Droeshout Portrait
On the title-page of the First Folio, in a space left for the purpose, this engraving appears. The plate is about 7½ inches long by 6⅓ inches wide. Under the lower left hand corner of the latter is the inscription: Martin Droeshout sculpsit London. The same plate was used in the Second (1632), Third (1663 and 1664), and Fourth (1685) Folio editions of Shakespeare. In the Second Folio the plate appeared in the same position as in the first edition, and this is also the case in the copies of the Third Folio that are dated 1663; but in copies of that edition dated 1664 the engraving is on a leaf opposite to, and facing the title-page, and surmounting the verses by Ben Jonson referred to below. In the Fourth Folio the engraving occupies the same place that it does in copies of the third edition dated 1664.
Droeshout engraved a number of plates, among which may be mentioned portraits of John Fox; John Howson, Bishop of Durham; William Fairfax, and Lord Mountjoy Blount. His portrait of Shaksper, however, while exhibiting the same hard, stiff style, is the worst of them all. The opinions of critics as to the merits of Droeshout’s engraving have been various, but it has failed to receive a hearty commendation from any of them.
Marshall Portrait
In 1640 there was published a work entitled: Poems Written by Will. Shake-speare, Gent. Printed at London by Tho. Cotes, and are to be sold by John Benson, dwelling in St. Dunstan’s Church-yard. 1640. In this book appeared a plate, consisting of a portrait of Shaksper, copied from the Droeshout picture, but changed in many details. It was engraved by W. Marshall. In copying the Droeshout plate Marshall has turned the head in the opposite direction, and added to the length of the figure so as to show the left arm, with the hand covered with a gauntlet, and holding a branch of laurel. Over the right shoulder is a cloak. The whole is enclosed in an oval frame. Marshall’s engraving presents a worse appearance than Droeshout’s.
When Ireland gave to the world his wretched forgeries, which he succeeded in palming off on many men (who should have known better) as original MS., by Shakespeare, Samuel Ireland engraved, in December 1, 1795 the miserable drawing which bears some slight resemblance to the Droeshout; but it is so badly executed that it looks like the work of a child. It was published in the Miscellaneous Papers, etc., London: 1796.
Chandos Portrait
This picture was first heard of towards the end of the seventeenth century, after the year 1683, when Sir Godfrey Kneller made a copy of it for Dryden. This is the first fact that we know concerning it. It has an elaborate pedigree, however. It is not known by whom it was painted. Some critics have believed that it was the work of Richard Burbage, the actor. He possessed considerable skill as an artist, and in Dulwich College there is still preserved a portrait of himself which he painted.
The style and manner of the work in this portrait of Burbage, are said to be similar to the Chandos picture. Joseph Taylor, an actor, is reputed to have been its first owner, but whether he purchased it from Burbage, or it was given to him by the latter, tradition is silent. He is supposed to have left it by will to Sir William D’Avenant, but no will of Taylor’s has been found, and as the latter was extremely poor, this is not a happy conjecture. There is a tradition that Sir William D’Avenant owned this picture, but here again there is not a particle of proof.
Kesselstadt Portrait
Muller’s Letter to L. Becker. Mayence, February 28, 1847.
Friend Becker:
Some time ago you submitted for my opinion a small oil painting; a sort of miniature in oils; of the English school, painted in the seventeenth century. This picture represented a very celebrated Englishman, lying on his deathbed, in state. I remarked at the time, that in the features of the deceased, I instantly recognized those of that great European dramatic author, William Shakespeare, of Stratford, born in 1564, and on his deathbed, alas! in 1616. You now request me to state, by letter, my reasons for the above opinion, it being of importance just now that you should know them. I have not the least hesitation in communicating the following:
The picture in question was upwards of a century in the hands of the noble family of Kesselstadt, at Cologne; which city, it is well known, kept up a lively commerce in works of art with London, for nearly three hundred years. The deceased Prebendary [Domherr] Francis Earl of Kesselstadt (with whom I was on terms of intimacy since the year 1790,) as only surviving heir, succeeded to the estates, and became possessed of all the pictures and chef-d’œuvres. He himself had considerable knowledge of painting; was a great collector, as well as a lover and patron of the Fine Arts. He turned his attention, however, more particularly to works of historical worth, the portraits of renowned characters, of which he had a large collection, and to each of which he appended a sort of historical reference, par example, Albrecht von Brandenburg, Gustavus Adolphus (King of Sweden), Henry IV., Martin Luther, Melanchthon, Albrecht Durer, Martin Schön; and, amongst the celebrated poets of the olden time, the little picture now in your possession had a prominent place, bearing the inscription:
Traditionen nach Shakespeare
This picture came into your possession after the death of Earl Kesselstadt, when his effects were put up at auction; and thus you had the opportunity and good fortune of acquiring, at a moderate price, a gem of art and “world-celebrated rarity.” I cannot here omit stating, that among all the numerous savans, antiquaries, and eminent artists visiting Earl Kesselstadt’s gallery, not the least doubt existed as to the authenticity of the picture of Shakespeare, to which many affirmed the sketches they had seen in England bore strong resemblance.
