Finally, I’ve worked through all the administrative problems of being in English Honours for one-half of my Dual Degree and I’m in! I couldn’t be happier…or more frightened. I’ve been spending a lot of time this summer preparing for English Honours (reading books, papers, etc.) but I haven’t a clue how I’ll do in comparison with my classmates. Here goes nothing.

Summer really went by too quickly and although I hardly did anything worth mentioning, I did renew an interest in visual art! Visits to assorted art galleries in the States really fostered that love. Here are some I thought were worth sharing:

After the deluge by Yoshitomo Nara (2006)

Illustration for Milton’s Paradist Lost by Gustave Doré (1866)

La musique by Charles-André van Loo (1753)

Neat, hm?

I’m having a bad, bad day
If you take it personal, that’s okay
Watch, this is so fun to see
Huh, despicable me.
– Pharrell, “Despicable Me”

The movie, by all means, was great. The story was fun, the humour well-timed and (gosh darn it!) the orphan girls were so sweet! This makes me think that everyone ought to be forced to care for the young. Perhaps we’d have less villains that way? Behind our seats, a whole row was reserved for (what we assumed) was a birthday party. Hearing the children giggle with glee behind us wasn’t as annoying as I might have imagined — it was quite fun to have them behind us! (Too bad L was thwapped on the head by an overzealous child…)

After a rather long journey to procure a screen protector for A’s (new!) BlackBerry Bold 9700, we wandered over to Chapters where we discovered, much to our mutual pleasure, that we could have dinner together. We ate at The Boss (where I learned that I don’t actually know how to order beef in Cantonese…how do you indicate how well-cooked you want the meat?!).

Once full, we left the restaurant to a rapidly closing mall. We wandered over to a water fountain outside to wonder what we could do. I suggested we take a stroll in Central Park (despite my great fears of creepers running amok in the wooded areas). Off we went.

After dodging incoming golf balls from the pitch-and-putt and trekking through the verdant trees, we sat on a bench and noticed two people apparently shouting at one another. Perplexed, we gazed on to notice a man in a blue cape yelling to some people further away. Nosily, we inched closer and closer until…we noticed that it was a production! Outside! In the park! For free!

Enthralled, we found ourselves sitting on the grass (and swatting away the copious amounts of vampiric mosquitoes) and trying to unravel the storyline. As it turns out, it was a production of Neverland: Beginnings by Rainforest Theatre, a small local company. We watched with glee as Peter Pan was nearly wedded to the daughter of the pirate king and as we learned how Captain Hook gained (lost?) his eponymous appendage. With subtle amusement, we gazed on as one overexcited child-spectator inched closer and closer to the actors until he was actually sitting within the action, gazing upward and asking, “Can I see that?!”

I found it so magical that serendipity (and, admittedly, a reluctance to return home to do readings for ENGL 468) led us to a theatrical production in the ancient pulse of germ and birth. I thought I had encountered something out of Midsummer Night’s Dream! (But of course not. My appointment to see Henry V is this Friday.)

It is some indication of my great love for the theatre but I adored the way the actors interacted with the audience and with their surroundings. With little more than some light costuming, they created a world into which their children-spectators could be drawn by sheer charisma. And what is a more natural setting for a theatrical production than the forest?

The play finished and everyone dispersed. We headed over to P’s house to play poker briefly before I was summoned home with great displeasure at my waywardness.

And I could wish my days to be bound each to each with such wonder, joy and serendipity.

Let me be frank. Anne of Green Gables begins simply with a nosy, old woman, staring out of her window with her hawkish eyes. And but of course, she spies one neighbour’s husband plodding along for some inexplicable reason. She makes the laborious (not really) trip to her neighbour’s home to prod her nose into the affairs of the adjacent household. Having learned of the reason for the excursion, she gives her unsolicited and frank advice. When mildly rebuffed, she leaves with every intention of setting the neighbourhood tongues wagging by sharing her newly-gained insight.

Not altogether a promising start to what many Canadians would consider a national classic.

I mean, I’ve skirted around the topic before. In ENGL 112, I wrote a paper on metaphoric representations of genes and genetics, citing issues of epistemology. But I never really appreciated the subject until now.

