International studio (58.1916)

IS be
INTERNATIONAL

STUDIO

VOL. LVIII. No. 230

Copyright, 1916, by John Lane Company

APRIL, 1916

Famous statues by American
SCULPTORS
BY FRANK 0. PAYNE
(i) SHAKESPEARE AS PICTURED BY WARD,
PARTRIDGE, AND MACMONNIES
In spite of his transcendent popularity, there
have been up to the present time only three
statues of “The Prince of Poets” created by
American sculptors. These are the works of J.
Q. A. Ward in The Mall, Central Park, New
York City, the superb seated figure by William
Ordway Partridge in Lincoln Park, Chicago, and
the celebrated statue by Frederick MacMonnies
in the Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.
These statues are so different from one another
in their conception and so original in their treat-
ment, as to make them rank among the best work
of their creators as well as among the most con-
vincing portraitures of Shakespeare hitherto pro-
duced.
Of course it is a well-known fact that no one
knows how Shakespeare really did appear when
he walked the earth. His contemporaries have
left no authentic description of him. No likeness
of him painted during his life-time is known to be
in existence. The familiar effigy on his tomb,
which is known to have been “restored,” and
the recently found death-mask, which is not ac-
cepted by many of the foremost Shakespearians,
are about the only data on which a student may
rely in an attempt to arrive at any understanding
as to his personal appearance.
The problem, therefore, which confronts the
artist when he endeavours to represent Shake-
speare is by no means an easy one. It is a sig-
nificant fact, however, that all three of our Ameri-
can artists who have done this agree in their
fidelity to the likeness of the effigy in Stratford

Church—a likeness which is strikingly in accord
with the familiar Droeshout portrait.
This is as it should be, for the Stratford bust,
bad as is its workmanship, and in spite of its “res-
toration,” is and is likely ever to be considered
the most authentic of al] the representations of
Shakespeare. It was erected so shortly after his
death in a place where he was so well known, and
paid for by his son-in-law and daughter who
would certainly have demanded of the sculptor
that the effigy look like the original.
There is a well-known saying that the poorer
the artist the more will his work resemble his
subject. Had the Stratford effigy been done by
a great sculptor, there would have been a far
greater field for the exercise of his genius and the
work would be prized for the artist rather than
for its truth as a portrait. It is this that makes
us purchase a Reynolds or a Raeburn or a Law-
rence, not caring whether the picture is a faith-
ful likeness of the personage represented or not.
Such is the value of art.
But when an unknown artizan performs a piece
of work his employers demand that it be a cor-
rect portrait, since it cannot be a creation of
genius. Truth to life is the only quality to rec-
ommend it. This fact, coupled with the well-
known additional fact that the Halls were a pair
of very shrewd business-like people, tends to con-
firm us in the belief that the Stratford bust looked
like the poet at the time of its creation. That
this bust has suffered considerably through its
restoration, may be judged from a comparison
of photographs of it as it now is with pictures of
it as it looked when Dugdale copied it for his
monumental work on Warwickshire.
The Shakespeare of J. Q. A. Ward is one of
the finest works of art in Central Park. It occu-
pies a commanding location at the very beginning

XXXVII