50. Richard Todd, “In What Sense Is John Donne the Author of the ‘Songs and Sonnets’?” in La Poésie Métaphysique de John Donne, ed. Claudine Raynaud (Tours: Groupe des Recherches Anglo-Américaines de l’Université de Tours, 2002), 111.
51. Michael Archer, Guy Brett, Catherine de Zegher, Mona Hatoum (London: Phaidon, 1997), 25.
52. See, e.g., Michel de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life, trans. Steven Rendell (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), esp. 117–118; Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space, trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991).
53. As the title suggests, the education of the audience is a central focus throughout Slights, Managing Readers; it is also a recurrent point in Tribble, Margins, though at several points, especially Chapter 3, she concentrates instead on the undermining of authority.
54. Throughout this chapter references are to Thomas Watson, The Hecatompathia or Passionate Centurie of Love (London, 1582).
55. Arthur F. Marotti, Manuscript, Print, and the English Renaissance Lyric (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995), 219–220.
56. On historicized formalism and the general advantages of dovetailing more traditional and recent critical methods, see, e.g., my study Echoes of Desire: English Petrarchism and Its Counterdiscourses (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995), 278–284.
57. I cite Giles Fletcher, The English Works of Giles Fletcher, the Elder, ed. Lloyd E. Berry (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1964).
58. Here and throughout this chapter I cite Samuel Daniel, “Poems” and “A Defence of Ryme,” ed. Arthur Colby Sprague (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930).
59. John Donne, The Epithalamions, Anniversaries, and Epicedes, ed. W[esley] Milgate (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978).
60. The Poems of Sir Philip Sidney, ed. W. A. Ringler, Jr. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962).
61. I cite The Poems of Robert Sidney, ed. P. J. Croft (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984).
62. See, e.g., John T. Shawcross, Intentionality and the New Traditionalism: Some Liminal Means to Literary Revisionism (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991), 79. Helen Vendler, though conservative in many of her assumptions about the mode, argues that Shakespeare, eschewing the option of representing experience in the form in which it happens, writes about it in his sonnets “analytically and retrospectively” (The Art of Shakespeare’s Sonnets [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997], 550).
63. Andrew Welsh, Roots of Lyric: Primitive Poetry and Modern Poetics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978), Chapter 6.
64. Yi-Fu Tuan, Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1977), 6.
65. On this and other issues, see John Hollander’s important studies of refrains in the sixth and eighth chapters of Melodious Guile: Fictive Pattern in Poetic Language (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988). The comment on remembering appears on 135.
66. Vendler, Art of Shakespeare’s Sonnets; the comment on “morning-after” reflections appears on 550, the observation about judgment on 551–554.
67. Renzo Piano, Logbook, trans. Huw Evans (New York: Monacelli Press, 1997), 251.
68. Genette, Paratexts, esp. 1–2.
69. Throughout this chapter I cite Andrew Marvell, The Poems of Andrew Marvell, ed. Nigel Smith (London: Longman, 2003).
70. See the texts by Kalas cited in n.38.
71. George T. Wright, Hearing the Measures: Shakespearean and Other Inflections (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2001), Chapter 2.
72. Herbert Blau, “Universals of Performance,” in By Means of Performance: Intercultural Studies of Theatre and Ritual, ed. Richard Schechner and Willa Appel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), esp. 250.
73. See Richard Schechner and Willa Appel, Introduction, in By Means of Performance, 4–5. Also see Schnechner’s essay “Magnitudes of Performance,” 45, in the same volume.
74. Erving Goffman, Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1986), esp. 43–44.
75. Ferry, Title, esp. 2, 6–7, 12; Hollander, Vision and Resonance, 214.
76. Compare Marcy L. North, The Anonymous Renaissance: Cultures of Discretion in Tudor-Stuart England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003).
77. On these types of invocation, see Stewart, Poetry and the Senses, esp. 146–150; Grossman and Halliday, The Sighted Singer, 20–21.
78. Ernst Häublein, The Stanza (London: Methuen, 1978), 59–71.
79. Greene, Post-Petrarchism, 5–6.
80. On how recognizing formal patterns creates detachment, cf. Paula Johnson, Form and Transformation in Music and Poetry of the English Renaissance (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972), 55.
