diff options
Diffstat (limited to '8379-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 8379-h/8379-h.htm | 2261 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 8379-h/images/coverb.jpg | bin | 0 -> 233683 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 8379-h/images/covers.jpg | bin | 0 -> 40841 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 8379-h/images/fpb.jpg | bin | 0 -> 238789 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 8379-h/images/fps.jpg | bin | 0 -> 39853 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 8379-h/images/p48b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 61429 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 8379-h/images/p48s.jpg | bin | 0 -> 8635 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 8379-h/images/tpb.jpg | bin | 0 -> 39643 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 8379-h/images/tps.jpg | bin | 0 -> 5918 bytes |
9 files changed, 2261 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/8379-h/8379-h.htm b/8379-h/8379-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b6701d1 --- /dev/null +++ b/8379-h/8379-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,2261 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html + PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> +<head> +<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" /> +<title>Shakespeare's Bones, by C. M. Ingleby</title> + <style type="text/css"> +/*<![CDATA[ XML blockout */ +<!-- + P { margin-top: .75em; + margin-bottom: .75em; + } + P.gutsumm { margin-left: 5%;} + P.poetry {margin-left: 3%; } + .GutSmall { font-size: 0.7em; } + H1, H2 { + text-align: center; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + } + H3, H4, H5 { + text-align: center; + margin-top: 1em; + margin-bottom: 1em; + } + BODY{margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; + } + table { border-collapse: collapse; } +table {margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;} + td { vertical-align: top; border: 1px solid black;} + td p { margin: 0.2em; } + .blkquot {margin-left: 4em; margin-right: 4em;} /* block indent */ + + .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + + .pagenum {position: absolute; + left: 92%; + font-size: small; + text-align: right; + font-weight: normal; + color: gray; + } + img { border: none; } + img.dc { float: left; width: 50px; height: 50px; } + p.gutindent { margin-left: 2em; } + div.gapspace { height: 0.8em; } + div.gapline { height: 0.8em; width: 100%; border-top: 1px solid;} + div.gapmediumline { height: 0.3em; width: 40%; margin-left:30%; + border-top: 1px solid; } + div.gapmediumdoubleline { height: 0.3em; width: 40%; margin-left:30%; + border-top: 1px solid; border-bottom: 1px solid;} + div.gapshortdoubleline { height: 0.3em; width: 20%; + margin-left: 40%; border-top: 1px solid; + border-bottom: 1px solid; } + div.gapdoubleline { height: 0.3em; width: 50%; + margin-left: 25%; border-top: 1px solid; + border-bottom: 1px solid;} + div.gapshortline { height: 0.3em; width: 20%; margin-left:40%; + border-top: 1px solid; } + .citation {vertical-align: super; + font-size: .8em; + text-decoration: none;} + img.floatleft { float: left; + margin-right: 1em; + margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; } + img.floatright { float: right; + margin-left: 1em; margin-top: 0.5em; + margin-bottom: 0.5em; } + img.clearcenter {display: block; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; margin-top: 0.5em; + margin-bottom: 0.5em} + --> + /* XML end ]]>*/ + </style> +</head> +<body> +<pre> + +The Project Gutenberg eBook, Shakespeare's Bones, by C. M. Ingleby + + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most +other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions +whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of +the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at +www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have +to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. + + + + +Title: Shakespeare's Bones + The Proposal to Disinter Them + + +Author: C. M. Ingleby + + + +Release Date: January 10, 2015 [eBook #8379] +[This file was first posted on July 5, 2003] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-646-US (US-ASCII) + + +***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SHAKESPEARE'S BONES*** +</pre> +<p>Transcribed from the 1883 Trübner & Co. edition by +David Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/coverb.jpg"> +<img alt= +"Book cover" +title= +"Book cover" + src="images/covers.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/fpb.jpg"> +<img alt= +"Shakespeare on his death-bed" +title= +"Shakespeare on his death-bed" + src="images/fps.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<h1><span class="smcap">Shakespeare’s Bones</span></h1> + +<div class="gapshortline"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center"><i>THE PROPOSAL TO DISINTER +THEM</i>,</p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">CONSIDERED +IN RELATION TO THEIR POSSIBLE BEARING</span><br /> +<span class="GutSmall">ON HIS PORTRAITURE:</span></p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">ILLUSTRATED +BY INSTANCES OF</span></p> +<p style="text-align: center">VISITS OF THE LIVING TO THE +DEAD.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">BY</span><br +/> +C. M. INGLEBY, LL.D., V.P.R.S.L.,</p> +<p style="text-align: center">Honorary Member of the German +Shakespeare Society,<br /> +and a Life-Trustee of Shakespeare’s Birthplace, Museum, and +New Place,<br /> +at Stratford-upon-Avon.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/tpb.jpg"> +<img alt= +"Decorative graphic" +title= +"Decorative graphic" + src="images/tps.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<blockquote><p style="text-align: center"><i>LONDON</i>:<br /> +<span class="smcap">Trübner</span> & <span +class="smcap">Co</span>., 57 & 59, <i>Ludgate Hill</i>.<br /> +1883.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">[ALL RIGHTS +RESERVED.]</span></p> +</blockquote> + +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<blockquote><p style="text-align: center"><a +name="pageii"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +ii</span>“Let’s talk of graves, of worms, and +epitaphs.”</p> +<p style="text-align: right"><i>Richard II</i>, a. iii, s. 2.</p> +</blockquote> + +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center"><a name="pageiii"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. iii</span><b>This Essay</b><br /> +<span class="GutSmall">IS RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED TO</span><br /> +<span class="GutSmall">THE MAJOR AND CORPORATION OF +STRATFORD-UPON-AVON,</span><br /> +<span class="GutSmall">AND THE VICAR</span><br /> +<span class="GutSmall">OF THE CHURCH OF THE HOLY TRINITY +THERE,</span></p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">BY THEIR +FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE,</span></p> +<p style="text-align: right">THE AUTHOR.</p> +<h2><a name="pagev"></a><span class="pagenum">p. v</span>INDEX TO +BIBLIOGRAPHY.</h2> +<table> +<tr> +<td><p> </p> +</td> +<td><p> </p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span +class="GutSmall">PAGE</span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p>Anonymous Articles</p> +</td> +<td><p><i>Argosy</i></p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page46">46</a></span> +October, 1879.</p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p> </p> +</td> +<td><p><i>Atlantic Monthly</i></p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page45">45</a></span> +June, 1878.</p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p> </p> +</td> +<td><p><i>Birmingham Daily Mail</i></p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page43">43</a></span> +August 23, 1876.</p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p> </p> +</td> +<td><p>,, ,, ,, ,, <i>Post</i></p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page44">44</a></span> +September 29, 1877.</p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p> </p> +</td> +<td><p>,, ,, ,, ,, <i>Gazette</i></p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page47">47</a></span> +December 17, 1880.</p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p> </p> +</td> +<td><p>,, ,, ,, <i>Town Crier</i></p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page44">44</a></span> +November, 1877.</p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p> </p> +</td> +<td><p><i>Cincinnati Commercial Gazette</i></p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page48">48</a></span> +May 26, 1883.</p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p> </p> +</td> +<td><p><i>Daily Telegraph</i></p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page43">43</a></span> +August 24, 1876.</p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p> </p> +</td> +<td><p><i>New York Nation</i></p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page45">45</a></span> +May 21, 1878.</p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p class="gutindent">Letter</p> +</td> +<td><p><i>Birmingham Daily Post</i></p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page45">45</a></span> +October 10, 1877.</p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p>Gower, Lord Ronald</p> +</td> +<td><p><i>Antiquary</i></p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page46">46</a></span> +August, 1880.</p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p>Halliwell-Phillipps, J. O.</p> +</td> +<td><p> </p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page46">46</a></span> +1881.</p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p>Hawthorne, Nathaniel</p> +</td> +<td><p><i>Atlantic Monthly</i></p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page41">41</a></span> +January, 1863.</p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p>Ingleby, C. M.</p> +</td> +<td><p> </p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page48">48</a></span> +June, 1883.</p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p>Norris, J. Parker</p> +</td> +<td><p><i>N. Y. American Bibliopolist</i></p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page41">41</a></span> +April, 1876, and August 4, 1876.</p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p>Schaafhausen, Hermann</p> +</td> +<td><p><i>Shakespeare Jahrbuch</i></p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page43">43</a></span> +1874–5.</p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p>Timmins, Sam.</p> +</td> +<td><p><i>Letter to J. Parker Norris</i></p> +</td> +<td><p><span class="indexpageno"><a href="#page42">42</a></span> +<i>Circa</i> 1874 and 1876.</p> +</td> +</tr> +</table> +<h2><a name="page1"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +1</span>SHAKESPEARE’S BONES.</h2> +<p><span class="smcap">The</span> sentiment which affects +survivors in the disposition of their dead, and which is, in one +regard, a superstition, is, in another, a creditable outcome of +our common humanity: namely, the desire to honour the memory of +departed worth, and to guard the “hallowed reliques” +by the erection of a shrine, both as a visible mark of respect +for the dead, and as a place of resort for those pilgrims who may +come to pay him tribute. It is this sentiment which dots +our graveyards with memorial tablets and more ambitious +sculptures, and which still preserves so many of our closed +churchyards from desecration, and our <a name="citation1a"></a><a +href="#footnote1a" class="citation">[1a]</a> ancient tombs from +the molestation of careless, curious, or mercenary persons.</p> +<p>But there is another sentiment, not inconsistent with this, +which prompts us, on suitable occasions, to disinter the remains +of great men, and remove them to a more fitting and more +honourable resting-place. The Hôtel des Invalides at +Paris, and the Basilica of San Lorenzo Fuori le Mura at Rome, <a +name="citation1b"></a><a href="#footnote1b" +class="citation">[1b]</a> are indebted to this sentiment for the +possession of relics which make those edifices the natural resort +of pilgrims as of sight-seers. It were a work of +superfluity to adduce further illustration of <a +name="page2"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 2</span>the position +that the mere exhumation and reinterment of a great man’s +remains, is commonly held to be, in special cases, a justifiable +proceeding, not a violation of that honourable sentiment of +humanity, which protects and consecrates the depositaries of the +dead. On a late occasion it was not the belief that such a +proceeding is a violation of our more sacred instincts which +hindered the removal to Pennsylvania of the remains of William +Penn; but simply the belief that they had already a more suitable +resting-place in his native land. <a name="citation2"></a><a +href="#footnote2" class="citation">[2]</a></p> +<p>There is still another sentiment, honourable in itself and not +inconsistent with those which I have specified, though still more +conditional upon the sufficiency of the reasons conducing to the +act: namely, the desire, by exhumation, to set at rest a +reasonable or important issue respecting the person of the +deceased while he was yet a living man. Accordingly it is +held justifiable to exhume a body recently buried, in order to +discover the cause of death, or to settle a question of disputed +identity: nor is it usually held unjustifiable to exhume a body +long since deceased, in order to find such evidences as time may +not have wholly destroyed, of his personal appearance, including +the size and shape of his head, and the special characteristics +of his living face.</p> +<p>It is too late for the most reverential and scrupulous to +object to this as an invasion of the sanctity of the grave, or a +violation of the rights of the dead or of the feelings of his +family. When a man has been long in the grave, there are +probably no <a name="page3"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +3</span>family feelings to be wounded by such an act: and, as for +his rights, if he can be said to have any, we may surely reckon +among them the right of not being supposed to possess such +objectionable personal defects as may have been imputed to him by +the malice of critics or by the incapacity of sculptor or +painter, and which his remains may be sufficiently unchanged to +rebut: in a word we owe him something more than refraining from +disturbing his remains until they are undistinguishable from the +earth in which they lie, a debt which no supposed inviolable +sanctity of the grave ought to prevent us from paying.</p> +<p>It is, I say, too late to raise such an objection, because +exhumation has been performed many times with a perfectly +legitimate object, even in the case of our most illustrious dead, +without protest or objection from the most sensitive +person. As the examples, more or less analogous to that of +Shakespeare, which I am about to adduce, concern great men who +were born and were buried within the limits of our island, I will +preface them by giving the very extraordinary cases of Schiller +and Raphael, which illustrate both classes: those in which the +object of the exhumation was to give the remains a more +honourable sepulture, and those in which it was purely to resolve +certain questions affecting the skull of the deceased. The +following is abridged from Mr. Andrew Hamilton’s narrative, +entitled “The Story of Schiller’s Life,” +published in <i>Macmillan’s Magazine</i> for May, 1863.</p> +<blockquote><p>“At the time of his death Schiller left his +widow and children almost penniless, and almost friendless +too. The duke and duchess were absent; Goethe lay ill; even +Schiller’s brother-in-law <a name="page4"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 4</span>Wolzogen was away from home. +Frau von Wolzogen was with her sister, but seems to have been +equally ill-fitted to bear her share of the load that had fallen +so heavily upon them. Heinrich Voss was the only friend +admitted to the sick-room; and when all was over it was he who +went to the joiner’s, and, knowing the need of economy, +ordered ‘a plain deal coffin.’ It cost ten +shillings of our money.</p> +<p>“In the early part of 1805, one Carl Leberecht Schwabe, +an enthusiastic admirer of Schiller, left Weimar on +business. Returning on Saturday the 11th of May, between +three and four in the afternoon, his first errand was to visit +his betrothed, who lived in the house adjoining that of the +Schillers. She met him in the passage, and told him, +Schiller was two days dead, and that night he was to be +buried. On putting further questions, Schwabe stood aghast +at what he learned. The funeral was to be private and to +take place immediately after midnight, without any religious +rite. Bearers had been hired to carry the remains to the +churchyard, and no one else was to attend.</p> +<p>“Schwabe felt that all this could not go on; but to +prevent it was difficult. There were but eight hours left; +and the arrangements, such as they were, had already been +made. However, he went straight to the house of death, and +requested an interview with Frau von Schiller. She replied, +through the servant, ‘that she was too greatly overwhelmed +by her loss to be able to see or speak to any one; as for the +funeral of her blessed husband, Mr. Schwabe must apply to the +Reverend Oberconsistorialrath Günther, who had kindly +undertaken to see done what was necessary; whatever he might +direct, she would approve <a name="page5"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 5</span>of.’ With this message +Schwabe hastened to Günther, and told him, his blood boiled +at the thought that Schiller should be borne to the grave by +hirelings. At first Günther shook his head and said, +‘It was too late; everything was arranged; the bearers were +already ordered.’ Schwabe offered to become +responsible for the payment of the bearers, if they were +dismissed. At length the Oberconsistorialrath inquired who +the gentlemen were who had agreed to bear the coffin. +Schwabe was obliged to acknowledge that he could not at that +moment mention a single name; but he was ready to guarantee his +Hochwürde that in an hour or two he would bring him the +list. On this his Hochwürde consented to countermand +the bearers.</p> +<p>“Schwabe now rushed from house to house, obtaining a +ready assent from all whom he found at home. But as some +were out, he sent round a circular, begging those who would come +to place a mark against their names. He requested them to +meet at his lodgings ‘at half-past twelve o’clock +that night; a light would be placed in the window to guide those +who were not acquainted with the house; they would be kind enough +to be dressed in black; but mourning-hats, crapes and mantles he +had already provided.’ Late in the evening he placed +the list in Günther’s hands. Several appeared to +whom he had not applied; in all about twenty.</p> +<p>“Between midnight and one in the morning the little band +proceeded to Schiller’s house. The coffin was carried +down stairs and placed on the shoulders of the friends in +waiting. No one else was to be seen before the house or in +the streets. It was a moonlight night in May, but clouds +were up. The <a name="page6"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +6</span>procession moved through the sleeping city to the +churchyard of St. James. Having arrived there they placed +their burden on the ground at the door of the so-called +<i>Kassengewölbe</i>, where the gravedigger and his +assistants took it up. In this vault, which belonged to the +province of Weimar, it was usual to inter persons of the higher +classes, who possessed no burying-ground of their own, upon +payment of a <i>louis d’or</i>. As Schiller had died +without securing a resting-place for himself and his family, +there could have been no more natural arrangement than to carry +his remains to this vault. It was a grim old building, +standing against the wall of the churchyard, with a steep narrow +roof, and no opening of any kind but the doorway which was filled +up with a grating. The interior was a gloomy space of about +fourteen feet either way. In the centre was a trap-door +which gave access to a hollow space beneath.</p> +<p>“As the gravediggers raised the coffin, the clouds +suddenly parted, and the moon shed her light on all that was +earthly of Schiller. They carried him in: they opened the +trap-door: and let him down by ropes into the darkness. +Then they closed the vault. Nothing was spoken or +sung. The mourners were dispersing, when their attention +was attracted by a tall figure in a mantle, at some distance in +the graveyard, sobbing loudly. No one knew who it was; and +for many years the occurrence remained wrapped in mystery, giving +rise to strange conjectures. But eventually it turned out +to have been Schiller’s brother-in-law Wolzogen, who, +having hurried home on hearing of the death, had arrived after +the procession was already on its way to the churchyard.</p> +<p><a name="page7"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 7</span>“In +the year 1826, Schwabe was Bürgermeister of Weimar. +Now it was the custom of the <i>Landschaftscollegium</i>, or +provincial board under whose jurisdiction this institution was +placed, to <i>clear out</i> the Kassengewölbe from time to +time—whenever it was found to be inconveniently +crowded—and by this means to make way for other deceased +persons and more <i>louis d’or</i>. On such +occasions—when the Landschaftscollegium gave the order +‘aufzuräumen,’ it was the usage to dig a hole in +a corner of the churchyard—then to bring up <i>en masse</i> +the contents of the Kassengewölbe—coffins, whether +entire or in fragments, bones, skulls, and tattered +graveclothes—and finally to shovel the whole heap into the +aforesaid pit. In the month of March Schwabe was dismayed +at hearing that the Landschaftscollegium had decreed a speedy +‘clearing out’ of the Gewölbe. His old +prompt way of acting had not left him; he went at once to his +friend Weyland, the president of the Collegium. +‘Friend Weyland,’ he said, ‘let not the dust of +Schiller be tossed up in the face of heaven and flung into that +hideous hole! Let me at least have a permit to search the +vault; if we find Schiller’s coffin, it shall be reinterred +in a fitting manner in the New Cemetery.’ The +president made no difficulty.</p> +<p>“Schwabe invited several persons who had known the poet, +and amongst others one Rudolph, who had been Schiller’s +servant at the time of his death. On March 13th, at four +o’clock in the afternoon, the party met in the churchyard, +the sexton and his assistants having received orders to be +present with keys, ladders, &c. The vault was opened; +but, before any one entered it, Rudolph and another stated that +the <a name="page8"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 8</span>coffin +of the deceased Hofrath von Schiller must be one of the longest +in the place. After this the secretary of the +Landschaftscollegium was requested to read aloud from the records +of the said board the names of such persons as had been interred +shortly before and after the year 1805. This being done, +the gravedigger Bielke remarked that the coffins no longer lay in +the order in which they had originally been placed, but had been +displaced at recent burials. The ladder was then adjusted, +and Schwabe, Coudray the architect, and the gravedigger, were the +first to descend. Some others were asked to draw near, that +they might assist in recognising the coffin. The first +glance brought their hopes very low. The tenants of the +vault were found ‘over, under and alongside of each +other.’ One coffin of unusual length having been +descried underneath the rest, an attempt was made to reach it by +lifting out of the way those that were above it; but the +processes of the tomb were found to have made greater advances +than met the eye. Hardly anything would bear removal, but +fell to pieces at the first touch. Search was made for +plates with inscriptions, but even the metal plates crumbled away +on being fingered, and their inscriptions were utterly +effaced. Two plates only were found with legible +characters, and these were foreign to the purpose. Probably +every one but the Bürgermeister looked on the matter as +hopeless. They reascended the ladder and closed the +vault.</p> +<p>“Meanwhile these strange proceedings in the +Kassengewölbe began to be noised abroad. The +churchyard was a thoroughfare, and many passengers had observed +that something unusual was <a name="page9"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 9</span>going on. There were persons +living in Weimar whose near relatives lay in the Gewölbe; +and, though neither they nor the public at large had any +objection to offer to the general ‘clearing out,’ +they did raise very strong objections to this mode of +anticipating it. So many pungent things began to be said +about violating the tomb, disturbing the repose of the departed, +&c., that the Bürgermeister perceived the necessity of +going more warily to work in future. He resolved to time +his next visit at an hour when few persons would be likely to +cross the churchyard at that season. Accordingly, two days +later he returned to the Kassengewölbe at seven in the +morning, accompanied only by Coudray and the churchyard +officials.</p> +<p>“Their first task was to raise out of the vault +altogether six coffins, which it was found would bear +removal. By various tokens it was proved that none of these +could be that of which they were in search. There were +several others which could not be removed, but which held +together so long as they were left where they lay. All the +rest were in the direst confusion. Two hours and a half +were spent in subjecting the ghastly heap to a thorough but +fruitless search: not a trace of any kind rewarded their +trouble. Only one conclusion stared Schwabe and Coudray in +the face—their quest was in vain: the remains of Schiller +must be left to oblivion. Again the Gewölbe was +closed, and those who had disturbed its quiet returned +disappointed to their homes. Yet, that very afternoon, +Schwabe went back once more in company with the joiner who twenty +years before had made the coffin: there was a chance that he +might recognise one of those which they had not ventured to +raise. But this <a name="page10"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 10</span>glimmer of hope faded like all the +rest. The man remembered very well what sort of coffin he +had made for the Hofrath von Schiller, and he certainly saw +nothing like it here. It had been of the plainest sort, he +believed without even a plate; and in such damp as this it could +have lasted but a few years.</p> +<p>“The fame of this second expedition got abroad like that +of the first, and the comments of the public were louder than +before. Invectives of no measured sort fell on the mayor in +torrents. Not only did society in general take offence, but +a variety of persons in authority, particularly ecclesiastical +dignitaries, began to talk of interfering. Schwabe was +haunted by the idea of the ‘clearing out,’ which was +now close at hand. That dismal hole in the corner of the +churchyard once closed and the turf laid down, the dust of +Schiller would be lost for ever. He determined to +proceed. His position of Bürgermeister put the means +in his power, and this time he was resolved to keep his +secret. To find the skull was now his utmost hope, but for +that he would make a final struggle. The keys were still in +the hands of Bielke the sexton, who, of course, was under his +control. He sent for him, bound him over to silence, and +ordered him to be at the churchyard at midnight on the 19th of +March. In like manner, he summoned three day-labourers whom +he pledged to secrecy, and engaged to meet him at the same place +and at the same hour, but singly and without lanterns. +Attention should not be attracted if he could help it.</p> +<p>“When the night came, he himself, with a trusty servant, +proceeded to the entrance of the Kassengewölbe. The +four men <a name="page11"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +11</span>were already there. In darkness they all entered, +raised the trap-door, adjusted the ladder, and descended to the +abode of the dead. Not till then were lanterns lighted; it +was just possible that some late wanderer might, even at that +hour, cross the churchyard. Schwabe seated himself on a +step of the ladder and directed the workmen. Fragments of +broken coffins they piled up in one corner, and bones in +another. Skulls as they were found were placed in a heap by +themselves. The work went on from twelve o’clock till +about three, for three successive nights, at the end of which +time twenty-three skulls had been found. These the +Bürgermeister caused to be put into a sack and carried to +his house, where he himself took them out and placed them in rows +on a table.</p> +<p>“It was hardly done ere he exclaimed, ‘<i>That</i> +must be Schiller’s!’ There was one skull that +differed enormously from all the rest, both in size and in +shape. It was remarkable, too, in another way: alone of all +those on the table it retained an entire set of the finest teeth, +and Schiller’s teeth had been noted for their beauty. +But there were other means of identification at hand. +Schwabe possessed the cast of Schiller’s head, taken after +death by Klauer, and with this he undertook to make a careful +comparison and measurement. The two seemed to him to +correspond, and, of the twenty-two others, not one would bear +juxtaposition with the cast. Unfortunately the lower jaw +was wanting, to obtain which a fourth nocturnal expedition had to +be undertaken. The skull was carried back to the +Gewölbe, and many jaws were tried ere one was found which +fitted, and for beauty of teeth corresponded with, the upper +jaw. When <a name="page12"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +12</span>brought home, on the other hand, it refused to fit any +other cranium. One tooth alone was wanting, and this was +said by an old servant of Schiller’s had been extracted at +Jena in his presence.</p> +<p>“Having got thus far, Schwabe invited three of the chief +medical authorities to inspect his discovery. After careful +measurements, they declared that among the twenty-three skulls +there was but one from which the cast could have been +taken. He then invited every person in Weimar and its +neighbourhood, who had been on terms of intimacy with Schiller, +and admitted them to the room one by one. The result was +surprising. Without an exception they pointed to the same +skull as that which must have been the poet’s. The +only remaining chance of mistake seemed to be the possibility of +other skulls having eluded the search, and being yet in the +vault. To put this to rest, Schwabe applied to the +Landschaftscollegium, in whose records was kept a list of all +persons buried in the Kassengewölbe. It was +ascertained that since the last ‘clearing out’ there +had been exactly twenty-three interments. At this stage the +Bürgermeister saw himself in a position to inform the Grand +Duke and Goethe of his search and its success. From both he +received grateful acknowledgments. Goethe unhesitatingly +recognised the head, and laid stress on the peculiar beauty and +evenness of the teeth.</p> +<p>“The new cemetery lay on a gently rising ground on the +south side of the town. Schwabe’s favourite plan was +to deposit what he had found—all that he now ever dreamed +of finding—of his beloved poet on the highest point of the +slope, and to mark <a name="page13"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +13</span>the spot by a simple monument, so that travellers at +their first approach might know where the head of Schiller +lay. One forenoon in early spring he led Frau von Wolzogen +and the Chancellor von Müller to the spot. They +approved his plan, and the remaining members of Schiller’s +family—all of whom had left Weimar—signified their +assent. They ‘did not desire,’ as one of +themselves expressed it, ‘to strive against Nature’s +appointment that man’s earthly remains should be reunited +with herself;’ they would prefer that their father’s +dust should rest in the ground rather than anywhere else. +But the Grand Duke and Goethe decided otherwise.</p> +<p>“Dannecker’s colossal bust of Schiller had +recently been acquired for the Grand Ducal library, where it had +been placed on a lofty pedestal opposite the bust of Goethe; and +in this pedestal, which was hollow, it was resolved to deposit +the skull. The consent of the family having been obtained, +the solemnity was delayed till the arrival of Ernst von Schiller, +who could not reach Weimar before autumn. On September the +17th the ceremony took place. A few persons had been +invited, amongst whom, of course, was the +Bürgermeister. Goethe, <i>more suo</i>, dreaded the +agitation and remained at home, but sent his son to represent him +as chief librarian. A cantata having been sung, Ernst von +Schiller, in a short speech, thanked all persons present, but +especially the Bürgermeister, for the love they had shown to +the memory of his father. He then formally delivered his +father’s head into the hands of the younger Goethe, who, +reverently receiving it, thanked his friend in Goethe’s +name, and having dwelt on the affection that had subsisted +between their fathers <a name="page14"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 14</span>vowed that the precious relic should +thenceforward be guarded with anxious care. Up to this +moment the skull had been wrapped in a cloth and sealed: the +younger Goethe now made it over to the librarian, Professor +Riemer, to be unpacked and placed in its receptacle. All +present subscribed their names, the pedestal was locked, and the +key carried home to Goethe.</p> +<p>“None doubted that Schiller’s head was now at rest +for many years. But it had already occurred to Goethe, who +had more osteological knowledge than the excellent +Bürgermeister, that, the skull being in their possession, it +would be possible to find the skeleton. A very few days +after the ceremony in the library, he sent to Jena, begging the +Professor of Anatomy, Dr. Schröter, to have the kindness to +spend a day or two at Weimar, and to bring with him, if possible, +a functionary of the Jena Museum, Färber by name, who had at +one time been Schiller’s servant. As soon as they +arrived, Goethe placed the matter in Schröter’s +hands. Again the head was raised from its pillow and +carried back to the dismal Kasselgewölbe, where the bones +still lay in a heap. The chief difficulty was to find the +first vertebra; after that all was easy enough. With some +exceptions, comparatively trifling, Schröter succeeded in +reproducing the skeleton, which then was laid in a new coffin +‘lined with blue merino,’ and would seem (though we +are not distinctly told) to have been deposited in the +library. Professor Schröter’s register of bones +recovered and bones missing has been both preserved and +printed. The skull was restored to its place in the +pedestal. There was another shriek from the public at these +repeated violations of the tomb; and the odd position chosen for +Schiller’s <a name="page15"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +15</span>head, apart from his body, called forth, not without +reason, abundant criticism.</p> +<p>“Schwabe’s idea of a monument in the new cemetery +was, after a while, revived by the Grand Duke, Carl August, but +with an important alteration, which was, that on the spot +indicated at the head of the rising ground there should be +erected a common sepulchre for Goethe and Schiller, in which the +latter’s remains should at once be deposited—the +mausoleum to be finally closed only when, in the course of +nature, Goethe should have been laid there too. The idea +was, doubtless, very noble, and found great favour with Goethe +himself, who entering into it commissioned Coudray, the +architect, to sketch the plan of a simple mausoleum, in which the +sarcophagi were to be visible from without. There was some +delay in clearing the ground—a nursery of young trees had +to be removed—so that at Midsummer, 1827, nothing had been +done. It is said that the intrigues of certain persons, who +made a point of opposing Goethe at all times, prevailed so far +with the Grand Duke that he became indifferent about the whole +scheme. Meanwhile it was necessary to provide for the +remains of Schiller. The public voice was loud in +condemning their present location, and in August, 1827, Louis of +Bavaria again appeared as a <i>Deus ex machina</i> to hasten on +the last act. He expressed surprise that the bones of +Germany’s best-beloved should be kept like rare coins, or +other curiosities, in a public museum. In these +circumstances, the Grand Duke wrote Goethe a note, proposing for +his approval that the skull and skeleton of Schiller should be +reunited and ‘provisionally’ <a +name="page16"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 16</span>deposited in +the vault which the Grand Duke had built for himself and his +house, ‘until Schiller’s family should otherwise +determine.’ No better plan seeming feasible, Goethe +himself gave orders for the construction of a sarcophagus. +On November 17th, 1827, in presence of the younger Goethe, +Coudray and Riemer, the head was finally removed from the +pedestal, and Professor Schröter reconstructed the entire +skeleton in this new and more sumptuous abode, which we are told +was seven feet in length, and bore at its upper end the name</p> +<p style="text-align: center">SCHILLER</p> +<p>in letters of cast-iron. That same afternoon Goethe went +himself to the library and expressed his satisfaction with all +that had been done.</p> +<p>“At last, on December 16th, 1827, at half-past five in +the morning, a few persons again met at the same place. The +Grand Duke had desired—for what reason we know not—to +avoid observation; it was Schiller’s fate that his remains +should be carried hither and hither by stealth and in the +night. Some tapers burned around the bier: the recesses of +the hall were in darkness. Not a word was spoken, but those +present bent for an instant in silent prayer, on which the +bearers raised the coffin and carried it away. They walked +along through the park: the night was cold and cloudy: some of +the party had lanterns. When they reached the avenue that +led up to the cemetery, the moon shone out as she had done +twenty-two years before. At the vault itself some other +friends had assembled, amongst whom was the Mayor. Ere the +lid was finally secured, Schwabe placed <a +name="page17"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 17</span>himself at +the head of the coffin, and recognised the skull to be that which +he had rescued from the Kassengewölbe. The sarcophagus +having then been closed, and a laurel wreath laid on it, formal +possession, in the name of the Grand Duke, was taken by the +Marshal, Freiherr von Spiegel. The key was removed to be +kept in possession of his Excellency, the Geheimrath von Goethe, +as head of the Institutions for Art and Science. This key, +in an envelope, addressed by Goethe, is said to be preserved in +the Grand Ducal Library, where, however, we have no recollection +of having seen it.</p> +<p>“The ‘provisional’ deposition has proved +more permanent than any other. Whoever would see the +resting-place of Goethe and Schiller must descend into the Grand +Ducal vault, where, through a grating, in the twilight beyond he +will catch a glimpse of their sarcophagi.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>The other case of exhumation, and reinterment with funeral +rites, which I deem of sufficient importance to be recorded here, +is that of the great Raphael. In this the motive was not, +as in that of Schiller, to give his bones a worthier +resting-place, nor yet, as in so many other cases, to gratify a +morbid curiosity, but to set at rest a question of disputed +identity. In this respect the case of Raphael has a special +bearing upon the matter in hand. I extract the following +from <i>Mrs. Jameson’s Lives of Italian Painters</i>, ed. +1874, p. 258:</p> +<blockquote><p>“In the year 1833 there arose among the +antiquarians of Rome a keen dispute concerning a human skull, +which on no evidence whatever, except a long-received tradition, +had been preserved and exhibited in the Academy of St. Luke as +the <a name="page18"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 18</span>skull +of Raphael. Some even expressed a doubt as to the exact +place of his sepulchre, though upon this point the contemporary +testimony seemed to leave no room for uncertainty.</p> +<p>“To ascertain the fact, permission was obtained from the +Papal Government, and from the canons of the Church of the +Rotunda (<i>i.e.