Stratford Monument History

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The funeral of the man who had only recently referred to himself in the opening sentence of his last will and testament as: “I William Shackspeare… “ and then concluded it with the words “By me William Shakspeare” took place in the Stratford parish church of the Holy Trinity a mere two days after his decease. The haste with which interment followed death implied that no thought was given to inviting mourners from outside the confines of his immediate family; this in turn suggests that the bereaved saw no reason to do otherwise. It must therefore be concluded that the deceased’s family were entirely unaware of their relative’s fame outside the confines of Stratford, and the interest his death would have had upon admirers of his art. No satisfactory explanation for such secrecy has ever been proposed; that is, unless one questions whether the man who called himself Shackspeare was indeed the man known to the literary world as Shakespeare.

The body was laid to rest in a plain wooden coffin, with his grave having been prepared inside the chancel area of the church; a privilege reserved especially for wealthy tradesmen. No name marked the spot where he was interred. The grave was simply covered by a plain ledger stone on which four lines of doggerel verse were subsequently inscribed with a warning against disturbing the body. Neither the authorship of those lines nor the reason for them has ever been determined with certainty. The burial register inside the church recorded the event for posterity to ponder over. It read — Aprill 25 Will. Shakspere gent.

The ensuing public silence, the casually terse entry in the burial register, and the lack of any recorded interest inside the town of Stratford upon Avon at William Shakspere’s passing would be unexceptional in the case of someone remembered only for their business deals. Yet, for William Shakespeare, the royal command performer of two monarchs, published poet of two epic poems and a book of sonnet masterpieces; as well as being the author of more than thirty popular plays, some of which had also reached the continent, this silence was unnatural. Yet, it would continue for many years more, without the least mark of remembrance being made by those amongst whom he had lived. When at last some sign of recognition did appear, it came not from his local community, but from London.

The circumstances under which this occurred are of especial interest. On 3rd May 1619, the Lord Chamberlain took action to halt the unauthorized publication of Shakespeare’s works in Quarto.¹ It is very likely that preparation of the first folio edition of the collected plays was already in progress, and a clear path for its publication was being established. On 8th November 1623 Mr William Shakespeare’s Comedies, Histories & Tragedies was entered in the Stationers’ Register. Three months later, on 17 February 1624, the Bodleian Library in Oxford recorded the binding of a recently purchased copy, showing clearly that by then the book was on sale.

The publication of these collected plays did, however, give rise to a potential problem. The preface to the book included a poem by Leonard Digges that directed attention towards the author as being one, William Shake–speare, of Stratford; although why Shakespeare’s name should be hyphenated, and whether Chaucer’s earlier reference to Stratford was reintroduced to suggest ambiguity is, even now, still unclear. Visitors to the Warwickshire town of that name, arriving in the belief that they were about to appreciate the environs once shared by England’s great author, could initially be excused their puzzlement at finding not one single mark of recognition for this man’s achievements. What questions might this have invited?

The problem was undoubtedly recognized before the folio’s publication, because after years of parochial neglect, a wall monument to Shakspeare (sic) finally appeared in the Church of the Holy Trinity, close to his grave, thus providing a much-needed focus of attention for those drawn to Stratford upon Avon in the belief that they were experiencing the environment in which this great poet had blossomed.

Under normal circumstances, either the local citizens of Stratford or Shakspere’s next of kin would have made arrangements for this monument to be constructed. Had that been done, the end product would have been unequivocal in declaring itself as a fitting memorial to the literary achievements of the town’s local-born hero. But that never happened. Shakspere, unlike his neighbour, John Combe, failed to set aside a provision in his will for any sort of monument. It is therefore unlikely that the beneficiaries of his estate saw any need to remedy this deliberate omission.

Whatever the reason, a solution was conceived, though not by the Stratford community, nor by Shakspere’s next of kin, but in the Southwark workshop of a Flemish immigrant.

Janssen’s workshop was situated close to The Hart inn, which figures in Henry VI. It was also near The George inn, where performances of Shakespeare’s plays were at one time enacted in the courtyard beneath the gallery; while only a short walk from there was the Rose Theatre. The close proximity of these connections with Shakespeare’s circle, no less than the Janssen family’s own expertise at monumental carving, would seem to have brought them some important commissions. In May 1594, Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton, chose Janssen to construct the memorial tomb to his father ³. And some years later, this same workshop was asked to construct a monumental tomb for the 5th Earl of Rutland ⁴.

The fact, therefore, that Stratford upon Avon became the choice location for a monument to Shakespeare, and that someone, wealthy enough to have carried through this plan, was more familiar with Southwark than with Stratford cannot be entirely ignored. Nor is it without significance that whoever paid for the monument already knew that this was to be the only funerary mark of recognition this man would receive from his contemporaries: a fact confirmed by Leonard Digges through his reference to the Stratford Monument in the first folio. The denial of Shakespeare’s rightful burial inside Westminster Abbey, which already enjoyed a tradition as the accepted place of interment for England’s foremost men of letters, was immediately confirmed by the erection of this monument, and by Digges having mentioned it in his tribute to Shake–speare. For it was set up in a place where both it, and the first folio’s reference to it, would have become instantly redundant had plans been afoot to remove the Stratford man’s body to Westminster Abbey. This clearly indicates that someone within Southwark’s theatrical circle knew much more about this man called Shakespeare than has ever appeared in public records.

At some time prior to publication of the first folio, the three-day journey from Southwark to Stratford upon Avon was undertaken, and the wall monument commemorating William Shakspeare (sic) was set in place. If we give regard to its first recorded sketch, which was made about 1636 when Sir William Dugdale commenced work “beginning with the Avon” for his Antiquities of Warwickshire,⁵ it is to note the enigmatic nature of the monument’s design. For the visual impact confirms, at once, Shakspere’s status as a prosperous merchant within his local community, and this would have received nodding agreement from his former neighbours. But for those visitors, drawn to Stratford through an acquaintance with Shakespeare’s literary output, it is the inscription below that was intended to capture their attention. Its opening Latin prose and classical references act as an introduction to the English couplets that follow. Although the actual text, with its opening challenge, its strange references, its abbreviations and inconsistent spelling, not to mention the errors of addition that were made, not only defy the complacently composed interpretations offered by orthodoxy, but invite a deeper contemplation from those it addresses. And it is, of course, precisely the errors of addition that preclude the possibility of it having been commissioned by his family, or indeed by anyone locally who was familiar with the actual details of Shakspere’s grave. The nonexistent named tomb, referred to in the inscription, and the incorrect age given at the base, provide permanent bars to any close familiarity between the person(s) who commissioned the monument and the man to whom it refers.

From the very beginning, neither Shakespeare, his grave nor his monument occasioned the slightest interest amongst Stratford's fraternity. The Reverend Thomas Wilson, Vicar of Holy Trinity Church for more than a decade and a half after the monument was set in place, gave his pigs, dogs and chickens free range of the chancel area, thus allowing them to defecate and urinate over the hallowed grave. His children, too, were also allowed to play ball games in the chancel with no care as to the damage that might be inflicted by a well-aimed ball at Shakespeare's head. And during inclement weather, the housemaids were permitted to dry and air the laundry in this same area. It was not until 1635 that action was taken to remedy the situation and the Vicar suspended was for a period of three months, although the main charge against him was that "he walked about the church in the time of divine service."

What this says about the people of Stratford is very clear; they did not recognize their man, William Shakspere sic (or Shaxpere sic) to be the same William Shakespeare who was the celebrated poet, playwright, entertainer to Queen Elizabeth and King James, and author of the Rape of Lucrece and Venus and Adonis: a poem so popular that between 1593 and 1640 it was reprinted fifteen times. And this without mentioning the more obvious fact that the first folio of Shakespeare's collected plays had just been published, with its dedication to the Earls of Pembroke and Montgomery. All of this was common knowledge with Shakespeare's poems and plays readily available to the people of Stratford . Yet nobody inside the town thought for one moment it applied to the person buried inside their parish church. Outside of Stratford, the situation was a little different. Those acquainted, either directly or indirectly with copies of the first folio (1623) would have read Leonard Digges comment:

Leonard Digges’ reference to Stratford, which he deliberately inserted in the first folio, thereby connecting this town with Shakespeare, while at the same time answering the pressing need for local recognition, proved very effective. Of those drawn to Stratford during the seventeenth century, and who wrote of their impressions, none voiced any dissatisfaction upon seeing the effigy of this country-born man with his hands resting upon what suspiciously seemed like a common woolsack. There are two good reasons for this. Firstly, the inscription beneath the figure, when read, would have diverted attention away from the bust’s “curious” appearance and answered any fleeting disquiet at its rural attachment. After which, confirmation bias would have quickly stifled doubt long before it had chance to root. Secondly, it would have been only natural to suppose that Shakspere’s family, or his business friends, had commissioned the monument. This would have excused the figure’s unusual posture, for it would simply be understood as the family’s wish to remember their relative in a way familiar to them.

In 1709 a second copy of the Stratford monument appeared in print; it having been redrawn, and a new plate cut for its subsequent inclusion in Nicholas Rowe’s six-volume edition of Shakespeare’s works, dedicated to Lord Somerset.

Betterton, whose “veneration for Shakespeare” may be judged by his acquisition of the Chandos portrait from the poet’s other great admirer, Sir William D’Avenant, and whose visit to Stratford “to gather up what remains he could of a name for which he had so great value” may therefore be judged to have confirmed the veracity of the monument as it appeared in 1709. For he had been in a perfect position to set the record straight had that need arisen. Indeed, he even allowed his Chandos portrait to be copied for the frontispiece of volume I, so keen was he to assist in the production and appearance of Rowe’s book. Yet, a new plate was cut depicting the bust of Shakespeare in the very same situation and position as that first sketched by Dugdale, although with visible signs of wear to the monument now appearing.

Five years later, a second edition of Rowe’s book was published. Once again the Stratford Monument appeared in print unchanged.

In 1730 the monument made its fourth appearance. The occasion was a second edition of Sir William Dugdale’s Antiquities of Warwickshire.

But, despite Dugdale’s own corrections, and the revisions made by Thomas, no change to the Stratford Monument was thought necessary. Yet, as rector of St. Nicholas Church, Worcester, William Thomas was only 23 miles from Stratford upon Avon, and could not have failed to notice any discrepancies, had they existed. In fact, Dugdale’s actual artwork, from which the original plate was cut, still exists and is presently held by descendents of the family. Upon inspection, it very clearly conforms to the published engraving, and is very similar in detail to that which later appeared in Rowe’s book.

Consequently, after four, separately published appearances of the monument, over a time span of three-quarters of a century, but without a single contemporaneous protest or objection ever having been raised, one is entitled to make the judgment, rooted in law, that Silence Gives Consent.

In May 1746 Stratford received a visit from a band of traveling players led by John Ward. The group stayed throughout the summer, and before leaving they put on a benefit performance of Othello; the proceeds to be “Solely Appropriated to the Repairing of the Original Monument” ⁸. The reason for this was plainly put to the entire community.

The play was performed on 9 September and the proceeds were deposited with the churchwardens, and there the matter was allowed to rest. Two years later, on 25 November 1748, in an attempt to revive interest in this project, the clerk of the parish announced “there will be a meeting at the Market Hall in Stratford of those persons who contributed for the repairing of Shakespeare’s monument, in order to resolve upon a proper method of repairing and beautifying the monument aforesaid.” ⁹ The meeting was followed by a request for signatures from the contributors, requiring them to “agree that the direction and execution of that work shall be committed to Mr. John Hall, Limner; and (provided he takes care, according to his ability, that the monument shall become as like as possible to what it was, when first erected) that the money already raised shall be forthwith paid him upon finishing the work.” ⁹ This wording was later amended to read: “Mr John Hall, Limner, shall repair and beautify, or have direction of repairing and beautifying, the original monument of Shakespeare the poet, etc.” ⁹

Joseph Greene, a contributor to the cost of repair, who was much concerned for the survival of the bust’s original features, later confessed his unease in a letter to his brother.

In another letter addressed to James West of Alscot, former president of the Royal Society, Greene mentions this subject again.

If Mr. Rysbrack carves your Shakespeare from the mask he had of me, I am sure it answers exactly to our original bust. For Heath the Carver & I took it down from the chancel wall & laid it exactly in a horizontal posture before we made the cast, … ¹⁰

Johannes Michiel Rysbrack, was the best sculptor of portrait busts at that time, and his work “has seldom if ever been excelled”, (DNB). The ‘Rysbrack Bust’ of Shakespeare, with its trim moustache and enhanced, pensive features, can be examined for comparisons when set beside the “original bust”, published in Dugdale’s Antiquities, and copied by Estella Canziani.

The “much impair’d and decay’d” state of the “Bust” (as distinct from the “Monument”) damaged “through length of Years and other accidents” may reasonably be explained by the material being part alabaster and part sandstone.

This "ease and speed" with which alabaster can be carved would also render it prone to “accidents”, and the type of damage noted by J. O. Halliwell, in the first volume of his sixteen-part Works of William Shakespeare (1853).

The subsequent controversy surrounding the monument’s original appearance has tended to focus on the repair work undertaken by John Hall. It has therefore been suggested that Hall replaced the “curious original” monument with that which presently graces the Chancel wall today. The financial accounting does not support this suggestion. The cost of a new monument would have been in the region of sixty pounds (the amount willed by John Combe for his Stratford memorial). Hall had initially been promised only “sixteen pounds” for “repairing and beautifying the original monument”, but he later signed an agreement to receive the lesser amount of “twelve pounds ten shillings”.¹³However, this does not preclude the possibility that the damage to the bust “being in great ruin and decay” was so advanced that a part of it required replacement.

By a bizarre coincidence, a carved head of Shakespeare later appeared in the house that he had formerly occupied. Ten years after Hall’s restoration work was completed, an entry appeared on the list of fixtures made during the sale of New Place. It mentioned: “The fixtures; the things left in Mr. Talbot’s house at Stratford-on-Avon, 26th September 1758”: “In ye Hall, Shakespeare’s Head.” [“Wheler Miscellaneous Papers,” ii, f. 39] ¹⁴. One is therefore entitled to ask if this could have been the same head taken from the monument that Joseph Greene had copied? If not, from where did it come? Its emergence at Stratford at this particular time would tend to suggest that this was either the original head from Shakspere's bust, which had been replaced by Hall, aided by "Heath the Carver", or an effigy made from the mask taken by Joseph Greene; there being no other record of any other head of Shakespeare.

A drawing made for Alexander Pope’s 1725 edition of Shakespeare’s collected plays has also complicated the history of the monument. Vertue had arrived in Oxford to begin work as an engraver in 1723, producing almanacs and views of the colleges, together with incidents from their history. He was to continue his work there for the next quarter of a century. It was while visiting Oxford’s Ch

ristchurch Cathe

dral that Vertue would have first noticed the bust and wall monument of Dr Goodwin (see left), whose death had occurred a century earlier. Its resemblance to the design he submitted for inclusion in Pope’s Shakespeare bears noticeable similarities to the Goodwin monument, and this would seem to have provided his inspiration for the innovative sketch of the Stratford Monument, which he drew for Pope.

Vertue’s noted reputation for truth and exactness in his work, when assessed against the many differences between his own creative interpretation of Shakespeare’s monument (see right) and existing prints of it in situ, (see above) clearly marks his sketch as a personal exercise in artistic innovation. For example, his substitution of the figure’s face by that taken from the Chandos Portrait is so obvious, so serious and so fundamental to questions of exactitude that to recount still further his other substitutions, later repeated by Gravelot for Sir Thomas Hanmer’s publication of The Works of Shakespeare (1744) would be superfluous to the need for further proof.

In 1793, the leading Shakespeare scholar of that time, Edmond Malone, had the bust removed from the wall for examination. He was so dissatisfied with what lay before him that he used his influence to have it covered “in a thick coating of common white paint.”—a suitable contrivance for camouflaging the monument's obvious defects, which it had collected over the centuries.

This confirms that the original bust was still in place, that it had only been repaired and beautified by Hall, and that after two centuries of decay, it had reached such a dangerous state that its total collapse was feared to be imminent. This decay is not remarkable. The ledger stone covering Shakspere’s grave had also been ravaged by the centuries, and a replacement put in place. To suppose that the monument had alone remained immune to corrosion over the centuries is not merely ridiculous; it contradicts the several reports made concerning its condition, and which clearly speak of its decay.

John Britton was made honorary secretary of the Society, and in the prospectus he sent out appealing for subscriptions he referred to the original monument as “a small and comparatively trifling tomb… [that] failed to attract anything like critical or literary notice … ” This remark is important, because it implies he already had change in mind for the intended replacement. Money soon came in, “The King subscribed £50, the Borough of Stratford the same. Many sent their subscriptions ‘only for the restoration and preservation of the Monument.’ ” At the close, the total raised was “£5,000”. But “The cost of restoring Shakespeare’s Monument and the Chancel” was initially estimated to be only “£1,210. 12s.” The monument and bust that emerged from this excess of funding is undoubtedly the present one, and is magnificently described as follows—nothing “trifling” about this:

No expense seemed to have been spared for the future “preservation” of the bust and monument. The columns were made of marble, and the more enduring and hardwearing Cotswold limestone, endemic to Stratford and its surrounding regions, was used to replace the original “alabaster”, which had always been prone to accidental damage. In fact, Cotswold limestone is so hardwearing, so durable that “Manor houses, churches, farmsteads, cottages and entire villages are constructed of oolitic limestone or ‘Cotswold Stone’.” ¹⁷

As a mark of continuity, the monument was repainted white, after having been faithfully reproduced from the remains left after Hall’s restoration work a century earlier. This, however, seems to have been only a delaying tactic for what was intended, since some years later, in 1861, Simon Collins, a picture restorer, was quietly asked to remove the white paint and return the bust to its painted form. The colours he used matched those on the Birthplace portrait.

As a final word on this subject, the decision of the Stratford Society to choose marble and Cotswold limestone with which to replace the monument, then near to collapse, proved to be most commendable. For when an inspection of the monument was carried out by “modern experts” to discover if there were any signs of renovation, they reportedly found “no evidence that it has been substantially repaired”.¹⁸ Well, of course not—it was the monument’s replacement they examined.

1623	Monument erected on the north wall of the chancel, showing Shakespeare clasping a sack (Dugdale).
1623 - 1635	Reverend Thomas Wilson allowed his farm animals into the chancel area, and his children to play ball games there. The maids also hung their washing there.
1636 - 1651	Sir William Dugdale visited the Avon area and made a copy of the monument. It showed Shakespeare clasping a large sack. Dugdale's notes show that he had invited family members associated with his representative material to offer their comments. There were no protests from Shakespeare's descendants.
1709	A new engraving of the monument was made for Rowe's edition of Shakespeare's works. It confirmed Dugdale's picture in detail with Shakespeare still grasping the same sack as first depicted by Dugdale.
1714	Rowe's book was reprinted, but again the monument was shown as it appeared in the first edition.
1725	Pope's edition of Shakespeare published, showing a composite picture of the monument drawn by Vertue. Cloak, pen, paper and desk have been added, and the figure has been given a face transplant taken from the Chandos Portrait.
1730	Dr. W. Thomas re-edited and re-issued Sir William Dugdale's book but with no change to the rendering of Shakespeare holding on to his large sack of merchandise.
1744	Hanmer's edition of Shakespeare is published, with the monument copied from Pope's edition except only that the figure has been given another face transplant, this time seemingly from the Birthplace Portrait.
1746	John Ward and his players arrived in Stratford and gave a charity performance of Othello so that the proceeds could be used to repair the monument which was suffering serious decay.
1748 - 1749	John Hall received instructions to repair and beautify the monument.
1786 - 1788	Reynold Grignion engraved a new plate of the monument for Bell's Shakespeare. The book was published in 1788 and continued to show the monument as both Dugdale and Rowe had previously shown it, with Shakespeare's hands holding on to a large sack.
1793	Malone arranged for the monument to be covered in a thick coat of white paint.
1814	George Bullock made a cast of the monument, and in the process observed that it was now in such a precarious state that it would risk destruction should it be removed again.
1816	William Ward made an engraving of the monument based upon a painting by Thomas Phillips from the cast made by Bullock. This shows the figure with a cloak, pen and paper.
1827	Abraham Wivell inspected the monument and wrote a report on its current state.
1835 - 1839	The Shakespearean Club of Stratford -upon-Avon met to discuss the regrettable disfigurement of the bust and monument, and to invite subscriptions for its repair and for the renovation of the chancel walls and roof. The money raised far exceeded that required for the repair of the monument.
1861	Simon Collins repainted the monument according to the original colours shown on what is referred to as the Stratford Portrait.
2008	The present monument shows no sign of the decay reported in previous years, and no mark of ever having been repaired. The materials used for its construction are both hard-wearing and long-lasting, as distinct from the alabaster and soft greyish-white sandstone which was commonly employed for memorials in the 17th century. If this is not a replacement of the monument which was close to destruction 200 years ago, then one is entitled to ask what happened to the £5,000 specifically subscribed for its regeneration?

1. Shakespeare The Evidence: Ian Wilson p.466.
2. The Dictionary of National Biography, Vol X: (ed.) Sir Leslie Stephen and Sir Sidney Lee p.685.
3. Shakespeare The Evidence: Ian Wilson p.168.
4. The Mystery of William Shakespeare: Charlton Ogburn p.157.
5. Shakespeare’s Environment, C. C. Stopes p.108 & 117.
6. The Dictionary of National Biography, Vol II: (ed.) Sir Leslie Stephen and Sir Sidney Lee p.438.
7. The Antiquities of Warwickshire, (second edition), Sir William Dugdale (frontispiece) (ed.) W. Thomas.
8. Shakespeare, In Fact, Irvin Leigh Matus p.200.
9. Shakespeare’s Environment, C. C. Stopes p.348.
10. Shakespeare, In Fact, Irvin Leigh Matus p.204-5.
11. A Companion To The English Parish Church, Stephen Friar pp.4, 304.
12. Who Wrote Shakespeare? John Michell p.93.
13. Shakespeare’s Environment, C. C. Stopes p.350.
14. Ibid. p.120.
15. Ibid. p.121.
16. Shakespeare The Evidence: Ian Wilson p.397.
17. A Companion To The English Parish Church, Stephen Friar p.141.
18. Who Wrote Shakespeare, John Michell p.97.
Photograph of Dr Goodwin’s monument is reproduced by courtesy of Derran Charlton

THE STRATFORD MONUMENT

a brief history