The Bard's Appearance
W Shakespeare
Feb 16, 2004
Shakespeare Pictures
Among the many mysteries that surround Shakespeare and his life is the question of his physical appearance. No evidence exists today that his portrait was ever painted while he was alive; likewise, there is no known written description of him. Unless new material is discovered, we will never know for certain what he looked like.
Only two likenesses of Shakespeare have any claim to authenticity. Both, however, are problematic. The first image made of Shakespeare was erected in the Stratford Parish Church sometime between his death in 1616 and the printing of the First Folio in 1623. This was the memorial bust. We can put the date of the bust in this range because in the First Folio (1623) mention is made of the bust in a poem by Leonard Digges, which reads in part:
...that stone is rent,
And Time dissolves thy Stratford Monument,
Here we alive shall view thee soon. This book,
When brass and marble fade, shall make thee look
Fresh to all ages.
The bust would logically have the best claim to authenticity. However, it is highly doubtful that it looks anything like it did when first erected. We know nothing about its history, such as who commissioned it. More than once, the bust has been repaired or refurbished, starting in 1749 when a sum of money was raised at Stratford in order to "re-beautify" the monument. It is believed that the local craftsman in charge of the project took serious liberties and made major changes. It has been whitewashed and repainted many times, and there are accounts of it being taken down for the making of casts, sometimes incurring damage. Some have concluded that as a possible likeness of Shakespeare it is worthless. And virtually all are in agreement that the present-day bust is unflattering. A middle aged, stout Shakespeare looks out blankly. Eminent Shakespearean critic John Dover Wilson described it as a "self-satisfied pork butcher."
The best evidence that the present-day bust is not similar to the original is a drawing made in 1653 by William Dugdale, a Warwickshire antiquarian. Dugdale sketched the bust in his Antiquities of Warwickshire. When the sketch is placed next to the present-day bust, the differences are vast. The facial structures and expressions are totally unalike, and in the present-day bust Shakespeare holds a pen on a cushion, whereas in the sketch he clutches a sack.
The second image that has claim to authenticity is known as the Martin Droeshout portrait. The copper-engraved portrait appeared on the title-page of the First Folio in 1623, with the inscription "Martin Droeshout: sculpsit. London." On the opposite page, Ben Jonson's verses identify the portrait as Shakespeare. Droeshout was only 15 years old when Shakespeare died, making it unlikely that he ever saw him in real-life. Biographers have been united in their opinion of the engraving. "Ludicrous" and "Monstrous" are some terms that have been consistently applied. The author of Shakespeare's Lives, Sam Schoenbaum, wrote the following:
...a huge head, placed against a starched ruff, surmounts an absurdly small tunic with oversized shoulder-wings...Light comes from several directions simultaneously: it falls on the bulbous protuberance of forehead -- that 'horrible hydrocephalous development', as it has been called -- creates and odd crescent under the right eye...
The publishers of the First Folio apparently recognized the deficiencies of the portrait, and altered it twice while it went through press. They added a shadow and darkened it overall. Some critics have insisted that the portrait is actually an actor's mask, pointing to the dark line extending down from the earlobe as evidence. One critic has even suggested that the right arm is actually the back of a left arm, thus asserting the portrait has two left arms.
The suspicions aroused by the two portraits are further intensified by another image of Shakespeare that appeared in a pirated edition of his poems published in 1640, engraved by a William Marshall. The image is clearly based on the Droeshout, but it is reversed and most believe it to be a parody. Given the lines that appear below the image, which seem to poke fun at Ben Jonson's poem that appeared in the First Folio, it seems probably that some kind of flippancy is at hand. The lines below the picture read in part:
This Shadowe is renowned Shakespear's? Soule of th'age
The applause? delight? the wonder of the the Stage.
The lines seem to instruct us that there is more here than meets the eye. Further compounding the mystery is the publisher's name: John Benson, which is an inversion of Ben Johnson.
Ultimately, we are left with two possibilities of Shakespeare's appearance, both completely different, which practically dooms the search from the start. It is possible that a new portrait, engraving, or document will someday be uncovered behind an old wall, but until then, the debate remains a essential component of the Shakespeare lore.
KQKnave
other portraits of the time. See some examples in the second link
below.
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Elizabeth Weir
> Feb 16, 2004
> Shakespeare Pictures
>
> Among the many mysteries that surround Shakespeare and his life is the
> question of his physical appearance. No evidence exists today that his
> portrait was ever painted while he was alive
We have the Saunders portrait and we have a Shakespeare
author who was a Saunders.
The Saunders amateur portrait.
<http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/portra1.jpg>
A portrait painted ten or fifteen years later:
<http://www.sirbacon.org/graphics/redbeard.jpg>
Lady Alice Saunders Cooke was the mother of the scholar
Sir Anthony Cooke, grandfather to Sir Francis Bacon.
Bacon's aunt Elizabeth Cooke Hoby married Lord Russell,
who, with his brother the Duke of Bedford, was also descended
from Alice Saunder's father William Saunders of Bedbury,
Oxfordshire. Lord Russell was coincidently a cousin of the
Thomas Russell named in the Stratford tradesman's will.
The sitter in the Saunders portrait has little resemblance to the
Droeshout or other portraits said to be of the Stratford actor.
The handwriting on the label affixed to the back of the portrait
has been dated to the 18th, not 16th century which negates
Spielmann's transcription showing the Stratford tradesman's
age and birth date. The label is thought to have been made by
later Saunders family members.
In other words, the Strat claim that 'Shakespeare' means the
Stratford tradesman, is no longer secure.
Scientific analysis of tree rings, canvas and paint chips show the
painting to have been done about 1603.
In addition to the fact that the Saunders sitter physically
resembles Bacon, the sitter has Bacon's unusual genetics found
in less than 1% of the English population; red hair, very curly hair,
and dark hazel eyes. Hazel is the least common eye color in red
haired people (blue, brown, green, hazel) and only 1 of 16 red-haired
individuals have curly hair. The frequency of red hair in the English
population is about 4%. It's probably higher today than in the
Elizabethan era due to subsequent immigration from Ireland and
Scotland which have much higher percentages of red-haired
individuals.
The Saunders also matches Bacon's check list of features
described in various documents or seen in paintings; a light
orange beard, premature balding, a small mouth with a bowed
upper lip, very rosy cheeks and a straight nose with a slight
bulge at the tip.
Bacon is always said to have had a sweet expression.
His biographer James Spedding called Bacon 'sensitive
and modest.'
His friend Sir Tobie Mathew wrote that Bacon was 'a man most
sweet in his conversation and ways.'
Although the setting of the portrait is informal, the sitter is
wearing the expensive clothing of a courtier.
Hilliard's Unknown Man Holding A Hand From the Clouds
is wearing a similar doublet.
Hotson thought the symbolism of the painting represented
Mercury, the god of orators, and believed the subject to be
Shakespeare. Bacon was 'the greatest orator in many ages'
(Jonson) and was alluded to as 'Mercury.'
<http://www.tudor-portraits.com/UnknownMan8.jpg>
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Art Neuendorffer
> > Among the many mysteries that surround Shakespeare and his life
> > is the question of his physical appearance. No evidence exists
> > today that his portrait was ever painted while he was alive
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
> We have the Saunders portrait and we have
> a Shakespeare author who was a Saunders.
>
> The Saunders amateur portrait.
> <http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/portra1.jpg>
>
> A portrait painted ten or fifteen years later:
> <http://www.sirbacon.org/graphics/redbeard.jpg>
>
> Lady Alice Saunders Cooke was the mother of the scholar
> Sir Anthony Cooke, grandfather to Sir Francis Bacon.
> Bacon's aunt Elizabeth Cooke Hoby married Lord Russell,
> who, with his brother the Duke of Bedford, was also descended
> from Alice Saunder's father William Saunders of Bedbury,
> Oxfordshire. Lord Russell was coincidently a cousin of the
> Thomas Russell named in the Stratford tradesman's will.
>
> The sitter in the Saunders portrait has little resemblance to the
> Droeshout or other portraits said to be of the Stratford actor.
>
> The handwriting on the label affixed to the back of the portrait
> has been dated to the 18th, not 16th century which negates
> Spielmann's transcription showing the Stratford tradesman's
> age and birth date. The label is thought to have been made
> by later Saunders family members.
> Scientific analysis of tree rings, canvas and paint chips
> show the painting to have been done about 1603.
>
> In addition to the fact that the Saunders sitter physically
> resembles Bacon, the sitter has Bacon's unusual genetics found
> in less than 1% of the English population; red hair, very curly hair,
> and dark hazel eyes. Hazel is the least common eye color
> in red haired people (blue, brown, green, hazel) and
> only 1 of 16 red-haired individuals have curly hair.
> The frequency of red hair in the English population is about 4%.
>
> The Saunders also matches Bacon's check list of features
> described in various documents or seen in paintings; a light
> orange beard, premature balding, a small mouth with a bowed
> upper lip, very rosy cheeks and a straight nose with a slight
> bulge at the tip.
>
> Bacon is always said to have had a sweet expression.
> His biographer James Spedding called Bacon 'sensitive
> and modest.'
>
> His friend Sir Tobie Mathew wrote that Bacon was
>'a man most sweet in his conversation and ways.'
>
> Although the setting of the portrait is informal, the sitter
> is wearing the expensive clothing of a courtier.
>
> Hilliard's Unknown Man Holding A Hand From the Clouds
> is wearing a similar doublet.
>
> Hotson thought the symbolism of the painting represented
> Mercury, the god of orators, and believed the subject to be
> Shakespeare. Bacon was 'the greatest orator in many ages'
> (Jonson) and was alluded to as 'Mercury.'
>
> <http://www.tudor-portraits.com/UnknownMan8.jpg>
---------------------------------------------------------------
<<Of all of Ben Franklin's noms de plume, Mr. Saunders became
the best known. Richard Saunders was the "Richard" of Poor Richard's
Almanack. First published late in 1732, Poor Richard's Almanack is probably
Franklin's best-known publication. Richard Saunders' humorous sayings and
advice filled the pages of the almanac's twenty-six editions.>>
http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/l3_wit_name.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Art Neuendorffer (aneuendor...@comcast.net)
Subject: Re: David Kathman, Militant Stratfordian
Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
Date: 2003-03-20 20:18:47 PST
> Bob Grumman <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >The article mentions
> > Dave [Kathman] and the other researchers "reported on their search
> >of documents in England for traces of a Saunders who was a player
> >or drawer ('painter' or 'artist') around 1603," and supposed
> >to have painted the portrait--and came up empty.
"David Kathman" <dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
> Again, this isn't really accurate. It's true that none of us found
> a "smoking gun" that showed a John Saunders directly associated
> with the King's Men in 1603, but I, at least, reported some possible
> leads. The most promising of these is a man named John Saunders
> who was free of the Grocers along with John Heminges of the King's
> Men, and who came from the next town over in Worcestershire from
> the one where Heminges was born, about 3 miles away. The two men
> thus almost certainly knew each other,
> but whether this Saunders ever painted anything
> is something we can't determine without more evidence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He may not have painted UNDER THE NAME OF SAUNDERS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_Autobiography_ - Benjamin Franklin
<<In 1732, I first publish'd my Almanack,
UNDER THE NAME OF SAUNDERS;
it was continu'd by me about twenty-five years, commonly call'd
Poor Richard's Almanac. I endeavor'd to make it both entertaining
and useful, and it accordingly came to be in such demand,
that I reap'd considerable profit from it,>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/pc/orders/orders1.html
<<"In the beginning of King James his reigne there came out a book
UNDER THE NAME OF SANDERS with the story of the Nagg's head ordination.
This book made a great noyse and was wonderfully cry'd up by the Roman
Catholics as sapping the whole reformation at once by destroying the
Episcopacy. This book was showed to King James and upon his reading
of it it startled (sic) him.">>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Once upon a time, a very long time ago now, about last Friday,
Winnie-the-Pooh lived in a forest all by himself
UNDER THE NAME OF SANDERS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Winnie-The-Pooh
Description: A bear of VERy little brain.
Alias: Pooh Bear, Winnie-the-Pooh, and EDWARD BEAR.
Known to live "under the name of Sanders."
"It means he had the name (Sanders) over the door
in gold letters, and (Pooh) lived under it."
Honors: Knighted "Sir Pooh de Bear" by Christopher Robin.
Discoverer of the North Pole.
Address: 100 AKER WOOD West
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanders AIKWOOD (AKER WOOD?)
----------------------------------------------------------------
<<Whiles they wad hae heard the din
we were making in the VERy BOWELS o' the EARTH,
when SANDERS AIKWOOD, that was forester in thae days,
the father o' Ringan that now is, was gaun daundering
about the wood at e'en, to see after the Laird's game and
whiles he wad hae seen a glance o' the light frae the door
o' the cave, flaughtering against the hazels on the other bank;-
- and then siccan stories as Sanders had about the worricows and
gyre-carlins that haunted about>> - _The Antiquary_ Sir Walter Scott
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Elizabeth Weir
You've posted all this before but I still don't get it.
What does it have to do with the fact that Bacon was
a Saunders? The Saunders were English country gentry,
not international conspiratorialists.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
___________________
word count: 40
Art Neuendorffer
> What does it have to do with the fact that Bacon was
> a Saunders? The Saunders were English country gentry,
> not international conspiratorialists.
It must mean something.
Art
Elizabeth Weir
It means that some cousin painted Francis Bacon or
the painting was given to a relative at his death and
was passed to cousins just as Southampton's
Hatchlands Park portrait was passed laterally through
the family to Alec Cobbe who was not a descendant of
Southampton although his ancestor Honora Cobbe
was a relative of Lady Elizabeth Norton who was.
It doesn't mean that . . . wait a minute. Do you believe
the Saunders is Oxford, Art?
Elizabeth
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > What does it have to do with the fact that Bacon was
> > > a Saunders? The Saunders were English country gentry,
> > > not international conspiratorialists.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote
> > It must mean something.
"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
> It means that some cousin painted Francis Bacon or
> the painting was given to a relative at his death and
> was passed to cousins just as Southampton's
> Hatchlands Park portrait was passed laterally through
> the family to Alec Cobbe who was not a descendant of
> Southampton although his ancestor Honora Cobbe
> was a relative of Lady Elizabeth Norton who was.
>
> It doesn't mean that . . .
More likely:
"It means he had the name (Sanders) over the door
in gold letters, and (Pooh) lived under it."
> wait a minute. Do you believe the Saunders is Oxford, Art?
I believe that Pooh is Edward Bear.
Art Neuendorffer
Jim HS
> The handwriting on the label affixed to the back of the portrait
> has been dated to the 18th, not 16th century which negates
> Spielmann's transcription showing the Stratford tradesman's
> age and birth date. The label is thought to have been made by
> later Saunders family members.
Spielmann has been proved "wrong" on all of his assertions and conclusions on this painting.
The following is an extract from the Canadian Conservation Institute's analysis of the label:
"Finally, the paper label on the back of the painting was examined to determine whether or not it was contemporaneous with the painting. Analysis showed that it was rag paper made from linen fibres (rag paper was traditionally used in the 17th century; pulp paper is much more modern). Analysis also showed that the label was glued to the wood with starch paste. The last step was to date the paper. To obtain a sample that was large enough for radiocarbon dating, paper was cut along the sides of the label. This sample was submitted to Roelf Beukens at IsoTrace Laboratory, a laboratory affiliated with the University of Toronto that specializes in radiocarbon dating. He concluded that the paper could date anywhere between 1475 and 1640."
We do not contest that the label was affixed by a later Sanders. Such an action would prove prudent and in keeping with an important historical record. Also, the date of Shakespeare's death is recorded appropriately. Perhaps this aspect actually confirms The Bard's death death date by someone, a Sanders, who was closely associated with him.
Question: Why would someone from the 18th century source a piece of cloth from the latest date of manufacture, namely 1640. Did that 18th century someone have a crystal ball indicating that subsequent generations would have the scientific ability to radiocarbon examine this medium? I think not.
The Sanders painting of Shakespeare is the only painting of the Bard that has undergone extensive scientific testing. Every test has been passed and not one has cast aspersions on the painting or the family lore. Family genealogy research is ongoing and intense.
I agree that the painting does not resemble Droeshout’s engraving or Shakespeare’s Memorial Bust (they don’t even resemble each other). It also does not resemble any other purported painting of the Bard. “Perhaps” this is because this is the one and only painting done during Shakespeare’s lifetime, the one and only that he actually sat for.
That this is a painting of Shakespeare cannot ever be 100% proven. However, to date, no other painting has a stronger claim to authenticity.
Tom Reedy
message news:BC591227.152A%hale-s...@sympatico.ca...
<snip>
>
> I agree that the painting does not resemble Droeshout's engraving or
Shakespeare's Memorial > Bust (they don't even resemble each other).
If you reduce an image of the painting to the exact size of the Droeshout,
based on the distance between the eyes, one could be an exact overlay of the
other in terms of the facial features. Try it.
TR
LynnE
"Jim HS" <hale-s...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:BC591227.152A%hale-s...@sympatico.ca...
Elizabeth Weir
> >(W)ait a minute. Do you believe the Saunders is Oxford, Art?
>
> I believe that Pooh is Edward Bear.
Ok, you can have Edward Bear and Bacon will have the
Strachey letter.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Elizabeth Weir
>
> > The handwriting on the label affixed to the back of the portrait
> > has been dated to the 18th, not 16th century which negates
> > Spielmann's transcription showing the Stratford tradesman's
> > age and birth date. The label is thought to have been made by
> > later Saunders family members.
>
>
> In fact, the writing on the label is now illegible (faded with age)
> Spielmann has been proved "wrong" on all of his assertions and conclusions
> on this painting.
That's what I just said: '. . . negates Spielmann's transcription.'
See above.
> The following is an extract from the Canadian Conservation Institute's
> analysis of the label:
>
> "Finally, the paper label on the back of the painting was examined to
> determine whether or not it was contemporaneous with the painting
> Analysis showed that it was rag paper made from linen fibres (rag paper was
> traditionally used in the 17th century; pulp paper is much more modern).
That needs to be corrected because it suggests that rag paper
was not used before the 17th century.
Early paper was made of rags, and rags were hard to come by.
Ironically, when the disease called the Plague or Black Death
killed millions of people in Europe, tons of clothing and rags
became available - at just about the time the printing press
was invented
<http://www.tappi.org/paperu/all_about_paper/paperHistory.htm>
> Analysis also showed that the label was glued to the wood with starch paste.
