Talk:Portraits of Shakespeare

New images

I've added images of some other portraits or purported portraits of Shakespeare that are not on this page:

• 
• 
• 

To use or not as you wish. Dcoetzee 10:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

We should probably create a gallery section, otherwise the page will become too cluttered. Paul B (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Neat to see how it's grown

I'm glad to see the enormous amount of attention this article has received. Would you believe that just a few days ago this article was an orphan, with only two or three other links to it? I made a few edits, but in retrospect my biggest contribution was linking to here from both William Shakespeare (yes, there was no link) and Template:Shakespeare. That, plus the attention the topic has received thanks to the Cobbe portrait announcement, has created what we have today. YLee (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Zuccari portrait?

This is one I've never heard of. Where did the information on it come from? BTW, you might want to check out "Windows on Warwickshire" for pictures of other portraits, esp. this link:http://www.search.windowsonwarwickshire.org.uk/engine/resource/default.asp?txtKeywords=shakespeare&lstContext=&lstResourceType=&lstExhibitionType=&chkPurchaseVisible=&txtDateFrom=&txtDateTo=&originator=%2Fengine%2Fsearch%2Fdefault_hndlr.asp&page=28&records=395&direction=1&pointer=22192&text=0&resource=9808 Tom Reedy (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are a great many more portraits out there! The term 'Zuccari portrait' (also known as the 'Zucchero portrait', after the old spelling of the artist's name) can refer to two notable pictures, both of which were once attributed to Zuccari. One is the familiar Chesterfield portrait, which was attributted to Zuccari before the modern attribution to Borsseler. The other is this picture which was acquired by Richard Cosway. He proclaimed it to be Shakespeare and it was reproduced as a print. It's compared to the Chandos on p.57 of the NPG Searching for Shakespeare catalogue. That's the one that this article calls the Zuccari portrait, but as it was originally written the author seems to have got the Cosway and Chesterfield 'Zuccari' images mixed up, so I separated them out.

To complicate matters further, there was also, apparently, a third, more obscure contender that was attributed to Zuccari.Paul B (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Doesn't much look like any of the other portraits. Thanks for the information. FWIW, the Stratford bust antedates the Droeshout, and here's another link to the monument today: http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/770/893855.JPG Tom Reedy (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hamersley

I see Softlavender is now trying to add Oxfordian stuff to the Shakespeare Portraits article. I will inform you of a few relevant facts. I have given you enough time to answer my questions. You have utterly failed to do so. As I have stated, the book you reference is not a scholarly text and is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. If you wish to debate this please discuss the matter on the Reliable sources board. Oxfordian publications are not reliable sources either. According to WP:fringe such sources are only appropriate on pages devoted to fringe theories themselves, and the Hamersely page and the Shakespeare portraits page do not come into that category. So neither of your sources are acceptable there. Please feel free to check this out with uninvolved contributors.

I will not have this page sullied by distortions and misrepresentations. If you want to discuss the frankly ludicrous arguments of Mark Anderson with regard to this portrait I am happy to do so. I only have access to them from his web page, since I have no intention of buying his book, and it is not, of course, in the possession of any of the academic libraries to which I have access. Stylistically this picture is unlike Kettle's work (apart from generic similarities typical of the art of the time), and is not attributed to him by any reliable sources. It is far less skillfilly painted than Kettle's works. The composition of a person holding a skull is completely typical of the time, and there are numerous other examples. (eg Catrin o Ferain. Kettle himself painted one Thomas Pead) So no-one at the time would have thought there was anything unusual about it, or connected it to Hamlet or Shakespeare. Anderson's claim that Oxford's family repainted it after his death because of a "panic" over political crises is so silly that it's difficult to know where to begin. Even portraits of convicted traitors were not repainted, and there is no reason why a portrait of Oxford should have been. To repaint it to connect it to Shakespeare is even more nonsensical if the intention was to conceal a connection to him. Numerous servants in the household would have seen the unaltered original, so repainting it to resemble the standard image of the playwright would make a connection that would not have existed at all beforehand. In any case the age has been repainted by a year to obliterate Hamersley's age. It does not fit Oxford's age at all. All these arguments demonstrate a profound ignorance or deliberate twisting of the facts about 16th-17th century culture. Paul B (talk) 08:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Paul, we are not discussing a fringe theory here — we are discussing the identification of a painting by independent art experts and optics experts. Since there is no unanimity of agreement that the painting is Hamersley, per Wikipedia policy all dissenting points of view by experts must be reported to avoid POV. The original expert opinion (in 1940 via X-ray examination) was that the Ashbourne portrait was Edward de Vere, and this was agreed upon even by certain mainstream Shakespeare scholars. That must be reported. Next, Pressly's opinion in the Folger examination of the painting was that it was Hamersley. That has been reported. Next, independent art expert Barbara Burris made extensive examinations of the painting and concluded it was de Vere. That must be reported. The complete history of the painting from its promulgation in 1847 through all of the various examinations and reports, back and forth, are covered thoroughly in the 8 cited pages of the Anderson book. You cannot comment on that authoritatively because you have not read those pages. Briefly, the pages review, in addition to Barrell's 1940 X-ray examination and Pressly's 1993 examination: 6 articles by Burris (2002-2004), a 2004 published interview with English archival researcher Derran Charlton, an article by a mainstream Shakespeare scholar Oscar James Campbell in Harpers, the 1993 Folger catalogue (in which Pressly notes the letters CK visible on the painting), and internal Folger documents, among other things. Since it is clear that there is no consensus that the painting is Hamersley, other expert opinions must be reported. Softlavender (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You can raise this at the Fringe Theories board and at the Reliable Sources board. However, the fact is that the original study was not made by an independent person. It was made by an Oxfordian, and Oxfordianism has been accepted by WP consensus as a FRINGE theory (and of course by academia in general). However, that's neither here nor there. There is no need to report on a completely obsolete study that has been supplanted by new ones. Nevertheless, the fact remains that we can only report on what is in reliable sources, and the internal publications of the Oxfordians do not count as reliable sources. I have no idea who Barbara Burris is, but there is a very kitschy painter by that name [1]. Being a painter does not make you "an independent art expert". Anyone can become a painter. It doesn't automatically give you expertise on anything. But even if she were an expert, she would still have to publish in reliable sources if her theories were to recorded here. That is very very clear in policy. At best her non-reliably published views could be included - if and only if she has already published in reliable sources that establish her expertise in the relevant area. The other articles you cite don't pass the test either, since Derran Charlton is an Oxfordian ideologue and the Harpers article dates from 1940, and so is irrelevant to the modern consensus of experts. The 1993 Folger catalogue does not state that it is not Hamersley, so you are either misinformed or misrepresenting the facts. Nor does it contradict what Pressly states in the SQ article, as is falsely claimed by Anderson, since both state that the CK may or may not be there (the X rays are inconsistent), but that if it is, it probably stands for Clement Kingston.Paul B (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Paul is simply making thing up. Being an Oxfordian does not disqualify a scholar or researcher. If, for example, a recognized costume researcher is quoted in a news article or website, then that statement is certainly a Reliable Source. If a researcher for the Victorian Albert Museum were to make a statement in the press, on a website, or even - God forbid - an Oxfordian publication, it makes no difference, as the Reliable Source is the person (and their official affiliation) and not the vehicle thru which their statement is publicized.Smatprt (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You are the one making things up. Everything I said is entirely appropriate. Being an Oxfordian does not disqualify anyone who has published their findings in reliable sources. The fact is that Anderson simply misrepresents facts, for example by claiming that Barbara Burris is an independent "art expert" (This is a person who can't tell the difference between a mezzotint and a woodcut!). Derran Charlton's distinguished contributions to art history include a claim that a 16th century imaginary portrait of Henry IV is in fact...Oxford, even though it's known to be a copy of a print. Even Oxfordians don't pretend anymore that the CK's "found" by Wisner Barrell in the Janssen portrait exist. Paul B (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

At least we agree that even recognized authorities are sometimes mistaken! But that, unfortunately, does not really matter on these pages. If a recognized authority makes a claim, it is reportable. Just look at all the ink Wells has received over the Cobbe. It's similar to Kathman's claim, as edited by Wells, that there is no evidence that Oxford and Southampton knew each other. Sort of ridiculous considering they are both in an etching holding up the Queen's canopy,or more obvious, that Southampton was once engaged to Oxford's daughter. But it was printed in a Wells book, so it must be so....?!?! Smatprt (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course recognised authorities are sometimes mistaken, but I have no idea what the rest of your comments have to do with this article, or what relevant point you are trying to make about any particular "recognised authority". Paul B (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Smatprt, you don't seem to understand what, according to policy, reliable sources are. It all depends on the mechanism of publication. It is the publication process that determines reliability according ot policy. The fact that Barbara Burris quotes from letters allegedly written by V&A experts does not make the quoted comments reliable. We can't be sure that the quotations are accurate or not cherry-picked. We also don't know what information the writers are responding to. In other words you can't take quotations from an unreliable source and then claim they are reliable, unless they are independently attested in reliable sources. Paul B (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Wisner Barrell, he is not a "recognised authority" on anything whatever. He has no known expertise on Shakespeare and no known expertise on x-rays. He commissioned x-rays, which he then had published. Of course the publisher legitimised them as of scholarly significance, but the reliablity of that journal concerned new technologies of knowledge gathering, not interpretations of history. It has also been rendered obsolete, just as any number of other articles from 1940 are obsolete on matters of science. Since then a lot of new evidence has emerged to suggest that Wisner Barrell distorted the x-ray evidence. No copies of the original x-rays survive. Bissel's promise to provide copies to the Folger was renaged on. He withdrew from the court case when asked to provide evidence substantiating his claims. Later x-rays contradict his assertions. In other words, there is good circumstantial evidence that Wisner Barrell doctored his data. For this reason his 1940 article can't remotely be considered current. Paul B (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said the 1940 article was current. And sorry, but by your own admission, the publisher legitimized them, and it's not up to you to judge their own reliability. And circumstantial evidence, as you well know, has no place here (I wish that it did!). But you are mistaken about the Shakespeare Fellowship journal, and the associated website. Or perhaps you are just misinformed. To enlighten you, the journal and website are edited by Roger Stritmatter, PhD, and the publication includes on its editorial staff four PhD's in literary studies -- Dr. Daniel Wright of Concordia University (English), Dr. Felicia Londré of the University of Missouri at Kansas City (Theatre History), Dr. Anne Pluto (English) of Leslie College and Dr. Roger Stritmatter, Instructor of English at Coppin State College in Baltimore, MD. As such, the journal and its website are indeed RS. If you want to fight that, then feel free to take it to another level of Wiki administration. But with their credentials, I don't think you will be successful. On a private note, I would think that the article, even though it appears in an Oxfordian journal, would be of interest to you. The research is sound, the references outstanding, and the conclusions are reasonable. And my edits do not conclude that De Vere is the sitter, but that the Hamersley identification is probably wrong.Smatprt (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)