And in this corner The Ashbourne The Sanders Portrait ...€¦ · portrait—Sir Edward...

Vol.2:no.1 Fall 2002"Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments..."

(Continued on page 23) (Continued on page 9)

The AshbournePortrait: Part IVOh, what a tangled web...

And in this corner...The Sanders Portrait

Shakespeare or not?ByByByByBy Paul H. Altrocchi, M.D.Paul H. Altrocchi, M.D.Paul H. Altrocchi, M.D.Paul H. Altrocchi, M.D.Paul H. Altrocchi, M.D.

“ Nothing is easier than self-deceit. Whatever each man wishesto be true, he also believes to betrue.”

Demosthenes, ca. 340 BC 1

Julius Caesar was more succinct than Demosthene: “Menwillingly believe what they wishto believe.” 2 In yet anothertribute to the power of Conven-tional Wisdom, attribution of anewly-emerged painting fromunderneath Granny’s bed in Ot-tawa as the only existing por-trait of Shakspere of Stratfordpainted from life, has not onlymade worldwide headlines buthas led to a book, Shakespeare’sFace, published by a majorpublishing house, Alfred A.

Knopf of Canada.Despite the high likelihood that the book’s title is in error and

that the so-called “Sanders Portrait” does not justify a book,Stephanie Nolen has done an admirable job of investigative report-ing. She has done her homework well, writes very competently andspins an intriguing tale.

In May 2001 Ms. Nolen entranced Stratfordians with her articlein Canada’s national newspaper, The Globe and Mail, announcingthe discovery of a probable portrait of William Shakspere ofStratford-on-Avon. With the help of a coterie of academic experts,her book tells the story of the mysterious portrait, claimed to havebeen owned for 400 years by the Sanders family of England andCanada, who affectionately call the portrait “Willy Shake.” Stratfor-dians now refer to the painting as the Sanders portrait.

As readily admitted by Nolen’s experts, Stratfordians wouldlove to bury, once and for all, Droeshout’s First Folio face of the Manfrom Stratford, described by Sir George Greenwood as “a leering

Book review / commentary

My investigation of theFolger’s Ashbourne files,photos and 1948 x-rays,1

the Scientific Americanphotos of Barrell’s 1937 x-rays,2 and other informa-tion about the paintingfrom 1910 to 1989, revealssix stages of alterations tothe portrait. Four of themoccurred after the Folgeracquired the painting in1931, and appear to in-volve attempts to “prove”Hugh Hamersley is the sit-ter in the portrait and toremove evidence for Ed-ward de Vere, 17th Earl ofOxford. These alterationswill be the focus of this partof our examination of theFolger Ashbourne files.

To give an overview ofwhat has been done to the portrait, I will outline all six stages of thealterations. It is especially important to understand changes madeduring the second stage. These changes, made when the portraitwas transformed into “Shake-speare”—mainly by altering the headarea and the coat of arms—will assist in comparing what was lateradded or removed from the painting.

1932 Cleaning1932 Cleaning1932 Cleaning1932 Cleaning1932 Cleaning

The Ashbourne portrait was acquired by the Folger in 1931 andcleaned soon after, circa 1932. The cleaning revealed the full goldcolor under the darkened book and exposed the reddish-auburntones of the hair and most of the original paint in the hands and face,although the overpainting of the nose was not fully removed. Thecleaning did not remove the overpainting of the ear and the hair

By Barbara Burris

The Sanders portrait shows a fairlyyoung man. The right-hand panel ofthe portrait is, curiously, missing.

The outline of this small shield aroundthe three coat of arms heads (as shownin one of the 1979 restoration photos)was not present in either the Barrell orFolger x-rays. Where did it come from?See pages 12-13 for further details.

By permission, Folger Shakespeare Library

page 2 Fall 2002Shakespeare Matters

Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent)

Shakespeare MattersPublished quarterly by the

The Shakespeare Fellowship

Editorial OfficesP.O. Box 263

Somerville, MA 02143

Editor:William Boyle

Contributing Editors:Mark Anderson, Dr. Charles Berney,

Charles Boyle, Dr. Felicia Londre,Alex McNeil, Dr. Anne Pluto

Elisabeth Sears, Dr. Roger StritmatterRichard Whalen, Hank Whittemore,

Dr. Daniel Wright

Phone (Somerville, MA): (617) 628-3411Phone (Northampton, MA): (413) 585-8610

Fax (Somerville, MA): (617) 628-4258email: [email protected]

All contents copyright ©2002The Shakespeare Fellowship

Letters:

Subscriptions to Shakespeare Matters are$30 per year ($15 for online issues only).

Family or institution subscriptions are $45 peryear. Patrons of the Fellowship are $75 and up.

Send subscription requests to:

The Shakespeare Fellowship P.O. Box 561

Belmont MA 02478

The purpose of the Shakespeare Fellowshipis to promote public awareness and acceptanceof the authorship of the Shakespeare Canon by

Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550-1604), and further to encourage a high level of

scholarly research and publication into allaspects of Shakespeare studies, and also into

the history and culture of the Elizabethanera. The Society was founded and incorporated

in 2001 in the State of Massachusetts andis chartered under the membershipcorporation laws of that state.

Dues, grants and contributions are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.

Shakespeare Matters welcomes articles, essays,commentary, book reviews, letters and news items.

Contributions should be reasonably concise and, whenappropriate, validated by peer review. The views expressed

by contributors do not necessarily reflect those of theFellowship as a literary and educational organization.

To the Editor:

Reading your Summer 2002 issue, Iwas astonished by certain aspects of thearticle “The Maiden and the Mermaid” byCarl Caruso. To all appearances Mr. Carusohas borrowed heavily, without attribution,from my 1999 book, The True Story of theShakespeare Publications, and from myarticle on Thomas Creede’s emblem in theFall 1999 issue of the Shakespeare OxfordNewsletter (Vol. 35 no.3). I coined the phrase“Wounded Truth” to describe the Creedeemblem in my 1995 paper and address tothe SOS convention in Greensboro, NC.

I am informed that the omission ofcredit was an oversight, and that Carusohad footnoted his sources in the originalversion of his paper. Caruso was incorrectabout the wording of the Mary Queen ofScots Motto—it actually reads: “VirescitVulnere Virtus,” not “Vultus.” “VirescitVulnere Virtus” (i.e., “Virtue—or Courage—is renewed by a wound”) is a classicalphrase which was adopted by the Stuartfamily as their motto.

Caruso’s source, Antonia Fraser’s biog-raphy of Mary Queen of Scots, botched thequote. If you perform a web search, usingGoogle, Yahoo, or AltaVista, on the phrase:“Virescit Vulnere Virtus” [use the quotationmarks too] you will discover a wealth ofconfirmation including an image of thepillow slipcover embroidered by Mary. Theactual precursors to the Creede emblem lieelsewhere, and will be explained by me, indetail, in a forthcoming publication.

Robert Brazil,Ithaca, NY([email protected])10 September 2002

To the Editor:

Mr. Rollett [letter, Summer 2002]claims he has found one sitter in a 1610portrait—Sir Edward Cecil—wearing wristruffs, which he claims invalidates the entireevidence about the costume of theAshbourne sitter presented in part II ofShakespeare Matters. Even if Cecil werewearing wrist ruffs in 1610 it still would notinvalidate the costume evidence in theportrait, including the 1570s doublet andjerkin, proving that this is a late 1570spainting. But Mr. Rollett is mistaken aboutthe wrist ruffs, Cecil is wearing wrist ruffles.

The wrist ruff change to wrist cuffs inEngland in the early 1580s is fully recog-nized by costume experts, and was acceptedas a matter of common knowledge by Ms.North, head of Textiles and Dress at theVictoria & Albert Museum, who respondedto my queries about the portrait. The tran-sition to cuffs in England included a phasewhere a ruffle or ruffles replaced the ruffand a cuff was worn above this ruffle. Even-tually cuffs alone were worn. But at sometimes ruffles were also worn alone as shownin a circa 1585 portrait of Burghley.

Why would Sir Edward Cecil, dressedvery richly in the latest English fashion ofcirca 1610, be the only one to wear thewholly outdated wrist ruffs? Well, he isn’t

wearing ruffs, but ruffles as a close exami-nation of a 3/4 length circa 1610 portrait ofSir Edward Cecil in Karen Hearn’s Dynas-ties, Painting in Tudor and Jacobean En-gland 1530-1630, shows. Ruffs are usuallyin a figure 8 configuration and stiffenedwith starch to hold their shape on top of thesleeve regardless of the position of the handor arm.

Ruffles, which are stiffened less, hangdown from the sleeve and are likely to hangloose in folds. If the ruffles are layered inmany layers like Edward Cecil’s, the foldscan appear at first glance to look like theoutlines of ruffs. In the circa 1610 portraitof Edward Cecil in Hearn’s book Cecil hashis left arm up, his hand resting on his hip,and his wrist ruffle in this position looksmuch like a ruff. But his right arm is downat his side and there one can see the heavilylayered ruffle structure hanging from thesleeve.

Perhaps Mr. Rollett has not studiedenough styles of the times and the differ-ences between ruffs and later ruffles todistinguish these differences. In regard toruffles it is interesting to note that Spiel-mann in his 1910 article on the Ashbournemade a point of mentioning that the Ash-bourne sitter is wearing wrist ruffs notruffles. And of course that is why the wristruffs on the portrait were darkened and the

Response:

Robert Brazil is correct in noting that CarlCaruso’s article is built upon his work onShakespeare’s printers, and both the authorand editors regret that this important informa-tion was inadvertently dropped in one of thefinal edits of the article in preparation forpublication.

Mr. Brazil is also correct in noting thatAntonia Fraser’s book reported the Latinquote incorrectly, and the one he provides inhis letter is the correct phrase, as found on thepillow Mary made for Norfolk.

Fall 2002 page 3Shakespeare Matters


From the Editor:

Books and book reviews

Editorial changes

left one almost eliminated in the firstplace—because they didn’t fit a 1600scostume.

Barbara BurrisRoyal Oak, Michigan10 September 2002

To the Editor:

Owing to the carelessness on my part, ahorrendous typographical error has sur-vived for twenty years. In my July 11 letter,printed in your Summer 2002 issue, I dis-cussed Helen Cyr’s discovery of a typo-graphical error in the heraldry book sheconsulted in connection with the HughHamersley birthdate of 1565. In theShakespeare Oxford Society Newsletter ofSummer 1979, I had written that the type“showing this date as ‘1687’” momentarilyconfused her.

Ms. Burris could well wonder why a 122year discrepancy in Hamersley’s birthdatewouldn’t have set off alarm bells! Well, I canhappily ---as a living witness to the eventsin question--- now offer this belated clari-fication: What Mrs. Cyr saw was “1567” ---a mere two years’ difference. I apologizeto Ms. Burris and all other Oxfordians forthis long-lived misunderstanding.

On a related matter, I cannot agree withJohn M. Rollett that the one example (out ofhundreds of portraits he looked at) show-ing an early 17th century painting of awrist-ruff-sporting Edward Cecil in anyway negates Barbara Burris’s thesis thatHamersley would not be posing in an itemof clothing that had gone out of fashionafter 1583. The fact that Sir Hugh was ahaberdasher by trade strengthens her con-tention considerably.

Another interesting coincidence: thefigure “8” pattern Ms. Burris notices in theAshbourne wrist ruff is remarkably similarto the neck ruff pattern of the Welbeckportrait of Oxford. A similar match can beseen in the portrait of Thomas Pead(Ashbourne II, Shakespeare Matters, Win-ter 2002, p. 20) . This raises two questions:1) Has any research been done on possiblecorrelations between wrist and neck ruffsof that period? and 2) Should Oxfordianspressure the Folger to make more moderntechniques of underpainting discovery ap-plied to the overpainted neck ruff area? Thelittle lacy dots still visible on the bottom of

As we begin our second year ofpublication, there are some significantchanges in our editorial staff that mayinterest our readers.

First, Roger Stritmatter has decided toresign as co-editor of Shakespeare Matters.He will continue his work for theShakespeare Fellowship as a member ofour distinguished Editorial Board andcoordinator of the Fellowship website.Roger has just completed an exoticassignment teaching English Lit to USNavy sailors on a ship in the South Pacificand expects more such assignments in thefuture.

Even with modern day miracles of the

Everyone has undoubtedly noticed thegrowth in self-publishing ventures on theInternet. What was once an expensiveproposition just a few short years ago hasnow blossomed into a thriving industrywhereby authors can publish their ownbooks through any number of Internet basedpublishing companies. The good news, asthey say, is that these authors can reachaudiences they never could have reachedbefore; no more having to sell your work toa publisher first, and suffer the whims andscorns of the publishing industry.

However, the bad news is that a“filtering” effect that traditional publishinghad imposed on authors—forcing them todefend and revise their work, and to workwith editors—is now gone. So while oneInternet published book may be a diamondin the rough, many others may be—in factare—just rough. And in the authorshipdebate, there are many who want to gettheir word out, and now can.

In our letters section John Gove, asuccessful non-fiction writer, makes asuggestion about all this. He asks whetherOxfordians—as a group—should considersetting up some kind of ad hoc reviewpanel to read these books, and give someinitial feedback to authors on how they’re

Internet and email, such a distance does notlend itself to easy communication orcollaboration. Roger wants to focus hisenergies on developing the Fellowshipwebsite and supporting and directing theFellowship essay contest.

Time permitting, Roger expects toremain active in Shakespeare Matters,contributing essays, commentaries andbook reviews on a regular basis. In this hewill join with our other regulars (MarkAnderson, Hank Whittemore, ChuckBerney, Richard Whalen and Dan Wright)to bring our readers the best in up-to-the-minute commentary on all mattersShakespearean and Oxfordian.

doing, and/or advise readers everywhereon which books have undergone even aninformal review process by experts, andhow they fared. But, of course—authorshipstudies being what they are—anyone tak-ing on such a role could quickly find them-selves in a “no win” situation.

Already, some of our regulars, apprisedof Gove’s suggestion, have pointed out theobvious pitfalls. If a reviewer says no, he/she could be called biased against thatparticular author.

But if yes is the answer, he/she couldthen become responsible for the work,and be blamed by the author if some majormis-statement or wrong fact later came tolight, and the author says, “But I showed itto so and so, and he/she didn’t say anything.”

We have no ready answers here to thisevolving phenomenon. To review or not toreview? A long or short review? Ads forsome books, or ads for all books? In thecoming years there will be more and moresuch books, and we need to strike somereasonable middle ground. How can weavoid promoting flawed research or factsthat have not been tested by others, but stillallow a free exhange of new ideas andcontroversial theories. We invite ourreaders’ thoughts on this topic.

(Continued on page 4)



To the Editor:

Christopher Paul’s random summaryof Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth I (Sum-mer 2002) is an exercise in denial and offersno refutation of the premise of the book.Instead of concentrating on the main argu-ment of the book, Mr. Paul diverts hisenergies into a fact correcting exercise toavoid facing a reality he wishes to deny. Inshort, Mr. Paul has no argument that eitherrefutes the notion that Oxford was the sonof Elizabeth or confirms that Oxford wasthe son of John de Vere.

Ironically, while he complains abouterrata in the book, he makes a number ofsignificant gaffes. He says, “Streitz is appar-ently unaware that the ‘Lord Chamberlain’and the ‘Lord Great Chamberlain’ were twodifferent royal offices…” yet in his rush toskewer, he apparently did not read page209, “There were two Lord Chamberlainsin English society.” Hoisted on his ownpetard is the applicable expression for this.

In addition, we have areas where Mr.Paul is unusually dense. He comments on asection that gives a list of the spellings ofthe recorded names of the man from Strat-ford, almost exclusively “Shakspere.” Thepurpose of this section is to show that thename “Shakespeare” on all the printedworks is uncritically applied to the man,who spelled his name differently. Here isthe book, “Contrary to popular belief, Wil-liam Shakespeare was not born on April 24,1564, in Stratford-upon-Avon. The manborn on that date was named GulielmusShakspere.” Here is Mr. Paul, “Does he notcomprehend that such Latin entries werecommonplace, and that Gulielmus ismerely the Latinized form of William, or Iam missing a joke here?” No, Mr. Paul, youare not missing a joke; the issue is between“Shakespeare” and “Shakspere.” Let’s trythis one to improve your reading skills,“How many letters in c-l-u-e-l-e-s-s?”

Another of Mr. Paul’s misrepresenta-tion concerns a rumor of Elizabeth havinga child, “Streitz chooses to accept as au-thentic the entire tale except for the slightdetail that the child was ‘miserably de-stroyed.’” Here is the book, “It can be onlydescribed as a rumor, but it does revealwhat might have been believed in the courtabout the Catholic Mary, and its detaileddescription gives it credibility.” While thebook is restrained, Mr. Paul purposefullyexaggerates.

On and on it goes, random commentsand misrepresentations having no bearingon the principal theme of the book. Mr. Paulis correct that the book needed a morecareful proofing and thoughtful editing,which it has received for the next printing.My inexperience as a publisher shows tooclearly. Production of a book is a muchmore painstaking task than I realized andI made the mistake of committing myself toa deadline, rather than let the book take thetime as required. A grievous sin and griev-ously have I paid for it.

Mr. Paul is also concerned with theprocess of bringing new ideas to light. “Atthe very least, as one determined to air thetheory publicly rather than explore itthrough ongoing private research withother Oxfordians, Streitz should have em-ployed a different approach, one that keptthe material to a fair level of speculation,and one that laid out all the evidence bothpro and con.” This is dead wrong. The ideasof the book were debated for a two-yearperiod on the internet site Phaeton. It be-came apparent that there was an Oxfordianfaction that did not care what the facts were;they did not want any change in the gospelaccording to J. Thomas Looney. For themit was not that the PT Theory [Prince TudorTheory] was not true, it was that it could notbe true as a matter of either religious orpolitical belief.

After this rancorous debate, it was obvi-ous that this faction neither could refuteOxford was the son of Elizabeth nor waswilling to admit their lack of evidence.There was no more evidence to bring forthand I went on to write the book. Second, itwould be interesting to know what of “allthe evidence both pro and con” I haveomitted concerning the fundamentalpremise of the book. At best, Mr. Paul in hisrandom comments can only point out a fewreferences that were left out which havebearing only on secondary topics of thebook. Before Mr. Paul runs amok accusingothers of “not having a jot of intellectualhonesty,” he might better have his ownhouse in order.

Mr. Paul’s main concern seems to bethat in Oxford “nothing is sacred.” He seemsunwilling to critically examine the hack-neyed dogmas that exist about the VirginQueen and Oxford. Preserving the sacredreligion around Oxford is more importantfor him. In other words, the traditions of thebelieved-to-be-true historical-cultural past

To the Editor:

Christopher Paul, in his review of PaulStreitz’s Oxford, Son of Elizabeth I (Sum-mer 2002), touched on a problem that hasdeveloped in our movement that deservesmore extended attention, namely the pro-liferation of self-published Oxfordian booksby independent writers. I have read four ofthese in recent months. Though the authorsare thoughtful and often impressive in theirscholarship, all four books are riddled withtypos and at least two are crawling withfactual errors, or at least statements thatcontradict what I have read in “established”Oxfordian literature, like the works ofOgburn, Whalen, and Sobran. Soon theOxfordian bookshelf will be dominated byindependently created works.

These self-published books deserve tobe read, because they have much originalresearch and fresh insights. But the writersshould know that they risk bringing em-barrassment and ridicule to the cause bycarelessness. If Oxford catches fire with thepublic, these books will sit side-by-side onBarnes and Noble shelves with Stratfordianbooks, written by writers who subjectedtheir works to rigorous peer review, andwhich were published by name houses withtheir staffs of editors, fact checkers, andproofreaders.

Could we create a review board thatwould, at an author’s request, peer-reviewthe draft before it is published? Think howmuch better Paul Streitz’s book would havebeen if he had had such help available tohim. If such a board is formed, I wouldvolunteer to participate.

John GoveSun City Center, Florida10 August 2002

Ashbourne’s neck ruff seem to suggest aFrench type worn by one of Oxford’s rankrather than the board-like contraptionHamersley wears.

Gordon C. CyrBaltimore, Maryland31 August 2002

The points Mr. Gove raises are both interestingand relevant. We have spoken with some of oureditorial board members about them, and haveprovided some thoughts of our own under“From the Editor.”

Letters (continued from page 3)



In a story that is a bit old, but nonethe-less very important to those researchingthe authorship mystery, Fellowship mem-ber John Rollett sent a post to the De VereStudies Conference Listserv last summerabout an article first printed in London lastfall. The article, by Professor John Guy of St.Andrews University, was written for theSunday Times (11 November 2001) as aprelude to a TV program, “Conspiringagainst the Queen.”

In the article Guy introduces the newevidence by saying that although histori-ans generally regard Elizabeth as the arbi-ter of policy, and the privy cousellors herservants (whom she disciplined like naughtychildren if they became strident or insis-tent), what is striking is not how Elizabethcontrolled her ministers, but how oftenthey controlled her. “Historians have sus-pected this,” Guy wrote, “but the evidencewasn’t sufficient. There were examples, butthey didn’t form a pattern.”

Some excerpts from the article:

...New evidence has turned up, in docu-ments known as the “Bag of Secrets” in thePublic Record Office, that proves there is apattern after all. This evidence concerns theLopez Plot. In 1594, the Earl of Essex,Elizabeth’s last favourite and the rival ofLord Burghley, her chief minister, accusedRoderigo Lopez, her Portuguese-Jewishdoctor, of plotting to poison her. By accus-ing Lopez, Essex was tilting at Burghley,who had employed the doctor as an infor-mant. Lopez never intended to harm Eliza-beth. He was greedy and wanted money.The Queen knew this, and stopped his

execution. But Lopez was hanged. Nobodyknew who was responsible, until now.

Historians had guessed that Elizabethreversed her decision to stay his hangingand signed an execution warrant, but thenew evidence proves she never did. Tocircumvent the “problem” of Elizabeth’sintervention, Lopez was tried for a secondtime in a different court. The records of thissecond trial are in the Bag of Secrets. Whenconvicted, he was hanged straight away.

The prime mover in Lopez’s executionwas Burghley. Why? Because Essex haddiscovered that Lopez had been bribed byManuel d’Andrada, a Portuguese spy in theservice of Philip II of Spain, the Catholicpower against whom Protestant Englandwas at war.

Three years earlier, Burghley had re-cruited d’Andrada as a double agent. It wasa smoking gun. And if Essex were to find it,Burghley might himself be accused of trea-son. What makes it all fit is that this hadhappened before. When Burghley decidedon his own authority to summon the PrivyCouncil and dispatch a warrant to executeMary Queen of Scots in 1587, he had goneagainst the known wishes of Elizabeth andmuddied the waters to obfuscate the factthat he and his fellow counsellors actedclandestinely.

It was a blatant act of defiance for whichElizabeth sought to hang William Davison,her secretary, for allowing the death war-rant to leave his possession.

On this occasion, too, Burghley coveredhis tracks in the archives, removing crucialdocuments. He lied to Elizabeth about hisactions and he sent false evidence to thecourt of Star Chamber so thatDavison would take all the blame.

We should no longer talk about Eliza-beth and Burghley in the same breath.Queen and minister had different politicalcreeds. Elizabeth believed she had an “impe-rial” sovereignty, but Burghley believed her

monarchy was limited by the advice of thePrivy Council, and the assent of Pariament.When push came to shove, he held that thePrivy Council and Parliament could over-ride royal sovereignty.

The key to Burghley isn’t deference tomonarchy, but quasi-republicanism. Hebulldozed Elizabeth into a military strike inScotland to assist the Protestant Lords inrevolt against the Catholic regent. And thenconspired with the rebels to exclude Maryfrom returning to her throne. He was anoutright republican because he not onlysought to exclude Mary, but also plotted tosubvert her rule. His constitutional schemeswere breathtaking. If Elizabeth died, thePrivy Council and Parliament were to stayin power to safeguard the Protestant suc-cession. Burghley’s drafts envisaged anInterregnum at which time the “Council ofState” would govern England and settle thesuccession.

The facts no longer support the familiarstory. Nor was Burghley the model citizenhe liked to appear. Later in life he lookedafter number one, fiddling his taxes andbuilding expensive houses. He was theQueen’s puppeteer, pulling strings to agreater degree than Elizabeth ever knew. Toa large extent England was his fiefdom,governed by his “assured” Protestant clique.He wasn’t the power behind the throne butthe power in front of it.

The gap between popular and academichistory must be closed. History must al-ways be accessible but the complexities, thedepth, the feel, the ongoing debate, shouldnot be stripped out.

Rollett commented in his posting—and we heartily concur—“One wonderswhat else might be lurking in the ‘Bag ofSecrets.’”

Indeed. We should all have a look.

should prevent us from seeing the actual-historical truth. Yet, it is this historical-cultural past that has prevented us fromtruly seeing the autobiography written inthe works of Shakespeare. Put differently,if one had no historical-cultural knowl-edge of Stratford, Oxford or the VirginQueen, and one simply read the works froma naïve autobiographical viewpoint, onewould conclude that the Author was notsimply one of the wolfish earls, but a Princeof the Realm.

Oxfordian scholars must endure slan-der because their Stratfordian critics havenothing to refute their arguments. Mr. Paul’s

review follows this egregious tradition withmisrepresentations, errors of fact, a con-cern for trivia and character assassination.Mr. Paul must resort to this low level ofdiscourse because he cannot denyElizabeth’s involvement with her stepfa-ther. He cannot deny that Elizabeth wasmysteriously confined for a period ofmonths. He cannot deny that there wererumors of Elizabeth being pregnant. Hecannot deny the bizarre marriage of Johnde Vere to Margery Golding. He cannotdeny the early and continued interest ofWilliam Cecil in Edward de Vere, includ-ing marrying his daughter to this so-called

wastrel. He cannot deny the literature,wherein the Author presents himself, not asmerely an aristocrat, but as a noble, a per-son of royal blood (Hamlet, Bertram, KingEarl, Prince Hal, King of Naples, etc.).

Mr. Paul’s failure to mount any defensefor the Earl of Hamlet Theory or to bringany salient facts to bear against the premiseof Oxford is a de facto concession that thePrince Tudor Theory is correct, backed byirrefutable historical and literary evidence.

Paul StreitzDarien, Connecticut20 August 2002

Elizabethan history and the “Bag of Secrets”In the News



On the 11th

of July, Pro-f e s s o rD a n i e lWright ofConcordiaUniversityattended aceremony atWestmin-ster Abbeyat which amemoria lwindow to

Christopher Marlowe was unveiled. Thewindow is positioned directly aboveChaucer’s tomb and directly below anotherwindow memorializing Oscar Wilde inPoets’ Corner. The ceremony was exten-sively covered in the British press.

Dr. Wright, a patron of the ShakespeareFellowship, is also a member of the MarloweSociety of Great Britain. He was one of 100invited guests for the ceremony, as he, inrecent years, had participated in a cam-paign by the Marlowe Society to secure afitting memorial to the great Elizabethanpoet and playwright who, for centuries, hasbeen denied recognition of his achieve-ments by the Church due to his supposedlydebauched lifestyle and politically subver-sive writing. Following Dr. Wright’s assis-

tance in securing academic and ecclesias-tical support for Marlowe’s inclusion amongliterature’s immortals in Westminster Ab-bey, the Dean of Westminster Abbey an-nounced that approval for Marlowe’s inclu-sion among England’s literary greats wasbeing granted, and a ceremony for thememorializing of the great poet wasmarked for 11 July.

The ceremony began at 5:00 p.m. witha service of Choral Evensong in the AbbeyChoir and was followed by the unveilingand dedication of the Marlowe memorial inPoets’ Corner, a service presided over byThe Very Rev’d Dr. Wesley Carr, Dean ofWestminster. Musical tributes were of-fered by the Choir of The King’s School,Canterbury, and a choral setting, by JulianSlade, of Marlowe’s “Come Live With Meand Be My Love” was performed by StephenCarlile, Christopher Dickins and Gary Car-penter. A memorial wreath of marigolds(Elizabeth I’s favourite flower and theQueen’s legendary nickname for Marlowe)was laid on Chaucer’s tomb, beneath theMarlowe window, after the window wasunveiled by Sir Antony Slater. MichaelFrohnsdorff, Chairman of the MarloweSociety, read an address for the occasionand Colin Niven, President of the MarloweSociety, read additional tributes from per-sons unable to attend the ceremony.

Commemorating MarloweBy Nathan Baca

Among the eminent persons present atthe event was Mark Rylance, Artistic Direc-tor of the Globe Theatre, and Patron ofBritain’s Marlowe Society.

While some members of the MarloweSociety (most notably, perhaps, the lateDolly Walker-Wraight) are persuaded thatMarlowe may have been the writer whocalled himself Shakespeare, it is worthnoting that most current members of theMarlowe Society do not subscribe to thisview. In fact, some who revere Marlowe asone of the consummate artists of the Eliza-bethan Age are open to the suggestion thatthe writer who called himself Shakespearemay have been Edward de Vere.

That Christopher Marlowe knew Shake-speare (perhaps before Oxford assumedthat sobriquet to acquire even deeper coverfor his pre-1593 anonymity), and thatMarlowe and de Vere collaborated and ad-mired one another is, for most Oxfordians,beyond doubt. Shakespeare even utilizessome of Marlowe’s material in his plays.And many Oxfordians believe that it wasMarlowe’s real (or, perhaps apparent) as-sassination in Deptford that spurred Ed-ward de Vere to cloak his identity behind apseudonym that would afford him the kindof protection that Marlowe lacked, and forwhich Marlowe, an openly dangerous writer,may have paid with his life—or at least hiscontinued life in England. To reflect thequestionable end of Marlowe’s life, thewindow in Westminster Abbey reads:

Christopher Marlowe 1564 - ?1593

With the aid of the Shakespeare Fellow-ship and some members of the MarloweSociety, Dr. Wright is now attempting thedaunting task of attempting to secure theAbbey’s approval for a memorial to Edwardde Vere. Members of the Fellowship whowould like to be part of this process shouldcontact Dr. Wright at [email protected] for instructions on how theymay serve this endeavor to commemoratethe great Elizabethan courtier poet andplaywright who may also have been thewriter that we know by the name of Shake-speare.

Justice Stevens honored by alma materUS Supreme Court Justice John Paul

Stevens was honored by the University ofChicago’s Alumni Association last June withthe Association’s 2002 Alumni Medal.

Stevens is, of course, well known toOxfordians for the role he played in the1987 Moot Court debate on the authorship,and for his subsequent public statementson the issue.

In an August 2002 University of Chi-cago Magazine article about the award(written by his former law clerk EdwardSiskel) it was therefore of some interest tonote this paragraph towards the end of thearticle:

Despite his busy schedule on the Court,

Stevens has never abandoned his love forliterature. There is a part of the jurist thatstill wants to be an English professor. Hecontinues to pursue his love forShakespeare, choosing to celebrate the endof the Term this year by visiting the nearbyFolger Shakespeare Library. But always theiconoclast, Stevens is not content to acceptthe received wisdom with respect to theauthorship of Shakespeare’s works. He ispart of that small but growing group ofscholars who contend that Edward deVere,the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, is the trueauthor of the Shakespeare Canon.

And, of course, the public support ofindividuals such as Justice Stevens is animmeasurable aid to that “small butgrowing group of scholars.”

Christopher Marlowe

In the News



The fog that hides so much of the lifeof Edward de Vere is particularlythick around the matter and manner

of his death and place of burial. Althoughwe can be sure that he died 24 June 1604,our information on where he was buriedcomes from the will of his second wife,Elizabeth Trentham, c. 1612: “I joyfullycommit my body to the earth from whenceit was taken, desiring to be buried in theChurch of Hackney, within the county ofMiddlesex as near unto the body of my saiddear and noble Lord and husband as may be. . . ,” going on to request that her executorsprovide funds for a suitable tomb for bothof them. As always with de Vere, however,there is a conflicting report: this fromPercival Golding (fl. 1624), youngest son ofde Vere’s uncle Arthur, who stated flatly inhis manuscript about the Vere family thatthe seventeenth Earl “lieth buried atWestminster.”

With this in mind, Oxfordians have con-jectured that Oxford was reburied at somepoint in the tomb of his cousin, Sir FrancisVere, a gorgeous monument still to be seenin the north transept of the Abbey, builtsometime after Francis’s death in 1609.According to Charlton Ogburn, both theeighteenth earl and Horatio Vere, Francis’sbrother, were subsequently buried here.Beside this tomb a plaque in the floor states:“STONE COFFIN BENEATH,” which hasled some to conjecture that Oxford is bur-ied there. I think we can be certain that thisis not the case. It seems more likely that theterse wording of this plaque refers to acoffin discovered during an earlier re-arrangement of underground coffins,marking one that contains unidentifiedbones. The Abbey has been a burial site formany centuries and the earth beneath thefloor is stuffed with ancient coffins.

While standing in Poets’ Corner in theAbbey in 1999, it struck me that if Oxfordwas “Shakespeare,” the names mentionedin Jonson’s ode might be a clue to hiswhereabouts. After some introductory quib-bling on envy, when Jonson finally getsaround to praising Shakespeare he begins

by stating: “I will not lodge thee by Chaucer,or Spenser, or bid Beaumont lie / A littlefurther, to make thee a room : Thou art amonument without a tomb . . . .” (He doesn’tmention the tomb in Stratford at all.) It isa classic ruse in dissimulation to state apositive as a negative. Think of Brer Rabbit’splea: “Oh, please don’t throw me in thatbriar patch!” Jonson’s comment is odd andits placement at the very outset of his soar-ing praise even odder. His point appears tobe that although Shakespeare isn’t buriedin Poets’ Corner, it doesn’t matter since histrue monument is his works. But if that isJonson’s point, then why waste words on anelaborate conceit involving a very specificseries of actions that have not, in fact, takenplace?

If one studies the site itself, it’s clear thatthe plaques in Poets’ Corner commemorat-ing Spenser, Chaucer and Beaumont are sopositioned that, if a group of “well-willers”had wished to rebury Oxford with his truepeers, England’s greatest poets, the maneu-ver described by Jonson would have beenexactly what was needed to make room foranother coffin.

On June 19 of this year, Oxfordianscholar Christopher Paul posted to thecyber-salon Phaeton a poem by Sir JohnDenham lauding the poet Abraham Crowleyupon his burial in Poets’ Corner. Thiscontains the lines:

By Shakespear’s, Johnson’s, Fletcher’slines,

Our Stages lustre Rome’s outshines:These Poets neer our Princes sleep,And in one Grave their Mansion keep. . .

Thus it seems evident that, in 1668, SirJohn Denham regarded Shakespeare’sfinal resting place to be the Abbey, notTrinity Church in Stratford.

I submit that during the period betweenthe death of Oxford in 1604 and 1623 whenthe First Folio was published, an ad hoccommittee formed, whose purpose was tosee that England’s greatest poet was giventhe honors due him. This required that acover story be prepared so that his works

could be published in such a way that theinterests of his family were protected. Thiscommittee consisted of the “incomparablebrethren”: William Herbert, Earl of Pem-broke, who probably paid for the FirstFolio, and his brother, Philip, Earl of Mont-gomery, and his wife, Susan Vere, Oxford’sdaughter; their mother and mother-in-law,Mary Sidney, Dowager Countess of Pem-broke; Court poet Ben Jonson, by the yearof William Shakspere’s death closely alliedwith Pembroke, who had acquired the postof Lord Chamberlain in late 1615 or early1616, giving him oversight of the Courtstage and to some extent what got pub-lished; probably also Oxford’s cousin, SirFrancis Bacon (the second most influentialwriter produced by the Shakespearean era);Oxford’s son, the eighteenth Earl; and pos-sibly the Earl of Southampton. I submit thatLeonard Digges the Younger was also in-volved, based partly on his contribution ofa dedicatory poem to the Folio and ofanother to “Shakespeare’s Poems” in 1640that reinforced the false concept of Shake-speare as ignorant of Greek, essential to thecover story. Admittedly, this would havebeen an awkward group; some membersdetested other members, which may helpto explain why it took so long to get the folioproject completed. Apart from the centralcore group––those who owned manuscriptsor were involved in some way with collect-ing them for publication––others were in-cluded, men and women who knew thetruth, loved the author, and wished to seehim properly honored.

I suggest that after arrangements weremade on the QT with the vicar of the Abbey,a place was made for Oxford’s coffin inexactly the manner described by Jonson(Beaumont had died in 1616), and that oneevening after hours when the great cathe-dral was empty and silent, this group gath-ered, and, by candlelight, in hushed tonesand with proper observance, including thetraditional casting of farewell poems andthe pens with which they were written ontothe casket as it was lowered, “Shakespeare”was buried with his true peers.

Is Oxford buried in Poets’ Corner?Commentary

By Stephanie Hopkins HughesBy Stephanie Hopkins HughesBy Stephanie Hopkins HughesBy Stephanie Hopkins HughesBy Stephanie Hopkins Hughes



The 26th annual conference of theShakespeare Oxford Society convened inArlington, Virginia, over Columbus Dayweekend (October 10th to 13th). It was theSociety’s first conference in the Washing-ton, D.C. area since 1987 and the landmarkMoot Court authorship debate featuringthree Supreme Court Justices.

In addition to the usual schedule ofpapers, the conference also included a play(The Winter’s Tale) and a tour of the FolgerShakespeare Library. The major news storyat the conference was the election for theSociety’s Board of Trustees. In a contestedelection, current President Aaron Tatum(Memphis, TN) lost his Board seat to RamonJimenez (San Francisco, CA), who had beennominated by petition. Re-elected to the

Board were Dr. Frank Davis (Georgia),Gerit Quealy (New York), James Sherwood(New York), and Edward Sisson (Virginia).

At the new Board’s meeting on Sunday,October 13th, Dr. Jack Shuttleworth waselected to serve as President of the Societyin the coming year. Dr. Frank Davis waselected Vice-President. New Board mem-ber Edward Sisson will serve as Secretaryand Joe Peel (Nashville, TN) will continueas the Society’s Treasurer.

Another story that came to light overthe weekend concerned the Ashbourne por-trait. During the tours conducted for Soci-ety members at the Folger the docents (tourguides) mentioned that the portrait hadrecently been subjected to x-ray and otherscientific analysis by the same experts who

had examined the Sanders portrait (story,page one). This came as news to those of usat Shakespeare Matters and researcher Bar-bara Burris. Phone calls to the Folger onOctober 15th confirmed the story. Formore on this development see the sidebarstory on page 10.

Among the papers presented was onefrom SOS Board member Katherine Chiljanon “Dating the Ashbourne,” touching on asubject we’ve been covering in Shake-speare Matters for the past year (includingthis issue). Chiljan presented a case for theAshbourne’s having been painted in 1592(still by Cornelis Ketel, and still with Ox-ford as the sitter). However, Chiljan couldoffer no hard evidence that Ketel had evervisited London in the 1590s.

First annual Oxfordian InstituteThe Institute for Oxfordian Studies at

Concordia University inaugurated the firstof what is to be an annual seminar on theuniversity campus each August that willfocus on close study, for an entire week, ofthe Oxfordian authorship thesis. This year,from the 11th to the 17th of August, partici-pants studied the latest research in theShakespeare Authorship Question andprobed arguments for Edward de Vere’sauthorship of the Shakespeare canon thathave been advanced by many ofOxfordianism’s leading scholars. Studiesfocused on the Shakespeare history plays,although such topics as Renaissance per-spectives on history, the continental sourcesfor Shakespeare’s comedies, Edward deVere’s youthful years, and Shakespeare’sclassical learning were pursued as well.

The seven-day seminar was led byConcordia University Professor of EnglishDr. Daniel Wright, but a number of majorOxfordian scholars contributed their re-spective expertise during the week as well.Some of those who participated in leadingsessions of the seminar included Dr. KevinSimpson, Professor of Psychology atConcordia University; Stephanie HopkinsHughes, Editor of The Oxfordian; Seattlescholar and CU graduate Andrew Werth;and physician and writer Dr. Merilee Karr.

After informal gatherings over the week-end, seminar participants gathered on cam-pus on Monday to begin a week of study that

started with an exami-nation of Henry theFifth and continued,during the week, withstudy and discussionby seminar participantsand seminar leaders ofRichard the Third,Henry the Eighth, TheTwo Noble Kinsmen,Twelfth Night, KingLear and otherShakespearean worksand topics. Seminarparticipants also en-joyed the KennethBranagh film, Henrythe Fifth, and a mootcourt debate that ar-gued for the guilt orinnocence of Richard III of the murder ofthe young king, Edward V, and his brother,Richard, Duke of York.

Participants enjoyed other activities aswell. A day’s outing took several partici-pants to the Portland riverfront and aboardthe yacht, Portland Spirit, for a luncheoncruise down the Willamette River, followedby a trip to Powell’s City of Books beforeenjoying dinner in the city at the BrasserieMontmartre. Another day trip took partici-pants to Portland’s famous Japanese Gar-dens and the Washington Park Rose Gar-dens. Saturday morning closed with a final

session on campus, and while some partici-pants departed for home after a picniclunch, others enjoyed an afternoon soccergame at the university and an outdoorperformance of Twelfth Night at nearbyFernhill Park.

Next year’s seminar is scheduled for theweek of August 17-23. For information, orto register, contact Dr. Wright at ConcordiaUniversity ([email protected]). The$995 tuition includes a room for six daysand nights (with linen service), all break-fasts and luncheons, day trip costs, all books,class supplies and other amenities.

Shakespeare Oxford Society meets in Washington, D.C.

Seminar participants enjoying a river cruise on the Portland Spiritinclude (l-r) Andrew Werth, Prof. Daniel Wright, Oxfordian editorStephanie Hughes, John Varady, Wenonah Sharpe, and SOS Boardmember Susan Sybersma.



above the forehead. This pre-1979 state of the painting, whichexposed the original paint of a master portrait painter in the areaof the face, is the truest of all the versions to the original portraitand it will be one of the guidelines in our investigation. It can beseen most clearly in the full-page color photograph of the painting(taken by a professional photographer) reproduced in volume II ofRuth Loyd Miller’s 1975 reprint of J. Thomas Looney’s Shake-speare Identified in Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.3

The Folger has no color photographs of the Ashbourne prior tothe current state of the portrait after the 1988/89 restoration,although it has a 1961 black and white photo. But there areexcellent “before” color photos of the painting, including a close-up of the face, taken by Peter Michaels prior to his 1979 restorationwork. Incidentally, the portrait has been cut down in size from itsoriginal dimensions.4

The Six Stages of Alterations to the AshbourneThe Six Stages of Alterations to the AshbourneThe Six Stages of Alterations to the AshbourneThe Six Stages of Alterations to the AshbourneThe Six Stages of Alterations to the Ashbourne

Stage 1. Coat of Arms Added to Painting (early 17th century)Stage 1. Coat of Arms Added to Painting (early 17th century)Stage 1. Coat of Arms Added to Painting (early 17th century)Stage 1. Coat of Arms Added to Painting (early 17th century)Stage 1. Coat of Arms Added to Painting (early 17th century)

The first alteration to the original portrait began with theremoval of some verse or other lettering which was below theoriginal identifying inscription, to the left of the head and abovethe shoulder. The artist had signed his “CK” monogram (which allevidence indicates was that of Dutch painter Cornelis Ketel) belowthis verse or lettering. As we noted in part III, a coat of arms replacedwhatever was removed and the “CK” monogram was incorporatedinto the ribbon below the motto scroll at the bottom of the arms.5

Stage 2. Changing the Portrait into “Shake-speare” (early 17Stage 2. Changing the Portrait into “Shake-speare” (early 17Stage 2. Changing the Portrait into “Shake-speare” (early 17Stage 2. Changing the Portrait into “Shake-speare” (early 17Stage 2. Changing the Portrait into “Shake-speare” (early 17ththththth

century)century)century)century)century)

The second stage of alterations, massive in scope, involvedchanging the portrait into “Shake-speare.”6

These changes included painting over the full head of hair ontop of the head and raising the forehead to an unnatural height. Thehigh rounded shape of the original forehead and the outline of thehair are clearly visible in the x-rays. The reddish or auburn hairretained on the sides of the head was darkened, fuzzied andlengthened to cover the ear, leaving only part of the lobe exposed.The x-rays reveal the full ear and show an attempt to change theshape of the back of the ear by drawing a line up the helix. Theattempt seems to have been abandoned, leaving a small part of theback of the ear still attached but hanging outside this line, as thetamperer simply covered all but the lobe with hair. The recon-structed lobe looks fuzzy, in strong contrast to the clarity of the restof the features of the face. In the x-rays a dark area reveals a well-defined opening or dip in the lobe, close to the face and just belowthe distinctly low tragus. It has been painted over. In the ear of theWelbeck portrait of de Vere a dip may be seen in the same spot,below an equally low tragus (see the graphics on page 14 forcomparisons).

The x-rays reveal alterations to the nose. The nostril shape waschanged, and the original tip of the nose was shortened, roundedand narrowed with crude dark shadowing, in contrast to the refinedpainting of the other facial features. The altered nose still stronglyresembles the nose in the Welbeck portrait. The nose exposed by

the x-rays is an exact match, including the unique curl in thecolumella at the bottom of the tip of the nose that was eliminatedin this stage (see page 19 for further discussion of these changes).

Further alterations weremade at this stage. The shape ofthe lower lip was changed, thebeard darkened, and the faceand hands painted over. Theoriginal inscription wasscraped out and replaced withthe age “47” and “1611” date tofit the Stratford man. The iden-tifiers on the book oval and thethumb signet seal ring werecovered over and the gold bookdarkened. Much of the originallarge circular ruff was paintedover and the reminder wastransformed into the muddied,scamped 1611-era ruff nowvisible. The wrist ruffs (whichin their original state showedthe portrait was painted before the early 1580s) were overpaintedwith dark gray paint to make them less visible, and the doublet waspainted over.

Barrell’s x-rays show that the tamperer scraped out certainportions of the coat of arms, removing only specific identifyingaspects before painting them over. The tamperer’s decisions aboutwhat to remove implies that he knew by the configuration of crestand shield who the sitter was, and that he wanted to make sure thatthe sitter’s identity was removed from the coat of arms.

The lettering in the motto scroll under the arms was alsoremoved, leaving only a few indecipherable remnants clusterednear the middle of the right side of the scroll. Almost all of the goldbird figure above the wreath in the crest area was scraped away,most heavily on the left side, leaving an off-center ghostly remnantof a birdlike figure facing left and some gold (likely gold leaf)remnants. The three red heads on the shield (known as “charges”in heraldry) were left relatively intact, although parts of the earsmay have been scraped away when the gold (or gold leaf) on theshield was scraped off completely.

From this evidence of selective alterations to the coat of arms,the crest and the motto on the scroll appear to have been far morethreatening to the tamperer than the shield. Apparently the tam-perer did not regard the heads on the shield as an identifying aspectof the sitter. If the coat of arms were all of one person’s family, theheads would be as important a means of identification as the crest,and they too would have been scraped away. Thus this selectiveremoval suggests that the coat of arms was not of one family, butrather a crest of one family over the shield of another—as in thecombination of a husband’s and wife’s family arms.7

These changes to the coat of arms are documented in Barrell’s1937 x-ray photos (published in Scientific American in 1940) andconfirmed by the Folger’s 1948 x-rays. Barrell’s x-rays provide akey point of comparison between the coat of arms as it existed afterthis second Shake-speare stage of alterations and subsequentalterations to the arms—the first of which show up in the 1948

Ashbourne (continued from page 1)


“This pre-1979

state of the painting,

which exposed the

original paint of a

master portrait

painter ... is

the truest of

all the versions...”



Ashbourne (continued from page 9) Recent developmentsFolger x-rays.

Stage 3. Attempt to Remove “CK” Monogram and Changes toStage 3. Attempt to Remove “CK” Monogram and Changes toStage 3. Attempt to Remove “CK” Monogram and Changes toStage 3. Attempt to Remove “CK” Monogram and Changes toStage 3. Attempt to Remove “CK” Monogram and Changes tothe Charges in the Shield (after 1937 and before 1948)the Charges in the Shield (after 1937 and before 1948)the Charges in the Shield (after 1937 and before 1948)the Charges in the Shield (after 1937 and before 1948)the Charges in the Shield (after 1937 and before 1948)

In Part III we discussed the post-1940 attempt to remove the full“CK” monogram deep in the canvas (fully visible in the Barrell x-rays), documented by the remaining partial “CK” lettering visiblein the 1948 Folger x-rays.8 The Folger x-rays disclose that the “CK”was not the only area where alterations were made after 1937. Theyprovide evidence that the heads in the shield area were also alteredafter 1937.

To Stratfordians, the two major areas of concern raised byBarrell’s examination were the evidence of Ketel’s monogram9 (adirect connection to his known portrait of Oxford) and his identi-fication of the three heads on the shield as the griffins of theTrentham family arms. The Trenthams were the family of Oxford’ssecond wife and widow, Elizabeth Trentham.

In Barrell’s x-rays of the coat of arms we noted that goldremnants are visible only in the crest area, not in the shield area.But the 1948 Folger x-rays show distinctly bright remnants of goldin the front of all three heads and at the bottom of the necks; theexistence of these gold remnants is verified in Michaels’s 1979photos. How did they suddenly appear in the painting as shown inthe 1948 Folger x-rays? The answer to this question will provideclues as to what the shield heads looked like when Barrell x-rayedthem before they were altered.

