used at the date inscribed on it, and there is no reason to suppose that they were put there at a later date.

The same inscription is also to be seen on two other angles in the interior of the Mask. Here they have not been touched by persons handling the cast, and they are in a better state of preservation than those first referred to, which are more exposed.

The surface of the Mask represents the pores of the skin with the greatest accuracy, and the incised lines which appear in the moustache and chin beard are those which have been made by the person making the Mask. It is impossible to obtain a cast of each hair as in life, for the grease and plaster cause them to stick together, and it is usual to cut the lines in the cast to imitate the hair. This must not be supposed to detract from the evidence that it is a cast from a face, and it furnishes no argument in favor of the Mask being a mere work of art. Indeed the skin surface so perfectly exhibited in the Mask forbids any such idea.

Regarding the question whether the art of making masks was known as early as Shakespeare's time, it can safely be answered in the affirmative. As far back as the time of Pliny (A. D. 23) masks were made. In his Historia Naturalis, published about A. D. 77, he states that the first person who made a plaster mould of a human face, from which a cast was subsequently made, was Lysistratus of Sicyon (321 B. C.). It is true that Pliny does not state that the mould was taken from a dead face; but if they were able to take them from the living, it would be easier to make the impression from the dead.

The passage from Pliny's Historia Naturalis, Lib. XXXV, 44, is as follows:

"Hominis autem imaginem gypso e facie ipsa primus omnium expressit, ceraque in eam formam gypsi infusa emendare instituit Lysistratus Sicyonius, frater Lysippi, de quo diximus. Hic et similitudinem reddere instituit: ante eum quam pulcherrimas facere studebant. Idem et de signis effigiem exprimere invenit. Crevitque res in tantum, ut nulla signa, statuæve, sine argilla fierent. Quo apparet, antiquiorem hanc fuisse scientiam, quam fundendi aeris."

A mask of Martin Luther is in existence. He died at Eisleben in 1546. Another one of Tasso, who died in 1595, is also ex

tant.

It has been suggested that many of the figures in the old monuments in existence in England have probably been modelled from casts made from moulds taken from the faces of those that they represent, and the placid expression of their faces would seem to sup

port this theory. If this be so there must have been men in England who understood how to make a mould from a dead face. Wax was, also, sometimes used, and casts of the faces of celebrated persons were frequently colored and used on lay figures. These were dressed in the garments worn by the deceased in life, and doubtless many who saw them lying in state believed them to be the corpses themselves. In the Chapel of St. Erasmus, Westminster Abbey, in an old closet, many of these lay figures may still be seen. In an account of the Abbey, published in 1754, it is stated that "these effigies resembled the deceased as nearly as possible, and were wont to be exposed at the funerals of our princes, and other great personages in open chariots, with their proper ensigns of royalty or honor appended.' The same account states that the effigy of King Edward VI was originally clothed in crimson velvet robes, but time had made these resemble leather; but that those of Queen Elizabeth and King James I were stripped of everything of value. The effigies of King William, Queen Mary, and Queen Anne are handsomely dressed in lace and velvet. Here, also, was Nelson's figure, and Cromwell was here.

The mould from which Cromwell's face was cast was afterwards found.

The above instances fully establish the frequency of making masks of the dead. It now remains to inquire if the mask said to be that of Shakespeare really is his. In the first place, the theory relied on to account for the possession of a mask of Shakespeare by Count and Canon von Kesselstadt is utterly without facts to sustain it.

A mould is thought to have been taken from Shakespeare's face after death for the purpose of making the Stratford bust, and it was supposed to have been afterwards sent to London to Gerard Johnson or to his son, one of whom was the sculptor of the bust. A cast from this mould having been made, one of the ancestors of Count Francis von Kesselstadt is there supposed to have seen it, and, after it had served its purpose, purchased it from the sculptor. It then remained in his family, and finally descended to Count Francis von Kesselstadt. This is, of course, pure theory without anything to sustain it. None of the Kesselstadt family are known to have gone to England, though they might have done so without any record of their journey having been preserved. Then, again, how is the picture of the man on his death-bed to be accounted for? Some people have supposed that the date on it, 1637, refers to the time when it was copied from the cast, but I do not think the picture represents the same per

son as the Mask, and am in favor of agreeing with those who regard it as a portrait of Ben Jonson. It is said to strongly resemble the portrait of the latter at Dulwich College. 1637 is the year Ben Jonson died, and it probably represents him lying in state. If the ancestor of Count von Kesselstadt obtained a cast of Shakespeare's face while in England, he might also have purchased this portrait of Ben Jonson. It is true that Professor Müller states that it had the inscription under it that, according to tradition, it was Shakespeare, but might not this inscription have been under the Mask when they both hung in the same collection, and Professor Müller have confounded the two?

Such is the history of the Death Mask, and that most careful and learned writer, Dr. C. M. Ingleby, in his chapter on "The Portraiture of Shakespeare," published in Part I of his Shakespeare: The Man and the Book, 4to, London: 1877, p. 84, says of it: "I must candidly say I am not able to spot a single suspicious fact in the brief history of this most curious relic."

Professor Owen, of the British Museum, stated that if the fact that the Mask originally came from England could be satisfactorily established, there was hardly any price that the Museum would have hesitated to pay for it. It is said that ten thousand pounds was the sum Becker asked for it.

Regarding the indentation over the right eyebrow, which has been referred to above, Professor John S. Hart, who saw the Mask in Darmstadt, wrote that it was "merely a flake of the plaster fallen or rubbed off." William Page subsequently went to Darmstadt specially to examine the Death Mask. He says, concerning this indentation (A Study of Shakespeare's Portraits, 48mo, London: 1876, p. 59): "From the photographs, I knew there must be some indentation and a loss of the texture of the skin in this discolored place, which, for some reason, had received the colored wash thus unequally. My first attempt to take an impression of this spot, together with a part of the forehead, failed, having tried it in soft modelling wax, which adhered somewhat and was distorted and lost in removing; but the depression in the spot was well shown in the relief of the wax at that point. My next attempt was in white, harder wax, with gauze intervening. This mould, though less delicate in parts, was very successful, and gave me a good cast in plaster; where the indentation is plainly visible, it may, perhaps, have been looked on as a defect, and has certainly been partially filled up. In the plain white of plaster the depression is still to be seen,

III

though in the discolored spot over the brow I could not at first detect it."

Mr. Page also made twenty-six measures from the Death Mask, which he afterwards compared with the Stratford bust. On page 48 of the above-quoted book he says: "Of these twenty-six measures, at least ten or twelve fit exactly corresponding points in the Stratford bust, which any one may verify if he will take the trouble to interpret the diagram here annexed and reduce all the measurements to solid geometry. Few persons need be told that this planet never did, at any one moment, contain two adult heads, whose faces agreed in any dozen like measures, and the law of probabilities makes it remote when such an epoch will arrive. To a working artist's mind, the agreement of these measures is either a miracle, or demonstration that they are from the same face.

"And, still further, the failure or misfit of the other more than dozen measures is confined to those parts of the face where there is acknowledged error on the part of the sculptor of the Stratford bust. In the language of science, measures are the inflexible judges placed above all opinions supported only by imperfect observations.'

"It is, indeed, singular that such an agreement in measure with the Stratford bust should not have been noted or published by the distinguished scholars and scientists in whose care the Mask was during its sojourn in England; but so far as I know, it has not hitherto been done."

Friswell (Life Portraits of William Shakespeare, 4to, London: 1864, p. 17) thus compares the Death Mask and the Stratford bust: "The Mask has a short upper lip, the bust a very long one; but this discrepancy is accounted for on the supposition that the sculptor had an accident with the nose. nostrils are drawn up, almost painfully; the same is visible in the bust. There are several other points of resemblance, but these are very minute.

The

"On the other hand, the cast differs very widely from the bust said to have been cut from it. The nose is utterly unlike; in the cast it is a fine, thin, aquiline nose, and, as there can be no doubt that the cast is from a dead face, one feels irresistibly the force of Mrs. Quickly's simile in the much-contested quotation, as altered by Mr. Collier's 'old corrector;'

"His nose was as sharp as a pen on a table of green frieze.'

"The face is a sharp oval, that of the bust is a blunt one; the chin is narrow and pointed, that of the bust rounded or rather square,

and full of force; the cheeks are thin and drawn in, those of the bust full, fat, and almost coarse. Exception has also been taken to the age of the person expressed in this cast, some asserting that it is too young in look for the years of our poet at his death. But here we are in favor of the cast. Some time after death the skin seems to relax, the wrinkles to fill out, and the expression of care becomes one of quietude and peace. There are, moreover, plenty of indications of 'crow's feet' and wrinkles at the corners of the eyes; and the face, while it wants utterly the jovial look of the bust, is certainly one of

we may cite the cast from the features of Napoleon the Great preserved in the Invalides. Looking at it, with its drawn face and sharpened nose, one would rather think it a mask of the fine, thin features of Voltaire, than of the round and massive head of the conqueror Napoleon I."

Some years ago W. J. Thoms suggested that the Death Mask might be that of Cervantes, the author of Don Quixote, who died in Madrid in 1616. He further added that the features of the Mask resembled the pictures of Cervantes more than Shakespeare. The portraits of Cervantes which are extant

a person who might have suffered, thought,

and felt.

Lastly, it may be noted in regard to the Mask of the face in the custody of Professor Owen, that the extreme thinness of the nose and of the cheeks does not so much militate against its genuineness as one would suppose. The features alter extremely after death with most persons; and although Shakespeare is said to have died after a very short illness, he may have lost much flesh. The tombe maker,' wishing to exhibit him ad vivum, would alter this. As a parallel instance of extreme difference between life and death,

are all founded on a description of his appearance given by the author of Don Quixote himself. He describes himself as having a long face, chestnut-brown hair, silver-gray beard, which was originally of a golden color; a smooth, open brow, a clear eye with animated expression, a well-formed, aquiline nose, very small mouth, defective teeth, a dark complexion, and medium height.

From this description artists have constructed portraits of Cervantes, but no picture or engraving of him has any other authority for its foundation.

Cervantes died in the greatest poverty and

his burial was of the plainest description. No ceremony of any kind is known to have been observed. No tombstone was erected over his grave. In view of such facts as these, is it at all probable that any one should have conceived the idea of making a mask from his face?

Another fact in relation to this matter remains to be stated. Cervantes was born in 1547 and did not die until 1616. He was therefore sixty-eight years old at the time of his death. The latter was caused by dropsy. Now the Death Mask resembles the face of a man of fifty-two, which was Shakespeare's

113

he decided to make a colossal mask in plaster. This he did, and in another one of similar size he restored the small portions missing in the original Death Mask. In August, 1874, he went to Darmstadt especially to see the Mask. Dr. Becker gave him the fullest facilities for examining it, and permitted him to take photographs of it, to make accurate measurements with calipers, and to make impressions from portions of it. On his return to New York he made a life-sized bust in plaster, from which a bronze casting was finally made.

This bust is very handsome, and is a faith

age, much more nearly than sixty-eight, and no one for an instant will think that it has any resemblance to the face of one who died of dropsy-where the features are much swollen.

Mr. Page always had the greatest faith in the Death Mask. He desired to paint a portrait of Shakespeare, and decided to adopt the Mask as the basis of his work, using also the Stratford bust, the Droeshout engraving, and the Chandos portrait. He first obtained thirteen photographs representing the Mask from different points of view. From these he made two clay masks of life size, but finally

ful rendering of the Mask. It is of the head and shoulders only. Looking at it from the front, one sees how strong the likeness is to the Stratford bust. The opening of the eyes by Mr. Page, and giving the face an air of life, instead of the painfully sad expression shown in the Death Mask, of course has much to do with this; but let any unprejudiced and competent critic place this bust alongside of a gray cast of the Stratford bust and he will be struck with the resemblance between them. The chief points of difference are the short nose of the Stratford bust as compared with the longer one of Page's bust, and the more

receding forehead of the latter in opposition to the prominent one of the Stratford bust.

A beautiful crayon drawing of Page's bust, representing the full-face view, was made, I believe, by the artist himself, and the few photographs of this which were taken are treasured by their fortunate possessors.

Numerous photographs of this bust have also been taken by Sarony, some of which do not do it justice.

Mr. Page also painted a three-quarter length portrait from the Death Mask, which has met with some unfavorable criticism, and which is certainly not as fine as his bust. The poet is represented as having risen from at chair, and is standing by a table, on which he rests his left hand. In his right hand he holds a book, which he has been reading, but has looked down as if in thought. This shows the eyelids drooping, and gives the face a somewhat sleepy expression. A large A large photograph from this picture, by W. Kurtz,

was published in 1875 by Louis Menger, New York.

J. Niessen drew a crayon portrait of the Death Mask, bringing it to life as Page did, but unlike the latter he confined himself to the Mask alone. Niessen's drawing exhibits a three-quarter face, and has a very animated expression. Its chief fault is in the too great prominence of the chin. Several excellent photographs of it have been published, and some of the larger ones are strikingly handsome. They were published by Stroefer & Kirchner, New York.

Of the Death Mask itself numerous photographs have been taken, representing it in many positions. The best are those taken by Page, two of which, carefully engraved on wood, are given herewith. The four smaller wood engravings are from photographs which were published in Über Künstler und Kunstwerke, 8vo, Berlin: 1867, accompanying an article on the Death Mask by Hermann Grimm.

J. Parker Nor's

"The dram of eale

Doth all the noble substance of a doubt To his own scandal."

WHEN the second quarto of Hamlet was printed in 1604, somebody-through carelessness, negligence, or downright stupidity-did the text of that play an ill turn in the passage above quoted; but in so doing he paid tribute to and illustrated-however unintentionally -the author he was printing by proving the truth of one of his famous sayings:

"The evil that men do lives after them."

The evil done in this case has lived to this day; but, like some other evils, it has been doing a little good all the time. A printer's perhaps stupid blunder has set millions of people thinking more profoundly over the passage than they would otherwise have done, so that lack of care or brains in 1604 has wonderfully stimulated both care and

brains ever since to find out what the author really wrote in this celebrated crux. Nor is the investigation of Shakespeare's text or meaning ever useless or unprofitable; for valuable and interesting suggestions are very sure to come whenever we dwell upon any of his lines and gather up out of his works analogies to illustrate them.

So famous is this crux that Mr. Furness gives it more than six of his great pages of fine-print quotations of opinions and proposed emendations. And to show that the interest in it is noways abated nor the question settled, the two latest, most learned, and notable American editors of Shakespeare, the Rev. H. N. Hudson and Mr. R. Grant White, have somewhat startled their readers with new and original emendations of it in their last editions. Mr. Hudson would have us read

"The dram of leav'n

Doth all the noble substance of 'em sour To his own scandal."