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.'' "
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 | 11:17 AM
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 | 12:18 PM
...DO you have six toes on one foot Maegan?
Charlie Richards
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 | 11:43 PM
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.
