Talk:Shakespeare's funerary monument

Virgil and Roman naming conventions
Just a quick edit: the original author of this otherwise very good article wrote that Maro was Virgil's 'first name'. In fact, it was his last name. Virgil's full name was Publius Virgilius Maro, following the late Republican/Imperial model of Praenomen (first name) --> nomen gentile (clan name) --> cognomen (the 'known-by' name). The cognomen was originally an individual name, but by Virgil's time was inherited father-to-son and had come to identify families within the wider clan.Bedesboy 22:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a moniment and not authentic
> It is not known exactly when the monument was erected, but it must have been before 1623; in that year, the First Folio of Shakespeare's works was published, prefaced by a poem by Leonard Digges that mentions "thy Stratford moniment" [sic].

For your information, the word "moniment" does NOT mean a piece of memorial sculpture! Moniment is a long disused word of latin origin, which means a high pile of document papers. Therefor "thy Stratford moniment" obviously refers to the manuscripts of "shakesperean" works (which were most probably written by the Earle Oxenford)! 87.97.98.167 (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ha haha. Really, what a fantasy world you people occupy. Paul B (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

But what does "therefor" mean? TheScotch (talk) 07:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Holding a grain sack
The original monument showed a very different portait of Shakespeare, and showed him holding a grain sack, and not a cushion; he was also not holding a quill. Why isn't this mentioned in the article? 98.215.210.156 (talk) 01:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)daver852


 * It isn't mentioned because it isn't true. However the drawing from which this claim derives is discussed. It is the earliest known drawing and it is rather crude and inaccurate in some details. That's all. It's fairly typical of the kind of inaccuracies that one finds in such illustrations and which occur in others in the same book. Funeral monuments of the time never depict people "holding a grain sack", but it is common for people to be placed on cushions in the manner depicted in Shakespeare's memorial (e.g, , ). Also any such extensive recarving would leave a huge amount of physical evidence on the stone, which does not exist. Paul B (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I will say it up front: I am sure that Christopher Marlowe wrote Shakespeare's plays. Having said that, the claims above by Paul Barlow are a stupid pack of lies that insults the intelligence of even the most causal inspector of the drawing. The drawing is not crude, it is not schematic, and it is typical of thet time to depict merchants with a sack. You are basing your claims on stupidity and wishful thinking.

The whole monument itself is, and looks like, 18th century kitch, not 16th century kitch, and there is no dispute that it was reworked to show the quill. Shakespeare was certainly not a writer, there is no doubt, and anyone who disputes this is mentally deficient.69.86.195.242 (talk) 05:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyone who thinks the monument looks remotely 18th century is deficient in the most basic education in the arts. To portray someone with a grain sack on a funerary monument would be totally contrary to all respectable conventions of church monument design in the era. Do you think they depicted butchers waving legs of lamb and bakers clutching crusty loaves? I found links to several images of cushioned torsos from the period in no time. Perhaps you can show me just one image of a merchant clutching a grain sack. Then perhaps we will learn who is telling a stupid pack of lies. As for the drawing, if you don't think this is "crude" and schematic, I suggest you do not try for a career in art criticism. Paul B (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * To answer that question which is bound to be asked by some who come to this page, I think it would be useful to include in the article the picture to the right of this comment. --PBS (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the image. It's a rather clumsy jumble. Is there no accessible photo that depicts the monument directly, rather than at an angle? The engraving date is not unknown; it's 1656. This info is all already in the article, but I've added a gallery of images at the bottom in the article page. Paul B (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Paul it's also missing the monument image from Rowe, which is basically a tracing of Hollar directly on the engraving plate (hence the reversed shadows) with a different face. I have it on my other computer and I'll download it tomorrow. See Clark Holloway's monument page. I also have an image of Dugdale's original sketch, but I don't know if it will pass copyright muster since it was printed in RES in 1997. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

. Hey Paul, this might be a more dramatic image to use for Gerard Vandergucht instead of the monument image, since it really shows his skill. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, good idea. Done. Thanks Tom. Paul B (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

