Tuesday, 10 March 2009
"New" Cobbe Shakespeare Portrait/"Nouveau" Portrait Cobbe de Shakespeare
Click on the pictures to enlarge them.
Cliquer sur les images pour les aggrandir.
The newly-discovered Cobbe portrait, about 1621, oil on oak panel.
Le portrait Cobbe nouvellement découvert, huile sur panel de chêne.
Martin Droeshout engraving on first page of collected works of Shakespeare (the First Folio), printed in 1622 and published in 1623.
Gravure de Martin Droeshout à la première page des oeuvres réunies de Shakespeare (premier Folio), imprimé en 1622 et publié en 1623.
In an astonishing new development in Shakespeare scholarship, the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust has announced its claim that this painting is an authenticated portrait of the Bard. If true, this painting would be the only known portrait made of Shakespeare in his lifetime. It would seem that in 2006 Alec Cobbe, an art restorer, visited a Shakespeare exhibition at London's National Portrait Gallery and was startled to recognize the portrait from the Shakespeare Folger Library as a copy of the work which had passed into his family's possession in the 18th century. He contacted his friend professor Stanley Wells, chair of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust , who arranged to have the portrait tested at Cambridge: tree-ring dating of the oak panel, and X-ray examination and infrared reflectography of the painting and the panel were undertaken. They showed that the panel came from trees felled in the last 20 years of the 16th century, pointing to a date for the painting in the early 1600s. The oil paint was also also characteristic of that period, as was the intricate Italian lace ruff worn by the man in the portrait.
Time Magazine cited Rupert Featherstone, assistant curator for the university’s Fitzwilliam Museum, as pointing out that another clue pointing to the Cobbe portrait’s claim to be the original from which Shakespeare paintings of the period were copied came from X-ray studies that showed the “pentiments,” or changes made by the painter as he progressed. He said these included the inclusion of a small, fleshy bulge at the upper corner of Shakespeare’s left eye, a detail typical of the minor adjustments made in original portraiture.
Avec un nouveau développement étonnant dans l'étude de Shakespeare aujourd'hui, le Shakespeare Birthplace Trust a annoncé son affirmation que ce tableau est un portrait authentifié du Barde. Si c'est vrai, ce tableau serait le seul portrait connu qui serait fait de Shakespeare de son vivant. Il semblerait qu'en 2006 Alec Cobbe, un restaurateur de tableaux, visitait l'exposition Shakespeare au National Portrait Gallery de Londres, et il était étonné de reconnaitre le portrait exposé du Shakespeare Folger Library comme étant une copie de l'oeuvre que sa famille possède depuis le XVIIIème siècle. Il a pris contact avec son ami le professeur Stanley Wells, président du Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, qui a organisé des tests sur le tableau à Cambridge: une étude pour établir la date à partir des cernes de croissance de l'arbre dont le panel de chêne est constitué (la dendrochronologie), et des études radiographiques et de la réflectographie infrarouge étaient entreprises. Ils ont démonstré que le panel est venu des arbres coupés dans les dernières vingt ans du XVIème siècle, indiquant une date au début des années 1600. Le peinture à l'huile est également caractéristique de l'époque, aussi bien que la fraise italienne élaborée portait par l'homme dans le portrait.
Time Magazine a cité Rupert Featherstone, conservateur député du Fitzwilliam Museum à Cambridge, comme indiquant qu'une autre indice authentifiant l'affirmation que le portrait Cobbe est l'original dont les tableaux de Shakespeare de l'époque ont été copiés, c'est les "pentiments", ou les petites modifications que fait le peintre en travaillant. Ces pentiments comprennent un petit volume de chair en haut du coin de l'oeil gauche de Shakespeare, un détail typique de petits ajustements fait dans un travail original pour réaliser un portrait.
What will open up a new way of thinking about Shakespeare is that not only do scholars have, for the first time, a portrait of the author painted in his lifetime, showing him to be a much more youthful and handsome man than previously thought; the Cobbe work also portrays him as one clearly of means; his clothes, consisting of an intricate white lace ruff and a gold-trimmed blue tunic, were the kind worn only by the wealthy and successful men of his time. This is very much at odds with the idea currently held of Shakespeare as the glover's son who died poor.
Ce qui va ouvrir une nouvelle façon de réfléchir sur Shakespeare, c'est que non seulement les académiques ont, pour la première fois, un portrait de l'auteur peint de son vivant, le montrant comme étant beaucoup plus jeune et beau pour son âge qu'on imagineait; le tableau Cobbe le montre comme étant un homme de moyens. Il porte une fraise en dentelle très élaborée et une tunique bleue décorée au fil d'or, des vêtements que seulement les hommes riches et à succès portaient dans son temps. Ceci est à l'opposé de la notion généralement accepté de Shakespeare jusqu'ici, d'un Barde, fils de gantier, que meurt pauvre.
