The mystery that surrounds
much in the life and work of Shakespeare extends also to his
portraiture. The fact that the only two likenesses of the poet that can
be regarded as carrying the authority of his co-workers, his friends,
and relations— yet neither of them a life-portrait—differ in certain
essential points, has opened the door to controversy and encouraged the
advance and acceptance of numerous wholly different types. The result
has been a swarm of portraits which may be classed as follows: (1) the
genuine portraits of persons not Shakespeare but not unlike the various
conceptions of him; (2) memorial portraits often based on one or other
of accepted originals, whether those originals are worthy of acceptance
or not; (3) portraits of persons known or unknown, which have been
fraudulently “faked” into a resemblance of Shakespeare; and (4) spurious
fabrications especially manufactured for imposition upon the public,
whether with or without mercenary motive. It is curious that some of the
crudest and most easily demonstrable frauds have been among those which
have from time to time been, and still are, most eagerly accepted and
most ardently championed. There are few subjects which have so imposed
upon the credulous, especially those whose intelligence might be
supposed proof against the chicanery practised upon them. Thus, in the
past, a president of the Royal Academy in England, and many of the
leading artists and Shakespearian students of the time, were found to
support the genuineness, as a contemporary portrait of the poet, of a
picture which, in its faked Shakespeare state, a few months before was
not even in existence. This, at least, proves the intense interest taken
by the world in the personality of Shakespeare, and the almost
passionate desire to know his features. It is desirable, therefore, to
describe those portraits which have chief claim to recollection by
reason either of their inherent interest or of the notoriety which they
have at some time enjoyed; it is to be remarked that such notoriety once
achieved never entirely dies away, if only because the art of the
engraver, which has usually perpetuated them either as large plates, or
as illustrations to reputable editions of the works, or to commentaries
or biographies, sustains their undeserved credit as liken’esse6 more or
less authentic.
Exhaustive study of the subject, extended over a series of years, has
brought the present writer to the conclusion—identical with that
entertained by leading Shakespearian authorities— that two portraits
only can be accepted without question as authentic likenesses: the bust
(really a half-length statue) with its structural wall-monument in the
choir of Holy Trinity Church, Stratford-on-Avon, and the copper-plate
engraved by Martin Droeshout as frontispiece to the First Folio of
Shakespeare’s works (and used for three subsequent issues) published In
1623, although first printed in the previous year.
The Stratford bust and monument must have been erected on the N. wall of
the chancel or choir within six years after Shakespeare’s death in 1616,
as it is mentioned in the prefatory memorial lines by Leonard Digges in
the First Folio. The design in its general aspect was one often adopted
by the “ tombe-makers “of the period, though not originated by them, and
according to Dugdale was executed by a Fleming resident in London since
1567, Garratt Johnson (Gerard Janssen), a denizen, who was occasionally
a collaborator with Nicholas Stone. The bust is believed to have been
commissioned by the poet’s son-in-law, Dr John Hall, and, like the
Droeshout print, must have been seen by and likely enough had the
approval of Mrs Shakespeare, who did not die until August 1623. It is
thought to have been modelled from either a life or death mask, and
inartistic as it is has the marks of facial individuality; that is to
say, it is a portrait and not a generalization such as was common in
funereal sculpture. According to the practice of the day, especially at
the hands of Flemish sculptors of memorial figures, the bust was
coloured; this is sufficient to account for the technical summariness of
the modelling and of the forms. Thus the eyebrows are scarcely more than
indicated by the chisel, and a solid surface represents the teeth of the
open mouth; the brush was evoked to supply effect and detail. To the
colour, as reapplied after the removal of the white paint with which
Malone had the bust covered in 1793, must be attributed a good deal of
the wOoden appearance which is now a shock to many. The bust is of soft
stone (not alabaster, as incorrectly stated by “the accurate Dugdale “),
but a careful examination of the work reveals no sign of the alleged
breakage and restoration or reparation to which some writers have
attributed the apparently inordinate length of the upper lip. As a
matter of fact the lip is not long; it is less than. seven-eighths of an
inch:
the appearance is to a great extent an optical illusion, the result
partly of the smallness of the nose and, especially, of the thinness of
the moustache that shows the flesh above and below. Some repair was made
to the monument in 1649, and again in 1748, but there is no mention in
the church records of any meddling with the bust itself. Owing, however,
to the characteristic inaccuracy of the print by one of Hollars’
assistants in the illustration of Dugdale’s Antiquities of Warwickshire
(p. 688), the first edition of which was published in 1656, certain
writers have been misled into the belief that the whole monument and
bust were not merely restored but replaced by those which we see to-day.
As other prints in the volume depart grossly from the objects
represented, and as Dugdale, like Vertue (whose punctilious accuracy has
also been baselessly extolled by Walpole), was at times demonstrably
loose in his descriptions and presentments, there is no reason to
believe that the bust and the figures above it are other than. those
originally placed in position. Other engravers, following the Dugdale
print, have further stultified the original, but as they (Vertue,
Grignion, Foudrinier, and others) differ among themselves, little
importance need be attached to the circumstance. A warning should be
uttered against many of the so-called” casts” of the busts. George
Bullock took a cast in 1814 and Signor A. Michele another about forty
years after, but those attributed to W. R. Kite, W. Scoular, and others,
are really copies, departing from the original in important details as
well as in general effect. It is from these that many persons derive
incorrect impressions of the bust itself.
Mention should here be made of the “Kesselstadt Death Mask, “now at
Darmstadt, as that has been claimed as the true death-mask of
Shakespeare, and by it the authenticity of other portraits has been
gauged. It is not in fact a death-mask at all, but a cast from one and
probably not even a direct cast. In three places on the back of it is
the inscription—+A~D~i 1616:
and this is the sole actual link with Shakespeare. Among the many
rapturous adherents of the theory was William Page, the American
painter, who made many measurements of the mask and found that nearly
half of them agreed with those of the Stratford bust; the greater number
which do not he conveniently attributed to error in the sculptor. The
cast first came to light ~fl 1849, having been searched for by Dr.
Ludwig Becker, the owner of a miniature in oil or parchment representing
a corpse crowned with a wreath, lying in bed, while on the background,
next to a burning candle, is the date —Ao 1637. This little picture was
by tradition asserted to be Shakespeare, although the likeness, the
death-date, and the wreath all point unmistakably to the poet-laureate
Ben Jonson. Dr Becker had purchased it at the death-sale at Mainz of
Count Kesselstadt in 1847, in which also “a plaster of Paris cast” (with
no suggestion of Shakespeare then attached to it) had appeared. This he
found in a broker’s rag-shop, assumed it to be the same, recognized in
it a resemblance to the picture (which most persons cannot see) and so
came to attribute to it the enormous historical value which it would,
were his hypothesis correct, unquestionably possess. In searching for
the linjm of evidence necessary to be established, through the
Kesselstadt line to England and Shakespeare, a theory has been
elaborated, but nothing has been proved or carried beyond the point of
bare conjecture. The arguments against the authenticity of the cast are
strong and cogent— the chief of which is the fact that the skull
reproduced is fundamentally of a different form and type from that shown
in. the Droeshout print—the forehead is receding instead of upright.
