Edward de Vere? The Pandolfini Portrait 

I am a portrait painter and a lifelong fan of Leonardo Da Vinci - straight away the outfit DeVere is wearing in this portrait was familiar to me - I guessed the date right off - late 1500s but I couldn’t place it . when you mentioned the portrait studio pre painting bodies and adding the faces to order - with a solid clientele of the monarchy of Europe, and located in France I was thunderstruck - it is the costume of Francis I - Leonardo’s great patron at the end of his life ! What an amazing story ! I am tremendously impressed by your supremely excellent forensic investigations of these mystery paintings, and my appetite for more is whetted . I followed and subscribed

Your research is impeccable! Nicely done.

Thank you for all your research.

Thank you for all of your interesting, insightful videos!

Hello David, the costume in the portrait bears common points with both Italian and Spanish mens tunics, as well as French of the time of Francois I, and the flat cap with plume lasted well into the reign of Elizabeth with changes mostly in the angle of wear. His moustache is in the French style, set by Francois I, which also saw little change over a lengthy period. Given that the Corneille system began with a torso pre-painted, and added in the sitter’s head as required, the sitter would have had to choose from what torsos were available when they came to sit. This particular garment is a blending of French, Italian, and Spanish influences with little regard for the exactness of a Holbein painting. I have noticed this also in other paintings of both men and women attributed to the studio. This particular painting is in a finer hand than many of the others, suggesting an accomplished artist. These small paintings seem to be a kind of souvenir for courtiers of lesser importance and wealthy merchants etc. who passed through or visited Lyon. As a novelty item meant for friends and family, not conspicuous display, being arrayed in the garments and style of an earlier time would not be out of keeping with the Elizabethan costume dress parties that were popular entertainments throughout the Reins of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, (with a loss of favour under Edward and Mary’s reins). I don’t think the dress automatically means it can’t be Edward de Vere, and would like to study more closely the other portraits from this time for similar fashion variants with regard to the sitter. They are in the realm of today’s sidewalk portraitists tourists sit for, only the clothing was too complex to be turned out with speed, so were pre-painted to save time. I wouldn’t discard the possibility out of hand just yet…Tamarra.🖤🇨🇦

ingenious and very considered presentation!

This was fascinating! Thank you for a great video 😊

Well done video. I love your soothing voice. A further area of inquiry would be to submit the work for an analysis of the paint. The quest continues…

The subject of this painting is very well dressed, but in the style of 1535-1545. The low round collar revealing a frill of shirt, the flat hat with a plume, the sleeves with puffed shoulders, even the cut of the beard, are characteristic of the court of Francois I- and he died in 1547, before Oxford was born. Whoever sat for this portrait, it could not have been Edward de Vere.

Edward de Vere, as you observe, was vain. He was noted-and mocked-at court for his passionate investment in Italian fashion, for being the “mirror of Tuscanism..” Given that he spent some months in Venice, that city of artists, he might more plausibly have chosen to be painted there, at his leisure, in his own choice of outfit, studio and style. Of course, Corneille de Lyon died in 1575, before Oxford even set out for home, but it’s unlikely that the earl would have gone out of his way to be painted by that artist or his circle. Even at the height of his fame, the Dutch-born artist was painting French and Scottish sitters of peripheral interest to the earl. Corneille seems to have slowed down well before his death: after the mid-1560s, only one picture (circa 1570) is known. Why would the style-conscious, Italianate Oxford go to such considerable trouble to visit a doubtfully existent studio, to be hastily painted in musty old fripperies, forty years out of date? This anachronism is not at all subtle: Oxford’s entire lifetime coincided with the age of the ruff. He can scarcely ever have seen a person of any standing appear in public without one. That copy of his canonical portrait shows just what stylish people were wearing in the 1570s: high, high collars with dinner-plate-sized deep ruffs in a figure-of-eight pattern; doublets with shoulder wings; hats with taller crowns. This is exactly as Harvey depicted him: “French Camarick Ruffes, deepe with a witnesse, starched to the purpose.” (Starch, of course, was derived from cereal grains: a very visible flaunting of privilege in the face of poverty. As William Cecil wrote angrily in 1585, “Is it not a very lamentable thing that we should bestow that upon starch to the setting forth of vanity and pride which would staunch the hunger of many that starve in the streets for want of bread?”) As for the inscription, that was probably supplied by someone who very much wanted to own a portrait of the Earl of Oxford, and hoped this was. In the 19th century, the likeliest aspirants would be the family of the second creation, in search of an “ancestral” portrait. The mystery for me is why the auction house went along with this doubtful identification. Perhaps their research was a little cursory and inattentive; or perhaps (and I should hope they were not so cynical) they had an Oxfordian buyer in mind.

Well researched and balanced presentation as always. Just wondered if sailing from Genoa to Marseille might be quicker route. Also did he go back the way he came? We know he left Paris for Strasbourg and arrived in Venice after skirting past Milan a couple of months later. So if he called in Lyon to sit for his portrait or preliminary sketches on the way and called back to collect it a year later it would have had more adequate time to dry :-) It would also explain why he said he was going back via Lyon.

Very well done. Kudos.

Another superb presentation - very well done! I am sure the Pandolfini Gallery would be prepared to pass a link to this video at your request to the current owner, who might well wish to contact you after seeing it. If the gallery won’t pass on your email the current owner can reach you on the message boards here or through the de Vere Society to which you and no doubt he/she are honoured members.

Bravo 👏 top notch research

I wonder . . . would Edward de Vere, whilst traveling, be always decked out in his most extravagant livery, his finest 'duds' (presumably, all the fancy clothes he would have bought for himself in Italy, for which he was noted)? When he arrived at Lyons, perhaps not having as much time to sit for a portrait, and knowing that studio's modus operandi was to paint a sitter's head atop a pre-painted body wearing respectable -- if, perhaps, no longer in fashion -- clothing, then is it out of the question that he would have deigned to have his portrait done there? I understand the objections delineated below, but there is that problem with how this particular portrait came to be referred to as that of Edward de Vere, rather than of some specific other sitter -- or even just 'Anonymous' or 'Unknown Man with a jaunty cap'. I'm not dogmatic about this intriguing painting, one way or the other. But I do wonder what a stir there might have been if the Oxfordian Theory of Shakespeare authorship had been around at the times when this portrait was on display during Victoria's reign.

I wonder if there was a notion back then that some portraits were done "a la"/ in the style of?? Are the clothes a costume? an homage to another age? Or a Continental approximation for what an English earl might wear/may have worn. At age 25/26 had De Vere fully developed his style, and/or on his travels utilised/adapted what clothing he had, or had bought retro items that excited him? This is a younger man than the vain fop of later years. Knowing that C de Lyon had already passed away and there was thr practice of himself/his studio placing new heads on old (and smaller) shoulders the whole lark might have been a bit of holiday madness by De Vere. Is it a jape? Its a small item, he intended for himself, taking it with him. I am sure we have all bought something ludicrous in our travels. I am no costume expert but have an ok eye for such things. My theatre training links into this subject matter and the period styling. De Vere had theatre links and may well be the type of guy who went against style in order to create a new look. I am sure many will disagree and say that notions of dressing up and retro clothing are modern behavious - but one never knows. Those Elizabethean revelsl werer quite OTT afterall. Is this a young man playing with image? Greeting all from post secong stage Covid lockdown Australia.

Well don, Sir!

The gentleman in this painting looks rather unsophisticated, undignified and even cartoonish. If this is in fact EdV, wouldn't he have been disappointed by this depiction of himself.

I’m not an expert on art but I don’t think this is Edward de Vere. His jaw is too wide and his nose it too straight, but the most obvious thing is how he’s dressed. It’s very conservative and understated. Every other portrait of Edward de Vere’s he’s dressed very flamboyantly; which lines up with everything I’ve heard about him.

Totally looks like Hastings.

💐👏👏

"fine AND upstanding." lol

He is my grandfather. 😊

10/10

Im not an expert by anymeans...but i would guess it is a wealthy merchant not the earl...whose clothing was always commented upon...and this doesnt appear to be like any mentioned.

Brilliant research! I’m sure the Earl of Oxford would approve and I hope he’d have a wry smile..... what do you think? ⚔️🛡👑

genau......wer zu neugierig wird.....als Nachfahrin ist das Bild bei mir....

I think he looks like Thomas Seymour

Another piece of evidence in favor of your conclusion, in my opinion, are the colors the portrait’s sitter wears. While the outfit is understated like the others by the same artist/school, this sitter is definitely wearing black and tawny - the De Vere colors.

Face shapes particularly the foreheads are very different.

Hi David, This Pandolfini portrait did not succeed my face recognition test: De Vere nose too long, forehead contour too different, left ear also do not match, etc. Sorry again!

Noses very different.

He looks more like Henry Wriothesley. And didn't he have a soft, whispy bumfluff beard?

Could someone be as brilliant and creative as Shakespeare and not be, if not actually haughty and arrogant, at the very least generally perceived to be? just knowing the real world, and people, as they are, and interact, I wouldnt expect anything different. How do people think the real author would have seemed to other people of the time? Particularly, how he would have seemed to the sort of people whose impressions of him would have been recorded for posterity? Academics i guess? or familiars of the same social class? I find even the best examples of humanity arent typically described the same by different sources. Theres usually some overlap, but plenty of divergence. Even for a Saint or closest to, youd be surprised not to find a single detractor. Haughty is a tough one

Edward de Vere wouldn't have been caught dead in clothes that old-fashioned. They were in fashion 20 years before he was born.

Woman, plainly.

Le Duc d'Etampes fit quite well with your pandolfini portrait! commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Duc_d%27etampes.jpg