Excerpts from a column at the "Five Minute Museum" feature at Salon:
According to lore, the story of lover’s eyes goes back to the end of the 18th century, when the prince of Wales — who later became George IV — became smitten with a twice-widowed Catholic woman named Maria Fitzherbert... On Nov. 3, 1785, the prince wrote to Mrs. Fitzherbert with a second proposal of marriage. Instead of sending an engagement ring, as we might expect today, he sent her a picture of his own eye, set in a locket, painted by the miniaturist Richard Cosway, one of the celebrated artists of the day. At the time, they referred to these pieces as “eye miniatures”...For further details, and a slide show of examples, visit the Salon link.
In any event, the love affair between the prince of Wales and Maria Fitzherbert popularized these objects and spawned a fad that lasted well into the 1830s — and even later, past Queen Victoria, who was known to have commissioned a number of these objects during her reign. There are even artists to this very day who are painting lover’s eyes... Only someone with really intimate acquaintance — a lover, a spouse, a close family member — would recognize an individual’s eye, so they could be worn in a more open way. They didn’t have to be encased inside of a locket...
I think Philadelphia has about 30 or so eyes, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art has a few in their collection, as do the Royal Collection and the Victoria & Albert in London.
The original eye pods?
ReplyDeleteSo, instead of saying: "I've got my eye on you", it would have to be: "I've got your eye on me". Or would it be: "You've got my eye on you"?
ReplyDeleteHow 'bout: "I only have eye for you"?
Okay, I'll stop now....
actually i was just at the Met in NY and they have a room of miniature paitings in the American wing, typically for lockets. In addition to some eyes like you mention, there was also a painting of some exposed breasts (also in a locket). I didn't make the connection until now that these could have been for a similarly intimate, if raunchier, purpose.
ReplyDelete