The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: In The Waterseller of Seville, how is the abstract discussed?

The Waterseller of Seville is the title of three paintings by Spanish artist Diego Velázquez, dating from 1618–1622. The original version is considered to be among the finest works of the painter's Seville period and is displayed in the Wellington Collection of Apsley House. The original version was painted by Velázquez when he was in his late teens or early twenties. Looking at this painting, there is an older man, a young boy, and a bystander in the background. The old man is handing the young boy a glass of water, but they never look at each other, nor do they make eye contact with the viewer.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: Focus on The Waterseller of Seville and explain the History.

According to José Gudiol, the Waterseller of Seville by Velázquez was painted shortly before moving to Madrid. Gudiol also classified this painting as a bodegón, due to the depiction of beverages. Art historians typically compare this painting to the still lifes that were painted during the seventeenth century in Spain because this painting is very simple with a limited color range and Velázquez was working with still objects.  This painting is done in a realistic style with a limited color palette, another characteristic of the bodegón genre. According to Jon Moffitt, this piece was not a commissioned work.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: Explain the History of this artwork, The Waterseller of Seville.

According to José Gudiol, the Waterseller of Seville by Velázquez was painted shortly before moving to Madrid. Gudiol also classified this painting as a bodegón, due to the depiction of beverages. Art historians typically compare this painting to the still lifes that were painted during the seventeenth century in Spain because this painting is very simple with a limited color range and Velázquez was working with still objects.  This painting is done in a realistic style with a limited color palette, another characteristic of the bodegón genre. According to Jon Moffitt, this piece was not a commissioned work.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: How does The Waterseller of Seville explain its History?

According to José Gudiol, the Waterseller of Seville by Velázquez was painted shortly before moving to Madrid. Gudiol also classified this painting as a bodegón, due to the depiction of beverages. Art historians typically compare this painting to the still lifes that were painted during the seventeenth century in Spain because this painting is very simple with a limited color range and Velázquez was working with still objects.  This painting is done in a realistic style with a limited color palette, another characteristic of the bodegón genre. According to Jon Moffitt, this piece was not a commissioned work.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: In The Waterseller of Seville, how is the History discussed?

According to José Gudiol, the Waterseller of Seville by Velázquez was painted shortly before moving to Madrid. Gudiol also classified this painting as a bodegón, due to the depiction of beverages. Art historians typically compare this painting to the still lifes that were painted during the seventeenth century in Spain because this painting is very simple with a limited color range and Velázquez was working with still objects.  This painting is done in a realistic style with a limited color palette, another characteristic of the bodegón genre. According to Jon Moffitt, this piece was not a commissioned work.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: Focus on The Waterseller of Seville and explain the Description.

The subject of the painting is the waterseller, a common trade for the lower classes in Velázquez's Seville. The jars and victuals recall bodegón paintings. The seller has two customers: a young boy, possibly painted from the same model as used for the boys in The Lunch and Old Woman Cooking Eggs, and a young man in the background shadows, (time has caused him to fade somewhat; he is clearer in the Uffizi version).In the foreground sit the seller's gigantic pots of water, glistening with splashes of water. So large and rounded, they almost protrude out of the painting into the observer's space. The seller hands a freshly poured glass of water to the boy. In it sits a fig, a perfumer intended to make the water taste fresher (something still done in Seville today).It is not known for sure, but it is assumed that the painting is being taken place either within a tavern or near one. The lighting enters the scene from the left and is brings attention to the young boy and to the water droplets on the pot of water. This demonstrates the detailed work of Velázquez's paintings.The still, calm scene, a typical quality of his genre scenes and, indeed, much of Velázquez's work,  is remarkable for the depiction of the seller. His pensive face, battered by its direct exposure to sunlight and deeply scarred with the wrinkles of age, speaks of long years of experience. His short shaved hair and old plain clothes give him the appearance of a monk, saint, or eccentric philosopher. The old man doesn't look at the young boy or even the other man in the shadows and he doesn't make eye contact with the audience either. The young boy is the same. He doesn't make eye contact with the old man, and his back is turned to the other man. And the young boy doesn't make eye contact with the audience.According to Antonio Palomino, the old man in the painting was old and very ill. He had torn clothing that revealed some skin and on that skin, there were warts. Beside the old man is young boy. The old man gives the young boy a glass of water and the young boy takes it without any form of acknowledgement.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: Explain the Description of this artwork, The Waterseller of Seville.

The subject of the painting is the waterseller, a common trade for the lower classes in Velázquez's Seville. The jars and victuals recall bodegón paintings. The seller has two customers: a young boy, possibly painted from the same model as used for the boys in The Lunch and Old Woman Cooking Eggs, and a young man in the background shadows, (time has caused him to fade somewhat; he is clearer in the Uffizi version).In the foreground sit the seller's gigantic pots of water, glistening with splashes of water. So large and rounded, they almost protrude out of the painting into the observer's space. The seller hands a freshly poured glass of water to the boy. In it sits a fig, a perfumer intended to make the water taste fresher (something still done in Seville today).It is not known for sure, but it is assumed that the painting is being taken place either within a tavern or near one. The lighting enters the scene from the left and is brings attention to the young boy and to the water droplets on the pot of water. This demonstrates the detailed work of Velázquez's paintings.The still, calm scene, a typical quality of his genre scenes and, indeed, much of Velázquez's work,  is remarkable for the depiction of the seller. His pensive face, battered by its direct exposure to sunlight and deeply scarred with the wrinkles of age, speaks of long years of experience. His short shaved hair and old plain clothes give him the appearance of a monk, saint, or eccentric philosopher. The old man doesn't look at the young boy or even the other man in the shadows and he doesn't make eye contact with the audience either. The young boy is the same. He doesn't make eye contact with the old man, and his back is turned to the other man. And the young boy doesn't make eye contact with the audience.According to Antonio Palomino, the old man in the painting was old and very ill. He had torn clothing that revealed some skin and on that skin, there were warts. Beside the old man is young boy. The old man gives the young boy a glass of water and the young boy takes it without any form of acknowledgement.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: How does The Waterseller of Seville explain its Description?

The subject of the painting is the waterseller, a common trade for the lower classes in Velázquez's Seville. The jars and victuals recall bodegón paintings. The seller has two customers: a young boy, possibly painted from the same model as used for the boys in The Lunch and Old Woman Cooking Eggs, and a young man in the background shadows, (time has caused him to fade somewhat; he is clearer in the Uffizi version).In the foreground sit the seller's gigantic pots of water, glistening with splashes of water. So large and rounded, they almost protrude out of the painting into the observer's space. The seller hands a freshly poured glass of water to the boy. In it sits a fig, a perfumer intended to make the water taste fresher (something still done in Seville today).It is not known for sure, but it is assumed that the painting is being taken place either within a tavern or near one. The lighting enters the scene from the left and is brings attention to the young boy and to the water droplets on the pot of water. This demonstrates the detailed work of Velázquez's paintings.The still, calm scene, a typical quality of his genre scenes and, indeed, much of Velázquez's work,  is remarkable for the depiction of the seller. His pensive face, battered by its direct exposure to sunlight and deeply scarred with the wrinkles of age, speaks of long years of experience. His short shaved hair and old plain clothes give him the appearance of a monk, saint, or eccentric philosopher. The old man doesn't look at the young boy or even the other man in the shadows and he doesn't make eye contact with the audience either. The young boy is the same. He doesn't make eye contact with the old man, and his back is turned to the other man. And the young boy doesn't make eye contact with the audience.According to Antonio Palomino, the old man in the painting was old and very ill. He had torn clothing that revealed some skin and on that skin, there were warts. Beside the old man is young boy. The old man gives the young boy a glass of water and the young boy takes it without any form of acknowledgement.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: In The Waterseller of Seville, how is the Description discussed?

The subject of the painting is the waterseller, a common trade for the lower classes in Velázquez's Seville. The jars and victuals recall bodegón paintings. The seller has two customers: a young boy, possibly painted from the same model as used for the boys in The Lunch and Old Woman Cooking Eggs, and a young man in the background shadows, (time has caused him to fade somewhat; he is clearer in the Uffizi version).In the foreground sit the seller's gigantic pots of water, glistening with splashes of water. So large and rounded, they almost protrude out of the painting into the observer's space. The seller hands a freshly poured glass of water to the boy. In it sits a fig, a perfumer intended to make the water taste fresher (something still done in Seville today).It is not known for sure, but it is assumed that the painting is being taken place either within a tavern or near one. The lighting enters the scene from the left and is brings attention to the young boy and to the water droplets on the pot of water. This demonstrates the detailed work of Velázquez's paintings.The still, calm scene, a typical quality of his genre scenes and, indeed, much of Velázquez's work,  is remarkable for the depiction of the seller. His pensive face, battered by its direct exposure to sunlight and deeply scarred with the wrinkles of age, speaks of long years of experience. His short shaved hair and old plain clothes give him the appearance of a monk, saint, or eccentric philosopher. The old man doesn't look at the young boy or even the other man in the shadows and he doesn't make eye contact with the audience either. The young boy is the same. He doesn't make eye contact with the old man, and his back is turned to the other man. And the young boy doesn't make eye contact with the audience.According to Antonio Palomino, the old man in the painting was old and very ill. He had torn clothing that revealed some skin and on that skin, there were warts. Beside the old man is young boy. The old man gives the young boy a glass of water and the young boy takes it without any form of acknowledgement.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: Focus on The Waterseller of Seville and explain the Theme.

Velázquez's respect for the poor is evidence in the idea that the simple, elemental nature of poverty is profound and effective in depicting higher subjects and morals such as biblical stories (such as the Christ in the House of Martha and Mary).This simply means that even the slightest gestures are ones that are painted as if they were sacred acts. In the context of Velázquez's development as an artist, The Waterseller exhibits the beginnings of the technique found in the artist's mature creations. His insight into the person of the seller is symptomatic of his insight into the subjects of his great portraits, and his precise rendition of the small details of reality demonstrate his understanding of human perception. Also within the painting, the old man and the young boy both touch the same glass though they don't ever make eye contact. This could be because of their social status or even something as simple as their age difference.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: Explain the Theme of this artwork, The Waterseller of Seville.

Velázquez's respect for the poor is evidence in the idea that the simple, elemental nature of poverty is profound and effective in depicting higher subjects and morals such as biblical stories (such as the Christ in the House of Martha and Mary).This simply means that even the slightest gestures are ones that are painted as if they were sacred acts. In the context of Velázquez's development as an artist, The Waterseller exhibits the beginnings of the technique found in the artist's mature creations. His insight into the person of the seller is symptomatic of his insight into the subjects of his great portraits, and his precise rendition of the small details of reality demonstrate his understanding of human perception. Also within the painting, the old man and the young boy both touch the same glass though they don't ever make eye contact. This could be because of their social status or even something as simple as their age difference.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: How does The Waterseller of Seville explain its Theme?

Velázquez's respect for the poor is evidence in the idea that the simple, elemental nature of poverty is profound and effective in depicting higher subjects and morals such as biblical stories (such as the Christ in the House of Martha and Mary).This simply means that even the slightest gestures are ones that are painted as if they were sacred acts. In the context of Velázquez's development as an artist, The Waterseller exhibits the beginnings of the technique found in the artist's mature creations. His insight into the person of the seller is symptomatic of his insight into the subjects of his great portraits, and his precise rendition of the small details of reality demonstrate his understanding of human perception. Also within the painting, the old man and the young boy both touch the same glass though they don't ever make eye contact. This could be because of their social status or even something as simple as their age difference.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: In The Waterseller of Seville, how is the Theme discussed?

Velázquez's respect for the poor is evidence in the idea that the simple, elemental nature of poverty is profound and effective in depicting higher subjects and morals such as biblical stories (such as the Christ in the House of Martha and Mary).This simply means that even the slightest gestures are ones that are painted as if they were sacred acts. In the context of Velázquez's development as an artist, The Waterseller exhibits the beginnings of the technique found in the artist's mature creations. His insight into the person of the seller is symptomatic of his insight into the subjects of his great portraits, and his precise rendition of the small details of reality demonstrate his understanding of human perception. Also within the painting, the old man and the young boy both touch the same glass though they don't ever make eye contact. This could be because of their social status or even something as simple as their age difference.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: Focus on The Waterseller of Seville and explain the Influences.

Another proponent of this simple color range was Caravaggio, who significantly influenced this painting. Caravaggio went against the idealistic trends of Mannerism and the Renaissance, painting saints and divine beings as fallible cripples and prostitutes. Whilst not as aggressively provocative as Caravaggio, Velázquez does not by any means idealize his subject. Rather, he aims to represent it in a way that is precisely faithful to life. He captures the imperfections of the seller's pots, the dampness on their sides, the glistening of the light on the small drops of water and the glass, and the realistic expressions of the characters.Francisco Pacheco was not only Velázquez's teacher, but he was his father-in-law-too. Pacheco praised his son-in-law's bodegones paintings because they were not being given the credit that they should have been.Antonio Palomino, Velázquez's contemporary, was the first author ever to mention the painting and he claimed that the old man looked worse than he really did. However, this was not the first time Palomino was inaccurate in his descriptions of a painting by Velázquez. Palomino had already given a very inaccurate of the painting An Old Woman Cooking Eggs.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: Explain the Influences of this artwork, The Waterseller of Seville.

Another proponent of this simple color range was Caravaggio, who significantly influenced this painting. Caravaggio went against the idealistic trends of Mannerism and the Renaissance, painting saints and divine beings as fallible cripples and prostitutes. Whilst not as aggressively provocative as Caravaggio, Velázquez does not by any means idealize his subject. Rather, he aims to represent it in a way that is precisely faithful to life. He captures the imperfections of the seller's pots, the dampness on their sides, the glistening of the light on the small drops of water and the glass, and the realistic expressions of the characters.Francisco Pacheco was not only Velázquez's teacher, but he was his father-in-law-too. Pacheco praised his son-in-law's bodegones paintings because they were not being given the credit that they should have been.Antonio Palomino, Velázquez's contemporary, was the first author ever to mention the painting and he claimed that the old man looked worse than he really did. However, this was not the first time Palomino was inaccurate in his descriptions of a painting by Velázquez. Palomino had already given a very inaccurate of the painting An Old Woman Cooking Eggs.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: How does The Waterseller of Seville explain its Influences?

Another proponent of this simple color range was Caravaggio, who significantly influenced this painting. Caravaggio went against the idealistic trends of Mannerism and the Renaissance, painting saints and divine beings as fallible cripples and prostitutes. Whilst not as aggressively provocative as Caravaggio, Velázquez does not by any means idealize his subject. Rather, he aims to represent it in a way that is precisely faithful to life. He captures the imperfections of the seller's pots, the dampness on their sides, the glistening of the light on the small drops of water and the glass, and the realistic expressions of the characters.Francisco Pacheco was not only Velázquez's teacher, but he was his father-in-law-too. Pacheco praised his son-in-law's bodegones paintings because they were not being given the credit that they should have been.Antonio Palomino, Velázquez's contemporary, was the first author ever to mention the painting and he claimed that the old man looked worse than he really did. However, this was not the first time Palomino was inaccurate in his descriptions of a painting by Velázquez. Palomino had already given a very inaccurate of the painting An Old Woman Cooking Eggs.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: In The Waterseller of Seville, how is the Influences discussed?

Another proponent of this simple color range was Caravaggio, who significantly influenced this painting. Caravaggio went against the idealistic trends of Mannerism and the Renaissance, painting saints and divine beings as fallible cripples and prostitutes. Whilst not as aggressively provocative as Caravaggio, Velázquez does not by any means idealize his subject. Rather, he aims to represent it in a way that is precisely faithful to life. He captures the imperfections of the seller's pots, the dampness on their sides, the glistening of the light on the small drops of water and the glass, and the realistic expressions of the characters.Francisco Pacheco was not only Velázquez's teacher, but he was his father-in-law-too. Pacheco praised his son-in-law's bodegones paintings because they were not being given the credit that they should have been.Antonio Palomino, Velázquez's contemporary, was the first author ever to mention the painting and he claimed that the old man looked worse than he really did. However, this was not the first time Palomino was inaccurate in his descriptions of a painting by Velázquez. Palomino had already given a very inaccurate of the painting An Old Woman Cooking Eggs.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: In the context of The Waterseller of Seville, explain the London Version and the Versions.

The painting by Velazquez is shown in three different paintings. The version in the Apsley House, London, United Kingdom, is the version that is most popular.It entered the Royal Spanish Collection. From the Buen Retiro Palace, it went to the Palacio Nuevo. There it was seen by Ponz and had won praise by Anton Raphael Mengs. It was stolen by Joseph Bonaparte at the time of the Napoleonic wars. The Duke of Wellington later won it back – along with 82 other paintings – at the Battle of Vitoria. The King of Spain allowed him to keep them in return for beating the French. Wellington brought the painting back to England where it remains to this day, in Apsley House, his former home. This version is hung in the Waterloo Gallery in the museum side of the House (the current Duke of Wellington holds several private rooms still) so can be viewed by the public.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: Explain the London Version about the Versions of this artwork, The Waterseller of Seville.

The painting by Velazquez is shown in three different paintings. The version in the Apsley House, London, United Kingdom, is the version that is most popular.It entered the Royal Spanish Collection. From the Buen Retiro Palace, it went to the Palacio Nuevo. There it was seen by Ponz and had won praise by Anton Raphael Mengs. It was stolen by Joseph Bonaparte at the time of the Napoleonic wars. The Duke of Wellington later won it back – along with 82 other paintings – at the Battle of Vitoria. The King of Spain allowed him to keep them in return for beating the French. Wellington brought the painting back to England where it remains to this day, in Apsley House, his former home. This version is hung in the Waterloo Gallery in the museum side of the House (the current Duke of Wellington holds several private rooms still) so can be viewed by the public.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: In The Waterseller of Seville, how is the London Version of the Versions explained?

The painting by Velazquez is shown in three different paintings. The version in the Apsley House, London, United Kingdom, is the version that is most popular.It entered the Royal Spanish Collection. From the Buen Retiro Palace, it went to the Palacio Nuevo. There it was seen by Ponz and had won praise by Anton Raphael Mengs. It was stolen by Joseph Bonaparte at the time of the Napoleonic wars. The Duke of Wellington later won it back – along with 82 other paintings – at the Battle of Vitoria. The King of Spain allowed him to keep them in return for beating the French. Wellington brought the painting back to England where it remains to this day, in Apsley House, his former home. This version is hung in the Waterloo Gallery in the museum side of the House (the current Duke of Wellington holds several private rooms still) so can be viewed by the public.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: Describe the characteristics of the London Version in The Waterseller of Seville's Versions.

The painting by Velazquez is shown in three different paintings. The version in the Apsley House, London, United Kingdom, is the version that is most popular.It entered the Royal Spanish Collection. From the Buen Retiro Palace, it went to the Palacio Nuevo. There it was seen by Ponz and had won praise by Anton Raphael Mengs. It was stolen by Joseph Bonaparte at the time of the Napoleonic wars. The Duke of Wellington later won it back – along with 82 other paintings – at the Battle of Vitoria. The King of Spain allowed him to keep them in return for beating the French. Wellington brought the painting back to England where it remains to this day, in Apsley House, his former home. This version is hung in the Waterloo Gallery in the museum side of the House (the current Duke of Wellington holds several private rooms still) so can be viewed by the public.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: In the context of The Waterseller of Seville, explain the Florence Version and the Versions.

The version in the Uffizi Gallery of Florence has a rather more burlesque feel, with the seller wearing an ornate red hat. The man in the back is more visible to the audience's eye. It has been suggested that this is earlier than the version in London.This version of the painting is the dullest of them all. There is no shimmer to the pot like the other two have and the color scheme is very pale. This may have been more in line with Velázquez's contemporaries' expectations due to the comical and devious image of the waterseller given in picaresque novels of the time.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: Explain the Florence Version about the Versions of this artwork, The Waterseller of Seville.

The version in the Uffizi Gallery of Florence has a rather more burlesque feel, with the seller wearing an ornate red hat. The man in the back is more visible to the audience's eye. It has been suggested that this is earlier than the version in London.This version of the painting is the dullest of them all. There is no shimmer to the pot like the other two have and the color scheme is very pale. This may have been more in line with Velázquez's contemporaries' expectations due to the comical and devious image of the waterseller given in picaresque novels of the time.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: In The Waterseller of Seville, how is the Florence Version of the Versions explained?

The version in the Uffizi Gallery of Florence has a rather more burlesque feel, with the seller wearing an ornate red hat. The man in the back is more visible to the audience's eye. It has been suggested that this is earlier than the version in London.This version of the painting is the dullest of them all. There is no shimmer to the pot like the other two have and the color scheme is very pale. This may have been more in line with Velázquez's contemporaries' expectations due to the comical and devious image of the waterseller given in picaresque novels of the time.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: Describe the characteristics of the Florence Version in The Waterseller of Seville's Versions.

The version in the Uffizi Gallery of Florence has a rather more burlesque feel, with the seller wearing an ornate red hat. The man in the back is more visible to the audience's eye. It has been suggested that this is earlier than the version in London.This version of the painting is the dullest of them all. There is no shimmer to the pot like the other two have and the color scheme is very pale. This may have been more in line with Velázquez's contemporaries' expectations due to the comical and devious image of the waterseller given in picaresque novels of the time.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: In the context of The Waterseller of Seville, explain the Baltimore Version and the Versions.

The third version, takes yet another angle on the waterseller. In this he appears almost despairing in his expression, perhaps to the extent of appearing farcical. The brilliant colours used are the most extreme of the three (with the pots taking on an altogether more shiny appearance). However, as in the Uffizi version, the characters lack the depth of personality present in the Wellington version. The man that was in the back of the other paintings is no longer visible and the background is shaded so the colors in the foreground really stand out, such as the pot and the man's red over piece that he is wearing.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: Explain the Baltimore Version about the Versions of this artwork, The Waterseller of Seville.

The third version, takes yet another angle on the waterseller. In this he appears almost despairing in his expression, perhaps to the extent of appearing farcical. The brilliant colours used are the most extreme of the three (with the pots taking on an altogether more shiny appearance). However, as in the Uffizi version, the characters lack the depth of personality present in the Wellington version. The man that was in the back of the other paintings is no longer visible and the background is shaded so the colors in the foreground really stand out, such as the pot and the man's red over piece that he is wearing.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: In The Waterseller of Seville, how is the Baltimore Version of the Versions explained?

The third version, takes yet another angle on the waterseller. In this he appears almost despairing in his expression, perhaps to the extent of appearing farcical. The brilliant colours used are the most extreme of the three (with the pots taking on an altogether more shiny appearance). However, as in the Uffizi version, the characters lack the depth of personality present in the Wellington version. The man that was in the back of the other paintings is no longer visible and the background is shaded so the colors in the foreground really stand out, such as the pot and the man's red over piece that he is wearing.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: Describe the characteristics of the Baltimore Version in The Waterseller of Seville's Versions.

The third version, takes yet another angle on the waterseller. In this he appears almost despairing in his expression, perhaps to the extent of appearing farcical. The brilliant colours used are the most extreme of the three (with the pots taking on an altogether more shiny appearance). However, as in the Uffizi version, the characters lack the depth of personality present in the Wellington version. The man that was in the back of the other paintings is no longer visible and the background is shaded so the colors in the foreground really stand out, such as the pot and the man's red over piece that he is wearing.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: Focus on The Waterseller of Seville and explain the References in popular culture.

The painting appears as an Easter Egg in the video game Resident Evil 4.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: Explain the References in popular culture of this artwork, The Waterseller of Seville.

The painting appears as an Easter Egg in the video game Resident Evil 4.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: How does The Waterseller of Seville explain its References in popular culture?

The painting appears as an Easter Egg in the video game Resident Evil 4.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


The Waterseller of Seville

Prompt: In The Waterseller of Seville, how is the References in popular culture discussed?

The painting appears as an Easter Egg in the video game Resident Evil 4.

Christ in the House of Martha and Mary (Velázquez)

Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Category:Seville-period paintings by Diego Velázquez

Category:Paintings formerly in the Spanish royal collection

Category:Paintings in the Wellington Collection


Small Cowper Madonna

Prompt: Focus on Small Cowper Madonna and explain the abstract.

The Small Cowper Madonna is a painting by the Italian High Renaissance artist Raphael, depicting Mary and Child, in a typical Italian countryside. It has been dated to around 1504–1505, the middle of the High Renaissance.

George Clavering-Cowper, 3rd Earl Cowper

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Raphael

Category:Paintings in the National Gallery of Art

The Virgin and Child (The Northbrook Madonna)


Small Cowper Madonna

Prompt: Explain the abstract of this artwork, Small Cowper Madonna.

The Small Cowper Madonna is a painting by the Italian High Renaissance artist Raphael, depicting Mary and Child, in a typical Italian countryside. It has been dated to around 1504–1505, the middle of the High Renaissance.

George Clavering-Cowper, 3rd Earl Cowper

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Raphael

Category:Paintings in the National Gallery of Art

The Virgin and Child (The Northbrook Madonna)


Small Cowper Madonna

Prompt: How does Small Cowper Madonna explain its abstract?

The Small Cowper Madonna is a painting by the Italian High Renaissance artist Raphael, depicting Mary and Child, in a typical Italian countryside. It has been dated to around 1504–1505, the middle of the High Renaissance.

George Clavering-Cowper, 3rd Earl Cowper

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Raphael

Category:Paintings in the National Gallery of Art

The Virgin and Child (The Northbrook Madonna)


Small Cowper Madonna

Prompt: In Small Cowper Madonna, how is the abstract discussed?

The Small Cowper Madonna is a painting by the Italian High Renaissance artist Raphael, depicting Mary and Child, in a typical Italian countryside. It has been dated to around 1504–1505, the middle of the High Renaissance.

George Clavering-Cowper, 3rd Earl Cowper

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Raphael

Category:Paintings in the National Gallery of Art

The Virgin and Child (The Northbrook Madonna)


Small Cowper Madonna

Prompt: Focus on Small Cowper Madonna and explain the History.

It is not known exactly why the Small Cowper Madonna was painted. It was probably either a private commission  or for the general art market; images of the Madonna and Child were often given as wedding presents. It is widely thought that the church on the right hand side of the painting is the church of San Bernardino, where the Dukes of Urbino (where Raphael was born) were buried, and it has been suggested that the presence of the church means the painting may have been "commissioned by the family for devotional purposes." Around 1780, the painting was sold to the prominent art collector George Clavering-Cowper, 3rd Earl Cowper, whose surname would lend the painting its name. The painting was passed down through six generations of Cowpers before it was sold to Duveen Brothers, Inc. in 1913. In 1914, it was sold to American magnate Peter A.B. Widener, who displayed the painting at Lynnewood Hall. Peter A.B. Widener's son, Joseph E. Widener, donated the Small Cowper Madonna to the National Gallery of Art in 1942, along with the rest of Lynnewood Hall's extensive art collection.In 2015 the National Gallery of Art loaned the Small Cowper Madonna to the Worcester Art Museum in Massachusetts (U.S.) to be exhibited alongside The Virgin and Child (The Northbrook Madonna). The Northbrook Madonna is in the Worcester Art Museum's  permanent collection and was once attributed to Raphael. One hope of the exhibition was to identify the artist who painted the Northbrook Madonna. The painter of the Northbrook Madonna was later identified by the museum as perhaps being Domenico Alfani, a close friend of Raphael's whose works have often been misattributed to the better-known artist.

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Raphael

Category:Paintings in the National Gallery of Art


Small Cowper Madonna

Prompt: Explain the History of this artwork, Small Cowper Madonna.

It is not known exactly why the Small Cowper Madonna was painted. It was probably either a private commission  or for the general art market; images of the Madonna and Child were often given as wedding presents. It is widely thought that the church on the right hand side of the painting is the church of San Bernardino, where the Dukes of Urbino (where Raphael was born) were buried, and it has been suggested that the presence of the church means the painting may have been "commissioned by the family for devotional purposes." Around 1780, the painting was sold to the prominent art collector George Clavering-Cowper, 3rd Earl Cowper, whose surname would lend the painting its name. The painting was passed down through six generations of Cowpers before it was sold to Duveen Brothers, Inc. in 1913. In 1914, it was sold to American magnate Peter A.B. Widener, who displayed the painting at Lynnewood Hall. Peter A.B. Widener's son, Joseph E. Widener, donated the Small Cowper Madonna to the National Gallery of Art in 1942, along with the rest of Lynnewood Hall's extensive art collection.In 2015 the National Gallery of Art loaned the Small Cowper Madonna to the Worcester Art Museum in Massachusetts (U.S.) to be exhibited alongside The Virgin and Child (The Northbrook Madonna). The Northbrook Madonna is in the Worcester Art Museum's  permanent collection and was once attributed to Raphael. One hope of the exhibition was to identify the artist who painted the Northbrook Madonna. The painter of the Northbrook Madonna was later identified by the museum as perhaps being Domenico Alfani, a close friend of Raphael's whose works have often been misattributed to the better-known artist.

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Raphael

Category:Paintings in the National Gallery of Art


Small Cowper Madonna

Prompt: How does Small Cowper Madonna explain its History?

It is not known exactly why the Small Cowper Madonna was painted. It was probably either a private commission  or for the general art market; images of the Madonna and Child were often given as wedding presents. It is widely thought that the church on the right hand side of the painting is the church of San Bernardino, where the Dukes of Urbino (where Raphael was born) were buried, and it has been suggested that the presence of the church means the painting may have been "commissioned by the family for devotional purposes." Around 1780, the painting was sold to the prominent art collector George Clavering-Cowper, 3rd Earl Cowper, whose surname would lend the painting its name. The painting was passed down through six generations of Cowpers before it was sold to Duveen Brothers, Inc. in 1913. In 1914, it was sold to American magnate Peter A.B. Widener, who displayed the painting at Lynnewood Hall. Peter A.B. Widener's son, Joseph E. Widener, donated the Small Cowper Madonna to the National Gallery of Art in 1942, along with the rest of Lynnewood Hall's extensive art collection.In 2015 the National Gallery of Art loaned the Small Cowper Madonna to the Worcester Art Museum in Massachusetts (U.S.) to be exhibited alongside The Virgin and Child (The Northbrook Madonna). The Northbrook Madonna is in the Worcester Art Museum's  permanent collection and was once attributed to Raphael. One hope of the exhibition was to identify the artist who painted the Northbrook Madonna. The painter of the Northbrook Madonna was later identified by the museum as perhaps being Domenico Alfani, a close friend of Raphael's whose works have often been misattributed to the better-known artist.

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Raphael

Category:Paintings in the National Gallery of Art


Small Cowper Madonna

Prompt: In Small Cowper Madonna, how is the History discussed?

It is not known exactly why the Small Cowper Madonna was painted. It was probably either a private commission  or for the general art market; images of the Madonna and Child were often given as wedding presents. It is widely thought that the church on the right hand side of the painting is the church of San Bernardino, where the Dukes of Urbino (where Raphael was born) were buried, and it has been suggested that the presence of the church means the painting may have been "commissioned by the family for devotional purposes." Around 1780, the painting was sold to the prominent art collector George Clavering-Cowper, 3rd Earl Cowper, whose surname would lend the painting its name. The painting was passed down through six generations of Cowpers before it was sold to Duveen Brothers, Inc. in 1913. In 1914, it was sold to American magnate Peter A.B. Widener, who displayed the painting at Lynnewood Hall. Peter A.B. Widener's son, Joseph E. Widener, donated the Small Cowper Madonna to the National Gallery of Art in 1942, along with the rest of Lynnewood Hall's extensive art collection.In 2015 the National Gallery of Art loaned the Small Cowper Madonna to the Worcester Art Museum in Massachusetts (U.S.) to be exhibited alongside The Virgin and Child (The Northbrook Madonna). The Northbrook Madonna is in the Worcester Art Museum's  permanent collection and was once attributed to Raphael. One hope of the exhibition was to identify the artist who painted the Northbrook Madonna. The painter of the Northbrook Madonna was later identified by the museum as perhaps being Domenico Alfani, a close friend of Raphael's whose works have often been misattributed to the better-known artist.

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Raphael

Category:Paintings in the National Gallery of Art


Small Cowper Madonna

Prompt: Focus on Small Cowper Madonna and explain the Description.

Sitting in the center of the work in a bright red dress is the Madonna. She is fair skinned with blonde hair. She sits comfortably on a wooden bench. Across her lap is a dark drapery upon which her right hand delicately sits. There appears to be a sheer translucent ribbon elegantly flowing across the top of her dress and behind her head. The faintest golden halo miraculously surrounds her head. In her left hand she holds the baby Christ, who embraces her with one arm around her back, the other around her neck. He looks back over his shoulder with a coy smile. Behind them, a beautifully clear and bright day unfolds. Off in the distance two figures appear to be ambling toward a reflective pond, enjoying the green scenery around them. A large structure stands at the end of a long path, thought to be the Church of San Bernardino in Urbino.

George Clavering-Cowper, 3rd Earl Cowper

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Raphael

Category:Paintings in the National Gallery of Art

The Virgin and Child (The Northbrook Madonna)


Small Cowper Madonna

Prompt: Explain the Description of this artwork, Small Cowper Madonna.

Sitting in the center of the work in a bright red dress is the Madonna. She is fair skinned with blonde hair. She sits comfortably on a wooden bench. Across her lap is a dark drapery upon which her right hand delicately sits. There appears to be a sheer translucent ribbon elegantly flowing across the top of her dress and behind her head. The faintest golden halo miraculously surrounds her head. In her left hand she holds the baby Christ, who embraces her with one arm around her back, the other around her neck. He looks back over his shoulder with a coy smile. Behind them, a beautifully clear and bright day unfolds. Off in the distance two figures appear to be ambling toward a reflective pond, enjoying the green scenery around them. A large structure stands at the end of a long path, thought to be the Church of San Bernardino in Urbino.

George Clavering-Cowper, 3rd Earl Cowper

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Raphael

Category:Paintings in the National Gallery of Art

The Virgin and Child (The Northbrook Madonna)


Small Cowper Madonna

Prompt: How does Small Cowper Madonna explain its Description?

Sitting in the center of the work in a bright red dress is the Madonna. She is fair skinned with blonde hair. She sits comfortably on a wooden bench. Across her lap is a dark drapery upon which her right hand delicately sits. There appears to be a sheer translucent ribbon elegantly flowing across the top of her dress and behind her head. The faintest golden halo miraculously surrounds her head. In her left hand she holds the baby Christ, who embraces her with one arm around her back, the other around her neck. He looks back over his shoulder with a coy smile. Behind them, a beautifully clear and bright day unfolds. Off in the distance two figures appear to be ambling toward a reflective pond, enjoying the green scenery around them. A large structure stands at the end of a long path, thought to be the Church of San Bernardino in Urbino.

George Clavering-Cowper, 3rd Earl Cowper

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Raphael

Category:Paintings in the National Gallery of Art

The Virgin and Child (The Northbrook Madonna)


Small Cowper Madonna

Prompt: In Small Cowper Madonna, how is the Description discussed?

Sitting in the center of the work in a bright red dress is the Madonna. She is fair skinned with blonde hair. She sits comfortably on a wooden bench. Across her lap is a dark drapery upon which her right hand delicately sits. There appears to be a sheer translucent ribbon elegantly flowing across the top of her dress and behind her head. The faintest golden halo miraculously surrounds her head. In her left hand she holds the baby Christ, who embraces her with one arm around her back, the other around her neck. He looks back over his shoulder with a coy smile. Behind them, a beautifully clear and bright day unfolds. Off in the distance two figures appear to be ambling toward a reflective pond, enjoying the green scenery around them. A large structure stands at the end of a long path, thought to be the Church of San Bernardino in Urbino.

George Clavering-Cowper, 3rd Earl Cowper

Category:Paintings of the Madonna and Child by Raphael

Category:Paintings in the National Gallery of Art

The Virgin and Child (The Northbrook Madonna)


Droeshout portrait

Prompt: Focus on Droeshout portrait and explain the abstract.

The Droeshout portrait or Droeshout engraving is a portrait of William Shakespeare engraved by Martin Droeshout as the frontispiece for the title page of the First Folio collection of Shakespeare's plays, published in 1623. It is one of only two works of art definitively identifiable as a depiction of the poet; the other is the statue erected as his funeral monument in Shakespeare's home town of Stratford-upon-Avon. Both are posthumous.While its role as a portrait frontispiece is typical of publications from the era, the exact circumstances surrounding the making of the engraving are unknown. It is uncertain which of two "Martin Droeshouts" created the engraving and it is not known to what extent the features were copied from an existing painting or drawing. Critics have generally been unimpressed by it as a work of art, although the engraving has had a few defenders, and exponents of the Shakespeare authorship question have claimed to find coded messages within it.

Droushout's signature, under the image at the left

A stylised version of the Droeshout portrait in the brickwork of a house in Stratford Road, [[Heaton, Newcastle

Category:Portraits of William Shakespeare

National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)

Category:Conspiracy theories in the United Kingdom

The double line created by the space between the shadow-line above the jaw and the jawline itself is claimed by some conspiracy theorists to suggest that Shakespeare's face is a mask.


Droeshout portrait

Prompt: Explain the abstract of this artwork, Droeshout portrait.

The Droeshout portrait or Droeshout engraving is a portrait of William Shakespeare engraved by Martin Droeshout as the frontispiece for the title page of the First Folio collection of Shakespeare's plays, published in 1623. It is one of only two works of art definitively identifiable as a depiction of the poet; the other is the statue erected as his funeral monument in Shakespeare's home town of Stratford-upon-Avon. Both are posthumous.While its role as a portrait frontispiece is typical of publications from the era, the exact circumstances surrounding the making of the engraving are unknown. It is uncertain which of two "Martin Droeshouts" created the engraving and it is not known to what extent the features were copied from an existing painting or drawing. Critics have generally been unimpressed by it as a work of art, although the engraving has had a few defenders, and exponents of the Shakespeare authorship question have claimed to find coded messages within it.

Droushout's signature, under the image at the left

A stylised version of the Droeshout portrait in the brickwork of a house in Stratford Road, [[Heaton, Newcastle

Category:Portraits of William Shakespeare

National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)

Category:Conspiracy theories in the United Kingdom

The double line created by the space between the shadow-line above the jaw and the jawline itself is claimed by some conspiracy theorists to suggest that Shakespeare's face is a mask.


Droeshout portrait

Prompt: How does Droeshout portrait explain its abstract?

The Droeshout portrait or Droeshout engraving is a portrait of William Shakespeare engraved by Martin Droeshout as the frontispiece for the title page of the First Folio collection of Shakespeare's plays, published in 1623. It is one of only two works of art definitively identifiable as a depiction of the poet; the other is the statue erected as his funeral monument in Shakespeare's home town of Stratford-upon-Avon. Both are posthumous.While its role as a portrait frontispiece is typical of publications from the era, the exact circumstances surrounding the making of the engraving are unknown. It is uncertain which of two "Martin Droeshouts" created the engraving and it is not known to what extent the features were copied from an existing painting or drawing. Critics have generally been unimpressed by it as a work of art, although the engraving has had a few defenders, and exponents of the Shakespeare authorship question have claimed to find coded messages within it.

Droushout's signature, under the image at the left

A stylised version of the Droeshout portrait in the brickwork of a house in Stratford Road, [[Heaton, Newcastle

Category:Portraits of William Shakespeare

National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)

Category:Conspiracy theories in the United Kingdom

The double line created by the space between the shadow-line above the jaw and the jawline itself is claimed by some conspiracy theorists to suggest that Shakespeare's face is a mask.


Droeshout portrait

Prompt: In Droeshout portrait, how is the abstract discussed?

The Droeshout portrait or Droeshout engraving is a portrait of William Shakespeare engraved by Martin Droeshout as the frontispiece for the title page of the First Folio collection of Shakespeare's plays, published in 1623. It is one of only two works of art definitively identifiable as a depiction of the poet; the other is the statue erected as his funeral monument in Shakespeare's home town of Stratford-upon-Avon. Both are posthumous.While its role as a portrait frontispiece is typical of publications from the era, the exact circumstances surrounding the making of the engraving are unknown. It is uncertain which of two "Martin Droeshouts" created the engraving and it is not known to what extent the features were copied from an existing painting or drawing. Critics have generally been unimpressed by it as a work of art, although the engraving has had a few defenders, and exponents of the Shakespeare authorship question have claimed to find coded messages within it.

Droushout's signature, under the image at the left

A stylised version of the Droeshout portrait in the brickwork of a house in Stratford Road, [[Heaton, Newcastle

Category:Portraits of William Shakespeare

National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)

Category:Conspiracy theories in the United Kingdom

The double line created by the space between the shadow-line above the jaw and the jawline itself is claimed by some conspiracy theorists to suggest that Shakespeare's face is a mask.


Droeshout portrait

Prompt: Focus on Droeshout portrait and explain the States.

The portrait exists in two "states", or distinct versions of the image, printed from the same plate by Droeshout himself. Examples of the first state are very rare, existing in only four copies. These were probably test printings, created so that the engraver could see whether some alterations needed to be made. The overwhelming majority of surviving copies of the First Folio use the second state, which has heavier shadows and other minor differences, notably in the jawline and the moustache.Later copies of the second state, with minor retouching, were also printed from the plate by Thomas Cotes in 1632, for Robert Allot's Second Folio, a new edition of the collected plays. It was also reused in later folios, although by then the plate was beginning to wear out and was heavily re-engraved. The original plate was still being used up to the Fourth Folio of 1685 (heavily retouched)  and then disappears. Already in 1640 William Marshall had copied and adapted the design on a new plate for John Benson's edition of Shakespeare's sonnets. All subsequent engraved reprintings of the portrait were made by later engravers copying the original printed image.

Droushout's signature, under the image at the left

A stylised version of the Droeshout portrait in the brickwork of a house in Stratford Road, [[Heaton, Newcastle

Category:Portraits of William Shakespeare

National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)

Category:Conspiracy theories in the United Kingdom

The double line created by the space between the shadow-line above the jaw and the jawline itself is claimed by some conspiracy theorists to suggest that Shakespeare's face is a mask.


Droeshout portrait

Prompt: Explain the States of this artwork, Droeshout portrait.

The portrait exists in two "states", or distinct versions of the image, printed from the same plate by Droeshout himself. Examples of the first state are very rare, existing in only four copies. These were probably test printings, created so that the engraver could see whether some alterations needed to be made. The overwhelming majority of surviving copies of the First Folio use the second state, which has heavier shadows and other minor differences, notably in the jawline and the moustache.Later copies of the second state, with minor retouching, were also printed from the plate by Thomas Cotes in 1632, for Robert Allot's Second Folio, a new edition of the collected plays. It was also reused in later folios, although by then the plate was beginning to wear out and was heavily re-engraved. The original plate was still being used up to the Fourth Folio of 1685 (heavily retouched)  and then disappears. Already in 1640 William Marshall had copied and adapted the design on a new plate for John Benson's edition of Shakespeare's sonnets. All subsequent engraved reprintings of the portrait were made by later engravers copying the original printed image.

Droushout's signature, under the image at the left

A stylised version of the Droeshout portrait in the brickwork of a house in Stratford Road, [[Heaton, Newcastle

Category:Portraits of William Shakespeare

National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)

Category:Conspiracy theories in the United Kingdom

The double line created by the space between the shadow-line above the jaw and the jawline itself is claimed by some conspiracy theorists to suggest that Shakespeare's face is a mask.


Droeshout portrait

Prompt: How does Droeshout portrait explain its States?

The portrait exists in two "states", or distinct versions of the image, printed from the same plate by Droeshout himself. Examples of the first state are very rare, existing in only four copies. These were probably test printings, created so that the engraver could see whether some alterations needed to be made. The overwhelming majority of surviving copies of the First Folio use the second state, which has heavier shadows and other minor differences, notably in the jawline and the moustache.Later copies of the second state, with minor retouching, were also printed from the plate by Thomas Cotes in 1632, for Robert Allot's Second Folio, a new edition of the collected plays. It was also reused in later folios, although by then the plate was beginning to wear out and was heavily re-engraved. The original plate was still being used up to the Fourth Folio of 1685 (heavily retouched)  and then disappears. Already in 1640 William Marshall had copied and adapted the design on a new plate for John Benson's edition of Shakespeare's sonnets. All subsequent engraved reprintings of the portrait were made by later engravers copying the original printed image.

Droushout's signature, under the image at the left

A stylised version of the Droeshout portrait in the brickwork of a house in Stratford Road, [[Heaton, Newcastle

Category:Portraits of William Shakespeare

National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)

Category:Conspiracy theories in the United Kingdom

The double line created by the space between the shadow-line above the jaw and the jawline itself is claimed by some conspiracy theorists to suggest that Shakespeare's face is a mask.


Droeshout portrait

Prompt: In Droeshout portrait, how is the States discussed?

The portrait exists in two "states", or distinct versions of the image, printed from the same plate by Droeshout himself. Examples of the first state are very rare, existing in only four copies. These were probably test printings, created so that the engraver could see whether some alterations needed to be made. The overwhelming majority of surviving copies of the First Folio use the second state, which has heavier shadows and other minor differences, notably in the jawline and the moustache.Later copies of the second state, with minor retouching, were also printed from the plate by Thomas Cotes in 1632, for Robert Allot's Second Folio, a new edition of the collected plays. It was also reused in later folios, although by then the plate was beginning to wear out and was heavily re-engraved. The original plate was still being used up to the Fourth Folio of 1685 (heavily retouched)  and then disappears. Already in 1640 William Marshall had copied and adapted the design on a new plate for John Benson's edition of Shakespeare's sonnets. All subsequent engraved reprintings of the portrait were made by later engravers copying the original printed image.

Droushout's signature, under the image at the left

A stylised version of the Droeshout portrait in the brickwork of a house in Stratford Road, [[Heaton, Newcastle

Category:Portraits of William Shakespeare

National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)

Category:Conspiracy theories in the United Kingdom

The double line created by the space between the shadow-line above the jaw and the jawline itself is claimed by some conspiracy theorists to suggest that Shakespeare's face is a mask.


Droeshout portrait

Prompt: Focus on Droeshout portrait and explain the Authorship.

The engraving is signed under the image at the left, "Martin Droeshout. sculpsit. London". The Droeshouts were a family of artists from the Netherlands, who had moved to Britain. Because there were two members of the family named Martin there has been some dispute about which of the two created the engraving. Most sources state that the engraver was Martin Droeshout the Younger (1601 – after 1639), the son of Michael Droeshout, an immigrant from Brussels. Except for his date of birth and parentage, very little is known about Martin the Younger, but since his father was an engraver, it has been assumed that Martin followed in his father's footsteps, and that he made the engraving of Shakespeare. As he was 15 when Shakespeare died, he may never have seen him and it has been assumed that he worked from an existing image.Research by Mary Edmond into the Droeshout family revealed new information about Martin Droeshout the Elder (c. 1560s – 1642), who was the uncle of the younger Martin. Edmond shows that Droeshout the Elder was a member of the Painter-Stainer's Company. Edmond writes,It seems perverse to attribute the Shakespeare engraving to the obscure and unsuitably young Martin Droeshout, born in 1601, as is customary, when there is a quite well-documented artist of the same name to hand, in the person of his uncle".In 1991 Christiaan Schuckman discovered a set of signed plates in Madrid, Spain, that can be attributed to the engraver of the First Folio portrait. These plates bear Droeshout's signature and are stylistically similar to his portrait of Shakespeare. (They include a portrait of the priest and writer Francisco de la Peña that has a striking resemblance to the English poet). On the evidence of these plates, which were made between 1635 and 1639, Schuckman attributed the portrait of Shakespeare to the younger Martin and suggested that the engraver had converted to Catholicism and emigrated to Spain in 1635, where he continued to work.More recently, June Schlueter has found evidence that Martin the Elder was in London when the engraver of the First Folio portrait was known to be in Madrid. Although she began her archival research hoping to prove Edmond's assertion that the elder Martin was the Shakespeare engraver, Schlueter concludes that the newly discovered evidence actually supports the younger.The traditional attribution to Droeshout the younger can also be supported on stylistic grounds. A drawing known to be by Droeshout the elder appears to show superior artistic skill than the work of his nephew, and the clumsy features of the depiction of Shakespeare's body resemble other prints by Droeshout the Younger. The attribution to the younger artist is provisionally accepted by the National Portrait Gallery.

Droushout's signature, under the image at the left

A stylised version of the Droeshout portrait in the brickwork of a house in Stratford Road, [[Heaton, Newcastle

Category:Portraits of William Shakespeare

National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)

Category:Conspiracy theories in the United Kingdom

The double line created by the space between the shadow-line above the jaw and the jawline itself is claimed by some conspiracy theorists to suggest that Shakespeare's face is a mask.


Droeshout portrait

Prompt: Explain the Authorship of this artwork, Droeshout portrait.

The engraving is signed under the image at the left, "Martin Droeshout. sculpsit. London". The Droeshouts were a family of artists from the Netherlands, who had moved to Britain. Because there were two members of the family named Martin there has been some dispute about which of the two created the engraving. Most sources state that the engraver was Martin Droeshout the Younger (1601 – after 1639), the son of Michael Droeshout, an immigrant from Brussels. Except for his date of birth and parentage, very little is known about Martin the Younger, but since his father was an engraver, it has been assumed that Martin followed in his father's footsteps, and that he made the engraving of Shakespeare. As he was 15 when Shakespeare died, he may never have seen him and it has been assumed that he worked from an existing image.Research by Mary Edmond into the Droeshout family revealed new information about Martin Droeshout the Elder (c. 1560s – 1642), who was the uncle of the younger Martin. Edmond shows that Droeshout the Elder was a member of the Painter-Stainer's Company. Edmond writes,It seems perverse to attribute the Shakespeare engraving to the obscure and unsuitably young Martin Droeshout, born in 1601, as is customary, when there is a quite well-documented artist of the same name to hand, in the person of his uncle".In 1991 Christiaan Schuckman discovered a set of signed plates in Madrid, Spain, that can be attributed to the engraver of the First Folio portrait. These plates bear Droeshout's signature and are stylistically similar to his portrait of Shakespeare. (They include a portrait of the priest and writer Francisco de la Peña that has a striking resemblance to the English poet). On the evidence of these plates, which were made between 1635 and 1639, Schuckman attributed the portrait of Shakespeare to the younger Martin and suggested that the engraver had converted to Catholicism and emigrated to Spain in 1635, where he continued to work.More recently, June Schlueter has found evidence that Martin the Elder was in London when the engraver of the First Folio portrait was known to be in Madrid. Although she began her archival research hoping to prove Edmond's assertion that the elder Martin was the Shakespeare engraver, Schlueter concludes that the newly discovered evidence actually supports the younger.The traditional attribution to Droeshout the younger can also be supported on stylistic grounds. A drawing known to be by Droeshout the elder appears to show superior artistic skill than the work of his nephew, and the clumsy features of the depiction of Shakespeare's body resemble other prints by Droeshout the Younger. The attribution to the younger artist is provisionally accepted by the National Portrait Gallery.

Droushout's signature, under the image at the left

A stylised version of the Droeshout portrait in the brickwork of a house in Stratford Road, [[Heaton, Newcastle

Category:Portraits of William Shakespeare

National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)

Category:Conspiracy theories in the United Kingdom

The double line created by the space between the shadow-line above the jaw and the jawline itself is claimed by some conspiracy theorists to suggest that Shakespeare's face is a mask.


Droeshout portrait

Prompt: How does Droeshout portrait explain its Authorship?

