THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE Edition Five Hundred Copies. No.^ •» THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE BY J. PARKER NORRIS 'Look here, upon this picture, and on this." — Hamlet, III, iv, 53 PHILADELPHIA ROBERT M. LINDSAY 1885 «** N COPYRIGHT /8Sj BY J. PARKER NOR R IS Press op Globe Printing House Philadelphia TO HORACE HOWARD FURNESS, Ph.D., LL.D. THIS BOOK IS AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED BY HIS FRIEND J. PARKER NORRIS 454802 PREFACE. THE list of books consulted in the preparation of this volume will give a fair idea of the mass of literature which has accumulated around the portraits of Shakespeare. Three books, however, stand promi- nently forth — Boaden's Inquiry, 1824, Wivell's Inquiry, 1827, and Friswell's Life Portraits, 1864. The excellence of Boaden's work is marred by its diffuse style. He seems to have endeavored to fill out his book by the insertion of matter which is foreign to his subject, and even in the discussion of the traits of a portrait his many words obscure his meaning. Wivell's book is a literary curiosity. He was evi- dently a wholly uneducated man, and his style is tur- gid in the extreme. He reprinted much of Boaden's material, but he also added interesting descriptions of portraits passed over by his predecessor. He was un- tiring in his labors, and had the advantage, withal, of VU1 PREFACE. being himself a portrait painter. Doubtless had he been able to endow his purposes with words his work would have been peculiarly valuable. Friswell had the advantage of the labors of Boaden and Wivell, and of new material which had come to light since their day. His book unfortunately bears evidence of hasty preparation, and contains numerous errors revealing the lack of thorough study. While thus discussing his predecessors who have so bravely tried to knit into one fair pattern the ravelled sleeve gathered from many hands, let not ingratitude be imputed to the present writer. He has often had occasion to avail himself of their labors, and care has always been taken to duly acknowledge the debt. Every available source of information has been searched, and whatsoever is known on this subject is here presented. All that is claimed for this work is a careful collection of all information from every source. The pleasant duty remains of acknowledging the as- sistance which has been extended to him by George Adam Burn, Esq., Horace Howard Furness, Ph.D., LL.D., C. M. Ingleby, LL.D., Gen. Charles K. Loring, Isaac Norris, M.D., John Rabone, Esq., Albert H. Smyth, Esq., and Samuel Timmins, Esq., J. P., to all of whom he is very grateful. CONTENTS. Shall we open Shakespeare's Grave? A Plea for ascertaining the true likeness of the poet . i The Stratford Bust 21 The Droeshout Engraving 45 The Chandos Portrait 67 The Death Mask 93 The Jansen Portrait 122 The Felton Portrait 141 The Stratford Portrait 153 The Ashborne Portrait 166 The Duke of Devonshire Bust . . . . 172 The Hampton Court Portrait 179 The Hilliard Miniature 182 The Warwick Portrait . . ; . . .187 The Jennings Miniature 189 The Burn Portrait 191 The Lumley Portrait 192 The Boston Art Museum Portrait . . . .196 The Challis Portrait 199 x contents. The Zoust Portrait 201 The Zucchero Portrait 204 The Boardman Miniature 206 The Stace Portrait 208 The O'Connell Portrait . . . . . .210 The Gilliland Portrait 211 The Hardie Portrait 213 The Liddell Portrait 215 The Dunford Portrait 218 The Winstanley Portrait 224 The Zincke Portrait 226 The Talma Portrait 228 The Monument in Westminster Abbey . . . 230 The Shakespeare Gallery Alto Relievo . . 232 The Roubiliac Statue 234 The Ward Statue 235 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. Page's Bust. From Crayon Drawing of original. . FRONTISPIECE. The Stratford Bust. From Photograph of original by Thrupp. (Large view.) 21 The Stratford Bust. From Photograph of original by Thrupp. (Smaller view, showing the whole monument.) 2j The Stratford Bust. From Photograph of original. 37 The Droeshout Engraving. From Photo-lithograph of original by Day & Son, from the Earl of Ellesmere's copy 45 The Title-page of the First Folio edition of Shakespeare, showing the manner in which the Droeshout Engraving appeared in that volume. 47 Marshall's copy of the Droeshout Engraving. From an old print (engraver's name unknown.) . . 59 The Chandos Portrait. From Mezzotint by Samuel Cousins 67 The Death Mask. From Photograph of original by William Page. (Profile.) .... 93 Xll LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. The Death Mask. From Photograph of original by William Page. (Three-quarter face view.) 95 The Death Mask. From Photographs of original. (Four small views, showing the Mask in differ- ent positions.) 97 The Kesselstadt Picture. From Photograph of original. 99 The Jansen Portrait. From Mezzotint by Charles Turner. 123 The Felton Portrait. From Engraving by T. Trotter. (The small square shows the actual condition of the picture. The portion of the PLATE IN OUTLINE IS SUPPLIED FROM THE DrOES- hout Engraving.) 141 The Felton Portrait. From Engraving by T Trot- ter. (The dress restored from the Droeshout Engraving.) 145 The Stratford Portrait. From Photograph of original by Cundall, Downes, & Co. . . 153 The Stratford Portrait. From Photograph of original. 163 The Ashborne Portrait. From Mezzotint by G. F. Storm 167 The Duke of Devonshire Bust. From Photograph of original 173 The Hilliard Miniature. From Engraving by T. W. Harland. . . . . • . .183 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. Xlll The Jennings Miniature. From Engraving by W. Holl 189 The Burn Portrait. From Photograph of original. 191 The Boston Art Museum Portrait. From Photo- graph of original by Sonrel 197 The Zoust Portrait. From Engraving by W. Holl. 201 The Zucchero Portrait. From Engraving by W. Holl 205 The Stace Portrait. From Engraving by W. Holl. 209 The Gilliland Portrait. From Engraving by W. Holl 211 The Dunford Portrait. From Engraving by W. Sharp 219 The Zincke Portrait. From Engraving by W. Holl. 227 The Monument in Westminster Abbey. From En- graving by B. Holl .231 The Shakespeare Gallery Alto-Relievo. From Engraving by B. Holl. 233 The Roubiliac Statue. From Engraving by W. Holl 234 The Ward Statue. From Photograph of original by Rockwood. 235 LIST OF BOOKS, MAGAZINE AND NEWSPAPER ARTICLES, ETC., CONSULTED IN THE PRE- PARATION OF THIS VOLUME. [Jennens, Charles :] The Tragedy of King Lear, as lately pub- lished, Vindicated from the Abuse of the Critical Re- viewers; and the Wonderful Genius and Abilities of those Gentlemen for Criticism, set forth, celebrated, and ex- tolled, by the Editor of King Lear. 8vo. London: 1772. [Steevens, George:] Proposals by William Richardson, Print- seller, etc., for the publication of the Felton Portrait of Shakespeare. With Supplement. 8vo. London: 1794. [Britton, John :] Remarks on the Monumental Bust of Shake- speare, at Stratford-upon-Avon, etc. 8vo. London: 1816. Boaden, James : An Inquiry into the Authenticity of various Pictures and Prints, which, from the decease of the Poet to our own times, have been offered to the public as por- traits of Shakespeare, etc. 8vo. London: 1824. (XV) XVI LIST OF BOOKS, ETC. Boaden, James: An Inquiry into the Authenticity of various Pictures and Prints, which, from the decease of the Poet to our own times, have been offered to the public as por- traits of Shakespeare, etc. [This is sometimes called a large paper edition of the former book, but it is not, for the type is entirely reset, and the page made a quarto thereby — not by merely adding margin as in large paper copies. The illustrations are the same as in the former, but are India paper proofs.] 4to. London: 1824. Wivell, Abraham: An Historical Account of the Monumental Bust of William Shakespeare, in the Chancel of the Church, at Stratford-upon-Avon, etc. 8vo. London: 1827. Wivell, Abraham: An Inquiry into the History, Authentic- ity, and Characteristics of the Shakespeare Portraits, etc. 8vo. London: 1827. Wivell, Abraham: A Supplement to an Inquiry into the His- tory, Authenticity, and Characteristics of the Shakespeare Portraits, etc. 8vo. London: 1827. [Wilson, John :] Shakespeariana. Catalogue of all the books, pamphlets, etc., relating to Shakespeare, etc. i6mo. London: 1827. Wivell, Abraham: An Inquiry into the History, Authentic- ity, and Characteristics of the Shakespeare Portraits, etc. 8vo. London: 1840. LIST OF BOOKS, ETC. XVU Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O. : The Life of William Shake- speare. 8vo. London: 1848. Walpole, Horace: Anecdotes of Painting. Edited by Ralph N. Wornum. 8vo. London: 1849. Forster, Henry Rumsey: A Few Remarks by Henry Rum- sey Forster on the Chandos Portrait of Shakespeare, etc. [Privately printed.] 8vo. London: 1849. Anonymous: The Chandos Portrait of Shakespeare. [Appar- ently a privately issued reprint of articles on the Chan- dos Portrait contributed to The Athenceum and The Liter- ary Gazette. It has no title-page, or date of publication.] 8vo. [London: 1849?] Britton, John: Appendix to Britton's Auto-Biography, etc. 8vo. London: 1850. Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O. : The Works of William Shake- speare. [Folio Edition. Vol. I. One hundred and fifty copies printed.] Folio. London: 1853. Waagen, Gustav Friedrich: Treasures of Art in Great Britain. Vol. III. 8vo. London: 1854. Wright, Charles: The Stratford Portrait of Shakespeare, and The Athenceum, etc. [No title-page.] 8vo. London: 1861. XV111 LIST OF BOOKS, ETC. Wright, Charles: The Stratford Portrait of Shakespeare. Copies of Communications to The Times, etc. [No title- page.] London: 1861. Wright, Charles : Shakespeare and Ben Jonson, etc. [No title-page. Privately printed.] 8vo. London: 1861. Bohn, Henry G. : Lowndes' Bibliographer's Manual, etc. i2mo. London: 1863. Anonymous : Shakespeare Portraits. [In The Leisure Hour for April 23, 1864.] Royal 8vo. London: 1864. Thoms, William J. : The Stratford Bust of Shakespeare. [In Notes and Queries for March 19, 1864] 4to. London: 1864. Scharf, George: On the Principal Portraits of Shakespeare. [In Notes and Queries for April 23, 1864.] London: 1864. Neil, Samuel: Jonson's Lines on Shakespeare's Portrait. [In Notes and Queries for April 23, 1864.] London: 1864. Thoms, William J. : The Kesselstadt Mask of Shakespeare. [In Notes and Queries for April 23, 1864.] London: 1864. Anonymous: Shakespeare's Portraits. [In Notes and Queries for May 21, 1864.] London: 1864. LIST OF BOOKS, ETC. XIX Scharf, George: On the Principal Portraits of Shakespeare. [Reprinted from Notes and Queries.] 32mo. London: 1864. Frisweix, J. Hain : Life Portraits of William Shakespeare, etc. 8vo. London: 1864. Craig, E. T. : The Portraits, Bust, and Monument of Shake- speare. [Part II. of this work is entitled : Shakespeare : or the Ardens of Warwickshire ; and the Heritage of Genius.'] i6mo. London: [1864?] Anonymous: Catalogue of Pictures and Drawings exhibited at the Town Hall, Stratford-upon-Avon, at the celebration of the Tercentenary Birthday of William Shakespeare. i6mo. London: 1864. Harrison, Gabriel: The Stratford Bust of William Shake- speare, etc. [Privately printed.] 4to. Brooklyn: 1865. Elze, K. : Shakespeare's Portraits. [In Jahrbuch of German Shakespeare Society for 1867.] 8vo. Berlin: 1867. Grimm, Hermann: Shakespeare's Todtenmaske. [In Uber Kiinstler und Kunstwerke.] 8vo. Berlin: 1867. Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O. : A Catalogue of a small portion of the Engravings and Drawings Illustrative of the Life of Shakespeare, preserved in the collection formed by J. O. Halliwell, Esq., F.R.S., etc. [Privately printed.] 8vo. London: 1868. XX LIST OF BOOKS, ETC. Carter, Susan Nichols : The President of the National Acad- emy. [A sketch of William Page, and an account of his copy from the Death Mask. In Appleton's Journal for December 2, 1 87 1.] New York: 1871. Stoddard, R. H. : Shakespeare Portraits. [In The Aldine for May, 1872.] New York: 1872. Anonymous : Ward's Statue of Shakespeare. [In Atlantic Monthly for September, 1872.] Boston: 1872. Holder, H. W. : The Marriage of Shakespeare. [Reprinted from The Scarborough Gazette, 1873.] 8vo. Scar- borough: 1873. Wright, H. : Shakespeare's Portraits. [In The Antiquary for November 8, 1873.] London: 1873. Malam, John: The Shakespeare Marriage Picture, etc. i6mo. London: 1873. Anonymous: Shakespeare's Death Mask. [In The New York Herald for November 10, 1873.] New York: 1873. Anonymous: The Face of Shakespeare. [In Evening Post for November 15, 1873.] New York: 1873. Norris, J. Parker: The Various Portraits of Shakespeare. [In The Evening Telegraph for November 17, 1873.] Philadelphia: 1873. LIST OF BOOKS, ETC. XXI Anonymous : Mr. Page on Shakespeare. [In The Evening Post."] New York : 1 873. Anonymous: The Portraits of Shakespeare. [In The Chronicle for November 19, 1873.] Germantown: 1873. Anonymous: Mr. Page's Mask of Shakespeare. [In The New York Tribune for November 28, 1873.] New York: 1873. Anonymous: Shakespeare. Ward's Statue in Central Park. [Privately printed.] Royal 8vo. New York: 1873. O'Donovan, William R. : A Statue of Shakespeare. [In Lippincotfs Magazine for January, 1874.] Philadelphia: 1874. Gray, Charles G. : Shakespeare's Scar. [In The New York Tribune, May, 1874.] New York: 1874. Anonymous: Evidence for the Existence of the Scar. [In The New York Tribune, May, 1874.] New York: 1874. Anonymous : Pictures at the Academy. [In The Home Journal for May 20, 1874.] New York: 1874. Anonymous : The Death Mask of Shakespeare. [In The Sunday Dispatch for June 21, 1874.] Philadelphia: 1874. Hart, John S. : The Shakespeare Death Mask. [In Scribner's Monthly for July, 1874.] New York: 1874. XX11 LIST OF BOOKS, ETC. Anonymous: The Death Mask. [In The Morning Advertiser for July ii, 1874.] London: 1874. Anonymous: The Death Mask. [In The Nation, August, 1874.] New York: 1874. Anonymous : The Death Mask of Shakespeare. [In The New York Herald for September 28, 1874.] New York: 1874. Anonymous: The Shakespearian Portraits. Opinions of Scholars upon the celebrated Death Mask, etc. [In The New York Herald for September 28, 1874.] New York: 1874. Anonymous: The Mask of Shakespeare. [In The New York Tribune for November 15, 1874.] New York: 1874. Anonymous: The Lumley Portrait of Shakespeare. [No title- page.] 8vo. London: 1874. Craig, E. T : Shakespeare's Portraits Phrenologically Consid- ered. [Originally published in an English journal April 30, 1864, and now privately reprinted.] 8vo. Philadel- phia: 1875. Norris, J. Parker: The Death Mask. [In the American Biblio- polist for February, 1875.] New York: 1875. Timmins, Samuel: The Lumley Portrait. [In The American Bibliopolist fox June, 1875.] New York: 1875. LIST OF BOOKS, ETC. XX111 Cosens, F. W. : The Felton Portrait. [In The American Biblio- polist for August, 1875.] New York: 1875. Page, William : A Study of Shakespeare's Portraits. [In Scrib- ner's Monthly for September, 1875.] New York: 1875. Norris, J. Parker : Page's Bust. [In The American Bibliopolist for October, 1875.] New York: 1875. Schaaffhausen, Hermann: Ueber die Todtenmaske Shake- speare's. [In Jahrbuch der Deutschen Shakespeare-Gesell- schaft for 1875.] 8vo. Weimar: 1875. Ingleby, C. M. : The Portraiture of Shakespeare. [Ten copies of Chapter V, of Dr. C. M. Ingleby's Shakespeare : the Man, and the Book were struck off, for private circulation, before the publication of that work, under the above title. It is slightly different from the same chapter in that book.] 4to. London: 1876. Norris, J. Parker: Opening Shakespeare's Grave. [In Ameri- can Bibliopolist for April, 1876. The first proposal to open Shakespeare's grave.] 8vo. New York: 1876. Norris, J. Parker: Opening Shakespeare's Grave. [In The Press for August 4, 1876. A reprint of the proposal to open Shakespeare's grave, from American Bibliopolist for April, 1876.] Philadelphia: 1876. Anonymous : Shakespeare's Carte de Visite. [In The Daily Mail for August 23, 1876.] Birmingham: 1876. XXIV LIST OF BOOKS, ETC. Anonymous : Opening of Shakespeare's Grave. [In Daily Tele- graph for August 24, 1 876.] London : 1 876. Page, William : A Study of Shakespeare's Portraits. [Privately reprinted from Mr. Page's paper in Scribner's Monthly for September, 1875.] 32mo. London: 1876. Winsor, Justin : A Bibliography of the Original Quartos and Folios of Shakespeare, etc. [Two hundred and fifty copies printed.] Folio. Boston: 1876. Page, William : A Study of Shakespeare's Portraits. [Reprinted from Mr. Page's paper in Scribner's Monthly for Septem- ber, 1875.] 8vo. New York: 1877. Ingleby, C. M. : Shakespeare: the Man, and the Book. 4to. London : 1877. Anonymous : Opening of Shakespeare's Grave. [In The Nation for May 21, 1878.] New York: 1878. Norris, J. Parker : A Bibliography of Works on the Portraits of Shakespeare. [Privately printed.] 8vo. Philadel- phia: 1879. Gower, Ronald: The Shakespeare Death Mask. [In The Antiquary for August, 1880.] London: 1880. Ingleby, C. M. : The Kesselstadt Miniature. [In The Antiquary for September, 1880.] London: 1880. LIST OF BOOKS, ETC. XXV Anonymous: Excavations in the Church and Churchyard of Stratford-upon-Avon. [In Birmingham Daily Gazette for December 17, 1880.] Birmingham: 1880. Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O.: Outlines of the Life of Shake- speare. 8vo. Brighton: 1 881. Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O. : Outlines of the Life of Shake- speare. Second Edition. 8vo. London: 1882. Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O.: Outlines of the Life of Shake- speare. Third Edition. 8vo. London: 1883. Ingleby, C. M.: Shakespeare's Bones. 4to. London: 1883. [Timmins, Samuel:] Shakespeare's Bones. [A Review of Dr. Ingleby's work entitled Shakespeare's Bones. In Birming- ham Daily Post for August 15, 1883.] Birmingham: 1883. Anonymous: Shakespeare's Bones. [In The Daily Mail for Au- gust 16, 1883.] Birmingham: 1883. Anonymous: Shakespeare's Bones. [In The Stratford-upon- Avon Herald for August 17, 1883. Stratford-upon-Avon : 1883. Anonymous: Opening Shakespeare's Grave. [In The Daily Telegraph for September 3, 1883.] London: 1883. Anonymous: Opening Shakespeare's Grave. [In The Standard for September 3, 1883.] London: 1883. XXVI LIST OF BOOKS, ETC. Anonymous: Opening Shakespeare's Grave. [In The Morning Post for September 3, 1883.] London: 1883. Anonymous: The Proposed Disinterment of Shakespeare's Re- mains. [In The Daily Mail for September 4, 1883.] Birmingham: 1883. Anonymous: The Proposed Vandalism at Shakespeare's Grave. [In Birmingham Daily Gazette for September 4, 1883.] Birmingham: 1883. Anonymous: The Proposal to Open Shakespeare's Tomb. [In Birmingham Daily Gazette for September 5, 1883.] Bir- mingham: 1883. Anonymous : The Proposed Exhumation of Shakespeare's Re- mains. [In The Stratford-upon-Avon Herald for Septem- ber 7, 1883.] Stratford-upon-Avon: 1883. Anonymous: The Proposed Opening of Shakespeare's Tomb. [In Birmingham Weekly Post for September 8, 1883.] Birmingham: 1883. Sala, George Augustus : Shakespeare's Bones. [In Illustrated London New s for September 8, 1883.] London: 1883. [Betty, Edward:] Shakespeare's Skull. [In Commercial Ga- zette for September 23, 1883.] Cincinnati: 1883. [Betty, Edward:] Mortal Remains of Shakespeare. [In Com- mercial Gazette for October, 1 883.] Cincinnati: 1883. LIST OF BOOKS, ETC. XXV11 Norris, J. Parker: The Portraits of Shakespeare. [In Shake- speariana from November, 1883, to September, 1884, both inclusive.] New York and Philadelphia: 1883-84. Rabone, John: Some Portraits of Shakespeare. [In the Bir- mingham Daily Gazette for November 20, 1883.] Bir- mingham: 1883. Leighton, William : Review of Shakespeare" s Bones. [In Shakespeariana for December, 1883.] New York: 1883. Norris, J. Parker: The Death Mask of Shakespeare. [Pri- vately reprinted from Shakespeariana for February, 1 884.] 8vo. Philadelphia: 1884. [Jones, Charles:] How Shakespeare's Skull was Stolen and Found. i6mo. London: 1884. Rabone, John : A Lecture on Some Portraits of Shakespeare, etc. [Privately printed.] 8vo. Birmingham: 1884. Norris, J. Parker : Shall we open Shakespeare's Grave ? [In The Manhattan for July, 1884.] New York : 1884. King, Thomas D. : Shall we open Shakespeare's Grave ? No. A Reply to the question put by Mr. J. Parker Norris in the July number of The Manhattan. [Privately printed.] 8vo. Montreal: 1884. Morgan, Appleton : William Shakespeare's Grave. [In Shake- speariana for October, 1884.] Philadelphia: 1884. XXV1U LIST OF BOOKS, ETC. [Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O. :] Hand List of Drawings and Engravings illustrative of the Life of Shakespeare, etc. [Privately printed.] 8vo. Brighton: 1884. Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O.: Outlines of the Life of Shake- speare. Fourth Edition. Royal 8vo. London: 1884. Lee, Sidney L. : Stratford-on-Avon from the Earliest Times to the Death of William Shakespeare. Folio. London: 1885. SHALL WE OPEN SHAKESPEARE'S GRAVE? A PLEA FOR ASCERTAINING THE TRUE LIKENESS OF THE POET. NINE years ago the present writer suggested the advisability of opening Shakespeare's grave and reverently examining his remains. Immediately after the publication of the suggestion a storm of abuse arose, during which the real merits of the proposal were lost sight of, and each critic vied with his brother in heaping opprobrious epithets on the head of him who had dared to suggest that which appeared to them to be a desecra- tion of the poet's tomb. "What do you expect to find but dust in the grave of one who has been buried over two hundred and fifty years?" was jeeringly asked by some of the critics. But some of the seed that was then sown fell on good ground, and the idea has taken root in the minds of many. What may be the ultimate result it is difficult to say, but 2 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. it is to be hoped that the advancement of scientific accu- racy may yet conquer mere sentiment. Lately Dr. C. M. Ingleby, Vice-President of the Royal Society of Literature, Honorary Member of the German Shakespeare Society, and Life Trustee of Shakespeare's Birthplace, Museum, and New Place, at Stratford-upon- Avon, has written an excellent little volume,* in which the proposal to open Shakespeare's grave is ably consid- ered and a favorable conclusion arrived at. It is the purpose of the present essay to discuss the question in all the aspects which have yet been pre- sented, and to answer those persons who object to such an examination. And first, as to the probability of finding anything but dust in the grave, much can be said. Shakespeare was buried underneath the chancel of the Church of Holy Trinity, at Stratford-upon-Avon, alongside of the graves of his wife, his daughter Susanna Hall, John Hall, her husband, and Thomas Nashe, the husband of Elizabeth, daughter of John and Susanna Hall. These graves lie side by side, and stretch across the chancel of the church, immediately in front of the rail separating the altar from the remainder of the chancel. The situation of these graves shows that Shakespeare * Shakespeare's Bones, etc. London: 1883. 4to. SHALL WE OPEN SHAKESPEARE S GRAVE f 3 and his family were persons of importance in the town of Stratford-upon-Avon, and make it very probable that the poet was buried in an hermetically-sealed leaden coffin. They were commonly used in those days for those whose relatives could afford them. If this conjecture be true, the remains will certainly be found in a much better state of preservation than if a wooden coffin alone was em- ployed, although, even in the latter case, we must not despair of finding much that would be of the utmost value in determining his personal appearance. Not many years ago some graves of those who were buried about the same time as Shakespeare were opened at Church Lawford, in England, and the faces, figures and even the very dresses of their occupants were quite per- fect; but half an hour after the admission of air they became heaps of dust. A long enough period elapsed, however, to have enabled a photographer to have made successful pictures of them had any such preparations been thought of. Very often the features and clothing of the dead are preserved for hundreds of years after burial, and, on opening their graves, wonderful sights have been seen. In a few minutes the remains often crumble away, and nothing but dust is left, but for a short time (long enough to take a photograph) the illusion is startling. 4 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. Think of a photograph of Shakespeare, "in his habit as he lived!" Would not such a relic be of inestimable value to the world, and what would not be given for such a treasure? History furnishes us with many cases where the tombs of kings and queens have been opened, and their bodies, after the lapse of hundreds of years, appeared quite per- fect. In 1542 the Bishop of Bayeux obtained permission to examine the tomb of William the Conqueror. It will be remembered that he died in 1087, so that he had then lain in the grave four hundred and fifty-five years. When the stone covering the tomb was removed the body ap- peared entire, and in such a good state of preservation that the bishop had a painting made of the great king, as he lay there, by an artist of Caen. This he had hung up in the abbey, opposite to the tomb. The grave was then closed and remained untouched until 1562, when it was again opened, this time by irreverent hands. The Calvinists, under the command of Chastillon, had taken Caen, and opened the tomb under the idea that some- thing of value would be found therein. The flesh had now disappeared from the bones, and nothing remained except the skeleton, wrapped in its clothes. These were thrown about the church and other indignities offered the bones. SHALL WE OPEN SHAKESPEARE S GRAVE.'' 5 Mary, a daughter of King Edward IV., a girl of fifteen, died in 1482, and was buried in St. George's Chapel, Windsor. In 181 7, three hundred and thirty-five years after her burial, her tomb was opened. A curl of hair protruded from the coffin; and, on opening the latter, the girl's eyes, which were seen to be of a bright blue, were found to be open, and the face and figure quite per- fect. On being exposed to the air the whole soon became dust, but the hair remained, and some of it was preserved by those who were present. In 1 789 the vault where her father was buried was also examined. He had likewise been interred in the Chapel of St. George, at Windsor. A leaden coffin surrounded the inner one of wood, and in the latter the skeleton of King Edward IV. was entire and perfect. The clothes in which he had been buried were probably removed by some one who had previously opened the tomb, for no trace of them was found. The hair was perfect and entire, and it was perhaps owing to this previous opening of the tomb, and the consequent admission of air, that the remains were not found in a still more perfect state. As King Edward IV. died in 1483, it consequently follows that an interval of three hundred and six years elapsed between the year of his burial and 1 789, when the skele- ton was found entire. 6 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. In 1 813, during the search that was made in the vaults of St. George's Chapel by order of King George IV. for the body of King Charles I., Sir Henry Halford examined the remains of King Henry VIII., and commented on the very large frame of that much-married sovereign ; and yet this was two hundred and sixty-six years after the king's death, which occurred in 1547. Perhaps one of the most remarkable instances of find- ing the body of one who has long lain in the grave in a good state of preservation, is that of Katharine Parr, the sixth queen of King Henry VIII. She died in 1548, and was originally buried on the north side of the altar of the chapel of Sudley. In 1782, two hundred and thirty-four years after her entombment, the grave was opened. The leaden coffin having been cut open, the body was found carefully wrapped in a waxed cloth. This was removed, and it was discovered that the face was almost as it must have been when she was buried. The eyes of the dead queen were perfect. The inscription on the coffin showed that there could be no doubt as to the identity of the body. The earth was replaced in the grave, without the waxed cloth being placed over the face, and the leaden coffin was left open. Later in the summer of the same year a Mr. John Lucas again examined the body. He took off all the waxed cloth and found the entire SHALL WE OPEN SHAKESPEARE'S GRAVE? 7 body in a good state of preservation, notwithstanding the great time it had lain in the ground. The flesh of the arms was white and moist. Again the coffin was opened in 1 784, and the body was this time taken out and rudely treated. Now the air had begun to do its work, and decay commenced. The body was again interred, but in October, 1786, a scientific examination of the remains was made by the Rev. Tredway Nash, F.A.S., who made a report of the result of his inquiries, which was pub- lished in Volume IX, of Archceologia, for 1787, being the Transactions of the Society of Antiquaries. Mr. Nash gives a facsimile of the inscription on the leaden coffin, setting out the name of the deceased, her rank as queen to King Henry VIII., and her subsequent marriage to Thomas, Lord Sudley, and the date of her death. Mr. Nash further states that he then found the face decayed, and the teeth fallen. The body was perfect, the hands and nails of a brownish color. The covering in which the body had been wrapped, and which conduced to its former perfect preservation, until it was destroyed, con- sisted of linen, dipped in wax, tar and gums, and the ex- ternal lead-covering followed the shape of the figure. When King Charles I. was buried the coffin contained no inscription to designate its royal occupant, until one of his admirers supplied this want by wrapping around it 8 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. a band of sheet lead, out of which had been cut spaces with a penknife, so that these formed large letters, which read, "CHARLES REX, 1649." Later, the very place where his coffin was deposited had been forgotten, until in 18 1 3, on the occasion of the funeral of the Duchess of Brunswick, King George IV., attended by Sir Henry Halford and a number of noblemen, found it in a vault near the bodies of King Henry VIII. and his queen, Jane Sey- mour. Sir Henry has published an account of the open- ing of King Charles's coffin. He states that on April 1, 1 81 3, the leaden coffin containing the remains was opened. Inside was found a wooden one, and on opening this the body was disclosed, wrapped in waxed cloths, covered with grease and resin. When these cloths were re- moved from the face, an impression of the dead king's features was plainly visible in them, and had plaster of Paris been poured into this mould, a cast of the face of the deceased could easily have been made. Sir Henry continues: "The complexion of the skin was dark and discolored. The forehead and temples had lost little or nothing of their muscular substance ; the cartilage of the nose was gone ; but the left eye, in the first moment of exposure, was open and full, though it vanished almost immediately; and the pointed beard, so characteristic of the reign of King Charles, was perfect. The shape of SHALL WE OPEN SHAKESPEARE' S GRAVE? 9 the face was a long oval; many of the teeth remained; and the left ear, in consequence of the interposition of the unctuous matter between it and the cerecloth, was found entire." The head was loose, and was held up to view, as it had originally been, after having been severed from the unfortunate king's body. After a sketch had been made, and the identity of the body established beyond dispute, the head was returned to the coffin, the latter soldered up again, and replaced in the vault. At this time the skeleton of King Henry VIII., showing the beard on the chin, was also seen. These instances of the opening of the graves of cele- brated historical personages could easily be added to, but enough have been given above to show that bodies often remain far longer than Shakespeare's has done, and yet show a remarkable state of preservation. Now, let us see if public sentiment has prevented the examination of the graves of those who were great in the walks of literature and art. Schiller died May 9, 1805, at Weimar. Two days after his death the funeral took place, and his body was deposited in a vault which contained many coffins. In 1826 the vault was visited, Schiller's remains were re- moved, and, finally, in 1827, they were laid in a sar- IO THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. cophagus which had been built by direction of Goethe. Before they were finally entombed in this sarcophagus the bones and skull were carefully examined. Raphael died April 6, 1520. In 1833 there was much dispute as to whether a skull which had been preserved in the Academy of St. Luke, at Rome, and claimed to be that of the great artist, was really his. On Septem- ber 14, of the same year, the real remains of Raphael were found in a vault behind the high altar, in the Church of the Rotunda, and proven beyond a doubt to be his. A cast was made of the skull, and one from the right hand; and on October 18, 1833, the remains were re- interred in their former resting-place in a marble sar- cophagus presented by Pope Gregory XVI. Milton died November 8, 1674, and was buried four days afterward in St. Giles's Church, Cripplegate, London. His tomb was near the chancel. On August 4, 1790, a coffin was removed, and the supposed remains of the poet examined. It was discovered, however, that the bones which the coffin contained were those of a woman. Milton's remains are thought to still rest where they were originally deposited, but no feeling against their removal, and only the blundering of those who had the matter in charge, prevented their examination. Burns died July 21, 1796, and in March, 1834, when SHALL WE OPEN SHAKESPEARE'S GRAVE? II his tomb was opened to receive his wife's body, the poet's coffin was opened, and a cast of his head was made. Mr. Archibald Blacklock, a surgeon who was present, tells us that the cast was successfully made, as the bones of the skull were perfect, except "a little erosion of their exter- nal table," and were "firmly held together by their su- tures," etc. The skull was then enclosed in a leaden case and buried where it was originally found. Ben Jonson died August 6, 1637, and was buried in Westminster Abbey. His grave is directly under a square marble slab, inscribed "O RARE BEN JON- SON;" and the tradition is that the poet was buried in a standing position. Frank Buckland, the well-known writer on natural history, took occasion to examine his tomb, when Sir Robert Wilson's grave was being made ready in its immediate vicinity. He says the workmen "found a coffin very much decayed, which, from the appearance of the remains, must have originally been placed in an upright position." A skull was found, which Buckland supposed was Ben Jonson's, and was removed by him. After examining it carefully he re- turned it to its original position. In 1859, when John Hunter's body was brought to the Abbey, the same place was again exposed. Again Mr. Buckland secured what he supposed was the poet's skull, and after making a 12 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. further examination of it, returned it to its resting-place. Shortly after this a communication appeared in the London Times to the effect that "the skull of Ben Jon- son was in the possession of a blind gentleman at Strat- ford-upon-Avon." Hereupon Mr. Buckland made further inquiries, and tells us that "he has convinced himself that the skull which he had taken such care of on two oc- casions was not Ben Jonson's skull at all; that a Mr. Ryde had anticipated him both times in removing and replacing the genuine article, and that the Warwickshire claimant was a third skull which Mr. Ryde observed had been purloined from the grave on the second opening." Mr. Buckland was satisfied that Mr. Ryde's skull was the genuine one, because he (Mr. Ryde) described his skull as having red hair. No authority exists for suppos- ing that Ben had this colored hair, but the poet himself says that his hair was black, and a portrait of him so represents him. Jonson was sixty-five when he died, and had his hair been originally either red or black, as Lieutenant- Colonel Cunningham observes (in his edition of Gifford's Ben Jonson), it would not then have been any other color than gray. Sir Francis Bacon, one of the greatest and yet also the least of men (for his life shows a wonderful fall from high position), he whom a class of seekers after notoriety, SHALL WE OPEN SHAKESPEARE'S GRAVE? 1 3 in the shape of a new sensation, would claim as the author of the immortal Shakespeare's works, died in 1626. He was buried in St. Michael's Church, St. Albans. On the occasion of the burial of the last Lord Verulam, a search was made for the remains of Sir Francis, during which a partition wall of the vault was pulled down, and the ground under his monument was explored, but they could not be found. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that on opening Shakespeare's grave we should find nothing but his skull and a few bones. Of what good would they be to us? This question has been well answered by Dr. Ingleby in the work above cited. He says that "beyond question, the skull of Shakespeare, might we discover it in any- thing like its condition at the time of its interment, would be of still greater interest and value than Schiller's or Raphael's. It would at least settle two disputed points in the Stratford bust ; it would test the Droeshout print, and every one of the half-dozen portraits-in-oil which pass as presentments of Shakespeare's face at different periods of his life. Moreover, it would pronounce decisively on the pretensions of the Kesselstadt Death Mask, and we should know whether that was from the 'flying mould' after which Gerard Johnson worked when he sculptured the bust. Negative evidence the skull would assuredly 14 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. furnish; but there is reason for believing that it would afford positive evidence in favor of the bust, one or other of the portraits, or even of the Death Mask ; and why, I ask, should not an attempt be made to recover Shake- speare's skull?" After reading the above passage from Dr. Ingleby's book, Dr. J. O. Halliwell Phillipps wrote to the Mayor and Corporation of Stratford-upon-Avon, protesting against any opening of the poet's grave. He said that even if a skull were found in the grave its evidence would not weigh against that of the bust, for, he added, if its for- mation did not correspond with that of the effigy "the inference would naturally be that it was not Shake- speare's." Whose skull would it be if not the poet's? Does Dr. Halliwell - Phillipps think that any one has already opened the grave, taken away the real skull, and substituted another? There is no record of any- one else having been buried in the same grave as Shakespeare. The graves of his wife and family are side by side, near his, as has already been stated ; and there was no one else at all likely to have been interred with him in the same grave. Within the last few months a Mr. James Hare, of Birmingham, wrote to a local paper of that town, giving a remarkable account of a visit to Shakespeare's grave. SHALL WE OPEN SHAKESPEARE S GRAVE? 1 5 Mr. Hare said that either in 1826 or 1827 he went to Stratford-upon-Avon with a friend, and on visiting the poet's tomb they found the vault adjoining it was open, as he thinks, for an addition to its contents ; that he and his friend got into the adjoining vault, and stood upon a board. While there they looked through an opening in the wall that separated Shakespeare's tomb from the one they were standing in, and that he could see noth- ing in it but "a slight elevation of mouldering dust on its level floor, and the smallness of the quantity sur- prised me. No trace or appearance of a coffin or unde- composed bones, and certainly no such elevation as a skull, for instance, would occasion ; and the impression produced by its then present state was that the remains were enclosed in an ordinary wooden coffin, and simply laid on the floor of the vault, be that floor what it may. If a leaden casket had been used it would have been present in some form or other, or had an amount of earth been dug out to bury it below the surface, a de- pression would have been the natural consequence of the decay beneath, and the elevation could not then be accounted for." No doubt Mr. Hare gives a truthful account of what he saw, or thought he saw, but the question is, could he reasonably expect to see anything under the circum- 1 6 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. stances? He was standing in a vault, looking through an opening into an adjoining one that was, of course, very dimly lighted by the crevice — if, indeed, it was not all dark, as it probably was. In such darkness, with his eyes not accustomed to the gloom, what could he see? If there had been a leaden coffin in which the poet was buried, it would, in all probability, have en- closed a wooden one in which the body rested. This would have made the leaden one very large, and it would probably have occupied the whole of the floor of the vault, which was only made for one coffin, and could easily have been mistaken by Mr. Hare for the bottom of the vault. The "slight elevation of mouldering dust" that he speaks of, was probably some of the cement or mortar that had fallen from the sides of the vault. Another thing must be here noted, and that is, that there was a regularly built vault in which the poet was buried, and not an ordinary grave dug in the earth. Such a vault, with stone or brick sides, would be much more conducive to the preservation of a body than the mere earth. But the leaden coffin, in which the poet was in all probability buried, would render the remains impervious to all damp, and "water is a sore decayer of your whoreson dead body," as the grave-digger in Ham- let well remarks. SHALL WE OPEN SHAKESPEARE S GRAVE? 1 7 Much has been written, by those of a sentimental turn of mind, about the doggerel lines cut on the stone which covers the poet's grave ; and they have even been called "the touching epitaph, written by the poet himself, im- ploring that his remains should be allowed to rest in peace." There is not the slightest evidence to warrant the be- lief that they were written by Shakespeare, and the evi- dence of the lines themselves is strong presumptive proof against such a belief. No one who has carefully read and studied the poet's works can really believe that he wrote such lame and halting verses as these : " Good frend for Iesus sake forbeare, To digg the dvst encloased heare : Bleste be ye man yt spares thes stones, And cvrst be he yt moves my bones." They were probably placed over the grave by some member of his family, to prevent the removal of his body to the old charnel-house which formerly adjoined the chancel of the church. Shakespeare may have seen this, with the neglected piles of bones that filled it, and have conceived the idea, which he afterward expressed to his family, that he would not have wished his remains to be 3 1 8 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. placed where there was such confusion and neglect. This charnel-house was taken down in 1800. Had we a likeness of the poet, executed- by a compe- tent artist, and of undoubted authority, there would per- haps be no occasion to examine Shakespeare's remains. But here we are all at sea. Only two "counterfeit pre- sentments" of the poet have a well proven pedigree — the bust in the chancel of the Church of Holy Trinity, Strat- ford-upon-Avon, and the print published in the First Folio edition of the plays. The former was the work of one whose occupation it was to sculpture the rude effigies of the dead which were placed on their monuments — for of such ability were Gerard Johnson and his sons, and nothing more. No one has ever pretended to claim for the sculptor any artistic merit. The figure is rudely cut out of a block of soft stone, and though some have seen fit to praise it, none can look upon its manifest defects without wishing to know if he who wrote for all time did really inhabit such a body as this. As for the print of Martin Droeshout, published in the First Folio, it is even worse than the bust. It has no claim to rank as a work of art, it is not known from what it is copied, and many think it unlike any human being. Now comes the trouble. Both of these representa- tions of Shakespeare are well authenticated, and they SHALL WE OPEN SHAKESPEARE'S GRAVE? 1 9 are the only ones that are, but are they like one another? No, they are not. Many have thought they saw a cer- tain resemblance between them, but the wish to do so was the father of the thought. They are very different. Which is the correct one, or is either a true likeness? The bust was probably erected by his family, and may reasonably be supposed to have some resemblance to him ; while the engraving is certified to be a correct like- ness by his friend Ben Jonson. All the other portraits, and there are more than a dozen, are doubtful, to say the least. The famous Chan- dos Portrait, which is the commonly accepted likeness of the poet, has a very doubtful pedigree. The Death Mask represents a noble face, and one which all would wish that Shakespeare really did resemble, but its pedigree is very defective, and only a certain likeness can be traced in it to the authenticated portraits. Shakespeare's skull would set all these doubts at rest, even if we found nothing more in the grave. But if, by good fortune, a photograph of the poet's face could be made, would not the end justify the means taken to secure it? That such a hope is not a wild impossibility is known to science, and the instances given above of the opening of the graves of many poets and others, would seem to lead to but one conclusion, that the world 20 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. will not rest satisfied until the experiment has been tried, and the tomb at Stratford-upon-Avon made to give up its mystery. Let it be done reverently, but let it be done soon. Every year that rolls by of course helps to defeat the end that is to be attained. But that it will finally be done is surely but a question of time. EJje Stratford Ettst. From Photograph of Original by Thrupp. Jaiiti tfio!H»?*d£ 11*3 THE STRATFORD BUST. THE Stratford Bust is the oldest, and probably the best authenticated of all the representations of Shakespeare which have come down to us. It is erected on the inside wall, on the north side of the chancel of Holy Trinity Church, at Stratford-upon-Avon, at a dis- tance of about five feet from the floor. Underneath the floor of the chancel, in front of the monument, are the graves of Shakespeare and his family. It was sculptured either by Gerard Johnson or one of his sons. Johnson was a native of Amsterdam, who afterwards came to London to follow his business of sculptor and "tombe-maker." In 1593 he had been in England for twenty-six years, and it is quite probable, therefore, that in 161 6, when Shakespeare died, Gerard Johnson was too old to work himself and allowed one of his sons to make this monument. (21) 22 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. Gerard Johnson resided in St. Thomas Apostle's, in the Ward of Vintry, London, and had five sons, four journeymen, two apprentices and "one Englishman." He appears to have done quite an extensive business in "tombe-making," as his trade was then called. Dugdale speaks in his Diary, 1653, (which was pub- lished in 1827,*) of " Shakespeares and John Combes monuments, at Stratford super Avon, made by one Gerard Johnson." John Combe left .£60 for the erection of his tomb, which he directed by his will, should be finished within a year from the date of his death. Combe died in 1614, but his will was proved in November, 161 5, and his ex- ecutors probably did not set about its erection until the following Spring, when Shakespeare died. The family of the latter may have chosen the same time to order the monument to the poet's memory, as they are both by the same sculptor. The exact date of the erection of the monument and bust is not known, however, but it was probably shortly after Shakespeare's death, in 161 6. When the First Folio edition of his works was published, in 1623, it contained these lines: * Life, Diary, etc. 4to. 1827, p. 99. TO THE MEMORIE of the deceased Authour Maister W. Shakespeare. Shake-speare, at length thy pious fellowes giue The world thy Workes: thy Workes, by which, out-Hue Thy Tombe, thy name must: when that stone is rent, And Time dissolues thy Stratford Moniment, Here we aliue shall view thee still. This Booke, When Brasse and Marble fade, shall make thee looke Fresh to all Ages: when Posteritie Shall loath what's new, thinke all is prodegie That is not Shake-speares ; eury Line, each Verse Here shall reuiue, redeeme thee from thy Herse. Nor Fire, nor cankring Age, as Naso said, Of his, thy wit-fraught Booke shall once inuade. Nor shall I e're beleeue, or thinke thee dead {Though mist) vntill our bankrout Stage be sped (jfmpossible) with some new straine t' out-do Passions of Iuliet, and her Romeo ; Or till y heare a Scene more nobly take, Then when thy half-sword par lying Romans spake. Till these, till any of thy Volumes rest Shall with more fire, more feeling be exprest, Be sure, our Shake-speare, thou canst neuer dye, But crown d with Lawrell, Hue eternally. L. Digges. 24 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. The words, "And Time dissolues thy Stratford Moni- ment," evidently refer to the present one ; which has remained from the date of its erection to the present time. The bust and the cushion in front of it are made of bluish limestone, which is quite soft. It is the size of life, and is rough on the back, and there is an indentation at the back of the head. The columns on each side are now of black marble, polished, while their capitals and bases are of freestone, gilded. The columns are of the Corinthian order of architecture. All of the entablatures were formerly of white ala- baster, but these were taken out in 1 749, owing to their having decayed, and the marble ones were substituted. Above the bust is an arch surmounting the niche in which it rests. Over this are the arms of Shakespeare, on either side of which are two cherubim, one of whom holds a spade, and the other an inverted torch, while he rests his hand on a skull. On the apex of the monu- ment is another skull. Underneath the cushion, in front of the bust, is the following inscription, on an oblong tablet: ivdicio pvl1vm, genio socratem, arte maronem Terra tegit, popvlvs m^ret, Olympvs habet THE STRATFORD BUST. 25 Stay Passenger why goest thov by so fast ? read if thov canst, whom enviovs death hath plast, with in this monvment shakspeare: with whome, qvigk natvre dide: whose name, doth deck y s tombe, FAR MORE, THEN COST: SlEH ALL, YT He HATH WRITT, Leaves living art, bvt page, to serve his witt. OBIIT ANO DO' l6l6 jETATIS 53 DIE 23 AP. This inscription was certainly not written by a native of Stratford, for it refers to the body of Shakespeare being " within this monument," when we know that his grave is under the floor of the chancel, in front of the monument. Shakespeare is represented as composing his works. The right hand holds a pen while the left rests on a pa- per on the cushion. The effigy was originally painted in colors to resemble life. The face and hands were of a flesh color; the eyes of a light hazel; the hair and the beard were auburn. The doublet was scarlet, and the loose gown without sleeves worn over it, was black. The upper portion of the cushion was green, the lower red, with gilt tassels on the corners. In 1 749 the monument had become somewhat dilapi- dated, and in that year it was repaired. The money for this purpose was raised by a performance of Othello, which was given in the Town Hall, at Stratford-upon- Avon. 4 26 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. At this time (1749) the marble entablatures were sub- stituted for the alabaster ones which had become de- cayed, and the colors were renewed, care being taken to preserve the original tints. A forefinger of the right hand and a portion of the thumb of the same, which were broken off, together with the pen which had been be- tween the fingers, were also replaced at the same time. In 1 790 it again became necessary to replace these pieces of stone, which were missing, and William Roberts of Oxford was selected to do the work. In 1793 Edmond Malone (who had published an edi- tion of the poet's works in 1790), advised the vicar of Holy Trinity Church to have the bust painted white. This was done, apparently by an ordinary house painter, whose coarse brush left lines in the paint. Malone's classical taste was offended by the coloring ad vivum, but apart from the vandalism of thus injuring so inter- esting and valuable a relic of the great poet, he seems to have forgotten that the Greeks frequently colored their statues. This white paint was allowed to remain on the bust until 1 86 1, when it was removed by Simon Collins, a restorer of pictures residing in London. Mr. Collins went to Stratford-upon-Avon, and on removing the white paint he found that enough of the old coloring remained to enable him to restore the bust to its original colors. &i)e Stratfortr Bust. From Photograph of Original by Thrupp. tftOtt? j : :• : : •, ; THE STRATFORD BUST. 27 Speaking of this restoration, Mr. J. O. Halliwell-Phil- lipps says: "This step was induced by the seriously adverse criti- cism to which the operation of 1793 had been subjected, but although the action then taken was undoubtedly injudicious, it did not altogether obliterate the semblance of an intellectual human being, and this is more than can be said of the miserable travesty which now distresses the eye of the pilgrim." * Whether the bust looked better in its white state, or when colored, is a question as to which there has been much difference of opinion ; but as it was originally col- ored it certainly was only proper that the colors should have been restored. Any one who has seen a cast from the bust in a white or gray state, would hardy know it for the same statue as the colored one, so much does the coloring alter the expression. Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps writing of the bust before Malone's paint had been removed, said : "The bust, when minutely examined, contains indica- tions of individuality that render such a supposition" [t. e., that it was a fanciful likeness] "altogether inadmissi- ble ; for no artist, working either from a picture, or rely- * Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare, 4th edition. London: 1884, 8vo., p. 231. 28 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. ing on memory, description, or imagination, would have introduced the peculiarities which belong to it, amongst which may be specially noticed the slight but singular fall of the cheek under the right eye, which has been at- tributed to the sculptor copying from a cast taken after death. The forehead and the formation of the head should alone be decisive evidences in favor of its authen- ticity. There is, in truth, a convincing and a mental likeness in this monument, one that grows upon us by contemplation, and makes us unwilling to accept any other resemblance. If it has fallen beneath a cloud, the reason must be sought for in the circumstance that an image, the composition of which derives no assistance from the ideal, can scarcely be expected to satisfy the imagination in the delineation of features belonging to so great an intellect. But to those who can bring them- selves to believe that, notwithstanding his unrivalled genius, Shakespeare was a realization of existence, and in his daily career, much as other men were, the bust at Stratford will convey very nearly all that it is desirable to know of his outward form." * Friswell speaks of the bust in very unflattering terms : " The skull of the figure, rudely cut and heavy, with- * The Works of William Shakespeare. London : 1853, folio, Vol. I, p. 230. THE STRATFORD BUST. 29 out any feeling, is a mere block ; a phrenologist would be puzzled at its smoothness and roundness. It has no more individuality or power in it than a boy's marble. The cheeks are fat and sensual, the neck just rounded out of the soft stone ; the linen collar of the dress like a sheet of bent block tin." * Dr. C. M. Ingleby's opinion is also unfavorable : " How awkward is the ensemble of the face ! What a painful stare, with its goggle eyes and gaping mouth ! The expression of this face has been credited with humor, bonhommie, hilarity and jollity. To me it is de- cidedly clownish; and it is suggestive of a man crunching a sour apple, or struck with amazement at some unpleas- ant spectacle. Yet there is force in the lineaments of this muscular face. One can hardly doubt that it is an unintentional caricature; but for that very reason it should be an unmistakeable likeness." f Boaden thus refers to the head of the figure: "The contour of the head is well given. The lips are very carefully carved; but the eyes appear to me to be of a very poor character: the curves of the lids have no grace — the eyes themselves no protecting prominences * Life Portraits of William Shakespeare. London: 1864, 8vo., p. 10. f Shakespeare: the Man, and the Book. Part I, p. 79. London: 1877, 410. 30 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. of bone, and the whole of this important feature is tame and superficial." * Wivell remarks that "the nose and forehead are fine; and were it not for a rather disproportionate length from the former to the mouth, the face would be remarkably handsome. It has a more fleshy appearance than any of the other portraits, and has much less of the look of a Jew than most of them, as his beard is trimmed to the fashion of the time." f Some years ago William Page, a celebrated artist, made a study of the principal portraits of Shakespeare, for the purpose of making a bust of the poet. His views about the Stratford bust are particularly valuable. He says: "The most inexpert observer may see, by placing a cast of it beside a fine antique or an excellent modern portrait, what I mean when I say that it shows very crude and unskilled modelling. This does not mean it may not have many individual characteristics. Artists and others have always known that the eyes were im- possible, the nose worked off too short, or the end of it never reached, as the spot where it should join the * An Inquiry, etc. London: 1824, 8vo., p. 31. f An Inquiry, etc. London: 1827, 8vo., p. 140. THE STRATFORD BUST. 3 I upper lip is still marked in the bust; and had the nose started out at right angles to the lip at that place, in- stead of slanting up to its present point, truth and beauty each would have been subserved. Though care- lessly, falsely, and hence wickedly misinterpreted in many ways, still there are fixed facts in this bust which make it valuable in some points of likeness. ***** The left side is flattened away from the mouth back toward the middle of the cheek. This was probably a true characteristic of his" [i. e., Gerard Johnson's] "model. Then the lower part of his cheek is fattened out and made very full under the jaw. This characteristic is probably exaggerated if it existed at all, the sculptor supposing that the flesh of the cheeks in the reclining posture fell back, and should be replaced in this manner, since he represented his subject upright. On the right side of the mouth there is a contrasting fullness of the cheek, and then a falling away diagonally to the jaw, from which, around to the throat, you find the line less curved than on the other side. The individual character of this one-sidedness, which exists in some way in every face, was doubtless founded on a mask from nature, and is exactly graded, recorded and interpreted in the Ger- man Mask. The Greeks valued these natural inequal- 32 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. ities. The Venus of Milo's face is one-sided, and the Theseus's eyebrows unlike. "I should have stated before, that when I speak of right and left side I mean Shakespeare's, and not the observer's. "In the Stratford bust the lower lip is peculiar, the right side being sensibly fuller and hanging down lower than the left side. It is crudely rendered, yet a fact safely lodged there can never be ousted. There is also an indentation at the left corner of the mouth, more accentuated than on the other side, which is dragged down rather vertically toward the chin. "The sculptor certainly had some guide for these varieties of undulations. The luckiest guess does not hit in a portrait. These personal peculiarities exist in the Mask, where they are seen not to have been exag- gerated by death."* F. W. Fairholt, F.S.A., made a very careful drawing of the bust for Halliwell-Phillipps' Folio Edition of Shakespeare, and was much impressed by the excellence with which the monument was executed. He believed the face to have been sculptured with singular delicacy and care except the eyes. * A Study of Shakespeare 's Portraits. London : 1876, 24110., p. :6. THE STRATFORD BUST. 33 Many persons have thought that the face of the effigy was made after a mask taken from life, or from a dead face. John Bell, a distinguished sculptor, believed this, and Sir Francis Chantrey, another sculptor of eminence, is said to have shared in this opinion also. If this be true it would account for the poorness of the eyes, which are mere elliptical openings. The cast (if the sculptor worked from one) would show the eyes closed, and his skill not being sufficient to enable him to successfully represent them open, would account for his failure in this respect. If the cast were taken after death the cheeks would probably have presented a somewhat sunken appearance ; and in the effort to restore this deficiency, the sculptor might easily have made the cheeks too full, as they now appear to be. The shortness of the nose, and the unusual length of the upper lip, have been frequently noticed and com- mented upon. In 1 8 14 John Britton was the means of inducing George Bullock to make a cast of the effigy. The vicar of the church (who was then the Rev. Dr. Davenport), and the parochial authorities, having given permission, the bust was taken down from the niche in which it rests, and a successful mould made from it. Britton states that Bullock found it "in a decayed and 5 34 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. dangerous state" and further that "it would be risking its destruction to remove it again." * R. B. Wheler, the well known antiquarian of Stratford- upon-Avon, and author of one of the best local histories of that town, was present when Bullock took the bust down from its niche, and stated, in a letter to Britton, that there was no date or inscription on the back of the effigy, t When Bullock had finished making his mould of the bust, he made a cast from it, and invited Sir Walter Scott, Benjamin West, Dr. Spurzheim, and John Britton, to breakfast with him. It was on this occasion that Bullock made a cast of Scott's head. These gentlemen entered into a discussion about the cast of the Stratford bust, which was in the room. Dr. Spurzheim and Benjamin West both commented upon the characteristics of the bust, and the latter on this occasion said that the eyes, nose, mouth, forehead, cheeks and hair were all "imitations of nature, modelled from the person whilst living, or from a cast after death. There was no appearance of fancy, or of its having been modelled merely from recollection." J * Appendix to Britton' s Auto- Biography. London : 1850, 8vo., p. 6. t Ibid, p. 13. % Ibid, p. 8. THE STRATFORD BUST. 35 Sir Walter Scott particularly commented on the great space between the nose and the upper lip, and all the others agreed with him that the sculptor must have made an error here. Bullock declared that Scott had the same peculiarity to an even greater degree than Shakespeare, as shown in the bust. A pair of compasses were pro- duced, and Scott's upper lip was found to be a quarter of an inch further from his nose than Shakespeare's. * There was originally a stone pen in the right hand of the effigy, but it is related that a young man who had taken it out of the fingers to examine it, dropped it on the floor of the chancel, where it was broken to pieces. A quill pen dipped in ink now replaces it. To most people the bust is at first sight disappointing — especially if seen in its colored state. It grows upon one, however, the more it is looked at, and a white or gray cast from it becomes very pleasing after long famil- iarity with it. It certainly was erected shortly after Shakespeare's death, and probably by some of his family. It was put in a conspicuous place in the chancel of his native church, and in the sight of his fellow townsmen. Even if we ad- mit that its sculptor was nothing more than a "tombe- * Appendix to Brittoris Auto-Biography. London: 1850, 8vo., p. 8. 36 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. maker," as he undoubtedly was, still the bust must have had strong points of resemblance to the poet or it would not have been accepted. Rudely cut it certainly is, and it possesses no claims to being a work of art. Its appearance is very different when viewed from dif- ferent positions. Looked at from underneath the very full appearance of the cheeks and the throat is espe- cially noticeable. Seen from a level the effect is much better, while a three-quarters view is the most pleasing. The nose is undoubtedly very short, and the supposition that it met with an accident while the sculptor was work- ing at it would not seem altogether improbable, if we did not remember that other faces have been met with in life with the same peculiarity — notably that of Sir Walter Scott, already referred to. A large number of engravings have been executed which pretend to represent the bust, but the majority of them utterly fail to do so. Rowe's edition of Shakespeare, London: 1709, i6mo. (Vol. I, p. xxxvii,), contains an engraving of the monu- ment and bust which is almost a caricature. The cheru- bim are represented as balancing themselves over the top, with their legs hanging down; the one who should have the inverted torch is holding an hour glass, and the other holds up the spade instead of leaning on it. The art)* Stratforfr Eust. From Photograph of Original. » » » »'-.»* THE STRATFORD BUST. 37 head of the bust looks more like the Chandos portrait than the bust, while Shakespeare is represented as pat- ting a pillow with both hands instead of resting his hands on the cushion, as in the original. Only two lines of the inscription underneath are given. An engraving by G. Vertue, published in Pope's edi- tion of Shakespeare, London : 1 725, 410., gives the monu- ment (Vol. I, p. xxxi,) with tolerable accuracy, except that one of the cherubim is represented with a candle instead of the spade which he really holds in his hand, and the other hand rests on an hour glass instead of a rock ; while the other cherub is seated on the skull, in- stead of resting his hand on it. The torch in his hand is upright also, instead of inverted, as it should be. The bust, however, as represented in this picture has the head taken from the Chandos portrait. It is a striking illustra- tion of the inaccuracy of some of the older engravers. H. Gravelot has evidently copied Vertue's plate for Hanmer's edition of Shakespeare, London: 1744, 4to. (Vol. I, p. xxxiii,), as that plate is almost an exact copy of it, except that the hair is not as well engraved. The Chandos head appears on the bust in this plate also. This same plate of Gravelot's was used in Hanmer's sec- ond edition of Shakespeare, London: 1771, 4to. (Vol. I, p. xxii.) 38 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. Grignion engraved a poor copy of the plate which was published in Rowe's Shakespeare (1709) for Bell's edi- tion of the poet's works, London: 1788, 24mo. (Vol. II, p. 468. The plate is dated 1 786.) A poor plate, drawn by S. Harding, and engraved by A. Birrell, was published in Harding's Shakespeare Illus- trated, London: 1793. Samuel Ireland published an engraving of the monu- ment, from a drawing by himself, in his Picturesque Views on the Upper, or Warwickshire Avon, London: 1795, 8vo. The bust is represented so badly that it is a mere caricature. The earliest engraving of the bust that did it anything like justice was published in Boydell's Folio Edition of Shakespeare, London: 1802, Vol. I. It is engraved by J. Neagle, from a drawing by J. Boydell. The monu- ment is correctly represented, with the exception that the cherubim have torches, instead of only one. The figure of the bust is too short, the hand that holds the pen is badly drawn, and the face is less full than that of the original. When Wheler's History and Antiquities of Stratford- upon-Avon was published in 1806, it contained an en- graving of the monument by F. Eginton, from a drawing by Wheler. The monument is fairly well represented, THE STRATFORD BUST. 39 but the bust has not fared so well. Wheler has elon- gated the face and changed its expression entirely. A very handsome mezzotint, representing the bust alone, engraved by William Ward, and published by J. Britton, in 1816, is by far the best picture of the bust that had appeared at that time; and in a collection of prints it is sure to command attention by its admirable appearance. The head and figure are very well drawn, and the black background brings out the bust in striking relief. W. T. Fry engraved a plate of the bust, from a cast by Bullock, which was published by Caddell and Davies, in Drake's Shakespeare and his Times, London: 181 7, 4to. It is a three-quarter face view, and has great merit. Robert Smirke, R.A., was an artist of some merit, but his picture of the bust, engraved by R. Ashby, and pub- lished by Hurst, Robinson & Co., circa 1820, certainly did not add to his reputation. It is entirely unlike the original. All of the above mentioned engravings represented the bust in its white state, but the first one that showed it in colors was engraved by W. Finden, from a drawing by J. Thurston, and published by W. Walker, in 1820. The lower part of the jaw is very badly done, but other- wise the engraving is admirable. This same plate, very 40 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. much worn, was afterwards used in Charles Cowden Clarke's Shakespeare Characters, London: 1863, 8vo. A very poor copy of the bust only, in its white state, was engraved by Fry, and published by F. C. & J. Riv- ington, June 25, 1821, in Vol. Ill of Boswell's edition of Malone's Shakespeare, London: 182 1, 8vo. E. Scriven engraved a handsome plate of the head and shoulders of the bust, from a drawing by J. Boaden, published in Boaden's Inquiry, London: 1824, 8vo. It represents the bust as white, and the cheeks are too full, but the top of the head is very fine. Boaden must have stood below the bust when making his draw- ing, and hence this picture gives the head too flat an ap- pearance. Had he been on a level with his subject, this defect would have been remedied. Wivell drew a fine picture of the bust only, which was very well engraved in stipple by I. S. Agar, and pub- lished by George Lawford, in 1825. It shows the bust in its white state, and the view is almost directly in front. It is most creditable both to the artist and engraver, and will always be sought for as being among the best en- gravings of the bust that have been published. Another drawing by Wivell, engraved by T. A. Dean, and published in Wivell's Inquiry, London: 1827, 8vo., is of the head and shoulders only, and is not as success- THE STRATFORD BUST. 4 1 ful as the one above mentioned. It shows the bust in its white state. In Wivell's Inquiry, London: 1827, 8vo., is also an engraving of the whole monument by W. Wallis, from a drawing in the possession of J. Britton. The effigy is by Wivell, however, and though small, is quite well done. Valpy's Shakespeare, London: 1832, i6mo., Vol. I, p. xli, contains a poor engraving by Starling. Illustrations of Stratford-upon-Avon, published by Ward, in 1 85 1, folio, contains an interesting lithograph of the monument, showing the bust in its white state. It is well drawn and tolerably accurate, but the cheeks are not full enough. A fair engraving of the bust by G. Greatbach, from a drawing by T. D. Scott, was published in Vol. II of Tallis' Shakespeare. ( 1 8 5 1 ?) A very accurately drawn and carefully engraved copy of the whole monument, by F. W. Fairholt, was published in Halliwell-Phillipps' Folio Shakespeare, Vol. I, London : 1853. Mr. Fairholt evidently has taken great pains with his work, but there is an expression about the face in his engraving which is different from the original. Singer's second edition of Shakespeare, London: 1856, 1 6mo., Vol. I, contains an engraving of the bust only, by E. Radclyffe, which is fair. 6 42 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. A small engraving, (with no engraver's name,) ap- peared in Knight's Cabinet Shakespeare, London: 1856, 241x10., Vol. X ; and another in Vol. XI of the same work. Dyce's first edition of Shakespeare, London: 1857, 8vo., Vol. I, has a good engraving of the bust only, by Francis Holl. The same plate was used in Dyce's second edition of the poet's works, London: 1866, 8vo., Vol. I, and also in the third edition of the same work, London: 1875, 8vo., Vol. II. Staunton's edition of Shakespeare, London: 1858, royal 8vo., contains a good engraving of the bust, drawn by E. W. Robinson, and engraved by H. Robinson. The same plate was used in Staunton's Library Edition, London: 1863, 8vo. A fair engraving on wood of the bust, by W. J. Linton, was published in Wise's Shakespeare, his Birth-place, etc., London: 1861, i6mo. No engraving, however good, is able to represent the bust as it really is, and it remains for the camera to give us a faithful copy of the effigy. Small photographs of the monument were published in Hunter's Shakespeare and Stratford, London: 1864, i6mo., and in Jephson's Shakespeare: his Birthplace, etc., London: 1864, 8vo. ; but the one in Friswell's Life Por- traits, London: 1864, 8vo., is far better. It is un- THE STRATFORD BUST. 43 doubtedly the best small photograph of the monument that has been published, and gives a good idea of it. The photographs in different copies of the book vary somewhat, however, owing to their having been printed from several negatives, and some are not as good as others. In 1864 John Burton & Sons published some large photographs of the monument, taken by Thrupp, of Bir- mingham, which cannot be excelled, and which admir- ably represent the monument as it is. The camera has evidently been placed on a level with the monument in taking the negatives, and the result is therefore highly satisfactory. Some of these photographs show the whole monument, and others, which are larger, give nearly all of it. Bell's Shakespeare, London: 1865, i6mo., Vol. I, has a fair engraving of the bust, but the engraver's name is not given. Two fine photographs of the bust, (but taken from a white cast,) showing a front and side view, accompany Gabriel Harrison's privately printed brochure, entitled The Stratford Bust, Brooklyn : 1 865, 4to. In Walter's Shakespeare s Home and Rural Life, Lon- don: 1874, folio, there was published a very good helio- type of the monument. 44 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. Numerous photographs have since been taken, all of which give a better idea of the bust than engravings do — unless the latter are made from them. In 1882 the New Shakespeare Society published a large phototype of the monument, which would be all that could be desired, were it not for a certain blurred appearance that is noticeable in parts of it. It is taken from directly in front of the monument, and on a level with it. The following year, 1883, the same Society issued a chromo-phototype of the monument, which gives the present colors of the effigy, the entablature, etc. It is well done, and is a valuable representation of this very interesting relic of the great poet. £t)t ©toesijout linotaUiua. From Photo-Lithograph of Original by Day and Son. THE DROESHOUT ENGRAVING. IN 1623 was published the first collected edition of Shakespeare's plays, generally known as the First Folio. It was edited by John Heminge and Henry Con- dell, Shakespeare's friends and fellow actors, and is of folio size. On the title-page, in a space left for the pur- pose, this engraving appears. The plate is about 7^ inches long by 6% wide. Under the lower left hand corner of the latter is the inscription: "Martin Droeshout sculpsit London." The same plate was used in the Second (1632), Third (1663 and 1664), and Fourth (1685) Folio editions of Shakespeare. In the Second Folio the plate appeared in the same position as in the first edition, and this is also the case in the copies of the Third Folio that are dated 1663; but in copies of that edition dated 1 664 the engraving is on a leaf opposite to, and facing the title-page, and surmounting the verses by (45) Ws 46 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. Ben Jonson referred to below. In the Fourth Folio the engraving occupies the same place that it does in copies of the third edition dated 1 664. In the first, second, and 1663 copies of the third edi- tion, opposite the title-page, and facing it, on the back of the leaf which generally bears the bastard title in books, are printed the following verses by Ben Jonson: To the Reader. This Figure, that thou here seest put, It was for gentle Shakespeare cut ; Wherein the Grauer had a strife with Nature, to out-doo the life: O, could he but have drawne his wit As well in brasse, as he hath hit His face ; the Print would then surpasse All, that was euer writ in brasse. But, since he cannot, Reader, looke Not on his Picture, but his Booke. B.I. In copies of the third edition dated 1664, and in the Fourth Folio, these verses, with some unimportant typo- graphical variations, appear on the same page as the por- trait and surmounted by it — that is, facing the title-page. &itU=mw of art)* iFftst iFolfo. Showing how The Droeshout Engraving appeared in it. .OlJO* Mr. WILLIAM SHAKESPEARES COMEDIES, HISTORIES, & TRAGEDIES. Publifhed according to the True Originall Copies. LONDON Printed by Ifaac laggard, and Ed. Blount. 1623. THE DROESHOUT ENGRAVING. 47 The verses are printed above as they appear in the first edition. They are certainly not of a high order of merit, but quite in accordance with the spirit of the time when they were written. Droeshout engraved a number of plates, among which may be mentioned portraits of John Fox ; John Howson, Bishop of Durham ; William Fairfax, and Lord Mountjoy Blount. His portrait of Shakespeare, however, while ex- hibiting the same hard, stiff style, is the worst of them all. As the same plate was used in the four folio editions, it became more worn with each successive edition, until, in the fourth, it was very much poorer than in the first. Bohn says that the print, as it appeared in the first edi- tion "is distinguishable from subsequent impressions by the shading on the left of the forehead (as it stands be- fore you), which is expressed by single lines curving in- wards from left to right without any crossing whatever, while in the repaired state, as it occurs in the fourth edi- tion, the lines are strongly crossed, and bend outwards. Besides this, the hair is crossed in the repaired state, while in the original it is in single lines."* The opinions of critics as to the merits of Droeshout's engraving have been various, but it has failed to receive a hearty commendation from any of them. * Lowndes' Bibliographers Manual, etc. Edited by Bohn. London: 1863, 8vo., P- 2255. 48 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. George Steevens says: "The verses in praise of Droeshout's performance were probably written as soon as they were bespoke, and before their author had an opportunity or inclination to compare the plate with its original. * * * * It is lucky indeed for those to whom metrical recommendations are necessary, that custom does not require they should be delivered upon oath. It is likewise probable that Ben Jonson had no acquaint- ance with the graphick art, and might not have been oversolicitous about the style in which Shakespeare's lineaments were transmitted to posterity." John Britton, the antiquary, endorses what Steevens says, and adds that he cannot express his opinions better than by quoting Steevens' language, which he accord- ingly does.* Boaden, on the other hand, thinks that "this portrait exhibits an aspect of calm benevolence and tender thought ; great comprehension, and a kind of mixt feel- ing, as when melancholy yields to the suggestions of fancy." He further relates that Mr. Kemble, the cele- brated actor, was much pleased with it.f Wivell's opinion is also favorable, and he thinks that this engraving has the "most indubitable right to origi- * Appendix to Britten* s Auto-Biography, etc. London: 1 850, 8vo., p. 18. f An Inquiry, etc. London: 1824, 8vo., p. 17. THE DROESHOUT ENGRAVING. 49 nality. It is, as I may say, the key to unlock and detect almost all the impositions that have, at various times, arrested so much of public attention. It is a witness that can refute all false evidence, and will satisfy every discerner how to appreciate and how to convict."* Friswell says that the engraving is "not a skilful one, nor does it leave a very pleasing image on the beholder. ***** The eyes are peculiar; they are hardly fel- lows, but are not altogether ill drawn, and have about them a worn and hard-worked look. The cheeks are full and round; the hair straight, and turned under at the ears, which are without rings ; the lip is long, and the moustache grows under each nostril, leaving a complete division as in the bust. * * * We may therefore, after weighing the evidence carefully, and taking into con- sideration the probabilities of the case, assume that the most authentic representation of the poet is that of the head attached to the First Folio of 1623, and that we may take it, together with the bust at Stratford-upon- Avon, as a test of the genuineness of the many other assumed portraits of the poet."f Dr. Ingleby is of opinion that "next in authenticity to the bust is Droeshout's engraving, prefixed to the First * An Inquiry, etc. London: 1827, 8vo., p. 56. t Life Portraits, etc. London: 1864, 8vo., pp. 40, 42, and 45. 7 50 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. Folio edition of Shakespeare's Works. It must have been executed after Shakespeare's death j and therefore we may be sure it was taken from some sketch or paint- ing, probably in the possession of Mrs. Shakespeare or Dr. John Hall. ***** Even in its best state it is such a monstrosity, that I, for one, do not believe that it had any trustworthy exemplar."* J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps thinks that "although the de- fects in the drawing are painfully apparent, yet as being in all probability a copy from a genuine original picture, it is entitled to respectful consideration. Making allow- ances for inaccurate proportions, there appears to me to be a sufficient similarity between the bust and the print to lead to the conclusion that both are authentic and confirmatory of each other, "f It will be seen that while some critics find nothing to admire, others think quite favorably of this portrait. It certainly has no claim to rank very high as a work of art, and it strikes many people at first sight as unlike any human being; but long familiarity with it makes one first tolerate, and then grow to like it. It is as well au- thenticated as the Stratford bust, for Ben Jonson's testi- mony is of the highest value. He knew Shakespeare * Shakespeare : the Man, and the Book. London: 1877, 4to., pp. 81, 83. f The Works of William Shakespeare, etc. London: 1853, folio, Vol. I, p. 237. THE DROESHOUT ENGRAVING. 5 I well, and loved him too, in spite of what his detractors have tried to show. It is not probable, therefore, that Jonson would have given such a high testimonial to its merit as a likeness if it had not been so. Probably its faults are all to be laid at the door of Martin Droeshout. It is deeply to be regretted that the publishers of the First Folio did not select a better engraver. It is, of course, impossible to say from what Droeshout engraved his plate, but it is more than probable that it was from some painting. Steevens believed at one time that he had found the original of this engraving in the Felton portrait (and it certainly bears a great resem- blance" to the latter), but the pedigree of that picture is so defective that it is more than probable that the Felton portrait was copied from the Droeshout engraving many years after the publication of the latter. Droeshout's engraving is supposed by many to repre- sent Shakespeare in a theatrical costume, with a stage wig. Indeed, critics have even gone so far as to suggest that it represented him in the character of Old Knowell in Ben Jonson's play of Every Man in his Humour, in which Shakespeare is known to have acted. It has also been further suggested that if this were so it would help to explain Ben Jonson's warm commendation of the engraving. While very ingenious, of course these are only conjectures. 52 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. Mr. J. O. Halliwell-Philltpps possesses an impression of the Droeshout engraving in a different state from any in which it appeared in the four folio editions. He thus describes it, in a privately printed catalogue of his en- gravings, etc.: "The engraved head of Shakespeare on the title-page of the first collective edition of his Plays, 1623, Martin Droeshout sculpsit, London. The original engraving by Droeshout before it was altered by an inferior hand, of ex- treme rarity, and the earliest engraved portrait of Shake- speare in existence. "No writers on the subject have suspected that the engraved portrait of Shakespeare, by Droeshout, 1623, has hitherto been accessible to them and to the public only in a vitiated form. "A very superficial comparison of this original impres- sion, with the print in its ordinary state, will suffice to establish the wide difference of appearance between the two impressions, a difference so great as to present an absolute variation of expression. But a long and atten- tive examination will be required before all the minute points of difference will be observed. Amongst these may be specially mentioned one in the left eyebrow of the portrait, which, in the original, is shaded from left to right, whereas, in the other, it is shaded from right to THE DROESHOUT ENGRAVING. 53 left. In the latter, under the shading can be traced, with the aid of the magnifying glass, portions of the earlier work, a fact decisively proving that the engraving was altered, perhaps by some inferior hand, into the form hitherto generally seen. "The following observations upon the present copy of the engraving were kindly communicated by my late friend, F. W. Fairholt, F.S.A. 'The portrait, in this state of the engraving, is remarkable for clearness of tone ; the shadows being very delicately rendered, so that the light falls upon the muscles of the face with a soft- ness not to be found in the ordinary impressions. This is particularly visible in the arch under the eye, and in the muscles of the mouth; the expression of the latter is much altered in the later states of the plate by the en- largement of the upturned moustache, which hides and destroys the true character of this part of the face. The whole of the shadows have been darkened by cross-hatch- ing and coarse dotting, particularly on the chin; this gives a coarse and undue prominence to some parts of the portrait, the forehead particularly. In this early state of the plate the hair is darker than any of the shadows on the head, and flows softly and naturally; in the re- touched plate the shadow is much darker than the roots of the hair, imparting a swelled look to the head, and 54 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. giving the hair the appearance of a raised wig. It is re- markable that no shadow falls across the collar; this omission, and the general low tone of color in the en- graving, may have induced the retouching and strength- ening which has injured the true character of the like- ness, which, in its original state, is far more worthy of Ben Jonson's commendatory lines.' "Mr. William Smith, whose knowledge of early en- gravings is unrivalled, thus writes, in reference to a sug- gestion that the variations were caused by an accident to the plate, — 'I was unwilling to answer your note until I had made another careful examination of your engraving, as well as of the very fine impression in the usual state which we have recently purchased for the National Por- trait Gallery. This I have now done, and I can find no traces of any damage whatever. I fully believe that, on what is technically termed proving the plate, it was thought that much of the work was so delicate as not to allow of a sufficient number of impressions being printed. Droeshout might probably have refused to spoil his work, and it was retouched by an inferior and coarser engraver.' "* * A Catalogue of a small portion of the Engravings and Drawings Illustrative of the Life of Shakespeare, preserved in the collection formed by J. 0. Halliwell, Esq., F.R.S. London: 1868, 8vo., p. 35. THE DROESHOUT ENGRAVING. 55 When Mr. William Page, of New York, was studying the subject of Shakespeare's portraits, with a view to pre- paring his portrait and bust of Shakespeare, he was very anxious to see a photograph of Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps' unique impression of the Droeshout engraving, and the present writer was glad to be able to be the means of procuring him one from that gentleman. Of this Mr. Page writes as follows : "I must record in this connection how the Halliwell Droeshout differs from the usually known print in the First Folio of 1623. I cannot do better than refer to Mr. Halliwell 's views, as expressed in his 'Catalogue of a Small Portion of the Engravings and Drawings Illustrative of the Life of Shakespeare, preserved in the Collection formed by J. O. Halliwell- Phillipps, Esq., F.R.S., etc. Printed for Private Refer- ence.' My attention was called to this unique Droeshout by an extract from this 'Catalogue' in an article on the portraits of Shakespeare, by J. Parker Norris, Esq., of Philadelphia, who also finally procured me a full-sized photograph of the same from Mr. Halliwell. "I have carefully compared the photographs of this Halliwell Droeshout with the two prints from the same plate in the Astor Library, the darker one from the col- lection of the Duke of Buckingham. Mr. Halliwell's is evidently an earlier impression from the same plate be- 56 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. fore it was retouched and used for the other known im- pressions in the First Folio of 1623. The differences which Mr. Halliwell points out are very obvious. In the impressions from the retouched plate in the Astor Library, the lights and darks are generally emphasized at the expense of characterization. Whoever retouched the plate, in his mistaken efforts to improve the general effect, lost markings, modellings, accents all over the face. Yet this darker impression in the Astor Library must have been an uncommonly good one after the retouch- ings mentioned. But character is lost in the left temple, lost utterly in the differences in the eyebrows, so evident in the Halliwell Droeshout, and identified in the Stratford bust and the Death Mask. In the retouched plate the eyebrows are evened over and brought to the prim pre- cision which the latter workman aimed at. Quite a thorough-going line is carried over both eyebrows, which, in the earlier impression, was much more delicate and individual. The new workman had a praiseworthy intention also in adding the shadow upon the collar, which did not exist at all in the earlier state of the plate. That it was the same plate may be known from the acci- dents in it, repeated in all the impressions by a little black spot under the nose and at the corner of the mouth. I say accidents, because there is no evidence of THE DROESHOUT ENGRAVING. 57 lines being laid by the graving tool to represent such markings in the original from which the portrait was taken. They are caused by bad places in the metal of the plate. The peculiar marking or corrugation of the left eyebrow, as indication of a certain peculiar marking between the nose and the hairs of the brow of the actual person, is all lost in the retouched plate. ***** The meaning of the Halliwell Droeshout is more evident, and the original lines laid with more truth to nature in the original intention. I have submitted my photograph of it to experts in engraving and corrected my impres- sions, when necessary, in regard to what was intentional by the artist and rendered by the graving tool, and what was accidental to the plate or to the impression from it."* The present writer also sent, by request, a photograph of the Halliwell-Phillipps' unique impression of the Droeshout engraving to Mr. Lenox, of New York, the founder of the Lenox Library, to whom the public owes so much for his noble gift, which will carry his name down to all time. In acknowledging its receipt, he wrote as follows, under date of August 24, 1874: "I have just received, and hasten to offer my acknowl- edgments for, the photographic likeness of Shake- speare. It enables me to understand, better than I did, * A Study of Shakespeare's Portraits. London: 1876, 48mo., p. 33. 8 58 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. Mr. Halliwell's remarks in his ' Catalogue of Engravings Illustrative of Shakespeare,' though I cannot yet com- prehend the whole of them. Compared with the portrait in my copies of the Folio, 1623, 1 can see no difference in the shading of the left eyebrow, etc., but the upturned mous- tache is enlarged, and there are more lines in my copies for the shading of the forehead. Indeed, these seem to be intermediate between Mr. H.'s and those subse- quently struck off. Yet as a whole, mine, and especially Harris's fac-simile, are softer and clearer than your photograph — a difference owing probably to the photo- graph and not perhaps in the original. "On examining my volume I unexpectedly found a cutting from one of Lilly's catalogues, which I had prob- ably put into the volume for the purpose of examina- tion and forgotten. I copy it: "Lilly's catalogue of rare, curious, useful books, page 112 (date not known.) * * * "'A perfect copy of this precious volume. The por- trait is in a unique state, before the shading on the left side of the laced collar, but imprint below is in fac-simile.' "In my copies the 'laced collar' on Shakespeare's left side is different from your photograph. There is a shading from the chin up to the hair." In 1640 there was published a work entitled: "Poems. MARSHALL'S COPY OF 2TJ)t Brorstjotit fSugratoitifl. From an old Engraving. 4 3 ait?(i!»*fclfiS JMOga-JO'iar 3#3 This Shadow? i; renowned Skafo/har's'Scuk ct'tK'aae The applaufc? delight? the wonder of the J taqe . Mature her selfe, was fraud of his dcjlqnes ^4nd joyd to weare the Jre/stnq of his lines \ The learned will Cenfejs, his works are fucr\-\ iAs neither man< nor Mufc, can prayje to mueh ■ For ever live thy fame, the world to tell 1 Thy like, no aqc> shall ever paralell . J V ' W.M Jcu\ ? fh. . • . . * THE DROESHOUT ENGRAVING. 59 Written by Wil. Shake-speare, Gent. Printed at London by Tho. Cotes, and are to be sold by Iohn Benson, dwell- ing in St. Dunstan's Church-yard. 1640." In this book appeared a plate, consisting of a portrait of Shakespeare, copied from the Droeshout picture, but changed in many details. It was engraved by W. Marshall. In copying the Droeshout plate Marshall has turned the head in the opposite direction, and added to the length of the figure so as to show the left arm, with the hand covered with a gauntlet, and holding a branch of laurel. Over the right shoulder is a cloak. The whole is enclosed in an oval frame. Marshall's engraving presents a worse appearance than Droeshout's. Droeshout's engraving has been reproduced by many subsequent engravers, generally with indifferent results. They all seem to have tried to improve the original en- graving, and having nothing but their fancy to guide them in their efforts to do so, the results have not been satisfactory. The first copy from Droeshout's plate is supposed to have been engraved by W. Fairthorne, and was pub- lished in 1655. It is in an oval about an inch and a half long, which is at the top of a picture representing a woman stabbing herself, while a man looks on too aston- ished to stop her. Underneath the plate are the follow- ing lines: 60 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. "The Fates decree, that its a mighty wrong To Woemen Kinde, to Itave more Greife, then Tongue Will: Gilbirson : John Stafford excud." The head of Shakespeare is reversed, but is a fair copy of the original. The early editions of Shakespeare (apart from the four folios, which, as has before been stated, contained the original Droeshout engraving), did not reproduce this picture of the poet, but quite a good copy appeared in Johnson and Steevens' edition of Shakespeare, pub- lished in 1778. No engraver's name is given. An engraving published by J. Bell, September 5, 1786, (no engraver's name,) in Bell's edition of Shakespeare is next in order. It is a poor performance, and gives but a faint idea of the original. W. Sherwin engraved a plate for John Stockdale, which was published September 1, 1790. The entire expression is changed, and it is about as poor a copy as can well be imagined. The above print must not be confounded with one en- graved by H. Brocas, and published by William Jones, in 1 79 1. Brocas states that it is "from the original Folio Edition," but he evidently copied Sherwin's print of the year before instead. It closely resembles the latter THE DROESHOUT ENGRAVING. 6 1 in appearance and in the manner of its engraving, and has all of the faults of Sherwin's plate. When Ireland gave to the world his wretched forgeries, which he succeeded in palming off on many men (who should have known better) as original MS. by Shake- speare, Samuel Ireland engraved, Dec. i, 1795, the miserable drawing which bears some slight resemblance to the Droeshout; but it is so badly executed that it looks like the work of a child. It was published in the Miscellaneous Papers, etc., London: 1796. In 1807 a reprint of the First Folio was issued. It contained a good copy of Droeshout's print, but it is better engraved than his plate, and the expression softened. No engraver's name is given. In 1819 R. Sawyer copied the plate supposed to have been engraved by W. Fairthorne, and which is referred to above. This copy was subsequently given among the illustrations in Wivell's Inquiry, in 1827. Thurston drew a very poor copy of Droeshout's picture, which was engraved by Rivers, and published by Sherwin & Co., in 182 1. In this print the expression of the face is much altered, and it is entirely unlike the original. J. Swaine was much more successful in his copy, pub- lished in Boaden's Inquiry, London: 1824, 8vo., but he 62 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. has softened the expression very materially, and the lower part of the face is too dark. This plate was also used in Harness' Shakespeare, Vol. I, London : 1 830, 8vo. A small engraving by Augustus Fox was published in Pickering's miniature edition of Shakespeare, London: 1825, 48mo. It is fair. The same year (1825,) Pickering also published a larger plate, engraved by W. H. Worthington. The workmanship on the plate is very good, but the resem- blance to Droeshout's engraving is slight. In 1827 Wivell gave the best copy of the original engraving that had then been published. It is engraved by C. Picart, and accompanied Wivell's Inquiry, London : 1827, 8vo. The background, however, and also the face, is not engraved in the same manner as Droeshout's picture. About this time W. Smith, of London, published quite a good copy of Droeshout's engraving. There is no date, or engraver's name, on the plate, and Ben Jonson's lines "To the Reader," are underneath. It is engraved in imitation of Droeshout's rough manner, and is very meritorious. Collier's first edition of Shakespeare, Vol. I, London: 1844, 8vo., contains a plate engraved by H. Cook, which is a fair copy of the original. This same plate is used in Collier's edition of Shakespeare, published in THE DROESHOUT ENGRAVING. 63 one volume, 4to, London: 1853, and also in his edition in six volumes, 8vo, London: 1858. Henry Rumsey Forster's Few Remarks, etc., London: 1849, 8vo., has a small engraving of the head of the Droeshout, which is very well done, but the beard is too dark. T. H. Lacy published, in 1857, a volume entitled The Legend of Shakespeare 's Crab Tree, by Green, which contained quite a fair copy of the Droeshout. The engraver's name is not given, and this is to be regretted, as the print is a very striking one. To engrave a copy of the Droeshout on wood is a very difficult feat, and it has never been successfully ac- complished. It was tried by G. Dalziel, for Knight's Cab- inet edition of Shakespeare, and the result was an utter failure. A wood-cut published in Grant White's Shake- speare, Vol. II, Boston: 1858, 8vo., was better; but when Lionel Booth issued his prospectus for his admira- ble reprint of the First Folio, it contained a very poor en- graving on wood from the Droeshout. Lastly, W. J. Linton engraved quite a large copy on wood, which was presented to the subscribers to Cassell's Illustrated Shakespeare. It is well engraved, but entirely different from the original. An engraving by H. Robinson, with Shakespeare's autograph under it, published about i860, possesses 64 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. some merit, and is well engraved, but the expression is changed. It appeared in the Lansdowne edition of Shakespeare. The first accurate reproduction of Droeshout's picture was one made by the photo-zincographic process — at the Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton, under the direc- tion of Sir Henry James, in 1862. The cross hatching on the face and in the background has come out rather too dark, but on the whole it is very satisfactory. A complete fac-simile of the title-page of the First Folio is given. A small, though very good photo-lithograph of the print appeared in Lionel Booth's reprint of the First Folio, London: 1864, in the quarto and small quarto editions of that book, but in the folio one a photograph is given. Dr. Leo's edition of Coriolanus, London: 1864, 4to., p. 1 28, contains a good photo-lithograph of the Droeshout. An excellent photograph of it appeared in Friswell's Life Portraits, etc., London: 1864, 8vo. Kenny's Life and Genius of Shakespeare, London: 1864, 8vo., has a fair copy, but no engraver's name is given. Photographs of Droeshout's engraving are not gener- ally successful, as the cross hatching so extensively used by Droeshout does not come out clear in the negative, and the yellowish tint of the paper of the original folio causes a general darkness of tone in the print, which is THE DROESHOUT ENGRAVING. 65 not satisfactory; but an admirable one, by Preston, was published by Day & Son, in Staunton's Memorials of Shakespeare, London: 1864, folio; and a splendid photo- lithograph was published by the same firm April 9, 1864. This is from the print in the First Folio belonging to the Earl of Ellesmere, and is a superb copy of a brilliant impression of the engraving. This photo-lithograph was also used in Staunton's photo-lithographic reproduction of the First Folio, London: 1866. A series of four photographs, made from copies of the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Folios, belonging to the Barton collection, in the Boston Public Library, are in the possession of the present writer. They prove what has been before said about photographs of this engraving from the originals being seldom satisfactory. Mary Cowden Clarke's Edition of Shakespeare, Vol. I, New York: 1866, royal 8vo., contained a poor copy by J. C. Armytage. A plate by R. C. Bell in Clarke's Shakespeare, London : 1869, 4to., is much better. The heliotype reproductions in Justin Winsor's Biblio- graphy of the Quartos and Folios, etc., Boston: 1876, folio, are very unsatisfactory. They are from the copies in the Barton collection. A fairly good photo-lithograph appeared in Halliwell- 66 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. Phillipps' fac-simile of the First Folio, published by Chatto & Windus, London: 1876, 8vo. A wood-cut of this print in the Leopold Shakespeare, London: 1877, 4 to -> ana " another in the Avon edition of the poet's works, Philadelphia: 1879, royal 8vo., fall under the objection to wood-cut copies of this engrav- ing above referred to. In 1882 the New Shakespeare Society published a photograving by the Typographic Etching Company of London. The lines in this copy are too heavy, and there is a general effect of blackness which is very unsatisfactory. Marshall's plate has been frequently copied. A good copy was published in Johnson & Steevens' edition of Shakespeare, Vol. I, London: 1778, 8vo., and the same plate was used in the edition of 1785. A poor plate, by Delattre, was published in Bell's Shakespeare, London: 1786, i6mo. A copy utterly unlike Marshall's was engraved by H. Adlard, and published by Wetton & Jarvis, Dec. 1, 1821. An excellent engraving was published in Boaden's Inquiry, London: 1824, 8vo., and the same plate was used in Wivell's Inquiry, London: 1827, 8vo. A well engraved copy by H. Robinson was published in Pickering's edition of Shakespeare, London: 1832, i6mo. &He <£J)amros portrait. From Mezzotint by Cousins. THE CHANDOS PORTRAIT. PERHAPS the best known of all the portraits pro- fessing to represent Shakespeare is the Chandos. Certainly it is the most familiar to the large mass of people. The cheap plaster cast, hawked about the streets by the Italian image vender, is modelled after this por- trait, while the handsome bronze that one puts over his clock has the same features. In a word, the Chandos is the popularly accepted representation of Shakespeare. How this has come about it would be difficult to say, un- less it be that the public would not have the Stratford bust or the Droeshout engraving. They are the only ones well authenticated, but they have not met with popular favor like the Chandos, whose pedigree is very unsatisfactory. This picture was first heard of towards the end of the seventeenth century, after the year 1683, when Sir God- (67) 68 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. frey Kneller made a copy of it for Dryden. This is the first fact that we know concerning it. It has an elabo- rate pedigree, however, which must now be discussed. It is not known by whom it was painted. Some critics have believed that it was the work of Richard Burbage, the actor. He possessed considerable skill as an artist, and in Dulwich College there is still preserved a por- trait of himself which he painted. The style and man- ner of the work in this portrait of Burbage, are said to be similar to the Chandos picture. Joseph Taylor, an actor, is reputed to have been its first owner, but whether he purchased it from Burbage, or it was given to him by the latter, tradition is silent. He is supposed to have left it by will to Sir William D'Avenant, but no will of Taylor's has been found, and as the latter was extremely poor, this is not a happy conjecture. There is a tradition that Sir William D'Avenant owned this picture, but here again there is not a particle of proof. If it could be established as a fact that D'Ave- nant really did own this portrait, it would be much in favor of its authenticity. Sir William was reputed to have been Shakespeare's natural son, and the possession of his father's portrait would have been probable in the case of one who was proud of being thought to have had Shakespeare's blood in his veins. THE CHANDOS PORTRAIT. 69 D' Avenant died in 1 668, and appears to have owed a considerable amount of money. Administration of his effects was granted to John Otway, in that year, who was his principal creditor. It was possibly at the sale of D'Avenant's effects that Betterton purchased the Chan- dos portrait; and while it was in the latter's possession it was engraved by Vander Gucht, for Rowe's edition of Shakespeare, published in 1 709. When Betterton died he was a poor man, and his col- lection of portraits of actors and others were sold. Mrs. Barry, the actress, purchased the Chandos portrait at that sale, and she afterwards sold it to Robert Keck, of the Temple, London, for forty guineas. A Mr. Nicoll, Nicholl, or Nicholls was the next owner (his name is spelled in a variety of ways by different writers). He married into the Keck family, and the por- trait thus came into his possession; and when his daughter married James, Marquis of Caernarvon, who was afterwards Duke of Chandos, it became the latter's property. From the latter nobleman it takes its name. The Duke of Chandos' daughter was Anna Eliza, Duchess of Buckingham, and she inherited the picture from her father. At the sale of the Duke of Buckingham's pictures at Stowe, in September, 1848, this portrait was sold for JO THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. three hundred and fifty-five guineas, to the Earl of Elles- mere. The latter nobleman presented it in March, 1856, to the National Portrait Gallery, where it now remains. In the catalogue of that collection the history of the Chandos portrait is thus given: "The Chandos Shakespeare was the property of John Taylor, the player,* by whom, or by Richard Burbage, it was painted. The picture was left by the former, in his will, to Sir William D'Avenantf After his death it was bought by Betterton, the actor, upon whose decease Mr. Keck, of the Temple, purchased it for forty guineas, from whom it was inherited by Mr. Nicholls, of Michen- don House, Southgate, Middlesex, whose only daughter married James, Marquis of Caernarvon, afterwards Duke of Chandos, father to Anna Eliza, Duchess of Buckingham." It will be noticed that the above history omits the ownership of the picture by Mrs. Barry; and while it gives the picture's pedigree as if there was very little doubt about it, there is no authority brought forward to substantiate the statements therein contained. * The John Taylor referred to here is probably a mistake for Joseph Taylor, as there was no John Taylor who was an actor. Perhaps, however, John Taylor, the painter, is intended. He painted two portraits of Taylor, the Water poet, which are in the Picture Gallery at Oxford. They bear the inscription "John Taylor pinx. 1653," and are said to be painted in the same style as the Chandos portrait. f There is no authority whatever for this statement. THE CHANDOS PORTRAIT. 7 1 Such is the pedigree of this famous portrait. It will be seen that very little is positively known regarding it, but that much that has been given above is founded on mere statements and conjectures. In length and in containing celebrated names its pedigree is far ahead of either the Stratford bust or the Droeshout engraving, but while they are perfectly well authenticated, this portrait's pedigree is largely made up of allegations not capable of proof. Betterton's ownership, as before stated, is the first positive fact in its history, if we except the circumstance of its having been copied by Kneller a short time pre- vious to this, and it is not even known who owned the picture when the latter copied it. When Kneller presented his copy of the picture to Dryden, the latter sent the painter, in return, some verses commencing: " Shakespeare, thy gift, I place before my sight, With awe I ask his blessing as I write; With reverence look on his majestick face, Proud to be less, but of his godlike race. His soul inspires me, while thy praise I write, And I like Teucer under Ajax fight : Bids thee, through me, be bold ; with dauntless breast Contemn the bad, and emulate the best : Like his, thy criticks in the attempt are lost, When most they rail, know then, they envy most." 72 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. Dryden's copy of the portrait afterwards came into the possession of Earl Fitzwilliam, of Wentworth House, and Dr. Waagen, in the Art Treasures of Great Britain, thus speaks of it: "A portrait of Shakespeare, a copy made by Sir God- frey Kneller, and by him presented to Dryden, is only so far interesting as showing the same features as those in the Chandos picture (now, 1855) in the Bridgewater Gallery, thus corroborating the truth of that portrait." Sir Joshua Reynolds is stated to have made a copy of the Chandos portrait in 1760, for Bishop Newton; and an anonymous copy was presented by Edward Capell to Trinity College, Cambridge. After the picture had been purchased by the Earl of Ellesmere, John Payne Collier read a paper concern- ing it, before the old Shakespeare Society, exhibiting the portrait to the members at the same time. Mr. Collier inclined to the belief that it was painted by Richard Bur- bage, the actor, who possessed some skill in painting. Burbage's portrait, painted by himself, which is at Dul- wich College, Mr. Collier thought bore evidence of having been painted in a similar manner. This has been denied, however, by H. Rodd, who was a good judge of old pic- tures. He says that both pictures are of the one period, that they have both been carelessly cleaned, and that they THE CHANDOS PORTRAIT. 73 have both been retouched; but the portrait of Bur- bage is not well drawn or colored, and as a work of art it does not compare well with the Chandos portrait. Rodd believed that the latter was painted by Cornelius Jansen. This is not probable, however, as he is sup- posed not to have come to England before 1618, when he took up his residence in Blackfriars. The truth is, the painter of the Chandos portrait is not known, and, it is only reasonable to presume, he never will be. After Mr. Collier had read his paper before the old Shakespeare Society The AtJienceum contained an anony- mous article, in which Mr. Collier's statement that the portrait was painted by Burbage is doubted, and the copy of Oldy's notes to Langbaine, (on which authority Mr. Collier founded his belief) is thus given entire: "Mr. Nicholas [Nicholl] of Southgate has a picture of Shakespeare which they say was painted by old Corne- lius Jansen, others by Rich. Burbage the player. "Mr. Keck of the Temple gave Mrs. Barry 40 guineas for her Shakespeare — the same." Little or no weight must be attached to Oldy's state- ments, for it will be noticed that he gives the names of two persons who are said to have painted the picture — Corne- lius Jansen and Richard Burbage — and allows the reader to take his choice. 74 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. The writer of the Athenceum article states that he believes the present Chandos portrait to be a copy of the picture painted by Burbage, but fails to give any reason for thinking so. He also believes that this picture was copied for D'Avenant, and that it belonged to him "be- yond the possibility of doubt," but, as before stated, there is no authority whatever for this allegation. The portrait is twenty-two inches high and eighteen inches wide. It is on canvas, and is painted in an oval, representing stone, and the background is of a reddish brown. The inner edge of this oval has a reflected light in one part of it, to represent the thickness of the stone. This gives somewhat of a yellowish tinge surrounding the head, and has been referred to by some writers to show that this portrait is a copy of the date of Kneller's pictures, that being a characteristic of the latter. In re- ality, however, there is no such yellowness around the head as these writers have claimed; indeed, the whole background is so dark that it is necessary to have a good light to see what its color is. George Scharf, F.S.A., and an artist of some re- pute, contributed a valuable and interesting paper on The Principal Portraits of Shakespeare to Notes and Que- ries for April 23, 1864. This admirable, though brief, essay was subsequently reprinted in book form, in 1 6mo., THE CHANDOS PORTRAIT. 75 in the same year. On page 8 Mr. Scharf thus gives his opinion of this portrait: "It is painted on coarse English canvas, covered with a groundwork of greenish gray, which has been rubbed bare in several parts, where the coarse threads of the canvas happen most to project. Only a few parts of the face have been retouched with a reddish paint. Some portions of the hair seem to have been darkened, and a few touches of deep madder red may have been added to give point to the nostrils and eyelids. The background is a rich dark red; but the whole tone of the picture has become blackened, partly in consequence of the gray ground protruding, and partly from the red colors of the flesh tints having deepened to a brownish tone. This at first sight gives the com- plexion a dull swarthy hue. The features are well modelled, and the shadows skilfully massed, so as to produce a portrait in no way unworthy of the time of Van Somer and Cornelius Jansen. It would be folly to speculate upon the name of the artist, but any one con- versant with pictures of this period would, upon careful examination, pronounce it remarkably good if only the production of an amateur." Sir Joshua Reynolds is said to have been of the opinion that the Chandos portrait was left in an un- finished state by the artist, but Mr. Rodd, in a letter to 76 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. Mr. Forster, says that Sir Joshua could never have held this opinion, and attributes this peculiar appearance to too frequent and injudicious cleaning. He continues: "Sir Joshua must have known that neither the ancient nor the modern masters finished the borders, and the more minute details and subordinate parts of their pic- tures, before they had completed the face. The oval border and the dark red colored background of the pic- ture in question have not only been highly finished, but are now very pure, and, with the exception of a slight damage over the head, it is not retouched or 'painted over.' The face, hair, and dress have suffered more or less by an unskilful cleaner. Whoever was the person intrusted to clean it, he must have used a strong alkali, as the finish and glazing of the face are much damaged, and even the collar, which, being nearly all composed of white lead, is more durable, has materially suffered; the most remarkable thing is, that the mouth still remains perfect, and sweetly beautiful it is! The dress has suffered; but there is sufficient of the picture left — the outline being perfect — for a skilful repairer to connect the whole, not by 'painting over,' but by stippling in the small particles with paint or water-color, where rubbed off, to match the parts left. The head is finely drawn and well colored, the face has an expression of intelli- THE CHANDOS PORTRAIT. 77 gence and vivacity, and there is not one point in it lead- ing us to doubt its originality."* In 1783 Malone had a careful drawing made from the original picture by Ozias Humphry, whom he styles an "excellent artist." Speaking of this copy Malone (in 1784) said: "The original having been painted by a very ordinary hand, having been at some subsequent period painted over, and being now in a state of decay, this copy, which is a very faithful one, is in my opinion in- valuable." Steevens (who termed this portrait the D'Avenantico- Bettertono - Barryan - Keckian - N icholsian-Chandosan can- vas,) says, in his preface to the 1 793 edition of the poet's works, that the reason that that edition contains no por- trait of Shakespeare is because "the only portrait of him that even pretends to authenticity, by means of injudi- cious cleaning, or some other accident, has become little better than the 'shadow of a shade.' ***** Of the drapery and curling hair exhibited in the excellent en- gravings of Mr. Vertue, Mr. Hall, and Mr. Knight, the painting does not afford a vestige ; nor is there a feature or circumstance on the whole canvas, that can with mi- nute precision be delineated." * A Few Remarks, etc. London : 1849, 8vo., p. 18. 78 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. William Page says: "Let us look next to the Chandos portrait, painted probably twelve or fourteen years after the Droeshout. Whatever shortcomings the picture contains, I think it was painted by a man of the craft, and one who had committed like artistic sins so many times as to fix a habit or manner of not doing it. * * * * I re- peat, we are indebted to the Arundel Society's photo- graphs for all we can know of any of its claims to any characteristic likeness to nature or to Shakespeare. In the National Portrait Gallery it is almost a complete ne- gation, its cleanings and mendings leaving the expert scarcely a foothold in his search for the original picture."* The Arundel Society photograph from the original picture, referred to above, by Mr. Page, represents the portrait in a very dilapidated condition. The stone arch surrounding the portrait has almost entirely disappeared, the head has nearly faded out of sight, and the white collar is the one distinct thing to be seen in the whole picture. Desiring to know whether this photograph represented the picture as it now is, the present writer- requested Dr. C. M. Ingleby, (who has given much time and attention to the subject of Shakespeare's portraits) to state his views on this point. Under date of Novem- ber 13, 1883, he very kindly wrote as follows: * A Study of Shakespeare 's Portraits. London : 1876, 24010., p. 40. THE CHANDOS PORTRAIT. 79 "Conformably to your request, I went, yesterday, to the National Portrait Gallery, taking with me the Arun- del Society's photograph of the Chandos portrait of Shakespeare, and I beg to report to you as follows: "The photograph does not give the least notion of the original, which is a carefully finished picture, exhibiting none of the dilapidation shown in the photograph. "If I may trust my recollection of the portrait when it first left the collection of Lord Francis Egerton,* I should say that the picture has been restored since it became national property. When I first saw it, it was in very bad condition, the cracks in the varnish marring the painting. The cracks are still visible on close inspection, but they have been varnished over. I believe the photo- graph to have been made before the restoration of the picture, but of this I cannot be sure, as the reds come up so badly in a photograph, and not improbably, the picture was not removed from the glass which protects it. I could discover nothing in it to account for the dreadful mess in the nose and mouth in the photograph. "The portrait in its present condition is represented, with the utmost accuracy, in Samuel Cousins' mezzotint." Dr. Ingleby wrote to Mr. George Scharf, the Curator * The Earl of Ellesmere. 80 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. of the National Portrait Gallery, asking whether the por- trait had been cleaned or restored. Mr. Scharf replied that it had not been cleaned or even varnished, so far as he could remember, and that the portrait was in a good state of preservation, and did not need anything done to it. How then can the Arundel Society's photograph be explained? The portrait could not have been in the condition it is now when that photograph was taken, or it would have made a much better copy than that shows. Compare, too, what Malone, Steevens, Rodd, Friswell, Scharf, and Page say about the state of the portrait. It is to be feared that the picture has been "restored," as it is called, that is, painted over so as to cover over much of the original work. The Chandos portrait is more like the Stratford bust than the Droeshout engraving, but many persons fail to find any resemblance between either of these authentic portraits and the subject of the present essay. It has a very Jewish face, and the ear-rings give it a foreign look, although it was not uncommon for Englishmen of Shake- speare's day to wear them. It is a most disappointing picture, and those bronzes and engravings which have been copied from it, and received by the public as ideal likenesses of the poet, owe their popularity to the skill THE CHANDOS PORTRAIT. 8 1 of the artists who made them, and not to a literal render- ing of the original picture, which is most unsatisfactory. Boaden thought very favorably of this picture, and seems to have believed in its authenticity. He was much impressed with Malone's acceptance of it as a genuine portrait of the poet. Friswell says: "The picture, which is in oil, and on canvas, is at first glance disappointing. One cannot readily imagine our essentially English Shakespeare to have been a dark, heavy man, with a foreign expression, of a decidedly Jewish physiognomy, thin curly hair, a somewhat lubricious mouth, red-edged eyes, wanton lips, with a coarse expression, and his ears tricked out with ear-rings. The forehead has a somewhat noble aspect, but has been retouched by a clumsy restorer. The eyes are hardly well rendered in any print but that after Ozias Humphry, and those have a little exaggeration. They are of dark brown, and fixed in a thoughtful gaze. The eyes are full, and somewhat heavy, the supra-orbital ridge well developed and round, as it is in the bust — in the Houbraken portrait* it is flat. The hair, which is auburn inclining to dark brown, is in great profusion, the chin and upper lip fully covered with hair, the upper * Friswell means Houbraken's engraving of the Chandos portrait, published in 1747. II 82 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. lip very short, and totally different from that of the Strat- ford bust or the Droeshout portrait. "The dress of the figure, so far as we are now able to distinguish, is of black satin, the collar of lawn, plain and simple, with white strings, which show through the beard, and are sewn over the collar. The painting has been very much scrubbed, and has been injured by inju- dicious cleaners and restorers."* It has been conjectured that the Chandos portrait repre- sents Shakespeare in the character of Shylock, and its Jewish appearance lends some weight to this supposition. No portrait of Shakespeare has been so frequently engraved as the Chandos, and it will be impossible to do more than notice some of the most striking prints. The earliest plate is by M. Vander Gucht, and was published in the first edition of Rowe's Shakespeare, London: 1 709, 8vo. It is in all of the volumes, and is in an oval, supported on a square pedestal. On either side are allegorical representations of Tragedy and Comedy, each holding a laurel wreath over the poet's head, and above is an allegorical picture of Fame. All the work on the plate is better than the portrait of the poet, which is quite insignificent in size, and poorly engraved. The * Life Portraits, etc. London: 1864, 8vo., p. 31. THE CHANDOS PORTRAIT. 83 hair is much more curly than in the original picture, and the costume is much more prominent than it should in a copy of the Chandos portrait. When Pope's edition of Shakespeare appeared in 1725, 4to., it contained a beautifully executed plate by G. Vertue, dated 1721, which had above it, on a ribbon, "William Shakespeare," and underneath, the arms of the poet on a small shield. The portrait purports to be a copy of the Chandos, but it is entirely unlike it, and the resemblance to the pictures of James I. is striking. Theobald's Shakespeare, first edition, London: 1733, 8vo., contained a plate engraved by G. Duchange and drawn by B. Arlaud. It is totally unlike the original painting. The face is turned the other way; only a slight drooping moustache and goatee are given instead of the full beard in the original ; the whole expression of the face is changed, and the dress is utterly unlike also. The portrait is in an oval, and underneath is the inscrip- tion, "Mr. William Shakespeare" in neat writing. A copy of Duchange's plate, so far as the portrait is concerned, was engraved by Lud. du Guernier about this date, but the head is turned the correct way. The allegorical figures of Tragedy, Comedy, and Fame are the same in this plate as in M. Vander Gucht's, 1709. Hanmer's Shakespeare, first edition, London: 1744, 84 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. 4to., contained an engraving by H. Gravelot, which, though well engraved, is entirely different from the original. The head is turned the wrong way. In Han- mer's second edition, London: 1771, 4to., the same plate was used. Houbraken engraved a large plate in an artistic man- ner, with the portrait in an oval, the head looking the wrong way, and beneath a group of musical instru- ments, a mask, etc. This was for Birch's Heads of Illus- trious Persons of Great Britain, London: 1743-52, folio. The plate is dated 1 747, and has been frequently copied by later engravers. It is very interesting, because it states that the original painting was then " in the possession of John Nicoll of Southgate," and fixes the date of his ownership. G. Vertue engraved a print which was published in Warburton's edition of Shakespeare, London: 1747, 8vo. It has the head reversed. The hair is very curly, and the expression entirely different from the original. This print was used in Johnson's Shakespeare, first edition (London: 1765, 8vo.), and in his second edition (London: 1768, 8vo.) ; also in Johnson and Steevens' Shakespeare, first edition (London: 1773, 8vo.). G. Vander Gucht engraved a plate, with the head reversed, which was used in the later editions of Theo- bald's Shakespeare, in i6mo, e.g. 1757, etc. THE CHANDOS PORTRAIT. 85 T. Cook copied Houbraken's engraving, but placed the head and figure the right way. It is a poor print and was published by G. Kearsley, circa 1770. John Hall engraved a small plate in 1772, which is better than the preceding ones, but the head and figure are reversed and the expression changed. Many of Jacob Tonson's publications, about this date, had on their title-pages a small wood-cut, badly executed, but evidently copied from Duchange's plate of 1 733. Johnson and Steevens' Shakespeare (London: 1785, 8vo.,) contained an engraving, by John Hall, which has evidently been made from the drawing by Ozias Hum- phry, in 1783, for Malone; and in Malone's Shakespeare (London : 1 790, 8vo.,) appeared a plate engraved by C. Knight, from the same drawing, and dated 1786. There is a softness of expression and an idealization about Hum- phry's copy which is entirely wanting in the original, and yet Malone said that it was "a very faithful one." Cook engraved another plate in 1 788, for Bell's edition of Shakespeare, totally different from his engraving in circa 1770, and not at all like the original. About this date a good engraving, but too dark, was made by Goldar. "William Shakespear" is at the top of the plate instead of in the usual place underneath. A curious engraving, in an oval, with "W. Shakespear" 86 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. on the oval, and a poor one with "Wm. Shakespeare, Esqr.," at the bottom, both about this date, serve to show the infinite variety of expression given by each different engraver of this portrait. N. Parr engraved a small oval plate very much like Duchange's, 1733. It was published circa 1790. Holl engraved an oval plate, in dots, from Humphry's drawing, circa 1790, and about the same time an en- graving by G. Vander Gucht, a son of M. Vander Gucht, was published. The work on it is coarse, but the re- semblance to Duchange's plate (1733) is unmistakeable. This plate must not be confounded with the one by the same engraver published in Theobald's later editions of Shakespeare, £. ^ 1757, etc. It closely resembles that engraving but it is different. The Universal Magazine, circa 1 790, contained an en- graving copied from Houbraken's plate, which is very unsatisfactory. The expression has been changed, and Shakespeare is represented with a villainous countenance. In 1793 Harding's Shakespeare Illustrated, etc., ap- peared. Among the numerous engravings in that work was one of the Chandos portrait, drawn by S. Harding and engraved by Le Goux. It is very poor. Audinet engraved a plate, with the head reversed, published by Harrison & Co., March 1, 1794. It is from THE CHANDOS PORTRAIT. 87 Houbraken's engraving and is small, but the workman- ship is very good. Ireland's Picturesque Views on the Upper, or Warwick- shire Avon, etc., London: 1795, 8vo., contained a poor plate drawn by Burney and engraved by C. Apostool; and another plate, copied from Houbraken's print, and well engraved, has "William Shakespear" in a circle surrounding it, which is divided into four parts. (No engraver's name. Circa 1800.) A very curious mezzotint engraving, "printed for Robt. Sayer, Print Seller, No. 53 Fleet Street," bears very little resemblance to the Chandos portrait, and has a most villainous expression. Fortunately it is very scarce. {Circa 1800.) Sharpe's edition of Shakespeare, London: 1803, 24mo., contained a poor print drawn by R. Corbould, and engraved by P. W. Tomkins. S. Bennett engraved a plate, after Vertue's first print, (172 1,) which was published by I. Stockdale, January 1, 1807; which is wretched. Vertue's print of 1721, it will be remembered, represented James I., while pur- porting to copy the Chandos portrait, and Bennett has feebly imitated the print. Malone's Shakespeare, edited by Boswell, London : 1 82 1, 8vo., contained a fair print, engraved by Fry. 88 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. Heath engraved a very poor copy of the Chandos, which was published by Jones & Co., May 4, 1822. At the top of the picture is an allegorical figure representing Fame about to crown the poet, and at the bottom are Comedy and Tragedy. An edition of Shakespeare, published in ten volumes, London: 1823, i6mo., has a plate engraved by Dean, which is quite fair. The best engraving after Ozias Humphry's drawing is that by Scriven, and published in Boaden's Inquiry, London: 1824, 8vo. It is the handsomest picture made from the Chandos, and by far the most intellectual one. It has been often copied by later engravers, but it is not a true representation of the Chandos portrait. It will always be sought for as a beautiful print, and one of Scriven's most successful works. The same plate was used in Harness' edition of Shakespeare, London: 1830, 8vo. Singer's first edition of Shakespeare, London: 1826, i6mo., contained an engraving on wood by John Thompson, from a drawing by W. Harvey, which is well done, but not a good copy of the Chandos. It is sur- rounded by an emblematical border. Wivell drew the best copy of the Chandos for his In- quiry, London: 1827, 8vo., that had then been published. THE CHANDOS PORTRAIT. 89 It was engraved by John Cochran, mainly in dots, and is an excellent specimen of his work. Edward Smith engraved a well-executed plate for the Union Shakespeare, published by Robert Jennings, 1829. It is intended to be a copy of the Chandos, but the artist, whose name is not given, has utterly failed to give the slightest idea of the original. A poor copy, engraved by Freeman, appeared in Valpy's Shakespeare, London: 1832, i6mo. Wivell drew another copy of this portrait, which was engraved by W. Holl, and published by Thomas Kelly, in 1837. It is much smaller than his former plate, en- graved in 1827, and not as good. It has a fac-simile of Shakespeare's autograph underneath it. Campbell's Shakespeare, London: 1838, 8vo., has a copy from Houbraken's plate, engraved by H. Robin- son, which is not satisfactory. The second edition of Wivell's Inquiry, London: 1840, 8vo., contained a plate by B. Holl, from Hou- braken's print, in which the countenance is made much whiter than in the original. The same plate was used in Stebbing's Shakespeare, London: (1845-51.?) Another engraving of this, much smaller, and in an oval, by Holl, is quite fair. Circa 1845. In Religious and Moral Sentences Culled from the 3 98 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. chiselled features will assuredly awaken the endless re- spect which his works have gained for him. "Ludwig Becker." "Edinburgh, 1850." Translation of Muller's Letter to L. Becker. "Mayence, 28th February, 1847. "Friend Becker: "Some time ago you submitted for my opinion a small oil painting — a sort of miniature in oils — of the English school, painted in the seventeenth century. This pic- ture represented a very celebrated Englishman, lying on his death-bed, in state. I remarked at the time, that in the features of the deceased, I instantly recognized those of that great European dramatic author, William Shake- speare, of Stratford, born in 1 564, and on his death-bed, alas! in 161 6. You now request me to state, by letter, my reasons for the above opinion, it being of import- ance just now that you should know them. "I have not the least hesitation in communicating the following : £J)t itesselstartit mttuvt. From Photograph of Original. vjuMitt; tfifclBHaiaisS f*5 THE DEATH MASK. 99 "The picture in question was upwards of a century in the hands of the noble family of Kesselstadt, at Cologne ; which city, it is well known, kept up a lively commerce in works of art with London, for nearly three hundred years. The deceased Prebendary * Francis Earl of Kes- selstadt (with whom I was on terms of intimacy since the year 1 790,) as only surviving heir, succeeded to the estates, and became possessed of all the pictures and chef-d 'asuvres. He himself had considerable knowledge of painting; was a great collector, as well as a lover and patron of the Fine Arts. He turned his attention, how- ever, more particularly to works of historical worth, the portraits of renowned characters, of which he had a large collection, and to each of which he appended a sort of historical reference, par exemple, Albrecht von Branden- burg, Gustavus Adolphus (King of Sweden), Henry IV., Martin Luther, Melanchthon, Albrecht Durer, Martin Schbn ; and, amongst the celebrated poets of the olden time, the little picture now in your possession had a prominent place, bearing the inscription, — 'Traditionen nach Shakespeare.' This picture came into your possession after the death * Domherr. IOO THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. of Earl Kesselstadt, when his effects were put up at auction; and thus you had the opportunity and good fortune of acquiring, at a moderate price, a gem of art and 'world-celebrated rarity.' I cannot here omit stating, that among all the numerous savans, antiquaries, and eminent artists visiting Earl Kesselstadt's gallery, not the least doubt existed as to the authenticity of the picture of Shakespeare, to which many affirmed the sketches they had seen in England bore strong resem- blance. "Earl Kesselstadt, to my knowledge, refused some very handsome offers from parties anxious to become purchasers. "Your friend, "(Signed) N. Muller, "Professor." "In testimony of the authenticity of Professor Midler's signature. " (Signed) Nack, "Burgomaster of Mayence." "Mayence, 28th February, 1847." the death mask. ioi Translation of Certificate of Purchase from S. JOURDAN, AN ANTIQUARY OF MaYENCE. "17th March, 1847. "I hereby certify, at the request of Mr. L. Becker, that the little picture, bearing date 1637, and representing Shakespeare upon his death-bed, was purchased by me at the public sale of Earl Kesselstadt's effects, and after- wards sold to the above Mr. L. Becker. " (Signed) S. Jourdan, "Antiquary, Mayence." "In testimony of the authenticity of S. Jourdan's signature. " (Signed) Nack, "Burgomaster of Mayence." "Mayence, 17th March, 1847." Some critics (Friswell among the number,) have agreed with Becker, that the picture is a copy from the Mask, but others cannot see any resemblance between the two. Among the latter class the present writer begs to enrol himself. The features which are shown in the little oil painting bear a far greater resemblance to those of Ben Jonson 102 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. than to Shakespeare. Indeed, the resemblance to the picture of Ben Jonson in the Dulwich Gallery is quite striking. The inscription on the painting, 1637, is also the year that Ben Jonson died, and if the latter repre- sents him lying in state, then the date is correct. To suppose, however, that the figures refer to the year that the picture was painted, if it be taken as a portrait of Shakespeare, is a much more difficult matter. No artist making a copy of a man's face who had died in 161 6, would put the date that he made the copy (1637) in such a prominent place. How can the fact of a Mask of Shakespeare being in the collection of a German nobleman, long after the poet's death, be explained? Two theories have been suggested. One, that an an- cestor of Count and Canon Francis von Kesselstadt had been in England, and bought the Mask while there, as a relic of the great poet; and the other that Gerard John- son's sons returned to their father's native city of Am- sterdam, and brought the Mask with them; which they, or their father, had used in making the Stratford bust. The latter conjecture is that of Karl Elze, and seems much more probable than the former; for no member of the Kesselstadt family is known to have gone to Eng- land, though of course some one of them might have THE DEATH MASK. I03 done so without any record of his journey having been preserved. If Gerard Johnson, or his sons, had a mask, taken from the face of Shakespeare after death, for their use in making the Stratford bust (and some of the best judges have declared that that effigy was sculptured from a mask,) certainly there is no improbability in the sons of Johnson taking the cast with them, after it had served its purpose, when they returned to Amsterdam. If we advance one step further, and are willing to admit that this was the Mask which was so used by Gerard Johnson or his sons, and that it had been thus brought to Amsterdam, it will be easy to believe that it could have found its way from thence to Cologne, where the Kesselstadts formerly lived; and that it could have been bought by some member of that family. Here occurs, however, a very serious break in the chain of argument. How do we know that this Mask was ever in the Count's collection? It is true that Becker states that he "learned that, in this same collec- tion of Graf Kesselstadt, there had been a plaster of Paris cast, which, on account of its melancholy appear- ance, had been treated with little consideration; who had bought it nobody knew." But Becker does not tell us how he got this information, and there is no further 104 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. proof forthcoming; nor does Prof. Miiller mention the Mask in his letter to Becker. The theories which have been advanced to explain the possession of the Mask by Count and Canon Francis von Kesselstadt, have been before referred to, but how is the picture of the man on his death-bed to be accounted for? If this really be a picture of Ben Jon- son, as it is believed to be by some, Professor Miiller may have confounded the picture with the Mask, and it may have been the latter which had "According to tradi- tion, Shakespeare," under it, in the Count's collection. Perhaps, however, "'twere to consider too curiously, to consider so." The Mask has evidently been made from a dead face. It is of plaster of Paris, and of a dirty yellow color. This yellowish appearance is owing to the oil with which it has been covered, and which has soaked into it. The oil was probably rubbed on it when another copy was made from it, and would seem to indicate that it has been used to model from. Some hairs adhere to the mous- tache and the beard on the Mask, and also on the eye- brows and eyelashes. These hairs have been proven, by examination with the microscope, to be human. They are of a reddish brown or auburn color, and correspond to the color of the beard and hair of the Stratford bust, THE DEATH MASK. I05 and the description of its original color on that effigy. With regard to this, however, it is only proper to state that the hair of a person which has been naturally of a dark color when living, often turns to a reddish brown on being cut off and kept for a long time. This is prob- ably caused by chemical change in the coloring matter of the hair, owing to want of the nourishment which it received when growing. To explain how these hairs became affixed to the Mask, it will be necessary to say a few words about the manner in which masks are made, which was probably followed in making this one also. The first process is to make an impression or mould of the face. A band of cloth is placed around the head of the person whose face is to be copied. This band encircles the head about where the ears are, and leaves exposed all the chin and forehead — in fact, the entire face in front of it. Soft wax is then poured over the face, and is kept by the band from running too far. It quickly hardens, and is easily removed. The eyebrows, eyelashes, moustache, and beard have been previously greased, or covered with soap and water, to prevent the wax from adhering to the hairs. In spite of this precaution, however, some few of the hairs will adhere to the mould, and are pulled out of the skin when the wax is removed. This mould is 14 106 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. now an exact copy of the face from which it has been taken, but, of course, it is the opposite of a human face, for where the protuberances of the latter are, they are represented in the mould by corresponding indentations. Among sculptors the result of this process is known as a "flying mould." The mould is then oiled and filled with liquid plaster of Paris or wax. When this is taken out of the mould, a perfect cast representing each detail of the face from which it was taken appears, and in this process some of the hairs which had adhered to the mould are transferred to the cast. Frequently the mould becomes broken in making a cast, and then the cast has to be oiled to make another mould. The yellowish appearance of the Death Mask would indicate, as before stated, that it had been used in this way. A cast of the face only is technically termed a "mask." It would seem probable in the case of the Death Mask that a wax mask was first cast in the mould, as the Mask shows a slight wave along the bridge of the nose, and also a flattened surface, where the pores of the skin — which are everywhere else perceptible — are lost. This has been caused by some pressure on the nose. Had it been exerted on the dead face, the structure of the nasal organ would have resisted the pressure, and no THE DEATH MASK. 107 such flatness would have resulted as appears in the Death Mask. From this wax face another mould was probably made, and in this the Death Mask was cast. Now let us trace the course that the hairs adhering to the Death Mask would have to take if this theory be cor- rect. From the dead face they adhered to the wax "fly- ing mould." In this was cast a wax face, and they adhered to this ; and from this cast another mould was made, either of wax or plaster, which retained the hairs. In this mould the Death Mask was finally cast, and these hairs appear in it. The hairs could easily pass from one to the other — from mould to mask, and vice versa — as no precautions were probably taken to prevent them from doing so. The Death Mask is in a fair state of preservation. A small fragment has been broken off the lower right side of the nose. Some persons have thought that this was caused by a portion of the plaster having there adhered to the mould ; but the shape of the damaged place is such as to lead to the conclusion that it was the result of a blow from the side. On the other side of the nose there are indications of the plaster having been touched with a knife. Lines have been cut in the moustache and goatee to represent the hairs. A portion of the left upper lip has been accidentally removed, and a part of the eyelashes of the left eye have disappeared. 108 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. Over the right eyebrow there is an indentation or scar on the forehead of the Mask extending towards the right side. More will be said about this hereafter. On the back edge of the Mask there has been placed the inscription: f A? Dh 1616. It has evidently been made with a blunt stick when the plaster was soft, and has no appearance of having been cut afterwards. If the latter had been the case, the letters would have presented a sharper appearance than they do. The figures are similar to those used at the date inscribed on it, and there is no reason to sup- pose that they were put there at a later date. The cross which precedes them is often met with in inscriptions on tomb stones, etc., and the "A 9 Dh" is an abbreviation for 'Anno Domini." The same inscription is also to be seen on two other angles in the interior of the Mask. Here they have not been touched by persons handling the cast, and they are in a better state of preservation than those first referred to, which are more exposed. The surface of the Mask represents the pores of the skin with the greatest accuracy, and the incised lines which appear in the moustache and goatee are those THE DEATH MASK. IO9 which have been made by the person making the Mask. It is impossible to obtain a cast of each hair as in life, for the grease and plaster cause them to stick together, and it is usual to cut lines in the cast to imitate the hair. This must not be supposed to detract from the evidence that it is a cast from a face, and it furnishes no argument in favor of the Mask being a mere work of art. Indeed the surface of the skin so perfectly ex- hibited in the Mask forbids any such idea. Regarding the question whether the art of making masks was known as early as Shakespeare's time, it can safely be answered in the affirmative. Long before the time of Pliny (A. D. 23) they were made. In his Historia Naturalis, published about A. D. 77, he states that the first person who made a plaster mould of a human face, from which a cast was subsequently made, was Lysistratus of Sicyon (B. C. 321). It is true that Pliny does not state that the mould was taken from a dead face ; but if they were able to take them from the living, it would be easier to make a mould from the dead. The passage in Pliny's Historia Naturalis, Lib. XXXV, 44, is as follows: "Hominis autem imaginem gypso e facie ipsa primus omnium expressit, ceraque in earn formam gypsi infusa IIO THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. emendare instituit Lysistratus Sicyonius, frater Lysippi, de quo diximus. Hie et similitudinem reddere instituit: ante eum quam pulcherrimas facere studebant. Idem et de signis effigiem exprimere invenit. Crevitque res in tantum, ut nulla signa, statuaeve, sine argilla fierent. Quo apparet, antiquiorem hanc fuisse scientiam, quam fun- dendi aeris." A mask of Martin Luther is in existence. He died at Eisleben in 1546. Another one of Tasso, who died in 1595, is also extant. It has been suggested that many of the figures in the old monuments in existence in England have probably been modelled from casts made from moulds taken from the faces of those that they represent, and their placid expression would seem to support this theory. If this be so there must have been men in England who under- stood how to make a mould from a dead face. Wax was, also, often used, and casts of the faces of cele- brated persons were frequently colored and used on lay figures. These were dressed in the garments worn by the deceased in life, and doubtless many who saw them lying in state believed them to be the actual bodies. In the Chapel of St. Erasmus, Westminster Abbey, in an old closet, many of these lay figures may still be seen. In an account of the Abbey, published in 1754, it is THE DEATH MASK. I I I stated that "these effigies resembled the deceased as nearly as possible, and were wont to be exposed at the funerals of our princes, and other great personages, in open chariots, with their proper ensigns of royalty or honor appended." The same account states that the effigy of King Edward VI., was originally clothed in crim- son velvet robes, but time had made these resemble leather; but that those of Queen Elizabeth and King James I. were stripped of everything of value. The effigies of King William, Queen Mary, and Queen Anne were handsomely dressed in lace and velvet. Here, also, were the figures of Nelson and Cromwell. Dr. Schaaffhausen says: "The custom of erecting an effigy of the deceased, made from the corpse, appears to be a very old one. Indeed the coffins of the Egyptian mummies represent a human figure. The British Mu- seum possesses a face mask made of gold plate, said to be that of Nebuchadnezzar. "The custom, which was practiced in Egypt of gilding the faces of mummies of distinguished persons, is perhaps the origin of such modelling. Cams represents in his Atlas der Cranioscopie (Taf. XXIII) the mummy of an old Egyptian king or priest of Memphis, whose head, hands, and feet were gilded. "In Christian churches skulls of saints, in portrait-busts I I 2 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. of burnished silver, were often preserved, the head of which enclosed the skull like a case. In the Golden Chamber of the Ursula Church, at Cologne, there are several of these portrait-busts." * In 1849 Ludwig Becker went to England, taking the Mask and the little oil painting with him. Here they were examined by the authorities of the British Museum and by many others. In 1850 Becker went to Melbourne, leaving the Mask and picture in the custody of Professor Owen, of the British Museum. While in the latter gentle- man's possession they were seen by many persons, and in 1864 they were exhibited at Stratford-upon-Avon, at the Tercentenary celebration of Shakespeare's birthday. Becker died April 24, 1861, while on an expedition across the Australian continent under the auspices of the British Government. On the fact of his death becoming known to Professor Owen, the latter returned the Mask and picture to his brothers, and since then they have been in the custody of Dr. Ernest Becker, the curator of the Grand Ducal Museum at Darmstadt. Professor Owen, of the British Museum, stated that if the fact that the Mask originally came from England * Translated from Utter die Todtenmaskc Shakespeare's in the Jahrbuch of the German Shakespeare Society, Vol. X. Weimar: 1875, 8vo., p. 28. THE DEATH MASK. I I 3 could be satisfactorily established, there was hardly any price that the Museum would have hesitated to pay for it. It is said that ten thousand pounds was the sum Becker asked for it. Regarding the indentation over the right eyebrow, which has been referred to above, Professor John S. Hart, who saw the Mask in Darmstadt, wrote that it was "merely a flake of the plaster fallen or rubbed off." Wil- liam Page subsequently went to Darmstadt specially to examine the Death Mask. He says, concerning this in- dentation: "From the photographs, I knew there must be some indentation and a loss of the texture of the skin in this discolored place, which, for some reason, had re- ceived the colored wash thus unequally. " My first attempt to take an impression of this spot, together with a part of the forehead, failed, having tried it in soft modelling wax, which adhered somewhat, and was distorted and lost in removing ; but the depression in the spot was well shown in the relief of the wax at that point. My next attempt was in white, harder wax, with gauze intervening. This mould, though less delicate in parts, was very successful, and gave me a good cast in plaster; where the indentation is plainly visible, it may, perhaps, have been looked on as a defect, and has cer- tainly been partially filled up. In the plain white of is 114 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. plaster the depression is still to be seen, though in the discolored spot over the brow I could not at first detect it." * Mr. Page also made a number of measures from the Death Mask, which he afterwards compared with the Stratford bust. Concerning these he says: "Of these twenty-six measures, at least ten or twelve fit exactly corresponding points in the Stratford bust, which any one may verify, if he will take the trouble to interpret the diagram here annexed, and reduce all the measure- ments to solid geometry. Few persons need be told that this planet never did, at any one moment, contain two adult heads, whose faces agreed in any dozen like measures, and the law of probabilities makes it remote when such an epoch will arrive. To a working artist's mind, the agreement of these measures is either a mira- cle, or demonstration that they are from the same face. "And, still further, the failure or misfit of the other more than dozen measures is confined to those parts of the face where there is acknowledged error on the part of the sculptor of the Stratford bust. In the language of science, 'measures are the inflexible judges placed above all opinions supported only by imperfect observations.' * A Study of Shakespeare 's Portraits. London: 1 876, 48mo., p. 59. THE DEATH MASK. I I 5 "It is, indeed, singular that such an agreement in measure with the Stratford bust should not have been noted or published by the distinguished scholars and scientists in whose care the Mask was during its sojourn in England; but so far as I know, it has not hitherto been done." * Friswell thought that the appearance of the left eye of the mask indicated "that the process of decay had set in before the cast was taken, part of the cornea protruding from beneath the eyelid. This is the case with the same eye, and, curiously, with the mask of Cromwell's face." f Whereupon Page says: "I shall refer to only one more accidental break, and that of slight importance, except in its misconstruction ; it is where a part of the massing of the eyelashes in the left eye has been broken off. It has been cited and repeated, that here, as in the same eye in the mask of Cromwell, decay had set in, and something ran out. ***** The error in regard to the eye has arisen probably from forgetting or not knowing that it is usual to mass the hairs of the eyelashes, brows, and beard with soap or paste, or some such preparation, to prevent the substance of the mould from pulling out or sticking to these hairs. I have never seen a more healthy cast * A Study of Shakespeare's Portraits. London: 1876, 48mo., p. 48. t Life Portraits, etc. London: 1864, 8vo., p. 17. 1 1 6 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. from a dead face; and if Shakespeare was buried at Stratford, in April, two days after his death,* there cer- tainly was no time for decay in his eyes ; and the rest of his face shows the most natural and perfect condition, as though he might have fallen asleep in perfect health. If this mask is from Shakespeare, his illness must have been short, producing the least possible apparent change of his countenance ; and the most fortunate moment afterwards was chosen for casting the face." f Friswell thus compares the Death Mask and the Strat- ford bust: "The Mask has a short upper lip, the bust a very long one; but this discrepancy is accounted for on the supposition that the sculptor had an accident with the nose. The nostrils are drawn up, almost painfully; the same is visible in the bust. There are several other points of resemblance, but these are very minute. "On the other hand, the cast differs very widely from the bust said to have been cut from it. The nose is ut- terly unlike; in the cast it is a fine, thin, aquiline nose, and, as there can be no doubt that the cast is from a dead face, one feels irresistibly the force of Mrs. Quick- ly's simile in the much-contested quotation, as altered by Mr. Collier's 'old corrector;' * Shakespeare died April 23, 1616, and was buried on the 25th of the same month, f A Study of Shakespeare 's Portraits. London: 1876, 48010., p. 57. THE DEATH MASK. 11^ " ' His nose was as sharp as a pen on a table of green frieze.' "The face is a sharp oval, that of the bust is a blunt one; the chin is narrow and pointed, that of the bust rounded or rather square, and full of force ; the cheeks are thin and drawn in, those of the bust full, fat, and al- most coarse. Exception has also been taken to the age of the person expressed in this cast, some asserting that it is too young in look for the years of our poet at his death. But here we are in favor of the cast. Some time after death the skin seems to relax, the wrinkles to fill out, and the expression of care becomes one of quietude and peace. There are, moreover, plenty of indications of 'crow's feet' and wrinkles at the corners of the eyes; and the face, while it wants utterly the jovial look of the bust, is certainly one of a person who might have suffered, thought, and felt. ****** "Lastly, it may be noted in regard to the Mask of the face in the custody of Professor Owen, that the extreme thinness of the nose and of the cheeks does not so much militate against its genuineness as one would suppose. The features alter extremely after death with most per- sons; and although Shakespeare is said to have died after a very short illness, he may have lost much flesh. The 'tombe maker,' wishing to exhibit him ad vivum, would alter this. As a parallel instance of extreme differ- I 1 8 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. ence between life and death, we may cite the cast from the features of Napoleon the Great preserved in the In- valides. Looking at it, with its drawn face and sharp- ened nose, one would rather think it a mask of the fine, thin features of Voltaire, than of the round and massive head of the conqueror Napoleon I." * Some years ago W. J. Thorns suggested that the Death Mask might be that of Cervantes, the author of Don Quixote, who died in Madrid in 1616. He further added that the features of the Mask resembled the pic- tures of Cervantes more than Shakespeare. The portraits of Cervantes which are extant are all founded on a description of his appearance given by the author of Don Quixote himself. He describes himself as having a long face, chestnut-brown hair, silver-gray beard, which was originally of a golden color; a smooth, open brow, a clear eye with animated expression, a well-formed, aquiline nose, very small mouth, defective teeth, a light complexion, and medium height. From this description artists have constructed portraits of Cervantes, but no picture or engraving of him has any other authority for its foundation. Cervantes died in the greatest poverty and his burial * Life Portraits, etc. London: 1864, 8vo., pp. 17, 26. THE DEATH MASK. I 1 9 was of the plainest description. No ceremony of any- kind is known to have been observed, and no tombstone was erected over his grave. In view of such facts as these, is it at all probable that any one should have conceived the idea of making a mask from his face? Another fact in relation to this matter remains to be stated. Cervantes was born in 1547 and did not die until 1 61 6. He was therefore sixty-nine years old at the time of his death. The latter was caused by dropsy. Now the Death Mask resembles the face of a man of fifty-two, which was Shakespeare's age, much more nearly than sixty-nine, and no one for an instant will think that it has any resemblance to the face of one who died of dropsy — where the features are much swollen. Mr. Page always had the greatest faith in the Death Mask. He desired to paint a portrait of Shakespeare, and decided to adopt the Mask as the basis of his work, using also the Stratford bust, the Droeshout engraving, and the Chandos portrait. He first obtained thirteen photographs representing the Mask from different points of view. From these he made two clay masks of life size, but finally he decided to make a colossal mask in plaster. This he did, and in another one of similar size he re- stored the small portions missing in the original Death Mask. In August, 1874, he went to Darmstadt specially 120 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. to see the Mask. Dr. Becker gave him the fullest facili- ties for examining it, and permitted him to take photo- graphs of it, to make accurate measurements with cali- pers, and impressions from portions of it. On his re- turn to New York he made a life-sized bust in plaster, from which a bronze casting was finally obtained. This bust is very handsome, and is a faithful rendering of the Mask. It is of the head and shoulders only. Looking at it from the front, one sees how strong the like- ness is to the Stratford bust. The opening of the eyes by Mr. Page, and giving the face an air of life, instead of the painfully sad expression shown in the Death Mask, of course has much to do with this; but let any unpreju- diced and competent critic place this bust alongside of a gray cast of the Stratford one, and he will be struck with the resemblance between them. The chief points of differ- ence are the short nose of the Stratford bust as compared with the longer one of Page's bust, and the more reced- ing forehead of the latter in opposition to the prominent one of the Stratford bust. A beautiful crayon drawing of Page's bust, represent- ing the full-face view, was made, it is believed, by the artist himself, and the few photographs of this which were taken are treasured by their fortunate possessors. Numerous photographs of this bust have also been taken by Sarony, some of which do not do it justice. THE DEATH MASK. 121 Mr. Page also painted a three-quarter length portrait from the Death Mask, which has met with some unfavor- able criticism, and which is certainly not as fine as his bust. The poet is represented as having risen from a chair, and is standing by a table, on which he rests his left hand. In his right hand he holds a book, and is looking down as if in thought. This shows the eyelids drooping, and gives the face a somewhat sleepy expres- sion. A large photograph from this picture, by W. Kurtz, was published in 1875 by Louis Menger, New York. J. Niessen drew a crayon portrait of the Death Mask, bringing it to life as Page did, but, unlike the latter, he confined himself to the Mask alone. Niessen's drawing exhibits a three-quarter face, and has a very animated expression. Its chief fault is in the too great prominence of the chin. Several excellent photographs of it have been published, and some of the larger ones are strik- ingly handsome. Of the Death Mask itself numerous photographs have been taken, representing it in many positions. The best are those by Page. 16 THE JANSEN PORTRAIT. THE history of this beautiful picture is very unsatis- factory, and the little that is known concerning it does not establish the fact that it is an authentic portrait of Shakespeare. In the first place, it is not known who painted it. It is generally called the Jansen portrait (though frequently known as "the Somerset") and is supposed to have been painted by Cornelius Jansen. The latter's name is also spelled Janssen or Janssens, and sometimes Johnson — although the latter is incorrect. This celebrated painter was born in Amsterdam in 1590. The exact date when he came to England is not known, but the first paintings there that can with cer- tainty be ascribed to him are dated about 161 8. This is two years after Shakespeare died, and to establish the fact of this portrait having been painted from life by Jan- sen (if it really be a portrait of Shakespeare), it must be (MS) From Mezzotint by Charles Turner. .*}Jftl?0<$ THE JANSEN PORTRAIT. I 23 proven that the painter came to England in 1610, or prior to that year, for the picture bears that date. With the present knowledge of Jansen's history this cannot be done. It is true that Sandrart said he was born in Lon- don, and that his parents were Flemish,* but Walpole (in his Anecdotes of Painting) does not credit this statement, while Vertue, and the author of An Essay Towards an English School, give Amsterdam as the place of his birth. Mr. Ralph N. Wornum in his edition of Walpole's Anec- dotes of Painting (London: 1849, 8vo., Vol. I, p. 211,) cites Immerzeel, Levens en Werken der Hollandsche Kunstschilders as additional authority for the fact of Jan- sen having been born in Amsterdam ; and he allows Wal- pole's assertion that "Jansen's first works in England are dated about 161 8" to pass without comment. This, in a profusely annotated and carefully edited book like Wor- * The passage from Sandrart, Academics Pictures Nobilis, Caput xx, p. 314, is as follows : " 232. Cornelius Jansonius Londinensis. " Belgis propterea annumerari potest, quia Parentes ejus in Belgico Hispanico nati fuerant, et ob tumultus saltern bellicos Londinum concesserant, ubi hunc deinde genu- ere (ilium. Hie cum ad artem pictoriam sese applicuisset, iconibus potissimum con- ficiendis opereram dedit; unde in servitia Caroli Stuarti Regis Angliae assumtus, Regis atque Reginae, totiusque aulas elegantes elaborabat effigies. Ortis autem inter Regem hunc atque Parlamentum dissidiis, adeoque in turbas hasce involuta tota An- glia, Jansonius noster una fere cum omnibus celebri oribus artificibus aliis ex Anglia discedebat, translato in Hollandiam turn temporis omni felicitatis genere affluentem, domicilio: ibidemque postquam icones confecisset egregias plurimas, tandem anno 1665. Amstelodami ex hac miseriarum valle emigravit." 124 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. num's, must be taken as an endorsement of what his au- thor has said. Walpole further states that Jansen took up his resi- dence in Blackfriars, London, had much business, and his price "for a head was five broad pieces." Wal- pole also asserts that "at Sherburn Castle, in Dorset- shire, is a head of Elizabeth Wriothesley, eldest daughter of Henry, Earl of Southampton, and wife of William, Lord Spencer," which is by Jansen. At Charlecote Hall, Warwickshire, formerly the residence of Sir Thomas Lucy, there is a large painting of Sir Thomas' family, in- cluding his wife and six children, which is also said to have been painted by Jansen. Dallaway gives a list of thirty-two portraits, which he considers were certainly Jansen's work during his stay in England, and says that there are many others, which are claimed to be by him, which closely resemble his style. Dallaway states that Jansen copied portraits of the ancestors of several of the nobility, "in the possession of others, and those have borne his name, which the comparative dates would not otherwise warrant." In 1648 he left England and returned to Amsterdam, after first going to Midelburg. He died in Amsterdam in 1665. If Jansen really did come to England early enough to THE JANSEN PORTRAIT. I 25 have painted this portrait of Shakespeare in 1610, he must then have been only twenty years old, for it will be remembered that he was born in 1590. None of the portraits mentioned by Walpole as having been painted by Jansen in England are dated this early. Walpole's words are: "Jansen's first works in England are dated about 161 8." This alleged portrait of Shakespeare is not mentioned by Walpole, nor is it given in the un- doubted works by Jansen recorded by Dallaway, and above referred to. Still the picture bears a strong re- semblance in its manner and general treatment to un- doubted works of Jansen. It has the same dark back- ground that is so often found in his pictures, and its neat, clear, and smooth appearance agrees with Jansen's style. It is only proper that an assertion of Malone's should be here noticed. In his Life of Shakespeare (edition of 1 82 1, Vol. II, page 429,) he notices Walpole's statement with regard to the date of Jansen's arrival in England, and states that he (Malone) has a portrait painted by that artist, dated 161 1, "which had belonged for more than a century to a family that lived at Chelsea." But Malone does not give his authority for stating that it is a portrait by Jansen, nor any further information concerning it. Had he told us who his portrait represented, it could have been identified, whereas now his statement has compara- 126 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. tively little value. It might have been a portrait by Jan- sen not painted in England. Charles Jennens published an edition of King Lear in 1770. This was the first time that any editor of Shake- speare gave the various readings of the old Quartos and Folios on the same page as the text. Capell had pre- viously made extensive collations, which were published separately from his edition (Notes and Various Readings, 1779-81), but Jennens first printed the collations on the same page with the text. Jennens' name did not appear on the title-page. In- deed, he did all he could to mislead the reader as to the editorship of the volume, as he dedicated it to himself, spoke of the patronage extended to the editor by Mr. Jennens, and acknowledged the editor's indebtedness to that gentleman for access to books in his library. But the part of this edition of King Lear which concerns the subject of the present essay is the fact that it contained a soft and beautiful mezzotint by R. Earlom. Under it appeared the inscription: "William Shakespear. From an Original Picture by Cornelius Jansen in the Collection of C. Jennens Esqr.;" and in the left corner: " R. Earlom fecit." Jennens' house was at Gopsal, Leicestershire, and the publication of this engraving of the Jansen portrait was THE JANSEN PORTRAIT. I 27 the first public announcement that such a picture was in existence. Neither Jennens nor any one else ever pub- lished any account of where the picture came from, or how he obtained it. Tfie Critical Review for December, 1770, contained a notice of Jennens' edition of King Lear, which is sup- posed to have been written by Steevens. In it Earlom's mezzotint is thus referred to: "King Lear, 8vo., price 3s. — A mezzotinto of the au- thor, by the ingenious Mr. Earlom, (whose industry and abilities do honor to the rising arts of Great Britain), is placed at the head of it. We should have been glad, in- deed, to have some better proofs concerning the authen- ticity of the original, than a bare assertion that it was painted by Cornelius Jansen, and is to be found in a private collection, which we are not easily inclined to treat with much respect, especially as we hear it is filled with the performances of one of the most contemptible daubers of the age." In a note the reviewer gives Wal- pole's assertion that Jansen's first works in England are dated about 161 8 and refers to the date 1610 on this picture. He then proceeds to assert that "the only true picture of Shakespeare supposed to be now extant" is the Chandos portrait. The review is throughout very abusive of Mr. Jennens' edition of King Lear. 128 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. The subsequent number of the Critical Review (for January, 1771,) contained the following additional notice of Earlom's engraving: "Concerning this print we will have no controversy; but we still adhere to our former opinion, that the soul of the mezzotinto is not the soul of Shakespeare. It has been the fate of Shakespeare to have many mistakes committed both about his soul and body: Pope exhibited him under the form of James the First."* To these criticisms Jennens replied at length, defend- ing his edition, and the engraving which accompanied it. Referring to the latter he said: "Concerning the authenticity of the picture from which the mezzotinto print of Shakespeare was taken, they have dropped the controversy; and we are very glad that they had so much sense and modesty left as to find out what impudence and absurdity they have been guilty of, in calling in question a picture they have never seen, and without any provocation abusing a person whom the generality of the world have thought fit to esteem an artist that excels in the higher branches of painting, and of whose performances Mr. Jennens has many, though his * This refers to the engraving by G. Vertue, dated 1721, which was published in Pope's edition of Shakespeare, London : 1725, 410. It is undoubtedly a picture of James I., though purporting to represent Shakespeare. THE JANSEN PORTRAIT. 1 29 collection cannot be said to be filled with them (as the Critical Reviewers say they hear), their number being inconsiderable when compared with the whole collection. "They say, 'we still adhere to our former opinion, that the soul of the mezzotinto is not the soul of Shake- speare.' Who said it was? The soul of a picture cannot be the soul of a man ; but a picture may be like a man's soul, when it is made to express those qualities and dis- positions which we discover him by his writings to have been possessed of." * Here Mr. Jennens ended, and he gives no information as to where the picture came from, or even the names of any of the other pictures in his possession which he con- sidered to also be by Jansen. It is to be presumed that Jennens obtained this portrait sometime after 1761, because in a book then published, entitled London and its Environs, a careful catalogue of the pictures at his house in Great Ormond Street is given. In this catalogue the only portrait of Shake- speare mentioned is a drawing in crayon, by Vander * The Tragedy of King Lear, as lately published, Vindicated from the Abuse of the Critical Reviewers ; and the Wonderful Genius and Abilities of those Gentlemen for Criticism, set forth, celebrated, and extolled, by the Editor of King Lear. Lon- don: 1772, 8vo., p. 36. '7 I30 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. Gucht, from the Chandos portrait. In 1770, it will be re- membered, the mezzotint by Earlom from the picture, in Jennens' possession, was published, so that in all proba- bility he acquired it between 1761 and 1770, because his elegant residence at Gopsal, in Leicestershire, was built, it is believed, shortly before 1770. In 1773 Jennens died, and the Gopsal house passed into the hands of Mr. Penn Asheton Curzon, who was the husband of a niece of Mr. Jennens. Boaden, prior to 1824, inquired of Earl Howe, the then owner of Gopsal, if the picture was in the collection there, and was informed that the only portrait of Shakespeare in the collection was the crayon drawing by Vander Gucht, from the Chandos portrait, above referred to. After further search Boaden found it in the possession of the Duke of Somerset. From this nobleman it ob- tained the name it sometimes bears — "the Somerset portrait." Boaden further informs us that the Duke of Somerset received the portrait as a present from the then Duke of Hamilton, and he continues, he has "unquestionable authority" (which, unfortunately, he does not give,) "for saying that it came up with a considerable part of the collection from Gopsal, and was bought by Woodburn THE JANSEN PORTRAIT. 131 for His Grace the Duke of Hamilton, somewhere about fifteen years back." * This would make the date of Woodburn's purchase about 1809, as the above statement of Boaden's was pub- lished in 1824. In 181 1 S. Woodburn published a wretched print engraved by R. Dunkarton, from the Jansen portrait, which is stated to be "from an original picture formerly in the possession of Prince Rupert, now in the collection of His Grace, Archibald, Duke of Hamil- ton and Brandon &c, &c, at Marylebone Park, London." The face is an entire failure and represents the com- plexion as dark as a mulatto. The expression is much altered, the ruff badly drawn, the costume blotched all over, and the hair looks like a wig. This would seem to establish, beyond all doubt, that in 181 1, the Jansen portrait was in the possession of the then Duke of Hamilton. Wivell tells us that he called on Samuel Woodburn, the son of the Mr. Woodburn who Boaden states pur- chased the picture for the Duke of Hamilton. Wood- burn's account, as given by Wivell, is that the portrait formerly belonged to Prince Rupert, who left it to his natural daughter Ruperta. This lady was the child of * An Inquiry, etc. London: 1824, 8vo., p. 193. 132 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. Margaret Hughes, the mistress of the prince. She mar- ried Mr. Emmanuel Scroope Howe. Their descendants sold all the pictures, including the Jansen portrait, to a Mr. Spackman, a picture dealer, from whom the father of Mr. Samuel Woodburn purchased it. He kept it for two years, and then sold it to the Duke of Hamilton, who afterwards presented it to his daughter, the Duch- ess of Somerset. It will be noticed that Woodburn's account ignores Mr. Jennens' possession of the picture. Boaden had the picture taken down from the wall for his inspection, and says that it is on panel, and that the oak on which it is painted had then (prior to 1824,) com- menced to split in two places. He continues: "It is no made up questionable thing, like so many that are foisted upon us. It is an early picture by Cornelius Jansen, tenderly and beautifully painted. Time seems to have treated it with infinite kindness; for it is quite pure, and exhibits its original surface. The epithet gentle, which contemporary fondness attached to the name of Shake- speare, seems to be fully justified by the likeness be- fore us. The expression of the countenance really equals the demand of the fancy; and you feel that every- thing was possible to a being so happily constituted."* * An Inquiry, etc. London, 1824, 8vo., p. 194. THE JANSEN PORTRAIT. 1 33 Wivell (prior to 1827) also saw this picture, and says that the panel on which it is painted is split in two places, one of which is in the forehead. The picture is beautifully painted in a neat and delicate manner, and of all representations of Shakespeare it is the most artistic. The expression is singularly soft and mild and the face very refined. It more nearly resembles the Death Mask than any of the other portraits. The costume is exceedingly rich, the ruff very elaborate, and it has been supposed to be either a theatrical costume or a court dress. Immediately above the head, on a scroll, in Earlom's mezzotint, are the words "Ut magus." These are evi- dently part of Horace's Epistle to Augustus, to be found in Epistle I, Book 2, lines 208 to 213: " Ac ne forte putes, me, quse facere ipse recusem, Cum recte tractent alii, laudare maligne ; Hie per extentum funem mihi posse videtur Ire poeta ; meum qui pectus inaniter angit, Irritat, mulcet, falsis terroribus, implet, Ut magus ; et modo me Thebis, modo ponit Athenis." Boaden speaks of the words "Ut magus" as being on the Jansen portrait, but Wivell expressly denies this, and states that there is nothing except the age of the person 134 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. represented, and the date that it was painted.* He thinks that Boaden was misled by the fact of the words "Ut magus" being on Earlom's print. How came it then, that Earlom put them there, or was it a conceit of Jennens? Friswell repeats Boaden's statement as to these words being on the portrait. On January i, 1824, an engraving was published by G. Smeeton, lettered as follows: "Shakespeare, En- graved by R. Cooper, with Permission, from the Original in the Collection of John Wilson Croker, Esqr., M. P." It is in an oval, within a square, and is very well en- graved. Boaden saw this print, and was struck with its resemblance to the Jansen portrait. He gives the fol- lowing account of an interview he had with Mr. Croker: "Mr. Croker with the utmost readiness indulged my curiosity, and agreeably surprised me by the sight of an absolute facsimile of the Duke's picture. I see no differ- ence whatever in the execution — the character of course is identical. It should, however, be observed, that al- though the Duke's picture is on panel, Mr. Croker's is on canvas. I must add to this remark, that the picture on canvas has no date or age painted upon it, and that the portrait is an oval within a square ; in other words, the * An Inquiry, etc. London : 1827, 8vo., p. 242. THE JANSEN PORTRAIT. 1 35 angles are rounded off. The mode, Mr. Croker tells me, in which the picture was discovered, was singularly remarkable. It was hidden behind a panel, in one of the houses lately * pulled down near the site of Old Suffolk Street, and he purchased it in a state of comparative filth and decay. It has been very judiciously cleaned and lined, but no second pencil has ever been allowed to touch it. This discovery of pictures behind wainscoting is not unusual, particularly in the country. It was once the practice in plastered walls, to insert frames of the same color, and these formed all the decorations of the pictures. Subsequently when it was determined to wain- scot an apartment, the picture was often become so sal- low by time and dirt, as to be hardly visible, and was so deemed not worth the trouble of extraction, and there- fore covered along with the wall which inclosed it. An instance of this kind comes positively within my own knowledge. " Had it been possible, I should have pursued the in- quiry to the ascertainment of the identical house from which it came, and thus at all events have tried to trace out its ancient possessor. But Mr. Croker could give me no further detail. He received the account without * This statement was published in 1824. I36 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. suspicion, for the picture was obviously ancient, and from its condition, had as obviously been hidden. He bought it liberally, and has reason to congratulate himself upon the acquisition."* What has become of Mr. Croker's copy is not known. Many engravers have tried their skill in copying the Jansen portrait. Earlom was the first. His beautiful mezzotint, published in 1770, as the frontispiece of Jen- nens' edition of King Lear, has already been referred to. Earlom's copy, though very well engraved, is not a faithful representation of the picture. He has made the forehead lower, altered the shape of the head, and changed the mouth. The costume is but faintly indicated in this print. The scroll with "Ut magus" which appears in this mez- zotint has already been referred to. Gardner next engraved a small oval plate for The Literary Magazine, which was published June 1, 1793, by J. Good. He reversed the head, changed the expres- sion, and preserved none of the beauty of Earlom's mez- zotint, from which he evidently copied. It is a very poor engraving, and omits the "Ut magus," the date, and the age. Woodburn's print, engraved by R. Dunkarton, and * An Inquiry, etc. London: 1824, 8vo., p. 197. THE JANSEN PORTRAIT. 1 37 published in 1811, has been noticed above. The date and age are given, but the "Ut magus" is omitted. R. Page engraved a small plate representing this por- trait in a frame, which was published by John Bumpus, in 1822. Underneath is engraved "Shakspeare, from his monument in St. Mary's Church, Stratford." Its like- ness to the Jansen portrait is plainly recognizable, and hence the absurdity of the statement that it is from the Stratford bust; and the publisher evidently did not know that the proper name of the church is the Holy Trinity. No date, age, or inscription is given in this engraving. R. Cooper next copied this picture, circa 1824, with in- different results. The date, age, and inscription are omitted. This plate must not be confounded with an- other, by the same engraver, published January 1, 1824, by G. Smeeton. The latter is from Mr. Croker's copy of the Jansen, and has been already described. The finest engraving ever made from the Jansen por- trait is undoubtedly Charles Turner's magnificent mez- zotint, published in 1824, by Robert Triphook, and form- ing one of the illustrations of Boaden's Inquiry. It is beautifully engraved in Turner's best manner, and seen in an India proof, as published in the quarto edition of Boaden's work, it is superb. Turner did not give the costume at all ; the head and ruff stand out in bold relief 18 138 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. on the black background, and the figure can only be faintly traced. The age and date are given very indis- tinctly, and the scroll bearing the words "Ut magus" is on the margin of the print, above the head. A photo- graph of this mezzotint was published in Friswell's Life Portraits, etc., London: 1864, 8vo. To turn from this beautiful mezzotint to Page's com- monplace little engraving, published by Duncombe, in 1826, is a great change. He gives the date and age, but omits the "Ut magus." T. Wright copied Earlom's print for Wivell's Inquiry, 1827, in which his engraving appeared. It is a poor, spiritless performance, though not utterly lacking in merit. Wivell, however, says that "the etching was first done from Earlom's print, and by permission of his Grace the Duke of Somerset, Mr. Wright and myself have inspected the original painting, from which the plate has been fin- ished, and is what I conceive it to be, a faithful represen- tation of it." * The age and date are given, but the scroll and inscription are omitted. Traces of the "Ut magus" can be faintly seen, but they have been erased by en- graving over them. A miserable plate, engraved by H. Robinson, was pub- * An Inquiry, etc. London : 1827, 8vo., p. 244. THE JANSEN PORTRAIT. 1 39 lished by Fisher, Son & Co., in 1835. k appeared in Wheler's edition of Shakespeare, dated 1834, although the print has 1835 on it. There is a facsimile of the poet's signature under it. In Religious and Moral Sentences Culled from the Works of Shakespeare, London : 1 847, 8vo., there ap- peared quite a good lithographic copy of Earlom's print. It is by J. R. Jobbins, and gives the age, date, scroll, and inscription. About this time Griffin & Co. published a well-exe- cuted line engraving from this picture. No engraver's name is given, but whoever he was he has managed to change the face so much that it is utterly unlike the por- trait. No date, age, or inscription is given. A curious little engraving by Lacour, a Frenchman, published circa 1850, is very unlike the picture it is in- tended to represent. No age, date, or inscription is shown in the engraving. About this time a print engraved by Hopwood ap- peared. He has materially changed the expression of the face, and taken liberties with the costume. No date, age, scroll, nor inscription is given. G. Greatbach was very unsuccessful in copying this portrait. His plate was published by John Tallis & Co. in their edition of Shakespeare, London and New York, I40 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. royal 8vo., 1851 (?) The age, date, scroll, and inscrip- tion are omitted. Quite a good copy from Earlom's mezzotint was pub- lished in Charles and Mary Cowden Clarke's edition of Shakespeare, London: 1865-69 (?) No engraver's name is stated, and though the age and date are given, the scroll and inscription are omitted. EJ)t iFelton portrait. From Engraving by T. Trotter. m. ± irfi$ > o » » » • • • .