{"title":"Politics, Law, and Constructive Authorship: John Freke and “The Most Infamous Libel That Ever Was Written”","authors":"G. Kemp","doi":"10.1353/hlq.2021.0043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"abstract:This essay uncovers the use of constructive authorship as a political-legal strategy aimed against oppositional writing under the censorship regime of Charles II in seventeenth-century England. Constructive authorship is defined as the tactic of framing someone as author who is not the author, applying the “logic” that the author is the last discoverable source, principally as a threat in seeking to expose the real author to punishment. The process is illuminated by a detailed examination of a case in which it was notably attempted: the inquiry in 1676 into authorship of the satirical verses known as “The Chronicle” or “The History of Insipids.” Subsequently ascribed to Rochester, the poem was reattributed in the late twentieth century to the young lawyer John Freke on the basis that in 1676 he was “presumed to be the Author” when arrested. The essay demonstrates that literary-historical scholarship mistook a strategy of actively constructing authorship for the fact of authorship, unaware of how the tactic unraveled later in the year, in a case that also featured a youthful Jacob Tonson as prosecution witness and Andrew Marvell as interested observer. The outcome confirms the need for a critical stance toward the construction of authorship that includes a conception of the real author, asking not least whether the alleged author was framed.","PeriodicalId":45445,"journal":{"name":"HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HUNTINGTON LIBRARY QUARTERLY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/hlq.2021.0043","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, CHARACTERIZATION & TESTING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
abstract:This essay uncovers the use of constructive authorship as a political-legal strategy aimed against oppositional writing under the censorship regime of Charles II in seventeenth-century England. Constructive authorship is defined as the tactic of framing someone as author who is not the author, applying the “logic” that the author is the last discoverable source, principally as a threat in seeking to expose the real author to punishment. The process is illuminated by a detailed examination of a case in which it was notably attempted: the inquiry in 1676 into authorship of the satirical verses known as “The Chronicle” or “The History of Insipids.” Subsequently ascribed to Rochester, the poem was reattributed in the late twentieth century to the young lawyer John Freke on the basis that in 1676 he was “presumed to be the Author” when arrested. The essay demonstrates that literary-historical scholarship mistook a strategy of actively constructing authorship for the fact of authorship, unaware of how the tactic unraveled later in the year, in a case that also featured a youthful Jacob Tonson as prosecution witness and Andrew Marvell as interested observer. The outcome confirms the need for a critical stance toward the construction of authorship that includes a conception of the real author, asking not least whether the alleged author was framed.
本文揭示了在17世纪英国查理二世的审查制度下,建设性作者身份作为一种政治-法律策略的使用,旨在对抗对立的写作。建设性作者身份被定义为一种策略,即把不是作者的人诬陷为作者,运用作者是最后可发现的来源的“逻辑”,主要作为一种威胁,试图让真正的作者受到惩罚。这一过程可以通过对一个案例的详细调查来阐明:1676年对讽刺性诗歌《编年史》(The Chronicle)或《Insipids史》(The History of Insipids)作者的调查。这首诗后来被认为是罗切斯特的作品,但在20世纪后期又被认为是年轻的律师约翰·弗雷克的作品,理由是他在1676年被捕时被“推定为作者”。这篇文章表明,文史学学者错误地将积极建构作者身份的策略误认为作者身份的事实,没有意识到这一策略在当年晚些时候是如何失效的,在这个案例中,年轻的雅各布·汤森(Jacob Tonson)作为控方证人,安德鲁·马维尔(Andrew Marvell)作为感兴趣的观察者。这一结果证实,需要对作者身份的构建采取一种批判的立场,包括对真正作者的概念,尤其是询问所谓的作者是否被陷害。