tember, 1618.1 Now I have in my possession an engraving in mezzotinto, purporting to be a portrait of Bacon, representing him in the same position and attitude, and the same dress (only that the figure on the vest is different), and having a similar oval frame with the same kind of border. In the left-hand corner, where the painter's name is usually given, are the words Cornelius Johnson pinxit. The engraver's name is not stated; but there is evidence on the face of the work that he was a poor performer. In all points which require accuracy of eye and hand, and a feeling of the form to be described, it differs much from Pass's work, and is very inferior; but in those which the most unskilful artist need never miss, such as the quantity of face shown, the disposition of the hair, and generally what may be called the composition of the picture, there is no more difference between the two than may be well accounted for by the difficulty which is often found in ascertaining the true outlines of the obscure parts of a dark or damaged picture, or by the alterations which an engraver will often introduce when the size of his plate obliges him to cut off the lower part of the figure. The hat, for instance, which is dark against a dark background, sits differently on the head; sits in fact (in the mezzotint) as it could not possibly have done in nature; and the flap of the brim follows a somewhat different line, though the irregularity is of the same kind; also

1 See a book of accounts preserved in the State Paper Office.

the light and shadow are differently distributed over the folds of the frill; the fur hangs differently; the figure is cut off too short to admit the hand; and the ribbon round the neck, the lower part of which is concealed in Pass's print, is changed into a George and Garter. But such varieties as these are of ordinary occurrence in copies of the same picture by different hands; especially where one copier is attending chiefly to the outlines of the forms without caring to represent the effect of the picture (the practice I think of engravers in Simon Pass's time), and the other is attending to the effect of the picture without caring, or without being able, to preserve the individual details, according to the practice of the popular engravers of the eighteenth century; whereas in two independent and original portraits of the same face the correspondencies which I have mentioned can hardly occur. But however that may be, this mezzotinto appears at least to prove that when it was made there was in existence a portrait which somebody believed to be a portrait of Bacon by Cornelius Johnson,-that is (no doubt) Cornelius Janssen. When it was made becomes therefore an interesting question; and I regret to say that it is a question which I have no data for determining, beyond the fact that it is in mezzotinto (an art of comparatively modern invention); that it was "sold by J. Cooper in James Street Covent Garden;" and

1 If the original picture really has this badge, we may conclude, I suppose, that it was not a portrait of Bacon at all. And I should not be very much surprised if it turned out to be a Charles I.

that there was an English engraver called Richard Cooper, who flourished about the year 1763, and among whose engravings a portrait of Francis Bacon Lord Keeper and Chancellor is mentioned as one.1

With reference to this subject of portraits, I may add that the various engravings of Bacon are all (with one exception which I will mention presently) derived directly or through successive copies from one or other of two originals. One is Simon Pass's print; the features of which may be traced through many generations of copies, each less like than its predecessor; though always to be identified by the hat with irregular brim curving upwards towards the sides, and bound with a scarf. The other is a portrait by Van Somer; the same I suppose that Aubrey saw at Gorhambury in 1656; which has become the parent of two separate families; one wearing a hat with a brim describing a regular curve downwards towards the sides, which sufficiently distinguishes it from Pass's portrait; the other without any hat; the composition being in other respects the same. Of both these the originals are at Gorhambury; and they are both ascribed to Van Somer. But the latter is so very inferior to the former in every quality of art, that unless there be some evidence of the fact more to be relied on than an ordinary family tradition, I shall never be able to believe that it is by the same hand. It seems to me far more probable that at some later period when the fash

1 See Bryan's Painters and Engravers.

ion of painting people with the head covered had gone out, some one, wishing to have a portrait of Bacon without his hat, employed the nearest artist to make a copy of Van Somer's picture (Van Somer himself died in 1621, two or three years after it was painted, about the time when Bacon was in the Tower) with that alteration; and that this is the work he produced. That he was not a skilful artist is sufficiently apparent from the execution of those parts which were intended to be copies; the peculiar character and expression of eyebrows, eyes, nose and mouth, being entirely missed; and the whole handling being weak and poor, and without any sense of form. Moreover the hair is of a different texture; and although we have neither any description nor any drawing of the upper part of Bacon's full-grown head, we know what it was like in his boyhood from two very admirable representations, quite independent of each other and yet exactly agreeing; and it is plain that such a head could never have grown into a shape at all like that which the painter has invented.

However, they were both called portraits by Van Somer; and the first (which is a very good work, as far as the painting goes) was engraved by Houbraken; the last by Vertue. Unfortunately, these two artists, whose style of execution made them very popular and gave them almost a monopoly of English historical portraiture in the 18th century, were both utterly without conscience in the matter of likeness. And though

many of their works are brilliant specimens of effect in line-engraving, yet regarded as likenesses of the men, they are all alike worse than worthless. The original from which Vertue's engraving of Bacon was taken, being itself destitute of all true physiognomical character, is indeed represented well enough. But if any one wishes to form a notion of Bacon's face as interpreted by Van Somer, he must consult the more modern engraving in Lodge's collection, which is at least a conscientious attempt to translate it faithfully; Houbraken's can only mislead him.

The other engraving to which I have alluded as not derived from either of the originals above mentioned, is the small head engraved for Mr. Montagu's edition of Bacon's works. This was taken from a miniature by Hilliard then in the possession of John Adair Hawkins, Esq., representing Bacon in his eighteenth year; a work of exquisite beauty and delicacy. But here also, I regret to say, the laudable attempt to bring an image of it within reach of the general public has been attended with the same infelicity. The engraver has so completely failed to catch either expression, feature, character, or drawing, that I think no one can have once seen the original without wishing, in justice both to subject and artist, that no one who has not seen it may ever see the copy.

Judging from the issue of Mr. Montagu's attempt to obtain an engraving of this miniature, it is perhaps fortunate that he did not fulfil the intention which he