442:, who assert that someone other than Shakespeare was the real author of the plays attributed to him, have claimed to find hidden signs in the portrait pointing to this supposed secret. Indeed, Dover Wilson suggested that the poor quality of the Droeshout and funeral effigy images are the underlying reason for "the campaign against 'the man from Stratford' and the attempts to dethrone him in favour of Lord Bacon, the Earl of Derby, the Earl of Oxford, or whatever coroneted pretender may be in vogue at the present moment." In 1911, William Stone Booth published a book claiming to demonstrate that the features of the engraving were "anatomically identical" to those of Francis Bacon, proving that he wrote the works. He achieved this by creating "combination images" from several portraits of Bacon and then superimposing them on the engraving. Using similar methods
42:
931:
171:
157:
317:
367:
228:. Except for his date of birth and parentage, very little is known about Martin the Younger, but since his father was an engraver, it has been assumed that Martin followed in his father's footsteps, and that he made the engraving of Shakespeare. As he was 15 when Shakespeare died, he may never have seen him and it has been assumed that he worked from an existing image.
216:
746:
An inquiry into the authenticity of various pictures and prints: which, from the decease of the poet to our own times, have been offered to the public as portraits of
Shakspeare: containing a careful examination of the evidence on which they claim to be received; by which the pretended portraits have
457:
An alternative approach has been to claim that the portrait depicts
William Shakespeare, but does so in a way designed to ridicule him by making him look ugly, or to suggest that he is a mask for a hidden author. The double line created by the gap between the modelling shadow and the jawline has been
397:
In the
Shakespeare engraving a huge head, placed against a starched ruff, surmounts an absurdly small tunic with oversized shoulder-wings ... Light comes from several directions simultaneously: it falls on the bulbous protuberance of forehead – that "horrible hydrocephalous development", as
261:
has found evidence that Martin the Elder was in London when the engraver of the First Folio portrait was known to be in Madrid. Although she began her archival research hoping to prove Edmond's assertion that the elder Martin was the
Shakespeare engraver, Schlueter concludes that the newly discovered
183:
The portrait exists in two "states", or distinct versions of the image, printed from the same plate by
Droeshout himself. Examples of the first state are very rare, existing in only four copies. These were probably test printings, created so that the engraver could see whether some alterations needed
357:
demonstrated that the portrait corresponded to the second state of
Droeshout's print. Taking the view that if it were the source, the first state would be closest, he concluded that it was a copy from the print. In 2005 chemical analysis proved the portrait to be a 19th-century fake painted over an
286:
printed alongside it, in which he says that it is a good likeness of the poet. He writes that "the graver had a strife / With nature to outdo the life" and that he has "hit his face" accurately. He adds that the engraver could not represent
Shakespeare's "wit", for which the viewer will have to read
223:
The engraving is signed under the image at the left, "Martin
Droeshout. sculpsit. London". The Droeshouts were a family of artists from the Netherlands, who had moved to Britain. Because there were two members of the family named Martin there has been some dispute about which of the two created the
810:
Durning-Lawrence also claims that other engravings by
Droeshout "may be similarly correctly characterised as cunningly composed, in order to reveal the true facts of the authorship of such works, unto those who were capable of grasping the hidden meaning of his engravings." Edwin Durning-Lawrence,
265:
The traditional attribution to
Droeshout the younger can also be supported on stylistic grounds. A drawing known to be by Droeshout the elder appears to show superior artistic skill than the work of his nephew, and the clumsy features of the depiction of Shakespeare's body resemble other prints by
253:
portrait. These plates bear Droeshout's signature and are stylistically similar to his portrait of Shakespeare. (They include a portrait of the priest and writer Francisco de la Peña that has a striking resemblance to the English poet). On the evidence of these plates, which were made between 1635
124:
While its role as a portrait frontispiece is typical of publications from the era, the exact circumstances surrounding the making of the engraving are unknown. It is uncertain which of two "Martin Droeshouts" created the engraving and it is not known to what extent the features were copied from an
462:
asserts that "there is no question – there can be no possible question – that in fact it is a cunningly drawn cryptographic picture, shewing two left arms and a mask ... Especially note that the ear is a mask ear and stands out curiously; note also how distinct the line shewing the
588:
An inquiry into the history, authenticity, & characteristics of the Shakspeare portraits: in which the criticisms of Malone, Steevens, Boaden, & others, are examined, confirmed, or refuted. Embracing the Felton, the Chandos, the Duke of Somerset's pictures, the Droeshout print, and the
344:
the portraitist, and notes that there is evidence that a portrait of Shakespeare by Gheeraerts may have once existed. She surmises that Droeshout's engraving may have been derived from this lost portrait. Cooper argues that the poor drawing and modelling of the doublet and collar suggests that
405:
said that the portrait makes Shakespeare "look like an idiot." Cooper notes that "the art of printmaking in England was underdeveloped and there were relatively few skilled engravers. Yet even by the less exacting standards observed in England, the Droeshout engraving is poorly proportioned."
