Ashbourne portrait

Last updated
Ashbourne portrait
Ashbourne portrait ShakespeareHamersley.jpg
The Ashbourne portrait as it now appears after restoration.
ArtistUnknown
Year1612
Medium oil on canvas
Dimensions120 cm× 94.6 cm(47 in× 37+1⁄4 in)
Location Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington D.C.

The Ashbourne portrait is one of several portraits that have been falsely identified as portrayals of William Shakespeare. At least 60 such works had been offered for sale to the National Portrait Gallery in the 19th century within the first forty years of its existence; the Ashbourne portrait was one of these. [1] The portrait is now a part of the collection of the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, DC.

Contents

The identity of the artist is unknown. [2] At some point the portrait was altered to cater to public demand for more pictures of the bard and to conform to 19th century ideas of Shakespeare. [3] The hair over the forehead was scraped out and painted over to create a bald patch. It was also lengthened at the sides, an appearance associated with Shakespeare. The date was also altered to fit Shakespeare's age. The coat of arms was painted over. In this form the painting bore the date 1611 and purported to show Shakespeare at the age of 47. [4]

In 1940, Charles Wisner Barrell argued on the basis of x-ray evidence that the portrait originally depicted Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford and that this was evidence that Oxford was the true author of Shakespeare's plays. In 1979 the coat of arms was rediscovered following restoration. It was identified as that of Hugh Hamersley (1565–1636), Lord Mayor of London in 1627.

History

The portrait as it appeared in G.F. Storm's mezzotint. William-shakespeare-by-g-f-storm-mezzotint-mid-19th-century.jpg
The portrait as it appeared in G.F. Storm's mezzotint.

It was first brought to light by Clement Usill Kingston in 1847. [5] Kingston was a schoolmaster at the Ashbourne School and amateur painter living in the town of Ashbourne, Derbyshire, after which the portrait came to be named. He wrote to Abraham Wivell, an authority on Shakespeare portraits, explaining the circumstances in which he claimed to have found it. According to Kingston, "a friend in London sent me word that he had seen a portrait of Shakespeare, that he was positive it was a genuine picture, and that the owner only valued it as being a very fine painting. Being too poor to purchase it himself, he advised me by all means to have it." He immediately purchased it. Kingston told Wivell that the design on the book held in the subject's hand was a combination of "the crest of the Shakespeare family and the tragic mask". After examining the work, Wivell enthusiastically endorsed it. [6]

19th-century print based on the Ashbourne portrait, when the sitter was presumed to be William Shakespeare Engraving after Ashbourne portrait 19thC.jpg
19th-century print based on the Ashbourne portrait, when the sitter was presumed to be William Shakespeare

It was subsequently reproduced in mezzotint by G.F. Storm. In this form it was widely reproduced during the 19th century, having entered the canon of Shakespeare portraits.

In 1910 M.H. Spielmann devoted two articles to a critical analysis of the portrait, with regard to provenance, attribution and identification. He dismissed Kingston's claim that the Shakespeare "family crest" could be seen on the book. He also rejected a suggestion that the subject was portrayed in the character of Hamlet. He concluded that the aristocratic nature of the portrait did not conform to Shakespeare's status as a playwright, and that the painting's historical subject was a mystery. However, he accepted that Shakespeare could be the portrait's subject. [7]

The painting was auctioned at Sotheby's in 1928, and sold for £1,000 ($5,000) to Eustace Conway, an American lawyer, who in turn sold it to Henry Clay Folger's widow, Emily Jordan Folger in 1931, for the sum of $3,500, as a gift to the Folger Shakespeare Library, which opened the following year. [8]

In 1932, the writer Percy Allen argued that the painting originally depicted Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, but had been later retouched. In 1940, Charles Wisner Barrell investigated the portrait using X-rays and concurred with Allen's view. Art historian William Pressly, who catalogued the Folger's paintings, [9] and directed the 1988 restoration of the work, states that the controversy surrounding the sitter's identity was resolved in 1979, when restorative work on the painting revealed conclusively [lower-alpha 1] that it had been begun as a portrait of Sir Hugh Hamersley. The Folger Library dates the painting to 1612, and while stating that most researchers identify the painting's subject as Sir Hugh Hamersley, notes that some Oxfordians contend it depicts Edward de Vere. [11] It currently hangs in the Folger Shakespeare Library.

