PBS Shakespearian Howlers
Christine Cooper
that starts tonight on PBS,
I was playing the Shakespeare game at:
and I noticed a few howlers:
For instance:
"Dido Queen Of Carthage" was actually written
by Christopher Marlowe in 1594."
So, even PBS admits Marlowe survived Deptford.
Imagine that!
Can't wait to watch the show to see what other
stuff they come up with.
:-)
Christine
Jimbosir
>I noticed a few howlers:
>
>For instance:
>
>"Dido Queen Of Carthage" was actually written
>by Christopher Marlowe in 1594."
Indeed a howler. Rather "Dido, Queen of Carthage" was actually published for
the first time in 1594.
MENTOR (:-)
Elisabeth Riba
> "Dido Queen Of Carthage" was actually written
> by Christopher Marlowe in 1594."
> So, even PBS admits Marlowe survived Deptford.
> Imagine that!
Yeowch!
After seeing this post, I started poking around the rest of the site.
I took a look at their Marlowe biography and found it unreadable. Maybe
I'm just hypersensitive or overly pedantic, but I was *cringing* before I
even finished the first paragraph, and couldn't get much further. Almost
every line contained at least some glaring error:
If Marlowe's university had a yearbook, then this brilliant but flawed
playwright would probably have earned the entry "Least Likely
to See the Age of 30."
While Marlowe did die at the age of 29 (ignoring the conspiracy
theories for the moment), we really know very little of what he
was like in college. We have records of his scholarship funds
and meal plan (showing absences) and know he was at least
*accused* of religious heresy to such an extent that it took
government intervention to ensure he graduated on time. But
that doesn't necessarily imply a James Dean image.
His adopted motto, "What nourishes me, destroys me," probably says it all.
There is no conclusive proof linking that motto to Marlowe.
That motto (in Latin) appears on a portrait of an unknown
subject of Marlowe's age that was found at Marlowe's
university. Coincidence, certainly, and it's popular to
attribute this painting to Marlowe because of it. However,
there is no evidence that the subject of this portrait is
Marlowe, and even if it were, the phrase may still have been an
affectation of the artist, rather than anything "adopted" by
the subject.
Marlowe was into excess, in his appetite for tobacco and for boys,
Christopher Marlowe was accused of saying "[t]hat all they that
loue not Tobacco & Boies were fooles." *However* that was part of
a list of accusations and allegations made against Marlowe by a
rather shady state informer, possibly written after Marlowe was
already under suspicion. Only one source for this and the
author wasn't the most trustworthy of people.
and even in his larger than life works.
Okay, I will concede here that many of his plays feature
larger-than-life characters
The Rolling Stones perhaps to Shakespeare's Beatles?
Maybe, but the Stones formed several years *after* the Beatles
made their debut. Marlowe *preceded* Shakespeare in London
theatrical circles. Inspiration and imitation worked the other
way.
Marlowe was born in 1564, the same year as Shakespeare
By the modern calendar, that is true, but according to the
Elizabethan calendar, Marlowe was born in 1563 and Shakespeare
in 1564.
Honestly, I couldn't read much more in the essay. It certainly describes
the current popular myths of Marlowe, but those are just one possible
interpretation of the facts. And getting so many little picayune details
wrong, makes me dubious about what kind of big picture they can build from
such spurious foundation.
If you want to take your own crack at it, the URL is
<http://www.pbs.org/shakespeare/players/player24.html>
Ah well. Maybe the show and site can provoke enough interest to lead
people to better sources of information on the plays and playwrights.
--
------> Elisabeth Riba * http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis/ <------
"[She] is one of the secret masters of the world: a librarian.
They control information. Don't ever piss one off."
- Spider Robinson, "Callahan Touch"
David L. Webb
kemahw...@yahoo.com (Christine Cooper) wrote:
> In honor of the mini-series on Shakespeare
> that starts tonight on PBS,
> I was playing the Shakespeare game at:
>
> www.pbs.org/shakespeare/game
>
> and I noticed a few howlers:
>
> For instance:
>
> "Dido Queen Of Carthage" was actually written
> by Christopher Marlowe in 1594."
That is indeed amusing! But several h.l.a.s. participants have
suggested posthumous activity by certain celebrated historical figures
-- for example, Mr. Streitz's suggestion that Thomas Seymour begat upon
the young Elizabeth Tudor the future Earl of Oxford would require the
act of conception to have been posthumous, as the supposed sire was
executed for treason well before he could have gotten around to
fathering the lad; similarly, Stephanie Caruana's vivdly imaginative
reconstruction of Caxton's printing of the first book upon English soil
in 1576 (during Shakespeare's youth) also requires some posthumous
activity on Caxton's part, as that innovator had died over eighty years
earlier. Perhaps Stephanie and Mr. Streitz have a promising future
writing for PBS?
> So, even PBS admits Marlowe survived Deptford.
> Imagine that!
>
> Can't wait to watch the show to see what other
> stuff they come up with.
>
> :-)
Please let those of us who don't have a television know about the
highlights!
Cori
> His adopted motto, "What nourishes me, destroys me," probably says it all.
> There is no conclusive proof linking that motto to Marlowe.
> That motto (in Latin) appears on a portrait of an unknown
> subject of Marlowe's age that was found at Marlowe's
> university. Coincidence, certainly, and it's popular to
> attribute this painting to Marlowe because of it. However,
> there is no evidence that the subject of this portrait is
> Marlowe, and even if it were, the phrase may still have been an
> affectation of the artist, rather than anything "adopted" by
> the subject.
Quite profound, anyhow, whoever said it. When, pray tell, was the
motto discovered, and would it have been at all widespread/well known,
such as quoted in biographies, books of sayings, or anything? Thanks.
Cori
Elisabeth Riba
> > His adopted motto, "What nourishes me, destroys me," probably says it all.
> > There is no conclusive proof linking that motto to Marlowe.
Cori <cmashiel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Quite profound, anyhow, whoever said it. When, pray tell, was the
> motto discovered, and would it have been at all widespread/well known,
> such as quoted in biographies, books of sayings, or anything? Thanks.
The Latin motto "Quod me nutrit me destruit" which is generally translated
as above, was discovered on the Corpus Christi portrait that is *believed*
to be Marlowe.
According to Charles Nicholl (taken from Peter Farey's
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/chap5.htm#note9) a similar phrase was a
common saying at the time: "Quod me alit me extinguit" means "That which
ignites me extinguishes me" (a line which appears in Shakespeare's _Pericles_)
Richie Miller
> as above, was discovered on the Corpus Christi portrait that is *believed*
> to be Marlowe.
>
Shakespeare. It looks almost identical to the one discovered in Canada last
year. When I get the DVD I can look at it better, but is anyone aware of this
1588 painting?
