Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2006 :: March ::
Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0116  Monday, 6 March 2006

[1] 	From: 	Bill Lloyd <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date: 	Friday, 3 Mar 2006 11:50:12 EST
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0103 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine

[2] 	From: 	Peter Bridgman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date: 	Friday, 3 Mar 2006 18:22:41 -0000
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0103 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Bill Lloyd <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Friday, 3 Mar 2006 11:50:12 EST
Subject: 17.0103 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0103 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine

The news articles on the Chandos portrait all give some variant of this 
information on its painter John Taylor: he was 'little-known', he was 
talented but not great, this is his only surviving work.

Does this John Taylor have any verifiable independent existence other 
than as the painter of this portrait? I've seen him confused in print 
with the actor Joseph Taylor, and with John Taylor the Water-poet, but 
that's just carelessness.

Who was he?

Bill Lloyd

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Peter Bridgman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Friday, 3 Mar 2006 18:22:41 -0000
Subject: 17.0103 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0103 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine

There are 3 very good reasons for rejecting the Chandos portrait ...

1 - It too easily satisfies our mental image of what a renaissance 
artist and genius should look like.

2 - It bears no resemblance whatever to the two vaguely authenticated 
likenesses - the Folio engraving (commissioned by work colleagues) and 
the Holy Trinity bust (commissioned by his family).  While neither is 
even an average work of art, their very greyness and anonymity seem to 
suit WS's life-long disappearing act.  I see no reason why Schoenbaum, 
and others, should have dismissed the Stratford bust.  It looks to me 
like an older fatter version of the Droeshout.

3 - Since Davenant was desperate to claim WS as his sire, any portrait 
produced by Davenant must be highly questionable.

Peter Bridgman

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the 
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the 
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.