His face I know not 2


I may have spoken too soon in my wish for that comic two-hander, for lo and behold it is reproduced – and claimed as “undoubtedly one of the most important [works] of his career” in this week’s Country Life.

I have read it in full – it takes up only a page – and find the style to be somewhat turgid – how much of this is owed to Mark Griffiths’ input in stitching together two surviving manuscripts I couldn’t say. It is accompanied by another article, expounding on what I found the most interesting element of last week’s story (i.e., what Shakespeare was up to) but all seemingly based on the loosest conjecture – and working every line of the little dialogue into a deeper comment on the Queen, Lord Burghley, Mary Queen of Scots or Philip II of Spain. As Senor Benedick says, with about as much justification “There’s a double meaning in that.”

The controversy about the initial identification still rages – Jonathan Jones in the Guardian calls it “provable guff” here and there’s a much more detailed takedown here. One of the best things to come out was the fine Times editorial which shoehorned in more Shakespearean quotes than you can shake a stick at – if it can’t be found online, I might reproduce it as a mini-quiz…

It may be a storm in a teacup, but Country Life combined the article with a piece urging its readers to donate to the appeal for the Rose Playhouse about which more in this post. Whether the picture and the play turn out to be Shakespeare or not, I hope the publicity will have a material effect on this true, tangible, link to him.

5 thoughts on “His face I know not 2

  1. It all sounds rather flimsy, doesn’t it? There’s a feeling of desperation about the whole thing, as if they’re SO keen to be the person who identified the ‘real’ Shakespeare and found a lost work. Understandable as the Shakespeare machine is still so huge, but it all sounds a little laughable at the moment. As you say, if it can raise extra funds, though, that would be the best result really


    • To be honest, it feels to me more like he’s just got carried away. Mark Griffiths is a botanist and his interest was in John Gerard – it feels more like in trying to resurrect his reputation Griffiths has hitched Gerard’s star to the highest Elizabethan wagons he can find. The idea of a new play is almost incidental – and Griffiths analysis of it very firmly welded to the horticultural references…

      Liked by 1 person

      • I don’t mean to sound cynical, and I’m sure Griffiths is very knowledgable in his own field, but why does he think he’s qualified to decipher the cypher, if you know what I mean. It’d be like me (as a florist) trying to build a nuclear reactor – slightly outside my area of expertise 🙂


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s