The recent claim that a veritable portrait of Shakespeare has resurfaced in Dublin after centuries of mistaken identity has reignited the debate about what the Bard actually looked like
LAST SUMMER, in a hole dug more than a metre below a street in Shoredith, in London’s north inner city, archaeologists found something very exciting. There, they believed, were the remnants of the original theatre in which William Shakespeare’s early plays were staged. Strictly speaking, they were staged in a part of the theatre that’s still buried under a housing estate. But a gravel slope was where the audience would have watched his works and, at times, seen the man himself.
Twenty-five years after it was built, the theatre was moved, brick by brick, to the south bank of London and renamed the Globe. Yet, a remnant of its most famous playwright may have been left behind. On the site was found a piece of pottery that contained a human likeness. A very familiar human likeness. It had long hair and wide neck ruff. This, it was suggested this week, could be a miniature portrait of Shakespeare himself. Maybe. Possibly. Well, probably not. But its fun to speculate.
As the world knows, it wasn’t the only Shakespeare likeness to be announced in the week. Shortly afterwards, and with far more seriousness, it was announced that a portrait of Shakespeare, painted during his lifetime, had hung for years in Newbridge House, near Donabate in north Co Dublin. This was a little more diverting than a shard of pottery.
In the realms of historical detective work, the search for the true image of Shakespeare is busy with sleuths. Nothing has turned up that is 100 per cent certain to be him. In fact, as a person, Shakespeare has been a figure of fascination partly because there are still huge gaps in our knowledge of him. The plays have been handed down in incomplete fashion, so that we cannot be sure if our versions are the correct ones. It’s been enough, famously, for a varied selection of people to have been touted as having actually written them instead of Shakespeare. Even his name remains something of a mystery, given that of the six surviving autographs, not one uses the spelling we’re now so familiar with. The closest is a Shakspeare.
It is not known exactly when he was born but Shakespeare was baptised in April 1564 and died in 1616. A poet and playwright, he is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the english language. His works consist of 38 plays, more than 100 sonnets and dozens of poems. His plays have been translated into every major language and are performed more often than those of any other playwright.
Born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon he married Anne Hathway at aged 18 and had three children. He began his career in London as a writer and actor. Little is know about Shakespeares private life
What he looked like is a significant and particularly tantalising part of the enigma. There are portraits that were painted during his lifetime, but could be someone else. There are some that are definitely of him, but were painted after his death so mightn’t necessarily look like him. And then there are those whose claims are even more tenuous than that of the shard of pottery found in Shoreditch.
Every five to 10 years, a new Shakespeare portrait will appear, a curator of the Britain’s National Portrait Gallery said this week. There are between 50 and 100 images in the National Portrait Gallery stacks that were at one time considered to be him.
Far less cynical is the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, which is backing the claims of art restorer Alec Cobbe, whose family owns the newly discovered picture (his family can trace its heritage back to Shakespeare’s only patron,Henry Wriothesley, the 3rd Earl of Southampton). Actually, it would be more accurate to describe it as having been reassessed rather than discovered. The painting hadn’t been lost. It had hung on the walls of Newbridge House during the 250 years that the Cobbe family owned the property before being sold to Dublin County Council in 1985. They just hadn’t realised that the handsome, fresh-cheeked gentleman might be the most important writer in the English language.
Until this week, Newbridge House had been best known for its busy farm and plentiful acres, which are among north Co Dublin’s most popular visitor attractions. Yet, for many years, William Shakespeare himself may have been staring from the walls, unrecognised and not remarked upon. This was understandable, given that the name of Walter Raleigh had been written on the back.
Its unlikely to be Raleigh, though, not least because in 1610, when the portrait was painted, he was banged up in the Tower of London and had been for several years. Besides, he would have been just a couple of years shy of 60. The subject of the portrait found in Newbridge House is too fresh-faced.
