With regard to the Dulwich portrait, which has been pointed to as proof that Burbage was an artist, finding nothing satisfactory in print upon the subject, the writer thought best to investigate it, and found that a portrait of a young woman in a dark green bodice with red sleeves, the head turned to the left, painted on a canvas twenty by sixteen and a half inches, and numbered 103, was described on Cartwright's Catalogue, as "A woman's head on a bord, dun by Mr. Burbige, ye Actor." Mr. Bicknell, clerk to the Governors of Dulwich, in a letter to the writer respecting it, says: "The identification, however, can hardly be correct. It will be observed that this picture is on canvas, while the head, painted by Burbage, was on panel." To identify No. 103 with the portrait described in the catalogue, Mr. Bicknell kindly calls attention to the fact that Lysons, in his "Environs of London," 1792, describes this picture as in chiaro obscuro "a description," he says, "which so far would apply to this picture." It would be of some interest to know how the name of Burbage got into Cartwright's Catalogue, though, if it substantiated the claim that he was an artist, it would add nothing to the authenticity of the Felton portrait, which is too palpable a fraud to be rehabilitated, though it might give us a new crop of "R.B." originals of the Stratford actor.

THE JANSSEN PORTRAIT

Let us now consider the Janssen portrait which has been claimed to have been painted for Southampton of his “favorite poet," for the only reason that Janssen painted his lordship.

This is another "original" with a descriptive pedigree. Janssen was a Dutch painter, the date of whose birth has been disputed, but which is now ascertained to have been in 1593, and as this picture is dated 1610, he would have been but seventeen, which, in itself, is sufficient proof that he could not have painted the portrait in question, as the character of the

work shows that it was the work of an artist of experience; in fact, it is evident that it was never intended as a portrait of the actor. That it has been tampered with since it was exploited as an original Shakspere is proved by an engraving made by Earldom for Jennens, a former owner, upon which appears above the head a scroll bearing the words, "UT MAGUS" = Like a Magician. Experts, too, who have studied it, are of the opinion that the figure "6" in "46" has been changed from a cipher. This portrait was first brought to public notice in 1761, and the most ingenious attempts have been made to carry it back to the time it purports to have been painted; hence, three different pedigrees have been provided for it, neither of which can be regarded as of the least value by any one who has not been infected by the Stratford bacillus. Steevens was the first to assail its authenticity, and since his time it has been a storm center of profitless dispute. That it was intended for a portrait of some old worthy, who would be surprised if he could return and see what a fuss has been made over his once admired portrait, is not open to doubt. The portrait has, however, served a purpose, as other "originals" show its influence blended with that of Droeshout, which, to some minds, is even made to establish its own authenticity.

THE ASHBOURNE PORTRAIT

This picture has no pedigree. It came before the public when pedigrees of original Shaksperes were in such bad odor that it was thought prudent to have it appear like a bolt from the blue. In this case, "A friend in London wrote to the second master of the Free Grammar School at Ashbourne, Derbyshire," that he had seen a portrait of Shakspere that he was positive was a genuine picture, and that the owner only valued it as a very fine painting. Being too poor to purchase it himself, he advised the schoolmaster "by all means to have it." The reply went back, "Secure the prize," much, doubt

THE ZUCCHERO

THE SANDERS!

Though Holder's opinion was that this was the work of Zincke, his partner in fraud, with whose style he was familiar, this has been held in high esteem by many of the actor's devotees.

less, to the satisfaction of "the friend," who, if the story of the find be true, had a good opportunity to gather in a legitimate commission. We should remember, however, that the poor schoolmaster was a painter himself in his leisure hours, and sold his original for four hundred pounds. The Ashbourne purports to have been painted a year later than the Janssen, and bears all the familiar ear-marks of a faked antique, yet believers in the Messianic actor regard it as an example of genuine portraiture. That it has borrowed an influence from both the Droeshout and Janssen is evident.

THE GRAFTON PORTRAIT

This portrait but recently came to public notice, creating quite a sensation. It claims to have been painted in 1588, when the actor was twenty-four years of age, about the time when he was working about the Burbage stables, and picking up a living as best he could. The story is that it was originally given by the Duke of Grafton to one of his servants, and descended from him for several generations to the present owner. The letters "W. S." are on the stretcher, and ESVE 24," and the date "1588," on the upper corners respectively. Although it has been regarded by many as a vivid representation of the actor in early manhood, no one with cool judgment can regard it otherwise than as a glaring fraud. It is one of those portraits of which O. HalliwellPhillipps sorrowfully says, speaking of those who require rational evidence of the authenticity of portraits of the

66

There are others to whom a picture's history is not of the slightest moment, their reflective instinct enabling them, without effort or investigation, to recognize in an old curiosity shop the dramatic visage that belonged to the author of "Hamlet." 1

1

J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, F.R.S., Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare, vol. 1, p. 297. London, 1889.