Above: Rawdon Brown's 19th-century sketch of the 17th-century Venice painted portrait of Shakespeare (the painted portrait is now owned by the Royal Shakespeare Company in Stratford) and can be viewed here.)
A
painted portrait of Shakespeare inscribed "21 July 1604" was discovered in Venice in the early 20th century. The
portrait somewhat resembled the Droeshout engraving from the First Folio of 1623, our most authentic likeness of the writer, but this Venice Shakespeare was swarthier and shared some similarities to the NPG-anointed Chandos portrait of
Shakespeare, considered our most authentic painted portrait (however there is no proof the Chandos even depicts Shakespeare). The Venice portrait differed from both these endorsed likenesses in portraying Shakespeare
as portly, though it's possible his doublet was stylishly stuff with bombast. The doublet, with its triple-braid shoulder wings, was also far more regal than the costumes in other portraits of Shakespeare.
And
that's about all I've been able to find out about this mysterious Venice
portrait of Shakespeare, which was mentioned in a book called James I: The Masque of Monarchy by a author named James Travers in 2003. The above reproduction--with apologies for the low quality--is taken from that book. However the UK's National Archives has a blog post on the sketch in which we learn that the painted portrait was X-rayed in 1969, but that the X-ray results have since been lost.
It's interesting that the portrait bears a strong resemblance to another portrait owned by the Royal Shakespeare Company, the once celebrated Flower of portrait of Shakespeare. The Flower was debunked by the London's NPG in the 20th century, but there are very strange controversies still swirling around the debunking of that once world-famous portrait (these controversies are discussed in detail in my book Stalking Shakespeare Scribner, April 2023.)
Below find a few choice quotes of interest from that blog post, written by Melinda Haunton and James Travers, on the UK National Archives:
--"Shakespeare writes redolently of Venice, but there is not a jot of
evidence he was ever there. Nor was there any particular reason for a
portrait of him to be there 300 years after his death, labelled with a
form of his name in Italian."
--"The image itself is quite easily explained. It is a pencil copy, made in
the 19th century by an antiquarian and archivist, of a 17th century
portrait."
--"The Visual Arts Data Service description says
that the X-ray taken ‘shows that the head is painted on a separate
section of canvas and superimposed on an already existing portrait,
itself cut from a larger canvas’. Whatever the reason for this
combination of canvases (and Rawdon Brown would not be the only person
to be suspicious of the motive), it is highly unusual."
--"One of those listed is the original for the image we’re discussing
today. Our sketch is a copy of an extant portrait, now owned by none
other than the Royal Shakespeare Company. In the Wikipedia entry, you’ll
find it called the ‘Venice’ portrait of Shakespeare."
--"The sketch in PRO 30/25/205
is in one sense absolutely not the face of Shakespeare. It is a
competent antiquarian 19th century sketch copy of a 17th or 18th century
portrait – even, of two portraits spliced together, whether for reasons
of aesthetics or marketing. The tantalizing inscriptions ‘Scoti Lanza’
and the date in 1604 on the original seem at best hopeful additions."
Links:
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/face-william-shakespeare/
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/face-william-shakespeare/
https://www.artuk.org/discover/artworks/the-venice-portrait-of-william-shakespeare-15641616-54885
No comments:
Post a Comment