tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post348686735162737874..comments2024-03-05T10:34:30.182-05:00Comments on The Marlowe-Shakespeare Connection: Stanley Wells and the Cobbe Portrait by Ros BarberUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-52597442931203824782010-01-21T19:05:52.102-05:002010-01-21T19:05:52.102-05:00"The Cobbe portrait is not a genuine likeness..."The Cobbe portrait is not a genuine likeness of William Shakespeare made from life <br /><br />"Confirmed by four expert opinions<br /><br />"Working with four specialists, Professor Hildegard Hammerschmidt-Hummel, a Shakespeare scholar at the University of Mainz, was able to refute the claim of the picture restorer and owner Alec Cobbe that the 'Cobbe portrait', in his family's possession for centuries, is a genuine life-portrait of William Shakespeare. [...]"<br /><br />www.uni-mainz.de/eng/13084.phpAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-37961176227488222442009-11-26T12:01:35.889-05:002009-11-26T12:01:35.889-05:00DresdenDoll said...
So, there is evidence, of cour...DresdenDoll said...<br />So, there is evidence, of course, of Shakespeare being credited with some "Shakespeare plays" during his lifetime. But, in your opinion, it would be as part of the whole front for Marlowe?<br /><br />Shakespeare certainly wasn't credited during Marlowe's supposed lifetime with any "Shakespeare plays," and if he was being presented as the author of any works written by Marlowe after that, then it would be quite surprising if any name other than "Shakespeare" were credited with the authorship of them.<br /><br />Peter FareyPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-30510589150797205822009-11-26T11:54:32.018-05:002009-11-26T11:54:32.018-05:00Dresden,
Could you clarify your comment a bit? T...Dresden,<br /><br />Could you clarify your comment a bit? Thanks!CARLO D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17648756132380258388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-165463093995596592009-11-26T09:13:08.158-05:002009-11-26T09:13:08.158-05:00"In this case, however, what they are arguing..."In this case, however, what they are arguing against is a scenario in which evidence like this is precisely what would have been expected had Marlowe's death been faked and his plays from then on presented as having been by Shakespeare."<br /><br />Mr. Farey . . .I agree. Shakespeare as successful frontman? So, there is evidence, of course, of Shakespeare being credited with some "Shakespeare plays" during his lifetime. But, in your opinion, it would be as part of the whole front for Marlowe?DresdenDollnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-29551477027633575532009-11-25T09:02:01.323-05:002009-11-25T09:02:01.323-05:00On a separate point, I have already read Dave Kath...On a separate point, I have already read Dave Kathman's defence of the Stratford candidate in my review of the evidence of all the authorship candidates, thank you. The argument for the incumbent found there is nevertheless flawed. <br /><br />That the Stratford man was a shareholder in the Lord Chamberlain's and later the King's Men I certainly agree. The evidence that he was an actor is considerably more flimsy. Nevertheless neither his being a share-holder or an actor means that he was the author of the plays, rather than a front for an author who had the strongest of reasons for hiding his identity. <br /><br />The name William Shakespeare was not unique in that period; there was even a William Shakespeare who drowned in the Avon. No-one in Stratford appears to have recognised your candidate as an author in his lifetime. His parents and daughters were functionally illiterate and the six shaky signatures he has left us do not evidence someone who was confident and experienced with a pen. Compare his signatures that of Thomas Nashe, or any other Elizabethan who wrote regularly. Old age, infirmity and even blindness have been offered to "explain away" these embarrassing signatures, but none of these explanations hold water. <br /><br />There are many other reasons for "reasonable doubt" in this particular man's authorship, which you will find at http://www.doubtaboutwill.org should you be open to understanding why the authorship question simply will not go away, no matter how much you would like it to.<br /><br />Evidence is all that interests me, and I note that there is some significant evidence supporting Marlowe's authorship (including an attribution from a contemporary) but a notable dearth of primary source evidence supporting the case the Stratford man, despite 200 years of devoted scholarship and a careful combing of the archives. Thus I prefer to keep an open mind.Clare Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-5868645980306747022009-11-25T09:02:01.322-05:002009-11-25T09:02:01.322-05:00Anonymous said...Please see http://shakespeareauth...Anonymous said...Please see http://shakespeareauthorship.com/howdowe.html<br /><br />Tom Reedy and Dave Kathman's "How We Know That Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare: The Historical Facts" is without doubt the best single argument that has been presented in support of the Stratfordian theory.<br /><br />Everything in it is accurate and logical, but unfortunately the one point where they go off the rails is in their conclusion, which is a <i>non sequitur</i>. The correct conclusion from the evidence they adduce is that people at the time either believed or said they believed that "Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare". <br /><br />In the vast majority of cases, of course, this would be quite enough to justify a conclusion that this person had written the works. In this case, however, what they are arguing against is a scenario in which evidence like this is precisely what would have been expected had Marlowe's death been faked and his plays from then on presented as having been by Shakespeare.<br /><br />To refute <b>that</b> theory it is necessary to show where the Marlovian arguments fall down in terms of information or reasoning, and this is is a subject upon which the Shakespeare Authorship site (where that article is to be found) is completely silent.<br /><br />Peter FareyPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-15859394764821277222009-11-25T08:52:35.199-05:002009-11-25T08:52:35.199-05:00"The primary source evidence is that Shakespe..."The primary source evidence is that Shakespeare's name appears on the Folio."<br /><br />I'm sorry to disappoint you but ask any historian and they will confirm that the First Folio (published 1623) is not primary source evidence for a man who died in 1616, as it was published outside of the subject's lifetime. It is therefore a secondary source which is the point Ms Barber was (quite accurately) making. The Folio is the first piece of evidence to link the works with the Stratford man via the phrases "thy Stratford moniment", and "Sweet Swan of Avon" (for which there are alternative interpretations), and is seven years posthumous.<br /><br />The Stratford candidate was not, as you state, "mentioned many times during his own lifetime as being author of the works". <br />That people recognised an author going by the name "William Shakespeare" in his lifetime is not in doubt, but we have no evidence that anyone thought the Stratford man was the author. He was never referred to as a writer by those who knew him personally. John Ward became vicar of Stratford while Shakespeare's daughters and grand-daughter were living and managed to garner nothing from them and only hearsay from others. I'm afraid you are confusing impersonal and personal testimony. <br /><br />Interesting that you should mention that "his contemporaries, who knew what they were talking about, considered him to have written them." As I noted above, contemporaries certainly recognised an author going by the name of "William Shakespeare" but there is no evidence anyone thought this to be the man you so evidently believe to be the author. And indeed, Ms Barber has just published research which strongly suggests a very knowledgeable literary contemporary (Gabriel Harvey) not only doubted Shakespeare's authorship of Venus and Adonis, but believed the author to be Marlowe (Critical Survey 21-2, 83-110). Other knowledgeable contemporaries (such as John Marston and Joseph Hall) also appear to have doubted Shakespeare's authorship. According to Gibson's "Shakespeare's Claimants" the academic response at the time was to agree that Marston and Hall had doubts about the authorship of Venus and Adonis but to conclude simply that "they were wrong". Yet John Marston, at least, was well connected enough to seek out William Shakespeare and find out for himself, had he wanted to. Perhaps he did. Perhaps that's why he thought it was someone else.<br /><br />I appreciate none of this is likely to sway you in your belief that you are right and we are all "conspiracy theorists". You must believe what you must believe. However it would enhance your argument to at least be accurate with your terms, and recognise the difference between primary and secondary evidence, before leaping in with your certainties.Clare Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-75285949829873030652009-11-25T01:20:26.749-05:002009-11-25T01:20:26.749-05:00You're joking, right? The primary source evid...You're joking, right? The primary source evidence is that Shakespeare's name appears on the Folio--and many other works--and that his contemporaries, who knew what they were talking about, considered him to have written them. He was mentioned many times during his own lifetime as being the author of the works. Really, you may wish to review the basic facts and stop believing conspiracy theories. It's not only that there is overwhelming, incontrovertible proof that Shakespeare of Stratford was the author; it's that there is not the slightest evidence whatsoever that anyone else was. Please see http://shakespeareauthorship.com/howdowe.html.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-33156224034655319892009-11-21T17:24:12.710-05:002009-11-21T17:24:12.710-05:00Perhaps you'd like to explain what about that ...Perhaps you'd like to explain what about that statement you consider to be incorrect? Or point us towards any primary source evidence that you consider supports your belief that that William Shakespeare of Stratford is author of the works?Clare Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-73647726166088586722009-11-21T15:40:02.738-05:002009-11-21T15:40:02.738-05:00"the attribution of the Works to the Stratfor..."the attribution of the Works to the Stratford Shakespeare rests entirely on a secondary source, the prefatory material of the First Folio..."<br /><br />This is so laughably false that you should really not be surprised that you aren't taken seriously.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-82352122779793011402009-05-12T15:01:00.000-04:002009-05-12T15:01:00.000-04:00amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-66802674035305601882009-04-28T22:42:00.000-04:002009-04-28T22:42:00.000-04:00the best piece I've read on the subject!the best piece I've read on the subject!ProfRegannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-87218083032987169152009-04-26T12:54:00.000-04:002009-04-26T12:54:00.000-04:00Ros Barber's connection of the Chandos portrait wi...Ros Barber's connection of the Chandos portrait with Marlowe's patron, Lord Strange, is a significant discovery. The resemblance of the Chandos to the putative Marlowe portrait at Cambridge might indeed be more than a coincidence.<br /><br />On a related note, Germaine Greer, in an April 13, 2009 article posted at the Guardian.co.uk, dismisses the Cambridge portrait as an image of Marlowe.<br />(http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2009/apr/13/william-shakespeare-portraits-likeness)<br /><br />The 1585 portrait is usually explained - quite convincingly - as a celebration of Marlowe's new status as an agent in the Walsingham/Burleigh led intelligence network. <br /><br />Greer says,"If Marlowe was a spy, as many historians believe,there was little point in having his likeness spread about." <br /><br />Perhaps the Cambridge painting was not meant for general viewing. The existence of a portrait does not necessarily mean that it was prominently displayed, especially if the sitter was involved in intelligence work. But Greer does raise a valid point.Daryl Pinksenhttp://www.marlowesghost.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-3823696214426537742009-04-17T04:46:00.000-04:002009-04-17T04:46:00.000-04:00keep it up, it seems the mainstream media is begin...keep it up, it seems the mainstream media is beginning to pick up that this portrait is dubious.MarcoMillionsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-10619062225221885532009-04-15T19:57:00.000-04:002009-04-15T19:57:00.000-04:00superb!superb!LJordannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-68174344708244451512009-04-13T16:51:00.000-04:002009-04-13T16:51:00.000-04:00Well done, Ros and Dave Herber. And as Sam says, w...Well done, Ros and Dave Herber. And as Sam says, what will Stratfordians think of next? In a way, we should be grateful to see someone like S. Wells clutching at such feeble straws. The “Principum Amicitias” would certainly fit Essex, Overbury or Raleigh, whereas I cannot see how it can have any connection with Shakespeare. <BR/>On the other hand, at the risk of sounding as much a wishful-thinker as Mr Wells, I am sure the Chandos is a portrait of Marlowe, whom W. Vaughan described in 1602, as having "a black, round beard", and the similarity to the Corpus Christi portrait is difficult to miss.Isabel Gortazarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-64513560000799713862009-04-12T12:15:00.000-04:002009-04-12T12:15:00.000-04:00There is greater similarity between the Marlowe an...There is greater similarity between the Marlowe and Chandos pictures than the Cobbe and Droeshout. Being a natural conspiracy theorist the “Principum Amicitias” interests me.<BR/><BR/>If it can be translated (as the Birthplace Trust does) as meaning "Beware the friendship of Princes", is it possible (knowing its source, that this is an image of Southampton and the text refers to the Essex Rebellion? I am sure some of you are familiar with the theory that Robert Devereaux was actually Robert Tudor (the engraving of the name Robart Tidir exists in the Beauchamp Tower where Essex was held prior to his execution and no prisoner with that names was ever recorded as held there).<BR/><BR/>Although some make the claim that the Cobbe portrait is Southampton, I am yet to read anyone making this connection.Dave Herberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08713144967995521051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-57999789174651680282009-04-11T23:56:00.000-04:002009-04-11T23:56:00.000-04:00What will Stratfordians think of next?What will Stratfordians think of next?Sam Blumenfeldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-16333763045690378042009-04-11T23:49:00.000-04:002009-04-11T23:49:00.000-04:00Stanley Wells is again trying to make Shakespeare ...Stanley Wells is again trying to make Shakespeare into something he never was. The Cobbe Portrait is of Sir Thomas Overbury, by Cornelius Janssen Ceulen. It was published in 1965 on the cover of Cast of Ravens: The Strange Case of Sir Thomas Overbury by Beatrice White. The original hangs in the Bodleian Library. Apparently, several copies were made of the original. Overbury was the only person, apart from the two princes, to die unofficially in the Tower of London, the victim of poisoning. That Stanley Wells was so easily taken in by the notion that the Cobbe portrait is of W.S. simply demonstrates how Stratfordians are forever trying to find ways of improving the fictional life of Shakespeare.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-54600174328535657182009-04-10T14:47:00.000-04:002009-04-10T14:47:00.000-04:00Dave,My typo. Thanks for the correction & grea...Dave,<BR/><BR/>My typo. Thanks for the correction & great info. CarloCARLO D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17648756132380258388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-35830677964306928822009-04-10T12:23:00.000-04:002009-04-10T12:23:00.000-04:00Ferdinando Stanley, 5th Earl of Derby (Lord Strang...Ferdinando Stanley, 5th Earl of Derby (Lord Strange) died on April 16th, not in February of 1594.<BR/><BR/>There are much deeper connections betwen many of the people mentioned here that revolve around Strange. One of the most commonly mentioned is John Poole, who is credited as giving Marlowe much of his initial information in coining while the two were in Newgate in 1589. Poole had married into the Stanley family and was therefore related to Strange.<BR/><BR/>In 1606 Thomas Dembye and Thomas Webbe were indicted for assaulting Poole. Webbe was also a 'goldsmith' imprisoned for coining and a member of the Prague Circle who were associated with Sir William Stanley. He was also a suspect in the Winchester Robbery in 1591 (involving Poole and likely to fund the exiles in their Prague Plot to put Strange on the throne) and knew Richard Hesketh, the man who Strange turned over to the authorities, for which many claim he was murdered.<BR/><BR/>There are also letters extant from 1611 written in Paris connecting Poole to Lord Chandos among many other links I am researching.Dave Herberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08713144967995521051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-23039250883798073462009-04-10T07:59:00.000-04:002009-04-10T07:59:00.000-04:00I have always been intrigued by the cover of Bolt'...I have always been intrigued by the cover of Bolt's book, thanks for the clarity. Definite similarities bet. Chandos/Corpus Christi - well, I see the similarities.LiveatLeedsnoreply@blogger.com