The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0270  Monday, 3 April 2006

[1] 	From: 	Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Friday, 31 Mar 2006 20:22:25 +0100
	Subj: 	Re: SHK 17.0259 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine

[2] 	From: 	Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
	Date: 	Monday, 03 Apr 2006 00:22:31 +0000
	Subj: 	RE: SHK 17.0259 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine

From: 		Peter Bridgman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Friday, 31 Mar 2006 20:22:25 +0100
Subject: 17.0259 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine
Comment: 	Re: SHK 17.0259 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine

David Basch writes ...

 >One cannot help concluding that Vertue's engraving was made for
 >the express purpose of obscuring the fact that a shift in sculpture
 >was made since all the other versions stick with the characterization
 >based on the Dugdale of a less than roly poly, jolly face and without
 >the quill and writing desk. That is what I conclude and leave it to
 >others to come to their own conclusions.

I refer David Basch to this examination of all the various engravings 
... http://hollowaypages.com/Shakespearemonument.htm

The statue was "restored" in 1749.  Anti-Stratfordians claim that on 
this occasion the statues were swapped.  But the Vertue engraving from 
1723 proves conclusively that this was not the case.

Peter Bridgman

From: 		Joseph Egert <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date: 		Monday, 03 Apr 2006 00:22:31 +0000
Subject: 17.0259 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine
Comment: 	RE: SHK 17.0259 Chandos Portrait Probably Genuine

After gracing the Forum with his own considered assessment of the 
Stratford monument's originality, David Basch wonders why raising the 
issue of its lineal irregularity may be seen as "cultic 
anti-Stratfordianism." Stratfordian or not, Basch risks dragging the 
List into the Authorship swamp. Is he not aware the demolition of the 
Monument's authenticity remains a favorite wet dream of many antiStrats? 
  Indeed, some spend every waking hour stretching and distorting the 
available evidence to support their foregone conclusions. Hardy has 
wisely banned such controversies from infecting this Forum as they have 

David complains of those "who have axes to grind" planting their own 
views and poisoning wells.

What chutzpah! Mote and beam, David. Mote and beam. I urge him to take 
his own advice and examine the issue more deeply with his characteristic 
Talmudic vigor (especially Spielmann's work).

Basch writes:

 >If we look at these versions, most of which attempt to replicate
 >the original sketch, we must conclude that the original featured
 >a pillow like pads under the poet's hands without the pen. This
 >seems to be confirmed.

Indeed, Shakespeare's hands are resting on a tasselated desk cushion, 
difficult to define in Dugdale's crude 1634 sketch and its progeny in 
1656, 1709 and 1786. The stone pen was broken off early in the 
Monument's career and had to be replaced periodically. Accurate 
eyewitness engravings of the present Monument for 19th C. Shakespeare 
editions on occasion omit the pen altogether (see list below).

Basch goes on:

 >As to the head, while some of the versions disagree on details of
 >architectural representation, they all agree on the characterization
 >of the head as gaunt and with a gout. Only the 1723 Vertue engraving
 >gives a representation that squares with the present sculpture.

Not so. Both the 1709 and 178 images show a fuller face. The so-called 
"gout" and long Marfanoid upper limbs bent akimbo at the elbows again 
may reflect Dugdale's high viewing position for his crude drawing. While 
Vertue's accurate reproduction of the Monument's housing, of the 
pen/paper-holding pose, and of the upper section coat-of-arms clearly 
indicate an eyewitness source, Vertue (or his source) just as clearly 
substituted a Chandos-based head (shades of Vienna!) and altered the 
putti and inscription somewhat.

For easy reference, I've listed and annotated the Monument's early 
images available to us, beginning with:

    --The current Stratford Monument built c.1616-23 by Gheerart Janssen 
and set in the North      chancel wall of Holy Trinity Church. Some 
repairs were done in 1649 and the Monument refurbished in 1748. The 
putto Labour holds in his right hand a vertical spade at the top of the 
handle; the other putto Rest holds in his left hand an inverted torch 
again at the top, his right hand resting on or near a skull. The 
inscription's first word:" IVDICIO".

    --c.1634: Dugdale's crude sketch with the putti legs dangling over 
the edges of the upper section. The putto Labour still holds the spade 
at the top of the shaft, but Rest now holds an hourglass instead of a 
torch and no skull. The inscription's first word in the sketch: "Iudicio".

    --1656 (also 1730 second edition by William Thomas): Dugdale's 
ANTIQUITIES OF WARWICKSHIRE with Hollar's Dugdale-based engraving. The 
putto Labour now holds the spade at mid-shaft. The inscription's first 
word: "Judycio". On the same page Dugdale transcribes the same word as 

    --1709: Vandergucht's Hollar-based engraving for Rowe's first (and ? 
second 1714) Shakespeare edition. Again the putto Labour holds the spade 
at midshaft, and Rest holds an hourglass, but no torch or skull. The 
face is fuller and the lips slightly ajar as if declaiming his verse 
(some interpret the current Monument effigy's lips in like fashion). The 
skimpy inscription's first word: "Judicio".

    --1725: Vertue's 1721/3 engraving for Pope's first 1725 Shakespeare 
edition--in many respects the first truly accurate representation of the 
current Monument, probably based on an eyewitness drawing of a trusted 
confederate. Vertue (or his confederate source) substitutes, however, a 
Chandos-based head on the pen/paper-holding trunk. Also, both putti are 
now holding erect lit torches at midshaft with Labour's left hand 
resting on an hourglass, and Rest now sitting next to a skull. For the 
first time I can see the vertical spearlet clasped by the bird's claw as 
in the present Monument. The inscription's first word: "INGENIO" (fodder 
for the conspiracy-minded?).

    --1728: Fourdrinier's 1728 engraving for Pope's second 1728 
Shakespeare edition--basically a copy of Vertue with the same errors and 

    --1737: Vertue's eyewitness Notebook sketch of the pen-holding 
Monument effigy in its chancel wall setting, being viewed by his tour 
mate and patron Edward Harley. Some believe the head is Chandos-based; 
the head is too sketchy and distant for me to judge. Vertue also notes 
commissioning the Stratford statuary "Mr. Harbord" to make a cast from 
the Monument head.

    --1744: Gravelot engraving for Hanmer's 1744 Shakespeare 
edition--basically a copy of Vertue's  1721/23 engraving for Pope. The 
effigy's head is slightly altered and I cannot descry an earring amid 
the curls. Vertue comments in his Notebook on this engraving, "the head 
of Shakespear (I dont THINK so truely his face)", identifying it as an 
altered copy of his own engraving (Is Vertue winking at us?). Also the 
inscription's first word has been "corrected" to: "JUDICIO".

    --1748: John Hall painting before his refurbishment of the Monument. 
Matus believes this image may be in fact a 1770 canvas copy by Grubb of 
the original 1748 pasteboard painting by Hall. It shows basically the 
current pen-holding Monument effigy with the current bulbous Monument 
face. I cannot make out what the putti are holding, but Labour's left 
and Rest's right hand is now resting on a skull; nor can I descry any 
inscription in the darkened area under the cushion desk.

    --1786: Grignion's Dugdale/Hollar-based engraving for Bell's 
Shakespeare edition. Once again the putti legs are dangling over the 
edges, with Labour now holding only an inverted arrow at midshaft in his 
right hand, and Rest holding the hourglass again in his left without 
adjacent skulls. The inscription is too obscure to read.

    --1802: Neagle/Boydel engraving for the revised Steevens edition of 
Shakespeare is basically an accurate representation of the current 
pen-holding effigy.

    --1814: Bullock's accurate plaster cast of the current pen-holding 

    --1827: Wallis/Wivell engraving for Wivell's HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF 
without the pen.

    --1832: Allan's painting of Sir Walter Scott with a background 
replica of the Monument over the mantlepiece, accurate but, I believe, 

    --1848: Starling/Boydel engraving of current Monument effigy, 
accurate, with pen.

    --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.

Thanks for your patience,
Joe Egert

[Editor's Note: I get dizzy going around and around in circles. This 
thread has been making me dizzy, and I see little reason to continue 
with it.]

S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email 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.

Subscribe to Our Feeds


Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.