pearance of this picture, did originally appear "with more than usual resemblance," to the poet, for if this evidence is to be taken at all upon it, I think he has, in this instance, rather established than refuted the originality of the picture; but, any man who is a judge of paintings, would not "suppose," without giving evident reason that the ruff is "daubed on," for the repairs in the picture are so visible, that the word "suppose" might be very well dispensed with. The extremity of the ruff, where the picture is cut off, has been repaired, and a small piece added, since it was discovered in the Minories, probably, as Mr. Boydell had surgically repaired the nose, he might have added the small piece to the ruff, and which is not so neat as might have been done; there are two or three places in the left cheek mended, about the size of a pea, the eye on the same side of the face is a little rubbed. At page 95, we are told,

"The forehead is not only different in character to Droeshout's, but the ablest artists have assured me, that nature never produced one of such a form.”

I see nothing in the forehead beyond what is very commonly seen, which is high and narrow, and only proves, that Shakspeare was not thick headed, as we are convinced by his works. It is rather singular in its appearance, I will allow, which is caused by the hair not being sufficiently off the side, to make it look like the bust or Droeshout's print, both of which are done upwards of twenty years after the picture.

It has been remarked, that "about the time the Chandos picture found its way into Mr. Keck's hands, the verification of portraits was so little attended to, that both the Earl of Oxford and Mr. Pope, admitted a juvenile one of King James I. as that of Shakspeare." The above anecdote is surely one very good reason, why Lord Leicester and Lord Oxford, in 1794, did not purchase the Felton picture, as the incredulity of such distinguished characters as Oxford and Pope are controverted, it must greatly weaken the faith of those noblemen, as to be the hinderance of their purchasing, what is most likely, a genuine portrait of the poet, exclusive of the bad condition it was then in.

#

I will now, make some remarks on the dress of the Felton picture, and show, if any thing can be conjectured, in a reasonable manner, what it might be. It appears in the Stratford Register, that on Aug. 11, 1596, Hamnet, son of William Shakspeare, was buried, at the age of twelve years." And in the following year, the above picture was painted. The dress, what little is seen, has all the appearance of mourning, the plain white linen ornament round the neck, is horizontally straight in front, and no doubt, from its appearance at the sides, is intended to be circular at the back of the neck. The small plaits inwardly terminate with sharp points, to the outward hem, which is very small. The dress under it is black, and has the appearance

of a cape of a cloak, from the direction of the corners pointing to the shoulders. It is rather remarkable, that a cloak of this character is seen on the right shoulder of Marshall's print of Shakspeare, forty-three years after, I, therefore, trust the above observations, tends a little towards confirming the originality of the picture,* as the poet most likely wore a cloak of that description.

At page 92, Mr. Boaden asserts, in opposition to Mr. Steevens' statement, the manner which Shakspeare spelt his name. As that cannot affect the picture in the least degree, I shall say as little as possible on the subject. But, what Mr. Steevens very justly observes, is that his name, on the back of the picture, is spelt as the poet himself spelt it, (exclusive of the omitting a letter (e) at the end,) as can be proved by his will, and, also, by his autograph to a mortgage, signed by Shakspeare, A.D. 1612-13; and which seems entirely to have escaped Mr. Boaden's notice, but which tends to make a complete book of blunders.

* We find a very similar interest was excited by the Dilettanti Society, on the discovery of an original miniature of Milton, painted by Samuel Cooper, and which Sir Joshua Reynolds purchased for one hundred guineas, from a picture dealer, who had obtained it from a common furniture broker, that could not remember the time nor manner by which he came by it. Seven years after, a very corresponding attack was made on this miniature, as to the above portrait of Shakspeare, which was totally defeated by Sir Joshua, in a letter addressed to Mr. Urban, in the Gentleman's Magazine of 1791.-See Northcote's Memoirs of Sir J. R.

Mr. Boaden, at page 103, remarks thus, "there is, however, something of strange coincidence in what I have before stated. Mr. Wilson receives, in 1792, from a man of fashion, who must not be named, a head of the poet, dated in 1597, and endorsed Guil. Shakspeare. About the same time, were received sundry deeds, letters, and plays of Shakspeare, from a gentleman, who, in like manner, was not to be named. And they abounded in the hand-writing of Elizabeth's reign, and, also, exhibited the poet's name, with the recent orthography of the commentators. I do not know, but, that this picture might have been intended to appear among the infinite possessions of the nameless gentleman."*

The above insinuations of Mr. Boaden, has been the means of my obtaining a book, entitled, "The Confessions of William Henry Ireland," in the perusal of which, I have received much pleasure, one part

* The author of these writings alluded to, is Mr. Ireland. In a book, entitled Chalcographimania, he is noticed by the following lines and note, p. 57:

"Whose impudence deserves the rod,

For having ap'd the muse's god.t

+ It has frequently afforded me a matter of astonishment, how this literary fraud could so long have duped the world, and involved in its deceptious vortex, such personages as a Parr, Wharton, and Sheridan, not omitting Jemmy Boswell, of Johnsonian renown; nor can I even refrain from smiling, whenever the pamphlets of Boaden, Waldron, Wyatt, and Philalethes, otherwise Webb, Esq. chance to fall in my way. All this, however, verifies the words of Martial, when he says, Stultus labor est ineptiarum."

in particular, refers to the letters Mr. Boaden mentions in his preface, to have had "the honour to address to the late George Steevens, Esq. which brought before the public the first detection of an impudent and very unskilful forgery."

How far Mr. Boaden was the first detector of these forgeries, will be seen by the following extract, taken from p. 259, of W. H. Ireland's own confessions of them:

"As every endeavour to calm Mr. Samuel Ireland's mind proved futile, I consulted Mr. Albany Wallis on the expediency of dispatching a letter to him averring myself the author of the manuscripts, and referring him for further satisfaction to Mr. Albany Wallis to which suggestion Mr. Wallis agreed; and I, in consequence, penned a very long espistle to Mr. Ireland, stating the whole transaction, and craving his pardon, in the most submissive terms, for the error I had committed and the trouble I had thus unintentionally caused him. This communication, being approved of by Mr. Wallis, was immediately forwarded to Mr. Samuel Ireland for his perusal."

Next comes Mr. Ireland's Remark on Mr. Boaden's Letter to Mr. George Steevens.

"A very early oppositionist to the validity of the fabricated manuscripts was the above Mr. Boaden,