to have Shakspeare for a closet companion. Our great bard may be sincerely classed among the zealous Royalists. There are no passages in his works, which can become texts to the savage bawlers of sedition. Political principle, as well as literary taste, would urge a person of condition to seek the decoration and the charm of his resemblance.

The late monarch, Charles the First, was a man of the most refined taste: his pictures supplied the cabinets of Europe with some of the choicest specimens of art. A little before his wretched end, he presented to the gentleman of his bed-chamber, his folio of Shakspeare's works, the edition of 1632. It contained evidences of the pleasure he had taken in its perusal. To a Royalist, therefore, Shakspeare, in aid of his genius, had the efficacy that "dying martyrs" can impart; and it became a duty, as well as a delight, to reprint his works*, to revive his playst, and bestow upon them all the embel

*Printed in 1664.

† See Davenant's alterations.

lishments that had been learned in a too long residence in other countries. From such a feeling, the picture of the poet by Soest clearly originated. Simon's engraving from it was made about the year 1725.

The statement as to Sir Thomas Clarges, in the Gentleman's Magazine, I have before alluded to, (supra, p. 53). I have no doubt that the anecdote was grounded in fact; and think I see some strong likelihood that the picture by Soest was the very portrait painted for the brother-in-law of Monk. It has just enough of Shakspeare about it, to countenance such a story as is there told. The only mistake was in Jansen it could not be; he

the painter's name.

left us on the commencement of the Civil War. Soest, in the year 1667, was an admirable artist, and there is little doubt was the person who executed for him this elegant, though not quite faithful portrait. On the authority of Richardson, Sir Thomas is said also to have been principally instrumental in obtaining the indemnity of Milton from the new government. It is delightful to commemorate such attentions to the

two greatest poets of our own or any other country. If, therefore, I have restored a consistency and probability to the anecdote rejected by Mr. Malone, it will afford one more reason for not too hastily deciding against the whole of a tradition, from one false or discrepant circumstance which it may contain: the error may be corrected by some happy combination, and the statement so reformed, may add sometimes very important truth to the history of past times.

Mr. Malone, in the year 1790, thus alludes to the picture by Soest :

"About the year 1725, a mezzotinto of Shakspeare was scraped by Simon, said to be done from an original picture painted by Zoust or Soest, then in the possession of T. Wright, painter, in Covent-garden. The earliest known picture painted by Zoust in England, was done in 1657; so that, if he ever painted a picture of Shakspeare, it must have been a copy. It could not however have been made from Davenant's picture, (unless the painter took very great liberties), for the whole air, dress, disposition of the hair, &c. are different. I have lately seen a picture in the possession of Douglas, Esq. at Teddington, near Twickenham, which is, I believe, the very picture from which Simon's mezzotinto was made. It is

on canvass, (about 24 inches by 20), and somewhat smaller than the life."-Shakspeare, vol. i. p. 127.

Not very long since, the proprietor felt inclined to sell this picture, if he could obtain 100 guineas for it; and Mr. Sotheby, I remember, put it into one of his catalogues. He differed with Mr. Malone as to its size, calling it a canvass, 20 inches by 16. He adds, "This fine and extremely interesting portrait has been in the possession of the family of the present proprietor for upwards of a century." Now Simon's print expresses, that it is done from a capital picture in the collection of T. Wright, painter, in Covent-garden. But not to bind the auctioneer to reconcile dates, I differ entirely with Mr. Malone on this subject, and consider Simon's print to have been taken from another, and very different original.

Mr. Douglas's picture was for a considerable time in Mr. Triphook's possession, where I frequently inspected it; and assuredly its merits must be appreciated without reference to Simon's engraving. The picture was very pleasing and

delicately painted; but it had none of the freedom and spirit to be found in the print, which indicates an original not at all inferior to one of the finest heads of Vandyke: and indeed, from that great master, Soest has evidently borrowed the air of the head, and the beautiful dispo sition of the hair. The real original of Simon's print is probably at the country residence of one of our nobility, and may there be esteemed a genuine picture of the poet. The anecdote which I have combined with it, on what I conceive to be reasonable ground, communicates a value to Soest's picture, which before was in great doubt; I mean that, though it never could be painted from Shakspeare, it was certainly painted as him, and unites a most decided resemblance of the man, with a very graceful and masterly power of the pencil...

If I could bring myself to infringe upon the principle laid down, to engrave only such as were considered authentic portraits, this head should accompany the series; because, from whomsoever got, in the general character it has much of Shakspeare; and no difficulty whatever