Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: May ::
Re: Possible New Portrait
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1205  Thursday, 24 May 2001

[1]     From:   Vick Bennison <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 23 May 2001 13:00:53 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1194 Re: Possible New Portrait

[2]     From:   Kezia Vanmeter Sproat <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 23 May 2001 23:18:50 EDT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1164 Re: Possible New Portrait

[3]     From:   Kate Welch <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 24 May 2001 13:46:16 GMT
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1194 Re: Possible New Portrait


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Vick Bennison <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 23 May 2001 13:00:53 EDT
Subject: 12.1194 Re: Possible New Portrait
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1194 Re: Possible New Portrait

Concerning the apparent age of the man in the portrait:

I don't believe that people "aged" faster in the early modern period.
The lower life expectancy had to do with various factors like lack of
intensive care units, lack of cures for diseases, lack of antibiotics,
high infant mortality and pregnancy related deaths, etc.  And based on
tombstone information and parish records, plenty of people lived into
their nineties.  So when I look at the man in the portrait, I see no
reason to doubt that he is a 39 year old man.  And besides, many
portrait painters made their commissions look younger.

- Vick


[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kezia Vanmeter Sproat <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 23 May 2001 23:18:50 EDT
Subject: 12.1164 Re: Possible New Portrait
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1164 Re: Possible New Portrait

"That doesn't say anything at all, of course, about when the portrait
was painted. But it's obvious to me that the attribution wasn't made in
Shakespeare's lifetime."

Don Foster's quoted here, in a Canadian newspaper. I wonder if he really
said that. It's obvious to everyone that the attribution wasn't made in
Shakespeare's lifetime, since the inscription includes the death date.

Anyone know of a better source for Foster's analysis?

Kezia Vanmeter Sproat
President, Class of 1959, Vassar College

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Kate Welch <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 24 May 2001 13:46:16 GMT
Subject: 12.1194 Re: Possible New Portrait
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1194 Re: Possible New Portrait

>Larry Weiss writes that "The label says that the picture was 'taken' in
>1603.  Was that usage of the verb common in the early 17C?"

>David Evett replies "I'm not sure about "common," and I haven't been
>able to find the phrase in OED (but then, there are 14 pages of
>entries for "take")."

OED definition 33b for 'take' is "to obtain by drawing, delineating, etc
... to obtain or make a figure or picture of, to portray ..." and the
first use given is 1607.

Kate Welch
Shakespeare Institute Library.

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.