Richard's Portraits

Can anyone give me any information or recommend any books with regards to Richard's portraiture? I'm interested in the representation and the symbollism.Also does anyone have any ideas as to why Henry vii purchased a portrait of Richard 111 late in his reign?

If you want to see a really good reproduction of the SOA-portrait you can find it in the Society of Antiquaries

catalogue "Making History" from 2007.

I think the original of this painting must have been very good, as the copy is so convincing.

I wish that the RC-portrait would also be cleaned so we could see what it looked like underneath.

I personally don't care at all for the reproduction because i think is no peace of art, to say the least.

Eva

Sorry, I meant piece of art,Eva

I'm not so taken with the SoA portrait. I think there was a tendency to get carried away about it because it is the earliest copy we have of the lost original, and a lot of ricardians became emotionally attached to it for that reason. But it is not great art - the shoulders are far too narrow for the head, for instance, and if the Wilkinson bust makes Richard's face too fleshy, then the SoA portrait makes it too scraggy - this is now beyond doubt because his skull will not fit into it at certain points. Also, the 'pineapple' (pine cone) design clothes worn by Richard in the SoA portrait are almost certainly not what he was wearing in the original portrait, but have been used in order to have it match the copy of Edward IV's portrait made for the same set (said copy also being a rather hamfisted piece of art).

We should remember that both the SoA and the NPG portraits are Tudor copies, and both seem to have been made directly from the lost original. The NPG portrait, although later, can now be seen to be the more accurate because it is a perfect match for the skull. Both the SoA and the NPG portrait were doctored later to make them less attractive.

Sorry, I know dissing the SoA portrait is not popular with all.

Marie

It was the NPG one that my husband bought a copy of and framed for my birthday, and which is now hanging in my kitchen. I like it a lot, and it is nice to hear from you, Marie, that it is an accurate likeness.
It always makes me think how young and how serious Richard looks, a million
miles from Shakespeare's monster.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

I'm not so taken with the SoA portrait. I think there was a tendency to get carried away about it because it is the earliest copy we have of the lost original, and a lot of ricardians became emotionally attached to it for that reason. But it is not great art - the shoulders are far too narrow for the head, for instance, and if the Wilkinson bust makes Richard's face too fleshy, then the SoA portrait makes it too scraggy - this is now beyond doubt because his skull will not fit into it at certain points. Also, the 'pineapple' (pine cone) design clothes worn by Richard in the SoA portrait are almost certainly not what he was wearing in the original portrait, but have been used in order to have it match the copy of Edward IV's portrait made for the same set (said copy also being a rather hamfisted piece of art).

We should remember that both the SoA and the NPG portraits are Tudor copies, and both seem to have been made directly from the lost original. The NPG portrait, although later, can now be seen to be the more accurate because it is a perfect match for the skull. Both the SoA and the NPG portrait were doctored later to make them less attractive.

Sorry, I know dissing the SoA portrait is not popular with all.

Marie

Ok, a agree the SOA portrait is not perfect but IMO much better than the NPG portrait. The left eye is akwardly drawn , the hands anatomically a mess and hair on one side reaching the shoulder and on the other side ending at the chin. What I grant the painter is that he did not try to make Richard look like a villain.I think he copied an older painting with the distortions of the features but tried to make it a more human face. But I do not see a man in his early thirties in it.

The NPG portrait was never doctered, only a wooden arch in the background was removed at the cleaning

in 1973 and the golden foliage appeared underneath. But the figure of Richard was originally painted as it appears now. Painted between 1580 and 1600 I might add.
The other doctored painting is the RC picture,which obviously was the type of portrait the NPG one and all
the numerous copies of copies are based on. The RC portrait is of the same age as the SOA portrait.
It makes sense that these pictures were originally true images of Richard as they were only altered later in Henry Viii time.
As for the SOA painting:The fact that Richard wears a pineapple dress does not speak against the likeness,

there will have been various versions of the portrait,some looking to the right, some to the left left, just as

they fitted into the galleries.

I know that there a some who like the wrinkled, careworn Richard and its for me okay if they do, but the research of Pamela Tudor Craig should not be neglected either.

Marie, I say also sorry for dissing the NPG potrait

Eva

Hi Eva,

Sorry, for me the SoA portrait always looked cartoonish and unreal, whereas the face in the NPG portrait has an almost photographic quality - granted the hands are bad (ye olde bendy rubber fingers). Yes, there are too many lines on the face in the NPG portrait, but the SoA one is prematurely aged in ways that actually distort the features - youngish people, even when thin, simply do not have skin that tight round the bones because the skin is still plump with collagen.

The bottom line is that the SoA portrait is not a match with Richard's skull, and the NPG one is. When I heard Caroline Wilkinson announce that, I thought it would settle the debate and I honestly can't understand why it hasn't.

Sorry for redissing the SoA portrait.

Marie

I agree with Marie here - the NPG face has a much more naturalistic look, and a kindlier one, whereas the SoA one looks dried up and caricatured.

As for the facial reconstruction, I think we can believe the Scottish reconstructor when she says she didn't reference either portrait during the reconstruction. If she had, she wouldn't have given him dark chestnut-to-black hair!

Tamara

Hi Marie,

I can tell you why for me Prof Wilkinsons remark does not settle the debate.Yes, she said that the skull fitted astonishingly in the NPG portrait and not quite so good in the SOA portrait. All she deduced from that fact is that there must have been a pattern of the portraits that goes back to an original live image of Richard.

And the fitting of the skull tell us nothing about the facial features as tightly pressed lips,livid complexion,

wrinkles and old looking eyes.So that for me proves nothing.

Well I am sure you see that differently. As I most certainly see the AOS portrait differently. I can see nothing

cartoonish in it. Nor can I see Richard looking prematurely old on it.

There are many bad reproductions of this portrait around, and that for me is one reason that some people

do not like it.For instance the mouth seems to be a strait line on those reproductions whereas on a good one you see it is very delicately drawn, neither tightly pressed nor stiff as on the Facial Recreation. Looking at a good one makes Richard come to life for me and is a pleasure to look at.

Being an artist myself I believe my own eyes more than somebody else's.(is this correct English?)

So I think it is a case to agree to disagree once again.

I want to tell you, Marie, that I usually love to read your posts and, apart from the portrait theme, I admire

your knowledge and conscientious research.

Hi Eva,

Sorry, for me the SoA portrait always looked cartoonish and unreal, whereas the face in the NPG portrait has an almost photographic quality - granted the hands are bad (ye olde bendy rubber fingers). Yes, there are too many lines on the face in the NPG portrait, but the SoA one is prematurely aged in ways that actually distort the features - youngish people, even when thin, simply do not have skin that tight round the bones because the skin is still plump with collagen.

The bottom line is that the SoA portrait is not a match with Richard's skull, and the NPG one is. When I heard Caroline Wilkinson announce that, I thought it would settle the debate and I honestly can't understand why it hasn't.

Sorry for redissing the SoA portrait.

Marie

Hi Tamara

Prof. Wilkinson made the reconstruction, and as you say, did not use any portraits as reference while doing so. but she than handed the head over to Ms Aitken for further embellishment, who choose the haircolour , put in the squinting eyes etc. She used portraits and, as the NPG portrait was placed prominently behind the bust, it seems to be her favorite too.As for the haircolour, on the SOA portrait Richard also has dark chestnutbrown hair, just as on the NPG portrait, if you look at a reasonably good reproduction. Those on the homepage are much to light.So this proves nothing.

Eva

I agree with Marie here - the NPG face has a much more naturalistic look, and a kindlier one, whereas the SoA one looks dried up and caricatured.

As for the facial reconstruction, I think we can believe the Scottish reconstructor when she says she didn't reference either portrait during the reconstruction. If she had, she wouldn't have given him dark chestnut-to-black hair!

Tamara

Hi Marie,

I can tell you why for me Prof Wilkinsons remark does not settle the debate.Yes, she said that the skull fitted astonishingly in the NPG portrait and not quite so good in the SOA portrait. All she deduced from that fact is that there must have been a pattern of the portraits that goes back to an original live image of Richard.

And the fitting of the skull tell us nothing about the facial features as tightly pressed lips,livid complexion,

wrinkles and old looking eyes.So that for me proves nothing.

Well I am sure you see that differently. As I most certainly see the AOS portrait differently. I can see nothing

cartoonish in it. Nor can I see Richard looking prematurely old on it.

There are many bad reproductions of this portrait around, and that for me is one reason that some people

do not like it.For instance the mouth seems to be a strait line on those reproductions whereas on a good one you see it is very delicately drawn, neither tightly pressed nor stiff as on the Facial Recreation. Looking at a good one makes Richard come to life for me and is a pleasure to look at.

