if he came over to us, he came over young, for Mr. Malone thus notices the old mistake respecting his arrival: "Mr. Walpole has stated that Jansen came into England about the year 1618, (the reader has seen what Mr. Walpole really did state); but this is a mistake; for I have a portrait painted by him, dated 1611, which had belonged, for more than a century, to a family that lived at Chelsea.”—Life of Shakspeare, edition 1821, vol. ii. p. 429. Here we certainly see him in the practice of his * As to the information Mr. Malone has given, it is without any evidence to establish Jansen's being in this country in 1611, for he has not even hinted, who or what was the person painted, by him, in the above date, whether it is of a man, woman, child, or an English character; but, allowing it to be of the latter, it is equally possible to have been painted abroad, therefore, we are still in doubt who was the painter of the Shakspeare portrait; a minute comparison with some other works of Jansen, may decide it in his favour. Mr. Boaden, however, says in the next page, in consequence of Mr. Malone's statement, that, "the objection is removed, that it could be painted by Jansen." I apprehend now it is not. When Mr. Woodburn purchased this picture of Mr. Spackman, he informs me it was in a very decayed frame, with an inscription on it, and believes it was the name of the poet. I had the honour of waiting on her Grace the Duchess of Somerset, at her town residence, for the purpose of inspecting the picture, which was granted. The forehead resembles Droeshout's print the most of any other, the formation of the eye brows and eyes is that of the bust, but the great difference between the latter and the picture, is in the space between the nose and mouth, the painter has certainly given more of nature and the true proportion which constitutes beauty. There is also some difference in the character of the nose.-A. W. if he came over to us, he came over young, for Mr. Malone thus notices the old mistake respecting his arrival: "Mr. Walpole has stated that Jansen came into England about the year 1618, (the reader has seen what Mr. Walpole really did state); but this is a mistake; for I have a portrait painted by him, dated 1611, which had belonged, for more than a century, to a family that lived at Chelsea."-Life of Shakspeare, edition 1821, vol. ii. p. 429. Here we certainly see him in the practice of his *As to the information Mr. Malone has given, it is without any evidence to establish Jansen's being in this country in 1611, for he has not even hinted, who or what was the person painted, by him, in the above date, whether it is of a man, woman, child, or an English character; but, allowing it to be of the latter, it is equally possible to have been painted abroad, therefore, we are still in doubt who was the painter of the Shakspeare portrait; a minute comparison with some other works of Jansen, may decide it in his favour. Mr. Boaden, however, says in the next page, in consequence of Mr. Malone's statement, that, "the objection is removed, that it could be painted by Jansen." I apprehend now it is not. When Mr. Woodburn purchased this picture of Mr. Spackman, he informs me it was in a very decayed frame, with an inscription on it, and believes it was the name of the poet. I had the honour of waiting on her Grace the Duchess of Somerset, at her town residence, for the purpose of inspecting the picture, which was granted. The forehead resembles Droeshout's print the most of any other, the formation of the eye brows and eyes is that of the bust, but the great difference between the latter and the picture, is in the space between the nose and mouth, the painter has certainly given more of nature and the true proportion which constitutes beauty. There is also some difference in the character of the nose.-A. W. art among us seven years before the assigned date of his arrival; and we are carried one year farther back by the picture under examination, which has an English character at all events, if it should be contested that it was the character of Shakspeare. However, now the objection is removed, that it could be painted by Jansen, I believe on the matter of most moment it will speak for itself. Nothing can more distinctly embody our conceptions of Shakspeare. It is extremely handsome; the forehead elevated and ample; the eyes clear, mild, and benignant; the nose well formed; the mouth closed, the lips slightly compressed; the hair receding from the forehead, as of one who would become bald; the beard gracefully disposed, and a very neat laced collar thrown over a dress such as the poet, from his circumstances, his character, and his connexions, might be supposed to wear. Indeed, at this period the players in general were censured for being splendidly drest in silks and satins.* There was doubtless no exceeding on the part of Shakspeare;-he who shews himself in the Sonnets, to have enjoyed the familiar intercourse of Lord Southampton,† would * This statement is sufficient to do away with Mr. Croker's doubt, "whether shakspeare was a person of sufficient worldly importance, to have his portrait painted in the style of the picture in his own possession.”—A. W. + In opposition to the late Editor, I consider the greater number of these short poems to be addressed to his patron, and that they refer to many interesting circumstances in his professional life. The Sonnet I now allude to is the 57th. certainly sit for his portrait in a costume at once simple and elegant. It is not a little curious, that we should possess undoubted proof that Cornelius Jansen was the painter employed by the great patron of Shakspeare. "At Sherburn Castle, in Dorsetshire (says Walpole), is a head of Elizabeth Wriothesley, eldest daughter of Henry Earl of Southampton, and wife of William Lord Spenser; her head richly dressed, and a picture in a blue enamelled case at her breast. This picture is well coloured, though not equal to another at the same seat, a half length of her mother, Elizabeth, daughter of John Vernon, wife of Earl Henry. Her clothes are magnificent, and the attire of her head singular-a veil turned quite back. The face and hands are coloured with incomparable lustre, and equal to any thing this master executed." With this absolute certainty as to Jansen's being Southampton's painter, I might assume, that it is Being your slave, what should I do but tend When you have bid your servant once adieu; N |