A LONG-LOST AND MOST STRIKING PORTRAYAL OF SHAKESPEAREATTHEWINTEROFHISLIFEISREVISITED
In this short study the Sharp Ogden’s portrait of Shakespeare (WS) approaching his fiftieth year is compared to other paintings showing The Bard.
Very little is known about that portrait (Fig. 1), it was long the property of an old Lancashire family, while later William Sharp Ogden became the owner.
Even without any substantial history, for Sharp Ogden that portrait was a genuine representation of WS because as he described ‘’the general modelling of the face and features is quite in accord with that shown in the Chandos and Droeshout portraits as well as the Stratford bust’’. With today powerful face recognition tools, that fitting together approach is made much more easier and this short study aims to confirm or not Sharp Ogden’s claim using also recent findings about WS.
Fig. 1, Portrait of WS as shown in William Sharp Ogden’s book (1912).
The Sharp Ogden portrait is first compared to the Sanders painting which went through all possible tests and has been found highly related to many other representations of WS including the Droeshout engraving. The comparisons are done with the visual face recognition software (VFR) made by the late Robert J. Schmitt who was an expert in that technology.
Fig. 2, Face recognition screen captures of the Sharp Ogden portrait of WS side by side with the Sanders painting of WS (left) and after merging with the Sanders painting flipped horizontally (right) . To zoom in on the pictures hold your keyboard CTRL key while scrolling with the mouse wheel.
Among the similarities: thin eyebrows, lateral hooding of eyes (skin just under the eyebrows), baldness pattern, beard shape, large forehead, scars above and under the left eye, scar line under le right eye just beside the nose, lines under the left eye, attached ear lobe, thin lips and mouth shape, etc. The attached ear lobe is a commonly found anatomical marker associated to all representations (sculptures, paintings or engravings) of WS.
For Sharp Ogden, the mouth unusual shape described as a ‘’cupid’s bow’’ and observed in the Stratford bust, the Chandos painting and the Droeshout engraving was a ‘’decided characteristic.’’ of WS’s face. That ‘’cupid’s bow’’ mouth shape is also found in all newly discovered WS paintings including for instance the Sanders, Wadlow, Hilliard and Oliver miniatures paintings.
The sitter in the Sharp Ogden portrait (Fig. 1) is shown in three-quarter to the right face view while in the Sanders painting (and most of the other WS representations) the sitter appears in a three-quarter to the left perspective (Fig. 2, left). So to compare the two pictures, one needs to be flipped. In the Sanders painting the sitter is smiling while in the Sharp Ogden the sitter is very serious. Furthermore according to Sharp Ogden the sitter is close to his fiftieth while the Sanders done in 1603 was 39 years old and of course the paintings were done by two different artists. That explains why the matching between the two paintings is not perfect in particular at the level of the nose which appears much longer in the Sharp Ogden portrait (Fig 2, right). The nose in the sitter of the Sharp Ogden portrait has a well defined aquiline nose just like the nasal appengage of the Van Mander WS shown in a different perspective (Fig. 3). The nose lenght and shape as well as the nostril are very similar.
Fig, 3, The aquiline nose is well in view in the Van Mander’s WS from The Chess Players painting.
The Sanders and more representations of WS for instance the Chandos, the Flower and the Droeshout engraving do show many others scars or swellings under the left eye including a long line that goes from the corner of the left eye and runs down to the left corner of the mouth first described by Stirling ( see Fig. 2 left and Fig. 3), all those facial features of WS cannot be observed in the Sharp Ogden portrait because of the sitter particular perspective.
The Sanders painting was also previously compared to the Harley miniature or to the 1721 Vertue engraving of WS, an exact copy of the Harley miniature. The Vertue was the master of the engraving technique during the first half of the XVIIIth century and he was known for the veracity of his portraits. The Sanders painting comparison with the Harley painting was nearly perfect (not shown). The Fig. 4 described the VFR comparison between the Sharp Ogden portrait and the Harley miniature.
The facial features of the sitter in the Harley miniature, for instance at the level of the eyebrows, the mouth and the mustache and beard as well as the head contour, align very well with those of the Sharp Ogden portrait (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4, Screen captures of the VFR comparisons between the Sharp Ogden portrait and the Harley miniature painting of WS and after merging with the Harley miniature flipped horizontally. Side by side (top six panels) or after overlay of both pictures (bottom).
In the famous book Portraits of Shakespeare edited in 1885 the author Joseph Parker Norris used the following words to describe the Hilliard miniature: "This curious little miniature has a history which is apparently authentic, and certaintly far better than most of the pictures (including the Chandos painting) that claim to represent Shakespeare". That Hilliard miniature of WS is characterized by its delicate details which emphasize Hilliard’s meticulous attention to facial features, many consider it to represent WS. The Hilliard miniature was also previously shown to fit like a glove with the Sanders painting (not shown). Fig. 5 described the VFR comparison between the Sharp Ogden portrait and the Hilliard miniature.
As shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, despite that the perspectives between the sitters are not perfect, the similarities observed between the Sharp Ogden portrait and the Harley and Hilliard miniatures are striking, just like for the VFR comparison with the Sanders painting (Fig. 2).
Fig. 5, Face recognition screen captures of the Sharp Ogden portrait of WS side by side with the Hilliard miniature painting of WS (left) and after merging with the Hilliard miniature painting flipped horizontally (right) .
The eyebrows in the Hilliard miniature are just a bit above those in the sitter of the Sharp Ogden portrait just like for the VFR comparisons of the Hilliard miniature with the Sanders painting (not shown). A more elaborated description of the VFR comparisons between the Sharp Ogden portrait and the Hilliard miniature (not shown) would bring identical results as those for the Sharp Ogden-Harley comparisons (Fig. 4).
The next figure described VFR screen captures obtained for the comparison of the Sharp Ogden portrait with the Cousins engraving of the Chandos painting (Fig. 6). For Norris Parker that engraving is the best copy of the Chandos painting.
Fig. 6, Face recognition screen captures of the Sharp Ogden portrait of WS side by side with the Cousins engraving of the Chandos painting of WS (left) and after merging with the the engraving flipped horizontally (right) .
The links between the Sharp Ogden portrait and the Harley or the Hilliard miniatures are more obvious than with the Chandos painting but there are indeed some similarities: forehead scars, nose and nostril shape, mouth ‘’cupid bow’’ shape mustache and beard (Fig. 6). These same similarities are also observed in the VFR comparisons of the Sharp Ogden portrait with the Droeshout engraving (Fig. 7). However for those two former figures there is a major difference regarding the mouth when compared to the Sharp Ogden portrait.
Fig. 7, Face recognition screen captures of the Sharp Ogden portrait of WS side by side with the best Droeshout’s engraving of WS (left) and after merging with the engraving flipped horizontally (right) .
Indeed as we know with aging a lot do happen to the face including nose elongation, elongation of the space between the nose and the mouth, and the loss of muscle tone, fat, and bone mass contribute to the changes in facial appearance, resulting in a more drooped look of the lower half of the face. In
the Sharp Ogden painting the sitter appears younger than the one in the Chandos painting done around 1610 (around 46 years old), his mouth is well above the one in the Chandos (Fig. 6) and the Droeshout engraving (Fig. 7) but
Fig. 8, Face recognition screen captures of the Sharp Ogden portrait of WS side by side with the best Davenant bust of WS (left) and after merging with the bust (right).
do fit well with mouth position in WS paintings like the Sanders (Fig. 2) or the Harley (Fig. 4) and Hilliard miniatures (Fig. 5), the Wadlow (not shown), and the Van Mander’s WS (not shown) where WS appears much younger. There is at least one exception though, the Hilliard miniature (Fig. 5) done when WS retired to Stratford (so also close to his fiftieth), the VFR comparison showing that the mouth position is fitting perfectly for both sitters. Regarding the WS bust of the Holy Trinity Parish church in Stratford Upon Avon the mouth is also well below the mouth of the sitter in the Sharp Ogden portrait (not shown).
In his book Sharp Ogden wrote: ‘’A terra-cotta bust of Shakespere, now in the Garrick Club, is not without interesting and significant associations….The bust is undoubtedly a fine piece of work, and evidently based on the Chandos portrait. In featural modelling, expression and pose.’’. The Fig. 8 described the VFR comparison between the Sharp Ogden portrait and that Garrick Club bust today called the Davenant bust of WS. The bust is thought to have been created in the mid-17th century, around 1665. Davenant, who had a personal connection to WS (often described as WS godson), was determined to preserve the image of the playwright after his death. It's widely believed that the bust was commissioned by Davenant. The bust stands out due to its distinctive features compared to the Stratford bust and the Sharp Ogden portrait might be the missing link between the WS paintings and the Davenant bust as well as other WS sculptures (not shown). The similarities shown in Fig. 8 are striking and do speak by themselves.
The Fig. 9 described the results obtained with an other tool the Betaface program (Betaface api) capable to give confidence values when pictures are
compared. All the values are in the same range from 80 to 84% when all the best known paintings of WS are compared to the Sharp Ogden portrait (Fig. 9 top). The Davenant bust also included in the analysis gives a similar value of 81%. The Harley (83.9%) and the Chandos (83.2%) having the best confidence values when compared to the Sharp Ogden portrait (100%) (Fig. 9 top). These values are much lower than those obtained (85-95%) when paintings like the Wadlow, the Harley and Hilliard miniatures, the Chandos paintings and the Davenant bust are compared to the Sanders painting (Fig. 9 bottom). The lowest value in these later comparisons is for the Sharp Ogden portrait (80.5%) compared to the Sanders painting (100%) (Fig. 9 bottom). In fact the largest differences are when the Sharp Ogden portrait is compared to the Sanders
Fig. 9, Betaface analysis of all the WS representations described herein with their confidence values compared to the Sharp Ogden portrait (top) or to the Sanders painting (bottom).
