ailments of Queen Elizabeth from the data and symptoms you have collected and made available for easy study.

The results of my reading of the symptoms are these:

(1) There can be no doubt that Elizabeth was a fully and completely formed woman; we have mention of her breasts and menstrual periods.

(2) There is no evidence that she inherited the virus of syphilis, nor any that she manifested syphilitic symptoms.

(3) Her chief complaint is best explained by supposing that she suffered from anæmia coming on just after-or, rather, in-the opening years of her sexual life-the swelling of the face and body-the pallor-the giddiness-the swoons, seem all to point to such a diagnosis.

(4) Then follows a period of stomach-liver derangements. (5) In the same period occurred ulceration of the leg and a vicariousness in the discharge from her ulcer and from her womb.

(6) Later still, there was a period with a septic condition of her mouth-particularly of her teeth. She was apparently a martyr to pyorrhea. She seems to have died from a septic condition arising from the condition of the mouth.

(7) The pain in her left arm may have been rheumatism. I think all who suffer from pyorrhea also suffer from chronic rheumatism. But it may also have been angina pectoris-for there are signs which suggest that her arteries may have been diseased.

...

Untouched enlargement from the original miniature of Nicholas Hilliard in the Duke of Buccleuch's collection in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

PORTRAIT No. 6.

Royal College of Surgeons of England,

Lincoln's Inn Fields,
London, W.C.2.

PART I.-NOTES ON THE PORTRAITS OF QUEEN

ELIZABETH

Of the six portraits submitted, the one which seems to In order to bring the task within practicable dimensions, I first examined what appeared to be all the possible authentic portraits of Elizabeth.

me the truest transcript of a living and real face is that numbered 5-Nicholas Hilliard's portrait. I should suppose the woman portrayed to be sixty years of age or more. There are no wrinkles, to be sure-but the skin is stretched like thin parchment, the face is lean, and the eyelids, although conventional, are less so than in the other portraits. The nose at once arrests attention-a "beaky" nose-somewhat of the parrot-beak type. The mouth is peculiar-the upper lip is drawn in tightly, stretching from angle to angle of the mouth—while the lower lip is full in the middle part, and a little pouting. The forehead is expansive and rounded, with a hairless region reaching high into the crown. The face is short, the chin fairly prominent. The sinking in of the upper lip may be due to an absence of the upper teeth. The eyes are big, widely opened, and give the impression of being of a dark tint. The face as a whole has a vinegarish expression. The eyebrows are peculiarly thin. The lobule of the ear is joined to the cheek-stretching downwards as a drawn-out fold. The face is that of a nervous person, lean, highly-strung, and perhaps petulant.

Turning now to Portrait No. 1-The first question one asks is: Could this, the face of a sedate, modest damsel of seventeen or under-I should be surprised to find her, as represented by the note on the back of the picture, a woman of twenty -could the features here presented become those seen in No. 5?

I think they could. She is portrayed as a madonna, with full, rounded, wide forehead, the hair ceasing high up, and exposing an uncommon frontal height. The forehead of No. I could easily become the forehead of No. 5. The eyes in No. 1 are full and wide, set in ample sockets; the eyebrows

With the help of various expert friends, the list was gradually reduced until only the six submitted to Dr. Keith for final decision remained as probable portraits. They also represent as many classes or types into which, roughly of course, all reputed portraits may be divided.

One more thing must be said, because of the surrounding circumstances which are peculiarly likely to continue the Amazon theory of Elizabeththat the reputed funereal effigy in Westminster Abbey (which I myself have heard officially described therein as such) is apocryphal, and a fraud of the most glaring character so long as it be so pictured and money collected for so designating it. Literally millions must have paid sixpences to hear this story, and even the greatest scholars have been befooled by it. One glaring instance recurs to me that of a very learned historical scholar who had been employed by a prospective publisher, who opined that my views of the true appearance of Elizabeth must be erroneous because they were altogether at variance with this specious effigy at the Abbey. -F. C.