Mr. Malone further states, that "when occupied on his life of Dryden, he discovered the portrait, which that poet possessed, of Shakspeare, painted by Kneller, to be done from the Chandos picture, and is now in the possession of Earl Fitzwilliam, at Wentworth Castle." Should Mr. Malone be right, here is proof, as (Boaden says) in the seventeenth century, that the picture did exist between 1683 and 92, and conjectures, that the following lines, by Dryden to Kneller, must have been written between the above dates :

Shakspeare, thy gift, I place before my sight;
"With awe I ask his blessing as I write;

"With reverence look on his majestic 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."

We may naturally suppose, that had the painter's name of the Chandos picture, been known to Kneller, we should not now be in doubt about it, especially, when we consider, that between thirty and forty years before, we are told that it belonged to the original proprietor, J. Taylor. Mr. Boaden, in

modern date, the authenticity of it ought not to be disputed, as its general resemblance to what I consider are like each other, decides it, in my opinion, a genuine portrait of Shakspeare.

his usual way, and without proof, sets it down, that "Dryden must have seen it, either at D'Avenant's or Betterton's, and no doubt had conversed with them on its authenticity." Now, in my opinion, we have no reason to suppose that the poet ever did see it before Kneller painted the copy, or, of his knowing any thing about the original picture. If, surmises like his are to be considered as valid, it would, also, be equally as much in character, to say it was painted by Taylor.

In the advertisement prefixed to edition, 1793, is stated as follows:

"The reader may observe, that contrary to former usage, no head of Shakspeare is prefixed to the present edition of his plays. The undisguised fact is this: The only portrait of him that even pretends to authenticity, by means of injudicious cleaning, or some other accident, has become little better, than the shadow of a shade."*

It appears the Chandos picture is painted on canvas, and Mr. Boaden, speaking of it at page 49, says a man must be little conversant with the portraits of 1607, to start an objection, (alluding

*"Such, we think, were the remarks, that occurred to us several years ago, when this portrait was accessible. We wished, indeed, to have confirmed them by a second view of it but a late accident in the noble family to which it belongs, has precluded us from that satisfaction."

to Mr. Steevens,) because it was not painted upon wood. I know very well, that some of the smooth painters, about this time, and long after, preferred panel, for subjects that were to be very highly finished, and seen near. The wood allowed of a thinner and more transparent system. You frequently, in these pictures, see the absolute grain of the wood, through a tinted gelatinous substance, merely vehicle, but amazingly brilliant. The absorbent ground of the canvas took the oil entirely from the surface, and left their colours heavy and opaque. Here, therefore, they were compelled to use great body of colour, and to paint with deeper shadows. The panel pictures, generally, have the features little relieved by shadow."

The above description on the art of painting, is truly ridiculous, as it is inconsistent to suppose, that it is not possible to paint on canvas, or even copper, or any other material equally as transparent as upon "wood," which is of itself, dark in its nature, and cannot possibly produce either a brilliancy or transparency in the colours of a picture, which is covered from the beginning, as a foundation, for further process, with white and colours that are opaque, which is necessary before you finish with what is transparent, so as to produce the desired effect. A painter never intends to show the material that he works on, any more than a plasterer, who does all he can to hide the laths under his work, but, it is evident, Mr. Boaden has seen some picture

that has been rubbed, and did not know to the contrary.

It is worthy of remark, that the Felton picture, the Droeshout print, and the monument, have no rings in the ears, but the Chandos picture has them; there is also a difference in the beard of the latter, which, with the expression of the face, is very characteristic with the ring to that of Shylock, it may be Shakspeare, in that character. In giving this opinion, I allude to the engraving in Mr. Boaden's book, and, which is very inaccurate, as to the cheek bone, on the distant side of the face, it being too small for the other, it is well engraved by Scriven, but rather hard. I have heard much said on the merits of the crayon portrait by Mr. Ozias Humphry, that this print was done from, and which is very different to the one lately engraved from the original,* by Mr. Robert Cooper; in this last print, and the Felton picture, I am able to distinguish much resemblance to each other, which establishes them, in my mind, to be both genuine portraits of Shakspeare.

Those who have seen Droeshout's or Marshall's engravings of the poet, might reasonably imagine them to have been done from the Felton picture (as far as regards the head), the only doubt in

* I have lately been favoured with a sight of a copy from this picture, in the possession of Mr. Thomas Shakespear, of

1

my mind, is, whether we should not have seen a more finely executed print, from so delicate a painting. It has been said, that "the print by Droeshout, is his first effort in this country; no wonder then, that his performances, twenty years after, are found to be executed with a somewhat superior degree of skill, and accuracy; yet, still, he was a poor engraver, and his productions are sought for, more on account of their scarcity, than their beauty; he seems, indeed, to have pleased so little in this country, that there are not above six or seven heads of his workmanship to be found."

Mr. Malone, speaking on the same engraver's works, notices two of his productions, "William Fairfax, who fell at the siege of Frankendale, in 1621, and John Howson, Bishop of Durham; the portrait of Bishop Howson, is at Christ Church, Oxford.

By comparing the above two prints,

Ranelagh Street, Pimlico, which has been in his family more than a century. From the bold manner in which it is painted, I think it is by J. Richardson. I understand there is another in the small apartment at the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge, which formerly belonged to Mr. Capell, the editor of Shakspeare, in 1768. Besides the above, Mr. Malone said, that "he possessed three by eminent masters." This avowal produced the annexed jeu d'esprit:

"I knew our Shakspeare's gentle face:
The reason why you'll plainly see:
His picture 'long'd to Chandos' Grace;
Of which I've got rare copies THREE.