“Prince Charles is depicted in armour, decorated with the order of
St. George; the right arm rests upon a globe, and in the hand is
held a baton; the left arm is leaning upon the hip, being partly
supported by the hilt of the sword; a drapery of a yellow ground,
crossed by stripes of red, is behind the figure, but the curtain is
made to cover one half of the globe on which the right arm is
poised; the expression is tranquil; but in the distance is depicted
a siege, numerous figures being there engaged in storming a town or
fortress.”
Some proofs of identity are traceable in the costume and
accessories. Thus, among the jewels sent to the Prince, was “a fair
sworde, which was Prince Henry’s, fully garnished with dyamondes of
several bignes.”
Now, the hilt of the sword in the picture sparkles as if jewelled.
The drapery, which covers half of the globe, is a rich yellow
damask, with streaks of red. These are the national colours of
Spain.
In the “Memoirs of George Villiers, first Duke of Buckingham,” p.
17, we are told that, on the arrival of the Prince and Marquis--
“He (Olivarez) then complimented the Marquis, and told him, ‘Now
the Prince of England was in Spain, their masters would divide the
world between them.’ ”
Similar mention of dividing the world between them also occurs in
notices of the above meeting in the Journals of the House of
Commons; and in Buckingham’s Narrative, in Rushworth’s Historical
Collections. This may explain the Prince leaning on the globe,
while half of it is covered by the national drapery of Spain.
Still, the globe and drapery were afterthoughts in the painting.
The picture was exhibited for some time in Old Bond-street; but the
opinion in favour of its being by Velasquez did not gain ground among
connoisseurs: the distance has more of the painter’s manner than the
portrait itself, which is rather that of Vandyke. The pamphlet goes very
far to settle the identity of the picture with that mentioned in the
Fife House Catalogue; but the ascription may merely have been that of
the Earl of Fife; and it is somewhat strange that it should not have
been specially mentioned as the lost picture, had its identity been
positively settled.
Since the publication of Mr. Snare’s pamphlet, Sir Edmund Head, in his
“Handbook of the History of the Spanish and French Schools of Painting,”
has expressed his disbelief in the authenticity of the picture being the
long-lost portrait; adding, first, it is not in his opinion by
Velasquez; secondly, it is a finished picture; and, thirdly, it
represents Charles as older than twenty-three years, which was his age
when at Madrid. Again, Mr. Stirling, in his “Annals of the Artists of
Spain,” published in 1848, does not consider the picture proved to be
that formerly at Fife House; nor does he regard it as a sketch,
(“bosquexo,”) but more than three parts finished. He thinks also that
Charles looks considerably older than twenty-three; and he sees “no
resemblance in the style of the execution to any of the acknowledged
works of Velasquez.” To both these objections, Mr. Snare replied, in a
second pamphlet, wherein he opposed to their opinions the cumulative
evidence of his unwearied investigations. His first pamphlet, “The
History and Pedigree”--is a singularly interesting array of presumptive
evidence.[15]