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!

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!

Inauguration day in London

I have been awful about posting regularly--I suppose I should have thought that would happen at some point, with all the books I need to read for my master's program. I thought I would start again by telling how I spent yesterday, inauguration day, in London.

Oddly enough, Madame Tussaud's offered free admission to all Americans yesterday in honor of President Obama's inauguration--they were unveiling their new Obama wax figure. I went with Jen, a friend of mine from university. Normally, tickets are £25 per person. Does that seem like a fair price for a few rooms of wax figures, a tiny haunted house, and a short animated film about aliens obsessed with celebrities? One would think that with all the money they make from selling over-priced pictures, candy and souvenirs, the admission price at least could be under 10 pounds. I was glad to get in for free!

Some highlights:

Audrey and I have breakfast at Tiffany's.

One of my favorite Shakespearean actors.

Having a chat with Steven Spielberg.

Being spooky with Alfred Hitchcock.

Practicing my regal pose with Henry VIII.

Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Albert.

The Bard himself, back from the dead.

Speaking of back from the dead...

And, finally, the man of the hour himself.

After all this excitement, I went home and sat in bed to watch the inauguration over the internet. But yesterday wasn't just inauguration day, it was also a friend's birthday, so as soon as the ceremonies were over and I had watched George W. officially leave Washington, I left too, to head to Covent Garden. We went to a restaurant called Belgo, a Belgian restaurant and bar. It was down in a basement, and the waiters were all dressed like monks. I tried both Belgian beer (raspberry beer? who knew?) and mussels for the first time (so good) and, of course, had a waffle for dessert. What a night.

A picture of the inside of Belgo. The man in the middle wearing all black is one of the waiters, dressed as a monk.

Shakespeare in the news

This morning, there was an article in the Houston Chronicle about the recovery of a 1623 First Folio (the first ever printed edition of Shakespeare's complete works) that was stolen a decade ago from Durham University in England.

I couldn't help laughing as I read the article; the whole story seems like it should be the synopsis of a novel, not a real news event. Ten years ago someone broke into a glass case with a crowbar, took the First Folio and seven other old and rare books, and to disguise the fact of the robbery, laid a painter's cloth over the case (which apparently worked, at least for a time).

Then, for ten years, no one heard anything about the missing books, of which the First Folio alone is now estimated to be worth $30 million. That was, until two weeks ago, when a mysterious man with a British accent showed up unannounced at the Folger LIbrary in Washington, D. C. He claimed to be an international businessman working for a family in Cuba who had a copy of what seemed to be the First Folio in their library. He wanted to know if it was authentic.

He left the volume with the Folger experts, who requested time to study it. Before long they discovered not only that it was authentic, but that it was the stolen Folio from Durham. The British police were alerted, and the man was arrested back at his home in England.

I won't comment on how ridiculous it is that the man thought he could get away with selling a stolen copy of the First Folio to a bunch of Shakespeare experts. It might be compared with stealing the Mona Lisa from the Louvre and then trying to sell it back to them a decade later. (I found this in a garage sale in NYC, really I did...)

Thinking about how entertaining this story is led me to reflect on the many other stories (and myths) surrounding Shakespeare. One of my favorites is that after the Third Folio was printed, Oxford got rid of its First Folio, considering it an extra. It took them a while to realize their enormous mistake, and after a couple hundred years had to purchase it back. I wondered, then, reading the story this morning, whether there existed any Shakespeare news blogs on the internet (and whether they were enough news to make such an idea viable).

I was glad to find that there is at least one that a short Google search led me to: Mr. William Shakespeare and the Internet. A short look told me that yes, there is enough news out there to make a blog out of (though it occurs to me that there might be more than even this blogger is finding); however, I was almost put off from reading the blog by the second post, dated July 8.

Apparently the British government is introducing a new program to start sharing Shakespeare with students as young as five. This blogger's reaction was: "Is it appropriate to introduce so complex an author to such young children?"

In a word: yes!

This seems to betray a disgustingly snobbish and high-minded view of literature. Perhaps this blogger was envisioning a kindergarten teacher trying to explain the complexities of Hamlet's character or the structure of Pericles. If this were the case, I'd have to agree, that isn't appropriate. But the study of Shakespeare doesn't always have to be scholarly. As fun as it is for scholars and critics to pick apart the finer points of the plays and poems, these works were meant to be enjoyed, not studied.

If a teacher can get five year olds to read Shakespeare and enjoy it, then surely we should encourage it. The lives of those children will be enriched, I'm sure. Learning to enjoy literature is never a bad thing.