The Droeshout Engraving

The Droeshout is the only portrait of William Shakespeare that is verifiably of him.

Yes it’s kind of weird looking, and many scholars over the years have suggested it is not a fitting look for our National Poet. But that is irrelevant; it’s him.

Engraved by Martin Droeshout, it was used in the preface of the First Folio of 1623.
Published seven years after Will’s death, it was the first collected edition of his works, compiled by his colleagues John Heminges and Henry Condell.

To this day it is the likeness by which all other claimed portraits are compared and judged.

Is it Shakespeare?10/10
Is it from an ad vivum portrait?9/10

How do we know it is Shakespeare?

Simply because his friends stated it was him. They used the Droeshout engraving for the Preface of the First Folio.

Famously the playwright and friend of Will, Ben Jonson, wrote “the graver had a strife with nature to outdo the life” and that the graver had “hit his face” accurately”. He mentioned this in his “To the Reader” attribution which was printed opposite the engraving in the First Folio:

To the Reader.

This Figure, that thou here seest put,
It was for gentle Shakespeare cut;
Wherein the Grauer had a strife
with Nature, to out-doo the life:
O, could he but haue drawne his wit
As well in brasse, as he hath hit
His face; the Print would then surpasse
All, that was euer writ in brasse.
But, since he cannot, Reader, looke
Not on his Picture, but his Booke.

B.I.

The Engraver – Martin Droeshout the Younger

On old engravings, the Latin term sculpsit (often abbreviated as sculp., sculps., sc., or s.) means “he/she engraved it”

There were 2 Martin Droeshout’s (Uncle and Nephew) active in the “art/engraving” world in the early 1600’s. They were part of a larger Dutch-Flemish immigrant family of artists and craftsmen named Droeshout. Current research suggests that the engraving was done by Martin Droeshout the Younger.

Martin Droeshout the Younger (Nephew of the Elder) (1601 London – 1651 probably Spain)
Career profile: worked commercially for printers and publishers, producing book illustrations and portrait engravings.
Later life: emigrated in the 1640s; documentary traces thin out thereafter.

Martin Droeshout the Elder (1570’s – 1651 London)
Career profile: produced painted portraits and religious works; he is not securely documented as a commercial engraver for publishers.

Martin the Younger (nephew) is credited with the engraving for a number of reasons:
From the eighteenth century onward, antiquarians and art historians have reconstructed the Droeshout family through parish records, wills, guild links, and signed plates. When those materials are mapped onto the Folio’s date, the engraver who fits best is consistently the younger man.
Modern scholarship—most notably the work of June Schlueter¹—has revisited these archives and still ends up reaffirming that attribution.

The Shakespeare engraving was not the first of Martin Droeshout’s professional career. Also, the Droeshouts were reputable, accomplished craftsmen who had been practicing their trade in London—and on the Continent—for at least three generations. It would not be remarkable for an engraver whose father was a freeman to have been doing professional work at age 22¹.

After Droeshout the Younger emigrated to Spain, he produced a number of engravings, many of which are more accomplished than his Shakespeare. Some 50 of his engravings survive, half made in England and half in Spain¹.

Why is the Droeshout Engraving so controversial?

Simply because it looks unaccomplished as a portrait, and that is being kind.
The head seems awkwardly perched or slightly detached from the body, creating a “floating” impression; and the proportions between head, collar, and torso are not normal. The shading suggests light coming from inconsistent angles.

The shoulders look to be different heights

and the sleeves do not match.

If this jacket had been made by one of the Sewers on the Great British Sewing Bee, Patrick and Esme would not be impressed !

These anomalies have made the plate famous for its weird look, and have fuelled centuries of comment and conspiracies, despite the image’s exceptional historical provenance and importance.

Why choose Martin Droeshout to do the engraving?

