHLJQ´ these prevailing lords of misrule deploy every rhetorical device available in this GLVFXUVLYHIRUPDWLRQDVWKH\ZRUNWKHPVHOYHVXSWR5LFKDUG¶VSHUHPSWRU\RUGHU to “Attaint them … arrest them and condemn them,” which is met by Greene’s DQVZHULQJUHVROYHWR³+DOHWKHPWRWK¶EORFNDQGFXWRIIDOOWKHLUKHDGV´±  7KHLULPSXOVHWRVXGGHQH[HFXWLRQUHVWUDLQHGE\WKHPRUHSROLWLFDQGWHPSRUL]LQJ Tresilian, Richard and company next engage in one of the most peculiar (and SHFXOLDUO\VHOIUHÀH[LYH DFWLYLWLHVZLWQHVVHGLQWKHFDUHHURIWKH(QJOLVKFKURQLFOH or history play. They collectively consult the equivalent of their author’s source: D ERRN ZKLFK %XVK\ GHVFULEHV DV ³7KH PRQXPHQW RI (QJOLVK &KURQLFOHV  &RQWDLQLQJDFWVDQGPHPRUDEOHGHHGV2IDOO\RXUIDPRXVSUHGHFHVVRUNLQJV´ ¿QGLQJLQLWZKDW%XVK\VHOHFWLYHO\WHUPV³([DPSOHVVWUDQJHDQGZRQGHUIXO´RI ³7KHHQGRIWUHDVRQHYHQLQPLJKW\SHUVRQV´± $SWO\HQRXJKWKH¿UVW example is drawn from the chronicles of Edward II and Edward III, and describes the latter’s execution, “for his pride and treachery,” of his “Protector then, proud 9 Cf. Young Mortimer’s “Were all the earls and barons of my mind / We’ll hale him IURPWKHERVRPRIWKHNLQJ$QGDWWKHFRXUWJDWHKDQJWKHSHDVDQWXS´LQEdward II ± 

Anonymity in Early Modern England

94

0RUWLPHU´   ZKLOH FRQYHQLHQWO\ HOLGLQJ WKH REYLRXV UHVHPEODQFHV between Edward II’s disordered reign and Richard’s (which the historical Richard ,,LVVDLGWRKDYHRIWHQIDYRXUDEO\DOOXGHGWR %XVK\WKHQUHFRXQWVWKHIDPRXV YLFWRU\ RYHU WKH )UHQFK RI 5LFKDUG¶V IDWKHU WKH %ODFN 3ULQFH ZKLFK VHUYHV WR inspire Richard to claim that he will become “the image of [his father’s] mind” DQGZLOOVWULYHDJDLQVWGHDWKLWVHOIWR³DWWDLQKLVYLUWXRXVGHHGV´± %HIRUH WKHGUDPDWLFLURQ\RIWKLVUHVROYHJHWVWKHFKDQFHWRWKLFNHQ5LFKDUGDQGIULHQGV EHFRPH¿[DWHGRQWKHGDWHRI5LFKDUG¶VELUWKZKLFKSURPSWVDTXLFNUHWXUQWR WKHSUHVHQWDQGWKHQH[WWZLVWLQWKHSOD\¶VSORWWKDWLV5LFKDUG¶VUHVROYHWRWDNH KLV ULJKWIXO SODFH RQ WKH WKURQH ³XQSURWHFWHG´ E\ :RRGVWRFN DQG H[FOXVLYHO\ VXSSRUWHGE\KLVPLQLRQV$VZHZDWFKWKHVHSORWVWUDQVSLUHZHVHH:RRGVWRFN WDNHDGLSRIKLVRZQLQWRWKHFRPPRQGLVFRXUVHRIGLVRUGHUDVKHH[FODLPV³:KDW transformation do mine eyes behold / As if the world were topsy-turvy turned!” ± DQGEUHDNVKLVVWDIIRIRI¿FHZKLOHXWWHULQJZRUGV³7KHUHOHWKLPWDNH LW²VKLYHUHGFUDFNHGDQGEURNH´ ZKLFKDQWLFLSDWHWKRVH6KDNHVSHDUH delegates to 5LFKDUG,,DVKHEUHDNVDQGPRUDOL]HVRQWKHPLUURURQZKLFKKHKDV EHHQUHPDUNLQJKLVFKDQJHVLQWKHIRXUWKDFWRIWKHODWHUSOD\10 3. There is, of course, much more in this play that deserves sustained attention, from the comically outlandish “foreign fashions” Richard and his friends design “in council” to Richard’s “leasing out” of England to his cohorts, to Tresilian’s campaign against “privy whisperers,” to Richard’s passion for Greene (which explains, as nothing in Richard IIGRHV%ROLQJEURNH¶VFRQWHQWLRQWKDWWKHIDYRULWHV KDYHPDGHD³GLYRUFH´EHWZHHQ5LFKDUGDQGKLV>VHFRQG@TXHHQ WR3ODLQ7KRPDV¶V ironically performed service as hostler, to the long process of his capture and death. But we have by now assembled enough evidence about the social and political positioning of this play, and its rich series of correspondences and contrasts with Edward II and Richard II in particular, to venture some speculation about what LIQRWZKR ZURWHWoodstock. ,QDGGLWLRQWRZRUNLQJZLWKLQWKHQHWZRUNRISOD\V focused on the matter of Richard II (and, by extension, both plays and poems devoted to the reigns of Edward II and Edward III and to the rise and fall of ³SURXG0RUWLPHU´ 11 Woodstock displays clear connections with a host of material produced throughout the 1590s which variously focuses on anxieties about, and RXWULJKWFHOHEUDWLRQVRIFKDQJHVWRWKHODWH(OL]DEHWKDQVRFLDOIDEULFRFFDVLRQHG by the migration of ambition to every level of society. Though I have spent FRQVLGHUDEOHWLPHKHUHDWWHPSWLQJWRFRPSOLFDWHWKHPRWLYDWLRQVRI:RRGVWRFNDQG KLVEURWKHUVLIRQO\WRTXDOLI\DQGFRQWH[WXDOL]HWKHSOD\¶VDSSDUHQWHQGRUVHPHQW RIWKHLUDWWDFNRQ5LFKDUG¶VPLVJRYHUQDQFHWKHSOD\¶VPRUHH[SUHVVGHVLJQVIDVWHQ 10

5LFKDUG¶VZRUGVDUH³)RUWKHUHLWLVFUDFNHGLQDQKXQGUHGVKLYHUV´  These would include Peirs Gaveston ±  Mortimeriados   DQG The Barons Wars DOOE\0LFKDHO'UD\WRQ 11

What Wrote :RRGVWRFN

95

on how ambition can spread its contagion through the most guarded domains, on VRPHRIWKHFKDUDFWHULVWLFIRUPVLWWDNHVDQGRQWKHHIIRUWWRPRQLWRUKXQWGRZQ and destroy this disease. In this respect, Woodstock MRLQVUDQNVZLWKRWKHUGUDPDVRIWKHGHFDGHZKLFK share its diagnosis of a world “topsy-turvy turned” (Arden of Faversham is an REYLRXV H[DPSOH  DQDWRPL]H WKH VRXONLOOLQJ HIIHFWV RI XQEULGOHG DVSLUDWLRQ (Dr Faustus FHOHEUDWHWKHKRUL]RQVRIVHOIUHDOL]DWLRQLWRSHQVXSTamburlaine the Great RUWDNHDUDWKHUPRUHPHDVXUHGYLHZRIWKHSKHQRPHQRQSDUWLFXODUO\ DVSUHVHQWHGIURPWKHSHUVSHFWLYHRIWKHHPHUJLQJ/RQGRQFLWL]HQFODVV'HNNHU¶V The Shoemakers Holiday>@ 7KHVDWLULFDOELWHDQGFRPSDUDWLYHFRQVHUYDWLVP of the moral tone Woodstock brings to bear on the favorites’ transgression of established sumptuary codes, on the ease with which they glide over ethical GLOHPPDVVHHLQJWDQJLEOHREVWDFOHVDVWKHRQO\FXUEVWRWKHLUZLOO RQWKHLUFUDYLQJ IRULPPHGLDWHJUDWL¿FDWLRQDQGRQWKHLU\RXWKIXOFRQWHPSWIRUWUDGLWLRQVYDOXHV and institutions upheld by the older generation closely resembles the dramatic construction and disposition of the venal and capital sinners of Arden who, as in Woodstock, are given abundant time and space to express and act on their desires until Anonymous, in collaboration with history, pulls their lives out from under them. However, whereas Arden ODFNV a clear critical or corrective counter (beyond GUDPDWLF LURQ\ VXSHUVWLWLRQ RU WKH ZRUNLQJV RI 3URYLGHQFH  WR WKH VRFLDOO\ disintegrative power of ambition, one which posits the restoration or establishment of a morally normative order in Faversham, Woodstock VHHNV WR VXSSO\ DQG embody this corrective in the plain style of Plain Thomas, who remains throughout HQWLUHO\XQDPXVHGE\WKHNLQGVRIVKHQDQLJDQVZHDQG(OL]DEHWKDQDXGLHQFHV  QR GRXEW ¿QG DQG IRXQG DPXVLQJ LQ WKH PLVDGYHQWXUHV RI Arden’s Michael and 0RVE\6KDNHEDJDQG%ODFN:LOO$OWKRXJKWKHURJXHU\DQGUHVRXUFHIXOQHVVRI Tresilian and Nimble often commend themselves to our attention, there is little doubt that the Woodstock author would, if he could, commend both of them to WKHNLQGRIREOLYLRQZKHUHFRORUDQGSRPSDQGWKHORXGFOLQNLQJRIFRLQVZHUHDV UDUHDV¿JXUHVOLNH3ODLQ7KRPDVSUREDEO\ZHUHRQWKHGLVRUGHUO\VWUHHWVRIODWH (OL]DEHWKDQ/RQGRQ7KHSDVVLRQORGJHGLQWKHFKDUDFWHURI3ODLQ7KRPDVKLPVHOI WKH JHQHUDWLRQDO DQLPRVLW\ WKDW FODLPV KLP DV LWV ¿UVW YLFWLP DQG WKH QRVWDOJLF and moralistic constructions within which the aging “loyal opposition” frames LWVFODLPVSRVLWLRQWKHSOD\¶VDUJXPHQWDERXWDPELWLRQLQD¿HOGRIGLVFRXUVHWKDW appears already to have lost its purchase on this spinning world. 6FKRODUV KDYH ORQJ WUDFHG 3ODLQ7KRPDV¶V UHVHPEODQFH WR WKH ³JRRG´ 'XNH +XPSKUH\ LQ 6KDNHVSHDUH¶V 2 Henry VI and have noted how he more nearly DQWLFLSDWHV6KDNHVSHDUH¶VFRQVWUXFWLRQRI-RKQRI*DXQWLQRichard II than does Woodstock’s YHUVLRQRIWKHVDPH'XNHRI/DQFDVWHU+RZHYHUOHVVDWWHQWLRQKDV been paid to the characters who help speed these characters’ demise, most of whom ZHDUWKHFRGHGPDUNHUVRI\RXWKXQEULGOHGDPELWLRQVXPSWXDU\H[FHVVVH[XDO OLFHQWLRXVQHVV DQG SUHGDWRU\ JUHHG$OWKRXJK VXFK PRUDOL]HG FRQWUDVWV FOHDUO\ SRLQWWRDOOWKUHHSOD\V¶DI¿OLDWLRQZLWKFRQVHUYDWLYHVRFLDOSROLWLFDODQGFXOWXUDO YDOXHVWKHZRUNVLQZKLFKWKH\SOD\VRLQWHJUDODUROHDOOSRLQWDZD\IURPWKH

Anonymity in Early Modern England

96

storied past into a more anxious present in which conservative values are held WRJHWKHUE\WKHIUD\LQJWKUHDGVRIROGVDZVDQGPD[LPVDQGWKHURXJKMXVWLFHRI royal edicts and summary execution.12 The generational animosity that prompts Greene to declare that “it shall be henceforth / counted high treason for any fellow ZLWKDJUH\EHDUGWRFRPHZLWKLQIRUW\IRRWRIWKHFRXUWJDWHV´± DQG the loyalist Cheney to describe the favorites sitting “in council to devise strange IDVKLRQV$QGVXLWWKHPVHOYHVLQZLOGDQGDQWLFKDELWV6XFKDVWKLVNLQJGRPQHYHU \HWEHKHOG´± ZLOODVVXUHGO\FRQWLQXHWRRFFXS\SOD\ZULJKWVOLNH-RQVRQ DQG 6KDNHVSHDUH DPRQJ RWKHUV WKURXJKRXW WKH ¿UVW GHFDGH RI WKH VHYHQWHHQWK century (what is King LearLIQRWLQJUHDWSDUWDJHQHUDWLRQDOWUDJHG\" %XWDV Lear itself demonstrates, and as Bosola brilliantly observes in Webster’s Duchess RI 0DO¿, WKH VKLIW IURP DQ KLHUDUFKLFDOYHUWLFDO WR DQ LQFUHDVLQJO\FRPSHWLWLYH KRUL]RQWDO  SHUVSHFWLYH WRZDUG D GHFLGHGO\ PDWHULDO ZRUOG KDG DOUHDG\ EHHQ accomplished.13 Indeed, by 1599 Simon Eyre’s pseudo-Tamburlainean catchphrase, “Prince am I none, yet am I princely born,” which serves as the refrain IRUKLVH[HPSODU\FOLPEWRWKHSRVLWLRQRI/RUG0D\RULQ'HNNHU¶VShoemaker’s HolidayZLOOFHOHEUDWHWKHDPELWLRQVDQGDFKLHYHPHQWVRI/RQGRQ¶VFLWL]HQFODVV DQGPDNH:RRGVWRFN¶VFDWFKSKUDVH³/HWRWKHUVMHWLQVLONDQGJROG«$FRDWRI (QJOLVKIULH]HEHVWSOHDVHWKPH´VHHPE\FRPSDULVRQYHU\SODLQIDUHLQGHHG Works Cited %HUJHU+DUU\-U³0LUDFXORXV+DUS$5HDGLQJRI6KDNHVSHDUH¶VTempest.” Orig. 1968. Rep. in Second World and Green World: Studies in Renaissance MythMaking. %HUNHOH\ /RQGRQ8RI&DOLIRUQLD3± Bevington, David. Tudor Drama and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1968.

12

As Anthony Esler observes, “despite the tremendous volume of sententious literature WKDWLVVXHGIURPWKH(OL]DEHWKDQSUHVVHVWKHPRUDOLVWUHPDLQHGDSDWKHWLFDOO\ORQHO\¿JXUH among the hustling ruling class of England. He preached status quo to an exuberantly SURJUHVVLYHQDWLRQKHH[WROOHGWKHYLUWXHVRIDSRYHUW\VWULFNHQSUD\DQGEHDULWFXOWXUH WRDMXELODQWO\DIÀXHQWVRFLHW\(YHU\WKLQJLQWKHOLYHVRIWKHVH\RXQJJHQWOHPHQSRLQWHG RQHZD\LWLVQRWVXUSULVLQJWKDWWKH\KDGVKRUWVKULIWIRUWKHVOHHYHWXJJLQJPRUDOL]HUZKR SRLQWHGWKHRWKHU´ :KLOHWKHFRQVHQVXVYLHZRI(QJODQGDV³DQH[XEHUDQWO\SURJUHVVLYH QDWLRQ´DQG³DMXELODQWO\DIÀXHQWVRFLHW\´KDVXQGHUJRQHFRQVLGHUDEOHUHYLVLRQLQWKHODVW  \HDUV RU VR (VOHU¶V SRLQW DERXW ZKDW KH FDOOV ³WKH DVSLULQJ PLQG RI WKH (OL]DEHWKDQ younger generation,” and about the differences between that generation and the ones that preceded it, continues to hold. 13 The lines to which I am referring comprise Bosola’s response to the Duchess’s question, “Do we affect fashion in the grave?”: “Most ambitiously. Princes’ images on their tombs / Do not lie as they were wont, seeming to pray / Up to heaven, but with their hands XQGHUWKHLUFKHHNV$VLIWKH\GLHGRIWKHWRRWKDFKH7KH\DUHQRWFDUYHG:LWKWKHLUH\HV ¿[HGXSRQWKHVWDUVEXWDV7KHLUPLQGVZHUHZKROO\EHQWXSRQWKHZRUOG7KHVHOIVDPH ZD\WKH\VHHPWRWXUQWKHLUIDFHV´± 

What Wrote :RRGVWRFN

97

Cartelli, Thomas. “Edward II.” The Cambridge Companion to Christopher Marlowe(G3DWULFN&KHQH\&DPEULGJH&DPEULGJH83± &KHQH\ 3DWULFN Marlowe’s Counterfeit Profession. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1997. ———. Shakespeare’s Literary Authorship. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2008. Clare, Janet. “Art made tongue-tied by authority”: Elizabethan and Jacobean Dramatic Censorship. 0DQFKHVWHU 1HZ
This page has been left blank intentionally

Chapter 4

Dealing with Dramatic Anonymity: The Case of The Merry Devil of Edmonton Barbara Howard Traister

This essay is about anonymity in the drama of the early modern period. In sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century England, it was common practice to publish play texts without dramatists’ names. The names of the acting company DQGWKHWKHDWHUZKHUHWKHSOD\KDGEHHQVWDJHGZHUHPXFKPRUHOLNHO\WRDSSHDURQ a title page, especially in the sixteenth century, than was an authorial label. In fact, LIZHVXUYH\HDUO\PRGHUQSOD\VWKDWZHUHDQRQ\PRXVDW¿UVWSXEOLFDWLRQWKHLU QXPEHUDQGWKHLUSHUFHQWDJHRIWKHH[WDQWSXEOLVKHGGUDPDIURPWKHSHULRG LV surprisingly large. Many of those originally anonymous plays later gained authorial attributions in the early modern period itself: subsequent editions appeared with the dramatist’s QDPHRQWKHWLWOHSDJHSDUWLFXODUSOD\VZHUHDVVRFLDWHGZLWKSDUWLFXODUGUDPDWLVWV LQFRPPHQWVLQRWKHUWH[WVGUDPDWLVWVWKHPVHOYHVODLGFODLPWRDOUHDG\SXEOLVKHG plays. For these and other reasons, by the time the theaters re-opened in 1660 after an eighteen year hiatus, the number of early modern plays still anonymous KDG VKUXQN FRQVLGHUDEO\ ,Q WKH FHQWXULHV WKDW IROORZHG DV WKH DXWKRU EHFDPH LQFUHDVLQJO\LPSRUWDQWWRERWKWKHXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIDQGWKHUHSXWDWLRQRIZRUNVRI literature, many early modern plays were republished with authors’ names attached VRPHDWWULEXWLRQVZHUHFRUUHFWDQGRWKHUVHUURQHRXV DQGDQXPEHURIVFKRODUV of early modern English drama made attribution—erasing anonymity—a focus of their research. Scholarly preoccupation with the authorship of early modern anonymous texts occasionally thrust particular plays into or out of the limelight as their pedigrees were established or their supposed authorial patrimony disproved. In the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the association of a play with a IDPRXVDXWKRULDOQDPH²PRVWQRWDEO\6KDNHVSHDUH¶V²DVVXUHGWKDWWKHSOD\ZRXOG be reprinted, read, and perhaps produced. As scholars grew more rigorous in their standards for attribution, however, many of the plays once associated with famous QDPHV ZHUH VHSDUDWHG IURP WKRVH QDPHV PDNLQJ WKH SOD\V DJDLQ DQRQ\PRXV $ IDPRXV LQVWDQFH LV &) 7XFNHU %URRNH¶V SXEOLFDWLRQ RI The Shakespeare Apocrypha, an anthology of 14 plays that had been associated, some seriously DQG RWKHUV UDWKHU FDVXDOO\ ZLWK 6KDNHVSHDUH 7KRXJK %URRNH JDYH WKHVH SOD\V re-publication in his volume, by assigning them to the “apocryphal” category he virtually assured them of diminished attention (nevertheless, two of these “apocryphal” plays—Two Noble Kinsmen and Edward the Third—have once again

100

Anonymity in Early Modern England

EHHQDFFHSWHGDWOHDVWLQSDUWLQWRWKH6KDNHVSHDUHDQIDPLO\ 1%URRNH¶VDQWKRORJ\ includes plays such as Mucidorus, Fair Em, The Puritan Widow, and The Merry Devil of Edmonton, none of which has aroused much critical interest—other than RFFDVLRQDODWWHPSWVWRDWWULEXWHWKHPWRDGUDPDWLVWRWKHUWKDQ6KDNHVSHDUH²VLQFH %URRNH¶VDQWKRORJ\DSSHDUHG :ULWLQJ OLWWOH PRUH WKDQ D GHFDGH DIWHU %URRNH (. &KDPEHUV LQ KLV monumental study of the early modern theater, labeled about 20 percent of the URXJKO\SOD\VKHOLVWVDVSXEOLVKHGRUSHUIRUPHGDQGVXEVHTXHQWO\SXEOLVKHG  between the years 1558 and 1616 as anonymous. This snapshot of early modern GUDPDWLFDQRQ\PLW\WDNHQLQWKH¿UVWTXDUWHURIWKHWZHQWLHWKFHQWXU\ORRNVTXLWH GLIIHUHQWIURPRQHWKDWPLJKWKDYHEHHQWDNHQLQRULQIDFWRQHWKDWPLJKW EHWDNHQWRGD\DGHFDGHLQWRWKHWZHQW\¿UVWFHQWXU\$UHDGHUKDVRQO\WRORRN DW&KDPEHUV¶VOLVWRIDQRQ\PRXVSOD\VWRUHDOL]HWKDWVHYHUDOKDYHEHHQDVVLJQHG authors by subsequent scholars.2 Pericles, Two Noble Kinsmen, and Edward III DUH QRZ DWWULEXWHG WR 6KDNHVSHDUH The Revenger’s Tragedy is now assigned to 0LGGOHWRQWKRXJKZKHQ,ZDVDJUDGXDWHVWXGHQWLWEHORQJHGWR&\ULO7RXUQHXU  and a few other plays have been attached to early modern playwrights. This slow but steady reduction in the category of early modern anonymous drama merely points out the instability of the term “anonymous.” $QRQ\PRXVZKHQ"ZHPLJKWDVNDWWKHPRPHQWRISXEOLFDWLRQ"DWWKHHQGRI WKHSHULRGZKHQWKHOLYLQJFRXOGSRVVLEO\KDYHNQRZQWKDWDSDUWLFXODUGUDPDWLVW had written a particular play? in the early twentieth century when Chambers published his exhaustive study? or at the present moment? In this essay I will consider the most limited group of anonymous, early modern dramatic texts, those SOD\VVWLOODQRQ\PRXVLQWKHWZHQW\¿UVWFHQWXU\,DPSDUWLFXODUO\LQWHUHVWHGLQ WZRNLQGVRITXHVWLRQVDERXWWKHVHSOD\V)LUVWZKDWWUHDWPHQWGRVWLOODQRQ\PRXV plays receive in the classroom and from editors and scholars? What chance GR WKH\ KDYH WR EHFRPH WKH VXEMHFW RI VHULRXV FRQWHPSRUDU\ VWXG\" 6HFRQG 1 Another attribution debate occurred in the 1990s when the poem “A Funeral Elegy” ZDVDWWULEXWHGWR6KDNHVSHDUHRQWKHEDVLVRIVW\OLVWLFHYLGHQFHDQDO\]HGZLWKWKHKHOSRID FRPSXWHU$IWHUPXFKVFKRODUO\GLVFXVVLRQÀDZVZHUHIRXQGLQWKHDWWULEXWLRQHYLGHQFHDQG the poem became again anonymous. The debate gets its fullest airing in an issue of Shakespeare Studies  ZKHUHVFKRODUVVXFKDV'RQDOG)RVWHU5LFKDUG$EUDPV6WDQOH\:HOOV and J. Leeds Barroll weigh in on the question of the Elegy’s authorship. See also, Donald :)RVWHU³$)XQHUDO(OHJ\:>LOOLDP@6>KDNHVSHDUH@¶Vµ%HVW6SHDNLQJ:LWQHVVHV¶´PMLA  QR    ±$ .HQW +LHDWW DQG RWKHUV ³$WWULEXWLQJ D )XQHUDO (OHJ\´ PMLA  QR    ± 5LFKDUG$EUDPV ³:>LOOLDP 6>KDNHVSHDUH@¶V µ)XQHUDO Elegy’ and the Turn from the Theatrical,” SEL  QR    ± 6WDQOH\ :HOOV ³,Q0HPRU\RI0DVWHU:LOOLDP3HWHU7KH'LI¿FXOWLHVRI$WWULEXWLQJµ$)XQHUDO(OHJ\¶WR 6KDNHVSHDUH´TLS -DQ %ULDQ9LFNHUV³:KRVH7KXPESULQWV"$0RUH Plausible Author for ‘A Funeral Elegy,’” TLS 0DU DQGPDQ\RWKHUV 2 In fairness to Chambers, it is important to point out that he was attempting to be very scrupulous in his distinctions. When attribution still seemed in any doubt, he retained the play in the anonymous category.

Dealing with Dramatic Anonymity

101

ZKDW DQDO\WLF TXHVWLRQV FDQ SUR¿WDEO\ EH DVNHG RI DQRQ\PRXV GUDPDWLF WH[WV" Considering a play without an author, after all, forces contemporary scholars and WHDFKHUVWRIRUHJRDQXPEHURIWKHVWDQGDUGZD\VRIFRQWH[WXDOL]LQJDSOD\,WLV not possible to compare an anonymous play to other plays by the same author, to GLVFXVVZKHUHLW¿WVLQDGUDPDWLVW¶VFKURQRORJ\RUWRXVHLWWRIXHODGLVFXVVLRQ of the dramatist’s development or his/her preoccupations, values, style, or social views. Not its original anonymity, but the failure of later readers and critics to successfully establish its authorship is what brands the still-anonymous play an RUSKDQXQOLNHPDQ\RWKHUSOD\VIRUPHUO\DQRQ\PRXVEXWQRZUHXQLWHGZLWKRQFH PLVVLQJ DXWKRUV 7KLV IDLOXUH WR ¿QG D SOD\ LWV DXWKRU IUHTXHQWO\ UHOHJDWHV LW WR obscurity and effectively “silences” it. Until quite recently, a still-anonymous play would have (as a review of the FULWLFDOVFKRODUVKLSVHHPVWRLQGLFDWH EHHQVHHQ¿WSULPDULO\IRUDIRUPDOLVWUHDGLQJ an unappealing prospect for many contemporary critics. With the shift in critical LQWHUHVWWRZDUGVXFKDUHDVDVPDWHULDOFXOWXUHDQGERRNKLVWRU\KRZHYHUDQRQ\PRXV plays are becoming more interesting to literary scholars and teachers, though it is RIWHQGLI¿FXOWWR¿QGWKHPLQPRGHUQHGLWLRQV,QZKDWIROORZV,¿UVWORRNEULHÀ\ at two still-anonymous plays to see how they have fared among twentieth and WZHQW\¿UVWFHQWXU\HGLWRUVDQGVFKRODUVDQGWKHQXVHRQHRIWKHPWRH[SORUHKRZ DQHDUO\PRGHUQDXGLHQFHDQGUHDGHUVKLS²WRZKRPDXWKRUVKLSZDVQRWRIWKH¿UVW LPSRUWDQFH²PLJKWKDYHFRQWH[WXDOL]HGDQDQRQ\PRXVGUDPDWLFWH[W Two extremely popular early modern plays, Mucedorus and The Merry Devil of Edmonton, ERWK SULQWHG E\ %URRNH LQ The Shakespeare Apocrypha and both romantic comedies, will serve as my test cases for the contemporary treatment of anonymous plays. They are perhaps not typical of the larger group of stillDQRQ\PRXV SOD\V IRU HDFK ZDV RQFH DWWULEXWHG WR 6KDNHVSHDUH DQG WKXV PLJKW EHDVVXPHGWRKDYHVRPHTXDOLWLHVWKDWPDNHLWVWDQGRXWDPRQJLWVSHHUV3 For my purposes, the choice of two plays successful in the early modern period is deliberate because, hypothetically, these plays might be expected to receive a modicum of interest and favorable treatment in our own period. Mucedorus¿UVWSXEOLVKHGLQ³SDVVHGWKURXJKVHYHQWHHQHGLWLRQVEHWZHHQ 1598 and 1700 a record unequalled in the history of the pre-Restoration drama” %URRNH YLL  ,Q WKH QLQHWHHQWK FHQWXU\ LW ZDV UHSULQWHG PRVWO\ LQ FROOHFWLRQV of plays, another seven times. In this dramatic romance, the eponymous hero, a prince, disguises himself as a shepherd in order to meet and woo the beautiful, EXWDOUHDG\EHWURWKHGGDXJKWHURIDQHLJKERULQJNLQJ$IWHUDQXPEHURIFULVHV IURPZKLFKKHUHVFXHVWKHSULQFHVVLQFOXGLQJDQDWWDFNE\DEHDUDQGFDSWXUHE\D :LOG0DQ0XFHGRUXVZLQVWKHORYHRI$PDGLQHWKRXJKKHUIDWKHUREMHFWVWRKLP because of his shepherd’s status. Once Mucedorus confesses that he is a prince, however, the expected wedding follows. 3 %URRNHZRXOGGLVDJUHHZLWKWKLVDVVXPSWLRQKRZHYHUIRUKHSDUWLFXODUO\VLQJOHV MucedorusRXWDVRQHRIWKHWZR³ZRUVW´YL SOD\VLQKLVFROOHFWLRQGHVFULELQJLWDVDQ ³DEVXUGSOD\ZLWKWKHPHULWVDQGGHIHFWVRIDQXUVHU\WDOH´YLL 

102

Anonymity in Early Modern England

Despite its early publication history, only one critical edition of the play was published in the last century.4 A search of the MLA database reveals 18 entries dealing with Mucedorus, a respectable number. Three of these citations are to the editions mentioned in the previous footnote, with Jupin’s edition receiving two FLWDWLRQVIRUKLVGLVVHUWDWLRQDQGDJDLQIRUWKH*DUODQGSXEOLFDWLRQ WZRGHDOZLWK WKH³VDYDJHPDQ´¿JXUHLQMucedorusDQGRWKHUHDUO\PRGHUQZRUNVWZRPRUH IRFXVRQWKHRQVWDJHEHDUZKLFK0XFHGRUXVNLOOVLQYLHZRIWKHDXGLHQFHRQHGHDOV ZLWKWKHSOD\¶VHDUO\DWWULEXWLRQWR6KDNHVSHDUHWZRGHDOZLWKWH[WXDOSUREOHPV three with production history, and four examine the play critically. In addition, Mucedorus has been included in at least one recent anthology of early modern drama.5'HVSLWHLWVDQRQ\PLW\DQG%URRNH¶VQHJDWLYHRSLQLRQMucedorus remains YLVLEOHRQWKHWZHQW\¿UVWFHQWXU\KRUL]RQWRDSHUVLVWHQWVHHNHU&ULWLFVDUHFKLHÀ\ interested in how plot details relate to other early modern plays—the bear to the bear in The Winter’s Tale, the savage man to other literary savage men. Despite its VSULQNOLQJ RI FULWLFDO H[DPLQDWLRQV KRZHYHU Mucedorus commands none of the extraordinary attention it received from its early modern readers and audiences. The Merry Devil of Edmonton, on the other hand, “the only play of the pseudo6KDNHVSHDULDQFODVVZKLFKFDQDWDOOFRPSDUHZLWKMucedorus in popularity” and ³DFRQVLGHUDEO\EHWWHUFRPHG\´%URRNHYLL KDVDOPRVWFRPSOHWHO\GURSSHGRXW of sight. Also an anonymous romantic comedy, The Merry Devil of Edmonton had a vigorous early publication and production history. Entered in the Stationer’s Register in 1607, though probably in the playhouse as early as 1602, the play went through six editions before 1660. It was singled out for its popularity by Ben Jonson, who described it as “your dear delight” (The Devil is an Ass, Prol LQ his own play about a devil. First played at court in 1613, it was performed again E\WKH.LQJ¶V0HQEHIRUH.LQJ-DPHVLQDQGKDGDWKLUGFRXUWSHUIRUPDQFH in November, 1638 to celebrate the birthday of one of Charles I’s daughters. In 1642, the public theaters closed, but when they reopened after the Restoration, The Merry Devil was almost immediately revived. Samuel Pepys reports seeing it LQ³DYHU\PHUU\SOD\WKH¿UVWWLPH,HYHUVDZLWZKLFKSOHDVHGPHZHOO´ (Diary$XJXVW,,S ,WZDVUHYLYHGDJDLQZLWKDQLPSUHVVLYHFDVWLQ and in the nineteenth century it found an enthusiastic reader in Sir Walter Scott, who referred to it in print at least twice. In the early twentieth century, it was reprinted WKUHHWLPHVEHIRUH)LUVWDWWULEXWHGWR6KDNHVSHDUHE\0RVHOH\DVHDUO\DV 1653, its association with the Bard may partially account for its popularity after WKHHDUO\PRGHUQSHULRG2QFHODEHOHGDVDSRFU\SKDOLQ%URRNH¶VFROOHFWLRQDQG WKHUHIRUHQRORQJHUFRQVLGHUHGDOHJLWLPDWHFKLOGRI6KDNHVSHDUH¶VSHQKRZHYHU its long and happy life dwindled to almost nothing. A search of the MLA database, for example, provides only two citations, to a scholarly edition by William Abrams 4 Contextual study and modern-spelling edition of Mucedorus, ed. Arvin H. Jupin 1<*DUODQG 1RUPDQ3%R\HUSUHSDUHGDQHGLWLRQRIWKHSOD\DVKLV3K'GLVVHUWDWLRQ  EXWGLGQRWJRRQWRSXEOLVKLWH[FHSWZLWK8QLYHUVLW\0LFUR¿OPV 5 See Drama of the English Renaissance I: The Tudor Period, 463–80.

Dealing with Dramatic Anonymity

103

SXEOLVKHGLQDQGWRDSDSHUEDFNHGLWLRQE\1LFROD%HQQHWWLQ7KRXJK occasionally given brief treatment in studies of renaissance drama,6 the play has JDUQHUHGOLWWOHFULWLFDODWWHQWLRQQRMRXUQDOFLWDWLRQVDSSHDU Why did it slip from being a clearly popular and much performed play into YLUWXDOREVFXULW\"2QH UHDVRQ FRXOGEH LWVVXEMHFWPDWWHU 0DJLFZDV DSSHDOLQJ to playgoers in the early seventeenth century, but by the time of John Dryden, ZULWHUV ZHUH H[SUHVVLQJ WKHLU GLVEHOLHI LQ VXFK ³YXOJDU´ VXEMHFW PDWWHU ³%XW6KDNHVSHDU¶V0DJLFNFRXOGQRWFRS\¶GEH:LWKLQWKDW&LUFOHQRQHGXUVW ZDON EXW KH  , PXVW FRQIHVV ¶WZDV EROG QRU ZRXOG \RX QRZ 7KDW OLEHUW\ WR YXOJDU:LWVDOORZ:KLFKZRUNVE\PDJLFNVXSHUQDWXUDOWKLQJV´³3URORJXHWR The Tempest or The Enchanted Island´ 6LJ$ OO ± 7KRXJK The Merry Devil was still being performed as Dryden wrote, perhaps because it had become DVVRFLDWHGZLWK6KDNHVSHDUHLWVVXEMHFWPDWWHUQRORQJHUJHQHUDWHGWKHLQWHUHVWLW did when magic was believed by many to be a credible part of their world. 'HVSLWH D ZLGHVSUHDG EUHDNGRZQ LQ PDJLFDO EHOLHI KRZHYHU SOD\V VXFK DV Robert Greene’s Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay ZLWK  0/$ FLWDWLRQV  DQG Christopher Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus (with more citations than can easily be FRXQWHG VXUYLYHGLQWRWKHWZHQWLHWKFHQWXU\LQFRXUVHVRQHDUO\PRGHUQGUDPDDQG continue to receive critical attention. Faustus is even occasionally produced by an DPELWLRXVWKHDWHUFRPSDQ\/LNHFriar Bacon, The Merry Devil deals with magic WKDWDVVLVWV\RXQJORYHUVDQGOLNHFaustus, it portrays on stage the confrontation between a magician and a devil who holds a contract for the magician’s soul. Another magical play of the period, also included in The Shakespeare Apocrypha, is The Birth of Merlin, long anonymous but now generally attributed to Samuel Rowley. A far less coherent and less entertaining play than The Merry Devil ZLWK QRQH RI LWV SURGXFWLRQ SRSXODULW\ LQ IDFW LW LV XQOLNHO\ WR KDYH HYHU EHHQ SHUIRUPHG  The Birth of Merlin nevertheless garners 10 MLA citations, many but not all dealing with attribution of authorship. These comparisons suggest that The Merry Devil’s FXUUHQW REVFXULW\ DQG QHJOHFW DUH OLNHO\ WR EH GXH OHVV WR LWV VXEMHFWPDWWHUWKDQWRLWVDQRQ\PLW\$IWHUDOORWKHUWKDQFRQWLQXHWRVHDUFKIRUD SODXVLEOHDWWULEXWLRQZKDWFDQZHGRZLWKDSOD\WKDWODFNVLWVDXWKRU" In her recent study of early modern anonymity, Marcy North argues persuasively that anonymity is often a choice or a strategy that gives a text authority and control  $W ¿UVW JODQFH WKLV FRPPHQW VHHPV LQDSSOLFDEOH WR GUDPD EHFDXVH RI WKH frequency of anonymous publication in that genre. When it is common practice what strategy can be involved? But in another sense, plays are the early modern texts that have the most authority and control. They were sometimes published, but HYHQLIWKH\ZHUHQRWWKH\VSRNHIRUWKHPVHOYHVDQGWRHDFKRWKHUIURPWKHSXEOLF stages of London. As a case in point, I wish to use The Merry Devil to explore how DQHDUO\PRGHUQDXGLHQFHDQGUHDGHUVKLSPLJKWKDYHFRQWH[WXDOL]HGDQRQ\PRXV dramatic texts in general and this one in particular. Perhaps the relationship of 6 Michael Bristol’s succinct discussion of the play’s treatment of the “politics of PDUULDJH´LVSHUKDSVWKHEHVWH[DPSOH± 

104

Anonymity in Early Modern England

D GUDPDWLF WH[W WR LWV SHHUV VHUYHG LQ OLHX RI DXWKRULDO LGHQWL¿FDWLRQ WR JLYH LWV early audiences a point from which to understand and engage with an anonymous play. Early modern plays participated in webs of cross reference and allusion to one another, resulting in a conversation among productions that appeared on the London stage or play texts that were published in quarto editions. In fact, the articles about Mucedorus that trace the bear or the savage man across several texts are responding to these dramatic cross-references. The relationship of one play to another at that moment when English theater production was concentrated in a small area in a single city, when devoted playgoers could see almost every play produced, may well have been more visible and more important to early modern audiences and readers than the relationships among a single author’s texts or the GLIIHUHQFHVEHWZHHQWKHSOD\VRI%HQ-RQVRQDQG:LOOLDP6KDNHVSHDUH Because The Merry Devil ZDV ZHOO NQRZQ DQG LV RIWHQ UHIHUUHG WR LQ RWKHU play texts, it seems an interesting example to examine for evidence of some sort of dialogue among plays. Though it connects with other early modern English plays in a number of ways and thus could be said to participate in several dramatic “conversations,” I will follow the thread of magic and focus on the play’s participation in a stage conversation about devils and their relationship to individual humans. &RQYHUVDWLRQDERXWGHYLOVZDVE\QRPHDQVFRQ¿QHGWRWKHVWDJH,QWKHODWH VL[WHHQWKFHQWXU\GHYLOVRUGHPRQLFVSLULWVZHUHWKHREMHFWRIFRQVLGHUDEOHDWWHQWLRQ in England and across Europe. Some people believed themselves, or were believed by family and friends, to be possessed by demons. In many such cases, exorcisms were performed—in protestant England as well as on the continent.7 As the range of English possession and exorcism narratives suggests, some of these cases were WDNHQYHU\VHULRXVO\DQGWKHH[RUFLVPVGHHPHGVXFFHVVIXO2WKHUFDVHVSHUKDSV WDNHQMXVWDVVHULRXVO\ZHUHHYHQWXDOO\UHYHDOHGWREHIUDXGXOHQW Devils were also part of discussions of witchcraft and magic. Narratives about ZLWFKHVUHSRUWHGWKDWWKH\PDGHFRQWUDFWVZLWKGHYLOVDOORZLQJWKHPWRVXFNEORRG or to have sexual intercourse, in return for certain limited powers. Compelling evidence of witchcraft was the accused’s relationship with an individual demon, usually in the form of a small animal—cat, dog, or toad—accused of carrying out the witch’s malicious mischief. A very different power dynamic operated EHWZHHQGHYLOVDQGPDJLFLDQV$VSULQNOLQJRIZHOOHGXFDWHGPHQDFURVV(XURSH claimed to be magicians who derived their magical power from their relationship with spirits. Neoplatonic magicians claimed to attract benevolent spirits by their celibate lifestyle and their learning, but other magicians boldly attempted to control GHPRQLFVSLULWVRUGHYLOVE\FRQMXULQJWKHPLQWRDPDJLFDOFLUFOHDQGIRUFLQJWKHP to carry out commands issued by the magicians. Faustus expected to become this VRUWRIPDJLFLDQZKHQKHFRQMXUHGRQVWDJHWRVXPPRQ0HSKLVWRSKLOHV 7 A number of English narratives of demonic possession and exorcism from the late sixteenth century are reprinted by Philip C. Almond in Demonic Possession and Exorcism in Early Modern England: Contemporary Texts and the Cultural Contexts.

