Puslapio vaizdai
[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

Tears are by no means unusual at a wedding, and Katey's wet eyes passed unnoticed. Only Jack marked them and reproached himself for having almost forgotten her in his happiness. Remember, you are to come and live with us," he said, leaning out from the carriage. "Delphine, do keep Katey; lock her in, if necessary, until we return." Then the carriage door closed with a bang, and in a gust of slippers the wedding party disappeared.

[ocr errors]

"It is absurd," Delphine said the next morning, as they sat alone over the early breakfast, prepared in anticipation of Katey's departure by the first train. "It is positively unreasonable for you to tie yourself to that horrid school. Think, if Robert and I go abroad next month, I shall not see you again. You might, at least, go home with me for a week." But Katey felt that to be impossible. The term would commence the next day, and she must be in her place. And then, how did she know what had occurred in her absence? What if Dacre had come again, or there might be at least a letter awaiting her. O no; she must go back at once.


"Dreadful, was it not, about Dacre Home?" Delphine remarked carelessly, when this question of Katey's return to school had been discussed and settled, as it had been every day since she came.

"Yes," Katey replied cautiously. She would be wiser than she had been with Josie.

"I was so glad to find you didn't care for him," Delphine went on in her pretty, hurried way. "I wouldn't own it in my letter, and I don't quite like to own it now; but I did half encourage his intimacy with you." She had made her confession at last.

"I know you did," Katey said quietly. "And if you had learned to care for him, I should never have forgiven myself."

“How do you know that I didn't learn to care for him?" was on her lips to ask, but she held back the question. Why should she distress Delphine, who intended it all for good, and had only failed in judgment? Still, one word she must speak, or her tongue would utter it of itself. A dangerous word! Nevertheless, she would dare much to defend the innocent and the absent.

"He had nothing to do with that robbery, I know," she began. "He may have associated with these men

"Which is bad enough," said Mrs. Estemere, who had not only lost all confidence in Dacre, but felt herself personally ill-used by his making himself thus shamefully notorious after having visited at her house.

"It is, indeed," Katey was obliged to confess. "Still he had nothing to do with this, I am sure."

"About that, of course, we cannot judge; but it is all so thoroughly mortifying and disagreeable that we had better try to forget it and him;" and Mrs. Estemere rose from the table.

Mrs. Durant entered the room at the same moment, fortunately for Katey, whose prudence was fast deserting her; the carriage was announced, and further conversation was out of the question.

*Delphine ran down the icy steps in her pink-bowed slippers for one more last word at the carriage door. "If I shouldn't see you again before we sail, you'll write often, and you'll take care of yourself, child? Don't do anything foolish away off there. There are no young men?"

"Only one," laughed Katey, remembering Mr. Milde.

[blocks in formation]


IT has been known for some time past, that there was in existence, somewhere in Germany, a cast of the face and forehead of Shakespeare, taken from nature immediately after death.

A plaster cast of this kind, as is well known, is usually taken whenever a bust of a man is to be made after death, the plaster being spread upon the face and allowed to harden. Into this shell or concave mold thus obtained, plaster in a liquid state is poured, and a convex mold produced, which is a fac-simile of the features, and which is called technically a death-mask.

The plaster cast above referred to purports to be a death-mask of Shakespeare. It is further claimed that this cast was the foundation for the bust of Shakespeare which is over his tomb in the church at Stratford, and was indeed taken for the purpose of producing that bust. If these claims are valid, it is obvious that the cast in question is one of extreme value. There are what are called Life Portraits of Shakespeare, but they differ greatly in character, and there is no certain evidence that any one of them was taken from life. The cast, therefore, if genuine, is the only source for obtaining an accurate knowledge of the dramatist's features, and is the proper basis for producing a true likeness of him.

Learning that the eminent artist, William Page, of New York City, President of the Academy of Design, was engaged in producing a new likeness of Shakespeare, based upon this German cast, I visited his studio in March, 1873, and had the pleasure of seeing his work and the photographs from which he was working. I found Mr. Page an enthusiastic believer in the authenticity of the Death-Mask, though he had not seen it, but only photographs of it, and could not give me any definite information in regard to its location and ownership, except that it was somewhere in HesseDarmstadt, and that it had been described a few years ago in an English publication issued by Sampson, Low & Co., of London.

The face and head which Mr. Page had produced from the hints contained in these photographs differed so widely from all the other recognized portraits of Shakespeare, and, I may add, were in themselves so much more satisfactory to the student of the plays, so much more suggestive of

what we might conceive to have been the earthly dwelling-place of the mighty spirit which had created Macbeth, Hamlet, Othello and Lear, that I confess to having had my curiosity greatly excited, and I determined to avail myself of the opportunity of a contemplated visit to Europe, to make some inquiries on the subject. The result of these inquiries I purpose now to give.

The book referred to by Mr. Page was found to be "Life Portraits of William Shakespeare, by J. Hain Friswell," 8 vo., 1864. The book was out of print, and it was only after considerable inquiry and advertising, that a copy could be obtained. I also found in Berlin another publication on the subject, of somewhat later date, being a long article by Herman Grimm, in the "Künstler und Kunstwerke," published in Berlin, in 1867.

The cast, or Death-Mask, was found in Darmstadt, in possesion of Dr. Ernest Becker, private secretary to the Princess Alice of Hesse-Darmstadt. Dr. Becker kindly allowed me to examine it at my leisure, and to take measurements of it, and furnished me with photographs, as well as with supplementary oral information in regard to its history.

Dr. Becker was not the discoverer of the treasure. It came into his possession among the other effects of his deceased brother, Ludwig Becker, court painter and naturalist, who discovered it in Mayence in 1849, and carried it to England' and exhibited it there in 1850.* Ludwig

Ludwig Becker, are confused and conflicting, I quote the fol

As the accounts in Friswell and elsewhere, respecting

lowing extract from a letter from his surviving brother, Dr. Ernest Becker, to whom I wrote for more precise information. The letter is dated, Darmstadt, Dec. 21, 1873.

"My late brother was a portrait painter by profession, and lived at Darmstadt. In recognition of his talents, especially in painting water color miniatures, the late Grand Duke of Hesse conferred on him the title of Court Painter. I cannot exactly state what year he moved to Mayence, probably about 1845 or 6. You know that in 1847 he bought the small miniature of Shakespeare on his death-bed [a bier,] in Mayence, and that in 1849 he found the cast. The same year he went to England, evidently with the intention of making his dicovery known there. Besides, he had an invitation from a Scotch family to visit them in Edinburgh. Last, not least, his great interest for everything connected with art and science always induced him to extend his intellectual horizon. During his residence at Darmstadt he was in constant scientific communication with Prof. Kamp of the Museum of Natural History here, and it was no doubt by him that he was introduced to Prof. Owen in London *

"In 1850, he left for Melbourne, drawn by the same thirst for new impressions and new fields of activity, of which I spoke before. He soon gained there a highly esteemed position among his countrymen, as well as among the English; he remained in scientific correspondence with Professors Kamp and Owen; he was selected by the Government to accompany the Colonial Collection arranged for the London


Becker, going afterwards on an exploring expedition to South Australia, left the cast for safe keeping during his absence in the care of Prof. Richard Owen, the well known anatomist and curator of the British Museum. Prof. Owen had the cast in his custody for about ten years, during which time it was examined and discussed by many eminent English scholars. Lud

wig Becker having


indeed an inscription to that effect,

perished in the South Australian expedi- | as a portrait of Shakespeare, and bore tion, the cast with his other effects went to his brother, Dr. Ernest Becker, who took it to Darmstadt, where it has since remained.

From these various sources, that is, from Prof. Owen, who gave me, both orally and in writing, many particulars in regard to its history while in England, from Dr. Becker of Darmstadt, and from the two books which have been named, I gathered the following facts:


A German nobleman, Count Francis von Kesselstadt, who was also a dignitary of the church, and whose ancestors had for many generations been residents in and near Cologne, died at Mayence, in 1843.

He had a valuable collection of curiosities and works of art, which were sold at auction at Mayence, in 1843, after his death. Among the articles thus sold was a small oil painting, which is known to have been in the possession of the family for more than a century, and which, in the family traditions, was invariably regarded

Industrial Exhibition in 1851, when the rebellion among the Germans broke out in this Colony, and made it impossible for the Government, in the face of the feeling then existing against the Germans, to send a native of that country.

In 1860, the Government fitted out a grand expedition across the Australian continent, under the guidance of Burke and Wills, which my brother joined as Naturalist. None of the members came back but one servant. My brother died of scurvy on the 24th of April, 1861. After his death, Prof. Owen returned the cast to his family, i. e. his brothers (he was unmarried), and since that time it is here, in Darmstadt."


Den Traditionen nach, SHAKESPEARE, with the date 1637.

This picture was bought at the public sale by S. Jourdan, an antiquary of Mayence, and by him sold in 1847 to Ludwig Becker.


