The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0122 Thursday, 19 March 2009
[1] From: Louis W. Thompson <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 13 Mar 2009 13:52:56 -0700
Subj: Re: SHK 20.0115 New Portrait of Shakespeare
[2] From: Stefanie Peters <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date Friday, 13 Mar 2009 23:38:44 +0000
Subj: Re: SHK 20.0115 New Portrait of Shakespeare
[3] From: Thomas Hunter <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date Saturday, 14 Mar 2009 15:35:11 EDT
Subj: Re: SHK 20.0115 New Portrait of Shakespeare
[4] From: MacDonald Jackson <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date Tuesday, 17 Mar 2009 18:49:50 +1300
Subj: Cobbe Portrait
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Louis W. Thompson <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 13 Mar 2009 13:52:56 -0700
Subject: 20.0115 New Portrait of Shakespeare
Comment: Re: SHK 20.0115 New Portrait of Shakespeare
Is it really possible to date a portrait to the precise year it was painted?
We need to see a report by the scientists who tested the Cobbe portrait.
How did they come up with the date 1610? Tell us why it couldn't have
been 1608. Or 1602.
Then, let us hear a discussion - by other scientists - of the methods
used...and how the results were interpreted.
Louis W. Thompson
[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stefanie Peters <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 13 Mar 2009 23:38:44 +0000
Subject: 20.0115 New Portrait of Shakespeare
Comment: Re: SHK 20.0115 New Portrait of Shakespeare
iTunes U put up today a free 20 minute video of an interview with
Stanley Wells by a student at the University of Warwick in which he
describes the portrait and justifies his belief in its authenticity. He
also discusses the theory that the Droeshout engraving was a copy of a
copy of the Cobbe portrait. I assume that the painting he believes was
in-between was the Janssen, painted over to make the sitter look balder.
I'm willing to be convinced by the scientific tests Welles and Cobbe say
they performed. If tree-ring-dating, X-rays and infrared reflectography
all point to the authenticity of the portrait, and there's a connection
from the Cobbe family to the Earl of Southampton that provides a likely
provenance, it seems unlikely that anything will disprove that it is an
authentic portrait of Shakespeare. As Professor Wells says in the
interview, the only thing that is missing to clinch the case is a
document recording payment for the commission, for example.
My favorite painting before this was always the Chandos portrait -- not
because I thought it was the most authentic (I never put much faith in
it as likely to look much like Shakespeare) -- but because it seemed
like someone's imaginative portrayal of their idea of the Bard. The
earring, the open collar: a uniform of an artist. At the very least,
this new painting gives us a new example of someone's Shakespeare, and
what a beautiful idea of Shakespeare it is. I confess, I just like it:
the sly smile, the animated, handsome, intelligent face, the wide
forehead, the beard, and how about those eyes?
If you have iTunes, this link should start the download:
http://deimos3.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/Browse/warwick.ac.uk.1977441892.01977441897?sr=hotnews
Stefanie C Peters
www.stefaniepeters.com
[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Thomas Hunter <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Saturday, 14 Mar 2009 15:35:11 EDT
Subject: 20.0115 New Portrait of Shakespeare
Comment: Re: SHK 20.0115 New Portrait of Shakespeare
Bruce Young <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
> writes,
>...the Droeshout engraving, the one
>depiction (perhaps along with the bust in Holy Trinity Church) we
>know to have been accepted as resembling Shakespeare by those who
>knew him....
>
>Bruce Young
I'm sorry, I must have missed class that day. Please advise how we know
that those who knew Shakespeare accepted the Droeshout perhaps along
with the bust in Holy Trinity Church as resembling him.
Where do I find that evidence documented? Thank you for your assistance.
Thomas Hunter, Ph.D.
[4]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: MacDonald Jackson <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 17 Mar 2009 18:49:50 +1300
Subject: Cobbe Portrait
Cobbe Portrait
If the Folger is correct in identifying the subject of the Janssen
portrait as Sir Thomas Overbury, and if the Cobbe portrait is the
from-life original of which the Janssen portrait is a copy, then
logically it follows that the Cobbe portrait is of Sir Thomas Overbury.
The man in the Cobbe portrait looks about 30, and Overbury was born in
1581. So if the dating of the portrait by the technical analysts as
'about 1610' is right, the apparent age of the sitter fits Overbury. In
1610 Shakespeare, born 1564, can hardly have looked so young.
The National Portrait Gallery has a watercolour of Overbury, 'by
Sylvester Harding, after Marcus Gheerhaerts', that bears a distinct
resemblance to the Cobbe portrait, as does the National Portrait
Gallery's line engraving of Overbury by 'Simon De Passe, after Cornelius
Johnson'. Overbury wears a lace collar very like that worn in the
Janssen portrait. (Google Images finds these portraits.)
Of course, when you start looking for resemblances among early modern
portraits, before long almost anybody can begin to look a bit like
almost anybody else. When I first saw a reproduction of the Cobbe
portrait, I was immediately reminded of the portrait of Sir Walter
Ralegh on the cover of my copy of the Penguin Classics edition of his
Selected Writings (ed. Gerald Hammond, 1986) -- this was before reading
that the Cobbe family had previously thought their portrait was of
Ralegh and that his name is inscribed in ink on the back of it. But in
1610, Ralegh, born 1554, was ten years older even than Shakespeare.
There has been a good deal of discussion of the Latin motto 'Principum
amicitias!' that appears at the top of the Cobbe portrait. It would be
apt to either Overbury (poisoned in the Tower in 1613) or Ralegh
(beheaded in 1618). As has been noted, the phrase comes from Horace's
Ode, II.1 and means 'the friendships of princes', where 'princes' could
cover leaders, governors, chieftains, statesmen of various kinds. Since
the _principium amicitias_ are said by Horace to be _graves_ or
'pernicious', the exclamation mark on the portrait probably signals an
ironic recognition that such friendships are dangerous, so that 'Beware
the friendships of governors' is a reasonable interpretation.
Horace's ode is addressed to C. Asinius Pollio, a supporter of Julius
Caesar, patron and friend of Horace and Vergil, tragic poet, and
historian. My ancient University Tutorial Series edition of Horace's
Odes, ed. A. H. Allcroft and B. J. Hayes (London: W.B. Olive, undated)
gives the following precis of 2.1: 'You are writing the history of the
Civil Wars, Pollio?a dangerous task indeed. Lay aside your tragedies
awhile, great lawyer, great statesman, great general. Methinks I hear
the sounds and see the sights of battle even now; methinks I watch the
conquest of the world?all the world save Cato; his death was an offering
to Jugurtha. The stain of our blood has defiled all the world. But, my
Muse, let us sing a lighter song.' However, I doubt that the details of
Horace's ode are relevant to the portrait. Samuel Johnson quoted
_principium amicitias_ simply as a text supporting his claim that 'Of
confederacy with superiours, every one knows the inconvenience'
(_Boswell's Life of Johnson_ (London: Oxford University Press, 1953),
148). And a sardonic comment on the fragility of favour with the great
is all that need be implied here.
If the motto was written when the original portrait was painted, it must
surely emanate from the sitter, not be addressed to him by the painter
or anybody else. The poet of 'The Lie', Ralegh, who had been in and out
of royal favour and was imprisoned in the Tower from 1603 to 1616, might
well have subscribed to the motto. So might Overbury by April 1613, when
James had sent him to the Tower.
Of course, properly to assess the strength of the evidence that the
Cobbe portrait is really of Shakespeare we must wait until that evidence
has been presented in full.
MacDonald Jackson
_______________________________________________________________
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.
|
