a cord and tassels; the portrait is under an arch, in the inside of which run the holly, the ivy, and the misletoe; under the portrait are two laurel leaves, on which are written, in old English character, the following lines:

"As Holly, Ivie, Miseltoe defie the wintrye blast

Despite of chillinge Envie soe, thy well earned fame shall laste
Then lette the ever-living laurel beare

Thy much loved name O Will. Shakspeare.

B. I.

"A gentleman of this town, whose taste and judgment in works of Art rank with the highest, is of opinion that the portrait is painted by PAUL VAN SOMERE; it is in very fine preservation, and has every appearance of having been painted at the time of Shakspeare. I have no pedigree with it, Sir, having purchased it of a dealer, who met with it at a pawnbroker's, and knowing my fondness for Shakspeare, reserved it for me.

Possessing a Cast from the late Mr. George Bullock's valuable model of the monument at Stratford, I am enabled to say, that in character as well as feature, my picture is almost in every respect the same. I know, also, that many portraits have been manufactured into Shakspeare, and that very disgraceful use has been made of the style of Ben Jonson, in order to deceive the public; but there is a simplicity of character, with such marks of originality in my picture, that I have no doubt but it will prove highly interesting to the many admirers of our "Gentle Shakspeare."

"I am, Sir, your constant reader,

"And obedient humble servant,

"Liverpool, 10th Feb, 1819."

"THOS. WINSTANLEY."

Mr. Zincke is the painter of this portrait, which he readily acknowledges. He bought the picture of

a Mr. Piercy; it was then an elderly female, of course it required a deal of brushing up before he could make her into the poet. When finished, he sold it to Mr. Benton, a pawnbroker in Holborn, for four or five pounds: from Mr. B. it went into the hands of Mr. Winstanley's friend; I am not in formed of the sum that was given for it, nor is it material. I understand that Mr. Winstanley is an auctioneer, which is one good reason that the sum wanted for it should be four or five hundred pounds, but that is trifling to what some have been valued at. As no flats have been caught by it, we may suppose its fate is decreed, for neither Jonson's lines, Vansomer's name, or even that of Shakspeare, has had any effect to realize one offer. Really if a man is so weak as to give publicity as to his belief of the genuineness of such a picture (for I understand it is bad), he cannot expect it to be otherwise than knocked down without a bidding. This picture has been engraved in mere outline, with the lines under it as above, with some trifling difference in the spelling.

H. C. JENNING S's

MINIATURE OF SHAKSPEARE.

In the month of February, 1827, Mr. Christie sold, at his room, in King Street, a miniature of Shakspeare, painted in oil; it is in a concaved enamelled locket of

D D

gold; had formerly been ornamented with jewels, and belonged to the late H. Constantine Jennings, of Battersea, who at last parted with it reluctantly together with a missel, by Julio Clovis, to Mr. Webb for the loan of six or seven hundred pounds. It was lately in the possession of Mr. Wise, of Long Acre, and is now the property of Charles Auriol, Esq. of Park Street, Grosvenor Square,

It has been said, that Mr. Jennings had traced this miniature to the Southampton Family, if so, it is to be regretted that we have no document to that effect, as it must tend to depreciate its value, as is proved by the sum given for it by Mr. Auriol, which was no more than nine guineas and a half. That the picture is intended for the poet, and of antiquity, I have no doubt; it is the one which most resembles the miniature in the family of the late Sir James Bland Burges; one material difference is, that the hair and beard are brown.

On the background is painted Æ, 33, which, if Shakspeare, must have been painted in 1597, the year that the Felton picture is also dated; and unless the dress be theatrical, I cannot suppose that the poet would be dressed in white, having, in the latter part of the preceding year, lost his only son. There is also some resemblance in it to the Felton picture, about the nose and eyes, but it has got an expansion of forehead, which the Felton has not. I have not been able to ascertain that it was ever engraved.

The Hon. H. T. LIDDELL'S

PORTRAIT OF SHAKSPEARE.

THAT We have no account Shakspeare ever sat for a portrait is true, in consequence of which many persons have given their opinion that no portrait of him exists, and all pictures which bear the poet's name are spurious. I differ with them in opinion, for I consider Ben Jonson's poetical praise upon Droeshout's engraving of the poet to be alone satisfactory on that point, and though the monumental bust at Stratford has not been perpetuated in the like manner, I am nevertheless impelled to have equal belief of its resemblance to the bard, as it's so like Droeshout's print; consequently I contend, that should any picture be produced with equal similitude to the above portraits, and done within the period of the poet's life time, they ought to be received as genuine. In support of my argument, we have numerous instances of fine old pictures that would never be known, was it not for the engravings that were formerly taken from them; also portraits of persons of distinction, at the present time, by eminent artists, which will not be known at future ages, if we have no exhibition catalogue or engravings from

them to express their originality, the former of which I believe was not known in England until within the last century; but if pictures come in such questionable shapes as many that I have already noticed, they cannot be admitted as true portraits of the bard in the opinion of a just critic.

Having given to the public sufficient evidence of what may be considered the genuine pictures of the poet, and also some of the principal of the spurious, I was about to close my narrative, when I was informed by two very distinguished dealers in pictures, that the Honourable Thomas Liddell was in possession of an undoubted original of Shakspeare having been often deceived by similar reports, I could not but doubt the truth of this. I went to Portland Place, where I was shown by the above gentleman the picture, which, at the first sight, certainly had such an imposing effect, that I could not doubt of its being an original portrait of Shakspeare, from the very strong resemblance it bears to the monument; yet from the experience I have had, and knowledge attained, I could not but examine it with strong suspicions. I bore in mind the conceit of the most experienced judges in pictures being deceived, as a caution to myself, and "though I, perchance, am vicious in my guess, as, I confess, it is my nature's plague to spy into abuses," I could not but observe that the hair, beard, ruff, and mouth had been painted upon; in consequence of which I suspected that it might be one of