diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/shbn10h.htm')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/shbn10h.htm | 1654 |
1 files changed, 1654 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/old/shbn10h.htm b/old/shbn10h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a810875 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/shbn10h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,1654 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html + PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> +<html> +<head> +<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" /> +<title>Shakespeare's Bones</title> +</head> +<body> +<h2> +<a href="#startoftext">Shakespeare's Bones, by C. M. Ingleby</a> +</h2> +<pre> +The Project Gutenberg EBook of Shakespeare's Bones, by C. M. Ingleby + +Copyright laws are changing all over the world. Be sure to check the +copyright laws for your country before downloading or redistributing +this or any other Project Gutenberg eBook. + +This header should be the first thing seen when viewing this Project +Gutenberg file. Please do not remove it. Do not change or edit the +header without written permission. + +Please read the "legal small print," and other information about the +eBook and Project Gutenberg at the bottom of this file. Included is +important information about your specific rights and restrictions in +how the file may be used. You can also find out about how to make a +donation to Project Gutenberg, and how to get involved. + + +**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts** + +**eBooks Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971** + +*****These eBooks Were Prepared By Thousands of Volunteers!***** + + +Title: Shakespeare's Bones + +Author: C. M. Ingleby + +Release Date: June, 2005 [EBook #8379] +[This file was first posted on July 5, 2003] + +Edition: 10 + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: US-ASCII +</pre> +<p><a name="startoftext"></a></p> +<p>Transcribed by David Price, email ccx074@coventry.ac.uk</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines3"><br /><br /><br /></div> +<h1>SHAKESPEARE’S BONES</h1> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines3"><br /><br /><br /></div> +<p>THE PROPOSAL TO DISINTER THEM,<br />CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO THEIR +POSSIBLE BEARING<br />ON HIS PORTRAITURE:<br />ILLUSTRATED BY INSTANCES +OF<br />VISITS OF THE LIVING TO THE DEAD.</p> +<p>By C. M. Ingleby, LL.D., V.P.R.S.L.,<br />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> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<p>“Let’s talk of graves, of worms, and epitaphs.”<br /><i>Richard +II</i>, a. iii, s. 2.</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<p>This Essay is respectfully inscribed to<br />The Major and Corporation +of Stratford-upon-Avon,<br />and the Vicar<br />of the Church of the +Holy Trinity there,<br />by their friend and colleague,<br />THE AUTHOR.</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<p>SHAKESPEARE’S BONES.</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<p>The 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">{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">{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 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">{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 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> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div> +<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 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 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 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</i>’<i>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>“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</i>’<i>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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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’ 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>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 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> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div> +<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</i>’<i>s Lives of Italian Painters</i>, ed. +1874, p. 258:</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div> +<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 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> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div> +<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> +<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, and the incouragement of +Letters in King William’s Reign.” <a name="citation19"></a><a href="#footnote19">{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 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">{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 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">{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">{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 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">{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 ‘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">{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 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">{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> +<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> +<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 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, 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">{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, +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">{27a}</a> +elicited from Mr. C. Le Poer Kennedy, of St. Albans, <a name="citation27b"></a><a href="#footnote27b">{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>“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 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">{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 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 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">{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 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 