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@ 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(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$@ll the Women” enter the stage, and the audience is RIIHUHGWKHVLJKWRIWKHZRPDQKDWHUEHLQJERXQGWRDSRVWSULFNHGZLWKSLQVE\ DJURXSRIZRPHQDQGJDJJHG,Y ,QDSDVVDJHDOOXGLQJWR6ZHWQDP¶VWH[WDQG 6RZHUQDP¶VUHVSRQVH$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$QFLHQW&XVWRPHV´¿WVWKLVGHVFULSWLRQ,WEHJLQVZLWK0RQWDLJQH¶VVWDWHPHQW that he understands why most people follow the customs and fashions “wherein they were borne,” but he laments the indiscretion and blindness of people who change every day or month according to “the authoritie of present custome …”  5 (DUOLHULQ(VVD\³2IWKH&DQQLEDOV´ 0RQWDLJQHVWDWHVWKDW³WKHUHLVQRWKLQJ in that nation, that is either barbarous or savage, unlesse men call that barbarisme which is not common to them. As indeed, we have no other ayme of truth and reason, then the example and Idea of the opinions and customes of the countrie ZHOLYHLQ´ VLF@²,PHDQWKH$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«@$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