2001

Shakespeare Portrait

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2570  Thursday, 7 November 2001

From:           Jay Johnson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 07 Nov 2001 18:37:33 -0700
Subject:        Shakespeare Portrait

While trolling through the archives of our local newspaper on a
different mission, I happen across this item dated November 17, 1948
concerning an alleged portrait of WS.  There was no follow-up article
that I could find, and a Google-search on Clifford Bax yielded no info
on this portrait.  I wonder if any member of the list might know
anything further about this strange sounding picture.

Cheers (jlr)
Jay Johnson
Medicine Hat College

FINDER OF PORTRAIT OF WM. SHAKESPEARE WANTS RESPITE --

LONDON (Reuters) -- Playwright Clifford Bax has appealed for a respite
for the flood of "pilgrims" and curiosity-seekers who have besieged his
home since he claimed he found out how William Shakespeare really
looked.  Every mail brings a shower of letters--many of them
argumentative missives from people who believe that Sir Francis Bacon
wrote the Shakespeare plays.

Strangers constantly invade the old-world peace of the Albany--a quiet
cul-de-sac off Piccadilly in the heart of London--where, like Lord Byron
and Lord Macauly before him, Bax has his home.

The top-hatted porter sizes them up on sight.  "It's about the picture
of Shakespeare, I suppose?  Third door on your right."

The picture of Shakespeare is the centre of a controversy between art
experts and Shakespearean scholars.

Bax bought the painting for $320 from an Italian priest.  On the back of
the canvas is an elegant inscription in archaic Italian claiming that
the portrait represents "the great English poet Gulielmo Scespirio,"
that it was painted by Franz Hals and given to the monastery of Santo
Gregorio by the Earl of Nithsdale before he died in 1744.

Inquiries made at the monastery yielded no information, most of the
records having disappeared.  Art experts have decided that the painter
was not Franz Hals but belonged to the school of Van Dyke, contemporary
with Shakespeare.

The portrait, about three feet by two, shows an old man with straggling
silvery hair and the look of tormented genius on his face.  The painting
shows that Shakespeare--if it is he--had lost his top teeth in old age.

Many Shakespearean scholars are convinced that the man in the painting
is the famous bard; art experts will not commit themselves.

_______________________________________________________________
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 Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

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.

Does Goneril Commit Suicide?

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2569  Thursday, 7 November 2001

From:           W. L. Godshalk <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 07 Nov 2001 17:01:45 -0500
Subject:        Does Goneril Commit Suicide?

In King Lear 5.3, a Gentleman enters to announce: "O, she's dead!"
Albany asks "Who dead?" And the Gentleman answers: "Your lady, sir, your
lady; and his sister/By her is poisoned; she confesses it."  Edmund
assumes that Goneril "slew herself" (Arden edition 5.3.223-240).

However, several of my students doubt Edmund's assumption.  How does he
know?  He's been onstage.  And they assume that Regan, when she realizes
that she's been poisoned, stabs Goneril.  Rather than murder/suicide,
there are two murders.  After all, Regan has already stabbed a
rebellious servant. Why not do in her sister?

I haven't done a search of all the literature, but Foakes doesn't
entertain the idea, even to reject it.  Ditto G. K. Hunter.  Is there
any good evidence that Goneril commits suicide?  Albany says that "she's
desperate" (159), but Goneril claims that "the laws are mine" (156), and
asks who can arraign her.  That doesn't sound suicidal to my ear.

Yours, Bill Godshalk

_______________________________________________________________
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 Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

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.

Measure for Measure (III.ii. 54-56)

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2567  Thursday, 7 November 2001

From:           Jay Pollack <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 07 Nov 2001 16:59:30 +0000
Subject:        Measure for Measure (III.ii. 54-56)

LUCIO How doth my dear morsel thy mistress? Procures she still, ha?
POMPEY Troth, sir, she has eaten up all her beef, and she is herself in
the tub
(III, ii., 54-56).

In ACT III. ii. we see a conversation between the characters Lucio and
Pompey displaying their masculine overtness. Lucio refers to his
mistress as a morsel, something that is eaten and consumed. In reply,
Pompey furthers the sexual discrimination says "...has eaten all her
beef." This image of men eating/consuming women is a motif throughout
the play and might have something to do with Shakespeare's backlash
against society and sexual discrimination. Furthermore, there is a
reference to the venereal disease syphilis. The "tub" refers to a
sweating tub that was used to treat syphilis. Is men's sexual consuming
of women a foil to the consuming of the body from the STD syphilis? In
the eyes of Shakespeare, is sexual discrimination an STD to society or
is he just commenting on social norms?

_______________________________________________________________
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 Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

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.

Re: Merchant

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2568  Thursday, 7 November 2001

From:           Don Bloom <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Wednesday, 7 Nov 2001 12:14:23 -0600
Subject: 12.2536 Re: Merchant
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2536 Re: Merchant

Bruce Young writes,

> . . . even as we see him
> in the play, I would argue, Shylock is not driven exclusively by money.

Just so. In fact, I would go further and say that money was relatively
secondary to him, at least where Antonio is concerned. He is driven by
hate, malice, spite, whatever you want to call it.

And *that* is why depicting him as sympathetic makes such a spiritual
chaos of the play.

You could draw an interesting parallel to a prominent writer whose
biographer explained away his lapses into anti-Semitism by the fact that
his brother was bankrupted by Jewish money-lenders. It explains much,
but justifies nothing.

If you cannot see what Shylock really is, you cannot grasp the comedy
that Shakespeare wrote.

(Sorry to be tardy in responding but our e-mail was out of commission
for several days and I am frantically catching up.)

Cheers,
don

_______________________________________________________________
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 Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

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.

Re: MND, OED, and making love

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2566  Thursday, 7 November 2001

From:           R. A. Cantrell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 06 Nov 2001 08:21:02 -0600
Subject: 12.2556 MND, OED, and making love
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.2556 MND, OED, and making love

> OED Love sb(or n)1; 7 g. has in the 1933 ed.:
>
> _To make love_: to pay amorous attention; with _to_ = to
> court, woo.
>
> in the SUPPLEMENT Vol. 2, H-N of 1976:
>
> _to make love_: now more usually, to copulate.  (First quotation is from
> 1950.)
>
> the OED CDROM has:
>
> _to make love_: to pay amorous attention; now more usually, to
> copulate.  (The quotations given combine the 1933 and 1976 edd.)
>
> It seems to me unfortunate that the CDROM omits the definition 'to
> court, woo.'
>
> I haven't checked the newer print edition of the OED.
>
> I believe the first editor of MND to feel a need to comment on this line
> is John Andrews in The Guild Shakespeare ed. of MND and TGV, in 1989:
> "The modern meaning of the phrase is inapplicable here.  Lysander is
> saying that Demetrius wooed Helena with what Egeus would call 'faining
> love' . . ."


Rosencrantz and Guildenstern did "make love to the employment" which I
think would translate in today's vernacular as having "jumped at the
f*&%$ing chance."

_______________________________________________________________
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 Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>

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.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.