Néstor Ponce de León

The Columbus Gallery
The 'Discoverer of the New World' as represented in Portraits, Monuments, Statues, Medals and Paintings
Historical Description.

New York: N. Ponce de Leon, 1893.

Table of contents

[page 20]


The engraving by Aliprando Capriolo was first published in the work, Cento Capitani Illustri, printed at Rome, in 1596; a second edition appeared in 1606, with additions by F. Tomasini.
The artistic work is greatly superior to that of Jovius, but there is no doubt that the picture in the Jovian Gallery was the original of the Capriolo, although many variations were introduced in it, owing in part to the faulty style of Capriolo, who always wanted to represent all his heroes as goodlooking, and, with that end in view, purposely softened the vigorous lineaments, depriving his pictures of energy and life.
The portrait is a bust, with long lank hair, carefully combed at the sides and covering the ears. The tabard is changed to a Roman toga, crossed over the shoulders, and in a corner are seen the arms of Columbus. Carderera considered the engraving as one of the most important portraits of Columbus, and was of opinion that this cut and that of Jovius were the most fitting to be used in erecting any iconographic monument to Columbus.
The illustrious Spanish writer Martin Fernandez de Navarrete also held this engraving in high esteem, and reproduced it in the French edition of one of his works.
The picture attributed to Rincon also bears an extraordinary resemblance to this Capriolo cut, which proves their common origin.
Carderera also states that a copy in oil of the Capriolo portrait has long been in the Uffizi Gallery.
The portrait in the Naval Museum at Madrid is nothing more than a splendid reproduetion in oil of the Capriolo engraving and of other historica1 types. Mr. Curtis, in his able artiele already quoted, says: "It is asserted to be a genuine portrait painted in 1504 or 1505, in Seville, upon the return of Columbus from his fourth and last voyage, and shortly before his death;" [page 21]
and, with his usual good judgment, he adds, "but there is no evidence to sustain the claim." I will say more: it is positively known that it was painted by order of the government, in 1838, by a French artist named Charles Legrand, and only in French and American works have I seen the assertion to which Mr. Curtis refers.
[page 22] Carderera says: "We can but praise the judgment of the artist who, when called upon a few years ago to paint a portrait of Columbus for the Naval Museum, took as a model Capriolo' s engraving. We disapprove of the change that the painter made in the dress, in copying the velvet cloak of the portrait in the National Library."
The picture in question is really beautiful; the expression of melancholy, benevolence and energy, and its exact agreement with the known traits of the physiognomy of Columbus, have rendered this portrait a universal favorite, [page 23] and it is, as Mr. Curtis says, "one of the most widely known and generally accepted portraits of Columbus."
Many writers claim that it is a copy of the Jovius made in the sixteenth century—some going so far as to assert that it is the original itself. Others attribute it to Maella, but there is another portrait of Columbus from the brush of this able artist, and it differs so widely from the one in the Naval Museum that it is clear1y seen that they cannot be the work of the same hand.
There is a beautiful copy of this portrait in the Geographical Society of New York, presented years ago by its enthusiastie President, ex-Chief-Justice Charles P. Daly.
In the Red Room of the Council Hall at Genoa there is an oil painting of Columbus, which was presented, in 1862, to the Municipality by the sculptor, G. B. Cevasco. I have not been able to obtain any details regarding the history of this painting, which is undoubtedly modern, but I have secured a copy of it, which I reproduce in cut No. 13.
I believe it is an imitation of the picture in the Naval Museum with some variations, taken, perhaps, from Capriolo. The face is full of energy and intelligence, and the dress is the conventional one. The hair is long and flowing, and is almost covered by a barretcap. The artist was not a common one, and has followed the well-known descriptions of the Admiral.
In the splendid work entitled Iconographie di Uomini Sommi nelle Scienze e nelle Arti Italiani, Naples, 1854, there is a beautiful engraving of a portrait in oil by Stuppi. I believe Mr. Curtis was [page 24] perfectly right in saying that "it is undoubtedly a copy of the Capriolo engraving," but I may add that the artist did not improve on his model by softening the austere lineaments of the Admiral.

