Will the real Shakespeare please stand up?

 Posted by on 2 April 2009  Vintage/Retro
Apr 022009
 

There’s a controversy brewing over a new painting found, a painting that Stanley Wells, a Shakespeare scholar, claims is the bard himself.

The Cobbe portrait as it is called shows Shakespeare in a more attractive light than we’re used to: not so plump or balding; his dress is also more regal, an indication of a higher social status.

Those who believe the painting is in fact of Shakespeare hope it reveals something about his much-debated sexuality, and to whom his sonnets were written for.

Ron Rosenbaum wonders why scholars are so obsessed with sex and Shakespeare.

The “Shakespeare portrait” brochure makes similar claims, asking whether the new, “hotter” Shakespeare tells us anything about the bard’s “sexuality” or “the person to whom the sonnets are addressed,” although it’s unclear how a portrait could do any such thing. (Are all bisexual men handsome? All heteros ugly?)

Rosenbaum makes a compelling point that the culture of celebrity has invaded into the life of Shakespeare, and that rather than look for answers concerning his sexuality, our focus should be on the works themselves. He is also bothered that the way Shakespeare looked might possibly change the way his work is interpreted.

There are also people who aren’t convinced the portrait is even of Shakespeare. Katherine Duncan-Jones, who wrote a piece for the Times Online, is one of those people. She believes that the Cobbe portrait bears a striking resemblance to Sir Thomas Overbury. In the article, the three images are lined up together. I’m not sure of all the nuances of the story, but it’s pretty compelling just by looking at the portraits that the Cobbe portrait is more likely to be of Overbury.

The Cobbe portrait; Sir Thomas Overbury; The Droeshout Shakespeare. From the Times Online.

The Cobbe portrait; Sir Thomas Overbury; The Droeshout Shakespeare. From the Times Online.

Amy Breen

  • http://www.absurdintellectual.com/ Grant Hamilton

    That Times piece is petty persuasive, but I have to admit that when I read about the original unveiling of the “new” portrait, I was then convinced of its authenticity. I guess I’m just not enough of an art-authenticator to be able to accurately judge the portrait.

    As a guy with an English degree, though, I would argue that knowing who Shakespeare “is” (or was) has less and less value to the work itself. Authorial intent, and other related forms of literary criticism are all well and good — when you have a good idea of who the author was, or when you can even look at differing versions of the work as it progressed towards its final form.

    For Shakespeare, though, the person behind the authorship is too far lost in time — and there’s so much else there in the work itself — to make author-based scholarship to be all that important. It just can’t shed that much light on the plays.

    The Rosenbaum essay was really great reading, a bit along those lines, but also because he got deeply into the pleasures that Shakespeare can offer, even without getting sidetracked by this whole “was he gay” crap.

    Good find!

  • Determinator

    They can debate whether he was gay or not until doomsday. As a Shakespeare enthusiast, I couldn’t care less. It’s the plays and poetry that really matter, even today.

  • Trent

    Agreed with both above. Unlike a large percentage of literary giants, Shakespeare’s genius is defined by absence, not presence. Either he was simply able to keep himself at arms length from his works or he had such a complex mind he was able to think through and capture the essence of his time without overly forcing his vision onto it.

    Rereading that it probably sounds lame, naive, and a bit of a romanticized vision of “the writer,” but whatever. The words speak for themselves, and that’s the conclusion I come to.

  • Trent

    Although I would add that interpretations of “The Tempest” require a bit of info on Shakespeare himself, but it’s not so much biographical criticism as making a fairly obvious connection between Prospero and playwright.