« 이전계속 »
in the district. I was allowed to raise the mask to a position level with the line of sight, and the face and forehead then presented much more harmonious proportionsvery remarkable in their combinations. The mask has strongly marked, yet regular and finely formed features. The brain is the most prominent over the lower part of the forehead, and at the sides. It is well and harmoniously developed in the region of the perceptive faculties, which are very large, as indicated by the sketch of the profile of the cast, and differs in this respect from the Bust, the Droeshout engraving, and the Warwick portraits, but singularly agrees with most of the facial and cranial outlines of the Jansen portrait. On the mask the hairs of the head, eyelashes, moustache, and beard, still adhere to the plaster, and are a reddish-brown or aubum colour, corresponding with the portraits by Jansen, and in some measure with that of the Stratford bust. It was objected that the hairs could scarcely be so repeated on a cast. This has repeatedly occurred in my own experience, and is very easily explained. On taking a mould of the head of Dr. King, at the request of the late Lady Noel Byron, I found several hairs adhered to the plaster, and reappeared on the cast, and so also in other cases. These hairs in the cast of Shakspere's face are an additional corroboration of the possible temperament and complexion, and, if genuine, an argument against the truth of the Chandos. Both cannot be genuine.
It was the custom in those days to take faithful impressions of the faces of the nobility, and probably in some cases in wax, which may account for the marked and characteristic features on many of the monuments of the period, as seen in those of Sir Thomas Lucy and his family in Charlecote Church. The cast in the British Museum was probably taken from a mould of wax, and certainly by an experienced artist; which accounts for the sharpness of the work, the clearness of the outlines, the flesh-like appearance of the surface, and the undisturbed hairs imbedded in the moustache, and tuft on the chin. There are markings of the workman's tool on the surface of parts of the moustache and beard; but there has been no mould taken from this cast, as is evident from the condition it presents, nor is it very likely that another cast was taken out of the “waste' mould. It has been suggested that the artist might work from this as a model, and then sell it. The
monument at Stratford could not possibly, as previously stated, be made from this cast, nor did it offer any suggestion to the tomb-maker. The body had so far wasted, that the cartilages or nasal bones have been marked in the mould, and the eyes are sunken.
The mask has a mournful aspect, and sensitive persons are affected by its apparent reality. It is said that Fanny Kemble, on looking at it, burst into tears. It is utterly destitute of the jovial physiognomy of the Stratford bust, and it bears the impress of one who was gifted with a most extraordinary range of perceptive observation and ready memory, great facility of expression, varied power of enjoyment, much sensibility, and great depth of feeling. On the upper part of the forehead, near to the left side of the organ of Comparison, there is, I observed, a slight depression, as if produced by a blow inflicting a wound on the skull at some early period of life.
It has the appearance likely to be presented after receiving a righthanded blow from a stick or falling body. Those of a lively fancy may recall the Fulbrooke deer-stealing, and the gamekeeper of Sir Thomas Lucy, as an explanation. I simply direct the attention of the curious to the cast in the British Museum in confirmation of the statement. Presuming that the whole head was organised in proportion to the frontal portion indicated in the mask, it would be a little above average, but not of the largest size and the favourable combinations of the observing powers, and sensibility would give extraordinary facility and executive skill; and if not the cast from Shakspere, it is from one who could have succeeded in any department of practical art, science, mechanics, music, painting, sculpture, or literature.
Phrenology is a severe test to apply, and the mask and the Jansen portraits pass the ordeal well and satisfactorily, while all the others fail in some essential feature or combination.
The sides of the head in the cast are well developed, and are large. The perceptive faculties are still more decidedly marked in the size of their organs: thus Form, Size, Colour, Weight, Locality, Number, Order, Eventuality, Time, and Constructiveness are all very large; and Ideality, Wit, Language, Comparison, Causality, Benevolence, Venera. tion, Secretiveness, and Acquisitiveness, are large; while Imitation, Wonder, and Alimentiveness, are a little less indicated.
The forehead belongs to that class of men who have shown extraordinary skill in dealing with the actual and the practical, rather than the abstract, either as philosophers, artists, statesmen, or generals, such as Michael Angelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Henry IV., Loyola, Luther, Poussin, Adam Smith, John Hampden, Selden, Audubon, Napoleon, and Washington.
Shakspere was eminently practical, artistic, executive, and constructive, and only began to be dubious, abstract, or metaphysically theoretic, as he progressed in the development of his powers of mind and experience. He neither wanders with Plato in his Republic, nor with More in his Utopia, but takes the world as he finds it, with all its lights and shadows; and, with the intuition of genius, opens to view the human heart and its passions -their longings and conflicting aspirations; their varying and shifting phases, and pourtrays them with all the force of a profound psychologist.
The face of the cast, like the Jansen portrait, has a sharp oval form ; that of the Stratford bust is a blunt or round one, as indicated by the respective illustrations. The chin is narrow and pointed, yet firm ; that of the bust wellrounded. The cheeks are thin and sunken in the cast; in the bust and portrait full, fat, and coarse, as if there was great vitality, and a
“Good digestion waiting on appetite," without much thought, fancy, or feeling disturbing either. The mask has a forehead finely formed; the bust is ill-defined ; and the Stratford portrait is still more indefinite. The mask has a full-sized upper lip; the bust a very large one, although Sir W. Scott lost his wager in maintaining that it was larger than his own; for it was demonstrated, by the application of the compasses, that the advantage in length of lip was on the side of the wizard—the worthy Knight of Abbotsford. The nose of the mask is large and finely indicated; that of the bust is short, straight, and small. The nostrils are slightly drawn up in the
cast,—a feature exaggerated in the bust. Their ethnic physiognomies and cranial contours are utterly at variance with each other.
The bust is a good example of the Teutonic face prevailing in the Warwickshire type. The mask is a union of the Norman grafted on the Saxon stock-the aquiline nose and oval face are united with the long upper lip and fair complexion existing in a limited proportion of the inhabitants in the poet's native county, as slightly illustrated by the fine head of Sir Thomas Lucy. The cast indicates the man of keen observation, quick perception, with great executive faculty. There would be a fine sense of physical and artistic beauty and fitness, with a sensibility that would make the original a man of emotion, feeling, and probably of suffering. The Stratford bust, on the contrary, bespeaks the man of ease, enjoyment, keen appetites, and self-satisfaction. There would be latent force of character in the bust, with much good nature, yet ever ready to give occasional outbursts of passion. In the portrait, there is a good vital constitution, with great tenacity of property; cherishing the pleasures of life and existence. The mask and the Jansen portrait indicate the nervous sanguine temperament—the temperament of genius ; the bust and the portrait the sanguinelymphatic. There might be latent power to enjoy the productions of others, but there would be a lack of inspiration to create original idealisations of truth and beauty.
The answer phrenology would give to those who still believe the Stratford portrait and bust are the true image of the bard, is—that the forms are impossible with a poet like Shakspere. Death does not alter the language once written on the ivory wall around the temple of thought by the hand of the Creator. A monumental effigy of Shakspere, bearing the characteristics of the bust or the portrait, would deservedly become the scorn and scoff of future ages, for both artists and the general public are beginning to perceive and appreciate the relation between given forms, capability, and character.
The relationship between organisation, capacity, and character, has long been a subject of investigation with me, and I have never yet found a case to controvert the great principles illustrated in the philosophy which assigns a distinct and separate organ for each faculty of the mind. Men of mark, men of thought, men of action, and those of special power, have alike been illustrative of this grand and important revelation of truth.
“Men,” says George Combe, “the great masters of painting and sculpture, have been distinguished for high-nervous, or nervous-bilious, or nervous-sanguine temperament. Very rarely is a nervous-lymphatic temperament met with among them; and I do not recollect to have observed among them any one in whom the nervous was not present in a large proportion.” Then why should Shakspere be an exception? It would be more consistent for us to believe that he was a striking confirmation of the law, and that he had the advantage of a happy union of a well-balanced brain and a finely-constituted nervous system. Michael Angelo was a master of painting, sculpture, and architecture; Da Vinci showed a genius not only for painting, but for music and engineering; Shakspere was still more comprehensive ;-and men of such kindred powers must have had some features in common, and they agree in the possession of a fine temperament, large perceptive powers, and a well-developed cerebral combination—the organisation of genius.
Discovery of Portraits of Shakspere's Family.
In the course of some recent enquiries about the descendants of Shakspere, I was incidentally made aware of the existence of a portrait, said to be that of Susanna, the daughter of the poet. On further investigation I found it belonged to the wife of an agricultural labourer residing a short distance from Stratford. The owner is a descendant of one of the Hathaways that first brought the picture from Shottery, on her marriage to a respectable and prosperous tradesman at Darlingcote. This lady gave the portrait to her grand-daughter, Mrs. Attwood, who always told her children that the picture was invariably described as “Susanna Hall, the daughter of Shakspere" She also stated that it was formerly sent by a relative from London to Shottery, and that it was n:ot kept on account of its money value, but simply because it was a likeness of one of the family.
Mrs. Attwood gave the portrait to her grand-daughter and godchild, Hannah Ward, while the latter was very young, and her mother, Mrs. Ward, brought the portrait away