http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090421142316.htm Heavy on the science geekery, this article looks at strict comparative analysis of all known (and considered) portraits of Shakespaere, most notably the Cobbe, Janssen and Droeshout.  Includes a pretty cool montage of Droeshout and Cobbe. Their conclusion, and I have to admit I have not fully understood the details of how they arrived at it, is

…that this clearly indicates once again that, only pending further research into its early history, can the Janssen portrait be admitted to the select company of genuine Shakespeare portraits; and that it cannot in all possibility be a copy of the Cobbe portrait. On the contrary, Janssen may have served as the model for the Cobbe.

When I’m really bored and looking for content I skim the sonnets.  This time it is #141 that caught my eye, in particular it’s similarities to the famous #130 (“My mistress’ eyes are nothing like the sun”): CXLI In faith I do not love thee with mine eyes,
For they in thee a thousand errors note;
But ’tis my heart that loves what they despise,
Who, in despite of view, is pleased to dote.
Nor are mine ears with thy tongue’s tune delighted;
Nor tender feeling, to base touches prone,
Nor taste, nor smell, desire to be invited
To any sensual feast with thee alone:
But my five wits nor my five senses can
Dissuade one foolish heart from serving thee,
Who leaves unsway’d the likeness of a man,
Thy proud heart’s slave and vassal wretch to be:
  Only my plague thus far I count my gain,
  That she that makes me sin awards me pain. Most of this sonnet seems to go over similar themes about the gap between physical qualities and emotional attachment.  The poet’s explaining that it’s not her looks – he could pick out 1000 things wrong with her.  Nor is it the sound of her voice (makes you think that “music hath a much more pleasing sound” straight out of 130), or her smell.   It seems downright rude to say “I’d rather not be in the same room alone with you, stinky.” But yet nothing in his five senses can stop him from becoming completely entranced by her, transforming into a shell of his former self (“likeness of a man”).  Here’s where I get lost, though – the final couplet.  I count my gain that she that makes me sin awards me pain?  So she *makes* him sin, which sounds like a bad thing, and she “awards” him pain, which also sounds like a bad thing, and yet he counts this his gain? Somebody enlighten me.  Preferably without getting into a debate about ink splotches on the original page. 🙂

Why is it that on so many documents from Shakespeare’s time we’re left with just initials, and have to guess at the intended? For one we have Saint Peter’s Complaint by Robert Southwell, inscribed thus: “The Author To His Loving Cousin Master W.S.” thought to be one William Shakespeare. Second and more famously is the dedication of Shakespeare’s sonnets to “Mr. W.H.” People here go so far as to say “Oh, that’s reversed – it must be Henry Wriothesley, that’d make sense.”  That’s right up there with arguing that perhaps it should have been a G instead of an H, for example.  With one simple twist you could make 2 letters into whatever you want.   But my question is, what’s up with all the initials?  Why did people sign and dedicate things like this?  The cost of print too high? Something to do with all the class and religious warfare going on, that sending a direct dedication might often have sent the wrong message and thus needed to leave some room for mystery?

http://blog.shakespearegeek.com/2009/04/free-books-sourcebooks-shakespeare.html The big day approaches!  ShakespeareGeek.com, through the generosity of Sourcebooks Shakespeare, is giving away *2* of their book+CD combo packs (your choice!) in honor of the Bard’s 445th birthday. Hurry!  Contest ends Wednesday night! CONTEST RULES 1) Follow @ShakespeareGeek on Twitter.  I’ll need to be able to message you in case you win.  In case it wasn’t obvious, you have to be willing to provide a mailing address so we can actually send the book. 2) As the saying goes, “retweet” this specific link, swapping in the name of the book you’d prefer if you win.  You don’t have to call it “my favorite play” or anything, I just need to keep track of who is voting for which books.  Please do not just RT the main blog post, my filters may not pick it up if you do that. 3) That’s it!  I’ll keep track of contest entries and then choose 2 randomly from those received by midnight (EST), April 22.  That meaning the midnight at the close of 4/22, before 4/23, lest there be any confusion. 4) Winners will be notified by Twitter direct message (DM) so please make sure you keep that channel open and check it regularly, at least until contest winners are announced on the blog. PLEASE DO NOT FORGET STEP TWO!  It helps me separate folks who want to participate in the contest from those who are just becoming new followers.  If I add every new follower into the contest it drastically lowers your chances of winning.

Here’s one for the historians in the crowd, because honestly I don’t know and I’m asking: What would Shakespeare have been doing on his birthday?  Presumably as a child, though that’s not a requirement.  Would they have done some notion of cake (with or without the candles)?  What other celebratory food would accompany such an occasion?  What toys or other presents might have been the type gift given? I suppose of course that it was a lousy time for everybody and they were just glad not to die of plague, but I thought I’d ask.  Shakespeare was a kid once, and it’d be nice to think that kids get birthday parties that are at least a little different than the day to day routine.