Shakespeare’s Bones, +in the fact that his coffin was buried in the Chancel mould. <a name="citation32"></a><a href="#footnote32">{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 Shakespeare’s +Bones 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 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">{33}</a> +After 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">{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 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">{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 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>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">{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>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 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">{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 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> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<p>A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE EXHUMATION QUESTION AS AFFECTING SHAKESPEARE’S +BONES.</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<p>1.—Hawthorne, Nathaniel, 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.—Norris, J. Parker, 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>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.—Timmins, Sam., 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 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.—Schaafhausen, Hermann, 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 the two. +True, this may seem to offend against the letter of the epitaph</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<p>‘BLESTE BE EY MAN TY SPARES THES STONES,<br />AND CVRST BE +HE TY MOVES MY BONES.’</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div> +<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>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> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div> +<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">{45}</a></p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<p>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.—Gower, Ronald, 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.—Halliwell-Phillipps, 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>“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>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.—Ingleby, C. M., <i>Shakespeare</i>’<i>s Bones</i>, +June, 1883, being the foregoing essay.</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<p>Footnotes:</p> +<p><a name="footnote1a"></a><a href="#citation1a">{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">{1b}</a> See +<i>The Times</i>, July 14 and August 8, 1881.</p> +<p><a name="footnote2"></a><a href="#citation2">{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">{19}</a> <i>The +Life of Milton</i>. London: 1699. P. 149.</p> +<p><a name="footnote20"></a><a href="#citation20">{20}</a> <i>Morning +Chronicle</i>, March 18, 1799.</p> +<p><a name="footnote21a"></a><a href="#citation21a">{21a}</a> +See <i>Notes and Queries</i>, 1st S., xi, 496, and xii, 75.</p> +<p><a name="footnote21b"></a><a href="#citation21b">{21b}</a> +See <i>Notes and Queries</i>, 1st S., xi, 496, and xii, 75.</p> +<p><a name="footnote22"></a><a href="#citation22">{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 [the Tomb House,] St. George</i>’<i>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">{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">{24}</a> <i>Works +of Robert Burns</i>: Bohn, 1842.</p> +<p><a name="footnote26"></a><a href="#citation26">{26}</a> Prefatory +Notice to Cunningham’s larger edition of Ben Jonson’s Works, +pp. xviii-xx. For other examples, see <i>God</i>’<i>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">{27a}</a> +2nd S., viii, 354.</p> +<p><a name="footnote27b"></a><a href="#citation27b">{27b}</a> +<i>Ibid</i>, ix, 132.</p> +<p><a name="footnote29"></a><a href="#citation29">{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">{31}</a> <i>Traditionary +Anecdotes of Shakespeare</i>., 1883, p. 11.</p> +<p><a name="footnote32"></a><a href="#citation32">{32}</a> <i>Outlines +of the Life of Shakespeare</i>. 3rd edition, 1883, p. 223.</p> +<p><a name="footnote33"></a><a href="#citation33">{33}</a> <i>Life +Portraits of Shakespeare</i>. 1864, p. 10.</p> +<p><a name="footnote34"></a><a href="#citation34">{34}</a> <i>Shakespeare: +The Man and The Book. Part I</i>, p. 79.</p> +<p><a name="footnote35"></a><a href="#citation35">{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">{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">{39}</a> <i>A +Study of Shakespeare</i>’<i>s Portraits</i>. 1876, p. 23.</p> +<p><a name="footnote45"></a><a href="#citation45">{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> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines3"><br /><br /><br /></div> +<p>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK, SHAKESPEARE'S BONES ***</p> +<pre> + +******This file should be named shbn10h.htm or shbn10h.zip****** +Corrected EDITIONS of our EBooks get a new NUMBER, shbn11h.htm +VERSIONS based on separate sources get new LETTER, shbn10ah.htm + +Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the US +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we usually do not +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + +We are now trying to release all our eBooks one year in advance +of the official release dates, leaving time for better editing. +Please be encouraged to tell us about any error or corrections, +even years after the official publication date. + +Please note neither this listing nor its contents are final til +midnight of the last day of the month of any such announcement. +The official release date of all Project Gutenberg eBooks is at +Midnight, Central Time, of the last day of the stated month. A +preliminary version may often be posted for suggestion, comment +and editing by those who wish to do so. + +Most people start at our Web sites at: +http://gutenberg.net or +http://promo.net/pg + +These Web sites include award-winning information about Project +Gutenberg, including how to donate, how to help produce our new +eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter (free!). + + +Those of you who want to download any eBook before announcement +can get to them as follows, and just download by date. This is +also a good way to get them instantly upon announcement, as the +indexes our cataloguers produce obviously take a while after an +announcement goes out in the Project Gutenberg Newsletter. + +http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext05 or +ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext05 + +Or /etext04, 03, 02, 01, 00, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, +91 or 90 + +Just search by the first five letters of the filename you want, +as it appears in our Newsletters. + + +Information about Project Gutenberg (one page) + +We produce about two million dollars for each hour we work. The +time it takes us, a rather conservative estimate, is fifty hours +to get any eBook selected, entered, proofread, edited, copyright +searched and analyzed, the copyright letters written, etc. Our +projected audience is one hundred million readers. If the value +per text is nominally estimated at one dollar then we produce $2 +million dollars per hour in 2002 as we release over 100 new text +files per month: 1240 more eBooks in 2001 for a total of 4000+ +We are already on our way to trying for 2000 more eBooks in 2002 +If they reach just 1-2% of the world's population then the total +will reach over half a trillion eBooks given away by year's end. + +The Goal of Project Gutenberg is to Give Away 1 Trillion eBooks! +This is ten thousand titles each to one hundred million readers, +which is only about 4% of the present number of computer users. + +Here is the briefest record of our progress (* means estimated): + +eBooks Year Month + + 1 1971 July + 10 1991 January + 100 1994 January + 1000 1997 August + 1500 1998 October + 2000 1999 December + 2500 2000 December + 3000 2001 November + 4000 2001 October/November + 6000 2002 December* + 9000 2003 November* +10000 2004 January* + + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been created +to secure a future for Project Gutenberg into the next millennium. + +We need your donations more than ever! + +As of February, 2002, contributions are being solicited from people +and organizations in: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, +Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, +Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, +Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New +Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, +Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South +Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West +Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. + +We have filed in all 50 states now, but these are the only ones +that have responded. + +As the requirements for other states are met, additions to this list +will be made and fund raising will begin in the additional states. +Please feel free to ask to check the status of your state. + +In answer to various questions we have received on this: + +We are constantly working on finishing the paperwork to legally +request donations in all 50 states. If your state is not listed and +you would like to know if we have added it since the list you have, +just ask. + +While we cannot solicit donations from people in states where we are +not yet registered, we know of no prohibition against accepting +donations from donors in these states who approach us with an offer to +donate. + +International donations are accepted, but we don't know ANYTHING about +how to make them tax-deductible, or even if they CAN be made +deductible, and don't have the staff to handle it even if there are +ways. + +Donations by check or money order may be sent to: + + PROJECT GUTENBERG LITERARY ARCHIVE FOUNDATION + 809 North 1500 West + Salt Lake City, UT 84116 + +Contact us if you want to arrange for a wire transfer or payment +method other than by check or money order. + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been approved by +the US Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) organization with EIN +[Employee Identification Number] 64-622154. Donations are +tax-deductible to the maximum extent permitted by law. As fund-raising +requirements for other states are met, additions to this list will be +made and fund-raising will begin in the additional states. + +We need your donations more than ever! + +You can get up to date donation information online at: + +http://www.gutenberg.net/donation.html + + +*** + +If you can't reach Project Gutenberg, +you can always email directly to: + +Michael S. Hart hart@pobox.com + +Prof. Hart will answer or forward your message. + +We would prefer to send you information by email. + + +**The Legal Small Print** + + +(Three Pages) + +***START**THE SMALL PRINT!**FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN EBOOKS**START*** +Why is this "Small Print!" statement here? You know: lawyers. +They tell us you might sue us if there is something wrong with +your copy of this eBook, even if you got it for free from +someone other than us, and even if what's wrong is not our +fault. So, among other things, this "Small Print!" statement +disclaims most of our liability to you. It also tells you how +you may distribute copies of this eBook if you want to. + +*BEFORE!* YOU USE OR READ THIS EBOOK +By using or reading any part of this PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm +eBook, you indicate that you understand, agree to and accept +this "Small Print!" statement. If you do not, you can receive +a refund of the money (if any) you paid for this eBook by +sending a request within 30 days of receiving it to the person +you got it from. If you received this eBook on a physical +medium (such as a disk), you must return it with your request. + +ABOUT PROJECT GUTENBERG-TM EBOOKS +This PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBook, like most PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBooks, +is a "public domain" work distributed by Professor Michael S. Hart +through the Project Gutenberg Association (the "Project"). +Among other things, this means that no one owns a United States copyright +on or for this work, so the Project (and you!) can copy and +distribute it in the United States without permission and +without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth +below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this eBook +under the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark. + +Please do not use the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark to market +any commercial products without permission. + +To create these eBooks, the Project expends considerable +efforts to identify, transcribe and proofread public domain +works. Despite these efforts, the Project's eBooks and any +medium they may be on may contain "Defects". Among other +things, Defects may take the form of incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other +intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged +disk or other eBook medium, a computer virus, or computer +codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment. + +LIMITED WARRANTY; DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES +But for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described below, +[1] Michael Hart and the Foundation (and any other party you may +receive this eBook from as a PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBook) disclaims +all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including +legal fees, and [2] YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE OR +UNDER STRICT LIABILITY, OR FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONTRACT, +INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE +OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE +POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. + +If you discover a Defect in this eBook within 90 days of +receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) +you paid for it by sending an explanatory note within that +time to the person you received it from. If you received it +on a physical medium, you must return it with your note, and +such person may choose to alternatively give you a replacement +copy. If you received it electronically, such person may +choose to alternatively give you a second opportunity to +receive it electronically. + +THIS EBOOK IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO YOU "AS-IS". NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE TO YOU AS +TO THE EBOOK OR ANY MEDIUM IT MAY BE ON, INCLUDING BUT NOT +LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A +PARTICULAR PURPOSE. + +Some states do not allow disclaimers of implied warranties or +the exclusion or limitation of consequential damages, so the +above disclaimers and exclusions may not apply to you, and you +may have other legal rights. + +INDEMNITY +You will indemnify and hold Michael Hart, the Foundation, +and its trustees and agents, and any volunteers associated +with the production and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm +texts harmless, from all liability, cost and expense, including +legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the +following that you do or cause: [1] distribution of this eBook, +[2] alteration, modification, or addition to the eBook, +or [3] any Defect. + +DISTRIBUTION UNDER "PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm" +You may distribute copies of this eBook electronically, or by +disk, book or any other medium if you either delete this +"Small Print!" and all other references to Project Gutenberg, +or: + +[1] Only give exact copies of it. Among other things, this + requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the + eBook or this "small print!" statement. You may however, + if you wish, distribute this eBook in machine readable + binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form, + including any form resulting from conversion by word + processing or hypertext software, but only so long as + *EITHER*: + + [*] The eBook, when displayed, is clearly readable, and + does *not* contain characters other than those + intended by the author of the work, although tilde + (~), asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may + be used to convey punctuation intended by the + author, and additional characters may be used to + indicate hypertext links; OR + + [*] The eBook may be readily converted by the reader at + no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent + form by the program that displays the eBook (as is + the case, for instance, with most word processors); + OR + + [*] You provide, or agree to also provide on request at + no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the + eBook in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC + or other equivalent proprietary form). + +[2] Honor the eBook refund and replacement provisions of this + "Small Print!" statement. + +[3] Pay a trademark license fee to the Foundation of 20% of the + gross profits you derive calculated using the method you + already use to calculate your applicable taxes. If you + don't derive profits, no royalty is due. Royalties are + payable to "Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation" + the 60 days following each date you prepare (or were + legally required to prepare) your annual (or equivalent + periodic) tax return. Please contact us beforehand to + let us know your plans and to work out the details. + +WHAT IF YOU *WANT* TO SEND MONEY EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO? +Project Gutenberg is dedicated to increasing the number of +public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed +in machine readable form. + +The Project gratefully accepts contributions of money, time, +public domain materials, or royalty free copyright licenses. +Money should be paid to the: +"Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +If you are interested in contributing scanning equipment or +software or other items, please contact Michael Hart at: +hart@pobox.com + +[Portions of this eBook's header and trailer may be reprinted only +when distributed free of all fees. Copyright (C) 2001, 2002 by +Michael S. Hart. Project Gutenberg is a TradeMark and may not be +used in any sales of Project Gutenberg eBooks or other materials be +they hardware or software or any other related product without +express permission.] + +*END THE SMALL PRINT! FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN EBOOKS*Ver.02/11/02*END* +</pre></body> +</html> |