86
MÉLANGES HULIN DE LOO
days of Richard II artists of like quality with the painter
of the Wilton diptych, for the painters of the testers could
obviously hâve produced carefully execnted panel pictures
when such were ordered from them.
Various elïorts hâve been made to prove that the diptych
was painted not by an English but by a French or Bohe-
mian artist. The school of Jacquemart de Hesdin has
been suggested, or that of Beaueveu, but the date 1377
is too early for them, while in that year Richard’s forces
were attacked within a week after his coronation by the
King of France and by troops under the command of the
Dukes of Burgundy, Berri, and Anjou. It is évident that
those same princes would not in that very year be lending
their artists to their enemy. For this reason those that
would ascribe the diptych to a French artist are compelled
to refer it to a later date than 1377. They meet with insu-
perable difficulties. On the face of the picture the king
is obviously a boy aged about eleven years, and the work
is as obviously commémorative of his coronation. Who
except the king himself would want such a picture even
at the date of that ceremony? Clearly it would be made for
his private oratory. During his reign when lie was grown
up he would not liave had himself depicted as a boy,
whil'e after Richard’s abdication and murder in 1399 no
one can hâve ordered it. If any date is fully authenticated
it is the date of the Wilton diptych.
The late Mr. Everard Green, Somerset Herald, recorded
some important facts about Richard’s Coronation. He
claimed to liave discovered a document or record which
stated that after the Ceremony in the Abbey the young
King went to the Chapel of the Pew and there dedicated
eleven angels, one for each year of his life. Unfortunately,
Mr. Green, who was a sound antiquary, failed to put on
record the source of his information. Before his death
he said that he had given his notes to a friend already then
dead and that lie had lost his references. I liave sought
MÉLANGES HULIN DE LOO
days of Richard II artists of like quality with the painter
of the Wilton diptych, for the painters of the testers could
obviously hâve produced carefully execnted panel pictures
when such were ordered from them.
Various elïorts hâve been made to prove that the diptych
was painted not by an English but by a French or Bohe-
mian artist. The school of Jacquemart de Hesdin has
been suggested, or that of Beaueveu, but the date 1377
is too early for them, while in that year Richard’s forces
were attacked within a week after his coronation by the
King of France and by troops under the command of the
Dukes of Burgundy, Berri, and Anjou. It is évident that
those same princes would not in that very year be lending
their artists to their enemy. For this reason those that
would ascribe the diptych to a French artist are compelled
to refer it to a later date than 1377. They meet with insu-
perable difficulties. On the face of the picture the king
is obviously a boy aged about eleven years, and the work
is as obviously commémorative of his coronation. Who
except the king himself would want such a picture even
at the date of that ceremony? Clearly it would be made for
his private oratory. During his reign when lie was grown
up he would not liave had himself depicted as a boy,
whil'e after Richard’s abdication and murder in 1399 no
one can hâve ordered it. If any date is fully authenticated
it is the date of the Wilton diptych.
The late Mr. Everard Green, Somerset Herald, recorded
some important facts about Richard’s Coronation. He
claimed to liave discovered a document or record which
stated that after the Ceremony in the Abbey the young
King went to the Chapel of the Pew and there dedicated
eleven angels, one for each year of his life. Unfortunately,
Mr. Green, who was a sound antiquary, failed to put on
record the source of his information. Before his death
he said that he had given his notes to a friend already then
dead and that lie had lost his references. I liave sought