1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
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>
|
