THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE Ex Libris C. K. OGDEN u\ LIFE PORTRAITS OF WILLIAM SHAKSPEARE, 4.. PH/'K;sPf>RE:>»TH WT40ME tJ»X NiMVKE U .'■l'E,l>JHI*CK.'?'"TbMBE. IMMOI WITT. .MT fNO DO l OF 9HAK9P(f ART. LONDON: SAMPSON LOW, SON, & MARSTON, 14, LUDGATE HILL. 1864. LONDON : N. CI.AV, SON, AND TAVI.OR, PRINTF.US, nRF.AD STUF.F.T MUX. TO THE PRESIDENT, VICE-PRESIDENTS, AND BROTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR RAISING A NATIONAL MEMORIAL TO SHAKSPEARE, THIS VOLUME IS DEDICATED BY THE AUTHOR. Decern l>er, 1863. PREFACE. -:^n uninhabited for several years, since the death of its former owner and occupier, Edward Clopton, Esq. (Nephew of Sir Hugh Clopton), which took place in 1753. The picture, the exhibition of which created no Httle sensation, is now deposited in the house of the poet in Plenley Street, Stratford-on- ^von, and there guarded as jealously as any portion of that relic. It is enclosed in a fire-proof case, and the doors of this being thrown open, the beholder sees a life-like portrait, surrounded by a frame made from the oak of the house, and on a brass plate let in above the frame is this inscription : — "This portrait of Shakspeare, after being in the possession of Mr. William Oakes Hunt, town clerk of Stratford, and his family for upwards of a century, was restored to its original condition by Mr. Simon Collins of London, and being considered a portrait of much interest and value, was given by Mr. Hunt to the town of Stratford-upon-Avon, to be placed and preserved in Shakspeare's house." — 2yd April, 1862. On the case of the frame is painted : — • " This case was made from a portion of the waste wood which formed part of the old structure of Shakspeare's house." And inside each staunch iron door is affixed a silver plate, on which is engraved the sound Shakspearian distich : — " Fast bind, fast find, a proverb never stale in thrifty mind." The portrait itself can be best judged by the photo- graph here presented. It has been very much abused and very much praised, and, like manv other things 5^> Life Portraits similarly treated in this world, it deserves neither excess of praise nor of blame. It is by a sound, honest, pains-taking painter, who had very little, if any, genius. He managed, however, to do that which many men of genius fail to do — he painted in a good, fresh, natural colour. The eyes of the poet look straight at you ; the face itself is open, manly, and pleasing, yet at the same time it is weak. The forehead is broad, but not very high ; at a glance one sees that the picture is inextricably connected with the bust. There are the same folds of the dress, the same buttons on the front of the jerkin, the same attempts to show certain slashes, or worked pattern, on the garments, so badly carried out that it is impossible to judge which they are. The buttons, too, are painted with semi-circular high-lights and centre spots, so that they look like transparent glass, or jewellers' work, which is of the same colour with the dress. We doubt whether Shakspeare wore such jewelry ; but we may easily suppose that he who coloured the bust would not stop to "pick out" the buttons. The picture represents the subject in the prime of life ; the chin and lower part of the face closely shaven, with the exception of a pointed and small beard, and a mous- tache in the middle of the lip, on the muzzle between the nose and the mouth, just as the bust has it, and in a manner only to be produced by most careful shaving. The eyes are skilfully painted, and have a very good- humoured expression about them. The hair is of a of WiU'mm Shakspcare. 57 reddish brown, and there is a certain warm glow about the whole figure which is very pleasing. As a suggestion of the face of Shakspeare it would be very good, save for the weakness, want of power, and, indeed, vacuity which is to be seen in it. Certain photographs, taken by Mr. Collins, were sent forth to one or two influential persons ; but these have been " touched up," or probably were taken from a photo- graph which had been worked upon. This is, perhaps, legitimate enough, but we mention it because we wish to add that, in common fairness to the portrait, these photo- graphs, which are four times larger than our own, give really no idea of the painting, and are as untrue to it as only photographs, which some people fancy reproduce every single touch, can be. The truth really is, that unless in very skilful hands, no portraits are so deceptive as those produced by photography, because, having given up our faith to the mechanical fidelity of the Art, we all the more readily become victims of our credulity. The newspapers, with very few, and those not impor- tant exceptions, were unfavourable in their judgments as to the claims which this picture had to be original. The Athenaum said that it was '^ very much like the bust in Trinity Church, ill drawn, and coloured in the manner which Malone found the bust." It further stigmatized it as " that brazen head, those stony eyes, and those carved locks ; " and the writer was careful to add : — "The picture, as I think, has no merit of any kind, not even that of age ; it is a modern daub, possibly a I 58 Life Portraits tavern sign, a ' Shakspear's Head,' probably made up for some purpose connected with the jubilee." The Examiner^ on the other hand, contended that, on comparison with the monumental bust, it became '* mani- fest that if one is not a copy of the other, they are both copies, not from nature, but from some other work of art not known to be existing. Either the bust is a bad copy of the portrait, or the portrait has been copied with improvements from the bust, if the portrait be not a copy from the life, immediate, or by repetition. There is agreement in the number, shape, and position of the locks of hair which hardly could be accidental, with not only a general agreement as to the dress, but as to the arrangement of the folds of the mantle. We need not name other points of correspondence, these being enough to prove that the two works are closely allied one to the other. " But nothing in the portrait suggests that it was copied from the bust. The lower part, of course, does not follow the manner of the statuary, and from that fact no conclusion can be drawn. But in the face lies the main evidence. The picture is of such small value as artist's work, that we hardly can credit the painter with the power he must have had of turning stone into life when he added expression in the play of feature to the corners of the mouth, and achieved a successful transformation of the nose. Shakspeare has in the portrait a nose in good harmony with the rest of his face, not insignificant as on the bust, and differing in outline, especially by a well- of WiU'uuii Shakspeare. 59 marked curve between the root and the tip that in a copyist from the bust would have been an error hardly probable." The same writer could see " nothing stony in its look, nothing to discredit at first sight any belief that it may have been a copy from life by one who was a tolerably faithful, although not a first-rate portrait-painter. The bust, as our readers know, was modelled some time after death, when use was to be made of all possible aids to memory. " Of the portrait now under discussion we can only say that there is ground for directing close attention to it. .There is enough credibility in the theory that it was (whether by Burbage or not) painted from Shakspeare when residing at New Place, to warrant careful inquiry into its history, and a fair scrutiny of its surface by painters skilled to distinguish between a work of com- paratively recent execution, and one that may really have been painted in the days of Shakspeare." In a letter to the 'Times, Mr. Charles Wright had pro- fessed himself an enthusiastic admirer and defender of the portrait,* and a Birmingham journal of some weight could only see in it — ■* " I have seen the painting ; so far from the photograph having excited expectations to be disappointed — the former, in every point of interest, far exceeds the latter. I speak of the painting generally, and have not the least hesitation in saying, it is the most pleasing portrait of Shak- speare extant. In regard to its age, I say nothing. As to points of authenticity and originality — those who possess the competent skill — which long experience alone can give — will soon ha\e every requisite opportunity afforded to display their judgment ; I trust they will use it wiili perfect candour, and assert their convictions." I 1 6o Life Portraits " A remarkably well-painted picture — an idealization of the well-known bust. Had we the skill to execute, and had we been asked to paint our ideal of Shakspeare from the few materials left us, we should have painted just such a face and form. A noble forehead, a deep, clear, and piercing eye, a well-chiselled nose, a sweet and expressive mouth, a well-formed manly figure, a calm genial expres- sion, not all practical nor all poetical, but a singular com- bination of intellectual power and common sense and worldly wisdom all appear in the form before us. " On a close examination, two most accomplished judges who were with us declared their conviction that the picture must have been painted from the living subject, and not from the bust." There is a great deal too much of the certainty and freedom from hesitation of extreme youth and boldness about the " we," who with so free a pen writes about finely " chiselled noses " and " sweet and expressive mouths." On many subjects, and Art Is one, the more a man knows the more reticent he is forced to be. Towards the close of his article the writer puts some searching questions, crucial experiments as he thinks them, but, put to the proof, as slippery and uncertain as quicksilver. " Is the canvas as old as Shakspeare ? Is the portrait painted from life ? Is it a copy of a picture or a bust ? Scores of artists are competent to settle these questions." We should very much like to find one ; our critic believes that experts know everything. " Scores of artists," however, have laughed at the assertion that the of WilUam Shakspeare. 6i manner of painting is of the time of Shakspeare ; and Mr. Halliwell, an author certainly not unfriendly either to Stratford or to the gentleman who very generously presented a picture for which, we are told, three thousand pounds has been offered, says truly, " It is very clear that either the bust was copied from the painting, or the paint- ing from the bust ; but having seen the picture, I cannot for a moment longer imagine that the former position can be ultimately established, and I fancy that it is one somewhat unlikely in itself to be correct, even were the painting of the requisite antiquity. I have little, if any, doubt that this poi'trait was copied from the bust^ at the very earliest some time in the first half of the last century, but more probably, as Mr. Dixon has suggested, about the time of the Jubilee. As a memento of the last- named event, it is one of interest and even of pecuniary value ; but that interest and value will be absorbed in an estimation of another kind if an attempt be made to give it the precedence of the bust. I can only say that Gertrude's son never so astonished his mother as the sight of that picture astonished me, when it put to flight an expectation to see what so many have desired to behold, yet have never seen." The chief critical papers agreed in this estimate, which may, we think, be taken as a correct one. If we look at it as a memento of the Garrick Jubilee in 1769,* it is certainly not without interest. Having probably served its purpose, it was kept by Mr. Hunt's grandfather on * Vide London Review^ x^tli April^ 1861. 6?- Life Portraits account of its rough vigorous character, and afterwards, for practice or a freak, daubed over with a beard and moustache, in which state it was found by Mr. Collins. The painting is opaque, thick, coarse — entirely unlike the work of any recognised artist of the time of Shak- speare. If it actually is an original, and painted from the life, it must be the product of some Warwickshire amateur, a native, it may be, of Stratford-on-Avon itself It is too good for a tavern sign, although some critics have good- naturedly suggested that it originally served as such ; moreover, tavern signs were, and are, generally painted on metal, or on good oak panel, not upon canvas. It is not too good to have been painted to order, by some enthusiastic landlord, to adorn his entrance-hall or his best guest- chamber ; and at Stratford-upon-Avon, the hosts are so thoroughly awake to the value of their great townsman, that they name their coffee-rooms after his comedies, and their bed-chambers after his tragedies ; whilst in the " Falcon Tavern " the very bells bear the names of some of the best comic creations of this immortal genius, who, after his retirement to his native town, used the common room in the Falcon for evening recreation, and for the purpose of therein studying character. Those who have been in the habit of studying portraits painted by great artists, such as Holbein, Vandyke, or Reynolds, will pronounce that this picture has not been painted ad vivum ; it lacks all those minute touches and distinct signs which portraits painted from the life always possess. There can be no doubt about its more recent of William Shnkspeare. 6 ; history, but documentary evidence extending only for a hundred years is of little value in this case. Whatever may be the true pedigree and history of this picture, they will now probably never be discovered. Genuine or not, it is of some value, and its original pos- sessor has been generous and wise in presenting it to his native town. In the house of Shakspeare — of which, in its present isolated and restored state, we give a view — it will ever remain, proudly and fondly regarded by the inhabitants of the town ; and its possessors may console themselves with the reflection, that although subjected on all sides to adverse criticism, that criticism has, in reality, added to its value and interest. 64 Life Portraits VII. rORTRAlT BY CORNELIUS JANSEN. In Horace Walpole's Anecdotes of Fainting (Works, 3d Vol. 4to Edition, MDCCXCVIII) there is a sketch of the life of Cornelius Jansen, or Janssen — for it is spelt both ways — which has led the commentators upon Shak- speare's portraits into some mistakes, and has given rise to various twittings and bickerings on the part of Boaden, Malone, Steevens, and Wivell. Walpole, who presents his readers with a very fine portrait of Jansen, engraved by T. Chambers, says that '^ his first works in England are dated about 161 8." The celebrated picture which we are about to describe bears on it the date 16 10, and Walpole's supposition — for it hardly amounts to more — has been cited against its originality, and, indeed, against the possibility of its being the por- trait of the poet it is claimed to represent. A little pre- liminary inquiry will be necessary to set matters right. "Cornelius Jansen," wrote Walpole, " generally, but inaccurately, called Johnson, was, according to Sandrat, THE JAN SEN PORTRAIT'. PHCrrOGRAPHED BY CUNDALL. DOWN ES & C9 168. NEW BOND STREET. of William Shakspeare. 65 born in London, of Flemish parents ; but Vertue and the Author of * An Essay towards an English School ' say it was at Amsterdam, where, the latter asserts, he resided long ; the former, that he came over young, which, con- sidering how late he lived, I should be inclined to believe, if Vertue did not, at the same time, pronounce his earliest performances as his best : so good a style of colouring was hardly formed here. His pictures are easily distin- guished by their clearness, neatness, and smoothness. They are generally painted on board, and, except being a little stiff, are often strongly marked with a fair character of nature, and remarkable for a lively tranquillity in the countenance. His draperies are seldom but black. I have two portraits by him of singular merit ; one of Mr. Leneve, master of the company of merchant-taylors ; the other, of Sir George Villiers, father of the great Duke of Buckincrham, less handsome, but extremely like his son." Walpole goes on to tell us that Jansen " dwelt in Black- friars, and had much business. His price for a head was five broad pieces. He painted, too, in small in oil, and often copied his own works in that manner. In the family of Verney were the portraits of Sir Robert Heath and his lady, in both sizes." His next assertion, coupled with the foregoing, renders it certainly highly probable that Jansen should have painted Shakspeare. '' At Sherburn Castle, in Dorsetshire, is a head of Elizabeth Wriotesley, eldest daughter of Henry, Earl of Southampton, and wife of Wihiam, Lord Spenser, her K 66 Life Portraits head richly dressed, and a picture in a blue enamelled case resting on her breast." When Vandyke came to England, the superior merit of that great portrait-painter made that of Cornelius Jansen pale before it. " His fame declined before that of Van- dyke," writes Walpole, " and the civil war breaking out, Cornelius, at the importunity of his wife, quitted England. His pass is recorded in the Journals of the Commons : — '■^October lo, 1648. — Ordered that Cornelius Johnson, picture-drawer, shall have Mr. Speaker's warrant to pass beyond seas, with Emanuel Passe, George Hawkins ; and to carry with him such pictures and colours, bedding, household stuff, pewter, and brass as belongs unto him- self." He retired first to Midelburg, and then to Amsterdam, where he continued to paint, and died in 1665. His wife's name was Elizabeth Beck, to whom he was married in 1622. They had a son, Cornelius, bred to his father's profession, who painted the Duke of Monmouth's portrait as he was on the point of sailing for his unfortunate expe- dition to England. Two or three things are observable here : firstly, that if Jansen painted Shakspeare's portrait in 16 10, he must have been an extremely young man, for he married twelve years afterwards, remained in England thirty-eight years, and lived fifty-five years after that event. There is nothing either improbable or impossible about this, but it must be considered to establish the fact that, when Jansen painted the family of King James I. and the Earl of WilUam Shakspeare. 67 of Southampton, he must have been a very young man, and have sprung very early into notice ; but even this is paralleled by the career of another artist, who, as we shall see, is said to have painted Shakspeare — Nicholas Milliard — whose portrait, done by himself at the age of thirteen, adorned the cabinet of the Earl of Oxford. Hil- liard was still very young when he drew the portrait of Mary, Queen of Scots, and Queen Elizabeth sat to him often when he might have been yet called a boy. One of the earliest engravings of this picture which we have met with is unnoticed by Mr. Boaden, who probably had not seen it. It was published by Woodburn in i 8 1 1 , and is a mezzotint by Dunbar. The description under it calls it " an original portrait of Shakspeare, from a picture formerly in the possession of Prince Rupert, and then (in 181 1) in the possession of his grace the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon." This engraving certainly resembles the Jansen portrait ; but as no painter's name is attached, it might be mistaken for another. It represents the poet in a rich court-dress, worked with gold thread of a fine pattern ; the collar of point lace stands up like a ruff, and is evidently stiffened with wire. The face is sufficiently like that generally accepted as Shakspeare's to cause it to be mistaken for him. The forehead is broad, the nose aquiline, the eyes small but brilliant ; the eyebrows well defined and fairly arched ; the hair is more plentiful than in the Jansen portrait, and is parted on the right side, while it falls in a heavy K 2 68 Life Portraits mass on the left. Either from the engraver having departed from his copy, or from some other cause, there is no sign of baldness, and in the right-hand corner of the picture are the date of the painting and the age of the poet, ^t. 46. 16 10. We are at a loss how to recon- cile this engraving as a portrait of one who was very bald at his death six years afterwards, in 1616 ; but as we have said, the portrait does not correspond with the Jansen in one or two particulars, nor are the words Ut Magus included in the picture. But if Boaden has left this print unnoticed, he had seen and has described an earlier print by R. Earlom, which was prefixed to an edition of the play of King Lear, published in 1770 as a specimen of what the editor intended to do with respect to the whole of Shakspeare's works. This mezzotint of the Jansen was stated at that time to have been engraved from an original portrait in the possession of Charles Jennens, Esq., of Gopsal, in Leicestershire, the ostensible patron, but real editor of the work. "What communication," says Boaden, "Mr. Jennens made to his critics at the time, I cannot discover ; under his print from it, he merely stated that it was painted by Cornelius Jansen, of whichy indeed^ even the print exhibited sufficient evidence" Earlom's print is a very delicate one, and in it the pattern of the dress can be partially discerned ; but in the finer mezzotint by Charles Turner, from which our pho- tograph is taken, we have no indication of the pattern. In commenting on the possibility of Jansen having of WiUiam Shakspeare. 69 painted this picture, Boaden asserts that he was born in the year 1564, so that he must have reached the age of 1 01, a patriarchal one for an artist. He also quotes Sandrart's '■^ Academia Pictur^e Nobilis" Caput xx. p. 314, wherein Jansen is styled " Londinensis," though he adds " Belgis propterea annumerari potest, quia parentes ejus in Belgico Hispanico nati fuerant, et ob tumultus saltern bellicos Londinum concesserant, ubi hunc deinde genuere filium." Mr. Jennens seems to have acquired this picture after the year 1761, for in a work of that period, London and its Environs, there is an account of his house in Great Ormond Street, and there '* we only find," to quote Boaden, " Vandergucht's drawing in crayons from the Chandos picture." Mr. Jennens must therefore have been even then an admirer of Shakspeare ; and nine years afterwards, during which he had acquired this portrait, he published Earlom's excellent engraving from his new acquisition. His country residence was at Gopsal in Leicestershire, but it is thought that the portrait never reached there. In 1773 Mr. Jennens died, and Gopsal became the property of Penn Asheton Curzon, who had married his niece. After considerable trouble, Mr. Boaden found the Jan- sen in the possession of His Grace the Duke of Hamil- ton, for whom it had been bought, he writes, by Mr. Woodburn, somewhere about fifteen years back (that is in 1809). We have seen that Woodburn published in 181 1 an engraving of it by Dunbar, and that he then 70 Life Portraits stated that it was formerly in the possession of Prince Rupert, upon what authority we know not, probably on his own. He had then sold it to the Duke of Hamilton, and it came up, wrote Boaden, contradicting himself, " from Gopsal," where he had just said it never reached. It is to be regretted that Mr. Jennens, when he pub- lished his print by Earlom, should not have been more communicative. The Jansen portrait will, most likely, remain for ever without a pedigree, although Mr. Wood- burn gave the following account of it, in which by the way, Mr. Jennens is not mentioned. " The portrait of Shakspeare, now in the possession of the Duke of Somerset, was formerly belonging to Prince Rupert ; he left it, with the rest of his collection, to his natural daughter " (by Margaret Hughes) " Ru- perta, who married Emmanuel Scroopes Howes, Esq., the descendants of whom sold the whole of the pictures to Mr. Spackman, a picture-dealer, from whom my fattier purchased it, and some others ; he kept it, probably, two years in his possession, and sold it to the late Duke of Hamilton, who gave it, with other pictures in town, to his daughter, the present Duchess of Somerset." * Notwithstanding Mr. Woodburn's silence about the picture having been in possession of Mr. Jennens, Mr. Boaden states that he has unquestionable authority for * This so entirely passes over Mr. Jennens' possession of the portrait, that it forces us to suppose that either he had another, which Earlom engraved, or that the account is untrue. We shall see that Earlom's print is not altogether faithful. of William Shakspeare. 71 saying that it was bought by Woodburn, " with a con- siderable portion of the collection at Gopsal," but the truth of this assertion is surely doubtful. However, the portrait is here, and, with all the doubts that are thrown upon it, it has been accepted by many as a genuine portrait of the poet. " Nothing," says a writer, " can more distinctly em- body our conceptions of Shakspeare." It is, indeed, the portrait, and the beautifully painted portrait, of a very handsome man, refined, ititellectual, full of sparkling energy, and cleverness. The forehead is ample, the hair receding, as in one who would soon become bald. In Woodburn's engraving we have seen that the hair is very plentiful, but if this be the original of that mezzotint, the engraver has been unfaithful to his copy. The eyes are clear, mild, and calmly benignant, of a hazel colour ; the nose is a well-formed, slightly aquiline one ; the lips are thin, the mouth small and well closed ; the beard small and extremely graceful, the moustache delicate and apparently that of a much younger man. The dress very rich and splendid, a court dress ; and, indeed, says an antiquary, players were then blamed " for being splendidly drest in silk and satins." The dress is indeed so rich in this and other portraits, that John Wilson Croker doubted "whether Shakspeare was a person of sufficient worldly importance to have his portrait painted ' in the style of the picture in his own possession.' " Above the head of the figure, and not shown in many of the prints, are the words, in a rough scroll, " Ut "J 2 Life Portraits Magus," a very apt and appropriate quotation from the Epistle of Horace to Augustus (Epist. i. Book 2. lines 208 — 213), in which epistle Horace, after complimenting his patron, gives, perhaps, the most admirable dissertation upon the character, excellence, and duty of poetry, extant. After having dictated to others, he tells them what a poet should be. Ac ne forte putes, me, qure facere ipse recusem Cum recte tractent alii, laudare maligna : Ille per extentum funem mihi posse videtur Ire poeta ; meum qui pectus inaniter angit, Irritat, mulcet, falsis terroribus implet, Ut Magus J et modo me Thebis, modo ponit Athenis.'' The majority of those who have engraved this portrait have been more or less unfaithful. " Earlom," says Boaden, " I knew for a mannerist, but he has been unfaithful beyond measure. None of the parts were accurately reduced by him. He had lessened the amplitude of the forehead, altered the form of the skull — he had falsified the character of the mouth — and though his engraving was still most beautiful, and the most agreeable exhibition of the poet, I found it would be as absolutely necessary to draw the head again, as if he had never exercised his talents on it." Had we the fullest permission, it is doubtful whether a good photograph could be made from the original pic- ture ; the cracks, of which there are many, the very un- evenness of the varnish, although not fully apparent to the eye, would be transmitted only too faithfully by the of Wiliicun l::ihak:^pcare. 73 camera. Having applied, unsuccessfully, for permission to do so, we could only present our readers with the most valuable copy, which is that executed for Mr. Boaden by Charles Turner. It is a very fine, and an exceedingly faithful mezzotint. Mr. Turner thought that he would follow Earlom in omitting the pattern of the dress, *' he has, therefore," wrote Boaden, " with my entire con- currence, kept the dress dark, that the brilliant effect of the head might be quite undistuibed." 74 J^-'if^ Portraits VIII. OF VARIOUS LESS-AUTHENTICATED PORTRAITS. In one of the numerous books in which admirers of Shakspeare have sought to bring forward that which is interesting to the student of his works {Shaksferiana^ 1827), is the notice of a miniature portrait by N. Hilliard. This notice and miniature it will be worth our while to refer to, because we shall thereby be guided in our criti- cisms on the numerous portraits of those of less doubtful authentication, which will now offer themselves to our notice. A very much larger volume than the present could be filled and refilled with mere paragraphs concern- ing asserted portraits of Shakspeare ; for it seems to be the rule with picture-dealers, that, should they meet with an English face, possessing brown hair, dark eyes, and an ample forehead, concomitants not at all unusual, to at once insist that a new portrait of our great national poet has been discovered. Now what is really wanted, presuming that a portrait exists, and has yet to be found, a supposition which, by of William Sluikspeare. y^ the way, we do not for one moment indulge in, is not only an indubitable picture of the age, properly signed and attested, but also a certain agreement with two por- traits, which we may very well set up as guides, because they, however rudely executed, are properly attested, agree one with the other, and in all the chief points, moreover, present no valid objection why they should not be regarded as the accepted and standard portraits of our great dramatist. As the cupidity, stupidity, and love of something startling, which pervade various classes, will not con- descend to measure discoveries by these tests, we have every now and then the most ouh'e and unlikely portraits put forward as those of William Shakspeare, and, of course, it follows that the most puerile reasons are given for the faith which the critic, or the owner, puts in it. Here, referring to Shaksperiana^ we may quote one on a miniature, formerly in possession of Edward Auriol, Esq., of a weak-minded, common-place individual. " To the bottom of the frame was appendant a pearl, intending to infer ^ no doubt , that the original was the pearl of men ! It is with great diffidence that we venture to give an opinion on a point .of so much delicacy as the present ; but we must candidly confess, there appears upon the face of this picture an undoubted originality." No one would doubt that the miniature was an original portrait, but to be an original, and to b(> an original portrait of Shakspeare, is a very different thing. The mind of the man is not there; the original might have L 2 76 Life Portraits been a rich land-holder, or a great citizen, but he was no poet, and, moreover, was probably, if we may judge from his countenance, a besotted sensualist. Then again, would any one credit the fact that a *' critic " could put forward such a remark as that about the pearl ? Any one who has seen Tudor jewelry, either in actual speci- mens, such as were in Mr. Rogers's collection, or in pictures, must remember that the pendant pearl is, perhaps, the most common adjunct to portrait lockets, centre orna- ments of chains, and brooches, that can possibly be cited. It is so now with the jewelry called after the great painter, Holbein, and the slightest study of his works will confirm what we say. The critic, utterly ignorant of what he is talking about, sees in the little pearl only an original and unique symbol that the subject of the portrait which the frame contains is the pearl of men ! A very different portrait, also a miniature, but possess- ing 1 history, is that by Nicholas Hilliard, lately, and we believe now in possession of the family of Sir James Bland Burges. " I was about to close my subject," wrote Boaden, " when the late Mr. Boswell brought a miniature to me, which Sir James Bland Burges had entrusted to him. It struck me to have been unquestionably painted, and to merit attentive examination." This it undoubtedly does, and on examination it will be found to resemble the poet in the shape of the head, the expression, the beard, and the moustache. It is very different from the Chandos portrait, and if that be true, this is surely false. The hair is light, the head is not of William Shakspeare. 77 bald — indeed, a strong tuft of hair grows right upon the forehead, — and the miniature has a small, smart look, more like a petty courtier of the reign of James I. than a deep and thoughtful poet. The head is placed in a plaited and falling ruff of large dimensions, the figure well and richly dressed ; the execution is excellent. However inclined to favour the new comer, and to be polite to the owner, Boaden thought with, we will venture to say, the majority of those who will examine the matter, that " it would be too much to expect from us the surrender of all the constituted authorities in favour of the new candidate ;" and unless we do so, or unless we suppose the portrait to be an exceedingly unfaithful and therefore valueless one, we shall certainly not establish its claim. The history of this miniature, as given by its owner, is very interesting. '' Mr. Somerville," wrote Sir James to Boswell, " the ancestor of Somerville the author of the Chase, lived near Stratford-on-Avon, in habits of intimacy with Shakspeare, particularly after his retirement from the stage, and had this portrait painted, which, as you will perceive, was richly set, and was carefully preserved by his descendants, till it came to the hands of his great-grandson, the poet, who, dying in 1742 without issue, left his estates to my grandfather. Lord Somerville, and gave this miniature to my mother. She valued it very highly, as well for the sake of the donor, as for that of the great genius of which it was the representative." Sir James remembered it well when a boy, but after 78 Life Portraits his mother's death it escaped him, nor did he, until after a long search, succeed in finding it, so carefully was it concealed in the private drawer of a bureau which had belonged to his mother. Here, then, is a distinct history. It is curious that Somerville, born almost on the banks of the Avon, proud of being a poet and of the friendship of Shenstone, should not have once alluded to it in his letters. There was, too, in 1733 — Somerville did not die till 1742, or, according to Shenstone, 1741 — some stir about Shakspeare. Theo- bald had published his " Shakspeare Restored" and put forth his edition of his works. Nor was Somerville a man unlikely to plume himself on such a possession as an undoubted portrait. He was fond of good poetry and good wine, and careless of the world. " Poor Somer- ville," wrote the poet of the Seasons characteristically, " I did not imagine I could have been so sorry as upon this occasion. * Sublatiim quderimus.' * * I really find, upon critical inquiry, that I loved him for nothing so much as his flocci-nauci-nihili-pilification of money."* We have now therefore much to regret that Somerville did not himself call attention to the miniature. As it stands at present, if the internal evidence were as good as its pedigree, it might indeed claim to be the most certain likeness of the Poet ; but looking at it, the light hair, the * Works, vol. iii. p. 43. Shenstone was fond of this capital compound from the Eton Grammar. In his Essay, '■'■ Ei^otisins fi-om my own sensations^!' he repeats it. " I loved Mr. Somerville because he knew so perfectly the flocci-nauci-nihili, &c." of William Shakspeare. 79 absence of baldness, and the pert smug look, make us almost sorry that it has so good a pedigree, and force us to believe that it is the portrait of some courtier or country squire, which has been mistaken, in the lapse of centuries and the carelessness of heirs to such small heirlooms, for the greatest poet we have or ever shall produce. Nicholas Hilliard, jeweller and goldsmith to Queen Elizabeth, and son of the high sheriff of Exeter, could very well have painted Shakspeare. He copied, for want of an instructor, the works of Holbein, but was far from attaining the nature and force of the great master. " He was," says Walpole, " weak ; he arrived at no strength of colouring ; his faces are pale, and void of any variety of tints ; the features, jewels, and ornaments are expressed by lines as slender as hairs ; yet his performances were greatly valued." Dr. Donne says — " a hand or eye By Hilliard drawn is worth a history By a worse painter made." He was the master and teacher of Isaac Ohver ; and, says Walpole, " the greatest obligation we owe to Hilliard is having contributed to form him." Hilliard died in 161 9, two years after his celebrated pupil, and three after Shakspeare, and was buried in the church of St. Martin's in the Fields. Amongst portraits, the possessors of which believe * Anecdotes of Painters of the Reign of Queen Elizabcih. W'alpole's Works, vol. iii. 410. edition. 8o Life Portraits them to have been painted from our dramatist, and which bear sufficient similitude to warrant this belief, is one which has recently come to light, and which we believe has not hitherto been described. Whilst making this inquiry, having been informed that Mr. Thomas Challis, the banker of West Smithfield, had one in his possession, we were invited to inspect it, an invitation gladly accepted. The portrait was found to be a really valuable and well painted production of the acre of James I. and to present certain qualities which entitle it to respectful attention. The picture is a three-quarter length portrait in oil, painted on panel, which is slightly injured on each side by a crack. These, however, do not harm the face, and have been skilfully repaired by Antony. The features are untouched, the face very perfect, and as fresh as if painted but yesterday. The restoration, therefore, has been confined to the background and dress. The head, which is a fine one^ looks too narrow for that of Shakspeare. The forehead is high, but not very broad ; the complexion tair, with a brown tint ; the eyes a dark grey, so shaded that they appear, unless closely looked into, to be hazel ; the nose lone, thin, and aqui- line, approaching to Roman ; the upper lip very short, covered with a brown-red moustache ; the hair, which curls naturally, is a true red auburn. The look of the portrait is neither so open nor so generous as that of the bust, the Droeshout, or the Chandos portraits. There is a fierce determination and will about the picture, and of Williatn Shakspeare. 8i the subject, whoever he was, has the " true nobleman look," or rather, as Pope says in Spence's '' Anecdotes" " that look which noblemen should have rather than what they generally now have."* But this look has in it so much haughtiness that it lacks therefore most certainly that sweetness, which we should wish our gentle Shak- speare to have possessed. The mouth and moustache are the features which most resemble the received por- traits, with the exception, before stated, that the upper lip is very short. The dress is remarkable: a large wide-spreading, curiously open-worked, Spanish collar, which extends from shoulder to shoulder, and exhibits the neck nearly to the collar- bone, gives a foreign appearance to the picture ; nor does the face detract from this appearance. The dress is ex- cellently painted, and is of a slate colour, worked, shaded and bound with black. In one corner of the picture we find the date and age, Mt. 46, 16 10; the age of course corresponds with that of Shakspeare at that period. The neck, as we have noticed, much exposed, is ill drawn ; with this exception, in both drawing and execution the picture is admirable. The history given by the owner of this picture is so far valueless, that it presents no pedigree, and can be relied on only as regards his immediate possession. An old bank-clerk in Mr. Challis's employment, who was an amateur of pictures, and who possessed considerable taste, bought it at the sale of a Dr. Black, and only when about * Spences Anecdotes, sect. I. M 82 Life Portraits to emigrate with his family, parted with this picture, which he greatly valued. But the regret of the clerk will not prove the authenticity of his property. Furthermore there is little to remark, save that in the narrowness of the chin and in the lower features, as well as in the colour of the hair, this portrait very closely agrees with the bust now in the custody of Professor Owen, We have also seen another picture, but in a far worse state, and differing extremely in look and complexion from the one just described, which is in the hands of a collector in Gresham Street — Mr. J. O'Connell — and which he believes to be the production of Garrard, a painter of the time, whose works are well known, and from whose pencil one or two specimens may be seen at Hampton Court. This painting has been executed in so thin a vehicle, and has been so badly used, that a mere ghost of a portrait now remains. We have in it an indication of the same ample forehead, blue-brown eye, and *^ cogitative " nose, but the hair is, however, flaxen, and the beard also of that colour. The collar, and the disposition of the head and picture, very closely resemble the Jansen portrait. The pattern on the dress — a coarse cross-bar — Is clumsily over- laid with gold, and the owner believes that the whole back- ground was originally gold, which has since been covered with a reddish-brown background. The fair hair of the head, but not that of the beard, has been also daubed over with an auburn tint. Mr. O'Connell has no documentary, nor any directly authentic, history of this portrait. The painting is, however, very probably by the artist from whose pencil of William Shakspeare. 83 he asserts that it is ; it is exactly in his thin fine style, and the manner of it very much resembles that of his picture of the Procession of Qjieen Elizabeth to Hunsdon House^ the residence of Sir Christopher Hatton, in which the Queen, courtiers, and maids of honour have — the majority of them, at least — the same pinky dash of colour in the cheek, and the same whitish complexion, of this picture. The curious painting of this Procession was exhibited in the Manchester Fine Arts Collection, and a photograph taken by Messrs. Caldesi may still be had. This photograph should be carefully studied by the collectors of Shak- spearian portraits, since it may be safely affirmed that, of the courtiers by whom Queen Elizabeth is surrounded, it would be very easy to pick out at least six whose foreheads, noses, pointed beards, and the contour of whose counte- nances, would certainly entitle their possessors to be mis- taken for their world-famous contemporary. Here, indeed, we shall find the fruitful source whence proceed so many supposititious originals with or without a history. The face of Shakspeare, gentle, dignified, cheerful, and open, presented much the same characteristics as those of a great many of his countrymen and contem- poraries. Mr. Howitt, in discoursing about Warwickshire, produced, in one of his works, a portrait of a boy, who might have been mistaken for the author of Hamlet, when young ; and instances have not been uncommon where an assumption of the dress, the beard, and moustache of the time, would gift an individual of to-day with a close ex- ternal resemblance to the poet, however much lower his M 1 84 Life Portraits mental qualities may actually be. His was no marked or peculiar face, to be recognised by a wart, like that of Cromwell, by its statuesque beauty, like Napoleon's, or its vivid sharpness, like those of Erasmus and Voltaire ; nor had it the rocky, rough, weather-beaten look of Ben Jonson. Fondly as we may now regard it, it had little or nothing about it peculiarly distinctive, and hence it has been an easy task for persons to mistake the portraits of others for those of Shakspeare, and for people without delicate perception to grow obstinate in, and enamoured of, their error. Amongst many pictures not claiming a distinct genealogy, but which yet have for many years been delivered to us as those of Shakspeare, the Warwick Portrait deserves a distinct notice. It is more poetically treated, perhaps, than any other. It is very beautifully painted, and represents the Poet seated at his work, his mind occupied with his art, and in the act of poetic composition. It is original, and the accessories alone give it a high value — so high, indeed, that it is classed as one of the chief pictures in the collec- tion of its noble owner ; and few will visit Warwick Castle without a careful inspection of it. Dr. Waagen, whose opinions are entitled to much attention, regards it with favour ; and indeed it is highly probable that, should any artist have desired to transmit the portrait of the greatest poet of his age to posterity, he would have chosen the ■pose which this picture possesses. When Dr. Waagen, in prosecution of his grateful task of describing the art- of William Shakspeare. 85 treasures which so richly adorn the houses of the EngUsh nobility, visited Warwick Castle, he was much struck with this picture ; although it must be confessed that it differs very considerably in youth, complexion, and appear- ance from other portraits which he had also seen. He thus enthusiastically describes it : — " The portrait of Shakspeare, though without a genealogy, was exceedingly interesting to me ; it seems more worthy of this great poet than any I have hitherto seen, and therefore deservinof the attention of all those who have at their command the critical literature relative to the portraits of the poet, and the comparative examination of those extant. He is here represented younger than usual, and with more delicate features, but with the mustachios and pointed beard. The whole conception is very pecu- liar. Seated behind a table covered with a white cloth, in a red chair with a high back, he is on the point of writing ; looking up as if reflecting ; for, although his eye is directed towards the spectator, his mind is evidently fixed on his subject. The expression of the head is remarkably refined and spirited ; he is dressed in black, with white lace ruff and rufHes. The local tone of the flesh is reddish, the execution careful. The whole work bespeaks a careful painter, and it seems to me to be decidedly an original portrait. The ground is black." * It will be observed that Dr. Waagen has not hazarded any conjecture as to the painter of this excellent portrait, * Treasures of Art in Great Britain. By Dr.Waaf^cti. Vol. II. p.2\6. Letter 26. 86 Life Portraits and it would perhaps be difficult to assign it to any artist with a probability of a general acquiescence by connoisseurs. It also seems to us that the attitude is hardly that which a painter of the period would have chosen : there is a somewhat modern " fashion " about it which we object to. It would have been gratifying to have found some mention of such a portrait as this in the catalogue of the fine collection of pictures belonging to Charles I., which is extant ; but although that monarch was a student of Shakspeare, a folio (of 1632) of whose works he pre- sented to a gentleman of his bed-chamber shortly before his death, we have consulted that catalogue in vain for such a record. of William Shakspeare. 87 IX. OF VARIOUS OTHER PORTRAITS OR ASSERTED PORTRAITS. Mr. Lionel Booth, the publisher of the fac-simile of the important edition of the folio of 1623, has long been an ardent admirer of everything connected with art or literature which regards Shakspeare, and possesses a pic- ture which once belonged to Cosway, and at the sale of that artist's pictures was purchased by his father. Perhaps a more pleasing representation of the poet could not be seen than this admirable little painting ; but its interest lies beyond, far beyond its merit as a painting ; it is a picture celebrated in its day : which Cosway, when its possessor, asserted to be an original from the pencil of Zoest, or, as some will persist in spelling it, Zoust, How far this portrait was from being one painted from the living subject, a reference to Walpole or to the Dic- tionary of Painters will show us at a glance. Walpole in his Anecdotes describes " Gerald Zoest, called Zoust," as being a native of Westphalia, and as '' arriving in 88 Life Portraits England probably before the Restoration."