Author Topic: The Bard's Gay Makeover  (Read 8537 times)

Offline Kerry

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,076
  • ^ In pursuit of Captain Moonlite - 5 Sept 2009
    • Google Profile
The Bard's Gay Makeover
« on: March 11, 2009, 07:57:22 pm »
The Bard’s Gay Makeover


http://gawker.com/5167392/the-bards-queer-makeover

by John Cook
Gawker
Tuesday 10 March 2009


Front page shocker in today's New York Times: William Shakespeare was a homosexual.

Grizzled former war correspondent John F. Burns has unearthed the bombshell in the form of a very gay-looking portrait.

The previously unkown painting comes from the private collection of "an aristocratic Anglo-Irish family, the Cobbes, who have owned it for nearly 300 years, since inheriting it through a family relationship with Shakespeare's only known literary patron, Henry Wriothesley, the 3rd Earl of Southampton."

If that's not gay enough for you, Burns describes the painting in lurid detail: "The Cobbe portrait, as the scholars now call it, shows a head-turner of a man. In middle age, this Shakespeare has a fresh-faced complexion, a closely trimmed auburn beard, a long straight nose and a full, almost bouffant hairstyle. He is dressed in elaborate white lace ruff and a gold-trimmed blue doublet of a kind worn only by the wealthy and successful men of his age."

Now are you convinced? OK, here's what the Shakespeare Birthday Trust, which introduced the Cobbe portrait in a news conference, had to say on the matter: In a handout for reporters, the trust said the portrait might open a new era in Shakespeare scholarship, giving fresh momentum, among other things, to generations of speculation as to whether the playwright, a married man with three children, was bisexual.... "This Shakespeare is handsome and glamorous, so how does this change the way we think about him?" the handout said. "And do the painting and provenance tell us more about his sexuality, and possibly about the person to whom the sonnets are addressed?"
γνῶθι σεαυτόν

Offline Kerry

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,076
  • ^ In pursuit of Captain Moonlite - 5 Sept 2009
    • Google Profile
Re: The Bard's Gay Makeover
« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2009, 08:23:08 pm »

This is a portrait of William Shakespeare's literary patron, Henry Wriothesley (pron. Risly), the 3rd Earl of Southampton. Some commentators believe Sharkespeare's homoerotic sonnets are addressed to Wriothesley. And who could blame him for doing so? Wriothesley is a knock-out good-looker, by any definition.

Certainly, both men were married with children, but we've heard that one before, haven't we?
γνῶθι σεαυτόν

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: The Bard's Gay Makeover
« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2009, 08:47:53 pm »
Are they kidding?  That they can tell someone's sexual orientation from looking at a picture?

Offline Aloysius J. Gleek

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,011
Re: The Bard's Gay Makeover
« Reply #3 on: March 12, 2009, 12:22:17 am »


Are they kidding?  That they can tell someone's sexual orientation from looking at a picture?


Gaydar, baby, it's called gay-dar.

(And when it isn't, it's called wishful thinking.   ;D )
"Tu doives entendre je t'aime."
(and you know who I am...)


Cowboy Curtis (Laurence Fishburne)
and Pee-wee in the 1990 episode
"Camping Out"

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,428
  • No crybabies
Re: The Bard's Gay Makeover
« Reply #4 on: March 12, 2009, 12:50:56 am »
This is crap!!

Looking good, dressing for success, and having a close male friend are things that heterosexual men have done for thousands of years.

Beauty and style are not the exclusive province of gay men.   
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Offline Aloysius J. Gleek

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,011
Re: The Bard's Gay Makeover
« Reply #5 on: March 12, 2009, 01:28:23 am »




This is a portrait of William Shakespeare's literary patron, Henry Wriothesley (pron. Risly), the 3rd Earl of Southampton. Some commentators believe Sharkespeare's homoerotic sonnets are addressed to Wriothesley. And who could blame him for doing so? Wriothesley is a knock-out good-looker, by any definition.