We need to understand that the primary purpose of the First Folio was to get Will’s works printed and not lose money.
Its production required collaboration between the actors-editors John Heminges and Henry Condell (they were friends and worked with him) and the stationers (publishers/booksellers), principally William Jaggard, Isaac Jaggard, and Edward Blount.

The task was significant²: Project financing – collect manuscripts – get agreement of rights holders – get company authority – text selection – copy preparation – register entry – print management – proof correction – commercial distribution. And commission a portrait.

At this time the top engravers were continental, most Flemish, French and German. Such as Lucas Vorsterman, Claude Mellan and Willem Delff.

But these guys would have been expensive, and it would have meant shipping them a portrait to work from, and a lengthy wait.

In England there were fewer engravers and even fewer of top skill. Simon van de Passe was producing for the Court as was Renold Elstracke, but they would also have been expensive.

Heminges, Condell and the publishers were all practical men of the theatre and book trade. All they needed was a reliable, available, and affordable London based engraver, under their direct supervision to produce an acceptable engraving based on an existing portrait (probably a limning)

The younger Martin Droeshout was exactly that: a young printmaker working in London, building his reputation.

The Engraving – 4 States

Although the engraving is weak, there were efforts to improve it even during the printing process, which shows that the publishers were aware of some of its weaknesses.

There are four versions, called states, of the engraving known to exist. These four states do not correlate with the four printings of the First Folio in 1623; 1632; 1663/64; 1685. The first three states were used in the 1623 printing and the third state was also used on the next two printings. The final state was used for the 1685 printing.

• State 1: Very rare; head appears to float without shadow on the collar. Used in very few First Folios
• State 2: Shadow added to the left side of the face/collar. Used in most First Folios.

In state 1, on the left, the head seems weirdly floating above the collar.
In state 2 a shadow has been added behind the head to help it appear to be more connected to the collar. The second state also has heavier shading in the jawline and moustache. There are only four surviving impressions of the earliest state (two at the Folger, one at the British Library, and one at the Bodleian), so it is probable that Droeshout made the changes after a few copies were printed – when the publishers were unhappy with the “look”.

Thanks to the Folger Library in Washington for presenting these comparison images.

• State 3: Refinements to hair and eyes. Used in some First Folios and in all Second and Third Folios.

State 3 – tiny marks added to give sparkle to the eyes. This shows that there was a determined effort to make this image appear more lifelike. The notion that it was a commissioned engraving with no concern for portrayal is simply daft.

One hair added. Reason unknown

• State 4: Heavily re-engraved for the 1685 Fourth Folio.

By the time the Fourth Folio was printed in 1685, the copper plate that Martin Droeshout had cut was over 50 years old, and likely very worn, and possibly damaged.

It was heavily re-engraved in order that it could be used. I think that arguably it gives the image more gravitas, although this may detract from the original “gentle” nature which Ben Jonson remarked upon in his dedication for the First Folio in 1623.

Is the engraving really that bad ? (spoiler: no)

Calling the Droeshout a terrible and amateurish engraving that was not the quality always present at that time is completely inaccurate.
How can we say this? Well here are some contemporary engravings that are equally “interesting”:

Good old Ben Jonson. Doesn’t he look handsome?

Portrait of Benjamin Jonson; half length, to the left, holding gloves; laurel wreath on head; in inscribed oval frame with books at bottom corners, and inscription below; frontispiece to his ‘Works’ (London: Peake, 1640).
Engraver: Robert Vaughan

How about John Milton?

This 1645 volume’s frontispiece contains an extremely unflattering portrait of Milton by the engraver William Marshall. Underneath the portrait are satirical verses in Greek denying any resemblance. It is assumed that this was a practical joke on Marshall, who is unlikely to have known that he was engraving insults directed at himself.^[2] The verses read in translation: Looking at the form of the original, you could say, perhaps, that this likeness had been drawn by a rank beginner; but, my friends, since you do not recognize what is pictured here, have a chuckle at a caricature by a useless artist

What about this beauty of John Davies !
He has the skeletal structure of a traffic cone and a head that seems to be hovering precariously over a very stiff, oversized tortilla.