Dealing with Dramatic Anonymity

105

This early modern concern about the ways that men and women interacted with demonic spirits has been explained in various ways. For example, Walter Stephens, ZULWLQJDERXWZLWFKFUDIWWULDOVFODLPVWKDWDVVNHSWLFLVPDERXWWKHVSLULWXDOZRUOG JUHZ¿QGLQJSURRIRIWKHUHDOLW\RIGHPRQVEHFDPHPRUHLPSRUWDQW 0RVWLIQRWDOOZLWFKFUDIWWKHRULVWV²DQGSUREDEO\WKHPDMRULW\RIZLWFKFUDIW interrogators—were interested in sexual and other corporeal relations between KXPDQV DQG GHPRQV EHFDXVH WKH\ ZHUH DQ[LRXV WR FRQ¿UP WKH UHDOLW\ RI WKH ZRUOGRIVSLULW7KH\FRQVLGHUHGWKHFDUQDONQRZOHGJHRIGHIHQGDQWVWKHLUPRVW YDOXDEOHSURRIRIWKDWUHDOLW\

If devils existed, Stephens argues, then the spirit world existed and by extension so did God. My intention here is not to engage the arguments of Stephens or DQ\ RI WKH RWKHU FRQWHPSRUDU\ FULWLFV ZKR WKHRUL]H DERXW WKH JURZLQJ LQWHUHVW in demons during the early modern period,8 but to demonstrate that plays about GHYLOVDQGWKHLUUHODWLRQVKLSVWRKXPDQNLQGVWDJHGLQWKH/RQGRQWKHDWHUVLQWKH SHULRGEHWZHHQDQGZRXOGKDYHUDLVHGDVXEMHFWLQZKLFKDQXPEHURI people were interested. /LNHTaming of the Shrew, The Merry Devil opens with a narrative that remains FXULRXVO\XQ¿QLVKHGDWWKHSOD\¶VHQG7KH3URORJXHUHYHDOVWKDW3HWHU)DEHOOD scholar and magician, is at the end of his earthly life. Having sold his soul to the GHYLOLQDELQGLQJFRQWUDFWDWVRPHSUHYLRXVSRLQWLQWLPH)DEHOOLVDZDNHQHGE\ a devil named Coreb who demands that Fabell pay up according to the terms of the agreement he signed many years earlier. The hour has come when he must go WRKHOO)DEHOOEHJVIRUDELWPRUHWLPHWR¿QLVKKLVZRUOGO\DIIDLUVDQGRIIHUVWKH devil a chair while he waits. At this point, however, the power shifts in the scene as Fabell manages to trap Coreb in the chair, releasing him only after the devil grants Fabell another seven years of life on earth. Coreb returns to hell alone, leaving Fabell on the stage. But as the devil leaves he threatens: “Ile returne / to P\LQIHUQDOOPDQVLRQEXWEHVXUH7K\VHYHQ\HHUHVGRQHQRHWULFNHVKDOOPDNH PHWDUU\%XW&RUHEWKRXWRKHOOVKDOW)DEHOOFDUU\´,QGXFWLRQ±  7KH UHPDUNDEOH IHDWXUH RI WKLV ,QGXFWLRQ RI FRXUVH LV WKDW LW GRHV QRW HQG as the audience expects. Schooled by Doctor Faustus to understand the bargain VWUXFN EHWZHHQ PDQ DQG GHYLO WKH DXGLHQFH DQWLFLSDWHV D VFHQH RI GHVSDLU DQG regret on the part of Fabell before he is dragged down to hell at the scene’s end. The Merry Devil, however, subverts that expectation by presenting a magician ZKRLVDSSDUHQWO\QRWDZDUHXQWLOWKH³IDWDOOFKLPH´WROOVWKDWWKHWLPHVSHFL¿HG LQKLVFRQWUDFWZLWKWKHGHYLOKDVH[SLUHG8QOLNH)DXVWXVZKRFRXQWVWKHKRXUV 8 Other recent scholars who have studied the early modern preoccupation with demons LQFOXGH 6WXDUW &ODUN Thinking with Demons: The Idea of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe$UPDQGR0DJJLSatan’s Rhetoric: A Study of Renaissance Demonology+LODLUH .DOOHQGRUI Exorcism and its Texts: Subjectivity in Early Modern Literature of England and SpainDQG1DQF\&DFLRODDiscerning Spirits: Divine and Demonic Possession in the Middle Ages.

106

Anonymity in Early Modern England

and minutes and despairs as the date on his demonic pact draws near, Fabell has apparently been sleeping. As Coreb reminds him of the terms of his bargain, KRZHYHU)DEHOOQHJRWLDWHVIRUDEHWWHUGHDO+HDVNVWREHEXULHGXQGHUWKHHQWLUH earth and to have a sparrow carry away only as much earth each day as her bill will hold. At least, he claims, such an arrangement would allow him some hope. Coreb UHIXVHV)DEHOODVNVIRUDSRVWSRQHPHQWEHFDXVHKHKDVEXVLQHVVWRGRIRUDIULHQG &RUHEUHIXVHV)DEHOODVNVIRUMXVWDIHZPLQXWHVZKLOHKHJHWVXSIURPKLVEHGDQG GLVSDWFKHVRQHELWRIEXVLQHVV&RUHEUHOXFWDQWO\DJUHHVDQGVLQNVLQWRWKHFKDLU )DEHOORIIHUVKLP)DEHOO¶VQH[WVSHHFKLVKLVPRVWHORTXHQWRIWKHSOD\)XO¿OOLQJ the audience’s expectations, he articulates the conventional warning given by the magical overreacher at the moment of his downfall: O, that this soule, that cost so great a price As the deere pretious blood of her redeemer, ,QVSLUGHZLWKNQRZOHGJHVKRXOGE\WKDWDORQH :KLFKPDNHVDPDQVRPHDQHYQWRWKHSRZHUV Euen lead him downe into the depth of hell, :KHQPHQLQWKHLURZQHSULGHVWULXHWRNQRZPRUH 7KHQDPDQVKRXOGNQRZ For this alone God cast the Angelles downe. 7KHLQ¿QLW\RI$UWVLVOLNHDVHD ,QWRZKLFKZKHQPDQZLOOWDNHLQKDQGWRVDLOH Further then reason, which should be his pilot, +DWKVNLOOWRJXLGHKLPORVLQJRQFHKLVFRPSDVVH He falleth to such deepe and dangerous whirlepooles, As he doth lose the very sight of heauen: The more he striues to come to quiet harbor, 7KHIXUWKHUVWLOOKH¿QGVKLPVHOIHIURPODQG 0DQVWULXLQJVWLOOWR¿QGHWKHGHSWKRIHXLOO 6HHNLQJWREHD*RGEHFRPHVD'HXLOO,QGXFWLRQ±

,Q WKHVH OLQHV )DEHOO VXPPDUL]HV WKH WUDJLF SRVLWLRQ RI WKH PDQ ZKR VWULYHV WR EHFRPHD³GHPLJRG´E\DFTXLULQJRFFXOWNQRZOHGJHDQGSRZHU$VWKH,QGXFWLRQ continues, however, genre expectations are suddenly overthrown, as the Prologue KDG HQLJPDWLFDOO\ KLQWHG ³YQWLOO \RX NQRZ  7KH &RPPLFNH HQG RI RXU VDG 7UDJLTXHVKRZ´± )DEHOOFODLPVWREHUHDG\WROHDYHIRUKHOOEXW&RUHE FDQQRWULVHIURPWKHFKDLU)DEHOOPRFNVKLPFDOOVKLP³\RXUKROORZQHVV´DQG RIIHUVKLPDUHYLYLQJGULQNRIDTXDYLWDEXWKHUHOHDVHVWKHKHOSOHVVGHYLOIURP the chair only after he has extracted a vow from him that the magician can have another seven years of life on earth. Coreb leaves the stage alone, muttering curses but having granted Fabell the additional time. For his part, Fabell caps the scene ZLWKDÀLSSDQWFRXSOHW³7KHQWKXVEHWZL[WYVWZRWKLVYDULDQFHHQGV7KRXWRWK\ IHOORZ)LHQGV,WRP\IULHQGV´±  :LWKRXW WKH DXGLHQFH¶V NQRZOHGJH RI Faustus, this scene would lose much of its titillation and impact. Perhaps Doctor FaustusPDNHVSRVVLEOHWKHEUHYLW\ of this initial scene. Since that wildly popular play of a decade earlier was well

Dealing with Dramatic Anonymity

107

NQRZQE\/RQGRQWKHDWHUDXGLHQFHVThe Merry Devil had no need to explain the details of what had gone before. The contract with the devil written in blood was well understood as was the horror that awaited the magician when that contract IHOOGXH7KLVIRUHNQRZOHGJHSUHSDUHGWKHDXGLHQFHIRUWKHWUDJHG\WKH\H[SHFWHG to unfold, but the Induction neatly overturns their expectation by suggesting that a truly clever man can outwit the devil and live on, at least for another seven years. The verbal wit that Fabell displays once he has trapped Coreb indicates that he was QHYHUZRUULHGRULQGDQJHUKLVLPSUHVVLYHVSHHFKRQPDQ¶VDPELJXRXVSRVLWLRQ LQWKHFRVPRVZDVDSSDUHQWO\IRUHIIHFW+HVKRZVRQO\PRFNHU\QRWUHOLHIDIWHU KHLPPRELOL]HV&RUHE7KH,QGXFWLRQVFHQHJDLQVSRZHUIURPLWVLPSOLFLWFRQWUDVW to Faustus. If The Merry Devil was written and staged partly with the expectation that its RSHQLQJHIIHFWZRXOGEHPDJQL¿HGE\LWVDXGLHQFH¶VNQRZOHGJHRIFaustus, then its subsequent acts may have been designed to recall the magical comedy Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay SUREDEO\VWDJHGLQDQG¿UVWSXEOLVKHGLQ . There are obvious similarities between these two romantic comedies. In both, magicians assist in love affairs, and when those affairs appear to go wrong, the \RXQJURPDQWLFKHURLQHVEULHÀ\ZLQGXSLQQXQQHULHVXQWLOWKHLUORYHUVDVVLVWHGE\ magicians, manage to release them. In Friar Bacon, Margaret enters the nunnery RIKHURZQYROLWLRQZKHQVKHEHOLHYHVKHUORYHU5RODQG/DFH\KDVIRUVDNHQKHU and in The Merry Devil, Milliscent Clare is dispatched to the nunnery by her father DV DQ H[FXVH IRU EUHDNLQJ RII KHU HQJDJHPHQW DQ HQJDJHPHQW KH QRZ UHJUHWV because he has found a richer husband for her. Neither woman has any interest in the life of a nun, and both are soon removed by their lovers from the convents. Beyond this plot similarity, however, the treatment of devils in the two plays LV DOVR ZRUWK\ RI QRWLFH 8QOLNH )DXVWXV RU )DEHOO )ULDU %DFRQ DQG WZR RWKHU minor magicians in the play have not signed contracts with the devil as a way to access magical power.9 Whenever devils appear on stage in this play, one of WKHWKUHHPDJLFLDQVKDVVXPPRQHGWKHPDQGFRQWUROVWKHP²MXVWDV)DXVWXVKDG hoped to control Mephistophiles before he learned that his only route to power was through the demonic contract. Devils appear in Friar Bacon primarily to transport FKDUDFWHUVIURPRQHSODFHWRDQRWKHUDQGLQVRGRLQJWRSURYRNHODXJKWHU2QHRI the transportation scenes, in fact, particularly recalls and contrasts with Faustus. Angered by the ineptitude of his servant Miles, Bacon summons a devil onstage and orders him to transport Miles to hell. Instead of terror, Miles displays excitement DQGDQWLFLSDWLRQ+H¶VGHOLJKWHGWRJRWRKHOODQGKRSHVKHFDQJHWDMREWKHUHDV a tapster. He even straps on spurs so that he can control the pace of the devil on ZKRVHEDFNKHULGHVRIIVWDJH7KXVWKHWRQHRIWKHWULSWRKHOODOWHUVIURPWKHWUDJLF terror of a Faustus to Miles’ insouciance.

9 Though in Greene’s sources for the play, both the English magician Friar Bungay and the German magician Vandermast were reported to have made blood contracts with the devil. Greene has removed all references to such contracts from his play.

108

Anonymity in Early Modern England

The play’s overall treatment of magic is edgy, however, and not as casual as its use of devils might indicate. Bacon is twice careless in the play, destroying D PDJLFDO SURMHFW LQ RQH FDVH DQG LQ WKH RWKHU EHFRPLQJ WKH LQGLUHFW FDXVH RI two student deaths. He allows the students, who come from the same town, XQVXSHUYLVHG XVH RI KLV PDJLF JODVV WR ORRN DW WKHLU IDPLOLHV EDFN KRPH 7KH\ ZLWQHVVWKHLUIDWKHUVNLOORQHDQRWKHULQDGXHORYHUWKHURPDQWLFKHURLQH0DUJDUHW (QUDJHG WKH WZR VWXGHQWV VHL]H ZHDSRQV DQG NLOO HDFK RWKHU UHSOLFDWLQJ WKHLU IDWKHUV¶DFWV%DFRQLVKRUUL¿HGDWZKDWKLVPDJLFDOHTXLSPHQWKDVSHUPLWWHGDQG renounces magic. The renunciation, a convention in many comic treatments of magic including 6KDNHVSHDUH¶VThe Tempest, is another option that The Merry Devil forgoes. Having had a brush with his own damnation, Fabell might have repented and renounced KLV PDJLF ,QVWHDG LQ KLV ¿UVW DSSHDUDQFH DIWHU WKH ,QGXFWLRQ )DEHOO SRVLWLYHO\ vaunts his magical ability: :HHOH¿UVWKDQJ(QXLOO>(Q¿HOG@LQVXFKULQJVRIPLVWH As neuer rose from any dampish fenne: ,OHPDNHWKHEULQHGVHDWRULVHDW:DUH $QGGURZQHWKHPDUVKHVYQWR6WUDWIRUGEULGJH […] We may perhaps be crost, but, if we be, +HVKDOOFURVVHWKHGHXLOOWKDWEXWFURVVHVPH,LLL±

7KXVWKLVSOD\RIWKH¿UVWGHFDGHRIWKHVHYHQWHHQWKFHQWXU\VHHPVWREHEROGHULQLWV treatment of magic than either Faustus or Friar Bacon, plays of the 1590s. In both WKRVHSOD\VPHQZKRGHDOWZLWKWKHGHYLOPXVWDOZD\VEHZDU\DPLVVWHSPLJKW PHDQGHDWKDQGGDPQDWLRQDVLWGLGIRU)DXVWXV2UDPDQPLJKWUHDOL]HWKHGDQJHUV of dealing with demonic spirits and magic and renounce such activity, as Bacon does. The Merry DevilRQWKHRWKHUKDQGVKRZVDPDJLFLDQPRUHOLNH0LOHVLQDWWLWXGH WKDQOLNHKLVPDVWHU)ULDU%DFRQ)DEHOOLVLQFRQWURORIWKHGHYLOIRUFLQJKLPWR VOLQNEDFNWRKHOOPXWWHULQJWKUHDWV'HVSLWHWKHVHWKUHDWV)DEHOOVHHPVXQFRQFHUQHG about what will happen after seven years pass. In fact, Fabell arrogates the name GHYLOWRKLPVHOILQWKH¿QDOOLQHTXRWHGDERYH,QWKLVSOD\PDQKROGVWKHSRZHU the devil disappears from the play space, leaving Fabell to aid his friend in his romantic adventure without any obvious aid from demonic spirits. The Merry Devil’s magic is quite simple. Fabell disguises himself as Father Hildersham and his young student as a novice priest and with the help of other friends they rescue Milliscent from the nunnery. (Their choice of disguise may be DJODQFLQJUHIHUHQFHWR)DXVWXVZKRDVNV0HSKLVWRSKLOHVZKHQKH¿UVWDSSHDUVDV DGUDJRQWRJRDZD\DQGUHWXUQLQWKHKDELWRIDIULDU $VLGHIURPWKLVGLVJXLVLQJ the sole magic outside of the Induction is the exchange of two inn signs so that the fathers of Milliscent and of her replacement husband-to-be sleep in the ZURQJLQQDQGWKXVGRQRWHQFRXQWHU0LOOLVFHQWDQG)UDQNXQWLOWKH\DUHPDUULHG early the next morning. In contrast to his vaunt in the Induction, Fabell calls DWWHQWLRQWRWKHPRGHVW\RIKLVPDJLFLQKLV¿QDOVSHHFK

Dealing with Dramatic Anonymity

109

,XVHGVRPHSUHWW\VOHLJKWVEXW,SURWHVW 6XFKDVEXWVDWHYSRQWKHVNLUWVRI$UW No coniurations, nor such weighty spells As tie the soule to their performancy. […] And let our toyle to future ages proue, 7KHGHXLOORI(GPRQWRQGLGJRRGLQ/RXH9±

The only devil remaining in this play is human, and he has forborne to use any magic that would “tie the soule to their performancy.” Because the narrative introduced by the Induction is not completed, the play never addresses Fabell’s fate after seven years pass. The audience or readers must supply their own ending to the human/devil contest in this play. The stage conversation about devils does not stop with The Merry Devil. By referring to the earlier play in its prologue, The Devil is an Ass invites its audience to remember Peter Fabell and his magic. The Devil is an Ass opens in hell, with a very PLQRUGHYLOQDPHG3XJDVNLQJKLVVXSHULRUGHYLOIRUSHUPLVVLRQWRJRWRHDUWKLQRUGHUWR GRGHYLOLVKWKLQJV7LUHGRIEHLQJWKHVPDOOHVWDQGPRVWLQVLJQL¿FDQWGHYLOLQKHOO3XJ wants to prove himself as a member of the demonic fraternity. With reluctance and a great many conditions, the Devil allows him to go, stipulating that he can stay for only 24 hours and that he must assume a human body and act as a servant to one particular PDQ)LW]'RWWUHOOZKRKDVEHHQDVNLQJIRUDGHYLOHYHQSD\LQJFRQMXURUVWRUDLVHRQH for him to no avail. Indeed Dottrell has begun to doubt the devil’s existence: Would I might see the Diuell. I would give A hundred o’ these pictures, [so] to see him 2QFHRXWRISLFWXUH0D\,SURXHDFXFNROG $QGWKDW¶VWKHRQHPDLQHPRUWDOOWKLQJ,IHDUH ,I,EHJLQQHQRWQRZWRWKLQNHWKH3DLQWHUV Haue only made him. ‘Slight, he would be seene, One time or other else. (Devil ,LL±

Dottrell is, as his name suggests, a fool, and much of the play is concerned with all WKHFKHDWVRWKHU/RQGRQHUVSOD\RQWKLVVHO¿VKJXOOLEOHLGLRW:KHQ3XJDUULYHV announces himself as a devil, and offers to serve him, Dottrell refuses because 3XJ ZKR KDV WDNHQ RYHU WKH ERG\ RI D QHZO\ KDQJHG FXWSXUVH  GRHV QRW KDYH FORYHQIHHW²WKHSK\VLFDOIHDWXUHE\ZKLFK'RWWUHOOH[SHFWVWRUHFRJQL]HDGHYLO 7KH XSVKRW RI WKH SOD\¶V DFWLRQ LV WKDW 3XJ FDQ GR QRWKLQJ SDUWLFXODUO\ ZLFNHG or devilish in a London that far outpaces the little devil in its ability to do evil. 7RZDUGWKHHQGRIWKHSOD\3XJHQWUHDWVWREHWDNHQEDFNWRKHOO O, call me home againe, deare Chiefe, and put me 7R\RDNLQJIR[HVPLONLQJRI+HHJRDWHV Pounding of water in a mortar, … […] All That hell, and you thought exquisite torments, rather 7KHQVWD\PHKHUHDWKRXJKWPRUH9LL±

110

Anonymity in Early Modern England

A few scenes later, after he is thrown in prison and slated for hanging, Pug’s wish is granted. The chief devil arrives from hell to berate him: “whom hast thou dealt with, / Woman or man, this day, but haue out-gone thee / Some way, and most haue SURX¶GWKHEHWWHU¿HQGV"´9YL± 5HOXFWDQWWRDOORZDGHYLOWREHKDQJHG however, the chief devil orders his companion Iniquity to carry Pug off to hell, thus reversing the earlier expectation that a wayward human would be carried to hell. Pug is borne away on Iniquity’s shoulders, outdone by the humans he had KRSHGWRWHUURUL]HDVWKHVFHQH¶V¿QDOFRXSOHWPDNHVFOHDU The DiuellZDVZRQWWRFDUU\DZD\WKHHXLOO But, now, the Euill out-carries the Diuell9YL±

7KHVHGHYLOSOD\VDQGVHYHUDORWKHUVWKDWEULQJGHYLOVRQVWDJHFRXOGEHDGGHG  gain interest, complexity, and even humor when considered together. An audience that had witnessed Faustus’s horrible end could not help but remember it as Pug is toted off stage in disgrace because of his inability to best humanity in evildoing. $QGDQDXGLHQFHLVOLNHO\WRR²SURPSWHGE\WKHUHIHUHQFHWRThe Merry Devil in Jonson’s Induction—to remember Peter Fabell who bested a devil, in cleverness rather than evil, and avoided the threatened trip to hell. As we move from Faustus to The Devil is an Ass and the conversation among these plays develops and changes, the devil characters are constructed as having less and less power—for JRRGRUIRUHYLO²DQGKXPDQLW\PRUH3HUKDSVDVWKHZLWFKWULDOMXGJHVIHDUHG belief in the devil’s existence or at least in his direct physical intervention in the world of men, was waning. $XWKRULDO QDPHV DUH QRW LPSRUWDQW LQ D FRQYHUVDWLRQ RI WKLV VRUW WKH WH[WV reference one another, both literally and in their repeated but varied situations. 7KRXJK ZHOONQRZQ GUDPDWLVWV OLNH 0DUORZH DQG -RQVRQ DXWKRUHG SOD\V ZKLFK participate in this conversation, their names are not mentioned. The Merry Devil holds its own in this conversation despite its authorless condition, as it apparently once held its own on the stages of London. In the early modern period, when many plays were anonymous, the interaction among the plays themselves DYHUVLRQRILQWHUWH[WXDOLW\ PD\EHZKDWDXGLHQFHVDQGUHDGHUVIRFXVHGRQ:KLOH a reading of this sort certainly does not depend on anonymity nor is it precluded E\ NQRZQ DXWKRUVKLS LW GRHV VXJJHVW WKDW DQ DQRQ\PRXV SOD\ PLJKW ZHOO KDYH VHHPHG SUHWW\ PXFK OLNH DQ\ RWKHU SOD\ WR DQ HDUO\ PRGHUQ WKHDWHU RU UHDGLQJ audience. In our own period, when we have gone so far as to declare the author dead, we should consider giving more attention and agency to texts themselves, privileging intertextuality over authorship and inviting more anonymous texts to VSHDNLQFODVVURRPVDQGLQSULQW

Dealing with Dramatic Anonymity

111

Works Cited Almond, Philip C. Demonic Possession and Exorcism in Early Modern England: Contemporary Texts and Their Cultural Contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004. Anon. Merry Devil of Edmonton (G 1LFROD %HQQHWW 1HZ
This page has been left blank intentionally

Chapter 5

Attributing Authorship and Swetnam the Woman-Hater -DPHV3XUNLV

In 1615 a text entitled The araignment of lewde, idle, froward, and vnconstant women or the vanitie of them, choose you whetherPDGHLWV¿UVWDSSHDUDQFHEHIRUH the public. The volume of misogynist commonplaces proved immediately popular and raised its author, Joseph Swetnam, to a degree of contemporary celebrity, as HYLGHQFHGE\WKHDSSHDUDQFHRYHUWKHQH[W¿YH\HDUVRIWKUHHSDPSKOHWUHVSRQVHV to the text and a stage-play in which a dramatic representation of Swetnam received top billing. Despite its early popularity, The araignmentLVEHVWNQRZQWRGD\IRU LWVRFFDVLRQLQJRIWKHWKUHHIHPDOHVLJQHGSDPSKOHWVWKDWMXGJLQJE\WKHLUHDUO\ publication record, were rather less popular at the time.1 Two of these texts, by (VWHU 6RZHUQDP DQG &RQVWDQWLD 0XQGD DUH FOHDUO\ SVHXGRQ\PRXV WKH RWKHU Rachel Speght’s A Mouzell for Melastomus   LV DSSDUHQWO\ SULQWHG XQGHU LWVDXWKRU¶VUHDOQDPHDQGSHUKDSVRIIHUVDV%DUEDUD.LHIHU/HZDOVNLFODLPVWKH ZRUN RI ³WKH ¿UVW (QJOLVKZRPDQ WR LGHQWLI\ KHUVHOI E\ QDPH DV D SROHPLFLVW DQG FULWLF RI FRQWHPSRUDU\ JHQGHU LGHRORJ\´ /HZDOVNL [L  7KH QDWXUH DQG interpretative implications of these three female signatures have been explored by DQXPEHURIFULWLFVFRQFHUQHGZLWKWKHUHFRYHU\DQGWKHRUL]DWLRQRIHDUO\PRGHUQ women’s writing.2 The anonymous play Swetnam the Woman-hater, Arraigned by Women  ZULWWHQ F   LV WKH FXOPLQDWLRQ RI WKLV SDUWLFXODU FKDSWHU RI woman-debate literature and, arguably, of Joseph Swetnam’s contemporary fame, 1

Rachel Speght, A Mouzell for Melastomus/RQGRQ (VWHU6RZHUQDPEster hath hang’d Haman/RQGRQ DQG&RQVWDQWLD0XQGDThe Worming of a mad Dogge /RQGRQ 7KHEnglish Short-Title Catalogue records ten editions of The araignment between 1615 and 1637. None of the female-signed responses made a second printing. 2 See, in particular, Melinda J. Gough, “Women’s Popular Culture? Teaching the Swetnam Controversy,” Debating Gender in Early Modern England, 1500–1700, HG &KULVWLQD 0DOFROPVRQ DQG 0LKRNR 6X]XNL %DVLQJVWRNH 3DOJUDYH   ± (OL]DEHWK'+DUYH\Ventriloquized Voices: Feminist Theory and English Renaissance Texts /RQGRQ 5RXWOHGJH   'LDQQH 3XUNLVV ³0DWHULDO *LUOV 7KH 6HYHQWHHQWK&HQWXU\ Woman Debate,” Women, Texts and Histories 1575–1760, ed. Clare Brant and Dianne 3XUNLVV /RQGRQ 5RXWOHGJH   ± DQG -RVHSKLQH$ 5REHUWV ³7KH 3KDOODFLHV of Authorship: Reconstructing the Texts of Early Modern Women Writers,” Attending to Early Modern Women, HG6XVDQ'$PXVVHQDQG$GHOH6HHII1HZDUN8RI'HODZDUH3  ±

114

Anonymity in Early Modern England

RU QRWRULHW\ 3HUKDSV GXH WR LWV ODFN RI DQ DXWKRULDO DQG SDUWLFXODUO\ D IHPDOH signature, the play has attracted rather less critical attention.3 Nevertheless, WKURXJKLWVH[WUDRUGLQDU\GUDPDWL]DWLRQRIDQLQVWDQFHRIDWWULEXWLRQLQZKLFKD court of women angered by The araignment identify Swetnam as the text’s author, Swetnam the Woman-hater SRVHV LPSRUWDQW TXHVWLRQV IRU KRZ ZH DUH WR PDNH sense of the authorial signatures in the immediate debate, and more generally IRUWKHSODFHRIWKHDXWKRU²DQGRIWKHGLIIHUHQFHWKDWDWWULEXWLRQPDNHV²LQWKH interpretation of early modern literature. 7KLV HVVD\ WUDFHV KRZ WKH ¿FWLWLRXV DFW RI DXWKRULDO DWWULEXWLRQ SHUIRUPHG for visitors to the Red Bull playhouse imposes troubling, even dangerous, constraints upon interpretation of The araignment, a volume that through its initial pseudonymous publication, and an extraordinary form of intertextuality that repeats and paraphrases passages from a number of diverse cultural texts, resists ascription to a single author. The interpretative constraints that are occasioned by the attribution of this text to an individual called Joseph Swetnam might contribute WR D UHWKLQNLQJ RI ZKDW LV LQYROYHG LQ DWWULEXWLQJ DXWKRUVKLS EXW VR WRR PLJKW another aspect of attribution that becomes apparent in this study. The following pages suggest that understanding “authorial attribution” must attend to a seeming form of duplicity that inhabits the expression. According to the Oxford English Dictionary ³WR DWWULEXWH´ LV ³WR DVVLJQ EHVWRZ JLYH FRQFHGH´ Y,  %XW WKH dictionary also tells us that “an attribute” is “strictly an essential and permanent TXDOLW\´VEF $QLPDWLQJWKHIROORZLQJGLVFXVVLRQLVDFRQFHUQZLWKZKHWKHU WKH DXWKRU D VSHFL¿F DXWKRU VXFK DV 6ZHWQDP RU D JHQHUDO FRQFHSWLRQ RI ³WKHDXWKRU´ LVEHVWVHHQDVDPDVVRIattributions, the construct of critics, readers, HGLWRUVDQGVRRQZKRFRQVWUXFWRU³EHVWRZ´DFDQRQZRUNRUSDUWLFXODUOLWHUDU\ TXDOLWLHVXSRQDQDXWKRURULIWKHDXWKRUVKRXOGEHFRQVWUXHGDVSRVVHVVLQJDPDVV RILGHQWL¿DEOH³HVVHQWLDO´attributes&UXFLDOO\KRZ FDQZHGLVWLQJXLVKEHWZHHQ WKH WZR SRVLWLRQV"7HOOLQJO\ WKH GLFWLRQDU\¶V PRVW REYLRXVO\ UHOHYDQW GH¿QLWLRQ of “attribution” falls into uncertainty at this point: “To ascribe to an author as his ZRUN´Y,,VHFRQGHPSKDVLVPLQH  To understand what Swetnam the Woman-Hater can tell us of attribution, it is QHFHVVDU\WREHJLQE\ORRNLQJDWWKHVWXEERUQPDQQHULQZKLFKThe araignment UHVLVWV DWWULEXWLRQ WR D VLQJOH ¿JXUH $OWKRXJK WKH WH[WV PHQWLRQHG DERYH DUH RIWHQUHIHUUHGWRDVWDNLQJSDUWLQWKH³6ZHWQDPFRQWURYHUV\´WKH¿UVWHGLWLRQRI 3 For discussions of the play see Coryl Crandall, “The Cultural Implications of the Swetnam Anti-Feminist Controversy in the 17th Century,” Journal of Popular Culture 2   ± &RQVWDQFH -RUGDQ Renaissance Feminism: Literary Texts and Political Models,WKDFD&RUQHOO83 0DUJDUHW-DQH.LGQLH³µ(QWHU>«@/RUHQ]R'LVJXLVHG OLNH DQ$PD]RQ¶ 3RZHUGUHVVLQJ LQ Swetnam the Woman-Hater, Arraigned by Women,” Cahiers Elizabethains    ± 9DOHULH :D\QH ³7KH 'HDUWK RI WKH $XWKRU´ Maids and Mistresses, Cousins and Queens: Women’s Alliances in Early Modern England, HG 6XVDQ )U\H DQG .DUHQ 5REHUWVRQ 2[IRUG 2[IRUG 83   ± DQG /LQGD Woodbridge, Women and the English Renaissance: Literature and the Nature of Womankind, 1540–16208UEDQD8RI,OOLQRLV3 

Attributing Authorship and Swetnam the Woman-Hater

115

The araignmentGRHVQRWLQIDFWEHDU6ZHWQDP¶VQDPHDWDQ\SRLQW7KHERRN¶V title-page bears no attribution, recording neither the name nor the initials of its author. The opening epistle of the text does provide a name, but it is not that of Joseph Swetnam. Rather, it is signed “Yours in way of Honesty, Thomas Tel-troth” $Y $VHFRQGHSLVWOHDGGUHVVHGWR³the ordinary sort of giddy headed youngmen,” elaborates upon the writer’s choice of pseudonymity by signing off “Thy friend nameles, / To keepe my selfe blameles´$Y$ ,QFRQWUDVWZLWK the unique and occasional pseudonyms chosen by two of his respondents, the name chosen by the author of The araignment is proverbial, and variations upon “Tell-troth” and “Thomas Tel-troth” crop up as either a pseudonym or a literary persona in a number of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century texts.4 The signature, PDUNLQJWKHWDNLQJRQRIDQHVWDEOLVKHGFXOWXUDOLGHQWLW\ZRXOGKDYHSURYRNHGLQ its readers certain expectations. The character of “Tell-troth,” for example, provides the narrative voice for an DQRQ\PRXVO\SXEOLVKHGERRNHQWLWOHGTell-Trothes New Yeares Gift Beeing Robin Good-fellowes newes out of those Counties, where inhabites neither Charity nor honesty 'HVFULELQJDFKDQFHPHHWLQJZLWK5RELQ*RRGIHOORZ7HOOWURWK explains his own nature through his similarity to his companion: a merry mate hee was, and matched with one of his owne minde, a simple fellow, that marchinge vnder the habbite of true meaninge, tels all that he sees, and euery WKLQJKHWKLQNHVWREHWUXHTell-troth is my name, and you may trust me if you ZLOOIRU,DVVXUH\RXWKDWKHWKDWFUHGLWHWKPHPRVWVKDOOQRWVSHHGHZRUVW$

New Yeares Gift offers an “inuectiue against Ielosy” between spouses, as the title-page puts it. And if it embodies the customary ideology of inequality between WKHVH[HVDQGSDUWLFLSDWHVZLWKLQDWUDGLWLRQRIWKHPDOHGH¿QLWLRQRI³ZRPDQ´ in accordance with what might be expected from its narrator—and despite the occasional relish with which it recounts anecdotes of marital strife—New Yeares Gift offers an earnest treatment of the relationship between husband and wife. ,Q  -RKQ /DQH WRRN RQ WKH SHUVRQD RI 7RP 7HO7URWK WR FDWDORJXH DQG FRQGHPQWKHYLFHVRI(QJODQGDQGOLNHWKHQDUUDWRURINew Yeares Gift, the Tel-Troth SHUVRQDLQ/DQH¶VWH[WLVDGRSWHGDVDV\PERORIWUXWKIXODQGSUR¿WDEOHVSHDNLQJ Lane’s Tom Tel-Troths Message, and his pens complaint begins with a call for GLYLQHDLGDQGSURWHFWLRQIRUWKHDXWKRU¶VTXLOOWKDW³OLNHDWHOOWURWKLWPD\EROGO\ EOD]H$QGSHQVLOOOLNHSDLQWIRUWKDLXVWGLVSUDLVH´$ 6LPLODUO\DWWKHHQGRI WKHYROXPHKDYLQJGHWDLOHGWKHQDWLRQ¶VVLQV/DQHDFNQRZOHGJHVWKDW³3HUKDSVP\ 4 Examples in addition to those discussed below include Tho. Tel-troth, THE TRUE CHARACTER OF AN ORDINANCE OF PARLIAMENT in generall. Amsterdam, 1647, Tom Tell troath, A DIALOGUE BETWEEN HAMPTON COVRT, AND THE ISLE OF WIGHT. [n.p.], 1648, and Thomas tell-troth, A CHARITABLE CHVRCH WARDEN. OR, An Hypocrite Anatomiz’d.London, 1641. “Tom Tell-troth” also appears as a narrative voice in the anonymous A CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE GHOST OF THE RUMP AND TOM TEL-TROTH. [n.p.], 1660.