Allen and Barrell's theories

Percy Allen argued that this portrait of Edward de Vere matched the physiognomy of the Ashbourne portrait. Edward-de-Vere-1575.jpg
Percy Allen argued that this portrait of Edward de Vere matched the physiognomy of the Ashbourne portrait.

In 1932, Percy Allen published The Life Story of Edward de Vere as "William Shakespeare". Allen was a supporter of J. Thomas Looney's theory that the works of Shakespeare were written by de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. He argued that the features of the man in the Ashbourne portrait corresponded to those of de Vere and that the costume suggested a date earlier than 1611. He believed that the portrait dated from 1597, but had later been retouched as part of "an elaborate plot". [lower-alpha 2]

In 1940, Charles Wisner Barrell, a former director of Motion Pictures for the Western Electric Company, [13] an American follower of Looney's and Allen's views, examined the portrait using X-ray and infra-red photography, and proved what Allen had suspected, namely that the painting had indeed been tampered with. He supported Allen's conclusion that it was a retouched portrait of Edward de Vere. On the basis of what was taken to be the artist's monogram, C.K., beneath a coat of arms, he concluded that the portrait was the work of Cornelius Ketel, who had been active in England and had reportedly done one of Oxford's portraits. He also suggested that the coat of arms belonged to Oxford's wife, Elizabeth Trentham. [8] [14] Ketel had in fact been commissioned in 1577 to paint a series of 19 portraits for the Cathay Company, [15] in which Oxford had invested and lost a large sum of money. [16]

Barrell's identification received wide exposure, and caused a sensation. [17] Barrell believed he had proven that there was literally a cover-up, a conspiracy to conceal the identity of the Edward de Vere he believed to be the real author of Shakespeare's works. [18]

In late 1948/early 1949 a further series of X rays was made at the National Gallery of Art by Stephen S. Pichetto. These failed to reveal a "C. K." beneath the coat of arms. It is conjectured that if they were there, they probably stood for "Clement Kingston", the original owner who profited from the "discovery" of a new portrait ostensibly depicting Shakespeare. [19] In 1948 Barrell sued Giles E. Dawson, the curator of Books and Manuscripts for the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C for suggesting in a letter that Barrell had doctored his x-ray pictures. [18] Though Barrell had promised to supply the Folger library with copies of the photographs he had commissioned, he never did so, and their present whereabouts are unknown. [13] Folger director Joseph Quincy Adams, according to Dawson, also believed Barrell had tampered with his evidence. [lower-alpha 3] The suit was dismissed in 1950.

1979 restoration

In 1979, the Folger commissioned Peter Michaels to restore the portrait. In removing the overpaint, he uncovered the coat of arms, and his assistant Lisa Oehrl made a sketch of it, unaware of the sitter's identity. It was Lilly Lievsay, Folger cataloguer of manuscripts, and Folger curator Laetitia Yeandle who, on the basis of this drawing, linked the image of the sketch conclusively to the armorial coat of Hamersley. [10] The restorative work also clarified the date, which had been tampered with to yield the year 1611 (when Shakespeare was 47). Beneath the second 1 of that date a 2 is clearly visible, indicating it was executed in 1612, 8 years after Oxford's death, [21] when Hamersley was 47 years old. Above the date is written aetatis suae.47 (aged 47). [22] He had not, at that time, been granted his coat of arms, and art historian William Pressly conjectures that they were either included in anticipation of the honour, or painted in later. [10]

The original alterations to the Hamersley painting, to make it look like what people would expect of a portrait of Shakespeare, is thought to be the handiwork of Clement Kingston, who was also a painter. [23] Some Oxfordians, though disappointed, quickly accepted the results, and claimed partial credit for the new findings. [24]

The identity of the sitter is, however, still believed to be de Vere by some Oxfordians. Oxfordian Barbara Burris published articles arguing that the Folger had deliberately erased the CK monogram and "that the fashions the sitter wears in the painting date to about 1580, when Hamersley would have been 15 and Oxford 30, and when Ketel [who returned to Holland in 1581] was working in England." [25]

