User talk:PKM/9 August-December 2008

Anthony-Maria Browne, 2nd Viscount Montagu
I would like to propose an external link for Anthony-Maria Browne, 2nd Viscount Montagu. The link is to a modern edition of Montagu's 1595 Book of Orders and Rules, but there is an inherent conflict of interest in my adding the link since I am the one who created (and hosts) the web page for the editor. If some other Wikipedian thinks the link is appropriate, please add it:

Managing a Noble Household: A Book of Orders and Rules, 1595, by Anthony Maria Browne, 2nd Viscount Montague (modernized edition)

Thanks - PKM (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

New PD-art guidelines
Are are here. Any photo of any 2D PD art scanned form any book anywhere is the world is now acceptable.

Where's that bottle of virtual champagne I had stashed away? - PKM (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We drank that while you were still abed. qp10qp (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Edward Seymour
I've arrived to ask your advice on a couple of things related to 'im above.



I'm inching my way into the FAR of Edward VI of England (now his picture's saved, might as well save his article). I've decided I'm not happy with the image of Edward Seymour (right). My suspicions were aroused when I noticed that Jennifer Loach, who is an excellent scholar, doesn't include it among the illustrations in her biography of Edward VI. Chris Skidmore, a markedly less good scholar, does include it in his biography, but, like us, he attributes it to Holbein, which makes my eyebrows disappear into my hat and come out behind my ears looking like startled meerkats, to be honest. I mean, one thing's for sure, surely–that's nae a Holb, even the face. Loach has instead this portrait. The only trouble is, she has it in black and white, while this German one has a dead link for a source. So, here's my first question: how can I use this alternative portrait now that FAs are so strict on sources? (I've gone about twenty pages into Google images looking for another good version, but no joy.)

The other question is, what do you think about our piecrust-shirted friend above? In Tudor and Jacobean Portraits, Strong seems to think that the Weston attribution only goes back as far as a nineteenth-century engraving of a picture he thinks is of a French sitter, which was then used to name the painting. Strong comes up with a miniature of Seymour painted by Hilliard in 1560 from an earlier painting (as Hilliard helpfully notes on the back), this being the closest we have to an authentic picture of Somerset (again, it's reproduced in black and white, and I can't find it online). What I like is, as Strong shows, that the darkish looks in the Hilliard are similar to those in our German image; they also look very like the geezer standing next to King Edward in the Edward and the Pope picture—though, annoyingly, there's some dispute about whether that one's contemporary or Elizabethan (Loach favours its being contemporary; Margaret Aston argues from the iconography that it's not). All in all, though, I think the present picture should go out of the Edward VI article and the German one come in, with some of my blundering description notes attached. (It will be nice to get rid of that shockingly daubed shirt, if nothing else.)

Is this complicated enough yet? :) qp10qp (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Since all photos of PD-art from anywhere in the world are now allowed, they may get less picky on sources for PD works. But ... the image is also here: http://history.wisc.edu/sommerville/361/361-11.htm. I'd add it, with source=German wikipedia see also http://history.wisc.edu/sommerville/361/361-11.htm.


 * I added that Seymour image trusting the source site. I like yours better.  (Do you have Holbein in England to see if the portrait is mentioned?  If not I can check later - I didn't have it last year when I uploaded this image.) - PKM (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not in Holbein in England or in any Holbein catalogues or books I've come across, and I'm a Holbein nut. (According to Strong, Holbein did paint him, but the work does not seem to have survived.) That's very clever of you to find another colour version, and I think your solution is a great idea, since the two are obviously from the same scan. The German description note seems to link it with Longleat, which is intriguing because Longleat is very close indeed to Savernake, where the Seymours had their seat; and the Thynnes have owned most of their pictures since they were painted! qp10qp (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Looks much better already: he has the imposing dark solidity of the mid-century political portrait. qp10qp (talk)


 * Looks great. Luminarium has the same image, only smaller, but very nice.  It must be in a book somewhere.  If we can track down what year Seymour was made a Knight of the Garter, we can narrow the date on the new picture to between that date and 1552.  That's an awfully fancy George he's wearing - I'd go for after he was made (made himself?) Lord Protector.


 * I'm going to swap the image on Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset as well. Thanks for finding this one. - PKM (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The only thing about dating it is that it might be a copy. It does give me the impression, on close inspection, of a slightly crude copy of a fine original (the coat/shoulders are very poor). In other words, if the Hilliard was based on an earlier painting, so might this have been. There was such a vogue for copies of this sort of thing under Elizabeth that it is difficult to be sure. Certainly the pattern is likeliest to come from about when Seymour was Protector, because he would have needed to propagate images of himself (Strong doesn't venture a date). I've tried to find out when he was made Knight of the Garter, but cannot. He was made Earl of Hertford at Edward's christening in 1537, when Henry VIII also created six knights, and he is named as "HER" on the portrait (it looks like), rather than Somerset, which he became in 1547.


 * (There's another dating issue with the picture of John Dudley further down the Edward VI of England page, which I also suspect may be a copy or posthumous portrait, in particular because it resembles patterns of his son and some other portraits and because it is dated 1545 at the bottom of the picture yet names him as Duke of Northumberland, which he didn't become until 1549! A certain air of bogusness oozes from it, if you ask me. I can't find this in colour anywhere, though there are slightly different versions, and I was unable really to answer DrKiernan's question at the FAR page. I thought it was an engraving at first, and I still think it may have been painted up from one—painted very badly in places.)


 * What a pair of rogues they look, though: poor King Ed!


 * I think I might add to the description page of the pastry-shirt image. (How does one object? I put a dissenting note in the image description for the profile portrait of Edward in the "Early life" section, but I don't suppose many at Commons are interested in the effort involved in changing titles, attributions, etc.) Thank goodness for your featured pictures of Edward, which don't create any labour! (I take your thorough titling, sourcing, and descriptions as my model: it really saves so much potential trouble.) qp10qp (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Qp10ian pedantry added! qp10qp (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Good catch on the "Hereford"; I was about to post that on comparing the fur-collared gown to other portraits I'd guess at 1530s rather than late 1540s, assuming he would be portrayed in the latest fashion. Many inscriptions are later than the portraits and include titles the sitter didn't have at the time of the portrait (and of course many are just plain wrong, based on family tradition or a desire to make the painting seem more important - but you know that!) Therefore an inscription with an intermediate title suggests that this painting (or its source if it's a copy) is probably dated between 1537-1547, and could be called c. 1540. Which is (a) original research (when not rank speculation) and (b) doesn't help me choose to categorize it as "1530s fashion" vs "1540s fashion". (Costume historians date clothes based on dated portraits; in the absence of documentation, art historians date portraits based on the clothes. Vicious circle.)

There are some engravings in the NPG, need to see how they describe those. - PKM (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that inscriptions are far from reliable. List of Knights and Ladies of the Garter suggests he became a Knight of the Garter in 1541. qp10qp (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you &hellip;
… for bringing William Morris to GA status! Thank YOU!! - PKM (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Merton Abbey Mills
I was away seeing this with him. Naturally your name came up! Last day of a wonderful show you would have have had a whale of a time at. It's going on to Bruges next March - Bruges, Groeninge Museum 27 March 09 – 21 June 09. I'll add what I can to MAM, & maybe more from the fuller info on-site there, next time I run out of scented candles. Johnbod (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons PD policy
No doubt, like me, you were unaware of this recent "landmark decision" at Commons - relevant to Ed VI & others:. Good news from the image police station for once! Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured Picture nom
I have nominated my new scan of Elizabeth I of England - Darnley Portrait for Featured Picture status - comments encouraged on the nomination page.

This scan is made possible by the new Commons policy on PD art (trigger applause). - PKM (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Frederick Hollyer
You asked for feedback about this article. I'm a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure I'm qualified to give the best feedback. That being said, here's my quick take. The article is a good biographical sketch, but it doesn't say anything about the quality of aesthetics of his work. My thinking is that people who look up these articles often want to know as much about the art itself as about the person. It's not easy to find the right balance of both. However, I did a quick Google search and found quotes like this: "In workmanship he was extremely fastidious, giving personal attention to every stage of the process, so that the final result was not so much a photograph of a painting as a translation of its qualities into photographic terms."(Luminous Lint) I'm a fan of adding critics' opinions and quotes from the person to give a more-rounded picture of both the artist and the art. You've got a great start - now it needs to be filled in. Lexaxis7 (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have some additional information which would be easier to email to you. My email is tgreyhavens@gmail.com. Please send me an email address, and I'll send you what I have. Otherwise I can paste it here if you would prefer. Lexaxis7 (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK
I was wondering if it might make some sense to add a bit about when his pics came out of copyright. If only to annoy those who think they can charge for their use. Good work. Victuallers (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Damn
Sorry - the image load has ruined the pic in your article ... could you help by renaming temporarily? Victuallers (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Fixed.