« THE FELTON PORTRAIT. ON August 9, 1 794, William Richardson, a print-seller, of Castle Street, Leicester Square, London, in- formed George Steevens, the well-known Shakespearian editor and critic, that S. Felton, of Curzon Street, Lon- don, had in his possession an old portrait, which appeared to him to be similar to the Droeshout engraving in the folio editions of Shakespeare. Steevens took such deep interest in everything relating to the great poet, whose works he has done so much to illustrate, that he was nat- urally very anxious to see this portrait. Mr. Richard- son was subsequently allowed by Mr. Felton to bring it to Steevens and show it to him. The latter was much struck with the resemblance between the portrait and Droeshout's plate, and believed, with many others, that it was the original picture from which Droeshout made his engraving. Steevens tells us that the latter "could fol- low the outlines of a face with tolerable accuracy, but («4«) 142 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. usually left them as hard as if hewn out of a rock. Thus, in the present instance, he has servilely trans- ferred the features of Shakespeare from the painting to the copper, omitting every trait of the mild and benevo- lent character which his portrait so decidedly affords." It appears that Mr. Felton purchased this portrait, on May 31, 1792, for five guineas, from J. Wilson, who had a museum in King Street, St. James Square. In the cata- logue of "The fourth Exhibition and Sale by private Con- tract at the European Museum, King Street, St. James' Square, 1792" appears the following entry: "No 359. A curious portrait of Shakespeare, painted in 1597." If Mr. Wilson really believed that it was a genuine por- trait of Shakespeare, painted by a contemporary of the poet's, in 1597, it was very singular that he should have been willing to part with it for the small sum of five guineas. After its purchase by Mr. Felton, the latter desired to obtain some further information concerning its history, and applied to Mr. Wilson for details as to where he had obtained it. In reply the latter wrote him as follows: "To Mr. S. Felton, Drayton, Shropshire: "Sir, — The Head of Shakespeare was purchased out of an old house, known by the sign of the Boar, in East- THE FELTON PORTRAIT. 1 43 cheap, London, where Shakespeare and his friends used to resort, and, report says, was painted by a player of that time, but whose name I have not been able to learn. "I am, Sir, with great regard, "Your most obed't. servant, "J. Wilson. "Sept. 11, 1792." Wilson, in giving this account, seems to have over- looked the great fire which occurred in London in 1 666, which entirely destroyed Eastcheap. It is not at all probable that a picture would have been saved from a conflagration which Evelyn, in his Memoirs, says "was so universal, and the people so astonish'd, that, from the beginning, I know not by what despondency or fate, they hardly stirr'd to quench it; so that there was noth- ing heard or seene but crying out and lamentation, running about like distracted creatures, without at all attempting to save even their goods, such a strange consternation there was upon them." On August ii, 1794, two years after this letter to Mr. Felton, Mr. Wilson told Steevens a very different story. The latter says that Wilson assured him "that this portrait was found between four and five years ago at a broker's shop in the Minories, by a man of fashion, 144 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. whose name must be concealed ; that it afterwards came (attended by the Eastcheap story, etc.) with a part of that gentleman's collection of paintings, to be sold at the European Museum, and was exhibited there for about three months, during which time it was seen by Lord Leicester and Lord Orford, who both allowed it to be a genuine picture of Shakespeare." What peculiar qualifications these gentlemen pos- sessed which enabled them to judge of the genuineness of this portrait is not stated, but Steevens takes occasion to remark that "it is natural to suppose that the muti- lated state of it prevented either of their Lordships from becoming its purchaser." On the contrary, they allowed Mr. Wilson to buy it for a mere song — as he must have done to enable him to sell it to Mr. Felton for five guineas ! It would seem that if these gentlemen really believed it to be a genuine portraitof Shakespeare they would not have let it be so sacrificed ; for the mutilated state of which Steevens speaks, consisted in its having had a portion of the panel of wood on which it is painted split off, and the picture cut down until the head and a portion of the ruff alone remained. The entire coun- tenance, however, was perfect and in fair condition. Felton sold this picture (which still bears his name) to Mr. G. Nichol for forty guineas. A copy was made Efte iPelton jJortmit, From Engraving by T. Trotter. THE FELTON PORTRAIT. 1 45 from it by Josiah Boydell for Steevens about this time, which remained in the latter's possession until his death. The original portrait was owned for a long time by Mr. Nichol, and he is said to have refused one hundred guineas for it, which was offered by Lord Ellesmere. Subsequently it was in the possession of a Mr. West- macott, a solicitor, of London, who died in 1861 or 1862. On April 30, 1870, it was offered for sale at public auction in London, and was bought in at fifty guineas. It is not known in whose possession the picture now is. Such is the history of this portrait, and it will be seen that it is not at all trustworthy. Boswell does not hesi- tate to say that "there are not, indeed, wanting those who suspect that Mr. Steevens was better acquainted with the history of its manufacture, and that there was a deeper meaning in his words, when he tells us, 'he was instru- mental in procuring it,' than he would have wished to be generally understood; and that the fabricator of the Hardiknutian tablet had been trying his ingenuity upon a more important scale. My venerable friend, the late Mr. Bindley, of the Stamp-office, was reluctantly per- suaded, by his importunity, to attest his opinion in favor of this picture, which he did in deference to the judgment of one so well acquainted with Shakespeare ; but happen- ing to glance his eye upon Mr. Steevens' face, he in- 19 146 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. stantly perceived, by the triumph depicted in the peculiar expression of his countenance, that he had been de- ceived."* The portrait is painted on wood, as before stated. On the back of the panel there is the inscription in old-style writing: "Gul. Shakspear, 1597. R. B." The last letters were at first supposed to be "R. N.," but Abraham Wivell (prior to 1827,) when oiling the back of the picture to preserve the wood, discovered that they were really "R. B." Wivell at once concluded that they stood for Richard Burbage, the actor, who was Shakespeare's contemporary, and who is known to have also had some skill as a painter. The final "e" in the poet's name has been lost in cutting off a portion of the wood on which the portrait is painted. The size of this panel is eleven inches high, and a little over eight inches wide. Boaden says that when he "first saw this head at Richardson's, I found that it had been a good deal rubbed under the eyes ; but that there were no circular cracks upon the surface, which time is sure to produce. There was a splitting of the crust of the picture down the nose, which seemed the operation of heat, rather than age. I remember the difficult task Mr. Boy- * Advertisement to Bos-well's edition of Malone's Shakespeare. London : 1821, 8vo., Vol. I, p. xxvii. THE FELTON PORTRAIT. 1 47 dell described, when he afterwards, by softening the paint, and pressing with the palette-knife, succeeded in fixing these warped and dissevered parts to the oak panel, on which they originally reposed."* To this Wivell adds: "The condition of this picture is greatly against its appearance to those who are not able to discriminate and make allowance for such a state, as it is covered all over with dark spots, occasioned by being a long time in a damp place without varnish." -f The picture is well drawn and well colored. The ex- pression is singularly calm and benevolent, and it has been much admired. It resembles the Droeshout en- graving more than any other portrait, and by many has been believed to be a copy of it. On the other hand, Steevens thought that it was the original of that engrav- ing. The forehead is much higher than in the Droe- shout, and the expression somewhat different, but, as before stated, its resemblance is greater to that portrait than to any other. The copy made by Josiah Boydell, for Steevens, which has been already referred to, was found by Wivell, (prior to 1827,) in the possession of a Mr. Harris, of London. On the back of this copy is the following: * An Inquiry, etc. London: 1824, 8vo., p. 104. j- An Inquiry, etc. London: 1827, 8vo., p. 45. I48 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. "May, 1797. "Copied by Josiah Boydell, at my request, from the remains of the only genuine Portrait of William Shak- speare. "George Steevens. "The original had belonged to Mr. Felton, and is now in the Shakspeare Gallery, Pall Mall." Mr. Harris bought it at the sale of Steevens' effects for "about three guineas" as he informed Wivell. The latter adds that "it is a very good copy as far as regards the drawing, but the coloring is not so well."* In 1794, William Richardson, the print-seller above alluded to, issued "proposals" for the publication of two engraved plates of this portrait. These proposals are dated November 5, 1794, and must either have been published before that, or else the date on the engravings is incorrect, for when the latter appeared they bore the date November 1, 1794. Both plates are five and three- quarter inches high and four and a half inches wide, ex- clusive of the margin. Plate No. 1 represents the pic- ture as it actually is, showing how a portion of the hair and ruff have been split off with the board on which it is painted. The panel has also been cut off just under the ruff, leaving only a very small portion of the dress * An Inquiry, etc. London: 1827, 8vo., p. 119. THE FELTON PORTRAIT. 1 49 visible. In this engraving the portion of the hair and ruff cut off have been added in outline, and the figure below the shoulders, in the dress shown in the Droe- shout engraving, also added. Plate No. 2 gives the head exactly as in the former, but the portions of the missing hair and ruff are added, and the dress given as in plate No. i, but not in outline. Both plates are very well engraved by T. Trotter, and give perhaps the best representation of this picture that can be expected. Steevens, as before stated, took the greatest interest in the Felton portrait, and wrote the preface and supple- ment to Richardson's Proposals for the publication of these plates. When they were finally published he pre- sented his friend Mr. Chauvel with a pair of the prints as a Christmas present, and wrote on the bottom of one of them "Mr. Chauvel," and on the other "Mr. Chauvel. G. S. Deer. 24." These two engravings are in the present writer's collection. In 1 796 Richardson again had this portrait engraved, this time by J. Godfrey. It is not nearly as good as Trotter's plates, being much larger and coarser, and is a poor representation of the original. When Isaac Reed's edition of Shakespeare was pub- lished, in 1803, by J. Johnson, etc., there was prefixed to it I50 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. an oval-shaped engraving of this portrait by J. Neagle (March 31, 1803), which is fairly well done, but the expression is not as soft as in the original. Neagle changed the stiff ruff somewhat to make it look more like a linen collar, and the costume that he has added is a plain black gown, entirely different from the Droeshout engraving. The same year (1803) C. Warren engraved a smaller plate, also in an oval like the preceding one, and evi- dently copied from it. It is not as well done, however. It is dated May 1, 1803, an< 3 was issued by the same publishers as the former (J. Johnson, etc.). John Thurston made a drawing from this portrait, which was engraved by Charles Warren (the engraver of the preceding plate), and published by James Wallis, July 22, 1805. The head is turned the opposite way to the original, and the nose is very unlike the portrait. I. Thomson engraved a plate, about this time, which is apparently copied from the preceding one, as it has the same defect in the nose, and the head is also re- versed. It has no name of any publisher nor any date. Manley Wood's edition of Shakespeare, London: 1806, 8vo., contained a well engraved plate by C. Warren. The plate is dated May 1, 1806, and was published by George Kearsley. It is a fair copy of Trotter's plate THE FELTON PORTRAIT. 151 No. 2 (1794). It is almost square, and above are em- blematical ornaments, while below is "W. Shakspeare." The dress is taken from the Droeshout as is also the case in Trotter's plate. It is said to be "from the origi- nal picture," but it is such an exact copy of Trotter's en- graving that the statement may well be doubted. A very poor print, engraved by J. Collyer, was pub- lished by J. Nichols and Son, etc., Nov. 30, 18 10. It appeared in the edition of Shakespeare, from Steevens' text, published in 181 1. It is very coarsely done, and the expression has been much changed. Reed's edition of Shakespeare, London: 181 3, 8vo., contained an engraving of this portrait, by W. Holl. It is of the head only, like the original, and is done in dots. It is fair, but the soft expression of the original has not been fully preserved. It is surrounded by a neat frame. The plate is dated Dec. 26, 18 12, and is published "by F. C. & J. Rivington, & the other Proprietors." A very curious engraving by W. T. Fry, published by Longman & Co., 1819, entirely misrepresents the origi- nal. The figure which the engraver has added is out of all proportion, and the face has a sleepy expression. In 1822 Cosmo Armstrong engraved a small plate from this portrait in which the expression is very different from the painting. I52 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. In 1827 Wivell made an engraving of this picture for his work on the portraits of Shakespeare {An Inquiry, etc., London: 1827, 8vo.), and had nearly completed it when it met with an accident which ruined the plate. He then employed J. Cochran to engrave one in its stead, which was published in the work referred to. It is very well done, except that the ruff is out of place. The very high forehead of the original painting is well represented in this engraving, and the soft, mild expression of the eyes capitally rendered. It is surrounded by a neatly engraved border, and is a print sure to attract attention among a large collection of engravings of Shakespeare by its striking character. This plate has been copied by H. Wright Smith for R. Grant White's edition of Shakespeare, Vol. I, published by Little, Brown & Co., Boston, in 1865. It also ap- peared in White's Memoirs of the Life of William Shake- speare, issued by the same publishers in 1866. Mr. Smith's plate is a beautiful engraving, and finer work has seldom been done; but he has made the fore- head lower than in the Cochran plate and in the painting, given a more animated expression to the eyes, and cor- rected Cochran's mistake about the ruff. It has the same border as the latter, and is one of the finest engravings of a portrait of Shakespeare that has ever been executed. From Photograph of Original by Cundall, Downes & Co. t>$ titrttoii THE STRATFORD PORTRAIT. IN the latter part of the year i860, Mr. Simon Collins, a well-known restorer of pictures, residing in Lon- don, went to Stratford-upon-Avon, to remove the white paint which had been daubed over the bust of Shake- speare in the chancel of the Church of the Holy Trinity, in that town. After he had completed his work, Mr. William Oakes Hunt, who was then Town Clerk, em- ployed him to clean some old pictures in his possession. In the upper portion of the latter gendeman's house Mr. Collins found an old portrait, in a dilapidated state, representing a man with a large black beard and mous- tache. The beard nearly covered the face, and was so arranged as to utterly disfigure the picture. Mr. Hunt stated that the picture had been in the possession of his family for more than a hundred years, and that his grandfather had purchased it at a sale at Clopton House. So little was it regarded that Mr. Hunt had used it for a target, at which to shoot arrows, when he was a boy. 20 (153) 154 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. Something about the appearance of the portrait, how- ever, led Mr. Collins to believe that another picture was underneath the outer covering of paint; and he there- fore commenced cleaning a portion of the face, when the beard, which almost entirely covered it, disappeared. He then tried the experiment of cleaning a part of the breast of the figure, and found underneath a black and red costume similar to that on the bust of Shakespeare in the chancel of the Holy Trinity Church. During this cleaning the Rev. Mr. Grenville, then Vicar of Stratford, Mr. Hobbs, Mr. Hunt, the owner of the picture, and other residents of the town, were present. It was afterwards taken to London by Mr. Collins to complete the restoration. When this was completed, the picture was placed on exhibition in Mr. Collins' studio, and the following handbill was given to those who went to see it: "PORTRAIT OF SHAKESPEARE. "A portrait of Shakespeare, painted on canvas, three- quarter life-size, which has been in the family of W. O. Hunt, Esq., Town Clerk of Stratford-upon-Avon, for a century, has recently been put into the hands of Mr. Simon Collins, of 6 Somerset Street, Portman Square, London (now on a visit to Stratford), who, after remov- THE STRATFORD PORTRAIT. 1 55 ing the dirt, damp, and repaint by which it was obscured, has brought to light what he pronounces to be a genuine portrait of the Immortal Bard. "The picture bears a remarkable resemblance to the bust in the chancel of Stratford Church, according to the description given of it before it was painted white at the request of Mr. Malone in 1793, viz.: 'the eyes being of a light hazel, and the hair and beard auburn, the dress consisted of a scarlet doublet, over which was a loose black gown without sleeves.' "It is important to observe that this is the only picture ever discovered which thus represents the Poet in this dress, and it calls to mind a remark made by Mr. Wheler, in his History of Stratford-upon-Avon, of the probability of a picture being in existence from which the monu- mental bust was taken ; which suggestion Mr. Wivell, in his Inquiry into the History and Antiquities of the Shake- speare Portraits, quotes, and appears to adopt. "This picture came into the hands of the present owner (through his father) from his grandfather, Wil- liam Hunt, Esq., to whom it probably passed, with some other old paintings, in the purchase of his house from the Clopton Family in 1758. The house had then been uninhabited for several years, since the death of its for- mer owner and occupier, Edward Clopton Esq. (nephew of Sir Hugh Clopton), which took place in 1753." 156 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. When Mr. Collins had finished cleaning the picture, but before it was taken to London to be "restored," some photographs of it were taken by a Stratford photo- grapher. Using one of these photographs, Mr. John Ra- bone, of Birmingham, had a large painting executed, of the same size as the original portrait. This copy is of great value, as it represents the original as it was immedi- ately after Mr. Collins cleaned it, and before it had been retouched in the process of restoration. Mr. Rabone states that the latter process has caused much alteration in the original portrait. His copy agrees in all particu- lars with the photographs taken by the Stratford pho- tographer immediately after the portrait was cleaned. In his copy the lines follow this first photograph exactly, and the expression of the face, as it originally was, is faithfully reproduced. The pose of the figure is now somewhat different, and the face has been altered. When the picture was returned to Stratford, after undergoing this "restoration," the members of the Bir- mingham Archaeological Association went there to see it. In a lecture lately delivered in Birmingham, by Mr. Rabone, on the portraits of Shakespeare, he referred to this visit and said: "It was in the little theatre which then stood on the site of New Place, and beside it was placed a model of the bust in the church, in colors, just THE STRATFORD PORTRAIT. I 57 as it had been left from the cleaning. Mr. Collins, who was present, on being questioned about the picture, said he was not there to say what he had done to it, except that he had used every means of his art to make the picture as perfect and as near as was possible to what it was originally, and all he had to say was that the results were before them. It was in a very dilapidated condi- tion, and he had done his best to restore it. A good deal of criticism took place. It was very evident that there was considerable similarity between the painting and the bust. The colors were the same, and the creases and folds in the dress in the one exactly resembled those in the other, from which it was concluded that the paint- ing had been copied from the bust, or the bust from the painting. It was pointed out that the painting contained numerous little life-like points which were altogether wanting in the bust, and therefore it was generally thought more probable that, as the bust had been made by a mere 'tomb-maker,' as Gerard Johnson was, it would be unlikely that those delicate little touches in the painting should be reproduced by him in the stone."* When the picture was first discovered it excited great interest, and much discussion took place as to whether * A Lecture on Some Portraits of Shakespeare, etc. Birmingham : 1 884, 8vo., p. 10. 158 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. it was the original picture from which the Stratford bust was made, or only a copy from the latter. For there is certainly a very strong resemblance between the two, and the costume of the one is exactly reproduced in the „/ other. The curls of the hair, the arrangement of the beard, and the general coloring of the two also exactly correspond. Such resemblance shows that either the bust was made from the picture, or the picture from the bust, unless indeed both were made from life. That the bust was sculptured during Shakespeare's lifetime no one has suggested — on the contrary, the universal opin- ion is that it was made after his death, and many have thought from a death mask. The majority of those who have discussed this subject have said that the Stratford portrait was painted long after the bust was made, and that the picture was copied from the bust. This the pres- ent writer thinks exceedingly probable — indeed almost certain, although not capable of actual proof. The por- trait does not seem to be of sufficient age to warrant any other conclusion. In 1769 Garrick was the originator of a "jubilee" at Stratford-upon-Avon, during which there occurred proces- sions of persons representing the characters of Shake- speare's plays, dramatic performances in a building erected for that purpose, and other observances. It was • THE STRATFORD PORTRAIT. 1 59 a great time for Stratford, and elaborate preparations were made by the townspeople, as well as by those who came from London. It is very probable that the Strat- ford portrait was painted from the bust in the church at that time, and afterwards preserved, either for its own merits, or as a relic of the jubilee. But how can the strange condition in which it was found by Mr. Collins be accounted for? Who painted over the face with a full beard, and disguised the red and black costume of the figure? The high respectability of Mr. William Oakes Hunt and his father, in whose pos- session the portrait was for many years, forbids the idea of any deception from that quarter. It has been sug- gested that it was thus painted over in Puritanical times to preserve it, as it is well known many other portraits have been treated when players were unpopular. The apparent modernness of the portrait, however, renders this conjecture most improbable. Mr. Charles Wright was a strong believer in the gen- uineness of this picture. The Athenceum of March 30, 1 86 1, contained an article criticising the portrait very severely, in which the writer stated that it had "no merit of any kind, not even that of age ; it is a modern daub, possibly a tavern sign, a 'Shakespeare's Head,' probably made up for some purpose connected with the jubilee." l6o THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. This criticism offended Mr. Wright, who wrote a letter to the London Times, dated April 2, 1861. In this he takes the Athenczum writer to task. Subsequently he wrote two other letters to The Times, dated April 12, and April 22, 1861, neither of which that journal pub- lished. He, therefore, printed them in pamphlet form, and also a longer pamphlet on the Stratford portrait, dated May 31, 186 1. In all of these he warmly advo- cates the claims of this portrait to be considered as an original one. About this time Mr. J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps wrote: "It is very clear that either the bust was copied from the painting, or the painting 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 cor- rect, even were the painting of the requisite antiquity. I have little, if any, doubt that this portrait 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 me- mento 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 at- tempt be made to give it the precedence of the bust. I THE STRATFORD PORTRAIT. l6l 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." Among the few favorable criticisms of this portrait was one contained in The Examiner of May 18, 1861. That journal remarked concerning the similarity between the bust and the portrait, said: "But nothing in the por- trait 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 suc- cessful transformation of the nose. Shakespeare 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-marked curve between the root and the tip that in a copyist from the bust would have been an error hardly probable. As a suggestion of the face of Shakespeare the portrait is to be preferred, and there is nothing stony in its look, nothing to dis- credit at first sight any belief that it may have been a 1 62 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. copy from life by one who was a tolerably faithful, al- though 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." The portrait is evidently not the work of an artist of much ability, and yet there are good points in it. The eyes are well done, and have a good expression. The picture represents Shakespeare in the prime of life. The moustache is very small, and curled upwards, as in the bust. The tuft on the chin, also, corresponds to that on the effigy. The costume is very similar. Mr. Hunt was said to have been offered three thousand pounds for the picture by Mr. Jeremiah Matthews, of Birmingham, but he presented it to the town of Stratford- upon-Avon, where it is preserved in the house on Hen- ley Street, where the poet was born. It is there kept in a fire-proof case, and the frame surrounding it is made from oak taken from the house. Above the frame there is the following inscription on a brass plate: "This portrait of Shakespeare, after being in the pos- session of Mr. William Oakes Hunt, Town Clerk of Strat- ford, and his family, for upwards of a century, was re- stored 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 Strat- £ije Stratfortr portrait. From Photograph of Original. THE STRATFORD PORTRAIT. 1 63 ford-upon-Avon, to be placed and preserved in Shake- speare's house. — 23d April, 1862." There is painted on the case of the frame the follow- ing inscription: "This case was made from a portion of the waste wood which formed part of the old structure of Shakespeare's house." Inside the iron doors of the fire-proof case in which the picture is kept, there are silver plates, bearing the familiar lines from The Merchant of Venice: "Fast bind, fast find; A proverb never stale in thrifty mind." In March, 1861, Mr. Simon Collins published a large photograph of this picture which represents the portrait as entirely different in expression from its present condi- tion. The negative has been much "touched up" and altered. Indeed it is not generally known how great a change in the expression of a face can be made in a photo- graph by this process. Dr. C. M. Ingleby was desirous of obtaining a photograph which would represent correctly the Stratford portrait, and went to a great deal of trouble to attain his object, only to meet with utter failure. He took one of Mr. Collins' photographs, referred to above, which was painted upon by Mr. Collins, after the original picture, and then photographed again. The result was 164 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. painted upon by Mr. Munns, of Birmingham, after the original, and then photographed by H. J. Whitlock. Dr. Ingleby then took the last-named photograph to Strat- ford-upon-Avon in October, 1872, and compared it with the original picture. He says that he was unable to dis- cover the slightest resemblance between the two faces. The present writer is not surprised at this, for anything more unlike the painting can hardly be imagined. The whole expression of the face has been changed by the re- peated "touching up" that it has undergone, and it looks like another picture altogether. The best photograph of the Stratford portrait, in its present condition, was published in Friswell's Life Por- traits of William Shakespeare ; although the prints in dif- ferent copies of the book vary very much, they having been printed from a number of negatives, and some of the latter have been more successfully "touched up" than others. They are by Cundall, Downes & Co. Photographs, purporting to be taken from the Strat- ford portrait, are sold in Stratford-upon-Avon, as correct delineations of the picture. Some of them show the pic- ture and the frame, and others omit the latter. All of them show the hair frizzed in the most peculiar manner, utterly unlike the curling locks of the painting itself. This, of course, is the result of injudicious alterations of THE STRATFORD PORTRAIT. 1 65 the negatives. The eyebrows are also lengthened, and a new background supplied, the lights and shadows altered, and many minor changes made. In frizzing the hair in these pictures it has been brought further forward, and the expression of the whole face thus altered. They were photographed by F. Bedford, and serve to show how unreliable photographs sometimes are, and yet being the result of a mechanical process, many people think they must be accurate. The likenesses of our friends tell us, however, that this is often not true. THE ASHBORNE PORTRAIT. THIS singular portrait has no pedigree. It was pur- chased by Mr. Clements Kingston, of Ashborne, Derbyshire, England, some time prior to March, 1847. All that is known concerning it is set forth in the fol- lowing letter written by Mr. Kingston to Mr. Abraham Wivell, author of An Inquiry, etc. It has never before been published: "Grammar School, Ashborne, March 8, 1847. "Dear Sir: "I return you many thanks for your kind offer, and also for the candid and open manner in which you ex- press yourself. I am perfectly aware of the innumer- able deceptions and frauds of every possible kind which are practiced upon the unwary connoisseur, having given my attention to paintings for the last ten or fifteen years ; but I am happy to say nothing of the kind has taken place with regard to the picture in question. "The way in which I happened to come into posses- sion of it was this : A friend in London sent me word (.66) W§t ®$Wovnt tforttaft. From Mezzotint by G. F. Storm. THE ASHBORNE PORTRAIT. 1 67 that he had seen a portrait of Shakespeare, that he was positive it was a genuine picture, and that the owner only valued it as being a very fine painting. Being too poor to purchase it for himself, he advised me by all means to have it. I immediately wrote back requesting him to secure me the prize. "Since being in my possession it has been merely re- lined, and is in most excellent preservation. Of the genuineness of it I have not the slightest doubt what- ever, or I should not have asked so valuable an opinion as yours. In fact, and I speak it with the utmost confi- dence (though I am sure you will consider me too bold), I really believe it to be the best, and certainly the most interesting portrait of the immortal bard in existence. "The size of the picture is three feet ten inches, by three feet, and represents him, the size of life, down to the knee. His right arm is leaning upon a skull, and in that hand he holds a book, upon the cover of which, amongst the ornamental details, is the crest of the Shake- speare family, and the tragic mask. This is too small to have been put on by any party wishing to pass the por- trait off as genuine; for ninety-nine out of a hundred would never notice it ; and moreover I will warrant every portion of the picture to have been painted at the same period. "In the left hand upper corner, in characters of the 1 68 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. period, is yEtatis svse. 47 A 161 1. The shape of the face and countenance altogether greatly resemble those in the picture belonging to the Duke of Somerset; in fact so very similar do they appear, that, judging from the engraving, I could fancy the two portraits to be the production of the same hand, but the original picture be- longing to the Duke I have not seen. "To sum up, I will warrant my picture to have been purchased in its original state, and that the canvas, etc., is peculiarly of the period in which Shakespeare lived; that it has never been retouched since it was painted, and therefore that whatever detail there may be on it (which I consider gives more weight than anything), was cer- tainly every touch, painted with the portrait itself. "Should you, after this description, think the matter worthy of your further attention, I will either arrange for the picture being sent to you, or if you will oblige me by saying what your travelling expenses would be, I will send you the sum required. "In the mean time, I remain, dear sir, "In haste, "Yours very truly, and greatly obliged "Clements Kingston." "Mr. Wivell."* * This letter is printed from a MS. copy kindly furnished by Samuel Timmins, Esq., J. P. THE ASHBORNE PORTRAIT. 1 69 It will be seen that its history amounts to nothing, and while Mr. Kingston evidently had a strong belief in the genuineness and antiquity of the picture, he had no evi- dence to support this belief beyond the painting itself. The portrait is a three-quarter length, and represents Shakespeare standing by a large table, with a cover. He leans his right arm on the table, on one corner of which is a human skull. In the poet's right hand is a book, elaborately bound, with ribbons to tie it together, in the old style. The left hand has a large signet ring on the thumb, and holds an elaborately embroidered gauntlet. The dress is of the Elizabethan style, and consists of a tightly fitting coat, of rich material, but not embroidered, with short waist, and puffed out breeches. A narrow but handsomely worked sword belt encircles the waist, but no sword is shown. A large ruff made of many rows of lace, and smaller ones at the wrists com- plete the costume. In the upper left hand corner of the picture, above the right shoulder of the figure, are the words ".^Etatis svae. 47 A° 161 1." The forehead is high and somewhat like the Jansen portrait. The eyebrows are delicate and arched, the nose long and not unlike the Jansen, and the mouth also bears a resemblance to that picture. But here the resemblance ends, for while the moustache and 170 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. beard are the same as in that portrait, the lower part of the face is longer and narrower. In fact the lower part of the head does not seem well drawn, and is unsat- isfactory. The expression is sad, and the whole picture, owing to its costume and accessories perhaps, is a strik- ing one. The hands are well drawn except the thumb of the left hand, which is unnaturally long, and on this thumb is a large ring. On January 1, 1846, a large and beautifully executed mezzotint of this picture, by G. F. Storm, was "published for the proprietor," by the engraver. It states that it is "from an original picture in the possession of C. U. Kingston Esq." It is a somewhat rare print, and is sel- dom seen. It is beautifully engraved, and represents the picture correctly. The tragic mask which is referred to by Mr. Kingston as being among the ornamental de- tails of the binding of the book, is plainly perceptible in this engraving; but the crest of Shakespeare which he also says is on the binding of the book is not shown. Shortly after the mezzotint was published, an engrav- ing on wood, copied from it, appeared; and apart from the fact that the engraver has placed the skull directly under the poet's arm instead of on the corner of the table, it is a good copy of Storm's engraving. Another copy of Storm's mezzotint, this time on steel, THE ASHBORNE PORTRAIT. 171 was also published about this time. It is a small plate, but exceeding well engraved, mostly in line. The figure is only shown to the waist, and the table, skull, glove, etc., are omitted. No engraver's or publisher's name is given, and the date of publication is also omitted. Un- derneath the plate is engraved a fac-simile of Shake- speare's autograph. THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE BUST. THERE formerly stood in Portugal Street, on the south side of Lincoln's Inn Fields, London, an old red brick building, which was originally called the Duke's Theatre. It was so named after James, Duke of York, the brother of Charles II., and was erected in 1 662 for Sir William D'Avenant's company. D'Avenant, who was born in 1606, was the son of a tavern keeper at Oxford, at whose inn (the "Crown") Shakespeare is said to have been in the habit of stopping when going to and fro between Stratford and London. The story which makes D'Avenant the natural son of the great poet need not be dwelt on here. Certain it is, however, that he always had a great admiration for Shakespeare and his works, and it is related of him that he composed an ode on the poet's death when only ten years old. His first dramatic production is dated 1629, and when Ben Jonson died, in 1637, he was appointed (172) rijr Duttr of Dtuonstjtrr ttussl. From Photograph of Original. THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE BUST. I 73 Poet Laureate. Later, during the Civil War, he was accused of being concerned in intrigues, and imprisoned in the Tower of London. He succeeded in escaping to France, however, and returned to England, where he did such good service for the Royalist cause that King Charles made him a knight. D'Avenant was again thrown into prison by his enemies, and, after remaining in the Tower for two years more, he was finally released at the request of Milton. He then established his the- atre, which, as before stated, was named the Duke's Theatre. Here he produced many of Shakespeare's plays, but his love for his reputed father's immortal works did not prevent him from making many injudi- cious changes and alterations in them. One of the best known of these is his version of Macbeth, published in 1674. The title-page reads thus : "Macbeth, a Tragsedy. With all the Alterations, Amendments, Additions, and New Songs. As it's now Acted at the Dukes Theatre. London, Printed for P. Chetwin, and are to be Sold by most Booksellers, 1674." In 1737 the Duke's Theatre ceased to be occupied for theatrical performances. It was afterwards altered into a warehouse for Spode and Copeland — names that will ever be dear to the lover of old china. In 1845 tne warehouse was pulled down to make additional room for 174 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. an enlargement of the museum of the College of Sur- geons. While the building was being demolished much of the plan and shape of the former theatre was laid bare ; and when the workmen were knocking down a portion of one of the walls, on one side of an arched door, that was formerly one of the main entrances to the old theatre, they noticed, among the bricks and mortar that had fallen, broken pieces of a terra-cotta bust. Calling the Curator of the museum of the College of Surgeons adjoining, they pointed out to him these remains. Mr. William Clift, F.R.S., who was then Curator, and his son-in-law, Professor Owen, collected the pieces, and putting them together, they at once saw the bust was well made. Who it was they were not certain, but finally concluded that it was intended for Ben Jonson. Having found a bust on one side of the door, they thought there might be another companion bust on the other side. They therefore directed the workmen to use great care in tak- ing down the portion of the wall that was still standing. Here behind the bricks, a terra-cotta bust, which was at once recognized as that of Shakespeare, was found. It was in a perfect state of preservation, and after it had been carefully cleaned it was in some manner obtained by Mr. Clift. It is very strange that the College of Sur- geons did not claim so valuable and interesting a me- THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE BUST. 1 75 morial as their own property. Perhaps, however, it was not then thought to be of much importance. The position in which it was found, bricked up behind a wall that had evidently been erected in converting the old Duke's Theatre into the china warehouse, gives the bust every right to be regarded as a work of the time of Charles I., or a few years later, but there is no mark on it to indicate the date when it was made, and nothing is known of its sculptor. On the death of Mr. Clift the bust passed to his son- in-law, Professor Owen, afterwards connected with the British Museum. He kept it in his possession for sev- eral years, and then sold it, for three hundred guineas, to the Duke of Devonshire. (It will be remembered that the Earl of Ellesmere only paid three hundred and fifty-five guineas for the celebrated Chandos portrait of Shakespeare, when he bought it at the sale of the Duke of Buckingham's effects in 1848.) The Duke of Devonshire had two casts made from it, one of which he presented to Sir Joseph Paxton, of Crys- tal Palace fame. In 1864 tms cast was at the Crystal Palace, Sydenham, and it is believed to be still there. The original bust was presented to the Garrick Club, King Street, London, in 1855, by the Duke of Devon- shire, accompanied by the following letter: 176 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. "Brighton, 8th Dec, 1855. "Sir: "I have for some time wished to pay a visit to the Gar- rick Club, and to ask you to show me that most interest- ing collection which belongs to it; but having again left London for some time, another delay is caused, and I must write to you to say that there is in my possession a very interesting bust of Shakespeare, which I wish to present to the Club as a token of good-will, and also of regret that the state of my health has hitherto obliged me to appear so remiss as a president. "The bust, which is in terra cotta, was in the posses- sion of Professor Owen, of the College of Surgeons, from whom I purchased it. It was discovered in pulling down the old Duke's Theatre, in Lincoln's Inn Fields, where it was placed under one of the stage-doors ; the bust of Ben Jonson (accidentally destroyed by the workmen), occupy- ing a corresponding place over the other door, Shake- speare having been rescued by the timely interposition of Mr. Clift (Professor Owen's father-in-law). The bust became his property, and was given by him to Professor Owen. "It is my wish to know at what time it will be con- venient for the bust to be received ; and Sir Joseph Pax- ton, in whose possession the bust now is, at Sydenham, THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE BUST. 1 77 will forward it at any time if you will inform him or me at what time it should be sent. "I have the honor to be, sir, "Your obedient, humble servant, " Devonshire. "J. Barnes, Esq., Secretary of the Garrick Club!' At the first glance at the bust one would suppose that its features were copied after the Chandos portrait, but a longer inspection shows that it has a much nobler aspect and more closely resembles the Death Mask. There are no ear-rings in the ears, as there are in the Chandos, but the beard on the bust is very much like that in the painting, except that the moustache of the bust is drooping, instead of turned up as in the Chandos. The forehead is high and noble; the hair profuse and curling, like the Chandos. The eyes are fine and well sculptured, the nose sharp and delicately chiselled, but while there is none of the sad expression so painfully well rendered in the Death Mask, and the face is not as broad as the latter, still there is a resemblance to it. The costume is very graceful, and while the elaborate lace collar is evidently of the time of Charles I., the cloak thrown over one shoulder gives the whole figure somewhat of a theatrical appearance. Its merits as a work of art are quite good, and it is 23 178 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. much superior to the Stratford bust. There is an intel- lectual expression about the face that makes one wish this was a well authenticated likeness of the great poet. As to the date of its production nothing certain is known, but it was probably made in the time of Charles I. or his successor. D'Avenant would not have per- mitted a bust of Shakespeare to ornament his theatre which was utterly unlike the poet, who he claimed as a father, if tradition be true. It will further be remem- bered that the Chandos portrait was also said to have been in D'Avenant's possession. This bust still remains in the possession of the Garrick Club, and is one of its most interesting relics. THE HAMPTON COURT PORTRAIT. IN Hampton Court Palace, situated in the village of Hampton, a few miles from London, is an old paint- ing which formerly hung near the top of a large room with a high ceiling. It was so high from the ground that it was difficult to say what it was. Later it was hung lower, and is now claimed to represent Shakespeare. The picture is reported to have come from Penhurst, and is stated to have belonged to the D'Lisles ; one of whom gave or sold it to William IV., by whom it was placed at Hampton Court. Who painted it is not known, nor indeed can the brief pedigree above given be vouched for. Nothing is positively known about it except that it has been in the palace for many years. Hampton Court Palace was originally erected by Car- dinal Wolsey, and was enlarged by Henry VIII. Edward VI. was born there ; Charles I. was confined there for some time, and it was also occupied at various times by Crom- ('79) l8o THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. well, Charles II., and James II. William III. rebuilt a large portion of it, and the picture gallery contains works by Raphael, Lely, Holbein, Kneller, West and others. There is nothing improbable, therefore, in a portrait of Shakespeare being in the collection. The picture represents the figure almost to the knees. The face is more like the Chandos portrait than any other, but the nose is longer. The forehead is very similar to that portrait, but the eyes are blue instead of dark brown as in the Chandos, and the hair is nearly black as compared with the auburn or dark brown of the latter. The mouth, moustache and beard on the cheeks and chin are very similar to those of that portrait, but the dress is entirely different. The Hampton Court picture represents a man in a rich dress, elaborately em- broidered, and with gold buttons. It is open at the waist, and at the sleeves. Only the top of the breeches can be seen, but they are red, puffed out, and bombasted in the style of James I. A broad belt is worn high upon the waist, elaborately embroidered, and with a large buckle. Suspended from this are a dagger and sword — the right hand of the figure holding the former, and the left supporting the handle of the sword, which has a large pommel, and a gilt basket-hilt. A large ruff com- pletes the costume; and from the left ear, which is THE HAMPTON COURT PORTRAIT. l8l pierced, there hangs a double string. Above the head is the inscription "Aitat. suce. 34." The hands are rep- resented with long and pointed fingers, and there are ruffs at the wrists. It is evidently a genuine portrait, and not a forgery, but whether it represents Shakespeare or not is a matter which will probably never be known. Some years ago the Arundel Society published a pho- tograph of this portrait which gives a very good repre- sentation of it; but the cracks in the varnish show more distinctly in the photograph than in the picture. THE HILLIARD MINIATURE. THIS curious little miniature has a history which is apparently authentic, and certainly far better than most of the pictures that claim to represent Shake- speare. Sir James Bland Burges, who acquired this miniature on the death of his mother, wrote James Boswell, (who edited Malone's edition of Shakespeare, published in 1821,) the following account of its history: "Lower Brook Street, "26th June, 1818. "Dear Boswell: " I send you the history of my portrait of Shakespeare, which I apprehend will leave no reason to doubt of its authenticity. "Mr. Somerville, of Edstone, near Stratford-upon- Avon, ancestor of Somerville, author of the Chase, &c, lived in habits of intimacy with Shakespeare, particularly (182) EJje &umvXf ffiinMuvt. From Engraving by T. W. Harland. THE HILLIARD MINIATURE. 'Sj 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 1 742, without issue, left his estates to my grandfather, Lord Somerville, and gave this miniature to my mother. She valued it very highly, as well for the sake of the donor, as for that of the great genius of which it was the representative; and I well remember that, when I was a boy, its production was not unfrequently a very accept- able reward of my good behavior. After my mother's death, I sought in vain for this and some other family relics, and at length had abandoned all hope of ever finding them, when chance most unexpectedly restored them to me about ten days ago, in consequence of the opening of a bureau which had belonged to my mother, in a private drawer of which, this and the other missing things were found. "Believe me to be, "Dear Boswell, "Yours most truly, "J. B. Burges." Sir James loaned the miniature to Boswell, who says he "submitted it to the inspection of many of the most distinguished members of the Royal Academy, and to several antiquarian friends." 184 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. They thought well of it and he concluded to have an engraving made from it for the edition of Malone's Shakespeare that he was about to publish. By the ad- vice of Sir Thomas Lawrence he employed Mr. Agar to engrave a plate for him. This was done, and the print appeared in the second volume of that work, in 1821. Boaden says that Boswell showed him the miniature, and that it at once struck him "to have been unquestion- ably painted by Hilliard." Unfortunately, however, he does not tell us the reasons which led him to believe this, and there is nothing known concerning the minia- ture that supports such a belief, and it will be observed that Sir James does not say a word as to who the painter was. No doubts, however, seem to have troubled Boa- den, and he speaks of Hilliard as if he was unquestion- ably the painter of the miniature, which will go down to posterity as the "Hilliard miniature," though it would have been far better to call it after Burges. Nicholas Hilliard was born in 1547, and was well known as an artist in England. He continued to paint until a short time before his death, which took place in 1619. Speaking of Sir James' account of the history of the miniature, Boaden remarks: "It would be merely rude to ask for more particulars THE HILLIARD MINIATURE. 1 85 as to this transmission of the picture, than Sir James has been pleased to give ; but I hope I may without offence express some astonishment, that Somerville the poet, a man born almost on the banks of the Avon, glorying in his countryman, and writing occasionally verses to poets on the subjects of poetry, should have in his possession an authentic portrait of Shakespeare, and never allow it to be engraved; and see Mr. Pope publishing to the world a head of King James, and calling it Shakespeare, and never show to him the treasure on which he might so securely have relied."* Boaden further states that as Somerville's death did not take place until 1 742, he must have heard of these matters, and yet he never communicated the fact of his having such a picture in his possession. The miniature represents the poet with a somewhat receding forehead, which is much lower than in the other portraits; and the hair, which is also lighter, grows for- ward in the centre of the forehead, and recedes high up at the sides. The moustache is long and brushed out straight, not drooping. The goatee is long, straight and pointed, and the rest of the face is smooth. The nose is straight, the eyes expressive and handsome, the eye- * An Inquiry, etc. London: 1824, 8vo., p. 131. 24 1 86 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. brows arched. The face is full, and the whole effect quite pleasing. There is a large and deep ruff, with lace around the edge, the costume elaborate. The miniature only shows the figure a little below the shoulders. The first engraving made from this miniature was a small one, by Agar, published June 25, 1821, "by F. C. and J. Rivington & Partners." It appeared in Boswell's edition of Malone's Shakespeare, London: 182 1, 8vo., and has been before referred to. It is a good copy of the miniature, and is a neatly executed engraving. In 1827 B. Holl made an exact copy of the above en- graving, for Wivell's Inquiry, etc., London: 1827, 8vo., in which it appeared. The engraving is fully as well done as Agar's, and the only perceptible difference is in the costume, which is a little blacker in Holl's print. In the second edition of Wivell's Inquiry, etc., London : 1 840, 8vo., a very fine engraving of this miniature was published. It was engraved by T. W. Harland and is twice as large as the plates by Agar and Holl. Com- paring it with them one sees how much finer it is. It has a facsimile of the poet's signature under it. THE WARWICK PORTRAIT. AMONG the pictures in Warwick Castle, is one which has been there for many years, and which has always been believed to be a portrait of Shakespeare. Its history, however, is unknown, and who painted it, where it came from, and other details which would enable one to decide upon its claims to be a genuine picture of the poet, are unfortunately all matters of conjecture. He is represented as seated by a table with a white cover. The chair is red with a high back, and Shake- speare appears to be about to write, and looks up as if in meditation. The background is dark, and the costume black, with ruff and sleeve ruffles of white lace. The face is more youthful than in the other portraits, the complexion reddish, the features delicate, and the beard pointed, with moustache. The expression of the face is refined and spirited, according to Dr. Waagen,* who be- * Treasures of Art in Great Britain. London: 1854, Vol. Ill, p. 216. (187) 1 88 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. stows much praise upon the execution of the picture, and says that it is evidently the work of a careful painter, but he does not even venture to guess who the artist was. He believes it to be an original portrait, and it is greatly to be regretted that some details of its history have not been preserved. &!)* gjennfttfls iWfnfatttrt* From Engraving by W. Holl. .i?tftK!ff)ft£ • - ' --■V.--.,..t iS ';._. - • • * . • • • • I ,■ • • ••• • • THE JENNINGS MINIATURE. THIS miniature, painted in oil, was contained in an enamelled gold locket, which was formerly set with pearls. It was the property of H. Constantine Jen- nings, of Battersea, who had borrowed six or seven hun- dred pounds on its security, and that of an old missal, from a Mr. Webb. Either the jewels which the locket formerly contained were valuable, or the missal was of great rarity and value, or else Mr. Webb fared badly, for when the miniature and locket were put up for sale at Christie's, in London, in February, 1827, it was bought by Charles Auriol, Esq., for nine and a half guineas. It had also been owned by a Mr. Wise. Jennings claimed to have traced the possession of the miniature back to the Southampton family, but no proof of this exists. The miniature is neatly painted, and the features well drawn. The forehead is high, the beard full, as in the Chandos portrait ; the collar, which is of lace, very large ; (189) I90 THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE. the costume white and much ornamented. Only the head and shoulders are shown. Wilson was of opinion that "there appears upon the face of this picture a stamp of undoubted originality,"* and Wivell says "that the picture is intended for the poet, and is of antiquity, I have no doubt."f On the side of the picture, on the background, is the age, JEt 33. It is sometimes called the Auriol miniature. A beautiful engraving of the miniature was made in 1827, by W. Holl, for Wivell's Inquiry. The picture was loaned by Mr. Auriol for this purpose, and the engraving is very well executed. * Shakespeariana. London: 1827, l6mo., p. xxxvi. f An Inquiry, etc. London: 1827, 8vo., p. 210. EJjt i&tnrn portrait. From Photograph of Original. .t»6-mo£f mutt **«si>.CMefivjHel j pckum some fi»t Guusc ««y££j(iuK/niy ♦ontrj WS2E.U.C KVffiVlfcV©, CT>© SOOJJC FVLFULU ^MC j«vscs Bowt iLKmepf eHcint MiuynocCHVLOc.. THE ZINCKE PORTRAIT. 227 Ben Jonson, and the other the following: "Henry Spel- man, Esq., the gyfte of John Selden, Esq., the 4th daye of May, 1640." The canvas was pieced in two places, and had been so treated as to look old, though quite new. Zincke was a man of some ability, and had he applied his talents to an honest purpose might have produced good work. Wivell says that he purchased this picture of Zincke on account of the ingenuity displayed in it, and adds: "It is most pitiable to see an old man, for want of a more honest employment, obliged to have recourse to such means as fabricating portraits of Shakespeare, or otherwise starve."* A capital engraving of it, by W. Holl, was published in 1827, in Wivell's Inquiry. * An Inquiry, etc. London: 1827, 8vo. Supplement, p. 32. THE TALMA PORTRAIT. WF. ZINCKE, who had already appeared as the • fabricator of other spurious portraits of the poet, altered this one from another picture. It is on the wooden part of a pair of bellows, and Zincke concocted a wonderful story about a friend of his finding it in an old tavern. It was sold by one Foster to a Mr. Allen for a small sum. Foster told Wivell, in 1827, that he knew it was not an original portrait, and he had sold about thirty of "these mock original Shakespeares," and that he "never got more than six or eight guineas for the best, and I can assure you that I found it difficult to per- suade many of the purchasers that they were not origi- nals." Allen sold the picture to W. H. Ireland for eighty pounds. The condition of the sale, however, was that if there was any repainting or alteration on the picture it was to be returned to the seller. It was accordingly in- trusted to a restorer and cleaner of pictures, a Mr. Ribet, who had no trouble in removing Zincke's paint, when an old lady with cap and blue ribbons appeared ! Ribet was employed to repair the picture, and soon made it a Shakespeare again. It was then taken to (228) THE TALMA PORTRAIT. 229 France and sold to Talma, the actor, for a thousand francs. He had an elaborate case made for it of green morocco, lined with silk. While in Talma's possession it was seen by a Mr. Brockedon, who informed its owner that Zincke had altered it into a portrait of Shakespeare. Talma had al- ways believed that it was a genuine portrait of the poet, and was much disappointed to find that he was mistaken. When Talma died this pair of bellows was sold, among his other effects, and brought three thousand one hun- dred francs. It is related that on one occasion Charles Lamb saw this picture, and fell down on his knees and kissed it! As before stated, the portrait was on the wooden part of a pair of bellows. The following inscription, carved on the wood, was also on them : " Whom have we here Stucke onne the bellowes? That prynce of goode fellowes, Willie Shakspere. Oh ! Curste untowarde lucre, To BE thus meanlie stucke. " POINS. " Naye, rather glorious lotte to hymme assygn'd, Who, lyke th' almightie rydes The wynges oth' wynde. " Pystolle." THE MONUMENT IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY. THE monument of Shakespeare in Westminster Abbey is from a design by W. Kent, and was executed by P. Scheemakers. It was erected in 1741. The funds required were raised by two performances given in the theatres, and the committee having the mat- ter in charge consisted of the Earl of Burlington, Dr. Mead, Mr. Pope and Mr. Martin. The poet is represented as leaning his right elbow on some books, which rest on a column. The head of the figure is somewhat like the Chandos portrait; the dress a doublet, knee breeches and cloak, which latter hangs from one shoulder. With his left hand he points to a scroll with an inscription on it from The Tempest. As a work of art it does not rank very high. Several engravings have been made of this monument, the first by J. Maurer in 1 742, the next by Miller in mez- zotint. The latter is of folio size and very rare. (230) Eije iHomttnent in WLttitmimttv 8tt)to». From Engraving by B. Holl. .9$o. From Engraving by B. Holl. •.:•'.••• THE SHAKESPEARE GALLERY ALTO RELIEVO. 233 but the poet has not fared so well. The face has often been mistaken for George Washington, to whom the re- semblance is striking. The Alto Relievo was removed from London some years ago, and was presented by Mr. C. Holte Brace- bridge to Shakespeare's Garden at New Place, Strat- ford-upon-Avon, where it now is. The stone from which the monument was cut is very soft, and owing to this unfortunate circumstance, it has suffered somewhat from exposure to the weather.* A beautiful engraving of the Alto Relievo, of large folio size, was published by Boydell in 1 798, as a frontis- piece to his large series of illustrations of Shakespeare. It is engraved by James Stow. A smaller engraving by B. Smith was published in Boydell's edition of the poet's works. It is also very well done. It was likewise engraved by Burnet Reading; Vitalba; S. Rawle, 1804; Girtin and Scriven, 1804, and by W. Humphry, 1826. A neat engraving of this group by B. Holl was published in 1827 in Wivell's Inquiry. * This information was communicated by Samuel Timmins, Esq., J. P., to whom the present writer is indebted for this, and numberless other acts of kindness. 3° THE ROUBILIAC STATUE. IN 1758 Lewis Francis Roubiliac sculptured this statue of Shakespeare for David Garrick. The latter, by his will, provided that it should go to the British Mu- seum after the death of his wife, and it is now there. It represents the poet leaning on a stand covered with drapery, in the act of composition. The face is taken from the Chandos portrait, and the costume is a doublet and knee breeches. Over all is thrown a loose cloak, which hangs from his shoulders. Adrien Carpentiers painted a portrait of Roubiliac which represents him as finishing the model of this statue. This picture was engraved by D. Martin in 1765, and an excellent plate of the same portrait by W. Holl was pub- lished in Wivell's Inquiry, 1827. ( 2 34) Elje ffiotttJUfac Statue, From Engraving by W. Holl. .ujJbJS, jiUMtbtotf t{T5 W^t Wl&vn Statue. From Photograph of Original by Rockwood. .?ilifit£ tf?&l$5 $
ACON, Sir Francis, search for his *-* body, 13. Banks, J., designed and executed the Shake- speare Gallery Alto Relievo, 232. Barnes, J., 177. Barry, Mrs., her purchase of the Chandos portrait, 69. Battersea, 189. Bayeux, Bishop of, his tomb opened, 4. Becker, Dr. Ernst, now has the Death Mask, 112. Becker, Ludwig, his account] of the dis- covery of the Death Mask, 96. Death of, 112. Mentioned, 94, 95, 96, 98, 101. Went to England, 112. Went to Melbourne, 112. Bell, John, thought that the Stratford bust was from a mask, 33. Bell,R.C.,his engraving of the Droeshout, 65. Ben Jonson, II, 19, 46, 50, 51, 101, 102, 172, 214, 225. His grave examined, 1 1 . Bennett, S., his engraving of the^Chandos portrait, 87. Benton, originally owned the Winstanley portrait, 225. Berg, Hermann, his drawing of the Chan- dos portrait, 92. Betterton, his purchase of the Chandos portrait, 69, 71. Birmingham Archajological Association, visit of the, to see the Stratford por- trait, 156. Birrell, A., his engraving of the Stratford bust, 38. Blackfriars, 124. Bloomsbury, 208. Blount, Mountjoy, his portrait engraved by Droeshout, 47. Boaden, J., his drawing of the Stratford bust, 40. His search for the Jansen portrait, 130. On the Chandos portrait, 81. On the Droeshout engraving, 48. On the Felton portrait, 146. On the Hilliard miniature, 184. On the Jansen portrait, 132. On the John Wilson Croker copy of the Jansen portrait, 134. On the Stratford bust, 29. On the Zoust portrait, 202. Saw the Zucchero portrait at R. Cos- way's, 204. Says that Ut magus is on the Jansen portrait, 133. Thought that the Zucchero portrait re- sembled Torquato Tasso, 205. Boardman miniature, 206. Called the Norwich portrait, 207. Costume of the, resembles that of the Chandos portrait, 207. Description of the, 206. Fisk offered five hundred pounds for the, 207. History of the, 207. Inscription on the, 206. INDEX. 241 Boardman miniature, in the possession of G. W. W. Firth, 206. Izard owned the, 207. Moustache of the, like that of the Stratford bust, 207. Boardman, R. R., was long the owner of the Boardman miniature, 207. Bohn, on the Droeshout engraving, 47. Booth, 203. Booth, Lionel, had a copy of the Zoust portrait, 203. Boston Art Museum portrait, 196. Description of the, 198. Its history, 196. Sonrel's photographs of the, 197, 198. Boswell, James, 182, 183. On the Felton portrait, 1 45. Boydell, 232, 233. Boydell, J., his drawing of the Stratford bust, 38. Boydell, Josiah, his copy of the Felton por- trait, 147. Made a copy of the Felton portrait for George Steevens, 145. Bracebridge, C. Holte, presented the Shake- speare Gallery Alto Relievo to Shake- speare's Garden, New Place, 233. British Museum, III, 112, 113. Britton, John, induced George Bullock to make a cast of the Stratford bust, 33. On the Droeshout engraving, 48. Brocas, II., his engraving of the Droeshout, 60. Brook Street, 222. Brooks, Vincent, his chromolithograph of the Lumley portrait, 195! Bryant, 216, 217. Owned the Liddell portrait before it was forged by Holder, 216. Buckingham, Duke of, 69. Buckingham, Duchess of, 69, 70. Buckland, Frank, account of his efforts to examine Ben Jonson's skull, 1 1 . Bullock, George, made a cast of the Strat- ford bust, 33. Burbage, Richard, 68, 70, 72. His portrait at Dulwich College, 72. Burdett Coutts, Baroness, the Lumley por- trait purchased by, 193. Burges, Sir James Bland, 182, 183. Burlington House, 191. Burn, George Adam, 191. Burn portrait, 191. Description of the, 191. Has no history, 191. Resemblance of, to the Stratford bust, 191. Bumey, his drawing of the Chandos por- trait, 87. Burns, Robert, his body examined, 11. /CAERNARVON, Marquis of, 69, 70. ^-^ Capell, his Notes and Various Read- ings, 126. Cardinal Wolsey, 179. 3' 242 INDEX. Cams, in. Cattley, William, 219. Caulfield, James, 218, 219. Central Park, 235. Cervantes, age of when he died, 119. Death of, 118. Description of appearance of, 118. The Death Mask, suggested as repre- senting, 118. Challis portrait, 199. Description of the, 199. Friswell on the, 199. Has no history, 199. Its resemblance to the Death Mask, 200. Challis, Thomas, 199. Chandos, Duke of, 69, 70. Chandos portrait, 67, 119, 127, 175, 177, 178, 193. '94. 195. 20 °. 2 °3- Apostool's engraving of the, 87. Arundel Society's photograph of the, 78, 79, 80. Audinet's engraving of the, 86. B. Arlaud's drawing of the, 83. B. Holl's engraving of the, 89, 90. Betterton's purchase of the, 69, 71. Boaden on the, 81. Burney's drawing of the, 87. C. Knight's engraving of the, 85. Dean's engraving of the, 88. Description of the, 74. Dr. C. M. Ingleby on the, 79. Edward Smith's engraving of the, 89. Chandos portrait, E. Scriven's engraving of the, 90. Frank Jones' chromo-lithograph of the, 92. Freeman's engraving of the, 89. Friswell on the, 81. Fry's engraving of the, 87. G. Dalziel's engraving of the, 91. G. Duchange's engraving of the, 83. G. Greatbach's engraving of the, 91. George Scharf on the, 75, 80. Goldar's engraving of the, 85. G. Vander Gucht's engraving of the, 84, 86. G. Vertue's engraving of the, 83, 84. Heath's engraving of the, 88. Hermann Berg's drawing of the, 92. H. Gravelot's engraving of the, 84. Holl's engraving of the, 86. Hollis' engraving of the, 90. Houbraken's engraving of the, 84. H. Robinson's engraving of the, 89. H. Rodd on the, 76. Its pedigree not capable of proof, 71. James Faed's engraving of the, 92. John Cochran's engraving of the, 89. John Faed's painting of the, 91. John Hall's engraving of the, 85. John Payne Collier on the, 72. John Thompson's engraving of the, 88. Le Goux's engraving of the, 86. Lud. du Guemier's engraving of the, 83- INDEX. 243 Chandos portrait, more like the Stratford bust than the Droeshout engraving, 80. Mrs. Barry's purchase of the, 69. M. Vander Gucht's engraving of the, 82. Nicoll, Nicholl, or Nicholls' owner- ship of the, 69, 70, 73. N. Parr's engraving of the, 86. Oldy's notes to Langbaine, on the, 73. Ozias Humphry's drawing of the, 77. Preston's photograph of the, 92. P. Rohrbach's lithograph of the, 92. P. W. Tomkins' engraving of the, 87. R. A. Artlett's engraving of the, 92. Resemblance of the Lumley portrait to the, 194. R. Corbould's drawing of the, 87. Robert Keek's purchase of the, 69, 70. Samuel Cousins' mezzotint of the, 79, 90. S. Bennett's engraving of the, 87. Scriven's engraving of the, 88. S. Freeman's engraving of the, 90. S. Harding's drawing of the, 86. Sir Joshua Reynolds on the, 75. Sir Joshua Reynolds said to have made a copy of the, 72. Steevens on the, 77. Supposed to represent Shakespeare as Shylock, 82. T. Cook's engraving of the, 85. T. D. Scott's drawing of the, 91. Chandos portrait, TJte Athtnieum article on the, 73, 74. The best known of all the portraits of Shakespeare, 67. The costume of the Boardman minia- ture resembles it, 207. The face of the Roubiliac statue some- what like the, 234. The Hampton Court portrait resembles it somewhat, 180. Vander Gucht's drawing of the, 1 30. W. Harvey's drawing of the, 88. W. Holl's engraving of the, 89. William Page on the, 78. Wivell's drawing of the, 88, 89. Chantrey, Sir Francis, thought that the Stratford bust was from a mask, 33. Charlecote Hall, 124. Charles I., 178, 179. His body examined, 8. Charles II., 172, 173, 180. Charles Street, 216. Chaucer, 194. Chauvel, 149. Chelsea, 125. Chetwin, P., 173. Chromo-lithograph, by Vincent Brooks, of the Lumley portrait, 195. Chromo-phototype, New Shakespeare So- ciety's of the Stratford bust, 44. Clay, Dr. Charles, supposed to now own the Dunford portrait, 223. Clift, William, 174, 175, 176. 244 INDEX. Clopton, Edward, 155. Clopton House, the Stratford portrait pur- chased at a sale at the, 153. Clopton, Sir Hugh, 155. Cochran, John, his engraving of the Chan- dos portrait, 89. His engraving of the Felton portrait, 152- College of Surgeons, 174, 176. Collier, John Payne, his paper on the Chandos portrait, 72. Collins, Simon, cleaned off the white paint from the Stratford bust, 26. Cleaned the Stratford portrait, 153. His photographs of the Stratford por- trait, 163. Mentioned, 153, 154, 156, 157, 159, 162, 163. Collyer, J., his engraving of the Felton por- trait, 151. Cologne, 93, 94, 99, 112. Combe, John, 22. Condell, Henry, 45. Cook, H., his engraving of the Droeshout, 62. Cook, T., his engraving of the Chandos portrait, 85. Cooper, R., his engraving of Croker's copy of the Jansen portrait, 134. His engraving of the Jansen portrait, 137- His engraving of the Stace portrait, 209. Copeland, 173. Corbould, R., his drawing of the Chandos portrait, 87. Cosway, R., could not give Boaden any information concerning the Zucchero portrait, 205. Owned the Zucchero portrait, 204. Cousins, Samuel, his mezzotint of the Chandos portrait, 79, 90. Critical Review, the, 127, 128. Croker, John Wilson, the discovery of his copy of the Jansen portrait, 135. His copy of the Jansen portrait, 134. Cromwell, Oliver, 179. Appearance of the eye in Mask of, 115. Effigy of, III. His portrait manufactured out of a clergyman's by Holder, 222. Crystal Palace, 175. Curzon, Penn Asheton, 130. "pvALLAWAY, 124, 125. "^"^ Dalziel, G., his engraving of the Chandos portrait, 91. Darmstadt, 94, 112, 113, 119. D'Avenant, Sir William, 68, 69, 70, 172, «73, J78. His edition of Macbeth, 173. Davenport, Rev. Dr., 33. Davis, his engraving of the Ward statue, 235- Dead, features and clothing of, often pre- served, 3. INDEX. 245 Dean, his engraving of the Chandos por- trait, 88. Dean, T. A., his engraving of the Stratford bust, 40. Death Mask, 93, 177, 200. Comparison of, with the Stratford bust, 116. Crayon drawing of Page's bust, from the, 120. Discovery of the, 96, 97. Friswell on the appearance of the left eye of the, 115. Friswell thinks that the Kesselstadt picture is a copy from the, 101. Hairs on the, 104, 105. Healthy appearance of the, 115. Inscription on back of the, 97, 108. Is in a fair state of preservation, 107. J. Niessen's portrait from the, 121. Lines cut in the moustache and goatee of the, 107. Photographs of the, 121. Resemblance of the Duke of Devon- shire bust to the, 177. The Jansen portrait more nearly re- sembles it than any other, 133. The price asked for the, 113. William Page's bust from the, 120. William Page had the greatest faith in the, 119. William Page made masks from the, 119. Death Mask, William Page on the appear- ance of the left eye in the, 115. William Page's portrait from the, 121. W. J. Thorns suggested that it repre- sented Cervantes, 118. Delattre, his engraving of Marshall's copy of the Droeshout, 66. Digges, L., lines on Shakespeare, 23. D'Lisles, 179. Douglas, William, 201. Dramatic Genius, 232. Droeshout engraving, 45, 119, 141, 147, 200. Augustus Fox's engraving of, 62. Boaden on the, 48. Bohn on the, 47. Cannot be successfully copied on wood, 63- C. Picart's engraving of the, 62. Dr. Ingleby on the, 49. Engravers have tried to improve the, 59- Friswell on the, 49. F. W. Fairholt on the Halliwell-Phil- lipps copy of the, 53. George Steevens on the, 48. H. Brocas' engraving of the, 60. H. Cook's engraving of the, 62. Heliotypes of the, 65. H. Robinson's engraving of the, 63. Its merits discussed, 50. J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps' copy of the, 52- 246 INDEX. Droeshout engraving, J. O. Halliwell-Phil- lipps on the, 50. John Britton on the, 48. J. Swaine's engraving of the, 61. Lenox on the Halliwell-Phillipps copy of the, 57. Lines on the, 46. Marshall's copy of the, 59. Opinions of critics on the merits of, have been various, 47. Photographs of, not generally success- ful, 64. Photographs of the, 64, 65. Photo-lithographic copies of the, 64, 65. Photo-zincographic copy of, 64. Probably from a painting, 5 1 . R. C. Bell's engraving of the, 65. Rivers' engraving of the, 61. R. Sawyer's engraving of the, 61. Samuel Ireland's engraving of the, 61. Steevens believed that it was from the Felton portrait, 51. Steevens on the, 141. Supposed to represent Shakespeare in a theatrical costume, 5 1 . The copy of, in Bell's edition of Shake- speare, 60. The copy of, in Forster's Few Re- marks, etc., 63. The copy of, in Grant White's edition of Shakespeare, 63. The copy of, in Johnson and Steevens' edition of Shakespeare, 1778, 60. Droeshout engraving, the copy of, in Knight's Cabinet edition of Shake- speare, 63. The copy of, in Mary Cowden Clarke's edition of Shakespeare, 65. The copy of, in The Legend of Shake- speare's Crab Tree, 63. The copy of, in the reprint of the First Folio, 1807, 61. The copy of, published about 1827 by W. Smith, 62. The differences between J. O. Halli- well-Phillipps' copy of, and the ordinary impressions, 52. The Felton portrait not the original of the, 51. Thurston's drawing of the, 61. Unlike the Stratford bust, 19. W. Fairthorne's engraving of the, 59. W. H. Worthington's engraving of the, 62. William Page on the Halliwell-Phil- lipps copy of the, 55. William Smith on the Halliwell-Phil- lipps copy of the, 54. Wivell on the, 48. W. J. Linton's engraving of the, 63. Wood-cuts of the, 63, 66. W. Sherwin's engraving of the, 60. Droeshout, Martin, the faults of his engrav- ing, 51. The various portraits engraved by him, 47. INDEX. 247 Dryden, his verses on the copy of the Chandos portrait sent to him by Kneller, 71. Dubose, his engraving of the Monument in Westminster Abbey, 231. Duchange, G., his engraving of the Chan- dos portrait, 83. Duke of Buckingham, 175. Duke of Devonshire, 175, 177. Duke of Hamilton, 130, 131. Duke of Somerset, 130, 1 68. Duke of York, 172. Duke of Devonshire bust, 172. Discovery of the, 174, 176. Its purchase by the Duke of Devon- shire, 175, 176. Its resemblance to the Death Mask, 177. Dugdale, his Life, Diary, etc., 22. Du Guernier, Lud., his engraving of the Chandos portrait, 83. Duke's Theatre, the, 172, 173, 175, 176. Dulwich College, 68, 72. Dulwich Gallery, picture of Ben Jonson in the, 102. Dunkarton, R., his engraving of the Jansen portrait, 131, 136. Dunford, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222. Dunford portrait, 218. C. Turner's mezzotint of, 223. Description of the, 222. Formerly a Dutch Admiral, 219. History of the, 218. Dunford portrait, supposed engraving of, in Green's Shakespeare and the Em- blem Writers, 223. W. Holl's engraving of the, 223. W. Sharp's engraving of the, 223. Diirer, Albrecht, <)%, 99. T? ARL of Scarborough, 192. ■* — ' Earl of Southampton, 1 24. Earlom, R., his mezzotint of the Jansen portrait, 126, 127, 130, 136. His mezzotint of the Jansen portrait, Ut magus, above the, 133. Ear-rings, Englishmen of Shakespeare's day wore them, 80. Eastcheap, the great fire which destroyed it in 1666, 143. Edward IV., his tomb opened, 5. Edward VI., 179. Effigies, ancient, Dr. Schaaff hausen on, 1 1 1 . Effigy of Anne, ill. Of Cromwell, ill. Of James I., III. Of King Edward VI., III. Of King William, III. Of Nelson, in. Of Queen Elizabeth, III. Of Queen Mary, III. Eginton, F., his engraving of the Stratford bust, 38. Egyptian mummies, III. Elizabeth, Queen, her portrait painted by Zucchero, 204. 248 INDEX. Ellesmere, Earl of, 70, 79. Ellesmere, Lord, 145. Elze, Karl, 102. Every Man in his Humour, 51. Examiner, The, on the Stratford portrait, 161. Exhibition of the Industry of All Nations, TTAED, James, his engraving of the Chandos portrait, 92. Faed, John, his painting of the Chandos portrait, 91. Fairholt, F. W., his drawing of the Strat- ford bust, 32. His engraving of Stratford bust, 41. On the Halliwell-Phillipps copy of the Droeshout engraving, 53. On the Stratford bust, 32. Fairfax, William, his portrait engraved^by Droeshout, 47. Fairthorne, W., his 'engraving of the Droes- hout, 59. Feltonj'portrait, 141. A. Wivell's engraving of the, 152. Boaden on the, 146. Cosmo Armstrong's engraving of the, 151- C. Warren's engravings of the, 150. First shown to George Steevens, 141. H. Wright Smith's engraving of the, »52- Felton portrait, inscription on the back of the, 146. Is well drawn and colored, 147. I. Thomson's engraving of the, 150. J. Cochran's engraving of the, 152. J. Collyer's engraving of the, 151. J. Godfrey's engraving of the, 149. J. Neagle's engraving of the, 1 50. John Thurston's drawing of the, 150. Josiah Boydell's copy of the, owned by Harris, 147. J. Wilson's account of the history of the, 142. J. Wilson's account of, to George Steevens, 143. Offered for sale in 1870, 145. Owned by Westmacott, 145. Richardson's proposal for the publica- tion of the engravings of the, 149. S. Felton's purchase of the, 142. S. Felton sold it to G. Nichol for forty guineas, 144. The Droeshout engraving probably not from the, 51. The panel on which it is painted is split, 146. T. Trotter's engravings of the, 148, 149. W. Holl's engraving of the, 151. Wivell on the, 147. W. T. Fry's engraving of the, 151. Felton, S., 141. His purchase of the Felton portrait, 142. INDEX. 249 Felton, S., sold the Felton portrait to G. Nichol for forty guineas, 144. Finden, W., his engraving of the Stratford bust, 39. Fire, the great, which destroyed Eastcheap in 1666, 143. Firth, G. W. W., has the Boardman minia- ture in his possession, 206. Fisk, offered five hundred pounds for the Boardman miniature, 207. Fitzwilliam, Earl, owned Dryden's Copy of the Chandos portrait, 72. Folio, First, 45, 49, 56, 203. Fourth, 45, 46. Second, 45. Third, 45, 46. Foster, sold the Talma portrait, 228. Fox, Augustus, his engraving of the Droes- hout, 62. Fox, John, his portrait engraved by Droes- hout, 47. Freeman, his engraving of the Chandos portrait, 89. Freeman, S., his engraving of the Chandos portrait, 90. Friswell, J. Hain, his comparison of the Death Mask and the Stratford bust, 116. On the appearance of the left eye of the Death Mask, 115. On the Challis portrait, 1 99. On the Chandos portrait, 81. On the Droeshout engraving, 49, Friswell, J. Hain, on the O'Connell por- trait, 210. On the Stratford bust, 28. Repeats Boaden's statement that Ut magus is on the Jansen portrait, 134. Thinks that the Kesselstadt picture is a copy of the Death Mask, IOI. Fry, his engraving of the Chandos por- trait, 87. His engraving of the Stratford bust, 40. Fry, W. T., his engraving of the Felton portrait, 15 1. His engraving of the Stratford bust, 39. /""* ARDNER, his engraving of the Jansen ^-* portrait, 136. Garrard, Mark, claimed to have painted the O'Connell portrait, 210. Garrick Club, 175, 176, 177, 178. Garrick, David, 202. Inaugurated a jubilee at Stratford in 1769, 158. The Roubiliac statue made for, 234. Genius of Painting, 232. Gilliland portrait, 211. Description of the, 211. Different from all the other portraits, 211. History of the, 211. Owned by Thomas Gilliland, 211. W. Holl's engraving of the, 212. 32 250 INDEX. Gilliland, Thomas, owned the Gilliland portrait, 211. Girtin and Scriven, their engraving of the Shakespeare Gallery Alto Relievo, 233- Globe Theatre, 196. Godfrey, J., his engraving of the Felton portrait, 149. Goldar, his engraving of the Chandos por- trait, 85. Golden Chamber of the Ursula Church, 112. Gopsal, 126, 130. Graham, John, 208. Grave, proposition to open Shakespeare's, I. Gravelot, H. ( his engraving of the Chandos portrait, 84. His engravings of the Monument in Westminster Abbey, 231. His engraving of Vertue's plate of the Stratford bust, 37. Greatbach, G., his engraving of the Chan- dos portrait, 91. His engraving of the Jansen portrait, 139- His engraving of Stratford bust, 41. Great Newport Street, 218. Ormond Street, 129, 216. Queen Street, 208. Green, Henry, his mezzotint of the Zucchero portrait, 205. Shakespeare and the Emblem Writers, 223. Grenville, 154. Grignion, his engraving of the Stratford bust, 38. Grosvenor Square, 222. Gwennap, his portrait of Shakespeare, sold to him by Holder, 222. TTACKNEY Road, 221. A Hair, change of color of, when cut off, 105. Hairs affixed to the Death Mask, 104, 105. Halpin, his engraving of the Monument in Westminster Abbey, 231. Hammond, 221. Hardie, Dr., owned the Hardie portrait, 213. Hardie portrait, 213. Description of the, 213. Forged by Zincke, 213. Inscriptions on the, 213, 214. Owned by Dr. Hardie, 213. Resembled the Stratford bust, 214. Halford, Sir Henry, his account of the ex- amination of Charles I.'s body, 8. Hall, John, his engravings of the Chandos portrait, 85. His grave, 2. Hall, Dr. John, 50. Hall, Susanna, her grave, 2. Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O., his copy of the Droeshout engraving, 52. On Shakespeare's skull, 14. On the Droeshout engraving, 50. INDEX. 251 Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O., on the restoration of the Stratford bust, 27. On the Stratford bust, 27. On the Stratford portrait, 160. Hamilton, Duke of, 130, 131. Hampton Court Palace, 179- Hampton Court portrait, 179. Arundel Society's photograph of the, 181. Description of the, 180. Its history, 179. More like the Chandos portrait than any other, 180. Hardiknutian tablet, 145. Harding, S., his drawing of the Chandos portrait, 86. His drawing of the Stratford bust, 38. Hare, James, his account of Shakespeare's grave, 15. Harland, T. W., his engraving of the Hil- liard miniature, 186. Harris, bought J. Boydell's copy of the Felton portrait, 148. Owned J. Boydell's copy of the Felton portrait, 147. Hart, Prof. John S., 113. Harvey, W., his drawing of the Chandos portrait, 88. Heath, his engraving of the Chandos por- trait, 88. Heliotypes of the Droeshout engraving, 65. Heminge, John, 45. Henry VIII., 179. Henry VIII., his remains examined, 6, 8. Hermetically sealed coffin, Shakespeare probably buried in one, 3. Hilder, 218. Hilliard miniature, 182. Agar's engraving of the, 184, 186. B. Holl's engraving of the, 186. Boaden on the, 184. Description of the, 185. History of the, 182. T. W. Harland's engraving of the, 186. Hilliard, Nicholas, 184. Historia Naturalis, 109. Hobbs, 154. Holbein, 180. Holbom, 220. Holder, Edward, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 221, 222, 226. Dunford purchased the Dunford por- trait from, 218. Forged the Liddell portrait, 215. His account of how he altered the Dunford portrait, 220. His plan of altering portraits, 2 1 8. Sold the Dunford portrait to Dunford for four pounds ten shillings, 220. Holl, B., his engravings of the Chandos portrait, 89, 90. His engraving of the Hilliard minia- ture, 186. His engraving of the Monument in Westminster Abbey, 231. 252 INDEX. Holl, B., his engraving of the Shakespeare Gallery Alto Relievo, 233. Holl, Francis, his engraving of the Strat- ford bust, 42. Holl, W., his engraving of the Chandos por- trait, 89. His engraving of the Dunford portrait, 223. His engraving of the Felton portrait, 'Si- His engraving of the Gilliland portrait, 212. His engraving of the Jennings minia- ture, 190. His engraving of the Roubiliac statue, 234- His engraving of the Stace portrait, 209. His engraving of the Zincke portrait, 227. His engraving of the Zoust portrait, 203. His engraving of the Zucchero portrait, 205. Hollis, his engraving of the Chandos por- trait, 90. Holy Trinity Church, 2, 21. Hopwood, his engraving of the Jansen por- trait, 139. Houbraken, his engraving of the Chandos portrait, 84. Howarth, 197, 198. Howe, Emmanuel Scroope, 132. Howson, John, his portrait engraved by Droeshout, 47. Hughes, Margaret, 132. Humphry, Ozias, his drawing of the Chan- dos portrait for Malone, 77. Humphry, W., his engraving of the Shake- speare Gallery Alto Relievo, 233. Hunt, William Oakes, 153, 154, 159, 162. Owned the Stratford portrait, 153. Presented the Stratford portrait to the town of Stratford, 162. T MMERZEEL, Levens en Werken der Hollandsche Kunstschilders, 123. Indentation over the right eyebrow of the Death Mask, 113. Ingleby, Dr. C. M., his efforts to obtain a correct photograph of the Stratford portrait, 163. His Shakespeare's Bones, 2. In favor of opening Shakespeare's grave, 2. On the Chandos portrait, 79. On the Droeshout engraving, 49. On the Stratford bust, 29. Inscription on the back of the Death Mask, 97, 108. On the back of the Felton portrait, 146. On the Boardman miniature, 206. On the fire-proof safe in which the Stratford portrait is kept, 163. On the Hardie portrait, 213, 214. INDEX. 253 Inscription on the Talma portrait, 229. Under the Stratford bust, 24. Under the Winstanley portrait, 225. Ireland, Samuel, his drawing of the Droes- hout, 61. His drawing of the Stratford bust, 38. Ireland, W. H., formerly owned the Talma portrait, 228. Izard, owned the Boardman miniature, 207. JAMES I., 83, 180, 185. Effigy of, in. Vertue's engraving of, 128. James, Duke of York, 172. Jannsen (Jansen), 122. Jannsens (Jansen), 122. Jansen, Cornelius, 73, 75, 126, 127, 132. His name also spelled Jannsen, Jann- sens and Johnson, 122. Malone's statement regarding the arri- val of, in England, 125. Price of his pictures, 1 24. The date of his first works in England, 123- Jansen portrait, 122. Boaden on John Wilson Croker's copy of the, 134. Boaden on the, 132. Boaden's search for the, 130. Compared with the Ashborne portrait, 169. Earlom's mezzotint of the, 130, 136. Jansen portrait, Gardner's engraving of the, 136. G. Greatbach's engraving of the, 139. Given by the Duke of Hamilton to the Duke of Somerset, 130. Hopwood's engraving of the, 139. H. Robinson's engraving of the, 138. In the possession of the Duke of Ham- ilton in 1811, 131. John Wilson Croker's copy of the, 1 34. J. R. Jobbins' lithograph of the, 139. Lacour's engraving of the, 139. More nearly resembles the Death Mask than any other, 133. Not an authentic picture of Shake- speare, 122. Not known who painted it, 122. Page's engraving of the, 138. Photograph of Charles Turner's mezzo- tint of the, 138. R. Cooper's engraving of Croker's copy of the, 137. R. Cooper's engraving of the, 137. R. Dunkarton's engraving of the, 131, 136. R. Earlom's mezzotint of the, 1 26. R. Page's engraving of the, 137. Sometimes called the Somerset, 122. The panel on which it is painted is split in two places, 133. T. Wright's engraving of the, 138. Jennens, Charles, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, «3 2 > '34- 254 INDEX. Jennens, Charles, defence of his King Lear, 128. His death, 130. His edition of King Lear, 126, 127, 128. His house at Gopsal, 126. Review of his edition of King Lear, 127. Jennings, H. Constantine, 189. Jennings miniature, 189. History of the, 189. W. HolPs engraving of the, 190. Wilson on the, 1 90. Wivell on the, 190. Jobbins, J. R., his lithograph of the Jansen portrait, 139. Johnson, Gerard, 18, SI, 103, 157. Johnson (Jansen), 122. Jones, Frank, his chromo-lithograph of the Chandos portrait, 92. Jonson, Ben, II, 19, 46, 50, 51, 101, 102, 172, 214. His grave examined, 1 1 . His lines on the Droeshout engraving, 46. Picture of, in Dulwich Gallery, 102. The Kesselstadt picture supposed to represent him, 101, 102, 104. Jourdan, S., 94, 101. Joy, Abby, 197. Joy, Benjamin, 196. Jubilee at Stratford-upon-Avon, 158. TV'ECK, Robert, his purchase of the Chandos portrait, 69, 70. Kesselstadt picture, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104. Supposed to represent Ben Jonson, 101, 102, 104. Kettle, 218, 219. Kingston, Clements, 166, 168. His letter to Wivell, 166. King Lear, Charles Jennens' defence of his edition of, 128. Jennens' edition of, 126. Kneller, Sir Godfrey, 67, 71, 180. His copy of the Chandos portrait, 67. Verses sent by Dry den to, 71. Knight, C, his engraving of the Chandos portrait, 85. T ACOUR, his engraving of the Jansen "^^ portrait, 139. Lamb, Charles, said to have fallen on his knees before the Talma portrait, and to have kissed it, 229. Langbaine, Oldy's notes on, on the Chan- dos portrait, 73. Laurel Street, 210. Lawford Church, graves opened at, 3. Lawrence, Sir Thomas, 184, 221. Lear, King, Charles Jennens' defence of his edition of, 1 28. Le Goux, his engraving of the Chandos por- trait, 86. INDEX. 255 Leicester, Lord, 144. Lely, 180. Lenox, on the Halliwell-Phillipps copy of the Droeshout engraving, 57. Liddell portrait, 215. Owned by Bryant, before it was forged by Holder, 216. Owned by Thomas Liddell, 215. Wivell discovered that Holder forged it, 215. Liddell, Thomas, 217. Lip, upper, length of, in Stratford bust, 33. Lincoln's Inn Fields, 172, 176. Lines over Shakespeare's grave, 1 7. Linnell, 208. Linton, W. J., his engraving of Stratford bust, 42. His engraving of the Droeshout, 63. Little Cambridge Street, 221. London and its Environs, 129. Lord Ellesmere, 145. Lord Leicester, 144. Lord Lumley, 192, 194. Lord Orford, 144. Lord Spencer, 124. Loring, Gen. Charles G., 197, 198. On the Boston Art Museum portrait, 197. Lucas, John, his examination of the body of Katharine Parr, 6. Lucy, Sir Thomas, 124. Lumley Castle, 192, 194. Lumley, Lord, 192, 194. Lumley portrait, 192. Its history, 192. Purchased by the Baroness Burdett- Coutts, 193. Resemblance of, to the Chandos por- trait, 194. Vincent Brooks' chromo-lithograph of the, 195. Luther, Martin, 93, 99. Mask of, no. Lysistratus of Sicyon, 109, no. AT ACBETH, Sir William D'Avenant's •*•"■*• edition of, 173. Mainz, 93. Malone, Edmond, 26, 27, 77, 125, 155, 182, 184, 201. Advised that the Stratford bust should be painted white, 26. His statement regarding the date of Jansen's arrrival in England, 125. Ozias Humphry's drawing of the Chan- dos portrait made for, 77. The picture which he believed was by Jansen, 125. Manchester, 213, 223. Marshall's copy of the Droeshout engrav- ing. 59- Copies of, in Boaden's Inquiry, and Wivell's Inquiry, 66. Delattre's engraving of, 66. H. Adlard's engraving of, 66. 256 INDEX. Mashall's copy of the Droeshout, H. Rob- inson's engraving of, 66. The engraving of, in Johnson and Steevens' editions of Shakespeare, 1778, and 1785, 66. Martin, D., his engraving of the Roubiliac statue, 234. Mary, daughter of Edward IV., her tomb opened, 5. Effigy of, in. Mary of Scotland, Queen, her portrait painted by Zucchero, 204. Mask, Death, see Death Mask. Mask of Luther, no. Mask of Tasso, 1 10. Masks, art of making, known very early, 109. How they are made, 105. Pliny on the art of making, 109. Matthews, Jeremiah, his offer for the Strat- ford portrait, 162. Maurer, J., his engraving of the Monument in Westminster Abbey, 230. Mayence, 93, 94, 96, 98, 100, 101. Measures of the Death Mask and the Strat- ford bust, 1 14. Melanchthon, 93, 99. Melbourne, 112. Memphis, in. Merchant of Venice, 163. Middle Scotland Yard, 208. Midelburg, 124. Milton, John, 173. Milton, John, search for his remains, 10. Monument in Westminster Abbey, 230. B. Holl's engraving of the, 231. Description of, 230. Dubose's engraving of the, 231. Halpin's engraving of the, 231. H. Gravelot's engravings of the, 231. J. Maurer's engraving of the, 230. Photographs of not satisfactory, 231. Rothwell's engraving of the, 231. The head of, somewhat like the Chan- dos portrait, 230. Monuments, the faces of, made from masks, no. MUUer, Professor, 94, 98, 100, 104. His letter to Ludwig Becker, 98. Mummies, Egyptian, m. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 197. "NTACK, 100, 101. ~ Napoleon I., 118. Nash, Rev. Tredway, report of, on examina- tion of Katharine Parr's remains, 7. Nashe, Thomas, his grave, 2. Neagle, J., his engraving of the Felton portrait, 150. His engraving of the Stratford bust, 38. Nebuchadnezzar, m. Nelson, effigy of, III. New Place, 156, 233. New Shakespeare Society, their chromo- phototype of the Stratford bust, 44. INDEX. 257 New Shakespeare Society, their photograv- ing of the Droeshout, 66. Their phototype of the Stratford bust, 44. New Turnstile, 220. Nichol, G., 144, 145. Nicol, Nicholl, or Nicholls, his ownership of the Chandos portrait, 69, 70. Niessen, J., his portrait from the Death Mask, 121. Photographs of his portrait from the Death Mask, 121. Norwich, 206, 207. Norwich portrait, 207. Nose of the Stratford bust, shortness of the, 33- /^V'CONNELL, J., owns the O'Connell ^~^ portrait, 210. O'Connell, portrait, 210. Description of the, 210. Exhibited in 1884 at the " Shakespeare Show," 210. Friswell on the, 210. Old Green Dragon, 208. Old Knowell, the Droeshout engraving supposed to represent Shakespeare as, 51. Opening of Shakespeare's grave, I. Orford, Lord, 144. Otis, Mrs. Harrison Gray, 197. Otway, John, 69. Owen, Professor, 112, 174, 176. Oxford Street, 216. T)AGE, R., his engravings of the Jansen A portrait, 137, 138. Page's bust, crayon drawing of, 120. Photographs of, 120. Page, William, always had the greatest faith in the Death Mask, 1 19. His bust from the Death Mask, 120. His portrait from the Death Mask, 121. Made masks from the Death Mask, 119. On the appearance of the left eye of the Death Mask, 115. On the Chandos portrait, 78. On the Halliwell-Phillipps copy of the Droeshout engraving, 55. On the indentation over the right eye- brow of the Death Mask, 113. On the similarity of the measures of the Death Mask and the Stratford bust, 114. On the Stratford bust, 30. Visited Darmstadt, 119. Pall Mall, 232. Parr, Katharine, Queen to Henry VIII., her tomb examined, 6. Parr, N., his engraving of the Chandos por- trait, 86. Parry, James, 218. Paxton, Sir Joseph, 176. 33 258 INDEX. Photograph of the Boston Art Museum por- trait, 197, 198. Of Charles Turner's mezzotint of the Jansen portrait, 138. Of Shakespeare, 4, 19. Of the Death Mask, 121. Photographs of the Droeshout engraving, 64, 65. Of Monument in Westminster Abbey not satisfactory, 231. Of the Droeshout engraving not gen- erally successful, 64. Of the Stratford bust, 42, 43, 44. Of the Stratford portrait, 156, 163, 164. Photograving of the Droeshout engraving, 66. Photo-lithographic copies of the Droeshout engraving, 64, 65. Photo-zincographic copy of the Droeshout engraving, 64. Picart, C, his engraving of the Droeshout, 62. Piercy, W. F. Zincke originally bought the Winstanley portrait from, 225. Pliny, on the art of making masks, 109. Pope, Alexander, 185. Preston, his photograph of the Chandos portrait, 92. Prince Rupert, his reputed ownership of the Jansen portrait, 131. Q UEEN Anne, effigy of, m. Queen Elizabeth, effigy of, m. Queen Mary, effigy of, in. Queen Mary of Scotland, her portrait painted by Zucchero, 204. D ABONE, John, his copy of the Strat- ford portrait, 156. Radclyne, E., his engraving of the Strat- ford bust, 41. Raphael, 180. His tomb examined, 10. Raye, Sir John Lister, paid four hundred pounds for the Zoust portrait, 203. Reading, Burnet, his engraving of the Shakespeare Gallery Alto Relievo, 233- Restoration of the Stratford bust by Collins, 26. Review, the Critical, 127, 128. Reynolds, Sir Joshua, 202. His opinion of the Chandos portrait, 75- Made a copy of the Chandos portrait, 72. Ribet, cleaned the Talma portrait and after- wards restored it, 228. Richardson, William, 141, 148. His proposals for the publication of engravings of the Felton portrait, 148. Rippon, George, 193. Rivers, his engraving of the Droeshout, 61. Robinson, E. W., his drawing of the Strat- ford bust, 42. INDEX. 259 Robinson, H., his engraving of Marshall's copy of the Droeshout, 66. His engraving of the Chandos portrait, 89. His engraving of the Droeshout, 63. His engraving of the Jansen portrait, 138- His engraving of the Stratford bust, 42. Rockwood, his photograph of the Ward statue, 235. Rodd, H., on Richard Burbage's portrait at Dulwich College, 72. On the Chandos portrait, 76. Rohrbach, P., his lithograph of the Chandos portrait, 92. Rothwell, his engraving of the Monument in Westminster Abbey, 231. Roubiliac, Lewis Francis, 234. Roubiliac statue, 234. Description of the, 234. D. Martin's engraving of the, 234. W. Holl's engraving of the, 234. The face somewhat like the Chandos portrait, 234. Rowe's edition of Shakespeare, contained engraving of the Stratford bust, 36. Rupert, Prince, his reputed ownership of the Jansen portrait, 131. Ruperta, 131. 'ANDRART, Academics Pictures No- ' bilis, 123. Sawyer, R., his engraving of the Droeshout, 61. Scarborough, Earl of, 192. Schaaffhausen, Dr. Hermann, 95. On ancient effigies, III. Scharf, George, on the Chandos portrait, 75, 80. Schiller, his tomb opened, 9. Schon, Martin, 93, 99. Scotland Yard, Middle, 208. Scott, Sir Walter, his large upper lip, 35. On the Stratford bust, 35. Scott, T. D., his drawing of the Chandos portrait, 91. His drawing of the Stratford bust, 41. Scriven, E., his engraving of the Chandos portrait, 88, 90. His engraving of the Stratford bust, 40. Seldon, John, 227. Shakespeare Gallery, 232. Shakespeare Gallery Alto Relievo, 232. B. Holl's engraving of the, 233. B. Smith's engraving of the, 233. Burnet Reading's engraving of the, 233- Designed and executed by J. Banks, 232. Girtin and Scriven's engraving of the, 233- James Stow's engraving of the, 233. S. Rawle's engraving of the, 233. The face of the, resembles George Washington, 233. 26o INDEX. Shakespeare Gallery Alto Relievo, Vital- ba's engraving of the, 233. W. Humphry's engraving of the, 233. Shakespeare's grave, 2. Shakespeare Show, 191, 210. Sharp, W., his engraving of the Dunford portrait, 223. Sherburn Castle, 124. Sherwin, W., his engraving of the Droes- hout, 60. Shylock, the Chandos portrait supposed to represent Shakespeare as, 82. Simon, I., his mezzotint of the Zoust por- trait, 201. Skull of Shakespeare, the great good it would accomplish, 13. Skulls of saints, preserved in portrait-busts in Christian churches, III. Smirke, Robert, his picture of Stratford bust, 39. Smith, B., his engraving of the Shake- speare Gallery Alto Relievo, 233. Smith, Edward, his engraving of the Chan- dos portrait, 89. Smith, H. Wright, his engraving of the Fel- ton portrait, 152. Smith, W., 219. Smith, William, on the Halliwell-Phillipps copy of the Droeshout engraving, 54. Soest (Zoust), 201. Somerset, Duchess of, 132. Somerset, Duke of, 130, 168. Somerset portrait, the, 122. Somerville, 182, 185. Somerville, Lord, 183. Sonrel, his photographs of the Boston Art Museum portrait, 197, 198. Southampton, Earl of, 124. Southampton family, 189. South Kensington, 191. Spelman, Henry, 227. Spencer, Lord, 124. Spode, 173. Spurzheim, Dr., on the Stratford bust, 34. Stace, Machell, 208, 209. Stace portrait, 208. Description of the, 208. History of the, 208. Robert Cooper's engraving of the, 209. W. Holl's engraving of the, 209. Starling, his engraving of the Stratford bust,. 41. Steevens, George, 141, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149. Believed that the Felton portrait was the original of the Droeshout en- graving, 51. On the Chandos portrait, 77. On the Droeshout engraving, 48. Owned a copy of the Felton portrait painted by J. Boydell, 147. St. Erasmus, Chapel of, 1 10. St. George's Chapel, Windsor, 5. St. Luke's Church, 204. Storm, G. F., his engraving of the Ash- borne portrait, 170. INDEX. 26l Stow, James, his engraving of the Shake- speare Gallery Alto Relievo, 233. Stratford bust, 21, 116, 119, 120, 178, 200. A. Birrell's engraving of the, 38. A stone pen originally in the right hand of the, 35. Benjamin West on the, 34. Boaden on the, 29. Comparison of, with the Death Mask, 116. Condition of in 1814, 33. Description of the, 24. Difference in appearance of, when colored, 27. Disappointing to most people, 35. Dr. C. M. Ingleby on the, 29. Dr. Spurzheim on the, 34. E. Radclyffe's engraving of the, 41. Engraving of, in Rowe's edition of Shakespeare, 36. E. Scriven's engraving of the, 40. E. W. Robinson's drawing of the, 42. F. Eginton's engraving of the, 38. Forefinger and thumb broken off the, 26. Francis Moll's engraving of the, 42. Friswell on the, 28. From a cast after death, 33. Fry's engraving of the, 40. F. W. Fairholt on the, 32. F. W. Fairholt's engraving of the, 41. George Bullock made a cast of the, in 1814, 33- G. Vertue's engraving of the, 37. Stratford bust, G. Greatbach's engraving of the, 41. Grignion's engraving of, 38. Had become dilapidated in 1749,25. H. Gravelot's engraving of the, 37. H. Robinson's engraving of the, 42. Inscription under the, 24. I. S. Agar's engraving of the, 40. Its appearance different when viewed from various positions, 36. J. Boaden's drawing of the, 40. J. Boydell's engraving of the, 38. J. Neagle's engraving of the, 38. John Bell thought it was from a mask, 33- J. Thurston's drawing of the, 39. Length of upper lip of the, 33. Malone advised that it should be painted white, 26. New Shakespeare Society's chromo- phototype of the, 44. New Shakespeare Society's phototype of the, 44. Photographs of the, 42, 44. Poorness of the eyes of the, 33. Possesses no claims to be regarded as a work of art, 36. Probably erected by Shakespeare's family shortly after his death, 35. R. Ashby's engraving of the, 39. R. B. Wheler stated that there was no date or inscription on the back of the, 34. 262 INDEX. Stratford bust, resemblance of the Burn portrait to the, 191. Resemblance of the moustache of the Boardman miniature to that of the, 207. Resemblance of the Stratford portrait to the, 157, 158, 161. Restoration of the, 26. Robert Smirke's picture of the, 39. Rudely cut, 18, 36. Samuel Ireland's engraving of the, 38. Sculptured from a mask, 103. S. Harding's drawing of the, 38. Shortness of nose of the, 33. Similarity of the measures of, to the Death Mask, 115. Sir Francis Chantrey thought it was from a mask, 33. Starling's engraving of the, 41. T. A. Dean's engraving of the, 40. T. D. Scott's drawing of the, 41. The Droeshout engraving as well au- thenticated as the, 50. The Hardie portrait resembles the, 213. The white paint on the, removed by Collins, 26. Thrupp's photographs of the, 43. W. Finden's engraving of the, 39. Wheler's drawing of the, 38. William Page on the, 30. William Ward's engraving of the, 39. Wivell on the, 30. Stratford bust, Wivell's drawing of the, 40. W. J. Linton's engraving of the, 42. W. T. Fry's engraving of the, 39. W. Wallis' engraving of the, 41. Stratford Church, 155. Stratford portrait, 153. Charles Wright on the, 160. Cleaned by Simon Collins, 153. Discovery of the, 153. Discovery of the, excited great interest, 157- History of the, as given in the circular given to visitors to Collins' studio, 154- Inscription on the fire-proof case in which it is kept, 163. Its great resemblance to the Stratford bust, 157, 158, 161. J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps on the, 160. John Rabone's copy of the, 156. Not the work of an artist of much ability, 162. Photographed after it was cleaned, 156. Photographs of the, 156. Presented to the town of Stratford by W. O. Hunt, 162. Purchased at a sale at the Clopton House, 153. Restored, 154. The Examiner on the, 161. The face covered with beard before it was cleaned by Simon Collins, 154. INDEX. 263 Stratford portrait, the majority of writers have thought it was from the Strat- ford bust, 158. The offer of Jeremiah Matthews to purchase it, 162. Visit of the Birmingham Archteologi- cal Association to see the, 156. Stratford-upon-Avon, 2, 20, 153, 154, 156, 158, 162, 164, 207, 233. Tercentenary celebration of Shake- speare's birth at, 112, The Death Mask exhibited at, in 1864, 112. Streatham Street, 208. Surgeons, College of, 174, 1 76. Swaine, J., his engraving of the Droeshout, 61. Sydenham, 175, 176. 'T" , ABLET, Hardiknutian, 145. -*• Talma, bought the Talma portrait for one thousand francs, 229. Talma portrait, 228. Bought by Allen, 228. Charles Lamb said to have fallen on his knees before it, and to have kissed it, 229. Cleaned by Ribet, 228. Forged by W. F. Zincke, 228. Formerly owned by W. H. Ireland, 228. History of the, 228. Talma portrait, inscription on the, 229. Originally represented an old lady, 228. Sold after Talma's death for three thousand one hundred francs, 229. Sold by Foster, 228. Tasso, mask of, no. Taylor, John, 70. Taylor, Joseph, 68, 70. Teddington, 201. Tercentenary of Shakespeare's birth, 112, 193, 207. Theatre, Globe, 196. Thompson, John, his engraving of the Chandos portrait, 88. Thomson, I., his engraving of the Felton portrait, 150. Thorns, W. J., suggested that the Death Mask represented Cervantes, 118. Three Pigeons, 208. Thrupp, his photographs of the Stratford bust, 43. Thurston, his drawing of the Droeshout, 61. Thurston, John, his drawing of the Felton portrait, 150. Thurston, J., his drawing of the Stratford bust, 39. Tercentenary of Shakespeare's birth, 112, 193, 207. Times, The, 160. Timmins, Samuel, 168, 233. Tomkins, P. W., his engraving of the Chandos portrait, 87. 264 INDEX. Tonson, Jacob, copy of the Chandos por- trait on the publications of, 85. Triphook, 202. Trotter, T., his engravings of the Felton portrait, 149. Tuning, 208. Turner, Charles, his mezzotint of the Dun- ford portrait, 223. His mezzotint of the Jansen portrait, 137- Twickenham, 201. T T RSULA, Church, Golden Chamber ^ of the, 112. Ut magus, above Earlom's mezzotint of the Jansen portrait, 133. "I TANDER Gucht, 84, 86, 130. * G., his engraving of the Chandos portrait, 84, 86. His drawing of the Chandos portrait, 130. Vander Gucht, M., his engraving of the Chandos portrait, 82. Vansomer, Paul, 75, 224. Vault, Shakespeare buried in a, 16. Vertue, G., his engraving of the Chandos portrait, 84. His engraving of James I., 1 28. His engraving of the Stratford bust, 37. Vitalba, his engraving of the Shakespeare Gallery Alto Relievo, 233. Von Brandenburg, Albrecht, 93, 99. Von Kesselstadt, Francis, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97. 99. i°o, i°«. 102. 103, 104. His collection of pictures, 93. XXTAAGEN, Dr., 72, 187. His remarks on Dryden's copy of the Chandos portrait, 72. Wallis, W., his engraving of the Stratford bust, 41. Walpole, 124, 125. Walpole's Anecdotes of Painting, 1 23. Ward, J. Q. A., his statue, 235. Ward statue, 235. Description of the, 235. Davis' engraving of the, 235. Rockwood's photograph of the, 235. Ward, William, his engraving of Stratford bust, 39. Warren, C, his engravings of the Felton portrait, 150. Warwick Castle, 187. Warwick portrait, 187. Description of the, 187. History of unknown, 187. Washington, George, the face of the Shake- speare Gallery Alto Relievo resem- bles, 233. Waters, Ralph, 193. Webb, 189. West, Benjamin, 34, 180, 221. On the Stratford bust, 34. INDEX. 265 Westmacott, owned the Felton portrait, 145. Westminster Abbey, 1 10. Description of the'Monument in,"230. West Smithfield, 199. Wheler, R. B., 155. His drawing of the Stratford bust, 38. Stated that there was no date or in- scription on the back of the Strat- ford bust, 34. William, effigy of, III. William III., 180. William IV., 1 79. Wilson, J., 142, 143, 144. His account of the history of the Fel- ton portrait, 142. On the Jennings miniature, 190. The account he gave Steevens of the Felton portrait, 143. Windsor, St. George's Chapel, 5. Winstanley portrait, 224. Description of the, 224. Forged by W. F. Zincke, 225. History of the, 224. Inscription under the, 225. Winstanley, Thomas, 224, 225. Wivell, Abraham, 30, 40, 88, 89, 131, 133, 146, 147, I5 2 . JS5. 19°. 2 °'. 202, 203, 213, 217, 218, 219, 227. Applied to Holder for information con- cerning the Dunford portrait, 219. Ascertained that the Dunford portrait was a forgery by Edward Holder, 218. Wivell, Abraham, discovered that the Har- die portrait was forged by Zincke,2 13. Found J. Boydell's copy of the Felton portrait, 147. His drawing of the Chandos portrait, 88, 89. His drawing of the Stratford bust, 40. His engraving of the Felton portrait, 152. His statement concerning the panel on which the Jansen portrait is painted, 133. His statement that Ut magus is not on the Jansen portrait, 133. His visit to Samuel Woodburn, 131. On the Droeshout engraving, 48. On the Felton portrait, 1 47. On the Jennings miniature, 190. On the Stratford bust, 30. Purchased the Zincke portrait, 227. Wolsey, Cardinal, 179. Woodburn, 1 30, 13 1, 1 32. His purchase of the Jansen portrait for the Duke of Hamilton, 130, 131. Wood-cuts of the Droeshout engraving, 66. Wornum, Ralph N., his edition of Wal- pole's Anecdotes of Painting, 1 23. Worthington, W. H., his •engraving of the Droeshout, 62. Wright, Charles, 159, 160. On the Stratford portrait, 160. Wright, T., his engraving of the Jansen portrait, 138. 34 266 INDEX. Wright, T., his ownership of the Zoust por- trait, 201. Wriothesley, Elizabeth, 124. 7INCKE portrait, 226. ^"* Description of the, 226. Purchased by Wivell, 227. W. Holl's engraving of the, 227. Zincke, W. F., 213, 220, 225, 226, 227, 228. Forged the Hardie portrait, 213. Forged the Talma portrait, 228. Forged the Winstanley portrait, 225. Painted the Zincke portrait, 227. Zoust, his earliest picture in England, 201. Zoust portrait, 201. Description of the, 202. I. Simon's mezzotint of the, 201. Lionel Booth has a copy of the, 203. Owned by T. Wright, 201. Zoust portrait, Sir John Lister Raye paid four hundred pounds for the, 203. W. Holl's engraving of the, 203. Zuccaro, Federigo, (Zucchero,) 196. Zucchero, 197, 198, 204, 205. Compelled to leave England, 204. Painted portraits of Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mary, 204. The Boston Art Museum portrait could not have been painted by, if it re- presents Shakespeare, 198. Zucchero portrait, 204. Could not have been painted by Zuc- chero, if it represents Shakespeare, 204. Description of the, 205. Henry Green's mezzotint of the, 205. The eyes very singular, 205. Thought by Boaden to resemble Tor- quato Tasso, 205. W. Holl's engraving of the, 205. THIS BOOK IS DDE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY WILL INCREASE TO BO CENTS ON THE FOURTH DAY AND TO SI.OO ON THE SEVENTH DAY OVERDUE. ««** 23 mi t ;hW6 flD RECD LD TEB 25 1961 im P*~ -> Mr^ \hr 24Feb'64 [TCP 3-64-7 PW MAR 2 1 2007 LD 21-100m-12,'43(8796s) 1 ^Zd 1 N85 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY