Title Pending 85737

Abstract

<strong>This is an accepted article with a DOI pre-assigned that is not yet published.</strong> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm; line-height: 22px; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 17.12px; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif;">[1]</span></a> In his 2013 book publication, Jeffrey Todd Knight precedes his Introduction with the epigraph: “I Compyle: I make a boke as an auctor doth” (Knight 2013, 1) from Palsgrave’s 1530 dictionary of French and English (Palsgrave 1969, Fo.C.xciii.); the compiler, accordingly, is an author or is <i>like</i> an author. To follow the traces of the compiler will, I would like to claim, help us understand better how authorship was conceptualised during the early modern period and how it (implicitly as well as explicitly) integrated a collaborative approach. Early modern miscellanies, a highly popular genre in England from Tottel’s 1557 first edition onwards, are key to understanding the roles of a compiler: not only did the compiler arrange the miscellanies, he could also influence the meaning of a poem or poems by (re)contextualising it or them in a particular manner. There is an ongoing play with identity and anonymity, individuality and collaboration that yields insight into concepts of early modern authorship. In a first step, the story of a single poem will be told, following its path through two early modern verse miscellanies in various editions, from its first publication in 1557 up into the year 1614. The story of this poem is then intricately linked to the stories of the miscellanies and embedded into one of readers, compilers and authors, and it exemplifies how compilation becomes authorial business during the early modern period, as well as how early modern notions of co-authorship are based on interaction.&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span> <p style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: medium;"><br clear="all"><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p id="ftn1"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0cm; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-align: justify;"><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span lang="DE" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 14.2667px; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif;">[1]</span></a><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;, serif;"> See also David Scott Kastan’s plea not to produce “more theory but more facts […] that will reveal the specific historical conditions that have determined the reading and writing of literature” (Kastan 1999, 31). See also Hackel 2005, 7.<o:p></o:p></span>