For those in love with the works of William Shakespeare, or even just for history buffs in general, there’s been some pretty cool news lately.
A new, or rather very old painting (the so called Cobbe portrait, pictured above) has recently been announced as possibly the only authentic image of the Bard made during his lifetime, sometime around 1610 when he was 46 years old.
It’s hard to believe we know very little about the personal details of the man who was and is arguably the best known writer of the English language. And those missing details include his likeness. We know he was popular in his day, but it was just that, contemporary popularity. Upon his death, for the most part, the only things that survived were his written works. A commoner in the seventeenth century didn’t usually have anyone or anything documenting their life, unlike the Royals.
The most widely known image of Shakespeare (pictured below) is a posthumous engraving by Martin Droeshout that was originally used as the author’s likeness on the First Folio, published in 1623. But Shakespeare died when Droeshout was but a teenager in 1616, seven years prior to the folio’s publication. So obviously the engraving was done from some unknown source image. Shakespeare expert Stanley Wells, the chairman of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust believes that one of many copies made from the Cobbe portrait may have been that source.
The interesting part of this story is how the details of the Cobbe painting came to light. It’s been owned for several centuries by the Cobbe family and was kept with a large collection at the family’s Newbridge House outside Dublin. The identity of the person in the portrait was unknown. But several years ago in London Alec Cobbe visited a traveling National Portrait Gallery exhibit called ‘Searching for Shakespeare’. He was apparently shocked to see a painting there from the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C. which he believed was a copy of his family’s painting.
To make a long story short, he enlisted the help of his family’s collection curator, Mark Brocand and Shakespeare expert, Stanley Wells. Over the past three years they performed various tests: tree-ring-dating to determine the age of the wood panel, X-ray examination and infrared reflectography. This is how they were able to date it to around 1610 and surmise that it was the likely source for the Folger painting as well as others, one of which may have been the source of the Droeshout engraving.
And apart from a few other contenders, all believed to have been done posthumously, there really aren’t any other original images of Shakespeare that were either created or that survive today. Apparently, identifying individuals from seventeenth century portraiture is nearly impossible, again, unless the subject was Royalty.
None of this is a true science, and only time will tell if these suppositions hold up or are further confirmed. But the fun part of piecing together a prolific and inspired life from the seventeenth century continues. As said above, not only hasn’t there been historical agreement on what Shakespeare looked like, there are those that have a hard time believing Shakespeare could have been the author for such a masterful body of work. From theories that he was an amalgam of many writers (including Marlowe) to stories about his bisexuality – facts are few and far between.
As for his sexuality, here’s the current tease. The Cobbe trust claims research showing the portrait came to them through their cousin’s marriage to the great granddaughter of Henry Wriothesley, the 3rd Earl of Southampton. The Earl was Shakespeare’s only known patron, and to some of the experts, it now seems probable that he commissioned the painting. All of which leads credence to the long running rumor that the Earl, 10-years Shakespeare’s junior, is the ‘fair youth’ love object in several of the author’s sonnets.
Aww.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
wakingupslowly
Judy Berman
Steve Blevins
Lonnie Lazar
emma peel
spotted_mind
Salon.com
Comments
But yes, there is something very exciting about piecing together lost and scattered history.
So to speak.
BTW, has there been any research as to why The Bard was such a sloppy eater? In every image he is seen wearing a bib. ; )
Re the new portrait: I'd hit that.
As for his Southampton association, speculation is that it was actually his son. Personally, I still go with Edward De Vere as the author.
thanks for a superb post!
Thanks for the post and the update on the Cobb portrait issue; I ran across a discussion of this some time back, and had let it slip my mind. Always interesting to have another chapter to add to never-ending story that is the biography of William Shakespeare!
To Midwest: "It's important to remember we have NO ORIGINAL COPIES of any of his works."