More recently, I discussed the ways in which contemporary theories of knowledge (empiricism, rationalism and German Idealism) contemporaneous to the Victorian Period were explored in Wilkie Collins’ The Moonstone. Could this be a legitimate mode of literary scholarly inquiry? My golden ticket into the world of literary academia?

I think I will focus attention this year on learning more about epistemology. Being an armchair epistemologist. Falling down the rabbit-hole, so to speak.

Hm. Curiouser and curiouser.

Here’s something I wouldn’t mind taking if offered:

Making the Sexual, Textual: Pornographic Texts of the Modernist Period

Sexual intercourse began
In nineteen sixty-three
(which was rather late for me) -
Between the end of the “Chatterley” ban
And the Beatles’ first LP.
– Philip Larkin, “Annus Mirabilis”

Numerous literary works have inspired controversy and, indeed, public outrage over perceived obscene or pornographic content. This course seeks to critically evaluate these texts using modern theoretical frameworks as well as to understand the cultural milieu in which these works were published. While a primary focus will be placed upon the texts themselves, some attention will be devoted to obscenity trials and contemporary discussions of the nature of literature and society.

Students are forewarned that course material may contain content offensive to some readers. Enrollment indicates a willingness to read through all texts.

Primary Readings:

• Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert (1857)
• Selections from Les Fleurs du Mal by Charles Baudelaire (1857)
• Selections from Ulysses by James Joyce (1922)
• Lady Chatterley’s Lover by D.H. Lawrence (1928)
• The Well of Loneliness by Radclyffe Hall (1928)
• Tropic of Cancer by Henry Miller (1934)
• Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov (1955)

Secondary Readings:

• The History of Sexuality: An Introduction by Michel Foucault (1984)
• Dirt for Art’s Sake: Books on Trial from Madame Bovary to Lolita by Elisabeth Ladenson (2006)
• Other related material including scholarly articles, court records, newspaper clippings, etc.

I tried to over-reach my own competency and bit off more than I can possibly chew.

My English professors this term were mostly sympathetic, wrongfully so. I thank them for their sympathy but I would have thought that they should have chastised me for not giving due attention to the literature about which they obviously care. I have done my readings a terrible disservice, a violent crime, a dishonour by scribbling “analyses” tantamount to pablum and forcing my professors to read through them, cringing and wincing in pain and embarrassment.

Mea culpa.

My science courses have hardly gone better. I’ve kept up-to-date so far as I can keep abreast of the newest course material in case of tests and quizzes. I’ve even grossly neglected by two essays for cell physiology, a course that I love and in which I have actually done quite well.

If this year has taught me anything, it’s that I’m severely, painfully, humanly limited.

There’s some comfort in that understanding, and pain too.

All I can do now is just study hard for my examinations to redeem myself, then work towards avoiding overloading myself next year. I’m only glad that the stakes are so low right now; this is a life lesson best learned early, when the consequences are merely marks, not health or money.

I can do better.

I Am A: Lawful Good Half-Elf Wizard (2nd Level)

Ability Scores:
Strength–11
Dexterity–12
Constitution–11
Intelligence–16
Wisdom–12
Charisma–12

Alignment:
Lawful Good A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. He combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. He tells the truth, keeps his word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion. However, lawful good can be a dangerous alignment because it restricts freedom and criminalizes self-interest.

Race:
Half-Elves have the curiosity and ambition for their human parent and the refined senses and love of nature of their elven parent, although they are outsiders among both cultures. To humans, half-elves are paler, fairer and smoother-skinned than their human parents, but their actual skin tones and other details vary just as human features do. Half-elves tend to have green, elven eyes. They live to about 180.

Class:
Wizards are arcane spellcasters who depend on intensive study to create their magic. To wizards, magic is not a talent but a difficult, rewarding art. When they are prepared for battle, wizards can use their spells to devastating effect. When caught by surprise, they are vulnerable. The wizard’s strength is her spells, everything else is secondary. She learns new spells as she experiments and grows in experience, and she can also learn them from other wizards. In addition, over time a wizard learns to manipulate her spells so they go farther, work better, or are improved in some other way. A wizard can call a familiar– a small, magical, animal companion that serves her. With a high Intelligence, wizards are capable of casting very high levels of spells.