What the Cobbe portrait (as the Newbridge House painting is being called) does have is a remarkable resemblance to another painting that purports to be of Shakespeare: the Janssen Portrait. The clothes and the pose are identical. It, too, has the frilly ruff, the rouge cheeks, the healthy head of hair. It was this that alerted Alec Cobbe to the idea that his family could have something similar in their possession. The Cobbe portrait, it was claimed this week, must have been the original from which the Janssen portrait copied.
What it doesnt look like, not entirely anyway, is the picture of Shakespeare that every school child is familiar with: the one with the 1970s comedian hair – bald on top, long at the sides – and the wisp of a beard. It was used to illustrate the First Folio edition of his plays that was printed in 1623. It was an engraving by Martin Droeshout, who was in his mid-teens when Shakespeare had died, so its not certain that he had ever laid eyes on the playwright and instead had to rely partly on the descriptions given to him by Shakespeare’s acting contemporaries, who compiled that book.
In Droeshout’s engraving, the bard is depicted as wearing a neck ruff that gives the impression that his head is being served on a tray. It is a tad grotesque, in that his head is unnaturally stretched, and his body done few favours. It has been suggested, in fact, that it was only that Droeshout owned some good printing equipment that he got the commission in the first place.
However, Shakespeare is also portrayed as humble, gentle, somewhat ordinary. He may be the greatest writer the English language has seen, but there is far more humility in that image than in 90 per cent of the pen pictures of authors on dust jackets today.
But is that what he looked like? He had, after all, been dead seven years by that stage. There is a bust in the church at Stratford-Upon-Avon that may also be a good likeness, but it has been tampered with so much over four centuries that we cannot be sure what it looked like when it was first unveiled.
THE ONLY PORTRAIT THAT Britain’s National Portrait Gallery says has any real claim to being contemporary with the man himself is the Chandos portrait, which was painted between 1600 and 1610. The Gallery has some authority in this regard, because it has plenty of pretenders stored away behind the scenes. This portrait was actually the first thing the gallery ever bought, in 1856, although it’s named after the first confirmed owner and not the painter, the identity of whom is not clear. It bears a resemblance to the First Folio drawing, so may have been the inspiration for that.
Even then, the Gallery admits that there is a good deal of guesswork involved. It’s likely to be a poet at the very least, because a natty earring and loose shirt are considered typical of the style. But it can’t say with all certainty that it is actually Shakespeare.
It’s even less convinced that the Cobbe portrait that was sitting in Newbridge House for so many years is Shakespeare. Tarnya Cooper, its curator of 16th-century art, told the Guardian this week that both the Cobbe and Janssen portraits might instead be of a fellow called Sir Thomas Overbury, who was a member of the royal court at the time. There is an engraving of Overbury in which he does, it must be said, look like the man in the Cobbe portrait.
The problem is that a lot of men would have looked like that at the time. Following this week’s claimed that the First Folio engraving was based on the Cobbe portrait, Tarnya Cooper observed: “The costumes are very similar, but that was the fashion. Hundreds of men would have worn doublets like that. And the hair and beard – it’s the fashion of the period. One cannot make an argument based on facial resemblance alone.”
Alec Cobbe, though, is prepared for the naysayers. “A lot of people will say ‘nonsense, it is not Shakespeare at all’, but I will not necessarily believe them.”
CV William Shakespeare
Who is he:William Shakespeare. The greatest playwright in the English language and Hollywood's greatest inspiration; scourge of secondary school pupils everywhere.
Why he's in the news:It was announced this week that a portrait of Shakespeare may have been hanging unrecognised in Newbridge House, Donabate, for close to three centuries.
Most appealing characteristic:The veneer of ordinariness, given his genius
Least appealing characteristic:We can't be sure what he actually looked like. Maybe he had a mean look after all
Most likely to say:God hath given you one face, and you make yourselves another. (Hamlet)
Least likely to say:If I'd known so many people would be looking at my portrait, I'd have smiled more.