Earl Kesselstadt, to my knowledge, refused some very handsome offers from parties anxious to become purchasers.
Your friend,
(Signed) N. Muller,
Professor.
Translation of Certificate of Purchase from S. Jourdan, an antiquary of Mayence.
March 17, 1847.
I hereby certify, at the request of Mr. L. Becker, that the little picture, bearing date 1637, and representing Shakespeare upon his deathbed, was purchased by me at the public sale of Earl Kesselstadt’s effects, and afterwards sold to the above Mr. L. Becker.
(Signed) S. Jourdan,
Antiquary, Mayence.
Some critics (Friswell among the number,) have agreed with Becker, that the picture is a copy from the Mask, but others cannot see any resemblance between the two. On the back edge of the Mask there has been placed the inscription:
† A° Dm 1616
It has evidently been made with a blunt stick when the plaster was soft, and has no appearance of having been cut afterwards. If the latter had been the case, the letters would have presented a sharper appearance than they do. The figures are similar to those used at the date inscribed on it, and there is no reason to suppose that they were put there at a later date. The cross which precedes them is often met with in inscriptions on tomb stones, etc., and the A° Dm is an abbreviation for Anno Domini.
Jansen Portrait
It is not known who painted it. It is generally called the Jansen portrait (though frequently known as “the Somerset”) and is supposed to have been painted by Cornelius Jansen. The latter’s name is also spelled Janssen or Janssens, and sometimes Johnson, although the latter is incorrect. This celebrated painter was born in Amsterdam in 1590.
This alleged portrait of Shaksper is not mentioned by Walpole, nor is it given in the undoubted works by Jansen recorded by Dallaway, and above referred to. Still the picture bears a strong resemblance in its manner and general treatment to undoubted works of Jansen. It has the same dark background that is so often found in his pictures, and its neat, clear, and smooth appearance agrees with Jansen’s style.
Felton Portrait
On August 9, 1794 William Richardson, a print-seller, of Castle Street, Leicester Square, London, informed George Steevens, the well-known Shakespearian editor and critic, that S. Felton, of Curzon Street, London, had in his possession an old portrait, which appeared to him to be similar to the Droeshout engraving in the folio editions of Shakespeare.
Stratford Portrait of Shakespeare
A portrait of Shakespeare, painted on canvas, three-quarter life-size, which has been in the family of W.O. Hunt, Esq., Town Clerk of Stratford-upon-Avon, for a century, has recently been put into the hands of Mr. Simon Collins, of 6 Somerset Street, Portman Square, London (now on a visit to Stratford), who, after removing the dirt, damp, and repaint by which it was obscured, has brought to light what he pronounces to be a genuine portrait of the Immortal Bard. The picture bears a remarkable resemblance to the bust in the chancel of Stratford Church, according to the description given of it before it was painted white at the request of Mr. Malone in 1793.
Ashborne Portrait
This singular portrait has no pedigree. It was purchased by Mr. Clements Kingston, of Ashborne, Derbyshire, England, some time prior to March, 1847. All that is known concerning it is set forth in the following letter written by Mr. Kingston to Mr. Abraham Wivell, author of An Inquiry, etc. It has never before been published:
Grammar School, Ashborne, March 8, 1847.
Dear Sir:
I return you many thanks for your kind offer, and also for the candid and open manner in which you express yourself. I am perfectly aware of the innumerable deceptions and frauds of every possible kind which are practiced upon the unwary connoisseur, having given my attention to paintings for the last ten or fifteen years; but I am happy to say nothing of the kind has taken place with regard to the picture in question. The way in which I happened to come into possession of it was this:
A friend in London sent me word that he had seen a portrait of Shakespeare, that he was positive it was a genuine picture, and that the owner only valued it as being a very fine painting. Being too poor to purchase it for himself, he advised me by all means to have it. I immediately wrote back requesting him to secure me the prize. Since being in my possession it has been merely relined, and is in most excellent preservation. Of the genuineness of it I have not the slightest doubt whatever, or I should not have asked so valuable an opinion as yours. In fact, and I speak it with the utmost confidence (though I am sure you will consider me too bold), I really believe it to be the best, and certainly the most interesting portrait of the immortal bard in existence.
The size of the picture is three feet ten inches, by three feet, and represents him, the size of life, down to the knee. His right arm is leaning upon a skull, and in that hand he holds a book, upon the cover of which, amongst the ornamental details, is the crest of the Shakespeare family, and the tragic mask. This is too small to have been put on by any party wishing to pass the portrait off as genuine; for ninety-nine out of a hundred would never notice it; and moreover I will warrant every portion of the picture to have been painted at the same period. In the left hand upper corner, in characters of the period, is Ætatis svæ. 47 A° 1611. The shape of the face and countenance altogether greatly resemble those in the picture belonging to the Duke of Somerset; in fact so very similar do they appear, that, judging from the engraving, I could fancy the two portraits to be the production of the same hand, but the original picture belonging to the Duke I have not seen.
To sum up, I will warrant my picture to have been purchased in its original state, and that the canvas, etc., is peculiarly of the period in which Shakespeare lived; that it has never been retouched since it was painted, and therefore that whatever detail there may be on it (which I consider gives more weight than anything), was certainly every touch, painted with the portrait itself. Should you, after this description, think the matter worthy of your further attention, I will either arrange for the picture being sent to you, or if you will oblige me by saying what your travelling expenses would be, I will send you the sum required.
In the mean time, I remain, dear sir, in haste,
Yours very truly, and greatly obliged
Clements Kingston.
Mr. Wivell
Duke of Devonshire Bust
In 1737 the Duke’s Theatre ceased to be occupied for theatrical performances. It was afterwards altered into a warehouse for Spode and Copeland; names that will ever be dear to the lover of old china. In 1845 the warehouse was pulled down to make additional room for an enlargement of the museum of the College of Surgeons. While the building was being demolished much of the plan and shape of the former theatre was laid bare; and when the workmen were knocking down a portion of one of the walls, on one side of an arched door, that was formerly one of the main entrances to the old theatre, they noticed, among the bricks and mortar that had fallen, broken pieces of a terra-cotta bust. Calling the Curator of the museum of the College of Surgeons adjoining, they pointed out to him these remains. Mr. William Clift, F.R.S., who was then Curator, and his son-in-law, Professor Owen, collected the pieces, and putting them together, they at once saw the bust was well made. Who it was they were not certain, but finally concluded that it was intended for Ben Jonson.
Having found a bust on one side of the door, they thought there might be another companion bust on the other side. They therefore directed the workmen to use great care in taking down the portion of the wall that was still standing. Here behind the bricks, a terra-cotta bust, which was at once recognized as that of Shakespeare, was found. It was in a perfect state of preservation, and after it had been carefully cleaned it was in some manner obtained by Mr. Clift.
It is very strange that the College of Surgeons did not claim so valuable and interesting a memorial as their own property. Perhaps, however, it was not then thought to be of much importance. The position in which it was found, bricked up behind a wall that had evidently been erected in converting the old Duke’s Theatre into the china warehouse, gives the bust every right to be regarded as a work of the time of Charles I., or a few years later, but there is no mark on it to indicate the date when it was made, and nothing is known of its sculptor.
Hampton Court Portrait
Hampton Court Palace, situated in the village of Hampton, a few miles from London, is an old painting which formerly hung near the top of a large room with a high ceiling. It was so high from the ground that it was difficult to say what it was. Later it was hung lower, and is now claimed to represent Shakespeare. The picture represents the figure almost to the knees. The face is more like the Chandos portrait than any other, but the nose is longer. The forehead is very similar to that portrait, but the eyes are blue instead of dark brown as in the Chandos, and the hair is nearly black as compared with the auburn or dark brown of the latter. The mouth, moustache and beard on the cheeks and chin are very similar to those of that portrait, but the dress is entirely different.
The Hampton Court picture represents a man in a rich dress, elaborately embroidered, and with gold buttons. It is open at the waist, and at the sleeves. Only the top of the breeches can be seen, but they are red, puffed out, and bombasted in the style of James I. A broad belt is worn high upon the waist, elaborately embroidered, and with a large buckle. Suspended from this are a dagger and sword; the right hand of the figure holding the former, and the left supporting the handle of the sword, which has a large pommel, and a gilt basket-hilt. A large ruff completes the costume; and from the left ear, which is pierced, there hangs a double string. Above the head is the inscription AÆtat. suæ. 34. The hands are represented with long and pointed fingers, and there are ruffs at the wrists.
It is evidently a genuine portrait, and not a forgery, but whether it represents Shakespeare or not is a matter which will probably never be known. Some years ago the Arundel Society published a photograph of this portrait which gives a very good representation of it; but the cracks in the varnish show more distinctly in the photograph than in the picture.
Hilliard Miniature Portrait
The miniature represents the poet with a somewhat receding forehead, which is much lower than in the other portraits; and the hair, which is also lighter, grows forward in the centre of the forehead, and recedes high up at the sides. The moustache is long and brushed out straight, not drooping. The goatee is long, straight and pointed, and the rest of the face is smooth. The nose is straight, the eyes expressive and handsome, the eye- brows arched. The face is full, and the whole effect quite pleasing. There is a large and deep ruff, with lace around the edge, the costume elaborate. The miniature only shows the figure a little below the shoulders.
Warwick Portrait
Among the pictures in Warwick Castle, is one which has been there for many years, and which has always been believed to be a portrait of Shakespeare. Its history, however, is unknown, and who painted it, where it came from, and other details which would enable one to decide upon its claims to be a genuine picture of the poet, are unfortunately all matters of conjecture.
He is represented as seated by a table with a white cover. The chair is red with a high back, and Shakespeare appears to be about to write, and looks up as if in meditation. The background is dark, and the costume black, with ruff and sleeve ruffles of white lace. The face is more youthful than in the other portraits, the complexion reddish, the features delicate, and the beard pointed, with moustache.
Jennings Portrait
This miniature, painted in oil, was contained in an enamelled gold locket, which was formerly set with pearls. It was the property of H. Constantine Jennings, of Battersea, who had borrowed six or seven hundred pounds on its security, and that of an old missal, from a Mr. Webb. Either the jewels which the locket formerly contained were valuable, or the missal was of great rarity and value, or else Mr. Webb fared badly, for when the miniature and locket were put up for sale at Christie’s, in London, in February, 1827, it was bought by Charles Auriol, Esq., for nine and a half guineas. It had also been owned by a Mr. Wise Jennings claimed to have traced the possession of the miniature back to the Southampton family, but no proof of this exists. The miniature is neatly painted, and the features well drawn. The forehead is high, the beard full, as in the Chandos portrait; the collar, which is of lace, very large; the costume white and much ornamented. Only the head and shoulders are shown. Wilson was of opinion that “there appears upon the face of this picture a stamp of undoubted originality,” and Wivell says “that the picture is intended for the poet, and is of antiquity, I have no doubt.” On the side of the picture, on the background, is the age, Æt 33. It is sometimes called the Auriol miniature.
Burn Portrait
The picture is in oil, on canvas, and is about eighteen inches high by fifteen inches wide. The face is well drawn and has an animated expression. It bears considerable resemblance to the Stratford bust, except that the hair is much more profuse than in the latter. The moustache and goatee are very similar also to the Stratford bust. The dress is indistinct, except the collar, which is of lace, and is very rich. It is open at the front, displaying the neck. What its history is, or who painted it is unknown. It is considered by its owner to be a genuine portrait of the poet.
Lumley Portrait
This picture originally formed part of the collection of paintings at Lumley Castle, Durham, England. In 1785 the pictures at the Castle were sold at auction. Who purchased the portrait in question is not known, but subsequently it was repurchased, together with a number of other paintings, by the Earl of Scarborough, who was a relative of Lord Lumley, the former owner of Lumley Castle. It remained in the possession of the Earl of Scarborough’s family until 1807, when it was again sold, together with other pictures. The picture is an oil painting, and as before stated, closely resembles the Chandos portrait.
The forehead, nose, eyes, and the general arrangement of the hair and beard are all very similar to that portrait, but the chin seems longer in the Lumley, and the beard is not quite as pointed. The linen collar is of the same shape as the Chandos, and its strings hang down in the same manner as those in that portrait. One cannot help feeling that there is some connection between these two pictures, and indeed, the idea that the Lumley picture was the original of the Chandos has been suggested.
Boston Art Museum Portrait
On the back of the portrait there is the following inscription:
William Shakespeare.
Painted by Federigo Zuccaro.
1595
Was Found in 3 Pieces in pulling down an Old House on the Surrey side of the Thames, where stood once the Globe Tavern and Theatre.
Challis Portrait
Thomas Challis, Esq., a banker, residing in West Smithfield, London, purchased this portrait from one of his old clerks. The latter had bought it at an auction sale of the effects of Dr. Black. These meagre details are all that are known concerning it. It is a three-quarter length portrait, painted in oil, on a panel which is cracked in two places. These cracks have been carefully repaired, and the background and costume of the figure restored. The cracks did not pass through the face, which is in a good state of preservation.
Zoust Portrait
The face has a delicate expression, and is shown in a three-quarter view. The hair is profuse and curling, and of a brown colour, covering the top of the head; the beard, which is full, is slight, and the moustache very slight. The collar is somewhat like that of the Chandos portrait, but without strings. The costume is rich, but plainly made.
Zucchero Portrait
This portrait was formerly in the possession of R. Cosway, R.A., at whose house Boaden saw it. Cosway claimed that it was an original portrait of Shakespeare. It is on panel, and on the back of the picture were the words Guglielm. Shakespeare. Nothing further is known concerning the history of this portrait. Cosway did not give Boaden any information, beyond his belief that it was an original picture by Zucchero.
Boardman Miniature Portrait
This miniature, which is on copper, is seven and a quarter inches high, and five and a half inches wide. It is enclosed in an old carved oak frame, formerly gilt, but now painted black, and is in the possession of G.W.W. Firth, Esq., a surgeon, residing in Norwich, England. On the top of the frame there is a scroll, with the arms of Shakespeare, his crest, and motto: Non sanz droict.
Stace Portrait
Machell Stace, from whom this portrait receives its name, was a bookseller and dealer in pictures, who formerly resided in Middle Scotland Yard, London. Prior to 1811 Stace bought the picture from a Mr. Linnell, of Streatham Street, Bloomsbury, who had purchased it of a Mr. Tuffing, Great Queen Street, Lincoln’s Inn Fields. It had been sold at auction, with other pictures which belonged to John Graham, Esq. He had purchased it of a Mr. Sathard, who kept a tavern called the Old Green Dragon Public House. Sathard bought it at a sale at another tavern rejoicing in the classic name of the Three Pigeons, where it was said to have been for many years. Such is the pedigree of this portrait as given by Stace.
Whether it is founded on fact or drawn from his imagination there are now no means of ascertaining. The first impression on seeing this picture is that the eyes are too large. The hair is thick and long, the nose fine, and the mouth good. A small moustache and a goatee are all the beard that the figure has. The costume is plain, with a small collar. Stace stated that it represented the poet at the age of thirty-three, but he forgot to tell us how he fixed the exact age.
O’Connell Portrait
This portrait, which has no history, is in the possession of J. O’Connell, Esq., of Laurel Street, London, who claims that it is the work of Mark Garrard. It is in very dilapidated condition, owing to bad usage and the thinness of the colours and want of body. It is on canvas, is of life size, and represents the figure to the waist.
Friswell was of opinion that it was probably the work of Garrard, but considered it very doubtful if it was ever intended to represent Shakespeare.
Gilliland Portrait
This curious portrait was formerly in the possession of Mr. Thomas Gilliland, of London. It is on canvas, but the latter has been mounted on board. On the back is the following history of the picture:
This portrait of Shakespeare I cut from a picture about three feet square, containing several other portraits in the same style of work. The picture was recently bought at the Custom House, by a picture dealer, of whom I purchased it, under a strong impression that it was painted about the time of Shakespeare, either by an artist who had seen him, or who copied a genuine portrait of the poet now lost, as this likeness differs from all the portraits hitherto published or known.
Thomas Gilliland.
London, April 3, 1827.
Hardie Portrait
A very singular portrait, purporting to represent Shakespeare, was formerly in the possession of Dr. Hardie, of Manchester, England. At one time it was regarded by some persons as a genuine picture, but Wivell subsequently discovered that it was a forgery by Zincke. He had altered it from the portrait of a French dancing master, which he purchased for a few shillings.
Liddell Portrait
The Liddell portrait is painted on an oak panel, and is three-quarter size. It was purchased by Thomas Liddell, Esq., of Portland Place, London, from a Mr. Lewis, of Charles Street, Soho, for thirty-nine pounds. It strongly resembles the Stratford bust, but Wivell noticed, when he went to see it (prior to 1827) that the hair, beard, mouth, and ruff seemed to have been altered from their original appearance.
Dunford Portrait
In Great Newport Street, London, there formerly lived a print-seller named Dunford, who became the owner of this portrait about 1814. He purchased it from Edward Holder, a repairer of old paintings, for four guineas. Wivell ascertained that it was a forgery, and that it had been altered from a picture which Holder purchased for a few shillings.
Winstanley Portrait
February 10, 1819 Thomas Winstanley, an auctioneer, of Liverpool, wrote a letter to The Literary Gazette, which was published on the 20th. In this he described a portrait of Shakespeare in his possession, which he stated he had purchased from a dealer, who had obtained it from a pawnbroker. Winstanley also said that a friend, whose opinion of a work of art was of much value, had pronounced it to be the work of Paul Vansomer; that it was in a fine state of preservation, and had the appearance of having been painted in Shakespeare’s time.
Zincke Portrait
W.F. Zincke, an artist who seems to have vied with Edward Holder in the manufacture of spurious portraits of Shakespeare, was the painter of this picture. The portrait is in an oval and shows the full face. The shape of the head, the arrangement of the hair and beard, all bear considerable resemblance to the Stratford bust, which Zincke appears to have taken as his model. On one side of the oval in which the picture is painted is a sketch of the poet with his dog and gun, and on the other side he is shown as a boy holding a horse; the latter being a representation of the story of his having followed that occupation while a youth.
Talma Portrait
Zincke, who had already appeared as the fabricator of other spurious portraits of the poet, altered this one from another picture. It is on the wooden part of a pair of bellows, and Zincke concocted a wonderful story about a friend of his finding it in an old tavern. It was sold by one Foster to a Mr. Allen for a small sum. Foster told Wivell, in 1827, that he knew it was not an original portrait, and he had sold about thirty of “these mock original Shakespeares,” and that he “never got more than six or eight guineas for the best, and I can assure you that I found it difficult to persuade many of the purchasers that they were not originals.”
Shakespeare Gallery Alto Relievo
When Boydell employed the best English artists of his day to paint the pictures which he afterward had engraved, he also caused to be made for the front of the Shakespeare Gallery, Pall Mall, London, a large monument in alto relievo, which was designed and executed by J. Banks, R.A. Shakespeare is represented seated on a rock. He leans his left hand on the shoulder of an allegorical figure of a woman representing the Genius of Painting, who has a palette and brushes in one hand, while with the other she points to the poet as the best subject for her talent. The other allegorical figure is also a woman, who represents the Dramatic Genius, who is figured with a lyre, while she offers a wreath to the poet. The allegorical figures are well done, especially the Genius of Painting, whose figure is very graceful and charming, but the poet has not fared so well. The face has often been mistaken for George Washington, to whom the resemblance is striking.
The Alto Relievo was removed from London in the 1800’s and was presented by Mr. C. Holte Bracebridge to Shakespeare’s Garden at New Place, Stratford-upon-Avon, where it now is. The stone from which the monument was cut is very soft, and owing to this unfortunate circumstance, it has suffered somewhat from exposure to the weather.
Roubiliac Statue
1758 Lewis Francis Roubiliac sculptured this statue of Shakespeare for David Garrick. The latter, by his will, provided that it should go to the British Museum after the death of his wife, and it is now there. It represents the poet leaning on a stand covered with drapery, in the act of composition. The face is taken from the Chandos portrait, and the costume is a doublet and knee breeches. Over all is thrown a loose cloak, which hangs from his shoulders.
Shakespeare the boy
Perhaps no greater fraud was ever perpetrated than one found in an American book published in 1896 and entitled “Shakespeare the Boy.” A portrait of Shakespeare in youth is presented in the frontispiece, thus: “This is not a portrait of Shakspere, but apparently of John Milton.” The deception is particularly heinous, because, as the author confesses, the book was written for the benefit of young people. No portrait of Shaksper, taken at the time of life as here represented, is in existence, or ever was in existence. It is therefore utterly false.
Ward Statue
This statue, which is the work of Mr. J.Q.A. Ward, was erected in Central Park, New York, May 23, 1872. In modelling the head Mr. Ward has closely followed the Stratford bust, but he has given the face a much more intellectual expression than appears in that effigy. The cheeks are thinner and the face more refined, and yet one can see at a glance that the Stratford bust has been the model.
The poet is represented standing, as if lost in thought. He holds a book in his right hand and has his finger between the leaves to keep the place where he has been reading. The left hand rests on the hip, and the head is inclined slightly forward. The costume consists of doublet and hose, with puffed-out breeches, and a cloak hanging from the left shoulder, and is very graceful and well conceived.
