FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252  
253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   >>   >|  
t far to seek. The signing of the dedication was an assertion of full and responsible ownership in the publication, and the publisher in Shakespeare's lifetime was the full and responsible owner of a publication quite as often as the author. The modern conception of copyright had not yet been evolved. Whoever in the sixteenth or early seventeenth century was in actual possession of a manuscript was for practical purposes its full and responsible owner. Literary work largely circulated in manuscript. {391} Scriveners made a precarious livelihood by multiplying written copies, and an enterprising publisher had many opportunities of becoming the owner of a popular book without the author's sanction or knowledge. When a volume in the reign of Elizabeth or James I was published independently of the author, the publisher exercised unchallenged all the owner's rights, not the least valued of which was that of choosing the patron of the enterprise, and of penning the dedicatory compliment above his signature. Occasionally circumstances might speciously justify the publisher's appearance in the guise of a dedicator. In the case of a posthumous book it sometimes happened that the author's friends renounced ownership or neglected to assert it. In other instances, the absence of an author from London while his work was passing through the press might throw on the publisher the task of supplying the dedication without exposing him to any charge of sharp practice. But as a rule one of only two inferences is possible when a publisher's name figured at the foot of a dedicatory epistle: either the author was ignorant of the publisher's design, or he had refused to countenance it, and was openly defied. In the case of Shakespeare's 'Sonnets' it may safely be assumed that Shakespeare received no notice of Thorpe's intention of publishing the work, and that it was owing to the author's ignorance of the design that the dedication was composed and signed by the 'well-wishing adventurer in setting forth.' But whether author or publisher chose the patron of his wares, the choice was determined by much the same considerations. Self-interest was the principle underlying transactions between literary patron and _protege_. Publisher, like author, commonly chose as patron a man or woman of wealth and social influence who might be expected to acknowledge the compliment either by pecuniary reward or by friendly advertisement of the volume
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252  
253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

author

 

publisher

 

patron

 

Shakespeare

 

responsible

 

dedication

 

design

 

manuscript

 

dedicatory

 

compliment


publication

 

ownership

 

volume

 
safely
 

epistle

 

defied

 
countenance
 
openly
 

ignorant

 

refused


Sonnets

 

charge

 
practice
 

exposing

 

supplying

 

figured

 

assumed

 

inferences

 

adventurer

 

Publisher


commonly

 

protege

 

literary

 

principle

 

underlying

 

transactions

 

wealth

 

pecuniary

 

reward

 

friendly


advertisement

 

acknowledge

 

expected

 
social
 

influence

 

interest

 

ignorance

 

composed

 
signed
 
publishing