those who touched it must come reverently, and soberly, and deliberately: and, working even with the utmost knowledge and good intention, feel that the slightest incompetency or error would fairly entitle his posterity, if not his own generation, to call him an intruder and a vandal.

Since our issue of January last there has accrued the following matter in relation to the question as to the present, or very recent, "restorations," which have excited such deep interest among those who love the church as the temple and tomb of Shakespeare, and therefore claim that it should be and remain, as nearly as possible, in the guise and condition in which Shakespeare knew it.

Says W. J. Rolfe in The Critic of February 8th, 1890:

"THE RESTORATIONS' AT STRATFORD-ON-AVON.-At present the Vicar of Stratford is one of the best-abused of men. The 'restoration' of an old church in England, or elsewhere in Europe, even if done solely to keep the venerable edifice from falling to pieces, is almost invariably denounced by a certain class of critics; and the timely and judicious work on Holy Trinity Church at Stratford has not escaped this unintelligent fault-finding. A petty squabble among the parish authorities has made the criticism appear more plausible to those not thoroughly acquainted with the facts in the case. Having visited Stratford every year but one in the last seven, and having watched the repairs of the church with keen interest, I may say that, in my humble opinion, there is no good reason for these strictures. The interior of the building has been 'restored' in the best sense of the term. The mischief done in the past has been wisely corrected. There has been a return to the old construction and arrangements, not a substitution of new ones, that, as some have hastily declared, give a modern 'spick-and-span new' look to the ancient structure. The changes, moreover, have been made with the approval of the Bishop of the diocese and the consent of the parishioners formally expressed, and also under the direction of eminent architects. As to the work in the churchyard I cannot speak from personal observation. It is proper to add that I have never met the vicar, Dr. Arbuthnot, and therefore am not influenced by any personal considerations in what I say of him."

On his attention being called to this card of Dr. Rolfe's, Mr. William Winter gave us permission to print the following letter, addressed to us at our request:

"THE BEAUFORT, 754 Seventh Avenue, "NEW YORK, February 16th, 1890.

TO THE EDITORS OF SHAKESPEARIANA:

Whatever Dr. Rolfe writes is, of course, entitled to respect. But the facts as to the mutilation of Stratford church and churchyard are as I have stated them. The building and the grounds, indeed, speak for themselves. It is mere folly to oppose an expression of opinion against obvious and specific facts. . The truth remains that while a part of the work of restoration has been well

conceived and properly done, another and a considerable part of it has tended to turn the church into a modern building, and to turn the churchyard into a sort of mortuary park. The beauty of the place cannot be destroyed, but the venerable antiquity and romantic charm of it have been considerably and needlessly impaired. I have been a frequent visitor at Stratford-on-Avon during the last thirteen years. I have spent much time there, and I know, from close and careful investigation, that Stratford church and churchyard are not nearly as interesting as they were before the present vicar began to furbush them up with the modern improvements.' I am, furthermore, in a position to apprise Dr. Rolfe that a considerable number of the leading citizens of Stratford-upon-Avon take the same 'intelligent' view of the subject that I have expressed.

"Faithfully yours,

"WILLIAM WINTER." From the Birmingham Gazette of March 11th, 1890, we cut the following:

“MR. TIMMINS AND THE RESTORATION OF STRATFORD-ON-AVON CHURCH.-Mr. Timmins yesterday called attention to the Vicar of Stratford-on-Avon with respect to another restoration scheme which is about to be put into operation. Mr. Timmins, in a letter to the Times, quotes the following from the Stratford Parish Magazine for March:

"This month will see a start made with the restoration of the chancel of our parish church. The committee have accepted a tender from Mr. Franklin, the builder who has already done such good work at the church, to repair and clean the inside walls and roof, and to restore the old stalls. This will cost nearly £600, and the women of Stratford have already collected over £400, but, as the vicar has made himself responsible for the full sum required, it is to be hoped that they will set themselves with renewed energy to the task of getting £200 more. Before the work is completed, the windows which were bequeathed to the church by the late Miss Bromley will be ready for fixing, and as they cost £500, the total improvement will represent £1,100. There is one other work which grievously needs undertaking, and which the committee have approved of, but alas have no funds to carry out, the repaving of the chancel. The present pavement is worn away, and walking upon it is really dangerous. We have serious fears that a church-warden some day will sprain his ankle, if he does not break his leg. The sum required is £280, and it would be so nice to have it done at the same time as the stalls that we live in hopes some one will come forward and say, "I will do it." We fear we shall be shut out of the chancel for about three months, and, of course, the congregation will suffer some inconvenience; but the experience of this will only make the opening festival, which will be early in June, more joyous.' Commenting on this announcement, Mr. Timmins says:'This seems to mean that not only "we," but the thousands of pilgrims to the grave-stone and monument of Shakespeare, are to be "shut out" for "about three months," which would be a serious

66

disappointment to visitors from all parts of the world who can visit only once. No guarantee seems to be given as to what will be done. in the name of restoration when the public is shut out, and very possibly many serious changes may be made, and then any protest will be too late. Is it not the clear duty of the bishop, or the lay rectors, or the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, or the Times, to intervene and to watch on behalf of the British public the possible changes in this national monument, where the remains and the memorial of Shakespeare are preserved? Is such a monument as Shakespeare's church to be left to the mercy of a vicar (for life) and an anonymous local committee?'"

In The Critic of April 5th, 1890, Dr. Rolfe has the following further

comment :

"THE STRATFORD RESTORATION' AGAIN. A bewildered querist in a neighboring city wants to know what is the truth about this Stratford business.' He has read the five pages headed 'Vandalism at Stratford-upon-Avon' in SHAKESPEARIANA for January, and is evidently impressed by the quotations from HalliwellPhillipps and others who ought to know' about the matter. I can only repeat my honest opinion that, so far as the work on the church is concerned, there is no good ground for complaint. All that Halliwell-Phillipps really said was, that people familiar with the history of the church 'may be excused for thinking it possible that the irremediable mischief which accrued through local management on previous occasions may now be repeated under similar conditions' (the italics are mine). There had been 'vandalism' in the past, and he feared it might occur again. Others had the same apprehension, and it was natural enough, considering how often restoration' of ancient buildings in England has covered a multitude of sins against architecture and history. In this instance, however, I believe that the work has been conducted in the right spirit. One would suppose from some of the criticisms that the church had been 'modernized,' and made to look in some respects as if 'newly built'; but I doubt whether a visitor who had not seen it before, and had not heard of the restorations, would suspect that any important, repairs or alterations had been made in the last hundred years. The new organ, of course, looks new, and the window put in a few years ago by American contributions would not be mistaken for ancient glass, but the sacred edifice itself appears to me more truly venerable, more as we may imagine it was in Shakespeare's own day, than when I first saw it twenty-two years ago.

"The vicar has been censured for charging a fixed fee of sixpence for admission to the church when service is not going on; but this is coming to be the rule at the English cathedrals and churches that are much visited by tourists, the great majority of whom I am confident are relieved when they find that they are to pay a definite price instead of the indefinite 'tip' otherwise expected. It was also a good idea to give each visitor a printed description of the church, though people who have never been there, and who are bound to find fault with everything the present vicar does, have actually com