Sei sulla pagina 1di 13

John Taylor (1577-1654) and Jacobean

Popular Culture

By Frederick 0.Waage

s the premise of this essa

better than t o quote from Richard Hoggart on the problem popular culture
poses for literary scholarship:
Too many people in schools of literature, and
indeed in the humanities in general, work from
. . fixed patterns of socio-cultural assumptions, patterns almost wholly decided by their
cultural conditioning and imitative role-play.
ing. . . . Mass [i.e. popular] art proves to be complex, both in
itself and in its relations t o its audiences, and its cultural meanings, therefore, cannot be easily inferred. It cannot be adequately
assessed by the usual dualisms and dichotomies . . . machinetooled versus spontaneous, brutal versus genteel, low versus high,
processed versus live, evasive versus honest, conventional versus
challenging, falsely resolving versus truly-exploring, symptomatic
versus representative, and exploitative versus disinterested. From
this investigation one may also learn something about high art
as it is conventionally classified: that, for example, its complexity is sometimes only an appearance, only an abilit
to Operate
within the intellectual and artistic fashions of its day.

Hoggart draws his examples from Lawrence and

Forster, but nowhere are cultural assumptions, and the



sequent dichotomic misrepresentations of his subject more pervasive

than in the historical study of literature, particularly that of a period
like the English Renaissance, Where either a deadly duumvirate like
Shakespeare and Jonson have been allowed to define the contours of
the total culture of which they partook, or else, as in a book like
Harbages Shakespeare and the Rival Traditions, the culture has been
divided into two neat and all-inclusive value systems. But what d o we
find in the Jacobean popular mind as expressed in its literature, if
we try t o understand it in its own terms, finding the assumed orders2
within it, rather than imposing our own order on it?
For example, we all know these verses:
The heavens themselves, the planets, and this centre
Observe degree, priority, and place,
Insisture, course, proportion, season, form,
Office, and custom in all line of order.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Take but degree away, untune that string,
And hark! what discord follows

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Then every thing includes itself in ower,
Power into will, will into appetite.

But how many of us can recognize these?

For since the time that mankinde first began,
It is a destinie ordaind to man,
The meane upon the mighty should depend,
And all upon the Mightiest should attend.
Thus through all ages, Countries and dominions,
We each on other hung like ropes of Onions4

The latter voice, which here includes everything, in a sense, into appetite,
is the Jacobean popular writer I have chosen to discuss, John Taylor,
waterman, poet, and adventurer, whose mass appeal and the integrity
of whose vision of cosmic harmony bring up the vexing question of
how much both he and Shakespeare have been misunderstood through
neglect of the popular arts of their time.
In the above verses, Shakespeares glossary of synonyms for
order suggests that his figurative language (untune that string) is
but amplificatio of a place, an abstract truth about the world, which
is the first thing his creating mind comes to; t o a mental pattern of the



universe corresponds a rhetorical pattern for its articulation. Taylor,

on the contrary, does not experience reality as a conceptualization
mediating between perceived phenomena and their expression. He
is unconscious of rhetoric as an entity, of Decorum as a universal
category which causes us today, heirs of Shakespeare, to smile at a
perceived incongruity between the universe and a rope of onions.
Taylor does not partition the onions into qualities which do or do
not correspond to particular qualities of the universe. As a total
physical object the rope of onions is the universe, and human society, in little, and, expressed as a verbal formula, the simile is as
valid and self-sufficient as any others conceivable-a ladder, a golden
chain, a string of pearls.
A corollary to the above is Taylors inability t o see the literature
he produces as quaZitativeZy different from any other human product.
Poetry is not of al humane learnings the most ancient . . . as from
whence other learnings have taken their beginnings. When defending himself against the charge of writing only about trivia, he says that
all great writers did the same;6 he defends the vernacular by arguing
that Latin was the vernacular of the Roman l ~ m i n a r i e s . As
~ literary
creation is not some transcendent act, it becomes almost a physiognomical attribute, inseparable from the human nature of the creator:
be he good or bad, in his condition,/His lines will shew his inward
disposition.* Essentially, the act of writing is as imperfect as the
act of perception; inspiration reveals no ideal pattern. And Taylor
is writing for an audience whose cultural values allow the acceptance
of literary art only as product; of its content as observation; of its
creator as merchant:
Let Trencher-Poets scrape for such base vailes.
Ile take an oare in hand when writing fades,
And twixt the boat & pen, I make no doubt,
But I shall shift to picke a liuing out.

