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.