The Kesselstadt picture forms a most important link in the chain of evidence. No engraving or copy of it, so far as I can learn, has heretofore been made. wood-cut of it, accompanying the present article, is made from an original photoby Dr. Becker. The picture represents its graph taken for this purpose, at my request, subject as lying in state, on a bier, with a dimly seen in the back-ground. The inwreath round his head, and a candle-stick scription is on the back.

certain peculiarities in its appearance and From the date, 1637, not 1616, and from style, Mr. Becker and others, antiquarians and artists, who examined it, came to the conclusion that it had been painted from had been produced from a death-mask. some older likeness, or in all probability Acting upon this surmise, Mr. Becker immediately set about making further inquiries. He first found that a plaster of Paris cast of some kind had been in the possession of the Kesselstadt family, but that on account of its melancholy appearance it had been treated with little consideration, and what had become of it no one knew. After two years of fruitless search and inquiry,

he at length, in 1849, discovered the lost relic in a broker's shop in Mayence, among rags and articles of the meanest description.


A comparison of this cast with the picture convinced Mr. Becker immediately and has, I believe, convinced every one who has compared them, that they are related to each other and are representations of the same person.

On the back of the cast is an inscription, the letters and figures being such as were made two centuries and a half ago, and the inscription altogether having the appearance of being coeval with the cast. An examination of the cast, while in England, by experts at the British Museum, showed that the inscription had been cut at the time the cast was made. A microscopic examination by Prof. Owen also showed that the hairs still adhering in the cast are human hairs.*

The inscription on the back of the cast, in deeply cut letters, is as follows:

A Dm 1616

The cross is the usual mark in such inscriptions, to signify "Died." The letters A Dm are the familiar abbreviation for Anno Domini.

It is, then, clearly a cast of some one who died in 1616, the year of Shakespeare's death; it is clearly also connected with the Kesselstadt picture. In fact there can hardly be a doubt, there hardly is a doubt, that this cast of 1616 is the original from which was painted the picture of 1637, which picture is, according to the Kesselstadt tradition, a portrait of Shakespeare.

No evidence has yet been discovered to show that any member of the Kesselstadt family was in England at or near the time of Shakespeare's death. It is stated, indeed, in some recent publications on this subject, in this country, that a member of the Kesselstadt family was in England in

On these points I quote again the statement of Dr. Becker, as contained in his letter of Dec 21, 1873: "The cast was left in Prof. Owen's hands, with the object of collecting such evidence as could bear upon its authenticity. It was then that Prof. Owen caused a searching inquiry by different competent men, principally from the British Museum, --I do not remember their names, who found that the inscription on the back bore the character of the writing of the beginning of the seventeenth century; that the inscription was made before the cast was perfectly hardened, because the edges after cutting would have looked different had they been made years after into the hardened plaster. Prof. Owen proved by microscopic investigation that the hairs were human hairs, &c. All possibilities that the cast might be the result of a forgery were excluded, and nothing spoke against its genuineness.'

the early part of the reign of James I., and that the cast was obtained at that time. The only foundation for this statement is a passage in Friswell's book, in which he puts in a historical form the theory or hypothesis which Becker has suggested to account for the existence of the mask in the Kesselstadt family. Friswell had no evidence, and did not pretend to have any, except the documents put forth by Ludwig Becker. In these documents minute evidence is given of the purchase of the picture and the mask, and of the tradition that the picture had been in the family over a century. All beyond that is conjecture. To make this conjecture more intelligible, Friswell puts it in the narrative form in these words:

"A German nobleman had an ancestor who was attached to one of the ambassadors accredited to the court of King James I. This gentleman was, like many of his countrymen at a later period, a great admirer of the genius of Shakespeare, and, as a memorial of him, bought the cast, in all probability from the sculptor of the tomb, Gerard Johnson, had it carefully preserved, and took it with him to his own country."

On this

That this was only Mr. Friswell's mode of stating a hypothesis is evident from the pages which follow, in which he quotes the documents, not one of which makes the slightest mention of this most important link in the chain of evidence. point I questioned Prof. Owen of the British Museum, who had charge of the cast while in England; his reply was, that could this fact in any way have been established, there is hardly any amount of money which the Museum would not have paid for the treasure. In the recent publications on the subject by Herman Grimm, he also dwells with great emphasis upon this point, and says, indeed, that the chief object of his publication is to call the attention of historical investigators to the desideratum, in the hope that some one in England or Germany may yet light upon this most needed piece of information. Grimm says: "The final proof for convincing public opinion in London is wanting, the proof, namely, that the mask did come from England to Germany. And, therefore, what I have to say about it here is said, not merely to signalize the mask on account of its beauty and its value, but with a view of calling public attention to it and ascertaining whether any one is able to aid in settling this cardinal question: 'Did any

member of the family, in whose possession | the mask was, visit England in the course of the last, or of the seventeenth century?' For this family is extinct, and up till now (1867) it has not been possible to obtain any information concerning such a trip to England." To this testimony I add finally that of Dr. Becker himself, the present owner of the mask, who told me so late as last summer, (1873) that this portion of the historical evidence was wanting. Both Becker and Grimm deny, indeed, the necessity of such evidence, to prove the authenticity of the mask, but both admit that the evidence has not been forthcoming.*

There is, then, as I said before, nothing whatever to show that any member of the Kesselstadt family was in England at or near the time of Shakespeare's death. There is, however, full evidence that the picture was in the family for more than a century, and was, by them and their guests, universally accepted as a portrait of Shakespeare. It is known, also, that the city of Cologne, in and near which the Kesselstadt family lived, kept up for nearly three hundred years a lively commerce with London in works of art.

To understand clearly the hypothesis which has been put forth in regard to the origin of this cast, it is necessary to revert for a moment to the bust of Shakespeare over his tomb in the Stratford church. This bust is the earliest likeness of him heretofore known. We do not know its exact date, but it was certainly before the Droeshout Engraving in the folio of 1623, for Leonard Digges, in the commendatory verses prefixed to that volume, expressly refers to the "Stratford Monument."


This monumental bust is known to have been made by Gerard Johnson, a sculptor or "tomb-maker," of London. For this fact we have the explicit statement of Dugdale, in these words: The monument of John Combe, at Stratford-sup'-Avon, and Shakespeare's, were made by one Gerard Johnson." Another authority, Wivell, informs us that this Johnson was a Hol

After writing the foregoing paragraph, fearing that I might possibly have forgotten, I wrote to Dr. Becker, and received in answer as follows: "He (Prof. Owen) told me that if it could be proved that one of the Counts of Kesselstadt had, in former times, been in England, the chain of evidence in favor of the cast would be considered as complete. Though I lay no stress on this point (as the Kesselstadts may just as likely have bought the cast in Germany as in England), yet I looked through the family archives at Treves, and read the family history kept there, but found no mention of a Kesselstadt having crossed the Channel. The last Count, whose collection was sold in Mayence, in 1847, was indeed in England, but it is tolerably certain that the cast was in the possession, and even disappeared from the collection, before this journey."

lander, born at Amsterdam, twenty-six years resident in London; that he was a "tombmaker," and had four journeymen, two apprentices, and one Englishman in his employ.

Nothing is more probable then, than that the family of Shakespeare had a cast of his face taken in Stratford after death, and sent down to the "tomb-maker" in London, as a guide in making the bust. There is abundant evidence that this was the customary mode of proceeding in those days. The sculptor, or tomb-maker, Johnson, then, according to the hypothesis, after having completed the bust, laid aside the cast upon his shelf, among piles of similar disused materials, such as every tomb-maker or sculptor then or now collects in the course of his labors, and some acquaintance of his from the Fatherland,—perhaps some attaché of the German ambassador,-poking about among the rubbish, saw this striking effigy, and learning its origin, bough or begged it, and carried it away with him into Germany, where, in course of time, it found a lodgment in the Kesselstadt family.

Such was the theory, or hypothesis, put forth by Ludwig Becker, on bringing this curious relic to England in 1850.

Of the opinions expressed in regard to it by the many eminent men who took an interest in the matter, I quote only two, as given me by Prof. Owen. The late Baron Pollock, after examining the mask and weighing carefully the evidence, as a man of his professional habit of mind would be likely to do, said: "If I were called upon to charge a jury in regard to this point, I would instruct them to bring in a verdict in favor of the claimant." Lord Brougham, the other authority quoted by Prof. Owen, did not seem disposed to go quite so far. He would neither acquit nor condemn, but, like a canny Scot, gave as his verdict, "Non liquet."

The picture in the possession of Dr. Becker has in itself little value. Its chief value lies in its connection with the mask. It gives to the mask the undisputed testimony of an unbroken and accepted tradition in the Kesselstadt family, for more than a century, connecting it with Shakespeare. The picture, however, though not in itself particularly valuable, either as a work of art or as a likeness, has yet some interest on general grounds. Artists and critics all agree in referring it to the age named in the inscription-1637. It is in

« AnkstesnisTęsti »