Part Three - The Stratford Bust & The Droeshout Engraving

And now what of the bust itself? Well, de gustibus non est disputandum. Mr. Spielmann cites the names of some distinguished persons, from Chantrey to "Mr. Arthur Benson, of today," who, as he tells us, were great admirers of this effigy. [Mr. Spielmann cites Matthew Arnold as having been a great admirer of the present Stratford bust, quoting, from his well-known sonnet to "Shakespeare," the words, "Thou smilest and art still, Out-topping knowledge." It does not much matter whether Matthew Arnold was or was not a great admirer of the bust, but I cannot think that when he wrote this famous sonnet, beginning "Others abide our question, Thou art free," he had in mind the Stratford effigy at all. He was, I apprehend, thinking solely of the mysterious author of the plays and poems of "Shakespeare," the man who, as he says, did "tread on earth unguess'd at"—"planting his steadfast footsteps in the sea, making the heaven of heavens his dwelling-place." Let any impartial man look at the Stratford bust, and ask himself if it suggests to him the words "Thou smilest and art still, Out-topping knowledge"!] He, however, at once [35] proceeds to demonstrate that Chantrey's judgment can have but little weight in this matter, for "Chantrey believed it to be from a death-mask, for the reason that the raised lip shows a contraction of muscle which suggests I—as if any sculptor, however unskilful, would be fool enough deliberately to introduce into a bust, purporting to represent a living and obviously a robust and humorous-minded man, a corpse's rigidity!"

But many others, ardent and orthodox "Stratfordians" though they be, have found little indeed to admire in this effigy. Sir Sidney Lee (e.g.) writes: "The Stratford bust is a clumsy piece of work. The bald domed forehead, the broad and long face, the plump and rounded chin, the long upper lip, the full cheeks, the massed hair about the ears, combine to give the burly countenance a mechanical and unintellectual expression." [Life of Shakespeare (1915), P. 524.] Mrs. Stopes—the learned, industrious, and devoted Mrs. Stopes—writes as follows: "Every one who approaches the Stratford bust is more disappointed in it as a revelation of the poet than even in the crude lines of Droeshout. There is an entire lack of the faintest suggestion of poetic or spiritual inspiration in its plump earthliness... The pen strives to write 'this is a literary man,' but there is nothing to support the attribution," and she further refers to "the intensely disappointing [36] nature of this supposed simulacrum of the poet." ["The True Story of the Stratford Bust," Monthly Review, Ap. 1904, p. 153. (Subsequently reprinted in pamphlet form.)]

Mr. Spielmann himself refers to "the curious, and at first sight stupid, aspect of the bust," though how an "aspect" which is stupid at first sight loses its stupidity at "second sight" he fails to make clear to the ordinary human understanding.

No doubt an enthusiastic and adoring admirer of the Works of Shakespeare, looking at the effigy in Stratford Church with the eye of faith, and believing it to be a true and faithful representation of "the Immortal Bard," would be prone to see in it what he naturally expects to find—the beautiful intellectual face which he associates with the author of those magnificent and immortal works; but my firm belief is that a really impartial judge could not do otherwise than subscribe to the verdict of such faithful apostles of the "Orthodox" tradition as Sir Sidney Lee and Mrs. Stopes in this matter. [Let the reader compare Mr. Spielmann's Plate 9 ("The Stratford Monument—The Effigy") with his Plate 45, showing the idealised bust on the Heminge and Condell Memorial, in St. Mary the Virgin churchyard, Aldermanbury, by Professor C. J. Allen. He will then realise the necessity which the talented sculptor felt himself to be under to substitute a manly, dignified, and handsome face (albeit still wearing the ridiculously shaven moustache) for the heavy, sensuous, and "stupid aspect" of the Stratford bust. It is a fine head, but we may rest assured that it is no more the true head of "Shakespeare" than is that unfortunate original, the "plump earthliness" of which is so much deplored by Mrs. Stopes.]

It remains to say a word concerning the Droeshout engraving prefixed to the First Folio.

