A 
 
 r- 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 ou 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 — — .o 
 
 4 
 
 o 
 
 
 ? 
 
 
 
 
 
 b 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 b 
 
 
 
 
 : —J 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 INGLEEK 
 The Portraiture of Shakespeare
 
 {^y^ J- U^^U'^LC-^^^ 
 
 ^^sn ^^ I 
 
 .^. /^<^
 
 ^;/
 
 . '^' 
 
 r<:
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORfSI-^ 
 SANTA BAKiJAAIA 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE PORTRAITURE OF SHAKESPEARE.* 
 
 i|HE title of my paper may well provoke this question — 
 ' Seeing that Shakespeare has been dead and buried 
 257 years, what can be known of his personal appear- 
 ance beyond what may be gathered from the few accredited 
 portraits, for which he is believed to have sat 1 and granting 
 that all those are unsatisfactory and imperfect representations 
 of the man, how is it possible to add to their verisimiUtude, 
 except by the discovery of another authentic portrait 1 ' Of 
 course I do not pretend that this is possible; nor am I able to 
 announce to you any discovery of the sort since 1849, when 
 the Becker Mask was deposited at the British Museum. Never- 
 theless I have somewhat to communicate, which may be both 
 new and interesting, touching certain recent attempts to recover 
 the lost lineaments of Shakespeare, 
 
 And steal dead seeming of his living hue. f 
 
 * Read at a Meeting of the Royal Society of Literature, Jan. 21, 1874, 
 and reported (in brief) in the Presidential Address of 1874, p. 50. 
 t From Shakespeare's sixty-seventh Sonnet.
 
 S/iakcspcare : tlic Alan. 
 
 Doubtless the chances are against the success of such 
 attempts : but it is not difficult to see that in one respect at 
 least they may be helpful and instructive. If we only consider 
 what a bust or a portrait must be in order to express the ' form 
 and favour ' of a man at his best, we shall readily arrive at a 
 principle, which, while it serves to explain that diversity of 
 expression which is found in different copies from the same 
 ]Mcture, to some extent justifies the attempt to recover a lost 
 likeness. 
 
 I have frequently observed that the ' portrait of a gentleman,' 
 painted by an indifferent artist, bears a certain resemblance to 
 the artist himself In the Epistle of St. James it is asserted 
 that a man ' beholding his natural face in a glass, goeth his 
 way and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.' 
 I am not sure that this is strictly true ; but, if it be so, I 
 am none the less convinced that every man has a latent im- 
 pression of his own countenance, which he is more apt to 
 delineate than any other. Moreover, I have observed that in 
 portraits, executed by the best artists and possessing all the 
 attributes of a faithful likeness, there is always an expression 
 which it is impossible to attribute to anything seen in the 
 face of the sitter. The truth seems to be, that the artist who 
 has studied his subject, so as to seize the expression of the face 
 at its best, is dependent upon his own powers of imagination 
 and memory: and on these he draws largely to supplement the 
 expression of the blank and wearied face which periodically 
 confronts him in his studio. It thus happens that in repre- 
 senting his subject he imparts something of himself, and the
 
 Shakespeare : tJie Ulau. 
 
 most life-like portraits are those which represent the very heart 
 of the painter. 
 
 On this principle we can clearly understand how it comes 
 to pass that of all the known engravings of Jansen's portrait 
 of Shakespeare, in the collection of the Duke of Somerset, 
 there are not two that have the same expression. But the 
 Chandos portrait, which is the property of the nation, from 
 its damaged condition and obscurity offers a still better field 
 for experiment. It has been engraved and copied in oils 
 times without number, and so different are the expressions 
 of the resulting prints and paintings that it is difficult to believe 
 that they are all from the same exemplar. I can certify as 
 a fact that Cousins' engraving is a remarkably faithful copy 
 of the original. Now compare it with Scriven's print of 
 Ozias Humphry's drawing, and it is difficult to resist the con- 
 clusion that the fire and severity of this last are wholly due 
 to the temperament of the copyist. It is well known that 
 William Blake could conjure up before him the visible forms 
 of the dead, and retain them long enough to paint their 
 likenesses. From some of these we may conclude that the 
 latent memory of ancient portraits was at least a factor in 
 this singular phenomenon ; but the portraits of ' the Man who 
 built the Pyramids ' and ' the Ghost of a Flea ' do not so 
 readily yield to this explanation. You will perhaps call to 
 mind an incident related by the elder Varley respecting the 
 portraiture of ' the Ghost of a Flea.' The old man was 
 present during the ' sitting,' and he relates that, the Flea 
 having opened his mouth, Blake was unable at once to com-
 
 Shakespeare: the Man. 
 
 plete tlie drawing, but drew on a separate piece of paper a 
 sketch of the open mouth. The apparition having once 
 more closed his mouth, Blake resumed the first sketch, and 
 finished the portrait. This seems a veritable case of portrait- 
 painting from the inmost consciousness: and what is most 
 curious about Blake's portrait of ' the Ghost of a Flea ' is that 
 it is a caricature of the well-known features of the late Lord 
 Lytton. 
 