The symboI of Taylors attitude toward the universe and its

literary mirroring forth was the great folio of his Workes, published
in 1630, with whose contents this essay will deal. Taylor, of rural
parentage, bound over to the guild of watermen who ferried the
well-off across, and up and down, the Thames, seems t o have
begun writing with an elegy on Prince Henry in 1612, and surviving through the Revolution (in which he was an ardent royal



propagandist), wrote the last of more than a hundred pamphlets in

1653. Throughout his life he maintained the public identity of his
two crafts, which was an act equivalent to that of compiling, in
parody of Ben Jonson and the great Divines, a volume ot Works,
with dedicatory verses. Denying the literary elite access t o his
privileged role as the Kings one and only water poet, while asserting the total accessibility t o himself of that form of literary monument signifying their ultimate superiority to his class, Taylor reduced
social and cultural hierarchy t o a universal urge: all men equally
aspire to the mightiest. Thus one aspect of Taylors creative activity
was his manipulation of his public image as writer. By maintaining
his role as vox populi-unique in his lack of pretension t o uniqueness-Taylor was using his notoriety t o overcome the distances between classes, and broaden the definition of popular.
Nothing illustrates this effort better than the many journeys
around England and Europe which became Taylors trademark and
which he publicized in pamphlets. Wherever he went, Taylor managed
to win, and publicize, his entertainment by people of much higher
status: nobles and civic officials. Here Taylor was pointing out to
his non-noble audience not his superiority t o them but the fact that
their superiors were mortal enough t o accept a man of the people on
his own terms; but by forever travelling on he prevented his support
by any one of them from degenerating into patronage.
By way of Taylors career and writings we may perhaps perceive
the way in which historical scholarship has misrepresented Jacobean
(and other) popular culture. What it has done is to assume that t o
discover the categories of thought the humanistically traditional
Renaissance employed in creating and reading art is the necessary
and sufficient step in learning how to read all manifestations of
Renaissance culture. For Miss Tuve, The crux of the matter, if we
are to understand the Elizabethan conception of the relation of sensuous experience t o poem, lies in what the Elizabethan understood
by the concept of Imitation.2 Yet-Taylor and the many less
illustrious mechanics who did writing on the side may be called
Elizabethan but they did not function conceptually in this way.
As a result of using theoretically established forms without believing
in their ultimate reality, Taylor creates for his audience a literary dynamic based on the ridicule of form by content, not on the interaction



of elements within one form. Form is not a find frame of reference,

but something observed, like all other worldly phenomena, from
The archetype of the anti-formal literary experience l 3 is Taylors
description of a journey, whose content is the fortuitous making and
breaking of form by Taylors subjecting himself to chance as voyager
and writer. Taylor reduces the experience of travel, in his many accounts, t o the empirically verifiable-his own sensuous experience,
obstinately unmolded by following the guidebooks. l4 His early
pamphlet, Taylors Water-Worke, or the Scullers Travels f r o m Tyber
to Thames (1912), uses his profession only metaphorically: the
travel is from the literarily obllgatory satire of Romish corruption
which begms it, to the scurrilous, ultimately Anglo-Saxon epigrams
which end it. The good immorality of the latter implicitly parodies
the bad morality of the former, and the experience of form in writing
as a whole. The intent is echoed in Taylors dedication t o his living
antagonist and posthumous friend, the traveller Thomas Coryate :
Nor am I like a wool-pack, cramd with Greek
Venus in Venice minded to go seeke;
And at my backe returne to write a Volume,
In memory of my wits Gargantua colume.
The choicest wits would neuer so adore me;
Nor like so many Lackies run before me . . .15

The greatest danger for Taylor, most t o be avoided, is like Coryate

t o become the jester of the wits, lose the freedom of an autonomous
identity and take on a form by letting himself be defined by authority.
All Taylors travel pamphlets reinforce this psycho-social, as correlative
of physical, mobility. There is his ferry-boat voyage through the North
Sea t o York,16 or his Penniless Pilgrimage to Scotland following, and
satiric of, Ben Jonsons literary one. In the latter pamphlet the
two things he does describe in detail are Sir George Bruces coal mine
where many poor people are . . . set on work, which other wise
through the want of imployment would p e r i ~ h and
~ in implicit
contrast the Calydonian annual peaceful1 Warre of the Scottish
lairds luxurious and wasteful hunts. There is also his voyage to
Quinborough, Kent, in a ship literally made of brown paper--that
staple of London commerce, symbolic of it, and thereby ironically
assertive of what Taylor considers the true underpinning of the ship



of state.
A form similarly employed by Taylor to satirize itself is the
paradoxical encomium.20 Although Taylor places himself, at the
beginning of the Praise of Hemp-seed,2 in a long line of illustrious
paradoxical encomiasts, this pamphlet and the others praising the
extreme, social outcasts (beggar, whore, bawd, thief) and the ultimately common (laundry, geese, sheep), are ironic because the praise
is paradoxical only t o a reader out of touch with the reality his
peers accept. The fact that his praise is true, and that there are
many who think it is false and credit Taylor as a clever paradoxist,
is the most devastating paradox of all-that so many literate consciousnesses can be so alienated from reality.22 For example, the
humorous dedication of The Praise of Cleane Linnen is to the most
modifying, clarifying, purifying, and repurifying, cleanser, clearer,
and reformer of deformed and polluted linnen, Martha Legge, Esquiresse, transparent, unspotted, Snow-Lilly-White Laundresse to the
Right worshipfill and generous the Innes of Court . . .23 which
recalls t o the Puritanical lawyers what they would rather forget:
their luxury, their exploitation of and dependence on the common
mans labors, and the inevitable physicality of all their metaphorical
expressions of spirituality. As t o the laundress herself:
Her liuing is on two extremes relying,
Shees euer wetting, or shees euer drying.
As all men dye to liue, and liue to dye,
So doth shee dry to wash, and wash to drye.
She runnes like Luna in her circled spheare,
As a perpetual1 motion shee doth steare.%

Inseparably from the deprecatory humor, the laundresss trade is

glorified above the eminence of the lawyers trade, explicitly by its
being sufficient to embody the cosmic order; implicitly, by Taylors
and his audiences rejection of self-definition by social status alone.
Similarly, Taylors Pastorali refers t o its illustrious antecendents
(Virgil, etc.) as dealing with the same subject, but then defines that
subject (sheep) as a unit in an economic system, not as the emboclment of a pastoral ideal; the latter is ridiculed when Taylor shows in
ornate verse that the Spanish word for sheep is an anagram of Jehoah";^^ the former is affirmed when Taylor recounts all the commodities of parchment, especially:



The Nature of it very strange I finde,

Tis much like Physicke, it can loose and binde:
Tis one mans freedome, and anothers noose,
And like the Pope it doth both binde and loose.26

The universal here is ironically arrived at through the particular; all

men have chosen t o accept as powerful something that in literal fact
is devoid of power; submission to form (custom) requires men to
forget that they are the givers of it. Therefore man Eiues a paradox
of his own making; t o treat paradox as literary form alone is delusion.
Running through much of Taylors writing, and through many
aspects of Jacobean popular culture, is the ridicule of heroism, and
by extension, of all hierarchies of merit based on some outward
scale.27 Implicit in such an attitude is a form of spirituality: mans
most humble activities are glorious in the eye of God, and thereby
glorious per se. Tied t o this is the materialistic opposite; as Taylor
says in his praise of a goose: Because a Goose is common, and not
deare,/She amongst fooles is small esteemed here.28 By showing
in his pamphlet the many different ways in which man is dependent
on the goose, Taylor makes real what his audience is tempted to
dismiss as an initial fantasy of mock-heroism at its outset, his picture
of the dedicatee, through chivalric labours and dangers29 defending his goose against the onslaughts of every segment of urban society,
from scriveners t o kitchen-maids, who want it for themselves. At the
end of the pamphlet, this fantasy has been shown to be the reality
which would ensue if the concluding proverb were rightly understood: Many good blessings we too much forgetlcause they are
neere and cheape, not farre to fet.30 Taylors mock-heroic validates the proverb-form, itself a verbal construct like the goose unappreciated for its very commonness, by leading up to it from far away,
by presenting its particular content before that content is named.
This use of the mock-heroic shows how unselfcontradictory
what we call the Puritan Ethic can be: the worldliness of all must
be emphasized, even glorified, for that levelling t o occur which leaves
n o eminence but ultimate divinity-man having truly, as before the
Fall into illusion, Taylor says in one of his religious pamphlets, no
Sire but God, no Mother but the Earth;31 the heroic fallacy is to
erect degrees between the two. Mans true folly is not the glorification of himself but his belief in the reality of his act of so doing, and



Taylors pamphlets attack this belief. For example, The Great Eater
o f K e n t celebrates one Nicholas Wood, who could eat anything in
infinite quantities. The pamphlet begins with a list of great figures
in history remembered for some outstanding feat or quality, but the
ideal of the exceptional quickly degenerates into the commonplace
of mere Variety: And as every one hath particular qualities t o themselues, and dissonant from others, so are the manners of liues . . . of
all men and women various one from another . . . Amongst all these
before mentioned, and many more which I could recite, this subject
of my Pen is not . . . inferiour to any.32 So not only is the heros
area of superiority one ridiculously common t o all men, b u t he is not
really superior in it; he is as good at eating more than others as the
ploughman is at ploughing. Taylor proceeds with bombast and heroic
allegory applied t o the dinner table (cThis inuincible Ale, victoriously
vanquishd the vanquisher, and ouer our Great Triumpher, was Trium~ h a n t and
) ~ ~recounts his plan t o hire Wood to enrich them both by
having an eating performance at the Bear Garden, which Wood declines
not from modesty or fear of being exploited. but because if his stomack
should f i l e him publickely, and lay his reputation in the mire, it might
haue beene a disparagement to him for e ~ e r . But
~ ~above all. Taylor
heroically inflates Nicholass stomach so that it contains the entire
British economic system and embodies it in the prelapsarian Golden
Ages of which the hero-concept is a degradation:
He hath (within himselfe) a stall for the Oxe, a roome for the
Cow, a stye for the Hogge, a Parke for the Deere, a warren
for the Coneies, a storehouse for fruit, a dayery for Milke,
Creame, Curds, Whay, Butter-milke, and Cheese, his mouth
is a Mill of perpetual1 motion, for let the wind or the water
rise or fall, yet his teeth will euer bee grinding; his guts are
the Rendez-vous or meeting place or Burse for the Beasts of
the fields, the Fowles of the Ayre, and Fishes of the Sea; and
though they be neuer so wild or disagreeing in Nature, one to
another, yet hee binds or grindes them to the peace, in such
manner, that they neuer fall a t odds againe.35

Taylor reinforces the cultural values of his urban auhence in

such flights of comedy, by pretending to reconcile an ideal they
might be tempted to hold with the reality of economic survival
(grounded in appetite). Londoners reject the attempt to reconcile



the opposites, industry and idleness, and the heroic concept that
tries t o contain them.
Similarly, Taylors nonsense-writing, of which so much has
been made, affirms an assumed order while seeming to deny it, but
in a way that a mind that imposed a classically-derived model on the
universe might not appreciate. His best known and most accomplished
nonsense-pamphlet is Sir Gregory Nonsence His News from Noplace;
its aim is to deceive reader expectations by distorting the connotations
of words. What Taylor does is t o drive a wedge of seeming irrelevance
between a sequence of words and the sequence of thoughts and associations they would normally give rise to in the mind of a Shakespeare.
The pamphlet begins basically as a satire of the Heliodorian romance:
the nonsense element is not the accidental juxtaposition of distorted
mythological figures and romance conventions alone, but the fact
that the adventurer, wherever he wanders, cannot escape London,
its vulgar landmarks and familiar types:
As I vpon a Gnat was riding late,
In quest to parley with the Pleiades,
I saw the Duke of Hounsditch gaping close,
In a greene Arbour made of yellow starch,
Betwixt two Brokers howling Madrigales,
A Banquet was served in of Lampraies bones,
Well pickeld in the Tarbox of old time,
When Demogorgon saild to Islington . . .36

Although the local connotations of Hounsditch, yellow starch, Brokers,

Lampreys, and Islington would take too long to expound, they are all
disreputable places and figures in the citys moral hierarchy, and they
trap the transcendental rhetoric of the heroic adventure in claustrophobic dead-end alleys of the citys unheroic geography. To this union
of extremes, just as to the great eaters belly-burden, Taylors audience
would have had a complex response. To the distasteful recognition of
the very smell of Hounsditch, the filthy channel surrounding and imprisoning London, would be added knowing nods of recognition that
despite the Spenserian poets green arbors are made o f something,
their sempiternal-seeming
just a dye. The base-quality starch
yet ranks higher on the scale of reality than the arbor. The nonsense
serves t o reveal truths about the citys inner moral structure and to
define that which is not the city; it reaffirms the values of Taylors



urban subculture.
Perhaps the most interesting of Taylors individual works,
wherein he most positively takes up the mantle of advocate of a
popular philosophy, is Taylors Motto, an ironic rebuttal to George
Withers essay in fashionable stoicism, Withers Motto (1621). Withers
is Nec habeo, nec careo, nec curo; Taylors is Et habeo, et careo, et
curo. The difference defines, as far as any phrase can, the values of
Taylors audience. The basic hypocrisy Taylor discerns in Withers
philosophy is characteristically that he is a Sicophant, a flattring
Knave38 who meretriciously uses an exposition of what he Zacks to
gain the favor and patronage of courtly devotees of C h a p m a n i ~ m . ~ ~
The function of Withers pamphlet refutes its content; I care not
for Preferments which are sold,/and bought (by men of common
worth) for gold;40 but Taylor knows that Wither has made his philosophy into a commodity for sale, so the seeming epicurism of Taylors
own motto, and his open admission that he writes for money, are inversely an actual selflessness, truth to the self and not to an idol, an
emblem. To Withers nec habeo, referring to the goods of the
world, Taylor replies with et habeo referring to the things of the
spirit and knowledge of his own imperfection; to Withers nec
careo referring to worldly desires, Taylor responds with et careo
in its sense of want as lack: And as I want a Regall power and
fame,/I want Reuenues to maintaine the same4 literally describes
the conditions of life rather than an abstracted system of ideals. To
Withers nec cateo proclaiming his freedom from contingency (I
care not whether it be calme, or blow/Or raine, or shine, or freeze, or
haile, or snow)42 Taylor replies with an et careo which recognizes
that man as a psychological entity is a creature of contingency:
I care when I want money, where to borrow,
And when 1 haue it, then begins new sorrow;
For the right Anagram of woe is owe.
And hes in woe that is in debt I know;
For as I curd before to come in debt,
so being in, my cure is out to get.
Thus being in or out, or out or in,
Where one care ends, another doth begin?3

Thus Taylors I have stands for a set of values derived not

from a fixed system but from the observation of process; just as to




the Puritan of his time God, the maker of systems, manifested himself most not in Sabbath observances but in fortuitous and intimate
dialogue with the soul of man. Taylors I may have been Anglican
in faith but it is Puritan in self-definition, caught as a moment of
motion, not constructed, formed by a creed. And his have is not
one of static possession but of impulses, potentials of possession:
judgment, credulity, hope. His known universe is not structured
and complete outside of him but is constantly reshaped by his interaction with it.
In essence, Taylor represents a constituency we must define as
popular in terms of such criteria within itself-named by Talcott
Parsons as elements of a shared symbolic system serving as a criterion or standard of selection44-not external ones we have imposed on it as viewed through the distorted glass of history. Taylors
unique literary problem is the one posed by a popular self-consciousness like our own: how t o be a spokesman of the people without
ceasing to be of the people. This problem is the one faced on the
level of action by all revolutionary leaders, and in particular by
those of the faction Taylor opposed so bitterly in the Revolution
-they would make Cromwell king. The Levellers resolved it by the
sacrifice of tribuneship. Taylor did, I feel, by his perverse insistence
on loyalty t o the King despite the fact that the popular attitudes
he expressed in his pamphlets, if conceptualized t o the level of doctrine, would have allied him with the receivers of faith against the
givers of form. Taylor anticipated the popular will that produced
the Restoration, accepting form as a provisional bulwark against chaos.
Nothing more beautifully illustrates this than the moment in his very
last voyage in 1653, when, 75 and soon to die, he lies at an inn, in a
room where hangs a painted cloth dating, he estimates, from forty
years before when he was young and kings flourished, and on it the
following verses :
N o flower so fresh, but frost may it deface,
None sits so fast, but hee may lose his place:
Tis Concord keeps a Realme in Stable stay,
But Discord brings all Kingdomes to decay.
No Subject ought (for any kinde of Cause)
Resist his Prince, but yeeld him to the Lawes.
Sure God is just, whose stroake, delayed long,
Doth light at last, with paine more sharp, and strong,



Time never was, n o nere I thinke shall be,

That Truth (unshent) might speake, in all things free.45

In a brilliant extremity of life Taylor sees back into his past

and finds there a prophecy of the future; the harmonious oneness
of this moment in time, with its evocation of concord, bearing
Shakespeares message with which we began, showing how much
agreement can yet remain between dissonant personalities and cultures.
Richard Hoggart, Humanistic Studies and Mass Culture, Daedalus,
XCIX 1970), pp- 452-453.
$Ibid., p. 461.
3Troilui and Cressida, I.iii.85-88, 109-110, 119-120.
4Works of John Taylor The Water-Poet comprised in the Folio Edition of
1630, Spenser Society (London, 1869), p. 294.
5Sir Philip Sydney, An Apology for Poetry, ed. Albert Feuillerat (Cambridge,
1923), p. 25.
6Taylor, p. 277.
71bid., p. 282.
slbid., p. 208.
91bid., p. 173.
l0For biographical information, but little else, see Wallace Notestein,
Four Worthies (London, 1956), pp. 169-210.
l l W e must remember that popular literature cannot be defined
generically; on this and other signal occasions (e.g. the death of James)
Taylor joined with the most courtly writers in totally humorless elegies
or epithalamia.
12Rosemond Tuve, Elizabethan and Metaphysical Imagery (Chicago,
1947), . 13.
lPThe twentieth-century writer most devoted to this experience is perhaps
L. F. Celine.
14Taylor officially rejects such models (p. 131):
That I should write of Cities situations,
Or that of Countries I should make relations,
Of brooks, crooks, nooks; or riuers, boorns and rills,
Of mountaines, fountaines, Castles, Towres and hills,
Of Shieres, and Pieres, and memorable things,
Of liues and deaths of great commanding Kings,
I touch n o t those, they not belong to mee:
But if such things as these you long to see,
Lay downe my Booke, and but vouchsafe to reede,
The learned Camden, or laborious Speede.



1sTaylor, p. 499.
1 6 very
~ Merry Wherry-Ferry-Voyage, one of his aims in York being
to see that reverend Metropolitan, Tobie Mathew, the Archbishop; typically,
and ironically, the interview is fulfilled when He a t his Table made me haue a
place (p. 174).
18Zbid., p. 148.
17Zbid., p. 143.
19The ultimate irony here is that, safely arrived in Quinborough, the
adventurers have their paper boat torn apart as souvenirs by the admiring mob
of their peers.
20See Henry K. Miller, The Paradoxical Encomium with Special Reference to its Vogue in England, 1600-1800. M P LIII (1955), 145-178.
21Taylor, p. 546.
22Paradoxically this did not for Taylor, as for so many of his station, include the king and court.
24Zbid., p. 331
23Taylor, p. 326.
251bid., p. 535.
261bid., p. 537.
27One among many examples: anonymous, Pasquils Palinodia and His
progresse to the Taverne, ed. A, B. Grosart, OccasiomlZssues, V (Edinburgh,
29Zbid., p. 113.
30Ibid., p. 121.
28Taylor, p. 111.
31Taylors Urania, Ibid., 20.
32Zbid., p. 153.
33Ibid., p. 155.
XiZbid., p. 157.
35Ibid., p. 155.
36Zbid., p. 161.
37For the mystical connotations of green in such instances, see Stanley
Stewart, The Enclosed Garden (Madison, Wis., 1966).
38Taylor, p. 203.
39To be substantiated two years later in Withers famous quarrel with the
Stationers about his royal patent, in clear abuse of civic authority. It is of course
ironic that in the Revolution Wither was the object of Taylors wrath as a mainstay of the Puritans.
40George Wither, Poems, S enser Society, XI (London, 1871), p. 681.
12Wither, p. 673.
43Taylor, p. 214.
41 Taylor, p. 21 1.
44Quoted in Hoggart, op. cit., p. 46.
45The Certaine Travailes of an uncertaine Journey, in Works ofJohn
Taylor the Water Poet not included in the Folio of 1630, Spenser Society (London, 1873), p. 20 (sep. pag.).
Professor Waage received his Ph.D. in English from Princeton University;
he is a Junior Research Associate at the Huntington Library and Lecturer in
English and Comparative Literature at California State University, Los Angeles;
and is preparing a book on popular culture of Jacobean and Caroline England.