Shakespeare Chess Painting
Nigel Davies
> The picture is interesting enough, but it's not Shakespeare.
Remarkable. The artist was alive and active in his profession during
Shakespeare's time yet you reject any connection in such absolutist terms.
Amazing how you reach such absolute conclusions that the painting is "not
Shakespeare" on the basis of no facts to support your contrary view. If someone
claimed it was a contemporary painting of Shakespeare by da Vinci then you would
be quite right due to the impossibility of such a scenario but saying "it's
not Shakespeare" to a painting that can be incontravertibly dated to
Shakespeare's time is just ridiculous absolutism.
> 1) The painter's biography is pretty well understood (better than
> Shakspere's). There's no hint he was ever in England.
Perhaps if it's said enough times it might sink in: Absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence. What is known of van Mander is that he did travel outside
of
his native country such as to Italy.
> 2) His subjects appear to be Dutch by dress-- funny, he painted in
> Holland!
The image of Jonson in this painting, including his attire, correlates very
closely with the portrait of Jonson in the NPG.
> 3) The "Shakespeare" figure appears quite young-- low 20s, maybe. The
> "Jonson" figure appears older. Jonson was 8 years younger than
> Shakspere. I can hear the Strats now-- "Jonson does not look older!"
>
> 4) There is nothing in the picture to identify the persons.
The writing paraphenalia is indicative of their occupations - a commonplace
means of identifying the subjects of paintings. Jonson's image is so like the
other images of him that it is enough to strongly identify him. On the image of
Jonson alone, it's like you saying that a painting of Winston Churchill is
insufficient to identify him. You seem to want them holding up copies of their
latest plays in order to make their identification idiot-proof.
> 5) There was no history of the subjects being identified as Shakespeare
> and Jonson before the late 19th c. Why would people have "forgotten"
> who those famous subjects were?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
[From another post:]
> He painted in the Netherlands. He painted Dutch people.
He painted religious and allegorical subjects, landscapes, nudes. He
simply wasn't the one-dimensional non-travelling painter of only Dutch people
that you want him to have been.
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
John Baker
davis is making good points here.
If you read the book on this you'll see there are very good reaons to
believe van Mander was in London. For example he talks about
paintings in London, knows the houses they are in, and certainly seems
to have seen them there.
He had close kin in London.
So I think the case is far stronger that he was in London than that he
wasn't.
The Jonson match is so close no one who has seen these paintings would
deny it.....
I have a full sized poster of it here, sent by the present owners.
Its really magical....
baker
volker multhopp
> volker wrote:
> > The picture is interesting enough, but it's not Shakespeare.
> Remarkable. The artist was alive and active in his profession during
> Shakespeare's time yet you reject any connection in such absolutist terms.
You're the one drawing remarkable conclusions. Otherwise Strats are
busy declaring how unimportant Shakespeare was by contemporaneous
standard, but now they would have us believe an artist in his death year
crossed into England and somehow managed to capture this "insignificant
playwright" *and* Ben Jonson, whereas, afaik, he never otherwise
portrayed playwrights. How convenient! Presumably a star also appeared
in the east, or, perhaps more accurately, north-north-west.
> > 1) The painter's biography is pretty well understood (better than
> > Shakspere's). There's no hint he was ever in England.
> Perhaps if it's said enough times it might sink in: Absence of evidence is not
> evidence of absence. What is known of van Mander is that he did travel outside of
> his native country such as to Italy.
Right, we know he traveled to Italy. There's nothing to suggest he
traveled to England. You "true believers" would have us believe on no
evidence that he traveled to England and left just this one picture of
his travel, a picture that in no way shows anything that can be
identified as English. Many Renaissance artists visited Italy; England
was not on the tour.
> > 2) His subjects appear to be Dutch by dress-- funny, he painted in
> > Holland!
> The image of Jonson in this painting, including his attire, correlates very
> closely with the portrait of Jonson in the NPG.
The Jonson in the NPG, painted 20 years later, looks younger than the
"Jonson" in this painting.
> > 3) The "Shakespeare" figure appears quite young-- low 20s, maybe. The
> > "Jonson" figure appears older. Jonson was 8 years younger than
> > Shakspere. I can hear the Strats now-- "Jonson does not look older!"
