Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Current Postings ::
The Venus & Adonis Dedication

 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 23.0521  Monday, 17 December 2012

 

[1] From:        Ian Steere < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         December 15, 2012 9:13:34 AM EST

     Subject:     The Venus & Adonis Dedication 

 

[2] From:        Scot Zarela < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         December 15, 2012 11:57:35 AM EST

     Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Ven. Dedication 

 

[3] From:        Hardy M. Cook < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

     Date:         Monday, December 17, 2012

     Subject:     The Venus & Adonis Dedication 

 

 

[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Ian Steere < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         December 15, 2012 9:13:34 AM EST

Subject:     The Venus & Adonis Dedication 

 

Hardy has joined the debate.

 

I should like, first, to acknowledge his principles. He has, in several private messages to me, indicated his disapproval. However, he has always allowed me to put my views to the forum.

 

Hardy rejects the existence of each of the two pillars to my case:

 

1. The overtly obsequious Dedication contains a pervasive theme of insult and rebuke. It is invisible to anyone who (quite reasonably) is expecting a eulogy;

 

2. It is extremely unlikely that this occurred by chance. That WS was also a master word-player brings the probability of deliberate punning to near 100%.

 

I have explained the reasoning which underpins the construction of each pillar (see original article). Hardy has ignored this justification in its entirety, as have others. He and they have made the unsubstantiated assumption that each pillar is illusory and, on this basis, have dismissed its use in any further construction.

 

It is impossible to debate rationally for or against the use of the pillars, until their underpinning is addressed. I have done so. Let others do so as well. Until then, the pillars stand.

 

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Scot Zarela < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         December 15, 2012 11:57:35 AM EST

Subject:     Re: SHAKSPER: Ven. Dedication

 

A significant misreading in Mr. Steere’s article: the “heir of my invention” (which may prove deformed) is the poem; the patron, Wriothesley, is the “noble godfather.” No implication, not even “veiled,” that Wriothesley may be deformed or debased: so, no implied insult.

 

Mr. Steere’s basic fault appears to be a mistaking of the dedication’s tone: what he calls “grovelling” is simply respectful; the social distance between poet and patron is given decent acknowledgement; a witty elegance of phrase bridges the distance; an offering is made and it is left to the patron, as social superior, to accept or refuse.

 

If I may venture a reflection on character, it would take a mean-spirited poet, and one doubtful of his own gifts, to resent having to make such an approach, or to spit—secretly, for his own vicious amusement—on the very patron whose name he (evidently!) thought would be a grace to the title page of his poem.

 

– Scot

 

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------

From:        Hardy M. Cook < This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it >

Date:         Monday, December 17, 2012

Subject:     The Venus & Adonis Dedication

 

Ian Steere writes above,

 

>I have explained the reasoning which underpins the construction 

>of each pillar (see original article). Hardy has ignored this 

>justification in its entirety, as have others. He and they have 

>made the unsubstantiated assumption that each pillar is 

>illusory and, on this basis, have dismissed its use in any 

>further construction.

 

I am sorry, but I have not ignored your arguments or your points. Scot Zarela above notes out some of the many points that I believe you completely misinterpret. You have no “smoking bed” and your assumptions are based on false premises and evidence. 

 

I simply find no merit in your arguments and see no reason to engage with you further. (i.e., this is my last word on the subject; others are free to write but I am through. I have better things to do such as to continue with my annotations of Lucrece, which I have been studying and writing about for countless years, having finished my diplomatic transcription of Q1, Modern edition, and annotations and collations of Venus and Adonis: http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Foyer/plays/Ven.html .) –Hardy 

 

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.