Portrait from title page of The Writing Schoolemaster 2nd ed. (1636)
1631 engraving after Rowland Lockey lost portrait.

This is an engraving done by Droeshout of John Foxe (1516 – 1587) an English clergyman, theologian, and historian, notable for his martyrology Foxe’s Book of Martyrs.

Foxe was dead when Droeshout executed the plate. His neck is at least a foot long, either that or he has rubber shoulders. Droeshout engraved Shakespeare, with similar strange physical proportions.

This likeness of John Foxe was probably copied from his portrait in Herologia Anglica, a collection of portraits and biographies of notable personages that was published in 1620. In the preface the compiler and publisher Henry Holland stated that where possible the engravings in the book were based on contemporary oil paintings

When we look at William’s image in the First Folio, our expectations have been influenced by his reputation, and perhaps what we see does not fulfil the image we have already created in our minds.
This is not helped by seeing alleged painted portraits such as the Chandos, and the Soest, which seem more real.

The Droeshout engraving has its weaknesses, and it does not display the very best engraving skills.

But there is no mystery; it was a clearly acceptable image to the publishers, his fellow players John Heminges and Henry Condell, and indeed his friend, Ben Jonson.

Fake Droeshout Engravings !

The Droeshout Engraving is so iconic and rare (it existed only in the First Folio), that copies of it have been printed onto Seventeenth century paper. How and why did this happen?³

“The first ‘type-facsimile’ edition of the 1623 First Folio (a line-for-line, letter-for-letter reprint) was published in 1807, with a portrait printed from a newly engraved copy of the original engraving” (Blayney, 38-39). “The paper used was specially made, and bears the watermark of ‘Shakespeare 1806.” (Jaggard, 510).

Images on left are from the Folger Library. The right hand image is backlit to show the watermark “Shakespeare”

That’s fine you say, what’s the problem?
Well, for reasons unknown, this newly engraved version was also printed onto 17th century paper, but clearly not for use in the new 1807 edition, which used contemporary paper watermarked “Shakespeare 1807”

Several copies on older paper exist, some held in collections of the Victoria & Albert Museum, British Museum, and Folger Shakespeare Library.

The author of this website has one in his personal collection, which has not been trimmed and clearly shows a mid-17th century hallmark from Jean Villedary, one of the most famous and prolific French papermakers of the 17th and 18th centuries.

This 1807 engraving has been printed onto a 17th century Broadsheet measuring approx 21.5 inches x 16 inches.

The Jean Villedary watermark is in the lower half, turned horizontally so that when the paper is folded into two sheets for printing, the watermark will be orientated vertically.

The “I” and “V” for Jean Villedary can be seen clearly in the centre of the cartouche.

Some of the known examples have been trimmed and may suggest that it is from an original 1623 edition of the First Folio.

But how do we know the difference?

Differences between 1623 engraving and 1807 engraving

This is from the original 1623 engraving. The lines on the collar are horizontal and vertical. Also the background hatching has diagonal lines

This is from the 1807 new engraving (author’s copy) which shows that the collar contains only horizontal lines, and the background hatching does not have diagonal lines.

Why?

It could simply be that versions were printed onto 17th century paper to be used to replace missing engravings from original copies of the 1623 First Folio. Of course it is also possible that they were sold as original to unsuspecting buyers !

1. If you want to know the process in superb detail, read the fantastic “Shakespeare’s Book” by Chris Laoutaris.
2. June Schlueter: Facing Shakespeare: The Martin Droeshout Engraving (Medieval & Renaissance Drama in England 30 (2017): 17-35)1,
3. I initially identfied my copy as an 1807 version based on work by Emily Catt (Curator at National Archives Australia) and Erin Blake (Senior Cataloger responsible for art and manuscripts at the Folger Shakespeare Library)