tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post8216294754213290332..comments2024-03-05T10:34:30.182-05:00Comments on The Marlowe-Shakespeare Connection: Was the Monument Altered? by Peter FareyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-39718870390174481602015-01-28T09:55:51.171-05:002015-01-28T09:55:51.171-05:00Mr. Farey,
It is really disappointing to find in t...Mr. Farey,<br />It is really disappointing to find in this site an article that starts with an invitation not to make claims that don't agree with your proposal.<br />As far as I know, floor standing stone monuments do not have feet, they lie on a flat base that supports its weight. In most cases they are set on a flat platform in order to place it in an appropriate elevation.<br />The Hollar engraving of Dugdale's book may look confusing because the drawing is set at the bottom of the page. But if we look at Nicholas Rowe engraving in "Shakespeare works" we can check that there is not any floor under the monument. The supports look like those used in the building of wall fixed niches.<br />The Hollar engraving is illuminated from an oblique source and the central support is evidently shorter that the right one. As the light comes from this right side, I don´t find any abnormality in Hollar's shadowing depiction.<br />If we imagine the monument set on the floor, we realize that the face on the bust is below our sight level. We should lie on the floor to read the monument legend as it would be under the knee level of the "passengers".<br />According to the proposal that Mr. Spielmann and you share, Hollar thought that the brackets in Dugdale sketch were three feet that lie on the floor to support the monument. I'm quite ignorant in stone building matters but I find it obvious that they are not.<br /> In his meticulous drawings of Antwerp and Strasbourg cathedrals Hollar shows a deep architectural knowledge. I would rather have the confirmation of, at least one competent expert, before doing such a reckless assertion.<br />In his "On Stratford monument" M.H. Spielmann tries to convince us that the figure we can see now in the Stratford monument was a normal representation of a writer. Although he tries to find examples of writing figures that use a cushion associated with paper and quill, he is not able to provide a single one.<br />I can't figure out how a flat cushion where the left hand palm of "Shakspeare" lies, almost horizontally, becomes a fluffy woolsack with a vertically disposed hand in Hollar's engraving. <br />Should we believe that there was so much dust covering the paper leaf that Dudgale did not realize its presence? Should we believe that at the same time he did an accurate examination where every detail in the text, including those little characters in the last line, was perfectly read?<br /> We can't conclude that Hollar based his Shakspeare's engraving in the Dugdale sketch that we know. If he ever did, he had at least one more source of information. I wish we could know where did he get the monument's texts that he hand wrote and we see in Dugdale's book.<br /> In the Alexander Pope's 1723-5 edition of Shakespeare plays we can see Vertue's engraving of the monument in which the portrait of the poet shows a completely different person from the one he created for Pope's frontispiece. There is not any sign of gilded Tudor roses in the ceiling of the alcove in this engraving. <br />You ask what reasons should they have to make so much expensive changes...<br />The Stratford new monument would have been cheaper than the Poet's Corner statue that was made in 1740 with the funds of Lord Burlington and Alexander Pope among others.<br />The only explanation I can find is that there were people so interested in defending their Stratfordian candidate that they wouldn't mind changing evidence in order to make us believe that was Shakspere and not Marlowe the real author. A commoner holding a sack is not a convincing representation of a poet. <br />I've read many of your articles and most of them are filled with interesting information and clever comments. I simply cannot understand the kind of barricades that you build with this one.Ignacio Domíngueznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-59291645722139327592012-09-24T05:41:34.352-04:002012-09-24T05:41:34.352-04:00Cynthia, I have heard (although not from an entire...Cynthia, I have heard (although not from an entirely reliable source) that those things at the corner of a woolsack are in fact stones, which are tied into them to allow the handler more grip.<br /> <br />whilst I appreciate your agreeing with my conclusion, what I see when I look at the Dugdale drawing is in fact something which looks just a bit more like a tassel than a knot, and in the Hollar engraving something a rather more like a knot than a tassel. So just as Hollar mistook Dugdale's correct but unclear representation of it being mounted on the wall as being on the floor, so he also mistook the correct but unclear drawing of a tasseled cushion for a knotted sack of some kind.<br /> <br />I notice that Paul ignores all of the points already made which show his solution to be wrong, and I really can't be bothered to go over them yet again.<br /> <br />PeterPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-89516145576733627232012-09-22T07:36:34.114-04:002012-09-22T07:36:34.114-04:00Cynthia Morgan said...
" . . . what I have ...Cynthia Morgan said...<br />" . . . what I have always taken to be a "sack" is actually a lame attempt to capture a pillow. The giveaways are the four corners which are all knotted in his sketch. Even the tassels on the pillow look a bit knotted. If Dugdale were attempting to depict a sack of grain he would not have had these knotted corners. . ."<br /><br />The knotted corners clearly indicate a 'woolsack'. It seems they were necessary for transport by mule. Numerous images can be found on the web. See the first (wikipedia) site for the difference with 'woolpacks'.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sign_for_the_Woolpack_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1721494.jpg<br /><br />http://www.stricklandgate-house.org.uk/media/1337/Woolpack-Sign.jpg<br /><br />http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/tm/2007/05/woolsack06_428x269_to_468x312.jpg<br /><br />http://www.bbc.co.uk/gloucestershire/content/images/2005/05/27/woolsack_body_150_150x180.jpg<br /><br />http://www.worldalternativegames.co.uk/uploads/pics/TetburyWoolSackRacepreview.jpg<br /><br />http://www.pumpaction.org.uk/Woolpack_Sign_S.jpg<br /><br /><br /> Anthony Kellett said...<br /> "Is Greenwood suggesting that THAT drawing is actually what the monument looked like; the tiny head; the bizarre shoulders; arms with which he could have picked at his toenails, whilst standing upright? Is that what Greenwood is suggesting? If so, then Greenwood is not prepared to accept that Dugdale would have drawn the monument incorrectly (for the shame that it would have brought upon him, and the laughter of the church visitors), yet he is more than happy to believe that Shakespeare’s family (and church administrators) would have allowed that badly made ventriloquist dummy to be installed, to represent Shakespeare? Moreover, he is prepared to accept that the artisan that fashioned the Clopton monument, just across the church, would have produced such a monstrosity?"<br /><br />For an image even more monstrous, but far more conspicuous, let me point to the 'portrait' of the poet in every copy of the Folio. Where is the laughter about that? As those who mounted the cover-up knew well, pretentious literary types will believe almost anything they are told -- even a story as ludicrous as the Stratfordian<br /><br />The small figure high up in that fairly dark church was going to be seen by many fewer people; And Dugdale may well have exaggerated its 'agricultural' character. As I see it, some form of monument to the poet was necessary in Stratford -- for those few 'tourists' who might come to look. However, Stratford locals in the 1620s would have known well that the Stratman was far from literary; so for them, the monument had to be to his father, for some supposed services he had performed for his London friends back in the 1550s and 1560s. That was 50+ years before it was erected, and few living would remember much about his activities then. (The ill-fitting Latin verse would be explained away -- if anyone asked -- as arising from some confusion of the London scupltor.) Within a few decades, they would all be dead, and the monument could be altered at will -- to be more fitting for the supposed poet. The family knew what was going on and was well rewarded for its silence. Similarly, the local vicar would have been chosen for his lack of interest and for his complaisance. The directions came from the top, in that intensely hierarchical society.<br /><br />Paul CrowleyAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847725989815546661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-47117101422728062952012-09-17T08:22:59.156-04:002012-09-17T08:22:59.156-04:00And I am just going to copy what I have already wr...<br />And I am just going to copy what I have already written, in an earlier post...<br /><br />"Is Greenwood suggesting that THAT drawing is actually what the monument looked like; the tiny head; the bizarre shoulders; arms with which he could have picked at his toenails, whilst standing upright? Is that what Greenwood is suggesting? If so, then Greenwood is not prepared to accept that Dugdale would have drawn the monument incorrectly (for the shame that it would have brought upon him, and the laughter of the church visitors), yet he is more than happy to believe that Shakespeare’s family (and church administrators) would have allowed that badly made ventriloquist dummy to be installed, to represent Shakespeare? Moreover, he is prepared to accept that the artisan that fashioned the Clopton monument, just across the church, would have produced such a monstrosity?"<br /><br />You seem to plough on, Dave, without addressing any of these incongruities?<br />Anthony Kellettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-6957696273164105772012-09-17T05:25:23.420-04:002012-09-17T05:25:23.420-04:00So all evidence which fails to support your theory...So all evidence which fails to support your theory can be safely ignored because "The ONLY relevant issue is: does Dugdale's sketch accurately reflect what the monument looked like when he sketched it in 1634?"<br /><br />Ignoring the irrationality of such thinking, let us consider your point. The simple answer is that whilst there is no doubt at all in my mind that Dugdale based his very rough sketch upon first hand knowledge, there is no possible way in which the monument <i>can</i> have actually looked like that originally. Gerard Johnson would have been lynched if he had come up with anything so grotesque. People and cherubs have <i>never</i> looked like that, have they? If he could draw as well as your Katherine Swynford example suggests, why did he so obviously fail to do so in this case?<br /><br />Whilst having certain similarities both to the Hollar version <i>and</i> to how it is today it is therefore demonstrably a bad drawing and an inaccurate one, and that anyone would base their argument <i>solely</i> upon how close to the original it must have been in other particulars is just beyond my comprehension.<br /><br />PeterPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-58777367443357834602012-09-16T21:24:44.937-04:002012-09-16T21:24:44.937-04:00The ONLY relevant issue is: does Dugdale's ske...The ONLY relevant issue is: does Dugdale's sketch accurately reflect what the monument looked like when he sketched it in 1634? Hollar's engraving is really not material; we have Dugdale's original drawing, so we we must determine whether or not it shows what the monument looked like in 1634.<br /><br />Dugdale went to Stratford and drew the monument in 1634. He drew what he saw. What are the odds that he would draw something totally unlike the actual monument? The odds of this border on the impossible.<br /><br />I have been to Stratford and have looked at the monument. It is inconceivable that a trained draughtsman would draw what is there today the way Dugdale drew it. He was noted for the accuracy of his drawings. That is the very reason his book, "Antiquities of Warwickshire," is so famous! To quote the Encyclopedia Britannica "it became the model for large scale county histories." It took some time, but I found another of Dugdale's sketches; you can view it here:<br /><br />http://www.katherineswynford.tk/page1/page3/dugdale.html<br /><br />The man may not have been an artist, but he could draw! <br /><br />No one can produce a single example of were Dugdale so badly botched the drawing of a monument that it is unrecognizable from the engravings in his book. Forget this "standing on the floor" business; Dugdale was there; he KNEW it was not standing on the floor, but "in the wall" above eye level. If you want to say Hollar botched the engraving, fine. That does not change the fact that Dugdale was there, and drew what he saw. And he could draw.<br /><br />Furthermore, the Shakespeare monument is one he would have taken especial care to draw accurately. When he drew it in 1634, Shakespeare's daughters and other relatives were still alive. After the publication of the First Folio, Shakespeare was already gaining a reputation, deserved or not. He makes special mention of the monument in the text of his book. The odds that out of hundreds of monuments, this would be the only one he would draw totally - and I mean totally - incorrectly? Nil.<br /><br />Look again at the drawing:<br /><br />http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Dugdale_sketch_1634_Detail.jpg<br /><br />Virtually everything is different from the present monument. The proportions are different, The man in Dugdale's drawing is thin, not the "self-satisfied pork butcher" of the present monument. The facial features are different, especially the moustache. The clothes are different. That is NOT a cushion he is holding against his stomach. His hands are very well drawn - no way they coud have been holding a pen! There is no sheet of paper. I could go on and on. What Dugdale saw is not what is there today.<br /><br />Almost 75 years went by and no one made any comment about Dugdale's engraving being in error. Then, in 1730, Dr. William Thomas publishes an updated version of Dugdale's book, makes numerous corrections, but somehow overlooks the travesty of the Shakespeare monument. Again, no one comments on the error.<br /><br />The only evidence that contradicts Dugdale is George Vertue's engraving of 1723, which superficially resembles the modern monument more than Dugdale's drawing, but contains just as many errors, if the modern monument is to be our guide. And we have the testimony of C. C. Stopes that Vertue never even went to Stratford to prepare his engraving! <br /><br />If we are to believe that the eye witness testimony of a renowned scholar is wrong, we must have some credible reason to doubt it. In this case, we have none. The most reasonable explanation is that Dugdale drew what he saw in 1634, drew it accurately, and that the monument was altered at a later date. <br /><br />If you are going to assert that Dugdale made an inaccurate drawing, you must provide some reason why he did so. And you must provide examples of where he made similar mistakes. Otherwise, we are forced to believe that this was a unique occurence, and that it involved a monument where he would have been expected to exercise more than ordinary care.daver852https://www.blogger.com/profile/07305116661422747152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-42967330975745528112012-09-16T17:44:36.465-04:002012-09-16T17:44:36.465-04:00Dave,
Yes, the poem was about Dugdale's work...Dave, <br /><br />Yes, the poem was about Dugdale's work, but the reference to Shakespeare had no more to do with his monument than the reference to Drayton - whose grave and monument were in Westminster Abbey - had about his. And I'm afraid that your opinion as to what Cockayne would or would not have done if the Hollar engraving had been inaccurate is based upon nothing more than wishful thinking.<br /><br />As to where the monument was located, you seem to be doing your best to agree with my argument without actually saying so.<br /><br />Dugdale's <i>words</i> were that it was "in" the wall, as it is now, and his sketch was not inconsistent with that. Hollar, however, showed it as being on the floor which - in the absence of any recess - is <i>not</i> consistent with Dugdale's words. We may therefore assume that Hollar made a mistake in this matter, and that Dugdale failed to notice it. And if you accept that it could happen in this case, then it is hardly reasonable to claim that it could not have happened with each of the other errors too.<br /><br />PeterPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-34249747531779930752012-09-16T13:14:16.450-04:002012-09-16T13:14:16.450-04:00I might also add that I spent a couple of very bor...I might also add that I spent a couple of very boring hours paging through Dugdale's book to see if I could find any other mention of the phrase " in the wall" or something like it. The only one I could find was the monument to Ellen Campion (p. 154) where it is said to be "In the North wall of the Chancell," and it is not at ground level but "in the wall." Where a monument is standing on the ground, Dugdale indicates this in his remarks. For example, on p. 291, the momument to James Enion: "On the South side of the Chancell, standeth this Monument," and on p.68 "This Monument standeth on the North side of the Chancell." Now I am old and my eyesight is not what it used to be, and I may have missed something, but I do not believe "in the wall" means standing on the floor, but is the equivalent of "on the wall." I also noticed that where a monument or figure was placed in some sort of a recessed area, Dugdale made note of that, indicating "it lieth in an Arch," or some such phrase.daver852https://www.blogger.com/profile/07305116661422747152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-75594882171732340732012-09-16T12:16:39.443-04:002012-09-16T12:16:39.443-04:00Well, as the poem mentions the book in its title, ...Well, as the poem mentions the book in its title, and singles out Stratford, Cockayne is obviously expressing his admiration for Dugdale's work, and would not have done that if Dugdale had made a total botch of of his drawing of the Shakespeare monument.daver852https://www.blogger.com/profile/07305116661422747152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-7010090024420544582012-09-16T06:40:04.169-04:002012-09-16T06:40:04.169-04:00It may seem to indicate that to you but certainly ...It may seem to indicate that to you but certainly not to me, Dave. <br /><br />The poem continues.<br /><br /> And sweet-tongu'd Drayton (that hath given renown <br /> Unto a poor (before) and obscure town, <br /> Harsull) were he not fal'n into his tombe, <br /> Would crown this work with an Encomium. <br /> Our Warwick-shire the Heart of England is, <br /> As you most evidently have proved by this; <br /> Having it with more spirit dignifi'd, <br /> Then all our English Counties are beside. <br /><br />So what he is saying is that if the two Warwickshire-born men (Shakespeare from Stratford and Drayton from Hartshill) had still been alive, he would have chosen them to join him in praising Dugdale for this work on their county. It says nothing at all about the monument. And even if he had noticed anything wrong with it, I rather doubt that he would have considered this an appropriate time or place to mention it.<br /><br />What is significant about his words is of course that, like Dugdale, he clearly accepts the latter's remark that the monument was to the "famous poet" and not (as Oxfordians use the mythical change to argue) a dealer in wool or grain.<br /><br />PeterPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-69979631127648497862012-09-15T22:54:30.513-04:002012-09-15T22:54:30.513-04:00> This seems to indicate that Cockayne has seen...> This seems to indicate that Cockayne has seen both the monument and Dugdale's engraving, and that the latter is a faithful representation of the former.<br /><br />And how, exactly, does this "seem" to indicate that?Tom Reedyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04601126300618496629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-88376483243055492602012-09-15T14:56:48.063-04:002012-09-15T14:56:48.063-04:00I would be interested in knowing what you make of ...I would be interested in knowing what you make of Sir Aston Cockayne's poem, “To my worthy, and learned Friend Mr. William Dugdale, upon his Warwickshire Illustrated,” which was published in 1658. In it, Cockayne says:<br /><br />"Now Stratford upon Avon, we would choose<br /> Thy gentle and ingenious Shakespeare Muse,<br /> (Were he among the living yet) to raise<br /> T’ our Antiquaries merit some just praise"<br /><br />This seems to indicate that Cockayne has seen both the monument and Dugdale's engraving, and that the latter is a faithful representation of the former.daver852https://www.blogger.com/profile/07305116661422747152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-64431598284783610222012-09-12T06:08:55.150-04:002012-09-12T06:08:55.150-04:00The inclusion of a black-on-top and red-below cush...The inclusion of a black-on-top and red-below cushion with gold tassels seems to have been quite common at the time. I've just come across the monument to Thomas Neville in Canterbury Cathedral, in which he is kneeling on one. It's at http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2636709 . He also died in 1614.<br /><br />PeterPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-5708935003672092762012-09-10T10:48:12.148-04:002012-09-10T10:48:12.148-04:00I am sorry to keep plugging away at this but, aris...I am sorry to keep plugging away at this but, arising from an exchange of posts with Tom Reedy, a very relevant piece of evidence has come to light. It is a letter from a great-nephew of Joseph Greene, who was of course the main instigator of the changes in 1748, which are often presented as the most likely occasion for the significant changes to have been made from the original monument to the one we see today.<br /><br />Anyone who is interested in finding out the truth about the monument's history really needs to read it. It's at http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=617PAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA731&lpg=&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false<br /><br />PeterPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-90004197615641191802012-09-10T09:38:25.990-04:002012-09-10T09:38:25.990-04:00Ah, right...that explains it; or doesn't expla...Ah, right...that explains it; or doesn't explain it, I suppose. Thanks Peter.Anthony Kellettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-2404257131842363572012-09-10T09:17:49.941-04:002012-09-10T09:17:49.941-04:00Anthony, it seems that there was another bust in t...Anthony, it seems that there was another bust in the Codrington Library at All Souls which was the work of Henry Cheere.<br /><br />PeterPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-33547628236241057112012-09-10T08:51:07.970-04:002012-09-10T08:51:07.970-04:00Sorry, I should have added...
If this is the same...Sorry, I should have added...<br /><br />If this is the same Henry Cheere of whom I am aware, it was probably 150 years later. So either I am wrong, or this is a dead end, it seems to me.Anthony Kellettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-7150435562892622312012-09-10T08:45:42.730-04:002012-09-10T08:45:42.730-04:00Sir Henry Cheere, I believe, was the sculptor.Sir Henry Cheere, I believe, was the sculptor.Anthony Kellettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-49712486465095827782012-09-10T08:29:58.756-04:002012-09-10T08:29:58.756-04:00There was recently a discussion on this subject on...There was recently a discussion on this subject on the Talk page of Wikipedia's item "Shakespeare's funerary monument" in which Tom Reedy drew our attention to the monument of a Dr Robert Hovenden. He was Warden of All Souls College, Oxford, where the monument is to be found, and had died in 1614. So presumably the monument was built only very shortly, if at all, before the Stratford one. It can be seen at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Robert_Hovenden_funerary_monument_cropped.jpg.<br /><br />Many of the features are similar to Shakespeare's, but I found the cushion of particular interest, since they are virtually identical, even as far as the black top and red underside, if they have both managed to retain the original colours. His right hand is resting on a skull, and in his left hand is what appears to be a book (the Bible?) his finger saving the page he is at. That hand is also resting upon something looking not all that different from Shakespeare's piece of paper, although it could be a cloth of some sort.<br /><br />I can't discover who designed the Hovenden one, but it seems inconceivable that the creator of one monument wasn't very familiar with the other, even to the extent of their being by the same person.<br /><br />PeterPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-75702065652366507152012-09-08T05:06:12.492-04:002012-09-08T05:06:12.492-04:00P.S.
Despite what you say, Dave, there really is ...P.S.<br /><br />Despite what you say, Dave, there really is no doubt at all that Hollar intended to show the monument as standing on some horizontal surface (presumably the floor) on three feet - something which Van der Gucht also took as read. You call this just a "trivial mistake", but Of course it isn't. Unless it really was floor-standing to start with, it is far more significant an error than any of the others. Furthermore, since Dugdale says that it is "in" the wall, it is the clearest indication we could possibly have both that Hollar had never seen it <i>in situ</i>, and that Dugdale didn't check this one as carefully as you claim he usually did. And if he missed such a major mistake, there really is no reason to assume that he wouldn't have missed other less obvious ones too.<br /><br />PeterPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-72796109097683518922012-09-08T04:20:45.683-04:002012-09-08T04:20:45.683-04:00Dave wrote:
"Well, Peter, I understand all t...Dave wrote:<br /><br />"Well, Peter, I understand all that."<br /><br />Really?<br /><br />"However, if I am to believe the original monument resembled today's, I must believe that:<br /><br />Sir William Dugdale, who was noted as an accurate draughtsman, somehow got his drawing of the Shakespeare monument so wrong that it was unrecognizable;"<br /><br />But we already <i>know</i> that he got his drawing wrong, don't we? It's absolutely <i>awful</i>! The perspective doesn't work; they're aliens, not <i>putti</i>; the capitals are a mess; no heraldic mantling ever looked like that; it's a gibbon, not a man; and he couldn't possibly have seen all four tassels (even if there ever had been four: there aren't now). Hollar did amazingly well to convert it into a monument that at least <i>might</i> have been built. <br /><br />"That this was a unique event, as I have been unable to find another example of such egregious incompetence, nor can anyone point one out to me, while I have examined dozens of other examples of his work, all of which were remarkably accurate;"<br /><br />Surprising and even unprecedented things happen all the time, as you already accept. After all, a memorial bust in which the subject is clutching a sack of some commodity (rather than the common device of resting arms, feet or knees on a tasseled cushion) would have been quite unique.<br /><br />"That 75 years could pass without a single person remarking upon Dugdale's incredible misrepresenation of the monument (which should have caused a great deal of comment, especially among the inhabitants of Stratford)."<br /><br />There may well have been comment, but Dugdale had been dead for 45 years when the second edition came out, and any such comment was apparently either ignored, unheard, or unrecorded. <br /><br />"That Dr. William Thomas, who despite adding three pages of corrections to Dugdale's work in his edition of 1730, almost all of them trivial in nature, somehow overlooked this glaring mistake."<br /><br />Yes, he did. He also overlooked Vertue's remarkably accurate (in all major points) portrayal of the current version, clearly based upon first hand knowledge, which had been published five years earlier.<br /><br />"So it boils down to which is more probable: that the engraver made a few trivial mistakes that "might" lead one to believe that the monument was standing on the floor, or that somehow in this one instance Dugdale made not one, but a whole series of errors, that were not noticed for almost a century".<br /><br />No, Dave. It boils down to whether Hollar did his best to make something vaguely feasible from the grotesque sketch he was given, with others basing their engravings on his, or whether the features of the monument over the years kept switching back and forth between something like Hollar's version and the way it appears today. <br /><br />The latter is of course impossible, so we are left with the words of Sherlock Holmes in <i>The The Sign of the Four</i>: "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, <i>however improbable</i>, must be the truth?"<br /><br />PeterPeter Fareynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-5476886806302240472012-09-07T17:43:32.553-04:002012-09-07T17:43:32.553-04:00Thanks to Peter pointing out the knotted corners o...Thanks to Peter pointing out the knotted corners of Dugdale's drawing I had the experience of suddenly seeing what I had not seen before when looking at the drawing. Before I'd ever seen it, I'd read that the current pillow had started out as a sack of grain, that the bust had been altered later. Of course I liked this information because it fit so nicely into my view that the Stratford man didn't write the works. So I never questioned those four knotted corners in Dugdale's drawing, never said to myself, "Wait a minute, sacks don't have knotted corners at the bottom, there is no sense to knotted corners at the bottom of a sack of grain."<br /><br />Although I no longer have Shakespeare's sack to pull out of the "he was not even a writer" evidence bag, I can still carry it with me as a good analogy for the orthodox who refuse to see what has (and has not) been in front of their faces all along. <br />Cynthia Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16293844996421547422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-21397080767835835722012-09-07T16:53:29.121-04:002012-09-07T16:53:29.121-04:00I think we'd be OK on a jury, Dave; unless we ...I think we'd be OK on a jury, Dave; unless we have to assess a photo-fit picture, of course. In which case, Kermit the Frog will be going down!Anthony Kellettnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-8798553901000519892012-09-07T16:19:09.393-04:002012-09-07T16:19:09.393-04:00Well, Peter, I understand all that. However, if I...Well, Peter, I understand all that. However, if I am to believe the original monument resembled today's, I must believe that:<br /><br />Sir William Dugdale, who was noted as an accurate draughtsman, somehow got his drawing of the Shakespeare monument so wrong that it was unrecognizable;<br /><br />That this was a unique event, as I have been unable to find another example of such egregious incompetence, nor can anyone point one out to me, while I have examined dozens of other examples of his work, all of which were remarkably accurate;<br /><br />That 75 years could pass without a single person remarking upon Dugdale's incredible misrepresenation of the monument (which should have caused a great deal of comment, especially among the inhabitants of Stratford).<br /><br />That Dr. William Thomas, who despite adding three pages of corrections to Dugdale's work in his edition of 1730, almost all of them trivial in nature, somehow overlooked this glaring mistake.<br /><br />If there were only a few examples that could be presented of Dugdale totally botching the drawing of a monument to the extent that it was unrecognizable, I would be inclined to agree with you. But there are not. So I would have to accept that this is a unique event, unprecedented and unrepeated. Even then, if there were a surviving letter or literary comment stating "Dugdale completely misrepresented the Shakespeare monument," I might agree with you. But there is not.<br /><br />So it boils down to which is more probable: that the engraver made a few trivial mistakes that "might" lead one to believe that the monument was standing on the floor, or that somehow in this one instance Dugdale made not one, but a whole series of errors, that were not noticed for almost a century? <br /><br />It's really a judgment call as to which evidence one gives the most weight. I hope that I never have to serve on a jury with you and Mr. Kellett :)<br /><br />Thank you for the information on Dr. Thomas. I had not known that. <br /><br />Mr. Kellett: I realize that Dugdale's sketch may look crude to you, but he was required to sketch thousands of items in preparation for his book. Engravers were used to working with sketches like this. The practice continued well into the 19th century. If one examines the sketches Alfred Waud made for "Harper's Weekly" during the American Civil War, for example, it is simply amazing how much detail could be included in what, at first glance, appears to be a crude drawing. The thing is, they got the important things right! In this case, the "important thing" is the figure of Shakespeare, not the putti, not the supports, not the arms, not the skull at the top. It is the man himself. And it is just this side of impossible that he could have gotten that so wrong. <br /><br /> <br /><br />daver852https://www.blogger.com/profile/07305116661422747152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6942147318185235475.post-87431332639960266052012-09-07T05:54:44.250-04:002012-09-07T05:54:44.250-04:00Dave,
I’m flabbergasted.
Greenwood, the man wh...Dave,<br /><br />I’m flabbergasted. <br /><br />Greenwood, the man who said, “It was from this drawing that the artist, whether Hollar or some other, prepared the engraving, which is an exact copy of the sketch; except that it corrects it where it is somewhat out of drawing”? <br /><br />This is the man whose opinion you value? One who is prepared to describe Dugdale as, “a practised draughtsman”, whilst looking at that drawing, which Dugdale supplied to Hollar? Is Greenwood suggesting that THAT drawing is actually what the monument looked like; the tiny head; the bizarre shoulders; arms with which he could have picked at his toenails, whilst standing upright? Is that what Greenwood is suggesting? If so, then Greenwood is not prepared to accept that Dugdale would have drawn the monument incorrectly (for the shame that it would have brought upon him, and the laughter of the church visitors), yet he is more than happy to believe that Shakespeare’s family (and church administrators) would have allowed that badly made ventriloquist dummy, to be installed to represent Shakespeare? Moreover, he is prepared to accept that the artisan that fashioned the Clopton monument, just across the church, would have produced such a monstrosity?<br /><br />I cannot help but wonder what Greenwood would have written about Dugdale’s efforts, if his descendent wasn’t a baronet; and an acquaintance? It stinks of sycophantic twaddle, to me, from a man trying to ingratiate himself to the aristocracy. I cannot even begin to imagine how else to explain Greenwood saying: ”both the ‘original drawing’ and ‘the plate’ agree with regard to the central figure”? Bizarre!<br />Anthony Kellettnoreply@blogger.com