It must, at first sight, appear strange that such men as G. Douw, the painter of the picture in question, or Rembrandt to whom are attributed other portraits of this old lady, should have condescended to copy from other artists, (for the respective dates render it quite impossible they could have painted from life in this instance): however, it is natural to suppose that this extraordinary instance of longevity made great noise at the time of, and for some time after, her death, and that a correct representation of such a physical phenomenon, although the work of an inferior artist, may well have afforded a fitting study for even such eminent painters as Rembrandt and G. Douw.
As I am on this subject, I shall further trouble you with a circumstance in connexion therewith, which has recently come to my knowledge. My friend, Mr. Herbert, M.P., of Muckross Abbey, Killarney, has also an old family picture of the same lady, with a very curious inscription, which, while it would appear to go far towards establishing several of her characteristic attributes, has also its peculiar difficulties, which I shall presently point out, in the hope that some of your correspondents who are learned in such matters may explain them. The inscription, which is on the canvass itself, is as follows:
"Catharine, Countesse of Desmonde, as she appeared at ye court of our Sovraigne Lord King James, in thys preasant A.D. 1614, and in ye 140th yeare of her age. Thither she came from Bristol to seek relief, ye house of Desmonde having been ruined by Attainder. She was married in ye Reigne of King Edward IV., and in ye course of her long Pilgrimage renewed her teeth twice: her Principal residence is at Inchiquin, in Munster, whither she undoubtedlye proposeth (her Purpose accomplished) incontinentlie to return. LAUS DEO."
Now, as to the authenticity of this picture, there can, I should think, be no question. It has not been got up for the present antiquarian controversy; for it is known to have been in existence in the family of Mr. Herbert for a great many years. It could not well be a mystification of the intervening "middle age," for in that case it would doubtless have been brought forward at the time, to establish a particular theory as to this lady. I think, therefore, it is only reasonable to suppose that it was painted at the time it professes. It may also be mentioned, in corroboration, that a connoisseur who examined this picture for Mr. Herbert attributed it to the hand of Jamieson, the Scotch painter, who lived at a time that would render it quite possible for him to have painted it from life. So far so good. The main difficulty is that of the dates given in the inscription. If the Countess was 140 in 1614, and therefore born in 1474, she could have been but eight or nine years old at the death of Edward IV., and therefore could not have been married in his reign. It is difficult to account for this discrepancy, except by supposing that the old lady sank ten years of her age (and there are statements in existence of 1464 being the year of her birth); or else by supposing that the story of her marriage in the reign of Edward IV. was not her own, but communicated, at second-hand and erroneously, to the artist.
On this point I hope some of your more learned correspondents will favour us with their opinion. There has also been recently sent me by a friend an extract from the "Birch Collection," British Museum (Add. MSS. 4161.), being transcripts of a Table Book of Robert Sidney, second Earl of Leicester, which contradicts the inscription in some particulars: but Lord Leicester writes in a loose and apparently not very authentic style. He states, on the authority of a "Mr. Harnet," that the Countess of Desmond came to petition "the Queen" (Elizabeth), and not King James; and quotes Sir W. Raleigh (on memory) as saying that he (Sir W. R.) saw her in England in 1589. He also talks of her death as occurring at the end of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and as being caused by a fall from a "nutt-tree." I do not think, indeed, that much weight should attach to these notes of Lord Leicester; but it is fair to give all that comes to light, whether it makes against or for the authenticity of what one wishes to establish.
P. FITZGERALD,
KNIGHT OF KERRY.
Union Club, London.
SHAKSPEARE'S SICKLE OR SHEKEL.
(Value of Solidus Gallicus?)
(Vol. v., p. 277.)
I undertake to answer C. W. B.'s Query with the greater readiness, because it affords me an opportunity of upholding that which has ever been the leading object in every amendment of Shakspeare's text advocated by me, viz., the unravelling and explaining, rather than the alteration, of the original. Perhaps it is with a similar aim that C. W. B. wishes to investigate the value of "siclus;" if so, he must pardon me if I forestall him.
I see no difficulty in the passage which he asks to have construed; its meaning is this: