Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-ct24h Total loading time: 0.261 Render date: 2022-05-27T03:59:32.475Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Book contents

Martin Droeshout Redivivus: Reassessing the Folio Engraving of Shakespeare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2007

Peter Holland
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame, Indiana
Get access

Summary

Among the most familiar portraits of Shakespeare is the engraving that graces the title-page of the 1623 First Folio of Shakespeare’s plays (see illustration). Unlike other portraits purporting to be the playwright, the engraving should present no question of authenticity, for the publication date establishes its terminus ab quo and Ben Jonson’s attendant verses lament the ‘Sweet Swan of Avon’ and note the figure ‘was for gentle Shakespeare cut’. Nor is the engraver’s name in question, for below the portrait is his signature: ‘Martin Droeshout Sculpsit London’. Droeshout engraving of Shakespeare on the title-page of the 1623 First Folio, signed in London.

But there are two Martin Droeshouts in the records of early modern London, and the question of which of them engraved the famous title-page has not been settled. Was it the elder Martin, who was born in Brussels but spent much of his life in London? Or was it his nephew, who was born in London in 1601? The London records mention the elder several times, identifying him as the son of John Droeshout, a painter, and brother of Michael, an engraver; he himself is called a painter. The younger is mentioned only once, upon his baptism; but there are several references to his father, Michael, and his older brother, John, who were both engravers.

In 1991, following years of uncertainty and assumption, two articles provided new evidence on the Droeshouts. But the evidence was of two kinds, and the authors came to opposite conclusions: Mary Edmond contended that the elder Martin was the likely engraver of Shakespeare; Christiaan Schuckman believed it was the younger.

Type
Chapter
Information
Shakespeare Survey , pp. 237 - 251
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×