An extremely common technique used by artists is to lay downfirst the larger background color of an area (such as the shield) andto paint details in that area (such as the heads) on top of thisbackground color. For example, Spielmann noted in 1910 that theskull on the table in the portrait has some red showing through itfrom the large area of the red tablecloth underneath that had beenpainted first. The red showing in the skull is a result of the loss oforiginal paint in the skull, mainly from successive rubbings of theskull during cleanings of the portrait.

Similarly, the basic color of the entire shield area in the coat ofarms would have been laid down first and the red heads painted ontop of it. (The coat of arms itself was painted on top of the originalpaint of the portrait in stage one of the alterations.)

As noted, during stage two of the alterations into Shake-speare,the paint of the entire shield area had been scraped away. Thisscraping apparently extended all the way down to the underlaymentarea of the canvas, leaving reddish-orange lines on the canvasoutlining the shield’s original size and shape (the lines can be seenvery clearly in Michaels’s photos).10 Although the color of the shieldwas scraped away in the change to Shake-speare, the red headspainted on top of the shield were not scraped away—the scrapingwas done around them. So if there were any subsequent alterationsto the heads, we should expect to see spots of the shield colorrevealed from beneath the heads—just as the red tablecloth showedthrough in the skull after repeated cleanings.

In fact, the 1948 Folger x-rays show bright thick lines on areasin the beaks and bottom neck areas of the heads on the shield, brightareas which are not there in Barrell’s x-rays. These bright areas,exposed from underneath the red heads, are gold, as verified inMichaels’s color photos, proving that the original color of the

Just as this issue of Shakespeare Matters was about to be printed welearned some significant news about the Folger’s current handling of theAshbourne portrait. First, Arthur Page (who worked on the painting in1988-89 under the direction of William Pressly and the Folger) hasclaimed a personal copyright on slides still in the Folger’s possessionwhich he took documenting his work on the painting, and requested thatthey not be released for publication. None of these slides have been usedin Part IV.

Second, the painting itself was sent to Canada to undergo the sameforensic testing recently performed on the Sanders portrait by theCanadian Conservation Institute (story, page 1). The painting left theFolger on September 3rd and was returned on October 9th. Except forthe time in transit, it was at the CCI the entire time.

Among the tests done were: x-radiography, ultraviolet fluorescence,infrared, and pigment analysis. As of mid-October Folger Curator of ArtErin Blake informs us that the forensic results should be ready by mid-November, and will be announced during the November 15th to 16th“Picturing Shakespeare” seminar on the campus of the University ofToronto (the initial focus of this seminar had been the Sanders portrait,but it has since been expanded to cover all “purported” Shakespeareportraits). Blake will be present, speaking on “Picturing Shakespeare,”including—obviously—the Ashbourne. Among others at this Torontoevent will be Prof. Alan Nelson and David Kathman, names familiar toanyone who has been following the authorship debate these past fewyears. Barbara Burris is scheduled to speak on her Ashbourne researchin a related event (also on the University of Toronto campus, thoughseparate from the seminar) on November 17th.

Blake has informed us that the only documentation sent to the CCIwere the Ashbourne entry in A Catalogue of Paintings in the FolgerShakespeare Library (the 1993 Yale University Press book prepared forthe Folger by William Pressly), and the 1940 Scientific American articleby Barrell. These two documents, Blake told us in an email, were sentalong as “a guide to the questions that have been raised about thepainting, and [the CCI] based their scientific analysis accordingly.”Interestingly, William Pressly’s 1993 Ashbourne article in ShakespeareQuarterly was not sent to CCI, nor were the 1948 x-rays, or the Folgerfiles and photos.

Burris was especially disappointed to learn about this testing after thepainting had already been sent out and returned. Burris’s sentiments(echoed by the SM editors) is that it would have been useful if the“opposing point of view” about this painting could have been betterrepresented in this testing, especially with suggestions for particularareas to be tested for scraping and repainting. As Blake’s email makesclear, the CCI was not informed about any of Burris’s analysis of the twoFolger restoration projects of 1979-1981 and 1988-1989.

We have learned through phone calls to the CCI that this examinationwas restricted—at the Folger’s request—to paint analysis of only the goldpaint in the inscription, book, ring and gauntlet. Only the top layer ofpaint was analyzed in the second numeral “one” in the “1611” date, whilea lower layer was taken only from under the “S” in “Suae”—simply todetermine whether the varnish was below the letter or not. Both of theseareas of limited examination raise crucial problems concerning anyclaims that might be made about the inscription given the evidence ofalterations already shown in our Ashbourne series.

This limited analysis appears to us, in fact, to raise more questionsthat can only be resolved by a thorough and complete examination of thepainting, including equal Oxfordian input, oversight and analysis of theresults. Such an examination would include—but not be limited to—anexamination of any resurfacing of the inscription area going down tothe canvas; an analysis of all layers of paint and underlayment in thenumeral “one” and all other areas of alteration and over-painting; athorough paint analysis of many specific paint areas in the coat of arms;a comparative analysis of the paints examined; an analysis of techniques,methods and paints in comparison to Ketel paintings; and comparativeanalysis from other fields, including costume, etc.

We will report on this seminar and the results of the forensic analysisof the Ashbourne in our Winter 2003 issue. —BB/WEB



shield was gold (likely gold leaf). Moreover, these gold remnantsshow up exactly where we would expect to find them if someone hadbeen trying to remove evidence of the Trentham arms. Since thesebright areas are not visible in the Barrell x-rays, they must have beenuncovered between 1937 and 1948.

The Trentham arms comprise three red griffin heads with blackbeaks. In the 1948 Folger x-rays and Michaels’s 1979 photos allthree heads show a longish remnant of gold in the front area of eachface (see Figs. 1 & 5 on pages 12-13 to see how these remnantsappeared on one of Michaels’s 1979 photos of the uncovered coatof arms). Their presence makes each head look like it has a partiallygold beak. Someone removed the paint only from the three beakareas, exposing some of the original gold of the underlying shield(Michaels’s photos show red paint outlining the area in the front ofthe face from which the paint had been removed). Thus we candeduce that this beak area in each head was of a different color fromthe red heads. Might we not presume that what led the alterers toremove the paint in this area on each head was the presence of adifferent beak color, such as the black beaks of the Trenthamgriffins—which Barrell had predicted, but are now erased?

The 1948 Folger x-rays provide further proof that the heads arethose of the Trentham griffins. The x-rays reveal thick bright streaks(verified as gold again in Michaels’s color photos) at the bottom oftwo of the necks, showing that attempts were made to cut off thejagged necks and make them straight (“couped” in heraldic terms).The Trentham griffins have jagged necks (“erased” in heraldicterms). The Barrell x-rays show jagged necks, some evidence ofwhich still remains in Michaels’s photos. The upper left neck is themost distinctly jagged in Barrell’s x-rays. The Folger x-rays andMichaels’s photos reveal that someone cut off this neck with astraight line and painted the lower neck area in with dark paint. Adot of gold from the shield underneath still shows in this area.Clearly the pre-1948 alterers found the Trentham jagged necks toorevealing.

Despite the alterations to the beaks and necks, the red heads stillremained those of griffins, which explains why attempts were madeto rub out the details of the faces so as to make them extremelydifficult to distinguish. Evidence of this rubbing is the peculiarcolor of the heads, where the red paint was rubbed down close tothe gold, making the heads look orangish. In this process someslight gold lines in the face area—especially of the bottom head—were exposed, again verified by Michaels’s photos. But some of theoriginal red paint, identical to the color of the wreath and mantling,is still visible in spots on the heads.

We note here that, in response to Part III of this series, Folgerofficials have attempted to avoid the evidence that the heads on theshield are not the Hamersley gold rams heads by denying that theheads are red (as in the Trentham arms). They maintain that theoriginal artist applied a background (or “underlayment”) of redpaint to much of the canvas, and that the red heads on the shield aresimply pieces of this red paint now showing through.10A

This is an unsatisfactory and inaccurate response. A colorshowing through during a restoration process that takes off layersof overpaint must be an underlayment, a base color laid down inwide brush strokes on the canvas over which the picture is painted.There may be different underlayments in the same painting—particularly in the face of a portrait. A general red underlaymentcolor showing through in spots could not create the distinctly

painted-in red heads on the shield with their structural details(however fuzzied those details were made by later alterations). Theattempt to obscure the details of the heads, resulting in an orangishcolor due to red paint being rubbed down close to gold, alsoinvalidates this claim. Further, the remnants of the original red onthe heads are of the same color as the very detailed mantling thatis most visible on the right side of the arms. Does the Folger claimthat the highly detailed painting of the red mantling is simply thered underlayment color showing through also?

Stage 4. Changes to the Coat of Arms and Inscription BeforeStage 4. Changes to the Coat of Arms and Inscription BeforeStage 4. Changes to the Coat of Arms and Inscription BeforeStage 4. Changes to the Coat of Arms and Inscription BeforeStage 4. Changes to the Coat of Arms and Inscription Before19791979197919791979

The fourth stage of alter-ations involves differencesbetween the 1948 Folger x-rays and restorer PeterMichaels’s file photos of thecoat of arms and inscrip-tion, taken after these wereuncovered in 1979.Michaels’s photos show fur-ther changes to the coat ofarms after the 1948 Folgerx-rays. These alterations,which do not appear inBarrell’s or the Folger’s x-rays, include the redrawingof the shield to make itsmaller, more changes tothe heads (particularly thenecks), the addition of pinkish-red circles in the crest intended fora cross crosslet fitchy, the addition to the scroll of light surface“MORE” lettering (to incorporate part of Hamersley’s motto), andchanges to the crest.

Also, a change was made to the last numeral in the false “1611”inscription (itself added in stage two) showing a large scraped “2”behind this numeral. These changes were made primarily toprovide evidence for the Folger’s claim, first asserted in 1979, thatHugh Hamersley is the sitter in the portrait.

Stage 5. The Portrait in Limbo—Alterations Between 1982 andStage 5. The Portrait in Limbo—Alterations Between 1982 andStage 5. The Portrait in Limbo—Alterations Between 1982 andStage 5. The Portrait in Limbo—Alterations Between 1982 andStage 5. The Portrait in Limbo—Alterations Between 1982 and19881988198819881988

The fifth stage of alterations is apparent from the Arthur Pagefile photos taken prior to his conservation work in 1988-89. Thesephotos reveal things that were not there before Michaels’s 1979-82work, and are not in Michaels’s file photos. These changes musthave occurred during the six-year period when the portrait sat inlimbo after Michaels’s untimely death in 1982, probably after 1984when the painting was taken back to the Folger and stored until thecompletion of the restoration in 1988-89. They include the disap-pearance of all detail on the left wrist ruff (all that’s left is a blob),and a strange griffin in the crest on a coat of arms photo that doesnot appear in any of Michaels’s photos. In other areas, especiallythe forehead and ear, it is hard to tell whether changes occurred atthis stage or the next.


“Someone removed the

paint only from the three

beak areas, exposing

some of the original gold

of the underlying shield.”



In part III we noted that in May 1979conservator Peter Michaels removed theoverpaint on the coat of arms. Two months laterHamersley was “discovered” by the Folger, basedon an interpretive sketch purportedly based onthis coat of arms. We questioned the accuracy ofthis sketch, showing that it was not a truerepresentation of what was on the painting andthat it relied instead onelements of the 1911D u c a t - H a m e r s l e yarms.

Further questionsarise: What actually wason the coat of armswhen Michaels uncov-ered it in 1979? ( Fig. 1is from one of Michaels’s1979 photographs ofthe uncovered coat ofarms, and Fig. 2 is thecoat of arms on thepainting today).

How does the 1979uncovered coat of armsdiffer from what the x-rays showed on thepainting prior toMichaels’s removal ofthe overpaint?

And how could ele-ments of Hamersley getinto this coat of armssince we have shown bycostume dating, ico-nography, the coat ofarms and the lack of fa-cial resemblance, etc., that this portrait is notHugh Hamersley?

We can begin to answer these questions bylooking at Michaels’s photos of the arms in theAshbourne portrait file. They show far moredetail than what is now visible on the coat ofarms after “inpainting” in 1988-89 that coveredover some importrant details and some of thechanges that show up in Michaels’s photos.

Alterations to the Coat ofAlterations to the Coat ofAlterations to the Coat ofAlterations to the Coat ofAlterations to the Coat ofArms between 1948 and 1979Arms between 1948 and 1979Arms between 1948 and 1979Arms between 1948 and 1979Arms between 1948 and 1979

The major alterations that show up inMichaels’s photos involve the shield area, themotto scroll and the crest. I suggest that Barrell’sdeath in 1975 precipitated this stage of thealterations to the coat of arms and the ensuingproclamation of Hamersley only four years later,almost 40 years after Barrell’s Scientific Ameri-can article suggested that Oxford was the Ash-bourne sitter.

The Shield in Michaels’s PhotosThe Shield in Michaels’s PhotosThe Shield in Michaels’s PhotosThe Shield in Michaels’s PhotosThe Shield in Michaels’s Photos

The shield was reduced in size by crudelypainting a black outline of a smaller shieldaround the heads (see the comparisons on page13 between Figs. 3 and 4—the coat of arms asit appeared in the 1940s, and Fig. 5—the coatof arms uncovered by Michaels in 1979).

This alteration was so poorly done that theright side of the new, smaller shield edge directlytouches the neck and head of the top right head,rendering the heads off-center. The helmet nolonger fits over the shield and appears to floatabove it. The creation of the smaller shield alsocuts off the long jagged edge of the bottom head.This appears to have been the principal reasonfor drawing a new shield—to remove evidenceof “erased” (i.e. cut off with a “jagged” line) headsand to suggest that the heads were “couped” (i.e,cut off with a straight line).

This smaller shield is not in the Barrell orFolger x-rays. In the x-rays the mantling thatfalls from the crest and surrounds the shieldoutlines a wider and longer shield shape thatgoes all the way down to the top of the scroll. Themantling outline in the x-rays shows that theoriginal shield extended beyond it; the mantlingitself defined the outline shape of the shield thatappears on the x-rays.12 (See Fig. 3, author’sdrawing from 1948 Folger x-rays.) In addition,vestiges of orangish lines in Michaels’s photos

show an outline of the original shield thatextended beyond the mantling and down to thescroll.

The shield area was, of course, crucial to theHamersley attribution as the Folger claimedthat the heads were the Hamersley rams. De-spite all these alterations, overlays show that therams heads on the 1716 Haberdashers portrait

of Hamersley, the1911 Dulcat-Ham-ersley rams headsand the rams headsof the Folger sketchstill do not match theheads on the shield.

The Crest inThe Crest inThe Crest inThe Crest inThe Crest inMichaels’s photosMichaels’s photosMichaels’s photosMichaels’s photosMichaels’s photos

The same blackpaint used to createthe new shield wasalso used in the crestarea to outline thebottom of a griffinwing on the bird fig-ure at the top of thecrest in order to cre-ate evidence for a grif-fin on the crest. Also,thin red paint wasused to outline feath-ers in the wing andorangish paint wasapplied to create theoutline of a griffin.

Reddish, pinkcircles were added to the top left of the crest,precisely where a cross crosslet fitchy wouldappear on the Hamersley arms. However, thecircles are the wrong shape for the squared tipsof a cross crosslet.

This apparently explains why Michaels’sassistant “incorrectly” drew a cross botonny(which has rounded tips) in her interpretivesketch of the arms. These circles do not appearin the x-rays. In the x-rays there are indistin-guishable blotches all along the left side of thecrest from the mantling to the head of the birdfigure; they are easier to see in the Folger x-rays,on which I counted six.

The Motto Scroll in Michaels’s PhotosThe Motto Scroll in Michaels’s PhotosThe Motto Scroll in Michaels’s PhotosThe Motto Scroll in Michaels’s PhotosThe Motto Scroll in Michaels’s Photos

Very faint “MORE” lettering was added tothe scroll in an orange-red color. This can beseen with difficulty in enlargements of theMichaels photos. Michaels dismissed this asoriginal paint. The x-rays reveal no “MORE”lettering. Of course “MORE” was the ending of

A History of Alterations to the Coat of Arms

Fig. 1 Fig. 2In comparing the coat of arms as uncovered by Michaels in 1979 (Fig. 1) and its present state (Fig.2) it is interesting to note that two of the gold streaks present on the front of each head in 1979 havedisappeared from the heads in the upper left and bottom by the final restoration.

By permission, Folger Shakespeare Library By permission, Folger Shakespeare Library



Hamersley’s motto “HONORE ET AMORE,” acrucial piece of “evidence” in the Folger’s “iden-tification” of the arms as those of Hamersley.

Alterations to the Coat of ArmsAlterations to the Coat of ArmsAlterations to the Coat of ArmsAlterations to the Coat of ArmsAlterations to the Coat of Armsafter Michaels 1982 —1989after Michaels 1982 —1989after Michaels 1982 —1989after Michaels 1982 —1989after Michaels 1982 —1989

A struggle seems to have developed betweenrestorer Michaels and director Hardison notlong after the Folger’s July 1979 proclamationthat the sitter was Hamersley. The conflictconcerned painting over uncovered paint—particularly the coat of arms that the Folgerwanted completely painted over again. In a July24, 1980, letter to Ann Skiff, his contact at theFolger, Michaels stated that “I do not considerit ethical to cover over original paint and wouldwithdraw from further conservation if thatcourse is chosen.”13 (Emphasis added).

That course was chosen and carried out in1988-89 after Michaels’s death, though not tothe extent of covering the entire arms as Hardisonhad originally wanted. We presume fromMichaels’s stance on this and other issues thatthe coat of arms was left as he uncovered it whenhe died in January 1982. The photo evidence andPressly’s later comments about inpainting thearms confirm this.

Portrait in Limbo: Fifth Stage ofPortrait in Limbo: Fifth Stage ofPortrait in Limbo: Fifth Stage ofPortrait in Limbo: Fifth Stage ofPortrait in Limbo: Fifth Stage ofAlterations to the Coat of ArmsAlterations to the Coat of ArmsAlterations to the Coat of ArmsAlterations to the Coat of ArmsAlterations to the Coat of Arms

In its present form, the coat of arms is theresult of two more stages of alterations. The fifthstage (the earlier of two post-1979 stages ofalteration) occurred while the painting sat openand unfinished for six years after Michaels’sdeath. These changes can be seen in Page’sphotos, taken before he began work on theportrait. It is hard to discern the order of the

1988-89 Page photos in the Ashbourne file. Onephoto (#C28) shows the highly detailed, painted-in feather structure of the griffin wing in thecrest that is neither on Michaels’s photos nor onthe painting now. In the other coat of armsphotos in the Page file the coat of arms hasalready been inpainted, as it is on the portraitnow. But one other photo (#D37) shows astrange and clearly delineated griffin perchedatop the round area above the wreath thatappears to have been partially painted in. Theseappear to be alterations that were aborted asbeing too obviously phony.

Pressly/Gundersheimer and the SixthPressly/Gundersheimer and the SixthPressly/Gundersheimer and the SixthPressly/Gundersheimer and the SixthPressly/Gundersheimer and the SixthStage of Alterations to the Coat of ArmsStage of Alterations to the Coat of ArmsStage of Alterations to the Coat of ArmsStage of Alterations to the Coat of ArmsStage of Alterations to the Coat of Arms

The second post-1979 stage of alterations tothe coat of arms (the sixth stage of alterationsoverall) occurred in 1988-89, and was directedby William Pressly in conjunction with Folgerdirector Gundersheimer. The result of this finalstage of “restoration” is now visible on thepainting. Apparently, after Michaels’s resistancethe Folger decided it was not politic or advisableto cover the arms entirely as Hardison’s 1979memo had advised. The best alternative was aninpainting of the arms, which resulted in cov-ering over some of the alterations and enhanc-ing certain aspects that had been added to“prove” Hamersley. This selective covering overcontrasts strikingly with the far more detailedcoat of arms in Michaels’s photos.

The Inpainted Coat of ArmsThe Inpainted Coat of ArmsThe Inpainted Coat of ArmsThe Inpainted Coat of ArmsThe Inpainted Coat of Armson the Painting Nowon the Painting Nowon the Painting Nowon the Painting Nowon the Painting Now

The most glaring change to the coat of armsas it now appears is the painting over of the goldpreviously exposed in the beaks of two of the

three heads on the shield. This overpaintingmakes the remaining gold on the beak of theupper right head look like an anomaly. Someoneapparently noticed the problems presented byareas of gold in all three heads and tried tominimize the damage (but without overpaintingall three heads!). But without Michaels’s photosshowing the gold on all three heads, it would beimpossible to understand the significance of thegold remaining on the third head. These goldareas were a tip-off that the heads were mostlikely bird heads with different color beaks, andas such they posed a danger to the Hamersleyrams heads claim.

The inpainting of the background colorencroaches into the coat of arms at many points,particularly in the shield and crest area. Thisinpainting removed altered aspects visible onMichaels’s photos, such as the scraped area thatshowed a larger original shield. It also enhancedaspects that had been added to the arms, suchas the circles supposedly representing the Ham-ersley cross crosslet fitchy. The backgroundinpainting also removed details in the scroll aswell as large scraped areas showing that therewas a far bigger and different object in thecrest.14 Other alterations were also made.

Under Pressly’s ostensible objective of keep-ing the picture “an aesthetic whole,”15 majorevidence in the coat of arms, uncovered byMichaels in 1979, is no longer visible. Further-more, alterations to the arms visible in Michaels’sphotos have been covered over. Not only is thepainting-over of this original paint unprofes-sional and, in these circumstances, unethical asMichaels asserted, no true aesthetic purpose isinvolved. The real purpose of the highly selectiveinpainting was ideological, to direct the viewerto the conclusion that the arms are those ofHamersley.

Fig. 3

Fig. 4 Fig. 5

The most clearly visible change to the coat of arms between the 1940s and 1979 involves the mysterious appearance of the smaller shield visiblein the 1979 Michaels’s photos (Fig. 5). As can be seen in the author’s drawing from the 1948 Folger x-rays (Fig. 3) and the 1937 Barrell x-rays as published in Scientific American in 1940 (Fig. 4), the smaller shield was not present in the 1940s.



Scientific American



Stage 6. Incorporating “Elements of Hamersley”—AlterationsStage 6. Incorporating “Elements of Hamersley”—AlterationsStage 6. Incorporating “Elements of Hamersley”—AlterationsStage 6. Incorporating “Elements of Hamersley”—AlterationsStage 6. Incorporating “Elements of Hamersley”—Alterationsin 1988-89”in 1988-89”in 1988-89”in 1988-89”in 1988-89”

The sixth stage of alterations occurred during the completionof the restoration under the direction of William Pressly, who,together with Folger director Werner Gundersheimer, controlledthe final outcome of the 1988-89 restoration work of Arthur Page.In a 1988 memo Pressly recommended to Gundersheimer that“elements of Hamersley” be incorporated into the design of thepainting.11

The major areas of alteration were to the hairline, the ear, theinscription, and the shield, including the removal of the goldstreaks in the beak area on two of the three heads, along with otherinpainting covering some of the changes that had been made to thecoat of arms before Michaels—all to accentuate “elements ofHamersley.”

The Uncovered Ear and the Michaels-The Uncovered Ear and the Michaels-The Uncovered Ear and the Michaels-The Uncovered Ear and the Michaels-The Uncovered Ear and the Michaels-Hardison struggle over the foreheadHardison struggle over the foreheadHardison struggle over the foreheadHardison struggle over the foreheadHardison struggle over the forehead

In addition to the alterations in the coat of arms (see the separatesidebar on this history, pages 12-13), there are two other key areasin Michaels’s restoration that deserve our close attention. In bothcases we find evidence of changes that again appear to be moreideological than aesthetic, with an eye to denying the original sitterwas Oxford and attempting to prove that it was instead Hamersley.First we will look at the right ear, which Michaels uncovered withthe Folger’s approval, and then at the overpainted hair on the head,which he wanted to uncover—and which he likely did uncover inopposition to the Folger’s wishes.

We say here “likely did uncover” because there is contradictoryevidence (in both the Ashbourne files and in the recollections of Dr.Gordon Cyr) about what Michaels said he did regarding the hairlineand what the existing files and photos document that he did.

The Altered EarThe Altered EarThe Altered EarThe Altered EarThe Altered Ear

Like fingerprints, ears are individually distinct. Aware of theimportance of the ear, Pressly quotes Barrell’s observation that “thelarge ear with wide anterior opening” in the Ashbourne matchedOxford’s long, open ear.16 The 1948 Folger x-ray of the head alsoexposed an ear with a low tragus and the area above it open up tothe concha, forming a “wide anterior opening” exactly like the earin the Welbeck portrait of de Vere. The x-rays also reveal a dark areashowing the indent in the lobe close below the low tragus, whichis identical to that in the ear in the Welbeck (see Fig. 7, author’sdrawing of the ear whose outline was traced directly from theFolger x-ray). In fact, the ear revealed in the Folger x-ray (minus thevisible changes made in the second stage of alterations into “Shake-speare”) is a remarkable match to the Welbeck ear (Fig. 9).

