These kind observations were from the pen of Mr. Steevens himself, who being then engaged with Dr. Johnson in preparing the edition of 1773, seized the opportunity, readily afforded to such a writer, of defeating a rival editor. I cannot but lament that he should stoop to this sort of warfare; but I shall prove immediately, what Mr. Jennens could only suspect, that he actually wrote the review of the new edition of King Lear. Let us look at the sort of pleasantry with which the editor of the obnoxious work is assailed.

Though for the service of his author he might have been tempted, like Prince Harry, to have robbed an Exchequer, or fleeced a King's collectors, or even to have stolen with Dumain, an egg out of a cloister; yet he should not with Bardolph have descended to filch a lute-case; with Pistol to murder a poor whore's ruff; or with Falstaff to make a bankrupt of Mrs. Quickly.”

The preceding is a favourite illustration of Mr. Steevens; and as the life of a review is not unreasonably long, he was perhaps justified in repeating himself more than twenty years afterwards. In the supplement to Richardson's Proposals, December 1794, our friend Bardolph again makes his appearance. "The artist," says Mr. Steevens, "who could have filched from Droeshout, like Bardolph, might have 'stolen a lute-case, carried it twelve leagues, and sold it for three halfpence.'

The writer in the Critical Review, again notices Earlom's print in the month of January following:

"Concerning this print we will have no controversy; but we still adhere to our former opinion, that the soul of the mezzotinto is not the soul of Shakspeare.

It has been the fate of Shakspeare to have many mistakes committed both about his soul and body: Pope exhibited him under the form of James the First."

Having already considered what respects Jansen's residence in this country, and proved certainly that he might have painted Shakspeare, the preceding extracts furnish little to call for additional remark, unless it be that we gather by implication, that Mr. Steevens believed in 1770 the Chandos Head to be a true picture of the poet.

But it may be gratifying a reasonable curiosity, as the pamphlet is before me, to let the reader see something of the reply made by Mr. Jennens to the Reviewer: the passage which I shall select, touches also upon the picture:

"There are three sorts of people that these reviewers seem to bear a mortal antipathy to, viz. the old, the fat, and the industrious: from which we have great reason to conclude, that none of them are either old, or fat, or industrious. Young, unfledged criticks, we think they have sufficiently proved themselves to be; and criticism in such hands, especially when unaccompanied by industry, is not likely either to thrive itself, or to fatten its owners.

"But they think, contrary to all the philosophers that went before them, that age is not the proper period for criticism. It is their opinion that long experience does not improve the judgment; that a life spent in study does not ripen the mental abilities; that a man may know more in twenty or thirty years than he can in sixty or seventy; and that those who are acquainted with the first rudiments of learning only, are better qualified for criticks than those who have gathered all the fruits of science.

Concerning the authenticity of the picture from which the mezzotinto print of Shakspeare was taken, they have dropt the controversy; and we are very glad they have so much sense and modesty left, as to find out what impudence

and absurdity they have been guilty of, in calling in question a picture they have never seen, and without any provocation abusing a person whom the generality of the world have thought fit to esteem an artist that excels in the higher branch of painting, and of whose performances Mr. Jennens has many, though his collection cannot be said to be filled with them, (as the Critical Reviewers say they hear), their number being inconsiderable when compared with the whole collection.

They say, 'we still adhere to our former opinion, that the soul of the mezzotinto is not the soul of Shakspeare.' Who said it was? The soul of a picture cannot be the soul of a man; but a picture may be like a man's soul, when it is made to express those qualities and dispositions which we discover him by his writings to have been possest of."—Vindication of King Lear.

It is to be regretted that petulant criticism seems to have suppressed what evidence Mr. Jennens could have brought forward-he disdained the attack as coarse and ungentlemanly, (as in truth it was), and insolent enough to call for something beyond literary chastisement. I shall merely add the Reviewer's farewell to the proprietor of Gopsal-"Vale, Jennine noster! literatorum omnium minime princeps!"

While the engravings for this work were in progress, I was unremitting in my inquiries after the picture, which, as I have stated at page 53, was no longer the ornament of Gopsal. At length I succeeded in tracing it to its present residence:—this portrait of Shakspeare is now the property of His Grace the Duke of Somerset, and

I have understood was a present to him from the late Duke of Hamilton.

I have unquestionable authority for saying that it came up with a considerable part of the collection from Gopsal, and was bought by Woodburn for His Grace the Duke of Hamilton, somewhere about fifteen years back. To expatiate upon the absurdity which parted with it from Gopsal, in strong terms, would seem like a regret that it is now in the metropolis; a feeling that I cannot entertain, since otherwise I might never have had the satisfaction of comparing it with Earlom's print.

Although I had not the honour to be known to His Grace, I took the liberty to communicate my wish to inspect the picture, and from the country orders were transmitted to give me every accommodation for that purpose. As it was placed near the top of the room, it was taken carefully down, and put in a proper light for examination. It had been removed from its ancient frame, into one of greater value but less interest. The portrait is on pannel, and attention will be required to prevent a splitting of the oak in two places, if my eye have not deceived me.

It is no made up questionable thing, like so many that are foisted upon us. It is an early picture by Cornelius Jansen, tenderly and beautifully painted. Time seems to have treated it with infinite kindness; for it is quite pure, and exhibits its original surface. The epithet gentle, which cotemporary fondness attached to the name of Shakspeare, seems to be fully justified by the likeness before us. The expression of the countenance really equals the

demand of the fancy; and you feel that every thing was possible to a being so happily constituted.

I had supposed, although I knew Earlom to have been a great mannerist, that with some little allowance for his peculiar style, he would have been kept, by Mr. Jennens's veneration for the poet, in some measure faithful to the picture. But he had been faithless beyond measure; and indeed none of the parts were accurately reduced by him. He had lessened the amplitude of the foreheadhe had altered the form of the skull-he had falsified the character of the mouth-and though his engraving was still beautiful, and the most agreeable exhibition of the poet, I found it would be absolutely necessary to draw the head again, as if he had never exercised his talents upon it.

The noble possessor of the picture afforded every facility to the artist for this object; and Mr. Turner has produced an engraving in consequence, which may be considered as giving the genuine character and expression of the picture. Mr. Turner thought, in examining the liberties taken by Mr. Earlom, that he had however judged wisely, in not copying the figured satin of the dress. In the picture, the charm of colour blended the pattern and the ground into one rich mass, and it by no means injured the expression of the head; but in the print, it would have disturbed the grand effect, to have imitated such trivial parts; he, therefore, with my entire concurrence, kept the dress dark, that the brilliant effect of the head might be quite undisturbed.

Comparing it with the other portraits, it certainly most resembles