features, is confirmed, not only by the bald forehead, the wrinkles about the eyes, the slight fall in the cheek, the fulness about the chin and throat all indicative of the half century of years which the prototype of the bust had recently fulfilled at the time of his death but by the character of the head itself, which at once impresses the spectator with a conviction of its being an exact copy of an existing original, and which, like one of Shakespeare's own works, is devoid of all effort and affectation, and is beautiful in the truth and simplicity of nature. With regard to the merits of this monument as a work of art-and those merits develope themselves more and more the longer it is contemplated-I cannot do better than quote, in addition to the commendation of Sir Francis Chantrey already given, some observations on it which were written by R. B. Haydon, June 19th, 1828, in the album kept in the vestry of Stratford church :— "The more this bust of Shakespeare is studied, the more every one must be convinced of its truth of form, feature, and expression. Some one has said- If it be not a flattering, at least it is a faithful resemblance. At least! The faithful resemblance of a great man is the most important part of a portrait. No ideal, or poetical conception, however elevated, could have exceeded, or equalled, the form and beauty of the upper part of the head from the eyebrows. The forehead is as fine as Raphael's or Bacon's, and the form of the nose and exquisite refinement of the mouth, with its amiable, genial hilarity of wit and good-nature, so characteristic, unideal, bearing truth in every curve, with a little bit of the teeth shewing at the moment of smiling, which must have been often seen by those who had the happiness to know Shakespeare, and must have been pointed out to the sculptor as necessary to likeness when he was dead. The whole bust is stamped with an air of fidelity perfectly invaluable." W. HARNESS. London, February 8, 1845. ART. III.-Did General Harrison kill "Dick Robinson" the Player? "When the stage was put down and the rebellion raised," writes the well-informed author of Historia Histrionica, 1 "most of the players, except Lowin, Taylor, and Pollard, (who were superannuated) went into the king's army, and, like good men and true, served their old master, though in a different, yet more honourable capacity. Robinson was killed at the taking of a place (I think Basing House) by Harrison, he that was after hanged at Charing-cross, who refused him quarter, and shot him in the head when he had laid down his arms; abusing scripture at the same time in saying— Cursed is he that doth the work of the Lord negligently." As Basing House was taken on Tuesday, the 14th of October, 1645, and the name of Richard Robinson is found among the signatures of the players to the dedication of the first folio of Beaumont and Fletcher in 1647, there is, possibly, it has been thought, some mistake in this statement. George Chalmers, indeed, sets the story aside in a very summary manner. "There is a story told by Mr. Malone, which is repeated by Mr. Steevens, that General Harrison killed Robinson during the civil wars; the general crying out with a fanatical tongue, when he gave the stroke of death— 'Cursed is he that doth the work of the Lord negligently.'2 But the fact is, which is more credible than the story, that Richard Robinson died quietly at London, in March 1647, and was buried, without an anathema, in the cemetery of St. Anne's, Blackfriars. The parish register expressly records that Richard Robinson, a player, was buried on the 23rd 1 8vo., 1699, reprinted in the first vol. of Dodsley's Old Plays, ed. 1825. 2 Steevens, 1793, vol. i., P. 366. March 1646-7: so that there can be no doubt about the identity of the persons."1 Mr. Chalmers is too positive. I have now to produce printed evidence of the time to show that "Robinson the player" was actually killed by Harrison, as the author of Historia Histrionica asserts, and at the taking of Basing House, as he thinks rather than asserts. In that rich collection of tracts relating to the Great Rebellion, presented by King George III. to the British Museum, is a tract entitled-" The Full and Last Relation of all things concerning Basing House, with divers other Passages; represented to Mr. Speaker and divers Members in the House. By Mr. Peters who came from Lieutenent Generall Cromwell, &c. Commanded to be printed and published according to Orders. London printed by Jane Coe 1645," 40. "Mr. Peters' report to Mr. Speaker" begins in this way :"On Wednesday the 15th of October 1645, Mr. Peters came from Basing upon some speciall concernments of the army, and upon Thursday morning early was in the House with the Speaker and divers Members, and according to their desire gave a full relation of some things concerning Basing not mentioned in the Lieutenant Generals Letters, which was to this purpose: "In the severall roomes and about the house, there were slaine, in view 74, and only one woman, the daughter of Doctor Griffith, who came forth railing against our souldiers for their rough carriages towards her father, who indeed did remember to him his former malignancy. There lay upon the grounds, slaine by the hands of Major Harrison (that godly and gallant gentleman) Major Cuffle, a man of great account amongst them and a notorious papist, and Robinson the player, who, a little before the storme, was known to be mocking and scorning the Parliament." 1 Supplemental Apology, p. 178. Hugh Peters's testimony seems decisive on this point, that Robinson the player fell by the hands of that godly and gallant gentleman, General Harrison, and at the siege of Basing House. I may add here that Wenceslaus Hollar, the celebrated engraver, was one of the king's soldiers at this siege, and that every other statement made in the Historia Histrionica has been confirmed by subsequent discovery. One of the principal witnesses against Hugh Peters at his trial was Dr. William Yonge. Yonge afterwards wrote the Life of Peters (12o, 1663) and at pp. 7 and 8 he tells us that Peters in early life "came to be the jester (or rather a fool) in Shakespeare's company of players." Peters was not, therefore, likely to have been mistaken, either in the person or in the profession of Robinson the player. The book of jests, attributed to Hugh Peters, is well known. As the name of Richard Robinson occurs among The names of the Principall Actors in all these Playes, prefixed to the first folio edition of Shakespeare, a communication of this kind may not, I trust, be deemed out of place in a volume of the Shakespeare Society's Papers. Hammersmith, 18th November, 1844. P. CUNNINGHAM. ART. IV. The Bridal Run-away: an Essay on Juliet's Soliloquy.-Romeo and Juliet, iii., 2. ἐν είκοσι πᾶσι μάθοις νιν. Gallop apace, ye fiery-footed steeds, Towards Phoebus' mansion; such a waggoner Neither the turn of thought, nor the colouring of language, in this passionate effusion of wedded love, appears to me to be properly understood. The text still requires a verbal interpreter; and, to this day, the mysterious "run-away" remains to be discovered. Warburton imagined it to mean the Day, and Steevens, the Night; but seeing that Day has been otherwise personified in the preceding lines, and Night invoked by name, we may leave the opposite interpretations to counteract each other, and dismiss the tautology of either. Heath thinks the poet wrote "rumour," not "run-away;" and Mason has little doubt that we ought to read "Renomy;" renomée, being, as he adds, the French for "rumour." Without waiting to combat conjectures, neither of which commends itself to the ear or to the taste, we may add to them the uncouth emendation of Zachary Jackson, who, himself, a printer and bookseller, resolves the chief difficulties of our poet's text into "errors o' th' press," and is confident that a simple transposition of the letters from "run-awayes" into unawayres" would restore the true reading, and signify the parents and neighbours of Juliet, who being equally unawares of her marriage, or the expected visit of her husband, would |