Hello all

I promised Don I'd go public with my opinion about the date of the painting.

Keep in mind I have NOT actually seen the living painting; I'm going on some hi-res images online.

1. I should have known that Rennes-le-Chateau would figure in this somehow. It seems a copy is there. The original is in the Louvre. There is some discussion about whether or not it's a painting that has to be viewed at a certain angle to see it at its best, a la Holbein's "The Ambassadors". I can't confirm this.

2. The perspective is off, quite a bit; the right-hand side of the throne doesn't touch the dais; the floor is at a different pitch than the dais; the arches in the background are lit differently from the figures. The drapery supports for the throne are not parallel, and the half-dome over Celestine is not aligned with him.

3. It is oil on panel, which dates it to post 1400. The panel is in rough shape; cracks are visible throughout. I would think it's been repaired a time or three, but again, without seeing it live, that's a guess.

4. The figures are awkwardly laid out. One, the striding King, is really poorly executed; he has a robe over him because the artist misaligned the body, and the robe hides this fact.

5. The disembodied heads at the back: One bears an uncanny resemblance to Francois I of France, and since his hat is crowned with fleur-de-lys it's likely that he was included as a tribute. I rather suspect that it IS Francois. The other bearded man, staring directly at the viewer, is probably the patron.

6. Francois has a doublet that is red & slashed to show off his shirt. This is a fashion statement from 1470-on into the 17th C. However, that particular type of slashing was fashionable from 1515-1540 or so. It can be seen in many portraits from the 1520s.

7. Based on the dress, I would date this as 1514-1550, with 1530 as the probable date.

8. Does this rule out the van Eyks? Stylistically, yes. Their portraits are much more individualized than these. They also have a more plastic & fluid handling for the human body, wheras this artist is incapable of depicting realistic movement. So from the standpoint of competence, it rules out the van Eyks. It is possible that a student of theirs painted this, but the fact that the artist distorts the floor so badly makes that unlikely. I think this was a regional master, who was good enough to operate on the local level but not great.