Talk:Cobbe portrait

Image required
This article would obviously benefit from a free image. There's no issue of copyright with respect to the painting itself because of it's age. However, any available image drawn from an online source will have copyright associated with the photo. If anyone can visit the painting and take a picture for release into the public domain that would be great. Ronnotel (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, there's no issue of copyright because a straight-on, non-creative photograph of a public domain painting is not copyrightable. I've uploaded two low-resolution photos gathered from online sources. Here's my post from Commons:Commons:Village pump about it:
 * Right now the recently unveiled Cobbe portrait is making a big splash in the news. Digging through online sources I was able to come up with two pretty good low-resolution photographs (File:Shakespeare Cobbe painting TIME.jpg, File:Shakespeare_Cobbe_portrait_detail.jpg), but it looks like the owners are keeping a leash on higher-resolution photos. If we could find a magazine that's printing a high resolution photo and scan it, or get a photographer to visit the painting while it's on display (they may not permit photography), it would be a great help. Dcoetzee ( talk ) 21:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm not a copyright expert. I'll leave your interpretation of this to those who are. Thanks! Ronnotel (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, regarding copyright, there is consensus on Commons to permit such images, per the WMF's policy that controlling access to public domain works is "an assault on the very concept of a public domain." Ref Commons:Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag, Commons:Commons_talk:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag. Dcoetzee 22:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How about putting up the Janssen portrait before conservation for a comparison? http://www.canadianshakespeares.ca/multimedia/imagegallery/images/jansen_000.jpg; http://www.folger.edu/imgdtl.cfm?imageid=567&cid=3179; http://www.jamd.com/image/g/51243610. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Update on this, it seems several more images have been uploaded to Commons of this painting (Commons:Category:Cobbe portrait of William Shakespeare). The German Wikipedia (de:Cobbe Portrait) is using the higher-res File:Cobbe portrait of Shakespeare.jpg, which would look better in print, but that one also appears to not be as nicely lit as some of the lower-res ones. Which of the many do we want to use here? Dcoetzee 21:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded 1,612 × 2,308 pixel version File:Cobbe_Portrait.png from http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2009/03/look-here-upon.html. - PKM (talk) 05:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Confusion of Images
It would seem as though there has been a lot of confusion of images. I found this image http://mrshakespeare.typepad.com/mrshakespeare/2009/03/jansen-portrait-authentic.html of the Janssen portrait. Then there's the originals and the altered version. All seem to be made to look like the Cobbe portrait. It would seem as though they have been changed to help bring a value to the Cobbe portrait. Although the fact the changes were done such a long time ago it means that noone would be alive who made the changes. Another thing - who would (in the 20th century) change the painting knowing its value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowanmilesashe (talk • contribs) 10:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a copy of the book `Shakespeare Found: a Life Portrait', which details the discovery of the Cobbe portrait and its copies. I'm a scientist, not a scholar of literature or the arts. So I have no `skin in this game'. This book reproduces most or all of the known copies of the Cobbe portrait. The original appears to be from life. There is a clear progression visible in the copies away from the original, and to the Janssen portrait. The faces appear progressively `fuzzier', with some loss of detail, especially around the eyes. Through this sequence of copies, the shape of the face moves close to the Janssen.

Most interesting is the change in shape of the sitter's corset. Although most details of the clothing remain the same, the corset in the Janssen moves significantly close to the configuration appearing in the Droeshout engraving. The hairline of the Janssen copy was famously modified to age the sitter (to create a balder hairline). But the shape of the corset was not changed! So either i) the Janssen was used the basis for the Droeshout engraving after being modified to reflect an older Shakespeare; or ii) we must assume a much more complicated sequence of events: namely that the painter of the Janssen, in copying one of the pre-existing copies of the Cobbe, also had the Droeshout engraving at hand. That artist must then have used the engraving as the basis for his design of the corset, while basing his depiction of the face on the previous painting. And then at some point he modified the face to make it look more like the engraving! Doesn't make any sense to me. Occam's razor is applicable here.

Indeed, the present article repeats the old claim that the Janssen was touched up to `look more than Shakespeare'. But the engraving and bust were made well after Shakespeare's death. Instead, the above evidence points in the opposing direction: that, since the Cobbe original was not available to the engraver, the Janssen copy (a few removed from the original) was the source for the engraving, perhaps along with a death mask. By contrast, we have no positive evidence that the changes to the Janssen followed the creation of these other two portraits. It is not surprising that, because the engraving and bust were so much more familiar, that many people jumped to the conclusion that the changes to the Janssen reflected them. But, in fact, the internal evidence provided by the Cobbe portrait and its copies points in the opposite direction.

