New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-03-11
DOUBT CAST ON AUTHORSHIP
OF" VENUS WITH THE MIRROR
Discovery Supposed Signature of Juan Bautista Del Nazo
on Famous Canvas Discredited After
Exhaustive Investigation.

, testamentary disposition OF this lady part
Of her property was. bequeathed to per
sonal friends, who were therefore not her
legitimate heirs. This brought about
lawsuit at the instance of the successor
TO the title and the estate OF the House
of Alba. who was the Duke Of Berwick,
Liria and Ierica, and during the lawsuit
the King. Charles ". issued an order
that the three pictures in question should
be sold 10 his Prime Minister and favor
ite.' Don Manuel Godoy, Principe de la
Paz. These three pictures were The
Madonna of the House OF Alba" by RAJ
phael THE School of Love" by Correg-
gio. and the Venus with the Mirror
After the fall of the Principe de Ia Paz'
in 1905. the Venus was sold 10 Mr.. Wallis.
the agent of the well known dealer IN
pictures. MIR Buchanan. in 1913, and on
the advice of Sir Thomas Lawrence II
was bought from Mr.. Buchanan by Mr.
Merritt for $3.50. From that time until
October 1905, this picture has held the
place OF honor in Rokeby Park dhe home
of Mr. Merritt. with the exception OF the
two occasions on which il has been eXhib-
tied to the public in 1855, and in Burling-
ton House. in 1890. at the exhibition OF
old masters.
The rest Of the story is briefly told. \
few years ago it was lin the air. that
the picture might be bought. and tne
present writer. by the way. so far sue
ceeded in interesting one buyer in the
subject that he promised to go down 70
Rokebv Park and see if he could not OBJ
tain il for the American market few
, outbs later. in 1905. came the news that
il had been sold under an order OF the
cotirt of Chancery for $50 90, and that
the purchasers were the dealers !.
Aenew & Sons They exhibited 1t for
couple Of months. and there was mucn
excitement over the chance or It's pass
ing to America. Thereupon the National
Arts Collection Fund raised the sum or
As 90 and presented the picture to the
nation. The episode had lts obscure side.
Some observers wondered why the price
had scared so high. and one OF them MI
Edmund Gosse, wrote TO the press az foi-
lows.
"a very large sum has changed hands
over the Rokeby Venus. and We nave no
statement OF the name or the ihtenuo" VI
,he nerson or persons who made this pay
ment necessary. nor OF any other iac's re-
garding the early history OF the tFailsac-
linn ask for an exact historical az
count Of the offer and the obtaining OF the
Rok.bv Venus with all the names and all
the oates and all the payments
Mr.. Gosse never got what he wanted
though II was said that there was a con-
ndential statement TO the committee VI
.he National Arts Collection Fund, "hicn
aupears TO have satisfied that pouN'
Meanwhile the authenticity OF the picture
had not gone unchallenged. though IL
sbouId he added that close watch upon the
fortunes Of this canvas was not rewarded
bv any public revelations carrying any
narticular weight. The Morning POST
which was. OF course. keen upon packlhs
up its critic. editorlally observer .'"'
"a number Of men eminent III art anu Nv
tiers always cast doubts on the #Slne''o
and monetary value OF the picture ou'
,,b.r IL went Oh to give names al IL
Gould ca, was that among these may ne
maintained Sir William Richmond, MT f-"-
,,und Gosse and Lord Ronald sutherland
cover" The trio is not preclseiy lihPo'
ING Sir william Richmond IS the "'.'''
,.boss decorations in st. Paufs aroused
s,o,rn of protest. and I know nothing III
bis work as a painter or In his recoru
o,harviee to Justify the assumption tha'
no has esoteric insight into the ART u
,.o,..a,,a, In \ recent lecture he IN
forred the students of the Royal Academy
that there were two pigments useo III INC
nainting of the Venus which were not !"
existence Mt the time OF NelasqueZ' w nat
| ever the force OF this argument may pe' -
scarcely holsters up the idea that l"e
n,cture was painted by NelasqueZs SON
| ;n-law. unless we are 10 assume thaV Tue
latter WAS privately inventing ne" CoIoi =
! ,s Tor Mr. Edmund Gosse. he has, so lar
o,n Geo no standing whatever In
co,rt adjudicating an artistic case NE
,,,sctcions "a TO the sale do not SIGNIFY
| mot be is an expert on Nelasquez' horu
| por,Id sutherland Cover has written
como interesting artistic biographies pI'
| ,oi,ber in these nor in the work OF sculp'-
NO which he erected in Stratford has ne
| suggested that lie is possessed III i'''
I novers of artistic diyination.
| | would not, nOWeNti' ny
upon the character Of MI. Hreis WI"
nesses-though IT Is a fair po'nt-because
&, ,s In the circumstances, OF no great
consequence. As regards the documentary
audience adduced by Beruete, 1t seems
IN mo convincing. but. I'm any case We
should turn with confidence 10 the picture
rselr II IS not. fear what II once was
In tho process OF cleaning 1t has lost
something Of It's bloom. and. In fact. II
IS impossible not 10 feel fairly Indignant
! over the scrubbing II would appear 10
bavo received. But not even the scrub
tI,g could rob II Of its essential charm.
| Of IaIs RATtIet