116

Anonymity in Early Modern England

pen doth crabedly endite / In plaintife humors meerely Cinicall: / But sooth to say, Tom-teltrothZLOOQRWOLH:HKHHUHKDXHEOD]¶G(QJODQGVLQLTXLWLH´)Y 8QOLNH WKHDXWKRUV RIWKHHDUOLHUWH[WKRZHYHUDQGXQOLNHWKHZULWHUVRIVHYHUDOVRFLDO and political complaints in the seventeenth century, for Lane the character of Tom Tel-Troth functions as a literary persona rather than a pseudonym standing in the place of the author’s name. The title-page of Lane’s volume records that it is “Written E\,2/$*HQW´DQGWZRGHGLFDWRU\HSLVWOHVDUHVLPLODUO\VLJQHGPDNLQJFOHDUD distinction between the author as an individual in some sense beyond the text and WKHIDPLOLDUFXOWXUDOUROHWKDWKHGRQVWRSHQKLVFRPSODLQW$ 7KHUROHRI7RP 7HO7URWKWKHQGLGQRWQHFHVVDULO\SUHFOXGHWKHSDUWLDO GLVFORVXUHRIDQDXWKRU EXWFRPPRQWRERWKLQVWDQFHVLVDQHPSKDVLVXSRQSUR¿WDEOHSODLQVSHDNLQJDQ emphasis that would endure through the seventeenth century. ,I WKH HSLVWOH¶V SURYHUELDO VLJQDWXUH SUREOHPDWL]HV WKH LGHQWLW\ RI The araignment’s author, then the rest of the text seems further to confound any attempts WRDWWULEXWHWKHZRUNWRDQLQGLYLGXDODXWKRURUIRUWKDWPDWWHUWRUHFRQFLOHWKH text with the expected attributes of the Tel-Troth persona. Indeed, by the time that the reader had reached the signature he or she would have encountered already a QXPEHURISDVVDJHVWKDWXQGHUPLQHWKHSURPLVHRISUR¿WDEOHVLPSOHDQGWUXWKIXO VSHDNLQJVXJJHVWHGE\WKHSVHXGRQ\P2SHQLQJWKHHSLVWOHZLWK(XSKXHV¶ZRUGV “[m]vsing with my selfe being idle,” the author indicates that his text is little other WKDQOLJKWKHDUWHGHQWHUWDLQPHQWIRUERWKKLPVHOIDQGKLVUHDGHUV$/\O\  :KHUH /DQH KDG LQVLVWHG WKDW KLV SHQ ZDV ³WKH KHDUWV WUXH VHFUHWDULH´ $  the author of The araignment H[SODLQV ³, ZURWH WKLV ERRNH ZLWK P\ KDQG EXW QRWZLWKP\KHDUW´EHIRUHFKDUDFWHUL]LQJKLVRZQZRUNDVUDWKHUOHVVWKDQHGLI\LQJ E\ UHIHUULQJ WR LW DV WKH ³%HDUED\WLQJ RI ZRPƝ´ LQ WKH QH[W HSLVWOH $$Y  ,QIDFWDVWKHRSHQLQJOLQHWDNHQIURP/\O\¶VEuphues might suggest, rather than moralistic complaint it is the by then unfashionable style of Euphuism to which The araignment’s writer at least initially aspires, and to aid him in this style of FRPSRVLWLRQ LQ WKH ¿UVW HSLVWOH WKH ZULWHU WDNHV D QXPEHU RI SDVVDJHV VWUDLJKW IURP/\O\¶VZRUNVPDNHVOLEHUDODSSURSULDWLRQVRI$QWKRQ\0XQGD\¶V(XSKXLVWLF novel Zelauto, and also calls upon a plentiful supply of proverbs in the style of Lyly. Full of inconsistencies, sharp changes of tone, and, above all, verbatim and paraphrased usages of other writings, the epistle forms an apt introduction to the UHVWRIWKHERRN The most extreme logical and literary vacillations, as well as the most H[WHQVLYH ERUURZLQJV WDNH SODFH LQ The araignment¶V WKLUG DQG ¿QDO FKDSWHU ,W EHJLQV LQ D PDQQHU FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH SUHYLRXV FKDSWHUV ZLWK DWWDFNV XSRQ women that uphold misogynist “wisdom” that “of women it is said that they KDXH WZR IDXOWHV WKDW LV WR VD\ WKH\ FDQ QHLWKHU VD\ ZHOO QRU GRH ZHOO´ )  Some of the claims offered in the early passages of the chapter are Euphuistic, some are actually Euphues’, while other passages offer staples of woman-debate literature, misogynist commonplaces, and proverbial complaints. But the chapter’s FRQFHUQ VRRQ VKLIWV WR WKH SUHYLRXVO\ XQWKLQNDEOH PDWWHU RI FKRRVLQJ D JRRG wife. After a brief detour advising a young man “to haue speciall regard” to the

Attributing Authorship and Swetnam the Woman-Hater

117

“quallities” of his potential wife accompanied by tales of the deceptions of women *Y±+Y  The araignment’s use of source material becomes more sustained than at any earlier point, and the next four pages are composed mostly of advice WDNHQ IURP 7KRPDV )RUWHVFXH¶V WUDQVODWLRQ RI 3HGUR 0H[LD¶V ERRN RI KLVWRULHV entitled The Foreste 7KHQHZVRXUFHPDWHULDOEULQJVDFKDQJHLQWRQHIURP WKHSUHFHGLQJSDVVDJHVEXWWKH¿UVWSDVVDJHIURPThe Foreste, a discussion of the VXEMHFW RI D PDQ¶V FKRLFH RI EULGH LV DFFRPPRGDWHG UHDVRQDEO\ HDVLO\ 6WDWLQJ WKDWWKHEHVWDJHIRUDPDQWREHPDUULHGLVDQGWKDWKHVKRXOGWDNHDZLIHRI “seauenteene yeares or there about,” the writer of The araignment can agree with 0H[LDWKDWPDUU\LQJD\RXQJZRPDQZKRLV³ÀH[LEOHDQGEHQGLQJWRZKDWVRHXHU PDQZRXOGKDXHWKHPREHGLHQWDQGVXELHFWWRKLVZLOODQGSOHDVXUH´LVLQ¿QLWHO\ preferable to a widow “alredy trained, to the paruerse appatite som time, and fond IDQWDVLHRIRWKHUV´0H[LD0±0Y ,QGHHGWKHSDVVDJHFUHDWHVDQRFFDVLRQIRU some scornful comments upon widows. But as further passages from The Foreste become incorporated into The araignmentDQGWKHLQFRQJUXRXVVXEMHFWRIFKRRVLQJ a good wife continues, greater tensions within the text arise. The araignment next attempts to integrate material from a chapter of The Foreste named “of the cordiall and hartie looue that should be in marriage, with diuerse examples serving WRWKDWSXUSRVH´DQGDVRQHPLJKWH[SHFWLWLVQRWDQHDV\¿W0 0H[LDOLVWV a number of men and women who have demonstrated love of great magnitude WKURXJK VHOÀHVV DFWV RU SURGLJLRXV IHDWV RI PRXUQLQJ The araignment follows 0H[LDLQUHFRXQWLQJPDQ\RIWKHVHH[DPSOHVEXW¿QGVDGLIIHUHQWZD\RIIUDPLQJ them: “[s]ome thriue by dicing but not one in a hundreth therefore dicing is ill KXVEDQGU\VRPHWKULXHE\PDUULDJHDQG\HWPDQ\DUHXQGRQHE\PDUULDJH´*  Nevertheless, the writer concedes that “amongst dust there is Pearle found, and in KDUGURFNHV'\DPRQGVRIJUHDWYDOXH´* 5DWKHUWKDQXSKROGLQJWKHH[FHOOHQFH RIORYHEHWZHHQWKHVH[HVWKHH[DPSOHVWDNHQIURP0H[LDEHFRPHWKHH[FHSWLRQV WKDWSURYHWKHPLVRJ\QLVWUXOHEXWVLJQL¿FDQWO\WKHPLVRJ\Q\WKDWKDGFRQGHPQHG all women earlier on in the text is no longer absolute. The next series of borrowings is the most sustained in the volume, and is the FDXVHIRUDPRUHSURIRXQGFKDQJHRISHUVSHFWLYH2IIHULQJ¿YHSDJHVRISDVVDJHV HLWKHUWDNHQDOPRVWYHUEDWLPRUSDUDSKUDVHGIURP*3HWWLH¶VWUDQVODWLRQRI6WHIDQR *XD]]R¶V Ciuile Conuersation   The araignment EHJLQV WR UHDG OLNH D FRQGXFWERRN6WDQGDUGSLHFHVRIDGYLFHFRQFHUQLQJDSRWHQWLDOZLIH¶VDSSHDUDQFH XSEULQJLQJ DQG ZHDOWK DUH OLIWHG IURP *XD]]R DV ZHOO DV FRPPHQWV XSRQ WKH conduct of a husband toward his wife.5 Protestant teaching, that in earlier chapters The araignmentKDGLQYHUWHGWRFRPLFHIIHFWLVXSKHOG$QGSHUKDSVPRVWVWULNLQJ of all, and without the merest hint of irony, The araignment declares that “a man VKRXOG>«@DFFRNJWRIKLVZLIHDVWKHRQO\WUHDVXUHKHHQLR\HWKYSRQHDUWK´+  $QGLWLVQRWMXVWThe araignment’s position on women that has changed by this 5 For a discussion of The araignment¶V GHEW WR *XD]]R VHH /LHYVD\ -RKQ /HRQ Stefano Guazzo and the English Renaissance, 1575–1675 (Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina 3 

118

Anonymity in Early Modern England

SRLQW VR KDV WKH YROXPH¶V WRQH7KH MRYLDO DQHFGRWHV PLVRJ\QLVW LQYHUVLRQV RI FRQYHQWLRQDOWHDFKLQJDQG(XSKXLVWLFFRQVWUXFWLRQVRIWKHHDUOLHUFKDSWHUVPDNH way for a less obviously mannered style as the supposedly comic portrayals of women as irrational, shrewish tormentors of men are replaced by a tender and straightforward presentation of the hardships and dangers that women suffer: “[a]mongst all the creatures that God hath created,” writes the author, “there is QRQH PRUH VXEMHFW WR PLVHU\ WKHQ D ZRPDQ >«@ WKHUH LV QR GLVHDVH WKDW D PDQ indureth, that is one half so grieuous or painefull as child-bearing is to a woman” , 7KHFRQYHUVLRQWRSDWULDUFK\IURPPLVRJ\Q\KRZHYHULVWHPSRUDU\DQGWKH ¿QDOWXUQRIWKHFKDSWHUVHHVThe araignmentUHYHUWLQJWRDVW\OHDQGVXEMHFWPDWWHU close to that of its earlier pages. The chapter’s coda, entitled “The Bearbaiting or the vanity of Widdowes: choose you whether,” incorporates material from ZLWERRNVDQGMHVWERRNVDVZHOODVIURPWKHPLVRJ\QLVWFKDUDFWHU'U0RVVHQLJR from George Whetstone’s Heptameron of Ciuill Discourses (shorn of the responses RIKLVIHPDOHLQWHUORFXWRUV LQD¿QDOEXUVWRIPLVRJ\Q\WKDWLVOLWWOHPRUHWKDQD VHULHVRIMRNHVDLPHGDWWKHIDPLOLDUWDUJHW, 1RZWKDWThe araignment returns WRWKHSUHYDOHQWMRYLDOPLVRJ\Q\SDVVDJHVDGDSWHGIURP/\O\DULVHDJDLQDVWKH DXWKRUFORVHVWKHERRNZLWKDUHPLQGHUWKDWKLVWH[WVKRXOGEHHVWHHPHGRQO\DV ³WKHWR\HVRIDQLGOHKHDG´,Y  In what sense may one attribute this pseudonymous text to an author and, in particular, one called Joseph Swetnam? In subsequent editions the opening epistle FDUULHG WKH DXWKRU¶V VLJQDWXUH LQVWHDG RI WKH SVHXGRQ\P RI WKH ¿UVW SULQWLQJ DQG as all of The araignment’s respondents refer directly to Swetnam there seems no question of misattribution. But this does not quite answer the question. The SURYHUELDO SVHXGRQ\P WKDW VLJQV WKH ¿UVW HSLVWOH DQG ZKLFK SURPLVHV D UDWKHU GLIIHUHQWWUHDWPHQWRILWVVXEMHFWWKDQThe araignmentRIIHUVLVRQO\WKH¿UVWIHDWXUH WR FRQIRXQG DWWHPSWV WR DWWULEXWH WKH ZRUN WR DQ LQGLYLGXDO DXWKRU 6RXUFH VWXG\ ZRXOGVXJJHVWWKDWPXFKRIWKHWH[WEHDWWULEXWHGWR3HGUR0H[LD6WHIDQR*XD]]R RUWKHLUWUDQVODWRUV *HRUJH:KHWVWRQH-RKQ/\O\DQG$QWKRQ\0XQGD\DVZHOO as several “anonymouses.” The volume’s inconsistent use of diverse texts, from very different ideological perspectives and literary genres, resists any sense of XQLW\RIVW\OHRUWKRXJKW7KHWH[W¶VPRVWUHFHQWHGLWRU):YDQ+HHUWXPUHPDUNV WKDWWKHERRN³GRHVQRWKDYHDQµDXWKHQWLF¶RUFRQVLVWHQWSURVHVW\OHEHFDXVH>WKH ZULWHU@ERUURZHGIURPWRRPDQ\GLIIHUHQWVRXUFHV´WKHRQO\IHDWXUHWKDWVKH¿QGV “congenial” to the author is that most impersonal (and given the pseudonym, DSSURSULDWH  RI WUDLWV SURYHUELDOLVP   (YHQ WKH PLVRJ\Q\ EUHDNV GRZQ 7KH attributes of The araignment’s author, in other words, seem elusive, impossible WR GHWHUPLQH &HUWDLQO\ LI RQH VHHNV WR XQGHUVWDQG WKH YROXPH¶V ZULWHU WKURXJK the stipulations of Saint Jerome, discussed by Foucault in “What is an Author?”, WKHUHVXOWLVFRQIXVLRQ$FFRUGLQJWR)RXFDXOW¶VZHOONQRZQDQDO\VLVDWWULEXWLRQRI DQXPEHURIZRUNVWRDVLQJOHDXWKRUZRUNVXSRQWKHFULWHULDRID³FRQVWDQWOHYHORI value,” “conceptual or theoretical coherence,” and “stylistic unity,” but none of these criteria applies to the singleFRQWUDGLFWRU\ERRNWKDWLVThe araignment± 

Attributing Authorship and Swetnam the Woman-Hater

119

One possible response to The araignment’s perplexing authorial persona is given to us by Swetnam’s earliest respondent in print. For Rachel Speght, the contradictions that seemingly resist the text’s attribution to an individual author IRUPWKHJURXQGV²RUWREHQGD)RXFDXOGLDQWHUPWKH³SULQFLSOHVRIWKULIW´ ² upon which she construes Joseph Swetnam as an author and refutes the text’s misogynist claims. Speght points out a number of the logical inconsistencies in The araignment’s shifting accounts of women, charging that the text is an “illeterate Pamphlet” which does not display “in many places, so much as Grammer sense” (Polemics $QG6SHJKW¶VWH[WDWWULEXWHVThe araignment’s confusion of tone and logic, as well as its impiety and misogyny, to the intellectual incompetence and moral failings of its author: “by this your hodge-podge of heathenish Sentences, Similies, and Examples,” explains an epistle addressed directly from Speght to Swetnam, “you have set forth your selfe in your right colours, unto the view of the world” (Polemics  $KHUPHQHXWLFF\FOHEHWZHHQ WKHDXWKRUDQGWKHWH[WHDFKGH¿QLQJWKHRWKHULVLQLWLDWHGDVMouzell enacts a UHPDUNDEOH RSHUDWLRQ RI ZKDW ZH PLJKW FDOO LQGLYLGXDOL]DWLRQ6 The contested discourses expressed in The araignment, the contrary views of women encountered within the diverse literary and cultural, misogynist and patriarchal traditions from which Swetnam draws, become attributed to an inept writer in his inability to understand logic, grammar, and scripture on the nature of woman and her relation WRPDQ6SHJKW¶VLQGLYLGXDOL]DWLRQRIWKHGHEDWHDOORZVKHUWRUHVSRQGWRDQXPEHU of misogynist cultural commonplaces in the shape of a response to a single, demonstrably incompetent, author. 7KHGUDPDWL]HGLQVWDQFHRIDWWULEXWLRQLQSwetnam the Woman-hater, to which ,QRZWXUQVHHVDVLPLODUSURFHVVRILQGLYLGXDOL]DWLRQWRWKDWSHUIRUPHGLQMouzell. %XWFUXFLDOO\ZKHUH6SHJKW¶VLQGLYLGXDOL]LQJUHDGLQJHQDEOHGKHUWR¿QGDSRVLWLRQ from which to contest misogyny publicly as a writer, the play’s explanation of The araignment through the posited attributes of its author proves a more dangerous and limiting strategy. As I shall argue, the play’s ascription of The araignment WRWKHVLQJXODU¿JXUHRI6ZHWQDPDOORZVWKHFRQWLQXHGFLUFXODWLRQRIPLVRJ\QLVW discourse by other characters, and even between the company and its audience. *** $W WKH RXWVHW RI WKH SOD\ 6ZHWQDP DSSHDUV DV D PDUJLQDO ¿JXUH VWUXFWXUDOO\ occupying the subplot, and presented as a stranger newly arrived to the land of WKHGUDPD+DYLQJÀHG(QJODQGIRU6LFLO\ZH¿UVWHQFRXQWHUKLPSRQGHULQJKRZ KLV ERRN ZKLFK E\ WKH WLPH RI WKH SOD\¶V SHUIRUPDQFH KDG EHJXQ WR FDUU\ KLV signature, will have been received among “our Citie Dames” and, especially, how “Swetnams name, / Will be more terrible in womens eares” than that of any other PLVRJ\QLVW$ &RQ¿UPDWLRQRIKLVUHFHSWLRQDVDQDXWKRUVRRQDUULYHVZLWKWKH 6

 

)RUWKHLQGLYLGXDOL]LQJDVSHFWRIDXWKRUVKLSVHH)RXFDXOW³:KDWLVDQ$XWKRU"´

120

Anonymity in Early Modern England

HQWUDQFHRIKLVPDQ6ZDVK³KRUULEO\LPERVW´ZLWKWKHPDUNVRIKLVDVVDXOWE\D horde of angry women in uproar over The araignment$ 8QGHUWKUHDWIURPWKH enraged women, Swetnam responds to Swash’s question “What course, sir, shall ZHWDNHWRKLGHRXUVHOXHV"´ 7KHVDPHZHGLGDW%ULVWRZ)HQFLQJ%R\ Oh’t is a fearefull name to females, Swash, I haue brought Foiles already, set vp Bils, Hung vp my two-hand Sword, and chang’d my name: Call me Mysogenos$Y

,Q WKH IDFH RI WKH DQJU\ IHPDOH UHFHSWLRQ RI KLV ERRN WKH DXWKRU ZKR VHFRQGV EHIRUH ZDV UHÀHFWLQJ XSRQ WKH FHOHEULW\ RI KLV QDPH GHWHUPLQHV WR GLVJXLVH RU “hide” his true identity through the pseudonymous publication of his new identity DV³0\VRJHQRV´RU³0LVRJ\QRV´DVWKHSULQWHGWH[WPRUHFRPPRQO\VSHOOVLW RQ WKH³%LOV´DGYHUWLVLQJKLVUROHDVDPDVWHURIIHQFLQJ7KH¿FWLRQDO6ZHWQDPWKXV SUHSDUHVDFRXUVHRIDFWLRQWKDWHFKRHVWKHSVHXGRQ\PRXVSXEOLFDWLRQRIWKH¿UVW edition of The araignment intended to “keepe [him]selfe blameless,” and which also alludes to the publication in 1617 of The schoole of the noble and worthy science of defence, a fencing manual published under Swetnam’s name. Swetnam does not appear again until the third act, when he is called upon to represent the case for men in a disputation between the sexes. In the meantime, WKH.LQJRI6LFLO\PRXUQLQJWKHGHDWKRIKLV¿UVWVRQDQGWKHSUHVXPHGORVVRI another, places his daughter Leonida, his only remaining child, under the care of WKH DPELWLRXV /RUG 1LFDQRU WR FRQWDLQ KHU SHUFHLYHG ³ZDQWRQ FR\ DQG ¿FNOH´ QDWXUH$ 'HVSLWHWKHWKUHDWRIGHDWKIRUDQ\ZKRJDLQDFFHVVWRKHU/HRQLGD and her lover Lisandro meet and are discovered by Nicanor (via the indiscrete VSHHFKRI/HRQLGD¶VPDLG/RUHWWD ZKRKLPVHOIKDVZRRHGWKHSULQFHVVLQRUGHU to succeed to the throne (as Sicilian law has it that Leonida’s gender bars her from VXFFHVVLRQ $WULDOLVWKHQVHWXSWRGLVFRYHUZKHWKHU/LVDQGURRU/HRQLGDZDV WKHSULPDU\DJHQWIRUWKHLUFULPLQDOOLDLVRQWKH¿UVWPRYHUIDFLQJGHDWKDQGWKH VHFRQGDU\DJHQWIDFLQJEDQLVKPHQWEXWDVERWKORYHUVWDNHIXOOUHVSRQVLELOLW\WR VDYHWKHOLIHRIWKHRWKHUQRYHUGLFWLVSRVVLEOH7KH.LQJDQGMXGJHVGHFLGHWKDW a more general disputation is necessary to determine “[w]hether the Man or the :RPDQ LQ ORXH VWDQG JXLOW\ RI WKH JUHDWHVW RIIHQFH´ (Y  DQG SURFODPDWLRQV DUHSXWRXWWR¿QGDVLQJOHUHSUHVHQWDWLYHRIHLWKHUVH[WRUHSUHVHQWWKHLUJHQGHU LQFRXUW7KH$PD]RQ$WODQWD²ZKRLVDFWXDOO\LPSUREDEO\DQGWURXEOLQJO\ WKH SUHVXPHGGHDG 3ULQFH /RUHQ]R LQ GLVJXLVH²VWHSV IRUZDUG DV WKH DGYRFDWH IRU women. For the men, Joseph Swetnam enters, still in disguise as Misogynos. The ensuing disputation re-enacts the preceding pamphlet debate in both its language and themes, and draws upon woman-debate literature more generally, WR RIIHU D GUDPDWLF UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ RI 6ZHWQDP GRLQJ ZKDW KH LV EHVW NQRZQ for, spouting misogyny, while also presenting female-voiced opposition to the PLVRJ\QLVW7KHSDUWLFXODUPDWWHULQGLVSXWHWKH¿UVWFDXVHRIVH[XDORIIHQFHVLV DVWDSOHRIWKHIRUPDOFRQWURYHUV\EXWPRVWSHUWLQHQWO\ZDVWDNHQXSE\6ZHWQDP

Attributing Authorship and Swetnam the Woman-Hater

121

and, at greater length, Sowernam’s response to The araignment. The disputation WKXV VHHV 0LVRJ\QRV  6ZHWQDP¶V VSHHFK LQ WKH SOD\ DERXW ZRPHQ OLNH VKRS NHHSHUV RU ³7UDGHVPHQ´ ³VHWWLQJ RXW >WKHLU@ %HDXWLH´ WR WHPSW DQG GHOXGH PHQ WKURXJK ³3DLQWLQJ &XUOLQJ >DQG@ 3RZGULQJ´ )Y  PDGH VSHFL¿F WR WKH immediate controversy through the use of language reminiscent of passages from The araignmentWKDWGHVFULEHZRPHQ³IUL]]OLQJWKHLUKDLUHVDQGSU\LQJLQWKHLU JODVVHOLNH$SHVWRSUDQFNYSWKHPVHOYHVLQWKHLUJDXGLHV´(Y 7KHSOD\GHSDUWV from the formal traditions of women-debate literature to further echo the immediate pamphlet debate by omitting examples of virtuous and exemplary women. Instead, PXFKDV6ZHWQDPKDGGRQHEULHÀ\LQFKDSWHUWZRRIThe araignment, either side lists “wanton” and “insatiate” examples of the opposite sex.7 And with an evident nod to terms of abuse directed at Swetnam in the female-signed responses, the misogynist’s outbursts are met with accusations of “rayling,” and with the charge RIEHLQJD³VQDUOLQJ'RJJH´DQG³9LSHU´()  7KHMXGJHVRIIHUDYHUGLFWXSRQWKLVGHEDWH²GRXEO\XQGHUVWRRGDVDGHEDWH within the dramatic world of the play and as a reiteration of the pamphlet FRQWURYHUV\²¿QGLQJWKDW³ZRPHQDUHWKH¿UVWDQGZRUVWWHPSWDWLRQV7RORXH and lustfull folly,” and as a consequence the court deems that Leonida must die ) %XWWKLVYHUGLFWIRUWKHPHQLVLPPHGLDWHO\FKDOOHQJHGDV$WODQWD/RUHQ]R SRLQWVWRWKHLQMXVWLFHRIWKHFRXUW LHSDUWLDOSUHMXGLFHG@DQGZHGRHDSSHDOH From you to Iudges more indifferent: You are all men, and in this weightie businesse, *UDXH:RPHQVKRXOGKDXHVDWHDV,XGJHVZLWK\RX)

Far from providing a resolution of the gender debate, the play offers a continuation RIWKHFRQWURYHUV\DV/RUHQ]R$WODQWD¶VZRUGVJRXQKHHGHGE\WKHPDOHMXGJHV 6KRUWO\DIWHUZDUGVWKHSOD\RIIHUVWKHGUDPDWL]DWLRQRIDQRWKHUWULDOZKHUHDJDLQ ZLWKWKHH[FHSWLRQRIWKHGLVJXLVHGSULQFH WKHJHQGHURIWKHFRXUWLVKRPRJHQHRXV but this time it is comprised of female characters, and it will be Swetnam and his misogynist charges against women on trial. So far as Swetnam’s part in the play goes, the second trial is preceded by predominantly comic business. After the central scene of the disputation Misogynos/Swetnam is seemingly transformed from woman-hater to lover, professing to have fallen in love with Atlanta, and arranging to meet with her WKURXJKWKHUHOXFWDQW6ZDVK$EULHIPHHWLQJSUHVHQWVWKHXQOLNHO\FRPLFVSHFWDFOH RI0LVRJ\QRV6ZHWQDPSOD\LQJWKHZRRHUWKDWKHKDGVFRUQHGHDUOLHUWRDVNHSWLFDO $WODQWD/RUHQ]REXWRQKHUH[LWKHUHYHDOVWKDWKLVORYHLVPHUHO\VSRUWWRSDVV WLPHLQWKLVUHVSHFW6ZHWQDPKLPVHOIWDNHVRQWKHUROHDVWKHLQLWLDWRURIOXVWWKH UROHWKDWKLVPLVRJ\Q\KDVDVFULEHGWRZRPHQ:RRGEULGJH 1HZO\UHWXUQHG $WODQWD/RUHQ]R TXL]]HV 0LVRJ\QRV6ZHWQDP XSRQ KLV PDVWHU\ DW IHQFLQJ DQG IDUIURPDFFHSWLQJKLVDPRURXVDGYDQFHVVKHVWULNHVKLPDQGEHVWVKLPLQDGXHO 7

Compare Swetnam the Woman-hater, sig. F2v and The arraignment, sigs. D2–D3.

122

Anonymity in Early Modern England

crying out his emasculation and shattering the credibility of his profession as a fencing master: “Cowardly slaue. A Fencer? you a Fidler. / He cannot hold his ZHDSRQ*DUGKLVEUHVWQRQRUGHIHQGDWKUXVW$UWQRWDVKDP¶G7KXVWRGLVJUDFH WKDWQREOHH[HUFLVH"´,Y ³>$@ll the Women” enter the stage, and the audience is RIIHUHGWKHVLJKWRIWKHZRPDQKDWHUEHLQJERXQGWRDSRVWSULFNHGZLWKSLQVE\ DJURXSRIZRPHQDQGJDJJHG,Y ,QDSDVVDJHDOOXGLQJWR6ZHWQDP¶VWH[WDQG 6RZHUQDP¶VUHVSRQVH$WODQWD/RUHQ]RSURSRVHVWKHVHWWLQJXSRIDIHPDOHFRXUW to try Misogynos: … something is hid, That we must haue reueal’d, and he himselfe 6KDOOEHKLVRZQHDFFXVHU\RXDOONQRZ He hath arraign’d vs for inconstancie: But now weele arraigne him, and iudge him too, 7KLVLVZRPDQVFRXQVHOO,

$WODQWD/RUHQ]R¶VZRUGVVXJJHVWWKDWVKHNQRZVWKHLGHQWLW\RIWKHPLVRJ\QLVW already, and hint at the scene of attribution to come that will reveal that which ZDV³KLG´E\WKHSVHXGRQ\P%XW¿UVWWKHFRXUWVFHQHUHYHDOVWKHFKDQJHRIQDPH GUDPDWL]HGLQWKH¿UVWDFWWKURXJKZKLFK6ZDVKDQG6ZHWQDP³KLGH´WKHPVHOYHV DQGZKLFKHFKRHVWKHVLJQDWXUHVRI6ZHWQDP¶VSXEOLFDWLRQV7KH¿UVWGLVFRYHU\ VHHVWKHFDSWXUHG6ZDVKMXJJOLQJWKHUROHVRIZLWQHVVDQGFORZQ Scold. Silence in the court. Swash6LOHQFH" QRQHEXWZRPHQ"7KDWZHUHVWUDQJH Lor>HQ]R$WODQWD@Misogynos, hold vp thy hand. Swash. His name is Swetnam, not Misogynos. That’s but a borrowed name. Mis[ogynos/Swetnam]. Peace, you rogue, Will you discouer me? Aur[elia]. Swetnam is his name. Swash. I, Ioseph Swetnam, that’s his name, forsooth, Ioseph the Iew was a better Gentile farre. Lor>HQ]R$WODQWD@7KHQIoseph Swetnam, alias Misogynos, Alias Molastomus, alias the Woman-hater. Swash. How came he by all these names?   ,KDXHKHDUGPDQ\VD\KHZDVQHX¶UFKULVWHQ¶G,Y 

$WODQWD/RUHQ]R¶V¿QDOOLQHVQRWRQO\H[KLELWDNQRZOHGJHRI6ZHWQDP¶VZRUNDQG 6SHJKW¶VUHVSRQVHEXWWKURXJKKLVLGHQWL¿FDWLRQDV³WKHWoman-hater” they also situate the play as a further stage in the history of “Joseph Swetnam” as an author. Once Misogynos’s true identity is revealed, the trial becomes the arraignment of Swetnam that the play’s title-page promises, and focus immediately shifts away IURPWKHFRQGXFWRI0LVRJ\QRVWKHRULJLQDOREMHFWRIWKHZRPHQ¶VDQJHUWRWKH author Swetnam. Stage action turns to a scene of authorial attribution, and the question of the ERRN¶VLQLWLDOSVHXGRQ\PRXVDXWKRUVKLSZKLFKKDVDOUHDG\EHHQWUHDWHGDOOXVLYHO\

Attributing Authorship and Swetnam the Woman-Hater

123

WKURXJK WKH ¿FWLRQDO 6ZHWQDP¶V GLVJXLVH DV 0LVRJ\QRV EHFRPHV WKH FHQWUDO dramatic focus. Turning to the newly discovered Swetnam, Aurelia charges “Didst thou not lately both by word, and deed, / Publish a Pamphlet in disgrace of vs, / And RIDOOZRPHQNLQG"´ZKLOHWKHZRPHQDQG$WODQWD/RUHQ]RUHSHDWDQXPEHURI charges from The araignment,Y 6ZHWQDPKRZHYHURIIHUVUHSHDWHGGHQLDOVRI authorship, “No, no, no, not I … I denie all this,” and eventually declares “If I did DQ\VXFKOHWLWEHSURGXF¶G´. $VDFRS\RIWKH¿UVWHGLWLRQRIThe araignment LV EURXJKW RQ VWDJH ³IRU D ¿UPH (XLGHQFH´ 6ZHWQDP VHHNV WR KLGH EHKLQG WKH absence of an authorial signature, challenging the court “Shew me my name, and WKHQ,OH\HHOGYQWR¶W´. 2IIHULQJDQHODERUDWLRQXSRQThe araignment’s own H[SODQDWLRQRILWVDXWKRU¶VSVHXGRQ\PWRNHHSKLPVHOI³blameless´$XUHOLDVHL]HV upon, and explains, the text’s pseudonymous publication: No, that’s your policie and cowardise, You durst not publish, what you dar’d to write, Thy man is witnesse to’t: sirrah, confesse, 2U\RXVKDOOHX¶QEHVHUX¶GRIWKHVDPHVDZFH.

6ZDVKLQGHHGGRHVSURYLGHDIXOODFFRXQWRI6ZHWQDP¶VDXWKRUVKLSUHYHDOLQJ¿UVW the motivation behind his assumed role as a fencing master: No, no, no, no, Ile tell you all, He is no Fencer, that’s but for a shew, )RUIHDUHRIEHLQJEHDWHQ«.Y

and then testifying further to Swetnam’s misogyny, limitations as a scholar, and cowardice in the face of the female-signed responses: +HZDVLQ(QJODQGDSRRUH6FKROHU¿UVW […] $QGWKHQKHWRRNHWKHKDELWRID)HQFHU And set vp Schoole in Bristow: there he liu’d $\HHUHRUWZRWLOOKHKDGZULWWKLV%RRNH And then the women beat him out the Towne, And then we came to London: there forsooth, +HSXWKLV%RRNHL¶WKH3UHVVHDQGSXEOLVKWLW And made a thousand men and wiues fall out. Till two or three good wenches, in meere spight, /DLGWKHLUKHDGVWRJHWKHUDQGUDLO¶GKLPRXWRIWK¶/DQG.Y

As the disguise of Misogynos was stripped away moments earlier, the pseudonym of “Thomas Tel-Troth” is now explained, as The araignment’s cowering author LV XQPDVNHG 5HVSRQGLQJ WR $WODQWD/RUHQ]R¶V DWWULEXWLRQLVW DVVHUWLRQ WKDW “something is hid, / That we must haue reueal’d,” Swash’s narrative of The araignment’s publication and his description of Swetnam’s false bravado and ÀLJKWIURPWKHDQJHUHGZRPHQGRQRWMXVWFRQ¿UPWKDWWKHFDSWXUHG6ZHWQDPLV indeed the author of the misogynist tract, but also unveils the author’s personal

124

Anonymity in Early Modern England

attributes as an explanation for his publication. Swetnam’s cowardice, his ³SRRUH´VFKRODUVKLSDQGKLVPLVRJ\Q\VKDSHWKHVXEMHFWPDWWHUDQGIRUPRIWKH offending volume. And in particular, the authorial signatures on his publications are explained, as The araignment’s pseudonym concealing the misogynist, and the author’s signature on the signed fencing manual that shields its writer from TXDUUHOVDUHXOWLPDWHO\DWWULEXWHGWRWKHVDPHWKLQJ6ZHWQDP¶VFRZDUGLFH/LNH Speght’s critical presentation of Swetnam, an interpretative cycle is in operation ZKHUHE\WKHWH[WUHYHDOVWKHDWWULEXWHVRIWKHDXWKRU²DV$WODQWD/RUHQ]RUHPDUNV “he himselfe / Shall be his owne accuser”—and the signatures on both volumes IRUP D NH\ SDUW RI WKLV SURFHVV both pseudonym and signature hide (and read GLIIHUHQWO\ZKHQKHLVGLVFRYHUHGDOVRUHYHDO WKHFUDYHQDWWULEXWHVRIWKHDXWKRU )ROORZLQJWKHWULDO6ZHWQDPLVSXQLVKHGE\EHLQJPX]]OHGOHGWKURXJKWKHFLW\ DQGERXQGWRDVWDNHWREH³ED\WHGE\DOOWKHKRQHVWZRPHQLQWKH3DULVK´.Y  +HLVV\PEROLFDOO\H[FLVHGIURPWKHPDLQSORWDV/RUHQ]R¶VVFKHPHVVHUYHWRXQGR 6ZHWQDP¶VFRQWULEXWLRQWRWKHIDWHRI/HRQLGD+HPDNHVRQH¿QDOUHWXUQIRUWKH epilogue, “muzzled, hal’d in by Women” to repent and swear his future service to GHIHQGLQJ ZRPHQ¶V YLUWXH /Y 7KH PX]]OLQJ RI 6ZHWQDP RI FRXUVH HFKRHV Speght’s own Mouzell for Melastomus, and serves to increase his emasculation, ZKLFKRQO\HQGVZKHQKHDVVXPHVKLVQHZUROHDVGHIHQGHURIZRPHQ+LV¿QDO words—“And this hand, which did my shame commence, / Shall with my sword be vs’d in [women’s] defence”—signal both the restoration of his masculinity and a SHUVRQDOHOHYDWLRQWRVRPHWKLQJOLNHWKHVWDWXVSURPLVHGE\KLVDXWKRULDOVLJQDWXUH on The schoole of the noble and worthy science of defence/Y  The manner of the misogynist’s comeuppance is uncomfortable, however, DQGWKHSOD\¶VUHODWLRQWRWKHPLVRJ\Q\WKDWLVSXQLVKHGLQWKHVLQJXODU¿JXUHRI 6ZHWQDP LV XQHDV\ 7KLV XQHDVH UHODWHV GLUHFWO\ WR WKH LQGLYLGXDOL]LQJ SURFHVV that is involved in attributing The araignment, a text composed from a diversity of VRXUFHVDQGFXOWXUDOFRPPRQSODFHVWRWKHVLQJOH¿JXUHRI-RVHSK6ZHWQDP The Sicily of the play is a society already suffused with misogyny before Swetnam reaches its shores. While Misogynos earns the contempt of Iago and /RUHQ]RZKRUHIHUVWRKLPDV³DGHJHQHUDWH0RQVWHUVKDPHRIPHQ´(Y PXFK of the rest of Sicilian male society is closer in attitude to Swetnam. Throughout the disputation scene, which, of course, upholds the misogynist’s claims, Misogynos/ Swetnam’s speeches are cheered enthusiastically by the men attending the trial: “A Plaudite by the Men with shouts, crying, Misogynos, Misogynos, Misogynos!” )  7KH .LQJ¶V FRQGXFW WRZDUGV KLV GDXJKWHU LV IRXQGHG XSRQ D PLVRJ\QLVW anxiety over the control of female sexuality, and instances, as Woodbridge points RXWSUHFLVHO\WKHRSLQLRQWKDWLWLVZRPHQWKDWSURYRNHDQGDUHUHVSRQVLEOHIRU PDOHOXVW $QGDIWHU/RUHWWDGLYXOJHVWKHVHFUHWPHHWLQJEHWZHHQ/HRQLGD and Lisandro to Scanfardo, her lover, he muses “What will not women blab to those they loue?” highlighting the perception of female loquacity that is a staple of PLVRJ\QLVWGLVFRXUVH'Y  Moreover, if the play’s representation of Sicily offers a misogynistic society, then its depiction of England, where of course the text is performed and the audience

Attributing Authorship and Swetnam the Woman-Hater

125

PHPEHUVIHHODWKRPHLVHTXDOO\WURXEOLQJ,QWKH¿UVWVFHQHLQZKLFKZHVHHWKHP Swash laments to Swetnam that they ever left Britain for the less receptive Sicily, because in England “there w’are safe enough: / You might haue writ and raild your EHOOLIXOO$QGIHZRUQRQHZRXOGFRQWUDGLFW\RX6LU´$Y 7KHSOD\EHJLQV with a prologue performed by Loretta which welcomes the women to the theatre, EXWUHPDUNVXSRQWKHOLNHO\UHVSRQVHRIWKHPDOHDXGLHQFH³The Men, I know, will laugh, when they shall heare / Vs rayl’d at, and abused; and say, ’Tis well, / We all deserve as much´QRVLJ ,QGHHGWKHFRPHG\RIWKHSOD\WRZKLFK/RUHWWD refers, proves equally unsettling for our understanding of Swetnam’s punishment. 3OHQW\RIODXJKVDUHPDGHDWKLVH[SHQVHWKHVLJKWRI6ZHWQDPEHLQJGHIHDWHGLQ a duel by a “woman” and Swash’s frequent quips add to his shaming in the later VFHQHV%XW6ZDVK¶VMRNHVDOVRPRELOL]HPLVRJ\QLVWVWHUHRW\SHVDVZHKDYHVHHQ even in the court scene in which Swetnam is tried: “Scold. Silence in the Court. / Swash6LOHQFH" QRQHEXWZRPHQ"7KDWZHUHVWUDQJH´,QGHHGDWWKHHQGRIKLV arraignment by the women, when he is condemned to be “bayted by all the honest women in the Parish,” Swetnam replies with what may well have proved to be the funniest line in the scene for Loretta’s imagined audience: “Is that the worst? 7KHUHZLOOQRWRQHEHIRXQG,QDOOWKH&LWLH´.  (TXDOO\ WURXEOLQJO\ WKH PX]]OLQJ DQG EDLWLQJ RI 6ZHWQDP RIIHUV D carnivalesque pageant that depends upon popular notions of female unruliness as powerfully as it condemns the misogynist. Swash’s speech at the trial scene, even DVLWDFFXVHV6ZHWQDPLQYRNHVPLVRJ\QLVWLPDJHVDVKHH[SODLQVKRZ³WKHZRPHQ beat [Swetnam] out the Towne,” and “rail’d him out of th’Land”, repeating the LPDJHVRIWKHZRPHQDVYLROHQW³)XULHV´DQG³'HXLOV´IURPWKH¿UVWVFHQH$ ,WLV GHOLYHUHGWRDQDOOIHPDOHFRXUWVXI¿FLHQWO\H[FHSWLRQDODVDWUDYHVW\RIFXVWRPDU\ MXGLFLDOSUDFWLFHWRDWWUDFWDZRRGFXWIRUWKHWLWOHSDJH)XUWKHUPRUHHYHQLIRQH agrees with Constance Jordan’s claim that the “trial of Misogynos by a women’s FRXUWLVFDUULHGLQDPDQQHUPRUHMXGLFLDOWKDQWKHHDUOLHUWULDORI/HRQLGD´  it is of note that it is preceded by a scene in which a number of women, one of whom is denoted by the speech-heading “Scold´YLROHQWO\DWWDFN6ZHWQDP¶VERG\ LQDQDOPRVW%DFFKLFIXU\, 6ZHWQDP¶VSXQLVKPHQWLWVHOIRIIHUVDQLQYHUVLRQ of a scold’s bridling, seeming more to stress his failure of masculinity than to challenge his charges against women. In this respect, the bridling seems all-too UHGROHQW RI D VNLPPLQJWRQ WKH SXQLVKPHQW HLWKHU IRU VKUHZLVK ZRPHQ RU IRU domineering women and their cowed husbands whereby gender transgression in a FRPPXQLW\LVPRFNHGWRUHVWRUHQRUPV$V'DYLG8QGHUGRZQH[SODLQV [i]f female dominance, represented by the wife’s beating of the husband, was the RIIHQFHVXUURJDWHVIRUWKHRIIHQGHUV>«@DFWHGRXWWKHSURVFULEHGEHKDYLRXUWKH µKXVEDQG¶LQWKHSRVLWLRQRIKXPLOLDWLRQULGLQJEDFNZDUGVRQKRUVHRUGRQNH\ DQGKROGLQJDGLVWDIIWKHV\PERORIIHPDOHVXEMHFWLRQZKLOHWKHZLIHXVXDOO\D PDQLQZRPHQ¶VFORWKHV EHDWKLPZLWKDODGOH±

7KH SXQLVKPHQW RI WKH PLVRJ\QLVW²D FKDUDFWHU DOUHDG\ VXEMHFWHG WR IHPDOH dominance and violence in the action preceding the trial, as well as to different

126

Anonymity in Early Modern England

forms of emasculation—is performed on stage by male actors playing women, in effect re-enacting the punishment for unruly women and for emasculated men. If the play ties Swetnam’s misogyny to his failings as a man, pouring scorn upon the individual misogynist, his punishment is enacted by a mob of violent and domineering women (including the “Scold´  RI WKH W\SH FRQVWDQWO\ LQYRNHG E\ The araignment’s tales of female frowardness and excess. Jordan argues that the play possesses a double intention, “to silence the PLVRJ\QLVWDQGWRUHIRUPVRFLHW\´ EXWWKHVLOHQFLQJRI6ZHWQDPDSSHDUVWR VWDQGSUHFLVHO\LQWKHSODFHRIZLGHUFKDQJH$V0DUJDUHW-DQH.LGQLHSXWVLWWKH ³ZRPHQ¶VUDJHLVPLVGLUHFWHG´LQDWWDFNLQJ³WKHPLVRJ\QLVW¶VERG\UDWKHUWKDQWKH PLVRJ\QLVWERG\RIVWDWH´ 7KHFLUFXODWLRQRIPLVRJ\QLVWGLVFRXUVHFRQWLQXHV WKURXJKRXWWKH¿FWLRQDO6LFLOLDQVRFLHW\RIWKHSOD\DQGHYHQEHWZHHQWKHWKHDWUH company and the audience in England, precisely through the punishment of an individual to whom a diverse range of misogynist commonplaces are attributed as being uniquely his. Of course, the instance of attribution provided for the audience at the Red Bull, and preserved in print for readers, is something other than the revelation of ³VRPHWKLQJ«KLG´WKDW$WODQWD/RUHQ]RGHVFULEHV7KHUHLVQRUHDVRQWRDVVXPH that the play’s presentation of the boastful but ultimately cowardly author of The araignment possesses any validity with regards to the attributes of the “real” Swetnam, no matter how neatly the play ties together his publications. But as the preceding pages have suggested, The araignment appears to resist ascription WR D VLQJOH DXWKRU DQG H[SODQDWLRQ WKURXJK DQ LQGLYLGXDO ¿JXUH¶V DWWULEXWHV 7KH¿FWLWLRXVQDWXUHRIWKHSOD\¶VDFWRIDWWULEXWLRQZKLFKQHYHUWKHOHVVRIIHUVD SUHVHQWDWLRQRIDFRQWHPSRUDU\DXWKRUWKDWWKHDXGLHQFHFRXOGUHFRJQL]HPLJKWEH read to foreground the uneasy nature of attribution, the uncertainty over whether WKH LQGLYLGXDOL]LQJ SURFHVV LQYROYHG LQ DWWULEXWLRQ EHVWRZV SDUWLFXODU TXDOLWLHV XSRQ D ¿FWLRQ FRQVWUXFWHG E\ LWV UHDGHUV RU UHYHDOV WKH JHQXLQH DWWULEXWHV RI DQ DXWKRU 6XFK D VWUDWHJ\ RI LQGLYLGXDOL]DWLRQ ZKHUHE\ WKH FRQWUDGLFWLRQV DQG misogyny of a number of political, religious, literary, and cultural discourses are ascribed to the attributes of The araignment’s author successfully created a space from which Rachel Speght could emerge as a public writer to challenge misogynist assumptions. In the play’s carnivalesque punishment of the single ZRPDQKDWHUWKDWDOORZVDQGHYHQHQFRXUDJHVSOD\JRHUVDQGUHDGHUVWRRYHUORRN the circumstances of authorship that enable the appearance of “Joseph Swetnam,” one may begin to discern some of the limitations and potentially dangerous consequences of authorial attribution.