The problem arose cos the image is so good/large that it takes a while to load to wikipedia for the dyk appearance. May need to think of a solution if there a lot more large images. sorry for the panic Victuallers (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK
Thank you for your contributions! - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Edward Burne-Jones
I'm prepping Edward Burne-Jones for a run at a GA over the next few weeks, if anyone wants to help. I could especially use some more info on Aestheticism (that article barely touches on visual arts and could use some help as well.) - PKM (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Added note here on the talk page. Only a minor thing, but hope it helps. Carcharoth (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm back
Back from my business trip. - PKM (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi PKM,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Elizabeth I Steven Van Der Meulen.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 20, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-10-20. Note that in order to write a decent POTD blurb (actually I didn't write it; I just used what you had), I had to insert the image back into Elizabeth I of England -- that's where the main focus of this image is, not the artist or the cultural depictions articles. Regards,  howcheng  {chat} 06:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I tweaked the caption and added a link to the new article portraiture of Elizabeth I. Thanks for letting me know! - PKM (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Fashion project selection
Did you see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fashion - changes must in by 20th. Johnbod (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Another damm portrait of Elizabeth
I see from the paper ! Johnbod (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Portraiture of Elizabeth I
Hi PKM, I lookiing over the article, and my first impression is that it is far too condenced. I get the feeling you are assuming that the reader has more knowledge than they might actually have, and I think that at times you make leaps of logic that might be above the head of the average person. I think its a fine article for sure, and was delighted to read it, but at times I found myself scratching my head. Take the section "The young queen": Portraits of the young queen, many of them likely painted to be shown to prospective suitors and foreign heads of state, show similar naturalness and restraint. - similar to what? And later what is a face pattern? You should clearly explain techincal terms, and make each section self contained and not reliant on statements made in earlier headings. I hope you don't take this as critism, I'm only saying because I think this article has huge potential. Ceoil sláinte 22:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. The subject is enormous; I appreciate your perspective.  - PKM (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Best of luck with it, though, its great you have undertaken it.  Ceoil  sláinte 23:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been keeping an eye on it, but I don't know much about the subject & there is so much written about it which I haven't read. Also the paintings are relatively dispersed in country houses & I haven't seen that many, or long ago - except for the ones in London museums. I think the tension between realism & hieratic icons should be mentioned. It's a very odd period in portraiture altogether, & not the most successful one when you compare with 1480-1540 or 1600-1650.  Michael Levey, Painting at Court, Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London, 1971 pretty much jumps over it entirely.  Something should maybe be said about the very sophisticated but cold grandeur of Bronzino's portraits, which I suppose set the style, or mood, for grand portraits of the period, especially of women.  It was also the period when portraits of female consorts and royalty generally became almost as common as those of male ones - not the case before.  The half-length or full-length had become standard, but many of the artists didn't really know what to do with all the extra canvas, hence the dominance of the clothes in so many portraits.
 * Do we know much about who paid for the paintings - did Elizabeth hand them out, or did courtiers commission them? Are any known to have been diplomatic gifts abroad?  Some mention should be made of the new styles of courtier's show-houses, long gallerys and so on, which provided the setting for the full-lengths in particular.  Also perhaps a mention of prints - not a subject I know much about, but maybe can research.  The NPG has several online. There were certainly propaganda prints after the Armada. Not to mention the tomb effigy, medals and coins.
 * I may have further thoughts after seeing this, though that's mostly earlier. That may be this w/e.
 * Doesn't Qp10 come & go with academic/school terms? I never knew he was a she, but I can never tell. Actually, there has been a drop-off. Johnbod (talk) 09:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for portraiture of Elizabeth I

 * Thanks! - PKM (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Penelope Devereux Rich Blount
Note to self: I have to clean up Penelope Blount, Countess of Devonshire (aka to rest of the world Penelope Devereux, Lady Rich). If I don't do something about the women all identified as "the former so-and-so" and the "Lord this" and "Lady that" I shall puke. Really, she deserves better than the 1911 EB.

Does anyone one know the current thought on the identity of the Hilliard miniature supposed to be her?

I am delighted to have found a newly discovered portrait of Charles Blount, 1st Earl of Devonshire, which is how I got there from here. - PKM (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

New Hilliard
Somehow I missed this: a previously unrecorded miniature of Elizabeth I by Hilliard auctioned at Christie's in June 2007 for £276,000. It's another variant of of Elizabeth as Cynthia, and it's very pretty.- PKM (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

A puzzle solved
Remember this image, misidentified on a German website as a triple portrait of Elizabeth I? I found the correct attribution totally by accident. The girls are the daughters of Thomas Egerton (d. 1599), elder son of Thomas Egerton, 1st Viscount Brackley. See article here. - PKM (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Portraiture of Elizabeth I
I think I am finally done with Portraiture of Elizabeth I, although there are doubtless corners to be smoothed out and nooks and crannies to be filled. If it feels like anything is missing or mis-stated, please let me know or have at it. We need an article on Crispijn de Passe, but I'm not the one to write it, not now anyway. Taking a short break. - PKM (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a very short break. - PKM (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Just when I think I have thoroughly googled the net for images of Elizabeth, up pops one in the Berger Collection at the Denver Museum of art. It's in Gloriana as "unknown artist", present (1987) whereabouts unknown; Berger picked it up at auction from Sotheby's, London, April 3, 1996, and the museum says it's Eworth.  Digging further...


 * Oh. This was the painting that started the Berger Collection.  Obituary of William Berger- PKM (talk) 03:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Tudor artists
Now that we've done Hans Eworth and Rowland Lockey we probably need to look at Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger. An editor's work is never done... - PKM (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger
Does anyone have a source that supports this image being what the article says it is or being by Gheeraerts? - PKM (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't find anything on it. But if it's Gheeraerts, it seems more likely to be by the Elder, in my opinion. He did that iconoclasm picture and was more inclined to satire. qp10qp (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Holbein
I'm going to have a look through the existing Holbein images before uploading anything. Is it just me, or is the featured picture Image:Hans Holbein d. J. 065.jpg not up to scratch? The reproductions in my books have less pink tinge and sharper detail, such as miraculous dots of white stubble on his chin. I hesitate to replace a featured file; but I'm thinking of adding a separate version, anyway.

(Beware, I'm probably going to pester your eye a lot for the next few weeks.) qp10qp (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am duly warned. :-)
 * Let me check on the Holbein. - PKM (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's one of the Yorck project image files. They are uniformly awful (muddy and fuzzy).  Since it's a Featured Picture, I would not overwrite it.  I'd suggest you simply upload a better version as a new image and then we might nominate the new one to replace the old one as FP.


 * Interesting that this made FP as recently as last April; I am astonished that it passed. - PKM (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. I've uploaded Image:Sir Thomas More, by Hans Holbein the Younger.jpg in addition. I've never gone for a featured picture because I don't know how good my images are against the standard. I think my scanner is decent, but, to be honest, I'm incurious about its settings and just scan everything on default. qp10qp (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well done. :-) - PKM (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Would that pass muster as an FP? qp10qp (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see any obvious streaks or flaws in the full-size, so I think so. The folks who regularly vet FPs see things I cannot see.  But this appears really clean to me. - PKM (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, cheers, I'll go ahead (bites nails).


 * You'd think, what with dressing up in all that finery, he'd've bothered to have a shave. qp10qp (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Robin Hood
Thanks. Nice catch on Creswick, to my knowledge the source I used didn't say anything about him. Funny how these things work out.--Cúchullain t/ c 03:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Vaux portrait
I have transcribed the inscription on this portrait of William Vaux, 3rd Baron Vaux of Harrowden as "Willm. Lo. Vaux AE. de 40. ans 1575" but I think it ought to be "Willm. Lo. Vaux AE. sue 40. ano 1575" (possibly with a line over the N of ano. Can anyone make it out better than I can (a larger monitor might help)?

