The Chandos Portrait is the most famous “painting of Shakespeare”.
However the evidence that it is an ad vivum (from life) portrait of Shakespeare is inconclusive at best and flimsy at worst. It’s history involves a character who claimed to be the illegitimate son of Shakespeare, and involves an artist’s name that is clouded in uncertainty.
The Chandos Portrait currently is on exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery in London (if not on loan).
Indeed it was the first painting donated to the NPG on its foundation in 1856, and consequently is catalogued as NPG1.
There is a detailed description and analysis of the Chandos in “Searching for Shakespeare” a NPG publication.
“Searching for Shakespeare” (2006) a superb book, edited by Tanya Cooper, the brilliantly considered and insightful English art historian and author who is currently the National Trust’s Curatorial & Collections Director. She has previously been the Chief Curator and Curatorial Director at the National Portrait Gallery, London
The Chandos is in extremely poor condition, with much of the original paint gone. The cover of Searching for Shakespeare shows how worn the painting is – the grey on the collar is in fact the original ground of the painting. 
There has been successive cleaning and overpainting and alterations to the original portrait (including a longer beard having been added and the hair extended down the collar1). The NPG have rightly been careful not to subject the painting to overly intrusive testing methods. The painting is on canvas, so cannot be dated via tree rings (dendrochronology), and there is no isotopic or chemical analysis published.
I like the fact that Tarnya never overstates the evidence, and says that whilst the Chandos may have the best claim to be an ad vivum portrait, there is no conclusive proof. Technical and stylistic analysis has led specialists to date the Chandos to c1600 -1610 1 however this is not a scientific date and could arguably be later.
- Is it meant to depict Shakespeare?
- Probably Yes, based on the named owners and vague similarity to the Droeshout engraving.
- Was it painted from life?
- I will argue No, because of the analysis below. The early provenance of the Chandos is based entirely on hearsay and this hearsay does not specifically state that it was painted from life, only that it was painted by someone who knew Will – and even that is debatable.
- Furthermore the Chandos was not as used an image of Shakespeare in any printed works until 1709.
The History of The Chandos
Hearsay/Tradition:
- c. 1610 (possibly later): The portrait is painted, (possibly by a John Taylor painter or Joseph Taylor actor)
- Unknown Date: Taylor bequeaths painting to SIr William Davenant.
- 1668: Playwright Sir William Davenant dies; the portrait is purchased by actor Thomas Betterton.(It reportedly hung in the Duke’s Theatre)
- 1710: Robert Keck purchases the portrait from Betterton for 40 guineas.(Interestingly Keck is connected to the Wadlow portrait: see Wadlow page).
Documented:
- 1719: George Vertue mentions the portrait and provenance in his notebooks
- 1719:Robert Keck dies.
- The portrait is inherited by his daughter.
- John Nicholl (of Minchenden House) subsequently acquires it through his marriage to Keck’s daughter.
- 1753: John Nicholl’s daughter, Margaret, marries James Brydges, the 3rd Duke of Chandos, bringing the portrait into the Chandos family.
- 1848: The 2nd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos sells it to the Earl of Ellesmere.
- 1856: The Earl of Ellesmere donates it to the National Portrait Gallery, where it is cataloged as NPG 1.
Everything we know about the early history of the Chandos starts in 1719, over 100 years after Will’s death.
This first written reference to the painting (not yet known as the Chandos) appears in a 1719 notebook of George Vertue (1684 -1756) who was an English engraver and antiquary. We know that Vertue was talking about the Chandos because his notebook contains a pencil drawing of him pointing to small portrait of what is clearly the Chandos.
He writes about the provenance, all of which he learned from a Robert Keck (lawyer and collector of Shakespeare memorabilia), or Keck’s daughter. Robert Keck learned what he knew from Thomas Betterton (actor and theatre manager).
It goes like this: Vertue was told by Keck (or Keck’s daughter), or someone who knew them, who was told by Betterton that it was painted by a John Taylor (a painter) or John Taylor (a player and friend of Shakespeare) who left it in his will to William Davenant who then died and it was bought by Thomas Betterton. We are not told how Betterton knows the Taylor/Davenant connection.
The problem is that Vertue’s notes are clearly hearsay.
Vertue’s notes, changes and crossings out shows how uncertain this story/provenance is.
There are amendments and deletions in Vertue’s notes. He made 2 additions, both of which he subsequently deleted. He wrote the name “Richard Burbridge” (presumably the well known actor Richard Burbage) next to Baterton (Thomas Betterton), then deleted it. He also added “& painter” beside “John Taylor a Player” – but then crossed that out as well. It shows that Vertue was not entirely sure about the various people in the provenance.
He also changes “The Picture of Shakespeare the only original” to “The Picture of Shakespeare one original“
The provenance is clearly unreliable. Did Vertue not believe Keck and seek other opinions? Did he hear this from Keck’s daughter – bearing in mind that Robert Keck died in 1719 when these notes were written? Did he talk with Keck’s daughter and agree to establish a provenance by asking others?
What we do know is that Vertue was uncertain.
Sir William Davenant (also as D’Avenant)
At this point it is worth a few words about Sir William Davenant (1606 – 1668), English poet, playwright and theatre owner who was 10 years old when Shakespeare died.
Vertue’s notes state that Davenant was left the painting by a John Taylor (painter/player?) in his will.
Davenant was a Shakespeare buff, rewriting some of the plays for productions he staged, and was keen to emphasise his connection with him.
However Davenant is not the most reliable person to believe in matters of Shakespeare.
He told acquaintances that Shakespeare would stop overnight at his Mother’s Inn (Crown) when travelling between London and Stratford and that he was Shakespeare’s godson. However, it was also widely noted that when socialising he would claim that he was in fact Shakespeare’s illegitimate son.2
It is likely that Davenant had a picture of Shakespeare, but whether it was a painting from life which was bequeathed to him by the painter/player John Taylor, is not known. It is conceivable that it is a portrait of Shakespeare painted after his death that Davenant bought, or maybe even one he commissioned and then gave a nice back story. Also, it is possible that the provenance was embellished by Betterton when he sold it to Keck.
This is of course speculation by me, but then the provenance is speculative with it’s additions, crossing out’s and uncertainty.
Copies of the Chandos
Despite the lack of provenance, we do know that the Chandos existed as a likeness of Shakespeare from at least the 1660’s because there are some similar paintings that are believed to be copies of it.
The Chesterfield c1670 Image credit: Shakespeare Birthplace Trust
This portrait, possibly by the Dutch painter Pieter Borsselaer was once owned by the Earl of Chesterfield. Shakespeare’s head is clearly modelled on the Chandos
The Dryden c1689
“This fine copy (of the Chandos) painted by Sir Godfrey Kneller, and by him presented to John Dryden. The poet acknowledged’ the gift in his celebrated Fourteenth Epistle, written after 1691 and published in 1694, and containing the passage beginning, “Shakespeare, thy gift, I place before my sight; With awe I ask his blessing ere I write.” This at least proves the esteem in which the Chandos portrait was held so far back as the end of the 17th century, only three-quarters of a century after Shakespeare’s death.” . M.H. Spielmann 1911
Marion Spielmann (1858–1948) was a prominent Victorian-era art critic, editor, and scholar, widely recognized for his detailed investigations into the portraiture of William Shakespeare
The Soest portrait c1660
Painted by Gerard Soest (1600 – 1681). Soest’s portrait of Shakespeare was owned by Thomas Wright of Covent Garden in 1725. It was painted by Soest at least 30 years after Shakespeare’s death. George Vertue states that it was based on a man who resembled Shakespeare, while the pose and costume suggest the influence of the Chandos.
When did The Chandos “become” Shakespeare
“It is curious that despite the Chandos, and copies of it, existing from at least 1660 or earlier, it was not shown as the likeness of Shakespeare in printed works until 1709”
Here is how Shakespeare was portrayed before 1709:
1623 — Martin Droeshout, engraved portrait frontispiece/title-page portrait in the First Folio.
1632 — Droeshout plate reused for the Second Folio (retouched state).
1664 — Droeshout plate reused for the Third Folio (worn/retouched).
1649 — William Marshall, portrait frontispiece for Benson’s Poems
1655 — William Faithorne, engraved portrait frontispiece for The Rape of Lucrece (a Droeshout-derived Shakespeare head).
1685 — Droeshout plate heavily re-engraved (the “fourth state”) for the Fourth Folio. .
Therefore, the obvious question is; if the Chandos (which is a substantial size – not a miniature or keepsake) was known to be Shakespeare during his life and painted by one of his players, or notable artist, then why was it not used for the first folio (1623) or subsequent folios (up to 1685)? Surely it would have been known to Heminges and Condell who prepared the First Folio. Neither was the Chandos used for other works – 1640 for the Marshall engraving of Benson’s Poems or the 1655 Rape of Lucrece publication.
The answer lies in the connection between Thomas Betterton, the owner of the Chandos, and the 1709 Works, for which Betterton was a key advisor.
Finally, The Chandos becomes Shakespeare
Here we have the first use of the Chandos as portraying Shakespeare in print.
1709: The Works of Mr. William Shakespeare; in Six Volumes…
Editor: Nicholas Rowe Publisher: Jacob Tonson (London)
NOTE:
Thomas Betterton served as the “primary source” for the first-ever biography of Shakespeare included in the 1709 edition.
Thomas Betterton owned The Chandos
The publisher Jacob Tonson decided to use Betterton’s painting for the image of Shakespeare and had an expensive engraving of it produced for the works.
From 1709 onwards, the Chandos version of Shakespeare gained popularity, partly no doubt because it looked more representative of how people expected our national poet to look. The Droeshout engraving, with its poor execution, stiff portrayal and awkward proportions started to fall out of favour.
The Verdict
Is The Chandos an ad vivum portrait of William Shakespeare?
FOR
- Possibly contemporary (but not definitely).
- Looks vaguely like the Droeshout; forehead, beard, eyes.
AGAINST
- It is somewhat different to the Droeshout which was acknowledged by Shakespeare’s immediate friends to be his likeness.
- Early provenance based entirely on hearsay
- Provenance not mentioned in writing before 1719
- William Davenant was known to embellish his connection to Shakespeare
- Was not used as a likeness of Shakespeare in print until nearly 100 years after his death
- If painted by one of Shakespeare’s players (as claimed) then why was it not used for the First Folio?
- If it was not available, the image used for the Droeshout engraving would have looked very different – yet was still used.
My Ratings. These are not based on a clear protocol, but hey, it’s my website.
isitshakespeare? 7/10
is it ad vivum? 3/10
Footnotes:
1. Tarnya Cooper (Editor), Searching for Shakespeare (National Portrait Gallery Publications, 2006)
2, Schoenbaum, S., Shakespeare’s Lives, Oxford University Press, 1991, p.164-166.