his great kindness in reading through the proofs, and for suggesting many corrections, only one of which, I think, has received special acknowledgment in the notes.

A note should, perhaps, be added as to the illustrations. Those that are new, the two Blake designs, Blake's miniature after the Romney portrait, the portraits of Sir John and Lady Throckmorton, the picture of Cowper's horse and dog, and the seal given him by Theodora Cowper, have already been mentioned. The seal, it may be said, is a red carnelian, representing Omphale wearing the lion's skin of Hercules. Of the miniature, which was given to Canon Johnson's father by a lady to whose family it had come from Hayley, I should, perhaps, say that it has only recently been recognised as the work of Blake. Mr. W. Roberts, joint author of Romney: by Humphrey Ward and W. Roberts, 1904, has lately examined it and expresses the opinion that there can be no doubt that this is the miniature referred to in Hayley's letter to Romney, February 3, 1801, in which he says: "I have taught him (i.e., Blake) to paint in miniature, and in truth he has made a very creditable copy from your admirable portrait of the dear departed Bard” (i.e., Cowper). The letter is quoted in Mr. Roberts' book, vol. ii., p. 35. There can be no doubt, considering the history of the miniature, that this view is correct, and that we have here a curious piece of Blake's work. Of the picture of Cowper's horse and dog I ought, perhaps, to confess that, though the dog has always been known as "Beau," it can hardly be a portrait of the hero of The Dog and the Water Lily; for that incident took place in June 1788, when the poet had long ceased to keep a horse.

The remaining illustrations are portraits of various friends of the poet, and landscape views of places connected with him. The original portraits have been reproduced where access to them was obtainable: the rest, like most of the landscapes, are reproduced from the engravings in Southey's and Grimshawe's editions. Some of the landscapes are taken from a beautiful quarto volume published in 1803, entitled Cowper Illustrated

by a Series of Views in or near the Park of Weston Underwood, Bucks.

Of the portraits of Cowper three are here reproduced: the fine crayon drawing by Romney, the property of Mr. Bertram Vaughan Johnson; the portrait in oils by Lemuel F. Abbott, the property of Canon Cowper Johnson; and the portrait by Sir Thomas Lawrence, painted in 1793, and exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1795. Where this last is now I have not been able to discover. From Cowper's allusion to it in the letter of November 30, 1793, one of the unpublished letters given in the Appendix to the Introduction, where he calls it "Lawrence's sketch of me," it would appear not to have been an oil painting, but a crayon drawing like the Romney. Lady Hesketh also speaks of it as "Lawrence's charming sketch" (letter of January 16, 1800). It is much to be regretted that its whereabouts seem to be unknown. Meanwhile it is here reproduced from the engraving by Finden.

The portraits by Romney and Abbott are reproduced from the originals. They evidently give us two sides of the man. This, or something like it, was felt from the first, as may be seen from John Johnson's letter written from Hayley's house when the Romney had just been done. (See Letters of Lady Hesketh concerning William Cowper, 1901, p. 19.) Johnson speaks of Romney having drawn in crayons "a very capital head" of Cowper, and adds, " a wonderful likeness it is-every one is quite charmed with it-there is a world of character and poetic fire in the countenance: but in my opinion, the likeness is not so strong as that which Abbott painted." Romney, that is, painted the poet, Abbott the man. The two pictures were done about the same time, the Abbott in June or July 1792, and the Romney in August of the same year. The contrast between them is obvious; but, strangely enough, Cowper himself saw it so little that in his Sonnet to Romney he expresses his wonder at "Symptoms none of woe" appearing in Romney's work. To us now, and probably always to all eyes except his own, it exhibits the poet in a moment of imaginative excitement, and

