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 17.0129  Tuesday, 7 March 2006

[1] 	From: 	David Basch <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date: 	Monday, 06 Mar 2006 12:51:57 -0500
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0116 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine

[2] 	From: 	Bob Grumman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date: 	Monday, 6 Mar 2006 15:24:53 -0500
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0116 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine

[3] 	From: 	John W. Kennedy <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date: 	Monday, 06 Mar 2006 23:04:12 -0500
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0116 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine

[4] 	From: 	Duncan Salkeld <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date: 	Tuesday, 07 Mar 2006 12:45:19 +0000 (GMT)
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0116 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		David Basch <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Monday, 06 Mar 2006 12:51:57 -0500
Subject: 17.0116 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0116 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine

Concerning the discussion of the Chandos portrait as a possibility of an 
authentic portrait of Shakespeare, I note the following discrepancies.

The Grafton portrait, which contains Shakespeare's dates-Shakespeare was 
24 in 1588 as noted in the portrait-the reason for discarding this as 
authentic was the costly tunic the sitter wore. Can it not be that he 
borrowed it for the portrait or that it was faked by the portrait 
painter?  It seems a frivolous reason to dismiss this one.

I note also that the scholars did not consider the portrait made by 
Nicholas Hilliard which Professor Leslie Hotson of Yale alleged as a 
portrait of Shakespeare, devoting a whole book to proving this. There 
are reasons why this portrait should have been considered on the basis 
of Hotson's scholarship and other findings since. Since other less 
worthy examples were considered, this should have been listed among the 
possibilities.

David Basch

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Bob Grumman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Monday, 6 Mar 2006 15:24:53 -0500
Subject: 17.0116 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0116 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine

 >From: Peter Bridgman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
 >2 - It bears no resemblance whatever to the two vaguely authenticated 
likenesses

"Vaguely autheticated?"  I think I'd take Ben Jonson's word for the 
First Folio engraving's authenticity as more than that.

--Bob G.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		John W. Kennedy <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Monday, 06 Mar 2006 23:04:12 -0500
Subject: 17.0116 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0116 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine

Peter Bridgman <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >

 >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.

I have seen the exact opposite claimed in support of the very same thesis.

 >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).

It has a very considerable resemblance. More than, say, many portraits 
of George Washington have to one another -- more than, for that matter, 
some unquestionably authentic /photographs/ of Abraham Lincoln do.

 >While neither is even an average work of art, their very greyness
 >and anonymity seem to suit WS's life-long disappearing act.

William Shakespeare is, in fact, the best documented of all Elizabethan 
professional playwrights; his relative anonymity is no more than is 
typical of period bourgeoisie, and requires no romantic notions of the 
Alienated Artiste to explain it. The surviving records of his private 
life, if anything, rather suggest the opposite.

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

There is certainly something in that, but I have not heard of any 
extraordinary claims made by Davenant with regard to the portrait; it is 
merely recorded that he owned it, and, as Shakespeare's godson, and, in 
some senses, his successor, there is nothing very remarkable in his 
possession of it.

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: 		Duncan Salkeld <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date: 		Tuesday, 07 Mar 2006 12:45:19 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: 17.0116 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0116 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine

On Thursday 23 March at 13.10, Tarnya Cooper will give a talk on 
'Shakespeare's Faces: Likeness, Myth and Technical Evidence' where, 
perhaps some of these questions will be addressed. The talk is one of a 
number taking place at the National Portrait Gallery, London, which 
currently hosts a superb exhibition entitled 'Searching for 
Shakespeare'. The exhibition costs just 

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.