The painting includes the Latin words "Principum amicitias!" written above Shakespeare's head. According to the Wikipedia subject on the article, this is speculated to originate from Horace's Carmen Saeculare, book 2, ode 1, where the words are addressed to a playwright and mean "beware the alliances of princes." For a very interesting discussion of why these words appear here, take a look at Kristine Steenbergh's blog, "Serendipities", in her article "The Blushing Bard":
http://earmarks.org/archives/2009/03/09/476
Le tableau comprend les mots en latin "Principum amicitias!" écrit au dessus de la tête de Shakespeare. Selon l'article Wikipedia sur le sujet, il y a spéculation que ça vient du Carmen Saeculare de Horace, livre 2, ode 1, où les mots sont adressés au dramaturge et signifient: "Prenez garde des alliances de princes." Pour lire une discussion très intéressante du pourquoi de ses mots ici, regardez le blog de Kristine Steenbergh, "Serendipities", dans son article "The Blushing Bard" ("le Bard qui rougit"):
http://earmarks.org/archives/2009/03/09/476
12:05 Posted in The Art of Art | Permalink | Comments (7) | Email this | Tags: shakespeare, portrait, cobbe, droeshout, principum amicitias
Comments
OK, so it's genuine 17th century. But how do they know it's really the Bard and not some other dandy?!
Posted by: Amanda | Tuesday, 10 March 2009
Valid point. In reality, it is basically circumstantial evidence. The Irish Cobbe family inherited the portrait through a family relationship with Shakespeare’s only known literary patron, Henry Wriothesley, the 3rd Earl of Southampton. He was a rakish aristocrat who eluded a death sentence passed on him after joining a rebellion against Elizabeth I. It has long been thought by many that he was in fact Shakespeare's lover, and the love sonnets addressed to this "mistress".
You are quite right, not all the Shakespeare scholars are apparently convinced the Cobbe portrait is an authentic likeness, or even that it is of Shakespeare at all, BECAUSE of the aristocratic dress of the man in the portrait and the idealizing tradition of Elizabethan portraiture, which often produced images that bore little resemblance to nature.
Posted by: Deborah | Tuesday, 10 March 2009
True Amanda, and how does one know that even if it really is the Bard that he was really that young and handsome - portrait artists were known to enhance things for their clients (the 16th century version of Photoshop) - maybe just the "minor adjustments" you cite or perhaps more. At any rate, it is intriguing to see such a fresh face when we are all accustomed to the traditional image. This one makes "Shakespeare in Love" seem more authentic.
Posted by: Mallard | Tuesday, 10 March 2009
Gee, Deborah, you're a true mine of information! I was looking all over trying to find a translation for the Latin inscription. I should have looked here first.
Posted by: Dennis | Tuesday, 10 March 2009
I have NEVER HEARD anyone claim Shakespeare died poor; just the opposite. Where do you get this tripe?
Posted by: DAVID STEIN | Wednesday, 11 March 2009
I saw the David Stein’s comment – he may have a point. I found a few things on internet:
“Shakespeare’s life can be divided into three periods: the first 20 years in Stratford, which include his schooling, early marriage, and fatherhood; the next 25 years as an actor and playwright in London; and the last five in retirement back in Stratford where he enjoyed moderate wealth gained from his theatrical successes.”
“Shakespeare's financial success in the London theatre enabled him to retire and return to his home in Stratford around 1610. He lived there comfortably until his death on April 23, 1616 (it is popularly believed that he died on his birthday). He is buried in Holy Trinity Church in Stratford-upon-Avon.”
Posted by: Mallard | Wednesday, 11 March 2009
If I may add my own 2 cents worth about Shakespeare’s financial status, as far as I know, Shakespeare has generally avoided any accusations of poverty. Though it’s true his father was a glover, it was not a particularly lowly profession. He was a homeowner and he was elected several times to public office, once as an alderman. He also did a little money-lending on the side, which may have been viewed as disreputable, but at least it indicates a certain solvency.
And as for William, the longest chapter in my favourite biography of him by S. Schoenbaum is entitled “A Gentleman of Means,” which begins with a quote form Alexander Pope:
Shakespeare (whom you and every play-house bill
Style the divine, the matchless, what you will)
For gain, not glory, wing'd his roving flight
And grew immortal in his own despite.
By 1597 when he was 34, he was able to buy the best house in Stratford, The New Place. And this was even before he became a shareholder in the Globe Theater. Although he was known to avoid paying his taxes, it was more from a reluctance to part with his money than from an inability to pay what was due.
As uncomfortable as it makes many of us feel nowadays, Shakespeare was not only a great writer, but a very good businessman.
Posted by: Dennis | Wednesday, 11 March 2009
Post a comment