 However ridiculous may appear the notion that Blake could 
 summon into his presence the forms and faces of persons no 
 longer existing, or those whose existence is impossible, and 
 could draw from them, as from real flesh and blood, I am 
 convinced from my own experience that Blake gave a truthful 
 account of the matter, and that he was wholly unconscious 
 of the process by which such appearances were, produced. 
 That process, which is a sort of concurrence of imagination 
 with certain states of the brain and the optic nerve, probably 
 affecting the retina in as perfect a manner as the light from 
 natural objects, is unconsciously performed by all persons who 
 have the experience of optical illusions. 
 
 Now that very constructive power, which in the case of 
 Blake was at times monopolised by the nerves of vision, may 
 just as well act through the hand, and, instead of presenting an 
 illusory object which the artist may delineate or depict may 
 guide him unconsciously in the production of an ideal portrait. 
 Such things are called ' spirit drawings,' which I regard as a 
 most misleading title. But without entering upon that allied, 
 if not strictly relevant, inquiry, I may state generally that every
 
 Shakespeare : the Man. 
 
 genial portrait owes perhaps as much to the ideal of the artist 
 as to his faculty of faithful representation ; and that he works 
 from within as well as from without. Herein lies the justi- 
 fication of the attempts that are made from time to time to 
 produce a thoroughly satisfactory portrait of Shakespeare. In 
 this pursuit we have little to guide us beyond a few portraits of 
 somewhat doubtful authenticity and of very short pedigrees, 
 the bust in the Chancel of Stratford Church and Droeshout's 
 engraving prefixed to the First Folio Edition of Shakespeare. 
 Beyond the suggestion of these generally inadequate and 
 discrepant representations we have no guidance from without. 
 Unfortunately for our inquiry Shakespeare does not stand 
 on the same footing as other great men of his time. He is 
 siei gaieris, that is, of a class by himself in every respect. 
 There is scarcely a poet above mediocrity who has not written 
 commendatory verses on his fellows. We do not know of a 
 single copy of such verses by Shakespeare. Allusions to his 
 contemporaries are to be found in the writings of every other 
 poet and dramatist of that day; some poems and plays are 
 obtrusively crowded with such personal allusions. In the whole 
 thirty-seven dramas credited to Shakespeare there is one obscure 
 allusion to Spenser and one distinct allusion to Marlow. The 
 prose works published in the later part of the sixteenth, and 
 the earlier part of the seventeenth centuries contain abundant 
 notices of every poet of mark save Shakespeare, whose name 
 and works are rarely and only slightly mentioned : and when 
 he is named or alluded to he is praised as an amatory poet or 
 as an actor, rarely as a dramatist. The works of Lord Brooke,
 
 Shakespeare : the Man. 
 
 Sir John Davies, Lord Bacon, Selden, Sir John Beaumont, 
 Henry Vaughan (Sikirist), Lord Clarendon, &c., &c., show 
 no consciousness of Shakespeare's existence. Can it be that 
 the poor player was evidently despised ; that he was too 
 humble to be selected as the subject of much eulogy in those 
 early times, or to be invited to become the eulogist of another ? 
 For the same reason, whatever it was, hardly anyone cared to 
 possess his portrait; and until John Aubrey records in 1680, 
 /. e., sixty-four years after Shakespeare's death, that he was 
 reputed to have been ' a handsome, well-shaped man,' no writer 
 ever said a word as to his personal appearance. It is but fair 
 to add, that as to portraits, Edmund Spenser stands in precisely 
 the same position as Shakespeare. The portraits claimed for 
 him are hopelessly discrepant ; and it is hard to say which 
 should be accepted and which rejected. If we reckon up all 
 the painted portraits (excluding known forgeries) said to re- 
 present Shakespeare, we shall find that their number is about 
 twenty-two. Some of these, at most two or three, may have 
 been taken from life ; and certainly one is of the requisite 
 antiquity. Not a few, however, are probably genuine portraits 
 of other gentlemen of the time ; and some are idealised 
 portraits of Shakespeare. To these must be added two busts, 
 one plaster cast and one engraving on brass ; and we have 
 reckoned up our whole capital. A very few words on some 
 of these relics. 
 
 Foremost in authenticity is the Bust in the Chancel of 
 Stratford Church. We know quite enough about this to make 
 it our most important possession. Apart from what we know,
 
 Shakespeare : the Man. 
 
 it is a priori most improbable that the family and friends of 
 Shakespeare should soon after his death have placed in the most 
 conspicuous place in the church of his native town, where 
 almost every one was as familiar with his personal appearance 
 as with that of their most intimate friends, a life-sized bust of 
 the Bard which would not be recognised by his fellow-townsmen. 
 We might, in the absence of any relative knowledge, presume 
 that the bust is a likeness. But we know from Sir William 
 Dugdale that it was the work of a Dutch sculptor named Gerard 
 Johnson; and we know enough of this sculptor to believe that 
 he was not a common mason, though certainly quite a second- 
 rate artist. We all know wherein such an one fails, and wherein 
 he succeeds : he can usually make an obtrusively striking 
 likeness, though always an unpleasant one. Here is just such 
 a work. How awkward is the ensemble of the face ! What a 
 painful stare, with its goggle eyes and gaping mouth ! The 
 expression of this face has been credited with kin/ioi/r, bon- 
 hommie, hilarity and jollity. To me it is decidedly clownish ; 
 and is suggestive of a man crunching a sour apple, or struck with 
 amazement at some unpleasant spectacle. Yet there is force 
 in the lineaments of this muscular face. One can hardly doubt 
 that it is an unintentional caricature; but for that very reason 
 it should be an unmistakeable likeness. In the plaster casts 
 taken from Bullock's copy, and in those separately prepared 
 from the original by Warner and Michele, that peculiar ex- 
 pression is toned down to insipidity, and one catches some 
 touch of dignity and refinement with utter loss of force. But 
 the casts do not give a truthful representation of the bust.
 
 S/iakcspcarc : the Man. 
 
 We obtain some important facts from this rude work. As 
 it is at present coloured the eyes are light-hazel, the hair and 
 beard auburn. Such were the colours put on in 1748 by 
 Mr. John Hall, the limner of Stratford, and which reappeared 
 on the removal, by Mr. Collins, of Malone's white paint. We 
 have no reason to doubt that when the bust was renovated in 
 1748, the very colours it had received by order of Dr. John 
 Hall, Shakespeare's son-in-law, were repeated by his namesake. 
 
 The extraordinary depth of the upper lip, which measures 
 an inch and a quarter, has been accounted for by the conjecture 
 that the sculptor may have had an accident with the nose. I 
 have remarked that it is very dangerous to frame hypotheses 
 respecting Shakespeare, for they are apt to get converted into 
 ' obscure traditions,' and may come at last to be regarded as 
 historical facts, the evidence of Avhich has been lost. This 
 happened to the conjecture of Capell and Waldron that 
 Shakespeare was lame, in order to explain two lines in the 
 sonnets, the meaning of which he had wholly misapprehended. 
 In the next century Mr. Harness revised the conjecture, with- 
 out any mention of Capell ; Mr. Thorns accounted for the 
 supposed defect by making Shakespeare a soldier : and finally 
 the late ]\Ir. Richard Simpson published a note in which he 
 referred the circumstance of Shakespeare's lameness to ' an 
 obscure tradition,' and proceeded to employ it as a fact to 
 elucidate some expressions in Jonson's Poetaster. Just so, in 
 the matter of Shakespeare's nose; Mr. J. Hain Friswell remarks 
 {Life Portraits, '^. 8): 'the nose of the bust of Shakespeare, 
 like that of Tristram Shandy, it is said, has met with an
 
 Shakespeare : the Man. 
 
 accident, the former from the instrument of Dr. Slop, the latter 
 from the chisel of the sculptor.' ' It is said/ is the magical 
 formula, which becomes the germ of the myth. I cannot 
 find that it ever was said, except as a hypothesis to explain 
 the disproportionate depth of the upper lip : and on measure- 
 ment, it was found that the depth of Sir Walter Scott's upper 
 lip exceeded that of Shakespeare's bust. 
 
 I am afraid we must take our stand on the fidelity of this 
 bust — at least with some allowable qualifications. When we 
 find a sculptor dismissing his work in this rough fashion, so 
 that, as Mr. Fairholt says, * the eyes are untrue to nature, &c., 
 the ciliary cartilages are straight, hard and unmeaning, and 
 the glands at the corners next the nose entirely omitted,' we 
 may be sure the fidelity of the face must be received with 
 something more than the proverbial grain of salt. 
 
 Next in authenticity to the bust is Droeshout's engraving, 
 prefixed to the First Folio edition of Shakespeare's Works. It 
 must have been executed after Shakespeare's death; and 
 therefore we may be sure it was taken from some sketch or 
 painting, probably in the possession of Mrs. Shakespeare or 
 Dr. John Hall. No such exemplar has come down to us or is 
 known to have existed, unless the Felton Portrait be the one 
 that was so employed ; and this is, on the whole, unlikely, for 
 reasons to be stated when I come to speak of that portrait. But 
 allowing the probability that such an exemplar did exist (and 
 apart from it, no reliance could be placed on the engraving), 
 it may have perished along with Shakespeare's papers. It has 
 been surmised that these papers fell a victim to some pious
 
 lo S/uikcspt'dir : the Man. 
 
 soul's puritanical ardour. Unhappily the suspicion, if it be to fall 
 anywhere, involves Shakespeare's wife or Shakespeare's daughter. 
 The sorry Latin elegiacs engraved in brass on Mrs. Shakespeare's 
 gravestone contain no allusion to her immortal husband, being 
 concerned only with the good lady's immortality. She must 
 not be held responsible for them; at least no further than 
 she justified their encomium. The English verses on Mrs. 
 Elizabeth Hall's tablet are enigmatical. 
 
 Witty above her sexe, but that's not all. 
 Wise to salvation was good Mistris Hall : 
 Something of Shakespeare was in that, but this 
 Wholy of him witli whom she's now in blisse. 
 
 The things compared are Mrs. Hall's supersexual wit, and 
 her wisdom to salvation. Which is 'that,' and which is 'thisl ' 
 In strictness 'hie plerumque ad posterius, ilk ad prius refertur: ' 
 so that the lines seem to say, she owed her wat partly to 
 Shakespeare; her piety wholly to him, with whom she is in 
 bliss. Meanwhile where is her mother ] It has been suggested 
 that the lines mean the reverse, 'this' and 'that' being trans- 
 posed for the sake of the rhyme : viz., that she owed her piety 
 in some degree to Shakespeare; her wit wholly to him: but 
 that would seem to make the wit her claim to salvation. 
 Another suggestion is, that him refers to the Saviour; and I 
 incline to that view myself: at the same time I am afraid we 
 are inquiring too curiously in putting these old epitaphs to the 
 question ; and I do not think they tell at all against Mrs. 
 Shakespeare. Probably both Mrs. Shakespeare and Mrs. Hall 
 were good religious souls, but one does not see why either of
 
 SJiakcspcarc : the Man. 1 1 
 
 them should be ashamed of the Bard, so as to disown his 
 works and destroy his manuscripts. There is one curious fact, 
 however, which is quite enough to beget a myth, Uke those of 
 Shakespeare's lameness and his bust's broken nose. Heminge 
 and Condell had the plays printed from the quartos and play- 
 house copies ; they even had a title-page printed with the date 
 1622. They may have hoped to be able to correct the press 
 from manuscripts left by Shakespeare at New Place, in the 
 custody of his widow. Now the facts are, that Mrs. Shakespeare 
 died on August 8, 1623, and that the editors had a new title 
 printed, with the date 1623. Did they wait till she was dead 
 before venturing to issue the volume? 
 
 Be that as it may, the folio appeared with the Droeshout 
 engraving. Even in its best state it is such a monstrosity, that 
 I, for one, do not believe it had any trustworthy exemplar. 
 Those who have, as I have, examined the engraved portraits 
 prefixed to the various collective editions of the time, will not 
 be greatly astonished at the pretence of attaching such an 
 abomination as the Droeshout head to the folio editions of 
 Shakespeare. 
 
 Next in order we must place the splendid portrait, said to 
 be by Cornelius Jansen, which passes for Shakespeare in the 
 collection of the Duke of Somerset. Unfortunately its pedigree 
 does not extend farther back than 1761; but Woodburn, who 
 pubhshed in 181 1 the first print from it, stated that it had 
 belonged to Prince Rupert, who left it to his natural daughter, 
 Mrs. Emmanuel Scroopes Howes: whence it must have come 
 into the hands of Spackman the picture-dealer : and thence to
 
 12 Shakespeare : the Man. 
 
 Mr. Jennens in 1761. The picture is of undoubted antiquity, 
 and bears in the right hand corner, ^t. 46, 1610; which corres- 
 ponds with Shakespeare's age in that year. As Jansen is 
 known to have painted the daughter of Henry Wriothesley, 
 Earl of Southampton, Shakespeare's friend and patron, it is not 
 improbable that he should have painted for the earl's collection 
 the bard himself. Then we take the Lumley, the Chandos, the 
 Felton, the Ashbourne and the Challis portraits. 
 
 Such was our stock of the more important representations 
 of the Bard up to about the middle of this century. Since 
 then it has received two acquisitions, both of which were at 
 different times in the possession of Professor Owen, at the 
 British Museum : viz., the Duke's Theatre Bust, now in the 
 vestibule of the Garrick Club, and the cast discovered by 
 Ludwig Becker, now belonging to Dr. Ernest Becker, of 
 Darmstadt. The latter professes to have been cast from a 
 wax-mould taken from Shakespeare's face very soon after 
 death; and I must candidly say I am not able to spot a 
 single suspicious fact in the brief history of this most curious 
 relic. Along with it is a miniature in oils, painted in 1637 
 from the cast, representing Shakespeare lying in state, his head 
 crowned with bays. 
 
 The comparison of these various works reveals the fact 
 that the Somerset Portrait, the Ashbourne Portrait, the Challis 
 Portrait, and the Becker Cast, despite numberless petty dis- 
 crepancies, present a substantial agreement. One can hardly 
 doubt that they all represent one man, and that man William 
 Shakespeare. But unfortunately for the trustworthiness of our
 
 Shakespeare : the Man. 13 
 
 most authentic representations there is no resemblance between 
 any of these and either the Stratford Bust or the Uroeshout 
 engraving ! In fact the former is countenanced only by the 
 Chandos and Lumley Portraits ; while the latter may have had 
 the same original as the Felton Portrait, or the Felton may be 
 an idealised portrait from the Droeshout. 
 
 We thus see that we have three classes of portraits : the 
 first being led by the Stratford Bust and followed by the 
 Lumley and the Chandos Portraits ; the second led by the 
 Droeshout engraving and followed by the Felton Portrait ; 
 or vice versa; while the third and by far the most interesting 
 class is led by the Somerset Portrait and followed by the 
 Ashbourne and the Challis Portraits, and most remarkably 
 corroborated by the Becker Cast. How any two of these 
 classes are to be identified I must confess myself unable to 
 suggest. As far as I am aware no adequate experiments have 
 been made. For one thing, I would have a plaster bust 
 modelled after the Becker Cast ; 1 would restore this, then 
 vulgarise it, till I had got a poor insipid thing, such as is 
 the Stratford Bust ; I would then break off the end of the 
 nose, and elongate the upper-lip : and I should then see 
 whether the outcome was anything like that Bust. A great 
 many different experiments of the sort might be suggested; 
 but the fact that most of these relics are in private collections, 
 and some hardly accessible, renders the task of tentative 
 experiment both costly and dinicult. 
 
 I have now to mention the various attempts that have 
 been made in recent times to construct a trustworthy and
 
 14 SJiakespcare : tJie Man. 
 
 satisfactory portrait or bust of Shakespeare. The more im- 
 portant of the earher idealised portraits are the Becker 
 Miniature, Sir Godfrey Kneller's Portrait after the Chandos, 
 presented by that artist to Dryden, Sir Joshua Reynolds" 
 Portrait after the same, painted for Bishop Newton, and the 
 Hunt Portrait, now in the ante-room of Shakespeare's birth- 
 room at Stratford. The last is believed to have been taken 
 from the Stratford Bust, probably for something connected 
 with the Stratford Jubilee. If so, it is singular that the nose 
 of the bust, which is fairly arched, is not reproduced in the 
 painting. It is, however, a very pleasing portrait ; and its 
 benignity and intelligence are very poorly represented in any 
 of the photographic prints taken from it that I have seen. 
 The one in Mr. J. Hain Friswell's Life Portrans has most 
 unfortunately curtailed the magnificent forehead of the original. 
 To these we must add Schemaker's Statue in Westminster 
 Abbey and Roubiliac's Statuette, modelled for Garrick. The 
 last furnishes the bust of our image-makers. 
 
 It is remarkable, but a fact, that the Tercentenary of 
 Shakespeare's birth produced no work of art, either portrait 
 or bust, which deserves mention here : nor since that time 
 has anything of the kind been attempted in England, save 
 Mr. Armistead's rcliei'o of Shakespeare on the east side of 
 the Albert Memorial.* America, however, is favourably con- 
 trasted with England in this particular. The Americans had 
 many years ago testified to their enthusiasm for Shakespeare 
 
 * Another statue has since been placed in Leicester Square. It appears 
 to be taken from Schemaker's.
 