Christie's is hopeless; whoever wrote up the catalogue doesn't know the conventions and clearly struggled with the Secretary hand of the name; they have it as 'Willm. Lo. Gauge Al. de 40. ans 1575' even though they identify the sitter as William Lord Vaux of Harrowden (1535-1595). - PKM (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've thrown a couple of question marks in the quoted inscription at the Commons; clearly Christie's is mistaken but transcribing myself is perilously close to OR. - PKM (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your logic is impeccable, but cognitive dissonance has left me in no man's land between that and what I see with my eyes. The inscriber has already written an 'o' and a '0' which are formed very differently to that last letter, which does not look like an 'o' to me. It also seems to go with what went before rather than with the year inscribed on the right side of the painting. As for 'sue' (or 'sve'), I agree that it would be logical (if the last word is indeed "ano"), but I cannot see how it can say that from the way the lettering strokes go. On the other hand, it would be a very inelegant 'De', as well. Hmm. I wonder if the inscriber was copying over letters that were unclear in the first place, or if the inscription has been altered illogically over time? qp10qp (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I got a chance to look at it on a larger monitor too; it clearly seems to read "Willm. Lō. Vaux AE. de 40. ans / 1575". The "Vaux" is very standard.  The "swoop" on "de" (if "de" its is much more like the backward stroke of a lower case D than it is like either a

U or V to my eye. So I suspect you are are right, possibly a corrupt inscription or a bad restoration. Thanks for looking. - PKM (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Lord Vaux's Men
If anyone has a copy of Chambers' The Elizabethan Stage could you please add the appropriate info and citation for Lord Vaux's Men to Edward Vaux, 4th Baron Vaux of Harrowden, assuming Chambers actually says the 4th Baron was their patron? What I've been able to find on the net is tantalizing but inconclusive.

I also can't find anything about the 4th Baron's activities in the Civil War, but my library is very thin in that particular period. - PKM (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Edward Vaux, 4th Baron Vaux of Harrowden dyk
Hello! Your submission at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. There still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 01:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

A-class downgrade
Well, there are large unsourced portions, which I don't remember being there when I gave it the A. Have you been adding to it? (not that there's anything wrong with that). Also, for an article of this scope you should probably have a longer intro. Daniel Case (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I haven't added much, but some others have.  I needd to go through the whole series and finish adding inline citations, etc. Thanks for looking. - PKM (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Anna Bollein Queen
(Regaining breath after machetéeing my way through a thicket of DYKs) Have you any views on whether the Holbein portrait (I'd put up a better scan) inscribed as above at Windsor should go in the Anne Boleyn article? I've proposed it in the bottom part of this thread. The scholarship is conflicted, but I think there's enough on its side to justify its inclusion, with reservations noted, of course. I'd also like to do a little article on images of Anne (or perhaps one of those "cultural depictions of" thingies), which is a fascinating subject, but I'm put off by the fact that two key items, the medal and the ring, might count as 3D. I've asked what Johnbod thinks, as well.qp10qp (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, thanks for those lovely miniatures of the Brandon boys. I've put one in the Holbein article. (Every three images I come across on Common is one of yours; it's much appreciated, I must say.)qp10qp (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't followed all the arguments on Anne Boleyn portraits. Foister, Holbein in England, says whether HH portrayed Anne Boleyn "remains an open question", and says the drawing with her name on it shows "a fair-haired woman whose appearance differs greatly from the painted portraits".  So on the whole I'd only include it with a note that scholars dispute whether the identification is accurate.  Most people assume that inscriptions are trustworthy, so sometimes pointing out that the "obvious" portrait may in fact not be who it says it is can be valuable.


 * Yeah. DYKs.  Everytime I do something, it leads to something else that we don't have but ought to have.  Two more in queue... - PKM (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Season's greetings
Have a smashing holiday and a happy new year. I've enjoyed working with you this last year (such a luxury to know there's someone else who is interested in obscure Renaissance portraits). Long may it continue. qp10qp (talk) 14:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations
Thanks so much, PKM!--Cúchullain t/ c 08:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK nomination issue
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.
 * Responded, thanks. - PKM (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)