d edition of the
'Passionate Pilgrim' was printed in 1612 with unaltered title-page,
although the incorrigible Jaggard had added two new poems which he
silently filched from Thomas Heywood's 'Troia Britannica.' Heywood
called attention to his own grievance in the dedicatory epistle before
his 'Apology for Actors' (1612), and he added that Shakespeare resented
the more substantial injury which the publisher had done him. 'I know,'
wrote Heywood of Shakespeare, '[he was] much offended with M. Jaggard
that (altogether unknown to him) presumed to make so bold with his name.'
In the result the publisher seems to have removed Shakespeare's name from
the title-page of a few copies. This is the only instance on record of a
protest on Shakespeare's part against the many injuries which he suffered
at the hands of contemporary publishers.

'The Phoenix and the Turtle.'

In 1601 Shakespeare's full name was appended to 'a poetical essaie on the
Phoenix and the Turtle,' which was published by Edward Blount in an
appendix to Robert Chester's 'Love's Martyr, or Rosalins complaint,
allegorically shadowing the Truth of Love in the Constant Fate of the
Phoenix and Turtle.' The drift of Chester's crabbed verse is not clear,
nor can the praise of perspicuity be allowed to the appendix to which
Shakespeare contributed, together with Marston, Chapman, Ben Jonson, and
'Ignoto.' The appendix is introduced by a new title-page running thus:
'Hereafter follow diverse poeticall Essaies on the former subject, viz:
the Turtle and Phoenix. Done by the best and chiefest of our modern
writers, with their names subscribed to their particular workes: never
before extant.' Shakespeare's alleged contribution consists of thirteen
four-lined stanzas in trochaics, each line being of seven syllables, with
the rhymes disposed as in Tennyson's 'In Memoriam.' The concluding
'threnos' is in five three-lined stanzas, also in trochaics, each stanza
having a single rhyme. The poet describes in enigmatic language the
obsequies of the Phoenix and the Turtle-dove, who had been united in life
by the ties of a purely spiritual love. The poem may be a mere play of
fancy without recondite intention, or it may be of allegorical import;
but whether it bear relation to pending ecclesiastical, political, or
metaphysical controversy, or whether it interpret popular grief for the
death of some leaders of contemporary society, is not easily determined.
{184} Happi