Cut No. 14 is the reproduction of a steel engraving in César Cantu, Universal History, the Spanish translation of which was published at Madrid in 1856.
I believe that the artist followed the Capriolo, but he introduced so many changes in it, that although it agrees with the general characteristics of Columbus, yet there is a material difference between it and the Jovius and Capriolo types. The artist bas greatly idealized the rough sketches of Jovius and Capriolo, but at the same time has succeeded in presenting something that may be accepted as a portrait of the Navigator.
[page 24, cont'd]


This would be the most important portrait of Columbus, if its authenticity could be established. It tallies exactly with the descriptions of the Admiral, and looks very much like the Jovian portrait. It is very old, and bas been reproduced numberless times. From time immemorial it bas been in the private library of the Kings of Spain, and it is said traditionally that it was painted by Antonio del Rincon upon the return of Columbus from his second voyage.
Unfortunately, there is not a scintilla of evidence as to its authenticity. It is not even known when or how it became the property of the Crown, as neither Palomino, Pacheco, nor Cean Bermudez mentions this portrait among the known works of this artist.
Notwithstanding this fact the picture is very old, and was evidently the work of a great artist. Copies of it were taken and published before 1600, and its general characteristics confirm the belief that it is an original Rincon, or, if not, it is at least the work of one of his disciples.
There are many reasons advanced to show that Rincon painted a picture of Columbus. Rincon, who was the true father of the Spanish School of Painting, was barn at Guadalajara in 1446, and died at Seville in 1500. He [page 25] was for years court painter to Ferdinand and Isabella, whose portraits he painted; and they were still in the Church of San Juan de los Reyes, at Toledo, when Palomino wrote his Historia de la Pintura en España, Vol. II., p. 235. He also painted same portraits of Princes, and that of Antonio de Nebrija. He resided at court from 1493 up to his death in 1500, and must have become acquainted with Columbus upon his return from his first voyage. It is therefore almost incredible that he should not have painted a portrait of the Discoverer, either by command of the Kings or by request of the Admiral himself, who was a very vain-glorious man, and then in the zenith of his fame. Furthermore the portrait, though exceedingly old, has such a spirited air, and such a vigorous expression, that it looks exactly as though it were taken directly from life. Even the serene expression of the face appears to indicate that this portrait was taken during the few months in which the Admiral led a happy life. (Cut No. 15.)
There were at one time in Spain many pictures by this artist, all belonging to the Crown; but most of them were destroyed in the terrible conflagration at the royal residenee, El Pardo, in 1608, together with a large number of the works of other early Spanish artists. Yet I must say that in the catalogue of El Pardo there is no mention of any portrait of Columbus by Rincon, or by any other master; and, besides that, there is no mention of Columbus ever having sat before the easel of Rincon.
The medallion painted by Julio Romano bas a great resemblance to this painting. This type was very well known outside of Spain at a very early period, and was reprodueed, with same changes, in foreign editions of Herrera, in Van der Aa, and in many other hooks.
[page 26] Roselly des Lorgues bas also accepted and published this picture in his "Life of Columbus," and he has in his collection the portrait in oil, from which he took his engraving, and claims that his painting is the original work of Rincon. But the good old Count has gone so far in many points, referring to St. Christopher Columbus, that we must not place much faith in his new claim. He has also presented to the astonished reader a portrait of Beatriz Enriquez, the noble Cordovan lady, mother of Ferdinand Columbus. Where did he obtain it? And what proof has he of its being genuine? These are idle questions. It is well known that the apologist of the "Bearer of the Cross never paid much attention to evidence of any kind. Yet I cannot but approve his selection of this portrait for his book, as this is perhaps the only plausible assumption in all his alleged discoveries about Columbus.
The Navarrete portrait, as can be seen at a glance, is a copy of the Rincon, with, perhaps, some minor changes taken trom the Capriolo picture. The artist bas changed the position, and the Admiral is represented as looking to the left. It was published in the Parisian edition of Navarrete's work, Rélation des Quatre Voyages de Christophe Colomb, (1828). Mr. Curtis believes it is taken from the picture in the Naval Museum, which it resembles in same general traits and in the position of the head. It bears a curious note which reads: "Engraved on stone by Pedro Colon, Duke of Veraguas, a descendant of the illustrious navigator, and is taken from an original and contemporary portrait which once belonged to his Catholic Majesty." This shows with certainty that it is a copy from the Rincon.
In the splendid edition of the Codice Diplomatico Colombino, published by Banchero, in Genoa, there is a lithograph representing Columbus which is evidently taken from the Rincon portrait, with the exception of same slight varations in the shape of the mouth. I reproduce this picture not only on account of its beauty, but also to show the high esteem in which the Rincon portrait is held, not only in Spain and France, but in Italy as well. (Cut No. 17.)
As the best description I have found of the two portraits in the Museum of Rouen, France, is that given by Mr. Curtis in the Cosmopolitan Magazine, [page 27] I will take the liberty of copying it verbatim from his article: "In the Museum at Rouen, France, are two pictures of Columbus, placed side by side, but as unlike as it is possible for two portraits of the same person to be, and the contrast is very amusing. In one the hair is gray and thin, and the flesh is pallid. It is a modern canvas, signed P. Le Carpentier, and inscribed, 'COLUMBUS LIGUR. NOVI ORBIS REPTOR.' A note on the back says: 'This portrait was copied in wax in 1835 from the original [page 28] portrait of Sebastian del Piombo, which formed a part of the collection of the Escurial, and which is attributed by some to Antonio del Rincon.' It is evidently a copy of the portrait in the Queen's Library at Madrid.
"The other Rouen portrait is a sharp and vigorous piece of work, with black hair, black eyes, considerable color and expressive features. It points a finger to a sphere resting upon a table with same books."