</i>, of the Pantheon), to make some researches; +and on the 14th of September in the same year, after five days +spent in removing the pavement in several places, the remains of +Raphael were discovered in a vault behind the high altar, and +certified as his by indisputable proofs. After being +examined, and a cast made from the skull and [one] from the right +hand, the skeleton was exhibited publicly in a glass case, and +multitudes thronged to the church to look upon it. On the +18th of October, 1833, a second funeral ceremony took +place. The remains were deposited in a pine-wood coffin, +then in a marble sarcophagus, presented by the Pope (Gregory +XVI), and reverently consigned to their former resting-place, in +presence of more than three thousand spectators, including almost +all the artists, the officers of government, and other persons of +the highest rank in Rome.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>This event, as will appear in the sequel, is our best +precedent for not permitting a sentimental respect for departed +greatness to interfere with the respectful examination of a great +man’s remains, wherever such examination may determine a +question to which “universal history is <i>not</i> +indifferent.”</p> +<p>Toland tells us that Milton’s body was, on November 12, +1674, carried “to the Church of S. Giles, near +<i>Cripplegate</i>, where he lies buried in the Chancel; and +where the Piety of his Admirers will shortly erect a Monument +becoming his worth, <a name="page19"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +19</span>and the incouragement of Letters in King William’s +Reign.” <a name="citation19"></a><a href="#footnote19" +class="citation">[19]</a> It appears that his body was laid +next to that of his father. A plain stone only was placed +over the spot; and this, if Aubrey’s account be +trustworthy, was removed in 1679, when the two steps were raised +which lead to the altar. The remains, however, were +undisturbed for nearly sixteen years. On the 4th of August, +1790, according to a small volume written by Philip Neve, Esq. +(of which two editions were published in the same year), +Milton’s coffin was removed, and his remains exhibited to +the public on the 4th and 5th of that month. Mr. George +Steevens, the great editor of Shakespeare, who justly denounced +the indignity <i>intended</i>, not offered, to the great Puritan +poet’s remains by Royalist landsharks, satisfied himself +that the corpse was that of a woman of fewer years than +Milton. Thus did good Providence, or good fortune, defeat +the better half of their nefarious project: and I doubt not their +gains were spent as money is which has been “gotten over +the devil’s back.” Steevens’ assurance +gives us good reason for believing that Mr. Philip Neve’s +indignant protest is only good in the general, and that +Milton’s “hallowed reliques” still “rest +undisturb’d within their peaceful shrine.” I +have adduced this instance to serve as an example of what I +condemn, and should, in any actual case, denounce as strongly as +Mr. Philip Neve or George Steevens. To expose a man’s +remains after any interval for the purpose of treating his memory +with indignity, or of denouncing an unpopular cause which he +espoused, or (worst of all) “to <a name="page20"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 20</span>fine his bones,” or make money +by the public exhibition of his dust, deserves unmeasured and +unqualified reprobation, and every prudent measure should be +taken to render such an act impossible.</p> +<p>To take another example of the reprehensible practice of +despoiling the grave of a great enemy: Oliver Cromwell was, as is +proved by the most reliable evidence, namely, that of a +trustworthy eye-witness, buried on the scene of his greatest +achievement, the Field of Naseby. Some Royalist +<i>Philister</i> is said to have discovered, and stolen from its +resting-place, the embalmed head of the great Protector. It +found its way to London towards the end of the last century, +where it was exhibited at No. 5, Mead Court, Old Bond Street. <a +name="citation20"></a><a href="#footnote20" +class="citation">[20]</a> It is said to have been acquired +by Sir Joshua Reynolds in September, 1786, and to be now or late +in the collection of Mr. W. A. Wilkinson, of Beckenham. It +is recorded in one of the <i>Additional Manuscripts</i> in the +British Museum, under date April 21, 1813, that “an offer +was made this morning to bring it to Soho Square, to show it to +Sir Joseph Banks, but he desired to be excused from seeing <i>the +remains of the old villanous Republican</i>, <i>the mention of +whose very name makes his blood boil with indignation</i>. +The same offer was made to Sir Joseph forty years ago, which he +also refused.” What a charming specimen was Banks of +the genus Tory! But after all it is a comfort to think that +on this occasion he was right: for while this head was +undoubtedly that which did duty for the Protector at Tyburn, and +was afterwards fixed on the top <a name="page21"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 21</span>of Westminster Hall, it was almost +certainly not that of Oliver Cromwell: whose remains probably +still lie crumbling into dust in their unknown grave on Naseby +Field. <a name="citation21a"></a><a href="#footnote21a" +class="citation">[21a]</a></p> +<p>I give one more example of robbing the grave of an illustrious +man, through the superstition of many and the cupidity of +one. Swedenborg was buried in the vault of the Swedish +Church in Prince’s Square, on April 5, 1772. In 1790, +in order to determine a question raised in debate, viz., whether +Swedenborg were really dead and buried, his wooden coffin was +opened, and the leaden one was sawn across the breast. A +few days after, a party of Swedenborgians visited the +vault. “Various relics” (says White: <i>Life of +Swedenborg</i>, 2nd ed., 1868, p. 675) “were carried off: +Dr. Spurgin told me he possessed the cartilage of an ear. +Exposed to the air, the flesh quickly fell to dust, and a +skeleton was all that remained for subsequent visitors. <a +name="citation21b"></a><a href="#footnote21b" +class="citation">[21b]</a> At a funeral in 1817, Granholm, +an officer in the Swedish Navy, seeing the lid of +Swedenborg’s coffin loose, abstracted the skull, and hawked +it about amongst London Swedenborgians, but none would buy. +Dr. Wählin, pastor of the Swedish Church, recovered what he +supposed to be the stolen skull, had a cast of it taken, and +placed it in the coffin in 1819. The cast which is +sometimes seen in phrenological collections is obviously not +Swedenborg’s: it is thought to be that of a small female +skull.”</p> +<p>In the latter part of the reign of George III a mausoleum was +built in the Tomb House at Windsor Castle. On its +completion, in the spring of 1813, it was determined to open a +passage of <a name="page22"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +22</span>communication with St. George’s Chapel, and in +constructing this an opening was accidentally made in one of the +walls of the vault of Henry VIII, through which the workmen could +see three coffins, one of which was covered with a black velvet +pall. It was known that Henry VIII and Queen Jane Seymour +were buried in this vault, but a question had been raised as to +the place of Charles the First’s interment, through the +statement of Lord Clarendon, that the search made for the late +King’s coffin at Windsor (with a view to its removal to +Westminster Abbey) had proved fruitless. Sir Henry Halford, +in his <i>Account</i>, appended to his <i>Essays and +Orations</i>, 1831, <a name="citation22"></a><a +href="#footnote22" class="citation">[22]</a> thus describes the +examination of the palled coffin.</p> +<p>“On representing the circumstance to the Prince Regent, +his R. H. perceived at once that <i>a doubtful point in history +might be cleared up by opening this vault</i>; and accordingly +his R. H. ordered an examination to be made on the first +convenient opportunity. This was done on the First of April +last [<i>i.e.</i>, 1813], the day after the funeral of the +Duchess of Brunswick, in the presence of his R. H. himself, who +guaranteed thereby <i>the most respectful care and attention to +the remains of the dead</i>, during the enquiry. His R. H. +was accompanied by his R. H. the Duke of Cumberland, Count +Munster, the Dean of Windsor, Benjamin Charles Stevenson, Esq., +and Sir Henry Halford.”</p> +<p>“The vault was accordingly further opened and explored, +and the palled coffin, which was of lead, and bore the +inscription <a name="page23"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +23</span>‘King Charles, 1648,’ was opened at the +head. A second Charles I, coffin of wood was thus +disclosed, and, through this, the body carefully wrapped up in +cere-cloth, into the folds of which a quantity of unctuous or +greasy matter, mixed with resin, as it seemed, had been melted, +so as to exclude, as effectually as possible, the external +air. The coffin was completely full; and, from the tenacity +of the cere-cloth, great difficulty was experienced in detaching +it successfully from the parts which it enveloped. Wherever +the unctuous matter had insinuated itself, the separation of the +cere-cloth was easy; and when it came off, a correct impression +of the features to which it had been applied was observed in the +unctuous substance. <a name="citation23"></a><a +href="#footnote23" class="citation">[23]</a> At length the whole +face was disengaged from its covering. The complexion of +the skin was dark and discoloured. The forehead and temples +had lost little or nothing of their muscular substance; the +cartilage of the nose was gone; but the left eye, in the first +moment of exposure, was open and full, though it vanished almost +immediately: and the pointed beard, so characteristic of the +reign of King Charles, was perfect. The shape of the face +was a long oval; many of the teeth remained; and the left ear, in +consequence of the interposition of the unctuous matter between +it and the cere-cloth, was found entire.”</p> +<p>The head was found to be loose, and was once more held up to +view; and after a careful examination of it had been made, and a +sketch taken, and the identity fully established, it was <a +name="page24"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 24</span>immediately +replaced in the coffin, which was soldered up and restored to the +vault. Of the other two coffins, the larger one had been +battered in about the middle, and the skeleton of Henry VIII, +exhibiting some beard upon the chin, was exposed to view. +The other coffin was left, as it was found, intact. Neither +of these coffins bore any inscription.</p> +<p>In the Appendix to Allan Cunningham’s <i>Life of +Burns</i> <a name="citation24"></a><a href="#footnote24" +class="citation">[24]</a> we read of an examination of the +poet’s Tomb, made immediately after that life was +published:</p> +<p>“When Burns’ Mausoleum was opened in March, 1834, +to receive the remains of his widow, some residents in Dumfries +obtained the consent of her nearest relative to take a cast from +the cranium of the poet. This was done during the night +between the 31st March and 1st April. Mr. Archibald +Blacklock, surgeon, drew up the following description:</p> +<blockquote><p>“The cranial bones were perfect in every +respect, if we except a little erosion of their external table, +and firmly held together by their sutures, &c., &c. +Having completed our intention [<i>i.e.</i>, of taking a plaster +cast of the skull, washed from every particle of sand, &c.], +the skull, securely closed in a leaden case, was again committed +to the earth, precisely where we found it.—Archd. +Blacklock.’”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>The last example I shall adduce is that of Ben Jonson’s +skull. On this Lieut.-Colonel Cunningham thus writes:</p> +<p>“In my boyhood I was familiar with the Abbey, and well +remember the ‘pavement square of blew marble, 14 inches +square, with O Rare Ben Jonson,’ which marked the +poet’s grave. When Buckland was Dean, the spot had to +be disturbed <a name="page25"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +25</span>for the coffin of Sir Robert Wilson, and the Dean sent +his son Frank, now so well known as an agreeable writer on +Natural History, to see whether he could observe anything to +confirm, or otherwise, the tradition about Jonson being buried in +a standing posture. The workmen, he tells us, ‘found +a coffin very much decayed, which from the appearance of the +remains must have originally been placed in the upright +position. The skull found among these remains, Spice, the +gravedigger, gave me as that of Ben Jonson, and I took it at once +into the Dean’s study. We examined it together, and +then going into the Abbey carefully returned it to the +earth.’ In 1859, when John Hunter’s coffin was +removed to the Abbey, the same spot had to be dug up, and Mr. +Frank Buckland again secured the skull of Jonson, placing it at +the last moment on the coffin of the great surgeon. So far, +so good; but not long afterwards, a statement appeared in the +‘Times’ that the skull of Ben Jonson was in the +possession of a blind gentleman at Stratford-upon-Avon. +Hereupon Mr. Buckland made further inquiries, and calmly tells us +that he has convinced himself that the skull which he had taken +such care of on two occasions, [such care as not so much as to +measure or sketch it!] was not Jonson’s skull at all; that +a Mr. Ryde had anticipated him both times in removing and +replacing the genuine article, [!] and that the Warwickshire +claimant [!] was a third skull which Mr. Ryde observed had been +purloined from the grave on the second opening. Mr. +Buckland is a scientific naturalist, and an ardent worshipper of +the closest of all observers, John Hunter. Now mark what +satisfies such a man on such an occasion as this. He was +wrong and Mr. Ryde was right, <a name="page26"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 26</span>because Mr. Ryde described <i>his</i> +skull as having <i>red hair</i>; and in Aubrey’s <i>Lives +of Eminent Men</i>, ‘I find evidence quite sufficient for +any medical man to come to the conclusion that Ben Jonson’s +hair was in all probability of a red colour, though the fact +<i>is not stated in so many words</i>.’ In so many +words! I think not! Actually all that Aubrey says on +the subject is, ‘<i>He was</i>, <i>or rather had been</i>, +<i>of a cleare and faire skin</i>’! (<i>Lives</i>, ii, +414.) And this, too, in spite of our knowing from his own +pen, and from more than one painting, that his hair was as black +as the raven’s wing! Besides, he was sixty-five years +old when he died, and we may be sure that the few locks he had +left were neither red nor black, but of the hue of the +‘hundred of grey hairs’ which he described as +remaining eighteen years before. Mr. Buckland’s +statement will be found in the <i>Fourth Series</i> of his +<i>Curiosities of Natural History</i>, one of the most +entertaining little volumes with which we are acquainted.” +<a name="citation26"></a><a href="#footnote26" +class="citation">[26]</a></p> +<p>In reviewing the various incidents connected with the +foregoing cases of exhumation one is perhaps most struck with the +last two. That an illustrious man of science, and his son, +who at that time must already have been a scientific naturalist, +should have coöperated in so stupendous a blunder as the +mere inspection of Ben Jonson’s skull, without taking so +much as a measurement or drawing of it, would be incredible, but +for the fact that both are dead, and nothing of the sort has come +to light: and it is scarcely less surprising that the +Swedenborgians, <a name="page27"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +27</span>who believed themselves to be in possession of their +founder’s skull, should not have left on record some facts +concerning its shape and size.</p> +<p>Before addressing myself to the principal matter of this +essay, namely the question whether we should not attempt to +recover Shakespeare’s skull, I may as well note, that the +remains of the great philosopher, whom so many regard as +Shakespeare’s very self, or else his <i>alter ego</i>, were +not allowed to remain unmolested in their grave in St. +Michael’s Church, St. Albans. Thomas Fuller, in his +<i>Worthies</i>, relates as follows: “Since I have read +that his grave being occasionally opened [!] his scull (the +relique of civil veneration) was by one King, a Doctor of +Physick, made the object of scorn and contempt; but he who then +derided the dead has since become the laughingstock of the +living.” This, being quoted by a correspondent in +<i>Notes and Queries</i> <a name="citation27a"></a><a +href="#footnote27a" class="citation">[27a]</a> elicited from Mr. +C. Le Poer Kennedy, of St. Albans, <a name="citation27b"></a><a +href="#footnote27b" class="citation">[27b]</a> an account of a +search that had been made for Bacon’s remains, on the +occasion of the interment of the last Lord Verulam. +“A partition wall was pulled down, and the search extended +into the part of the vault immediately under the monument, but no +remains were found.” On the other hand, we have the +record of his express wish to be buried there. I am afraid +the doctor, who is said to have become the laughingstock of the +living, has entirely faded out of men’s minds and +memories.</p> +<p>Among the many protests against the act of exhumation, I +select that of Capel Lofft, as representative of the rest. +He writes—</p> +<p><a name="page28"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +28</span>“It were to be wished that neither superstition, +affectation, idle curiosity, or avarice, were so frequently +invading the silence of the grave. Far from dishonouring +the illustrious dead, it is rather outraging the common condition +of humanity, and last melancholy state in which our present +existence terminates. Dust and ashes have no intelligence +to give, whether beauty, genius, or virtue, informed the animated +clay. A tooth of Homer or Milton will not be distinguished +from one of a common mortal; nor a bone of Alexander acquaint us +with more of his character than one of Bucephalus. Though +the dead be unconcerned, the living are neither benefited nor +improved: decency is violated, and a kind of instinctive sympathy +infringed, which, though it ought not to overpower reason, ought +not without it, and to no purpose, to be superseded.” +Notwithstanding the right feeling shewn in this passage, it is +quite sufficient to condemn Capel Lofft as a +<i>Philister</i>. Let us for a moment examine some of these +very eloquent assertions. Agreeing as I cordially do with +his wish, that neither superstition, affectation, whatever that +may mean, idle curiosity, or avarice, were the motives which +actuate those who molest the relics of the dead, I cannot allow +that neither dust and ashes, bones, nor teeth, have any +intelligence to give us; nor yet that by the reverential scrutiny +of those relics the living can be neither benefited nor +improved. All that depends upon the intelligence of the +scrutineer. Doubtless your <i>Philister</i> would turn over +the skull or the bones, or make hay with the dust, just as Peter +Bell could see nothing in a primrose but a weed in flower. +What message a bone or a weed may have for the man or the race +depends <a name="page29"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +29</span>wholly upon the recipient. Your Shakespeare or +Goethe, your Owen or Huxley, would find in it an intelligible +language; while your Capel Lofft would denounce what he found +there as dirt and indecency. How true is the proverb of Syr +Oracle Mar-text: “To the wise all things are +wise.” In the case of Schiller, the skull spoke for +itself, and claimed to be that of Schiller; the bones, like those +in the 37th chapter of <i>Ezekiel</i>, aggregated themselves +around their head, and submitted to an accurate articulation; and +the teeth gave their evidence, too, at least the place of one, +which was not in the jaw, bore its testimony to the fact that the +jaw in question was that which Schiller had submitted to +dentistry. In the case of Raphael, the discovery of the +skull disproved the claims of the spurious relic, and arrested a +stupid superstition. <a name="citation29"></a><a +href="#footnote29" class="citation">[29]</a> Beyond question, the +skull of Shakespeare, might we but discover it in anything like +its condition at the time of its interment, would be of still +greater interest and value. It would at least settle two +disputed points in the Stratford Bust; it would test the +Droeshout print, and every one of the half-dozen +portraits-in-oils which pass as presentments of +Shakespeare’s face at different periods of his life. +Moreover it would pronounce decisively on the pretensions of the +Kesselstadt Death-Mask, and we should know whether that was from +the “flying-mould” after which Gerard Johnson worked, +when he sculptured the Bust. Negative evidence the skull +would <a name="page30"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +30</span>assuredly furnish; but there is reason for believing +that it would afford positive evidence in favour of the Bust, one +or other of the portraits, or even of the Death-Mask: and why, I +ask, should not an attempt be made to recover Shakespeare’s +skull? Why should not the authorities of Stratford, to whom +this brochure is inscribed, sanction, or even themselves +undertake, a respectful examination of the grave in which +Shakespeare’s remains are believed to have been buried?</p> +<p>Two grounds have always been assigned for abstention: (1) the +sentiment which disposes men to leave the relics of the dead to +their rest in the tomb: (2) the prohibition contained in the four +lines inscribed upon Shakespeare’s gravestone. With +the former of these I have sufficiently dealt already. As +for the latter; the prohibitory lines, whether they proceeded +from our Poet himself, as Mr. William Page, and many before him, +believed, or from the pen of Ben Jonson, or of an inferior writer +(which is to me the more probable authorship), I am most desirous +to respect them; not that I stand in awe of Shakespeare’s +curse, but because I think they proceeded from a natural and +laudable fear. I have no more doubt that +“moves,” in the quatrain, means +“<i>re</i>moves,” than I have that +“stones” means +“<i>grave</i>stones.” The fear which dictated +these curious lines, was, I believe, lest Shakespeare’s +remains should be carried, whither so many of his predecessors in +the churchyard had been carried, to the common charnel-house +hard-by. I do not read in those lines a prohibition against +an examination of the grave, say for purposes of knowledge and +history, but against the despoiling of that grave, to make room +for <a name="page31"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 31</span>some +local knight, squire, or squireen, who might have been deemed a +worthier tenant of the Chancel room. Shakespeare’s +body was carried to the grave on Thursday, April 25, 1616 (O. +S.); and, beyond question, his son-in-law, Dr. John Hall, made +all the arrangements, and bore all the expenses. We have no +proof whatever that the grave has remained closed from that time: +on the contrary there is some slight <i>scintilla</i> of proof +that it has been explored; and it would never astonish me to +learn that Shakespeare’s skull had been abstracted! +There may yet be some among us who have a personal interest in +preventing such an exploration, and in thus maintaining the +general belief, that Shakespeare’s relics still rest in the +mould in which they were buried.</p> +<p>Be that as it may: in the year 1796, the supposed grave was +actually broken into, in the course of digging a vault in its +immediate proximity; and not much more than fifty years ago the +slab over the grave, having sunk below the level of the pavement, +was removed, the surface was levelled, and a fresh stone was laid +over the old bed. It is certain, I believe, that the +original stone did not bear the name of Shakespeare, any more +than its successor: but it is not certain that the four lines +appear upon the new stone in exactly the same literal form as +they did upon the old one. <a name="citation31"></a><a +href="#footnote31" class="citation">[31]</a> I wish I could +add that these two were the only occasions when either grave or +gravestone was meddled with. I am informed, on the +authority of a Free and Accepted Mason, that a Brother-Mason of +<a name="page32"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 32</span>his has +explored the grave which purports to be Shakespeare’s, and +that he found nothing in it but dust. The former statement +must be taken <i>cum grano</i>. Granting this, however, the +latter statement will not surprise my valued friend Mr. J. O. +Halliwell-Phillipps, who thinks he sees a reason for the +disappearance of <span class="smcap">Shakespeare’s +Bones</span>, in the fact that his coffin was buried in the +Chancel mould. <a name="citation32"></a><a href="#footnote32" +class="citation">[32]</a> If this be all the ground of his +assurance, that nothing but dust would reward the search, I would +say “despair thy charm;” for many corpses so buried +have for many years been preserved in comparative +freshness—corpses which had been treated with no more care +than the body of Shakespeare is believed to have received. +The last case to come to my knowledge, was that of the Birmingham +poet, John Freeth, the father of my old friend John Freeth, +formerly the Clerk (or principal manager) of the Birmingham Canal +Navigations. On the destruction of the burial-place of the +Old Meeting House, in Old Meeting Street, Birmingham, in March, +1882, the coffin of the poet was found in the earth, and on +opening it, the face was almost as fresh, and quite as perfect, +as on the day of the old man’s interment seventy-four years +before: and as to his bones? Does Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps +believe that in a period but little more than double that of the +poet Freeth’s unmolested repose, namely 180 years, all +<span class="smcap">Shakespeare’s Bones</span> would have +been turned to dust, and become indistinguishable from the mould +in which the coffin lay? To ask this question is to answer +it. A more <a name="page33"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +33</span>credulous man, than I know Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps to +be, would hesitate to give an affirmative answer. Depend +upon it, Shakespeare’s skull is in his grave, unchanged; or +it has been abstracted. There may well have been a mistake +as to the exact locality of the grave: for we do not know that +the new gravestone was laid down exactly over the place of the +one that was removed; and the skull may be found in a grave +hard-by. But if, on making a thorough search, no skull be +found, I shall believe that it has been stolen: for, apart from +the fact of its non-discovery, I should almost be disposed to +say, that no superstition, or fear of Shakespeare’s curse, +nor any official precaution and vigilance, could have been a +match for that combination of curiosity, cupidity, and +relic-worship, which has so often prompted and carried out the +exhumation of a great man’s bones. If there were no +other reason for searching Shakespeare’s grave, save the +extinction of an unpleasant but not irrational doubt, I would +forthwith perform the exploration, and if possible obtain +tangible proof that the poet’s skull had not been removed +from its resting-place.</p> +<p>But the exploration, if successful, would have a bearing upon +more material issues. The most opposite judgments have been +passed upon the Bust, both as a work of art and as a copy of +nature. Landor, whose experience of Italian art was +considerable, recorded it as his opinion, that it was the noblest +head ever sculptured; while Mr. Hain Friswell depreciated it, +declaring it to be “rudely cut and heavy, without any +feeling, a mere block”: smooth and round like a boy’s +marble. <a name="citation33"></a><a href="#footnote33" +class="citation">[33]</a> After <a name="page34"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 34</span>some of Mr. Friswell’s +deliverances, I am not disposed to rank his judgment very high; +and I accept Lander’s decision. As to the finish of +the face, Mr. Fairholt’s criticism is an exaggeration, +successfully exposed by Mr. Friswell. My own opinion, +<i>telle quelle</i>, has been already printed. <a +name="citation34"></a><a href="#footnote34" +class="citation">[34]</a> Allowing the bust to have been a +recognisable, if not a staring likeness of the poet, I said and +still say—“How awkward is the <i>ensemble</i> of the +face! What a painful stare, with its goggle eyes and gaping +mouth! The expression of this face has been credited with +<i>humour</i>, <i>bonhommie</i> and <i>jollity</i>. To me +it is decidedly <i>clownish</i>; and is suggestive of a man +crunching a sour apple, or struck with amazement at some +unpleasant spectacle. Yet there is force in the lineaments +of this muscular face.” The large photograph of +the Monument lately issued by the <i>New Shakspere Society</i>, +as well as those more successful issues of Mr. Thrupp’s +studio, fully bears out this judgment. But the <i>head</i>, +as Landor said, is noble. Without accepting the suggestion +that the sculptor had met with an accident to the nose, and had, +in consequence, to lengthen the upper lip, I think it +self-evident that there is some little derangement of natural +proportions in those features; the nose, especially, being +ill-formed and undersized for the rest of the face. If we +had but Shakespeare’s skull before us, most of these +questions would be set at rest for ever.</p> +<p>Among the relics once religiously preserved in the Kesselstadt +collection at Mayence was a plaster mask, having at the back the +year of Shakespeare’s death. This relic had been in +<a name="page35"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 35</span>that +collection time out of mind, and seems always to have been +received as a cast from the “flying-mould” of +Shakespeare’s dead face. With this was a small +oil-painting of a man crowned with bays, lying on a state bier; +of which, by the kindness of Mr. J. Parker Norris of +Philadelphia, I am able to give the admirable engraving which +forms the frontispiece to this little volume. On the death +of Count and Canon Francis von Kesselstadt, at Mayence, in 1843, +the family museum was broken up, and its contents +dispersed. No more was seen or heard of either of the two +relics described, till 1847, when the painting was purchased by +an artist named Ludwig Becker; and after some months of +unremitting search he discovered the Death-Mask in a +broker’s shop, and this he bought in 1849. The +purchaser is dead: but both these relics are in the Grand Ducal +Museum at Darmstadt, and belong to its curator, Dr. Ernst Becker, +Ludwig’s brother. I have inspected both with the +keenest interest; and I am of opinion that the painting is not +after the mask. The date, 1637, which it bears, led Dr. +Schaafhausen to think that it was intended for Ben Jonson; a view +to some extent borne out by the portrait of Ben in the Dulwich +Gallery. <a name="citation35"></a><a href="#footnote35" +class="citation">[35]</a> By others, however, it is +believed to be a fancy portrait of Shakespeare, based upon the +Death-Mask. Now the Bust was believed to have been +sculptured after a death-mask. Is the Becker Mask that from +which Gerard Johnson worked? If so, there must have been a +fatal accident indeed to the nose; for the nose of the <a +name="page36"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 36</span>mask is a +long and finely arched one: the upper lip is shorter than that of +the bust, and the forehead is more receding.</p> +<p>Of the many alleged portraits of Shakespeare there are but two +whose pedigree stretches back into the seventeenth century, and +is lost in obscurity there. The origin of the vast majority +of the claimants is only too well known, or shrewdly suspected: +these are (1) copies, more or less unfaithful, of older pictures; +(2) idealised portraits, based upon such older ones, or upon the +Bust; (3) genuine portraits of unknown persons, valued for some +slight or imaginary resemblance to the Bust, or to such older +portraits, or for having passed as Shakespeare’s, and thus +offering the means of selling dear what had been bought cheap; +(4) impostures. As I am not writing an essay upon the +portraits, I will merely mention in the order of their importance +the few claimants whose title merits the least consideration.</p> +<p>I.—The Droeshout engraving, prefixed to the first +collective edition of the Poet’s works, published in 1623: +<i>i.e.</i>, the print in its early state.</p> +<p>II.—The so-called Janssen portrait (on wood) in the +collection of the Duke of Somerset. This has been traced +back to 1761, when it was purchased by Charles Jennens, Esq., of +Gopsall. Its identity with the portrait which was purchased +for the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon in 1809 is, at least, highly +probable. In 1811 Woodburn published the first engraving +from it, and stated that the picture had belonged to Prince +Rupert, who left it to Mrs. E. S. Howes on his death in +1682. No actual proof of this was given, nor did Woodburn +mention Jennens’ ownership.</p> +<p><a name="page37"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +37</span>III.—The Croker portrait. We have it on the +authority of Boaden that this portrait, which he said was the +property of the Right Hon. J. Wilson Croker, was a replica of the +Janssen. There was a mystery, not in the least cleared up, +concerning these two pictures and their history. I am +unable to ascertain who at present owns the later one. +Collectors of the prints can always distinguish between the +two. The only engraving of the Croker portrait was by R. +Cooper; published January 1, 1824, by G. Smeeton, and is an oval +in a shaded rectangle. All the rest are either from the +Janssen, or from Dunkarton’s engraving of it. <a +name="citation37"></a><a href="#footnote37" +class="citation">[37]</a></p> +<p>IV.—The Chandos portrait (on wood) in the National +Portrait Gallery at South Kensington. It has been traced +back to 1668, when, on Davenant’s death, it passed to John +Otway: but not in its present or even late condition.</p> +<p>V.—The Lumley portrait, well known through the admirable +chromo-lithograph, by Mr. Vincent Brooks (which is scarcely +distinguishable from the original), and once sold for forty +guineas as the original portrait. It has been traced back +to 1785.</p> +<p><a name="page38"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +38</span>VI.—The Ashbourne portrait.</p> +<p>VII.—The Felton portrait (on wood), traced back to +1792.</p> +<p>VIII.—The Challis portrait (on wood).</p> +<p>IX.—The Hunt portrait: at the Birthplace. This is +not in its original state, and cannot be judged-of apart from a +copy of it in the possession of John Rabone, Esq., of +Birmingham.</p> +<p>Of these III, VI, and VIII have not been satisfactorily traced +back even into the last century.</p> +<p>Beyond question, after the Bust and the Droeshout engraving, +the Janssen portrait has the greatest value. Unfortunately +the Chandos, even if its history be as stated, is of very little +real value: for it has been so often repaired or +“restored,” and is at present in such a dilapidated +condition, that it cannot be relied upon as a portrait. +Moreover it bears but little resemblance to the admirable drawing +from it in its former state, made by Ozias Humphreys in the year +1783. This drawing is an exceedingly fine work of art, to +which even Scriven’s print, good as it is, scarcely does +justice. To compare Humphreys’ drawing, which hangs +in the Birthplace, and is its most valuable portrait, with Samuel +Cousin’s fine mezzotint of the Chandos, engraved forty +years ago, is to be convinced that the existing picture no longer +represents the man—whosoever he may have been—from +whom it was painted. How many questions, affecting the +Bust, the Death-Mask, and these portraits, would be set at rest +by the production of Shakespeare’s skull!</p> +<p>The late Mr. William Page, the American sculptor, whose +interest in testing the identity of the Kesselstadt Death-Mask, +by comparing it with Shakespeare’s skull, was in +1874–5 incomparably <a name="page39"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 39</span>greater than that of any other +interested person, comes <i>very near</i> the expression of a +wish for the exhumation of the skull. <a name="citation39"></a><a +href="#footnote39" class="citation">[39]</a> But he had not +the courage to express that wish, and after the passage which I +am about to quote, abruptly changes the subject. He says, +“The man who wrote the four lines [of epitaph] which have +thus far secured his bones that rest which his epitaph demands, +omitted nothing likely to carry the whole plan into effect. +The authorship of the epitaph cannot be doubted, unless another +man in England had the wit and wisdom to divine the loyal +heart’s core of its people, and touch it in the single +appeal ‘for Jesus sake.’ Nothing else has kept +him out of Westminster [Abbey]. The style of the command +and curse are Shakespearian, and triumphant as any art of +forethought in his plays.” Then follows +on—without even the break of a paragraph—not what +naturally should have followed, and <i>must</i> have been in Mr. +Page’s mind, but a citation of Chantrey and John Bell, as +to the model from which the Bust was made. Possibly it is +due to the omission of a sentence, which once intervened between +the remarks on the remains and those which concern the Bust of +Shakespeare, that we have now two totally different matters in +juxtaposition, and in the same paragraph. In this +Death-Mask Mr. Page saw the reconciliation of the Bust, the +Droeshout print (in its best state), and the Chandos +portrait. I do not meddle with that opinion, or the +evidences upon which it rests. But I have inspected all the +four: I have also seen Mr. Page’s life-size bronze bust, +and wish I had never <a name="page40"></a><span +class="pagenum">p. 40</span>seen it, or even a photograph of it, +for it destroyed for me a pleasant dream.</p> +<p>But whatever be the value of Mr. Page’s conclusion, or +of his Bust, I have no doubt that the value of his book lies in +those accurate “Dimensions of Shakespeare’s +Mask,” which he took during his six days of free access to +the Grand Ducal Museum. The measurements are on pp. +51–55 of his book, and may eventually be of the greatest +possible use, if the time should ever arrive when +Shakespeare’s skull will be subjected to similar +measurement. For myself, I am disposed to believe that no +mistaken sense of duty on the part of the Stratford authorities +will long be able to prevent that examination, if the skull be +still in existence.</p> +<h2><a name="page41"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 41</span>A +BIBLIOGRAPHY<br /> +<span class="GutSmall">OF</span><br /> +THE EXHUMATION QUESTION<br /> +<span class="GutSmall">AS AFFECTING</span><br /> +SHAKESPEARE’S BONES.</h2> +<p>1.—<span class="smcap">Hawthorne</span>, <span +class="smcap">Nathaniel</span>, in “Recollections of a +Gifted Woman,” in <i>Our Old Home</i> (reprinted from the +<i>Atlantic Monthly</i>, January, 1863), records Miss Delia +Bacon’s project for exploring Shakespeare’s grave, +and the failure of her attempt through the irresolution +occasioned by her fear of disappointment.</p> +<p>2.—<span class="smcap">Norris</span>, J. <span +class="smcap">Parker</span>, in the New York <i>American +Bibliopolist</i>, of April, 1876, vol. viii, p. 38, in the +section entitled “Shakspearian Gossip” [reprinted in +the Philadelphia <i>Press</i>, August 4, 1876], seriously +proposes the exhumation of Shakespeare’s remains, and asks, +“Is it not worth making an effort to secure ‘the +counterfeit presentment’ of him who wrote ‘for all +time’? If we could even get a photograph of +Shakspeare’s skull it would be a great thing, and would +help us to make a better portrait of him than we now +possess.” His courageous article is particularly +useful for the adduction of cases in which corpses have lain in +the grave far longer than that of Shakespeare, and been +discovered in a state of comparative perfection. What would +one not give to look upon Shakespeare’s dead face!</p> +<p><a name="page42"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 42</span>The +letter of “a friend residing near Stratford,” from +which he gives a long extract, was from one of my present +colleagues in the Shakespeare Trust, viz.:</p> +<p>3.—<span class="smcap">Timmins</span>, <span +class="smcap">Sam</span>., as quoted in the last recorded +article, writes—“Some graves of the Shakspeare date +were opened at Church Lawford a few years ago, and the figures, +faces, and dresses were perfect, but, of course, in half an hour +were mere heaps of dust. Shakspeare’s grave is near +the Avon, but doubtless he was buried well (in a leaden coffin +probably), and there is scarcely room for a doubt that, with +proper precautions, photographs of his face might be taken +perfectly. Surely the end does justify the means +here. It is not to satisfy mere idle curiosity. It is +not mere relic-mongering; it is simply to secure for posterity +what we could give—an exact representation of the great +poet as he lived and died. Surely this is justifiable, at +least it is allowable, in the absence of any authentic +portrait. Surely such a duty might be most reverently +done. I doubt after all if it will be; but I am very +strongly in favour of the trial, and if no remains were found, no +harm would be done, the ‘curse’ to the contrary +notwithstanding. People who have pet projects about +portraits would not like to have all their neat and logical +arguments knocked on the head, but where <i>should</i> we +<i>all</i> be if no Shakspeare at all were found, but only a +bundle of musty old MSS. in Lord Bacon’s ‘fine Roman +hand’? After all, I am rather nervous about the +result of such an exhumation. But, seriously, I see no +reason why it should not be made. A legal friend here long +ago suggested (humorously, not professionally of course) that the +‘curse’ might be escaped by <a +name="page43"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 43</span>employing a +woman (‘cursed be <i>he</i>’) and women would compete +for the honor!”</p> +<p>4.—Anonymous Article in <i>The Birmingham Daily +Mail</i>, of August 23, 1876, headed “Shakspeare’s +<i>Carte de Visite</i>.” This is strongly adverse to +Mr. Norris’s proposals. The writer inclines to +believe that the “friend residing near Stratford” was +“a fiction of the Mrs. Harris type,” or +“possibly a modest way of evading the praise which would be +the meed of the brilliant genius who originated the +project”: both very random guesses, and, as it turns out, +wide of the mark. The article ends thus: “If Moses +had been raised in Massachussetts he would have been wanted to +take a camera or some business-cards up Sinai.” For +our part, if we shall be so fortunate as to find Shakespeare +alive in his grave, we shall of course raise him, and invite him +to coöperate in the business of photographing his own +shining face. But we are not so sanguine as to expect that +miracle, though almost as great wonders have been done by the +power of this magician. But where is the “triple +curse” with which, according to this authority, “that +gravestone is weighted”? Quite another view of the +inscription is given by Lord Ronald Gower, <i>infra.</i></p> +<p>5.—Anonymous Article in the London <i>Daily +Telegraph</i>, of August 24, 1876: also strongly adverse to Mr. +Norris.</p> +<p>6.—<span class="smcap">Schaafhausen</span>, <span +class="smcap">Hermann</span>, in the <i>Jahrbuch</i>, or Annual, +of the German Shakespeare Society, vol. x, 1875, asks: +“Should we be afraid to rely on this evidence [agreement of +Mask with known portraits, &c.], there is an easy way of +settling the question. We can dig up Shakespeare’s +skull, and compare <a name="page44"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +44</span>the two. True, this may seem to offend against the +letter of the epitaph</p> +<blockquote><p>‘BLESTE BE EY MAN TY SPARES THES STONES,<br +/> +AND CVRST BE HE TY MOVES MY BONES.’</p> +</blockquote> +<p>But there is no desecration in entrusting the noble remains of +the poet to the enquiring eye of science; which will but learn +something new from them, and place beyond doubt the value of +another precious relic of him, and then restore them to the quiet +of the grave.”—(From the Tr. N. S. S., +1875–76. Appendix v.)</p> +<p>7.—Anonymous Article, in the <i>Birmingham Daily +Post</i> of September 29, 1877, headed “General Grant at +Stratford-upon-Avon,” in the course of which Dr. Collis, +the Vicar of the church there, is reported to have made some +indignant remarks upon Mr. Parker Norris’s article. +“Having dilated upon the cool presumption of the author of +the letter [article], Dr. Collis continued, that persons +proposing such an experiment would have to walk over his +prostrate body before they did it; adding that the writer even +forgot to say, ‘if you please.’” The +American party, however, do not appear to have seen the matter +from Mr. Collis’s point of view.</p> +<p>8.—Anonymous Article, in the <i>Birmingham Town +Crier</i> of November, 1877; a skit upon Mr. Collis’s +foolish speech. Beyond this censure, however, <i>nil de +mortuo</i>. It is to be regretted that the worthy +Vicar’s remains were not buried in the church, so that +persons approaching the grave with a laudable purpose might meet +the reverend gentleman’s views, and “walk over his +prostrate body.”</p> +<p><a name="page45"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +45</span>9.—Shakespearian, A, in the <i>Birmingham Daily +Post</i> of October 10, 1877, writes a sensible letter, taking +Mr. Parker Norris’s side of the question.</p> +<p>10.—Anonymous Article in the New York <i>Nation</i>, of +May 21, 1878, in which we read: “Is it sacrilegious to ask +whether it is wholly impossible to verify the supposition that +the Stratford bust is from a death-mask? Would not the +present age permit a tender and reverential scientific +examination of the grave of Shakespeare?”</p> +<p>11.—Anonymous Article in the <i>Atlantic Monthly</i>, of +June, 1878, in the section entitled “The +Contributors’ Club,” where it is +said—“Since the time seems to have come when a +man’s expression of his wishes with regard to what is to be +done after his death is violently and persistently opposed by all +who survive him, is it not a good opportunity to suggest that +perhaps respect has been paid for a long enough time to the +doggerel over Shakespeare’s grave?</p> +<blockquote><p>GOOD FRIEND FOR IESVS SAKE FORBEARE,<br /> +TO DIGG THE DVST ENCLOASED HEARE:<br /> +BLESTE BE EY MAN TY SPARES THES STONES,<br /> +AND CVRST BE HE TY MOVES MY BONES. <a name="citation45"></a><a +href="#footnote45" class="citation">[45]</a></p> +</blockquote> +<p><a name="page46"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 46</span>When we +consider how little we know of the great poet, and the +possibility of finding something more by an examination of his +tomb, it seems as if, with proper care, an investigation might be +made that would possibly reward the trouble.” The +writer concludes thus—“Is it not advisable, then, to +avoid waiting till it is too late? That is to say, unless, +as I may fear, it is too late already.”</p> +<p>12.—Warwickshire Man, A, in the <i>Argosy</i>, of Oct., +1879, in an article entitled, “How Shakespeare’s +Skull was Stolen.” The <i>vraisemblance</i> of this +narrative is amazing. But for the poverty of the concluding +portion, which is totally out of keeping with the foregoing part, +one might almost accept this as a narrative of fact.</p> +<p>13.—<span class="smcap">Gower</span>, <span +class="smcap">Ronald</span>, in the <i>Antiquary</i>, of August, +1880, vol. ii, p. 63, “The Shakespeare Death-Mask,” +concludes thus—“But how, may it be asked, can proof +ever be had that this mask is actually that of Shakespeare? +Indeed it can never be proved unless such an impossibility should +occur as that a jury of matrons should undertake to view the +opened grave at Stratford; they at any rate would not need to +fear the curse that is written above his grave—for it says, +‘Cursed be <i>he</i> (and not <i>she</i>), who stirs that +sacred dust.’” This is a ‘new +version’ of the time-honoured line. I note too that +Lord Ronald reproduces the “legal friend’s” +joke in Mr. Parker Norris’s article. But I do not say +he ever saw it.</p> +<p>14.—<span class="smcap">Halliwell-Phillipps</span>, J. +O., in his <i>Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare</i>, 1st +edition, 1881, p. 86: 2nd edition, 1882, p. 172: 3rd edition, +1883, p. 233: writes thus—</p> +<p><a name="page47"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +47</span>“The nearest approach to an excavation into the +grave of Shakespeare was made in the summer of the year 1796, in +digging a vault in the immediate locality, when an opening +appeared which was presumed to indicate the commencement of the +site of the bard’s remains. The most scrupulous care, +however, was taken not to disturb the neighbouring earth in the +slightest degree, the clerk having been placed there, until the +brickwork of the adjoining vault was completed, to prevent any +one making an examination. No relics whatever were visible +through the small opening that thus presented itself, and as the +poet was buried in the ground, not in a vault, the chancel earth, +moreover, formerly absorbing a large degree of moisture, the +great probability is that dust alone remains. This +consideration may tend to discourage an irreverent opinion +expressed by some, that it is due to the interests of science to +unfold to the world the material abode which formerly held so +great an intellect.” Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps has more +faith in the alleged precaution than I have. Surely a needy +clerk, with an itching palm, would be no match for a +relic-hunter. May we not here read between the lines, <i>q. +d.</i>, ‘to allow any one to make free with the masonry and +explore the sacred dust?’</p> +<p>15.—Anonymous Article in the <i>Birmingham Daily +Gazette</i>, of December 17, 1880, headed “Excavations in +the Church and Churchyard of Stratford-upon-Avon.” +This repeats, on the authority of Washington Irving’s +<i>Sketch Book</i>, the story recorded by Mr. +Halliwell-Phillipps. It is an alarmist article, censuring +the Vicar’s excavations, which were made indeed with a +laudable purpose, but without the consent, or even the knowledge, +of the Lay Impropriators of the Church.</p> +<p><a name="page48"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +48</span>16.—Anonymous Article in the Cincinnati +<i>Commercial Gazette</i>, of May 26, 1883, headed +“Shakspeare at Home,” where it is said “Nor +should they [the antiquarians of England] rest until they have +explored Shakspeare’s tomb. That this should be +prevented by the doggerel engraved upon it, is unworthy of a +scientific age. I have heard it suggested that if any +documents were buried with Shakspeare, they would, by this time, +have been destroyed by the moisture of the earth, but the grave +is considerably above the level of the Avon, as I observed +to-day, and even any traces connected with the form of the poet +would be useful. His skull if still not turned to dust, +should be preserved in the Royal College of Surgeons, as the apex +of the climbing series of skeletons, from the microscopic to the +divine.”</p> +<p>17.—<span class="smcap">Ingleby</span>, C. M., +<i>Shakespeare’s Bones</i>, June, 1883, being the foregoing +essay.</p> + +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/p48b.jpg"> +<img alt= +"Decorative graphic" +title= +"Decorative graphic" + src="images/p48s.jpg" /> +</a></p> + +<div class="gapspace"> </div> + +<div class="gapshortline"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center">Printed by <span +class="smcap">Robert Birbeck</span>, Birmingham.</p> +<h2>FOOTNOTES</h2> +<p><a name="footnote1a"></a><a href="#citation1a" +class="footnote">[1a]</a> The corrigenda has been applied +to this eBook. For example, in the book this phrase is +“and its ancient tombs” but is corrected in the +corrigenda to “and our ancient tombs”. DP.</p> +<p><a name="footnote1b"></a><a href="#citation1b" +class="footnote">[1b]</a> See <i>The Times</i>, July 14 and +August 8, 1881.</p> +<p><a name="footnote2"></a><a href="#citation2" +class="footnote">[2]</a> Jordan’s Meeting-house, near +Chalfont St. Giles, Bucks. See <i>The Times</i>, July 20, +1881.</p> +<p><a name="footnote19"></a><a href="#citation19" +class="footnote">[19]</a> <i>The Life of Milton</i>. +London: 1699. P. 149.</p> +<p><a name="footnote20"></a><a href="#citation20" +class="footnote">[20]</a> <i>Morning Chronicle</i>, March +18, 1799.</p> +<p><a name="footnote21a"></a><a href="#citation21a" +class="footnote">[21a]</a> See <i>Notes and Queries</i>, +1st S., xi, 496, and xii, 75.</p> +<p><a name="footnote21b"></a><a href="#citation21b" +class="footnote">[21b]</a> See <i>Notes and Queries</i>, +1st S., xi, 496, and xii, 75.</p> +<p><a name="footnote22"></a><a href="#citation22" +class="footnote">[22]</a> <i>An Account of what appeared on +opening the Coffin of King Charles the First in the vault of +Henry VIII</i>, <i>in</i> [<i>the Tomb House</i>,] <i>St. +George’s Chapel</i>, <i>Windsor</i>, <i>on the First of +April</i>, <i>MDCCCXIII</i>.</p> +<p><a name="footnote23"></a><a href="#citation23" +class="footnote">[23]</a> It appears that the examiners +omitted to utilize this unctuous mask for the purpose of taking a +plaster cast: a default which, as we shall see, has been +paralleled by those who conducted other examinations of the +kind.</p> +<p><a name="footnote24"></a><a href="#citation24" +class="footnote">[24]</a> <i>Works of Robert Burns</i>: +Bohn, 1842.</p> +<p><a name="footnote26"></a><a href="#citation26" +class="footnote">[26]</a> Prefatory Notice to +Cunningham’s larger edition of Ben Jonson’s Works, +pp. xviii-xx. For other examples, see <i>God’s +Acre</i>, by Mrs. Stone, 1858, chapter xiv, and <i>Notes and +Queries</i>, 6th S., vii, 161.</p> +<p><a name="footnote27a"></a><a href="#citation27a" +class="footnote">[27a]</a> 2nd S., viii, 354.</p> +<p><a name="footnote27b"></a><a href="#citation27b" +class="footnote">[27b]</a> <i>Ibid</i>, ix, 132.</p> +<p><a name="footnote29"></a><a href="#citation29" +class="footnote">[29]</a> The case of Dante has been +recently alluded to, as if it were one of exhumation. But +despite the efforts of the Florentines to recover the remains of +their great poet, they still rest at Ravenna, in the grave in +which they were deposited immediately after his death.</p> +<p><a name="footnote31"></a><a href="#citation31" +class="footnote">[31]</a> <i>Traditionary Anecdotes of +Shakespeare</i>. 1883, p. 11.</p> +<p><a name="footnote32"></a><a href="#citation32" +class="footnote">[32]</a> <i>Outlines of the Life of +Shakespeare</i>. 3rd edition, 1883, p. 223.</p> +<p><a name="footnote33"></a><a href="#citation33" +class="footnote">[33]</a> <i>Life Portraits of +Shakespeare</i>. 1864, p. 10.</p> +<p><a name="footnote34"></a><a href="#citation34" +class="footnote">[34]</a> <i>Shakespeare</i>: <i>The Man +and The Book</i>. <i>Part I</i>, p. 79.</p> +<p><a name="footnote35"></a><a href="#citation35" +class="footnote">[35]</a> As to this, see an article +contributed by me to <i>The Antiquary</i> for September, 1880: +also the <i>Shakespeare Jahrbuch</i>, vol. x, 1875, for Dr. +Schaafhausen’s views.</p> +<p><a name="footnote37"></a><a href="#citation37" +class="footnote">[37]</a> There is no engraving by +“Dunbar”: that name was Friswell’s mistake for +Dunkarton. Boaden’s “absolute fac-simile” +and “no difference whatever,” (<i>Inquiry</i>, 1. p., +page 137) are expressions not borne out by the engravings. +My old friend, the Rev. Charles Evans, Rector of Solihull, who +possesses the almost unrivalled Marsh Collection of Engraved +Portraits of Shakespeare, at my request compared Cooper’s +engraving of the Croker portrait with those by Dunkarton, Earlom, +and Turner, of the Janssen: and he writes: “In the Cooper +the face is peaked, the beard more pointed, and the ruff +different in the points.” After all, such differences +may well be the creation of the engravers. I would fain +know where the Croker portrait now is; and also that which +belonged to the late Dr. Turton, Bishop of Ely.</p> +<p><a name="footnote39"></a><a href="#citation39" +class="footnote">[39]</a> <i>A Study of Shakespeare’s +Portraits</i>. 1876, p. 23.</p> +<p><a name="footnote45"></a><a href="#citation45" +class="footnote">[45]</a> This is exactly as it stands upon +the existing gravestone, not as it is reproduced by the writer in +the <i>Atlantic Monthly</i>: the like as to the two lines of the +epitaph in No. 6. The manuscript of Dowdall, referred to on +p. 31 <i>ante</i>, is unfortunately modernized in <i>Traditionary +Anecdotes</i>. He has, indeed ‘friend,’ and +‘these,’ as in the pamphlet version, but also +‘digg,’ and ‘inclosed.’ Dowdall, +however, was a very inaccurate copyist. See fac-simile in +Mr. J. O. Halliwell’s Folio Shakespeare, vol. i, inserted +between pp. 78 and 79. The Dowdall manuscript does not give +the epitaph in capitals, except the initials.</p> +<p>***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SHAKESPEARE'S BONES***</p> +<pre> + + +***** This file should be named 8379-h.htm or 8379-h.zip****** + + +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: +http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/8/3/7/8379 + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will +be renamed. + +Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright +law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, +so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United +States without permission and without paying copyright +royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part +of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm +concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, +and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive +specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this +eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook +for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, +performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given +away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks +not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the +trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. + +START: FULL LICENSE + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full +Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at +www.gutenberg.org/license. + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or +destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your +possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a +Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound +by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the +person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph +1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this +agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the +Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection +of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual +works in the collection are in the public domain in the United +States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the +United States and you are located in the United States, we do not +claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, +displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as +all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope +that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting +free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm +works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the +Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily +comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the +same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when +you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are +in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, +check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this +agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, +distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any +other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no +representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any +country outside the United States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other +immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear +prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work +on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, +performed, viewed, copied or distributed: + + This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and + most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no + restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it + under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this + eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the + United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you + are located before using this ebook. + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is +derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not +contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the +copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in +the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are +redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply +either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or +obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm +trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any +additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms +will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works +posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the +beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including +any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access +to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format +other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official +version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site +(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense +to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means +of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain +Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the +full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +provided that + +* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed + to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has + agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project + Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid + within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are + legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty + payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project + Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in + Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg + Literary Archive Foundation." + +* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all + copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue + all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm + works. + +* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of + any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of + receipt of the work. + +* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than +are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing +from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The +Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm +trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project +Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may +contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate +or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other +intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or +other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or +cannot be read by your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium +with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you +with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in +lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person +or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second +opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If +the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing +without further opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO +OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT +LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of +damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement +violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the +agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or +limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or +unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the +remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in +accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the +production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, +including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of +the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this +or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or +additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any +Defect you cause. + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of +computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It +exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations +from people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future +generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see +Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at +www.gutenberg.org + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by +U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the +mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its +volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous +locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt +Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to +date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and +official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact + +For additional contact information: + + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND +DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular +state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To +donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project +Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be +freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and +distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of +volunteer support. + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in +the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not +necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper +edition. + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search +facility: www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + +</pre></body> +</html> diff --git a/8379-h/images/coverb.jpg b/8379-h/images/coverb.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..08db4cf --- /dev/null +++ b/8379-h/images/coverb.jpg diff --git a/8379-h/images/covers.jpg b/8379-h/images/covers.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..77b4ab0 --- /dev/null +++ b/8379-h/images/covers.jpg diff --git a/8379-h/images/fpb.jpg b/8379-h/images/fpb.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..57f74d0 --- /dev/null +++ b/8379-h/images/fpb.jpg diff --git a/8379-h/images/fps.jpg b/8379-h/images/fps.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..8d42d33 --- /dev/null +++ b/8379-h/images/fps.jpg diff --git a/8379-h/images/p48b.jpg b/8379-h/images/p48b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..57bfc2a --- /dev/null +++ b/8379-h/images/p48b.jpg diff --git a/8379-h/images/p48s.jpg b/8379-h/images/p48s.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..76aab40 --- /dev/null +++ b/8379-h/images/p48s.jpg diff --git a/8379-h/images/tpb.jpg b/8379-h/images/tpb.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..99929c6 --- /dev/null +++ b/8379-h/images/tpb.jpg diff --git a/8379-h/images/tps.jpg b/8379-h/images/tps.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..3bb4fc3 --- /dev/null +++ b/8379-h/images/tps.jpg |