Here we must, in the first place, express our gratitude [37] to Mr. Spielmann for lending the weight of his authority to a proposition which, after consideration of the picture in question and the evidence concerning it, has long seemed quite obvious to many of us, viz. that the "Flower Portrait" was not "the Droeshout original," as some persons have conceived it to be, but the work of some later artist who desired to correct the faults and imperfections of the unfortunate Droeshout print, and to furnish the world with a more presentable representation of that great poet and dramatist who is "not of an age but for all time."

And what of the Droeshout engraving itself? Here again we must remember the adage De gustibus non est disputandum; but, for my part, I can never understand how any unprejudiced person, with a sense of humour, can look upon it without being tempted to irreverent laughter. Not only is it, as many have pointed out, and as is apparent even to the untrained eye, altogether out of drawing; not only is the head preternaturally large for the body; not only is it quaintly suggestive of an unduly deferred razor; but it looks at one with a peculiar expression of sheepish oafishness which is irresistibly comic. It might do excellently well as signboard of "The Shakespeare Arms," but that this woodeny thing, with its hydrocephalous forehead, straight lank hair bunched over the ears, and idiotic stare, should do duty as the counterfeit presentment of the world's greatest poet, though provocative of human smiles, is really calculated to "make the angels weep."

Sir Sidney Lee writes: "The face is long and the forehead high; the one ear which is visible is shapeless; the top of the head is bald, but the hair falls in abundance over the ears. There is a scanty moustache and a thin fringe of hair under the lower lip... [38] the dimensions of the head and face are disproportionately large as compared with those of the body."

Mrs. Stopes speaks of "the inartistically designed and coarsely executed engraving of Droeshout," and adds, truly enough, that in the reproduction which appeared as frontispiece to Shakespeare's Poems in 1640, the engraver Marshall "increased the inanity of the expression." "Inanity" is quite the right word for that particular expression of face which appears in the engraving.

Mr. Spielmann cites Mr. Arthur Benson, who is, as he had told us on an earlier page, an admirer of the bust (p. 9), as speaking of the "horrible hydrocephalous development of the skull in the engraving" (p. 32). But, after all, any ordinary person of sane mind who has eyes and understanding is, or ought to be, competent to judge in this case.

As to Jonson's well-known lines concerning this ridiculous caricature, it is not necessary to discuss them here. I will, therefore, content myself with quoting what Professor A. W. Pollard has written on the matter: "If his (Jonson's) lines on Droeshout's portrait are compared with their subject, we may well be inclined to wonder whether he had seen the very doubtful masterpiece at the time that he wrote them" (Shakespeare Folios and Quartos, 1909, p. 122).

I might add, however, the following words from Sir Sidney Lee's Life of Shakespeare (1915, p. 528) "Jonson's testimony does no credit to his artistic discernment; the expression of countenance is neither distinctive nor lifelike."

Well, if Jonson wrote his well-known lines "To the Reader," facing this all-too-remarkable Droeshout print which appears on the title-page of the First Folio, without having seen the supposed portrait of [39] Shakespeare, as Mr. Pollard suggests, but nevertheless bearing testimony to the excellence of the likeness, one can only say that Jonson's evidence, both here and elsewhere, so far as "Shakespeare" is concerned, must be received with many "grains of salt." And at this conclusion I long ago arrived for reasons which the exigencies of space do not allow me to go into here. [See my Ben Jonson and Shakespeare (Cecil Palmer, 1921). It must be remembered that we have now the highest "orthodox" authority for saying that Jonson wrote both the Folio Prefaces. "Of that," writes the distinguished Shakespearean, Professor Felix Schelling, "there' can be no doubt whatever." See "The Seedpod of Shakespeare Criticism," report of an address delivered at Houston Hall, Pennsylvania, by Dr. Felix Schelling, Jan., 1920.]

But, says Mr. Spielmann, "Whether or not Ben Jonson meant quite what he said—he repentantly admits that he was formerly sometimes to blame in this matter [Unfortunately Mr. Spielmann does not tell us where Jonson makes this repentant admission.] —the fact remains that the print was issued in an expensive memorial edition of Shakespeare's work, issued at £1 (say, some £6 or £7 of our money today) by Shakespeare's fellow-actors, and dedicated to two of the greatest noblemen of the realm, high personages at Court and in Society, who had known the Poet and were perfectly familiar with his appearance" (p. 31).

