Time magazine has now published an article on the new painting with much more information than was given by The Times last night, including our first look at the new painting. If it looks familiar, it's because Wells and Cobbe believe they have proved that this painting was the original for several others that we already had. It's an oil painting on wood, and tree-ring dating has shown that the wood dates from 1610, six years before Shakespeare's death.
My first reaction to seeing the painting is to wonder at the elaborate costume Shakespeare is wearing. It's easy to tell that this was a costly outfit and, in a time when laws governed the type of dress different 
occupations and classes of society were allowed to wear, a statement of status. My favorite painting of Shakespeare before had always been the Chandos portrait (right) which depicts him with a simple open collar and a small gold hoop earring: the uniform of an artist, probably something like a sweater, scarf and beret today. This painting is a representation of a well-to-do gentleman (Shakespeare by this time had applied for and received a coat of arms and gentleman status on behalf of his father John Shakespeare); for years it was mistaken as Sir Walter Raleigh.
occupations and classes of society were allowed to wear, a statement of status. My favorite painting of Shakespeare before had always been the Chandos portrait (right) which depicts him with a simple open collar and a small gold hoop earring: the uniform of an artist, probably something like a sweater, scarf and beret today. This painting is a representation of a well-to-do gentleman (Shakespeare by this time had applied for and received a coat of arms and gentleman status on behalf of his father John Shakespeare); for years it was mistaken as Sir Walter Raleigh. It also seems likely that it was commissioned and first owned by Henry Wriothesley, the third Earl of Southampton. We knew that the two enjoyed a close relationship--as patron and poet, at least; and Southampton was also a great theatre-goer--but if he did value having a portrait of Shakespeare enough to commission this handsome painting, that suggests a close relationship indeed. Stanley Wells, in fact, is quoted in the Time article as, in the light of this new painting, giving more credence to an old story that Southampton once gave Shakespeare £1000 pounds, which was quite the fortune in Elizabethan England.
I'm willing to be convinced by Wells and Cobbe and consider this to be an actual portrait of Shakespeare. And, I confess, I just like it: the sly smile, the animated face, the wide forehead, the beard. I hope that the painting can give us more clues about Shakespeare's life, but the most important thing is the pleasure of knowing that yes, this is what Shakespeare looked like.
Posts
1 comments:
I am just completing a full scale bust of this painting. I have a pedigree in recreating 3D faces from 2D images. The most striking thing is that from every other angle other than the one chosen by the artist you can see this is the face of someone in their mid to late forties. The only thing missing are the wrinkles and the facial discolouring of age. To be frank as far as paintings go this one is devoid of such blemishes even if it were meant as someone younger. the artists intent was definitely to please and to flatter.
Post a Comment