Part 2 (1/2)

January 5, 1805 ”The Passionate Pilgririm_ (1599) _Reprinted with a Note about the Book, by Arthur L Humphreys London: Privately Printed by Arthur L

Humphreys, of 187, Piccadilly MDCCCXCIV_

I was about to congratulate Mr Hu to the end of this dainty little volume, I discovered the well-known colophon of the Chiswick Press--”Charles Whittingharatulate Messrs

Charles Whittinghaest that the imprint should have run ”Privately Printed _for_ Arthur L Humphreys”

This fay of thirty leaves has been singularly unfortunate in its title-pages It was first published in 1599 as _The Passionate Pilgriard, and are to be sold by W Leake, at the Greyhound in Paules Churchyard_ This, of course, was disingenuous Some of the numbers were by Shakespeare: but the authorshi+p of so Jaggard had boldly conveyed from Marlowe, Richard Barnefield, and Bartholomew Griffin In short, to adapt a famous line upon a famous lexicon, ”the best part was Shakespeare, the rest was not” For this, Jaggard has been execrated from time to time with sufficient heartiness Mr Swinburne, in his latest volume of Essays, calls him an ”infamous pirate, liar, and thief” Mr Humphreys remarks, less vivaciously, that ”He was not careful and prudent, or he would not have attached the name of Shakespeare to a volume which was only partly by the bard--that was his criard foreseen the tantrums and contradictions he caused some commentators--Mr Payne Collier, for instance--he would doubtless have substituted 'By William Shakespeare _and others_' for 'By Williaht have saved his reputation, and this hornets' nest which now and then rouses itself afresh around his aged ghost of three centuries ago”

That a ghost can suffer no inconvenience froard the above hardly seeer on the ground that, had he foreseen the indignation of the prosecuting counsel, he would doubtless have saved his reputation by forbearing to forge But before constructing a better defence, let us hear the whole tale of the alleged ri whatever is known of it, and the whole edition ard's sportive fancy But in 1612 appeared _The Passionate Pilgrime, or certaine amorous Sonnets between Venus and Adonis, newly corrected and augmented By W Shakespeare The third edition Whereunto is newly added two Love Epistles, the first froain to Paris Printed by W Jaggard_ (These ”two Love Epistles” were really by Thoe was very quickly cancelled, and Shakespeare's name omitted

Mr Humphrey's Hypothesis

These are the bare facts Now observe how they appear when set forth by Mr Humphreys:--

”Shakespeare, hen the first edition was issued, was aged thirty-five, acted his part as a great nity took no notice of the error on the title-page of the first edition, attributing to hiard went on sinning, and the third edition appeared under Shakespeare's nah it had poeard was promptly pulled up by both Shakespeare and Heywood Upon this the publisher appears very properly to have printed a new title-page, o leave to observe--(1) That although it may very likely have been at Shakespeare's own request that his nae of the third edition, Mr Huht to state this as an ascertained fact (2) That I fail to understand, if Shakespeare acted properly in case of the third edition, e should talk nonsense about his ”acting the part of a greatno notice of the error” in the first edition In the first edition he rongly credited with pieces that belonged to Marlowe, Barnefield, Griffin, and some authors unknown In the third he was credited with these and soic I ask why, if it were ”dignified” to say nothing in the case of Marlowe and Barnefield, it suddenly becaht and proper to protest in the case of Heywood? But (3) what right have we to assume that Shakespeare ”took no notice of the error on the title-page of the first edition”? We know this only--that if he protested, he did not prevail as far as the first edition was concerned That edition may have been already exhausted It is even possible that he _did_ prevail in the ard reverted to his old courses in the third I don't for a est that where so many hypotheses will fit the scanty data known, it is best to lay down no particular hypothesis as fact

Another

For I iine that anyone can, in five minutes, fit up an hypothesis quite as valuable as Mr Humphreys' Here is one which at least has the ard, publisher, comes to William Shakespeare, poet, with the infor out a small miscellany of verse If the poet has an unconsidered trifle or so to spare, Jaggard will not s for theh copies of sos infurther encouraged, searches aard a lyric or two and a couple of sonnets Jaggard pays his money, and departs with the verses When the miscellany appears, Shakespeare finds his nae, and remonstrates But, of the defrauded ones, Marlowe is dead; Barnefield has retired to live the life of a country gentleman in Shropshi+re; Griffin dwells in Coventry (where he died, three years later) These are the men injured; and if they cannot, or will not, move in the business, Shakespeare (whose case at laould be more difficult) can hardly be expected to So he contents hiard repeats his offence, and is indiscreet enough to add Heywood to the list of the spoiled Heywood lives in London, on the spot; and Shakespeare, now retired to Stratford, is of more importance than he was in 1599

Arard and threatens; and the publisher gives way

Whatever our hypothesis, we cannot ard behaved well

On the other hand, it were foolish to judge his offence as if the man had committed it the day before yesterday Conscience in rowth But a year or two ago respectable citizens of the United States were publishi+ng our books ”free of authorial expenses,” and even corrected our iard acted up to Luther's maxim, ”_Pecca fortiter_” He went so far as to include a piece so well known as Marlowe's _Live with me and be my love_--which proves at any rate his indifference to the chances of detection But to speak of him as one would speak of a similar offender in this New Year of Grace is simply to forfeit one's claim to an historical sense

The Book

What further palliation can we find? Mr Swinburne calls the book ”a worthless little volume of stolen and mutilated poetry, patched up and padded out with dirty and dreary doggrel, under the senseless and preposterous title of _The Passionate Pilgriard, at any rate, had very good taste This is partly seen in the choice of a title Few books have so charriood precedent, for this collection was published a year before _England's Helicon_, and, of course, very many years before any authorized collection of Shakespeare's 'Poeriies”

Now, as for the title, if the value of a title lie in its application, Mr Swinburne is right It has little relevance to the verses in the volume On the other hand, as a portly and attractive rim_ can hardly be surpassed If not ”a perfect title,” it is surely ”a charard ”set up a good precedent” and produced a ”forerunner” of English anthologies becomes absurd e remember that _Tottel's Miscellany_ was published in June, 1557 (just forty-two years before _The Passionate Pilgrihth edition by 1587; that _The Paradise of Dainty Devices_ appeared in 1576; _A Gorgeous Gallery of Gallant Inventions_ in 1578; _A Handfull of Pleasant Delights_ in 1584; and _The Phoenix' Nest_ in 1593

Almost as wide of the mark is Mr Swinburne's description of the volume as ”worthless” It contains twenty-one nue, so unapproachably solemn, _The Phoenix and the Turtle_

Of these, five are undoubtedly by Shakespeare A sixth (_Crabbed age and youth_), if not by Shakespeare, is one of the loveliest lyrics in the language, and I for ive it to no other ard's enterprise this jewel had been irrevocably lost to us, since it is known only through _The Passionate Pilgrim_

Marlowe's _Live with me and be my love_, and Barnefield's _As it fell upon a day_, ine that even Mr

Swinburne cannot afford to scorn _Sweet rose, fair flower, untiain only occurs in _The Passionate Pilgrim_ These nine numbers, with _The Phoenix and the Turtle_,the rest we have the pretty and respectable lyrics, _If ood rest; Lord, how azes to the east When as thine eye hath chose the dahter_ There remain the _Venus and Adonis_ sonnets and _My flocks feed not_ Mr Swinburne rel,” an he list, with noheld a somewhat over-anxious moralist But to call the whole book worthless is mere abuse of words

It is true, nevertheless, that one of the only two copies existing of the first edition was bought for three halfpence