Tags:
Journalism of Courage
A new portrait of William Shakespeare younger,more attractive,with a full head of hair has rocked literary circles the past week. This Cobbes portrait has been enthusiastically endorsed by Shakespeare scholar Stanley Wells as a 99 per cent probability. Even factoring in Elizabethan convention which meant that portraits were idealised versions,not strict likenesses,Shakespeare was clearly a head-turner. So we might have to adjust our mental image of the man the balding,round-chinned,gentle face that has long been visual shortcut for artistic genius/ the oppressive canon of dead white male writers/ or what you will. That picture,a woodcut engraving by Flesmish artist Martin Droeshot,from the First Folio edition of Shakespeares work,is supposedly a modified copy of this newly unearthed portrait. There is also a Sanders portrait that surfaced in Canada,that bears close resemblance to both the youthful courtier of the Cobbes portrait and the ageing Droeshot.
Of course,much of this is open speculation. After all,his plays themselves are palimpsests,and there are loud mutterings in the academic Shakespeare industry that he wasnt a single writer at all,but a collective; his works have been variously ascribed to Christopher Marlowe,Francis Bacon,and the Earl of Oxford. But it doesnt matter as Stephen Greenblatt said,the Shakespeare that Shakespeare became is the name thats attached to these astonishing objects that he left behind.
If anything,the portrait affair demonstrates that much of what we mythologise is constructed from inadequate materials. And the claims and counterclaims only add to Shakespeares aura. As Matthew Arnold wrote about Shakespeare,Others abide question thou art free. We ask and ask. Thou smilest and are still.
