have been painted some years prior to 1616, the year of Shakespeare's death.

It would be impossible, within the compass of this preface, to review all that has been said for and against these four portraits. Neither will space permit me to give the history of each in detail. I can only briefly allude to the chief facts in connection with each, and state the reasons which have influenced me in selecting the Chandos portrait.

Mr. Boaden, who was the first to examine into the authenticity of reputed Shakespeare portraits," * has evinced a preference for the so-called "Jansen portrait," in the collection of the Duke of Somerset, considering it to have been painted by Cornelius Jansen, in 1610, for Lord Southampton, the great patron, at that date, of art and the drama.

The picture, indeed, bears upon the face of it an inscription-te 46-which gives much weight to the views

1610

expressed by Mr. Boaden.

It is certain that, in the year mentioned, Jansen was in England, and that he painted several pictures for Lord Southampton; it is equally true, that at that date Shakespeare was in his forty-sixth year. But Mr. Boaden fails. to prove that this particular picture was painted by

"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 Portraits of Shakespeare." By James Boaden. London, 1824.

Jansen, and that it was ever in the possession of Lord Southampton, or painted by his order.

As a fine head, and a work of art, it is the one of all others that I should like to think resembled Shakespeare, could its history be more satisfactorily detailed.

Many regard as a genuine portrait, the Bust at Stratford-on-Avon, which is stated to have been executed by Gerard Johnson, and "probably" under the superintendence of Dr. John Hall. The precise date of its erection is not known, but we gather that it was previous to 1623, from the fact that Leonard Digges has referred to it in his Lines to the Memory of Shakespeare, prefixed to the first folio edition of the Plays published in that year. Mr. Wivell relies very strongly on the circumstance of its having been originally coloured to nature.* Hence tradition informs us that the eyes were hazel, the hair and beard auburn. It must be admitted, however, that a portrait after death can never be so faithful as a picture from the life, while no sculptor who examines this bust can maintain that it was executed from a cast.†

Those who approve of the Droeshout etching, published in 1623, as a frontispiece to the first folio, find a strong argument in favour of its being a likeness in the commendatory lines by Ben Jonson, which accompany it.

* "An Inquiry into the History, Authenticity, and Characteristics of the Shakespeare Portraits." By Abraham Wivell. London, 1827.

†The Stratford Portrait was doubtless painted from the bust, and probably about the time of the Garrick Jubilee, 1769.

Jonson knew Shakespeare well, and he says of this

picture :

"This figure that thou here seest put,

It was for gentle Shakespeare cut ;
Wherein the graver had a strife
With Nature to outdoo 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 ever writ in brasse ;
But since he cannot, reader, looke

Not on his picture, but his booke."

As a work of art it is by no means skilful, and is confessedly inferior not only to other engravings of that day, but also to other portraits by Martin Droeshout.

That it bore some likeness to Shakespeare as an actor, I do not doubt, but that it resembled him as a private individual when off the stage, I cannot bring myself to believe. The straight hair and shaven chin which are not found in other portraits having good claims to be considered authentic, and the unnaturally high forehead, which would be caused by the actor's wearing the wig of an old man partially bald, suggest at once that when the original portrait was taken, from which Droeshout engraved, Shakespeare was dressed as if about to sustain a part in which he was thought to excel as an actor.

Boaden has conjectured that this portrait represents Shakespeare in the character of old Knowell, in Ben

Jonson's Every Man in his Humour, a part which he is known to have played in 1598, and this would easily account for Ben Jonson's commendation.* This conjecture is so extremely probable, that I have no hesitation in endorsing it.

We come, then, now to "the Chandos portrait." With the longest pedigree of any, it possesses at least as much collateral evidence of probability, and is, moreover, important as belonging to the nation.† It has been traced back to the possession of Shakespeare's godson, William, afterwards Sir William, Davenant, and all that seems to be wanting materially, is the artist's name. The general opinion is, that it was painted either by Burbage or Taylor, both of whom were fellow-players of Shakespeare. It is styled the Chandos portrait from having come to the trustees of the National Portrait Gallery from the collection of the Duke of Chandos and Buckingham, through the Earl of Ellesmere, by whom it was purchased and presented. The history of the picture, so far as it can be ascertained, is as follows:

It was originally the property of Taylor, the player

* Boaden adds: "Let it be remembered in aid of this inference that tradition has invariably assigned to him, as an actor, characters in the decline of life, and that one of his relatives is reported to have seen him in the part of old Adam, the faithful follower of Orlando, in that enchanting pastoral comedy As You Like It." Op. cit., p. 22.

1864.

"Life Portraits of William Shakespeare," by J. Hain Friswell. London,

(our poet's Hamlet), by whom, or by Richard Burbage, it was painted.*

Taylor dying about the year 1653, at the advanced age of seventy,† left this picture by will to Davenant.‡ At the death of Davenant, who died intestate in 1663, it was bought, probably at a sale of his effects, by Betterton, the actor.

While in Betterton's possession, it was engraved by Van der Gucht, for Rowe's edition of Shakespeare, in 1709. Betterton dying without a will and in needy circumstances, his pictures were sold. Some were bought by Bullfinch, the printseller, who sold them again to a Mr. Sykes. The portrait of Shakespeare was purchased by Mrs. Barry, the actress, who afterwards sold it for forty guineas to Mr. Robert Keck, of the Inner Temple. While in his possession, an engraving was made from it, in 1719, by Vertue, and it then passed to Mr. Nicholls, of Southgate, Middlesex, who acquired it on marrying the heiress of the Keck family.

The Marquis of Caernarvon, afterwards Duke of Chandos, marrying the daughter of Mr. Nicholls, it

• We have, unfortunately, no proof that Joseph Taylor, the player, ever painted portraits. There was a contemporary, however, named John Taylor, who was an artist, and it is possible that these two have been confounded.

Boaden refers the picture to Burbage, "who is known to have handled the pencil." Op. cit., p. 49.

Taylor was thirty-three when Shakespeare died in 1616, and survived him thirty-seven years.

This will, it appears, is not to be found (Wivell, Op. cit., p. 49), but it matters little, if we are assured that Davenant possessed the picture.