Also Woods recited a supposed marriage poem from Will to Anne and speculated
that Will thought Anne "saved his life". Are these just howlers? Or is he onto
something interesting.
RM
Art Neuendorffer
> In part two Woods shows a 1588 portrait of an unknown youth he speculates
is
> Shakespeare. It looks almost identical to the one discovered in Canada
last
> year.
That's what it was.
"Richie Miller" <thedoccalMY...@ASSaol.com> wrote
> Also Woods recited a supposed marriage poem from Will to Anne and
speculated
> that Will thought Anne "saved his life". Are these just howlers? Or is
he onto
> something interesting.
---------------------------------------------------------
It's all in Sonnet 145 (= 5 x 29)
I HATE, from HATE away ?he threw,
And ?au'd my life ?aying not you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
_ULYSSES_ by James Joyce
<<If others have their WILL Ann HATH a way. By cock, she was to blame.
She put the comether on him, SWEET and twentysix. The greyeyed
goddess who BENDs over the boy Adonis, stooping to conquer,>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gold on a BEND sable, a spear of the first, and for his crest
or cognizance a FALCON, his wings displayed argent, standing on a
wreathe of his colors, supporting a spear gold steeled as aforesaid."
Shakspere Blazon & Coat of Arms
BEND: a diagonal bar, 1/5th the width of the shield,
from upper left to lower right as one faces the shield.
Sonnet dedication Capital Letters: 145(= 5 x 29)
T O.T H E.
O N L I E.
B E G E T
T E R.O F.
T H E S E.
I N S V I
N G.S O N
N E T S Mr
A L L.
P P I
*W*H S E. W{H}
A H*A* H {H}A
| *S* S
| *T* T
| N E *E* E?
[2 9] A N D
| A T.E T
| R N I T I
| E P R O M
v I S E D.B
Y.O V R.E
V E R-L I
V I N G.P
O E T.W I
S H E T H.
T H E.W E
L L-W I S
H I N G.A
D V E N T
V R E R I
N.S E T T
I N G.F O
R T H.T.T.
----------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Elisabeth Riba
> In part two Woods shows a 1588 portrait of an unknown youth he speculates is
> Shakespeare.
Haven't seen it yet, but I recall on the tour of the Folger Library, the
docent said that *every* unidentified portrait of a male in that period
has been identified as Shakespeare, and the library has tons of such
paintings that have later been determined to be other people (or at least,
not Shakespeare)
Dave Kathman
> > The Latin motto "Quod me nutrit me destruit" which is generally translated
> > as above, was discovered on the Corpus Christi portrait that is *believed*
> > to be Marlowe.
> >
> In part two Woods shows a 1588 portrait of an unknown youth he speculates is
> Shakespeare. It looks almost identical to the one discovered in Canada last
> year. When I get the DVD I can look at it better, but is anyone aware of this
> 1588 painting?
That's the Grafton portrait. Among many other places, it was discussed
by Sam Schoenbeum in *Shakespeare's Lives*, and I believe also in his
*William Shakespeare: Records and Images* (1981). It's not taken very
seriously as a portrait of Shakespeare, mainly for lack of evidence.
As I recall, it has a date of 1588 and says the sitter was 24 years old,
but 1) there were lots and lots of young men the same age as Shakespeare,
and 2) it's hard to understand how and why Shakespeare would have his
portrait painted at such a young age, when he had not yet made his mark
on the London theater scene. I haven't seen the second Wood episode
(it's on our PBS affiliate tonight), so I don't know exactly what he says
about it, but I doubt that it's anything that hasn't been said before.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> "Richie Miller" <thedoccalMY...@ASSaol.com> wrote
>
> > In part two Woods shows a 1588 portrait of an unknown youth he speculates
> is
> > Shakespeare. It looks almost identical to the one discovered in Canada
> last
> > year.
[...]
[...]
Well, thanks, Art -- that explains eVERything!
John W. Kennedy
> Also Woods recited a supposed marriage poem from Will to Anne and speculated
> that Will thought Anne "saved his life". Are these just howlers? Or is he onto
> something interesting.
No, it's stronger than Woods allows for, in fact. Apparently
"hate-away" is an attested pronunciation of the name "Hathaway" in some
branches of the family. (And makes the possibility of confusion between
"Anne Hathaway" and "Anne Whately" that much more likely, to boot.)
But the "saved my life" could be nothing but standard love-poem rhetoric.
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
Elisabeth Riba
> Richie Miller <thedoccalMY...@ASSaol.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a93b6c18...@text.giganews.com>...
> > Shakespeare. It looks almost identical to the one discovered in Canada last
> > year. When I get the DVD I can look at it better, but is anyone aware of this
> > 1588 painting?
> That's the Grafton portrait.
Oh, you mean the Grafton portrait of Christopher Marlowe (as many sites
attribute it)?
<http://www.wwnorton.com/nael/16century/topic_1/illustrations/imgrafton.htm>
I mean, both figures are wearing similar collars to their shirts and are
the same age -- how common could those similarities be? :D :D :D
> Among many other places, it was discussed
> by Sam Schoenbeum in *Shakespeare's Lives*, and I believe also in his
> *William Shakespeare: Records and Images* (1981). It's not taken very
> seriously as a portrait of Shakespeare, mainly for lack of evidence.
> As I recall, it has a date of 1588 and says the sitter was 24 years old,
> but 1) there were lots and lots of young men the same age as Shakespeare,
> and 2) it's hard to understand how and why Shakespeare would have his
> portrait painted at such a young age, when he had not yet made his mark
> on the London theater scene. I haven't seen the second Wood episode
> (it's on our PBS affiliate tonight), so I don't know exactly what he says
> about it, but I doubt that it's anything that hasn't been said before.
--
Art Neuendorffer
> Well, thanks, Art -- that explains eVERything!
You're welcome, Dave.
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
> > Also Woods recited a supposed marriage poem from Will to Anne and
speculated
> > that Will thought Anne "saved his life". Are these just howlers? Or is
he onto
> > something interesting.
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote
> No, it's stronger than Woods allows for, in fact. Apparently
> "hate-away" is an attested pronunciation of the name "Hathaway" in some
> branches of the family. (And makes the possibility of confusion between
> "Anne Hathaway" and "Anne Whately" that much more likely, to boot.)
>
> But the "saved my life" could be nothing but standard love-poem rhetoric.
-----------------------------------------------
King Henry IV, Part i Act 5, Scene 4
FALSTAFF
Counterfeit? I lie, I am no counterfeit: to die,
is to be a counterfeit; for he is but the
counterfeit of a man who hath not the life of a man:
but to counterfeit dying, when a man thereby
liveth, is to be no counterfeit, but the true and
perfect image of life indeed. The better part
of valour is discretion; in the which better part
I have SAVED MY LIFE.