I believe that this evidence is strong enough that this hypothesis should be mentioned in the article.

The Oxford Overbury portrait and the Cobbe do look somewhat similar, and both appear to be from life. But there is enough detail in each, and the differences are just large enough, to support the claim that they do indeed depict different people -- who simply happened to look alike. The hypothesis that multiple copies of a second Overbury portait were independently confused with Shakespeare seems too conspiratorial.

The one piece of evidence that does strike me as pointing significantly away from Shakespeare and to Overbury is that Overbury was younger and would have been the appropriate age for the Cobbe portrait at the date implied by details of the clothing (e.g. the collar). It sounds plausible that such a dating can be made accurately, but of course a portrait can always be made to look younger... 128.100.76.86 (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Best you write it up, if you have sources. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia cannot include speculations that are not supported by published research. It's called "original research" here (see WP:OR). However, I have to say, I find your arguments unpersuasive. Firstly the doublet (or corset) in the Janssen portrait looks absolutely nothing like the one in the Droeshout engraving at all. The design and decoration is completely different. It's very slightly different from the Cobbe, yes, but that's easily explained by the artist adopting a simpler design to ease copying. I can see nothing in the image to suggest that the artist must have used the Droeshout "as the basis for his design of the corset". As for the modification of the hairline, there is next to no chance that that was the work of the original artist, since the original surface was clearly repainted at some point. It's true that we have no direct evidence of when that occurred, but the evidence of other images (see Ashbourne portrait and Flower portrait) strongly suggest that such alterations were typically made in the early nineteenth century, when 'bardolatry' was taking off. As is noted in our article on Portraits of Shakespeare, at least 60 'portraits of Shakespeare' were offered to the National Portrait Gallery within the first forty years of its existence! If the Janssen were used as a model for the Droeshout engraving why are the face, forehead-shape, hair, collar and doublet all completely different from it? Why does the Janssen have a beard, but the Droeshout doesn't? It makes no sense. By the way, I know of no instances in the entire history of art in which a portrait has been repainted by the artist to 'update' it to reflect the aging of the sitter. Of course, one should never really say never - so I guess there maybe rare cases, but all I can say is that I've never heard of it, and it's certainly contrary to all norms of portrait practice. Paul B (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The argument I've given (that the Janssen was one of a sequence of copies of the Cobbe, and that it in particular was the source for the Droeshout engraving, based in part on the overall shape of the doublet) was discussed in the book on the Cobbe portrait published by the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. The book is quite detailed and I believe counts as published research. I'm simply framing the logical absurdity of the reverse proposition so as to emphasize that Wells et al.'s argument has some strength to it.
 * My comment was focused on the shape of the doublet (thanks for the correction in terminology): e.g. the outline of the arms, how they connect to the trunk of the body at the shoulders, their angle of tilt with respect to the trunk, and the relative length of the trunk appearing above the bottom boundary of the image. Indeed the detailing is largely gone in the engraving. But I do maintain that there is a significant resemblance of this overall shape (as previously noted in the Cobbe portait book). I agree that the changes from a preceding copy of the Cobbe to the Janssen version might have been due to factors such as you mention. Regarding the changes to the hairline etc in the Janssen: it's worth keeping in mind that these were paralleled (though in the opposite direction) in the Cobbe original. So there's direct evidence (again as detailed in the book) that the Cobbe was painted when Shakespeare was already balding, that the hairline was `backdated' at the request of the customer, that the copies of the Cobbe reflected this backdated hairline, but that at Shakespeare's death a decision was made to depict him as he appeared later in life, during the peak of his fame. I find it quite natural that, since everyone `knew' what Shakespeare looked like from the bust and engraving, that any changes to a painted portrait `must' have been made to reflect those more familiar images. But when looked at critically, this argument is based on an unfounded assumption: we have no independent evidence that the changes to the Janssen predated or postdated the creation of the engraving and bust, except the internal evidence of the paintings.

71.19.175.238 (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * A good side-by-side comparison of the Droeshout and Janssen designs can be found on the Folger library page: []. This explains that the alterations to the Janssen hairline can be dated to before 1770 based on a reproduction of the painting.  Their dating relative to the engraving is not further constrained.  The page also places the alterations in the context of the growing industry in producing images of Shakespeare: `This makes it is the earliest proven example of a genuine portrait altered to look like Shakespeare.'  The assumption underlying this statement need not be repeated.

71.19.175.238 (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you know
With a little bit of expansion, this would make a lovely entry on the Did you know column on the Main Page.  Majorly  talk  23:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just about to make the same point. We should wait a day or so, perhaps, to pick up on the press reports on the announcement, and the reactions.  We will need to be absolutely sure from a copyright angle that the picture can be used.  Alternatively, should we suggest at DYK that it would be ideal for a 23 April DYK (they sometimes bend the rules in that way)?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can ask for it, but I'm uncertain if the rules can be bent in such a way for such a long time (it's well over a month away).  Majorly  talk  23:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For example, there is a "holding area" for DYK articles for St. Patrick's Day here. I don't think it would be out of the question to suggest a similar one for St. George's Day (though there might be some concerns raised), and this article should by then have become an ideal candidate.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Six weeks aways seems too long for something this topical - I went ahead and threw it up at DYK. Ronnotel (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK hook is queued up and should be on front page w/in 24 hours. Ronnotel (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Cobbe Portrait is actually of Sir Thomas Overbury
I believe there is an awful lot of hype about this portrait being of Shakespeare which seems to be a publicity stunt by the Birthplace Trust and the Cobbes family. The portrait is the original depicting Sir Thomas Overbury. Have a look at his wikipedia page and check out the sketch which is identical for further interest.

The latin writing on the portrait would be a perfect warning due to the life and times of Sir Thomas Overbury. Strangely enough they're both from Warwickshire, both poets, Overbury died in 1613 when Shakespeare stopped writing and returned to Stratford. Overbury got a BA from Oxford University, studied Law, travelled to Scotland just before Macbeth was written and travelled the continent. May have credited Shakespeare for his works to avoid losing his high reputation and possibly worked with Shakespeare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowanmilesashe (talk • contribs) 00:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this backed up by verifiable sources, or is it simply rumours and theories?  Majorly  talk  00:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is and it isn't. Coincidentally, I've just added the Overbury evidence, which derives from the 2006 Shakespeare catalogue at the NPG. The stuff about Overbury writing Shakespeare's works is just the usual baloney, which is wholly irrelevant. Paul B (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added the Overbury portrait as it should be due to the painting likely being a copy of the Cobbes portrait and also being of Sir Thomas Overbury. Either that or Overbury and Shakespeare were sharing clothes. As for my previous statement, I said possibly not definitely as there are connections so it is not the usual baloney. Yes the statements are backed up by facts on Overbury. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.109.14.130 (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not about "Overbury" and "Shakespeare" sharing clothes. It's about one portrait, which may depict either Overbury or Shakespeare (or someone else entirely). A copy of that portrait also exists, as do other copies of it. Paul B (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * and it can't be assumed at this period that the clothes shown actually belonged to the sitter, or necessarily even existed. Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ours is to report the evidence and analysis as it is published. To this end, I have create a sectioned titled Provenance where I think the pro and con can be added. Ronnotel (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The provenance and the science can't determine whether it is Shakespeare or Overbury. Southampton is almost as likely to have had a portrait of Overbury as of Shakespeare. As an art historian I find some of Kastan's statements rather silly. Portraits were not always flattering at all. The Droeshout is anything but flattering, and the memorial isn't either. Most portraits at this time were fairly accurate, but would tend to leave out obvious blemishes. I think we need more input from art experts rather than literature experts here. I'll look up the Searching for Shakespeare catalogue later today. I wish I could find my copy of Shakespeare in Art. Paul B (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on my interpretation of WP:RS and WP:DUE, I do not find the Guardian article sufficient to support the assertion that the Jannsen painting's subject is Thomas Overbury. I'd like to see more detail than what is essentially an extended caption. I think all we can say is that it not universally accepted that the portrait is of Shakespeare. Ronnotel (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Guardian is simply reporting on what the NPG says in its 2006 exhibition catalogue, which never claims that the painting is Overbury. The exact words are "possibly Thomas Overbury". p. 68. Paul B (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The title of the catalogue entry is "A portrait of an unknown gentleman, possibly Thomas Overbury". The entry says "it might depict the courtier and author Sir Thomas Overbury". That's all that it claims. Wells is arguing that the new evidence (the Southampton link and the caption in particular) tip the balance in favour of WS. Paul B (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for searching up a better reference. Ronnotel (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all rather complicated by the fact that lots of the proposed Shakespeare portraits were "helped along" by some sneaky repainting in the early 19th century, which is a time when such dodgy practices were very common. When these repaintings are discovered by modern science the portraits tend be discredited, but oten the identification predated the repainting. Paul B (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * More background on the Overbury connection here. - PKM (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Finally got an image of the Bodleian portait (though small and a bit fuzzy). I've added it in place of the engraving derived from it. - PKM (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hildegard Hammerschmidt-Hummel
It might be appropriate to have a few words on Hammerschmidt-Hummel, but it must be noted that H-H is consisdered to be an extremely maverick individual with a long track record for obessively defending distinctly fringe views. She insists that the Darmstadt death mask is real, contrary to the opinion of almost every other expert, and long defended the authenticity of the Flower portrait. She apparently still insists on it, despite the NPG's proof that it is a forgery. She even insists that an obviously 18th century bust was made in 1613. Hammerschmidt-Hummel is a constant publicity seeker. Her most notorious 'discovery' was that Shakespeare was an ancestor of Princess Diana (she read coded messages in the imagery of a portrait which 'proved' that the subject of the portrait was the Dark Lady, pregnant by WS and one of Di's ancestors. Case closed.) She is also notorious for 'finding' other hidden messages in Shakespeare's poems. Any evidence from her should be treated with extreme caution. Paul B (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Paul Barlow's comments on Prof. Dr. Hildegard Hammerschmidt-Hummel
Dear Paul Barlow,

Because of the defamatory and insulting character of your entry, which clearly violates the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, I will contact the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee – unless your entry is removed and the text concerning Hammerschmidt-Hummel’s published comment on the Cobbe portrait gets reinserted and stays there.

Hammerschmidt-Hummel is definitely not - as you call her disparagingly and defamatorily - “an extremely maverick individual with a long track record for obsessively defending distinctly fringe views”. Your careless and incorrect judgment reveals that you cannot have read any of her books - in contrast to the many Shakespeare experts and top journalists who have examined her results closely. They came to the conclusion that she is an outstanding Shakespeare scholar who has discovered new historical and visual sources and has always collaborated with experts from other disciplines which enabled her to resolve existing problems in regard to Shakespeare’s life, times and religion, outer appearance and mistress (the dark lady).

The experts you refer to in connection with the Darmstadt Shakespeare death mask, who think that this mask is “not real”, all rely on an early 20th century art historian who has not even seen the object, as Professor Hammerschmidt-Hummel proves in her book The True Face of William Shakespeare (2006). Today’s experts on death masks, the pathologist Professor Hans Helmut Jansen and Professor Michael Hertl, who have widely published on the subject, reject this art historian’s view as “unsound” and not tenable. In his report, the medical expert Prof. Hertl wrote: “The Darmstadt mask is indisputably the original mask.” In addition, Hertl gives a detailed account of Hammerschmidt-Hummel’s findings in his book, titled Totenmasken (Death Masks), published in 2002. Four medical professors examined the visible – progressive - signs of disease on the Darmstadt Shakespeare death mask, on the Davenant bust, in the Chandos portrait and the (original) Flower portrait (not its copy which is presently kept in the RSC depository), which are all in the same location. They expressly confirmed Hammerschmidt-Hummel’s results, i.e. that these images must be authentic and must have been created during Shakespeare’s lifetime or immediately after his death. BKA (= CID or FBI) identification expert Reinhardt Altmann, who employed the latest BKA technology, settled the hitherto open question of identity – by comparing the Darmstadt Shakespeare death mask with the Stratford funerary bust of Shakespeare, the Droeshout engraving and all the other above-named images of the bard.

What you are obviously not aware of is the fact that many Elizabethan pictures are emblematical and full of hidden meanings, as the research results in the field of Renaissance painting are able to show. Hammerschmidt-Hummel has closely cooperated with several specialists in this field and has revealed many encoded allusions in Elizabethan and Jacobean paintings.

The German Shakespeare scholar also carried out the long-term research project “Shakespearean illustrations from 1594 to 2000”, funded by the German Research Council, the Mainz Academy of Sciences and Literature and the University of Mainz. She collected and compiled more than 7,000 works of artists on Shakespeare’s plays. More than 3000 of them were published by Hammerschmidt-Hummel in her three-volume work Die Shakespeare-Illustration in 2003, containing a comprehensive historical introduction and a lexicon of artists she authored and also a classified bibliography and indexes. In November 2008, the new online archive “Shakespeare-Bildarchiv Oppel-Hammerschmidt” at the University of Mainz, together with an intelligent web interface version, containing the hitherto unpublished collection of 3500 Shakespearean illustrations, was presented to the public.

Below readers of Wikipedia will find numerous quotes from book reviews, articles and comments eminent Shakespeare and literary scholars as well as respected science journalists from all over the world have written on Professor Hammerschmidt-Hummel’s published findings in the form of books, essays, press releases etc.

With regard to her book The True Face of William Shakespeare. The Poet’s Death Mask and Likenesses from Three Periods of His Life (London: Chaucer Press, 2006), in which four authentic and true-to-life images of Shakespeare are presented for the first time, I should like to draw the readers’ attention to the following examples:


 * 'A brilliant academic study which can also be thoroughly enjoyed by any layperson. … an outstanding achievement’   Dr Paul C Doherty


 * ‘Her theory makes obvious sense of a long mystery’ A. N. Wilson, Evening Standard


 * ‘Superimposing the models revealed perfect matches’ Rob Edwards, New Scientist


 * HHH 'succeeded in proving that the Davenant Bust depicts William Shakespeare’s authentic lifelike features'  GEO


 * 'I was not only impressed but also convinced by the author’s arguments, in view of which not a few leading scholars were made to look mere amateurs'   Professor Peter Milward, The Renaissance Bulletin


 * HHH's 'elegantly produced volume will surely stand as the definitive work which solves many of the mysteries surrounding the few images of Shakespeare that we possess.    ... the author shows that the so-called Chandos and Flower portraits are ... painted during the playwright's lifetime. This establishes that the 1623 Droeshout engraving ... was copied from the Flower portrait, not vice versa ... [She  demonstrates] that [theDarmstadt death mask's] features exactly reproduce those of the other images of Shakespeare. Professor Michael Patterson, Theatre Research International (Cambridge University)


 * ‘Over the past decade Hildegard Hammerschmidt-Hummel … has been a scholarly leader in discovering more about Shakespeare’ Douglas Galbi, U.S., FCC, Purple Motes

As to Hammerschmidt-Hummel’s Shakespeare biography, The Life and Times of William Shakespeare, 1564-1616 (London: Chaucer Press, 2007), a few examples may suffice:

(Theological Journal)
 * ‘Fascinating ... a sheer unbelievably dense network of individual facts, encyclopedic knowledge, scholarly curiosity and intuitive link-ups lead to a genuine advance of knowledge.’H.-Viktor von Sury, Theologisches

An International Journal of Critical Aesthetics
 * '... the latest in a series of original discoveries the Mainz University professor has made ... [It] reads like a mystery story. ... the author proceeds from one fundamental hypothesis - that Shakespeare maintained the old faith - and moves from one nested hypothesis to the next, to explain biographical events as well as features of the works, which had been hitherto incomprehensible. The hard evidence she presents in the form of historical documentation supports each of the hypotheses most convincingly.’ Muriel Mirak-Weissbach, Symbolism.

author of Shakespeare on the German Stage, Cambridge University Press
 * ‘A great book ..., a terrific political thriller ..., an enormously vivid picture of the age, and completely new insights into Shakespeare.’ Professor W. Hortmann,


 * '[HHH's] findings in the field of Shakespeare biography reach far beyond what has previously been known. She has achieved a unique success.’ Professor K. Otten, Anglistik (Bulletin of the German University Teachers of English)


 * 'Hummel's case reveals a remarkable cornucopia of circumstantial evidence. I can not attempt to weigh the pieces for their merits.'  Dr Tom Merriam, Religion and the Arts


 * ‘... following on the many recent studies of this subject [Shakespeare’s biography] ... there has appeared this outstanding survey of The Life and Times of William Shakespeare by the German scholar, Hildegard Hammerschmidt-Hummel, lavishly presented with no fewer than 154 illustrations by the Chaucer Press, after having been translated from the original German which was published in 2003. One’s first impression of the book is that it should make an ideal volume for the coffee-table, it is such a delight to turn the pages and to pause over the illustrations, each provided with a detailed caption and each closely connected with the adjacent text. As for the text, we find a full and critical discussion of all that is known of the life and times of the dramatist with special attention to his Catholic background, his boyhood formation and dramatic inspiration – ....

I have only been able to give a brief outline of all the fascinating wealth of evidence to be found in this volume, to which one may do well to return again and again for fresh enlightenment on the enigma of WS.’ Professor Peter Milward, Renaissance Bulletin

As far as Professor Hammerschmidt-Hummel’s book, Das Geheimnis um Shakespeares ‘Dark Lady’. Dokumentation einer Enthüllung (The Secret Surrounding Shakespeare’s ‘Dark Lady’. Uncovering a Mystery) is concerned, there was a spectacular – unauthorized - publication of her results in the Sunday Times (22 August 1999) – because of an indiscretion of an English colleague. This happened three weeks prior to her publisher’s press conference and caused great damage. There was, however, an extremely positive reaction when Hammerschmidt-Hummel herself presented her findings to the public as well as the new sources he had discovered. In September 2000, a summary of the reaction to this book in the worldwide media appeared in the journal Anglistik.

Since it is impossible to give you examples from the countless reviews and comments on Professor Hammerschmidt-Hummel’s Dark Lady book, an extract of the very first expert opinion may suffice here:

Professor Dieter Wuttke, Renaissance Studies; University of Bamberg, Germany, Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D. C., former Member of the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton.
 * ‘It is a long time since I have read, no devoured a scholarly manuscript with such curiosity, suspense, enthusiasm, approval and undivided admiration as in this present case. It is very skilfully constructed and written in a brilliantly adequate style. The matter-of-factness and precision correspond exactly with the author’s intention of convincing by means of the circumstantial evidence. It is good that she has withstood every temptation to accompany and substantiate her findings and conclusions by stylistic theatrical thunder. The work convinces me in every detail, in all its conclusions. It represents a triumph of cultural-historically guided philology which would also have found the enthusiastic support of Aby M. Warburg or Erwin Panofsky.’

I would like to close with a remark made by the American theologian Andreas Kramarz. In his review on Hammerschmidt-Hummel’s Shakespeare biography, published in NCR (June 22-28, 2008), Kramarz praises the author’s “meticulous studies of historical documents, pieces of art and Shakespeare’s own works” as well as the “conclusive answers to many of the unresolved problems of the Bard’s life”. He rejects Alan Jacobs who, by ridiculing naïve “code-breaking” attempts in Harry Potter and the Bible, seems to insinuate that Hammerschmidt-Hummel might be among them. Kramarz therefore makes it quite clear:


 * “A careful review of her study will certainly come across hypotheses and theories, but the weight of the arguments as a whole, ‘applying interdisciplinary research methods from fields including medicine, physics, botany, criminology, architecture, history of art, archaeology, paleography, jurisprudence, theology, historiography, linguistics, and cultural and literary studies,’ lead to conclusions that can’t be dismissed. Its many small pieces make up a mosaic.”

Kramarz’s simple answer to the final comment of Jacobs (“The Da Vinci Code, the Gospel of Judas, and the new Shakespeare-was-a-closet-Catholic books all demonstrate just how eager readers are to believe in secret meanings. … Give me a break.”) reads:“Break granted. During the break, Hildegard Hammerschmidt-Hummel’s new Shakespeare biography might make for very profitable reading.”

My recommendation is: Readers of the worldwide community of Wikipedia should engage with Hammerschmidt-Hummel’s books (also with her website www.hammerschmidt-hummel.de) and make up their own minds.

CU! Serfgzuj (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Contact whoever you like. Readers can judge you and your honesty from your own contribution. Paul B (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And I expect you to let them do just that: Let them read the article and all contributions! Serfgzuj (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Paul Doherty is a joke. qp10qp (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * and Peter Milward is purely a literary scholar, & a strong Shakespeare-was-a-closet-Catholic man. Johnbod (talk) 11:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Likewise, A.N. Wilson is not a scholar, but a popular biographer who likes controversy so much that he seems to sometimes make things up. Carlo (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Concerning Hammerschmidt-Hummel just a few remarks from a review of her book about Shakespeare illustrations: The reviewer writes the book is full of misrepresentations, lurid speculations, dubious interpretations and stilistic insecurities. As a result, he recommends that people should confine themselves to look at the illustrations only (not the text).[] While this is just an opinion, a have never read a more scathing review. Might be some truth about it .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernardoni (talk • contribs) 21:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you might consider adding this material to Hildegard Hammerschmidt-Hummel. This bio page is sorely in need of some balance. Ronnotel (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The review on Hammerschmidt-Hummel’s three-volume work ‘Shakespearian Illustrations (1594-2000)’ you refer to was written by Sybille Ehringhaus and is full of insults and false accusations. Hammerschmidt-Hummel’s prompt reply, in which she refuted Ehringhaus’s strange and untenable remarks, has been published in the same internet journal (Sehepunkte). See: http://www.sehepunkte.de/2004/05/kommentar/hildegard-hammerschmidt-hummel-ueber-rezension-von-die-shakespeare-illustration-1594-2000-49/ This link can be found on the author’s website (‘Books’ – Die Shakespeare-Illustration (1594-2000) – Replies). Readers should look at the many very positive reviews on this work written by independent reviewers extracts of which can be seen under ‘Reviews’. Serfgzuj (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The claims for the Cobbe portrait
What people are saying - Counter arguments cannot be regarded as valid

