D 2.2 Was Droeshout the Younger Incompetent?

Loading...

Do curso por University of London

Introduction to Who Wrote Shakespeare

54 ratings

University of London

Introduction to Who Wrote Shakespeare

54 ratings

This free course from the University of London explores critical thinking, and the interpretation of texts, through the Shakespeare authorship question. Using doubt about Shakespeare’s authorship as our playground, we will explore the key concept of authorship attribution, while developing skills in literary analysis, interpretation, and argument. Through forensic exploration of key texts, you will learn why Shakespeare’s authorship is questioned, and what evidence is cited on both sides of the debate. For those of you interested in exploring the works of Shakespeare from a new angle, or just wanting to hone your analytical thinking skills, this course offers an introduction to a fascinating area of interest. Those of you already interested in the Shakespeare authorship question will be encouraged to question your own assumptions in fruitful ways. Whether undertaken as a standalone course, or as preparation for the University of London BA in English, this course will be food for thought.

Na lição

The First Folio as Proof of Authorship

In this final module you’ll explore the key text supporting the traditional attribution of Shakespeare’s works: the 1623 First Folio of Shakespeare’s works. You will learn why the First Folio is a critically important text for those interested in the Shakespeare authorship question, and you will study in detail – applying the textual analysis skills you have developed so far - the texts included in its preface..

D 2.1 The Droeshout Portrait - Reception3:32

D 2.2 Was Droeshout the Younger Incompetent?3:25

D 2.3 The Droeshout Portrait from a Non-Stratfordian Perspective6:30

D 2.4 'Look Not on His Picture' - Analysis5:46

Conheça os instrutores

Ros Barber
Dr
English and Comparative Literature

Samuel Schoenbaum credited the considerable defects of

the Droeshout portrait to the engraver's 'meagre' skills.

Yet other engravings by Martin Droeshaut the Younger do not exhibit the same defects.

His engravings of the Duke of Buckingham,

the Bishop of Durham, Lord Coventry,

the poet John Donne

and many others are of the highest quality,

and adhere to the conventions of the day:

the figures are surrounded by ornamentation,

ribbons inscribed with Latin mottoes,

classical pedestals, and heraldic devices.

Why is the portrait of Shakespeare, by contrast, so utterly unadorned?

Missing even the laurel leaves,

the symbol of poetic triumph considered so essential for a writer's portrait?

Droeshout was only twenty-one when he received the commission,

having learned engraving as an apprentice to his talented father, Michael Droeshaut.

But that doesn't mean that he was an inexperienced or incompetent engraver.

His other engravings, executed at around the same time,

show none of the defects of the First Folio portrait of Shakespeare.

This engraving of Sir William Fairfax, for example,

is signed 'M.D.' and is typically attributed to Martin Droeshout the Younger.

Given the publication date of 1621

it would likely have been executed before the Shakespeare portrait.

It shows far more skill and realism.

Perhaps the problem was that William Shakspere

was dead and Droeshout could not have met him.

Yet his portrait of John Foxe,

who died in 1587,

was executed sometime between 1623 -

the year the First Folio was published - and 1630.

Despite the fact that the subject was dead thirteen years before Droeshout was even born,

the engraving is lifelike and skilfully executed.

Even his circa 1633 portrait of the poet John Donne,

depicted as a dead man in his death shroud,

shows greater three-dimensionality and realism around the face,

and in the draping of the cloth,

an artistic effect that takes considerable skill to accomplish.

Is it possible that Droeshout was working from an inadequate portrait?

The Buttery portrait, owned by the Folger Library,

has been suggested as a possible model,

but it hasn't been dated,

and it's possible that IT was inspired by the engraving, rather than the other way round.

But even if he was working from a bad portrait,

Droeshout's other engravings from the time suggest

he already possessed sufficient skill to compensate for,

and correct, any deficiencies in the model.

So why didn't the publishers of this expensive 900-page Folio volume -

a book it would cost two-thirds of a school-teacher's monthly salary to buy -

reject this crude and bizarre portrait as a suitable adornment for their publication?

Was it, in fact, exactly what they had asked for?

Explore nosso catálogo

Registre-se gratuitamente e obtenha recomendações, atualizações e ofertas personalizadas.

O Coursera proporciona acesso universal à melhor educação do mundo fazendo parcerias com as melhores universidades e organizações para oferecer cursos on-line.

© 2018 Coursera Inc. Todos os direitos reservados.

Baixar na App Store

Baixar no Google Play