-----------------------------------------------
Art N.
lyra
> Richie Miller wrote
Of course Kit Marlowe was 24 in 1588,
and he *had* made his mark on the scene...
that's why lots of Marlowe fans like to think it is him.
http://geocities.com/renaissance_now_2003/Christopher_Marlowe.html
will help to check whether this is the one you mean...
Art Neuendorffer
"lyra" <mountai...@RockAthens.com> wrote in message
news:4ec4c9f5.04021...@posting.google.com...
The font for the "5" in the dates is the same:
http://www.wwnorton.com/nael/16century/topic_1/illustrations/imgrafton.htm
http://www.marlowe-society.org/intro.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Farey (Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Is Michael Wood a Marlovian?
View: Complete Thread (6 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
Date: 2003-07-09 02:47:53 PST
About a month ago, Dave Kathman kindly posted Jonathan Bate's
review of Michael Wood's book from the June 8th Sunday Telegraph.
I particularly liked:
"Wood is also nicely sensitive to William's use of Warwick-
shire dialect words and farming terms: ... "ear" as a verb
meaning to plough..."
In Marlowe's translation of Ovid's *Amores* (Book 3 Elegy 9),
however, we find
And seeds were equally in large fields cast,
The ploughman's hopes were frustrate at the last.
The grain-rich goddess in high woods did stray,
Her long hair's ear-wrought garland fell away.
Does Wood think that Marlowe was a Warwickshire man? Or is
Wood perhaps a closet Marlovian? I can now confirm that it
must be the latter.
In Part Two of his TV series about *William Shakespeare* he
spends well over four otherwise irrelevant minutes on the
details of Marlowe's death, at the end of which we are
treated to one of those meaningful 'fades'. Show 'Corpus
Christi portrait'; zoom in to close-up of the eyes; fade to
other very similar eyes in exactly same place; zoom out to
reveal 'Grafton portrait', similar in many other ways but
this time allegedly of Shakespeare.
Most damning of all, however, is that when we are given a
close-up of the copy of Marlowe's inquest from which he is
reading, I recognize them as having been down-loaded from
*my* web page. Need I say more?
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Kathman
Yeah, that's the Grafton on that page.
I'm looking at Schoenbaum's *William Shakespeare: Records and Images*,
and the section on the Grafton portrait is pp. 191-194, about two pages of
text and a full-page illustration of the portrait (albeit in black and white).
Schoenbaum also discusses it on pp. 475-477 of *Shakespeare's Lives*,
2nd edition (1991).
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Cori
> > Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote in message news:
> > > His adopted motto, "What nourishes me, destroys me," probably says it all.
> > > There is no conclusive proof linking that motto to Marlowe.
>
> Cori <cmashiel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Quite profound, anyhow, whoever said it. When, pray tell, was the
> > motto discovered, and would it have been at all widespread/well known,
> > such as quoted in biographies, books of sayings, or anything? Thanks.
>
> The Latin motto "Quod me nutrit me destruit" which is generally translated
> as above, was discovered on the Corpus Christi portrait that is *believed*
> to be Marlowe.
>
> According to Charles Nicholl (taken from Peter Farey's
> http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/chap5.htm#note9) a similar phrase was a
> common saying at the time: "Quod me alit me extinguit" means "That which
> ignites me extinguishes me" (a line which appears in Shakespeare's _Pericles_)
The BBC show used the word "feeds" instead of "nourishes" but looking
at the Latin above, "nourishes" would seem the more correct word.
Thanks for the Shakespeare line, as anything of his is bound to be
well known/well quoted. I just wonder if the other would have
appeared in any source which could be commonly picked up, like say a
biography of Marlowe, preface to his plays, or whatnot.
Cori
KQKnave
cmashiel...@hotmail.com (Cori) writes:
>
>The BBC show used the word "feeds" instead of "nourishes" but looking
>at the Latin above, "nourishes" would seem the more correct word.
>Thanks for the Shakespeare line, as anything of his is bound to be
>well known/well quoted. I just wonder if the other would have
>appeared in any source which could be commonly picked up, like say a
>biography of Marlowe, preface to his plays, or whatnot.
How many sockpuppets....
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Tom Veal
> The Latin motto "Quod me nutrit me destruit" which is generally translated
> as above, was discovered on the Corpus Christi portrait that is *believed*
> to be Marlowe.
>
> According to Charles Nicholl (taken from Peter Farey's
> http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/chap5.htm#note9) a similar phrase was a
> common saying at the time: "Quod me alit me extinguit" means "That which
> ignites me extinguishes me" (a line which appears in Shakespeare's _Pericles_)
Actually, "alit" means "feeds". The two Latin mottos say exactly the
same thing using different words.
Vide http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%231979
Art Neuendorffer
> > > > The Latin motto "Quod me nutrit me destruit" which is generally
translated
> > > > as above, was discovered on the Corpus Christi portrait that is
*believed*
> > > > to be Marlowe.
> > > In part two Woods shows a 1588 portrait of an unknown youth he
speculates is
> > > Shakespeare. It looks almost identical to the one discovered in
Canada last
> > > year. When I get the DVD I can look at it better, but is anyone aware
of this
> > > 1588 painting?
> Dave kathman wrote in message
> > That's the Grafton portrait. Among many other places, it was discussed
> > by Sam Schoenbeum in *Shakespeare's Lives*, and I believe also in his
> > *William Shakespeare: Records and Images* (1981). It's not taken very
> > seriously as a portrait of Shakespeare, mainly for lack of evidence.
> > As I recall, it has a date of 1588 and says the sitter was 24 years old,
> > but 1) there were lots and lots of young men the same age as
Shakespeare,
> > and 2) it's hard to understand how and why Shakespeare would have his
> > portrait painted at such a young age, when he had not yet made his mark
> > on the London theater scene. I haven't seen the second Wood episode
> > (it's on our PBS affiliate tonight), so I don't know exactly what he
says
> > about it, but I doubt that it's anything that hasn't been said before.
> >
"lyra" <mountai...@RockAthens.com> wrote
> Of course Kit Marlowe was 24 in 1588,
> and he *had* made his mark on the scene...
>
> that's why lots of Marlowe fans like to think it is him.
>
> http://geocities.com/renaissance_now_2003/Christopher_Marlowe.html
>
> will help to check whether this is the one you mean...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.william-shakespeare.info/william-shakespeare-pictures.htm
http://web.uvic.ca/shakespeare/Library/Criticism/shakespearein/canada8b.html
<< In the top right-hand corner is the date 1603 and, on the back, a linen
label reading: ``Shakspere, born April 23 1564,
died April 23 1616, aged 52, this likeness taken 1603,
age at that time 39ys,'' according to the newspaper.
``We basically think the label could have been added any time between
1603 to 1640, that's the evidence we have from the radiocarbon dating,''
she said.
The picture was done around the beginning of the 17th century.
The painting was not put on top of an existing painting - it is all
original work.
