(1921) A Critical Review of the Shakespeare Mortuary Malediction and the Seventeen-Foot Grave

8/14/2019 (1921) A Critical Review of the Shakespeare Mortuary Malediction and the Seventeen-Foot Grave

1/44


2/44

GIFT OF


3/44


4/44


5/44


6/44


7/44

A CRITICAL REVIEW OF

The Shakspere Mortuary MaledictionAND

THE SEVENTEEN-FOOT GRAVE

BYWILLIAM HALL CHAPMAN


8/44

Giles Publishing & Printing Co.Los Angeles, California

COPYRIGHTEDMCMXXIWM. H. CHAPMAN

1720 HUDSON AVE.kO* ANCELES.CAU . O. S. As,


9/44

FOREWORD

I refer to Shakspere, of Stratford, to recognize theform of the spelling of the name according to the waythe owner of the name spelled it when he signed him-self William Shakspere, there are no exceptions inhis autographs. But writing "Shakespeare," whereI am speaking of the author of the Plays and Poems,I have kindly employed the term "8tratfordian"ltti\ldesignate the persons who assert that the Player" was ,the Playwright.

WM. H. CHAPMAN1720 HUDSON AVB.LOS ANQEl.ES.CAL., U.S. A.

446040


10/44


11/44

THE SHAKSPERE MORTUARY MALEDIC-TION AND THE SEVENTEEN-

FOOT GRAVEThere are two significant facts connected with

William Shakspere's interment in Holy TrinityChurch, Stratford-on-Avon.First (1). Is the authenticity of Shakspere's

mortuary malediction, which is epigraphed onstone, and placed beneath the consecrated roof ofan edifice dedicated to Christian worship, as un-questionably his own composition, or chosen byhimself for his epitaph, entitled to acceptance asbeing true, or in accordance with concurrent facts,and a record of Shakspere's own wishes, an in-struction that the lines be inscribed on his grave-stone.

Secondly (2). The other statement of absorb-ing interest transmitted by way of an early tra-dition that "they have laid him full iseventeten-footdeep, deep enough to secure him," contained in aletter written by William Hall, a Queen's man ofOxford, in the year 1694, to his friend the dis-tinguished philologist, Mr. Edward Thwaites.The Oxford graduate's statement has long beenregarded as one of the traditionary reveries, butnow well within the sphere of probability, and as


12/44

truth we think should carry conviction.Inasmuch as a very deep grave is protection, itsupplements the mortuary malediction cut on thegrave stone, which is also protective. For thelines spook the would-be superstitious exhuma-tionist you are "blessed if you do and damned ifyou don't!" The credibleness, (significance, andforce of these facts are set forth in the StratfordMunicipal Corporation's archives. Its authorityput the government of the whole town in the handsof its inhabitants. For here we may look throughShakspere's whole conduct during this struggle(1614-1618) in behalf of popular rights by thecouncillors who were determined to "preservetheir inheritance" as the heirs and successors ofthe original fraternity, dissolved by Henry VIIIin 1547. It was during the reign of Edward VI,by whose charter of incorporation, dated June 7,1553, "the common field" passed to the town.Our business, however, is to see Shakspere ashe stood in relation to the Stratford Corporation.So let me begin by asking the reader's attentionto a few facts.

In the first place we learn from the Stratfordrecords that rioting continued intermittently atStratford from the autumn of 1614 to the begin-ning of 1619 over the attempted enclosure of thecommon fields on the confines of the town. In thisconnection we shall find nothing but what is dis-creditable to William Shakspere of Stratford (poetor not) , for on December 23, 1614, the Councillorsaddressed a letter of remonstrance to him on the


13/44

subject, which is an enduring attestation ,of; artevent for wrong doing evinced by his 'unlawfulpurposes to enclose the common fields. Instead ofa friendly disposition towards the people ultimatecondemnation furnished an index of characterforeshadowing the mortuary malediction chiseledon his tombstone. Of this he is clearly convictedby the evidence in the opinion of all unbiased per-sons as one associated with three other land-crib-bers, William and Thomas Combe, and ArthurMainwaring, who had the audacity to question theLord Chief Justice, Sir Edward Coke's, authorityto declare that the resistance to the corporation"is against the law of the realm."Notwithstanding Sir Edward Coke reiterated his

warning from the bench at Warwick, Shakspere,by his opposition to the Councillors, his continuedhostility and injustice, had brought down thiscalamity upon the townsfolk. We learn from thebailiff of Stratford, Francis Smythe, senior, thatthe horrors before known, the miserable inhab-itants flying from their flaming village, were ten-derness as compared to that new injury, the at-tempted enclosures of 1614-1618, the beginning ofwhich William Shakspere, of Stratford, saw andpart of which hv was particips criminis, in 1614-1616. Be it remembered that of the four principaldisturbers of the local peace, William Shaksperewas the only one who had gone down to the graveduring the insurrection. If William and ThomasCombe had gone out of life while the riot ragedthey, too, would, in all probability, have been


