Talk:Robert Peake the Elder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Robert Peake the Elder is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
	An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on January 15, 2008.
February 6, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
FA	Class: This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Non-royal paintings 2 Double portrait 3 The unknown woman 3.1 More digging 3.2 Henry on the hunting field 4 Edits 5 Lord Rootes 6 Hunting portraits 7 More images 8 Dating the Unknown Woman 9 Hunting pictures and Haringtons 10 Lady Elizabeth Pope 11 Frances W and little Bobby 12 Time 13 disambig

[edit] Non-royal paintings

Unknown woman, 1592

Portrait of Anne Knollys, 1582

Elizabeth Poulett, 1616

Unnown Gentleman c 1585-90

Does anyone have any scholarly information about these three works? I'm confident about the Poulett. The "Unknown woman" is somewhat odd to my eyes, because I haven't seen any other backgrounds like that for Peake (looks like the painting might have been messed about with later?). On the other hand, that very translucent-but-rosy skin strikes me as similar to that in the Elizabeth of Bohemia and the Prince Charles. But the date of 1592 here seems very early, in that case (PKM, are you able to date the costume?). What a gorgeous picture, though! The date of 1582 for the Anne Knollys seems very early for a Peake, though the style is suitably undeveloped and the age of the lady seems right. It's just that the only discussion of his early painting that I can find starts with the "military commander" of 1592.

The article definitely needs some non-royal paintings. If anyone knows of any others, or can help with some information for these, great. I'm extremely cautious though, and don't necessarily trust gallery blurbs.

I will find a crisper version of the double portrait.qp10qp (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Double portrait

Amanda, your instincts on where the masses of the article needed to be rearranged were correct. My background is a history degree and an obsession with drawing and painting, but I lack a history-of-art background, and I feel that lack here all the time. All the best. qp10qp (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I love that school of paintng, but I'm not very knowledgable about it. But I'm prepared to organise and analyse anything. When in London, The National Portrait Gallery is one of the places I take my son.

The double portrait was on tour in Australia and I saw it in the Art Gallery of New South Wales in the 1970s, hence my ref to the catalogue.

My gut feeling about the beautiful woman is no. What I'd rather like to see is another pic in which he does one of those ruffs with large loose folds. It requires a skill at achieving transparency that the stiffer ruffs don't need. Johnbod is very good on costume and is familiar with a lot of images.Amandajm (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at your edits. I think that the article is looking good. Somewhere, in a book on restoration, I have an article on the equestrian portrait, but I haven't located it.

Another matter. The second boy in the portrait is identified as Harington. I have two sources, including Kitson, who identify him as Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex. Kitson mentions the fact that two shields identify the figures. Questions: Is it the Harington arms or the Essex arms? Are the shields contemporary with the painting, or later additions based on a presumed identification? Amandajm (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The arms are those of the Earls of Essex. I found this. Arms: Argent a fess gules in chief three torteaux. [1] Moreover, his appearance is consistent with that of both the early pic that I have put on the page, and with pics of his father. Do we know what the Haringtons looked like? Amandajm (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've not heard that theory, but I am all for muddying the waters, as the waters are indeed very muddy in this period. The one at the Met has Harington's name in the title, though. Essex would certainly have been about the right age, and he rather fell out with James over his divorce and took arms against Charles I, so it's possible that the Harington arms were added to cover up his depiction with the family (they do seem a bit out of kilter with the composition). Hearn says the Haringtons probably commissioned the paintings from Peake, though I've not seen any documentary evidence of that. But Hearn has written on Lucy Harington and so is a good source. Also, she references Strong, who wrote a book about Henry (I must read it). I note that the pictures can be traced back to Wroxton Abbey, which was in a member of the Harington family's hands by 1680. Do what you think best. qp10qp (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

HA! There are two versions, then! One with Harington and one with Essex. The quality of the pic is terrible, but it appears that Harington has a thinner face, and curlier, probably lighter, hair. [2] If you look down the list, you will find that the Peake pic immediately above this one is a B&W version of the Essex pic.

I would presume that the Essex pic was done for the Royal family, or the prince himself, and Harington had it copied. Amandajm (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha, indeed. You've spotted what was staring me in the face all along and yet the penny didn't drop. It's as plain as day that the boy is different in each version, yet cognitive dissonance prevented me from grasping that. So Hearn is talking about the New York one, with Harington; and the queen's one is called "Henry, Prince of Wales, in the hunting field". qp10qp (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I just found a bbetter one of the Met version that you were referring to. It's plainly a different boy, and when enlarged, the whole painting is not quite as good as the one in the Royal collection. [3].

Differences include the coat of arms, the features of the boy, the trees and the fact that the stag has already had its neck cut. That part of the other pic is very dark, but I am sure that it has not, which accounts for two descriptions, one of the Prince drawing his sword, and the other of him sheathing it. More Later. Must go now. Amandajm (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant detective work by you there! And now we have some more by PKM below.

I think I've fixed the problem. The article now mentions both versions. Amandajm (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The unknown woman

Briefly - yes, I'd absolutely buy 1592 for the unnown woman based on dress. Will see what else I have on Peake. - PKM (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Anne Knollys - Strong, English Icon, includes several inscribed and dated works attributed to Peake from 1587-89. The written inscriptions and age are consistent with this portrait, and as nearly as I can tell from the b&w versions in Strong the overall approach is also consistent.

As far as the unknown lady on the left, her clothes are spot-on for London citizen/ gentry (with Puritan leanings?) of the 1590s, but I am less certain about the attribution to Peake. That's one I uploaded before I figured out the Commons; I'll move it there.

Catalogue entry is here, select Catalogue, 16th century. - PKM (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong EI also has the "Unknown Military Commander" (alas in b&w) and details on the inscriptions. But I may be able to match that to a color image now that I now what to look for.

The Poulett is in Strong, without identification but attributed to Peake. - PKM (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

This painting attributed to Peake 1585-90 has a similar background (albeit a different color) to our unknown lady. Grabbing for the Commons. - PKM (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Added above. - PKM (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is very clever of you. I have not yet found any discussion or historical information about Peake's painting in the 1580s. I hope we can find an author who does address it, which would fill in that gap in the article. (I'd assumed we didn't have any recognised Peakes from that period.) On the "military commander", I would so like that illustrated in the article, but I haven't been able to find a copy of it, except small black-and-white ones in books.qp10qp (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The question about our unknown lady wiith the little red book is this: if Peake didn't paint her, who are we loooking at? I find the unknown gentleman very encouraging. The pics are very different colours, but I think it is simply the reproduction, which has made one more red annd the other more green.

Amandajm (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right: In the Weiss Gallery printed catalogue A Noble Visage: a Catalogue of Early Portraiture 1545-1660 (2001), the background behind our Unknown Gentleman is a slightly olive-brown, not green as it appears on the Weiss website. The catalogue also includes Peake's portrait of Lady Frances Reynal of West Ogwell c. 1595 at smaller scale. I will scan both.

Thus Strong on Peake, English Icon, p. 225: "By the close of the 1580s, he was well established as a portrait painter with a fashionable clientèle." Strong identifies 19 portraits (as of 1969) with Peake's "easily recognised" way of recording the sitter's age and the date. Both the Weiss and Philip Mould catalogue entries state that Peake's earliest identified portrait is 1587; not sure if they are both citing the 1587 portraits of Arthur, Lord Grey de Wilton and Humphrey Wingfield in Icon or some other source.

We need a scan of Peake's strange and wonderful portrait of Lady Elizabeth Pope.- PKM (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And now we have one, tra-la. - PKM (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

New in the Commons:

Unknown Man v.2

Lady Frances Reynal

Lady Elizabeth Pope

- PKM (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Riches indeed. All kudos to you: much appreciated. We are going to have a very special page here, I think. That "Lady Elizabeth Pope" astonishes me: various commentators objected to the scantiness of the masquers costumes, but I didn't realise they were that scanty! qp10qp (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I too wonder if the unknown lady has been greatly improved, like Joan Alleyn in Dulwich terrible pic] whose face hace been entirely repainted. The gallery website had little to say on condition or provenance. Johnbod (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More digging

I have continued digging. The 2006 Weiss catalogue has two portraits by Peake, one the then-"newly discovered" painting of Charles I as Duke of York in Garter robes which is in the Commons. The commentary on that portrait cites the 1587 Wingfield and Grey de Wilton as the two earliest portraits attributed to Peake.

However ... The Berger Collection at the Denver Art Museum confidently attributes the Knollys to Peake. The detail is here and you can zoom in on the portrait - it definitely has the "recognisable" Peake inscription and is clearly dated 1582.- PKM (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You've been doing some brilliant work. I'm actually starting to get a sense of the Peake ouevre, for the first time. I'm pretty convinced, because there is a certain something in common between all these faces, particularly the eyes. As I have no training in art history, I don't know what the protocol is on these gallery blurbs. As a history man, my instinct is to rely only on scholarly published sources, though I quoted Sheeran in the article because his gallery article is taken from a previously published source. We do have Strong to back up the inscription theory: does he mention the Knollys? qp10qp (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I am just an amateur costume geek with soem good references!

As far as I can tell, no one in the UK has ever heard of the Anne Knollys portrait in Denver. <grin>

As to sources, I am willing to cite a major art museum's web site commentary on items in its own collection, though some art museums don't have a very clear grasp of period clothing.

Fortunately, as Wikipedians we are discouraged from doing original research and encouraged to quote both sides of issues where there is differing opinion in reputable secondary sources. In that spirit, I think we can address the '80s in the article in a useful way and I am going to go do that now. Let me know what you think. - PKM (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. I'll need to tweak the Robert Devereux stuff, too, if the date is 1605. That would mean that it was the second version: That makes sense to me, since the Harington version then matches the young Elizabeth one, also said to have been done for the Haringtons in 1603. qp10qp (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Done! - PKM (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Bravo! Who could argue with that?

On gallery write-ups, the problem is that they may not care very much about their Peakes and other obscure portraits of that period (the unknown gentleman looks like he was sold off by his gallery when it turned out he wasn't anyone famous). When I was working on the article, I noticed the following in the National Galleries of Scotland Peake bio (they've got a portrait of Arabella Stuart looking like she's sniffing vinegar): "In 1604 the English artist Robert Peake became Principal Picture Maker to Henry, Prince of Wales, the eldest son of Charles I". I wrote to point out the clanger but never got a reply. I'm just embarrassed for them, to be honest. Perhaps they should make it a wiki! qp10qp (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Henry on the hunting field

I've uploaded a brighter (though smaller) version of the hunting portrait from the Met Image:Henry Prince of Wales on the Hunting Field Robert Peake.jpg but not linked it into the article yet since WP is not displaying images for me at the moment. We should be able to find a good hardcopy to scan for a high quality larger image. There seems to be another version of this portrait in the Royal Collection. Their website identifies the prince's companion as Robert Devereux 3rd Earl of Essex (surely that is outdated?).

That;s all for now... - PKM (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Amandajm cleverly spotted some intriguing issues with these pictures. That one is not called "Henry Prince of Wales on the Hunting Field" but "Henry, Prince of Wales, with Sir John Harington". The reason is that the boy on the left in the first one is a young Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex, and the boy in the more nocturnal one is John Harington: their faces are very different, and Amandajm clinched it by looking up the coats of arms, which are different for each picture. I haven't seen a book or article that addresses this yet. (And why he is called Sir John Harington I don't know, since he died young, and it was his father who was a sir.) qp10qp (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Very nice catch to compare the coats of arms! Actually, both pictures are in English Icon, now that I look again, No. 201 called Henry Prince of Wales and his Friend John, 2nd Lord Harington of Exton dated 1603 in the Met, and the other twelve pages away, No. 222 Henry, Prince of Wales and Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex c. 1605. The differences are harder to spot in the black and white reproductions. Strong calls 222 a "variant" of 201.

