No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Patronage, Poetry, and Print
... Şiirin de roman gibi günlük hayatın anlaşılmasında kullanımına dair örneklere rastlanır. Bunlara Rizzo (1991), Marotti (1991), Sharlet (2011), İnalcık (2016), İpek (2010), Korkmaz (2014), Arı ve Duranoğlu (2022) örnek gösterilebilir. ...
... Kavram olarak patronaj, günlük hayatın bileşenlerdeki ilişkilerin alt yapısını oluşturan bilgi-iktidar ilişkilerini tanımlamak için kullanılmaktadır. Bir bakıma gücü elinde tutanların buna dayanarak günlük hayatın tamamını yönetme ve geri kalanın da bunu kabul etmesini ifade eder 9 (Rizzo, 1991;Marotti, 1991;Sharlet, 2011). Patronajda iktidar sahibi, herkesin üzerinde iktidarını kullanırken onlar için en iyisini kendisinin bildiğini ve buna karar verebileceğine dair bir ön kabulden hareket eder. ...
... Osmanlıda patronaj ilişkilerinin şair ve şiir üzerinden ele alan İnalcık (2016) buna iyi bir örnektir. Sharlet (2011), benzer şekilde İslam Dünyasında şair-patronaj ilişkilerini ele alırken Marotti (1991) İngiltere için 16-17. yüzyıl arasını bu bağlamda değerlendirmiştir. ...
... 122 Instead of appealing to wealthy patrons, printing allowed investors direct access to the buying public. 123 Several historians of South Asia also argue that while the early print culture in the region can be characterized as the age of patronage, patronage was replaced by market forces towards the end of the nineteenth century. Venkatachalapathy illustrates that with the rise of novel, 'the art form par excellence of a growing middle class', Tamil publishing broke decisively from patronage and became a market venture. ...
The first printing press landed on the western coast of India in the mid-sixteenth century. The introduction of printing technology did not immediately lead to a flourishing print culture, and the oral and scribal traditions continued to thrive for at least three more centuries. This article examines the emergence of print culture in nineteenth-century western India by surveying the literary sources in the Marathi language. It argues that the book was regarded as a sacred object in the pre-print era and reading was considered a ritualistic activity. Print, on the other hand, was seen as defiling and therefore orthodox Brahmins hesitated to embrace the technology of printing. They were also threatened by the democratizing potential of printing. As the print culture bourgeoned, the sacredness of the book declined and it turned into a profane commodity. A market for vernacular books and periodicals started emerging gradually. However, pre-modern notions of literary patronage did not wither away as authors and publishers continued to bank on state patronage.
... Scholars who fall into the first group include (Rosenberg 1955;Bennett 1965; van Dorsten 1981). Falling into the second camp are scholars such as (Thomson 1949;Sheavyn 1967;Marotti 1993;Fox 1995;Brennan 1998;Bates 2000;perhaps, Miller 1959. McCabe's 2016 book asserts repeatedly that the rewards expected of patrons were material (see, for example, 16, 18, 20, and 25); his studies of individual writers' career trajectories (chapter 14) show a mixed picture, but in general aligns with the idea that writers were not properly materially rewarded. ...
This paper charts the development over the course of the works of Edmund Spenser about ideas about patronage, specifically the patron’s obligations to the poet. This survey shows that Spenser’s earlier works (published before the mid-1590s) value material gain as the primary reward of patronage, while the later works prioritize protection from enemies over material reward. This aligns well with the changes in Spenser’s circumstances. The works appearing in the mid-1590s onward were written at a time when Spenser expressed concerns about Lord Burghley’s hostility towards him and the peril that the Irish posed to his accumulated land and wealth in Ireland. Accordingly, the later works focus on the need for patron to protect the poet from hostile aristocrats and warlike savages. This survey upends widespread critical assumptions that material gain was the only patronal reward valued by early modern English poets. It also establishes protection, usually assumed to be a meaninglessly conventional request from poets, to be a substantial goal sought from patrons.
... According to Michael Saenger, there was a "move from an understanding of collaborative textual authority to a concept of a more singular author" (18) in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, and printed collections of poetry which provided the name of the author on the title page contributed to this development. The first collections of English poetry appeared in the second half of the sixteenth century (see Marotti 1991), the first of which was Songes and Sonettes, written by the ryght honourable Lorde Henry Haward late Earle of Surrey, and other, published in 1557 and better known to posterity as Tottel's Miscellany; and "in the last third of the sixteenth century, single-author editions of poems came on the market, as writers and publishers started to claim a new respect for literary authorship and print came to be regarded less as a 'stigma' than as a sign of sociocultural prestige." (Marotti 1995 211) According to Biester, "[p]oems commending poets in the seventeenth century were expected to do three things: treat the poet as miraculous, or capable of producing wonder; praise the poet's wit, either for its boldness or, later in the century, for its restraint; and praise the style of a male poet as 'manly'." ...