Being an artist myself I believe my own eyes more than somebody else's.(is this correct English?)

So I think it is a case to agree to disagree once again.

I want to tell you, Marie, that I usually love to read your posts and, apart from the portrait theme, I admire

your knowledge and conscientious research.

Hi Eva,

Sorry, for me the SoA portrait always looked cartoonish and unreal, whereas the face in the NPG portrait has an almost photographic quality - granted the hands are bad (ye olde bendy rubber fingers). Yes, there are too many lines on the face in the NPG portrait, but the SoA one is prematurely aged in ways that actually distort the features - youngish people, even when thin, simply do not have skin that tight round the bones because the skin is still plump with collagen.

The bottom line is that the SoA portrait is not a match with Richard's skull, and the NPG one is. When I heard Caroline Wilkinson announce that, I thought it would settle the debate and I honestly can't understand why it hasn't.

Sorry for redissing the SoA portrait.

Marie

Eva wrote:

"Prof. Wilkinson made the reconstruction, and as you say, did not use any portraits as reference while doing so. but she than handed the head over to Ms Aitken for further embellishment, who choose the haircolour , put in the squinting eyes etc."

Marie replies:

As far as the eyes are concerned, they are an integral part of the bust. The size and placement were determined by the bones, as explained by Ms Wilkinson in her talk. The colour is a fudge to cover all eventualities. I was present at the lecture and when I went up to view the bust I took a close look at the eyeballs - the irises are composed of alternating diamonds of light blue and light brown.

Pamela wrote:

Eva, I am with you and I also love Marie's posts. The think I like least about the portraits and the reconstruction, is that Richard seems to have a smirk. I think that was dictated by the later painters.

Marie replies:

Not so, not unless Ms Wilkinson was telling porkies. She explains in detail in her talk how the line of the mouth was determined. It may not be correct but it is a best guess based on the bones.

Hi Eva,

I grant there are difficulties with the NPG portrait, but we now know that the outline of Richard's face that we see in it is accurate, and differs considerably from that in the SoA portrait, which is wrong in terms of both the cheekbones and the jawline.

I do tend to keep forgetting that it is the NPG/ Windsor (Royal Collection) type that we should really be talking about, rather than the NPG portrait itself. The Windsor portrait is now dated, according to the RIII website, to 1515-1520. The Windsor Portrait as it appears today looks hard, with a very compressed mouth and narrow eyes, and has a raised shoulder, but that is due to later overpainting. Unfortunately, unless the Windsor portrait is cleaned at some future date we won't be able to appreciate the way Richard originally appeared in it, but the NPG portrait appears to have been copied either copied from it in its altered form or copied from the original but incorporating a less severe version of those types of changes from the outset.

It's easy to forget just how hard and unpleasant the SoA portrait appeared until it was cleaned up. Personally, I find it easier to mentally adjust the mouth, smooth away the wrinkles, etc, in the NPG portrait than to have to mentally reform the entire face as per the SoA.

I stick by my guns about the SoA portrait. The shoulders are ridiculously narrow, and one is exaggeratedly raised relative to the other. The inaccuracy of the face outline shows that artist copied by eye rather than tracing from the original like the Windsor artist, so that the placement of the features is also likely to be less accurate. Also the exaggeratedly narrow wonky shoulders and bony features do seem to me to have been attempts by the artist *at the time of painting* to point up Richard's thin physique - which to judge by Von Poppelau's description and the skeleton was probably a feature of the limbs rather than the face - and his scoliosis - which history suggests was not actually visible when he was clothed.

The uneven hairline in the Windsor/ NPG type is, I suggest, partly an optical illusion caused by the uneven shoulders and partly the result of the head being at a slight tilt.

I'm interested in the fact that you're an artist, Eva, but I won't be put off by anyone pulling rank. If we did that we'd never question professional historians.

Marie

Hi Eva,

I grant there are difficulties with the NPG portrait, but we now know that the outline of Richard's face that we see in it is accurate, and differs considerably from that in the SoA portrait, which is wrong in terms of both the cheekbones and the jawline.

I do tend to keep forgetting that it is the NPG/ Windsor (Royal Collection) type that we should really be talking about, rather than the NPG portrait itself. The Windsor portrait is now dated, according to the RIII website, to 1515-1520. The Windsor Portrait as it appears today looks hard, with a very compressed mouth and narrow eyes, and has a raised shoulder, but that is due to later overpainting. Unfortunately, unless the Windsor portrait is cleaned at some future date we won't be able to appreciate the way Richard originally appeared in it, but the NPG portrait appears to have been copied either copied from it in its altered form or copied from the original but incorporating a less severe version of those types of changes from the outset.

It's easy to forget just how hard and unpleasant the SoA portrait appeared until it was cleaned up. Personally, I find it easier to mentally adjust the mouth, smooth away the wrinkles, etc, in the NPG portrait than to have to mentally reform the entire face as per the SoA.

I stick by my guns about the SoA portrait. The shoulders are ridiculously narrow, and one is exaggeratedly raised relative to the other. The inaccuracy of the face outline shows that artist copied by eye rather than tracing from the original like the Windsor artist, so that the placement of the features is also likely to be less accurate. Also the exaggeratedly narrow wonky shoulders and bony features do seem to me to have been attempts by the artist *at the time of painting* to point up Richard's thin physique - which to judge by Von Poppelau's description and the skeleton was probably a feature of the limbs rather than the face - and his scoliosis - which history suggests was not actually visible when he was clothed.

The uneven hairline in the Windsor/ NPG type is, I suggest, partly an optical illusion caused by the uneven shoulders and partly the result of the head being at a slight tilt.

I'm interested in the fact that you're an artist, Eva, but I won't be put off by anyone pulling rank. If we did that we'd never question professional historians.

Marie

Hi Marie, You say you stick by your guns about the SoA portrait.

So do I about the NPG portrait!

I would like to cite Pamela Tudor Craig on the SoA portrait.She writes in the 1973 cataloge.:"...I would however stress that the internal evidence points most strongly to its having been a faithful copy of a lost original painted in the sitters lifetime. Apart from the outstanding quality of the workmanship, there is the evidence of the collar..."

So its not only me who thinks it is a well painted picture.

Why is it so unacceptable to you that Richard had a thin face? What is so bad about that?

And as for the shoulders: As the portrait is in semi profile the right shoulder is foreshortened. And I can

see no exaggeratedly raised shoulder either. Sometimes I wonder if we look at the same picture.

On the NPG portrait Richard's upper part of the body looks almost like ball.No shoulders discerneable.

Hi Eva,

I grant there are difficulties with the NPG portrait, but we now know that the outline of Richard's face that we see in it is accurate, and differs considerably from that in the SoA portrait, which is wrong in terms of both the cheekbones and the jawline.

I do tend to keep forgetting that it is the NPG/ Windsor (Royal Collection) type that we should really be talking about, rather than the NPG portrait itself. The Windsor portrait is now dated, according to the RIII website, to 1515-1520. The Windsor Portrait as it appears today looks hard, with a very compressed mouth and narrow eyes, and has a raised shoulder, but that is due to later overpainting. Unfortunately, unless the Windsor portrait is cleaned at some future date we won't be able to appreciate the way Richard originally appeared in it, but the NPG portrait appears to have been copied either copied from it in its altered form or copied from the original but incorporating a less severe version of those types of changes from the outset.

It's easy to forget just how hard and unpleasant the SoA portrait appeared until it was cleaned up. Personally, I find it easier to mentally adjust the mouth, smooth away the wrinkles, etc, in the NPG portrait than to have to mentally reform the entire face as per the SoA.

I stick by my guns about the SoA portrait. The shoulders are ridiculously narrow, and one is exaggeratedly raised relative to the other. The inaccuracy of the face outline shows that artist copied by eye rather than tracing from the original like the Windsor artist, so that the placement of the features is also likely to be less accurate. Also the exaggeratedly narrow wonky shoulders and bony features do seem to me to have been attempts by the artist *at the time of painting* to point up Richard's thin physique - which to judge by Von Poppelau's description and the skeleton was probably a feature of the limbs rather than the face - and his scoliosis - which history suggests was not actually visible when he was clothed.

The uneven hairline in the Windsor/ NPG type is, I suggest, partly an optical illusion caused by the uneven shoulders and partly the result of the head being at a slight tilt.

I'm interested in the fact that you're an artist, Eva, but I won't be put off by anyone pulling rank. If we did that we'd never question professional historians.

Marie

Marie wrote

As far as the eyes are concerned, they are an integral part of the bust. The size and placement were determined by the bones, as explained by Ms Wilkinson in her talk. The colour is a fudge to cover all eventualities. I was present at the lecture and when I went up to view the bust I took a close look at the eyeballs - the irises are composed of alternating diamonds of light blue and light brown.

