copied. Count Kesselstadt died in 1843, and his collections and pictures were sold. An antiquary of Mayence bought the little funereal picture, and re-sold it to Ludwig Becker (the painter and naturalist already mentioned) in 1847. Becker, having obtained the picture, now sought for what was supposed to be its originalnamely, the cast, and after a hunt of a couple of years lighted upon it in a broker's shop at Mayence, among rags and articles of the meanest description.

"On seeing the cast he was convinced that it was the original from which the Kesselstadt portrait (said to be that of Shakespeare) was copied.

"On the back of the mask is inscribed A.D. 1616, the year of the poet's death. Examined under the critical eyes of the authorities of the Museum, this inscription was declared to be of the same time as the cast, and not produced after the plaster had hardened. This is the most interesting portion of the very slender chain of evidence,

technically speaking, that exists to point it as being the mask of the poet.

"Human hairs of an auburn hue are still adhering to the moustache and peaked beard, such as they were coloured in the bust in Stratford Church. That this cast is the original of the little Kesselstadt corpse-picture, always considered in that family as being that of Shakespeare, there is little reason to doubt; but how it and the picture came into that family, or into Germany at all, no one knows, nor will it be known probably throughout all time."

Our readers will appreciate the reservation implied in the official opinion that the date is simultaneous with the making of the cast. When was the cast made? No opinion is ventured in that direction. The remaining proof is that Ludwig Becker was convinced that it was the original from which was taken the portrait which Count Kesselstadt and his family believed to be of Shakespeare. This portrait is produced in The Antiquary (vol. ii. p. 107), and readers may judge whether it was drawn from the cast. Of course, they have not been hunting about Mayence and its neighbourhood for two years in search of what they want. We shall recur to the picture a little farther on.

Lord Ronald Gower did not hesitate to say that, sentimentally speaking, he was convinced that the cast is of no other but Shakespeare's face; "that none but the great immortal looked thus in death, or bore so grandly stamped on his high brow and serene features the promise of an immortality not of this earth alone." His lordship was equally convinced that the bust in Stratford Church was taken from this cast.

He writes: "A trifling but a marked difference between the two sides of the face almost prove this. Looking into the cast narrowly, one is convinced that that bust is a poor copy, a very poor and coarse, but still a copy of this mask."

If it indeed were so, the discrepancy between them is capable of other explanation than the clumsiness of the workman which his lordship adduces. Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps, who does not doubt that the Stratford bust was originally an authentic likeness of Shakespeare, gives an account of the various mutilations to which it has been subjected, and disfigurements also, under the plea of beautifying and repairing the effigy. It is distressing to think of the apathy which has permitted this national disgrace. The monument was "entirely renovated" in 1748. Originally it had been painted in imitation of life; in 1793 Malone caused the whole of the bust to be painted white; in 1861 there was a second imitation of the original colouring. It is now, in the words of Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps, "a miserable travesty."

In the following number of The Antiquary, Dr. Ingleby presented a copy of the Kesselstadt miniature with a brief but discriminating notice. Dr. Ingleby failed to perceive the likeness to the mask, The miniature bears a strong resemblance to a portrait of Ben Jonson in the Dulwich Gallery, and the year marked on the picture, 1637, is the year of Jonson's death. Dr. Ingleby thought that the most probable conclusion to be drawn from the picture, assuming it

to be the one which was in the Kesselstadt collection up to 1843, was that the original collector obtained not only Gerard Johnson's plaster mask of Shakespeare, but also an original picture of Ben Jonson lying in state.

Whether or no there is any stronger ground for believing the mask to be of Shakespeare, it is satisfactory to know that there is a portrait of him which is authentic. This is the Droeshout engraving, which appears on the title-page of the first collective edition of Shakespeare's

plays, 1623, commonly known as the first folio. The favoured few who may have seen the original engraving in Mr. HalliwellPhillipps's collection will not enjoy the view of this copy; but although

the plate had been altered when the original of the present copy was taken, it is radically the same portrait. There is a fine copy in the National Portrait Gallery, but not so fine as that which adorns Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps's collection. Opposite this portrait in the folio of

1623 (only seven years after Shakespeare's death) appear the following lines by Ben Jonson :

"To the Reader.

"This Figure, that thou here seest put,

It was for gentle Shakespeare cut;
Wherein the Graver had a strife

With Nature, to out-doo the life:

O, could he but have drawne his wit

As well in brasse, as he hath hit

His face; the Print would then surpasse

All, that was ever writ in brasse.

But, since he cannot, Reader, looke,

Not on his Picture, but his Booke.-B. I."

It is remarkable that while in the case of the monumental effigy tradition asserts the existence of a plaster cast, it is silent as to the original of the only authentic engraved portrait which exists of our national poet and dramatist. Was the engraving done from a painting? If so, where is it? Will somebody now proceed to hunt for this? Let us hope it may turn up in a broker's shop or in a dustheap in Boston or New York. When we consider the numerous English portraits contemporary with Shakespeare at present existing in the ancestral homes of England, and in the public picture galleries, can we say that a discovery of an actual painted portrait of Shakespeare is impossible? Such an one the so-called Chandos portrait in the National Portrait Gallery is alleged to be. The pedigree of this picture is thus set out at the back of the portrait: "The Chandos Shakespeare was the property of John Taylor, the player, by whom or by Richard Burbage it was painted. The picture was left by the former in his will to Sir William Davenant. After his death it was bought by Betterton, the actor, upon whose decease Mr. Keck, of the Temple, purchased it for forty guineas, from whom it was inherited by Mr. Nicolls, of Michenden House, Southgate, Middlesex, whose only daughter married James, Marquis of Carnarvon, afterwards Duke of Chandos, father to Anna Eliza, Duchess of Buckingham."

There is also in the Gallery a cast of the face taken from the monument in the church at Stratford-on-Avon. It is impossible to notice the many engravings which since 1623 have gone forth as representing Shakespeare's physiognomy; they are mostly variations of each. other, and their name is legion. T. FAIRMAN ORDISH.