Well, we have no original copies of MANY dramatic works from this period; what we do have is a long and complicated history of printing and publishing traditions, including scattered playtexts and various authorized/unauthorized quartos, many of which never had the correct author's name on them from the beginning. There's plenty of room for debate as to how much of a part Shakespeare had in writing many of "his" plays, and records from the Lord Chamberlain's Men/King's Men, as well as the Stationer's Company (the authorizing body and registry for all printed materials in seventeenth-century London) note that Shakespeare collaborated with a number of other writers on a variety of plays; some of these are mostly attributed to him, others are listed as collaborations, and still others are believed to have been mostly the work of other authors, such as Francis Beaumont, or Thomas Middleton.
"There's no way a kid who grew up in a rural area as the son of glovemaker could possibly have known so much about court life, etc. " Well, I'm the son of a man who pulled himself up from dirt-poor farming roots and built his own disaster restoration contracting business after years of working in factories and managing chain restaurants (in the Midwest, no less), and now I teach this stuff for a living. I didn't have access to the internet while a young school boy, or even to computers at all a good portion of the time; but they did teach me to read, and I did have access to a library. Like many people with a passion for literature, I read anything and everything I could get my hands on. The public school system in Stratford was pretty good for its time--they learned fairly good Latin (Shakespeare mocks "rural" latin instructors in "Merry Wives of Windsor"), and they studied the plays and writings of the Roman writers Plautus and Terence. The documentation on all of this runs pretty deep; Stanley Wells covers a lot of this over the course of several books, and Stephen Greenblatt distills much of it into narrative form in "Will in the World."
Finally, unanswered questions mean nothing. Absolute proof is a myth.
I usually sit on the sidelines of this argument, but the more credence these theories get, the more my students try to use them as justification for why they shouldn't have to write a paper on Shakespeare (when the class is on Elizabethan/Jacobean drama). Personally, I'm not even all that invested in Shakespeare--Middleton, Jonson, Webster, etc., all are much more interesting in different ways. I do love much of Shakespeare's work, but I'm interested in the whole period. I mention this lest I be accused of "bardolatry" (a grave sin, in the eyes of many scholars).
I can't stand message board/comment section "flame wars," so, Midwest, I hope none of this comes across as too personal--but I care deeply about this time period and this subject material, and the shoddy, conspiracy-theory scholarship that supports most of the "Shakespeare never existed/was too ignorant to write his own name" television documentaries just never holds up in the face of detailed investigation.
..."gravesque principum amicitias et arma," which translates something like "the fatal alliances formed by great men"
Rated.
As for the conspiracy theories about Shakespeare, Bill Bryson did a really good job, I think, debunking that in his recent book, Shakespeare. While we don't know as much about his life as we would like, we do know he existed and wrote many plays. He's spoken of enough by other playwrights of the time.
As has already been mentioned, grammar school education back then was outstanding, and he didn't need to know much about court life. Most of his plays were based on other stories. And there really isn't much "court life" depicted in the plays. Conversations, yes. But there are few scenes that involve complicated rituals. And the court often mingled with commoners. The typical globe theatre audience was composed of court officials and commoners.
Also, remember. The London of his time was not the huge metropolis it is now. People were a lot closer to the action than there are now.
Jimmy – It is a lovely portrait, no? I’m no artist or expert, but I imagine what you say could be true – that the ‘art’ of portrait painting was more plentiful in prior centuries.
1_Irritated_Mother – You gotta’ love the Smithsonian!
Geoff Woolacott – Hah. Never heard that: ‘his second favorite bed’. I like it.
ghost writer – Hmmm. Sounds like a Shakespearian characterization.
voicegal – Yes. That one is an interesting picture. It’s included in the link I put in the post – in the sentence ‘apart from a few other contenders’.
ePriddy & Dorinda Fox – Very funny. But now that you mention it, it does look like both of them.
Trudge164 – Yes. Turns out the ‘bib’ isn’t really a bib after all. It’s actually more akin to the cone that vets use to keep animals from biting the wrong things. But they’re still working out what it is 17th century folk weren’t supposed to be biting.
Sandra – Why thank you, Ms. no longer miller.
Mary Elizabeth – Hah! (I think the painting just blushed). Thanks for the visit. And I wonder if you’re referring to the Stephen Greenblatt book, ‘Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare’...?
But I think some of why the Cobbe portrait is so satisfying for those like Stanley Wells is because the clothing depicted as well as the very existence of this kind of portrait help demonstrate that, though his beginnings were as a commoner, Shakespeare’s status rose to that of a ‘gentleman’ during his life – one who likely mingled with royalty. In any event, I see that MagnumInk has covered this topic quite nicely below – and ConnieMack has also commented on what looks to be a likely source of the Latin inscription.
Stellaa – Hee. That’s a good one. Some in the media are trying to do just that. This BBC article puts the pictures side by side.
LJ Davis – Handsome young Master Shakespeare all work and no play? Well he was, after all, an actor too, right?
GaryJustis – Thank you kindly. It’s interesting hearing you talk of the technique used in the portrait. I looked for details on the artist and type of piece it was, but haven’t found much.
Sao Kay – It is, isn’t it? I’ve read that a lot of Elizabethan portraiture tended to idealize the subjects, take out their wrinkles and make them look younger than they may have been. But from what I’ve seen, even if this is so, most of the portraits seem to capture very unique and personal characteristics – things that make them all very individual humans.
Monsieur – Merci. Your visit has added the appropriate touch of culture to this commentary.
..."gravesque principum amicitias et arma," which translates something like "the fatal alliances formed by great men"
Thank you ConnieMack for posting that.
If this is, indeed, Shakespeare, what "fatal alliance" did he form with great men? Was it anonymity? t's a very important and relevant question NOT being asked and they are words that were not painted on the "reproduction."
I have a first edition of Schoenbaum's "William Shakespeare, A Documentary Life." It has an original facsimile of the "Bard's" will. What a JOKE. I want to report that: JOKE.
Why is England and the royal family so afraid to finally confess to the real author of this extraordinary person whose works are second only to the Bible itself? People say it's not important who "he" was or what "he" looked like. Garbage. Garbage. Garbage. All artists deserve recognition for whom they are. Or whom they were. Give credit wher credit is due.
Reminds me that there’s more news on Shakespeare this week: the BBC reported that archaeologists have been unearthing what seems to be his first theater in London – where Romeo & Juliet may have premiered and where he likely performed.
Lisa – Hah! Funny. But I think of his potential love for women and men as something like parents having multiple children: there are times when more love is just that – more love.
MagnumInk – Thanks so much for your thoughtful and detailed comments. You’ve added a nice dimension to this conversation. And ‘Bardolatry’! Hadn’t heard that one. I like it.
ConnieMack – Thank you for your visit and the Latin translation! I’m certainly no expert, so I wouldn’t dare to weigh in on the Shakespeare/no Shakespeare issue. But as MagnumInk points out, there are certain historical records of him and his work, with or without collaborators. So I’d find it difficult to believe he couldn’t have existed at all. (Though I don’t think you were saying that anyway). Still, Derek Jacobi and company (as linked to in the post) made valid and scientific claims that, in essence, we just don’t have proof that he’s the true and only author for his entire body of work. (Not to say he couldn’t have done it, though). And even if it’s likely we never will have that proof, it’s still a worthy topic for research and publication.
Mary – Well thank you as well! It’s always such a pleasure seeing you here.
MzEll – You’re quite welcome, and thank you, too. Shakespeare’s a fun subject – there are so many angles.
o’stephanie – Um, should I leave you two alone...?
I'm touched by this. As a gay teenage runaway, I bought a battered copy of the Sonnets in a used bookstore. I memorized them, testing myself with a felt tip on Greyhound bathroom stalls across the continent. I'd have let the Bard steal a kiss without regard for 17th century dentistry.
If there's one thing S teaches us, it's that the tale is mostly in the telling.