While a grain sack may be contrary to conventions of church monument design in the era, a woolsack is decidely not without precedent in English funerary art, and considering John Shakespeare's profession as a wool dealer (see his Wikipedia page, and in the illegal dealings of which he was accused of in 1582, cf. Lois Potter, The Life of William Shakespeare, p.43), the grain sack vs. cushion to-and-fro should more correctly be framed as woolsack vs. cushion, a different debate entirely. St. Cornelius at Linwood, Lincolshire has 15th century funerary brasses depicting woolsacks with knotted corners. See, as did some civic coats of arms, eg. Guildford, Surrey (see link below). A number of notable expert testimonies concurring that the effigy depicts a woolsack are presented, along with a useful analysis of the argument to the effect that this is what Dugdale depicted, can be found here: So the assumption that a wool merchant would not have a woolsack on his effigy is really more of an open question than Paul might be willing to assume at present. Carfax6 20:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carfax6 (talk • contribs)
 * The utter desperation of this argument should be obvious to anyone who compares the images - you have to go back to find a fifteenth century flat brass to compare to a seventeenth century sculpted memorial. Even then, it doesn't bear the remotest resemblance. The cushion memorials, in contrast, are exactly contemporary, almost identical in design and are numerous. Devices on blazons are completely separate. And, of course, John Shakespeare was a glover - or leather merchant - not a wool merchant. Whether or not he was ever a dealer in wool, it makes no sense at all that that the memorial should depict one of his sidelines and not his main profession. Of course, there is zero evidence that this is John. The absurd article you link to makes a big-deal of the fact that Dugdale and others were worthy honest gentlemen who had no reason to deceive their readers (though of course no one has suggested they intended to deceive anyone), but then says next-to-nothing of the fact that they all identify the monument as to William, and the inscription refers to William. This whole argument is essentially silly. Even if there were some reason to say that the monument originally depicted John (which there isn't), it doesn't alter the fact that the memorial as Dugdale saw it was dedicated to William, clearly identified as the writer of that name. At least the old anti-Strat claim that it depicted William as a local trader rather than writer has some logic to it (though of course its contradicts all the evidence), but the John Shakespeare argument destroys its own rationale. Paul B (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just throwing this image into the conversation. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Duncan-Ross?
Where the hell did I get that from? Tom Reedy (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Probably from Macbeth. It's cursed, you know. Paul B (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I did it again in my edit summary just now! Tom Reedy (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

FA for 400th?
The 400th anniversary of Shakespeare's death is coming up next April. Celebrations worldwide are planned to commemorate the event, and I'd like to get this article certified as a feature article with an eye to getting it feature article of the day for April 23, 2016. Anybody else up for it? Tom Reedy (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Grave scan section
I have removed the section about the Channel 4 documentary until a consensus develops about how to approach it and how to source it. So far there has been no academic discussion that I know of. As written, the section treated the speculation of the scan results as proven fact, which it is not. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Full pages of Dugdale
Internet Archive has the original edition of Dugdales' Antiquities of Warwickshire illustrated

https://archive.org/details/antiquitiesofwar00dugd

I have taken the liberty of uploading two pages from this - one, showing the enraving with its full context

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Antiquitiesofwar00dugd_0504.jpg

The other containing the sentence that identifies "Will. Shakespere" as a poet born and buried in Stratford upon Avon, and mentioning that he had included an engraving of his monument

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Antiquitiesofwar00dugd_0507.jpg

The full quote is "One thing more, in reference to this antient Towne is observable, that it gave birth and sepulture to our late famous Poet Will. Shakespere whose monument I have inserted in my discourse of the Church."

He begins his section on "Stratford super Avon" on page 514 and the Church "(dedicated to the holy trinity)" structure on page 516. The egravings are on unnumbered pages, but come between 518 and 521; the plate containing the Shakespeare monument on the page before 521.

