| The "Sanders Portrait of William
Shakespeare" has been passed down from generation to generation
of its owner's family, along with the legend that it is in fact
a portrait of Shakespeare. The head-and-shoulders image is
presumed to have been done by an ancestor of the owner — an
artist named John Sanders about whom little is known. It
measures 42 cm high by 33 cm wide and is executed on a wood
panel. A date ("AN° 1603") appears in red in the upper right
corner, and a paper label is glued on the back of the panel (but
it is badly damaged and the writing it bears is no longer
legible). If authentic, this portrait would be the only known
likeness of Shakespeare created during his lifetime.
The painting was the subject of an article
in The Connoisseur in 1909. The author, a man named
Spielmann, had transcribed the inscription on the label that
identified the man in the portrait as William Shakespeare at the
age of 39 years. Spielmann declared that the date had been added
long after the portrait had been painted, that the costume had
been extensively retouched or overpainted, and that the paper of
the label was not that old; he concluded that the painting was a
"relatively modern" copy or fake.
In an effort to prove the painting was
genuine, the owner approached CCI with a request to carry out a
scientific examination. The goal was to determine, on the basis
of the materials used, whether or not the painting dated from
the early 17th century.
The first step in the examination was to
date the wood panel. Tree-ring dating was done by an expert in
the field — Peter Klein from Hamburg University. His analysis
showed that the wood was oak from the Baltic region, that the
earliest possible date for the execution of the painting was
1597, and that a date of execution from 1603 onward was
plausible. Having determined that the wood panel was from the
correct period, the painting was subsequently radiographed to
ensure the current portrait was not simply executed on top of an
old painting. The radiograph did not show any indication of an
earlier painting underneath the portrait.
The painting was then examined by various
means including photographic techniques such as infrared and
ultraviolet radiation. The results revealed no major retouching,
which called into question Spielmann's allegation that the
costume had been extensively retouched or modified.
The next step was to analyse the materials
used to paint the portrait. Although this kind of data could not
be used to date the painting precisely, it would provide
information about the era and geographical location in which the
painting was done. And should the analysis reveal the presence
of a painting material that was not introduced until the 19th or
20th century, it would prove that the painting was a copy or a
fake.
The results indicated that the nature of
the materials in the portrait and the way in which they were
used were consistent with those that one would find in a
painting done in England in 1603. No anachronisms were noted. In
addition, close examination of the date revealed nothing in the
way the red paint was applied to indicate that the date had been
applied at some point in time after the portrait was finished.
Finally, the paper label was examined.
Analysis showed that it was rag paper made from linen fibres, as
opposed to pulp paper of more modern manufacture. The last step
was to date the paper. This was done by Roelf Beukens at
IsoTrace Radiocarbon Laboratory, a laboratory affiliated with
the University of Toronto, who concluded that the paper could
date anywhere between 1475 and 1640. The dating of other
materials, such as the ink or the glue from the label or the
paint itself, was also considered but proved to be problematic.
The results of the tests that were done
were conclusive: the painting was executed on wood that dated
from the correct period; the materials and the way in which they
were used were consistent with a painting done in England in the
early 17th century; no anachronistic material was found; and the
label identifying the subject of the portrait was made of rag
paper dating from 1640 at the latest. All these elements
indicated that the painting was indeed an old painting and not a
relatively modern copy or fake.
But is the painting a portrait of William
Shakespeare? It was never the purpose of CCI's examination to
provide an answer to this question. However, once armed with
CCI's results that the painting materials were of the
appropriate age, the owner was able to convince others that the
portrait warranted further study. Perhaps someday the identity
of the subject will be verified.
In spring 2001, The Globe and Mail
published several articles on the scientific examination of this
painting and the mystery surrounding it. In response to the
interest generated by these articles, the Art Gallery of Ontario
in cooperation with CCI organized an exhibition to present the
portrait and the results of the examination. This exhibition
(entitled "Shakespeare?") allowed the general public to see
first-hand the type of research that is necessary before
curators, art historians, and other experts can establish the
provenance of a painting. And, of course, everyone had an
opportunity to form their own opinion as to whether or not they
were viewing an authentic likeness of William Shakespeare. |
