Elizabeth Freake and Baby Mary Type of Lace
Unidentified artist Elizabeth Clarke Freake (Mrs. John Freake) and Babe Mary , about 1671 and 1674
Description
Elizabeth Clarke Freake (Mrs. John Freake) and Baby Mary is a double portrait of a woman holding an babe upright on her lap. The woman is represented in 3-quarter length and turned to the viewer's left. She sits upright with her proper left hand crossing her body and resting on the babe'due south belly. Her right paw holds the child'southward proper right shoulder. The woman wears a white cap on her head that forms a peak over the forehead and is tied in a knot below the chin. Two fanlike ends of the fabric stiffly splay from the knot to her shoulders. The adult female has light chocolate-brown eyes and reddish blonde hair that is visible at the forehead and along the edges of the cap. Her complexion is a pale pink, lighter than the skin in the companion portrait, John Freake. The face up is an oval with a small, rounded chin.
The woman is colorfully dressed in greenish, red, yellow, white, and black. The dress is green with white highlights on its many folds of material. The apparel fits tightly at the bodice, where two panels meet near the middle and are joined by cherry laces. Another greenish panel is visible within the narrow 5-shaped space between the ii panels. The skirt appears to be made in two layers, with fabric from the top skirt gathered at the viewer'south right and the hem falling merely below the white apron. The green skirts are lifted at the knee to reveal an orangish-ruby-red underskirt trimmed with a wide yellow-and-white floral design that runs along the bottom border of the composition at lower left. In addition to the apron, the costume is brightened with a white lace collar and lace-trimmed sleeves. The tiptop portion of the neckband is solid, whereas the lower two-thirds of the collar is fabricated up of a delicate foliate design. Three clusters of black and red ribbons hang loosely at the bottom edge of the proper left sleeve of the dress. The woman too wears a number of pieces of jewelry. At her neck are three strands of white pearls, which merge into two strands at left. Her proper left thumb is adorned with a uncomplicated gold ring, and her wrist is decorated with four strands of circular, cogitating black beads.
Though the long gown covers the legs from view, the kid appears to exist in a standing position facing slightly to the correct. The infant wears a xanthous cap elaborated with white lace. A touch of yellow pigment along the top of the forehead suggests that the child has the aforementioned colour pilus as the woman. The child as well has night brown eyes and a light pink complexion with rosy cheeks. The shape and proportions of the baby's face are rounder and fuller than the adult female's, and the features are proportionately smaller. The child has a small, circular chin that resembles the adult female'south.
The child holds its proper left hand to the woman's breast, presumably for balance. The right paw is held in front of the body beside the woman's left hand. The infant wears a loosely plumbing equipment yellowish gown with a white apron that begins at the neck and falls nearly to the bottom of the yellow garment, in dissimilarity with the woman'southward apron which is worn at the waist. The sleeves of the gown are folded dorsum on the upper arm to reveal the white sleeves of the shift, which are trimmed with lace. The shift sleeves are tied halfway upwards with a yellow ribbon, creating two billowing forms.
The woman sits in a wooden chair that is upholstered in a black fabric with a xanthous, red, and white design. The upholstery is secured to the chair with round-headed brass tacks, which are visible along the lesser edge, simply above short tassels that hang downward from the dorsum of the chair. Left of the figures a blocklike table is faintly visible. A ruddy drapery forms a swag in the upper left corner. The residuum of the background is painted an even tone of dark brown.
Biography
Elizabeth Freake was built-in May 22, 1642, the daughter of Thomas (d. 1682/iii) and Mary Clarke, in Dorchester, south of Boston.1 Thomas was a prosperous merchant who settled in Boston past 1643, when he received permission to build a wharf "before his propertye in the milfield against the body of water."2 He was besides a selectman in Boston and a representative to the General Court of the colony.3 Elizabeth's father besides held a place of potency every bit an active fellow member in the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts, beginning with his election as sergeant in 1644/5 and his eventual advancement to captain in 1673 and commander of the Boston Regiment.4 In his volition Clarke left substantial bequests to his family, including m pounds to Elizabeth Freake'southward eldest son upon his reaching historic period twenty-one and funds to purchase artillery for the poor of his militia company.5
On May 28, 1661, Elizabeth Clarke married John Freake (1631–1675) in Boston.6 John emigrated well-nigh 1658 from England and was a successful merchant and attorney who held public office as a juryman and a constable. The Freakes settled in Boston's North Terminate, and between 1662 and 1674 Elizabeth gave birth to eight children.vii John Freake died in an accident in 1675, leaving Elizabeth a substantial fortune.
On September 12, 1677, Elizabeth married Elisha Hutchinson (1641–1717), a merchant (and later part owner of the salt works in Boston), public official, and military machine officer.8 Elizabeth'due south wealth clearly advanced Hutchinson's economic continuing in Boston.nine He was a selectman in Boston and was named a councillor starting time with the Massachusetts charter of 1691 and continued in that part until his death.10 He was likewise chief justice of the inferior courtroom.eleven In 1688 Hutchinson traveled to London to express the New England colonists' dissatisfaction with the oppressive dominion of Governor Edmund Andros. Like Elizabeth'due south male parent, Hutchinson was a helm and later a colonel in the Aboriginal and Honorable Artillery Company.12 He led an expedition against the Indians in 1691/2 and was chosen commander of the Castle, the fortification in Boston Harbor, in 1702.thirteen When Hutchinson died he was buried with Elizabeth and John Freake "in the South burying place, in Mr. Freak'southward Tomb."xiv His portrait (near 1675–90, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts) was patently painted by Thomas Smith.xv
It is unknown how many of Elizabeth Freake's children lived to maturity, though one of her offspring by John Freake is known to have died in infancy. Between 1678 and 1685 the Hutchinsons had 5 more children, iii of whom reached adulthood.16 Since ii of the Hutchinson children were given names that were too held by two Freake children, Mehetable and Clarke, information technology seems likely that those Freake children had non survived.17 Elizabeth besides helped to raise two children born to Hutchinson's first wife, Hannah Hawkins. The Freake-Hutchinson household therefore may have included equally many equally ten children.
Elizabeth was recognized by her peers as a pious adult female. Her male parent, Thomas Clarke, was a member of the First Church (Puritan) of Dorchester in 1639 and the First Church (Puritan) of Boston in 1640.18 Elizabeth's outset husband, John Freake, was a trustee of the Second Church building (Puritan) of Boston, and though Elizabeth was not admitted equally a member of that church until 1691, it seems likely that the Freakes worshiped there.19 The children born during her marriage to Hutchinson were baptized at the Kickoff Church building (Puritan) of Boston.xx Records of Elizabeth'southward social life also suggest that she participated in the religious civilisation of her times. She and her 2d husband dined with Governor Simon Bradstreet (1604–1697), Samuel Sewall (1652–1730), and other prominent Bostonians, February 24, 1690. Afterward dinner, Sewall noted in his diary, "Mr. Cotton wool Mather returned Thanks in an excellent manner: Sung part of the Six and fiftieth Psalm, in Mr. Miles Smith's version, K knowst how long I take from habitation—too the Cease. Mr. Mather was minded to accept that Translation: I set it to the Windsor Tune."21 Sewall also recorded Elizabeth'due south death and funeral in terms that ascertain her every bit a woman of faith:
Febr. iii. 1712/13 Madam Elisa. Hutchinson dies near ix. mane; All of a sudden.
Febr. vth Mr. Bridge gives Madam Hutchinson a Great Character, every bit to her Piety and Charity, Exact Walk.
Febr. 7. seventhursday day. Madam Hutchinson is buried; Bearers, Cooke, Sewall; Addington, Townsend; Bromfield, Belcher; came to the S-burying place. Col. Hutchinson by reason of his Sore Toe was fain to ride in the Coach. Mr. Edward Hutchinson, and Madam Woolcot were the principal Mourners; Son and Daughter by Freak, and Hutchinson.22
The mourner "Madam Woolcot" was Mary Freake Wolcott, who as an infant was depicted in her mother'south portrait well-nigh forty years before.
Born May 6, 1674, Mary Freake (1674–1752) was the eighth and youngest child of John and Elizabeth Freake and was obviously named for her paternal grandmother. Just before her twentieth altogether, on May 1, 1694, Mary wed Josiah Wolcott (1658–1728/9), who was a merchant and selectman in Salem, a representative to the General Courtroom of Massachusetts, and a judge of the inferior court.23 They had nine children, all of whom Mary outlived.24 In 1709 Mary was given two tracts of land of two thou acres each in cardinal Massachusetts by Thomas Freake (1659/threescore–1721), her first cousin, of Hannington, Wiltshire, England.25 Thomas was a member of Parliament on two occasions and had no children of his own.26 The state in Massachusetts was given "in Consideration of the Natural Love and Amore which he has and doth bear unto Mary."27 The gift included "all Woods, Underwoods, pastures, feedings, means, waters, Streams, Rivers, Mines, Minerals, profits, priviledges, advantages Emoluments, and appurces whatever." Her grandson Josiah Wolcott (1733–1796), eventually settled on that land and inherited the bulk of Mary's estate, including the Freake portraits.
Analysis
Elizabeth Clarke Freake (Mrs. John Freake) and Babe Mary is one of about 10 works created by the same artist in or near Boston between 1670 and 1674. The painting is washed in a style that originated in Elizabethan England and remained in use in that location throughout the third quarter of the seventeenth century, although it had been replaced at courtroom and amidst stylish sitters by the bizarre style, which Anthony Van Dyck (1599–1641) introduced to England in the 1630s.28 The Elizabethan mode emphasized attending to the outlines of figures and the linear details of costume elements, rather than the bizarre's use of light and shadow to create a believable illusion of volume and infinite. Because of the relationship of this portrait'due south early American style to sixteenth- and seventeenth-century British painting, it seems likely that the artist who painted information technology received some preparation either in England or in the studio of an emigrant artist who learned there. The artist used stiff contour lines to silhouette the seated female parent and her upright kid and closely detailed their clothing and the furniture. Despite the lack of modeling, spatial relationships tin exist discerned in the placement of the kid in front of the mother and the woman in front of the chair. The darkness of the groundwork makes the distance between the figures at center and the tabular array and drapery at left ambiguous. The result is that the flattened figures in shallow space presume an iconic presence.
Elizabeth Clarke Freake (Mrs. John Freake) and Infant Mary is considered to exist the most accomplished and important painting of the tardily seventeenth century. James Flexner declared information technology a "masterpiece" but saw information technology as "an odd canvas whose strengths are its weaknesses. That the painter was unable to represent weight or depth creates the floating quality of a dream."29 Flexner'due south early on appraisal of the Freake painter's limitations has been replaced by the prevailing belief that the linear way reflects a deliberate adaptation of the Elizabethan mode rather than a lack of preparation. When the painting entered the collection of the Worcester Art Museum, curator Louisa Dresser again pronounced information technology a "masterpiece." She went on to claim, "It is not but the outstanding work of the seventeenth and early on eighteenth centuries in this country only is recognized as one of the great American paintings of any flow."30 That superlative stance persists, as stated by Joy Cattanach in New England Begins (1982): "Mrs. Freake and Baby Mary is the most outstanding example of the Elizabethan tradition in painting from seventeenth-century New England. It is the consummate expression of the Freake/Gibbs painter's expertise in treatment color and design."31
 | |
 | Figure one. Unidentified artist, seventeenth century, American, John Freake, almost 1671 and 1674, oil on canvas, 42 one/2 x 36 3/4 in. (108 x 93.3 cm), Worcester Fine art Museum, Sarah C. Garver Fund, 1963.135. |
The dates assigned to the portrait, about 1671 and 1674, are based on the artist's inscriptions and the credence of the family tradition that the infant depicted is Mary Freake (1674–1752). An inscription at lesser right reads "Ano Dom, 167[1]/ Æ TATIS SU Æ 29."32 Though the terminal digit of the yr cannot be read with certainty, the yr 1671 is consistent with Elizabeth's stated age of twenty-9 (she was born May 22, 1642). A second inscription at center gives the child's age as "Æ TATIS SU Æ • 6 MOTh." Since Mary was born on May 6, 1674, it seems likely that she was added to her mother's portrait in Nov or early on December 1674.33
 | |
| Figure 2. 10-Ray of Elizabeth Clarke Freake (Mrs. John Freake) and Baby Mary, taken by Philip Klausmeyer, 2000. |
The unabridged painting was examined in 1981 prior to the most comprehensive exhibition to engagement of seventeenth-century American art, including paintings, furniture, metals, ceramics, documents, and print civilisation. That exhibition took place at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. New Ten-rays were completed at the Worcester Fine art Museum by conservators Norman Muller and David Findley. Their findings were analyzed and published by Susan Strickler, then Worcester's curator, who reported the later addition of the child and pregnant changes to Elizabeth Freake's pose and costume (figs. 3 and 4).35 According to Strickler, Elizabeth originally sat with her hands in her lap, mayhap holding a fan, a device used in at least two other portraits past the aforementioned artist, Margaret Gibbs (1670, private collection) and Joanna Mason in The Mason Children (1670, The Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco). All of Elizabeth's jewelry was apparently added in the 2nd group of sittings, and her clothing was significantly altered. A neckband that extended across Elizabeth'southward shoulders was exchanged for the electric current one; a pentimento reveals the outline of the original neckband on her proper correct shoulder. The creative person removed a kerchief that draped over the shoulders and hung down to the waist. Stiff, projecting ribbons (perhaps heavily starched) at the sleeves were painted out and replaced with loosely hanging ones. The white sleeves of the shift were originally much fuller, and the sleeves of the original dress were slashed to allow the white material to be pulled through on the upper arm. Paint assay at the Museum of Fine Arts revealed that the colour of the dress had been altered from black to green.36
The original appearance of Elizabeth Freake'south portrait would have been relatively consistent with twentieth-century expectations of Puritan thrift, whereas the terminal version is much more vibrant in colour and rich with cloth possessions than might exist expected. The painting is thus an of import cultural index of the complex and irresolute values held by Puritan women at the top of the merchant course in the late seventeenth century. Whereas contemporary ministers warned against the distraction of vanity from the discipline of spiritual life, Elizabeth Freake probably understood her fine silks, laces, jewels, and piece of furniture equally signs of God's approving on her family unit and her peers among the chosen people of Massachusetts.37Elizabeth Freake'due south habiliment embodies her wealth and access to the appurtenances imported from Europe through the growing port of Boston. Her hair is modestly gathered under a lace-trimmed linen or muslin cap, though touches of her ruby-yellow curls may be seen along the edges of the cap.38 Her lace neckband was probably made in Holland or Flemish region, a signal of interest given her husband'due south fiscal losses at sea during the third Anglo-Dutch War (1672–1674).39 White highlights in the folds of her greenish wearing apparel suggest that it is made from a crisp fabric like taffeta or moire silk.40 The conical shape of her body implies that Elizabeth is wearing a corset, though the red laces at the bodice are probably decorative rather than functional.41 The mode the textile is gathered at the lower right indicates a double brim over the red petticoat, or underskirt, at lesser left. The yellow-and-white band of foliate ornamentation on the underskirt complements the swirling patterns of her white lace collar.42
Elizabeth's jewelry was likely added in 1674 to contribute to her updated image as a fashionable and flush woman. Three strands of pearls or perhaps faux pearls beautify her neck, and a bracelet composed of four strands of black beads variously described as glass, jet, or garnet highlight her proper left wrist.43 Elizabeth besides wears a gilt ring, apparently signifying her marriage, on her left thumb.44 The wedding ring is placed just left of center in the limerick, but as her husband's signet ring (another symbol of the family unit) appears most the middle of his portrait.
The add-on of the child was an even stronger demonstration of Elizabeth Freake's commitment to her Christian duty to her husband and the biblical expectation of the fruitfulness of a marriage. Elizabeth attended several Puritan churches and was recognized past fellow Puritans as a Christian woman. She also handsomely fulfilled that responsibility past giving birth to thirteen children. The representation of Mary is thus not just a portrait of an private kid only also an emblem of Elizabeth'south role as a Puritan wife and mother. Young children were peculiarly vulnerable to expiry and disease, and even Elizabeth'due south wealth could not protect her offspring from those dangers. A girl named Mary is known to have died in her kickoff twelvemonth in 1662, and as was common practice Elizabeth and John named a subsequent child after her.45 Elizabeth mourned the loss of several other of her children in infancy, including i whose decease was recorded by Samuel Sewall: "Heard of the Death of Capt. Hutchinson'southward Child by Convulsions, and and then laissez passer to the Funeral of fiddling Samuel Hutchinson most Six weeks former."46 Early American portraits often served the double purpose of recording the advent of the living and maintaining a remembrance later death, an peculiarly important function in the case of infants. Ironically, soon after Elizabeth Clarke Freake (Mrs. John Freake) and Baby Mary was painted, John Freake'south portrait would serve a memorial function.
Like her female parent, Mary Freake is dressed in expensive apparel. Her wearing apparel and cap are made of bright yellow fabric, perhaps cut from the xl yards of "lemmon coloured silke" valued at seven shillings per chiliad in her father'south probate inventory, which was prepared in 1675.47 Mary'southward cap, collar, and sleeves are also trimmed with imported lace. The most interesting aspect of Mary'southward portrait is that she appears to stand up, despite the concrete impossibility of a vi-month-quondam infant holding herself up. Perhaps Mary was wrapped under her dress in swaddling that bound her legs then that her mother but needed to balance her on her lap.48
The chair in which Mrs. Freake sits completes the image of a high-manner seventeenth-century Anglo-American household. The chair is in the Cromwellian style and probably came from England.49 The chair is upholstered with Turkeywork, named for its resemblance to woven Turkish carpets, and trimmed with red and black tassels. John Freake's inventory is again helpful in demonstrating that the artist was recording a few advisedly selected examples of the family's bodily belongings. Among the household goods there were "fourteen Turkie workt chaires" worth a full of v pounds ten shillings.50 Since that amount is not divisible by fourteen, ii of the chairs may have been armchairs and the rest side chairs.51 The items immediately preceding the upholstered chairs are "ii Squaire Tables and two side tables" at ii pounds.52 Perhaps one of those pieces of furniture is the table faintly visible to the left of Mary nether the red drapery.
Elizabeth Clarke Freake (Mrs. John Freake) and Infant Mary stands out as 1 of the most memorable paintings created in colonial America. Every bit an aesthetic and cultural object, its credible straightforwardness and yet complexity take made it indispensable to art and social historians of seventeenth-century New England. Moreover, information technology has been characterized as an American archaic; on the other hand, equally a sophisticated example of late Elizabethan aesthetics. The painting has been celebrated as a barometer of change in Puritan mores, a timeless "apologue of happy motherhood," and even equally the American Madonna.53 Such differences of stance suggest that the painting will go along to be not simply a symbol of growing prosperity in colonial Boston, simply also a rich object of study and analysis for future generations of scholars.
Notes
1. Dorchester 1891, 154.
two. Boston Records 1881a, 76.
three. Boston Records 1876, 59, and Boston Records 1881a, 99, 108, 113, 118, 134, 143.
iv. Roberts, I, 1895, 135, 136, 138–39, 221, 484.
5. Thomas Clarke, Will, Apr 22, 1675, Suffolk County Record Book, vol. vi, 404, record no. 1274.
6. NEHGR 19 (April 1865): 169.
seven. Boston Births 1883, 84, 88, 100, 104, 110, 114, 123, 132.
viii. NEHGR nineteen (January 1865): 16; and Sewall 1973, I, 376.
9. I measure of their relative wealth at the time of their marriage may be found in contemporary tax assessments. John Freake's property tax in 1674 was two pounds 5 shillings, more than than three times the thirteen shillings paid by Hutchinson (Boston Records 1876, 23, fifty).
x. NEHGR ane:4 (October 1847): 300–1; and Sewall 1973, I, 134, 309, 327, 373, 427, 547, 567, 594. Judy Graham suggested Sewall'southward diary every bit a source for biographical information on the Freakes.
11. Boston News-Alphabetic character, Dec ix–16, 1717.
12. Fairbanks 1982, 3, 472.
13. NEHGR 1:4 (October 1847): 299; Sewall 1973, I, 288.
fourteen. Sewall 1973, II, 874.
15. See Fairbanks 1982, Iii, 472–73. In that location is some uncertainty nearly the identity of that sitter, but Hutchinson is the well-nigh likely identification.
16. NEHGR 19 (January 1865): 16; Boston Births 1883, 145, 149, 155, 161, 167.
17. Boston Births 1883, 100, 114, 149, 161.
xviii. Dorchester 1891, 4; Roberts 1895, 485.
19. Suffolk County Deeds, Seven, 117; Robbins 1852, 256.
20. Boston Births 1883, 140, 145, 147, 149, 150, 155, 161, 167.
21. Sewall 1973, I, 251. For similar dinners and religious meetings including Elizabeth Freake Hutchinson, encounter ibid., 300, 338.
22. Sewall 1973, Two, 704.
23. Boston Gazette, Feb 17–24, 1728/ix; Perley, 3, 1928, 251, 252; Sewall 1973, I, 318; Wolcott 1999, ane.
24. Wolcott 1999, 1.
25. Josiah Wolcott to David Stoddard, March 28, 1709, Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston. For Thomas's human relationship to Mary, run into Freke 1825, 5.
26. Fry 1935, 43.
27. Run into Suffolk County Deeds, XII, 378–79; and XXVI, 58.
28. Craven 1986, 48–51.
29. Flexner 1947, 7.
30. Dresser 1964, n.p.
31. Joy Cattanach, in Fairbanks 1982, III, 460.
32. This inscription was not discovered until 1982, when Worcester's conservator Paul Haner examined the painting in anticipation of the exhibition New England Begins at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
33. An alternate interpretation of the evidence proposes that the portraits were marriage portraits, painted as early every bit 1661 and updated in 1671. In that instance, the infant would have to exist Mehetable Freake (b. 1670), not Mary. By 1709 Mary was the only surviving child of the Freakes, so she would have inherited the family portraits regardless of which child was depicted. The 1661 date seems unlikely, since the earliest known works past this hand are dated 1670, including the three portraits of the Gibbs children, the group portrait of the Stonemason children, and the portrait of Edward Rawson. Strickler 1981–1982, 49–51, 52–54; Fairbanks 1982, III, 458, 462, 463.
34. Burroughs 1936, 11.
35. Strickler 1981–1982, 51–53.
36. Fairbanks 1982, Three, 460–61.
37. Craven 1986, 39, 46–47; Chicken 1993, 106.
38. For the materials of the cap, come across Morris 1927, 7; Sherman 1990–1991, 41. For covered hair as a sign of modesty, run into Chicken 1993, 107–viii.
39. For the source of her lace, see Morris 1927, 7; Earnshaw 1985, 44; Vincent 1986, eleven; Sherman, 1990–1991, 39.
40. Morris 1927, 7; Craven 1986, 44; Sherman 1990–1991, 38, 39; Craven 1993, 108.
41. Sherman, 1990–1991, 39.
42. The underskirt trim has been described as white and gilt embroidery in Dresser 1964, due north.p.; golden and silver . . . may exist a gimp lace, or an embroidery in Earnshaw 1985, 44; gold guipure in Chicken 1986, 44; guipure embroidery in aureate and silvery in Sherman 1990–1991, 40; and ornate brocade in Chicken 1993, 108. In other words, scholars disagree whether the blueprint was an applied band or an embroidered role of the underskirt and whether it was made of material or precious metal threads. Scholars take also proposed that the underskirt was made of wool, silk, or velvet. Sherman 1990– 1991, twoscore–41 (wool or silk); Craven 1986, 44 (velvet).
43. For drinking glass or jet, encounter Fales 1995, twenty; for garnets from South America or India, encounter Craven 1986, 45; and Craven 1993, 108. The black beads have likewise been called coral in Morris 1927, seven.
44. Fales 1995, 20.
45. Boston Births 1883, 86.
46. Sewall 1973, III, 87.
47. Probate inventory of the estate of John Freake, 24th twenty-four hours, 7th calendar month, 1675, Suffolk County, miscellaneous docket, vol. 5, 296.
48. Nylander 1985, 67.
49. Kirk 1980, 1078–79; and Fairbanks 1982, Iii, 533–34.
50. Probate inventory of the estate of John Freake, 24th 24-hour interval, 7thursday month, 1675, Suffolk Canton, miscellaneous docket, vol. 5, 295.
51. Kirk 1982, seventy.
52. Probate inventory of the manor of John Freake, 24th day, 7th month, 1675, Suffolk Canton, miscellaneous docket, vol. five, 295.
53. For the Puritan reading, which is closest to the estimation offered here, run into Chicken 1986, 44–47, and Craven 1993, 107–8; for happy motherhood, see Flexner 1947, 7; and for the Madonna, run into Kuh 1969, 46–47.
garciahavendecked1996.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.worcesterart.org/collection/Early_American/Artists/unidentified_17th/elizabeth_f/discussion.html
Posting Komentar untuk "Elizabeth Freake and Baby Mary Type of Lace"