Notes and references

Notes

  1. ↑ "Michaels, in removing much of the overpaint, exposed the coat of arms, making it possible for the first time to identify the sitter with certainty. … the coat of arms … [was] linked conclusively … to the armorial coat of Hamersley." [10]
  2. ↑ Allen states that the identification was suggested to him by Father Vere Beauclerk. [12]
  3. ↑ Pressly writes: "Barrell never did supply the Folger with a set of the photographs he had commissioned. Later, in a manuscript of 1979, Dawson recalled that the Folger's director, Joseph Quincy Adams, who had given Barrell permission to photograph the paintings, had told him that Barrell had come in a few days later with only a plain photograph: 'When he held this up to a light, a coat-of-arms appeared, but it also appeared that Barrell had drawn the arms on the back of the print. He explained that he didn't want to show the X-ray pictures. What was Adams to think but that the whole thing was a fraud?'" [20]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship</span> Alternative Shakespeare authorship theory

The Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship contends that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, wrote the plays and poems of William Shakespeare. While historians and literary scholars overwhelmingly reject alternative authorship candidates, including Oxford, public interest in the Oxfordian theory continues. After the 1920s, the Oxfordian theory became the most popular alternative Shakespeare authorship theory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Irvin Leigh Matus</span> American scholar and autodidact

Irvin Leigh Matus was an independent scholar, autodidact, and author. He is best known as an authority on Shakespeare, but also wrote about aspects of Brooklyn's history such as the Vitagraph Studios, and developed a method of modelling baseball statistics. He was a scholar-in-residence at Shepherd University for the academic year 1992-1993. He was based in Washington, DC.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">J. Thomas Looney</span> English school teacher (1870–1944)

John Thomas Looney (luni) was an English school teacher who is notable for having originated the Oxfordian theory, which claims that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550–1604) was the true author of Shakespeare's plays.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Shakespeare Fellowship</span> Special-interest organisation dedicated to the Oxfordian theory of Shakespearean Authorship

The Shakespeare Fellowship was the name used by an organisation devoted to the Shakespeare authorship question. Originally it sought to represent all alternatives to the mainstream consensus that William Shakespeare authored the plays attributed to him, but it later became strongly identified with Oxfordian theory: promoting Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, as the true author of the works of Shakespeare. The original organisation is now known as "The Shakespearean Authorship Trust".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Portraits of Shakespeare</span> Visual representations of William Shakespeare

No contemporary physical description of William Shakespeare is known to exist. The two portraits of him that are the most famous are the engraving that appears on the title-page of the First Folio, published in 1623, and the sculpture that adorns his memorial in Stratford upon Avon, which dates from before 1623. Experts and critics have argued that several other paintings from the period may represent him, and more than 60 portraits purporting to be of Shakespeare were offered for sale to the National Portrait Gallery within four decades of its foundation in 1856, but in none of them has Shakespeare's identity been proven.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prince Tudor theory</span> Theory

The Prince Tudor theory is a variant of the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, which asserts that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, was the true author of the works published under the name of William Shakespeare. The Prince Tudor variant holds that Oxford and Queen Elizabeth I were lovers and had a child who was raised as Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton. The theory followed earlier arguments that Francis Bacon was a son of the queen. A later version of the theory, known as "Prince Tudor II" states that Oxford was himself a son of the queen, and thus the father of his own half-brother.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cobbe portrait</span> Early Jacobean painting argued to be a life portrait of William Shakespeare

The Cobbe portrait is an early Jacobean panel painting of a gentleman which has been argued to be a life portrait of William Shakespeare. It is displayed at Hatchlands Park in Surrey, a National Trust property, and the portrait is so-called because of its ownership by Charles Cobbe, Church of Ireland (Anglican) Archbishop of Dublin (1686–1765). There are numerous early copies of the painting, most of which were once identified as Shakespeare.

Charles Wisner Barrell was an American writer. He first became significant as an art critic, promoting realism. He later built a career as an early exponent of public relations and as a documentary film maker.

The Declaration of Reasonable Doubt is an Internet signing petition which seeks to enlist broad public support for the Shakespeare authorship question to be accepted as a legitimate field of academic inquiry. The petition was presented to William Leahy of Brunel University by the actors Derek Jacobi and Mark Rylance on 8 September 2007 in Chichester, England, after the final matinee of the play I Am Shakespeare on the topic of the bard's identity, featuring Rylance in the title role. As of 23 April 2016, the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare's death and the original self-imposed deadline, the document had been signed by 3,348 people, including 573 self-described current and former academics. As of December 2022, the count stood at 5,128 total signatures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Charlton Greenwood Ogburn</span> American lawyer (1882–1962)

Charlton Greenwood Ogburn was a lawyer who served as a public official in various capacities from 1917 through to the 1930s. He was employed as legal counsel both for government bureaucracies and labor organizations. His most widely recognized work was undertaken as counsel for the American Federation of Labor in the 1930s.

Fr Charles Sidney de Vere Beauclerk SJ was a Jesuit priest who attempted to turn the town of Holywell into the "Lourdes of Wales". He was also notable for his connection to the novelist Frederick Rolfe, and for his involvement in the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Shakespeare authorship question</span> Fringe theories that Shakespeares works were written by someone else

The Shakespeare authorship question is the argument that someone other than William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him. Anti-Stratfordians—a collective term for adherents of the various alternative-authorship theories—believe that Shakespeare of Stratford was a front to shield the identity of the real author or authors, who for some reason—usually social rank, state security, or gender—did not want or could not accept public credit. Although the idea has attracted much public interest, all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe theory, and for the most part acknowledge it only to rebut or disparage the claims.

Roger A. Stritmatter is a Professor of Humanities at Coppin State University and the former general editor of Brief Chronicles, a delayed open access journal covering the Shakespeare authorship question from 2009 to 2016, now the Brief Chronicles Book series (2019-present). He was a founder of the modern Shakespeare Fellowship, an organization that promotes Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, as the true author of the works of William Shakespeare. He is one of the leading modern-day advocates of the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, and has been called the “first professional Oxfordian scholar”.

Percy Allen (1875–1959) was an English journalist, writer and lecturer most notable for his advocacy of the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, and particularly for his creation of Prince Tudor theory, which claimed that the Earl of Oxford fathered a child with Queen Elizabeth I.

Bernard Mordaunt Ward was a British author and third-generation soldier most noted for his support of the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship and writing the first documentary biography of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Abraham Wivell</span> English painter

Abraham Wivell was a British portrait painter, writer and pioneer of fire protection, credited with inventing the first effective fire escape system. After working as a hairdresser, Wivell established himself as a society portrait painter before concentrating his efforts on fire safety measures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">House of de Vere</span> English aristocratic family

The House of de Vere was an old and powerful English aristocratic family who derived their name from Ver, in Lower Normandy, France.

<i>Plimpton Sieve Portrait of Queen Elizabeth I</i> 1579 painting by George Gower

The Plimpton Sieve Portrait of Queen Elizabeth I is an oil painting by English painter George Gower dated 1579, and now in the collection of the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C. It is one of three near-identical portraits of Elizabeth I by Gower that represent the queen holding a symbolic sieve. It was acquired by George Arthur Plimpton in 1930, hence the name. His son, Francis T. P. Plimpton, willed it to the Folger.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Shakespeare coat of arms</span> English coat of arms used by William Shakespeare

The Shakespeare coat of arms is an English coat of arms. It was granted to John Shakespeare, a glover from Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire, in 1596, and was used by his son, the playwright William Shakespeare, and other descendants.

References

  1. ↑ Lee 1899, p. 382 n. 291c.
  2. ↑ Pressly 1993a.
  3. ↑ Pressly 1993a, pp. 54–5.
  4. ↑ Pressly 1993a, p. 54.
  5. ↑ Lee 1899, p. 382.
  6. ↑ Pressly 1993a, pp. 56–8.
  7. ↑ Pressly 1993a, pp. 59–60.
  8. 1 2 Pressly 1993a, p. 60.
  9. ↑ Pressly 1993b.
  10. 1 2 3 Pressly 1993a, p. 64.
  11. ↑ Folgerpedia n.d.
  12. ↑ Allen 1932, pp. 319–28.
  13. 1 2 Pressly 1993a, p. 63.
  14. ↑ Barrell 1940.
  15. ↑ Hearn 1995, pp. 108–9.
  16. ↑ Nelson 2003, pp. 187–9.
  17. ↑ Shapiro 2010, pp. 219–20.
  18. 1 2 Pressly 1993a, pp. 61–2.
  19. ↑ Pressly 1993a, p. 61.
  20. ↑ Pressly 1993a, p. 62 n. 20.
  21. ↑ Shapiro 2010, p. 229.
  22. ↑ Pressly 1993a, pp. 64–5.
  23. ↑ Pressly 1993a, p. 69.
  24. ↑ Pressly 1993a, p. 66.
  25. ↑ Niederkorn 2002.

Sources

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.