In the mean while it is afferted by every adequate judge, that the coincidences between the picture and the print under confideration, are too ftrong and too numerous to have been the effects of chance. And yet the period at which this likeness of our author must have been produced, affords no evidence that any one of our early limners had condefcended to borrow the general outline and difpofition of his portraits from the tastelefs heads prefixed to volumes iffued out by bookfellers. The artift, indeed, who could have filched from Droefhout, like Bardolph, might have" stolen a lute-cafe, carried it twelve leagues, and fold it for three halfpence."

But were the print allowed to be the original, and the painting a mere copy from it, the admiffion of this fact would militate in full force against the authenticity of every other anonymous and undated portrait from which a wretched old engraving had been made; as it would always enable cavillers to affert, that the painting was fubfequent to the print, and not the print to the painting. True judges, however, would feldom fail to determine, (as they have in the present inftance,) whether a painting was coldly imitated from a lumpifh copper-plate, or taken warm from animated nature.

For the difcuffion of fubjects like these, an eye habituated to minute comparison, and attentive to peculiarities that elude the notice of unqualified obfervers, is also required. Shakspeare's countenance deformed by Droefhout, refembles the fign of Sir Roger de Coverley, when it had been changed into a Saracen's head; on which occafion the Spectator observes, that the features of the gentle Knight were still apparent through the lineaments of the ferocious Muffulman.

That the leading thought in the verses annexed

to the plate by Droefhout is hacknied and common, will moft readily be allowed; and this obfervation would have carried weight with it, had the lines in queftion been anonymous. But the fubfcription of Ben Jonfon's name was a circumftance that rendered him immediately responsible for the propriety of an encomium which, however open to difpute, appears to have efcaped contradiction, either metrical or profaick, from the furviving friends of Shakspeare,

But, another misrepresentation, though an invo¬ luntary one, and of more recent date, fhould not be overlooked.

In the matter prefatory to W. Richardfon's Propofals, the plate by Vertue from Mr. Keck's (now the Chandos) picture, is faid to have fucceeded the engraving before Mr. Pope's edition of Shakspeare, in fix volumes quarto. But the contrary is the fact; and how is this circumftance to be accounted for? If in 1719 Vertue fuppofed the head which he afterwards admitted into his Set of Poets, was a genuine representation, how happened it that his next engra ving of the fame author, in 1725, was taken from quite a different painting, in the collection of the Earl of Oxford? Did the artist, in this inftance, direct the judgment of his Lordfhip and Mr. Pope? or did their joint opinion over-rule that of the artist? These portraits, being wholly unlike each other, could not (were the flighteft degree of refpect due to either of them) be both received as legitimate representations of Shakspeare. Perhaps, Vertue (who is defcribed by Lord Orford as a lover of truth,) be

* This miftake originated from a paffage in Lord Orford's Anec dotes, &c. 8vo. Vol. V. p. 258, where it is faid, and truly, that Vertue's Set of Poets appeared in 1730. The particular plate of Shakspeare, however, as is proved by a date at the bottom of it, was engraved in 1719.

gan to doubt the authenticity of the picture from which his firft engraving had been made, and was therefore easily perfuaded to expend his art on another portrait, the fpurioufhefs of which (to himfelf at least) was not quite so evident as that of its predeceffor.

The publiek, for many years paft, has been familiarized to a Vandychish head of Shakspeare, introduced by Simon's mezzotinto from a painting by Zouft. Hence the countenance of our author's monumental effigy at Westminster was modelled; and a kindred representation of him has been given by Roubiliac. Such is ftill the Shakspeare that decorates our libraries, and feals our letters. But, ætatis cujufque notandi funt tibi mores. On a little reflection it might have occurred, that the cavalier turn of head adopted from the gallant partizans of Charles I. afforded no juft resemblance of the fober and chaftifed countenances predominating in the age of Elizabeth, during which our poet flourished, though he furvived till James, for about thirteen years, had difgraced the throne. The foregoing hint may be pursued by the judicious examiner, who will take the trouble to compare the looks and air of Shakspeare's contemporaries with the modern feulptures, &c. defigned to perpetuate his image. The reader may then draw an obvious inference from thefe premises; and conclude, that the portrait lately exhibited to the publick is not fuppofititious because it presents a lefs fpritely and confident affemblage of features than had ufually been imputed to the modeft and unaffuming parent of the British theatre. It is certain, that neither the Zouflian or Chandofan canvas has difplayed the leaft trait of a quiet and gentle bard of the Elizabethan age.

To afcertain the original owner of the portrait

now Mr. Felton's, is an undertaking difficult enough; and yet conjecture may occafionally be fent out on a more hopeless errand.

The old pictures at Tichfield House, as part of the Wriothesley property, were divided, not many years ago, between the Dukes of Portland and Beaufort. Some of these paintings that were in good condition were removed to Bulftrode, where two portraits3 of Shakspeare's Earl of Southampton are still preserved. What became of other heads hich time or accident had impaired, and at what period the remains of the furniture, &c. of his Lordship's venerable mansion were fold off and difperfed, it may be fruitlefs to enquire.

Yet, as the likeness of our author lately redeemed from obfcurity was the work of fome eminent Flemish artift, it was probably painted for a perfonage of diftinction, and might therefore have belonged to the celebrated Earl whom Shakspeare had previously complimented by the dedication of his Venus and Adonis. Surely, it is not unreasonable to fuppofe, that a resemblance of our excellent dramatick poet might have been found in the house of a nobleman who is reported to have loved him well enough to have presented him with a thousand pounds.

To conclude the names 4 which have honoured

3 One of these portraits, is on canvas, and therefore the nuineness of it is controverted, if not denied.

ge

4 In the numerous Lift of Gentlemen who thoroughly examined this original Picture, were convinced of its authenticity, and immediately became Subscribers to W. Richardson, are the names of Dr. Farmer, Mr. Cracherode, Mr. Bindley, Sir Jofeph Banks, Sir George Shuckburgh, Mr. Chalmers, Mr. Reed, Mr. Ritson, Mr. Douce, Mr. Markham, Mr. Wefton, Mr. Lyfons, Mr. James, Col. Stanley, Mr. Combe, Mr. Lodge, Meff. Smith, fen. and jun. Mr. Nicol, Mr. Boaden, Mr. Pearce, Mr.

the fubfcription for an engraving from this newfound portrait of Shakspeare, must be allowed to furnish the moft decifive estimate of its value.

[Since the foregoing Paper was received, we have been authorized to inform the Publick, that Messieurs Boydell and Nicol are fo thoroughly convinced of the genuineness of Mr. Felton's Shakspeare, that they are determined to engrave it as a Frontif piece to their Splendid Edition of our Author, inftead of having recourfe to the exploded Picture inherited by the Chandos Family.]

From the European Magazine, for December, 1794.

Whitefoord, Mr. Thane, Meff. Boydell, Mr. G. Romney, Mr. Lawrence, (Portrait-painter to his Majefty,) Mr. Boywer, (Miniature-painter to his Majefty,) Mr. Barry, R. A. (Profeffor of Painting,) &c. &c. &c.

The following pages, on account of their connection with the fubject of Mr. Richardfon's Remarks, are fuffered to ftand as in our laft edition.

1:|: :