as it may, the following remarks will show what use Mr. Boaden has made by some further ob. servations on it.

His belief is, that " Marshall's print of Shakspeare, is derived to him from Payne, when, perhaps, it is confounded with that by W. Marshall," who, as well as Payne and Droeshout, worked from the school of Crispin de Passe, and whose method was most likely imbibed by his scholars; again, in his two concluding pages, 121 and 122, "The head, by Marshall, seems to have been copied by him from a head by Payne, who reduced that by Droeshout, with some variations in the dress and attitude."

He then talks of the light he has thrown on those five portraits of Shakspeare, which to me is about as clear as the moon is seen through a fog. Mr. Boaden attempts, in his remarks on Mr. Steevens's opinions, (p. 98) to reprove what was absolutely well explained by that gentleman. The part I allude to is as follows; "Marshall too," says Mr. Steevens, "when he engraved it reversed the figure, (alluding to the Felton picture.) To be sure he did; and did he never ask himself, how it happened that Droeshout, on his hypothesis, did not do the same thing? Yes, the picture and an engraving pretending to be taken from it in 1623, absolutely look the same way; though, even as late as Houbraken's, (1747) all the

heads were reversed by the engraver as a common practice."

"But yet, how did it happen that Marshall, who was a superior engraver, did not produce a more accurate likeness from the picture, if he copied it? he could not be suspected of similar volunteer infidelities with those of the Dutchman. He would have exhibited the conical forehead, the straight eye brow, the flatted nose, and the thin beard of the picture one would think. Nothing like it. Marshall saw no picture. Droeshout was his original; only, that having reduced it as to size, he was unable, with all his skill, to give a tithe of the expressions communicated in the folio by the "mischievous agency of the Dutchman."

Mr. Boaden says, (page 121) "The head by Marshall has been copied by him from a head by Payne, who reduced that by Droeshout." And at (page 98) in another passage, speaking of the Felton head and Droeshout's print, is as follows; "Yes, the picture and an engraving pretending to be taken from it in 1623, absolutely look the same way." If a print, in those times, could not be made to look the same way as the picture, it was not possible that Marshall could have engraved his plate from Payne, for Payne's, in such a case, must, if copied from Droeshout's, look the reverse to that original; whereas, Marshall's looks the contrary way to Droeshout's; consequently, it could

1

not have been done from Payne's. In the above statements, Mr. Boaden has most egregiously confuted his own evidence, and, as he very justly observes in his concluding page 122, on the Felton picture,

"Happily, in nearly all cases of this nature, the ingenuity is never so complete as to baffle the inquiry of criticism; and the gentle progress of time conducts to the triumph of TRUTH.”

It is a very common case to observe, that whenever an enthusiast engages in a disputation, with what vehemance he applies the shafts of his ridicule, as though it was absolutely necessary to destroy the thing he contemns, in order to convert the minds of his adversaries: but this contumely, in the end, generally recoils on the calumniator. Thus finding that the Felton portrait has the strongest circumstantial proofs of its originality, is abused, and entirely rejected for the want of a discriminating judgment, it is a duty to appear in such a cause, and expose what Mr. Boaden calls TRUTH, respecting the origin of engravings looking the same way as the pictures, this author asserts they were not so done until Houbraken, 1747; I shall now show that he is in the wrong, as pictures were engraved in Droeshout's time, the same way as they look, which can he proved by numerous engravings in the British Museum. The first I have to observe,

1

is William Summers, Jester to Henry VIII. engraved by Delaram. This portrait, is a whole length, in a tunic, small folio, (very rare,) with the initials HIR, upon his breast. Had the plate of this print been engraved as the picture looked it would have printed the above letters thus, ЯH. I must here observe, that this print is done very near the time of the first portrait that was ever engraved, which was that of Archbishop Parker, 1573.

But as the above may not be sufficient satisfaction to many persons, I will now refer them to a decided proof. The portrait of Philip II. of Spain, who came to England to marry Mary I. has his sword on the left side in an engraved print of the day. Also the whole length portrait of Henry Prince of Wales, has also the sword on the left side. The above print is by Simon Passe, A. D. 1612.* Another print is by Marshall, 1640, a whole length portrait of Lord Bacon, sitting at a table writing, with his right hand in a book. Those admirable productions of Le Brun's Battles of Alexander the Great, engraved by Edelink, have the implements of war in their right hands, and every other part corresponding as though they were pictures.

As I have now shown that portraits were en

This print is extremely rare, and has been lately copied in mezzotinto, by Dunkerton, for Mr. Woodburn.

graved as early as Droeshout, and as I have proved even earlier, I will now take him "a button hole lower," and show what he says at page. 104:

"When I first saw this head at Richardson's, I

found that it had been a good deal rubbed under the eyes; but there were no circular cracks upon the surface, which time is sure to produce."

One

Here is an error scarcely to be credited. would think this author had never seen a picture older than himself. Had he ever inspected pictures by Hans Holbein, Titian, Claude, Rubens, &c. he would bear witness to the contrary; and most of the above master's works are to be seen at the National Gallery, in Pall Mall, where there is evident proofs to the contrary of what he asserts.

As I have some knowledge how cracks are produced in paintings, I will show that time has · but little to do with it beyond a short period. Cracks in pictures are caused by glutinous matters used in too great à quantity in the body of the paint, and which is more done at present than in former times. When too great quantity is used with the colours, it makes pictures beautifully transparent, but as they get hard in drying, they shrink, and, consequently, will crack. Whereas, let a picture be painted with colours as they come from the manufactory, with only nut and drying oil, the picture will then stand for ever, without "circular cracks ;"

K