2002

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1207  Wednesday, 1 May 2002

[1]     From:   Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 30 Apr 2002 14:37:16 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1190 Re: Portrait of Southampton

[2]     From:   Martin Green <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 30 Apr 2002 16:35:32 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1190 Re: Portrait of Southampton


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 30 Apr 2002 14:37:16 -0400
Subject: 13.1190 Re: Portrait of Southampton
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1190 Re: Portrait of Southampton

> Lot of fuss over this portrait!  As an historian -
> 16th/17th century specialism - it always amazes me how
> little understanding of Shakespeare's world is fully
> understood by literary and art experts.  They seem to
> leap into print without bothering to do any in depth
> research!

> Jan Pick

I think it's more how much the desire for splashy stories shoves
journalistic integrity aside--and results in the size of the publicity
the worst "literary and art experts" get compared with that going to
their betters.  Witness the Neiderkorn piece on who wrote Shakespeare in
the NY Times.

--Bob G.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Martin Green <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 30 Apr 2002 16:35:32 -0400
Subject: 13.1190 Re: Portrait of Southampton
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1190 Re: Portrait of Southampton

Having now actually seen the Southampton portrait (which I hadn't when I
suggested that it might depict a male actor in a female role), I am so
struck by its remarkable resemblance to the portrait of Southampton in
the possession of the Duke of Portland (included in most books on
Southampton, e.g., the frontispiece to Akrigg's book), with respect not
only to the face but also, and especially, the long hair, which Roy
Strong ("Tudor and Elizabethan Portraits," I, 299) writes was "excessive
even for an Elizabethan dandy" that, as between the sitter's being an
actor or Southampton, I think the latter is far more likely to be the
case.

_______________________________________________________________
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.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.