V. THE STRATFORD PORTRAIT.

IN the latter part of the year 1860 Mr. Simon Collins, a well-known restorer of pictures, residing in London, went to Stratfordon-Avon, to remove the white paint which had been daubed over the bust of Shakespeare in the chancel of the Church of the Holy Trinity, in that town. After he had completed his work, the then Town Clerk, Mr. William Oakes Hunt, employed him to clean some old pictures in his possession.

In the upper portion of the latter gentleman's house Mr. Collins found an old portrait, in a dilapidated state, representing a man with a large black beard and moustache. The beard nearly covered the face, and was so arranged as to utterly disfigure the picture. Mr. Hunt stated that the picture had been in the possession of his family for more than a hundred years, and that his grandfather had purchased it at a sale at Clopton House. So little was it regarded that Mr. Hunt had used it for a target, at which to shoot arrows, when he was a boy.

Something about the appearance of the portrait, however, led Mr. Collins to believe that another picture was underneath the outer covering of paint; and he therefore commenced cleaning a portion of the face, when the beard, which almost entirely covered it, disappeared. He then tried the experiment of cleaning a part of the breast of the figure, and found underneath a black and red costume similar to that on the bust of Shakespeare in the chancel of the Holy Trinity Church. During this cleaning the Rev. Mr. Greville, then Vicar of Stratford, Mr. Hobbs, Mr. Hunt, the owner of the picture, and other residents of the town, were present.

It was afterwards taken to London by Mr. Collins to complete the restoration. When this was completed, the picture was placed on exhibition in Mr. Collins' studio, and the following handbill was given to those who came to see it :

"PORTRAIT OF SHAKESPEARE.

"A Portrait of Shakespeare, painted on canvas, three-quarter life-size, which has been

in the family of W. O. Hunt, Esq., Town Clerk of Stratford-on-Avon, for a century, has recently been put into the hands of Mr. Simon Collins, of 6, Somerset Street, Portman Square, London (now on a visit to Stratford), who, after removing the dirt, damp, and repaint by which it was obscured, has brought to light what he pronounces to be a genuine portrait of the Immortal Bard.

"The picture bears a remarkable resemblance to the bust in the Chancel of Stratford Church, according to the description given of it before it was painted white at the request of Mr. Malone in 1793, viz.: the eyes being of a light hazel, and the hair and beard auburn, the dress consisted of a scarlet doublet, over which was a loose black gown without sleeves.'

"It is important to observe that this is the only picture ever discovered which represents the Poet in this dress, and it calls to mind a remark made by Mr. Wheler, in his History of Stratford-upon-Avon, of the probability of a picture being in existence from which the monumental bust was taken; which suggestion Mr. Wivell in his Inquiry into the History and Antiquities of the Shakespeare Portraits, quotes, and appears to adopt.

"This picture came into the hands of the present owner (through his father) from his grandfather, William Hunt, Esq., to whom it probably passed, with some other old paintings, in the purchase of his house from the Clopton Family in 1758. The house had then been uninhabited for several years, since the death of its former owner and occupier, Edward Clopton (nephew of Sir Hugh Clopton), which took place in 1753."

When Mr. Collins had finished cleaning the picture, but before it was taken to London to be "restored," some photographs of it were taken by a Stratford photographer. Using one of these photographs, Mr. John Rabone, of Birmingham, had a large painting executed, of the same size as the original portrait. This copy is of great value, as it represents the original as it was immediately after Mr. Collins cleaned it, and before it had been retouched in the process of restoration. Mr. Rabone states that the latter process has caused much alteration in the original portrait. His copy agrees in all particulars with the photographs taken by the Stratford photographer immediately after the portrait was cleaned. In his copy the lines follow this first photograph exactly, and the expression of the face, as it originally was, is faithfully reproduced. The pose of the figure is now somewhat different, and the face has been

altered.

When the picture was returned to Stratford,

after undergoing this "restoration," the members of the Birmingham Archæological Association went there to see it. In a lecture lately delivered in Birmingham, by Mr. Rabone, on the portraits of Shakespeare, he referred to this visit and said: "It was in the little theatre which then stood on the site of New Place, and beside it was placed a model of the bust in the church, in colors, just as it had been left from the cleaning. Mr. Collins, who was present, on being questioned about the picture, said he was not there to say what he had done to it, except that he had used every means of his art to make the picture as perfect and as near as was possible to what it was originally, and all he had to say was that the results were before them. It was in a very dilapidated condition, and he had done. his best to restore it. A good deal of criticism took place. It was very evident that there was a great similarity between the painting and the bust. The colors were the same, and the creases and folds of the dress in the one exactly resembled those in the other, from which it was evident either that the painting had been copied from the bust, or the bust from the painting. It was pointed out that the painting contained numerous little life-like points which were altogether wanting in the bust, and therefore it was generally thought more probable that as the bust had been made by a mere tomb-maker,' as Gerard Johnson was, it would be unlikely those delicate little touches in the painting should be reproduced by him in the stone.'

When the picture was first discovered it excited great interest, and much discussion took place as to whether it was the original picture from which the Stratford bust was made, or only a copy from the latter. For there is certainly a very strong resemblance between the two, and the costume of the one is exactly reproduced in the other. The curls of the hair, the arrangement of the beard, and the general coloring of the two also exactly correspond. Such resemblance shows that either the bust was made from the picture, or the picture from the bust, unless indeed both were made from life. That the bust was sculptured during Shakespeare's lifetime no one has suggested-on the contrary, the universal opinion is that it was made after his death, and many have thought from a death mask. The majority of writers have said that the Stratford portrait was painted long after the bust was made, and that the picture was copied from the bust. This I think is exceedingly probable-indeed almost certain, although not capable of actual proof. The portrait does not seem to be of sufficient age to warrant any other conclusion.

In 1769 Garrick inaugurated a " jubilee" at Stratford-on-Avon, during which there occurred processions of persons representing the characters of Shakespeare's plays, dramatic performances in a building erected for that purpose, and other observances. It was a great time for Stratford, and elaborate preparations were made by the townspeople, as well as by those who came from London. It is very probable that the Stratford portrait was painted from the bust in the church at this time, and afterwards preserved, either for its own merits, or as a relic of the jubilee.

But how can the strange condition in which it was found by Mr. Collins be accounted for? Who painted over the face with a full beard, and disguised the red and black costume of the figure? The high respectability of Mr. William Oakes Hunt and his father, in whose possession the portrait was for many years, forbids the idea of any deception from that quarter. It has been suggested that it was thus painted over in Puritanical times to preserve it, as it is well known many other portaits have been treated when players were unpopular. But the apparent modernness of the portrait renders this conjecture most improbable.

Mr. Charles Wright was a strong believer in the genuineness of this picture. The Athenaum of March 30th, 1861, contained an article criticising the portrait very severely, in which the writer stated it had "no merit of any kind, not even that of age; it is a modern daub, possibly a tavern sign, a Shakespeare's Head,' probably made up for some purpose connected with the jubilee." This criticism angered Mr. Wright, who wrote a letter to the London Times, dated April 2d, 1861. In this he takes the Athenæum writer to task. Subsequently he wrote two other letters to The Times, dated April 12th and April 22d, 1861, neither of which that journal published. He, therefore, printed them in pamphlet form, and also a longer pamphlet on the Stratford portrait, dated May 31st, 1861. In all of these he warmly advocates the claims of this portrait to be considered as an original one.

About this time Mr. J. O. HalliwellPhillipps wrote: "It is very clear that either the bust was copied from the painting, or the painting from the bust; but having seen the picture, I cannot for a moment longer imagine that the former position can be ultimately established, and I fancy that it is one somewhat unlikely in itself to be correct, even were the painting of the requisite antiquity. I have little, if any, doubt that this portrait wis copied from the bust, at the very earliest some time in the first half of the last century, but more

143

probably, as Mr. Dixon has suggested, about the time of the Jubilee. As a memento of the last-named event, it is of interest and even of pecuniary value; but that interest and value will be absorbed in an estimation of another kind if an attempt be made to give it precedence of the bust. I can only say that Gertrude's son never so astonished his mother as the sight of this picture astonished me, when it put to flight an expectation to see what so many have desired to behold, yet have never seen."

Among the few favorable criticisms of this portrait was one contained in The Examiner of May 18th, 1861. That journal remarked concerning the similarity between the bust and the portrait, and said: "But nothing in the portrait suggests that it was copied from the bust. The lower part, of course, does not follow the manner of the statuary, and from that fact no conclusion can be drawn. But in the face lies the main evidence. The picture is of such small value as artist's work, that we hardly can credit the painter with the power he must have had of turning stone into life when he added expression in the play of feature to the corners of the mouth and achieved a successful transformation of the nose. Shakespeare has in the portrait a nose in good harmony with the rest of his face, not insignificant, as on the bust, and differing in outline, especially by a well-marked curve between the root and the tip that in a copyist from the bust would have been an error hardly probable. As a suggestion of the face of Shakespeare the portrait is to be preferred, and there is nothing stony in its look, nothing to discredit at first sight any belief that it may have been a copy from life by one who was a tolerably faithful, although not a first-rate, portrait-painter. The bust, as our readers know, was modelled some time after death, when use was to be made of all possible aids to memory."

The portrait is evidently not the work of an artist of much ability, and yet there are good points in it. The eyes are well done, and have a good expression. The picture represents Shakespeare as in the prime of life. The moustache is very small, and curled upwards, as in the bust. The tuft on the chin, also, corresponds to that on the bust. The costume is very similar.

Mr. Hunt was offered two thousand pounds for the picture by Mr. Jeremiah Matthews, of Birmingham, but he presented it to the town of Stratford-upon-Avon. It is preserved in the house on Henley Street, where the poet was born. It is there kept in a fire-proof case. The frame surrounding it is made from oak taken from the house. Above the frame there is the following inscription on a brass plate:

"This portrait of Shakespeare, after being in the possession of Mr. William Oakes Hunt, Town Clerk of Stratford, and his family, for upwards of a century, was restored to its original condition by Mr. Simon Collins, of London, and being considered a portrait of much interest and value, was given by Mr. Hunt to the town of Stratford-upon-Avon, to be placed and preserved in Shakespeare's house.-23d April, 1862."

There is painted on the case of the frame the following inscription: "This case was made from a portion of the waste wood which formed part of the old structure of Shakespeare's house."

Inside the iron doors of the fire-proof case in which the picture is kept, there are silver plates, bearing the familiar line from The Merchant of Venice:

"Fast bind, fast find, a proverb never stale in thrifty mind."

In March, 1861, Mr. Simon Collins published a large photograph of this picture which represents the portrait as entirely different in expression from its present condition. The negative has been much "touched up" and altered. Indeed it is not generally known how great a change in the expression of a face can be made in a photograph by this process. Dr. C. M. Ingleby was desirous of obtaining a photograph which correctly represented the Stratford portrait, and he went to a good deal of trouble to attain his object, only to meet with an utter failure. He took one of Mr. Collins' photographs, referred to above, which was painted upon by Mr. Collins, after the original picture, and then photographed again. The result was painted upon by Mr. Munns, of Birmingham, after the original, and then photographed by H. J. Whitlock. Dr. Ingleby then took the lastnamed photograph to Stratford-upon-Avon in October, 1872, and compared it with the original picture. He says that he was unable to discover the slightest resemblance between the two faces. And I do not wonder that he was not, for he sent me one of the photographs, and anything more unlike the original can hardly be imagined. The whole expression of the face has been changed by the repeated "touching up" that it has undergone, and it looks like another picture altogether.

The best photograph of the Stratford portrait is that published in Friswell's Life Portraits of William Shakespeare, although those in different copies of the book vary very much, having been printed from a number of negatives; and some of the latter have been more successfully "touched up" than others.

I am indebted to the kindness of Mr. John Rabone for two photographs of the Stratford portrait, such as are now sold in that town as correct delineations of the picture. One represents the picture and the frame, and the other is larger, and omits the frame. Both show the hair frizzed up in the most peculiar manner, utterly unlike the curling locks of the painting itself. This, of course, is the result of injudicious alteration of the negatives. The eyebrows are also lengthened, and a new background supplied, the lights and shadows altered, and many minor changes made. In frizzing the hair in these pictures it has been brought further forward, and the expression of the whole face thus altered. They were photographed by F. Bedford, and serve to show how unreliable photographs sometimes are, and yet being the result of a mechanical process many people think they must be accurate. The likenesses of our friends tell us, however, that this is not true.

VI. THE FELTON PORTRAIT.

On August 9th, 1794, William Richardson, a print-seller, of Castle St., Leicester Square, London, informed George Steevens, the wellknown Shakespearian editor and critic, that S. Felton, of Curzon Street, London, had in his possession an old portrait, which appeared to him to be similar to the Droeshout engraving in the folio editions of Shakespeare. Steevens took such great interest in everything relating to the great poet, whom he has done so much to illustrate, that he was naturally very anxious to see this portrait, and Mr. Richardson was allowed by Mr. Felton to bring it to Steevens and show it to him. Steevens was much struck with the resemblance between the portrait and Droeshout's plate, and believed, with many others, that it was the original picture from which Droeshout made his engraving. Steevens tells us that Droeshout "could follow the outlines of a face with tolerable accuracy, but usually left them as hard as if hewn out of a rock. Thus, in the present instance, he has servilely transferred the features of Shakespeare from the painting to the copper, omitting every trait of the mild and benevolent character which his portrait so decidedly affords."

It appears that Mr. Felton purchased this portrait, on May 31st, 1792, for five guineas, from J. Wilson, who had a museum in King Street, St. James Square. In the catalogue of "The fourth Exhibition and Sale by private Contract at the European Museum, King Street, St. James's Square, 1792" appears the following entry: "No. 359. A curious portrait of Shakespeare, painted in 1597.”

If Mr. Wilson really believed that it was a genuine portrait of Shakespeare, painted by a contemporary of the poet's, in 1597, it was very singular that he should have been willing to part with it for the small sum of five guineas.

After its purchase by Mr. Felton, the latter desired to obtain some further information concerning its history, and applied to Mr. Wilson for details as to where he had obtained it. In reply Mr. Wilson wrote him as follows:

145

On August 11th, 1794, two years after this letter to Mr. Felton, Mr. Wilson told Steevens a very different story. The latter says that Wilson assured him that this portrait was found between four and five years ago at a broker's shop in the Minories, by a man of fashion, whose name must be concealed; that it afterwards came (attended by the Eastcheap story, etc.) with a part of that gentleman's collection of paintings, to be sold at the European Museum, and was exhibited there for about three months, during which

time it was seen by Lord Leicester and Lord Oxford, who both allowed it to be a genuine picture of Shakespeare."

What peculiar qualifications these gentlemen possessed which enabled them to judge of the genuiness of this portrait is not stated, but Steevens takes occasion to remark that "it is natural to suppose that the mutilated state of it prevented either of their Lordships from becoming its purchaser." On the contrary, they allowed Mr. Wilson to buy it for a mere song as he must have done to enable him to