> > 4) There is nothing in the picture to identify the persons.
> The writing paraphenalia is indicative of their occupations - a commonplace
> means of identifying the subjects of paintings.
That they use identical inkwells indicates that they are principals or
employees of a single company-- not playwrights.
> > 5) There was no history of the subjects being identified as Shakespeare
> > and Jonson before the late 19th c. Why would people have "forgotten"
> > who those famous subjects were?
> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Absence of evidence can be significant where evidence is expected.
Shakespeare (and Jonson) was well known in many circles since his
lifetime. People who acquired the portrait would have known who it was,
else they wouldn't have paid for it, and it would have always had some
value based simply on the alleged subject. It's hard to imagine a
reasonable scenario whereby the successive owners would have forgotten
who the subject was.
> > He painted in the Netherlands. He painted Dutch people.
> He painted religious and allegorical subjects, landscapes, nudes.
And he never painted anything of England. This "Shakespeare-Jonson
portrait" is just another romantic delusion of Stratfordians.
--Volker
Nigel Davies
> Nigel Davies wrote:
>
> > volker wrote:
>
> > > The picture is interesting enough, but it's not Shakespeare.
>
> > Remarkable. The artist was alive and active in his profession during
> > Shakespeare's time yet you reject any connection in such absolutist terms.
>
> You're the one drawing remarkable conclusions.
No. You are. I'm saying a painting of figures that resemble Shakespeare and
Jonson by an artist who was contemporary to those people is entirely plausible -
an unremarkable claim. You're saying this painting is "not Shakespeare" - a
remarkably absolute, unsubstantiated, uncompromising, unsupportable concusion.
> Otherwise Strats are
> busy declaring how unimportant Shakespeare was by contemporaneous
> standard,
Who ever said that? The records demonstrate that he was well known and admired
in his field. But Stratfordians are also objective in recognising that he was
one of many in the field who were admired for what they did too. That's not
saying he was "unimportant". That's recognising he was in the eye of the English
Renaissance so had competition to contend with as pointed out in the sonnets.
You're making things up again.
> but now they would have us believe an artist in his death year
> crossed into England and somehow managed to capture this "insignificant
> playwright"
Huh? The Poetomachia happened between 1599 and 1601. Van Mander died in 1606.
Who said he painted this figurative representation of the War of the Theatres as
a game of chess in his death year? You're making things up again.
> *and* Ben Jonson, whereas, afaik, he never otherwise
> portrayed playwrights.
You sound like Crowley: "He could only have painted this if there are surviving
paintings of him having painted other playwrights." It's a stupid argument.
Eiffel built one tower of that type in Paris. His claim as architect of it isn't
diminished by the fact that there aren't 20 more lying around France.
> How convenient! Presumably a star also appeared
> in the east, or, perhaps more accurately, north-north-west.
No, Volker. It's simply a picture of 2 people who closely resemble Shakespeare
and Jonson apparently by an artist name Van Mander who lived during their time.
Nothing paranormal or fantastical about that atall. If you can't counter an
argument on substance you always revert to theatrical exclamation marks and
nonsense, like your Web Page on the Monument.
> > > 1) The painter's biography is pretty well understood (better than
> > > Shakspere's). There's no hint he was ever in England.
>
> > Perhaps if it's said enough times it might sink in: Absence of evidence is not
> > evidence of absence. What is known of van Mander is that he did travel outside of
> > his native country such as to Italy.
>
> Right, we know he traveled to Italy. There's nothing to suggest he
> traveled to England.
Absence of evidence that he did does not mean he did not. He travelled out of
his home country - he was quite capable of having visted England - there is
nothing preventing him having done so.
> You "true believers" would have us believe on no
> evidence that he traveled to England and left just this one picture of
> his travel, a picture that in no way shows anything that can be
> identified as English.
Nonsense. The image of Jonson virtually conclusively secures his identity. As
well as his image, his clothing is just the same as his portrait in the NPG. The
clothing of the Shakespeare character is identical to that worn by John Lowin,
in his painting that hangs in Dulwich College, who played Falstaff and also
acted in Jonson's plays. Shakespeare's hat is the same style as that worn by
James I in the painting of him that hangs in the NMM. The 2 characters are
wearing demonstrably contemporary English clothing.
> Many Renaissance artists visited Italy; England
> was not on the tour.
What are you talking about, Volker? You've had weeks to respond to this post and
still don't know your art. The diffusion of art throughout Western Europe was
accelerated by the travel of artists and the Dutch weren't exempt from this.
Hans Holbein was resident in England in the 1530s; the Dutch artist Hans Eworth
(who painted Queen Mary) followed him; Van Dyck made many paintings of the
English aristocracy including Charles I; Rubens was commissioned for many
English paintings; Isaac Oliver was also famed for portraits; Sir Peter Lely was
Dutch born and dominated the English scene until his death; English formal
portraiture and the arts generally were fuelled in part by the Netherlandish
immigrant artists of the late 16th. and early 17th. centuries; even Janssen who
built Shakespeare's monument was the son of the Dutch sculptor.
It's not surprising you come up with such batty theories and rejections of
reality when you fail to get your facts straight first.
> > > 2) His subjects appear to be Dutch by dress-- funny, he painted in
> > > Holland!
>
> > The image of Jonson in this painting, including his attire, correlates very
> > closely with the portrait of Jonson in the NPG.
>
> The Jonson in the NPG, painted 20 years later, looks younger than the
> "Jonson" in this painting.
First, your claim that their dress "appears" to be Dutch is incorrect:
contemporary paintings of people in Shakespeare's circle and others show the
clothing to be as worn by the English of the time. Secondly, whether the NPG
version "looks younger" is entirely subjective. The key is the likeness which is
extraordinarily close to warrant it justifiably being of Ben Jonson.
> > > 3) The "Shakespeare" figure appears quite young-- low 20s, maybe. The
> > > "Jonson" figure appears older. Jonson was 8 years younger than
> > > Shakspere. I can hear the Strats now-- "Jonson does not look older!"
>
> > > 4) There is nothing in the picture to identify the persons.
>
> > The writing paraphenalia is indicative of their occupations - a commonplace
> > means of identifying the subjects of paintings.
>
> That they use identical inkwells indicates that they are principals or
> employees of a single company-- not playwrights.
Come off it. What a laughable web you weave. They're writing implements
indicative of writers, not "employees of a single company".
> > > 5) There was no history of the subjects being identified as Shakespeare
> > > and Jonson before the late 19th c. Why would people have "forgotten"
> > > who those famous subjects were?
>
> > Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
>
> Absence of evidence can be significant where evidence is expected.
> Shakespeare (and Jonson) was well known in many circles since his
> lifetime. People who acquired the portrait would have known who it was,
> else they wouldn't have paid for it, and it would have always had some
> value based simply on the alleged subject. It's hard to imagine a
> reasonable scenario whereby the successive owners would have forgotten
> who the subject was.
I don't understand your point here. I'm not aware that successive owners did
"forget" who the painting depicts.
> > > He painted in the Netherlands. He painted Dutch people.
>
> > He painted religious and allegorical subjects, landscapes, nudes.
>
> And he never painted anything of England. This "Shakespeare-Jonson
> portrait" is just another romantic delusion of Stratfordians.
You don't know that he didn't. You started off on this thread saying van Mander
only painted Dutch people when he categorically did not. You then claimed the
dress of the subjects was Dutch when it categorically is not. You're now saying
he never painted anything of England when the facts of Dutch artists'
commissions, travel and residence in England in the late 16th./early 17th.
centuries completely contradicts that. As greats like Holbein, Van Dyck and
Rubens indisputably did visit England, live there and paint English subject
matter the prospect of van Mander having done the same is entirely plausible.
Everything you say contradicts the facts and again is driven by a desperate need
to will it not to be so. Your argument suffers again by your lack of honest
objectivity.
______________________________________________________________________
nda...@emirates.net.ae
bobgrum...@my-dejanews.com
admit that after all this time, I accepted what Multhopp said about
the clothes the figures in the painting were wearing--their not being
English clothes. That wouldn't have proved the painting wasn't of
Jonson and Shakespeare, but it certainly would have weakened its
likelihood. I'm still neutral about the whole thing.
As for Multhopp, I don't think he's a liar (Richard Kennedy is the
only outright liar I know of at HLAS), I think he's just without
scholarly integrity.
--Bob G.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own