Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-06T22:11:11.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Algorithm and Analogy: Distant Reading in 1598

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Extract

The chapter titled the “Reading of Bookes” in Francis Meres'S 1598 Palladis Tamia offers two competing prescriptions for the allocation of readerly attention. The first suggests that too-close reading spoils some books: “As the s[c]ent of spices and flowers is more acceptable somewhat off then close to the nose: so there are some things that please, if they be lightly passed over; which being exactly looked into do loose their grace” (266v). The second reverses that logic by way of a fresh analogy: “Those things that live long, doe not soon spring up: so that worke which thou wouldst have alwaies to be read, ought to be throughly laboured in, and seriouslie scanned” (267r). On the face of it, Meres's book—a six-hundred-and-sixty-five-page-long compendium of moral and practical precepts, each cast in the repetitive syntax of the similitude—is evidently the first sort of text. At once dizzingly various and mind-numbingly repetitive, Palladis Tamia is a book to “be lightly passed over”—“scanned” in the modern, not the sixteenth-century, sense of the word. That is certainly the case today, when Palladis Tamia is known primarily for a single chapter, “A Comparative Discourse of Our English Poets, with the Greeke, Latine, and Italiane Poets,” Meres's pioneering survey of English Renaissance writing, and above all for a handful of sentences in that chapter, which offer a rare glimpse into the early career of William Shakespeare. “As the soule of Euphorbus was thought to live in Pythagoras: so the sweete wittie soule of Ovid lives in mellifluous and honytongued Shakespeare,” Meres declares. “As Epius Stolo said, that the Muses would speake with Plautus tongue, if they would speak Latin: so I say that the Muses would speak with Shakespeares fine filed phrase, if they would speake English” (281v, 282r).

Type
Theories and Methodologies
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 The Modern Language Association of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Works Cited

Allen, Don Cameron. “The Classical Scholarship of Francis Meres.” PMLA, vol. 48, no. 2, June 1933, pp. 418–25.Google Scholar
[Allot, Robert.] Wits Theatre of the Little World. Nicholas Ling, 1599.Google Scholar
Beal, Peter S.‘Notions in Garrison’: The Seventeenth Century Commonplace Book.” New Ways of Looking at Old Texts: Papers of the Renaissance English Text Society, 1985–1991, edited by Hill, W. Speed, Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1993, pp. 131–47.Google Scholar
Blair, Ann M. Too Much to Know: Managing Scholarly Information before the Modern Age. Yale UP, 2011.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Translated by Emanuel, Susan, Stanford UP, 1996.Google Scholar
Chartier, Roger. The Order of Books: Readers, Authors, and Libraries in Europe between the Fourteenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Translated by Cochrane, Lydia G., Polity Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Corns, Thomas N.The Early Modern Search Engine: Indices, Title Pages, Marginalia, and Contents.” The Renaissance Computer: Knowledge Technology in the First Age of Print, edited by Rhodes, Neil and Sawday, Jonathan, Routledge, 2000, pp. 95105.Google Scholar
Craig, Hugh. “Style, Statistics, and New Models of Authorship.” Early Modern Literary Studies, vol. 15, no. 1, 2009–10, purl.oclc.org/emls/15–1/craistyl.htm.Google Scholar
Craig, Hugh, and Kinney, Arthur F., editors. Shakespeare, Computers, and the Mystery of Authorship. Cambridge UP, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eden, Kathy. Friends Hold All Things in Common: Tradition, Intellectual Property, and the Adages of Erasmus. Yale UP, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, MacDonald P. Determining the Shakespeare Canon: Arden of Faversham and “A Lover's Complaint.” Oxford UP, 2014.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Russ. The Bedford Companion to Shakespeare: An Introduction with Documents. 2nd ed., Bedford / St. Martin's, 2001.Google Scholar
Meres, Francis. Gods Arithmeticke. Richard Johnes, 1597.Google Scholar
Meres, Francis. Palladis Tamia: Wits Treasury, Being the Second Part of Wits Common Wealth. Cuthbert Burbie, 1598.Google Scholar
Moretti, Franco. Distant Reading Verso, 2013.Google Scholar
Moss, Ann. Printed Commonplace Books and the Structuring of Renaissance Thought. Oxford UP, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ong, Walter J. Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue: From the Art of Discourse to the Art of Reason. 2nd ed., U of Chicago P, 2004.Google Scholar
Orgel, Stephen. “The Renaissance Artist as Plagiarist.” ELH, vol. 48, no. 3, Autumn 1981, pp. 476–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peacham, Henry. The Garden of Eloquence. H. Jackson, 1577.Google Scholar
[Puttenham, George.] The Arte of English Poesie. Richard Field, 1589.Google Scholar
Reiss, Timothy J.From Trivium to Quadrivium: Ramus, Method, and Mathematical Technology.” The Renaissance Computer: Knowledge Technology in the First Age of Print, edited by Rhodes, Neil and Sawday, Jonathan, Routledge, 2000, pp. 4558.Google Scholar
Segarra, Santiago, et al. “Attributing the Authorship of the Henry VI Plays by Word Adjacency.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 67, no. 2, Summer 2016, pp. 232–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stallybrass, Peter. “Navigating the Bible: Books and Scrolls.” Books and Readers in Early Modern England: Material Studies, edited by Anderson, Jennifer and Sauer, Elizabeth, U of Pennsylvania P, 2002, pp. 4279.Google Scholar
Sutton, Dana F. Introduction. Richardus Tertius, by Legge, Thomas, edited and translated by Sutton, Peter Lang, 1993, pp. i-xlvii. Vol. 1 of Thomas Legge: The Complete Plays.Google Scholar
Vickers, Brian. “Shakespeare and Authorship Studies in the Twenty-First Century.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 62, no. 1, Spring 2011, pp. 106–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar