Part Two - The Stratford Bust & The Droeshout Engraving

Now nobody, so far as I know, has ever contended that the whole monument has been altered, or that another has been erected in the place of the original. [20] The question at issue is practically confined to the bust. Is it possible to absolve Sir William Dugdale of such gross inaccuracy as almost amounts to fraud? Is it possible that the central figure was in his time as he drew it, and as he had it engraved? C'est lá la question.

Now Mrs. Stopes discovered in the Wheler Collec­tion at Stratford-on-Avon certain MSS. of the Rev. Joseph Greene, Master of the Grammar School, written in September, 1746, from which we learn that "as the curious original monument and bust" of the poet, "erected above the tomb that enshrines his dust [sic] [Shakspere's "tomb" at Stratford, it need hardly be said, is a cenotaph. His dust lies, or is said to lie, beneath the gravestone close by.] in the Church of Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire, is through length of years and other accidents become much impaired and decayed," [My italics] an offer had been made by Mr. John Ward, the grandfather of the celebrated Mrs. Siddons, and his company, to act Othello, in the Town Hall, on September 9th, 1746, the receipts of which were "to be solely appropriated to the repairing of the original monument aforesaid"; and there is a "copy of an old play-bill, at the time of repairing and beautifying [My italics. See Note B at p. 58.] Shakespeare's monument, with the Rev. Joseph Greene's remarks on the performers."

Ultimately it was agreed that the execution of the work should be committed to "Mr. John Hall, Limner," and it is contended by Mr. Spielmann, as it was also contended by Mr. Andrew Lang, that all Hall had to do was to repaint, and do certain superficial restoration. "If anything," says Mr. Spielmann, in his reply to Mrs. Stopes (Pall Mall Gazette, Dec. 6th, [21] 1910), "beyond surface restoration and painting of the bust were needed, the work would hardly have been committed, as it was, to John Hall, Limner... only the removal of discoloration on the monument, re-stopping and binding together of loose joints, and the decay of the pigment in the bust, would constitute the necessary repairs, and this labour would well represent the expenditure of £12 10s. which we are told was paid for the work." So also in his recent work Mr. Spielmann writes: "John Hall, a painter, was employed for the renovation; but when we look into the history of that renovation, naively put forward by the main supporters of the new theory, and accepted by the blind followers of it, we find that the amount raised from the Othello performance was no more than £12 10s., and that the repairs which were effected after two years of wrangling, are supposed to have resulted in this fine new marble monument and carved stone bust for that paltry sum!"

Now upon this it may be remarked: Firstly, that, so far as I know, nobody contends that a "fine new marble monument" was erected at the date in question, and in the absence of such a contention—in which I, certainly, should have no part or lot—it appears to me that Mr. Spielmann greatly overstates his case. And, secondly, it appears that £12 10s. was not the whole amount paid to John Hall for his work on this occasion, for we find that the contributors to the fund had previously agreed that "we will also use our endeavours that such further money shall be collected and given him as, with the former collections, may make up the whole sum of sixteen pounds." Moreover, we find that Mr. John Ward, writing to Mr. Joseph Greene in November, 1748, says that he will "readily come into any proposal to make good the sum for the use [22] intended [viz. the reparation of the monument] if what is already in the churchwardens' hands should prove deficient." [See Shakespeare's Environment, p. 349.] And, thirdly, when we add to all this the consideration that money at that date was worth six or eight times what it is now, it will be seen that the amount paid for the repair of the monument was not such a paltry sum" as Mr. Spielmann suggests, after all.

In the above-quoted letter of John Hall, written in November, 1748, it is to be noted that he says he intends to pay a visit to Stratford "next summer," when he hopes to have the pleasure of seeing the monument completely finished, from which we may conclude that the work upon it was not actually completed till the year 1749, although John Ward's company had given their performance of Othello, the receipts of which were duly handed over to the churchwardens, in September, 1746.

Now what was the reason of this delay? I think it is fairly obvious from the documents, which show that there was no little disagreement between the Rev. Joseph Greene, the Master of the Grammar School, and the Rev. Mr. Kenwick, the Vicar of Stratford, with regard to the amount of discretion which should be given to John Hall in the matter of repairing the monument. Greene was for giving him a pretty free hand in the work of "repairing and beautifying," while the good vicar was for restricting his operations. Thus we read of "a form proposed by Mr. Greene to the gentlemen at the Falcon, but rejected by Mr. Kenwick who thought it did not sufficiently limit what was to be done by Mr. Hall, as did a form which he himself had drawn up" (Nov. 30th, 1748,) and I think it may reasonably be concluded that when it [23] was at last agreed "That Mr. John Hall, Limner, shall repair and beautify, or have the direction of repairing and beautifying, the original monument of Shakespeare the poet," Greene had carried his point, and that John Hall was given a considerably wider limit than what the vicar had considered to be desirable. It is to be noted here that, according to a form drawn up for signature by the contributors, but which appears never to have been signed by them, the money subscribed was to be paid to Hall "provided he takes care, according to his ability, that the monument shall become as like as possible to what it was when first erected." It seems clear that this is the pledge for which Mr. Kenwick contended, and if, as I gather from the documents quoted by Mrs. Stopes, this form was only proposed for signature, but not in fact signed, that circumstance appears to constitute pregnant evidence in favour of those who believe that the alterations of 1748-9 were not "confined to such matters as repainting, and the re-stopping and binding together of loose joints," etc. Moreover, if it had been a mere question of recoloration there would have been no need to stipulate that "the monument shall become [sic] as like as possible to what it was when first erected." But, apparently, even that pledge was not given.

Let us now turn to what is said on this subject by Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps. But here I must promise that I should always be very reluctant to accept any statement made by this Shakespearean critic, on any controversial matter, unless it is supported by extrinsic evidence. As, however, he is cited as a reliable witness by Mr. Spielmann, as will presently be seen, his testimony with regard to the repairs executed on the monument must by no means be omitted.

Now it is remarkable that Halliwell-Phillipps in his [24]Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare says nothing at all on this subject. But in his Works of Shakespeare, a monumental work in sixteen ponderous volumes, he makes, in Vol. I, some interesting observations both on the Dugdale engraving and on the monument. As to the engraving, he gives it the go-by with very few words. He, of course, rejects it as inaccurate and untrustworthy. He informs us, however, that it is by Hollar, being thus in disagreement with Mr. Spielmann so far as this particular is concerned. As to the monument, he writes: "A person who visited Stratford a few years after the restoration by Hall (1749), after observing that he could not discover a single person of the name of Shakespeare in Stratford, says, 'his monument, the sexton's wife told me, had been very much neglected, and had a lamentable appearance, till about five years since, when Ward's company of comedians repaired and beautified it from the produce of a benefit play exhibited for that purpose" (Vol. I, p. 232). Then, with reference to the work executed upon it, when it was "repaired and beautified," he writes: "The material of the bust itself, and of the cushion on which it rests, is a lime­stone of blue tint; the columns on either side are of black polished marble, and the capitals and bases belonging to them are composed of freestone. The whole of the entablatures were formerly of white alabaster, but when the monument was repaired in 1749, the archi­traves being decayed, new ones of marble were substituted" (Vol. I, p. 227. My italics.)

Now if this statement is accepted, it proves con­clusively that the work executed in 1748-9 was by no means confined to repainting and petty superficial repairs. On the contrary, it bears witness to a certain amount of structural alteration. "Hall," says Mr. [25] Spielmann (Pall Mall Gazette, Dec. 6th, 1910), "was a painter pure and simple." If so, clearly he was not the man to remove the decayed architraves, and to substitute new entablatures of marble in lieu of the old ones of white alabaster! For this, obviously, a stonemason and sculptor was required, and it seems that, after all, Mrs. Stopes was in all probability right when she postulated a "sculptor who collaborated with Hall."

But here a rather curious point arises. Commenting on this passage in Halliwell's great work, which I had discovered and quoted, Mr. Spielmann some considerable time ago (I have not the reference at hand, but I think it was in the Pall Mall Gazette) observed, with regard to the monument, "Behold, there are no entablatures!"

Now an "entablature" is—at any rate in classic architecture—"the superstructure which lies horizontally upon the columns, and is divided into archi­trave, the part immediately above the column; frieze, the central space; and cornice, the upper projecting mouldings;" [I quote from T. H. Parker's "Concise Glossary" of Architectural Terms] and I presume that Halliwell's state­ment bears reference to this superstructure above the columns of Shakespeare's monument, though whether he was right in dignifying it with the name of "entablature," and whether he is right in speaking of "entablatures," I confess, being unlearned in such matters, I should not venture to pronounce. In Lee's Life of Shakespeare, however, I read the following: "The poet's monument in Stratford Church was in tablet form and was coloured in accordance with con­temporary practice. It presents a central arch flanked by two Corinthian columns which support a cornice [26] and entablature... over the centre of the entablature is a block of stone, on the surface of which the poet's arms and crest are engraved." [Life, pp. 297-8. Sir Sidney further quotes Mrs. Stopes: "The pillars were of marble, the ornaments were of alabas­ter" (Shakespeare's Environment, pp. 117-18). It is rather remarkable that although the crest or cognizance said to have been assigned to "Shakespeare" was "a falcon his wings displayed argent, supporting a spear gold steeled," the bird on the monument appears to be much more like a dove than a falcon! See Spielmann, Plate 6, and cf. the very different crest as depicted in each volume of the " Temple Shakespeare."]

Anyhow, it is quite clear that, according to Halliwell-Phillipps, when the monument was repaired in 1749, some part of the superstructure above the columns (which he calls the entablature"), and which was "formerly of white alabaster," was removed, owing to decay, and "marble" was substituted for it.

If, then, Mr. Spielmann rejects this testimony as untrustworthy, he is hardly entitled to ask us to accept Halliwell-Phillipps's unsupported statement on another matter, as that of an undoubtedly reliable witness.

So far, therefore, we have evidence that the repairs done to the monument in 1749 were not limited to a painter's work, but included a certain amount of structural alteration. It must be frankly admitted, however, that, so far as I know, no direct evidence can be found to support the hypothesis that the bust was altered at that time, or, possibly, a new one substituted for an old one, which, in the words of the sexton's wife, "had been very much neglected and had a lamentable appearance." That is only a presumption, founded on the clear evidence of some structural alteration, and on the fact that Dugdale had drawn and caused to be engraved a figure— [27] certainly of "lamentable appearance"—which differs entirely from the existing bust of Shakespeare.

But here steps in Mr. Spielmann with evidence which he conceives to be conclusive against Dugdale, and to establish the identity of the existing bust with that which was placed in the monument when it was first erected.

It is well known that Rowe, Shakespeare's "earliest biographer" (so-called), in the edition of his Life of Shakespeare, published in 1709, presents us with an engraving of the bust which is practically identical with Dugdale's. But then, it is said, Rowe did not go to Stratford himself; he merely copied Dugdale. This, of course, may be the fact. I would notice, however, in passing, that Rowe did not copy the inscription which is on Dugdale's engraving, for there we read (evidently through the fault of the engraver, since it is not in Dugdale's own drawing) the words "Judycio Pylium," which Rowe corrects by reading "Judicio Pylium." He did not, therefore, copy the Dugdale engraving in all particulars.

But, then, says Mr. Spielmann, look at George Vertue's engraving of 1723. This "presents the monument to us pretty well exactly as it is today [Original italics.] —­all except the head"! And what about the head? Why "the so-called scrupulous Vertue... coolly places the head of the Chandos portrait—the popular portrait of the day—on the shoulders of the effigy!" And, further, "he daintily places impossible burning tapers in the boys' hands, as more likely than arrow and hour-glass." Otherwise, however, Vertue's monument is pretty well exactly "as we see it today. "But the deadly thing," writes Mr. Spielmann, "is that this engraving, which was done for Tonson in [28] 1723, or twenty-five years before the alleged 'radical reconstruction' of the monument, which is pretended to have occurred in 1748," [I do not know who speaks of the "radical reconstruction of the monument" which Mr. Spielmann marks as a quotation. Mrs. Stopes writes: "Whoever the sculptor was who so much improved the figure, it is more than likely he restored the face by the aid of some cement" (Shakespeare's Environment (1914), p. 112. See also Note 2, p. 30).] shows us the architectural proportions, the mantling, the seated cherubs, the brackets (instead of feet), and, above all, "the figure with its hands ready to write upon a cushion," just as today.

This, certainly, is an argument of some weight. For an engraving of 1723, showing a figure with hands upon a cushion ready to write, a pen in the right hand, and a sheet of paper beneath the left hand, as now, not to mention the other similarities mentioned by Mr. Spielmann, undeniably raises the presumption that a figure closely resembling, if not identical with, the present figure in the monument was there some twenty-five years before the work of "repairing and beautifying" was done in 1748, and this even although Vertue's figure differs in one amazing particular from the present figure owing to the fact that the "Chandos" head has been substituted for the head of the figure as we now see it.

What answer has Mrs. Stopes to make to this? I will give it in her own words. "In Pope's edition of 1725 we find a remarkable variation. Vertue did not go to Stratford but to Rowe for his copy. Finding it so very inartistic, he improved the monument, making the little angels light-bearers rather than bearers of spade and hour-glass, and instead of the bust he gives a composition from the Chandos portrait, altering the [29] arms and hands [i.e. of the assumed original], and adding a cloak, pen, paper, and desk. It retains, however, the drooping moustache and slashed sleeves." [The True Story of the Stratford Bust (John Murray, 1904), p. 9. "It is curious," writes Mrs. Stopes, "that none of the other editions of the eighteenth century reproduce the tomb [she means, of course, the monument] either as Vertue or Gravelot rendered it." She describes the Vertue engraving as "a purely imaginary version."]

If this explanation be adopted, we must assume that those who repaired and altered the monument in 1748-9 took their inspiration, to some extent at least, from the bust as depicted by Vertue in 1725, and from Gravelot's similar version in Hanmer's edition of 1744, which, says Mrs. Stopes, is "mainly copied from Vertue, and followed by the restorers of the Bust in 1746-8," and finding the existing figure both suffering from the lapse of time and "very inartistic," altered it so as to produce the bust as we now see it. ["Whoever the sculptor was," writes Mrs. Stopes, "who so much improved the figure, it is more than likely he recon­structed the face altogether" (p. 10). She presents us with copies of both the Vertue and the Gravelot engraving.]

I must leave the reader to form his own opinion as to the value of this reply to Mr. Spielmann. The engraving of 1725 certainly seems a somewhat formidable obstacle in the way of Mrs. Stopes's hypothesis. On the other hand, it seems very improbable not only that Dugdale should have drawn such a preposterously false representation of the bust as Mr. Spielmann charges him withal, but also that Vertue, or anybody else, should, while purporting to give an accurate engraving of the monument, have obliterated the head as it now exists by substituting the head of the Chandos portrait!

[30] But Mr. Spielmann has yet another string to his bow, for "in the Whitechapel Shakespearean and Theatrical Exhibition of 1910, a little picture was lent by the late Earl of Warwick, showing the monument practically as it is today." [Original italics. See p. 24 of Mr. Spielmann's work, and his Plate 16 fronting that page.] "The painting," he tells us," is 19 inches high by 13 wide." "I obtained," he says, "permission to photograph it, and I found, pasted on the back, a label with the following inscription signed by Halliwell-Phillipps. This old painting of the monumental effigy of Shakespeare is a great curiosity, being the one painted by Hall before he re-coloured the bust in 1748. The letters proving this are in the possession of Richard Greene Esqr., F.S.A., who presented them some years ago to Fraser's Magazine. I purchased the picture of Mr. Greene, who is the lineal descendant of the Rev. Joseph Greene of Stratford, the owner of the painting of about 1770. J. O. Halliwell—(that is to say Halliwell-Phillipps)."And," says Mr. Spielmann, "I think we can leave the matter there."

But, with all respect, I think it would be very unsatisfactory to "leave the matter there." In the first place it is to be noted that the allegation that this little picture was painted by Hall before he re-coloured the bust in 1748 rests (apart from "the letters" alluded to, as to which a word anon) entirely upon the statement signed by "J. O. Halliwell," i.e. Halliwell-­Phillipps as he afterwards became. Now Mr. Spielmann asks us here to accept the testimony of Halliwell­-Phillipps as that of a witness of indisputable accuracy. Yet he himself declines, as it appears, to accept the evidence of this witness when he bears testimony to the structural alterations of the Stratford monument [31] made in 1748-9. But, as every lawyer knows, counsel cannot both impeach the evidence of a witness on one matter and at the same time ask the jury to accept it as unimpeachable on another matter; or if he does so he stands in great danger of losing his verdict.

Now Halliwell-Phillipps is, certainly, not a witness of unimpeachable accuracy. In the present case he tells us that he "purchased the picture of Mr. Greene, who is the lineal descendant of the Rev. Joseph Greene of Stratford, the owner of the painting of about 1770." He does not inform us at what date he purchased it. He calls the Rev. Joseph Greene "the owner of the painting of about 1770." What does that mean—"the painting of about 1770"? It really seems not a little difficult to say. We are told that the painting in question was done some forty-two years—or "about" forty-two years—before that date. And the letters "proving" that this picture was painted by Hall before he re-coloured the bust are said to be at the time of Halliwell-Phillipps's inscription "in the possession of Richard Greene Esqr., F.S.A., who presented them some years ago to Fraser's Magazine." But if Richard Greene had presented these letters to Fraser's Magazine some years before the date of this inscription, it seems not a little strange that they should have been still in his possession at that date! Where are these letters now? Fraser's Magazine has long ago disappeared, but possibly some one may know what has become of these evidentiary letters, in the absence of which Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps's inscription has but very little weight. For decidedly the unsupported statements of that Shake­spearean enthusiast are not to be accepted as undoubtedly veracious. Perhaps the present Earl of Warwick might help us, or, possibly, Mr. Spielmann [32] might be able to throw some further light upon the history of this remarkable little picture.

Suppose, for instance, that Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps was—unconsciously of course—guilty of a slight inaccuracy, or that he had been wrongly informed! Suppose that John Hall painted this little picture—if, indeed, he did paint it—not "before" but after he re-coloured the Stratford bust! That is an entirely possible supposition, and, if such was the fact, the picture, it is needless to say, has no value at all in support of Mr. Spielmann's case. We really cannot accept statements as undoubted facts upon no better evidence than this.

And now let us look at the picture itself, as Mr. Spielmann presents it to us. If it was really painted by John Hall he must have been a very inaccurate "limner"! Look first at the "details." Look at the "boys"—we cannot call them "cherubs"!—on the top of the monument. The boy on the left holds out his leg like a young lady of the present day at a garden party—quite unlike the attitude of the boy on the left of the monument as it exists today—while he rests his left hand on a skull, which is conspicuous by its absence on the present monument. The boy on the right, also, who extends his leg in a similar manner, is quite unlike the boy on the right of the monument as we now see him. And as to the skull at the top, it is a grotesque pantomime image emerging very absurdly from the apex of an unsightly pyramid. Let the reader compare all these details with those that he will find presented for our edification, as now existing on the monument, in Mr. Spielmann's Plate No. 6.

Let us, however, pass from "details" to the central figure of "Shakespeare" itself, as represented in this [33] picture "of great curiosity." We shall see, in the first place, the head of a gentleman quite unlike our "Shakespeare" of the existing Stratford bust. Moreover, whereas the present bust looks one straight in the face, Hall's "Shakespeare"—if Hall's it is—is turning his head to the right, so as to present himself almost in profile. It is true that his right hand holds a pen, but what has become of the left hand? In the bust, as we now see it, the left hand lies very conspicuously on a sheet of paper which rests upon a cushion. In Hall's picture there is little or nothing to be seen of the cushion, and the left hand of the figure has disappeared, paper and all. In fact, it is nonexistent.

One can only say that if Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps's "inscription" is not more trustworthy than this picture, said to have been painted by John Hall, very little reliance can be placed upon it. And, after all, it seems much more probable that Hall should have painted the monument—if, indeed, he did paint it—after rather than before he had helped to "repair and, beautify" it. If it was done before what Mr. Spielmann terms the "misalleged reconstruction" of 1748, and if it was an accurate drawing of the bust as it existed at that time, then, certainly, a new head was placed upon the bust after that date! Moreover, according to the evidence of the sexton's wife of Stratford, as noted by a person cited by Halliwell-­Phillipps himself as a reliable witness, the monument before 1748 "had been very much neglected and had a lamentable appearance," which certainly does not appear in the little picture " shown in Mr. Spielmann's Plate No. 16, nor is it very likely that Hall would care to paint a neglected monument of "a lamentable appearance." On the whole it appears [34] to me much more probable that Hall—if he was the artist—painted an inaccurate picture of the monument —for inaccurate it certainly is—after he had taken part in the repairing and recoloration thereof. Perhaps, therefore, we can now "leave the matter here," at any rate until those mysterious "letters" are produced.

Mr. Spielmann's arguments, then, when closely examined, seem to leave the case very much in statu quo ante. At the same time it must be frankly admitted that the verdict on Mrs. Stopes's contention, viz, that the present bust really dates from the year 1748-9, must be that of "Not proven," although there appears to be strong probability in its favour. [See Note B at p. 58.]

Perhaps, however, the strongest evidence in support of the contention that the present bust is of much later date than is generally assigned to it, consists in the peculiar fashion of shaving the moustache, to which I have already drawn attention, and which believe did not come into vogue in this country—so far as it did come into vogue at all—till the time of Charles I, or, more probably, Charles II.