Pregled posta

Marketing

Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton (October 6, 1573 – November 10, 1624), one of William Shakespeare's patrons, was the second son of Henry Wriothesley, 2nd Earl of Southampton, and his wife Mary Browne, Countess of Southampton, daughter of the 1st Viscount Montagu.

He was born on October 6,1573, in Cowdray, Sussex, England.

When his father died, he moved to Midhurst, England, and succeeded to the title in 1581, when he became a royal ward, under the immediate care of Lord Burghley. He entered St John's College, Cambridge, in 1585, graduating M.A. in 1589:[1] and his name was entered at Gray's Inn before he left the university. At the age of seventeen he was presented at court, where he was soon counted among the friends of the earl of Essex, and was distinguished by extraordinary marks of the queen's favor. He became a munificent patron of poets: Nashe dedicated his romance of Jack Willon to him, and Gervase Markham his poem on Sir Richard Grenville's last fight. His name is also associated with Barnabe Barnes's Parthenophil and Parthenope, and with the Worlde of Wordes of John Florio, who was for some years in his personal service as teacher of Italian.

It is as a patron of the drama and especially of Shakespeare that he is best known. "My Lord Southampton and Lord Rutland," writes Rowland White to Sir Robert Sydney in 1599, "come not to the court ... They pass away the time in London merely in going to plays every day" (Sydney Papers,[2] ed. Collins, ii. 132). Venus and Adonis (1593) was dedicated to Southampton in terms expressing respect, but no special intimacy; but in the dedication of The Rape of Lucrece[3] (1594) the tone is very different. "The love I dedicate to your lordship is without end ... What I have done is yours; what I have to do is yours; being part in all I have, devoted yours." Nicholas Rowe, on the authority of Sir William Davenant, stated in his Life of Shakespeare that Southampton on one occasion gave Shakespeare a present of ?1000 to complete a purchase. There is no documentary evidence of this, however.

Nathan Drake in his Shakespeare and his Times (1819; vol. ii. pp. 62 seq.) first suggested that Lord Southampton was the person to whom the sonnets of Shakespeare were addressed. He set aside Thomas Thorpe's dedication to the "onlie begetter of these ensuing sonnets, Mr W.H.," by adopting the very unusual significance given by George Chalmers to the word begetter, which he takes as equivalent to procurer. Mr W. H. was thus to be considered only as the bookseller who obtained the manuscript. Other adherents of the Southampton theory suggest that the initials H. W. (Henry Wriothesley) were simply reversed for the sake of concealment by the publisher. It is possible in any case that too much stress has been laid on Thomas Thorpe's mystification.

The chief arguments in favor of the Southampton theory are the agreement of the sonnets with the tone of the dedication of Lucrece, the friendly relations known to have existed between Southampton and the poet, and the correspondence, at best slight, between the energetic character of the earl and that of the young man of the sonnets. Mr Arthur Acheson (Shakespeare and the Rival Poet, 1903) brings much evidence in favor of the theory, first propounded by William Minto, that George Chapman, whose style is parodied by Shakespeare in the 21st sonnet and in Love's Labour's Lost, was the rival poet of the 78th and following sonnets. Mr Acheson goes on to suppose that Chapman's erotic poems were written with a view to gaining Southampton's patronage, and that that nobleman had refused the dedication as the result of Shakespeare's expostulations. The obscurity surrounding the subject is hardly lightened by the dialogue between H. W. and W. S. in Willobie his Avisa, a poem printed in 1594 as the work of Henry Willobie. If the sonnets were indeed addressed to Southampton, the earlier ones urging marriage upon him must have been written before the beginning (1595) of his intrigue with Elizabeth Vernon, cousin of the Earl of Essex, which ended in 1598 with a hasty marriage that brought down Queen Elizabeth's anger on both the contracting parties, who spent some time in the Fleet prison in consequence. The Southampton theory of the sonnets cannot be regarded as proved, and must in any case be considered in relation to other interpretations. However, most recently the most compelling case has been made by Hank Whittemore in his magnum opus, "The Monument" (2005) that Southampton is the principal subject of the sonnets and that they are best understood when it is recognized that Elizabeth was his mother and the 17th Earl of Oxford his father (Edward de Vere).

In 1596 and 1597 Southampton was employed in Essex's expeditions to Cadiz and to the Azores, in the latter of which he distinguished himself by his daring tactics. In 1598 he had a brawl at court with Ambrose Willoughby, and later in the

"For control theory the causes of comformity are the social bonds between an inidividual and the group. When these bonds are strong, the individual conforms; when these bonds are weak, the individual deviates. This photo represents the "stake in conformity". "This phrase refers to what a person risks losing by being detected in deviant behavior," (Stark, pg. 194). Many students at this university are involved in the military. Whether they are older students or just started school and, say, the National Guard, these students have much to lose and too many people counting on them (bonds of attachment) for them to risk serious norm deviation.


Summary:

What I set out to accomplish with my Flickr presentation was a comparison of traditional and non traditional students. I found this interesting because I am a nontraditional student who commutes daily and works two jobs. What I have found since starting this quarter is that a large majority of students and I do not share the same responsibilities, social networks, or status. Because of these differences, we do share many opposing behaviors, attitudes, and characteristics that can be related to a plethora of sociological concepts.
I diagramed what I thought mine and a typical college student’s social network might look like. The point behind this was to show that I have many weak ties outside of Athens because I have worked many places and traveled during the last six years. Most freshmen are straight out of high school so they have the strong ties to there friends, but lack weak ties. Their social networks are not as spread out, as say, mine are. I also depicted the commute to class and work. Mine involves driving, parking, and walking while most students simply walk to class or work.
I then compared the status inequality that is present throughout the university. Some students come from a high position in the stratification system, making their chances and opportunities much better and plentiful. Many students do not pay their tuition or even have to work. This makes much more time to devote to class work or whatever other activities a particular student engages in. I on the other hand am from a lower position in the stratification system. I must work two jobs to pay for my bills, gas, dog food, ect.
The control theory and the differential association theory are large parts of my presentation. They help to explain other concepts that I discussed, such as social bonds and deviance. “By themselves deviant acts tend to be attractive, providing rewards to those who engage in them…. Conformity occurs only when people have more to gain by it than they have to gain by deviance,” (Stark, pg. 194). I compared the different networks, and social bonds to show how some students would be more likely to engage in deviant acts because they either had low investments/involvements, or they associated with people who also engage in those acts. I have too many friends, family, responsibilities, and involvements that I would risk losing by being detected committing deviant acts. That doesn’t mean I don’t drink or go out with friends that party, it just means that I am not going to commit serious offenses. For example: robbing a business because I have little money and must pay for my tuition and bills alone. I have too much on my plate to be able to take such giant risks.
“Most deviant behavior is neither socially uniform nor psychologically aberrant, and the form it takes is determined by the individual’s structural location,” (Nanette J. Davis, 1975, Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa). I thought this was an interesting statement because deviant behavior varies from group to group and cannot be associated with a particular culture or group. Rather it is more determined by the individual and social structure that causes this behavior.