In 1641, Thomas Beedome’s first and only book, Poems Divine, and Humane , was published posthumously. Considering this volume of poetry in the context of a proliferation of poetry publishing in mid-seventeenth century England and accepting the idea that early modern paratexts provided an ideal site for the renegotiation and manifestation of authorship, I argue that throughout the front matter of Beedome’s book, the largest part of which is taken up by commendatory poetry, a concept of the author, not only as singular creator, but also as proprietor of his work, is created. This essay shows how the writers of the commendatory verses try to single out Beedome by almost obsessively labelling him as a worthy author, comparing him favourably with classical and contemporary poets, and affirming the proprietary relationship between Beedome and his poems.
AI in Society provides an interdisciplinary corpus for understanding artificial intelligence (AI) as a global phenomenon that transcends geographical and disciplinary boundaries. Edited by a consortium of experts hailing from diverse academic traditions and regions, the 11 edited and curated sections provide a holistic view of AI’s societal impact. Critically, the work goes beyond the often Eurocentric or U.S.-centric perspectives that dominate the discourse, offering nuanced analyses that encompass the implications of AI for a range of regions of the world. Taken together, the sections of this work seek to move beyond the state of the art in three specific respects. First, they venture decisively beyond existing research efforts to develop a comprehensive account and framework for the rapidly growing importance of AI in virtually all sectors of society. Going beyond a mere mapping exercise, the curated sections assess opportunities, critically discuss risks, and offer solutions to the manifold challenges AI harbors in various societal contexts, from individual labor to global business, law and governance, and interpersonal relationships. Second, the work tackles specific societal and regulatory challenges triggered by the advent of AI and, more specifically, large generative AI models and foundation models, such as ChatGPT or GPT-4, which have so far received limited attention in the literature, particularly in monographs or edited volumes. Third, the novelty of the project is underscored by its decidedly interdisciplinary perspective: each section, whether covering Conflict; Culture, Art, and Knowledge Work; Relationships; or Personhood—among others—will draw on various strands of knowledge and research, crossing disciplinary boundaries and uniting perspectives most appropriate for the context at hand.
Even as writers during the English Renaissance typically shared responsibility for the production of their texts—financially, legally, and practically—a new kind of poetic authorship emerged that emphasized individual writers’ identities. This chapter shows how poetic texts came to foreground authors’ presence and authenticity as a way of overcoming the potentially depersonalizing effects of a printed text's widespread distribution. Beginning with an overview of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century authorial conventions and practices, the chapter then turns to the ways in which the expanding marketplace of print focused on name recognition. As writers and printers responded to and adapted conventions associated with manuscript circulation, they began to forge a modern concept of authorship, which led, in turn, to new scribal habits and the new economic and legal status afforded early modern poets.
The appearance of the fourteenth-century poet John Gower in the role of chorus in the 1608 Shakespeare collaboration, Pericles, suggests that the audiences for Jacobean plays were still expected to know something about Middle English writing and to experience it as present to them. At the same time, the ghostly character given to Gower in the play (and reflected in other similar “appearances” by medieval writers at the time) suggests the decisive absence of the medieval past, its deadness. The ambivalence of early modern readers and writers toward medieval literature is represented here; this was an era that in some very official ways (after the Reformation) explicitly repudiated the medieval past and yet in other equally evident ways simply could not let that past go (as the abundant printings of medieval literature up until the mid-sixteenth century suggest). This chapter examines the surprising life of English medieval texts in the sixteenth century and beyond. It takes “literature” in its broadest sense, looking not only at literary works by Chaucer and Gower, but also examining the less canonical traditions represented by such works as the romances and Mandeville's Travels. It also considers the voluminous afterlife of medieval religious writings. And it considers the founding contradiction in all early modern reception of medieval writing: if the Middle Ages was to be considered a superstitious time of darkness and ignorance, how could it be possible to retrieve anything from that time, polishing it sufficiently so as to give it value for the present?
This article considers how Thomas Speght's Chaucer editions (1598; 1602) conceive, invite, and influence their readership. Studying the highly wrought forms of the dedicatory epistle to Sir Robert Cecil, the prefatory letter by Francis Beaumont, and the address ?To the Readers,? it argues that these paratexts warrant close attention for their treatment of the entangled relationships between editor, patron, and reader. Where prior work has suggested that Speght's audience for the editions was a socially horizontal group and that he only haltingly sought wider publication, this article suggests that the preliminaries perform a multivocal role, poised to readily receive a diffuse readership of both familiar and newer consumers.
