Is this the face of Shakespeare?

thank you for joining me today you are going to be looking into the faces of william shakespeare the problem is which if any is genuine our story is set in the early 18th century and at its center is one very interesting portrait let me put everything into context william shakespeare had rested in posthumous anonymity during most of the restoration period but interest in him was growing again in the late 17th century with improvement in printing techniques and the growth of the entertainment industry later as we shall see the marketing of shakespeare took on a distinctly political edge a series of publications of his work began to emerge and along with the printed word came illustrations there was an obvious need for images of the face of shakespeare and this is the so-called chandos portrait it was pretty well all there was to go on a 16th century portrait of a rather disheveled man which was a rather dubious authenticity this is the frontier piece of nicholas rose 1709 edition of his works the first to bear illustrations the source for the engraving is not hard to recognize elsewhere in the publication was this illustration of william shakespeare from holy trinity church in stratford specially made by gerard van der gust well not exactly he based it on a previous engraving dating from 1656 by wenceslaus holler high forward and similar design of tunic yes but the tiredness is gone and an aged face to be replaced by a bright disposition by staring eyes a neat beard and curly hair well where did all that come from welcome to the world of 18th century engraving so let's begin our story you were looking at a portrait of a middle-aged man with a rather ruddy complexion painted on card the original color of the card appears to have been red which is showing through in places where the paint is damaged what remains of the man's hair is reddish brown and curly and he has brown eyes and freckles on his forehead and face his lips are rather narrow and the skin tone indicates that he has a fair complexion he wears a well-trimmed pointed beard flipped with grey and around his neck he is wearing a rough collar which dates from the late 16th and early 17th century his tunic in this enhanced view shows only sketchy detail with buttons down the front no patterns cut into the fabric of the tunic are visible and lastly he is wearing an earring in his left ear the painting contains no information as to the subject or the artist i would just like you to take a moment and look at this man's face particularly his eyes i think you'll agree that it is a remarkable piece of work unlike many of the portraits of that period it shows great humanity just someone as they were not as they wanted the world to see and admire but i believe there is a reason for this which i will explain later in spite of that remarkable detail you'll be interested to know that the painting is only 5 centimeters by 4 centimeters 2 inches by 1 and 5 8 inches in other words a miniature and here it is scaled against a standard credit card so what you might ask well small though it is this portrait has had far reaching consequences over the last 300 years indeed far outweighing its diminutive size the painting is now part of the portland collection at welbeck abbey in nottinghamshire and lives in a draw and for reasons which will become clear i will refer to as the harley miniature if you turn over the painting then on the reverse is written shakespeare and the word oxford and a number of catalogue references now those of you who have seen my earlier presentations will be in no doubt that i believe that edward de vere 17th earl of oxford wrote under the pen name william shakespeare you might then think that the mystery is solved in one go oxford is shakespeare end of story you would of course be wrong it's not that simple this is the signature of an earl of oxford but not edward de vere in order to understand the painting you need to meet some very interesting people from the 17th and early 18th centuries the first creation of the earls of oxford came to an end in 1703 with the death of this man aubrey de vere the twentieth earl he left no male heir and so the line ended we shall look at his connections in more detail later this is robert harley resplendent in his robes as a knight of the garter he was one of the most powerful politicians in the country at this time he was a distinguished parliamentarian rising to speaker of the house of commons chancellor of the exchequer and finally lord high chancellor he used his fabulous wealth to amass a great collection of manuscripts and literature he was a great patron of the arts promoting the careers of jonathan swift and alexander pope of whom more later along the way he claimed the title of earl of oxford and earl mortimer in 1711 by way of a connection through marriage to the diverse he thus became first earl of oxford second creation if you think he looks a little self-important you may well be right for between 1715 and 1770 he was imprisoned for high treason eventually being freed without charge this is robert's son edward harley second earl of oxford he was an avid collector of all things including in particular works of art and he is a central character in the story at the age of 24 edward married this lady henrietta cavendish hollis in 1713 the wealthiest lady in england apart from the monarch she was the only child of john hollis first earl of newcastle and lady margaret cavendish and along with great wealth she brought with her to the marriage two important properties firstly welbeck abbey in nottinghamshire bought by the cavendish family after the dissolution of the monasteries and converted into a country house and secondly wimpole hall in cambridgeshire a house with around three thousand acres by now you're probably recognizing the names of some important places in london including harley street wimpole street and cavendish square which gives you some idea of the status of the families i'm talking about you can have too much of a good thing edward harley should have adopted this as his motto he had a particular interest in miniature portraits dating from the early 1500s to his own time these were intended as precious jewel-like treasures to be kept in cabinets brought out to be admired and then returned to safety many of the miniatures came from branches of his and his wife's family others were purchased for the importance of the subject or artist it's important to remember that art had no monetary value until about this time it was only with the breakup of great family estates that collectors began a feeding frenzy to obtain the most prized items during his life both welbeck and wimpole hall became home to a massive collection of art and literature as part of his support for the arts he surrounded himself with the finest thinkers of the day edward however had a problem he was a compulsive collector he couldn't stop he became the prey of unscrupulous dealers and paid over the odds for items the final result was that he bankrupted both himself and his wife following his death in 1740 his possessions were catalogued and sold off by his widow the major part of the manuscripts forming one of the founding collections of the british library there was however one group of treasures which were not sold off the miniature paintings remained in the possession of henrietta countess of oxford the next person you need to meet is this man george virtue he was the most famous engraver and antiquarian of his day indeed the only engraver ever to have been made a fellow of the society of antiquaris he was brought up in a wealthy family and moved in the highest circles of society from 1713 he embarked on a wide-ranging research on the history of british art the result of which was 40 volumes of notebooks his engravings were carried out with great skill and were considered to be accurate representations of his subjects which you will see was at times questionable he was closely associated with edward harley who shared his passion traveling the country with him and after edward's death he helped his widow in cataloguing her husband's collection for sale george virtue along with edward harley had more than a passing interest in william shakespeare and he made several engravings of him during his lifetime the next person to meet is alexander pope a renowned poet of his day he was also responsible for the publication of shakespeare's works in 1725. the artistic freedom taken with the text was roundly criticized at the time but it's not the text which of is of interest to us as i will explain shortly alexander pope was also connected to the harley family as it was edward's father robert who promoted his career alexander pope was also a prominent freemason so those are the players in our story now i want to look at the history of this painting from the time that it first came to light there exists a bill dated 1719 from this man made out to edward harley for the framing of the painting in pear tree wood he is bernard lens iii who was a miniature painter to the courts of george the first and george the second he was also a consultant in fine arts to upper class families the document names the painting as the head of shakespeare lens was a close associate of george virtue both being members of the rosen crown club this was one of a number of elite groupings for sharing ideas on the arts these groupings were named after the public houses where the meetings first took place in 1715 george virtue was engaged in producing his own version of an engraving of william shakespeare and he visited the home of one robert keck of the inner temple in london at that time he was in possession of the chandos portrait and here is the result of his visit virtue would have made a sketch and then engraved the printing plate in his studio the figure is reversed as a result of the printing process in order to print in the correct orientation the engraver has to work back to front with the aid of a mirror you can see that he's tied up the jacket with some fine detailing applied a nice sharp collar and given the figure a leaner look it's fair to say that virtue has taken several liberties with the face and head the obvious common features are the receding hairline and the earring he has emphasized the eyes by exposing more of the iris and arching the eyebrows giving a somewhat thyrotoxic appearance the face is thinner and less pursuit the nose sharper with a less bulbous end the mouth is small and higher and the subject now has wavy locks in 1721 virtue produced an engraving of the stratford effigy which shows a figure undoubtedly derived from the chandos portrait with a rather short neck pen in right hand looking straight ahead there is no record of virtue visiting holy trinity church and it's been suggested that the figure at least is a work of imagination there are also differences in the design of the monument itself compared with previous versions next something curious happens george virtue is invited to provide an engraving of shakespeare for pope's 1725 edition of the author's works and this is what he provided now this bears no similarity to his previous effort of the stratford memorial the face does however bear great similarity to the harley miniature what he does is to transplant the head and rough onto his previous engraving producing a fine but imaginary tunic for the harley miniature here is the engraving in