Other important divergencies occur. The handsome, refined, and pleasing
aspect of the mask accounts for much of the favour in which it has been
held. It was believed in by Sir Richard Owen and was long on view in.
the BrItish Museum, and was shown in the Stratford Centenary Exhibition
In. 1864.
The “ Droeshout print “ derives its importance from its having been
executed at the order of Heminge and Condell to represent, as a
frontispiece to the Plays, and put forth as his portrait, the man and
friend to whose memory they paid the homage of their risky enterprise.
The volume was to be his real monument, and the work was regarded by
them as a memorial erected in a spirit of love, piety, and veneration.
Mrs Shakespeare must have seen the print; Ben Jonson extolled it. His
dedicatory verses, however, must be regarded in the light of
conventional approval as commonly expressed in that age of the
performances of portrait-engravers and habitually inscribed beneath
them. It is obvious, therefore, that in the circumstances an authentic
portrait must necessarily have been. the basis of the engraving; and Sir
George Scharf, judging from the contradictory lights and shadows in the
head, concluded that the original must have been a limning—more or less
an outline drawing—which the youthful engraver was required to put into
chiaroscuro, achieving his task with but very partial success. That this
is the case is proved by the so-called “unique proof” discovered by
Halliwell-Phiffips, and now in America. Another copy of it, also an
early proof but not in quite the same “ state,” is in the Bodleian
Library. No other example is known. In this plate the head is far more
human. The nose is here longer than in the bust, but the bony structure
corresponds. In the proof, moreover, there is a thin, wiry moustache,
much widened in the print as used; and in several other details there
are important divergencies. In this engraving by Droeshout the head is
far too large for the body, and the dress—the costume of well-to-do
persons of the time—is absurdly out of perspective:
an additional argument that the unpractised engraver had only a drawing
of a head to work from, for while the head shows the individuality of
portraiture the body is as clearly done de c/sic. The first proof is
conclusive evidence against the contention that the “ Flower Portrait
“at the Shakespeare Memorial Museum, Stratford-on-Avon—the gift of Mrs
Charles Flower (1895) and boldly entitled the “Droeshout original “— is
the original painting from which the engraving was made, an.d is
therefore the actual life-portrait for which Shakespeare sat. This view
was entertained by many connoisseurs of repute until it was pointed out
that had that been the case the first proof, if it had been engraved
from it, would have resembled it in all particulars, for the engraver
would have merely copied the picture before him. Instead of that, we
find that several details in the proof—the incorrect illumination, the
small moustache, the shape of the eyebrow and of the deformed ear,
&c.—have been corrected in the painting, in which further improvements
are also imported. The conclusion is therefore irresistible. At the same
time the picture may possibly be the earliest painted portrait in
existence of the poet, for so far as we can judge of it in its present
condition —(it was to some extent injured by fire at the Alexandra
Palace)
—it was probably executed in the earlier half of the I 7th century. The
inscription—Willsi Shakespeare, 1609—is suspect on. account of being
written in cursive script, the only known example at the date to which
it professes to belong. If it were authentic it might be taken as
showing us Shakespeare’s appearance seven years before his death, and
fourteen years before the ‘publication of the Droeshout print. The
former attribution of it to Cornelis Janssen’s brush has been
abandoned—it is the work of a comparatively unskilful craftsman. The
picture’s pedigree cannot definitely be traced far back, but that is of
little import-~ ance, as plausible pedigrees have often been
manufactured to bolster up the most obvious impostures. The most
interesting of the copies or adaptations of this portrait is perhaps
that by William Blake now in the Manchester Corporation Art Gallery. One
of the cleverest imitations, if such it be, of an old picture is the “
Buttery “or “ Ellis portrait, “acquired by an American collector in
I9c~2. This small picture, on panel, is very poor judged as a work of
art, but it has all the appearance of age. In this case the perspective
of the dress has been corrected, and Shakespeare’s shield is shown. on
the background. The head is that of a middle-aged man; the moustache,
contrary to the usual type, is drooping. It is curious that the”Thurston
miniature “done from the Droeshout print gives the moustache of the
“proof.
Two other portraits of the same character of head and arrangement are
the “ Ely Palace portrait “ and the “ Felton portrait,” both of which in
their time have had, and still have, convinced believers. The “Ely
Palace portrait “was discovered in 1845. in a broker’s shop, and was
bought by Thomas Turton, bishop of Ely, who died in 1864, when it was
bought by Henry Graves and by him was presented to the Birthplace. An
unsatisfactory statement of its history, similar to that of many other
portraits, was put forth; the picture must be judged on its merits. It
bears the inscription “~ 39 + 1603,” and it shows a moustache and a
right eyebrow identical with those in the Droeshout “proof.” It was
therefore hailed by many competent judges as the original of the print;
by others it was dismissed as a “make-up “:
at the same time it is very far from being a proved fraud. Supposing
both it and the “Flower portrait” to be genuine, this picture, which
came to light long before the latter, antedates it by six years. Judged
by the test of the Droeshout “proof” it must have preceded and not
followed it. The “Felton portrait,” which made its first appearance in
1792, had the valiant championship of the astute and cynical Steevens,
of Britton, Drake, and other authorities, as the original of the
Droeshout print, while a few—those who believed in the “Chandos portrait
“—denounced it as “a rank forgery.” On the back of the panel was boldly
traced in a florid hand" Gui. Shakespear 159~ R.B.” (by others read “R.N.”).
If RB. is correct, it is contended the initials indicate Richard Burbage,
Shakespeare’s fellow-actor. Traces of the writing may still he detected.
Boaden’s copy, made in 1792, repeating the inscription on the back, has
“ Guil. Shakspeare 1587 RN.” The spelling of Shakespeare’s name—which in
succeeding ages has been governed by contemporary fashion—has a distinct
bearing on the authenticity of the panel. At the first appearance of
the” Felton portrait “in a London sale-room it was bought by Samuel
Felton of Drayton, Shropshire, for five pounds, along with a pedigree
which carried its refutation along with it. Nevertheless, it bears
evidence of being an honest painting done from life, and is probably not
a make-up in the sense that most of the others are. It fell into the
hands of Richardson the printseller, who issued fraudulent engravings of
it by Trotter and others (by which it is best known), causing the
characteristic lines of the shoulders to be altered, so that it is set
upon a body attired in the Droeshout costume, which does not appear in
the picture; and then, arguing from this falsely-introduced costume, the
publisher maintained that the work was the original of the Droeshout
print and therefore a life-portrait of Shakespeare. Thus foisted on the
public it enjoyed for years a great reputation, and no one seems to have
recognized that with its down-turned moustache it agrees with the
inaccurate print after the Droeshout engraving which was published as
frontispiece to Ayscough’s edition of Shakespeare in 1790, i.e. two
years before the discovery of the Felton portrait I The “Napier
portrait,” as the excellent copy by John Boaden is known, has recently
been presented to the Shakespeare Memorial. Josiah Boydell also made a
copy of the picture for George Steevens in ‘797. Quite a number of
capital miniatures from it are in existence. With these should be
mentioned a picture of a similar type discovered by Mr M. H. Spielmann
in 1905. Finding a wretched copy of the Chandos portrait executed on a
panel about three hundred years old, he had the century-old paint
cleaned off in order to ascertain the method of the forger. On the
disappearance of the Chandos likeness under the action of the spirit
another portrait of Shakespeare was found beneath, irretrievably damaged
but obviously painted in the 17th century. At the time of the “fake”
only portraits of the Chandos type were saleable, and this would account
for the wanton destruction of an interesting work which was probably
executed for a publisher—likely enough for Jacob Tonson—but not used.
Early as it is in date it can make no claim to be a life-portrait.
The “Janssen” or “ Somerset portrait” is in many respects the most
interesting painted likeness of Shakespeare, and undoubtedly the finest
of all the paintings in the series. It is certainly a genuine as well as
a very beautiful picture of the period, and bears the
inscription—~i~6—but doubt has been expressed whether the 6 of 46 has
not been tampered with, and whether it was not originally an o and
altered to fit Shakespeare’s age. It was made known through Earlom’s
rare mezzotint of it, but the public knowledge of it has been mainly
founded on Cooper’s and Turner’s beautiful but misleading mezzotint
plates until a photograph of the original was published for the first
time in 1909 (in The Connoisseur) by permission of the owner, the Lady
Guendolen Ramsden, daughter of the duke of Somerset, the former owner of
the picture. The resemblance to the main forms of the death-mask is
undoubted; but that is of little consequence as confirmation unless the
mask itself is supported by something beyond vague conjectures. Charles
Jennens, the wealthy and eccentric amateur editor o~ the poor edition of
King Lear issued in 1770, was the first known owner, but vouchsafed no
information of its source and shrank from the cha’llenge to produce the
picture. Of the beauty, excellence, and originality of this portrait
there is no question; it is more than likely that Janssen was the author
of it; but that it was intended to represent Shakespeare is still to be
proved. A number of good copies of it exist, all but one (which enjoys a
longer pedigree) made in the 18th century: the “ Croker J anssen” now
lost, unless it be that of Lord Darnley’s; the Staunton Janssen,” the
“Buckston Janssen,” the “Marsden Janssen,” and the copy in the
possession of the duke of Anhalt. These are all above the average merit
of such work.
The portrait which has made the most popular appeal is that called the “
Chandos,” formerly known as the “d’Avenant,” the” Stowe, “and the”
Ellesmere, “ according as it passed from hand to hand; it is now in the
National Portrait Gallery. Tradition, tainted at the ‘outset, attributes
the authorship of it to Richard Burbage, although it is impossible that
the painter of the head in the Dulwich Gallery could have produced a
work so good in technique; and Burbage is alleged to have given it to
his fellow-actor Joseph Taylor, who bequeathed it to Sir William
d’Avenant, Shakespeare’s godson. As a matter of fact, Taylor died
intestate. Thenceforward, whether or not it belonged to d’Avenant, its
history is clear. At the great Stowe sale of the effects of the duke of
Buckingham and Chandos (who had inherited it) the earl of Ellesmere
bought it and then presented it to the nation. Many serious inquirers
have refused to accept this romantic, swarthy, Italian-looking head here
depicted as a likeness of Shakespeare of the Midlands, if only because
in every important physiognomical particular, and in face-measurement,
it is contradicted by the Stratford bust and the Droeshout print. It is
to be noted, however, that judged by the earlier copies of it—which
agree in. the main points— some of the swarthiness complained of may be
due to the restorer. Oldys, indifferent to tradition, attributed it to
Janssen, an unallowable ascription. This, except the “Lumley portrait,”,
the “ Burdett Coutts portrait,” and the admitted fraud, the “Dunford
portrait,” is the only picture of Shakespeare executed before the end of
the 18th century which represents the poet with earrings—the wearing of
which, it should be noted, either simple gold circles or decorated with
jewel-drops, was a fashion that extended over two centuries, in England
mainly, if not entirely, affected by nobles and exquisites. Contrary to
the general belief, the picture has not been subjected to very extensive
repair. That it was not radically altered by the restorer is proved by
the fine copy painted by Sir Godfrey Kneller, and by him presented to
John Dryden. The poet acknowledged’ the gift in his celebrated
Fourteenth Epistle, written after 1691 and published in 1694, and
containing the passage beginning, “Shakespeare, thy gift, I place before
my sight; With awe I ask his blessing ere I write.” D’Avenant had died
in 1668, and so could not, as tradition contends was the case, have been
the donor. In Malone’s time the picture was already in the possession of
the earl Fitzwffliam. This at least proves the esteem in which the
Chandos portrait was held so far back as the end of the 17th century,
only three-quarters of a century after Shakespeare’s death.
From among the innumerable copies and adaptations of the Chandos
portrait a few emerge as having a certain importance of their own. That
which Sir Joshua Reynolds is traditionally said to have made for the use
of Roubiliac, then engaged in his statue of Shakespeare for David
Garrick (flow in the British Museum), and another alleged to have been
done for Bishop Newton, are now lost. That by Ranelagh Barret was
presented in ‘779 to Trinity College Library, Cambridge, by the
Shakespearian commentator Edward Capell. Dr Matthew Maty, principal
librarian of the British Museum, presented his copy to the museum in
1760. There are also the smooth but rather original copy (with drapery
added) belonging to the earl of Bath at Longleat; the Warwick Castle
copy; the fair copy known as the Lord St Leonards portrait; the large
copy in coloured crayons, formerly in the Jennens collection and now
belonging to Lord Howe, by van der Gucht, which seems to be by the same
hand as that which executed the pastel portrait of Chaucer in the
Bodleian Library; the “Clopton miniature” attributed to John Michael
Wright, which formed the basis of the drawing by Arlaud, by whose name
the engravings of this modified type are usually known; the Shakespeare
Hirst picture, based on Houbraken’s engraving; the full-size chalk
drawing by Ozias Humphry, R.A., at the Birthplace, which Malone
guaranteed to be a perfect transcript, but which more resembles the late
W. P. Frith, R.A., than Shakespecre. Humphry also, adhering to his
modified type, executed three beautiful but inaccurate miniatures from
the picture, one of which is in the Garrick Club, and the others in
private hands.
The “Lumley portrait” is in type a curious blend of the faces in the
Chandos portrait and the Droeshout print, with a dash of the “ Auriol
miniature “ (see later). It represents a heavy-jowled man with pursed-up
flps, and with something of the expression but little of the vitality of
the Chandos. Although it is thought to be indicated though not actually
mentioned in the Lumley sale catalogues of 1785 and 1807, it was only
when it came into the possession of George Rippon, presumably about the
year 1848, that it was brought to the notice of the world, and
additional attention was secured by the owner’s contention that it was
the original of the Chandos. It is claimed that the picture originally
belonged to the portrait collector John, Lord Lumley, of Lumley castle,
Durham, who died in 1609, and descended to Richard, the 4th earl of
Scarborough, and George Augustus, the 5th earl, at whose respective
sales at the dates mentioned it was put up to auction. On the first
occasion it was bought in, and on the second it was acquired by George
Walters. It is to be observed, however, that it does not appear by name
in the early inventory, and it is unconvincingly claimed that it was
mistakenly entered as Chaucer, a portrait of whom is mentioned. When in
the possession of George Rippon the picture was so superbly
chromo-lithographed by Vincent Brooks that copies of it, mounted on old
panel or canvas, and varnished, have often changed hands as original
paintings. It is clear that if the picture was indeed in possession of
John, Lord Lumley, we have here a contemporary portrait of Shakespeare,
and the fact that it is an amateur performance would in no way
invalidate the claim. It is thinly painted and scarcely looks the age
that is claimed for it; but it is an interesting work, which, in 1875,
entered the collection of the late Baroness Burdett-Coutts.
To Frederigo Zuccaro are attributed three of the more important
portraits now to be mentioned; upon him also have been foisted several
of the more impudent fabrications herein named. The “ Bath” or “Archer
portrait “—it having been in the possession of the Bath Librarian,
Archer, when attention was first drawn to it in 1859—is worthy of
Zuccaro’s brush. It is Italian in feeling, with an inscription (“ W.
Shakespear “) in an Italian but apparently more modern hand. The type of
head, too, is Italian, and it is curious that in certain respects it
bears some resemblance not only to the Chandos, and to the Droeshout and
Janssen portraits, but also to the “death-mask”; yet it differs in
essentials from all. Certain writers have affirmed that Reynolds in one
of his Discourses expressed his faith in the picture; but the alleged
passage cannot be identified. This eloquent, refined, and well-bred head
suggests an Italian noble, or, if an English poet, a man of the type of
Edmund Spenser; a lady-love shoe-string, or “twist” (often used to tie
on a jewel), threads the ear and a fine lace ruff frames the head. The
whole picture is beautifully painted by a highly accomplished artist. If
this portrait represents Shakespeare at about the age of 30, that is to
say in 1594, the actor-dramatist had made astonishing progress in the
world, and become well-todo, and had adopted the attire of a dandy. But
Zuccaro came to England in 1574, and as his biographers state “did not
stay long, “ and returned to Florence to complete the work at the Duomo
there begun by Vasari. The conclusion appears to be definite. The
picture was acquired for the Baroness BurdettCoutts by W. H. Wills.
Stronger objection applies to the “Boston Zuccaro” or “Joy portrait,”
now in Boston, U.S.A. A Mr Benjamin Joy, who emigrated from London to
Boston, owned a picture with a doubtful pedigree—transparently a
manufactured tradition. R. S. Greenough, the American sculptor, used it
along with “other authentic portraits “ to produce his bust. In parts it
has been viciously restored, but it is in very fair condition and
appears to be a good picture of the Flemish school. In the vague
assertion that it was found in the Globe Tavern which was frequented by
Shakespeare and his associates, no credence can be placed, if only
because no such tavern is known to have existed.
The “Cosway Zuccaro portrait” is now in America; but the reproduction of
it exists in England in the miniature of it by Cosway’s pupil, Charlotte
Jones, as well as in tile rare mezzotint by Hanna Greene. The picture is
alleged to have disappeared from the possession of Richard Cosway; it
was sold in his sale, however, and passed through the hands of Lionel
Booth and of Augustin Daly. No one would imagine that it is intended for
a portrait of the poet. It is far more like Shelley (somewhat
caricatured, especially as to the cat-like eyes and the Mephistophelian
eyebrows) or Torquato Tasso. The attribution to Zuccaro is absurd, yet
Cosway and Sir Charles Eastlake believed in it. The inscription on the
back, “Guglielm:
Shakespear,” with its mixture of Italian and English, resembles in
wording and spelling that adopted in the case of several admitted
“fakes.” No attempt at discovering the history of the picture was ever
made, but there is no doubt that at the beginning of the ,9th century it
was widely credited; Wivell and others attributed it to Lucas Franchois.
It is said to be well painted, but the copies show that it is ill drawn.
The miniature by Charlotte Jones, a fashionable artist in her day, is
pretty and weak, but well executed; it was painted in 1823.
Of the “ Burdett-Coutts portrait “ (the fourth interesting portrait of
Shakespeare in the possession of Mr Burdett-Coutts) there is no history
whatever to record. No name has been suggested for the artist, but the
hands and accessories of dress strongly resemble those in the portrait
of Elizabeth Hardwick, countess of Shrewsbury, in the National Portrait
Gallery. The ruff, painted with extreme care, reveals a pentimento. The
picture is admirably executed, but the face is weak and is the least
satisfactory part of it; especially feeble is the ear with the ring.
Shakespeare’s shield, crest, with red mantling, which appear
co-temporary with the rest, and the figures “37 “ beneath it, appear on
the background, in the n~nner adopted in 17thcentury portraits. From
this picture the “ Craven. portrait ‘ seems to have been “faked.”
Equally striking is the “Ashbourne portrait,” well known through G. F.
Storm’s engraving of it. It is sometimes called the “Kilgston portrait
“as the first known ownerof it was the Rev. Clement U. Kingston, who
issued the engraving in 1847. It is an important three-quarter length,
representing a figure in black standing beside a table at the corner of
which is a skull whereon the figure rests his right forearm. It is an
acceptable likeness of Shakespeare, in the manner of Paul van Somer,
apparently pure except in the ruff. The inscription “ ~‘ETATIS svAE. 47.
A° 1611,” and the decoration of cross spears on a book held by the right
hand, are also raised from the ground, so that it would be injudicious
to decide that these are not of a later date yet at the same time
ancient additions. It is the only picture—if we disregard the
inadmissible “Hampton Court portrait “—in which Shakespeare is shown
wearing a swordbelt and a thumb-ring, and holding a gauntleted glove.
The type is that of a refined, fresh-coloured, fair-haired English
gentleman. There is no record of the picture before Mr Kingston bought
it from a London dealer.
More famous, but less reputable, is the “ Stratford “ or “Hunt
portrait,” amusingly exhibited in an iron safe in the Birthplace at
Stratford, to which it was presented by W. 0. Hunt, town clerk, in 1867.
It had been in the Hunt family for many years and represented a
black-bearded man. Simon Collins, the picture cleaner and restorer who
had cleansed the Stratford bust of Malone’s white paint and restored its
colours, declaring that another picture was beneath it, was engaged to
exercise himself upon it. He removed the top figure from the dilapidated
canvas with spirit and found beneath it the painted version of the
Stratford bust. At that time Mr Rabone’s copy, now at Birmingham, was
made; it is valuable as evidence. Then Collins, always a suspect in this
matter, proceeded with the restoration, and by treatment of the hair
made the portrait more than ever like the bust; and the owner, and not a
few others, proclaimed the picture to be the original from which the
bust was made. No judge of painting, however, accepts the picture as
dating further back than the latter half of the 18th century—when it was
probably executed, among a score of others, about the time of the
bicentenary of Shakespeare’s birth, an event which gave rise to much
celebration. The ingenious but entirely unconvincing explanations
offered to account for the state in which the picture was found need not
be recounted here.
The “Duke of Leeds’ portrait,” now at Hornby castle, has been for many
years in the family, but the circumstances of its provenance are
unknown. It has been. thought possible that this is the lost portrait of
which John Evelyn. speaks as having been in the collection of Lord
Chancellor Clarendon, the companion picture to that of Chaucer; but no
evidence has been adduced to support the conjecture. It represents a
handsome, fair man, with auburn beard, with an expression recalling the
Janssen portrait; the nose, however, is quite different. He wears a
standing “wired band,” as in the Droeshout print. It is a workmanlike
piece of painting, but there is nothing in the picture to connect it
with Shakespeare. The same maybe said of the” Welcombe portrait,” which
was bought by Mark Philips of Welcombe and descended to Sir George
Trevelyan. It is a fairly good picture, having some resemblance to the
“Boston Zuccaro” with something of the Chandos. The figure, a
half-length, wears a falling spiked collar edged with lace, and from the
ear a love-lace, the traces of which only are left. Two other portraits
at the Shakespeare Memorial should be named. The “Venice portrait,”
which was bought in Paris and is said to have come from Venice, bears an
Italian undecipherable inscription. on the back; it seems to have no
obvious connexion with Shakespeare apart from its exaggeration of the
general aspect of the Chandos portrait; it is a weak thing. The “Tonson
portrait,” inscribed on the frame “The Jacob Tonson Picture, 1735,” a
small oval, with the attributes of comedy and tragedy, is believed to
have been executed for Tonson’s 4th edition of Shakespeare, but not
used.
The “ Soest portrait “ (often called Zoust or Zoest), formerly known as
“ the Douglas,” the “ Lister Kaye” or the “ Clarges portrait,” according
to the owner of the moment, was for many years a public favourite,
mainly through j. Simon’s excellent mezzotint. The picture, a short
half-length within an oval, is manifestly meant for Shakespeare, but the
head as nearly resembles the bead of Christ at Lille by Charles
Delafosse (1636— 1716) who also painted pictures in England. Gerard
Soest was not born until 1637, and according to Granger the picture was
painted in Charles II.’s reign. It is a pleasing but weak head, possibly
based on the Chandos. The whereabouts of the picture is unknown., unless
it is that in. the possession of the earl of Craven. A numbef of copies
exist, two of which are at the Shakespeare Memorial. Simon’s print was
the first announcement of the existence of the picture, which at that
time belonged to an obscure painter, F. Wright of Covent Garden.
The “ Charlecote portrait,” which was exhibited publicly at Stratford in
1896, represents a burly, bull-necked man, whose chief resemblance to
Shakespeare lies in his baldness and hair, and in the wired band he
wears. The former possession of the picture by the Rev. John Lucy has
lent it a sort of reputation; but that gentleman bought it as recently
as 1853.
Similarly, the “Hampton Court portrait” derives such authority as it
possesses from the dignity of its owner and its habitat. William IV.
bought it as a portrait of Shakespeare, but without evidence, it is
suggested, from the de Lisles. This gorgeously attired officer in an
elaborate tunic of green and gold, with red bombasted trunks, with fine
worked sword and dagger pendent from the embroidered belt, and with a
falling ruff and laces from his ear, bears some distant resemblance to
the Chandos portrait. Above is inscribed, “i~ltat. suae. 34.” It appears
to be the likeness of a blue-eyed soldier; but it has been suggested
that the portrait represents Shakespeare in stage dress—a frequent
explanation for the strange attire of quaintly alleged portraits of the
poet. A copy of this picture was made by H. Duke about 1860. Similarly
unacceptable is the”H. Danby Seymour portrait” which has disappeared
since it was lent to the National Portrait Exhibition of 1866. This is a
fine three-quarter length in the Miervelt manner. The dignified
bald-headed man has a light beard, brown hair, and blue eyes, and wears
white lace-edged falling collars and cuffs over a doublet
gold-embroidered with points; and in the left hand holds a black hat.
The “Lytton portrait,” a royal gift made to Lord Lytton from Windsor
Castle, is mainly interesting as having been copied by Miller in his
original profile engraving of Shakespeare. The “Rendelsham” and “
Crooks” portraits also belong to the category of capital paintings
representing some one other than Shakespeare; and the same may be
hazarded of the “ Grafton “or “ Winston “portrait, the “ Sanders
portrait,” the “Gilliland portrait” (an old man’s head impudently
advanced), the striking “Thorne Court portrait,” the “Aston Cantlow
portrait,” the” Burn portrait,” the” Gwennet portrait,” the “ Wilson
portrait “ and others of the class.
Miniature-painting has assumed a certain importance in relation to the
subject. The “ Welbeck Abbey” or “ Harleian miniature,” is that which
Walpole caused to be engraved by Vertue for Pope’s edition of
Shakespeare (1723—1725), but which Oldys declared, incorrectly, to be a
juvenile portrait of James I. According to Scharf, it belonged to Robert
Harley, 1st earl of Oxford, but it is more likely that it was bought by
his son Edward Harley in the father’s lifetime. It already was in his
collection in 1719, but whence it ,came is not known. It has been
denounced as a piece of arrant sycophancy that Pope consented to adopt
this very beautiful but entirely unauthenticated portrait, which bears
little resemblance to any other accepted likeness (more, however, to the
Chandos than to the rest) simply in order to please the aristocratic
patron of his literary circle. It measures 2 in. high; Vertue’s
exquisite engraving, executed in 1721, enlarged it to 53/4, and became
the “authority” for numerous copies, British and foreign. The
“Somerville “ or “ Hilliard miniature,” belonging to Lord and Lady
Northcote, is claimed to have descended from Shakespeare’s friend,
Somerville of Edstone, grandfather of the poet William Somerville. It
was first publicly spoken of in 1818 when it was in the possession of
Sir James Bland Burges. It is certainly by Hilliard, but although Sir
Thomas Lawrence and many distinguished painters anti others agreed that
it was an original lifeportrait of the poet, few will be disposed to
give adherence to the theory, in view of its complete departure from
other portraits. It represents a pale man with flaxen hair and beady
eyes; yet’ in it B urges found “a general resemblance to the best busts
(sic) of Shakespeare,” and an attempt was made to prove a relationship
between the Ardens and the Somervilles—an untenable theory. The
miniature has frequently been exhibited and has figured in important
collections on its own merits. The well-known “Auriol miniature,” now in
America, is one of the least sympathetic and the least acceptable of the
Shakespeare miniatures, excellent though it is in technique. It has the
forehead and hair)of the Chandos, but it is utterly devoid of the
Shakespeare expression. In the background appears~ “ ~Ef 33.” The
costume is that worn by the highest in the’ land. It first appeared in
its present character ,in 1826, but it had been known for a few years
before, as being in the collection of “Dog” Jennings, and ultimately it
came into the hands of the collector, Charles Auriol. Its early history
is unknown. The other principal miniatures of interest, but lacking
authority, are the “Waring miniature,” the “Tomkinson miniature “
(which, like the “Hilliard “anti the” Auriol,” was formerly in the
Lumsden Propert collection), the doubtful “ Isaac Oliver miniature “
(alleged to have been in the Jaffe collection at Hamburg), the “Mackey”
and “Glen” miniatures, and those presented to the Shakespeare Memorial
by Lord Ronald Sutherland Gower, T. Kite, and Henry Graves. These are
all contemporary or early works. Miniature copies of recognized
portraits are numerous and many of them of high excellence, but they do
not call for special enumeration. That, however, by Mary Anne Nichols,
“an imitative cameo ‘after Roubiliac,” exhibited in the Royal Academy,
1848, claims notice. In this category are a number of enamels by
accomplished artists, the chief of them Henry Bone, R.A., H. P. Bone,
and W. Essex.
Several recorded painted portraits have disappeared, other than those
already mentioned; these include the “Earl of Oxford portrait “and the “
Challis portrait.” The “Countess of Zetland’s portrait,” which had its
adherents, was destroyed by fire.
Not a few of the existent representations of Shakespeare,
Unauthoritative as they are, were honestly produced as memorial
pictures. There is another class, the earnest attempts made to
reconstitute the face and form of the poet, combining withrir them the
best and most characteristic features of the earliest portraits. The
most successful, perhaps, is that by Ford Madox Brown, in the Manchester
Corporation Art Gallery. Those by J-~ F. Rigaud, R.A., and Henry Howard,
R.A., take a lower rank. It is ti~ be regretted that Gainsborough did
not execute the portrait for Garrick, for which he made serious
preparations. The” Booker portrait,” which gained wide publicity in
Stratford, might be included here; it has dignity, but the pigment
forbids us to allow the age claimed for it. The portraits by P. Kramer
and Rumpf are among the best recently executed in Germany. The
remarkable pen-and-ink drawings by Minanesi and Philip H. Newman deserve
to be remembered.
The” faked “portraits have been at times as ardently accepted as those
with some solid claim to consideration. The “ Shakespeare Marriage
picture,” with its rhyming confirmatory “tag “ intended as an
inscription, was discovered in 1872. It is a genuine Dutch picture uf
man aiid wife weighing out money in the foreground—a frequent
subject—while through the open door Shakespeare and, presumably, Ann
1-lathaway are seen going through the ceremony of handfasting. The
inscription and the Shakespeare head (probably the whole group) are
fakes. The “ Rawson portrait,” inscribed with the poet’s name, is faked;
it is really a beautiful little portrait of Lord Keeper Coventry by
Janssen. The “ Matthias Alexander portrait” shows a modern head on an
old body. The “ Belmount Hall portrait “ with its pseudo-Garrick MS.
inscription on the back, is in the present writer’s opinion not the
genuine thing which it claims to be. It represents the poet looking up
from his literary work. In the early part of the 19th century two clever
“ restorers,” Holder and Zincke, made a fairly lucrative trade of
fabricating spurious portraits of Shakespeare (as well as of Oliver
Cromwell and Nell Gwynn) and the clumsiness of most of them did not
impede a ready sale. The way in which they imposed upon scholars as well
as on the public is marvellous. Many of these impudent imposture~ won
wide acceptance, sometimes by the help of the fine engravings which were
made of them. Such are the” Stace “and’the” Dunford portraits “—so named
after the unscrupulous dealers who put them forward and promulgated
them. They have both disappeared, but of the lattor a copy is still in
existence known as the “ Dr Clay portrait.” The former is based upon the
portrait of Robert Carr, earl of Somerset. These are the two “
Winstanley portraits,” the “Bishop Newton,” the “Cygnus Avoniu,” the
“Norwich” or Boardman,” the” Bellows “or” Talma “portraits—most of them,
as well as others, traceable to one or other or both of the enterprising
fakers already named. At least a dozen are reinforced, as corroborative
evidence, with verses supposed to issue from the pen of Ben Jonson.
These are all to be attributed to one ready pseudoElizabethan writer
whose identity is known. With these pictures, apparently, should be
ranged the composition, now in America, purporting to represent
Shakespeare and Ben Jonson playing chess.
The “fancy-portraits” are not less numerous. The 18th-centur small
full-length “ Willett portrait “is at the Shakespeare Memoria It is a
charmingly touched-in little figure. There are many representations of
the poet in his study in the act of composition—they include those by
Benjamin Wilsun (Stratford Town Hall), John Boaden, John Faed, R.A., Sir
George Harvey, R.S.A., C. Bestland, B. J. N. Geiger, and the painter of
the Warwick Castle picttire, &c.; others have for subject Shakespeare
reading, either to the Court or to his family, by John Wood, E. Ender,
R. Westall, R.A., &c.; or the infancy and childhood of Shakespeare, by
George Romney (three pictures), T. Stothard, R.A., John Wood, James Sant,
R.A.; Shakespeare before Sir Thomas Lucy, by Sir G. Harvey, R.S.A.,
Thomas Brooks, A. Chisholme, &c. These, and kindred subjects such as
“Shakespeare’s Courtship,” have provided infinite material for the
industry and ingenuity of Shakespeare-loving painters.
The engraved portraits on copper, steel, and wood are so numerous
—amounting to many hundreds—that it is impossible to deal with them
here; but one or two must be referred to, as they have genuine
importance and interest. Vertue and Walpole speak of an engraved
portrait by John Payne (fl. 5620, the pupil of Simon Pass and one of the
first English engravers who achieved distinction); but no such print has
even been found and its existence is doubted. Walpole probably
confounded it with that by W. Marshall, a reversed and reduced version
of the Droeshout, which was published as frontispiece to the spuriotis
edition of Shakespeare’s poems (1640). It is good hut hard. An admirable
engraving, to all but expert eyes unrecognizable as a copy, was made
from it in 1815, and another later. William Faithorne (d. 1691) is
credited with the frontispiece to Q uarles’s edition of “ The Rape of
Lucrece, by William Shakespeare, gent.” (1655). Itwascopiedfor’Roddby R.
Sawyerand republished in 1819. It represents the tragic scene between
Tarquin and Lucrece, and above is inset an oval medallion, being a
rendering of the Droeshout portrait reversed. The earliest engravings
from the Chandos portrait are of interest. The first by L. do Guernier (Arlaud
type) and that by M. (father of G.) van der Gucht are introduced into a
pleasing composition. The same elaborate design was adopted by L. van
der Gucht. These, like Vertue’s earlier prints, look to the left;
subsequent versions are reversed. Perhaps the most celebrated, partly
because it was the most important and technically the finest, up to that
time, is the large engraving (to the right) by Houbraken, a Dutchman,
done for Birch’s “ Heads of Illustrious Persons of Great Britain “
published by T. and P. Knapton (1747— 1752). This free rendering of the
Chandos portrait is the parent of the numerous engravings of” the
Houbraken type.” Since that date many plates of a high order, from all
the principal portraits, have been issued, many of them extremely
inaccurate.
Numerous portraits in stained glass have been inserted in the windows of
public institutions. Typical of them are the German Chandos windows by
Franz Mayer (Mayer & Co.) at Stationers’ Hall, and in St Helens,
Bishopsgate (Professor Blaim); and that of the Droeshout type in the
great hall of the City of London school. Ford Madox Brown’s desirn is
one of the best ever executed.
We now come to the sculptured memorials. After Gerrard Johnson’s bust no
statuary portrait was executed until 1740, when the statue in Poets’
Corner, Westminster Abbey, was setup by public subscription, mainly
through the enthusiastic activity of the earl of Burlington, Dr Richard
Mead, and the poet Pope. It was designed or “invented” by William Kent
and modelled and carried out by Peter Scheernakers; what is, as Walpole
said, “ preposterous “ about it—mainly the pedestal with its incongruous
heads—may be credited to the former, and what is excellent to the
latter. It is good sculpture, and is interesting as being the first
sculptured portrait of the poet based upon the Chandos picture. Lord
Pembroke possesses a replica of it. A free repetition, reversed and with
many changes of detail, is erected in a niche on the exterior wall of
the town-hall of Stratford-on-Avon. A copy of it in lead by Scheemakers’
pupil, Sir Flenry Cheere, used to stand in Drury Lane theatre. Wedgwood
copied this work, omitting the absurdities of the pedestal, with much
spirit in black basalt. The marble copy, much simplified, in Leicester
Square, is by Fontana, a gift to London by Baron Albert Grant. Busts
were executed by Scheemakers, founded on the same portrait. One is still
at Stowe in the “ Temple of British Worthies,” and in Lord Cobham’s
possession is that presented by Pope to Lord Lyttelton. Some very fine
engravings of the monument have been produced, the most important that
in Boydell’s Shakespeare (larger edition). By L. F. Roubiliac, Cheere’s
protégé, is the statue which in 1758 David Garrick commissioned him to
carve and which he bequeathed to the British Museum. It is also based
upon the Chandos portrait. The terra-cotta model for the statue is in
the Victoria and Albert Museum; and a marble reproduction of it is in
private hands. To Roubiliac also must be credited the celebrated “
D’Avenant Bust “of blackened terra-cotta in the possession of the
Garrick Club. This fine work of art derives its name from having been
found bricked up in the old Duke’s theatre in Portugal Row, Lincoln’s
Inn Fields, which i8o years before was d’Avenant’s, but which afterwards
passed through various vicissitudes. It was again adapted for theatrical
purposes by Giffard, for whom this bust, together with one of Ben Jonson
which was smashed at the moment of discovery, must have been modelled by
the sculptor, who at the same time was engaged on Garrick’s commission.
The model for the British Museum statue is seen in the portrait of
Roubiliac by Carpentiers, now in the National Portrait Gallery. Another
portrait of Shakespeare is in Westminster Abbey—a medallion based on the
Chandos picture, introduced into Webber’s rather fantastic monument to
David Garrick. An important alto-relievo representation of Shakespeare,
by J. Banks, R.A., between the Geniuses of Painting and the Drama, is
now in the garden of New Place, Stratford-on-Avon. It was executed for
Boydell’s Shakespeare Gallery in Pall Mall, and was presented to the
British Institution which afterwards occupied the premises; on the
dissolution of that body it was given to Stratford by Mr Holte
Bracebridge. It is a fine thing, but the likeness adheres to no clearly
specified type. It has been excellently engraved in line by James Stow,
B. Smith, and others, and was reproduced on the admirable medal by
Küchler, presented by Boydell to every subscriber to his great
illustrated edition of Shakespeare’s works. It is remarkable that
Banks’s was the first British hand to model a portrait of the poet.
In more recent times numerous attempts have been made to reconstitute
the figure of Shakespeare in sculpture. The most ambitious of these is
the elaborate memorial group modelled and presented by Lord Ronald
Sutherland Gower to Stratford and set up outside the Memorial Theatre in
i888. The large seated figureof Shakespeare is mounted on a great
circular base around which are arranged the figures of Hamlet, Lady
Macbeth, Prince Henry, and Falstaff. In 1864 J. E. Thomas modelled the
colossal group of Shakespeare with attendant figures of Comedy and
Tragedy that was erected in the grounds of the Crystal Palace, and in
the same year Charles Bacon produced his colossal Centenary Bust, a
reproduction of which forms the frontispiece to John H. Heraud’s
Shakspere: His Inner Life (1865). The chief statues, single or in a
group, in London still to be mentioned are the following: that by H. H.
Armstead, R.A., in marble, on the southern podium of the Albert
Memorial; by Hamo Thornycroft, R.A. (1871), on the Poets’ Fountain in
Park Lane; by Messrs Daymond on the upper storey of the City of London
School, on the Victoria Embankment; and by F. E. Schenck, a seated
figure, on the façade of the Hammersmith Public Library. The Droeshout
portrait is the basis of the head in the bronze memorial by Professor
Lanteri set into the wall on the conjectural site of the Globe Theatre
(1909) and of the excellent bust by Mr C. J. Allen in the churchyard of
St Mary the Virgin, Aldermanbury, in memory of Heminge and Condell
(1896). A recumbent statue, with head of the Chandos type, was in
preparation in 1910 for erection in the south aisle of Southwark
Cathedral. Among statues erected in the provinces are those by Mr H.
Pegram, A.R.A., in the building of Birmingham University (1908) and by
M. Guillemin for Messrs Farmer and Brindley for the Nottingham
University buildings.
Several statues of importance have been erected in other countries. The
bronze by M. Paul Fournier in Paris (presented by an English resident)
marks the junction of the Boulevard Haussmann and the Avenue de Messine
(1888). The seated marble statue by Professor 0. Lessing was set up in
Weimar by the German Shakespeare Society; the sculntor has also modelled
a connIe of busts of a very personal and, it may be said, un-English
type. A seated statue in stone roughly hewn with characteristic breadth
by the Danish sculptor, Louis Hasselriis, has for some years been placed
in the apartment of the Castle of Kronhorg, in which, according to the
Danish tradition, Shakespeare and his company acted for the king of
Denmark. America possesses some well-known statues. That by J. Q. A.
Ward’ is in Central Park, New York (1872). In i886 William Ordway
Partridge modelled and carved the seated marble figure for Lincoln Park,
Chicago; and later, Frederick MacMonnies produced his very original
statue for the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. This is in some
measure based on the Droeshout engraving. William R. O’Donovan also
sculptured a portrait of Shakespeare in 1874. Great consideration is
given by some to the bust made by William Page of New York in
preparation for a picture of the poet he was about to paint. He founded
it with pathetic faith and care and amazing punctiliousness on the
so-called “ Death Mask,” which it little resembles; as he was no
sculptor the bust is no more successful than the picture. The bust by R.
S. Greenough, already mentioned as based in part on the” Boston Zuccaro
“ portrait, must be included here, as well as the romantic, dreamy,
marble bust by Augusto Possaglio of Florence (presented to the Garrick
Club by Salvini in 1876); the imaginative work by Altini (Duke of
Northumberland, Alnwick Castle); and the busts by F. M. Miller, E. G.
Zimmermann, Albert Toft, J. E. Carew (Mr Muspratt, Liverpool) and P. J.
Chardigny of Paris. The last named was a study made in 1850, for a
proposed statue, ioO ft. high, which the sculptor hoped to be
commissioned to produce. A multitude of small bronze and silver busts
and statuettes have also been produced. Some attention has been accorded
for several years past to the great pottery bust attributed to John
Dwight’s Fulbam Pottery (c. 1675). The present writer, however, has
ascertained that it is by Lipscombe, in the latter portion of the 19th
century.
The wood carvings are numerous. The most interesting among them is the
medallion traditionally believed to have been carved by Hogarth, and
inset in the back of the “Shakespeare chair” presented by the artist to
David Garrick (in the possession of Mr W. Burdett-Coutts). The
statuettes alleged to be carved from the wood of Shakespeare’s
mulberry-tree are numerous; among the most attractive are the archaic
carvings by Salsbee (1761). One statuette of a primitive order of art
was sold in 1909 in London for a fantastic sum; it was absurdly claimed
to be the original of Scheemakers’ statue, but without the slightest
attempt at proof or justification.
The ~‘.‘Iedals and Coins of Shakespeare offer material for a separate
numismatic study. Those of the Chandos type are by far the most
numerous. The best of them are as follows: Jean Dassier (Swiss; in the “
Series of Famous Men,” C. 1730); J. J. Barre (French; in the “ Series
numismatica universalis,” 1818); Westwood (Garrick Jubilee, 1769); J. G.
Hancock—the young short-lived genius who engraved the die when only
seven years old; J. Kirk (for the Hon. Order of Shakespeareians, 1777);
W. Barnett (for the Stratford Commemoration, 1816); J. Moore (to
celebrate the Birthplace, 1864); and L. C. Wyon (the gift of Mr C.
Fox-Russell to Harrow School, 1870). The latest, and one of the most
skilful, is the plaquette (no reverse) in the series of” Beruhmter
Manner “by Wilhelm Mayer and Franz Wilhelm of Stuttgart, the leading
medal-partnership of Germany (1908). After the “ Droeshout “ engraving:
Westwood (1821); T. A. Vaughton (1908—1909). After the “Stratford bust”:
\V. F. Taylor (celebrating the Birthplace, 1842); and T. J. ‘Minton; T:
W. Ingram (for Shakespearean Club, Stratford, 1824); J. Moore,
Birmingham; and, head only, Antoine Desbceufs (French, exhibited in the
Salon, 1822—obverse only); B. Wyon (for the City of London School,
Beaufoy Shakespearean prize, 1851); J. S. and A. B. Wyon (for the M’Gill
University, Montreal, 1864); John Bell and L. C. Wyon (for the
Tercentenary Anniversary, 1864); Allen and Moore (with incorrect
birthdate, “ I 574,” 1864). From the “ Janssen ‘ type: Joseph Moore (a
medal imitating a cast medal, 1908). There is an Italian medal, cast, of
recent date; with the exception of this all the medals are struck.
The 18th-century tradesmen’s Tokens, which passed current as money when
the copper coinage was inadequate for the public needs, constitute
another branch for collectors. About thirtyfour of these, including
variations, bear the head of Shakespeare. With one exception (a
farthing, 1815, issued much later than the bulk of the tokens) all
represented half-pence. They comprise the “local “ and “not local.”
There are the “Warwickshire” series, the “ London and Middlesex,” and
the “Stratford Promissory” series. Many are stamped round the edge with
the names of the special places in which they are payable. In addition
to these may be mentioned the 24 “imitation regal “ tokens which bear
Shakespeare’s name, around (except in one or two cases) the effigy of
the king. They belong to the last quarter of the i8th century.
Many of the more important kilos have produced portraits of Shakespeare
in porcelain and pottery, in statuettes, busts, in cameos” and in
painted pieces. We have them in Chelsea; old Derby; Chelsea-Derby; old
Staffordshire (salt-glaze), frequently reproducing, as often as not with
fantastic archaism, Scheemakers’ statue; and on flat surfaces by
transfer of printed designs—both 18th- and 19th-century productions;
also French-Dresden and Wedgwood. In the last-named ware is the fine
bust, half-life size, in black basalt, as well as several “cameos “ in
various sizes, in blue and white jasper, or yellow ground, and in black
basalt. The busts were also produced in different sizes. Worcester
produced the well-known Benjamin Webster” service, with the portrait,
Chandos type, en camaicu, as well as the mug in “jet enamel,” which was
the fifth of the set of thirteen. Several of the portraits have also
been produced commercially in biscuit china.
Gems with intaglio portraits of Shakespeare have been copiously produced
since the middle of the 19th century, nearly all of them based upon
earlier works by men who were masters of their stillliving craft. The
principal of these latter are as follows: Edward Burch, A.R.A.,
exhibited in 1765; Nathaniel Marchant, R.A., exhibited 1773 (Garrick
turning to a bust of Shakespeare); Thomas Pownall (c. 1750); William
Barnett; J. Wicksted the Elder (Shakespeare and Garrick); W. B. Wray (a
beautiful drawing for this is in the Print Room of the British Museum);
and Yeo. In the same class may be reckoned the Cameos, variously
sardonyx, chalcedony, and shell, some excellent examples of which have
been executed, and the Ivories, both in the round and in relief. The
Waxes form a class by themselves; in the latter portion of the I8th
century a few small busts and reliefs were put forth, very good of their
kind. These have been imitated within recent years and attempts made to
pass them off as originals, but only the novice is deceived by them.
Similarly the old Shakespeare brass pipe-stoppers have latterly been
widely reproduced, and the familiar little brass bust is widely
reproduced from the bronze original. So voracious is the public appetite
for portraits of the poet that the old embroideries in hair and more
recently in woven silk found a ready market; reliefs in silver, bronze,
iron, and lead are eagerly snapped up, and postage stamps with
Shakespeare’s head have been issued with success. The acquisitiveness of
the collector paralyses his powers of selection. The vast number of
other objects for daily use bearing the portrait of Shakespeare call for
no notice here. |