 Sir, May I be permitted to correct the canard perpetuated in a recent article (“Chiddingstone Venus for sale”, June 2) that “records” indicate the Chiddingstone lady might be a representation of Barbara Villiers? There are no records in existence to suggest that Lely ever painted the Duchess of Cleveland in such a revealing pose; the only documentary evidence we have for his undressed depiction of any mistress of Charles II relates to Nell Gwyn. With no disrespect to Mistress Gwyn, if the Chiddingstone Venus looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck there is surely every reason to regard Nell as the pretty, witty duck in question.
The real controversy over the Chiddingstone Venus in fact lies elsewhere. I should like to join with Christopher McCall (letter, May 12) and Geoffrey Lewis (letter, May 17 ) in inquiring of the Charity Commission how, legally and morally, it is able to justify the disposal by Chiddingstone Castle of a work of such high national importance – particularly as there appears to be considerable uncertainty as to the actual financial situation at the castle and the proposed application of funds raised. Was a coherent and well-conceived business plan submitted for close scrutiny and approval by the Charity Commission? Were the trustees
|
able to demonstrate, by such a plan, that selling from the collection is a rational and necessary step, taken by a capable board in its dedicated pursuit of the preservation and fulfilment of the quite specific heritage objects on which the charity was founded?
NICHOLAS REEVES Director of Collections, The Denys Eyre Bower Bequest, Chiddingstone Castle, Kent
|
|