the editor of Shakspeare in 1768, in the small apartment devoted to his treasures, in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge. There were many persons, who will not be suspected of wanting the greatest admiration of Sir Joshua, who never considered him to be a faithful copyist. I presume this to have been partly the opinion of my late friend Mr. Malone; for in the year 1783, having himself then seen the original picture, he procured the Duke's permission to have a drawing from it, in crayons, executed by a very clever artist, the late Mr. Ozias Humphry; and the result was a portrait exhibiting a very material difference indeed from Sir Joshua's copy in oil. Mr. Malone has left the following in his hand-writing, on the back of the drawing by Humphry : "This Drawing of Shakspeare was made in August 1783, by that excellent artist, Mr. Ozias Humphry, from the only original picture extant, which formerly belonged to Sir William Davenant, and is now in the possession of the Duke of Chandos. The painter is unknown. "The original having been painted by a very ordinary hand, having been at some subsequent period painted over, and being now in a state of decay, this copy, which is a very faithful one, is in my opinion invaluable. Mr. Humphry thinks that Shakspeare was about the age of forty-three when this portrait was painted; which fixes its probable date to the year 1607. "The original picture is twenty-two inches long, and eighteen broad.” Among various marks of Mr. Malone's kindness, of which I may reasonably be proud, he allowed me to have copies of both his pictures: the artists who executed them for me, were thoroughly aware of the duty of fidelity, and they are in truth fac similes. I am therefore well prepared to state the difference between them, of which I have already spoken. Sir Joshua's copy is characterized by smartness and pleasantry; that of Mr. Humphry by thoughtful gravity. As to the place and drawing in of the features, the differences are slight, but the effect is what I have described. Whether Sir Joshua, perceiving the picture to be in jured and become black from time, had used the freedom to mix something of the expression of the bust with his copy of the picture, I know not; but certainly he has given to his work a brisk pertness, which is clearly not in the copy made. for Mr. Capell, and which I certainly do not believe to have ever been visible in the original. It was about the year 1793 that I myself was permitted, with a friend, to examine that venerable portrait at Chandos House. We took with us what had been termed a fine copy; I think by Ramberg; and found it utterly unlike. Indeed I never saw any thing that resembled it, until my subsequent acquaintance with Mr. Malone shewed me the copy by Humphry, which always hung in his study, and seemed to suggest, by its earnest regard, the subject of so many of our conversations. We are now called upon to examine the grounds on which the present picture is to be considered a genuine portrait of the bard. The reader will have seen the firm expression of Mr. Malone's belief. He remained to the last entirely convinced of its authenticity; and in deed it is traceable from Davenant, through various hands, to the possession of His Grace the Duke of Buckingham, who at present numbers it among the treasures of Stowe. That it should ever have been seriously questioned, might excite some surprise, were it not at the same time added, that the late George Steevens, Esq. was the person by whom it was suspected to be, but on slight grounds, received as a genuine portrait of our author. The wit and ingenuity of that celebrated man, tempted him continually to advocate very singular opinions; and as he had great skill in the weapons of controversy, he could make good battle always, even with an indifferent cause. He undertook to depreciate the present portrait. The means he used were these: If there had been, any scandal about the possessors of this picture, such demerit in the owner was made to bear against the picture. Gossip rumour had given out that Davenant was more than Shakspeare's god-son.-What folly therefore to suppose that HE should possess a genuine portrait of the, poet, when his lawful daughters had not one! Mrs. Barry was an actress of acknowledged gallantry;-as she received forty guineas for this picture, "something more animated than canvass might have been included, though not specified, in the bargain." I am afraid the learned Commentator here remembered the famous Dol Tearsheet, another lady of acknowledged gallantry, who exclaims to Sir John Falstaff, "Faith, and I'll canvass thee between a pair of sheets." If the name of one of the possessors have no very sonorous dignity, THAT suggests a ridicule which is immediately applied. Mr. Steevens must have chuckled with triumph, when he found a KECK among them. But this is puny pleasantry-at last, collecting the artillery of his annoyance together, he devotes the whole tribe, like a true Anthropophaginian, to become a sacrifice to his humour, and styles our picture the 66 Davenantico-Bettertono-Barryan-Keckian- canvass-forgetting that it could not but be honourable to the parties, to possess the real, or |