Penelope Carwardine

Penelope Carwardine (1730?–1804; married name Penelope Butler) was an English miniature painter.

A portrait of Carwardine by Thomas Bardwell
A miniature by Carwardine

Biography

Penelope Carwardine was born in about 1730, the eldest daughter of John Carwardine of Thinghills Court in Withington, Herefordshire and Anne Bullock of Preston Wynn, who was also a miniature painter. Her father having ruined the family estates, she took to miniature painting, instructed by Ozias Humphrey, and had acquired her art by 1754.[1]

Carwardine exhibited at the Society of Artists in 1761, 1762, 1771, and 1772. She was a close friend of Sir Joshua and Miss Reynolds; and among Sir Joshua's works is a portrait of one of her sisters, painted by him as a present for her. Many of her miniatures remained in the possession of her family as of 1887, together with three portraits of Carwardine: one by Thomas Bardwell, 1750; one by a Chinese artist, about 1756; the third by George Romney, about 1790.[1]

Family

Carwardine married James Butler, organist of Ranelagh, St. Margaret's, and St. Anne's, Westminster[1] on 26 May 1763 at St James's, Piccadilly.[2] She outlived her husband, dying at Hereford in 1804.[3]

Notes
  1. Humphreys 1887, p. 239.
  2. Humphreys, Jennett. 'Carwardine , Penelope (1729–c.1801)', rev. Emma Rutherford, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 accessed 11 May 2016
  3. "Provincial Occurrences". The Monthly Magazine: Or, British Register. 18: 364. 1 November 1804.
gollark: Speaking specifically about the error handling, it may be "simple", but it's only "simple" in the sense of "the compiler writers do less work". It's very easy to mess it up by forgetting the useless boilerplate line somewhere, or something like that.
gollark: Speaking more generally than the type system, Go is just really... anti-abstraction... with, well, the gimped type system, lack of much metaprogramming support, and weird special cases, and poor error handling.
gollark: - They may be working on them, but they initially claimed that they weren't necessary and they don't exist now. Also, I don't trust them to not do them wrong.- Ooookay then- Well, generics, for one: they *kind of exist* in that you can have generic maps, channels, slices, and arrays, but not anything else. Also this (https://fasterthanli.me/blog/2020/i-want-off-mr-golangs-wild-ride/), which is mostly about the file handling not being good since it tries to map on concepts which don't fit. Also channels having weird special syntax. Also `for` and `range` and `new` and `make` basically just being magic stuff which do whatever the compiler writers wanted with no consistency- see above- Because there's no generic number/comparable thing type. You would need to use `interface{}` or write a new function (with identical code) for every type you wanted to compare- You can change a signature somewhere and won't be alerted, but something else will break because the interface is no longer implemented- They are byte sequences. https://blog.golang.org/strings.- It's not. You need to put `if err != nil { return err }` everywhere.
gollark: Oh, and the error handling is terrible and it's kind of the type system's fault.
gollark: If I remember right Go strings are just byte sequences with no guarantee of being valid UTF-8, but all the functions working on them just assume they are.

References


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.