Eva replies.

I am not convinced that you can deduce a squint from the bones of the skull. I remember Dr Wilkinson and her team doing recreations of soldiers from the civil war found in York. There was man with a very uneven face.And she said I've given him a squint for it is probable for a person with such a face that he squinted.

So the squint was not found in the bones.

As for the eyecoulor I have no problem with that.

Pamela wrote:

Eva, I am with you and I also love Marie's posts. The think I like least about the portraits and the reconstruction, is that Richard seems to have a smirk. I think that was dictated by the later painters.

Marie replies:

Not so, not unless Ms Wilkinson was telling porkies. She explains in detail in her talk how the line of the mouth was determined. It may not be correct but it is a best guess based on the bones.

Eva wrote:

I am not convinced that you can deduce a squint from the bones of the skull. I remember Dr Wilkinson and her team doing recreations of soldiers from the civil war found in York. There was man with a very uneven face.And she said I've given him a squint for it is probable for a person with such a face that he squinted.

So the squint was not found in the bones.

As for the eyecoulor I have no problem with that.

Marie replies:

There is no squint. I suggest you go and take a look at the bust first hand.

£Eva wrote:

I would like to cite Pamela Tudor Craig on the SoA portrait.She writes in the 1973 cataloge.:"...I would however stress that the internal evidence points most strongly to its having been a faithful copy of a lost original painted in the sitters lifetime. Apart from the outstanding quality of the workmanship, there is the evidence of the collar..."

So its not only me who thinks it is a well painted picture.

Why is it so unacceptable to you that Richard had a thin face? What is so bad about that?

Marie replies:

This is mixing two different concerns - ie which portrait do you like best, and what did Richard actually look like? It's only unacceptable to me that Richard had the thin, hollow-cheeked look shown in the SoA portrait because we are now able to prove that he didn't. Superimpose the skull and, for instance, the cheekbones of the skull stick out beyond the cheeks of the portrait version. The skull fits into the NPG and Windsor portraits. End of story.

As for Pamela Tudor-Craig's views in 1973, fresh from the tree-ring dating of the portraits, it is simplistic - ie earlier portrait equals closer to the original - and has been shown by the evidence of Richard's skull to have been over-simplistic.

Eva wrote:

And as for the shoulders: As the portrait is in semi profile the right shoulder is foreshortened. And I can

see no exaggeratedly raised shoulder either. Sometimes I wonder if we look at the same picture.

Marie replies,

Me too.

On the NPG portrait Richard's upper part of the body looks almost like ball.No shoulders discerneable.

Hi all,

I'd just like to add that the bust is a lot more appealing in real life than it appears in some of the photographs. The Sothebys' photo, for instance, which is the one that initially appeared everywhere, was taken from below and thus gives Richard the appearance of sneering down on his beholders.

Marie

Paul wrote;

Has anyone wondered who amongst the early Tudors wanted a portrait of Richard? Who ordered the Windsor portrait copy, and what happened to the original?

Marie replies:

Hi Paul. I guess that, since the Windsor portrait is in the Royal Collection, it must have been commissioned by the young Henry VIII. If it was traced from a drawing, the interesting question is perhaps whether there was a painting in England at that time or whether the only copies ever painted up had been sent abroad for the perusal of prospective brides. If an earlier painted version still existed, goodness knows what happened to it. it may have been hung in a different palace and not survived for that reason?

Whilst on the subject, do we know who commissioned the SoA portraits of Richard and Edward IV? Did they originally belong to the King or not?

Marie quoted:

.Except that the SoA portrait does not appear to have been traced, or not accurately traced - something got lost in the reversal, perhaps. My feeling about the face in the NPG portrait is that since it reproduces the (itself true-to-life) outline of the Royal Collection portrait so accurately, it too was probably traced directly from the master drawing, with the Windsor portrait then used as a guide to the painting.

Eva asks:

How do we know that the the outline of the RC portrait is true-to- life? As far as I know it has not been tested with the Superimposition method. And was the outline of the NPG portrait ever compared with the RC painting and was thereby found to be identical?

BTW I find it a little confusing to use Windsor and Royal Collection in one sentence for the same picture.

