2006

Was Southampton Shakespeare's Patron?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0644  Wednesday, 12 July 2006

[1] 	From: 	Stanley Wells <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 15:01:14 +0100
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 17.0636 Was Southampton Shakespeare's Patron?

[2] 	From: 	John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 10:59:45 -0400
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0636 Was Southampton Shakespeare's Patron?

[3] 	From: 	John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 16:03:02 +0100
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0636 Was Southampton Shakespeare's Patron?

[4] 	From: 	Peter Goldman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 09:36:00 -0600
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0636 Was Southampton Shakespeare's Patron?

[5] 	From: 	Jeffrey Jordan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 13:02:55 -0500
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0636 Was Southampton Shakespeare's Patron?


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Stanley Wells <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 15:01:14 +0100
Subject: 17.0636 Was Southampton Shakespeare's Patron?
Comment: 	RE: SHK 17.0636 Was Southampton Shakespeare's Patron?

The evidence is Shakespeare's dedications to Southampton of Venus and 
Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece.

Stanley Wells
The Shakespeare Centre

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		John W. Kennedy <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 10:59:45 -0400
Subject: 17.0636 Was Southampton Shakespeare's Patron?
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0636 Was Southampton Shakespeare's Patron?

Matthew Cossolotto <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

 >Regarding the dustup over the "Cobbe" portrait, is there any
 >evidence that conclusively establishes that Southampton was
 >Shakespeare's patron . . . or is this just accepted and asserted
 >by Stanley Wells and other scholars based on tradition?

That Southampton was Shakespeare's /patron/, at least for a time, would 
appear to be settled beyond all but quibble by the dedication to "The 
Rape of Lucrece", when taken together with the dedication to "Venus and 
Adonis".

As far as I know, all other proposed relationships between the two 
reside somewhere along the highway that runs from Conjectural City to 
Loony Junction.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		John Briggs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 16:03:02 +0100
Subject: 17.0636 Was Southampton Shakespeare's Patron?
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0636 Was Southampton Shakespeare's Patron?

Matthew Cossolotto wrote:

 >Regarding the dustup over the "Cobbe" portrait, is there any evidence
 >that conclusively establishes that Southampton was Shakespeare's
 >patron . . . or is this just accepted and asserted by Stanley Wells
 >and other scholars based on tradition?

It depends what you mean by "patron".  Shakespeare dedicated the 
publication of each of his two narrative poems to Southampton - for 
which the Earl would have rewarded him, one hopes generously.  To that 
extent, he was definitely a patron - indeed, a repeat patron!

John Briggs

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Peter Goldman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 09:36:00 -0600
Subject: 17.0636 Was Southampton Shakespeare's Patron?
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0636 Was Southampton Shakespeare's Patron?

There's still some debate on this issue of course. But Venus and Adonis 
was dedicated to Southampton with a promise for a subsequent work, "some 
graver work," if he was pleased. The dedication of The Rape of Lucrece 
suggests that Southampton was indeed pleased and had rewarded Sh____: 
"The warrant I have of your honourable disposition."

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Jeffrey Jordan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Tuesday, 11 Jul 2006 13:02:55 -0500
Subject: 17.0636 Was Southampton Shakespeare's Patron?
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0636 Was Southampton Shakespeare's Patron?

Replying to Matthew Cossolotto.

 >is there any evidence that conclusively establishes
 >that Southampton was Shakespeare's patron

Conclusively, no.  Or if there is, I'd like to hear of it.

But the Lucrece dedication, following the V&A dedication, is good 
evidence that a relationship had developed.  Southampton wasn't the only 
patronage prospect in England, so Shakespeare could have looked 
elsewhere. If Southampton had turned Shakespeare down after V & A, it 
becomes very difficult to explain the Lucrece dedication. The Bard was 
no dunce, and it's quite unlikely he would have spent his time flogging 
a dead horse.  Had Southampton said "no thanks" after V&A, we'd see 
Lucrece dedicated to somebody else.

It isn't a conclusion directly from evidence, such as finding one of 
Southampton's canceled checks. :-)   But it's a firm conclusion from 
rational argument, based on the published evidence, that Shakespeare 
didn't think he was wasting his time by dedicating his poems to 
Southampton.  And if Shakespeare didn't think he was wasting his time 
with Southampton, neither should we.

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the 
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the 
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

The Big Question

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0643  Tuesday, 11 July 2006

[1] 	From: 	Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Monday, 10 Jul 2006 10:54:58 -0400
	Subj: 	The Big Question

[2] 	From: 	Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Monday, 10 Jul 2006 20:48:01 +0000
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 17.0634 The Big Question


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Edmund Taft <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 10 Jul 2006 10:54:58 -0400
Subject: 	The Big Question

David Bishop concludes his latest post thusly:

 >"After all, how could I see the truth of the play when I stubbornly 
fail to understand
 >that Shakespeare is presenting Antonio, Bassanio, Jessica and Portia 
as despicable hypocrites, >thieves, cheats, etc., and Shylock as their 
admirable victim?  I guess we all have our blind spots."

Maybe somebody argued this position, but not me. What I find so 
admirable about the play is the way that Shakespeare refuses to let his 
characters off the hook. Shylock is wrong to thirst for revenge (though 
we can see why he is so motivated), and the Christians are wrong to 
cloak as mercy Shylock's punishment, which is clearly meant to break him 
(and it does). Bassanio is a spendthrift playboy, Jessica's double; 
Antonio cannot see or understand clearly (either himself or others), and 
Portia, like a lot of rich people, is used to getting her own way (and 
will cheat if she has to insure that she gets what she wants), etc., etc.

In short, there's great balance in this play, from start to finish. And 
one neglected area that needs more study is Shakespeare's emphasis on 
styles of thinking. In this play, the two rival styles are literal 
(Shylock) and figurative/metaphorical (Portia's father). I guess there's 
a third too: fuzzy thinking (Antonio).

Ed Taft

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 10 Jul 2006 20:48:01 +0000
Subject: 17.0634 The Big Question
Comment: 	RE: SHK 17.0634 The Big Question

David Bishop again notes "Shylock's mean materialism."  But how did the 
worldly villain appear on Shakespeare's stage?

Here's Florio's 1611 Italian dictionary definition of "SILO":  "he that 
hath a nose crooked upward, a flat or chamoy-nosed fellow [reverse 
stereotype?]. Also he that hath a scouling looke, lowring visage or 
hanging eye-browes. It hath also been used for the whole world or 
universe."

Regards,
Joe Egert

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the 
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the 
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Shakespeare Reading -- Where?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0641  Tuesday, 11 July 2006

[1] 	From: 	John D. Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Monday, 10 Jul 2006 10:22:09 -0400
	Subj: 	Shakespeare's reading

[2] 	From: 	William Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Monday, 10 Jul 2006 14:17:41 -0400
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0633 Shakespeare Reading -- Where?


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		John D. Cox <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 10 Jul 2006 10:22:09 -0400
Subject: 	Shakespeare's reading

A good recent discussion of Shakespeare's reading is the article by 
Charles Forker, "How Did Shakespeare Come By His Books?" Shakespeare 
Yearbook 14 (2004), 109-120.

Best,
John Cox
Hope College

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		William Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 10 Jul 2006 14:17:41 -0400
Subject: 17.0633 Shakespeare Reading -- Where?
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0633 Shakespeare Reading -- Where?

I hope that ya'll will address Joanne's question online. Shakespeare 
could, of course, have read Munday's work in manuscript. See the note on 
STC 20367. Munday claims in his dedication to the 18th Earl of Oxford 
that he had translated Primaleon while he was in the service of the 17th 
Earl. Munday claims that his translation has slept in oblivion until 
1619. Shakespeare may have worked with Munday on the play Thomas More. 
So it is possible the Primaleon slept part of that time on Shakespeare's 
writing table.

Bill

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the 
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the 
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

King Lear

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0642  Tuesday, 11 July 2006

From: 		Olwen Terris <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 10 Jul 2006 15:06:12 +0100
Subject: 17.0632 King Lear
Comment: 	RE: SHK 17.0632 King Lear

I should have added that both productions will go on tour.

Olwen Terris
Senior Researcher
British Universities Film & Video Council
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the 
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the 
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

New Shakespeare Portrait Discovered

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0640  Tuesday, 11 July 2006

From: 		Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 10 Jul 2006 18:06:34 +0100
Subject: 17.0630 New Shakespeare Portrait Discovered
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0630 New Shakespeare Portrait Discovered

 >Stanley Wells ... told The Times: "This is a very interesting find. Its
 >emergence in a collection which belonged to Shakespeare's patron is
 >in itself of considerable interest. It's not impossible that it's 
Shakespeare."

Of course it's impossible.  WS was forty-six in 1610.  This portrait is 
clearly of a younger man. WS was also bald as a coot.  It seems that ANY 
portrait of a man in a ruff can now be a possibly Shakespeare.

Peter Bridgman

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the 
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the 
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.