> The last step was to date the paper. To obtain a sample that was large
> enough for radiocarbon dating, paper was cut along the sides of the label.
> This sample was submitted to Roelf Beukens at IsoTrace Laboratory, a
> laboratory affiliated with the University of Toronto that specializes in
> radiocarbon dating. He concluded that the paper could date anywhere between
> 1475 and 1640."
The date 1640 conflicts with forensic studies on the 18th c. date
of the diction and handwriting style:
While the rag linen paper on which the note was written is
consistent with the type of paper used in Shakespeare's day,
images of the remains of this note taken under ultraviolet light
show handwriting that is not consistent with either secretary or
italic scripts which would have been used by Shakespeare and his
contemporaries; instead, the note is in a round script, which did
not appear until the eighteenth century. Scholars like Donald
Foster, Alexander Legatt, and Anthony Dawson feel that this
evidence is corroborated by the diction of the note which suggests
an eighteenth century origin.
<http://web.uvic.ca/shakespeare/Annex/Articles/sanders.html>
> We do not contest that the label was affixed by a later Sanders.
My point exactly.
> Such an
> action would prove prudent and in keeping with an important historical
> record. Also, the date of Shakespeare's death is recorded appropriately.
What date of death? There's only one date on the painting itself--
Anno 1603. Everyone agrees that the Saunders believed that
'Shakespeare' was a member of the Saunders family but which
Shakespeare?
There was a serious stigma of print problem in the 16th century.
Bacon's own father was kicked off the Privy Counsel for a
two-year period for publishing a book under the name of his
law clerk and that was a serious work, not a play. Plays were
the lowest form of literature in the Elizabethan era. Nashe,
Greene, et al could put their names on plays but the Queen
cut Bacon's paycheck. She wouldn't stand for his putting his
name on a play.
And that's why we don't have the original plays--some of them
are badly corrupt because Bacon--unlike the Stratford actor--
could not put his works into print.
If the Stratford actor were the author we'd have fair copies
of all the plays in print. The money grubber who filed lawsuits
to collect a shilling wouldn't pass up a chance to make money
off the quartos of such wildly popular plays.
> Perhaps this aspect actually confirms The Bard's death death date by
> someone, a Sanders, who was closely associated with him.
There's no need to confirm the Bard's death. It's in every copy
of the Shakespeare works from 1623 forward.
> Question: Why would someone from the 18th century source a piece of cloth
> from the latest date of manufacture, namely 1640.
No one knows when the label was affixed. It may have been
a scrap of old paper found in the Saunder's attic or a much
later Saunders may have written over the original label which
was probably completely faded. That's the most likely explanation
and I can only wonder what words lurk beneath the surface.
The most likely explanation is that the Saunders didn't want
to admit Francis Bacon was in the Saunders' family because
of Bacon's 'fall' as Lord Chancellor and would rather claim
the Stratford actor.
The painting is of Bacon. It looks nothing like the Droeshout
or the Stratford effigy.
> someone have a crystal ball indicating that subsequent generations would
> have the scientific ability to radiocarbon examine this medium? I think not.
There is nothing suspicious about the scientific findings
and none of the findings eliminate Saunder's family member
Francis Bacon as the sitter.
> The Sanders painting of Shakespeare is the only painting of the Bard
There is no evidence that the Saunders is 'of the Bard.'
Bacon's rare genetics plus the fact that it has Bacon's, not the
'Bard's' check list of physical features and actually resembles
Bacon while it looks nothing like the Chandos or Droeshout or
Strat effigy PLUS the fact that Bacon is a Saunders pretty much
stacks the facts on Bacon's side.
> that
> has undergone extensive scientific testing. Every test has been passed and
> not one has cast aspersions on the painting or the family lore. Family
> genealogy research is ongoing and intense.
I'm in total agreement with family lore. The identity of the
precise Shakespeare is all that's in question.
> I agree that the painting does not resemble Droeshoutąs engraving or
> Shakespeareąs Memorial Bust (they donąt even resemble each other). It also
> does not resemble any other purported painting of the Bard. łPerhaps˛ this
> is because this is the one and only painting done during Shakespeareąs
> lifetime, the one and only that he actually sat for.
No. Greene or another rival poet described 'the Bard.'
Tawney or yellow hair and a Roman nose. That doesn't
describe the sitter.
> That this is a painting of Shakespeare cannot ever be 100% proven. However,
> to date, no other painting has a stronger claim to authenticity.
Bacon is a Saunders but more than that Bacon has the single
piece of evidence that proves Shakespeare authorship--the
Strachey letter.
Strats can't get it down to Stratford and into the hands of their
dealer in corn and hay.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Elizabeth Weir
> <snip>
> >
> > I agree that the painting does not resemble Droeshout's engraving or
> Shakespeare's Memorial > Bust (they don't even resemble each other).
>
> If you reduce an image of the painting to the exact size of the Droeshout,
> based on the distance between the eyes, one could be an exact overlay of the
> other in terms of the facial features. Try it.
The human face has standard ratios of proportion that every painter
knows, Reedy. It's no coincidence that the proportions match.
The gaunt-looking Droeshout looks nothing like the 'bladder'
as Twain put it.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
LynnE
"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:efbc3534.04021...@posting.google.com...
> Jim HS <hale-s...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:<BC591227.152A%hale-s...@sympatico.ca>...
> > Elizabeth Weir2/17/04 3:53 AMelizabeth we...@mail.com
> >
> > > The handwriting on the label affixed to the back of the portrait
> > > has been dated to the 18th, not 16th century which negates
> > > Spielmann's transcription showing the Stratford tradesman's
> > > age and birth date. The label is thought to have been made by
> > > later Saunders family members.
> >
> >
> > In fact, the writing on the label is now illegible (faded with age)
> > Spielmann has been proved "wrong" on all of his assertions and
conclusions
> > on this painting.
>
> That's what I just said: '. . . negates Spielmann's transcription.'
No, I don't think so. In fact Spielmann's transcription is the only thing
that links the portrait to Shakespeare and as such I believe the Sanders'
family accepts it.
The Toronto Star also published an article with regard to the handwriting,
language used, etc., and the author concluded that the writing on the tag
was not Tudor or Stuart.
>
> > We do not contest that the label was affixed by a later Sanders.
>
> My point exactly.
The point is, I believe, that the label could have been affixed by anybody.
The portrait does not appear to have a clear provenance, or chain of
ownership from Tudor times until now, unless Jim can tell us something
different.
>
> > Such an
> > action would prove prudent and in keeping with an important historical
> > record. Also, the date of Shakespeare's death is recorded appropriately.
>
> What date of death? There's only one date on the painting itself--
> Anno 1603. Everyone agrees that the Saunders believed that
> 'Shakespeare' was a member of the Saunders family but which
> Shakespeare?
Elizabeth, there was apparently a date of death on the tag at the back. That
was the first indication that the tag could not have been placed there when
the portrait was painted. And the Sanders don't believe, as far as I know,
that Shakespeare was a member of their family. They believe that he was
painted by a member of their family.
>
snip
>
> >
> > Question: Why would someone from the 18th century source a piece of
cloth
> > from the latest date of manufacture, namely 1640.
>
> No one knows when the label was affixed. It may have been
> a scrap of old paper found in the Saunder's attic or a much
> later Saunders may have written over the original label which
> was probably completely faded. That's the most likely explanation
> and I can only wonder what words lurk beneath the surface.
Or it could have been placed there by someone other than a Sanders family
member, wishing to create the illusion that the portrait was of Shakespeare.
This was apparently very common at the time the tag was likely affixed, and
the Sanders' family can only prove otherwise by showing a clear chain of
ownership. Perhaps Jim can do that.
>
> The most likely explanation is that the Saunders didn't want
> to admit Francis Bacon was in the Saunders' family because
> of Bacon's 'fall' as Lord Chancellor and would rather claim
> the Stratford actor.
>
> The painting is of Bacon. It looks nothing like the Droeshout
> or the Stratford effigy.
I'm fascinated, Elizabeth. What leads you to think the painting was of
Bacon? A family connection called Sanders or Saunders? David Kathman pointed
out at the symposium that this name was rather common at the time in certain
areas (around Warwickshire, I believe, but my memory is a bit hazy as I was
ill then). I'm sure David could fill us in more fully. And are we even sure
that the portrait was by a Mr. Sanders? Or is it family lore? Perhaps Jim
could answer that.
Best wishes,
LynnE
Art Neuendorffer
> I'm fascinated, Elizabeth. What leads you to think the painting was of
> Bacon? A family connection called Sanders or Saunders? David Kathman
pointed
> out at the symposium that this name was rather common at the time in
certain
> areas (around Warwickshire, I believe, but my memory is a bit hazy as I
was
> ill then). I'm sure David could fill us in more fully. And are we even
sure
> that the portrait was by a Mr. Sanders? Or is it family lore?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<SAUNDERS, SAUNDER & SAUNDRES, held lands in the shires of Northampton and
Buckingham until the reign of Charles II (1660-1685).
Today there are about 360,000 individuals in the US with the name Sanders or
Saunders and it ranks 71st as the most frequent surname (Smith being #1).>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THEORIES OF THE ORIGINS OF THE NAME SANDERS / SAUNDERS
by Ed Sanders
http://www.sandersweb.net/PDF/sandersname.htm
<<There are several theories about the origins of the Sanders/Saunders name.
