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

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK, SHAKESPEARE'S BONES ***




Transcribed by David Price, email ccx074@coventry.ac.uk




SHAKESPEARE'S BONES




THE PROPOSAL TO DISINTER THEM,
CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO THEIR POSSIBLE BEARING
ON HIS PORTRAITURE:
ILLUSTRATED BY INSTANCES OF
VISITS OF THE LIVING TO THE DEAD.

By C. M. Ingleby, LL.D., V.P.R.S.L.,
Honorary Member of the German Shakespeare Society,
and a Life-Trustee of Shakespeare's Birthplace, Museum, and New
Place,
at Stratford-upon-Avon.



"Let's talk of graves, of worms, and epitaphs."
Richard II, a. iii, s. 2.



This Essay is respectfully inscribed to
The Major and Corporation of Stratford-upon-Avon,
and the Vicar
of the Church of the Holy Trinity there,
by their friend and colleague,
THE AUTHOR.



SHAKESPEARE'S BONES.



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 {1a} ancient tombs from the molestation of
careless, curious, or mercenary persons.

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 Hotel des Invalides at Paris, and the Basilica of San
Lorenzo Fuori le Mura at Rome, {1b} 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. {2}

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.

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.

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
Macmillan's Magazine for May, 1863.


"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.

"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.

"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 Gunther, who had kindly
undertaken to see done what was necessary; whatever he might direct,
she would approve of.'  With this message Schwabe hastened to
Gunther, and told him, his blood boiled at the thought that Schiller
should be borne to the grave by hirelings.  At first Gunther 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 Hochwurde that in an hour or two
he would bring him the list.  On this his Hochwurde consented to
countermand the bearers.

"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 Gunther's hands.  Several appeared to whom he had
not applied; in all about twenty.

"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
Kassengewolbe, 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 louis d'or.  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.

"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.

"In the year 1826, Schwabe was Burgermeister of Weimar.  Now it was
the custom of the Landschaftscollegium, or provincial board under
whose jurisdiction this institution was placed, to CLEAR OUT the
Kassengewolbe 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 louis d'or.  On such occasions--when the
Landschaftscollegium gave the order 'aufzuraumen,' it was the usage
to dig a hole in a corner of the churchyard--then to bring up en
masse the contents of the Kassengewolbe--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 Gewolbe.  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.

"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 Burgermeister looked on the matter as hopeless.
They reascended the ladder and closed the vault.

"Meanwhile these strange proceedings in the Kassengewolbe 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
Gewolbe; 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 Burgermeister 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 Kassengewolbe at seven in the morning,
accompanied only by Coudray and the churchyard officials.

"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 Gewolbe 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.

"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 Burgermeister 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.

"When the night came, he himself, with a trusty servant, proceeded
to the entrance of the Kassengewolbe.  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 Burgermeister 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.

"It was hardly done ere he exclaimed, 'THAT 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 Gewolbe, 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.

"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 Kassengewolbe.
It was ascertained that since the last 'clearing out' there had been
exactly twenty-three interments.  At this stage the Burgermeister
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.

"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 Muller 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.

"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
Burgermeister.  Goethe, more suo, 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 Burgermeister, 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.

"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 Burgermeister, 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. Schroter, 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, Farber by name, who had at one time
been Schiller's servant.  As soon as they arrived, Goethe placed the
matter in Schroter's hands.  Again the head was raised from its
pillow and carried back to the dismal Kasselgewolbe, 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, Schroter 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 Schroter'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.

"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 Deus ex machina 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 Schroter 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

SCHILLER

in letters of cast-iron.  That same afternoon Goethe went himself to
the library and expressed his satisfaction with all that had been
done.

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 Kassengewolbe.  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.

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."


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 Mrs. Jameson's Lives of Italian Painters, ed.
1874, p. 258:


"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.


"To ascertain the fact, permission was obtained from the Papal
Government, and from the canons of the Church of the Rotunda (i.e.,
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."

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 NOT indifferent."

Toland tells us that Milton's body was, on November 12, 1674,
carried "to the Church of S. Giles, near Cripplegate, 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." {19}  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 INTENDED, 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.

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 Philister 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. {20}  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
Additional Manuscripts 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 THE REMAINS OF THE OLD VILLANOUS REPUBLICAN, THE MENTION
OF WHOSE VERY NAME MAKES HIS BLOOD BOIL WITH INDIGNATION.  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. {21a}

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:  Life of
Swedenborg, 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. {21b}  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. Wahlin, 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."

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
Account, appended to his Essays and Orations, 1831, {22} thus
describes the examination of the palled coffin.

"On representing the circumstance to the Prince Regent, his R. H.
perceived at once that A DOUBTFUL POINT IN HISTORY MIGHT BE CLEARED
UP BY OPENING THIS VAULT; 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.e., 1813], the day after the
funeral of the Duchess of Brunswick, in the presence of his R. H.
himself, who guaranteed thereby THE MOST RESPECTFUL CARE AND
ATTENTION TO THE REMAINS OF THE DEAD, 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."

"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. {23} 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."

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.

In the Appendix to Allan Cunningham's Life of Burns {24} we read of
an examination of the poet's Tomb, made immediately after that life
was published:

"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:

"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.e., 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.'"

The last example I shall adduce is that of Ben Jonson's skull.  On
this Lieut.-Colonel Cunningham thus writes:

"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 HIS skull as having RED HAIR; and in Aubrey's
Lives of Eminent Men, '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 IS NOT STATED IN SO
MANY WORDS.'  In so many words!  I think not!  Actually all that
Aubrey says on the subject is, 'HE WAS, OR RATHER HAD BEEN, OF A
CLEARE AND FAIRE SKIN'! (Lives, 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 Fourth
Series of his Curiosities of Natural History, one of the most
entertaining little volumes with which we are acquainted." {26}

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
cooperated 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.

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 alter ego, were not allowed to remain unmolested in
their grave in St. Michael's Church, St. Albans.  Thomas Fuller, in
his Worthies, 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 Notes and Queries {27a} elicited from Mr. C. Le
Poer Kennedy, of St. Albans, {27b} 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.

Among the many protests against the act of exhumation, I select that
of Capel Lofft, as representative of the rest.  He writes--

"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 Philister.  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 Philister 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 Ezekiel, 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. {29} 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?

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 "REmoves," than I have that
"stones" means "GRAVEstones."  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 scintilla 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.

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. {31}  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
cum grano.  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. {32}  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.

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. {33}  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, telle quelle, has been already printed. {34}  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 ensemble of the
face!  What a painful stare, with its goggle eyes and gaping mouth!
The expression of this face has been credited with humour, bonhommie
and jollity.  To me it is decidedly clownish; 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 New Shakspere Society, as well as those more successful
issues of Mr. Thrupp's studio, fully bears out this judgment.  But
the HEAD, 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.

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. {35}  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.

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.

I.--The Droeshout engraving, prefixed to the first collective
edition of the Poet's works, published in 1623:  i.e., the print in
its early state.

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.

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. {37}

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.

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.

VI.--The Ashbourne portrait.

VII.--The Felton portrait (on wood), traced back to 1792.

VIII.--The Challis portrait (on wood).

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.

Of these III, VI, and VIII have not been satisfactorily traced back
even into the last century.

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!

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 VERY NEAR the expression
of a wish for the exhumation of the skull. {39}  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 MUST 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.

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.



A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE EXHUMATION QUESTION AS AFFECTING SHAKESPEARE'S
BONES.



1.--Hawthorne, Nathaniel, in "Recollections of a Gifted Woman," in
Our Old Home (reprinted from the Atlantic Monthly, 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.

2.--Norris, J. Parker, in the New York American Bibliopolist, of
April, 1876, vol. viii, p. 38, in the section entitled "Shakspearian
Gossip" [reprinted in the Philadelphia Press, 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!

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.:

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 cooperate 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.



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.




*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK, SHAKESPEARE'S BONES ***

This file should be named shbn10.txt or shbn10.zip
Corrected EDITIONS of our eBooks get a new NUMBER, shbn11.txt
VERSIONS based on separate sources get new LETTER, shbn10a.txt

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*