certainly it was not drawn later than the beginning of 1818, for it was done in England in the presence of Shelley, who never was in England after that time. But this sketch, when set beside a reproduction of the mask in the same position, loses more than the Haydon profile does. The eyes and the hair are charmingly rendered; but the upper lip has something of the same angularity which the mask refuses to confirm in the profile; the forehead is too straight and high, the chin not massive enough, and the general appearance less masculine. Still, it must not be lightly esteemed; for it is beautiful in itself; and Charles Cowden Clarke considered it the best of the portraits of Keats.

In the miniature the build of the face is much more faithfully rendered: chin, mouth, nose, brows, all answer as fully to the massive and masculine bone-structure as a minature could well answer to the lines of a life-sized plaster cast. It will be seen from the reduced rendering that the one is in almost entire harmony with the other, while the miniature has a play and beauty of expression impossible to a mask, not to mention the far-seeing eyes that always render unintelligible to me Clarke's description of this as "an every-day and of the 'earth, earthy ' likeness."

But Severn's last sketch, the frontispiece to Volume IV, harmonizes more completely with the mask than the miniature does, and is a most valuable record. The main structural point of superiority is the forehead. That of the miniature tends to a perpendicularity of expression; but that of the final sketch does not look any more perpendicular than the forehead of the actual mask.

The authenticity of the mask is beyond question. It is well known as the cast of Keats's face both to his sister and to Miss Reynolds; and the only thing wanting