(Vol. v., p. 145.)
As there has been, from time to time, much written in your very
interesting publication on the subject of the "Old Countess of Desmond,"
it may, perhaps, not be unacceptable that I should give you a
description of an old family picture in my possession, said to be of
that person, to which allusion has been made by some of your
correspondents, especially by A. B. R., in your paper of Saturday, 14th
February. The painting in question has been for a great number of years
in the possession of my family, and from my earliest childhood I have
heard it designated as that of the old "Countess of Desmond," although
there is no mention of her name thereon. My father for a long time
thought it was a work of Rembrandt; but on a close examination there was
discovered the name of "G. Douw," low at the left-hand side; and since
the picture has been cleaned, the signature has become more distinct. It
is painted on board of dark-coloured oak, of eleven inches by eight and
a half. The portrait, which reaches to below the bust, and represents a
person sitting, is eight and a half inches in length; the face about
two and three quarter inches. It is admitted by the best judges to be a
painting of great merit. It represents, as well as it is possible,
extreme old age, with an extraordinary degree of still remaining vigour,
and in this respect certainly fits exactly the character of its subject.
The dress is correctly described by your correspondent A. B. R. The
forehead is not very high, but square and intellectual--deeply wrinkled;
the nose is rather long, and very well formed; the eyes dark; the mouth
compressed, and denoting quiet firmness; the expression altogether
pleasing and placid, and the face one that must have been handsome in
youth. Should any of your correspondents wish to see this picture, I
shall leave it for a short time in the hands of my bookseller, Mr.
Newman, 3. Bruton Street, Bond Street, who has kindly consented to take
charge of it, and to show it to those who feel an interest in such
matters.
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.