The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0285 Wednesday, 5 April 2006
[1] From: Clark J. Holloway <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 4 Apr 2006 19:03:57 -0700
Subj: Re: SHK 17.0277 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine
[2] From: Peter Farey <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 5 Apr 2006 12:45:14 +0100
Subj: The Stratford Monument's Epigraph
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Clark J. Holloway <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 4 Apr 2006 19:03:57 -0700
Subject: 17.0277 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine
Comment: Re: SHK 17.0277 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine
Gerald E. Downs:
>When Bill Lloyd reported that "Clark Holloway concludes," he would have
>been more accurate to note that Holloway's analysis and most of his
>material derives from Diana Price's extensive "Reconsidering
>Shakespeare's Monument" (Review of English Studies, May 1997), which
>Holloway himself properly cited (after only one nudge).
No offense intended towards Mr. Downs, but this is not quite correct.
Back in 1999, Mr. Downs' photograph of Dugdale's sketch was being rather
freely circulated, without attribution or context, on the
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare (HLAS) newsgroup. I received a copy
of it, and immediately noticed discrepancies between the sketch and the
Hollar engraving. I had already gathered the evidence, done an
analysis, reached my conclusion, and posted my findings on HLAS before
David Kathman had the unfortunate duty of informing me that I had been
anticipated by Ms. Price. Anyone wishing to verify the timeline,
including the point at which I learned of Ms. Price's article, may
search Google Groups for a thread entitled, "Dugdale's Phantom Leopards."
My web site essay is based on the discussions in that thread, and I
believe that I had always acknowledged Ms. Price's precedence in the
discovery on my site-though Mr. Downs may have missed it on his first
perusal.
I'm merely an amateur Shakespeare enthusiast, and have precious little
reputation to worry about, but it took no "nudging" on Mr. Downs' part
for me to acknowledge Ms. Price's work. Given that we were both started
our analysis with the same evidence, Mr. Downs' photograph, it shouldn't
be too surprising that we both came to the same conclusion.
- Clark
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Farey <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Wednesday, 5 Apr 2006 12:45:14 +0100
Subject: The Stratford Monument's Epigraph
Joe Egert wrote, in the less and less aptly named "Chandos Portrait
Probably Genuine" thread:
> --1853: Fairholt engraving of current Monument effigy, detailed
>and accurate, but without pen. The inscription's first word:
>"IVDICIO". They finally got it right!
>
>Fellow resolutes, I welcome any corrections or additions.
As regards the accuracy of the epigraph, the earliest clearly reliable
illustration that I have been able to find is in the 1896 edition of J.
O. Halliwell-Phillipps's "Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare", a copy
of which I have at <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/halliwell.jpg>. It
seems to have been obtained either by a photographic process or by a
rubbing of some kind, but I'm not sure which.
If we take this as the best indication of how it appeared originally,
then it is salutary to note that - as far as I can ascertain - there has
*never* been an accurate transcript of the whole thing published, either
before or since! Even Halliwell-Phillipps retained the inaccurate
transcript that he had included in all earlier editions of "Outlines".
The most accurate version I have seen is in the Riverside "Complete
Works", but even they omit the comma after the words "Far more", with a
footnote saying that there might be one there.
I gather that the monument was vandalized in 1974, and the chance taken
to refurbish it. There is a fascinating photograph held in Stratford's
Shakespeare Library showing the bust (with one cushion tassel missing)
perched on a pile of rubble, and the epigraph completely obliterated by
a coat of paint. Interestingly, in redoing it, the writer again departed
from the Halliwell-Phillipps version: the question mark at the end of
the first line disappeared, as did the colon after the word "DIDE", and
the word "CANST" ('read if thou canst') was changed to "GANST".
Mind you, it would seem that the refurbishment was perhaps not watched
as closely as it might have been, since I gather that the putti were put
back the wrong way round (i.e. with legs pointing inward) and that it
was some three years before anyone noticed!
Peter Farey
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
|