suggests not only the powers to which he owed his fame, but also the tragedy which wrecked his life. The portrait by Abbott, on the other hand, except for the fact that he is represented in the costume of an Archery Club, shows us the man as ordinary people saw him at ordinary moments. All his friends declared this picture to be an admirable likeness. There is a letter of John Johnson to his sister in which he says he has heard from Lady Hesketh that the Bishop of Bristol (Cowper's cousin, Spencer Madan), had told her he would have known Abbott's portrait "had he met it in the streets of London walking sideways or bottom upwards." Johnson himself called it "a good map of the poet's face," and wrote on the back of the picture, which was in his possession: "The author of The Task in his sixty-first year represented with astonishing likeness by Lemuel Francis Abbott." Lady Hesketh spoke of it as "by much the strongest likeness I ever saw." And that seems to have been the general feeling. Perhaps the poet's friends preferred remembering him as he faces us in this pleasant but comparatively commonplace serenity to recalling greater and sadder aspects of the features they had loved so well. But those who read Cowper now will naturally keep their heartier gratitude for Romney and be glad that he put the poet and not the honorary Archer into his picture! Anyhow, there they both are for lovers of Cowper to choose between. Cowper is not known to have sat for any other portrait. The miniature he speaks of in one or two letters (February 4, February 15, and June 6, 1789), as about to be taken by Englefeldt was apparently never done. The picture by Jackson at Panshanger is a composition made up from the authentic pictures and of no independent authority. Nor would the head done by Blake for Hayley, if it could be found, have any importance as a portrait. Blake never knew Cowper, and this head was merely one of a series of poets which were, of course, "visions" rather than portraits. It is true that Gilchrist (Life of Blake, i. 162) says that it was one of the most interesting; but the interest must have been of a kind which belongs rather to the student of Blake than to the student of Cowper.

There remains the picture by Romney in the National Portrait Gallery. This is not reproduced here, because I cannot bring myself to believe it is a portrait of Cowper at all. My brother-in-law, Mr. Lionel Cust, the Director of the Gallery, has kindly looked up the history of the picture for me, and given me such information as he possesses about it. It appears that it came from a collection belonging to the Romney family sold at Christie's in 1894. It was then catalogued "A Head, possibly Cowper." Sir George Scharf, the then Director of the Gallery, saw it, made inquiries about it, and so entirely convinced himself that it represented Cowper that he bought it from Messrs. Agnew, the purchaser, at the sale, had it cleaned at his own expense, and presented it to the Trustees of the Gallery. The fact that so exceptional a judge of portraits believed in the picture is no doubt a strong point in its favour. But it appears to me to be almost the only one. Sir George Scharf has left no written statement of the grounds on which he formed his opinion. And Messrs. Agnew possess no evidence on the subject. There are no doubt some curious points of resemblance between the face represented and Cowper's face as known from the undisputed portraits. But they seem to exhibit equally striking differences, and the general expression of the picture in the Portrait Gallery appears to me strangely unlike that of any of the others. It has been suggested that the portrait in the Gallery was a first attempt which, not being successful, was set aside, and so remained in Romney's possession and came to his family. But there is no evidence whatever in support of this suggestion, and considerable difficulties in its way. Romney never saw Cowper except for the three or four weeks when they were both staying with Hayley at Eartham. Neither in Cowper's letters, written from Eartham, nor in Hayley's Life of Cowper, is there any allusion to any first failure on Romney's part, or any portrait by him other than the well-known one. If any other had existed, and been in Romney's possession, it is certain that Hayley, who was long in close relations with Romney, would have known it

No one who knows anything of Hayley will doubt that, if he had known of it, he would have found some opportunity of mentioning it.

I had already come to the conclusion that no sufficient reason existed for believing the picture in the Portrait Gallery to represent Cowper, when my attention was drawn to a letter by Mr. W. Roberts in the Athenæum of February 27, 1900, in which the whole case against it is strongly put. There is more to be said in its favour, perhaps, than Mr. Roberts allows; but, when all possible admissions have been made, the balance seems. to me to be so decidedly against it that I have not felt justified in reproducing it with the others in this edition.