Note A

[51] Since the foregoing pages were written, we have been treated to yet another surprise. Early in August, 1924, I sent the following letter to the Editor of The Times Literary Supplement, which appeared in that journal on August 7th of that year:

THE STRATFORD BUST OF SHAKESPEARE

SIR,—As everybody knows, the Stratford bust of Shakespeare shows us the head of a man wearing a moustache, carefully trimmed and curled, but shaved in a peculiar fashion, so as to leave a hairless interval between the base of the nose above and the top of the upper lip below. Neither the Droeshout engraving, nor any other alleged portrait of Shakespeare, so far as I know, presents us with this peculiarity, and I have often asked whether there is any portrait, print or engraving of an Englishman, before the year 1616, showing a moustache shaven in this curious manner?

Mr. Spielmann, in his recent work, The Title-Page of the First Folio of Shakespeare's Plays, gives us as a parallel a print of "Maurice, Prince d'Orange (1567-1625), to illustrate the fashion of wearing the moustache, as in the Shakespeare effigy." Now I have long been familiar with an engraving of this Prince wearing a moustache so shaven—though not in such a dandified manner as that of the Stratford bust—in the British Museum, subscribed "Henricus Hendius delin. et excudit, Hagæ Comit: 1630," and there are others similar; but I have never been able to find one of an Englishman, of the date in question, so elaborately shaved and trimmed on the upper lip, though I have inspected a large number of prints and [52] engravings of the period at the Museum, and I cannot help thinking that had Mr. Spielmann known of any such he would hardly have gone to Holland for his parallel. I may, of course, be entirely mistaken, but my impression is that this fashion of shaving the upper lip did not come into vogue in this country before the time of the later Stuarts, and possibly not before it was adopted by some of the young dandies of the Court of Charles the Second. If I am wrong in this may I hope that some of your better informed readers will, very kindly, correct me, and give me a reference to some of the portraits that may enlighten my ignorance? I have already consulted some high authorities on this subject, but have not been able to get any help.

Yours faithfully,
GEORGE GREENWOOD.

This elicited a letter from Dr. W. A. Shaw, of the Public Record Office, accompanied by a reproduction of an alleged portrait of Shakespeare, dated 1609, which the learned writer asserts, as will be seen, to be "the only one in the whole range of Shakespeare portraiture which can lay claim to be genuinely contemporary with the poet!" That letter runs as follows:

(See T.L.S. of August 28th, 1924.)

THE STRATFORD BUST OF SHAKESPEARE.
To the Editor of The Times.

Sir,—The question raised by Sir G. Greenwood, in his letter published on p. 489 of the Literary Supplement of August 7, is one of great interest in connexion with Shakespeare portraiture. The poet's moustache was quite sing­ular, and it forms a feature of great value as a test of authenticity of portraiture. I enclose a print of a portrait dated 1609, in which the peculiarity of this feature is plainly shown. From this it will be seen that Sir G. Greenwood's reading of the intention of the Stratford bust [53] is a little incorrect. The moustache is composed of two quite separate halves which do not meet at all in the centre, but from each side run up almost to the nostrils. On the ground of technical method and pigment the portrait in question is the only one in the whole range of Shakespeare portraiture which can lay claim to be genuinely contemporary with the poet. It therefore forms a valuable confirmation of the authenticity of this feature of the Stratford bust. It is not a little remarkable that this feature also lends tremendous strength to the case for the authenticity of the Garrick Club terra-cotta bust. Even a casual comparison of the photograph here reproduced [The letter was accompanied by a print of the portrait in question.] with the reproduction of the Garrick bust as in Sir S. Lee's Life of Shakespeare reveals an absolute identity of details and features and measurements. Whatever the history of the Garrick bust, I have not the slightest doubt as to its truthfulness and authenticity.

WM. A. SHAW, Litt.D.
Public Record Office.

Upon this, thinking, very naturally, that Dr. Shaw's newly produced portrait of Shakespeare was supposed by him to be evidence in support of the "authenticity" of the Stratford bust as it exists to­day, I wrote pointing out that "the fashion of wearing the moustache exhibited in this interesting print is entirely different from that shown in the Stratford bust, as also from that seen in engravings of Maurice, Prince of Orange, one of which is reproduced in Mr. Spielmann's recently published work," since in Dr. Shaw's portrait, as he himself observes, "the moustache is composed of two quite separate halves which do not meet at all in the centre, but from each side run up almost"—the print shows that he might have said "quite"—"to the nostrils," whereas in the case [54] of the Stratford bust the moustache is not "composed of two quite separate halves," but, on the contrary, runs across the upper lip in one unbroken though narrow band, and does not "run up to the nostrils" at all, but leaves a shaven space between the nostrils and this narrow band, as, also, between the narrow band and the upper lip. (T.L.S., Sept. 4th, 1924.)

This, to my surprise, produced a letter from Dr. Shaw in the following terms:

"Sir George Greenwood's concluding letter in your issue of the 4th inst. makes it clear that he is referring to the Stratford monument as it is today. In that case cadit qucestio, for in its modern restored and mutilated condition, the bust is valueless as a testimony to the portraiture of Shakespeare. Dugdale's original drawing of the monument and also the reproduction of that drawing in his 'Warwickshire' is the only existing evidence of the original condition of the bust, and both agree in making the moustache to consist of two separate halves which turn down and not up. They also agree in showing the beard exactly as it is in the portrait reproduced in your issue of the 28th ult. Here, again, the modern bust has been mangled out of recognition." ("T.L.S.," Sept. 18th, 1924. Italics mine.)

Well, of course Dr. Shaw was right in thinking that I was "referring to the Stratford monument as it is today." I had no notion that he was in agreement with Mrs. Stopes in believing that the bust had been "restored and mutilated"—or rather, as think he ought to have said, "mutilated and restored"—and that Dugdale's drawing, and the engraving in his Antiquities of Warwickshire, "is the only existing evidence of the original condition of the bust." I have, therefore, no quarrel with Dr. Shaw on that ground, though, as I have already shown, one must [55] admit that there are difficulties (I think, however, by no means insuperable ones) in the way of that hypothesis.

With regard to this newly produced "portrait of Shakespeare" Mr. Spielmann and Dr. Shaw are, of course, at loggerheads. The former writes that he was "distressed" to see the reproduction of it in The Times Literary Supplement, and declares that his "first glance" convinced him that "we have here yet another example of the work of the clever painter who has, within the past few years, been producing a considerable number of so-called 'Early English' and other portraits which have found a ready market at comparatively small prices." (T.L.S., Sept. 18th, 1924.)

The latter retorts that "Mr. Spielmann's letter calls for only the briefest answer." For "to anyone who is acquainted with the genuine English work of the sixteenth century, there can be no question of copying or reproducing." He then proceeds to give his reasons for this opinion at some length, and concludes by the statement that "no real expert ought ever to be at a loss in this field." (T.L.S., Sept. 25th, 1924.)

It almost seems, therefore, that Dr. Shaw has the temerity to suggest that Mr. Spielmann is not a "real expert"—a thing imagination boggles at! But it is a very pretty quarrel as it stands, and we may be well content to "leave it here." Non nostrum tantas componere lites.

Let us now examine this new "portrait of Shakespeare" as reproduced in The Times Literary Supplement, for which Dr. Shaw makes such very high claims. Is this, really, the portrait of "Shakespeare"? O qualis facies, et quali digna tabella! Look at the [56] lips, look at the expression! Alas, if this be a portrait of the author of Hamlet, and if any confidence is to be placed in physiognomy, we can only say that the author of Hamlet appears to have been a most egregious oaf! But this, we know, cannot have been so. Let us console ourselves, therefore, by the thought that it may be only a counterfeit presentment of William Shakspere, of Stratford-upon-Avon, apparelled in gorgeous array, possibly for some theatrical display! For we, lovers of "Shakespeare," can never bring ourselves to believe that the great poet of our admiration had a face so stupid, and so little worthy of homage, as that which appears in this really ridiculous effigy.

In conclusion I need only add that my appeal in The Times Literary Supplement of August 7th, 1924, for some example of an Englishman before the year 1616, who is depicted in some contemporary print or engraving as wearing a moustache shaved and fashioned as is that of "Shakespeare" in the Stratford bust, as it is today, has, with one exception, been left unanswered. That exception was a letter addressed to the Editor of The Times, who kindly forwarded it to me, bearing date August 30th, 1924, signed E. S. Fryer, and written from "627, Colina Lane, Santa Barbara, California, U.S." In this letter the writer refers me to an engraving of a portrait of the " Rt. Hon. Charles Blunt, Earl of Devon, Baron Mountjoy and Knight of the Garter," which is to be found facing page 264 of the second volume of The Itinerary of Fynes Mory­son, published by James Mac Lehose & Sons of Glasgow, MCMVII. I at once, therefore, referred to the work in question, where I found, at the place indicated, an engraving of an alleged portrait of this Lord Mount­joy, by an unknown artist, and by an anonymous engraver, subscribed are to be sold by Henry Balam [57] in Lombard Street." But whether or not this be an engraving of an authentic portrait of the then Lord Mountjoy it is unnecessary to inquire, for it represents a youth wearing a small moustache fashioned in a manner entirely different from that worn by the "Shakespeare" of the Stratford bust as it is today, and, in fact, "composed of two quite separate halves which do not meet in the centre but from each side run up to the nostrils." It is the difference between a straight line and two lines which meet to form an angle!

My question, therefore, still remains unanswered, and I am fortified in my suspicion that Mr. Spielmann was unable to discover any portrait of an Englishman, before the year 1616, wearing a moustache fashioned as that worn by the "Shakespeare" of the Stratford bust as it is today, and was "fain therefore to go to Holland for an example", to wit in a print of "Maurice, Prince d'Orange (1567-1625)." But that is no proof of any such ridiculous custom having existed in England before the death of William Shakspere of Stratford­-on-Avon. If, therefore, this fashion of wearing the moustache was only adopted in this country—so far as it ever was adopted—at a later date than 1616, the bust cannot be a true representation of William Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon, who, we must remember, was never represented as wearing a moustache so fashioned in any other of the numerous alleged portraits of him.