« PreviousContinue »
from Darlingcote to her house at Treddington, where it has remained until lately. I have seen persons who have resided all their lives in the neighbourhood, where it has been known that this picture was in the possession of the Wards for more than thirty years, and was always considered as a heir-loom from Shottery. Mrs. Attwood died in 1848, aged 85 years, but her statements and testimony are still remembered by members of the family who are living in different parts of the county, whom I have visited, and whose statements agree with each other without the knowledge of these parties of the information obtained elsewhere.
When Hannah Ward died, she left the portrait and other relics to her sister, the present owner. While the children of Mrs. Ward were young, they looked upon the picture with some degree of fear, for the portrait has a lifeIike appearance, and the eyes, having a direction different from the nose, the girls said “the picture was always looking at them,” and hence, during a few years, its face was turned to the wall.
During the recent Ter-centenary Festival, the portrait was brought to Stratford, and when placed by the side of two other portraits, which were formerly at the birthplace in Henley-street, I discovered a singular resem' lance between them in style, execution, and physiognomy, as if painted by the same artist.
The two portraits referred to consist of a young lady and a gentleman, and are now in the possession of Mrs. James, grand-daughter of the Hornbys, who formerly occupied the house in Henley-street, the birthplace of Shakspere. The Hornbys were relatives of the Harts, who occupied the house from the time of Shakspere's sister Joan, who was married to William Hart. The Hornbys bought the two portraits with other relics at a valuation in 1793, and they remained as tenants in Henley-street till 1820, and both portraits and relics have remained till now in the possession of their daughter. They were executed in a style and size far superior to pictures adapted to the lowly rooms in the birthplace, and the probability is, they once belonged to Shakspere's family at New Place, and on the death of Mrs. Hall, or on the sale of the premises, were transferred to the nearest relations of the deceased, who were the Harts in Henley-street. No one can say with any certainty whom
SUSANNA HALL, DAUGHTER OF SHAKSPERE. the pictures represent, but there was a tradition that they came from another branch of the family, and that they represent Dr. Hall and his wife.
Both the pictures are fine old paintings, in oval, carved, gilt frames, alike in size and pattern, and executed with considerable breadth and skill, in the style of Sir Peter Lely. The gentleman is pourtrayed with the full flowing wig, rich single-breasted coat, and cravat of the period, similar to other portraits of that day by the same artist. Now, the singular fact to be noticed here is—not only that the Susanna portrait is in an oval frame of the same size, with the pattern on the carving a little more elaborate, but that when placed by the side of the female portrait from Henley-street, the pictures present the appearance of being two likenesses of the same person taken at different periods of life, or one represents the daughter of the other, În look, complexion, pose, and both in facial and cranial contour, they are portraits of the same person, differing in age, and but slightly in costume. The portraits present fine intelligent features, high square foreheads, and graceful and handsome proportions. There is the aquiline contour, long upper lip, and temperament of the mask and the Jansen portraits. The existence of the Susanna portrait has remained unknown, except to a few, until the present time; the other two portraits have been seen by many thousands.
It is a remarkable fact that not only the features of the two females resemble each other, but that the three have a
strong family likeness! This has been observed by others whose attention has been since drawn to this peculiarity.
It has been suggested that the two portraits from Henleystreet are probably those of Dr. Hall and his wife Susanna before she was married, and that the picture recently discovered is a likeness of the same lady at a later period of life. There is, however, another way of explaining the singular family resemblance in the portraits. One may be Dr. Hall and his wife, and the young lady their daughter Elizabeth. Or, is it possible that Mr. Nash, to whom the grand-daughter of Shakspere was first married, may be represented in the portrait of the gentleman ?
I am inclined to rely on the tradition that has hitherto considered it that of Dr. Hall, and that the young lady is Elizabeth Hall, the daughter, who married Mr. Nash of Welcome; in that case, the recently-discovered portrait may be a likeness of the same lady at a later period of life, or a likeness of her mother. İt is, however, very singular that while the portrait was in the possession of the Attwoods and the Wards, it was always designated “Susanna Hall, the daughter of Shakspere ;" and now, after an interval of two centuries, the portrait, when placed beside others from Henley-street, and probably New Place, clearly shows that it belongs to the same family group.
Dr. Hall died in 1635, leaving his property to his wife and daughter. Susanna died 11th July, 1649. Elizabeth, the daughter, was married to her first husband, Thomas Nash, in 1626. She afterwards married Sir John Bernard, who was knighted by Charles II. in 1661. Lady Bernard died at Abington, near Northampton, in February, 1669–70.
Now, from several well-established facts, it is known that Lady Bernard manifested great affection and regard for her relatives, the Harts in Henley-street, and also for the family of her grandmother, the Hathaways of Shottery, By her will, Lady
Bernard bequeathed legacies of forty and fifty pounds each to six members of the Hathaway family, thereby testifying to her respect for the memory of her ancestor Anne Shakspere. She also left two houses in Henley-street--one of them the birthplace of her grandfather-to Thomas Hart, grandson of Shakspere's brotherin-law, William Hart; and to her kinsman, Edward Bagley, citizen of London, she bequeathed the residue of her property. It is possible, and indeed probable, that
Lady Bernard would take the portrait of her mother in preference to her own, and that the portrait of Susanna was part of the personal property conveyed to London, from whence it was ultimately sent to the Hathaways at Shottery, and has remained in obscurity till the present day; and when placed beside other portraits that have hitherto been treated with indifference and neglect, they all in a most singular and unexpected way prove their relationship.
This pedigree of the three portraits is a simple history of their existence in the families of the descendants of the Harts and the Hathaways-of all persons the most likely to possess such relics. They have nothing about them indicative of the picture-dealer's restorations. They are portraits painted by the hand of a master, and are in a style suited to persons of wealth and condition beyond those living either in Henley-street or at Shottery. The height of each picture is, with the frame, 39 inches, and in breadth 34 inches. They would not be purchased as ornaments, as they are too large for the walls of such tenements ; nor would they be bought on speculation, because the owners could never find purchasers for them as unknown portraits. It is more reasonable to consider them as heir-looms left among a family that has from various causes lost not only its former wealth and position, but also the associations by which the relics were once surrounded.
The portrait called Susanna Hall belongs to persons unacquainted with the value of pictures, as the husband, an agricultural labourer, can only earn 10s. a-week, and when attending a thrashing-machine, a little more; and being unable to read or write, he is not likely to know the value of the picture, either as a luxury, as a work of art, or as a Shaksperian relic; and values it merely as a memento of his wife's family descent from the Hathaways of Shottery. As the pedigree of the Susanna portrait is traced back to the end of the 17th century, there is only a comparatively brief period between the death of Lady Bernard and the appearance of the portrait at Shottery ; after which I have, for the first time, traced it to Darlingcote, Treddington, Alveston, and now again at Stratford. As the three portraits have a strong family likeness, and as the Susanna portrait has a singular resemblance to the Jansens and to the mask, their similarity will be a strange and
rather marvellous coincidence, if they are not likenesses of Shakspere's family.
It may be asked—How is it that those who have devoted some thirty years attention to this subject have not hitherto discovered any connection
between these portraits and the children of Shakspere? The answer is, the portraits have never previously been compared with each other; the Susanna has till now remained in obscurity, and unknown, and those from Henley-street have been viewed with prejudice, or treated with indifference. They are still at Stratford to challenge investigation by the committee of the Shakspere Museum, where, if possible, these portraits, with their pedigrees, onght to be preserved. If I have succeeded in establishing the claims of those from Henleystreet, or that from Shottery, to belong to the family of Shakspere, I shall be rewarded for the trouble which has been necessary to ascertain the facts establishing the authenticity of these interesting and beautiful portraits; which, if genuine, tend to confirm by their physiognomies the accuracy of the views already recorded in favour of the Jansen Portrait and the Mask of Shakspere.
The Ethnic Physiognomies of Warwickshice.
As the facial contour of the two races of Warwickshire have been cited in reference to the portraits of Shakspere, an explanation may be necessary. It will be admitted that there are features so marked, distinct, and characteristic among men, that they may be classed under typical names, such as the Roman, the Grecian, the Aquiline, the Teuton, or the Celtic.
These are some of the signs of racial origin, and easily distinguished.
History tells us that the earliest inhabitants of Britain were the Belgæ or Celtic, who were visited by the tradeventurers from the shores of the Mediterranean. The tidewave of civilisation and power brought Cæsar and the Roman Eagles to settle and brood on the island. The result may be seen in the stem features, wiry frames, and cranial characteristics of those in whom the governing element is predominant. Although the Saxons ultimately gained the ascendant, the Roman legionaries remained long enough to establish their race and leave their blood behind them. The Northmen followed, bringing their