of the great Shakespear which lye interr'd in that church. The verses which, in his life-time, he ordered to be cut upon his tomb-stone, for his monument have others, are these which follow. . . . The little learning these verses contain would be a very strong argument of the want of it in the author, did not they carry something in them which stands in need of a comment. There is in this church a place which they call the bone-house, a repository for all bones they dig up, which are so many that they would load a great number of waggons. The poet, being willing to preserve his bones unmoved, lays a curse upon him that moves them, and haveing to do with clarks and sextons, for the most part a very ignorant sort of people, he decends to the meanest of their capacitys, and disrobes himself of that art which none of his cotemporaries wore in greater perfection. Nor has the design mist of its effect, for lest they should not onely draw this curse upon themselves, but also entail it upon their posterity, they have laid him full seventeen foot deep, deep enough to secure him.'1

Halliwell-Phillipps, who printed Hall's letter for private distribution in 1884, after remarking in his preface that no one could any longer doubt that Shakespeare from his death-bed expressed a wish that his bones should remain undisturbed, with reason adds: 'That wish must, indeed, have been fervently expressed. It was no mere casual observation that could have induced the family to take

1 From Halliwell-Phillipps' Outlines, vol. ii. p. 72. By permission of Messrs. Longmans & Co.

such unusual precautions for the security of the remains.' And in his 'Outlines' he says:-'Although few of us imagine that the homely lines on Shakespeare's gravestone were his own composition, there can be little doubt that they owe their position to an affectionate observance of one of his latest wishes. Destitute even of a nominal record, and placed in a line of descriptive and somewhat elaborate family memorials, it is difficult to believe that an inscription, so unique in its simplicity, could have another history. And it was, in all probability, the designedly complete isolation of these verses that suggested to his relatives the propriety of raising an eligible monument in the immediate vicinity, on the only spot, indeed, in which there could have been erected a cenotaph that harmonised with the associations of his grave.'1

The original grave-stone long since became much broken, and was replaced by a new one on which the same words were cut. So the grave remains to this day.

Is there anyone who would not require an explanation on first becoming acquainted with the lines on the slab over Shakespeare's grave? Hall, the noticer of 1694, required an explanation ; but when he learnt of the custom of digging up bones, he seems to have been satisfied: 'the poet being willing to preserve his bones unmoved lays a curse on him that moves them,' and the little art in the verses was accounted for by the fact that they were meant for the clerk and the sexton! Hall knew Shakespeare as an

1 Outlines, i. 281.

accomplished poet, who could have written, had he wished, more elegant lines; but it was too early in those days for Shakespeare to be known to everyone, above everything else, for his profound wisdom. Hall found out what caused the man who in the domain of art was a Virgil to write those rude lines; but what of the man who in nature was a Socrates, and such concern for his dead bones? Could there be two things more incompatible than the nature of Socrates and concern for dead bones? Almost as well could one be at once all-wise and all-foolish. Heraud says, 'There certainly is a discrepancy between the epitaph on the stone and these lines on the wall, which it is difficult to reconcile.' A discrepancy indeed; but a discrepancy that is now accounted for. For Shakespeare did wish to prevent the clerk and the sexton, and perhaps others too, from meddling with his grave; but he was concerned about other than dead bones; he was concerned about his precious work, and he did not wish that work to be blundered upon, but recovered only through understanding his nature as shown by him in the Sonnets. The grave has never been opened.

The monument, besides plainly asserting the nonaccount of dead bones, gives us very definite hints: on the cornice above the bust, the arms and crest of the poet are flanked by statues seated; the one on the left holds in its left hand an extinguished torch and rests its right on a skull, and seems to be saying, 'The light that was in this tabernacle has gone out.' The one on the right rests 1 Shakespeare's Inner Life, p. 427.

its left hand on the mound of earth on which it is seated and holds in its right a spade, and seems to be saying, 'But if you wish to have that light of his that can never go out-dig-here.'

Shortly after Shakespeare's death someone was concerned about moisture in the chancel earth: Shakespeare was buried in the chancel in 1616, and on July 16, 1619, the town council of Stratford-on-Avon passed the resolution Also yt is agreed that the Chamberlines shall bestow some charge towardes the keeping dry the chauncell at the High Church.' Who that someone was is seen from the following earlier resolutions:

'6 November, 1618: Also that a letter shalbe sent to Mr. Baker to searche what tyme the Collige whas dissolved, concerning which search Mr. Hall haith writ his letter.'

4 December, 1618: At this Hall yt is agreed that the Chamberleynes shall dischardge Mr. Rodgers from receyveing any more benefite by burials in the Chansell, and that the Chamberleynes shalle receyve it from henceforth towardes the repair of the Chansell, the High Churche, and also to demand of Mr. Rogers so much as he haith receyved within this last year.'

resolution of

The Mr. Baker mentioned in the November 6, 1618, was the town council's legal adviser, and Mr. Hall was Shakespeare's son-in-law. The Mr. Rodgers of the resolution of December 4, 1618, was the vicar. The College concerning the dissolution of which Dr. Hall desired information, was a college or chapter of

priests founded as a chantry in connection with the church in 1332. The chantry priests became possessed of the patronage, and so the full control of the church, in 1337. In 1351 there was built for them a 'house of stone' which became known as the College of Stratford. The College was finally suppressed in 1547, and in 1553 much of its property and many of its rights passed to the municipal corporation, which was instituted in that year by charter.1

The question of the respective rights of the vicar and the corporation was revived in the time of a new vicar, Thomas Wilson, and Dr. Hall was again concerned, as shown by the following resolutions:

17 April, 1634: At this Hall it is agreed that the sutts brought agaynst the Bayliff and Burgesses shall be defended, and that the Bayliffe and Burgesses shall and may commence such suttes agaynst Mr. Hall and Mr. Wilson or other their adversaries, as they shall be devised by Counsell.'

'26 May, 1634: Att this Hall Mr. Bailiffe all the Aldermen and Burgisses here present promised to joyne in an answere to a Bill in Chauncerye exhibited against them, defendants, at the suit of Thomas Wilson, Vicar, and John Hall gent., plaintiffs.'

'26 May, 1634: Yt is ordered that Mr. Wilson shall not have nor keepe the key of the Chauncell doore in the

1 See Jordan, Original collections on Shakespeare and Stratford, written about 1780, published 1864; Bloom, Shakespeare's Church; Lee, Stratford-on-Avon to the death of Shakespeare.

L