somebody who was not a Pheidias, and who perhaps worked merely from
descriptions, is, at all events, Jacobean." The same may assuredly
be said of the monument; it is in good Jacobean style: the pillars
with their capitals are graceful: all the rest is in keeping; and
the two inscriptions are in the square capital letters of
inscriptions of the period; not in italic characters. Distrusting my
own EXPERTISE, I have consulted Sir Sidney Colvin, and Mr. Holmes of
the National Portrait Gallery. They, with Mr. Spielmann, think the
work to be of the early seventeenth century.

Next, glance at the figure opposite. This is a reproduction of "the
earliest representation of the Bust" (and monument) in Dugdale's
Antiquities of Warwickshire (1656). Compare the two objects, point
by point, from the potato on top with holes in it, of Dugdale, which
is meant for a skull, through all the details,--bust and all. Does
Dugdale's print, whether engraved by Hollar or not, represent a
Jacobean work? Look at the two ludicrous children, their legs
dangling in air; at the lions' heads above the capitals of the
pillars; at the lettering of the two visible words of the
inscription, and at the gloomy hypochondriac or lunatic, clasping a
cushion to his abdomen. That hideous design was not executed by an
artist who "had his eye on the object," if the object were a Jacobean
monument: while the actual monument was fashioned in no period of
art but the Jacobean. From Digges' rhymes in the Folio of 1623, we
know that Shakespeare already had his "Stratford monument." THE
EXISTING OBJECT IS WHAT HE HAD; the monument in Dugdale is what, I
hope, no architect of 1616-23 could have imagined or designed.

Dugdale's engraving is not a correct copy of any genuine Jacobean
work of art. Is Dugdale accurate in his reproductions of other