457 
grayed Karolus. I have also a medal of Henry the Third of France; 
reverse, the bust of his mother, who died 1589 (the same year as her 
son), inscription, ‘‘ Kath. Hen. II. Ux. Hen. II]. Fran. et Pol. Reg. 
Mat. Augu.’’ These instances evidence that K then occupied the posi- 
tion that C has done in more modern times. I am, however, concerned 
with the English orthography of 1614, and I contend that, in the pain- 
ter’s Catherine we have a name never heard of in England, years after 
1614, where the picture professes to have been painted. And can we 
believe that the person for whom the portrait was painted, and who 
may have seen the Countess write her name, or, at all events, must 
have known how she wrote it, could have acquiesced in the mistake, 
when C was an unheard-of departure from established spelling? In 
these our days we could only match it by inscribing Sharlotte for 
Charlotte. 
On all these grounds, I come to the conclusion that the Muckross 
portrait is nor that of the old Countess of Desmond, but that the in- 
scription is a comparatively modern fabrication, to enhance in value 
what we understand really is a painting of high artistic merit. 
With the exception of the Muckross portrait, I apprehend that the 
credibility of all the other portraits, assumed to be those of the old 
Countess of Desmond, rest only on a supposed tradition, which cannot 
refer to any authority, good, bad, or indifferent. In one instance this 
has been recently exemplified, I may truly say, to the great regret of 
every person who was acquainted with it—the portrait which has been 
in the possession of the family of the Knight of Kerry for generations, 
and considered to be that of the old Countess of Desmond, but which 
the present Knight has clearly, provokingly, and I had almost said 
wickedly, ascertained to have been painted by Gerard Dow. In the 
family of an ancient and exalted branch of the Geraldines her portrait 
would have been in its natural position ; and this picture fully realized 
all that. expectation could have imagined to have distinguished the liv- 
ing original—the quiet dignity of high birth and rank, with a grace- 
ful, but powerfully developed frame, capable in its nature of vigorously 
sustaining health and intellect, through such a marvellously pro- 
tracted period of years, to the attainment of that settled, earnest, yet 
observant placidity, whose equanimity, it would seem, joy could rarely 
elate, or sorrow scarcely depress—the intensity of old age, but with the 
absence of decline, menfal or physical. — 
This picture was admirably engraved by Grogan, of Cork, in 1806, 
for Pelham’s intended work on Kerry; and I consider myself very for- 
tunate in having a proof before the letters, in splendid condition.* 
The unwilling, regretful certainty that this characteristic picture, as 
the portrait of the old Countess, is proved a myth, has, I acknowledge, 
first raised in my mind the question, “ Does her portrait exist?”’ and the 
* The copperplate, engraved by Grogan, is now the property of Mr. A. Evans, 
printseller, No. 403, Strand, London, * 
PROC. R, I. A.—VOL. VIL. : 3T 
