Chapter II: Part 2

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 coöperate in the business of photographing his own shining face. But we are not so sanguine as to expect that miracle, though almost as great wonders have been done by the power of this magician. But where is the “triple curse” with which, according to this authority, “that gravestone is weighted”? Quite another view of the inscription is given by Lord Ronald Gower, _infra._

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

6.—SCHAAFHAUSEN, HERMANN, in the _Jahrbuch_, or Annual, of the German Shakespeare Society, vol. x, 1875, asks: “Should we be afraid to rely on this evidence [agreement of Mask with known portraits, &c.], there is an easy way of settling the question. We can dig up Shakespeare’s skull, and compare the two. True, this may seem to offend against the letter of the epitaph

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

But there is no desecration in entrusting the noble remains of the poet to the enquiring eye of science; which will but learn something new from them, and place beyond doubt the value of another precious relic of him, and then restore them to the quiet of the grave.”—(From the Tr. N. S. S., 1875–76. Appendix v.)

7.—Anonymous Article, in the _Birmingham Daily Post_ of September 29, 1877, headed “General Grant at Stratford-upon-Avon,” in the course of which Dr. Collis, the Vicar of the church there, is reported to have made some indignant remarks upon Mr. Parker Norris’s article. “Having dilated upon the cool presumption of the author of the letter [article], Dr. Collis continued, that persons proposing such an experiment would have to walk over his prostrate body before they did it; adding that the writer even forgot to say, ‘if you please.’” The American party, however, do not appear to have seen the matter from Mr. Collis’s point of view.

8.—Anonymous Article, in the _Birmingham Town Crier_ of November, 1877; a skit upon Mr. Collis’s foolish speech. Beyond this censure, however, _nil de mortuo_. It is to be regretted that the worthy Vicar’s remains were not buried in the church, so that persons approaching the grave with a laudable purpose might meet the reverend gentleman’s views, and “walk over his prostrate body.”

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

10.—Anonymous Article in the New York _Nation_, of May 21, 1878, in which we read: “Is it sacrilegious to ask whether it is wholly impossible to verify the supposition that the Stratford bust is from a death-mask? Would not the present age permit a tender and reverential scientific examination of the grave of Shakespeare?”

11.—Anonymous Article in the _Atlantic Monthly_, of June, 1878, in the section entitled “The Contributors’ Club,” where it is said—“Since the time seems to have come when a man’s expression of his wishes with regard to what is to be done after his death is violently and persistently opposed by all who survive him, is it not a good opportunity to suggest that perhaps respect has been paid for a long enough time to the doggerel over Shakespeare’s grave?

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

When we consider how little we know of the great poet, and the possibility of finding something more by an examination of his tomb, it seems as if, with proper care, an investigation might be made that would possibly reward the trouble.” The writer concludes thus—“Is it not advisable, then, to avoid waiting till it is too late? That is to say, unless, as I may fear, it is too late already.”

12.—Warwickshire Man, A, in the _Argosy_, of Oct., 1879, in an article entitled, “How Shakespeare’s Skull was Stolen.” The _vraisemblance_ of this narrative is amazing. But for the poverty of the concluding portion, which is totally out of keeping with the foregoing part, one might almost accept this as a narrative of fact.

13.—GOWER, RONALD, in the _Antiquary_, of August, 1880, vol. ii, p. 63, “The Shakespeare Death-Mask,” concludes thus—“But how, may it be asked, can proof ever be had that this mask is actually that of Shakespeare? Indeed it can never be proved unless such an impossibility should occur as that a jury of matrons should undertake to view the opened grave at Stratford; they at any rate would not need to fear the curse that is written above his grave—for it says, ‘Cursed be _he_ (and not _she_), who stirs that sacred dust.’” This is a ‘new version’ of the time-honoured line. I note too that Lord Ronald reproduces the “legal friend’s” joke in Mr. Parker Norris’s article. But I do not say he ever saw it.

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

“The nearest approach to an excavation into the grave of Shakespeare was made in the summer of the year 1796, in digging a vault in the immediate locality, when an opening appeared which was presumed to indicate the commencement of the site of the bard’s remains. The most scrupulous care, however, was taken not to disturb the neighbouring earth in the slightest degree, the clerk having been placed there, until the brickwork of the adjoining vault was completed, to prevent any one making an examination. No relics whatever were visible through the small opening that thus presented itself, and as the poet was buried in the ground, not in a vault, the chancel earth, moreover, formerly absorbing a large degree of moisture, the great probability is that dust alone remains. This consideration may tend to discourage an irreverent opinion expressed by some, that it is due to the interests of science to unfold to the world the material abode which formerly held so great an intellect.” Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps has more faith in the alleged precaution than I have. Surely a needy clerk, with an itching palm, would be no match for a relic-hunter. May we not here read between the lines, _q. d._, ‘to allow any one to make free with the masonry and explore the sacred dust?’

15.—Anonymous Article in the _Birmingham Daily Gazette_, of December 17, 1880, headed “Excavations in the Church and Churchyard of Stratford-upon-Avon.” This repeats, on the authority of Washington Irving’s _Sketch Book_, the story recorded by Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps. It is an alarmist article, censuring the Vicar’s excavations, which were made indeed with a laudable purpose, but without the consent, or even the knowledge, of the Lay Impropriators of the Church.

16.—Anonymous Article in the Cincinnati _Commercial Gazette_, of May 26, 1883, headed “Shakspeare at Home,” where it is said “Nor should they [the antiquarians of England] rest until they have explored Shakspeare’s tomb. That this should be prevented by the doggerel engraved upon it, is unworthy of a scientific age. I have heard it suggested that if any documents were buried with Shakspeare, they would, by this time, have been destroyed by the moisture of the earth, but the grave is considerably above the level of the Avon, as I observed to-day, and even any traces connected with the form of the poet would be useful. His skull if still not turned to dust, should be preserved in the Royal College of Surgeons, as the apex of the climbing series of skeletons, from the microscopic to the divine.”

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

* * * * *

[Picture: Decorative graphic]

* * * * *

* * * * *

Printed by ROBERT BIRBECK, Birmingham.

FOOTNOTES

{1a} The corrigenda has been applied to this eBook. For example, in the book this phrase is “and its ancient tombs” but is corrected in the corrigenda to “and our ancient tombs”. DP.

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

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

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

{20} _Morning Chronicle_, March 18, 1799.

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

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

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

{23} It appears that the examiners omitted to utilize this unctuous mask for the purpose of taking a plaster cast: a default which, as we shall see, has been paralleled by those who conducted other examinations of the kind.

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

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

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

{27b} _Ibid_, ix, 132.

{29} The case of Dante has been recently alluded to, as if it were one of exhumation. But despite the efforts of the Florentines to recover the remains of their great poet, they still rest at Ravenna, in the grave in which they were deposited immediately after his death.

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

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

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

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

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

{37} There is no engraving by “Dunbar”: that name was Friswell’s mistake for Dunkarton. Boaden’s “absolute fac-simile” and “no difference whatever,” (_Inquiry_, 1. p., page 137) are expressions not borne out by the engravings. My old friend, the Rev. Charles Evans, Rector of Solihull, who possesses the almost unrivalled Marsh Collection of Engraved Portraits of Shakespeare, at my request compared Cooper’s engraving of the Croker portrait with those by Dunkarton, Earlom, and Turner, of the Janssen: and he writes: “In the Cooper the face is peaked, the beard more pointed, and the ruff different in the points.” After all, such differences may well be the creation of the engravers. I would fain know where the Croker portrait now is; and also that which belonged to the late Dr. Turton, Bishop of Ely.

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

{45} This is exactly as it stands upon the existing gravestone, not as it is reproduced by the writer in the _Atlantic Monthly_: the like as to the two lines of the epitaph in No. 6. The manuscript of Dowdall, referred to on p. 31 _ante_, is unfortunately modernized in _Traditionary Anecdotes_. He has, indeed ‘friend,’ and ‘these,’ as in the pamphlet version, but also ‘digg,’ and ‘inclosed.’ Dowdall, however, was a very inaccurate copyist. See fac-simile in Mr. J. O. Halliwell’s Folio Shakespeare, vol. i, inserted between pp. 78 and 79. The Dowdall manuscript does not give the epitaph in capitals, except the initials.