£Eva wrote:

I would like to cite Pamela Tudor Craig on the SoA portrait.She writes in the 1973 cataloge.:"...I would however stress that the internal evidence points most strongly to its having been a faithful copy of a lost original painted in the sitters lifetime. Apart from the outstanding quality of the workmanship, there is the evidence of the collar..."

So its not only me who thinks it is a well painted picture.

Why is it so unacceptable to you that Richard had a thin face? What is so bad about that?

Marie replies:

This is mixing two different concerns - ie which portrait do you like best, and what did Richard actually look like? It's only unacceptable to me that Richard had the thin, hollow-cheeked look shown in the SoA portrait because we are now able to prove that he didn't. Superimpose the skull and, for instance, the cheekbones of the skull stick out beyond the cheeks of the portrait version. The skull fits into the NPG and Windsor portraits. End of story.

As for Pamela Tudor-Craig's views in 1973, fresh from the tree-ring dating of the portraits, it is simplistic - ie earlier portrait equals closer to the original - and has been shown by the evidence of Richard's skull to have been over-simplistic.

Eva wrote:

And as for the shoulders: As the portrait is in semi profile the right shoulder is foreshortened. And I can

see no exaggeratedly raised shoulder either. Sometimes I wonder if we look at the same picture.

Marie replies,

Me too.

On the NPG portrait Richard's upper part of the body looks almost like ball.No shoulders discerneable.

There is only one doctored painting left as the SoA painting was cleaned in 2007 and the NPG portrait can not be regarded as doctered as the portrait itself was not different before the cleaning in 1973. Only the thumpwas less crippled and the background showed a wooden frame instead of the golden foliage.

That leaves the Royal Collection painting also called the Windsor painting. This is definetely doctered.

The mouth, the eyes, the nose, the shoulder- all in the attempt to make Richard look mean.

I personally would not be sorry if the evidence of Tudor tempering vanished from this painting. I am

sure there are a lot or reproductions existing to document the the Tudor vilifications.

But there is yet another portrait that was completely neglected in this discussion. This is the so called "Broken Sword" painted on a panel dating from 1533-1543.This picture was x-rayed in the early 1950s and showed a big hump and a crippled arm and was later overpainted to minimise the deformities in the 17. or 18. century. The face does not look so bad, rather young for a change.

Eva

Eva wrote:

"How do we know that the the outline of the RC portrait is true-to- life? As far as I know it has not been tested with the Superimposition method. And was the outline of the NPG portrait ever compared with the RC painting and was thereby found to be identical?"

Marie replies:

The 3D computer image of the skull has indeed been superimposed on the NPG portrait, by Caroline Wilkinson (after she had completed her reconstruction and the identity of the skeleton had been confirmed). Sorry, I thought this was well known or I would have mentioned it. She showed the resultant image during her talk at the Leicester seminar last March, and I'm sure it is available either online or somewhere in the Ricardian Bulletin. And I think you can still find the film of her lecture on Youtube.

My understanding, from questions I have asked, is that the heads in the NPG and Windsor portraits are just about identical. If there are any differences, in fact, that would confirm that the NPG portrait was - despite its late date - traced directly from the lost original and not from the Windsor portrait, and that would be even better.

"Hi Marie, You say you stick by your guns about the SoA portrait.

So do I about the NPG portrait!

I would like to cite Pamela Tudor Craig on the SoA portrait.She writes in the 1973 cataloge.:"...I would however stress that the internal evidence points most strongly to its having been a faithful copy of a lost original painted in the sitters lifetime. Apart from the outstanding quality of the workmanship, there is the evidence of the collar..."

So its not only me who thinks it is a well painted picture.<snip>"

Carol responds:

I tend to agree with Marie, the most important point being the resemblance of the facial structure in the NPG portrait to the skeletal analysis, and I should point out that the Tudor-Craig analysis predates the cleaning of the portraits and is consequently rather dated. A more recent analysis on the Richard III Society website may be helpful. I'm afraid, however, that any reaction to the portraits is almost purely subjective. You prefer to think that Richard looked like the SoA portrait. I think the Wilkinson reconstruction (however flawed the coloring may be) and the bone structure indicate a clearer resemblance to the NPG portrait. I agree that the RC portrait (which does *not* resemble Richard and was clearly altered) should be cleaned, but I don't think anything short of the discovery of the lost original will resolve this argument. I don't think that anyone is "right" here as to which is the better portrait. It's a matter of preference. Nevertheless, the superimposition of the skull on the two portraits does clearly demonstrate that the NPG portrait is a better match than the SoA.