Certainly, both men were married with children, but we've heard that one before, haven't we?




W.H. Auden, for instance, argued that the sonnets unequivocally showed that his 'Top Bard' was (like himself) gay. Others have gone further, and suggested that Shakespeare, the father of three children by his wife Anne Hathaway, must have had a gay affair with Southampton. The locus classicus on the matter is sonnet Number 20, with its famous pun on the word 'prick', which seems to imply that the youth is pretty enough to be a woman, in which case the poet would be sexually interested. But he is not, so the young man is 'to my purpose nothing'.



An article from 2002:



http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/apr/21/artsandhumanities.highereducation



Shakespeare's true love?

That's no lady,
that's......




the earliest known portrait of the third Earl of Southampton, Shakespeare's patron and possible lover. Its dramatic discovery will ignite a new debate about the playwright's sexuality

by Anthony Holden
The Observer
Sunday 21 April 2002


Throughout 56-year-old Alec Cobbe's childhood, and well into his middle age, the picture that had been in his family some 300 years had been consigned either to a staircase or a dark passage, an unremarkable 'space-filler' in an otherwise distinguished art collection. There was a Titian, there was a Poussin and there was this: a clumsy, inelegant portrait of some remote female forebear from the Elizabethan branches of his ancient and eminent family tree. More interesting than the picture itself was the inscription on the back. In the handwriting of his most celebrated ancestor, Archbishop Cobbe of Dublin (1686-1765), a long-yellowed label, now legible only beneath ultraviolet light, identified the sitter as 'Lady Norton, daughter of the Bishop of Winton'.

The portrait shuttled between the Anglo-Irish Cobbe family's ancestral estate of Newbridge House, near Dublin, and his other, more recent residence of Hatchlands Park in East Clandon, Surrey, leased to him by the National Trust 20 years ago to house his family's outstanding collection of art and furniture, as well as the world-famous collection he has himself amassed of pianos which once belonged to the great composers.

Then came the day, only a few years ago, when Alastair Laing, the National Trust's adviser on art and sculpture, told Cobbe he believed the portrait was not of a woman, but of a young man apparently dressed as a woman.

Cobbe was intrigued. As he researched his family history for a recent exhibition of its treasures at Kenwood House in London, under the auspices of English Heritage, he wondered who this effeminate young man might be. In the process, he discovered previously unknown connections between his own family and the Wriothesleys, earls of Southampton, dating back to Elizabethan times and beyond.

But it was not until earlier this year, he says, after the Kenwood exhibition had closed, that 'the penny finally dropped. Suddenly I realised that the face reminded me of pictures I had seen during my research into my family's history. "My God," I thought, "could this be the third Earl of Southampton, Shakespeare's patron and, perhaps, his lover?"'

The features, as Cobbe points out, 'tally strikingly with those of the famous de Critz portrait of Southampton, dating from 10 years or so later'. The equally celebrated Hilliard miniature, in the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge, also bears a telling resemblance to the Cobbe portrait.

Like many art experts, Alastair Laing is sceptical about identifications based on similarity of features alone. 'There must,' he said, 'be a sound historical basis for linking the picture with the sitter.' Further researches by Cobbe into his family's long history have now revealed exactly such links, dating back to the reign of Elizabeth I and beyond. 'The provenance of the picture,' Laing confirms, 'is now entirely convincing.'

Experts who have studied the facts now agree that the portrait is undoubtedly the earliest known image of the third Earl of Southampton - Shakespeare's patron, the 'fair youth' addressed in his sonnets - somewhere between the age of 17 and 20 and painted at exactly the time those first few sonnets were written. Suddenly, the 'gap-stopper' became 'the jewel in the crown of the Cobbe collection'. Says Alastair Laing now, in the light of Cobbe's new evidence: 'I am very happy indeed about the identification. Given the connection to Shakespeare and his sonnets, it is a very, very exciting discovery.'

In the portrait by an unknown artist, dating from the early 1590s, the teenage Henry Wriothesley, third Earl of Southampton, is wearing lipstick, rouge and an elaborate double earring. His long hair hangs down in very feminine tresses and his hand lies on his heart in a somewhat camp gesture.

Unlike all the other extant portraits of Southampton, who later chose to be depicted as a rather more macho courtier and soldier, this is much more the face of the androgynous creature the poet ambiguously called the 'master-mistress of my passion' in the twentieth of the 154-sonnet cycle.

Southampton's secretary was the Italian scholar John Florio, and the elaborate lacework around Southampton's neck is indeed Italian, probably Venetian, and the most expensive money could then buy. This crucially dates the portrait to 1590-3, the period during which Shakespeare wrote and published two lengthy poems dedicated to the teenage Southampton, 'Venus and Adonis'  and the 'Rape of Lucrece'  - and began work on the early sonnets addressed to the fair youth, whom he describes in Number 20 as having 'a woman's face with nature's own hand painted'.

The Shakespeare scholar, Sir Frank Kermode, former professor of English at Cambridge, who has been to Hatchlands to see for himself, says: 'The portrait already has considerable intrinsic historical interest, and if you believe that the young man addressed in the sonnets was Henry Wriothesley there is the additional thrill that this could be the face that Shakespeare fell in love with, perhaps wishing its owner was a girl. The magnitude of the thrill depends on how much you think the identity of the young person matters to the poems. Many think it matters a lot.'

Despite a notorious lack of hard evidence about the facts of Shakespeare's life, there has long been fierce argument between two rival camps: those who interpret the sonnets as autobiographical, and those who insist they do not necessarily reflect the poet's private life, let alone his sexual predilections, merely the preoccupations of a poet writing to commission.

All the sonnets are love poems, the later ones reeking of heterosexual jealousy, some 10 years before Othello, for the enigmatic Dark Lady who appears to have two-timed the writer with a rival poet. But the opening poems in the cycle express ambiguous sexual longings for an effeminate youth, traditionally identified as Southampton, Shakespeare's patron at the time, and his host in London and Hampshire when the plague closed the London theatres.

W.H. Auden, for instance, argued that the sonnets unequivocally showed that his 'Top Bard' was (like himself) gay. Others have gone further, and suggested that Shakespeare, the father of three children by his wife Anne Hathaway, must have had a gay affair with Southampton. The locus classicus on the matter is sonnet Number 20, with its famous pun on the word 'prick', which seems to imply that the youth is pretty enough to be a woman, in which case the poet would be sexually interested. But he is not, so the young man is 'to my purpose nothing'.

Whatever the truth about Shakespeare's sexuality, which seems likely, as was the case then as now in the theatre, to have been flexible, the dramatic discovery of the Cobbe portrait of the young, effeminate Southampton is bound to relaunch a tidal wave of debate. Given the strong feelings these arguments arouse in the field of Shakespeare studies, which has recently seen a voguish penchant for investigations into Elizabethan cross-dressing, Cobbe is well prepared for challenges to the painting's provenance. Reassured by the conviction of its authenticity among Laing and others, notably the Elizabethan costume and jewellery scholar Diana Scarisbrick, he is armed and ready to defend his find. As far as the painting's provenance is concerned, the manner of its 'descent' into his family, through the Cobbes' 400-year-old links with the Southamptons, is vital proof of its authenticity quite as important as the similarity of the sitter's features with other portraits of the third Earl.

Cobbe originally believed the portrait came into his family when it was presented by Southampton himself to his contemporary and Hampshire neighbour Thomas Cobbe (1573-1638), who kept a handsome company of 100 foot-soldiers on his estates next to the ancestral Southampton seat of Titchfield. As recently as last month, however, he established a much more convincing, and thus seminal ancestral link. Now he believes that the so-called 'Norton descent' is the key to the paint ing's provenance. Archbishop Cobbe identified the sitter as 'Lady Norton, daughter of the Bishop of Winton'.  She was his great-grandmother Anne, daughter of Thomas Bilson, Bishop of Winchester, who married Sir Richard Norton, by whom she bore the archbishop's grandmother, Honor Norton.

