1564-1616
[Sidenote: E. T. Craig’s _Portraits of Shakespeare_. *]
“The portrait of Martin Droeshout” (_published with the first folio
edition of Shakespeare’s works in 1623_) “has a greater claim to
attention, as it was engraved by a well-known artist at the time when
published by Shakespeare’s contemporaries, Heminge and Condell, and
has the additional testimony of the poet’s friend, Ben Jonson, in its
favour, in the following lines inscribed opposite to the engraving of
the portrait:--
‘This figure, that thou here seest put,
It was for gentle Shakespeare cut;
Wherein the graver had a strife
With Nature, to out-doo the life.
O, could he but have drawne his wit
As well in brasse as he hath hit
His face, the print would then surpasse
All that was ever writ in brasse;
But since he cannot, reader, looke
Not on his picture, but his booke.’
These lines would indicate that the portrait of the face was
represented with some degree of truth. It may be observed here that
until within the last few years artists were less exact and minute
in the delineation of the head than the face; and the head appears
unusually high for its breadth, and impresses you with the semblance of
a form more like Scott than Byron, of Canova than Chantrey.
“The features of Droeshout’s engraving bear a closer resemblance to
the plaster cast than to the Stratford bust. The nose has the same
flowing outline, well defined, prominent, yet finely chiselled, and
the nostrils rather large. There is the same long upper lip, and a
general correspondence with the mouth of the cast. The eye is large and
round, and in life would be mild and lustrous. The hair is thin and not
curled, and the head is high but comparatively narrow. There would be
moderate secretiveness, less destructiveness, small constructiveness,
and little acquisitiveness. There is an ample endowment of the higher
sentiments. The imaginative and imitative faculties are represented
as very large. Ideality, wonder, wit, imitation, benevolence, and
veneration, comparison and causality, are all very large. The
perceptive region is scarcely sufficiently indicated for the powers
of mind possessed by Shakespeare, in his vast and ready command of
view over the range of natural objects so evident in his works. This
may be the fault of the engraver. It is the opposite in this respect
to the cast from the face. There is one feature in the portrait which
harmonises with Milton’s praise and Jonson’s worship and Spenser’s
admiration,--his large benevolence, veneration and ideality, and his
small destructiveness and acquisitiveness, leading to the control over
his feelings and generous sympathy with others, manifested by his
quiet manner and gentle nature. Men of strong passions like Jonson
and Byron have very different heads to this portrait, which presents
a great contrast both to the bust and the Chandos portrait” (_said to
be painted by Burbage, a player contemporary with Shakespeare_). “The
physical proportions of the Droeshout figure harmonise better with a
fine temperament and an intellectual head than the Stratford bust with
Shakespeare’s mental activity.”
[Sidenote: Halliwell-Phillipps’s _Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare_.
*]
“The exact time at which the monument was erected in the church”
(_Stratford-on-Avon_) “is unknown, but it is alluded to by Leonard
Digges as being there in the year 1623. The bust must, therefore, have
been submitted to the approval of the Halls, who could hardly have been
satisfied with a mere fanciful image. There is, however, no doubt that
it was an authentic representation of the great dramatist, but it has
unfortunately been so tampered with in modern times that much of the
absorbing interest with which it would otherwise have been surrounded
has evaporated. It was originally painted in imitation of life, the
face and hands of the usual flesh colour, the eyes a light hazel, and
the hair and beard auburn. The realisation of the costume was similarly
attempted by the use of scarlet for the doublet, black for the loose
gown, and white for the collar and wristbands.”
[Sidenote: E. T. Craig’s _Portraits of Shakespeare_. *]
“It only remains to examine the cast from the face of Shakespeare. The
documentary statements published by Mr. Friswell tend to establish a
claim to attention. It was left in the possession of Professor Owen
by Dr. Becher, the enterprising botanist, who fell a victim to his
zeal in the unfortunate Australian expedition under Burke. The cast,
it appears, originally belonged to a German nobleman at the Court of
James I., whose descendants kept it as an heirloom till the last of
the race died, when his effects were sold. Mr. Friswell observes that
‘the cast bears some resemblance to the more refined portraits of the
poet. It is not unlike the ideal head of Roubillac, and bears a very
great resemblance to a fine portrait of the poet in the possession of
Mr. Challis.’ It has some of the characteristics of Jansen’s portrait.
The mask has a mournful aspect, and sensitive persons are affected
when they look at it.... There are indications visible ... of wrinkles
and ‘crow’s feet’ at the corners of the eyes. It is utterly destitute
of the jovial physiognomy of the Stratford bust and portrait. It is
certainly the impress from one who was gifted with great sensibility,
great range of perceptive power, a ready memory, great facility of
expression, varied power of enjoyment, and great depth of feeling.
The year 1616, when Shakespeare died, is recorded on the back of the
cast. Hairs of the moustache, eyelashes, and beard still adhere to
the plaster, of a reddish brown or auburn colour, corresponding with
several portraits and the Stratford bust.... The cast presents to view
finely formed features, strongly marked, yet regular. The forehead is
well developed in the region of the perceptive powers; but scarcely so
high as the Droeshout, and the coronal region is much lower than in
that of the Felton head. The sides of the head are well developed, and
there is a large mass of brain in the front. The moustache is divided,
and falls over the corners of the mouth, and the beard, or imperial,
is a full tuft on the chin, which, as well as the moustache, appears
to be marked with a tool since taken. The face is a sharp oval, that
of the bust is a blunt or round one. The chin is rather narrow and
pointed, yet firm; that of the bust well rounded. The cheeks are thin
and fallen; in those of the bust full, fat, and coarse, as if ‘good
digestion waited on appetite,’ without thought, fancy, or feeling,
troubling either. The mask has a moderate-sized upper lip, the bust a
very large one, although Sir Walter Scott lost his wager in asserting
that it was longer than his own. The lips of the cast are thin and well
marked; those of the bust present a rude opening for the mouth. The
nostrils are drawn up, and this feature is exaggerated in the bust.
The nose of the cast is large, finely marked, aquiline, and delicately
formed. That of the bust is short, mean, straight, and small. In
their physiognomy and phrenology they are utterly different. The cast
indicates the man of thought, emotion, and suffering; the bust, of
ease, enjoyment, and self-satisfaction. If the bust is to represent
the living image of the dead poet, the answer is, death does not
immediately alter the language once written on the ivory gate at the
temple of thought. It has been said by John Bell that the Stratford
bust was cut from a mask, but by a clumsy sculptor, who modified
his work. A monument, erected as a memorial of Shakespeare, should
therefore avoid the evident discrepancies that already exist, and
perpetrate no repetition of forms inconsistent with nature, truth, and
beauty.”