open mouth and thick lips-the upper pouting and the lower overhanging of the Raeburn." In the Nasmyth the chin is large and square, and the Poet is heavy jowled; in the Raeburn" the chin is receding, small, round, and almost pointed, while the lower jaw is inconspicuous. The difference in the length of the neck

is of less moment, for, though in the “ Raeburn" the neck is practically non-existent, it is very short in the Nasmyth. Finally, the cheek bones of the Nasmyth are more prominent ("higher ") than those of the "Raeburn." How can these two portraits, so fundamentally different, represent the same man?

In addition to Nasmyth, Burns gave sittings to other artists -namely, Taylor, house and coach painter*; Beugo, engraver; Miers, silhouettist; and Reid, painter of miniatures. These various craftsmen worked independently of one another, and, though it cannot be said that any one of their works is the very counterpart of Nasmyth's, it is readily discovered that they all agree in endowing Burns with the same characteristic features that Nasmyth gave him. The retrousse nose is not evident in the Taylor portrait, but is quite decided in the Beugo engraving, and becomes positively clamant in the silhouette and miniature, which are full profiles. Could we have stronger proof that Mr Barrington Nash's "Raeburn" is not a portrait of Robert Burns?

3. In the Annual Burns Chronicle for 1895 there are gathered together by Mr D. M'Naught portraits of the direct descendants of Robert Burns. A strong family likeness can be traced through them all, and though it cannot be said that any of them, with one exception, bears en masse a striking resemblance to the Nasmyth portrait, it is quite easy to show that when analysed they possess all the details of feature that distinguish the Nasmyth from the Raeburn," already enumerated by me. Besides, where pose and hair admit, the characteristics of the cranial cast as pointed out by Dr Keith are manifest-long, broad head, flattened crown, and bulging occiput. In the case of the Poet's great-granddaughter, Miss Margaret Constance Burns Hutchinson, the resemblance to the Nasmyth portrait is positively startling, and has frequently been commented on. It is, of course, admitted that Nasmyth idealized his subject; at the same time it must be obvious to all that he took no liberties with truth.--I am, etc.,

East Kilbride, March 3rd, 1914.

JOHN W. FINDLAY, M.D.

*Doubtful.-[Ed.]

SIR,--Dr John Findlay's courteous letter* gives me an opportunity of laying before your readers certain points of evidence relating to the authenticity of the Raeburn portrait of Burns which I had to omit from my lecture. It is quite true that in 1889, when Mr Barrington Nash came to the conclusion that the portrait reproduced in my article† was a portrait of Burns by Raeburn, there was no record to show that the Poet and the painter had ever met. It was known that they were in Edinburgh at the same time.‡ Near the end of 1889 the following letter from Raeburn was discovered :

"York Place, Edinburgh,

December 1st, 1803.

Gentlemen, I enclose you a receipt for a case containing Burns's portrait, and I have no doubt you will get it soon and safe, and I flatter myself with the hope of its meeting with your approbation, than which, I assure you, nothing will give me more pleasure.

I have twenty guineas for a portrait the size of Burns's. I do not wish you to remit the money to me, for, as I have money to pay in London, I shall, after receiving your permission, draw upon you for the amount.

I am, with much respect, gentlemen,

Your most obedient servant,

HENRY RAEBURN."

That letter was found amongst the papers of Messrs Caddel & Davies, who published the first London edition (1787) of Burns's Poems, and in 1823 brought out an edition "elegantly printed, in 4 vols. 8°, with a portrait of the Author from an original portrait by Raeburn.” It will be observed that, when Raeburn forwarded the portrait of Burns to Caddel and Davies (1803) the Poet had been dead for seven years (1796). One cannot suppose that Raeburn would have supplied a portrait which was merely a copy of the Nasmyth. The small portrait which Raeburn did supply is now in the possession of Mr Barrington Nash as well as the large one, which Mr Nash permitted me to reproduce in my lecture. It is the small Caddel & Davies portrait which, to my mind, supplies the convincing evidence that the large portrait, which, Mr Nash maintains, was painted by Raeburn and does represent a portrait of Burns, is indeed a true portrait of the Poet. I admit that a comparison

* British Medical Journal, March 14th, p. 624.

† Ibid., February 28th, p. 461.

On what authority.-[Ed.]

of the Nasmyth with the large Raeburn portrait does leave one in doubt, but when I placed the small Raeburn portrait between the two all my doubts disappeared. A strict comparison of the cranial cast-it is a misfortune that the lower part of the face is missing from that cast with the Raeburn portrait convinces me that it does reproduce faithfully the essential anatomical features of the cast. I do not think it would be impossible in modern portraiture to find the same man represented with just as great divergence as in the Raeburn and Nasmyth renderings of Burns. The Nasmyth portrait represents a handsome, characterless young man about town; the Raeburn a real living," thundery man. If ever Raeburn's papers should come to light I feel with Mr Nash that the last doubt will be removed as regards the authenticity of the large Raeburn portrait. -I am, etc.,

London, W.C., March 15th, 1914.

ARTHUR KEITH.

SIR,--When I declared in my letter, printed in the British Medical Journal of March 14th, that " most, if not all, Scotsmen who have studied the subject believe that there never was a portrait of Burns by Raeburn," I meant the term portrait to be understood as signifying a likeness taken from an actual sitter. Such restricted usage of the word may not be justified by custom; but if this narrow interpretation be applied my assertion still stands.

At the time of communicating with you I knew that there existed the letter from Sir Henry Raeburn to Messrs Caddel & Davies, quoted by Dr Keith; and I was also aware that further Raeburn correspondence had been brought to light in 1903. Now, I would respectfully draw attention to the fact that Mr D. M‘Naught, President of the Burns Federation, and the greatest living authority on everything pertaining to the Poet, has in the Annual Burns Chronicle for 1908, in an article entitled "The Missing Raeburn Portrait," conclusively proved that the portrait supplied by Raeburn to Messrs Caddel & Davies was the very thing that Dr Keith supposes it could not be, namely, " merely a copy of the Nasmyth." Prior to writing on December 11th, 1803, Raeburn dispatched to Messrs Caddel & Davies on November 14th, 1803, another letter, from which Mr M'Naught quotes the following decisive extract :

"I have finished a copy of Burns the Poet from the original portrait painted by Mr Nasmyth. I have shown it to Mr Cunninghame, who thinks it very like him."

And again from a final letter by Raeburn to Messrs Caddel & Davies, dated February 22nd, 1804, and evidently a reply to a communication from them acknowledging receipt and approval of his work, Mr M'Naught quotes the subjoined sentence :

Nothing could be more gratifying to me than the approbation you expressed of the copy I made for you of Robert Burns."

Do not these quotations finally dispose of the supposition that Raeburn ever painted an original portrait of the Bard; and, if Raeburn had had a portrait by himself to fall back on, is it not extremely unlikely that he would have copied Nasmyth's? Can Dr Keith support the contention that either of Mr Barrington Nash's "Raeburns is a copy of Burns the Poet from the original portrait painted by Mr Nasmyth ? I think not.

66

It is most strange and inexplicable, as Mr M'Naught shows, that though Caddel & Davies advertised, in 1823, in their 3-volume edition of Burns that their 4-volume edition contained "a portrait of the Author from an original picture by Raeburn," the portrait in question is really an engraving after Nasmyth by W. F. Fry. What became of this Caddel & Davies "Raeburn" after 1823 is absolutely unknown, and so far Mr Nash has not brought forward a tittle of evidence to link his possessions with it. There is also documentary proof that Raeburn "retouched the face of the Thomson Nasmyth, and it is likewise said that he “brushed over the Auchendrane Nasmyth.

I am prepared to allow that Mr Nash's two portraits, since they possess many features in common, may quite well depict the same person, and agree that the differences between them may be explained away by the smaller having been painted a few years before the larger; but, despite my willingness to be convinced, I cannot believe that these Raeburns and the Nasmyth represent the same man; and placing the smaller "Raeburn " between the Nasmyth and the larger "Raeburn does not, as is the case with Dr Keith, make "all my doubts disappear." In the Nasmyth the handsome, dreamy, and poetic may be much overdone, but I cannot see how Dr Keith can dub the possessor of such a large square jaw and firm mouth as a characterless young man about town.” No more does it strike me that this " Raeburn" (the larger portrait), with Jewish cast of feature and weak, sensual expression, represents

66

a real living thundery' man."-I am, etc.,

East Kilbride, March 23rd, 1914.

JOHN W. FINDLAY, M.D.