The wood used as the canvass likely comes from the proper era based on
ring sizes.
No compounds or chemicals were used in the paint that didn't exist in
Shakespeare's time.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And That Rug! by Michael Dobson 12 February 2004
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n21/dobs01_.html
Michael Dobson is the general editor, with Stanley Wells, of The
Oxford Companion to Shakespeare and the author of The Making of the
National Poet. He is Professor of Renaissance Drama at the Roehampton
Institute, London.
<<Above the entrance to the saloon bar there is a picture of Shakespeare
on the swinging sign. It is the same picture of Shakespeare that I
remember from my schooldays, when I frowned over Timon of Athens and The
Merchant of Venice. Haven't they got a better one? Did he really look
like that all the time? You'd have thought that by now his publicity
people would have come up with something a little more attractive.
Martin Amis, Money
Well, they keep trying. Look here upon this picture, and on this. Both
are unsigned 17th-century portraits, one depicting a man, the other a
child. The man is an affable-looking chap, reminiscent of Phil Hopkins,
a percussionist at the repro Globe on Bankside. The head-and-shoulders
format allows us to see that he is wearing a fancy late Elizabethan
doublet with an unusual semi-transparent lace collar. He has fashionably
shortish brown hair, a fairly high forehead, bags under his eyes as if
he hasn't been sleeping well lately, and a lightweight, almost fluffy
beard and moustache. The top right-hand corner of the painting gives a
date - 1603, perfectly consonant with the clothes, the style of the
painting and the lettering employed for the word 'ANo' which precedes it
- but there is no indication of who this man is, and it is clear from
the asymmetry of the picture (we can see most of his right shoulder, but
only a little of his left) that at some point a strip of wood about two
inches wide (the painting is on two oak panels) has been detached from
the right-hand side. This is a pity, since it is just where we would
expect the words 'Aet. suae' next to the sitter's age, and maybe a small
heraldic badge to indicate his lineage. This is the painting which has
become known as the Sanders portrait, after Thomas Sanders, the man who
in 1908 took it to Marion Henry Spielmann, author of the pioneering
Portraits of Shakespeare (1907), claiming that a hitherto undocumented
family tradition identified it as a likeness of William Shakespeare.
Spielmann liked the picture, about which he wrote in the Connoisseur and
later in the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, but was
unimpressed by the claim that it depicted Shakespeare; he was
particularly unimpressed by an unnaturally informative cloth label
pasted to the back, which read: 'Shakspere/Born April 23 = 1564/Died
April 23 - 1616/Aged 52/This Likeness taken 1603/Age at that time 39
ys.' Spielmann doesn't say so, but it's hard not to suspect that this
label was written to overcompensate for that missing two-inch strip,
which if it had given the sitter's age as anything other than 39 (or 38)
would have precluded the potentially lucrative identification of the
portrait as a likeness of Shakespeare. The sitter looks about 27 to me,
but then again, so does Phil Hopkins, and he must be 40.
Described in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, exhibited at a Manhattan
department store in the 1920s, offered for sale to the Folger
Shakespeare Library in the 1930s, and then 'discovered' once again, to a
blaze of publicity, in Montreal in 2001, the Sanders portrait must be
one of the most famous likenesses in the world of a completely unknown
Elizabethan. By contrast, the second portrait has languished in
obscurity, though its provenance is a good deal more picturesque and its
connections with the name of Shakespeare are in one respect at least
rather more verifiable. It depicts a girl, perhaps nine or ten years
old, seen full-length in front of a vague, idealised landscape. Her
right hand rests on the head of a large greyhound, which sits beside her
looking up into her face, while her left hand holds a pear, which she
appears to be trying to feed to the dog. Her own face, which stares
stiffly out at us, gives no clue as to what she thinks she is doing, but
the more expressively painted greyhound looks surprised. The girl's red
satin dress, with a central panel of figured brocade, simple lace collar
and cuffs, and only minimally puffed sleeves, is in the fashion of the
1650s, and the painting follows the mode of child portraiture
exemplified in a more aristocratic and accomplished manner, complete
with emblematic fruit, by John Michael Wright's c.1668 painting of James
Cecil, fourth Earl of Salisbury and his sister Lady Catherine, now at
Hatfield. Unhelpfully, there is no indication on the canvas as to the
pear-bearing girl's identity, and no date either. However, a modern
brass plaque affixed to the frame confidently supplies the former, and
suggests by implication a date of about 1595. It reads: 'Judith
Shakespeare 1585-1661-2.'
I don't believe for a moment that this painting really represents the
poet's younger daughter - she was probably in her sixties by the time it
was painted - any more than I think that there is more than wishful
thinking behind the Sanders family's identification of their fluffy
Elizabethan, but the fact that someone wanted this little girl to be a
member of Shakespeare's family, and Judith at that, is in this instance
particularly striking. The painting now belongs to a family who bear the
same surname as the playwright - to that extent it would be perfectly
proper to call it the Shakespeare portrait - but who are probably just
as closely related to the fishing-tackle manufacturers (it isn't an
uncommon name, and the playwright's direct line died out in 1670 with
his granddaughter Lady Elizabeth Barnard). The picture came into the
family soon after the First World War, kindly provided by someone who
couldn't bear the idea that a modern-day William Shakespeare - whom she
met, moreover, in her adopted home county of Warwickshire - shouldn't
own a relic connected with his better-known namesake. This someone was
the self-styled Marie Corelli (whose real name was Mary Mackay),
bestselling novelist and spiritualist, who was probably one inspiration
for E.F. Benson's Lucia, and was certainly the most conspicuous if not
the most talented writer ever to live in Stratford-upon-Avon. Her
household at Mason Croft, the grand building on Church Street that now
houses the Shakespeare Institute, included not only her lesbian partner
but a gondolier, brought from Venice with his boat to chauffeur them
elegantly up and down the Avon.
Did Corelli really believe that this portrait depicted Judith
Shakespeare and, if so, on what grounds? The family has no record of any
claims she may have made about its provenance; if she did believe it to
be genuine, it is possible that this belief was communicated to her by
spirit guides tapping on tables. It might be more apt, though, to
imagine Corelli conferring this name on the girl with the pear as an
in-joke with herself made at both the Elizabethan and the latterday
Shakespeares' expense, a private allusion to William Black's 1884 novel,
Judith Shakespeare: A Romance. In Black's book the rebellious Judith
becomes involved in an attempt by the Stratford locals on whom
Shakespeare has based many of his characters (including Holofernes) to
demand royalties from the playwright, before achieving a reconciliation
with her famous father (and marrying Thomas Quiney, a rather
better-behaved character in this novel than the fornicator remembered in
Stratford's parish records). The idea of returning a counterfeit Judith
Shakespeare to a not- the-original William Shakespeare might well have
appealed to Corelli's sense of humour. Whether or not Black's
novelisation of Judith's life was in Corelli's mind as she passed the
picture on, it must surely have been somewhere in Virginia Woolf's when
she wrote A Room of One's Own a few years later. In Woolf's essay an
imaginary Judith Shakespeare (who here is William's sister rather than
his daughter) serves as a figure for all women writers denied
opportunities in life, and then forgotten by literary history. In one
form or another, with or without pear and greyhound, Judith keeps coming
back to haunt her father's image.
Were I a certain kind of newspaper journalist, I might send copies of
the pear-bearing so-called Judith to a number of art historians and
Shakespearean scholars, persuade my editor to run a front-page story
about this possibly priceless, possibly genuine new-found likeness of
the Bard's youngest child, badger forensic scientists into running
elaborate tests on the picture, and then eventually publish a fat book
narrating the entire episode. I could even intersperse the narrative
with commissioned essays on Shakespeare and portraiture by most of the
usual suspects in the field. This is what Stephanie Nolen has done for
the Sanders portrait, and Shakespeare's Face is the result. To judge by
Nolen's volume, mine - working title: 'Shakespeare's Daughter's Face' -
would feature a fairly plodding narrative about the discovery and
analysis of the portrait and its brief career as a media celebrity,
interspersed with often wildly speculative contributions from a number
of reputable academics. They might consider, for example, whether
Shakespeare commissioned the painting to wax sentimental over at his
London writing desk; whether or not it predates the death of Judith's
twin brother, Hamnet; whether the child in the picture doesn't have a
distinctly my-dad's-just-written-Romeo-and-Juliet look in her eye;
whether the greyhound can be identified with the dog-impersonating
spirits who defend Miranda's chastity by pursuing Caliban, Stephano and
Trinculo in The Tempest, and so on.
To be fair, there are some nicely written pieces in Nolen's book -
Tarnya Cooper is good on the painting's genre, and Jonathan Bate does
his usual expert job on the still widespread folk belief that
Shakespeare didn't write his own plays (which would make the Sanders
portrait, even if it is all that its current possessor hopes, merely a
likeness of a pseudonym). But even here there are some odd lapses of
judgment: Bate credits Robert Nye with the notion that the simile of the
eddy in The Rape of Lucrece is based on observation of Clopton Bridge in
Stratford, when Nye actually lifted the idea from Caroline Spurgeon's
important Shakespeare's Imagery and What It Tells Us (1935), which even
boasts a sketch of the bridge as its frontispiece. In the end Bate
decides he wants the portrait to be of Shakespeare's junior colleague
John Fletcher - here again the book simply succumbs to the kinds of
desire it intermittently purports to analyse. It is very striking that
nearly all the contributors who argue that the painting is a genuine
likeness of Shakespeare are Canadian, thrilled that this attractive
picture should have come to light (again) in Montreal: a small team from
the Toronto-based Records of Early English Drama project even produce an
elaborate and implausible hypothesis in defence of the suspect cloth
label on the back. The wish that was father to that thought is made
helpfully explicit by the artistic director of the Stratford Festival in
Ontario, Richard Monette, who contacted Nolen soon after the story
broke, expressing a desire to adopt the Sanders as the Canadian
Stratford's own official portrait of Shakespeare, to be retitled
'Shakespeare in the New World'.
Part of the appeal of the Sanders portrait, in short, is that it hasn't
been familiar for generations, unlike the four most immed-iately
recognisable portraits of the Bard: Gheerart Janssen's memorial bust at
Holy Trinity in Stratford (in place by 1623), Martin Droeshout's
engraving on the title page of the First Folio (1623), the Chandos
portrait (c.1610, provenance largely a matter of late 17th-century
rumour) and the statue by Peter Scheemakers, commissioned years later
for the monument to Shakespeare in Poets' Corner, Westminster Abbey
(unveiled in 1741). All of these are by now hopelessly burdened with
connotations of British prestige, respectability and solid worth - hence
the long-running tenure of an engraving of Scheemakers's statue on the
old £20 note - and the only one with any bohemian dash, the Chandos,
with its fetching gold earring, probably isn't a picture of Shakespeare
at all. As Stephen Orgel points out in his excellent new collection of
essays, Imagining Shakespeare, the sitter for the Chandos portrait has
unambiguously black hair, while the Janssen bust, commissioned and
supervised by Shakespeare's surviving family and friends, originally had
auburn hair. Orgel provides a nice history of attempts by 18th and
19th-century artists to produce a likeness more worthy of Shakespeare: a
number of such paintings - among them William Blake's cherubic retread
of the Droeshout engraving, Angelica Kauffman's idealised cavalier and
John Faed's wonderfully booze-free Victorian image of Shakespeare and
His Friends at the Mermaid Tavern - were on display at the Dulwich
Picture Gallery this summer, and they are ably discussed in a handsome
catalogue, Shakespeare in Art, which boasts yet another helpful essay by
Jonathan Bate.
Very much in the 18th-century tradition of suiting the likeness to the
cultural need, Michael Wood, attempting to enthuse the nation with his
breathless account of a dashing Merrie English crypto-Catholic in his
recent television series In Search of Shakespeare, tried to bypass the
canonical portraits' 'balding middle-aged man in a ruff, an
establishment figure', in favour of yet another apocryphal Shakespeare.
Wood prefers the well-dressed, ingenuous youth depicted by the Grafton
portrait, first declared as being of Shakespeare in the 1880s, a time
when just about every unidentified 16th-century portrait was being
touted as a likeness of either Shakespeare or Queen Elizabeth.
'Shakespeare looked like this: a young blade, diffident, sensitive,
witty, ambitious; a provincial poet making his way in the world,' Wood
declares in his tie-in book. It's a nice picture, and since it doesn't
rule out Shakespeare, the date remains intact - 'aetatis suae 24, 1588'
- but how the young and obscure actor could have afforded to get himself
painted, never mind this well and in these clothes, is never quite
explained. If Shakespeare did commission this portrait 'to send back to
the family: proof to proud parents, and to his wife and children, that
he was doing well', as Wood would have it, I'm sure that Anne, at the
time trying to bring up a five-year-old daughter and three-year-old
twins, would much rather have had the money.
All this betrays a deep and enduring confusion between Shakespeare as a
corpus of writings and Shakespeare's physical body; somehow the most
attractive collection of plays ever written has to have had the most
attractive author, and a supposed picture of the writer's daughter must
be as interesting as the offspring of his Muse. Even Stanley Wells,
making the first star cameo appearance in Nolen's book, seems to share
this identification between the poetry and the portraiture, declaring
that 'a true picture of his face would make the greatest relic of all.'