The famous chart of Juan de la Cosa, the pilot of Columbus, is drawn on parchment and bears an inscription which reads, "Juan de la Cosa la fizo en el puerto de Santa Maria en el año 1500." This chart, which was first described in the most eulogistic terms by Humboldt, was then the property of Baron Walckenaer, and is now in the Naval Museum at Madrid.
On one of its sides, in the place that would correspond to the position of Mexico and Central America, there is a miniature representing St. Christopher conveying the Infant Jesus on his back from one continent to the other. The drawing is rude, and the features of the Saint have not the slightest resemblance to those of Columbus, as described by his contemporaries. There is no direct evidence to show that Juan de la Cosa ever intended to portray Columbus in this chart, yet I doubt not that La Cosa may have tried to depict in it the allegorical representation of his chief (whose name signifies "Christ Bearer") under the figure of this saint carrying the Christ on his shoulders, though St. Christopher was never considered as a patron of navigators; and that in doing this he never intended to present a faithful portrait of the Admiral. That is entirely in accordance with the customs of those times, as can be seen by the delineations of many kings represented in the same chart, none of which are claimed to be portraits.
One of the defenders of this picture is Roselly des Lorgues, who considers it symbolical of the discoveries of Columbus and of his purpose to extend the Catholic religion. Winsor says that some authors claim that the picture of Herrera is based on that of Juan de la Cosa. I quite agree with him when he says: "This theory is hardly accepted by the critics."
I present to my readers this picture, which is taken from the new copy of the map of La Cosa, published at Madrid, not only as a pretended portrait of Columbus, but also as a very curious and interesting historical allegory. In [page 30] fact, though it looks more like a grotesque Japanese caricature than a Spanish picture of the year 1500, its genuineness is unquestionable, and it is the earliest attempt known to portray Columbus, if such was the intention of the famous pilot.


This is undoubtedly one of the most important portraits of Columbus. It is a beautiful work of art, is signed "Laurens Lotto F. 1512," and the most distinguished experts, as Böde, Raineri, Morelli, Cavalcasette, and others, are of, the opinion that there is no doubt atout its being a work of the famous master. Therefore I will raise no doubt as to its antiquity and authenticity, as coming from the brush of Lotto. But does it represent Columbus? and, if so, was it, as is claimed, taken from life?
Mr. John C. Van Dyke bas published in the Century Magazine (October 1892), an admirable article atout this now famous picture. In view of its comprehensiveness, fairness and sound reasoning, I will take the liberty of quoting from it somewhat freely.
The history of this picture after it was painted is thus given in the article :
"It is supposed to have been painted lor Domenico Malipiero, the Venetian Senator and historian, at the instance of his correspondent, Angelo Trevisan (Trivigiano), secretary of the Venetian ambassador to Spain, who in 1501 was in intimate communication with Christopher Columbus at Granada. Malipiero's manuscripts (and possibly this picture) are said to have passed to Senator Francesco Longo. The Gradenigos were the heirs of the Longos, and it was trom them that the Cavaliere Luigi Rossi, a steward of the Duchess of Parma, purchased the picture. Just before Rossi's death the picture was sold to a person named Gandolfi, who had it somewhat repaired and restored. The badly damaged head and red cap of an Indian at the right were cut out, and the picture was made square instead of oblong. From Gandolfi it passed to Signor Antonio della Rovere, of Venice, in whose house it was seen in 1891, by Captain Frederick H. Mason, United States Consul-General at Frankfort-on-the-Main, and by him bought for the World's Fair at Chicago. The record cannot be traced with any certainty beyond the Gradenigos, and even if it could it would prove no more than what the picture itself reveals."
To all this I must add that the present owner of this picture is Mr. James W. Ellsworth of Chicago, and for this reason it is often called "the Ellsworth picture."
[page 31] I will now describe this painting (cut No. 19), and, as I have never seen the original, I will make use of another able article, which I find in the Progresso Italo-Americano of this city, signed with the initials "P. S.," the writer of which is also an ardent admirer of the Lotto portrait.
The picture at present is three feet by two feet eight inches in size. Originally it was larger, but on account of careless handling it was so damaged that it was found necessary to trim it to its present dimensions about the middle of this century. The face is turned to the right, as can be seen in the cut (No. 19). The head is uncovered, the hair white and falling almost to the shoulders; it is parted in the middle, and the face is clean shaven. The carnation is almost of a bronze color; and he is clothed in a low-necked white [page 32] shirt without collar, with a red or scarlet coat, which is almost concealed by an ample mantle, with fur lapels, somewhat after the fashion of the one in the Yañez portrait, before all the additions by an inexpert restorer were removed. In the right hand he holds a chart copied from that by de Ruysch, in 1508, and in the left a common nautical hour-glass, which stands upon a book labelled Aristotel, and there are other books on the top of a book-case. The background is gray, and in the right hand corner is a window giving a view of a landscape. It is said that before the picture was trimmed there was the head of an Indian in the foreground.
The map itself is sufficient evidence that the picture was not taken from life, as it was first published in 1508, two years af ter Columbus' death, or six or seven years subsequent to 1501 or 1502, when it is pretended that it was painted. The able defence of this map by Mr. Van Dyke, who maintains that all the countries shown in it were already known to the Spaniards, falls to the ground when we consider the telling fact discovered by the keen eye of Mr. Harrisse that the artist has copied the errors of longitude which are found in the de Ruysch map.
I will not deny the possibility that some Italian or Spanish artist (and there were many capable ones then in Spain, notwithstanding the assertion of Mr. Van Dyke to the contrary), may have taken a picture of Columbus from life, and that Lotto may have copied it, making, as was very common, some more or less appropriate additions. But in any event, if the Lotto portrait was ever intended to represent Columbus, it was not taken from life, and therefore cannot be accepted as an archetype, as is claimed by its defenders.
I admit that the picture bears a certain resemblance to that in the Naval Museum; but this is undoubtedly modern. I also admit that it has some of the well-known characteristics of Columbus, but I cannot for a moment agree with the opinion of Mr. Van Dyke, when he gays, "a comparison, feature by feature, will show that the Lotto portrait tallies exactly with the descriptions that we have of Columbus.
I repeat that I have never seen the original picture. I have over twenty copies of it, photographed, engraved and reproduced by different processes, and some of them are splendid, but in none of them have I been able to find "the air of authority," or "the appearance of a nobleman," and find that none of them tally exactly with the descriptions in our possession of the person of Columbus. I will say more: I find the face in the Lotto portrait vulgar and wanting in energy, looking more like that of an old women than of a man of the decided character, iron will, and clear intelligence of the great Admiral. Perhaps I may change my opinion if I see the original portrait; possibly I may [page 33] see all the qualities that Mr. Van Dyke claims for it, but the copies in my possession, which, as I have said, number over twenty, do not give an idea of the Columbus whose description we now have.
I have already given the history of the picture after it was painted. I will now present to my readers the history of how it was painted, and will take it fr om Mr. Curtis' article:
"When the discoveries of Columbus became known in Venice, Dominico Pisano was sent as an embassador from that republic to the court of Spain. He went chiefly for the purpose of obtaining information for the use of the merchants of Venice concerning the commercial value, the resources and products of the newly discovered lands, and to obtain maps and charts for the benefit of Venetian navigators. He had a secretary named Giovanni Camerino, or Cietrico, who made it his business to cultivate Columbus and succeeded in becoming very intimate with him. Camerino obtained secretly from the discoverer a chart of the new world and sent it to Venice.
"Pisano also forwarded to his government many voluminous reports concerning the discoveries of Columbus, which were based upon information received directly from the Admiral and his companions on the voyages. It is known also that Lorenzo Lotto visited Spain while Pisano was there and completed several important works of art under his patronage. There are sixteen examples from his brush now in the city of Madrid, painted in Granada, Seville and other places during these years. While there is no record or tangible evidence that Columbus ever sat before his easel, it is very probable that he did so, as just at the time of his visit the Venetian ambassador was cultivating him with the most assiduous attentions and hospitality."
There is in Paris, a certain troublesome American lawyer who has almost consecrated his life to the study of early American history, who entertains no respect for fables, legends, traditions, or old woman's tales, has no love for romance in history, and is decidedly opposed to all those who are striving to make a delusion and a farce of history. As soon as he read the articles of Mr. Curtis and others, he took up his trenchant pen and sent a letter to the editor of the Sun of New York, from which we quote the following caustic paragraphs:
"It is not true that Domenico Pisani was sent to Spain as an ambassador from the Venetian Republic when the discoveries of Columbus became known in Venice.
"It is not true that he went chiefly or at all for the purpose of obtaining information for the use of the merchants of Venice concerning the commercial [page 34] value, the resources and products of the newly discovered lands, and to obtain maps and charts for the benefit of the Venetian navigators.
"It is not true that Pisano 'had a secretary named Giovanni Camerino or Cietrico.'
"It is not true that the said Camerino, or Cietrico, 'obtained secretly from the discoverer a chart of the New World.'
"It is not true that 'Pisano forwarded to his government many voluminous reports concerning the discoveries of Columbus.'
"It is not true that 'Lorenzo Lotto visited Spain while Pisano was there, and completed several important works of art under his patronage.'
"It is not true that 'there are sixteen or any examples from his brush now in the city of Madrid, painted in Granada, Seville, and other places during these years.'
"It is not true that 'the history of the canvas may be traced back nearly three centuries.'
"As to the picture itself, viewed at least as a 'portrait of Christopher Columbus,' it is a sheer Italian fabrication, which, like all Italian forgeries, particularly those of Bolognese or of Venetian origin, proves too much."
"Columbus is made therein to hold a map. The map is not, as we should have supposed, a map of his maritime discoveries. It is a map of Brazil, which he never discovered, or claimed to have discovered, or visited at any time. It is not even a Spanish map."
Who is right in this question? Let the reader decide for himself. As for myself, I regret to state that however able the presentation of the claims, by Mr. Curtis, and however powerful the defence of it made by Mr. Van Dyke may be, and without disputing the authorship of this beautiful work of art, I feel inclined to repeat, with the scholady author of so many admirable works of Columbus:
"Withal, it should be stated, in justice to the 'Lotto portrait of Columbus,' that it is neither better nor worse than any and all the other apocryphal daubs and portraits which are now being collected in Italy, in Spain, and in the United States, by over-zealous patriots, who do not seem to be aware that they are striving to make of history a delusion and a farce!"