81. Schechner, “Magnitudes of Performance,” 25–26.
82. Schechner and Appel, Introduction, 4.
83. John Milton, Complete Poems and Major Prose, ed. Merritt Y. Hughes (Indianapolis: Odyssey Press, Bobbs-Merrill, 1957). This edition will be cited throughout the chapter.
84. All citations are to Richard Crashaw, The Complete Poetry of Richard Crashaw, ed. George Walton Williams (New York: W. W. Norton, 1970). I quote the later version of the poem, but the original is similar in the relevant ways.
85. Throughout this chapter I cite The Yale Edition of the Shorter Poems of Edmund Spenser, ed. William A. Oram et al. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989).
86. Mary Oates O’Reilly, “A New Song: Singing Space in Milton’s Nativity Ode,” John Donne Journal 22 (1998), 95–115.
87. I cite The Poems of Lady Mary Wroth, ed. Josephine A. Roberts (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1983).
88. Christina Luckyj has acutely traced the positive valences within the paradoxical treatment of silence in Wroth’s poetry, demonstrating its association with female agency; although these associations are not immediately present in the text at hand, their presence elsewhere in the sequence further complicates the categories of speech and writing (“A moving Rhetoricke”: Gender and Silence in Early Modern England [Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002], 140–146).
89. Waters, Poetry’s Touch, 112.
90. Jeff Masten, “‘Shall I turne blabb?’: Circulation, Gender, and Subjectivity in Mary Wroth’s Sonnets,” in Reading Mary Wroth: Representing Alternatives in Early Modern England, ed. Naomi J. Miller and Gary Waller (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1991), 67–87.
91. Annabel Patterson, “Bermudas and The Coronet: Marvell’s Protestant Poetics,” ELH 44 (1977), 478–499.
92. Although he does not comment on the specific techniques I cite, Jonathan F. S. Post also notes that the poem moves from a telescopic to a close-up view (English Lyric Poetry: The Early Seventeenth Century [London: Routledge, 1999], 259–260).
93. Rosalie L. Colie, “My Ecchoing Song”: Andrew Marvell’s Poetry of Criticism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970), 18.
94. On that detachment, see Colie, “My Ecchoing Song,” 129–130.
95. Compare John Klause’s brief but suggestive observation that the tone of this poem is “knowing and regretful” and that Marvell has some reservations about the paradise portrayed in it (The Unfortunate Fall: Theodicy and the Moral Imagination of Andrew Marvell [Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1983], 92).
96. See, e.g., Arthur Barker, “The Pattern of Milton’s Nativity Ode,” University of Toronto Quarterly 10 (1941), 167–181; Richard Halpern, “The Great Instauration: Imaginary Narratives in Milton’s ‘Nativity Ode,’” in Re-membering Milton: Essays on the Texts and Traditions, ed. Mary Nyquist and Margaret W. Ferguson (London: Methuen, 1987); Stella P. Revard, Milton and the Tangles of Neaera’s Hair: The Making of the 1645 “Poems” (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1997), Chapter 3.
97. J. Martin Evans, The Miltonic Moment (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1998), Chapter 1; Hugh MacCallum, “The Narrator of Milton’s ‘On the Morning of Christ’s Nativity,’” in
Familiar Colloquy: Essays Presented to Arthur Edward Barker, ed. Patricia Bruckmann (n.p.: Oberon Press, 1978).
98. David Quint, “Expectation and Prematurity in Milton’s Nativity Ode,” Modern Philology 97 (1999), 195–219. Also see Gregory F. Goekjian’s analysis of the limitations of human authority and the emphasis on silence in the poem (“Deference and Silence: Milton’s Nativity Ode,” in Milton Studies 21 [1985], 119–135).
99. For an opposing reading of that question, see Goekjian, “Deference and Silence,” 127.
100. Several other critics have noted the shifts in time sequence, though they have not focused on the implications for the interplay of immediacy and mediation in lyric; see, e.g., Lowry Nelson, Jr., Baroque Lyric Poetry (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961), Chapter 3.
101. For a different interpretation of the Alexandrines in this poem, see Balachandra Rajan, The Lofty Rhyme: A Study of Milton’s Major Poetry (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1970), 11–12, 16–17.
102. Halpern, “The Great Instauration,” esp. 4–10.
103. Heather Dubrow, “The Masquing of Genre in Comus,” Milton Studies 44 (2005), 62–83.
104. Paul H. Fry, The Poet’s Calling in the English Ode (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980), 2; Fry’s own analysis of the poem focuses primarily on vocational issues, though he does briefly acknowledge its doubts about the accessibility of scriptural events (see esp. 44).