143:
299:
It is, as I may say, the key to unlock and detect almost all the impositions that have, at various times, arrested so much of public attention. It is a witness that can refute all false evidence, and will satisfy every discerner, how to appreciate, how to
231:
Research by Mary Edmond into the Droeshout family revealed new information about Martin Droeshout the Elder (c. 1560s – 1642), who was the uncle of the younger Martin. Edmond shows that Droeshout the Elder was a member of the
240:
It seems perverse to attribute the Shakespeare engraving to the obscure and unsuitably young Martin Droeshout, born in 1601, as is customary, when there is a quite well-documented artist of the same name to hand, in the person of his
854:
352:
was discovered, inscribed with the date 1609 and painted on an authentic 17th-century panel. It was initially widely accepted as the original work from which Droeshout had copied his engraving, but in 1905 the art scholar
413:
wrote that "to me the portrait exhibits an aspect of calm benevolence and tender thought, great comprehension and a kind of mixt feeling, as when melancholy yields to the suggestions of fancy". He added that his friend
290:
Because of this testimony to the accuracy of the portrait, commentators have used the Droeshout print as a standard by which to judge other portraits alleged to depict Shakespeare. As the 19th-century artist and writer
195:, a new edition of the collected plays. It was also reused in later folios, although by then the plate was beginning to wear out and was heavily re-engraved. The original plate was still being used up to the
254:
and 1639, Schuckman attributed the portrait of Shakespeare to the younger Martin and suggested that the engraver had converted to Catholicism and emigrated to Spain in 1635, where he continued to work.
422:
has written that "if the portrait lacks the 'sparkle' of a witty poet, it suggests the inwardness of a writer of great intelligence, an independent man who is not insensitive to the pain of others."
847:
184:
to be made. The overwhelming majority of surviving copies of the First Folio use the second state, which has heavier shadows and other minor differences, notably in the jawline and the moustache.
328:
In addition to its use as a template to judge the authenticity of other images, scholars have also speculated about the original source used by Droeshout himself. The 19th-century scholar
466:
None of these views are accepted by mainstream art historians. Lewis writes that these features are all characteristic of engravings of the era and that none are unusual. An engraving of
840:
434:
The double line created by the space between the shadow-line above the jaw and the jawline itself is claimed by some conspiracy theorists to suggest that Shakespeare's face is a mask.
406:
Benjamin Roland Lewis observes that "virtually all of Droeshout's work shows the same artistic defects. He was an engraver after the conventional manner, and not a creative artist."
747:
been rejected, the genuine confirmed and established, illustrated by accurate and finished engravings, by the ablest artists, from such originals as were of indisputable authority
470:
shares most of these quirks for example, including the uncertain placing of the head on the body and the "same awkward difference in design between the right and left shoulders".
113:
collection of Shakespeare's plays, published in 1623. It is one of only two works of art definitively identifiable as a depiction of the poet; the other is the statue erected as
340:
modelling. He deduced that Droeshout had inexpertly attempted to add modelling shadows. Mary Edmond points out that Droeshout the Elder seems to have had an association with
389:
wrote that "The face is long and the forehead high; the one ear which is visible is shapeless; the top of the head is bald, but the hair falls in abundance over the ears."
1046:
345:
Droeshout was copying a lost drawing or painting that only depicted Shakespeare's head and shoulders. The body was added by the engraver himself, as was common practice.
971:
125:
existing painting or drawing. Critics have generally been unimpressed by it as a work of art, although the engraving has had a few defenders, and exponents of the
966:
625:
224:
engraving. Most sources state that the engraver was Martin Droeshout the Younger (1601 – after 1639), the son of Michael Droeshout, an immigrant from
381:
The poor modelling and the clumsy relationship between the head and the body have led many critics to see the print as a poor representation of the poet.
207:'s edition of Shakespeare's sonnets. All subsequent engraved reprintings of the portrait were made by later engravers copying the original printed image.
267:
46:
The Droeshout portrait of William Shakespeare as it appears on the title page of the first folio. This is the final, or second state, of the engraving.
1031:
976:
511:
431:
950:
398:
it has been called – creates an odd crescent under the right eye and (in the second state) illuminates the edge of the hair on the right side.
