monuments in Stratford Church? To satisfy himself on this point, Sir
George Trevelyan, as he wrote to me (June 13, 1912), "made a sketch
of the Carew Renaissance monument in Stratford Church, and found that
the discrepancies between the original tomb and the representation in
Dugdale's Warwickshire are far and away greater than in the monument
to William Shakespeare."

Mr. Greenwood, {179a} while justly observing that "the little sitting
figures . . . are placed as no monumental sculptor would place them,"
"on the whole sees no reason at all why we should doubt the
substantial accuracy of Dugdale's figure . . . It is impossible to
suppose that Hollar would have drawn and that Dugdale would have
published a mere travesty of the Stratford Monument."

I do not know who drew the design, but a travesty of Jacobean work it
is in every detail of the monument. A travesty is what Dugdale gives
as a representation of the Carew monument. Mr. Greenwood, elsewhere,
repeating his criticism of the impossible figures of children, says:
"This is certainly mere matter of detail, and, in the absence of
other evidence, would give us no warrant for doubting the substantial
accuracy of Dugdale's presentment of the 'Shakespeare' bust." {180a}

Why are we to believe that Dugdale's artist was merely fantastic in
his design of the children (and also remote from Jacobean taste in
every detail), and yet to credit him with "substantial accuracy" in
his half-length of a gloomy creature clutching a cushion to his
stomach? With his inaccuracies as to the Carew monument, why are we
to accept him as accurate in his representation of the bust?
Moreover, other evidence is not wanting. It is positively certain
that the monument existing in 1748, was then known as "the original