A  REFUTATION  OF  THE  SEVERAL  ARGUMENTS  GIVEN  IN  SUPPORT  OF  SHAKESPEARE'S  MONUMENT  BEING  ORIGINAL

Some, who have yet to defect to the Oxfordian view, preferring instead to remain loyal to the Stratfordian teaching of their youth, have recently sought reinforcement from stalwarts of the past. In 1924, M. H. Spielmann, author of Shakespeare's Portraiture, published an essay that was partly designed to restore the Stratford Monument to its former pinnacle of acclaim. To be fair to Mr. Spielmann, he had no idea, when writing in 1924, that the Monument he so faithfully defended, was in reality a mathematically constructed cryptogram, furnished with double meanings in all of the three languages used for its construction. It is therefore possible to deal only with the limited points that Spielmann introduced, and these all refer to the mute language of its design. 

Spielmann makes two assertions: 1) Sir William Dugdale's reproduction of the Stratford Monument, as printed in his Warwickshire Antiquities, was incorrect. 2) The present monument is the original one that was placed there prior in1623.

Because there is no documentary evidence to prove that Dugdale made a mistake with his engraving of the Monument, Spielmann is forced to circumvent the difficulty. He does so by speaking of some alleged errors committed by Dugdale's employees in the commission of their work, but wholly unconnected with the Stratford Monument. Hence, there is no causal link between the errors that he draws attention to and the engraving of the Monument that appears in Dugdale's book of Antiquities. It is simply a case of raising the dust. If Spielmann can raise enough dust, the reader who is troubled by the appearance of Shakespeare's Monument will lose sight of the issue and no longer consider it to be of major importance. It is good strategy, but not logic.

Had Spielmann wished to deal with his subject in an even-handed manner, it was beholden upon him to refer to Dr. Thomas' "Revised, Corrected and Expanded" reprinting of Dugdale's Warwickshire Antiquities, published in 1730. This he failed to do, and with good reason, for the 1730 edition was made public without a single change to the Stratford Monument having been made. Whereas, Dr Thomas, true to his word, made numerous corrections in proofing his reprint against the errors that had attracted earlier attention, and which were seized upon by Spielmann in his essay. As Dr. Thomas' own dwelling was close to Stratford upon Avon, he was perfectly placed to check, and subsequently correct the engraving had it been necessary. Since he did not do so, it may be safely concluded that Mr. Spielmann's belief in Dugdale's incompetence, apropos the Stratford Monument, was unfounded.

The failure of Dr Thomas to amend the 1656 version of the Stratford Monument does not stand alone. At the turn of the 17th century, Nicholas Rowe, a lawyer with theatrical interests, as well as a future poet laureate, was preparing a biography of Shakespeare which was intended to accompany the reprinting of the plays. Rowe was ably assisted in this project by Thomas Betterton, an actor acknowledged to be on a par with our own, late, Sir Laurence Olivier. Betterton traveled to Stratford upon Avon to check on the available facts, and what could still be learned from the town nearly a century after Shakespeare's death. When Rowe's book was published in 1709, it included a newly etched picture of the Stratford Monument, but one which still reproduced, and confirmed, the same features that were to later anger Spielmann, and fuel the doubt that has arisen concerning Shakespeare's identity.

Without any substantive evidence to support his first proposition, Spielmann has insufficient grounds to proceed with his second proposal; i.e., the present monument is the original one put there in, or before, 1623. Nevertheless, there are certain pertinent facts that are of consequential interest.

In 1746, John Ward, the theatrical manager of a traveling group of players, spent the summer at Stratford upon Avon. In recognition of the hospitality he received from its inhabitants, and struck by the idea of how the new monument to Shakespeare in Westminster Abbey had been acquired from money raised by public performances, he proposed something similar. The following words are taken directly from an announcement of that time.

Mr. Spielmann, being a man of letters and having little or no scientific background, clearly failed to understand that a monument which "through length of Years and other accidents [had] become much impaired and decayed", was unlikely to emerge from the hands of a wandering repair man, so that even today - 23 years short of four centuries later - it appears almost as good as new. But let his naivety be excused; the appeal of his argument is unlikely to find favour except amongst the unthinking.

In truth, had Mr. Spielmann taken time to observe the heart-shaped face and drooping moustache of Dugdale's original drawing, and then compared this with the heart-shaped face and drooping moustache of Michael Rysbrack's bust of Shakespeare, the doubts he entertained would have been banished. For the Rysbrack bust was sculptured from a face mask taken by Joseph Greene, vicar of Stratford parish church, before the restoration work began. Furthermore, a recent examination by experts of the present bust that depicts Shakespeare with an oval face and an upturned moustache, concluded that there were no signs of restoration work ever having been carried out. A fact that clearly contradicts the impairment and decay reported nearly three centuries ago.

As with most cases, it is money that talks. The cost of tickets for the performance was half a crown for a seat in the pit, and a shilling for the gallery. The total proceeds from the play variously put between £17 down to £12.10. 0. (an amount in excess of £10 000 or $15 000 by today's reckoning). In any event, it exceeded the sum required to pay John Hall, the limner from Bristol, who was engaged to carry out the refurbishment, and a new  monument made from Cotswold limestone from a nearby quarry was easily affordable. This new monument, though based upon the original, was much enhanced to complement the literary expectations of those who visited the site (compare the two monuments on the parent web page). Perhaps, it was also the fear of what might happen to the original figure that caused the Reverend Greene to hastily take a plaster cast of Shakepsere's features before Hall began his work. Greene then sent the mask to James West of Alscot who promised he would have a bust of Shakespeare's head modeled from it. Michael Rysbrack was commissioned to carry out the work, and he completed the sculptured head in 1760.

In summary, the Stratford protest which asserts that Dugdale's engraving, and Rowe's after him, were both flawed, and that the present Stratford Monument is original, can be safely dismissed. It is merely a smokescreen put there to help sustain the reputations of those who for too long have leaned upon the Stratford myth for their authority. 

content