Prof. Stanley Wells has rejected objections that have been raised about the Droeshout engraving “looking too different” from the Cobbe portrait by saying that “painters (like photographers) have ever flattered”. He argues that Droeshout “simplified the portrait for his brass plate”, adding that engravers “usually did simplify and update” (see http://www.shakespearefound.org.uk/evidence.html).

These counter arguments cannot be regarded as valid because they are not in accordance with what was common practice in England and on the Continent at the time of Shakespeare. Portraits in the Renaissance were created ad vivam effigiem, i.e. ”from life”, or ”based on the live model”, and reproduced the physiognomy of the subject - together with all the visible signs of illness - with strict verism in order to create a faithful representation of the sitter’s face and actual physical appearance. [See my book The True Face of William Shakespeare. The Poet’s Death Mask and Likenesses from Three Periods of His Life (London: Chaucer Press, 2006), pp. 21ff.]

In 1582 the eminent Italian theologian Gabriele Paleotti wrote that it was “necessary to ensure that the face or other parts of the body are not rendered more beautiful or more ugly, or changed in any way ..., even if he [or she] should be very disfigured by congenital or accidental flaws”. [Quoted in Hammerschmidt-Hummel, The True Face, p. 23.]

It is this strict verism or realism, which also applies to the work of the engravers of the time, that enabled the Federal Criminal Police Office (CID/FBI) experts to identify the sitter of the Chandos and Flower portraits and the Davenant bust as well as the man represented by the Darmstadt Shakespeare death mask. Without this absolute truth to life, the medical experts would not have been able to diagnose the signs of disease in these Shakespearean images, all in the same location, but presented at different stages of life.

Droeshout and the sculptor of Shakespeare’s Stratford funerary bust both depicted the poet accurately, although not directly from life but - as was customary in the Renaissance - from a true-to-life portrait or from a death mask. This is why the Droeshout engraving and the funerary bust formed a perfect comparison basis for investigating and finally authenticating the above-named depictions of Shakespeare.

As I have shown in my article in Frankfurter Rundschau (March 14-15, 2009), link to the article there are so many divergencies between the facial features of the Cobbe portrait and the morphological and pathological features of the four authenticated, true-to-life images of the bard (and also the Droeshout engraving and the funerary bust) that it can be ruled out that the sitter of the Cobbe portrait represents William Shakespeare.

Prof. Hildegard Hammerschmidt-Hummel University of Mainz, Germany

Serfgzuj (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

British English?
Possibly the most British of British subjects, British artist, British experts (mostly) - shouldn't the article be in British English? (ie can we change skeptical and skepticism to sceptical and scepticism please?) 86.148.50.100 (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair point. Paul B (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Shakespeare Found
The article says, "The full evidence will be presented at an exhibition entitled Shakespeare Found, which is due to open at the Trust in Stratford-upon-Avon on 23 April 2009." That is now past. But I don't want to just delete it without knowing what evidence was presented (if any) or where it can be found. Was a larger body of evidence presented that had not previously been? Carlo (talk) 12:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's detailed in the catalogue, which I have not seen. I know some of it from an email from Stanley Wells, but that is not usable here. Someone needs to buy the catalogue! Paul B (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cobbe portrait. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111119164207/http://www.folger.edu/template.cfm?cid=3179 to http://www.folger.edu/template.cfm?cid=3179

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cobbe portrait. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120712221704/http://arts.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329424549-110427,00.html to http://arts.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329424549-110427,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)