Shakespeare’s Death Research Project

Holy Trinity Church

Funerals, Burials, Graves, Monuments

Most of the components in this portion – burials, graves and monuments – seem to have attracted the most amount of romantic elaboration and eager extrapolation in the scholarsphere – even more extrapolation than the numerous illness conjectures. This doesn’t surprise given the paucity of facts and strange uncertainties surrounding Shakespeare’s death.  The funeral part doesn’t seem to have garnered much attention; possibly due to the fact there is nothing in the historical record that says Shakespeare received one.

Much mystery, more unknowns and even more debated disagreements characterize Shakespeare’s presence – or non – and likeness – or non – inside Holy Trinity Church. There is a record of Shakespeare’s burial in the parish register; there is a grave-marker and a wall monument. However, before you get to a burial, a grave and a monument you need, one would think, a funeral – of some sort or another; unless, there wasn’t.

Shakespeare’s Funeral

Did Shakespeare have a funeral?  Probably?  Maybe?  However, even that tepid assertion is not based on fact; rather, it is based on human nature – and not much else.  To that end, there is nothing in the historical record documenting a funeral: whether there was one, what it may have looked like if it did occur, what form it took or how much pomp and circumstance was involved, if any; quite possibly, it did not involve any, if it occurred. Showing Shakespeare had a funeral is proving no easy task.

Honan makes no mention of a funeral in his 1998 book.  Bate in 2009, likewise; Schoenbaum, 1977, same; same for Orlin in 2021. Rowse in 1965, feeling slightly romantic about the matter, says Shakespeare after his death “was borne along the familiar path to the church, 52 years almost to the day since he had been carried there to be christened.”[1] Other than Rowse feeling nostalgic about envisioning and pretending a funeral procession to Holy Trinity took place, there is no evidence of such, zero; just Rowse’s imagination.  Later, in his Shakespeare: The Man, Rowse makes no comment on the matter. Potter, though she makes excellent, spot-on conjectures and raises very real possibilities about different matters concerning Shakespeare’s death which will be discussed below, makes no mention of a funeral.

There are no primary sources documenting or making mention of a funeral having occurred – none; the funerals of other playwrights were documented fully.  This is strikingly similar to the zero primary sources documenting Shakespeare’s death contemporaneously with the event or the cause thereof.  But Shakespeare had a funeral, right?  He must have.  Surely.  Right? After all, it’s Shakespeare that has died – not a plague-stricken, nameless, homeless pauper or a criminal or a ne’er-do-good sinner.

Funerals were common in 17^th century England.  Scholars have amply researched pre-death, death, death rituals, funerals, burials, graves and monuments in 17^th century England and all point to the conclusion funerals were a huge part of the death and after-life landscape.

In their respective books on everything concerning death Norman devotes two chapters, Houlbrooke likewise and Marshall devotes considerable attention to funerals and funeral practices throughout his book.[2]   In a previous webpage above, the funerals of Burbage and Jonson were summarily canvassed. However, a funeral is not a sine qua non for a burial. Really, all you need is a deceased; a funeral is not, strictly speaking, a prerequisite for a burial.

Before moving on to try to answer the question with any certainty – did Shakespeare have a funeral – it should be noted here the Project uses the word ‘funeral’ in a manner that is generally understood that word to mean.  I.e., some sort of formal gathering of family and friends or locals, attended by a priest or other religious authority, perhaps a procession of some sort escorting the body into a church or place of worship, with some sort of attendant mass, including but not limited to religious formalities, prayers, eulogies or the like, perhaps an anointing of the body and a further procession – big or small – to the place of burial.  It need not be attended by hundreds or even tens, but for the purposes of this investigation, a funeral is meant to be viewed as some sort of formal gathering, whatever the size, and undertaking formal rituals, at least to some extent.  A secret memorial at midnight where the six gently place the body in a waiting grave – pre-populated or not – and say a few quiet words for the deceased’s soul before sunrise, while technically could be viewed as a funeral, will not be considered as such by the investigation.

So, did Shakespeare have a funeral as the term is generally understood to mean? Maybe; maybe not.  But, if it occurred, it might have shaded towards more of the small-by-limited-invite-only-quick-and-easy-void-of-pomp-and-circumstance type. 

With no sources – of any kind – documenting a funeral, researchers must look at external evidence; while so looking, eager extrapolation and wishful thinking must be avoided.  Five reasons point the investigation towards the notion Shakespeare’s funeral, if it occurred, might have been small, attended by limited numbers and void of any grandeur and pomp: lack of historical record, the person, his will, timing and no heraldry.

Lack of Historical Funerary Record

Funerals can be big fancy to-dos.  Starting with royalty at the top, then on down through the rungs of high-ranking noblemen – dukes, earls, knights, gentlemen etc – their funerals could be, and often were, lavish affairs. The historical record is littered with information on burials from kings to the lowest rung of nobility; from the highest landed freemen to the lowest paupers; funerals could turn into lavish spectacles and were worthy of contemporaneous commentary.  Burbage and Jonson’s funeral saw such out an outpouring of grief the processions almost shut down London streets.  There is nothing in the historical record documenting whether Shakespeare had a funeral.  If Shakespeare had a funeral, it might be safe to conclude, it was a very, very minor affair, not well-attended – not by disrespect but by design – and was probably over with very quickly.  A lavish to-do, one would think, might have garnered perhaps a word or two contemporaneously with the event.  Not only did the silence sickness stifle all commentary on his death and cause thereof, it also stifled commentary on his funeral, if there was one.  If there wasn’t one, then no wonder there wasn’t any commentary.  But then, one asks:  if Shakespeare didn’t have a funeral, which would be weird, why wasn’t there commentary in the historical record surrounding that fact?  Either or, the continuing silence in the historical record is somewhat interesting.

Funerals Bespeaking The Person

On balance, funerals bespeak the person and, generally, can be seen as a mirror reflection of how that person lived their life, how they wanted to be seen in death and how they thought of themselves.  Not always, but the grander the funeral, the grander the person; not always, but the grander the funeral, the more self-importance the person had while alive.

Shakespeare enjoyed the quiet life of the country and never really could abide the stuffiness of the rules and turmoil of court, didn’t care for the urban elite, wasn’t fond of the university crowd that mocked him and was likely one of the least self-important persons of status of his day.  Those are the opinions of the investigation; others have theirs.  Shakespeare knows the correct answer but he isn’t sharing.  Well, Shakespeare has kind of, sort of, shared which type of life he liked better: the quiet, country life, void of self-importance and pomp.  In As You Like it, c. 1599, while walking through the Forest of Arden, Shakespeare has his banished Duke Senior say:

                        Now, my co-mates and brothers in exile,

                        Hath not old custom made this life more sweet

                        Than that of painted pomp? Are not these woods

                        More free from peril than the envious court?[3]

Potter researches and discusses whether Shakespeare would have rather been alone – in the country or in London – than at court, being self-important, relishing the company of kings, queens and self-important courtiers.[4]  The debate she was researching was whether a statement writ by biographer John Aubrey[5]  in his Brief Lives was about Shakespeare or a different actor in the King’s Men, Christopher Beeston. The statement in question reads thus: Would not be debauched: and if invited to court he was in paine.

If Shakespeare’s dialogue in his plays gives readers a look into his mind and disclose how he felt it is not a stretch to surmise the statement was about Shakespeare and he, in fact, did prefer a quiet country life over a self-important existence at court and he would be in paine if he was invited thereto; two brief examples illustrate the point.

Firstly, Shakespeare recognizes the difference between country life and life at court and secondly, he shows his preference for the quiet unimportant life of solitude, staying under the radar and being contented with the simple matters of life in the country.  Again, in As You Like It, Shakespeare writes:

Those that

are good manners at the court are as

ridiculous in the country as the behaviour

of the country is most mockable at the court.[6] 

That statement is as true and every bit as resonantial today as it was 400 years ago.  People in the country today laugh at urbanites’ self-importance and their interesting, big glasses and people in the city mock country dwellers for being backwards.

A passage from King Henry VI Part 2 possibly shows Shakespeare’s preference between the two:

Lord, who would live turmoiled in the court

And may enjoy such quiet walks as these?

This small inheritance my father left me

Contenteth me, and worth a monarchy.

I seek not to wax great by others’ waning

Or gather wealth I care not with what envy;

Sufficeth that I have maintains my state,

And sends the poor well pleased from my gate.[7]

Shakespeare just didn’t like important, rich, city life or life at court and preferred a simple, rural existence;[8] Shakespeare’s life in the country is worth a monarchy unto itself.  To that end, this investigation would side with the scholars who previously suggested the line that he would not be debauched: and if invited to court he was in paine was writ about Shakespeare.

Nor did Shakespeare think much of honour. And, really, what is a funeral about if not about honour? Generally, Shakespeare thought honour a waste of time.   Why does he think honour is silly?  Because, in the main, Shakespeare feels honour is worthless to the dead and slanderous to the living; might he be speaking based on personal experience which informed his distant personality while alive and possibly his views on death? Shakespeare gives a glimpse of what he thought about honour by way of Falstaff in King Henry IV Part 1:

Can honour set to

 a leg? No. Or an arm? No.  Or take

away the grief of a wound? No. Honour

hath no skill in surgery, then? No. What

is honour? A word. What is in that word?

Honour. What is that honour? Air. A

trim reckoning! Who hath it? He that

died o’ Wednesday. Doth he feel it? No.

Doth he hear it? No. ‘Tis insensible, then?

Yea, to the dead. But will it not live with

the living? No. Why? Detraction will

not suffer it. Therefore I’ll none of it.

Honour is a mere scutcheon: and so ends

my catechism.[9]

Scutcheon – or, escutcheon – is the shield portion on which a heraldic coat-of-arms is displayed; often used as a funerary ornament.  According to Shakespeare, honour is nothing more than a coat-of-arms, worth nothing on its own – no more, no less; he had first-hand, personal experience about what being granted a coat-of-arms meant.  He finalized his father’s application for the Shakespeare family coat-of-arms and was granted same in 1596 – the same year the above passage was writ.  It might be reasonable to assume Shakespeare personally thought little of honour; he engaged in very little self-promotion while he was alive – or in his death.[10]

In addition, Shakespeare was careful with his money and a prudent investor.  One doesn’t get the sense Shakespeare would have splurged for an ornate funeral full of pomp and ceremony, or paid for a procession of honour attended by processionists to escort him to and from the church or shelled out for a huge dinner feast; he just wasn’t that self-important.  The Project surmises Shakespeare might have thought all of that useless, unnecessary, a waste of money and smacking of self-importance of which he probably had little.  He never cared to control the publication of his plays during his lifetime and he didn’t self-publish books with portraits of himself wreathed in garland like Jonson or Drayton; he just didn’t care: those who have the most reason to boast, don’t.[11] He seemed to care more about his craft and, with the money he made from his craft, investing in property.  Funerals bespeak the person: not having one or having the smallest of funerals bespeaks Shakespeare, perfectly.

Funeral Arrangements In A Will

This investigation has been relying on the previous research of Houlbrooke, Marshall and Norman when it comes to looking at death in 17^th century England.[12]  All three researchers document instances where 17^th century testators put in their wills how they wanted certain funeral arrangements to be conducted.  For instance, testators put in their wills, and made explicit their wishes on, inter alia, the following issues:

– when the funeral would take place, i.e., what time of day;

– how the body was to wrapped, prepared for burial;

– what the mourners were supposed to wear, black or no;

– was the mourning attire paid for by the testator;

– how they wanted to be carried to the church and how many people would be involved in carrying the body to the church;

– who would carry the body;

– were they to be paid;

– the route the coffin would take to the church;

– how big they wanted the procession to be not counting the pallbearers;

– were horses involved;

– to what extent were the poor to be involved;

– if the poor showed up, how much would they be paid;[13]

– would the bells be tolled;

– how many times;

– for how long a duration;

– what kind of a service was to be held;

– what type of a sermon;

– who would give that sermon;

– how many sermons were to be given;

– was it a paid sermon;

– were masses/prayers to be given throughout the subsequent years;

– was the body to be buried before the funeral service;

– where was the burial going to take place, where was the gravesite;

– what kind of a tombstone or grave-marker;

– what would be inscribed on the tombstone or grave-marker;

– was there to be a further monument, separate and apart from the grave-marker;

– if so, what appearance would it take;

– what would be inscribed on the monument;

– where would the monument be erected;

– did the attendees get a post-funeral feast; and

– would there be drink?

What did Shakespeare put in his will regarding his funeral arrangements?  Nothing.  Might he have given verbal instructions to his family regarding any possible funeral wishes?  Of course, it’s possible. And it’s very possible those wishes were: nothing.  Not only that, Shakespeare was not one to leave things to chance; he was a prudent business man and set things out, on paper, exactly how he wanted things done: putting his Blackfriars property in trust, nominating Susanna and her husband to be executors, going to great lengths to protect Judith financially, leaving money to people.  If Shakespeare wanted a funeral or wanted it conducted a certain way, he likely would have stipulated it.  He had a will – or wills – previous to 1616, he made a new will in January 1616 and changed it in March 1616 according to his wishes; he set things out as he wanted, he didn’t leave things to chance.

Those who suggest Shakespeare might have given verbal instructions for a funeral and its arrangements then the next question is why wouldn’t he just give verbal instructions to his executors to give money to the poor, give money to Burbage, Heminges and Condell, his sword to Thomas Combe?  Why did he go to such lengths to write and re-write his will in January and March and not add funeral arrangements or instructions to erect a monument? Why were simple things like small bequests set out in his will less than a month before his death but long and lengthy funeral arrangements, prone to being forgotten, were left to verbal instructions?  Most odd.

Some might suggest if he didn’t stipulate in his will that certain monies were to go to certain people or certain possessions were to go to certain people then those monies and possessions would be at risk of falling into his estate’s residue if the wishes weren’t carried out by the executors.  True.  But if he instructed verbally as to his funeral arrangements and these weren’t carried out, then that unspent money would fall into the residue also, benefitting the executors and residual beneficiaries.  It just seems unlikely – based on his many last minute additions, deletions and re-writes – that if he wanted a funeral to speak of or certain arrangements, he would have stipulated such in his will. He didn’t. 

The only thing in Shakespeare’s will that can possibly be associated with a possible funeral connection, a tenuous one, is that he gives the Poore of Stratford aforesaid tenn poundes. This bequest was on page 2, the page thought to be written in 1613 but was possibly re-used as part of the 1616 will. Did Shakespeare include the bequest to the Poore as early as his 1613 will and let it stand in his 1616 version because he was thinking – in 1613 – about providing for the poor who attended his funeral, whenever that might be?  Possibly, but probably not. He probably bequeathed 10£ to the poor, just because; just because he wanted to provide some money for the poor – nothing more, nothing less[14] – and not based on any self-important reason as wanting the poor to attend his funeral by way of a bribe – a funeral he left zero instructions for in his will. 

Death Date and Burial Date

Shakespeare’s death date – 23 April 1616 – comes from his wall monument in Holy Trinity; his burial date – 25 April 1616 – comes from Holy Trinity’s parish register.  At best, that’s only 3 days between death and burial; but also possible is the fact there was only 24 hours and 2 seconds between death and burial.  If Shakespeare died one minute before midnight on the evening of the 23^rd and buried one minute after midnight on the 25^th those two dates are only separated 24 hours and 2 seconds.  Yes, that is viewing the extreme extreme-end of the spectrum, true; but, it is still fact.

If he was buried 24 – or even 36 or 48 or 72 – hours after dying there would not likely be much time for many or grand funeral arrangements.  Attendees might only include those who were in the close vicinity – like, his deathbed; perhaps a few friends and family members in Stratford.  Even if the longer three day span is granted that still doesn’t provide a great deal of time for friends say, in London, to attend nor a great deal of time to prepare grand funeral arrangements. In fact, before word got out of his passing it’s quite possible he was already in the ground.   Viewing the date of his death and the date of his burial it might not be unreasonable to suggest he was interred with fairly quick efficiency for a man of his stature; for some reason, Anne or others, wanted him in the ground forthwith – especially if he was in the ground around the 24 hour mark or thereabouts.

If Shakespeare wanted a pomp-infused funeral and burial, attended by as many fawning admirers as possible, as many poor as could be roused, as many of his London colleagues and county friends as could be summoned, its doubtful his wishes were carried out.  It is more likely he wanted no part of a funeral bespeaking a well to-do playwright and wanted no, or maybe a small, funeral and a quick burial – which is what might have occurred.

A Gentleman’s Funeral and Burial

Holy Trinity’s parish register notes his 25 April burial with the following: Will Shakspere, gent.

The ‘gent’ alludes to Shakespeare’s status as ‘Gentleman’; the lowest rung of minor English nobility.  Even being perched on the bottom rung of nobility brought privileges; one such privilege was a heraldic funeral, i.e., a funeral and burial befitting the deceased’s level of nobility.[15]  A formal nobility funeral of a Gentleman wouldn’t have all the pomp and circumstance of that of a Knight or Earl but, make no mistake, a formal heraldic funeral for a lower-ranked Gentleman still comes with pomp – regulated and recorded – if requested.  Had Shakespeare, or his family, wanted a heraldic funeral such would have been Shakespeare’s entitlement.  There is no indication such a formal, heraldic funeral or burial was held.

To organize such a funeral the College of Arms in London would have to be notified and a representative – a herald – dispatched to oversee the College’s involvement ensuring the deceased received the honours, known as achievements, due the deceased’s rank of nobility.[16] The herald also ensured a lower member of the nobility didn’t try to sneak in more achievements than they were entitled.

Having a formal heraldic funeral overseen by a herald – Officer-in-Arms – from  the College didn’t come cheap: the fee for entering a funeral certificate into the College archives cost a Gentleman’s estate two pounds; that’s just for the certificate.[17]  These heraldic funeral certificates – officially drafted by the College – contained much information: family genealogical details, information about the Officer-in-Arms in attendance, the official mourners present and what ‘achievements’, i.e., the amount of pomp, were on display at the funeral.[18]  Heraldic funerals were grand to-dos and had to adhere closely to the College’s funeral rules and regulations;[19] a Gentleman’s family couldn’t put on a celebration befitting a Knight just because they called father Sir John John.

Given Shakespeare’s burial happened anywhere between 24 and 72 hours after his death it is with some measure of likelihood it can be concluded Shakespeare didn’t have a heraldic funeral.  The investigation posits this would have been Shakespeare’s wish, i.e., that he wanted nothing to do with a pompous, heraldic funeral.  Further, also given the possible turnaround time between death and burial – as little as 24 hours – that fact shades toward the likelihood Shakespeare didn’t have much of a funeral at all, at least not when viewed in terms of how modernity views funerals.

It is rather interesting more might be known about the funeral of Shakespeare’s younger brother, Edmund, than of Shakespeare’s.  Edmund, William’s youngest sibling, was born in 1580, sixteen years after his famous older brother. Following in his older brother’s footsteps, Edmund left Stratford and went to London; he became an actor, probably with the helping hand of his older brother.  Schoenbaum reports someone paid for an expensive funeral costing 20 shillings. Schoenbaum suggests it is not unreasonable to think Shakespeare paid for Edmund’s funeral; this investigation agrees, completely.  Schoenbaum wrote more about Edmund’s funeral than Shakespeare’s – in his book about Shakespeare.[20] 

If Shakespeare wanted a grand to-do, wanted to be remembered in high-style, wanted to cement his legacy by planning an ornate, lavish funeral – heraldic or not – he  certainly didn’t testate it nor did his family carry it out. If Shakespeare did want a lavish funeral and verbally gave instructions to his family to ensure they did as he requested, it looked like they pocketed the money instead. Poor Will.

Norman suggests an interesting reason why deceaseds and survivants alike sought lavish funerals, grand tombs and monuments as ways of remembering the deceased: after death, “methods of remembrance became especially important for a society that collectively feared the plunge into instantaneous, permanent obscurity.”[21]  Not Shakespeare.  He cared nothing for fame or honour and didn’t fear obscurity; during his life he likely embraced it.  Hence, the funeral, if there was one, likely resembled something befitting a pauper, or criminal, rather than a great London dramatist. So, perhaps, it’s not unreasonable to possibly suggest Shakespeare didn’t have a funeral, at least, not how modernity usually views a funeral.

One thing is certain: Shakespeare left zero instructions in his will that a funeral be held; a will he just spent updating in January and March, only months before he died.  If he wanted a funeral or if he had ideas as to how he wanted that funeral to be conducted, he probably would have put that in his up-to-date will; he didn’t.  Other than that certainty, there is not enough information in the historical record to suggest Shakespeare had a funeral.  He might have, he might not have. Or, other irregular circumstances might have been the reason why no funeral took place, if there wasn’t one. The non-existent or quick, bare-bones funeral if it occurred, forms the next Investigative Finding:

IF – It is unknown if Shakespeare received a funeral; if one took place it was likely quick, small, had few attendees and was void of any pomp or self-importance. The Project’s opinion is that there was no public funeral; save perhaps family and close Stratford friends paying their last respects gathered around his shrouded body prior to being interred. Generally speaking, the next death-custom is a burial.

Shakespeare’s Burial

In the parish burial register of Holy Trinity under the date 1616 April 25 the following notation was entered:

                                                Will. Shakspere, gent.[22]

The register in Holy Trinity notes a burial and a date; that’s a good starting point.  Because there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the entry the investigation can take judicial notice of that fact: Shakespeare was buried. 

Shakespeare, via his will, says how he wants to be buried.  Ergo, he did turn his mind to post-death arrangements after all; which means he thought about post-death matters and gave instructions according to his wishes; which bolsters the conjecture he wanted no funeral.  He uses formulaic testamentary wording in his will where he gives his soul to God and “my bodye to the Earth whereof it is made.” This was common phraseology to use in a 17^th century will – simple, to the point and direct.

Shakespeare’s dying Warwick in King Henry VI Part 3 used these words when he realized he wasn’t long for death and declares he must yield my body to the earth.[23]  Though the investigation realizes such sentences were widely used and formulaic, perhaps advertent thought actually did go into using these words in Shakespeare’s will over and above boiler-plate, formulaic phrasing.

It is interesting to note Shakespeare uses Warwick’s simple wording in his will regarding his simple burial and didn’t verbally instruct it to executors.  He turned his mind to it and said he just wants his body, like Warwick’s, to be given to the earth.  It doesn’t get much simpler than that.  It’s not unreasonable to suggest if Shakespeare didn’t want to use simple wording regarding what was to happen to his body he would have had writ what he did, in fact, want.  And, his simple request of giving his body back to the Earth where it is made appears to have been carried out: he was not buried in a grand tomb, vault or sepulchre.

Because the parish register doesn’t say where Shakespeare was buried that is logically the next question: where was Shakespeare buried? Most probably, in a grave, of sorts; and, likely, marked somehow. Maybe.

Shakespeare’s Grave and Grave-Marker

This is where things go off the rails a bit.  Shakespeare’s place of burial in 1616, allegedly in the chancel of Holy Trinity, is the stuff of legend.  Legends and investigations don’t necessarily play well together. Much has been written about Shakespeare’s grave, documentaries have aired on television, radar has scanned underneath the grave-marke; to date, the whole story seems a mystery. Regardless, the investigation must go down the unenviable path of looking into Shakespeare’s grave. Why is it unenviable?  Because, in the main, it’s a bit of a bee’s nest and the Project fully admits it is not an expert beekeeper.

Shakespeare’s Grave-Marker in the Historical Record

Shakespeare left no instructions in his will as to whether he wanted a grave-marker.  After stating in his will he wants his body to be given back to the Earth, he says nothing – that’s the extent of his interment wishes.

When discussing grave-markers in their research commentators note some testators in the 17^th century did in fact give written instructions as to how they wanted their grave-marker to look.  Some testators asked for simple markers; others testated they wanted full-on, grand tomb markers; there are as many testated grave-marker wishes from deceased in their wills as there are documented funeral wishes.  Shakespeare testated nothing. Maybe he wanted an unmarked grave.

Potter, when trying to unpack the reason behind Shakespeare’s lack of testamentary funeral/interment wishes, puts forth “the most extreme interpretation would be that he wished to be forgotten.”[24]  Although she probably didn’t think she was getting warm at the time when she put that out into the scholarsphere she’s not – in the Project’s opinion – far from the truth, not far at all, to wit:  Shakespeare probably didn’t care about a grand grave-marker, not one bit; nor did he care about any possible funeral or lack thereof nor any lavish burial coffin or vault. If none of these things were carried out – a funeral, a lavish burial, a grand grave-marker – and the result would be he would be forgotten, so be it, he didn’t care.  Which is darn close to Potter musing that maybe Shakespeare “wished to be forgotten.”  Either or, she’s incredibly close to being absolutely bang-on correct. 

Obviously, somebody arranged for his burial because he is reported in the parish register to have been buried on 25 April 1616; somebody also arranged for his grave-marker. 

It is possible Shakespeare’s grave-marker – whenever the initial placement – consisted of a single, flat stone. The single, flat stone slab that originally marked Shakespeare’s grave is probably not dissimilar – the same one? – to what is present today: a flat stone, even in height with the floor, covering more or less 60% of the length of a normal-length grave.  Another flat stone, a later addition, covers the remaining portion of the grave.

The evidence that Shakespeare’s grave-marker was a ‘stone’ and not some other form of grave-marker – like a modest vertical tombstone or a much larger tomb-like monument – comes from four separate sources: Weever, Dugdale, Digges and Jonson.

Lancashireman John Weever (1576-1632) was part poet and part antiquary; his poetry career, short-lived, produced his 1599 publication Epigrammes in the Oldest Cut and Newest Fashion – the title of which might be a take on Shakespeare’s line about committing the oldest sins the newest kind of way.[25]  Weever’s antiquary interest produced his more lasting legacy: Ancient Funerall Monuments, his 1631 book depicting and discussing burial sites, graves, tombs, monuments and the like. Weever visited Stratford and of Shakespeare’s grave-marker he terms it a “grave stone.”[26] 

Another antiquary, Sir William Dugdale (1605-1686), historian and herald, in his 1656 book Antiquities of Warwickshire describes Shakespeare’s grave-marker as a “plain free stone.”[27]  Plain, i.e., nothing etched or inscribed on it such as a name, dates, words or decorative etchings.  Free, i.e., not mounted or affixed to a base.   

      Digges, an elegist in 1623’s Folio, see earlier, wrote in his elegy:

                  …thy Workes, by which, out-live

                  Thy Tombe, thy name must: when that stone is rent

Digges speaks of a tombe and a stone.  Though the two words are used together in close proximity and they could have different meanings it is reasonable to think Digges is referring to Shakespeare’s ‘burial site’ generally as a tombe, i.e., where Shakespeare is interred and the grave-marker as ‘that stone’; which would corroborate Weever’s and Dugdale’s description.   Digges – when he describes Shakespeare’s marker as ‘that stone’ – should be taken at his word.

Jonson also commented on Shakespeare’s burial accoutrements but it is clear he’s answering and responding to a poem written by William Basse[28] which was unpublished but circulated prior to 1623’s Folio. Jonson has a portion of his 1623 elegy go like this:

                  My Shakespeare, rise; I will not lodge thee by

                  Chaucer, or Spenser, or bid Beaumont lye

                  A little further, to make thee a roome:

                  Thou art a Moniment, without a tombe

                  And art alive still, while thy Booke doth live…

The monument component of that excerpt will be unpacked further below but for now the only focus will be on the fact Jonson writes Shakespeare is ‘without a tombe.’ Jonson here is referring to the fact Shakespeare has no tombe in Westminster Abbey where Chaucer, Spenser and Beaumont are buried; not Shakespeare’s lack of a tombe qua tombe in Holy Trinity.  Or, is he?

As an aside, because all of Jonson’s lines about Shakespeare’s ‘tombe’ and ‘moniment’ are writ in response to Basse’s previous poem, and possibly Digges’s, and he doesn’t need to see exactly what has been erected for Shakespeare in Holy Trinity in order for him to write what he wrote there is actually zero evidence Jonson ever visited the grave of his ‘beloved’.  He never wrote of any visit himself or told Drummond he made a pilgrimage to Shakespeare’s grave. The investigation wagers he did not in fact visit; this is not an ‘almost certain’ conjecture, just a wager.  A little one.

There is enough evidence – even though none of it spawns from 1616 – to cautiously conclude the stone that came to be identified as Shakespeare’s grave-marker consisted of an unmarked, plain, free stone level with the ground; which is what passers-by see today. The most Shakespeare Birthplace Trust is willing to commit to the gravestone discussion is thus: “his gravestone, below the monument, does not bear his name, but was believed to be Shakespeare’s from at least 1656”[29] which, of course, is 40 years after his death.

Though Shakespeare testated nothing regarding his grave-marker, there is one.  History will likely never know but it’s not unreasonable to think Shakespeare might have verbally instructed his family he wanted an unmarked grave. If Shakespeare gave instructions for a lavish vertical tomb-stone and grave-marker, his wishes weren’t carried out. If he gave verbal instructions for an unmarked grave his family carried out those wishes perfectly.

There is an interesting passage in Twelfth Night regarding funerals and unmarked graves.  Interesting, because it comes out of nowhere, mostly.  Duke Orsino is asking for the song he heard the night before to be played again; it was a song about the innocence of love.  Shakespeare then has Feste, the fool, sing a song about death, funerals and unmarked graves. Part of it goes like this:

            Not a flower, not a flower sweet,

            On my black coffin let there be strown;

            Not a friend, not a friend greet

            My poor corpse where my bones shall be thrown;

            A thousand thousand sighs to save,

            Lay me, O, where

            Sad true lover never find my grave,

            To weep there![30]

This song doesn’t quite fit the scene he was writing, quite.  Orsino wanted the song he previously heard about the innocence of love; Feste sings about death.  What does fit the Duke’s request is a song portraying the melancholic innocence of love gone awry; singing about a maid that has broken her suitor’s heart and subsequently the suitor wants to die, such is the power of love’s innocence.   It is almost as if Shakespeare was thinking about funerals and unmarked graves – his own? – and decided to weave into his plot a little ditty about unmarked graves with what he was writing.  Shakespeare talks about nobody attending a funeral procession to where a body is going to be laid to rest and he talks of an unmarked grave so no one will be able to find it where they can weep.  It’s just a curious observation noting that he does write of someone having no funeral procession and an unmarked grave.

Moreover, Shakespeare realized graves and tombs were not where honour resided; it resided in the person, not memorials.  Honour is found in the deceased’s bones, not their gravestones:

                                                       Honours thrive

            When rather from our acts we them derive

            Than our fore-goers.  The mere word’s a slave,

            Debauch’d on every tomb, on every grave

            A lying trophy; and as oft is dumb

            Where dust and damn’d oblivion is the tomb

            Of honour’d bones indeed.[31]

Because Shakespeare testated no grave-marker wishes, disliked honour and just wanted his body to be given back to the earth the investigation can, cautiously, make another Investigative Finding:

IF – Shakespeare wanted an unmarked grave.[32] A wish which his family carried out with expert precision; the unmarked grave was perfectly executed – until the curse arrives.

Shakespeare’s Grave-Marker Curse

Much has been written about the curse that is now etched on the flat stone that is identified as Shakespeare’s grave-marker; the curse by which is the only means of identifying Shakespeare’s grave, for without which, the stone is bare.  Most of the commentary revolves around when it first appeared on the stone and who wrote it:

                        GOOD FREND FOR JESUS SAKE FORBEARE,

TO DIGG THE DUST ENCLOASED HEARE:

BLESE BE THE MAN THAT SPARES THES STONES,

AND CURST BE HE THAT MOVES MY BONES.

Recalling Dugdale’s 1656’s description in his Antiquities of Warwickshire – the stone was a plain stone – it’s not certain the writing was etched on the grave-marker as of 1656, let alone in 1616.  If the curse didn’t show up until  after 1656 that means the stone that is identified as Shakespeare’s grave-marker had no means of identification – no name, no dates and no curse – for 40 years after his death. Because the curse is the only means of identifying Shakespeare’s alleged grave-marker, knowing the date of its inscription would be most helpful; however, no inscription date can be identified.  An interesting observation is that none of the elegists in the Folio refer to a curse.  If the curse was extant in 1623 – either etched or writ on an impermanent placard or the like – that might have provided some decent elegy material for an elegist.  It might have provided some decent materials for Digges or Jonson to write about Shakespeare’s curse, or his cursed grave or the like.  Nothing turns on the fact the curse is not mentioned in the Folio; it’s just an observation. 

As to who wrote it, some suggest Shakespeare himself.  This seems unlikely based on two reasons: 1) it’s not in keeping with what is known about Shakespeare and 2) the etched curse uses a word in such a way far removed from the meaning Shakespeare always intended when he used that word.

As to point one, for much of the same reason why this investigation suggests Shakespeare didn’t have a funeral or if he did it was nothing to speak of and the fact, at best, his grave-marker is barely a grave-marker at all, with no name or dates on it, and covers only roughly two thirds a normal length grave, it seems a stretch to propose Shakespeare himself would give verbal instructions for a grave-marker with no name but instruct it be furnished with a curse.  It stretches credibility.

As to point two, it is clear the inscription is intended to be a curse, that is clear.  However, in his plays, Shakespeare did not use the word ‘curst’ to mean ‘a curse’.  He used ‘curst’ to mean, variously: shrewish, quarrelsome, bad-tempered, angry or the like; not, a curse qua curse.

Although Shakespeare uses ‘curst’ to mean shrewish and angry etc, in many plays[33] two brief examples make the point.  In The Taming of the Shrew, Shakespeare has Petruchio rebut Katherina when she says her name is, in fact, Katherina:

            You lie, in faith, for you are call’d plain Kate

            And bonny Kate, and sometimes Kate the curst;[34]

I.e., Kate the shrew, Kate the bad-tempered, Kate is quarrelsome.  Not, Kate the cursed, as in, Kate is cursed.  Prior to that passage, Kate is described as ‘curst’ i.e., bad-tempered and shrewish, six times. 

In King Lear, Edmund says: When I dissuaded him from his intent and found him pight to do it, with curst speech I threatened to discover him.[35]  Edmund means he threatened with angry, quarrelsome speech; not speech cursing someone.  Beatrice in Much Ado gets labeled as ‘curst’ many times.

It might be a stretch to think the best wordsmith in the history of wordsmithing would use the word ‘curst’ to mean ‘curse’ on his grave-marker when he didn’t use it that way in his plays and it is further unlikely said wordsmith would before his death verbally countenance a ‘curse’ to be placed/inscribed on his unmarked, unnamed grave-marker if he knew the word ‘curst’ was going to be used in that fashion.

When Shakespeare referred to a ‘curse’, he referred to it as such, hundreds of times.  One example, and a great example of somebody laying a curse(s) on someone, is found in Richard III.  The former Queen Margaret spares almost none on stage, and one that is not, as she curses Richard, Duke of Gloucester, later King Richard III; she continues to curse the current Queen, Elizabeth; Edward, Prince of Wales, Elizabeth’s son; Earl Rivers; Marquess of Dorset; and Lord Hastings.[36]  Buckingham, not a target of the cursing Margaret, after listening to her pick one off after another, says my hair doth stand on end to hear her curses. After Margaret’s ammo is spent and exits the dialogue shifts to discuss Richard’s brother Clarence, who is not on stage but held prisoner in the Tower.  Richard says he wanted to fire off some cursing of his own at Clarence but refrained and concluded

        – being well advised;

For had I curs’d now, I had curs’d myself.[37]

Another example of Shakespeare using the word ‘curs’d’ – in such a fashion the grave-marker is trying to project – comes in King John. Pandolph, the papal legate, in two different passages uses the word ‘curs’d’: Thou shalt stand curs’d and excommunicate and, later, if thou stand excommunicate and curs’d.[38] When Shakespeare wanted to state that somebody would be ‘cursed’ if they did something wrong he used the word ‘cursed’ or ‘curs’d’ not ‘curst.’

At some point wishful thinking has to give way to evidence and critical thinking; eager extrapolation has to be dialed back to involve likelihoods.  I.e, Shakespeare lwouldn’t have used the word ‘curst’ to mean a curse; from there, it is not a huge leap to suggest Shakespeare did not author, nor countenance, the curse that adorns his grave-marker. If Shakespeare did compose the ‘curse’ and wanted the word ‘curst’ to have the same meaning he always gave it in his plays, the line would be translated thus: And shrewish be he that moves my bones.  Haha.  So, yes, Shakespeare didn’t compose the curse. If Shakespeare was going to write his grave-marker curse he would have used ‘Accursed’ or ‘And curs’d’ instead of ‘And curst.’ This conjecture is strong enough to make another Investigative Finding:

IF – Shakespeare did not compose the ‘curse’ now etched on his grave-marker.

Although interesting and although the Project finds against seeing Shakespeare’s hand in writing the curse, that in and of itself can’t assist the investigation a great deal, at this point; however, it does assist collaterally insofar that it reinforces the likelihood that Shakespeare probably wanted an unmarked grave and somebody else had that inscribed so at least the grave could finally be identified – in a place where graves were routinely dug up to make room for new arrivals.

Shakespeare’s Grave-Marker Location

This is perhaps the trickiest of all Shakespeare’s funerary objects and death accoutrements to nail down with any accuracy especially given the fact the stone that is identified as Shakespeare’s grave-marker only came to be identified as such 40 years post death.  The Project fully admits it is not an expert on the grave-marker history and also admits its research was more akin to comparative research which then provided a foundation for its own musings.

There is a deceased, Shakespeare.  There is no mention of a funeral.  Holy Trinity’s parish register notes his burial took place on 25 April 1616. At some point, a previously completely unmarked grave-marker is etched with a curse. Shakespeare testated nothing regarding the location of his burial, i.e., where he wanted to give his body back to the earth. History and custom puts the burial of Shakespeare’s remains, from the start, under his current grave-marker in Holy Trinity’s chancel; other members of Shakespeare’s family are also buried in the chancel.

The next portion of the investigation will focus on where that unmarked grave-marker first appeared and if Shakespeare can be determined to be thereunder. 

Out of his family, Shakespeare’s current burial plot – marked by a flat, slab stone – was allegedly the first to arrive in the Holy Trinity’s chancel in 1616 and subsequently followed by his wife Anne in 1623, his son-in-law John Hall in 1635, grandson-in-law Thomas Nash in 1647 and Shakespeare’s eldest daughter Susanna in 1649.  Shakespeare’s second daughter, Judith, is not buried in Holy Trinity with the rest of her biological family.  Somewhat interestingly, Judith’s burial at Holy Trinity is marked in the church register under the date 09 February 1662 but she’s not buried at Holy Trinity.  Holy Trinity registers her burial, but, there is no grave-site; at least, there is not one today. I.e., she’s not there.  Also interestingly, though Judith died in 1662 and is not buried where what can loosely be called the ‘Shakespeare Family Grave Row’ there are others buried alongside the Shakespeare family: Francis Watts in 1691, Anne Watts in 1704 and Richard Watts in 1707.

The Project canvassed a reasonable proportion of the previous commentary on the conundrum that is Shakespeare’s grave and grave-marker, or perhaps more aptly put, The Great Shakespeare Grave Conundrum – such as it is. From the 1620s and 1650s up until the 2020s many have commented: Digges and Jonson, Weever and Dugdale, Halliwell-Phillipps,[39] Fripp and Chambers, Rowse and Schoenbaum, Honan and Bate, Potter and Bearman,[40] Horsler[41] and Orlin; there are others.  No one has completely solved The Great Shakespeare Grave Conundrum, to wit: is Shakespeare buried underneath his current grave-marker, was he ever buried underneath his current grave-marker, has his grave-marker been moved, has it been replaced, is the current grave-marker the original?  To date, no one has satisfactorily answered all those questions – neither, for that matter, has the Project.

Based on primary sources, older and newer research, ground-penetrating radar, commentary and current photographs the following is fair cross section of known facts, or as close to facts as can be determined, canvassing dozens of accounts:

– Shakespeare’s grave marker is currently within the chancel in Holy Trinity Church;

– Shakespeare’s burial was noted in the parish register on 25 April 1616; but that in and of itself does not prove Shakespeare was buried in the chancel; there are thousands of names in the burial register, but only a small fraction of those deceased were ever buried in the chancel or elsewhere inside the church;

– Shakespeare’s gravestone is unmarked, insofar as there is no name nor birth or death date inscribed thereon; a curse shows up at some point;

– no surviving source exists recording Shakespeare was buried in the chancel in 1616;

– Digges in his 1623 Folio elegy refers to ‘that stone’, but he doesn’t say where that is;

– the first fully accurate recording of the location of Shakespeare’s alleged grave-marker in the chancel comes from Dugdale’s 1656 book, Antiquities of Warwickshire; which is after deaths of everybody else in the family grave row: Anne (1623), John Hall (1635), Thomas Nash (1647) and Susanna Hall (1649).

– a possible earlier reporting of the location of the burial in the chancel from Weever or Dugdale might be a possible interpretation;

– Weever and Dugdale both record the curse, but they do not stipulate whether the curse is writ on a temporary medium or etched on the stone;

– the chancel part of the church, where Shakespeare’s grave-marker currently sits, needed extensive repairs in 1593;

– either the repair job was shoddy or never undertaken, because in 1618 the chancel was so ruinous and in such bad repair it was boarded off from public use;

– repairs were undertaken in or around 1621;

– graves, not only in a graveyard but even inside a church, were routinely dug up to make room for new arrivals by either just adding the new remains to the already occupied space or by taking the old remains out and replacing them with a new deceased’s remains;

– if removed, the old bones would be moved to a charnel house, i.e., a repository for unearthed bones;

– Holy Trinity’s charnel house was attached to the exterior of its chancel;

– the door connecting Holy Trinity’s charnel house to the interior of the church was in the chancel and a few feet from Shakespeare’s current grave-marker;

– the practice of digging up old graves, unearthing old bones and moving them to the charnel house occurred at Holy Trinity;

– while standing in the chancel, in front of the altar, with the Shakespeare Family Grave Row in front of the viewer, from left to right the graves are as follows: Anne, Shakespeare’s wife; Shakespeare; Thomas Nash, Shakespeare’s grandson-in-law; son-in-law John Hall, Susanna’s husband; Susanna, Shakespeare’s oldest daughter; the three Watts, previously mentioned, are to the right of Susanna;

– the Shakespeare Family Grave Row are not laid out in chronological fashion, based on death date;

– in terms of death date, from left to right, the following numbers correspond to the order in which they died and were, probably, buried: L – 2^nd to be buried (Anne), 1^st (Shakespeare), 4^th (Nash), 3^rd (Hall) and 5^th (Susanna) – R;

– the Shakespeare Family Grave Row seems to be undertaken randomly and not carried out according to any pre-planned interments;

– Judith is not buried with the rest of her family, at least, she’s not buried in the Shakespeare Family Grave Row now; but her 1662 death is recorded in the parish burial register as having been buried;

– if she was there, she was dug up to make room for others;

– which is what happened to Susanna, partially;

– at least, her grave-marker was cut to make room for other interments and grave-markers next to her, on her right, the Watts;

–  new arrivals to the right of Susanna, thereby adding to the Shakespeare Family Grave Row, are Francis Watts in 1691, Ann Watts in 1704 and Richard Watts in 1707;

– over hundreds of years the chancel and the Shakespeare Family Grave Row have undergone substantial renovations and restorations – above and below ground;

– varying accounts suggest in the 1800s Shakespeare’s stone might have sunk below its original height, below the rest of the stones and below the level of the floor it was originally even with;

– for hundreds of years the Shakespeare Family Grave Row was not roped off – church-goers, workmen and admirers were walking all over them;

– all the grave-markers suffered greatly from hundreds of thousands people walking on them, they deteriorated;

– the Shakespeare Family Grave Row forms part of a step to a further part of the chancel, the altar area;

– because of the inordinate amount of foot-traffic and concomitant weight,  the stones had been so badly damaged over the years that in the 1800s the grave-marker stones had to be re-cut and inscriptions restored;

– four (Anne, Nash, Hall, Susanna) stones today look very similar lending credence they were all re-cut and re-fashioned simultaneously;

– these new stones are so similar looking it appears they were quarried from the same quarry at roughly the same time and possibly from the same vein;

– Shakespeare’s stone is slightly different; it is much smaller and of a different colour and is inset within, and bordered by, newer looking slabs surrounding it;

– the border stones that enwrap Shakespeare’s ‘curse’ stone look very similar to the rest of the newer, updated stones;

– Holy Trinity refuses, rightly so, to permit Shakespeare’s grave to be excavated;

– why would they, when they receive hundreds of thousands of pounds a year from admiring tourists wanting to view Shakespeare’s grave;

– graciously, Holy Trinity has permitted non-invasive radar scans of Shakespeare’s grave and the rest of his family;

– the ground-penetrating radar has found no vault or coffin under Shakespeare’s grave-marker; the density of the ground underneath Shakespeare’s stone suggest possible past disturbance;

– the radar picked up a structure of sorts that resembles the possible shape and density of maybe a support post of some sort; possibly inserted at some point in the past to prevent his stone from sinking, or sinking further; if Shakespeare’s stone had in fact by the 1800s sunk over the years and the radar has picked up a support of sorts underneath it, that fits; and

– so ends 400 years of information.

            Each researcher over the last few hundred years has come up with conclusions and conjectures using the above facts as supporting foundation to whatever their theory might be.  This investigation will join the club, trying its best to refrain from fanciful and wishful suppositions.  This is the way the Project feels things transpired – which may be bang-on right, mostly right, a bit right or a bit wrong, mostly wrong or completely wrong.

How Shakespeare Might Have Ended Up Buried In The Chancel

– Shakespeare leaves no interment instructions in his will except he just wants his body to be given back to the earth;

– he might have left verbal instructions to be buried in an unmarked grave;

– he probably didn’t care where that unmarked grave was, if anywhere;

– his family probably picked, and paid for, the location of his grave;

– knowledgeable historian Bearman says Shakespeare’s status as a church tithe-holder would not have contributed to the grave location;

– a few, very few, were present when he was buried in the shallow grave, in the chancel, probably, anywhere from one to two days after his death;

– with his family carrying out his unmarked grave wishes, Shakespeare’s grave remains unmarked as of today as to name and dates;

– carrying out their own wishes, the family ensured a chancel burial, probably;

– a chancel burial was far better than the common graveyard or elsewhere and a burial in the chancel would have the best chance of not being disturbed, if people knew well enough to leave a plain stone alone;

– Holy Trinity’s chancel was in rough shape in 1616;

– so ruinous, it had to be boarded off from the rest of the church and public in 1618; though the chancel was leaking badly it was at least enclosed inside a building;

– the family, likely true to their word to Shakespeare, ensured the grave remained unmarked, but over time, this wouldn’t do – church authorities needed something more permanent so as to ensure everybody that came after – especially the sextons, the gravediggers – would know not to pry the flat, plain stone up because there was someone buried underneath it;

– at some point it had to be identified and the curse appears; likely not inscribed at first, but placed there at some point thereafter to let people know there was in fact a body under this flat, plain stone in the chancel floor, which itself was likely in poor repair; -and, the stone had to have some means of identification on it because by this time, other people are getting buried next to the unmarked stone: Anne in 1623, John Hall in 1635, Thomas Nash in 1647 and Susanne Hall in 1649.

– the curse gets inscribed on Shakespeare’s flat stone grave-marker;

– it’s now at least identified by way of the curse;

– if the Row was pre-planned, poor Judith, she wasn’t included; 

– because the Row might not have been pre-planned, and pre-paid burials probably hadn’t caught on yet, and Judith was the last member of the family left alive, she had no survivants to ensure she ended up in the Shakespeare Family Grave Row;

– by the end of the 1600s and early 1700s the Shakespeare Family Grave Row was becoming an important destination and the pre-eminent place to be buried in Holy Trinity;

– the Watts family likely paid handsomely for three of their members to be added next to Susanna, thus securing a spot in the prestigious Row and almost assuring they would never be dug up and sent to the charnel house;

-over time, more and more people start to visit Holy Trinity as Shakespeare gains in popularity, unparalleled really, after death;

– the foot traffic over the grave-markers gets voluminous resulting in serious deleterious effects, possibly sinking some of the markers to some extent;

– the stones needed to be refurbished which would include possible replacement or re-inscription;

– some of the grave-markers are refurbished, likely replaced;

– Shakespeare’s grave plot, topped with the stone that has the curse on it and the other stones surrounding it can at least be said to have undergone refurbishing to some extent;

–  the enwrapped curse stone is surrounded by newer-looking stone slabs;[42]

– the enwrapped curse stone and the surrounding newer-looking stone slabs now, collectively,  cover a normal sized grave and it is this composition that makes up Shakespeare’s entire, current grave plot;

– the reason why the other stones had to be replaced was because everybody was walking on them, but being relatively careful not to walk on Shakespeare’s stone, as if walking on Anne’s and Susanna’s grave-marker was slightly less disrespectful while they were looking at, and being careful not to walk on,  Shakespeare’s stone;

– Shakespeare’s enwrapped curse-stone likely received much less foot traffic than those around it which is why his curse-stone looks far older than the surrounding newer stones;

– therefore, it might not have been replaced;

– the picture becomes clearer from top to bottom and can be summarized thusly:

– there is no funeral, or only a few, select people gather around his shallow grave;

– laid over top is a flat stone, an unmarked grave-marker;

– in a falling-down part of the church, that was taking on destructive moisture but at least it’s semi-dry to some extent, though it’s in rough shape;

– family members get added over time with marked grave-markers; and

– a curse appears at some point to denote ‘that stone’ is in fact a grave-marker because it won’t do to have every other Shakespeare grave identified but not William’s but it remains unmarked as to name and dates.

Potter might be 100% correct when she says maybe Shakespeare in 1616 might have wanted to be forgotten.[43]  It’s certainly looking that way. Since Shakespeare’s 1616 death a few not unimportant things occur thereafter:

– after 400 years, Shakespeare becomes to be known as the greatest writer the world has ever seen;

– millions of people have viewed his unnamed grave-marker;

– were it not for his family ensuring the chancel location and somebody coming up with the curse, the location of his burial might never have been known;

– which wouldn’t be all that surprising considering the dearth of information on every other aspect of his death;

– so kudos to the Shakespeare family; modernity thanks you as does Holy Trinity, countless universities, hotels, restaurants, trinket-sellers and pilgrims;

– Anne, your insistence that your ever-absent husband writing pretty thoughts during those absences was buried in the chancel has made many, many people lots and lots of money.

Recall, Shakespeare left no instructions in his will regarding a funeral, or tomb or monument; he only testated he wanted to give his body back to the earth.  Is it possible he gave verbal instructions prior to his death about a funeral, grave-marker and monument?  Of course, it’s possible; and very possible those wishes were to have no funeral, no identifiable grave-marker and no monument. But, as some suggest, he might have left verbal instructions for, say his monument; if so, something just doesn’t add up; not when you look at all the extant evidence and remember what kind of a guy Shakespeare was. It’s not unreasonable to think Shakespeare also therefore didn’t care where he was buried – only that his body goes back to the earth.  Which, strictly speaking, would actually point more to an outside, common graveyard burial, but whatever. Maybe Anne couldn’t bear that thought – her husband being put out to pasture with the commoners and paupers and criminals; a common graveyard is not really a spot befitting a coated-Gentleman, a great London dramatist, a landowner many times over and master of the second biggest house in Stratford.  Perhaps Shakespeare really didn’t care where his body was given back to the earth; but make no mistake, families usually do.  A lot.  And since Shakespeare didn’t have a say in the matter by that time off to the derelict chancel he went. 

One further possible scenario must be set out – even if just for the sake of completeness: maybe Shakespeare was never buried in the chancel.  Ponder that extreme interpretation while keeping in mind the historical record records at different times from different people, of two instances, varying in details, when the ground around Shakespeare’s grave was inadvertently breached and workmen were able to look into a cavity of sorts, under his grave-marker.  One report records nothing was seen except dust and earth when peered into while another report puts bones under the grave-marker.[44]

Perhaps he was laid to rest in an unmarked grave in the church graveyard and if anyone wanted to see Shakespeare’s grave they would be taken to the chancel and a placard of sorts was placed on a flat, slab stone and this stone was shown as Shakespeare’s grave-marker.  Who’s the wiser?  As time marched on, it became increasingly clear that having a grave-marker being identified as Shakespeare’s was extremely important; the curse thereafter gets etched on a stone for identification purposes. If this happened, they couldn’t really etch Shakespeare’s name on the grave-marker if he wasn’t there – that would be dishonest not to mention blasphemous considering its location inside a church – so the best remedy would be to identify a stone with a catchy curse-rhyme; with the etcher not knowing using the word ‘curst’ for the manner it was intended was never writ by Shakespeare that way.   Over time, this stone would cometo be identified as marking Shakespeare’s grave and 400 years of custom turns into fact; you know, similar to the whole merry-meeting-drinking-fever-diary thing. And really, who’s to know? Don’t forget, Judith’s burial was recorded in the register but she isn’t in the chancel; it’s not even known if she’s in the outside graveyard.  Thousands of people’s names are in the register but not in the chancel or the church or the graveyard but ended up in the charnel house or elsewhere.

Here’s the best the investigation can conclude: it is not ‘almost certain’ Shakespeare was buried in the chancel; there is a strong possibility he was. The other side of that coin is there is a possibility he was not.  To that end, the investigation surmises the following: if he was buried in the chancel, he is still there.  The investigation finds no merit in any of the commentary that suggests he might have been there at one point but has since been exhumed and moved; that’s a conspiracy too far.  If he was there, he is still.  If he wasn’t there on 25 April 1616, it’s unlikely he’s there now. Heck, who knows, maybe something prevented him from receiving a full Christian burial and funeral and concomitant rights; it would certainly explain the lack of funeral record and unmarked grave; the follow-up to that is if he wasn’t in the chancel on 25 April 1616, two days after his death, why not?

 Taking into account there are no testated wishes as to burial location and also taking into account it’s unlikely Shakespeare composed the inscription etched on his otherwise unmarked, unnamed and undated grave and remembering Potter’s obiter when she says it is possible Shakespeare might have wanted to be forgotten and recalling Shakespeare’s overall aversion to outward shows of honour it’s not a huge stretch to posit Shakespeare didn’t care where he was buried and it was possibly Anne and the rest of the family that arranged Shakespeare’s spot in the chancel.

Given all the above – knowns and thinking through other interpretations – another Investigative Finding can be put forth:

IF – Shakespeare didn’t care where he was buried and did not arrange his place of burial prior to his death and it was probably Shakespeare’s family that likely arranged for his burial.

Shakespeare’s Wall Monument[45]

A controversial and problematic piece of Shakespeare’s memorial objects is the wall monument. Or, is it? It wasn’t problematic when it was erected so why is it now?

Sometime between 1616 and 1623 – shading towards the middle/later of those two dates – the wall monument, a half body bust and face of Shakespeare – was installed inside Holy Trinity; and not necessarily in the chancel where it’s now anchored to the north chancel wall overlooking the Shakespeare Family Grave Row. Regardless of its original location inside Holy Trinity, the wall monument was installed as a memorial to Shakespeare: somebody had it commissioned, somebody paid for it, somebody carved it, somebody painted it, somebody wrote the inscribed epitaphal words and somebody installed it. 

Such problems are variously described as: who commissioned it, who carved it, who paid for it, who wrote the words, did it look like Shakespeare when it was erected, how badly has it been damaged over the years, does it look like Shakespeare now?  The Shakespeare Monument Conundrum – not to be confused with The Great Shakespeare Grave Conundrum or, for that matter, the Shakespeare Birthday Gambit – has spawned a new sub-discipline of Shakespearean scholarship that might be birthing new ‘almost certain’ facts which might not be so.

Who Carved The Wall Monument?

Various researchers nail it down to two people: Gheerart Janssen or his younger brother, Nicholas; variously known by their anglicized names Gerard and Nicholas Johnson.  The Gerard-favouring researchers mostly rely on Dugdale from his notes and book of the 1650s; that school of research took place prior to the 2020s.   The Nicholas-favouring position results from Orlin in 2021.[46]  While interesting, the investigation takes no position on the identity of the carver for nothing turns on it.  If positively identifying the carver could shed light on the investigation then the identity of the carver becomes important.  Some say Gerard carved it; some postulate, Nicholas.  Somebody carved it, it’s there. 

Who Was Responsible For Composing The Epitaph On The Wall Monument?

Not Shakespeare.

IVDICIO PYLIVM,GENIO SOCRATEM,ARTE MARONEM,
TERRA TEGIT, POPVLVS MÆRET, OLYMPVS HABET[47]

STAY PASSENGER, WHY GOEST THOV BY SO FAST,

READ IF THOV CANST, WHOM ENVIOVS DEATH HATH PLAST
   WITH IN THIS MONVMENT SHAKSPEARE: WITH WHOME,
              QVICK NATVRE DIDE: WHOSE NAME, DOTH DECK YS TOMBE,   
   FAR MORE, THEN COST: SIEH ALL, YT HE HATH WRITT,

LEAVES LIVING ART, BVT PAGE, TO SERVE HIS WITT.

            So, yes, not Shakespeare.  Somebody else wrote that. 

When Was The Wall Monument Erected?

It wasn’t there in 1616.  No check that, it’s unlikely it was there prior to or at his death in 1616; thereafter, it was referred to in 1623’s Folio; at some point, therefore, between 1616 and 1623 Shakespeare’s wall monument gets installed. The earliest published commentary evidencing its existence comes from Digges’s Folio elegy in 1623.  A possible earlier allusion might come from an unpublished but circulating poem by William Basse, discussed earlier. Jonson’s 1623 Folio elegy possibly contains a reference to it, but depending on one’s interpretation of Jonson’s words, it might be a reference to it, it might not be. Weever also possibly enters the picture. The investigation will canvass the possible, and certain, references to the monument.

William Basse, English poet (c.1583-1653), wrote a great poem after Shakespeare’s death about where Shakespeare’s burial should have taken place.  The poem was circulating in rough manuscript form, i.e., on loose paper, prior to 1623, but as far as is known its earliest publication date is 1633.[48]  Jonson in his 1623 Folio elegy riffs on Basse’s poem and sort of commandeers Basse’s original idea of where Shakespeare should be buried; but then Jonson comes up with a reason why Shakespeare should not be buried where Basse suggests, i.e., Westminster Abbey.  But that discussion – Jonson replying to Basse’s favoured burial location – is neither here nor there; the purpose of the present discussion is determining whether Basse refers to the wall monument in his post-1616 pre-1623 poem. It goes like this:

On Mr. Wm Shakespeare

he dyed in Aprill 1616

Renowned Spencer, lye a thought more nye

To learned Chaucer & rare Beaumont lye

A little neerer Spencer to make roome

For Shakespeare in your threefold fowerfold Tombe

To lodge all fowre in one bed make a shift

Untill Doomesdaye, for hardly will a fift

Betwixt this day and that by Fate be slayne

ffor whom your Curtaines may be drawn againe.

If your precendency in death doth barre

A fourth place in your sacred sepulcher,

Under this carved marble of thine own

Sleepe rare Tragedian, Shakespeare sleep alone

Thy unmolested peace, unshared Cave

Possesse as Lord not Tenant of thy Grave

That unto us and others it may be

Honor hereafter to be layde by thee.

                                                            Wm Basse.[49]

                                                                                [Emphasis added.]

            Under this carved marble of thine own doesn’t explicitly identify whether it’s the wall monument or a stone grave-marker Basse is referring.  Strong arguments exist both for and against both options; both the grave-marker and the wall monument could equally plausibly and reasonably be the carved marble Basse speaks to.  A few rhetorical musings arise when trying to pin down which is correct:

– if it’s the grave-marker, the flat stone really isn’t carved;

– if it’s the wall monument, Shakespeare really isn’t sleeping under it, but that might be a quibble too exacting;

– ‘carved marble,’ in this instance, seems a better fit to be describing the wall monument, because that is what the monument is, carved marble;

– but later Basse says Shakespeare should sleep alone in his unshared Cave; which points back to a grave, not a wall monument;

– however, the haphazard wording on the wall monument itself is a jumbled mess, as well, when it refers to Shakespeare being buried ‘within this monument’ which, of course, is not so; and

-therefore, the wording of both Basse’s poem and the epitaph on the wall monument should be interpreted metaphorically and not literally and not scrutinized under the lens of an unforgiving microscope without allowing for slight compositorial imperfections.

Maybe Basse is referring to both, the wall monument and the grave itself.  Not a great deal turns on answering the question definitively, other than the fact if Basse is referring to the wall monument then that puts his reference to it being writ prior to Digges’s 1623 Folio elegy.  The investigation is shading towards the fact Basse is probably referring to the wall monument.

Moving on to Digges, Folio elegist in 1623, there is no equivocation in his words: he makes it crystal clear he’s speaking of Shakespeare’s wall monument.  His entire elegy has been reproduced in a previous chapter so only the lines referring to the wall monument will be put here:

SHAKE-SPEARE, at length thy pious fellowes give

The world thy Workes: thy Workes, by which, out-live

Thy Tombe, thy name must: when that stone is rent,

And Time dissolves thy Stratford Moniment,

Here we alive shall view thee still…

                                                                        [Emphasis added.]

Writ like that, Digges makes it rather easy: he’s referring to the wall monument in his 1623 Folio elegy.  If Basse is referring to the monument, which he likely is, then he is first – which is sometimes skirted over by researchers.

Jonson likewise, in his 1623 elegy, alludes to a monument but it’s relatively clear he’s referring to Shakespeare as a monument himself and not as an installed, carved, stone wall monument.  When Jonson writes Thou art a Moniment, without a tombe, and art alive still while thy Booke doth live he’s telling Shakespeare he’s a monument himself without a tomb. Or, is he? Given Jonson’s proclivity for double entendres, like everybody else of the era, it is possible he’s referring to both meanings of ‘monument’: Shakespeare you are a monument, metaphorically, i.e., a literary monument; and, Shakespeare, you are a monument, literally, i.e., your likeness is installed as a monument in Holy Trinity.

Weever, the antiquarian, visited Stratford and made notes of the grave-marker and the wall monument at some point around this time period but positively dating his visit to an exact year, based on the current known historical record, is not possible.

That leaves the investigation with a possible single reference, based on Basse’s poem, suggesting the wall monument was installed sometime in advance of 1623’s Folio. Whether yea or no, by 1623 it was up and Digges refers to it – by name: the Stratford Monument.

Did The Original Wall Monument Represent A Fair Likeness Of Shakespeare?

There doesn’t seem to be any sense derived from the historical record the wall monument did not fairly, if imperfectly, represent how Shakespeare indeed looked.  Nobody seems to have complained the stone mason butchered the job; at least, not a self-satisfied one.  Jonson refers to the monument in his Folio elegy but doesn’t comment on its likeness or whether it was a fair representation of Shakespeare.  He does, however, comment on Shakespeare’s likeness in his short ten line “To The Reader” Folio poem which was set on the opposite page facing Shakespeare’s portrait, by Droeshout.  Jonson says this:

To The Reader

This Figure, that thou here seest put,
It was for gentle Shakespeare cut:
Wherein the Graver had a strife
with Naure, to out-doo the life:
O, could he but have drawne his wit
As well in brasse, as he hath hit
His face; the Print would then surpasse
All, that was ever in brasse.

But, since he cannot, Reader, looke
Not on his picture, but his Booke.[50]

Jonson wishes the engraver of his portrait could do gentle Shakespeare’s wit in brass as well as he has done his face.  Was Jonson being serious?  Sarcastic? Facetious? Mocking?  With Jonson, who knows?  Either or, the Droeshout portrait in the Folio is similar enough to the likeness represented in the wall monument; they aren’t identical and they contain inconsistencies but it’s clear they are representing the same figure and Shakespeare looks like Shakespeare – at least in keeping with what modernity knows of his appearance – more or less, sort of, in both.

Does The Wall Monument Now Resemble What It Looked Like When First Erected?

It might, it might not.  It has probably been repaired more times than the countless times the repairs have been documented.  All researchers that have writ about the wall monument document the numerous re-dos.  It is clear the wall monument has undergone, what could be stated in human terms, major cosmetic and reconstructive surgery. Like, major. Whether the surgeons have been successful over three or four centuries, who’s to say; some cosmetic surgeons and reconstructive stone masons are better than others.  It looks ok enough now; still similarly similar, yet different, to the Droeshout portrait, which hasn’t been touched up a great deal other than different drafts, manifestations and reproductions of the portrait have incorporated different shadings.

Like a human face that has undergone numerous facelifts, nose jobs and botox procedures, the monument’s face is similar to other likenesses, but seems different.  Like a thrice-lifted face, Shakespeare’s wall monument seems to have undergone bits of nip and tuck here and there.  One gets the sense it doesn’t strike the same returning gaze it did when it was first birthed. But all in all, considering his advanced age, he’s faired not too badly. 

Who Commissioned The Wall Monument?

Not Shakespeare; he didn’t care.  Because some – or many – men in Shakespeare’s era commissioned their own funerary monument doesn’t mean Shakespeare did. One thousand self-commissioned monuments does not, one bit, further the odds Shakespeare did. This investigation’s opinion – and it is only an opinion, others might opine otherwise – is that Shakespeare didn’t care: just like he didn’t care about his funeral, his burial and his grave-marker.  As Shakespeare wrote in All’s Well, quoted earlier, honour resides in the person, not memorials.  Other than possibly his unmarked grave he left all other funerary and burial arrangements to others.  The investigation, try as it might, can’t seem to bring itself to conclude a guy who probably wanted an unmarked grave, no coffin or vault and didn’t want a heraldic funeral and knew the true meaning of honour would then commission a grand funeral monument. Is it really a strong conjecture to conclude Shakespeare commissioned his because others self-commissioned their monument? 

Modernity must give the guy a bit more credit than to think he commissioned a grand bust of himself in a way that 1) portrays him to be part of the university community, one which he never wanted to be a part of and was mocked by those that belonged and 2) smacks of honour when he wanted none and explicitly wrote honour does not reside on trophies or tombs.[51]  Might he have commissioned the bust and left the composition of words commemorating him to others?  Of course, it’s possible.  Is it likely?  Nope. Just because others might have done so and to do so was all the rage of the era doesn’t mean Shakespeare did.

Based On The Appearance Of The Wall Monument Can It Be Inferred Shakespeare Attended Oxford University?

            Some research contends just that – that Shakespeare is almost certain to have attended Oxford University.  Though the investigation has tried to follow all possible paths to get to such a conjecture, the way there seems contorted and wished, revisionist.  The conjecture Shakespeare attended Oxford is not based on anything than the fact he was known to frequent Oxford, the municipality and the fact other men of the era commissioned monuments of themselves in a scholarly pose.

The investigation has attempted to see the plausibility that Shakespeare attended Oxford – even just for lectures or the like. Unfortunately, the investigation can’t get to that position. If research uncovered evidence – scant or tenuous – Shakespeare taught at Oxford, that would be getting nearer the truth of the matter. This investigation can’t even conject – let alone conclude – Shakespeare would attend Oxford lectures disguised in the back row, after slipping in the back door, and leaving before the lecture finished.  Perhaps, if prodded by acquaintances in an Oxford tavern and they cajoled him into attending a lecture – on what, contemporary literature? – he might have gone, for a good laugh. He certainly didn’t go there to learn anything.  Not like vicar Ward; Ward attended Oxford lectures, learned much and wrote of it in his diary.

The investigation jests when it envisions Shakespeare sneaking in a back door to attend a lecture.  But, really, if he attended Oxford – even the odd lecture – then that scenario has to be followed through and unpacked in order to give it plausibility.  For instance, if/when he attended, did others know about it?  Was it in secret?  What lectures is it supposed he attended? If on chemistry, why was Shakespeare attending chemistry lectures? If on literature, was the lecturer aware one of the greatest playwrights of the day was part of his student body in the lecture hall?  Was the lecturer aware the principal playwright and an actor in the King’s Men was in attendance?  Did that lecturer tell university administration?  Did the lecturer keep it a secret?  If the lecturer didn’t know Shakespeare was in attendance then Shakespeare likely did sneak in a back door.  If Oxford University knew Shakespeare was attending lectures did somebody at Oxford make note of it?  These are the type of questions that naturally follow if it is conjectured Shakespeare attended Oxford to take in lectures.

Even great Shakespearean biographers – Schoenbaum – cautioned readers that other great Shakespearean biographers – Halliwell-Phillipps – were not immune to conjecting conjectures too far.    After assessing some of Halliwell-Phillips commentary on Shakespeare, Schoenbaum notes, with accuracy, “Halliwell-Phillips could not entirely forbear romantic elaboration.”[52]  And so it goes with modern research that concludes Shakespeare attended Oxford University lectures because his monument shows him in a scholarly pose: it’s nothing more than romantic elaboration.

An extant wall monument showing Shakespeare in a preacher or scholarly pose with the accompanying scholarly accoutrements coupled with believable documentation Shakespeare frequented Oxford – the municipality – does not lead to the nearly certain fact Shakespeare went to lectures at Oxford, the university.  Nor does the likeness of Shakespeare being depicted in a scholarly pose in the wall monument show that he ever wanted to be depicted that way or that he attended the university.

If others in Shakespeare’s time – others that weren’t scholars just like Shakespeare wasn’t – wanted to be depicted as such in their funerary monument, if they wanted to claim self-importance or be part of a revered university community to which they did not belong, good for them, that’s their business.  But it does not mean Shakespeare followed their lead.  If anything, Shakespeare did not ride on the coattails of others; he forged his own way, wrote his words his way.  He disliked court and felt an outsider in London; there is zero evidence in the historical record – direct or indirect – Shakespeare failed to be true to himself in this instance and inserted himself, by way of his wall monument, into a community of which he didn’t belong – nor cared to belong.

If Shakespeare did attend Oxford – if only to attend lectures and wasn’t enrolled – it’s too bad the university didn’t bestow on him the same honorary degree they gave Jonson; Cambridge also gave Jonson an honorary degree.[53]  Tough luck for Shakespeare.

Shakespeare wasn’t an imposter, he didn’t reap where he didn’t sow; he got what he earned.  Shakespeare, possibly the least self-important man of importance of his era, would not have impostered himself to look like a scholar or preacher.  One, that wasn’t his style and two, he knew he wrote better and was smarter than the university crowd.  He wasn’t an imposter in life and would have cringed at the thought he was going to be memorialized as a university scholar or preacher after death.  However, because the commissioning of the monument was likely undertaken by either his London friends or family – or combination thereof [54] – he really didn’t have much say in the matter, him being dead and all.

Try as it might the Project can’t seem to envision Shakespeare commissioning his scholarly-like monument, it all seems revisionary.  Possible?  Of course.  Plausible? Maybe not. There seems much has to be explained away in order to get to the conclusion Shakespeare commissioned his monument that depicts him as an Oxford scholar and therefore he attended Oxford lectures. Is it possible Shakespeare gave verbal instructions about his monument?  Of course, it’s possible.  However, all Shakespeare’s memorial objects must be looked at in their entirety, not in piecemeal fashion.  Instead of looking at what is known about the man, it seems modernity is gravitating towards creating the man they wished existed and the man they choose to see currently.  Much must be explained away in order to suggest Shakespeare commissioned his own wall monument but left his funeral, burial and curse to others.  It doesn’t fit.

What Can Be Deduced From The Entirety Of Shakespeare’s Funerary Objects?

When the entire spectrum of arrangements – turnaround time for his burial, lack of contemporary commentary, unmarked grave-marker and extant monuments are viewed simultaneously – placed side by side – Shakespeare’s post-death events seem haphazardly put together, not planned and probably had input from many disparate factions.  The funerary objects don’t seem coherent; insofar as all the pieces when stacked together seem to have been assembled randomly – which is what modernity has today: a random collection of arrangements, possibly hastily arranged markers and monuments that seem to have no coherent, central planning characteristic.

Does this give rise to suspicion or is it conspiratorial in nature?  Not at all.  Many post-death plans come together without much forethought: assembling various pieces at different times under the direction of different people wanting different end results while carrying out the way they want the deceased to be remembered will naturally result in haphazard appearances when viewed in the whole.  It’s actually relatively normal. 

An unmarked grave doesn’t seem to square with a grand wall monument.  A grand wall monument depicting an Oxford scholar isn’t easily squared with someone’s lack of self-importance and their beliefs as to the true meaning of honour. A grand wall monument butts up against notions of a small or non-existent funeral. Depicting a self-important university attendee doesn’t square with the curse or what modernity knows of the man.

Recall, Potter mused Shakespeare maybe wanted to be forgotten and in so musing she realized it was an extreme interpretation, but the investigation doesn’t see it as an extreme interpretation; rather, it’s a very reasonable interpretation. If thinking Shakespeare wanted to be forgotten is too far a jump to land safely, thinking he just didn’t care about such things as a marked grave or a wall monument is not a jump too far. This investigation feels Shakespeare no more planned his wall monument than he did a funeral; and he no more planned a funeral than he did his cursed, grave-marker; and he no more planned his grave-marker than he did his burial.  He didn’t care.  His family did though.  And his London friends. His London friends – possibly in conjunction with Anne and the rest of his family – probably spearheaded the monument, honouring their friend, knowing he would never honour himself.

 Another Investigative Finding can be put forth at this time; this one speaks to how Shakespeare viewed death in the main, how he regarded funeral arrangements and what he thought of memorialization:

IF – Shakespeare likely cared not about honour after death and probably wanted nothing to do with his funerary objects; there is no evidence available showing Shakespeare planned his funerary objects and, without more, his family and friends likely arranged everything modernity sees today.

While this latest Finding doesn’t shed any light directly on Shakespeare’s cause of death at this point it does nonetheless – by looking at all the funerary arrangements and extant objects in place today – paint a plausible picture about how Shakespeare might have thought about death and corollaries thereto.

And, when viewed holistically in their entirety Shakespeare’s weird funerary objects also strangely fit another scenario:

IF –  When the entirety of Shakespeare’s funerary objects and death arrangements – or lack thereof – are viewed together, side by side and simultaneously the quirks, oddities and silence thereof also speak of an irregular death under irregular circumstances possibly resulting in irregular/maimed Christian death rites.

SDRP

---

[1] A.L. Rowse, William Shakespeare: A Biography, Cardinal Edition (Harper and Row, 1965), 469-470.

[2] See generally, Norman, History of Death; Houlbrooke, Death, Religion and the Family; Marshall, Beliefs and the Dead.

[3] As You Like It, 2.1.1-4, 260.

[4] Potter, Critical Biography, 422.

[5] John Aubrey, biographer (1626-1697).

[6] As You Like It, 3.2.41-44, 267.

[7] King Henry VI Part 2, 4.10.16-23, 656.

[8] See Jonathan Bate’s introduction, in Val Horsler ed., Shakespeare’s Church: A Parish For The World (Third Millennium Publishing, 2010), 11.

[9] King Henry IV Part 1, 5.1.132-140, 509.

[10] The notion Shakespeare possibly sees honour having little value has to be qualified somewhat.  He did admire the honourable way of life – an honourable life, an honest life in the country, as it were – and the beliefs of the Romans who valued an honourable life.  The investigation sees a distinction between Shakespeare’s indifference between honours being bestowed on someone compared to someone living an honourable life, based on honourable ideals.  Honour for the sake of honour, outward shows of honour, fake honour, doesn’t interest Shakespeare and he thinks it meritless.  Living a true, honourable rustic way of life or an honourable life based on Roman ideals is what Shakespeare admired; not honour for the sake of outward shows of honour or titles based on birthright: All’s Well That Ends Well, 2.3.115-141, 327.

[11] A new proverb coined by the Project.

[12] Norman, History of Death; Houlbrooke, Death, Religion and the Family; Marshall, Beliefs and the Dead.

[13] Norman, History of Death, 94; Houlbrooke, Death, Religion and the Family, 114; Marshall, Beliefs and the Dead, 167.

[14] Sufficeth that I have maintains my state, And sends the poor well pleased from my gate.

[15] Julien Litten, “The Heraldic Funeral,” The Coat of Arms, Third Series Vol. I, part I. No. 209, Spring 2005, (Burnham: The Heraldry Society, 2005), 47-68.

[16] Litten, The Heraldic Funeral, 50.

[17] Litten, The Heraldic Funeral, 47.

[18] Litten, The Heraldic Funeral, 47.

[19] Litten, The Heraldic Funeral, 47.

[20] Schoenbaum, Compact Documentary Life, 29.

[21] Norman, History of Death, 136.

[22] Parish register (1558-1776) Holy Trinity Church, Stratford-upon-Avon.

[23] King Henry VI Part 3, 5.2.9, 695.  True, Warwick was lying deathly and bloody on the battlefield when he said this, but still, Warwick’s language and the language in Shakespeare’s will – after having time to think about it – are remarkably similar.

[24] Potter, Critical Biography, 408.

[25] King Henry IV Part 2, 4.5.127, 543.

[26] Orlin, Private Life, 214.

[27] Orlin, Private Life, 214.

[28] Basse’s poem was discussed earlier.

[29] Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, www.shakespeare.org.uk/explore-shakespeare/shakespedia/william-shakespeare/shakespeare-death. Accessed 29 December 2024.

[30] Twelfth Night, 2.4.58-65, 359.

[31] All’s Well That Ends Well, 2.3.133-139, 327.

[32] Obviously, this IF cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but in the opinion of the Project, based on what actually exists, and other external evidence, this Finding meets the lowest standard of ‘on a balance of probabilities.’  It’s only an opinion; not sacrosanct fact.

[33] The Taming of the Shrew, King Lear, A Midsummer’s Night Dream, King Henry IV Part 1, Twelfth Night, The Winter’s Tale,  King Henry VI Part 2, Much Ado About Nothing.

[34] The Taming of the Shrew, 2.1.184-185, 295.

[35] King Lear, 2.1.64-66, 1084.

[36] Richard III, 1.3, p. 708-710.

[37] Richard III, 1.3.318-319, 710.

[38] King John, 3.1.173, 223, 426-427.

[39] J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare, 4^th Ed, (Messrs. Longmans, Green and Co, 1884).  Halliwell-Phillipps provided useful insight into the practice of digging up old graves in Stratford and his not uncontroversial commentary on how Shakespeare’s grave-marker stone slab had sunk below the chancel’s floor also proved insightful.  The Project has in its possession a handwritten note by Halliwell-Phillipps, dated 20 December 1883, wherein he writes of his “misunderstanding at Stratford-on-Avon and have had the hard necessity of replying to one of the most ungentlemanly attacks any one ever received outside the House of Commons.  Believe me.  I’m faithfully, J.O. Halliwell-Phillips.”

[40] See generally, Dr. Robert Bearman, “The Shakespeare Family Ledger Stones and What They Tell Us”, in Ronnie Mulryne (2^nd ed.), Holy Trinity Church: A Taste of History (Stratford-upon-Avon Society, 2014); Dr. Robert Bearman, Shakespeare in the Stratford Records (Alan Sutton Publishing Inc, 1994). Bearman’s knowledge is second to none and his analysis of that knowledge is the gold standard when it comes to interpreting Shakespeare’s funerary objects inside Holy Trinity; he forbears from wished romanticism and unsupported revisionism. 

[41] Val Horsler, Shakespeare’s Church (Third Millennium Publishing Limited, 2010). Horsler gives the whole grave-marker discussion great pictorial context.

[42] Chambers, Study of Facts, 181.  Chambers notes “there was an intention to put fresh slabs round.”

[43] Potter, Critical Biography, 408.

[44] Halliwell-Phillipps, Outlines, 217; Chambers, Study of Facts, 181; Bearman, Shakespeare Family Ledger Stones, 46-47.  But, recall, just because someone says something is so, doesn’t make it so.

[45] The wall monument’s appearance, on balance, cannot assist the investigation into Shakespeare’s death a great deal. However, a few portions of the monument will be discussed because, in the main, this is an investigation into Shakespeare’s death and the wall monument forms part component thereof.

[46] Orlin, Private Life, 225-231.

[47] “A Pylian in judgement, a Socrates in genius, a Maro in art; The earth buries him, the people mourn him, Olympus possesses him.”  But, the irony is, it’s possible the people hadn’t mourned him, and possibly not publicly; and possibly not by the time the wall monument was erected.

[48] https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/manuscript-copy-william-basses-elegy-william-shakespeare Accessed 29 December 2023.

[49] Unpublished as of 1623. https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/manuscript-copy-william-basses-elegy-william-shakespeare Accessed 29 December 2023.

[50] Works, xxv.

[51] All’s Well That Ends Well, 2.3.133-139, 327.

[52] Schoenbaum, Shakespeare’s Lives, 304.

[53] Gerald Eades Bentley, Shakespeare: A Biographical Handbook (Yale University Press, 1961), 204.

[54] Bearman, Holy Trinity Church – A Taste of History, 34.