was a painter, not (like Giulio Romano) also an architect and
sculptor. Pour tout potage he had but 12 pounds, 10s. He could not
do, and he did not do these things! he did not destroy "the original
monument" and make a new monument in Jacobean style. He was straitly
ordered to "repair and beautify the original monument"; he did repair
it, and repainted the colours. That is all. I do not quote what
Halliwell-Phillipps tells us {183a} about the repairing of the
forefinger and thumb of the right hand, and the pen; work which, he
says, had to be renewed by William Roberts of Oxford in 1790. He
gives no authority, and Baconians may say that he was hoaxed, or
"lied with circumstance."

Mr. Greenwood {183b} quotes Halliwell-Phillipps's Works of
Shakespeare (1853), in which he says that the design in Dugdale's
book "is evidently too inaccurate to be of any authority; the
probability being that it was not taken from the monument itself."
Indeed the designer is so inaccurate that he gives the first word of
the Latin inscription as "Judicyo," just as Oudry blunders in the
Latin inscription of a portrait of Mary Stuart which he copied badly.
Mr. Greenwood proceeds: "In his Outlines Halliwell simply ignores
Dugdale. His engraving was doubtless too inconvenient to be brought
to public notice!" Here Halliwell is accused of suppressing the
truth; if he invented his minute details about the repeated
reparation of the writing hand,--not represented in Dugdale's
design,--he also lied with circumstance. But he certainly quoted a
genuine "contemporary account" of the orders for repairing and
beautifying the original monument in 1748, and I presume that he also
had records for what he says about reparations of the hand and pen.
He speaks, too, of substitutions for decayed alabaster parts of the
monument, though not in his Outlines; and I observe that, in Mrs.