Part 2.
Well, I have finished reading A Portrait of Peter Pett and The Sovereign of The Seas, and it must go back to its rightful home in a day or two. Just enough time to review a few parts before it parts company with me. The answers to the five questions appear to be answered if you believe the author. Here goes.
1. What is the ship?
It is pretty much a certainty that the ship in the portrait is the Sovereign. Thomas Heywood, the playwright and artist who was appointed by Charles I to conceive the details of the ornamentation. Heywood wrote a book called "A True Description of His Majesties Royall Ship, Built this Year 1637 at Wool-Wich in Kent; to the glory of our English Nation and not paralleled in the whole Christian World". It was released on September 7th, 1637, just prior to the expected official launch of the Sovereign. In the book he describes the decorations of the ship and the stern description reflects the portrait. It is significant to mention that the Sovereign was the first one hundred gun ship, and that it was twice the size of anything built to that date. A typical ship of that day was forty guns and could be built at a cost of 5,500 to 6,500 pounds. The Sovereign cost 65,586 pounds, 16 shillings and 9 1/2 pence. Clearly, a new standard in size and cost.
2. Who painted the picture? ( The Portrait in the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich)
All evidence in the book points to Van De Velde, the Elder, a Dutch marine painter who was in England with his son at the time in question. The Elder Van De Velde was not a portrait painter, but rather a painter of ships. His son, had produced a self portrait and could have painted the image of Peter Pett. You are left with the impression that it was a joint effort of the father and son.
3. Who is the man portrayed?
By the calipers held in the right hand, it was felt that the man in the portrait was the architect or builder of the ship. The creator of the Sovereign was Phineas Pett (1570-1647). In his autobiography, he details how Charles approached him to build the great ship. However, the sitter is not Phineas Pett. If so, he would have been sixty seven years old at the sitting, and the man in the portrait is clearly much younger. The summation is that it must have been his son, Peter Pett the Great.
4. When was the picture painted?
It is apparent by the detail show of the stern, that the painter took a great deal of time to prepare for its painting. It would follow that he must have had some time in which to observe the ship. The logical times that this would be possible are:
a. - 1637-1638 at the conclusion of building operations
b. - The first re-building in 1659-1660
c. - The second re-building in 1685.
Both of the Van De Veldes were in England in at the time of the first and second re-building, and it is deemed to be Van De Velde the Elder as painting the ship, the Younger, Peter Pett, and the time as the first re-building in 1660.
5. What is the relationship to the painting in the National Portrait Gallery in London?
The book surmises that the painting in the National Gallery was a copy attributed to William Dobson. The book reveals that many of the details in the National Portrait Gallery version are not in keeping with accurate naval details and hence is a copy of the original in Greenwich.
These, briefly, are the conclusions that this book comes to regarding the two portraits. For my purposes, the book has aided me in getting a more complete picture of the ship I am modeling, the time it was built in, and has changed my view of how to proceed with her. I intend to follow up on articles published in the Mariners Mirror that comment on this book and will hold my conclusions until I have exhausted all available materials. I have simplified the answers to the above questions, and the book contains much more detail to support its conclusions. I would recommend that if you are intending to build SOS, you try to read this book and any other references to satisfy yourself of the direction you want to go in modeling her. I have very nearly decided to change the stern ornamentation and stern galleries on my model to more closely resemble the depiction on the painting. My reasoning is, that the portrait was painted in the time of the ship, and must resemble her, at least in the eyes of the painter, in a more accurate way than the pictures shown on the Mantua kit box. I may be wrong, but that is my conclusion.
More to follow......................
Regards,
Bill