ADDITIONAL REMARKS,

AS TO THE PORTRAIT BY CORNELIUS JANSEN,

BY MR. BOADEN.

In the Critical Review for December 1770, the print by Earlom is thus noticed:

King Lear, 8vo. price 3s.-A mezzotinto of the author, by the ingenious Mr. Earlom, (whose industry and abilities do honour to the rising arts of Great Britain), is placed at the head of it. We should have been glad indeed, to have some better proofs concerning the authenticity of the original, than a bare assertion that it was painted by Cornelius Jansen,* and is to be found in a private collection, which we are not easily inclined to treat with much respect, especially as we hear it is filled with the performances of one of the most contemptible daubers of the age.

These kind observations were from the pen of Mr. Steevens himself, who, being then engaged with Dr. Johnson in preparing the edition of 1773,

* Walpole says, Jansen's first works are dated in England about 1618; this picture bears date in 1610. The only true picture of Shakspeare supposed to be now extant, was painted either by Richard Burbage, or John Taylor, the player, the latter of whom left it by will to Davenant. After his death, Betterton bought it; and when he died, Mr. Keck, of the Temple, gave forty guineas for it to Mrs. Barry, the actress. From him it descended to Mr. Nicol, of Southgate, by whose daughter it afterwards came to the present Marquis of Caernarvon, in whose possession we believe it still remains.-Note of the Reviewer.

seized the opportunity, readily afforded to such a writer, of defeating a rival editor. I cannot but lament that he should stoop to this sort of warfare; but I shall prove immediately, what Mr. Jennens could only suspect, that he actually wrote the review of the new edition of King Lear. Let us look at the sort of pleasantry with which the editor of the obnoxious work is assailed.

re

Though for the service of his author he might have been tempted, like Prince Harry, to have robbed an Exchequer, or fleeced a King's collector, or even to have stolen with Dumain, an egg out of a cloister; yet he should not with Bardolph have descended to filch a lute-case; with Pistol to murder a poor whore's-ruff; or, with Falstaff, to make a bankrupt of Mrs. Quickly."

The preceding is a favourite illustration of Mr. Steevens; and as the life of a review is not unreasonably long, he was, perhaps, justified in repeating himself more than twenty years afterwards. In the supplement to Richardson's Proposals, December 1794, our friend Bardolph again makes his appearance. "The artist," says Mr. Steevens, "who could have filched from Droeshout, like Bardolph, might have stolen a lute-case, carried it twelve leagues, and sold it for three halfpence.'"

The writer in the Critical Review, again notices Earlom's print in the month of January following

"Concerning this print we will have no controversy; but we still adhere to our former opinion, that the soul of the mezzotinto

is not the soul of Shakspeare. It has been the fate of Shakspeare to have many mistakes committed both about his soul and body: Pope exhibited him under the form of James the First."

Having already considered what respects Jansen's residence in this country, and proved certainly that he might have painted Shakspeare, the preceding extracts furnish little to call for additional remark, unless it be that we gather by implication, that Mr. Steevens believed, in 1770, the Chandos Head to be a true picture of the poet.

But it may be gratifying a reasonable curiosity, as the pamphlet is before me, to let the reader see something of the reply made by Mr. Jennens to the Reviewer: the passage which I shall select, touches also upon the picture:

"There are three sorts of people that these reviewers seem to bear a moral antipathy to, viz. the old, the fat, and the industrious; from which we have great reason to conclude, that none of them are either old, or fat, or industrious. Young, unfledged criticks, we think they have sufficiently proved themselves to be; and criticism in such hands, especially when unaccompanied by industry, is not likely either to thrive itself, or to fatten its

owners.

"But they think, contrary to all the philosophers that went before them, that age is not the proper period for criticism. It is their opinion that long experience does not improve the judgment; that a life spent in study does not ripen the mental abilities; that a man may know more in twenty or thirty years, than he can in sixty or seventy; and that those who are acquainted with the first rudiments of learning only, are better qualified for criticks than those who have gathered all the fruits of science.

"Concerning the authenticity of the picture from which the mezzotinto print of Shakspeare was taken, they have dropt the controversy; and we are very glad they have so much sense and modesty left, as to find out what impudence and absurdity they have been guilty of, in calling in question a picture they have never seen, and without any provocation abusing a person whom the generality of the world have thought fit to esteem an artist that excels in the higher branch of painting, and of whose performances Mr. Jennens has many, though his collection cannot be said to be filled with them, (as the Critical Reviewers say they hear), their number being inconsiderable when compared with the whole collection.

They say, 'we still adhere to our former opinion, that the soul of the mezzotinto is not the soul of Shakspeare.' Who said it was? The soul of a picture cannot be the soul of a man; but a picture may be like a man's soul, when it is made to express those qualities and dispositions which we discover him by his writings to have been possessed of."-Vindication of King Lear.

It is to be regretted that petulant criticism seems to have suppressed what evidence Mr. Jennens could have brought forward-he disdained the attack as coarse and ungentlemanly, (as in truth it was,) and insolent enough to call for something beyond literary chastisement. I shall merely add the Reviewer's farewell to the proprietor of Gopsal—“ Vale, Jennine noster! literatorum omnium minime princeps!"

While the engravings for this work were in progress, I was unremitting in my inquiries after the

1

picture, which, as I stated in page 79, was no longer the ornament of Gopsal. At length I succeeded in tracing it to its present residence:-this portrait of Shakspeare is now the property of His Grace the Duke of Somerset, and, I have understood, was a present to him from the late Duke of Hamilton.

I have unquestionable authority for saying that it came up with a considerable part of the collection from Gopsal, and was bought by Woodburn* for

* As I had the pleasure of waiting on Mr. Samuel Woodburn, for information respecting this portrait, he very kindly wrote down, for me, the following memorandum, which will shew that the picture was not purchased, by him, for his Grace the Duke of Hamilton.

"The portrait of Shakspeare, now in the possession of the Duke of Somerset, was formerly belonging to Prince Rupert, he left it, with the rest of his collection, to his natural daughter Ruperta, who married Emmanuel Scroopes Howes,† Esq. The descendants of whom, sold the whole of the pictures to Mr. Spackman, a picture dealer, from whom my father purchased it and some others, he kept it probably two years in his possession, and sold it to the late Duke of Hamilton, who gave it, with his other pictures in town, to his daughter, the present Duchess of Somerset."

Margaret Hughs was mistress to Prince Rupert. He bought for her the magnificent seat of Sir Nicholas Crispe, near Hammersmith, which cost £20,000. the building. It was afterwards sold to Mr. Lannoy, a scarlet dyer. The prince had one daughter by her, named Ruperta, born in 1671. She married Emmanuel Scroope Howe, Esq. brigadier-general in the reign of Anne, and envoy extraordinary to the house of Brunswick Lunemberg. He was brother to Scroope, Lord Viscount Howe, of the kingdom of