But Cobbe has now realised that the archbishop got it wrong. The 'Lady Norton'  in question 'was almost certainly' Lady Elizabeth Norton, great-granddaughter of the third Earl himself, who inherited the portrait from her grandfather, the fourth Earl (who had no male heir), and passed it in the early eighteenth century to the Cobbe children of her kinswoman, Honor Norton, eventual co-heiress of the Nortons and thus of this painting.

Uncovering the marital connection between the Cobbes and the Wriothesleys through the Nortons 'has convinced any remaining doubters,' Cobbe now says. 'This was the real breakthrough.'

Once it had passed to the Cobbe family, the history of the portrait is well documented. Beyond the understandable mislabelling by the archbishop, an eighteenth-century note in the hand of his son records its then unceremonious position in 'the Passage' at Newbridge House. 'In the nineteenth century,' says Cobbe, 'it was further banished to the top tier of a battery of portraits on the staircase, where it was catalogued in 1868 by the noted writer and feminist Frances Power Cobbe.' An expert picture restorer, Cobbe has himself been cleaning the Elizabethan wood panel, with its lifesize head-and-shoulders portrait of the third Earl, before it goes on display at Hatchlands today.

It is a remarkable coincidence that much of the Cobbe collection, including the Southampton portrait, should now hang at Hatchlands, as the magnificent Surrey estate was originally granted by Henry VIII in 1544 to the third Earl of Southampton's great-grandfather, Sir Anthony Browne, yet another Cobbe ancestor.

As Shakespeare scholars rush to Hatchlands to inspect it, a fresh rash of furious disputes will no doubt break out between those who regard the sonnets as autobiographical and those who maintain that the poet's universality - the humanity which shines through his work, defying pigeonholing of any kind - renders such conclusions irrelevant.

But there is no doubting the immense historical and literary significance of the discovery of the Cobbe portrait of the enigmatic third Earl. Thanks to Alastair Laing's scepticism, Cobbe's researches, and the National Trust, which will now place the painting on display at Hatchlands, Shakespeare studies may never be quite the same again.

· The Cobbe portrait of Southampton goes on display today at Hatchlands Park, East Clandon, Surrey (01483 222482), 2-5pm Sundays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and Bank Holidays to the end of October.

· A new exhibition of Elizabethan clothing and cross-dressing in Shakespeare opens at Shakespeare's Globe, London SE1 on 11 May. For details see www.shakespeares-globe.org or call 020 7902 1500
"Tu doives entendre je t'aime."
(and you know who I am...)


Cowboy Curtis (Laurence Fishburne)
and Pee-wee in the 1990 episode
"Camping Out"

retropian

  • Guest
Re: The Bard's Gay Makeover
« Reply #6 on: March 12, 2009, 03:07:42 am »
There is a strong tendency for gay people to claim the famous, the talented, the genius as our own. I think it is a result of being told, for so long, that as a gay person, you, well, are not really a person. When a person, or a group or class of people is continually denigrated it makes sense that in defense one can point out that Leonardo was gay, Michelangelo was gay etc. Although those two examples are well known as gay historical figures of genius, I'm personally hesitant to jump on the "Shakespeare was gay" bandwagon. It may turn out that he was another gay man, who married and fathered children because that was what the culture of his time(and ours) told him he must do. It happened then and it happens today. So it may be possible he was gay, and perhaps even probable, but be careful of accepting it. There may be other reasons one is willing to believe Shakespeare was gay that are not really evidence based. There may never be sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was gay, but there does seem to be a growing consensus among Shakespeare scholars that yes, he was gay, or bisexual.

