The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0116 Monday, 6 March 2006
[1] From: Bill Lloyd <This email 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 email 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 email 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 email 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 email 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.