We believe our Sanders/Saunders family originated in Scotland. Many of the
early Sanders then migrated to England and Ireland and eventually to
America. It is believed that their reasons for leaving the Isles were both
political and religious. History records show that Mary Queen of England
(aka "Bloody Mary") from 1553-1558, burned nearly 300 protestants at the
stake. Victims included blind men, pregnant women, and Church leaders.
The root origins of the name came from Alexander meaning "helper of mankind"
. In early European history some settlers had named their first male child
after Alexander The Great, and that it was shortened to names such as
Alisandre (French) and Zander (German) and then anglicized to
Sanders/Saunders by the early settlers in Scotland and England. Scottish
history indicates that Sanders/Saunders were septs of the MacDonald or
MacAlister clans1. A good source of information about Scottish clans and
septs can be found at: www.yourscottishname.com (heavy graphics, slow
loading).>>
"Saunders: Your Family Origin" By Reg Willis, Heraldic Artist
<<The ancient lords of Insbruck, in the Austrian Tyrol, are claimed as the
ancestors of this family. Sir Harloven Saunders, who came to England about
1370, traced his descent from Robert, Lord Insbruck, brother of Rodolph,
County of Hapsburgh and later Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire (1273-1291).
The family, whose name has been variously spelled as SAUNDERS, SAUNDER and
SAUNDRES, held lands in the shires of Northampton and Buckingham until the
reign of Charles II (1660-1685).
About this time, the family removed to Ireland, acquiring lands in the
County of Wicklow. The family later obtained properties in Kildare, Meath
and Dublin. In Ireland, members of the family were active in local
government, several of them holding the postion of magistrate for the County
of Wicklow.
In America, the name is found among the founders of the Massachusetts Bay
Colony. It is interesting to note that when Benjamin Franklin published his
famous "Poor Richard's Almanac", he used the pen-name of Richard Saunders.>>
"Extract From The Saunders Genealogy" By T. Homer Saunders
<<"In the earliest records of England we find the family of Alexander (spelt
Alisaundre, Alisandre) holding important positions as early as 1250. Count
Alexander, from France, settled in Wiltshire. His eldest son, John
Alisaundre, summoned to Parliament as first M.P. for Arundel, Surrey, 1291
[1296?], became the ancestor of the Sussex, Dorset & Surrey Saunderses. The
second son, Sir Robert Alysandre of Meltsham, Wilts, was the ancestor of the
Wiltshire, Warwickshire, Hertfordshire & Irish Saunderses. Younger sons were
Nicholas, William, Herman, Roger and Richard. Coat of Arms - Three bulls
heads" (see endnote on Coats Of Arms).>>
"The Saunders"
<<The name "Saunders" is from Saxon origin in the British Isles. The word
comes from the phrase, "belongs to Alexander." The shortened word,
"Alexander's" pronounced without the "x" became "Alesanders's." Throughout
the ages the word became Saunders, pronounced as "Sahnders" and finally
written, Saunders. The family may have come from western Scotland, but is
not a clan in the true sense of Scottish families. The family has no tartan
or Scottish plaid colors. In the early feudal ages, smaller families such as
the Saunders sought protection with the larger Scottish clans. The Saunders
family aligned itself with both the McDonnel (McDonald) and McAllister
families.
------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Elizabeth Weir
<snip>
> > > In fact, the writing on the label is now illegible (faded with age)
> > > Spielmann has been proved "wrong" on all of his assertions and
> conclusions
> > > on this painting.
> >
> > That's what I just said: '. . . negates Spielmann's transcription.'
>
> No, I don't think so. In fact Spielmann's transcription is the only thing
> that links the portrait to Shakespeare and as such I believe the Sanders'
> family accepts it.
Spielmann rejected both the painting and the label.
The painting was the subject of an article in The Connoisseur in 1909.
The author, a man named Spielmann, had transcribed the inscription on
the label that identified the man in the portrait as William
Shakespeare at the age of 39 years. But Spielmann did not accept that
the painting was authentic; he concluded it was a ?relatively modern?
copy or fake. Among other things, he declared that the date had been
added long after the portrait had been painted, that the costume had
been extensively retouched or overpainted, and that the paper of the
label was not that old.
<http://www.cci-icc.gc.ca/whats-new/portrait_e.shtml>
My argument is not dependent on Spielmann but on
three points: 1) scientific investigation by the Canadian
Conservation Institute (link above), 2) Saunders' family
tradition, and 3) the sitter's resemblance to Francis Bacon.
The painting will never be authenticated one way or another
because there's no documented provenance, just Saunder
family tradition.
I agree.
> > > We do not contest that the label was affixed by a later Sanders.
> >
> > My point exactly.
>
> The point is, I believe, that the label could have been affixed by anybody.
I agree. I agree with all the findings of the Canadian scientific
report.
> The portrait does not appear to have a clear provenance, or chain of
> ownership from Tudor times until now, unless Jim can tell us something
> different.
That's right. I'm just going on Saunders' family tradition
because that's all there is. I also categorically reject all
of Spielmann's conclusions because Spielmann, despite
Strat claims, was never an art expert. Spielmann was
a journalist, an editor of Punch magazine, edited a
series of popular books on the biographies of artists,
but had no qualifications to make technical judgements
about paintings.
> > > Such an
> > > action would prove prudent and in keeping with an important historical
> > > record. Also, the date of Shakespeare's death is recorded appropriately.
> >
> > What date of death? There's only one date on the painting itself--
> > Anno 1603. Everyone agrees that the Saunders believed that
> > 'Shakespeare' was a member of the Saunders family but which
> > Shakespeare?
>
> Elizabeth, there was apparently a date of death on the tag at the back.
The date of death was the fifth line on the label. I like Dr. Altrocci's
remark (Altrocci is the Oxfordian whose 'Roscio'
marginalia in Camden's Remaines I successfully defended in
HLAS) that 'if the label was supposed to have been made by
the artist in 1603, how did the label-maker know that
Shakespeare was going to die in 1616?'
The only authenticated date is the 'Ano 1603' painted by the
artist on the board itself which has been subjected to
carbon dating--a tiny chip was removed with an exacto knife
and run through the . . . carbon dater.
> That
> was the first indication that the tag could not have been placed there when
> the portrait was painted. And the Sanders don't believe, as far as I know,
> that Shakespeare was a member of their family. They believe that he was
> painted by a member of their family.
That's true but that doesn't mean that a Saunders didn't
paint a cousin. Bacon's nephew Sir Matthew Bacon was
a gifted amateur painter and painted members of his family.
Bacon was rather more gifted than the Saunder's painter.
I'm not offering an argument that the painting is Bacon
as proof of Shakespeare authorship. Bacon has the
Holy Grail of Shakespeare authorship, the Strachey letter
plus the only existing authorship documents in the dispute.
I'm just saying that, for what it's worth, if the Saunders family
tradition means anything, the portrait is Francis Bacon,
not William Shakespere.
> >
> snip
> >
> > >
> > > Question: Why would someone from the 18th century source a piece of
> cloth
> > > from the latest date of manufacture, namely 1640.
> >
> > No one knows when the label was affixed. It may have been
> > a scrap of old paper found in the Saunder's attic or a much
> > later Saunders may have written over the original label which
> > was probably completely faded. That's the most likely explanation
> > and I can only wonder what words lurk beneath the surface.
>
> Or it could have been placed there by someone other than a Sanders family
> member, wishing to create the illusion that the portrait was of Shakespeare.
> This was apparently very common at the time the tag was likely affixed, and
> the Sanders' family can only prove otherwise by showing a clear chain of
> ownership. Perhaps Jim can do that.
> >
> > The most likely explanation is that the Saunders didn't want
> > to admit Francis Bacon was in the Saunders' family because
> > of Bacon's 'fall' as Lord Chancellor and would rather claim
> > the Stratford actor.
> >
> > The painting is of Bacon. It looks nothing like the Droeshout
> > or the Stratford effigy.
>
> I'm fascinated, Elizabeth. What leads you to think the painting was of
> Bacon?
I posted a brief argument with links in post #3 in this thread (I wish
Google links would work but they get tangled up in the code).
> A family connection called Sanders or Saunders? David Kathman pointed
> out at the symposium that this name was rather common at the time in certain
> areas (around Warwickshire, I believe, but my memory is a bit hazy as I was
> ill then).
The Saunders with the portrait lived in Worcester but I'm
sure there were Saunders and Sanders all over England.
I'm sure David could fill us in more fully. And are we even sure
> that the portrait was by a Mr. Sanders? Or is it family lore? Perhaps Jim
> could answer that.
As I said, if the Saunders family tradition is accurate, Bacon is
the only author with a connection to the name 'Saunders.'
Since the painting resembles Bacon, it may well be just a painting
of Bacon. There are surpisingly few Elizabethan portraits extant--
only 2000 or so--and the date of the portrait and the age of the
sitter are within range. One way or another that's a sensitive,
highly intelligent face.
Altrocci said that he was going to identify the subject of the
Saunders portrait but I can't find his article on any Oxfordian
website.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
LynnE
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:<qgfZb.11077$Cd6.7...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> <snip>
> > > > In fact, the writing on the label is now illegible (faded with age)
> > > > Spielmann has been proved "wrong" on all of his assertions and
> > conclusions
> > > > on this painting.
> > >
> > > That's what I just said: '. . . negates Spielmann's transcription.'
> >
> > No, I don't think so. In fact Spielmann's transcription is the only
thing
> > that links the portrait to Shakespeare and as such I believe the
Sanders'
> > family accepts it.
>
> Spielmann rejected both the painting and the label.
Yes, he rejected both the painting and the label as not of the period. The
painting does appear to be of the period. All I'm saying is that the
Sanders' family does not appear to have rejected Spielmann's *transcription
of the label*, as it is the only thing, now the label is illegible, that
links the portrait to Shakespeare. The transcription is likely correct.
However, the label itself was clearly added after the portrait was painted
(perhaps much, much later),and so is no real proof of anything.
>
> The painting was the subject of an article in The Connoisseur in
1909.
> The author, a man named Spielmann, had transcribed the inscription
on
> the label that identified the man in the portrait as
William
> Shakespeare at the age of 39 years. But Spielmann did not accept
that
> the painting was authentic; he concluded it was a ?relatively
modern?
> copy or fake. Among other things, he declared that the date had
been
> added long after the portrait had been painted, that the costume
had
> been extensively retouched or overpainted, and that the paper of
the
> label was not that old.
>
> <http://www.cci-icc.gc.ca/whats-new/portrait_e.shtml>
>
> My argument is not dependent on Spielmann but on
> three points: 1) scientific investigation by the Canadian
> Conservation Institute (link above), 2) Saunders' family
> tradition, and 3) the sitter's resemblance to Francis Bacon.
1) Scientific investigation stops short of authenticating the painting as
that of Shakeseare or anyone else, as you know.
2) The Sanders' family tradition means very little unless the Saunders'
family can back up their tradition with an unbroken chain of ownership going
back to 1603.
3) I'm sure others have mentioned this on hlas, and have been ridiculed, but
when I saw the X-ray of the portrait at the ROM, I (like others) was
immediately struck by its resemblance to a Fletcher engraving. The
resemblance was so close, in fact, as to be uncanny, although the portrait
itself looks nothing like the engraving. I was also interested in what a
expert at the symposium had to say: that many such paintings were painted by
two artists, one for the head and one for the body. There was a kind of
"factory" turn out of such portraits for the middle classes, and that's why
several paintings may have similar clothing, etc. I would have thought that
Bacon, as a rather high born gentleman, could afford to have a decent
portrait executed of himself.
But he does appear to have been correct with regard to the transcription on
the label, or at least the Sanders' family and others are accepting his
findings, or there would be nothing to discuss. That the label is likely
spurious is another matter altogether.
>
> > > > Such an
> > > > action would prove prudent and in keeping with an important
historical
> > > > record. Also, the date of Shakespeare's death is recorded
appropriately.
> > >
> > > What date of death? There's only one date on the painting itself--
> > > Anno 1603. Everyone agrees that the Saunders believed that
> > > 'Shakespeare' was a member of the Saunders family but which
> > > Shakespeare?
> >
> > Elizabeth, there was apparently a date of death on the tag at the back.
>
> The date of death was the fifth line on the label. I like Dr. Altrocci's
> remark (Altrocci is the Oxfordian whose 'Roscio'
> marginalia in Camden's Remaines I successfully defended in
> HLAS) that 'if the label was supposed to have been made by
> the artist in 1603, how did the label-maker know that
> Shakespeare was going to die in 1616?'
Yes, many of us pointed this out when news of the painting first surfaced in
the Globe and Mail. I, in fact, called Stephanie Nolen the next day to tell
her so.
>
> The only authenticated date is the 'Ano 1603' painted by the
> artist on the board itself which has been subjected to
> carbon dating--a tiny chip was removed with an exacto knife
> and run through the . . . carbon dater.
Yes. Not only that, but the 3 is incomplete, which appears to show that some
of the picture is missing. This becomes much more obvious when one looks at
it, as the sitter is not centred. My guess, and that of some others, is that
there may have been more identifying writing on the piece of the panel that
is missing, or there might even have been a third panel with material on it.
The portrait looks cropped, and at one point I was even told by an expert
that the bottom of the portrait is also missing, although this does not, as
far as I remember, appear in the report, and so I cannot attest to it's
being true.
>
> > That
> > was the first indication that the tag could not have been placed there
when
> > the portrait was painted. And the Sanders don't believe, as far as I
know,
> > that Shakespeare was a member of their family. They believe that he was
> > painted by a member of their family.
>
> That's true but that doesn't mean that a Saunders didn't
> paint a cousin. Bacon's nephew Sir Matthew Bacon was
> a gifted amateur painter and painted members of his family.
> Bacon was rather more gifted than the Saunder's painter.
But Elizabeth, as far as I know we don't even have proof that it was a
Sanders who painted the portrait. Or a Bacon. Or anyone else. Given what the
expert said at the symposium, it could have been one of any number of
artists working in a kind of factory environment. The body would have
already been painted, and the head was added by the second artist to match
the sitter. This has not been proven, however.
>
> I'm not offering an argument that the painting is Bacon
> as proof of Shakespeare authorship. Bacon has the
> Holy Grail of Shakespeare authorship, the Strachey letter
> plus the only existing authorship documents in the dispute.
>
> I'm just saying that, for what it's worth, if the Saunders family
> tradition means anything, the portrait is Francis Bacon,
> not William Shakespere.
I think the portrait could have been of any young attractive man of the
time. If I had to tie it down, I'd tie it to Fletcher, but this would only
be a wild guess. It wasn't necessarily an actor or playwright at all. It was
almost certainly not a member of the nobility or an aristocrat, judging by
the kind of portrait it is.
>
> > >
snip
> Altrocci said that he was going to identify the subject of the
> Saunders portrait but I can't find his article on any Oxfordian
> website.
No, I don't remember him doing so. But if he was going to identify the
subject (and I also have a memory of his writing this), my guess is that he
would identify the sitter as Fletcher. Not that Dr. Altrocchi's
identification would necessarily be any more accurate than anybody else's.
Best wishes,
Lynne
>
> Best regards,
>
> Elizabeth
LynnE
>I cannot attest to it's
>being true.
Oops, that's "its." And me an English teacher, too.
LynnE
Xr...@pxcr8.pxcr.com
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, LynnE wrote:
>
> "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:efbc3534.04022...@posting.google.com...
> > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:<qgfZb.11077$Cd6.7...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> > <snip>
> > > > > In fact, the writing on the label is now illegible (faded with age)
> > > > > Spielmann has been proved "wrong" on all of his assertions and
> > > conclusions
> > > > > on this painting.
> > > >
> > > > That's what I just said: '. . . negates Spielmann's transcription.'
> > >
> > > No, I don't think so. In fact Spielmann's transcription is the only
> thing
> > > that links the portrait to Shakespeare and as such I believe the
> Sanders'
> > > family accepts it.
> >
> > Spielmann rejected both the painting and the label.
>
> Yes, he rejected both the painting and the label as not of the period. The
> painting does appear to be of the period. All I'm saying is that the
> Sanders' family does not appear to have rejected Spielmann's *transcription
> of the label*, as it is the only thing, now the label is illegible, that
> links the portrait to Shakespeare. The transcription is likely correct.
> However, the label itself was clearly added after the portrait was painted
> (perhaps much, much later),and so is no real proof of anything.
As I recall, if one looks at the label in infrared (or was
it ultraviolet?), it is still readable, so the transcription
is almost certainly correct. The phrase "likeness taken"
is said to probably date the label to the 18th century. On
the other hand, 18th century folks didn't have a clue that
someday paper could be carbon dated.
Rob
Art Neuendorffer
> > I cannot attest to it's being true.
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> Oops, that's "its." And me an English teacher, too.
Shouldn't that be "it" or "it as"?
----------------------------------------------
King Lear Act 1, Scene 1
KENT: I cannot wish the fault undone,
the issue of it being so proper.
----------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
LynnE
<Xr...@pXcr8.pXcr.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.A41.4.44.040220...@pcr8.pcr.com...
You may well be right about the label still being readable in certain
circumstances, Rob. I'm not sure, and can't find it in the report from the C
anadian Conservation Institute. I'll look in the Shakespeare Matters article
to see if it is mentioned, or perhaps Jim will tell us. Like you, I read
that "likeness taken" is not a Tudor or Stuart term.
Best wishes,
Lynne
>
> Rob
>
>
LynnE
> > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
>
> > > I cannot attest to it's being true.
>
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
>
> > Oops, that's "its." And me an English teacher, too.
>
> Shouldn't that be "it" or "it as"?
Don't confuse me further, Art. I'm fit to be tied already. ;)
Lynn'E
David L. Webb
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:aICdnRQyO4_...@comcast.com...
> > > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> >
> > > > I cannot attest to it's being true.
> > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> >
> > > Oops, that's "its." And me an English teacher, too.
The Rev. Professor Dr. Daniel Wright, Ph.D. wrote:
I suppose that it might well indeed seem a mystery to someone
who obviously doesn't know the difference between "it's" and
"its."
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=365A5CDE.77A592E1%40tleport.com&oe=
UTF-8&output=gplain>.
> > Shouldn't that be "it" or "it as"?
