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 injured 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 indeed 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. 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

.

"Davenantico-Bettertono-Barryan-Keckian-Nicolsian-Chandosan,” canvass-forgetting that it could not be but honourable to the parties,

to possess the real, or even supposed likeness of the greatest of our

poets.

This artifice he had in truth practised in a remarkable instance before, on a different occasion. Finding it for his Finding it for his purpose to exhibit the text of the first folio of our author, as of questionable accuracy, he thus expresses himself in the matchless pleasantry of his advertisement to the edition of our author's plays published in 1793:

"We have sometimes followed the suggestions of a Warburton, a Johnson, a Farmer, or a Tyrwhitt, in preference to the decisions of a Heminge or a Condell, notwithstanding their choice readings might have been influenced by associates whose high-sounding names cannot fail to enforce respect, viz. William Ostler, John Shanke, William Sly, and Thomas Poope."

The reader sees that this weighty criticism has no more solid base to support it, than that he finds these vulgar names in the folio, among the list of the actors who performed in our author's plays.

Mr. Steevens knew, few men so well, that after the fire of 1613 had probably destroyed some of the manuscript plays of Shakspeare, along with the Globe theatre, for which they were written, Messrs. Heminge and Condell had published them according to the copies in their possession at their house in the Blackfriars; which they believed to be (bating a few curtailments which he might have made or allowed) absolute in their numbers as he conceived them. Mr. Steevens knew, that there was no choice of readings to be influenced by the humble men, whose sounding names "could not it seems fail to enforce respect;" and whom this Editor of Shakspeare devotes to

ridicule; though the mere circumstance of having acted in his plays, ought to have secured for them the unforced respect of every rational admirer of the poet. But this man of wit might have recollected who said of Joshua Barnes, "that he had less Greek than an Athenian cobler;" and whatever were the names of these poor men, they could probably, ALL, have explained allusions, dark even to his own extensive knowledge of English manners; and as to the language of their day, they might have contemptuously smiled at the extravagant conjectures of the modern sages, whom he so awfully enu

merates.

Such tricks as these have not entirely discredited his labours; but they have naturally enough secured for him the title of the PUCK of Commentators.

All this might have passed, and been perhaps the reigning opinion, but for one unlucky discovery, on which the reader will allow me to dwell at some length. Our admirable poet, Dryden, was known to have received a portrait of Shakspeare, as a present from Sir Godfrey Kneller, whom he repaid by a copy of verses written certainly between the years 1683 and 1692. From what picture Kneller copied, was not known. But at length Mr. Malone, when occupied on the Life of Dryden, discovered that he copied the head now called the Chandos, and that his work was in the possession of Earl Fitzwilliam at Wentworth Castle. Now Dryden had seen the original for years together, at the residences of either Davenant or Betterton, or both. He had no doubt often conversed with them as to its authenticity; and the account he received, made him

earnestly wish to possess a fac simile of the portrait. His friend, Sir Godfrey, therefore, could not have bestowed upon him a gift more valuable. But a few lines from his verses to the painter, best express his delight:

Shakspeare, thy gift, I place before my sight;

With awe I ask his blessing ere I write ;
With reverence look on his majestic face,

Proud to be less, but of his godlike race.

Here then we at once step back to the 17th century, instead of being obliged to consider the picture as one that excited no notice till the early part of the 18th. We may be clear also, that Dryden considered himself to be in possession of an unquestionable likeness of Shakspeare. The story of it, therefore, has all the confirmation that Dryden's belief could bestow; and he would not have allowed Kneller, when he designed an obligation, to waste his skill in copying any picture, which, being doubtful, would want to him the only value that could be in a copy.

The history of it, rendered thus credible, follows: It was very probably painted by Burbage, the great tragedian, who is known to have handled the pencil. It is said to have been the property of Joseph Taylor, our poet's Hamlet, who dying about the year 1653, at the advanced age of 70, left this picture by will to Davenant. At the death of Davenant, in 1663, it was bought by Betterton the actor; and when he died, Mr. Robert Keck, of the Inner Temple, gave Mrs. Barry the actress 40 guineas for it. From Mr. Keck it

F