Exhaustive study of the subject, extended over a series of years, has brought the present writer to the conclusion-identical with that entertained by leading Shakespearian authoritiesauthentic likenesses: the bust (really a half-length statue) that two portraits only can be accepted without question as with its structural wall-monument in the choir of Holy Trinity Church, Stratford-on-Avon, and the copper-plate engraved by Martin Droeshout as frontispiece to the First Folio of Shakespeare's works (and used for three subsequent issues) published in 1623, although first printed in the previous year.

inferences as to his illiteracy, drawn from his handwriting, depend on | desirable, therefore, to describe those portraits which have chief the most meagre data. The preface to the First Folio says that claim to recollection by reason either of their inherent interest "what he thought he uttered with that easiness that we have scarce received from him a blot in his papers "; whereas Ben Jonson, in his or of the notoriety which they have at some time enjoyed; it Discoveries, says, "I remember the players often mentioned it as an is to be remarked that such notoriety once achieved never honour to Shakespeare that in his writing, whatsoever he penned, entirely dies away, if only because the art of the engraver, which he never blotted a line. My answer had been, would he had blotted a thousand!-which they thought a malevolent speech." Reams has usually perpetuated them either as large plates, or as illustrahave been written about these two sayings, but we do not know the tions to reputable editions of the works, or to commentaries real circumstances which prompted either, and the non-existence of or biographies, sustains their undeserved credit as likenesses any of the Shakespeare manuscripts leaves us open, unfortunately, more or less authentic. to the wildest conjectures. That there were such manuscripts (unless Ben Jonson and the editors of the First Folio were liars) is certain; but there is nothing peculiar in their not having survived, though persons unacquainted with the history of the manuscripts of printed works of the period sometimes seem to think so. We know so little of the composition of Shakespeare's works, and the stages they went through, or the influence of other persons on him, that, so far as technical knowledge is concerned (especially the legal knowledge, which has given so much colour to the Baconian theory), various speculations are possible concerning the means which a dramatic genius may have had to inform his mind or acquire his vocabulary. The theatrical and social milieu of those days was small and close; the influence of culture was immediate and mainly oral. We have no positive knowledge indeed of any relations between Shakespeare and Bacon; but, after all, Bacon was a great contemporary, personally interested in the drama, and one would expect the contents of his mind and the same sort of literary expression that we find in his writings to be reflected in the mirror of the stage; the same phenomenon would be detected in the drama of to-day were any critic to take the trouble to inquire. Assuming the genius of Shakespeare, such a poet and playwright would naturally be full of just the sort of matter that would represent the culture of the day and the interests of his patrons. In the purlicus of the Temple and in literary circles so closely connected with the lawyers and the court, it is just the dramatic "genius "who would be familiar with any thing that could be turned to account, and whose works, especially plays, the vocabulary of which was open to embody countless sources, in the different stages of composition, rehearsal, production and revision, would show the imagination of a poet working upon ideas culled from the brains of others. Resemblances between phrases used by Shakespeare and by Bacon, therefore, carry one no farther than the fact that they were contemporaries. We cannot even say which, if either, originated the echo. So far as vocabulary is concerned, in every age it is the writer whose record remains and who by degrees becomes its representative; the truth as to the extent to which the intellectual milieu contributed to the education of the writer, or his genius was assisted by association with others, is hard to recover in after years, and only possible in proportion to our knowledge of the period and of the individual factors in operation. (H. CH.)

THE PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE

The mystery that surrounds much in the life and work of Shakespeare extends also to his portraiture. The fact that the only two likenesses of the poct that can be regarded as carrying the authority of his co-workers, his friends, and relationsyet neither of them a life-portrait-differ in çertain essential points, has opened the door to controversy and encouraged the advance and acceptance of numerous wholly different types. The result has been a swarm of portraits which may be classed as follows: (1) the genuine portraits of persons not Shakespeare but not unlike the various conceptions of him; (2) memorial portraits often based on one or other of accepted originals, whether those originals are worthy of acceptance or not; (3) portraits of persons known or unknown, which have been fraudulently "faked" into a resemblance of Shakespeare; and (4) spurious fabrications especially manufactured for imposition upon the public, whether with or without mercenary motive. It is curious that some of the crudest and most easily demonstrable frauds have been among those which have from time to time been, and still are, most eagerly accepted and most ardently championed. There are few subjects which have so imposed upon the credulous, especially those whose intelligence might be supposed proof against the chicanery practised upon them. Thus, in the past, a president of the Royal Academy in England, and many of the leading artists and Shakespearian students of the time, were found to support the genuineness, as a contemporary portrait of the poet, of a picture which, in its faked Shakespeare state, a few months before was not even in existence. This, at least, proves the intense interest taken by the world in the personality of Shakespeare, and the almost passionate desire to know his features. It is

The Stratford bust and monument must have been erected on the N. wall of the chancel or choir within six years after Shakespeare's death in 1616, as it is mentioned in the prefatory memorial lines by Leonard Digges in the First Folio. The design in its general aspect was one often adopted by the "tombe-makers " of the period, though not originated by them, and according to Dugdale was executed by a Fleming resident in London since 1567, Garratt Johnson (Gerard Janssen), a denizen, who was occasionally a collaborator with Nicholas Stone. The bust is believed to have been commissioned by the poet's son-in-law, Dr John Hall, and, like the Drocshout print, must have been seen by and likely enough had the approval of Mrs Shakespeare, who did not die until August 1623. It is thought to have been modelled from either a life or death mask, and inartistic as it is has the marks of facial individuality; that is to say, it is a portrait and not a generalization such as was common in funereal sculpture. According to the practice of the day, especially at the hands of Flemish sculptors of memorial figures, the bust was coloured; this is sufficient to account for the technical summariness of the modelling and of the forms. Thus the eyebrows are scarcely more than indicated by the chisel, and a solid surface represents the teeth of the open mouth; the brush was evoked to supply effect and detail. To the colour, as reapplied after the removal of the white paint with which Malone had the bust covered in 1793, must be attributed a good deal of the wooden appearance which is now a shock to many. The bust is of soft stone (not alabaster, as incorrectly stated by "the accurate Dugdale "), but a careful examination of the work reveals no sign of the alleged breakage and restoration or reparation to which some writers have attributed the apparently inordinate length of the upper lip. As a matter of fact the lip is not long; it is less than seven-eighths of an inch: the appearance is to a great extent an optical illusion, the result partly of the smallness of the nose and, especially, of the thinness of the moustache that shows the flesh above and below. Some repair was made to the monument in 1649, and again in 1748, but there is no mention in the church records of any meddling with the bust itself. Owing, however, to the characteristic inaccuracy of the print by one of Hollars' assistants in the illustration of Dugdale's Antiquities of Warwickshire (p. 688), the first edition of which was published in 1656, certain writers have been misled into the belief that the whole monument and bust were not merely restored but replaced by those which we see to-day. As other prints in the volume depart grossly from the objects represented, and as Dugdale, like Vertue (whose punctilious accuracy has also been baselessly extolled by Walpole), was at times demonstrably loose in his descriptions and presentments, there is no reason to believe that the bust and the figures above it are other than those originally placed in position. Other engravers, following the Dugdale print, have further stultified the original, but as they (Vertue, Grignion, Foudrinier, and others) differ among themselves, little importance need be attached to the circumstance. A

warning should be uttered against many of the so-called "casts" | important divergencies. In this engraving by Droeshout the of the busts. George Bullock took a cast in 1814 and Signor A. Michele another about forty years after, but those attributed to W. R. Kite, W. Scoular, and others, are really copies, departing from the original in important details as well as in general effect. It is from these that many persons derive incorrect impressions of the bust itself.

head is far too large for the body, and the dress-the costume of well-to-do persons of the time--is absurdly out of perspective: an additional argument that the unpractised engraver had only a drawing of a head to work from, for while the head shows the individuality of portraiture the body is as clearly done de chic. The first proof is conclusive evidence against the conMention should here be made of the "Kesselstadt Death tention that the "Flower Portrait "at the Shakespeare Memorial Mask, now at Darmstadt, as that has been claimed as the truc Museum, Stratford-on-Avon-the gift of Mrs Charles Flower death-mask of Shakespeare, and by it the authenticity of other | (1895) and boldly entitled the "Droeshout original "— is the portraits has been gauged. It is not in fact a death-mask at original painting from which the engraving was made, and is all, but a cast from one and probably not even a direct cast. therefore the actual life-portrait for which Shakespeare sat. In three places on the back of it is the inscription-+A2Dm 1616: This view was entertained by many connoisseurs of repute until and this is the sole actual link with Shakespeare. Among the it was pointed out that had that been the case the first proof, many rapturous adherents of the theory was William Page, the if it had been engraved from it, would have resembled it in all American painter, who made many measurements of the mask particulars, for the engraver would have merely copied the picture and found that nearly half of them agreed with those of the before him. Instead of that, we find that several details in the Stratford bust; the greater number which do not he conveniently proof-the incorrect illumination, the small moustache, the shape attributed to error in the sculptor. The cast first came to light of the eyebrow and of the deformed ear, &c.—have been corrected in 1849, having been searched for by Dr. Ludwig Becker, the in the painting, in which further improvements are also imported. owner of a miniature in oil or parchment representing a corpse The conclusion is therefore irresistible. At the same time the crowned with a wreath, lying in bed, while on the background, picture may possibly be the earliest painted portrait in existence next to a burning candle, is the date -Aō 1637. This little of the poet, for so far as we can judge of it in its present condition picture was by tradition asserted to be Shakespeare, although (it was to some extent injured by fire at the Alexandra Palace) the likeness, the death-date, and the wreath all point unmistak- -it was probably executed in the carlier half of the 17th century. ably to the poet-laureate Ben Jonson. Dr Becker had purchased The inscription-Willń Shakespeare, 1609— is suspect on account it at the death-sale at Mainz of Count Kesselstadt in 1847, of being written in cursive script, the only known example at in which also "a plaster of Paris cast (with no suggestion of the date to which it professes to belong. If it were authentic it Shakespeare then attached to it) had appeared. This he found might be taken as showing us Shakespeare's appearance seven in a broker's rag-shop, assumed it to be the same, recognized years before his death, and fourteen years before the publicain it a resemblance to the picture (which most persons cannot tion of the Droeshout print. The former attribution of it to see) and so came to attribute to it the enormous historical value | Cornelis Janssen's brush has been abandoned-it is the work of which it would, were his hypothesis correct, unquestionably a comparatively unskilful craftsman. The picture's pedigree possess. In searching for the link of evidence necessary to be cannot definitely be traced far back, but that is of little importestablished, through the Kesselstadt line to England and Shake-ance, as plausible pedigrees have often been manufactured to speare, a theory has been elaborated, but nothing has been proved bolster up the most obvious impostures. The most interesting or carried beyond the point of bare conjecture. The arguments of the copies or adaptations of this portrait is perhaps that by against the authenticity of the cast are strong and cogent- William Blake now in the Manchester Corporation Art Gallery. the chief of which is the fact that the skull reproduced is funda- One of the cleverest imitations, if such it be, of an old picture mentally of a different form and type from that shown in the is the " Buttery " or " Ellis portrait," acquired by an American Droeshout print-the forehead is receding instead of upright. collector in 1902. This small picture, on panel, is very poor Other important divergencies occur. The handsome, refined, judged as a work of art, but it has all the appearance of age. and pleasing aspect of the mask accounts for much of the favour In this case the perspective of the dress has been corrected, and in which it has been held. It was believed in by Sir Richard Shakespeare's shield is shown on the background. The head is Owen and was long on view in the British Museum, and that of a middle-aged man; the moustache, contrary to the usual was shown in the Stratford Centenary Exhibition in 1864. type, is drooping. It is curious that the "Thurston miniature" done from the Droeshout print gives the moustache of the "proof.

The "Droeshout print derives its importance from its having been executed at the order of Heminge and Condell to represent, as a frontispiece to the Plays, and put forth as his portrait, the man and friend to whose memory they paid the homage of their risky enterprise. The volume was to be his real monument, and the work was regarded by them as a memorial erected in a spirit of love, piety, and veneration. Mrs Shakespeare must have seen the print; Ben Jonson extolled it. His dedicatory verses, however, must be regarded in the light of conventional approval as commonly expressed in that age of the performances of portrait-engravers and habitually inscribed beneath them. It is obvious, therefore, that in the circumstances an authentic portrait must necessarily have been the basis of the engraving; and Sir George Scharf, judging from the contradictory lights and shadows in the head, concluded that the original must have been a limning-more or less an outline drawing-which the youthful engraver was required to put into chiaroscuro, achieving his task with but very partial success. That this is the case is proved by the so-called "unique proof' discovered by Halliwell-Phillips, and now in America. Another copy of it, also an early proof but not in quite the same "state,' is in the Bodleian Library. No other example is known. In this plate the head is far more human. The nose is here longer than in the bust, but the bony structure corresponds. In the proof, moreover, there is a thin, wiry moustache, much widened in the print as used; and in several other details there are

Two other portraits of the same character of head and arrangement are the "Ely Palace portrait" and the " Felton portrait," both of which in their time have had, and still have, convinced believers. The "Ely Palace portrait was discovered in 1845 in a broker's shop, and was bought by Thomas Turton, bishop of Ely, who died in 1864, when it was bought by Henry Graves and by him was presented to the Birthplace. An unsatisfactory statement of its history, similar to that of many other portraits, was put forth; the picture must be judged on its merits. It bears the inscription "Æ 39 +1603," and it shows a moustache and a right eyebrow identical with those in the Droeshout “proof.” It was therefore hailed by many competent judges as the original of the print; by others it was dismissed as a "make-up": at the same time it is very far from being a proved fraud. Supposing both it and the Flower portrait" to be genuine, this picture, which came to light long before the latter, antedates it by six years. Judged by the test of the Droeshout" proof" it must have preceded and not followed it. The "Felton portrait, ," which made its first appearance in 1792, had the valiant championship of the astute and cynical Steevens, of Britton, Drake, and other authorities, as the original of the Droeshout print, while a few-those who believed in the "Chandos portrait "-denounced it as "a rank forgery. On the back of the panel was boldly traced in a florid hand "Gul. Shakespear 1597 R.B." (by others read "R.N."). If

Janssen," and the copy in the possession of the duke of Anhalt.
These are all above the average merit of such work.

R.B. is correct, it is contended the initials indicate Richard | Burbage, Shakespeare's fellow-actor. Traces of the writing may still be detected. Boaden's copy, made in 1792, repeating the inscription on the back, has "Guil. Shakspeare 1587 R.N." The spelling of Shakespeare's name-which in succeeding ages has been governed by contemporary fashion-has a distinct bearing on the authenticity of the panel. At the first appearance of the Felton portrait "in a London sale-room it was bought by Samuel Felton of Drayton, Shropshire, for five pounds, along with a pedigree which carried its refutation along with it. Nevertheless, it bears evidence of being an honest painting done from life, and is probably not a make-up in the sense that most of the others are. It fell into the hands of Richardson | the printseller, who issued fraudulent engravings of it by Trotter and others (by which it is best known), causing the character-sale of the effects of the duke of Buckingham and Chandos istic lines of the shoulders to be altered, so that it is set upon a body attired in the Droeshout costume, which does not appear in the picture; and then, arguing from this falsely-introduced costume, the publisher maintained that the work was the original of the Droeshout print and therefore a life-portrait of Shakespeare. Thus foisted on the public it enjoyed for years a great reputation, and no one seems to have recognized that with its down-turned moustache it agrees with the inaccurate print after the Droeshout engraving which was published as frontispiece to Ayscough's edition of Shakespeare in 1790, i.e. two years before the discovery of the Felton portrait! The Napier portrait, as the excellent copy by John Boaden is known, has recently been presented to the Shakespeare Memorial. Josiah Boydell also made a copy of the picture for George Steevens in 1797. Quite a number of capital miniatures from it are in existence. With these should be mentioned a picture of a similar type discovered by Mr M. H. Spielmann in 1905. Finding a wretched copy of the Chandos portrait executed on a panel about three hundred years old, he had the century-old paint cleaned off in order to ascertain the method of the forger. On the disappearance of the Chandos likeness under the action of the spirit another portrait of Shakespeare was found beneath, irretrievably damaged but obviously painted in the 17th century. At the time of the "fake" only portraits of the Chandos type were saleable, and this would account for the wanton destruction of an interesting work which was probably executed for a publisher-likely enough for Jacob Tonson-but not used. Early as it is in date it can make no claim to be a life-portrait.

The "Janssen" or "Somerset portrait" is in many respects the most interesting painted likeness of Shakespeare, and undoubtedly the finest of all the paintings in the series. It is certainly a genuine as well as a very beautiful picture of the E 46 -but doubt has been period, and bears the inscription- 1610 expressed whether the 6 of 46 has not been tampered with, and whether it was not originally an o and altered to fit Shakespeare's age. It was made known through Earlom's rare mezzotint of it, but the public knowledge of it has been mainly founded on Cooper's and Turner's beautiful but misleading mezzotint plates until a photograph of the original was published for the first time in 1909 (in The Connoisseur) by permission of the owner, the Lady Guendolen Ramsden, daughter of the duke of Somerset, the former owner of the picture. The resemblance to the main forms of the death-mask is undoubted; but that is of little consequence as confirmation unless the mask itself is supported by something beyond vague conjectures. Charles Jennens, the wealthy and eccentric amateur editor of the poor edition of King Lear issued in 1770, was the first known owner, but vouchsafed no information of its source and shrank from the challenge to produce the picture. Of the beauty, excellence, and originality of this portrait there is no question; it is more than likely that Janssen was the author of it; but that it was intended to represent Shakespeare is still to be proved. A number of good copies of it exist, all but one (which enjoys a longer pedigree) made in the 18th century: the "Croker Janssen" now lost, unless it be that of Lord Darnley's; the "Staunton Janssen," the "Buckston Janssen," the "Marsden |

The portrait which has made the most popular appeal is that called the "Chandos, " formerly known as the "d'Avenant," the" Stowe, " and the " Ellesmere," according as it passed from hand to hand; it is now in the National Portrait Gallery. Tradition, tainted at the outset, attributes the authorship of it to Richard Burbage, although it is impossible that the painter of the head in the Dulwich Gallery could have produced a work so good in technique; and Burbage is alleged to have given it to his fellow-actor Joseph Taylor, who bequeathed it to Sir William d'Avenant, Shakespeare's godson. As a matter of fact, Taylor died intestate. Thenceforward, whether or not it belonged to d'Avenant, its history is clear. At the great Stowe (who had inherited it) the earl of Ellesmere bought it and then presented it to the nation. Many serious inquirers have refused to accept this romantic, swarthy, Italian-looking head here depicted as a likeness of Shakespeare of the Midlands, if only because in every important physiognomical particular, and in face-measurement, it is contradicted by the Stratford bust and the Droeshout print. It is to be noted, however, that judged by the earlier copies of it-which agree in the main pointssome of the swarthiness complained of may be due to the restorer. Oldys, indifferent to tradition, attributed it to Janssen, an unallowable ascription. This, except the "Lumley portrait," the "Burdett Coutts portrait," and the admitted fraud, the "Dunford portrait," is the only picture of Shakespeare executed before the end of the 18th century which represents the poet with earrings-the wearing of which, it should be noted, either simple gold circles or decorated with jewel-drops, was a fashion that extended over two centuries, in England mainly, if not entirely, affected by nobles and exquisites. Contrary to the general belief, the picture has not been subjected to very extensive repair. That it was not radically altered by the restorer is proved by the fine copy painted by Sir Godfrey Kneller, and by him presented to John Dryden. The poet acknowledged the gift in his celebrated Fourteenth Epistle, written after 1691 and published in 1694, and containing the passage beginning, "Shakespeare, thy gift, I place before my sight; With awe I ask his blessing ere I write." D'Avenant had died in 1668, and so could not, as tradition contends was the case, have been the donor. In Malone's time the picture was already in the possession of the earl Fitzwilliam. This at least proves the esteem in which the Chandos portrait was held so far back as the end of the 17th century, only three-quarters of a century after Shakespeare's death.

From among the innumerable copics and adaptations of the Chandos portrait a few emerge as having a certain importance of their own. That which Sir Joshua Reynolds is traditionally said to have made for the use of Roubiliac, then engaged in his statue of Shakespeare for David Garrick (now in the British Museum), and another alleged to have been done for Bishop Newton, are now lost. That by Ranelagh Barret was presented in 1779 to Trinity College Library, Cambridge, by the Shakespearian commentator Edward Capell. Dr Matthew Maty, principal librarian of the British Museum, presented his copy to the museum in 1760. There are also the smooth but rather original copy (with drapery added) belonging to the earl of Bath at Longleat; the Warwick Castle copy; the fair copy known as the Lord St Leonards portrait; the large copy in coloured crayons, formerly in the Jennens collection and now belonging to Lord Howe, by van der Gucht, which seems to be by the same hand as that which executed the pastel portrait of Chaucer in the Bodleian Library; the "Clopton miniature" attributed to John Michael Wright, which formed the basis of the drawing by Arlaud, by whose name the engravings of this modified type are usually known; the Shakespeare Hirst picture, based on Houbraken's engraving; the full-size chalk drawing by Ozias Humphry, R.A., at the Birthplace, which Malone guaranteed to be a perfect transcript, but which more resembles the late W. P. Frith, R.A., than Shakespeare. Humphry also,

century-when it was probably executed, among a score of others, about the time of the bicentenary of Shakespeare's birth, an event which gave rise to much celebration. The ingenious but entirely unconvincing explanations offered to account for the state in which the picture was found need not be recounted here. The "Duke of Leeds' portrait," now at Hornby castle, has been for many years in the family, but the circumstances of its provenance are unknown. It has been thought possible that this is the lost portrait of which John Evelyn speaks as having been in the collection of Lord Chancellor Clarendon, the companion picture to that of Chaucer; but no evidence has been adduced to support the conjecture. It represents a handsome, fair man, with auburn beard, with an expression recalling the Janssen portrait; the nose, however, is quite different. He wears a standing "wired band," as in the Droeshout print. It is a workmanlike piece of painting, but there is nothing in the picture to connect it with Shakespeare. The same may be said of the "Welcombe portrait," which was bought by Mark Philips of Welcombe and descended to Sir George Trevelyan. It is a fairly good picture, having some resemblance to the "Boston Zuccaro" with something of the Chandos. The figure, a half-length, wears a falling spiked collar edged with lace, and from the ear a love-lace, the traces of which only are left. Two other portraits at the Shakespeare Memorial should be named. The "Venice portrait," which was bought in Paris and is said to have come from Venice, bears an Italian undecipherable inscription on the back; it seems to have no obvious connexion with Shakespeare apart from its exaggeration of the general aspect of the Chandos portrait; it is a weak thing. The "Tonson portrait," inscribed on the frame "The Jacob Tonson Picture, 1735," a small oval, with the attributes of comedy and tragedy, is believed to have been executed for Tonson's 4th edition of Shakespeare, but not used.

bald-headed man has a light beard, brown hair, and blue eyes, and wears white lace-edged falling collars and cuffs over a doublet gold-embroidered with points; and in the left hand holds a black hat. The "Lytton portrait," a royal gift made to Lord Lytton from Windsor Castle, is mainly interesting as having been copied by Miller in his original profile engraving of Shakespeare. The Rendelsham" and Crooks" portraits also belong to the category of capital paintings representing some one other than Shakespeare; and the same may be hazarded of the " Grafton " or " Winston " portrait, the "Sanders portrait," the "Gilliland portrait" (an old man's head impudently advanced), the striking "Thorne Court portrait," the "Aston Cantlow portrait," the" Burn portrait," the" Gwennet portrait," the "Wilson portrait " and others of the class.

Miniature-painting has assumed a certain importance in relation to the subject. The " Welbeck Abbey" or "Harleian miniature," is that which Walpole caused to be engraved by Vertue for Pope's correctly, to be a juvenile portrait of James I. According to Scharf, edition of Shakespeare (1723-1725), but which Oldys declared, init belonged to Robert Harley, 1st earl of Oxford, but it is more likely that it was bought by his son Edward Harley in the father's lifetime. It already was in his collection in 1719, but whence it came is not known. It has been denounced as a piece of arrant sycophancy that Pope consented to adopt this very beautiful but entirely unauthenticated portrait, which bears little resemblance to any other accepted likeness (more, however, to the Chandos than to the rest) simply in order to please the aristocratic patron of his literary circle. It enlarged it to 5, and became the "authority" for numerous copies, measures 2 in. high; Vertue's exquisite engraving, executed in 1721, British and foreign. The "Somerville or "Hilliard miniature,' belonging to Lord and Lady Northcote, is claimed to have descended from Shakespeare's friend, Somerville of Edstone, grandfather of the when it was in the possession of Sir James Bland Burges. It is poet William Somerville. It was first publicly spoken of in 1818 certainly by Hilliard, but although Sir Thomas Lawrence and many distinguished painters and others agreed that it was an original lifeportrait of the poet, few will be disposed to give adherence to the represents a pale man with flaxen hair and beady eyes; yet in it theory, in view of its complete departure from other portraits. It Burges found "a general resemblance to the best busts (sic) of Shakespeare," and an attempt was made to prove a relationship between the Ardens and the Somervilles-an untenable theory. The miniature has frequently been exhibited and has figured in important collections on its own merits. The well-known "Auriol miniature," now in America, is one of the least sympathetic and the in technique. It has the forehead and hair of the Chandos, but it is utterly devoid of the Shakespeare expression. In the background "Æ 33." appears "The costume is that worn by the highest in the land. It first appeared in its present character in 1826, but it had been known for a few years before, as being in the collection of "Dog" Jennings, and ultimately it came into the hands of the principal miniatures of interest, but lacking authority, are the collector, Charles Auriol. Its early history is unknown. The other

