"Marlowe's portrait" at Corpus Christi
zeabed
rubble in Corpus Christi College should be presumed to represent
Christopher Marlowe. The fact that it's dated 1585 and that it gives
the sitter's age as 21 is no explanation. Surely there were other 21
year olds among Marlowe's classmates and fellow students, if that
indeed is who the sitter was -- a student. Yet Nicholls in "The
Reckoning" approves Calvin Hoffman's suggestion that this is Marlowe.
Nicholls speculates that the College would have wanted to display a
portrait of their "famous scholar." This however, does not explain how
such a portrait came to be painted before Marlowe became famous. The
velvet doublet is a rich garment that a poor cobbler's son, attending
the College under a scholarship, could not have afforded. Neither
could he have afforded a painting of himself. Have I missed or
overlooked some scholarly fact in the suggestion that this painting as
a depiction of Marlowe? Or am I correct in believing that the
speculation is baseless?
Peter Farey
"zeabed" wrote:
>
> I've never understood why a portrait found in 1953 amid the
> builders' rubble in Corpus Christi College should be presumed
> to represent Christopher Marlowe.
As far as I know, nobody who really knows anything about it
does "presume" this. All are at pains to point out that it
might not in fact be Marlowe, but argue (with varying degrees
of confidence) the probability that it is.
> The fact that it's dated 1585 and that it gives the sitter's
> age as 21 is no explanation.
It is a perfectly good explanation of why it is thought
*possible* that it is of Marlowe. Had it been found at
Stratford Grammar School rather than at Corpus Christi,
it would have been thought possible that it was of
William Shakespeare, don't you think?
> Surely there were other 21 year olds among Marlowe's
> classmates and fellow students, if that indeed is who the
> sitter was -- a student. Yet Nicholls
That's 'Nicholl' in fact.
> in "The Reckoning" approves Calvin Hoffman's suggestion that
> this is Marlowe. Nicholls speculates that the College would
> have wanted to display a portrait of their "famous scholar."
> This however, does not explain how such a portrait came to
> be painted before Marlowe became famous.
This is certainly true, if we assume that it was painted in
1585, and it certainly looks that way.
> The velvet doublet is a rich garment that a poor cobbler's
> son, attending the College under a scholarship, could not
> have afforded. Neither could he have afforded a painting
> of himself. Have I missed or overlooked some scholarly
> fact in the suggestion that this painting as a depiction
> of Marlowe?
The usual suggestion as to where the money came from is
related to the work he appears to have done on behalf of
the Privy Council. Nobody knows when this started, and it
is certainly possible that he had been in their employ for
a while before this. I read somewhere, but unfortunately
can't remember where at the moment, that his spending at
the buttery was much more than would have been expected
too.
My own theory is that he not only signed the will of
Katherine Benchkin as a witness, but that he also drafted
the whole thing and wrote it out for her, at the request
of his fellow-student at Corpus Christi, John Benchkin,
who was the main beneficiary. The timing is just about
right for the portrait (and doublet) to have been paid
for as a reward, and the will shows Katherine to have
been well-heeled enough to have been able to afford
these with no trouble at all.
> Or am I correct in believing that the speculation is
> baseless?
Well, I think that would be going too far in the other
direction. There *is* a basis for the suggestion that
it was Marlowe. The question is how *probable* that
makes it.
Whatever happens, though, in the absence of any other
major discovery we are stuck with the general feeling
that this is what Marlowe looked like. I went to school
at Dulwich College and (like Raymond Chandler, I think)
was in Marlowe house there. It is difficult for me to
recall now that we had no idea of how Marlowe looked.
In fact it was probably not until the early sixties,
when I first read of Calvin Hoffman's authorship ideas
in *Esquire* magazine, that I first saw the Corpus
Christi portrait.
Now, of course, it is difficult to imagine him with any
other face. People have a need to be able to put a face
to a name. In fact a while back I was visiting a relative
who was in intensive care in hospital, and I had to wait
for a little while in a waiting room where they had some
*very* old books lying around. One that I picked up was
called something like "The Boys' Own Book of Spies". It
was one of these books full of illustrations drawn in
colour, and I was astonished to see that one of them
was a picture of "Christopher Marlowe", looking like a
rather young Art Garfunkel, with wild eyes and flaming
red hair! Goodness knows where it came from. The book,
needless to say, pre-dated 1955.
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > I've never understood why a portrait found in 1953 amid the
> > builders' rubble in Corpus Christi College should be presumed
> > to represent Christopher Marlowe.
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> As far as I know, nobody who really knows anything about it
> does "presume" this. All are at pains to point out that it
> might not in fact be Marlowe, but argue (with varying degrees
> of confidence) the probability that it is.
> "zeabed" wrote:
> >
> > The fact that it's dated 1585 and that it gives the sitter's
> > age as 21 is no explanation.
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote
> It is a perfectly good explanation of why it is thought
> *possible* that it is of Marlowe. Had it been found at
> Stratford Grammar School rather than at Corpus Christi,
> it would have been thought possible that it was of
> William Shakespeare, don't you think?
Shakespeare's "age" on the Stratford monument is 53 meaning that he was
just starting his 53rd year of life. In addition, there is also the
ambiguity of whether Marlowe was born in 1564 or 1563. Therefore, Marlowe
could have begun his 21st year of life as early as 1583.
Art Neuendorffer
Neil Brennen
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bv04a3$8sr$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > The fact that it's dated 1585 and that it gives the sitter's
> > age as 21 is no explanation.
>
> It is a perfectly good explanation of why it is thought
> *possible* that it is of Marlowe. Had it been found at
> Stratford Grammar School rather than at Corpus Christi,
> it would have been thought possible that it was of
> William Shakespeare, don't you think?
Yes, but then Crowley would explain to the world that Shakespeare was not
able to read or write, and the Queen had issued an edict that the illiterate
could not have their portrait painted.
BTW, happy Burns night, Peter.
http://www.haggishunt.com/haggisclopedia.cfm?part=9
Neil Brennen
bookburn
"zeabed" <zea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4fe1e774.04012...@posting.google.com...
I just looked at the unrestored portrait and notice a more
realistic presence than before. Looking further, I find that
Calvin Hoffman was an American literary agent who wrote the now
out of print, The Murder of the Man Who Was "Shakespeare", in
1955, credited with inspiring Mike Rubbo to do the documentary
film Much Ado About Something, which ran on TV last year.
In addition to these published speculations, there has been the
pecuniary incentive, partly funded by Hoffman, offered by King's
School in Canterbury, England, from whence Marlowe graduated in
the class of 1580, for
(quote)
a paper said to have 'most authoritatively and informatively'
established Marlowe's authorship of a single work normally
believed as Shakespeare's would win a sizable yearly prize of
about 10,000 Pounds. The grand prize, of a million or so pounds,
would go to the person who proves, to the world at large and
Stratfordians in particular, that Marlowe wrote all of the works
commonly attributed to Shakespeare.
(unquote)
So your question about the basis for speculation concerning
Marlowe's portrait is probably fueled by a profit incentive.
Some who have entered the yearly prize contest and not been
winners, including a few at h.l.a.s., suspect that a conspiracy
of some sort involves Marlowe's old school as well.
bookburn
zeabed
> (quote)
> a paper said to have 'most authoritatively and informatively'
> established Marlowe's authorship of a single work normally
> believed as Shakespeare's would win a sizable yearly prize of
> about 10,000 Pounds. The grand prize, of a million or so pounds,
> would go to the person who proves, to the world at large and
> Stratfordians in particular, that Marlowe wrote all of the works
> commonly attributed to Shakespeare.
> (unquote)
>
> So your question about the basis for speculation concerning
> Marlowe's portrait is probably fueled by a profit incentive.
> Some who have entered the yearly prize contest and not been
> winners, including a few at h.l.a.s., suspect that a conspiracy
> of some sort involves Marlowe's old school as well.
>
> bookburn
My question was fueled by my own personal interest in Christopher
Marlowe, not by any incentive based on the profit motive. My personal
interest began in 1963 when I first read Dr. Faustus in 1963. I've
always been curious about the restored portrait since I first laid
eyes on it (on the cover of the late J.D. Steane's edition of the
Complete Plays). I was not aware of the existence of the prize
contest that you mention in your post. I am not a scholar and do not
pretend to be one. Just a reader. I do believe in the "profit
incentive," however. It has led me to a less adder-fanged profession
than classical scholarship seems to have become.
I would also like to thank Mr. Fairey for a fair, well-informed and
balanced response to my original question. Now I am better informed
about the subject, and that was the purpose fueling my question.
bookburn
news:<101881k...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
> > (quote)
> > a paper said to have 'most authoritatively and informatively'
> > established Marlowe's authorship of a single work normally
> > believed as Shakespeare's would win a sizable yearly prize of
> > about 10,000 Pounds. The grand prize, of a million or so
pounds,
> > would go to the person who proves, to the world at large and
> > Stratfordians in particular, that Marlowe wrote all of the
works
> > commonly attributed to Shakespeare.
> > (unquote)
> >
> > So your question about the basis for speculation concerning
> > Marlowe's portrait is probably fueled by a profit incentive.
> > Some who have entered the yearly prize contest and not been
> > winners, including a few at h.l.a.s., suspect that a
conspiracy
> > of some sort involves Marlowe's old school as well.
> >
> > bookburn
>
> My question was fueled by my own personal interest in
Christopher
> Marlowe, not by any incentive based on the profit motive.
I did'nt intend to say "your question" was fueled by profit, just
the basis for the speculation you question.
My personal
> interest began in 1963 when I first read Dr. Faustus in 1963.
I've
> always been curious about the restored portrait since I first
laid
> eyes on it (on the cover of the late J.D. Steane's edition of
the
> Complete Plays). I was not aware of the existence of the prize
> contest that you mention in your post. I am not a scholar and
do not
> pretend to be one. Just a reader. I do believe in the "profit
> incentive," however. It has led me to a less adder-fanged
profession
> than classical scholarship seems to have become.
Not sure how poisonous dealings between scholars have become but
there is the problem of publish or perish without tenure, the cut
and thrust of academics on their own turf, and intermural
political bickering. I think professsors usually refrain, but
can get you with either accuracy of shots of wit or, failing
that, the butt of the pistol. At h.l.a.s., though, I would guess
the profit incentive is alive and well among writers.
> I would also like to thank Mr. Fairey for a fair, well-informed
and
> balanced response to my original question. Now I am better
informed
> about the subject, and that was the purpose fueling my
question.
Yes, I would defer to Mr. Farey, if that's who you mean. I don't
know what he thinks about the pecuniary motive involved in the
authorship controversy. bookburn
Peter Farey
Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
>
> > It is a perfectly good explanation of why it is thought
> > *possible* that it is of Marlowe. Had it been found at
> > Stratford Grammar School rather than at Corpus Christi,
> > it would have been thought possible that it was of
> > William Shakespeare, don't you think?
>
> Shakespeare's "age" on the Stratford monument is 53
> meaning that he was just starting his 53rd year of life.
As far as I know, however, *Aetatis* means 'of age' or
'aged', i.e. having reached that age, not 'in the ... year
of his life'. 'Anno aetatis suae' - in the year of his/her
age - is I think what you have in mind, but the inclusion
of the word 'domini' after 'anno' in each case seems to
preclude that meaning.
According to the Stratford monument, Shakespeare died on
23rd April 1616, aged 53. If he had been born on or before
the 23rd April 1564, he would have been 52 at that date. If
he had been born on 25th April 1564, however, he would have
still been only 51. So, unless the designer of the monument
did take took 'aetatis', as you suggest, to mean "just
starting his 53rd year of life", he was wrong.
(That the word "AEtatis" starts with an unexpected capital
does, of course, make me wonder whether this was yet another
deliberate mistake, but for the time being I'm really not
sure why this should be.)
> In addition, there is also the ambiguity of whether
> Marlowe was born in 1564 or 1563. Therefore, Marlowe
> could have begun his 21st year of life as early as 1583.
Assuming that he was born only shortly before his baptism,
we know that Marlowe's 21st birthday was around February
1584/5 (i.e February 1585 in our terms). The record of the,
baptisms, which is sequential, makes it clear which year it
was.
The portrait was painted in 1585. Depending upon which way
of showing the year was being used, 1585 might have begun
on what we would call 1st January 1585, or what we would call
25th March 1585. The year might have ended on what we would
call 31st December 1585, or what we would call 24th March 1586.
The earliest date upon which the portrait could have been
painted was therefore 1st January 1585, and the latest date
24th March 1586.
The sitter was 21 when the portrait was painted. At the lower
extreme, the portrait could have been painted on his 21st
birthday. At the higher, on the day before his 22nd.
If the portrait was painted on 24th March 1586, and this was
his 21st birthday, he was born on 24th March 1565. If it was
painted on 1st January 1585, and the day after was his 22nd
birthday, he was born on 2nd January 1563.
Therefore, if the facts given on the portrait are correct,
the sitter must have been born between what we would call
2nd January 1563 and 24th March 1565, inclusive. (This does
not take into account the difference between the Julian and
Gregorian calendars, of course, which are irrelevant to this
subject).
Provided, therefore, that Marlowe was not born more than
about 13 or 14 months prior to his baptism, he could have
been the subject of the portrait.
Shakespeare's baptism was two months exactly after Marlowe's,
so, according to this date, provided that he was not born
more than about 15 or 16 months before this, and if the date
were the only factor, he could have been the subject of the
portrait too.
> Art Neuendorffer
>
>
Elisabeth Riba
> I just looked at the unrestored portrait and notice a more
> realistic presence than before.
Where did/can you see this?
I thought most of the photos of the portrait from before the
restoration were black and white.
--
------> 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"
bookburn
"Elisabeth Riba" <l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote in message
news:bv360s$b05$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> bookburn <book...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I just looked at the unrestored portrait and notice a more
> > realistic presence than before.
>
> Where did/can you see this?
> I thought most of the photos of the portrait from before the
> restoration were black and white.
I saw the original at:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/marloweport.htm
It's realistic in the way black and white photoes show contrast
and appear to reveal details? bb
Elisabeth Riba
> "Elisabeth Riba" <l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote in message
> news:bv360s$b05$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> > bookburn <book...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I just looked at the unrestored portrait and notice a more
> > > realistic presence than before.
> >
> > Where did/can you see this?
> > I thought most of the photos of the portrait from before the
> > restoration were black and white.
> I saw the original at:
> http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/marloweport.htm
> It's realistic in the way black and white photoes show contrast
> and appear to reveal details? bb
*Sigh* I wish somebody had thought to take color photographs of the
painting before the restoration.
It's not that I don't trust the art restorers, but time and technology has
advanced in the past fifty years and I wonder what more we could learn
now.
I wonder what kinds of documentation exists about the restoration itself
and what techniques they used. Given what's been found through X-Ray
examination of other artworks, I'm curious what further forensics have
been done on/to that portrait to better identify the sitter.
Speaking of paintings, btw, what's the latest news/theory/belief about
that portrait recently discovered in Canada that was possibly Shakespeare?
bookburn
including an x-ray revealing more details:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/portrait.htm
bb
Art Neuendorffer
Peter Farey wrote:
<<As far as I know, however, *Aetatis* means 'of age' or
'aged', i.e. having reached that age, not 'in the ... year
of his life'. 'Anno aetatis suae' - in the year of his/her
age - is I think what you have in mind, but the inclusion
of the word 'domini' after 'anno' in each case seems
to preclude that meaning.
(That the word "AEtatis" starts with an unexpected capital
does, of course, make me wonder whether this was yet
another deliberate mistake, but for the time being
I'm really not sure why this should be.)>>
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/epitaph.htm
[I]UDICO PYLIUM GENIO SOCRATEM, ARTE MARONEM,
[T]ERRA TEGIT, POPVLVS MAERET, OLYMPVS HABET
[S]TAY [P]ASSENGER, WHY GOEST THOV BY SO FAST?
READ IF THOV CANST, WHOM ENVIOVS [D]EATH HATH PLAST
WITH IN THIS MONVMENT SHAKSPEARE: WITH WHOME,
QVICK NATVRE DIDE: WHOSE NAME, DOTH DECK YS [T]OMBE,
[F]AR MORE, THEN COST: [S]IEH ALL, YT [H]E HATH WRITT,
[L]EAVES LIVING ART, BVT PAGE, TO SERVE HIS WITT.
OBIIT ANO DO 1616
[Æ]TATIS 53 DIE 23 AP
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/epi_1.htm
[I]UDICO [T]ERRA
[S]TAY - [P]ASSENGER,
[D]EATH [T]OMBE,
[F]AR -- [S]IEH
[H]E --- [L]EAVES
[A] ---- [E]TATIS
P.T.S.L. (Post Tenebras Spero Lucem)
(After the darkness hope for light).
http://www.sirbacon.org/gallery/elingen.html
(The arm of a mystery author hidden by clouds
holds a Falcon on the title page of _Don Quixote_)
-----------------------------------------------------
{the only one word english anagram}
AETATIS
SATIATE
-----------------------------------------------------
SATIATE, v. t. To satisfy the appetite or desire of;
to feed to the full;
http://www.hollowaypages.com/images/STRATF.JPG
Iach. The Cloyed will:
That SATIATE yet vnsatisfi'd desire, that Tub
Both fill'd and running: Rauening first the Lambe,
Longs after for the Garbage.
Cymbeline Act 1, Sc.7 (the only "SATIATE" in Shakespeare)
---------------------------------------------------------
Francis BACON:
"The smell of violets and roses exceedeth in sweetness that of spices
. . .These things do rather woo the sense than SATIATE it."
----------------------------------------------------------
ÆTATIS 53 DIE 23 AP
A P-ÆTATIS 53 DIE 23
the word "Bacon" is given explicitly on A P-AGE 53 of:
----------------------------------------------------------
The Histories: 1 King Henry IV, Act 2, Scene 1
http://web.uvic.ca/shakespeare/Annex/DraftTxt/1H4/1H4_F/1H4_FPages/1H4_Fe2.html
2. Car. I haue a Gammon of BACON, and two razes of
Ginger, to be DEliUEREd as farre as Charing-crosse.
----------------------------------------------
The Comedies: The Merry Wives of Windsor Act 4, Scene 1
http://web.uvic.ca/shakespeare/Annex/DraftTxt/Wiv/Wiv_F/Wiv_FPages/Wiv_FE3.html
Qu. Hang-hog, is LATTEN for BACON, I warrant you.
----------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer