Chapter 4

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 _should_ we _all_ 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 _he_’) and women would compete for the honor!”

4.—Anonymous Article in _The Birmingham Daily Mail_, of August 23, 1876, headed “Shakspeare’s _Carte de Visite_.” 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, _infra._

5.—Anonymous Article in the London _Daily Telegraph_, of August 24, 1876: also strongly adverse to Mr. Norris.

6.—SCHAAFHAUSEN, HERMANN, in the _Jahrbuch_, 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

‘BLESTE BE EY MAN TY SPARES THES STONES, AND CVRST BE HE TY MOVES MY BONES.’

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.)

7.—Anonymous Article, in the _Birmingham Daily Post_ 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.

8.—Anonymous Article, in the _Birmingham Town Crier_ of November, 1877; a skit upon Mr. Collis’s foolish speech. Beyond this censure, however, _nil de mortuo_. 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.”

9.—Shakespearian, A, in the _Birmingham Daily Post_ of October 10, 1877, writes a sensible letter, taking Mr. Parker Norris’s side of the question.

10.—Anonymous Article in the New York _Nation_, 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?”

11.—Anonymous Article in the _Atlantic Monthly_, 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?

GOOD FRIEND FOR IESVS SAKE FORBEARE, TO DIGG THE DVST ENCLOASED HEARE: BLESTE BE EY MAN TY SPARES THES STONES, AND CVRST BE HE TY MOVES MY BONES. {45}

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.”

12.—Warwickshire Man, A, in the _Argosy_, of Oct., 1879, in an article entitled, “How Shakespeare’s Skull was Stolen.” The _vraisemblance_ 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.

13.—GOWER, RONALD, in the _Antiquary_, 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 _he_ (and not _she_), 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.

14.—HALLIWELL-PHILLIPPS, J. O., in his _Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare_, 1st edition, 1881, p. 86: 2nd edition, 1882, p. 172: 3rd edition, 1883, p. 233: writes thus—

“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, _q. d._, ‘to allow any one to make free with the masonry and explore the sacred dust?’

15.—Anonymous Article in the _Birmingham Daily Gazette_, of December 17, 1880, headed “Excavations in the Church and Churchyard of Stratford-upon-Avon.” This repeats, on the authority of Washington Irving’s _Sketch Book_, 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.

16.—Anonymous Article in the Cincinnati _Commercial Gazette_, 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.”

17.—INGLEBY, C. M., _Shakespeare’s Bones_, June, 1883, being the foregoing essay.

* * * * *

[Picture: Decorative graphic]

* * * * *

* * * * *

Printed by ROBERT BIRBECK, Birmingham.

FOOTNOTES

{1a} 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.

{1b} See _The Times_, July 14 and August 8, 1881.

{2} Jordan’s Meeting-house, near Chalfont St. Giles, Bucks. See _The Times_, July 20, 1881.

{19} _The Life of Milton_. London: 1699. P. 149.

{20} _Morning Chronicle_, March 18, 1799.

{21a} See _Notes and Queries_, 1st S., xi, 496, and xii, 75.

{21b} See _Notes and Queries_, 1st S., xi, 496, and xii, 75.

{22} _An Account of what appeared on opening the Coffin of King Charles the First in the vault of Henry VIII_, _in_ [_the Tomb House_,] _St. George’s Chapel_, _Windsor_, _on the First of April_, _MDCCCXIII_.

{23} 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.

{24} _Works of Robert Burns_: Bohn, 1842.

{26} Prefatory Notice to Cunningham’s larger edition of Ben Jonson’s Works, pp. xviii-xx. For other examples, see _God’s Acre_, by Mrs. Stone, 1858, chapter xiv, and _Notes and Queries_, 6th S., vii, 161.

{27a} 2nd S., viii, 354.

{27b} _Ibid_, ix, 132.

{29} 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.

{31} _Traditionary Anecdotes of Shakespeare_. 1883, p. 11.

{32} _Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare_. 3rd edition, 1883, p. 223.

{33} _Life Portraits of Shakespeare_. 1864, p. 10.

{34} _Shakespeare_: _The Man and The Book_. _Part I_, p. 79.

{35} As to this, see an article contributed by me to _The Antiquary_ for September, 1880: also the _Shakespeare Jahrbuch_, vol. x, 1875, for Dr. Schaafhausen’s views.

{37} There is no engraving by “Dunbar”: that name was Friswell’s mistake for Dunkarton. Boaden’s “absolute fac-simile” and “no difference whatever,” (_Inquiry_, 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.

{39} _A Study of Shakespeare’s Portraits_. 1876, p. 23.

{45} This is exactly as it stands upon the existing gravestone, not as it is reproduced by the writer in the _Atlantic Monthly_: the like as to the two lines of the epitaph in No. 6. The manuscript of Dowdall, referred to on p. 31 _ante_, is unfortunately modernized in _Traditionary Anecdotes_. 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.