|
Popular Shakespeare painting a hoax
|
Posted By:
Rita
Apr 26, 2005
|
This was in my newspaper, The Columbus Dispatch, yeserday. Here's a link to
the picture in question:
http://www.shakespeare-online.com/graphics/shakesbig.gif I don't know if
it's old news or not, but I thought Alex migh tlike to post it if it's not.
Here's the article (taken from columbusdispatch.com You can see it for
yourself if you're registered.)
"FRAUD
POPULAR SHAKESPEARE PORTRAIT A FAKE
Published: Monday, April 25, 2005
FEATURES - LIFE 04B
Associated Press
LONDON (AP) -- One of the best-known portraits of William Shakespeare is a
fraud, painted 200 years after the playwright's death, experts at Britain's
National Portrait Gallery said this week.
Many art authorities had long suspected that the work, known as "the Flower
portrait,'' was painted much more recently than the 1609 date on the image.
The work shows Shakespeare gazing out at an angle and wearing a wide white
collar. It has been widely reproduced and is often printed on the covers of
his plays.
Tarnya Cooper, 16th-century curator at the National Portrait Gallery, said
an analysis had uncovered chrome yellow paint from around 1814 embedded
deeply in the work.
"We now think the portrait dates to around 1818 to 1840, when there was a
resurgence of interest in Shakespeare's plays,'' she said.
Shakespeare died in 1616.
The National Gallery said scholars used X-rays, ultraviolet examination,
microphotography and paint samples to test the Flower portrait, named for
one of its owners, Sir Desmond Flower, who gave it to the Royal Shakespeare
Company.
The painting is similar to another image of Shakespeare, the Droeshout
engraving, which appeared with the first folio publication of his works in
1623.
Some believed that the engraver copied the portrait, but it now turns out
that the painting is a copy of the engraving, Cooper said.
"There have always been questions about the authenticity of the painting,''
said Royal Shakespeare Company curator David Howells. "Now we know the
truth.'' "
|
Comments
The Curator
in San Diego
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 08:57 AM
I did see this is the news, but I never got around to posting it.
The obvious question it raises was whether Shakespeare himself was a hoax. Whether the man ever existed. On this question I'm actually inclined to side with the conspiracy theorists. It seems plausible to me that Shakespeare was the pseudonym of someone with royal connections. |
X
in McKinney, TX
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 09:09 AM
Get to work on it Alex....I never heard about this. |
The Curator
in San Diego
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 09:14 AM
There are already hundreds of books, tv specials, documentaries, etc. on the subject. Didn't Newsweek, or one of those news magazines, have an entire special edition devoted to it a couple of years ago? |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 09:31 AM
Isn't Francis Bacon one of the popular candidates for being the real author of the Shakespearean plays and poems? |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 09:31 AM
Basically, there are quite a few unknowns about Shakespeare, including whether he ever actually made a living as a writer. In fact, there is no evidence that he ever wrote anything other than the sorts of things other people wrote (will, bills of sale, etc.)
There are no drafts of his works in his own handwriting.
There were no manuscripts listed in his will.
There are no letters to or from other writers.
All of this makes Shakespeare unique amoung writers of his age. EVERYONE else left behind written evidence of their works, sometimes volumes of it. The only this going for him is that the earliest printings with his name attached were issued while his contemporaries were still alive, and they should have known, shouldn't they? The lack of evidence isn't necessarily damning but it sure is odd.
The main problem with disclaiming Shakespeare as the author is that there is no other generally accepted candidate. There are over a dozen different people who might have done it, according to anti-Shakespearians, but none of them have even a majority of the anti's supporting them. With no good candidate for authorship likely to ever be found and agreed upon, Shakespeare will remain dominant. |
Sharruma
in capable of finishing a coherent
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 11:38 AM
1. Shakespeare was an actor first, a writer second
Few people of the ages could read
actors were often taught their parts mouth to mouth
2. Shakespeare was royal - possible, but unlikely, it's the way of the nobility to claim everything to them. The original Robin hood for example was never a displaced nobleman, but the leaders of the era couldn't take a story where they were bested by a peasant.
3. Whether he actually existed though, I really can''t say. |
Lord Lucan
in somewhere strange
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 12:05 PM
The picture at the end of the link is surely the engraving which is more or less contemporary with Shakespeare. That's not the fake! but where's the painting? Can anyone find it? Or is the whole story a hoax? |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 12:59 PM
I wonder if you can apply the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon to Sir Francis Bacon...Or shakespeare. I bet you could.
Whatever it is...Keving Bacon must be involved somehow. |
Rita
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 01:09 PM
I did see this is the news, but I never got around to posting it.
Aw. Does this mean I won't get credit for finding it? I love to be mentioned on your site! I think I have, for two or three other articles. (Lions in Gahanna, and Mr. Six because Sakano is my other alias) |
Winona
in USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 03:04 PM
Kevin Bacon ...
to Lawrence Fishburne through Mystic River,
and since he also starred in Othello,
to Shakepeare.
And, since I spent one really really fun night dancing with LF & a bunch of guys that were at the time in the middle of making Cadence, then I am only 2 degrees from Shakespeare.
:-D |
Winona
in USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 03:15 PM
...looking at that again, I think even trying to do the 6 degrees just made me a big geek. |
X
in McKinney, TX
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 03:28 PM
Yep!!! |
Winona
in USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 03:29 PM
*bitchslap* for agreeing with me. 😉 |
andychrist
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 05:38 PM
Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford wrote all that crap that we now attribute to "Shakespeare."
http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/ |
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 07:32 PM
So...
Not only is the portrait of Shakespeare a hoax...
But so is Shakespeare himself!
:ohh:
"They" infiltrate deeper every day... |
padego
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 | 10:21 PM
kinda like Jesus
Could there be a connection??? |
Aphra
in Ottawa, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 06:34 AM
I duno guys...true, he didn't leave behind anything written in his will (fun fact: in his will,the only thing his wife got was his "second best bed"...oooburn!) but i mean, he wrote something like 37 plays..at least! maybe he was done with it. OR this guy was a struggling artist for the most part, and everything he wrote got sold to pay bills or...whatever they had back in tha' day. When he got big, he was the playwright for the king's company, so everything he wrote went there. Maybe anything he had leftover or unfinished was given to a friend or something.
I do agree, however, that he's not the only writer of the story...it's a proven fact that he took the stories for most of his plays from other texts and stuff. So I guess in that sense you could call him a fake? But I think he did exist. He was part of the kings company, and friends with many of the famous actors of the time. I don't know...I just find it hard to believe that the guy didn't exist....my two cents 😊 |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 07:25 AM
Well, because of writing style and such...I can't think that it was a conscious collaborative work. I could see ONE person doing all this...I dunno. I just enjoy the plays...Although, I'm really tired of Romeo & Juliet, b/c it's been sort of overplayed. The 70s version was best, I think. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 07:55 AM
No no no.
Shakespeare was real.
The plays were a hoax.
A real nasty one that's been perpetrated on schoolkids for centuries. They don't really exist.
The best part (and one of the few good parts) of the last Blackadder special was when he punches Shakespeare for all the pain he will inflict upon future generations.
Apologies LaMa. |
andychrist
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 08:07 AM
Also it seems Shakespeare didn't own any books. Odd, for someone who cribbed most of his plots, and presented such an array of historical allusions through out his own works. I mean it's not like he could have just waltzed right into some public library to bone up on the classics in his day... no, Shakespeare must have swiped all that stuff from the internet. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 09:13 AM
He might have had a friend with a library. |
andychrist
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 09:53 AM
Shakespeare also had no friends. So sad. :down: |
JoeSixpack
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 11:15 AM
Shakespeare DID write his plays. Here's a good website that pretty well debunks the Oxfordian claims. |
JoeSixpack
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 11:15 AM
Sorry, here's the link
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/#2 |
JoeSixpack
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 11:17 AM
Here's another,
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/howdowe.html |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 11:42 AM
Umm, don't know if you noticed, Joe...but the internet can prove or disprove just about anything with a website. I could prove I have 6 toes on one foot using the internet... |
JoeSixpack
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 01:17 PM
I wasn't saying that they PROVE anything, just that they post very good arguments against the claims of the Oxfordians. I would encourage you to read them for yourself if you are inclined to believe the conspiracy theory because the present a pretty compelling case.
A little critical thinking goes a long way when researching things on the net. There are crack-pot websites out there along with the good ones, and sometimes they're hard to tell apart. I think, though, in this case, you could tell a hawk from a handsaw. |
Aphra
in Ottawa, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 | 02:18 PM
...DO you have six toes on one foot Maegan? |
Charlie Richards
|
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 | 12:43 AM
I think the important fact is that this late in the game it is almost impossible to prove or disprove Shakespeare's authorship of the plays; if there is any hard evidence for either school of thought (say, a manuscript copy of "Hamlet" in Shakespeare's hand, or an authenticated letter in which one of the anti-Stratfordian claimants "confesses" to authorship)it hasn't turned up yet and probably never will. Personally, I firmly believe that Shakespeare IS the true author of the works attributed to him for several reasons: a) All of his contemporaries say he was, and not a single person cast doubt on his authorship until the 19th century; b) I see no logical reason for any of the claimants to have denied authorship and covered it up so securely as to have obliterated all evidence of the "truth" (see above); c) the main basis and origin of the anti-Stratfordian movement is the idea that Shakespeare was primarily self-taught, never went to a university, and therefore could not have written anything of worth, let alone genius. This whole school of thought is preposterous, based on half-truths, and ignores the well-proven fact that genius cannot be taught -- else all college graduates would be geniuses (which we know is definitely not the case).
Of course, that's just my own opinion. |
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
