"PR 
 
 2.923 
 Rll 
 
 
 ^.#Y 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924013152230 
 
Cornell University Library 
 PR2929.R11 
 A lecture on some portraits of Shakespea 
 
 3 1924 013 152 230 
 
PR ' 
 
• ted fiE 
 
A LEOTTJEE 
 
 ON 
 
 SOME PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE, 
 
 AND 
 
 Sbakespeate'e Brooch, 
 
 DELIVEEED BY ME. JOHN RABONE, TO THE MEMBERS 
 
 OF THE BIRMINGHAM NATURAL HISTORY AND 
 
 MICROSCOPICAL SOCIETY, NOV. 15th, 1883. 
 
 Reprinted, hy request, from the " Birminghajn Daily Gazette," 
 November SOth, 1883. 
 
 WITH AN APPENDIX AND ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 1884 
 
 .^ UK' IV 1 
 
 .a' 
 
A'6 
 
 i^A^f^ 
 
LECTUEE 
 
 ON SOME PORTRAITS OF SHAKESPEARE 
 
 AND 
 
 SHAKESPEARE'S BROOCH. 
 
 At a meeting of the Birmingham Natural History and 
 Microscopical Society, held last Thursday in the Examination 
 HaU, Mason's College, an address was delivered by 
 Mr. Eabone, on " Some Jottings about Shakespeare and 
 Stratford," Mr. W. E. Hu(3HES, F.L.S., presided. 
 
 Mr. Rabonb said that when he was requested to speak about 
 Shakespeare and Stratford, he intended to direct attention mainly 
 to the times in which Shakespeare lived, and the circumstances 
 under ■which he wrote, and to give a sketch of Stratford as it then 
 ■was. But the committee had suggested that he should explain the 
 particulars of some of the chief portraits of Shakespeare in exist- 
 ence, and of the brooch of which he was the fortunate possessor. 
 He had therefore waived his original purpose, and would direct his 
 remarks as requested. He then went on to say that to have defi- 
 nite and correct ideas of the features and personal appearance of 
 those we venerate or love was the desire of everybody ; and so 
 strong ■was that feeling, that when the objects of regard were not 
 personally kno^wn, the mind instinctively formed to itself an ideal 
 picture of what it fancied was their verisimilitude. And so it 
 was in reference to Shakespeare. There were portraits of him 
 innumerable, many of them widely differing from the others, and, 
 therefore, it became a matter of difficulty to the uninformed to 
 know which of them bore most resemblance to the great original they 
 were supposed to represent. It was the purpose of the present 
 address to examine two or three of these, and to trace how far, and 
 by what evidence, they might be regarded as faithful portraitures. 
 
THE DROESHOUT POETRAIT, 
 The first to be noticed, though not the first in point of time, was 
 the engraving by Martin Droeshout upon the title-page of the first 
 folio edition of Shakespeare's plays, published in 1623, by John 
 Heminge and Henry Condell, two of the "principal actors" who per- 
 formed with Shakespeare in his plays; and, as a proof of his 
 intimacy with them, he bequeathed to them and to Richard Bur- 
 bage, who also acted with him, "26s. 8d. a-piece to buy them rings." 
 The same plate was used in the second (1632), in the third (1663 
 and 1664), and in the fourth (1685) folio editions. Mr. Rabone 
 showed two copies of this portrait from the facsimile edition exe- 
 cuted by means of photo-zinoography. The best guarantee, he said, 
 they could have for the fidelity of the likeness was that contaiaed 
 in the oft-quoted lines by Ben Jonson facing the portrait on the 
 title-page. The lines were well known, but they would bear repe- 
 tition on such an occasion as the present. They were addressed 
 
 To The Reader. 
 
 This Figure, that thou here seest put 
 
 It was for gentle Shakespeare cut ; 
 
 Wherein the Graver had a strife 
 
 With Nature to outdo the life : 
 
 0, could he but have drawne his wit 
 
 As well in brass, as he hath hit 
 
 His face ; this Print would then surpass* 
 
 All that was ever writ in brass. 
 
 But, since he cannot, Reader, looke 
 
 Not on his Picture, but his Booke. 
 
 The dress was evidently a theatrical one, which probably 
 Hemynge and Condell had often seen Shakespeare in upon the 
 stage. It had been conjectured that the character was that of Old 
 Knowell in Ben Jonson's Every Man in his Humour, and if that 
 surmise were correct, it was easy to understand how Jonson felt 
 flattered by the poet being drawn in the costume of one of his own 
 characters, and that he should give to a faithful likeness so 
 Ajiorough a certificate of its perfect resemblance to the original. 
 ■Others were of opinion that the engraving represented Old Adam, 
 (the faithful servant of Orlando in Shakespeare's own comedy, A* 
 
5 
 
 Pom Like It. Whether either of those surmises were' correct or 
 not, it should b6 borne in mind that tradition invariably assigned to 
 Shakespeare the personation on the stage of characters of middle age, 
 or in the decline of life. The face of the Droeshout portrait agreed 
 with the bust in the church except in the beard and the hair, the 
 beard in the print being shaved and the hair straight, while in the 
 bust the chin was not shaven and the hair was curled. The eyes 
 in the print appeared to have a hard and care-worn look, but that 
 might, perhaps, be accounted for by the inartistic way in which 
 they were drawn. The dress belonged to no historic period. The 
 lawn ruff apparently opened at the back, and the whole dress might 
 with reason be supposed to have been the production of some stage 
 tailor of the period. As to the truthfulness of the features, there 
 could be no better testimony than Ben Jonson's in the lines quoted. 
 
 THE CHANDOS POKTEAIT. 
 The best known of all the portraits of Shakespeare, said Mr. 
 Rabone, was the one called the " Chandos." He exhibited a choice 
 copy of it made by Baxter's oil-printing process many years ago, 
 before the days of oleographs, and also an engraving about half 
 life size. The name of the painter of the original was unknown. 
 It is supposed to have been painted by Burbage, the tragedian, to 
 whom reference has been made as being a legatee under Shakes- 
 peare's wiU, and who is known to have been an adept with the 
 pencil. It was the property of Joseph Taylor (not John, as some- 
 times stated), whose name is in the list of " principal actors " of 
 the plays of Shakespeare in the first folio. This Joseph Taylor 
 had the distinction of having been the poet's first stage Hamlet. 
 He dying in the year 1653, at the age of 70, left the picture by 
 will to Sir WUliam Davenant, at whose death, ten years later, it 
 was bought by Betterton, the actor. It passed to Mrs. Barry, the 
 actress, who sold it for 40 guineas to a Mr. Keck, of the Inner 
 Temple, and from Mr. Keck it was inherited by Mr. NichoUs, of 
 Southgate, whose only daughter was married to James, Marquis of 
 Carnarvon, afterwards Duke of Chandos, and father to Anna 
 EHza, Duchess of Buckingham. No picture had a clearer pedigree 
 than this. On the breaking up of the collection add dispersion of 
 ,the Duke of Buckingham's treasures at Stowe in 1848, it was pur- 
 
chased for 355 guineas by the Earl of Ellesmere, who presented it 
 to the National Gallery, where it now is. 
 
 So much for the transmission of the picture, which is painted on 
 canvas. The first engraving of it of any merit was made while the 
 picture was in Mr. Keek's possession in 1725, but the features were 
 considerably altered, and the dress, instead of the original doublet, 
 was a summer waistcoat, partially open down the front.. The head 
 was reversed, as was frequently done by engravers at that 
 period in making copies. Among the many copies of the picture 
 was one by Sir Joshua Eeynolds, but the whereabouts of it, if it 
 be in existence, was not known. 
 
 The poet Dryden once received a portrait of Shakespeare as a 
 present from Sir Godfrey Kneller, but from what picture Kneller 
 copied it was long a mystery. At length, however, it was dis- 
 covered to have been copied from the picture now known as the 
 Chandos. Dryden was well acquainted with Shakespeare, and the 
 verses to the painter in which he expressed his pleasure at the gift 
 may be considered some proof that Dryden considered it to be a 
 fair likeness. Boaden, writing sixty years ago of the portrait, said^— 
 " No picture during the last hundred years has been more fre- 
 quently copied, and perhaps no picture has been more frequently 
 touched up." " With all its disfigureniButs by re-touching," Dr. 
 Waagen considered it has " a great breadth of treatment ; and the 
 lofty, noble forehead, the deep dark eyes, the nostrils breathing the 
 fire of passion, the mouth combining at once the expression of 
 healthy life with slight melancholy and delicate irony, all charac- 
 terise it as a picture worthy of such a completely gifted genius as 
 it represents." It has been assumed from the darkness of the 
 countenance, the expression of the face, and the contour of the 
 features, together with the earrings, the fuU lip and curled hair, 
 that the poet had sat to the artist when he had assumed the dress 
 and character of his own wonderful creation — Shylock. 
 
 Other portraits supposed to be of Shakespeare as the Felton, the 
 Jansen, the Lumley, the Ashbourne, and the Challis had been pro- 
 duced from time to time, though it was not within the scope of the 
 present lecture to refer to them, as none of them presented suffi- 
 cient evidence to cause them to be considered as authentic portraits 
 from life. 
 
THE STKATFOED POETEAIT. 
 Down to the year 1860, of the many portraits of Shakespeare, 
 each differing materially from the others, yet with a something 
 common to them all, the " Chandos " was generally considered the 
 most reliahle representation, as it was undoubtedly copied from the 
 life. At the end of the year 1860, however, its claims for pre- 
 eminence were somewhat suddenly interfered with by an almost 
 accidental circumstance, which brought to light the picture, now in 
 the Birthplace, and which is known as the " Stratford Portrait." 
 At that time the Corporation of Stratford had engaged a London 
 picture cleaner and restorer of repute — -Mr. Simon Collins — to 
 come down to Stratford to clean the pictures belonging to them in 
 the Town Hall. That work was executed so satisfactorily, that 
 other was found for him. The bust in the church, which was 
 erected soon after the poet's death, most probably by his son-in-law. 
 Dr. Hall, had been originally coloured, after the fashion of the 
 period, and once afterwards, in the middle of the last century, the 
 colours were revived. When Malone visited Stratford in 1793, 
 however, he suggested the painting of the bust white, " to suit the 
 present taste," and that was accordingly done. So it remained till 
 the time of Mr. CoUins's visit, when it was decided to restore to 
 the bust and tomb their former appearance, by removing the white 
 paint with which they had been covered by Malone. When 
 Mr. CoUins had done that, the late Mr. William Oakes Hunt, the 
 Town Clerk of Stratford, requested" him to clean a few pictures of 
 his, which he did, and on looking over Mr. Hunt's house, there 
 was found upon an upper lobby a dilapidated old canvas on which 
 was a rough, coarse painting of a man with large black beard and 
 moustaches. The face was nearly covered with hair, and what of it 
 was visible appeared more like a caricature than anything else. It 
 had been in the possession of Mr. Hunt's family for over a century, 
 having been bought by Mr. Hunt's grandfather at a sale at Clopton 
 House, and Mr. Hunt once stated in his (Mr. Eabone's) presence 
 that when he was a boy he had often used it as a target for his 
 arrows. Mr. Collins first proceeded to clean a portion of the face, 
 when the rough black whiskers readily yielded to his solvents and 
 disappeared. He next operated on a strip of the canvas across the 
 
breast, and was surprised to find the colours black and red, revealed, 
 exactly as they had been on the bust he had just cleaned in the 
 church. The cleaning of the other portions of the picture was 
 proceeded with in the presence of Mr. Hunt, the owner of the 
 picture, the Eev. Mr. Greville, Vicar of Stratford, and other 
 inhabitants of the town. A portrait of Shakespeare undoubtedly 
 it was, which had been concealed so long. Amateurs and experts 
 were allowed to examine it freely, and it was taken to London 
 to be fully " restored." Afterwards^, it was exhibited at 
 Mr. Collins's studio, and the following announcement was given to 
 those who went to view the picture : — 
 
 " Portrait of Shakespeare. 
 "A Portrait of Shakespeare, painted on canvas, three-quarter life 
 size, which has been in the family of W. 0. Hunt, Esq., Town 
 Clerk of Stratford-upon-Avon, for a century, has recently been put 
 into the hands of Mr. Simon Collins, of 6, Somerset Street, 
 Portman Square, London, who, after removing the dirt, damp, and 
 repaint, by which it was obscured, has brought to light what he 
 pronounces to be a genuine portrait of the Immortal Bard. The 
 Picture bears a remarkable resemblance to the bust in the 
 chancel of Stratford Church, according to the description given of 
 it before it was painted white, at the request of Mr. Malone in 
 1793, viz., ' the eyes being of a light hazel, and the hair and beard 
 auburn, the dress consisted of a scarlet doublet, over which was a 
 loose black gown without sleeves.' It is important to observe that 
 this is the only Picture ever discovered which represents the Poet in 
 this dress, and it calls to mind a remark made by Mr. Wheler in 
 his History of Stratford-upon-Avon of the probability of a Picture 
 being in existence from which the monumental Bust was taken, 
 which suggestion Mr. Wivell, in his Inquiry into the History and 
 Antiquities of the Shakespeare Portraits quotes, and appears to 
 adopt. The Picture came into the hands of its present owner 
 (through his Pather) from his Grandfather, William Hunt, Esq., to 
 whom it probably passed with some other old paintings in the 
 purchase of his house from the Clopton Family in 1758. The 
 house had then been uninhabited for several years since the death 
 of its former owner and occupier Edward Clopton, Esq. (nephew of 
 Sic Hugji Clopton), which took place in 1753." 
 
The portrait, as might be expected, came in for a good deal of 
 criticism, some favourable and some adverse. Although £3,000 
 had been offered to Mr. Hunt for the picture, he generously preferred 
 to give it to the Birthplace, where it now is.* 
 
 As soon as the " cleaning " process had been finished at Stratford, 
 and before the picture was sent to London to be " restored," a 
 local photographer of Stratford, of exceptional skill, took photo- 
 graphs of it as it then was. Mr. Kabone shewed a couple of those', 
 which were handed round for inspection. He also placed in contrast 
 with them the photo, of the Stratford portrait from Hain FrisweU's 
 Life Portraits of Shakespeare, published in 1863-4, and photographed 
 by Cundall and Downes, and pointed out the differences. The 
 " Friswell " photograph, he said, was a very faithful copy of the 
 picture as it now is, and the best one taken after the " restoration," 
 but many of those now selling, both large and small, though 
 professedly copies, were very unlike what they are professed to be. 
 The hair in these latter was frizzed instead of curled, and in other 
 respects they were very untrue. This was explained to be doubtless 
 owing to the negative being " touched up," as it is termed. The 
 features in some of them were without doubt an improvement on 
 the " restored " portrait, but at the same time they could not be 
 regarded otherwise than as mere " fancy" pictures. 
 
 Mr. Kabone directed attention to a finely-executed painting in 
 oil, the same size as the Stratford portrait, which he had had 
 painted many years ago on the lines of the photograph of it after 
 it had been " cleaned," and before its " restoration." In the course 
 of the latter process, he said, the Stratford picture had been sadly 
 altered. He pointed out that the pose of the figure in his picture, 
 while it perfectly agreed with the first photograph, was very different 
 to that in the Stratford picture as it now is, and as exemplified in 
 the photograph by Cundall and Downes, in Hain FrisweU's Life 
 Portraits of ShaJcespeare, and the audience, or some of them who 
 went to Stratford lately with the society, would remember he drew 
 attention to that fact when at the Birthplace. Mr. Munns, 
 the painter, had successfully caught and reproduced the 
 nobleness of expression seen in the first photograph, which was 
 entirely wanting in the "restored" picture. When the picture 
 
 * See Appendix A. 
 
10 
 
 had been " restored " and sent back to Stratford, the Birmingham 
 Archaeological Association went to see it. It was in the little 
 theatre which then stood on the site of New Place, and beside it 
 was placed a model of the bust in the church in colours, just as it 
 had been left from the cleaning. Mr. Collins, who was present, on 
 being questioned about the picture, said " he was not there to say 
 what he had done to it, except that he had used every means of his 
 art to make the picture as perfect and as near as was possible to 
 what it was originally, and all he had to say was that the results 
 were before them. It was in. a very dilapidated condition, and 
 he had done his best to restore it." A good deal of criticism took 
 place. It was very evident that there was considerable similarity 
 between the painting and the bust. The colours were the same, 
 and the creases and folds in the dress in the one exactly resembled 
 those ia the other, from which it was concluded that the painting 
 had been copied from the bust, or the bust from the painting. It 
 was pointed out that the painting contained numerous little life-like 
 points which were altogether wanting in the bust, and therefore it- 
 was generally thought more probable that, as the bust had been made 
 by a mere " tomb-maker," as Gerard Johnson was, it would be 
 unlikely that those delicate little touches in the painting should be 
 reproduced by him in the stone. It was suggested that the painting 
 had been obscured in Puritanic times, as many portraits had been, 
 to conceal it, as players then were in ill odour. Of the published 
 opinions expressed at that early date respecting the portrait, Mr. 
 Eabone said he would merely refer to two or three, but at that 
 distance of time he was not able to say whether they referred 
 to the picture in its original state after the " cleaning," or to it, 
 as it is now seen, after " restoration." Mr. J. 0. Halliwell 
 (Halliwell-PhiUipps) said of it : — " It was very clear that the bust 
 was copied from the painting or the painting from the bust ; but 
 having seen the picture he could not for a moment longer imagine 
 the former position could be ultimately established, and he fancied 
 that it was one somewhat unlikely in itself to be correct, even were 
 the painting of the requisite antiquity. He had very little, if any, 
 doubt that the portrait was copied from the bust, at the very 
 earliest some time in the first half of the last century, but more 
 
11 
 
 probably as Mr. Hepwoith Dixon had suggested, about the time of 
 the jubUee." The Athenceum said the picture was " very much 
 like the bust in Trinity Church, iU-drawn and coloured in the 
 manner in which Malone found the bust"; and describing its 
 various features as "that brazen head,- those stony eyes, and those 
 carved locks," went on to say " the picture has no merit of any 
 kind — ^not even that of age ; it is a modem daub, possibly a tavern 
 sign, a ' Shakespeare's Head,' or it may have been made up for 
 some purpose connected with the jubilee." On the other side of 
 the question, a Birmingham critic wrote of it :— A remarkably well- 
 executed picture, an idealisation of the well-known bust. Had we 
 the skill to execute, and had we been asked to paint our ideal of 
 Shakespeare from the few materials left us, we should have painted 
 jtist such a face and form. A noble forehead, a deep, clear, and 
 piercing eye, a weU-chiseUed nose, a sweet and expressive mouth, a 
 well-formed and manly figure, a calm, genial expression — not all 
 practical, not all poetical, but a singular combination of intellectual 
 power and common sense and worldly wisdom — all appear in the 
 form before us." On a close examination, two accomplished judges 
 who were present at the Archaeological Meeting in the Stratford 
 theatre, declared their conviction that the picture must have been 
 painted from the living subject, and not from the bust. 
 
 Aris's Birmingham Gazette said of the portrait : — It represents 
 Shakespeare as in the very prime of life. The lower part of the 
 face is closely shaved, with the exception of a very small pointed 
 beard and a little curled moustache. The expression of the face 
 is admirable, and, so far as we can judge, it presents a far more 
 probable likeness of the great original than any of the portraits 
 which have yet been discovered. The eyes are very beautifully 
 painted, and the manner in which the somewhat peculiar form of 
 the mouth is given, is singularly. _good and masterly. The dress, 
 in both colour and arrangement, exactly corresponds with the well- 
 known bust on the tomb. It seems a matter of certainty, either 
 that the picture was painted from the bust, or that the bust was 
 modelled from the picture." After noticing several points of 
 similarity and divergence between the two, the Birmingham 
 Gazette goes on to say, "Taking these and other points into 
 
12 
 
 consideration, we are strongly inclined to the opinion, not only that 
 the hust was modelled from the picture, but also that the picture 
 ■ was painted during the poet's lifetime, and that we have in it a 
 grand origiaal portrait of oui beloved Shakespeare. There is one 
 thing about the picture which is singularly satisfactory. It gives, 
 for the first time, an idea of Shakespeare which we instinctively 
 feel to be a correct one. All the other portraits have failed ia this. 
 There was either something in them wanting, or something top 
 much ; but the mind at once accepts this as satisfactory. Shakes- 
 peare appears as we would have him to be. It does not seem 
 possible to wish any part of it to be better, or to be in any way 
 amended or altered." 
 
 After some further comparisons of Friswell's photograph as 
 worthily representing the picture in the Birthplace as it now is, 
 which, Mr. Eabone said, scarcely any of the modern photographs 
 do — the original photograph before "cleaning" — and his nobly- 
 executed painting, the work of an artist of no ordinary skill, he 
 (Mr. Eabone) remarked that those who lately heard him speak of 
 these matters in the Birthplace, would be best able to appreciate 
 the full force of his opinion. Dr. Ingleby, in his recent book on 
 " Shakespeare's Bones," of the Stratford, or the Hunt, portrait 
 at the Birthplace, had written, " This is hot in its original state, 
 and cannot be judged of apart from a copy of it in the possession 
 of John Eabone, Esq., of Birmingham." He (Mr. Eabone) had no 
 wish needlessly to find fault with the painting at the Birthplace, 
 but he could not but know, and he hoped he had made plain to his 
 audience, that it was not painted, in the course of restoration, on its 
 original lines. As time passed on, he was more and more pleased 
 and satisfied that a good many years ago he had taken the trouble 
 and incurred the expense to obtain a portrait of the great dramatist 
 and poet, as near as possible to the one so strangely discovered at 
 Stratford, respecting which there was such abundant confirmatory 
 evidence that it was painted from the life, and the unasked-for 
 expression of Dr. Ingleby's opinion respecting it was perhaps as 
 good a testimony to its truthfulness and value as could possibly be 
 given. As to the merits of the painting as a work of art, he 
 thought there could not be two opinions about it.* 
 
 ^ See Appendix B. 
 
13 
 
 Whilst upon the subject of portraits, Mr. Eabone said some 
 of them would perhaps remember a letter in the Daily News about 
 three weeks ago, signed " An Antiquary," in which was announced 
 " the unexpected discovery of an undoubted contemporary and 
 entirely unpublished portrait of William Shakespeare." * It was on 
 view a fortnight ago at Mr. Samuel Stanesby's, 21, Great Russell 
 Street, where he (Mr. Rabone) saw it, and where Mr. Stanesby 
 obligingly gave all the information he had about it. It is a head 
 and bust painted on an oval of copper 2^in. by l^in. The face is 
 nearly full, rather inclining to the right shoulder. The hair is long 
 and flowing, and covers the forehead much more than with the 
 portraits of Shakespeare is usual. The greater part of the dress is 
 white, with a blue robe over the right shoulder and across the 
 waist. The white collar has lace edges and tassels. On the side 
 opposite to the red curtain is a blue sky. He showed a little 
 pencil sketch and also a painted photograph of it, from which they 
 might gather an idea of what the picture was. The sketch and 
 photograph were passed round the room for the view of the 
 audience. Mr. Rabone said he would pronounce no opinion upon 
 the painting, but leave each to form his own. It was purchased, he 
 was told, some six months ago at a sale of household effects "in the 
 north of London," and had belonged to an old gentleman who took 
 a pleasure in curios. It was sold for a likeness of John Milton, 
 but it was seen to resemble Shakespeare more. The price asked 
 for it was a thousand pounds, though some abatement would be 
 made from that sum.** 
 
 And yet another portrait of Shakespeare had recently been 
 brought to light ! and this time at Huddersfield. Mr. Rabone said 
 he felt he ought almost to apologise for taking up time by referring 
 to it, but as it was announced as the production of Adam Elsheimer, 
 the German painter, and from Hfe, he might perhaps be expected 
 to say something about it. It was heralded forth by a flimsy hand- 
 bill inviting the reader to inspect " the only reliable, genuine, 
 original likeness of the great bard, William Shakespeare." The 
 handbill gave no clue as to where it had been discovered. It 
 stated, however, " This is no Shapira fraud," and the climax of the 
 bill was reached in this wise : — " Spreetotallers and the public 
 
 • See Appendix 0. ** See Appendix D. 
 
14 
 
 generally who ' can stand well enough, and speak well enough,' can 
 be supplied with most of the popular drinks of the day, and they 
 can likewise be served with drinks similar to those which were 
 indulged in by our noble ancestors, whose manhood was not melted 
 iato counterfeits !" — 
 
 " Let me the cannakiu clink ; 
 A workman's a man, 
 A life's but a span, 
 Why then let the working man drink." 
 
 To quote the words of Shakespeare himself, this, " though it make 
 the unskilful laugh, cannot but make the judicious grieve.'' 
 
 THE SHAKESPEAEE BEOOCH. 
 In introducing the subject of the Shakespeare brooch, which 
 Mr. Rabone said he had been requested by the committee to illustrate, 
 he stated that he had had the brooch in his possession for two or three 
 years, and so far as the evidence already accumulated went, it all 
 tended to prove that it was one of the few personal relics of 
 Shakespeare known. Mr. Rabone exhibited boldly-executed 
 drawings of the brooch, enlarged to three times the actual size, 
 and also a number of ancient brooches of a similar construction on 
 the same scale. The brooch was passed about among the audience 
 for inspection. It was described as a narrow band of silver bent 
 into the shape of a heart, about one inch in length and a little less 
 in width. It was originally set with twenty-two crystals, three of 
 which are, however, missing, two of the settings being filled with 
 solder, and the third is open without a stone. The heart is not of 
 the conventional shape, but is unequal sided — one side being full 
 and the other indented, after the manner of the human heart. 
 Above the top of the heart is a coronet attached to it only at the 
 ends, consisting of five larger stones of graduated sizes, the first, 
 third, and fifth stone being red, and the second and fourth blue. 
 On the reverse, near the bottom on the one side, is the letter W, 
 and reading onwards up the other side, the word Shakespeare. 
 It would be noticed in the back view, from the amount of soft 
 solder represented, that the brooch had been broken and clumsily 
 repaired, the manner of which would be subsequently explained.* 
 Before alluding further to the details of the brooch, the peculiar 
 circumstances under which it was found were narrated. In the 
 
 * See Appendix (Engraving of the Brooch). 
 
15 
 
 year 1827, a portion of the garden land of New Place, abutting 
 upon Chapel Lane, was sold, and in the next year, in the course of 
 some excavations made upon it, the brooch was thrown out among 
 the rubbish. It was found by a labouring man, Joseph Smith, of 
 Sheep Street, Stratford, who was engaged upon the excavations 
 and levelling. "When Smith found the brooch " he did not think 
 much of it," and gave it his children to play with. It was covered 
 with dirt and corrosion, but the friction from handling it soon 
 removed all that, and enabled the stones, etc., to be more clearly 
 seen. Smith scraped it and cleaned it as well as he could, and then 
 he found the letters W. Shakbspeaee upon it. There was also 
 another word before the W which could not be made out. 
 Smith thought it looked like " Lova." It must be noted that this 
 was before the brooch had been broken into two pieces and soldered 
 together again, as it afterwards was. He scraped it in order to 
 make the word plainer, but instead, it became nearly obliterated, 
 and the soldering since has quite effaced all trace of it. Elated 
 with the idea of being possessed of a real Shakespearean relic, and 
 of making money by it, for he was very poor. Smith had it on view 
 at his house in Sheep Street, and exhibited ia the window a manu- 
 script intimation to the public of what was to be seen within, and 
 how it was found. It was upon a yellow sheet of foolscap, of 
 considerable age, and much stained. The writing was evidently that 
 of an illiterate person, and upon the paper were written the 
 testimonials of a number of persons who expressed their beUef in 
 the genuineness of the brooch. This document was shewn to the 
 audience, and handed round. 
 
 The finding of the brooch made considerable sensation in 
 Stratford at the time, and Captain James Saunders, an eminent 
 antiquary of the town, to whom the Shakespeare Museum is 
 largely indebted for many valuable manuscripts and drawings 
 illustrative of the history of Stratford, known as the Saunders 
 Collection, was very anxious to possess it. He offered £7 for it, 
 which offer Smith refused, having been told that it was worth 
 much more ; and, besides, he was occasionally making money by 
 it at his house. Captain Saunders contributed a short notice of 
 the finding of the brooch to the Mirror of September 26th, 1829, 
 
16 
 
 under the signature of " MJTHWC," which was accompanied hy 
 two fairly good engravings, but they did not give some of the 
 interesting details, as the interlaced members of the W, and the 
 joining of the three letters HAK into one. Captain Saunders, in 
 the Mirror, gave his opinion of the brooch, when he said, " This 
 brooch is considered by the most competent judges and antiquaries, 
 iu and near Stratford, to have been the personal property of 
 Shakespeare ;" and those who know Captain Saunders's antiquarian 
 taste and knowledge, from the Saunders Collection, will respect 
 this opinion. The original sketches, made for the Mirror by 
 Captain Saunders, are at the present time in the possession of Mrs. 
 Yoisey, of Stratford, a daughter of Mr. "William Hurdis Harborne, 
 who subsequently became possessed of the brooch. After a time 
 Smith became very poor, as he had ten children dependent upon 
 him, and was out of work. He applied for parish relief, which 
 was refused, on the ground of his holding so valuable a property as 
 the brooch was considered to be, and his having refused to give it up 
 or sell it. Being in straits he left the town to seek for work 
 elsewhere, and was away about a fortnight, during which time his 
 wife and family claimed relief of the parish. When he came 
 back he was taken before the magistrates for deserting his wife and 
 family. It was during Mr. Smith's mayoralty that he was sent to 
 gaol. Mr. Smith was Mayor of Stratford from September 1, 1830, 
 to the same date 1831, which fixes the period. Mr. Smith and 
 the other magistrate, MLr. G-eatley, said, as Smith had been obstinate 
 in not giving up the brooch, they would be obstinate too, and if 
 ihey could, they would certainly send him to Warwick (gaol) for 
 twelve months. They did, however, commit him for three months. 
 Smith firmly believed the offence of leaving his family would have 
 been overlooked if he had given up the brooch. During the time 
 Smith was in prison, the brooch was left in the care of Mr. 
 William Hurdis Harborne,, of Stratford. He had previously offered 
 Smith money for it, but Smith, notwithstanding his poverty, 
 always refused to part with it. On Smith's release, various sums, 
 however, were . advanced to him by Mr. Harborne from time to 
 time, with the understanding that Smith was to have the brooch 
 again on repaying the money. This he was never able to do. Mr, 
 
17 
 
 Robert Bell Wheler, solicitor, of Stratford — a well-known Shakea- 
 pearean, and author of " Whaler's Guide " and " Wheler's History 
 of Stratford " — endeavoured to obtain possession of the brooch, but 
 Smith could not be persuaded, and would not consent, to give up 
 his interest in it. Mr. Harborne, however, obtained Smith's leave 
 to exhibit the brooch to the public, on promising to give him a 
 share of the proceeds. Harborne at that time kept a public-house 
 in Henley Street, opposite Shakespeare's Birthplace — the Coach 
 and Horses ; it is now the Stratfocd Arms. In the window was a 
 bill, containing a description of the relic, and, says Mrs. Pittaway, 
 Smith's youngest daughter, most of those who went to see the 
 poet's Birthplace went to see the brooch. Smith, she says, had 
 afterwards many opportunities of selling it, but he could not 
 induce Harborne to give it up, he having a claim upon it by reason 
 of the money he had advanced to Smith, and which still remained 
 unpaid. On Smith finally relinquishing all claim to the brooch .by 
 Teason of his being unable to pay off the advances made time to 
 time upon it, he made a statutory declaration at Warwick in 1864 
 to the truth of the particulars of the finding of the brooch, and 
 everything relating to it so long as it remained his property.* On 
 Mr. Harborne's death his effects were left to be equally distributed 
 among his children, but owing to the family not being able to 
 agree upon the value of the brooch, it remained in Mr. Joseph 
 Harborne's possession about twenty years. About seventeen years 
 ago, the other brother had the brooch on his paying his brother 
 Joseph one-third of the supposed value, and from then till some 
 short time ago it had remained unseen. Mr. Joseph Harborne 
 states that he well remembers how the brooch became broken when 
 shewn at his father's house in Henley Street. On one occasion a 
 lady, an actress, called to see it, and pressing it enthusiastically to 
 her bosom, exclaiming, "Oh, my Shakespeare!" she broke the 
 brooch into two pieces. Mrs. Eichard Voisey, a daughter of Mr. 
 William Hurdis Harborne, still residing at Stratford, well 
 remembers the brooch being broken, and confirms the statement of 
 her brother as to the manner of it becoming so. She said it was 
 soldered together by Mr. John Bissell, a tin-plate worker and 
 brazier. He was an old friend of the Harborne family, and they 
 
 * See Appendix B. 
 
18 
 
 were afraid to trust it to anyone else's keeping. This would 
 account for its being so clumsily mended. 
 
 It might be asked what evidence was borne by the brooch itself 
 to its ever having belonged to Shakespeare, or to its having been 
 coeval with his time. The letter W, with the middle members of 
 the letter interlaced, as seen on the brooch, was very much in 
 vogue in the 16th and the beginning of the 17th centuries. 
 Shakspere's signet-ring in the Birthplace museum has the interlaced 
 W ; a number of the books in the museum which were printed 
 during Shakespeare's life have the same kind of W ; and in the 
 curious verses on the tablet to Eichard Hill in the church, the 
 same thing is repeated four times. The lines on Shakespeare's 
 daughter, Susannah Hall, have six of such Ws; and other 
 examples might be quoted without end. At the period referred to 
 it was a common practice in churchyard literature to join two 
 letters together, as T and E or H and E, and in the lines on the 
 stone over the poet's grave invoking protection for his dust and a 
 malediction on those who disturb his bones occur two cases of .this 
 kind where T and H are joined, having but two perpendiculars 
 between them. It was noticed on the brooch how curiously the 
 three letters H A K were joined together, the second member of 
 the H and the first one of the K doing duty, each for its own 
 letter, and standing for the two members of the A as well. The 
 only other instance Mr. Eabone said he could call to mind of three 
 letters being joined together occurred in the lines under the bust 
 commencing " Stay, passenger, why goest thou by so fast ?" and there 
 the letters T H E are joined together, the upright members of the 
 T and the E standing also for the two of the H. It was curious, he 
 said, that the only two instances of triple letters he knew of should 
 both be connected with Shakespeare. Drawings of these peculiari- 
 ties were exhibited. 
 
 In 1864 the brooch was submitted to Mr. J. H. Pollen, then 
 of the South Kensington Museum, who wrote that he " saw no 
 reason to doubt its antiquity or the description which accompanied 
 it." But recently, on its acquirement by its present owner, 
 Mr. J. W. Tonks, who was doubtless well-known to most present, 
 and who had had frequent opportunities of studying specimens of 
 
19 
 
 ancient jewellery and decorations, said of it :— " The ' tables ' of th« 
 stones have evidently been hexagonal, although in many of them 
 the angles have been lost by long wear and successive friction. The 
 ■ cutting 'is of a primitive mode not generally practised after the 
 Eestoration, when French fashions were introduced, and the style 
 of the 'setting' is that of the 16th century. The brooch has 
 every appearance of an antiquity bringing it at least as early as the 
 time of Shakespeare." 
 
 Singularly confirmatory evidence of the truth of Mr. Tonks's 
 opinion had lately been unexpectedly found. On the recent 
 excursion of the Natural History Society to Scotland, on visiting 
 the Museum of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, in Edinburgh, 
 they saw a case of twenty silver brooches marked " Luckenbooth 
 brooches, 16th century." * Drawings of these brooches enlarged to 
 three times the actual size were shown, and afforded a fair idea of 
 the originals. They were all silver, mostly heart shape, or having 
 the form of a heart contained within their outlines. Several were 
 seen to be very similar to the Shakespeare brooch. Some were 
 without the coronet'which that has, and others had bolder and more 
 important ones. One was in the form of a double heart set with 
 stones and surmounted by a coronet, and another consisted of two 
 hearts, the one overlapping the other in a manner not readily made 
 plain without drawings. They were said, by the experts who had 
 seen them, to be of French manufacture, and when the intimate rela- 
 tions subsisting between France and Scotland several centuries ago, 
 and which to-day were visible in the architecture of old Edinburgh 
 and other places were borne in mind, the idea might be seen to 
 be not without reasonable foundation. In 1536, King James V. 
 of Scotland visited Paris and married one of the French princesses. 
 The national regalia was repaired and its splendour augmented by 
 him, and it is stated that " the advanced state of the arts of Paris 
 afi'orded him the best opportunity of doing so." Further particu- 
 lars of those brooches could not be obtained at the Museum, as 
 they were recent additions, and the new catalogue was but in course 
 of preparation. In explanation of the meaning of the term 
 " Luckenbooth," it was explained to be a Scottish word, meaning 
 a wooden shop or booth to be locked up and not moved about. In 
 
 *See Appendix (The two pages of Brooches) and F. 
 
20 
 
 the 6th chapter of the " The Heart of Midlothian," Sir Walter 
 Scott explained the Luckenbooths as peculiar to Edinburgh — a huge 
 pile of buildings jammed into the principal street of the town, 
 leaving for passage only a narrow street on the one side between 
 the high and sombre walls of the Tolbooth and the houses, and on 
 the other between them and the buttresses and projections ef the 
 old cathedral. Of late, he says, those Luckenbooths had 
 degenerated into mere toy shops, but in former days the hosiers, 
 the glovers, the hatters, the mercers, and the milliners were all to 
 be found in that narrow alley.* Mr. Rabone here exhibited a 
 silver brooch of modern make, which, as he was informed, is an 
 article of ordinary sale in Edinburgh, and is a facsimile of a valued 
 family relic, several centuries old, the property of Lady Emma 
 M'Neill, of Burn Head, Liberton, sister to the Duke of Argyll. It 
 consisted of a double heart with a coronet of silver balls and some 
 triangular projections at the edges, and with the exception of two 
 small apertures being divided in the one and not in the other, was 
 an exact counterpart of one of the Luckenbooth brooches in the 
 Edinburgh Museum, a drawing of which was shown. This was 
 additional testimony to the antiquity of the style of such brooches, 
 and confirmed the idea of their being at least as ancient as the time 
 of Shakespeare. Silver was the metal most in vogue for Scotch 
 jewellery and trinkets ages before the modern fashion of silver 
 jewellery set it, as most of the audience were doubtless aware. In 
 an article on the Louvre in a recent number of the Scotsman news- 
 paper it was stated that " the niello and other similar work executed 
 in France and on the Continent seemed to have died out on the 
 Continent in the 16th century, but curiously enough it lingered in 
 the Scottish Highlands, where it had become naturalised as the 
 common process for the decoration of silver brooches till the middle 
 of the last century, or even later, though it was n,ow quite extinct. 
 These circular Highland brooches of silver, ornamented partly in 
 engraved work and partly in neillure, thus formed a series of 
 interesting survivals of a species of art workmanship which had 
 been practically extinct in the great centres of production and 
 progress for nearly three centuries." 
 
 They had now had brought under their notice most of th» 
 
 * See Frontispiece (View of Luckenbooths) and Appendiit G. 
 
21 
 
 principal features of this brooch of Shakespeare's ; the accidental 
 manner of its discovery ; the opinions of those local antiquaries 
 living at the time, Captain Saunders and Mr. Wheler ; the pecu- 
 liarities of the inscription upon it ; the locale of its discovery— 
 the garden of New Place where Shakespeare lived, when not in 
 London, during the last nineteen years of his life ; the testimony of 
 experts as to its ancient style and foreign manufacture, and, lastly, 
 the circumstantial evidence (using the words in the fullest sense) 
 afforded by the specimens of twenty similar, and yet dissimilar 
 brooches, though of the same kind, in the Museum in Edinburgh, 
 which are admitted to be of an age at least as far back as the time 
 of Shakespeare. It was, perhaps, open to question whether the 
 name upon the brooch proved it to have been worn by 
 Shakespeare, or whether the effaced word Love, or as Smith 
 supposed it to be Lova, might not have been preceded by the word 
 From, which would have exactly filled up the space. If that were 
 so it might have been a gift from Shakespeare to his wife or to his 
 daughter, Susannah. In either case it seemed beyond doubt that 
 it was once Shakespeare's, and was to be treasured with his signet 
 ring as one of the very few of his personal belongings which have 
 been preserved to us. 
 
 Professor Sonnenschein, of Mason College, moved a vote of 
 thanks to Mr. Eabone for the careful manner in which he had 
 investigated the history of the portrait and the brooch, and for the 
 trouble he had been at in preparing the illustrations. — This was 
 seconded by Mr. F. J. Cullis, and supported by Mr. W. 
 Greathead, both of Mason College, the latter gentleman observing 
 that he thought the various portraits of Shakespeare would form a 
 fit subject for Mr. Francis Galton's method of compound photo- 
 graphy. — The motion having been carried and replied to, th& 
 meeting separated. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 STRATFORD PORTRAIT. 
 In an obitnary notice of the late Mr. Jeremiah Matthews, of Birmingham, 
 since the delivery of the lecture, the statement was made that it was he who 
 oflFered Mr. Hunt three thousand pounds for the Stratford Portrait on its 
 (Mscovery, which offer Mr. Hunt declined, preferring to present it to the 
 Birthplace Committee, as previously stated. 
 
 B 
 
 Mr. J. Parker Norris, in a recent number of SfiaJcespeariana (Philadelphia : 
 Triibner and Co., London) in reference to the Stratford Portrait, says : 
 
 "When Mr. Collins had finished cleaning the picture, but before it was 
 taken to London to be ' restored, ' some photographs of it were taken by a 
 Stratford Photographer. Using one of these photographs, Mr. John Rabone, 
 of Birmingham, had a large painting executed, of the same size as the 
 ■original portrait. This copy is of great value, as it represents the original as 
 it was immediately after Mr. Collins had cleaned it, and before it had been 
 retouched in proee.ss of restoration. The latter process has caused much 
 alteration in the original portrait. His copy agrees in all particulars with 
 the photographs taken by the Stratford photographer immediately after the 
 portrait was cleaned. In his copy," the lines follow the first photograph 
 exactly, and the expression of the face as it originally was, is faithfully 
 reproduced. The pose of the figure is now somewhat different, and the face 
 has been altered." 
 
 "In March. 1861, Mr. Simon Collins published a large photograph of the 
 Stratford picture, which represents the portrait as entirely different in 
 expression from its present condition. The negative has been much ' touched 
 up ' and altered. Indeed it is not generally known how great a change in 
 the expression of a face can be made, in a photograph by this process. Dr. 
 C. M. Ingleby was desirous of obtaining a photograph which correctly 
 resembled the Stratford portrait, and he went to a good deal of trouble to 
 attain his object, only to meet with utter failure. He took one of Mr. Collins's 
 photographs, referred to above, which was painted upon by Mr. Collins after 
 the original picture, and then photographed again. The result was painted 
 
upon by Mr. Munns, of Birmingham, after the original, and then photo- 
 graphed by Mr. H. J. Whitlock. Dr. Ingleby then toolj the last named 
 photograph to Stratford-upon-Avon, in October, 1872, and compared it 
 with the original picture. He says he was unable to discover the slightest 
 resemblance between the two faces. "And I do not wonder that he was not," 
 continues Mr. Parker Norris, " for he sent me one of the photographs, and 
 anything more unlike the original can hardly be imagined. The whole 
 expression of the face has been changed by the repeated ' touching up ' that it 
 has undergone, and it looks another picture altogether. The best photograph 
 of the Stratford portrait as it now is, is that published in Friswell's Life, 
 Portraits of William Shakespeare, although those in different copies of the 
 hook vary much, having been printed from a number of negatives ; and some 
 of the latter have been more successfully ' touched up ' than others. '' 
 
 This important testimony, from such intelligent and cultured Shakespearians 
 as Mr. Parker Norris and Dr. Ingleby, but serve to confirm the particulars 
 before given respecting the Stratford portrait, and to warrant the assertion of 
 Dr. Ingleby that "it is not in its original state, and cannot be jndged-of 
 apart from acopy of itin the possession of JohnRabone, Esq^., of Birmingham." 
 
 c 
 
 The following is the full text of the letter which appeared in the Daily News 
 of October 23rd, 1883, signed " An Antiqtjakt " — 
 
 " When every scrap of personal detail relative to the personal career of our 
 great dramatist is so easily sought after, and as easily recorded, the unexpected 
 discovery of an undoubted contemporary and entirely unpublished portrait of 
 William Shakespeare is an event of great public interest and value. Having 
 carefully examined an original miniature of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, 
 beautifully painted on copper, I am in a position ,to state that we have now a 
 new likeness of the immortal dramatist at a period of his life when his earlier 
 plays were produced, and before his popularity at the English Court rendered 
 him of European interest. It is full face, age about thirty-five years, bearing 
 the well-known deep-eyed pensive expression of countenance, massive high 
 forehead, and falling collar so familiar to us, but with the additional attraction 
 of exact portraiture from the life itself by evidently a first-rate artist, when 
 Shakespeare was in his prime as regards physical appearance and intellectual 
 vigour. The fortunate holder of this unique national treasure has kindly 
 allowed it to remain open to view for a short time to savants and-others 
 interested, at Mr. Frank Bucklands, Finsbury Place, E.G., when the 
 foregoing remarks will be more than endorsed by those competent to judge. 
 I may add that it has already been submitted to the most searching investi- 
 gation by high authorities, and pronounced genuine in all respects, as well as 
 totally unknown." 
 
D 
 
 It is a curious circumstance that at the very moment Mr. Rabone was 
 stating on the instruction of Mr. Stanesby, the agent in whose hands the 
 picture was, that it was to be sold for a thousand pounds, there was in the 
 office of the Birmingham Daily Gazette, an advertisement for the next 
 day, from the owner of the picture, offering to sell it for £200, if ten 
 or twenty gentlemen would subscribe that amount to place it in some public 
 institution, or failing that, in one week it would be sent to America. 
 
 The following is the Statutory Dbolaration of Joseph Smith 
 
 KESPECTINO THE FINDING OF THE BrOOOH, WHICH HE MADE AFTER 
 HE HAD RELINQUISHED ALL CLAIM TO IT ; — 
 
 " I, Joseph Smith, of Stratford-on-Avon, in the county of Warwick, 
 cooper, do solemnly and sincerely declare that in the year one thousand eight 
 hundred and twenty-eight I found the Brooch now shewn to me, and having 
 the name " W. Shakespeare " engraved at the back thereof, upon a heap of 
 rubbish brought out of, and laid in front of. New Place, in Stratford-on-Avon 
 aforesaid, during alterations being made in those premises. The said Brooch 
 is made of silver, set with imitation stones, in the form of a harp (heart), 
 with a wreath on the top. I did not much value it, and gave it to my 
 children to play with. The Brooch, when found, was so corroded that it 
 could not be seen what metal it was made of. I scraped it and cleaned it as 
 best I could, when I saw writing upon it, and, with more cleaning, I found 
 it to have the name " W. Shakespeare" upon it. There was another word 
 which I was not able to make out. It looked like " Lova.'' I, however, 
 scraped it till that word was nearly obliterated. My having found it soon 
 got to the ears of Captain Saunders, an Antiquarian, of Stratford, who came 
 to see it. He ottered me Seven Pounds for it, which offer I refused, having 
 been told I should get more for it. At that time, being very poorly off, as I 
 had then ten children dependent upon me and being out of work, I applied 
 for Parish relief, which was denied me on the ground of my holding the said 
 Brooch, which they requested me to give up or sell. This request I with- 
 stood. I left the town to seek for work, and was away about a fortnight. 
 When I came back, I was taken before the Magistrates. It was during the 
 year of Mr. William Smith's Mayoralty. He, and his brother Magistrate, 
 Mr. Geatley, said that as I had been obstinate in not giving up the Brooch 
 they would be obstinate too, and if they could tliey would certainly send me 
 to Warwick for twelve months. They, however, sent me for three months. 
 The offence of my having left my family I believe, would have been overlooked 
 if I had given the said Brooch to them. Soon after this I was offered money 
 for it by Mr. William Hurdis Harborne, which offer I accepted, and let him 
 have the Brooch, but with the understanding that I was to have it again if 
 
IV. 
 
 I could repay him the money, but heing always poor I have never been able to 
 redeem it, and have no expectation of ever being able to do so. I have now 
 no claim upon it, and I ' make this solemn Declaration conscientiously 
 believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of an Act made 
 and passed in the fifth and sixth years of the Reign of His late Majesty King 
 William the Fourth, intituled an 'Act for the more effectual abolition of 
 oaths and affirmations taken and made in various departments of the State, 
 and to substitute Declarations in lieu thereof and for the more effectual 
 suppression of voluntary and extra judicial oaths and affidavits, and to make 
 other provisions for the abolition of unnecessary oaths.' — Joseph Smith." 
 
 ' ' Declared at Warwick, in the County of Warwick, this 20th day of 
 August, 1864. Before me, Thomas Heath, a Commissioner to Administer 
 Oaths in Chancery in England." 
 
 With the Declaration is also the rough draft from which it was drawn 
 up. It is evidently written by an uneducated person, probably from Smith's 
 dictation, as it is not in his handwriting. 
 
 F 
 
 BROOCHES. 
 In a volume of drawings of the Anastatic Society (Ashby-de-la-Zouch, 
 1865) in the British "Museum, are drawings of some heart-shaped and other 
 Brooches. They were formerly in the possession of, and collected, by 
 Charles Kirkpatrick Sharpe, Esq., an intimate friend of Sir Walter Scott's, 
 and were by him regarded as valuable specimens of Luckenbooth Brooches. 
 They were given by him to his sister, Mrs. Bedford, of Sutton Coldfield, and 
 two of them are still in the possession of her son, the Rev. W. K. R. Bedford, 
 the Rector of Sutton Coldfield. They are almost exactly similar to 14 (NG 55) 
 and 15 (NG 50) of the Luckenbooth Brooches in the Edinburgh Museum 
 (see engravings), one a double heart, the other single. The No. 15, which nearest 
 resembles the Shakespeare Brooch has exactly the same number of stones, the 
 Museum specimen containing one less in number. 
 
 G 
 
 Wilson, in his "Memorials of Old Edinburgh," after quoting Sir Walter 
 Scott, respecting the Luokenbooths, says, "they were built about the year 
 1466, previous to the extension or rebuilding of the west portion of the 
 Tolbooth, and here, also, the goldsmiths' shops stood. The goldsmiths' shops 
 were latterly removed into the Parliament Close, but George Heriot's booth 
 existed till 1809." 
 
SHAKESPEARE'S BROOCH, 
 
 FOUND IN 1828 IN EXCAVATIONS ON THE SITE OF 
 NEW PLACE, STRATFORD-ON-AVON, 
 
 In the possession of 
 
 JOHN RABONE, 
 
 Birmingham. 
 
LUCKENBOOTH BROOCHES, 16th CENTURY," 
 
 la the National Museum of the Sodety of Antiquaries of Scotland, Edinburgh. 
 
 10 
 
 (NG 54) 
 
"LUCKENBOOTH BROOCHES, 16th CENTURY, "i 
 
 In the National Museum of the Sodety of Antiquaries of Scotland, Ediidiurgh. 
 
 (J^G44) 
 

 V •>:^v, 
 
 >«.. 
 
 .•s? .-; 
 
 ■ .rv -^