14/44


15/44

well, the writer's cousin, in which he describesWilliam Shakspere's epitaph as "near the wallwhere his body is buried with his epitaph made byhimself a little before his death." Mr. DowdalFsstatement at the time of his visit on April 10th,1693, to Holy Trinity Church, Stratford, is theoldest testimony in existence of facts about Shak-spere's authorship of the imprecation inscribed onhis tomb.

In connection with Mr. John Dowdall's descrip-tion should be read the account in the followingyear, 1694, of Mr. William Hall, a man of letters,who took his M. A. degree in July, 1697, who be-came a doctor of divinity in 1708. William Hall'sletter, found at the Bodleian Library in 1884, waswritten in the year 1694 to his friend, EdwardThwaites, also a Queen's man of special learning,a noted Anglo-Saxon scholar, an eminent philolo-gist. Mr. William Hall, the Oxford graduate, isalso sponsor for an early tradition of the utmosttraditionary importance, "they have laid himfull seventeen foot deep, deep enough to securehim."

William Hall writes:"Dear Neddy: I very greedily embrace thisoccasion of acquainting you with somethingwhich I found at Stratford-upon-Avon. Thatplace I came unto on Thursday night, and thenext day went to visit the ashes of the1 greatShakespeare which lie interned in thatchurch. The verses which in his lifetime heordered to be cut upon his tombstone for his

11


16/44

monument have others there which follow:'Reader for Jesus sake forbearTo dig the dust enclosed here ;Blessed be he that spares these stones,And cursed be he that moves my bones.*

The little learning these verses containwould be a very strong argument of the wantof it in the author did they not carry some-thing in them which stands in need of a com-ment. There is in this church a place whichthey call the 'bone-house,' a repository forbones they dig up which are so many thatthey would load a great number of waggons.The poet being willing to preserve hisbones unmoved lays a curse upon him thatmoves them, and having to do with clerksand sextons, for the most part a very ig-norant sort of people, he descended to theirmeanest capacity and disrobes himself of thatart which none of his co-temporaries worein greater perfection. Nor has the designmist of its effect for lest they should notonly draw this curse upon themselves butalso entail it upon their posterity, theyhave laid him full seventeen foot deep, deepenough to secure him."

However, the Oxford graduate's letter to hisfriend brings to light his misapprehension of themeaning or true interpretation of the epitaph in-asmuch as the spook lines were not addressed toclerks and sextons, for they were not the custo-dians of the graves in the chancel of TrinityChurch. But the scholarly vicar of Stratford-on-Avon is the custodian of Shakspere's grave and the12


17/44

monumental bust commemorative of him and allother graves and monuments in the chancel andchurchyard. His consent to the disintermentwould be necessary before anything could be doneby any exhumationist, except by mob force,for in England the vicar holds undisputed swayover his church and churchyard. And then, too,William Hall ought to have known that the customof throwing bones into a repository called a bone-house was discontinued at the Reformation. Therehad been no enlargement of the channel vaultssince Shakspere's birth. William Hall's letter tohis college confidant also disclosed the fact as tothe statements of all visitors at Stratford in theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries that he hadfailed to examine the archives of the StratfordCorporation, the official papers. There is nothingto show in his account, that there had been in-surrection or rioting at the time of Shakspere'sdeath in 1616.How much there is in the life of Will Shaksperethat stands in need of comment, especially from aliterary point of view, for all we have are six sig-natures in no way connected with any literarysubject-matter "only this, and nothing more!"

So then to disabuse the mind of the reader ofthe doggerel lines of the impression that the au-thor was an ignoramus, Mr. William Hall is con-strained to shirk out of the difficulty by assumingthat Shakspere wrote like a numskull "down tothe meanest capacity" of the ignorant and super-

is


18/44

stitious townsfolk who were persuaded that theepitaph was the voice of the dead.Shakspere knew that the would-be exhumation-

ist of that day were the townsfolk, his neighbors,and could have had no fear that his tomb wouldbe violated by the janitor of a church. But he wasin a state of apprehension fearful of the townsfolkwith whom he and his confederates were at thetime engaged in a pitched battle, assailing thealdermen with blows. The women of Stratford,hearing the battle cry, rushed to the battle front,

the neighboring common-fields at Welcombe,and battled there with shovel and hoe for the com-mon weal.However, the solid fact is that Mr. William Hall

in 1694, traditioned the generally received opin-ions of the townspeople at the time of his visitthat Shakspere ordered the lines chiseled on histombstone, and also states the oral tradition aboutthe depth of his grave.The sponsorship of the two young men, Dow-dall and Hall, as a matter of fact make them-selves responsible for the early tradition that thespook lines were his own composition. Naught hasever subsequently occurred to weaken this. Inthese statements we have a basis for the proofthey supply, the best authentication that the male-dictory lines were authorized by William Shaks-pere and by him ordered to be cut upon his tomb-stone, the one solid ground, something better thanthe quagmire upon which rests most of the so-called Shakspere tradition. At any rate, Mr.14


19/44

William Hall, in the matter of the depth of Shak-spere's grave, has indeed secured the positive in-formation available on the subject of Shakspere'sinterment seventy-eight years, after his death.Furthermore, William Hall may have met someperson at the time of his visit to Stratford in1694 who assisted at the burial of William Shaks-pere. This fact is made probable by the great ageof my genial neighbor, Senator Cornelius Cole, ofCalifornia, now in his ninety-ninth year, and solesurvivor of the Congress that sat during Lincoln'sadministration. Had Senator Cole been born inthe seventeenth century instead of the nineteenth,the long period of his life would take in the year1579 as his birth year, and the year 1694, the yearof the Oxford graduate, William Hall's, visit toStratford seventy-eight years after Shakspere'sinterment. Senator Cole's memory might touchthe two extremities, he would in 1616, the yearin which Shakspere closed his eyes in death, afldwas buried in the chancel of Trinity Church. Andhaving attained the age of twenty-one years at thetime of Shakspere's interment, Cornelius Colecould have assisted at the burial of Shakspereseventy-eight years before.However, William Hall's statement is acceptable

to Sir Sidney Lee who writes: "As it was thegrave was made seventeen foot deep, and wasnever opened even to receive his wife although sheexpressed the desire to be buried with her hus-band."Mr. William Winter felt that the lines inscribed

15


20/44

on Shakespere's gravestone "were unquestionablythe utterance of Shakspere himself." He tells usthat the tradition is as old as 1693, and that''nothing has ever since occurred to shake it."And, continues this stalwart Strathfordian : "Theknown fact of her husband having penned the lineswas the sole preventive cause of her interment inhis grave." In a word, the scare of the to-be-expected moving of Shakspere's bones while theriot raged was the cause of the barring out of hiswife's bones.So we see that it is not the depth of his grave

alone that secures him, although as a deterrent itis the very counterpart of the scare-crowish epi-taph which convinced the ignorant and easily de-ceived people of that day that this frightful male-diction was and is the effect of a spook-scare nowmore than three hundred years old, invoking a de-parted spirit to deter and terrify the living froman investigation to discover and preserve from de-cay whatever is in that grave. Still, it is not aquestion of recovery of Shakspere's remains butof their discovery.And here let me give my explanation of the rea-son why interments and inscriptions did not follow

each other in chronological, order, not generallyunderstood by Shakspere's biographers. The factseems to be for the sole purpose of keeping secretthe exact place of his grave. We are by no meanssure that there are any bones at all under the slab.His name does not appear upon the gravestonesupposed to be his. So far as anyone knows there16


21/44

is not now and never has been an item of proofthat he was buried there. Shakspere died and wasburied in 1616. His wife died and was buriedin 1623, yet her gravestone takes antecedence inthe row of gravestones of the Shakspere familyimmediately beneath the Shakspere bust. On eachof these stones William Shakspere exceptedthe usual inscription appears, "Here lyeth thebody/' etc. We conjecture that Shakspere was bur-ied in reality next the wall, although seeminglybelow the curse-inscribed slab. Our supposition isin conformity and fitness with the reasonablehypothesis assumed that Shakspere's burial, in thechancel of Trinity, was secret and at dead of night,and may be put forth tentatively as a basis forinvestigation, helpful in reaching the true infor-mation, the exact place of his sepulchre.We are of the opinion that if William Shaks-pere's body is ever discovered in the course of theexcavations, it will be found next the wall belowthe remains of his wife. Tradition says that "sheearnestly desired to be buried in her husband'sgrave." Dr. John Hall, who knew the exact placeof his father-in-law's grave, and could not havebeen scared, even if not at the very time con-cerned therin, by a blustering ghost, may havegranted his mother-in-law's request in not actuallymaking a breach into the grave pointed out asShakspere's. The people of that day were led tobelieve that his grave, "so awfully guarded by amalediction," had not been opened up at the bur-ial of his wife.

17


22/44

In the opinion of a few individuals, the churchpeople did not feel that "the ashes of an actorwere fit to lie in that sacred chancel." In sup-port of this statement there is not a shred of evi-dence, m'ere guess work, shaded with the color-ing of their own thoughts, "for the chancel ofTrinity was then the legal and customary burialplace of the owners of the tithes" its lay rec-tors. This gave Shakspere, the tithes owner, theright of interment in the chancel of Trinity.Shakspere passed away in opulence, but withoutany contemporary observations. And, further-more, Shakspere was almost always in affiliationwith church people. He came into intimate relationwith a wigmaker, one Mountjoy, of the Huguenotfaith, the then new evangel, from 1598-1604.Shakspere was then living in the Mountjoy shophouse in "Silver street, London Ben Jonsonstyles it as "Silver Street, the region of money,a good seat for an usurer." (See Dr. C. W. Wal-lace, his researches.)Somehow the credit of an insatiable money-hun-ger has always been his, while not himself a manof Puritan leanings, his son-in-law, Dr. John Hall,was a Puritan. His strongly attached friends wereamong the Puritan clergy. One of their numberwas entertained at New Place, Shakspere's dwell-ing in the Spring of 1614. Dr. John HalPs personalsympathetic affections for the Puritan is unmis-takable. He was Vicar's warden, and he presentedto the church a new and highly-carved pulpit.The Shaksperes of Stratford-on-Avon strike one


23/44

as being predisposed to disorder, for several mem-bers of the family embroiled the townspeople inShakspere's lifetime as the bare recital of thetaiwill show. Three members were charged with be-ing disorderly. Dr. John Hall, as a member of thetown council, was fined in October, 1633, for per-sistent non-attendance, and he was finally expelledfor non-observance and for his oft-repeated dis-turbance at the meetings. Shakspere's second andyoungest son-in-law, Thomas Quiney, was twicefined, once for using profane language and forkeeping a disorderly house, and again for his in-fraction of the marriage law in his wedding withShakspere's youngest daughter, Judith, withouta license. On Feb. 10, 1616, they were fined and adecree of excommunication was issued by the Ec-clesiastical Court at Worcester. So it would seemthat Thomas Quiney was not "deeply read in theOracle of God," nor that "his worst fault is thathe is given to prayer."

Early in the 17th century swearing was rigor-ously prohibited. Still, the playmakers seeminglyhad great difficulty in keeping swear words out oftheir plays, often interpolated by the players, BenJonson being charged with blasphemy. "The'Magnetic Lady' is void of all offense, yet for theprofane language of this play the author thensick in bed was questioned by the Master of theRevels and it was not until the performers wereconfronted with him they confessed themselves."

However, Shakspere was also a disturber of thelocal peace as an assistant and supporter of the

19


24/44

notorious land cribbers, William and ThomasCombe, with whom he was actively associated inthe oppression of the townfoik in the battle of theEnclosure of Common Fields at Welcombe, a sub-urb, in 1614-1618, and would doubtless have beenfined had not death intervened in 1616, for Shaks-pere's conduct "defied the law of the realm." Nota single fact relating to the burial of Shakspere ;not a single recorded word in regard to the lastoffices of his remains, or transient observationsfrom a single one who came into personal associa-tion with him ; not even glanced at by his son-in-law, Dr. John Hall, in any of his medical writings.How inexplicable if the Stratford actor was theauthor !

But our business is to see what the man Shaks-pere, of Stratford, saw, and to see the meaningof them in the cause of the event which the curse-inscribed gravestones is the 'effect. Although thetime of the events of 1614-1616 is past, its dustyrecords remain as witnesses in the Stratfordarchives and are deducible from the events in itsearly times for our comprehension of them. Theexecrative epitaph, cut on Shakspere's tomb, is acriminating memorial of his attempt to gain pos-session of the Stratford Common fields.

However, would Shakspere, if sentient now, de-sire the good people of Stratford (whether he wasor was not the poet) to keep inviolate his last ex-action, the maledictory wish expressed and epi-graphed while in the extremity of fear? But ratherthat the maintenance or preservation would not20


25/44

meet his wishes, instead would decree that hisgrave beneath a consecrated roof, dedicated toChristian worship, shall be no longer guarded bymalediction. As in fact there is epitaphed beneaththe consecrated roof of Holy Trinity Church theonly mortuary malediction contained in an edificededicated to Christian worship, a memorial stoneof the dead on which is chiseled the avowal of afearful principle a rule of action proclaimed so op-posite in sentiment and feeling to a better human-ity "the gospel of peace on earth and good willtoward men." That principle which is repellantalso to ancient religious feeling save at altars ofhuman sacrifice that were created to propitiatethe Deity in the ages when he was universally un-derstood to be a God of vengeance, a Being acces-sible only to cringing supplication and worshipedby sacrifice.

Mrs. C. C. Stopes, who is manifestly ashamed of"the authorship of the doggerel lines cut on histomb," shifts the responsibility from Shakspereto the stonecutter, tells us that Shakspere's epi-taph was probably a part of the stock in trade ofthe stonecutters, but the cultured lady refrainsfrom quoting another specimen of the "stonecut-ter's doggerel stock-in-trade," although convincedthat Shakspere did not actually write them, inwhich case somebody else must have written themwith the approval or sanction of Shakspere or hisfamily. At all events the burden of proving thatShakspere did not write the lines cut on his sup-posed tombstone rests upon those who say he did

21


26/44

not write them. The idolatrous Stratfordian is indifficulties.For Shakspere's friends placed the slab they hadprepared at the time of the burial in 1616 where itnow rests. Dowdall tells us that the slab lay on

his grave in 1693. Hall saw it there in 1694, and itis seen today on his supposed grave where it wasplaced more than three hundred years ago. Butthe most pertinent of all questions for an answerto the purpose is, Who should wish or would dare,or be permitted to chisel, a malediction uponShakspere's gravestone without his authority andthe countenance of Shakspere's family ?Now we do not scruple to affirm responsi-bility for the curse-inscribed slab resting on thegrave pointed out as Shakspere's in the chancel ofHoly Trinity, for the events of 1614-1616 pointunerringly at Wiliam Shakspere who rioted in1614-1616 against the peace of the townspeopleand the government of the realm, Dr. John Halland the Vicar of Stratford-on-Avon aiding andabetting the design of the author of the lines toprevent disinterment by the people.

Dr. John Hall, who survived his father-in-law,William Shakspere, nineteen years, as a knowingman, would naturally have felt that considerablesupervisory care of family interest would devolveupon himself. The members of the Shaksperefamily, for the most part, were destitute of edu-cation. And inasmuch as Shakspere had been oneof the rioters, he felt that his bones should haveall the protection that a malediction could give. Of22


27/44

course this was to be expected so long as riotraged.But why was the curse-inscribed stone not re-

moved from Shakspere's grave in 1619 after alldanger of disinterment by the townspeople hadpassed ? For authority had, on or before this time,suppressed the insurrection, compelling the sur-viving rioters of 1614-1618, (Shakspere dying in1616) to fall on their knees, beg for mercy, paythe fine imposed, and restore the common-lands tothe condition in which they were in 1614. We an-swer then that the inference would naturally bethat whatever opinion Dr. John Hall may haveheld respecting the authorship of the lines, heknew they express Shakspere's wishes, for had heheld the contrary opinion, the curse-inscribedslab would have been pitched forthwith into theAvon that flows close to the walls of Trinity.Exhumations were common, we read, when inthe year 1905 was found the body of the valorousAdmiral John Paul Jones, the American Ambassa-dor to France, General Horace Porter, having beensix years seeking to locate the remains of one ofthe greatest sea fighters of history. The discov-ered remains were positively identified and wereexhumed after his body had been buried for morethan 100 years in the old-abandoned cemetery ofSaint Luis, in the City of Paris.

Dr. Inglesby, a votarist of Shakspere, himselfa life trustee of the tomb which he thought wasthat of the poet, many years ago very respect-fully demanded that the grave be opened, and all

28


28/44

the means of science be employed for the betterpreservation of the mortal remains.

Oliver Wendell Holmes was also an earnest ad-vocate of the view taken by Dr. Inglesby that itwas a paramount duty that Shakspere's grave beopened to repair to make amends for three hun-dred years of neglect. But with equal seriousnessHalliwell-Phillips, protesting against the proposeddisinterment, says :

"If a skull were found in the grave, and itsformation corresponded with the monumentalbust, there would be merely a confirmationof our present knowledge. If, on the con-trary, the formation did not so correspond,the inference would naturally be that it wasnot Shakespeare's, the evidence of the bustaltogether outweighing that of a particularskull found in th'e grave."

But it all depends where a particular skull isfound, whether on the six-foot or seventeen-footlevel. Mr. Phillips assumes that Shakspere's bonesrest on a common level, as do the remains of allhis fellow townspeople buried in the chancel. Butif a skull were found "full seventeen feet deep,"no matter what the state of affairs attendant uponShakspere's interment, the great depth at whicha particular skull is found will serve as proof foridentification, the evidence of the skull whollyoutweighing that of the monumental bust and ac-credited portrait.What may be called "aspiring families ofwealth" have almost exclusive possession of the

24


29/44

chancel space in Holy Trinity. John Combe, whowas laid to rest in Trinity Church with much for-mality the 10th day of July, 1614, from whomShakspere inherited five pounds, like his old friend,was a "hard creditor."The Combes, Uncle John and his nephew, Will-

iam, and Thomas, were very wealthy and, likeWililam Shakspere, notorious for their harsh, un-feeling method of treating indigent debtors in"spacious times," when imprisonment for debt wasin practice. But for all that Uncle John Combe,during more than 300 years, and being still with-out the malediction's protection, rests in his fam-ily monument in Holy Trinity. We know why theusurer's bones were in no danger of violent re-moval, seeing that he was not like Shakspere en-gaged in land cribbing against the public wealwhen the summons came to lay him in the grave.John Combe's will, preserved in Somerset House,directed that he be interred in Stratford Church"near the place where my mother was buried."The old man's childhood memories hold firmly.The saddest audible expression of sorrow,wrung from the human heart, comes from the oldand lonely. They hear their mother calling, call-ing, gently calling, "come, my child." ThomasCarlyle, dying, cried, "I want me mither!" Lin-coln said : "All I am and all I hope to be I owe tomy mother." Henry Clay, dying, an old man,cried three times "mother!""Backward, turn backward, Time in your flight,Make me a child again, just for tonight."

25


30/44

"One of the most pathetic facts of life is thatsometimes one does not get acquainted withmother until she is dead."

Howells said: 'A man never sees all that hismother has been to him until it's too late to lether know that he sees it."A Jewish saying: "God could not be every-where, and therefore He made mothers."However, the terms of the will of John Combe

show a charitable impulse towards his numerouskinfolk and Stratford neighbors, and of course heshould get the advantage of that kind considera-tion which the good people of Stratford have forthe dead. However, the casualties of the old bach-elor's life were few. As a converse instance, with-in two months after their uncle, John Combe'sdeath, William and Thomas Combe, associatedwith William Shakspere and Arthur Mainwaring,set on foot an insurrection 1614-1618.

Still, we are not accusing them in their graves.The dead are no longer hated. William Combe,for nearly half a century after his defeat, hadlived in peaceful relations with the townspeople.He died at Stratford on January 30, 1666-7, at theage of eighty and was buried in Trinity Churchwhere a monument commemorates him with hiswife, a son, and nine daughters. Unlike that ofhis former associate, William Shakspere, his tombbore no shuddering fear. His dreamless dust restsand has rested with those he loved and with thosewho loved him.26


31/44

Compare and contrast also Thomas Combe withWilliam Shakspere in his impartiality and freedomfrom bias in the treatment of wife and children.Thomas Combe appointed by his will the sum offour hundred pounds as the marriage portion ofeach of his two daughters, without favor or pref-erence, both are treated alike. Shakspere was notso equitable in his treatment of his two daughters.His bequest to his youngest daughter, Judith, wascontemptible in comparison with the munificentlegacy bestowed on her sister. Of his three chil-dren but one, his favorite daughter, Susanna, wasburied in Trinity Church.

Shakspere distributed his vast property withmuch partiality, the elder daughter receiving, un-der the terms of the will, as a matter of fact al-most all of Shakspere's estate, all the lands, mes-suages, tenements, barns, and gardens at and nearStratford, together with Shakspere's interest inthe tithes and the house in Blackfriars, London.The conveyance of the Blackfriars estate to Will-iam Shakspere in 1613 shows that he had barredhis wife's dower. Shakspere had taken steps toprevent her individual ownership of her home,New Place, also from the benefit or use of thehousehold furniture and personal belongings.

Sir Sidney Lee writes : "Such procedure is pret-ty conclusive proof that he (Shakspere) had theintention of excluding her from the enjoyment ofhis possessions after his death." By the way, SirSidney Lee was of the orthodox, or Stratfordian,faith."

27


32/44

The afterthought legacy of his "second bestbed" to his wife and the barring of her dower anddiscriminating apportionment of his estate underthe terms of the will, should be accepted as hav-ing been proved that Shakspere was not an affec-tionate husband.By way of contrast read Sir Thomas Lucy's

tribute to his wife, a model of all womanly vir-tues, which he epigraphed on stone and placedover her tomb. It tells the story of their love, andreveals the gentle nature of her husband (SirThomas Lucy) a nature grateful and lovable.But suddenly the parting summons comes to

Shakspere in early Spring at Stratford in 1616.And probably at "noon of night" they bore him tothat quiet resting place. Here he lies, "dust todust," without, apparently, public notice; certain-ly there was no ceremonious funeral. A few de-jected friends, the mourners for the dead, assem-ble in the dismal shadows of the chancel of Trin-ity Church to lay him in the grave. He was notthen shrined in the loving memory of the towns-people. No poet had wailed a dirge for Shakspereof Stratford-on-Avon. Obituary silence! "Merelythis and nothing more."As the imprecating lines inscribed on his chan-cel grave attest, Washington Irving writes, "lineswhich have in them something extremely awful."But the grave had already been opened up in the

chancel of Trinity Church, not without consider-able difficulty if his grave was dug seventeen feetdeep. For, inasmuch as the Avon runs close to28


33/44

the walls of Trinity ( its surface not more thanthree or four feet below the chancel floor, the in-flow through the seepy ground considerable and,of course, buckets were used to bail out the waterif pumps were not in use at Stratford. To all ap-pearance they sunk his grave as low as they couldwith safety. Without retaining walls there wasdanger of caving, for Shakspere was buried in theground, not in a vault. Nevertheless, the depthof his grave, which may easily be determined bysinking a shaft on the outside of the wall of Trin-ity to the seventeen-foot level and tunneling madein order to locate his grave ; or, if necessary, cross-cut. The condition of the ground at the tunnelwould disclose the approach to his grave, "movingmy bones" not being an essential requisite in de-termining the measure of Shakspere's grave.At any rate, Wililam Hall, a Queen's man, Ox-ford, seems to state the tradition with exactnessand true-heartedness :The probable cause of Shakspere's untimely

death was the unsanitary situation at Stratfordits fetid pools of stagnant water, full of refuse,wallowing swine and carrion crows :

"Thus like the sad presaging raven that tollsThe sick man's passport in her hollow beakAnd, in the shadow of the silent night,Doth shake contagion from h'ef sable wings."'The most dirty, unseemly, ill-paved, wretched-

looking town in all Britain," is David Garrick's un-savory description of Stratford at the time of thejubilee in 1769."


34/44

The sanitary condition of Stratford in Shak-spere's day, and for many generations, was sim-ply terrible. Here is the proof:The vicarage of Stratford-on-Avon was heldfrom 1619 to 1638, or, according to Wheler's Cata-

logue, till 1640, by the Rev. Thomas Wilson, B.D.He was suspended for three months from 5thJune, 1635, by Archbishop Laud, Vicar-General,for being "notorious." He incurs disgrace for al-lowing his children to play at ball and other gamesin the house of worship, himself hiking about thechurch in time of divine service; for suffering hishogs to snuggle in the chancel of Holy Trinity andhis fowls to roost there.The cock's clarion note may have been heardfrom a perch upon the bust of Shakspere just

above the chancel floor a sordid place of wor-ship, indeed ! Who would have thought it when inthe year of Dr. John Hall's death in 1635 thequack of the duck, the raucous throat-tones of thegoose, and the squawk of the barnyard fowls wereheard in the chancel of Holy Trinity Church !However, the Columbus who discovered Strat-

ford-on-Avon was the great American showman,Phineas Taylor Barnum, by offering to buy theso-called Shakspere cottage (his birth-place),wreck it, and send it to America. It did not sig-nify much to Barnum that, as a matter of truththe old cottage did not rest historically on thesolid ground of authenticated fact, but upon thequagmire of guesswork. The opinion that Shaks-pere was not born in the house called the birth-30


35/44

place, has been held by persons whose opinionsdeserve the utmost consideration. The acceptedstuff of Shakspere's birthplace, and that of hiswife, in relation to the Hathaway Cottage, arebiographic legends. It was this shrewd cleverAmerican who yankeeized Stratford into a greatshowplace. It was he who woke up the relic-mon-gers of Stratford to the fact that it were better tokeep the old cottage and bogus Shakspere relicsto fool and fleece the gaping thousands who visitStratford every year. It was an oft-repeated say-ing of Barnum's that "the people liked to befooled." Or, as Makenzie puts it : "Mankind in thegross is a gaping monster that loves to be de-ceived and has seldom been disappointed." There isa native tendency of men to lend a qualifying ob-servation to deception; they receive with favor afalse opinion about a matter of fact.

Sir George Greenwood is right in saying that"the delusions are based upon prejudice and pre-conceived ideas, and die very hard."

Delusions based upon prejudice are not traceablein the soul of Abraham Lincoln who said:

"If ever I feel the soul within me elevateand expand to those dimensions not whollyunworthy of its Almighty Architect, it iswhen I contemplate the cause of my country,deserted by all the world besides, and I stand-ing up boldly and alone hurling defiance ather victorious oppressors. Here, before con-templating consequences before high Heaven,and in the face of the world, I swear eternalfidelity to the just cause as I deem it, of the

31


36/44

land of my life, my liberty and my love. Ido the very best I know how, the very bestI can, and I mean to keep doing so till the end.If the end brings me out all right, what issaid against me won't amount to anything.If the end brings me out wrong, ten angelsswearing I was right would make no differ-ence. Let us have faith that right makesmight, and in that faith let us to the end doour duty as we understand it."

Mrs. Ellen Huntington Gates has crystallizedinto verse the spirit of Lincoln.

"YOUR MISSION""If you cannot on the ocean

Sail among the swiftest fleet,Rocking on the highest billow,Laughing at the 1 storms you meet,You can stand among the sailors,Anchored yet within the bay,You can lend a hand to help them,As they launch their boats away.

"If you are too weak to journeyUp the mountain, steep and high,You can stand within the valleyWhere the multitudes go by.You can chant in happy measureAs they slowly pass along ;Though they may forget the singer,They will not forget the song.

"If you cannot, in the harvest,Gather up the richest sheaves,Many a grain both ripe and goldenOft the careless reaper leaves

32


37/44

Go and glean among the briarsGrowing rank against the wall,For it may be that their shadowHides the heaviest wheat of all.

"If you have not gold and silverEver ready to command ;If you cannot toward the needyReach an ever-open hand;You can visit the afflicted,O'er the erring you can weep,With the Saviour's true disciples,You a patient watch may keep.

"If you cannot in the conflictProve yourself a soldier true,If where fire and smoke are thickest

There's no work for you to do ;When the battle field is silent,You can go with careful tread,You can bear away the wounded,You can cover up the dead.

"Do not then stand idly waitingFor some greater work to do ;Fortune is a lazy goddess,She will never come to you.Go and toil in any vineyard,Do not fear to do or dare,If you want a field of labor,You can find it anywhere."

33

Wit. H. CHAPMAN9720 HUDSON AV*.** ANGELES, CA1. , U. 8. A.


38/44


39/44


40/44


41/44


42/44


43/44

Mi

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY


44/44

(1921) A Critical Review of the Shakespeare Mortuary Malediction and the Seventeen-Foot Grave

Documents

Transcript of (1921) A Critical Review of the Shakespeare Mortuary Malediction and the Seventeen-Foot Grave