What, greater than an annotated holograph manuscript of Hamlet, or an
autographed copy of the missing Love's Labour's Won? Orgel traces all
this back to the First Folio, whose editors made the surprising and
expensive decision to put the Droeshout engraving of Shakespeare onto
the title page itself instead of opposite as a frontispiece: as a
result, the final injunction of the little Ben Jonson poem about it
which occupies the facing page, where the portrait would normally be -
'looke/Not on his Picture, but his Booke' - becomes pretty much
impossible to obey. And the association between Shakespeare's work and
his image goes back even further: a character in the Cambridge skit The
Return from Parnassus (c.1600), enthusing over Venus and Adonis and
Romeo and Juliet, exclaims: 'O, sweet master Shakespeare! I'll have his
picture in my study at the court.' But as even the rather obtuse King
Duncan finally realised, there is no art to find the mind's construction
in the face, and anyone planning to commit their opinions about
portraits of Shakespeare to print should take note of this first
recorded utterance on the subject, and especially of who makes it. The
character in question is called Gullio. The desire for a new likeness of
Shakespeare, it seems, can still make a gull of almost anyone. Perhaps,
as John Self suggested in Money, we should just content ourselves with
the consolations offered by the old one: The beaked and bumfluffed upper
lip, the oafish swelling of the jawline, the granny's rockpool eyes. And
that rug! Isn't it a killer? I have always derived great comfort from
William Shakespeare. After a depressing visit to the mirror or an unkind
word from a girlfriend or an incredulous stare in the street, I say to
myself: 'Well. Shakespeare looked like shit.' It works wonders.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
------------------------------------------------------------------
OXFORD'S PORTRAIT AND THE DROESHOUT ENGRAVING
http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/etexts/si/app2.htm
<<It is not generally known that there is no Shakespeare portrait before
the Droeshout engraving which appeared in the First Folio: that is to
say, seven years after the death of the man it is supposed to represent;
and it is of a totally different type from the bust of him, that was set
up at Stratford, where he would be personally known. Droeshout,
moreover, was only a lad of fifteen when Shakspere died; he would be
only twelve when Shakspere was in London probably for the last time, and
was born only the year before Shakspere's, supposed retirement in 1604.
It was, not until a few months ago that we had an opportunity of seeing
a portrait of Edward de Vere in Fairfax Murray's reproductions of the
portraits that are in the Duke of Portland's place at Welbeck Abbey,
near Worksop, Nottingham.
Certain features in the picture immediately suggested the Droeshout
engraving; most particularly the thin dark line which runs along above
the upper lip, leaving a slight space between this suggestion of a
moustache and the edge of the lip itself. Since then we have looked over
a large number of portraits of the time, and have discovered nothing
else similar. In addition there were the same facial proportions, the
same arching of the eyebrows, the identical pose (three-quarter face),
the same direction of gaze, about an equal amount of bust, the chief
difference being that one is turned to the right and the other to the
left: altogether there was quite sufficient to suggest that, when the
two could be brought together, a very strong case might be made out for
Droeshout having worked from this portrait, of Edward de Vere, making
modifications according to instructions. For Oxford was only twenty-five
when the portrait was painted, and, of course, it was necessary to
represent Shakespeare as an older man. This would explain the peculiar
Tom Pinch-like combination of youthfulness and age that is one of the
puzzling features of the Droeshout engraving.
We have now before us, however, what may prove to be the most
sensational piece of evidence that our investigations have so far
yielded. This is a picture known as the Grafton portrait of Shakespeare
at 24. The full particulars respecting it are narrated in a work on the
subject by Thomas Kay and published in 1915: the chief aim of the book
being to show the connection between this and another portrait from
which the Droeshout engraving was conceivably made.
http://www.pzenner.freeserve.co.uk/three.htm
http://www3.telus.net/oxford/newsletters.html
Now, until we can place an acknowledged portrait of the Earl of Oxford
alongside of it, we shall defer saying positively that this is actually
another portrait of him; but speaking from recollections of the other we
would say at first sight that it is so. The eye is at once arrested
again by the thin dark line on the upper lip that we noticed in Oxford's
portrait; there are all the features which we, noticed his portrait had
in common with the Droeshout engraving; and in those points in which the
older features of the Droeshout engraving differed from Edward de Vere
this one agrees with the latter. The probability that it is another
portrait of the Earl of Oxford is therefore very strong.
We now come to the startling facts. First of all, although the portrait
is that of a young man aged twenty-four, he is dressed as, an
aristocrat, and Stratfordianism is driven to invent far-fetched
explanations. Again under the 4 of his age there had been a 3, and again
more explanations have to be invented. Then, under the 8 in the date it
looks again as if there had been another 3, and authorities are quoted
to controvert it. Now as, the Earl of Oxford would be twenty-three in
the year 1573 these two alterations are two out of the three precise
alterations which would be necessary to make the, age and date in a
portrait of Edward de Vere agree with the particulars for William
Shakspere of Stratford.
In a word we have here probably (to be cautious for the present) a
portrait of the Earl of Oxford with particulars, altered to fit the
Stratford man: in which case our evidence is about as, complete as it
could be. The probability is, as a study of the work suggests, that this
portrait was placed before Droeshout as the basis for his engraving. We
would further add that the numbers were probably altered so that the
engraver need not be in the secret. The scrubbing to which the picture
has been subjected has brought up the numbers, from underneath. That
same scrubbing has, unfortunately, obliterated the high lights on the
nose of the portrait, thus altering its shape and reducing its value for
identification.
This enables us to finish our argument almost in strict accordance with
the original plan, the seventh and last step of which was to connect
directly as far as possible the newly accredited with the formerly
reputed author.
Note. - The Grafton portrait of Shakespeare has now been carefully
compared with the Welbeck portrait of Edward de Vere, and when proper
allowances are made for evident differences of artistic treatment and
skill, and for the denudation of high lights from the former, as well as
other disfigurements resulting from ill-usage to the picture, there
seems abundant justification for the point of view assumed in the above
argument. In our opinion the portrait of the Earl of Oxford has more in
common with both the Grafton portrait and the Droeshout engraving
than these two have with one another.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
lyra
> > Richie Miller wrote:
>
> > > Also Woods recited a supposed marriage poem from Will to Anne and
> > > speculated that Will thought Anne "saved his life". Are these just
> > > howlers? Or is he onto
> > > something interesting.
>
> John W. Kennedy wrote
>
> > No, it's stronger than Woods allows for, in fact. Apparently
> > "hate-away" is an attested pronunciation of the name "Hathaway" in some
> > branches of the family. (And makes the possibility of confusion between
> > "Anne Hathaway" and "Anne Whately" that much more likely, to boot.)
> >
> > But the "saved my life" could be nothing but standard love-poem rhetoric.
> -----------------------------------------------
> King Henry IV, Part i Act 5, Scene 4
>
> FALSTAFF
> Counterfeit? I lie, I am no counterfeit: to die,
> is to be a counterfeit; for he is but the
> counterfeit of a man who hath not the life of a man:
> but to counterfeit dying, when a man thereby
> liveth, is to be no counterfeit, but the true and
> perfect image of life indeed. The better part
> of valour is discretion; in the which better part
>
> I have SAVED MY LIFE.
"to counterfeit dying"...
reminds me of Kit Marlowe...
1. may have counterfeited (a coin)...
I think counterfeiting was a capital crime.
2. may have counterfeited dying, too!
and left Deptford, for, perhaps,
Whitney-on-Wye, or Powys Castle
(the home of Sir Edward Herbert,
brother to
Henry Herbert, Lord Pembroke,
of Wilton, and the acting company
Pembroke's Men (who, the next year,
acted Marlowe's play Edward II).
(for more information about this theory,
http://www.geocities.com/renaissance_now_2003/Kit_Marlowe_at_WhitneyonW.html
http://www.geocities.com/renaissance_now_2003/Kit_Marlowe_at_Powys.html )
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > > Also Woods recited a supposed marriage poem from Will to Anne and
> > > > speculated that Will thought Anne "saved his life". Are these just
> > > > howlers? Or is he onto
> > > > something interesting.
> >
> > John W. Kennedy wrote
> >
> > > No, it's stronger than Woods allows for, in fact. Apparently
> > > "hate-away" is an attested pronunciation of the name "Hathaway" in
some
> > > branches of the family. (And makes the possibility of confusion
between
> > > "Anne Hathaway" and "Anne Whately" that much more likely, to boot.)
> > >
> > > But the "saved my life" could be nothing but standard love-poem
rhetoric.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote
> > -----------------------------------------------
> > King Henry IV, Part i Act 5, Scene 4
> >
> > FALSTAFF
> > Counterfeit? I lie, I am no counterfeit: to die,
> > is to be a counterfeit; for he is but the
> > counterfeit of a man who hath not the life of a man:
> > but to counterfeit dying, when a man thereby
> > liveth, is to be no counterfeit, but the true and
> > perfect image of life indeed. The better part
> > of valour is discretion; in the which better part
> >
> > I have SAVED MY LIFE.
"lyra" <mountai...@RockAthens.com> wrote
> "to counterfeit dying"...
>
> reminds me of Kit Marlowe...
>
> 1. may have counterfeited (a coin)...
> I think counterfeiting was a capital crime.
>
> 2. may have counterfeited dying, too!
>
> and left Deptford, for, perhaps,
> Whitney-on-Wye, or Powys Castle
>
> (the home of Sir Edward Herbert,
> brother to
> Henry Herbert, Lord Pembroke,
> of Wilton, and the acting company
> Pembroke's Men (who, the next year,
> acted Marlowe's play Edward II).
>
> (for more information about this theory,
>
>
http://www.geocities.com/renaissance_now_2003/Kit_Marlowe_at_WhitneyonW.html
>
> http://www.geocities.com/renaissance_now_2003/Kit_Marlowe_at_Powys.html )
----------------------------------------------------
King Henry VI, Part iii Act 2, Scene 6
RICHARD O, would he did! and so perhaps he doth:
'Tis but his policy to COUNTERFEIT,
Because he would avoid such bitter taunts
Which in the time of death he gave our father.
------------------------------------------------------------
King Henry VI, Part i Act 2, Scene 4
PLANTAGENET
Meantime your cheeks do COUNTERFEIT our roses;
For pale they look with fear, as witnessing
The truth on our side.
SOMERSET No, Plantagenet,
'Tis not for fear but anger that thy cheeks
Blush for pure shame to COUNTERFEIT our roses,
And yet thy tongue will not confess thy error.
-------------------------------------------------------------
King Richard III Act 3, Scene 5
BUCKINGHAM
Tut, I can COUNTERFEIT the deep tragedian;
Speak and look back, and pry on every side,
Tremble and start at wagging of a straw,
Intending deep suspicion: ghastly looks
Are at my service, like enforced smiles;
--------------------------------------------------------
King Richard II Act 1, Scene 4
DUKE OF AUMERLE 'Farewell:'
And, for my heart disdained that my tongue
Should so profane the word, that taught me craft
To COUNTERFEIT oppression of such grief
That words seem'd buried in my sorrow's grave.
-----------------------------------------------------------
King John Act 3, Scene 1
CONSTANCE
You have beguiled me with a COUNTERFEIT
Resembling majesty, which, being touch'd and tried,
Proves valueless:
---------------------------------------------------------------
King Henry IV, Part i Act 2, Scene 4
FALSTAFF
Dost thou hear, Hal? never call a true piece of
gold a COUNTERFEIT: thou art essentially mad,
without seeming so.
Act 5, Scene 4
EARL OF DOUGLAS
I fear thou art another COUNTERFEIT;
And yet, in faith, thou bear'st thee like a king:
FALSTAFF [Rising up] Embowelled! if thou embowel me to-day,
I'll give you leave to powder me and eat me too
to-morrow. 'Sblood,'twas time to COUNTERFEIT, or
that hot termagant Scot had paid me scot and lot too.
COUNTERFEIT? I lie, I am no COUNTERFEIT: to die,
is to be a COUNTERFEIT; for he is but the
COUNTERFEIT of a man who hath not the life of a man:
but to COUNTERFEIT dying, when a man thereby
liveth, is to be no COUNTERFEIT, but the true and
perfect image of life indeed. The better part of
valour is discretion; in the which better part I
have saved my life.'Zounds, I am afraid of this
gunpowder Percy, though he be dead: how, if he
should COUNTERFEIT too and rise? by my faith, I am
afraid he would prove the better COUNTERFEIT.
Therefore I'll make him sure; yea, and I'll swear I
killed him. Why may not he rise as well as I?
Nothing confutes me but eyes, and nobody sees me.
Therefore, sirrah,
[Stabbing him]
with a new wound in your thigh, come you along with me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
King Henry V Act 3, Scene 6
GOWER Why, this is an arrant COUNTERFEIT rascal;
I remember him now; a bawd, a cutpurse.
Act 5, Scene 1
GOWER Go, go; you are a COUNTERFEIT cowardly knave. Will
you mock at an ancient tradition, begun upon an
honourable respect, and worn as a memorable trophy of
predeceased valour and dare not avouch in your deeds
any of your words?
-------------------------------------------------------------
King Henry VIII Act 5, Scene 3
SURREY 'Tis no COUNTERFEIT.
------------------------------------------------------------
The Two Gentlemen of Verona Act 2, Scene 4
THURIO So do COUNTERFEITs.
Act 5, Scene 4
SILVIA Thou COUNTERFEIT to thy true friend!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Taming of the Shrew Act 4, Scene 4
BIONDELLO I cannot tell; expect they are busied about a
COUNTERFEIT assurance:
Act 5, Scene 1
LUCENTIO While COUNTERFEIT supposes bleared thine eyne.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Comedy of Errors Act 2, Scene 2
ADRIANA How ill agrees it with your gravity
To COUNTERFEIT thus grossly with your slave,
Abetting him to thwart me in my mood!
-------------------------------------------------------
A Midsummer Night's Dream Act 3, Scene 2
HELENA Ay, do, persever, COUNTERFEIT sad looks,
HELENA Fie, fie! you COUNTERFEIT, you puppet, you!
--------------------------------------------------------
The Merchant of Venice Act 3, Scene 2
BASSANIO What find I here?
[Opening the leaden casket]
Fair Portia's COUNTERFEIT!
--------------------------------------------------------
Much Ado About Nothing Act 2, Scene 1
ANTONIO To tell you true, I COUNTERFEIT him.
Act 2, Scene 3
DON PEDRO May be she doth but COUNTERFEIT.
------------------------------------------------------------
LEONATO
O God, COUNTERFEIT! There was never COUNTERFEIT of
passion came so near the life of passion as she discovers it.
---------------------------------------------------------
As You Like It Act 3, Scene 5
PHEBE Now COUNTERFEIT to swoon;
Act 4, Scene 3
OLIVER This was not COUNTERFEIT:
ROSALIND COUNTERFEIT, I assure you.
OLIVER take a good heart and COUNTERFEIT to be a man.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Twelfth Night Act 4, Scene 2
SIR TOBY BELCH The knave COUNTERFEITs well; a good knave.
Clown I will help you to't. But tell me true, are you
not mad indeed? or do you but COUNTERFEIT?
------------------------------------------------------------
Troilus and Cressida Act 2, Scene 3
THERSITES If I could have remembered a gilt COUNTERFEIT,
-------------------------------------------------------------------
All's Well That Ends Well Act 3, Scene 6
First Lord O, for the love of laughter, let him fetch his drum;
he says he has a stratagem for't: when your
lordship sees the bottom of his success in't, and to
what metal this COUNTERFEIT lump of ore will be
melted, if you give him not John Drum's
entertainment, your inclining cannot be removed.
Act 4, Scene 3
First Lord That approaches apace; I would gladly have him see
his company anatomized, that he might take a measure
of his own judgments, wherein so curiously he had
set this COUNTERFEIT.
BERTRAM But shall we have this
dialogue between the fool and the soldier? Come,
bring forth this COUNTERFEIT module, he has deceived
me, like a double-meaning prophesier.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Winter's Tale Act 4, Scene 4
AUTOLYCUS Ha, ha! what a fool Honesty is! and Trust, his
sworn brother, a very simple gentleman! I have sold
all my trumpery; not a COUNTERFEIT stone, not a
ribbon, glass, pomander, brooch, table-book, ballad,
knife, tape, glove, shoe-tie, bracelet, horn-ring,
to keep my pack from fasting:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cymbeline Act 2, Scene 5
POSTHUMUS LEONATUS Is there no way for men to be but women
Must be half-workers? We are all bastards;
And that most venerable man which I
Did call my father, was I know not where
When I was stamp'd; some coiner with his tools
Made me a COUNTERFEIT:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Romeo and Juliet Act 2, Scene 4
MERCUTIO Without his roe, like a dried herring: flesh, flesh,
how art thou fishified! Now is he for the numbers
that Petrarch flowed in: Laura to his lady was but a
kitchen-wench; marry, she had a better love to
be-rhyme her; Dido a dowdy; Cleopatra a gipsy;
Helen and Hero hildings and harlots; Thisbe a grey
eye or so, but not to the purpose. Signior
Romeo, bon jour! there's a French salutation
to your French slop. You gave us the COUNTERFEIT
fairly last night.
ROMEO Good morrow to you both. What COUNTERFEIT did I give you?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark Act 3, Scene 4
HAMLET Look here, upon this picture, and on this,
The COUNTERFEIT presentment of two brothers.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Othello, The Moor of Venice Act 2, Scene 1
IAGO a slipper and subtle knave, a
finder of occasions, that has an eye can stamp and
COUNTERFEIT advantages, though true advantage never
present itself; a devilish knave. Besides, the
knave is handsome, young, and hath all those
requisites in him that folly and green minds look
after: a pestilent complete knave; and the woman
hath found him already.
Act 3, Scene 3
OTHELLO O you mortal engines, whose rude throats
The immortal Jove's dead clamours COUNTERFEIT,
Farewell! Othello's occupation's gone!
Act 5, Scene 1
LODOVICO Two or three groan: it is a heavy night:
These may be COUNTERFEITs: let's think't unsafe
To come in to the cry without more help.
----------------------------------------------------------
Timon of Athens Act 4, Scene 3
TIMON He is an usurer: strike me the COUNTERFEIT matron;
Act 5, Scene 1
TIMON Good honest men! Thou draw'st a COUNTERFEIT
Best in all Athens: thou'rt, indeed, the best;
Thou COUNTERFEIT'st most lively.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Macbeth Act 2, Scene 3
Shake off this downy sleep, death's COUNTERFEIT,
And look on death itself! up, up, and see
The great doom's image!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coriolanus Act 2, Scene 3
CORIOLANUS and since the wisdom of their choice is
rather to have my hat than my heart, I will practise
the insinuating nod and be off to them most
COUNTERFEITly; that is, sir, I will COUNTERFEIT the
bewitchment of some popular man and give it
bountiful to the desirers.
-------------------------------------------------------
The Rape of Lucrece Stanza 182
By this, mild patience bid fair Lucrece speak
To the poor COUNTERFEIT of her complaining:
Stanza 254
And then in key-cold Lucrece' bleeding stream
He falls, and bathes the pale fear in his face,
And COUNTERFEITs to die with her a space;
----------------------------------------------
Sonnet 16
Now stand you on the top of happy hours,
And many maiden gardens yet unset
With virtuous wish would bear your living flowers,
Much liker than your painted COUNTERFEIT:
------------------------------------------------
Sonnet 53
Describe Adonis, and the COUNTERFEIT
Is poorly imitated after you;
On Helen's cheek all art of beauty set,
And you in Grecian tires are painted new:
------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Tad Davis
Richie Miller <thedoccalMY...@ASSaol.com> wrote:
> In part two Woods shows a 1588 portrait of an unknown youth he speculates is
> Shakespeare. It looks almost identical to the one discovered in Canada last
> year. When I get the DVD I can look at it better, but is anyone aware of
> this
> 1588 painting?
If I remember correctly, John Dover Wilson used it as the frontispiece
to a slender book he wrote about Shakespeare. Said he wanted to shake up
people's image of Shakespeare with a picture of someone who looked
younger and more poetical. Don't remember the name of the book.
--
Tad Davis
tadd...@ucwphilly.rr.com
http://taddavis.blogspot.com