That "sir" puzzles me to, unless his father predeceased him despite John dying young?

So I have a bit of cleanup to do in the Commons. - PKM (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure when the boy died, but his father died in 1612. To my knowledge, you can't inherit the title of Sir, but you can inherit the title of Lord. Interesting that the Met has a different title than Strong: Hearn repeats the Met's title, but Strong's sounds more likely to me. Picture names are never very fixed, though, if there wasn't one originally. I took the title "Henry, Prince of Wales, on the hunting field" from the caption in Gaunt, though it seems an odd way to name a picture with a double subject. qp10qp (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

John Harington, 1st Baron Harington of Exton gives a death date of 1613 (new style or old style?). The Peerage has "John Harington, 2nd Baron Harington of Exton was baptised on 3 May 1592 at Stepney, Middlesex, England.He was the son of John Harington, 1st Baron Harington of Exton and Ann Kelway. He died on 27 February 1613/14 at age 21, unmarried." (I love the web.) As a companion of the heir to the throne, he may well have been knighted by age 21, but I have no evidence one way or the other so far. - PKM (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

He wouldn't have been a sir when the picture was done, either way. I suppose it's academic, though: it's the Met's picture, and I daresay they can call it what they like. qp10qp (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

I have added some images to the gallery and organized in date order, and made some subheads in the two long sections. Also added the inscription from the Knollys, thoguh I'd prefer to get one from one of the canonical pictures and swap that in - soon.

As for the Elizabeth Pope, consensus seems to be that she is wearing a mantle of the style worn in masques, but this is unlikely to actually be a masquing costume. Possibilities are an allegory of marriage/virginity, or (my favorite) an allegory of America, with the one shouldered-mantle over nudity and the turban with a feather representing Native American costume. Discussion of theories on this picture is in Ribeiro's Fiction and Fantasy. - PKM (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Great work. You are steadily convincing me that Peake is more than the journeyman I thought him. qp10qp (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

PS Has anyone put up a DYK nom for this? We might just squeak in. - PKM (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I confess I don't know how to do it. qp10qp (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, squeaked in under the deadline for Jan 10 articles. - PKM (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick. It's up! Does one just reduce a picture to 100px, or does one have to crop it in any particular way?

One links to any image in the article and puts a size of 100x100px in the tag to constrain it. I have been known to create a custom crop from a featured image that would work well small and link to that for DYK, and no one has ever objected. I didn't have time to do that last night - we barely squeaked in under the deadline - it's "created" in the last 5 days. Articles created on Jan 10 are no longer eligible. So I was pretty sure we'd be in the next update. - PKM (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You've done wonders for this 'umble little article, and I wonder if it's worth chucking it up for FA? Mary Edmond is the only person who's ever bothered to research Peake's life properly (as opposed to his pictures) and so I believe the article is comprehensive for the life. There's bound to be some critical commentary we haven't found, probably mostly at galleries or in catalogues: but there's still a good coverage of that, I think. The only thing is, I've a feeling FA reviewers don't like galleries, and the gallery is important for an article of this sort where a limited number of pictures exists—I doubt they're collected anywhere else on the net like this (except on Commons, now, thanks to PKM). I would never remove the gallery.qp10qp (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I too am a great believer in galleries, which many who ought to know better think are discouraged by policy. It would be worth effort getting an FA with gallery, or crashing out with gallery intact. But in fact the policies against don't exist. Johnbod (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Rootes

I believe there's been a misidentification. I believe "Unknown Military Commander" is in the collection, at Ramsbury, of one of the Lords Rootes, who are thoroughly modern peers. Choess (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; Waterhouse's shorthand style has caused this I think - now corrected. Johnbod (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I misunderstood it. I should have clued when I checked out Lord Rootes and could find no such person for that period. I wish I would listen to my self-doubts more. Many thanks for the excellent spot, Choess. qp10qp (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hunting portraits

Qp10qp, are you going to have time to disentangle the Henry hunting pictures? Otherwise I'll take a stab at it when I can. - PKM (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

By all means have a go. But it is on my list. I need to give the article a copyedit for prose and add a few more cites as well. One thing you could possibly do, if you think it's appropriate, is add that stuff about the Pope picture from the Ribeiro book you mention above. Anything written about Peake is gold dust and should be pounced on, I reckon.

By the way, have you come across any copies of the equestrian picture? It seems important, but I can't find it anywhere. Hearn only has a tiny reproduction. qp10qp (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Equestrian portrait: only the one in Hearn, so far. I'll try to get to the Pope this weekend. PS Soon I am going to need help with William Larkin. - PKM (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've had that one in the back of my mind too. qp10qp (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More images

Added to Commons: Image:Henry Prince of Wales 1610 Robert Peake.jpg - PKM (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Found Henry Prince of Wales on Horseback while looking for Larkins. Yippee. - PKM (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Madam, you have just made my day! (Added gleefully to the article.) To me that is an extraordinary painting; I can't stop looking it. It makes me think Hearn's assocation of Peake with the remarkable "Jephthah's Daughter" on page 115 of her book can only be correct. qp10qp (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Pleased to make your day.  :-) - PKM (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I knew it but had forgotten it - rich and strange - where does it reside (as WP editors love to say)? Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The collection at Parham Park, West Sussex, apparently. qp10qp (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dating the Unknown Woman

The painting right by an unknown artist is inscribed 1595 - the costume is similar to our Unknown Woman, thought I am inclined to think the Unknown Woman may be closer to 1600 (the stomacher isn't as pointy) - looking further for documentation. - PKM (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've dated a few unknown women in my time, but she's scary. qp10qp (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha!!- PKM (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, I agree with you about the costume date. Hilliard's portraits of Mrs Holland (1593, one of them) seem similar. I've not seen a ruff that chiffony anywhere, but the closest ones are always by Isaac Oliver, who paints a lot of soft ruffs. The one left is the nearest in Commons, but there are others much more like: and the date is always the 90s. But our painting is definitely not by Oliver, that's for sure: he's too recognisable.qp10qp (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, this costume isn't too dissimilar. I'm guessing she's Sir Julius Caesar's wife, Alice Dent. Don't know where they get their dates fromqp10qp (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hunting pictures and Haringtons

I've swapped the Harington and Devereux hunting pictures and associated text, and cited Strong 1969.

We need to sort this out: there are two contemporaneous John Haringtons: John Harington, 1st Baron Harington of Exton (1539-1613) and John Harington (1561-1612). The boy in the painting is the son of Harington of Exton.

Neither of them could have escorted Elizabeth to Bohemia in 1616. Digging. - PKM (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears from [4] that the date in your footnote should be changed to 1613; I will do that:

The eldest son, Sir John Harrington, created 1st Baron Harrington by James I in 1603 (40) to whom he was distantly related, was charged with the protection and tutorship of Princess Elizabeth, eldest daughter of James I at Combe Abbey, his house near Coventry. During her time there she became a target for the conspirators of the Gunpowder Plot in 1605. She later married Frederick, Elector Palatine of the Rhine and Sir John accompanied her to Germany after her marriage at Whitehall in February 1613. He succumbed to exhaustion on his return home to England six months later, dying at Worms on 23rd August.