Now that the First Folio was really "issued" by those "deserving men," Messrs. Heminge and Condell, is, as I submit with entire confidence, a mere fable, however much it may find acceptance with "orthodox" credulity. However, let that pass. What I desire to call attention to is the enormous [40] importance which appears to be attributed by such critics as Mr. Spielmann to the fact that the Folio was actually dedicated to that "Incomparable Pair of Brethren," the Earl of Pembroke and the Earl of Montgomery. These critics, including many "men of letters" of the present day, who bear distinguished names, seem to imagine that such a dedication was something quite unique; that only the works of Shakespeare were considered worthy of such high honour, or were in fact so honoured. They appear to be quite ignorant that many books, both before and after the date of the Folio, were dedicated to these two Earls. Let me give a few instances: "A World of Wonders; a preparation treatise to the Apologie for Herodotus"; London, imprinted for John Norton, 1607, and dedicated to the Rt. Hon. Lords William Earle of Pembroke and Philip Earle of Montgomerie. Patrons of Learning, Patterns of Honour." [There was another edition of the same work, so dedi­cated, imprinted by Andrew Hart and Richard Lawson, published in Edinburgh in 1608.] "Amorum Emblemata," by Otho Vcenius, published in Antwerp in 1608, and dedicated "to the most honourable and worthie brothers William Earle of Pembroke and Philip Earle of Montgomerie, patrons of learning and chevalrie." Then again we have "The General History of the Magnificent State of Venice, collected by Thomas Fougasses, Englished by W. Shute, printed by G. Eld and W. Stansby, 1612, dedicated to the same "truly noble and worthie of all honour" brethren, "Knights of the Honourable order of the Garter."

Then we have "St. Augustine or the Citie of God. With comments by Jo. Lod. Vives; englished by J. H." Printed by George Eld in 1610, and dedicated to the Earl of Pembroke, reprinted in 1620 by George [41] Eld and M. Flesher, dedicated to "the three most noble brothers William Earle of Pembroke, Lord Chamberlain, and Thomas Earle of Arundel, two of the Lords of His Majesties most honourable Privy Councell, and Philip Earle of Montgomery, Knights of the most noble Order of the Garter. Grace and Peace in Christ."

Further we have "Geography delineates forth in two books, by Nathaniel Carpenter, printed by John Lichfield and William Turner, 1625"—two years after the Folio, it will be observed—the first volume dedicated to William Earle of Pembroke, the second volume dedicated to Philip Earle of Montgomerie.

It is unnecessary to give further examples, but I may just mention "The Second Session of the Parliament of Vertues reall for better propogation of all true pietie," by Joshua Sylvester, dedicated to the Rt. Hon. William Earle of Pembroke, Lord Chamberlain. Not dated. [I am indebted to my friend, Mr. William T. Smedley, for this list of works dedicated to "the Incomparable Pair," and he had others so dedicated in his marvellous library of fifteenth-, sixteenth-and seventeenth-century works and MSS.]

It appears, therefore, that instead of its being a most striking and exceptional honour that books should be allowed to be dedicated to these two Earls, their names appeared as the "dedicatees" of a large number of works of the period. Now it is well known that at that time great and distinguished men were wont to pay large sums to authors for the honour and distinction of seeing their names, with high, and, sometimes, very much exaggerated tributes to their merits as patrons of Learning and Chivalry and all good things beside on a dedication page. It was, in [42] fact, by these means that the publication of a large number of expensive works was financed. And thus, as I think there is no doubt, it was with the Shakespeare Folio. It was published not for "gain" but for "glory," or, at any rate, for a most honourable motive—the instruction and edification of mankind. It was not paid for by purchasers, who were few and far between, but rather by the proceeds of the Dedication, together with the contributions of lovers of literature—of whom it is quite reasonable to suggest that Lord Bacon was in all probability one, whether or not he had any share in the authorship of the plays. A fulsome dedication to great and distinguished men was the means of launching many a valuable work which would not otherwise have seen the light. [Mr. Spielmann, by the way, says that the "Incomparable Pair" had known the Poet and were perfectly familiar with his appearance. This is likely enough, but whether they had much knowledge of, or acquaintance with William Shakspere of Stratford—the man whom the Burbages, in their Petition to the survivor of these illustrious brethren, but twelve years after the publication of the Folio, described as merely a "man player" and a "deserving man," one may certainly take leave to doubt.]

The question remains: Are these two sole authentic portraits of "Shakespeare," the bust and the Droes­hout engraving, at all alike, the one to the other, bearing in mind that, as Mr. Spielmann tells us, they purport to show " the skull of the same man, who, in the engraving, is some twenty years or so younger than him [sic] of the Bust"?

On this matter Sir Sidney Lee writes: "There is considerable discrepancy between the two; their main points of resemblance are the baldness on the top of the head, and the fulness of the hair about the ears." [Life, Illustrated Ed., 1894, p. 234.]

[43] Well, two bald men always resemble each other so far as their baldness is concerned, so we may cheerfully admit the baldness and the fulness of the hair about the ears as the "main points of resemblance." Nevertheless, that very distinguished lawyer, the late Mr. Charles Elton, Q.C., an unexceptional witness in such a matter, says: "The bust is so unlike the Droeshout print in the First Folio... that the presentments might well belong to different persons." [William Shakespeare, His Family and Friends (John Murray), 1904, p. 232.]

Mr. Spielmann, however, is of an entirely different opinion. After telling us that of all the multitudinous alleged portraits of "Shakespeare" only these two, the Stratford bust and the Droeshout engraving, "possess actual authority," he proceeds: "It is curious that both of them have been strongly attacked; in the first place by the haters of 'The man from Stratford,' and in the second—so far as the bust is concerned—by persons so unversed in matters of iconography as to be misled by characteristic inaccuracies of the early hack-engravers. The touchstone of resemblance between the two lies in the shape and bony structure of the skull—one complementing and confirming the other." [See Mr. Spielmann's lecture on "Shakespeare Portraiture," delivered at King's College, on May 4th, 1923, and reported in The Times of May 5th. (Italics mine.)]

"the haters of 'the man from Stratford'" with a smile, only regretting that such a man as Mr. Spielmann, whose personal courtesy I have had reason to appreciate; should give vent to "anger insignificantly fierce" by making a remark at once so foolish and so untrue. He knows, of course, [44] perfectly well, that those who disbelieve in what I may call the "Stratfordian" authorship of the plays and poems of "Shakespeare," look upon "the man from Stratford," the events of whose life—real or imaginary—are set before us in the pages of Rowe, and Halliwell-Phillipps, and Sir S. Lee, although certainly not with admiration, at any rate, with perfect equanimity, and with entire tolerance and good humour. But he must needs satisfy his unreasoning prejudice by making two statements concerning them, both entirely devoid of veracity: first, that they are "haters of 'the man from Stratford'"; and, secondly, plunging still deeper into the mire of misrepresentation, that they, who love "Shakespeare" certainly quite as much as, and perhaps, even more than he does, are "haters of Shakespeare!" Queue petulance.

However, it is only charitable to leave such inaniter dicta for the delectation of the foolish and unthinking persons for whom they were presumably intended. Let us rather consider that "touchstone of resemblance" between the bust and the engraving which "lies in the shaped bony structure of the skull." Unfortunately this can only be appreciated by those who are versed "in matters of iconography." Now "Icon," we know, is an "Image," and, according to my Concise Oxford Dictionary, "Iconographer" means a "worshipper of images." But of course, Mr. Spielmann does not use such an impressive word —"Iconography"—in that sense. He refers to those poor uninstructed people who are unable to appreciate "the outstanding fact that the forms [sic] of the skull [of the Droeshout engraving], with its perpendicular rise of forehead, correspond with those in the Stratford effigy," and that "this—the formation of the skull—is the definite test of all the portraits." It is thus [45] proved, against all scoffers or doubters, that "the Droeshout and the sculptured effigy show the skull of the same man, who, in the engraving, is some twenty years or so younger than him [sic] of the bust."

Thus, then, the matter is settled. We may now throw over Sir Sidney Lee's two "main points of resemblance," viz. "the baldness on the top of the head and the fulness of the hair about the 'ears." Let us trust to "Iconography"—"the forms of the skull with its perpendicular rise of forehead." And, verily, it must be admitted that both the effigies—bust and engraving—are even "super-high-brows," although the bust has the advantage in not having such an unnaturally enlarged and "hydrocephalous" forehead as the monstrous Droeshout engraving. [Surely such a term as "hydrocephalous," meaning, as it does, "suffering from water on the brain," could only be applied to an effigy of the great poet by a "hater of Shakespeare!" Yet many of the orthodox, even distinguished critics, have not hesitated to apply it to the Droeshout engraving!]

These, then, are your gods, O Israel! These twain are the real authentic and counterfeit presentments of the world's greatest poet and dramatist. That is proved by "the shape and bony structure of the skull." Well, after all, it is possible that they are meant to be representations, good or bad, of William Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon. He, at any rate, must have been known at Stratford. Mr. Spielmann informs us that the monument, containing the bust, was "set up by his family." As a fact, nobody knows when, or by whom, or at whose cost it was erected, but seeing that "the man from Stratford" was the supposed hero thereof, it was but natural that the sculptor who fashioned the bust [46] (even though the one that now stands there is in all probability not the original) should have endeavoured to fashion it, to some extent at least, in the resemblance of "the man from Stratford," or what he fancied to be such, after the man himself had been dead at least six years, and, possibly, many more.

Mr. Spielmann has presented us, for our edification, with several portraits of the ideal Shakespeare as conceived by modern artists, all, of course, very different from either the Stratford bust or the Droeshout engraving. Amongst others I would specially draw attention to the "Portrait of William Shakespeare (The Stratford Bust and the Droeshout Print collated) by Ford Madox Brown" (Plate 46). Upon this, after eulogising Professor Charles J. Allen's bust, to which I have already alluded, [See p. 36, note.] as "dignified and convincing beyond most of the sculptured effigies of the Poet," Mr. Spielmann writes as follows: "Similarly inspired—but not, however, leaving wholly out of account the Janssen, Chandos and Hunt likenesses of Shakespeare, in spite of their relative unworthiness—is the finely realised ideal portrait by Ford Madox Brown, now one of the honoured ornaments of the Manchester Gallery." He adds that it is a "beautifully conceived and elaborated work," and that Dante Rossetti, as the artist told him, sat for the picture, of which Madox. Brown himself wrote, in 1865, it is "an attempt to supply the want of a creditable likeness of our national poet [my italics] as a historian recasts some tale told long since in many fragments by old chroniclers."

But now behold a wonder and a portent This Ford Madox Brown portrait is nothing more nor less than a reproduction, with some variations, of Van [47] Somers' portrait of Francis Bacon, which hangs at Gorhambury, and was engraved and published by Vertue in 1723.

I would ask the reader to look at Vertue's engraving of that portrait, or the engraving of it by James Fittler, A.R.A., which is prefixed to the 1803 and the 1826 Edition of Bacon's works (in ten volumes), and he will see that this undoubtedly is so. [The " Worthington" engraving, published by William Pickering in 1826, is much inferior, because it cuts out part of Bacon's right arm and hand and part of the left hand and of the paper upon which it lies.] Of course there are certain differences. Ford Madox Brown's model stands rather to the right of the observer, while Bacon, in the Van Somers portrait, stands rather to the left. Ford Madox Brown has endowed his ideal Shakespeare with hair under the sides of the jaw, although there is no such hair on the Droeshout print, or on the Stratford bust (Spielmann, Plate 9); and although both the "ideal Shakespeare" and the Van Somers portrait have a more or less pointed beard, the beard of the former is not made to join the moustache as in Bacon's case. Had this been done, it would have been obvious to all that the modern artist had taken the Van Somers portrait for his model. Moreover Ford Madox Brown has so far followed the bust as to make the moustache of his "ideal Shakespeare" curl up as does that of the bust. But taken altogether, the resemblance between the Van Somers portrait of Bacon and Ford Madox Brown's ideal Shakespeare is really most remarkable. Each model has bushy hair hanging around the ears; each has, as I have already said, a moustache and more or less pointed beard; each has a high domed forehead, though the artist has rather exaggerated that of his ideal Shakespeare; [48] the hands of each are placed strikingly in the same position, though the modern artist has placed "Shakespeare's" right hand on a table where Van Somers has placed Bacon's left hand, and allowed "Shakespeare's" left hand to lie as Bacon's right hand lies. Each is dressed in very similar fashion. Each wears a ruff, and the laced cuffs at the end of the sleeves are also most strikingly alike; the faces of each bear a remarkable resemblance, and the eyes of each gaze upon the observer in the same piercing manner. But the two portraits must be looked at together in order to enable the observer to appreciate the resemblance. He will see that had Ford Madox Brown been himself a "Baconian" he could hardly have painted a more "Baconian" Shakespeare! Moreover, to use Mr. Spielmann's own words, "the outstanding fact remains," viz. that the forms of the skull, with its perpendicular rise of forehead, correspond with those in the Van Somers portrait; "and this—the formation of the skull—is the definitive test of all the portraits." [Work cited, p. 33.] As my friend Mr. William T. Smedley, who first drew my attention to this striking resemblance, truly observes, the artist seems to have taken the Vertue print and reversed it. "The pose of the figure, the positions of the arms and hands, the pattern of the lace round the cuffs are identical." [He adds: "Even if the artist was not what is termed a Baconian, and wished to paint an idealised portrait of Shakespeare in 1850 (six years before the Baconian authorship of the plays was mooted), what more likely than that he should take the portrait of Bacon as his model? I do not think that any one can look at the Madox Brown picture and the Somers engraving and have any doubt but that this was what he did." But perhaps the spirit of Bacon was present and guided the hand of the unconscious Brown! He certainly made "an ideal Shakespeare" I Whether his picture in any way resembles Dante Gabriel Rossetti, I am unable to say. But, obviously, the artist when called upon to draw an ideal picture of "Shakespeare" thought he could not do better than take a portrait of Francis Bacon as his model.]

[49] In the year 1593 the name "Shakespeare" first made its appearance in literature, subscribed to the dedication of Venus and Adonis. Now many of us are entirely convinced that that name "Shakespeare" was not just one form of the name of "the man from Stratford" (who, by the way, never himself wrote his name in that form), but that the author of the work in question, and of Lucrece which followed in the next year with a dedication signed with the same name, was a man of high social position, who desired to conceal his identity under a pseudonym. In 1598 plays were published in the name of "Shake-Speare," which hyphenated form was very frequently employed after that time. "Shakespeare" or "Shake-Speare" was a name to conjure with. Many plays admittedly not Shakespearean were published in that name, or as by "W. S.," and few critics will deny that some of the plays, or parts of plays, attributed to "Shakespeare" in the Folio of 1623 were not really written by him.

Now, in course of time, the authorship of these plays and poems became, as it appears, attributed to Shakspere of Stratford, [Not, however, it would seem, by his fellow-players, to whom he was only a "deserving man" and a "man-player." See the petition of the Burbages to the Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, the survivor of the "Incomparable Pair," in 1635. (Vide: Is there a Shakespeare Problem? John Lane, 1916, p. 364.)] —how, or why, or to what extent, is a question which cannot be entered into here—but, this being so, some persons conceived the [50] idea of setting up a monument to him at Stratford, and it is contended that the bust exhibited in that monument—the "Sensuous disappointing effigy," with "its plump earthliness"—is fashioned, or intended to be fashioned, in his likeness, and, further, that the engraving with the "hydrocephalous" head, published in the Folio of 1623, was also intended to be a likeness of this William Shakspere of Stratford.

Be it so. Stratford is welcome to its "Incomparable Pair"! What we, the lovers of Shakespeare, seek for is a portrait, if such indeed exists save that which our mental vision supplies us withal—even without the aid of "iconography"—of the true "Shakespeare," whose monument is not either in alabaster, or marble, but in his immortal works; the man who could truly say with Horace, and with far better warrant than Horace:

Exegi monumentum mre perennius,
Regalique situ pyramidum altius.