In his 1993 article in the Shakespeare Quarterly, Presslyreferred to the 1948 Folger x-rays to make the false claim that the“CK” monogram was not visible, but he mentioned none of theother Folger x-rays of the Ashbourne showing the hairline, nose,ear, etc.—all of which corroborate Barrell. In addition to omittingevidence in the Folger’s possession, Pressly impugned Barrell’sevidence and integrity, and what he asserts are Barrell’s interpre-tations.

Pressly referred in a footnote to the May 1940 ScientificAmerican editorial follow-up article on Barrell’s investigation,which included two photos of Barrell’s x-ray of the head that werenot in the original January 1940 article—both showing the ear. Oneis a partial photo of the head showing all but the top of the ear, theother is a close-up photo of the ear taken from the first photo. Theear from the Barrell x-ray photo is identical to the ear on the Folgerx-ray of the head (Fig. 7, drawing). The full ear is visible in the Folgerx-ray, in slightly more detail than can be seen in the ScientificAmerican photo. It is interesting to note that the editors of Scien-tific American noted the remarkable likeness of this ear with its“wide anterior opening” to Oxford’s ear (Fig. 9, detail from theWelbeck).

Fig. 7 shows the ear as it appeared in the 1948 Folger x-ray, Fig. 8 is the restored ear as it now appears on the painting, and Fig. 9 is the earfrom the 1575 Welbeck portrait of Oxford. Fig. 6 is provided to identify the anatomy of the ear for reference. It is readily apparent that the restoredear (Fig. 8) is very different from the ear revealed on the x-ray (Fig. 7, author’s drawing). Two key points of similarity between the Welbeckear (Fig. 9) and the x-ray ear (Fig. 7) have been altered: the gap between the tragus and antitragus has been filled in (see Fig. 6, ear anatomy),and the extended open vertical structure of the upper ear has also been filled in. The restored ear (Fig. 8) thus presents the viewer with a smallhalf-moon shaped structure that is completely at odds with the x-ray ear. (Figures 7-8 by permission, Folger Shakespeare Library. Figure9 by permission, National Portrait Gallery, London).

Fig. 6 Fig. 7, Folger x-ray (1948) Fig. 8, Ashbourne (2001) Fig. 9, Welbeck (1575)

Ashbourne (continued from page 11)



We should expect to see this same ear, with its distinctive lowtragus and long unenclosed opening that is in both sets of x-rays,even if the overpainted lobe is not uncovered. But, incredibly, thatis not what is now on the painting. The ear has been altered to beunrecognizable as the ear of the original sitter as shown in the x-rays. The original low tragus has been painted over, and a newtragus imposed above to form a small and enclosed, roundly curvedopening to the ear. Where did this ear come from?

Both Pressly and the Folger files note that Michaels fullyuncovered the ear. In the change to Shake-speare (stage two), onlythe altered lobe was visible after the rest of the ear had been paintedover with hair. As most of the ear was not tampered with at this stage,we should expect to see this shape (confirmed by x-rays) in theuncovered ear in Michaels’s files. But, significantly, there are nopictures of the uncovered ear in the Michaels files on the FolgerAshbourne microfilm.17

Pictures of the ear, either with a partially covered tragus areaor fully exposed, show up in the Page file photos in 1988-89. Thefully exposed ear in the Page files resembles the altered ear on theportrait now with its higher tragus and small, rounded enclosedopening.

What happened to the ear after Michaels uncovered it? Why doesit no longer reflect the x-ray evidence of what the original earlooked like? Pressly may help provide some answers to thesequestions.

In his article Pressly commented that Barrell, supported by theScientific American editors, maintained that “the shape of the head[shown in the x-rays]…and even ‘the large ear with the wide anterioropening’” were all characteristic of Oxford.18 Pressly then divertedattention from this important piece of evidence. First, after omit-ting the Folger x-ray evidence that confirms Barrell, he tried toundermine the x-ray evidence itself by alluding to the “indistinctdetails revealed by the x-rays” (referring to Barrell’s x-rays—whichshow clearly in the photos) that “were made to conform to theOxford iconography.”19 The implication is that Oxford was readinto the x-ray evidence—not that the evidence itself (including theFolger’s own x-rays) supported the Oxford attribution. Contrary toPressly’s assertions, the 1948 Folger x-ray of the head area showingthe nose, the hairline and the ear fully support the Barrell x-rayevidence and they are clear and distinct. Detailed drawings andphotos can be made from the Folger x-ray of the head as can be seenin the author’s drawings in Fig. 7 (page 14), Fig. 10 (page 16), andFig. 11 (page 19). The Folger has refused permission to photographthe x-rays, though they are lent out to scholars.

Ignoring the x-ray evidence, Pressly concentrated on attackingBarrell. He called Barrell’s study “pseudo-scientific” and criticizedhis choice of publication, asserting that because the ScientificAmerican has nothing to do with art, neither it nor Barrell wasqualified to say anything about an art object. Barrell, a photo-graphic expert, writer and picture director for Western Electric forfifteen years, was in fact highly qualified to oversee the nationallyrenowned experts in x-ray and infrared photography who under-took the examination of the portrait. This is a surprising attack froman art historian who should understand the importance of scientificinvestigations of paintings that are routinely employed by all artmuseums.

The editors of the May 1940 Scientific American follow-uparticle anticipated that kind of attack. They observed that the idea

that Oxford was the real Shake-speare was not a “crank” view (asPressly deliberately quoted from a Stratfordian partisan), but aview that had been advocated by many respected scholars eventhen.20

Noting the many volumes of research into Oxford’s long-hidden career as a poet and dramatist since his “discovery” in 1920,the editors continued, “These facts are mentioned to make clear thepoint that, while the Scientific American is not a literary orhistorical magazine, Mr. Barrell has substantial corroborativebacking for the conclusions that he drew from his x-ray and infra-red dissections and discussions of the ancient Shakespeare por-traits.”21

Pressly further attacked Barrell for being “extremely literal”22

in using the x-ray evidence to draw conclusions about the ear andforehead. Pressly exhibits his own “objectivity” by relying onunnamed art historians and an obscure 19th century philosopherand medical man, Giovanni Morelli, who uttered the vacuousstatements that “portraits are seldom completely accurate images”and “hands or ears function as a signature of the artist.”23

Pressly latched on to this latter notion about ears, but cited noexamples of painters using “signature ears” in any period, let alonethe Elizabethan or Jacobean period. In the case of Ketel, during hislifetime his works were considered “good likenesses.”24 KarenHearns has described the effect of his portrait of Robert Smythe (anewly attributed Ketel) as “one of vivid realism when compared tothe shadowless icons of contemporary painters in England.”25 Inall his portraits where ears show (Wackendorff, 1574, Frobisher,1577, Pead, 1578, Smythe, 1579-80), Ketel has painted them verydistinctly and individually.

Elsewhere, Pressly virtually admitted that the ear as it nowappears on the painting has been altered from its appearance inboth the Barrell and Folger x-rays. In his 1988 memo toGundersheimer, he wrote, “Whatever Arthur Page does to the ear,the inscription, and the coat of arms can always be changed in thefuture.”26

The Struggle over the ForeheadThe Struggle over the ForeheadThe Struggle over the ForeheadThe Struggle over the ForeheadThe Struggle over the Forehead

We turn now to another piece of evidence that does not fitHamersley but is a perfect fit for Oxford—the shape of the forehead.

The struggle in 1979 between Michaels and the Folger aboutuncovering the hair that had been painted over above the foreheadwas primarily about the shape of the forehead. Barrell had notedthat his x-rays showed a full head of hair above a high, roundedforehead. In the Folger files David Piper, then of the NationalPortrait Gallery, London, is reported as stating from his examina-tion of the Folger x-rays that there are “alterations to the head, oldhair line is visible (lower), right ear visible, ruff altered.”27 (Theexistence of an original hairline and changes to the ruff are thingsthe Folger has denied.) Michaels repeatedly said he wanted touncover the forehead area, and yet the Folger insisted that all thehair had been scraped away and nothing but the overpaint was left.Pressly repeated the Folger claim in his 1988 memo toGundersheimer and in his 1993 article. Why did they insist thatthere was no hair under the overpainting and no hairline visible,when even a glance at their own x-rays shows the hair and hairlineso clearly and unmistakably?




Ashbourne (continued from page 15) painted over afterMichaels’s death.

Further evidencethat the hairlinewas uncovered andpainted over againis the fact that theshape of the head isnow different fromthe pre-1979 headshape. The over-painted head area isnow more rounded,the likely result of thedifficulty of restor-ing the shape of thehead after paintingover the hair.

The x-rays showthe head of hair anda well defined hair-line—a high, round-ed forehead withhair that curvesdown very slightlyonto the middle ofthe forehead and ahigh, rounded areavisible above theright temple that would also be visible above the left temple if thesitter were facing the viewer head on (see Fig. 10, drawing of x-ray).The high rounding of the left forehead area in the x-ray is exactlythe same shape as that in the Welbeck portrait. A hat drawn over thex-ray head in the same position as the hat in the Welbeck shows anidentical forehead outline.

As the portrait now appears, the distinct dark shadow of ahairline has been added to the overpainted area above the forehead,a shadow which wasn’t there in the stage two alterations into Shake-speare. One wonders how this hairline was conceived, as the Folgerhas maintained that there was no hair under the painted-overforehead. But a close look at the 1716 Hamersley portrait suggestsan answer. The shadowed-in hairline is lower and more squared andresembles Hamersley’s hairline, a clear example of the “elementsof Hamersley” that Pressly advised be added to the painting.

What does Pressly say about this forehead? Omitting the Folgerx-ray evidence and Folger overpainting of the forehead in hisarticle, he asserts that, “We have also allowed the expansive originalforehead to remain with the original hairline still faintly percep-tible beneath.”32

Michaels’s deathMichaels’s deathMichaels’s deathMichaels’s deathMichaels’s death

The last document in the Michaels file is an undated note,apparently written after the January 26, 1981, memo relaying therevised Folger instructions to Michaels that had countermandedthe committee decision to uncover the overpainting in the headarea. It says simply, “Peter Michaels—will do what we want.”33 Thefile on Peter Michaels’ restoration work ends here.

To answer that question, we must consider the threat of theOxford identification in the hair and hairline and the concomitantlack of resemblance of the hairline to Hamersley. Because of theFolger’s opposition to uncovering the hair above the forehead, abattle developed between the restorer and the Folger directorabout the restoration, with Michaels insisting on a full restorationof the head area and the Folger forbidding him to uncover the headarea. Things had reached an impasse by 1981.

In January Michaels wrote to the Folger, “ Since July 1980 I haveheard no further word from you regarding further conservationtreatment on the ‘Ashbourne’…The conservation treatment re-maining to be done includes removal of the remaining overpaintin the area of the forehead and background adjacent…I think it ishigh time to make a decision about the Ashbourne picture.”28

(Emphasis added)The Folger responded by holding a meeting on January 16,

1981, to decide how to instruct Michaels. Those present, including“L. Lievsay, S[amuel] Schoenbaum, F. Mowery, A. Skiff, J. Miller andly [Laetitia Yeandle],” agreed, according to Skiff’s handwrittennotes, to ask Michaels, “1) To finish removing ‘overpainting’ inareas of head, 2) In paint flawed areas just where necessary toenhance overall effect. This to include arms but not to add anythingthat cannot be gathered (deduced) from the painting itself, 3) toleave ‘2’ changed to ‘1’ as is.”29 (Emphasis added)

Within ten days, however, someone had decided to change thatapproach. On January 26, 1981, Skiff was given instructions torelay to Michaels. Her handwritten note states, “Tell Peter Michaelswe want to: remove some of the ‘halo varnish’—Not removeforehead paint.” This is in direct opposition to the committee’searlier recommendation.30 The committee didn’t say to simplyremove the varnish, it said to “finish removing the ‘overpainting’in areas of [the] head”—which meant uncovering the painted-overhair. But those in charge did not want the hair or hairlineuncovered.

It appears, however, that at some point Michaels did remove theoverpaint covering the hair above the forehead. There are twosources of evidence for this, former Shakespeare Oxford SocietyExecutive Vice-President Gordon Cyr and photos in the Pagerestoration file. In a 1997 letter to the Shakespeare Oxford SocietyNewsletter Cyr stated that, “Although Michaels told me that therewere several layers of over-painting, the only layers his cleaningtook off were those retouches hiding the identification of the sitter:overpainting of the coat of arms, the date, and the fuller head ofhair.”31 We should note here that there are no photos showing thehair uncovered in the Michaels file (or in the Folger’s cold storagefiles).

The 1988-89 Page file photos show a huge white area (actuallytissue paper) covering much of the head except the ear and a largearea around the head, but there are no photos of the fully uncoveredhair. It appears from gaps in the numbering sequence that somephotos are missing at this crucial point. However, several signifi-cant photos (e.g., #C23, #C25, etc.) show the hairline above the righttemple with the same rounded shape as in the Folger x-rays. Thisexposure of the hairline is consistent with Cyr’s statements aboutMichaels having uncovered the “fuller head of hair.” The fact thatthe uncovered right hairline area was mostly painted over againleads to an inference that the rest of the uncovered hair was also

Fig. 10

The author’s own drawing from the 1948 x-ray gives an idea of how the remainingevidence of the original hair and hairlineunderneath the over-painted forehead mighthave looked if the restoration project hadproceeded with attempting to restore thepainting to its original appearance.



After Michaels’s death in January 1982 the painting was storedfor the Folger by his friend and fellow restorer Geoffrey Lemmer,senior conservationist for the Baltimore Museum of Art. Lemmeroffered to finish the restoration (Michaels had been in the processof rebacking the painting when he died), but the Folger declinedhis offer for unstated reasons. Instead, the Folger let the portrait situntil June 1984, when they then took it back. There it sat open andunfinished for another four years until July 1988, when the resto-ration was taken up again. In the meantime Hardison left the Folger,and in 1984 Werner Gundersheimer became director. It wasapparently during this time of limbo (stage five) that more alter-ations were made.

Pressly’s OptionsPressly’s OptionsPressly’s OptionsPressly’s OptionsPressly’s Options

The Ashbourne sat open and unbacked for six years, until theFolger finally agreed upon a plan, formulated by art historyprofessor William Pressly. It appeared to provide a rationale for notperforming a normal professional restoration of the painting, aswell as for incorporating “proofs” of Hamersley into the painting.

Apparently having learned its lesson from Michaels’s resistanceto what he termed their unethical demands, the Folger this time laiddown strict guidelines for the completion of the restoration beforethe restorer even made an examination report on the painting. Hereis where Pressly enters this story.

Professor Pressly’s exact relationship to the Folger or to Direc-tor Gundersheimer is not clear since the Folger has informed theauthor he was never hired by the Folger or on staff. But, in additionto writing the 1993 Shakespeare Quarterly article promotingHamersley as the Ashbourne sitter, Pressly was given the plum ofcataloguing all the paintings at the Folger in a book published byYale University Press in 1993 (A Catalogue of Paintings in theFolger Shakespeare Library: As Imagination Bodies Forth). What-ever his connection to the Folger, Pressly was a key player in thesixth stage of alterations to the portrait. His story begins with amemo he wrote to Folger Director Gundersheimer about therestoration “choices” for the Ashbourne.

In his June 28, 1988, memo, Pressly advanced an unusual planfor the “restoration” of the Ashbourne, one that fit perfectly with theFolger’s own plans for the painting.

Blending his concept of the portrait’s “final aesthetic appear-ance” with a concept that involved retaining only selected elementsof what he determined were aspects of “Shakespeare,” Presslyoffered Gundersheimer a choice of only two “possible” options forhandling the restoration, neither of which was a full open anddocumented restoration.

Before offering the choices, Pressly reiterated the Folger posi-tion about there being no hair beneath the overpainted forehead,stating, “In the important feature of the forehead, the head shouldremain as a portrait of Shakespeare. Whoever transformed Ham-ersley into Shakespeare scraped out Hamersley’s original hairlinebefore extending the forehead upward…The transformation ofHamersley into Shakespeare, for better or for worse is a permanentone.”34

Pressly’s conception of the “Shakespeare” aspects of the por-trait is so inconsistent as to be illogical. For instance, he stated that,“In the case of the ear Michaels has already removed the overpaint.I see no point in putting in the lower hairline a second time.”35 Yet (Continued on page 18)

we have seen that the area exposed above the right temple in thePage photos is mostly covered over again on the painting now. Andwe have reason to believe that more of the hairline uncovered byMichaels was covered over again. But Pressly mentioned none ofthis.

Pressly seemed quite aware of what the Folger wanted done,telling Gundersheimer that,“There are two possible waysto proceed from this point:one could either return thecanvas to how it appearedfrom 1847 to 1979 when itwas solely a portrait ofShakespeare or one couldincorporate elements ofHamersley into the de-sign.”36 (Emphasis added).

That statement incorpo-rated two unproved assump-tions upon which Pressly wasadvising the Folger to alterthis painting. The first is theassumption that ClementKingston changed the paint-ing into Shakespeare in 1847,against which there is muchevidence, including King-ston’s own contradictory statements and eyewitness accounts ofstudents at the school (I will delve into these issues in the futurewhen I take up the provenance of the painting). The second andmore important assumption is that this is a portrait of HughHamersley—a contention that the Folger did not publish officiallyuntil five years later in 1993 (although, through the ShakespeareOxford Society, the Folger had announced the Hamersley identi-fication in 1979). We have shown this to be false through costumedating, Hamersley’s appearance, and the coat of arms, the latter ofwhich was the Folger’s sole means of linking the painting toHamersley.

Pressly continued, “I would recommend the second option,retaining those elements that have been uncovered that point toSir Hugh.”37 (Emphasis added). Here is the clear statement ofpurpose—that the “restoration” is about “proving” Hamersley isthe sitter (thus disproving Oxford). This is the thread that runsthroughout our examination of the Folger’s treatment of theportrait, from the attempt to remove the “CK” monogram throughPressly’s “options” for “restoring” the Ashbourne.

In Pressly’s advice about how to deal with the coat of arms wecan see the new tack the Folger is taking. Instead of covering overthe entire coat of arms as Hardison had originally wanted, the newplan is to selectively cover over the arms, the Folger’s supposed bestand only evidence for Hamersley as the sitter.

Pressly continued, “ One could leave this area [coat of arms] asit now appears. This would give the viewer the unaltered evidenceas to why the original sitter has been identified as Sir HughHamersley. Unfortunately, though, such a solution would ignorethe painting as a work of art, turning it into only a historicaldocument.”38 (Emphasis added). Yet the coat of arms now on the

“...one could either

return the canvas to ...

when it was solely a

portrait of Shakespeare

or one could

incorporate elements

of Hamersley into

the design.”

(William Pressly, 1988)



follow the second option [“incorporating” elements of Hamersley]in the attached copy of the memorandum of June 28 … In the caseof the date [1611 in the inscription] we decided to have both yearsappear … the ‘2’ of the 1612 should be brought out but not to thepoint that it will compete on equal terms with the ‘l.’”42

The instruction about the numerals was to tone down theobvious scraping of a huge “2” shape near the “1” that showed upin Michaels’s file photos and is not on the x-rays. The “2” seems tobe an enhancement of a loop that looks like a “2,” but the Michaelsphoto shows a similar loop nearby. The Barrell x-rays show abroken line that could be interpreted as the bottom “foot” of a “2”but it is unclear. The Barrell x-rays show a dark area on top and tothe right of the “1” so it appears something was done in this areaand there may have been a “2” originally. But because the entireinscription is not the original inscription anyway (having beenadded during stage two), and because the painting is dated to c.1579 by the costume and the “CK” monogram, the Folger’s expla-nation for the rubbed out “2” as fitting Hamersley’s age must beincorrect. There are other plausible explanations for a possiblemistaken “2” here which we will explore later in the series.

These instructions concerning the new restoration were put inplace by Pressly and Gundersheimer before Page did his initialexamination of the painting on July 20, 1988. Page’s examinationreport reflected these instructions in all key areas.

At the start of his June 28 memo to Gundersheimer, Presslycommented that Page wanted to take the painting to his studio, “sothat he can make recommendations as to whether one should beginwhere Peter Michaels left off or redo some of Michaels’ work if itproves unsatisfactory.”43 (Emphasis added).

Michaels had had a problem with backing the painting onto ahoneycomb panel and had taken it off the stretcher in November1981 to find another method of backing. The painting was still inthis state when he died less than two months later. Confusion aboutwhether Michaels fully restored the painting itself may result fromthe use of the term restoration to include the rebacking rather thanthe completion of the painting restoration itself.

At the beginning of his examination report to the Folger Pagesays the painting was “left open in mid-restoration.” Yet at the endof this report he observed that “Michaels varnish layer was prob-ably removed with the excess wax resin” at the time Michaels wasattempting to reback. Page notes that the “painting is presently dulloverall except for the inpainted areas which are very glossy.”43A

This clearly implies the painting restoration itself was completedbut it was in “mid-restoration” because it was “open,” i.e., it had notbeen rebacked. This is further verified in a telephone conversationbetween Arthur Page and Shakespeare Matters editor WilliamBoyle on June 20, 2002, during which Page stated that the paintingwas “fully restored” when he got it.

After commenting negatively on Michaels’s work and the stateof the painting in his report, Page stated, “In summation—it is ourrecommendation that the existing Michaels restoration be re-moved entirely and the painting properly cleaned, lined andinpainted with known materials in a much more careful manner.”44

Why did Michaels’s work need to be redone entirely? In thisregard two significant comments in the examination report areworth mentioning. Apparently understanding from Pressly theFolger’s interest in the all-important head area, Page noted that“any cleaning of the face and hair will be done in close co-

Ashbourne (continued from page 17)painting is still incomplete, but important evidence showingalterations and pointing against Hamersley have been removed—apparently because they do not have “aesthetic” value.

Pressly went on, “At the opposite extreme one could inpaint thecoat of arms as a seamless whole [how one could do this he does notexplain]. This insures that the picture is entirely unified and is thenormal procedure . Yet it leaves the library open to the accusationthat it has recast the evidence to fit what it thought it saw in the

original paint and notnecessarily what wasactually there.”39 (Em-phasis added).

Now Pressly comesto the new plan: “A com-promise solution mightbe best. Strengthen onlywhat is clearly visibleand extend the back-ground color into otherareas. This leaves intactthe evidence and, unlikethe first solution [leav-ing the uncovered coatof arms for all to seeeverything that is there]insures that the pictureremains an aestheticwhole.”40

Based on our exami-nation of the coat ofarms, this “strengthen-ing of what is clearly

visible” involved the enhancing of alterations to the arms such asthe circles for the cross crosslet, or covering areas such as thescraping that shows the outline of a larger shield in order to makethe smaller shield seem original—all done of course for “aestheticpurposes.” We have also seen, and will explore later in our series,how everything on the uncovered arms (including all of the scrapedaway areas visible on Michaels’s photos) are important pieces ofevidence in determining what was originally on the coat of arms.

In contrast to Pressly’s unorthodox approach is the advice to theFolger of David Piper, then of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford,England, who advocated the normal professional view of paintingrestoration in the art world. In a July 19, 1979 letter Piper advisedthat, “…there is no purpose whatever in trying to put back theremoved re-paint so that the coat of arms is once again obscure.”He went on to state that it was desirable to clean the entire figure“…in order to bring back the painting as near as possible to itsoriginal condition, unless the advice of your restorer indicatesotherwise.”41

Pressly/Page restorationPressly/Page restorationPressly/Page restorationPressly/Page restorationPressly/Page restoration

On July 15, 1988, Pressly sent a memo to Folger conservationistFrank Mowery and Arthur Page, who would be hired to finish therestoration, but had not yet examined the painting. Pressly in-formed them that, “Dr. Gundersheimer felt it would be best to

“The restoration issues

surrounding the

Ashbourne are further

exacerbated by the fact

that one party to the

dispute about the

sitter has complete

control of the painting.”



ordination with the curator and /orDirector of the Folger.” He added,“On the three ambiguous elementsof the uncovered right proper ear,the partially scraped off coat ofarms and the dual dates, we willfollow the July 15, 1988 Memo ofDr. Bill Pressly. The ear will remainuncovered. The coat of arms willonly be strengthened where the de-sign is unambiguous and the restwill be filled in with backgroundcolor. The “2” will be slightly rein-forced, but not up to the level of the‘l’.”45

What does the painting now look like after this 1988-89restoration, directed by Pressly under the auspices of FolgerDirector Gundersheimer? It is a huge disappointment to anyonewho has seen the Miller or Michaels’s photos of the portrait beforethe 1979 restoration.

It appears that some original paint of the face has been paintedover. The forehead has been redone and a dark shadow of theHamersley hairline added. The nose had been narrowed, shortenedand rounded, and the nostril widened in the stage two change toShake-speare, but this overpaint was partially uncovered byFinlayson’s 1932 cleaning, revealing a nose similar to the x-raynose and the Welbeck Oxford nose. Instead of removing the rest ofthe overpaint to fully uncover the original nose shown in the x-rays,the 1932 cleaning has been reversed. The tip of the nose has againbeen rounded and narrowed and the nostril shape changed. Theuncovered ear has been enormously altered so as to be unrecogniz-able as the ear documented in both sets of x-rays. The reddish-auburn tones that 1932 cleaning had revealed in the hair (similarin color to the Welbeck portrait) have now been overpainted almostblack to fit Hamersley’s dark hair, making an absurd contrast with (Continued on page 20)

the reddish-gold beard. The inscription has a greatly reduced “2”now. The ruff is reduced on the left side and muddied. The left wristruff is invisible now and replaced with a blob. The right wrist ruffhas been darkened more than in the 1910 photograph that accom-panied Spielmann’s article in Connoisseur. Heavy overpainting(described as “inpainting”) has changed the coat of arms drasticallyfrom Michaels’s photos of the uncovered arms. However, as Presslydescribed it in Shakespeare Quarterly, “The coat of arms appearsas Michaels left it, with some inpainting of the ground in a neutraltone to bring this area into harmony with the rest of thecomposition.”46

A magnificent portrait by a master portrait painter, which hascome down to us as the largest and most beautiful of all the Shake-speare paintings, has not been uncovered and restored to itsoriginal paint, but instead has been overpainted into a new Folgerhybrid of Shake-speare/Hamersley.

Schoenbaum Rejects HamersleySchoenbaum Rejects HamersleySchoenbaum Rejects HamersleySchoenbaum Rejects HamersleySchoenbaum Rejects Hamersley

Not even Samuel Schoenbaum would bite on the Hamersleyattribution, although the Folger hoped he would put in a word forHamersley as the Ashbourne sitter in the portrait section of hisupcoming book, Shakespeare’s Lives. Perhaps Schoenbaum, hav-ing been on the 1981 committee that agreed to instruct Michaelsto do a full restoration of the head area (later countermanded by theFolger), decided that the Hamersley attribution was too shaky. Inthe 1991 edition of Shakespeare’s Lives (reprinted in 1993)Schoenbaum remarked, “It is a pity that the sitter—a physician? Aphilosopher? Shakespeare? cannot be traced.”47 Later he states—incorrectly, and with the usual Stratfordian sarcasm—that theportrait cannot be of Oxford because experts have dated thecostume to the mid-17th century. In part II we proved from costumeevidence that the painting was from the late 1570s. With

Fig. 15

Another interesting point of comparison between various states of the portrait involves the nose. As can be seen in Fig. 11 ( the author’s drawingof the nose from the 1948 x-ray), the original nose (including the nostril) was changed (i.e. overpainted) in the change of the portrait intoShakespeare (Fig. 13, from a 1961 Folger print) and that change was more or less retained in the final restoration (Fig. 14). However, a comparisonof the original nose as revealed in the x-rays shows a remarkable similarity to Oxford’s nose in the 1575 Welbeck portrait (Fig. 12). In particular,note how the columella (see Fig. 15, nose anatomy) in the Welbeck is visible and its attachment to the lip can be seen. In both Figs. 13 and 14the tip of the nose is rounded and extends downward, hiding the columella. However, a distinct feature of the original nose revealed in the Folgerx-rays (Fig. 11) is the visible columella extending back to the lip. A decision that could have been made in the final restoration might have beento restore the nose to its original state, as revealed in the Folger’s own x-rays.

Fig. 11, 1948 Folger x-ray Fig. 12, Welbeck (1575) Fig. 13, Ashbourne (1961) Fig. 14, Ashbourne (2001)

By

perm

issi

on, F

olge

r Sh

akes

pear

e L

ibra

ry

By

perm

issi

on, F

olge

r Sh

akes

pear

e L

ibra

ry

By

perm

issi

on, F

olge

r Sh

akes

pear

e L

ibra

ry

Cou

rtes

y, N

atio

nal P

ortr

ait G

alle

ry, L

ondo

n



the portraits but the derivation as well. Thus he has “solved” theproblem of the 1592 head and shoulders painting being the onlycontemporary portrait of Hamersley by claiming that it is derivedfrom the 1716 Haberdashers painting. But in order to assert thisclaim he also had to re-date the 1716 portrait within Hamersley’slifetime. He does this by inserting “c. 1627” into the caption underthe painting, the year Hamersley became Lord Mayor of London,providing no evidence for this dating. In 1627, however, Hamersleywould have been 62 years old, far too old for this picture.

Tainted EvidenceTainted EvidenceTainted EvidenceTainted EvidenceTainted Evidence

The Folger restoration was a restoration in name only. Theirposition on each step of the restoration is well documented in theirown files. We have already noted David Piper’s comment that thepainting should have been returned “as near as possible to itsoriginal condition,” which is the standard professional practice.But this is clearly not what happened in the Ashbourne restoration.

As early as July 1979 Douglas Lewis of the National PortraitGallery advised the Folger to “proceed very carefully in the tech-nical side and have documentation of the restoration. The paintingshould be considered as an object to be subjected to the mostcareful of laboratory scrutiny, so that we would have a firm basisfor any questions or criticisms about what is being done.”51

Ashbourne (continued from page 19)Schoenbaum’s bailout it was left to Pressly to push Hamersley in1993 in the Folger’s own publication, the Shakespeare Quarterly.

Pressly’s Re-dating of the 1716 Hamersley PortraitPressly’s Re-dating of the 1716 Hamersley PortraitPressly’s Re-dating of the 1716 Hamersley PortraitPressly’s Re-dating of the 1716 Hamersley PortraitPressly’s Re-dating of the 1716 Hamersley Portrait

Before we leave Pressly’s involvement in the Ashbourne resto-ration it will be instructive to take up one more point in his 1993article: his unsubstantiated dating to circa 1627 of the 1716Hamersley full-length portrait (owned by the Haberdashers’ Guild).Under a dark reproduction of this portrait, showing Hamersleywearing his Alderman robes and Jewell of office of Lord Mayor ofLondon, with the “1716” date faintly visible, the Pressly captionreads, “Anonymous. Sir Hugh Hamersley…c. 1627. The Haber-dashers Company, London.”48

On what basis has Pressly changed the date of the Hamersleyportrait? In the Folger Ashbourne file is a two-page history from TheReynolds Gallery of England, owner of the 1592 head and shoul-ders portrait of Hamersley, which they note is the only contempo-rary portrait of Hamersley. They also note that the full-lengthHaberdasher’s Hall portrait of Hamersley was “... presented to theCompany by his great-grandson, Sir Harcourt Masters, in 1716. Thehead and shoulders are identical with this earlier [1592] portraitand must be a copy, with trunk, legs and arms added in a baroqueposture which smacks of an artist of around 1716.”49

This information causes a problem in identifying the Ash-bourne sitter as Hamersley. If the only contemporary portrait ofHamersley was a 1592 head and shoulders painting, how couldthere be the nearly full-length Ashbourne portrait of him in 1611-12 when he still had many years to live? And if the Ashbourne reallywas of Hamersley, why didn’t the great-grandson give it theHaberdashers’ Guild or have a copy made for the Guild instead ofhaving an artist use the 1592 head and shoulders that needed a bodyadded to it? Perceiving the problem, Pressly solved it by denyingthe Reynolds Gallery evidence without having seen the 1592painting. Then he proceeded to use instead the 1627 date whenHamersley became Lord Mayor of London, thus completely mis-representing the fact that this 1716 portrait was based on a 1592portrait, and neither the date of the painting itself nor the age andphysical appearance of the sitter has anything to do with 1627.

In a footnote Pressly stated,50 “This [Hamersley] exists in at leasttwo other versions that portray only the sitter’s head and shoul-ders.” Actually, one is an engraving of the original head andshoulders portrait. He then mentioned what he calls the ReynoldsGallery’s 1976 “promotional literature” on the head and shouldersportrait stating it is dated 1592, but without mentioning that thisis the only contemporary portrait of Hamersley. The Gallery notesthat the red Alderman’s robes and the Mayoral pendant and chainwere later additions to the 1592 head and shoulders, as Hamersleyhad neither of these honors when the portrait was painted. Presslywrote that the Reynolds Gallery “…goes on to argue that theHaberdashers’ portrait is an eighteenth century enlargement onthis earlier image.” He then makes the astonishing statement that,“Although I have not seen the Reynolds Gallery picture, I suspectits date is inaccurate (Hamersley was surely older than twenty-seven at the time the portrait was painted), and it, like the New Yorkversion [the engraving], is based on the Haberdashers Portrait.”

Pressly has now completely reversed not only the sequence of

Fig. 16 By permission, Folger Shakespeare Library

The restored Ashbourne which now hangs in the FoundersRoom is, in fact, nothing more than a hybrid “Shake-speare/Hamersley” which denies any Oxford connection and mustbe considered a disappointment to anyone who has seen thepre-restoration portrait as reproduced in Miller’s 1975 edi-tion of Looney’s “Shakespeare” Identified.



The Folger report on Lewis’s comments adds, “He [Lewis] saidwe should make no announcement of this discovery [of Hamersley]until we could produce about a fifty page article giving exact detailson every step of restoration or change. This would require thepainting to be in a laboratory for at least a year—and at greatexpense.” Dr. Lewis suggested getting help from Amherst College(which administers the Folger Trust) stating that a number of artmuseums have labs there and if Amherst took over the painting theycould avoid the high cost of a private lab.52 But losing control ofthe painting restoration was the last thing the Folger directorswanted, and none of these art experts’ advice was followed.

In fact there is no report on the restoration under Michaels otherthan the one-page interim report. There were files and photos fromMichaels’s studio noted when the painting was transferred toLemmer in 1982 and back to the Folger in 1984. But all we havein the Michaels file are letters he sent to the Folger, the examinationreport, the one-page interim report and the sheet showing hoursworked on various stages of the restoration—mostly involvingtechnical work. We also have photos—almost exclusively of thecoat of arms, but none of the original uncovered ear, or of theuncovered forehead.

In the Page file there are photos without any comments aboutwhat changes have been made and they provide no documentationabout what was done to the portrait other than technical work.There is no documentation whatever of the changes done to theportrait. There is the July 20, 1988, examination report, a “Key toConservation Photodocuments” listing nothing but numbers of thephotos (1-32) under headings like “Pre-Treatment,” “Partiallycleaned,” “Before Inpainting,” and “Final State,” but these do notshow the course of changes made or what was done. There is nocomment on any of these photos or what they represent, many ofwhich are partial or obscured and some are apparently missing. Inaddition to these reports there is what is called a two-page “Treat-ment Record.” The first page is numbered 1-17 and is mostly one-sentence snippets of technical work done with nothing about anyinpainting (other than a sentence about filling in losses) or, mostimportantly, any changes to the painting itself. The second pagenotes the hours for the work. That’s all that is available on thisdrastically changed painting.

The restoration issues surrounding the Ashbourne are furtherexacerbated by the fact that one party to the dispute about the sitterhas complete control of the painting. That situation was dramati-cally emphasized in a memo following the July 1979 meeting withthe Cyrs at the Folger. It states, “Guard our picture and x-rays. Noother pictures [or] tests without our permission.”53

ConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusion

Through x-rays, the Folger files and photos, and various knownstates of the Ashbourne painting between 1910 to 1989, we havedocumented that in four separate periods between 1940 and 1989the Ashbourne Shakespeare portrait was altered while under thecontrol of the Folger Shakespeare Library. Carried out during atleast three different Folger administrations, they were not a one-time effort perpetrated by a maverick Stratfordian. They involveda number of persons over a long period of time.

Stratfordians sometimes argue that it doesn’t matter if Oxfordis the real sitter, because this does not prove he wrote the Shake- (Continued on page 22)

speare works. If that is so, then why did the Folger go to such lengthsto obliterate evidence for Oxford and create evidence for thehitherto unheard of Hamersley? Their actions suggest that they dorealize the danger presented by this portrait. A letter intended forGeoffrey Lemmer, with instructions about the portrait afterMichaels’s death, states that, “…the portrait is an important docu-ment in the controversy over the true authorship of Shakespeare’sworks.”54

For Oxford, the person for whom overwhelming evidence hasaccumulated substantiating his authorship of the Shake-spearecanon, to be the original sit-ter in one of the best and mostrespected “putative” portraitsof the Bard is wonderfullycorroborative physical evi-dence. The odds are phenom-enally against this being purechance. 54A

Thus, there exist strongideological reasons for theFolger’s alterations to theAshbourne portrait. The mainreason was to deny evidencefor Oxford and the secondaryreason was to provide evi-dence for Hamersley, no mat-ter how absurd the attribu-tion. The Folger certainly didincorporate “elements ofHamersley” into the paint-ing.

In the 1988 memo sent to Director Gundersheimer Presslynoted that “it is comforting to remember that none of these stepsare irrevocable. Anything Arthur Page does as regards the ear, theinscription and the coat of arms can always be changed in thefuture.”55

Unfortunately it appears that some of these post-1940 changesare irrevocable, particularly those in the shield area. But hopefullymany alterations can be reversed in the future. The Folger owns agreat painting of the true Shake-speare—not of Sir Hugh Hamer-sley. It is the largest, finest and most expressive painting of the poet-playwright by the hand of a master Dutch portrait painter and it isa priceless heritage for future generations.

The next article in this series will focus on the evidence forOxford in the portrait, including exciting evidence linking upEdward de Vere’s eagle crest and mantling with the painting andadditional evidence for the Trentham griffins in the shield. Futurearticles will explore the fascinating history and provenance of thispainting that brought it to the Ashbourne School. We will exploresome possible explanations regarding the who, when, and why ofthe changes that transformed the Ashbourne—and other Oxfordportraits—into “Shake-speare.” These explanations may helpopen up a window on the implementation of a phase of the Shake-speare fraud.

“...it is comforting to

remember that none of

these steps are irrevo-

cable. Anything [done]

as regards the ear, the

inscription and the coat

of arms can always be

changed in the future.”

(William Pressly, 1988)



Ashbourne (continued from page 21)References:1 Ashbourne Portrait x-rays, 1948. Folger Shakespeare Library,

Washington, D.C.2 Charles Wisner Barrell, “Identifying ‘Shakespeare’” and Editors,

“Who Was Shakespeare?” (Scientific American, January and May1940), 4-8 and 43-45, 264 and 299-300.

3 Ruth Loyd Miller, “Lord Oxford and the “Shakespeare” Portraits,” inShakespeare Identified in Edward de Vere 17th Earl of Oxford, Vol.II. (Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press, 1975), 405-429.

4 Ashbourne Portrait Files, Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington,D.C. Michaels File. In his February 1979 Conservation reportchecking off aspects of the painting from his examination of thepainting, Michaels notes under “Original Edges,” “None.” Thismeans all the edges of the painting were cut at some point, reducingits size.

5 The author believes that the coat of arms (which is actually Edward deVere’s eagle crest—which he created and used in place of the boarcrest in the frontispiece of two books dedicated to and published byhim—above the Trentham shield of his wife’s family) was added byOxford’s widow sometime after his death in 1604. The eagle crestwill be explored at length in the next article in the series.

6 The author’s theory, that the Ashbourne was the first of a number ofportraits of Oxford changed into Shake-speare and that these changesto the Ashbourne were done in 1612 by Oxford’s surviving family,will be explored at length later in the series.

7 The significance of this selective tampering will be explored further inthis series when we show how de Vere’s eagle crest fits over theTrentham family shield in Michaels’s photos of the coat of arms. Inthis configuration of a husband’s crest over a wife’s father’s shieldthe husband’s motto would be used. We will also compare de Vere’seagle crest helmet and mantling with these photos and find aremarkable match.

8 Incidentally, Ketel was an innovator and one of the few painters in thelate 1570s who used canvas for many of his paintings—especiallyhis larger paintings and portraits. “Ketel played an important part inthe development of Dutch portrait painting.” (Hearns, p. 105)Hearns also mentions the recently discovered fragment of a verylarge 1580 oil on canvas painting by Ketel called Allegory (p.110).(Hearns, Karen, Editor, Dynasties, Painting in Tudor and JacobeanEngland 1530-1630, London: Tate Gallery, 1995). Sir Roy Strongdisplays in his book the existing life-size 1577 Sir Martin Frobisherfull-length Ketel oil on canvas that was “one of a [now lost] series ofcanvases commissioned by the Cathay Company.” Sir Roy Strong,The English Icon, Elizabethan and Jacobean Portraiture, NewHaven: Yale U. Press, 1969, under “Signed and Dated Works,” 154.

9 The Folger has claimed that Clement Usill Kingston, the schoolmasterand amateur artist at the Ashbourne School who first brought theportrait to the attention of the art world, forged the portrait intoShake-speare, and inexplicably painted what they claim are his CKinitials and then covered them up. See part III of this series forevidence that the CK was the monogram of the original artist,Cornelis Ketel. But Kingston used the monogram CUK, as isevidenced in a book of engravings of baptismal fonts in 1844. TheFolger file lists the three variations of Kingston’s CUK monogramtaken from this book. They are found in Paley, F.A., Illustrations ofBaptismal Fonts, London, 1844. Also they are found in Nagler, G.K.,Die Monogrammisten, Munchen & Leipzig. We will discussKingston’s role later in this series (in an article on the Ashbourne’sprovenance).

10 From the x-rays it looks like most of the ears sticking out from theheads were also removed in this scraping. Part of one ear clearlyshows on the top right head as well as ghostly remnants of other ears

especially on the bottom head—all in the exact spots where thegriffins have ears in Barrell’s photo of the Trentham monument arms.

10A In June 2002 the Folger art curator advised SM editor WilliamBoyle, in response to a question about the heads, that their redappearance could be the result of the red underlayment.

11 Ashbourne Files, June 28, 1988 memo Pressly to Gundersheimer.12 To prove that the original shield was larger, one can take a pen and

follow the outline of the mantling around the shield in Michaels’sphoto and compare it with the outline of the shield on the x-rays.These outlines match almost perfectly—proving that the mantlingover the larger shield created the shield shape that is on the x-rays,which show a wider shield area extending all the way down to thetop of the scroll. In addition, vestiges of orangish lines (left when thegold was scraped away) in Michaels’s photos show the originalshape of the shield as it extended up and out from the top of thescroll beyond the mantling on either side.

13 Ashbourne Files, Michaels Restoration.14 This larger object is confirmed in Michaels’s photos by the area

scraped away beyond and under the doctored griffin wing, the largerarea scraped away on the left side of the crest, and the rounded areajust above the wreath that does not fit a griffin. What has been donewith inpainting the scroll is most interesting. The scroll is fairlysmooth on both sides in Michaels’s photos although the doublytampered right side (where the “MORE” lettering was claimed) isscraped down to a silver-white color and is only faintly bumpy. Butthe scroll as it now appears on the painting does not have this faint“MORE” lettering on a fairly smooth surface—the scroll on this sidehas been made more bumpy with inpainting that appears to createwhat looks like the bumpy letters “O” and “R”. The ribbonunderneath has been covered over more and darkened and the look ofthe “CK” gap changed.

15 Ashbourne Files. June 28, 1988, Memo from Pressly to FolgerDirector Werner Gundersheimer.

16 Pressly, Looking Glass, 60.17 Recently the Folger brought to my attention a few “extra” Michaels

photos in its cold storage file that were not on the microfilm Iacquired from the Folger. There is an extra “before” photo of a close-up of the face and two extra full figure photos. One of the latterphotos has what appears to be different handwriting from all otherMichaels photos, noting “after filling” and shows the uncovered ear.The ear appears to be the altered ear in this photo—when it wasdone is a question since Michaels’s work was left open for years.The photo most resembles some photos in the Page file, notably#C23 before inpainting. Michaels cleaned the painting and said heonly removed overpaint in those areas that exposed the identity ofthe sitter. Perhaps this shows the ear was altered also during the sixyear interim before Page began work on the portrait in 1988-89although we know from Pressly’s comments work was definitelydone on the ear in 1988-89.

18 Pressly, Looking Glass, 60.19 Ibid.20 The editors reported that, “Mr. Looney’s [pronounced Loney, the

“discoverer” of Oxford in 1920] work won the endorsement of suchscholars, historians and students of the Elizabethan period, as Dr.Gilbert Slater of Oxford University; Dr. Gerald H. Rendall, formerHeadmaster of the Charterhouse School: Alan Gordon Smith, authorof William Cecil, the Power Behind Elizabeth; Sir Geoffrey Callender,historian of the Tudor Navy and knighted for his writings on theElizabethan Age; Dr. Sigmund Freud…and John Galsworthy, thenovelist, who helped distribute the book for Looney.” ScientificAmerican (May 1940), 264.

21 Ibid.22 Pressly, Looking Glass, 61.23 Ibid.



hydrocephalic simpleton,” as well as theface of the country-bumpkin grain mer-chant depicted on the remodeled bust inStratford’s Holy Trinity Church. Both ofthese unattractive faces have long beenheld by Stratfordians to be authentic, not-withstanding that each was created afterthe death of their Bard.

So it is no wonder that Stratfordianshave a powerful initial impulse to leap onthe bandwagon and eagerly clutch a newface claimed to be their idol, especiallywhen the small (sixteen and one-half bythirteen inches) portrait displays a hand-some visage, intelligent quixotic eyes andan enigmatic Mona Lisa smile.

The book itselfThe book itselfThe book itselfThe book itselfThe book itself

Stephanie Nolen was educated at theUniversity of King’s College in Halifax,Nova Scotia, and the London School ofEconomics. She is a respected foreign af-fairs correspondent for The Globe and Mail.

In her 330-page book, Nolen gets intotrouble only when she herself becomes tooStratfordian and when she interrupts herinteresting narrative with eight often-in-trusive chapters by her experts. Her Strat-fordian professors are a distinguishedgroup, including Jonathan Bate of the Uni-versity of Liverpool, Tarnya Cooper of Uni-versity College, London, Marjorie Garberof Harvard, Andrew Gurr of the Universityof Reading, Alexandra Johnston of the Uni-versity of Toronto, Robert Tittler ofMontreal’s Concordia University, andStanley Wells, formerly of University Col-

lege, London, and now Chairman of theShakespeare Birthplace Trust. All add lus-ter and spice, liberally sprinkled with in-triguing pearls, but not infrequently withmaterial of dubious relevance to the tale athand.

Only a few stoop to the usual ill-con-ceived dogmatic Stratfordian mythology,e.g., Jonathan Bate, who states that he will“here and now put to rest for good theimage of Shakespeare as an ill-educated

country bumpkin.”3 He overstates that“We’ll never find an alternative candidatefor the authorship, since the plain fact of the

matter is that Shakespeare (of Stratford)did write the plays.”4 Bate then confidentlypredicts that Alan Nelson’s forthcomingbiography of “the wretched Earl” will cause“the case for Oxford as Shakespeare to diein the early twenty-first century.”5

Did someone say, “Piffle!”? The wordsof Hamlet come to mind: “There are morethings in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, thanare dreamt of in your philosophy.”6

Initial problems with theInitial problems with theInitial problems with theInitial problems with theInitial problems with theSanders family legendSanders family legendSanders family legendSanders family legendSanders family legend

The Sanders family tradition holds thattheir direct ancestor, John Sanders, born in1576 in Worcester, England, moved toLondon as an actor and joined “WilliamShakespeare’s acting company,” the LordChamberlain’s Men. He also “dabbled” inoil painting and in 1603 painted the por-trait of his friend and colleague, WilliamShakspere. For reasons unknown, he keptthe painting. According to family lore, theportrait has been passed down through atleast twelve generations in the family, onebranch of whom migrated to Canada in theearly 1900s along with the painting. Eachof the Canadian generations has been toldthat the painting—sometimes hangingfrom a wall, sometimes wrapped andstored—is an original of the great play-wright. The portrait has been treasured asa valuable family heirloom for 400 years.

In 1908 the painting was analyzed byMarion Henry Spielmann, the world-re-nowned art critic who had published adetailed analysis of Portraits of Shake-

Sanders portrait (continued from page 1)

24 Karen Hearns, Dynasties: Painting inTudor and Jacobean England 1530-1630(London: Tate Gallery, 1995), “ElizabethanPainters and Patrons,” 109.

25 Ibid. 109.26 Ashbourne Files, Pressly memo, June 28,

1988.27 Ashbourne Files, Coat of Arms file.28 Ashbourne Files, Michaels file.29 Ibid.30 Ibid.31 Cyr, Letter to the Editor, (Shakespeare

Oxford Society Newsletter, Fall 1997), 24-26.

32 Pressly, Looking Glass, 69.33 Ashbourne Files, Michaels Restoration.34 Ashbourne Files, Pressly memo, June 28,

1988.35 Ibid.36 Ibid.

37 Ibid.38 Ibid.39 Ibid.40 Ibid.41 Ashbourne Files, Restoration Issues.42 Ashbourne Files, Pressly memo, July 15,

1988 (to Mowery and Page with attachedJune 28 memo).

43 Ashbourne Files, Pressly memo, June 28,1988.

43A Ashbourne Files, Page Restoration.44 Ashbourne Files, Page Restoration.45 Ashbourne Files, Page Restoration.46 Pressly, Looking Glass, 72.47 S. Schoenbaum, Shakespeare’s Lives

(Oxford, New York: Oxford U. Press,1991, 1993), 336.

48 Pressly, Looking Glass, 67.49 Reynolds Art Gallery, as cited in:

Ashbourne Files, Hamersley Portraits.

50 Pressly, Looking Glass, 66.51 Ashbourne Files, Restoration Issues.52 Ibid.53 Ashbourne Files, Michaels Restoration.54 Ashbourne Files, Lemmer file.54A And the evidence is against these

portraits of Oxford having been “found”by a number of different people andsomehow all changed into “Shake-speare”simply to sell them because of a “demand”for “Shake-speare” pictures. The vastmajority of the altered portraits, longconsidered the finest and most authenticof the “Shake-speare” paintings, are of anobleman and came down through thenobility, and had nothing to do with the“Shake-speare” trade.

55 Ashbourne Files, Pressly memo, June 28,1988.


“... it is no wonder that “... it is no wonder that “... it is no wonder that “... it is no wonder that “... it is no wonder that

Stratfordians have a pow-Stratfordians have a pow-Stratfordians have a pow-Stratfordians have a pow-Stratfordians have a pow-

erful initial impulse to leaperful initial impulse to leaperful initial impulse to leaperful initial impulse to leaperful initial impulse to leap

on the bandwagon andon the bandwagon andon the bandwagon andon the bandwagon andon the bandwagon and

eagerly clutch a new faceeagerly clutch a new faceeagerly clutch a new faceeagerly clutch a new faceeagerly clutch a new face

... to be their idol ...”... to be their idol ...”... to be their idol ...”... to be their idol ...”... to be their idol ...”



Sanders portrait (continued from page 23)speare in 1907. Spielmann concluded thatthe portrait was indeed painted in Jacobeantimes but was later altered and the rightside “trimmed” immediately adjacent tothe red-painted “1603” in the upper rightcorner. He described as “not believable” apaper label on the back proclaiming theportrait as Shakspere with his birth anddeath dates (vide infra). He published hisopinions in the February 1909 issue of TheConnoisseur.7

The present owner, Lloyd Sullivan ofOttawa, spent ten years and much moneysubjecting the portrait to all availablemodern forensic analysis techniques, whichhe believes have validated his family’s tra-ditional beliefs. He has been honest andopen throughout his search for the truth,despite the enormous potential worth ofthe portrait if it is indeed Willy Shake.Sullivan exhaustively researched hisfamily’s genealogy in England and Canadabut was unable to fill a gap between JohnSanders in 1605 and the first entry in theSanders family Bible made in 1790.

As to the portrait’s provenance, there isno mention of it in family records until1908, when Sullivan’s great-grandfatherloaned it to Spielmann for analysis. He toldSpielmann that the painting had been in hisfamily for nearly a century, implying thatit didn’t come into Sanders family posses-sion until the early 1800s. Does that mean,contrary to Sanders family tradition, thatthe portrait was not in the family for the first200 years after 1603? Lloyd Sullivan hasnot been able to discover information whichbridges the vital gap in Sanders’s geneal-ogy and the portrait’s provenance.

The paper labelThe paper labelThe paper labelThe paper labelThe paper label

The paper label on the back of theportrait, now readable only with specialenhancement techniques but easily readand recorded by Spielmann in 1909, states:8

Shakspere

Born April 23 = 1564

Died April 23 -- 1616

Aged 52

This Likeness taken 1603

Age at that time 39 ys.

For several reasons, the label immedi-ately raises suspicions:

1. It is a strange label, too complete, tooexplanatory, protesting too much.9 Theanti-dissimulation hairs on the back ofone’s neck transmit a tingling signal ofdisease.

2. If the label was made by the painterin 1603, how would the labeler have knownthe date of death? It reminds one of anarchaeological potsherd dated 232 BC.

3. As the experts point out, the exact dateof Shakspere’s birth is not known, only the

date of his baptism on April 26. The birthdateof April 23 was chosen in the mid-1700s toaccord with the feast day of England’s pa-tron saint, St. George, and to coincide withhis April 23 death. According to Nolen’slabel experts, who cite SamuelSchoenbaum, the April 23 date forShakspere’s birthday did not become com-monly accepted until after the publicationof a volume of Shakespeare’s plays by GeorgeSteevens in 1773.10 Therefore the labelitself cannot have been written until morethan 170 years after the painting was done.

4. Several experts express concern thatthe phrase “this likeness taken” is not con-sistent with word usage in the Elizabethan

or Jacobean eras.5. Nolen’s paleography experts con-

clude that the handwritten script is in a styleof the late 1700s, not the early 1600s.

These data suggest that the label wasmost likely written in the late 1700s. Accel-erator mass spectrometry studies on thepaper label, made from linen rag, yield aradiocarbon date between 1475 and 1640.Why, then, was 150-year-old paper chosenfor the label? Was this an initial effort by thethen owners to deceive and, if so, why? Wasthe painting about to be sold, perhaps to theSanders family, as an “authentic” portraitof the great playwright?

The date of the late 1700s agrees closelywith Lloyd Sullivan’s great-grandfathertelling Spielmann in 1908 that the paintinghad been in the family’s possession for“nearly a century,” i.e., since the early 1800s.Obviously, this contradicts what the Cana-dian branch of the family has been taughtto believe in recent generations, namelythat they have owned the painting since1603.

Nolen’s paleographers appear a bit toocooperative with the central theme of thebook when they conclude at the end of theirchapter, after providing compelling evi-dence against the label’s authenticity, that“we believe there is nothing in the label thatdisproves the ascription” of the Sandersportrait as being of Shakspere of Stratford-on-Avon.11

Nolen accepts their final conclusionand does not seem to recognize the label’spotentially disastrous significance for theSanders family theory. Several experts, aswell as this reviewer, believe the portraitshows a man significantly younger than 39years, most likely in his 20s—another hugeproblem for the portrait’s validity asShakspere.

Other forensic evidenceOther forensic evidenceOther forensic evidenceOther forensic evidenceOther forensic evidence

Nolen competently guides the readerthrough the detailed forensic analyses ofthe portrait, all of which agree that the ageof the portrait is quite consistent with thelarge red date of 1603 in the upper rightcorner and that it is an original portrait, nota paint-over of a pre-existing painting.Nolen’s descriptions of advanced scientifictechniques are clearly explained as thestory unfolds and will be discussed morefully in Part II of this article.

“As to the portrait’s“As to the portrait’s“As to the portrait’s“As to the portrait’s“As to the portrait’s

provenance, there isprovenance, there isprovenance, there isprovenance, there isprovenance, there is

no mention of it inno mention of it inno mention of it inno mention of it inno mention of it in

family records untilfamily records untilfamily records untilfamily records untilfamily records until

1908, when Sullivan’s1908, when Sullivan’s1908, when Sullivan’s1908, when Sullivan’s1908, when Sullivan’s

great-grandfathergreat-grandfathergreat-grandfathergreat-grandfathergreat-grandfather

loaned it to Spiel-loaned it to Spiel-loaned it to Spiel-loaned it to Spiel-loaned it to Spiel-

mann for analysis.”mann for analysis.”mann for analysis.”mann for analysis.”mann for analysis.”



A clever book techniqueA clever book techniqueA clever book techniqueA clever book techniqueA clever book technique

Nolen notes that some of her expertsequivocate in their impressions of the paint-ing. Others seem biased by the book’s titleand their own eagerness to extirpate theunpleasant, “authentic” village-idiot facesof the Droeshout engraving and Holy Trin-ity Church bust. Some experts consider it “avery strong likelihood” that the Sandersportrait is indeed Shakspere, or “it looksthe part” or “it well may be.”

In the book’s final chapter, Nolen askseach expert to stop waffling and answerdefinitively the following questions:

1. Do you think the portrait is authenticto 1603?

2. If so, is it a portrait of William Shake-speare of Stratford-on-Avon?

3. Does it really matter and, if so, why?

Of the seven experts, one still equivo-cates and another says the Sanders family“might just possibly be correct.” Nolen, asa self-admitted non-expert, leaves it up tothe reader to decide. The other five mem-bers of the distinguished panel, however,state strongly that they do NOT believe theportrait is of Shakspere of Stratford.

This is a rather impressive statistic andone wonders about the appropriateness ofthe book title, Shakespeare’s Face.

Comments on Nolen’s bookComments on Nolen’s bookComments on Nolen’s bookComments on Nolen’s bookComments on Nolen’s book

Shakespeare’s Face can be ordered for$34.95 from Amazon.com, including ship-ping, or from any bookstore. It is recom-mended because of its competentwhodunnit approach, its readability and itsinstructional content, including seven chap-ters by Shakespeare experts. The book isparticularly relevant because of the manyrecent Oxfordian articles on the remark-able amount of information which may begleanned by precise portrait analysis.12 DeVereans may easily overlook the usual Strat-fordian biases and derive a great deal ofuseful information from Stephanie Nolen’swell-illustrated book.

First set of conclusionsFirst set of conclusionsFirst set of conclusionsFirst set of conclusionsFirst set of conclusions

This reviewer sides with the majority ofNolen’s panel that the Sanders portraitdoes not represent William Shakspere (andcertainly not William Shakespeare!) be-cause:

1. Except for Sanders family tradition,there is absolutely nothing to suggest thatthe portrait represents William Shakspereof Stratford-on-Avon. There is a major gapin Sanders genealogy, despite diligentsearch, and a cavernous vacuum in prov-enance. The evidence suggests that the Sand-ers family may not have owned the portraitfor the first 200 years of its existence, from1603 until the early 1800s. These representimmense, even insurmountable, defects in

essential evidence required to prove por-trait authenticity, and fatally wound LloydSullivan’s honest but flawed argument.

In 1966 Sir Roy Strong, esteemed se-nior art critic of England, was consultedabout the Sanders portrait by the NationalGallery of Canada. He responded that with-out a proven pedigree documenting own-ership of the portrait to the early 1600s,there was no point in even considering theportrait as a valid representation ofShakspere.13

2. For all of these reasons the paperlabel, with its several incongruities, is con-sidered evidence against the portrait beingShakspere. It suggests a deceptive origin

and invalidates itself, contributing signifi-cant evidence against the Sanders familyhypothesis.

3. Several experts and this revieweragree that the portrait shows a man in histwenties, not aged 39, which wasShakspere’s age in 1603. If any youngerthan 39, the portrait cannot be that ofShakspere.

4. The forensic analysis of the paintingmerely confirms that the portrait is genu-ine for the date of 1603 with no evidence oftampering.

5. There is nothing in the portrait itselfwhich lends credence to the hypothesis thatthe sitter is Shakspere.

If the portrait is not of William Shake-speare, the question is then, “who is it?” Iwill now attempt to answer that question,using material from Nolen’s book and fromother sources. (See “Probable identity ofSanders portrait” beginning on page 26.)

References

1. Demosthenes. Third Olynthiac,section 19.

2. Julius Caesar. De Bello Gallico, partIII, p. 18.

3. Stephanie Nolen. Shakespeare’s Face.Alfred A. Knopf, Canada, 2002, p. 110.

4. Nolen. Ibid., p. 125.5. Nolen, Ibid., p. 124.6. Edward de Vere. Hamlet I, v, lines 168-

169.7. Marion Henry Spielmann. “The

‘Grafton’ and ‘Sanders’ Portraits ofShakespeare.” The Connoisseur,February, 1909.

8. Ibid.9. Alexander Leggatt. In Nolen, op. cit.,

322-32310. Alexandra F. Johnston, Arleane Ralph,

and Abigail Anne Young. In Nolen, op.cit., p. 278.

11. Nolen, ibid., 279.12. For example, see recent articles in

Shakespeare Matters by BarbaraBurris on the Ashbourne portrait (Fall2001, Winter 2002 and Summer 2002),and articles by Paul Altrocchi on theFirst Folio Droeshout engraving in theDe Vere Society Newsletter (July 2001)and on portraits of William Cecil inShakespeare Matters (Fall 2001 and onthe “Elizabeth Pregnancy Portrait” inShakespeare Matters (Winter 2002)

13. Sir Roy Strong. In Nolen, op. cit., 153.

“[Roy Strong] responded“[Roy Strong] responded“[Roy Strong] responded“[Roy Strong] responded“[Roy Strong] responded

that [without] documentingthat [without] documentingthat [without] documentingthat [without] documentingthat [without] documenting

ownership of the portraitownership of the portraitownership of the portraitownership of the portraitownership of the portrait

to the early 1600s, thereto the early 1600s, thereto the early 1600s, thereto the early 1600s, thereto the early 1600s, there

was no point in evenwas no point in evenwas no point in evenwas no point in evenwas no point in even

considering [it] as aconsidering [it] as aconsidering [it] as aconsidering [it] as aconsidering [it] as a

valid representation ofvalid representation ofvalid representation ofvalid representation ofvalid representation of

Shakspere.”Shakspere.”Shakspere.”Shakspere.”Shakspere.”



The probable identity of the Sanders Portrait: “All’s Well That Ends Well”

“Skepticism is the scalpel that frees

accessible truth from the dead tissue

of unfounded belief and wishful thinking.”

Peter Skrabanek and James McCormick1

The genuine efforts of Stephanie Nolenand Lloyd Sullivan of the Sandersfamily led to an extensive examina-

tion of the Sanders portrait with the mostmodern available analytic techniques (re-ported on in Nolen’s book Shakespeare’sFaces, reviewed on page one in this issue).

The results of this examination were asfollows2:

1. Peter Klein, the leading world experton dendrochronology (tree-ring dating),analyzed 264 rings from the wood on whichthe portrait is painted and declared itsorigin from a Baltic oak tree which emergedfrom the ground in 1323 and was felled in1595. The painting itself shows the date of1603 painted in red in its upper right cor-ner. Adjusting for necessary aging of thewood prior to painting, and removal ofmost-recently added years of wood notsuitable for painting, Klein validated 1603as perfectly reasonable for the painting.

2. X-ray analysis showed no evidence ofany other portrait or painting underneaththe Sanders portrait, and no evidence ofalteration in the portrait since it was firstpainted.

3. Ultraviolet fluorescence photogra-phy also confirmed that there had been nomajor retouching of the portrait. A fewminor retouches were found in backgroundpaint.

4. Radioisotope-excited x-ray energyspectrometry used on the painting itself,plus x-ray diffraction and polarized lightmicroscopy used on tiny samples of paint,all confirm that all chemical ingredients inthe pigments were known to have beenused in 1603.

Thus all forensic analytical studies con-firmed the painting’s authenticity as anoriginal portrait dating from 1603.

The missing third oak panelThe missing third oak panelThe missing third oak panelThe missing third oak panelThe missing third oak panel

Both Marion Henry Spielmann in 19093

and Tarnya Cooper (one of Nolen’s experts)in 20024, point out that a third panel ismissing on the right which would haveincluded the left shoulder, rendering the

painting symmetrical, which was the styleof non-courtly paintings in the 1600s.

More importantly, as emphasized byCooper5, the missing panel would havecontained the sitter’s age after the painteddate of “AN, 1603” in the upper right cornerof the second panel. The phrase “AEtatisSuae” (his age) or its shorter form, “AEt,”would have been followed by the sitter’sactual age.

It is difficult not to conclude, especiallywhen the sitter looks so much younger than39, that the right panel was intentionallyremoved precisely because the stated agewas younger than 39 and would have ruledout the man from Stratford-on-Avon. If themissing panel had come off by itself (withor without the help of woodworms ortrauma), wouldn’t the owners have savedsuch a key piece of a priceless heirloom?

It should be recalled that there is noevidence that the Sanders family owned the

portrait between 1603 and the early 1800s.In fact, the current owner’s great-grandfa-ther specifically told Spielmann in 1908that the family had owned the portrait onlyfor “nearly a century.” Could the thirdpanel, therefore, have been conveniently“lost” in the late 1700s, at the same time thatthe portrait was marked as “Shakspere” bya spurious label and then sold to the Sand-ers family in England?

There is nothing to suggest that it wasthe Sanders family who did the deed, i.e.,discarded the third panel. If a previousgeneration had been involved in creating afraudulent painting by labeling it asShakespere when knowing otherwise, whywasn’t it sold at that time? Why create anexpensive fraud and then store it? It doesn’tmake sense.

The present generation, representedby Lloyd Sullivan, has made every effort tobring the portrait into the light of day andhonestly validate it or not, using the mostmodern scientific techniques.

The two remaining oak panels havesuffered the vicissitudes of time only at themargins, including woodworm burrows,nail-holes from previous crude framing,and adhesive tape marks. The rest of thewood is in remarkably good shape.6

Further analysis ofFurther analysis ofFurther analysis ofFurther analysis ofFurther analysis ofthe Sanders paintingthe Sanders paintingthe Sanders paintingthe Sanders paintingthe Sanders painting

Tarnya Cooper, an authority on Eliza-bethan portraiture, analyzes the portrait inprecise and elegant detail.7 A crudelyapplied coat of yellow varnish has bluntedand changed the original portrait colors.The painting itself, however, is expertlydone by a polished, experienced painter,quite consistent with an era in which non-noble, non-courtly paintings became popu-lar with England’s emerging middle classin the early 1600s. Cooper, whose specialtyis non-courtly art of the 16th and 17thcenturies, describes features of thepainting’s high quality:

The soft handling of the facial featuresand the delineation of the hair and beard

By Paul H. Altrocchi, M.D.By Paul H. Altrocchi, M.D.By Paul H. Altrocchi, M.D.By Paul H. Altrocchi, M.D.By Paul H. Altrocchi, M.D.

“Professor Jonathan Bate“Professor Jonathan Bate“Professor Jonathan Bate“Professor Jonathan Bate“Professor Jonathan Bate

[of the University of[of the University of[of the University of[of the University of[of the University of

Liverpool] ... gets the awardLiverpool] ... gets the awardLiverpool] ... gets the awardLiverpool] ... gets the awardLiverpool] ... gets the award

for Most Original Ideafor Most Original Ideafor Most Original Ideafor Most Original Ideafor Most Original Idea

by asking himself, by asking himself, by asking himself, by asking himself, by asking himself,

‘Where have I seen‘Where have I seen‘Where have I seen‘Where have I seen‘Where have I seen

that face before?’”that face before?’”that face before?’”that face before?’”that face before?’”



suggest that the painterof the face was a practicedprofessional. Across theface and parts of the hair,the paint appears to havebeen delicately applied,probably in a series of thinpigmented glazes thatbuild up a depth of colourafter repeated applica-tions, providing an illu-sion of light, lustrous, gin-gery hair or palpably soft,flushed cheeks.

The craftsmanship ofthe portrait is at variancewith Sanders family oraltradition that the painterwas an actor who merely“dabbled” in painting. Alsodifficult to explain is thefamily’s belief that theirsupposed painter-relativekept the painting himself.This was not the usual prac-tice of portrait painters at that time, whomade their rather meager livings by paint-ing, and usually requested commissionsbefore beginning a portrait.

Spielmann8 and Cooper9 believe thatthe lesser craftsmanship of the sitter’s ap-parel suggests a different artist from thepainter of the face, probably a lesser artistof the same studio. The apparel itself, how-ever, according to Sir Roy Strong, is “abso-lutely correct” for 1603.10

If not Willy Shake, whomIf not Willy Shake, whomIf not Willy Shake, whomIf not Willy Shake, whomIf not Willy Shake, whomdoes the portrait represent?does the portrait represent?does the portrait represent?does the portrait represent?does the portrait represent?

Obviously the forensic studies validateonly the authenticity of the painting as anoriginal dating to 1603, and do not revealthe identity of the man featured in theportrait. No hidden name, family crest, orother identifying mark or symbol was re-vealed by any of the techniques utilized.

Then whose face is it?Professor Jonathan Bate, King Alfred

Professor of English Literature at the Uni-versity of Liverpool, not only redeems him-self for his anti-Oxfordian pugnacity inNolen’s book, but also gets the award forMost Original Idea by asking himself,“Where have I seen that face before?”

Yes, it finally comes to him—it is thetalented playwright John Fletcher (1579 -1625), who may even have collaboratedwith their Stratford Man on The Two Noble

Kinsmen as well as Cardenio and HenryVIII.

Portraits of John FletcherPortraits of John FletcherPortraits of John FletcherPortraits of John FletcherPortraits of John Fletcher

There are several portraits of JohnFletcher, including one miniature, all ofwhich appear to portray the same gentle-man. They are easy to find on the Internet.One portrait is at Knole House, home of theSackville Family (Earls of Dorset) sinceQueen Elizabeth gave the house and prop-erty in 1566 to her cousin, Thomas Sackville,a writer and friend of Edward de Vere.

The most colorful portrait hangs atMontacute House in Somerset, which ispart of The National Trust and a satellite ofThe National Portrait Gallery. It is a half-body portrait, 29 inches by 14 1/2 inches,by an unknown artist, painted about 1620when Fletcher was 41. It is listed as NPG420. He is wearing a bright scarlet doubletand is holding a plant with green leaves(Fig. 1).

Let us now compare the Montacute por-trait of Fletcher to the Sanders (Fig. 2):

1. Fletcher was twenty-four in 1603,when the Sanders portrait was made; thesitter’s appearance is much more compat-ible with that age than with an age of 39 forthe Stratford man. The Montacute portraitshows Fletcher at mature middle-age, sev-enteen years older than in the Sanders.

2. The ears are notwell-shown in theMontacute and a largermustache and beardhide the lateral mouthand the chin, so thesefeatures cannot be wellcompared.

3. The followingcharacteristics are simi-lar in both portraits:

(a) High, “generous”forehead as part of along, narrow face.

(b) Intelligent,thoughtful eyes whichare greenish-brown.

(c) A slight enlarge-ment and “beaking” ofthe mid-nose.

(d) Reddish-orangehair in both portraits;nowhere is it recordedthat Shakspere of

Stratford had red hair.(e) The eyebrows are similarly arched

in both portraits and there are similar “bags”under the eyes.

(f) The overall facial appearance is verysimilar in the two portraits; the resem-blance is impressive. It is easy to visualizethe two portraits as the same man, at the ageof twenty-four in the Sanders portrait andforty-one in the Montacute portrait.

4. The central “V” of the hairline hasevened out in the Montacute, consistentwith an older age. One factor against thetwo being the same man is that the lateralmargins of the hairline appear somewhatmore recessed in the younger portrait.

On the Shakespeare Fellowship website—(http://www.shakespearefellowship. org/htdoc/sanders.html) — there is a reproduc-tion of an engraving of John Fletcher saidto have been done in 1625 when he was 46(Fig. 3, on page 29). The engraving wasoriginally depicted by John Baker on hiswebsite (http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/portrait.htm). It bears a strikingresemblance to the Sanders portrait and tothe X-ray of the Sanders in Nolen’s book(Fig. 4, on page 29). It is hard to deny thatthe Sanders is indeed a portrait of a youngJohn Fletcher.

Little is known about the life of JohnFletcher, except for his literary works. His


Fig. 1 Courtesy, National Portrait Gallery, London

A side-by-side comparison of the Sanders (Fig. 2, right) with the National PortraitGallery’s 1620 portrait of John Fletcher (Fig. 1, left) clearly shows a number of similaritiesin the eyes and eyebrows, high forehead and the overall shape of the head. Also strikinglysimilar is the hair color—reddish-orange in both portraits.

Fig. 2



Sanders (continued from page 27)father became Bishop of London, chaplainto Queen Elizabeth, was a stern accuser ofMary, Queen of Scots at her trial, and pre-sided at her execution. Other family mem-bers had wealth and social position butwere not noble. Some had literary talent.

John was born in December 1579, be-gan attending Cambridge University at theage of twelve, and took his B.A. in 1595and M.A. in 1598. Nothing is known of hisactivities until 1606, when he produced hisfirst play, The Faithful Shepherdess, whichwas not a critical success. He collaboratedwith his close friend Francis Beaumontbetween 1606 and 1613, both achievingjustified fame for a series of popular playsat The Globe and Blackfriars theaters pro-duced by The King’s Men, of which Fletcherbecame principal dramatist.

Some of their best plays were Philaster,The Maides Tragedy, A King and No King,The Woman Hater, The Coxcombe, CupidsRevenge, and The Scornful Ladie.11 Playswritten by Fletcher alone include MonsieurThomas, Bonduca, The Mad Lover, TheLoyall Subject, Women Pleas’d, A Wife fora Month, Rule a Wife and Have a Wife, TheIsland Princessse, and The Humorous Lieu-tenant.

After Beaumont, Fletcher collaboratedwith Philip Massinger and possibly withBen Jonson. Shakespeare scholars believeFletcher probably collaborated with theMan from Stratford on The Two NobleKinsmen, Henry VIII, and Cardenio.Fletcher was amazingly productive, writ-ing either alone or participating withothers in more than 52 plays. His mostsuccessful genre was tragicomedy. He wasa master of stagecraft, humor, intricate plotdesign, sudden twists in plot, and tricksdesigned to keep the audience both in-trigued and amused. He was not known fordevelopment of character or for loftythemes.

In the 1600s and 1700s, Fletcher’s playswere produced much more frequently andwere more popular than those of Shake-speare. At times, Fletcher’s languageachieved nobility of expression but he isprimarily credited with taking Elizabe-than language out of the restricted ranks ofthe Royal Court and popularizing it amongthe middle and lower classes.12

He rhymed many of his lines andachieved a reputation as a poet. Here arebrief examples of his poetry:

To His Sleeping Mistress

Oh, fair sweet face! Oh, eyes celestial bright,Twin stars in heaven, that now adorn the

night!Oh, fruitful lips, where cherries ever grow,And damask cheeks, where all sweet beau-

ties blow!Oh, thou, from head to foot divinely fair!Cupid’s most cunning net’s made of that

hair . . .

Upon an Honest Man’s Fortune

Man is his own star; and the soul that canRender an honest and a perfect manCommands all light, all influence, all fate.Nothing to him falls early, or too late.Our acts our angels are, or good or ill,Our fatal shadows that walk by us still . . .

He achieved a reputation as the bestsongwriter of his day, composing both themusic and lyrics for the songs included inhis plays. Fletcher’s song titles sound re-markably modern, reminiscent of Rodgersand Hammerstein, or Lerner and Lowe: “OHow My Lungs Do Tickle”; “Hence All YouVain Delights”; “Cast Our Caps and CaresAway”; “Tell Me, Dearest, What Is Love?”;“Beauty Clear and Fair”; “Take, Oh Take,Those Lips Away.”13

At the time, Ben Jonson was regarded asthe best writer of classical plays, Fletcherand Beaumont as the best of romantic play-wrights. Their plays written together wereregarded more highly than what eitherwrote alone.14 As Martha Bellinger says,“Both of these men were poets of a highorder, and their work was superior in in-vention, scholarship, and charm to any-thing else in the Elizabethan age except thebest of Shakespeare. . . Their command ofphrase was unsurpassed; they avoided fool-ish conceits and violent metaphors, at thesame time achieving a sort of gorgeousnessof language.”15 John Fletcher died in 1625at the age of forty-six when he delayedleaving London during a plague epidemicin order to be fitted for a new suit.16 He wasburied in Southwark in August 1625.

Although Fletcher achieved the greaterreputation, his close friend and most fa-mous collaborator, Francis Beaumont, wasburied in Westminster Abbey. Perhaps itwas Fletcher’s death by plague which kepthim out of the Abbey, since it had been thelaw in England since the 1540s that plague

victims could not be buried insidechurches.17

Further commentary onFurther commentary onFurther commentary onFurther commentary onFurther commentary onthe Sanders portraitthe Sanders portraitthe Sanders portraitthe Sanders portraitthe Sanders portrait

Quite understandably, the Sanders fam-ily believes strongly that the portrait is ofWilliam Shakspere. They rely on theirfamily’s oral tradition, and they think thatthe paper label on the back confirms theirtheory, as do all of the forensic analyses.The several potentially fatal flaws in theirconcept have been pointed out in Part 1.

Just as Stratfordian experts leaped onthe now disproved Funeral Elegy band-wagon as “valid Shakespeare” in 199518,many overly eager Stratfordians havegrasped hold of the Sanders portrait as agolden opportunity to unload the doltish-dullard faces of the Droeshout engravingand the bust in Stratford’s Holy TrinityChurch which they have heretofore ac-cepted as “authentic.”

Conventional Wisdom must be upheldat any cost and authorities often “leap froma false premise to a foregone conclusion,”19

attempting to validate their basic myth byany available means and often in a hurried,later-regretted manner. A myth is an un-founded belief held uncritically. The basicbelief is wrong from the very beginningand is never reanalyzed in an unbiasedfashion for its correctness. As Cohen andRothschild said:20 “Once a hypothesis isgenerally accepted, further investigation isconsidered perfidious.”

What Oxfordians should find commend-able is that five of Nolen’s seven experts, allcommitted Stratfordians, were able to riseabove the fray and take a stand that theSanders portrait is NOT William Shakspere.This is not common in dominant theorydebate because, as pointed out by KarlPopper, all of us at any moment “are pris-oners caught in the framework of our theo-ries, our expectations, our past experi-ences.”21

So, Professors Stanley Wells, AndrewGurr, Tarnya Cooper, Jonathan Bate, andAlexander Leggatt should all receive ouraccolades.

Final conclusions regardingFinal conclusions regardingFinal conclusions regardingFinal conclusions regardingFinal conclusions regardingthe Sanders portraitthe Sanders portraitthe Sanders portraitthe Sanders portraitthe Sanders portrait

1. The modern scientific analytical tech-niques applied to the Sanders portrait, sum-



marized in this article,confirm the 1603 date inthe upper right hand cor-ner and confirm thepainting itself as an origi-nal, not painted over apre-existing painting orsignificantly re-touched.22

2. Nothing in thepainting itself confirmsthe Sanders family oraltradition for 200 yearsthat the portrait repre-sents William Shakspereof Stratford-on-Avonpainted from life. Nordoes analysis of the por-trait itself confirm anyother identity.

3. Just as this authorthinks that the painting’slabel is fraudulent, healso believes that the painting’s missingthird oak panel most likely confirmed thesitter’s age as significantly younger thanthirty-nine years, thus consistent with thesitter’s appearance as in his twenties. Sincethe younger age would have ruled outShakspere as the sitter, the author believesthat the third panel was intentionally re-moved from the portrait and destroyed.That most likely occurred in the late 1700sor early 1800s when the fraudulent attribu-tion of the painting was concocted, the falselabel fabricated on early 1600s paper, andthe portrait sold to the Sanders family as anauthentic likeness of Shakspere paintedfrom life.

4. During the past 200 years of owner-ship, the Sanders family has not added asingle falsity to the painting. They havepassed the portrait and its supposed attri-bution as Shakspere as a legitimate familyheirloom from one generation to the next.In recent years, the present owner, LloydSullivan, has been completely open andforthright in trying to learn the truth aboutthe portrait.

5. The author agrees with ProfessorBate’s suggestion that the portrait mostlikely represents the poet, songwriter andplaywright John Fletcher (1579-1625). Theknown portraits of Fletcher, especially theMontacute portrait belonging to the Na-tional Portrait Gallery of London and anengraving done in 1625, bear a marked,almost undeniable, resemblance to the

Sanders.6. If not Fletcher, there is no reliable

evidence to validate the Sanders portrait asrepresenting William Shakspere of Strat-ford-on-Avon, and there is evidence sug-gesting that there has been fraud in thepainting’s history to make it appear to beShakspere.

7. Ardent Oxfordians may confidentlyargue that whether or not the portrait isShakspere of Stratford matters not onewhit with regard to the authorship debate,because the illiterate grain merchant andreal estate speculator had absolutely noth-ing to do with Shakespeare’s plays except toserve as a front for the true author at the paidinsistence of William Cecil.

8. If indeed the portrait is of a twenty-four year-old John Fletcher, then all’s wellthat ends well for the Sanders family. De-spite its having been “trimmed”23 of itsimportant age-documenting third panel,this is the only portrait showing him as ayoung man near the beginning of his highlyproductive playwriting collaboration withFrancis Beaumont.

A new portrait of Fletcher should beworth a pretty penny to Lloyd Sullivan andhis relatives, which may mitigate some-what their painful disappointment in notowning a painted-from-life original ofWilliam Shakspere. From an Oxfordianviewpoint, in the long run the new Fletcherportrait should prove more valuable than a

portrait of an inconse-quential, illiterate grainmerchant from Strat-ford-on-Avon.

ReferencesReferencesReferencesReferencesReferences

1. Peter Skrabanek andJames McCormick.Follies & Fallacies inMedicine. PrometheusBooks, Buffalo, NY, 1990.2. Stephanie Nolen.Shakespeare’s Face.Alfred A. Knopf, Canada,2002.3. Marion HenrySpielmann. “The‘Grafton’ and ‘Sanders’Portraits ofShakespeare.” TheConnoisseur, February1909.4. Tarnya Cooper. “APainting With A Past —Locating the Artist and

the Sitter.” Chapter in Nolen, op. cit., pp.229 - 241.

5. Ibid.6. Ibid.7. Ibid.8. Spielmann, op cit.9. Cooper, op cit.10. Sir Roy Strong. In Nolen, op. cit., p. 257.11. The Cambridge History of English and

American Literature in 18 volumes.Volume VI. The Drama to 1642, Part Two,V. Beaumont and Fletcher, 1921.

12. Ibid.13. Ibid.14. Martha Fletcher Bellinger. “Beaumont

and Fletcher.” In A Short History of theDrama. Henry Holt and Co., New York,1927, pp. 237-240.

15. Ibid.16. John Aubrey. Aubrey’s Brief Lives. Edited

by Oliver Lawson Dick, Secker andWarburg, London, 1958, pp. 21-22.

17. Paul Hemenway Altrocchi. “It Was Not‘Ye Plague’: Oxfordian Mythology aboutthe cause of de Vere’s death.” Shake-speare Matters, vol. 1, no. 4, Summer,2002.

18. William Boyle and Roger Stritmatter.“Swan song for the Funeral Elegy.”Shakespeare Matters, ibid.

19. Skrabanek, op cit.20. Lawrence Cohen, MD and Henry

Rothschild, MD. The Bandwagons ofMedicine. Perspectives in biology andMedicine 22. pp. 531-538, 1979.

21. Karl Popper. Objective Knowledge: AnEvolutionary Approach. Oxford UniversityPress, 1972.

22. Nolen, op cit.23. Spielmann, op cit.

Fig. 3 Fig. 4

Another interesting comparison of the Sanders and a Fletcher image can be seen in thisside-by-side view of a 1625 engraving of Fletcher (Fig. 3) and a negative reversal image ofthe Sanders (Fig. 4) used in Nolen’s book.



The Real Shakespeare

Advertisement

Employing a sort of Socratic dialogue,Edward Holmes of County Durham, En-gland, a former teacher and theater re-searcher, presents the case for the 17th earlof Oxford as Shakespeare in his bookDiscovering Shakespeare: A Handbookfor Heretics.

The dialogue is between Holmes, whotakes the part of the pupil, and a tutornamed Mycroft. Mycroft Books is also thepublisher.

In his preface to the 350-page book,Holmes reminds the readers “that theseimagined conversations, which I will notdignify with the label ‘Socratic dialogues’,constitute a device designed to permit somerelaxation of style and tone; Mycroft (whois, after all, my ‘alter ego’) consumes ficti-tious cream-cakes but his information isauthenticated. You should take him seri-ously.”

Holmes’s alter ego is indeed well-readand well-versed in the arguments for Ox-ford as the author. The bibliography listsabout two hundred authors, although nei-ther Charlton Ogburn’s major work norRuth Loyd Miller’s collected articles ismentioned.

—RFW

The Real Shakespeare. By MarilynThe Real Shakespeare. By MarilynThe Real Shakespeare. By MarilynThe Real Shakespeare. By MarilynThe Real Shakespeare. By MarilynSavage Gray.Savage Gray.Savage Gray.Savage Gray.Savage Gray. (Writers Club Press, animprint of iUniverse.com, 2001. ISBN: 0-595-19191-6) $21.95 ($35.95 in Canada).394 pages.

By Steven M. AucellaBy Steven M. AucellaBy Steven M. AucellaBy Steven M. AucellaBy Steven M. Aucella

The Shakespeare authorship issue hasnever burned so fiercely as it burns today,setting off a torrent of investigation of thehidden meanings and allusions containedin the canon. Edward de Vere’s life experi-ence illuminates his work, and most schol-ars agree today that Hamlet is the mostautobiographical of all the plays. Whenyou read Hamlet critically, it’s easy to seewhy. From the death of the king, to the hastyremarriage of the Gertrude, to the attack-ing pirates, Hamlet nearly shouts “de Vere!”throughout. In short, one can learn a lotabout “Shakespeare” by reading Hamlet.By that, we mean, of course, that one canlearn a lot about Oxford.

In The Real Shakespeare, Marilyn Sav-age Gray presents her view that Oxfordrevealed his name in Hamlet not once, butover three hundred times. Her method trans-lates what she calls “imbedded signatures”from English into French, where eachFrench word begins with “ver.”

The book is arranged in four parts,beginning with a preface. Book One pre-sents a “historical novel” which makes upthe bulk of the work. It’s not a novel as muchas it is a chronological juxtaposing ofOxford’s life with the sonnets and with theplays. In this manner, Gray provides manyinteresting insights. Laid against the back-drop of Elizabethan current events, the“novel” makes for entertaining and infor-mative reading.

Book Two presents the Ver words fromfive “Ancient Dictionaries”, one of which ispartially reproduced at the front of thebook. The dictionaries range from ClaudiusHollyband’s 1580 Dictionary French andEnglish to Randle Cotgrave’s 1611Dictionarie of the French and EnglishTongues. The Cotgrave was available in apre-1604 edition but a copy of that particu-lar edition was not available to Gray. EachVer word appears in some way in thespeeches and action described in Hamlet,according to Gray.

Book Three then presents the Ver wordsas Gray finds them in Hamlet. It is possibleto read too much into Oxford’s use of lan-guage and how it can be twisted back intoFrench. For example, Francisco’s command

in Act 1, Scene 1, to “Stand, and unfoldyourself” seems jarring. Gray claims thatone would stand and identify himself, not“unfold” himself. Having watched KareemAbdul-Jabbar rise from a seated position onthe floor of the Los Angeles Forum, we tendto mildly disagree. Gray explains that ‘ver-nation’ is “the disposition or method ofarrangement of foliage leaves within thebud,” and in due time they unfold them-selves

Gray’s writing style is certainly enthu-siastic, but taken in one sitting can bewearing. Her presentation of Oxford’s lifebeside his work is innovative and indicatesa great investment in time and care thatwent into this book.

The same cannot be said of the bookitself, however. For starters, there is notable of contents, nor is there a bibliogra-phy save what one can glean from thededication page and from the preface. Moretroubling than that, though, is the highnumber of typographical errors and plainerrors of fact. On page xix, for example,Gray names Edward’s father as the Seven-teenth Earl of Oxford when elsewhere onthe same page she correctly labels Edwardas such twice.

These problems can easily be correctedbefore the next printing. In general, TheReal Shakespeare presents its material ina fresh and entertaining manner, and withpassion. Its approach to the authorshipquestion is unique and worthy of more thana passing glance.

The one novel that tells the trueHistory, Mystery and Romance

of Edward de Vere

Shakespeare’s Ghostby James Webster Sherwood

“A work of poetry ... funny,heartbreaking, magnificent”

384 pages / $25.00OPUS books

order: www.opusbook.comfax: 516-365-8331

Plandome, NY 11030-1408ISBN 0-9661961-0-4

Advertisement

A history changingdiscovery!

300 coded signatures inHamlet are

absolute proof of Verauthorship.

Order your copy ($22) ofThe Real Shakespeare

(1-877-823-9235)ISBN 0-595-19191-6

Discovering Shakespeare. By Ed-ward Holmes. (Mycroft Books, 2001.ISBN 0-95407191-3) £14.



A Year in The Life

1581: reckonings and reconciliationBy Hank Whittemore

From 1580 onward Philip II of Spainhad aimed at invading England,with the Pope announcing in De-

cember that God would reward anyonewho assassinated “that guilty woman(Queen Elizabeth) who is the cause of somuch intriguing to the Catholic faith andloss of so many million souls.”1 On the daybefore Christmas Edward de Vere, Earl ofOxford, accused his cousin Lord HenryHoward (son of the executed poet Earl ofSurrey and brother of the Duke of Norfolk,executed in 1572), Charles Arundel andFrancis Southwell of conspiring to deposeElizabeth and replace her with Mary Queenof Scots. The three fled to the home ofSpanish ambassador Bernardino deMendoza, who wrote King Philip of “thedanger in which they found themselves oflosing their lives, unless I would hidethem.”2

Such was the prelude to 1581, a fatefulyear for Oxford, who had lived up toCastiglione’s advice to the “ideal courtier”that he should tell his prince “the truthabout everything he needs to know, with-out fear or risk of displeasing him.”3 In thiscase the Queen ordered Howard into thecustody of Christopher Hatton, Vice Cham-berlain, who was already hostile to Oxford;and soon both Howard and Arundel, asprisoners of state, attempted to save them-selves by portraying Edward de Vere as themost dissolute and disloyal of all Elizabeth’ssubjects – charges borrowed to this day bymany arguing against Oxford’s authorshipof the Shakespeare works.

Let us review some of the unfoldingevents:

January 12:January 12:January 12:January 12:January 12: The government issues aProclamation ordering the return “of theQueen’s Majesty’s subjects remaining be-yond the seas under the colour of study, andliving contrary to the laws of God and theRealm” and outlawing “the retaining ofJesuits and Massing Priests, sowers of sedi-tion and other treasonable attempts…”4

“This Proclamation marks the turningpoint of Elizabeth’s policy towards herCatholic subjects,” Ward writes. “Fortwenty-three years she had striven to wintheir loyalty by leniency and tolerance. ButLord Oxford had opened her eyes.”5

January 22:January 22:January 22:January 22:January 22: Oxford, at a jousting tour-nament to celebrate the accession of HenryHoward’s nephew Philip Howard to theearldom of Arundel,6 is the victorious de-fender. Dressed in “rich gilt armour” as theKnight of the Tree of the Sun, he “mounted

on his Courser, verie richly caparisoned,when his page ascending the stairs whereher Highness stood in the window, deliv-ered to her by speech this Oration follow-ing, etc.”7

March 18:March 18:March 18:March 18:March 18: A new and stricter Statute ofRecusancy is passed, raising fines for non-attendance at Anglican services, imposinga year in prison for attendance at mass andbranding anyone who converts to the Ro-man Catholic faith as a traitor. Other crimesinclude predicting how long the Queenwill live and forecasting her successor,with penalties ranging from having bothears cut off to being executed.8

March 23:March 23:March 23:March 23:March 23: Sir Francis Walsingham,head of the Secret Service, writes the Earlof Huntington: “On Tuesday at night AnneVavysor was brought to bed of a son in themaiden’s chamber. The E. of Oxford isvowed to be the father, who hath withdrawnhimself with intent, as it is thought, to passthe seas. The ports are laid for him andtherefore, if he have any such determina-tion, it is not likely he will escape. The

gentlewoman the selfsame night she wasdelivered was conveyed out of the houseand the next day committed to the Tower.Others that have been found in any waysparty to the cause have also been commit-ted. Her Majesty is greatly grieved with theaccident, and therefore I hope there will besome order taken as the like inconveniencewill be avoided.”9

Anne Vavasour, a Maid of Honor to theQueen, is also a relative of the very men whohave become Oxford’s deadly enemies. Hadthe earl failed to realize that Howard andArundel would make sure Elizabeth learnedof this scandal, which could only turn heragainst him? If Oxford had anticipated thebirth all along, why did he make no attemptto arrange for a clandestine delivery? Thathe now planned to flee from England wouldseem highly doubtful; if so, as CharltonOgburn Jr. observes, he surely would havehad “the wit ‘to have withdrawn himself’before Anne was actually brought to bed ofthe child.”10 Is it possible that Oxford sawno choice other than to allow this newstorm to break over him? In short order heis following her to the Tower.

April:April:April:April:April: The long-awaited delegation ofhigh-ranking French commissioners ar-rives at Whitehall to conclude negotiationsfor the marriage of Elizabeth, now forty-seven, and the Duke of Alençon, nineteenyears her junior at age twenty-eight. Giventhe English government’s alarm over theSpanish threat, on top of heightened con-cern over Jesuit-inspired plots at home, theQueen begins the final act of her granddeception to maintain an alliance withFrance. When she goes to dine with Drakeaboard the Golden Hind at Deptford and toknight him, Elizabeth brings the Frenchcommissioners along to watch the show. Atone point she holds up a sword, laughing,and exclaims she will use it to “strike off”King Philip’s head.

Oxford remains imprisoned.May:May:May:May:May: The French commissioners are

treated to dinners, plays, masques, pag-eants and various other festive events (in-cluding an early masque version of A Mid-summer Night’s Dream?), with the Queenapparently doing everything possible to


“Anne Vavasour, a“Anne Vavasour, a“Anne Vavasour, a“Anne Vavasour, a“Anne Vavasour, a

Maid of Honor to theMaid of Honor to theMaid of Honor to theMaid of Honor to theMaid of Honor to the

Queen, [was] also aQueen, [was] also aQueen, [was] also aQueen, [was] also aQueen, [was] also a

relative of therelative of therelative of therelative of therelative of the

very men whovery men whovery men whovery men whovery men who

[had] become[had] become[had] become[had] become[had] become

Oxford’s deadlyOxford’s deadlyOxford’s deadlyOxford’s deadlyOxford’s deadly

enemies.”enemies.”enemies.”enemies.”enemies.”



drag out negotiations for her marriage.Oxford remains imprisoned.June 9:June 9:June 9:June 9:June 9: A Privy Council letter indicates

Oxford was released from the Tower “byHer Majesty’s commandment” the day be-fore. The letter notes he had not been com-mitted there “upon any cause of treason orcriminal cause,”11 but nonetheless he re-mains in the Queen’s disfavor and underhouse arrest.

June 11:June 11:June 11:June 11:June 11: Elizabeth allows the Frenchcommissioners to draw up a marriagetreaty, but then insists that Alençon (nowfighting Spanish interests in the Nether-lands) must come to England to give hisendorsement in person. The weary del-egates, stunned and disgruntled, return toFrance.

July:July:July:July:July: Oxford writes Burghley to thankhim for “how honorably you had dealt withHer Majesty as touching my Liberty.” Hehas learned Elizabeth “made promise toyour Lordship” to free him from restraint,but fears “she will forget me” amid theaccusations against him. “For she is noth-ing of her own disposition, as I find, soready to deliver as speedy to commit,” hegoes on, “and every little trifle gives hermatter for a long delay.” Whether Oxfordconsiders the Howard-Arundel charges orthe matter of Vavasour as a “little trifle” isunclear; but after discussing other mattershe spontaneously delivers thisShakespearean sentence: “But the world isso cunning, as of a shadow they can makea substance, and of a likelihood a truth.”12

July 14:July 14:July 14:July 14:July 14: “I dealt very earnestly with theQueen touching the Earl of Oxford’s lib-erty,” Burghley writes Walsingham, “put-ting her in mind of her promise made bothunto your Lordship and to the Lady hiswife.” (It would seem the chief minister hasbrought his daughter Anne into the fray,hoping the Queen will pressure his son-in-law into reuniting with her.) The currentproblem, Burghley continues, is that Eliza-beth wants Oxford to confront Howard andArundel face-to-face; but the earl “hathmade humble request to be set at libertybefore he be brought to charge them, as hewas at the time he first gave informationagainst them.” Oxford will not stoop to thelevel of those he has accused of treason, but“Her Majesty, notwithstanding the reason-ableness of the request … cannot as yet bebrought to yield.”13

July:July:July:July:July: Burghley writes Hatton to thank

him for “dealing with Her Majesty in thecase of my daughter of Oxford” and warnsagainst leading Edward de Vere to “suspectthat I regard myself and my daughter morethan he is regarded for his liberty.” In viewof Arundel’s letters to Hatton signed fromhis “fast and unfeigned friend,” however,Ward concludes that “the obviously genu-ine attempt by Burghley and Walsinghamto get Lord Oxford restored to royal favourwas very likely frustrated by the double-

dealing of Master Vice-Chamberlain.”14 Inany case, the earl’s house arrest continuesand he will remain banished from Courtuntil June of 1583.

July:July:July:July:July: Edmund Campion, a leader of theJesuit mission in England, is arrested andgrilled by Leicester and members of thePrivy Council, who marvel at his “virtueand learning” despite his being a papist.He is tortured on the rack three times butstill refuses to recant his faith or name hisassociates. Campion is hanged, drawn andquartered, for which he is viewed by theRoman church as a martyr and later madea saint.

August:August:August:August:August: The English government ob-tains information that Henry Wriothesley,Second Earl of Southampton (who hadpreviously spent time in the Tower foracting as a Catholic in sympathy with Spain),had been communicating with Campionthrough Thomas Dymock, a gentleman ofhis bedchamber. The Countess ofSouthampton has already accused Dymockof taking control over her husband and

causing their marital separation, whichoccurred at least four years ago; and now,because of this same man, Southampton isin trouble again and his health will rapidlydeteriorate.15

October 1:October 1:October 1:October 1:October 1: Explorer Martin Frobisher,writing to Leicester about plans for anotherexpedition across the Atlantic, includesinformation that “my L. of Oxford … willbuy the Edward Bonaventure.”16

October 4:October 4:October 4:October 4:October 4: The Second Earl ofSouthampton dies two days before his son,to whom “Shakespeare” will dedicate Ve-nus and Adonis in 1593, reaches his eighthbirthday. To what extent, we may ask, mightthe second earl have been driven to hisdeath?

November 2:November 2:November 2:November 2:November 2: Elizabeth’s blatant sanc-tioning of Drake’s piracy, her new draco-nian laws against Catholics and her execu-tion of Campion have provoked Philip intomaking open threats of war again. In turnAlençon, desperately needing the Queen’sfinancial help for his campaign in the Neth-erlands, seizes the opportunity. He leaveshis troops in winter quarters and makes hisway to England, arriving at Richmond.

November 11November 11November 11November 11November 11: The English Queen andthe French Duke have slipped into theirroles as adoring sweethearts, with Eliza-beth calling him her “Prince Frog” and“Little Moor” while exclaiming he has been“the most constant of all my lovers.”17 Shebrings Alençon, a Catholic, to a service at St.Paul’s, the better to allay fears on the part ofher own subjects; and then she kisses himin full view of the congregation.

November 22:November 22:November 22:November 22:November 22: Elizabeth stages an“astonishing charade” at Whitehall by pub-licly declaring that Alençon “shall be myhusband.” After kissing him on the mouth,she initiates an exchange of rings constitut-ing a formal betrothal.18 By the next morn-ing, however, she has changed her mindand announces she cannot marry him rightnow. Alençon determines to stay in En-gland until Elizabeth helps pay for his fightagainst the Spaniards in the Netherlands.

December 7:December 7:December 7:December 7:December 7: Anne Cecil writes to herhusband about “in what misery I may ac-count myself to be” and reminds him of“your favour that you began to show me thissummer.”

In other words, the wheels of matrimo-nial reconciliation have been turning eversince Oxford’s release from the Tower inJune and during his continued banishmentfrom Court. (He also may be still under

“Oxford’s reply“Oxford’s reply“Oxford’s reply“Oxford’s reply“Oxford’s reply

has disappeared ...has disappeared ...has disappeared ...has disappeared ...has disappeared ...

supporting thesupporting thesupporting thesupporting thesupporting the

notion that Williamnotion that Williamnotion that Williamnotion that Williamnotion that William

Cecil [had[ beenCecil [had[ beenCecil [had[ beenCecil [had[ beenCecil [had[ been

carefully editingcarefully editingcarefully editingcarefully editingcarefully editing

the historicalthe historicalthe historicalthe historicalthe historical

record.”record.”record.”record.”record.”

Whittemore (continued from page 31)



house arrest.) Anne, distressed because shehas heard “that your Lordship is enteredinto for misliking of me without any causein deed or thought,” begs him to tell her“what you would have me do in my powerto recover your constant favour.”

She signs this letter “from my father’shouse at Westminster,” perhaps an indica-tion that Burghley himself has been dictat-ing her words. Oxford’s reply has disap-peared, along with every other communi-cation to his wife, supporting the notionthat William Cecil has been carefully edit-ing the historical record.19

December 12:December 12:December 12:December 12:December 12: Anne Cecil, thankingher husband for his prompt letter in return,is “most sorry to perceive how you areunquieted with the uncertainty of the world”and begs him to allow her to share in hisadversity. She assures him that “no man canwish better to you” than her father, al-though “the practices in Court I fear do seekto make contrary shows;” and she is “desir-ous above all the world to please you,wishing that I might hear oftener from youuntil better fortune will have us meet to-gether.”20

In her surviving letters the Countessmakes no mention of the Vavasour affair,which must have caused her no little pain.Apparently she and her husband will bereconciled by Christmas, with the Queenlifting his house arrest but continuing hisbanishment from the Court. From here on,until Anne Cecil’s death in 1588, Oxfordand she will attempt to produce a male heirto his earldom.

December:December:December:December:December: Alençon still refuses to leave.He will remain until early next year, withElizabeth promising him a loan of 60,000pounds for the Netherlands campaign inorder to hasten his departure. Meanwhile,an impoverished Devon gentleman namedWalter Raleigh arrives at Court and theQueen promptly adopts him as her newfavorite.

December:December:December:December:December: Young Henry Wriothesley,the future Third Earl of Southampton, isnow entering Cecil House in London. Ox-ford himself was the first of the Queen’snine royal wards raised in Burghley’s cus-tody; and Southampton thus becomes thefinal member of that elite group. Can it bethat the simultaneous occurrence ofOxford’s marital reunion and Southamp-ton’s emergence as a royal ward is merelycoincidental?

By the end of the decade Cecil will

begin pressuring the younger earl to marryhis granddaughter, Elizabeth Vere, the el-dest of Oxford’s three daughters; and if weare correct about the authorship of theShakespeare works, Oxford himself willcompose seventeen private sonnets urgingSouthampton to marry and beget an heir.Edward de Vere will also dedicate “the firstheir of my invention” to Southampton,thereby linking him uniquely to “Shake-speare” for all time.

To what extent, we may ask, will thissubsequent history of the great poet-dra-matist have its roots in the reckonings andreconciliations of 1581?

Postscript 1: Oxfordians have venturedguesses as to what Shakespeare plays Ox-ford may have written originally during hisimprisonment and house arrest in 1581.Eva Turner Clark believes he had written3 Henry VI, which may have been given atCourt on Dec. 27, 1580, to further en-lighten Elizabeth about the Howard con-spiracy. She feels he next wrote Richard IIIwhile in the Tower, to warn the Queenagainst further leniency toward those con-spiring against her. Clark also includesCoriolanus and Measure for Measure asrelating to current events.21 Ogburn Jr.believes both 3 Henry VI and Richard IIIwere possibly written during 1581, whileagreeing with Clark that Oxford had begunRomeo and Juliet about now.22

Postscript 2: Anne Vavasour’s uncleThomas Knyvet, a Howard relative, willnearly murder Oxford by early March of

1582—just two months after the earl’s rec-onciliation with his wife and when he is nolonger under house arrest. Because of hischarges against Howard and Arundel, whichwill prove correct, he was certainly in dan-ger during the year 1581; and we maywonder whether Elizabeth had been re-stricting his liberty not primarily to punishhim, but rather to protect him. After Oxfordrevealed a treasonous conspiracy by thesemen of high standing, they attempted toturn the tables with their own accusations.When the Queen continued to stand by him,they undoubtedly made sure she wouldlearn about Vavasour; but given the cir-cumstances and timing of that scandal, wemay wonder what the truth of it really wasin the first place.

The many allegations against Oxfordby Howard and Arundel are colorful, wildand often downright funny. Most of theirammunition had come from the earl him-self, to the point where it may occur to usthat he may have been criticizing Elizabethdeliberately, so they might loosen theirown tongues. Do we really believe he hadbeen so reckless in his speech out of naïvetrust in their friendship? Oxford wouldhave been well aware of the potential of hisCatholic associates for conspiracy againstthe Protestant state of England; and if hehad been deliberately behaving with moreirreverence toward the Queen than eventhey dared to be, he couldn’t have found abetter way make them drop their guard andconfide in him. If such were the case, whenHoward and Arundel awakened to his trick-ery there would have been no limit to theirdesire for revenge.

Oxford was a fool? Or was he just play-ing the fool?

The bottom line is that he was in ex-treme danger during 1581. If he had goneright back into the Queen’s high favor,moving back and forth between home andCourt, his enemies might well have seizedthe chance to kill him at that point. To whatdegree was his public humiliation, not tomention his acquiescence in the return tohis marriage, part of the price he had to payfor loyal service to the Crown? To whatextent, to cover the truth of his role, was hethen “hung him out to dry”?

These questions do not reflect the usualthinking about Oxford’s fall from theQueen’s high favor and grace. That viewstems from the assault on his character by


“The many“The many“The many“The many“The many

allegations againstallegations againstallegations againstallegations againstallegations against

Oxford byOxford byOxford byOxford byOxford by

Howard andHoward andHoward andHoward andHoward and

Arundel areArundel areArundel areArundel areArundel are

colorful, wildcolorful, wildcolorful, wildcolorful, wildcolorful, wild

and oftenand oftenand oftenand oftenand often

downright funny.”downright funny.”downright funny.”downright funny.”downright funny.”



Confidential Video Bard

By Chuck Berney

Awriter for The Boston Globe oncewrote a column advancing the propo-sition that, as currently used, the

adverb “arguably” meant “not.” The ex-ample he gave was “Titus Andronicus isarguably Shakespeare’s greatest play.”

Titus Andronicus is the play in whichTitus’s daughter, Lavinia, is raped andmutilated by the sons of the EmpressTamora. In revenge, Titus kills the sons andbakes their remains into a pudding, whichhe serves to the Empress. While it is prob-ably not Shakespeare’s greatest play, I be-lieve the Grand Guignol aspects of the plothave caused it to be underrated—at its bestit deals with the great themes treated inlater, more respectable plays: Roman poli-tics, madness (real or feigned), motivelessmalignancy, interracial coupling, crush-ing losses, father-daughter relations, andrevenge (justified or unjustified). And asusual, the players are the brief abstract andchronicles of the time—the play is rich inreferences to Elizabethan events and per-sonalities, though not all of these refer-ences are clear or consistent.

The BBC videoThe BBC videoThe BBC videoThe BBC videoThe BBC video

The BBC video was produced in 1985,and directed by Jane Howell. It opens withthe camera contemplating a skull. We thensee the face of a bespectacled young teen-ager whom we will later find is YoungLucius, the grandson of Titus Andronicus.The scene then opens up to show lines ofmasked, armored warriors. We are in acrypt, awaiting the ceremonial intermentof those who fell defending Rome againstthe invading Goths.

The first words spoken are the Captain’swelcome to the victorious Titus: “Romansmake way!” Scene one continues throughTitus’s speech (“Kind Rome, that hath thuslovingly reserv’d . . .”), then shifts to a publicsquare where Saturninus and Bassaniuseach appeal to the crowd to be namedemperor. In the text, the political speechesbegin the play; Howell’s transposition ofscenes is an unusually bold move for the

Titus Andronicus: The Jane Howell and Julie Taymor versions

BBC series, which tends to be quite conser-vative in its treatment of the plays.

Elizabethan subtextElizabethan subtextElizabethan subtextElizabethan subtextElizabethan subtext

Eva Turner Clark dates the play to 1576,regarding it as Oxford’s reaction to “the

Spanish Fury,” the rape of Antwerp by theSpanish army in that year. She identifies theemperor Saturninus as Philip of Spain,Tamora as Mary, Queen of Scots, and thearchvillain Aaron the Moor as CharlesArundel, a Catholic traitor who was de-nounced by Oxford and who denouncedhim in return. This may all be true, but Ibelieve there are other levels.

As played by Eileen Atkins, Tamoralooks a lot like portraits of Elizabeth. Andwho was Elizabeth’s illicit lover? The low-born, dark-complected Robert Dudley,whom she had created Earl of Leicester. (Ithas long been accepted that in HamletClaudius represents Leicester. Hamlet, inhis mother’s chamber, at one point com-

pares his father with Claudius: “Could youon this fair mountain leave to feed, andbatten on this moor?”). Also recall that foryears Leicester had hopes of marrying Eliza-beth, thus becoming king. How, then, wouldAaron’s first speech (II, i) have sounded tocourtiers?

Then, Aaron, arm thy heart and fit thythoughts,

To mount aloft with thy imperial mistress,And mount her pitch, whom thou in tri-

umph longHast prisoner held, fettered in amorous

chains . . .Away with slavish weeds and servile

thoughts!I will be bright, and shine in pearl and gold,To wait upon this new-made empress.To wait, said I? To wanton with this queen. . .

Leicester was famous for his ornateclothing. And Elizabeth always assignedhim apartments adjoining her own.

But Aaron is not only Leicester. Forthose willing to consider the hypothesisthat Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl ofSouthampton, was Oxford’s son by Eliza-beth, Aaron is Oxford as well. In Act IV, sceneii, a nurse enters, carrying a child Tamorahas just given birth to, whose color revealsthat Aaron is the father. Instructed to de-stroy the child to avoid scandal, Aaron (whohas hitherto been evil incarnate) defendshis son with his sword, and praises him interms reminiscent of the Sonnets (“Sweetblowse, you are a beauteous blossom sure”).He defies Tamora’s older sons:

Stay, murderous villains, will you kill yourbrother?

Now, by the burning tapers of the sky,That shone so brightly when this boy was

got,He dies upon my scimitar’s sharp point,That touches this my first-born son and

heir!

Oxfordian Fran Gidley (from Baytown,

“While it is probably“While it is probably“While it is probably“While it is probably“While it is probably

not Shakespeare’snot Shakespeare’snot Shakespeare’snot Shakespeare’snot Shakespeare’s

greatest play,greatest play,greatest play,greatest play,greatest play,

I believe theI believe theI believe theI believe theI believe the

Grand GuignolGrand GuignolGrand GuignolGrand GuignolGrand Guignol

aspects of the plotaspects of the plotaspects of the plotaspects of the plotaspects of the plot

have caused [have caused [have caused [have caused [have caused [TitusTitusTitusTitusTitus]]]]]

to be underrated”to be underrated”to be underrated”to be underrated”to be underrated”



Name:____________________________________________________Name:____________________________________________________Name:____________________________________________________Name:____________________________________________________Name:____________________________________________________

Address:__________________________________________________Address:__________________________________________________Address:__________________________________________________Address:__________________________________________________Address:__________________________________________________

City:___________________________ State:________ ZIP:________City:___________________________ State:________ ZIP:________City:___________________________ State:________ ZIP:________City:___________________________ State:________ ZIP:________City:___________________________ State:________ ZIP:________

Phone:______________________email:________________________Phone:______________________email:________________________Phone:______________________email:________________________Phone:______________________email:________________________Phone:______________________email:________________________

Check enclosed____ Or... Credit card____ MC____ Visa____Check enclosed____ Or... Credit card____ MC____ Visa____Check enclosed____ Or... Credit card____ MC____ Visa____Check enclosed____ Or... Credit card____ MC____ Visa____Check enclosed____ Or... Credit card____ MC____ Visa____

Name on card:_____________________________________________Name on card:_____________________________________________Name on card:_____________________________________________Name on card:_____________________________________________Name on card:_____________________________________________

Card number:______________________________Exp. Date:_______Card number:______________________________Exp. Date:_______Card number:______________________________Exp. Date:_______Card number:______________________________Exp. Date:_______Card number:______________________________Exp. Date:_______

Signature:________________________________________________Signature:________________________________________________Signature:________________________________________________Signature:________________________________________________Signature:________________________________________________

Regular member:Regular member:Regular member:Regular member:Regular member:e-member ($15/year) _______(Website; online newsletter)One year ($30/$40 overseas) _______Two year ($55/$75 overseas) _______Three year ($80/$110 overseas) _______

Family/Institution:Family/Institution:Family/Institution:Family/Institution:Family/Institution:One year ($45/$55 overseas) _______Two year ($85/$105 overseas) _______Three years ($125/$150 os) _______

Patron ($75/year or over):Patron ($75/year or over):Patron ($75/year or over):Patron ($75/year or over):Patron ($75/year or over): _______

Special offer for new subscribers:Special offer for new subscribers:Special offer for new subscribers:Special offer for new subscribers:Special offer for new subscribers:Bible dissertation ($45) _______P&H for Bible ($5) _______

Total:Total:Total:Total:Total: _______

Subscribe to Shakespeare Matters

Checks payable to: The Shakespeare Fellowship, PO Box 561, Belmont, MA 02478Checks payable to: The Shakespeare Fellowship, PO Box 561, Belmont, MA 02478Checks payable to: The Shakespeare Fellowship, PO Box 561, Belmont, MA 02478Checks payable to: The Shakespeare Fellowship, PO Box 561, Belmont, MA 02478Checks payable to: The Shakespeare Fellowship, PO Box 561, Belmont, MA 02478

Texas) has suggested that “the burningtapers” is a reference to the supernovawhich first appeared in November 1572,and which some have identified as “yondsame star that’s westward from the pole,”mentioned in the first scene ofHamlet. Wriothesley is thought to havebeen born in October 1573, so presumablyhe was “got” in January 1573, when thesupernova was only two months old, andstill fresh in everyone’s mind.

The author chose well when he namedhis villain Aaron. The biblical Aaron, Moses’sbrother, was a high priest who created a calfof gold, leading his tribe down the path ofidolatry. Aaron the Moor is also associatedwith gold: he buries a bag of it in the forestto produce as “proof” when he later levelsfalse accusations.

The motion pictureThe motion pictureThe motion pictureThe motion pictureThe motion picture

Julie Taymor has become known forher theatre work, culminating in her imagi-native staging of Disney’s The Lion King onBroadway. Titus, released in 2000, is herfirst movie. The first half hour is brilliantlyconceived. The camera discovers a boy in akitchen, his head covered with a paper-bagmask. The TV emits sounds of cartoonconflict while the boy hurls toy soldiersagainst each other and squirts them withcatsup. A wall of the kitchen explodes, anda burly thug runs in, picks up the boy, andcarries him down a long flight of stairs.They emerge into an open area which is

evidently the center of the Coliseum, andthe crowd roars as the thug lifts the boytriumphantly into the air. Armored figuresmarch robotically onto the field—are theyRoman soldiers, or are they the boy’s actionfigures grown large? Titus appears, crustedwith the dust of battle, and speaks the firstwords of the film, “Hail, Rome, victoriousin thy mourning weeds!”

This opening is extremely effective inits sociocultural implications, and in es-tablishing the nonrealistic atmosphere re-quired, as noted in the discussion of AdrianNoble’s version of Midsummer Night’sDream in our previous column. In fact, thetwo opening sequences could be describedin the same way: a young boy in a moderndomestic setting is taken through a longhallway and experiences dramatic eventsin an ambiguous era. Wait a minute—it’sthe same boy! In both films, the boy isplayed by Osheen Jones, Britain’s answer toMacaulay Culkin. Julie Taymor has evi-dently been studying the work of AdrianNoble, and has found it good. And in trans-posing the opening scenes of the play proper,Taymor shows she has been studying thework of Jane Howell as well.

Taymor does a masterful job of mixingeras—lumbering tanks and snarling mo-torcycles accompany the armored sol-diers—suggesting the unchanging primalnature of the militaristic impulse. The con-test between Saturninus and Bassanius forthe crown is wittily staged as a 1930s politi-cal campaign—the candidates harangue

the crowds through loudspeakers mountedon sleek convertibles. But after Saturninusbecomes emperor and chooses Tamora ashis bride the movie descends into cliché—your standard Roman orgy, with cocktails,jazz band, and lots of leering. A few minutesafter that, Taymor inserts a shot which isappalling in its heavy-handedness: Titusand Tamora, separated by flames, glaringat each other from opposite sides of thescreen, while the severed limbs and torso ofTamora’s sacrificed son gyrate betweenthem. A similar faux pas occurs almosthalfway through the film. Titus’s plea to theRoman judges (“Be pitiful to my condemnedsons”) is movingly filmed as being ad-dressed to a crowd of citizens hurryingheedlessly past him; but the mood is bro-ken by a silly sequence involving an angelhovering around a sacrificial lamb with theface of another of Titus’s sons.

The ActorsThe ActorsThe ActorsThe ActorsThe Actors

Jessica Lange, an established Holly-wood star, plays Tamora in the Taymorproduction. She is effective, but tends to beoverwhelmed by the elaborate costumesand hairdos provided, and perhaps takesthe play too seriously—she doesn’t seem tobe having much fun. Eileen Atkins, on theother hand, is having a wonderful time—with her kohl-rimmed eyes and lopsidedwolfish grin she completely inhabits thepart of the Empress, and is one of the




Shakespeare MattersThe Voice of the Shakespeare FellowshipP. O. Box 263Somerville MA 02143Address correction requested

Inside this issue:

traitors, combined with the less-than-clearVavasour story, both of which have stuck tohis biography from then to now; but in thiscolumn we put forth such questions be-cause, as the saying goes, “There may be alot more going on here than meets the eye.”

ReferencesReferencesReferencesReferencesReferences

1. Weir, Alison, The Life of Elizabeth I.(New York: Ballantine, 1998), 334, i.e.,Pope Gregory VIII.

2. Ogburn, Dorothy and Charlton, ThisStar of England. (New York: Coward-McCann, 1952; reprinted by Green-wood Press, Westport, Ct, 1972), 300.

3. Castiglione, Baldesar, translation byCharles S. Singleton, The Book of theCourtier (Garden City, NY: AnchorBooks, 1959), 289.

4. Stow, John, Annales (London, 1631),688.

5. Ward, B. M., The Seventeenth Earl ofOxford. (London: John Murray, 1928;reprint by Ruth Loyd Miller, Jennings,LA), 214.

6. Not to be confused with the untitledCharles Arundel.

7. Ogburn, Dorothy and Charlton, op., cit.,304.

8. Weir, op. cit., 335.9. Ogburn, Dorothy and Charlton, op. cit.,

306.10. Ogburn, Charlton, The Mysterious

William Shakespeare. (MacLean, VA:EPM Publications, 1984; 1992 edition),

64611. Ward, op. cit., 211 (The letter was to

Sir William Gorges, Yeoman Porter ofthe Tower).

12. Ward, op. cit., 223-224.13. Ibid., 224.14. Ibid., 225.15. Akrigg, G. P. V., Shakespeare and the

Earl of Southampton (Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press, 1968), 15(Akrigg notes the second earl hadbeen re-imprisoned in January 1581,but fails to say for how long. Nodoubt he was brought in for question-ing about Catholic recusants, but themethods used to elicit his answers areunknown).

16. Ogburn, Charlton, op., cit., 648-649.17. Weir, op. cit., 339.18. Ibid., 339-340.19. Ogburn, Charlton, op. cit., 649.20. Ibid. ; Ward, op. cit., 226-227.21. Clark, Eva Turner, Hidden Allusions in

Shakespeare’s Plays. (Jennings, LA:Minos Publishing, 1974), 393-460.

22. Ogburn, Charlton, op. cit., 775.

Whittemore (continued from page 33)reasons for watching the BBC production.Of the two Aarons, the BBC’s Hugh Quarshiemay seem overmatched by the older, stron-ger Harry Lennix, but he brings a freshcharm and ready smile to the role thatmakes his presence welcome, and under-lines the comedic aspects of the play. AlanCumming plays Saturninus as a selfish,spoiled, degenerate, androgynous brat—exactly the kind of emperor we’ve seen inevery sword-and-sandal epic Hollywoodever churned out (maybe for Taymor that’sthe joke). I much prefer Brian Protheroe’sperformance in Howell’s version—some-one who’s in over his head, and is easily ledby his vengeful wife.

Of course, the crown jewel in any pro-duction of this play is the title role. TrevorPeacock has been one of the mainstays ofthe BBC Shakespeare series, performingroles as diverse as Talbot in 1 Henry VI, abawd in Pericles, and Feste in Twelfth Night.He gives us a gravel-voiced, blue-collarTitus who may not be the brightest bulb onthe tree, but who gets the job done.

Anthony Hopkins, however, is one ofthe world’s greatest actors, who in Titus isat the height of his powers. And by a sly twistof fate, he is forever associated in the publicmind with the cannibalistic Hannibal Lecterin Silence of the Lambs. So when he says“I’ll play the cook,” and, clad in chef’swhites, serves the Empress the remains ofher sons, the moment is delicious.

Video Bard (continued from page 35)

The Ashbourne Portrait -Part IV - page 1

The Sanders Portrait - page 1

Commentary - “Is Oxford buriedin Poets’ Corner? - page 7

Book reviews - pages 1, 30

Year in the Life: “Reckoningsand reconciliation” - page 31

Confidential Video Bard: TitusAndronicus - page 34

Visit the Fellowshipon the Internet!

www.shakespearefellowship.org

Featuring a Discussion Forum and theVirtual Classroom, plus current news,calendar and other exciting resources

Date post:	21-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

And in this corner The Ashbourne The Sanders Portrait ...€¦ · portrait—Sir Edward...

Documents