- PKM (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Lucy Russell, Countess of Bedford - oh, those Haringtons. Her article linked to the wrong John as her father. I also see how one could misread Hearn as saying Sir John died in 1616. It's interesting that almost every picture traditionally called Lucy Harington seems now to be disputed. On other fronts, I have an essay on the Elizabeth Pope portrait in Gent & Llewellyn, Renaissance Bodies; just need to dig it out. - PKM (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it was very stupid of me to get the date wrong, since I know very well that Elizabeth got married at around the same time that Henry died. Sloppiness on my part. qp10qp (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And I also have been assuming that Lucy was young John's sister. This article really is full of little tricks of similarity, isn't it? qp10qp (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

She was; she inherited on his death, that's where her independent money cam from. - PKM (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lady Elizabeth Pope

I've added the material on the portrait of Elzabeth Pope (and replaced her image in the Gallery with one of her sister-in-law Anne Pope from the Tate). I note that Chirelstein in her published essay on this painting completely conflates the two hunting pictures, referring to the painting of Henry PoW and "Robert Devereux" at the Met (with the Met image so captioned) despite the emphasis in her thesis on the significance of heraldry in Jacobean art. - PKM (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Not one source that I've seen talks about the two pictures; they only talk about them one at a time. From what Amanda says about Kitson, he was talking about the double portrait being a significant picture, a departure etc., but clearly he did not realise that the version he was writing about was the later duplicate (if the two dates we have—Harington, 1603; Devereux 1605—are indeed correct).

I think one of the troubles with the art writers is that they are wedded to an idea of the creative act and the artist as auteur that doesn't apply to most artists of this period. Clearly Peake didn't feel the slightest shame in replacing one boy with another and reselling the composition. The procession picture is a set of pattern portraits. And I've noticed that not only did he paint different versions of Charles in much the same pose, but his standing portrait of Henry from 1610 is much the same as well. One gets the feeling that he'd never, or hardly ever, actually seen the princes, and was doing all from patterns. In those circumstances, any attempts by critics to talk of creative innovation start to sound hollow.

By the way, on the subject of the red Cambridge Charles portrait, Hearn says on page 189 that a pentimento visible to the naked eye shows that his right hand was originally on his waist. I can't see it, even with a magnifying glass, but obviously the picture is much reduced. I've mentioned this pentimento in the article, but I am a bit uneasy about it because if the right hand was on his waist it would go against what we see in the garter portrait at the bottom of the page and in the Henry picture up here on the right. Could Hearn have meant the left hand? Peake is nothing if not repetitive, and it seems to be the left hand that goes on waists with him. What do you think? qp10qp (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Treading close to Original Research here (oh no!) but you may be right. - PKM (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm all for OR on talk pages. qp10qp (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, when art historians do not make it clear (which is much too often) they usually mean the viewer's left or right, rather than the subject's. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!!!!!!!! Lightbulb moment! Shades of Las Meninas. Thanks. (It's not that way in the theatre.) If I could see the blasted pentimento, I'd make it clear in the article which hand is meant, but I can't. qp10qp (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frances W and little Bobby

When I was responding to Awadewit at FAC, I realised that the image information for this one is a mess (not one of PKM's, say no more). I couldn't find anything on Google. Does anyone know where the picture lives? We need a secondary source, such as the gallery or a book, to say that it is by Peake (which I'm sure it is). qp10qp (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sotheby's thought it was in 1988 [5], but it seems to have disappeared after that. Yomangani^talk 02:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's in Strong, English Icon (1969), as "Unknown Woman and Child", attributed to Peake. It's inscribed and dated. As of 1969 it had been last recorded in a private collection in 1910, so whoever had it must have sold in 1988. I'll see if I can dig up the source for the identification. I doubt there's a better quality image - this one is all I can find - but I'll keep looking. Maybe someone will sell it again. - PKM (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have an Artprice or Artfact account to check this out? It's almost certainly our picture, and we now have dimensions. http://www.web.artprice.com/ps/artitem/?id=61282 or http://www.artfact.com/catalog/searchLots.cfm?scp=m&ord=2&ad=d&aID=26465. - PKM (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't. Those verge on being reliable sources in themselves, though. Brilliant work, as always! So, we now have Strong for the picture. It is just a question of making sure that this is Frances and Robert (auction houses do rather like famous names on their paintings; but Robert's face does seem very like the one in the double portrait). qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ellis Waterhouse mentions it on p.28 as Frances, Countess of Essex and cites it to Welbeck Plate 26A. Yomangani^talk 09:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a different painting, though. And, considering at what point Waterhouse discusses it, I think it must be of Frances Howard, Countess of Essex, in other words, Robert's wife. qp10qp (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ooopps. I wasn't concentrating, saw Peakes's name at the top of the page and didn't read the rest properly. Sorry about that. Yomangani^talk 18:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Per Strong Icon, the inscriptions are "1594 AEte 36" top right, and over the child's head "AEte 5". If we have the dates right in our articles, Frances was born 1569 and would have turned 25 sometime in 1594; young Robert was born 11 January 1591 (is this 1590/91 or 1591/92 - hard to tell with possible old style dates in both sources and articles), and of course "AEte 5" can mean "in his fifth year" (i.e. 4 years old) or "aged 5". And we suppose as of 1969 Strong had never seen the portrait, so was either going by someone else's written description or an examination of an old photo. Anyway, the age inscription is about right for young Robert and dubious for the countess. As far as I can tell looking at the image, it pretty definitely says 36 not 26 - but is that original? or a later (mis) restoration? Without some scholar having access to the painting we may never know. Ugh. - PKM (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for all this work. I have reffed the caption to Strong's English Icon and to the second auction link above. qp10qp (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time

Original thought alert!!!!!

I chased down Amandajm's vague memory of reading about the restoration of the equestrian picture and have been able to add some stuff from a book by Chris Caple called Objects. He/she suggests that the picture was influenced by Dürer's Knight, Death and the Devil. Looking at the picture, that seems to me a good call, so I've put a link to it in the note.

But it raises another question, for me. Caple says that the figure of Time was painted later than and on top of the brick wall. Of course, that might have only been a few weeks later (though I find oils take at least months to dry), but I've always had an uneasy feeling about the picture's composition because Time is just not positioned comfortably. Why would any artist plan that composition and then paint that figure after he had done the horse and the wall? To my eyes, the figure of Time was not planned originally because there's not enough space provided for it, hence it's squashiness. In which case, does the idea of Sheeran and others that the image represents opportunity admit the possibility that the old man was added after the prince's death? Apparently, in the usual imagery of "Time pulled by the forelock", Time is represented by a young girl. So why an old man here? Why on earth would Peake adopt an image of death from Dürer if the prince was still alive? Of course, my burblings are neither here nor there as far as this article's text is concerned, but I've added the point that the figure was painted later, reffed to Caple. By the way, I wonder if the Dürer reference was thought in bad taste by later monarchs, thus the painting out? qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the brick wall, and Time, were considered old-fashioned & it was just baroque-ised. Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I find the suggestion that the figure of Time was added at the death of the prince to be very likely. The other part of the painting which was extensively repainted is the horse, which, once cleaned and revealed as Peake painted it, looks as if it stepped off a Merry-Go-Round. Even in the accompanying b&w image, it can be seen clearly that the horse was greatly improved by some artist who really knew horses. I still haven't found that book. Amandajm (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] disambig

classical and David Murray need disambig (or maybe delete the classical link) Randomblue (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Was David Murray the 1st 2nd 3rd etc. Viscount? Randomblue (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Must be the 1st - I've piped to Viscount of Stormont. Did you delink classical - I can't see it. Johnbod (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I delinked classical yesterday, but you can still revert. Randomblue (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)