A brief History of Shakespeare's Sonnets

A Brief History of Shakespeare’s Sonnets

The Shakespearean sonnet is a cornerstone of the English language. Shakespeare’s sonnets are taught in high school and college classes across the world. Unfortunately, the ever increasing popularity of the sonnets is a relatively new phenomenon that can be traced to four specific individuals, Thomas Thorpe, John Benson, Samuel Johnson, and George Steevens. Since there are no surviving manuscripts these men have saved the sonnets from being lost in time and ensured that they were ever present in the minds of the people.

            The first of these men is Thomas Thorpe. Thorpe was a London printer who was apprenticed to Richard Watkins. During this time he spent a customary nine years learning from Watkins before he was sworn in as a freeman of the company in 1594. At this time he began his work for the Stationers Company of London and took on his first publishing venture, Marlowe’s translation of Lucans First Book. However despite being an apprenticed printer Thorpe worked more as a middle man than anything else. He was known for the accuracy of the work he helped produce as well as going after a manuscript with a predatory enthusiasm. This may have been the appeal of Shakespeare’s work. Since there are no know surviving manuscripts it is hard to tell where exactly Thorpe procured the sonnets from (Larson).

            However despite any troubles that Thorpe may have faced in acquiring these Sonnets in 1609 he set out to make the first complete and correct collection. After obtaining the manuscripts, Thorpe entered into a partnership with William Aspley, a London seller; and George Eld who was to be the printer of the sonnets. George Eld’s would go on to produce more than twenty titles with Thorpe. This would be the most memorable since Eld started his own printing shop in 1604. Together they would assemble the complete first edition of Shakespeare’s sonnets (Delahoyde).

            The 1609 edition was remarkably plain given some of the previous labors that had been put into designing a book before the printing press became popular.  Unlike the handmade books that preceded the printing press, this new way of creating a book was faster and more simplistic if all you wanted was text which removed a great deal of work from production. The only artistic design to be seen on the pages is a header of vines that repeats itself along the top of the pages. The font is decidedly plain and there is little to entice a reader visually once you proceed past the dedication. It is unknown what specific font was used when creating this version of the work however it was put into italics due to the rise in the popularity of the cursive letter.

            The dedication was a peculiar edition to the 1609 sonnets that acted much the way a back cover of a modern book does. It was meant to intrigue readers and encourage them to buy the book. The publishers accomplished by doing several things. They only used Shakespeare’s initials in the dedication.  This left their readers guessing, enticing them to read the pages in search of an explanation. They also used was a play off the Latin that many of their readers were familiar with from church, “the onlie begetter”. It is mentioned several times throughout a church service that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God and this correctly implies that God must be the “onlie begetter”. This aspect of the dedication added a safe familiarity about the book that did not hint at many of the erotic themes they would find within.

            The 1609 edition was written with the spelling that was common at the time. Spelling, much like handwriting, could be interpreted and often varied from person to person. This was coupled with the human error that was bound to occur and led to many spelling oddities that make the sonnets difficult to read in the modern era. It has been speculated that this allowed the transformation of the sonnets that occurred in 1640.

            In 1640, after the death of all those who had originally worked on the 1609 edition, John Benson released his own edition. While few will argue that John Benson did little other than mutilate the original sonnets, he was responsible for their continuing existence and a resurgence in their popularity among Shakespearean admirers. 

            Unlike the 1609 edition, John Benson’s 1640 edition was much more appealing at a first glance. Its pages held a single image of Shakespeare and the several designs that were meant to catch the eye, much like the dedication in the 1609 edition. John Benson’s edition was printed in London by a man dedicated “Tho. Cotes”, who is assumed to be Thomas Cotes. This questions about Benson’s edition. It was printed by Thomas Cotes who at this point was no longer working as printer for the public but rather as a printer for the church. As the churches clerk, he had access to a single printing press that was used to print death certificates. The front of the edition also states that these copies were to be sold by John Benson who could “be found dwelling in South Dunstans Churchyard” as it is stated on the cover of Benson’s 1640 edition.

            When looking at the surviving copies of the 1640 edition of Shakespeare’s sonnets there are several remarkable differences that continue to set them apart from their predecessors. Some of the editions have as many as four different types of paper and several types of font as well. They have drastically different bindings and as a result are in a variety of conditions. The first theory surrounding these differences is that they have been restored by various owners over the years as it is cheaper than to replace the entire book but given the evidence there is another option.

            Cotes printed these books for the sole purpose of profit. He wasn’t working as a printer for the public in London so when he was creating these books for Benson he was using the materials he had at hand or could acquire cheaply. In 1636 Cotes had left London Printing Company and moved to take a position as a clerk for the Church. The paper variation came from perhaps printing the pages several days apart and working on things over a number of months or years to sell them as need demanded. If his work for the church was slow there would be more copies with a similar appearance however if he hadn’t the time then they became more erratic. This project was meant for John Benson and himself to turn a profit from a nearly forgotten work that was out of copyright at the time (Ditchfield 107).

