This Edition of TIMELINE presents « SHAKESPEARE’S
IMAGE »
The death of English playwright William Shakespeare
is situated on the Timeline early in the seventeenth
century in 1616. To put this in perspective,
Queen Elizabeth I of England was born in 1533
and the English Glorious Revolution took place
in 1688.
English playwright William Shakespeare has
been commemorated in a number of different
paintings, engravings, statues and memorials
around the world. Authentic representations
of his true likeness, however, are very rare
and extremely controversial.
A possible painting of the poet has sparked
international debate amongst historians, art
collectors, scientists and academics. The
controversial portrait is of a youthful man
with the beginnings of a receding hairline,
who appears alert, keen-eyed, mischievous,
and flirtatious, with an enigmatic, ironical
smile. He looks out from his portrait with
a tolerant, world-weary air, slight smirk
and half-twinkle in his eye.
The painting is said to be the work of Elizabethan
actor-artist John Sanders, who was born in
Worcester, England, in 1575. Like the Bard
himself, Sanders as a young man made the journey
to London to seek his fortune and became involved
with Shakespeare's theatre company as a bit
actor, and for reasons unknown painted Shakespeare's
portrait during his lifetime, in 1603 -- the
date on the painting. The Sanders family stayed
in the Worcester area until the early 1900s
when a large branch of the family immigrated
to Canada, bringing the portrait with them.
The painting is slightly damaged at the top
but otherwise well preserved, with rich bright
colors. It shows a Shakespeare with fluffy
red hair and blue-green eyes, an appearance
that matches descriptions of him in the journals
of his contemporaries Christopher Marlowe
and Francis Bacon. The painting has been kept
in the Sanders family, handed down with care
through 12 generations and identified in wills.
Throughout the centuries, it was hung on a
dining-room wall and stored under various
beds and in several closets. The painting
has been exhibited only once, in the early
1960s, but the portrait, then unauthenticated,
aroused little interest.
The public controversy over this portrait
began in 1909 when the painting’s owner
took it to a London expert on Shakespearean
images, who concluded that it could not be
the playwright. The expert claimed that the
style of the painting was typical of the seventeenth
century, but he believed that parts of the
painting had been altered sometime after its
inception and that the note affixed to the
back of the painting was not authentic. Recent
scientific testing, however, has questioned
this judgment. Analysis indicates that the
painting was not forged in the nineteenth
century and the wooden panel on which the
painting was executed dates from as early
as 1597. Also, analysis of the paint flakes
are consistent with seventeenth century methods.
The major point of contention regarding the
painting's authenticity surrounds a rag linen
paper note affixed to its back upper right-hand
corner. While time has rendered the words
on this paper largely illegible, a transcription
was made in 1909. While the paper on which
the note was written is consistent with the
type of paper used in Shakespeare's day, images
of the remains of this note taken under ultraviolet
light show handwriting that is not consistent
with scripts used by Shakespeare and his contemporaries;
instead, the note is in a script, which did
not appear until the 1700s. Certain scholars
believe that this evidence is corroborated
by the wording of the note that suggests an
eighteenth century origin. While some connoisseurs
feel that this is proof of the painting's
inauthenticity, others feel that a member
of the Sanders family probably added the note
at a later date.
The weight of evidence on either side of this
argument suggests that the controversy surrounding
this portrait will not end any time soon.
Although many portraits and engravings exist
of Shakespeare, at present, the only authentic
likenesses of the Bard are considered to be
a bust on his tomb in the Church of the Holy
Trinity in Stratford, cast after his death,
possibly from a death mask, and approved by
his wife Anne Hathaway; and a print done by
the artist Martin Droeshout for the frontispiece
of the First Folio of his plays, which seems
to have been taken from a sketch that has
never been found. The engraving, too, seems
to have been approved by his wife; it was
published in 1623, following his death. After
his death, as Shakespeare's reputation grew,
artists created portraits and narrative paintings
depicting him, most of which were based on
earlier images, but some of which were purely
imaginative. He was also increasingly commemorated
in memorial sculptures around the world. At
the same time, the demand for authentic portraits
fed a market for fakes and misidentifications.
Few individuals are as culturally important
in English speaking cultures as Shakespeare,
and thus artifacts and ideas that challenge
established traditions surrounding this canonical
figure are likely to continue to meet with
academic and social resistance; yet, Shakespeare's
cultural importance lies in his words, not
his image, therefore the search for Shakespeare’s
authentic image may simply be... much ado
about nothing.
As mentioned, the death of William Shakespeare
is situated on the Timeline in 1616. In each
edition, our Timeline is presented in a simple
manner that is easy to comprehend, and fun
to replicate for school projects. Shakespeare
was baptized and also likely born in in 1564.
To put this in perspective, simply insert
this event at the appropriate location on the Timeline.
This concludes our fascinating look at SHAKESPEARE’s IMAGE.
We hope you have enjoyed this presentation
and look forward to meeting you again soon…
along the TIMELINE.
