Church of Shakespeare Collapsing
Tuesday, 6 January 2009
Sensationalism begets readers, and nostalgia begets pity.
In a blog post titled Should We Save Shakespeare? Lee Jamieson brings to our attention that Holy Trinity Church may be closed within five years. The place where Shakespeare was baptized and also where he is buried is in disrepair and poses a health risk. More specifically, the windows in the 800-year-old building are falling apart.
It is certainly important to get this information out to the public, so that those who feel inclined to save this church have the time to do so. Lee does not go beyond the press release from the Mirror, but suggests that if you had planned to visit, your time is running out. The important part is that Friends of Shakespeare’s Church are attempting to raise £2.5 million if you wish to donate, but there are no public funds allocated to help.
Everybody hates sensationalism in the media, and so my first point here barely needs mention: “Should We Save Shakespeare” is a headline made to get clicks, not to accurately describe the content of the article. I clicked it right away because I love Shakespeare’s writing, and I want to save his writing and performance of his works. The thing I don’t care about is his corpse or his religious affiliation.
Which brings me to the more important point: history is not the same as nostalgia. Having historical landmarks is important to remind us of important historical events. They provide us with a physical place to associate with milestones in human history. Was Shakespeare’s baptism important? I don’t think so. Was the ceremony of his funeral? Nope. Is his decomposing body? Well, like Einstein’s brain, perhaps it is important to keep his brain for further study. But the church where it is currently housed? Not in my opinion.
If the church is condemned, do we move the body? Don’t forget the curse:
GOOD FREND FOR IESUS SAKE FORBEARE,
TO DIGG THE DVST ENCLOASED HEARE.
BLESTE BE YE MAN YT SPARES THES STONES,
AND CVRST BE HE YT MOVES MY BONES.
Just for the record: curses don’t exist. But I digress.
Lee says, “I think it is appalling that there are no public funds behind the project. Does Shakespeare really mean that little to us?” My reply: It’s his writing that means so much to us. Preserve the house where he wrote, perhaps. Preserve the theatres where his works were originally performed. These are places where events worthy of historical record took place. It’s his church that means so little to us.
I look at it like military history. Yes, I want a statue of a famous captain standing where a major battle took place, with a plaque to read about why it was important. Why did so many soldiers die in this place? The history that matters is the battle. As a whole, society has a duty to mark the battleground, but not to preserve the captain’s birthplace, his house, his favourite restaurant. Perhaps family members will preserve those things. Perhaps store owners want to brag that the captain slept there, and they preserve it to get more tourists. All of these examples of preservation are private enterprises and we can agree with them or not, support them or not, based on what we each think is important. The government should only preserve buildings and land that are, in themselves, of historical merit.
Does Shakespeare really mean that little to us? No, Shakespeare means so much to us. Should We Save Shakespeare? Absolutely. His poetry must continue both on the page and on the stage. Should we save Shakespeare’s Church? That’s for you to decide to donate to a private foundation, because despite being a Shakespeare supporter, I think that it would be a misuse of public funds.
RSS Feed
No. 1 — January 19th, 2009 at 4:12 am
Thank for this post – there are some interesting thoughts here. My name is Lee, the Shakespeare blogger for About.com that you’re writing about – hope you don’t mind, but I’m going to respond here on Memorize Shakespeare …
First off, I should point out that my original blog was written as a “news flash” type post, but, as you point out, it does bring up some interesting debates.
In truth, the Holy Trinity story is not new at all. For the years I lived in Stratford Old Town, the crumbling state of Holy Trinity was often discussed and it’s been in and out of the media. There’s this strange sense in the UK (that you will no doubt agree with!) that we should preserve our cultural and architectural heritage … except for churches. I simply don’t understand the logic of this. Lesser (in my view) buildings have been taken under the wing of various programmes, but everyone thinks “let CoE look after the buildings with religious connections.”
Times have changed and our churches are empty – many people in the UK have come to their senses and no longer believe in God. On Sundays, they prefer to take the kids to an English Heritage property than go to church. Perhaps, therefore, churches are no longer able to support themselves? I don’t know why the church can’t look after its properties, but the fact is that thousands of the UK’s most beautiful buildings are crumbling and in most cases receive little or no funding – public, private or charitable.
I think most people think that this is a religious issue – it is not. Like it or not, churches form the backbone of our cultural heritage – these are the landmarks around which our towns and villages developed and their architecture points deep into our history. I find it deeply saddening that for years we’ve been happy to watch them crumble.
I think that the point at which we disagree is when you write “The government should only preserve buildings and land that are, in themselves, of historical merit.” I can’t see why churches are not of historical merit – I think they’re deeply rooted in our national history and have a great deal of historical significance to local communities.
Holy Trinity, I believe, is a particularly good example of a church that needs saving. Architecturally, it’s Stratford’s most beautiful building (especially inside), is of historical importance to the community and is connected to Shakespeare – the town’s financial lifeblood.
This said, I should point out that I’m a “lefty” and think the government should pay for EVERYTHING! I can also accept that my view is a little nostalgic, as you mention. I wrote a book about Antonin Artaud and visited the place where he died in Paris – just to soak up that surrealist ambience. They’d built a block of flats over it – I looked around and couldn’t even find a plaque to my favourite writer and theatre practitioner ever (despite plaques to his contemporaries all over the city). I was gutted!
(Mmm … Antonin Artaud and a “save a church” spiel in the same blog post! – history in the making)
No. 2 — January 19th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Thanks for the reply. I guess the real issue is: How does one define “historical merit”? I think I was pretty clear in my post that I believe that locations where important events took place are of historical merit, while those only tangentially associated with famous people are not. However, I can agree with the argument that architecture itself is worth preserving, especially in the case of beautiful examples, or the deep importance to the historical community (even if the present community does not appreciate it). I leave the Church of England out of it, because the building should merit government help on historical grounds regardless of who the owner is or where other money may be coming from. So I think our viewpoints are fairly similar in most regards.
No. 3 — April 15th, 2009 at 8:20 am
Not that I’m totally impressed, but this is a lot more than I expected when I found a link on Digg telling that the info is quite decent. Thanks.
No. 4 — May 20th, 2009 at 11:22 am
As a Newbie, I am always searching online for articles that can help me. Thank you