Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0395 Thursday, 4 May 2006
From: David Kathman <
Date: Thursday, 4 May 2006 00:06:02 -0500
Subject: 17.0376 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0376 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine
Elliott Stone wrote:
>I would like to thank Mr. Kathman for his kind remarks that
>my ideas are rubbish and that the Martin Droeshout engraver
>was not the young man born in 1601.
Well, there's no evidence that he was, and plenty of good evidence that
the engraver was the Martin Droeshout born in the 1560s, as Mary Edmond
has shown. The identification with the young man born in 1601 was a
guess made in the late 19th century and repeated many times since then
through inertia, but it was a mistaken guess, as near as we can tell now.
>I hope that he will go on to set the Encyclopedia Britannica, The
>Shakespeare Birthplace Trust and the Yale Center for British Art
>on the correct path. They all have recently posted statements that
>agree with me.
If so, they're mistaken, no doubt because of the inertia noted above.
Edmond's research was published 15 years ago, but it often takes longer
than that for such new discoveries to make it into reference books. The
fact that the correct information is in the recent Oxford Dictionary of
National Biography will, one hopes, help speed the process.
>I also still maintain, as I did earlier on this site, that an
>of the Editorship of the First Folio will give scholars many new
>insights on the life and time of William Shakespeare.
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
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.