Find out What Kind of Dungeons and Dragons Character Would You Be?, courtesy of Easydamus (e-mail)

ENGL 304 (Advanced Composition)
This one felt pretty touch and go for most of the way…the professor really knows her stuff (she should – she wrote the textbook after all) and there were definitely some innovative teaching methods. However, I never really felt like I ever got into the rhythm of things and when I did, it was short-lived. I’d recommend anyone to take this course if they feel that their writing is a bit on the weak side; this course should help you polish up your composition skills. However, the title of the course, “Advanced Composition” is a bit of a misnomer – most of the course is spent on persuasive essays, not expository.

ANAT 390 (Introduction to Microscopic Human Anatomy)
This one’s definitely a rite-of-passage for most and it’s reasonably tough. Because it’s a survey course, you cover a lot of ground very quickly, leaving students who haven’t taken advanced biology scratching their heads. If you are, however, a biology senior with a good number of cell biology courses under your belt, you really ought to be fine; it won’t be anything you can’t handle. It’s taught by a variety of different professors, each of whom is an expert in the material that s/he teaches – this is great because you get instructors who really are experts at what they are teaching but you never know the level of instruction you’ll get. Some are great and some not so much.

BIOL 361 (Introduction to Physiology)
I can’t say I ever really wanted to take this course – I took it because it’s mandatory for my program. Nevertheless, it was enjoyable, largely due to the efforts of my two wonderful instructors. The course material itself is accessible and not too onerous; all evaluations were open-book so it was really a test of getting enough down on paper to show that you knew what you knew. The topics are, at times, dry but I guess I can see why the course is mandatory for all biology majors. Regular study should lead to success in this course quite easily.

BIOL 304 (Fundamentals of Ecology)
Co-taught by two instructors, this course was in its first run this year after being revamped from the previous BIOL 302/303 program. Deceptively breezy in the beginning, many students learned the hard way that this course stressed critical thinking (for long-answer problems) as well as rote memorization (for definitions) on the midterm examination. The labs were fun if labour-intensive; they were generally mark-boosters. I’m sure, with time, that this course will become more refined but all I can say is that the course was still a bit rough around the edges when I took it. It was, however, interesting enough that I’m considering taking BIOL 306.

BIOL 300 (Biometrics)
Absolutely dreading this course, I walked in with the lowest expectations ever. I felt that I had been deceived – I thought that no math was required after first year if I wanted to do the Biology program! Nevertheless, the math involved is quite basic if laborious at times (ANOVA, anyone?) and the examples provided are compelling and interesting. I can see why this course is mandatory for all biology majors and I found, in spite of myself, that I enjoyed this course and saw how it would be relevant to research. The evaluation is straightforward and fair, if comprehensive. Regular study and practice should serve you well.

BIOL 360 (Cell Physiology Laboratory)
This course was a blast from beginning to end! It’s structured far more casually than those formal chemistry labs and you get to pick and choose among the experiments that interest you. There’s not a strong emphasis on the acquisition of laboratory techniques, though, aside from centrifugation and micropipetting, which was very disappointing. The TAs were helpful and the director was always open for questions, though. Marking is rigorous and more difficult than you might imagine.

BIOL 240 (Experimental Design in the Life Sciences)
This review might be moot seeing as how this was the last year that BIOL 240 will be running (for now) but I thought it was wonderful. It’s extremely time-consuming, however, and required much more attention than I had previously imagined but what you put in is what you get out. I learned a lot of valuable laboratory techniques in here, as well as figuring out that scientific research is not as romantic as I might have once imagined (I have so much pity for people who work with Neurospora crassa). Still, this course was just so rewarding and so great! I took so many pictures and they’ll always have a cherished place in my heart.

Next term is almost certainly going to be hugely different; a huge influx of ENGL courses will shake up the balance of things while BIOL 337 will either break me or make me. I’m excited!

Now, not to get ahead of myself, time to commence studying!

I’ve set the geek-meter far into the red by posting this but…

What kind of inheritance does this pedigree show? What trait do you suppose is being depicted?

And most importantly, what does this have to do with my ENGL 304 term paper?

Google Opt Out Feature Lets Users Protect Privacy By Moving To Remote Village

Really now, that is just too amusing.

Currently working on my term paper for ENGL 304 (you know, that topic deserves a post of its own, come to think of it) while also sorting through the swath that is SUS Finance. Not to mention the job.

*sigh* Finals are about to be upon us. Whither shall I run?

Oh and for those keeping track, I’m thinking of dropping out of Science Co-op. Anyone want to offer their advice?

I’ve been watching television (using Miro!) and playing video games to assuage myself this term, more than ever. I think that the stress is getting to me. I always thought I was impervious to stress but the growing emphasis on mental health nowadays has been making me aware of the unhealthy and unhealthful ways in which I live my life.

I think this will teach me some good lessons about decision-making (e.g. course planning, job seeking, etc.). I’m not the person I thought I was, nor do I know if I will become him.

I’m excited to write my paper for ENGL 304, though. I’m not entirely sure of my topic but I’m trying to flesh out the details – it will be about scientific public discourse (that is to say, the bilateral discussion between scientists and laypeople) about genes and genetics. I’m interested in examining the ways in which scientists describe genes and genetics, the ways in which scientists elucidate the public and how it is (mis)represented or (mis)used. It goes back to my essay in ENGL 112 on genomic metaphors; I’ll be digging out that old essay to look at.

I enjoy being in science. It makes me feel alive; it’s cutting-edge and logical. Things change before my eyes, new discoveries, new breakthroughs, made every day. It’s so exciting and glamorous. But real science, as I have been told, is not so glamorous. It’s difficult and arduous; Sisyphus has a better chance of completing his task than scientists do solving the world’s plethora of problems.

English delights me. It puts me at ease, it soothes me. Anytime I find myself in trouble, I need only a strong cup of tea and a good book to assuage my worries away. I love talking about English. I am only disappointed I can’t take any courses in linguistics or lexicography. Words, words words, as Hamlet calls them, are my lifeblood.

I’m just trying to plough through everything right now. I lit my candle at both ends and now it only delights my friends and foes, not me.

Oh, and I wish I had time to take photographs. Maybe I’ll go on a winter adventure somewhere?

(above) Rat Duodenum Villi under 400x Magnification and Phase Contrast

(above) Rat Duodenum Villi with FITC-WGA under 400x Magnification and UV Light

(above) Allium apical meristematic cell in prophase under 400x

I’m particularly excited because these were cells that I personally fixed for microscopy and photography. Given, they’re not the very best but I’m still very proud!

That is not to say that I don’t have other priorities. I like to imagine that I’m reasonably able at my job. All is calm save for some exceptional difficulties through which I’m working. I keep reminding myself to take it one step at a time. My assistant is really a blessing, though I really do worry about how she’s managing to balance time. Is that normal? Do bosses typically worry about the personal lives of their assistants? I hope I’m not overstepping any boundaries.

I thoroughly enjoy my involvement with SUS, though. My budget successfully passed executive committee even though some discussion ensued its presentation. I’m confident in my ability to lead SUS into a sustainable financial future and I hope that my vision comes through. I’m entirely optimistic.

it’s odd. I vacillate between a general malaise and a soaring optimism. It confuses and intrigues me. It feels like I’m waiting, passionately, reverently, for something. Something that I intuitively know is coming, but of which have no conscious knowledge. Fingers crossed.

For the first time since entering university, I do feel so terribly old. Every year is a challenge, of course, but this year feels as if it isn’t so intimidating. It feels as if university is an old friend of mine by now, studying is for me, old hat. If that is any indication of how I will perform in my academics this year, I am beholden to my family, my friends and my professors who have seen me up to this point.

Being at Science Frosh was a monumentally humbling experience. I felt as if I were part of something much bigger than I could ever be; hearing the voices of so many first-years peal with cheers until the walls and halls of Hebb reverberated was a magical experience. I will work harder with the Science Undergraduate Society so as to not fail them or myself.

I must sound something like a broken record by now, repeating messages of hopefulness and optimism. I do not mind so much. It emboldens me. Unlikely as it is, I cannot help but feel courageous. I hope that will be enough!

I feel slightly overwhelmed by my courseload this term, but I’m not surprised in the least. It is just as, if not more, challenging than I had predicted to juggle so many courses. I can’t really say which courses I enjoy the most, but I feel that I have a rather well-rounded group of instructors. If I weren’t so easily intimidated, I would love to meet them personally.

My extracurricular activities have kept me rather busy. I can’t really say that I didn’t expect it, but I’m surprised by the intensity with which they come at me. I worry that calls for my resignation are merely pending; I fear that I hear whispers of my incompetence echo in the hallowed halls. I hope I don’t disappoint.

Work! It’s taken so much of my time, but it’s really rather rewarding if frustrating. I’m currently on the fence about tutoring – I feel as if I don’t have the time but I really enjoy doing it. I’m sure my students can find other tutors but that thought doesn’t assuage my guilt-ridden mind.

At any rate, it’s time to keep my chin up and get set for a very interesting term indeed. I bought a lab coat today so I finally feel as if I’m a real scientist. Huzzah!

Optimism prevails!

1. Five of Wands
2. Ten of Wands
3. Three of Pentacles
4. King of Swords
5. Eight of Pentacles
6. The Hermit
7. The Sun
8. Seven of Cups
9. The High Priestess
10. Justice

I’m almost done Sleeping Murder though I have a suspicion my interest in Agatha Christie novels has plateaued which, admittedly, is a shame. It does, however, inspire me to want to write my own period mystery stories.

Recently, I’ve become hooked on Glee, my replacement for the recently cancelled Pushing Daisies. It’s sparkling with effervescent good humour and (dare I say it?) glee. Hopefully it lives up to all the hype and has a great run for this season. I would hate for it to die like Pushing Daisies did.

Oh, and everyone should watch this video — Michael Bublé will be coming out with a new album and this is one of his songs. It just cheers me up to hear this song:

I’ll be trying more and more to look on the bright side of things from now on.

I suppose I might have bitten off more than I can chew. Work’s tragically stressful, as are my other extracurricular commitments. If I seem even paler than usual, it might just be the toxic stress getting to me. With school starting, I just hope I can manage to strike a balance among everything. I’m not hopeful.

My self-prescription? A vacation, a real one, the first one in a very long time.

Currently reading Beowulf translations, specifically the Heaney and the Liuzza.

[…]

Soon he found, who in former days,
harmful in heart and hated of God,
on many a man such murder wrought,
that the frame of his body failed him now.
For him the keen-souled kinsman of Hygelac
held in hand; hateful alive
was each to other. The outlaw dire
took mortal hurt; a mighty wound
showed on his shoulder, and sinews cracked,
and the bone-frame burst. To Beowulf now
the glory was given, and Grendel thence
death-sick his den in the dark moor sought,
noisome abode: he knew too well
that here was the last of life, an end
of his days on earth…

I will be briefly skimming over the Ecclesiastical History of the English Peoples and La Morte D’Arthur later on. I like Everyman but we’ll see if I get to it – I want to see if I can read some of The Book of Margery Kempe. Hurray for speed-reading!

1. Professor

2. Anthropologist

3. Historian

4. Curriculum Specialist

5. Title Searcher

6. Sociologist

7. ESL Teacher

8. Political Aide

9. Foreign Language Instructor

10. Communications Specialist

11. Paralegal

12. Corporate Trainer

13. Lawyer

14. Corporate / Commercial Lawyer

15. Civil Litigator

16. Chartered Accountant

17. Foreign Service Officer

18. Adult Education Teacher

19. Public Policy Analyst

20. Curator

21. Archivist

22. Researcher

23. Judge

24. Lobbyist

25. Print Journalist

26. Critic

27. Customs Broker

28. Activist

29. Certified Management Accountant

30. Politician

31. Public Relations Specialist

32. Writer

33. Career Counsellor

34. Television and Radio Reporter

35. Motivational Speaker

36. Principal

37. Mediator

38. Genetic Counsellor

39. Librarian

40. Forensic Accountant

Interesting and revealing, if rather inaccurate in many regards.

Incidentally, Dr. MacKenzie is currently teaching a section of ENGL 358 focusing exclusively on the characters of the Rake and the Coquette this year.

Schools for Scandal: Trends in Collaborative Authorship during the Augustan Era

Introduction

Particularly in the current post-Romantic scholarly milieu, Inge notes that literary academics continue to “maintain the traditional image of the author as an individualist up against a material world, trying to create something pure and unsullied” (623). Stillinger adopts an even stronger position, noting that contemporary scholars are guilty of reifying the author as a lonesome prodigy, of subscribing to “the romantic myth of the author as a solitary genius” (202). Others, such as Foucault and Barthes, have attempted to instead banish or suggest the death of the author, severing the connection between authors and their works (Stillinger v). Adherence to either image, the solitary author or the dead author, is largely incompatible with attempts to study literature of the Augustan era which, according to Griffin, was characterized by “[a] higher incidence of collaboration…than at any time in the history of English literature” (1). This frequency of collaboration, continues Griffin, “can tell us something important about the literary world that the Augustans inhabited, a world different from our own, and requiring that we approach it with properly adjusted critical preconceptions” (1), that is to say, preconceptions that do not presuppose the myth of the solitary author or the absent author. This paper, then, seeks to investigate the ways in which redefining existing paradigms of authorship may lead to meaningful insight into new ways of studying literature of the Augustans, particularly that of Dryden and Pope. Moreover, this paper will attempt to trace patterns of collaboration by attempting to identify the types of literary collaboration, based upon authorial intention and motivation, prevalent in the early and late Augustan periods.

The Age of Dryden (1660–1700): The Commercial Collaborators

The period immediately succeeding the Restoration was a time of great literary activity; forms of creative expression that had been hitherto restrained by the Puritan Cromwell regime, particularly works of burlesque and satire, were suddenly released from their manacles (Black et al. 1062–1097). With the increased freedom of expression, playwrights finally had the opportunity to ridicule government corruption, which had long been exempt from discussion, and authors were free to write witty, sparkling satires mocking affectation and pedantry. Finally, print culture had arrived in earnest in England, engulfing coffeehouses, meeting dens and fashionable households across London (Black et al. 1062–1097).

While literary collaboration had occurred long before the Restoration (the very thought conjures images of Fletcher penning scenes from The Two Noble Kinsmen with an aging Shakespeare looking on), it was the relatively late emergence of print culture in England that galvanized a genuine need for collaborative authorship at this time. Books during this period, as most academics will attest, were primarily written to be sold, necessitating the need for collaboration not only among authors, but also among booksellers, copyeditors and printers in order to guarantee significant returns on investments, made particularly necessary due to the subscription model of literary dissemination prevalent at that time (Griffin 2–3).

Among the foremost authors of this early Augustan period was John Dryden, whose name was so ubiquitous with literary success that he was highly sought after as a literary collaborator by almost every creditable bookseller (Griffin 5). Griffin’s research into Dryden’s widespread literary collaboration yields three main types of projects in which Dryden participated: a professional poet working with an amateur, a senior established poet helping a young writer and a pair of professionals working together as a contractual business arrangement (2–3). Although Dryden did assist some of his friends in literary composition, the majority of his literary collaborative efforts were focused upon commercial ventures. Samuel Johnson, in his biography of Dryden, suggested “that Dryden was…mercenary,” by intimating that “he [turned] out a hasty translation of Tacitus…from the French rather than the Latin,” in order to publish his translation before those of his competitors (Griffin 5). Nevertheless, Johnson’s criticism offers literary scholars a revised Marxist paradigm with which to study Dryden’s collaborative works, not necessarily as “deeply individualized texts which reveal [Dryden’s] characteristic style, or imagination or vision” but perhaps, more primarily, as commercial ventures (Griffin 7).

One example of Dryden’s commercially-motivated ventures is a complete set of Satires of Juvenal and Persius, published under Dryden’s name but worked upon by at least “an additional ten lesser-known writers” (Griffin 3). There is no clear demarcation between Dryden’s work and the work of those lesser-known authors which confounds scholarly attempts to perform close readings of the text. The text, after all, cannot be assumed to be a homogeneous composition, with any significant uniformity of meaning or intent, but rather, it should be understood to be the collaborative effort of several stakeholders working towards a highly marketable product. A new paradigm, therefore, must be utilized to fully appreciate such possibilities – we must begin to conceptually understand Augustan literature not as discourses, but as discussions; their authors not as lone speakers, but as choruses of voices.

