Droeshout portrait
In 1623, the publisher of Shakespeare's collected plays released a frontispiece that would become the most famous image of the poet. Martin Droeshout engraved this portrait for the title page of the First Folio. Only four copies of the first state survive today. These early prints were likely test runnings created so the engraver could check his work before final distribution. The overwhelming majority of surviving copies use the second state instead. This version features heavier shadows and minor differences in the jawline and moustache. Later copies printed by Thomas Cotes in 1632 for Robert Allot's Second Folio also used the plate. The original plate remained in use up to the Fourth Folio of 1685 before it disappeared entirely.
The signature under the image reads Martin Droeshout sculpsit London. A family dispute exists over which Martin created the work. Most sources identify the younger Martin as the artist born around 1601. He was only fifteen years old when Shakespeare died. His father Michael Droeshout had moved from Brussels to Britain. Research by Mary Edmond revealed new details about the elder Martin who lived until 1642. Christiaan Schuckman discovered signed plates in Madrid in 1991 attributed to the engraver. These plates bear Droeshout's signature and resemble the Shakespeare portrait stylistically. June Schlueter found evidence that the elder Martin was in London while the engraver was known to be in Madrid. Stylistic grounds support the attribution to the younger artist due to clumsy body features resembling other prints by him.
J. Dover Wilson called the print a pudding faced effigy. Sidney Lee described the face as long with a high forehead and shapeless ear. Northrop Frye stated the portrait makes Shakespeare look like an idiot. Tarnya Cooper noted that art of printmaking in England was underdeveloped at the time. Benjamin Roland Lewis observed that virtually all of Droeshout's work shows similar artistic defects. Critics argued he was an engraver after the conventional manner rather than a creative artist. James Boaden offered a different view in the 19th century. He wrote that the portrait exhibits calm benevolence and tender thought. John Philip Kemble believed this despised work was more characteristic of Shakespeare than any other known portrait. Park Honan later suggested it implies inwardness of a writer of great intelligence.
Scholars have speculated about the original source used by Droeshout himself. George Scharf argued the image would have been either a limning or a crayon drawing based on inconsistencies in lights and shadows. Mary Edmond pointed out that Martin the Elder seemed to have had an association with Marcus Gheeraerts the portraitist. She surmised that the engraving may have been derived from a lost portrait by Gheeraerts. A painting discovered in the 19th century became known as the Flower portrait. It bore the date 1609 and was painted on an authentic 17th-century panel. Marion Spielmann demonstrated in 1905 that the portrait corresponded to the second state of Droeshout's print. Chemical analysis proved the portrait to be a 19th-century fake painted over an authentic 17th-century image in 2005.
Continue Browsing
Common questions
Who engraved the Droeshout portrait of Shakespeare in 1623?
Martin Droeshout engraved the frontispiece for the title page of the First Folio. The signature under the image reads Martin Droeshout sculpsit London.
When was the Droeshout plate used to print copies of Shakespeare's plays?
The original plate remained in use up to the Fourth Folio of 1685 before it disappeared entirely. Later copies printed by Thomas Cotes in 1632 for Robert Allot's Second Folio also used the plate.
Which Martin Droeshout created the famous Shakespeare portrait?
Most sources identify the younger Martin as the artist born around 1601. Research by Mary Edmond revealed new details about the elder Martin who lived until 1642, but stylistic grounds support the attribution to the younger artist.
What is the origin of the Flower portrait linked to the Droeshout engraving?
A painting discovered in the 19th century became known as the Flower portrait and bore the date 1609. Chemical analysis proved the portrait to be a 19th-century fake painted over an authentic 17th-century image in 2005.
Who claimed the Droeshout portrait contains hidden signs pointing to Francis Bacon?
William Stone Booth published a book in 1911 claiming features were anatomically identical to those of Francis Bacon. He achieved this by creating combination images from several portraits of Bacon.