            It is also quite possible that the church authorized the work he was doing for Benson to produce extra income for the church itself. In addition to Benson’s work, Cotes also printed several other books during this time period for various people leading to the conclusion that the church must have been aware of his extra activities. Cotes retained his position at the church from 1636 until his death in July of 1641 where the position was taken over by his brother.

            In addition to these liberties that were already being taken, John Benson added his own changes to the text. The 1609 edition included several erotic poems of love and many of them were addressed to a young man before Benson altered them to be addressed to a young woman. It is unclear as to whether the changing of all the ‘he’s’ to ‘she’s’ was a requirement to have the work printed and sold through the church or if it was a product of Benson’s own homophobia that populated the time period. It is known is that during the 1640’s to have relations with a man was a punishable crime and at times that punishment was death. Perhaps it was meant to keep the work alive during a time period where homoerotic acts were punishable by law and those caught being public were prosecuted.

            Benson also included some other miscellaneous works in this edition. The reasoning behind this is unclear. Perhaps they were single works and their author paid to have them included or perhaps they were included because Benson thought they fit the theme of the book he was already producing. Given that he had already rearranged the poems and gave them titles it is not a far stretch that he would add additional works to give the impression that the works he was presenting were complete.

            While possible, all of these actions would have come with grave consequences. During this time period it was difficult to own a printing press in London or even be licensed to use one. In 1598, a law had been passed that only allowed master printers to own up to two printing presses and a warden of the company could own three (Plomer 213).Thomas Cotes, who printed the work for Benson, would fill the position of a master printer in the 1630’s. Even given that Cotes was allowed to own two printing presses he would have been unable to use church resources. The process of choosing a clerk for the church was a harrowing experience. 

 It required members the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London to agree upon a man of outstanding virtue for which there was no written guidelines. Once this was agreed upon he would enter the service of the church but the clerk was not allowed free access to the printing press. The door to the press was sealed with three locks one held by each the upper master, the upper warden, and the lower warden.

            By 1778, England was becoming a new country on the verge of revolution. It was this changing country that made Samuel Johnson and George Steevens feet confidant to bring Shakespeare’s sonnets back to the public in their original format by adding a supplement to the 1640 edition. These men set high standards and envious goals as they attempted to critique the existing English language and literature into perfection.

            Samuel Johnson was an accomplished man whose health and standing suffered in large part to his Tourette’s syndrome. His early life was distinguished by bouts of college and unemployment as he used family favor to try and advance his position in life. However despite his downfalls he was responsible for several notable projects prior to the 1778 corrections of the sonnets. One of his greatest achievements was to write the Dictionary of the English Language which was the most popular dictionary in England for almost 150 years until the Oxford English Dictionary was completed. Despite the sheer size of this project he was able to complete the dictionary in nine years compared to the forty years it took forty French scholars to create their dictionary (Hibbert).

            Unlike Johnson who dabbled in several high profile projects, Steevens was a prankster and celebrated Shakespearean commenter. He enjoyed critiquing the work of his friends and colleagues while attempting to get the better of them in a joke. He began his official connection to Shakespeare in 1766 where he created a critique of the original quarto of Shakespeare’s plays. This project earned him the attention of Samuel Johnson who suggest that the two of them should create a complete work of Shakespeare’s corrected works. This was the inception of what would become the 1778 edition. It was first compiled in 1773 as The Works of Shakespeare with the Corrections and Illustrations of Various Commentators in ten volumes. This was further revised and republished in 1778 in the edition that would become a part of history.  However, this was not to be the end of Steevens’ changes to the work.

            George Steevens was known to have a bitter problem with jealousy and competitive aspect to his personality. George Steevens was a man who strived for others to know his name and recognize his work either for fame or infamy. Due to Edward Malone’s attempting to continue with revision of his work, George Steevens himself reentered the project since he considered himself a dowager editor and in some cases it appears that he made changes to the text to show that he was more capable than Malone at creating the most complete, correct edition. Unfortunately, this led to several passages being excessively changed and some sonnets were excluded completely as they did not serve his purpose. This continued until 1793 when he republished another edition. This additional edition would again be republished after his death in 1803 then again in 1813.

            While this revival offered little in the way of visual extravagance it successfully brought the Shakespearean sonnet back into the public view as editors vied to create the most authentic copy. This competition between editors included publishing several pieces as to how others had misrepresented the work and with each published piece brought the works further into the public view. This process was only possible due to the radical changes that London was undergoing at the time. At the end of the 1700’s the French Revolution was effecting London. A progress era filled with radical groups was emerging as the Parliament tried to prevent a revolution in London.