105. David Schalkwyk, Speech and Performance in Shakespeare’s Sonnets and Plays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
106. Blau, “Universals of performance,” 258.
107. Crane, “What Was Performance?”
108. Greene, Post-Petrarchism, esp. 14–16.
109. Shawcross, Intentionality, esp. 86.
110. Stewart, Poetry and the Senses, 166.
111. On the aphoristic sayings of the humanists, see Mary Thomas Crane, Framing Authority: Sayings, Self, and Society in Sixteenth-Century England (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993).
CHAPTER 4: THE PREDILECTIONS OF PROTEUS
1. Seth Lerer, “Medieval English Literature and the Idea of the Anthology,” PMLA 118 (2003), 1251–1267.
2. Peter J. Manning, “Wordsworth in the Keepsake, 1829,” in Literature in the Marketplace: Nineteenth-century British Publishing and Reading Practices, ed. John O. Jordan and Robert L. Patten (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 45.
3. Harold Love, Scribal Publication in Seventeenth-Century England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 230.
4. See Arthur F. Marotti, Manuscript, Print, and the English Renaissance Lyric (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995), esp. Chapter 3, which is entitled “Social Textuality in the Manuscript System.”
5. Elizabeth L. Eisenstein, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979).
6. Adrian Johns, The Nature of the Book: Print and Knowledge in the Making (Ch icago: University of Chicago Press, 1998); the line I cite appears on page 36.
7. Roger Chartier, The Order of Books: Readers, Authors, and Libraries in Europe between the Fourteenth and Eighteenth Centuries, trans. Lydia G. Cochrane (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994), 25–59.
8. On critical attitudes to the aesthetic, see, e.g., essays on the subject in two collections: Aesthetics and Ideology, ed. George Levine (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1994); and Modern Language Quarterly 61 (2000), a special issue on the aesthetic. An expanded collection of the essays from the MLQ special issue may be found in Reading for Form, ed. Susan J. Wolfson and Marshall Brown (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2006).
9. Arthur F. Marotti, “Shakespeare’s Sonnets as Literary Property,” in Soliciting Interpretation: Literary Theory and Seventeenth-Century English Poetry, ed. Elizabeth D. Harvey and Katharine Eisaman Maus (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), 143; Wendy Wall, The Imprint of Gender: Authorship and Publication in the English Renaissance (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993), 34.
10. See two important studies by Joseph Loewenstein: Ben Jonson and Possessive Authorship (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002) and The Author’s Due: Printing and the Prehistory of Copyright (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002). On the significance of copyright, see Mark Rose, Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993).
11. Marotti, Manuscript, 135.
12. See, e.g., Love, Scribal Publication, 287.
13. Important examples of these revisionist approaches include David Scott Kastan, Shakespeare and the Book (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001); and Marcy L. North, The Anonymous Renaissance: Cultures of Discretion in Tudor-Stuart England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003).
14. See Jennifer Summit, Lost Property; The Woman Writer and English Literary History, 1380–1589 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), esp. 49–59, 76–77. Also see the study cited above, Chartier, The Order of Books, esp. 30–32.
15. Zara Bruzzi, “‘I find myself unparadis’d’: The Integrity of Daniel’s Delia,” Cahiers Élisabéthains 48 (1995), 12.
16. For a commentary on these poems, see Liber Lilliati: Elizabethan Verse and Song (Bodleian Ms Rawlison Poetry 148), ed. Edward Doughtie (Newark and London: University of Delaware Press and Associated University Presses, 1985), 138–139. They appear as Numbers 11 and 12 in the collection.
17. See the paper Marcy North delivered at the 2000 Modern Language Association meeting in Washington, DC, “Finis: Manuscript Lyrics and the Problem of Endings.” I am grateful to the author for making her work available to me before publication.
18. Doughtie, Liber Lilliati, 108–109.
19. Henry Stanford’s Anthology: An Edition of Cambridge University Library Manuscript Dd.5.75, ed. Steven V. May (New York: Garland, 1988), Items 284–289, 291–293.
20. On the editorial history of these texts, see Doughtie, Liber Lilliati, 165 and 178–179 respectively.
21. Compare Nancy J. Vickers, “Diana Described: Scattered Women and Scattered Rhyme,” Critical Inquiry 8 (1981), 265–279. Vickers, however, reads the fear of dismemberment as Oedipal, while I am arguing that the poet fears the dismemberment of his poem.
22. Mary Thomas Crane, Framing Authority: Sayings, Self, and Society in Sixteenth-Century England (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993).
23. Yopie Prins, Victorian Sappho (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999).
24. I cite Ovid, Metamorphoses, 2nd ed., ed. and trans. Frank Justus Miller, rev. G. P. Goold, Vol.2 (Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press and William Heinemann, 1984).
25. Chartier, The Order of Books, esp. 59.
26. Marotti, Manuscript, 141–142, 169.
27. Ernst Häublein, The Stanza (London: Methuen, 1978), 5.
28. I cite George Puttenham, The Arte of English Poesie (Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 1970), 102. Subsequent references appear in parentheses within my text.
29. All citations are to George Gascoigne, A Hundreth Sundrie Flowres, ed. G. W. Pigman III (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000), 460. Future references to this edition will be included parenthetically in my text.
30. Michael Drayton, The Barrons Wars (London, 1603), sig. A3.
31. OED, s.v. “stave.”
32. OED, s.v. “staff.”
33. Paul Scarron, The Whole Comical Works of Monsr. Scarron, trans. Thomas Brown et al. (London, 1700), 60.
34. See Henry S. Turner, The English Renaissance Stage: Geometry, Poetics, and the Practical Spatial Arts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006).
35. Thomas Palmer, The Emblems of Thomas Palmer: Two Hundred Poosees: Sloane Ms. 3794, ed. John Manning (New York, AMS Press, 1988).
36. Häublein, The Stanza, 78.
37. Marotti, Manuscript, 141–142, 169
38. On fires and other threats to buildings, see my book Shakespeare and Domestic Loss: Forms of Deprivation, Mourning, and Recuperation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), Chapter 3.
&nbs
p; 39. Throughout this chapter I cite Ben Jonson, ed. C. H. Herford, Percy Simpson, and Evelyn Simpson, 11 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925–1952).
40. Jonathan Tuck, “‘Thou Fall’st, My Tongue’: Success and Failure in the Cary-Morison Ode,” George Herbert Journal 22 (1998), 86. Also see Jonathan F. S. Post’s persuasive suggestion that the self-division enacts Jonson’s responses to the fraught issue of his own advancement and authority, English Lyric Poetry: The Early Seventeenth Century (London: Routledge, 1999), 48, 50–52.
41. For a different reading of the poem, see Paul H. Fry, The Poet’s Calling in the English Ode (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980), 15–26; he finds “self-deformation” (17) throughout and argues that Jonson chose the Pindaric ode in part because it lends itself to “strain[ing] against the very idea” of regular form (17).
42. John Donne, The Elegies and The Songs and Sonnets, ed. Helen Gardner (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965). I cite this edition throughout the chapter.
43. R[obert] L[ynche], Diella, Certaine Sonnets (London, 1596).
44. [Thomas Lodge], Phillis (London, 1593).
45. Jorge de Montemayor, Diana, trans. Bartholomew Young (London, 1598), 15.
46. Crane, Framing Authority.
47. John Hollander, Melodious Guile: Fictive Pattern in Poetic Language (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), Chapter 7.
48. Susan Stewart, Poetry and the Fate of the Senses (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 229.
49. Helen Vendler, The Art of Shakespeare’s Sonnets (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), 21.
50. Marotti, Manuscript, esp. Chapter 1.
51. Herrick’s orderings of the poems is discussed extensively by Ann Baynes Coiro in Robert Herrick’s “Hesperides” and the Epigram Book Tradition (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988); see, e.g., 11–12.
52. For an instance of the disagreements about the order, see the conflict among: Arthur Barker’s claim that the placement of the Nativity Ode reflects its status as a confident announcement of Milton’s role as poet-prophet (“The Pattern of Milton’s Nativity Ode,” University of Toronto Quarterly, 10 [1941], 170); Stella P. Revard’s reinterpretation of that claim (Milton and the Tangles of Neaera’s Hair: The Making of the 1645 Poems [Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1997], 64–90); and the darker reading of the poem that David Quint, like a number of other critics, has developed (“Expectation and Prematurity in Milton’s Nativity Ode,” Modern Philology 97 [1999], 195–219).
The Challenges of Orpheus Page 40
