humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

One of the recent series of letters on Shakespeare at the Times
Literary Supplement, now cataloged as an "argument," is especially
interesting because it not only involves high profile Brit Shakespeare
scholars but h.l.a.s. regulars, such as Richard Kennedy, Bob Grumman,
and Tom Reedy.

The argument on Shakespeare's Monument developed in TLS
"Letters" last summer, followed by Brian Vickers long and
well-considered follow-up critical review. Last are two letters
by Grumman and Reedy responding to Vickers not yet answered. I take
the liberty of quoting them here because, in a sense, h.l.a.s. is the
home of recent "woolsack" argument, so maybe it's a suitable venue
again; and TR does deny the RK view.


1. TLS Arguments: Shakespeare's true face; controversies surrounding
the representation of Shakespeare; at
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/arguments/

2. Brian Vickers long letter on "The Face of the Bard?"

3. " Have your say," letters from Grumman and Reedy commenting on
Vickers statement.


a. Bob Grumman's letter.

The main problem with the Vickers/Kennedy take on the Shakespeare
monument is that it requires us to consider the Dugsdale sketch, which
depicts a man with a preposterously little head and limply flopping,
ill-proportioned arms, as accurate. Did the monument really look like
that when Dugsdale sketched it? Another problem, which Vickers
ignores, is the absence of any indication in the present monument that
it was ever erected for John. What explicit evidence is there in
Dugdale's sketch that the monument ever had anything to do with John?
Where does that sketch leave room for any reference to him, assuming
it'd been removed? Where is the gravestone for Mary Arden Shakespeare
one would expect to be near one for John, I also wonder. For these and
many other reasons I'm not allowed space here to state, I continue to
believe the monument has changed in trivial ways only since it was
erected. John never had anything to do with it.

Bob Grumman, Port Charlotte, Florida, USA


b. Tom Reedy's letter.

Does Dr. Vickers know of any other Stratford townsmen besides John
Shakespeare who were allowed burial and a monument in the chancel
without being lay rectors by owning church tithes, as his son,
William, and John Hall and the rest of those buried there did? (John
Shakespeare died four years before his son bought the tithes.)

Has he read Diana Price's article, "Reconsidering Shakespeare's
Monument" (RES, May 1997), with a reproduction of Dugdale's original
sketch? He might be surprised to learn that the leopard capitals were
not in the original drawing, but were added by the engraver.

And how does he explain the fact that Dugdale reproduced the first
lines of the inscription memorializing Shakespeare?

Before readers swallow Mr. Kennedy's theory (I am loath to credit it
to Dr. Vickers, whom I greatly admire), I would suggest they read
Clark Holloway's study of the monument at
http://hollowaypages.com/Shakespearemonument.htm.

Tom Reedy, Denton, Texas, USA