Walford's Antiquarian. An Unknown Portrait of Shakspere. HERE is no face belonging to the age of Elizabeth which is so familiar to the eyes of Englishmen as that of the Bard of Stratfordon-Avon. Milton and Ben Jonson, Dryden and Pope, though they lived nearer to our own day, are not half so well known to their countrymen. The Chandos portrait of Shakspere, now the property of Lord Ellesmere, is that by which his features are best known to the world, and it has been repeated in every possible variety of painting and engraving. There are also Martin Droeshout's print of Shakspere in the earlier folio edition of the poet's works; an engraving of the bust upon the monument in Stratford Church, drawn by Mr. John Boaden; a portrait by Zucchero, painted on panel; one by Cornelius Jansen, in the possession of the Duke of Somerset; that by Gainsborough at Stratford-on-Avon; besides many others, of more or less doubtful authenticity. But a portrait of William Shakspere taken when he lay on his death-bed, or at least when he was "sick unto death," may be pronounced a novelty to most educated Englishmen ; and this it is our editorial privilege to present to our readers in fac-simile. A single glance at the portrait will detect the lineaments of a man borne down by sickness: the face pale and wan, and the eyes deep sunk, but retaining their wonted lustre. The high forehead is brought into prominence by the dark background of the painting, which also brings into relief the ample collar and other portions of the dress. It is painted on a panel of oak, 23 inches by 14 inches in dimensions; and the colouring is fairly fresh, having been long preserved under a sheet of glass. The painting looks stiff and rigid, Howe speake thatte Browe soe pensive yet serene Dost thou nowe dwelle onne Romeo's ill-starr'd Love? Adumbrate or enshrowde the Poete's Features. And e'er another Dawne arise to cheere Lyfe's busie Sonnes may droppe poore Wil: Shakspere. Sic cecinit Cygnus Avoniæ et obiit 23 Aprilis, 1616. Æt. 52. On the back of the portrait is another inscription, written on paper, The writing is much faded, and in near as can be made out, runs as and bearing a seal of red wax. some parts is illegible; but, as follows: There is a tradition that Shakspere, shortly before his departure, and in anticipation of that event, did at length, for the gratification of a much-valued Friend, submit to sit for his Picture. That this was the identical Picture the lines beneath sufficiently evince: the melancholy tone in which they are written, corresponding so emphatically with the characteristic traits of the Physiognomy, prove to demonstration that this must . . . Lymning (for Lymning it unquestionably is), and . . . infer from the Latin sentence Sic cecinit," &c., that the prophecy contained in them was accomplished on the very day on which they were written. And... that this friend for whom the Picture was painted caused them to be inscribed in Letters of Gold under the Head. J. H. 1750. This portrait was for many years the property of Mr. Kinton, who died at Paddington in 1865, aged 91 years, and who bequeathed it to his medical attendant. From this gentleman it has passed into the hands of Mr. Grisbrook, the well-known picture restorer, of Pantonstreet, Haymarket. Some years previous to his death Mr. Kinton informed its late owner that it had been left to him some fifty years before by a friend, in whose possession it had been for many years; but that he knew nothing more of its history. No great importance is attached to the lines under the portrait. It is probable that they were written by the "much-valued friend," mentioned in the inscription, "for whom the picture was painted, and who caused them to be inscribed in letters of gold." The glass placed for its protection proves the accuracy of this supposition. With regard to the inscription at the back, it may be remarked that the signature "J. H." is evidently that of the possessor of the picture in 1750; and that, though no such tradition as that to which he refers may have reached to our day, it is by no means improbable that it existed at the period at which he wrote (1750). This statement, therefore, is certainly not without value. On the whole it may be said that, although its proof does not reach to the point of absolute certainty, there is every probability that, in looking on this portrait, we are gazing on the features of the Immortal Bard as they must have appeared when he was approaching death; and on this account they are invested with a peculiar interest. But there is every evidence, short of positive proof, that it is a veritable portrait of Shakspere, taken from "the life;" for the contention of its believers is that it would be impossible for the portrait, bearing as it does upon the features visible signs of illness, to have been painted from memory. I Classics in the Middle Ages. PART II. BY JOHN LEYLAND. (Concluded from Vol. III. p. 285.) F, then, the classic authors were of reference so frequent to the learned in the middle ages, that Petrarch wrote in his copy of Virgil the dates of his meeting with Laura and of her death, because, as he says, "it comes often under my eye;" and were, moreover, so well known to the people at large that classic aphorisms were not unusual with them, it may not be amiss to inquire what was the effect of this knowledge upon the learning and thought of the period. We cannot, indeed, fail to find that the great works of the ancients had a powerful influence on the writings of the middle ages. Thus the conception that our ancestors had of the physical sciences was indebted for its form chiefly to the classic writings. Their astronomy was based upon the teachings of Hipparchus, and the Almagest of Ptolemy, which they knew through its Arabian translators; their geography on the writings of Strabo and Herodotus; and their ideas of natural history on the works of Pliny and Solinus. It was from these latter sources that Sir John Mandeville drew his |