The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0405 Friday, 5 May 2006
[1] From: John W. Kennedy <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 04 May 2006 12:23:01 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0395 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine
[2] From: Peter Holland <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 4 May 2006 12:48:15 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0395 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: John W. Kennedy <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 04 May 2006 12:23:01 -0400
Subject: 17.0395 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0395 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine
David Kathman <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
>>Elliott Stone wrote:
>>I hope that he will go on to set the Encyclopedia Britannica, The
>>Shakespeare Birthplace Trust and the Yale Center for British Art
>>on the correct path. They all have recently posted statements that
>>agree with me.
>
>If so, they're mistaken, no doubt because of the inertia noted above.
The Britannica, after all, printed Margaret Murray's exploded
"Witchcraft" article for 40 years (and has been apologizing for it for
nearly that long), and they have more recently endorsed Charles
Hamilton's risible identification of "Cardenio" with "The Second
Maiden's Tragedy".
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Holland <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Thursday, 4 May 2006 12:48:15 -0400
Subject: 17.0395 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0395 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine
Well, it's very rare indeed for me to disagree with David Kathman but in
this case I have to. Though Mary Edmond's article in SQ in 1991 and
subsequently in, for instance, Grove Art Online argued strongly for the
F1 engraving being by the elder Droeshout, Christiaan Schuckman, in an
article in Print Quarterly ("The Engraver of the First Folio Portrait of
William Shakespeare" vol 8 (1991), pp.40-3), used a group of ten
engravings from a library in Madrid to argue for the nephew, the younger
Martin Droeshout, as the right candidate for that F1 engraving. June
Schlueter has been undertaking significant primary research in the area,
disentangling the complexities of the Droeshout family tree and looking
at the visual evidence afresh, as well as adding more examples of
Droeshout engravings to the known corpus. Her research shows
persuasively that the traditional attribution was correct and the Edmond
one, while a good hypothesis given the evidence Edmond had available,
flawed. Her article will be appearing in a future volume of Shakespeare
Survey.
Elliott Stone's citing of pieces in, e.g., The Encyclopedia Britannica
shows only that authoritative sources tend to repeat traditional
positions. There is no evidence that any of the three he names had
properly considered Edmond's article and none has had access to
Schlueter's work. The fact of repetition and the cultural status
accorded to such sources is not in itself a guarantee of their truthfulness.
_______________________________________________________________
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 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.
|
