OK, slight exaggeration. He didn't actually write one thousand plays; it was nearer three dozen. However, he certainly inspired many others, the number of which may easily add up to one thousand. However, today I don't want to talk about his skill as a dramatist but about his face, or more exactly, the various portraits of his face.
For those who have been following these pages, you will see that there are nearly as many questions about his portraits as there are about who really wrote his plays. The most famous, even iconic portrait is the one above - the one that appeared in the front of the 1623 First Folio, the first collection of his plays. This book was compiled by his fellow actors, John Hemminges and Henry Condell and the engraved portrait was the work of the engraver, Martin Droeshout, 1601-c.1650.
The First Folio was first published seven years after WS's death and as the engraver had never met the playwright, he had to base his work on a contemporary portrait. Nevertheless, the experts generally agree that this is a genuine likeness as both the compilers and his fellow actor, Ben Jonson (and maybe his wife, Anne Hathaway) accepted this portrait for the front of the book.
Apart from questioning if this portrait is a true likeness, Droeshout's engraving has been the subject of much criticism.
It has been said that the head is too large for the body; it looks like "an egg on a plate" and that the jerkin is back-to-front. WS critic, J. Dover Wilson called it a "pudding faced effigy" while another critic, Samuel Schoenbaum wrote that:
"it had a huge head [which] surmounts an absurdly small tunic with oversized shoulder-wings...light comes from several directions simultaneously: it falls on the bulbous protuberance of his forehead - that 'horrible hydrocephalous development' as it has been called - creates an odd crescent under the right eye and illuminates the edge of the hair on the right side."
The Canadian critic, Northrop Frye said it made the Bard look "like an idiot" while the 18th cent. actor, John Philip Kemble thought that the portrait was a "despised work." The 20th cent. critic, Honan Park (1928-2014) described the portrait thus:
"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."
And as for those who believe in conspiracy theories, some say that the thin line that appears near the bard's chin proves that this portrait is of a man wearing a mask. The 'pro-Earl of Oxford wrote WS' Jesuit priest, Charles Sidney Beauclerk (1855-1934) claims that this portrait is of the Earl of Oxford, while the American computer artist, Lillian Schwarz (b.1927) says that this is really a portrait of Queen Elizabeth I.
So the final decision is yours. Is it really a true likeness or not? Next time I will consider some of the other Shakespearean portraits which also claim to be authentic.
For comments please write to me at: wsdavidyoung@gmail.com or to my Facebook page. Thank you.
For those who have been following these pages, you will see that there are nearly as many questions about his portraits as there are about who really wrote his plays. The most famous, even iconic portrait is the one above - the one that appeared in the front of the 1623 First Folio, the first collection of his plays. This book was compiled by his fellow actors, John Hemminges and Henry Condell and the engraved portrait was the work of the engraver, Martin Droeshout, 1601-c.1650.
The First Folio was first published seven years after WS's death and as the engraver had never met the playwright, he had to base his work on a contemporary portrait. Nevertheless, the experts generally agree that this is a genuine likeness as both the compilers and his fellow actor, Ben Jonson (and maybe his wife, Anne Hathaway) accepted this portrait for the front of the book.
Apart from questioning if this portrait is a true likeness, Droeshout's engraving has been the subject of much criticism.
It has been said that the head is too large for the body; it looks like "an egg on a plate" and that the jerkin is back-to-front. WS critic, J. Dover Wilson called it a "pudding faced effigy" while another critic, Samuel Schoenbaum wrote that:
"it had a huge head [which] surmounts an absurdly small tunic with oversized shoulder-wings...light comes from several directions simultaneously: it falls on the bulbous protuberance of his forehead - that 'horrible hydrocephalous development' as it has been called - creates an odd crescent under the right eye and illuminates the edge of the hair on the right side."
The Canadian critic, Northrop Frye said it made the Bard look "like an idiot" while the 18th cent. actor, John Philip Kemble thought that the portrait was a "despised work." The 20th cent. critic, Honan Park (1928-2014) described the portrait thus:
"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."
And as for those who believe in conspiracy theories, some say that the thin line that appears near the bard's chin proves that this portrait is of a man wearing a mask. The 'pro-Earl of Oxford wrote WS' Jesuit priest, Charles Sidney Beauclerk (1855-1934) claims that this portrait is of the Earl of Oxford, while the American computer artist, Lillian Schwarz (b.1927) says that this is really a portrait of Queen Elizabeth I.
So the final decision is yours. Is it really a true likeness or not? Next time I will consider some of the other Shakespearean portraits which also claim to be authentic.
For comments please write to me at: wsdavidyoung@gmail.com or to my Facebook page. Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment