460 
up his residence at Youghal, near which town the Countess resided until 
her death, in 1604. Let us now consider what was the probability that 
either she, or any other person, would think of having her portrait 
taken; or, if such a thought had occurred to any one, how it could have 
been realised at Youghal, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Youghal 
was one of the chief head-quarters of the Desmonds, where pillage and 
plunder, rather than any of the peaceful arts and their refinements, were 
studied and practised. As to painting portraits, I question, at that time, 
if they even painted their doors; as to windows, as we understand the 
term glazed apertures, they were then, I suspect, of very rare occurrence, 
and I much doubt whether there may have been many panes of glass in 
the castle of Inchiquin. Yet, supposing that Youghal previous to 1604 
was in a more advanced state of civilization than I have estimated, it 
was neither a place of trade nor of thoroughfare ; and if a stranger was 
seen there, he was most probably, like Fynes Moryson, driven in from 
sea by stress of weather, or seeking safety for his life from some murde-. 
rous, predatory inroad of an O’Keefe or an O’Kelly. A portrait painter 
finding his way professionally to Youghal, during the lifetime of our 
Countess, is a flight of fancy beyond my poor ideas. I question much 
whether such a craft existed at that time in the length and breadth of 
the green island. 
But the “‘ Quarterly’? may assume, where it assumes so much, that 
the extraordinary longevity of the noble lady must have occasioned great 
interest at the court of Elizabeth; that a painter had been sent over to 
Inchiquin Castle to take her portrait for the Queen; that he brought back 
the painting, which is still at Windsor Castle, but which is not, I have 
ascertained, catalogued as that of the old Countess: of Desmond ;* and 
that from this assumed original those portraits in other collections most 
probably have been copied, with possible variations. 
Plausible as this theory undoubtedly would be, and accounting satis- 
factorily for the origin of the portraits called the old Countess’s, there is 
a trifling difficulty attending it, analogous to the date of 1614 on the 
Muckross picture, which is, that when the English public first beeame 
acquainted with the history of the old Countess, she had been dead for 
some years. The date painted on canvas, we have seen, is easily dis- 
posed of; but the date printed in a book is amore stubborn fact. Now, 
the date of the original edition of Sir Walter Raleigh’s work is 1614, 
and of Fynes Moryson’s, 1617 (the Quarterly says that Fynes Moryson 
* T have been favoured by a gentleman at Windsor Castle, in answer to my inquiries 
respecting the picture there, rumoured to be a portrait of the old Countess of Desmond, 
with these particulars :—“‘It is said to be by Rembrandt, and is a very fine portrait; there 
is lace on the head-dress, and a fur tippet, a collar round the neck, and coming down in 
front, and no lacing. But it cannot be the portrait of the Countess of Desmond; and 
with this agrees the opinion of Nagler (Band12, s. 419), whocalls it Rembrandt’s mother, 
or the portait of an old lady.” - 
I find this entry in the catalogue of the pictures of Charles I. :—‘t Done by Rembrandt. 
An old woman, with a great scarf on her head, with a peaked, falling band (2 f. & 1f. 6).” 
And with this our picture agrees exactly.—B. B. W. 