A B C D E
Fig. 10, Scar line under the right eye and beside the nose found in the Sharp Ogden (A), the Sanders (B), the Wadlow (C), the Hilliard (D) paintings and the Stratford bust (E).
and the Wadlow paintings done when WS was at a much younger age (Fig. 9 top and bottom). Let’s note that when compared to the Sharp Ogden portrait the Oliver miniature, the Peake and the Grafton paintings and the Droeshout engraving get respectively a confidence value of 80.6%, 79.1%, 74% and 79% (not shown). Remember that the Grafton painting does show WS at the youngest age being 24 year old. The 81% confidence value for the Davenant bust compared to the Sharp Ogden portrait (Fig. 9 top) is also surprising considering the VFR result of the Fig. 8 as well was the 85.1% value obtained when the terracota bust is compared to the Sanders painting (Fig. 9 bottom). Sharp Ogden wrote about WS era: ‘’The span of life also, on the average, was shorter then than with us, and the ravages of years quicker in consequence…’’, and of course that doesn’t help such painting comparisons.
One should underline again the WS facial feature shown in Fig. 10. That scar line going from the corner of the right eye down to the mouth was already described by Sharp Ogden in his portrait as well as in the Straford bust. This scar line is also observed in the Sanders, the Wadlow, the Hilliard miniature paintings of WS as shown in Fig.10. In addition to the attached ear lobe, the ‘’cupid’s bow’’ mouth shape, that scar line under the right eye along the nose is another key facial feature of WS.
However it is noteworthy to mention that the eyelid protuberances another typical face features of WS so easily seen in the Sanders, the Van Mander’s WS, the Flower paintings and in the best Droeshout engraving are barely detectable in the Sharp Ogden portrait.
Despite the so many similarities including the WS facial landmarks mentioned previously and shared with the recently discovered WS paintings for instance the Sanders, the Wadlow, the Harley and Hilliard miniatures, it is likely that the Sharp Ogden portrait is an idealized version rather than an actual likeness of The Bard at the winter of his life.
But it is a portrait of WS and one should agree that this Sharp Ogden’s portrait is a refined artwork, a much better portrait than the popularly accepted Chandos painting from which the portrait might have been derived.
Jean-Pierre Doucet 02 2025
The author is a retired scientist living in Quebec, Canada and is thankful to the members of the Betaface api team who let me used their analytic tool.
MAIN REFERENCES:
Sharp Ogden W. (1912) SHAKSPERE’S PORTRAITURE: PAINTED, GRAVEN, AND MEDALLIC, The British Numismatic Journal, Vol. VII 1910.1, Bernard Quaritch editor, London, 58 pages.
Doucet J.-P., THE KEY LEARNINGS FROM THE FINEST DROESHOUT’S ENGRAVING OF SHAKESPEARE
https://free.relayto.com/jeanpierre-doucet/the-key-learnings-from-the-finestdroeshout-s-engraving-of-shakespeare-42s5fmb0qx9ms/JuKWgoyT1
Id. THE SANDERS PAINTING IS DEEMED TO BE AN AUTHENTIC PORTRAIT OF SHAKESPEARE,
https://free.relayto.com/jeanpierre-doucet/the-sanders-painting-and-itsauthenticity-as-a-portrait-of-shakespeare-u5a1mfrhq4c7i/EHKHsvjp1
Id. THE WADLOW PAINTING IS A GENUINE PORTRAIT OF SHAKESPEAREFOLLOWING COMPARISONS WITH THE SANDERS PAINTING THEHILLIARD MINIATURE THE DROESHOUT ENGRAVING FROM THE FIRSTFOLIO AND THE STRATFORD BUST
https://free.relayto.com/jeanpierre-doucet/the-authenticity-of-the-wadlowpainting-of-shakespeare-18o1xhmxeqx0a/91sdlGik1
Id. THE SHAKESPEARE IN VAN MANDER’S PAINTING "THECHESS PLAYERS" IS TRULY THE SAME AS IN THESANDERS’ PAINTING OF SHAKESPEARE
https://free.relayto.com/jeanpierre-doucet/the-shakespeare-in-van-mander-spainting-the-chess-players-is-the-same-as-in-the-sanders-paintingqrx3il9e2a6d6/WS2CXFih1
Id. THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN THE STRATFORD BUST AND SOME GENUINE PAINTIINGS OF SHAKESPEARE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsx9aneJYBs
Stirling S. A.,The Faces of Shakespeare: Revealing Shakespeare's Life and Death Through Portraits and Other Objects
https://www.gold.ac.uk/glits-e/back-issues/the-faces-of-shakespeare-revealingshakespeares-/
Norris Parker J., (1885) The portraits of Shakespeare, Robert M. Lidsay, Philadelphia, 266 pages.