Art Collector Finds The "Real" Shakespeare

(CBS)  Three years ago, on a visit to Britain's National Portrait Gallery, an art restorer named Alec Cobbe noticed a portrait of Shakespeare which strongly resembled a painting in his own family's art collection.

Today, reports CBS News correspondent Richard Roth, some Shakespeare scholars in Britain claim the Cobbe painting is actually the real thing - the only known lifetime portrait of the world's most famous playwright.

In the industry called bard-ology, it's like claiming discovery of the Holy Grail.

If authentic, the painting is the source for an engraving of Shakespeare's likeness on the first folio of his work, and for a bust on his tomb in Stratford-upon-Avon; the only images generally accepted as authentic.

"Shakespeare became highly successful and a wealthy man towards the end of his life," says Shakespearean scholar Stanley Wells. "And this is a portrait of a rich man."

"The identification of this portrait marks a major development in the history of Shakespearian portraiture," said Wells, chairman of The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust in Stratford. "The evidence that it represents Shakespeare and that it was done from life, though it is circumstantial, is in my view overwhelming."

But the debate is unlikely to end with that.

When the National Portrait Gallery last looked at the evidence its experts concluded the real original lifetime likeness of the bard was a painting known as the Chandos portrait, which it called an emblem of national identity.

What's in a name, reports Roth, may still be trivial. But there's a whole new argument about which face goes with it.

The Cobbe portrait, which has been in the Cobbe family collection for some 300 years, is to go on public display at The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust in Stratford on April 23 - Shakespeare's birthday.

[spiritwalk]

I hate to be a germane disagreer, but in promoting the admittedly "circumstantial" evidentiary fruits of his investigation with such lavish fervor Stanley Wells reveals a side of himself that is stridently, selfishly and unnecessarily combative. The portrait could be anyone.
Posted by skipptowne
...................................................
More germaine is that Shakespeare was unknown unti after his death when two of his "actors" brought in a pile of plays to be published and claimed that they had all been left to them by.. a...William Shakespeare. Which gave them as close to a copyright to each play as you could get in those days.

It is highly possible that the argument is over trying to authenticate a portrait of a dead stagehand whose name was used to perpetrate a literary fraud.

[skipptowne]

I hate to be a germane disagreer, but in promoting the admittedly "circumstantial" evidentiary fruits of his investigation with such lavish fervor Stanley Wells reveals a side of himself that is stridently, selfishly and unnecessarily combative. The portrait could be anyone.

[UrbanImpressionist]

Actually the article states in or 'around' 1610. So it could have been done earlier.

Pros: If done 1600-1610 he could have had more hair (being in his late 30s vice 40s) and would have been wealthy as stated that the subject is. Droeshout's engraving was also possibly done after Shakespear had died so it would certainly be inaccurate to some extent.

Cons: The portrait doesn't seem to match others in terms of his facial structure. This portrait is of a narrower skull. It would have to be assumed that William added some weight as well (which would be possible for a wealthy man to get 'plump'). But it also has a more narrow nose sans bulbous end in the others....and that doesn't change due to weight variations.

Sounds like they ought to consult a forensic artist or two.

Ryan
www.urbanimpressionist.com

[spiritwalk]

Posted by spiritwalk at 10:24 AM
....the lady doth protest too much, methinks..
Posted by legacyabq

In Titus Andronicus they cut off the ladies hands and cut out her tongue to keep her from protesting being gang raped.

If Hamlet is The Godfather then Titus is Texas Chainsaw Massacre. They could not have been written by the same person.

[StanDingo]

The new Cobbe portrait is supposed to date from 1610, right? That's what Wells and others want us to believe. And they say this is an authentic likeness of Shakespeare because it resembles the engraving used in the First Folio and the bust in the Stratford monument. Really? Isn't there a very big, obvious difference? Just take a glimpse at the Cobbe (and Janssen) portraits. The subject in those paintings has a full, thick head of hair, not even thinning. And yet the Droeshout engraving and the Stratford bust both depict a man with a very bald pate. Remember the dates: Cobbe is supposed to be 1610 when "Shakespeare" was 46 years old. Are we to believe he suddenly lost all of his hair on top in a few short years? This doesn't seem likely at all. Wells seems to be saying: Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes? I'd rather believe my own eyes, thank you very much.

Stan

[legacyabq]

Posted by spiritwalk at 10:24 AM



....the lady doth protest too much, methinks..

[spiritwalk]

Edward DeVere must be turning in his grave.
Posted by gold_standard
.........................................................
DeVere or whomever, the person who wrote Titus Andronicus did not write Hamlet.

More than one or even two faces should be on the Complete Works of Shakespeare

[Henri_Rochard]

Gold_Standard, mend your speech a little, lest it may mar your fortune.

[gold_standard]

Edward DeVere must be turning in his grave.