|
The Ashbourne portrait is one of the numberless portraits that have been falsely identified as portrayals of William Shakespeare. At least 60 such works had been offered for sale to the National Portrait Gallery in the 19th century within the first forty years of its existence; the Ashbourne portrait was one of these.〔Sir Sidney Lee, ''A Life of William Shakespeare,''Smith, Elder and Co.,1899 p.382 n.291c.〕 The portrait is now a part of the collection of the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, DC. The identity of the artist is unknown.〔Pressly, William L. "The Ashbourne Portrait of Shakespeare: Through the Looking Glass." ''Shakespeare Quarterly''. (1993) 54–72, 54.〕 At some point the portrait was altered to cater to public demand for more pictures of the bard and to conform to 19th century ideas of Shakespeare.〔Pressly, (1993),54-5.〕 The hair over the forehead was scraped out and painted over to create a bald patch. It was also lengthened at the sides, an appearance associated with Shakespeare. The date was also altered to fit Shakespeare's age. The coat of arms was painted over. In this form the painting bore the date 1611 and purported to show Shakespeare at the age of 47.〔Pressly, (1993), 54.〕 In 1940, Charles Wisner Barrell argued on the basis of x-ray evidence that the portrait originally depicted Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford and that this was evidence that Oxford was the true author of Shakespeare's plays. In 1979 the coat of arms was rediscovered following restoration. It was identified as that of Hugh Hamersley (1565–1636), Lord Mayor of London in 1627. ==History== It was first brought to light by Clement Usill Kingston in 1847.〔Lee, 1899 p.382.〕 Kingston was a schoolmaster and amateur painter living in the town of Ashbourne, Derbyshire, after which the portrait came to be named. He wrote to Abraham Wivell, an authority on Shakespeare portraits, explaining the circumstances in which he claimed to have found it. According to Kingston, "a friend in London sent me word that he had seen a portrait of Shakespeare, that he was positive it was a genuine picture, and that the owner only valued it as being a very fine painting. Being too poor to purchase it himself, he advised me by all means to have it." He immediately purchased it. Kingston told Wivell that the design on the book held in the subject's hand was a combination of "the crest of the Shakespeare family and the tragic mask". After examining the work, Wivell enthusiastically endorsed it.〔Pressly, 1993, pp.56-8.〕 It was subsequently reproduced in mezzotint by G.F. Storm. In this form it was widely reproduced during the 19th century, having entered the canon of Shakespeare portraits. In 1910 M.H. Spielmann devoted two articles to a critical analysis of the portrait, with regard to provenance, attribution and identification. He dismissed Kingston's claim that the Shakespeare "family crest" could be seen on the book. He also rejected a suggestion that the subject was portrayed in the character of Hamlet. He concluded that the aristocratic nature of the portrait did not conform to Shakespeare's status as a playwright, and that the painting's historical subject was a mystery. However, he accepted that Shakespeare ''could'' be the portrait's subject.〔Pressly, (1993) 59–60.〕 The painting was auctioned at Sotheby's in 1928, and sold for £1,000 ($5,000) to Eustace Conway, an American lawyer, who in turn sold it to Henry Clay Folger's widow, Emily Jordan Folger in 1931, for the sum of $3,500, as a gift to the Folger Shakespeare Library, which opened the following year.〔Pressly (1993), 60〕 In 1932, the writer Percy Allen argued that the painting originally depicted Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, but had been later retouched. In 1940, Charles Wisner Barrell investigated the portrait using X-rays and concurred with Allen's view. Art historian William Pressly, who catalogued the Folger's paintings,〔William L.Pressly, ''A Catalogue of Paintings in the Folger Shakespeare Library,'' Yale University Press, 1993.〕 and directed the 1988 restoration of the work, states that the controversy surrounding the sitter's identity was resolved in 1979, when restorative work on the painting revealed conclusively〔Pressly, 64:(1)'Michaels, in removing much of the overpaint, exposed the coat of arms, making it possible for the first time to identify the sitter ''with certainty''.'(2)'the coat of arms . . . were linked ''conclusively'' . . to the armorial coat of Hamersley.〕 that it had been begun as a portrait of Sir Hugh Hamersley. The Folger Library dates the painting to 1612, and while stating that most researchers identify the painting's subject as Sir Hugh Hamersley, notes that some Oxfordians contend it depicts Edward de Vere.〔(''The Ashbourne Portrait,'' ) Folger Shakespeare Library| accessed 6/20/10〕 It currently hangs in the Folger Shakespeare Library. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Ashbourne portrait」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|