233:
1026:
458:
used to suggest that it is a mask, as has the shape of the doublet, which is claimed to represent both the back and front of the body. Thus
1003:
945:
148:
The first state of the engraving, with less heavy modelling and lacking highlights, for example in the chin and the hair at the right.
114:
827:
990:
619:
308:, in 2006, writes that "it is the only portrait that definitely provides us with a reasonable idea of Shakespeare's appearance".
1041:
1036:
439:
126:
41:
713:
200:
930:
523:
341:
332:
argued on the basis of the inconsistencies in the lights and shadows that the original image would have been "either a
187:
Later copies of the second state, with minor retouching, were also printed from the plate by Thomas Cotes in 1632, for
998:
418:
thought this "despised work" was more characteristic of Shakespeare than any other known portrait. More recently,
872:
443:
98:
832:
467:
204:
459:
618:
170:
864:
375:
118:
901:
733:
The Shakespeare documents: facsimiles, transliterations, translations, & commentary, Volume 2
589:
monument of Shakspeare, at Stratford; together with an exposé of the spurious pictures and prints
415:
784:
Percy Allen, The Life Story of Edward de Vere as "William Shakespeare", Palmer, 1932, pp. 319–28
450:, using a computerised version of the same technique, argued that it was based on a portrait of
430:
709:
573:
June Schlueter, "Martin Droeshout Redivivus: Reassessing the Folio Engraving of Shakespeare",
560:
June Schlueter, "Martin Droeshout Redivivus: Reassessing the Folio Engraving of Shakespeare",
390:
371:
266:
Droeshout the Younger. The attribution to the younger artist is provisionally accepted by the
106:
916:
880:
447:
370:
A stylised version of the Droeshout portrait in the brickwork of a house in Stratford Road,
354:
156:
102:
55:
911:
382:
349:
321:
316:
176:
Engraving after Martin Droeshout from the Johnson/Steevens 1787 2nd edition of the plays.
906:
652:
Paul Bertram and Frank Cossa, 'Willm Shakespeare 1609': The Flower Portrait Revisited,
292:
258:
142:
17:
1020:
614:
402:
329:
305:
410:
196:
192:
188:
798:
451:
366:
337:
110:
665:
Tarnya Cooper, Searching for Shakespeare, Yale University Press, 2006, pp. 72–4
446:
subsequently concluded that the portrait depicted the Earl of Oxford. In 1995,
419:
386:
279:
73:
215:
83:
34 cm × 22.5 cm (13 in × 8.9 in)
773:
Droeshout Portrait of William Shakespeare an Experiment in Identification
225:
333:
799:"The Droeshout Engraving of Shakespeare: Why It's NOT Queen Elizabeth"
246:
429:
365:
315:
245:
In 1991 Christiaan Schuckman discovered a set of signed plates in
214:
199:
of 1685 (heavily retouched) and then disappears. Already in 1640
502:, National Portrait Gallery; Yale Center for British Art, p. 48.
336:
or a crayon drawing". These typically used outlines rather than
836:
828:"Website Comparing the Three most likely Shakespeare Portraits"
409:
Not all critics have been so harsh. The 19th-century writer
348:
In the 19th century a painting that came to be known as the
629:. Vol. 24 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
620:"Shakespeare, William/The Portraits of Shakespeare"
577:
60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 242.
564:
60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 240.
249:, Spain, that can be attributed to the engraver of the
203:
had copied and adapted the design on a new plate for
989:
959:
938:
894:
871:
79:
69:
61:
51:
34:
815:, John McBride Co., New York, 1910, pp. 23, 79–80.
639:Mary Edmond, "It was for gentle Shakespeare cut".
524:Four States of Shakespeare: the Droeshout Portrait
219:Droushout's signature, under the image at the left
793:Lillian Schwartz, "The Art Historian's Computer"
602:On the Principal Portraits of William Shakespeare
535:Mary Edmond, "It was for gentle Shakespeare cut.
278:The engraving is praised by Shakespeare's friend
797:, April 1995, pp. 106–11. See also Terry Ross,
395:
238:
129:have claimed to find coded messages within it.
848:
8:
681:, Taylor & Francis, 24 Mar 2008, p. 221.
27:Portrait of Shakespeare by Martin Droeshout
956:
891:
855:
841:
833:
656:, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Spring, 1986), pp. 83–96
31:
1047:Conspiracy theories in the United Kingdom
162:The second, final state of the engraving.
673:
671:
494:
492:
490:
488:
486:
484:
482:
262:evidence actually supports the younger.
863:Portraits, sculptures and memorials to
762:, Oxford University Press 1998, p. 324.
478:
727:
725:
735:, Greenwood Press, 1969, pp. 553–556.
385:called it a "pudding faced effigy".
7:
604:, London, Spottiswoode, 1864, p. 3.
25:
304:In a similar vein, art historian
1032:Portraits of William Shakespeare
929:
169:
155:
141:
40:
1004:Garrick's Temple to Shakespeare
946:Shakespeare's funerary monument
749:, R. Triphook, 1824, pp. 16–18.
708:. Toronto: Anansi. p. 43.
694:, Clarendon Press, 1970, p. 11.
440:Shakespeare authorship question
127:Shakespeare authorship question
99:portrait of William Shakespeare
358:authentic 17th-century image.
117:in Shakespeare's home town of
1:
951:Heminges and Condell Memorial
1027:Portraits by English artists
999:Boydell Shakespeare Gallery
463:edge of the mask appears."
1063:
775:, Privately printed, 1911.
109:for the title page of the
927:
512:National Portrait Gallery
500:Searching for Shakespeare
268:National Portrait Gallery
234:Painter-Stainer's Company
39:
972:Leicester Square, London
706:The educated imagination
526:", retrieved 2017-12-22.
444:Charles Sidney Beauclerk
731:Benjamin Roland Lewis,
704:Frye, Northrop (2002).
626:Encyclopædia Britannica
551:VIII (1991), pp. 40-43.
468:John Davies of Hereford
393:was equally dismissive:
121:. Both are posthumous.
1042:17th-century portraits
1037:16th-century portraits
967:Central Park, New York
460:Edwin Durning-Lawrence
435:
400:
378:
325:
302:
243:
220:
18:The Droeshout portrait
813:Bacon Is Shake-Speare
771:William Stone Booth,
679:Profiling Shakespeare
654:Shakespeare Quarterly
641:Shakespeare Quarterly
537:Shakespeare Quarterly
433:
369:
362:Critical evaluations
319:
297:
218:
677:Marjorie B. Garber,
643:42.3 (1991), p. 344.
539:42.3 (1991), p. 343.
115:his funeral monument
865:William Shakespeare
795:Scientific American
760:Shakespeare: A Life
692:Shakespeare's Lives
690:Samuel Schoenbaum,
426:Conspiracy theories
376:Newcastle upon Tyne
119:Stratford-upon-Avon
95:Droeshout engraving
902:Ashbourne portrait
886:Droeshout portrait
575:Shakespeare Survey
562:Shakespeare Survey
438:Proponents of the
436:
416:John Philip Kemble
379:
326:
221:
91:Droeshout portrait
35:Droeshout portrait
1012:
1011:
985:
984:
925:
924:
586:Wivell, Abraham,
391:Samuel Schoenbaum
342:Marcus Gheeraerts
236:. Edmond writes,
87:
86:
16:(Redirected from
1054:
957:
933:
917:Sanders portrait
892:
881:Chandos portrait
857:
850:
843:
834:
816:
808:
802:
791:
785:
782:
776:
769:
763:
756:
750:
742:
736:
729:
720:
719:
701:
695:
688:
682:
675:
666:
663:
657:
650:
644:
637:
631:
630:
622:
611:
605:
598:
592:
584:
578:
571:
565:
558:
552:
546:
540:
533:
527:
520:
514:
509:
503:
496:
448:Lillian Schwartz
355:Marion Spielmann
324:" of Shakespeare
201:William Marshall
173:
159:
145:
103:Martin Droeshout
56:Martin Droeshout
44:
32:
21:
1062:
1061:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1017:
1016:
1013:
1008:
981:
977:British Library
955:
934:
921:
912:Flower portrait
890:
867:
861:
824:
819:
809:
805:
792:
788:
783:
779:
770:
766:
757:
753:
743:
739:
730:
723:
716:
703:
702:
698:
689:
685:
676:
669:
664:
660:
651:
647:
638:
634:
613:
612:
608:
600:George Scharf,
599:
595:
585:
581:
572:
568:
559:
555:
549:Print Quarterly
547:
543:
534:
530:
522:Sarah Werner, "
521:
517:
510:
506:
498:Tarnya Cooper,
497:
480:
476:
428:
383:J. Dover Wilson
364:
350:Flower portrait
322:Flower portrait
314:
276:
257:More recently,
213:
181:
180:
179:
178:
177:
174:
165:
164:
163:
160:
151:
150:
149:
146:
135:
47:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1060:
1058:
1050:
1049:
1044:
1039:
1034:
1029:
1019:
1018:
1010:
1009:
1007:
1006:
1001:
995:
993:
987:
986:
983:
982:
980:
979:
974:
969:
963:
961:
954:
953:
948:
942:
940:
936:
935:
928:
926:
923:
922:
920:
919:
914:
909:
907:Cobbe portrait
904:
898:
896:
889:
888:
883:
877:
875:
869:
868:
862:
860:
859:
852:
845:
837:
831:
830:
823:
822:External links
820:
818:
817:
803:
786:
777:
764:
751:
744:James Boaden,
737:
721:
714:
696:
683:
667:
658:
645:
632:
617:, ed. (1911).
