Talk:Robert Peake the Elder

message: Image:Unknown Lady Robert Peake c1592.jpg| Unknown woman, 1592
Image:Anne knollys 1582 robert peake.jpg| Portrait of Anne Knollys, 1582
Image:Elizabeth Poulett by Robert Peake.jpg| Elizabeth Poulett, 1616
Image:Unknown Gentleman Robert Peake.jpg|Unnown Gentleman c 1585-90
Does anyone have any scholarly information about these three works? I'm confident about the Poulett. The "Unknown woman" is somewhat odd to my eyes, because I haven't seen any other backgrounds like that for Peake (looks like the painting might have been messed about with later?). On the other hand, that very translucent-but-rosy skin strikes me as similar to that in the Elizabeth of Bohemia and the Prince Charles. But the date of 1592 here seems very early, in that case (PKM, are you able to date the costume?). What a gorgeous picture, though! The date of 1582 for the Anne Knollys seems very early for a Peake, though the style is suitably undeveloped and the age of the lady seems right. It's just that the only discussion of his early painting that I can find starts with the "military commander" of 1592.
The article definitely needs some non-royal paintings. If anyone knows of any others, or can help with some information for these, great. I'm extremely cautious though, and don't necessarily trust gallery blurbs. 
I will find a crisper version of the double portrait.qp10qp (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-royal paintings

message: I believe there's been a misidentification. I believe "Unknown Military Commander" is in the collection, at Ramsbury, of one of the Lords Rootes, who are thoroughly modern peers. Choess (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed; Waterhouse's shorthand style has caused this I think - now corrected. Johnbod (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I misunderstood it. I should have clued when I checked out Lord Rootes and could find no such person for that period. I wish I would listen to my self-doubts more. Many thanks for the excellent spot, Choess. qp10qp (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord Rootes 

message: Added to Commons: :Image:Henry Prince of Wales 1610 Robert Peake.jpg - PKM (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Found Henry Prince of Wales on Horseback while looking for Larkins.  Yippee. - PKM (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Madam, you have just made my day! (Added gleefully to the article.) To me that is an extraordinary painting; I can't stop looking it. It makes me think Hearn's assocation of Peake with the remarkable "Jephthah's Daughter" on page 115 of her book can only be correct. qp10qp (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pleased to make your day.  :-) - PKM (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, I knew it but had forgotten it - rich and strange - where does it reside (as WP editors love to say)? Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The collection at Parham Park, West Sussex, apparently. qp10qp (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More images

message: The painting right by an unknown artist is inscribed 1595 - the costume is similar to our Unknown Woman, thought I am inclined to think the Unknown Woman may be closer to 1600 (the stomacher isn't as pointy) - looking further for documentation. - PKM (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've dated a few unknown women in my time, but she's scary. qp10qp (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha!!- PKM (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Seriously, I agree with you about the costume date. Hilliard's portraits of Mrs Holland (1593, one of them) seem similar. I've not seen a ruff that chiffony anywhere, but the closest ones are always by Isaac Oliver, who paints a lot of soft ruffs. The one left is the nearest in Commons, but there are others much more like: and the date is always the 90s. But our painting is definitely not by Oliver, that's for sure: he's too recognisable.qp10qp (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dating the Unknown Woman

message: I've swapped the Harington and Devereux hunting pictures and associated text, and cited Strong 1969.
We need to sort this out: there are two contemporaneous John Haringtons: John Harington, 1st Baron Harington of Exton (1539-1613) and John Harington (1561-1612).  The boy in the painting is the son of Harington of Exton.
Neither of them could have escorted Elizabeth to Bohemia in 1616.  Digging. - PKM (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears from  that the date in your footnote should be changed to 1613; I will do that:
 - PKM (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Lucy Russell, Countess of Bedford - oh, those Haringtons.  Her article linked to the wrong John as her father.  I also see how one could misread Hearn as saying Sir John died in 1616. It's interesting that almost every picture traditionally called Lucy Harington seems now to be disputed.  On other fronts, I have an essay on the Elizabeth Pope portrait in Gent & Llewellyn, Renaissance Bodies; just need to dig it out. - PKM (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 02:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was very stupid of me to get the date wrong, since I know very well that Elizabeth got married at around the same time that Henry died. Sloppiness on my part. qp10qp (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And I also have been assuming that Lucy was young John's sister. This article really is full of little tricks of similarity, isn't it? qp10qp (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  She was; she inherited on his death, that's where her independent money cam from. - PKM (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hunting pictures and Haringtons

message: When I was responding to Awadewit at FAC, I realised that the image information for this one is a mess (not one of PKM's, say no more). I couldn't find anything on Google. Does anyone know where the picture lives? We need a secondary source, such as the gallery or a book, to say that it is by Peake (which I'm sure it is). qp10qp (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sotheby's thought it was in 1988 , but it seems to have disappeared after that. Yomanganitalk 02:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in Strong, English Icon (1969), as "Unknown Woman and Child", attributed to Peake. It's inscribed and dated.  As of 1969 it had been last recorded in a private collection in 1910, so whoever had it must have sold in 1988.  I'll see if I can dig up the source for the identification. I doubt there's a better quality image - this one is all I can find - but I'll keep looking.  Maybe someone will sell it again. - PKM (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Does anyone have an Artprice or Artfact account to check this out?  It's almost certainly our picture, and we now have dimensions. http://www.web.artprice.com/ps/artitem/?id=61282  or http://www.artfact.com/catalog/searchLots.cfm?scp=m&ord=2&ad=d&aID=26465. -  PKM (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't. Those verge on being reliable sources in themselves, though. Brilliant work, as always! So, we now have Strong for the picture. It is just a question of making sure that this is Frances and Robert (auction houses do rather like famous names on their paintings; but Robert's face does seem very like the one in the double portrait). qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ellis Waterhouse mentions it on p.28 as Frances, Countess of Essex and cites it to Welbeck Plate 26A. Yomanganitalk 09:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a different painting, though. And, considering at what point Waterhouse discusses it, I think it must be of  Frances Howard, Countess of Essex, in other words, Robert's wife. qp10qp (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooopps. I wasn't concentrating, saw Peakes's name at the top of the page and didn't read the rest properly. Sorry about that. Yomanganitalk 18:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Many thanks for all this work. I have reffed the caption to Strong's English Icon and to the second auction link above. qp10qp (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Frances W and little Bobby

message: Original thought alert!!!!!
I chased down Amandajm's vague memory of reading about the restoration of the equestrian picture and have been able to add some stuff from a book by Chris Caple called Objects. He/she suggests that the picture was influenced by Dürer's Knight, Death and the Devil. Looking at the picture, that seems to me a good call, so I've put a link to it in the note. 
But it raises another question, for me. Caple says that the figure of Time was painted later than and on top of the brick wall. Of course, that might have only been a few weeks later (though I find oils take at least months to dry), but I've always had an uneasy feeling about the picture's composition because Time is just not positioned comfortably. Why would any artist plan that composition and then paint that figure after he had done the horse and the wall? To my eyes, the figure of Time was not planned originally because there's not enough space provided for it, hence it's squashiness. In which case, does the idea of Sheeran and others that the image represents opportunity admit the possibility that the old man was added after the prince's death? Apparently, in the usual imagery of "Time pulled by the forelock", Time is represented by a young girl. So why an old man here? Why on earth would Peake adopt an image of death from Dürer if the prince was still alive? Of course, my burblings are neither here nor there as far as this article's text is concerned, but I've added the point that the figure was painted later, reffed to Caple. By the way, I wonder if the Dürer reference was thought in bad taste by later monarchs, thus the painting out? qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect the brick wall, and Time, were considered old-fashioned & it was just baroque-ised. Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the suggestion that the figure of Time was added at the death of the prince to be very likely. The other part of the painting which was extensively repainted is the horse, which, once cleaned and revealed as Peake painted it, looks as if it stepped off a Merry-Go-Round. Even in the accompanying b&w image, it can be seen clearly that the horse was greatly improved by some artist who really knew horses. I still haven't found that book. Amandajm (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Time

message: classical and David Murray need disambig (or maybe delete the classical link) Randomblue (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Must be the 1st - I've piped to Viscount of Stormont. Did you delink classical - I can't see it.  Johnbod (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I delinked classical yesterday, but you can still revert. Randomblue (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambig 

message: Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this. 
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove date-autoformatting 

message: From my talk page:
:Unfortunately I am unable to revert your foolish move of this article, so will ask you to do so. Anyone else might have had a moment's thought before moving a FA, or perhaps looked to see how the external links to the National Portrait Gallery or Metropolitan Museum, NY treat the name. Or looked at how other sources treat the name, or indeed others in this format. Like say William Pitt the Younger. Or thought of following procedure and opening a debate. But not you. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: Americans had better get used to this - it will be Bush the Elder and Bush the Younger before you know it. Schoolchildren will not put up with this GW business for long :) Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand; I meant in all uses within the article. You seem to have the idea that "E" might be ok in some sentences, but not others. But in the absence of clear differences in usage we would ideally be consistent across articles. Faithorne does not need changing as his son redirects there.  Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elder or elder? 

message: Lovely to see this article on the front page! Amandajm (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations!

message: Is there a particular reason that the portrait of Elizabeth is different that the one described in the text? I thought something was wrong with my screen as I looked for the "hunting scene" in the background; then I saw the second portrait in the gallery. --Danger (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elizabeth of Bohemia portraits 

message: The picture of Princess Elizabeth, later Queen of Bohemia, 1606; does not correspond to the adjacent material. The corresponding picture is in the 'Gallery' section ('The first known portrait of Princess Elizabeth, 1603 - possibly a companion piece to Peake's double portrait of the same year'). As a result, it would be more appropriate to have this picture next to the corresponding text.
PDCP (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements to the article 

message: RE: "Peake commissioned a translation of Sebastiano Serlio’s The First Booke of Architecture, which he dedicated to the prince in 1611."... I have not boldly fixed this, because the case is a bit cloudy. I will describe the case as I understand it, and let the editors decide on the correct wording. Certainly, Peake had printed (in a single codex in 1611) Books I-V of Serlio's Architettura (or whatever name you like to give it... I've tried to sort this out a bit in Sebastiano Serlio). This is stated in my main source:  
, page 470; and can be seen in the Dover reprint (entitled The Five Books of Architecture). You can see the original here. But the original as stored in the Internet Archive does not seem to have an overall title page -- it just begins with The First Booke... and indeed this is how it is marked up. So very possibly this is how it has been traditionally cataloged, despite its 5-book content. So the content that Peake had printed in 1611 was certainly not merely The First Booke... even if the codex may have become properly identified as such. My solution would be to eliminate the specific name, and use a lame description, like mine above: say, "Books I-V of Serlio's Architettura". But perhaps you'll come up with something better.  Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, fixed it myself after all. Phil wink (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serlio's First Booke... and so much more