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.
For more information about this portrait see Read about a 400-year-old mystery!.
|