Thy Stratford Moniment
Not in Jonson’s poem, but in another dedicatory poem from Leonard Digges a few pages later, we find ‘thy Stratford Moniment,’ the other half of the clues that together constitute nearly the only link between the writer and the man from Stratford upon Avon.
TO the MEMORIE of the deceased Authour Maister W. S H A K E S P E A R E.
Shake-speare, at length thy pious fellowes give
The world thy Workes : thy Workes, by which, out-live
Thy Tombe, thy name must when that stone is rent,
And Time dissolves thy Stratford Moniment,
Here we alive shall view thee still. This Booke,
When Brasse and Marble fade, shall make thee looke
Fresh to all Ages: when Posteritie
Shall loath what's new, thinke all is prodegie
That is not Shake-speares; ev'ry Line, each Verse
Here shall revive, redeeme thee from thy Herse.
Nor Fire, nor cankring Age, as Naso said,
Of his, thy wit-fraught Booke shall once invade.
Nor shall I e're beleeve, or thinke thee dead.
(Though mist) untill our bankrout Stage be sped
(Imposible) with some new straine t'out-do
Passions of Juliet, and her Romeo ;
Or till I heare a Scene more nobly take,
Then when thy half-Sword parlying Romans spake.
Till these, till any of thy Volumes rest
Shall with more fire, more feeling be exprest,
Be sure, our Shake-speare, thou canst never dye,
But crown'd with Lawrell, live eternally.
L. Digges
Note the reference to Ovid's Elegy 15 once more, Nor Fire, nor cankring Age, as Naso said, Of his, thy wit-fraught Booke shall once invade. ‘Moniment’ is an archaic usage that could substitute for the current ‘monument’ but more properly referred to a repository of documents, as Jonson’s prior usage referring to the folio itself as ‘a moniment without a tomb.’ Still the combination of Stratford, Avon and monument would eventually steer readers to Trinity Church in Stratford where at some point they would have found the familiar half figure funerary monument inscribed to William Shakespeare. For details of the monument and a wealth of contextual information there is nothing to compare with Craig Smith’s website . Smith offers a number of observations about the monument:
1. The book cushion is inappropriate for a portrait of a lay person.
2. Shakespeare is wearing an academic gown to which he has no claim.
3. The lettering on the monument does not match that of other Johnson work.
4. The spear on the shield should be half round, in the style of other Johnson monuments.
5. The right hand is poised above the cushion, not resting on it.
6. The right hand ought to be carved in relief, rather than in the round.
7. The face of the demifigure violates rules of proportion with respect to the length of the nose and width of the mouth.
8. The lips are parted, contrary to the practice in portraiture of the period.
9. The upper lip is shaved between mustache and nose in a fashion not typical of the period.
10. A satisfying portrait head is produced when the lips are closed and errors of proportion corrected.
He concludes that the monument was intended for another person, likely an academic associated with Oxford, and that it was purchased by or for Shakespeare when the original commission fell through. That it originally depicted the figure holding a book and the somewhat ludicrous current presentation with pen and paper over the utterly unsuitable writing surface was added later. And that the original sculpting of the face was reworked to produce the current odd effect with shortened nose and anachronistic facial hair. He suggests that William of Stratford arranged the purchase before his death, but only because there are no records in the will or after to suggest anyone else did it.
The evidence for dating the monument consists of three sources. William Dugdale sketched the monument probably in 1649 for his vast volume Antiquities of Warwickshire. Although much has been made about differences between the sketch and the monument as it exists today, Smith concludes that these are likely the result of Dugdale making a sketch from memory, and possibly from the afore mentioned changes to hands and face, but that the general form as recorded by Dugdale is likely consistent with the current monument. Before Dugdale the monument inscription appears in notes of John Weever. E.A. Honigmann argues for a date as early as 1617 but Weever’s visit cannot be assigned with certainty prior to 1632. The third source is Digges’ poem. Since Digges’ must be referring to the funeral figure in Trinity Church it cannot be later than 1623.
Unless he is not thinking of Stratford upon Avon at all, and instead refers to another monument and another Stratford. Could Mary Sidney have a Stratford monument that is a more fitting symbol of timeless endurance?
Samuel Daniel, who gave us the sonnet that would identify Mary as Sweet Swan of Avon, provides a possible alternative. In his Musophilus, a tribute to Philip Sidney, he describes a monument on the plain near Wilton that was an object of speculation for Elizabethans
AND whereto serves that wondrous trophy now
That on the goodly plain near Wilton stands?
That huge dumb heap, that cannot tell us how,
Nor what, nor whence it is, nor with whose hands
Nor for whose glory it was set to show
How much our pride mocks that of other lands.
Whereon, when as the gazing passenger
Had greedy looked with admiration,
And fain would know his birth, and what we were,
How there erected, and how long agon,
Inquires and asks his fellow-traveller
What he had heard, and his opinion.
And he knows nothing. Then he turns again,
And looks and sighs; and then admires afresh,
And in himself with sorrow doth complain
The misery of dark forgetfulness,
Angry with time that nothing should remain,
Our greatest wonders’ wonder to express.
Then Ignorance, with fabulous discourse,
Robbing fair art and cunning of their right,
Tells how those stones were, by the devil’s force,
From Afric brought to Ireland in a night;
And thence to Brittany, by magic course,
From giants’ hands redeemed by Merlin’s sleight.
And then near Ambri placed, in memory
Of all those noble Britons murdered there,
By Hengist and his Saxon treachery,
Coming to parley, in peace at unaware.
With this old legend then Credulity
Holds her content, and closes up her care.
But is Antiquity so great a liar?
Or do her younger sons her age abuse;
Seeing after-comers still so apt to admire
The grave authority that she doth use,
That reverence and respect dares not require
Proof of her deeds, or once her words refuse?
Yet wrong they did us, to presume so far
Upon our early credit and delight;
For once found false, they straight became to mar
Our faith, and their own reputation quite;
That now her truths hardly believéd are;
And though she avouch the right, she scarce hath right.
And as for thee, thou huge and mighty frame,
That stand’st corrupted so with time’s despite,
And giv’st false evidence against their fame,
That set thee there to testify their right;
And art become a traitor to their name,
That trusted thee with all the best they might,—
Thou shalt stand still belied and slandered,
The only gazing-stock of ignorance,
And by thy guile the wise, admonishéd,
Shall nevermore desire such hopes to advance,
Nor trust their living glory with the dead
That cannot speak, but leave their fame to chance.
Considering in how small a room do lie,
And yet lie safe (as fresh as if alive),
All those great worthies of antiquity,
Which long forelived thee, and shall long survive;
Who stronger tombs found for eternity,
Than could the powers of all the earth contrive.
Where they remain these trifles to upbraid,
Out of the reach of spoil and way of rage;
Though time with all his power of years hath laid
Long battery, backed with undermining age,
Yet they make head only with their own aid,
And war with his all-conquering forces wage;
Pleading the heaven’s prescription to be free,
And to have a grant to endure as long as he.
Stonehenge was a popular day trip from Wilton. King James and the court visited while they were encamped waiting out the London plague in fall of 1603. To reach the monument from Wilton, travelers would have had to pass the small town which contained the bridge across the Wiltshire Avon connecting Wilton and Salisbury. It was (and is still) named Stratford sub-Castle for the bridge and the ancient hilltop fort known as Old Sarum that was looted for stones to build Wilton House.
If Digges meant Stonehenge instead of the smug pig butcher in Stratford upon Avon, we open the possibility that William of Stratford was not connected with the folio at all, until someone added the monument in Trinity Church to provide an alternative to Mary as solution to the folio riddles revealing the author’s identity. We have already made the case that William Herbert had personal and political reasons to obscure his mother’s authorship. The identity of the sculptor of the Trinity Church figure adds one more intriguing possibility. Smith attributes the monument with some certainty to Nicholas Jonson, partially on its similarity to a larger monument he constructed circa 1618-19 for the 5th Earl of Rutland, Roger Manners. Manners had been dead by that time for several years, but his wife Elizabeth had just passed likely inspiring the creation of the monument. As Elizabeth had quarreled over the estate with Manner’s brother who succeeded to the title it is unlikely he would have borne the cost of the extravagant monument. Perhaps the most likely source of funds was Elizabeth’s cousin William Herbert, as she was the only daughter of Philip Sidney.