> Don't confuse me further, Art. I'm fit to be tied already. ;)
Much less so than some of your anti-Stratfordian coreligionists, many
of whom would be *far* better candidates for involuntary restraint were
it not that their obsessional pursuits (haranguing sculptural simulacra,
hallucinating theatrical wigs, etc.) are so innocuous.
LynnE
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
news:david.l.webb-D76B...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu...
> In article <ufwZb.8509$w65.7...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:aICdnRQyO4_...@comcast.com...
> > > > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> > >
> > > > > I cannot attest to it's being true.
>
> > > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> > >
> > > > Oops, that's "its." And me an English teacher, too.
>
> The Rev. Professor Dr. Daniel Wright, Ph.D. wrote:
>
> I suppose that it might well indeed seem a mystery to someone
> who obviously doesn't know the difference between "it's" and
> "its."
Oh dear. Now I'll be in Dan's bad books as well.
>
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=365A5CDE.77A592E1%40tleport.com&oe=
> UTF-8&output=gplain>.
>
> > > Shouldn't that be "it" or "it as"?
>
> > Don't confuse me further, Art. I'm fit to be tied already. ;)
>
> Much less so than some of your anti-Stratfordian coreligionists, many
> of whom would be *far* better candidates for involuntary restraint were
> it not that their obsessional pursuits (haranguing sculptural simulacra,
> hallucinating theatrical wigs, etc.) are so innocuous.
I'll take that as a compliment, David. I *think* it's a compliment. It is a
compliment, isn't it? :(
Art Neuendorffer
> > > > Shouldn't that be "it" or "it as"?
> > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > Don't confuse me further, Art. I'm fit to be tied already. ;)
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > Much less so than some of your anti-Stratfordian coreligionists, many
> > of whom would be *far* better candidates for involuntary restraint were
> > it not that their obsessional pursuits (haranguing sculptural simulacra,
> > hallucinating theatrical wigs, etc.) are so innocuous.
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> I'll take that as a compliment, David. I *think* it's a compliment.
> It is a compliment, isn't it? :(
--------------------------------------------------
Twelfth Night Act 3, Scene 1
OLIVIA: 'Twas nEVER merry world
Since lowly feigning was call'd compliment.
--------------------------------------------------
As You Like It Act 2, Scene 5
JAQUES . . . that they call compliment is like the encounter
of two dog-apes, and when a man thanks me heartily,
methinks I have given him a penny and he renders me
the beggarly thanks.
--------------------------------------------------
King Lear Act 5, Scene 3
The time will not allow the compliment
Which VERy manners urges.
----------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
[George Mason has approved the preceding post]
Elizabeth Weir
> "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:efbc3534.04022...@posting.google.com...
> > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:<qgfZb.11077$Cd6.7...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> > <snip>
>
> Yes, he rejected both the painting and the label as not of the period. The
> painting does appear to be of the period.
I agree.
> All I'm saying is that the
> Sanders' family does not appear to have rejected Spielmann's *transcription
> of the label*, as it is the only thing, now the label is illegible, that
> links the portrait to Shakespeare.
I suspect that by now expert evidence has persuaded the Saunders
that Spielmann's transcription was not written by the artist.
That's a different issue from the Saunders family claim that
Shakespeare's portrait was handed down generation to generaton
by the family.
> The transcription is likely correct.
I'm stalled on the fact that Spielmann could read the
wording in 1909 yet it was 'too illegible' to read with
high tech equipment in 2001.
I'm thinking that the original writing on the label was bleached
out by the modern writer and then the Shakespeare vita
was added. I don't want to call this 'forgery' because we can't
be sure of the motive.
> However, the label itself was clearly added after the portrait was painted
> (perhaps much, much later),and so is no real proof of anything.
The label issue has two parts, the label itself and the writing.
The rag paper label is from the same era (pre-1642) as the
wood board of the painting (post-1595).
The writing is quite modern, probably 19th century. Experts
think it is 18th century at the earliest.
So what we have is an old label with new writing.
My question is, what did the old writing say?
<snip>
> > My argument is not dependent on Spielmann but on
> > three points: 1) scientific investigation by the Canadian
> > Conservation Institute (link above), 2) Saunders' family
> > tradition, and 3) the sitter's resemblance to Francis Bacon.
>
> 1) Scientific investigation stops short of authenticating the painting as
> that of Shakeseare or anyone else, as you know.
I wouldn't bother trying to make a circumstantial case for
Francis Bacon if the portrait were authenticated to be
Shakespeare's.
I think the experts have probably given up trying to authenticate
it as Shakespeare's.
> 2) The Sanders' family tradition means very little unless the Saunders'
> family can back up their tradition with an unbroken chain of ownership going
> back to 1603.
That's correct. The Saunders don't have anything like
an authentic provenance for the portrait. Just 'family
tradition.'
I'm making a circumstantial case based on Bacon's physical
resemblance to the Saunder's sitter, his Saunders family
connections, his rare-in-the-English-population genetics
which match those same unusual genetics of the sitter,
the aristocratic clothing and stylish hair cut (that puff in the
front of the sitter's hair is shown in Southampton and Essex'
portraits) to show that Bacon has a better claim to the
Saunders portrait than the Stratford candidate.
Cases are often won on circumstantial evidence when direct
evidence is not available.
> 3) I'm sure others have mentioned this on hlas, and have been ridiculed, but
> when I saw the X-ray of the portrait at the ROM, I (like others) was
> immediately struck by its resemblance to a Fletcher engraving. The
> resemblance was so close, in fact, as to be uncanny, although the portrait
> itself looks nothing like the engraving.
Baker posted on that point but I don't see any resemblance
to Fletcher's engraving.
If you look at the forehead just under the laurel wreath,
Fletcher has dark curly hair. He's not balding. Fletcher also
has a Roman arch in his nose and a relatively narrow forehead.
That's a much more defined, muscular face. The Saunders
sitter has a softer face.
<http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/Fletcher.JPG>
The Saunder's sitter has a sort of 'retrousse' nose. Straight
bridge but turned up a little on the tip. Like the sitter Bacon
was said to have a very broad forehead which shows even
in his early Hilliard.
<http://www.sirbacon.org/graphics/younghbacon.gif>
The 'x-ray portrait' is probably the painter's 'sketch.' A painter
will take a thin wash of turpentine and a little paint and 'dry brush'
a sketch of the subject on the canvas before commencing the
actual painting. Or it may have been sketched in pencil. Very high
quality pencils were available in England in 1600.
I matched the x-ray to the portrait and the finished portrait is
painted feature for feature directly over the sketch ao it isn't
a 'different head.'
<http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/Fletcher.JPG>
A second artist came in to do the final version which could mean
that it was painted in a 'portrait factory' as you say, or perhaps
the assistant was sent ahead to do the sketch.
The Saunders was at least 'finished from life' because no painter
can get that kind of emotional nuance into the painting unless
they work from life. It's similar to what postmodern scholars
call the 'aura of the manuscript.' That almost palpable difference
between a portrait and a photography or a manuscript and a
printed book.
Overpainting is not at all uncommon in that era. There was no
preservationist movement in the 16th century. One seasoned
board was as good as another.
> expert at the symposium had to say: that many such paintings were painted by
> two artists, one for the head and one for the body.
No doubt about it.
> There was a kind of
> "factory" turn out of such portraits for the middle classes, and that's why
> several paintings may have similar clothing, etc. I would have thought that
> Bacon, as a rather high born gentleman, could afford to have a decent
> portrait executed of himself.
There is actually a factory portrait of Shakespeare, the 'Van Mander
Chess Portrait.'
<http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/portra2.jpg>
The portrait is not about chess but commemorates Shakespeare's
victory over Jonson in the War of the Theatres. The Van Mander
is authenticated to be painted about the same date as the Saunders
but was undoubtedly produced in a portrait factory, experts
believe in Flanders. This isn't the greatest technique so it's probably
the factory copy of Van Mander's original. Here neither Jonson nor
Shakespeare have been painted from life, but probably from sketches
or engravings sent over to Flanders.
Since the War of the Theatres was one of the big events of
the Elizabethan era, I don't doubt the painting was copied
and recopied many times.
As to poverty, Bacon was jailed for debt again in 1599
because he had to back away from Essex' treasonous
ad hoc foreign policy.
Bacon was not precisley 'high born.' Lady Anne Bacon
left three letters (extant) in which she calls Bacon 'my ward,
not my son.' Bacon was a bastard and rumors followed
him around all his life. Coke humiliated Bacon by rising in
Parliament to call him something equivalent to the 'Queene's
bastard' in Latin. That was probably the gist of the rumor.
<snip>
> > That's right. I'm just going on Saunders' family tradition
> > because that's all there is. I also categorically reject all
> > of Spielmann's conclusions because Spielmann, despite
> > Strat claims, was never an art expert. Spielmann was
> > a journalist, an editor of Punch magazine, edited a
> > series of popular books on the biographies of artists,
> > but had no qualifications to make technical judgements
> > about paintings.
>
> But he does appear to have been correct with regard to the transcription on
> the label, or at least the Sanders' family and others are accepting his
> findings, or there would be nothing to discuss. That the label is likely
> spurious is another matter altogether.
I don't see it quite that way. I think the Saunders have accepted
the fact that the writing on the label doesn't date back to 1603
but they haven't abandoned the Saunders family tradition that
the painting is of 'Shakespeare.'
I still want to know how a label could fade so much from 1909
to 2002 that it can't be read with today's technology.
> > > > > Such an
> > > > > action would prove prudent and in keeping with an important
> historical
> > > > > record. Also, the date of Shakespeare's death is recorded
> appropriately.
> > > >
> > > > What date of death? There's only one date on the painting itself--
> > > > Anno 1603. Everyone agrees that the Saunders believed that
> > > > 'Shakespeare' was a member of the Saunders family but which
> > > > Shakespeare?
> > >
> > > Elizabeth, there was apparently a date of death on the tag at the back.
> >
> > The date of death was the fifth line on the label. I like Dr. Altrocci's
> > remark (Altrocci is the Oxfordian whose 'Roscio'
> > marginalia in Camden's Remaines I successfully defended in
> > HLAS) that 'if the label was supposed to have been made by
> > the artist in 1603, how did the label-maker know that
> > Shakespeare was going to die in 1616?'
>
> Yes, many of us pointed this out when news of the painting first surfaced in
> the Globe and Mail. I, in fact, called Stephanie Nolen the next day to tell
> her so.
Oxfordians good at getting out there.
> > The only authenticated date is the 'Ano 1603' painted by the
> > artist on the board itself which has been subjected to
> > carbon dating--a tiny chip was removed with an exacto knife
> > and run through the . . . carbon dater.
>
> Yes. Not only that, but the 3 is incomplete, which appears to show that some
> of the picture is missing.
That also caught my attention and I wondered if it was just a piece of
board that had broken off along the grain or whether it was meant
to conceal something.
-- I'm just back from looking at the Saunders in an image editor
and you are right. The sitter is so far off center it looks like about
20-25% of the portrait is missing off the right side.
> This becomes much more obvious when one looks at
> it, as the sitter is not centred.
The sitter is definitely not centered.
> My guess, and that of some others, is that
> there may have been more identifying writing on the piece of the panel that
> is missing, or there might even have been a third panel with material on it.
I don't doubt your're right. If it were broken at some point,
why wasn't it repaired? Wood is very easy to repair.
> The portrait looks cropped, and at one point I was even told by an expert
> that the bottom of the portrait is also missing, although this does not, as
> far as I remember, appear in the report, and so I cannot attest to it's
> being true.
You're more on top of this than the press. I didn't read this
in any of the articles I found.
> > > That
> > > was the first indication that the tag could not have been placed there
> when
> > > the portrait was painted. And the Sanders don't believe, as far as I
> know,
> > > that Shakespeare was a member of their family. They believe that he was
> > > painted by a member of their family.
> >
> > That's true but that doesn't mean that a Saunders didn't
> > paint a cousin. Bacon's nephew Sir Matthew Bacon was
> > a gifted amateur painter and painted members of his family.
> > Bacon was rather more gifted than the Saunder's painter.
>
> But Elizabeth, as far as I know we don't even have proof that it was a
> Sanders who painted the portrait. Or a Bacon. Or anyone else. Given what the
> expert said at the symposium, it could have been one of any number of
> artists working in a kind of factory environment. The body would have
> already been painted, and the head was added by the second artist to match
> the sitter. This has not been proven, however.
Yes to all the above but you've just described a painting without a
hypothesis to explain it.
It doesn't look like a factory painting to me. It's too representative
of good amateur work of the English style.
> > I'm not offering an argument that the painting is Bacon
> > as proof of Shakespeare authorship. Bacon has the
> > Holy Grail of Shakespeare authorship, the Strachey letter
> > plus the only existing authorship documents in the dispute.
> >
> > I'm just saying that, for what it's worth, if the Saunders family
> > tradition means anything, the portrait is Francis Bacon,
> > not William Shakespere.
>
> I think the portrait could have been of any young attractive man of the
> time. If I had to tie it down, I'd tie it to Fletcher, but this would only
> be a wild guess.
The National Gallery has a portrait of Fletcher but it's not on display.
> It wasn't necessarily an actor or playwright at all. It was
> almost certainly not a member of the nobility or an aristocrat, judging by
> the kind of portrait it is.
When the Saunders story came out in the NY Times there
was a lengthy debate in HLAS on the portrait. The consensus
seemed to be that the sitter was wearing expensive clothes.
> > > >
> snip
> > Altrocci said that he was going to identify the subject of the
> > Saunders portrait but I can't find his article on any Oxfordian
> > website.
>
> No, I don't remember him doing so. But if he was going to identify the
> subject (and I also have a memory of his writing this), my guess is that he
> would identify the sitter as Fletcher. Not that Dr. Altrocchi's
> identification would necessarily be any more accurate than anybody else's.
If the portrait is not of William Shakespeare, the question is
then, "who is it?" I will now attempt to answer that question,
using material from Nolen's book and from other sources. (See
"Probable identity of Sanders portrait" beginning on page 26.)
Sort of a cliff hanger. I wanted to know more.
<http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/altrocchisandersrev.htm>
I don't think were' too far from agreement on most of the factual
points.
Thanks and best regards,
Elizabeth
LynnE
"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:efbc3534.04022...@posting.google.com...
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:<CDpZb.15291$d34.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> > "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:efbc3534.04022...@posting.google.com...
> > > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:<qgfZb.11077$Cd6.7...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> > > <snip>
> > > Spielmann rejected both the painting and the label.
> >
> > Yes, he rejected both the painting and the label as not of the period.
The
> > painting does appear to be of the period.
>
> I agree.
>
> > All I'm saying is that the
> > Sanders' family does not appear to have rejected Spielmann's
*transcription
> > of the label*, as it is the only thing, now the label is illegible, that
> > links the portrait to Shakespeare.
>
> I suspect that by now expert evidence has persuaded the Saunders
> that Spielmann's transcription was not written by the artist.
Yes, I believe that is true. But it still says it is of Shakespeare, and
they believe that.
>
> That's a different issue from the Saunders family claim that
> Shakespeare's portrait was handed down generation to generaton
> by the family.
>
> > The transcription is likely correct.
>
> I'm stalled on the fact that Spielmann could read the
> wording in 1909 yet it was 'too illegible' to read with
> high tech equipment in 2001.
Yes, I'm having problems with that too. Unless Rob is right, and it's now
readable with high-tech equipment. Even so, it seems strange that Spielmann
could read what now cannot be read without special aids, unless it was a
fast-fading ink which had been put there quite recently. I would defer to
the family on this. They must know, although I believe (again I'm not sure)
that the ink itself wasn't tested.
>
> I'm thinking that the original writing on the label was bleached
> out by the modern writer and then the Shakespeare vita
> was added. I don't want to call this 'forgery' because we can't
> be sure of the motive.
One of the experts suggested that there was a lot of old paper around, at
the beginnings and ends of books, for example, and it could have been used
to make a label and print the identifying material on. This was quite common
apparently, at a time when interest in Shakespeare was growing, and everyone
was looking for an authentic likeness. I wouldn't want to say this was a
deliberate forgery either, although one has to take the suggestion into
account when one also looks at the right side of the painting and
acknowledges there might originally been other identifiers there, such as
the age or name of the sitter. Whether or not it is a painting which was
forged to look like it was of Shakespeare, however, is certainly no
reflection on the family, who appear to believe in good faith that they may
have a Shakespeare original on their hands.
>
> > However, the label itself was clearly added after the portrait was
painted
> > (perhaps much, much later),and so is no real proof of anything.
>
> The label issue has two parts, the label itself and the writing.
Yes, and the glue that was used to fix the label to the painting. As far as
I know, this wasn't tested either. But perhaps the family has done some more
work on the portrait.
>
> The rag paper label is from the same era (pre-1642) as the
> wood board of the painting (post-1595).
Yes, somewhere around there. I believe the wood of the painting is no
earlier than 1475.
>
> The writing is quite modern, probably 19th century. Experts
> think it is 18th century at the earliest.
Yes, some do.
>
> So what we have is an old label with new writing.
Well, at least, a label made from old paper with newer writing.
>
> My question is, what did the old writing say?
There may not have been any old writing.
I can't speak to that, as I don't have the expertise to do so. I don't have
much expertise on the Sanders either, but have seen the painting twice,
attended the symposium, and spoken to several of the experts about it.
>
> Cases are often won on circumstantial evidence when direct
> evidence is not available.
>
> > 3) I'm sure others have mentioned this on hlas, and have been ridiculed,
but
> > when I saw the X-ray of the portrait at the ROM, I (like others) was
> > immediately struck by its resemblance to a Fletcher engraving. The
> > resemblance was so close, in fact, as to be uncanny, although the
portrait
> > itself looks nothing like the engraving.
>
> Baker posted on that point but I don't see any resemblance
> to Fletcher's engraving.
>
> If you look at the forehead just under the laurel wreath,
> Fletcher has dark curly hair. He's not balding. Fletcher also
> has a Roman arch in his nose and a relatively narrow forehead.
> That's a much more defined, muscular face. The Saunders
> sitter has a softer face.
The Sanders was much earlier than the Fletcher. Again, I found the
similarity almost overwhelming, but cannot say if it was merely coincidence.
The experts said that testing showed there was no overpainting on the
Sanders. It was entirely original, unlike, for example, the Ashbourne, which
may have areas that have been overpainted.