615:Chisholm, Hugh
606:
593:
591:, 1827, p. 56.
579:
566:
553:
541:
528:
515:
504:
477:
475:
472:
427:
424:
363:
360:
313:
310:
293:Abraham Wivell
275:
272:
259:June Schlueter
212:
209:
175:
168:
167:
166:
161:
154:
153:
152:
147:
140:
139:
138:
137:
136:
134:
131:
85:
84:
81:
77:
76:
71:
67:
66:
63:
59:
58:
53:
49:
48:
45:
37:
36:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1059:
1048:
1045:
1043:
1040:
1038:
1035:
1033:
1030:
1028:
1025:
1024:
1022:
1015:
1005:
1002:
1000:
997:
996:
994:
992:
988:
978:
975:
973:
970:
968:
965:
964:
962:
958:
952:
949:
947:
944:
943:
941:
937:
932:
918:
915:
913:
910:
908:
905:
903:
900:
899:
897:
893:
887:
884:
882:
879:
878:
876:
874:
870:
866:
858:
853:
851:
846:
844:
839:
838:
835:
829:
826:
825:
821:
814:
807:
804:
800:
796:
790:
787:
781:
778:
774:
768:
765:
761:
758:Honan, Park,
755:
752:
748:
741:
738:
734:
728:
726:
722:
717:
711:
707:
700:
697:
693:
687:
684:
680:
674:
672:
668:
662:
659:
655:
649:
646:
642:
636:
633:
628:
627:
621:
616:
610:
607:
603:
597:
594:
590:
583:
580:
576:
570:
567:
563:
557:
554:
550:
545:
542:
538:
532:
529:
525:
519:
516:
513:
508:
505:
501:
495:
493:
491:
489:
487:
485:
483:
479:
473:
471:
469:
464:
461:
455:
453:
449:
445:
441:
432:
425:
423:
421:
417:
412:
407:
404:
403:Northrop Frye
399:
394:
392:
388:
384:
377:
373:
368:
361:
359:
356:
351:
346:
343:
339:
335:
331:
330:George Scharf
323:
318:
311:
309:
307:
306:Tarnya Cooper
301:
296:
294:
288:
285:
284:To the Reader
281:
273:
271:
269:
263:
260:
255:
252:
248:
242:
237:
235:
229:
227:
217:
210:
208:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
185:
172:
158:
144:
132:
130:
128:
122:
120:
116:
112:
108:
104:
100:
96:
92:
82:
78:
75:
72:
68:
64:
60:
57:
54:
50:
43:
38:
33:
30:
19:
1014:
885:
812:
806:
794:
789:
780:
772:
767:
759:
754:
745:
740:
732:
705:
699:
691:
686:
678:
661:
653:
648:
640:
635:
624:
609:
601:
596:
587:
582:
574:
569:
561:
556:
548:
544:
536:
531:
518:
507:
499:
465:
456:
437:
411:James Boaden
408:
401:
396:
380:
347:
327:
312:Source image
303:
298:
289:
283:
282:in his poem
277:
274:Significance
264:
256:
250:
244:
239:
230:
222:
197:Fourth Folio
193:Second Folio
189:Robert Allot
186:
182:
123:
107:frontispiece
101:engraved by
94:
90:
88:
29:
452:Elizabeth I
338:chiaroscuro
251:First Folio
205:John Benson
111:First Folio
1021:Categories
939:Sculptures
715:0887845983
420:Park Honan
387:Sidney Lee
320:The fake "
287:the book.
280:Ben Jonson
211:Authorship
80:Dimensions
991:Memorials
873:Portraits
74:Engraving
895:Disputed
300:convict.
295:put it,
226:Brussels
960:Statues
334:limning
241:uncle".
105:as the
712:
372:Heaton
247:Madrid
133:States
52:Artist
474:Notes
97:is a
710:ISBN
89:The
70:Type
65:1623
62:Year
191:'s
93:or
1023::
724:^
670:^
623:.
481:^
454:.
374:,
270:.
856:e
849:t
842:v
801:.
718:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