Carol

Carol wrote:

...I should point out that the Tudor-Craig analysis predates the cleaning of the portraits and is consequently rather dated.

Eva responds:

This is only true for the SoA painting. Pamela Tudor-Craig's catalog was published on the occasion of the cleaning of the NPG portrait in 1973. It is a pity that since then little research on the portraiture was done. But I think Tudor Craig's work is still very relevant because nobody else has ever researched this topic so meticulously. IMO it is certainly still worth reading. There is a lot of information in it about the historical background that the provenance of the portraits.

I am not going to repeat the arguments for my preference of the SoA portrait again.But I would like to say that I can not see a striking resemblance between any of the paintings and the facial reproduction.

Eva

"Hi Marie, You say you stick by your guns about the SoA portrait.

So do I about the NPG portrait!

I would like to cite Pamela Tudor Craig on the SoA portrait.She writes in the 1973 cataloge.:"...I would however stress that the internal evidence points most strongly to its having been a faithful copy of a lost original painted in the sitters lifetime. Apart from the outstanding quality of the workmanship, there is the evidence of the collar..."

So its not only me who thinks it is a well painted picture.<snip>"

Carol responds:

I tend to agree with Marie, the most important point being the resemblance of the facial structure in the NPG portrait to the skeletal analysis, and I should point out that the Tudor-Craig analysis predates the cleaning of the portraits and is consequently rather dated. A more recent analysis on the Richard III Society website may be helpful. I'm afraid, however, that any reaction to the portraits is almost purely subjective. You prefer to think that Richard looked like the SoA portrait. I think the Wilkinson reconstruction (however flawed the coloring may be) and the bone structure indicate a clearer resemblance to the NPG portrait. I agree that the RC portrait (which does *not* resemble Richard and was clearly altered) should be cleaned, but I don't think anything short of the discovery of the lost original will resolve this argument. I don't think that anyone is "right" here as to which is the better portrait. It's a matter of preference. Nevertheless, the superimposition of the skull on the two portraits does clearly demonstrate that the NPG portrait is a better match than the SoA.

Carol

Carol,its Eva again

I forgot to say that the" quality of the workmanship" has not suffered from the cleaning of theSoA painting,

rather on the contrary.

Eva

" <snip>But there is yet another portrait that was completely neglected in this discussion. This is the so called "Broken Sword" painted on a panel dating from 1533-1543.This picture was x-rayed in the early 1950s and showed a big hump and a crippled arm and was later overpainted to minimise the deformities in the 17. or 18. century. The face does not look so bad, rather young for a change."

Carol responds:

I think that the reason the Broken Sword portrait hasn't been brought into the discussion is that no one regards it as a likeness and it's clearly a propaganda painting showing the influence of Sir Thomas More in the crippled arm and the hump (in the original). The broken sword itself is, of course, a symbol of defeat. But I've always wondered why the portrait had a young face, possibly copied from the lost original (?) when More's distortion of Edward's age (fifty-two years and I forget how many months and days but they're completely wrong) also distorts Richard's (and George's), with the result that many subsequent "portraits" of Richard make him look first middle-aged and then old. http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp03765/king-richard-iii?search=sas&sText=Richard+III

It's also interesting that someone in a later century reversed the distortions. I wish we knew the story behind that portrait, but it will take us no closer to Richard's actual appearance.

Carol

Carol writes:

It's also interesting that someone in a later century reversed the distortions. I wish we knew the story behind that portrait, but it will take us no closer to Richard's actual appearance.

Eva responds:

I agree with you .concerning the likeness and the wish to know the story behind it.

I also wonder if the portraits of any other historic personality have ever been disfigured in the way as Richard's,I don't know of any. And why was it so important for the Tudors to do so.Somehow it seems to me to be utterly ridiculous to defame a person by clumsily overpaintig portraits.

Eva

Thank you, Carol, for your good advice!

Eva

It seems almost pathological to me to go to so much trouble to alter paintings in this way.
I suppose it must have been for propaganda purposes, but it really does seem to me a particularly odd thing to do. A kind of self justification on the part of Henry Tudor and his supporters.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Carol  writes:

It's also interesting that someone in a later century reversed the distortions. I wish we knew the story behind that portrait, but it will take us no closer to Richard's actual appearance.

Eva responds:

I agree with you .concerning the likeness and the wish to know the story behind it.

