humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:52:06 -0900, bookburn@yahoo.com wrote:

>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

My follow-up is to quote a bit from Holloway and comment on it.

(quote)
Although the engraving in Dugdale's Antiquities, executed by
Wenceslaus Hollar or his assistant Richard Gaywood from a sketch made
by Dugdale in 1634, has the distinction of being the first depiction
of Shakespeare's monument, it is hardly a faithful rendering. Among
the numerous errors in the engraving, the absence of the pen and paper
held by Shakespeare in the monument we see today and the bulky
rendering of the cushion on which Shakespeare rests his arms are seen
as the "smoking gun" in the anti-Stratfordian argument that the
monument has been altered some time after its creation as a part of
the "conspiracy" to fool people into believing that the illiterate
boor from Stratford actually wrote the works attributed to William
Shakespeare.
(unquote)

I do see virtue in Holloway's depictions of the successive
representations of the Monument; I don't agree that his descriptions
are unbiased or deductions logical.

Whether the object being held out is a woolsack, or that woolsacks are
emblematic of the trade of S's father can be separated from a simple
fact-finding survey, IMO; so I'm referring to "sack" instead of
"woolsack" for now.

Seems like there are several sketches in a short number of years, most
of them showing the sack, long arms, and small head; so I think the
wonder of it is that so much is alike over-all, given the latitude
allowed in doing a sketch that tries to include everything, such as
the tiny inscription.

What's indisputable is that the Monument is represented several times
with what is probably the same sack with tasseled ears: by Dugdale
1634, Hollar 1656, Rowe 1709, and Grignion 1786; and they seem
alike. Indeed, it's Virtue's 1723 version, first departing from the
sack-holding tradition to show pillow and pen, that varies from the
rest in so many other details, with Grignion's version coming 66 years
later reverting back to the sack.

So I don't agree that the distortions that can be shown are a "smoking
gun" persuant to anti-Stratfordian arguments about a conspiracy of
changing the Monument from sack to pillow and pen, "to fool people
into believing that the illiterate boor from Stratford actually wrote
the works . . . ", evidently assuming the sack is 1) a woolsack, 2)
emblematic of his father's and his trade, and 3) quite possibly part
of an earlier monument for his father, who's face looked more like the
Dugdale. The "switch" could be explained as an adjustment recognizing
increasing recognition of Shakespeare the author, especially after
publication of the FF. For all I know, the different face on
Dugdale's first representation may be what S last looked like.

bb