Attributing Authorship and Swetnam the Woman-Hater

127

Works Cited Anon. A CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE GHOST OF THE RUMP AND TOM TEL-TROTH. [n.p.], 1660. Anon. Swetnam the Woman-hater, arraigned by women. London, 1620. Anon. Tell-Trothes New Yeares Gift Beeing Robin Good-fellowes newes out of those Counties, where inhabites neither Charity nor honesty. London, 1593. Crandall, Coryl. “The Cultural Implications of the Swetnam Anti-Feminist Controversy in the 17th Century.” Journal of Popular Culture ± Foucault, Michel. ‘What is an Author?’ Trans. Joseph [sic] V. Harari. Modern Criticism and Theory: A Reader. Ed. David Lodge. 1988. Harlow: Longman, 1996. 197–210. Gough, Melinda J. “Women’s Popular Culture? Teaching the Swetnam Controversy.” Debating Gender in Early Modern England, 1500–1700. Ed. Christina 0DOFROPVRQDQG0LKRNR6X]XNL%DVLQJVWRNH3DOJUDYH± *XD]]R6WHIDQRThe ciuile Conuersation. Trans. G. Pettie. London, 1586. +DUYH\ (OL]DEHWK ' Ventriloquized Voices: Feminist Theory and English Renaissance Texts. London: Routledge, 1992. Jordan, Constance. Renaissance Feminism: Literary Texts and Political Models. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1990 .LGQLH 0DUJDUHW -DQH ³µ(QWHU >«@ /RUHQ]R 'LVJXLVHG OLNH DQ $PD]RQ¶ Powerdressing in Swetnam the Woman-Hater, Arraigned by Women.” Cahiers Elizabethains ± Lane, John. Tom Tel-Troths Message, and His Pens Complaint. London, 1600. /HZDOVNL%DUEDUD.LHIHU,QWURGXFWLRQThe Polemics and Poems of Rachel Speght. /HZDOVNL2[IRUG2[IRUG83[L±[[[LL Lievsay, John Leon. Stefano Guazzo and the English Renaissance, 1575–1675. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1961. Lyly, John. The Complete Works of John Lyly (G 5:DUZLFN %RQG 9RO  Oxford: Oxford UP, 1902. Mexia, Pedro. The Foreste or Collection of Historyes. Trans. Thomas Fortescue. London, 1576. Munda, Constantia. The Worming of a mad Dogge. London, 1617. Munday, Anthony. Zelauto: The Fountaine of Fame, 1580 (G -DFN 6WLOOLQJHU Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1963. 3XUNLVV 'LDQQH ³0DWHULDO *LUOV 7KH 6HYHQWHHQWK&HQWXU\ :RPDQ 'HEDWH´ Women, Texts and Histories 1575–1760(G&ODUH%UDQWDQG'LDQQH3XUNLVV London: Routledge, 1992. 69–101. Roberts, Josephine A. “The Phallacies of Authorship: Reconstructing the Texts of Early Modern Women Writers.” Attending to Early Modern Women. Ed. Susan '$PXVVHQDQG$GHOH6HHII1HZDUN8RI'HODZDUH3± Sowernam, Ester. Ester hath hang’d Haman. London, 1617. Speght, Rachel. A Mouzell for Melastomus. London, 1617.

128

Anonymity in Early Modern England

———. The Polemics and Poems of Rachel Speght(G%DUEDUD.LHIHU/HZDOVNL Oxford: Oxford UP, 1996. Swetnam, Joseph. The Araignment of Lewd, Idle, Froward, and Unconstant Women (1615).(G):YDQ+HHUWXP1LMPHJHQ&LFHUR3UHVV ———. The schoole of the noble and worthy science of defence. London, 1617. Tell troath, Tom. A DIALOGUE BETWEEN HAMPTON COVRT, AND THE ISLE OF WIGHT. [n.p.], 1648. Tell-troth, Thomas. A CHARITABLE CHVRCH WARDEN. OR, An Hypocrite Anatomiz’d. London, 1641. Tel-troth, Thomas. The araignment of lewde, idle, froward, and vnconstant women or the vanitie of them, choose you whether. London, 1615. Underdown, David. Revel, Riot, and Rebellion: Popular Politics and Culture in England, 1603–1660. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1985. Wayne, Valerie. “The Dearth of the Author.” Maids and Mistresses, Cousins and Queens: Women’s Alliances in Early Modern England. Ed. Susan Frye and .DUHQ5REHUWVRQ2[IRUG2[IRUG83± Whetstone, George. An Heptameron of Ciuill Discourses. London, 1582. Woodbridge, Linda. Women and the English Renaissance: Literature and the Nature of Womankind, 1540–1620. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1984.

Chapter 6

:DV$QRQ\PRXVD-RNHVWHU" The Anonymous Pamphlet Haec-Vir: Or The Womanish-Man Susan Gushee O’Malley

In 1620 a controversial pamphlet was printed for I. [John] T. [Trundle] in London. It was titled Haec-Vir: Or The Womanish Man: Being an Answere to a late Booke intituled Hic-Mulier. Exprest in a briefe Dialogue betweene Haec-Vir the Womanish-Man, and Hic Mulier the Man-Woman,1 and no author’s name, not even anonymous, appeared on its title page. Nor did an author’s name appear on the title page of Hic Mulier, the pamphlet to which Haec-Vir responded, which was published 11 days prior to Haec-Vir. Why would the printer John Trundle omit the name of the author of Haec-Vir? Why might it be advantageous or perhaps necessary to have the pamphlet penned by anonymous rather than a named author? And what possibilities does the use of anonymous open up for the reader as well as for the publisher? ,Q KHU JURXQGEUHDNLQJ VWXG\ RI DQRQ\PLW\ The Anonymous Renaissance: Cultures of Discretion in Tudor-Stuart England, Marcy L. North suggests that ZHVKRXOGQRWUHJDUGDQRQ\PRXVDVDODFN³DFDWHJRU\RUFRQGLWLRQRIORVV´EXW UDWKHU³DÀH[LEOHFRQYHQWLRQ´WKDW³FDQUHSUHVHQWDQDFFLGHQWRIWH[WWUDQVPLVVLRQ DQDFWRIPRGHVW\RUDQDFWRIVHOISURWHFWLRQ´ 6KHDUJXHVWKDWDWH[W³GRHVQRW DOZD\VQHHGDQDXWKRURUHYHQDQDXWKRU¶VVKDGRZ WRJLYHLWPHDQLQJ´ DQG 1RUWKLVSDUWLFXODUO\LQWHUHVWHGLQWKH³IXQFWLRQVRIHDUO\DQRQ\PLW\´ 6RZKDW might be the function of anonymous in the printing of the pamphlet Haec-Vir? It could be that the printer/publisher John Trundle thought that the pamphlet would sell better because of the audience’s speculation over who wrote it. Readers ZRXOG ZDQW WR NQRZ ZKDW ZULWHU PDOH RU IHPDOH ZRXOG KDYH D FURVVGUHVVHG woman assert that “Custome is an Idiot.” That was certainly true in a twentiethcentury case of anonymity. One of the reasons the novel Primary Colors: A Novel of PoliticsSXEOLVKHGLQVROGZHOOZDVWKDWUHDGHUVZDQWHGWR¿JXUHRXWWKH LGHQWLW\RIDQRQ\PRXV:KRZDVWKLVXQLGHQWL¿HGDXWKRUZKRNQHZVRPXFKDERXW a presidential primary campaign that resembled President Bill Clinton’s primary 1

4XRWDWLRQVIURPWKHVHSDPSKOHWVIROORZHaec-Vir: Or The Womanish Man: Being an Answere to a late Booke intituled Hic-Mulier. Exprest in a briefe Dialogue betweene HaecVir the Womanish-Man, and Hic Mulier the Man-Woman. “Custome Is an Idiot”: Jacobean Pamphlet Literature on Women. Ed. Susan Gushee O’Malley. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 2004.

130

Anonymity in Early Modern England

LQ"7KHDQWLFOLPDFWLFUHYHODWLRQWKDW-RH.OHLQKDGDXWKRUHGWKHWH[WWRRNWKH wind out of its sails, and the novel disappeared from the bestseller list. Could a similar absence of an author in a 1620s pamphlet increase sales? Sometimes the names of early modern authors who sold well were deliberately printed—in error—on title pages, presumably to increase sales. For example, in 1608 The Yorkshire Tragedy was deceptively ascribed on its title page to :6KDNHVSHDUHDOWKRXJKWKHSOD\LVQRZWKRXJKWWRKDYHEHHQZULWWHQHLWKHUE\ 7KRPDV +H\ZRRG RU *HRUJH :LONLQV 3HUKDSV 7KRPDV 3DXLHU ZKR SXEOLVKHG The Yorkshire Tragedy KRSHG WKDW 6KDNHVSHDUH¶V QDPH ZRXOG FDXVH SRWHQWLDO readers to buy the play. But would speculation over an anonymous author of a SDPSKOHWWKDWPDNHVH[WUDRUGLQDU\DVVHUWLRQVDERXWZRPHQLQFUHDVHVDOHV" )RUPDQ\HDUO\PRGHUQSULQWLQJKRXVHVWKHSUR¿WVIURPSDPSKOHWVDQGRWKHU TXLFN WXUQDURXQG SXEOLFDWLRQV OLNH EDOODGV DQG QHZVERRNV ZHUH HVVHQWLDO IRU VXUYLYDO -RKQ7UXQGOH D ERRNVHOOHU DQG SULQWHU LQ /RQGRQ IURP  WR  ZDV NQRZQ IRU SXEOLVKLQJ EDOODGV SDPSKOHWV QHZVERRNV DQG SOD\V :LWK 1LFKRODV /LQJ KH SXEOLVKHG WKH )LUVW 4XDUWR RI 6KDNHVSHDUH¶V Hamlet in 1603 0F.HUURZ %HFDXVHRQHRIWKHPDMRUFRVWVRISURGXFWLRQZDVSDSHUZKLFK ZDVERXJKWLQJUHDWTXDQWLW\WKHTXLFNUHWXUQVRQSDPSKOHWVKHOSHGVROYHWKHSULQWLQJ KRXVHV¶ IUHTXHQW FDVK ÀRZ SUREOHPV +DODV]  2 Printers could set the type, SULQWDSDPSKOHWDQGUHDOL]HDTXLFNSUR¿WDWWKHVDPHWLPHWKDWWKH\ZHUHVHWWLQJ WKHW\SHDQGFRUUHFWLQJWKHSURRIVIRUDORQJHUZRUN+LF0XOLHUFURVVGUHVVHG DVDPDQPDNHVVRPHDVWRQLVKLQJDVVHUWLRQVDERXWZRPHQLQHaec-Vir, such as ZRPHQDUH³DVIUHHERUQHDVPHQ´ DQGSHUKDSVIRUWKLVUHDVRQ-RKQ7UXQGOH thought anonymity would increase the sales of Haec-Vir. But anonymity also allows authors more space to play or improvise because they DUHQRWORFNHGLQWRDVSHFL¿FDXWKRULDOSHUVRQD,ZRXOGVXJJHVWWKDWDQRQ\PLW\IRU the writer of Haec-VirLVDNLQGRIPDVTXLQJDIUHHVSDFHZKHUHZKDWRQHVD\VLV QRWPHDVXUHGDJDLQVWRQH¶VNQRZQLGHQWLW\,QKLVIDPRXVHVVD\³7KH'HDWKRIWKH Author” Roland Barthes argues that “To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on WKDWWH[WWRIXUQLVKLWZLWKD¿QDOVLJQL¿HGWRFORVHWKHZULWLQJ´ )UHHRIWKH impositions of an authorial identity, perhaps anonymous can be more outrageous in his/her statements than a named author. Marcy North seems to agree in her GLVFXVVLRQRIDUHDGHUZKRGRHVQRWUHFRJQL]HWKHLGHQWLW\EHKLQGWKHSVHXGRQ\P “Democritus Junior” in Robert Burton’s Anatomy of Melancholy. North describes DQRQ\PLW\DV³DOLYHO\JDPHEHWZHHQDXWKRUDQGDXGLHQFH´ 7KLVVRUWRIJDPH VHHPVDWZRUNLQHaec-Vir, particularly as the two characters in the dialogue are RI LQGHWHUPLQDWH JHQGHUV ,QLWLDOO\ HDFK PLVWDNHV WKH RWKHU¶V JHQGHU +DHF9LU addresses Hic-Mulier as “most redoubted and worthy Sir” and Hic-Mulier addresses Haec-Vir as “most rare and excellent lady” (Haec-Vir   $GGLWLRQDO misunderstanding is also available in their names: the masculine form of the Latin 2 In Cheap Print and Popular Piety, 1550–1640, Tessa Watt states that paper was RIWHQSHUFHQWRIWKHFRVWRISURGXFWLRQRIDERRNGHSHQGLQJRQWKHOHQJWKDQGZKHWKHU RUQRWLWZDVD¿UVWHGLWLRQ 

Was Anonymous a Jokester?

131

pronoun hic is combined with mulier, the Latin word for “woman,” and the feminine form of the Latin pronoun haec is combined with vir, the Latin word for “man,” playing on the confusion that arises when men and women wear each other’s clothes. There is also dialogue between the text and the marginalia as if “Anonymous” is KDYLQJDFRQYHUVDWLRQZLWKKLPKHUVHOI7KHPDUJLQDOLDWDNHWKHVLGHRI+LF0XOLHU in the margin the example of the Roman custom of anointing their bodies with sweet ointments before meals, an example that Hic-Mulier uses to prove that “Custome LVDQ,GLRW´LVODEHOHG³IRROLVK´ 7KHPDUJLQDOLDDOVRDSSURYHRI+LF0XOLHU¶V refutations of Haec-Vir’s accusations. When she argues that she, Hic-Mulier, is not XQQDWXUDO WKH PDUJLQ HFKRHV ³1RW XQQDWXUDO´  $QRQ\PLW\ , ZRXOG DUJXH gives the writer more freedom. The indeterminate genders of the two characters in the dialogue play off of the indeterminate gender and identity of the anonymous author, thereby opening up possibilities for ironic playfulness. After they clarify which sex they are, Haec-Vir addresses Hic-Mulier by describing her as a “most couragious counterfet of Heracles and his Distaffe”   WKDW LV D PDQ GUHVVHG DV D ZRPDQ +DHF9LU SURFHHGV WR DQDO\]H +LF 0XOLHU¶VGUHVVIURPWKH³PRVWSURSKDQH)HDWKHU´ LQKHUKDWWRWKH³EHDVWO\ /HDGHQ JLOW 6SXUUH´   IDVWHQHG WR KHU ³EDVH VDOH %RRWH´  3 He berates KHU ³QDNHG ODVFLYLRXV EDZG\ %RVRPH´   DJDLQ HPSKDVL]LQJ WKH VH[XDO provocation of cross-dressing, and her masculine weapons, including “a LeadenHall'DJJHU´DQG³D+LJKZD\3LVWROO´ +HEXLOGVKLVDUJXPHQWRQWKHSRLQWV made in the pamphlet Hic Mulier, to which Haec-Vir is responding, by describing Hic-Mulier’s coat of arms as consisting of baseness, unnaturalness, shamelessness, and foolishness. Hic-Mulier refutes each of Haec-Vir’s charges. She contends that VKHLVQRWEDVHRU³DVODYHWR1RYHOW\´ EHFDXVHWKHZKROHZRUOGLV³DYHU\ VKRSRUZDUHKRXVHRIFKDQJH´ DQGVKHDVNVZKHWKHULWLVRQO\ZRPHQZKR ZLOOEHGHSULYHGRIWKHEHQH¿WRIGHOLJKWLQJLQWKHYDULHW\RIWKHZRUOG Many readers have wished that the author of Haec-Vir was a woman, or at least a feminist. And that desire is fueled by the author’s anonymity. In Women and the English Renaissance, Linda Woodbridge asserts that Haec-Vir “falls very little VKRUWRIEHLQJDÀDPLQJPDQLIHVWRRIOLEHUW\IRUZRPHQ´ ZKLOH0DU\%HWK Rose, in The Expense of Spirit, writes that “the debate shows female independence DQGHTXDOLW\EHWZHHQWKHVH[HVDVGHVLUDEOHDQGMXVWEXWDOVRDVLPSRVVLEOHIRU DKLHUDUFKLFDOVRFLHW\WRDEVRUEZLWKRXWXQDFFHSWDEOHGLVUXSWLRQ´ Haec-Vir does end with gender being reinscribed: Hic-Mulier and Haec-Vir do exchange their clothes, presumably becoming Hic-Vir and Haec-Mulier. Hic-Mulier agrees WRWKLVEHFDXVH+DHF9LUVD\VWKDWVKHRUVKH KDVPDGHKLPVHHWKH³VKDPH« in [his] Follies past”: he calls for “Fortitude and Resolution,” which “arme a man” DQGDUH³WRRWRXJKDQGVWXEERUQHIRUDZRPDQVZHDULQJ´ ,Q³7KH'HYLO¶V House, ‘or Worse,’” Bryan Reynolds argues that Hic-Mulier’s lament that cross3 Philip Sidney describes Hercules as “painted, with his great beard and furious countenance, in women’s attire, spinning at Omphale’s commandment … [which] breedeth both delight and laughter” (The Defence of Poesy 

132

Anonymity in Early Modern England

dressing is “an enemie to Custome” anticipates Judith Butler’s conclusion “that WKHWUDQVYHVWLWHµHIIHFWLYHO\PRFNVERWKWKHH[SUHVVLYHPRGHORIJHQGHUDQGWKH QRWLRQRIDWUXHJHQGHULGHQWLW\¶´5H\QROGV± 4 Butler’s idea of gender as performance is applicable here, both in terms of the cross-dressed characters in the pamphlet and the anonymous, imaginatively androgynous, author. I would suggest WKDWLWLVHDVLHUWRSURMHFWRQH¶VGHVLUHVRQWRDQDQRQ\PRXVDXWKRUWKDQLWLVWRGR the same for a named author. There is much more room for a reader’s fantasy with ³DQRQ\PRXV´WKDQZLWKDQDPHGZULWHUZKRVHLGHQWLW\DQGELRJUDSK\DUHNQRZQ But possibly there is another reason for the decision to use anonymous for the author of Haec-Vir, which returns to the title of this paper, “Was Anonymous a -RNHVWHU"´&RXOGWKHDXWKRUKDYHFKRVHQWREHDQRQ\PRXVLQRUGHUWRSOD\DMRNH on his readers? Does anonymity allow for more comic possibilities? In preparing an edition of Haec-Vir IRUP\ERRN³Custome Is an Idiot”: Jacobean Pamphlet Literature on Women , GLVFRYHUHG WKDW ¿YH SDVVDJHV RI Haec-Vir DUH WDNHQ directly from Montaigne’s essay, “Of Ancient Customs,” an early essay dated from ±DQGLQFOXGHGDVQXPEHULQ%RRNRI0RQWDLJQH¶VEssays, DERRN that Donald M. Frame describes as comprising a “string of anecdotes” with a FRQFOXVLRQWKH\ZHUHRQO\³HVVD\VDWZULWLQJHVVD\V´VKRUWDQGGHULYDWLYH±  ³2I$QFLHQW&XVWRPHV´¿WVWKLVGHVFULSWLRQ,WEHJLQVZLWK0RQWDLJQH¶VVWDWHPHQW that he understands why most people follow the customs and fashions “wherein they were borne,” but he laments the indiscretion and blindness of people who change every day or month according to “the authoritie of present custome …”  5 (DUOLHULQ(VVD\³2IWKH&DQQLEDOV´ 0RQWDLJQHVWDWHVWKDW³WKHUHLVQRWKLQJ in that nation, that is either barbarous or savage, unlesse men call that barbarisme which is not common to them. As indeed, we have no other ayme of truth and reason, then the example and Idea of the opinions and customes of the countrie ZHOLYHLQ´ 
Was Anonymous a Jokester?

133

DOZD\VVWDEOH³6XEMHFWLYLW\«XQ¿[HGDQGXQGH¿QHG´LVKRZ+XJK*UDG\GHVFULEHV 0RQWDLJQH¶VWKRXJKWLQKLVUHFHQWERRNShakespeare, Machiavelli, and Montaigne  &HUWDLQO\WKLVLVDQDSWGHVFULSWLRQRI0RQWDLJQH¶VUHÀHFWLRQVRQFXVWRP Another writer on custom who was as popular in England in the early seventeenth-century as Montaigne was Pierre de Charron whose Of Wisdom was translated into English from the French in 1615. In his chapter titled “Obedience to the Laws, Compliance with the Customs, and Observance of the Ceremonies in use. How, and in what Sense necessary,” Charron describes “The strange Variety of /DZVDQG&XVWRPVZKLFKKDYHREWDLQHGLQWKH:RUOG´ DQGKRZ³&XVWRPH FUHHSV XSRQ XV E\ OLWWOH DQG OLWWOH´   8QOLNH 0RQWDLJQH KH FRQFOXGHV WKDW PDQ\FXVWRPVWKDWDSSHDUDW¿UVWWREHEDUEDURXVXSRQH[DPLQDWLRQFDQEHMXGJHG MXVW DQG JRRG +H GLVFXVVHV RQH H[DPSOH DW OHQJWK DSSDUHQWO\ VHULRXVO\ WKDW GHVFULEHVWKHNLOOLQJDQGHDWLQJRIRQH¶VHOGHUO\SDUHQWV7KHUHLVPXFKOHVVVHQVH of “custom is an idiot” in Charron than in Montaigne. As these examples illustrate, WKHGH¿QLWLRQRI³FXVWRP´ZDVDFRQFHUQRIWKHSHULRG Haec-Vir borrows not from Charron’s Of Wisdom, EXWUDWKHUIURP¿YHSDVVDJHV that the anonymous author of Haec-Vir lifts from Montaigne’s essay “Of Ancient &XVWRPHV´ SUREDEO\ WDNHQ IURP WKH -RKQ )ORULR WUDQVODWLRQ RI 0RQWDLJQH¶V HVVD\V7KHVHZHUH¿UVWOLFHQVHGWR(GZDUG%OXQWLQDQG¿UVWSXEOLVKHGLQ 1603, while a second edition appeared in 1613. Although the anonymous author of Haec-Vir SDUDSKUDVHVWKH¿YHH[DPSOHVWDNHQIURP³2I$QFLHQW&XVWRPHV´KH does incorporate the Latin verse translations of Martial and Virgil from the Florio translation. In all of his other borrowings in the pamphlet, the anonymous author FLWHV KLV DXWKRUV EXW FXULRXVO\ KH PDNHV QR PHQWLRQ RI WKH DXWKRU RI WKH ¿YH SDVVDJHVWDNHQIURP0RQWDLJQH¶VHVVD\ +LF0XOLHU HPSOR\V ¿YH H[DPSOHV LQ Haec-Vir to support her conclusion that “Custome LVDQ,GLRWDQGZKRVRHYHUGHSHQGHWKZKROHO\XSRQKLPZLWKRXW GLVFRXUVHRI5HDVRQZLOOWDNHIURPKLPKLVS\GHFRDWDQGEHFRPHDVODYHLQGHHGWR FRQWHPSWDQGFHQVXUH´ ,QWKH¿UVWH[DPSOHWKH5RPDQVDQRLQWWKHLUERGLHV ZLWK³VZHHWRLQWPHQWV´ EHIRUHHDWLQJZKLFKLQWLPHEHFDPHWKHSUDFWLFHRI bathing their entire bodies in perfumed water before meals while the English only wash their hands (included in the example is a quote from Martial about Thais’s RLOLQJKHUERG\  ,QWKHVHFRQGH[DPSOHWKH$QFLHQWVOLHXSRQ³VWDWHO\DQG VRIWEHGV´ WRUHFHLYHDPEDVVDGRUVRUHQJDJHLQVHULRXVGLVFXVVLRQ9LUJLO¶V AeneidLVFLWHG  ,QWKHWKLUG&DWR-XQLRUDWHRQO\ZKLOHVLWWLQJRQWKHJURXQG   ,Q WKH IRXUWK WKH 9HQHWLDQV NLVV HDFK RWKHU ZKHQ WKH\ PHHW XQOLNH WKH (QJOLVKZKRDVNZKHUHDSHUVRQLVJRLQJDQGZKHUHKHLVORGJLQJ $QGLQ WKH¿QDOH[DPSOHWKH$UJLDQDQG5RPDQODGLHVPRXUQLQZKLWHZKLOHWKH(QJOLVK ZHDUEODFNLQPRXUQLQJ  Why does the anonymous author of Haec-Vir fail to cite Montaigne, given that he borrows extensively from him and cites the classical references included within the passages that he borrows? Perhaps the answer may be found in the salacious material that surrounds what anonymous has borrowed from Montaigne’s Of Ancient Customes UHIHUHQFHV WR ³WDLO´ ZLSLQJ DQG ERGLO\ VPHOOV 7KH ¿UVW

134

Anonymity in Early Modern England

example cites epigram 6.93.9 by Martial, wherein he describes how bad Thais VPHOOVEHIRUHVKHWDNHVKHUEDWK7KHIRXUWKH[DPSOHFRPSDULQJKRZGLIIHUHQW people greet each other, includes an anecdote about Pasicles, the philosopher, who VKRXOGKDYHWRXFKHGDPDQ¶VNQHHVLQJUHHWLQJEXWLQVWHDGWRXFKHGKLVJHQLWDOV and was rudely pushed away. In response, Pasicles says, “is not that part yours as ZHOODVWKHRWKHU"´ 0RQWDLJQHFRQWLQXHVWKHHVVD\E\H[SODLQLQJKRZ the Romans wiped their “tailes”: They were wont to wipe their tailes (this vaine superstition of wordes PXVWEHHOHIWXQWRZRPHQ ZLWKDVSRQJHDQGWKDW¶VWKHUHDVRQZK\ Spongia in Latine is counted an obscene word: which sponge was ever tied to an end of a staffe, as witnesseth the storie of him, that was carried to be devoured of the wild beastes before the people, who desiring leave WRJRHWRDSULYLHEHIRUHKLVGHDWKDQGKDYLQJQRRWKHUPHDQHVWRNLO himselfe, thrust downe the sponge and staffe, hee found in the privie, LQWRKLVWKURWHZKHUHZLWKKHFKRNHGKLPVHOIH+DYLQJHQGHGWKH delights of nature, they were wont to wipe their privities with perfumed wooll …. In every street of Rome were placed tubs, and vessels for SDVVHQJHUVWRPDNHZDWHULQ 6

The salacious details may have been omitted by anonymous so that readers who had read Montaigne’s essays could supply them. But the act of supplying could have been done in several ways. One reader might feel that the salacious context GHVWDELOL]HG +LF0XOLHU¶V DUJXPHQW ZKLOH DQRWKHU PLJKW FUHGLW +LF0XOLHU IRU HGLWLQJ RXW REMHFWLRQDEOH PDWHULDOV 7KH UHVXOWDQW DPELJXLW\ DOORZV IRU considerable playfulness among Haec-Vir’s audiences at the same time that it DGGV WR DQ RQJRLQJ FXOWXUDO GHEDWH²SURYRNHG E\ +LF0XOLHU¶V FRQWHQWLRQ WKDW “Custome Is an Idiot.” 7KH ERRN RQ WKH UHFHSWLRQ DQG LQÀXHQFH RI 0RQWDLJQH¶V Essays in England UHPDLQVWREHZULWWHQ:KDWLVQHHGHGLVDVWXG\VLPLODUWR$QQ/DNH3UHVFRWW¶V Imagining Rabelais in Renaissance England for Montaigne. How well would the readers of Haec-VirRUWKRVHZKRKDGWKHSDPSKOHWUHDGWRWKHPNQRZ0RQWDLJQH¶V “Of Ancient Customes”? In her diary, Lady Anne Clifford mentions him twice: 2Q1RYHPEHUVKHVD\V³,VDWDWP\ZRUN KHDUG5LYHUVDQG0DUVKUHDG 0RQWDLJQHV(VVD\VZKLFKERRNWKH\KDYHUHDGDOPRVWWKLVIRUWQLJKW´ $JDLQ on 28 January 1617, she says that “Rivers used to read to me in Montaigne Essayes  0ROO 1HYLOO LQ WKH )DLU\ 4XHHQH´   )ORULR GHGLFDWHV KLV  HGLWLRQ RI Montaigne’s Essays to Lucy Russell, the Countess of Bedford, and her mother Lady $QQH+DUULQJWRQZKRDUHWKRXJKWWRKDYHDVNHG)ORULRWRWUDQVODWH0RQWDLJQH¶V Essais
6 'RQDOG0)UDPH¶VWUDQVODWLRQUHDGV³7KH\ZLSHGWKHLUSULFNZLWKSHUIXPHGZRRO after using it” followed by the Martial epigram, “I’ll do nothing to you till it is washed with ZRRO´ 

Was Anonymous a Jokester?

135

NQHZWKH)ORULRWUDQVODWLRQRI0RQWDLJQH¶VHVVD\V)ORULRDOVRLQFOXGHVDGGLWLRQDO GHGLFDWLRQVWRWKH&RXQWHVVRI5XWODQG/DG\5LFK/DG\(OL]DEHWK*UH\DQG/DG\ Mary Neville, the last two of whom were his pupils. Moreover, Florio was in the employ of the Earl of Southampton as well as Sir Robert Cecil, and so was very ZHOOFRQQHFWHGDPRQJWKHDULVWRFUDF\
136

Anonymity in Early Modern England

ZULWLQJLI5DFKHO6SHJKWKDGZULWWHQWKHSDPSKOHWLWZRXOGEHUHDGGLIIHUHQWO\ because of her pamphlet Mouzell for Melastomus, a reply to Joseph Swetnam’s The Araignment of Lewd, idle, froward, and unconstant women. Anonymity allows for much more possibility in interpretation. +LF0XOLHU LV D FURVVGUHVVHG ZRPDQ RXW¿WWHG UDWKHU RXWODQGLVKO\ WR HDUO\ PRGHUQH\HVVKHZHDUVDPDQ¶VGRXEOHWDQHWKHUVNLUWDODUJHKDWZLWKDIHDWKHU over shorn hair, and sports spurs, a pistol, and a dagger. She is very much the sort of woman targeted in the sermon against the “insolencie of our women,” delivered LQE\-RKQ.LQJWKH%LVKRSRI/RQGRQMXVWDIHZZHHNVEHIRUHHic Mulier and Haec-Vir were registered. In a letter to Sir Dudley Carleton, John Chamberlain describes the sermon: Yesterday the bishop of London called together all his Clergie … and WROGWKHPKHKDGH[SUHVVHFRPPDXQGPHQWIURPWKH.LQJWRZLOO them to inveigh vehemently and bitterly in theyre sermons against the insolencie of our women, and theyre wearing of brode brimd hats, pointed dublets, theyre haire cut short or shorne, and some RIWKHPVWLOOHWWDHVRUSRQLDUGV«±

-RKQ .LQJ¶V VHUPRQ PD\ EH DQRWKHU UHDVRQ ZK\ WKH DXWKRU DQGRU SXEOLVKHU RI Hic Mulier and Haec-Vir chose to be anonymous, to refrain from publicly being LGHQWL¿HGDVLQRSSRVLWLRQWRWKH.LQJ¶VFRPPDQG +LF0XOLHU¶VVWDWHPHQW³ZH>ZRPHQ@DUHDVIUHHERUQHDV0HQ´ LVXVXDOO\ read by modern critics as a plea for women’s equality. Louis B. Wright, in MiddleClass Culture in Elizabethan England, describes Haec-Vir as “the Areopagitica of WKH/RQGRQZRPDQ´ -RQDWKDQ'ROOLPRUHLQWHUSUHWV+LF0XOLHU¶VVWDWHPHQWV DVPHDQLQJWKDWFXVWRPFUHDWHVJHQGHUGLIIHUHQFH4XRWLQJ0RQWDLJQHEXWQRWWKH essay “Of Ancient Custome,” Dollimore says that whereas once custom was the HIIHFWRIJHQGHUQRZLWLVWKHFDXVH³RQO\FXVWRPPDNHVWKDWVHHPLPSRVVLEOH XQWRXVZKLFKLVQRWVR´ %XWKRZPXFKGRWKHVHUHDGLQJVUHÀHFWDGHVLUHRI recent critics to focus on a statement of liberty for women in Haec-Vir? Would the NQRZOHGJHRIWKH0RQWDLJQHERUURZLQJVPDNHDQ\GLIIHUHQFHLQWKHLQWHUSUHWDWLRQ of the modern reader? ,IZHNQHZWKHLGHQWLW\RIDQRQ\PRXVLQHaec-Vir, we would probably be able to determine with more authority whether the statements “Custome is an Idiot” and “we [women] are as free-borne as men, have as free election, and as free spirits, we DUHFRPSRXQGHGRIOLNHSDUWV´± XWWHUHGE\DFURVVGUHVVHGZRPDQDUHWREH WDNHQDVDVVHUWLRQVRIOLEHUW\RUDVVDWLULFDOUDQWLQJV8 Surely some people—women 8 If I had to speculate on who the author of Haec-Vir was, I would say that a law VWXGHQWDWWKH,QQVRI&RXUWSUREDEO\ZURWHWKHSDPSKOHW3KLOLS-)LQNHOSHDUOGHVFULEHV WKHDWPRVSKHUHRIWKH,QQVRI&RXUWDV³IUHHVSRNHQLUUHYHUHQW>DQG@LQGHSHQGHQW´ZLWK ³ZLW´EHLQJ³WKHLUKLJKHVWKRQRUL¿FWHUPUHIHUULQJQRWPHUHO\WRDIDFXOW\RIWKHPLQGRUWR DZD\ZLWKZRUGVEXWWRDZKROHVW\OHRIOLIH´± ,QWKHUHFRUGVRIWKH,QQVRI&RXUWV 5HYHOVWKHUHDUHPDQ\UHIHUHQFHVWRPRFNWULDOVLQ³GHIHQFHRIZRPHQ¶VLQFRQVWDQF\´DQG

Was Anonymous a Jokester?

137

especially—read or heard these words as offering some possibility for agency. The potential subversiveness of an idea depends on the context of its articulation DQGLWVUHFHSWLRQ6WRUH\ 9,QRWKHUZRUGVUHDGHUVZKRUHFRJQL]HGWKHFRQWH[W of the Montaigne passages might have read differently from those who had not read Montaigne or who did not want to read Hic-Mulier’s impassioned statements on women’s equality as satiric. As modern readers have drawn attention to HicMulier’s statements of liberty, perhaps, too, early modern women reading or KHDULQJ+LF0XOLHU¶VZRUGVPD\KDYHLGHQWL¿HGZLWKRUEHHQLQVSLUHGE\KHUSOHD IRUHTXDOLW\,OLNHWRWKLQNWKDW$HPHOLD/DQ\HURU'RURWK\/HLJKRU5DFKHO6SHJKW might have gained some sustenance from the lines “Custome is an Idiot.”10 Their readings were probably quite different from the intentions of the publisher and the DQRQ\PRXVDXWKRUJLYHQWKDWWKHSDPSKOHWZDVZULWWHQVRVRRQDIWHU.LQJ-DPHV¶V order that sermons be preached against cross-dressed women. Did the sermons PDNHLWWRRGDQJHURXVIRUWKHDXWKRUWRVLJQDQLQWHQWLRQDOO\VDWLULFDOSDPSKOHW" 2U ZDV WKH SDPSKOHW LWVHOI D GLUHFW DQG DQJU\ UHVSRQVH WKRXJK DQRQ\PRXV  WR %LVKRS.LQJ¶VVHUPRQ" 7KHIDFWRIDQRQ\PLW\EDQLVKHVDQ\FRQ¿GHQWDVVXPSWLRQVDERXWDQDXWKRU¶V intentionality and allows for more speculation on the part of the reader. But the fact of the uncited Montaigne references surrounded by smutty passages may mean that WKHSDPSKOHWZDVDMRNHDQGDQRQ\PRXVZDVDMRNHVWHU+DHF9LUFRXQWHUV+LF Mulier’s condemnation of custom by saying that no one will listen to her because by cross-dressing, she has announced that she is a slave to custom or fashion. He DUJXHVWKDWZRPHQ+LF0XOLHULQSDUWLFXODU ZKRH[FKDQJHWKHLU³OLJKWVNLUWVDQG )UHQFKGRXEOHWV´ IRU³ZHOOVKDSWFRPHO\DQGFORVH*RZQHV´ WKHLU SLVWROV IRU SUD\HU ERRNV DQG WKHLU VSXUV IRU ³QHDWH 6KRRHV DQG FOHDQHJDUWHUHG 6WRFNLQJV´   ZLOO VWRS EHLQJ WKH VXEMHFW IRU EDOODGV DQG ZLOO QR ORQJHU EH described as base, unnatural, shameless, and foolish. Admitting that Haec-Vir’s DUJXPHQW KDV ³UD\VHG KHU H\HOLGV XS´   +LF0XOLHU FOHYHUO\ DQG SHUKDSV disappointingly, turns the argument against him. If, according to nature, religion, DQG ³WKH &XVWRPHV RI DOO FLYLOO 1DWLRQV´   D GLVWLQFW GLIIHUHQFH PXVW EH PDLQWDLQHGEHWZHHQPHQDQGZRPHQWKHQZK\+LF0XOLHUDVNVGRHV+DHF9LU ³FXUOHIUL]HOODQGSRZGHU´ KLVKDLUZHDUUXIIVDQG)UHQFKERGLFHVDQGVSRUW fans and cosmetics? His behavior blurs social distinctions so that there is not “any GLIIHUHQFHEHWZHHQWKHID\UH0LVWULV WKHIRROLVK6HUYDQW´ *RQHDUHWKH WRWKHQHFHVVLW\RIVWXGHQWVGHIHQGLQJSDUDGR[HVWRVKDUSHQWKHLUPLQGV(OWRQ /LNHWKH members of the Inns of Court, the author of Haec-Vir is well-read, citing Virgil, Ariosto, Martial, Spenser, Montaigne, George Chapman, and Du Bartas, and in the guise of Hic0XOLHUPDNHVVRPHVWDUWOLQJDVVHUWLRQVDERXWFXVWRPDQGZRPHQ 9 In his introduction to What is Cultural Studies: A Reader, John Storey—using Stuart +DOO¶V GH¿QLWLRQ RI LGHRORJ\²DUJXHV WKDW ³FXOWXUDO WH[WV DQG SUDFWLFHV DUH QRW LQVFULEHG ZLWK PHDQLQJ JXDUDQWHHG RQFH DQG IRU DOO E\ WKH LQWHQWLRQV RI SURGXFWLRQ PHDQLQJ « LVDOZD\VH[SUHVVHGLQDVSHFL¿FFRQWH[WDVSHFL¿FKLVWRULFDOPRPHQW«´  10 Aemelia Lanyer wrote Salve Deus Judaeorum   'RURWK\ /HLJK ZURWH The Mothers Blessing DQG5DFKHO6SHJKWZURWHMouzell for Melastomus 

138

Anonymity in Early Modern England

ROGGD\VRI³7LOWVDQG7RXUQLHVDQGORIWLH*DOO\DUGV´ ZKHQPHQGDQFHGOLNH PHQQRZPHQVWUXWOLNHSXSSHWVDQGVKRZWKHPVHOYHVRIIDWWKHSOD\KRXVH+LF Mulier concludes by quoting Ariosto’s description of the effeminate Rogero. Haec-Vir responds by saying that she has “rais’d” his “eye-lids” and “cleered”  KLVVLJKWDQGWKDWKHZLOOLPPHGLDWHO\H[FKDQJHFORWKHVZLWKKHUDOWKRXJK LWLVXQFOHDUKRZVKHFDQ¿WLQWRKLVVPDOOFORWKHVDVVKRZQE\WKHZRRGFXWRIWKH pair. She will also correct her name to Haec-Mulier if he will become Hic-Vir. ³)URPKHQFHIRUWK´+DHF9LUSURFODLPV³GHIRUPLWLHVKDOOSDFNHWR+HOO´  7KHUHQDPHG+DHF0XOLHUDQG+LF9LUZLOOEH¿OOHGZLWK³KHDYHQO\DQGGLYLQH ORYH´ DVH[SUHVVHGE\WKHOLQHVRI6SHQVHU¶V³&ROLQ&ORXW¶V&RPH+RPH $JDLQ´± ZKLFKORRNWRDVLPSOHOLIHUHPRYHGIURPWKHFLW\DQGZKLFK FRQFOXGH WKH SDPSKOHW ,W LV GLI¿FXOW WR LPDJLQH WKH QHZO\ QDPHG +LF9LU DQG +DHF0XOLHUOLYLQJWKHSDVWRUDOOLIH3HUKDSVWKLVLVDQRWKHUVDWLULFSRNHDWWKHOLIH and fashions of sophisticated Londoners who could never survive in Spenser’s pastoral world. At the end of the pamphlet, anonymous reinscribes gender. Hic-Mulier has relinquished her name as well as her cross-dressed clothes and her statement “Custome is an Idiot.” But in questioning custom, the middle of the pamphlet allows for more possibilities. So what is the function of anonymous in Haec-Vir? This pamphlet offers PRUHHYLGHQFHWRVXSSRUW0DUF\1RUWK¶VFRQWHQWLRQWKDWDQRQ\PLW\LVD³ÀH[LEOH convention.” Here anonymity may have been used in the expectation of greater SUR¿WVIRUWKHSULQWHUSXEOLVKHU-RKQ7UXQGOHLWPD\KDYHEHHQFKRVHQWRSDUDOOHO the anonymity of Hic Mulier, the pamphlet to which it is a response, or it may have been used simply to hide the identity of the author writing a subversive pamphlet on cross-dressed women. While all of that may be true, perhaps the PRVWLQWHUHVWLQJDQVZHULVWKDWLQWKLVFDVHDQRQ\PRXVZDVDMRNHVWHUZKRDVVHUWHG liberty for women while at the same time undercutting it by the salacious references that provide the context for the borrowings from Montaigne. If so, anonymous’ MRNH PD\ KDYH WXUQHG EDFN DJDLQVW KLPKHU 0DQ\ RI WKH UHDGHUV RI Haec-Vir, cut free from the possible constrictions of a named author’s intentionality, have read the pamphlet as a statement of agency for women. In “What is an Author” Foucault argues that “literary anonymity is not tolerable, we can accept it only LQ WKH JXLVH RI DQ HQLJPD´ ±  7KH DQRQ\PRXV DXWKRU RI Haec-Vir is “an enigma,” but one that has opened up a world of possibilities in the reading of the pamphlet. I would suggest if we allow anonymous to be anonymous and do not focus our attention on who might be the author, then anonymity not only allows the reader more space for multiple readings but also puts more responsibility for interpretation on the reader. 7KHSDPSKOHW¶VDQRQ\PLW\PDNHVSRVVLEOHDOOVRUWVRIUHDGLQJVLQFOXGLQJRQH in which readers focus on the middle of the pamphlet in which Hic-Mulier states “Custome is an Idiot” rather than the ending in which gender, through fashion, is reinscribed.

Was Anonymous a Jokester?

139

Works Cited Anonymous. Haec-Vir: Or The Womanish Man: Being an Answere to a late Booke intituled Hic-Mulier. Exprest in a briefe Dialogue betweene Haec-Vir the Womanish-Man, and Hic Mulier the Man-Woman. “Custome Is an Idiot”: Jacobean Pamphlet Literature on Women. Ed. Susan Gushee O’Malley. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 2004. Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author.” Image—Music—Text 1HZ
140

Anonymity in Early Modern England

Rose, Mary Beth. The Expense of Spirit. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1988. Sidney, Philip. The Defence of Poesy. Ed. Dorothy M. Macardle. London: Macmillan, 1962. Storey, John, Ed. What is Cultural Studies? A Reader. London: Arnold, 1996. Watt, Tessa. Cheap Print and Popular Piety, 1550–1640. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991. Woodbridge, Linda. Women and the English Renaissance: Literature and the Nature of Womankind, 1540–1620. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1988. Wright, Louis B. Middle-Class Culture in Elizabethan England. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1935. Yates, Frances A. John Florio; the Life of an Italian in Shakespeare’s England. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1934.

PART 3 The Consequences of Anonymity and Attribution

This page has been left blank intentionally

Chapter 7

7KH$QRQ\PRXV6KDNHVSHDUH Heresy, Authorship, and the Anxiety of Orthodoxy Bruce Danner

[T]he reasoned criticism of a prevailing belief is a service to the proponents of WKDWEHOLHILIWKH\DUHLQFDSDEOHRIGHIHQGLQJLWWKH\DUHZHOODGYLVHGWRDEDQGRQ LW7KLVVHOITXHVWLRQLQJDQGHUURUFRUUHFWLQJDVSHFWRIWKHVFLHQWL¿FPHWKRGLVLWV PRVWVWULNLQJSURSHUW\DQGVHWVLWRIIIURPPDQ\RWKHUDUHDVRIKXPDQHQGHDYRU where credulity is the rule …. Vigorous criticism of new ideas is a commonplace in science. While the style of the critique may vary with the character of the FULWLFRYHUO\SROLWHFULWLFLVPEHQH¿WVQHLWKHUWKHSURSRQHQWVRIQHZLGHDVQRUWKH VFLHQWL¿FHQWHUSULVH$Q\VXEVWDQWLYHREMHFWLRQLVSHUPLVVLEOHDQGHQFRXUDJHG WKHRQO\H[FHSWLRQEHLQJWKDWDGKRPLQHPDWWDFNVRQWKHSHUVRQDOLW\RUPRWLYHV of the author are excluded. It does not matter what reason the proponent has for DGYDQFLQJ KLV LGHDV RU ZKDW SURPSWV KLV RSSRQHQWV WR FULWLFL]H WKHP DOO WKDW matters is whether the ideas are right or wrong, promising or retrogressive. —Carl Sagan1 [A]ny exoheretical view that becomes prominent enough to force its views on VFLHQFHDFWVWRSXQFWXUHVFLHQWL¿FFRPSODFHQF\²DQGWKDWLVJRRG$QH[RKHUHV\ may cause scientists to bestir themselves for the purpose of reexamining the bases RIWKHLUEHOLHIVHYHQLIRQO\WRJDWKHU¿UPDQGORJLFDOUHDVRQVIRUWKHUHMHFWLRQRI WKHH[RKHUHV\²DQGWKDWLVJRRGWRR$QH[RKHUHV\PD\FDXVHVFLHQWL¿FDFWLYLW\ that, in serendipitous fashion, may uncover something worthwhile that has nothing to do with the exoheresy—and that would be very good, if it happens. —Isaac Asimov2

“a thing we can call Shakespeare” 2QHRIWKHPRUHFRPPRQO\NQRZQUHPDUNVDERXW6KDNHVSHDUHLVWKDWKHLVVDLG to have played the role of the ghost of Hamlet. As scholars of the Renaissance are aware, however, the earliest reference to this fact comes from the edition RI 1LFKRODV 5RZH PRUH WKDQ  \HDUV DIWHU WKH ¿UVW VWDJLQJ RI WKH SOD\ LQ 6KDNHVSHDUH¶V/RQGRQ7KHRQO\SRUWUDLWRI6KDNHVSHDUHZLWKDQ\FODLPWRDXWKRULW\ 1 2

Sagan 82–3. Asimov 55.

144

Anonymity in Early Modern England

is the engraving of Martin Droeshout on the First Folio title page. However, 'URHVKRXWZDV\HDUVROGZKHQ6KDNHVSHDUHGLHGLQDQGWKHHQJUDYLQJ was presumably prepared 7 years later for the Folio’s publication in 1623. The IURQW PDWWHU SURWHVWV LWV OLNHQHVV WR 6KDNHVSHDUH EXW WKH )LUVW )ROLR IDOVL¿HV D QXPEHU RI NH\ IDFWV DQG WKH FUXGH VWLOWHG H[HFXWLRQ RI WKH HQJUDYLQJ SUHVHQWV OLWWOH PRUH WKDQ D JHQHULF ¿JXUH :H NQRZ WKDW 6KDNHVSHDUH ZDV ¿UVW H[SRVHG in print as an actor-playwright by celebrated University wit Robert Greene in a GHDWKEHG GLDWULEH NQRZQ DV Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit. Sadly, however, only a very few scholars have come to terms with the status of the Groatsworth as a forgery, passed off by compositor and sometime dramatist Henry Chettle, who admitted that not a word in Greene’s handwriting could be produced to verify his authorship.3 Not a deathbed confession, the Groatsworth is instead an attempt to cash in on the infamy of Greene’s reputation while his death remained the source of fresh rumor and scandal. As it stands, virtually no one has investigated the implications of the “upstart crow” passage from the point of view of Chettle’s DXWKRUVKLS6XFKDUHWKHH[DPSOHVWKDWSDVVIRUIDFWVLQ6KDNHVSHDUHDQELRJUDSK\ +DGHYHQDIHZYHUL¿DEOHGHWDLOVDERXW6KDNHVSHDUH¶VFUHDWLYHDQGSURIHVVLRQDO experience survived, only the Groatsworth passage among these odds and ends ZRXOGUHWDLQDQ\LPSRUWDQFHWKRXJKVXUHO\ZLWKGLIIHULQJVLJQL¿FDQFHIURPWKH pen of Chettle than that of Greene. As it stands, it is not clear whether the facts that ¿OORXUELRJUDSKLHVRI6KDNHVSHDUHPDNHKLPPRUHSUHVHQWDQGDYDLODEOHWRWKH modern reader, or even more elusive and anonymous in the end. , ZLVK WR H[SORUH WKH DQRQ\PLW\ RI 6KDNHVSHDUH WKURXJK WKH OHQV RI DQWL 6WUDWIRUGLDQ ³KHUHV\´ QRW WR WDNH RQ WKH WHUPV RI WKH DXWKRUVKLS GHEDWH4 but to examine scholarly accounts of heretical discourse that expose profound DQ[LHWLHVDERXWWKHQDWXUHRI6KDNHVSHDUHDQDXWKRUVKLS,QWKHLUHQJDJHPHQWZLWK DOWHUQDWLYH FRQVWUXFWLRQV RI 6KDNHVSHDUH FRQWHPSRUDU\ FULWLFV VWUXJJOH WR ¿[ D coherent portrait of the dramatist in the absence of Humanist tropes of the artist as DVWDEOHFUHDWLYHRULJLQ+DYLQJODUJHO\H[FKDQJHGWKHVHLGHDOVIRUDGHVWDELOL]HG Foucauldian model of the author—as a locus of concern for the interests of power, RZQHUVKLSDQGWKHVXSSUHVVLRQRIGLVVHQW²FXUUHQWVFKRODUV¿QGWKHPVHOYHVLQWKH XQFRPIRUWDEOHSRVLWLRQRIVHUYLQJMXVWVXFKLQWHUHVWVDVJDWHNHHSHUVRIRUWKRGR[\

3 D. Allen Carroll, the latest editor of the Groatsworth, describes it as “in the main a IRUJHU\«>DOWKRXJK@WKHERRNPD\FRQWDLQVRPHPDWWHUE\*UHHQHDQGRUVRPHRQHHOVH´ &KHWWOHDQG*UHHQH )RU&DUUROO¶VFRPSUHKHQVLYHDUJXPHQWRQWKHIRUJHGVWDWXVRIWKH Groatsworth, see 1–33. On the copy of Groatsworth brought to the press, Chettle comments, “I had onely in the copy this share, it was il written, as sometimes Greenes hand was none of the best, licensd it must be, ere it could bee printed which could neuer be if it might not be read. To be briefe I writ it ouer, and as neare as I could, followed the copy, onely in that letter ,SXWVRPHWKLQJRXWEXWLQWKHZKROHERRNHQRWDZRUGHLQIRU,SURWHVWLWZDVDOO*UHHQHV QRWPLQHQRU0DLVWHU1DVKHVDVVRPHYQLXVWO\KDXHDI¿UPHG´&>KHWWOH@$Y±  4 7KH DQWL6WUDWIRUGLDQ WKHVLV LV VRXQGO\ UHEXWWHG LQ 0DWXV )RU D UHMHFWLRQ RI WKH FODLPVWRWKH(DUORI2[IRUG¶VDELOLW\WRZULWH6KDNHVSHDUH¶VSOD\VVHH1HOVRQ±

The Anonymous Shakespeare

145

7KH FDVH IRU 6KDNHVSHDUH¶V VWDWXV DV DQ ³DQRQ\PRXV´DXWKRU WKHUHIRUH OLHV not in plausible alternatives to authorship of the plays and poems. The problem RILGHQWLI\LQJ6KDNHVSHDUHDQGKLVUHODWLRQVKLSWRKLVZRUNOLHVLQVWHDGLQFXUUHQW PDLQVWUHDP ELRJUDSK\ DQG VFKRODUVKLS ZKLFK SHUVLVW LQ UHF\FOLQJ SURMHFWLRQ and hagiography into a life story with too little compelling data. Gary Taylor KDV ODEHOHG WKH SKHQRPHQRQ RI 6KDNHVSHDUH LQ RXU WLPH DV D ³EODFN KROH´² an obfuscating convergence of reputation and social/critical energy that distorts ERWKWKHZRUNVDQGWKHKLVWRULFDO¿JXUHZKRZURWHWKHP7D\ORU± :KLOH we may debate the limitations of Taylor’s metaphor, the discourse with which we UHSUHVHQW6KDNHVSHDUHSRVVHVVHVDFRPSHOOLQJDQGXQVHWWOLQJIRUFHWKDWH[HUWVWKH effect of anonymity in scholarly practice. The more orthodox scholars attempt WR GLIIHUHQWLDWH WKHLU YLVLRQ RI 6KDNHVSHDUH IURP WKH LUUDWLRQDO ¿FWLRQV RI DQWL Stratfordianism, the more similar their views appear to become. Although recent decades have made scholars of the Humanities increasingly aware of the unvoiced interests that inform our scholarship, it has not rendered the profession immune from harnessing those interests in order to denigrate and caricature dissenting thought. In fact, the turn to heresy as a strategy of representing DQWL6WUDWIRUGLDQLVPFDQVWLOOEHGHWHFWHGLQWKHZRUNRISURPLQHQWHDUO\PRGHUQ FULWLFV ,QWHUHVWLQJO\ WKLV ZRUN DSSHDUV DW D WLPH ZKHQ WKH HQFRXQWHU ZLWK WKH alien or “other” is, itself, much at issue in critical discourse. Although it is easy HQRXJKWRFULWLFL]HWH[WVLQFDSDEOHRIUHSUHVHQWLQJDOLHQGLVFRXUVHDVDQ\WKLQJEXW DGHPRQL]HGFDULFDWXUHWKH³RWKHU´XQGHUVWXG\LQVXFKZRUNWHQGVWREHDJURXS or institution that is either benign or celebrated in our own time.
146

Anonymity in Early Modern England ³TXLWHSURSHUO\QRPRUHGHWHUUHGE\LW´ %DWW\>VLF@RUORRQ\>VLF@WKHJKRVW VHHNHUV¶QDPHLVOHJLRQDQGWKH\KDYHOHIWDQLPSUHVVLYHOHJDF\RIPRQXPHQWV to human interpretative ingenuity. (Garber 3, citing Ogburn 145, Friedman and )ULHGPDQ

Such a turn to ad hominem derision, using the names of two out of hundreds of anti-Stratfordian advocates, vents its own obvious discontent and anxiety. :KDW DUH WKH PRWLYHV RI VXFK UKHWRULF SDUWLFXODUO\ DV DQ LQWURGXFWLRQ WR WDNLQJ the issue “seriously”? As a psychoanalytic critic, Garber must contend with the embarrassing fact that Sigmund Freud became a proponent of the Oxfordian theory of authorship. Yet it is ironic in this passage how Freud plays a central role without serving as a target for criticism. Garber argues that it is “appropriate” that VRPHRQHQDPHG³/RRQH\´FRQYHUWHG)UHXG6XFKDMRNHGLVSODFHVLWVDQ[LHW\ZLWK )UHXGE\DWWDFNLQJDPRUHDSSHDOLQJDQGYXOQHUDEOHWDUJHW,Q*DUEHU¶VDFFRXQW )UHXGKDVWDNHQRQWKHGLVHDVHRI2[IRUGLDQEHOLHIEXWGRHVQRWVXIIHUWKHVRFLDO FRQVHTXHQFHVLQWKLVFDVHFRPLFULGLFXOH )UHXGUHPDLQVIUHHIURPDEXVHLQWKLV passage, as if his canonical authority renders him invulnerable to the pathology of the anti-Stratfordian enterprise. Garber’s desire to construct anti-Stratfordianism as different or “other” than WKH6KDNHVSHDUHSURIHVVLRQLVLPSHULOHGE\KHUSURIRXQGGHEWWR)UHXGDVDWKHRULVW DQG DV D 6KDNHVSHDUHDQ )RU D SV\FKRDQDO\WLF FULWLF HQJDJHG LQ D GLVFXVVLRQ RI authorship controversy, she can hardly ignore Freud’s Oxfordianism, but nor FDQVKHDGGUHVVLWZLWKRXWVLJQL¿FDQWGHÀHFWLRQ%\UHO\LQJRQ)UHXG¶VDXWKRULW\ DQGH[DPSOH*DUEHUKRYHUVRQWKHYHUJHRILGHQWL¿FDWLRQZLWKDQWL6WUDWIRUGLDQ thought, herself. Her reluctance to study Freud’s adoption of the Oxfordian K\SRWKHVLVFDQEHVHHQDVDQH[WHQVLRQRIWKHEHOLHIWKDW³6KDNHVSHDUHLVIRUXV WKHVXSHUHJRRIOLWHUDWXUHWKDWZKLFKFDOOVXVEDFNWRRXUVHOYHVWRDQLPSRVHG XQGHFLGDEOH EXW VHOIFKRVHQ DWWULEXWLRQ RI SDWHUQLW\´   1HYHUWKHOHVV LW LV also an obvious omission. She is content to mirror the conclusions of Samuel Schoenbaum, who argues that Freud was satisfying his own compulsions of IDPLO\ URPDQFH E\ VXSSODQWLQJ WKH HVWDEOLVKHG ¿JXUH RI 6KDNHVSHDUH ZLWK WKH ULYDOFODLPVRI2[IRUG6FKRHQEDXPTWG*DUEHU 7KHUHLVDQRWKHUYLHZ however, suggested by Freudian scholar and biographer Peter Gay, that Looney exploited psychoanalytic views that proved to be highly persuasive to Freud. As Gay points out in his discussion of Freud’s conversion to Oxfordianism, Looney was an astute reader of academic culture and its inability to address dissent with reasoned rebuttal: /RRQH\WLJKWHQHGKLVJULSRQ)UHXGZLWKÀDVKHVRISV\FKRORJLFDOSHQHWUDWLRQ ³7KH UHVRUW RI WKH IDLWKIXO IHZ WR FRQWHPSWXRXV H[SUHVVLRQV LQ VSHDNLQJ RI RSSRQHQWV´²WKXV /RRQH\ DQDO\]HG WKH 6WUDWIRUGLDQV FRQIURQWHG ZLWK revisionists—“is clearly indicative of uneasiness even amongst the most orthodox litterateurs.” In fact, he argued, “orthodox faiths … are usually intrinsically ZHDNHVWZKHQPRVWYHKHPHQWO\DVVHUWHG´+HUHZDV/RRQH\ZKRLQKDG SUREDEO\ QRW \HW KHDUG RI )UHXG LGHQWLI\LQJ WKH VWUDWDJHPV RI SURMHFWLRQ DQG

The Anonymous Shakespeare

147

resistance in action. The defensive maneuvers to which Looney was calling attention were of a sort that Freud could amply and easily document from his FOLQLFDOH[SHULHQFH*D\ 5

/RRQH\PD\KDYHSRVVHVVHGDVLOO\QDPHEXWKHZDVQRWVWXSLG*DUEHU¶VMRNH that Freud had gone “Looney” sadly fails to address a central fact of Freud’s conversion—that in addition to Looney’s arguments, the polemical and XQUHDVRQHGULGLFXOHE\RUWKRGR[YRLFHVLPSOLHGWKDWWKH\ZHUHQRWXSWRWKHWDVN of refuting anti-Stratfordian views. Ironically, then, Garber’s engagement with DQWL6WUDWIRUGLDQLVPRQWKHOHYHORIFRPLFULGLFXOHSODFHVKHULQWKHUDQNVRIWKH VDPHRUWKRGR[VFKRODUVUHMHFWHGE\)UHXG$VD*HUPDQKHKDGWRKDYHH[SODLQHG WKHSHMRUDWLYHDVVRFLDWLRQVRI/RRQH\¶VQDPHDQGLPPHGLDWHO\GLVPLVVHGWKHP *D\ ,I*DUEHUYLHZV6KDNHVSHDUHDVD³VXSHUHJRRIOLWHUDWXUH´LQYXOQHUDEOH WR FULWLTXH WKHQ )UHXG PXVW EH UHJDUGHG DV DQRWKHU DQ DXWKRULW\ RI RVVL¿HG WUDQVFHQGHQFH ³LPSRVHG XQGHFLGDEOH EXW VHOIFKRVHQ´  ZKRVH VSHFL¿F DUJXPHQWV DQG FRQFOXVLRQV RQ WKH QDWXUH RI 6KDNHVSHDUH¶V LGHQWLW\ FDQQRW EH permitted within the range of her critique. 1HLWKHU QXDQFHG QRU KXPRURXV /HDK 0DUFXV¶V VWXG\ RI 6KDNHVSHDUHDQ ³ORFDOL]DWLRQ´LQPuzzling ShakespeareYRLFHVRYHUWGLVFRPIRUWZLWKWKHLQÀXHQFH RIDQWL6WUDWIRUGLDQLVPXSRQWKHDXWKRULW\RI6KDNHVSHDUHDQWRSLFDOLW\6KHFRQYH\V an anxious—indeed, troubled—frustration at the appropriation of topical reading that has occupied much of the time and energy of twentieth-century unbelievers: 7KLV IULQJH PRYHPHQW ZKLFK KDV GRJJHG WRSLFDO DSSURDFKHV WR 6KDNHVSHDUH OLNHDGDUNVKDGRZKDVEHHQPRUHFRUURVLYHWKDQZHKDYHEHHQZLOOLQJWRDGPLW LWFRQYLQFHG6LJPXQG)UHXGIRUH[DPSOH DQGKDVKDGWKHHIIHFWDORQJZLWK the First Folio itself, of casting a faint yet lingering odor of inauthenticity over DOO 6KDNHVSHDUHDQ KLVWRULFLVP « >$QWL6WUDWIRUGLDQ@ JHVWXUHV « XQGHUPLQH WKH FUHGLELOLW\ RI DOO FULWLFDO ZRUN RQ 6KDNHVSHDUH E\ FKDOOHQJLQJ WKH idea of 6KDNHVSHDUH±HPSKDVLV0DUFXV¶V

5LFK LQ ¿JXUDWLRQ PRYLQJ IURP VKDGRZV DQG FRUURVLRQ WR D IRUELGGLQJO\ XQVSHFL¿HG³RGRURILQDXWKHQWLFLW\´WKHSDVVDJHXOWLPDWHO\VHL]HVXSRQDWHQXRXV theoretical ground (“the idea RI 6KDNHVSHDUH´  WKDW LV QRW DW DOO FRUURERUDWHG E\WKHIROORZLQJSRLQW³(YHQWKRVHRIXVZKRVSHDNRXWZLWKPRVWYHKHPHQFH against the humanist creation called the Bard, and against the foibles of traditional KLVWRULFLVP VWLOO VHHP WR ZDQW WR NHHS D WKLQJ ZH FDQ FDOO 6KDNHVSHDUH LI RQO\ WR PDJLFDOO\ JXDUDQWHH WKH DXWKHQWLFLW\ RI RXU RZQ UHYLVLRQLVW HQWHUSULVH´   In dramatic fashion Marcus compares the corrosive effects of anti-Stratfordian scholarship to nothing less than the text of the First Folio, whose omissions, errors, DQGRXWULJKWOLHVKDYHORQJEHHQFRPPRQNQRZOHGJHEXWZKRVHGXELRXVDXWKRULW\ PLJKW QRW EH H[SHFWHG WR EH FRPSDUHG ZLWK WKH ZRUN RI KHUHWLFDO VFKRODUVKLS 5 See Gay’s complete account of Freud’s relationship to Oxfordianism and 6KDNHVSHDUH³)UHXGDQGWKH0DQIURP6WUDWIRUG´± 

148

Anonymity in Early Modern England

7KHGDUNHULPSOLFDWLRQVRILQDXWKHQWLFLW\WKDWDUHKXPRURXVO\PDVNHGLQ*DUEHU¶V account of anti-Stratfordianism are positively laid bare in these candid admissions. Freud’s presence on the side of Oxfordianism is particularly troubling, and Marcus KDV QR QXDQFH RU VDUFDVP WR PDNH RI LW 6KH FKDUDFWHUL]HV UHYLVLRQLVWV E\ WKH HPSOR\PHQW RI D PRUH WKHRUHWLFDOO\ ÀH[LEOH \HW QR OHVV YDJXH  ³WKLQJ ZH FDQ FDOO6KDNHVSHDUH´HYLGHQWO\DVFKRODUO\PRGHOWKDWIXQFWLRQVPRUHDVDYDQLVKLQJ SRLQWWKDQDVWDEOHUHIHUHQWIRUFULWLFDOJHQHUDOL]DWLRQ$OWKRXJKDQWL6WUDWIRUGLDQV DUHLPSOLFLWO\FULWLFL]HGIRU³FKDOOHQJLQJWKHLGHDRI6KDNHVSHDUH´VKHDGPLWVWKDW this idea is itself only a magical guarantee, nothing more. That Marcus concedes the desire to retain this aura of authenticity in the absence of any evidential or theoretical grounding reveals her inability to distinguish contemporary models RI DXWKRUVKLS IURP RXWULJKW GHQLDO RI 6KDNHVSHDUHDQ DWWULEXWLRQ ,QGHHG DV WKH )RXFDXOGLDQ PRGHO LV LWVHOI D GHP\VWL¿HG FRQVWUXFWLRQ RI WKH DXWKRU IRFXVHG RQPDWHULDODQGSROLWLFDOLQWHUHVWVRYHU+XPDQLVWWUDQVKLVWRULFLVP LWLVQRWWKDW VXUSULVLQJWR¿QGLWDPHQDEOHWRKHWHURGR[FKDOOHQJH%\RXW)RXFDXOGLQJ)RXFDXOW DQWL6WUDWIRUGLDQLVPIXQFWLRQVDVWKHGDUNVKDGRZRIWKHSRVWVWUXFWXUDOLVWYLVLRQ RI 6KDNHVSHDUH WKH LQHYLWDEOH SHQXPEUD RI DQ DJH WKDW ¿QGV LWVHOI ZLWK PRUH questions than answers about the nature of authorship. If the naïve belief in a retrievable authorial presence must be relinquished, what remains to prevent the ZKROHVDOHUHMHFWLRQRI6KDNHVSHDUHDOWRJHWKHU"0DUFXVKDVQRFOHDUDQVZHU,QVWHDG of a concrete defense of orthodox biography Marcus offers a surprisingly candid summary of revisionist anxiety over the question of authorship and its discontents LQFULWLFDOGLVFRXUVH$OWKRXJKVKHUHFRJQL]HVWKHQRVWDOJLFTXDOLW\RIWKHGHVLUH WR ³PDJLFDOO\´ LPEXH 6KDNHVSHDUH ZLWK DXWKHQWLFLW\ VDQV VFHQW  VKH UHPDLQV unwilling to give up the talisman of heresy. To do so would entail relinquishing important claims to her own professional credibility. What difference is there, then, EHWZHHQ0DUFXV¶VSURMHFWLRQRI³DWKLQJZHFDQFDOO6KDNHVSHDUH´DQGDQRXWULJKW DQRQ\PRXVDXWKRU"$V6KDNHVSHDUHPLJKWUHSO\FRPSDULVRQVDUHRGRURXV ([DPLQLQJ6KDNHVSHDUHUHFHSWLRQKLVWRU\IURPWKHSHUVSHFWLYHRIHSRFKVDQGWKHLU shaping forces on perception and interpretation, Gary Taylor argues in Reinventing ShakespeareWKDWLQDWWHPSWLQJWRFRQVWUXFWWKHLUPRGHOVRI6KDNHVSHDUHFULWLFVDQG KLVWRULDQVHQGXSSURMHFWLQJWKHLURZQSV\FKRORJLFDODQGVRFLDOPRWLYDWLRQVRQWR WKHLU SXUSRUWHG VXEMHFW 3HUKDSV LURQLFDOO\ VXFK D WKHVLV JXLGHV 7D\ORU WRZDUG D serious inquiry into anti-Stratfordian motivations and their congruence with broader beliefs and trends in nineteenth-century culture. Focusing on the initial attributions of 6KDNHVSHDUH¶VZRUNVWR)UDQFLV%DFRQE\$PHULFDQ'HOLD%DFRQDQGKHUIROORZHUV Taylor shows that Baconians, too, are caught up in the sweep of social determinants WKDW ¿[HG 6KDNHVSHDUH¶V LGHQWLW\ LQ WKH QLQHWHHQWK FHQWXU\ 0RUH WKDQ DQ\ RWKHU critic in this study, Taylor seems willing to uncover a logic behind anti-Stratfordian GRXEW WKH UHDVRQV WKDW OHG D VLJQL¿FDQW JURXS RI QLQHWHHQWKFHQWXU\ UHDGHUV WR UHMHFWWKHFRQYHQWLRQDOELRJUDSK\RI6KDNHVSHDUHDWWKDWWLPH)RUH[DPSOH7D\ORU UHODWHVWKHGHVLUHRI%DFRQLDQVWR¿W6KDNHVSHDUH¶VZRUNWRKLVOLIHVWRU\WRVLPLODU YLHZV DERXW DXWKRUVKLS LQ WKH ZRUN RI FRQWHPSRUDU\ %ULWLVK DFDGHPLF (GZDUG 'RZGHQ ³'RZGHQ OLNH WKH %DFRQLDQV OLNH PRVW 9LFWRULDQV DVVXPHG WKDW WKH

The Anonymous Shakespeare

149

QDWXUHRI6KDNHVSHDUH¶VOLIHPXVWKDYHVWURQJO\FRUUHVSRQGHGWRWKHQDWXUHRIKLV DUW´ 5DWKHUWKDQIUDPLQJGLVVHQWLQJLGHDVDVRXWVLGHDFDGHPLFDQGSRSXODU FRQVWUXFWLRQVRI6KDNHVSHDUH¶V³JHQLXV´WKLVRYHUYLHZKROGVWKDWDQWL6WUDWIRUGLDQV VKDUH PDQ\ RI WKH VDPH LGHDOV DQG SUHMXGLFHV RI WKHLU9LFWRULDQ FRQWHPSRUDULHV Taylor further develops such comparisons by noting how Baconians, Dowden, DQGWKHHGLWRUVRIWKH&DPEULGJH6KDNHVSHDUHDOOUHVSRQGLQUHODWHGZD\VWRWKH discontinuities between the ideals contained in the plays against the more venal PDWWHUV RI 6KDNHVSHDUH¶V GRFXPHQWHG ORDQV DQG ODZVXLWV ³7KH &DPEULGJH 6KDNHVSHDUHGLYLGHGWKHZRUNVIURPWKHOLIH'RZGHQGLYLGHGWKHOLIHZRUNLQWRWZR RSSRVLQJLPSXOVHVSUHFDULRXVO\EDODQFHGWKH%DFRQLDQVGLYLGHGWKHZRUNLQWRWZR FRQWUDVWHGOLYHV%DFRQWKHKLGGHQPLQGDQG6KDNHVSHDUHWKHKLUHGKDQG$OOWKUHH responses, however different, presupposed an apparent incompatibility between the SURGXFWDQGZKDWZDVNQRZQRILWVSURGXFHU7KH%DFRQLDQVVLPSO\FRQFOXGHGWKDW WKHLQFRPSDWLELOLW\UHVXOWHGIURPIUDXG´  7D\ORU¶V MX[WDSRVLWLRQ RI %DFRQLDQ DQG JHQHUDO 9LFWRULDQ FRQFHSWLRQV RI 6KDNHVSHDUHKRZHYHUGRHVQRWPHDQWKDWKHDYRLGVLQYRNLQJWKHWURSHVRIKHUHV\ when describing actual anti-Stratfordian views and their advocates. Indeed, he deploys such rhetoric with the evident intent to represent such views as the product of irrationality, paranoia, and resentment: In 1857 [Delia Bacon] published The Philosophy of the Plays of Shakespeare Unfolded D SDJH ERRN SURSRVLQJ WKDW WKH ZRUNV VR ORQJ DWWULEXWHG WR :LOOLDP 6KDNHVSHDUH KDG DFWXDOO\ EHHQ ZULWWHQ E\ )UDQFLV %DFRQ 7KH SURSRVLWLRQDWWUDFWHGLQQXPHUDEOHDGKHUHQWVLQFOXGLQJOLWHUDU\JLDQWVOLNH0DUN Twain, Walt Whitman, and Henry James …. The arguments put forward in defense of this hypothesis have never been persuasive by any logical, legal, historical, or rhetorical criteria. They have never persuaded specialists. Bacon’s own defense of her theory, being almost impossible to read, was seldom read, and the details had little importance on subsequent discussion. People who DJUHHG WKDW 6KDNHVSHDUH GLG QRW ZULWH WKH SOD\V FRXOG QRW DJUHH RQ ZKR GLG ZULWHWKHP)UDQFLV%DFRQZDVVRRQFRPSHWLQJZLWKDVODWHRIULYDOFDQGLGDWHV 7KHHQWLUHGLVFXVVLRQLVXOWLPDWHO\SRLQWOHVV7KHWKHRU\WKDW6KDNHVSHDUHGLG QRWZULWH6KDNHVSHDUH¶VZRUNVEHORQJVLQWKHFODVVRISURSRVLWLRQVWKDWKDYHQR meaning, because they cannot under any circumstances be disproved …. Such WKHRULHVDUHSV\FKRORJLFDOO\VDWLVI\LQJEHFDXVHORJLFDOO\LQYXOQHUDEOHOLNHDOO circular reasoning, they are immune to disproof. But a theory that could never EHGLVFUHGLWHGFDQQRWEHFUHGLWHG±

From this general charge of irrationality, Taylor further accuses advocates of DOWHUQDWLYHDXWKRUVKLSRIVSHFL¿FSV\FKRORJLFDOLOOQHVVHV [F]rom the Baconian point of view, only the existence of a hostile conspiracy could explain why their theories, once promulgated, were not immediately and universally accepted by the cultural establishment. No doubt some of the %DFRQLDQVOLNHWKHLUDUFKHW\SH'HOLD%DFRQKHUVHOIZRXOGQRZEHGLDJQRVHG as neurotics, but the movement as a whole cannot be explained in terms of

Anonymity in Early Modern England

150

LQGLYLGXDO QHXURVLV WRR PDQ\ SHRSOH VXFFXPEHG 7KH %DFRQLDQ K\SRWKHVLV required paranoia, and it could never have succeeded unless it had been supported E\PDVVSDUDQRLD

Reinventing Shakespeare RIWHQ VXEMHFWV LQGLYLGXDOV DQG OLWHUDU\ PRYHPHQWV WR SROHPLFDO FULWLTXH QRU LQGHHG LV 6KDNHVSHDUH KLPVHOI H[FOXGHG IURP LWV OLVW RI WDUJHWV+RZHYHUQRZKHUHHOVHGRHV7D\ORUOLQNDEHOLHIV\VWHPRUPRYHPHQWWR social and psychological pathologies so readily or universally. Particularly unique LQWKLVDWWDFNRQDQWL6WUDWIRUGLDQLVPLVLWVUHIXVDOWRRXWOLQHVSHFL¿FSRVLWLRQVRU even quote representative passages, despite thirteen pages of discussion on the WRSLF 6XFK UHIXVDO WR LQWHUDFW WH[WXDOO\ ZLWK KLV VXEMHFW OD\V WKH IRXQGDWLRQ IRU Taylor’s portrayal of Baconianism as pathological. Arguing that “[c]onspiracies are DQHVVHQWLDOIHDWXUHRIWKH%DFRQLDQSORW´ 7D\ORULQIDFWHQJDJHVLQKLVRZQ FRQVSLUDF\ WKHRU\ RI ³PDVV SDUDQRLD´ DW JUHDW YDULDQFH WR WKH IDFWV DV ZH NQRZ WKHPDFODLPWKDWPLJKWVHHPWRQJXHLQFKHHNLIQRWIRULWVUHSHDWHGLQVLVWHQFH In addition to its factual inaccuracies, Taylor’s portrait of Baconianism is laced ZLWKFRQWUDGLFWLRQ+HDVVHUWVWKDW'HOLD%DFRQLGHQWL¿HG)UDQFLV%DFRQDVWKHDXWKRU RI6KDNHVSHDUH¶VZRUNVEXWWKLVLVQRWVWULFWO\WUXH$OWKRXJK'HOLD%DFRQGLGSODFH %DFRQDVWKHFHQWUDO¿JXUHEHKLQG6KDNHVSHDUHVKHGLGVRZLWKLQWKHFRQWH[WRIDQ LQWHOOHFWXDOFRWHULHWKDWLQFOXGHGRWKHUFHOHEUDWHG¿JXUHVRIWKHWLPH6FKRHQEDXP  7KXV7D\ORU¶VFODLPWKDW)UDQFLV³%DFRQZDVVRRQFRPSHWLQJZLWKDVODWHRI rival candidates” is also a distortion. Taylor argues that anti-Stratfordian arguments are “pointless … because they cannot under any circumstances be disproved,” yet ODWHU UHPDUNV WKDW ³WKH PHWKRGV DQG WKH UHVXOWV RI >%DFRQLDQ FU\SWDQDO\VLV@ KDYH EHHQ EORZQ DZD\ E\ SURIHVVLRQDO FU\SWRORJLVWV´   $OWKRXJK 'HOLD %DFRQ¶V ERRN³ZDVVHOGRPUHDG´VKHQHYHUWKHOHVVEHFDPH³PRUHLQÀXHQWLDOWKDQDQ\RWKHU 6KDNHVSHDUHDQ´ VSDUNLQJ D FRQWURYHUV\ WKDW ³JHQHUDWHG PRUH WKDQ  ERRNV SDPSKOHWVDQGDUWLFOHV´EHWZHHQWR 7D\ORUGHVFULEHVDSULQFLSOH motivation of Baconianism as a resentful “revolt of the layman”: “The Baconians ZHUHDOODPDWHXUVZULWLQJIRUDPDWHXUVDJDLQVWVSHFLDOLVWV´ 6XFKDYLHZPLJKW be appropriate to today’s dissenters, but is without historical foundation in 1857, when RQO\DQDVFHQWDFDGHPLFSURIHVVLRQLQ6KDNHVSHDUHDQGLQ(QJOLVKDFWXDOO\H[LVWHG Earlier in his study Taylor addresses how academic professionalism was only an emergent institution in the middle of the nineteenth century, and did not consolidate LWVKROGRQ6KDNHVSHDUHXQWLOQHDUWKHWXUQRIWKHWZHQWLHWK±HVS± 6 6

,QKLVGLVFXVVLRQRIWKHDXWKRUVKLSFRQWURYHUV\7D\ORUSRVLWLYHO\QRWHVWKHLQÀXHQFH RI$OIUHG7HQQ\VRQRQWKHZRUNRIHDUO\DFDGHPLF-DPHV6SHGGLQJLQ 6XFKIUHH ÀRZRILGHDVEHWZHHQHDUO\SURIHVVLRQDOVDQGDPDWHXUVLVFKDUDFWHULVWLFRIWKHLQWHOOHFWXDO FOLPDWHRIQLQHWHHQWKFHQWXU\(QJOLVKFXOWXUH2QWKHVLPLODUO\ÀXLGUROHRI6KDNHVSHDUHLQ nineteenth-century American popular culture, see Lawrence W. Levine, Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,  ±,QGHHGDV/HYLQHFKURQLFOHVLQKLVVRFLDOKLVWRU\RI6KDNHVSHDUHUHFHSWLRQ LQ QLQHWHHQWKFHQWXU\$PHULFD 6KDNHVSHDUH ZDV E\ QR PHDQV UHJDUGHG DV WKH H[FOXVLYH property of an academic “high culture” until very late in the nineteenth century.

