figured satin of the dress. In the picture, the charm of colour blended the pattern and the ground into one rich mass, and it by no means injured the expression of the head; but in the print, it would have disturbed the grand effect, to have imitated such trivial parts; he, therefore, with my entire concurrence, kept the dress dark, that the brilliant effect of the head might be quite undisturbed.

Comparing it with the other portraits, it certainly most resembles the head by Droeshout in the folio 1623. But, as works of art, the rudeness of the one is as obvious as the refinement of the other. Still as fidelity was equally dear to both the artists, in their very contrasted styles, they alike, though not equally, exhibit the countenance of the poet, and thus illustrate and confirm the representations of each other.

At the conclusion of this article, I sieze the opportunity of expressing publicly my respectful acknowledgments to the possessor of this noble portrait ; and am truly happy in laying before the public a most beautiful engraving from the portrait of Shakspeare by Cornelius Jansen, in the collection of His Grace the DUKE OF SOMERSET.

At the close, as I conceived, of my inquiry, my attention was excited by the publication of a small

Head of the Poet, from an original picture in the possession of J. W. Croker, Esq. M. P. I sent for the engraving, and found it a very unfaithful and poor attempt indeed, to express the picture by Jansen. The next step, in course, was to see the work from which it professed to be taken. Mr. Croker with the utmost readiness indulged my curiosity, and agreeably surprised me by the sight of an absolute fac simile of the Duke's picture. I see no difference whatever in the execution—the character of course is identical. It should, however, be observed, that although the Duke's picture is on panel, Mr. Croker's is on canvas.* I must add to this remark, that the picture on canvas has no date or age painted upon it, and that the portrait is an oval within a square; in other words, the angles are rounded off. The mode, Mr. Croker tells me, in which the picture was discovered, was singularly remarkable. It was hidden behind a panel, in one of the houses iately 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, particu

This is certainly a very good copy, and is on a three-quarter canvas, which is larger than the original. Mr. Robert Cooper is the engraver of the print taken from it; and although he has done many fine plates of distinguished characters in his time, he has made Shakspeare look, in this instance, like an idiot.-A. W.

larly in the country. It was once the practice in plastered walls, to insert frames of the same colour, and these formed all the decorations of the pictures. Subsequently, when it was determined to wainscot an apartment, the pictures were often become so sallow, by time and dirt, as to be hardly visible, and was so deemed not worth the trouble of extraction, and, therefore, covered along with the wall which inclosed it. An instance of this kind comes positively within my own knowledge.

Had it been possible, I should have pursued the inquiry to the ascertainment of the identical house from which it came, and thus, at all events, have tried to trace out its ancient possessor. But Mr. Croker could give no further detail. He received the account without suspicion, for the picture was obviously ancient, and, from its condition, had as obviously been hidden. He bought it liberally, and has reason to congratulate himself upon the acquisition.

In talking over the subject of Shakspeare's portrait with Mr. Croker, that gentleman very fairly put before me a doubt which he said had frequently entered his mind, whether Shakspeare was a person of sufficient worldly importance to have his portrait painted in the style of the picture, which then hung before us? As I know such a notion has occurred to many of the poet's fondest admirers, it may be proper to throw what light I am able, upon a point so worthy of investigation.

P

If the high admiration of genius, of itself established the right of such a distinction, there can be little room to dispute, that among many of the greatest men of that age, his powers were as justly appreciated, and himself as highly honoured, as our most ardent love for him could wish to have been the case. Still there is the distressing fact before us, that Spenser, with very striking claims, was neglected and reduced to poverty, and might have wanted, at all events, a distinguished grave, but for the munificence of that great, but erring character, the Earl of Essex.* We have further to consider, that the profession of an actor was not at that time reputable, and that Shakspeare himself has complained that his name was injured by "the quality he professed." It may, therefore, still be requisite to shew the degree of worldly consideration which attached to him, and to prove that very considerable things were sought, and probably acquired, through the medium of his influence with the great personages, his friends and

* Edmund Spenser, qui obiit apud diversorium in platea Regia, apud Westmonasterium juxta London, 16o die Januarij, 1598(1598-9 of course.) Juxtaq: Geffereum Chaucer, in eadem ecclesia supradict: Honoratissimi Comitis Essexiæ impensis sepelitur.HENRY CAPELL, 1598. In Mr. Brand's copy of F. Q. 1596.

+ Thence comes it that my name receives a brand;
And almost thence my nature is subdu'd
To what it works in, like the dyer's hand.

SONNET cxi.

patrons. Now it appears from some papers, which Mr. Malone did not live to work into his biography of the poet, that in the years 1597 and 1598, the elder Mr. Richard Quiney was in London, soliciting a renewal and enlargement of the charter, and an exemption for the borough of STRATFORD from a subsidy granted by parliament. The plea on which they claimed this exemption, before the Lord Treasurer Burghley, was poverty and distress occasioned by two recent fires. Upon this and many other topics, Abraham Sturley, on the 24th of January, 1597-8, writes a letter from Stratford to Mr. Quiney. I have no business with more of it, than relates to Shakspeare, his circumstances, his influence, and his connexions. The following I copy literatim :

This is one special remembrance from ur fathrs motion. It seemeth bi him that or countriman Mr. Shakspe is willing to disburse some monej upon some od yardeland or other att Shottrj or neare about us. He thinketh it a very fitt patterne to move HIM to deale in the matter of or Tithes. Bj the instructions u can give him theareof, & bj the frendes he can make therefore, we thinke it a faire marke for him to shoot at, & not unpossible to hitt. It bteinoed would advance him in deede, & would do us much good -hoc movere & quantum-in te è pmovere, ne negligas: hoc enim et sibi et nobis maximi erit momemti: hic labor, hoc opus esset eximiæ et gloriæ et laudis sibi."

Thus we find, that so early as 1597-8, and when, with the exception of Romeo and Juliet, he had (according to Mr. Malone's chronology) written no