ADVERTISEMENT PREFIXED TO EDITION 1793. THE reader may obferve that, contrary to former ufage, no head of Shakspeare is prefixed to the prefent edition of his plays. The undifguifed fact is this. The only portrait of him that even pretends to authenticity, by means of injudicious cleaning, or fome other accident, has become little better than the" fhadow of a fhade."5 The late Sir Joshua Reynolds indeed once fuggefted, that whatever perfon it was defigned for, it might have been left, as it now appears, unfinished. Various copies and plates, however, are faid at different times to have been made from it; but a regard for truth obliges us to confefs that they are all unlike each other, and convey no diftinct refemblance of the 5 Such, we think, were the remarks, that occurred to us feveral years ago, when this portrait was acceffible. We wished indeed to have confirmed them by a fecond view of it; but a late accident in the noble family to which it belongs, has precluded us from that fatisfaction. Vertue's portraits have been over-praised on account of their fidelity; for we have now before us fix different heads of Shakfpeare engraved by him, and do not fcruple to affert that they have individually a different caft of countenance. Cucullus non facit monachum. The fhape of our author's ear-ring and fallingband may correfpond in them all, but where fhall we find an equal conformity in his features? Few objects indeed are occafionally more difficult to feize, than the flender traits that mark the character of a face; and the poor remains of their avowed original. Of the drapery and curling hair exhibited in the excellent engravings of Mr. Vertue, Mr. Hall, and Mr. Knight, the painting does not afford a veftige; nor is there a feature or circumftance on the whole canvas, that can with minute precifion be delineated.We muft add, that on very vague and dubious authority this head has hitherto been received as a genuine portrait of our author, who probably left behind him no fuch memorial of his face. As he was careless of the future ftate of his works, his folicitude might not have extended to the perpetuation of his looks. Had any portrait of him exifted, we may naturally fuppofe it muft have belonged to his family, who (as Mark Antony fays of a hair of Cæfar) would --- have mention'd it within their wills, and were there ground for the report that Shakspeare was the real father of Sir William D'Avenant, and that the picture already fpoken of was painted for him, we might be tempted to obferve with our author, that the baftard fon "Was kinder to his father, than his daughters But in fupport of either fuppofition fufficient evidence has not been produced. The former of thefe eye will often detect the want of them, when the most exact mechanical process cannot decide on the places in which they are omitted.-Vertue, in fhort, though a laborious, was a very indifferent draughtfman, and his beft copies too often exhibit a general instead of a particular resemblance. tales has no better foundation than the vanity of our degener Neoptolemus," and the latter originates from modern conjecture. The prefent age will probably 7 Nor does the fame piece of ancient fcandal derive much weight from Aubrey's adoption of it. The reader who is acquainted with the writings of this abfurd goffip, will scarcely pay more attention to him on the prefent occation, than when he gravely affures us that "Anno 1670, not far from Cirencester was an apparition; being demanded whether a good spirit or a bad? returned no answer, but disappeared with a curious perfume and most melodious twang. Mr. W. Lilly believes it was a fairy." See Aubrey's Mifcellanies, edit. 1784, p. 114.-Aubrey, in fhort, was a dupe to every wag who chose to practife on his credulity; and would moft certainly have believed the person who fhould have told him that Shakspeare himfelf was a natural fon of Queen Elizabeth. An additional and no lefs pleasant proof of Aubrey's cullibility, may be found at the conclufion of one of his own Letters to Mr. Ray; where, after the enumeration of several wonderful methods employed by old women and Irishmen to cure the gout, agues, and the bloody flux, he adds: " Sir Chriftopher Wren told me once [eating of ftrawberries] that if one that has a wound in the head eats them, 'tis mortal." & See Philofophical Letters between the late learned Mr. Ray &c. Published by William Derham, Chaplain to his Royal Highness George Prince of Wales, & F. R. S. 8vo. 1718, p. 251. In the foregoing inftance our letter-writer feems to have been perfectly unconscious of the jocularity of Sir Christopher, who would have meant nothing more by his remark, than to fecure his ftrawberries, at the expence of an allufion to the crack in poor Aubrey's head. Thus when Falstaff." did defire to eat fome prawns," Mrs, Quickly told him "they were ill for a green wound." Mr. T. Warton has pleasantly obferved that he "cannot fuppofe Shakspeare to have been the father of a Doctor of Divinity who never laughed;" and-to wafte no more words on Sir William D'Avenant,-let but our readers furvey his heavy, vulgar, unmeaning face, and, if we mistake not, they will as readily conclude that Shakspeare "never holp to make it." So defpicable, indeed, is his countenance as represented by Faithorne, that it appears to have funk that celebrated engraver beneath many a common artift in the fame line. allow the vintner's ivy to Sir William, but with equal justice will withhold from him the poet's bays. -To his pretenfions of defcent from Shakspeare, one might almost be induced to apply a ludicrous paffage uttered by Fielding's Phaeton in the Suds:" by all the parish boys I'm flamm'd: "You the sun's fon, you rafcal! you be d―d." About the time when this picture found its way into Mr. Keck's hands, the verification of portraits was fo little attended to, that both the Earl of Oxford, and Mr. Pope, admitted a juvenile one of King James I. as that of Shakspeare.8 Among the heads of illuftrious perfons engraved by Houbraken, are feveral imaginary ones, befide Ben Jonfon's and Otway's; and old Mr. Langford pofitively afferted that, in the fame collection, the grandfather of Cock the auctioneer had the honour to perfonate the great and amiable Thurloe, fecretary of ftate to Oliver Cromwell. From the price of forty guineas paid for the fuppofed portrait of our author to Mrs. Barry, the real value of it fhould not be inferred. The poffeffion 5 Much refpect is due to the authority of portraits that defcend in families from heir to heir; but little reliance can be placed on them when they are produced for fale (as in the prefent instance) by alien hands, almoft a century after the death of the perfon fuppofed to be reprefented; and then, (as Edmund fays in King Lear)" come pat, like the catastrophe of the old comedy. Shakspeare was buried in 1616; and in 1708 the first notice of this picture occurs. Where there is fuch a chafm in evidence, the validity of it may be not unfairly queftioned, and especially by those who remember a fpecies of fraudulence recorded in Mr. Foote's Tafte: Clap Lord Dupe's arms on that half-length of Erafmus; I have fold it him as his great grandfather's third brother, for fifty guineas." of fomewhat more animated than canvas, might have been included, though not fpecified, in a bargain with an actress of acknowledged gallantry. Yet allowing this to be a mere fanciful infinuation, a rich man does not eafily mifs what he is ambitious to find. At least he may be perfuaded he has found it, a circumftance which, as far as it affects his own content, will answer, for a while, the fame purpofe. Thus the late Mr. Jennens, of Gopfal in Leicesterfhire, for many years congratulated himself as owner of another genuine portrait of Shakspeare, and by Cornelius Janfen; nor was difpofed to forgive the writer who obferved that, being dated in 1610, it could not have been the work of an artift who never faw England till 1618, above a year after our author's death. So ready, however, are interefted people in affifting credulous ones to impofe on themfeives, that we will venture to predict,-if fome opulent dupe to the flimfy artifice of Chatterton fhould advertise a confiderable fum of money for a portrait of the Pfeudo-Rowley, fuch a defideratum would foon emerge from the tutelary crypts of St. Mary Redcliff at Briftol, or a hitherto unheard of repofitory in the tomb of Syr Thybbot Gorges at Wraxall.' * A kindred trick had actually been paffed off by Chatterton on the late Mr. Barrett of Briftol, in whofe back parlour was a pretended head of Canynge, moft contemptibly fcratched with a pen on a small fquare piece of yellow parchment, and framed and glazed as an authentick icon by the " curyous poyntill" of Rowley. But this fame drawing very foon ceafed to be stationary, was alternately exhibited and concealed, as the wavering faith of its poffeffor fhifted about, and was prudently withheld at laft from the publick eye. Why it was not inferted in the late Hiftory of Bristol, as well as Rowley's plan and elevation of its ancient castle, (which all the rules of all the ages of architecture pronounce to be fpurious) let the Rowleian advocates inform us |