The engraving is signed under the image at the left, "Martin Droeshout. sculpsit. London". The Droeshouts were a family of artists from the Netherlands, who had moved to Britain. Because there were two members of the family named Martin there has been some dispute about which of the two created the engraving. Most sources state that the engraver was Martin Droeshout the Younger (1601 – after 1639), the son of Michael Droeshout, an immigrant from Brussels. Except for his date of birth and parentage, very little is known about Martin the Younger, but since his father was an engraver, it has been assumed that Martin followed in his father's footsteps, and that he made the engraving of Shakespeare. As he was 15 when Shakespeare died, he may never have seen him and it has been assumed that he worked from an existing image.Research by Mary Edmond into the Droeshout family revealed new information about Martin Droeshout the Elder (c. 1560s – 1642), who was the uncle of the younger Martin. Edmond shows that Droeshout the Elder was a member of the Painter-Stainer's Company. Edmond writes,It seems perverse to attribute the Shakespeare engraving to the obscure and unsuitably young Martin Droeshout, born in 1601, as is customary, when there is a quite well-documented artist of the same name to hand, in the person of his uncle".In 1991 Christiaan Schuckman discovered a set of signed plates in Madrid, Spain, that can be attributed to the engraver of the First Folio portrait. These plates bear Droeshout's signature and are stylistically similar to his portrait of Shakespeare. (They include a portrait of the priest and writer Francisco de la Peña that has a striking resemblance to the English poet). On the evidence of these plates, which were made between 1635 and 1639, Schuckman attributed the portrait of Shakespeare to the younger Martin and suggested that the engraver had converted to Catholicism and emigrated to Spain in 1635, where he continued to work.More recently, June Schlueter has found evidence that Martin the Elder was in London when the engraver of the First Folio portrait was known to be in Madrid. Although she began her archival research hoping to prove Edmond's assertion that the elder Martin was the Shakespeare engraver, Schlueter concludes that the newly discovered evidence actually supports the younger.The traditional attribution to Droeshout the younger can also be supported on stylistic grounds. A drawing known to be by Droeshout the elder appears to show superior artistic skill than the work of his nephew, and the clumsy features of the depiction of Shakespeare's body resemble other prints by Droeshout the Younger. The attribution to the younger artist is provisionally accepted by the National Portrait Gallery.

Droushout's signature, under the image at the left

A stylised version of the Droeshout portrait in the brickwork of a house in Stratford Road, [[Heaton, Newcastle

Category:Portraits of William Shakespeare

National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)

Category:Conspiracy theories in the United Kingdom

The double line created by the space between the shadow-line above the jaw and the jawline itself is claimed by some conspiracy theorists to suggest that Shakespeare's face is a mask.


Droeshout portrait

Prompt: In Droeshout portrait, how is the Authorship discussed?

The engraving is signed under the image at the left, "Martin Droeshout. sculpsit. London". The Droeshouts were a family of artists from the Netherlands, who had moved to Britain. Because there were two members of the family named Martin there has been some dispute about which of the two created the engraving. Most sources state that the engraver was Martin Droeshout the Younger (1601 – after 1639), the son of Michael Droeshout, an immigrant from Brussels. Except for his date of birth and parentage, very little is known about Martin the Younger, but since his father was an engraver, it has been assumed that Martin followed in his father's footsteps, and that he made the engraving of Shakespeare. As he was 15 when Shakespeare died, he may never have seen him and it has been assumed that he worked from an existing image.Research by Mary Edmond into the Droeshout family revealed new information about Martin Droeshout the Elder (c. 1560s – 1642), who was the uncle of the younger Martin. Edmond shows that Droeshout the Elder was a member of the Painter-Stainer's Company. Edmond writes,It seems perverse to attribute the Shakespeare engraving to the obscure and unsuitably young Martin Droeshout, born in 1601, as is customary, when there is a quite well-documented artist of the same name to hand, in the person of his uncle".In 1991 Christiaan Schuckman discovered a set of signed plates in Madrid, Spain, that can be attributed to the engraver of the First Folio portrait. These plates bear Droeshout's signature and are stylistically similar to his portrait of Shakespeare. (They include a portrait of the priest and writer Francisco de la Peña that has a striking resemblance to the English poet). On the evidence of these plates, which were made between 1635 and 1639, Schuckman attributed the portrait of Shakespeare to the younger Martin and suggested that the engraver had converted to Catholicism and emigrated to Spain in 1635, where he continued to work.More recently, June Schlueter has found evidence that Martin the Elder was in London when the engraver of the First Folio portrait was known to be in Madrid. Although she began her archival research hoping to prove Edmond's assertion that the elder Martin was the Shakespeare engraver, Schlueter concludes that the newly discovered evidence actually supports the younger.The traditional attribution to Droeshout the younger can also be supported on stylistic grounds. A drawing known to be by Droeshout the elder appears to show superior artistic skill than the work of his nephew, and the clumsy features of the depiction of Shakespeare's body resemble other prints by Droeshout the Younger. The attribution to the younger artist is provisionally accepted by the National Portrait Gallery.

Droushout's signature, under the image at the left

A stylised version of the Droeshout portrait in the brickwork of a house in Stratford Road, [[Heaton, Newcastle

Category:Portraits of William Shakespeare

National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)

Category:Conspiracy theories in the United Kingdom

The double line created by the space between the shadow-line above the jaw and the jawline itself is claimed by some conspiracy theorists to suggest that Shakespeare's face is a mask.


Droeshout portrait

Prompt: Focus on Droeshout portrait and explain the Significance.

The engraving is praised by Shakespeare's friend Ben Jonson in his poem To the Reader printed alongside it, in which he says that it is a good likeness of the poet. He writes that "the graver had a strife / With nature to outdo the life" and that he has "hit his face" accurately. He adds that the engraver could not represent Shakespeare's "wit", for which the viewer will have to read the book.Because of this testimony to the accuracy of the portrait, commentators have used the Droeshout print as a standard by which to judge other portraits alleged to depict Shakespeare. As the 19th-century artist and writer Abraham Wivell put it,It is, as I may say, the key to unlock and detect almost all the impositions that have, at various times, arrested so much of public attention. It is a witness that can refute all false evidence, and will satisfy every discerner, how to appreciate, how to convict.In a similar vein, art historian Tarnya Cooper, in 2006, writes that "it is the only portrait that definitely provides us with a reasonable idea of Shakespeare's appearance".

Droushout's signature, under the image at the left

A stylised version of the Droeshout portrait in the brickwork of a house in Stratford Road, [[Heaton, Newcastle

Category:Portraits of William Shakespeare

National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)

Category:Conspiracy theories in the United Kingdom

The double line created by the space between the shadow-line above the jaw and the jawline itself is claimed by some conspiracy theorists to suggest that Shakespeare's face is a mask.


Droeshout portrait

Prompt: Explain the Significance of this artwork, Droeshout portrait.

The engraving is praised by Shakespeare's friend Ben Jonson in his poem To the Reader printed alongside it, in which he says that it is a good likeness of the poet. He writes that "the graver had a strife / With nature to outdo the life" and that he has "hit his face" accurately. He adds that the engraver could not represent Shakespeare's "wit", for which the viewer will have to read the book.Because of this testimony to the accuracy of the portrait, commentators have used the Droeshout print as a standard by which to judge other portraits alleged to depict Shakespeare. As the 19th-century artist and writer Abraham Wivell put it,It is, as I may say, the key to unlock and detect almost all the impositions that have, at various times, arrested so much of public attention. It is a witness that can refute all false evidence, and will satisfy every discerner, how to appreciate, how to convict.In a similar vein, art historian Tarnya Cooper, in 2006, writes that "it is the only portrait that definitely provides us with a reasonable idea of Shakespeare's appearance".

Droushout's signature, under the image at the left

A stylised version of the Droeshout portrait in the brickwork of a house in Stratford Road, [[Heaton, Newcastle

Category:Portraits of William Shakespeare

National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)

Category:Conspiracy theories in the United Kingdom

The double line created by the space between the shadow-line above the jaw and the jawline itself is claimed by some conspiracy theorists to suggest that Shakespeare's face is a mask.


Droeshout portrait

Prompt: How does Droeshout portrait explain its Significance?

The engraving is praised by Shakespeare's friend Ben Jonson in his poem To the Reader printed alongside it, in which he says that it is a good likeness of the poet. He writes that "the graver had a strife / With nature to outdo the life" and that he has "hit his face" accurately. He adds that the engraver could not represent Shakespeare's "wit", for which the viewer will have to read the book.Because of this testimony to the accuracy of the portrait, commentators have used the Droeshout print as a standard by which to judge other portraits alleged to depict Shakespeare. As the 19th-century artist and writer Abraham Wivell put it,It is, as I may say, the key to unlock and detect almost all the impositions that have, at various times, arrested so much of public attention. It is a witness that can refute all false evidence, and will satisfy every discerner, how to appreciate, how to convict.In a similar vein, art historian Tarnya Cooper, in 2006, writes that "it is the only portrait that definitely provides us with a reasonable idea of Shakespeare's appearance".

Droushout's signature, under the image at the left

A stylised version of the Droeshout portrait in the brickwork of a house in Stratford Road, [[Heaton, Newcastle

Category:Portraits of William Shakespeare

National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)

Category:Conspiracy theories in the United Kingdom

The double line created by the space between the shadow-line above the jaw and the jawline itself is claimed by some conspiracy theorists to suggest that Shakespeare's face is a mask.


Droeshout portrait

Prompt: In Droeshout portrait, how is the Significance discussed?

The engraving is praised by Shakespeare's friend Ben Jonson in his poem To the Reader printed alongside it, in which he says that it is a good likeness of the poet. He writes that "the graver had a strife / With nature to outdo the life" and that he has "hit his face" accurately. He adds that the engraver could not represent Shakespeare's "wit", for which the viewer will have to read the book.Because of this testimony to the accuracy of the portrait, commentators have used the Droeshout print as a standard by which to judge other portraits alleged to depict Shakespeare. As the 19th-century artist and writer Abraham Wivell put it,It is, as I may say, the key to unlock and detect almost all the impositions that have, at various times, arrested so much of public attention. It is a witness that can refute all false evidence, and will satisfy every discerner, how to appreciate, how to convict.In a similar vein, art historian Tarnya Cooper, in 2006, writes that "it is the only portrait that definitely provides us with a reasonable idea of Shakespeare's appearance".

Droushout's signature, under the image at the left

A stylised version of the Droeshout portrait in the brickwork of a house in Stratford Road, [[Heaton, Newcastle

Category:Portraits of William Shakespeare

National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)

Category:Conspiracy theories in the United Kingdom

The double line created by the space between the shadow-line above the jaw and the jawline itself is claimed by some conspiracy theorists to suggest that Shakespeare's face is a mask.


Droeshout portrait

Prompt: In the context of Droeshout portrait, explain the Source image and the Significance.

In addition to its use as a template to judge the authenticity of other images, scholars have alsospeculated about the original source used by Droeshout himself. The 19th-century scholar George Scharf argued on the basis of the inconsistencies in the lights and shadows that the original image would have been "either a limning or a crayon drawing". These typically used outlines rather than chiaroscuro modelling. He deduced that Droeshout had inexpertly attempted to add modelling shadows. Mary Edmond points out that Droeshout the Elder seems to have had an association with Marcus Gheeraerts the portraitist, and notes that there is evidence that a portrait of Shakespeare by Gheeraerts may have once existed. She surmises that Droeshout's engraving may have been derived from this lost portrait. Cooper argues that the poor drawing and modelling of the doublet and collar suggests that Droeshout was copying a lost drawing or painting that only depicted Shakespeare's head and shoulders. The body was added by the engraver himself, as was common practice.In the 19th century a painting that came to be known as the Flower portrait was discovered, inscribed with the date 1609 and painted on an authentic 17th-century panel. It was initially widely accepted as the original work from which Droeshout had copied his engraving, but in 1905 the art scholar Marion Spielmann demonstrated that the portrait corresponded to  the second state of Droeshout's print. Taking the view that if it were the source, the first state would be closest, he concluded that it was a copy from the print. In 2005 chemical analysis proved the portrait to be a 19th-century fake painted over an authentic 17th-century image.

Droushout's signature, under the image at the left

A stylised version of the Droeshout portrait in the brickwork of a house in Stratford Road, [[Heaton, Newcastle

Category:Portraits of William Shakespeare

National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)

Category:Conspiracy theories in the United Kingdom

The double line created by the space between the shadow-line above the jaw and the jawline itself is claimed by some conspiracy theorists to suggest that Shakespeare's face is a mask.


Droeshout portrait

Prompt: Explain the Source image about the Significance of this artwork, Droeshout portrait.

In addition to its use as a template to judge the authenticity of other images, scholars have alsospeculated about the original source used by Droeshout himself. The 19th-century scholar George Scharf argued on the basis of the inconsistencies in the lights and shadows that the original image would have been "either a limning or a crayon drawing". These typically used outlines rather than chiaroscuro modelling. He deduced that Droeshout had inexpertly attempted to add modelling shadows. Mary Edmond points out that Droeshout the Elder seems to have had an association with Marcus Gheeraerts the portraitist, and notes that there is evidence that a portrait of Shakespeare by Gheeraerts may have once existed. She surmises that Droeshout's engraving may have been derived from this lost portrait. Cooper argues that the poor drawing and modelling of the doublet and collar suggests that Droeshout was copying a lost drawing or painting that only depicted Shakespeare's head and shoulders. The body was added by the engraver himself, as was common practice.In the 19th century a painting that came to be known as the Flower portrait was discovered, inscribed with the date 1609 and painted on an authentic 17th-century panel. It was initially widely accepted as the original work from which Droeshout had copied his engraving, but in 1905 the art scholar Marion Spielmann demonstrated that the portrait corresponded to  the second state of Droeshout's print. Taking the view that if it were the source, the first state would be closest, he concluded that it was a copy from the print. In 2005 chemical analysis proved the portrait to be a 19th-century fake painted over an authentic 17th-century image.

Droushout's signature, under the image at the left

A stylised version of the Droeshout portrait in the brickwork of a house in Stratford Road, [[Heaton, Newcastle

Category:Portraits of William Shakespeare

National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)

Category:Conspiracy theories in the United Kingdom

The double line created by the space between the shadow-line above the jaw and the jawline itself is claimed by some conspiracy theorists to suggest that Shakespeare's face is a mask.


Droeshout portrait

Prompt: In Droeshout portrait, how is the Source image of the Significance explained?

In addition to its use as a template to judge the authenticity of other images, scholars have alsospeculated about the original source used by Droeshout himself. The 19th-century scholar George Scharf argued on the basis of the inconsistencies in the lights and shadows that the original image would have been "either a limning or a crayon drawing". These typically used outlines rather than chiaroscuro modelling. He deduced that Droeshout had inexpertly attempted to add modelling shadows. Mary Edmond points out that Droeshout the Elder seems to have had an association with Marcus Gheeraerts the portraitist, and notes that there is evidence that a portrait of Shakespeare by Gheeraerts may have once existed. She surmises that Droeshout's engraving may have been derived from this lost portrait. Cooper argues that the poor drawing and modelling of the doublet and collar suggests that Droeshout was copying a lost drawing or painting that only depicted Shakespeare's head and shoulders. The body was added by the engraver himself, as was common practice.In the 19th century a painting that came to be known as the Flower portrait was discovered, inscribed with the date 1609 and painted on an authentic 17th-century panel. It was initially widely accepted as the original work from which Droeshout had copied his engraving, but in 1905 the art scholar Marion Spielmann demonstrated that the portrait corresponded to  the second state of Droeshout's print. Taking the view that if it were the source, the first state would be closest, he concluded that it was a copy from the print. In 2005 chemical analysis proved the portrait to be a 19th-century fake painted over an authentic 17th-century image.

Droushout's signature, under the image at the left

A stylised version of the Droeshout portrait in the brickwork of a house in Stratford Road, [[Heaton, Newcastle

Category:Portraits of William Shakespeare

National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)

Category:Conspiracy theories in the United Kingdom

The double line created by the space between the shadow-line above the jaw and the jawline itself is claimed by some conspiracy theorists to suggest that Shakespeare's face is a mask.


Droeshout portrait

Prompt: Describe the characteristics of the Source image in Droeshout portrait's Significance.

In addition to its use as a template to judge the authenticity of other images, scholars have alsospeculated about the original source used by Droeshout himself. The 19th-century scholar George Scharf argued on the basis of the inconsistencies in the lights and shadows that the original image would have been "either a limning or a crayon drawing". These typically used outlines rather than chiaroscuro modelling. He deduced that Droeshout had inexpertly attempted to add modelling shadows. Mary Edmond points out that Droeshout the Elder seems to have had an association with Marcus Gheeraerts the portraitist, and notes that there is evidence that a portrait of Shakespeare by Gheeraerts may have once existed. She surmises that Droeshout's engraving may have been derived from this lost portrait. Cooper argues that the poor drawing and modelling of the doublet and collar suggests that Droeshout was copying a lost drawing or painting that only depicted Shakespeare's head and shoulders. The body was added by the engraver himself, as was common practice.In the 19th century a painting that came to be known as the Flower portrait was discovered, inscribed with the date 1609 and painted on an authentic 17th-century panel. It was initially widely accepted as the original work from which Droeshout had copied his engraving, but in 1905 the art scholar Marion Spielmann demonstrated that the portrait corresponded to  the second state of Droeshout's print. Taking the view that if it were the source, the first state would be closest, he concluded that it was a copy from the print. In 2005 chemical analysis proved the portrait to be a 19th-century fake painted over an authentic 17th-century image.

Droushout's signature, under the image at the left

A stylised version of the Droeshout portrait in the brickwork of a house in Stratford Road, [[Heaton, Newcastle

Category:Portraits of William Shakespeare

National Portrait Gallery (United Kingdom)

Category:Conspiracy theories in the United Kingdom

The double line created by the space between the shadow-line above the jaw and the jawline itself is claimed by some conspiracy theorists to suggest that Shakespeare's face is a mask.