All I have time for at present. A fascinating puzzle. Thank you for the
discussion.
Best wishes,
LynnE
snip
Tom Reedy
>
> "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:efbc3534.04022...@posting.google.com...
> > I'm stalled on the fact that Spielmann could read the
> > wording in 1909 yet it was 'too illegible' to read with
> > high tech equipment in 2001.
>
> Yes, I'm having problems with that too. Unless Rob is right, and it's now
> readable with high-tech equipment. Even so, it seems strange that
Spielmann
> could read what now cannot be read without special aids, unless it was a
> fast-fading ink which had been put there quite recently. I would defer to
> the family on this. They must know, although I believe (again I'm not
sure)
> that the ink itself wasn't tested.
Accoding to a Globe and Mail story datelined May 12, 2001, the inscription
can be read under fluorescent light.
http://www.geocities.com/josephebecker/literature/shakes39.html
LynnE
"Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:W6MZb.2461$yZ1....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Thanks, Tom. I think that was the first article I ever read on the Sanders,
but had forgotten that detail. Much in the article has been questioned
since, of course.
I wonder if the portrait will be sold to a non-Canadian. It may not be of
the bard, but it would be lovely to keep it in the country, if possible.
Best wishes,
Lynne
>
>
>
David L. Webb
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> news:david.l.webb-D76B...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu...
> > In article <ufwZb.8509$w65.7...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > > news:aICdnRQyO4_...@comcast.com...
> > > > > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > > I cannot attest to it's being true.
> >
> > > > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > Oops, that's "its." And me an English teacher, too.
> >
> > The Rev. Professor Dr. Daniel Wright, Ph.D. wrote:
> >
> > I suppose that it might well indeed seem a mystery to someone
> > who obviously doesn't know the difference between "it's" and
> > "its."
> Oh dear. Now I'll be in Dan's bad books as well.
I doubt it. The Rev. Dr. Wright's comments appear to express solely
his exasperation at KQKnave, whose skepticism concerning the hilarious
Altschuler preprint was well founded. Indeed, anti-Stratfordians
confuse "its" with "it's" quite routinely without eVER occasioning the
Rev. Dr. Wright's oVERt displeasure.
> > <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=365A5CDE.77A592E1%40tleport.com&oe=
> > UTF-8&output=gplain>.
> > > > Shouldn't that be "it" or "it as"?
> > > Don't confuse me further, Art. I'm fit to be tied already. ;)
> > Much less so than some of your anti-Stratfordian coreligionists, many
> > of whom would be *far* better candidates for involuntary restraint were
> > it not that their obsessional pursuits (haranguing sculptural simulacra,
> > hallucinating theatrical wigs, etc.) are so innocuous.
> I'll take that as a compliment, David. I *think* it's a compliment. It is a
> compliment, isn't it? :(
To you, yes -- at least, I trust that you haven't been importuning
statues or hallucinating theatrical wigs.
LynnE
> In article <L5yZb.9797$w65.8...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> > news:david.l.webb-D76B...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu...
> > > In article <ufwZb.8509$w65.7...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> > > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote in
message
> > > > news:aICdnRQyO4_...@comcast.com...
> > > > > > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> > > > >
> > > > > > > I cannot attest to it's being true.
> > >
> > > > > "LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
> > > > >
> > > > > > Oops, that's "its." And me an English teacher, too.
> > >
> > > The Rev. Professor Dr. Daniel Wright, Ph.D. wrote:
> > >
> > > I suppose that it might well indeed seem a mystery to someone
> > > who obviously doesn't know the difference between "it's" and
> > > "its."
>
> > Oh dear. Now I'll be in Dan's bad books as well.
>
> I doubt it. The Rev. Dr. Wright's comments appear to express solely
> his exasperation at KQKnave, whose skepticism concerning the hilarious
> Altschuler preprint was well founded. Indeed, anti-Stratfordians
> confuse "its" with "it's" quite routinely without eVER occasioning the
> Rev. Dr. Wright's oVERt displeasure.
We must confuse "its" with "it's" less often than Orthodoxists (is there a
noun for those of orthodox persuasion? If not, there should be) because
there are fewer of us.
>
> > >
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=365A5CDE.77A592E1%40tleport.com&oe=
> > > UTF-8&output=gplain>.
>
> > > > > Shouldn't that be "it" or "it as"?
>
> > > > Don't confuse me further, Art. I'm fit to be tied already. ;)
>
> > > Much less so than some of your anti-Stratfordian coreligionists,
many
> > > of whom would be *far* better candidates for involuntary restraint
were
> > > it not that their obsessional pursuits (haranguing sculptural
simulacra,
> > > hallucinating theatrical wigs, etc.) are so innocuous.
>
> > I'll take that as a compliment, David. I *think* it's a compliment. It
is a
> > compliment, isn't it? :(
>
> To you, yes -- at least, I trust that you haven't been importuning
> statues or hallucinating theatrical wigs.
No, I don't hallucinate wigs, though I did buy one last year. I wore it
twice because I had readings to do in schools, but I was so afraid it would
come off that I tightened it until my head ached and my eyes almost popped
out (maybe I've said that before). After that I abandoned it and stuck (not
literally) to hats. But the wig was on a stand in my bedroom. I once woke up
in the middle of the night and in the dark thought that it was a woman
bending over the chest of drawers. That's hallucination of a kind, I fear.
I *might* have importuned a statue in Hungary once. I have a picture that
looks as though I could be doing something of the sort, but of course I'd
deny it if asked.
Best wishes,
LynnE
Art Neuendorffer
> > I trust that you haven't been importuning
> > statues or hallucinating theatrical wigs.
"LynnE" <lynnek...@sympatico.ca> wrote
>
> No, I don't hallucinate wigs, though I did buy one last year. I wore it
> twice because I had readings to do in schools, but I was so afraid it
would
> come off that I tightened it until my head ached and my eyes almost popped
> out (maybe I've said that before). After that I abandoned it and stuck
(not
> literally) to hats. But the wig was on a stand in my bedroom. I once woke
up
> in the middle of the night and in the dark thought that it was a woman
> bending over the chest of drawers. That's hallucination of a kind, I fear.
>
> I *might* have importuned a statue in Hungary once. I have a picture
> that looks as though I could be doing something of the sort,
It wasn't a statue of Captain John Smythe was it?
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.iath.virginia.edu/vcdh/jamestown/Pocahontas.html
<<Many historians doubt the veracity of
Captain John Smith's Pocahontas account. It was not the first
time the wily Captain had been saved by a beautiful young woman.
He also claimed that a Turkish princess saved his life when he was
captured while fighting in HUNGARY. Also Smith first mentioned the
Pocahontas rescue in his Generall Historie which was published in
1616, after Pocahontas traveled to England. The scene is absent
from his earlier account, A True Relation, published in 1608.>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.zip.com.au/~lnbdds/home/smythcaptjohn.htm
<<As a boy, of about fifteen (the future Captain) John Smith became an
orphan and was taken under the wing of (some say relatives) the Bertie
family - Peregrine Bertie, 11th B Willoughby - whose wife was the sister
of Edward de VERE - 17th Earl of Oxford - who was himself orphaned
at the age of twelve and, after a spell in the Cecil household, became the
ward of Sir Thomas Smythe of Hill Hall in Essex. Sir Thomas Smythe
was Secretary of State to the boy king - Edward VI, son of Henry VIII
and his third wife, Jane Seymour, who died soon after childbirth.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Wriothesley was grandson of Thomas (1505-1550)
1st Baron Wriothesley of Titchfield & Earl of Southampton
Ambassador to HUNGARY and chief secretary to Henry VIII.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Measure for Measure Act 1, Scene 2
LUCIO: If the duke with the other dukes come not to
composition with the King of HUNGARY,
why then all the dukes fall upon the king.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.zip.com.au/~lnbdds/home/smythcaptjohn.htm
Gardner Nexus Magazine, Volume 6, Number 5 (Aug.-Sept. 1999)
<<In 1408, Edward de Vere's ancestor, Richard (Lord Chamberlain
& 11th Earl of Oxford), had been invested as a Knight of the Garter
by King Henry IV at Windsor Castle. Invested at the same time
was King Sigismund of HUNGARY, who had revived the ancient
Egyptian Order of the DRAGON - within which Richard de Vere held
the hereditary distinction of Lord DRACONIS.>> - Sir Laurence
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.zip.com.au/~lnbdds/home/smythcaptjohn.htm
<< "Born in 1580 in Willoughby, England, John Smith left home at
age 16 after his father died. He began is travels by joining volunteers
in France who were fighting for Dutch independence from Spain. Two years
later, he set off for the Mediterranean Sea, working on a merchant ship.
In 1600 he joined Austrian forces to fight the TURKs in the "Long War."
A valiant soldier, he was promoted to Captain while fighting in HUNGARY.
He was fighting in Transylvania two years later in 1602. There he was
wounded in battle, captured, and sold as a slave to a TURK. This TURK
then sent Smith as a gift to his sweetheart in Istanbul. According to
Smith, this girl fell in love with him and sent him to her brother to
get training for TURKish imperial service. Smith reportedly escaped by
murdering the brother and returned to Transylvania by fleeing through
Russia and Poland. After being released from service and receiving a
large reward, he traveled all through Europe and Northern Africa.
He returned to England in the winter of 1604-05.">>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer