Update your bookmarks

I've been wanting for some time to fully incorporate my blog into my website, so that instead of two URLs, everything could be in one place. I finally found a way to accomplish this, but it involved moving away from Blogger.

Mostly, this is a good thing. My new blog is much more functional and customizable than the old; and it makes it much easier for my website to change and grow as I need it to. But--I can no longer ask the blog automatically to email new posts to subscribers.

That is, I can't, but you can. Clicking on the following links will subscribe you to a RSS or Reader program. If you have Google or Yahoo Reader, choose those links; or, many email programs allow you to download RSS straight to your inbox.

• entries RSS


• comments RSS


• add to google


• add to yahoo

And don't forget to change your bookmarks to stefaniepeters.com!

Visit to the Garrick Club

A couple weeks ago my masters program were invited to visit the Garrick Club, a gentlemen's club in Covent Garden with an extraordinary collection of theatrical paintings. It was founded in the early nineteenth century as a theatrical and literary society for actors and educated men interested in the theatre (it is named after the Shakespearean actor David Garrick). Almost from the beginning, the club has collected paintings of actors, mostly portraying them in costume for a specific role. Walking through the rooms of the club, you can quite literally see the history and traditions of the English stage: Garrick, Kean, Bernhardt, Olivier and others are all represented, in plays by Shakespeare (which seemed to predominate) but also others.

It's quite an interesting phenomenon that such an industry obviously grew up around painting actors and actresses as a certain character they were famous for playing. Perhaps this was the beginning of the actor as icon culture; but, other than movie posters, I'm not sure that it's still current to collect pictures of actors as a particular role. One interesting thing that we noticed was that the paintings often put the actors into a natural-looking landscape rather than painting a portrayal of stage scenery. It was as if the actors were represented in the painting more as the characters than as themselves.

Since most of the masters program are female, we ranged from amused to indignant when we learned that the Garrick Club is one of the last of the gentlemen's clubs not to admit women into their membership. Apparently (we learned), there is a vote every year on the issue, and every year it is voted down. But I have to say: the women's restroom we were shown as a place to leave our bags made more than one jaw drop. Women are allowed to be guests of members, and it is obvious they are taken care of when they're there.

The UCL Shakespeare masters program with a smattering of our professors. I'm almost exactly in the middle.

First reactions to new Shakespeare portrait

Time magazine has now published an article on the new painting with much more information than was given by The Times last night, including our first look at the new painting.

If it looks familiar, it's because Wells and Cobbe believe they have proved that this painting was the original for several others that we already had. It's an oil painting on wood, and tree-ring dating has shown that the wood dates from 1610, six years before Shakespeare's death.

My first reaction to seeing the painting is to wonder at the elaborate costume Shakespeare is wearing. It's easy to tell that this was a costly outfit and, in a time when laws governed the type of dress different occupations and classes of society were allowed to wear, a statement of status. My favorite painting of Shakespeare before had always been the Chandos portrait (right) which depicts him with a simple open collar and a small gold hoop earring: the uniform of an artist, probably something like a sweater, scarf and beret today. This painting is a representation of a well-to-do gentleman (Shakespeare by this time had applied for and received a coat of arms and gentleman status on behalf of his father John Shakespeare); for years it was mistaken as Sir Walter Raleigh.

It also seems likely that it was commissioned and first owned by Henry Wriothesley, the third Earl of Southampton. We knew that the two enjoyed a close relationship--as patron and poet, at least; and Southampton was also a great theatre-goer--but if he did value having a portrait of Shakespeare enough to commission this handsome painting, that suggests a close relationship indeed. Stanley Wells, in fact, is quoted in the Time article as, in the light of this new painting, giving more credence to an old story that Southampton once gave Shakespeare £1000 pounds, which was quite the fortune in Elizabethan England.

I'm willing to be convinced by Wells and Cobbe and consider this to be an actual portrait of Shakespeare. And, I confess, I just like it: the sly smile, the animated face, the wide forehead, the beard. I hope that the painting can give us more clues about Shakespeare's life, but the most important thing is the pleasure of knowing that yes, this is what Shakespeare looked like.

Shakespeare's auburn hair

I was going to sit on this news until tomorrow, but The Times beat me to it. The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, headed by Stanley Wells, the pre-eminent Shakespearean and general editor of the Oxford Shakespeare, and Alec Cobbe, an art restorer, believe they have found a new portrait of Shakespeare that was painted during his lifetime.

If they're right, this will be the only known likeness taken before the playwright's death. Wells said he thinks it was made in 1610, when Shakespeare was 46, six years before his death. It is believed to have originally belonged to the Henry Wriothesley, the Earl of Southampton and Shakespeare's patron, to whom both of his narrative poems were dedicated. Southampton is one of the possible candidates for the youth to whom the majority of Shakespeare's sonnets are addressed. It has belonged to the Cobbe family for three centuries, but until a recent exhibition of possible Shakespeare portraits by the National Gallery, they were unsure who the subject of the portrait was.

Obviously the painting will undergo a lot of scrutiny. I have high hopes that, should it be proved authentic, it will tell us something about the famous playwright. I believe I can say that René Weis, professor at University College London, agrees with Wells that the painting is authentic. We will know more after Wells and Cobbe unveil their findings on iTV tomorrow night. Until then, I'll leave you with just two words: auburn hair!