There is another and an apparently genuine relic of New Place at present in the possession of the Court family, who own Shakspere's house. It is a square of glass, measuring 9 inches by 7, in which a circular piece is leaded, having the letters "W. A. S.," for William and Ann Shakspere, tied in "a true lover's knot," and the date, 1615, the year before the Poet's death, beneath. A relative of the late Mrs. Court, whose ancestor had been employed to pull down New Place, had saved this square of glass, but attached little value to it. He gave it to her, but she had an honest dislike to the many pretenders to relics, and never shewed this glass unless it was expressly requested by the few who had heard of it. She told her story simply, made no comments, and urged no belief. The letters and figures are certainly characteristic: they are painted in dark brown outline, tinted with yellow; the border is also yellow. The lead is decayed, and the glass loose. It altogether appears to be as genuine a relic as any that have been offered. It has not been engraved before. We have now but to visit THE TOMB OF SHAKSPERE in the chancel of the beautiful church of Stratford. It is placed against a blank window, on the left of the spectator, as he faces the altar. How soon it was erected after the Poet's death, we cannot confidently say; but that it was before 1623 we can ascertain from Leonard Digges's verses prefixed to the first edition of the Poet's works. A half-length figure of him is placed in a niche, above is his arms; on each side of which are seated cherubs, one holding an inverted torch, with a skull beside him, the other a spade; on the apex above is another skull. Beneath the cushion upon which the Poet is writing is inscribed: JVDICIO PYLIVM, GENIO SOCRATEM, ARTE MARONEM, STAY, PASSENGER; WHY GOEST THOV BY SO FAST? READ, IF THOV CANST, WHOM ENVIOVS DEATH HATH PLAST Obiit. Ano. Doi. 1616. The half-length effigy of Shakspere was originally painted after nature. The eyes were a light hazel; the hair and beard auburn. The dress was a scarlet doublet slashed on the breast, over which was a loose black gown without sleeves. The upper part of the cushion was crimson, the lower green; the cord which bound it and the tassels were gilt. John Ward, grandfather of the Kembles, caused the tomb to be repaired and the original colours restored in 1748, from the profits of the performance of Othello. In 1793, Malone, in an evil hour, gained permission to paint it white; and also the effigy of Shakspere's friend, John Combe, who lies beside the altar. Mr. Knight has most justly stigmatised this act as one of "unscrupulous insolence." Certainly Malone was at much pains to write himself down an ass. We learn from Dugdale's correspondence, that the sculptor of this monument was Gerard Johnson. His work has been subjected to much criticism, particularly by such as are anxious to have Shakspere not only a great poet, but a handsome man. This bust does not please them. Mr. Skottowe declares that it "is not only at variance with the tradition of Shakspere's appearance having been prepossessing, but irreconcilable with the belief of its ever having borne a striking resemblance to any human being." A most sweeping conclusion, against which most modern authors and artists have arrayed themselves. It is a curious fact that Martin Droeshout's portrait prefixed to the folio of 1623, and beneath which Ben Jonson has affixed verses attesting its accuracy, and which all his "fellows" who aided in this edition as well as others who knew and loved the man could also confirm, bears a decided similarity to this bust. Marshall seems to have depended on the same authority for the portrait he engraved for the edition of Shakspere's poems in 1640. All agree in one striking feature; the noble forehead and quiet unostentatious kindly expression of feature which must have belonged to "the gentle Shakspere." These early artists appear to have been literal copyists, and the bust at Stratford is the best, and I incline to think the only authority to be depended on. It was probably cut from a cast taken after death; and it is remarkable that it stands as good test phrenologically as if it had been adapted to the Poet―a singular instance of its truth. Another corroborative proof exists in what has been objected to as inaccurate, the length of the upper lip; but Sir Walter Scott, whose |