I also wonder if the portraits of any other historic personality have ever been disfigured in the way as Richard's,I  don't know of any. And why was it so important for the Tudors to do so.Somehow it seems to me to be utterly ridiculous to defame a person by  clumsily overpaintig portraits.

Eva

Thank you, Carol, for your good advice!

Eva

Carol responds:

You're welcome. Last time Yahoo messed up the forum, they listened to complaints and returned it to the old format.This time, it seems that we just have to learn how to live with it. Sigh!

Carol

Hi everyone,

Here's an article that may be of interest regarding Richard's"italian" portrait showing the ring.The lovers in the article( on the ivory mirror backs) are playing with circles/rings.Which might perhaps be connected with knots in May and Maypoles too.

Kathryn x

Proxies for Touch: Representing Erotics and Desire in Late Medieval Art

Within a particular set of both secular and religious objects of the late Middle Ages, the dialectic between the desire to touch and the suggestion, realization, or refusal of that desire is manifested specifically through mediated forms. Courtly scenes make particular use of gestures and objects to embody abstract notions of love and desire. However the eroticism of longing for the body of the beloved also informs questions of access to the body of Christ, for the sacred and the profane cannot be considered mutually exclusive categories of images. The medieval trope of Christ as the bridegroom of the Song of Songs is perhaps the most widespread and well-researched instance of what Michael Camille describes as the shared languages, subjectivities, and even&identical visual codes of the sacred and profane.[4]In the broken body of Christ, the medieval devotee found both the subject of spiritual longing and the object in which emotional energy and tension culminated.

Figure 2. Unknown. MS Clm. 4660, folio 72 recto. Illumination from the poem Suspice, flos, florem, from the Carmina Burana. ca. 1230. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich.

Whether this subject of desire is human or divine, the exchange of the gift is the clearest example of the mediating object's capacity to establish both a physical and an emotional bond between the individual and his or her beloved.[5] In his seminal anthropological work The Gift, Marcel Mauss argues that the gift is not merely a passive object. Rather, by leaving the possession of the giver it becomes a conduit for part of the giver's soul.[6] The gift is conditional, its acceptance establishes a relationship of obligation, such that the giver has a hold over the beneficiary just as, being its owner, through it he has a hold over the thief.[7] The illumination squeezed between the lines of a Latin poem in the thirteenth century German Carmina Burana manuscript exemplifies this interaction through two lovers who, through the offering of a flower, reiterate the poet's longing to consummate his desire for his beloved (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek MS. Clm. 4660 f. 72r; Figure 2).[8] The negative space between their represented bodies impedes the realization of the poet's carnal desires, which are suggested visually by the horizontal orientation of the figures.[9] Endeavoring to close this divide, the man dangles a bouquet of flowers above the grasp of his beloved, entreating her to accept his gift: Flower, pluck my flower, because a flower stands for love.[10] The woman in turn responds by lifting her gaze to contemplate the white blooms hanging languidly out of reach. The conflation of three-dimensional space in the illumination creates an ambiguity concerning the distance between the hands of the lovers who reach out to offer, entice, and contemplate the flowers and their latent suggestive meaning. In this way the lovers seem to touch, if only with a few gracefully curving fingertips, and communicate gesturally across the space separating their bodies. The viewer is therefore asked to contemplate the moment between offering and acceptance that in turn signals both the desire to touch and the possibility of its realization.

Figure 3. Ivory mirror backs depicting circuits of desire and amorous pairs, Paris, ca. 1320. Ivory, 11 cm. Musée du Louvre, Paris, MRR 197.

A pair of fourteenth century ivory mirror cases housed at the Louvre likewise suspends that moment of enticementthrough the representation of pairs of lovers playfully exchanging circlets across its eight vignettes (Figure 3). Michael Camille refers to these circlets as circuits of desire, highlighting the capacity of the geometric forms to act as the loci of the pictured lovers' mutual longings.[11] The culmination of love and desire is projected onto the circuits through a gestural dialogue of teasing refusals and gentle offerings.[12] The lovers' contact with the circlets and with each others' bodies displays a touch that is simultaneously direct and unmediated, yet also mediated through objects. The lovers' dance reflects the ritual of courtship, allowing these ivory mirrors to carry the romantic musings of young lovers into reality, for mirrors were likewise often exchanged by amorous couples.[13] Seen in Mauss' terms, the mirror cases function contractually as seals of possession in which the beloved is expected to respond favorably to the lover's advances.