The Anonymous Shakespeare

151

7D\ORU¶VGHVFULSWLRQRIWKH%DFRQLDQWKHRU\¶VLQÀXHQFHLVDVSDUWLDODVKLVGHVFULSWLRQ of its origins. He claims that arguments in favor of Bacon’s authorship of the plays “have never been persuasive by any logical, legal, historical, or rhetorical criteria” and yet concedes that they nevertheless “attracted innumerable adherents.” Taylor claims that “the proposition attracted … literary giants” Twain, James, and Whitman, but this claim is also a distortion, and the actual views of each author go a long way toward illustrating how anti-Stratfordian views were received by actual nineteenth-century UHDGHUV$OWKRXJK0DUN7ZDLQRSHQO\TXHVWLRQV:LOOLDP6KDNHVSHDUH¶VDXWKRUVKLS KHUHIXVHVWRHQGRUVHDVSHFL¿FDOWHUQDWLYH³'LG)UDQFLV%DFRQZULWH6KDNHVSHDUH¶V :RUNV"1RERG\NQRZV:HFDQQRWknow a thing when that thing has not been proved. Know LV WRR VWURQJ D ZRUG WR XVH ZKHQ WKH HYLGHQFH LV QRW ¿QDO DQG DEVROXWHO\ FRQFOXVLYH´7ZDLQ +HQU\-DPHVLVHYHQPRUHQRQFRPPLWWDO I am ‘a sort of’ haunted by the conviction that the divine William is the biggest and most successful fraud ever practised on a patient world …. The more I turn him round and round the more he so affects me. But that is all—I am not pretending to treat the question or to carry it any further. It bristles with GLI¿FXOWLHV DQG , FDQ RQO\ H[SUHVV P\ JHQHUDO VHQVH E\ VD\LQJ WKDW , ¿QG LW almost as impossible to conceive that Bacon wrote the plays as to conceive that WKHPDQIURP6WUDWIRUGDVZHNQRZWKHPDQIURP6WUDWIRUGGLG-DPHV TWG6FKRHQEDXP 

:KLWPDQ¿UPO\UHMHFWV:LOOLDP6KDNHVSHDUHEXWGRHVQRWHPEUDFHDQDOWHUQDWLYH HLWKHU³,GRQRWNQRZWKDW,UHDOO\FDUHZKRPDGHWKHSOD\V²ZKRZURWHWKHP 1R²,GRQRWWKLQNLWDVXSUHPHKXPDQTXHVWLRQ,DPQRWDVPXFKLQWHUHVWHGLQ the question direct as in what it drags along with it—the great store of curious LQIRUPDWLRQ WKDW LW WXUQV XS²LQIRUPDWLRQ IRUJRWWHQ RU QHDU ORVW « , DP ¿UP DJDLQVW6KDNVSHU>VLF@²,PHDQWKH$YRQPDQWKHDFWRUEXWDVWR%DFRQZHOO , GRQ¶W NQRZ´ 7UDXEHO   7KH RYHUDOO LPSUHVVLRQ RI WKHVH UHSUHVHQWDWLYH advocates of heterodox opinion is neither univocal nor paranoid. On the contrary, QRLQGLYLGXDOFUXVDGHVIRUDFDXVHVRPXFKDVSX]]OHVRYHULQDGHTXDWHIDFWV2Q RQHSRLQWWKH\DOODJUHH²WKDWWKHSRUWUDLWRI6KDNHVSHDUHDVUHSUHVHQWHGE\KLV biographers leaves too many unanswered questions. /LNH *DUEHU DQG 0DUFXV7D\ORU SURMHFWV WKH ¿JXUH RI KHUHV\ XSRQ KLV VXEMHFW in part as a defensive mechanism against the anxieties that inform his own practice. $V ZH KDYH DOUHDG\ QRWHG KH FKDIHV LQ KLV FRQFOXVLRQ DJDLQVW 6KDNHVSHDUH DV DQ RYHUGHWHUPLQHG³EODFNKROH´DVLQJXODULW\WKDWSXOOVPDVVLYHDPRXQWVRIDWWHQWLRQ and energy toward itself, but which conveys no clear portrait of its own for analysis RU UHÀHFWLRQ LQ UHWXUQ ±  7KH FRPPHQWV RI 7ZDLQ -DPHV DQG :KLWPDQ V\PSDWKL]HZLWKWKLVGLVVDWLVIDFWLRQUHMHFWLQJWKH%DUGRODWURXVFRQVWUXFWLRQRISRSXODU and academic culture. Indeed, James’s subversive point might serve as an epigraph to Taylor’s own history: “I am ‘a sort of’ haunted by the conviction that the divine William is the biggest and most successful fraud ever practised on a patient world.” 5DWKHUWKDQIRUJHDFRPPRQFDXVHZLWKWKLVVNHSWLFLVPKRZHYHU7D\ORUIROGVDOO anti-Stratfordianism into the sad tale of Delia Bacon’s life story, a strategy that, while

152

Anonymity in Early Modern England

blatantly ad hominem on its own, is also self-impairing. By constructing such heresy as outside his own sphere of inquiry, Taylor prevents himself from envisioning a SDUDOOHOKLVWRU\RIVNHSWLFLVPDQGGRXEWDERXW6KDNHVSHDUHDFRUUHFWLYHIRLOWRWKH ³UHLQYHQWLQJ´RI6KDNHVSHDUHDVDF\FOHRIVHOISURMHFWLRQ,QRUGHUWRDYRLGLGHQWLI\LQJ with these heretics, Taylor requires a history of mass paranoia, as if the arbiter of any FXOWXUDOHVWDEOLVKPHQWFDQQRWLWVHOIEHVXEMHFWWRQHXURVHVJURXSWKLQNRUHJR The Anonymous Shakespeare 7KHGLVFRQWHQWHGHQFRXQWHUEHWZHHQWKHRUWKRGR[6KDNHVSHDUHDQDQGWKHKHUHWLFDO “other” leaves us with many unanswered questions and few certainties. Among the ¿UVWVXUHO\PXVWEHZKDWGRHVLWPHDQWRDWWULEXWHDSOD\WR6KDNHVSHDUH",IDQWL 6WUDWIRUGLDQ P\WKV FHQWHU XSRQ WKH FDWHJRULFDO UHSODFHPHQW RI 6KDNHVSHDUH ZH can view orthodox voices struggling with a corresponding, but ambivalent desire for placement itself. By placement I mean such constructions including (but not OLPLWHGWR WKHWHPSRUDOSODFHPHQWRIWKHSOD\VLQFKURQRORJLFDORUGHUWKHORFDWLQJ RI 6KDNHVSHDUH¶V SODFHV RI UHVLGHQFH ZRUN DQG WUDYHOV UHODWLYH WR /RQGRQ DQG Stratford, the situating of his political, religious, and cultural opinions, and not least, the determination of a locatable authorial text that can be approached through the mediation of editing. Such facts provide the foundations of literary study, regardless RISHULRGRUDXWKRUDQG\HWWKHVHDUHMXVWVXFKGH¿QLWLYHLVVXHVWKDWWKH6KDNHVSHDUHDQ SURIHVVLRQFDQQRWUHVROYH6XFKDZDUHQHVVGRHVQRWGLVFRXQWWKHZRUNRIELRJUDSK\ editing, dating, and authorship attribution that provides us with what we currently NQRZDERXW6KDNHVSHDUH$QG\HWVXFKZRUNLQHYLWDEO\EULQJVXVIDFHWRIDFHZLWK WKHVHULRXVJDSVFRQFHUQLQJ6KDNHVSHDUHLQWKHKLVWRULFDOUHFRUGDQGWKHOLPLWDWLRQVRI our methodologies to account for them. Where was6KDNHVSHDUHGXULQJWKHPLVVLQJ years? When was Hamlet written? Was it in fact rewritten, and if so, how many times? :DV6KDNHVSHDUHDVLOHQW&DWKROLF"'LGKHP\VWLI\RUGHFRQVWUXFWVRYHUHLJQW\" 7KHGLI¿FXOW\RISODFLQJ6KDNHVSHDUHWRRFRQ¿GHQWO\LQWKHKLVWRULFDOUHFRUGLV H[HPSOL¿HGE\WKHFRQWURYHUV\RYHUWKHDOOXVLRQWRKLPLQGreene’s Groatsworth of Wit and the putative reference to him in Henry Chettle’s Kind-Harts Dreame. 7KH LPSRUWDQFH RI WKHVH WZR SDVVDJHV WR WKH LGHQWL¿FDWLRQ RI 6KDNHVSHDUH FDQ hardly be overstated. Following seven years of silence on the playwright’s actions DQG ZKHUHDERXWV WKH\ FRQ¿UP D QXPEHU RI FULWLFDO IDFWV DQG KDYH OHG WR WKH speculation of countless others. Nor is it an exaggeration that entire chapters of ELRJUDSKLHVGHSHQGXSRQWKHPIRURXUXQGHUVWDQGLQJRI6KDNHVSHDUH¶VHDUO\FDUHHU DQG UHSXWDWLRQ$OWKRXJK LW LV QRW VXUSULVLQJ WR ¿QG WKDW DQWL6WUDWIRUGLDQV KDYH unearthed very different facts out of these two texts, it is surprising to learn that their interpretations have turned out to be more reasonable and accurate than those of many orthodox biographers.7 That dissenters have read these passages with 7 6HH 2JEXUQ ± DQG KLV QRWHV IRU DQWL6WUDWIRUGLDQ UHMHFWLRQV RI *UHHQH¶V authorship, and his critique of twentieth-century attributions of the Groatsworth to Greene. It bears important mention that a small, but vocal minority of scholars around the turn of

The Anonymous Shakespeare

153

WKHLQWHQWLRQWRXQGHUPLQHDQGHYHQHUDVH6KDNHVSHDUH¶VUROHLQWKHPLVUHOHYDQW only to the degree that such views can be supported by the texts themselves. By contrast, orthodox readings of the Groatsworth VWUHVV 6KDNHVSHDUH¶V SUHVHQFH WR OHYHOV VR VWUDLQHG WKDW WKH\ FRQÀLFW ZLWK WKH PRVW EDVLF IRUPDO PHWKRGV RI interpretation. As a result, orthodox perspectives on this material represent less life-writing than outright mirage. Not only do such readings fail to reveal as much DERXW 6KDNHVSHDUH DV ELRJUDSKHUV FODLP WKH\ SURGXFH LPSUHFLVH FRQWUDGLFWRU\ portraits of the playwright that do not bear close scrutiny. A comprehensive analysis of the many readings on these texts lies beyond the range of this study. I propose instead to glance at Stephen Greenblatt’s comments on this material in his new biography Will in the WorldQRWRQO\EHFDXVHWKHZRUNUHPDLQVVR representative of orthodox approaches to the Groatsworth passages, but also because KHGLUHFWO\DGGUHVVHV&DUUROO¶V¿QGLQJWKDWWKHGroatsworth is primarily a forgery by +HQU\&KHWWOH$PHGLDHYHQWLQWKHSXEOLFDWLRQRI*UHHQEODWW¶VERRNKDVGUDZQ a decidedly mixed, if respectful, critical reception, with many questioning his more fanciful theories, recurrent conditional clauses, and biographical essentialism.8 ,QDFKDSWHUWLWOHG³6KDNHVFHQH´*UHHQEODWWEXLOGVKLVYLHZRI6KDNHVSHDUH¶VHDUO\ career and reputation entirely around the two passages, arguing that the playwright’s HQFRXQWHUZLWKWKHOLYHO\¿JXUHRI5REHUW*UHHQHLQVSLUHGKLVFUHDWLRQRI)DOVWDII ³>,@I6KDNHVSHDUHWRRNZKDWKHFRXOGIURP*UHHQH«KHDOVRSHUIRUPHGDPLUDFXORXV act of imaginative generosity …. He conferred upon Greene an incalculable gift, the JLIWRIWUDQVIRUPLQJKLPLQWR)DOVWDII´± ,QVXFKDFRQWH[WLWLVREYLRXVKRZ important Greene’s authorship of the Groatsworth is for Greenblatt’s thesis: “Falstaff was not a straightforward portrait of Robert Greene …. The point is not to strip away the reimaginings, as if the life sources were somehow more interesting than WKHPHWDPRUSKRVHVEXWUDWKHUWRHQKDQFHDVHQVHRIWKHZRQGHURI6KDNHVSHDUH¶V FUHDWLRQ²WKH LPPHQVHO\ EROG JHQHURXV LPDJLQDWLYH ZRUN WKDW WRRN HOHPHQWV from the wasted life of Robert Greene and used them to fashion the greatest comic FKDUDFWHU LQ (QJOLVK OLWHUDWXUH´ ±  7KH ³XSVWDUW FURZ´ SDVVDJH LV ZLGHO\ IDPLOLDUWRVFKRODUVVRZHQHHGRQO\QRWHWKDWWKHLQVXOWWR6KDNHVSHDUHRFFXUVLQD OHWWHUDGGUHVVHG³7R7KRVH*HQWOHPHQKLV4XRQGDPDFTXDLQWDQFHWKDWVSHQGWKHLU ZLWVLQPDNLQJSODLHV´ZKRDUHSODXVLEO\EXWLQQRVHQVHFRQFOXVLYHO\&KULVWRSKHU 0DUORZH 7KRPDV 1DVKH DQG *HRUJH 3HHOH &XULRXVO\ *UHHQEODWW DFNQRZOHGJHV Chettle’s authorship of the Groatsworth, but without considering its implications: Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit, Bought with a Million of Repentance, rushed into print before the corpse was fully cold, was probably mostly written by Chettle or by someone collaborating with Chettle—perhaps, as some rumors had it, Nashe. the last century vigorously questioned both Greene’s authorship of the Groatsworth and &KHWWOH¶VSXUSRUWHGDSRORJ\WR6KDNHVSHDUH)RUGLVFXVVLRQRIWKLVZRUNVHHUHVSHFWLYHO\ Carroll’s edition of the Groatsworth, 6–7 and Erne, 435. 8 7KHUHYLHZVDQGQRWLFHVRI*UHHQEODWW¶VERRNDUHH[WHQVLYHDQGHDVLO\UHWULHYDEOH LQ/H[LV1H[LV$PRQJWKHVKDUSHUFULWLTXHVDUHWKHQRWLFHVRI-HQN\QV'RQDGLR%DWHDQG Holland.

154

Anonymity in Early Modern England %XW LW FDUULHG WKH PDUNV RI *UHHQH¶V RZQ VHHWKLQJ UHVHQWPHQWV +H QRLVLO\ berated himself. He dangerously accused Marlowe—“thou famous gracer RI 7UDJHGLDQV´²RI DWKHLVP $QG WKHQ KH WXUQHG KLV DQJHU RQ 6KDNHVSHDUH Rehearsing the old rivalry between poets and players, Greene warned his gentlemen friends Marlowe, Nashe, and Peele not to trust those “puppets,” the DFWRUVWKDW³VSHDNIURPRXUPRXWKV´±

On the surface, Greenblatt’s claims baldly contradict themselves. While not challenging Carroll’s argument on the authorship of the Groatsworth, Greenblatt simply bypasses it and its implications altogether, implying that since it bears “the PDUNVRI*UHHQH¶VRZQVHHWKLQJUHVHQWPHQWV´WKHZRUNPXVWQHFHVVDULO\UHSUHVHQW *UHHQH¶V SRLQW RI YLHZ LI QRW DXWKRUVKLS :KDW WKHVH PDUNV DUH RU ZKDW WKH\ represent is not at all clear. Clearly Greenblatt believes that they authenticate the Groatsworth²SHUKDSVDVMRXUQDOLVPZLWK&KHWWOHYDPSLQJRQVRPHIHZVXUYLYLQJ QRWHVDQGORFDOJRVVLS RUDVYHQWULORTXLVPWKHVXFFHVVIXOSXEOLFSHUIRUPDQFHRI the Greene persona, right down to the eponymous title of Greene’s Groatsworth. %DIÀLQJO\*UHHQEODWWPDNHVQHLWKHUFDVHQRUDQ\RWKHUWRUHFRQFLOH+HQU\&KHWWOH¶V authorship to Robert Greene’s views, but simply proceeds to identify everything in the GroatsworthZLWK*UHHQHRIWHQZLWKRXWTXDOL¿FDWLRQ³7KXVIDU*UHHQH¶VZRUGV PLJKWDSSO\WRDFWRUVOLNH%XUEDJHRU$OO\HQ´³7RPDNHWKHP¿W*UHHQHRUKLV JKRVWZULWHU IDPRXVO\VKLIWHGJURXQG´³:KHQKHUHDGWKHOLQHWZLVWHGWRGHVFULEH KLP6KDNHVSHDUHPLJKWKDYHWKRXJKWWKDW*UHHQHZDVDFFXVLQJKLPRIUXWKOHVVQHVV´  *UHHQEODWW¶VXVHRIWKHWHUP³JKRVWZULWHU´LVSDUWLFXODUO\TXHVWLRQDEOH$W LWV PRVW OLEHUDO WKH XVDJH VXJJHVWV HLWKHU WKDW &KHWWOH XQGHUWRRN KLV WDVN ZLWK some form of consent, or that he was attempting to carry out Greene’s intent, even WKRXJKQRHYLGHQFHH[LVWVIRUVXFKLQWHUSUHWDWLRQV$OWKRXJK*UHHQEODWW¶VZRUNLV a popular biography that eschews notes and scholarly minutiae, he is still obliged to explain why, in his view, Chettle wrote the Groatsworth, while its views should be attributed to someone else, and a dead man at that. In addition to this confusion, *UHHQEODWWHQGRUVHV1DVKH¶VSRVVLEOHFRQWULEXWLRQWRWKHZRUN\HWDOVRVWDWHVWKDW Nashe was one of the three men addressed in the letter to playwrights. In this YLHZ1DVKHLVVXSSRVHGWRKDYHFROODERUDWHGRQDZRUNWKDWDFWXDOO\DGGUHVVHV himself. Greenblatt provides no more concrete evidence for Nashe’s authorship than he does for Greene’s, and addresses Nashe’s stated position on the Groatsworth as D³VFDOGWULYLDOO\LQJSDPSKOHW´1DVKH RQO\E\FODLPLQJWKDW1DVKH³PXVW KDYHKDGDQXQXVXDOO\DODUPLQJFRQYHUVDWLRQZLWKVRPHRQH´WRSURYRNHKLPWR VXFKDFRPPHQW*UHHQEODWW  Although the issue of Greene’s authorship of the Groatsworth has no direct bearing on Chettle’s subsequent apology in Kind-Harts Dreame, Greenblatt follows WKH RUWKRGR[ UHDGLQJ KHUH DV ZHOO WKDW 6KDNHVSHDUH ZDV WKH QDPHOHVV ³RWKHU´ playwright to whom Chettle offers his regrets. Greenblatt quotes frequently from &KHWWOHEXWLQGLVMRLQWHGVHJPHQWVDQGZLWKWHOOLQJJDSV,TXRWHWKHPRVWUHOHYDQW passage in full:

The Anonymous Shakespeare

155

About three moneths since died M. Robert Greene, leauing many papers in VXQGU\%RRNHVHOOHUVKDQGVDPRQJRWKHUKLV*URDWVZRUWKRIZLWLQZKLFKD OHWWHUZULWWHQWRGLXHUVSOD\PDNHUVLVRIIHQVLXHO\E\RQHRUWZRRIWKHPWDNHQ and because on the dead they cannot be auenged, they wilfully forge in their conceites a liuing Author: and after tossing it two and fro, no remedy, but it must light on me. How I haue all the time of my conuersing in printing hindred WKHELWWHULQXH\LQJDJDLQVWVFKROOHUVLWKDWKEHHQYHU\ZHOONQRZQHDQGKRZLQ WKDW,GHDOW,FDQVXI¿FLHQWO\SURRXH:LWKQHLWKHURIWKHPWKDWWDNHRIIHQFHZDV I acquainted, and with one of them [Marlowe] I care not if I neuer be: The other >SUHVXPDEO\6KDNHVSHDUHEXWPRUHOLNHO\3HHOH@ZKRPHDWWKDWWLPH,GLGQRW so much spare, as since I wish I had, for that as I haue moderated the heate of liuing writers, and might haue usde my owne discretion (especially in such a FDVH WKH$XWKRUEHHLQJGHDGWKDW,GLGQRW,DPDVVRU\DVLIWKHRULJLQDOOIDXOW had beene my fault, because my selfe haue seene his demeanor no lesse ciuill than he exelent in the qualitie he professes: Besides, diuers of worship haue reported, his vprightnes of dealing, which argues his honesty, and his facetious grace in writting, that aprooues his Art. (Chettle A3v–4r

(YHQWKRXJKQRGLUHFWHYLGHQFHH[LVWVWRFRQQHFW6KDNHVSHDUHZLWKWKH³RWKHU´ SOD\ZULJKW WKDW &KHWWOH GHVFULEHV *UHHQEODWW LQVLVWV WKDW 6KDNHVSHDUH KDV WR EH LQYROYHGLQSURYRNLQJ&KHWWOH¶VDSRORJ\ +RZ6KDNHVSHDUHUHVSRQGHGWRWKHDWWDFN>LQWKHGroatsworth] tells a great deal DERXW KLP +H GLG QRW GLUHFWO\ DQVZHU WKH FKDUJHV RU OLNH +DUYH\ ODXQFK D polemical counteroffensive. But he must have quietly done something unusually effective. For, less than three months after the publication of the pamphlet, +HQU\&KHWWOHÀDWO\GHQLHGLQSULQWKDYLQJDQ\KDQGLQLWLW³ZDVDOO*UHHQH¶V´ $V IRU KLPVHOI &KHWWOH DYHUUHG LW LV ZHOO NQRZQ WKDW KH DOZD\V ³LQ SULQWLQJ KLQGHUHG WKH ELWWHU LQYHLJKLQJ DJDLQVW VFKRODUV´ ³6FKRODUV´²VR 6KDNHVSHDUH was now being treated as if he had, after all, attended university .… Chettle now understood, as he explained in a twisted and unctuous apology, that he should KDYHEORFNHGWKHSULQWLQJRI*UHHQH¶VXQZDUUDQWHGUHPDUNVDERXWWKLVVHFRQG playwright: “That I did not, I am sorry as if the original fault had been my fault, because myself have seen his demeanor no less civil than he excellent in the TXDOLW\KHSURIHVVHV´7KLVRIIHQGHG¿JXUHZDVDOVRXQQDPHGEXWWKHOLNHOLHVW candidate is the “upstart Crow.” At some point in the past three months, then, &KHWWOHKDGD³FLYLO´FRQYHUVDWLRQZLWK6KDNHVSHDUHRUDWWKHYHU\OHDVWKHKDG WKHRFFDVLRQWRREVHUYHKLPLQSHUVRQ

*UHHQEODWW LV QRW DORQH LQ IDOVHO\ DWWULEXWLQJ &KHWWOH¶V DSRORJ\ WR 6KDNHVSHDUH EXWKHYHQWXUHVLQWRQRYHODYHQXHVRIP\WKPDNLQJWKDWXQGHUPLQHKLVSRVLWLRQ in creative new ways. Chettle clearly states that the “letter written to diuers playPDNHUVis offensiuely by one or two of them taken [my emphasis],” that is, two of the established playwrights that “Greene” addresses about the “upstart crow,” but QRWWKHXSVWDUWKLPVHOI2JEXUQ 9 Chettle may or may not be referring to Marlowe, 9

6HHDOVR9LFNHUVDQG(UQH

156

Anonymity in Early Modern England

1DVKHDQG3HHOHDVWUDGLWLRQDVVLJQVEXWWKHRQH¿JXUHZKLFKWKHFRQWH[WGRHV QRW VXJJHVW LV 6KDNHVSHDUH ZKR LV FOHDUO\ QRW LGHQWL¿HG DPRQJ WKH OHJLWLPDWH playwrights, separated by his status as an actor without previous writing experience RUDXQLYHUVLW\GHJUHH7KHRULHVWKDWLQFOXGH6KDNHVSHDUHDVWKHVHFRQGSOD\ZULJKWLQ WKH&KHWWOHSDVVDJHDUHLQGHEWHGWR(.&KDPEHUV¶VWKHRU\RI&KHWWOH¶V³ORRVHQHVV RIODQJXDJH´&KDPEHUV±  but such views ignore even Chambers’s simplest FDYHDWV DQG LQ IDFW *UHHQEODWW¶V VXEVHTXHQW SRLQWV VHUYH WR HPSKDVL]H IXUWKHU contradictions in his argument. Greenblatt harps on Chettle’s respectful use of the WHUP ³VFKRODUV´ ZU\O\ UHPDUNLQJ WKDW ³VR 6KDNHVSHDUH ZDV QRZ EHLQJ WUHDWHG DVLIKHKDGDIWHUDOODWWHQGHGXQLYHUVLW\´*UHHQEODWWPDNHVPXFKRI&KHWWOH¶V UHSUHVHQWLQJRI6KDNHVSHDUHDVDVFKRODUDQGWKXVJHQWOHPDQ EXWDVKHQRWHV HDUOLHULQWKHVDPHFKDSWHU6KDNHVSHDUHZDVQRWHQWLWOHGWRVXFKDQDGGUHVV  Chettle’s use of the term “scholars” strongly suggests that he is in fact addressing RQO\WKRVHNQRZQWRKROGXQLYHUVLW\GHJUHHVDQG0DUORZH1DVKHDQG3HHOHDOO TXDOLI\*UHHQEODWWFODLPVWKDW³>K@RZ6KDNHVSHDUHUHVSRQGHGWRWKHDWWDFN>LQWKH Groatsworth@WHOOVDJUHDWGHDODERXWKLP´EXWDGPLWVWKDWZHGRQRWNQRZLIKH GLGDQ\WKLQJDWDOO+LVUHDVRQLQJIRUWKH³JUHDW´PHDQLQJRI6KDNVSHDUH¶VDFWLRQV is entirely derived ex post facto from his interpretation of Chettle. Since Chettle FOHDUO\DSRORJL]HGWR6KDNHVSHDUHWKHQWKHSOD\ZULJKWRIQHFHVVLW\³PXVWKDYH TXLHWO\GRQHVRPHWKLQJ´WRSURYRNHLW7KHHYLGHQFHKRZHYHUVXJJHVWVWKDWWKLV SURYRFDWLRQLVIDUWRRTXLHW²LQGHHGLWVVLOHQFHLVGHDIHQLQJ6LQFH6KDNHVSHDUH did not print any response to the Groatsworth or Chettle’s apology, since he was neither an addressee of the original epistle, nor a university degree holder, and since no evidence exists for what he “must have quietly done,” Greenblatt’s views ORRNOHVVOLNHWKHRULHVWKDQGHVSHUDWHRYHUUHDFKLQJ7KHPRVWVHULRXVIDLOLQJRIWKLV VHFWLRQLVLWVSLHFHPHDOTXRWDWLRQRIWKH&KHWWOHHSLVWOHZLWKRXWLQFOXVLRQRIWKHNH\ OLQHWKDWLGHQWL¿HVWKHDJJULHYHGSDUWLHVDVWKRVHDGGUHVVHHVRIWKH³OHWWHUZULWWHQWR GLXHUVSOD\PDNHUV´WKRVHZKRDUHZDUQHGabout6KDNHVSHDUHQRW6KDNHVSHDUH himself. The absence of this critical fact virtually ensures misunderstanding by his popular readership. Not only has Greenblatt undercut his argument with internal FRQWUDGLFWLRQ KH KDV PDGH LW GLI¿FXOW IRU QRQVSHFLDOLVW UHDGHUV WR WUDFN GRZQ the chain of evidence for themselves and render their own decisions on the issue. )RU DOO RI LWV RYHUUHDFKLQJ *UHHQEODWW¶V SRVLWLRQ LV QRW XQLTXH LQ IDFW LW LV DOO WRRFRPPRQ,QWKHLUHIIRUWVWRGLVFRYHUD6KDNHVSHDUHDQSUHVHQFHLQUHVLVWDQWRU inconclusive evidence, orthodox scholars have fashioned theories that resemble their own worst caricatures of anti-Stratfordianism. To the degree that authorship denotes public ownership and responsibility, the 6KDNHVSHDUHDQSURIHVVLRQLWVHOILVWKHDXWKRURIDQWL6WUDWIRUGLDQLVP,QLWVYLVLRQ RI6KDNHVSHDUHDVDXWKRUSURIHVVLRQDOVFKRODUVFDQQHLWKHUSRUWUD\QRUWKHRUL]HWKH ¿JXUHEH\RQGWKHVSKHUHRIDQRQ\PLW\7KHHXORJLVWLFFRQVWUXFWLRQRI6KDNHVSHDUH DV D YDJXH FRORVVDO DEVWUDFWLRQ VR FDSDFLRXV DV WR EHFRPH XQGH¿QDEOH LV YHU\ much a cultural inheritance of long-standing. Yet the academic profession has done little to correct it and much to perpetuate it, perhaps because resisting its authority ZRXOGLPSHULOWKHVWDWXVWKDWZHFXUUHQWO\HQMR\DVDFRQVHTXHQFH7KHJUHDWQHVVRI

The Anonymous Shakespeare

157

WKH6KDNHVSHDUHDQDXUDLQRXUFXOWXUHIXQFWLRQVLQVHSDUDEO\IURPLWVLQDELOLW\WREH ¿[HGE\WKHLQWHUHVWVRIUHOLJLRQHFRQRPLFVSROLWLFVUHJLRQRURWKHULQVWLWXWLRQDO allegiances. Such anonymity is not the only source of his greatness to be sure, yet it is a crucial determinant of his cultural authority. Without being pinned down to VSHFL¿FLQWHUHVWVDQGDOOHJLDQFHV6KDNHVSHDUHKDVLQVWHDGEHFRPHDOOLQFOXVLYHD patriarch and a proto-feminist, recusant and conformist, royal apologist and critic, VWDWXV VHHNHU and subversive. With such inscrutability come the pretensions of “complexity,” “brilliance,” and “comprehensiveness” that attend literary greatness. ,I6KDNHVSHDUH¶VDXUDLVLQVHSDUDEOHIURPWKLVEODQNVODWH²RUUDWKHUDSDOLPSVHVW so overwritten as to become illegible—the profession has not greatly resisted this UHVXOWDQGVRKDVDLGHGDQGDEHWWHGDP\VWL¿HGSRUWUDLWVRHQFRPSDVVLQJWKDWLWQR ORQJHUEHDUVUHVHPEODQFHWRDFRKHUHQWVXEMHFW,WVKRXOGFRPHDVQRVXUSULVHWKHQ WKDWDVLJQL¿FDQWJURXSRIDPDWHXUUHDGHUVKDVIRXQGWKLVSRUWUDLWXQWHQDEOHDQG KDVSURFHHGHGWRVHDUFKIRURWKHUDOWHUQDWLYH6KDNHVSHDUHVZLWKWKHLURZQXQDLGHG DQG RIWHQ XQGHULQIRUPHG HIIRUWV 0DUFXV¶V UHPDUN WKDW DQWL6WUDWIRUGLDQV KDYH ³GRJJHGWRSLFDODSSURDFKHVWR6KDNHVSHDUHOLNHDGDUNVKDGRZ´ZLWKWKHHIIHFWRI producing a “corrosive” “odor of inauthenticity” gives far too much power to these JURXSV ZKR UHPDLQ OLWWOH PRUH WKDQ VLQFHUH HQWKXVLDVWV RI 6KDNHVSHDUH DQG WKH 5HQDLVVDQFH7KHVKDGRZVFDVWE\VXFKZRUNZRXOGEHRIVPDOOFRQVHTXHQFHLIRXU RZQ³LGHDRI6KDNHVSHDUH´ZHUHQRWLWVHOIDOUHDG\GDUNDQGYDJXHWREHJLQZLWK As a profession we have failed to establish a clear and convincing portrait RI 6KDNHVSHDUH QRW PHUHO\ WR WKH SRSXODU DXGLHQFH EXW WR RXUVHOYHV 8QWLO ZH do, or can provide clear explanations for why we cannot, authorship conspiracy WKHRULHVZLOOSHUVLVWFRQWLQXLQJWRFDVWWKH³GDUNVKDGRZ>V@´WKDWKDXQWRXUFODLPV WRNQRZOHGJH/LNHDOOJKRVWVWKH\ZLOOUHPDLQIRUHYHUXQ¿[HGLQRXUFROOHFWLYH imagination, somewhere between the madness of worlds outside our own and the wellspring of our own deepest fears.10 Works Cited Asimov, Isaac. The Roving Mind$PKHUVW3URPHWKHXV%RRNV Bate, Jonathan. “The Sweet Swan and the Porcupine.” Sunday Telegraph [London] 10 Oct. 2004: 12. 10 0DQ\WKDQNVWR-DQHW6WDUQHUDQG%DUEDUD7UDLVWHUIRUWKHLUUHZDUGLQJVHPLQDUDW WKH6KDNHVSHDUH$VVRFLDWLRQRI$PHULFDLQ1HZ2UOHDQVDQGIRUWKHLUSHUVLVWHQFHLQ EULQJLQJWKLVFROOHFWLRQWRIUXLWLRQ7KDQNVDOVRWR&DWKHULQH/RRPLVWKHORFDODUUDQJHPHQWV VXSHUYLVRUIRUKHUZRUNDQGIHOORZVKLSLQFRRUGLQDWLQJWKHPHHWLQJDQDQWHGLOXYLDQWULXPSK IRUWKDWZRXQGHGFLW\,ZLVKWRWKDQNWKH+XGVRQ6WURGHSURJUDPLQ5HQDLVVDQFH6WXGLHV DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI$ODEDPD ZKHUH WKH HDUOLHVW VWDJHV RI UHVHDUFK IRU WKLV SURMHFW ZHUH conducted. A research grant from the South Central MLA for study at the Newberry Library LQ&KLFDJRDOEHLWIRUDGLIIHUHQWSURMHFW DOORZHGWLPHIRUIXUWKHUUHDGLQJDQGUHÀHFWLRQ $LQVOLH)DJDQDVVLVWHGZLWKSUHSDUDWLRQRIWKHPDQXVFULSW0\JUHDWHVWWKDQNVWR$QGUHZ +DQQDVIRUHQFRXUDJLQJP\HDUOLHVWUHÀHFWLRQVRQDQWL6WUDWIRUGLDQLVP

158

Anonymity in Early Modern England

&KDPEHUV (. William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930. C[hettle], H[enry]. Kind-Harts Dreame. London: n.d. Chettle, Henry and Robert Greene. Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit: Bought with a Million of Repentance. Ed. D. Allen Carroll. Binghamton: Medieval and 5HQDLVVDQFH7H[WV 6WXGLHV 'RQDGLR5DFKHO³:KR2ZQV6KDNHVSHDUH"´New York Times 23 Jan. 2005: 31. (UQH/XNDV³%LRJUDSK\DQG0\WKRJUDSK\5HUHDGLQJ&KHWWOH¶V$OOHJHG$SRORJ\ WR6KDNHVSHDUH´English Studies ± )ULHGPDQ :LOOLDP ) DQG (OL]DEHWK 6 )ULHGPDQ The Shakespeare Ciphers Examined. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1957. Gay, Peter. Reading Freud: Explorations and Entertainments. New Haven: Yale UP, 1990. *DUEHU0DUMRULHShakespeare’s Ghost Writers: Literature as Uncanny Causality. 1HZ
Chapter 8

The Ethics of Anonymity1 0DUN5REVRQ

L’histoire a cognu trois Socrates, cinq Platons, huict Aristotes, sept Xenophons, YLQJW'HPHWULXVYLQJW7KHRGRUHVHWGHYLQH]FRPELHQHOOHQ¶HQDSDVFRJQX ²0LFKHOGH0RQWDLJQH(VVDLV 2 Literature tries to be unsigned. ²(0)RUVWHU

,Q D UHFHQW DUWLFOH 5REHUW - *ULI¿Q DUJXHV WKDW OLWHUDU\ FULWLFV VKRXOG ³UHVLVW automatic perception” in the name of allowing the past to be “surprisingly strange”  :KDWSURPSWV*ULI¿QWRPDNHVXFKDFDOOLVWKHPDWWHURIDQRQ\PLW\1RWLQJ WKH UHODWLYH ODFN RI DFNQRZOHGJPHQW RI WKH IDFW RI DQRQ\PRXV SXEOLFDWLRQ LQ D literary criticism that is dominated by an interdependent focus on the author and WKHZRUN*ULI¿QVXJJHVWVWKDWWKHSUDFWLFHRIDQRQ\PRXVSXEOLFDWLRQUHPDLQVD WDQWDOL]LQJDQRPDO\WKDWDOORZVFHUWDLQSUHVXSSRVLWLRQVDERXWWKHVWDWXVQRWRQO\ of texts but also of historical periods and literary movements to be questioned. As KHVXJJHVWVZKHQKHEHJDQWKLQNLQJDERXWWKLVWRSLF³$QRQ\PLW\ZDVDQLVVXH RQO\LIDQDXWKRUUHPDLQHGXQNQRZQDQGWKHQLWZDVDSX]]OHWREHVROYHG´%\ FRQWUDVW*ULI¿Q¶VYLHZLVWKDW³,GHDOO\DFDGHPLFZRUNFRQWLQXDOO\SUHVVHVDJDLQVW WKHERUGHUVRIZKDWLVNQRZQ´ ,ZDQWWRSXUVXHWKHVHVXJJHVWLRQVE\WDNLQJ VHULRXVO\WKDWFRQQHFWLRQEHWZHHQWKHDQRQ\PRXVWKHNQRZQDQGWKHXQNQRZQ 5DWKHUWKDQIROORZLQJ*ULI¿QLQWRWKHDUFKLYHLQVHDUFKRIHPSLULFDOGHWDLOKRZHYHU ,ZRXOGOLNHWRSLFNXSRQZKDWFHUWDLQHDUO\PRGHUQWH[WVWKHPVHOYHVWHOOXVDERXW WKHTXHVWLRQRIDQRQ\PLW\DQGWRWKLQNDOLWWOHIXUWKHUDERXWWKHHWKLFDOVWDNHVRI FULWLFDOUHVSRQVHWRWKHDQRQ\PRXVWKHXQNQRZQDQGWKHVWUDQJH 1 An early version of this article was presented to a seminar on anonymity at the 6KDNHVSHDUH$VVRFLDWLRQ RI$PHULFD 1HZ 2UOHDQV LQ$SULO  , DP JUDWHIXO WR WKH RUJDQL]HUV-DQHW6WDUQHUDQG%DUEDUD7UDLVWHUWKHSDUWLFLSDQWVDQGSDUWLFXODUO\7RP&DUWHOOL DQG&\QGLD6XVDQ&OHJJIRUWKHLUFRPPHQWVDQGHQFRXUDJHPHQW,ZRXOGDOVROLNHWRWKDQN Brian Richardson and, suitably enough, an anonymous reviewer for their suggestions on UHYLVLQJWKHPDQXVFULSWIRUSXEOLFDWLRQ(GLWRU¶V1RWH0DUN5REVRQ¶VHVVD\¿UVWDSSHDUHG in print in Modern Language Review ±:HZLVKWRWKDQNWKHDXWKRU editor, and publisher for allowing us to reprint it here. 2 ³+LVWRU\KDVNQRZQWKUHHPHQFDOOHG6RFUDWHV¿YH3ODWRVHLJKW$ULVWRWOHVVHYHQ ;HQRSKRQV WZHQW\ 'HPHWULXVHV DQG WZHQW\ 7KHRGRUHV MXVW JXHVV KRZ PDQ\ VKH KDV QHYHUNQRZQ´

160

Anonymity in Early Modern England

,Q6KDNHVSHDUH¶VTwelfth Night we are offered a scene of reading, and more particularly the reading of an anonymous letter.3 The reader in question is Malvolio, DQGZKDWKHUHDGVKDVWKHDSSHDUDQFHRIDORYHOHWWHUZKLFKKH¿QGVRQWKHJURXQG This love letter, a letter about desire, activates the desire of its reader. Malvolio automatically believes that it is addressed to him, but the phrase used is actually ³7R WKH XQNQRZQ EHORYHG´   0DOYROLR WKLQNV WKDW KH UHFRJQL]HV LQ WKH SKUDVLQJ RI WKH OHWWHU LQ WKH ³LPSUHVVXUH´ RI D VHDO DQG LQ WKH KDQG WKH ¿JXUH RIKLVPLVWUHVV2OLYLD:KDWKHSLFNVXSRQLQSDUWLFXODULVWKH³IRUP´RIFHUWDLQ letters (although it is noticeable that these letters do not actually appear in the OHWWHU FUHDWLQJDEDZG\SXQXSRQKHUJHQLWDOLDLQKLVUHFRJQLWLRQRIKHU&V8V and Ts. In Malvolio’s desire to read what he desires, there is a rapid movement from the handwriting to the body apparently behind it, from the form of the letter to the form of Olivia. In giving consideration to style, seal, and hand, Malvolio is ZRUNLQJZLWKWKHFKDUDFWHULVWLFVRIWKHVLJQDWXUH 0DOYROLRLVTXLFNWRPDNHDQDWWULEXWLRQRIWKLVOHWWHUEXWWKHWH[WLWVHOISOD\V XSRQKLVDQGRXUVHQVHRINQRZOHGJHDQGPLVUHFRJQLWLRQ,QLWLDOO\KHGRHVQRW NQRZWRZKRPLWLVDGGUHVVHGO 7KH¿UVWOLQHVWKDWKHUHDGVDUH³-RYHNQRZV , ORYH%XWZKR" /LSVGR QRWPRYH1R PDQPXVWNQRZ´:HPLJKWQRWH WKDWWKHVHFRQGOLQH²³%XWZKR"´²PLJKWDVHDVLO\UHIHUEDFNWRWKHLGHQWLW\RI WKH³,´ZKRORYHVDVWRWKH³XQNQRZQEHORYHG´3HUKDSVLWLVWKHLGHQWLW\RIWKLV ³,´WKDWQRPDQPXVWNQRZ7KLV¿UVWSX]]OHSURFHHGVWRWKHULGGOHSUHVHQWHGE\ DQRWKHUVHWRIOHWWHUV³02$,´*LYLQJYRLFHWRKLVGHVLUHWRVROYHWKLVSX]]OH 0DOYROLRSOHDGV³,I,FRXOGPDNHWKDWUHVHPEOHVRPHWKLQJLQPH´OO±  $JDLQWKLVFDOOVIRUDUHFRJQLWLRQRISURFHVVHVRILGHQWL¿FDWLRQLQVHUWLQJWKHIRUP RIDVHFRQGERG\LQWRWKHWH[WWKLVWLPHKLVRZQ:KDW)DELDQLGHQWL¿HVDVWKH “fustian riddle” is solved, he believes, through resemblance, that is, through a VHQVHRIWKHWH[WDVLPLWDWLYHRIWKDWZKLFKVWDQGVRXWVLGHLWWKHWZLQ¿JXUHVRI DXWKRUDQGUHDGHUERWKRIZKRPPRYHIURPXQNQRZQWRNQRZQLQKLVUHDGLQJ ³02$,´EHFRPHVDVLPXODWLRQ DQGWKHNH\WRVROYLQJWKHSX]]OHLVVHHQ to be the similarity between these letters and those in his own name, even if he KDVWRZRUNDQDJUDPPDWLFDOO\WRPDNHWKDWVLPLODULW\DSSDUHQW,WLVLURQLFWKHQ WKDWLQKLVGHVLUHWRPDNHWKHOHWWHUUHVHPEOHVRPHWKLQJLQKLPVHOIKHLVIRUFHGWR transform that self, both in appearance and conduct, if he is to follow the letterwriter’s advice and claim his reward. He must become an anagram of himself. ³, ZLOO EH VWUDQJH´ 0DOYROLR SURSRVHV   LQVLVWLQJ KRZHYHU WKDW ³, GR QRW QRZIRROP\VHOIWROHWLPDJLQDWLRQMDGHPH´±  7KHSRVWVFULSWWRWKHOHWWHUWHOOVKLP³7KRXFDQVWQRWFKRRVHEXWNQRZZKR , DP´ ±  DQG WKH FUXHO KXPRXU RI WKH VFHQH FRPHV LQ LWV H[SORLWDWLRQ RI WKHSDVVDJHVEHWZHHQNQRZLQJDQGQRWNQRZLQJ7KHDXGLHQFHRUUHDGHUOLNHWKH RQVWDJHDXGLHQFHRI6LU7RE\)DELDQDQG6LU$QGUHZNQRZVWKDWWKLVOHWWHULV SUHFLVHO\GHVLJQHGWRIRRO0DOYROLRLWKDVEHHQZULWWHQE\0DULDWREULQJKLPLQWR 3 8QOHVVRWKHUZLVHQRWHGDOOUHIHUHQFHVWR6KDNHVSHDUH¶VWH[WVZLOOEHWRThe Arden Shakespeare Complete Works.

The Ethics of Anonymity

161

GLVIDYRXUZLWK2OLYLD,IWKLVVFHQHSURYRNHVODXJKWHUWKHQLWLVLQSDUWEHFDXVHRI WKHIHHOLQJVRIVXSHULRULW\WKDWWKLVLQHTXDOLW\RINQRZOHGJHHQJHQGHUV$V7KRPDV Hobbes puts it: “the passion of laughter is nothing else but a sudden glory arising from sudden conception of some eminency in ourselves, by comparison with the LQ¿UPLWLHVRIRWKHUVRUZLWKRXURZQIRUPHUO\´Human Nature&K†± 4 0DOYROLR¶VLQJHQXLW\LQLQWHUSUHWLQJWKHWH[WLVERWKRXWODQGLVKDQGSUHGLFWDEOHKH is over-interpreting, but in ways that are simultaneously plausible and ridiculous. What this implies is that Malvolio’s interpretation is to some extent the text’s own GRPLQDQWVHOIUHDGLQJWKDWLWLVDUHDGLQJSURGXFHGLQVRPHLGHQWL¿DEOHZD\by the WH[W0DOYROLR¶VDWWHPSWWRPDNHWKHWH[WUHVHPEOHVRPHWKLQJLQKLPZKLFKFDQEH VHHQDVDQDWWHPSWDWZKDW,ZLOOODWHUFKDUDFWHUL]HDVDQ³DSSURSULDWLYH´UHDGLQJLQ IDFWFRPHVWRPDUNWKHH[WHQWWRZKLFKKHZLOOFRPHWRUHVHPEOHWKHWH[W :KDW PDNHV VXFK D UHDGLQJ SRVVLEOH LV WKH IDFW RI WKH WH[W¶V GRXEOLQJ RI DQRQ\PLW\IURPDQXQNQRZQZULWHUWRDQXQNQRZQUHDGHU7KHVHWZR³EODQNV´ open up the letter to a correspondingly doubled attribution in which both writer DQGUHDGHUEHFRPHNQRZQ6XFKDWWULEXWLRQLVDVSUHVHQWHGKHUHERWKFRPLFDQG disturbing, attesting both to real desire and to genuine delusion. The question remains: what does this scene, read as an allegory of reading, have to tell us about DQRQ\PLW\" :H QHHG WR NHHS LQ PLQG 0DOYROLR¶V DWWHQWLRQ WR VW\OH VHDO DQG KDQGWRWKHPDUNVRIRULJLQRUDXWKRULW\²RI³DXWKRUHGQHVV´²WKDWXQGHUSLQKLV LGHQWL¿FDWLRQV,QSDUW,DPIROORZLQJWKHJXLGLQJKDQGRI0DUMRULH*DUEHUZKR suggests that: DJDLQDQGDJDLQWKHSOD\V>RI6KDNHVSHDUH@WKHPVHOYHVFDQEHVHHQWRGUDPDWL]H questions raised in the authorship controversy: who wrote this? did someone else KDYHDKDQGLQLW"LVWKHDSSDUHQWDXWKRUWKHUHDODXWKRU"LVWKHRI¿FLDOYHUVLRQWR be trusted? or are there suppressed stories, hidden messages, other signatures? (Shakespeare’s Ghost Writers: Literature and Uncanny Causality

In the PrefaceWR9ROXPH3DUWRIKLVHGLWLRQRI-HURPH (UDVPXVRIIHUV the following parable: ,DP WHUWLDP TXRTXH IDEXODP DFFLSLHV VHG ȐȞȫȞȣȝȠȞ &XLGDP DSXG ,WDORV inter primos erudito, in manum dedit nescio quis, paginam e codice quopiam UHYXOVDP VLF XW QXOOXV HVVHW WLWXOXV TXL SURGHUHW DXWKRUHP 4XL WUDGLGHUDW admonuit, sibi videri recentioris cuiuspiam scriptoris opus esse. Erat autem is ex istorum numero, qui studio favoreque vetustatis, omnia neoterica fastidiunt. Ibi protinus offensus homo spurcitia sermonis, ut tum quidem videbatur, multa convitia congessit in barbarum scriptorem, qui tam indoctis nugis miseras SHUGLGLVVHW FKDUWDV 1HF PRGXV DXW ¿QLV LUULGHQGL GRQHF DOWHU RVWHQGHUHW LG quod tantopere damnasset, fragmentum esse Ciceronis. Agnovit admonitus, et risit homo doctus, tantam ex imaginatione delirationem. Tantum valet in eruditis quoque praesumpta persuasio, nec alia res in iudicando magis vel avertit vel adimit oculos. (Omnium operum IROß 4

Hobbes revises this in Leviathan Pt 1, Ch. 6, §42. 32.

162

Anonymity in Early Modern England Now you will also hear a third story. In the telling I will not use names. Someone ZKRZLOOQRWEHLGHQWL¿HGSUHVHQWHGWRDQRXWVWDQGLQJ,WDOLDQVFKRODUDSDJHWRUQ IURP VRPH ERRN ZLWKRXW WKH WLWOH WKDW ZRXOG UHYHDO LWV DXWKRU 7KH SUHVHQWHU DGYLVHG WKH VFKRODU WKDW LQ KLV RSLQLRQ WKH ZRUN ZDV E\ VRPH IDLUO\ UHFHQW writer. The Italian moreover was one of those who in their enthusiastic partiality for antiquity disdained everything modern. Thereupon the man, immediately offended by the foul style, heaped much abuse on the barbarous writer for having misused paper and wasted it on such illiterate nonsense. His ridicule was unrestrained and only stopped when the other person revealed that the writing which he had damned with such vehemence was a fragment of Cicero. When DSSULVHGRIWKLVWKHOHDUQHGPDQDFNQRZOHGJHGZLWKDODXJKWKDWKLVLPDJLQDWLRQ was responsible for folly so arrant. The force of a preconceived notion is that VWURQJHYHQLQDOHDUQHGPLQGQRRWKHUIDFWRULQWKHPDNLQJRIMXGJPHQWVKDV greater power to distract or blind the intellect. (Collected Works 

Here, as in the scene from Twelfth Night, there is still laughter, but this time it is shared between reader, author, and the unnamed Italian scholar (itself a deliberate DFWRI³DQRQ\PL]LQJ´RQWKHSDUWRI(UDVPXV 7KHULGLFXOHWKDWWKHVFKRODUZLVKHV to heap on the “barbarous” text falls upon his own head, and it is worth noting that barbarum denotes not only barbarous in the modern sense, but also foreign or strange, and it is this “foreignness” that prompts the ridicule. This is closer to one of Montaigne’s comments on laughter than to the one that I cited from Hobbes, since for Montaigne what is particular to the human is to be able both to laugh and to be laughable: “Nostre propre et peculiere condition est autant ridicule que risible” (Essais   8QOLNH 0DOYROLR WKH VFKRODU UHFRJQL]HV WKDW LQGHHG LPDJLQDWLRQ has led him to folly, and that even a learned mind can be drawn into error if it OHDQVWRRKHDYLO\RQWKHDXWKRULW\RIWKHDXWKRU¶VQDPHLQPDNLQJMXGJPHQWV5 The DEVHQFHRIWKHQDPHFDQWRRHDVLO\EHWDNHQIRUDQDEVHQFHRIYDOXH:KDWLVDOVR VWULNLQJLVWKHVLJQL¿FDQFHRIWKH³SUHFRQFHLYHGQRWLRQ´³SUDHVXPSWD´FDUU\LQJ WKHVHQVHRIDQWLFLSDWLRQEXWDOVRRIWDNLQJIRUJUDQWHG UHLQIRUFLQJ*ULI¿Q¶VVHQVH of the dangers of “automatic perception.” Erasmus has been concerned in the preface to Volume 2, Part 1, of his edition WRH[SODLQKLVWUHDWPHQWRIZKDWKHFDOOV³VSXULD´SRLQWHGO\UHPDUNLQJ Habes quot modis depraventur inscriptiones, et vides rem adeo neque raram esse, neque novam, ut in nullo fere scriptore non contigerit, frequentius autem in praeclaris, et gratiosis. (Omnium operum 2: fol. 3r

5 This concern with the connection of names and value parallels a passage in Castiglione’s Libro del cortegiano, in which Federico tells how verses attributed to Jacopo 6DQQD]DUR DUH SUDLVHG E\ HYHU\RQH XQWLO WKH\ DUH UHYHDOHG WR EH E\ DQRWKHU ZULWHU DQG refers to a motet that is considered worthless until it is established as having been written E\-RVTXLQGHV3UpV± ,DPJUDWHIXOWR%ULDQ5LFKDUGVRQIRUDOHUWLQJPHWR this passage.

The Ethics of Anonymity

163


He continues by observing that: Etenim cui satis est quocunque pacto praenotatum authoris nomen, is pro TXDWXRUTXDWXRUGHFLPRSLQRUOHJHWHYDQJHOLD4XLGDXWIDFLOLXVHVWTXDPQRPHQ TXRGFXQTXHOLEXHULWOLEURSUDH¿JHUH"Omnium operum 2: fol. 3r-v 7KHPDQZKRLVVDWLV¿HGZLWKWKHQDPHRIWKHDXWKRURQWKHWLWOHSDJHUHJDUGOHVV RIKRZLWJRWWKHUHZLOOUHDGIRXUWHHQ*RVSHOV,WKLQNLQVWHDGRIIRXU1RWKLQJ LV HDVLHU WKDQ WR SODFH DQ\ QDPH \RX ZDQW RQ WKH IURQW RI D ERRN Collected Works 

Rather than presenting the problem of a text circulating without the author’s name, Erasmus is here concerned by the problem of a text which circulates with the ZURQJQDPHDWWDFKHG+HDVNVDIHZOLQHVODWHU Alioqui si clausis, quod dici solet, oculis accipiemus, quicquid probati viri titulum prae se feret, qui non proclive sit orbi imponere praesertim hisce temporibus, quibus quicquid scriptum fuerit, protinus bis mille propagatum exemplaribus, per omnes terras dissipatum? (Omnium operum 2: fol. 3v %HVLGHVLIZHDFFHSWVLJKWXQVHHQDVWKHVD\LQJJRHVDQ\ZRUNWKDWGLVSOD\VWKH QDPHRIDQDSSURYHGDXWKRUZKRZRXOGQRW¿QGLWHDV\WRGHFHLYHWKHZRUOG especially in these times when any writing is immediately multiplied in thousands of copies and circulated through every land? (Collected Works 

Part of what Erasmus fears, then, is repetition and technical reproducibility, and LQ ERWK RI WKHVH H[DPSOHV WKH GLI¿FXOW\ LV RQH RI UHFHSWLRQ WKDW LV RI UHDGLQJ His concern is that error in ascription leads to other forms of error, particularly when the texts concerned may be given an institutional power, as is the case in the &KXUFK¶VWUHDWPHQWRIZRUNVE\ZULWHUVVXFKDV-HURPHDQG$XJXVWLQH$WWULEXWLRQ becomes a way of protecting ideas, and of protecting people against error that may WDNHRQLQVWLWXWLRQDODQGFXOWXUDOVLJQL¿FDQFH,QWHUHVWLQJO\LWLVDOVRDWWULEXWLRQ that is simultaneously the cause of these errors. 'HEDWHVDURXQGWKHTXHVWLRQRIDXWKRUVKLSWHQGWRORRNIRUREYLRXVUHDVRQV WRZDUGVWKHDOUHDG\NQRZQ,QVHHNLQJWRDVFULEHDWH[WWRDQDXWKRUFULWLFVPXVW PDNH FRPSDULVRQV VW\OLVWLF SDODHRJUDSKLFDO ELRJUDSKLFDO WKHPDWLF DQG VR RQ ZLWKWH[WVIRUZKLFKWKHDWWULEXWLRQLVVHHPLQJO\PRUHVHFXUH6 Such efforts, 6

It should be noted, however, that this is not always possible. In the case of ballads, songs, or some poems in manuscript it is often impossible to ascribe authorship at all, and these offer somewhat different cases from those on which I am focusing here. Equally, there DUHWH[WVWKDWVHHNWRH[SORLWWKHSRWHQWLDORIDQRQ\PLW\DVDSRVLWLYHRSSRUWXQLW\7KHVH

164

Anonymity in Early Modern England

,ZRXOGOLNHWRVXJJHVWDUHSDUWRIDODUJHUFULWLFDOWHQGHQF\WRZDUGVPDVWHULQJWKH XQNQRZQDQGKDYHWDNHQRQDSDUWLFXODUFKDUJHLQWKHFRQWH[WRIWKH6KDNHVSHDUHDQ authorship debate.7 Any attempt to attach a proper name to the hands that appear in a manuscript, or to ascribe an author to a printed text that has no attribution, is faced by the chiastic LQWHUVHFWLRQRIZRUNLQOLIHDQGOLIHLQZRUNWKHORJLFLVWKDWLILWZHUHSRVVLEOHWR establish by whom the text of, say, Sir Thomas More was written—whether singly or in collaboration, whether for part or the whole of the manuscript—then it could EHWDNHQLQWRRUH[FOXGHGIURP DQ°XYUH7KXVWKHFRQWLQXLQJDWWHPSWVWRLGHQWLI\ the hands of Sir Thomas MorePXVWDOZD\VWDNHWKHIRUPRIDFRPSDULVRQEHWZHHQ WKHVHKDQGVDQGWKDWRIVRPHRQHZKRVHZRUNLVDOUHDG\NQRZQ7KLVVHDUFKIRU WKH VDPH IRU WKH DOUHDG\ NQRZQ LV KDXQWHG E\ WKH ¿JXUH RI WKH VXSSOHPHQW LQ'HUULGD¶VVHQVH 8 According to a curious but by now familiar logic, this chiastic XQGHUVWDQGLQJRIWKHLQWHUSHQHWUDWLRQRIOLIHDQGZRUNUHQGHUVWKHSDUWLQVRPHZD\ greater than the whole into which it is inserted. Thus, if we believe that Sir Thomas More was written by Marlowe, for example, then this alters not only the status of WKHSOD\EXWDOVRRXUNQRZOHGJHRIKLVOLIHDQGZRUN :LWKLQ WKLV HFRQRP\ RI WKH NQRZQ WKH SDVVDJHV IURP 6KDNHVSHDUH DQG Erasmus that I have already cited indicate a sense of the disruption that anonymity can create. The experience of reading an anonymous text may be thought of as an uncanny one.97KHWH[WLVVWUDQJHO\IDPLOLDUWKHYRLFHVWKDWZHKHDUDUHOLNHEXW QRWHQWLUHO\OLNHWKRVHZHNQRZWKH\FDUU\HFKRHVRUJKRVWVRIWKHNQRZQ%XW LVQ¶WWKLVRQO\EHFDXVHWKHXQNQRZQYRLFHWKHYRLFHWKDWLVVLPSO\VWUDQJHZLWKRXW any reassuring familiarity, would be impossible to hear, impossible to identify as a voice at all? If I wished to say, with absolute certainty, that a play such as Sir Thomas MoreZDVGH¿QLWHO\notZULWWHQE\DQ\RIWKHNQRZQDXWKRUVRIWKH period, how would I prove it? The burden of proof is always going to confront me ZLWKWKHLPSRVVLEOHWDVNRIGHPRQVWUDWLQJDQDEVROXWHGLVVLPLODULW\,QWKLVUHVSHFW DWOHDVWWKHUHDUHQRXQNQRZQDXWKRUVVLPSO\XQQDPHGRQHV%XWWKLVSURYRNHV RUFRXOGSURYRNHDUHWKLQNLQJRIH[LVWLQJGH¿QLWLRQVRIDXWKRUVKLS+HUHPRUH than ever, it is necessary to observe the queasy boundaries between author, writer, VFULSWRUVFULEHDQGVRRQ%XWLWLVWKHDXWKRUWKDWUHDGHUVOLNH0DOYROLRGHVLUH EHFDXVHWKH¿JXUHRIWKHDXWKRUKROGVRXWWKHRIIHURIDFHUWDLQVHFXULW\,QWKLVWKH desire for attribution maps on to the domestication of the uncanny promised by a GULYHIRUNQRZOHGJHWKDW1LHW]VFKHGHVFULEHVLQTwilight of the Idols:

WH[WVUHWDLQDGHJUHHRIVLQJXODULW\HYHQLIWKH\DSSHDUWRODFNWKH³LQYHQWLYH´TXDOLWLHVWKDW tend to be associated with canonical texts. On invention, see my comments below. 7 The following paragraphs revisit, in different terms, a discussion broached in my The Sense of Early Modern Writing: Rhetoric, Poetics, Aesthetics Ch. 5. 8 The classic exploration is to be found in Jacques Derrida. De la grammatologie ±Of Grammatology 141–64. 9 On the relation between literature and the uncanny, see Royle, The Uncanny.

The Ethics of Anonymity

165

(WZDV 8QEHNDQQWHV DXI HWZDV %HNDQQWHV ]XUFNIKUHQ HUOHLFKWHUW EHUXKLJW EHIULHGLJWJLHEWDX‰HUGHPHLQ*HIKOYRQ0DFKW0LWGHP8QEHNDQQWHQLVWGLH *HIDKU GLH 8QUXKH GLH 6RUJH JHJHEHQ²GHU HUVWH ,QVWLQNW JHKW GDKLQ GLHVH SHLQOLFKHQ=XVWlQGHZHJ]XVFKDIIHQ(UVWHU*UXQGVDW]LUJHQGHLQH(UNOlUXQJLVW EHVVHUDOVNHLQHGötzen-Dämmerung  7UDFLQJ VRPHWKLQJ XQNQRZQ EDFN WR VRPHWKLQJ NQRZQ JLYHV UHOLHI VRRWKHV VDWLV¿HVDQGIXUWKHUPRUHJLYHVDIHHOLQJRISRZHU7KHXQNQRZQEULQJVZLWK LW GDQJHU GLVTXLHW ZRUU\²RQH¶V ¿UVW LQVWLQFW LV WR get rid of WKHVH DZNZDUG conditions. First principle: any explanation is better than none. (Twilight 

In his essay “Des livres,” Montaigne notes his practice of not citing authors from whom he has drawn ideas as a deliberate strategy, offering an echo of Erasmus’ parable in the traps laid for those who would arrogate to themselves a dogmatically critical position with respect to recent authors: ÊV UDLVRQV HW LQYHQWLRQV TXH MH WUDQVSODQWH HQ PRQ VRODJH HW FRQIRQV DX] PLHQQHV M¶D\ j HVFLHQW RPQLV SDUIRLV G¶HQ PDUTXHU O¶DXWKHXU SRXU WHQLU HQ EULGHODWHPHULWpGHFHVVHQWHQFHVKDVWLYHVTXLVHMHWWHQWVXUWRXWHVRUWHG¶HVFULWV QRWDPPHQWMHXQHVHVFULWVG¶KRPPHVHQFRUHYLYDQWVHWHQYXOJDLUHTXLUHoRLW WRXWOHPRQGHjHQSDUOHUHWTXLVHPEOHFRQYDLQFUHODFRQFHSWLRQHWOHGHVVHLQ YXOJDLUHGHPHVPHV-HYHX[TX¶LOVGRQQHQWXQHQD]DUGHj3OXWDUTXHVXUPRQ QH]HWTX¶LOVV¶HVFKDXGHQWjLQMXULHU6HQHTXHHQPR\,OIDXWPXVVHUPDIRLEOHVVH VRX]FHVJUDQGVFUHGLWV -¶DLPHUD\TXHOFXQTXLPHVoDFKHGHSOXPHUMHG\SDUFODLUWpGHMXJHPHQWHWSDU la seule distinction de la force et beauté des propos. (Essais ± 10 In the case of those reasonings and original ideas which I transplant into my own soil and confound with my own, I sometimes deliberately omit to give the author’s name so as to rein in the temerity of those hasty criticisms which leap WRDWWDFNZULWLQJVRIHYHU\NLQGHVSHFLDOO\UHFHQWZULWLQJVE\PHQVWLOODOLYHDQG LQRXUYXOJDUWRQJXHZKLFKDOORZDQ\RQHWRWDONDERXWWKHPDQGZKLFKVHHPWR FRQYLFWERWKWKHLUFRQFHSWLRQDQGGHVLJQRIEHLQJMXVWDVYXOJDU,ZDQWWKHPWR ÀLFN3OXWDUFK¶VQRVHLQPLVWDNHIRUPLQHDQGWRVFDOGWKHPVHOYHVE\LQVXOWLQJ 6HQHFDLQPH,KDYHWRKLGHP\ZHDNQHVVEHQHDWKWKRVHJUHDWUHSXWDWLRQV ,ZLOOORYHWKHPDQZKRFDQSOXFNRXWP\IHDWKHUV²,PHDQE\WKHSHUVSLFDFLW\ RIKLVMXGJHPHQWDQGE\KLVVKHHUDELOLW\WRGLVWLQJXLVKWKHIRUFHDQGEHDXW\RI the topics. (Complete Essays

Montaigne begins here by displacing the sense of origins. In using the French word inventions, he is following the Ciceronian notion, found in De inventione, of LQYHQWLRQDVD¿QGLQJRUDFRPLQJXSRQ11 The transplantation into another soil, the 10

This passage appears in the posthumous 1595 edition. For elaborations on this tradition and its development, see Derrida, “Psyche: Inventions of the Other” 25–65, and Attridge, The Singularity of Literature Ch. 3. 11

Anonymity in Early Modern England

166

FRQIRXQGLQJRIWKDWZKLFKLVIRXQGLPSOLHVDNLQGRIWUDQVODWLRQKHUHH[SOLFLWO\ LQWRWKHYXOJDULW\RIWKHYHUQDFXODU8QOLNH(UDVPXV0RQWDLJQHVHHPLQJO\ZLVKHV WREULQJGRZQDWWDFNVXSRQKLVRZQKHDGE\DOORZLQJKLVDXWKRUVKLSRIFHUWDLQ ideas to be inferred, but simultaneously also to allow himself to be divested of his UROHDVZULWHU7KHRQHZKRFDQ³SOXFNRXWKLVIHDWKHUV´E\UHFRJQL]LQJRWKHUV¶ LGHDV LQ GHSOXPLQJ KLP DV WKH )UHQFK LQGLFDWHV  DOVR WDNHV KLV SHQ$V -RKQ )ORULR UHQGHUV LW ³, ZLOO ORYH KLP WKDW VKDOO WUDFH RU XQIHDWKHU PH´   ´ The message here in terms of anonymity is apparent. Attribution to one author always involves the dis-attribution of another, of all the others. This remains true even when the “original” author is “anonymous.” Indeed, even this playful connection between the “plume” of authorship and the “plumes” of another’s feathers is not original to Montaigne. In fact, one of Jean GHOD)RQWDLQH¶VSRHPVHQWLWOHG³/H*HDLSDUpGHVSOXPHVGH3DRQ´WDNHVXSWKLV PRWLILQWKHFRQWH[WRISODJLDULVP 7KHUHLVDSOD\RQWKHOLWHUDODQGWKH LGLRPDWLFVXFKWKDWWKHMD\OLWHUDOO\DGRUQVLWVHOILQWKHIHDWKHUVRIWKHSHDFRFN EXWLGLRPDWLFDOO\³WDNHVDOOWKHFUHGLWWRLWVHOI´ZKHUHWKHYHUEparer carries the VHQVHRIWKHDWWULEXWLRQRIVRPHWKLQJWRVRPHRQH0RQWDLJQH¶VODFNRIDWWULEXWLRQ in his use of others’ ideas, coupled with his desire to be deplumed, opens up the question of plagiarism only to present it as a trap for his readers. The motif of the bird decorated with another’s feathers is not, of course, original to Fontaine either. It can be found in Aesop as an image of foolish pride. But the chain of DWWULEXWLRQFRQWLQXHVLWLVKDUGWRVD\DQ\WKLQJRULJLQDODERXWSODJLDULVP,QDQ early modern English version of Aesop’s FablesZKLFKPDNHVWKHELUGLQTXHVWLRQ D&RUQLVKFKRXJKZH¿QGWKLV¿JXUHDWWULEXWHGWR+RUDFH¶VEpistles Y±U  Bringing together these motifs of adornment and plagiarism in a version seemingly independent of Fontaine, in a seventeenth-century English version of Horace we DJDLQ¿QGWKHLPDJHRIWKHSODJLDULVWDQGDJDLQWKHUHIHUHQFHWRWKHFKRXJKUDWKHU WKDQWKHPRUHQRUPDOFURZWDNLQJSULGHLQWKH³WKHIW´RIRWKHUV¶LGHDV Who has been warn’d so oft, and must be more, 7RVHDUFKIRUZLWDQGVHQFHIURPKLVRZQVWRUH $QGOHDYHRIISLOIHUULQJRXWRI%RRNVWKDWEH By others writ, and plac’d i’th’ Library. /HDVWDOOWKHSOXQGHU¶G%LUGVVKRXOGVWRFNWRJHWKHU $QGIURPKLVJDXG\EDFNSOXFNHDFKKLVIHDWKHU $QGKHRIKLVVWROQFRORXUVOLNHWKH&KRXJK 6WDQGVWULSWDQGPDNHDOO6SHFWDWRUVODXJK 12

Reading becomes a trap, in which the writer emerges from the library (in Horace’s WH[WWKHOLEUDU\RIWKHWHPSOHRI$SROORRQWKH3DODWLQH DGRUQHGZLWKDOHDUQLQJ WKDWLVQRWKLVRZQRQO\WREHGLYHVWHGRIKLVERUURZHGFRORXUVDQGPDGHWKHREMHFW RIULGLFXOH/DXJKWHULWVHHPVLVLQWLPDWHO\OLQNHGWRDWWULEXWLRQLQ6KDNHVSHDUH in Erasmus, and again here. 12

This poem is translated by Alexander Brome.

The Ethics of Anonymity

167

Equally, it is hard not to hear echoes of Robert Greene’s castigation of 6KDNHVSHDUHDV³WKHXSVWDUW&URZ´³EHDXWL¿HGZLWKRXUIHDWKHUV´DQGKLVDGYLFH to the “rare wits” to “let those Apes imitate your past excellence, and never more acquaint them with your admired inventions” (Greenes Groats-worth of Witte, bought with a million of repentance)RO)ß 
7KLVTXHVWLRQLVWKH¿QDOVHQWHQFHRIWKHHVVD\³:KDWLVDQ$XWKRU"´

Anonymity in Early Modern England

168

Entirely sensibly, Love concedes that: 7RUHMHFWFHUWDLQUHLJQLQJHSLVWHPRORJLHVDVLUUHOHYDQWWRWKHWDVNVRIDWWULEXWLRQ VWXGLHVLVQRWKRZHYHUWRVWHSEDFNLQWRDSRVLWLYLVWJROGHQDJH%HFDXVHWKHVH epistemologies have come into existence, and have enlarged our sense of the complexity of any socially situated act of writing, it is impossible simply to UHYHUWWRROGHUQDwYHFRQFHSWXDOLVLQJVRIDXWKRULDODJHQF\ 14

In another context, it would be worth pausing over this distinction between reality DQG FRQFHSWMXVW DV LW ZRXOG EH QHFHVVDU\ WR EUHDN GRZQ WKH UDWKHUWRR VLPSOH invocation of “structuralist and poststructuralist epistemologies,” but Love has LGHQWL¿HGDQDUHDWKDWPDUNVDFUXFLDOSRLQWRIFRQWHQWLRQ%ULDQ9LFNHUVLVHTXDOO\ DZDUHRIWKHGLVWLQFWLRQEHWZHHQWKHWZRSURMHFWVVWDWLQJRI)RXFDXOW¶VDXWKRUVKLS essay: “As a model for scholarly research into authorship problems in Renaissance GUDPDLWLVKDUGWRWKLQNRIDQ\WKLQJPRUHLUUHOHYDQWRUPRUHGHVWUXFWLYH´ 15 Relevancy, of course, is always a matter of reading, and it is here that I would ZLVKWRRSHQXSWKHVHQVHRILQGLYLGXDOLW\WKDWLVNH\WRWKDWDWWULEXWLRQLVWSURMHFW in favour of a closer attention to reading itself. My own position with respect to WKLVTXHVWLRQRIWKHSHUWLQHQF\RI)RXFDXOW¶VZRUNWRHDUO\PRGHUQVWXGLHVWKHQLV FORVHUWRWKDWRI/LVD)UHLQNHOZKRFRPPHQWV Ultimately, by foreclosing the twin reference of the author’s name both toward history and beyond history, Foucault’s argument fails to capture the logic of DXWKRUL]DWLRQLWVHOI$XWKRUL]DWLRQ,PDLQWDLQZRUNVWRUHVROYHWKHSUREOHPVRI reference—of, let us say, the time-boundedness of texts—by allowing readers WRIRUJHDOLQNEHWZHHQKLVWRU\DQGLWVEH\RQG,QKLVWUHDWPHQWRIWKHDXWKRU function, Foucault loses sight of the reader’s function. He loses sight, that is to say, of reading as DXWKRUL]DWLRQDVWKDWDFWLYLW\DFFRUGLQJWRZKLFKHPSLULFDO EHJLQQLQJVDUH\RNHGWRWUDQVFHQGHQWHQGV[YL

,W LV WKLV TXHVWLRQ RI UHDGLQJ DV DXWKRUL]DWLRQ DQG RI WKH SULQFLSOHV ZKLFK seemingly inform such readings (and upon which depends their own authority as UHDGLQJV WKDWVKRXOGJLYHXVSDXVHLQWKHFRQWH[WRIWKHDWWULEXWLRQRIIRUPHUO\ anonymous texts.

14

/DWHULQWKHERRN/RYHFRQFHGHVWKDW³WKHDWWULEXWLRQLVW¶VEXVLQHVVLVQHYHUUHDOO\ with individuality as such but with the less problematical category of identity. Identity is what we are able to construct from the data available in the anonymous or pseudonymous ZRUN DQG WKRVH RI WKH FDQGLGDWHV «$WWULEXWLRQ VWXGLHV LV SUREDEO\ ZLVH QRW WR SXUVXH [a writer’s individuality] too intently but to be content with the lesser achievement of FDWDORJXLQJWKHGHULYDWLYHVWKDWPDUNSDUWLFXODULQGLYLGXDOLWLHV1RQHWKHOHVVLWZLOOGRLWQR KDUPWRDFNQRZOHGJHWKDWLWVQHFHVVDULO\SURVDLFGHOLEHUDWLRQVWDNHSODFHLQWKHVKDGRZRI HQRUPRXVP\VWHULHV´  15 )RUDPRUHPHDVXUHGDFFRXQWLQRXUFRQWH[WVHH5REHUW-*ULI¿Q³,QWURGXFWLRQ´

The Ethics of Anonymity

169

,QWU\LQJWRWKLQNDERXWZKDWKDSSHQVLQSURFHVVHVRIDVFULSWLRQLWLVKHOSIXO to consider the concept or quasi-concept of the signature.16 Much seems to rest on WKHSUHVHQFHRIWKHVLJQDWXUHLQRURQDWH[WEXWWKLVDWWHPSWWRPDNHWKHDXWKRU manifest is not necessarily the most helpful way to approach early modern texts. As Stephen Orgel puts it: We assume […] that the authority of a text derives from the author. Selfevident as it may appear, I suggest that this proposition is not true: in the case of Renaissance dramatic texts it is almost never true, and in the case of non-dramatic WH[WVLWLVWUXHUDWKHUOHVVRIWHQWKDQZHWKLQNThe Authentic Shakespeare and Other Problems of the Early Modern Stage 

Signatures have, however, been pressed into service by attributionists for at least a century. For example, Edward Maunde Thompson’s attempt to identify Hand D in the manuscript of Sir Thomas MoreFHQWUHVXSRQDFRPSDULVRQZLWK6KDNHVSHDUH¶V ³NQRZQ´ VLJQDWXUHV RQ OHJDO GRFXPHQWV ± 17 Thompson’s efforts are representative of an ongoing debate about this play, but rather than simply adding WRWKLVODUJHO\RYHUZRUNHGDUHD,ZRXOGOLNHWRUDLVHVRPHTXHVWLRQVDERXWWKH principles which guide so much of this debate. For example, that it should largely EHWKHVLJQDWXUHVRQ6KDNHVSHDUH¶VZLOOWKDWJURXQG7KRPSVRQ¶VDWWULEXWLRQVHHPV SDUWLFXODUO\ WHOOLQJ VLQFH WKH VLJQDWXUH RQ D ZLOO LV SUHFLVHO\ WKDW ZKLFK PDUNV the absence as much as the presence of the one who signs. While the signature PDUNVDGHVLUHWRFRQWUROWKLVDEVHQFHLWFDQQRWJXDUDQWHHSUHVHQFH7KHVLJQDWXUH SHUIRUPVRQO\DIWHUGHDWKXQWLOWKHVLJQDWRU\GLHVWKHZLOOKDVQROHJDOIRUFHZKLFK could be acted upon, and there is always the possibility of substituting another ZLOODXWKRUL]HGE\DVLJQDWXUHZKLFKLVWKHVDPHEXWFUXFLDOO\GLIIHUHQW18 In this respect the performative dimension of the signature might be compared to that of the promise, in that there is always the possibility of a future failure to deliver that ZKLFKVHHPVWREHRIIHUHGLQWKHDFWRIVLJQLQJ5REVRQ³6KDNHVSHDUH¶V:RUGVRI WKH)XWXUH´±  7KHUH DUH DGGLWLRQDOO\ VRPH HPSLULFDO GLI¿FXOWLHV SDUWLFXODU WR WKLV FDVH ::*UHJFDPHGRZQLQIDYRXURI7KRPSVRQ¶VDWWULEXWLRQWR6KDNHVSHDUHEXW 16 In the most sustained account of early modern anonymity, Marcy L. North also notes the pertinence of the signature here. See her The Anonymous Renaissance 21–3 and ³5HKHDUVLQJ WKH$EVHQW 1DPH´ ± )RU D UDWKHU GLIIHUHQW WDNH RQ WKH VLJQDWXUH ZLWK respect to literature, see Forster: “all literature tends towards a condition of anonymity, […] VRIDUDVZRUGVDUHFUHDWLYHDVLJQDWXUHPHUHO\GLVWUDFWVXVIURPWKHLUWUXHVLJQL¿FDQFH, do not say literature ‘ought’ not to be signed, because literature is alive, and consequently ‘ought’ is the wrong word to use. It wants not to be signed. That puts my point. It is always WXJJLQJLQWKDWGLUHFWLRQDQGVD\LQJLQHIIHFWµ,QRWP\DXWKRUH[LVWUHDOO\¶´  17 9LFNHUVDOVRWUHDWVWKLVSOD\6HHHVSHFLDOO\±±±± 18 7KHGHEDWHVRQ6KDNHVSHDUH¶VDXWKRUVKLSSDUDOOHOWKHQXPHURXV³DQWL6WUDWIRUGLDQ´ claims. Nicholas Royle reads aspects of this question, centering on Freud’s interest in the matter, in relation to deconstructive notions of naming and signature that intersect with my reading of Sir Thomas More. See Royle 85–123.

Anonymity in Early Modern England

170

QRW EHIRUH PDNLQJ D WURXEOLQJ VXJJHVWLRQ ³2Q SXUHO\ SDODHRJUDSKLFDO JURXQGV there is less reason to suppose that all six signatures [on the legal documents] were written by the same hand than there is, granting this identity, to suppose that the hand of the signatures also wrote the addition to More  ´$V we saw in the passage from Twelfth Night, handwriting does not necessarily offer VHFXULW\DQGFHUWDLQW\RIDWWULEXWLRQ5DWKHUWKDQSRVLWLQJ6KDNHVSHDUHWKHDXWKRU DVDXQL¿HGKRUL]RQRISRVVLEOHDXWKRULW\DJDLQVWZKLFKWKHWH[WPLJKWEHMXGJHG Greg here suggests a division at the origin, in a series of signatures which cannot XQSUREOHPDWLFDOO\EHXVHGWRJLYHDSRVLWLYHLGHQWL¿FDWLRQRIDVLQJXODULGHQWLW\$V 'DYLG6FRWW.DVWDQKDVSRLQWHGRXWPXFKPRUHUHFHQWO\LI+DQG'LVLQGHHGWKDW RI6KDNHVSHDUHWKHQLWJLYHVXVDJOLPSVHQRWRI6KDNHVSHDUHDVXQLTXHDXWKRUEXW RI6KDNHVSHDUHDVFROODERUDWRU  :KDWVHHPVLPSRUWDQWWRVWUHVVLVWKDWWKHVHSURFHVVHVRIDWWULEXWLRQOLNHWKH texts that are inscribed by them, demand reading. As a modality of the signature, the act of subscription opens itself to the countersignature of an act of reading, and therefore to an encounter with the other.19 This encounter might then be questioned from the perspective of ethics. What I am really arguing, then, is for an extension of the use of the signature in GLVFXVVLRQVRIDQRQ\PLW\ZKLFKLVDOUHDG\DSSDUHQWZLWKLQ0DUF\1RUWK¶VZRUN  LQWRWKHDUHDRIWKHFRXQWHUVLJQDWXUHWKLQNLQJRIUHDGLQJLWVHOIVHHQDVDIRUPRI countersignature. An anonymous text might thus be thought of as the “withoutVLJQDWXUH´LQZKLFKWKHXQVLJQHGLV¿JXUHGLQWHUPVRIDQDWWLWXGHWRZDUGVWKH XQNQRZQ WKDW UHWDLQV WKH SRVVLELOLW\ RI DQ HWKLFDO UHODWLRQ20 But by calling this WKH³ZLWKRXWVLJQDWXUH´,DPRIFRXUVHQRWWDNLQJLQWRDFFRXQWWKHIXOOUDQJHRI possibilities for what might be counted as a signature, and it was this multiple sense of signature to which I alluded in the opening discussion of Malvolio’s SUDFWLFHRIDWWULEXWLRQWKLQNLQJRIKDQGLGLRPDQGDXWKRUL]DWLRQDVLQWKHVHDO  3HJJ\.DPXIIROORZLQJ'HUULGD¶VZRUNRQWKHVLJQDWXUHSURSRVHV $VLJQDWXUHLVQRWDQDPHDWPRVWLWLVDSLHFHRIDQDPHLWVFLWDWLRQDFFRUGLQJ to certain rules. But neither is it simply a piece of common language that FDQEHSLFNHGXSDQGXVHGE\MXVWDQ\RQHWRDQ\SXUSRVH>«@$VDSLHFHRI proper name, the signature points, at one extremity, to a properly unnameable VLQJXODULW\DVDSLHFHRIODQJXDJHWKHVLJQDWXUHWRXFKHVDWLWVRWKHUH[WUHPLW\RQ 19

This necessarily schematic account of the signature is, of course, based upon the ZRUN RI -DFTXHV 'HUULGD 'HUULGD UHFRJQLVHV WKDW WKH ³FRQFHSW´ RI WKH VLJQDWXUH FDQQRW be understood simply as an act of writing one’s name, although it is in part precisely this. 6HHPRVWREYLRXVO\LQ'HUULGD¶VZRUN³6LJQDWXUH(YHQW&RQWH[W´±)RU'HUULGD¶V account of the modalities of the signature, see Signéponge/Signsponge 52–4. Reading, as Geoffrey Bennington suggests, might best be thought of as “a relation of signature and FRXQWHUVLJQDWXUH´  20 7KH IROORZLQJ SRLQWV RQ HWKLFV DQG WKH XQNQRZQ DUH HODERUDWHG LQ P\ DV \HW unpublished paper: “Stranger: The Ethics of Reading The Tempest,” which was presented DWWKHFRQIHUHQFHRIWKH%ULWLVK6KDNHVSHDUH$VVRFLDWLRQ

The Ethics of Anonymity

171

WKHVSDFHRIIUHHVXEVWLWXWLRQZLWKRXWSURSHUUHIHUHQFH$WWKHHGJHRIWKHZRUN the dividing trait of the signature pulls in both directions at once: appropriating the text under the sign of the name, expropriating the name into the play of WKHWH[W7KHXQGHFLGDEOHWUDLWRIWKHVLJQDWXUHPXVWIDOOLQWRWKHFUDFNRIWKH KLVWRULFLVWIRUPDOLVWRSSRVLWLRQRUJDQL]LQJPRVWGLVFRXUVHVDERXWOLWHUDWXUH,WV FDVHLVWKDWRIWKHUHVWZKLFKUHPDLQVXQFODVVL¿HGE\HLWKHUGHWHUPLQDWLRQVRI DJHQF\ ELRJUDSKLFDO KLVWRULFDO SROLWLFDO HFRQRPLFDO  RU GHWHUPLQDWLRQV RI formal, arbitrary structures of language. (Signature Pieces: On the Institution of Authorship±

The signature is neither simply inside nor outside the text. To ascribe a signature to a text is not simply to place a name on the title-page. As Erasmus notes, this is DOOWRRHDV\EXWLWVFRQVHTXHQFHVDUHIDUIURPWULYLDO$WWULEXWLRQPXVWDOVRWDNH account of what we might otherwise see as “formal” features, as a matter of style RULGLRP(UDVPXVVXJJHVWVWKDWZKHQKHWKLQNVRIVW\OHKHGRHVQRWPHDQE\ WKLV³VLPSO\WKHVXUIDFHRIODQJXDJHWKHVNLQDVLWZHUHRUYHQHHURIZRUGVRURI ¿JXUHVSUHVHQWLQZRUGV´EXWLQVWHDGXQGHUVWDQGVWKDW Plurimas res pariter complectit stili vocabulum, sermonis habitum, et dictionis TXDVL¿OXP¿JXUDVFRQVLOLXPLXGLFLXPDUJXPHQWDWLRQLVJHQXVLQYHQWLRQHP WUDFWDWLRQHP DIIHFWXV HW ȒșȠȢ TXDH JUDHFL YRFDQW DWTXH LQ VLQJXOLV KRUXP mille discrimina, nempe, non pauciora quam sunt ingeniorum, profecto totidem differentiae sunt, quot ipsi sunt homines. The term style comprehends all at once a multiplicity of things—manner in ODQJXDJHDQGGLFWLRQWH[WXUHVRWRVSHDNDQGIXUWKHUWKRXJKWDQGMXGJPHQW line of argumentation, inventive power, control of material, emotion, and what WKH*UHHNVFDOOȒșȠȢ>ƝWKRV@²DQGZLWKLQHDFKRQHRIWKHVHQRWLRQVDSURIXVLRQ of shadings, no fewer, to be sure, than the differences in talent, which are as numerous as men themselves. (Collected Works

In a moment, I want to move from Erasmus’s invocation of ethos—that is, custom or habit—towards ethics. If anonymity is thought of as a radical sense of the unsigned or the unassigned, then the attribution of authorship may be read as an attempt to sign in the place of the author, to correct an oversight on the part of the author, to restore to the text an authority that has somehow been mislaid.21 Even the “absent-minded” author who has “forgotten” to sign a text might become present through such an assignation. In IDFWLWLVDVLIWKHUHZHUHVRPHWKLQJVXVSLFLRXVDERXWWKHDQRQ\PRXVZRUN-XVWDVD cheque will bounce if one forgets to sign or date it, so a text is seen to be invalid unless it carries a name. The temptation to try to remove this anxiety by supplying a name is VHHPLQJO\LPSHOOHGE\WKHORJLFRIWKHTXRWDWLRQIURP1LHW]VFKHWKDW,FLWHGHDUOLHU any attribution is better than none. Effectively, all attribution seems to contain an 21 On this and other desires to locate something beyond the “mere” text, see the title essay in Orgel’s The Authentic Shakespeare 231–56.

Anonymity in Early Modern England

172

element of forgery, of signing on behalf of another. As such, it is an act of substitution as much as restitution. An attributionist might then feel moved to say: “I began with WKHGHVLUHWRVSHDNfor the dead.” In this semi-parody of Stephen Greenblatt’s resonant SKUDVH,DPVWLOOWU\LQJWRPDNHDVHULRXVSRLQWVLQFHLWLVLPSRUWDQWQRWWRIRUJHWWKH KRQHVW\ZLWKZKLFK*UHHQEODWWTXLFNO\DGPLWVWKDWKHFDPHWRXQGHUVWDQGWKDWDOOKH FRXOGKHDULQKLVGHVLUHWRVSHDNZLWKWKHGHDGZDVKLVRZQYRLFH 7KLVPLJKWLPSO\WKDWFULWLFVVKRXOGVLPSO\OHDYHDVSDFHIRUWKHXQNQRZQEXW ,DPQRWDUJXLQJIRUDNLQGRISULQFLSOHGLJQRUDQFHLQZKLFKRQHPLJKWGHFLGH to leave certain questions unexamined. What I am instead referring to is a debate H[HPSOL¿HG LQ 0DXULFH %ODQFKRW¶V ³&RQQDLVVDQFH GH O¶LQFRQQX >.QRZOHGJH RI WKH8QNQRZQ@´LQZKLFKKHDGGUHVVHVWKHZRUNRI(PPDQXHO/pYLQDV± WUDQV± %ODQFKRWIROORZV/pYLQDVLQRSHQLQJXSWKHTXHVWLRQRIWUDQVFHQGHQFH LQGH¿QLQJWKHUHODWLRQEHWZHHQ6HOIDQG2WKHU7KHUHDUHWKUHHEDVLFSRVLWLRQVDW VWDNH)LUVWO\WKHUHLVDQDSSURSULDWLYHUHODWLRQLQZKLFKWKH2WKHULVLQFRUSRUDWHG E\WKH6HOI6HFRQGO\%ODQFKRWLGHQWL¿HVD³IXVLRQDO´UHODWLRQLQZKLFKDIRUP of equality between Self and Other leads both into a simultaneous loss and preservation, in which neither remains what it was. Thirdly, there is what Lévinas and Blanchot would call the ethical relation. In 7RWDOLWpHWLQ¿QL Lévinas proposes that this third relation allows the Other to remain beyond both appropriation and fusion. The Other is not Other because he is different from me, he suggests, since that would imply the existence of a common category or genus that would allow for such a comparison to be made. The assertion of such a categorical community ZRXOG DOZD\V UXQ WKH ULVN RI QXOOLI\LQJ WKH DOWHULW\ RI WKH 2WKHU ,QVWHDG SURSRVHV/pYLQDV³$XWUXLGHPHXUHLQ¿QLPHQWWUDQVFHQGDQWLQ¿QLPHQWpWUDQJHU >7KH2WKHUUHPDLQVLQ¿QLWHO\WUDQVFHQGHQWLQ¿QLWHO\IRUHLJQ@¶¶WUDQV  What Lingis rightly translates as “foreign” in the standard English version of this text—“étranger”—also contains a trace of strangeness, or of the stranger. In Lévinas’s elaboration of this ethical relation, of what Blanchot chooses to FDOO WKH 8QNQRZQ WKH HWKLFDO GRHV QRW VHW XS DQ RSSRVLWLRQ RI NQRZOHGJH DQG QRQNQRZOHGJHEXWLQVWHDGJHVWXUHVWRZDUGVWKDWWUDQVFHQGHQFHWKDWFDQQRWEHDQ REMHFWRINQRZOHGJH)RU/pYLQDVWKHSURSHUQDPHIRUWKLVWUDQVFHQGHQFHLV*RG Blanchot, however, refuses this theological move, insisting that any such absolute alterity be located in the sphere of the social relation.22 Transcending appropriation DQG IXVLRQ IRU %ODQFKRW WKH 8QNQRZQ PDUNV D KXPDQ ¿QLWH UHODWLRQ ZLWKRXW UHODWLRQ$Q HWKLFDO UHDGLQJ HQWHUV LQWR WKLV UHODWLRQ DV D IRUP RI DXWKRUL]DWLRQ WKLQNLQJ RI WKDW WHUP LQ WKH ZD\ WKDW /LVD )UHLQNHO VXJJHVWV  PDNLQJ SRVVLEOH WKHPRYHPHQWIURPHPSLULFLVPWRWUDQVFHQGHQFHZLWKRXWVDFUL¿FLQJWKHLQ¿QLWH WUDQVFHQGHQFHRIWKH2WKHU6XFKDXWKRUL]DWLRQZKLFKZHPLJKWWKLQNRIDVDNLQG RIFRXQWHUVLJQDWXUHFDQQRWEHVDWLV¿HGZLWKLQVFULELQJLWVHOIWKURXJKDVFULSWLRQ ZLWKRXW DW WKH VDPH WLPH UHFRJQL]LQJ WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK LW LV DOZD\V DOUHDG\ in relation to that which it has not constituted, indeed, to that which it could not constitute. 22

See Leslie Hill, Blanchot: Extreme Contemporary 169–78.

The Ethics of Anonymity

173

,Q WDNLQJ IRUZDUG WKH TXHVWLRQ RI DWWULEXWLRQ DV DVFULSWLRQ ZH PXVW ZRUN WRZDUGVDZD\RIWKLQNLQJDERXWDQRQ\PLW\WKDWZRXOGDOORZXVWRWDNHDFFRXQWRI this relation without relation, but without immediately domesticating it as another principle of explanation within a critical economy. This is why the capacity for the texts of the past to be “surprisingly strange” is so crucial, and why it is equally crucial for that strangeness to be maintained rather than explained or explained away. Such strangeness should not be too easily attributed to someone or something. ,QVKRUWLIWKHVWUDQJHQHVVRIWH[WXDODQRQ\PLW\LVWREHUHFRJQL]HGZLWKRXWEHLQJ LPPHGLDWHO\QHXWUDOL]HGLWLVQHFHVVDU\WRHVWDEOLVKDQHWKLFVRIDQRQ\PLW\ Works Cited Aesop. Esops Eables [sic], Translated grammatically, and also in propriety of our (QJOLVKSKDUDVHDQGHYHU\ZD\LQVXFKVRUWDVPD\EHHPRVWSUR¿WDEOHIRU the grammar-schoole. London: H.L. for Thomas Man, 1617. $WWULGJH'HUHNThe Singularity of Literature. London: Routledge, 2004. Bennington, Geoffrey. “Derridabase.” Bennington and Derrida. Jacques Derrida. Trans. Bennington. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1993. Blanchot, Maurice. “Connaissance de l’inconnu.” /¶(QWUHWLHQ LQ¿QL. Paris: Gallimard, 1969. ______. 7KH ,Q¿QLWH &RQYHUVDWLRQ. Trans. Susan Hanson. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1993. Castiglione, Baldesar. Il libro del cortegiano. Ed. Vittorio Cian. Florence: Sansoni, 1947. Derrida, Jacques. De la grammatologie. Paris: Editions de Minuit, 1967. ———. Of Grammatology7UDQV*D\DWUL&KDNUDYRUW\6SLYDN%DOWLPRUH-RKQV +RSNLQV83 ______. “Psyche: Inventions of the Other.” Trans. Catherine Porter. Reading de Man Reading. (G /LQGVD\ :DWHUV DQG :ODG *RG]LFK 0LQQHDSROLV 8 RI Minnesota P, 1989. 25–65. ______. “Signature Event Context.” Writing and Difference. Trans. Alan Bass. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1978. ______. Signéponge/Signsponge. Trans. Richard Rand [dual language edition]. 1HZ
174

Anonymity in Early Modern England

Foucault, Michel. “What is an Author?” The Foucault Reader. Ed. Paul Rabinow. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1984. 101–20. )UHLQNHO/LVD5HDGLQJ6KDNHVSHDUH¶V:LOO7KH7KHRORJ\RI¿JXUHIURP$XJXVWLQH to the Sonnets. 1HZ
The Ethics of Anonymity

175

North, Marcy L. The Anonymous Renaissance: Cultures of Discretion in TudorStuart England. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2003. BBBBBB³5HKHDUVLQJWKH$EVHQW1DPH5HDGLQJ6KDNHVSHDUH¶V6RQQHWV7KURXJK Anonymity.” The Faces of Anonymity. (G*ULI¿Q± Orgel, Stephen. The Authentic Shakespeare and Other Problems of the Early Modern Stage. London: Routledge, 2002. 5REVRQ0DUNThe Sense of Early Modern Writing: Rhetoric, Poetics, Aesthetics. Manchester: Manchester UP, 2006. BBBBBB ³6KDNHVSHDUH¶V :RUGV RI WKH )XWXUH 3URPLVLQJ Richard III.” Textual Practice  ± Royle, Nicholas. After Derrida. Manchester: Manchester UP, 1995. 6KDNHVSHDUH :LOOLDP The Arden Shakespeare Complete Works. Ed. Richard 3URXGIRRW $QQ 7KRPSVRQ DQG 'DYLG .DVWDQ 5HY HG /RQGRQ 7KRPVRQ 2001. Thompson, E. Maunde. “The Handwriting of the three Pages Attributed to 6KDNHVSHDUH&RPSDUHGZLWKKLV6LJQDWXUHV´Shakespeare’s Hand in the Play of Sir Thomas More. Ed. Alfred W. Pollard. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1923. 57–112. 9LFNHUV%ULDQShakespeare, Co-Author: A Historical Study of Five Collaborative Plays. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2002.

This page has been left blank intentionally

6HOHFW:RUNV&LWHG Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author.” Image—Music—Text 1HZ
178

Anonymity in Early Modern England

²²²³:RUNLQJZLWK$QRQ\PLW\$7KHRU\RI7KHRU\YV$UFKLYH´Literature Compass  ± +DODV]$OH[DQGUDThe Marketplace of Print Pamphlets and the Public Sphere in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997. +DUYH\ (OL]DEHWK ' Ventriloquized Voices: Feminist Theory and English Renaissance Texts. London: Routledge, 1992. Hirschfeld, Heather. “Early Modern Collaboration and Theories of Authorship.” PMLA ± -DJRG]LQVNL&HFLOH0Privacy and Print: Reading and Writing in SeventeenthCentury England. Charlottesville: UP of Virginia, 1999. .DPXI3HJJ\Signature Pieces: On the Institution of Authorship. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1988. .LQWJHQ(XJHQH5Reading in Tudor England. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh P, 1996. Lander, Jesse M. “Martin Marprelate and the Fugitive Text.” Inventing Polemic: Religion, Print, and Literary Culture in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006. Love, Harold. Attributing Authorship: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002. ———. Scribal Publication in Seventeenth-Century England. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. Marotti, Arthur. “Malleable and Fixed Texts: Manuscript and Printed Miscellanies and the Transmission of Lyric Poetry in the English Renaissance.” New Ways of Looking at Old Texts: Papers of the Renaissance English Text Society, 1985–1991. (G:6SHHG+LOO%LQJKDPWRQ0HGLHYDO 5HQDLVVDQFH7H[WV  6WXGLHVLQ&RQMXQFWLRQZLWK5HQDLVVDQFH(QJOLVK7H[W6RFLHW\± ———. Manuscript, Print, and the English Renaissance Lyric. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1995. 0HQW] 6WHYH ³)RUPLQJ *UHHQH 7KHRUL]LQJ WKH (DUO\ 0RGHUQ $XWKRU LQ A Groatsworth of Wit.” Writing Robert Greene. (G.LUN0HOQLNRIIDQG(GZDUG *LHVNHV$OGHUVKRW$VKJDWH Mullan, John. Anonymity: A Secret History of English Literature. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2007. North, Marcy L. The Anonymous Renaissance: Cultures of Discretion in TudorStuart England. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2003. Pebworth, Ted-Larry. “John Donne, Coterie Poetry, and the Text as Performance.” SEL, 1500–1900  ± 3XUNLVV 'LDQQH ³0DWHULDO *LUOV 7KH 6HYHQWHHQWK&HQWXU\ :RPDQ 'HEDWH´ Women, Texts and Histories 1575–1760(G&ODUH%UDQWDQG'LDQQH3XUNLVV London: Routledge, 1992. 69–101. Roberts, Josephine A. “The Phallacies of Authorship: Reconstructing the Texts of Early Modern Women Writers.” Attending to Early Modern Women. Ed. Susan '$PXVVHQDQG$GHOH6HHII1HZDUN8RI'HODZDUH3± Roberts, Sasha. Reading Shakespeare’s Poems in Early Modern England. %DVLQJVWRNH3DOJUDYH0DFPLOODQ

Select Works Cited

179

5REVRQ0DUNThe Sense of Early Modern Writing: Rhetoric, Poetics, Aesthetics. Manchester: Manchester UP, 2006. Sherman, William H. John Dee: The Politics of Reading and Writing in the English Renaissance. Amherst: U of Massachusetts P, 1995. Smyth, Adam. “Recycling Satire in the Mid-Seventeenth Century.” Huntington Library Quarterly ± Sullivan, Ernest W., II. “The Renaissance Manuscript Verse Miscellany: Private Party Private Text.” New Ways of Looking at Old Texts: Papers of the Renaissance English Text Society, 1985–1991. Ed. W. Speed Hill. Binghamton: 0HGLHYDO  5HQDLVVDQFH 7H[WV  6WXGLHV LQ &RQMXQFWLRQ ZLWK 5HQDLVVDQFH English Text Society, 1993. 289–97. 9LFNHUV%ULDQShakespeare, Co-Author: A Historical Study of Five Collaborative Plays. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2002. Wayne, Valerie. “The Dearth of the Author: Anonymity’s Allies and Swetnam the Woman-Hater.” Maids and Mistresses, Cousins and Queens: Women’s Alliances in Early Modern England. Ed. Susan )U\H DQG .DUHQ 5REHUWVRQ Oxford: Oxford UP, 1999. 221–40. Woodbridge, Linda. Women and the English Renaissance: Literature and the Nature of Womankind, 1540–1620. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1984. Woudhuysen, H.R. Sir Philip Sidney and the Circulation of Manuscripts, 1558–16401HZ
This page has been left blank intentionally

Index

Abrams, Richard 100n Abrams, William 102 Aesop’s Fables 166 agency 9, 137–8, 167 Almond, Philip C. 104n Anatomy of Melancholy, The %XUWRQ  130, 135 anonymity 4–6, 13, 27, 33–5, 37, 38, 57, 85, 100, 103, 130–31, 135–8, 145, 156–7, 159, 161, 166 of contemporary texts 1, 129 GH¿QLWLRQRI8 in eighteenth and nineteenth centuries 6 in electronic spaces 2 of epitaphs and libels 16–17, 19, 25, 27, 38 ethics of 10, 159, 170–73 as protection 39 RI6KDNHVSHDUH144, 167, 170–71, 173 strategies of 8–9, 15–16, 18, 26, 30, 36, 38, 85, 103, 136 Anonymous 2, 5, 10, 84–5, 95, 100, 118, 129, 131–7, 166 anti-libel 16, 26–31, 33–5, 37–8 trials in Star Chamber 27 anti-Stratfordians 10, 144–52, 156–7, 169n Aquinas, Thomas 49 Araignment of lewde, idle, froward … Women, The 6ZHWQDP 113–21, 123–4, 126, 136 Tel-Troth as author of 115, 123 Arden of Faversham $QRQ\PRXV 84, 86, 95 Ascham, Roger 47 attribution 2, 4, 7, 9–10, 13, 16, 36, 38–9, 69, 99, 100n, 103, 114–15, 119, 122, 126, 148, 152, 160–61, 163–4, 166, 168, 170–73 reasons for 83 attribution studies 2–3, 13–14, 83, 167, 168n $WWULGJH'HUHN165n

audience, early modern 101–4, 107, 109–10, 134 author 8, 44, 46, 84–5, 99, 114, 124, 126, 130, 148, 156, 169 death of 2, 4, 84, 130, 167 professional 7–8 author function 3, 84, 87, 90 authorship 2, 6, 10, 25, 27, 110, 148, 156, 163–4, 166, 171 debate 144, 161, 163, 167 early modern 14, 27, 30 Bacon, Delia 148–51 Bacon, Francis 48, 148–51 Baconianism 148–51 Barroll, J. Leeds 100n Barthes, Roland 2, 130, 167 Beal, Peter 22, 66–7 Beaumont, Francis 17, 24 Bell, Robert 68 Bellany, Alistair 15, 17, 25–8, 30–31, 33 Bennett, Nicola 103 Bennington, Geoffrey 170n Berger, Harry 87n Bevington, David 89–90 Birth of Merlin, The 5RZOH\ 103 Blanchot, Maurice 172 Blundeville, Thomas 47 Blunt, Edward 133 ERRNKLVWRU\14, 101 Boyer, Norman P. 102n Brewer, John 6 Bristol, Michael 103n %URRNH&)7XFNHU99–102 Browne, Sir Richard 63n, 71 Browne, William 19 Bruch, Atherton 20 Bullough, Bonnie 132n Bullough, Vern 132n Burton, Robert 130, 135 Butler, Judith 132

182

Anonymity in Early Modern England

Caciola, Nancy 105n Camden’s Remains 24–5 Cardenio $QRQ\PRXV 83 Carlson, David 52 Carr, Robert 25 Carroll, D. Allen 144n, 153–4 Cartelli, Thomas 9, 83–97 Castiglione, Balthasar 162 Cecil, Robert 89–90, 135 censorship 86, 89 Chamberlain, John 136 &KDPEHUV(.100 Chapman, George 134, 137n Charles I 60–61, 102 trip to Spain 16, 26, 28 Charron, Pierre de 133 &KHQH\3DWULFN84 Chettle, Henry 144, 152–6 chirographic 68, 69 Christ Church College, Oxford 35–8 Church of England 44, 56, 61 &KXUFKRI5RPH&DWKROLF&KXUFK 56, 61–2, 163 Civile Conuersation *XD]]RWUDQV 3HWWLH 117 Clare, Janet 90n &ODUN6DQGUD132n &ODUN6WXDUW105n Clifford, Lady Anne 134 collaboration 4 collaborative authorship 86, 170 FRPPRQSODFHERRNV19–20, 47, 68n, 70, 73, 76 commonplace collection 19, 24 compiler 25, 38, 44–6, 48–9, 53–4, 56–8, 60, 62–3, 66, 68–9 composite manuscript 58n, 75 FRQGXFWERRN117 conversation among plays 9, 86–7, 104, 110 Coote, Edmund 46, 55n copyright law 7 Corbett, Richard 17, 19, 23n, 26, 28–31, 33–9, 66 Courtier’s Library, The 'RQQH 135 Cowley, Abraham 62 Cowper, William 65 Crandall, Coryl 114n Crane, Mary Thomas 19

Croft, Pauline 15, 27, 28n cross-dressing 129, 131, 135–8 custom 131–8 Daniel, Samuel 134 Danner, Bruce 9, 143–58 Davies, John 22 GH9HUH(GPXQG(DUORI2[IRUG 146 death 19, 24–5see also “author, death of” 'HNNHU7KRPDV84 Derrida, Jacques 164n, 165n, 170 devil 102–5, 107–10 Devil is an Ass, The -RQVRQ 102, 109–10 Devil in 109–10 )LW]'RWWUHOOLQ109 Iniquity in 110 Pug in 109–10 Doctor Faustus 0DUORZH 103, 105–8, 110 Faustus in 104, 107–8, 110 Mephistophilis in 104, 107–8 Doelman, James 17 Dollimore, Jonathan 132n, 136 Donne, John 37, 45n, 67, 134–5 double-pointing 50 Dowden, Edward 148–9 Drayton, Michael 134 Droeshout, Martin 144 Dryden, John 103 'XFKHVVRI0DO¿, The :HEVWHU 96 Dutton, Richard 89 Edmund Ironside $QRQ\PRXV 83 Edward II 50, 54 Edward II0DUORZH 86–7, 91, 93–4 Edward III 6KDNHVSHDUH" 99–100 Egan, Michael 88 elegy 15–17, 19–20, 22, 24, 74 (OL]DEHWK,86, 89 English Schoole-Master, The&RRWH 46 epigram 49, 53, 62 satiric 17 epitaph 9, 14–16, 18–20, 22–25 on children 22–3 on Mary Villiers 23 PRFN21, 27, 39, 62, 65, 74 RQWKHEHOORZVPDNHU22 RQ0U3ULFN21–2 on Mr. Stone 21–2 on Penelope Devereux Rich 21, 24

Index on Prince Henry 18, 23 RQ6KDNHVSHDUH24–5 equivocation 9, 45, 53, 55–6, 60, 62–4, 66–8 Erasmus, Desiderius 161–2, 164–6, 171 Erne, Lucas 84, 153n Esler, Anthony 84n, 96n Essex, Earl of 89–90 Euphues /\O\ 116 Eversden, George 68 exorcism 104 (]HOO0DUJDUHW60n, 76 Fair Em $QRQ\PRXV 100 Family of Love, The $QRQ\PRXV 83 Famous Victories of Henry V, The $QRQ\PRXV 86 Felton, John 16, 26 )LQNHOSHDUO3KLOLS-136 )LUVW)ROLR6KDNHVSHDUH 144, 147 Fletcher, John 83 Florio, John 133–5, 166 Fontaine, Jean de la 166 Foreste, The 0H[LDWUDQV)RUWHVFXH 117 formalism 8, 101 Forster, E.M. 169n Fortescue, Thomas 117 Foster, Donald 3, 5, 100n Foucault, Michel 2–3, 84–5, 118–19, 138, 144, 148, 167–8 Fox, Adam 15, 25, 27–8 Frame, Donald 132, 134n )UHLQNHO/LVD168, 172 Freud, Sigmund 146–7, 169n, Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay*UHHQH  103, 107–8 Friar Bacon in 107–8 Margaret in 107 Miles in 107–8 Roland Lacy in 107 *DUEHU0DUMRULH145–8, 151, 161 Gay, Peter 146–7 gender 131–2, 136, 138 Genette, Gerard 55 Gordon, Andrew 27 Gough, Melinda J. 113n Grady, Hugh 133 Greenblatt, Stephen 153–6, 172

183

Greene, Robert 103, 107n, 144, 152–4, 167 Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit 144, 152–4, 156 Greg, W.W. 169–70 *ULI¿Q5REHUW-5–7, 159, 162, 168n *XD]]R6WHIDQR117–18 Gustaphus Adolphus 20 Haec Vir $QRQ\PRXV 129–31, 133–6, 138 +DODV]$OH[DQGUD130 Hall, Stuart 137n Hamlet 6KDNHVSHDUH 130, 135, 143, 152 handwriting 57, 60, 75, 144, 160, 170 italic and secretary 58–60, 71–2, 74–5, 77–8 Harrington, Lady Anne 134 Harrington, Sir John 49–53, 66 +DUYH\(OL]DEHWK113n, 132n Hayward, John 86 Heertum, F.W. van 118 +HQU\,9KLVW 86 2 Henry VI 6KDNHVSHDUH 86–7 'XNH+XPSKUH\LQ95 -DFN&DGHLQ87 Heptameron of Ciuill Discourses :KHWVWRQH 118 Heywood, Thomas 130 Hic Mulier $QRQ\PRXV 129, 131, 136, 138 +LHDWW$.HQW100n Hill, Leslie 172n +LUVFK¿HOG+HDWKHU4n Hobbes, Thomas 161–2 Holiday, Barten 35–8 Horace, 166–7 Howard, Frances 25 Ingram, Martin 27 intertextuality 9, 45, 110, 114 -DFNVRQ5LFKDUG24 -DJRG]LQVNL&HFLOH047 James I 17, 28, 30, 37, 38, 52n, 61, 102, 137 YLVLWWR2[IRUG 35 James, Henry 151 MRNHV118, 132, 135, 137–8, 145 Jones, David Martin 59n Jonson, Ben 85, 96, 102, 104, 110, 134–5 Jordan, Constance 114n, 125–6, 132n Jupin, Arvin H. 102

184

Anonymity in Early Modern England

.DOOHQGRUI+LOODLUH105n .DPXI3HJJ\170 .DVWHQ'DYLG6FRWW170 .HUPRGH)UDQN89n .LGQLH0DUJDUHW-DQH114n, 126 Kind-Harts Dreame &KHWWOH 152, 154 .LQJ+HQU\16–17 .LQJ-RKQ%LVKRSRI/RQGRQ 136–7 .LQWJHQ(XJHQH547, 48n .OHLQ-RH130 Lane, John 115–16 Lanyer, Aemelia 137n Latimer, Hugh 56 lawyers 53 Leigh, Dorothy 137n Lévinas, Emmanuel 172 Levine, Lawrence W. 150 /HZDOVNL%DUEDUD113 libel 9, 14–16, 19, 25–9, 31, 33–6, 38–9 Licensing Act of 1662 6 Life and Death of Jack Straw, The $QRQ\PRXV 86 literacy 6, 68 Long, William B. 86n Looney, John Thomas 145–7 Love, Harold 2–4, 13n, 15, 68–9, 167–8 Love’s Labour’s Lost 6KDNHVSHDUH 135 Lucas, R. Valerie 132n Luther, Martin 64 Lyly, John 116, 118 0F.HUURZ5RQDOG%130 McRae, Andrew 15, 17, 19, 21, 26, 28–31, 33 Maggi, Armando 105n magic 103, 108–9 magician 103–7 manuscript circulation 39 culture 14–39 transmission of texts 16 manuscripts %HLQHFNH
Bodleian MS Engl. poet. f. 10: 74 Bodleian MS Firth e. 4: 23 Bodleian MS Malone 19: 22, 31 Bodleian MS Malone 21: 74 Bodleian MS Malone 23: 26, 30 Bodleian MS Rawl. D. 859: 75 Bodleian MS Rawl. D. 1048: 31 Bodleian MS Rawl. D. 1092: 75 Bodleian MS Rawl. poet. 26: 76 Bodleian MS Rawl. poet. 117: 76 Bodleian MS Rawl. poet. 153: 77 Bodleian MS Rawl. poet. 160: 20, 23, 25 Bodleian MS Tanner 465: 77 British Library MS Additional 25303: 24, 34 British Library MS Additional 44963: 70 British Library MS Additional 52494: 64, 70 British Library MS Additional 61481: 31 British Library MS Additional 78234: 63–4, 71 British Library MS Egerton 2725: 17 British Library MS Harleian 2127: 72 British Library MS Harleian 6933: 71 British Library MS Sloane 826: 18 Edinburgh University Library, H.—P. Coll. 401: 24 )ROJHU:DVKLQJWRQ'& 069D125, part II: 16–17, 23 Folger MS V.a. 162: 18 Folger MS V.a. 170: 20 Folger MS V.a. 198: 58–9 Folger MS V.a. 232: 60, 67 Folger MS V.a. 249: 52n Folger MS V.a. 345: 16, 19, 21–2, 24, 31, 34–8 Folger MS V.a. 381: 78 Marcus, Leah 147–8, 151, 157 Marlowe, Christopher 84–7, 103, 110, 153, 155–6 Marotti, Arthur 16n, 48, 52n, 67 0DUSUHODWH0DUWLQSVHXGRQ\P 13–14 marriage 117 Martial 17n, 133–34 Matus, Irvin Leigh 144n May, Steven 58n, 68n Merry Devil of Edmonton, The $QRQ\PRXV 9, 100–110

Index Coreb in 105–7 )UDQNLQ108 Milliscent Clare in 107–8 Peter Fabell in 105–10 Mexia, Pedro 117–18 Middleton, Thomas 83, 100 Midsummer Night’s Dream, A 6KDNHVSHDUH 83 misattribution 34, 39, 99, 118, 130, 155, 163 miscellany, verse 14–16, 24–5, 36, 38, 43–6, 48n, 59, 66, 68n 69, 73–4, 76–7see also Parnassus Biceps Wits Recreations clustering in 24–5 inverted 60 misogyny 9, 116–21, 123–6 Montaigne 9, 132–7, 162, 165–6 Moseley, Humphrey 102 Mouzell for Melastomus, A 6SHJKW 113, 119, 124, 136 Mucedorus$QRQ\PRXV 85, 100–101, 104 Amadine in 101 bear in 101–2, 104 Mucedorus in 101 savage man in 101–2, 104 Mullan, John 7 0XQGD&RQVWDQWLDSVHXGRQ\P 113 Munday, Anthony 116, 118 Nashe, Thomas 153–4, 156, 167 1DYLJDWLRQ$FW 61 Nelson, Alan H. 144n QHWZRUNV libel 39 manuscript 25, 28, 34 Newcombe, Henry 60–61 1HZVWRN6FRWW16–18, 23 1LHW]VFKH)ULHGULFK164, 171 Noel, Henry 62 North, Marcy L. 5, 7, 9, 13–42, 48, 53n, 67, 83–5, 103, 129, 138, 169n, 170 Ogburn, Charlton 152n, 155 O’Malley, Susan Gushee 9, 129–40 Orgel, Stephen 135n, 169, 171n Overbury, Sir Thomas 17, 25 Oxfordian theory of authorship 146, 148

185

pamphlet debate 120–21 pamphlets, anonymous 9, 129–30, 137–8 see also Haec VirHic Mulier panegyric 19, 28–31, 33, 35–6, 38–9 paratexts 14, 45, 55 3DUNHV0DOFROP54 Parnassus Biceps :ULJKW 43, 66–8 Pasicles 134 patriarchy 118–19 patronage 6, 26, 38 Pavier, Thomas 130 Pebworth, Ted-Larry 45n pedagogy 47 Peele, George 153, 156 Pepys, Samuel 61, 102 Pericles 6KDNHVSHDUH 83, 100 Perry, Curtis 28 persona 116 Pettie, G. 117 plagiarism 166–7 playtexts, anonymous 83, 99, 101, 103 poetry, anonymous 13 3UHVFRWW$QQ/DNH134 Prideaux, Mary 20 Primary Colors $QRQ\PRXV 129 prosopopeia 18 pseudonymity 13–14, 34, 36, 114–16, 118, 120–24, 130 punctuation, early modern 54 Puritan 62, 90 Puritan Widow, The $QRQ\PRXV 100 3XUNLV-DPHV9, 113–28 3XUNLVV'LDQQH113n Raleigh, Walter 90, 135 5DYLV7KRPDV%LVKRSRI/RQGRQ 17 readers 6, 7, 109, 126, 129, 137–8 academic 4, 136 contemporary 5, 8, 44, 57, 136–7 coterie of 45, 53, 67, 150 early modern 4–5, 7–8, 45, 57, 101–3, 110, 135 nineteenth century 148 responses to texts 1–2, 4, 8, 25, 38, 46, 48–9, 52–3, 56, 58, 61, 66–9 reading practices 3, 5, 47, 160–61, 163, 166–8, 170 reception history 148, 150–51

186

Anonymity in Early Modern England

Revenger’s Tragedy, The 0LGGOHWRQ"  83, 100 Reynolds, Brian 131–2 5LFKDUG,,KLVW 86, 94 Richard II 6KDNHVSHDUH 86–91, 94 %ROLQJEURNHLQ88 John of Gaunt in 95 Richard II in 94
Speght, Rachel 113, 119, 122, 124, 126, 136–7 Spenser, Edmund 138 Starner, Janet Wright 9, 43–80 Stephens, Walter 105 Stoner, Francis 37 Storey, John 137n Strode, William 20, 34, 37, 62 6WXDUW+HQU\3ULQFH 16–20, 23, 49 Swetnam, Joseph 9, 113–15, 118–19, 122, 126, 134 Swetnam the Woman-hater $QRQ\PRXV  113–14, 119–26 Aurelia in 123 Iago in 124 Leonida in 120–21, 125 Lisandro in 120, 124 /RUHQ]R$WDODQWD LQ120–24, 126 Loretta in 120, 124–5 Nicanor in 120 Swash in 120–22, 124–5 6ZHWQDP0LVRJ\QRV LQ119–26 Tamburlaine the Great 0DUORZH 95 Taylor, Gary 145, 148–51 7D\ORU-RKQ³:DWHU3RHW´ 135 Technogamia+ROLGD\ 35–8 Tel-Troth, Thomas 115–16, 123 Tell-Trothes New Yeares Gift … $QRQ\PRXV 115 Tempest, The 6KDNHVSHDUH 108, 135 Tempest or The Enchanted Island 'U\GHQ 103 Tennyson, Alfred 150n Thompson, Edward Maunde 169 Tom Tel-Troths Message … /DQH 115 Tourneur, Cyril 100 trade rivalry, Anglo-Dutch 61 Traister, Barbara Howard 9, 99–111 Traubel, Horace 151 Tromp, Maarten van 61 True Order and Methode of wryting and reading Hystories %OXQGHYLOOH 47 Trundle, John 129–30 7ZDLQ0DUN151 Twelfth Night 6KDNHVSHDUH 160, 170 Malvolio in 160–61, 170 Maria in 160, 164

Index Olivia in 160–61 Sir Andrew in 160 Sir Toby in 160 Two Noble Kinsmen6KDNHVSHDUH  99–100 Underdown, David 125 9LFNHUV%ULDQ100n, 167–8, 169n 9LOOLHUV*HRUJH'XNHRI%XFNLQJKDP  17–18, 26, 28–30, 33, 36–8 WULSWR6SDLQ 16, 26, 28 War Anglo-Dutch 61, 67 English Civil 61, 67 in Woodstock 89 Watt, Tessa 130n Wayne, Valerie 13n, 114n Webster, John 85 Wells, Stanley 100n Whetstone, George 118 Whitman, Walt 151 :LONLQV*HRUJH130 Wilson, Edward M. 44n, 64 witches 104

Wits Recreations 15, 43 women-debate literature 113, 116, 120–21 Woodbridge, Linda 114n, 121, 131 Woodstock$QRQ\PRXV 4, 9, 83–91 %ROLQJEURNHLQ87, 94 Bushy in 93–4 Cheney in 96 Greene in 92, 94, 96 Lancaster in 90, 93, 95 Nimble in 87–8, 95 Richard II in 87, 91–2 Tresilian in 87–8, 93–5 :RRGVWRFNLQ87–8, 90–96
187