CHAPTER II.

Was there such a bi-literal inscription?

When the article, written by Mr. Black, appeared in The North American Review, it was at once met by the objection, that in the inscription upon the stone, which now rests over Shakspere's grave, there was no such commingling of large and small letters, as stated in Mr. Black's paper; and hence there was no cipher in it.

This is true. The inscription on the present gravestone is as follows:

AND CVRST BE HE Y MOVES MY BONES."

There is, of course, no possibility of applying Lord Bacon's bi-literal cipher to this stone, for all the letters are of the same size and character; and the bi-literal cipher, as its name indicates, depends upon a mixture of two different kinds of letters.

But these critics did not seem to know that the stone

now over the grave is not the stone placed there at the time of Shakspere's death.

This is clearly established by that high authority, J. O. Halliwell-Phillips, in his "Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare," p. 173. He says:

"The honors of repose, which have thus far been conceded to the poet's remains, have not been extended to the tomb-stone. The latter had, by the middle of the last century, sunk below the level of the floor, and, about fifty years ago, had become so much decayed as to suggest a vandalic order for its removal, and in its stead, to place a new slab, one which marks certainly the locality of Shakespeare's grave, and continues the record of the farewell lines, but indicates nothing more. The original memorial has wandered from its allotted station no one can tell whither, a sacrifice to the insane worship of prosaic neatness, that mischievous demon whose votaries nave practically destroyed so many of the priceless relics of ancient England and her gifted sons."

It being established, therefore, that the present stone is not the one originally placed over the grave, the question arises, did the latter contain such a mixture of small and large letters, as is represented in Mr. Black's article? There can be no doubt upon that point.

In Edmond Malone's edition of "The Plays and Poems of William Shakspere," published after his death, in 1821, the author says (Vol. II, p. 506):

"On his grave stone, underneath, is the following inscription, expressed, as Mr. Steevens observes, in an uncouth mixture of small and capital letters."

This is conclusive as to the bi-literal character of the original inscription. We not only have the statement

of Mr. Steevens that the inscription contains “an uncouth mixture of small and capital letters," but we have the fact further confirmed by the observation of Mr. Malone. And I need scarcely add that no commentators of Shakespeare, of their period, stood higher in public esteem, for pains-taking accuracy than Malone and Steevens.

CHAPTER III.

Was the Original Stone Contemporary With Shakspere's Death?

There is no reason to doubt that the original gravestone, with the bi-literal inscription, dated back to the time of Shakspere's death and burial.

Charles Knight, in his Biography of Shakspere, page 542, quotes the testimony of a witness who writes forty years after Shakspere's death, showing that the stone, with its inscription, was in existence at that time. He

says:

"In a plate to Dugdale's “Antiquities of Warwickshire,” first published in 1656, we have a representation of Shakspere's tomb, with the following: 'Neare the wall where this monument is erected lyeth a plain free-stone, underneath which his body is buried, with this epitaph,

'Good frend,'" etc.

Knight also quotes the testimony of a gentleman named Dowdall, who writes from Warwickshire in 1693. After describing the monument, on the side of the church, erected to the memory of Shakspere, and giving the inscription upon the face of it, Mr. Dowdall says:

"Near the wall where this monument is erected lies the plain free-stone, underneath which his body is buried, with this epitaph, made by himself a little before his death."

He then gives the epitaph, and subsequently adds:

"Not one for fear of the curse above-said dare touch his grave-stone, though his wife and daughters did earnestly desire to be laid in the same grave with him."

Mrs. Shakspere died in 1623, seven years after the death of her husband. It thus apppears, according to the tradition received by Mr. Dowdall, on his visit to Stratford, that not only was it believed that Shakspere himself wrote the epitaph; but that the inscribed stone was in existence seven years after his death, and that the curse was sufficient to prevent Mrs. Shakespere from being buried in the same grave with her husband.

It must be remembered that when "Dugdale's Antiquities of Warwickshire" was published, in 1656, Shakspere's daughter, Susanna, had been dead but seven years; and his second daughter, Judith, was still living. And when Dowdall repeated the tradition, that Shakspere had written the verses on the grave-stone, Shakspere's granddaughter, Elizabeth Barnard, had been dead only twentythree years.

Indeed, it has never been doubted that the grave-stone dated back to the time of Shakspere's burial; and the fact that Shakspere wrote the epitaph inscribed upon it has never been questioned until late years. Dowdall states that the authority for his statements was the clerk of the church; he says:

"The clarke that shew'd me this church is above 80 years old."