The "Soest portrait" (often called Zoust or Zoest), formerly known as "the Douglas," the "Lister Kaye" or the "Clarges portrait," according to the owner of the moment, was for many years a public favourite, mainly through J. Simon's excellent mezzotint. The picture, a short half-length within an oval, is manifestly meant for Shakespeare, but the head as nearly resembles the head of Christ at Lille by Charles Delafosse (1636-least acceptable of the Shakespeare miniatures, excellent though it is 1716) who also painted pictures in England. Gerard Soest was not born until 1637,. and according to Granger the picture was painted in Charles II.'s reign. It is a pleasing but weak head, possibly based on the Chandos. The whereabouts of the picture is unknown, unless it is that in the possession of the earl of Craven. A number of copies exist, two of which are at the Shakespeare Memorial. Simon's print was the first announcement of the existence of the picture, which at that time belonged to an obscure painter, F. Wright of Covent Garden. The "Charlecote portrait,' which was exhibited publicly at Stratford in 1896, represents a burly, bull-necked man, whose chief resemblance to Shakespeare lies in his baldness and hair, and in the wired band he wears. The former possession of the picture by the Rev. John Lucy has lent it a sort of reputation; but that gentleman bought it as recently as 1853.

Similarly, the Hampton Court portrait" derives such authority as it possesses from the dignity of its owner and its habitat. William IV. bought it as a portrait of Shakespeare, but without evidence, it is suggested, from the de Lisles. This gorgeously attired officer in an elaborate tunic of green and gold, with red bombasted trunks, with fine worked sword and dagger pendent from the embroidered belt, and with a falling ruff and laces from his ear, bears some distant resemblance to the Chandos portrait. Above is inscribed, "ÆEtat. suae. 34." It appears to be the likeness of a blue-eyed soldier; but it has been suggested that the portrait represents Shakespeare in stage dress-a frequent explanation for the strange attire of quaintly alleged portraits of the poet. A copy of this picture was made by H. Duke about 1860. Similarly unacceptable is the "H. Danby Seymour portrait" which has disappeared since it was lent to the National Portrait Exhibition of 1866. This is a fine three-quarter length in the Miervelt manner. The dignified

Waring miniature," the "Tomkinson miniature (which, like the "Hilliard "and the "Auriol," was formerly in the Lumsden Propert collection), the doubtful" Isaac Oliver miniature" (alleged to have been in the Jaffé collection at Hamburg), the " Mackey and "Glen" miniatures, and those presented to the Shakespeare Memorial by Lord Ronald Sutherland Gower, T. Kite, and Henry Graves. These are all contemporary or early works. Miniature copies of recognized portraits are numerous and many of them of high excellence, but they do not call for special enumeration. That, however, by Mary Anne Nichols, an imitative cameo after Roubiliac," exhibited in the Royal Academy, 1848, claims notice. In this category are a number of enamels by accomplished artists, the chief of them Henry Bone, R.A., H. P. Bone, and W. Essex. those already mentioned; these include the Earl of Oxford Several recorded painted portraits have disappeared, other than portrait" and the "Challis portrait." The" Countess of Zetland's portrait," which had its adherents, was destroyed by fire. Not a few of the existent representations of Shakespeare, unpictures. There is another class, the earnest attempts made to authoritative as they are, were honestly produced as memorial reconstitute the face and form of the poet, combining within them the best and most characteristic features of the earliest portraits. The most successful, perhaps, is that by Ford Madox Brown, in the Manchester Corporation Art Gallery. Those by J. F. Rigaud, R.A.. and Henry Howard, R.A., take a lower rank. It is to be regretted that Gainsborough did not execute the portrait for Garrick, for which he made serious preparations. The" Booker portrait," which gained wide publicity in Stratford, might be included here; it has dignity, but the pigment forbids us to allow the age claimed for it. The portraits by P. Krämer and Rumpf are among the best recently executed in Germany. The remarkable pen-and-ink drawings by Minanesi and Philip H. Newman deserve to be remembered.