« НазадПродовжити »
alteration, which originated in personal hostility, and produced a pointless epigram or two from those whose frauds he had exposed. Whether a funeral monument should be in colours or not, is a point of taste, and therefore admits of various opinions. But the Doctor has one remark on this bust, which, as it relates to our poet's likeness, I cannot leave without observation. He says, vol. ii. p. 623, “There is a very close and remarkable similitude between the engraving from the Felton Shakspeare, and the bust at Stratford.” Again, a little after: “Whether we consider the general contour of the head, or the particular conformation of the forehead, eyes, nose, or mouth, the resemblance is complete.” It is however but candid to add, that Dr. Drake in a note informs us, that these observations rest on “the fidelity of the engraving prefixed to Reed's edition of Shakspeare, 1803.”
Alas! there are four engravings from this picture, all unlike, more or less, to that, and to each other. Mr. Gilchrist, an acute and able writer also on such subjects, has remarked, that “the late Mr. Steevens failed to communicate to the public his confidence in the integrity of Mr. Felton's picture.” What basis Mr. Gilchrist may have had for this observation, will be rather strikingly apparent, when the reader shall have perused the very ample discussion into which I shall be drawn, while examining its former pretensions. In the mean time, having before me a very faithful copy in oil from this picture, I would refer the decision to any eye, accustomed to works of art; and am confident that it must be pronounced, utterly unlike the bust, in every one of these points of presumed similarity,
THE CHANDOS HEAD.
PAINTER'S NAME UNKNOWN.
The progress of this inquiry has now brought us to the third of the received likenesses of our poet, which was formerly in the possession of the late Duke of Chandos. It is a head painted On canvass, and seemed to Sir Joshua Reynolds to have been left unfinished by the artist. This is the portrait of Shakspeare, which has been so frequently engraved, and to which the fancy of each succeeding engraver has added every conceivable variety of feature, expression, and dress. No picture within the last hundred years has been more frequently copied. Sir Joshua Reynolds painted one in 1760 for Bishop Newton, which came into Mr. Malone's possession. A very animated copy of it, I have contemplated with pleasure, among the gifts of Mr. Capell, 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 1788, 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.
(Signed) “EDMond MAlone,
“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;