Dryden’s collaboration with Nahum Tate in composition of the second part to Absalom and Achitophel has been well documented by historians (Griffin 8). The original Absalom and Achitophel, written by Dryden while he was poet laureate, had been critically acclaimed for its mild satirical attack on the conspirators of the Popish plot, Shaftesbury and Monmouth, and public demand grew for a supplementary poem to compliment the original. Dryden, already heavily committed to other projects, commissioned Tate, a young, promising poet (who would later also become a poet laureate himself) and accomplished literary mimic, to write a second part to Absalom and Achitophel (Roper 272). After reviewing Tate’s composition, Dryden added a few of his own lines and published the work as his own shortly after the publication of his other satirical masterpiece, MacFlecknoe.

That which Tate and Dryden contributed, respectively, to the second part of Absalom and Achitophel is relatively well-known to academics, providing us with an opportunity to examine the poets in conversation. When compared with the first part, the second part to Absalom and Achitophel is no less critical of its new targets, Settle and Shadwell, than the original had been of Shaftesbury and Monmouth (Roper 272–273). In fact, Tate’s work was an even stronger, more incisive attack upon its targets than Dryden had originally intended (Roper 272–273). Scholars may safely conjecture, then, that Tate’s ideological affiliations (Tory-Whig, old-new literature, etc.) were similar to those of Dryden. Whether Dryden influenced Tate’s literary biases or Tate had previously shared views with Dryden is uncertain, but the ferocity and sophistication of Tate’s satirical attack upon the shared rival, Shadwell, is some indication of ideological harmony between the two. Additionally, Dryden would have had a vested interest in mentoring Tate – as Dryden continued to busy himself with more literary projects, including tedious, time-consuming translations, Tate could continue to serve as his literary deputy, leaving Dryden free to embark upon even greater number of commercial ventures.

The Age of Pope (1700–1744): The Convivial Collaborators

As commercial literary collaboration flourished in the early part of the Augustan period, new trends were already emerging that allowed writers and wits to engage in literary collaboration without commercial overtones. Participation in literary collaboration could form products of “enduring literary alliance[s],” not chiefly commercial works (Griffin 4).

The first of these trends was the emergence of political clubs as a result of increasing animosity between Whig and Tory political factions after the Restoration (Black et al. 1062–1097). The growth of these political clubs catalyzed the rapid development of another subsidiary type of club – the literary club. Ranging from Dryden’s club at Covent Garden to the Saturday Club, literary clubs were places where leading wits and writers mingled, enjoying the company of other like minds and collaborating on literary side-projects (Black et al. 1062–1097). Of chief interest to this paper is the formation and activities of the Scriblerus Club, perhaps the most striking example of collaboration among writers not for profit, but for leisure.

The other trend that contributed towards less commercially-motivated collaborative projects was an increase in financial self-sufficiency among Augustan authors (Black et al. 1062–1097). Pope’s successes with his translations of classical works (which were collaborative works with lesser-known writers). for example, allowed him a freedom that had been hitherto uncommon, that is, the freedom to write for the sake of writing, to write about those subjects that interested him, rather than needing to write in order to sell (Baines 10). This shift from the penniless author to the nouveau riche writer liberated great wits of the late Augustan period from needing to produce tedious translations of classical works, leading to the creation of great, enduring works of the Western literary canon (i.e. The Rape of the Lock, The Beggar’s Opera, Gulliver’s Travels).

The events preceding the formation of the Scriblerus Club have been extensively studied by academics such as Kerby-Miller. Before meeting Pope, it is known that Swift had already been a member of several clubs which had not, much to his chagrin, accomplished any great literary endeavour (Kerby-Miller 2–14). Pope, at that time an ambitious young poet, approached Swift with the idea for a new club, a club that would publish a periodical mocking pedants and devotees to false learning (Kerby-Miller 2–14). A delicate set of events then followed, involving Pope’s ingratiation with Addison and Congreve, Swift’s declaration of public support for Parnell and the resuscitation of a dying Queen Anne which led to the social and political conditions necessary for the literary alliance between Pope, Swift, Gay, Arbuthnot and Parnell (Kerby-Miller 2–14). With such a small, intimate coterie, ideas were rapidly exchanged and the beginnings of a collective work began to germinate. Invitations to other informal collaborators, such as Oxford, are suggestive of the high level of intimacy within the Scriblerus Club:

The Doctor and Dean, Pope, Parnell and Gay
In Mannser submissive most humbly do pray,
That your Lordship would once let your cares all alone
Ande Climb the dark Stairs to your Friends who have none…
(Kerby-Miller 27)

It is impossible to ascertain the precise effects of the meetings of the Scriblerus Club but the group members assuredly benefited from the sharing of ideas with other men of wit. It is more likely than mere coincidence that the most celebrated works of Pope, Swift and Gay were published after the initial meetings of the Scriblerus Club at Dr. Arbuthnot’s rooms in 1714. Griffin draws particular attention to “that villa in Twickenham where in 1727 one house guest has just published Gulliver’s Travel, and another is writing The Beggar’s Opera, while the host is at work on The Dunciad” (8). What Kerby-Miller suggests (and what I am inclined to believe) is that discussions held during meetings of the Scriblerus Club greatly contributed to the composition and eventual successes of the works written by its members. For instance, Goldsmith, in his biography of Parnell, relates a story wherein Pope shares a draft of the revised form of The Rape of the Lock (Kerby-Miller 28). While the gist of the story concerns a jest that Parnell plays upon Pope (he memorizes Pope’s oral reading of the work, translates it into Latin and embarrasses Pope by suggesting that The Rape of the Lock had been plagiarised from classical sources), it is revealing that Pope trusted the Scriblerians enough to share his work and solicit criticism – they saw each other as companions, not rivals.

What may definitively be attributed to the efforts of the Scriblerus Club is the publication of The Memoirs of the Extraordinary Life, Works and Discoveries of Martinus Scriblerus in 1741, a project that had begun in earnest in 1714 (Kerby-Miller 57). Primarily written by Pope and Arbuthnot, the work shifts subject matter from chapter to chapter, indicating ungraceful transitions from author to author as Swift was forced to return to Dublin and Arbuthnot was obligated to attend on Queen Anne. The first seven chapters, suggests Kerby-Miller, were almost certainly written by Arbuthnot and Pope during the period before Swift returned to visit England (57–59). Later parts were probably written chiefly by Arbuthnot as Swift, the self-proclaimed editor of the group, decried Gay as “too young,” Parnell as “idle” and Pope “having no genius at all to it” (Kerby-Miller 58–60).

Scholars have rightly made no attempts to suggest that Scriblerus was the work of a sole author but an understanding of when and how each Scriblerian contributed to the work may provide insight into the sources upon which the Scriblerians relied, perhaps extrapolating the use of such sources to other works. Chapter eleven, for instance, differs significantly in stylistic elements, deriving much inspiration from Ovid and the behaviours of courtiers. Pope and Gay, around 1716, had been deeply interested in Ovid and involved in the courtly social scene, suggesting that not only chapter eleven of Scriblerus was their work, but also that Ovid and courtly manners informed their other work during the time (Kerby-Miller 60).

Conclusion

It would be unjust to overstate the importance of collaborative authorship as a field of study in literary scholarly circles but in the case of the Augustan era, it would be an egregious mistake to suggest that collaboration was not a matter of course and that brilliant Augustan works were solely the products of sole geniuses. Not until the Romantic era would authors be considered tragically lonely, divinely inspired bards so we should not attempt to apply post-Romantic paradigms of authorship upon the sociable Augustans. For profit or for pleasure, collaboration was simply the way of life for authors – to be alone was to lack either relevancy in literary circles or to be thoroughly unlikable. Pope suggests that “true ease in writing comes from art, not chance, as those who move easiest have learned to dance (Pope 2003 14).” Indeed, we must remember that very few Augustan authors failed to learn how to dance with one another, either for business or out of friendship. This understanding must inform attempts to study literature of the Augustan era, forcing academics to recognize the social aspect of authorship, the nature of literary collaboration and the financial motivations for writing while drawing upon modern theoretical frameworks that enable close reading, deconstruction and intertextual analyses.