Shakespeare's face : unraveling the legend and history of Shakespeare's mysterious portrait /

Nolen's scoop about the rediscovery of what is reputedly the only portrait of the Bard painted in his lifetime appeared in 2001 on the front page of the Toronto Globe and Mail and sparked international debate within the Shakespeare industry. Almost a century ago, the "Sanders portrait" was brought to the attention of a prominent Shakespeare scholar and was officially-and incorrectly-dismissed as an altered portrait with a comparatively recent label affixed to it. Its current owner, Lloyd Sullivan, a retired engineer from Ontario, believed that he had inherited a genuine artifact from his grandmother (who kept it under her bed), and Nolen follows his decade-long attempt to confirm the family tradition that it was painted by Sullivan's ancestor, Elizabethan actor-artist John Sanders. Sullivan enlisted chemical and radiological experts to rule out retouching and even one of the world's leading specialists in dendrochronology (the science of dating wood by the tree rings) to situate the portrait's wood panel at the turn of the 17th century. Although Sullivan could never confirm the portrait's provenance, this book's alternating chapters ballast Nolen's account of his quixotic quest with eight essays by such scholarly heavy hitters as Stanley Wells (on the Bard's fame), Jonathan Bate (on the "anti-Stratford" author conspiracies) and Marjorie Garber (on how we read significance into Shakespearean iconography). Nolen refreshingly includes well-considered counterarguments. Encompassing the very debate that its story sparked, Shakespeare's Face combines potentially dry art history with agreeable historical and journalistic investigation. 16 pages of color and b&w illus. not seen by PW. (Apr. 7) (c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved

This book tells the dubious story of an Elizabethan-era portrait labeled Shakspere that resurfaced in Toronto in 2001. The plot thickens when the author, a foreign correspondent for Toronto's Globe and Mail, reveals that its owner is a neighbor of her parents. Interspersed throughout the episodic account of its inconclusive authentication process are essays by eight notable literary, cultural, and art scholars who mostly use the opportunity to promulgate favorite views of the Bard to a popular audience. Only in the final chapter do the experts (including Jonathan Bate, Andrew Gurr, Alexander Leggatt, Marjorie Garber, and Stanley Wells) weigh in on the portrait itself. Predictably, given its problematic history, shaky provenance, and certain stylistic negatives, none of the authors contends that it is anything more than an early 17th-century portrait. Alas, lacking solid evidence, romantics must be reconciled to the familiar moon-faced egghead of the Droeshout engraving, represented in the First Folio. For art purposes, the most interesting section is "Forensic Revelations," which describes in some detail the painting's surface and wood tests. Although the book is based on a painting, it is a marginal choice for art libraries; on the other hand, comprehensive Elizabethan and, of course, Shakespeare collections should acquire.-Russell T. Clement, Northwestern Univ. Lib., Evanston, IL (c) Copyright 2010. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.

Canadian journalist Nolen recounts the gripping story of the portrait many believe shows the face of the Immortal Bard. The author's mother first told her of a neighbor near Ottawa who claimed to have an authentic painting of Shakespeare. Lloyd Sullivan said that the 16(apple)-by-13-inch artifact was painted in 1603 by an ancestor named John Sanders, supposedly a member of the playwright's theater company, the Lord Chamberlain's Men. The painting had been in his family for 400 years, Sullivan declared, and he had tried from time to time to authenticate it. Enter Nolen with her reporter's curiosity and the resources of the Toronto Globe and Mail. In an unusual but effective strategy, she interrupts her narrative periodically to insert essays on related subjects by various scholars, artists, and forensic specialists. For example, the author discusses other portraits that may show the Bard, then we hear from Andrew Gurr discoursing on the likelihood of such a portrait even existing (he thinks it very likely), from Jonathan Bate summarizing the issues surrounding Shakespeare's identity, from Robert Tittler expatiating on portraits from the era, from Tarnya Cooper examining the artistry of the picture, and so on. The following facts emerge: the portrait is definitely from the Shakespearean period (pigments, technique, and oak surface all conform to 1603 norms); the man is wearing clothing consistent with Shakespeare's social status at the time; an X-ray confirmed that there is no underpainting; both the paper and the writing on the back, which identifies the subject as Shakespeare, date from the proper period. Q.E.D.? Not quite. As Nolen notes, there are gaps in the story, years when the painting cannot be accounted for, and there is no contemporaneous documentary evidence that Shakespeare ever sat for a portrait. A fascinating piece of detective work, but once again the elusive Swan of Avon slips into the shadows. (16 pp. color plates, not seen) Copyright ©Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.