Offline Kerry

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,076
  • ^ In pursuit of Captain Moonlite - 5 Sept 2009
    • Google Profile
Re: The Bard's Gay Makeover
« Reply #7 on: March 12, 2009, 09:58:06 am »

That's no lady,
that's......





It should perhaps be remembered that it was not at all unusual for William Shakespeare to be surrounded daily by cross-dressing men, dressed and made-up as women for the stage. There was no such thing as an actress in Elizabethan England. All the great female parts were played by men in Shakespeare’s own day. Yes, even such dazzlingly romantic roles as that of Juliet were played by men. Shakespeare wrote their lines, knowing full well that they would be played by men. It’s maybe difficult for our modern selves to comprehend that such beautiful words as these from “Romeo & Juliet,” were written by Shakespeare to be performed by two men:

Juliet:
'Tis almost morning; I would have thee gone:
And yet no further than a wanton's bird;
Who lets it hop a little from her hand,
Like a poor prisoner in his twisted gyves,
And with a silk thread plucks it back again,
So loving-jealous of his liberty.

Romeo:
I would I were thy bird.

Juliet:
Sweet, so would I:
Yet I should kill thee with much cherishing.
Good night, good night! parting is such
sweet sorrow,
That I shall say good night till it be morrow.
γνῶθι σεαυτόν

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: The Bard's Gay Makeover
« Reply #8 on: March 12, 2009, 08:23:10 pm »
Are you joking?  I have several pictures of my male friends and co-workers in drag.  Are they gay?  Nope, they were just the ones chosen in a contest/company costume contest.  Could you tell by looking at their pictures?  Apparently not.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2009, 12:57:22 am by Kerry »

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,428
  • No crybabies
Re: The Bard's Gay Makeover
« Reply #9 on: March 12, 2009, 10:56:21 pm »
Are you joking?  I have several pictures of my male friends and co-workers in drag.  Are they gay?  Nope, they were just the ones chosen in a contest/company costume contest.  Could you tell by looking at their pictures?  Apparently not.

When a straight man puts on a dress, he does it for laughs. When a gay man puts on a dress, he does it for approval.
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Offline Mikaela

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,229
  • Unsaid... and now unsayable
Re: The Bard's Gay Makeover
« Reply #10 on: March 14, 2009, 08:40:34 am »
The new portrait aside, there's nothing new at all that I've read in the re-awakened discussions about Shakespeare's sexuality. The underlying message and meaning of certain of the sonnets, his close relationship with the Earl of Southampton, the "lost years in his life", the fact that he left his wife behind and eventually left her "his second best bed" in his will, the boy actors-dressed-up-as-girls, the possibility that he was at least bi, etc etc. has all featured in any number of works on Shakespeare, and been interpreted from every angle, with opposing views hotly defended.

We'll never know. And I don't think it matters that we won't.

I actually rather like that there are open spaces between what we *know* about Shakespeare - which isn't very much - and what we may choose to believe. It makes the reading and interpretation and enjoyment of the plays and sonnets all that more personal for each of us, that the author remains so much in shadow.

And I am not at all sure that gaydar works through an opaque filter of hundreds of year's distance and cultural differences. The Earl looks "effeminate" or even deliberately gender ambiguous in some portraits - well, did his contempory noblemen look very butch and uncouth in comparison in *their* portraits? Don't think so... Though I'm by no means a scolar in this field.

Offline Kerry

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,076
  • ^ In pursuit of Captain Moonlite - 5 Sept 2009
    • Google Profile
Re: The Bard's Gay Makeover
« Reply #11 on: March 14, 2009, 08:48:46 am »
Test your gaydar:

http://www.okcupid.com/gaydar

I was right 85% of the time.   :P

Yee-Haw! I got 80%!   :D
γνῶθι σεαυτόν

Offline Aloysius J. Gleek

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,011
Re: The Bard's Gay Makeover
« Reply #12 on: March 14, 2009, 09:28:08 am »



http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2009/03/look-here-upon.html



Loose leafs from the New Yorker Books Department





March 12, 2009


A lot of bad ideas about Shakespeare, pictures,
and the period have been going around, herein to be cleared up…




(Photographs: Left, the "Cobbe" portrait by Oli Scarff/Getty Images;
Right, the "Sanders" portrait, courtesy of the Canadian Conservation Institute)


A lot of talk has been occasioned by the supposed find, over in England, of a new portrait of Shakespeare—the one that made the front page of the Times and that makes him look like George in the “Penny Lane”  video, circa 1967. The “Cobbe” portrait is said to date from 1610, when he was well along in his forties—the science of dendrochronology, or dating wooden-panel pictures by the number of tree rings, presumably anchors the certainty—and, while we wait to find out more about it, a lot of bad ideas about Shakespeare, pictures, and the period have been going around, herein to be cleared up.

First, the two familiar portraits of Shakespeare—the Droeshout engraving from the First Folio and the Stratford bust at Holy Trinity Church, in his home town—are not “thought to be” portraits of Shakespeare or “widely accepted” as portraits of Shakespeare. They are portraits of Shakespeare. They were commissioned soon after he died, by people who knew him intimately, in order to give other people a sense of what he looked like while he was alive. Ben Jonson said that the First Folio engraving looked just like him, saying, “could he [Droeshout] but have drawn his wit as well in brass, as he hath hit his face/the print would then surpass/all that was ever writ in brass,” and Jonson knew him as well as anyone. The Shakespeare family put up and paid for the monument, sculpted by an artisan named Janssen, in Stratford right after their dad died—the Shakespeare scholar René Weis thinks the likeness was “almost certainly” made from a life mask taken not too long before the poet drew his last breath, in 1616—and though it makes him look like a Thurber husband, that must have been just how he looked, at least by the end.

Neither image is especially masterly, or even much good at all. To use an old distinction, they’re “conceptual” rather than “optical”—they show an assembled stack of features rather than a convincing illusion of a specific face—but the concepts are clearly articulated: he’s a bald guy with a short beard. Mrs. Shakespeare might have said, “Well, he was better-looking than that, dammit” (then again, given what she had put up with, she might not have), but she wouldn’t have said, “He didn’t look like that at all,” or she wouldn’t have let it happen. Any portrait of Shakespeare in his forties that doesn’t look like these portraits of Shakespeare isn’t a portrait of Shakespeare.

Nor is it true that there was, in the Jacobean period, a kind of broad, hazy latitude about portrait-making, in which artists were free to make people look however they wanted them to look and everyone accepted it. All author pictures are cosmetic, then as now—do you think that the sage man with his hand to his head, the wry woman novelist with the half smile actually look like that?—but they were no more stylized back then than any other kind of portraiture. In Elizabethan portraits, people look like the period, but they also look like themselves: a portrait of Southampton looks different from a portrait of Ben Jonson which looks nothing at all like a portrait of Richard Burbage. You really can tell these guys apart. Differences in likeness were as evident to them as they are to us—that’s why Hamlet urges his mom to “look here, upon this picture, and on this.” There is not a single line or scrap of evidence from the time in which someone says, Well, sure, the picture shows him with a full head of hair (or beard or whatever), but he didn’t really look like that. Shakespeare lived in as satiric and short-tempered a circle as has ever existed; if, close to his retirement, he was bald, and had a picture painted where he wasn’t, they would have jumped on him, and he knew it. Ben Jonson was so jaundiced about anything that struck him as pretension that when poor Shakespeare got enough money to buy a coat of arms and the motto “Non Sanz Droict”  (“Not Without Right”) Jonson immediately introduced a dim-witted social-climbing character into a play just so that he could have him say that his motto was “Not without mustard.”

