The life and times of George Villiers, duke of Buckingham, Volume 3 (of 3): From original and authentic sourcesThomson, A. T., Mrs.
History
The life and times of George Villiers, duke of Buckingham, Volume 3 (of 3): From original and authentic sources
Thomson, A. T., Mrs.
Buckingham, George Villiers, Duke of, 1592-1628
A great portion of the large sums spent by Buckingham in Spain was
expended in forming that famous collection which fell, unhappily,
into the hands of his son. It would appear that James I. somewhat
curtailed Charles’s expenditure on this head; for we find, by an
entry in the State Paper Office, that Buckingham lent the Prince
twelve thousand pounds during their sojourn in Spain. Nevertheless,
no specimen of Spanish art was ever conveyed to England by
Charles.[147] A sketch was, indeed, begun of the Prince, by
Velasquez, but it is doubtful if it were ever completed. Pachecho,
the father-in-law of Velasquez, states that Charles was so delighted
with this portrait in its unfinished state, that he presented the
great painter with a hundred thousand crowns.[148] One may readily
account for its never being completed, because Velasquez, when
Charles and Buckingham left Madrid, could scarcely have finished the
portraits and other pictures on which he was engaged by Philip IV.
Footnote 147:
State Papers: Calendar, by Mr. Bruce.
Footnote 148:
Waagen.
In 1847, a picture belonging to Mr. Saare, of Reading, and supposed
to have been a relic of the gallery of Whitehall, was exhibited in
London as this lost portrait by Velasquez. It portrays Prince
Charles in a more robust form, and with a greater breadth of
countenance than any other known resemblance; and was stated to have
been painted in 1623, and to have been mentioned in a privately
printed catalogue of the gallery of the Earl of Fife, who died in
1809, in which it was stated that it had once belonged to the Duke
of Buckingham. Unfortunately, the surname of the Duke of Buckingham
was not specified; and since the title has been owned, so late as
1735, by the Sheffield family, the evidence was incomplete. A very
curious controversy ensued, but facts remain much in the same state
as before; and the authenticity of the portrait has been strongly
disputed, if not denied, by Dr. Waagen, and others. It is singular
that there was no work of Velasquez among the pictures left by
Buckingham.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account