332d 
 O34 
 
 UC-NRLF 
 
 B 4 SDD 3Sb 
 
 SHAKSPERES 
 
 PORTRAITURE : 
 
 PAINTED, GRAVEN, AND MEDALLIC. 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIAM SHARP OGDEN. 
 
 [Reprinted from THE BRITISH NUMISMATIC JOURNAL, VOL. VII. 1910,1 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 BERNARD QUARITCH. 
 
 MCMXII. 
 
SHAKSPERES 
 
 PORTRAITURE : 
 
 PAINTED, GRAVEN, AND MEDALLIG. 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIAM SHARP OGDEN. 
 
 [Repri7ited from THE BRITISH NUMISMATIC JOURNAL, VOL. VIL 1910.1 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 BERNARD QUARITCH. 
 
 MCMXII. 
 
034 
 
^Z^K>- 
 
WILLIAM SHAKSPERE. 
 
 THE PORTRAIT ON WHICH THE MEDAL OF igil IS BASED; 
 IN THE POSSESSION OF W. SHARP OGDEN, 
 
SHAKSPERE'S PORTRAITURE: 
 PAINTED. GRAVEN, AND MEDALLIC. 
 
 'O man should lightly pen the name of Shakspere ; nor 
 without Qood and sufficient reason increase the flood of 
 
 o 
 
 literature which is incessantly gathering around his 
 personality. The pre-eminence of his genius is too great 
 for us to comprehend save by comparison, and we realise his 
 supremacy by contrast with the chief of those whose work is the 
 outcome of intuitive and creative power, but he, apparently without 
 effort, mediates nature with humanity, lays bare the springs of action, 
 bids the dead revive and dumb forgetfulness again grow eloquent, and 
 from the unseen calls into being a world of creatures, like ourselves in 
 frailty, thought and action, but as immortal as created thing can be. 
 
 Much of modern criticism is of great and ever-increasing value, 
 but with it is blended a not inconsiderable proportion of the trifling 
 and superfluous, mere ineptitudes arising from imperfect appreciation 
 or apprehension and which, while valueless as such, only serve to 
 embarrass the student and enquirer who, seeking a closer intimacy 
 with the original, naturally welcome whatever of illustrative or 
 supplementary detail may be gathered from the labours of intelligent 
 and painstaking research. Where the field of study is illimitable, as in 
 this of Shakspere, there is more to be gained by e.xhaustive enquiry of 
 a part than in attempting to grasp an entity altogether beyond our 
 powers. The investigator of personal concernings may do better and 
 ) eoman service by clearing doubt or revealing unsuspected affinity, than 
 
 ivil70G90 
 
4 K/idksfiercs Portrailure : Painted. Graven, and Medallic. 
 
 in expanding into generalities which, however pleasant in the perusal, 
 have little actual value compared with the fruit of patient research in 
 the by-ways of dormant or forgotten things. 
 
 This paper, therefore, is an attempt, on purely material lines, to 
 differentiate the various known portraits of Shakspere, and by analysis 
 of object rather than record, to separate the true from the apocryphal or 
 false, and also to free certain of them from the superficial obscurities 
 with which they have been invested by some recent criticism. The 
 writer prefers to accept internal evidence of identity as less fallible 
 and of higher value than authority resting chiefly on tradition, or 
 former recognition, even when this is of early or even contemporaneous 
 date ; for when fairly considered, the claims of the former are based on 
 material evidence and therefore incontestable, whilst the latter may 
 only be, and not infrequently is, the mistaken guarantee of substitutes, 
 genuine in themselves, but figuring under an alias through transposi- 
 tion or other accidents, or even deliberate fraud in times more or less 
 remote and beyond enquiry. 
 
 The personal relics of Shakspere, when we take into consideration 
 the high repute in which he was held during the greater part of his life, 
 and the prosperous surroundings of his later years, are by no means so 
 numerous nor even of the quality which we might reasonably expect. 
 His birthplace and his tomb are still with us, it is true, but the 
 connecting links of his fifty-two years of life, with some exceptions, are 
 uncertain and fragmentary. Time has swept away every original atom 
 of the manuscripts of that incomparable literature which is increasingly 
 regarded as the standard of intellectual force. Vandal hands have 
 destroyed the house he built and the trees he planted. His descendants 
 have ceased from amongst us, but his name, his lineaments, and the 
 inner portraiture of his mind, inseparably blended, are the best known 
 and most esteemed of controlling factors in the ever-broadening stream 
 of human intelligence. 
 
 It is far from improbable that Shakspere's gradual retirement to 
 his Stratford home was for the purpose of perfecting and preparing his 
 writings for publication in a complete form. Their value was un- 
 doubted, and the practical side to his nature must in any case have 
 
Portraits of Shakspere. 5 
 
 impelled him to action amidst the quietude and lack of congenial society 
 at Stratford. We may conjecture, therefore, that such a ready and 
 prolific pen must have provided many, both used and unused, manu- 
 scripts, which his rather unexpected death may have left in an 
 incomplete form. It is quite possible that whatever he had done in 
 this respect fell into the hands of his literary e.xecutors, but when we 
 remember that the Puritan leanings of his family forbade more than a 
 cold assent to the publication, the total disappearance a few years later 
 of all personal manuscripts points to their deliberate destruction by 
 his non-sympathetic descendants. 
 
 What then have time and circumstance conserved and delivered 
 into our keeping that is material or authentic, of the image and 
 presentment of the Shakspere of everyday life ? Of the Shakspere 
 who, unaided by birth, friends, surroundings or fortune, sought by a 
 natural affinity the acquaintance of the genius of his age, " and had his 
 claims allowed," became their beloved friend and mentor, and as one 
 who knew him well most justly says — 
 
 " He was not of an Age, but for all time ! 
 And all the Muses still were in their prime, 
 When like Apollo he came forth." B. J. 
 
 Voicing the virility of young England, he gave humanity to think 
 and speak with higher and nobler utterance until, his mission ended, 
 careless ot fame, he closed his eyes on a world which has never ceased 
 to regard him as the orreatest birth of Time. 
 
 The portraits and attributed portraits of Shakspere may be 
 primarily divided into four distinct groups as follows : — 
 
 Firstly, those which are universally known and accepted, the 
 specially prepared work of his family and friends, or 
 which are associated with him by internal evidence and 
 credible tradition ; 
 
 Secondly, those of contemporary or early date, which, although 
 unauthenticated by record or tradition, yet bear in some 
 points resemblance to accepted portraiture. But some of 
 
 c 
 
6 Shakspe)'es Portraiture : Painted, Graven, and Medallic. 
 
 these, whilst undoubtedly of contemporary work, are 
 self-refuting" and should not be permitted to rank as 
 portraits of Shakspere ; 
 
 Thirdly, the medals, statues, busts and other ideal portraits, 
 dating from the eighteenth century to the present time. 
 These are chiefly based on the first section and their 
 value is largely of an artistic nature only ; 
 
 Fourthly, a class altogether valueless, such as copies, or 
 altered, concocted or spurious pieces, created to meet the 
 greed of unscrupulous rapacity, or the vagaries of mental 
 distortion, for even the most sacred objects cannot escape 
 the touch of defilement. 
 
 With his portraiture in one form or another the average man is 
 quite familiar. The continuous reprints of his plays, and the literature 
 which accumulates around them, are generally accompanied by certain 
 of his portraits ; and there is probably no celebrity of the past with 
 whose personal appearance we are better acquainted. Taken as a 
 whole, however, they are fairly good reproductions of those portraits 
 which may be held to possess an authority which entitles them to our 
 most careful consideration. 
 
 Amongst the numerous portraits ascribed to Shakspere there are 
 three which stand pre-eminent. These are : — i. The painting in oil, 
 known as the Chandos portrait, presumably from life ; 2. The engraved 
 head from the First Folio, 1623, by Martin Droeshout ; 3. The 
 memorial bust in Stratford-on-Avon Church. The engraving and the 
 bust were made at the instance of his family and life-long friends, who 
 expressed approval of them, and therefore their fidelity as portraits 
 cannot be questioned. Their several claims, however, will be considered 
 later, but it may be remarked that although each is distinct in tjpe and 
 treatment, and severally expressed in colour, line and form, there is an 
 absolute agreement and concordance in all essential features of portraiture, 
 which eo far to establish conviction that in them we have true 
 and faithful representations of Shakspere in his habit as he lived, and 
 as he was seen and known by his contemnoraries. Ol course it is not 
 

 
 y^ jjtmisimsa 
 
 
 mt- 
 
 j?sjpf«r. 
 
 A 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 /;t;?S«<>«. 
 
 r 
 
 jPI| 
 
 
 |&^^«i£vS^iH 
 
 
 p^o -'^^^^^^^^^^^H 
 
 ^Egj^^i 
 
 f ■ •-- 
 
 iu^^. ■ iaisi^.- 
 
 
 E^i^-'"' ^^^^^1 
 
 n 
 
 m 
 
 ^Rs4is3^^^H 
 
 
 m- m 
 
 '^^^E^^^ 
 
 ^^^R 
 
 ..^n^^^^H 
 
 
 ^^^HL^Jcr- l^^^^^^l 
 
 9HHL 
 
 '-^^SIS 
 
 '. t^C'. U^^BI 
 
 
 ^^^^F 'r^ 'ti^^^^^^l 
 
 
 ^W? 
 
 
 N 
 
 
 .JL 
 
 
 ..#.; 
 
 -j' 
 
 V fej,, l^^l 
 
 inp. Abi 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ Ml 
 
 1 
 
 W 
 
 f 
 
 
 :^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ., '^^■^■'"^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 ^H 
 
 i' :. 1 wlt.Ll^M sAakespfare 
 
 
 ATT. TO f»K H 
 
 '>no 
 
 aiJUBACt OR JOHNrA^ 
 
 WILLIAM SHAKSPERE. 
 
 I'h.ttogiijpli ij: J.:uiij It'aliii. 
 
 THE "CHAN'DOS" I'llKlKAll, KKOM THK OKICINAI, IX THK XAIKlNAI. I'dRTKAIT 
 
 CAI.I.KRV, LONDON. 
 
The Cliandos Portrait. 7 
 
 for a moment contended that this identity of representation is displayed 
 with the minute accuracy of a photograph, but that the general trcml is 
 uniform and concordant. 
 
 The Chandos portrait of Shakspere is the best known and most 
 generally accepted of those which claim to have been painted from life, 
 and in this respect it stands of course upon a higher level of interest 
 than any post-mortem or other transcript, for it brings us face to face 
 with the original as nearly as the power of the limner would permit, and 
 presumably also as he was willing to be known to posterity. It comes 
 to us with an unbroken pedigree of ownerships of repute, that is 
 strengthened by the repeated recognition of many well-known or 
 distinguished persons. Its earliest associations are with poets, players 
 and the stage, and therefore its unquestioned acceptance at the period 
 of the Restoration was obviously due to a fixed belief in its authenticity, 
 to which we may add the almost certain identification by survivors who 
 may have been personally acquainted with the original. 
 
 The portrait is upon canvas, 22 inches by 18 inches in size. 
 There are indications of retouching, but not to a very serious extent, 
 nor so as to seriously interfere with its fidelity as a portrait. The late 
 Sir George Scharf, writing in 1S64, says : — - 
 
 " The Chandos portrait is painted on a coarse English canvas 
 covered with a background of greenish gre>', rubbed bare in parts, a few 
 parts of the face retouched and the hair darkened in parts ; background 
 a rich dark red, features well modelled, shadows skilfully massed, 
 not unworthy Vansomer or Janssen, folly to name ihe artist, but 
 remarkably good if the work of an amateur. . . . The hair, face 
 and dress have suffered b_\- unskilful cleaning, but the head is finely 
 drawn and well coloured, the face has an expression of intelligence and 
 vi\-acity, there is not a point in it leading us to doubt its veracity." 
 
 In the seventeenth century it was said to be the work of Richard 
 Burbage, the player, and a friend of Shakspere. Burbage undoubtedly 
 possessed considerable skill as an artist, and at Dulwich College there is 
 a portrait which he painted oi himself, and in treatment it is somewhat 
 similar to the Chandos portrait, but perhaps not of equal quality as a 
 painting. 
 
 c 2 
 
8 Shakspere s Poiirai/in-e : Painted, Graven, and Mcdallic. 
 
 Vertue, the engraver, however, in 17 19 distinctly says that this 
 portrait was painted by " one Taylor a player, contemporary with 
 Shakspere and his intimate friend." Curiously enough, Taylor also 
 traditionally shares with Burbage the honour of being the original 
 Hamlet. 
 
 The painting is that of a man in middle life, attired in a dark 
 coloured doublet, over which is a loose and unstarched linen collar. 
 The face is a rather full oval, the forehead wide and high rising to the 
 crown, the hair scanty at the top and dark brown in colour, falling in 
 full wavy locks to the collar, short moustaches parted in the centre, 
 with upturned ends, the beard clipped or trimmed to the jaw, but longer 
 and brought to a point at the chin, with a tuft under the lower lip. 
 
 The eyes are large, full of intelligence, and fixed on the spectator, 
 the eyebrows, however, only partly follow the well-arched lateral sweep 
 of the orbits, a feature which is very noticeable in the bust, where it 
 materially assists the harmonious composure of the face. The left^ 
 upper eyelid is also rounder than the right, which is longer and 
 straighter, and this peculiarity is also reflected in the bust, where perhaps 
 it is somewhat accentuated by the partial retooling of the right cheek in 
 1748. The nose is a well but strongly modelled aquiline, the nostrils 
 being expanded and bevelled downwards to the central division, which 
 in turn curves from the tip into the upper lip. The mouth is well 
 formed, the lips being curved and rather full, especially at the centre. 
 
 The work of a later and less intelligent hand is much in evidence, 
 but fortunately not so as to materially interfere with the fidelity of the 
 portrait. We notice it especially in the shapeless bunching of the 
 wig-like hair, and where the eyebrows are strengthened and shortened 
 instead of following the curve of the orbit, and it is quite possible 
 that the ear-rings may owe their origin to this period. Generally, the 
 portrait must be regarded as a robust but quite natural and satisfactory 
 presentment of the same original, who is shown in the Droeshout 
 eneravino- and the Stratford bust. 
 
 This has always been regarded as the best known and most 
 
 satisfactory portrait painted of Shakspere. As early as in 1693 
 
 1 The terms " left '" and " right " throughout refer to the subject, not to the spectator. 
 
History of t lie '' C/iaiidos" Portrait. 9 
 
 Sir Godfrey Kneller made a copy ot it, which he presented to his 
 friend Dryden, the poet, but a very exphcit and matter of fact statement 
 carries it earher still, namely, to Shakspere's own contemporaries.^ 
 Vertue, the celebrated engraver and antiquary, in his manuscript notes, 
 says of this portrait : — 
 
 " Mr. Betterton [the player] told Mr. Keck several times tliat the 
 picture of Shakespeare he had, was painted by John Taj'lor, a player, 
 who acted for Shakespeare. This John Taylor in his will left it to 
 S^ Will. Davenant, and at the death of S^ William, Mr. Betterton bought 
 it ; and at his death Mr. Keck bought it, in whose possession it now is." 
 /.<•., 1 7 19. 
 
 Whilst the portrait was in Betterton's possession it was engraved 
 for the fifth, or first octavo, edition of Shakspere's Plays, which was 
 edited and published by Rowe the poet in 1709. To this edition was 
 prefixed a short biography, enriched with much interesting matter 
 which Betterton, who was an enthusiastic Shaksperian scholar, had 
 gathered during his visits to Stratford. 
 
 Robert Keck of the Temple purchased it at Betterton's death for 
 forty guineas — a high price for an historical portrait in those days — and 
 from him it passed to a Mr. Nichols, who married into the Keck 
 family. He in turn gave it to his daughter on her marriage to James, 
 Marquis of Caernarvon, who afterwards became Duke of Chandos, 
 hence its pre-nomen. 
 
 At the Stowe sale in 1848, the Earl of Ellesmere purchased it for 
 three hundred and fifty-five guineas, and in 1856 presented it to the 
 nation. It is now in the National Portrait Gallery. 
 
 From the date of its first becoming publicly known in 1709, when 
 prefixed to Rowe's S/iakspere, it was immediately accepted as the 
 most natural and satisfactory of the portraits, free alike from the 
 stiffness and mannerism of the Droeshout or the conventional formality 
 of the Stratford bust, and during the eighteenth century, especially, 
 it was the basis and source of inspiration of innumerable copies, 
 adaptations and idealities, in form, line and colour. 
 
 1 George Vertue, born in London, 1684, died 1756. His voluminous manuscripts 
 were purchased from his widow by Horace Walpole, and are now in the British Museum. 
 
lo Shaksperes Portraiture : Painted, Graven, and Medallic. 
 
 The life-size statue by Scheemakers in 1 740, and those by 
 Roubiliac in 1758 and later, the medals by Dassler and others, and the 
 numerous portraits and illustrations to the successive issues of the 
 Plays edited by Rowe, Pope, Theobald, Johnson and others, are 
 examples of its preferential and continuous use. 
 
 A terra-cotta bust of Shakspere, now in the Garrick Club, is not 
 without interesting and significant associations. It was found in 1848 
 during the demolition of some old buildinofs which orieinallv formed the 
 " Duke's Theatre," Portugal Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields, first opened 
 in London at the Restoration in 1660. Sir William Davenant, the 
 projector and builder, also made it his home ; later it was in the hands of 
 his friend Betterton, the great Shaksperian player ; Rich is said to have 
 either altered or rebuilt it in 17 14, but in 1756 it was converted into a 
 barrack, and subsequently became a warehouse until it was taken down. 
 
 The bust and its companion of Ben Jonson appear to have been 
 decorative features of the original entrance, and must therefore belone 
 to a much earlier date than 1756, when during the alterations they 
 would seem to have been walled up and forgotten. In the demolition 
 that of Jonson was broken into fragments, which arousing attention 
 enabled the "housebreakers" to obtain its fellow uninjured. 
 
 The bust is undoubtedly a fine piece of work, and evidently based 
 on the Chandos portrait. In featural modelling, expression and pose, 
 however, it shows much affinity to the Scheemakers and Roubiliac 
 statues, and has been thought to be the work of one of these artists. 
 But as the bust pertained to the theatre and not to the barracks, it 
 must be anterior in date to 1756, and may well be the creation of some 
 French or Italian modeller of the seventeenth century at the instance 
 of Davenant for his then newly erected playhouse. In treatment of 
 pose and portraiture the statues of 1740 and 1758, moreover, are 
 not dissimilar, and may have been bas^d on a pre-existent model such 
 as this bust. It is also remarkable that whilst no contemporary or 
 even old copies are known to exist, such a bust would appear to have 
 given a conventionalised ideal of feature, expression and costume 
 which contemporary artists generally adopted in preference to the 
 obsolete but more correct fashions of the time. 
 
WILLIAM SHAKSPERE. 
 
 THK " DKOESHflUl '' POKTKAII, FROM THK 1623 KOLrO 
 
 I'ki'to^raph by Kitu-ty Walker, 
 
Shakspere and Davenant. 1 1 
 
 Sir William Davenant, poet and playwright, was reputedly a 
 natural son of Shakspere, but he has other claims to remembrance, for 
 when only ten years old, in 1615, he first invoked the Muse by writing 
 an ode to his godfather Shakspere. Later, in 1628, he wrote the first 
 of his numerous plays. During the Civil War he fought with the 
 cavaliers, became a lieut. -general, and was knighted ; under the 
 Protectorate he retired to France and was actively as.sociated with a 
 scheme for taking skilled artizans to Virginia, probably one of those 
 promoted by Shakspere's friend the Earl of Southampton, who also 
 acted as treasurer of the Virginia Company ; the connection being 
 interesting. Whilst engaged in this work Davenant was captured 
 and narrowly escaped death for treasonable practices. The good 
 offices of Milton, however, saved him, a debt which at a later period 
 and under reversed conditions he was able to repay. 
 
 He was evidently an adroit man of business as well as poet, for 
 after his release by the Protectorate he was allowed, in 1656, to open a 
 small theatre in Rutland House, Charter House Yard. At the 
 Restoration he built the " Duke's Theatre," Lincoln's Inn Fields, the 
 building in which, as we have seen, the terracotta bust of Shakspere 
 was found in 1848. Later, again, he built or opened the Theatre in 
 Dorset Gardens, and for these houses he wrote over a dozen Tragedies, 
 Comedies, and other Plays, besides assisting Dryden in recasting 
 Shakspere's " Tempest." As poet, playwright, and actor-manager, he 
 figures as a far-away echo of his putative father. Dying in 1668, he was 
 buried in Westminster Abbey, where his epitaph is inscribed, O, rare 
 Sir William Davenant, which certainly, if an apostrophic exaggeration, 
 felicitously rounds off a happy blending of poetry and romance. 
 
 The Droeshout portrait of Shakspere is the engraving prefixed 
 to the folio, or first collected, edition of his plays, published in 1623, 
 about seven years after his death. It was the work of Martin 
 Droeshout, a young Dutchman, employed by publishers to supply them 
 with portraits and illustrations. 
 
 Droeshout was but a youth of 15 when Shakspere died in 161 6, 
 and it is highly improbable that he could have prepared the draught 
 
1 2 Shakspei'e s Portraiture : Painted, Graven, and Medhl/ic. 
 
 or original from which he engraved the portrait from hfe, therefore it is 
 either copied from an unl-inown picture, or is a composition of his own 
 for which he obtained the head from some authentic source, and then 
 added the dress and pose to the best of his ability. The head, however, 
 could not have been copied from the Stratford bust as the hair and 
 beard are quite differently treated. 
 
 There are also other versions of a somewhat similar }3ortrait, 
 engraved by Marshall in 1640, and again by Faithorne in 1655, but as 
 they all differ from each other in essential points, especially of costume, 
 it may be that they are merely versions, either of the same original, 
 possibly the Pelton portrait, or some drawing or draught, as it was then 
 termed, which either has not survived, or not been hitherto recognized. 
 
 Now, in the Memorial Gallery at Stratford-on-Avon there is a 
 painting so closely resembling the folio portrait by Droeshout, as to 
 be undoubtedly either the original from which it was taken or a 
 contemporary or early copy painted from it. It is inscribed //'///'" 
 Shake fpere, 1609, and it has been surmised, and indeed contended, that 
 this is the original of the engraved portrait and probably the work of 
 Martin Droeshout, the engraver's uncle, who is known to have been a 
 painter, and residing in London in 1608. There is good reason, 
 however, to fear that those who, not unpardonably would read this into 
 being a portrait from life, are misled into such acceptance more by its 
 undoubted antiquity than guided by the cold light of critical analysis. 
 
 Comparison of the two side by side is certainly in favour of the 
 engraving as a transcript from life. True, it is formal and full of errors 
 of drawing in pose and dress, and in the management of light and 
 shade shows an inexperienced hand. These technical defects and 
 similar deficiencies are either corrected or do not appear in the painting ; 
 but in that the face is tame and iilmost expressionless, the featural detail 
 being rendered with the usual elaborate inaccuracy of the copyist, 
 which is especially noticeable in the chief points, such as the eyes, nose, 
 and mouth. By covering each portrait, except a circle large enough to 
 show these features only, the important difference of the two in quality 
 is at once apparent. In short, whilst it is both possible and probable 
 that the painter worked from the engraving, it is incredible that the 
 
Remarks on the " Droeshont" Poj-trait. 13 
 
 engraving could have been pnxlucetl from the painting, were it only 
 from its strono- air of realism and vitalitv. The face has the true 
 Shaksperian look, and the modelling is quite in agreement with that of 
 the Chandos portrait and the Stratford bust ; but a somewhat differing- 
 general expression is due to treatment of minor detail, such as the 
 eyebrows not continuously following the line of the orbits as they should, 
 the moustache also being much slighter, the tuft of hair under the 
 lower lip spread loosely out, and the lower jaw either shaven or close 
 clipped. Apparent trifles such as these sometimes very seriously affect 
 the recognition of portraiture, otherwise identical, and their curious and 
 illusory effect will be further considered. 
 
 The proof, or impression, in an earlier state of the engraving, in 
 the Halliwell Philips collection, shows the eyebrows more in conformity 
 with the orbit, especially near the nose. This is more natural and 
 correct than the heavy and somewhat shapeless sweep seen in the 
 plate, and in other respects also the effect is slightly altered on the 
 latter by strengthening or partially recutting the lines. Whether this 
 was done by Droeshout or another is immaterial, possibly as first 
 finished it may have been considered too slight for its position on the 
 title page and the heavy work it would have to undergo in the printing. 
 From whatever cause it may have arisen, however, its later form is not 
 an improvement. 
 
 Young Droeshout engraved in a careful, but laboured and 
 inartistic manner. His inexperience betrays itself, and in this example 
 with a result which renders Ben Jonson's commendatory verses rather 
 difficult to entirely accept ; but they undoubtedly do express not only 
 his own, but a general recognition by the inner circle of Shakspere's 
 friends ; and as a portrait it must have strongly resembled him or it 
 would not have been reused, in a " retouched " or strengthened form, 
 in the subsequent edition of the folios. 
 
 Probably no contemporary knew Shakspere so well as did Ben 
 Jonson, and, to his honour be it said, that none so feelingly and 
 gratefully expressed " this side idolatry," a loving appreciation of both 
 his writings and personal qualities. These are his lines : — 
 
14 Shaksperes Portraitu7-e : Painted, Gj-aveti, and Mcdallic. 
 
 " This figure, that thou here see'st put, 
 It was for gentle Shakespeare cut, 
 Wherein the Graver had a strife 
 With Nature, to outdo the life. 
 Oh, could he but have drawn his wit. 
 As well in brass as he hath hit 
 His face ; the print would then surpass 
 All that was ever writ in brass. 
 But since he cannot, Reader, look 
 Not on his picture, but his book." Ben Jiuisoit, 1623. 
 
 Is it possible that the poet's reference to the " strife with nature " 
 to " outdo the life " may be in sly allusion to the graver's laborious if 
 somewhat futile effort to give intellectual vitality to an otherwise 
 correct but inanimate " draught " .-' 
 
 The Droeshout engraving, reproduced in the accompanying plate, 
 has one advantage over all others, in that it was the portrait specially 
 prepared, recognised and approved, by those who well rentembered and 
 knew the Poet best. No insinuation of tampering, substitution or 
 suspicion of post mortem realism can ever affect its integrity or fame, 
 and we have it unaltered and just as his old friend Ben Jonson saw 
 it when he penned his approving lines. 
 
 The Stratforu Monument is a large mural tablet of Corinthian 
 architecture, built into the north wall of the chancel of Trinity Church, 
 Stratford-on-Avon. Constructed of various coloured marbles and 
 stone, it displays a circular-headed recess containing a hall-length 
 effigy of the poet. This is Hanked by columns supporting the cornice, 
 and a superstructure enriched with a carving of the Shakspere arms, 
 at the sides of which are youthful allegorical figures bearing various 
 mortuary emblems. The epitaph, which curiously enough omits the 
 Christian name, and states that Shakspere is buried " within this 
 monument," is in Latin and English, and inscribed upon an oblong slab 
 of black marble below the effigy. 
 
 Taken altogether, the monument is a well designed and satisfactory 
 piece of work, exactly expressing the taste of its period, probably of 
 about the vear 1620, when it was raised to his memory by his family 
 
WILLIAM SHAKSPERE. 
 
 HEAD FROM THE liUST IN STRATFORD-UPON-AVON CHURCH. 
 
 i^Fiill face.) 
 
The Stratford Monument and its Fidelity. i 5 
 
 and friends. Interest of course mainly centres on the portraiture of 
 the effigy which is of Hfe size, half-length, seated and draped in doublet 
 and gown. 
 
 By a happy inspiration the sculptor has given us the Bard as 
 though arrested by a sudden thought whilst in the act of writing, for 
 the penetrating glance of the eyes, and the slightly parted lips are 
 dominated by a singularly sweet facial expression, over which a 
 suspicion of smiling humour lurks like a passing sunbeam. The head 
 is admirable, finely proportioned and sloping upwards with a beautiful 
 curve from the forehead to the crown, whilst the contour of the face 
 is a plump and roundish oval, somewhat massively modelled round the 
 cheek bones and eyes, which latter are full, open, and frank in 
 expression. The orbits are well expanded and their downward sweep 
 materially assists the fine modelling of the temples, and blends the 
 whole of the upper part of the face into an unbroken curve with the 
 rather massive lower jaw and chin. The mouth also is proportionate with 
 its delicately curved lips, which, slightly parted, give almost a speaking 
 expression. The nose is a finely modelled aquiline, but certainly short in 
 proportion to the features, or when compared with that of the other por- 
 traits. This has undoubtedly arisen through the injudicious paring 
 during so-called "restoration," induced by a slight fracture of the extreme 
 tip and a portion of the right nostril. A cast taken before this 
 "reparation " shows the nature of the injury, and the improper method 
 followed to obviate it. Of this retooling we will speak further, but it 
 is well to remark that it was confined to the right half of the face, and that 
 the left or more expressive half is substantially in its original condition. 
 
 But with all shortcomings, imaginary or real, the Sfatford bust 
 tar surpasses other portraits in its expression of sweetness, tranciuillity, 
 and intellectual strength, and it would seem that the sculptor, aware 
 of the greatness that lay quiescent before him, had struggled with his 
 limitations, and by a happy chance caught a faint reflex of those 
 qualities which Ionian chisels would have invested with a mysterious 
 majesty. Whatever its defects, however, we have here at least, a 
 conception expressive of individuality and great mental power, which 
 is convincing if only from its unassuming and dignified realism. 
 
1 6 Sliaksperes Poiirailurc : Painted, Graven, and Medallic. 
 
 Hitherto its posthumous nature has not been questioned, but 
 surely this is an arbitrary and gratuitous assumption, for although it 
 is highly probable that the actual etfigy was made after death, yet it is 
 by no means unlikely that Jansen the sculptor may have modelled the 
 face, or even the entire head, from life. 
 
 Let us consider the probabilities. Shakspere, especially during 
 his later years, was intimately associated with the Globe Theatre in 
 Southwark, adjacent to which he is also said to have resided, in 1596, 
 " near the Bear Garden," and this was also close to Jansen's atelier. 
 From what we know of Shakspere's companionable and even Bohemian 
 nature, we may quite believe the somewhat vague tradition that the 
 two were acquainted, nay, the very nature of the sculptor's art with its 
 picturesque creativeness would appeal especially to the poetic mind, 
 and Jansen may have cut many a "monumental sire in alabaster" 
 whilst the master spirit of the age admiringly looked on. Jansen, 
 moreover, would scarcely have been the good man of business we 
 estimate him, to say nothing of other and less sordid reasons, had 
 he failed to secure in a satisfactory form such excellent "copy" 
 available, as it would be, for a variety of uses. 
 
 When the realism of the head, the bright, living look of the face, 
 and the eyes so full of life and intelligence, are fairly and properly 
 considered, we may far more reasonably regard it as based on a model 
 from life, than as a mere revivification of features transmitted through 
 a death-mask or similar vehicle. 
 
 Moreover, Shakspere is said to have died of fever after a short ill- 
 ness, and this together with the custom of the time, would necessitate 
 speedy interment. Who would there be at Stratford or in its vicinity 
 capable of taking a cast, and London also was too distant tor even a 
 "post-haste" messenger to go and return with qualified assistance, before 
 the shrinking and rigidity of death had effected a change too great to be 
 concealed. In the features of the effigy we trace nothing ot this kind, 
 for all is healthy, smiling life, and the conclusion is irresistible that 
 Jansen reproduced the living and speaking features of the man as he 
 knew and talked with him. 
 
 So far as sculpture will permit estimate of age, the Stratford bust 
 
WILLIAM SHAKSPERE. 
 
 HEAU FRd.M THK BUST IN STRATFORD-UPON-AVON CHURCH. 
 
 (Three-(/itar/er ftur to h'ft.) 
 
Gerard Jansen, the Sculptor. 17 
 
 is that of one in his youthful prime. Now in 1596, when Shakspere 
 and Jansen were neighbours, he would be about 32 years of age, 
 and this somewhat confirms the writer's view that the post-mortem 
 bust of twenty years later was carved from a life model taken about 
 that period. It is also the youngest looking of his portraits, with 
 perhaps the exception of the Droeshout, the others all being of a man 
 considerably more advanced in life. 
 
 The sculptor of the effigy was Gerard Jansen, a Dutchman, who 
 came to London in the year 1567, and seems to have found the soil 
 congenial, for well on in the next century he was still hard at work 
 with his five sons, four apprentices and an " Englishman." It was the 
 age of effigies and theatric monumental extravagancies, and in the 
 gratification of the taste Jansen and his sons, no doubt, found constant 
 and profitable employment. As before mentioned his workshop was 
 in Southwark, a little to the west of St. Saviour's Church, where it will 
 be remembered Shakspere's brother Edmund was buried. 
 
 Attempts have been made, especially of late years, to show that 
 the monument in Stratford Church is either not that made by Jansen, 
 or at least a much altered reconstruction of it. Also that the effigy 
 is either an eighteenth century copy deviating greatly from the original, 
 or that the original is rendered valueless as a portrait by mischievous 
 and incompetent retooling. 
 
 These diverse contentions are chiefly based on a curiously 
 grotesque illustration of the monument in Dugdale's Waritnckshire, 
 published in 1656, and a misapprehension of an absurdly overrated 
 account of a certain " repairing and beautifying " done at the instance 
 of some enthusiastic strolling players in the year 1748. 
 
 That a monument was erected at Stratford within seven years of 
 the Poet's death is certain from the reference to it in the first collected 
 edition of his plays, the folio, of 1623 ; and Dugdale's illustration is an 
 attempt to represent it as he saw it in 1656. Now Dugdale was a 
 careful and painstaking antiquary, but a poor artist, who also laboured 
 under the difficulty of interpretation by draughtsmen and engravers of 
 very unequal abilities ; and posterity cannot too highly appreciate the 
 patience, devotion, and skill which in such a discouraging time ventured 
 
1 8 S/iai'speres Portraiture : Painted, Graven, and Jlledal/ic. 
 
 to brave the discomforts and dangers of travel in search of material, 
 and afterwards face the successive harassment of engraver and printer 
 in publication. 
 
 Comparison of his original pencil sketches with the plates, and 
 these in turn with the buildings and monuments as they now appear, is 
 very instructive, for the sketches prove, in most cases to be mere rough 
 draughts which one or other of his numerous engravers, Hollar, 
 Gaywood, Vaughan, and others, dressed into form, their part of the 
 work being done with neatness and fidelity, according to their lights, 
 but no one acquainted, for example, with architectural or decorative 
 detail can accept their quaint elaborations as more than a picturesque 
 but very free rendering of the subject, of which the chief value now 
 rests in its approach to reliability. 
 
 Dugdale in his diary, whilst collecting his material in 1653, writes, 
 " Shakspeare's and John Combe's monument' at Stratford sup Avon, 
 made by one Gerard Johnson," and the accuracy of this statement is 
 confirmed by their similarity of treatment in many points, but had the' 
 assumed " reconstruction " of Shakspere's monument been effected, 
 the " restorer " would not have copied quaint or incorrect detail whilst 
 modernising or recutting the effigy ; moreover, the work throughout 
 is early Jacobean in design and workmanship, and no trained eye 
 could confound it with, or estimate it as, a production of the mid- 
 Georgian period. 
 
 The fallacy, however, of the whole supposition becomes at once 
 apparent on comparing the various early views of the monument, 
 thus : — 
 
 Dugdale, 1656. — No entablature to main cornice, but masks over 
 columns; the arch of the niche is shouldered instead of resting upon 
 imposts ; the effigy a ridiculous caricature ; the epitaph in italics. 
 
 Vertue, Rowe's edition, 1709. Copies Uugdale, with variations. 
 
 Vertue, Pope's edition, 1725. Shows the architecture as now existing, 
 but introduces an effig\- largely based on the Chandos portrait, and 
 quite different from either Dugdale's or the present bust. 
 
 Gravelot, 1744. Copies Vertue's 1725 plate, but again alters the 
 effigy. 
 
 Grigmon, 1786. Copies Vertue's 1709 version of Dugdale. Yet we 
 
WILLIAM SHAKSPERE. 
 
 HEAD KRO.M THK BUST IN STRATFORD-UPON-AVON CHURCH. 
 
 {Prufile hi left.) 
 
The Story of the Aloiiiiineiit. 19 
 
 know that when Malone repainted the present effigy in 179S, it 
 had not been tampered with in any way since 1748, and very 
 slightly then, as we hope to show. 
 
 It is quite clear, therefore, that if any reconstruction or material 
 alteration to the monument had ever been effected, it must have been 
 done between the years 1709 and 1725, the dates when Rowe and Pope 
 issued their editions of Shakspere, and it is inconceivable that either 
 of these would have allowed such an event as the reconstruction of his 
 monument to pass unnoticed, or even the necessity for it to go without 
 remark. Obviously Ward the player, in 1748, found it somewhat 
 broken and decayed in parts, the marble stained and discoloured, and 
 his well-meant efforts were directed, as his statement clearly says, to 
 "repair and beautify" and nothing more. Moreover, careful scrutiny 
 reveals many traces of these and later repairs, thus giving satisfactory 
 proof that substantially the monument is that actually erected shortly 
 after the poet's death. 
 
 In the Memorial Library, Stratford-on-Avon, there is a plaster 
 cast of the face only of the effigy, which is of the highest importance 
 as showing the condition of the features, presumably previous to the 
 repairs and retooling of 1748. Although nothing is known of its 
 origin or history, it may well have been made at that time to serve as 
 a guide for the carver, because upon it we see where a small but very 
 serious fracture has removed the tip of the nose and a portion of the 
 flange of the right nostril. The missing parts on the original should 
 have been made good in hard-setting composition, and the subsequent 
 repainting would have effectually concealed the injury. But instead of 
 this simple method, the "restorer" stupidly increased the mischief by 
 reshaping the injured part by shortening the nose and re-forming the 
 flange of the nostril ; and to further conceal the cutting down thus 
 entailed, he partially retooled the greater portion of the right cheek 
 from the moustache upwards to the eyebrow, and perhaps also the 
 temple. The accompanying five plates of the head clearly show where 
 this retooling has been done, for on the right side of the face the eye- 
 lids and eyebrow are cut upon harder or less sweet lines, and on a 
 different plane to the left ; whilst the nostril is higher and flatter, the 
 
20 Shakspere s Portraiture : Painted, Graven, and Medallie. 
 
 cheek also has lost its roundness, and altogether the expression is 
 inferior and less happy and composed than that of the left, which, 
 except where the general effect is injured by the shortening of the 
 nose, appears to be as when it left the hands of Jansen. The restora- 
 tion of the nose to the form shown in the Chandos and Droeshout 
 portraits would at once correct the effect of chubbiness arising from its 
 modern curtailment, and would add greatly to the strength and dignity 
 of the head. 
 
 Delineators of the human face are well aware that the left side 
 has almost invariably more force and character than its fellow, and it is 
 a fortunate circumstance that this is the side which has escaped injury, 
 being practically untouched by the restorer's tooling and scraping. 
 This enables us to appreciate all that the sculptor could give us of the 
 original. 
 
 At one time it was thought that the death mask so long preserved 
 in the Vonkesselstadt family, of Cologne, was the original from which 
 Gerard Jansen prepared his bust. It is a plaster cast made from a 
 wa.x mould, taken from a wax cast produced from the original wax 
 matrix of a face. The wax cast may have been prepared for a funeral 
 effigy, according to the custom of the seventeenth century. It exhibits 
 traces of the process of recasting, shows the pores of the skin, and 
 still retains a few auburn hairs from the moustache and beard, which 
 are embedded in the plaster. Whilst the plaster was still soft it 
 was inscribed with a blunt point, " + A° Dn i6i6." 
 
 Gerard Jansen or his family are said to have returned to Amster- 
 dam. The impending civil war may have caused this by bringing a 
 business like that of a sculptor to a standstill. With them also would 
 probably go much of their stock in trade, patterns, casts, etc., and 
 amongst them, if existing, the mask of such a notable person as 
 Shakspere would not be without potential value, and traditionally 
 also this mask is said to have been purchased from Jansen. It has a 
 considerable although quite superficial resemblance to Shakspere, but 
 the features differ in many essential points, and the profile alone 
 renders identity impossible. It must therefore be dismissed from the 
 category of Shaksperian portraiture. 
 
WILLIAM SHAKSPERE. 
 
 HKA]i FROM THK BUST IN STRATFOKD-UPON-AVON CHURCH. 
 
 lyThree-ij I/a rter face to n'i^'/iL) 
 
The Jifftgys Fidelity to Xatmr. 21 
 
 The writt-r obiaiiuxl a number of very interesting outlines from an 
 accurate cast of the head of the monumental effigy by applying narrow 
 strips of thin sheet lead to the various contours and outlines. These 
 when transferred to paper proved of much value in illustrating points of 
 detail not otherwise obtainable. Sonie of them were as follows : — 
 
 1. Profile of face and head, from the chin ujjwards and over 
 
 the head to the back of the neck. 
 
 2. The circumference of the head at le\el of temples, 
 
 horizontally. 
 
 3. Contour of face at tip of nose, from ear to ear. 
 
 4. Contour round face, forehead, cheeks, and chin, vertically. 
 
 5. Contour of the arch of the head, midway between fore- 
 
 head and crown, from ear to ear, vertically. 
 
 The second outline is especially enlightening, as showing the 
 inequalities and irregular outline of the skull ; the left temple and 
 round above the ear being fuller than the corresponding parts of the 
 right side. -Scientists have long been aware that active mental powers 
 frequently cause irregular enlargements of the skull, generally on the 
 left side ; and Jansen's accuracy on this and other technical points, 
 suggests that he supi)lemented his natural abilities by mechanical 
 aids. 
 
 The attempt to give verisimilitude by "colouring to the life," 
 questions of taste apart, should be directed from a higher standpoint 
 than the mere application of colour , and its result in this instance is 
 undoubtedly responsible for much of the hasty and superficial criticism 
 which assumes the effigy to be a crude and inartistic production. The 
 opinion of men eminent as sculptors, or familiar with the technicalities of 
 art, who have closely studied the portraiture under exceptional 
 conditions, must, however, in all fairness be preferably accepted by the 
 unprejudiced mind. Thus the late F. \V. Fairholt, h"..S.A., was very 
 favourably impressed by the excellence of the work, and believed the 
 face, with the exception of the eyes, to have been sculptured with 
 a singular delicacy ; and he adds, " an intent study ot the bust enforces 
 the belief that all the manifold peculiarities of feature so characteristic of 
 
 d 
 
2 2 Shakspcrc's Portraitm-e : Pain led. Graven, and Medal lie. 
 
 the Poet, and which no chance could have originated and no theory 
 account for, must have resulted from its being a transcript of the man." 
 
 Sir PVancis Chantrey and John Bell, both sculptors of eminence, 
 believed that the face was from a mask taken after death. This was 
 because of it.s individuality and modelling. 
 
 Halliwell-Phillipps says that, " The bust when minutely examined 
 contains expressions of individuality that render such a supposition " — 
 i.e., a fanciful likeness — "altogether inadmissible"; and Britton, the 
 antiquary adds, " It appeals to our eyes and understanding with al\ 
 the force of truth." 
 
 The realism of the portraiture, so patent on close observation, 
 was in the earlier years of the nineteenth century generally referred 
 to the medium of a post-mortem cast, but with its almost inevitable 
 limitations, such as shrinkage and change or loss of expression, 
 corrected only by the restorations of the sculptor, the difficultii-s in 
 ordinary cases are obvious. 
 
 For reasons before stated, however, it is not improbable that 
 Jansen has given us an actual presentment of the living man at an 
 active and earlier period of his life, and before the gravity visible in 
 the Chandos portrait had subdued its joie de vivre. 
 
 The present parti-colouring of the effigy dates from the year iS6i, 
 when Malone's coating of white was removed and the original colours 
 restored, so far as they could be ascertained. If these are reliable we 
 may observe that the Bard was fresh complexioned, with brown or 
 auburn hair, but the featural colouring is altogether unsatisfactory, the 
 eyebrows being improperly lined and the eyes staring and expression- 
 less, quite at variance with the strength and composure of the modelling 
 and destructive of true realism. Points of minor importance, such as 
 the costume, are apparently correct, and from it we note that the 
 doublet is red, and probably represents the official dress provided 
 for him in 1604 as chief of the King's company of players. This is 
 partlv covered by a loose and sleeveless black robe, whilst the cushion 
 upon which he is writing is of two colours, green above and red below, 
 with gold tassels. The general effect in consequence is artificial to a 
 degree. 
 
Effect of the Motiuiiu'iit marred In' its " bciti/ti/yiiti^:" 23 
 
 In the painting' known as the Stratfokd portrait, he is shf)\vn in a 
 dress of similar fashion and colour, hut this, as a work [)re[;ared from 
 the monument probably for Garrick's Jubilee Celebration, is valueless 
 as a portrait. 
 
 The effigy, which is carved in a soft bluish limestone, no tloubi 
 was always " beautified " with colour, and as paint is an excellent 
 preservative when applied to stone, it is difficult to see how it 
 could have been affected by corrosion of damp or other decay. The 
 injuries therefore referred to in 174S must have been the effect of 
 accident or wanton mischief, and these excepted it was probably very 
 much as when erected. When Malone in 1798 had it painted white 
 to efface the theatrical colouring- of Ward, he was quite in accord 
 with the correct canon of taste, which, refusing any type of realistic 
 colouring to sculptured portraiture, invariably leaves the marble 
 untouched ; or when the figure is of inferior material, such as -stone or 
 composition, endeavours to obtain a similarity of effect by finishing the 
 surface a dead ivory white. Sculpture has the quality of being distinct 
 and complete in itself, and rejects all adventitious aids as interfering 
 with expression, form, and contour ; and were this effig\- finished in a 
 similar manner it would, especially when mellowed and toned by time, 
 assimilate better with its surroundings, display its quality, and look 
 more natural and dignified than any other treatment short of actual 
 replacement by a facsimile in bronze or marble. Taken altogether, 
 the monument has escaped material injury from the hands of time 
 and friends, quite as well as others of its kind in the same building. 
 Restoration has no doubt been requisite at times, as in 1 746, when 
 decayed portions of the architecture were renewed, parts of the right 
 hand, the finger and thumb, with the pen, which were missing, were 
 replaced, and the parti-colouring was also renewed. In 1790 the 
 restored parts of the right hand were again missing, and again 
 replaced, and ot late years the pen has been so frequently " borrowed " 
 that a real quill is periodically supplied. In 1798 Edmund Malone, 
 the critic, induced the then Rector to paint the effigy entirely white, 
 but this coating in turn was removed in 1801, and the original colours 
 so far as they could be ascertained were renewed. 
 
 d 2 
 
24 Shakspor's Portraiture : Painted, Graven, and Mcdallie. 
 
 The proper conser\-ation of the monument in the future is a 
 matter also which calls for serious attention, and the present paper may 
 be opportune in suygestino- greater vigilance in its care than hereto- 
 f(M-e. That it has escaped hitherto with comparatively little injury is 
 fortunate indeed, but that such good fortune will continue should not 
 be calmly assumed. The vicious or other irresponsible person at any 
 time may do irreparable damage, and were this, the most precious ot 
 oLir monuments, to sufler in consequence of our over-confidence, we 
 should be judged, and rightly so, as unfit custodians of a trust which 
 belongs not to us only, but to all the world, and for all time. 
 
 Again, how often are churches and similar edifices damaged or 
 destroyed by fire, even when more efficiently i)rotected than that at 
 Stratford-on-Avon ? The carpentry and other woodwork in old build- 
 ings are dry and inllammable with age, and most difficult to e.xtinguish 
 when once alight. Careless workmen or imperfect heating or lighting, 
 storms and lightning, are all factors that may arrive at any 
 moment and leave their mark for ever. The very material of the 
 efiigy itself also is against escape, for the limestone of which it is made 
 pulverises under fire or intense heat. In the event of such a catastrophe 
 regret no matter how sincere, is a poor sulxstitute for the virtue ol tore- 
 sight. Foresight, it judiciously exercised, would take immediate steps to 
 avert or minimise any peril ot this kind. 
 
 The effigy .should be reverently removed from its niche, and care- 
 fully cleaned by skilful hands of every particle of paint. This should be 
 by a solvent and not by .scraping, rubbing, or any method likely to dis- 
 turb the original surface of the stone. It this were done, any defects, 
 replacements, marks of retooling, etc., woukl be readih' detected, and 
 possibly some debated points might be made clear to doubting minds. 
 
 Further, advantage should also be most certainly taken of the 
 opportunity to obtain an accurate and scientific mould of the original, tor 
 authentic reproduction in bronze, terra-cotta, and even plaster, so that 
 no unforeseen disaster whatever could deprive us of the most \aluai)le 
 of its (lualities, the portraiture. .\t present there is no facsimile 
 of the exactitude and authority its high and enduring interest demands, 
 but the preparation of a mould under such favourable conditions 
 
WILLIAM SHAKSPERE. 
 
 Hf;AD FROM THE I'.UST IN STRATFORD-UPON-AVON CHURCH. 
 {Profile to rig/i/.) 
 
The Effigy sJioiild he reproduced in FacsiDiile. 25 
 
 would be a ready, simple, and comparatively ine.\pensi\e affair, that would 
 also create the power for infinite and most welcome rei)roduction. 
 
 It is a stranye example of national shortsightedness that, whilst 
 our art galleries possess copies in metal of similar monumental effigies, 
 the most interesting and important of all should be overlooked or 
 insufficiently appreciated. In the National Portrait Gallery we have 
 numerous admirable reproductions in metal of royal, noble, and other 
 eminent persons, but we look in vain for that of Shakspere who, save 
 by the Chandos portrait, is merel)' represented b)' a miniature model 
 of the monument. 
 
 Were this effigy adequately reproduced in bronze its perpetuation 
 would not only be assured, but the galleries of great educational 
 centres would be enabled to possess authoritative facsimiles of the 
 original, which could be examined and studied without that feeling of 
 irreverence, which cannot be avoided when the original is touched. 
 Copies such as these, moreover, would be free from the ridiculous and 
 disconcerting colouring which now defaces and obscures the beauty of 
 the effigy ; would allow its sweetness, strength, and beauty of modelling 
 fair play, and perhaps, but this is an aspiration, give enlightenment even 
 to those who hitherto have found in it nothing but crudeness and 
 offence. 
 
 The general agreement and, indeed, almost identity of modelling in 
 the three principal portraits of Shakspere which we have considered, is 
 so close that were their authorship unknown we might almost accept 
 them as the work of some one man, skilled alike in the use of the 
 pencil, the burin, and the chisel. 
 
 Superficially looked at, it is true, they may appear to have little in 
 common bevond oeneral resemblance ; but this in a oreat measure 
 arises from the different methods by which they are expressed, or the 
 inability of many to discern the true points of portraiture. Comparison, 
 however, from an equal point of \'iew and in detail, feature with feature, 
 proves their identity beyond question, and that they are not only 
 portraits of the same person, but that the various artists were men 
 skilled in apprehending and accurately delineating the featural detail of 
 
26 S/iakificre's Portraiture : Painted, Graven, and Medallic. 
 
 the human countenance ; and there are traces also ot the less obvious, 
 but equally essential, characteristics which give life and expression to 
 what otherwise is little more than mere cold correctness. We are 
 fortunate, therefore, in the possession of portraits of Shakspere which, 
 without being masterpieces or faultless examples of their several kinds, 
 are undoubtedly truthful and reliable presentments of their original. 
 
 It is important also that we are able to study them all from the same 
 standpoint. The Chandos and Droeshout heads are almost identical 
 in pose, and the Stratford bust not only permits a similar point of view 
 but others which are most valuable as additional illustrations, enabling 
 us to correctly estimate the agreement of all in outline, formation, and 
 contour. Thus, whilst from the Chandos and Droeshout portraits we 
 should conclude that the face was a full and roundish oval, the cheeks 
 full and somewhat plump, the lower jaw square and firm, the forehead 
 wide, high, and vertical, and rising towards the crown, we find all these 
 essential points fully confirmed by the Stratford bust, whether viewed 
 from the same plane, or in profile, or as full face. 
 
 In the three portraits expressed severally in colour, line, and form, 
 we perceive an identity of feature and featural detail whicl"Ms conclusive, 
 as we have said, of their entire and absolute reliability as portraits of the 
 same person. Fhere is no note of dissonance throughout, and slight 
 variations in minor points, such as the treatment of the hair or beard, 
 etc., are merely transitory effects dependent on caprice or fashion ; 
 and as the portraits belong to different periods of life, they are, if 
 anything, confirmatory of independent origin, and therefore ot corre- 
 sponding fidelity. 
 
 The entire head is beautifully formed, and expressive not only of 
 great mental power, but power of that kind which we are sure was 
 requisite to make a Shakspere. Over it sweetness and strength are 
 writ large, the latter by its formation and capacity, the former by the 
 continuous blending of curves and llowing lines which, slight])' inodihcd, 
 repeat themselves in contour and profile, and it is in a great measure 
 due to this unusual and fortuitous harmony of line, which makes 
 recognition of identity either impossible or irresistible when jjotential 
 portraiture is subjected to the test of comparison and analysis with them. 
 
Facial ijiodelliiio- of Shakspere s Por/ rails. 27 
 
 The eye, with its immecHate surroundings ot orbit and brow, is a 
 feature of the highest importance in the governance of portraiture and 
 the expression of power. In the Shalvspere portraits the eyes are well 
 apart, large, rather full, well opened and full of penetration. The 
 orbits are unusually spacious, and the wide margin between the eyelid 
 and the brow is indicative of great reflective power. The upper orbit 
 springs from the nose with a short bevel, and then arches and descends 
 in a beautiful and unbroken curve deep under the temple ; thus at once 
 increasing the height and width of the forehead, and reducing the 
 apparent width of the face at the cheek bones. The cheeks also are 
 rather round and full, and the blending of one curve with another in 
 unbroken sequence materially contributes to effect that general harmonv 
 and repose, of feature, which is such a delightful characteristic of 
 Shaksperian portraiture. 
 
 The orbit of the eye is closely followed and outlined by the 
 eyebrow. Now in the Chandos portrait we perceive where improper 
 cleaning and retouching have partially effaced and imperfectly restored 
 the true line of the brow, but the original line, however, is sufficiently 
 clear. The beautiful modelling of this part of the Stratford bust also is 
 deformed by the colouring of eyes and eyebrow, the accentuation of 
 which, untrue and shapeless, gives to the face that look of surprise which 
 misleads superficial observers as to its true quality. The evebrow in 
 the Droeshout portrait is nearer the correct, and still more so is that of 
 the Halliwell-Phillipps proof of the engraving ; but even in these it does 
 not quite follow the true line, as it branches into the temple instead of 
 following- the orbit downwards. The Stratford bust in its modelling shows 
 what the proper and harmonious line should be, and an e.xact reproduc- 
 tion ot this bust in bronze would probably manifest this and other subtle 
 points of portraiture more clearly than is possible by mere description. 
 
 To estimate what a really important part the eyebrow plays in 
 facial expression, let the enquirer apply to an\- face brows differing 
 even slightly in size, shape, or strength. 
 
 A handsome, well-formed nose is seldom found except with 
 proportionate surroundings, and from the portraits we see that 
 Shakspere's was a well-modelled aquiline. Now the term aquiline is 
 
28 S/utks/'crcs Portraiture : Painted, Graven, and Medallie. 
 
 geiierall)- made to cover every variety of the convex type, Irdni that 
 where the outward curve is ahnost imperceptible to the well-rounded 
 "Roman," or the hooked "beak." These, again, whether thin or 
 rteshy, pendulous or Hat at the soffit, are all regarded as aquiline — of a 
 kind. -Shakspere's, however, although rather strongly formed, is full of 
 delicate modelling. The slightly rounded bridge sweeps with a gradual 
 curve to the tip, and thence the central division continues with a 
 downward curve to the upper lip cdooxe the moustache. The nostrils, 
 as is usual with imaginative natures, are rather full, and Mange upwards 
 from the curved central division, giving a wedge-like outline when seen 
 in tront. Well proportioned, full and Howing in outline, the nose 
 harmoni.ses exactly with the other features of a countenance full of 
 refinement and personal charm. 
 
 The moLith is well proportioned, the lips full and shapely after 
 the manner of a " cupid's bow," whilst a slight fulness or protuberance of 
 the centre gives an appearance of what has been happily defined as a 
 " speaking- mouth." It is interesting to note that this unusual forma- 
 tion is shown in all the portraits, and must therefore be regarded as a 
 decided characteristic. 
 
 The upper lip and the nose are also more intimately connected 
 than is common. As already remarked, the central division of the 
 soffit between the nostrils descends with a cjuick sweep towards the 
 upper lip, and each thus reacts on the other ; the action of speaking, or 
 closing the mouth, depressing the nose, which in turn gives a tendency 
 to project and slightly part the lips. Observations from life .show this 
 to be a quite natural action, and that such persons treiiucntl\- have the 
 vertical depression to the upper lip and the moustache parted in the 
 centre, as shown in the portraits. .Moreover, this interaction of nose 
 and lip is never found associated with a deep upper lip, and Lavater 
 says that a long upper lip is invariably associated with thin lips. The 
 inference is therefore very clear. 
 
 Note also that the portraits show an almost entire absence of all 
 wrinkles, lines, or creasinoof the tlesh. The .Stratford bust, it is true, has 
 a vertical line at the right side of the nose, but as thi.s portion ot the face 
 is slightly retooled, we may preferably accept the other or left side as 
 
S/ni/cspcir's General Af^pcai-ancc. 29 
 
 the truer [)ortraitLire, and as beinu- substantially as it left the hand ol 
 Jansen. Wrinkles generally make their appearance about the tortieth 
 year, luit if the usual slenderness ot youth approaches a fuller habit ot 
 body at maturity, they are not so apparent as in the contrary condition. 
 Temperament also has something- lo do with the absence of these and 
 similar signs of age in [jersons of mature years, tor though success in 
 life is no safeguartl irom the touch of time, it is a material protector, 
 especially when associated with self-control and an amplitude ot mental 
 power. Possibly Shakspere in his youth and early manhood was of a 
 slight and active ph)sique, with a countenance more indicative of a 
 pregnant future, than the observant tranquillity of the portraits of his 
 later years w ith which we are so tamiliar. 
 
 Of his physical stature and bearing we have little actual knowledge, 
 but the Stratford effiyv in its modellino; suocjests a robust, and certainly 
 not diminutive personality. The slight forward droop of the head is a 
 pose not usually observed in monumental figures of this kind, although 
 not infrequently seen in real life in men of meditative minds and 
 literary pursuits, especially those who are rather over than under the 
 average height. Die impression conveyed by the entire portraiture, 
 and emphasized by the effigy, is that of a vigorous and man]\ presence 
 in which the union ot physical and mental strength is most happily 
 expressed. Aubrey, one of Shakspere's earliest biographers, who 
 gathered much interesting information from old or contemporary players, 
 in his notes taken between the year 1669 and 1696 writes, " He was a 
 handsome and well-shaped man, \ery good company, and of very ready 
 and jjleasant and smooth wit." 
 
 There is a vvide distinction to be observed between the portraits 
 of Shakspere and these which may be classed as Shaksperian portraits. 
 The former in every detail possess an identity which the most drastic 
 analysis only brings into closer connection ; whilst the latter are merely 
 e.xotic offshoots resolving themselves into accidental likenesses or 
 resemblances more or less remote, and beyond and outside these again 
 there hovers a sinister cloud of concoctions and similar impostures 
 unworthy of serious consideration. 
 
30 S/nikspor's J'orirai/iire : Painted, Graven, and Mcdallic. 
 
 Authority or pedigree, save in the three principal examples which 
 we have discussed at length, is entirely absent, for that arising a 
 century and a half after the period of production is practically of no 
 more value than if of to-day, and one and all must stand the test of 
 internal evidence alone. In short, granted that the work is contem- 
 poraneous, its value as a portrait of Shakspere must be exactly in 
 proportion to its agreement in all essential points, with those of 
 which the authenticity is bevond cjuestion. 
 
 Amongst the reputed portraits of Shakspere we may brietly note 
 the following : — 
 
 The Fklton portrait appears to be a genuine old jjainting, although 
 nothing is known about it previously to its discovery in the year 1792, 
 when Stevens and other literary critics remarked its affinity to the 
 Droeshout engraved portrait. I he features and facial modelling are 
 quite in accord with the accepted portraits ; the expression also is very 
 intelligent and life-like, but the face appears thinner and more 
 elongated in outline, through the upper part of the head being unduly 
 lengthened from the forehead to the crown. 
 
 It is not impossible that Droeshout made the presumed draught 
 for his engraving from this portrait, especially as the " set" and plane 
 of the features and their form are the same ; the collar also is similar, 
 but he has altered the plain dress to an ill-fitting embroidered doublet. 
 Inscribed on the back of the picture is " Gul Shakespear 1597 RB," 
 possibly Richard Burbage ; but \vhoe\ er the artist was he apparently 
 paintetl from life,-. 
 
 The J.^NssEX or .Somerset portrait ot Shakspere is an attractive 
 and well-painted head, which many critics have long regarded as the 
 best of his i)ortraits, and the work ol Cornelius Jansscn. Of authori- 
 tative pedigree it may be said to have none, for although a faint aroma 
 of tradition connects it with Prince. Rupert, its actual recognition or 
 ascription as a portrait of Shakspere dates from about the year 1770, 
 whilst in the collection of Charles Jennens, of Gopsal. The Duke oi 
 Hamilton acquired it in 1809, from whom it pa.ssed by marriage to the 
 
The " Fc/lcn" and " So/ncrscl" Portraits. 31 
 
 Duke of Somerset, and by ii similar transference to the Ramsdcns of 
 Bulstrode Park, to whom it now belongs. 
 
 Like all the Shakspere portraits, it has trequently been engraved, 
 and with greater success than most of them. Comparison, however, 
 shows how little the best have caught of the exact portrait, or the spirit 
 and expression of the original ; but in this respect the camera surpasses 
 the copyist, just as the true artist surpasses both. The portrait has a 
 striking but quite superficial resemblance or likeness to Shakspere, or 
 to those of his portraits which have the highest authority. On com- 
 parison, however, this resemblance fades and the dissimilarity of 
 features and facial modelling is quite apparent. Thus the face in this 
 portrait is long and narrow instead of being a roundish oval, the eyes 
 are small, half closed, and peering, whilst their orbits are rounded next 
 the nose and curve laterally, in place of the bold downward sweep so 
 patent in the others. The nose is unduly long and thin, with small 
 compressed nostrils, Hat at the soffit. The mouth, surmounted by a 
 slight moustache, is almost without expression, whilst the lower jaw 
 appears weak either in formation or drawing, and the beard is closely 
 clipped and pointed at the chin. The expression generally is not 
 Shaksperian, but that of a quiet and passionless man, the antithesis of 
 the robust intelligence so remarkably patent in the Stratford bust. 
 
 The doublet, although more richly embroidered, is very similar in 
 pattern to that in the Droeshout portrait, and, curiously enough, both 
 show something of the same error of drawing. Were the rich lace 
 collar, which somewhat disturbs the repose of the face, replaced by a 
 stiff round collar, like that of the Droeshout, it is probable that the 
 essentia] difference in the portraiture would become even more 
 apparent. 
 
 Experienced critics pronounce it the work of a facile pencil, and it 
 is generally attributed to Cornelius Janssen Ijut as it is inscribed 
 " yE 46 • 1610" Janssen would then be only seventeen years old. and, 
 moreover, he is not known to have arrived or painted in this country 
 before the year 161 8. The age, forty-six, also is not without suspicion 
 of alteration to coincide with the date. Altogether it is an interesting 
 example of the essential difference of portraiture and likeness. 
 
32 S/iakspcrcs Portraiture : l^aiiitcd, Gravcii, and Medal lie. 
 
 The AsiiisouRNE Shakspere is a very fine three-quarter length Hfe 
 size, which in many featural points answers to the undoubted portraits, 
 save that the face is somewhat thinner in modeUiny. The figure is habited 
 in a doublet of dark coloured material, apparently velvet, the waist being 
 encircled by a gold embroidered belt. The right hand, which rests 
 upon a skull 1\ ing on the table, holds a small and richly boimd book, 
 whilst the left grasps a gold embroidered glove. At the top corner to 
 the left is inscribed in two lines " /ETATIS ■ SV/E "47 • A° 161 i." The 
 picture is painted upon canvas, 47^ by 2)l\ inches in size, and has been 
 relined, cleaned, and " restored " — as is testified by the bareness of 
 certain parts. It was purchased as an unknown portrait about the year 
 1845 '^y '^'it; Rev. C. \'. Kingston, of Ashbourne, Derby.shire, hence its 
 title, and is one of those portraits, the advent of which to public notice 
 is from the dealer's hands " .sans [)hrase." 
 
 The Lu.MLEV Shakspere is a poorly e.vecuted but early portrait, 
 which greatly resembles the Chandos in type, although the face is that 
 of an older and more careworn man. h^'om the drawing of certain 
 parts, especially the forehead, which is unduly low, it \\iHild appear to be 
 an independent work, and the featural modelling is generally correct. 
 There is some slight but uncertain evidence that it was in the 
 possession of Lord Lumley, of Lumley Castle, Durham, about the year 
 1609. Comparison of the forehead of this with the " Felton " portrait 
 shows a want of accordance which may be partly due to the pose of 
 the head or to faulty foreshortening in the coloLU-ing ; but, apart from 
 this, there is an evident want of accuracy in the drawing. 
 
 It is curious to note how many of the portraits are either dated or 
 centre round the year 16 10. This was the period when .Shakspere hail 
 virtually finished his work, and was gradually abandoning London for 
 the quiet and repose of the home he had created at Stratford. The 
 various portraits, therefore, may be due to the desire of his many friends 
 for some sucli personal reminder of him, but from whatever cause their 
 evident multiplication arose, we may be sure it was not of his own 
 initiation. 
 
Did Sliakspcrc visit Italy ? 
 
 j,> 
 
 Apart trom these authoritative, recognised or attributive portraits, 
 there are quite a number which, whatever their quahty as paintings, 
 possess but very sHght claim to attention as portraits of Shakspere. 
 Some are purely accidental likenesses, more or less remote, others are 
 iht; proLkict of commercialism or fraud, whilst many are either copies or 
 altered versions oi the Chandos portrait, called into existence during 
 the early years of the eighteenth century, when the editorial labours of 
 Rowe and Pope were creating a wider and higher appreciation of the 
 Poet and his contemporaries. When we call to mind the taste for 
 painted and other portraiture which then raged with such remarkable 
 violence, the wonder is that these replicas, varied copies, or adaptations, 
 are not tenfold in number and of far higher quality as works of art. 
 
 That Shakspere may at some time in his earlier years have set 
 foot on the Continent, and by land or sea got so far as Venice and other 
 cities of Northern Italy, is not at all improbable, for we find that owing 
 to the plague raging with extreme violence in London, especially during 
 the years 1592 and 1593, b\' Royal proclamation all the playhouses 
 were closed to avoid the risk of contagion, and the companies fled to 
 distant parts, many to the Continent ; and Shakspere, whom we know 
 was not a " ho.me-keeping youth," is more likely than not to have been 
 with them, especially as some of his finest Italian plays, such as 
 " Romeo and Juliet " and the " Merchant of Venice," were written 
 either then or in the immediately following years. Moreover, the 
 expressed opinion of many of those who have travelled in other lands 
 than those of romance, declares that his writings show such an intimate 
 acquaintance with obscure details of the continental everyday life, local 
 travel and characteristics, especially of Northern Italy, as could not be 
 culled by enquir\-, or gathered from existing books of travel, but must 
 have been the fruit of personal observation. The possibility is thus 
 opened that Shakspere may have been painted by artists who never 
 visited England ; and personally we know by friendly intimation and 
 reference tnat he was just the kind of man whose external appearance 
 and mental gifts would appeal strongly to the Italian nature, which 
 always welcomed and kindly entreated the artistic temperament. Italy, 
 
34 S/iakspercs Portraiture : Painted, Graven, and Medaliic. 
 
 moreover, was the Mecca to which the brotherhood of art was 
 unceasino- in its devotion. Granted, then, the not unreasonable assump- 
 tion of his presence, he therefore could scarcely escape delineation 
 in some form at the instance of, or by the pencil of, those who would 
 form no inconsiderable section of society at a time when literature and 
 art were paramount. Further, it is surely a grave error to persistently 
 narrow our conception of Shakspere's personal appearance to that of 
 the known portraits of his late years, or to e.xpect that a more youthful 
 delineation would be expressed in a similar form. Time was when he 
 may have looked the Romeo of his dreams or memories, " with habit 
 costly as his purse could buy," and who can prefigure the Shakspcre of his 
 glowing prime ? Perchance, therefore, unknown or misnamed, at home or 
 abroad, there await us unrecogfnised the lineaments of a younfjer and 
 more romantic Shaksjjere than we are yet acquainted with, the work oi 
 some master of his art happily alive to such a fortuitous opportunity. 
 
 Collectors of old drawings or early engraved portraits are well 
 aware that many of the latter are from pen or pencil, ad vii'itm 
 draughts frequently, and these are the engraver's own work, but there 
 are vast quantities of similar original drawings of which no engraved 
 copy is known to exist. 
 
 Portraiture in the early part of the seventeenth century was 
 an art so appreciated and popular that few persons of repute 
 or position could escape such a form of recognition, save through 
 poverty or personal objection. But, unfortunately, these slight 
 drawings are generally without inscription or other clue to identity, 
 except that furnished by the likeness or resemblance. In this respect 
 they are on a par w ith most contemporar\' painted portraits, and it is to 
 this inexplicable neglect that we owe the confusion and uncertainty 
 which pre\ail in their attribution in the public and private galleries 
 throughout the world, absolute recognition of subject or artist largely 
 depending on the celebrity of the one, or style or mannerism of the 
 other ; and we may free ourselves frt)m many perplexities if we 
 occasionally accept thein as painted h\ artists of note, who are known 
 to have never visited this country, from similar draughts possibly by 
 local artists. Moreover, a portrait, even when painted from life, may 
 
J'ossib/c I'arictics of his Portraiture. 35 
 
 aniouiu to little more than a mere likeness, and possibly a superficial 
 likeness at that ; whilst on the; other hand a capable artist may, with 
 full material, produce a faithful and altogether admirable portrait ot 
 one whom he has never seen. Well-known examples by Titian and 
 other great masters show how, in such cases, they intuitively grasped 
 all essential points of modelling and feature, and, supplying the 
 technicalities of pose, light and shade, cast over all that vittdity and 
 realism without which portraiture, no matter how excellent its technique, 
 is little more than a simulacrnm. 
 
 Those possessed of old drawings, or drawings by the old masters, 
 should go carefully through their portfolios in the hope of fortuitously 
 recognising, perchance in unfamiliar aspect or guise, a possible present- 
 ment of Shakspere. All portraits of the period in which he lived 
 should be closel)- scanned, for it is apparent that a man aged Irom 
 about thirty onwards, bearded or otherwise, perhaps fantastically attired 
 according to the current taste, possibly in stage dress, and before time 
 had thinned his flowing locks, would in appearance certainly have but 
 little resemblance to the later portraits with which we are acquainted. 
 Further, those portraits taken at different periods would not vary only 
 with his age, but with the varying moods of such a highly sensitive and 
 imasfinative nature. Aoe is an effective abater of humanitv, and what 
 whilom beauty, contemplating her past presentment, has not sighed 
 over " Time's effacing fingers." The span of life also, on the average, 
 was shorter then than with us, and the ravages of years quicker in 
 consequence. The subject offers a wide and interesting field for research. 
 
 Further, it is incredible that he should not have been bepictured 
 during the twenty years of his almost constant residence in London. 
 Contemporaries record that he was esteemed and beloved for his 
 " most sweet nature," which apparently disarmed envy of his higher 
 gifts. He was undoubtedly " a clubable man," the chief figure and 
 esteemed associate of scholars and writers, to whom literature was a 
 deity and the very breath of life. F"riendship with men like these 
 frequently ran into blended effort, and the warmth of the " Mermaid," 
 and similar festive hostels, was not evaporated with the wine. At such 
 times mere indifference, or even personal objection, would have little 
 
o 
 
 6 S/iaks/'crc s I'oii>-aitiirc : Painted, Graven, and ]Mcdallic. 
 
 weight aoainst friend!) iini)()rtiinity, and the possibility of not one but 
 many such presentments out\veii_;hs the singularity nt their absence ; 
 and we may not unreasonably assume that Shakspere may have been 
 "drawn to the life" about his thirtieth year, for in 1591 he had written 
 " Romeo and Juliet " in its earlier form, and his •' X'enus and Adonis " 
 was circulating' in manuscript, althoug-h not published until 1593. 
 These apart, lie was sufficiently well known to be publicly attacked by 
 Greene in his Uroal's ]]'orlh 0/ Hi/ in 1592, anil as warmly defended 
 by Chettle in his Apology. 
 
 It is to be feared, however, that his prodigious mental activity, at 
 and from this time forward, as evidenced by his writings of which, as 
 Ben Jonson says, "he never blotted a line," may have left him little 
 leisure, and perhaps slight inclination tor the importances, such as 
 portraiture, of smaller minds, which to his sweet and gentle nature may 
 ha\e appeared little more than " mere tri\ial fond records." 
 
 It would be of material assistance to the fortunate possessors of 
 contemporary drawings. If for instance, a number of suggestive portraits 
 of Shakspere were prepared to serve as possible t)pes, the features being 
 f course based on and adhering closely to the authentic portraits, 
 but juvenated to \arious ages from twenty-five years onwards. In these 
 semi-imaginary or transformed portraits the head might be close 
 cropped or adorned with flowing locks, and variously capped or 
 bonneted, the moustache and beard treated in the \arious styles then 
 in vogue, the dress being varied and suitable to his age, position, or 
 calling. To these facial presentments should be added, profiles, outlines, 
 and diagrams showing the true formation and set of the features, with 
 other detail uniformly to be foimd in the Chandos, Droeshout, and effigy 
 portraits, with whicli on essential points all newcomers must necessarily 
 be in agreement. If a series of such imaginary jiortraits were issued 
 in an inexpensive form, or even better still, in the pages of .some 
 widely circulated illustrated |)a{)er, it might result in discoveries of 
 surpassing interest, and in aii\' case it could do no harm. 
 
 In the Memorial Gallery at Stratford there are several drawings 
 which the late Sir George Scharf prepared on somewhat similar lines. 
 In these the Droeshout portrait and the head from the Stratford bust 
 
 o 
 
.1// .IrUslii .\pliliidc. 2)"] 
 
 art- l)C)th tlniw n to thr same sc;ik', about lite size, ami they can be 
 severally subjected to the effect ot transposed surroundings ot hair and 
 dress. The instantaneous effect on the spectator is for him to regard 
 both more as resemblances or likenesses than true portraits, but this 
 impression is speedily followed by entire recognition, the natural effect, 
 of course, of featural identity. 
 
 An attempt was made by Air. \V. R. Furness in 1S85 to obtain a 
 composite portrait, by blending the Chandos, Droeshout, .Strattord bust, 
 Janssen, Felton, and .Stratford portraits, but success is not to be found 
 by any so mechanical a method, for the pose and drawing of each is 
 varied, and cannot be exactly overlaid. .Vny interference with the 
 features or facial expression is fatal to fidelity and realism, which to a 
 portrait are as the breath of life. 
 
 The successful portrait painter is perforce a man of many parts, 
 tor mere technical mastery of line and colour will not suffice alone, 
 it must be accompanied by insight or penetration of character and 
 .social gifts to awaken and call into play the mental powers of the sitter, 
 who otherwise is apt to be constrained into unnatural gravity. The 
 occasion is momentous and taken too seriously, hence the frequent 
 ■' muteness" of that which should be a "speaking likeness." But the 
 artist mixing his pigments " with brains, sir," calls into action and 
 catches the intellectual vitality, without which the so-called portrait is 
 little more than a simulacrum or lifeless mask. The happiest effect is 
 often obtained in a rapid sketch by a master hand, and even caricature 
 tVe(|uently supplies a more accurate and characteristic imjjression ot the 
 indi\adual than the result of the slow iuid laborious effort. 
 
 In considering the ([uestion of portraiture, it is of much iniportance 
 therefore to ascertain of what its chief value consists, and why 
 undoubtedly faithful portraits of the same person are so variable in 
 point of interest and reliability ; for this necessarily must apply to all 
 portraits, whether thev be in line, or gradation of line and colour, or 
 carved in various gi^ades of relief, even to complete detachment liom 
 background. 
 
 In the identification of historical portraits we are perhaps rather 
 too apt to look for typical affinity, if not actual identity, with those best 
 
38 S//a/cs/>cir's Portraiture : Paiiitca. Graven, and Medallic. 
 
 known and insensibly recognised as the ideal of the person, disregard- 
 inof or foro-etful of the inevitable changfes arising from aye or similar 
 potent agencies. By way of realising how curiously these changes may 
 affect portraiture, let us compare the various portraits of some 
 universally known man, such as Charles Dickens. He was portrayed 
 by the best artists during the last thirty years of his life, say from 1S40 
 to 1870 ; )'et the ravages of time and the vagaries of fashion are not 
 more in evidence than is the distortion arising from the temperament 
 or mannerism of the painter ; and the crude fidelity of the camera is 
 fre(|uently more true to the outward man than the vagaries which 
 modern art calls on us to accept as portraiture ; mere welterings of 
 colour, displaying it is true a certain facial correctness, but which other- 
 wise are little m re than the ineptitudes of the involuntary caricaturist. 
 
 Recognition of quality, that is artistic merit, in a painting is 
 generally a matter of certainty, for its appreciation as such is neutral 
 ground even to the most captious critic ; but correct attribution is 
 another affair, and we are rarely sure that the last word has been said, 
 for the pendulum of current and ever varying taste sways the judgment, 
 and pictures are consigned from school to school and from painter to 
 painter with persuasive detail of tact and fanc)', and certainly in all 
 sincerity of conviction. There is hardly any national or important 
 gallery of pictures which does not possess examples that most competent 
 judges maintain are masquerading under names either greater or less 
 than they are entitled to bear. 
 
 In portraiture this applies to an even greater extent, for in addition 
 to difificulties of style and technique, there must be added that of 
 personal identification, frequently a matter ot the highest impor- 
 tance. 
 
 Now judgment in portraiture is largely dependent on an intuitive 
 accuracy of perception, and given that, the faulty or wrongly attributed 
 portrait speaks to one's instinct. Its very limitations even may be 
 a proof of genuineness, but no recognition or acceptance is possible 
 without rigorous comparison of structural and featural identity ; 
 and where these can be established and proved to be of genuine 
 untampered and contemporar)- work, we may to a great extent 
 
Vicissitudes of Portraits. 39 
 
 disregard outside objections as mainly sentimental and leave its 
 destinies to time and critics yet unborn. 
 
 The satisfactory identification and absolute acceptance of a portrait 
 some two or three centuries after its creation is almost an impossibility, 
 for although by reason of its importance it may have been always more 
 or less in the public eye, yet its especial identity cannot really be 
 established by documentary evidence alone, for the original may have 
 been destroyed, lost, stolen, "conveyed, the wise it call," or confused 
 with another of the same personage ; or, if the original, it may have 
 been injured and "restored" by an incompetent hand. Thus the fine 
 portrait of Richard II. in the choir of Westminster Abbey was, until 
 quite recent years, absolutely lost under repeated repaintings, which 
 travestied and effectually concealed the original, and we may with 
 reason suspect that similar " beautifyings " have transferred many 
 others, of interest as portraits and valuable as works of art. to the dumb 
 forgetfulness of the unknown. 
 
 Those conversant with the vicissitudes of pictorial art are well 
 aware of the "finds" of examples by the older masters which are 
 constantly taking place. Past, or even remote, ownership is frequently 
 traceable, but in most cases the sole and best proof of authenticity is 
 in the recognized quality of the work itself, which is justly regarded as 
 altogether higher and more satisfactory than any coincident or other 
 genuine but quite fallible record. 
 
 Quality in portraiture, valuable as it undoubtedly is, however, is of 
 less importance than certainty of identity, but where the two are 
 combined and further strengthened by contemporary evidence, then of 
 course the last word is said. In early portraiture, however, great 
 excellence is not to be looked for, especially in examples dating three 
 centuries ago, and of which nothing is otherwise known. 
 
 It is manifest, therefore, that when a newly discovered portrait, 
 bearing a striking resemblance to some celebrity, is found to be ot 
 genuine and contemporaneous work, it should be welcomed as a 
 potential portrait at least, although there may not be a shred of 
 evidence connecting it directly with the assumed original. 
 
 A portrait is not necessarily of high value, moreover, because it is 
 
40 S/iakspcirs Portraiture : Painted, Graven, and Mcdallic. 
 
 known to liave been paintt-cl Irom lite, unless the artist has apprehended 
 and shown the inner man whilst delineating ])hysical features Confusion 
 of identity is often due to inferior or lifeless portrcu'tine, but where 
 mind and matter are adequately expressed it argues weakness of 
 judgment to greatly rely on other, and possibly fallible!, testimon\- in 
 preference to that which practically defies contradiction. 
 
 When an old portrait strongly resembling some well-known 
 |)ersonality emerges from obscurity, its claims to identit)' can only be 
 allowed after jjassing the closest scrutiny, in the course of which no 
 competent judge will allow his opinif)n to be biassed by anything 
 outside the evidence supplied by his subject. All else is comparatively 
 foreign to the matter, provided the portrait proves to be a genuine piece 
 of untampered and contemporary work, essentially resembling in facial 
 modelling and featural identity the best portraits of the person of whom 
 it is said to be a representation. Granted these conditions, then 
 whatever of technical knowledge or acumen the critic possesses will 
 declare itself in the clearness and accuracy of his judgment. 
 
 The portrait prefixed to this paper is ascribed to Shakspere, because, 
 although almost hitherto unknown, it presents a resemblance to him 
 which becomes the more striking when its facial and featural modelling 
 are intelligently examined. Viewed as a portrait only, it is a vigorous 
 piece of realism, painted with the broad free brush of an experienced 
 hand, upon coarse canvas of old English web, 22^ by i8i- inches in size. 
 
 When relined at some remote period it would appear to have been 
 in a decayed, or rather dilapidated, condition, as the edges of the 
 canvas are broken and irregular. The colouring, however, is generally 
 sound and untouched, but its richness and (juality is marred by the 
 coarse and unequal varni.shing. Probably, when this "restoration" 
 was effected, about a century ago, it was by some unprofessional and 
 inexperienced hand, whose work, imperfect as it is, fortunateK did but 
 littk; actual injur\', and which at the present for obvious reasons it would 
 be inadvi-sable to amend or interfere with in any way. 
 
 The general appearance of the portrait is very closely and faithfully 
 rendered in the plate, which the photographer, Mr. Arthur P. Monger 
 
The Frontispiece — I'oiirail of Shakspere. 41 
 
 of Chancery Lane, experienced as he is in similar reproductions, 
 (ilnained cmlv with great difficulty owing to the obscurities caused by 
 the irretrular varnishing. 
 
 The heai.1 is life-size, turned a little to the right of the spectator, 
 upon whom the eyes are fixed with remarkable intelligence and 
 expression. The general modelling of the face and features is quite in 
 accord with that shown in the Chandos and Droeshout portraits 
 and the .Stratford l)List. An aspect of massiveness arising from the 
 general formation, the great width of the foreheaci and fulness at the 
 temples, is balanced by the firm lower jaw, uniting in an outline 
 approaching that of a roundish oval. This, however, is somewhat 
 tempered by the pointed beard, which subdues the fulness of the lower 
 part of the face and gi\es an effective finish to the countenance. The 
 eyes are especially powerful, large, well opened, and full of penetration 
 and expression, the axis of each, as in the Stratford bust, ascending 
 slightly towards the nose, and the deep flange between the upper lids 
 and the eyebrows being noticeable. The orbits are very large, and 
 springing tVom the nose with a short bevel, they curve round the top and 
 continue with a bold unbroken downward sweep, which, uniting the 
 curves of the nose and temples, greatly assists to give that air of sweet- 
 ness and strength which is the dominating expression of the face. 
 
 The nose is a well-modelled aquiline, very delicately curved to the 
 tip ; the nostrils are full and expand upwards, whilst the central division 
 runs from the tip in a curved line into the upper lip, making a division 
 in the moustache as shown in all the portraits. 
 
 The mouth is \-ery sweetly shaped, the lips curved and rather full, 
 especially in the centre. This peculiarity, as previously explained, is 
 an essential feature of Shaksperian portraiture. 
 
 The forehead is superbly modelled, spacious, high and full at the 
 temples, which spring vertically from the cheek bones, whilst the upper 
 part of the head, which is almost devoid of hair, ascends from the 
 forehead with a beautiful curve to the crown, and is remarkably expressive 
 of cajjHcity and mental power. 
 
 The hair, very thin, if not absent at the top of the head, falls in 
 long, full and slightly curling rolls almost to the neck, and like the 
 
42 S/iakspcrc s Portraiture : J'aiiitcct Graven, and Mcdalbc. 
 
 moustache and beard is slightly tinged with grey. The moustache, 
 which is parted at the centre, has a curiously stiff twist, and is turned 
 up at the ends. The beard is pointed at the chin and has a small tuft 
 under the lower lip, whilst the hair on the lower jaw is short, apj^arenily 
 clipped, but not closely. Moustache and beard are exactly as seen in 
 the Stratford bust, but as the face there is otherwise shaven, this 
 portrait would seem to give an intermediate stage between that and the 
 Chandos portrait, where the lower jaw is fringed with longer hair. 
 
 The general po.se is quite unaffected and natural, and the dress in 
 keeping, even to the careless, wrinkled, and unstarched collar, and the 
 plain dark-coloured doublet. 
 
 The portrait undoubtedly represents an unusual personality, of 
 great mental gifts and strong will. Its striking resemblance or likene.ss 
 to the accepted portraiture of Shakspere, moreover, is not superficial, 
 but is derived from an actual identity of facial and featural modelling, 
 and in this respect the Stratford bust proved of especial value as 
 allowing an exactness of comparison superior to all others. There can 
 be no hesitation in accepting it as a true portrait ol Shakspere, 
 delineated with great realism and fidelity, as he appeared in th(' daily 
 round of life when approaching his fiftieth year. 
 
 The portrait was long the property of an old Lancashire family, by 
 whom it was traditionally known as " The portrait of Shakspere. ' On 
 the decease a few years ago of the widow of the last sur\ivor. 
 Dr. Ashton, of Cuerdale, and the testamentary dispersal of the family 
 effects by auction, it passed into the possession of the writer, ini for- 
 tunately, however, without any other record of whatever history had 
 hung around it in the memory of its whilom owners. Nevertheless, 
 it speaks for itself and with no uncertain utterance. 
 
 The medal here illustrated has the obver.se prepared from this 
 portrait, which the writer thought advisable to perpetuate in the most 
 permanent form. The exactitude of its reproduction by Mr. Frank 
 Bowcher, as will be seen by comparison with the frontispiece to this 
 paper, is remarkable, and will be appreciated by all connoisseurs of 
 medallic art. The reverse is a departure from the general rule, 
 
" The 191 I Mcdair 
 
 43 
 
 THE 191 1 iMKDAL. 
 
 inasmuch as it gives a rendering of the Stratford bust, the head ot 
 which is shown in prolile, as a relievo. The Muse of Poesy, Shakspere's 
 Muse, no attenuated grotesque, but a warm, free, and very human 
 daughter of Olympus, is unconsciously laureating the head, whilst at her 
 feet Puck is seated holding the Tragic and Comic Masks. 
 
 It is the peculiar glory of Britain that, were she henceforward to 
 become but a name and a memory, it would be one of unapproachable 
 splendour. As a maker of nations she has studded the earth with 
 budding empires or those yet in the promise of a mighty youth, and 
 her example and authority have established the principles of universal 
 justice and liberty. But what a careless and forgetful, if prolific mother 
 she has ever been to her best and noblest sons, leaving them as 
 unconsidered atoms in the economy of nature to pass from remembrance 
 almost " unwept, unhonoured, and unsung." 
 
 Thus it is that, with a myriad others, our Shakspere, the supreme 
 intellectual glory of Britain, has awaited for three hundred years his 
 medallic apotheosis. 
 
 Time is the fell destroyer of all created things, for not a year 
 passes but some irreplaceable historical document decays, or is injured, 
 or vanishes for ever. Accident or wanton mischief may destroy the 
 original at any time, and frequently at the best, copies are all that are 
 left to us. Now, copies or reproductions, no matter how excellently or 
 skilfully made, must perforce fail to some extent in securing the spirit 
 and character of the original ; and when successively produced may 
 become at length a mere shadow or even caricature of the original. 
 
44 S/iaks/^crcs Portraiture : Painted, Graven, ana Medallic. 
 
 By way of illustration, \vc may remember that statues and portrait 
 busts made by the best Greece-Roman sculptors for Rome in its golden 
 days, are admittedh' inferior in artistic cjuality to the Hellenic originals, 
 although in turn superior to the reproductions of the Renaissance. 
 The deterioration is gradual but certain, for the subtleties of art escape 
 the skill of the cojoyist, strive as he may, and mere lalx rious exactness, 
 or manual dexterity, is an indifferent substitute for that vitalisation from 
 eye or hand which has seen or touched the source of inspiration. 
 The medallic form of memorial, therefore, is that which we must regard 
 as the safest, best, and most perfect, and the only form also which, 
 besides its artistic capal)ilities, lends itself to limitless duplication. 
 Where now are the majority of the statues and portrait l)usts that were 
 the delight oi the ancients ? Irrecoverably lost ; whilst the image and 
 supenscription of countless despots, worthy or unworthy, still gleam 
 undefaced upon the metal discs upon which they were impressed in 
 their time, and are certain to so continue long after every human eye 
 has closed in darkness. 
 
 The medallic memorials of .Shakspere, with some i<t\\ exceptions, 
 are not of the interesting character, nor such as we gladly would 
 associate with his name. None are the expression of national apprecia- 
 tion nor tributes h-om great societies of art or literature ; and whilst 
 the best are clue to .social or individual effort, commercialism is largely 
 responsible for the weedy and dispiriting majority. 
 
 They number about thirty, and from the first, cut by Dassier in 
 1 73 I, cover a periorl of one hundred and eighty years to this present 
 date. They are chiefly the work of British artists, but well-known 
 names are apparently no guarantee of excellence, and many are certainly 
 not even fairly representive of the by no means high quality of the 
 nineteenth century medallic art ; tame, dry and mechanical in concep- 
 tion and execution, from the standpoint of art also they are lamentably 
 deficient in the initial qualities of invention and grace. Alas ! they 
 stand in melancholy contrast with the breadth and freedom of design, 
 the felicitous combination of imagery and detail, which invest the work 
 of the earlier medallists, with that fascination of sensuous abandon, of 
 medireval classicism, so expressively termed the Renaissance. 
 
Medn.llic Art. 
 
 45 
 
 Art in the earlier school would seem to have found the circum- 
 ference of its work almost too small a field in which to luxuriate its 
 o^raceful imaginings, but the artist of a later date, now ([uite obsolete 
 it not extinct, preferred a pseudo-classicism ot frigid and unmeaning 
 allegory, mechanically exact, but artistically little nion- than common- 
 place. Happily, at this present time, however, there is a promise of 
 better things, u kind of afterglow, which in its frank and free 
 appreciation of the virile and beautiful, unfettered by mere academic 
 rule, may go far to revive the best traditions of medallic art. 
 
 The following chronologic list of the .Shakspere medallic memorials 
 will give a general idea ol their individual character, authorship, 
 motive, and also the source whence their portraiture is derived, and 
 whether in appreciative commemoration or as memorials of current 
 events associated with his name in various ways. 
 
 THE riASSIER MED.XL, 1731. 
 
 Medallic M kmori.-vls. 
 
 The reference numbers are to Mcdaliii I tliistrations : — 
 
 No. 42. 1 73 1 by Dassier. Obverse. — Half-length to right in slashed 
 
 doublet and mantle, based on the Chandos and Droeshout portraits. 
 
 "GULIELMUS SHAKESPEARE,' an indifferent portrait, but of good 
 
 work. Reverse. — .A rocky landscape "WILD ABO\ E KULE OR 
 
 ART." Exergue :" .NAT • 1564." Size 1-65. 
 Mr. Spielmann has a unique modern restrike of the obverse, the reverse 
 
 having a wreath oiil)-, no inscription. 
 No. 43. 1769. Garrick's Stratford Jubilee medal. Obverse. — Bust to 
 
 right, adapted" from the Chandos ]iortrait, " wi-: shall NOT LOOK 
 
 ui'ON Hi> i.n-;i: acaix." Reverse. — " it iulke at .str.atford 
 
46 S/iakspcirs Poiirailiirc : Painted, Graven, aii.i Medallii. 
 
 IN HONOUR AND TO THE MEMORY OF SHAKKSI'KAKK " SEPT", 
 1769 ■ 1) • G • STEWARD. Size V2. 
 No. 44. 1777. Order of Shakespearians. Obverse. — Portrait to left, 
 of Chandos type. "WE SHALL NoT LOOK 1 rox ins LIKE 
 AGAIN." " KIRK ■ F." Reverse. — " Tin: HONB'-'- ORDER OF 
 SHAKESPEARIANS INSTITUTED JULY II • 1777." Size 1-4. 
 
 No. 45. 1S03. The Boydell edition of liis \\ork,s, issued to subscribers. 
 Obverse. — Full length of Shakspere, the head of Chandos type, 
 seated between female figures. HE was a MAN TAKE HIM FOR 
 
 ALL IN ALL I SHALL NOT LOOK UPON HIS LIKE AGAIN— M I!, 
 
 (Matthew Jioulton) " C • H • KUCIILER • i." Reverse. — Inscribed: 
 " This medal representing Shakespeare between the Dramatic 
 Muse and the genius of painting is respectful!}' presented to the 
 person whose name it bears, in grateful commemoration of the 
 generous support given b)' the subscribers to the great national 
 edition of that immortal poet, by I • I • & J • N • liOYDELL and 
 G & W • NICOL • 1803." Above, harp and oli\e branch on scroll, 
 radiated ; the name of the recipient engraved on edge. Size r85. 
 The gold specimen now in the British Museum was presented to 
 George III. 
 
 No. 46. 1 8 16. Stratford Commemoration. Obverse. — Bust to left, 
 from the Chandos portrait. SHAKESPEARE • WE SHALL NOT LOOK 
 UPON HIS LIKE AGAIN ■ OB^" 23 • APRIL • 1616 • ALT 52. Reverse.— 
 Inscription : " Commemoration of Shakespeare at .Stratford upon 
 Avon. Stewards • Right Hon • The Earl of Guildford • Right 
 Hon Lord Aliddleton, Sir Cha* Mordaunt Hart M.P., Francis 
 Canning Esq. April 23 • 1816." Size 1S5. 
 
 This medal has a gilt rim, with loop for suspension. It was 
 probabl)- the work of W. Barnet. 
 
 No. 47. 1 817. Commemoration. Obverse. — As No. 46. Reverse. — 
 
 In.scribed: " FLORE. AT IN .KTEKNUM GOLGOTHA ■ All ■ MDtCCXYII ■ 
 FEBKUENSIS • V • " With gilt rim for .suspension. 
 No. 48. 1818. Memorial. l-"rench work. Obverse. — Bust to left, 
 based on the Chandos portrait, short, full beard, "GULIELMVS 
 SHAKESI'E.VRE " " BARRE • F " on truncation. Reverse. — " NATUS 
 
 STRATFORDI.E • IX ■ BRITANNIA • AX • MDLXIY ■ OBIIT MDCXVI • 
 
 " Series Numismatica Universalis virorium illustrium • MDCCCXViii • 
 
 DURANI) ■ EDIT." Size vd. 
 As No. 48. But with lighter beard. 
 No. 49. Ditto. With still lighter beard. 
 No. 50. 1818. Memorial. French work by Desboeufs. Obverse. — 
 
 Bust to right, based on the Stratford and Chandos portraits, 
 
 "WILLIAM siiAKSPEARE." Reverse. — Blank. .Size 2. 
 
Mcdallic Memorials. 47 
 
 No. 51. 1821. Memorial. Obverse. — Bust nearly full face, apparently 
 based on the Droeshout portrait of 1623. " WILLIAM siiak.speare • 
 
 BORN ■ APRIL • 23 • 1564 ■ DIED ■ APRIL ■ 2^ ■ 1616." " Westvvood 
 
 182 1 " on truncation. Reverse. — Scene from "As \-ou like it" 
 ACT II sc • I. Jacques seated near a stream where a deer is 
 drinking, inscribed : TO THE WHICH PLACE A POOR SE(^UESTERD 
 
 STAC. THAT FROM THE IH'XTER'S AIM HAD TA'EN A HURT DID 
 
 COME TO LANGUISH-" Size r85. 
 No. 52. 1824. Shakespearian Club established. Obverse. — Portrait 
 
 to left, based on the Stratford bust: "WILLIAM SHAKSPEARE i 
 
 BORN APRIL 23 ■ 1564- DIED APRIL 23- 1616." "T- W- INGRAM • D." / 
 
 Reverse. — Shakspere seated and writing upon a scroll, and lau- / 
 
 reated by History or Fame: "WE SHALL NOT LOOK UPON HIS 
 
 LIKE AGAIN." " SHAKSPEARIAN CLUB STRATFORD UPON AVON 
 ESTABLISHED APRIL 21 1824" " T ■ W • INGRAM • BIRM»' ." 
 
 Size r6. 
 
 No. 53. 1827. Jubilee. Obverse. — Bust to left, from the Chandos 
 portrait, with doublet and mantle. Reverse. — Inscribed in centre : 
 "JUBILEE STRATFORD UPON A\ON APRIL 1827." Around are the 
 names of his plays. Size i"75. 
 
 No. 54. 1827. Commemoration. Obverse. — Bust to right, based on 
 the Stratford effigy, " SHAKSPEARE • WE SHALL NOT LOOK UPON 
 HIS LIKE AGAIN." Reverse. — Inscribed : " In commemoration ot 
 the birthday of the immortal bard of Warwickshire at Stratford 
 upon Avon ■ April 23 • 1827." 3 sizes, 1-5, 17, r25. 
 
 Cirea 1830. Obverse. — Statue of Shakspere, long inscription. Reverse. — 
 " This humble token," etc., inferior work. 
 
 No. 55. 1842. Commemoration. Obverse. — The Stratford bust, 
 WILLIAM SHAKSPEARE ■ DIED APRIL 23 1616. Reverse. — View 
 of his birthplace at Stratford-on-Avon, previously to its restoration- 
 Inscribed : BORN APRIL 23 1564. In exergue: 1842 • H • H • 
 YOUNG • D-W • J • TAYLOR ■ F. Size 1-5. 
 
 No. 56. 1844. Memorial. Obverse. — Bust to left, based on the 
 Chandos portrait. "GULIELMYS SHAKSPEARE." " BARRE F" 
 on truncation. Reverse. — Sceptre and sword crowned, with mask, 
 wreath above. Inscribed : BoRN AT STRATFORD ON AVON 
 IN 1564 -DIED IN 1616 — 1844. Size r6. 
 
 1847. The Birthplace Memorial. Obverse. — Bust to left, based on 
 the Chandos portrait, "WILLIAM SHAKSPERE." Reverse. — View of 
 the birthplace before restoration. "THE HOUSE IN WHICH 
 THE IMMORTAL BARD WAS BORN, AT STRATFORD UPON AVON • 
 1564." In exergue, "ALLEN AND MOORE- 1847.' 
 
48 S/iaks/>cre's Portraiture : Painted, (iravcn. and Medallic. 
 
 THI'. nEAUFO\ MKIlAI., 1S5I. 
 
 No. 57. 1 85 1. Cit)- of London School. lieaufoy prize medal. 
 Obverse. — Head, from the Stratford bust, in profile to left, "WILLIAM 
 
 .SH.\Kl'.SI'i;.\Ri; HORN • AI'RIL • 23 • 1 564 • DIEU • APRIL • 23 " 
 
 1616." "l'.i:.\J WVO.V sc." Reverse. — Group of characters from 
 the pla\s. i'rospero and Ariel, Cardinal Wolscy, Lady Macbeth, 
 Falstaff, and Henry V. Inscribed : " CITV • OF • LO.XDux • 
 
 SCIKK^I. • SilAKKSI'KKIAN • I'RIZE • KOUNUKl) ■ 1S51 • I!V • IIKNRV 
 
 1; • II ■ iiKATKOv ■ F.R.s. Borii April 23- 1785." "K WVON SC " 
 on edi;;e. -Size 3. 
 
 These medals are seldom awarded, four onh- iiaNiiii^ been 
 Ljiven between 1853 and 1885. 
 
 No. 58. 1864. Tercentenar)-. Obverse. — Head from the Stratford 
 bust in profile to left, below his autograph within a wreath ; 
 around the head the names of his plays HUNT • AND • roskki.L • 
 DIR- Reverse. — Shakspere seated upon clouds, with three female 
 figures floating around, one is placing a wreath upon his head, the 
 others lay theirs upon his knees. Inscribed: TERCENTENARY- 
 ANNIVERSARY • 1864. " J I'.KLL del. L • C ■ WVON • SC." Size, 2-45. 
 Illustrated on the next page. 
 
 1864. McGill College, Montreal. (9/^rwjv.— Stratford bust to left. 
 '■ sii.vKsi'ERE • 1564-1616." Rei'crse. — Anns of College in quatre- 
 
 foil panel. " McGILL COM.EC.E ■ MONTREAL SHAKSPERE TER- 
 CENTENARY- 1864." 
 
. Medal tic . Memorials. 
 
 49 
 
 1864. Tercentenary. Obverse. — Bust t(j left from the Chandos 
 portrait, with enriched dress. "\vii.iJ.\M sil.\Ki;si'iiAKK," with 
 dates, etc. Reverse. — View of Birthplace : " Birthplace of the 
 immortal bard, Stratford on .\\on.'' " Tercentenary of the birth 
 of Shakcs|)earc .April 1864." By |. Mooi-c. 
 
 IHK THKCKNTKN.VKV MKIiAI,, 1S64. No. 5S. 
 
 Commemorati\'e. i'robabl}- tercentenary period. Obverse. — Com- 
 bination of Chandos portrait and the Stratford bust. Reverse. — 3 
 varieties : — 
 
 1 View of birthplace. 
 
 2 Do. .Stratford-on-Avon Church. 
 
 3 Do. ^Memorial Fountain at Stratford. 
 
 Obverse. — Stratford bust, full face. " WILLIAM shaksi'KKI-; • died 
 APRIL 23 1616." Reverse. — The arms of Shakspere. " BOK\ 
 AI'KIL 23 • 1564." " He was not of an ag'e, but for all time." 
 
 Obverse. — Droeshout portrait three-quarter face to left, autograph below. 
 Reverse. — The Shakspere arms. "William .Shakspere born at 
 , Stratford on Avon .April 23 ■ 1564 • Died April 2^, 1616." 
 
 1870. Harrow .Medal. Obverse. — Chandos portrait to left, threc- 
 (|uarter face. " L -c • WVON." " How noble in reason ! how infinite 
 in facult)' ! " Reverse. — Wreath of Shaksperian flowers. 
 " Charles Fox Russell to the boys of Harrow School, that Shak- 
 spear ma\- be to them for delight, ornament, and abilit}." 
 
 .A plaquette of the Chandos portrait 1907. German work, medal 190S. 
 Obverse. — Bust from the Somerset portrait, with foliated border 
 enclosing heads of players — Phelps, Macread}-, and Irving. 
 
50 S/ia/cspei-cs Po>iyai/uir : Pantled, Graven, ami Mcdallu. 
 
 191 1. Commemorative. From portrait, tlie frontispiece. Obverse. — 
 Bust from portrait, to right. " \villi.\M • shak.spere " under 
 bust. " I'ICT • AI) • vi\- • Al'VD • \v" SHARl' • 0(;L)EN' ■ .M<:.\'>" " in field 
 to left. Reverse. — Profile in relievo to right from the Stratford 
 bust, laurcated b\' the Muse of Poesy. Puck seated with Tragic and 
 Comic Masks. In exergue : " MDL"'" • APOLLu • ALTER ■ MOC"'." 
 In field to left "efkr; ■ apvd • ECCL • .s on a." " v ■ bowcher . F • 
 W • s ■ ti • I.W." In e.xergue "sriXK • LoXD." Size, 170. 
 
 Of the above medals there are good selections, chiefly of the best 
 examples, at the British Museum and the Memorial Library, Stratford, 
 but for completeness and an almost fastidious display of variety, that 
 of Mr. M. H. Spielmann, F.S.A., is remarkable, and probably comprises 
 all that is worthy of consideration and preservation. 
 
 There are few of these medallic memorials which we can regard 
 with whole-hearted satisfaction. Some are certainly excellent in point 
 of portraiture, but the reverse designs are either absurdly inconsequent 
 tja^l or utterly commonplace, thus the stupendous landscape, "WILD 
 ABOVE • RVLE • OR • ART," of the Dassier medal of 1731 is alien 
 to the saner and more intelligent appreciation of to-day. The City of 
 London School, Beaufoy medal of 1851, by B. Wyon, and the Tercen- 
 tenary medal of 1864, by L. Wyon, have heads in profile from the 
 Strattord monument, but Ijoth are very inaccurate renderings of the 
 original, and remarkably unlike each other in outline, feature, and 
 expression. The simper of the Tercentenary head is especially odious, 
 the reverses also being feeble, inartistic, and quite redolent of mid- 
 Victorian art in their pretentiousness. The row of theatric figures of 
 the Beaufoy is neither better nor worse than the design of the other, 
 where the Bard, attended by gesticulating damsels, is seated " in his 
 habit as he lived " upon clouds resembling bags of wool. 
 
 Many of the others also are examples of neglected opportunity or 
 mistaken ingenuity. In point of portraiture the misapprehension or 
 perversion is occasionally remarkable, and when this is considered in 
 co-relation with the engraved portraits, the limitation of the artist as a 
 copyist is revealed with startling clearness. 
 
 The Chandos portrait of Shakspere was that generally used as 
 a basis for very free treatment during the eighteenth century 
 
Halfpence heariug Shakspere's Head or Xante. 51 
 
 especially, and the chief model whence sculptors and other artists 
 drew their inspiration. Their work in the round, such as the life-size 
 statues by Scheemakers in 1740, and of his scholar Roubiliac in 1758, 
 permitted the medallist to obtain variations of contour and profile at 
 will, the accuracy and reliability of which, however, would be greater 
 had the Stratford bust been more closely followed instead of a mere 
 assumption of the ideal. 
 
 In curious contrast to these semi-official, individual or other well 
 jneant eftbrts to popularise and perpetuate the memor)- of Shakspere, 
 we may give passing mention of the quasi-halfpence issued by 
 unscrupulous die-sinkers shortly after the middle of the eighteenth 
 century, for the purpose of circulation with and as the ordinary copper 
 currency. 
 
 The inaction or indifference of the Government during the early 
 years of George III.'s reign had allowed the copper currency to get 
 into a shocking state, many of the pieces having been in circulation for 
 almost a century, and the shortage of small values was intolerable ; so 
 that privateers scooped a nefarious profit by making and issuing bogus 
 halfpence in enormous quantities. The almost "infinite variety" of 
 these was also assisted by frequent intermixture of the dies; and they 
 generally bore a vague and distant resemblance to the regal coin, the 
 difference being either not " understanded of the people " or disregarded 
 for the sake of the convenience. 
 
 These false or "bad " halfpence as distinguished from the legitimate 
 token coinage of later issue, were struck from dies purposely designed 
 to give them a well worn appearance when put into circulation, and the 
 severe penalties attached to coining were cunningly evaded by making 
 the heads answer to that of the King ; either hybrid or altogether cos- 
 mopolitan, or ascribed, somewhat whimsically, to " Claudius Romanus," 
 "Alfred the Great," " Greoorv III.," " Gustavus Vasa," "Oliver 
 Cromwell," and also amongst others, " Gulielmus Shakspere," of 
 whom there are at least five varieties. In the portraiture he is made to 
 figure as a Roman Imperator, unknown, whilst other varieties bearing 
 the heads of William III. and George III. are inscribed as " Shak- 
 speare" or " Gulielmus Shakspere," the reverses being similar to the 
 
52 S/iakspei-cs Poi trait iirc : Painted, (i raven, and Medal lie. 
 
 current coin but inscribed " Britons Cilory,' " Rule Britannia," etc. 
 The " mules" have figures of science, or Hibernia, or a crowned harp, 
 inscribed " North Wales," " Stratfordiensis," etc.. which latter may 
 have been issued by or at the instance of a townsman of the Poet. 
 They date from 1773 to 1790, and their chiet it not only value, lies in 
 illustrating the undoubted pofjularity of the Poet e\en then, largely due 
 no doubt to the almost continuous stage-pre:sentment of his plays by 
 Garrick and the many travelling companies of repute. 
 
 In succession to these piratical halfpence, Ijut of lar higher and 
 really excellent quality, are those which form part c^l the immense 
 output of promissory or token coinage which flourished s(j vigorously 
 during the decade which preceded the nineteenth century. Of these 
 the •' Warwickshire " and " London and Middlese.x: " halfpennies issued 
 in i790-r-2 are handsome and well struck pieces. All of them bear 
 excellent portraits of Shakspere based on models derived from the 
 Chandos portrait. The reverse types, however, are not satisfactory, for 
 althougfh eood of their kind, thev are in no wav associated with either 
 .Shakspere or the Stage. Thus, that of " Warwickshire 1791 " bears a 
 figure of Plenty, seated upon a cotton bale and .saluting an incoming 
 ship; that of 1792 has Vulcan, and others repeat the "Plenty," or 
 replace it by Science, etc. From Pye's " Provincial Tokens," published 
 in 1795, they would appear to be the work of Hancock. 
 
 The accompanying plate of Shaksperian tokens from the collection 
 of Mr. S. H. Hamer illustrates some of the choicer varieties, and well 
 demonstrates the style of portraiture adopted for the general series. 
 
 Besides these, there are a number of rough and very coarse 
 rc-|)r()ductions, togetlicr with " mules ' or \'arieties produced from an 
 intermixture of alien dies. They, however, are of little interest and 
 may be classed with the medallets, badges and similar miscellany of 
 commerce, which after a fashion are associatetl with the Poet's name. 
 
 Incidentally, the following excerpt from the London Magazine of 
 July, 1765, may not be without interest: — 
 
 " The oKl walnut tree tliat flourislicd before the door of Sliiii<e- 
 speare's father's liouse at Stratford-upon-Avon, at the birtli of tjic Poet, 
 has latcl}' been cut down, and several s^entlemen liad ima;4es ic^einbling 
 that at Westminster .\bbev carved from it." 
 
^. 
 
 ~\^^ 
 
 
 
 
 ? ^/ 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 w^ 
 
 -%r 
 
 
 l^J.iC-'ZTC'AT' ' 
 
 l.C'-^ ,-^'SlS1^ 15^-a| 
 
 
 -^\ 
 
 i^ 
 
 fe 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 SHAKSPERIAX TOKENS. 
 
Art of the Medallist. 53 
 
 The " image at Westminster " was the statue by Scheemakers, 
 •erected in 1741. Surely this is a curiously perverted account of the 
 destruction of the mulberry tree at New Place in 1758, which, planted 
 by Shakspere, was cut down in a fit of ill-temper by the " Reverend 
 Mr. Gastrell," shortly before he destroyed the house itself in 1759. 
 
 Memorials, statues and other graven images, expressed in various 
 forms of art, or its substitute, have been raised to the Poet's memory of late 
 years the world over : — at London, at Stratford, Lord Ronald Gower's, 
 still one of the best, at Birmingham, Nottingham, Paris, Wiemar, Cron- 
 burg. New York, Washington, etc. But why are they mostly staring 
 or frowning ? Cannot statuary express intelligence by other and more 
 pleasing methods ? the Stratford bust seems to give a smiling affirmative. 
 
 The art of the medallist belongs to the borderland between 
 sculpture and painting, and requires besides the essential of artistic 
 ■exactness, a delicate accuracy of touch superior to either from the 
 minute nature of its work. It depends for success on an entirely 
 liarmonious combination of outjine, contour and relief, which when in 
 excess gives an effect almost sculpturesque, whilst the other extreme 
 allows the figure or relief to emerge from the field as the merest film, 
 yet both extremes, and all that lies between, are perfectly true and 
 legitimate examples of its wide capabilities. 
 
 Bounded by these limitations only, the medallist is supreme master 
 in his field of work as an exponent of expression, for expression is a 
 quality more dependent on line, than form or colour. Colour, indeed, is 
 almost expressionless without line or its substitute, although line is 
 undoubtedly strengthened when supplemented by colour. In medallic 
 work its enforced absence is replaced by subtle and most delicate 
 _gradations and blendings of contour. 
 
 The consecration by medallic memorial of its worthiest or greatest 
 men, has at all times been regarded as a sacred duty by highly civilised 
 peoples, yet we may observe, not without astonishment, how nations 
 closely allied by natural ties or in close proximity, carry their several 
 methods to extremes ; from ostentatious prodigality to almost silent, 
 but perhaps none the less appreciative recognition. In this tardy 
 
 / 
 
54 Shakspcrc s Portraiture : Painted, Graven, and Medallic. 
 
 acknowledgment of native worth, it would be difficult to parallel any 
 with ourselves, who would not have hastened to fulfil so felicitous and 
 sacred a duty. Can we conceive, for instance, artistic France entrust- 
 ing the memory of Napoleon or Voltaire to the keeping of two or 
 three expressionless medals, or a few paltry and commonplace medallets ; 
 or the great Commonwealth of America, allowing the features of 
 Washington to be commemorated by commercialism in preference to a 
 memorial decreed by the Senate ? 
 
 Ancient Rome, also, renewed on her coinage the features of her 
 august or most revered Imperators, and nations of an even greater 
 antiquity did not permit the incidence of death to cancel or remove 
 the image and superscription of those rulers, whom public approval had 
 deified and saluted as benefactors to the state. 
 
 Yet in Britain's long roll of honour, how few of the great men who 
 are its glory, and who have been the real makers of modern Britain, 
 are represented authentically in contemporary medallic art. 
 
 The beautifully executed portrait medallions and medals of the 
 Tudor and Stuart periods are mostly of royal or titled personages in 
 multitudinous yet charming variety ; but unfortunately for posterity, they 
 are very largely barren of those lineaments, which modelled ad vivum, 
 would be of priceless value for all time. 
 
 The ingenuity of man has hitherto devised only three methods by 
 which record can be intelligently transmitted with certainty to a remote 
 but indefinite future. Of these the magnificent creations of sculpture 
 and painting, however, but await inevitable extinction by the slow 
 corrosion of time, and it is therefore to medallic relief alone, as the 
 perfected form of what is probably the earliest of the arts, that we 
 must entrust our claim to perpetuity. The events which go to form 
 a "nation's history," or the verisimilitude of those who form its chief 
 glory, are never transmitted so enduringly as when enshrined in its 
 medallic monuments. Time and circumstance are powerless to affect 
 them, and when contemporaneous they bear not only a guarantee of 
 fidelity, but are striking and eloquent records of the quality of the 
 national art of their period, and possess a charm and interest which 
 posthumous medals, no matter how excellent, can never attain. 
 
Medals Practically Iiidcslnic/ib/e. 55 
 
 Immortality at the best is but a relative term, that by the caprice 
 of fortune, balances between the infinitely great and infinitely little, 
 for the pyramid may be silent, whilst the potsherd at its base names its 
 maker. But whilst these are severally hastening to their primal atoms, 
 the metal disc, in the bosom of Mother Earth, gleams with the brightness 
 of an almost eternal youth. 
 
 Men die and are forgotten, be they ever so notable or worthy. 
 Great events grow dim — legendary — unbelievable, and all in time 
 would become mythical were it not for material evidence more stable 
 than life or memory, which the antiquary's skilful hand disinters from 
 the long buried past of personages of whom even history is silent, and 
 whose very existence was unsuspected, yet by the enduring strength of 
 medallic or monetal evidence we are enabled to gaze on their features 
 as of contemporaries — for : — 
 
 Time which antiquates antiquities and hath an art to make dust of 
 all tilings, hath yet spared these minor monuments. 
 
 It has been contended that Shakspere's natural abilities, no matter 
 how great they may have been, are insufficient to account for his 
 insight and apparent familiarity with speculative philosophy as then 
 surmised or understood ; but admitting that his youthful education was 
 little more than elementary, we have from 1586 to 1600, when he was 
 36 years old, a period during which we know from the internal 
 evidence of his writings that he was intimately acquainted with the 
 best writers of his time, and that, moreover, he accepted history and 
 the classics as translated, and without any attempt at correction or 
 amendment so dear to the professed scholar. 
 
 From the time when, as a bright and vivacious lad, he cut the 
 Gordian knot of his Stratford surrounding and went to seek fortune in 
 London, to the time when advancing years drew him, like a bird to its 
 nest, to the repose and tranquillity of his native home, we may trace in 
 his life and writings an entire and progressive consistency. His 
 extraordinary acquaintance with the lore of rural life, nature and rustic 
 humanity, which is interwoven even into his latest writings, shows 
 that his natural abilities readily mastered the essentials of such education 
 or literature as was obtainable in his early years. 
 
56 Sliakspcres Portraiture : Painted, Graven, and JMedallic. 
 
 How he first came into contact with literary men, or their 
 exponents the players, is of little moment ; but once in touch he seems 
 to have soon shown his genius by recasting and enriching existing 
 plays, some of which thus rewritten would seem to have become 
 recognised as virtually his own ; and then, as appetite grew with what 
 it fed upon, he embarked on the larger venture of those incomparable 
 dramatic poems, which, as Milton says, are " our wonder and astonish- 
 ment." 
 
 His early work is crude and Marlowesque, that of his prime full 
 of patriotism, hope and vigour, maturer judgment follows, later, perhaps, 
 a vein of pessimism, and then no more. 
 
 What an epitome of all that- is high and noble in humanity is 
 this Shakspere of ours, what a gracious and pervading personality ! 
 From the little England, in which he gloried and which with an 
 intense patriotism he loved so well, he has soared into a universality 
 that blends him with all peoples, linking the past and future. The 
 richness of fancy, the virile penetration of thought so gloriously 
 expressed are " understanded of the people" and familiar in their 
 mouths as Holy Writ, his sayings are household words the world 
 over, and have given our language a fixity which bids fair to make it 
 immutable if not universal. 
 
 His personality has absorbed the individuality of all others of his 
 time, the age is Shaksperian, and they, whatever their quality, are of, 
 and belong to it. His very name has a suggestive fitness that lifts it 
 above ordinary nomenclature, carrying with it an investment of 
 chivalrous and mighty deeds, that breathe the essence of high 
 imaginings and the brave days of old. At his bidding, as by the 
 touch of Prospero's wand, the whole range of human action, and of all 
 time, springs revitalised from the treasure house of antiquity. The 
 gods are with us and the solitudes of Hellas are again glorious with 
 the gleaming marbles of temple and portico, thronged with keen-witted 
 disputants. Rome is once more the resistless world-compellor, 
 shaping all peoples to the measure of her own austere severity, 
 
 Britain has again her ancient kings, hastening with Cymric 
 impetuosity from storm and passion, to harp and song. Who of 
 
Shaksperes intense Patriotism. 57 
 
 woman born has ever with unmoistened eyes be-pictured the 
 betrayed and dying king, cradling the murdered Cordelia in his age- 
 worn arms. What a vision of splendid memories quickens the blood 
 as we mingle with the mail-clad tyrants at Runnymede, where the 
 stormy wranglings echo like the roar of an angry sea, or, as with clarion 
 blast, " Saint George and Harry for England," whelps of the same 
 leonine breed, we sweep victorious over the battle fields of conquered 
 France. Remote as are the scenes and conditions of life, we recognise 
 the same fever of the blood, raging with tongue and sword, that is still 
 the potent factor impelling to all action. 
 
 " Now all the youth of England are on fire, and silken dalliance in 
 the wardrobe lies" — " Now thrive the armourers and honour's thought 
 reigns solely in the breast of every man." 
 
 " Oh, England," he cries, with intensest Patriotism, " oh, England, 
 model to thy inward greatness— like little body with mighty heart — 
 what might'st thou do," and again, " Nought shall make us rue, If 
 England to itself do rest but true " — How love and war alternate in 
 his hands, grim tragedy, and " laughter holding both his sides." 
 
 Every emotion of which our nature is capable, from the sublimest 
 abnegation of self, to the basest and most infernal of passion, from the 
 first throb of virgin love, to the delirium of foul and secret murder, 
 passes before us with fateful accuracy, to joyful consummation or 
 distracting catastrophe. 
 
 Shakspere's men and women are the true children of those days, 
 before commercialism had ruled humanity with lines of greed and care. 
 Rank was rank and never forgotten, whilst the lowly born stood by 
 his manhood. 
 
 What delightful men and lovable women laugh and scold their 
 way through life in the pictures Shaksjsere has given to us of those 
 strong times, when the rejuvenescence of learning set aflame the 
 imaginings of young England. 
 
 " Where fact and fable wove each other into dreams more true than 
 either wot of," and even "elves and fairies had a grace." 
 
 A dream it is indeed, but a dream which has given reality of 
 apprehension to the essentials of all human action, and we stand 
 
58 Shaksperes Portraiture : Painted, Graven, and Medallic. 
 
 aniHzed at the power which, while revealing the very springs of 
 thought, has created, or recreated, potentialities or memories that 
 grow even more splendid and august with time. 
 
 We are at one with Milton, who casting his budding laurels at 
 the Master's feet, exclaims : — 
 
 " What needs my Shakspeare for his honor'd bones 
 The labor of an age in piled stones ? 
 Or that his hallow'd reliques should be hid 
 Under a star ypointing Pyramid ? 
 Dear Son of Memory, great heir of fame. 
 What need'st thou such weak witness of thy name ? 
 Thou in our wonder and astonishment 
 Hast built thyself a live-long monument. 
 For whilst, to the shame of slow-endeavouring art, 
 Thy easy numbers flow, and that each heart 
 Hath from the leaves of thy unvalued book 
 Those Delphic lines with deep impression took, 
 Then thou, our fancy of itself bereaving, 
 Dost make us marble with too much conceiving, 
 And so sepulchred in .such pomp dost lie 
 That kings for such a tomb would wish to die." 
 
 John Milton, 1630. 
 
 [Editori.-\l Note. — We may add that Mr. Ogden, in issuing his 
 medal to the memory of Shakspere, has been solely influenced by the 
 sentiments so apparent in this paper, for commercialism has been ruled 
 out of the question.] 
 
 Harrison and Sons, Printers in Ordniarv lo His Majesty, St. Martin's Lane, London. 
 
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 BERKELEY 
 
 Return to desk from which borrowed. 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 I\1AK 29 1948 
 
 ^ 6N0V5IPF 
 
 ^0 
 
 a^^^^^^- 
 
 .„ iirpicf) tri* 
 
 'vov 12 me 
 
 25Nov'57C8 
 REC'D LD 
 
 NOV 11 1957 
 
 4Dec58PT| 
 IN STACKS 
 
 NOV 20 1958 
 
 DEC 15 \95» 
 
 3Nov'60PM 
 
 j60 
 
 LD 21-100m-9,'47(A5702sl6)476 
 
YD 03034 
 
 ivil70690 
 
 05 ¥ 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CAUFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
i