The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-02-12
rHE bosroy vELAS oUEz.
A Reply by Mrs. frin sicin To the Grim
oisms Cf Nr. IrIneIs LAIR n

| To THE EptroR OF THE SrS--Sr. In y,,,.
paper OF Feb. s Mr.. Francis L,throp pre.,n,.
to your readers tho Inaccuracies OF nv n, ~
! phlet. "A Critical Invostig t!on os N.
olled cel1sauez OF the BoAton n ,seun, {.
lie at first discusses the divergence OF m.
Boston picture from the Laurent phoiosr,nb
! "A 1851 the Vill Ihermosl portr it OF pbIiln
~. The photographs OF the two piours,
| have now been exhibited together for ~,
diys. Mlny have discussed thor colnI'
denos, bit not one dolnite ArglmNnt h,.
been bro light TO belr vhlcn In any anll W.
refutes the superstition that they are tako,
from the simo picture.
Thu Laurent Photograph Ia larger. tia,
In itSelf. Ia misle ,ding In reg .ri % the CON.
p.rison OF distinces. II has been printed a,
thin silver print paper and much stretched
Horizontally In mounting upon hlrd c,rI.
DO ,rd while tho Boston picture is a ri tina.
type AMI unmn intel. In al lltol. the B,,.
ton picture Ia taken directly from, the prin,
while the Llurent photograph represent,
the orr ginAl taken at an nm Gle. This n itur Uv
produoes u certain shortening that show,
throughout the picture. The only distance
that appears somawh1t too large la IN.
Laurent photo graph IL the one between tAs
hat and the hand. Blt "a this Is eltuatel
very near to the edge Of the picture. the
stretching may eisily aooo INT for g.
What brought me to the conclusion TINT
the two photos are tken fron the ME
object II patch tn at Ia visible In both 70 Ga,
right side OF the head extending do 50 INTO
the golllll. II hls the SIN, position AMI
appearance In both. Evnrybo ly viii as.ee
that such concidence--one that DOES no,
belong to one copylst's work is 1 very slrolg
argument for the ii Entity Of tbs two Oct ire.
Mr.. Llthrop has not m,ntio1al tai4 pttsa
and woili be at los' to lni n pro mr. eJ.
plination apart from the one pro ooah hvm,
But even n tho actual coincidence Of m.
Boston picture and tho Sllllhermosi portr L
should finally prove inconclusve, as gree
poste OF motives after veltslueZ
Mr.: Lsthrop says: IT lscl IL thlts plct'r.
picture psiSted SUBJ subseaner,tiy X BIZ ''0i IN,
argument holds only IL We assume that tie
work IL, By Vel !adez. II copyi,i repro.
opportunity to see the authentic Philip ~
no. 1000 OF the Prado RS 1t * noF sun
further. he may have, fret received biz in
rpsrt The fsct Ia that the copyist seems 10
motive WSioS III he spu as%s as Mr. ' lq aep
81 tes, In the Arrangement OF the Boston
tr,it is trsnsiton work In no " s nCeoants
for the inqccur cies and Ecner artistic
faults Of the work, nacc,ir cies that Nj
L1throp himself would not allow 10 Vel sQuel.
even the young Vel sauez. working exactly
- he aholli snr mise him TO work The
documents OF bic earlier style and the sind Of
., hitting tn { he had lreHdy done NUE. con.
vinoe us thet such mist kes In handling rhs
brush do not bclong 10 the undiuted genius
Vel squez could not when II was essent /
that he should p int q sra king likeness OF
put forth his power with such a result sto
give US portrait bout which tho opinions ~
tho best critics differ sto whether il Is he n,
Fernando
The first picture that cei1sqnez pointed
OF the King WIS an equestrian portr.it tho
most ditfioult SIX which a portr u Pointer
can choose. This work he executed with
1nch eRactltude Of likeness that OILY lrez. the
Kings mister, dAcl red Int Philip md never
been painted before. Did then Vei!s3ueI
paint the Boston picture afterw riY
NEEHA hAMIi TON PRlSosuEGM
CAMBRIDGE. Feb. 10.