There is, however, another angle, not often cited, that suggests that there might have been other, more romantic pictures of Shakespeare making the rounds a few years earlier. A Cambridge student play from the period, the so-called “Parnassus,” refers to it: a swoony courtier named Gullio is a crazy fan of “Venus and Adonis”  and “Romeo and Juliet,” and cries,  “O sweet Master Shakespeare, I’ll have his picture in my study at the court” (meaning in his rooms on the courtyard of his college, not alongside the Queen). This might just be loose talk, like someone saying he’s going to keep a portrait of Wes Anderson in his room, but it sounds as if such things really happened.

This presents a problem, since it is a rule of life that undergraduates don’t put pictures of bald, funny-looking guys up in their dorm. But the play seems to have been performed around 1600, a good ten years earlier than the date on this portrait, while the work that Gullio refers to is mostly still earlier than that, from Shakespeare’s first lyric crop in the fifteen-nineties. And that Shakespeare was good-looking as a young man, before he lost his hair and puffed out from home-cooking, seems at least likely, on the fixed general principle that writers who become very celebrated in their youth, as he did, are, to a first approximation, almost always good-looking. Byron and Shelley, Mailer and Updike and Salinger, Fitzgerald, Dickens, Tennyson, Lowell, Ted Hughes—all celebrated in their youth, all not just O.K.-looking but an oil painting, each and every one. There are many good funny-looking writers, but it’s hard to think of good funny-looking writers who get famous young. Funny-looking writers, at least funny-looking male writers, get famous late—Samuel Johnson and Sinclair Lewis and John Milton and Philip Larkin all come instantly to mind—or else they don’t get famous. They get read, but they don’t get celebrated. (The only exception is Alexander Pope, who got famous young and was a humpback dwarf, but he was so good that no one noticed, and anyway he looked fine from the neck up.) If you could push the date of the new portrait back a decade or so, and make it of the young, swoon-inducing Shakespeare, it might make sense.

And then the other really odd thing, which is causing heartburn in Canadian bosoms, is that another, even better-credentialled romantic painting of the Bard emerged in Canada a scant three years ago, and never got what the political writers like to call “traction.” This one, the so-called Sanders portrait, its wood securely dated to the early seventeenth century, also shows a good-looking rock-star Shakespeare—though the Sanders looks less like George in ’67 and more like Dylan on the cover of “New Morning,”  a shaggy guy with a wry smile—and has every bit as good a provenance as the new one, and a better direct claim: there’s a slip of paper, securely dated to the period, on the back of the thing that once read, in part, “Shakespere…this likeness taken 1603.” Post-Gullio, but not badly so…And the Canadian portrait shows a guy who, though not yet bald, is unmistakably going bald.

So the real takeaway ought to be that, if this is a new portrait of Shakespeare, it would probably have to date earlier than the date they’re giving. Or else, as Ben Jonson said, that we ought to look “not on his picture, but his book.” Or, best of all, just trust Canada.
"Tu doives entendre je t'aime."
(and you know who I am...)


Cowboy Curtis (Laurence Fishburne)
and Pee-wee in the 1990 episode
"Camping Out"

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: The Bard's Gay Makeover
« Reply #13 on: March 14, 2009, 01:46:44 pm »
I always though there was some question over whether Shakespeare was really the author of all his stuff.  Theories I think abounded from the fact that his will left nothing literary, no scraps of writings, no half-done manuscripts, nothing that indicated a writer's life.

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,428
  • No crybabies
Re: The Bard's Gay Makeover
« Reply #14 on: March 14, 2009, 02:37:11 pm »
I always though there was some question over whether Shakespeare was really the author of all his stuff.  Theories I think abounded from the fact that his will left nothing literary, no scraps of writings, no half-done manuscripts, nothing that indicated a writer's life.

There's a couple of issues rolled up into that.

1. Some works are suspected to carry his name, but were--in part or in whole--written by someone else.

2. Works which have been written by other authors, and erroneously attributed to him by latter-day scholars.

We have the same problems in classical music.
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.