Plate I. "Mrs. Pemberton." By Hans Holbein.
" III. "Mary, Queen of Scots." By Nicholas Hilliard.
" " "Philip II., King of Spain." By Isaac Oliver.
" " "Queen Anne of Denmark." By Isaac Oliver.
" VI. "Queen Henrietta Maria." By John Hoskins, the Elder.
" VII. "Charles II." By Samuel Cooper.
" " "John, Earl of Loudoun." (1598-1662). By Samuel Cooper.
" XII. "Madame du Barry " (1746-1793). By Richard Cosway, R.A.
" XIV. "Lady Augusta Murray, wife of the Duke of
Sussex." By Richard Cosway, R.A.
" " "Henrietta, Lady Duncannon, afterwards Countess
of Bessborough" (ob. 1821). By Richard Cosway, R.A.
" XVIII. "Sir Charles Oakeley" (1751-1826). By John Smart.
" " "Portrait of a Lady--name unknown." By John Smart.
" XXI. "Miss Mary Berry." By George Engleheart.
" XXIII. "Rebecca, Lady Northwick" (ob. 1818). By Andrew Plimer.
" XXIV. "The Hon. Harriet Rushout" (ob. 1851). By Andrew Plimer.
" " "The Hon. Anne Rushout" (ob. 1849). By Andrew Plimer.
" " "The Hon. Elizabeth Rushout" (ob. 1862). By Andrew Plimer.
" XXXVI. "Charles I." By P. Prieur.
" " "Mary, Duchess of Richmond and Lenox" (1623-1685).
By Jean Petitot, the Elder (1643).
" XXXVII. "Madame Dupin" (ob. 1799). By Jean Marc Nattier.
" " "The Countess Sophie Potoçki" (ob. 1822). By P. A. Hall.
" " "La Princesse de Lamballe" (ob. 1792). By P. A. Hall.
" XXXVIII. "Portrait of a Boy--name unknown." By Jean
Honoré Fragonard.
" " "Portrait of a Lady--name unknown."
By Pierre Pasquier (1786).
" XXXIX. "A Grand-daughter of Nattier, the Artist."
By Louis Sicardi.
" " "La Marquise de Villette" ("Belle et Bonne"). By Garriot.
" XLIII. "La Princesse de Lieven (_née_ Dorothy Benckendorff)"
(1784-1857). By E. W. Thompson.
" " "Queen Hortense and her son, afterwards Napoleon III."
(1808-1873). By Jean Baptiste Isabey.
" XLIV. "Madame de Boufflers" (1725-1800). By J. B.
Jacques Augustin.
" " "The Father of Madame Seguin." By J. B. Jacques Augustin.
PORTRAIT MINIATURES. By Dr. G. C. Williamson.
A recent French writer, in referring to the art of portrait painting,
exalted it to the highest rank, proclaiming it the greatest of all arts.
He then proceeded, by a series of curious antithetical sentences, to set
forth his opinion of portrait painting, stating that it was at once the
oldest and the most modern of arts, the easiest and the most difficult,
the simplest and the most abstruse, the clearest and the most subtle.
His statement, it is clear, contained a definite basis of truth, coupled
with a certain interesting extravagance of expression. It is quite true
that to draw a portrait was the aim of the very earliest of draughtsmen,
whether it was that of his companion or of one of the beasts of chase,
and whether he carved it on a bone, or daubed it on the wall of his
dwelling. The first endeavour, also, of a child, playing with a pencil,
or a brush, is to draw a portrait, and the very simplest outline does
occasionally reveal that an idea of portraiture is latent in the mind of
the young artist. If only simplicity of line is desired, nothing can be
more simple, while at the same time nothing is more perfect, than the
outline or profile drawing of such a great artist as Holbein, or the
work of some of the early French draughtsmen.
At the same time, the subtlety of this draughtsmanship cannot be denied.
For complexity and difficulty, portraiture takes a supreme place, and
yet, on the other hand, as the Frenchman points out in his antithetical
sentences, it is to a certain extent a simple art, and we all know
artists who are able with a piece of chalk to suggest an even startling
likeness which they would be quite unable to complete into the form of a
perfect portrait. Many a painter thinks at first that portraiture is
simple and easy, in fact he finds it so, but the older he grows, the
more does he realise that the human features are complex in the extreme,
and that the variations of expression make the difficulties in the task
of portraying them enormous. From very early times, however, there has
been a natural desire to have portraits of the persons about us, and to
have these portraits in portable form; hence, after a long succession of
vicissitudes, has come the miniature.
It is perhaps as well, even though the statement has been made over and
over again, to emphasize the fact that the actual word miniature has
nothing whatever to do with the size of the portrait. We accept it,
however, as implying that the portrait is of portable size, and we shall
apply it to such a portrait as can lie in the palm of one's hand,
ignoring the fact that the word was originally derived from "minium" or
red lead, and has come down to us from the little portraits on
illuminated manuscripts, outlined or bordered with lines of red. In two
countries especially, the art of painting miniatures has flourished,
England and France, and in these two countries there have been schools
of miniature painters, and a succession of great exponents of the art,
while in the other countries of Europe there have only been now and
again painters who have devoted especial attention to this branch of
their art, and have taken high position in it. It is more especially an
English art, because, although for exquisite grace, charming colouring,
and dainty conception, the works of the French miniature painters take a
high rank, even they must yield the palm for representation of character
to the greatest English painter of miniatures, Samuel Cooper. Moreover,
in no country but England has there been such a long series of painters
in miniature, extending from the sixteenth-century down to comparatively
recent times.
It has been the fashion to commence a survey of English miniature
painters by reference to Holbein, and it is not altogether an
unsatisfactory manner in which to start (although Holbein was not an
Englishman), because so many of his best works were painted in this
country. It must not, however, be forgotten that portrait painting was
practised by native English artists in the early part, or at least in
the middle, of the fifteenth-century, and although we know very little
indeed about these English painters, yet we have many works remaining
which must be attributed to them.
It may, moreover, be stated generally that the predecessors and
contemporaries of Holbein in miniature work were mostly of foreign
extraction, although working in England; such, for example, as Lavina
Terlinck and Gwillym Stretes. We know, however, that certain
fourteenth-century manuscripts were actually executed in England, by an
English artist, and as an example of such work, Mr. Lionel Cust, in his
preface to the English Portraiture Exhibition at the Burlington Fine
Arts Club, points out the Salisbury Lectionarium, with the portrait of
Lord Lovell as its frontispiece, representing him receiving the book
from its maker, John Siferwas. He refers also to the even better known
portrait of Chaucer, painted by Occlive on the manuscript now in the
British Museum.
There is also no question that the actual art of portrait miniature,
such as we understand it at the present day, arose from that of painting
portraits on manuscripts, and, as we have already pointed out in another
place, it may further be derived from the similar portraits attached to
treaties and to documents handed over to ambassadors. The illumination
of a portrait of Francis I. on the ratification of a treaty of peace
with England, August 18th, 1527, is a case in point. It represents the
French King in excellent fashion, delineating character as well as
portraiture, and is the work of a painter of no mean skill and
discernment. Similar portraits of Henry VIII., and Philip and Mary,
dated 1543 and 1556, and painted in England, are not of such a high
character as is the one of Francis, but still are sufficient to enable
us to regard them as true portraits, representative of the monarchs as
they were. Who first, says Mr. Cust, cut out the portrait in miniature
from an illumination, and inserted it in a jewelled or ivory case or
picture-box, it is impossible to surmise, but such a caprice, once
started, was likely quickly to become popular. Who first gave up the use
of vellum for such portraits, and found that a playing card in use at
that day was a more convenient material on which to paint, we also do
not know; nor who, again, stretched a very fine piece of vellum or
chicken-skin upon the playing-card, and used that as his basis, but the
earliest Elizabethan miniatures painted in England are done in one of
these two methods.
Prominent amongst the names of the Tudor painters stands out that of
Hans Holbein the younger, and in the art of composition it is doubtful
whether any successor has equalled him in consummate skill. The
illustration which we are allowed to give from Mr. Pierpont Morgan's
collection, and which represents _Mrs. Pemberton_ (Plate I.), is one of
the most astonishing works ever produced by a miniature painter. The
figure is so perfectly composed, and so marvellously set within the
small compass of the circle, while the modelling is so subtle and
delicate, so refined, and distinguished by such perfection of line and
economy of material that it is always a delight to regard it, and no
portrait painter would be ashamed to say that he had learned many a
lesson from the unerring skill with which this marvellous portrait is
produced. It cannot be said that all Holbein's works are on as high a
level as is this particular picture, but the two portraits in the
possession of the Queen of Holland, one representing a young lady, and
the other an older man; the portrait of the painter in the possession of
the Duke of Buccleuch; the wonderful _Anne of Cleves_ in the collection
of the late Mr. George Salting; and the companion one of Henry VIII, in
Mr. Pierpont Morgan's cabinet, are all distinguished by the same
perfection of draughtsmanship and skill of composition. In Holbein we
have, therefore, a fitting master, from whom to start the long series of
miniature painters, which in England extended away down to the beginning
of the nineteenth century, or even perhaps a little later, and in his
successor, Nicholas Hilliard, we find the first of the masters who was
actually an Englishman born and bred.
From whom Hilliard learned his art it is impossible to tell. It would be
most interesting could we decide if he ever came into contact with
Holbein, and hardly less so were we able to determine that any other
master first gave him lessons in this fascinating art. That he began
painting as quite a boy constitutes almost our first fact respecting
him, and that is proved by his own portrait at the age of thirteen,
signed with the young painter's initials in the usual conjoined form,
and dated 1550. Of his history we know that Hilliard was the son of a
man who was the High Sheriff of Exeter in 1560, Richard Hilliard by
name, and that his mother was Laurence, the daughter of John Wall, a
goldsmith of London. The statement that the father became High Sheriff
is authorised by the inscription on the case belonging to Lord De L'Isle
which at one time contained a portrait of the father executed by the
son, and Walpole gives us the information respecting Hilliard's mother,
corroborated by the fact that the painter named his son Laurence after
his own mother. We also know that he married twice, as the portrait of
his first wife Alicia Brandon at the age of twenty-two is in the Duke of
Buccleuch's collection, and the inscription upon it, evidently added by
the painter after his wife's death, tells us that he married again. Who
his second wife was we do not know, but it seems probable that he
survived her, because she is not mentioned in his will, and in it he
constitutes his son Laurence his sole heir and executor. He was always
spoken of with great respect by his contemporaries, is styled
"Gentleman" or "Mr.", and his illness in 1610 is carefully referred to
in the State Papers; while James I., when he gives him the Royal Warrant
of painting, expressly styles him "our well-beloved Gentleman, Nicholas
Hylliard." It seems probable that by trade he was originally a
goldsmith, and his portraits show us that the craft of the goldsmith had
exercised a great influence over his life. In his delicate miniature
portraits Hilliard never forgot his original craft, and even went so far
upon occasion as to introduce what was distinctly jeweller's work into
the portraits themselves. There is, for example, an actual diamond,
minute certainly, set in one of his portraits, and the raised work
representing jewels in other portraits is wrought with such skill and
delicacy that only a goldsmith could encompass it. We know that he took
Holbein as his model, for he himself says so, but his work is very
different from that of the great Swabian. It is ornamental and
decorative, very delicate, and elaborate, but flat and shadowless, and
altogether lacking in the marvellous subtle modelling which marks out
the work of Holbein. It resembles, in fact, more nearly the work of the
early illuminators. It seems probable that Hilliard was not only a
skilful miniature painter, but also an actual working goldsmith, and
responsible for many of the extraordinary frames in which his portraits
were set. Miss Helen Farquhar has with great skill elaborated a theory
which tends to prove this, and which appeared in a recent issue of the
"Numismatic Chronicle." Certain jewels and miniature cases have been in
the past attributed to the artist, and the result of Miss Farquhar's
investigation is to make it more clear that such attribution has been
accurate. Hilliard painted Queen Elizabeth many times, and amongst our
illustrations will be found a portrait of the Queen (Plate II.) from the
cabinet of a well-known collector, which sets forth the artist's
peculiar technique. We also present an interesting example from Mr.
Pierpont Morgan's collection which has been called a portrait of _Mary
Queen of Scots_ (Plate III., No. 2). It is dated 1581, and is certainly
one of the few portraits which seems to stand the test of comparison
with the well-known drawing and miniature of Mary Stuart attributed to
Clouet. It is undoubtedly the work of Hilliard, and of remarkable
excellence, and takes its place amongst the more or less mysterious
portraits bearing the name of the ill-fated Queen.
Hilliard died in 1619, and appears to have been succeeded in his royal
appointments and his professional work by his son Laurence, whose
paintings so closely resemble those of the father that it is not always
easy to distinguish the work of the two men. Very few of Laurence
Hilliard's works are signed; there are two belonging to Earl Beauchamp,
and one in the collection of Mr. Pierpont Morgan. The main feature of
the son's work consists in the beauty of the calligraphy in the
inscriptions around the portraits. It is clearer than the more formal
handwriting of the father, but florid, full of exquisite curves and
flourishes, and very elaborate, while the colour scheme adopted by the
son is distinctly richer and more varied than that used by the father,
and the composition is not quite so rigid and hard as was that of
Nicholas.
The two Hilliards were, however, succeeded by two far greater men--the
Olivers. One of them, Isaac, the father, was certainly Nicholas
Hilliard's pupil, as the fact is mentioned more than once in Haydock's
preface to his translation of Lomazzo. It seems to be possible that some
of Isaac Oliver's works were copies of those of his master, and copies
so accurately executed that it is not quite easy to determine respecting
them. In the cabinet of Mr. Pierpont Morgan there is, for example, a
miniature of Arabella Stuart which came from Walpole's collection. It
has always borne the name of Hilliard, and Walpole himself was careful
in the attributions he gave to his portraits, but in the Rijks Museum at
Amsterdam there are two other portraits of the same lady, one of which
is stated to be signed under the frame with the initials of Isaac
Oliver, and there are two more, even more closely resembling it, in the
collection at Sherborne Castle. The Morgan portrait is very
characteristic of Hilliard, and the two in Amsterdam closely resemble
it. Our suggestion for a solution of the difficulty is that the two
Dutch portraits are early copies by Oliver from his master's work.
Oliver was an extremely expert painter, and a far more clever man than
Hilliard, for the pencil drawings of the painter and his wife, which
belong to the Earl of Derby, reveal him as a draughtsman of consummate
skill. He was probably of Huguenot descent, the son, it is believed, of
a certain Peter Olivier (or Oliver), a native of Rouen, who was residing
in London in 1571, and we may take it that his birth was in about 1566;
his death occurred in 1617, and he was buried in the church of St.
Anne's, Blackfriars.
Amongst our colour plates are two delightful portraits by him
representing _Frederick, King of Bohemia, and his Wife_, who was known
in England as the "Queen of Hearts," signed miniatures from the
collection of Sir Charles Dilke (Plate IV., Nos. 2 and 3). In the
monotone illustrations there appear two remarkable works by this painter
from the collection of Mr. Pierpont Morgan. One represents _Philip II.,
King of Spain_ (Plate III., No. 1), a fine portrait, set in an elaborate
locket of rock-crystal and enamel work, upon the reverse of which is a
representation of the Crucifixion in grisaille. This portrait has an
interesting history, because it was given by the king to the Duke of
Osuna, and acquired from the Osuna family, quite recently. It bears a
motto which may roughly be translated "He who gives himself, gives not a
little thing," words which are eminently characteristic of the pride of
the Spanish monarch. The other portrait is of hardly less interest. It
depicts _Queen Anne of Denmark_ (Plate III., No. 3), who was painted
over and over again by Isaac Oliver, and who can always be readily
distinguished by the jewels which she wore on her elaborate high collar
or ruff. Amongst them invariably appears a representation of a sea-horse
or a dolphin. This may perhaps have some allusion to her Scandinavian
ancestry, but, in any case, it was a favourite jewel with the queen, and
hardly one of her portraits appears without it. Here, again, the case
containing the miniature is of extraordinary importance, because there
is good evidence for attributing it to George Heriot, who was goldsmith
and jeweller to Anne of Denmark, and was the founder of the great
hospital and school which still bear his name in Edinburgh, while to the
present generation he is perhaps better remembered as a character in Sir
Walter Scott's "Fortunes of Nigel," in which delightful work he appears
as "Jingling Geordie." There are portraits of Oliver himself in
existence, and a delightful one of his son, while amongst the collection
of the Queen of Holland there is one that is said to represent his wife.
The most notable series of the works of this painter is perhaps that
which is generally known as the Digby series. Walpole tells the story of
the discovery of these miniatures. He says that they were in a garret in
an old house in Wales, enclosed in ebony and ivory cases, and locked up
in a wainscot box, in which they were as well preserved as though only
just painted. He was greatly excited about them, and was able to secure
the entire collection, first buying from one owner the greater part of
the collection, and then securing by a second purchase the remainder
from the lady who shared them with the other heir. They were all sold at
his sale at Strawberry Hill, and some of the finest of the portraits
passed into the collection of the late Baroness Burdett-Coutts, others
went to Mr. Holford, and many back again to the Digby family, who would
gladly have purchased the whole, but were unable to afford the prices
paid by the Baroness Burdett-Coutts, then Miss Angela Coutts. One little
portrait was bought by Mr. Wentworth Dilke, and now belongs to Sir
Charles Dilke, it represents one of the sons of Sir Kenelm Digby, and is
a charmingly graceful little work, by the kind permission of its owner
illustrated in these pages (Plate IV., No. 1).
The work of Peter Oliver cannot readily be distinguished from that of
the father, save for the signature, and is as worthy of praise in every
respect, even if it is not more so. That of the father is a little
sterner and more forcible than the work of the son, but Peter Oliver is
not only known by his delightful miniatures, but also by the copies in
miniature size and style which he prepared for Charles I., and which
represented some of the great pictures in the King's collection. Several
of these copies still remain at Windsor Castle, others are scattered in
various collections, and in some instances they are of peculiar
importance. For example, there is one in Mr. Pierpont Morgan's
collection, representing the marriage of St. Catherine, by a Venetian
painter, probably Titian or Palma Vecchio, which is apparently the only
record of a vanished painting at one time in the King's collection, but
later on sold into Spain, and which there perished in a fire at Seville.
A curious story is told by Horace Walpole concerning some miniatures by
Peter Oliver. He says that Vertue handed down the information that
Charles II. being very anxious to re-purchase the portraits which had
been dispersed on the execution of his father, was told that the widow
of Peter Oliver had taken back some of the miniatures, and had them in
her possession. The King went to Isleworth to see her, disguising
himself that he should not be known, and she showed him several works by
her husband. He was pleased with them and tried to purchase them, but
the lady stated that she was anxious to submit them to the King, and if
he did not buy them, a price should be named for their disposal. The
King then discovered himself to her, and at once she showed him many
more miniatures which she had not shown to anyone else, and King Charles
desired to acquire them all. She would not, however, quote a price to
him, but promised to look over her husband's books, and let His Majesty
know what prices had been paid to Peter Oliver by Charles I. The King
took away the miniatures with him, and afterwards sent one of the grooms
of the bedchamber to Mrs. Oliver, offering her a thousand pounds for
them, or an annuity of £300 for her life. She chose the latter, but
after some few years, hearing that a great many of the miniatures had
passed out of the King's possession, and had been given by him to the
various ladies at the Court, Mrs. Oliver, who was given to express
herself in somewhat blunt language, said that if she had thought the
King would have given the miniatures to his mistresses and illegitimate
children he should never have had them. Her remark, which was couched in
very strong language, was carried by someone to the Court. The poor
woman's annuity was at once stopped, and she never again received it.
Following Isaac and Peter Oliver in chronological survey, and
necessarily omitting reference to some of the less important painters,
we come to the name of a man of considerable eminence in his profession,
John Hoskins. To a certain extent he has been overshadowed by the
extraordinary merit of his nephew and pupil, Samuel Cooper, but Hoskins
was a very great painter himself, and his work marks the beginning of
the broader and more powerful English miniature portraiture, as
distinguished from the minute work of the men who had been trained under
the influence of illuminators, and whose miniatures were too full of
detail to be entirely satisfactory. There is no doubt that, as Walpole
says, the carnations used in the faces painted by Hoskins are too bricky
in colour, but the whole effect of the portrait is simple and dignified,
and there is, for the first time in English miniature portraiture, a
nobility of treatment and a sober grandeur of effect, extraordinarily
impressive. The portrait of the _Duke of Buckingham_ (Plate V.) from a
well-known collection, illustrated in colour, well sets forth the
dignity of Hoskins' works. It is an exceedingly fine miniature, quiet in
colouring, and entirely satisfactory in composition. It is signed and
dated, and, with respect to the signatures on miniatures by Hoskins, a
few words must be said. It is well also to mark that in the works of
Hoskins appears for the first time the division of the background, which
is rather a notable feature in the portraits of Cooper, who evidently
derived the idea from his uncle. The effect of this division on the
lighting of the portrait is excellent, the sitter being placed near to
a window, by which hangs a curtain, and the window commanding a view
which in many cases was adapted by the artist to some event in the
history of the sitter. As regards the signatures Hoskins adopted several
methods of signing his miniatures, combining his two initials in
different forms of monogram, or separating them with or without the
addition of the abbreviation "fc." Until quite recently the statement
made by Vertue that Hoskins had a son, was incapable of proof; although
the fact that the contemporary inscriptions on some of the miniatures at
Ham House speak of "Old Hoskins," implies that there must have been a
younger man of the same name, and it was thought that the variety of
signatures might help clear up the doubtful question, and that perhaps
the father adopted a certain method of signing his portraits, and the
son another form of signature. Fortunately, however, in the collection
of Mr. Pierpont Morgan, there appears a portrait of the Duke of Berwick,
signed with conjoined initials, and bearing upon it an inscription,
stating not only who it represented, but actually when it was painted.
This miniature proved to contain the missing link of evidence, because
there was no question about its authenticity, its accurate attribution,
or its signature, but as it was painted in 1700, while we know that the
elder Hoskins was buried in 1664, we have in it definite information,
not only of the existence of the son, but of the fact that he was
painting miniatures thirty-six years after his father had died. The same
notable collection contains many works by the elder Hoskins, but only
this one which can be definitely attributed to his son. The collections
at Ham House and Montagu House are very rich in works by Hoskins, those
at the former place being distinguished by delightful contemporary
inscriptions on the backs of almost every portrait, recording in many
instances the price paid to the artist for it. Of the works at Montagu
House, one of the finest represents Charles II. in his youth, and in the
collection at Ham is perhaps the largest work which Hoskins ever
painted.
A particularly good example of the work of this master is the portrait
of _Queen Henrietta Maria_ (Plate VI.) from the Pierpont Morgan
collection, and this miniature is the more interesting because
apparently it has never been re-framed, for not only is the metal frame
the contemporary one, but it possesses its original bevelled glass, the
oval divided into a series of curved segments, each of which has its
polished bevelled edge. Waller, in 1625, spoke of the Queen in these
words:--
"Such a complexion and such radiant eyes,
Such lovely motions and such sharp replies,
Beyond our reach, and yet within our sight,
What envious power has placed this glorious light?"
We need not, perhaps, accept the praises of the poet, but at least we
may admire the quiet sweetness of the Queen's face in this charming
portrait, and recognise the skill and dexterity with which it is
delineated.
Trained and educated by Hoskins was Samuel Cooper, preeminently the
greatest miniature painter that England ever produced, and in the
opinion of many critics the noblest miniature painter of Europe. We know
comparatively little about Cooper's history, but there are few artists
concerning whom it would be more desirable to have information.
Fortunately, Pepys mentions him several times in his wonderful diary;
especially with reference to the portrait of Mrs. Pepys which her
husband commissioned. He was evidently a great admirer of the work of
Cooper, although, as regards this particular portrait, he does not
appear to have been perfectly satisfied with the likeness. He says he
was not "satisfied in the greatness of the resemblance, nor in the blue
garment, but it was most certainly a most rare piece of work as to the
painting," and he tells us the exact price that Cooper charged him, and
adds that he sent him the money that night that he might be out of debt.
Aubrey calls Cooper "the prince of limners of his age." Ray the
naturalist, in writing to Aubrey, refers to a miniature portrait
presented to the Ashmolean Museum as "a noble present and a thing of
great value." Evelyn calls him "the rare limner" and describes the visit
which he paid to the King's private room, where he found Cooper at work
painting the royal portrait, and had the honour to hold the candle while
it was being done, as Cooper, he says, "chose the night and candle-light
for better finding out the shadows." To all this chorus of praise
Walpole adds his voice, and tells us that, in his opinion, Cooper's
works were so fine that they were perfect nature, and that if "a glass
could expand Cooper's pictures to the size of Vandyck's, they would
appear to have been painted for that proportion," adding that "if the
Cooper portrait of Cromwell could be so enlarged, I do not know but
Vandyck would appear less great by the comparison." Even with this
criticism, Walpole is careful not to be entirely eulogistic, and he
points out with unerring discrimination that, although the heads in
Cooper's portraits were so fine, he yet possessed a lack of skill in
draughtsmanship where other portions of the body were concerned, and,
especially as regards the hands, he had a curious want of grace and
accuracy, His faces, however, are superb, and well deserve all the
praise that can be given to them. They have been called noble and
masterly, and the words are befitting. The two portraits representing
_Charles II._ and _The Earl of Loudoun_, which we present from the
Pierpont Morgan collection (Plate VII.), and the two in colour,
depicting _Colonel Lilburne_ and _Lady Fauconberg_, from the collection
of Mr. Hodgkins (Plate VIII.), will well set forth the dignity and power
possessed by this great master. His largest miniature is the portrait of
Charles I. at Goodwood, and there is a somewhat smaller replica by the
master's own hand in the Rijks Museum at Amsterdam. The Earl of Exeter
possesses one of his rare half-length portraits, depicting Elizabeth,
Countess of Devonshire, as a girl, and in the Victoria and Albert Museum
is a large square portrait of the painter, by himself. With these
exceptions, the majority of Cooper's works are ovals, varying in size,
representing the head and shoulders only, and almost all the great
collections of miniatures possess examples by the painter. As a rule,
his colours have stood extraordinarily well; in some instances, however,
they have faded, but it has generally been owing to damp or to
indifferent treatment on the part of the owners of the portraits. In Mr.
Pierpont Morgan's collection one miniature representing _Lord Loudoun_
(Plate VII., No. 2) is in extraordinarily perfect condition, but for a
couple of generations it was lost sight of behind some oak panelling and
has only recently come to light. Another very fine one, in the same
collection, represents _Charles II._ (Plate VII., No. 1). Cooper's
method of painting is very interesting, and as he has left behind
several unfinished portraits, we are enabled to study it with
considerable accuracy. It is clear that he commenced to draw the head
and figure in brown, and, as a recent writer has pointed out, painted in
the shadows with transparent sienna, and the half-tones with a pure grey
blue. His work is executed upon vellum as a rule, but sometimes upon
cardboard, and his flesh tints are nearly always transparent, although
occasionally they are upon a white background, and in some few rare
instances, where he desired special effect, he used opaque colours.
Several of his portraits he has never carried beyond the early stages.
They are only sketches, but such sketches as no one else could have
done, exquisitely rendered, full of palpitating life. This is especially
the case with the portrait of the Duke of Albemarle at Windsor, and with
one in the same collection representing the Duke of Monmouth; with that
of Oliver Cromwell, at Montagu House, and with an extraordinary little
sketch, which we illustrate in colour, by permission of Sir Charles
Dilke (Plate IX., No. 1). This also came from Strawberry Hill, where it
was bought by the grandfather of its present owner, and it offers a
bewildering problem to the student. Walpole declares, in an inscription
on the back of it in his own handwriting, that it represents "Miss
Temple, Maid of Honour to the Duchess of York, second wife of Charles
Lyttelton," and that it was the work of Gervase Spencer, after an
original painted by Cooper, in the possession of Lord Lyttelton, and
Walpole ought to have known what he was talking about. It is quite
possible that he is correct, but the original portrait from which this
sketch is said to have been made is not now in the possession of the
Lyttelton family, and the miniature itself bears such a striking
resemblance to the work of Cooper that it is difficult to believe that
it is a copy by anyone at all. We know how constantly Cooper's work was
copied, one of the finest examples of such repetition being the
well-known work at Montagu House by Mrs. Ross, a portrait of the Duke of
Monmouth, but there is no example known to us of an eighteenth-century
painter copying the work of Cooper with the exception or this one, if
Walpole's statement is correct. Another curious circumstance about the
inscription is that Walpole has made an error in the name. It was not
Charles but Thomas Lyttelton who married Christian Temple. She was the
daughter of Sir Richard Temple of Stowe, and the heir of Viscount
Cobham; thus it was through her that the Viscounty and Barony of Cobham
came to the family.
As we have already written very fully in another place, we are quite
unable to accept the series of unfinished miniatures at the Victoria and
Albert Museum as being the work of Cooper. There is no external evidence
whatever in favour of the tradition. They are painted on a very smooth
cardboard, quite a different material to that used by Cooper, and on the
back of one of the portraits is an inscription in the same handwriting
as is the one on the copy by Mrs. Ross at Montagu House, and apparently
signed by the same person. It is quite possible that in the collection
the portrait of Lord Brooke (which was not contained in the pocket-book
when the original purchase was made) may be a genuine work by Cooper,
very likely acquired by Mrs. Ross, as a guide for her own work, but all
the other portraits are, we are convinced, the work of this clever
copyist, and must not be attributed to the master himself. In the course
of our investigations concerning a missing portrait by Cooper,
representing the Countess of Exeter, we came upon two interesting
letters in the Duke of Rutland's collection at Belvoir Castle, which
proved that this portrait was never finished. On the 9th April, 1672,
Mr. Charles Manners wrote to Lord Roos in the following terms:--"I
haesten on Mr. Cooper all I can to the finishing of my Lady Exester's
picture, and hee will surely doe it, God willing; but at the present the
King and the Duke have put severall things into his hands which take him
off from all else." Then again, on the 4th May, Mr. Manners wrote again
to Lord Roos respecting the same portrait, and he then stated that
although Mr. Cooper had promised "with all imaginable respect and
kindeness to finish it out of hand, and actually begun it, he just then
fell dangerously sicke, and confyned to his bed, and I very much feare
hee cannot possibly outlive three days." As a matter of fact, Cooper did
not live a day after this letter had been sent, for from Mary Beale's
diary we have the information that he died on the 5th May, the diarist
writing as follows:--"Sunday, May 5th, 1672, Mr. Samuel Cooper, the most
famous limner of the world for a face, dyed." The two letters from which
these quotations are taken are to be found in facsimile in the catalogue
of Mr. Pierpont Morgan's collection of miniatures. Other odd facts
concerning this great painter we learn from Pepys and certain
contemporary records. We know that he was an excellent musician, playing
well on the lute, and a clever linguist, speaking French with ease. He
resided in Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, and frequented the Covent
Garden coffee-house; he was a short, stout man of a ruddy countenance,
was married and had one daughter. The Duke of Portland's collection at
Welbeck contains the portrait of his wife Christina, and in another
collection there is a portrait of his daughter, both fine paintings by
the master himself. Christina Cooper was a Miss Turner, and her other
sister, Edith, married the father of Alexander Pope. Mrs. Cooper was
Pope's godmother and taught him his letters, and to her godson she
bequeathed a "painted china dish with a silver pot and a dish to set it
in," as well as the reversion of her books, pictures and medals, with
Samuel Cooper's "grinding stone and muller," and some of his portrait
sketches.
It is not quite certain that Cooper was born in England; we know the
date of his birth, 1609, but we have no certain evidence that he was an
Englishman by birth, although there is every probability that this was
the case. He was, however, for a while in France, and he was certainly
in Holland, and possibly in Sweden also, where his brother, Alexander
Cooper, also spent some time. It was in Sweden that we were able to
discover a good deal of information respecting Alexander Cooper, and
notably a statement concerning his account for certain royal portraits
in his own handwriting. Samuel Cooper's appearance is known to us by the
portraits in the Victoria and Albert Museum, but an even more
interesting sketch of him is in the Pierpont Morgan collection, painted
in sepia, on a piece of paper which has been twice folded. An
inscription, which we believe to be in his own handwriting, is at the
back of a portrait at Welbeck Abbey, and is to the effect that the
picture in question, and one or two previous ones, were done for a Mr.
Graham, but had not been paid for at the time the artist was writing.
There is hardly a miniature by this eminent man which is not worth
careful consideration, and in the power of delineating character and
setting before us the actual feelings of his sitters, Cooper had no
rival, while one of the great features of his work is its amazing
variety. Moreover, the manner in which he adapted his technique, his
colour scheme, and his ideas of composition to the special circumstances
of the person whom he had to delineate, is very remarkable. His
portraits of men are perhaps more attractive than those of women,
although he was well able to convey the fascination of a woman's face;
but the strong, rugged men of his period were portrayed by him with
quite extraordinary power, and he created a method of portraiture
entirely his own, and filled it with individual characteristics. Two
splendid examples are amongst our illustrations in colour (Plate VIII.),
_Lady Fauconberg_ and _Colonel Lilburne_, both from the collection of
Mr. Hodgkins.
Of his contemporaries it will suffice to mention one or two, and perhaps
the best of them was David des Granges, whose work is represented in our
illustrations in colour by a portrait of _Rachel Fane, Countess of
Bath_, from the collection of Mr. Hodgkins (Plate IX., No. 2). Of this
artist and his parentage we know a little, thanks to the researches of
Mr. Lionel Cust in the registers of the Huguenot Church in London. It
seems probable that Des Granges, although baptised in the Huguenot
faith, did not continue in that communion, because in 1649 he is
mentioned in some papers belonging to the French Dominicans as a
Catholic, and he was a very close friend of the celebrated artist Inigo
Jones, who was also a Catholic. The portrait of the architect by David
des Granges, representing Inigo Jones at the age of 68, is at Welbeck
Abbey, signed with the initials D.D.G., and is one of the best works by
him with which we are acquainted.
For the works of Faithorne or Loggan, Flatman or Lens, we must refer our
readers to more elaborate books on miniature painting, and hasten
forward towards the eighteenth century. Before we do so, however, it may
be of interest that we should refer to an illustration in colour of a
miniature which has not hitherto been represented in any book on this
subject. It is a portrait which has been bequeathed through various
owners as a likeness of _John Milton_ (Plate X.), and there is a good
deal of evidence to support this very interesting attribution. It came
from the Woodcock family, who state that it has been handed down in
direct succession from Catherine Woodcock, whom Milton married as his
second wife on the 12th of November 1656. She was the daughter of a
Captain Woodcock, of Hackney, and the former owners of the miniature
stated that their family home was in Hackney. Mrs. Milton had a baby
girl on October 19th, 1657, and she and her child died in February 1658,
when the miniature was given to her niece, who is stated to have been
present at the confinement, and from her it came to its late owners, who
only parted with it when actually compelled so to do. It therefore
belonged to the Mrs. Milton who is immortalised by the poet in his
twenty-third sonnet, where he speaks of her as
"My late espousèd saint,
Brought to me like Alcestis from the grave,"