Shiral – Sure thing. I guess it’s not the first time ‘ole William brought a little hotness into someone’s day...
DeliaBlack – I’m not an expert on 17th century portraiture by a long shot, so if anyone is, their comments would be more than welcome. I was alluding to something similar in the comment above to Sao Kay that Elizabethan portraits tended to idealize the subjects. But I hadn’t heard or read that they molded the likenesses from a common pot so to speak. Hmm.
Juliet – Thank you for your intelligent input here! As well as for the reminder about Bryson’s book. After my wife and I had a couple boys a few years ago, my ability to actually read a book has been lost somehow. This one will have to go to the top of my growing pile. (Seriously, the very top).
Verbal – You know, I agree. His cheeks look a little flushed.
FromTheMidwest – Hmm. I’m not sure what to say to your comment. But I do see that a lively discussion has begun around the world on the possible meaning of the latin inscription on the portrait.
Rob – Well thank you, kind sir.
Bryan Harrison – So that was your handiwork – Sonnet 32: If thou survive my well-contented day, – in the St. Louis Greyhound mens’ room...? (Kidding). Thanks, Bryan, for your visit.
mistercomedy – So, so very sorry. Maybe just steal Shakespeare’s jokes?
Heh heh, he brought plenty into his plays. How else could he have written the line "Oh happy horse, to bear the weight of Antony!"
I'm betting Shakespeare was at least bi--he understood women very well, especially when one considers the century into which he was born.
Oops, must go fan myself, now.
Thanks for the portrait. What a service. Always knew he was handsome. It figures, doesn't it? And he was an actor.
As for all those who say "Shakespeare" didn't exist, he must have been Wriothsley or De Vere--I'm afraid a little of what I call temporal provincialism is showing, as well as a the wearing of class blinders: Of course those people back then couldn't have been right, being so much older than we are, and of course a butcher's boy couldn't turn out to be the master of the language.
Only thing, he was.
Never mind that Jesus was a carpenter's son. He probably never existed either. They made it all up. Not just part of it, all of it.
Anybody with any sense at all knows about hybrid vigor, and knows that the way genetics works is perfectly capable of producing genius from ordinary intelligence. Bloodline is not required, which is one of the things that is so silly about The Da Vinci Code. It aint in the blood (i.e., genes), sucker. As one commenter here said, all the "theories" that Shakespeare was really someone else are wildly tortured and strained, and grasp at straws. The simplest explanation is a young boy was born with an unforeseen and heretofore unmatched ability with his native language.
As for court--you don't think the actors spent a lot of time in court? You don't think everybody watched the behavior of the nobles the way we watch Brad and Angelina? You don't think the nobles had their favorite actors?
I don't think bisexuality meant quite what it means today, but Shakespeare did seem to admire some young beautiful male. From some of his imagery, one may wonder if he was struck with syphilis--there's a good deal of horrified language about corruption and infection.
As for knowledge of court life? That was one of the primary topics of gossip in theatrical and literate circles! Nobles and courtiers were often financiers of literate and theatrical life. And most of the details in the history plays are straight from Holinshed or Froissart, sources any literate person could have had access to.
Finally, De Vere was dead several years before the end of Shakespeare's documented theatrical career. If he was writing Shakespeare's plays, he was more like L. Ron Hubbard than anyone has yet suspected...
One writer wrote Shakespeare. The same stylistic tics can be seen from beginning to end in the body of work. Phrases return, concerns replay, themes reappear. The writer who wrote Two Gentlemen of Verona is the same who wrote King Lear and The Tempest. Read enough of someone's writing, and you get to know their words, the texture of their language, their "voice" as the Comp-Rhet people say. It was the same writer, and the only candidate who has been put forward in any serious way that is alive throughout the period in which Shakespeare is working is the man from Stratford.
On the Shakespeare authorship front, I’m in your camp, Michael. Though we have no ‘scientific’ proof, all the claims that he couldn’t have been the (sole) author always felt a bit like modern love of conspiracy theory to me.