[page 35]


On page 272 of Lecoy de la Marche, Les Manuscrits et la Miniature, a beautiful work published by the Bibliothéque de L'Enseignement des Beaux Arts, Paris, without date, but about 1887, I find the following important notice :
"During the Renaissance, the painter Vasco, a disciple of Perugimo, embellisbed a collection of documents deposited in the Portuguese Torre del Tombo, very richly with vignettes and arabesques. About the same time, a Spanish artist painted on parchment an interesting portrait of Christopher Columbus, El Descubridor del Nuevo Mundo (the Discoverer of the New World). It is a full face portrait, attired in a plaited shirt and a yellow doublet with stripes of various colors. The head is covered by an angular cap with turned up edges. This portrait can now be seen at tbe Museum at Cluny."
Perugino (Pietro Vannuci), the teacher of Raphael, was born in 1446. He opened his school at Perugia in 1490, and died there in 1524. Therefore, the Spanish artist who painted this miniature might very well have taken it from life. I have never seen a copy of this portrait, neither have I seen it mentioned in any book, but I consider it of the highest importance and deserving of very careful study.
Could this portrait be one of the two miniatures from which it is claimed that the Morus portrait was copied? The description does not agree, but Morus may have changed the dress and followed the features in tbe miniature.


I am indebted to the kindness of Mr. Charles F. Gunther, of Chicago, not only for many photographic copies of this truly superb picture, one of which I reproduce, but also for many interesting notices about it.
Whilst I completely agree with the courteous owner of this artistic jewel in regard to its uncommon merits as a picture, I regret, nevertheless, to state that his arguments have failed to dispel from my mind the doubts that I have always entertained of its being a portrait of Columbus. The face undoubtedly has some of the well-known lineaments of the Admiral, but the most important are completely wanting-the long face, the high-cheek bones, the peculiar eyebrows, which are so characteristic of Columbus, could not have escaped the [page 36] eye of such a man as Anthony More. I will not pay much attention to the absurd dress, which did not come into fashion until about a century later, because it is a well-settled fact that the artists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were in the habit of attiring their heroes in any manner which [page 37] suited their fancy, without regard to historical accuracy; but I cannot accept as a portrait of Columbus, copied from a miniature taken from life, that face with the queerly cropped hair, mustache and goatee.
Mr. Curtis, in the Cosmopolitan Magazine, gives the following history of this painting: "This portrait of Columbus was painted about 1570, at the order of Margaret of Parma, from a miniature said to have been in the possession of the royal family at Madrid. The Gunther portrait was removed to Spain when the Spanish Court abandoned the Netherlands, and is said to have hung in the cabin of one of the vessels of the Spanish Armada during the famous sea fight of 1588. The vessel which carried it went to pieces on the Cornish coast of England, and the owner of the adjoining estate kept the picture as his share of the wreckage. From that date, to the middle of the present century it remained in the possession of the same family, when it was purchased by William Cribb, of Covent Garden, London. His descendants sold it to Mr. Gunther. The portrait was engraved in 1850, and was used by Irving to il1ustrate his life of Columbus. It is painted upon a panel of wood, about three feet by two in size, and bears in faint letters the inscription 'Ch. Colombo.'"
According to Mr. Gunther, "the allegorical frame in which the portrait is placed embodies one of the most remarkable and exquisite specimens of wood carving known of ancient or modern times. It is beautifully gilded, and is allegorical of the life of the discoverer, showing the drums, cannon, Indian arrows and armor of that period, capped with the Columbus coat of arms and its quarterings of oyster shells, swords, ship and anchor, and surmounted by a golden crown. It is carved in wood and is a master piece in its design and proportions, and illustrates such work as only royalty could command in that period."
"Upon the head of the drum carved in the frame is the date 1590, the year that the portrait was brought into England.
"The frame was made when the portrait was executed by Moro.
"The frame spoken of above, which was made at the same time portrait, is fully as interesting as the canvas. It is fashioned with skill and is a grand mass of intricate carving.
"It is gilded, and on the top there is the coat of arms and the quarterings of Columbus, the oyster shell, the anchor and the sword."
I repeat that I do not entertain any doubt about the authorship of this splendid work. According to the opinion of many experts, it is undoubtedly from the hand of Moro; but did he intend in this portrait to represent Columbus? The name in the corner is of no importance whatever.
[page 38] The Jomard picture and many others which are entirely apocryphal show the same name.
The eminent Spanish painter and critic, Valentin Carderera, the au thor of the monumental works, Iconografia Española, and Monumentos Arquitectónicos de España, remarks very forcibly, "mustaches and goatees were never worn in the time of Columbus, and the hair, far from being cut short, was worn long and cut horizontally, very often covering the ears."
As Mr. Carderera's special field was the study of the old portraits and statues by Spanish artists, which he copied and published in his famous Iconografia Españ'ola, no man could be a better judge than he in the matter of the fashions prevailing at each period of the history of Spain.
Yet I would call the attention of the reader to what I say a bout the miniature in the Cluny Museum at Paris.
Mr. Gunther writes to me also in regard to some particular points of this portrait in these terms : "I have recently discovered, what was unknown to any one before, that the second ring on the index finger, left hand, has a crest or coat of arms on it—an exquisite miniature painting of two cocks fighting, then two scrolls ornamentally dividing it from something else beneath, that I am unable just at present to make out, because I cannot get near enough to it with a glass. I have the portrait and frame in a shadow box to protect it." (Cut No. 20.) Continue