Of the character repeatedly and deliberately bestowed by the same Editor on the first of these old engravers, not a fingle word will be retracted; for, if the judgment of experienced artists be of any value, the plate by Droefhout now under confideration has (in one instance at least) established his claim to the title of " a most abominable imitator of humanity."

Mr. Fufeli has pronounced, that the Portrait described in the Proposals of Mr. Richardson, was the work of a Flemish hand. It may also be observed, that the verses in praise of Droeshout's performance, were probably written as foon as they were bespoke, and before their author had found opportunity or inclination to compare the plate with its original. He might previously have known that the picture conveyed a just resemblance of Shakspeare; took it for granted that the copy would be exact; and, therefore, rafhly affigned to the engraver a panegyrick which the painter had more immediately deserved. It is lucky indeed for those to whom metrical recommendations are necessary, that custom does not require they should be delivered upon oath.

It is likewise probable that Ben Jonfon had no intimate acquaintance with the graphick art, and might not have been over-solicitous about the style in which Shakspeare's lineaments were tranfmitted to pofterity.

N. B. The character of Shakspeare as a poet; the condition of the ancient copies of his plays; the merits of his respective editors, &c. &c. have been so minutely investigated on former occafions, that any fresh advertisement of fimilar tendency might be confidered as a tax on the reader's patience.

It may be proper indeed to observe, that the errors we have discovered in our last edition are here. corrected; and that fome explanations, &c. which feemed to be wanting, have likewise been supplied.

To these improvements it is now become our duty to add the genuine Portrait of our author. For a particular account of the difcovery of it, we must again refer to the Proposals of Mr. Richardson, at whose expence two engravings from it have been already made.

We are happy to subjoin, that Messieurs Boydell, who have refolved to decorate their magnificent edition of Shakspeare with a copy from the fame original picture lately purchased by them from Mr. Felton, have not only favoured us with the use of it, but most obligingly took care, by their own immediate superintendance, that as much justice should be done to our engraving, as to their own.

B

EFORE the patronage of the publick is folicited in favour of a new engraving from the only genuine portrait of Shakspeare, it is proper that every circumstance relative to the discovery of it should be faithfully and circumftantially related.

On Friday, August 9, Mr. Richardson, printfeller, of Castle Street, Leicester Square, affured Mr. Steevens that, in the course of business having recently waited on Mr. Felton, of Curzon Street, May Fair, this gentleman showed him an ancient head resembling the portrait of Shakspeare as engraved by Martin Droeshout in 1623.

Having frequently been misled by fimilar reports founded on inaccuracy of observation or uncertainty of recollection, Mr. Steevens was defirous to fee the Portrait itself, that the authenticity of it might be ascertained by a deliberate comparison with Droeshout's performance. Mr. Felton, in the most obliging and liberal manner, permitted Mr. Richardson to bring the head, frame and all, away with him; and several unquestionable judges have concurred in pronouncing that the plate of Droeshout conveys not only a general likeness of its original, but an exact and particular one as far as this artist had ability to execute his undertaking. Droefhout could follow the outlines of a face with tolerable accuracy, but ufsually left them as hard as if hewn out of a rock. Thus, in the present instance, he has servilely transferred the features of Shakspeare from the painting to the copper, omitting every trait of the mild and benevolent character which his portrait so decidedly affords. There are, indeed, just such marks of a placid and amiable disposition in this resemblance of our poet, as his admirers would have wished to find.

This Portrait is not painted on canvas, like the Chandos Head,5 but on wood. Little more of it

• Of some volunteer infidelities, however, Droeshout may be convicted. It is evident from the picture that Shakspeare was partly bald, and confequently that his forehead appeared unufually high. To remedy, therefore, what seemed a defect to the engraver, he has amplified the brow on the right fide. For the fake of a more picturesque effect, he has also incurvated the line in the fore part of the ruff, though in the original it is mathematically ftraight. See note 9, p. 6.

It may be observed, however, to those who examine trifles with rigour, that our early-engraved portraits were produced in the age when few had skill or opportunity to ascertain their faithfulness or infidelity. The confident artist therefore affumed the liberty of altering where he thought he could improve. The rapid workman was in too much hafte to give his outline with correctness; and the mere drudge in his profeffion contented himself by placing a caput mortuum of his original before the publick. In short, the inducements to be licentious or inaccurate, were numerous; and the rewards of exactness were feldom attainable, most of our ancient heads of authors being done, at stated prices, for bookfellers, who were careless about the verifimilitude of engravings which fashion not unfrequently obliged them to infert in the title-pages of works that deferved no such expenfive decorations.

5 A living artist, who was apprentice to Roubiliac, declares that when that elegant statuary undertook to execute the figure of Shakspeare for Mr. Garrick, the Chandos picture was borrowed; but that it was, even then, regarded as a performance

6

than the entire countenance and part of the ruff is left; for the pannel having been split off on one side, the rest was curtailed and adapted to a small frame. On the back of it is the following infcription, written in a very old hand : "Guil, Shakspeare, 1597.8 R. N." Whether these initials belong to the painter, or a former owner of the picture, is uncertain. It is clear, however, that this is the identical head from which not only the engraving by Droeshout in 1623, but that of Marshall 9 in 1640 was made; and though the hazards our

of fufpicious afpect; though for want of a more authentick archetype, some few hints were received, or pretended to be received,

from it.

Roubiliac, towards the close of his life, amused himself by painting in oil, though with little success. Mr. Felton has his poor copy of the Chandos picture, in which our author exhibits the complexion of a Jew, or rather that of a chimney-sweeper in the jaundice.

It is fingular that neither Garrick, or his friends, should have defired Roubiliac at least to look at the two earliest prints of Shakspeare; and yet even Scheemaker is known to have had no other model for our author's head, than the mezzotinto by Zouft.

• A broker now in the Minories declares, that it is his usual practice to cut down such portraits, as are painted on wood, to the fize of such spare frames as he happens to have in his poffef