* But it is not of so much consequence whether he arrived before or after that event, since we have an evidence of his age on the straining-frame of one of his pictures. Gerard Zoest pinxit ebdomedd Pentecostes. Anno Domini 1667. Mtatis 30. So that the painter was born just twenty- one years after the poet, who is supposed to have sat to him, had been laid in his grave. In commenting on this fact, Boaden tells a very good story of Peck the anti- quarian, who being determined to publish a portrait of Milton, which he knew absolutely not to be that of the poet, was remonstrated with by a friend. Peck was obdurate, and refused to withdraw from his intention. He did not care about the picture, he said, but, he added, " I'll have a scraping from it at all events, and leave pos- terity to settle the difference''' Peck's print of Milton has, we believe, never yet been questioned. It was probably so worthless " a scraping " that it has escaped notice. But with regard to the Shak- speare by Zoest, posterity, in the person of the ingenious and acute Malone, quickly " settled the difference." " About the year 1725," writes Malone, " a mezzo- tinto of Shakspeare was scraped by Simon, said to be done from an original picture painted by Zoust or Zoest, then in possession of S. Wright, painter, of Covent Garden. The earliest known picture by Zoust in England was done in 1657, so that if he ever painted a picture of * " Painters in the Reign of diaries II." Works of Lord Orford, Vol. III. page 2,11, 4/0. Edition. of William S/mkspeare. 89 Shakspeare it must have been a copy. I have lately seen a picture in the possession of — Douglas, Esq. at Sed- dington, which I believe to be the very picture from which Simon's mezzotinto was made. It is on canvas, about 24 inches by 20, and somewhat smaller than the life." Nevertheless, although the picture could not have been painted by Zoest from the life, and although it is a some- what theatrical figure, and utterly different from any of the more accredited pictures, Mr. Douglas sold it to Sir John Lister Kaye for four hundred pounds; and to The Grange, near Wakefield, Yorkshire, the seat of the Kaye family, Boaden believed it was taken. Mr. Booth's picture and the print by Simon give a very pleasing representation of the poet, with a sufficient general resemblance to the universal idea of him to make it recognised. The air is spirituel, the look somewhat ab- sorbed, the colour excellent ; so good, that Wivell has stated his belief that the picture was painted " by no other than Rubens, and to be possibly a juvenile portrait of himself" The hair is brown and curling, thin upon the forehead, but without any indication of baldness ; the mouth is fresh and delicate, the beard and moustache not unlike those worn by Shakspeare, save that the beard is continued on the cheek, and runs into a delicate, but not plentiful, pair of whiskers. There are no earrings. The collar is the Puritan collar of the Commonwealth, like that of the bust, probably worn by country gentlemen and all others when dressed N go Life Portraits with a view rather to ease than elegance. The doublet, which has theatrical-looking lappels on the shoulders, is of figured satin, but resembles that of the bust as to the long row of small buttons in front. We have little doubt that by whomsoever it was painted it was intended by the artist for Sh:\kspeare; and, save a delicacy which approaches weakness, it is a very creditable performance. Boaden thought that it had so much the character of the original aimed at, that he felt " no difficulty in asserting that the sitter must have borne a very peculiar and enviable re- semblance to the great dramatic poet of England." Amongst many portraits for which the owners claimed undoubted originality, there was one " exhibiting a youth- ful poet leaning with his face upon the right hand ; the head stooped forward in earnest meditation, and with the evidences of composition before him." The artist of this picture was written down as " Zucro," but after some debate, it was determined by those most interested to be by Zucchero.* The beard of the portrait is full, dark, and luxuriant, the hair black, the face weak and effeminate, and unlike Shakspeare, and certainly more like Tasso, but most like a forgery. That it was intended for a successful one there is no doubt. The name of Shak- speare was " curiously impressed on the panel." * Who, by the way, could not well have painted our poet, unless Shak- speare had sat to him abroad. Having satirized some of the Pope's chamberlains by painting them with asses' ears, Zucchero was obliged to tly. He first went to Flanders ; then, in 1574, came to England, where he painted Queen Elizabeth twice. He left England in 1580, when Shak- speare was sixteen years old. of William Shakspeare. 9 i Another celebrated but forged portrait, whereby " an unknown saint was converted Into the player Shakspeare," was one '* discovered" by Machell Stace, a bookseller in Middle Scotland Yard, who in 1811 issued the following advertisement : — " Lately published, a portrait of Shakspeare, when at the age of thirty-three ; engra\ed by Mr. R. Cooper from the original, in the possession of the publisher, price 15^-. The size is suitable to the four first folios and Boydell's editions." Mr. Stace produced some documentary evidence of the genuineness of this picture, and referred also to the initials W. S. on it. Mr. Boaden suggested that it was a copy of Zoust's, and afterwards declared it a forgery. The print represents an effeminate person, with enough of the look of the received portraits for beholders to recognise for whom it was intended, and the whole affair brought down much ridicule on the credulous bookseller. " Silly indeed must he be," says Wivell, " to give credit to such a picture as this being Shakspere. In two words, its true character is that of having more hair than brains.'^ In fact, it would seem that our present experience merely repeats that of our grandfathers. Directly an inquiry is made for a portrait of the great dramatist the demand produces the supply, and at every street corner a " genuine " portrait is to be found ; and with every dis- position to listen to the earnest assertions of their own belief by the possessors of these pictures, the critic at last grows impatient, and demands some documentary evidence, some history for the picture, something more, at least, than that mere faith which is based on the accident of possession. N 2 9?. LJfe Portraits X. OF PORTRAITS OF DOUBTFUL AUTHENTICITY, AND OF CERTAIN FORGERIES. To be ranked with those numerous pictures of " no character at all," and with only the faintest shadow of a history tacked to them, is one both curious and extremely interesting, which one could wish to be genuine even whilst suspecting it to be false. This portrait is in the possession, as trustee under a will, of G. W. W. Firth, Esq. a surgeon of repute at Norwich. Its history, so far as its present and its late possessor, is satisfactory enough, but if we attempt to go farther back, then it suddenly fails, and becomes " a blank, my lord." The painting is on copper, of a small size, a miniature in oil, seven-and-a-quarter inches by five-and-a-half. It bears on its face an open and bold claim to be considered an original, and to have been painted by the order of the fellow-players of Shakspeare, and presented to him, or preserved by them, as a memorial of his becoming the chief partner and manager of the Globe Theatre. of WiU'uim Shakspearc. 93 An old carved oak frame, which has originally been gilt, but is now painted black, surrounds the painting ; and it is worth while observing that the acanthus orna- ment carved on the frame would hardly have been used at that time, the Tudor ornament being more in vogue. The frame, as we shall afterwards explain, must stand or fall with the painting, with which it claims to synchronize, for inlaid on the top of it is a thin slip of oak, awkwardly carved with scroll, not Tudor squat shield. On this are, first, the armiS of Shakspeare, the crest over them, and underneath, without a scroll, the motto assumed by the poet — NON SANZ DROICT. Immediately beneath this is a quatrain of considerable merit, the first line of which puns upon the motto. The inscription is in Roman capitals, in yellow or gilt letters : OF RIGHTE WE HAYLE THEE MAYSTER OF THE GLOBE ; THEE WHOM BEN'S VENOM'D SHAFTE OR SNAREFUL PRAISE HAVE {sic) NEERE HAD POWER TO BEREAVE OR ROBBE O' THE poet's HIGHEST MEEDE, THE LIVING HAYES. Underneath the last words, which are larger than the rest, is a sprig of laurel or bay. The frame, we may remark, has not been made purposely for the picture ; the little thin shield Is let into the frame by a space being rudely cut in the ogee moulding, over which runs the ornament. The figure of the poet, seen down to the knees, is standing up, holding a pen, and in the act of mental composition. The poet looks out of the picture with 94 Life Portraits intensity. He is clothed much as in the " Chandos" ; the collar is the usual plain lawn with untied strings ; the hair brown, so dark that it may be mistaken for black ; the eyes large and full ; the forehead bare, the upper lip long, and the moustache is stuck upon the upper lip in the unnatural way in which it is worn in the bust. The head is bald, the chin short ; the beard, a small tuft on the chin, grows into whiskers. The face, which agrees very well with that of the bust, save that it is somewhat effeminate and darker in complexion, is well painted. The lips are full and red, and, as well as the collar, have been retouched. The background is smudged with gold, which is not laid on like a genuine gold background by the early Italian painters, and gold enters also into the folds of the curtain at the back, which, to us, looks like a m.odern method of filling up so small a picture. After painting the back- ground, the artist has touched the eyes and hair of the figure, for specks of gold-dust may therein be distin- guished. In the right-hand corner of the picture, under a red sky, is a little sketch of the Globe Theatre, with a flag fiying. The whole is fairly painted, but with not more skill than we might demand from an amateur like Burbage. On the back of the picture is a piece of paper, on which, in a modern hand, is written : — "The Inscription on the Tablet in front, shews that the picture was painted on the occasion of Shakspeare's becoming maystcr, or in modern language, manager of the Globe Theatre, a view of which appears in the of PVilliam Shakspeare. 95 background. It also shows the opinion entertained of Ben Jonson's dis- position towards our author ; the truly significant epithet ' snareful praise,' proves that his most friendly professions were ever to be suspected." This gloss Is unsatisfactory. We cannot read it without suspecting that the writer knew more about the picture than he pretends ; and the phrase " our author " smacks strongly of some literary gentleman, who was, perhaps, clever enough to compose the lines themselves. If the " snareful praise " of the verse refers to Jonson's commen- datory verses of the folio of 1623, then, of course, the authenticity of this picture falls to the ground, for whilst it claims to address him as living,* it must have been painted seven years, at least, after the poet's death. Again, we do not know that Shakspeare was ever " Mayster of the Globe." On the 17th of May, 1603, only a few days after he reached London,f James I. issued a warrant under the Privy Seal, in which "we by these presentes doe licence and authorize, these our servants, Laurence Fletcher, William Shakespeare, Richard Burbage, Augustine Phillippes, John Hemmings, Henrie Condell, &c. to use and exercise the art and faculty of playing comedies, tragedies, histories, enterludes, moralls, pastorals, stage plaies, and such other like , . . within * " it was a general opinion that Ben Jonson and Shakspeare lived in enmity against one another. Bettcrton has assured me very often that there ivas tiotliing in it; and that such a supposition was founded only on the two parties, which, in their lifetime, listed under one, and endea- voured to lessen the character of the other mutually. Dryden used to think that the verses Jonson made on Shakspeare's death, had something of satire at the bottom ; for my part, I can't discover anything like it in them." — Pope J Spencers Aiiec. 1728 — 30. t Howard Staunton ; Some account 0/ the Life 0/ Shakspeare, p. xxxi\'. 96 Life Portraits their nowe usual howse called the Globe^ within our countee of Surrey, &c." Are we to assume that this portrait was painted immediately after this warrant was issued ? Shakspeare's name is second on the list. There is certainly another document " professing to be a letter found in the Ellesmere collection, from Daniel the poet to Sir Thomas Egerton, thanking him for his advancement to the office of Master of the Queen's Revels, and which, if genuine, would be of singular interest in relation to the life of Shakespeare, but the letter, long suspected, is now proclaimed to be a forgery."* In the papers of Bridgewater House, there is also a " List of claims made by * R. Burbidge : Lau. Fletcher : W. Shakspeare, &c." amongst the items of which the poet's nari'e stands third. '■^ Item. W. Shakspeare asketh for the wardrobe and properties of the same playhouse 500 li, and for his 4 shares, the same as his fellowes Burbidge and Fletcher, viz. 933 li 6j". %d. 1433 li ds. Sd." This also, which leads us to suppose that he might have been master, has been pronounced by competent authori- ties a forgery. -|- In Collier's Memoirs of Alleyn^\ Shakspeare is also placed second in a list of players. * Howard Staunton ; Some account of the Life of Shakspeare, xxxv Note. And also Collier's Life of Shakspeare, p. 173. t " It would be little better than a work of supererogation to prove that this is spurious, and it was not written in the reign of Elizabeth or of James the First. The orthography of the petition, the ink or pigment in which it is written, are not of those reigns, and the writing is tainted with clerical anachronisms, while the paper is to all appearance the fly leaf cut out of a book, and certainly never would have been used either for an original petition to the council, or for an official copy of one." — Hardfs Review of the Shakspearian Controversy, /. 51, i860. % Page 198. of William Shakspeare. 97 The spelling of the inscription is not beyond suspicion. Although orthography was not settled, it is well known that it was much nearer to modern usance than our Ingenious Irelands and Chattertons would represent it. In Raleigh's " History of the World," a very few dele- tions would entirely modernise the spelling. In the " Arcadia " Sydno.y omits a few final letters, as the e in Cambridge ; but he does not add it to whom^ nor does he spell fnaster with aj. e.g. — " Thou rebel vile com to thy master yield." * "Whom passion leads, unto his death is bent."f Had any one, after a casual reading of Spenser, who is purposely antique, wished to forge old spelling, we should have had " hys," " deathe," " whome," " maystre," &c. We merely note this as being worth consideration, but, at the same time, are quite ready to acknowledge that it presents no very certain test. Those who simulate old documents generally out-Herod Herod in the quaintness of their spelling, and as George Psalmanazzar was caught tripping by an ingenious chaplain having compared notes, so we may catch these gentlemen by a little attention to their orthography. Here, for Instance, is a questionable but very amusing description of how the actor of the part of Sir John Falstaff was habited in the time of Shakspeare. It is appended to an " original " drawing by Inigo Jones: — " Like a Sir Ion Falstaff : in a roabe of russet, quite * Sydney's Countess of Peinbroke's Arcadia, p. 211. ^ Ibid. Second Eclogur, p. 212. O 98 Life Portraits low, with a great belley, like a swolen man, long mous- tacheos, the sheows (shoes) shorte, and out of them great toes like naked feete : buskins to sheaw a great swolen leg. A cupp coming fourth like a beake— a great head and balde, and a little cap alia Venetiane greay, a rodd and a scrowie of parchment." * Of this, whilst he pronounces it in the most emphatic manner to be a forgery, Mr. Duffus Hardy quotes Mr. Hamilton of the British Museum : — *' It is somewhat remarkable that neither this drawing nor the description of Falstaff is to be found in the Shakspeare Society's volume, edited by J. R. Planche, Esq. from the Duke of Devonshire's library. The language of this description is, to say the least, suspicious. 'The ortho- graphy^ Mr. Hamilton might have added, is conclusive against its authenticity y f The documentary evidence in favour o{ this picture is of the most slender description. It was for many years in possession of a Mr. Boardman, sub-chamberlain of the city of Norwich, a fair antiquarian and archasolo- gist. Boardman bought it of a Mr. Izard, an auctioneer, who afterwards came to London, who, it would seem, represented that a large sum — about ^1300 — was lent on it. The nobleman whose name is connected with it, how, we know not, is long since dead — Lord Audley ; * "New Facts regarding the Life of Shakspeare^' By J. P. Collyer, Esq. 1835. ■)■ " A Review of the present state of the Shakspearian ControversyP By T. DUFFUS HARDY, Assistant Keeper of the Records, i860. of William Shakspeare. 99 and if he was clever enough to persuade any one to take such a picture as security for that large sum, we can only say, that his lordship must have been very astute. Boardman gave Izard ^^300 or ^^350 for it, and a promise that if it sold for more, he should share the profits. The old sub-camerarius was enamoured of his bargain, and refused ;/^500 offered by a clergyman named Fisk ; but death, about eleven years ago, parted him from his prize, and the picture remains in the hands of one of his executors. A very much more valuable painting, full, indeed, of vigour, and important from style and size, which some- body has claimed as a Shakspeare, has lately come to light at Hampton Court Palace. For many years it was at the top of a room with a deep ceiling, and quite out of sight. It has lately been hung lower. It repre- sents a man in the early prime of life, with something of a Shakspeare look about him, but of the faintest description. The forehead is of the same shape, but less ample ; the eyes are blue ; the mouth not unlike that in the Droeshout print ; the hair nearly black. The figure has a peculiar strut and stare, and is dressed in a richly embroidered dress, the peaks of the coat shaped like those of a Greek jacket, and thickly covered down the front and open sleeves with gold buttons. High on the chest, an immense sword-belt and buckle add to the braggadocio appearance of the poet (?), and his left hand holds up a sword with huge pommel and basket- hilt gilt, whilst the right hand holds the dagger, which, o 2 loo Life Portraits to quote Butler, is the worthy "page" to the sword.* A gigantic ruff falls on his shoulders, and a double string, a foot long, trails from his pierced ear, to let the beholder see that the wearer could tie a double pearl of great price thereon. The breeches, a small part only of which is seen, are puifed and red, bombasted out as in James I's. time. Over the head of the figure is ^^jEtat. su X 'ji (ft H > < ^ -r* < X >-u H h < < X 2 Z < of William Shakspeare. 121 relates, were only used in the family at the birth and death of a member of it. What the house is will best be seen from the photograph. It has been divided into three dwelling-places at a comparatively recent period, and its massive beams and firm stone foundations show that, when entire and first built, it formed a substantial and roomy habitation for a well-to-do yeoman and land- owner. It is the intention of the committee which pur- chased the house in Henley Street to purchase and repair this one also. R 1 2 2 Life Portrait!^ XIII. THE poet's last HOME. Whilst examining the Stratford Monument, the visitor's attention will not fail to be drawn to the fitting resting- place and the last home of the great poet, in the chancel of the church. The church of the Holy Trinity, in which Shakspeare lies, is a very beautiful and venerable building. Dugdale, who overrated the antiquity of it, said that it was nearly of the time of the Conqueror, judging the archi- tecture of the tower to be of the Norman style which prevailed in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Bloxam, who mentions this fine church several times, citing parts of it as instances of architecture, mentions that '* the south aisle of the church of Stratford-upon-Avon was built by John-de-Stratford, early in the reign of Edward the Third," * and ranks it under " the decorated English style." The tower was originally surmounted by a lead- * Bloxatn's Gothic Architecture. P. 234. THE CHANCEL OF TRINITY CHURCH, STRATFORD ON AVON PHOTOGRAPHED BY CUNDALL. DOWNES & C9I68.NEW BOND STREET of William Shakspeare. 1 2 3 covered timber steeple ; and the tall stone spire which now makes so picturesque an object in all views of Stratford, was not there in Shakspeare's time, nor for long afterwards, having been erected in 1763. Its height above the tower is 83 feet ; that of the tower, 80 feet. The chancel, where the poet lies, is by far the most beautiful part of the church. It was built in 146 5 by Dr. Balshall, and took the place of an older one then pulled down. There are five large windows on each side, formerly filled with painted, but now with plain glass ; nor does the beauty of the chancel suft-'er much by the loss, for the waving trees and the sunshine outside give a charming and a cheering aspect to the old building. The east window is in the perpendicular style, and, as will be seen from the accompanying photograph, is a very beauti- ful object. The stalls of the ancient choir still line the sides of the church, and the lifting seats of these are carved, probably by Dutch or Old English artists, with curious and somewhat gross subjects — fit illustrations for those who wish to write on mediaeval caricature. Near Shakspeare's monument will be seen a doorway which led into the charnel-house, a very ancient structure, once full of dead men's bones, from which the ingenious Mr. Ireland, and other commentators, suppose that the poet drew his description of the tomb in one of his most popular tragedies. " O'er covered quite with dead men's rattling bones, With reeky shanks, and yellow, chapless skulls." This charnel-house was unfortunately pulled down in R 2 142 Life Portraits 1800. It should have been repaired, for it was of the same date as the old chancel which preceded that which we now see. The monument is on the north side of the chancel, at an elevation of somewhat more than five feet from the floor. The niche in which the bust stands is arched over, and on each side of the arch is a Corinthian shaft of polished black marble, the capital and base of which is gilded. Above the entablature are the arms of Shak- speare ; * and, writes an author, ignorant of heraldry, the " supporters are two boys in a sitting posture." The fact is, the tomb-maker has placed two cherubim on the top of the monument, one holding an inverted flambeau, and the other, on the right hand, with his eyes closed, places one hand on a skull. A skull, ghastly enough, and coloured brown, occupies the summit of the tomb. To one who could suppose the common ornaments of the tomb, " sup- porters " to the arms of a simple esquire having no claim to heraldic distinction, it would have been a very little stretch of the imagination to have supposed that skull the coronet of Prince Hamlet. Immediately below the monument, in front of the altar rails, are the slabs which cover the graves of Shakspeare and his family. Nearest the wall, is the tombstone of * These arms were granted to the poet's family before his time. The blazonry of them may be classed under the term " canting ;" a term used by heralds when the arms or the motto figure and pun on the name. " Or, a bend dexter sable, charged with a tilting spear of the first. Crest, a falcon with wings elevated, holding a spear." Motto, which is generally omitted in all descriptions, '•'-Non sans droictT They were granted by Sir William Dethick. of William Shakspeare. 125 Anne Hathaway, his wife, about whose marriage with him, somewhat hastily concluded, Shakspearian commentators have been very busy. The epitaph, written probably by Dr. John Hall, in good Latin hexameters and pentameters, is, it seems to us, very touching and affectionate, and not without a poetic conceit at once pleasant and religious. HERE LYETH INTERRED THE BODYE OF ANNE, WIFE OF MR. WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, WHO DEPTE? THIS LIFE THE SIXTH DAY OF AVGVST, 1623, BEING OF THE AGE OF 67 YEARES. Vbera, turn mater, tu lac vitamq. dedisti Yse. mihi ; protanto munera saxa dabo ! Quam mallem amoveat lapidem, bonus Angel' ore' Exeat ut Christi corpus, imago tua. Sed nil vota valent, venias cito Christe resurget Clavsa licet tumulo mater, et astra petet. By her side lie, unmoved and untouched, thanks to the quaint epitaph, said to have been written by Shakspeare himself, the bones of the poet, underneath a rough slab of freestone. " The next gravestone is that of Thomas Nash, who married Elizabeth, daughter of Susanna Hall. This lady survived her husband and became Lady Barnard. Mr. Halliwell possesses an original lease granted by her husband and herself, and signed in a firm manly hand, "Eliza Barnard."* Adjoining her tombstone is that of Dr. John * The same Shakspearian scholar has also a clever painting of the Stratford monument, which is valuable, because it shows its colours before touched by Malone, on the back of which is the note : — " This old painting of the monumental effigy of Shakspere, is of great 126 Life Portraits Hall ; and the arms of Hall and Shakspeare are sculptured impaled above the inscription, which states that the deceased " married Susanna daughter and co-heire of Will. Shakespeare gent." He died on the 25th of Nov. 1635, aged sixty. Six Latin verses compose his epitaph, the first two of which are — " Hallius hie situs est medica celeberrimus arte, Expectans regni gaudia laeta Dei." The last stone covers the grave of Susanna, the eldest daughter of the poet, of whom tradition whispers, that she destroyed her father's " play-writings ; " a tradition, perhaps, entirely based upon the deeply religious feeling of the terse epitaph, which it will be seen may be con- curiosity, being the one painted by Hall, before he recoloured the bust in 1748. The letters proving this are in the possession of Richard Greene, Esq. F.S.A., who printed them some years ago in Frazer's Magazine. I purchased the picture of Mr. Greene, who is lineal descendant of the Rev. Joseph Greene of Stratford, the owner of the painting about 1 770. Signed J. O. Halliwelir Mr. Halliwell has also an exact copy of the Chandos head, perhaps a century old, painted in a very hard style, but without force. The colour- ing is the same as the original but very much lighter. The collar and dress a mere daub ; the drawing of the face is much better than the painting or colouring. On the coat is stuck a paper label, with the following lines, printed in type very similar to that of Coypell's edition : Effigies WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE Britan. , adfidem tabellce uniccr, maun RICHARD BURBAGE depicfce, {Circa a}inum, ut videtur \(iO<^ per R BARRAT Londinensem quam exactissime, anno 1759, curantibus et (Here the printed label breaks off in an abrupt and irritating manner.) of William Shakspeare. 1 27 tinned, so as to claim for our greatest dramatist, a deeply felt and expressed conviction of Christian faith. HEERE LYETH YE BODY OF SVSANNA WIFE TO JOHN HALL GENT : YE DAVCH- TER OF WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, GENT : SHEE DECEASED YE II th qF JVLY, A°. 1649, AGED 66. " Witty above her sexe but that's not all Wise to Salvation was good Mistriss Hall ; Something of Shakspeare was in that, but this Wholly of him with whom she's now in blisse. Then, Passenger ha'st nere a teare To weepe with her that wept with all ; That wept, but set herself to chere Them up, with comforts cordiall. Her love shall live her mercy spread, When thou ha'st ne're a teare to shed." Under the north wall, within the railing, and lying to the left of the poet, is an altar-tomb of Dr. Balshall, warden of the college, who rebuilt the chancel, and died in 1 49 1. Under the east window, on its north side, and easily seen in the accompanying illustration, is the monu- ment to John Combe, executed by Gerard Johnson. It is a recumbent figure, under an arch. Combe died nearly two years before Shakspeare, who is said to have written a caustic epitaph on him, still remembered. This, as Mr. C. Knight asserts, is unlikely.* Combe was an old * There is a very old tradition that Shakspeare wrote a satirical epitaph of four lines on John Combe, dubbing him "Ten in the Hundred," and ending thus : — " Should any one ask who lies in this tombe, Oh, ho ! quoth the Devil, 'tis my John-a-Combe." It is improbable that the Poet was the author of such doggrcl on his own friend ; but John Combo must have pinched some of the sons of Parnassus, 128 Life Portraits of William Shakspeare. companion of the poet, and bequeathed him a small testi- monial of good will, which Shakspeare did not forget, and, dying, bequeathed " to Mr. Thomas Combe, my sword " — a precious relic to those who worship such, but which has entirely disappeared, to the bitter regret of all curiosity-lovers.* for in '* Wiyt ^cnmlcdsf ^Pflvliamfitt of Cljrtatibarc ^otH. — EontJon, printctJ for Soijn Mrigljt, at ti;e ittus's SlratJ in tijc '-if>l v-V,,^'"', '.■f' '■ >;.; I i n-^fi,^