humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

"bookburn" wrote:
>
> 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.

"Cellophane, Mr. Cellophane,
Should have been my name, Mr. Cellophane,
'Cause you can look right through me,
Walk right by me,
And never know I'm there."


Peter F.