            New religions were rising and what was considered socially acceptable to print was a broadening subject. The city of London was in a flux leading to a great revival of both literature and religion. While the Methodist church began to rise again, female authors did as well and it became more acceptable to be outlandish and in some ways stylish to be scandalous.  This scandal lent itself well to the homoerotic themes perceived in the original printed edition of Shakespeare’s sonnets. It allowed the works of Shakespeare to be appreciated in a new light and lent itself to the mass printings that would flower in the later years (Carl, Riley, Maxwell).

            None of this would have been possible without the contributions of his predecessors. Whether for money or love of art Thomas Thorpe, John Benson, Samuel Johnson, and George Steevens pulled Shakespeare’s sonnets through and unwilling portion of history that allowed them to survive until a new era bloomed that welcomed them with open arms.

 

Works Consulted

Alden, Raymond MacDonald. "The 1640 Text of Shakespeare's Sonnets." JSTOR. The University of Chicago Press, May 1916. Web. 03 Dec. 2013.

Delahoyde, Michael. "Shakespeare's Sonnets." Shakespeare's Sonnets. WSU, 2005. Web. 03 Dec. 2013.

Ditchfield, Peter H. The Parish Clerk: With 31 Illustr. London: Methuen, 1907. Print.

Johnson, Samuel, Arthur Sherbo, and Bertrand Harris Bronson. Johnson on Shakespeare. New Haven: Yale UP, 1968. N. pag. Print.

Hibbert, Christopher. The Personal History of Samuel Johnson. London: Pimlico, 1998. Print.

Larson, Kenneth J. "Essays on Shakespeare's Sonnets." Essays on Shakespeares Sonnets. N.p., 5 July 2011. Web. 03 Dec. 2013.

Plomer, Henry R. A Short History of English Printing, 1476-1900. London: Kegan Paul, 1915. Print.

Shakespeare, William, and Denys Bray. The Original Order of Shakespeare's Sonnets,. London: Methuen, 1925. Print.

Shakespeare, William, and William Shakespeare. Sonnets. London: Printed for C. Bathurst, 1780. Print.

Shakespeare, William, Samuel Johnson, George Steevens, Alexander Pope, Theobald, William Warburton, Nicholas Rowe, Richard Farmer, Charles Bathurst, and George Vertue. The Plays of William Shakespeare: In Ten Volumes : With the Corrections and Illustrations of Various Commentators. London: Printed for C. Bathurst; J. Beecroft; W. Strahan; J. and F. Rivington; J. Hinton; L. Davis; Hawes, Clarke, and Collins; R. Horsfield; W. Johnston; W. Owen; T. Caslon; E. Johnson; S. Crowder; B. White; T. Longman; B. Law; E. and C. Dilly; C. Corbett; W. Griffin; T. Cadell; W. Woodfall; G. Keith; T. Lowndes; T. Davies; J. Robson; T. Becket; F. Newbery; G. Robinson; T. Payne; J. Williams; M. Hingeston; and J. Ridley, 1773. Print.

Shakespeare, William. Shakespeares Sonnets, 1609. London: Thorpe, 1609. Print.

"Shakespeare's Sonnets : Being a Reproduction in Facsimile of the First Edition, 1609, from the Copy in the Malone Collection in the Bodleian Library." Shakespeare's Sonnets : Being a Reproduction in Facsimile of the First Edition, 1609, from the Copy in the Malone Collection in the Bodleian Library. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2013.

Walker, Carl, Katherine Riley, and Andrea Maxwell. "London in the 1790s." London in the 1790s. University of California, n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2013.

 

Bad Women of Euripides

Bad Women of Euripides

 “Bad women.” When David Greene commented on the heroines of Euripides work it begs the question of how he is defining a ‘bad woman’. It also begs to know why women who defied the laws are bad and the men were merely heroes. The answer is simple, Euripides made no such distinction when he was writing his work. A person could be a hero whether they were man or woman causing the creation of psychological tragedy.

Euripides was a modern of his time and lived in a very different world than many of his fellow playwrights. Euripides was known to spend a great deal of time around philosophers many of whom were married to women they considered their equal. Rather than being exposed to women whose purpose was to be property he was exposed to educated women who could maintain themselves in an argument with a man and did not need men to win a fight for them. In short, they were not damsels who were in need of rescuing but rather women who could solve their own problems.

This brings to the next point, the purpose of the plays. During the period where Euripides was writing the plays were being offered up in trilogy format. Each playwright was expected to write two tragedy and one comedy to be presented at festivals. Once each play was performed then they would be rated and a winner chosen from the audience. A win meant a great deal including patronage and prestige so a playwright must choose a theme they think will stand out among the plethora of Hercules and Iliad tales that were so well known. It was in Euripides best interest to shock the audience with a new perspective so that when it came time to vote they would remember his show. Whether he meant to lure people in through passion or the power of spectacle Euripides had a passion for writing strong willed women who would not be the lesser to a man.