From the perspectives of both literary form and the history of the book, volumes of gathered poetry illustrate the fundamental incoherence of handpress-era texts. This essay considers the flexible web of connections in poetic miscellanies as an imaginative response to that basic disorder. Reading the organization of two editions of George Gascoigne's work, it explores the dynamic exchanges between poems and commercial textual features and finds in those feedback loops an ambitious projection of the larger form of the book. Far from a simple or inherent unity, this paratactic structure uses poetry to span the physical juxtapositions of books made by diverse agents of the press. By forging an inferential engagement with the design of the volume, Gascoigne resisted a system of publication bent on dispersing his writing and folded nonauthorial devices into the most elemental workings of poetic form.
This article examines a seventeenth-century textual debate between Suzanne Du Verger and Margaret Cavendish about monasticism and women's authorship. In her polemic, Du Vergers Humble Reflections (1657), Du Verger corrects an anti-monastic passage from Cavendish's The World's Olio (1655) and, in so doing, constructs women's authorship as having political agency in the public sphere. In revising the inaccuracies of Cavendish's representation of monasticism, she rejects the inconsistencies of Cavendish's authorial position as aristocratic privilege and posits her own work as representing an authentic voice from outside Cavendish's elite social class. Du Verger adapts the paratextual genre of the dedicatory epistle as a textual public sphere for defending Catholicsim and advocating for disconnecting literary authority from class structures.
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to describe the change literary patronage underwent in England after the introduction of print, and attempt to explain the causes for the shift.
Design/methodology/approach
Provides a historical review of the period.
Findings
The practice became more of a marketing tool in bookmaking. The patronage of printed books was one of endorsement. It was a patronage that came from the use of a prestigious or powerful name, not from the financial support of a wealthy personage. Literary patronage of late Medieval England was a practice of financial support. A person of wealth would accept the financial responsibility involved with the production of literary materials. The patron became an important part of the bookmaking process and without the contributions of a patron most books would not have been produced. After the invention of the printing press, the role of patronage changed.
Research limitations/implications
Analyses an era in the history of book publishing in England and should be of interest to scholars of Medieval England, and publishing and library history.
Originality/value
Provides a review of patronage in an important era for changes in publishing.
This essay considers how garden and agricultural manuals from the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries provide insight into George Gascoigne's negotiation of his role as professional writer in A Hundreth Sundrie Flowres and The Posies. By considering Gascoigne's collection in conjunction with gardening books from the period, we can see more clearly the issues Gascoigne confronts, issues that seem inextricably involved with print culture and changing social values. The same concerns that permeate so much of Gascoigne's work are evident in the gardening manuals of the period with their interrogation of profit and pleasure, art and nature, the reliability of sources – and with their obsession with the vulgarity of men who wrote or gardened for profit. Recent scholarship also suggests the connection between the garden manual and notions of nationhood, the history of the book, and the burgeoning print marketplace – all issues apparent in Gascoigne's work. Gascoigne's analogy then is more than just a convention and is fundamentally connected to the ways that he fashions his identity as gentleman, author, and Englishman.
The speaker of the Sonnets promises his addressee immortality, an everlasting fame for his gifts of beauty and virtue, achieved via the speaker's gift for poetry and conferred through the gift of the poem he produces. Here, Scott discusses the nature of the poet-speaker's struggle to confer his gift upon a man of superior status, from whom he desires reciprocation and addresses the problematic notions of valuation, ownership, and obligation in the sequence, suggesting that the Sonnets contemplate impossibilities.
In printing the texts of his courtly masques—in quarto volumes and then in his 1616 Folio—Jonson risked devaluing them within the patronage networks they were originally produced for. Nevertheless, Jonson used the stigmatized medium of print to increase the accessibility of his work, and to assert its value. This article explores that seeming paradox, arguing that Jonson defended the value of his printed masques by reasserting the very qualities that had previously enabled them as patronage "gifts." Even in the stigmatized marketplace of print, Jonson claimed his masques to be luxuries to be possessed only by discriminating consumers.
Challenging the notion that gift and commodity economies were mutually exclusive in the early modern period, this article takes a fresh look at Jonson's negotiation of systems of aristocratic patronage. Examining literary gifts which were given to more than one recipient, and for the purposes of extracting multiple rewards, the article suggests that when poets such as Jonson strategically denied the self-interest of literary gifts, it was, in fact, a particular strategy for inducing competitive recompense. Jonson's writing combined and exploited gift ethics and market principles; in this way the poet strove to make a living as a professional writer at the same time as he asserted himself as the author of a classicalbodyof Workes.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.