 Shakespeare : tJie Man.- 15 
 
 by producing a fine bust of him, modelled by Mr. Greenough 
 after the Caen Portrait, which had been discovered by one 
 Mr. Joy, and brought by him to Boston. Since that time their 
 appreciation of Shakespeare's genius, and their interest in all 
 that concerns him, have been continually on the increase. 
 In April, 1872, a bronze statue, executed by Mr. J. Q. A. 
 Ward, an eminent American sculptor, was placed in Central 
 Park, New York, and inaugurated with the usual ceremonies 
 of unveiling and speech-making. From that time to the 
 present this work has been a constant subject of controversy. 
 On receiving a photograph of it from a friend in Philadelphia 
 I was at once struck with its feebleness and untruth. It 
 suggested to me a stern philosophic student, and certainly 
 not a man of acute observation, ready wit and hilarious 
 temperament. Its faults are so admirably summed up by a 
 writer in Lippincotf s Magazine that I offer no apology for 
 making the following extract from his article. Mr. William 
 R. O'Donovan writes : 
 
 The ideal in art, simply stated, means the portrayal of certain things 
 in nature, giving due prominence to the characteristics in the order of 
 tlieir importance. Applying this proposition to Sculpture, a portrait- 
 statue of Shakespeare should be a just expression of his individuality, 
 based upon such portraits of him as exist. # # # Beginning 
 with the head of the statue, the first thing that strikes one is the facial 
 angle, which instead of approximating to the perpendicular line which 
 distinguishes the highest Caucasian type, slopes backward, giving the angle 
 of the lower races. A line drawn from the tube of the ear to the point of 
 the chin will be found longer than one drawn from the same point to the 
 prominence of the frontal bone, thus giving undue importance to the 
 masticating apparatus, the teeth and jaws, which not only detracts from
 
 i6 SJiakespcarc : tlie Man. 
 
 the dignity of the head, but at once precludes all possibility of its expressing 
 intellectuality. « # # Again, the head of the statue, as 
 
 viewed from the front, * * is a compressed head, somewhat 
 less than the usual width, and from the angle of the lower jaw to the 
 parietal bone the line is almost straight, giving an insipidity of expression. 
 * * The artist has modeled one side of the face from the other, 
 making them as near alike as he could, thus [violating a great principle 
 of nature and] departing from a most noticeable feature in the mask, &c. 
 
 and the writer shows how utterly untrue to the principal guides 
 (the Stratford Bust, the Becker Mask, &c.) is Mr. Ward's work. 
 He then attacks the poise of the figure, the trunk and the legs ; 
 and after some columns of very trenchant but just criticism, 
 
 he closes with this peroration : 
 
 Shakespeare divined alike the motives of the boor and the king, the 
 tenderest emotions of the most fragrant womanhood and the profoundest 
 depths of sensuousness. As he was the gi^eatest of poets, we may well 
 believe him to have been the manliest of men, serene and gentle in 
 conscious power, and thoroughly human, with inclinations as deep and 
 varied as his thoughts. Let the reader filled with such impressions turn 
 to this poor image and seek for one responsive thought. The opposite 
 of every quality of Shakespeare will be suggested — first effort, the Philoso- 
 pher, not the Poet, reason, not song ; then self-assei'tion, rather than 
 conscious power. The head is bowed in contemplation, as if the mind 
 were digesting something just read ; the mouth is compressed and the eyes 
 are distended ; in every part of the figure there is exaggeration and effort 
 without definite purpose. 
 
 Such is Mr. O'Donovan's judgment on the first statue of 
 Shakespeare attempted in America : and so far as the photo- 
 graph enables me to appreciate the various points he discusses, 
 it seems to me a dispassionate and objective judgment. 
 
 The last contribution to the portraiture of Shakespeare
 
 Shakespeare : the Alan. 
 
 which I shall brhig before you is also American : this is the 
 so-called American Mask ; an integration of the Becker Cast, 
 by Mr. William Page. I subjoin an account of it which was 
 published in The New York Herald and several other recent 
 American journals. 
 
 Ovei" two years ago a distinguished gentleman called upon Mr. William 
 Page, the artist, to ask him to paint a picture of Shakespeare. Upon 
 consenting to perform such a task, Mr. Page had only in mind such 
 matei-ials as the Droeshout print, the Chandos portrait and the Stratford 
 bust afforded for the composition of the work. 
 
 Finding, afterwards, that Messrs. J. Q. A. Ward and Launt Thompson, 
 the sculptors, had each a photograph of a certain mask of Shakespeare, 
 which was an object of some speculation to them just then, on account of 
 their joint competition in furnishing a model for the statue of Shakespeare 
 to be erected in the Central Park, he visited their studios and examined 
 what was indeed to him a revelation. Both his brother artists asserted 
 they had not sufficient data to settle the authenticity of the mask. Mr. 
 Ward had availed himself of his photograph to a certain extent in the 
 beginning, Init later, feeling uncertain respecting it, lie laid it aside, long 
 before his model was perfected. 
 
 Finishing his picture for the gentleman mentioned, which the latter 
 wished to have approximated in the general character to the Chandos 
 portrait, M.r. Page commenced the viagnuni opus of his life. He soon 
 obtained from England some twelve or thirteen different views of the 
 Mask, a photograph of the Chandos as made by the Arundel Society, and 
 the information concerning Becker's discovery, &c., which has already been 
 set forth. When he had fairly entered upon his work, the whole matter 
 seemed more and more plausible — the authenticity of the mask, its 
 resemblance to the Droeshout, the Chandos and the Stratford bust. It was 
 no easy process to properly fill up cavity after cavity from which the original 
 pieces were wanting in the Becker Mask and still preserve or rather revive 
 them in his own. Had Becker's Mask happily occupied his studio then, 
 much of this trouble might have been obviated and the opportunity of
 
 1 8 Shakt'spfare : the Man. 
 
 terminating his labor at an earlier clay been given him. It was left for 
 him to overcome these difficulties. 
 
 The American Mask is about two feet long, and were a figure of 
 proportionate size made for it the whole would stand seventeen feet high. 
 Never was there so wonderfully expressive and majestic a face as this. In 
 it nothing is omitted ; nothing is made out by negation. The veins, the 
 wrinkles in the skin, the indications of the muscles under the skin, the 
 smallest part recognizable to the naked eye, are given there with the same 
 ease and exactness, with the same prominence and the same subordination, 
 as they would be cast from nature — i. e., in nature itself. Alternate action 
 and repose are admirably displayed in it. Now the lids seem about to 
 open, the shadow of a smile appears to linger on the lips ; now again the 
 face is grave and meditative. There is a harmony, a unity of spirit, diffused 
 throughout the wondrous mass and every part of it, which is the glory of 
 it. It has the freedom, the variety, the stamp of nature. There is no 
 ostentation, no stiffness, no over-labored finish. Every part is in its place 
 and degree and put to its proper use. 
 
 It is said, that a side view recals the profile of Julius Cssar ; 
 the front view, the countenance of Napoleon I. 
 
 As the American Mask reproduces with scrupulous nicety 
 every detail in the original, save such as Mr. Page refers to the 
 decomposition of the face or to accidental injury to the plaster, 
 it of course exhibits the long scar on the forehead over the 
 right eye. It has been suggested that this is the blemish which 
 Shakespeare refers to in the 112th sonnet. 
 
 Your love and pity doth th' impression fill 
 Which vulgar scandal stanipt upon my brow ; 
 
 whence we are asked to conclude, that vulgar scandal had 
 referred this blemish to a discreditable source, such as a tavern 
 brawl or a street fight, in which our bard had engas^ed. Mr.
 
 Shakespeare : the Ulan. 19 
 
 Thoms will, I doubt not, hail this discovery as fresh evidence 
 that Shakespeare had been a soldier. For myself, whatever 
 may be the true state of the case, I am not disposed to accept 
 the material and literal meaning attributed to the 112th sonnet. 
 However, there is one circumstance which is in itself most 
 curious, and possesses a special interest for persons who 
 believe in the so-called spiritual manifestations. A gentleman 
 resident at Stratford-upon-Avon has communicated to the 
 public press an account of three visions of the poet with which 
 he had been favoured. It appears that he had never heard of 
 the alleged scar on the Becker Cast : nor indeed is it likely, 
 since the speculation was first made quite recently in New York, 
 /. e., three years and a half after the apparition of Shakespeare. 
 I am quite sure the account he gives is no invention, for it 
 accords with my own experiences in an illness from which I 
 suffered fifteen or sixteen years ago, when among an immense 
 number of apparitions was a medallion-portrait of Napoleon III. 
 This gentleman says : 
 
 About three years and a half ago I was taken ill with a nervous 
 affection, and consequently passed some sleepless nights ; but, to add to my 
 misery, I was obliged to look upon strange sights which came before me — 
 in the shape of people — visions of those who had passed away from the 
 world. The shadows at first appeared very faintly, but plain enough to be 
 seen by me; * * then gradually appeared before me in a clear 
 and distinct light a number of people. The most prominent of all, 1 
 noticed the great poet Shakespeare. His general appearance resembled 
 the pictures I had seen of him, with one exception — he had an ugly wound 
 over his left eyebrow, but higher up liis forehead. It was not a straight 
 mark that a deep cut would leave; it seemed as if the forehead had been 
 broken at that place by a IjIow from some heavy, blunt instrument, like
 
 20 Shakespeare : the Alan. 
 
 a hammer or a life-preserver, or a heavy stick. It left the impression upon 
 my mind that Shakespeare had been murdered. I think I saw this vision 
 three or four successive nights, and eacli time I noticed the mark upon 
 his face. lie passed me in an upright position. His features had a white 
 ashy appearance. The wound on his face was [of] a dark red colour, and 
 his eyes were closed as in death ; and it seemed to me that there was no 
 expression of life in his face. This I was most unwillingly compelled to 
 see several times. When I recovered from my indisposition I began to con- 
 sider it only a weakness of the brain ; I was advised to do so by several 
 persons whom I told of it soon after. 
 
 Now the scar shewn in Mr. Page's Mask is high up over 
 the right eye. But some observers have thought they found 
 'the traces of another scar on the forehead' — 'fully three 
 inches in length ' — running ' in a transverse direction, com- 
 mencing over the left temple, near the scalp, and ending about 
 the centre of the forehead.' But this, it is alleged, 'is merely 
 a seam, and was, no doubt, but a slight injury — nothing but 
 a scalp wound, the bone remaining unhurt.' So this does not 
 correspond with the visionary wound, which shewed ' as if the 
 forehead had been broken in.' It is a pity we cannot make 
 the English vision and the American discovery square with 
 each other : but it is not to be done anyhow. Still the material 
 discrepancy supports the visionary's good faith. 
 
 I must confess I am in daily dread of hearing that Mr. 
 Gerald Massey has got hold of this story : for it will fatally 
 confirm him in one of his pet heresies (for he has many), 
 that some lines in J9.hn Davies' Paper s Coinplaijit, refer to 
 Sliakespeare. I give the lines in extenso, because Mr. Massey 
 found it convenient to impose on his readers a garbled
 
 Shakespeare : the Man. 21 
 
 version of them. (See The Secret Drama of Shakespeare's 
 Sonnets, &c., 1872, Appendix.) He will see in these lines a 
 natural allusion to the jeopardy in which the bard's life stood 
 in consequence of this gash on his forehead ; and we may 
 expect that he will quote the date of Davies' poem as that 
 of the occasion on which it was inflicted. Paper's Complaint 
 was printed in The Scourge of Folly, 1620 ; and the sequent 
 lines occur on pp. 231 and 232. 
 
 But, Fame reports, ther's one (forthcomming, yet) 
 That's comming forth with Azotes of better Sett ; 
 And of this Nature ; Who both can, and will 
 With descant, more in tune, me fairely fill. 
 And if a senselesse creature (as I am ; 
 And, so am made, by those whome thus I blame) 
 May judgment give, from those that know it well, 
 His Notes for Arte and Judgement do excell. 
 Well fare thee man of Arte, and World of Witt, 
 That by supremest Mercy livest vet ; 
 Yet, dost but live ; yet, livst thou to the end : 
 But, so thou paist for Time, which thou dost spend. 
 That the deere Treasure of thy precious Skills 
 The World with pleasure and with profitt fills. 
 Thy long-wing'd, active and ingenious Spright 
 Is ever Towring to the highest height 
 Of Witt, and Arte ; to beautifie my face : 
 So, deerely gracest life for lifes deere Grace. 
 
 The allusion is thought by Dr. Brinsley Nicholson to be 
 to Sir Walter Raleigh. The poem was printed in 161 1, and 
 therefore too early for Cartwright to have been intended. All 
 that Mr. Gerald Massey says of it is wide of the mark. Besides
 
 22 Shakespeare : the Man. 
 
 transposing some of the lines and omitting others, he assumes 
 that Davies is speaking in his own person of himself: whereas 
 it is Paper that is personified and is the complainant. Mr. 
 Massey, too, calls Davies a Puritan . He was a writing-master, 
 and became a Roman Catholic.

 
 ^ Dl.
 
 3 1205 03058 9830 
 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 A A 001 426 508 6