One such example would be Medea. Medea was a woman who was abandoned by her husband, the hero Jason, and chose to murder her children rather than leave them in the care of her husband and his new wife. At first glance this appears to be a monstrous concept that a woman would kill her children however once taken into perspective there was little else she could do. Medea was not a Greek woman. She was brought to Greece by Jason after the Golden Fleece adventures and this left her scorned by a society that had building disdain for foreign barbarians.  

At this point in history Greece had recently passed laws that said you were not a Greek unless you could prove you had come from Greece for so many generations. This meant when he left Medea and his two children by her she had nowhere to turn that would openly accept her. The one friend she found would not take her children for fear of war. So rather than wander helplessly into the wilderness Medea forms a plan to extract her revenge upon Jason and do her children the less harm than what he may do to them. The story ends with her doing just that. Medea takes everything away from Jason that he had tried to take away from her leaving him with nothing and then she is taken away by the gods. Medea follows the same process that a man would have however she is caught in a double standard. Where a man would be a hero she is arguably a villain simply because her gender demanded it.

That being said the play must have worked well for Euripides since the year that he performed it he won third place in the festival which encouraged him to write more about the strong willed women he must have admired. Euripides takes special care to ensure that the women who act within his plays act as if they were men who voiced their emotions. This reversal of role made a political comment on the standing in Greece as well as commented on how outsiders were treated. If either of these political positions were different then perhaps Medea would have had a choice where she could have supported her children without a husband rather than kill them.

Another alternative as to what made these women so ‘bad’ comes back to the men that Euripides spent his time with. Euripides, as stated before, was fond of keeping the company of philosophers one of which may have been Plato and the men familiar with the work of Plato. This is important because it was Plato who introduced the concept of the perfect Form. For every object in existence there is the existence of a perfect form that all should strive to be closer too. However a problem occurred when trying to determine what the perfect for of a human being or specifically a woman was. These perfect forms were based upon social norms rather than functionality like you could apply to an object.

This could imply that Euripides wrote these women not so they could defy social norms but so that they could participate in a social experiment where Euripides could test one of the philosophical theories that he had heard. If the perfect form of a woman was a woman who was docile and acted as an object until her husband called upon her to act them he must have wondered what would happen if a woman was to try and achieve a form closer to that of a man and what would the fallout be.

The written work whether meant to be read or acted out is an excellent way to test a societal concept on a group of people. It allows for a controlled environment that is by definition safe from any actual harm and as long as all characters act true to themselves and their surroundings then something can be learned from both the antagonists in the play as well as the audience. By writing these, Euripides was able to judge the audience as well as Plato’s theory while the audience judged and commented upon his work.

In short Euripides social experiment of exceptional women allowed for the psychological tragedy that would shock the audience and force them to look at the way society functioned in a new light.

Some Thoughts on Homeric Fate

              The Greeks are deeply bound by a sense of false fate. Each god/goddess is bound by their own base nature and from the nature of Zeus comes the enforcement of fate. This same concept is also demonstrated by Achilles in his attempts to make his name remembered throughout history as the last great demigod.

              In Homeric poetry the Fates are the three daughters of Zeus and the titaness Themis.  The three daughters were Clotho who spun the thread of life, Lachesis who determines the length of life a mortal will have and, Atropos who cuts the thread at the moment of death. They govern life of a mortal in reference to the quantity they will have however Zeus governs the quality of life they will have as explained by Achilles in book 24 starting with line 566, “Two jars sit at the doorstep of Zeus, filled with gifts that he gives, one full of good things, the other of evil.” It is a combination of these entities that determines a man’s fate.

              Just as the Greeks are bound by fate so are the gods who choose to support or tear them down such as Zeus. Called by many names, this god of law mated with a titan to produce the fates which removed him from having to micromanage the mortal race as he had to do with the gods and goddess. By effectively outsourcing this chore Zeus bound himself to fate along with all of mankind. Since the creation of the fates Zeus was caught in a viscous cycle of authority that he chose to adopt. By allowing the fates to exist when they were brought into creation he became bound by his nature of law to uphold the chosen destiny of the mortals. However it is also within the nature of Zeus to show remorse and favor those for whom he has grown attached or those who could interfere with his power to uphold law on Olympus such as Achilles.

              Achilles is the son of Thetis, a titaness, who had one point had rescued Zeus when the other Olympians had risen up against him. This is vital to the story and the flexibility of fate. While Achilles was given a choice to have a long spun thread of life with no fame or a short life rife with misery, his mother could not bear his suffering and petitioned Zeus for intervention. Zeus could not reasonably deny Thetis her request however to grant it would further involve the Olypians into the world of man from which they had been slowly withdrawing over the years. Achilles was the last demigod and doomed to die in the battle at Troy.