'BE MOiTUMENTOF SHAKSPEARE ERECTED IK THE CHA>'i'K I, OF THE CHURCH AT STKATFOK.JD) UPON The fyure of -(he bust ty' treet, Zast. AN INQUIRY INTO THE g, autfjntttcttB, $ Characteristics OF THE SHAKSPEARE PORTRAITS, IN WHICH THE CRITICISMS OF MALONE, STEEVENS, BOADEN, & OTHERS, &re 35jamfne&, Confirm^, or l&efutrtr. EMBRACING THE FELTON, THE CHANDOS, THE DUKE OF SOMERSET'S PICTURES, THE DROESHOUT PRINT, AND THE MONUMENT OF SHAKSPEARE, AT STRATFORD ; Together with an Exposfe of the spurious Pictures and Prints. BY ABRAHAM WIVELL, PORTRAIT PAINTER. HontJon; PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR, 40, CASTLE STREET EAST, OXFORD STREET, AND SOLD BY ALL KOOKSELLERS. 1827. PRINTED BY W. SMITH AND CO. KING STREET, LONG ACRE. CONTENTS. "T Page Dedication * 1 Introduction .... 3 Advertisement to the Preface of Mr. Richardson's Proposals, &c. &c. 1794 7 Preface to Mr. Richardson's Proposals 11 Richardson's Proposals 25 Supplement to ditto * 29 Remarks on Mr. Steeven's Opinion of the Felton Picture .... 37 On Mr. Boaden's Allusion to,, and Opinion of it 38 On Mr. Richardson's Proposals 39 On Burbage being the Painter of it ^ 40 Comparison of it, with the Bust of Shakspeare at Stratford .... 43 Remarks on the Chandos Head, and Comparison of it with the Feiton Picture . . 46 Sir G, Kneller's Copy of the Chandos Picture 50 Various Copies from ditto, see Note 53 Remarks on the Droeshout's and Marshall's Engravings 53 Cooper's Engraving of the Chandos Picture > 53 Remarks on Mr. Britton's and Malone's Opinions of the Engrav- ings, by Droeshout. 56 Account of the various States of the Droeshout Print in 39 years 56 Remarks on Sir Joshua's Picture of Garrick, between Tragedy and Comedy 57 Boaden under a Mistake as to the wearing of the Droeshout Print 58 Boadeu's Idea of having discovered the Original Picture, which Droeshout engraved, refuted 60 Errors of Malone on the Engravings of the Shakspeare Monu- ments 62 Observations upon Mr. Ozias Humphry's Copy of the Chandos Picture, and Mr. Scriven's Engraving from it 63 On the Inaccuracies and Contradictions of Mr. Boaden's Work. . $4 On the Costume of the Felton Picture 64 Mr. Boaden under a Mistake as to Houbraken being the first Engraver that represented Portraits to look the same Way as the Pictures 71 Mr. Boaden and the Irclands' Forgeries 79 727 CONTENTS. Page Answers to Mr. Boaden, why Mr. Nicol became the Purchaser of the Fclton Picture 88 The Shakspeare Portrait supposed to be painted by Cornelius Jansen, printed verbatim from Mr. Boaden's Account, with the Author's Opinion and Observations 91 Further Account of the Jansen Picture, as given by Boaden, with Remarks thereon 103 Observations on Mr. Cooper's Engraving from a Picture in the Possession of J. W. Croker, Esq. M. P 112 Doubts satisfied, by J. Boaden, as to whether Shakspeare was a Person of sufficient worldly Importance to have his Portrait painted in the Style by Jansen 113 Further Remarks on the Felton Picture, and Mr. Josiah Boy- dell's Copy of it 119 Biographical Memoir of Mr. Steevens * 120 Shakspeare's Monument at Stratford; its Character, History, and Authenticity 125 An Account of the Miniature supposed to be painted by Nicholas Hilliard, as given by Boaden, with Remarks thereon 149 The Portrait of Shakspeare, by Zoust, ditto, ditto 157 Boaden's Account of the Portrait of Shakspeare, by Zucchero 165 Dunford's (Mr.) Shakspeare, painted by R. Holder 169 Statue of Shakspeare in the Town Hall at Stratford 186 Macheil Stace's Portrait of Shakspeare 1 87 Dr. Hardie's Portrait of Shakspeare r. 1 93 Talma's Portrait of Shakspeare, painted by W. F. Zin'cke .... 197 Zincke, the Painter of a Portrait of Shakspeare, belonging to Mr. Thane 1 98 Wilson, the Painter of a Portrait of Shakspeare, in the Town Hall at Stratford ....206 Mr. Winstanley's Portrait of Shakspeare, painted by Zincke . , 207 H. C. Jenning's Miniature of Shakspeare 209 The Hon. H. T. Liddell's Portrait of Shakspeare, painted by Holder ... 211 Further Remarks upon the Chandos Portrait 21 7 On Mr. Ozias Humphry's Character as an Artist, and his various Copies from the Chtindos Picture 217 Comparisons between the Chandos and Felton Portraits 221 Mr. Mathew's Discovery of the ancient way of spelling Shak- speare's Name 023 Criticisms upon the various engraved Portraits and Monuments of Shakspeare , , ,,.. 227 DEDICATION. SIR, IN compiling the few following pages on the Shakspeare Portraits, it has often recurred to my mind, that I am indebted to you as the original cause of such an undertaking, which would cer- tainly have never been proceeded in had you not, in the most flattering manner, encouraged me in perfecting a drawing from the Monumental Bust of the immortal Bard. But to single this circumstance as the only instance of the benefits I have received from you, would be a breach of justice, as your encouragement of, and liberality to me, in other respects, far exceeds that of any other individual. With these sentiments and feelings of gratitude, I humbly dedicate this work to you, and have the Honor to be, SIR, Your obliged and obedient Servant, A. WIVELL, 40, Castle Street, East, London. To JOHN CORDY, Esq. &c. &c. &c. Brighton. A INTRODUCTION. Having once submitted to the public " An Historical Account of the Stratford Monument of Shakspeare" I am induced) from the general satisfaction that little work excited, to offer a few observations tending to prove the originality of some pictures of the immortal Bard. That such a discovery must be interesting to the world at large, and to the lovers of the drama more particularly, is a fact which cannot be disputed; and, I trust, from the force of the evidence I have been able to produce in the following pages, t/iat even the most sceptical will be convinced of their originality. When we call to remembrance that the Writings of Shakspeare have excited so much interest in the literary world, as to have been deemed worthy of adding, amongst a host of commentators, the names of such men as Warburton, Pope, Warton, Sfc. fyc. I presume that some attention is also due to an A 2 IV INTRODUCTION. attempt to establish the resemblance of such a poet, tvhich has hitherto been so long obscured in mystery, and to show c as 'twere, the mirror up to nature' The inducement which excited me to the under- taking of this work, was to expose falsehood and calumny, with the view to establish TRUTH, which, as Johnson says, < is the basis of all excellence' Professing myself a lover of the Poefs works, I naturally must esteem his likeness, one of which I had the pleasure of seeing, and also reading an account of, as given by the late George Steevens* Esq. For some further information on the subject, I next had recourse to Mr. James Boaderis Book of Inquiry, but instead of finding proof of its originallity, the account teas derogatory both to the portrait and the commentator. By presuming to criticise on the opinions of Malone and Steevens, some apology may be neces- sary. I have only to remark, that every profes- sional man must be the most competent judge of his own profession ; and though he may not have those literary acquirements to embellish with so refined * Shakspeare's Works, in 21 vols. 1813. INTRODUCTION. V a language, he is, nevertheless, the most capable to aver what is incongruously stated by any other person upon it. Mr. Steevens has candidly given to the world his opinions, that the Felton picture, of all the portraits called Shakspeare, had the fairest chance of being a genuine likeness of the author, and which account I have given in full, at the end of this introduction. The owner of this picture, at the present time, is George Nicol, Esq. of Pall Mall; I had the pleasure of waiting on this venerable gentleman, who received me with every mark of kindness, he permitted me to make a drawing from the picture, and assisted me with some information, valuable to my undertaking, ichich I beg to lay before the public, in vindication of its claims and merits, after the flippant attempts Mr. Boaden has made to decry so valuable a pro- duction. The six engravings which accompany this work, are as correct as can well be made, and owing to the resemblance they bear to each other, I have shown the bust in the same view as the other five, in order to give every individual an opportunity of judging how far I am correct. VI INTRODUCTION. In consequence of the frequent and gross impo- sitions which of late years have been practised upon the connoisseurs as Portraits of the Poet, some account will be given. At the end of the ivork also will be added, what may be considered as a charac- teristic description of all the engraved heads that are worthy of record, and as near as can be ascer- tained, the year in which each, and from what picture done; togetJier ivith the principal monu- ments, making in the whole a complete Inquiry into the Shakspeare Portraits. In Re-printing my Account of the Monumental Bust of Shakspeare, I think it necessary to state, that at the time of publishing my first pamphlet (1825), / had but a slight knowledge of the various pictures and prints of the poet. I was first shewn the print > by Martin Droeshout, by Mr. Wheler, at Stratford, and from the great resemblance it bears to the bust, it caused me to remark, " that no other portrait could be like him," this being so different to all that I had seen before, but as I have since been so much engaged in completing this book on the preceding pictures, which also have some resemblance to the above, I flatter myself, the little knowledge I had of them at that time, will be received as satisfactory. A D V E R T 1 S E M E N T preface Mr. RICHARDSON'S PROPOSALS, 8fc. 1794. " WHEN I said I would die a bachelor, (cries Benedict,) I did not think I should live till I were married." The present Editor of Shakspeare may urge a kindred apology in defence of an opinion hazarded in his Prefatory Advertisement; for when he declared his disbelief in the existence of a genuine likeness of our great Dramatick Writer, he most certainly did not suppose any Portrait of that description could have occurred, and much less that he himself should have been instrumental in producing it.* He is happy, how- ever, to find he was mistaken in both his suppo- sitions ; and consequently, has done his utmost to promote the appearance of an accurate and finished Engraving from a Picture which had been un- * See Mr, Richardson's Proposals, p. 11. 8 ADVERTISEMENT TO THE PREFACE OF faithfully, as well as poorly imitated by Droeshout and Marshall. * Of the character repeatedly and deliberately be- stowed by the same Editor on the first of these old engravers, not a single word will be retracted ; for, if the judgment of experienced artists be of any value, the plate by Droeshout, now under con- sideration, has (in one instance at least) established his claim to the title of " a most abominable imitator of humanity." Mr. Fuseli has pronounced, that the Portrait described in the proposals of Mr. Ricliardson, * "Martin Droeshout. One of the different engravers of the last century. He resided in England, and was employed by the booksellers. His portraits, which are the best part of his work, have nothing but their scarcity to recommend them. He engraved the head of Shakspeare, John Fox, the Martyro* logist, John Howson, Bishop of Durham," &c. Strutt's Dictionary of Engravers, Vol. 1. p. 264. c William Marshall. He was one of those laborious artists whose engravings were chiefly confined to the ornamenting of books. And, indeed, his patience and assiduity is all we can admire when we turn over his prints, which are prodigiously numerous. He worked with the graver only, but in a dry tasteless style ; and from the similiarity which appears in the design of all his portraits, it is supposed that he worked from his own drawings after the life, though he did not add the words ad vivum, as was common upon such occasions. But if we grant this to be the case, the artist will acquire very little additional honour upon that account ; for there is full as great a want of taste manifest in the design, as in the execution of his works on copper," &c. Ibid. Vol. II. p. 125. MR. RICHARDSON S PROPOSALS. 9 was the work of a Flemish hand. It may also be observed, that the verses in praise of Droeshoufs performance, were probably written as soon as they were bespoke, and before their author had found opportunity or inclination to compare the plate with its original. He might previously have known that the picture conveyed a just resem- blance of Shakspeare ; took it for granted that the copy would be exact; and, therefore, rashly as- signed to the engraver a panegyrick which the painter had more immediately deserved. It is lucky, indeed, for those to whom metrical recom- mendations are necessary, that custom does not require they should be delivered upon oath. It is likewise probable that Ben Jonson had no intimate acquaintance with the graphick art, and might not have been over-solicitous about the style in which Shakspeare 's lineaments were transmitted to posterity. as. ' PREFACE TO Mr. RICHARDSON'S PROPOSALS, 8fc. 1794. BEFORE the patronage of the publick is solicited in favour of a new engraving from the only genuine portrait of Shakspeare, it is proper that every circumstance relative to the discovery of it should be faithfully and circumstantially related. On Friday, August 9, Mr. Richardson, Print- seller, of Castle Street, Leicester Square, assured Mr. Steevens, that in the course of business having recently waited on Mr. Felton, of Curzon Street, May Fair, this gentleman showed him an ancient head resembling the portrait of Shakspeare, as engraved by Martin Droeshout in 1623. Having frequently been misled by similar reports, founded on inaccuracy of observation or uncertainty of recollection, Mr. Steevens was desirous to see the Portrait itself, that ihe authenticity of it might be ascertained by a deliberate comparison with 12 PREFACE TO Droeshout's performance. Mr. Felton, in the most obliging and liberal manner, permitted Mr. Rich- ardson to bring the head, frame and all, away with him ; and several unquestionable judges have concurred in pronouncing that the plate of Droeshout conveys not only a general likeness of its original, but an exact and particular one as far as this artist had ability to execute his undertaking, Droeshout could follow the outlines of a face wdth tolerable accuracy,* but usually left them as hard as if hewn out of a rock, Thus, in the present instance, he * Of some volunteer infidelities, however, Droeshout may be convicted. It is evident from the picture that Shakspeare was partly bald, and consequently that his forehead appeared unusually high. To remedy, therefore, what seemed a defect to the engraver, he has amplified the brow on the right side. For the sake of a more picturesque effect, he has also incurvated the line in the fore-part of the ruff, though in the original it is mathema- tically straight. See note J, p. 14. It may be observed, however, to those who examine trifles with rigour, that our early engraved portraits were produced in the age when few had skill or opportunity to ascertain their faithfulness or infidelity. The confident artist, therefore, assumed the liberty of altering where he thought he could improve. The rapid workman was in too much haste to give his outline with correctness; and the mere drudge in his profession contented himself by placing a caput mortuum of his original before the publick. In short, the inducements to be licentious or inaccurate, were numerous ; and the rewards of exactness were seldom attainable, most of our ancient heads of authors being done at stated prices, for Booksellers, who were careless about the veri-similitude of engravings which fashion not unfrequently obliged them to insert in the title-pages of works that deserved no such expensive decorations. MR. RICHARDSON'S PROPOSALS. 13 has sevilely transferred the features of Shakspeare from the painting to the copper, omitting every trait of the mild and benevolent character which his portrait so decidedly affords. There are, indeed, just such marks of a placid and amiable disposition in this resemblance of our poet, as his admirers would have wished to find. This Portrait is not painted on canvas, like the Chandos Head,* but on wood. Little more of it than the entire countenance and part of the ruff is left ; for the panel having been split off on one side, the rest was curtailed and adapted to a small frame, f On the back of it is the following * A living artist, who was apprentice to Roubiliac, declares that when that elegant statuary undertook to execute the figure of Shakspeare for Mr. Garrick, the Chandos picture was borrowed; but that it was, even then, regarded as a performance of suspicious aspect; though for want of a more authentick arche- type, some few hints have been received, or pretended to be received, from it. Roubiliac, towards the close of his life, amused himself by painting in oil, though with little success. Mr. Felton has his poor copy of the Chandos picture in which our author exhibits the complexion of a Jew, or rather that of a chimney-sweeper in the jaundice. It is singular that neither Garrick, or his friends, should have desired Roubiliac, at least, to look at the two earliest prints of Shakspeare; and yet even Scheemaker is known to have had no other model for our author's head, than the mezzotinto by Zoust, t A broker, now in the Minories, declares, that it is his usual 14 PREFACE TO inscription, written in a very old hand : " Guil. Shakspeare,* 1597. f R. N." Whether these initials belong to the painter, or a former owner of the picture, is uncertain. It is clear, however, that this is the identical head from which not only the engraving by Droeshout in 1623, but that of Marshall, J in 1640 was made ; and though the hazards our author's likeness was exposed to, may have been numerous, it is still in good pre- servation. But, as further particulars may be wished for, it should be subjoined, that in the Catalogue of practice to cut down such portraits, as are painted on wood, to the size of such spare frames as lie happens to have in his possession. * It is observable, that this hand-writing is of the age of Elizabeth, and that the name of Shakspeare is set down as he himself has spelt it. t The age of the person represented agrees with the date on the back of the picture. In 1597, our author was in his 33d year, and in the meridian of his reputation, a period at which his resemblance was most likely to have been secured. J It has hitherto been supposed that Marshall's production was borrowed from that of his predecessor. But it is now manifest that he has given the very singular ruff of Shakspeare as it stands in the original picture, and not as it appears in the plate from it by Martin Droeshout. The above statement is untrue, as it is not the least like the picture, but copied from Droeshout's, with the exception it is not so curved in front. A. WIVELL. MR. RICHARDSON'S PROPOSALS. 15 " The fourth Exhibition and Sale by private Con. tract at the European Museum, King Street, St. James's Square, 1792," this picture was announced to the publick in the following words : ".No. 359. A curious portrait of Shakspeare, painted in 1597." On the 31st of May, 1792, Mr. Felton bought it for five guineas; and afterwards urging some inquiry concerning the place it came from, Mr, Wilson, the conductor of the Museum already mentioned, wrote to him as follows : "To Mr. S. Felton, Drayton, Shropshire. " SIR, " The Head of Shakspeare was purchased out of an old house, known by the sign of the Boar, in Eastcheap, London, where Shake- speare and his friends used toresort, and, report says, was painted by a Player of that time,* but whose name I have not been able to learn. "I am, Sir, with great regard, "Your most obed'. servant, "Sept. 11, 1792." "J. WilsOll." * The player alluded to was Richard Burbage. A Gentleman who, for several years past, has collected as 16 PREFACE TO August 11, 1794, Mr. Wilson assured Mr. Steevens, that this portrait was found between four and five years ago at a broker's shop in the Minories, by a man of fashion, whose name must be concealed : that it afterwards came (attended by the Eastcheap story, &c.) with a part of that gentleman's col- lection of* paintings, to be sold at the European Museum, and was exhibited there for about three months, during which time it was seen by Lord Leicester and Lord Orford, who both allowed it to be a genuine picture of Shakspeare. It is natural to suppose that the mutilated state of it prevented either of their Lordships from becoming its purchaser. How far the report on which Mr. Wilson's narratives (respecting the place where this picture was met with, &c.) can be verified by evidence at present within reach, is quite immaterial, as our great dramatick author's portrait displays indubitable marks of its own authenticity. It is apparently not the work of an amateur, but of an artist by profession; and, therefore, could hardly have been the production of Burbage, the many pictures of Shakspeare as he could hear of, (in the hope that he might, at last, procure a genuine one,) declares, that the Eastcheap legend has accompanied the majority of them, from whatever quarter they were transmitted. It is, therefore, high time that picture-dealers should avail themselves of another story, this being completely worn out, and no longer fit for service. MR, RICHARDSON'S PROPOSALS. principal actor of his time, who (though he certainly handled the pencil) must have had insufficient leisure to perfect himself in oil painting, which was then so little understood and practised by the natives of this kingdom.* Yet, by those who allow to possibilities the influence of facts, it may be said that this pic- ture was probably the ornament of a club-room in Eastcheap, round which other resemblances of contemporary poets and players might have been arranged: that the Boar's Head, the scene of FalstafFs jollity, might also have been the favourite tavern of Shakspeare: that when our author returned over London Bridge from the Globe theatre, this was a convenient house of entertain- ment; and that for many years afterwards (as the tradition of the neighbourhood reports) it was understood to have been a place where the wits and wags of a former age were assembled, and their portraits reposited. To such suppositions it may be replied, that Mr. Sloman, who quitted this celebrated publick house, in 1767, (when all its furniture, which had devolved to him from his two immediate predecessors, was sold off,) declared his utter ignorance of any picture on the premises, * Much confidence, perhaps, ought not to be placed in this remark, as a succession of limners, now unknown, might have pursued their art in England from the time of Hans Holbein to that of Queen Elizabeth. 18 PREFACE TO except a coarse daubing of the Gadshill robbery.* From hence the following probabilities may be suggested: first, that if Shakspeare's portrait was ever at the Boar's Head, it had heen alienated before the fire of London in 1666, when the original house was burnt ; *) and, secondly, that * Philip Jones, of Barnard's Inn, the auctioneer who sold off Mr. Sloman's effects, has been sought for; but he died a few years ago. Otherwise, as the knights of the hammer are said to preserve the catalogue of every auction, it might have been known whether pictures constituted any part of the Boar's Head furniture; for Mr- Slonian himself could not affirm, that there were no small or obscure paintings above stairs, in apartments which he had seldom or ever occasion to visit. Mrs. Brinn, the widow of Mr. Sloman's predecessor, atfer her husband's disease quitted Eastcheap, took up the trade of a wire-worker, and lived in Crooked Lane. She died about ten \ears ago. One, who had been her apprentice (no youth,) declares, she was a very particular woman, was circumstantial in her narratives, and so often repeated them, that he could not possibly forget any article she had communicated relative to the plate, furniture, &c. of the Boar's Head: that she often spoke of the painting that represented the robbery at Gadshill, but never so much as hinted at any other pictures in the house ; and had there been any, he is sure she would not have failed to describe them in her accounts of her former business and place of abode, which supplied her with materials for conversation to the very end of a long life. t An extract from Mr. Evelyn's Memoirs, will shew the horrible certainty of the destruction alluded to, 1666. 2 Sept. This fatal night, about ten, began that deplorable fire near Fish Streete, in London. , 3. The fire continuing, after dinner I took coach MR. RICHARDSON'S PROPOSALS. 19 the path through which the same picture has tra- velled since, is as little to be determined as the course of a subterraneous stream. It may also be remarked, that if such a Portrait had existed in Eastcheap during the life of the industrious Vertue,* he would most certainly have procured it, instead of having submitted to take with my wife and sonu, and went to the Bankside in South- wark, where we beheld that dismal spectacle, the whole Citty in dreadful flames near y e water side ; all the houses from the Bridge, all Thames Street, and upwards towards Cheapside, down to the Three Cranes, were now consum'd. " The fire having continu'd all this night, (if I may call that night which was light as day for ten miles round about, after a dreadful manner), when conspiring with a fierce Eastern wind in a very drie season, I went on foote to the same place, arid saw the whole South part of y e Citty burning, from Cheapside to y e Thames, and all along Cornehill, (for it kindl'd back against y e wind as well as forward), Tgwer Streete, Fenchurch Streete, Gracious Street, and so along to Bainard's Castle, and was now taking hold of St. Paule's Church, to which the scaffolds contributed exceedingly. The conflagration was so universal, and the people so astonish'd, that, from the beginning, 1 know not by what despondency or fate, they hardly stirrM to quench it; so that there was nothing heard or scene but crying out and lamentation, run- ning about like distracted creatures, without at all attempting to save even their goods, such a strange consternation there was upon them." Vol. i. p. 371. (See Mr. Boaden's Inquiry, p. 84.) * The four last publicans who kept this tavern are said to have filled the whole period, from the time of Vertue's enquiries, 1o the year 1788, when the Boar's Head, having been un- tenanted for five years, was converted into two dwellings for shopkeepers. c2 20 PREFACE TO his first engraving of our author from a juvenile likeness of James I.* and his last from Mr. Keek's unauthenticated purchase out of a dressing-room of a modern actress. It is obvious, therefore, from the joint depositions of Mr. Wilson and Mr. Sloman, that an inference disadvantageous to the authenticity of the Boar's Head story must be drawn ; for, if the portrait in question arrived after a silent progress through obscurity, at the shop of a broker, who, being ignorant of its value, sold it for a few shillings, it must necessarily have been unattended by any history whatever. And if it was purchased at a sale of goods at the Boar's Head, as neither the master of the house, or his two predecessors, had the least idea of having possessed such a curiosity, no intelligence could be sent abroad with it from that quarter. In either case then w r e may suppose that the legend relative to the name of its painter, f and the place where it was found, (notwithstanding both these particulars might be true,) were at hazard appended to the portrait under consideration, as soon as its similitilde' to Shakspeare had been jK acknowledged, and'^Kis name discovered on the * The reverse is the truth; for the engraving by Virtue is dated 1721, and that from Mr. Keek's picture has the date 1719. A. WIVELL. t The tradition that Burbage painted a likeness of Shakspeare has been current in the world ever since the appearance of Mr. Granger's Biographical History. MR. RICHARDSON'S PROPOSALS. 21 back of it. This circumstance, however, cannot affect the credit of the picture ; for (as the late Lord Mansfield observed in the Douglas controversy) " there are instances in which falshood has been employed in support of a real fact, and that it is no uncommon thing for a man to defend a true cause by fabulous pretences." That Shakspeare's family possessed no resem- blance of him, there is sufficient reason to believe. Where then was this fashionable, and, therefore, necessary adjunct to his works to be sought for? If any where, in London, the theatre of his fame and fortune, and the only place where painters, at that period, could have expected to thrive by their profession. We may suppose too, that the book- sellers who employed Droeshout, discovered the object of their research by the direction of Ben Jonson,* who, in the following lines, has borne the most ample testimony to the verisimilitude of a portrait which will now be recommended, by a more accurate and finished engraving, to the publick notice : " This Figure, that thou here seest put, '* It was for gentle Shakespeare cut ; " Wherein the Graver had a strife With Nature, to out doo the life ; " O, could he but have drawne his Wit " As well in Brasse, as he hath hit * It is not improbable that Ben Jonson furnished the Dedi- cation and Introduction to the first folio, as well as the Com- mendatory Verses prefixed to it. 22 PREFACE TO " His face ; * the Print would then surpasse " All, that was ever writ in brasse. " But, since he cannot, Reader, looke " Not on his Picture, but his Booke. That the legitimate resemblance of such a man has been indebted to chance for its preservation, would excite greater astonishment, were it not recollected, that a portrait of him has lately become an object of far higher consequence and estimation than it was during the period he flourished in, and the twenty years succeeding it; for the profession of a player was scarcely then allowed to be reputable. This remark, however, ought not to stand unsup- ported by a passage in T7ie Microcosmos of John Davies, of Hereford, 4to. 1605, p. 215, where, after having indulged himself in a long arid severe strain of satire on the vanity and affectation of the actors of the age, he subjoins " Players, I loue you and your qualitie, " As ye are men that pass time not abus'd: " And some I loue for painting, poesie,* * " w. s. R. B." * as he hath hit i His face;] It should seem from these words, that the plate prefixed to the folio, 1623, exhibited such a likeness of Shakspeare as satisfied the eye of his conternpory, Ben Jonson, who, on an occasion like this, would hardly have ventured to assert what it was in the power of many of his readers to contradict. When will evidence half so conclusive be produced in favour of the Davenantico-Bettertonian Barryan -Keckian-Nicholsian-Chandosan canvas, which bears not the slightest resemblance to the original of Droeshout's and Marshall's engraving 1 MR. RICHARDSON'S PROPOSALS. 23 ** And say fell fortune cannot be excus'd, " That hath for better uses you refus'd : " Wit, courage, good shape, good partes, are all good, " As long as all these goods are not us'd ; * " And though the stage doth staine poor gentle blood, " Yet generous yee are in minde and moode. The reader will observe from the initials in the margin of the third of these wretched lines, that W. Shakspeare was here alluded to as the poet, and R. Burbage, as the painter. Yet, notwithstanding this compliment to the higher excellencies of our author, it is almost cer- tain that his resemblance owes it present safety to the shelter of a series of garrets and lumber-rooms, in which it had sculked till it found its way into the broker's shop, from whence the discernment of a modern connoisseur so luckily redeemed it. It may also be observed, that an excellent original of Ben Jonson was lately bought at an obscure auction by Mr. Ritson, of Gray's Inn, and might once have been companion to the portrait of Shak- speare thus fortunately restored, after having been lost to the publick for a century and a half. They are, nevertheless, performances by very different are all good t As long as all these goods are no worse us'd;] So, in our author's Othello: " Where virtue is, these are most virtuous." 24 PREFACE TO MR. RICHARDSON'S PROPOSALS. artists. The face of Shakspeare was imitated by a delicate pencil, that of Jonson by a bolder hand. It is not designed, however, to appretiate the dis- tinct value of these pictures ; though it must be allowed (as several undoubted originals of old Ben are extant) that an authentick head of Shakspeare is the greater desideratum. To conclude those who assume the liberty of despising prints, when moderately executed, may be taught by this example the use and value of them ; since to a coarse engraving by a second-rate artist,* the publick is indebted for the recovery of the only genuine portrait of its favourite Shakspeare. * There is reason to believe that Shakspeare's is the earliest known portrait of Droeshout's engraving. No wonder then that his performances twenty years after, are found to be executed with a somewhat superior degree of skill and accuracy. Yet, still, he was a poor engraver, and his productions are sought for more on account of their scarcity than their beauty. He seems, indeed, to have pleased so little in this country, that there are not above six or seven heads of his workmanship to be found. PROPOSALS BY WILLIAM RICHARDSON, PRINTS ELLER, CASTLE STREET, LEICESTER SQUARE, FOR THE PUBLICATION OF TWO PLATES FROM THE PICTURE ALREADY DESCRIBED. THESE Plates are to be engraved of an octavo size, and in the most finished style, by T. Trotter, A fac-simile of the hand-writing, date, &c. at the back of the picture, will be given at the bottom of one of them. They will be impressed both on octavo and quarto paper, so as to suit the best editions of the Plays of Shakspeare. Price of the pair to Subscribers, 7s. 6d. No proofs will be taken off. Non-subscribers, 105. 6d. The money to be paid at the time of subscribing, or at the delivery of the prints, which will be ready on December 1st, 1794. 26 PROPOSALS BY Such portions of the hair, ruff, and drapery, as are wanting in the original picture, will be supplied from l)roeshout's and Marshall's copies of it, in which the inanimate part of the composition may be safely followed. The mere outline in half of the plate that accompanies the finished one, will serve to ascertain how far these supplements have been adopted. To such scrupulous fidelity the publick (which has long been amused by inadequate or ideal likenesses of Shakspeare) has an undoubted claim ; and should any fine ladies and gentlemen of the present age be disgusted at the stiff garb of our author, they may readily turn their eyes aside, and feast them on the more easy and elegant suit of clothes provided for him by his modern tailors Messieurs Zoust, Vertue, Houbraken, and the humble imitators of supposititious drapery. The dress that Shakspeare wears in this ancient picture, might have been a theatrical one ; as in the course of observation such another habit has not occurred. Marshall, when he engraved from the same portrait, materially altered its paraphernalia, and, perhaps, because he thought a stage garb did not stand so characteristically before a volume of Poems as before a collection of Plays ; and, yet, it must be confessed, that this change might have been introduced for no other reason than more effectually to discriminate his own production from that of his predecessor. On the same account also he might have reversed the figure. WILLIAM RICHARDSON. 27 N. B. The plates to be delivered in the order they are subscribed for ; and subscriptions received at Mr. Richardson's where the original portrait (by permission of Samuel Felton, Esq.) will be ex- hibited for the inspection of subscribers, together with the earlier engravings from it by Droeshout in 1623, and Marshall in 1640.* WILLIAM RICHARDSON. Castle Street, Leicester Square, Nov. 5, 1794. * It is common for an artist who engraves from a painting that has been already engraved, to place the work of his predecessor before him, that he may either catch some hints from it, or learn to avoid its errors. Marshall most certainly did so in the present instance; but while he corrected Droeshout's ruff, he has been led by him to desert his original in an unauthorised expansion of our author's forehead. fc 2 , SUPPLEMENT TO THE PROPOSALS OF MR. RICHARDSON. WHEN the newly discovered Portrait of our great Dramatic Writer was first shown in Castle Street, the few remaining advocates for the Chan- dosan canvas, observed, that its unwelcome rival exhibited not a single trait of Shakspeare. But all on a sudden, these criticks have shifted their ground; and the representation originally pro- nounced to have been so unlike our author, is since declared to be an immediate copy from the print by Martin Droeshout. But by what means are such direct contrarieties of opinion to be reconciled? If no vestige of the Poet's features was discernable in the Picture, how is it proved to be a copy from an engraving by which alone those features can be ascertained? No man will assert one thing to have been imitated from another, without allowing that there is some unequivocal and determined similitude between the objects compared. The truth is, that the first point of objection to this unexpected Portrait was 30 SUPPLEMENT TO soon overpowered by a general suffrage in its favour, A second attack was, therefore, hazarded, and has yet more lamentably failed As a further note of the originality of the Head belonging to Mr. Felton, it may be urged, that the artist who had ability to produce such a delicate and finished Portrait, could most certainly have made an exact copy from a very course print, pro- vided he had not disdained so servile an occupation. On the contrary, a rude engraver like Droeshout, would necessarily have failed in his attempt to ex- press the gentler graces of so delicate a picture. Our ancient handlers of the burin were often faithless to the character of their originals ; and, it is conceived, that some other performances by Droeshout will furnish an exception to this re- mark. Such defective imitations, however, even at this period, are sufficiently common. Several prints from well known portraits of Sir Joshua Reynolds and Mr. Romney, are rendered worthless by simi- lar infidelities; for, notwithstanding these mezzo- tints preserve the outlines and general effect of their originals, the appropriate characters of them are as entirely lost as that of Shakspeare under the hand of Droeshout. Because, therefore, an en- graving has only an impartial resemblance to its archetype, are we at liberty to pronounce, that the one could not have been taken from the other ? MR. RICHARDSON'S PROPOSALS. 31 It may also be observed, that if Droeshout's plate had been followed by the painter, the line in front of the ruff would have been incurvated, and not have appeared straight, as it is in the smaller print,* by Marshall, from the same picture. In an- tiquated English portraits, examples of rectilineal ruffs are familiar ; but where will be found such another as the German has placed under the chin of his metamorphosed poet? From its pointed corners, resembling the wings of a bat, which are constant indications of mischievous agency, the engraver's ruff would have accorded better with the pursuits of his necromantick countryman, the celebrated Doctor Faustus. In the mean while it is asserted by every adequate judge, that the coincidences between the picture and the print under consideration, are too strong and too numerous to have been the effects of chance. And yet the period at which this likeness of our author must have been produced, affords no evidence that any one of our early limners had condescended to borrow the general outline and disposition of his portraits from the tasteless heads prefixed to volumes issued out by booksellers. The artist, indeed, who could have filched from Droe- shout, like Bardolph, might have " stolen a lute- case, carried it twelve leagues, and sold it for three half-pence." * Marshall's Print is not straight in front, though not so curved as Droeshout's. A. WIVELL. 32 SUPPLEMENT TO But were the print allowed to be the original, and the painting a mere copy from it, the admission of this fact would militate in full force against the authenticity of every other anonymous and undated portrait from which a wretched old engraving had been made ; as it would always enable cavillers to assert, that the painting was subsequent to the print, and not the print to the painting. True judges, however, would seldom fail to determine, (as they have in the present instance,) whether a painting was coldly imitated from a lumpish copper- plate, or taken warm from animated nature. For the discussion of subjects like these, an eye habituated to minute comparison, and attentive to peculiarities that elude the notice of unqualified observers, is also required. Shakspeare's counte- nance, deformed by Droeshout, resembles the sign of Sir Roger de Coverly, when it had been changed into a Saracen's head ; on which occasion the Spectator observes, that the features of the gentle Knight were still apparent through the lineaments of the ferocious Musselman. That the leading thought in the verses annexed to the plate by Droeshout is hacknied and common, will most readily be allowed ; and this observation would have carried weight with it, had the lines in question been anonymous. But the subscription of Ben Jonson's name was a circumstance that rendered him immediately responsible for the MR. RICHARDSONS PROPOSALS. 38 propriety of an encomium which, however, open to dispute, appears to have escaped contradiction, either metrical or prosaick, from the surviving friends of Shakspeare. But, another misrepresentation, though an in- voluntary one, and of more recent date, should not be overlooked. In the matter prefatory to W. Richardson's Proposals, the plate by Vertue from Mr. Keek's (now the Chandos) picture, is said to have suc- ceeded the engraving before Mr. Pope's edition of Shakspeare, in six volumes quarto.* But the contrary is the fact; and how is this circumstance to be accounted for ? If, in 1719, Vertue supposed the head, which he afterwards admitted into his Set of Poets, was a, genuine representation, how happened it that his next engraving of the same author, in 1725, was taken from quite a different painting, in the collection of the Earl of Oxford? Did the artist, in this instance, direct the judgment of his Lordship and Mr. Pope ? or, did their joint opinion over-rule that of the artist? These portraits, being wholly unlike each other, could not, (were the slightest degree of respect * This mistake originated from a passage in Lord Orford's Anecdotes, &c. 8vo. Vol. V. p. 258, where it is said, and truly, that Vertue's Set of Poets appeared in 1730. The particular plate of Shakspeare, however, as is proved by a date at the bottom of it, was engraved in 1719. 34 SUPPLEMENT TO due to either of them) be both received as le- gitimate representations of Shakspeare. Perhaps, Vertue (who is described by Lord Orford as a lover of truth,) began to doubt the authenticity of the picture from which his first engraving had been made, and was, therefore, easily persuaded to expend his art on another portrait, the spurious- ness of which (to himself, at least) w r as not quite so evident as that of its predecessor. The publick, for many years past, has been familiarized to a Vandyckish head of Shakspeare, introduced by Simon's mezzotinto from a painting by Zoust. Hence the countenance of our author's monumental effigy at Westminster was modelled; and a kindred representation of him has been given by Roubiliac. Such is still the Shakspeare that decorates our libraries, and seals our letters. But, cetcrtis cujusque notandi sunt tibi mores. On a little reflection it might have occurred, that the cavalier turn of head adopted from the gallant partizans of Charles I. afforded no just resemblance of the sober and chastised countenances predomi- nating in the age of Elizabeth, during which our poet flourished, though he survived till James, for about thirteen years, had disgraced the throne. The foregoing hint may be perused by the judici- ous examiner, who will take the trouble to compare the looks and air of Shakspeare's contemporaries with the modern sculptures, &c. designed to per- petuate his image. The reader may then draw an MR. RICHARDSON'S PROPOSALS. 35 obvious inference from these premises; and con- clude, that the portrait lately exhibited to the publick is not supposititious because it presents a less spritely and confident assemblage of features than had usually been imputed to the modest and unassuming parent of the British theatre. It is certain, that neither the Zoustian or Chandosan canvas has displayed the least trait of a quiet and gentle bard of the Elizabethan age. To ascertain the original owner of the portrait, now Mr. Felton's, is an undertaking difficult enough ; and, yet, conjecture may occasionally be sent out on a more hopeless errand. The old pictures at Tichfield House, as p ( art of the Wriothesley property, were divided, not many years ago, between the Dukes of Portland and Beaufort. Some of these paintings that were in good condition were removed to Bulstrode, where two portraits * of Shakspeare's Earl of Southamp- ton are still preserved. What became of other heads, which time or accident had impaired, and at what period the remains of the furniture, &c. of his Lordship's venerable mansion were sold off and dispersed, it may be fruitless to enquire. Yet, as the likeness of our author lately redeemed * One of these portraits is on canvas, and, therefore, the genuineness of it is controverted, if not denied. E 2 SUPPLEMENT TO from obscurity was the work of some eminent Flemish artist, it was probably painted for a per- sonage of distinction, and might, therefore, have belonged to the celebrated Earl whom Shakspeare had previously complimented by the dedication of his Venus and Adonis. Surely, it is not unreason- able to suppose, that a resemblance of our excel- lent dramatick poet might have been found in the house of a nobleman, who is reported to have loved him well enough to have presented him with a thousand pounds. To conclude the names * which have honoured the subscription for an engraving from this newly found portrait of Shakspeare, must be allowed to furnish the most decisive estimate of its value. [%* Since the foregoing Paper was received, we have been authorized to inform the Pvblick, that Messieurs Boydell and Nicol are so thoroughly convinced of the genuineness of Mr. Felton's Shakspeare, that they are determined to engrave it as a Frontispiece to their splendid edition of our Author, instead of having recourse to the exploded Picture inherited by the Chandos Family.] From the European Magazine, for December, 1794. * In the numerous List of Gentlemen who thoroughly exa- mined this original Picture, were convinced of its authenticity, and immediately became subscribers to W. Richardson, are the names of Dr. Farmer, Mr. Cracherode, Mr. Bindley, Sir Joseph Banks, Sir George Shuckburgh, Mr. Chalmers, Mr. Reed, Mr. Ritson, Mr. Douce, Mr. Mark ham, Mr. Weston, Mr. Lysons, Mr. James, Col. Stanley, Mr. Combe, Mr. Lodge, Mess. Smith, sen. and jun. Mr. Nichol, Mr. Boaden, Mr. Pearce, Mr. Whitefoord, Mr. Thane, Mess. Boydell, Mr. G. Romney, Mr. Lawrence, (Portrait-painter to his Majesty,) Mr. Bowyer, (Miniature-painter to his Majesty,) Mr. Barry, R. A. (Professor of Painting,) &c. &c. &c. REMARKS, &c. IN Mr. Steevens's Preface to Mr. Richardson's Proposals, page 14, he remarks, " on the back of the Felton picture, is the following inscription, written in a very old hand: Guil. Shakspeare, 1597, R.N." whether these initials belong to the painter, or a former owner of the picture, is uncertain. When I was making a drawing from the above picture, I observed two holes made in the back, apparently to ascertain if it was old wood. I found it to be in a very decayed state, and begged per- mission of Mr. Nicol, to nourish the back with some linseed oil, which was granted, and, by so doing, the writing became more intelligible than it had been, when only wetted with water, and instead of R. N. as we have hitherto been led to believe, I discovered those important letters, R. B. which could refer to no other person than Richard Burbage, the player alluded to by Mr. Wilson, in his letter to Mr. S. Felton, see page 15. As I have no wish to have the above picture considered genuine, without circumstantial evidence, it would be unjust to see it condemned without a fair trial. REMARKS. In August, 1794, Mr. Wilson assured Mr. Steevens, that the Felton picture was found be- tween four and five years ago at a broker's shop in the Minories, by a man of fashion, whose name must be concealed : that it afterwards came, at- tended by the Eastcheap story, with a part of that gentleman's collection of paintings, to be sold at the European Museum. We may reasonably suppose from the above account, Mr. Steevens had applied to Mr. Wilson as to every information he could give of the picture, and received, in answer, the above; but we cannot suppose that such a story as the Eastcheap invention, could have been thought on by the broker in the Minories, who sold the picture for a trifling sum of money ; but my idea is, the origin of the story might have been surmised by the gentleman who purchased it from there, or by some friend, in consequence of the condition the picture was then in, for we cannot think it had come to the broker from any true lover of the poet, to be sold for a mere trifle; but where- ever it originated, it is immaterial, as it cannot, in the slightest degree, effect the originality of the picture. Mr. Boaden, in his remarks on the Eastcheap story, musters the whole of his ingenuity to debase the picture, as being that of Shakspeare, and prates much on Mr. Wilson's concealing the A". Bur&ag J. Cecbran REMARKS. 39 gentleman's name, which it seems he was bound to do, and what is no uncommon case with persons of his description, for few gentlemen like to have their names publicly exposed in catalogues of the property they send to be sold. Mr. Richardson, in his proposals for publishing two plates from the above picture, promises to give a fac-simile of the hand-writing, at the back of the portrait, and which is shown in the first plate by Trotter. That this promise is not fulfilled, I will prove by giving fac-similies of both the writings, (see the plate.) That Mr. Richardson is, by some means, under a mistake, is evident as to a letter (N), being one of the initials of the painter's name, aod it might originate from the circumstance, that it requires a good sight to distinguish what it really is, as it has been rubbed at frequent inspections. The reader will observe in the plate I have given, which is traced from the original writing, that the tail of the (R) has been mistaken for the centre line of the letter (N). There are also two other mistakes, as to the spelling of the poet's names; first, his Christian name is spelt Gul. and not Guil. and, therefore, is not translated into Kneller, we should not now be in doubt about it, espe- cially, when we consider, that between thirty and forty years before, we are told that it belonged to the original proprietor, J. Taylor. Mr. Boaden, in modern date, the authenticity of it ought not to be disputed, as its general resemblance to what I consider are like each other, decides it, in my opinion, a genuine portrait of Shakspeare. REMARKS. 61 his usual way, and without proof, sets it down, that ( Dryden must have seen it, either at D'Avenant's or Betterton's, and no doubt had conversed with them on its authenticity." Now, in my opinion, we have no reason to suppose that the poet ever did see it before Kneller painted the copy, or, of his knowing any thing about the original picture. If, surmises like his are to be considered as valid, it would, also, be equally as much in character, to say it was painted by Taylor. In the advertisement prefixed to edition, 1793, is stated as follows: " The reader may observe, that contrary to former usage, no head of Shakspeare is prefixed to the present edition of his plays. The undisguised fact is this : The only portrait of him that even pretends to authenticity, by means of injudicious cleaning, or some other accident, has become little better, than " the shadow of a shade." * It appears the Chandos picture is painted on canvas, and Mr. Boaden, speaking of it at page 49, says " a man must be little conversant with the portraits of 1607, to start an objection, (alluding * " Such, we think, were the remarks, that occurred to us several years ago, when this portrait was accessible. We wished, indeed, to have confirmed them by a second view of it but a late accident in the noble family to which it belongs, has precluded us from that satisfaction." G 2 52 REMARKS. to Mr. Steevens,) because it was not painted upon wood. I know very well, that some of the smooth painters, about this time, and long after, preferred panel, for subjects that were to be very highly finished, and seen near. The wood allowed of a thinner and more transparent system. You fre- quently, in these pictures, see the absolute grain of the wood, through a tinted gelatinous substance, merely vehicle, but amazingly brilliant. The absor- bent ground of the canvas took the oil entirely from the surface, and left their colours heavy and opaque. Here, therefore, they were compelled to use great body of colour, and to paint with deeper shadows. The panel pictures, generally, have the features little relieved by shadow." The above description on the art of painting, is truly ridiculous, as it is inconsistent to suppose, that it is not possible to paint on canvas, or even copper, or any other material equally as transparent as upon " wood/' which is of itself, dark in its nature, and cannot possibly produce either a brilliancy or transparency in the colours of a picture, which is covered from the beginning, as a foundation, for further process, with white and colours that are opaque, which is necessary before you finish with what is transparent, so as to produce the desired effect. A painter never intends to show the material that he works on, any more than a plasterer, who does all he can to hide the laths under his work, but, it is evident, Mr. Boaden has seen some picture REMARKS. 53 that has been rubbed, and did not know to the contrary. It is worthy of remark, that the Felton picture, the Droeshout print, and the monument, have no rings in the ears, but the Chandos picture has them ; there is also a difference in the beard of the latter, which, with the expression of the face, is very characteristic with the ring to that of Shylock, it may be Shakspeare, in that character. In giving this opinion, I allude to the engraving in Mr. Boaden's book, and, which is very inac- curate, as to the cheek bone, on the distant side of the face, it being too small for the other, it is well engraved by Scriven, but rather hard. I have heard much said on the merits of the crayon portrait by Mr. Ozias Humphry, that this print was done from, and which is very different to the one lately engraved from the original,* by Mr. Robert Cooper; in this last print, and the Felton picture, I am able to distinguish much resemblance to each other, which establishes them, in my mind, to be both genuine portraits of Shakspeare. Those who have seen Droeshout's or Marshall's engravings of the poet, might reasonably imagine them to have been done from the Felton picture (as far as regards the head), the only doubt in * T have lately been favoured with a sight of a copy from this picture, in the possession of Mr. Thomas Shakespear, of '54 REMARKS. my mind, is, whether we should not have seen a more finely executed print, from so delicate a painting. It has been said, that "the print by Droeshout, is his first effort in this country; no wonder then, that his performances, twenty years after, are found to be executed with a somewhat superior degree of skill, and accuracy ; yet, still, he was a poor engraver, and his productions are sought for, more on account of their scarcity, than their beauty ; he seems, indeed, to have pleased so little in this country, that there are not above six or seven heads of his workmanship to be found." Mr. Malone, speaking on the same engraver's works, notices" two of his productions, " William Fairfax, who fell at the siege of Frankendale, in 1621, and John Howson, Bishop of Durham; the portrait of Bishop Howson, is at Christ Church, Oxford. By comparing the above two prints, Ranelagb Street, Pimlico, which has been in his family more than a century. From the bold manner in which it is painted, I think it is by J. Richardson. I understand there is another in the small apartment at the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge, which formerly belonged to Mr. Capell, the editor of Shakspeare, in 1768. Besides the above, Mr. Malone said, that ' he possessed three by eminent masters." This avowal produced the annexed jeu cT esprit: " I knew our Shakspeare's gentle face : The reason why you'll plainly see: His picture 'long'd to Chandos' Grace; Of which I've got rare copies THREE. REMARKS. 55 with the original pictures from whence the en- gravings were made, a better judgment might be formed of the fidelity of our author's portrait, as exhibited by this engraver, than from Jonson's assertion, that " in this figure the Graver had a strife "With Nature, to out-do the life;' 1 a compliment, which in the books of that age, was paid to so many engravers that nothing decisive can be inferred from it. It does not appear from what picture this engraving was made, but from the dress, and the singular dis- position of the hair, &c. it undoubtedly was engraved from a picture, and probably, a very ordinary one. There is no other way of account- ing for the great difference between the print of Droeshout's, and his spirited portraits of Fairfax and Bishop Howson, but, by supposing that the picture of Shakspeare, from which he copied, was a very coarse performance." I consider Mr. Malone's last remark, so very much to the purpose, that the Felton picture, cannot, from the delicate pencilling, be the head that Droeshout engraved from, and more par- ticularly, as he must have seen the initials of the painter, at the back of the portrait, and, consequently, would have had them put in the plate, in a line with his own name. But from 56 REMARKS. the strength of likeness that it bears to that engraving, as to the contour and features, I am of a firm opinion, it is the original picture, painted by Richard Burbage, (see page 22.) The portrait of Shakspeare, by Martin Droeshout,* is a performance, which claims the most indubitable right to originality. 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, and how to convict. Mr. Malone, speaking on the above two lines of Ben Jonson's, has remarked, that Droeshout had shown more ability in the execution of his latter works of William Fairfax and John Howson ; that they also bear ample testimony as to fidelity of imitation, and a better judgment can be formed, as to the likeness of Droeshout's print of Shakspeare, than from Ben Johnson's two lines. Mr. Malone, in his observations, has only proved that Droeshout could copy a picture very exactly, * Mr. Briton says of this engraving, " That it cannot be like any human face, for it is evidently ill drawn, in all the features; and a bad artist can never make a good likeness." As to his first remark, I cannot agree with him, for it is the good drawing only, which it has to recommend it, therefore, Ben Jonson's lines are by no means " futile and unworthy of credit." 'ngraved by C-Picarg-jfrom, the v/-if/i/ia/ J-'rt'/tt 2>y J&trtiri Zhveshout. REMARKS. -57 and which is done by very mechanical means ; but, that Droeshout had resorted to those means, for his print of our poet, cannot be inferred from any of Ben Jonson's lines, which lines, I do think, are perfectly descriptive of the portrait, and proves Jonson had the peculiar understanding, requisite in every portrait painter. It is very true, as Mr. Malone says, " that nothing decisive, can be inferred from the afore- said lines ; yet they are applicable to any other portrait that is deficient of resemblance ; for he who makes no strife, will never excell in the arts, and as a proof of it, I will quote a few lines from the Epilogue to the " Brothers," by Cumberland, in which there could not be a much higher compliment paid to Sir Joshua Reynolds, on his celebrated picture of Garrick, between Tragedy and Comedy: " Who but hath seen the celebrated strife, Where Reynolds calls the canvas into life, And 'twixt the Tragic and the Comic muse, Courted of both, and dubious which to choose, Th' immortal actor stands." It is only to such men of high talent, as Sir Joshua, that we can expect such praise, I know of no artist, either antient or modern, that has ever surpassed the portrait of Garrick, or the H 58 REMARKS. face of Comedy, and we may very readily in- scribe, this does surpass All that was ever writ in brass." It is very evident, from the four first lines, of Jonson's verse, (seep. 21,) a conjecture may be formed, that Droeshout was himself the master of this portrait, for it might have been first drawn from the life by him, on the plate, and then engraved, without the aid of any thing else but nature; as many instances of the kind, have been done, from the earliest period of engraving; but, the exact time when it was engraved, can- not be told, as its first register is in the folio edition of 1623. Mr. Boaden in his criticisms on the above plate, remarks, " that it is made to furnish out a portrait of the poet in the edition of 1623 ; in that of 1632, in which it continued very tolerable ; and in the two latter folios of 1664 and 1685, when I confess it to have become, what it has frequently been called, " an abominable libel upon humanity." The three first of the above folios, I have carefully examined, in the possession of Mr. Nicol, and those, also, in the British Museum, but the edition of 1685, I have never seen ; Mr. Boaden is certainly under a mistake, as to the plate being in a bad state in the third edition, for Mr. Smith, of the Museum, and myself, compared them together, and only con- REMARKS. 5 sidered it not well printed, and as a proof that it was so, we referred to the book of the various portraits of Shakspeare ; there is an impression of this plate of the edition 1664, quite equal to what is seen in the first folio, and superior to what is in the second. I have since seen an impression of the above plate, with the lines by Ben Jonson under it, in imitation of the edition 1664, but the plate had been re-touched, and evidently worn out ; yet, in this ghostly appearance, it was valued at three guineas ; this, very likely, might belong to the edition 1685. The plate, in the first folio, is printed with the following words over the portrait : " Mr. William Shakespeare's Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies. Published according to the True Originall Copies." Under the portrait, at the corner of the plate, is (Martin Droeshout, Sculpsit, London.) Under which is, "LONDON, Printed by Isaac laggard, and Ed. Blount, 1623." The second edition, and which is also in the Mu- seum, has some variations, as follows : "Mr. William Shakespeare's Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies. Published according to the True Originall Copies. The second impression." Under the plate, is "London, Printed by Tho. Cotes, for Robert Allot, and are to be fold at his shop at the signe of the Blacke Beare in Pauls Church-yard 1632." Mr. G. Nicol has an edition with the above date, with a different pub- lisher, and is thus, "London, Printed by Tho. Cotes, H 2 60 REMARKS. for John Smithwick, and are to be sold at his shop in Saint Dnnstans Church-yard, 1632." At the end of this edition, it also states, that various publishers have their names printed on the title pages, " William Aspley, Richard Hawkins, and Richard Meighen." In the third edition, there are still further altera- tions, the plate is printed much higher on the paper, in order to admit Ben Jonson's ten lines of poetry,, which are signed B. J. Those lines have always before been printed on a separate sheet. In the first folio the initials are B. I. What I have given (at page 21) is from the folio 1632. Mr. Boaden tells us, page 13, that "some ten years ago, I was shown a picture, which appeared to be painted by the very artist who supplied Droeshout with the likeness of Shakspeare. . The figure is a half-length. The dress of the person is like that of Shakspeare, the ruff is in form the same. On the left hand, at the top of the canvas, is painted anno 1602, a?tat. 25. On the right, in the taste of the Shepherd's Ca- lendar, is this quibbling-emblem, sperando, ferendo, vivo, vinco. He wears, moreover, " a seal-ring, probably of his grandfather's," the arms on which are plain enough for a herald to interpret." The above story is so unaccountable, that the author's mind seems to overflow with imaginations, inconsistent with realities, for according to the above dates, Shakspeare was thirteen years older in 1602, REMARKS. 61 being born in 1564. And it would also appear by the picture, that the poet would have been bald at twenty-five years old. After this, what is to become of all other portraits of this poet, that have hair on the top of their heads? is he not, " A Daniel come to judgment! yea, a Daniel!" As I have been in the habit of employing many engravers, of late years, I flatter myself to have some knowledge of that art, and am aware of what engravers are subject to, through the caprice of their employers, for, in very few instances, can 1 show an engraved portrait, from my own drawing, precisely like it, and for this reason, a new thought occurs, that I might have improvements in the plate, either in the dress or general effect, which I suggest to the engraver, and is almost always done. Therefore, as Mr. Boaden has taken every trifling means to decry the Felton picture, and in a very irrevelent manner, said, it cannot be the portrait, either Droeshout or Marshall engraved their plates from, owing to the picture being, in some respects, diffe- rent from the above two engravings, (not as to the head in particular,) but more as regards the dress, therefore, in this author's idea, that circumstance is sufficient to convince him, that Droeshout had no reference to that portrait. But, only observe, this contradictory part, his allowing Marshall's print to be like Droeshout's, at the same time it is different in dress and attitude. As a proof that heads and draperies have been frequently borrowed, ac- 62 REMARKS. cording to people's fancy, I refer my readers to an engraved print, of what is called, by Mr. Malone, the Stratford monument, engraved by G. Virtue, where is substituted, instead of the original head of the bust, that of the Chandos picture, and which, it seems, has escaped this discerning critic's notice ; for he states, " the above monument was engraved by Virtue, and in mezzotinto, by Miller;" I have not been able to learn, that Miller ever en- graved any other monument of Shakspeare, than that in Westminster Abbey, which is in mezzotinto, of the folio size, one of which is in the illustrated Shakspeare of Thomas Wilson, Esq. and very rare, therefore, should an engraving differ, in point of dress or other trifling matters, from a picture it was supposed to be done from, it ought not to be dis- carded on such a misapprehension, and more espe- cially, where the most important parts, so closely resemble each other. Exclusive of all I have as yet said, it is a very common practice at the present time, to transfer the head of a theatrical portrait, to a dress in another character, for instance, witness many of the Kemble's, Mrs. Siddons, Mr. Kean, &c. &c. none of which they have ever sat for; therefore, I must confess, that I think such evidence as Mr. Boaden's, " trifles light as air." I have yet in reserve, an authority from the pen of Mr. Steevens, that the Chandos pictures" have been engraved, twelve different times, and " no two of these REMARKS. portraits are alike, nor does any one of them bear the slightest resemblance to the wretched original."* * In an interview with Mr. Triphook, late publisher of Boaden's Inquiry, I was shown the crayon drawing, in his possession, made by Ozias Humphrey ; it is executed in a very masterly manner, with great freedom of pencil and good effect. The remark I have already made, as to the deficiency of the distant cheek-bone in Scriven's engraving, is confirmed by this drawing, as it is less defective, nor are they so much opposed to strong light and shadow ; the outline of the fore- head is also more beautiful, as it is free from a'projection which is in the print, that is unnatural, besides, the expressiot of the latter is by no means so benevolent. It is a great pity, that whatever constitutes beauty, should ever be made less, as it must make defects, if any predominate. One great objection to this print is. its being too strongly marked in the outlines, and altogether too black/ which inakes it out of harmony. It is to be hoped those little hints may be of use to such as may hereafter have occasion to copy it. On the back of the drawing is the following inscription, in the hand- writing of Mr. Malone:- * This drawing of Shakspeare, was made in August, 1783, by that excellent artist, Mr. Ozias Humphrey, from the origi- nal picture extant, which formerly belonged to Sir William D'Avenant, and is now in the possession of the Duke of Chandos. The painter is unknown." " The original having been painted by a very ordinary hand, having been at some subsequent period painted over, and being now in a state of decay, this copy, which is a faithful one, is, in my opinion, invaluable. Mr. Humphrey thinks that Shakspeare was about the age of forty-three when this portrait was painted; which fixes its date to the year 1607." " Edmond Malone, June 29, 1784." " The original picture is twenty-two inches long, and eighteen broad." 64 REMARKS. His contempt for this portrait, is apparently with- out any other motive than its bad condition; however, it could not be done, with a view to extol or appretiate the rival portrait in the following year, for that picture, we cannot suppose, was known to him at the time. In addition to what I have just quoted, I have in my possession, various engravings from the Felton picture, since 1794, each unlike the others, in some part, the best is by W. Holl, who is the only engraver that has condescended to attend ,to the dress of the picture, the likeness is as correct as so coarse an engraving can well be made; another is by Trotter, published by Richardson, in 1794, but not very like. He also had the picture re-engraved, in 1796, by J. God- frey, and which is unworthy of preservation. I come now to animadvert upon some passages in Mr. Boaden's book, to show how superficially those portraits are described, and to point out the various contradictions which appear in it, relative to them ; at page 19, " Shakspeare, in 1598, acted in " Every Man in his Humour ;" and the author of that play has rendered it clear, that the part he played, was Old Knowell."* * I apprehend, that the dress of Shakspeare, if not his private one, to be merely a fancy suit from the circumstance, of a print of a religious order, which is in my pos- session, done about the same period as Droeshout's, and . in his style of art; exclusive of the dress being more fanciful REMARKS. 65 Thus he supposes that the poet is in that cha- racter, by Martin Droeshout, when a little further, we are told, u The above, it may be said, is but conjec- ture ; but, it is a very important one, as to the in its ornaments, it is the same. The following inscription in latin, is on the top of the print, JO. BARCLAIUS Natus 28 January Qbijt 12 Aprilis 1582 1621 AT THE BOTTOM, Gente Caledonius Gallus natalibus hie est Roman Romano qui docet ore loqui. M. Grotius. AND AT THE BACK, JO. BARCLAII ARGENIDEM A D. THEANDRO BUGNOTIO ILLUSTRATAM EPIGRAMMA. Quod te, B ARC LA i, magnum <5f memorabile nomen, Quce tefama potens, quis sequeretur honos, Ni lux ingenii soli concessa THEANDRO Excuteret noctem, qucar's?Soulc ofdCaq 'The applauje? dclyht'the wonder cf the Stage , ~? her solfe, was proud cfhis defyncs jcyd to weare the drejsina of his lines learned will Confefa his works arcjuch*) w neither man, nor Mufc, can prayjc to muck Tor ever live thy fame, the world to tell -, 'Thy like-, no aqe. shall ever varalell . & J W.M fculvftt. 2 f/ ///.!_ /,', REMARKS. 67 In my opinion, those last sentences of Mr. Boaden's has confirmed what I have said, and is a refutation of his former assertion. At page 113, he comments on the head of Shakspeare, by W. Marshall, to the poems in 1640. and the supposed head by Payne. " The writers of catalogues are happy persons ; they describe many portraits which cannot be found, 'and so circumstantially, as to lead one to imagine, that once they must have existed. Among these desiderata, is to be numbered one of Shakspeare, by that excellent engraver, John Payne; Mr. Granger says of it. that the poet is ' represented with a laurel branch in his left hand.' But all my enquiries, have never been able to procure a sight of this print ; and, perhaps, it is confounded with that by W. Marshall, which certainly exhibits our poet with this si- nistrous decoration." " Payne wanted only application to confirm both his fortune and his fame; he had a good deal of the firm and forcible manner of his master, Simon Passe, and he executed some heads, after Cornelius Jansen, in a style, so beyond the com- mon embellishments of his time, that it is indeed greatly to be regretted, that his Shakspeare has disappeared, if he really engraved it. I confess, I am half tempted to think it will yet be found, for the reason which I now proceed to assign." i 2 68 REMARKS. " Whoever is acquainted with the loose and wiry manner of Marshall, witness his bust of Fletcher, and the wretched "bi-forked hill," on which he has grounded it, (see the folio, 1647,) cannot but feel that his head of Shakspeare, in 1640, is in a manner not his own; and, indeed, a dark and strongly relieved print, instead of the dry, tasteless, colourless thing, which he bestowed as a usual sign to Mr. Moseley's editions of the contemporary poets ; I, therefore, feel almost con- fident, that Marshall here copied the head by John Payne ; indeed, taking the half-length of Elizabeth, by Crispin de Passe, the father, after whom they all worked, as the model; the head of Marshall, is exactly such a performance as you would expect from that school, where, as is certain the[ pupils, though alike, are yet inferior to the master." It is rather curious, that Mr. Granger should be the only person that has mentioned having seen the print by Payne. As Mr. Boaden seems to have more knowledge of his works than I have, as to affirm, that he " cannot but feel that Marshall's head of Shakspeare, in 1640, is in a manner not his own ;" it may not be very far from the truth to imagine, that Payne had nearly engraved it, and was afterwards finished, by Mar- shall ; in such a case, it is possible Mr. Granger may have seen an impression with Payne's name to it, either engraved, or in writing ; but be it REMARKS. By as it may, the following remarks will show what use Mr. Boaden has made by some further ob- servations on it. His belief is, that " Marshall's print of Shaks- peare, is derived to him from Payne, when, perhaps, it is confounded with that by W. Mar- shall," who, as well as Payne and Droeshout, worked from the school of Crispin de Passe, and whose method was most likely imbibed by his scholars; again, in his two concluding pages, 121 and 122, The head, by Marshall, seems to have been copied by him from a head by Payne, who reduced that by Droeshout, with some va- riations in the dress and attitude." He then talks of the light he has thrown on those five portraits of Shakspeare, which to me is about as clear as the moon is seen through a fog. Mr. Boaden attempts, in his remarks on Mr. Steevens's opinions, (p. 98) to reprove what was absolutely well explained by that gentleman. The part I allude to is ; as follows ; " Marshall too," says Mr. Steevens, " when he engraved it reversed the figure, (alluding to the Felton picture.) To be sure he did; and did he never ask himself, how it happened that Droeshout, on his hypo- thesis, did not do the same thing ? Yes, the picture and an engraving pretending to be taken from it in 1623, absolutely look the same way; though, even as late as Houbraken's, (1747) all the 70 REMARKS. heads were reversed by the engraver as a common practice." " But yet, how did it happen that Marshall, who was a superior engraver, did not produce a more accurate likeness from the picture, if he copied it? he could not be suspected of similar volunteer infidelities with those of the Dutchman. He would have exhibited the conical forehead, the straight eye brow, the flatted nose, and the thin beard of the picture one would think. Nothing like it. Marshall saw no picture. Droeshout was his original ; only, that having reduced it as to size, he was unable, with all his skill, to give a tithe of the expressions communicated in the folio by the " mischievous agency of the Dutchman." Mr. Boaden says, (page 121) " The head by Marshall has been copied by him from a head by Payne, who reduced that by Droeshout." And at (page 98) in another passage, speaking of the Felton head and Droeshout's print, is as follows ; " Yes, the picture and an engraving pretending to be taken from it in 1623, absolutely look the same way." If a print, in those times, could not be made to look the 'same way as the picture, it was not possible that Marshall could have engraved his plate from Payne, for Payne's, in such a case, must, if copied from Droeshout's, look the reverse to that original ; whereas, Marshall's looks the contrary way to Droeshout's ; consequently, it could REMARKS. 71 not have been done from Payne's. In the above statements, Mr. Boaden has most egregiously confuted his own evidence, and, as he very justly observes in his concluding page 122, on the Felton picture, " Happily, in nearly all cases of this nature, the ingenuity is never so complete as to baffle the inquiry of criticism ; and the gentle progress of time conducts to the triumph of TRUTH." It is a very common case to observe, that whenever an enthusiast engages in a disputation, with what vehemance he applies the shafts of his ridicule, as though it was absolutely necessary to destroy the thing he contemns, in order to convert the minds of his adversaries: but this contumely, in the end, generally recoils on the calumniator. Thus finding that the Felton portrait has the strongest circumstantial proofs of its > originality, is abused, and entirely rejected for / the want of a discriminating judgment, it is a duty to appear in such a cause, and expose what* Mr. Boaden calls TRUTH, respecting the origin of engravings looking the same way as the pictures, this author asserts they were not so^ done until Houbraken, 1747 ; I shall now show that he is in the wrong, as pictures were engraved in Dree- shout's time, the same way as they look, which can he proved by numerous engravings in the British Museum. The first I have to observe, 72 REMARKS. is William Summers, Jester to Henry VIIL engraved by Delaram. This portrait, is a whole length, in a tunic, small folio, (very rare,) with the initials H I R, upon his breast. Had the plate of this print been engraved as the picture looked it would have printed the above letters thus, SI I H. I must here observe, that this print is done very near the time of the first portrait that was ever engraved, which was that of Archbishop Parker, 1573. \ But as the above may not be sufficient satisfaction to many persons, I will now refer them to a decided proof. The portrait of Philip II. of Spain, who came to England to marry Mary I. has his sword on the left side in an engraved print of the day. Also the whole length portrait of Henry Prince of Wales, has also the sword on the left side. The above print is by Simon Passe, A. D. 1612.* Another print is by Marshall, 1640, a whole length portrait of Lord Bacon, sitting at a table writing, with his right hand in a book. Those admirable productions of Le Brun's Battles of Alexander the Great, engraved by Edelink, have the implements of war in their right hands, and every other part corre- sponding as though they were pictures. As I have now shown that portraits were en- * This print is extremely rare, and has been lately copied in mezzotinto, by Dunkerton, for Mr. Woodburn. REMARKS. 70 graved as early as Droeshout, and as I have proved even earlier, I will now take him " a button hole lower," and show what he says at page 104: " When I first saw this head at Richardson's, I found that it had been a good deal rubbed under the eyes ; but there were no circular cracks upon the surface, which time is sure to produce." Here is an error scarcely to be credited. One would think this author had never seen a picture older than himself. Had he ever inspected pictures by Hans Holbein, Titian, Claude, Rubens, &c. he would bear witness to the contrary ; and most of the above master's works are to be seen at the National Gallery, in Pall Mall, where there is evi- dent proofs to the contrary of what he asserts. As I have some knowledge how cracks are produced in paintings, I will show that time has but little to dp w 7 ith it beyond a short period. Cracks in pictures are caused by glutinous matters used in too great a quantity in the body of the paint, and which is more done at present than in former times. When too great quantity is used with the colours, it makes pictures beautifully trans- parent, but as they get hard in drying, they shrink, and, consequently, will crack. Whereas, let a picture be painted with colours as they come from the manu- factory, with only nut and drying oil, the picture will then stand for ever, without " circular cracks ;" K 74 REMARKS. if not ruined by cleaning or bad treatment. The Felton picture is painted on wood, extremely thin of colour, on a white prepared ground, and the substance, altogether, is not so thick as a wafer, con- sequently, that circumstance will, also, prevent cracking in a degree. Therefore, let " TRUTH " no more falsely blind the eye-sight of his look." In some of the works of Sir Joshua Reynolds, cracked pictures may be seen in greatest perfection, which is of modern date ; and I have seen instances where pictures are cracked in the " circular forms," in a few years after they were painted. We are next told" There was a splitting of the crust of the picture down the nose, which seemed the operation of heat rather than age. I remember the difficult task Mr. Boydell described, when he afterwards, by softening the paint, and pressing with the pallet knife, succeeded in fixing these warped and dissevered parts to the oak panel, on which they originally reposed. If it ever originated in the quarter alluded to, it might have been considered as spoiled in the Egyptian operation of the oven, and so have been condemned to the Minories, or the Museum." This crack is of a another sort, and not occasioned by the process alluded to, it is still very visible, not only as to the nose, but to the very edge of the picture downwards. I cannot say I have any pretensions to know what the " Egyptian operation of the oven," will do, but I do affirm, it is not cracked by heat, for it has every appearance of being done when the panel was cut (perhaps by the broker,) to fit the frame, it is now in, REMARKS. 75 by the picture being laid face upwards, and in the sawing, it was bent back, so as to cause a fracture, from the centre of the forehead to the extremity of the picture ; no other reasonable conjecture can be formed of it, and I have an idea, that until it came under Mr. Boydell's hands, to have never before been repaired, for all he did to it is quite visible. At page 99, Mr. Boaden gives as follows : " What then, I may be asked > do you think of the picture in question? Is it entirely painted from the print? Certainly not. A painter of skill w 7 ould have seen the fine points of the expression, and pre- served all that the print conveyed, if he did not even improve them. My opinion is this; people had long been seeking for pictures of Shakspeare. Every thing was, during my youth, warranted HIM, that had a high forehead, little or no hair, and the slightest look of the known print of him. I conceive then, that at last, some fragment of an early portrait did occur, with more than usual resemblance, as to the position of the head, and the costume, of the hair." This is no jest, but " of most excellent fancy ;" but go on : " I suppose that this was improved into still closer resemblance ; that the ruff was daubed on in the mutilated state of the picture, and the name placed on the back of it, in the hand- writing of Elizabeth's reign, and in the modish orthography." It is rather unfortunate for Mr. Boaden, that he should have supposed, that the general ap- 76 REMARKS. pearance of this picture, did originally appear " with more than usual resemblance," to the poet, for if this evidence is to be taken at all upon it, 1 think he has, in this instance, rather established than refuted the originality of the picture ; but, any man who is a judge of paintings, would not " suppose" without giving evident reason that the ruff is " daubed, on" for the repairs in the picture are so visible, that thp word " suppose" might be very well dispensed with. The extremity of the ruff, where the picture is cut off, has been repaired, and a small piece added, since it was discovered in the Minories, probably, as Mr. Boydell had surgically repaired the nose, he might have added the small piece to the ruff, and which is not so neat as might have been done ; there are two or three places in the left cheek mended, about the size of a pea, the eye on the same side of the face is a little rubbed. At page 95, we are told, " The forehead is not only different in character to Droeshout's, but the ablest artists have assured me, that nature never produced one of such a form." I see nothing in the forehead beyond what is very commonly seen, which is high and narrow, and only proves, that Shakspeare was not thick headed, as we are convinced by his works. It is rather singular in its appearance, I will allow, which is caused by the hair not being sufficiently off the side, to make it look like the bust or Droeshout's print, both of which are done upwards of twenty years after the picture. REMARKS. 77 It has been remarked, that " about the time the Chandos picture found its way into Mr. Keek's hands, the verification of portraits was so little at- tended to, that both the Earl of Oxford and Mr. Pope, admitted a juvenile one of King James I. as that of Shakspeare." The above anecdote is surely one very good reason, why Lord Leicester and Lord Oxford, in 1794, did not purchase the Felton picture, as the incredulity of such distinguished characters as Oxford and Pope are controverted, it must greatly weaken the faith of those noble- men, as to be the hinderance of their purchasing, what is most likely, a genuine portrait of the poet, exclusive of the bad condition it was then in. I will now make some remarks on the dress of the Felton picture, and show, if any thing can be con- jectured, in a reasonable manner, what it might be. It appears in the Stratford Register, that on " Aug. 11, 1596, Hamnet, son of William Shak- speare, was buried, at the age of twelve years." And in the following year, the above picture was painted. The dress, what little is seen, has all the appearance of mourning, the plain white linen orna- ment round the neck, is horizontally straight in front, and no doubt, from its appearance at the sides, is intended to be circular at the back of the neck. The small plaits inwardly terminate with sharp points, to the outward hem, which is very smail. The dress under it is black, and has the appearance 78 REMARKS. of a cape of a cloak, from the direction of the corners pointing to the shoulders. It is rather re- markable, that a cloak of this character is seen on the right shoulder of Marshall's print of Shakspeare, forty-three years after. I, therefore, trust the above observations, tends a little towards confirming the originality of the picture,* as the poet most likely wore a cloak of that description, At page 92, Mr. Boaden asserts, in opposition to Mr. Steevens' statement, the manner which Shakspeare spelt his name. As that cannot affect the picture in the least degree, I shall say as little as possible on the sub- ject. But, what Mr. Steevens very justly observes, is that his name, on the back of the picture, is spelt as the poet himself spelt it, (exclusive of the omitting a letter (e) at the end,) as can be proved by his will, and, also, by his autograph to a mortgage, signed by Shakspeare, A.D. 1612-13; and which seems entirely to have escaped Mr. Boaden's notice, but which tends to make a complete book of blunders. * We find a very similar interest was excited by the Dilettanti Society, on the discovery of an original miniature of Milton, painted by Samuel Cooper, and which Sir Joshua Reynolds pur- chased for one hundred guineas, from a picture dea-ler, who had obtained it from a common furniture broker, that could not re- member the time nor manner by which he came by it. Seven years after, a very corresponding attack was made on this miniature, as to the above portrait of Shakspeare, which was totally defeated by Sir Joshua, in a letter addressed to Mr. Urban, in the Gentleman's Magazine of 1791. See Northcote's Memoirs of Sir J. R. REMARKS. 79 . Mr. Boaden, at page 103, remarks thus, " there is, however, something of strange coincidence in what I have before stated. Mr. Wilson receives, in 1792, from a man of fashion, who must not be named, a head of the poet, dated in 1597, and endorsed Guil. Shakspeare. About the same time, were received sundry deeds, letters, and plays of Shakspeare, from a gentleman, who, in like manner, was not to be named. And they abounded in the hand-writing of Elizabeth's reign, and, also, exhi- bited the poet's name, with the recent orthography of the commentators. I do not know, but, that this picture might have been intended to appear among the infinite possessions of the nameless gentleman."* The above insinuations of Mr. Boaden, has been the means of my obtaining a book, entitled, " The Confessions of William Henry Ireland," in the perusal of which, I have received much pleasure, one part * The author of these writings alluded to, is Mr. Ireland. In a book, entitled Chalcographimania, he is noticed by the following lines and note, p. 57: " Whose impudence deserves the rod, For having ap'd the muse's god.f t " It has frequently afforded me a matter of astonishment, how this literary fraud could so long have duped the world, and involved in its deceptious vortex, such personages as a Parr, Wharion, and Sheridan, not omitting Jemmy Boswell, of Johnsonian renown ; nor can I even refrain from smiling, whenever the pamphlets of Boailen, Waldron, Wyatt, and Philalethes, otherwise Webb, Esq. chance to fall in my way. All this, however, venues the words of Martial, when he says, StuUtts labor est ineptiarum." 80 REMARKS. in particular, refers to the letters Mr. Boaden men- tions in his preface, to have had " the honour to address to the late George Steevens, Esq. which brought before the public the first detection of an impudent and very unskilful forgery." How far Mr. Boaden was the first detector of these forgeries, will be seen by the following extract, taken from p. 259, of W. H. Ireland's own con- fessions of them: " As every endeavour to calm Mr. Samuel Ireland's mind proved futile, I consulted Mr. Albany Wallis on the expediency of dispatching a letter to him averring myself the author of the manuscripts, and referring him for further satisfaction to Mr. Albany Wallis: to which suggestion Mr. Wallis agreed; and I, in consequence, penned a very long espistle to Mr. Ireland, stating the whole transaction, and craving his pardon, in the most submissive terms, for the error I had committed and the trouble I had thus unintentionally caused him. This commu- nication, being approved of by Mr. Wallis, was immediately forwarded to Mr, Samuel Ireland for Ms perusal.'' Next comes Mr. Ireland's Remark on Mr. Boa- den's Letter to Mr. George Steevens. " A very early oppositionist to the validity of the fabricated manuscripts was the above Mr. Boaden, REMARKS. 81 who, from being one of their most staunch sup- porters, suddenly shifted his ground ; and, in a letter addressed to Mr. George Steevens, endeavoured to controvert what was at that stage of the business generally believed, that the manuscripts were from the pen of Shakspeare." In pages 17 and 18 of his pamphlet, under the head " Collations and Remarks," is the following paragraph; which proves that Mr. Boaden in his research went beyond Mr. Malone, as he there allows that the fabricator had referred to the edition of Lear in 1608. As to his statement, with regard to the folio of 1623, he has not, however, proved himself so acute; that edition being then in my possession, and often referred to by me : " The first circumstance I think it necessary to remark is, that diligent collation of the printed copies with the Lear just published, has enabled me to decide, that the writer of the manuscript at first used only the second folio edition, with such modern impressions as he might chance to possess although, in the course of the play, he acquires evidently a copy of Butter's quarto, 1608, and uses it with so determined a preference over the folio, that he preserves its readings to the absolute injury of the sense of the passages. The folio 1623, he does not appear to have seen. The first proof which is offered occurs in the bequest to Gonerill. The words, which we find in the folio ' and with champaines rich'd With plenteous rivers' are in Mr. Ireland's edition, and are not in the quarto." Mr. Boaden's remark with respect to the word 82 REMARKS. alas, in page 21, I must certainly allow to be correct. My long residence in France had so ac- customed me to spell the word Mas, that a consi- derable period elapsed ere I corrected myself of that mistake in orthography. The note in question is as follows : " By this curious mode of writing the interjection one might be tempted to believe that Shakspeare had received a French education at the college of St. Omers." In page 41 Mr. Boaden quotes the words that follow in italics from lord Southampton's letter, and adds the annexed comment : " * Thryce I have assayed to wryte y and thryce mye efforts have lenne fruitlesse,' is a sentence that seems to have been written by a reader of Milton: ' Thrice he essayed, and thrice, in spite of scorn, Tears, such as angels weep, burst forth.' " On this comment I have only to remark, that Milton, or his works, never occurred to me at the moment when lord Southampton's letter was written. This is one of the many instances to be adduced of the fallacy of such criticisms, which are as remote from truth as they must prove uninteresting to the reader. With respect to the tout-ensemble of Mr. Boaden's pamphlet, I have little to state, further than that its appearance stamped that gentleman's apostacy, and REMARKS. 83 brought his name into public notice as an avowed enemy to the Shaksperian production. Boaderfs Pamphlet answered. i Shortly after the appearance of the above gentle- man's pamphlet, Mr. Wy*tt, who had frequently inspected the manuscripts, and entertained no doubts of their genuineness, published a answer to Mr. Boaden's publication, under the following title " A comparative Review of the Opinions of Mr. James Boaden (Editor of the Oracle), &c., in 1795, andof James Boaden, Esq. Author of Fontainville Forest, &c.) in 1796 : By a Friend to Consistency.' 7 In pages 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, in order to show the former opinions of Mr. Boaden on the subject of the manuscripts, Mr. Wy*tt quotes some of the paragraphs which appeared in the Oracle ; being as follow : " ' Shakspeare manuscripts. By the obliging politeness of Mr. Ireland, of Norfolk Street, the conductor of this paper* is enabled to gratify, in a general way, the public curiosity. To particularise would be fraudulent and ungrateful; Besides the Lear and Vor- tigern, there are various papers, the domestica facta of this great man's life, discovered. " * For attributing to Mr. Boaden the paragraphs which appeared in the Oracle relative to the Shakspeare MSS. I have one simple reason, viz. that he was the only person concerned in the direction of that paper that ever viewed them." L 2 84 REMARKS. \ " ' A letter to the lady he afterwards married, distinguished for the utmost delicacy of passion, and poetical spirit. It incloses a lock of his hair, also preserved. " ' A profession of his religious faith, rationally pious, and grandly expressed. " ' Some poetical 'compliments and poetical exercises of fancy, amongst the company at whose head he is numbered. Devises of land; receipts for money advanced, &c.; and a discovery relative to lord Southampton, which we forhear to anticipate, reflecting immortal honour upon the bounty of the one, and the modesty of the other. It is the intention of Mr. Ireland to publish the first volume, with fac-similes, if possible, by the king's birth-day; the second volume probably within the following year : and now, to this new information, we have only to add, that the conviction produced upon our mind, is such as to make all scepticism ridi- culous, and when we follow, the sentiments of Dr. Joseph Wharton, we have no fear of our critical orthodoxy.' " ' The same paper of the 2 1st contained further observations to this effect: ' When we were favoured with a sight of these inva- luable remains, v?e promised the possessor that no sneering ani- madversions, written by those who had never seen them, should pass without reply, and probably reproof. One gentleman makes himself merry with a profession of faith from Shakspeare; he shall be reduced at once to the plea of ignoramus, there happens to be indusputable proof that this was the custom of the age, nay, that other members of the same family had done so. " ' But an objection has been urged triumphantly by those who have not seen, that a gentleman who had been accustomed to the hand -writing of that period, was yet unable to read them. " ' The writer of this article is ready to prove his acquaintance with the hand-writing of Elizabeth's reign, in the first instance, and to read once more the MSS. in the second. As to the silly REMARKS. 85 stuff about the poet's courtship and the lock of hair, with recol- lection of similar feelings and similar gifts " We cannot but remember such things were, And were most precious to us." " ' The man who cannot, should never trust himself with the subject of Shakspeare's life, should never by a touch " pollute the page of inspiration.' " " On the 26th of February, Mr. Boaden called a second time on Mr. Ireland, again expressed his conviction of the authenticity of the MSS. and took so deep an interest in their success, as to send, on the following day, a letter (of which I among others have been favoured with a sight) which is only remarkable for the officious zeal with which he endeavours to make himself a party in the ultimate success of the MSS. an extract will be sufficient to satisfy the reader : " ' My dear sir, " ' Though 1 spoke from memory when I said that Hunsdou was lord-chamberlain of Elizabeth's household, it was correctly stated Henry Carey, whom she created a baron in the first year of her reign, had the charge of her person at court and to secure us as to the required date, he was with her at the Tilbury camp, in the year 1588, and had there the care of her person. I think this ample satisfaction upon the subject, and lose no time in sending it. This, on any deeper inquiry, will be but a poor return for the favour of your unreserved communication.' " " On the 28th appeared the following: " ' The manuscripts of Shakspeare. The public look up to us for a faithful account of these important papers what we have opportunity to examine, we shall, from time to time, report with the most scrupulous fidelity. We have read a 86 REMARKS. considerable portion of the MS. Lear. In the title-page, the great bard professes to have taken the story from Holingshed, and has, in the true spirit of modesty, apologised for the liberty he took in departing from the exact statements of the Chronicle. There is a letter from Queen Elizabeth to Shak- speare, when the poet was manager of the Globe, commanding him, with his best players, to perform before her, and thanking him for some verses which her majesty much admired. We think it will be clearly proved tint all the degrading non- sense, of his holding horses, &c. will be found utterly fictitious, and that this great man was the Garrick of his age, caressed for his powers by every one great and illustrious, the gentle friend of genius, and most excellent in the quality he pro- fessed.' " " On the 23rd of April, this paragraph appeared : ** ' The Shaksperiana, which have been so luckily discovered, are now considered as genuine by all but those who illiberally refuse to be convinced by inspection.' " In pages 44 and 45, in order to expose the won- derful change so speedily effected in Mr. Boaden's opinions, Mr. Wy*tt contrasts his sentiments on the papers of the two different periods named in the title. " Letter to Anna Hatherwaye. "Oracle. " James Boaden, Esq. "This letter is* distinguished " 'This letter must, if ge- for the utmost delicacy of pas- nuine, have been written at sion and poetical spirit.' " sixteen years of age. The ex- pressions have nothing of the character of our prose in that period of our literature. The REMARKS. 8T verses (that follow in Mr. Ire- land's publication) are worthy of no other notice than that they are metrically smooth/ Page 40 of a Letter to G. Steevens, Esq." " Letter to Lord Southampton. " Oracle. ' A discovery relative to Southampton, reflecting " James Boaden, Esq. r< ' The judicious critic at lord Southampton, reflecting once perceives the modern co- immortal honour on the bounty louring of diction and flow of the one, and the modesty of language.* Page 42." of the other. The conviction produced upon our mind is such, as to make all scepticism ridiculous.' " " The Profession of Faith. " Oracle. " 'A profession of his re- "James Boaden, Esq. " ' Nothing but the puerile ligious faith, rationally pious quaintness and idiomatic po- and grandly expressed.'" verty of a methodist rhapsody ! Exquisite nonsense! Execrable jargon ! ' Pp. 42, 43, 44." " Of Mr. Wy*tt's pamphlet I shall only further add, that it was at the time deemed a very spirited defence, and proved highly gratifying to every ad- vocate for the validity of the Shaksperian manu- scripts." At page 102, Mr. Boaden observes, " It is not incurious, that Mr. Steevens should have allowed REMARKS, my friend, Mr. G. Nicol, to purchase the head from Mr. Felton at forty guineas, rather than secure it at any price for himself; he was not much in the habit of weighing money against peculiar gratifications; but, in this instance, he chose to retain merely a copy of it, made for him by the late Josiah Boydell, Esq. a man whom to name, is praise enough. That artist worked upon it, until no discoverable difference remained ; and the fac-simile was before Mr. Steevens constantly till he died." In consequence of the above misconception, I requested Mr. Nicol to inform me the reason, that Mr. Steevens did not purchase the picture of Mr. Felton ; to which he answered, " At the time Mr. Boydell made the copy from it, which Mr. Steevens afterwards possessed, Mr. Felton was not inclined to part with the original, but, as I expressed a wish to possess it, I was in- duced to offer the sum of forty guineas, which he accepted, and what I certainly should not have given, did I not think it the most genuine portrait of Shakspeare." As to Mr. Boaden's remarks, that " the fac-simile was before Mr. Steevens constantly till he died," I think is suffi- cient confirmation, that, that gentleman believed the original, was a genuine portrait of the bard; and is surely a complete answer to the story told by Mr. Boswell, of his (Mr. Steevens's) smile, upon Mr. Bindley's attesting its authenticity, (see REMARKS. 89 page 101 of Boaden's,) and (at page 100,) he asserts, " Mr Steevens inferred, that all who sub- scribed to Trotter's engraving from it, were sincere believers, a matter to which I myself can give a de- cided negative ; many subscribed, who only wished it genuine." After what is here said, it is sin- gular to perceive in the list of subscribers to the above print, Mr. Boaden's name is among them, and which is rather evident, that at one time his opinions was opposite to his present argu- ments. Setting aside the opinions of Mr. Boaden, as to the validity of the Felton picture, I do think, that the ignominy he has attempted to throw on the good character of Mr. Steevens, (page 102,) is both ungenerous and unfeeling, as the man is dead.* " His having heard also, various tales of the wanton pleasantries of this ingenious person," (among friends,) as to stile him " the puck of commentators," has aught to do with what that gentleman gave to the world, as his belief, for to establish truth, was the basis of his intentions, there can be no doubt. Having gone over the whole of Mr. Boaden's * Dr. Johnson says, " the dead, it is true, can make no resis- tance; they may be attached with great security; but, since they can neither feel, nor mend, the safety of mauling them seems greater than the pleasure. Nor, perhaps, would it much misbe- seera them to remember, that amidst all our triumphs over the nonsensical and the senseless, that we likewise are men," and as Swift observed to Burnet, ' shall soon be among the dead our- selves." M 90 REMARKS. statements, I have selected those parts to com- ment upon, principally connected with my main object, (the Felton picture,) and flatter myself to have produced such evidence, as must prove, to demonstration, its originality beyond the shadow of a doubt, as the initials- and date on the back, records it to have been done by Richard Burbage, when the poet was in the thirty-third year of his age, and in mourning for his only son, who died at the age of twelve, and this being sup- ported by the account given by Granger, that Bur- bage had painted a picture of the poet, is to be credited, as the verses by John Davies, of Hereford, clearly prove he handled the pencil, within eight years after the date on the above portrait, and which I think is sufficient evidence, to set it down as the original of Shakspeare, by that celebrated per- former, and must be considered one of the most valuable gems in the world. THE SHAKSPEARE's PORTRAIT, SUPPOSED TO BE BY CORNELIUS JANSEN. ANNO 1610, JETAT. 46, PRINTED VRRBATI& FROM M$. BO ABENDS ACCOUNTS. In the year 1770, the play of King Lear was published by White, in Fleet-street, as a specimen of what the Editor intended with respect to the whole of 'jShakspeare's works. The plan was ex- ceedingly judicious, and differed from that of Mr. Capell only, by making the collations of the various copies accompany the poet's text, instead of as- sembling them in volumes of another size, and to be published at a distant time.* * To shew how a necessary task may be ridiculed, and what a test of truth this precious RIDICULE is likely to be, we way instance the treatment of Mr. Jennens. This laborious gentleman used to spread the various copies, ancient and modern, of our poet's works, in a rather distant series, and pass himself rapidly from one end of his collection to the other and back again, line by line. Mr. Steevens, I suppose, must have seen him at this brisk collation, for he fastened upon his rival the title of the shuttle-cock Commentator. M 2 92 REMARKS. To the above play of King Lear was prefixed a very delicate raezzotinto by R. Earlom, from the original portrait of Shakspeare in the possession of Charles Jennens, Esq. of Gopsal, in Leicestershire, the ostensible patron, but real editor of the work. That gentleman was firmly convinced of its au- thenticity. What communication Mr. Jennens made upon the subject of this picture to the critics of his time, I cannot discover: under his print from it, he merely states, that it was painted by Cornelius Jansen, of which, indeed, even the print exhibited sufficient evidence. The late Mr. Steevens, speaking of the fortunate possessor of this picture, says, that he " was not disposed to forgive the writer who observed, that, being dated in 1610, it could not have been the work of an artist who never saw England till 1618, above a year after our author's death." There were other inferences which he might leave Mr. Jennens to draw- such as this, that if, however, he could be certain of his painter, that certainty W 7 as de- cisive against his poet or this other, that if still he deemed the head a Shakspeare, Jansen could merely have copied it from some other picture. Mr. Steevens was unfortunately a person, who took a very marked delight in ruffling the com- placency of others. Finding in Walpole's Anec- dotes of Painting, vol. ii. page 8, the words " Jansen's first works in England are dated about 1618," (in which, as will be afterwards shewn, REMARKS. yo Walpole was certainly wrong), he at once assumes the year 1618 to be the date of the painter's arrival in this country, and throws it at the picture in Jennens's possession, to blot out the characteristic proofs of its authenticity. However, be it observed, that, having been born in the year 1564, in 1610 our great poet was certainly 46, as this picture expresses him ; and further, that in a slight, but neat scroll over the head, there are the two words UT MAGUS, which very personally, indeed, apply to Shakspeare. The two words are extracted from the famous Epistle of Horace to Augustus, the First of the Second Book ; the par- ticular passage this : Hie per extentum funem mihi posse videtur Jre poeta; meuni qui pectus inaniter angit, Irritat, mulcet, falsis terroribus iniplet, UT MAGUS; et modo me thebis, modo ponit Athenis. No man ever took this " extended range" more securely than Shakspeare ; no man ever possessed so ample a controul over the passions; and he transported his hearers, AS A MAGICIAN, over lands and seas, from one kingdom to another, superior to all circumscription or confine. This always was deemed the peculiar characteristic of Shak- speare ; and great as the merits of his contempories unquestionably were, had Ben Jonson been to apply this passage of his beloved Horace to some poet of the reign of King James, he would as- 94 REMARKS. suredly, have written the two words in question over the portrait of Shakspeare. When Mr. Steevens assumed the year 1618 to be that of Jansen's arrival in England, he could not but know that Walpole's book itself exhibited a doubt when he arrived. According to Sandrart, he was born in London,* of Flemish parents ; but, Vertue, and the author of an essay towards an English school, say it was at Amsterdam, where, the latter asserts, that he resided long ; the former, that he came over young." Mr. Vertue also pronounced his earliest performances to be his best. It is extremely probable that Sandrart was right in his assertion, and that Jansen, born among us, started as a painter in London ; but, however this may be. *232. Cornelius Jansonius Londinensis. Belgis propterea annumerari potest, quia Parentes ejus in Belgico Hispanico nati fuerant, et ob tumultus saltern bellicos Loudinum concesserant, ubi hunc deinde genuere filiura. Hie cum ad artem pictoriam sese applicuisset, iconibuspotissimum conficiendisoperam dedit ; unde in servitia Caroli Stuarti Regis Anglise assurntus, Regis atque Reginae, totiusque aulae elegantes elaborabat effigies. Ortis autem inter Regem hunc atque Parlamentum dissidiis, adeoque in turbas hasce involute tota Anglia, Jansonius noster una fere cum omnibus celebri oribus artificibus aliis ex Anglia discedebat, trans- late in Hollandium turn temporis omni felicitatis genere affluentem, domicilio: ibidenique postquam icones confecisset egregias pluri- mas, tandem anno 16(55. Amstelodami ex hac miseriarum valle emigravit. Sandrart. Acadeuiiae Picturae Nobilis. Caput xx. p. 314. T. JVryfo JaJp* SHAKSPEARE, London, Published, fy^dL . WivdL, 40, Castle Street. East. REMARKS. 95 if he came over to us, he came over young, for Mr. Malone thus notices the old mistake respecting his arrival : " Mr. Walpole has stated that Jansen came into England about the year 1618, (the reader has seen what Mr. Walpole really did state); but this is a mistake; for I have a portrait painted by him, dated 16 LI,* which had belonged, for more than a century, to a family that lived at Chelsea." Life of Shakspeare, edition 1821, vol. ii. p. 429. Here we certainly see him in the practice of his * As to the information Mr. Malone has given, it is without any evidence to establish Jansen's being in this country in 1611, for he has not even hinted, who or what was the person painted, by him, in the above date, whether it is of a man, woman, child, or an English character ; but, allowing it to be of the latter, it is equally possible to have been painted abroad, therefore, we are still in doubt who was the painter of the Shakspeare portrait ; a minute comparison with some other works of Jansen, may decide it in his favour. Mr. Boaden, however, says in the next page, in con- sequence of Mr. Malone's statement, that, "the objection is removed, that it could be painted by Jansen." I apprehend now it is not. When Mr. Woodburn purchased this picture of Mr. Spackman, he informs me it was in a very decayed frame, with an inscription on it, and believes it was the name of the poet. I had the honour of waiting on her Grace the Duchess of Somerset, at her town residence, for the purpose of inspecting the picture, which was granted. The forehead resembles Droeshout's print the most of any other, the formation of the eye brows and eyes is that of the bust, but the great difference between the latter and the picture, is in the space between the nose and mouth, the painter has certainly given more of nature and the true proportion which constitutes beauty. There is also some difference in the character of the nose. A. W. 96 REMARKS. art among us seven years before the assigned date of his arrival ; and we are carried one year farther back by the picture under examination, which has an English character at all events, if it should be contested that it was the character of Shakspeare. However, now the objection is removed, that it could be painted by Jansen, I believe on the matter of most moment it will speak for itself. Nothing can more distinctly embody our conceptions of Shak- speare. It is extremely handsome ; the forehead ele- vated and ample ; the eyes clear, mild, and be- nignant ; the nose well formed ; the mouth closed, the lips slightly compressed ; the hair receding from the forehead, as of one who would become bald ; the beard gracefully disposed, and a very neat laced collar thrown over a dress such as the poet, from his circumstances, his character, and his connexions, might be supposed to wear. Indeed, at this period the players in general were censured for being splen- didly drest in silks and satins.* There was doubtless no exceeding on the part of Shakspeare ; he who shews himself in the Sonnets, to have enjoyed the familiar intercourse of Lord Southampton, f would * This statement is sufficient to do away with Mr. Croker's doubt, " whether shakspeare was a person of sufficient worldly import- ance, to have his portrait painted in the style of the picture in his own possession." A. W. f In opposition to the late Editor. I consider the greater number of these short poems to be addressed to his patron, and that they refer to many interesting circumstances in his professional life. The Sonnet I now allude to is the 57th. REMARKS. 97 certainly sit for his portrait in a costume at once simple and elegant. It is not a little curious, that we should possess undoubted proof that Cornelius Jansen was the painter employed by the great patron of Shakspeare. " At Sherburn Castle, in Dorsetshire (says Walpole), is a head of Elizabeth Wriothesley, eldest daughter of Henry Earl of Southampton, and wife of William Lord Spenser ; her head richly dressed, and a picture in a blue enamelled case at her breast. This picture is well coloured, though not equal to another at the same seat, a half length of her mother, Eli- zabeth, daughter of John Vernon, wife of Earl Henry. Her clothes are magnificent, and the attire of her head singular a veil turned quite back. The face and hands are coloured with incom- parable lustre, and equal to any thing this master executed/' With this absolute certainty as to Jansen's being Southampton's painter, I might assume, that it is Being your slave, what should I do but tend Upon the hours and times of your desire? I have no precious time at all to spend, Nor services to do, till you require. Nor dare I chide the world-without-end hour, Whilst I, my sovereign, watch the clock for you, Nor think the bitterness of absence sour, When you have bid your servant once adieu; Nor dare I question with my jealous thought, Where you may be, or your affairs suppose ; But, like a sad slave, stay and think of nought, Save, where you are, how happy you make those. N 98 REMARKS. highly probable he would have employed him to delineate his favourite poet : that this is the picture so painted for that magnificent nobleman ; and that it once hung among the illustrious members of his family, in one of his splendid residences, Tichfield, or Beaulieu, a shining proof of his own genius, taste, and liberality. I am unable, indeed, to prove the transmission of this lovely portrait from the seat of the great Earl to the mansion of the Commen- tator on Shakspeare. It may, however, have been a part of that collection once divided between the Dukes of Portland and Beaufort, by one of whom it might have been presented to Mr. Jennens. I can only express my conviction, that it is a picture of the poet ; and, in my judgment, fully to be relied on. When he published from his picture so beautiful an engraving as that by Earlom, it is greatly to be regretted, that he was not more communicative. I hope that Mr. Jennens did not allow his faith to be shaken in respect of the fine portrait he possessed. Mr. Steevens, in his turn, made his election of a picture, which he considered to be the original of Droeshout's engraving. Could Mr. Jennens have perused the laboured essay in which he en- deavoured to impress conviction, in spite of the very refutation he at the same time produced, he might have .said, " here is started among us a new species of advocate ; one who demonstrates, that the whole evidence of the case is against his cause ; and that he expects a verdict, from the jury's for- REMARKS. 99 getting all the statement he has made, and listening only to the expression of his wishes at the close of it." But Mr. Jennens might have requested any per- son, whom his witty assailant had led to smile at his pretensions, to compare his picture in some important traits with the bust at Stratford. He would point to the identity of the forehead, and the placid unbroken sweep of the eye-brows. He w T ould shew that the general contour is the same he would notice that the expression is different, only because the painter had the surer taste : he closed those lips that the sculptor opened. The latter aimed at a particular and casual expression of hilarity; the former exhibited the general ex- pression of his countenance and his mind. A marked difference to be sure remained in the style of the beard and the mustaches ; in the picture, both are waving and artless ; in the monument, the one turns up with a Bobadilian fierceness, and the other, like the fashion of Southampton's beard, courts the form of the dagger) or rather of the spade. The print of Droeshout, differing from both in these particulars, exhibits our poet with a beard clipped close to the chin ; a mode, that, while he was an actor, he probably preferred : the chin, unencumbered by its native growth, left the player at liberty to discharge his part, as Bottom has it, " in either your straw-coloured beard, your orange -tawny beard, your purple-in-grain beard, or N 2 100 REMARKS. x your French crown-coloured beard, your perfect yellow." With respect to the picture by Jansen, one point is clear enough Mr. Jennens seems to have ac- quired it after the year 1761. This is ascertained by a reference to the very exact catalogue of his pictures at the house in Great Ormond Street, which may be found in a work of the period, called London and its Environs. There we find only Vandergucht's drawing in crayons from the Chandos picture. But in 1770, he published, as has been stated, Mr. Earlom's beautiful engraving from his new acquisi- tion. In the regular course of business, the picture, after Earlom had done with it, should have gone to the magnificent residence he had built at Gopsal, in Leicestershire, to take the honourable position that had no doubt been assigned to it by Mr. Jennens. I incline to believe that it never reached the gallery of that fine seat. In 1773 its owner died, and Gopsal became the property of the late Penn Asheton Curzon, Esq. who had married the niece of Mr. Jennens. Although the utmost reliance can be placed upon the fidelity of Earlom, under Mr. Jennens's anxious inspection, it became desirable to compare some proofs of his print, in my possession, with the original picture, to see whether the resemblance could at all be heightened by the present admirable artist. I accordingly wrote to Earl Howe, the noble REMARKS. 101 proprietor of Gopsal, expressing my wish to review the picture, which I did not at all doubt must be there with the rest of the collection. I received an answer from his Lordship, which stated, that un- fortunately, the only head of Shakspeare in his possession, was the drawing in crayons by Van- dergucht, ' certainly of no great antiquity,' as the Earl observes : he was pleased to add, how happy it would have made him to concur in the object to which I had drawn his Lordship's attention. Thus it is ascertained, that the picture has wan- dered from its original mansion ; and where it is now to be found, and the cause of its alienation, will be subjects, I trust, of diligent enquiry. In the mean time, the most perfect engraving is sup- plied from the only accessible authority. It is in truth an object of the highest importance; because, however faithful, the other originals of our poet are work of very indifferent artists. Cornelius Jansen is, in his happiest portraits, only inferior to the hitherto unequalled Vandyke. A few words yet remain to be added as to this artist, and the period of his residence among us. The accounts given of him at page 71, admit of easy reconciliation. The author of An Essay, Sfc. says he resided long at Amsterdam ; and this is also said by Sandrart. But if he began to paint aiflfong us at the lowest date assigned, namely 1618, he could riot have resided as a painter long in 102 REMARKS. Amsterdam, previous to his coming to this country. It follows, therefore, that the residence in Holland was, as Sandrart describes it, a measure of neces- sity. He left this place when the civil war fright- ened from us every thing like elegance, and then cer- tainly resided long at Amsterdam, since he did not die till 1665; so that he probably passed more than TWENTY years among the Dutch, after he had quitted us either in disgust or alarm. The real history of Jansen, therefore, seems to be this : Upon the miserable sack of Antwerp by the Spaniards in 1576, his parents took refuge in England, where, some time after, they gave birth to their son Cor- nelius. Here he grew celebrated for his art, was employed by Southampton, and painted Shakspeare. An honour hardly less was yet reserved for him; for in 1618, Milton's father carried the author of Paradise Lost, then in his tenth year, to sit to the greatest portrait painter then in England. It may teach us reliance upon Jansen's fidelity, to find as we do, in the expression of young Milton, that time only developed and expanded the features ; the same characteristics are found in his boyhood and at his maturity. ADDITIONAL REMARKS, AS TO THE PORTRAIT BY CORNELIUS JANSEN, BY MR. BOADEN. IN the Critical Review for December 1770, the print by Earlom is thus noticed : King Lear, 8vo. price 3s. A mezzotinto of the author, by the ingenious Mr. Earlom, (whose industry and abilities do honour to the rising arts of Great Britain), is placed at the head of it. We should have been glad indeed, to have some better proofs concerning the authenticity of the original, than a bare assertion that it was painted by Cornelius Jansen,* and is to be found in a private collection, which we are not easily inclined to treat with much respect, especially as we hear it is filled with the perform- ances of one of the most contemptible daubers of the age. These kind observations were from the pen of Mr. Steevens himself, who, being then engaged with Dr. Johnson in preparing the edition of 1773, * Walpole says, Jansen's first works are dated in England about 1618 ; this picture bears date in 1610. The only true picture of Shakspeare supposed to be now extant, was painted either by Richard Burbage, or John Taylor, the player, the latter of whom left it by will to Davenant. After his death, Betterton bought it; and when he died, Mr. Keck, of the Temple, gave forty guineas for it to Mrs. Barry, the actress. From him it descended to Mr. Nicol, of Southgate, by whose daughter it afterwards came to the present Marquis of Caernarvon, in whose possession we be- lieve it still remains. Note of the Reviewer. 104 REMARKS. ' seized the opportunity, readily afforded to such a writer, of defeating a rival editor. I cannot but lament that he should stoop to this sort of warfare ; but I shall prove immediately, what Mr. Jennens could only suspect, that he actually wrote the review of the new edition of King Lear. Let us look at the sort of pleasantry with which the editor of the obnoxious work is assailed. " Though for the service of his author he might have been tempted, like Prince Harry, to have robbed an Exchequer, or fleeced a King's collector, or even to have stolen with Dumain, an egg out of a cloister ; yet he should not with Bardolph have descended to filch a lute-case; with Pistol to murder a poor whores-ruff; or, with Falstaff, to make a bankrupt of Mrs. Quickly:' The preceding is a favourite illustration of Mr. Steevens ; and as the life of a review is not unrea- sonably long, he was, perhaps, justified in repeating himself more than twenty years afterwards. In the supplement to Richardson's Proposals, December 1794, our friend Bardolph again makes his appear- ance. " The artist," says Mr. Steevens, " who could have filched from Droeshout, like Bardolph, might have c stolen a lute-case, carried it twelve leagues, and sold it for three halfpence.' ?: The writer in the Critical Review, again notices Earlom's print in the month of January following : " Concerning this print we will have no controversy ; but we still adhere to our former opinion, that the soul of the mezzotinto REMARKS. 105 is not the soul of Shakspeare. It has been the fate of Shakspeare to have many mistakes committed both about his soul and body ; Pope exhibited him under the form of James the First." Having already considered what respects Jansen's residence in this country, and proved certainly that he might have painted Shakspeare, the preceding extracts furnish little to call for additional remark, unless it be that we gather by implication, that Mr. Steevens believed, in 1770, the Chandos Head to be a true picture of the poet. But it may be gratifying a reasonable curiosity, as the pamphlet is before me, to let the reader see something of the reply made by Mr. Jennens to the Reviewer : the passage which I shall select, touches also upon the picture : " There are three sorts of people that these reviewers seem to bear a moral antipathy to, viz. the old, the fat, and the industri- ous. ; from which we have great reason to conclude, that none of them are either old, or fat, or industrious. Young, unfledged criticks, we think they have sufficiently proved themselves to be; and criticism in such hands, especially when unaccompanied by industry, is not likely either to thrive itself, or to fatten its owners. " But they think, contrary to all the philosophers that went before them, that age is not the proper period for criticism. It is their opinion that long experience does not improve the judgment; that a life spent in study does not ripen the mental abilities ; that a man may know more in twenty or thirty years, than he can in sixty or seventy; and that those who are acquainted with the first rudiments of learning only, are better qualified for criticks than those who have gathered all the fruits of science. O 106 REMARKS. " Concerning the authenticity of the picture from which the mezzotinto print of Shakspeare was taken, they have dropt the controversy; and we are very glad they have so much sense and modesty left, as to find out what impudence and absurdity they have been guilty of, in calling in question a picture they have never seen, and without any provocation abusing a person whom the generality of the world have thought fit to esteem an artist that excels in the higher branch of painting, and of whose perform- ances Mr. Jennens has many, though his collection cannot be said to be filled with them, (as the Critical Reviewers say they hear), their number being inconsiderable when compared with the whole collection. " They say, ' we still adhere to our former opinion, that the soul of the mezzotinto is not the soul of Shakspeare.' Who said it was? The soul of a picture cannot be the soul of a man; but a picture may be like a man's soul, when it is made to express those qualities and dispositions which we discover him by his writings to have been possessed of." Vindication of King Lear. It is to be regretted that petulant criticism seems to have suppressed what evidence Mr. Jennens could have brought forward he disdained the attack as coarse and ungentlemanly, (as in truth it was,) and insolent enough to call for some- thing beyond literary chastisement. I shall merely add the Reviewer's farewell to the proprietor of Gopsal " Vale, Jennine noster! literatorum om- nium minime princeps!" While the engravings for this work were in pro- gress, I was unremitting in my inquiries after the REMARKS. 107 picture, which, as I stated in page 79, was no longer the ornament of Gopsal. At length I suc- ceeded in tracing it to its present residence : this portrait of Shakspeare is now the property of His Grace the Duke of Somerset, and, I have under- stood, was a present to him from the late Duke of Hamilton. I have unquestionable authority for saying that it came up with a considerable part of the collection from Gopsal, and was bought by Woodburn* for * As I had the pleasure of waiting on Mr, Samuel Woodburn, for information respecting this portrait, lie very kindly wrote down, for me, the following memorandum, which will shew that the picture was not purchased, by him, for his Grace the Duke of Hamilton. " The portrait of Shakspeare, now in the possession of the Duke of Somerset, was formerly belonging to Prince Rupert, he left it, with the rest of his collection, to his natural daughter Ruperta, who married Emmanuel Scroopes Howes,| Esq. The descendants of whom, sold the whole of the pictures to Mr. Spackmau, a picture dealer, from whom my father purchased it and some others, he kept it probably two years in his possession, and sold it to the late Duke of Hamilton, who gave it, with his other pictures in town, to his daughter, the present Duchess of Somerset." Margaret Hughs was mistress to Prince Rupert. He bought for her the magnificent seat of Sir Nicholas Crispe, near Hammersmith, which cost 20,000. the building. It was afterwards sold to Mr. Lannoy, a scarlet dyer. The prince had one daughter by her, named Ruperta, born in 1671. She married Emmanuel Scroope Howe, Esq. brigadier-general in the reign of Anne, and envoy extraordinary to the house of Brunswick Lunemberg. He was brother to Scroope, Lord Viscount Howe, of the kingdom of o2 108 REMARKS. His Grace the Duke of Hamilton, somewhere about lifteen years back. To expatiate upon the absurdity which parted with it from Gopsal, in strong terms, would seem like a regret that it is now in the metropolis ; a feeling that I cannot entertain, since otherwise I might never have had the satisfaction of comparing it with Earlom's print. Although I had not the honour to be known to His Grace, I took the liberty to communicate my wish to inspect the picture, and from the country orders were transmitted to give me every accommo- dation for that purpose. As it was placed near the top of the room, it was taken carefully down, and put in a proper light for examination. It had been removed from its ancient frame, into one of greater value, but less interest. The portrait is on panel, and attention will be required to prevent a splitting of the oak in two places,* if my eye have not deceived me. Ireland. Captain Alexander Radcliffe, in his " Ramble,'* evidently points at Mrs. Hughes. Should I be hang'd, I could not chuse " But laugh at wh-r-s that drop from stews, " Seeing that Mistress Margaret " So fine is.'' Vide Granger's Bio. Hist. vol. IV. p. 190. * T was not aware that Mr. Boaden looked with but one eye, at the time ; as this circumstance may account for his not having a full sight on the subject, I have the satisfaction to state, this por- REMARKS. 109 It is no made up questionable thing, like so many that are foisted upon us. It is an early picture by Cornelius Jansen, tenderly and beautifully painted. Time seems to have treated it with infinite kindness ; for it is quite pure, and exhibits its original surface. The epithet gentle, which cotemporary fondness attached to the name of Shakspeare, seems to be fully justified by the likeness before us. The ex- pression of the countenance really equals the demand of the fancy ; and you feel that every thing was possible to a being so happily constituted. I had supposed, although I knew Earlom to have been a great mannerist, that with some little allow- ance for his peculiar style, he would have been kept, by Mr. Jennens's veneration for the poet, in some measure faithful to the picture. But he had been faithless beyond measure ; and, indeed, none of the parts were accurately reduced by him. He had lessened the amplitude of the forehead he had al- tered the form of the skull he had falsified the character of the mouth and though his engraving was still beautiful, and the most agreeable exhibition of the poet, I found it would be absolutely ne- cessary to draw the head again, as if he had never exercised his talents upon it. trait is split in two places, which I could discern at the distance of twenty yards, one is through the same part of the forehead as the Felton picture, but by what means produced I cannot say, nor can I think it is bv the aforesuid " Egyptian oven." A. W. 110 REMARKS. The noble possessor of the picture afforded every facility to the artist for this object ; and Mr. Turner has produced an engraving in consequence, which may be considered as giving the genuine character and expression of the picture. Mr. Turner thought, in examining the liberties taken by Mr. Earlom,* that he had, however, judged wisely, in not copying the * I very luckily possess all the engravings done from this, and no two are like each other. Respecting the first print by Earlom, I cannot perceive the liberties taken which Mr. Boaden states, the satin dress is not so bright as the picture, nor so dark as Mr. Turner's engraving. If I have any judgment on the subject, the latter would have been much improved if all that the picture re- presents had been given, but I rather think Mr. Boaden has shown us his taste was more on the saving plan, than Mr. Turner's taste or judgment, when it is well known that the latter prefers putting a hand in a picture for which he charges five guineas, and I cannot think he would have engraved the body for less, when decorated with satins ; exclusive of which, that artist has always shewn us what is really good taste, and is very opposite to his Shakspeare, though what he has delineated is well done. The engraving executed by Earlom for Mr. Woodburn some few years ago, is, as to the effect, very good, but very different to the picture ; he has given a light back-ground, which, by no means injures the head ; quite the reverse, for it accords with the ruff and figured dress, and is, altogether, in perfect harmony ; but as a likeness to the face of the picture, it is a failure. Earlom's first print has also been copied in mezzotinto, by R. Cooper, for the proprietors of the London Stage, 1823. It has no excellencies fit to be recorded : this engraver has chosen to make the cheek on the distant side appear rather before dinner than after. The eyes are too circular ; on the whole, the true character of the picture is lost ; but in Earlom's, it is its chief excellence. The latter has been copied by Gardner, of a less size, and in dots. 1 hope he is sensible it possesses no merit. A.W* REMARKS. Ill figured satin of the dress. In the picture, the charm of colour blended the pattern and the ground into one rich mass, and it by no means injured the ex- pression of the head ; but in the print, it would have disturbed the grand effect, to have imitated such trivial parts ; he, therefore, with my entire concur- rence, kept the dress dark, that the brilliant effect of the head might be quite undisturbed. Comparing it with the other portraits, it certainly most resembles the head by Droeshout in the folio 1623. But, as works of art, the rudeness of the one is as obvious as the refinement of the other. Still as fidelity was equally dear to both the artists, in their very contrasted styles, they alike, though not equally, exhibit the countenance of the poet, and thus illustrate and confirm the representations of each other. At the conclusion of this article, I sieze the oppor- tunity of expressing publicly my respectful acknow- ledgments to the possessor of this noble portrait ; and am truly happy in laying before the public a most beautiful engraving from the portrait of Shak- speare by Cornelius Jansen, in the collection of His Grace the DUKE OF SOMERSET. At the close, as I conceived, of my inquiry, my attention was excited by the publication of a small 112 REMARKS. Head of the Poet, from an original picture hi the possession of J. W. Croker, Esq. M. P. I sent for the engraving, and found it a very unfaithful and poor attempt indeed, to express the picture by Jansen. The next step, in course, was to see the work from which it professed to be taken. Mr. Croker with the utmost readiness indulged my curi- osity, and agreeably surprised me by the sight of an absolute fac simile of the Duke's picture. I see no difference whatever in the execution the character of course is identical. It should, however, be ob- served, that although the Duke's picture is on panel, Mr. Croker's is on canvas.* I must add to this remark, that the picture on canvas has no date or age painted upon it, and that the portrait is an oval within a square ; in other w r ords, the angles are rounded off. The mode, Mr. Croker tells me, in which the picture was discovered, was singularly remarkable. It was hidden behind a panel, in one of the houses lately pulled down near the site of Old Suffolk-street, and he purchased it in a state of comparative filth and decay. It has been very judi- ciously cleaned and lined, but no second pencil has ever been allowed to touch it. This discovery of pictures, behind wainscoting, is not unusual, particu- * This is certainly a very good copy, and is on a three-quarter canvas, which is larger than the original. Mr. Robert Cooper is the engraver of the print taken from it ; and although he has done many fine plates of distinguished characters in his time, he has made Shakspeare look, in this instance, like an idiot. A. W. REMARKS. 113 larly in the country. It was once the practice in plastered walls, to insert frames of the same colour, and these formed all the decorations of the pictures. Subsequently, when it was determined to wainscot an apartment, the pictures were often become so sallow, by time and dirt, as to be hardly visible, and was so deemed not worth the trouble of extraction, and, therefore, covered along with the wall which inclosed it. An instance of this kind comes posi- tively within my own knowledge. Had it been possible, I should have pursued the inquiry to the ascertainment of the identical house from which it came, and thus, at all events, have tried to trace out its ancient possessor. But Mr. Croker could give no further detail. He received the account without suspicion, for the picture was obviously ancient, and, from its condition, had as ob- viously been hidden. He bought it liberally, and has reason to congratulate himself upon the acquisition. In talking over the subject of Shakspeare's portrait with Mr. Croker, that gentleman very fairly put before me a doubt which he said had frequently entered his mind, whether Shakspeare was a person of sufficient worldly importance to have his portrait painted in the style of the picture, which then hung before us ? As I know such a notion has occurred to many of the poet's fondest admirers, it may be proper to throw what light I am able, upon a point so worthy of investigation. p 114 REMARKS. If the high admiration of genius, of itself esta- blished the right of such a distinction, there can be little room to dispute, that among many of the greatest men of that age, his powers were as justly appreciated, and himself as highly honoured, as our most ardent love for him could wish to have been the case. Still there is the distressing fact before us, that Spenser, with very striking claims, was neglected and reduced to poverty, and might have wanted, at all events, a distinguished grave, but for the munificence of that great, but erring character, the Earl of Essex.* We have further to consider, that the profession of an actor was not at that time reputable, and that Shakspeare himself has complained that his name was injured by cc the quality he professed." ( It may, therefore, still be requisite to shew the degree of worldly consideration which attached to him, and to prove that very considerable things were sought, and probably acquired, through the medium of his influence with the great personages, his friends and * Edmund Spenser, qui obiit apud diversoriura in platea Regia, apudWestmonasteriumjuxta London, 16 die January, 1598(1598-9 of course.) Juxtaq : Geffereurn Chaucer, in eadem ecclesia supradict : Honoratissimi Comitis Essexise impensis sepelitur. HENRY CAPELL, 1598. In Mr. Brand's copy of F. Q. 1596. f Thence conies it that my name receives a brand ; And almost thence my nature is subdu'd To what it works in, like the dyer's hand. SONNET cxi. REMARKS. 1 1.5 patrons. Now it appears from some papers, which Mr. Malone did not live to work into his biography of the poet, that in the years 1597 and 1598, the elder Mr. Richard Quiney was in London, soliciting a renewal and enlargement of the charter, and an exemption for the borough of STRATFORD from a subsidy granted by parliament. The plea on which they claimed this exemption, before the Lord Trea- surer Burghley, was poverty and distress occasioned by two recent fires. Upon this and many other topics, Abraham Sturley, on the 24th of January, 1597-8, writes a letter from Stratford to Mr. Quiney. I have no business with more of it, than relates to Shakspeare, his circumstances, his in- fluence, and his connexions. The following I copy literatim : " This is one special remembrance from u r fathrs motion. It seemetb bi him that o r countriman Mr. Shakspe is willing to dis- burse some monej upon some od yardeland or other att Shottrj or neare about us. He thiiiketh it a very fitt patterne to move HIM to deale in the matter of o r Tithes. Bj the instructions u can give him theareof, & bj the frendes he can make therefore, we thinke it a faire marke for him to shoot at, & not unpossible to hitt. It bteinoed would advance him in deede, & would do us much good hoc movere quantum in te e pmovere, ne negligas : hoc enim et sibi et nobis maximi erit momemti : hie labor, hoc opus esset eximiae et gloriae et laudis sibi." Thus we find, that so early as 1597-8, and when, with the exception of Romeo and Juliet, he had (according to Mr. Malone's chronology) written no p 2 1 16 REMARKS. one of his greatest productions, Shakspeare was enabled to purchase land in his own country, and in the opinion of his relations and townsmen, able to make such friends as should very materially benefit his native place, whose interests there can be no doubt he warmly felt and promoted. We are next in the letter presented with a pic- ture of the discontents of the writer's neighbours at the excessive dearness of corn, and the popular outcry in consequence against the malsters. As the narrative is very simple and very natural, I shall throw a little of it into modern orthography, for a purpose, which will appear at the end of the extract : " They have assembled together in great numbers, and travelled to Sir THOMAS LUCY on Friday last, to complain of our mal- sters. On Sunday to Sir Fulk Greville and Sir John Conway. There is a meeting here expected to-morrow; the Lord knoweth to what end it will sort. Thomas West returning from the Two Knights of the Woodland, (just mentioned) came home so full, that he said to Mr. Baily that night, he hoped, within a week, to lead some of them in a halter, meaning the malsters ; and I hope, saith Thomas Granams, if God send my Lord of ESSEX down shortly, to see them hanged on gibbets at their own doors." * Here we have a glance at one of the friends whom * Mr. Richard Quiney's address in town will complete this amusing record of the past : " To his most loveinge brother Mr. Richard Quiney, at the Bell, iu Carter Laue, att London, give these." REMARKS. 117 the Poet might be expected to secure towards the object of his townsmen. We have, in addition, exhibited one of those simple reliances of the common people upon their favourites, from whom the most decided impossibilities are with full confi- dence expected ; and, in the fate of Essex, w ; e see the corresponding reliance upon the people, as idly and more mischievously placed. There is a charm, however, in perusing such familiar correspondence as the above, which is easier felt than described. We view the great men of history operating upon familiar life, and understand and feel more distinctly the ties which united them with the general mass. Having thus shewn the early consequence of the Poet, in a worldly sense, there is no difficulty in conceiving its progressive increase, * from the decided patronage of King James; the restoration of Lord Southampton to liberty and the new sove- reign's favour; the rival ardour of the excellent William Earl of Pembroke, who, w r e are told, was a decided favourer of the poet and his writings; and, indeed, from the resplendent claims of his own genius upon all who were worthy to follow it, pro- ceeding, as he did, from one brilliant production to * This is proved by his purchase, in the forty-fourth year of the Queen, of one hundred and seven acres of arable land, lying in Old Stratford, in the county of Warwick, for which he paid to his friends, William and John Coombe, the very considerable sum, at that period, of 320. current English money. 118 REMARKS. another, and exhibiting ONE and TWENTY of his most perfect dramas, within the short space of about THIRTEEN YEARS. I should, therefore, find not the slightest diffi- culty in believing that both SOUTHAMPTON and PEMBROKE* would order Jansen to enrich their re- spective seats with the most perfect likeness of Shakspeare ; and, grateful, indeed, must have been their consciousness, as the resemblance hung before them 5 that they had not confined themselves to barren admiration, but had advanced the fortunes of the exalted genius whom they had honoured, yes HONOURED, with their personal friendship. * From all the surmises and statements given by Mr. Boaden, I do think but one conclusion can be drawn, which is, that neither of the above noblemen never had a picture done of Shakspeare; as we have never before had any intimation of the kind, it will, therefore, be necessary for this author to adduce stronger arguments than he has hitherto done, to support his hypo- thesis, which, at present, only tends to show his vanity, by speaking so positively on the subject. A. W. SOME FURTHER REMARKS ON THE FELTON PICTURE. HAVING made frequent inquiries respecting the copy from the Felton picture, by Josiah Boydell, I was at last informed by Mr. Douce, that it was in the possession of Mr. Harris, at No. 15, Brornpton Crescent. This gentleman told me he had left a commission to give the sum of five guineas for it, at the sale of Mr. Steevens's pro- perty, in King Street, Covent Garden, but was so fortunate as to purchase it for about three. It is a very good copy as far as regards the drawing, but the colouring is not so well. Since it has been in his possession, a son of Mr. Boaden's made a copy, for (as he understood,) an historical picture, but, having by some cause changed his opinion as to its authenticity, this head has not been used. On the back of Mr. Harris's picture, is this iting : May, 1797. " Copied by Josiah Boydell, at my request, 120 REMARKS. from the remains of the only genuine Portrait of William Shakspeare. George Steevens."* * Of one to whom the readers of Shakspeare are so much obliged, a slight memorial will not here be considered as misplaced. GEORGE STE EVENS was born at Poplar, in the county of Middlesex, in the year 1736. His father, a man of great re- spectability, was engaged in a business connected with the East India Company, by which he acquired an handsome fortune. Fortunately for his son, and for the publick, the clergyman of the place was Dr. Gloucester Ridley, a man of great literary ac- complishments, who is styled by Dr. Lowth poeta natus. With this gentleman an intimacy took place that united the two fa- milies closely together, and probably gave the younger branches of each, that taste for literature which both afterwards ardently cultivated. The first part of Mr. Steevens's education he re- ceived under Mr. Wooddeson, at Kingston-upon-Thames, where he had for his school-fellows George Keate, the poet, and Ed- ward Gibbon, the historian, From this seminary he removed, in 1753, to King's College, Cambridge, and entered there under the tuition of the Rev. Dr. Barford. After staying a few years at the University, he left it without taking a degree, and accepted a commission in the Essex militia, in which service he continued a few years longer. In 1763 he lost his father, from whom he inherited an ample property, which if he did not lessen he certainly did not increase. From this period he seems to have determined on the course of his future life, and devoted himself to literary pursuits, which he followed with unabated vigour, but without any lucrative views, as he never required, or ac- cepted, the slightest pecuniary recompence for his labours. His first residence was in the Temple, afterwards at Hampton, and lastly at Hampstead, where he continued near thirty years. In this retreat his life passed in one unbroken tenor, with scarce REMARKS. 121 " The original had belonged to Mr. Felton, and is now in the Shakspeare Gallery, Pall Mall." I have no doubt but the above indorsement will any variation, except an occasional visit to Cambridge, walking to London in the morning, six days out of seven, for the sake of health and conversation, and returning home in the afternoon of the same day. By temperance and exercise he continued healthy and active until the last two years of his life, and to the conclusion of it did not relax his attention to the illustra- tion of Shakspeare, which was the first object of his regard. He died the 22d of January, 1800, and was buried in Poplar chapel. To the elogium contained in the following epitaph by Mr. Hayley, which differs in some respect from that inscribed on the monument in Poplar chapel, those who really knew Mr. Steevens will readily subscribe : " Peace to these ashes ! once the bright attire " Of STEEVENS, sparkling with aetherial fire! " Whose talents, varying as the diamond's ray, " Could fascinate alike the grave or gay ! " How oft has pleasure in the social hour * Smil'd at his wit's exhilirating power! "And truth attested, with delight intense, " The serious charms of his colloquial sense! " His genius, that to wild luxuriance swell'd, " His large, yet latent, charity excelled : " Want with such true benificence he chear'd, " All that his bounty gave his zeal endear'd. " Learning, as vast as mental power could seize, " In sport displaying and with grateful ease, *' Lightly the stage of chequer'd life he trod, " Careless of chance, confiding in his God ! " This tomb may perish, but not so his name "Who shed new lustre upon SHAKSPEARE'S fame!" Q 122 REMARKS. satisfy every impartial person, that Mr. Steevens be- lieved in the genuineness of the picture, or he never would have written what he has on it, and, I think, this will fully justify what I have further to re- mark on the subject, which is, in case his belief is to be discredited in this respect, we should be as much warranted in asserting, that all he has argued on the portrait is equally unworthy of credit. I have no doubt but his profundity of know- ledge, has tended to affect the mind of a com- petitor that has less comprehension on the subject, and which has been the means of his so fabu- lously describing both the commentator and pic- ture. In the course of perusing his Book of En- quiry, his insight and general enarration has often reminded me of an anecdote, told of Jonathan Richardson, the painter, and writer on the art, who, in conjunction with his Son, published in 1734, Explanatory Notes and Remarks on Milton's Paradise Lost, with the Life of the Author. In apology for this performance, and not being very conversant in classic literature, the father said, " that he had looked in them through his son." Hogarth, in consequence, drew the old man peeping through the nether end of a telescope, with which his son was perforated at a Virgil aloft on a shelf. PREFACE TO MY PAMPHLET OF 1825. IN submitting to the public the following few pages on the subject of the Monumental Bust .of our great Dramatic Bard, it is not my intention to enter into an account of the various portraits professing to resemble that celebrated man, but briefly to detail the facts relative to the bust ; with such observations on the presumed likeness to Shakspeare, as my recent investigations have determined. After a lapse of above two hundred years since the death of the poet, and the erection of the monument in his place of sepulture, so much interest continues to be attached to the spot, that the Church of Stratford-upon-Avon may be said to be almost daily visited by travellers from all parts of the civilized world. The remark having been made to me, by a gentleman, who is an ardent admirer of Shakspeare, and of the arts, that amongst all the numerous engravings purporting to be done from the bust, Q 2 124 REMARKS. no satisfactory resemblance could be found, and some discussion upon the subject taking place, it was shortly followed by my being liberally commissioned to visit Stratford, for the purpose of making the drawing from which the plate was engraved, and to which these pages refer. Having bestowed much pains, and exerted my best abilities to pro- duce a correct resemblance of the original, and presuming that a few observations to accompany the Print,* might not be found unworthy of at- tention by the purchasers of the work, I have ventured, with all due deference to the many and high-talented writers, who have given to the world their dissertations upon the bust of Shakspeare, to publish my own opinion as to its character, history, and authenticity, up to the present time. A. W. * The print of the bust of Shakspeare, has been engraved by Mr. J. S. Agar, from the original drawing in the possession of John Cordy, Esq. Published by George Lawford, Saville Place. Print, 5$. Proof, Is. (>d. FRONT AND PROFILE OF THE MONUMENTAL BUST OF SHAKSPEARE. BEHOLD THIS MARBLE. KNOW YE NOT THE FEATURES ? HATH NOT OFT HIS FAITHFUL TONGUE TOLD YOU THE FASHION OF YOUR OWN ESTATE, THE SECRETS OF YOUR KOSO.M 1 HERE THEN, ROUND THIS MONUMENT WITH REVERENCE WHILE YE STAND, SAY TO EACH OTHER THIS WAS SHAKSPEARE'S FORM ; WHO WALK'D IN EVERY PATH OF HUMAN LIFE, FELT EVERY PASSION ; AND TO ALL MANKIND DOTH NOW, WILL EVER, THAT EXPERIENCE YIELD WHICH HIS OWN GENIUS ONLY COULD ACQUIRE. AKENSIUE. debted to Mr. Britton SHAKSPEARE's MONUMENT. THE following remarks on the Monumental Bust of Shakspeare, in the Church of the Holy Trinity, Stratford-upon-Avon, in Warwickshire, is printed from my Pamphlet, 1825, with additions. I have also given an interesting account of the Chancel of the above church, which is extracted from an elegant work* now in course of publication. " The town of Stratford-upon-Avon, illustrious in British topography as the birth-place of SHAKSPEARE, is situated on the south-western border of the county of Warwick, on a gentle ascent from the banks of the Avon, which rises in a small spring at Naseby, in Northamptonshire; and continuing its meandering course in a south-westerly direction, approaches Stratford in a wide and proudly swelling stream, unequalled in any other part of its course. The town is distant eight miles south-west from Warwick, and ninety-four miles north west from * Vide No. 4, " Views of Collegiate and Parochial Churches in Great Britain, from drawings by J. P. Neale." The engravings of which are very suitable to the illustration of the present work, especially the fourth plate, which shows Shakspeare's monument, his grave stone, and those of his family, &c. &c. 126 REMARKS. London. The Church stands at the south-eastern extremity, from which it is approached by a paved walk, under an avenue of lime trees, which have been made to form a complete arcade." i " The chancel, the eastern part of which is repre- sented in Plate IV., is the most beautiful as well as the most perfect division of this Church, and was erected between the years 1465 and 1491, by Thomas Balsall, D. D. who then held the office of Dean. It is separated from the transept by an oaken screen, which originally formed a part of the ancient rood-loft ; and which was glazed in the year 1813. Five large ornamented windows on each side, give light to the chancel ; they were formerly decorated with painted glass, the remains of which were taken out in the year 1790, and transferred to the centre of the great eastern window, where they still remain, though in a very confused state. On each side of the eastern window is a nich, boldly finished in the Florid style of pointed architecture. In the south wall, near the altar, are three simular niches, conjoined, in which are placed the concessus, or seats, for the priests officiating at mass; and immediately adjoining them is the piscina. These objects are all shewn in the Plate. On each side of the chancel is a range of stalls belonging to the ancient choir, remarkable for the grotesque carvings which ornament the lower part of each seat. REMARKS. 127 which a young gentleman,* a friend of his, just emerged from Oxford, came to see him, having taken the pen out of the fingers, and fiddling with it, in the exertion, let it through his own, on the flags, which assuredly broke it in pieces, an ordinary pen has been occasionally put between the fingers, for the last fifty years." Mr. Britton says " there is neither proof nor inti- mation that Shakspeare ever sat for a picture ; and, it must be admitted, that the whole host of presumed portraits " come in such questionable shapes," and with such equivocal pedigrees, that suspicion, * The above information is contrary to what I stated in 1825, the circumstance originated in consequence of Dr. Davenport being then absent from Stratford, who was the only person that could give any account of it. A. W. REMARKS. 143 or disbelief, attach to all. Not so the Monumental Bust at Stratford : this appeals to our eyes and understandings with all the force of truth. We view it as a family record ; as a memorial raised by the affection and esteem of his relatives, to keep alive contemporary admiration, and to excite the glow of enthusiasm in posterity. This inva- luable " effigy" is attested by tradition, consecrated by time, and preserved in the inviolability of its own simplicity and sacred station. It was evi- dently executed immediately after the poet's decease, and probably under the superintendance of his, son-in-law, Dr. Hall." Mr. Britton in his statements, has given us his preference to the bust over all other portraits of the poet ; at the same time, partiality will never keep truth in the background, for the Droeshout print in the public estimation, will for ever be considered of the most importance and value, as it bears with it a written character from one of the bard's most inti- mate friends. Being anxious to adduce every particular re- lative to the subject of my undertaking, I have made considerable search, with a view to ascertain who was the sculptor of the monument, but without success. Mr. WHELER, in his Guide to Stratford, has discussed the probability of this bust having been sculptured by THOMAS STANTON, who carved the monumental busts of RICHARD and JUDITH 144 REMARKS. CotaBE, likewise in the chancel; and who is also conjectured to have executed the monument of Lord TOTNESS, in the same church. The con- clusion drawn, is, that it was probably sculptured by him, a similiarity of style being deemed ob- servable in the two monuments, indicating them to have been the works of the same artist. The strong resemblance also which the figure of Lord TOTNESS bears to the existing portraits of the nobleman, is adverted to by Mr. WHELER, as corroborative evidence of the fidelity of SHAK- SPE ARE'S bust as a likeness. I cannot subscribe to this assumed probability of THOMAS STANTON being the sculptor of SHAKSPEARE'S monument, and upon the following grounds ; the only date found recorded upon the monument of RICHARD and JUDITH COMBE, is that of her death, in 1649. The sculptor's name is subjoined, merely thus; ' THOMAS STANTON, Fecit, Hoi." In HORACE WALPOLE'S Anecdotes of Artists, in the Reign of KING WILLIAM III. the following notice appears ; THOMAS STANTON.* * THOMAS STANTON. It is somewhat singular, so little is said of this artist, and that we should be enabled to trace only so small a portion of his work, which is of a character that would do credit to our own time. The addition of " Hoi." may be supposed to stand for Holborn, which was probably the place of his abode. There is every probability that such an artist was a resident in London, or its immediate vicinity. REMARKS. 145 "A statuary, made a tomb in the church of Stratford-upon-Avon, which VERTUE says is in good taste." This description will, it is presumed, help to bear out the few observations, which I beg leave to offer upon the question. I will first observe, that had STANTON been employed for SHAKSPEARE'S monument, we may reasonably suppose him to have reached, at least, ninety years of age, at the beginning of KING WILLIAM'S reign, and the above mentioned monument of the COMBES, to have been produced by the artist, at a period of not less than thirty-five years after SHAKSPEARE'S death, allowing time for the sculpture and erection of that much admired fabric. That both these monuments are the work of the same hand, is, therefore, an unlucky conjecture in point of time. The monument of the EARL of TOTNESS,* I am * As we do not hear that the figure on this monument was done from a bust, there is every reason to believe it was taken from one or more of the pictures of the Earl, as is the common practice with sculptors, upon such occasions; but in the case of SHAK- SPEARE'S, we have nothing whatever to warrant a similar supposi- tion. The effigy of the poet cannot be deemed a copy ; there is not the slightest authority for its being so considered ; it must be regarded as perfectly original. There has been several attempts made by various artists to give the whole of the monument, in print, but they have all failed in some degree, the most correct is that which is engraved by F. Eginton, for Mr. Wheler's Antiqui- ties of Stratford. T 146 REMARKS. sorry to say, I did not happen to inspect, but should it not bear a stronger resemblance in the style to SHAKS PEA RE'S than does that beautiful monument of RICHARD and JUDITH COMBE, I cannot attach any weight to the opinion, for in the latter, I am unable to discover the style of the same artist, in any degree whatever. But in the monument of JOHN COMBE, Esq. it requires no minute exami- nation to observe a strong resemblance, and this, although far inferior, in point of execution, to that of our bard, must have been done at least two years before. The above conjecture of mine was published in 1825, and I have just heard it is really so. Mr. Britton has received a copy of a memorandum (from Mr. Hampier, of Birmingham,) stating, that in Dugdale's Pocket Book of 1653, the bust of John Combe and William Shakspeare's were made by Jerrard Johnson. I have accordingly had it en- graved under the plate belonging to this work. It is very remarkable that such a genius as SHAKSPEARE, should have lived and died one of the greatest men of the age, and yet there should be no portrait or recorded semblance of him in existance, of which it can be said for a certainty, (this is from the life.) that he should be a husband, a father, a friend, and the esteemed associate of so many popular persons of his time, yet die, without seeming to have excited care in any individual, REMARKS. 147 for the acquirement of a memorial, which would have been so highly venerated by posterity. Between his grave and the north wall, lies Mrs. SHAKSPEARE, for whom there is this inscrip- tion, engraved on a brass plate, fixed to the stone : HEERE LYETH INTERRED THE BODYE OF ANNE, WIFE OF MR. WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, WHO DEPTED. THIS LIFE THE 6TH. DAY OF AVGVST, 1623, BEING OF THE AGE OF 67 YEARES. Vbera, tu mater, tu lac vitamq. dedisti, Vae mihi, pro tanto munere Saxa dabo ! Quam mallem, amoueat lapidem, bonus Angel' ore* Exeat ut Christi Corpus, imago tua Sed nil vota valent, venias cito Christe resurget, Clausa licet tumulo mater, et astra petet. On another flat stone: Arms, Three talbots' heads erased; impaling, SHAKSPEARE. HEERE LYETH YE. BODY OF JOHN HALL, GENT. HEE MARR: SVSANNA, YE. DAUGHTER & COHEIRE OF WILL. SHAKESPEARE, GENT. HEE DECEASED NOVER. 25. AO. 1635, AGED 60. Hallius hie situs est medica celeberrimus arte, Expectans regni gaudia laeta Dei ; Dignus erat meritis qui Nestora vinceret anuis, In terris omnes, sed rapit aequa dies ; Ne tumulo, quid desit adcst tidissima conjux, Et vitae comitem nunc quoq. mortis habet. On others : Arms, Per pale, baron and femme: baron; quarterly, first and fourth, on a chevron between T 2 148 REMARKS, three ravens' heads erased, a pellet) between four cross crosslets. Second and third, a bucks' head ca- bossed, surmounted by a cross patee, in the mouth an arrow. Femme, Hall ; quartering SHAKSPEARE. HEERE RESTETH YE. BODY OF THOMAS NASHE, ESQ. HE MAR. ELIZABETH, THEDAVG. & HEIRE OF JOHN HALLE, GENT. HE DIED APRILL 4. A. 1647, AGED 53. Fata manent onmes, hunc non virtute carentetn Vt neque devitiis, abstulit atra dies ; Abstulit ; at referet lux vltima ; siste viator, Si peritura paras, per male parta peris. Arms, Onalozenge, Hall ; impaling, SHAKSPEARE HEERE LYETH YE. BODY OF SVSANNA, WIFE TO JOHN HALL, GENT. YE. DAVGHTER OF WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, GENT. SHE DECEASED YE. 11TH OF JVLY, AO. 1649, AGED 66. Witty above her sexe, but that's not all, Wise to Salvation was good Mistris Hall, Something of Shakespere was in that, but this Wholy of him with whom she's now in blisse. Then, passenger, ha'st ne're a teare, To weepe with her that wept with all! That wept, yet set herselfe to chere, Them up with comforts cordiall. Her Love shall live, her mercy spread, When thou hast ne're a teare to shed. These English verses (preserved by Dugdale,) were many years since purposely obliterated, to make room for another inscription, carved on the same stone, for Richard Watts, of Rhyon Clifford ; a person of no relation to the SHAKSPEARE family. AN ACCOUNT OF THE MINIATURE, SUPPOSED TO BE PAINTED BY NICHOLAS BILLIARD, AND ALSO TO BE A PORTRAIT OF SHAKSPEARE. The following is an Extract from Mr. Boaden's Account : " I was about to close my subject, I remember, with a very brief enumeration of the spurious, or rather falsely ascribed portraits, when the late Mr. Boswell, brought a miniature to shew me, with which Sir James Bland Burges had entrusted him. It struck me to have been unquestionably painted by Hilliard, and to merit attentive exa- mination. The account given of it by Sir James, is such as was to be expected from his candour and his taste. As no one can more truly ap- preciate such a possession, so no man could possibly say less to enforce its claim, and no other POET, perhaps, so little. I cannot do better, than transcribe here the letter which Sir James 150 REMARKS. wrote to Mr. Boswell, giving the history of the miniature, which he had so fortunately recovered : " Lower Brook Street, June 26, " DEAR BOSWELL, ** I send you the history of my portrait of Shakspeare, which I apprehend will leave no reason to doubt of its au- thenticity. " Mr. Somerville, of Edstoae, near Stratford-upon-Avon, ancestor of Somerville, author of the Chase, &c. lived in habits of intimacy with Shakspeare, particularly after his re- tirement from the stage, and had this portrait painted, which, as you will perceive, was richly set, and was carefully pre- served by his descendants, till it came to the hands of his great grandson, the poet, who, dying hi 1742, without issue, left his estates to my grandfather, Lord Somerville, and gave this miniature to my mother. She valued it very highly, as well for the sake of the donor, as for that of the great genius of which it was the representative; and I well remember, that when I was a boy, its production was not unfrequently a very acceptable reward of my good behaviour. After my mother's death, I sought in vain for this, and some other family relics, and at length had abandoned all hope of ever finding them ; when chance, most unexpectedly restored them to me about ten days ago, in consequence of the opening of a bureau which had belonged to my mother, in a private drawer of which, this, and the other missing things were found. " Believe me to be, " Dear Boswell, " Your's, most truly, " J. B. BURGES." REMARKS. 151 " Nicholas Billiard was born in 1547, and continued in the practice of his beautiful art among us till a very short period before his death, which happened in January, 1619. If Mr. So- merville, of Edstone, had this portrait of the poet painted after his retirement from the stage, which seems rather to be the inference of Sir James's narrative,* the old man painted Shak- speare just before he left town, in the fiftieth year of his age, and when he himself was in his sixty-sixth. He retained the power of his eye and the steadyness of his hand to the last a thing not uncommon in the professors of minute design. The great Bartolozzi's letters at eighty, were miracles of firm, small, and beautiful pen- manship." " Upon aiding my recollection of the picture by * From the perusal of Sir James's narrative, I do not con- sider it implies that the miniature was done after the poet's retirement from the stage, but only that Somerville frequented him more after that time, however, as it is indefinately ex- pressed, this hint may be the means of Mr. Boaden changing his mind altogether in its favour. I have not been so for- tunate as this gentleman has in seeing the picture, nor is it of much consequence, as the fidelity with which Mr. Agar engraves portraits, is sufficient to rely on its being exact. As to its resemblance to other portraits of the poet, I am able to see but little, and that is in the nose and eyes, the most material point against it, is, the very light hair on the head and beard, which denotes a period of life above fifty, which I cannot reconcile myself to, as the poet, no doubt, was bald at that age, and this portrait is not. A. W. 152 REMARKS. Mr. Agar's engraving from it, such actually seems to be the age of the person represented. Now out of this grows the only difficulty with me in regard to its being absolutely Shakspeare. There is one point in the portraits of our author, on which they are all decidedly agreed viz. that he was bald. Mr. Ozias Humphry considered the Chandos head to have been painted when the poet was about forty-three years old. Upon the forehead there is no indication of hair. Jansen's picture was painted three years after this ; it has the same evidence that the hair in front had perished away. Droeshout's print displays to us the same deficiency ; and the monument, exhibi- ting the latest condition of the poet's hair, shews that the baldness had rapidly increased upon him, and that the skull was very nearly unclothed ; a scanty measure of curls flowing circularly from a point not far above the ears." " Now this miniature has a strong tuft of hair growing in front of the forehead, as is, indeed, very usual with persons who yet are exceedingly bald towards the temples. I think it would be too much to expect from us the surrender of all the absolute authorities to the recently offered candidate. At the same time, unless I greatly mistake the poet's age in Sir James's picture, I cannot reconcile the appearance in question with the other acknowledged portraits : from the other pictures also, I conceive the poet's hair to have REMARKS. 153 been darker than Milliard has exhibited it. On this last point, from the tendency of all pictures in oil, to become brown, no great stress ought to be laid. I regret that some of the finer touches of Milliard's pencil should have flown; what remains, as to the drawing in of the features, the harmony of the whole, the shape of the head, and the characteristic look of the sitter, have nothing in them alien to the supposition that this may be Shakspeare. It would be merely rude to ask for more particulars, as to this transmission of the picture, than Sir James has been pleased to give ; but I hope I may, without offence, express some astonishment, that Somervile, the poet, a man born almost upon the banks of the Avon, glorying in his countryman, and writing occasionally to poets on the subject of poetry, should have, in his pos- session, an authentic portrait of Shakspeare, and never allow it to be engraved ; * and see Mr. Pope * There are various reasons for the owners of portraits not submitting them to be engraved, one is, the more value is set upon a picture, the more reluctant is any person to have it out of their possession, from an idea that in case it should receive any injury, it would considerably be reduced in value. I have another reason to state in reply to what Mr. Boaden has asserted, respecting the picture, called Shakspeare, lately in the possession of Mr. Douglas, where he says, " If I could bring myself to infringe upon the principles laid down, to engrave only such as were considered authentic portraits, the head by Zoust, should accompany the series." I can assure Mr. Boaden he is under a mistake, for the owner would not have suffered him to have it engraved, what- ever he might chose to do as to the print by Simon. I have also met with drawbacks of the same kind in attempting to embellish U 164 REMARKS. publishing to the world a head of King James, and calling it Shakspeare, and never shew to him the treasure on which he might so securely have relied. There was, at this time, moreover, a stir, rather remarkable as to Shakspeare : Theobald had given his Shakespeare restored, to the infinate annoyance of Pope, and had followed his blow in 1733 by an edition of the poet's works. All this must have reached Mr. Somervile, at Edstone, for he did not die till July 1742* ; but he neither said nor^ wrote (that I can find) any thing about his greatest treasure ; though his friend Shenstone would have luxuriated in the topic, and might have given to the Leasowes, from such a picture, a bust that should surpass in accuracy, and, therefore, value, every other decoration of the place. From the mere country gentleman this neglect might be expected; from the justice of peace it might be endured; but in the author of the Chase it is inconceivable and unaccountable. Surely, Rural Sports were never before so engrossing, nor did this work, which I am sorry for, yet any censure on such refusals would be degrading to a writer, when we have already so many instances of liberality and goodness being abused. A. W. *' It is singular, that the time of Somervile's death should be so variously reported. Shenstoue says, he died in 1741 ; Dr. Johnson, on the 14th July, 1743; Sir J. B. Burges, most likely to be accurately informed, tells us, that event happened in 1742. The fact appears to be that he died on the 19th of July, 1742, for the will was proved on the 3rd September of that year. REMARKS. 155 the Chase ever until then, lead a poet so far from his natural pursuits. The possessor of this splendid miniature is thus described and lamented by his friend Shen- stone : ' Our old friend Somervile is dead ! I did not imagine 1 could have been so sorry as 1 find myself on this occa- sion ' Sublaium qucerimus' I can now excuse all his foibles; impute them to age, and to distress of circumstances: the last of these considerations wrings my very soul to think on. For a man of high spirit, conscious of having (at least, in one production,) generally pleased the world, to be plagued and threatened by wretches that are low in every sense ; to be forced to drink himself into pains of the body, in order to get rid of the pains of the mind is a misery which I can well conceive, because I may, without vanity, esteem myself his equal in point of oeconomy, and, consequently ought to have an eye on his misfortunes; for whatever the world might esteem in poor Somervile, I really find, upon critical enquiry, that 1 loved him for nothing so much, as his flocci-nauci-nihili-pili- fication of money," Works, vol. iii. p. 48* All this is, however, at a considerable distance from the worthy baronet. For himself, I can recall him easily in his infancy, deriving an en- viable gratification from this presented portrait. So genuine a relic could not be kissed without Catholic devotion. Dr. Johnson has told us, that Cowley became irrevocable a poet, from the delight he took in the perusal of Spencer's Faery Queen ; and Sir James may have also been devoted to poetry from his infant acquaintance with Shak- u 2 156 REMARKS. speare. The great Critic adds " Such are the accidents, which sometimes remembered, and perhaps, sometimes forgotten, produce that par- ticular designation of mind, and propensity for some certain science or employment, which is commonly called Genius." Life of Cowley, p. 4. THE PORTRAIT OF SHAKSPEARE, BY ZOUST, AS GIVEN BY MR. BOADEN. ""AMONG the heads, which their possessors have determined to be Shakspeare's, are some painted as low down as the reign of Charles the Second. They are to be noticed, from, at least, the chance that the artists used some true picture in their works of fancy ; or that they had the aid of Nature (as in the anecdote of Sir Thomas Clarges) in the face of some individual who might be known personally to resemble the poet. " The first and best of this class, is the picture painted by Zoust, or, as he himself wrote it, Soest. It is well known to collectors by the mezzotinto of Simon, and is a most accomplished cavalier exhi- bition of the great bard. Soest, in 1667, writes himself in his thirtieth year ; so that he was born only one and twenty years after the poet had sunk into the grave. When a dealer is determined upon a 158 REMARKS. speculation, it is useless to call his attention to dates his answer is ready ; and I could wish, for the credit of an able man, that it was not to be found in the very words of Peck, the antiquarian, when he received a portrait, which he absolutely knew not to be MILTON " I'll have a scraping from it at all events, and leave posterity to settle the difference." As in these cases artists seem to " conceive, better than they combine," this head is reported to have given the style of countenance and drapery to the statue of Shakspeare, in Poet's Corner. Thus, as Don Quixote says, " the courtiers bore away the honour of the Tournament," and stampt their gallant im- press every where as the genuine Shakspeare." " The return of Charles the Second, secured to the Royalists the enjoyment of what I must call their liberal and grateful propensities. It could be no longer the object of either sneer or censure to have Shakspeare for a closet companion. Our great bard may be sincerely classed among the zealous Roy- alists. There are no passages in his works, w 7 hich can become texts to the savage bawlers of sedition. Political principle, as well as literary taste, would urge a person of condition to seek the decoration and the charm of his resemblance." " The late monarch, Charles the First, was a man of the most refined taste : his pictures sup- plied the cabinets of Europe . with some of the choicest specimens of art. A little before his REMARKS. 159 wretched end, he presented to the gentleman of his bed-chamber, his folio of Shakspeare's works, the edition of 1632. It contained evidences of the pleasure he had taken in its perusal. To a Royalist, therefore, Shakspeare, in aid of his genius, had the efficacy that " dying martyrs" can impart ; and it became a duty, as well as a delight, to re -print his works,* to revive his plays, f and bestow upon them all the embellishments that had been learned in a too long residence in other countries. From such a feeling, the picture of the poet, by Soest, clearly originated. Simon's engraving from it was made about the year 1725. " The statement as to Sir Thomas Clarges, in the Gentleman's Magazine, I have before alluded to, (supra, p. 53). I have no doubt that the anecdote was grounded in fact ; and think I see some strong likelihood that the picture, by Soest, was the very portrait painted for the brother-in-law of Monk. It has just enough of Shakspeare about it, to countenance such a story as is there told. The only mistake was in the painter's name. Jansen it could not be ; he left us on the commencement of the Civil War. Soest, in the year 1667, was an ad- mirable artist, and there is little doubt was the person who executed for him this elegant, though not quite faithful portrait. On the authority of Printed in 1664. f See Davenant's alterations. 160 REMARKS. Richardson, Sir Thomas is said also to have been principally instrumental in obtaining the idemnity of Milton from the new government. It is delightful to commemorate such attentions to the two greatest poets of our own or any other country. If, therefore, I have restored a consistency and probability to the anecdote rejected by Mr. Malone, it will afford one more reason for not too hastily deciding against the whole of a tradition, from one false or discrepant circumstance which it may contain : the error may be corrected by some happy combination, and the statement, so reformed, may add sometimes very important truth to the history of past times. " Mr. Malone, in the year 1790, thus alludes to the picture by Soest : " About the year 1725, a mezzotinto of Shakspeare was scraped by Simon, said to be done from an original picture painted by Zoust, or Soest, then in the possession of T. Wright, painter, in Co vent-garden. The earliest known picture painted by Zoust in England, was done in 1657 ; so that, if he ever painted a picture of Shakspeare, it must have been a copy. It could not, however, have been made from Davenant's picture, (unless the painter took very great liberties), for the whole air, dress, disposition of the hair, &c. are different. 1 have lately seen a picture in the possession of Douglas, Esq. at Teddington, near Twickenham, which is, I believe, the very picture from which Simon's mez- zotinto was made. It is on canvas, (about 24 inches by 20) and somewhat smaller than the life." Shakspeare, vol. i. p. 127." " Not very long since, the proprietor felt inclined REMARKS. 161 to sell this picture, if he could obtain one hundred* guineas for it; and Mr. Sotheby, I remember, put it into one of his catalogues. He differed with * Here is another of Mr. Boaden's mistakes. Mr. Douglas informs me, it never was his intention to part with this picture for a less sum than five hundred pounds. He employed Mr. Sotheby to sell it, if possible, for the above sum, accordingly it was put up at the end of a sale, and bought in at one hundred pounds. Mr. Douglas has presented to me the following memorandum, as to where it now is :^ " The present possessor, Sir John Lister Raye, Bart, of the Grange, near Wakefield, Yorkshire, purchased it of me for four hundred pounds." " WILLIAM DOUGLAS/' " No. 1, Prospect Place, St. George's Fields, January 29th, 1827." Mr. Douglas also acquaints me the picture has been in his family about sixty years, but can give no account of it any further back ; that while in his father's possession, Garrick and Sir Joshua Reynolds, very much admired it, the latter, in particular, was so anxious to have it, that he offered the price that it would take to cover it with gold, but as we have not before been apprised of this circumstance, I apprehend Sir Joshua could only value the picture as a fine work of art, for if he conceived it to be a portrait of the Bard, we should long ago have had it announced as such. Mr. Douglas and myself agree with Mr. Boaden, that it is not the picture engraved by Simon ; for let it be observed, that Simon's print is the regular size done from a three-quarter picture, (25 inches by 30) and Mr. Malone says that this portrait is 20 by 24, and Mr. Sotheby, 16 by 20, consequently, the engraving could not be done from it. This print is described by Boaden as it justly deserves, and should it ever happen to be proved a genuine Shakspeare, it will throw all the others " to the dogs.'* I consider the picture, which Simon's print was done from, to be painted by no other person than Rubens, and X 162 REMARKS. Mr. Malone as to its size, calling it a canvass, 20 inches by 16. He adds, " This fine and extremely interesting portrait has been in the possession of the family of the present proprietor for upwards of a century" Now Simon's print expresses, that it is done from a capital picture in the collection of which may possibly be a juvenile portrait of himself, as it is not unlike others of him, there is that grandeur of stile and sen- sibility in the countenance which he was so much the perfect master of, but the print should be only looked at in as good an im- pression as that which is in the British Museum. I have never seen a picture by Zoust, or the one which belonged to Mr. Douglas, therefore, I cannot say it is not painted by him, and it is impossible to judge from the inscription on the plate, whether Zoust's picture was the original; or that he copied a Capital Picture in the Collection of T. Wright; for it should be observed, that Simon's name is so put as to signify that he only engraved and published it, and it is the common practice for publishers, in order to stamp a value on their engravings, to insert on the plate that it was done from an original picture, when at the same time its from a copy. As many persons may be inclined to differ with me as to the real meaning of those words on the plate, I will give them as near as possible to the original, that every person may judge for themselves : fi e4 nea^e Ob : A. D. 1616. jEtat: 53. Done from a Capital Picture in the Collection of T. Wright, Painter in Covent Garden. I. Simon ft. et ex. There is in the possession of Mr. Booth, Bookseller, a small copy, in oil, by Mr. Cosway from the above picture, or print, which was purchased at his sale for nearly the sum of twenty pounds. The artist has taken some liberties, one in particular, by making the out-line of the nose quite straight, A. W- REMARKS. 163 T. Wright, painter, in Covent Garden. But not to bind the auctioneer to reconcile dates, I differ entirely with Mr. Malone on this subject, and con- sider Simon's print to have been taken from another, and very different original. " Mr. Douglas's picture was for a considerable time in Mr. Triphook's possession, where I fre- quently inspected it ; and assuredly its merits must be appreciated without reference to Simon's en- graving. The picture was very pleasing and deli- cately painted ; but it had none of the freedom and spirit to be found in the print, which indicates an original not at all inferior to one of the finest heads of Vandyke : and, indeed, from that great master, Soest has evidently borrowed the hair of the head, and the beautiful disposition of the hair. The real original of Simon's print is probably at the country residence of one of our nobility, and may there be esteemed a genuine picture of the poet. The anec- dote which I have combined with it, on what I conceive to be reasonable ground, communicates a value to Soest's picture, which, before, was in great doubt ; I mean, that though it never could be painted from Shakspeare, it was certainly painted as him, and unites a most decided resemblance of the man, with a very graceful and masterly power of the pencil. " If I could bring myself to infringe upon the principle laid down, to engrave only such as were x 2 164 REMARKS. authentic portraits, this head should accompany the? series ; because, from whomsoever got, in the general character it has much of Shakspeare ; and no difficulty whatever is felt by me in asserting, that the sitter must have borne a very peculiar and enviable resemblance to the great dramatic poet of England. " The zeal of Sir Thomas Clarges, and the pencil of Soest, having thus supplied us with a cavalier representation of Shakspeare, the beginning of the present century called us to an inspection of what may be called, with equal justice, a puritan exhi- bition of the poet: " Like a mildew'd ear, " Blasting his wholesome brother. AN ACCOUNT OF THE PORTRAIT BY ZUCCHERO, AS GIVEN BY J. BOADEN. " ABOUT the time that I first inspected the Chandos Head, or not long after, my old friend Sir William Beechey mentioned to me, that Mr. Cosway had, what he termed, an original picture, by Zucchero, of the Poet, and that I had better look at it. Ac- cordingly, soon after, we went to Mr. Cosway's together, and, finding him at home, we had the picture taken down ; and those excellent artists agreed, that it was unquestionably a head by Zuc- chero. It was painted upon panel, and on the back we read the poet's name, Guglielm. Shakspeare. " The picture exhibited a youthful poet, leaning with his face upon the right hand ; the head stooped forward, in earnest meditation, with the evidences of composition lying before him. A very coarse mezzo- tinto * from it may still be found among the dealers, which gives but an imperfect likeness, inasmuch as most of the beauty, and much of the sentiment, are missed by the engraver. Indeed, the print is as rude as the picture was delicate and refined. Decent pains were wanting in the very setting out of this print; for the artist, I remember, was barbarously written down Zucro. * By Henry Green. A. W. 166 REMARKS. " The age of the person whom Zucchero thus painted must have been verging upon thirty, because the beard is full, dark, and luxuriant; the hair black, the eyes bright, and full of intelligence. But, unfor- tunately, Zucchero never could have painted Shak- speare. Having exhibited some of the pope's officers, with asses ears, over the gate of the church of St. Luke, the patron of painters, he was com- pelled to fly to preserve his own : he went first to Flanders, and, in 1574, came to England, where he painted Queen Elizabeth twice, and also Queen Mary of Scotland; who, for sometime after, might be said to be rather rusticated than confined, and, in 1583, was very near obtaining her liberty altogether. " His stay in this country was certainly not long ; probably five or six years at most. If he left us in 1580, Shakspeare was then only sixteen years old, and at his native Stratford, paying his court to fair Mistresse Anne Hathaway, and indubitably undis- tinguished by dramatic talent; though he might have even then cultivated the Muses, and framed, perhaps, some of the Sonnets, which he wrote upon the subject of Venus and Adonis, before he fixed on the stanza, in which he finally composed that elaborate, and, in many respects, most beautiful poem. " It is said of Zucchero, that he was offended at our religion. There were plenty of Catholics, both open and concealed, to preserve him from the impu- REMARKS. 167 tation of singularity ; and the great number of our nobility and gentry, who employed him, may shew, that our religion by no means protested against the hand which bestowed the graces of art. He quitted us, however, before the atrocious murder of QUEEN MARY, violated something more sacred than the prejudice of a zealous Catholic, by outraging the common feelings of humanity. " About a year before Mr. Cosway died, I called upon him, to inspect the picture carefully again, that I might not be compelled to rely upon an im- pression made five and twenty years ago. He told me, upon my pointing to its old position in his sitting- room, that he had lent it to a very amiable friend of his, a female artist, who had requested leave to copy it. While we conversed upon other topics, he sent his servant to that lady, with a desire that she would indulge him with it for a few minutes. He was greatly surprised to find that the fair artist had re- turned it to him a considerable time since ; but it had not been replaced in his parlour, and he in vain tried to conjecture what had become of it. " This portrait was an oval, life size, most delicately painted, with something peculiar in the oblique, or cat-like position of the eyes. I may add, that it had not the slightest resemblance to the traditional com- plexion, and established features of the great poet of England. Of Torquato Tasso, indeed, it bears more than a slight look ; and struck an accomplished friend of mine, as indicating all the mingled charac- 168 REMARKS. teristics of genius and passion, that denoted the mighty author of the Gerusalemme Liberata. I feel no difficulty in declaring it to be an Italian por- trait ; and it might, indeed, have been painted for himself or his brother Taddeo : nor are the indica- tions of poetical composition in this picture at all adverse to such a supposition, for Federigo certainly wrote and published verses : most of the painters of Italy combined very different powers together ; were at the same time poets, painters, architects, and mu- sicians ; and they shewed that, as the fine arts might be reduced to one common principle, so they might all centre in some highly-gifted individuals. The reader, on the subject of this common principle among the elegant arts, may thank me for referring him to the Abbe Batteaux's Treatise, Les Beaux Arts, reduits d un mime principe. " The only point of relation between Zucchero and Shakspeare is, that they both died in the same year, 1616. " It is proper for me to remark upon the facility with which persons inscribe names or dates, or both, upon portraits of unquestionable antiquity. Here we find the name of Shakspeare curiously imprest upon the panel. But there is something base beyond comi- mon crime, in thus catching a sordid profit from the generous enthusiasm that leads men to honour the mighty dead ' And out of their own virtues make the net, ' That shall enmesh them all." OTHELLO. DUNFORD's PORTRAIT OF SHAKSPEARE, AS GIVEN BY MR. BOADEN. " ONE of the most fortunate among the accidental Shakspeare's, was the head bought by Mr. Dunford, a print-seller in Great Newport-street, about the end of the year 1814. A writer in a Sunday newspaper had styled this a portrait by Zucchero : it was, however, most clearly pointed out, that the poet never could have sat to that artist at all, as the reader will have already seen in my examination of Mr. Cosway's picture, which was decidedly a head by Zucchero, to whose manner, Mr. Dunford's picture bears not the slightest resemblance. Mr. Dunford, in a very modest letter to the editor of the Champion, admitted the erroneous ascription of his picture to Zucchero, which it appeared, was the opinion of a friend, and never had been his own. This letter was dated the 3d of January, 1815. " I saw the portrait myself at Mr. Dunford's, and from time to time heard various conjectures, and once a tradition, which was said to have travelled Y 170 REMARKS. up from Oxford, and that in some College or other of that " Mother of famous Wits," it had been a fact well known, that Mark Garrard had at some time or other painted Shakspeare. Now this was decidedly a better guess than the other, and only assumed, that as he might have painted the poet he absolutely did paint him; and then that there was every probability this was the very head, about which the story from Oxford so opportunely arrived. " Garrard's processions of the great Queen are well known to collectors; and Vertue has expa- tiated upon the uncommon fidelity of even his small portraits, in these ingenious records of the character of past times. A head, therefore, life- size, by so faithful an artist, would, indeed, present our dramatic " father, in his habit as he liv'd," and the highest satisfaction to be derived to us from a source so little questionable. But in the first place, the Oxford tradition somehow mouldered away; nobody could demonstrate that Garrard was even the painter of the picture ; the head was decidedly unlike the general expression of Shakspeare; and at an age, when he had certainly a bald front, exhibited him with a luxuriant crop of black hair, as low as it ever comes upon elevated fore- heads. " Mr. Dunford has assured the public, in his letter, that he saw in this portrait a likeness to Droeshout's print. I have compared them carefully, and am REMARKS. 171 afraid the resemblance is of the kind discovered by Fluellen between Macedon and Monmouth. When the imagination embraces a favourite object, it endows it easily with all the merits it desires to find. Although nothing can be more obvious than the maturity of this portrait, it was deemed young by its admirers, that the hair might seem reason- able: though the expression was gloomy even to sterness, it was thought perfectly to exhibit the brightest of the sons of men ; and it has, I think, been bought at a price which far exceeded the sum paid for the folio collection of his immortal produc- tions when put in the happiest condition by the zeal of Mr. Kemble. " It was twice engraved, once the size of life, in 1815, by Turner, in mezzotinto ; and really that most able artist sunk under so portentous a task : and a second time, the year following, in the line manner, by Sharp, who on a smaller scale has preserved the repulsive character of the original, in a style w r hose neatness will always command the attention of the connoisseur. But in a word, the head is neither Shakspeare, nor any other poet; it is that of a grave calculating man of the world, shrewd in the perception of his interest, and little subject to the soft or the liberal affections ; the expression of the mouth in particular, is decisive as to the temper of the man. If such a person in an evil hour became a sovereign, his attendants, must immediately assume the characteristic of their Y 2 172 REMARKS. master, and the court of King Cymbelme would be renewed in all its unhappiness. ' You do not meet a man, but frowns : our bloods No more obey the heavens, than our courtiers ; Still seem, as does the king's." I am of opinion it would have given more general satisfaction, had Mr. Boaden entered into more of the realities of this popular portrait, which was equally as much within his reach as my own, especially as he professes to dive into every particular respecting his favourite author. This portrait of Shakspeare, is above all other modern productions of the poet, that which re- quires the most strict investigation, in consequence of the unequalled notoriety it has produced, and to the no small benefit of the publisher of the engravings. Previous to giving the following particulars, I think it a duty, in the first place, to do this justice to Mr. Dunford, that he bears the most honourable character from all who have had any dealings with him, and although it is greatly against his wish, that any thing should be further said as regards this picture, I consider, I should not be doing that justice to the public, and the best pictures of the poet if I did not. In 1816, Mr. Britton gives the following account at the end of a pamphlet, on the Monumental Bust of Shakspeare, and which alludes to Mr. Dunford's picture : REMARKS. 173 " Very recently, an extraordinary trick has been played upon the lovers of Shakspeare. A print- seller announced a newly- discovered picture of him, closely resembling the " Statue, at Stratford, and the print in the folio edition;" and asserts that upwards of three thousand persons, of com- petent judgment, concurred in pronouncing it, "a genuine portrait of Shakspeare, painted from the life." A short history of this portrait, it is hoped, will serve to warn collectors of prints, and illus- trators of books, against future impositions. A maker and mender of old pictures, having pur- chased an old head, for a few shillings, first christened it Shakspeare, and then tried to sell it to a worthy shopkeeper, near Holborn, at a small profit. Not succeeding here, the manufacturer deemed it expedient to borrow Houbraken's en- graved head, for the purpose of altering and improving the " true" original. Thus, by putting in ear-rings, painting on the forehead, touching the mouth, rubbing on a little new paint in some places, and taking off the old from others, the portrait was completed, a purchaser was found for it, at a price under five pounds, and this purchaser proclaimed it to the world, as an ori- ginal of the Bard of Avon." " It is ardently hoped that every subsequent attempt at imposition, may be as easily detected, and that it may always be branded by the contempt and avowed indignation of every true 174 REMARKS. Englishman and lover of Shakspeare. " In the end truth will out." J. BRITTON, Tavistock Place, London, April 23, 1816, The anniversary of the Birth and Death of Shakspeare, and the second century after his decease. I have thought it very necessary to insert the above account of Mr. Britton's, as the mention of the " worthy shopkeeper," was the instigation of my making enquiry after him, and which has led me to ascertain many particulars never before pub- lished. The individual which Mr. Britton alludes to, is Mr. Kettle, at the corner of Kingsgate Street, Holborn, I am told by him, that at the time he lived in Little Queen Street, his former residence, there was living in New Turnstile, a broker, whose name was Shew, this person had in his shop, for some time, a very old picture of a male character, which Mr. K. had seen many times by passing and repassing, but there was nothing in its appearance, to induce him to purchase it, although he might have had it for a few shillings ; the hair came rather low on the forehead, and the dress was of a lightish colour ; to give a more minute account, at this distant time is impossible, but, however, he was in the habit of employing a person of the name of Holder, a repairer of old paintings, and to his great surprise, on going to REMARKS. 175 him after some pictures under repair, the very portrait which he had seen at the broker's, was upon his easel, and half the face had already been altered into that of the poet. Mr. Kettle describes the method Holder adopts in altering old pictures is not so much by painting on them, as by scraping off with a knife ; the effects necessary to produce, this is certainly a very judicious plan for deception, as the less paint is used, the more secure from discovery, and more particularly so, when performed by an ingenious person, who has always some secret method to make their work complete. At this time the residence of Holder was in Booth Court, Wells Street. Mr. Hilder, a picture dealer in Gray's Inn Lane, assures me, that he also saw the above portrait being altered into that of Shakspeare, by Holder, and afterwards sold to Mr. W. F. Zincke; a picture consisting of a man, his wife and children, all of whom were separated by him and converted into portraits of the poet. My next account will show, that previous to the metamorphosing this picture, that I have several witnesses as to its original state. The first is now living at No. 10, Wells Street, of the name of James Parry, an engraver, who was at the time above-mentioned a resident in the same house, with a noted character of the name of 176 REMARKS. James Caulfield.* It appears from the great knowledge that Caulfield had of antient portraits, was the inducement for Holder to bring the pic- ture to him in order to ascertain who it was; Mr. Parry was present, and heard Caulfield say it was the portrait of some Dutch Admiral, but would make a very good Shakspeare, with some alterations. Mr. Parry's statement agrees with Mr. Kettle's description of it, which is also borne out by the testimony of Zincke, who worked with Holder at the time, and witnessed the alterations of the picture taking place. Mr. W. Smith, Printseller, 23, Lisle Street, Leicester Square, also informs me the same portrait was brought to him, by Holder, who pur- chased of him two common prints of the poet, for sixpence, and asserted his intention of altering the * Mr. Caulfield is the author of a book, entitled Chalcogra- phiania, or the Printseller's Chronicle. " C If Id has displayed no small share of judgment in his literary efforts ; the publication of his Remarkable Characters, which is now completed by Mr. Kirby, (the publisher of the Wonderful Museum, in a series of volumes,) is a sufficient proof, that his efforts in delineating biographical sketches, are very far above mediocrity, added to which, he is extremely fortunate in selecting subjects likely to arrest public attention. If we consider the general conduct of this Chalcographianian, few individuals can lay claim to greater oddity; and in regard to his costume, it would be sacrilege either to brush his coat, or clean his shoes; in short, negligence is the predominant feature of his character. Vide Chalcographimania, p. 112, 1824. REMARKS. 177 picture to that of Shakspeare; Mr. Smith very particularly remembers the hair coming low on the forehead, and the dress as before described. The picture, when altered, was first offered to Mr. Kettle, for the sum of three pounds ten shillings, but he refused to have it at any price. Its next appearance was again to Mr. Smith, who also refused to have it ; it so happened at this visit to Mr, S. that Mr. Caulfield was sitting in his shop when Holder came in, and Caulfield complimented him of having made a very good Shakspeare ; shortly after in comes Mr. Dunford, on some business, when all conversation dropped on the subject, and it is supposed he did not observe the picture. I have not been able to ascertain, that it was offered to any other person, until its arrival in Newport Street ; and, although Mr. Dunford gives his opinion so very opposite to the statements already given, it can have no weight against " con- firmations strong as proofs of holy writ." Having said thus much against the validity of this portrait, as to its being that of the poet, I should not have done justice to Mr. Dunford, had I not fully explained to him the purport of the present publication, leaving himself to state what he thought proper, in the defence of the portrait and himself. He gave me to understand, that the first time he ever saw the picture, or the person that brought it to him, was to ascertain, if he knew if there was a print engraved from it, and answering in the negative, 178 REMARKS. afterwards observed, is this a portrait of Shaks* peare ? the owner (Mr. Holder) replied, it was, and a genuine one; its appearance was such, as to induce Mr. D. to give the price required, that being four guineas ; some explanation being ne- cessary, as to the discovery of so fine a portrait, Mr. Holder acquainted him, that being in search of some old panels or pictures, he had been so successful as to meet with some, in the vicinity of Holborn, one of which was the identical portrait, although at the time, he could not perceive there was the least appearance of paint on it, it being so covered with dirt, &c. but in the carrying them home together, the most prominent part of the paint got rubbed, so as to shew it was a picture, which led him to clean it, and when done, produced what is now to be seen. So far, Mr. Dunford's statement only tends to shew, that Mr. Holder has been guilty of a gross imposition, and falsehood. Notwithstanding the strong evidence which I have adduced against Mr. Dunford's picture, as an original Shakspeare, he is unwilling to acknowledge that it is any other than a genuine portrait, by Mark G arrard,* and is not re-painted on by Holder, any further than a little hair on the forehead, and in consequence * It is said that the picture of Shakspeare, which is at Trinity College, Cambridge, (already noticed at page 54,) is a half-length portrait, by Mark Garrard. REMARKS. 179 of the doubts that many people had expressed of its genuineness, he employed a Mr. Hammond, to make some experiment with a chemical process, to extricate all the new paint, and all this, was no more than the hair, as above stated, and when removed, only proved, that instead of Holder making a Shakspeare, he had only been destroying what had previously been one. Mr. Holder, who is still living, is the most proper person to testify as to the truth of this, and which I am inclined to believe, is to the contrary of Dunford's statement, owing to the corroborative evidences already produced. Mr. Dunford further states, that when the portrait had excited so much of the public interest, that Mr. Holder deemed it necessary to make application to him for further remuneration, which not being granted, he then declared the picture was a fabrication, and with Dunford's permission, he would extricate all the new paint, and shew what he had done to it, this was of course also declined, and for a very just cause, when it is to be recollected, that in the first instance he had sold him the picture as an original, there- fore, it could not be expected Mr. D. would be any further imposed upon. Mr. Dunford calculates, that not less than six thousand persons came to him to see it, and three thousand declared their belief of its originality, among whom, were people of the first respectability and 180 REMARKS. judgment*, in those matters; that Mr. Abernethey had examined the ear, and was convinced it had originally been accustomed to a ring, and Sir T. Lawrance had nothing to say against its being Shak- speare. I have never seen this picture, nor do I think it would be worth the trouble to go out of my way for that purpose, where I find such quackery is unsupported by the least evidence from any other quarter. It is the common practice with dealers, to make improper use of persons names of acknowledged taste and judgment, in order to enforce a belief, that you will have a great bargain, by what you may be induced to purchase of them, but could it be possible to give credit to such assertions, we should have but few instances to record of people re- penting too late, of their supposed bargains; and though Sir T. Lawrance has not said one word against this picture, as being that of Shakspeare, I have his authority to state, that he never had remarked what was like him, which proves, at any rate, that, although out of six thousand opinions, one half have sacrificed their judgments, the president's has escaped with flying colours. It would be very singular, if out of such a multi- tude of spectators, that one purchaser for the picture was not among them, this was George Evans, Esq. of Beckenham, in Kent, who paid Mr. Dunford for it, (as he tells me), one hundred guineas,* it was * I have since been told, that exclusive of the hundred guineas REMARKS. 181 afterwards sold by auction, with other pictures, &c. belonging to that gentleman, and again pur- chased by Mr. Dunford, for forty guineas, which was considerably under the commission given to him for it, by its present owner, William Cattley, Esq. of Barnet, who also possesses the two engraved plates ; the one by C. Turner is defaced, in order to make the impressions more valuable, and never was more than two hundred and fifty taken ; the two engravings are very good, and resemble each other more than we commonly see, done by two persons, the distant eye is rather that of a squint, the mouth I have never seen done worse, it has all the appearance of being copied from a doll's, or any thing but nature ; Boaden has described it as awful, and borrowed some lines from the poet to help him, but has not given one word as to " its being an altered picture, or having any circular cracks." It has never appeared that this author has shown much sagacity in his researches, as his conclusions are, generally speaking, so foreign to facts, but, in which he has displayed much verbosity, for his reasonings are, in many instances, as to "two grains of wheat, hid in two bushels of chaff; you shall seek all day ere you find them, and when you have them, they are not worth the search." paid by Mr. Evans to Dunford, for the above picture, that in addition was given, a cart load of pictures, value 500 more; I am not very ready to give much credit to a story told by a third person, but in this instance, I have it from the first authority. 182 REMARKS. Having just received from Mr. J. Smith, the address of Mr. Holder, I have sent a letter to him, and in answer to which have received the following : February 22nd, 1827. , SIR, I have received your letter of the 19th instant, and in answer to your request, I will give every particular of the portrait I sold to Mr. Dunford, as a Shakspeare, (except the way by which I did it.) I bought the picture in New Turnstile, Holborn, for five shillings, it had been a large panel picture, of which this was the centre board, which I also reduced, in order to make it more shapeable, I hung it up for some time in my painting room, as a study, for I admired it much; at last a thought come into my head, that it might be made into a Shakspeare, which I had never before attempted ; Mr. Zincke, who then worked with me, approved of my plan, and I accordingly did so, without bestowing much time, as I did not intend to ask a large price. The body-garment was originally white, the ear-ring, with other requisites, I put ; when done, I added to it a frame, which I think cost me thirty shillings, and offered the whole to Mr. Dunford, for five pounds ; after he had looked at it for some time, he bid me four pounds ten shillings, which I accepted; some few days after, Mr. Dunford came, and told me that I had sold him a great bargain, for which he would not take a thousand pounds, I was requested to call on him, I did so, and seeing him so very sanguine of his great bargain, I hoped he would not refuse a good offer when made, as I knew more about the picture than he imagined ; to which he answered sharply, "what Sir, do you mean to say it is painted by yourself," to which I made no reply. Ke again made answer, " I did not know more about it, than Mr. West, or Sir T. Lawrance, and four hundred other competent judges,, REMARKS. 183 but that himself could not be deceived.''* I found it was of no use talking any more on the subject, so left him with this observation, that they were blind altogether. I have not since been able to see this picture, but judging from the print, I do not perceive any good has been done by the analization it underwent, by my late beloved master, Mr. Hammond, whose abilities in the art of repairing, was to the greatest perfection. It has since been said by Mr. Dunford to some of my friends, that he had made me a present of fifty pounds,f but of which I have never received one shilling; I have never been inclined to dupe the world, as many have done in my situation of life, my object has ever been, to sell my pictures cheap; I have a wife and nine children to support, and had I the advantages which others have made by my works, I should not be the poor man I now am. I am, Sir, Your most obedient humble servant, EDWARD HOLDER. No. 3, Little Cambridge Street, Hackney Road. * Mr. Dunford has certainly been under a mistake as to this picture being an original Shakspeare, as well as in another, made by Holder, who has informed me, that as his skill was doubted, he converted a portrait of a clergyman, into an Oliver Cromwell, which Mr; Hilder, of Gray's Inn Lane, also witnessed being so made, and afterwards saw it in Mr. Dunford's window, to whom it was taken by Mr. Zincke, and sold for four pounds, one of which was given him for his trouble. Notwithstanding these deceptions, Mr. Dunford has certainly shown us, in many instances, that he has 'both taste and judgment, for his selection of pictures is very good, as his windows are generally decorated with some very fine specimens of the arts. > t Mr. Dunford mentioned to me, that he had laid out about forty pounds with Holder, for various pictures, but never hinted of having made him a present, nor can I give credit to the report, although Mr. Holder says, he has been told so by many friends. \ 184 REMARKS. N. B. I afterwards made another Shakspeare, which was worth a score such as the above, I sold it to Mr. Gwennap, in Brook Street, Grosvenor Square, for six pounds, which is the most I ever got for one. Mr. Gwennap questioned me if I had manufactured it, to which I answered in the affir- mative, when he replied, had I asked him sixty pounds for it, he should have given it to me. There cannot be a doubt but the success of those portraits, has been the cause of so many more being manufactured by Holder, whose genius deserves to be more beneficially employed, but, were people generally not so credulous, such acquire- ments would not be so effectually and often practised. It is much to be regretted, that men of so much ingrenuitv do not turn their abilities to some be- O v neficial purposes, that would do them more credit, as all deceptions on mature reflection, cannot be conducive to happiness, for it must separate them in the end, from all friends to truth and honesty; generally speaking, those persons instead of living in retirement, with a clear conscience, towards the approach of old age, are frequently to be found in some obscure dwelling, and often in need of the common necessaries of life; in such a situa- tion the above individual has often been. Lock describes men of this description thus : " Among the various modes of acquiring money, invented by the restless mind of man, it has been to imitate the effects of time, to make an artificial rust, to accelerate decay, and deceive the antiquary." REMARKS. 185 I have given the preceding statements, on this picture, without any fear arising from the threats that were uttered to me, by Mr. Dunford, who being under the apprehension that his reputation might sustain some injury from it, assured me, that if it should so happen, his affluent circumstances would allow him to part with two or three hundred pounds, in protecting it by law. I have only to add, it is a consolation the most gratifying for a man, origi- nally in needy circumstances to become rich by ingenuity and industry, but if providence has decreed it so as to favour him with such a store of gold, I regret it should have that influence as to expose the weakness of the mind, for I had pre- viously explained to him, as I have to all others concerned in the Shakspeare portraits, that I should expose all the TRUTH and falsehood, as far as I am able, and I have no doubt it must be obvious to the public, that I have had no intention of injuring either his purse, " although he has put money in it," or his reputation, the former of which, is most essential to the protection of the latter, for it is that which every man holds to him- self the most dear, " he that filches from me my good name, robs me of that, which not enriches him, and makes me poor indeed." A A Statue of Shakspeare, in the Town Hall at Stratford. MR. WHELER, in his " Antiquities of Stratford," states, that " the greatest part of the Town Hall was rebuilt in 1768, and dedicated to the memory of Shakspeare, by David Garrick, Esq. at the Jubilee, in 1769. In a niche at the north end is placed an excellent statue of Shakspeare, which, at the con- clusion of the Jubilee, was presented to the Corpora- tion by Garrick, as a lasting memorial of his veneration for the matchless original. The bard is represented in a graceful attitude, (as on his monu- ment in Westminster Abbey) resting upon some volumes, placed on a pedestal, ornamented with three busts, viz. Henry the Fifth, Richard the Third, and Queen Elizabeth. Upon a scroll, to which he points, are the following lines, judiciously selected from his own Midsummer Night's Dream: ** The poet's eye, in a fine frenzy rolling 1 , " Doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven; " And, as imagination bodies forth " The forms of things unknown, the poet's pen " Turns them to shapes ; and gives to airy nothing " A local habitation, and a name.'' Under the pedestal beneath, are these words from Hamlet : " take him for all in all, " We shall not look upon his like again.*' Below is the following inscription : " The Corporation and Inhabitants of Stratford, assisted by (he muni- ficent contributions of the Nobility and Gentlemen of the neighbourhood, rebuilt this edifice, in the year 1768. The statue of Shakspeare, and his picture within, was given by David Garrick, Esq.", STAGED PICTURE OF SHAKSPEARE, AS GIVEN BY MR. BOADEN. "!N Middle Scotland-yard there resided, a few years back, a bookseller, named Machell Stace. Whether his residence was matter of conve- nience or taste, I know not ; but he was a good deal frequented for the literature of the good old times > and supplied many of the discontented spirits of our own with the republican doctrines and fanatical religion of the rebellion. His visitors might kindle their enthusiasm by a hasty glance at the scene of the great " crowning mercy" adjoin- ing, where the last sacrifice, the head of that gentlemanly monarch, Charles the First, was offered up to the grim idol, a COMMONWEALTH. " And that two-handled engine at the door, " Stood ready to smite once, and smite no more." " In addition to his books, Stace occasionally solicited attention to some fine portraits of the period to which I have so particularly alluded. One of them was a likeness of the Protector, by Walker, and eminently characteristic of that successful usurper. The tendency of the saints to this quarter of the town, at length sent in a picture, which suggested to our bookseller a rather prophane A A2 188 REMARKS. attribution ; and the unknown saint * was converted into the player Shakspeare. " The artist, whoever he was, has in some degree imitated the costume and attitude of Soest's picture ; and, perhaps, the counterfeit, badly drawn as it is, might be taken for the original from which Simon t engraved, by one knowing no more of art than Stace did. But in truth, the great artist had nothing whatever to do with it. The head is thrown back, and the shoulders are ungracefully round. The eyes are considerably too large. The hair, instead of the beautiful and picturesque disposition which Soest studied in the works of Rubens and Vandyke, is heavily cumbered into a dark mass ; and the beard is treated in the same tasteless and fanatical style. The doublet, with its countless row of buttons, is the only point of resemblance in the two pictures, But in the faces of these, I had almost said political rivals, may be accurately traced the opposite charac- teristics of the poet and the puritan. * If this portrait had previously been a saint, it would be more desirable to have Mr. Boaden's authorities for so saying. t I think Mr. Boaden must intend this as a joke, for no man that knows his right hand from his left could think that Simon's engraving was taken from this picture, when there cannot be a doubt but the print was done first, exclusive of which the print is an oval in a square, and the picture is only a square. The dress of the former is as full of pattern, as the head is of sense ; but the head of the latter is as free from it as the dress is of any pattern. A. W. REMARKS. *' Stace had it engraved in 1811, by Robert Cooper, in a very coarse manner, and had the audacity to write under it the name of Shak- speare. * But I leave it in this state of utter * Though Mr. Stace has written under this engraving the name of Shakspeare, he was fully justified in so doing, as there are the initials W. S. on the picture, besides Mr. Boaden has forgot he has himself stated this picture is a copy from Zoust's, and which is according to his belief intended for the poet. The shirt collar, in particular, resembles the print by Simon, which shows the artist, or rather the painter, has endeavoured by the great difference in other respects, to impose on some silly person, for silly he must be, who can give credit to such a picture as this being Shakspeare. In two words, its true character is that of having more hair than brains. Mr. Stace, at the time of publishing the engraving, was so bigoted in its favour, as even to have the house in which the picture was once in, also engraved ; and the following description printed with it : A. W. '" Lately published, a Portrait of Shakspeare, when at the age of Thirty-three; engraved by Mr. R. COOPER, from the Original in the possession of the Publisher, price 15s. The size is suitable to the four first Folio, and Boyd ell's Editions, " MACHELL STACK returns his most grateful acknowledgments to the Public for their very liberal Subscription to the above en- graved Portrait, and respectfully submits to them the following Particulars relative to the Original; " M. STACE bought the Picture of Mr. LINNELL, Streatham- street, Bloomsbury, who bought it of Mr. TUFFING, Great Queen-street, Lincoln's Inn Fields. It was sold at Mr. SOUIBB'S Auction Rooms, where it was sent for Sale, with other Pictures, 190 REMARKS. rejection, to find some other name, which it may not totally disgrace. Hitherto, the fancied portraits of the great poet have been found to follow an acknowledged resemblance of him ; indeed, it was a look more or less of the archetype, that led to &c. the property of JOHN GRAHAM, Esq. who purchased it of Mr. SAT HARD, at the Old Green Dragon Public House, Wilson- street, Moorfields; Mr. SAT HARD bought it Twelve Years since, in a Sale of Fixtures, with some Paintings, &c. belonging to the Three Pigeons, in Long-alley, Crown-street, Shoreditch, a very ancient built Public House, distant about 300 yards from Willson- street. Mrs. WHEATLEY, the Landlord's Daughter, who now lives in Angel-alley, near Long-alley, then resided with her Father at the Three Pigeons, and says, she recollects the Portrait there more than Forty-four Years since, with the other Fixtures, &c; as they had been taken from time to time, by different Landlords. Previous to the Sale, the License had been taken from the Three Pigeons, and is now an Eating House, the Sign of PEEPING TOM, a Print of which is here added, from a Sketch obligingly taken by JOHN BARRETT, Esq. "P.S. M. STAGE hopes, by the kind assistance of his Friends, to be made acquainted with more particulars respecting the House to which this Portrait of SHAKSPEARE has been traced, and also concerning the Family who then resided there ; the result of which shall be communicated, if it should be deemed interesting or illustrative of the subject." " 5, Middle Scotland Yard, May Qth, 1811." These absurdities, by which the public were so much duped respecting this picture, was the means of producing the following lines ; " Array'd in puritanic grace, Comes Catalogus crony St c , Who wond'rous well knows how to diddle Great connoisseurs who buss his fiddle. REMARKS. 191 the supposition so flattering to the proprietors. But a period was shortly to arrive, when the avarice of the dealer, seconded by the pencil of the artist, was to deride all such comparison, and unblushingly In fine his word's an ipse dixit, If nameless print you have, he nicks it* So well at chistening carries farce on, You'd vow he was some village parson; Witness our Catalogus, when He leagued with baud of sapient men, Old Chalcographians passing deep, Whose judgment ne'er was known to sleep, And countless others who have nam'd, A portrait base Our Shakspeare fam'd; From which hath issu'd graven plate, Subscrib'd for by collecting great, t Which well hath answer'd St c 's end, Who proved in this friend Ego's FRIEDN : Since after all no matter whether A Crispin cutter out of leather This portrait rare may represent, Great St c no doubt earn'd cent, per cent. And though such pictures may be pretty, He best prefers bank notes from city." " St c has by some means or other wriggled himself into the good graces of the great, who, no doubt, serves his purpose admirably. One very happy step towards this enviable exaltation, was, and is the knack of christening any nameless print, or picture, that may chance to be in the possession of a customer ; thus, rendering it either serviceable in illustrating, or affording some artist a job, by having it engraved pro bono publico." t " This print, which is engraved from a picture that resembled as much the Bard of Avon, as Ben Jensen, or Joe Miller, was puffftd off in the newspapers, and advertised with a confidence a la Stc, that nothing could surpass. From the very first moment that I saw the paint- ing in the possessor's hands, I pronounced it spririous." Vide Chalcographlmania, 192 REMARKS. affirm, heads as dull as utter absence of thought could make, to be unquestionable originals of fancy's favourite child." It is wonderful to see how many instances we have of persons becoming infatuated with things they do not understand. The late W. Sharp, is one instance of uncommon credulity, who having many years ago, engraved a portrait of an impostor of the name of Brothers, he had the following words put under the print : " Fully believing this to be the man whom God hath appointed, I engrave his likeness. (Signed) W. Sharp." I believe this ingenious person never thought otherwise, as he was equally biassed in the opinions of Johanna Southcote. Generally speaking, as to the portraits of Shakspeare, he who possesses one, without knowing any thing of its origin, becomes so enamoured, that no reasonable discourse is admitted against it ; and I have very good reason to believe, that many I have seen in gentlemen's collections, was originally intended for signs, at inns or public houses* | I have been told, that the proprietor of the above portrait of Shakspeare, has not only secured this emblem of his love, in a costly case, by lock and chain, but, at his decease, it is to be buried with him ; this is certainly as it should be, and I sincerely hope that the proprietors of many other such portraits, will follow the example. The character of Mr. Cooper's engraving from this picture is, as Mr. Boaden truly remarks " course," yet clear, but the ex- pression of the face denotes " who chooseth me, shall have as much as he deserves." DR. HAR DIE's PORTRAIT OF SHAKSPEARE Mr. BOADEN remarks, " A few years have elapsed, since Mr. Brockedon, a respectable artist, shewed me in his painting-room a rather elaborate per- formance, in which our poet is delineated upon a losenge, which was borne aloft by an eagle. This, as a work of fancy, I can have no objection to. The apotheosis of a poet, or a saint, for the nonce, converted into one, may be received on its own merits, and find a welcome, as a de- signed tribute of affection or reverence for Shak- o speare ; but, nobody surely can be so ignorant of his character, as to suppose he himself would con- cur in so vain a mode of delivering his likeness to posterity. After all, our poet in the claws of this allegorical eagle, too ludicrously reminded the spectator of Gulliver in his cabinet, when the same bird, enlarged to the scale of Brobdingnag, bore him in triumph away from the tender care of Glumdalchitch. To this high flight of the great fabricator, to whom I have formerly alluded, were appending verses such as the occasion de- manded, but, which trusted entirely to their B B 194 REMARKS. orthography for success, the writer of them having no knowledge whatever, of our ancient diction." At the time Mr. Boaden saw this picture with Mr. Brockedon, it had only been left with him for to ascertain its history, the proprietor of it, was Dr. Hardie; Mr. Brockedon assures me, that the artist has shown great ingenuity in the invention, and, that he had no conception it could have been originally, what I shall presently describe it had been, notwithstanding he was aware it was a repaired picture. In the Literary Journal for October 31, 1818, we have the following particulars of this picture, from a correspondent at Manchester, who stiles it the Ben Jonson's Portrait of Shakspeare: "A very extraordinary portrait of Shakspeare, is now in the possession of Dr. Hardie, of Man- chester. The singular merit of this painting, which is finely drawn and coloured, and beaming with that expression and character, which every man associates with our great poet, added to a resemblance closer to the best authorities we have in the Monumental Bust, and in the engraving in an early edition of his works, than any pic- ture known, leaves little room to doubt of its authenticity ; but, the following description of the picture will, I think, entirely remove any thing of doubt that may remain upon the subject, and REMARKS. 195 establish a conviction, on those who may have an opportunity of inspecting it, of its being the only genuine one of Shakspeare extant. " The size of the portrait, * is two feet eleven inches, by two feet three inches, and appears to have been finished, and to have occupied, as usual, the whole canvas ; but, it is evident, that, subsequently to the picture's having been painted as a plain matter-of-fact portrait, an admirer of Shakspeare, who possessed it, had, after his death, altered the back ground, in such a way as to enclose the head in a lozenge shield, which is suspended in the talons of an eagle, with the following lines, in free old English characters, upon the lozenge, immediately under the head : " Ye nutte browne haire, ye fronte serine Thatte placide mauthe, those smylinge eyne, Doe soon bewraye my Shakespeare's meine." And below that, on an Arabesque scroll, are the following : " His thunders lay'de aside, beholde Jove's fav'rite birde, now uncontrolled, Selecte ye gemme of human race And raise hirnme to th' Empyreane space ; Fitte statione for his loftie soule Whose piercinge eye surveyed ye whole Of Nature's vast domayue, Then on Imagination's aierie winge Toe worldes uuseene yth ardent soule cou'd springe, Deepe fraughte t'enriche ye nethere worlde againe. B. J." B B 2 196 REMARKS. " The initials, B. J. and the character of this fine poetic compliment, induce me to believe, that the picture has been Ben Jonson' s ; and, that the alteration of the picture, to honour his deceased friend, \tfas made under his direction. The compliment has been painted by a very in- ferior hand ; and, if its authenticity rested on no other foundation, than a traditionary interval be- tween the first painting and the alteration, little doubt could be left of the genuineness of the picture, independent of the idea of its having belonged to Ben Jonson. But, the beauty of the poetry, the character, and state of the writing of the period, the circumstance of the friendship which subsisted between Shakspeare and Ben Jonson ; the expression, my Shakspeare, by a poet, with the initials B. J. are coincidences so strong and evident, that they confirm the authenticity of a portrait, which we should value as associated with that genius, the extent of whose influence, unlimited by age or country, has immortalized his own." I have never seen this curious picture, but like most others, its history is very short, Mr. Zincke is the painter of it, and he says, it was originally the portrait of a French dancing master, which he purchased of Mr. Hilder, with other old pictures, for about twelve shillings. TALMA's PORTRAIT OF SHAKSPEARE, Mr. BOADEN remarks " Among the pitiable absurdities which have dishonoured the cause of Shakspeare, the most ridiculous is clearly his exhi- bition upon the oaken or mahogany lid of a pair of bellows. I presume to call this the " brightest invention" as to him who possessed a MUSE of FIRE. " To what base uses may 1 we return." However, some little apology is included in the anecdote which attended the picture, namely, that this utensil had decorated the chamber of Queen Elizabeth, and, under a hasty impatience for warmth, the effigy of the poet might have sometimes been pressed by her royal hands. This speculation is said to have been once detected by a picture cleaner of Paris, who removed the high forehead and mus- taches, which denoted the poet, and discovered the more appropriate modled head of an old lady. However, the fair decoration of the bellows soon became, as before, a femme couverte; and the restored head of Shakspeare is now in the possession of Mr. Talma, who has bestowed a splendid case upon this unique picture of the Bard, which, after all, may have a stronger resemblance to 198 REMARKS. Shakspeare, than the Hamlet, the Mackbeth, and the Lear of Duels, bears to the original plays so denominated. I cannot stoop to the insertion of the legends and epistles with which these spurious mummeries are usually attended: they are impu- dently signed Ben Jonson, or Poins, or Pystolle; for the knowledge of these fabricators is very slender indeed as to the cotemporaries who might have been expected to honour him." THE maker of this ingenious picture, is Mr. W. F. Zincke,* with whom I have personally conversed on the subject. His willingness to oblige me, although a total stranger, and his never making * Mr. Zincke, is the grand-son of that celebrated enamel painter, Christian Frederic Zincke ; I am unable to give any of the former part of his life, but, in the latter, good fortune has not been his lot. His residence is in Windmill Street, Lambeth, surrounded with full grown children, and his silver locks denote, that the time of life is arrived he should require the aid of his offspring, rather than by the sweat of his own brow. He is a good restorer of old pictures, which art, he obtained when working with Mr. Holder, of Shakspeare notoriety, whose great success, must have been the principal inducement for Zincke's setting up master for himself. The great number of pictures which have been produced of the poet, by those persons, "custom seems to have made it in them a property of easiness." Zincke tells me, the origin of the above picture, was an old painted mahogany tea board. In 1823, there was a picture of Shakspeare, made by Zincke, in the possession of Mr. Reid, of Charing Cross, but, I see nothing in its appearance which denotes originality, for to make REMARKS-. 199 a secret of those pictures to the world, clearly shews he was no further implicated in any of the trans- actions beyond the fabrication, for the sum he received for his labours, was no more than five pounds, including a letter which he wrote for the purpose of making the delusion more compleat, and which I have the pleasure to say had no pecuniary advantages in this country, that it should have any elsewhere, by an extortion of money is to be regretted, which did actually take place. If we observe these transactions, in a moral point of view, they have only the claim of some ingenuity, for as to honesty, that is quite out of the question, for use of the painter's own words, " it is cobbled into a bead of the poet," however, the little story that accompanied this portrait has some merit. The face has been cut cross-ways, and nearly one half of the picture is covered with the following poetical lines, in old English letters, extremely well painted, so that we may inscribe, '* so well thy words become thee as thy wounds" the wounds being falsely ascribed to have happened, when in the possession of a married man, who, having devoted too much of his attention to the picture, his wife, in order to bring him to a sense of neglected and insulted love, in revenge had " done the deed." Surcease them medling artiste thy Endevor Strive not to paynte my Bodye, Shape, for never Shall it be sayde, ye. Phyzze of mce Sliakspere On Canvasse, woode or Paper dothe appere Respondet Pictor triumphans Maugre thy harde Resolve Beholde howe here Wee Steale thee from thyselfe Mayster Sliakspere!" The picture is now in the possession of W. Thane, Esq. 200 REMARKS. to find an honest dealer in pictures " as the world goes, is to be one man picked out of ten thousand" and all who extol trifles by invidious incitements to the unweary minds, must be considered perverters of reason, and corruptors of the world. I have no doubt but that the needy circumstances of many persons has frequently a tendency to in- ventions which is often the means of producing curiosities that we should not otherwise have, and is also assisted in a degree by the hardness of the times; which must be acknowledged, of late every one must have felt, who has to work for their living. Mr. Zincke, not being one of the most fortunate persons in this world, has more than once had recourse to flights of fancy, and, as puffing is the order of the day, he has made choice, in this instance, of an article the most characteristic for his purpose, namely, the Belloivs, on which he has exerted his best abilities by producing a head of the Bard as the most appropriate means of raising the wind. The following is a copy of Zincke's ingenious letter, that he gave wdth the picture to Mr. W. Forster, and which he sent to him for me : SIR, At a period when the world has been so frequently duped by the dealers in pictures, it may appear a vain attempt to introduce to your notice, the portrait of a man, of whom (it has been asserted by some dogmatists) no portrait was ever painted. Be the result what it may, ' I will a plain unvarnished tale relate." A friend of mine accidentally strolling in an eastern REMARKS. 201 quarter of the town, (to him a new scene,) found himself suddenly attacked by a violent pain in the lower region, and under the necessity of having recourse to summary remedy, he looked about for some place of public resort, and, fortunately found what he wanted, at his elbow. He entered the house, and calling for a glass of spirits and water, seated himself by the fire, in a back parlour. After the lapse of about a quarter of an hour, his complaint abated, and, being one not accustomed to strong drink, he began to feel unusual drowsiness, and by degrees fell fast asleep. On awaking, he found himself chilly, and the fire nearly out, and looking into the corner for a pair of bellows, to revive the dying embers, his curiosity was ex- cited by the door of a small low cupboard standing ajar, when peeping in, he thought he had found what he had been in search of, (viz. the bellows,) and eagerly snatching at them, the upper part severed from the lower, when equally great were his astonishment and gratification, after he had cleared away the dust and cobwebs, to find the portrait of the prince of the drama, surrounded by various inscriptions, stuck on the surface ; he soon bargained for what the landlord considered as useless lumber, and triumphing in his good fortune, brought away a relic, rendered precious by the frequent fact of our Bard and his jovial companions. -The carving of the letters which surround the head, (though certainly no proof of an able artist, but, rather perhaps the effect of the dawdling industry of some half-asleep tap room lounger,) does at once (in combination with the fustian-like and profane attempt at wit, supposed to be uttered by Pistol, and quite consonant with the affected style of the time,) prove, if any thing can prove, the genuineness of the article, and of its being a co- temporaneous production. On the subject I shall dwell no longer, but merely add, that if the price should coincide with your ideas, the picture with its appendages are yours. Sir, the above fiction accompanied the portrait to the first purchaser. It has since passed through several* hands, but, its latest owner was, the Great French Tragedian, Talma, who C C 202 REMARKS. considered it as altogether inestimable, and enshrined it in a most costly frame and case. I am, Sir, your most obedient Servant, 23rd November, 1826. W. F. ZINCKE. P. S. As you may find some difficulty in decyphering the several inscriptions, being in a cramped antiquated character, and in some degree, rendered indistinct by time and neglect. Having conned them over frequently, I will transcribe them for you.- Round the head are the words following, "Whom have we here, stuck on the bellows'? The Prince of Good Fellows, Willy Shakespeare ; Poins is supposed to lament the degraded fate of the poet. On the handle, thus ; " Oh curst untoward luck ! to be so stuck." On the lower part, just over the palce of the nozzle, Pistol in his usual mock lofty style, profanely alluding to the words of the 104th psalm, is supposed to reply, "Nay, but a godlike luck's to him as- signed; who, like the Almighty, rides upon the wind." N. B. I have supposed above, that the carving of the letters appears to have been the production of some loiterer in a tap room ; it has since occurred to me, from the studding round the head to protect the edges of the picture, that the sons of St. Crispin, must have been devoted to the Jolly God in those days, as they are even unto this day, for beyond all doubt, the said studding is composed of coblers* pegs. Urgo said artist must have been a cobler. This letter was brought me the 20th of January, 1827 9 by Mr. Foster,* who declares that he sold the * In a note to me from Mr. Foster he says The information I could give you of these mock original Shakspeare's would fill a volume, I dare say that I have had thirty of them, but never attempted to palm them upon the public as originals, well knowing to the contrary, I never got more than six or eight guineas for the REMARKS. 203 above picture to a Mr. Allen, of Jersey, for a small profit, if so it appears, that it had blowed no one any good until it arrived in France, where it was purchased by Mr. W. H. Ireland for the sum of eighty pounds, of Mr. Allen. Mr. Ireland informs me, that he purchased the picture of Mr. Allen, for the above sum, with this proviso, that Mr. Ireland should first be fully con- vinced, that there had not been any re-painting on the forehead, he would then keep the picture, but, if on the cleaning it was proved to be other than genuine, it was to be returned. The portrait was in consequence placed in the hands of Mr. Ribet, one of the most experienced restorers of paintings, to put the picture in a proper state, when on applying the necessary ingredients, in order to remove dirt or re-paint, the whole of the latter came off, when it ap- peared that the portrait had originally represented an aged female, a cap and blue ribbons being delineated beneath the represented forehead. Ribet afterwards repaired the picture, and being a tolerable good artist, made it better than it was before. It is merely necessary to add, as regards Mr. Ireland, that he returned the picture to Mr. Allen, who deemed it necessary to tack another best, and I can assure you, that, I have found it difficult to persuade many of the purchasers that they were not originals. c c2 204 REMARKS. story to it, stating, that it was originally brought to France by Sir Kenelm Digby. Mr. Ireland declares not to have had any concern whatsoever, with the subsequent disposal of it to Mr. Talma, of whom I have now to speak. In the Literary Gazette for 1823, p. 42, Mr. Brockedon gives an interesting account of his visit to Talma ; which the following is an extract: " Mr. EDITOR, " I regret that the entire occupation of my time, has delayed until now, the 'redemption of my promise to you, to communicate some information upon Talma's Shakespeare. " On my return througli Paris, in September last, I was strongly advised by a friend, whom 1 met there, not to leave it until I had seen an extraordinary portrait of Shakespeare, which was in the possession of Talma, and, as he was very intimate with that celebrated actor, he offered to introduce me ; he assured me, on observing a sceptical smile on my face, that it was an undoubted picture. He was about to describe it, when I interrupted him, and requested that he would listen to me, whilst I described to him some undoubted forgeries of Shakespeare's portrait, which had come under my own obser- vation. I mentioned four or five, and among 'them the Bellow's Shakespeare; I so entirely convinced him of my acquaintance with its history, that, he then wished me to call on Talma to undeceive him. I was glad of the opportunity of knowing a man so distinguished, and availed myself of his offer. Talma received me politely; before the picture was produced, I de- scribed it minutely, and gave him its history; that, it was made by an old artist of the name of Zincke, who was the grandson of the celebrated enameller of that name; that, he had sold it for five pounds, to Mr. William Forster, of the REMARKS, 205 Strand, in whose possession I had seen it. One circumstance I mentioned, that had escaped Talma's notice, and which was to be the test of the truth of his picture, or my story. The head which I had seen in London, was fastened on the top of the bellows by a close border of shoemaker's wooden pegs ; to this, Forster had directed my attention, and said, that Zincke had intended to excite the idea, that it had been in the pos- session of some cobbler, whose recollection of the Bard, had led to his thus honouring him, and, who was supposed also, to have carved the lines and quotations on the parts of the bellows' top. The treasure was now produced, in a magnificent case of green morocco and gold, lined with silk, which had cost Talma a thousand francs, rather a superb lodging for an old bellows. It was opened with almost as sacred a feel- ing, as the relic thumbs and toes of saints are shewn. My old friend appeared! the border of pegs settled its authen- ticity. Talma bore his disappointment like a philosopher and a gentleman; and, though I was much gratified by the opportunity of spending an hour with him, I could not help regretting, that, it was under circumstances which robbed him of a pleasure, that, alike complimented the actor of the present, and the writer of every age. " Talma gave a thousand francs for the picture, and I heard had refused a thousand pounds for it, to an English gentleman of the name of Bell. It had been taken to Paris, in all probability, to catch Talma. The person from whom he bought it, had also, some curious papers of Sir Kenelm Digby's doubtless as genuine as the Shakespeare. " Poor old Zincke is grateful to the purchasers of his memorandums of Shakespeare, as he calls them. He has at- tainments for which he deserves a better fate, than to live by apparent deceit in their application. But his " poverty, and not his will, consents;" and he says, that, he often owes to his Shakespeares, the morsel, and the couch, which pre- serve him from starvation and houseless exposure." Mr. WILSON'S PORTRAIT OF SHAKSPEARE MR. WHELER, in his " Antiquities of Stratford," gives us the following account of a Portrait of Shakspeare, which is in the Great Room of the Town Hall : " The great room, which is 60 feet long and 30 wide, is adorned with several very large and elegant paintings : At the north end is an admirable one by Wilson *, wherein our inimitable poet is represented in the attitude of Inspiration, and sitting in an antique chair ; upon the ground lie several books and M. S. S. among the former are distinguished North's Plutarch's Lives, Holingshed's Chronicles, Cynthio's Novals, &c. being some of the authors which Shakspeare consulted; and in the window are the armorial bearings of his family. At the south end is a whole length painting, by Gains- borough, of David Garrick, Esq. reclining against a pedestal ; upon which is represented a bust of his favourite author. ( These paintings were presented to the corporation by Garrick in 1769." * I apprehend it was painted by Benjamin Wilson. A. W. t Painted from the monument in Westminster Abbey. A. W. Mr. WINSTANLEY's PORTRAIT OF SHAKSPEARE, IN the Literary Gazette for February 20th, 1819, Mr. Winstanley addressed the following letter to the editor : " SIR, " Your having, in your last Number, noticed " the simple and beautiful Bust of Shakspeare, recently produced by Mr. Britton" and your subsequent remarks upon the " uncertainty, not to say spuriousness, of all the likenesses of our immortal Bard/' induces me to trouble you with this. " I am in possession of a very curious Portrait of Shakspeare, one which 1 think is wholly unknown to the literary world, except a few friends to whom I have shewn it since it became mine. I am aware that, as you observe "Pictures have been dicovered and asserted to be his Portrait, without any sound pretension to that character." I am aware also of the prejudices against every Picture now offered to the notice of the admirers of Shakspeare. I shall, therefore, merely describe my picture, and shall be very happy to be favoured with any remarks upon it, either from yourself or from any of the numerous readers of your valuable paper. " The picture shews only the head and a small part of the shoulders, the size of life ; the dress is black, with a white collar thrown plain over the shoulders, and tied before with 208 REMARKS. a cord and tassels ; the portrait is under an arch, in the in- side of which run the holly, the ivy, and the misletoe ; under the portrait are two laurel leaves, on which are written, in old English character, the following lines : " As Holly, Ivie, Miseltoe defie the wintrye blast Despite of chillinge Envie soe, thy well earned fame shall laste Then lette the ever-living laurel beare Thy much loved name O Will. Shakspeare. B. I. " A gentleman of this town, whose taste and judgment in works of Art rank with the highest, is of opinion that the portrait is painted by PAUL VANSOMERE; it is in very fine preservation, and has every appearance of having been painted at the time of Shakspeare. I have no pedigree with it, Sir, having purchased it of a dealer, who met with it at a pawn- broker's, and knowing my fondness for Shakspeare, reserved it for me. Possessing a Cast from the late Mr. George Bullock's valuable model of the monument at Stratford, I am enabled to say, that in character as well as feature, my picture is almost in every respect the same. I know, also, that many portraits have been manufactured into Shakspeare, and that very disgraceful use has been made of the style of Ben Jonson, in order to deceive the public ; but there is a simplicity of character, with such marks of originality in my picture, that I have no doubt but it will prove highly interesting to the many admirers of our " Gentle Shak- speare." " I am, Sir, your constant reader, " And obedient humble servant, " TEGS. WlNSTANLEY." " Liverpool, 10th Feb. 1819." Mr. Zincke is the painter of this portrait, which he readily acknowledges. He bought the picture of REMARKS. 209 a Mr. Piercy ; it was then an elderly female, of course it required a deal of brushing up before he could make her into the poet. When finished, he sold it to Mr. Benton, a pawnbroker in Holborn, for four or five pounds : from Mr. B. it went into the hands of Mr. Winstanley's friend ; I am not in- formed of the sum that was given for it, nor is it material. I understand that Mr. Winstanley is an auctioneer, which is one good reason that the sum wanted for it should be four or five hundred pounds, but that is trifling to what some have been valued at. As no flats have been caught by it, we may suppose its fate is decreed, for neither Jonson's lines, Vansomer's name, or even that of Shakspeare, has had any effect to realize one offer. Really if a man is so weak as to give publicity as to his belief of the genuineness of such a picture (for I under- stand it is bad), he cannot expect it to be otherwise than knocked down without a bidding. This pic- ture has been engraved in mere outline, with the lines under it as above, with some trifling difference in the spelling. H. C. JENNINGS'* MINIATURE OF SHAKSPEARE. IN the month of February, 1827, Mr. Christie sold, at his room, in King Street, a miniature of Shakspeare, painted in oil; it is in a concaved enamelled locket of D D 210 REMARKS. gold; had formerly been ornamented with jewels, and belonged to the late H. Constantine Jennings, of Battersea, who at last parted with it reluctantly together with a missel, by Julio Clovis, to Mr. Webb for the loan of six or seven hundred pounds. It was lately in the possession of Mr. Wise, of Long Acre, and is now the properly of Charles Auriol, Esq. of Park Street, Grosvenor Square, It has been said, that Mr. Jennings had traced this miniature to the Southampton Family, if so, it is to be regretted that we have no document to that effect, as it must tend to depreciate its value, as is proved by the sum given for it by Mr. Auriol, which was no more than nine guineas and a half. That the picture is intended for the poet, and of antiquity, I have no doubt ; it is the one which most resembles the miniature in the family of the late Sir James Bland Burges ; one material difference is, that the hair and beard are brown. On the background is painted M? 33, which, if Shakspeare, must have been painted in 1597, the year that the Felton picture is also dated ; and unless the dress be theatrical, I cannot suppose that the poet would be dressed in white, having, in the latter part of the preceding year, lost his only son. There is also some resemblance in it to the Felton picture, about the nose and eyes, but it has got an expansion of forehead, which the Felton has not. I have not been dble to ascertain that it was ever engraved. ne Hon. H. T. LIDDELL's PORTRAIT OF SHAKSPEARE THAT we have no account Shakspeare ever sat for a portrait is true, in consequence of which many persons have given their opinion that no portrait of him exists, and all pictures which bear the poet's name are spurious. I differ with them in opinion, for I consider Ben Jpnson's poetical praise upon Droeshout's engraving of the poet to be alone satis- factory on that point, and though the monumental bust at Stratford has not been perpetuated in the like manner, I am nevertheless impelled to have equal belief of its resemblance to the bard, as it's so like Droeshout's print ; consequently I contend, that should any picture be produced with equal similitude to the above portraits, and done within the period of the poet's life time, they ought to be received as genuine. In support of my argument, we have numerous instances of fine old pictures that would never be known, was it not for the engravings that w r ere formerly taken from them ; also portraits of per- sons of distinction, at the present time, by eminent artists, which will not be known at future ages, if we have no exhibition catalogue or engravings from DD2 212 REMARKS. them to express their originality, the former of which I believe was not known in England until within the last century ; but if pictures come in such question- able shapes as many that I have already noticed, they cannot be admitted as true portraits of the bard in the opinion of a just critic. Having given to the public sufficient evidence of what may be considered the genuine pictures of the poet, and also some of the principal of the spurious, I was about to close my narrative, when I was informed by two very distinguished dealers in pictures, that the Honourable Thomas Liddell was in possession of an undoubted original of Shak- speare : having been often deceived by similar re- ports, I could not but doubt the truth of this. I went to Portland Place, where I w ? as shown by the above gentleman the picture, which, at the first sight, certainly had such an imposing effect, that I could not doubt of its being an original portrait of Shakspeare, from the very strong resemblance it bears to the monument ; yet from the experience I have had, and knowledge attained, I could not but examine it with strong suspicions. I bore in mind the conceit of the most experienced judges in pictures being deceived, as a caution to myself, and " though I, perchance, am vicious in my guess, as, I confess, it is my nature's plague to spy into abuses," I could not but observe that the hair, beard, ruff, and mouth had been painted upon ; in conse- quence of which I suspected that it might be one of REMARKS, 213 Holder's making, whose pictures of the poet I had never as yet seen. Having suggested to Mr. Liddell, tjie great satisfaction it would be to have that indi- vidual before him to ascertain if he knew the portrait, it was agreed upon to have him: I accordingly sent to him a letter requesting his attendance the next morning, and was rather surprised, as soon as he came into my room, that he should ask me, " Was the picture he was going to see in the possession of Mr. Liddell" for I had not even mentioned that gentleman's name in my letter. On our way to Portland Place, I cautioned him not to deceive the gentleman as to what he had done to it, and I should endeavour to trace something of its history. His only reply was, that " he had repaired no more than a small place in the cheek, and glazed the hair." We had no sooner entered the room than he pointed to the spot, and remarked that he " believed the portrait to be the most perfect and genuine of Shakspeare, and considered its value at two or three hundred pounds,"* which was only half what it was valued at by its owner. This, of course, was apparently sa- tisfactory to all until I questioned him, if he had not painted upon the mouth, beard, and ruff, when he acknowledged having done two out of the three ; ho said the beard he had not painted upon : to which I replied it had been, for it was not by the same hand that painted the mustachios, which was original. * The portrait was sold by Mr. Lewis, of Charles Street, Soho, to the Hon. T. Liddell, for the sum of thirty-nine pounds. 214 REMARKS. The picture is painted upon oak, about the three- quarter size ; it has no name or date upon it. Having questioned Holder as to how he formerly came by it, he replied, " That about ten months ago he had it of Mr. Bryant, of Great Ormond Street." As soon as we separated 1 went to Mr. B. ; this gentleman, after hearing all I had to say, assured me that he had never sold the picture as Shakspeare, and was much surprised that it should be said that he had, well knowing it to be no such thing. On my way home, at the corner of Charles Street and Oxford Street, I met Mr. Holder, who informed me that the shop where the picture was bought by Mr. Liddell, was but a few doors up Charles Street ; I went there with him, we had been but a few minutes in the shop, when in came Mr. B., who could no more have expected to see us than we him. Mr. B. of course, accused Holder of having wrongfully used his name ; the arguments which Holder made in his defence, only showed that he was a man whose word could not be taken ; in consequence I requested Mr. Bryant would meet me at the Hon. Thomas Liddell's, to satisfy that gentleman of the spurious- ness of the picture ; he readily complied ; we met, and the result was, he found the picture so very different to what it was when he parted with it, that to make use of Holder's words to a friend * of his, * Mr. Bryant informs me that Holder had offered this picture to a friend for nine pounds, but who declined purchasing it, as Mr. Holder had told him it was one of his own making out of a picture he had bought of Mr. B. prior to which Holder had two other old paintings of him, and both also were converted into Shakspeare. REMARKS. 215 " he would not know it again." There were some parts Mr. B. could not speak very positively as to having been altered ; but he added to what I had discovered, he remarked, that when the portrait was in his pos- session, the nose was very different, and that the hair had been taken off the forehead, and what was still there, re-painted, and the ear-ring added. The date, which had been upon the left corner, was obli- terated, which would not have answered the purpose to remain, for he perfectly recollects it was of a later date than the poet's life-time. The next day the Hon. Gentleman waited upon me with the intelligence that one of our most distin- guished artists, whose judgment in these matters was not to be disputed, would take an oath that the pic- ture was genuine. The following Monday was ap- pointed for him, with Mr. Smith, Mr. Holder, and myself, to meet in Portland Place, for the purpose of re-examining the portrait ; and, by the desire of the owner, I addressed a letter to Holder to that effect, and as he was a poor man, he was to be paid for his trouble. I arrived there at the time appointed, but was informed the Hon. Gentleman w r as in the country ; no message was left for me, nor had either the Artist or Holder made their appearance ; myself, it seems, was the only one to be disappointed. " It is the cause, it is the cause." " I, that please some, try all ; both joy and terror, '* Of good and bad j that make, and unfold error. " Let us from point to point this story know, " To make the even TRUTH in pleasure flow." 216 REMARKS. That the owner of this picture has deceived himself as to its being an original portrait of the poet; for it was never sold to him as genuine. " I told him what I thought ; and told no more than what he found himself was apt and true." It is also very possible that the great artist may find something more genuine to swear to. That Mr. Bryant has acted in this affair the part of a gentleman ; and the remuneration offered to Mr. Holder, for his appearance, although a poor man, would not influ- ence him to expose his blushes, which shows that " there is no vice so simple, but assumes some mark of virtue on his outward parts." I have some hopes the account given of this por- trait will prove satisfactory, and convince many persons who are very opinionated of their own judg- ments, how superficial they may prove to be, when put in competition with facts, which cannot be dis- puted. The circumstances connected with this picture, comes so near to that of Mr. Durnford's, that had it have got into the hands of a publisher, instead of a private gentleman, I do not know but it might have proved the most successful one of the two. END OF THE SPURIOUS PICTURES, FURTHER REMARKS UPON The Chandos Portrait of Shaftspeare. HAVING, about three months ago, addressed a letter to the Duke of Buckingham, for the purpose of inspecting the above picture, I have, in conse- quence, had the honor of receiving an order to visit Stowe, and have availed myself of that opportunity. Of the above painting, or any other, I have refrained from making any statement but what I should be able to realize facts upon. At the time of my inspecting this portrait, I was favoured with a sight of the private engraving from it by Mr. R. Cooper, of both of which I will now speak. The picture has been unjustly ridiculed by Mr. Steevens, not appreciated by Mr. Malone, and puzzled Mr. Boaden what to say ; yet something which he has said, induces . me to make some remarks thereon. The two last gentlemen have very justly remarked upon the abilities of Mr. Ozias Humphry,* as an * Mr. Humphry's character as an artist has also been praised by Sir Joshua Reynolds that alone is an honor ; but th,ere are various degrees of excellence in the Arts to make a man eminent, of which Sir Joshua had more varieties than is common to a single individual. Some painters are considered fine in their design, some for drawing and colouring, others for exact delineators E E 218 REMARKS. excellent artist, but that his copy in crayons from the above picture is faithful, I do aver is not true; for it is void of the real character of the original, of nature and good taste : he that is proficient in the two latter must be considered the most capable of copying a picture ; but that Mr. Humphry possessed those fine qualities in an eminent degree I do not believe. Mr. Mathews, has in his fine collection of portraits, Humphry's miniature in water colours, from the Chandos portrait, which is extremely well painted in an oval, and was it not for the writing upon the back, by his own hand, I should have supposed it was done from another painting. The following is what is written upon the back of the miniature : " William Shakspeare, painted by Ozias Humphry, 1784, from a picture in the possession of the Duke of Chandos, supposed to be the only one of Shakspeare done from the life, by Taylor, or Richard Burbage, a player." * The following year this miniature was very well engraved, of the same size, in the line manner, by John Hall. The print is an oval, appropriately ornamented, the extremities terminating in a square. It was published March 25, 1785, by Rivington and partners. The ornamental part has since been taken away, and the portrait in the oval only remains ; under it is the name of WILLIAM SHAKSPEARE, died AprilVS, 1616. There is another plate from the above miniature, much less, engraved by Hoi I, in dots, with the name of Shakspeare upon it, and published by Yernon, Hood, and Sharp, 31, Poultry. Mr. Humphry has made another miniature from the same original, of a less size, in an oval ; this I consider the best, for it is the most like the picture, and which is very well engraved, the same size, by C. Knight, and tastefully ornamented, which termi- nates iti a square. Under the portrait is a female figure, strewing REMARKS. 219 and the space from the mouth to the nose is dispro- portionately long. Whoever has seen this drawing, and the engraving by Cooper, would scarcely credit that they were both done from the same picture, the difference being so great. I have noticed at p. 53, Mr. Cooper's engraving* as being different to all others taken from the Chandos picture, and that it also bears a resemblance to the Felton portrait, which is more visibly seen in flowers upon a tomb. This engraving is the finest and best clone from this picture, for it has got the characteristic expression. The pupils and eyeris are rather too large, but the space from the nose to the mouth is in proper proportion. The remark T have made upon this feature in the crayon drawing, I apprehend will now prove quite satisfactory to those who may have had the oppor- tunity of comparing that drawing, or the print taken from it, which is published in Mr. Boaden's Inquiry, The plate, by C. Knight, has been copied for and published by William Jones, No. 86, Dame Street, Dublin. It is engraved by Brocas, but with very little ability. * In a recent publication, entitled " The Complete Dramatic Works and Miscellaneous Poems of William Shakspeare, with glossarial notes and life," by N. Howes, is an engraved portrait of William Shakspeare, by Roffe, which the writing upon it expresses, was done from an original painting. I cannot say for a certainty it is not, but, according to my suspicions, it is from Mr. Cooper's engraving, with the exception of the oval being left out, and being made into a square. Its merits are such as might be expected in so cheap a publication as one shilling per number. E E 2 220 REMARKS. the original, which I have found to be altogether a superior and different picture to what has hitherto been described or engraved. I have never before had a fair opportunity of comparing the works of Mr. Cooper with the pictures, in this respect, however, he has failed both in drawing and character. Considering the interest which I have felt, and the trouble and expence bestowed, in order to make this the most perfect work of the kind, I regret to say I have not been able to obtain permission to have the original picture engraved, notwithstanding I am in hopes the print, which accompanies this work, will be found to be more correct than any other, and which is finely engraved by Mr. Cochran, from a drawing made by myself from the various prints, and aided by my inspection of the original at Stowe. In the advertisement prefixed to the edition of 1793, Mr. Steevens boldly asserts, that " there is no feature or circumstance on the whole canvas, that can with minute precision be delineated." It is well for some people that they do not give every word upon oath. I cannot pretend to say what appearance it exhibited in 1793 ; it very possibly might be dirty, and Mr. Steevens not know it, for its appearance at this time is very opposite to his description. As to what has been asserted, that Sir Joshua Reynolds should say of it, possibly might be unfinished, I really am at a loss how to reply, for it appears to me to have REMARKS. 22T sufficient colour, both in quantity and quality, and is by no means in. so bad a condition as reported, and is very well drawn, as far as regards the face. The back ground and drapery has certainly been repaired ; the shirt collar in particular is badly done. I have no wish to suppose that the above was not Mr. Steevens's real opinion ; but if so, I consider it to be an error in judgment, of which he has ac- knowledged he did not possess much in those matters. This portrait and the Felton picture have been the subject of much controversy between Steevens and Malone. Great men often differ, and the wisest of people are sometimes subject to acts which appear ridiculous to a common observer. Neither of those commentators or Mr. Boaden have ever made a remark as to a resemblance between those paintings, because, very likely, they could not discern it ; but what I have to say may appear singular, yet it is no more than true ; namely, that they not only resemble each other in every feature and position, but the shadows upon the face are precisely the same. The only material difference is, that the Chandos appa- rently has a full-grown beard, and the Felton has it only just growing; from this circumstance I am in- clined to think that the Felton is the earlier done portrait of the two ; and very possibly the Chandos might have been copied from it some years after, having in addition added to it the beard, as it was worn at the time. 222 REMARKS. The remarks I have made upon these two pictures., I trust has had some weight in confirming their originality as portraits of the poet, and am sorry that the Chandos picture should have engrossed the abilities of two such great painters as Kneller and Reynolds, without their making such observations as might have been deemed more conclusive than what has been said by the commentators and my- self. I am now disposed to believe that no other portrait of our immortal bard will ever appear to rival the above two ; therefore, as we cannot console ourselves with that hope, we must be content with what we have, and pride ourselves in claiming the works of one of the NOBLEST of POETS, whose compositions, as Johnson says, " is a forest, in which oaks extend their branches, and pines tower in the air, interspersed sometimes with weeds and brambles, and sometimes giving shelter to myrtles and roses ; filling the eye with awful pomp, and gratifying the mind with endless diversity. Other poets display cabinets of precious rarieties, minutely finished, wrought into shape, and polished into brightness. Shakspeare opens a mine which contains gold and diamonds in unexhaustible plenty, though clouded by incrustations, debased by impurities, and mingled with a mass of meaner minerals." THE ANCIENT WAY OF SPELLING SHAKSPEARE'S NAME. As the way in which Shakspeare's name was spelt in his life-time, has of late years become the subject of many critical enquiries, I think it proper to observe, that, however trifling such a curiosity may appear to some people, I have no doubt but it will be of importance to others. Having seen a para- graph in a daily newspaper, that Mr. Mathews had made some discoveries explanatory of the above, I addressed a letter to him, requesting to be obliged with the full particulars ; and have since been fa- voured with the following letter upon the subject : DEAR SIR, Pray accept my apology for my apparent neglect. You must be aware how much my time has been necessarily occupied in the preparation of my New Entertainment, and, I trust, that will plead my excuse for not having sooner furnished you with the Information you requested. The paragraph which appeared in the Newspapers, respecting my recent discovery of the correct spelling of Shakspeare's name, was not quite correctly stated ; and as you have done me the honour to apply to me, (conceiving, as I do, that the most trifling point relating to our beloved bard is interesting) I have much pleasure in furnishing you with an exact statement of the informa* tion I have gained on the subject. It was through the kindness 224 REMARKS. of Captain Saunders, an enthusiastic Shaksperian, then Cham- berlain, and since Mayor of Stratford-upon-Avon, that I had the means of ascertaining, beyond all doubt, the mode of pronouncing the name of the Bard during his life-time. The signatures sub- joined, are correctly copied from the Council Book of the Corporation of Stratford, during the period that John Shakspeare, the Poet's Father, was a member of the Municipal body. The entries in the book consist, first, of Corporate Accounts ; and it is remarkable, that the volume opens with those of John Shakspeare himself, whilst filling the office of Chamberlain in 1573, and on. good grounds, presumed to be written with his own hand. Secondly, of the names of the members of the Common Council, attending or absent from the halls, with the results of their deliberations, The name of the Bard's Father occurs 166 times, under 14 different modes of orthography, viz. A 2 3 4 5 1 7 Q This then surely is conclusive as to the pronunciation of his name, for though we are aware that in those days orthography was very loose, yet the recurrence of Shaxpeare 104 times, in my mind proves the mode of pronouncing his name to be arbitrary. Most persons ignorant of rules, write as they pronounce. Of these several spellings, Shakspere, as in No. 7, is pronounced by him alone to be, without doubt, the Poet's orthography from a perusal of his signature to a deed of sale made in 1613; but Shakspeare has been the favorite mode with little variation with the commentators and biographers. The Poet's will exhibits this spelling in his last signature thereto. The spelling adopted by Heminge and Condell, in the first folio edition of his plays, viz : Shakespeare seems almost without authority therefore, for the lengthening force of the intermediate e, occurs but 13 times out REMARKS. 225 of the 1G6 instances ; whereas, the great body of testimony is in favor of the short power of the vowel , in the first syllable. There is much reason to believe that the 8th variety was the spelling and pronunciation of John Shakspeare himself, and that the instances are entered in his own autograph ; and the llth variety Shaxpeare which is the predominant one, is thus written in the Common Hall entries, by Mr. Henry Rogers, who was a barrister and common clerk of the Corporation. Happy in the opportunity that this communication affords me of expressing my admiration of your praiseworthy exertions, I am, Dear Sir, Yours faithfully, C. MATHEWS. Ivy Cottage, Kentish Town, March, 13th, 182T. I avail myself of the opportunity afforded by the introduction of the above letter, to return my most sincere thanks to the writer of it, as well for the in- formation it conveys as for the prompt and gentle- manly manner in which it is conveyed, and I feel that I should not be doing Mr. Mathews justice, were I here to omit stating, that the Dramatic Persona} of the past and present age, are much indebted to him for having brought together in one focus, so large and so rare a collection of Theatrical Portraits, and of which I have no hesitation in saying, that they may be considered the most valuable in all England. F F ENGRAVED PORTRAITS OF SHAKSPEARE. The Droeshout Print, and Copies from it. No. 1. THE first engraved head of Shakspeare, is by Martin Droeshout, 1623 : for an account of it see p. 56. No. 2. W. Faithorne, sculpt. From the above print is one supposed to be engraved by W. Faithorne. It appears to have entirely escaped the notice of Bromley and other writers ; it was published in 1655, in the poets Tarquin and Lucreese. The head, which is in an oval, is evidently copied from the Droeshout print, only reversed. Under it is a representation on the stage, with the figures of a man and woman ; the latter is in the act of stabbing herself. At the bottom of the plate are the following two lines : " The Fates decree, that 'tis a mighty wrong " To Woman Kinde, to have more Greife then Tongue." Will. Gelberson, John Stafford, excud. No. 3. R. Sawyer, sculpt. In the beginning of 1827, the above book and print was sold by Mr. Sotheby, for the sum of three pounds nineteen shillings ; it had been the property of John Field, Esq. A very good copy from the portrait is made by R. Sawyer, in 1819, for Horace Rodd, bookseller, in Newport-street. The plate is now the property of Mr. Evans, book and printseller, Great Queen-street, Lin- coln*s- Inn-fields. FF 2 228 REMARKS. No. 4. From the same. This print, the same size as Droeshout's, is very faithfully copied as far as regards the drawing, but much better engraved, and has been done some years. I have only seen one, which is in an edition of 1623, in the possession of Mr. Mathews ; it has no date or name to it. No. 6. From the. same. No name. This print is also of the same size, and has been pub- lished very recently, in an edition of the poet's work, as a.fac-simile of the edition of 1623 ; but the engraving is a bad copy. No. 6. From the same, by W. Doughtey. This head is the same size as the original, but etched principally with the dry point, and finished with the graver, but is very poorly done, and is very scarce. No. 7. From the same. No name. Published by Bell, September 5, 1786. This is a small print, and is well engraved ; the lights and shadows are rather too much opposed to each other. No. 8. From the same, engraved by Shirwin. This print is published by John Stockdale, Sept. 1, 1790, it is a disgrace to the artist who did it, and to the pub- lisher^ for it is a libel on humanity. No. 9. From the same, H. Brocas, sculpt. 1791. The above engraver has produced a head of the poet, in an oval, copied from Droeshout's. Nothing of the kind can be conceived to be worse done. No. 10. From the same. No name. Ben Jonson's lines are under the portrait, and published by W. Smith, 23, Lisle-street, Leicester-square. REMARKS. 229 This plate, I understand, was first engraved for Mr. Richardson, the printseller, but never published by him. The artist has imitated the style of the original, and preserved its character very well ; but he has not paid sufficient attention to the beard upon the upper lip the white upon the nose and other parts of the face is too broad. No. 11. From the same, by J. Swaine. This print is very well engraved, but the lower part of the face is too dark for the upper part ; it was first published in James Boaden's Inquiry, and is now in the possession of Mr. Rodd, of Newport-street, No. 12. From the same^ Thurston, delt. Rivers, sculpt. This print is well engraved in the line manner ; but with the exception of the eyes, not a feature is like. It is pub- lished by Sherwin and Co. 1821. No. 13. From the same, W. T. Fry, sculpt. This is engraved upon steel ; it is very little but good the head is rather larger than a good sized pea, but is every thing that can be wished. There are four other heads of the poet's with it, and is published by T. Boys, 1826. No. 14. From the same, C. Picart, sculpt. This engraving is one of the series belonging to this work, and is the last done from the Droeshout picture. No. 15. This is the third or fourth engraved head of the poet; it is about the size of a pea, and done 230 REMARKS. in 1655. It is with other cotemporary writers, and in the centre of the plate is the following inscription : Witts Rt. Gaywood, fecit. Interpreter, or The New Parnassus; Seuerall New Songs, Fancies, Epigrames, Drollery, Letters. &c. . ** London printed for Na. Brookes." The heads are very small, and coarsely engraved- each may he recognised as having been done from the same pictures that has heen often engraved, except that of the poet, which is of itself perfectly unique ; there is a wreath of laurel round the head, and without saying it is like one picture more than another, it will he sufficient to say it cannot he mistaken for Shakspeare, was it even without the name the scarcity alone makes it valuable. In the Illustrated Shakspeare of T. Wilson, Esq. is a very fine impression of it. , PROM The Chandos Picture y and various Copies from it No. 16. The first plate, engraved from the above picture, is by Michel Vander Gucht, * to Howe's edition, 1709. The portrait is represented in an oval, about the size of a half crown piece, supported by a square pedes- tal ; on it is the name and year the poet died. On each side is Tragedy and Comedy, holding wreaths of laurel over the portrait ; above the head is Fame, blowing a trumpet. It is neatly engraved from the Chandos picture : I believe this to be the first done from it ; with the exception of the hair being more curled, it is a fair resemblance of the portrait. No. 17. In 1733, G. Duchange engraved a plate from a picture by B. Arlaud. As Mr. Boaden's description of this print is somuch to the purpose, I shall give it with but little additional remark : The Chandos portrait, from which Arlaud, no doubt, made his picture, has a full grown beard up to the ears ; but this artist has chosen only to show the mustachios and a little hair upon the chin. " The earliest engraving from this picture, of decided * Mr. Boaden, at p. 77 of his Inquiry, states, That in the year 1761, the only portrait of Shakspeare in Mr. Jennens's collection, of Great Ormond Street, was Vander Gucht's drawing in crayons, from the Chandos picture." I apprehend this drawing is made to look the same way as the original. See note, p. 232 f. 232 REMARKS. excellence, is one by Duchange, * from a drawing by B, Arlaud. The latter was, I imagine, the son of Jaque Antoine Arlaud, a delightful artist, who came over to this country in 1721, aged 53, and might therefore have a son, who with his name could bring to any work much of his talent. The father was an enthusiast in his art, and I should consider his son to have had a kindred impulse, when he made his drawing from the picture, then in Mr. Keek's possession, in the year 1725.f But finding the original not painted by a great artist, and looking upon himself as perhaps most faithful to the poet when he departed from the painter's drawing, he has considerably altered the features, but preserved the expression of the countenance, with perhaps some heightening. A s to the dress, he has considered himself perfectly at liberty. Instead of the original doublet, he has exhibited the poet in a slight summer waistcoat, open to the seventh button ; and thrown negligently about his shoulders a sort of camblet cloak with a lining of a lighter colour, and, as it seems to me, of a different material. But the expression of his head atones for all ; it is giving to genius a local habitation and a name. Duchange engraved it extremely well in the line manner, and it is, in my judg- ment, by far the best engraving hitherto from the picture. He reverses the head, as all the engravers did, even as low down as Houbraken in 1747 ; J but he has not troubled - . - - - - : * I cannot think but that the general opinion would be in favour of Vertue's print, 1719, which is certainly the most like the picture, and is quite-equal in merit as an engraving. f I cannot imagine how Mr. Boadeit knows that Arlaud made his drawing, when the original wag in Mr. Keek's possession 1725, as it was not published until 1733 in Theobald's edition. | This is the second time that Mr. Boaden has asserted that engravings were not done to look the same way as the pictures until 1747 ; if so, how can he account for the plate, by Vander Gucht, being done in 1709, and looking the same way a* the picture. REMARKS. 233 us with any emblematical additions, in the style of the illustrious heads ; there are neither daggers and masks, nor everlasting oil, nor eagles full-summed, nor crowns of laurel or of bays ; but upon a sarcophagus, which on the corners of its slab bears the names in small of the two artists, we read, in the fine hand- writing of that period, the expressive and yet simple inscription (c Mr. William Shakespeare . " * No. 18. Vertue, sculpt. The above print, by Duchange, which is of the octavo size, has been engraved several times, but all of a less dimension ; the best is by Vertue, to Warburton's edition, 8vo. 1747 ; it is the centre one of six other portraits of the poets, viz. Jonson, Beaumont, Fletcher, Otway 3 Wicherley, and Dryden. No. 19. Foudrinier, sculpt. The arrangement of the above portraits, No. 18, seems to have been so much admired, as to cause another to be made upon rather a larger scale, but by no means equal in merit. No. 20. Lud du Guernier, sculpt. From the same. It is done very small, embellished with the same orna- ments and figures as the print by Vander Gueht. See No. 16. No. 21. The same has been engraved by Lud. Du Guernier. This is as bad as can be well conceived. * It is Shakespear. A.W. G G Vertm's Engravings, and various Copies from them. No. 22 and 23. Vertue, sculpt. The next print to Vander Gucht's is that by George Vertue, 1719, which is extremely well engraved, and much taste is shown in the disposing of the hair and adding to the general effect of the light and shade. It is well known to collectors., and is still easy to he obtained ; at the time of the engraving it was in the possession of Robert Keck. It is rather curious that Vertue should have given in this print the doublet of the portrait, supposed to be a juvenile likeness of James the First, which he also engraved in 1721, as a likeness of Shakspeare, and is totally unlike the Chandos painting, as is also the hair. No. 24. Virtue, in the year 1719, also engraved one much smaller, and has preserved the character of his first, but it is rather fuller in the cheek. No. 25. From the same, W. and I. Walker, sculpt. This engraving is of a less size. Published by Bellamy and Roberts, August 1, 1789. No. 26. S. Bennett, sculpt. This print is done for Stockdale, 1807, but is of the poorest description ; and is a copy from Vertue's engraved head in 1621. No. 27. Faber, sculpt. Faber engraved this head of Shakspeare from Vertue's first print, but in a coarse manner ; it is small, and upon a half sheet, together with Ben Jonson, John Milton and Samuel Butler, the distant cheek is very defective by being too hollow. There are many of the other poets done by REMARKS. 235 the same artist, which also belong to the same series ; they are printed for John Bowles, at the Black Horse, in CornhilL No. 28. From the same. No name. This portrait is a wood cut, in a circle, the same size as the original print, is very boldly cut, and published by Stockdale, 1790. No. 29. G. Vander Gucht, sculpt. This engraver is the son of Michel Vander Gucht ; he principally worked for the Booksellers. His portrait of Shakspeare is done in a very coarse manner, but is cor- rectly delineated. No. 30. T. Prescott, sculpt. The same, within these few years, has been engraved for and published by C. Dyer, Compton-street. The face is coarsely engraved in the dots, but with very good effect, and is altogether a respectable print ; the drawing of the features is very exact. No. 31. The second engraved head of the poet is by W. Marshall, published in 1640 (see p. 67.) A very fine im- pression of it is in the illustrated works of Shakspeare, in the possession of T. Wilson, Esq. The head of this engraving is evidently a copy from Droeshout's. It has been at five different times copied. No. 32. Delattre, in 1786, engraved one from the above plate the same size for J. Bell ; it is a neat prinf, but the face is not very like the original ; the nose is too thick between the eyes ; the hair is further from the temple, and the chin is more fleshy. G G 2 236 REMARKS. No. 33. From the same. No name. Mr. Baldwin, print seller, of Catherine-street, Strand, about the year 1815, published a very good copy from Marshall's, with the lines under it, as a fac-simile of the original. The plate is now the property of Mr. Evans, Great Queen-street, Lincoln's-inn-fields. No. 34. From the same, Swaine, sculpt. 1824. Mr. Boaden published in his Inquiry into the various Portraits of the Poet, a very good copy by Swaine ; it has rather the advantage as to fidelity to the original of any other, and considering it had not been much worn, I purchased the plate 5 from which an impression is given in this work. See p. 67, No. 35. From the same. This plate represents only the head and bust, and looks the reverse way to the others. Under the portrait is Mr. William Shakspeare, and the two following lines : For ever live thy fame, the world to tell Thy like, no age, shall ever parallel. The last line is most applicable to the engraving, for a more barbarous one cannot be well conceived. No. 36.- Gravelot, sculpt. 1744. This is the fourth engraved plate from the Chandos picture, and was done for Hanmer's edition of the poet's works ; it is a small folio size, but has no merit to deserve notice. Hoiibrakeris Print, and various Copies from it No. 3T. Houbraken, sculpt. The best engraving done from the Chandos picture is by Houbraken, 1747 ; it looks the reverse way to the painting, and has some trifling imperfections. The corner of the mouth is a little too much turned up, and the light parts of the face is rather too white, which makes it older than the painting. It has been very often copied. No. 38. Basire, sculpt. 1774. This is a small profile, executed with much taste, and is the frontispiece to his poems. Published for J. Bell and C. Etherington. No. 39. T. Cook, sculpt. 1776. The first print, copied from the above, I believe is by T. Cook ; the embellishments and every part is very exact, but much smaller. Published by G. Kearsley. No. 40. From the same, Audiet, sculpt. This engraving is in a very small oval, but faithfully delineated. Published by Harrison & Co. March 1, 1794. No. 41. From the same. No name. This engraving is in a circle, about the size of a dollar ; it is coarsely done, but in other respects is very like the original print. No. 42. From the same, Ridley, &c. This engraving is neat, and in an oval ; but it has not got either the expression of the picture or of Houbraken's print. 238 REMARKS. No. 43, From the same, Millar, sculpt. This print is mentioned by Mr. Steevens, as belonging to CapelPs Shakspeare, 1766, and is an oval ; but I have never seen one; No. 44. J. Hall, sculpt. 1772. TJiere is no inscription upon this plate to denote what it is done from ; but it is a good likeness of the Chandos picture, with the exception that it has a more smiling countenance ; it is very well engraved, but the reverse way. I have a fine impression, with some writing upon it in pencil, signed " E. E. 1793," which says, " This was engraved from a copy made by Mr. Parry, for Roubilliac, * from the original in the Duke of Chandos's collection, and supposed to be the best likeness extant." No. 45. Hall, sculpt. 1773. This engraving is a copy of the preceding one ; it is the reverse way, and falls short of the merits of the original. .No. 46. Cook, sculpt. 1788 Published in BelPs edition of Shakspeare, from the original picture. It is very well engraved, but not a feature is like the painting. No. 47. From the same. No name. This print is in a small oval, in a square, ornamented with emblems of the poet's genius among which is a book of his plays, surmounted with a laurel branch, and is neatly engraved. * It has been said, that Roubilliac also copied the Chandos picture, which afterwards came into the possession of Mr. Malone ; and as it has been considered but poorly coloured, it is very possible that Mr. Parry afterwards repainted it, as we have not heard that this sculptor possessed two copies from the original at the same time. REMARKS. 239 No. 48. From the same. No name. This is a mezzotinto print, and is very scarce ; it has inscribed under it, " London, printed for R. Sayer and J. Bennett, No. 53, Fleet-street." As a work of art, it is a very poor specimen. No. 49. S. Harding, delin. Le Goux, sculpt. This plate was engraved and published in 1794. Among a set of prints to Shakspeare, it is like the generality of them, very badly done ; but it has much of the expression of the picture. Under the portrait is an ancient theatre. No. 50. The above engraving has been copied, the same size, into an oval, and is by no means so well done. I have no name. Engravings from Mr. Qzias Humphry** Copies of the Chandos Picture. No. 51.- J. Hall, sculpt. This print was engraved for Reed's edition in 1785. See p. 218. No. 52. -W. Holl, fecit. From the same. See p. 218. No. 53. C. Knight, fecit. See p. 218. No. 54. H. Brocas, fecit. Copied from the above. No. 53. See p. 219. No. 55. John Cochran, sculpt. 1827. This engraving is one of the series of portraits belonging to this work. See p. 220. No. 56. I believe the first print done from the crayon drawing is by W. T. Fry, published by Rivington and Co. 1823 ; it is a fair copy, and is very well engraved. No. 57. T. A. Dean, sculpt. This print is partly copied from the above, and is extremely well imitated both in the effect and character, but the face is rather less. Pub. by Rivington, 1823. No. 58. The above engraving has also been copied for some cheap work, with embellishments by Heath. The figure of Tragedy is on one side of the portrait, and Comedy on the other. Published by Jones and Co., May 4, 1822. REMARKS. 241 No. 59. From the same, T. A. Dean, sculpt. This engraving is rather less, and for the same pub- lishers, as No. 56. No. 60. From the same, by Scriven, 1824. For the account of this print, see page 63. It is now Jr 7 i O re-published in the poet's works, 1825, by Saunders and Ottley, Conduit-street, and Geo. Cowie and Co. Poultry. No. 61. From the same, by Scriven, 1824. This engraving is not as yet published ; it is of a less size than the preceding one, and very well done ; its resemblance to the drawing is much the best. The plate was done for Mr. Triphook, who has since sold it to Mr. Whittingham, of Chiswick. No. 62. From the above print, John Thompson, sculpt. This is a wood cut embellishment to the dramatic works of Shakspeare, with 60 other engravings on wood, by John Thompson, from drawings by Stothard, Corbold, Harvey, and others. The work is in ten volumes, to which the portrait is the frontispiece, and is surrounded with some of the most prominent scenes in his dramas ; they are finely designed and beautifully executed. The work is published by Charles Whittingham, College House, Chiswick. No. 63. J. Simon, fee. For the account of which see p. 157. No. 64. Han . Green, fee. Zucchero, pinx. For the account of which, see p. 165. I have there mistakenly said Henry Green. H H 242 REMARKS. No. 65. Robert Cooper, fee. From the portrait in the Duke of Buckingham's ollection, private plate, see p. 217, 219, 220. No. 66. Roffe, fecit. See p. 219. , No. 67. Robert Cooper, fee. 1811. This print is engraved from Mr. Stace's picture, see p. 187. No. 68. C. Turner, fee. from Holder's portrait of Shakspeare, 1815, see p. 171, 181. No. 69. William Sharp, fee. from ditto, 1816, see p. 171, 181. Earlom's Engraving, from the Duke of Somerset's Picture, and various Copies from it No. 70. R. Earlom, sculpt. 1770. This is the first engraving from what is called the Jansen's portrait of Shakspeare, for the account of which see p. 91 to 112. The reader will perceive at p. 93 of this book, that Mr. Boaden says, " in a slight, but neat scroll over the head, there are the words " UT MAGUS." Having again had occasion to go and see the picture, 1 found no such words, the only letters upon it aue the age and date of the portrait ; but the print by Earlom has .them, which was most probably put by the direction of the publisher. It is impossible for me to account for Mr. Boaden's speaking of things so totally invisible to any other observer ; and I think the omission of such im- portant words in the picture, will affect its originality as a portrait of the poet, in the opinions of many persons. No. 71. R. Dunkarton, sculpt. This print, at p. 110, has been mistakenly named to be by Earlom; I inserted it as such from being told so by Mr. Woodburn, having myself only seen a proof without the letters. This accounts for the same mistake occurring in the list of prints, published in 1820, of Mr. Wilson's Illustrated Shakspeare. No. 72. Gardner, sculpt. 1793. This print is a copy of Earlom's, taken from the Jansen portrait of the poet, see p. 110 H H2 244 REMARKS. No. 73. C. Turner, sculpt, in 1824. This print is taken from the original picture, called Jansen's, see p. 110. No. 74. T. Wright, sculpt. 1827. The engraving, which is done by Mr. Wright, is one of the plates belonging to this work ;. the etching was first done from Earlom's print, and by the permission of his Grace the Duke of Somerset, Mr. Wright and myself have inspected the original painting, from which the plate has been finished, and is what 1 conceive it to be, a faith- ful representation of it. No. 75. R. Cooper, sculpt. From Earlom's. See p. 110. No. 76. R. Cooper, sculpt. From Mr. Croker's copy. See p. 112. No. 77. R. Cooper, sculpt. This print is either from Turner's or Earlom's, and is certainly very neat, but the engraver has apparently endeavoured to avoid making it like the original print in any one feature. Published by John Bumpus, 1824. No. 78. T. Garner, sculpt, from the same. This engraver, like the preceding one, has not aimed at the likeness. Published by Bumpus, 1824. No. 79. R. Page, sculpt. This print is from the same, but is much smaller, and is something like the original print, but the publisher has, I believe, for reasons only known to himself, put the following words under it, " Shakspeare, from his monu- ment in St. Mary's Church, Stratford." Published by John Bumpus, 1822. REMARKS. 245 No. 80. Agar, sculpt. From a supposed picture by N. Hilliard. Seep. 151. No. 81. R. Rhodes, sculpt, from a design by Thurs- ton. This is a frontispiece to the poet's works, published by Tegg, and is a very neat embellishment. The head of the monument at Stratford seems to have been the inten- tion of the artist to represent. No. 82. Opiz, sculpt. This print is a copy from the above. No. 81, for a German edition of Lavater. It is named mistakenly in the Analysis of the Illustrated Shakspeare of T. \Vilson, Esq. 1820, to be done by Lips. From the Felton Portrait. No. 83,- T. Trotter, sculpt. 1794. This engraving was the first ddne from this very curious picture, see p. 25, 39. No. 84. J. Godofroy, sculpt. This plate was done in 1796, and published by W. Hichardson ; it is a large and coarse engraved head, and is a bad representation of the original. See p. 64. No. 85. Neagle, sculpt. This plate is very well engraved, but the work is rather too close, and the face is a fair likeness of the original. It is published by J. Johnson, &c. March 31, 1803. No. 86.-C. Warren. I have no doubt but this print is a copy of the above ; it is rather less, and a lame imitation of it. No. 87. C. Warren, sculpt. No date. This plate is extremely well engraved from a drawing by John Thurston : but it is not very like the painting, in the nose in particular. It was published July 22, 1805, by J. Wallice, No. 19, Paternoster-row. No. 88. Evans, sculpt. This engraving was done for and published by Long- man, in Mrs. Inchbald's Theatre. It is evidently a copy from the one by Neagle, No. 85, only made into a square. REMARKS. 247 i No. 89. Evans, sculpt. This print I consider to be the best done from the Fel- ton Picture. It is published in Ballantyne's edition, 1807, and is, as I conceive, to be a copy from Neagle's, No. 85, and very likely at the same time the engraver had some reference to the picture. No. 90. C. Warren, sculpt This engraving was published by Kearsley, 1806, and is either done from the print which Mr. Warren did for J. Wallice, 1805, or from Thurston's drawing ; it has all the former's defects, and is very like it. No. 91. W. Holl, sculpt. This engraving I have already noticed at page 64, as the most like the painting ; at that time I had not seen the one by Evans, done for the Ballantyne edition, to which I have since given the preference. No. 92. Thomson, sculpt. This is also a copy from the same as above, and is pub- lished by Robins. No. 93. A. Wivell. sculpt. 1827. The plate is one belonging to this work. My great aim has been to preserve the real character of the original, which in my opinion has ever been unfaithfully repre- sented in every respect. As I am not an experienced engraver, it cannot be expected to be done in other respects with equal ability to a Turner or Reynolds. THE MONUMENTS OF SHAKSPEARE. No. 94. Virtue, sculpt. The first monument of Shakspeare was erected in the chancel of the church at Stratford-upon-Avon ; for a full account of which, see p. 125 to 148. It was first engraved by Virtue, see p. 62. No. 95. This is a copy from the above, of a less size. I have no name. No. 96. F. Eginton, sculpt. From a drawing by B. Wheler ; see p. 145 in the note. No. 97. J. Neagle, sculpt. From a drawing by Joseph Boydell. This print is the frontispiece to the folio edition of the poet's works, published by Boydell, in 1798. It is not very correct, for the artist has represented the figure of a child at the top, with an inverted torch in his hand, instead of a spade. No. 98. William Ward, A.R.A. sculpt. The picture is painted in oil, by T. Phillips, Esq. R. A. which is now the property of Mr. Triphook. The print was published by J. Britton, on the 23d April, 1816, and is a perfect likeness of the bust, and very well engraved. No. 99. W. T. Fry, sculpt. This engraving is done from the above print, by W. Ward, and is published by Rivington and partners. No. 100. Storer, delt.and sculpt, For Cole's Residences of Actor ; it is a small print, but of no importance. REMARKS. 249 No. 101. Harding, delt. Birrell, sculpt. This is a very poor print. No. 102. There is a small View of the Monument, published by G. Smeeton, 1821, illustrative of Shakspeare's Historical Dramas. No. 103. Thomson, sculpt. This is a profile view of the bust, introduced with the portrait of John Britton, * Esq. Published by J. Asperne, April 1, 1820. No. 104. W. Finden, sculpt. From a drawing by J. Thurston. This print is extremely well , engraved in the line manner. Mr. Finden has, with much ability, given the tinted effect of a coloured figure, such as we are informed the bust formerly was. The beard on the chin is not like the original. The portrait is one of a set of the poets, published in 1820, by W. Walker, No. 8, Gray's-inn- square. No. 104 W. T. Fry, sculpt. From a drawing by T. Wright. This engraving is very well done ; it is published by Cadell and Co., and is very like the bust in that view. The principal fault is, the shadow side of the face is full dark. In concluding my notice of this monument, I cannot withhold my acknowledgment and thanks to Mr. BRITTON, author of several pub- lications on the Architectural and Cathedral Antiquities of England, for the kind and unreserved manner in which he lent me a drawing, from which the vignette to this volume is engraved j and also for submitting to my inspection and use his valuable illustrated copy of Shakspeare. Mr. Britton has collected some very beautiful and interesting Sketches of the Church, Antiquities and Scenery of Stratford and its Vicinity, illustrative of the natal place of Shakspeare, and I trust that he will be induced to have the whole engraved, and accompany them with appropriate remarks from his experienced pen, I I 2oO REMARKS. No. 105. E. Scriven, sculpt. This head is published in J. Boaden's Inquiry. See p. 137. No. 106. J. S. Agar, sculpt- From a drawing by A. Wivell. This engraving of the bust, which is done in dots, is allowed to be one of the finest that has been produced in England. See note, p. 124. No. 107. T. A. Dean, sculpt, From the same drawing as above, by A. Wivell, in the possession of J. Cordy, Esq. This is one of Mr. Dean's best plates. 1827. No, 108.- T. A. Dean, sculpt. From a drawing by A. Wivell, in the possession of John Cordy, Esq. 1827. This plate only represents the head and collar of the bust, and is one of the plates published in this work. See p. 140. No. 109. W. Wallis, sculpt. This engraving is the frontispiece to this work, and is the most correct representation of the Monument. No. 110. J. Maurer, delin. et exc. 1742. The monument* next erected to the memory of Shak- speare, I believe is that which is in Westminster Abbey There are several prints engraved from it, but there is not one that so much deserves notice as this a full description of which is given at the bottom of the plate, as follows : * At the completion of the building of the present Drury-Iane Theatre, Mr. Whitbread presented a cast of the above monument, in lead, which is now erected over the box entrance in the street. From the same monument was taken that which was presented by Garrick to the Cor- poration of Stratford. See p. 186. REMARKS. 25 1 " Mr. Fleelwood and Mr. Rich, Masters of the two Theatres, having each of them generously given the benefit of a play, towards erecting, a Monument to the memory of Shakspeare, under the direction of the Right Honourable the Earl of Burlington, Dr. Mead, Mr. Pope, and Mr. Martin, this Monument is now finished and set up in Westminster Abbey, the Dean and Chapter contributing their part to this public work, by freely giving the place for it. The design of it was made by Mr. Kent, painter and architect, and executed by Mr. Schemakers, statuary ; and it is admired as one of the finest performances of the kind." No. 111. Miller, sculpt. From the same. This engraving, which is in mezzotinto, is the largest and the most scarce one is in the illustrated works of Shakspeare, in the collection of T. Wilson, Esq. See p. 34, 62. No. 112. From the same, Clau Dubose, sculpt, This print is the next in merit to the above. No. 110. No. 113. From the same. No name. This engraving is the small folio size. No. 114. From the same, G. Halpin, sculpt. A small book print. No. 115. Rothwell, sculpt. From a drawing by Burney. This print is a neat book embellishment ; it is borrowed from the above design, with some additions. No. 116. Burney, delt. "Bartolozzi and Grignion, sculpt. To Bell's edition of his plays. I i 2 252 REMARKS. No. 117. Roubiliac, sculpt. 1758. The design of this monument is finely conceived and exquisitely well executed ; it was done for Mr. Garrick, and left by him in his will to go to the British Museum, after the decease of Mrs. Garrick, and it is now erected in the entrance of that building. The only print taken from this piece of sculptor is by D. Martin, 1765, from a painting done by Adrien Carpentiers, representing Roubiliac., with all the inspiration of an enthusiast in his art, giving the finishing touch to the eyes of his model. A cast from the above monument is erected over the fire-place in the Rotunda of Drury-Iane Theatre. No. 118. Benj. Smith, sculpt. From the monument in Alto Relievo, in the front of the Shakspeare Gallery, Pall Mall, designed and executed by J. Banks, R. A. It represents SHAKSPEARE seated between the DRAMATIC MUSE and the GENIUS of PAINTING, who is pointing to him as the proper subject for her pencil. This plate was published by Messrs BoydelPs, 1796, as a frontispiece to their large work, representing the principal scenes of the poet's dramas. No. 119. James Stow, sculpt. This plate is about quarter the size of the preceding, and is very well engraved. Published by Messrs. BoydelFs, 1798. No. 120. Burnet Reading, sculpt. This print I have not seen, and I understand that but very few were ever circulated, as it was not approved of; it is copied from the one by B. Smith. REMARKS. 253 No. 121. Vitalba, sculpt. This print is not copied with the fidelity of the others, but is very well engraved. Under the statue of Shakspeare, is introduced a medallion of Alderman Boydell. The print is not commonly to be met with. No. 122. -S. Rawle, sculpt. Frontispiece to the European Magazine for August, 1804. This print represents the whole front of the Shakspeare Gallery, but is not well engraved. No. 123. Girtin and Scriven, sculpt. This engraving represents the two sides of a medal ; on one is the above Alto Relievo on the other an in- scription. Published by Asperne, Nov. 1, 1804. No. 124. W. Humphry, sculpt. This little plate, which is the last I have to mention, is from the above print, by B. Smith, and it gives me much pleasure in saying, it is one of the most faithful, at the same time beautiful engravings this country has produced. It is published by Hurst, Robinson, and Co. 1826. IN the compiling of this work, I have devoted my whole attention, and have no doubt but it will appear so to my readers, what I have undertaken to examine has been done with the minutest dis r crimination, by fully investigating and comparing evidences to elicit facts, rather than swell out a volume with irrevelant matter of no other use than to make the work tedious, and consequently unin- teresting ; yet, it would be vanity in me to suppose 254 REMARKS, that it should be so free from errors as to escape some public censure, which, were I to oppose, might prove like unto what our Bard very justly says r " When workmen strive to do better than well, " They do confound their skill in covetousness : " And, oftentimes, excusing of a fault, " Doth make the fault the worse by the excuse j " As patches, set upon a little breach, " Discredit more in hiding of the fault, " Than did the fault before it was so patch'd." I therefore conclude with the confidence" of having established the TRUTH, and hope that the Public will do me the justice to " give me my principal" and I shall be fully satisfied. THE END. PRINTEP BY W. SMITH AND CO. KINO STREET, LONG ACHE. Directions for placing the Engravings to this Work. 1. The Frontispiece of the Monument to face the title. 2. The Felton portrait, page 38. 3. The Chandos portrait, page 46. 4. Martin Droeshout's portrait, page 56. 5. Marshall's portrait, page 66. 6. Cornelius Jansen's portrait, page 95. 7. The two wood cuts of the Monument, page 125. 8.The head of the Bust, page 140. ERRATA. Page 13 In the 1st line, instead of sevilely, read, servilely. 15 In the 4th line, in Wilson's letter, instead of toresort, read, to resort, 23 In the 13th line, instead of it, read, its. 48 In the 10th line, instead of Row's, read, Rowe's. 61 ... omit the parenthesis. 64 In the 15th and 16th line, instead of Godfrey, read, Godofroy^ 67 In the 2d line, instead of, has confirmed, read, confirm. 80 In the 6th line, instead of, detector of these forgeries, read, detector that brought these forgeries before the public. 110 In the 15th line, in the note, instead of, Earlom, read, Dunkarton. 114 In the 1st line, at the end of itself, a comma, is omitted. 118 In the 3d line in the note, instead of, never, read, ever. 121 In the 3d line, instead of, indorsement, read, endorsement. 121 In the 10th line in the note, instead of, elogium, read, eulogium. 126 In the 22d line, instead of, simular, read, similar. 145 In the 8th line in the note, instead of, has, read, have. 165 In the note, instead of, Henry, read, Hanh. 219 In the 3d line in the note, instead of, Rowes, read, Rowe. 220 In the last line but one, omit the word, of. 14 DAY USE RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED LOAN DEPT. This book is due on the last date stamped below, or on the date to which renewed. Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. ____ llMhr ^\!D j r Hftft*-e 'REC'D LD FEB251961 tflunWMfl REC'D LD JUM 1 lR f fi/| -Q DM vUii 1 Q DM & t m ^9"^ LD 21A-50m-12,'60 (B6221slO)476B General Library University of California Berkeley YC ML U. C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES