wandered from its original mansion; and where it is now to be found, and the cause of its alienation, will be subjects, I trust, of diligent. inquiry. In the mean time, the most perfect engraving is supplied from the only accessible authority. It is in truth an object of the highest importance; because, however faithful, the other originals of our poet are the work of very indifferent artists. Cornelius Jansen is, in his happiest portraits, only inferior to the hitherto unequalled Vandyke.

A few words yet remain to be added as to this artist, and the period of his residence among us. The accounts given of him at page 71, admit of easy reconciliation. The author of an essay, &c. says he resided long at Amsterdam; and this is also said by Sandrart. But if he began to paint among us at the lowest date assigned, namely 1618, he could not have resided as a painter long in Amsterdam, previous to his coming to this country. It follows, therefore, that the residence in Holland was, as Sandrart describes it, a measure of necessity. He left this place when the civil war frightened from us every thing

like elegance, and then certainly resided long at Amsterdam, since he did not die till 1665; so that he probably passed more than TWENTY years among the Dutch, after he had quitted us either in disgust or alarm. The real history of Jansen, therefore, seems to be this: Upon the miserable sack of Antwerp by the Spaniards in 1576, his parents took refuge in England, where, some time after, they gave birth to their son Cornelius. Here he grew celebrated for his art, was employed by Southampton, and painted Shakspeare. An honour hardly less was yet reserved for him; for in 1618, Milton's father carried the author of Paradise Lost, then in his tenth year, to sit to the greatest portraitpainter then in England. It may teach us reliance upon Jansen's fidelity, to find as we do, in the expression of young Milton, that time only developed and expanded the features; the same characteristics are found in his boyhood and at his maturity.

THE

FELTON HEAD OF SHAKSPEARE.

ARTIST UNKNOWN. 1597. R. N.

Of this portrait, it may be sufficient celebrity to record, that the late Mr. Steevens held it to be genuine; the original from which both Droeshout and Marshall engraved, and the only authentic picture of the poet. In the European Magazine for the months of October and December, 1794, that ingenious critic gave to the public the grounds of his belief; among which most certainly never entered any one circumstance which had been stated with regard to the picture. On the contrary, he has himself detected all the arts of the dealers, exhibited to contempt the baseless fabric of their visions, and closed with entire reliance upon the authenticity of a portrait, which he could not prove to have been in existence so long even as himself. All the known history of it is this: In the

G

catalogue of the fourth exhibition and sale by private contract at the European Museum, King-street, St. James's-square, 1792, this picture was announced to the public in the following words:

No. 359. A curious portrait of Shakespeare, painted in 1597.

On the 31st of May, 1792, Mr. Felton bought it for five guineas; and afterwards, wishing to know where it came from, he requested its history from Mr. Wilson, the conductor of that Museum, who answered him in the following terms:

SIR,

To Mr. S. Felton, Drayton, Shropshire.

The head of Shakspeare was purchased out of an old house, known by the sign of the Boar, in Eastcheap, London, where Shakespeare and his friends used to resort; and report says, was painted by a player of that time, but whose name I have not been able to learn.

I am, Sir, with great regard,

Your most obedient servant,

Sept. 11, 1792.

J. WILSON.

Here we find it to have been purchased out of an old house, where Shakspeare and his friends used to resort-The Boar's Head, which he had immortalized by the presumed resort of Falstaff and Hal; but which there is no syllable on record to prove was ever frequented by Shakspeare and his friends.

On the 11th August, 1794, nearly two years afterwards, Mr. Wilson becomes more communicative to Mr. Steevens, than he had been to the purchaser, and adds to his account of the picture, "that it was found between four and five years ago, at a broker's shop in the Minories, by a man of fashion, whose name must be concealed," with a part of whose collection of pictures it came for sale to the Museum, attended with the story of the broker. There it was exhibited for about three months, seen by Lord Leicester and Lord Orford, but being mutilated, (not however as to the features, remark), those discerning noblemen would not purchase it, though they both, we are told, allowed its authenticity.

The first story seems unaccountably to have