“Who was William Shakespeare?” might find no clearer answer than these two portraits — the two most likely to have been painted of William Shakespeare during his own lifetime.

The more familiar of these portraits is the Cobbe.  It, and nearly-indistinguishable copies of it (such as the Staunton and Janssen), frequently grace the covers of collected editions of Shakespeare.  More often than not they are also the first images returned by a Google Image Search for “William Shakespeare.” *

This Cobbe Shakespeare is well-dressed, clean-cut (by both modern and Renaissance standards), and well-suited to his place atop the canon of high-thinking literature.  He would be a good influence on young people and a wise, responsible, and cultured friend to adults.

The Shakespeare presented to us in the Chandos portrait, in contrast, seems a bit seedy.  The Chandos Shakespeare’s hair and beard suffer from a certain amount of deferred maintenance.  One suspects the artist approached this Shakespeare’s plain collar by speculating about the shade of white it once might have been.

And then there’s the earring.

This Chandos Shakespeare, based on appearance alone, might — might — be expected to do shady things.  He might illegally speculate in grain markets or lend money.  He might even get up to shenanigans like the one John Manningham records in his diary:

Upon a time when Burbage [an actor in Shakespeare’s company] played Richard the Third there was a citizen grew so far in liking with him, that before she went from the play she appointed him [Burbage] to come that night unto her by the name of Richard the Third.

Shakespeare, overhearing their conclusion, went before, was entertained and at his game ere Burbage came. Then, message being brought that Richard the Third was at the door, Shakespeare caused return to be made that William the Conqueror was before Richard the Third.

This man does not sound like a good influence for young people or like a wise, responsible, and cultured friend to adults.  In fact, his sounds like a friendship that commits to a certain number of bad decisions.

We can’t — and don’t — know whether Manningham’s story is true.  But that in some ways matters less than how we respond to it.  Is this  story ultimately a jest passed on as proof of a freewheeling playwright’s  infamous wit?  Or is it a record of that same playwright’s cavalier attitude toward his own repulsive behavior?

If there is bad news here, it is that answers to these (and thousands of other Shakespeare questions) largely depend on who you want William Shakespeare to have been.

The good news, however, is that his plays allow us to make such a choice on more meaningful terms.

Whoever Shakespeare was, he demonstrated a stunning capacity to render detailed, complex relationships that are immediately striking and recognizable.

Whoever Shakespeare was, he saw how human relationships — between parents and children, between romantically-interested adults, and even between bitter political and social rivals — had immense comic and tragic potential.

It is this potential — rather than some investment in the type of person Shakespeare may have been — that we think makes Shakespeare’s plays worth bringing to the stage.

*  The image that I’ve labeled “Cobbe” is , in fact, the first returned by such a search.  It may very well be a close copy, such as the Janssen.

 Further Reading

The Dictionary of National Biography’s Shakespeare page.  Very detailed, and includes extensive information on the history of his works.