to Mr. Steevens,) because it was not painted upon wood. I know very well, that some of the smooth painters, about this time, and long after, preferred panel, for subjects that were to be very highly finished, and seen near. The wood allowed of a thinner and more transparent system. You frequently, in these pictures, see the absolute grain of the wood, through a tinted gelatinous substance, merely vehicle, but amazingly brilliant. The absorbent ground of the canvas took the oil entirely from the surface, and left their colours heavy and opaque. Here, therefore, they were compelled to use great body of colour, and to paint with deeper shadows. The panel pictures, generally, have the features little relieved by shadow."

66

The above description on the art of painting, is truly ridiculous, as it is inconsistent to suppose, that it is not possible to paint on canvas, or even copper, or any other material equally as transparent as upon wood," which is of itself, dark in its nature, and cannot possibly produce either a brilliancy or transparency in the colours of a picture, which is covered from the beginning, as a foundation, for further process, with white and colours that are opaque, which is necessary before you finish with what is transparent, so as to produce the desired effect. A painter never intends to show the material that he works on, any more than a plasterer, who does all he can to hide the laths under his work, but, it is evident, Mr. Boaden has seen some picture

that has been rubbed, and did not know to the contrary.

It is worthy of remark, that the Felton picture, the Droeshout print, and the monument, have no rings in the ears, but the Chandos picture has them; there is also a difference in the beard of the latter, which, with the expression of the face, is very characteristic with the ring to that of Shylock, it may be Shakspeare, in that character. In giving this opinion, I allude to the engraving in Mr. Boaden's book, and, which is very inaccurate, as to the cheek bone, on the distant side of the face, it being too small for the other, it is well engraved by Scriven, but rather hard. I have heard much said on the merits of the crayon portrait by Mr. Ozias Humphry, that this print was done from, and which is very different to the one lately engraved from the original,* by Mr. Robert Cooper; in this last print, and the Felton picture, I am able to distinguish much resemblance to each other, which establishes them, in my mind, to be both genuine portraits of Shakspeare.

Those who have seen Droeshout's or Marshall's engravings of the poet, might reasonably imagine them to have been done from the Felton picture (as far as regards the head), the only doubt in

I have lately been favoured with a sight of a copy from this picture, in the possession of Mr. Thomas Shakespear, of

my mind, is, whether we should not have seen a more finely executed print, from so delicate a painting. It has been said, that "the print by Droeshout, is his first effort in this country; no wonder then, that his performances, twenty years after, are found to be executed with a somewhat superior degree of skill, and accuracy; yet, still, he was a poor engraver, and his productions are sought for, more more on account of their scarcity, than their beauty; he seems, indeed, to have pleased so little in this country, that there are not above six or seven heads of his workmanship to be found."

Mr. Malone, speaking on the same engraver's works, notices two of his productions, "William Fairfax, who fell at the siege of Frankendale, in 1621, and John Howson, Bishop of Durham; the portrait of Bishop Howson, is at Christ Church, Oxford.

By comparing the above two prints,

Ranelagh Street, Pimlico, which has been in his family more than a century. From the bold manner in which it is painted, I think it is by J. Richardson. I understand there is another in the small apartment at the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge, which formerly belonged to Mr. Capell, the editor of Shakspeare, in 1768. Besides the above, Mr. Malone said, that "he possessed three by eminent masters." This avowal produced the annexed jeu d'esprit:

"I knew our Shakspeare's gentle face:
The reason why you'll plainly see:
His picture 'long'd to Chandos' Grace;
Of which I've got rare copies THREE.

with the original pictures from whence the engravings were made, a better judgment might be formed of the fidelity of our author's portrait, as exhibited by this engraver, than from Jonson's assertion, that "in this figure

the Graver had a strife

"With Nature, to out-do the life;"

a compliment, which in the books of that age, was paid to so many engravers that nothing decisive can be inferred from it.-It does not appear from what picture this engraving was made, but from the dress, and the singular disposition of the hair, &c. it undoubtedly was engraved from a picture, and probably, a very ordinary one. There is no other way of accounting for the great difference between the print of Droeshout's, and his spirited portraits of Fairfax and Bishop Howson, but, by supposing that the picture of Shakspeare, from which he copied, was a very coarse performance."

I consider Mr. Malone's last remark, so very much to the purpose, that the Felton picture, cannot, from the delicate pencilling, be the head that Droeshout engraved from, and more particularly, as he must have seen the initials of the painter, at the back of the portrait, and, consequently, would have had them put in the plate, in a line with his own name. But from

the strength of likeness that it bears to that engraving, as to the contour and features, I am of a firm opinion, it is the original picture, painted by Richard Burbage, (see page 22.)

The portrait of Shakspeare, by Martin Droeshout,* is a performance, which claims the most indubitable right to originality. It is, as I may say, the key to unlock and detect almost all the impositions that have, at various times, arrested so much of public attention. It is a witness that can refute all false evidence, and will satisfy every discerner, how to appreciate, and how to convict.

Mr. Malone, speaking on the above two lines of Ben Jonson's, has remarked, that Droeshout had shown more ability in the execution of his latter works of William Fairfax and John Howson; that they also bear ample testimony as to fidelity of imitation, and a better judgment can be formed, as to the likeness of Droeshout's print of Shakspeare, than from Ben Johnson's two lines.

Mr. Malone, in his observations, has only proved that Droeshout could copy a picture very exactly,

* Mr. Briton says of this engraving, "That it cannot be like any human face, for it is evidently ill drawn, in all the features; and a bad artist can never make a good likeness." As to his first remark, I cannot agree with him, for it is the good drawing only, which it has to recommend it, therefore, Ben Jonson's lines are by no means "futile and unworthy of credit."