Page images
PDF
EPUB

Imitation, Wonder, and Alimentiveness, are a little less indicated.

The forehead belongs to that class of men who have shown extraordinary skill in dealing with the actual and the practical, rather than the abstract, either as philosophers, artists, statesmen, or generals, such as Michael Angelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Henry IV., Loyola, Luther, Poussin, Adam Smith, John Hampden, Selden, Audubon, Napoleon, and Washington.

Shakspere was eminently practical, artistic, executive, and constructive, and only began to be dubious, abstract, or metaphysically theoretic, as he progressed in the development of his powers of mind and experience. He neither wanders with Plato in his Republic, nor with More in his Utopia, but takes the world as he finds it, with all its lights and shadows; and, with the intuition of genius, opens to view the human heart and its passions --their longings and conflicting aspirations; their varying and shifting phases, and pourtrays them with all the force of a profound psychologist.

The face of the cast, like the Jansen portrait, has a sharp oval form ; that of the Stratford bust is a blunt or round one, as indicated by the respective illustrations. The chin is narrow and pointed, yet firm ; that of the bust wellrounded. The cheeks are thin and sunken in the cast ; in the bust and portrait full, fat, and coarse, as if there was great vitality, and a

“Good digestion waiting on appetite," without much thought, fancy, or feeling disturbing either. The mask has a forehead finely formed; the bust is ill-defined ; and the Stratford portrait is still more indefinite. The mask has : full-sized upper lip; the bust a very large one, although Sir W. Scott lost his wager in maintaining that it was larger than his own; for it was demonstrated, by the

application of the compasses, that the advantage in length of lip was on the side of the wizard—the worthy Knight of Abbotsford. The nose of the mask is large and finely indicated; that of the bust is short, straight, and small. The nostrils are slightly drawn up in the cast,-a feature exaggerated in the bust. Their ethnic physiognomies and cranial contours are utterly at variance with each other. The bust is a good example of the Teutonic face prevailing in the Warwickshire type. The mask is a union of the Norman grafted on the Saxon stock—the aquiline nose and oval face are united with the long upper lip and fair complexion existing in a limited proportion of the inhabitants in the poet's native county, as slightly illustrated by the fine head of Sir Thomas Lucy. The cast indicates the man of keen observation, quick perception, with great executive faculty. There would be a fine sense of physical and artistic beauty and fitness, with a sensibility that would make the original a man of emotion, feeling, and probably of suffering. The Stratford bust, on the contrary, bespeaks the man of ease, enjoyment, keen appetites, and self-satisfaction. There would be latent force of character in the bust, with much good nature, yet ever ready to give occasional outbursts of passion. In the portrait, there is a good vital constitution, with great tenacity of property ; cherishing the pleasures of life and existence. The mask and the Jansen portrait indicate the nervous sanguine temperament—the temperament of genius; the bust and the portrait the sanguinelymphatic. There might be latent power to enjoy the productions of others, but there would be a lack of inspiration to create original idealisations of truth and beauty.

The answer phrenology would give to those who still believe the Stratford portrait and bust are the true image of the bard, is—that the forms are impossible with a poet like Shakspere. Death does not alter the language once written on the ivory wall around the temple of thought by the hand of the Creator. A monumental effigy of Shakspere, bearing the characteristics of the bust or the portrait, would deservedly become the scorn and scoff of future ages, for both artists and the general public are beginning to perceive and appreciate the relation between given forms, capability, and character.

The relationship between organisation, capacity, and character, has long been a subject of investigation with me, and I have never yet found a case to controvert the great principles illustrated in the philosophy which assigns a distinct and separate organ for each faculty of the mind. Men of mark, men of thought, men of action, and those of special power, have alike been illustrative of this grand and important revelation of truth.

Men," says George Combe, “the great masters of painting and sculpture, have been distinguished for high-nervous, or nervous-bilious, or nervous-sanguine temperament. Very rarely is a, nervous-lymphatic temperament met with among them; and I do not recollect to have observed among them any one in whom the nervous was not present in a large proportion.” Then why should Shakspere be an exception? It would be more consistent for us to believe that he was a striking confirmation of the law, and that he had the advantage of a happy union of a well-balanced brain and a finely-constituted nervous system. Michael Angelo was a master of painting, sculpture, and architecture ; Da Vinci showed a genius not only for painting, but for music and engineering; Shakspere was still more comprehensive ;-and men of such kindred powers must have had some features in common, and they agree in the possession of a fine temperament, large perceptive powers, and a well-developed cerebral combination—the organisation of genius.

Discovery of Portraits of Shakspere's family.

In the course of some recent enquiries about the desceụdants of Shakspere, I was incidentally made aware of the existence of a portrait, said to be that of Susanna, the daughter of the poet. On further investigation I found it belonged to the wife of an agricultural labourer residing a short distance from Stratford. The owner is a descendant of one of the Hathaways that first brought the picture from Shottery, on her marriage to a respectable and prosperous tradesman at Darlingcote. This lady gave the portrait to her grand-daughter, Mrs. Attwood, who always told her children that the picture was invariably described as “Susanna Hall, the daughter of Shakspere" She also stated that it was formerly sent by a relative from London to Shottery, and that it was n:t kept on account of its money value, but simply because it was a likeness of one of the family.

Mrs. Attwood gave the portrait to her grand-daughter and godchild, Hannah Ward, while the latter was very young, and her mother, Mrs. Ward, brought the portrait away 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 lifelike 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 resemblance between them in style, execution, and physiognomy, 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 femained 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

as if

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

« PreviousContinue »