At the risk of sounding repetitive, Dougdale clearly intents to convey that the person buried under that monument was a famous poet from Stratford upon Avon. He doesn't say what the bag that the person in the picture is holding is. Perhaps it was just supposed to be the cushion. It certainly does not identify the object as a grain sack or wool sack or give any indication that the person in the picture was a merchant. As for the lack of quill and paper? Well the source for the engraving does not show them. Even if they were added later, what does that prove? Also note that the inscription for the funerary monument and on the grave itself are the same as the current texts.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You may find the following journal articles useful as an overview of the complexities of this issue:




 * Tom has done quite a lot of work on this issue, and his articles also cite a lot of the relevant literature on the subject, so it's a good starting point. --Xover (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * By any chance, do you know were John Weever cites the funeral inscription in Ancient Funerall Monuments? I've searched through the text on archive.org, but could not find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellerophon5685 (talk • contribs) 16:16:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not included in Ancient Funerall Monuments, but in his manuscript notes (MS128). For details see:




 * Cheers, --Xover (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it possible we could add either of these two images?


 * MSS 128, folio 375 recto


 * or


 * The Dougdale sketch in full context


 * both of which clearly identify the person the monument is for was a "famous poet"--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. All this stuff is long out of copyright, and the Wikimedia Foundation (based in and based on US law) doesn't recognize the "sweat of the brow" doctrine that the UK institutions rely on in order to claim a new, independent, copyright in the digital image (i.e. they claim that the person who photographed or scanned the original creates a new copyright in the digital reproduction, independent of the copyright status of the original). We need to make sure the images are supplementary to prose in the article (I haven't read it in a while so I'm not quite sure how much of this is covered in the text), and that it's covered by citations (mostly, I think, to Reedy's articles above; but I'm sure we can find others just for variety / breadth), but otherwise that would seem eminently appropriate to include. --Xover (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Except, this, right under the image - "Institution Rights and Document Citation Terms of use

The Society of Antiquaries of London has graciously contributed the above image from their collections to Shakespeare Documented, and retains sole ownership of said image. Visitors may link to and cite the image within Shakespeare Documented in personal research only. Any further use, including, but not limited to, unauthorized downloading or distribution of the image is strictly prohibited. Visitors must contact the Society of Antiquaries of London to request additional use, at: images@sal.org.uk."
 * Yes. The Society of Antiquaries are a UK organisation and are claiming copyright (the right to impose the license terms you quote) under UK law. In the UK there is legal debate and a possible presumption of the validity of the "sweat of the brow doctrine", which essentially means that if you were really sweaty (worked hard, used special lighting, bought a good scanner or camera) on making a copy (scan, photo) of a document or painting (any 2D object), then you create a new copyright in the copy even if the original is public domain. In the US there was a decision in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. that invalidates the "sweat of the brow doctrine": it doesn't matter how hard you worked, only whether you added some new independent creative effort into the process. Special lighting or photography equipment, or special skills as a photographer or curator, are explicitly not sufficient to create a new copyright.In view of this, and because the Wikimedia Foundation and its servers are located in the US, the Wikimedia Foundation's policy for Commons is that "faithfull reproductions" (photos, scans) of "2D objects" (paintings, documents, drawings, etc.) that are in the public domain (the original), are also in the public domain (the copy/scan/photo). Thus, anything that's 2D and the original is public domain, you can freely upload to Commons (properly tagged). If you're in the UK you might conceivably be sued in UK court, but it's very unlikely and they would probably have to sue the Wikimedia Foundation to get your identity first, and the WMF policy I cite above suggests the WMF would fight such a suit (and their lawyers can beat up most local archive's lawyers).Note that the situation is different for 3D objects, where how to light it and what angle to photograph from have sufficent creative elements to them that the question of whether a new copyright was created would need to be decided on a case by case basis. Because of that the policy on Commons is conservative (stricter than required by law): photos of 3D objects are not permitted under the public domain exception. If you want to upload a photo of a 3D object you need an explicit license (GFDL, CC, or another compatible open license) from the photographer. There are a whole bunch of weird and complicated exceptions ("useful objects", those where form is given by the object's function, like a chair, do not merit copyright; but an intricately carved flower or something on the chair might get copyright).Long version slightly shorter: the Dugdale manuscript sketch, the published Dugdale book, and the Weever manuscript are all public domain and 2D and can be uploaded to Commons no matter where you found them. The photograph of Shakespeare's funerary monument might conceivably merit copyright in the photo, even though the monument itself is long out of copyright, so there we need to have a license from the photographer. But, luckily enough, the photographer for our picture of the monument is, and he has released the photograph into the public domain. :) --Xover (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * X, there's a free version of the Dugdale monument paper here. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * At the risk of starting a long copyright discussion, what British academic institutions are surely asserting in 2D images is not copyright but *ownership* of that particular image and photographs of it, and therefore that ownership gives them the right to control their reproduction. They may call it 'copyright' out of laziness or because they think that is easier for people to understand, or be frightened by, but actually they are asserting ownership, which is completely different and does not require creative input. And something else I learned recently - unpublished works have indefinite copyright, so you can't reproduce something that has never been published, even if the copyright has apparently expired.86.187.170.193 (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * [IANAL! If you need legal advice, talk to an actual lawyer!] No, ownership here would apply to a physical object and its disposition: if you take physical posession of an object they own it is theft (if you mess with their ability to dispose of it, it's trespass on chattels).However, the right they are asserting when it comes to the matter at hand here—photos or scans of various creative works like written text, paintings, drawings, etc.—is specifically copyright. This is a protection that exists in nearly all jurisdictions, and enshrined in several international treaties, and which general aim is to give rights additional to those of ownership of a physical object in order to encourage the creation of creative works. It is a protection of the unique creative effort that went into the creation of that work.What UK cultural institutions (galleries, libraries, archives, museums, etc.) are doing is to assert that when they take a photo of an old painting, or scan an old book, that act is sufficiently creative to merit copyright protection of the resulting JPEG file, even if the original creative work is long out of copyright. If you were to scan or photograph the original yourself you would be free and clear (you, not they, would own this theoretical copyright in the JPEG file), which is why they use their rights of ownership of the physical object to prevent you from actually doing so (maintain their monopoly on being able to photograph or scan it). There are literally buildings in Europe where you have to sign a terms of service agreement in order to get in (said terms forbidding you from taking photos, of course).In any case, the legal doctrine under which they claim copyright in the photo or scan of a public domain work is known as the "sweat of the brow" doctrine: it's basically an assertion that the expertise of the photographer (or scanner operator), the effort they put into the reproduction, and the money they spent on expensive equipement (scanners, cameras, special lighting, etc.) should count as reasons to afford them a new copyright in the reproduction (the JPEG off the scanner).In the US, this doctrine was asserted in the case known as Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. Bridgeman Art Library had made scans of a bunch of old public domain paintings and Corel had gotten the digital files through an intermediary and was now selling a CD-ROM with all these images. Bridgeman sued Corel for copyright infringement and lost because the judge found that putting a lot of work in did not in itself constitute a creative act, and copyright aims to protect original creative expressions. Thus a perfect reproduction of an original creative work will never be afforded an independent copyright. In the UK there has never been a signal case like Bridgeman v. Corel to settle the issue, and UK GLAM institutions there cling to it as a sop in order to be able to assert that they have a copyright for these scans, but it is highly unlikely that the "sweat of the brow" doctrine is valid under either of UK or EU jurisprudence. That is, UK GLAM institutions are asserting a copyright that they good and well know is false, and they are extremely unlikely to want to actually test this in court (their lawyers would tell them the best thing would be to not rock the boat because they'd probably lose).However, given the absence of an obvious precedent, and their continued assertion of this copyright, editors who are physically in a jurisdiction that UK courts can easily reach (the UK and the EU, but not the US) do run some risk in uploading such images. They are almost certain to win in court, but any individual getting sued by an organisation will be at a massive disadvantage in terms of resources and access to competent legal council (and hits to their reputation etc.), which is a risk all on its own. That is, UK GLAM institutions can choose to act like a bully and use the legal system to harass a private person using an assertion of copyright that they know to be false. Most of them will never do this, but there's no guarantee none of them will ever do it.My personal conclusion is that uploading these images is clearly legal and there is no way to guarantee that you won't get sued by unethical bullies no matter what you do, so I might as well contribute what I can to the common good through Wikipedia and Commons and just not worry about it. But that's a choice you need to make for yourself: a Wikipedia editor has already been threatened with legal action by a UK GLAM institution. The WMF stepped in to protect the editor in question, and the GLAM in question eventually backed down, but it was a pretty tense few months for the person caught in the mess. --Xover (talk) 08:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

New article
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/mar/19/shakespeare-grave-effigy-believed-to-be-definitive-likeness