Posted on 04/12/2021 9:29:05 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
The bust, which shows the Bard with moustache and goatee, was believed to have been installed several years after his death in 1616, meaning it was likely not an accurate likeness.
But now expert Professor Lena Cowen Orlin has said it was 'highly likely' that Shakespeare commissioned the monument, which could have been modelled from life by a sculptor who knew him.
How Shakespeare really looked has been a matter of debate because of uncertainty around the reliability of existing portraits of him.
Along with the effigy, the only work which definitively depicts him is the engraving which appears on the title page of the First Folio - the first compilation of his works - which was produced in 1623, after the writer's death.
Perhaps the most famous painting - the Cobbe Portrait - has been argued by some critics to in fact show fellow writer Sir Thomas Overbury.
Another, the Chandos portrait, which was painted between 1600 and 1610, can not definitely be said to depict Shakespeare.
It was previously thought that the bust in Shakespeare's funerary monument at his local church in the West Midlands by the poet’s son-in-law, Dr John Hall.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
No you didn't. And just how would you claim to know what I have or haven't read?
Hey man. To change the subject I greatly appreciate these threads you post. They are enjoyable and very informative. I’ve learned a lot.
What I’ve experienced is the Shakespeare question can get people as heated as other hot button issues, something I don’t understand since it has no material effect on our lives. It’s purely in the realm of our minds.
Again thanks for all of your efforts.
My pleasure.
Easy. If you had read Anderson's book you would at least pretend to have something substantive to say about it.
Having actually read it myself, I can tell you that it's an impressive piece of research. Amazon reviewers appear to agree.
Amazon reviewers ???
I did say something substantive to say about it, and following the advice of Strunk -- he's the author of "The Elements of Style", although some attribute it to White -- I omitted needless words.
The three major arguments the author (of the book, although someone else is probably the author) are insubstantial. Gosh, no trace of Shakespeare's report cards? After only 400 years?!? No evidence that he went beyond London -- where he penned a bunch of plays and got rich doing it, maybe he'd have done better in Luton? And he didn't leave any books in his will (part of the "he was illiterate" or as the socialist Mark Twain claimed, he couldn't sign his name), yet he obviously knew Ovid very well.Shakespeare must also have read Ovid in the original Latin. He uses the name Titania for the Queen of the Fairies, which was skipped in Golding’s translation. [Katherine Blakeney]The idea that Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare was invented in the 19th century by some loon. Just because a bunch of attention whores have saddled on the idea and argued among themselves which person must be the *real* author off and on for over a century doesn't make the idea compelling, it makes it look ever-more absurd.
In truth wasn’t a King that wrote the Shakespeare plays and
Shakespeare himself was just the actor who got the credit for it because the king didn’t want to be known?.
You don’t know anything about this topic and obviously have no interest in learning more. I’m out.
That would explain why the only British King in Shakespeare's lifetime liked Shakespeare's plays so much he asked Will to be one of the carriers of the awning used to cover the coronation. Oh, wait, no it wouldn't.
You obviously haven't read the book either, but even if you have, you should consider reading a scholarly book instead of checkstand tabloid level trash.
It's almost as if you think sneering at an argument you haven't studied makes you look smart rather than stupid.
The paucity of information on Shakespeare's life has become a commonplace of theatrical criticism, though in fact we know quite a lot. Occasionally the records throw up an item that really does connect with the work. In December 1579 a young woman was drowned in the Avon at Tiddington, near Stratford. It seemed that she slipped in the mud on the river-bank but some thought of suicide. An inquest was held and ruled that the death was accidental. Already words from a play Shakespeare was to write years later arise in the mind: "Her death was doubtful," for this is a real-life pre-echo of the "Muddy death" of Ophelia (Hamlet, V.i.227, IV.vii.183). When we add that the young woman's name was Katherine Hamlett the association is simply inescapable. - A.D. Nuttall, "Shakespeare the Thinker", p 4
And tell, how farre thou dist our Lily out-shine, / Or sporting Kid or Marlowes mighty line. / And though thou hadst small Latine, and lesse Greeke, / From thence to honour thee, I would not seeke / For names; but call forth thund'ring [Ae]schilus, / Euripides, and Sophocles to vs, / Paccuvius, Accius, him of Cordova dead, / To life againe, to heare thy Buskin tread, / And shake a stage : Or, when thy sockes were on, / Leave thee alone, for the comparison / Of all, that insolent Greece, or haughtie Rome / Sent forth, or since did from their ashes come. / Triumph, my Britaine, thou hast one to showe, / To whom all scenes of Europe homage owe. / He was not of an age, but for all time! [Ben Jonson's Eulogy to Shakespeare]
Shakespeare was described as “sweet swan of Avon” by his younger contemporary, Ben Jonson. Of course, that was part of Bacon’s plot to cover his own identity, because Bacon also wrote under the name “Ben Jonson”. ;’) [ https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1686763/posts?page=14#14 ]
Longer rebuttal. [ https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1686763/posts?page=10#10 ]
In the preface to the first folio of Shakespeare’s work, his friend Ben Jonson (another poet and playwrite) penned, “To the memory of my beloved, The Author, Mr. William Shakespeare, and what he hath left us.” He refers to Shakespeare as “sweet swan of Avon”. [ https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2490919/posts?page=12#12 ]
Concise, in the GGG ping of that time. [ https://www.freerepublic.com//focus/chat/2490919/posts?page=11#11 ]
I think he was a composite of many writers.
The Betty Crocker of his time.
Falstaff I hope...
That has never made any sense to me. Why would someone go to all that trouble to write plays then not want the fame that goes with it, when they are well received, king or duke or vassal?
Several names have been put up that may have written a play or two, but the entire catalog? I doubt it..............
Maybe fame was not the goal but their works was the important thing kind of like an artist I don’t know.
Agree about the entire catalog?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.