Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-03-01

be "originals" by their owners and
hundreds of engravings from both
sides of the Atlantic, nearly 'all of
which NAV be marked doubtful" were e1-
hibited. Horace Walpole once said that he
never could ascertain the authenticity or
originality of any of the so-called portraits
of her except the one in possession of the
Eerl of Morton. Excepting the latter there
does not seem to be another in existence
original. Portraits ascribed to Holbein are
in existence; and he died before she was old
enough to be painted. Vandyck was born IL
years after her death; Bordone may have
seen her but that is not certain, and Zuc-
caro- may have painted her, but it is doubt
full; yet TO every one of the above "authen-
tic'' portraits are attributed. Labanoff says
that quite a number of artists painted her
from imagination, which will explain the
existence of SO many portraits of Mary, diff
feriug from each other.
One of the best known, if not the most
authentic, is the portrait in the Lord Ma
pier collection. 1t bears a memorandum in
the handwriting Of the seventh Lord Ma
pier, dated 1880, stating that the picture
was painted when Mary was II years OF age
1t is the exact counterpart of a portrait of
the Inianta of Spain, who lived many years
after Mary, SO that there is little ground for
the belief that the "originaT" represents the
unfortunate Scottish Queen. Clouett, court
painter to several of the monarchs of France,
made portrait OF her in 1856, which was
sent to the Queen-Regent OF Scotland, Mary
of Guise, since which time it has been lost
sight of. Another portrait ascribed to the
l. II Il Il.
be the first sketch OF the other one. 1t is
supposed to represent q child of Is. but in
reality it looks like a woman of 20 or more.
and does not in the least resemble the Ma
pier picture. Still another by the same art
list, said to have been pain ted during Mary's
first widowhood, and known as LA Refine
Blanche" is now at Hampton Court. It
has the appearance Of haying been restored.
1t at least has the certainty of having at one
time belonged to Charles l., whose mono
gram it bears. Its previous history has not
been satisfactory to antiQuarians. If Clouett
painted it at all, it must have been before she
was 20 years of age, and yet the picture is
that of an elderly lady, whose face is very
sad. Many copies OF it, in most cases al
legged to be the originals, are known to be in
existence.
Patrick Fraser-Tytler has attempted to
pIOfC budb Vile plCbuEC huOWu db buo z IdscT-
Tytler Portrait" Is the one painted in 1860
and sent bv Mary to Elizabeth. 1t is at
tributed to Zuccaro. but how or when this
artist could have painted it is not known,
as he would have. been only lad at the
time. and really did not 60 to France until
10 or II years after her returnKto Scotland.
The portrait OF Mary and James vi, by the
same artist, must necessarily be false, as the
King is represented as being about or 6
years of age, standing by his mother's side,
when in reality he was taken from her,
never to return, before be was year old.
Elizabeth Curle, one of Mary 8 attendants,
bequeathed picture to the Scots College at
Douai, where It remained until the French
Revolution. 1t was concealed in chimney
for more than 20 years. In 1880 it was taken
to Blair, near Aberdeen, where Agnes Strick-
land saw and accepted it as authentic. There
re many evidences that the portrait is not
from life
A number of coin portraits were issued
during her life. One is a Scottish silver
coin of 1853 and another of 1861; also gold
coin OF 1855. Then there is the medallion
cast at South Kensington Museum and the
medals containing hers and the dauphin's
head, made in France shortly after their