Or so says a certain Charles Darwin, of our dear friend Mr. Shakespeare. So I was led to believe when I saw that quote float by my Twitter stream earlier today  (full quote:  “I  have tried lately to read Shakespeare, and I find it so intolerably dull it nauseated me.”) Curious, I googled the phrase to see if there was some context around it.  Guess what I found?  Darwin’s autobiography.  Thank you, Google Books: I have said that in one respect my mind has changed during the last twenty or thirty years. Up to the age of thirty, or beyond it, poetry of many kinds, such as the works of Milton, Gray, Byron, Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Shelley, gave me great pleasure, and even as a schoolboy I took intense delight in Shakespeare, especially in the historical plays. I have also said that formerly pictures gave me considerable, and music very great delight. But now for many years I cannot endure to read a line of poetry: I have tried lately to read Shakespeare, and found it so intolerably dull that it nauseated me. I have also almost lost my taste for pictures or music. Music generally sets me thinking too energetically on what I have been at work on, instead of giving me pleasure. I retain some taste for fine scenery, but it does not cause me the exquisite delight which it formerly did. On the other hand, novels, which are works of the imagination, though not of a very high order, have been for years a wonderful relief and pleasure tome, and I often bless all novelists. A surprising number have been read aloud to me, and I like all if moderately good, and if they do not end unhappily—against which a law ought to be passed. A novel, according to my taste, does not come into the first class unless it contains some person whom one can thoroughly love, and if a pretty woman all the better. Emphasis mine, of course.  The man’s talking about how he’s changed as he’s gotten older.  It’s not that he’s singling out Shakespeare not in the least.  And he’s also not making any sorts of proclamation that Shakespeare is lame.  On the contrary he sounds to me a bit sad that he no longer has the appreciation for these things that he once did.  Note after the Shakespeare bit that he even says pictures and music don’t really do it for him either anymore, only novels.  And even then, only certain novels.  You have to dig the joke at the end about characters whom one can thoroughly love. 🙂

Both my wife and I have been trying to diet lately, so part of the morning ritual has become to step on a scale and report back and successes. This morning I told my wife how much I’d lost (and nope, I’m not telling you people ;). “Who’s the man!” she responded, by way of congratulations. “Amanda Bynes?” I countered. “????” she said. “It’s a Shakespeare thing,” I explained. “??????” she said again.

http://www.folger.edu/lear Can’t wait for your DVD to show up?  Amy from Folger Shakespeare Library wrote in to remind me not only that they are teaming up with PBS to show McKellen’s King Lear “later this month (check local listings)”, but that they are producing a whole series of projects dealing with cutting-edge methods for teaching Shakespeare. This spring, Folger Education is partnering with PBS to provide teachers with resources for teaching Shakespeare’s timeless tragedy, King Lear. The Royal Shakespeare Company’s production, starring Sir Ian McKellen in the title role, airs on PBS in late March—check your local listings for showtime. Folger Education experts will blog, participate in a free webinar, and provide lesson plans and teaching strategies for creatively bringing Shakespeare to life in the classroom. Seriously, now you have no excuse.  You couldn’t get to see it live, and you can’t see paying international shipping charges to get the DVD from Amazon.uk.  Well, set your DVR and don’t miss your chance!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/charlottehigginsblog/2009/mar/10/art-classics Here’s an article that brings a little skepticism to yesterday’s big big news about the “new” Cobbe portrait of Shakespeare, which has actually been around for 300 years and believed to be Shakespeare for at least 3 years – yesterday was just the “official” announcement. In the article, the author points out that the whole premise of this being a Shakespeare portrait rests on its similiarity to the Janssen portrait, which is already acknowledged to have been doctored to look like what Shakespeare was supposed to have looked like.  Got that?  So it’s something of a vicious circle – the Cobbe portrait is only Shakespeare because it looks like this other portrait of Shakespeare, but that one only looks like Shakespeare because it was deliberately manipulated to look like what Shakespeare was thought to have looked like.
Personally I’m still optimistic, as I’m sure that Professor Stanley Wells would have known this and not attached his name to such a single flimsy piece of evidence.  What have they been doing for the last 3 years before making their official announcement?  What tests were run?  What is now conclusive that wasn’t a year ago?

Thanks to Bill for this one, I’d not seen it!