the publication itself alongside the harley miniature that's not all what is even more extraordinary is that following the preface is an account of the life of mr william shakespeare by a mr rowe whom i assume is the same nicholas rowe who published the 1709 edition of shakespeare's works his account begins on page 25 and here is page 30 containing george virtue's 1721 image of stratford's monument well what does all this tell us basically george virtue was doing somebody's bidding in the case of the frontispiece it was edward harley and alexander pope and in this case it was nicholas rowe who favored a chandos lookalike george virtue went to stratford in 1737 in the company of edward harley and he produced this drawing in his notebook the figure has been assumed to be himself although i think it is more likely to be edward harley standing below the effigy if it were a self-portrait then surely he would have drawn himself standing alongside edward harley the posture is interesting all the weight is on the right foot the left heel is raised and the arm extended the hand posture appears to be palm up most does this matter or could this be the posture of a person shrugging his shoulders when there is something that they don't understand as well there was the other point of interest is the figure of shakespeare this is a sketch so the figure should be shown as it appears in life the posture appears to be much more upright and the head and face leaner than his engraving of 1721. no work was done on the monument since his earlier engraving confirming that virtue had engraved it how did nicolas rowe wanted it to be not how it actually was four years later in 1741 virtue produced a self-portrait this time in a fine room with high windows plush drapes and works of art along the walls it's a pencil sketch highlighted with red brown ink curiously there is a bust of charles the first this appears to be perched over a doorway with paintings hung on a wall in the adjoining room the text above the door car r is an abbreviation of caroline rex referring to the period of the reign of charles the first i assume the bust is a copy of the one by jan blumendale which is shown on the right in fact there are two versions of this drawing the one held by the national portrait gallery is sketchy in detail the other i found on alamy this shows quite clearly that in his left hand he's holding a framed miniature which is surmounted by a five-pointed crown the sign of an earl and a bewigged figure it is of his patron edward harley second earl of oxford on the table in front of him are the paraphernalia of both painting and engraving with his right index finger he is pointing at a drawing or a printed engraving here it is under high magnification the orientation is the correct way round for the original chandos portrait so this may be his original sketch so rather confusingly we're looking at a sketch of a sketch if we reverse the two printed engravings which virtue made it's clear that he's pointing to his 1715 drawing which he's made from the chandos portrait and not his later one from the harley miniature made in the 1720s there is no doubt however that he is pointing to a sketch of shakespeare in the right hand lower corner of the sketch virtue tells us that it was performed in 1741. above his signature is inv and del infanet et delineavit which reads as george virtue designed and drew this below this within what appears to be an elaborate frame is the emblem of the prince of wales and the words honor alet artes first let's look at the emblem there are no feathers associated with the regalia of the earls of oxford so we must refer to the prince of wales the holder at that time was frederick lewis son of george ii in fact he never got on with his father and he didn't become king as he pre-deceased him he was a great patron of the arts which may be a clue he was another important man in another area he was initiated as the first royal freemason in 1737. by 1738 he was master of a lodge and mentioned in the constitution of freemasons of that year he was a close friend of peter schiermackers who carved the 1740 statue of william shakespeare in westminster abbey he even did one for the prince at around the same time below the prince of wales crest are the words honor alet artes this is a quotation from cicero translated it reads honours encourage the arts for all are incited towards study by glory or indeed fame i think these words may originally be in honour of virtue's sponsor edward harley virtue is quoted thus when speaking of edutali the earls generous and unparalleled encouragement of my undertakings by promoting my studious endeavors gave me great reputation and advantage over all other professors of the same art in england another perhaps more cynical possibility is that george virtue was hitching his wagon to another sponsor after the death of his first in 1740 this time it was his royal highness the prince of wales and he was telling us of his similar devotion by this stage you're beginning to think that i'm way off topic but bear with me because i think it is important the issue is this why did george virtue do this drawing and what is he trying to tell us as we know edward harley died in 1740 deeply in debt and george virtue was engaged in cataloging his collection i believe that the sketch shows him seated in welbeck abbey drawing up his catalogue and reviewing his sketches in the distance is a gallery holding paintings from the caroline era out of all of the possible items to include virtue looking directly at you demonstrates the shared interest of himself and edward harley with william shakespeare what is curious is that he chooses to include his sketch of the chandos portrait and not the one of the harley miniature which we now know that harley believed was a true likeness i think that virtue was conflicted his portrayal of shakespeare had to please everyone so he hedged his bets which might explain the questioning pose of his sketch of edward harley at the stratford monument in 1737. during the 1730s they developed a powerful movement against the wall pole government called the patriot opposition which promoted the use of william shakespeare the man in his works to instill values of britishness much as elizabeth the first had done in part this led to the unveiling of the statue of william shakespeare and westminster abbey in 1740 if you look at alexander war's videos on youtube about the fate of edward de vere after he died you will learn that his body was moved by the precursors of the freemasons to westminster abbey and then in 1740 the monument was erected over his grave the number 17 and 40 had great significance to edward de vere suffice it to say that it symbolized his closeness to god the date of inauguration of the memorial was no accident there is a very strong masonic link here alexander pope whom we met earlier was a prominent mason and partly funded the monument the prince of wales's favorite sculptor fashioned it edward harley was a mason and george virtue appears to have links to masonry as well virtue had been working hard to provide images of the great man which fitted with the message of shakespeare's apotheosis in particular wisdom and respectability and by this stage those images were proliferating the face of the harley miniature began to appear in other international publications as copies and variations of the virtue engraving were made although some were in color and the features softened to give a more romantic edge the face is still recognizable this is from the 1775 edition of the morality of shakespeare's drama this is from an 1821 edition of shakespeare's work in french by this stage he'd been made a knight of the garter wearing the little george around his neck and lastly the oddest of them all the 1775 painting of an idealized shakespeare by angelica kaufman which graced the walls of the shakespeare memorial gallery in stratford-upon-avon it's strange to consider that such an image a copy of an engraving of a miniature which is clearly not the same man as in the chandos portrait would be displayed in this way interestingly the story went further than this indeed just up the road to holy trinity church if you believe that the current bloated figure is the original then you are mistaken there is clear documented evidence that the figure underwent a series of changes over 400 years i don't propose to go into the full detail of this but rather concentrate on one period in 1749 14 years after pope's edition appeared a new curate was installed in stratfor's holy trinity church he was joseph greene and he would play a major role in the first refurbishment of the stratford monument in his church greene was not a shy and retiring person besides being curate he was the school master diversifier an antiquarian librarian for a wealthy neighbor and an outspoken writer of letters he was also partial to a bottle of the old stingo shortly after his arrival in 1737 he created a great stir in the town he eloped with the daughter of stratford's druggist and former mayor and i'm sure this portrait was painted well after the fire had gone out green began fundraising to repair and re-beautify the monument he proposed that the painter john hall do the work provided and that the monument shall become as like as possible to what it was when first erected and this is the result an engraving by francis eggington from a drawing by robert weller the cheerfulness of the new effigy did not go unremarked weller the town historian in 1806 commentated that since the bard's disposition was cheerful the effigy properly depicts him here is the face that has been enlarged and on the right are the two virtue engravings i've mapped the facial features on the harley engraving the lower one and transferred it to the others just to guide you now it appears to me that this version has been heavily influenced by the two virtue engravings the hairline is higher in the eggerton engraving but by adding a little more hair as shown to my eye the similarities are quite striking green's cheerful effigy would not survive for posterity in 1814 two men from london replaced the cheerful smiling face with the more serious stolid visage in today's effigy this is the result of the restoration so after a brief excursion into the limelight the harley miniature was returned to the draw to be brought out at intervals once for an exhibition in the early 20th century and undoubtedly for the last time when i went to look at it so this is the story of the painting from the time it was first described now let's turn to look at the question of the harley miniature from a different direction in the art world provenance is everything a point i made in an earlier presentation is the difference between direct and indirect evidence the latter is also known as circumstantial evidence it is still valuable but a judgment has to be made as to whether or not the case is proven when starting with a portrait with no title and no attribution then things are very tricky nonetheless examination of the family connections of the de fears may turn out to be helpful to us now consider these dates in 1711 robert harley becomes earl of oxford in 1713 his son edwards marries henrietta cavendish hollis in 1719 the miniature is framed and in the early 1720s george virtue engraves it now robert harley would have been well aware of his prospective daughter-in-law's family connections which i'll come to shortly it seems reasonable to conclude that this is what spurred him to bring the title into the family let's see how he did it this is part of the family tree of robert harley he appears at the bottom right now ladies are pink and gentlemen are blue if we go up his mother's side of the family through abigail to his grandmother briliana we come to his great grandmother dorothy tracy dorothy's sister was mary tracy and she was the wife of horus veer edward de vere's cousin horus was arguably the greatest soldier of his day and was very close to edward de fere's illegitimate son by anne vavasol who was called sir edward fear you may think this is a fairly tenuous link but it served its purpose because in 1724 when robert died edward became the second earl of oxford now let's look at the background to edward and henrietta's marriage this is part of the family tree of horus de vere don't panic i just want you to understand some key points firstly horus had five daughters and no sons the eldest elizabeth married john hollis second earl of claire this in turn led through the third oil to the fourth earl john who was also first duke of newcastle his only child was henrietta cavendish hollis who became the wife of edward harley what we have here is a direct line of ascent through which family heirlooms from the time of horus devire could have passed when looking at family trees it's tempting to think as generations being separate but of course they overlap and it's important to look at how long people live in this case lady mary veer survived to the age of 90 dying in 1671. it's reasonable to assume that an important keepsake would have remained in her possession until she died she would have known her grandson the third earl of claire gilbert hollis quite well living as he did from 1633 until 1689 and indeed her great-grandson the fourth girl who was nine when she died now it's safe to assume that horosphere knew that his cousin was william shakespeare it's also reasonable to assume that any paintings held by him would be handed down through a family line elizabeth was the eldest of five daughters so these would go to her and then down through the hollis line lady henrietta was the only child of the fourth earl he died in 1711 and his wife in 1715 only two years after her marriage as i mentioned earlier along with lady henrietta came welbeck abbey the home of the only universally recognized portrait of edward de vere purely based on these connections i conclude that family treasures such as an informal portrait miniature could have been handed down from horosphere edward harley would have realized the significance of this leading to the report that it was his favorite possession another store in the wind as to the source of the painting is the timing of its framing presumably done to protect it it was in 1719 only six years after lane lady henrietta joined the family there is however one issue to resolve and that is how likely was horus fear to be in possession of such items in the first place in other words what happened to the de vere line after edward died in 1604 well edward's wife elizabeth countess of oxford died in 1612 and his son henry died of an injury in the netherlands in 1625 without issue horace lived until 1635 ample time to have collected memorabilia of his famous cousin following the death of henry vere his second cousin robert took the title something which was contested at the time robert died young again of war wounds and his son aubry took the title dying in 1702 without a male heir it seems to me much less likely that memorabilia would have gone down this line there is a counter argument to all of this in that a young edward harley the obsessed collector was duped into buying a painting of shakespeare by an unscrupulous dealer this is possible but my understanding is that the excesses in his collecting came in his later years given the evidence i presented i think it much more likely that the painting came by way of his wife henrietta as a family heirloom now let's look at early opinions on this painting rather like the pregnancy portrait the miniature has been viewed by very few people and even fewer felt qualified to pass an opinion on it in the connoisseur magazine of june 1913 marion spielman confirms much of what we've already discussed about the painting his view was that it was the earl of oxford's friendship with alexander pope which led to virtue's engraving being used he saw nothing in it to confirm that it was all was not the only painting from life of the poet he agrees that the painting was very well executed showing a man of strong will and character living in the reign of james the first surprisingly he goes on to say that the style and technique of the painting appeared to be much more modern the draftsmanship and modelling were quite excellent revealing to a high degree the vigor and craftsmanship of the artist bernard lenz painted a series of miniatures for the earl of oxford and the spielman surmises that this was likely to be a copy by bernard lens of an earlier miniature since lost after a long discourse on various versions of the engraving he finishes off by suggesting that the painting was really one of sir francis drake claiming his famous wart is shown in a faint form well here is sir francis on the right and the harley miniature on the left there is no sign of a wart the eye color is different and drake has a much fuller face in my opinion this is not the same man a description of the painting is included in the 1916 catalogue of welbeck miniatures by richard goulding who was librarian at welbeck abbey he destroys spielman's idea of the painting being carried out by lens firstly the technique was absolutely unlike lens and secondly whenever an ancient portrait was copied for lord oxford the fact was always avowed and in no instance did lord oxford claim it to be an original against those experts who had argued that the painter was selected for pope's publication merely to please lord oxford golding avers it much more likely to have been chosen because they really believed it to be genuine golding's final comment is that the painting was old in 1719 accepted as genuine and that the few of the so-called portraits of shakespeare have had his name associated with them for so long one commentator has argued that this cannot be a painting of edward de vere because the rough shown is typical of jacobean times which does not leave much room for maneuver as defeat died in 1604 only a year after james the first came to the throne fact i've been able to discover several individuals wearing a similar style of rough in the late 16th century just as with all fashion one type blended into another without abrupt change what about comparing it with other paintings there are several paintings said to be of edward de vere and i've chosen to look at the one widely agreed to be a genuine copy of an earlier work and that also descended in the same family line as the harley miniature this is the so-called welbeck portrait originally painted in paris in 1575 of which only a copy survives those of you who've seen my earlier presentations know that i have a simple way of comparing faces which involves the use of a grid and dots which follow the features of the face you may be thinking well why not use facial recognition technology well this has proved to be somewhat unreliable in fact the human eye is extremely good at detecting facial features hence our ability to recognize one another in a crowd my aim is to present a means of allowing comparison of features in a structured if not completely quantitative way but as a visual guide the relationship between facial features changes as the head is moved so it is important to use images which are comparable i then mark out the eye centers overlay the images and then scale them so that the eye centers overlap it may be necessary to move an image slightly if the subject's eyes are not looking in exactly the same direction now i would be the first to admit that comparing 400 year old portraits is fraught with difficulties the attitude of the subjects heads need to be comparable from the outset there are also many variables such as artistic license painting the individual as they wanted to be seen not as how they were stylist stylistic differences of artists and the effects of age difference on the shape of the face in spite of this i believe it is useful as i hope to show to avoid confusion i refer to the side of the face as seen by the viewer at all times not the side of the face of the subject here once again it's the harley image the artwork is very fine and carried out by an expert miniature painter hillyard had retired in 1601 and his mantle had been taken over by his son-in-law and mentee isaac oliver i'm no expert on his technique so if there is anyone out there who give an opinion as to whether or not this is an example of his work then i would be very grateful here is the harley image with the facial features marked with dots the eye centers are shown in green the contour of the chin and left side of the face is partly obscured by hair i've marked out the earring on the right all images for comparison have been reversed if necessary rotated to level the eyes and resized using the pupil centers no other manipulations have been made and here is the harley image with the grid the horizontal lines indicate the hairline the upper extent of the eyebrow the eye centers the earlobe the nose tip the mouth level and the chin level the vertical lines indicate features relative to the viewer starting with the left side of the face the outer point of the left eye the left side of the mouth the nose tip the right mouth edge the outer point of the right eye and the earlobe face junction if we compare the harley painting with the welbeck we can see that they don't appear very similar at all in the welbeck de vere appears distinctly jaundiced the technique i'm using simply compares the facial geometry not the rather more visually compelling features brought about by the age difference i can demonstrate that two images are not of the same individual but at best can only tell us that the facial features are consistent with it being the same person note that the welbeck is slightly more rotated to the viewers left and the head appears level in both images here is the welbeck with the dot map overlaid i think that you will agree that despite all the issues the contours of the face is remarkably similar particularly around the eyes the small mouth with thin lips matches closely as does the position of where an earring would sit the slight rotation of the welbeck accounts for the nose profile being slightly out of line here is the same with the grid in both planes there is close correlation the nose tip again is slightly to the left here the welbeck has been overlaid with 50 percent opacity the result is interesting in particular the earring of the harley is in exactly the correct position for the welbeck image for the purposes of this exercise i've restricted the analysis to just this one painting of edward de vere as other less certain paintings are not comparable to the harley picture i can imagine some of you thinking well how do we know that the harley painting is not one of horosphere cousin to edward after all it was in his family tree that i'm looking you were right to be concerned there are two popular portraits of horosphere both of which have been over painted in places this one was painted in holland by michael yantz the date of which is uncertain but portrays a man somewhat younger than the subject of the harley painting i've lightened the dark areas to bring out the detail the other painting dated around 1630 by the same artist appears to be an over-painted and aged version of this one here is the face reversed rotated and sized with the harley dot map applied i think you will agree that the shape of the facial features are very similar and here is the image with the grid applied once again the geometry is very close if you want to study these more closely they are included in the pdf of this presentation the link to which is on the initial screen and here they are side by side i've converted them to grayscale to eliminate any color cues in the knowledge that the facial geometry is very similar are they both the same man well yes they could be they are however first cousins so similarities might be expected the thing that persuades me that the harley miniature is not horus fear is this we can assume that lady mary veer knew the identity of the subject and this knowledge was passed on by word of mouth what she may have said about it was within living memory of those who possessed it in the early part of the 18th century someone said it was the head of shakespeare and it was obviously treasured for it had survived for a century without even being in a frame then you may ask why was the painting referred to as shakespeare and not edward de vere i think the simple answer to this is that towards the end of his life this is who he had become if you look at alexander war's ever expanding series of videos on who knew about shakespeare you will see overwhelming evidence that his identity was widely known at the beginning of the 18th century there was renewed interest in shakespeare's works and on any level the possession of a tiny portrait was immeasurably of more value as william shakespeare than of the forgotten man edward de vere so what started out as a treasured family keepsake may have become labelled as the most famous writer of all time so that brings us to the end of a fascinating journey let's now try and draw it all together this little painting turns up at the start of the 18th century labelled by word of mouth as the face of shakespeare given its provenance this means edward de vere 17th earl of oxford not the man from stratford so is this true here is a review of the circumstantial evidence horosphere was the likely recipient of family treasures from edward defear as he outlived all close relatives lady maryville his wife lived until 1671 and would have known the identity of the subject of the painting if it had been her husband horace she would have said so it's likely that the painting was passed on when lady mary died within living memory of those who possessed it in the early part of the 18th century the fact that the painting has no written title or attribution could be explained by the fact that it was a cherished portrait of a family member it was not for display they all knew who it was by the beginning of the 18th century a relationship to shakespeare rather than the forgotten man edward de vere would have been of great value in all respects the painting was old in 1719 the style of rough and the pointed beard suggested late 17th or early 18th century the quality of the workmanship both in technical terms and the intimacy of the portrayal is outstanding it was painted by an expert in working on miniatures the appearance of the portrait coincided with the marriage of edward harley second earl of oxford with henrietta cavendish hollis whose family had direct links to horosphere the cousin of edward who wrote under the name of shakespeare the only authenticated portrait of edward de vere was handed down in the same family the painting was most likely framed to protect it and allow it to be shown to selected individuals the fact that both girls of oxford and george virtue who had seen most of the artwork in the uk believed that this was a true image of shakespeare lends weight to its veracity the painting was reported by the curator of the portland collection as edward harley's most prized possession there was no outcry when the harley image appeared as the frontier piece of the 1725 edition of shakespeare's works alexander pope and the prince of wales both prominent freemasons were associated with the unveiling of the westminster abbey monument to shakespeare over edward defeat's grave in 1740 the two men were also closely linked to edward harley also a mason and george virtue it seems to me that they all knew exactly who shakespeare was and thought the portrait to be genuine the self-portrait of george virtue drawn in 1741 after the death of edward harley emphasizes the importance of the link between harley and shakespeare although most of his collection was sold after he died the miniatures were retained by the family of edward harley my study comparing the painting with the welbeck portrait of edward de vere shows great similarity in the geometry of the face the eye colour is the same and the hair is consistent with an aging redhead where colour is retained but fades similarities between the harley miniature and the portrait of horosphere can be explained by their close family relationship so is this little gem the face of edward de vere who wrote shakespeare well the circumstantial evidence is very strong that it is my opinion is that it's genuine what do you think once again thank you for joining me and i hope that you found this of interest

Channel: David Shakespeare

Views: 19,565

Keywords:

Id: 4dkFFnEmqB4

Length: 52min 40sec (3160 seconds)

Published: Wed May 12 2021