the “cleaning and restoration” of 1748. Be that as it may, the only similarity that I can see between the bust and Droeshout’s engraving of 1623 is the hair loss.
Droeshout Engraving, 1623
2009
Shaksper’s final resting place is graced with a rather flowery inscription; that was in all likelihood incomprehensible to Will Shaksper’s relatives:
IVDICIO PYLIUM, GENIO SOCRATEM, ARTE MARONEM,
TERRA TEGIT, POPULUS MAERET, OLYMPUS HABET
(A Pylian in Judgement, a Socrates in genius, a Virgil in art,
The earth buries him, the people mourn him, Olympus possesses him.)
Furthermore there is an appellation in his name to the Stratford tourist:
STAY, PASSENGER, WHY GOEST THOU BY SO FAST?
READ, IF YOU CANST, WHOM ENVIOUS DEATH HATH PLAST
WITHIN THIS MONUMENT. SHAKSPEARE: WITH WHOM
QUICK NATURE DIED; WHOSE NAME DOTH DECK THIS TOMB
FAR MORE THAN COST: SITH ALL THAT HE HAS WRIT
LEAVES LIVING ART, BUT PAGE, TO SERVE HIS WIT.
OBIIT ANO. DOI 1616.
AETATIS 53, DIE. 23 AP.
Or as our modern-day rapper might put it:
“Look at this slab, man, read what it says.
My main man, William Shakespeare, is lying in this grave.
He came out of Momma’s womb,
Now he’s lying in this tomb,
In the short time in between, he wrote some cool plays.
We had to bury the flesh, the bones and the blood,
We didn’t bury what he wrote, check it out, dude -It’s good.”
Died 1616 A.D. At the age of 53 on 23 April.
The (shall-I-say-good?) intention of the commissioner of this bust is quite clear and the second inscription on the slab over the (empty?) grave makes it even more obvious:
Good friend, for Jesus’ sake forbear
To dig the dust enclosed here.
Blessed be the man that spares these stones
And cursed be he that moves my bones.
Which means: Naves and fools one and all; don’t meddle with my magic!
Staring at the bust and this sullen slab I remember the words of Trinculo after he had encountered the ugly Caliban: “A strange fish! Were I in England now, as once I was, and had but this fish painted, not a holiday fool there would but give a piece of silver.”
2. Invited to write, he was in pain
Contrary to Stratford-propaganda, the first point that must be made is that we know a lot less about the “author” William Shaksper, than we know about his literary contemporaries. Actually we don’t know anything about him whatsoever, because, as far as we know, he didn’t write anything.
The quick witted critic Bill Bryson says: “Huge gaps exist for nearly all figures from the period. Thomas Dekker was one of the leading playwrights of the day, but we know little of his life other than that he was born in London, wrote prolifically, and was often in debt.”
At least we know that Dekker was an author, we know the titles of twelve of his plays and many of his pamphlets, we know the names of authors with whom he worked (Jonson, Marston, Massinger, Middleton, Pickergill, Rowley and Webster), we know that Jonson ridiculed him in “Poetaster” and that Dekker returned the compliment by ridiculing Jonson in “Satiromastix. That is more than enough to join the inner circle of Elizabethan literary personages.
We can’t really be certain that Will Shaksper learned to read and write properly, he might have attended Grammar school up to the age of 12 and he might have learned a little Latin, but there is no indication of his having learned French and Italian and no indication that he travelled abroad or that he kept company with literary figures of his day. The only things in the realm of certainty are: He never called himself “Shakespeare”, even if others did so, be it ironically or erroneously, and he never laid claim to being the AUTHOR.
After Will Shaksper’s death he was “accused” of being the author of the Shakespearian works by Ben Jonson. If the matter had come to trial we would have to deliver the verdict of “Not guilty” on the grounds of “insufficient evidence”.
For example: In Shakespeare’s “Italian” plays- “Two Gentlemen of Verona”, “Twelfth Night”, “Much Ado about Nothing”, The Taming of the Shrew”, “All’s Well That Ends Well”, “The Merchant of Venice”, “Measure for Measure”, “Othello”, and “Romeo and Juliet” precise details of the geography of Italy are woven into the plays. The author knows how to travel from town to town, knows the names of side streets and piazzas, he knows where the courthouses are, he knows where the harbours are, he names churches where people get married, he’s familiar with the interior decoration of Italian houses, he uses colloquial Italian figures of speech and he can quote the inscription on Giulio Romanos grave.
Will Shaksper couldn’t possibly have visited Italy. If he had attempted such a journey without official permission, he would have been arrested at the border. Had he been given permission, for an official journey on government business, such permission would have been documented in full.
There are no indications that Will Shaksper, the actor, was also a poet and a playwright. Does any proof exist, indicating that Shaksper did not write the plays and sonnets?
SHAKSPER would have had to have been a dreadful toady, indeed a traitor to his own class, to have written with such scathing contempt about the rebel Jack Cade and his followers. Using Sir Stafford as his mouth piece, he calls them: “Rebellious hinds, the filth and scum of Kent” (2Henry VI, IV/2).
SHAKSPER, a man of the people, must have been an arrogant fool to write the story about the tinker in the induction to “The Taming of the Shrew”. A lord picks up a drunken tinker from the street in front of a tavern. („O monstrous beast, how like a swine he lies!“). The tinker is bathed, dressed in fine clothes, treated with the courtesy befitting a lord and then, having been shown a performance of “The Taming of the Shrew”, dumped before the tavern again.
SHAKSPER, the ex pupil of Stratford Grammar School (assuming, of course that he went there) must have been a ridiculous braggart to have Portia say of Baron Falconbridge: “You know I say nothing to him, for he understands not me, nor I him: he hath neither Latin, French, nor Italian, and you will come into the court and swear that I have a poor pennyworth in the English. He is a proper man’s picture; but alas, who can converse with a dumb-show? “
If
